Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Chrissie

  1. You're supposed to adjust for additional focal length by shortening the exposure time, in order to avoid motion blur. Some advise to take four times the focal length as the reciprocal of your exposure time. That would require a 1/3200th (or shorter!) at 2x400 = 800mm. You may want to give that a try. You may also re-visit this section of the user guide, related to "steady shot", for better results. (Adjust for the body you're using),
  2. There is only one which matches both a9 and 100-400. It's the SEL20TC.
  3. The result of the first formatting on your computer will be overwritten by the second formatting inside the body. So you might just as well skip the first step. 8-p Since we are talking about using a card in a Sony body, I would stick with Sony's recommendation, which explicitely states: There is a slight (non-zero) chance, that Sony has not fully implemented the SD card standard as recommended by the SD Association. In that case I would expect, that Sony knows best what Sony cameras require. But - see my tag line - give both methods a try and decide on your own.
  4. The general advice is, to always format SD cards in-camera, not outside of the camera. Some people are concerned about wasting one of the limited write cycles which sd-cards are able to sustain. Personally I don't share those concerns as I don't shoot that much as to likely hit that limit. That said: formatting a card does count as one of those write cycles. The benefit of formatting is, that you eliminate fragmentation of the available free space, which might otherwise become an issue when recording movies. If you want to record the same content to two cards simultaneously, you will have to wait for the slowest one to complete its write. How could it be otherwise? On that note, it doesn't (in my view) make sense to spend somewhere in the four-digit price range on a body and lenses, and then crippling that investment by trying to save a two-digit figure on an inadequate memory card.
  5. Because they want to syphon off a copy of your private data. That's why. From the end user's point of view this may be considered a bug, while from Sony's perspective it's the whole point in offering this "free" service. For those of you who haven't read Sony's Online "privacy" policy: you can still do so at any time here. I particularly liked the following sentence:
  6. You shouldn't. This is a frequent reaction that's known as buyer's remorse. While waiting for the ordered items to arrive, just think of all the beautifuls shots you are going to make. 8-)
  7. You may want to bookmark this (online help guide).
  8. Sorry, zalle. Since there is an infinite amount of effects which might play a role here, I'm unable to positively select the one which is to blame. It's far easier, to recognize the ones which do/can not contribute. That process is called "elimination". If you can eliminate enough different effects, eventually you'll end up with the only remaining one which is to blame. I'm aware, that this probably is a highly unsatisfactory answer, but again: sorry I can't do any better. On a related note: actually I never ran the batteries on my a9 down to 50% or lower. I always put them in the charger before that mark. I'm gonna give that a try from now on ...
  9. Negative. The so-called "memory effect" only occurs in NiCd or NiMH batteries, not in Li-Ion type batteries like those used in the Sony.
  10. That would let the printer do the necessary upscaling, because you cannot increase the information content as given by your camera's sensor, measured in [pixels], regardless of how much you blow up the printed image. Think of: pixel zoom. the printer can't deviate from it's physical resolution. That means, it needs "some" information for each of it's physical output pixels. An alternative solution, which would be entirely within your hands is, to resize the pixel image prior to uploading it to the copy shop. A "Resize" function is offered by almost all popular image processing software like Paintshop Pro, Paint.Net, Capture One, and certainly many others as well. To avoid any loss in image quality you would still have to know the printers native resolution in [dpi]. It's probably given in the fine print of the print shop's web presence.
  11. Was that too complicated? Then please do ask.
  12. The a7riii has an image resolution of 7952 x 5304 pixels or "dots". That's a property of the camera. When it comes to printing a digital image, you are dealing with the output resolution of the printing device as well, which is typically measured in "dpi", which stands for dots per inch. The dpi capability of a printer is a property of the printer. Let's assume, for the purpose of this example, that the printer has a physical resolution of 600 dpi. Then the maximum image size would be (7952 / 600) inch by (5304 / 600) inch, which would be something like 13.5 inch by 9 inch. If you are requesting a larger image like, for instance, 30 inch by 20 inch, then you would have to supply a (30 x 600) by (20 x 600) pixel image to a 600 dpi printer. That's 18000 by 12000 pixels, something even an a7riii can't deliver. I would try to talk to the shop offering the printing service, if they can reduce their dpi requirement to a lower number. That would be spreading the available pixels "thinner" across the desired image size in inch.
  13. Plainly advising him to RTFM, even I would have considered rude. So I explicitly linked the online, searchable user manual which you are probably thinking of.
  14. This is what Sony claims on their "Full Specifications and Features" page: So, in terms of frame rate, the HDMI output indeed seems to not go beyond 60p. That said: if the camera can record at 120fps, then there must be a file sitting on your memory card afterwards, which holds all 120 frames per second for the duration of the clip. Regarding the playback at 120 fps, you would at least need a computer whose video ouput (including monitor) is capable of refreshing 120 times per second. Expect a considerable load on the rest of the system (CPU, sustained data rate from disk etc.) as well.
  15. In the TO's image, this looks like Newton's rings to me.
  16. Nice camera and nice lens - I have the same. And a really nice shot, which was not given to me this far. And a nice intro, too. Welcome from my side. Have you already seen the BIF (birds in flight) thread?
  17. Didn't have the time to finish this up, this morning. I now looked into this again, and drew some lines which extend some of the various motion-blurred light-streaks on the ground. And they seem to more or less converge all at the same vantage point. Which makes me think, that the bright structure in the lower left is also on the ground. I do, however, doubt a little bit that this was taken from a height of 41.000ft. It seems to be significantly lower than that. But of course, I could be mistaken.
  18. I'll give that a try, since I'm suffering from dirt/dust issues a lot.
  19. I like the top one best, because the object is sharp and against a motion-blurred background, which really conveys the impression of speed. Very well done! The center one is obviously a slow fly-by, as you can tell by the downward deflected flaps. ;-) It's also nice and in focus, however against an empty background. Unlike the "birds in flight" category, with a human pilot you have the advantage that you can pre-arrange such slow fly-bys, which gives you a beforehand knowledge of where and when it's going to happen, which helps in avoiding camera shake.
  20. Been there. It sounds really tempting, getting an 83x zoom which extends to 2000mm equivalent, for less than US$ 500,-. Don't expect any miracles, though. I recently bought a Nikon Coolpix P900 for my wife. We tested it during a one day hike in the alps, and found the image quality to be exceptionally poor, at the very long end. So much so, that we eventually decided to sell it (at a loss, of course, with a shutter count of only around 50 or so.). Maybe i am spoiled from the image quality of a full frame, but in my view there is no point in taking pictures which you hate to look at. My wife now has a Sony RX100, in the "mark Va" variant. For the very same reason as above I opted against the "mark VI" variant, which has a longer reach, but a poorer image quality. P.S.: see this for a "caveat" description of the Nikon Coolpix 900: I don't see how having to use a tripod would work well enough when trying to capture small, fast flying objects.
  21. ... is not dependent on the lens alone. The body (sensor, processor) have a big impact on recognizing, whether an image is sharp or not, and generating the appropriate commands to the lens to move glass in the proper direction. The former is obviously a function of the body itself, while only the latter depends on the lens. Also, when you're talking about fast moving flying objects, the risk of motion blur from body/lense shake is always present, in addition to motion blur from the fast movement of the object itself. So you will need good in-body stabilization, preferably complimented with in-lens stabilization, too. When you go for long-reach lenses, the rule-of-thumb tells you to use an exposure time of 1/4th of the reach, or faster. For a 400mm lens that would be 1/1600th or faster. To avoid malinvestment or disappointment, I'd recommend to rent and try the lens of choice for a weekend, before you decide to buy it.
  • Create New...