Jump to content

Donald Mackie

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Donald Mackie

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes I have a stellar prime 35 in the Sigma but it ain’t light I rented the 24mm 1.4 and it was a luxurious lens. I want 😎, But I’m covered 20 to 24. Just wanna have a light walk around that has a bit more reach. Maybe the Batis 40mm or even further the Sony 85mm. Either way and as I’ve mentioned the 50 prime is a clunker.
  2. Yea I kinda have had and heard the same reactions. I guess just a word of caution for folks who haven’t yet invested, this lens (at least mine) is better off skipped It’s dang near unusable.
  3. Not a big deal at this point but I thought I'd just throw this out there to see if anyone is in the same boat. When I bought my A7 iii I bought the body and the Sony 50mm prime instead of the kit lens. I've since built up my lens collection "a bit" and can cover 50mm otherwise but every now and again I feel the urge to take a walk with a light lens. In my Cannon world that would have been my 50 prime (which I loved). But that said my Sony 50 just really, really blows. It focus hunts to the end of the earth. Often when it does decide to settle the focus point is miles from what the photo shows. I've made grand attempts to get my head wrapped around it's idiosyncrasies and adapt and adjust but every time I think I've got some frame work understood it's inconsistencies throws me for another total loop. I could just toss it into the closet but as inexpensive as it is I paid for a 50 prime and this 50 prime just doesn't work. Anyone else think this is Sony's biggest dud?
  4. I have a separate drive for safe-keeping of raw un-edited files although this process of course will work if you choose to use the computers internal drive. I use the Mac's propritary capture software (Image Capture) to pull the files off the SD card and into that drive. From there I'll import them into my photo editing software. With the extremely low cost of drives these days I actually use three. One for the storage of the original raw files. One for the edited photo's (I use Luminar and yes I'm aware Luminar is non-destructive ) and a third for backing up the original raw drive. I probably wouldn't have gone to this extreme a few years back but as I mentioned drives are so cheap these days it just gives me piece of mind.
  5. I’m sure the OP has long made his/her choice but I’ll add my 2 cents for those who may still be on the fence. And truth be told there’s a lot between these two lens to be on the fence about. I rented both lens’s before I bought. Here is my rationale for choosing the 24-105: I love to be wide and the difference between 24 and 28 is (at least for me, substantial). The longer reach of the 105 over the 75 of the Tamron not as much but since the 24-105 seems wonderfully sharp all the way out to 105, why not. I won’t use it as often but like I said....why not? The Sony auto focus is faster although not substantially so but (and this’ll be an intangible) somehow feels better/works better. I can’t give a pragmatic explanation but it was there when I had both lens’s for comparison. By no means a deal breaker but “a thing” none the less. The OSS on the Sony lens is uncannily good. For run and gun and hand-held low light situations I’m surprise (at times shocked) at what I can get away with. This most likely was the moment and reason I couldn’t go back to the Tamron. Not to dismiss the Tamron in any way. It’s really spectacular. It’s tack, tack sharp. It has a great color profile. I believe it was a tad lighter. It’s cheaper and it’ll open up to 2.8 (although i’m not sure for my own personal purposes the OSS doesn’t outweigh the extra stop of light). I guess an argument could be made the the a Tamron might be better at shallower DOF but that would be dependent on shooting style and needs. In the end I think either of these lens’s are as good or better than I am and it’d think it impossible to go wrong with either. For me however the Sony was a better choice.
  6. I thought the Artic Butterfly would be what most folks suggested. I’ve used one in the past but don’t currently have one. Tinplater: For me it’s not really so much a fear. No matter how you look at it the sensor (and frankly everything in and around the sensor) is pretty darn delicate. I’ll use my VSGO swabs but only when I’m out of choices. I’m not new to cleaning camera inners, just new to Sony Mirrorless. Just wanted to make sure Thanks everyone!
  7. New here and glad I found this site. I switched from my Cannon world to a Sony A7 iii a few months back. Migration has been relatively painless and I’m getting more comfortable/familiar with the camera with each passing day. My first question is an age-old but with a slight twist. I was on a pre-dawn shoot up in the mountains Saturday morning and in the cold and dark I managed to get a spattering of dust on my sensor. 97% of it came lose with the in camera cleaning mode and a slight squeeze of the Giotto. There is the usual one speck that’s not coming off unless I take another step. I have both the PhotoSol and VSGO cleaning swabs that I’ve used in the past and I’m certainly not afraid to use them, on the other hand I don’t like to use liquid unless my hand is completely forced. Just wanted to pick your collective brains about what you’re using between easy off Giotto cleaning scenarios and the more invasive VSGO swabs cleaning. Success stories of something effective in between?
×
×
  • Create New...