Jump to content

Deeliciouz

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Deeliciouz

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well! This is relevant information! It will now help for making a sensible choice. Thank you so much!
  2. Thank you Pieter for your in-depth explanations! I really appreciate. I should have mentioned similar settings for a similar shot (subject moving at the same speed, same distance, same light set etc.) Whatever! It now makes sense. I was not even aware of that relation between pixel size and motion blur. This is probably why some studio photographers like to use medium-format cameras. I mean apart from all the advantages of a medium fomat cam, the 50mp+ of a Pentax 645 would be obviously larger than the 42mp of a Sony a7r3 since the sensor size is larger and so for equal shutter speed (and so on) they would be easier to 'freeze'... I now understand better the strengths of the Asiii. Say I'd have to shoot comedians lowlight handheld, that camera would allow me to achieve increased sharpness compared to the sony ariii... I figured it was just because the higher the pixel concentration, the smaller the photosites and thus the higher the noise (or something like that). Thank you again, mate!
  3. Thank you for your reply. So if I get it right, say I'd work with a 1/200th with the 24mp sony A7III. If I ever shift to the 42mp A7RIII (same lighting conditions, same aperture and iso settings), I'd have to increase the shutter speed to, for instance, 1/400th to 'freeze' every pixel and achieve tack-sharp large prints. If this is correct, the point is the shutter speed treshold with studio strobes is usually 1/200th. So for very large ultra sharp studio portrait pictures, the Sony A7III seems to be more adequate. Is my thinking correct?
  4. You are most welcome, mate. My counterpart did not answer your question, indeed. However, he did remind me my limited technical knowledge or natural distraction, an example of which was my previous erratic suggestion about the ladies shot settings, only relevant for a frontal shooting of course, given the minimal .8 dop. I hope Pieter will at least give me his accurate views on my post naively entitled 'sony a7riii improper to dynamic studio portrait?' and maybe (in)validate this statement made by two professional salesmen, since it is desperately empty so far.
  5. Indeed, my deer friend, it doesn't. Most 24-105 seems to offer a constant f/4 instead, whatever the brand (Sony, Canon...)
  6. 'Ve just viewed a Youtube vid about this fe 100 gm 2.8 lens since I didn't quite catch that 5.6 issue. It seems that lens is damn good in terms of sharpness and bokeh. Best of both worlds. This is where things get complicated: in order to achieve that super creamy bokeh (unusual for such a focal length and aperture since the shots I looked at in the vid look like as if they were taken with longer focal lengths as 200mm f2.8 or maybe a 135 f1.4...). So to deliver that smooth bokeh they use specific glasses (aka 'APD'). The downside of this is that this sort of glass is not as photo sensitive as regular glasses and thus reduce the quantity of light. Consequently, your f2.8 does not act as a traditional 2.8 but like f5.6 in terms of light absorbance but provides a f1.4 telephoto bokeh, which explains why your camera pushes the sensibility to compensate this lack of light absorbance when indoor. To my understanding this lens is designed for: 1. Studio heashot/mid shot portraiture since the use of strobes lets you set your default sensibility at 100 iso for 1/125th or 1/200th. 2. Outdoor headshot/midshot portraiture with a powerful speedlight allowing you HSS sync at full power 3. In-context and full shot portrait photography with off-speedlight(s) 4. Stills and packshooting with a tripod Not intended to: Indoor handheld documentary and sport photography. Would not use it for weddings unless I'd had a 500w speedlight. The bottom line is if you are not especially interested in portraits/fashion, nor willing to dive in the strobe and speedsync lighting... and if you wand to keep shooting 'discretely' as a reporter, whatever the settings, this lens will not match your expectations IMHO. So the lens qualitative but cannot provide tremendous shots for the purposes shown in your pics above. Handheld, no flash and documentary? I'd rather go for a nice multipurpose one-lens set. Something like a 24-105 constant f2.8 or similar. That would be my bread and butter, mate! IMHO (70-200mm are too heavy and not as discrete to my tastes. Plus you have to decrease the speed to compensate.) Have a good day!
  7. Excellent composition staging two contrasted attitudes! As fun as dramatic! Like it. (Just set your aperture priority mode in f1.8 next time to isolate the characters and add drama.) What mode did you use to shoot that still?
  8. I like the man's portrait. Bulky and heavy... so are the Sigma Art lenses. I had the 85mm and 105mm in my hands the other day to try to figure it out. Well... it is just about quality, mate! I've never like plastic lenses. I started with a Pentax 67ii and a couple of these super large takumar primes. Theses jewels are similar in size and weight and I used to practice street photography with that beast. Awesome!
  9. I guess it is. Well I am more a portraitist so the day I shift to Sony, I think I might go for the Sigma Art 85 mm f1.4 or 105 mm f1.4. The Canon 85mm f1.8 coupled with the 24-105mm L f4 have been doing a decent job on my 5dmkII so far. Sigma lenses, though heavyweights, seem to be somewhat faster in terms of focusing and a tad sharper compared with native Sony primes.
  10. Hey Antonio! That 55mm 1.8 looks like a rational choice. An all-rounder fast prime is the way I'd go if I had to stick with one lens. Affordable and effective. Sided with a sharp 85 fast prime and you're good to go! Hope it helped!
  11. In short, Antonio... this is what I would do if you ever shoot indoor/handheld/no flash, whatever the lighting condition. - Manual mode - one-shot mode - central focus - 1/125th (minimal default speed to freeze the subject) - Maximum aperture (f 2.8 here) - Set your iso - aim, compose (focus on your subject's eye), stop breating, shoot
  12. From my prospect, shooting at 5000 iso is non sense in this case. Seeing your exifs, the 1/125th speed is rational given the poor indoor light conditions. 1/60th should be avoided for sharp stills unless you have a tripod and/or a speedlight, and a slow-moving subject. The point is your lens is a fast 2.8 prime. You should have prioritized that aperture with the minimal 1/125th speed to : 1. ...decrease the sensibility and the consequent noise for a sharper shot. 2. ... increase the subject isolation through background blur for a more elegant shot. Furthermore, I think that the poorer light, the uglier noise. I mean shooting a landcape, daytime, handheld, increasing your sensibility to shoot at f/16 for infinite DOP will not give you such a degraded noise. (What do you guys think? Do you confirm?) Now the 5000-iso noise is not that bad and is even somewhat grainy, giving a more film look and could be justified in a documentary shooting with a more 'in-context' subject, adding depth. Since you don't like noise, you should have selected manual mode for option 1. Just my view... hope it helped.
  13. Hi all! I have been a canon user for years and started with the 5d mkII (85mm f1.8 prime and 24-105 f4 L) especially involved in dynamic (street photography) and lowlight photography in the first place, i.e. stage photography (in harsh conditions -no flash, low light, handheld, comedians performing live...) then I started to specialize in staged studio portraiture (2× Elinchrom 500w). I also developped DOP skills in a cinema project and used the Canon 5dmk2 in that respect. The reasons for me to shift to Sony are: 1. Effective eye-tracking autofocus (is it me or did Canon really intend to commit commercial suicide not implementing that feature????) 2. Tack-sharpness and quick auto-focus 3. State-of-the art technology in the expert range outperforming canon 5ds and 6ds at a reasonable price tag. Now, three salesmen advised the sony A7III as a rational option for dynamic studio photography, which I do agree with. The point is I am really hesitating with the more expensive Sony Alpha7RIII since I like large format printings and super sharp portraits. I realize 42mp pictures will get my hard drives, CPU and retouching process busy. Suprisingly, two salesmen out of three told me the AlphaRIII was not proper to in-motion subject studio photography since the 42mp resolution was slower to process and would consequently generate inaccurate rendering/softness requiring to double the speed to reach tack-sharp shots (eye-focused) even with studio strobe. In short, SonyAR3 for POSED portraiture, macro, packshooting, stills, architecture, landscapes... only. My basic settings for studio are: 1/125th at 100 ISO. Subjects are not running, not bouncing, not headbanging on 200 bpm speed metal music. They just move as they would do in normal life, somewhat slower... I don't get it since that statement would mean the A7R3 could then not be able to deliver proper 42mp tack-sharp shots (full view) below 1/200th unless I'd ask my models to freeze??? Otherwise 'the expected softness/blur' will be quite noticeable and will ruin your work, given the super high resolution' they said. After a few questions, the salesmen admitted not being experienced in studio (were more 'macro, packshooting, nature...). What do you guys think? How well does the A7R3 perform in dynamic studio photography? How does it behave and compare with the A7R3 in that respect? Thank you so much in advance for your help!
×
×
  • Create New...