Jump to content

Alejandro

Members
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Alejandro

  1. I have recently bought an A7 ii, but I am still using and will keep using my A580. All the lenses I have, but one, are A-mount. I also bought a Sony A to E mount adapter and will be using it for the A-mount full frame lenses I have (which I can also mount on the A580).


    Just one of the A-mount lenses I have can be automatically focused when used on the A7 ii, but that is OK for me. Having AF is a plus, but with the focusing aids of the A7, I can focus manually fast enough for most takes. Even sometimes (depending on the photo I’m taking) I prefer to focus manually (and regarding modes, I always shoot in Manual mode, though that might be because I’m old school).

    So I won’t say “goodbye to A-mount”, and whenever I manage to find fine A-mount lenses that are in good conditions and being sold cheap, I’ll probably be tempted, and buy them.

     

  2. 5 hours ago, Aldowski said:

    I have the A7 ii for about 1 year; made number of landscape images, including variety of distances to the "objects" at nature. Using wide different settings, aperture 3.5 - 7.1; shutter speed 1/100+; ISO 100 - 800; many, many possible combinations. Using 28 - 70mm kit lens in Auto focus (different settings) and Manual focus modes. Using Peaking and Magnify with Manual focus.

    For more years I had and still have A3000 with it's kit lens. With exactly the same settings mentioned above when the A7 ii is being used, seems that the A3000 creates better photos, sharpness related. 

    Again, talking about the kit lenses only (I got another lens with A7 ii, when I bought it, now I am just trying to simplify this, I am not including that other lens to this; also I have and use more different Manual vintage lenses with adapters for A3000).

    Might it be that the difference (or lack of difference in sharpness) you say you noticed, could be related to the lenses you have been using? A full frame camera with a high resolution is particularly dependent on the quality of the lens being used.
    If I haven’t misunderstood, you are comparing the images that you get from both cameras, using their respective kit lenses.

    I have just googled a bit and found some good reviews of the E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. One says that it delivers excellent sharpness at the centre of images, and good sharpness at the edges, particularly from a focal-length of 35mm and upwards and from f/5.6 up to f/11.
    On the other hand, except for the sharpness measurements at DxO Marks, all the reviews I have read about the Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 are not very favourable.

    Perhaps you ought to try your Sony a7ii using a better regarded lens.
    Or maybe, this has nothing to do with what you are saying. Anyway, sharpness is crucial and important, but not absolutely all there is to it.

    5 hours ago, Aldowski said:

    The A3000 is having better inside conversion from RAW to JPEG? So the JPEG being created (inside camera itself) is more sharp?

    Someone may say - simply use the RAW, yes, but the question is - why the 3-4 times more expensive bundle - camera + kit lens; does not have at least equal sharpness as the cheaper one?

    On the other hand, if you might be getting better/sharper images with the A7ii if shooting raw and developing off camera, than the ones you are getting with the A3000, then, that would be a different reason to explain what you say you noticed. From the last two paragraphs you wrote, I might infer you are saying this. If that were the case, I’d say as you say someone may say 🙂 : “Simply use the Raw” 

    Anyway, I don’t really have the right answer, and I’m just trying to make a guess.

  3. 10 hours ago, tadwil said:

    What happens when you mount the lens on the A7II and turn on the camera, does the lens extend out into the shooting position?  Does the lens retract when the camera goes to sleep and extend out again when the shutter is half pressed to wake the camera?

    No, the lens does not extend nor retracts automatically, the procedure ought to be manually done.
    One has to “rotate the zooming ring until the focal-length index comes within the focal-length scale range to extend the lens” (as from the lens’ Manual). The rotation from closed up to a 60mm focal-length is clockwise. Overcoming a slight initial resistance (locked position), one starts rotating the ring from a point where the lens is totally retracted, up to when it reaches the point that -feeling again a slight resistance-, the inner barrel of the lens becomes extended, and it is set at a focal-length of 28mm. From there on, if keeping the clockwise rotation, the ring keeps smoothly moving/rotating to the longer focal lengths.

    When still locked (when the ring has not yet been turned to the 28mm position), the focus mode is locked to manual focusing, but one can’t adjust focus, and with the Sony A7ii, there is no warning that the lens is not yet usable, although one is not inhibited from triggering a photo. The photo will obviously be out of focus, covering an angle of view as if the lens was set to variable focal-lengths from about 28 to 40mm. AF would not be working, and manual focus won’t allow focusing either, so one would immediately realize that the lens is not properly extended to an unlocked position, but if one forgets that the lens has to be unlocked first to allow it to be functional, one might lose the precise instant for the photo of one’s life 🙂

    Anyway, I don’t see anything wrong with this system for a retractable lens, it is only a matter of getting used to it.
     

  4. On 9/16/2021 at 9:24 PM, tadwil said:

    Let us know when you have it and show us what it can do.

    Well......, I finally bought the Sony FE 28-60mm f/4-5.6 zoom lens. I’m quite happy with it.

    I haven’t yet taken any real life situation photos, but I took some trial pictures. I took very artistic photos 🙂 of medicine boxes and wine bottles covering all the extent of the pictures I took (which means that the photos were taken at a relative short distance and photos of objects situated at longer distances would be necessary for a more complete and thorough trial).
    I took photos using focal lengths of 28, 35, 50 and 60mm and also with a Sony 28mm f/2.8 (A mount), Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and Minolta 50mm f/1.7, using with each, those same focal lengths -when and as available-, and at f/4, f/5, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and f/16.

    I shot the photos Raw, visualized the raw files with different programs, opened some of them with the developing module of those programs, and exported a few as jpg (my comments on this, later on).

    And here are my appreciations (which can’t be considered a review, partly because what I did wasn’t very scientifically done, and because it isn’t), just my first impressions:

    With the Sony FE 28-60mm, the centre of the images were always sharp. The edges a bit softer, specially at 28mm f/11 and f/16.

    Compared with the Sony 28mm f/2.8: The edges of images taken with the 28mm were less sharp from f/4 up to f/8 and sharper than the ones taken with the 28-60mm at f/11 and f/16.

    Compared with the Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5: The centre of the images were similarly sharp with both, maybe showing a slightly better sharpness the Minolta lens. The edges of the images were a bit sharper with the Minolta lens.

    Compared with the Minolta 50mm f/1.7: this one beat all the mentioned lenses regarding sharpness, all around.

    Concerning the unsharp edges of the photos taken with the Sony 28-60mm, particularly at f/11 and f/16 (and upward I suppose, thought I didn’t shoot over f/16), DxO PhotoLab made an excellent job and improved the edges adding the necessary sharpens to them.

    The Sony 28-60mm shows an important optical distortion at its focal length of 28mm. DxO PhotoLab has a profile available that corrects the optical distortions of this lens, and sharpens the edges of images taken with it, when necessary, with good results (being this appreciable after exporting).
    Capture One 21 Express corrected the optical distortion of the image with which I made the trial (one of the ones taken with a focal length of 28mm) recurring to the “Manufacturer Profile”.
    Sony’s Imaging Edge Desktop automatically corrected the optical distortion, but I don’t know why, the image opened with its “Edit” module and exported to jpg, ended up lacking sharpness (it looked soft).
    When opening and visualizing the same photo with ACDSee Ultimate 2021, the optical distortion looked corrected, but when opening it with the program’s “Develop” module, the correction wasn’t there and there was no profile available for this lens.
    Affinity Photo version 1.9.2.1035 (I haven’t yet downloaded and installed the latest update) did not have a profile for this lens.

    I took a few photos including the sun in the picture and noticed no flare nor ghosting. I took some photos (not at every focal distance nor aperture) of a very contrasty scenery (including deep shadows and bright objects with a bright and clear sky as background) and noticed no lateral colour fringing.

    Focusing is fast. I haven’t tried it yet in a low light situation.

    For what I read, with the Sony A7C, if the lens is retracted, a due warning shows on the monitor screen of the camera. There is no warning with the A7 ii, so one better remembers that it is required to twist and extend the inner barrel of the lens in order to make it properly usable.

    No need to say that this lens is small, lightweight, and therefore very portable. I think it’ll make a good walk around lens.

    All in all, I’m satisfied with my purchase.

  5. Here, in my country, our economy has always been very peculiar, unstable, and full of ups and downs. Nowadays, the official rate of exchange for the US dollar is 1 dollar = 103 AR pesos ($). This is also the rate that applies to importers. People in general are allowed to buy 200 dollars per month at this rate if they go to a Bank, but no more. But the unofficial dollar rate (what we call de “Blue dollar”) is 1 dollar = 182 AR $. This is what they give you if you go to a currency exchange house (not a Bank) and sell a dollar that you have. These are the rates for today, the 16th of September.

    Sony, here in my country, is saying that they are selling at the same prices as in the USA. So, at the official exchange rate, this would be, for the 28-60 lens, something as: 500 x 103 = 51.500 AR $. Sony is here selling the 28-60 for 59.000 AR $. Then, 59.000 AR $ / 182 AR $  = 324 US dollars. Therefore, if I sell 324 US dollars that I had saved, they give me 59.000 AR $ with which I can buy the lens.

    On the other hand, most people that are selling second hand stuff, are willing to recover part of what they paid for a product when the exchange was different and not favourable for buying imported things. Therefore, second hand stuff is not cheap in relation to new stuff nowadays (for how long, nobody knows).

    Sony, here, is no longer selling the 28-70 lens (at least, not for the time being).

    Things have not always been the same, and they might change how knows when, so this might be the right time to buy new Sony stuff (if having some savings).

    These are the reasons why you can’t find in North America the Sony lens at the same amount of money than me, at this particular moment.

    I know, difficult to understand, it is madness, and can’t last, but for the time being........
    So maybe I should buy the Sony 28-60mm lens and have a native AF lens as you say, specially as they are saying it is a good kit lens.

    Thanks

  6. 16 hours ago, tadwil said:

    DXO Mark rates 28-70 as near equal to the Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 24-70......

    I read the DxO Mark rates for the 28-70 which I saw were good, but I also read reviews and saw some measurements done buy somebody else, from which one might infer that it is not that good. Most people reviewing it at Dyxum gave it a 4 for sharpness (10 out of 14, and 4 gave it a 4,5). I suppose that DxO ought to be more trustable. Therefore, I will nevertheless take into account your recommendation.

     

    15 hours ago, Pieter said:

    As for the Zeiss 24-70, it is infamous for its mediocrity so definately not worth the premium over the 28-70.

    I’m discarding the Zeiss 24-70 though. I saw some measurement that did not impress me and many people are complaining about it. Also, it is more expensive than the other two (and here, they are asking for it also more, even when being second hand).

     

    16 hours ago, tadwil said:

    DXO Mark rates 28-70 as near equal to the Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 24-70 at 1/3rd the price. 

     

    15 hours ago, Pieter said:

    Therefore used kit lenses can often be found cheap and in good condition.

    The Sony 28-60mm is being sold here by Sony at about 350 US dollars (new). Again, here, there are a few 28-70mm being sold through the web, and they are asking around 200 US dollars (second hand) for them.

  7. PS. I read that the Sony 28-60mm shows no or little optical distortion, except at 28mm, at which focal length there is a more marked barrel distortion. But I process my raw files with DxO PhotoLab which has a profile for this lens. I managed to download a raw file of a photo taken with this lens from the web, and PhotoLab made the expected correction, so this is something that does not have to worry me.

  8. 11 hours ago, Pieter said:

    Dustin Abbot reviewed the 28-60 and compared it to the 28-70

    Thank you Pieter, I have just read Dustin Abbott’s review. It coincides with the few others I read before or listened to.

    I think I am tempted to buy this zoom lens. It is small and lightweight, and mounted on the A7ii would make a quite portable combo. Sometimes I don’t take out with me a camera (but my Sony rx100) because together with the lenses I have, they make a bulky equipment to carry around if not specifically going out to shoot photos. Everybody is saying it is sharp from wide open whilst most other kind of kit lenses need to be stopped down to get sharp, and one ends up shooting them from f/5.6 upwards anyway. They also say it handles CA and fringing very well. I might miss the 60mm to 70mm range (I have checked that I have taken lots of photos within the 45mm to 50mm range with an APS-C sensor camera, that traduced to angles of view for a full-frame equivalent to the ones given by focal distances of about 67.5mm to 75mm), but I think I can perfectly adapt to restrain myself to the focal distance range of the 28-60mm. There was I time (long ago) when all my shots were done with a 50mm lens. Anyway, I think that in some future I will aim for a 20mm prime lens. And finally, I can afford the 28-60mm.
     

    11 hours ago, Pieter said:

    ..... as a rule of thumb, the price of current generation lenses doubles for every extra f-stop it provides.

    I didn’t know that. It is a lot of money for every additional stop.
    Anyway, I was thinking that when needing or wanting to use a wider aperture, I can always count on my 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.7, and 85mm f/2.8 lenses.

  9. I have recently bought a Sony A7ii and a Sony mount adapter. For the time being, the full frame lenses I have are a Minolta 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 zoom (not bad and reasonably sharp from f/5.6 and upwards until f/11, which I have to focus manually), a Tamron Adaptall-2 35-70 f/3.5 (reasonably sharp from f/5.6 and upwards as well, and totally manual), and for a shorter focal length a Sony 28mm f/2.8 (A mount), and for a longer focal length a Sony 85mm f/2.8 (A mount, which I can use with AF or in manual focusing). Also a Minota 50mm f/1.7, and a Tamron Adaptall-2 80-210mm, but this one has nothing to do with the subject I’m bringing up.

    I’m thinking of maybe buying a more up to date walk-around zoom lens. Something not expensive that I can afford. It called my eye the Sony 28-60mm f/4-5.6. There are not much reviews about it. One on Dyxum, I found and extensive one on digitalcameralens.com, and maybe two serious reviews on YouTube. DxO mark has no review of it yet and neither has Kurtmunger. For what I have read or heard (not much), it seems it delivers an excellent sharpness at the centre of images and quite good or acceptable sharpness at the edges and corners. It seems (or so I read), much better and sharper than the Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS. The former has a shorter range of focal lengths and is smaller (maybe this being an advantage for carrying it around) than the latter.

    I have also been reading about the Sony Vario Tessar FE 24-70mm F4 OSS which is a bit more expensive, but of which I have read in this very forum that there are many people having problems with it, and which sharpness measurements did not impress me.

    I am not looking at maybe better Tamron or Sigma lenses because for some reason (reasons that probably have to do with import taxation and/or Sony commercial policies), here in my country, Sony products are more accessible than others. For example, here, the Tamron FE 28-75 f/2.8 costs more than what I paid for the camera, plus a vertical grip, plus the lens mount adapter, plus a spare battery, and three times more than what the Sony 28-60mm f/4-5.6 costs. Maybe it is three times better (?).

    I can buy a new Sony 28-60mm f/4-5.6 for the equivalent of about 350 US dollars, but my doubts are:
    Is this lens really much better than the Sony 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS (of which I have read only regular to bad reviews)?
    Is the Sony 28-60mm f/4-5.6 worth it, or I’d better stick with the equipment I already have till being able to buy a premium zoom lens?

    Has anybody tried the Sony 28-60mm f/4-5.6 and can compare it (in terms of sharpness, CA, etc.) to any of the other zoom lenses I have mentioned? Or does anybody have a different suggestion regarding the matter?

  10. 4 hours ago, OssamaH said:

    Currently i'm stuck and don't know what is is the right decision to take. Shall i sell it and buy A6400 as that one is the most near futures from A6000. Or other wise i need to learn how to use the A7c manually.

    The Automatic mode is......: Automatic. Nothing can be changed.
    Saturation and contrast are set for the Automatic mode as Sony thought would please most users.
    Regarding colours, even in the past, different brands of films gave different colours. Photos taken with Agfa, Kodak or Fuji gave different colours and even different films from each had their own character. I preferred the colours from Fuji, and when it came to B&W, the tones given by Agfa or Ilford films.

    There is probably nothing wrong with your camera (but I might be wrong of course). For the way in which you shoot (jpg and allowing the camera to determine everything automatically) and for what you pretend to obtain, you don’t need to shoot in Manual mode (that by itself won’t change the saturation of the pictures you take in jpg), try first to do as it has already been recommended by others: on “Creative Styles” set the style (there even ought to be a “Portrait” one) and for the style you choose, set the saturation and contrast you prefer, and shoot in “P” mode (which is automatic, but for which you can pre-set some parameters including the Creative Style, as it has already been explained). 

    And if I were you (you asked for an opinion), I would keep the A7C and the lenses you bought, and I would read the manual more thoroughly and experiment a bit. At least, give a try to what has been recommended to do by several others, before making up your mind.

  11. Yes, Manfrotto is a big company and there is a photographic shop downtown, where I bought some years ago a Manfrotto tripod, so they might keep selling Manfrotto products. They probably (I would say surely) don’t have every Manfrotto product in existence (just a few), but although it is not near to where I live, I can go sometime (they are not publishing what they have on the internet), and take a look to see if they might have this one (or the like).

    For what I have seen in the web page to which you gave me the link, the Manfrotto “telephoto lens support” is quite expensive (111 US dollars I would say seems to be a lot of money for what this product is). On Amazon I have seen other product (non Manfrotto) which serve the same purpose, half the price (but I know Manfrotto’s stuff is of good quality).

    Anyway, I’ll go and visit this shop as soon as I can, and see if by any chance they happen to have this telephoto lens support.

    Thank you.

  12. Thanks Tadwil for the datum and recommendation.

    The problem nowadays with buying abroad seems to be the shipping of products to be sent overseas (probably due to the pandemic). Last year (in November), I bought through Amazon a flash shoe adapter. I could follow where it was through the USPS tracking system. The package never left New York (where it was originally delivered to the post office), and last week (more than ten months after I made my order) it was returned to the shop from where I bought it. They refunded me this week what I paid for the adapter, but not the money I paid for shipping. In the past, I bought lots of things through Amazon or now and again through e-bay, but I am afraid things have become more complicated now, for the time being.

    Regarding carrying the camera with that lens hand-holding it, I’ll copy your system.

  13. Thank you Thebeardedgroundsman for your reply.

    I think that what you mentioned, “....that the instructions for the LA-EA4 suggest using the tripod mount on the adapter rather than the camera to prevent strain on the camera’s lens mount”, answers my question.

    The LA- EA5 does not have a screw socket to take a tripod mount.

    I don’t think I would be able to find an already made lens support bracket here in my country as not many photography and camera accessories are being imported nowadays if not being kind of essential stuff or more related to filming video. But I might find and buy a long “ARCA plate” (I googled what that meant) and somehow make a cradle for its end that would support the lens. I’ll see what can I invent and assemble. Nevertheless, I’m not sure if this would be comfortable and work smoothly as this lens has a single barrel/ring that is simultaneously used to focus and zoom and the front of the lens rotates when focusing. Anyway, whatever I manage to assemble would be to use if mounting the camera with this lens on a tripod (or maybe I just won't be able to).

    Thanks.

  14. I would like to be given an opinion about if the lens’ mount of the Sony a7 ii is strong enough to handle (without being affected or damaged in the long term) a heavy and long lens as I’ll describe below:

    I’m thinking of resurrecting an old Tamron Adaptall-2 80-210mm f/3.8-4 Model 104A that I have. I tried it on the a7 ii with results that satisfy me, but it seems a bit bulky for the size of the a7 camera.

    The lens is 14.65 cm long plus about 3.2 cm from the LA-Ea5 adapter, resulting in a total length of 17.85 cm. The lens weight is 610 grams plus 88 grams from the adapter, resulting in 698 grams.

    The lens has no supporting handle. I guess there would be no problem to shoot hand-holding the camera and lens (one hand for the camera and the other holding the lens). But, would the camera’s mount and/or the adapter not suffer on the long term if for example mounting the camera on a tripod, with the lever from the lens directly acting on the mount?

    My instinct would advise me not to use that lens with the camera mounted on a tripod, but maybe the camera and its mount are strong enough to put up with the weight of the lens combined with its length. Any opinions?

  15. On 8/28/2021 at 10:22 AM, michelb said:

    As a controller on your body, the HVL-F32M would be just fine with your present units.

    The Sony HVL-32M flash is not being sold in my country by Sony, but I found one (second hand) that is being sold through our local equivalent to e-bay. I read the specifications for this flash, and it would fulfil all my needs and expectations. I’ll try to buy it.
    Thanks again.

  16. I have been trying the Imaging Edge Mobile app with the Sony a7ii camera that I have just bought, and it does as you say, when I shoot still photos from the cell phone (it does not allow me to trigger videos), it sends a 2 mp jpg to the phone, and the image recorded in the camera is a “Fine” jpg quality one, although I have my camera set up to shoot only raw.

    The app allows me to compensate the exposure if the camera is set in a mode not being Manual, and to shoot with a 2 seconds delay.

    All being considered, I would think that the app was conceived as to be mainly used for recreational purposes. It might be useful if mounting the camera on a tripod, joining a group of friends in front of it, checking the composition and making sure that all the group fits in the screen. Then, to compensate the exposure if necessary, trigger the photo, hide the phone in a pocket (for which action one has 2 seconds if set for shooting with delay), and be photographed while everybody is laughing and having a great time (I am being sarcastic here). Afterwards, one can send the photo to other friends or upload it to Facebook, Instagram, or the like.

    It has obviously not been conceived for shooting as if it were tethered (via wifi). A pity. It would have been useful enough for serious shooting if the app would have at least allowed to record in the camera as raw (or jpg at its best quality for those who shoot jpg).

    I think I have tried all the apps that are being offered on Google Play that were supposedly created for the purpose. Except for one, I could not manage to have them connect to the camera. The only one that I managed to have it establish a connection with the camera, offered even less capabilities than Sony’s app. I also tried an app that promised to allow shooting tethered Sony cameras via a USB connection (I tried it with my tablet), but I couldn’t establish a connection.

    Not that the Sony app is bad, it serves a purpose, but to shoot raw away from the camera and/or not touching it, it seems I’ll have to keep using my RMT-DSLR1 remote control.

  17.  

    Thank you michelb for all the information, really useful.

    I wanted a smaller flash, but was not taking into account the red eyes issue. If I use a flash mounted on the camera, I usually bounce the light, though I already knew that the HVL-F28RM has limited rotation capabilities.

    The HVL-F43AM is not that big, but I wanted something even smaller and lighter to carry around.

    I think I might then go for a Godox Tt350 just to carry around and use as a simple flash on the camera (which light I will be able to bounce on any direction) and if wanting to shoot off camera (when not choosing to travel light-weighted), I can still use one of the Sony flashes I have as a controller (mounted on the shoe adapter) or the King wireless trigger (mounted on the adapter) and King receptors that I also have from before.

    Thanks again.

  18. I have bought a Sony a7 ii camera. Also, a speedlight’s ADP-MAA shoe adapter (from the shoes that Sony is using now to the older inverted shoe system), as I have a few of those older flashes. Among the ones I have are the Sony HVL-F43AM and the HVL-F58AM. They all wok fine, and I can perfectly use (mounted on the adapter) the HVL-F43AM as a controller of the HVL-F58AM (acting as slave).

    I’m interested in buying a smaller and more portable speedlight, so I was looking at the HVL-F28RM. But I have some doubts.

    In Sony’s web page where the HVL-F28RM is shown, it says (at least in the Spanish version of this page), that this flash can be used as a controller of other HVL-F28RM flashes. It doesn’t say that it can work as a controller of other Sony flashes (in general). If it would only work with other HVL-F28RM, it wouldn’t make much cense for me, but who knows.

    My questions are: Does the Sony HVL-F28RM can act as a controller of other Sony and Sony compatible speedlights apart from HVL-F28RMs?
    And (most important), if so, would it work as a controller of the HVL-F43AM and the HVL-F58AM?

    Does anybody know?

    I have tried to find googleing, if any article would deal with the subject and tried to find if anybody said anything about it on YouTube, with no luck.

  19. I do my raw files with DxO Photolab and tried doing this one with Capture One Express as well. I had no problems with these.
    To edit my photos I use Affinity Photo or sometimes ACDSee Ultimate.
    Maybe, If I were to choose to buy the A7R ii, what I could do is downsample the tiff files I get from the raw files to a more manageable size. Something as Pieter mentioned that could be done. I think I prefer to keep editing on 16 bits per channel, rather than loose colour depth as when exporting to 8 bits jpg.

  20. Thanks again Pieter and thank you SnappyMilt.

    Regarding my second question, I managed to download from the web a raw file taken with a Sony a7R ii in order to experiment myself. I had no problems to process/develop the raw file and to export as a 16 bits Tiff. The tiff file I got was 240 MB. Although I could open it with a photo editor (I tried with two different ones) and managed to apply some edits, my computer, and the programs with which I tried, faced some difficulties. They couldn’t quite handle such a huge image file without becoming unbearably slow and collapsing from time to time. I wouldn’t have any problems to edit if exporting to jpg, but then I would have been editing an 8 bits file instead of an 16 bits file.

  21. Thank you Pieter, you answered one of my questions.
    Regarding downsampling the images to 24MP, if that would be one’s plan, wouldn’t it be better to directly just shoot with a 24 MP camera and therefore avoid downsampling? Apart from its negative points, is there any benefit on downsampling an image that I am not being aware of?

  22. I would appreciate some opinions and advice.

    I’m thinking of probably buying a Sony a7 ii. But I’m not sure if it would be better for me to buy an a7 ii or an a7R ii.

    I have read that although sensors with more resolution would normally mean heavier noise at high ISOs, this would not be the case for the a7R ii in comparison to the a7ii. I have read that both cameras show similar amount of noise at the same ISO values. Is this true, or does the a7R delivers more noisy images than the a7 at the same ISO values? What about their compared latitudes?

    Another thing that I am wondering about is if the resulting files would be too heavy to be comfortably edited on my computer. I shoot raw and after developing I save as tiff, and the tiff files I normally edit tend to be in between 75 and 90 MB for the photos I take with a Sony a580 which is 16,2 MP. The sony a7R ii is a 42,2 MP camera, and I should image that the tiff files that one would get from developing its raw files ought to be huge. Are the images from the a7R ii too heavy to manipulate on an average notebook (as the one I have), or none have experienced some difficulty processing and editing them on a standard computer?

  23. White balance correctly set is crucial, but sometimes a subject in an image might get some colour cast determined by the dominant colour that surrounds it. Outside in the open nature, with a subject surrounded by plants and trees and grass, the photographic subject will probably get some green tint added to its colour. When this happens, if it would be the case, I believe the camera is not to be blamed, and the “problem” ought to be corrected in post-production.

    On 8/4/2021 at 7:02 PM, fatmarley said:

    I don't want to pay monthly or yearly for lightroom, just to fix the colours, but I don't mind a one-off payment.

    I don’t know about Luminar (which was suggested) but programs as DxO PhotoLab (my favourite to develop Raw) or Capture One allow you to choose from different Colour Renderings or ICC Profiles that can be applied to develop a raw file. They show different camera’s profiles from where to choose. I don’t know how faithful to the whichever camera might the rendering be, but colours do change when changing renderings. Capture One has a free version of its program for Sony cameras (Capture One Exrpess for Sony) that, although having less features than the pro version, still allows choosing from different colour profiles.

    5 hours ago, fatmarley said:

    If I shoot at f1.8 1/250 it looks like the pictures are often slightly out of focus, but that's being picky and pixel peeping at eyelashes.

    I don’t know about the 35mm f/1.8 lens, but most lenses (excluding a few exceptions) are not at their best at their maximum aperture (nor beyond F/16 or f/22) and usually the aperture needs to be closed half or one step at least (sometimes more with some lenses) to get a sharper image. But I assume you don’t mind and prefer an even narrower depth of field than if closing the aperture a bit or maybe you needed the 1/250 shutter speed.

  24. 2 hours ago, XKAES said:

    Both explanations can be confusing to different people -- especially when photographic "terms" are ill-defined and thrown around loosely

    ?? (sorry for that)

    2 hours ago, XKAES said:

    It's the picture angle that's important

    Forgive me, but English is not my native language, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you or not understanding you properly. I might need a thorougher explanation. I think I understand what you are trying to convey, but are you saying that a "picture" has an angle?? How come?

    Anyway, I hope that with everything that has been said and explained, NK Creative's question might have been answered. Has it? It would be nice to have his feedback.

×
×
  • Create New...