Jump to content

Pieter

Members
  • Content Count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Pieter last won the day on June 21

Pieter had the most liked content!

About Pieter

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

996 profile views
  1. There aren't a lot of reviews on the Samyang but it seems to be a lot of value for money. The Sigma 19mm is also really decent and costs about half of the Samyang, if not less. It's even smaller and lighter too. From a personal point of view: I only buy fast primes (< F2). Anything slower and I might as well use a zoom for convencience. The Sony 18-105 is only one stop slower and costs nearly the same as the Samyang if you find it on discount. It's a whole lot more cumbersome than the f/2.8 primes though, so if you want something that fits your jacket pocket either the Samyang or the Sigma should do great.
  2. In general I would definately say the Sigma: 2 stops faster and optically excellent. Get the Samyang if: - you might one day want to switch to fullframe - you prefer 18mm FoV over 16mm - you want something small and light However, if you really want small, light and cheap and don't consider going fullframe, you might want to consider the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 over the Samyang. I think it's no longer produced but can still be found really cheap.
  3. As people above stated, with this shutter speed you should expect motion blur. Even if you're able to hold the camera steady enough for the stabilized lens to do it's job, your subject will have moved during the exposure, resulting in a blurry subject. Ways to get a faster shutter speed is to use a larger aperture, a higher ISO or turn down the exposure compensation (or use a flash). With the a6000, ISO 3200 is just borderline usable so raising it further is not an option (higher ISO is generally preferred over motion blur but beyond 1600-3200 photo's become very grainy with washed out colors). Opening up the aperture is not possible with your lens so there lies a constraint. If you really enjoy shooting at nighttime, you should consider buying a lens with a large aperture (low f-number) such as f/1.8 or f/1.4. Such a lens would let in about 2-3 times as much light as your 16-50, allowing a shutter time of 1/20 sec instead of 1/8 sec. If you then turn down exposure compensation by -1 you end up with a shutter speed of 1/40 which should get you substantially sharper photo's (and some negative exposure compensation gets you photo's that were more as in real life than if you let the camera try to get an optimal exposure during nighttime imho). With regard to large aperture lenses: here lies a bit of a dilemma for you: with photo 9 you complain that the lights in the background are blurry. Welcome to the world of photography with big sensors! By nature, when you increase the sensor and aperture size, the so called 'depth of field' will decrease: the perceived focus plane becomes thinner. This is totally normal and by no means a reason to dislike photo 9. If you buy an f/1.4 lens, you'll notice that the background will become even blurrier. If you really like nighttime photography and want beautiful sharp photo's of moving subjects, it almost inevitably comes at the cost of a blurry background. Get used to it and use it artistically to your advantage. Addition: something you should know about your 16-50 lens is that it has a variable aperture (f/3.5 at 16mm to f/5.6 at 50mm). It lets in about 2,3 times as much light when using it at the wide end (16mm) than when zoomed in. Consequently, for sharp nighttime photo's it's best to use the lens at the wide end.
  4. Movie files are stored in a different folder than image files. Be sure to search all the folders on the memory card.
  5. Tough luck then, what you want doesn't exist. It absolutely makes no sense to put the 24-240 on an A7Riv. On an A7iii maybe.
  6. Don't get the 24-240: it'll be a waste on your A7Riv. Especially if you value tack-sharp images. According to DXO-mark the 28-70 obliterates the 24-240 when it comes to sharpness. If you really dislike swapping lenses a lot, I think an RX10 as a B-cam is a better option: covers a much wider range and the images arguably come out as nice as you'd have gotten with the 24-240. Upgrading your 28-70 to a 24-105 might also solve some of your issues, plus you'd gain some wide angle, light gathering and the image quality would be as good if not better than with the 28-70.
  7. That lens is a micro-4/3 lens, not regular 4/3. It won't fit your 4/3 to e-mount adapter.
  8. How does distortion due to silent shooting (rolling shutter effect) have anything to do with this thread, or any optical lens defect for that matter? If you don't want rolling shutter distortion, disable silent shooting or buy an A9. The reason you didn't have this with your old Nikon was the fact that it didn't offer silent shooting as an option.
  9. Put something else on C2 instead. Afaik it is not possible to have no function assigned to a custom button. Put something useless on it if you really want the custom button to be functionless.
  10. Nooo! You just added to the confusion! Please stop spreading this misconception. The fact that you happen to use FF-equivalence as a reference doesn't make it the Golden Standard. Look up the definition of focal length: sensor size has nothing to do with it. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what sensor you use. Some cheap cameras put the FF-equivalent focal length on the lens, which is just wrong and confusing. People who know how to work with equivalence don't need this false information, people who don't know how to use equivalence don't care. For example: On the RX0 it says it has a 24mm lens, which is bullocks: it has an 8mm lens and a 1"-type sensor. People who know how to use equivalency will know a 1"-sensor has a crop-factor of about 3, so the camera has the same field of view as a 24mm lens on a fullframe sensor.
  11. Welcome to the digital age @Oldphoto 😃 Don't let the cascade of settings discourage you. There's aperture, shutter speed and ISO, just like in the old days. All the rest of it is just there in case you might one day feel the need to adjust the behaviour of the camera to fit the needs you didn't even know you had. To view RAW files, you need a RAW-converter such as Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One or Darktable. Windows 10 now has built-in RAW support in 'Photos'-app. You'll need the extension support though. Get windows update version May 2019 or later here then get the RAW-support here.
  12. That came out pretty blunt, I ment no disrespect to you @SilverPrince: I'm just amazed by the amount of confusion that whole equivalency-principle causes in general. If you've only ever used a camera with APS-C sized sensor, don't think of 'equivalent focal length': any 16mm lens you slap on your camera will give the same field of view. There's no such thing as 'this 16mm lens becomes 24mm'.
  13. To answer your original question, there's a trio of Sigma f/1.4 lenses of which your 56mm is one. The other two (16mm and 30mm) are also great. I think the 30mm will suit your needs very well. The 16mm lens may be too wide and it'll give a lot of perspective distortion when photopraphing people close to the edge of the frame (this is natural to wide-angle lenses). I have the Sony-Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 which I find terrific, but arguably it's way overpriced (especially when compared to the Sigma lenses).
  14. The Sigma 56 f/1.4 is a remarkable lens! It pretty much stays glued to my a6500. I'm contemplating on the 16-55 f/2.8 myself but feel like in the end the pictures of the Sigma will be tremendously nicer and I'd still keep putting it back on the camera leaving the zoom to gather dust. When do people stop asking these questions? Don't think about the focal length of the lens as a variable parameter. It's the sensor size that is a variable and affecting the field of view of the final image (and in a sense, the size of the image circle projected by the lens is too). Since you'll be using it on an APS-C sized sensor, the field of view will be equivalent to a 24-75 mm lens on a fullframe sensor. No focal length ever changes! Except of course when you turn the zoom ring of your zoom lens 😉
  15. Totally different optical design. Though the SAL 16-50 is good value for money, the SEL 16-55 is a state of the art optical design. The E-mount lens is designed for mirrorless camera's, the A-mount lens for cameras with a mirror box. I expect it to perform a whole lot better than the A-mount lens, but noone knows for sure until some proper reviews are published.
×
×
  • Create New...