Jump to content

Pieter

Members
  • Posts

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    61

Pieter last won the day on September 25

Pieter had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

5,564 profile views

Pieter's Achievements

  1. Sounds like your camera is set to APS-C mode. Which lens are you using? If it's an APS-C lens, your camera will automatically engage crop mode. It may also be enabled manually.
  2. What kind of animal are you trying to track? Animal eye AF works better on some animals than on others (dogs and cats work best).
  3. Yet the water level in the vessels of the first and second group would be exactly the same (on average). This is exactly what defines exposure: light (or water) captured per unit area in a given amount of time, resulting in a certain 'fill level' of the vessel. To continue on your analogy: due to uneven distribution of rainfall (or photons), the benefit of larger vessels is that there will be much less variance in the fill level of each vessel, whereas with small vessels some will be filled much more than others. The smaller vessels will therefore give more 'noise' in the readout and show a poorer representation of actual local rain intensity per unit area. Even more so if you multiply the contents of each vessel (amplify exposure by raising ISO). Why don't you try it yourself? Grab a 24MP A6#00-camera and put it side by side to a 12MP A7S. The pixels of the A7S will be almost 5 times the surface area of those from the A6#00, but if you dial in the same exposure parameters (ISO, aperture, shutter speed), the resulting image will have the same histogram. Yet the image from the A7S will look much cleaner on high ISO-values.
  4. Ehm no, that is not how photographic exposure works: exposure is not determined by total light per pixel but light per surface area. If you get a correct exposure at ISO100, 1/100 sec f/16, this is unaffected by sensor size or pixel density. Be it a hypothetical 12MP medium format camera or a 50MP smartphone: exposure parameters are the same for correct exposure.
  5. Some things to consider: - There have been no rumours about a new 70-200 f/4 yet. - Have you considered the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8? It's about as light as the Sony f/4 and just as expensive. It is a stop faster, sharper and has better macro magnification, and much smaller during transport. Cons: no OSS, marginally smaller zoom range and external zoom. - The 70-200 f/4 is designed in such a way that it breaks in half when subjected to impact loads. There's a lot of debate about this design because the repair costs of a broken lens are about 40% of a new lens, yet had this design not been implemented the lens might have been totally busted. But given the amount of reported cases of snapped lenses, the breakpoint may be designed too weak.
  6. Dark dots in the sky are usually caused by dust on the sensor, not by dust on the lens. Dust on the lens causes dark dots in bokeh balls when using a large aperture but is otherwise pretty much invisible on photos.
  7. Ok... Seems we have very different opinions on what is a waste of money. An ultrazoom fixed lens camera with a microscopic sensor sounds like a waste of money to me. Yes you have a 2000mm FF-equivalent focal length for cheap, but with an f/36 equivalent aperture... Apart from high noise levels, diffraction and atmospheric haze wreaking havoc on image quality at these focal lengths, this camera has a very basic contrast-detect AF system. Getting moderately sharp photo's of anything but stationary subjects will be a real challenge at >600mm FF-equivalent focal length. To me all this has no practical value and such a camera would just be a brick in my bag.
  8. That's one of the great things of IBIS: all your old, manual, 'dumb' lenses are suddenly stabilised. All you have to do is dial in the proper focal length. I put this in my Fn-menu to prevent a menu dive every time I put on a manual lens. If you set is to the shortest you're safe but motion at the longer end of the lenses zoom range will be undercompensated (it won't get maximum stabilisation). If you set it to the longest, the camera overcompensates motions if you set the lens at a shorter focal length. I guess the end result is pretty equal if IBIS over- or undercompensates motion, but in my opinion I'd rather have some (suboptimal) stabilisation than to have shots ruined by motion blur caused by the IBIS-system. If you want to set it somewhere in the middle, make sure to set it to the average viewing angle rather than the average focal length, to prevent big overcompensation at the shorter focal lengths. E.g. for a 24-105 this is at about 42mm (instead of 65 mm for the average focal length).
  9. It's funny to see how enthusiasts like all of us can make a topic drift in any direction we like. All OP asked was 'are grey market Sony lenses genuine or falsified?', and straight after lost interest in his own thread while we're all still here discussing the pros and cons of manual focus lenses from yesteryear and/or Chinese manufacture.
  10. It's also good to know that when using an APS-C camera, it doesn't matter if you put a FF 50mm lens on it or an APS-C 50mm lens: the resulting image is the same (DoF, FoV and exposure). Put both lenses on a FF camera and you'll see that the image with the APS-C lens vignettes heavily or has black edges around the image. The focal length is the same, but the area of the projected image is bigger with a lens designed for FF cameras.
  11. True words, I'm still trying to catch a nicely framed swallow hunting for bugs, to no avail. But I rather put the blame on my poor tracking skills than on equipment letting me down.
  12. Sounds like your BiF-photography experience is quite different from mine. I tend to shoot at about 15-20 meters distance with my 70-350mm lens at 350mm f/8 on APS-C (525mm f/11 FF equivalent). Depth of field is only 50 cm in this case. Good luck manually focussing that with any bird flying eratically or towards you.
  13. You are mostly correct. For all practical purposes and intents, a 35mm f/0.95 lens on an APS-C camera will give the same depth of field and field of view as a 50mm f/1.4 on a fullframe camera. The ISO-performance of a fullframe camera is also only about 1 stop better than an APS-C camera with the same amount of megapixels. So e.g. a FF-camera with a 50mm lens at f/1.4, 1/100 sec shutter speed and ISO800 produces roughly the same depth of field, field of view and noise performance as an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens at f/0.95, 1/100sec and ISO400. However: the cheap 35mm lens will likely produce absolutely crap quality images at f/0.95. So unless you're into that 'arty dreamy look' of blurry images that are a hazy mess, your money is best invested elsewhere. By the way, the new Laowa 33mm f/0.95 seems to be pretty good stopped down, but that wasn't your intent: https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=615
  14. Your manual focussing skills must be quite exceptional @XKAES but most people rely on quick and accurate autofocus to catch birds in flight. In E-mount land that means your suggestions don't make a lot of sense: When it comes to autofocussing primes in the 200-600 range, there's only the 400mm f/2.8 (€12000) or the 600mm f/4 (€13500). Not a lot of weight or MOO-LA saved there... When it comes to teleconverters, trying to get to 400-600mm range, there's really only two options: 70-200 GM + 2× teleconverter (€2500 + €570) 100-400 GM + 1.4x teleconverter (€2700 + €600) None of these options save weight, cash or give a faster aperture than the Sony 200-600 (€2000). In the end the only viable alternatives - assuming one needs an AF E-mount lens - are the Tamron 150-500 (€1500) or the Sigma 150-600 (€1400).
  15. The flaw here is in your presumption that a FF camera with kit lens should produce better (sharper) images than an APS-C camera with kit lens. This is not the case by default. FF has some distinct benefits over APS-C, but sharper images with kit lenses in good lighting conditions is not among them.
×
×
  • Create New...