Jump to content

Pieter

Members
  • Content Count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by Pieter

  1. Both produce great camera's so to each their own. Let me try to let you follow my reasoning for buying an a6000 some years back. First of all, the fundamental question in this specific Sony versus Nikon case to me should be more like: 'Do you recommend a mirrorless camera over a DSLR?' For the obvious reasons my answer would be 'yes', but at the time my primary reason to go with mirrorless was to get the best possible image quality in the smallest possible size. The smaller my camera/lens combo, the bigger the odds I bring it with me. My reasoning then was that I couldn't justify the price and bulk of a fullframe system so I went for APS-C instead. Then it comes down to brand: - Nikon: didn't have mirrorless APS-C at the time. They now introduced the Z50 but it uses the huge Z-mount so it will never be really compact. Lens options will be very limited for the near future. - Canon (M-mount): autofocus wasn't great at that time and lens options very limited. If you ask me now I think M-mount is a dead end and in the long run Canon will only maintain the new R-mount. - Fuji: great option and viable alternative to Sony. Didn't like the EVF-hump in the XT-models much (don't like that hump in A7x either). I didn't research Fuji extensively at the time as the price/performance ratio of the Sony a6000 was so good. If you really like oldschool manual controls you might want to look into Fuji. - Sony: was rapidly expanding their mirrorless lens lineup and seemed totally committed to the E-mount system (A-mount was pretty much left to die). The a6000 was (and still is) exceptional value for money and I really love the form factor. Many people complain about the a6xxx-cameras being too small but at least they have something of a grip (which most Fuji camera's lack). If you read this far, you have the same preferences as I did and if your budget is limited then yes, I recommend the Sony a6000.
  2. If you're coming from a DSLR you'll likely be used to a viewfinder, which the a5100 lacks. For me this difference alone would be reason enough to go for the a6000. Image quality is pretty much identical. If you shoot movies on occasion, the a6000 has continuous autofocus while shooting, the a5100 doesn't. The main advantages of the a5100 are compactness and price, though the a6000 isn't big either, especially compared to a DSLR.
  3. The Sony A230 uses the older A-mount while the A7Riii uses the E-mount. You can use an adapter like the LA-EA4 to make your old lenses work on the A7Riii. Do take note that your old camera has an APS-C sized sensor so your old lens might be designed for APS-C. If so, it won't cover the entire sensor area and your A7Riii will switch to crop mode. The hot shoe is different too so your old flashgun won't fit unless used with a Sony/Minolta to Sony Multi Interface (MI) hot shoe adapter
  4. It's not just the amount of focus points: the a6400 uses the extraordinary real time tracking / eye AF, making the AF vastly superior to the A7II which uses slower and less reliable AF algorithms. All kit lenses include OSS so the omission of IBIS is not a big miss for you at first. Once you start buying other lenses it may be something to take into consideration. Especially the Sigma f/1.4 trio is an awesome addition to the APS-C lineup but all lack OSS. Sony's 50mm f/1.8 for APS-C does have OSS though.
  5. I once had the a6000 with the 16-50 kit lens. What I loved about this combo is that it fitted a jacket pocket so I could really take it anywhere. The 16-50 kit lens is not great when it comes to image quality but still I got lots of keepers with it without finding the IQ bothersome. The Fullframe 28-70 kit lens reportedly is very decent (haven't tried it). One advantage of APS-C is that it is a bit more focussed on convenience than Fullframe. The new 18-135 lens for example combines a nice zoom range in a small and lightweight package at a cheaper price point than anything you'll find for Fullframe, while still producing decent image quality. A more or less comparable Fullframe alternative would be the 24-240 which is more expensive, 2,5× heavier and a lot more bulky. The IQ on the 24-240 is just mediocre. For basketball games you'll want some zoom range and good autofocus. I think the a6400 will get you more keepers than the A7II there, albeit with a bit more ISO noise. Do factor in though that I'm a biased APS-C lover 😉
  6. Really depends on your needs and type of photography. I'd say go for the a6400 if: - You shoot a lot of moving subjects (family, pets, birds in flight etc): autofocus on the a6400 is much better than A7II; - You want something small and portable; - Don't plan on upgrading to fullframe in the foreseeable future. Go for the A7II if: - You shoot a lot in dim lighting conditions: high ISO-performance of the A7II is noticeably better than the a6400; - You prefer the ergonomics of a larger body; - You consider going fullframe at some point. Which lenses are you considering to go with the body?
  7. You want to see black holes by photographing the nights sky with your A7? You do realize that only this year for the very first time in history a black hole was 'photographed' using a virtual Earth-size telescope, after 60 institutions collaborated and did massive data-processing on readings by eight radio telescopes which were synchronized by atomic clocks? Please keep us posted when you succeed. You might well win a Nobel prize.
  8. The a6100 has a metal/plastic body without weather sealing, unlike the 6300 and up which have a magnesium body and (some degree of) weather sealing. At least the a6100 has metal mount flanges to tightly hold the lens instead of the flimsy plastic flanges on the a6000...
  9. From what limited info I get from this picture it seems to be a 55-200mm F/4-5.6 SAM. That lens has an A-mount so should fit the a68 just fine.
  10. Lol yea, that's honestly the only reason I can think of... It's not like the sliding eyecup is more expensive to make. Actually I guess it would be a lot cheaper for Sony to let the a6100 and a6400 to have the same eyecup. As far as I know it's the only physicial difference between the two cameras. Oh and the a6100 doesn't have the AF/MF / AEL switch.
  11. Only the a6400, a6500 and a6600 seem to have the sliding type eyecup (FDA-EP17). The a6000, a6100 and a6300 have the click-on type (FDA-EP10). Don't understand why the new a6100 uses the older eyecup: the EP10 used to occasionally come off on my a6000 too. Hasn't happened with the EP17 on my a6500. Sony does tend to make odd design choices though: why don't all newer cameras (namely a6100 and a6400) have the beefier and more comfortable grip plus extra custom button that came with the a6500? Why is the beefy grip reserved for the IBIS-bodies (a6500 and a6600)?
  12. I would assume it mostly happens when you move your left hand thumb to the hotshoe as it gets closer to the EVF. There's a couple of solutions: 1) Disable automatic switching between screen and EVF. If needed, you can assign a custom button to switch between either one; 2) Tape off part of the proximity sensor to make it less sensitive, as explained here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3834906
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Movie files are stored in a different folder than image files. Be sure to search all the folders on the memory card.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. That lens is a micro-4/3 lens, not regular 4/3. It won't fit your 4/3 to e-mount adapter.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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'.
  25. 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).
×
×
  • Create New...