Jump to content

Pieter

Members
  • Content Count

    302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by Pieter

  1. Honestly, why do you need more MP? 24 MP is plenty for any kind of print you may ever want to make if you factor in optimal viewing angle. All these bells and whistles you speak of result in a vastly better image than just boosting the MP-count would (better AF and subject tracking, better low light ISO-performance, etc). Higher MP is just marketing crap unless you plan to heavily crop or print billboard size and stand with your nose against the canvas. For good reason the A7x you refer to has actually stuck with 24 MP ever since the first version. It's the A7Rx line which has received MP boosts because this line is ment for just that purpose: absolute best image quality despite bigger file size and more noise on pixel level. It's ment for those people who plan to crop their images or print billboard-size. Here's one hoping Sony's future A6XXX-camera will still have 24 MP but even better AF and (dare I say) 1-2 stops better ISO-performance.
  2. The Zeiss 55mm is pretty sharp and favoured by many. It does suffer from bad longitudinal chromatic abberation but this is only of concern if you shoot it wide open. Lateral CA is well controlled so contrasty edges are usually not a problem. Have a look here: https://www.lenstip.com/483.1-Lens_review-Sony_Carl_Zeiss_Sonnar_T*_FE_55_mm_f_1.8_ZA_Introduction.html The Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 might be of good value to you: sharp across the frame and cheap in it's class. If your budget is tight and you like the 50mm focal length, the Samyang 45mm F/1.8 might also be interesting to you.
  3. I haven't owned either but from whatever reviews are out there, the 24-105 seems optically much better than the 24-70 Zeiss.
  4. There are indeed much more used quality lenses available for Nikon than for Sony. The D810 and A7R2 won't be far apart in terms of image quality. A thing to consider though is whether it's a sensible choice to start investing in a DSLR-system now instead of a mirrorless system, especially when starting from scratch. Nikon might yet develop 1-2 more DSLR cameras and lenses before they fully switch to the new Z-mount. DSLRs will be a thing of the past in a couple of years. This doesn't mean they stop performing well at all, but if your future equipment-budget increases you may one day feel compelled to switch systems again. I'd suggest against adapting Nikon-lenses to a Sony camera as reportedly the autofocus is mediocre at best.
  5. Whatever you just described as test result has nothing to do with 'noise' as described in your initial post. These image defects are indeed due to the lens used. The Sony 24-105 F/4 is considered to have great image quality but might be out of your budget (much better than the 24-70 F/4). If you really value abberation-free edge-to-edge sharp images, I suggest you buy a prime instead of a zoom lens. Pretty much all primes available are better than the 28-70 in terms of image quality.
  6. 1. That is indeed low, nothing wrong there. 2+3. It was only one JPEG that came out good, or do all JPEGs look good compared to the RAW-files? If JPEGs generally look ok, the problem is in post-processing the RAWs. 3. PhaseOne and Hasselblad have bigger sensors, so if pixel count is the same, a bigger sensor means bigger pixels, so less noise per pixel. For the same sensor size though, more pixels means more noise and less dynamic range when looking at pixel level. A7R2 (42 MP) images look noisier on pixel leven than those from an A72 (24 MP). However, if you downsample the A7R2-image to 24 MP the noise on both images will be pretty much equal due to averaging the noise from the higher MP photo. Similarly, an A7R2 (fullframe) has about the same noise per pixel as an a6000 (APS-C, 24 MP). The thing is, if you don't look at pixel level but at print size, the A7R2 will look much better than the a6000 when printed to the same size. How does one handle this? Don't look at pixel level but at actual viewing size (be it print or screen). The A7R2 will look great. 4. A faster lens will always help to keep ISO-noise down if you shoot in dim conditions, even old vintage ones you can get cheap. The higher price point of expensive lenses is only warranted if you actually benefit significantly from whatever an expensive lens has to offer over a cheap one. Considering you have a high MP camera, I guess lens sharpness is something you'd value to get the most out of your camera. This already limits you to the more expensive options. Otherwise you might as well have bought a lower MP, less noisy, cheaper camera.
  7. Thomas, 1. What do you consider low ISO values? 2. How do you post-process your RAW-files? RAW-files always need noise reduction, especially chroma noise. 3. You should know that the smaller the pixels, the higher the noise on pixel level. An A7R2 will show more noise when zoomed to 100% than an A72, which will in turn show more noise than the A7S2. 4. Noise is not related to the lens used, assuming all lenses are used at the same ISO. A faster lens (lower F-number) will allow you to use lower ISO-values at the same shutter speed, but for landscape photography this is of no use as you'll usually be shooting with a small aperture to get enough depth of field.
  8. Set it to manual focus and pre-focus it where you want it to before starting the video. You can also adjust the speed of focus racking during video. Put it to slow to make it much less distracting when the camera refocusses
  9. You honestly think OP still hasn't made up his mind after 2 years @wm17959?
  10. Menu 2 (cog wheel) -> page 6 -> MOVIE Button -> Always
  11. I'm assuming you understand the concept of depth of field related to aperture and background-to-subject-to-camera distance. So no, assuming you're close to the camera you won't be able to have both in the same focus (unless you manually focus between yourself and the background). You can however make the background more in focus by moving closer to the background. If you enable Aperture-priority mode instead of Movie mode, you can manually pick a smaller aperture. Make sure to set your menu such that the record-button works in all modes (not just movie mode). A small aperture (like F/8) will also make the background less blurred. A combination of these suggestions might yield the desired result.
  12. Is it this lens? https://www.lenstip.com/247.1-Lens_review-Sony_50_mm_f_2.8_Macro.html That one is designed for A-mount. Your a6000 has an E-mount. You'll need an adapter to use it, called LA-EA# (# being 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on your needs and whichever you can get cheaply). If you have this lens: https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_fe_50mm_f2_8_macro_review Then something is wrong as that one should fit your a6000 just fine.
  13. I think the Tamron is a great option for your case. From what reviews I read / watched, it is optically better than the Sony 70-200 F/4 and weight/size is quite similar. I don't think you'll miss lens stabilisation much: - The Sony camera has IBIS - The Tamron is a stop faster than the F/4 lenses, allowing faster shutter speeds - For sports photography, you'll likely be using shutter speeds high enough to not suffer from camera shake at 200mm focal length anyway A Metabones-adapter is quite an investment as well and likely won't give you native AF accuracy. IMO better invest it in an E-mount lens straght away and hold on to your Canon lens until market improves. Regards, Pieter
  14. These extreme ISO-settings don't make sense at all, it's just marketing nonsense. I don't own the 18-135 but from what reviews I read / watched it should be decently sharp. Considering you're using such high ISO-values, I assume you're shooting under dim lighting conditions. Are you sure the unsharpness isn't caused by motion blur? Take some test shots during daylight to assess the quality of the lens again. Unsharp photo's can be caused by a plethora of things. With modern lenses, lens (un)sharpness usually isn't the primary reason unless you're very experienced with perfect understanding of all your camera/lens settings.
  15. Dark corners may also be caused by some lenses if you disable distortion compensation in camera or process RAW files without distortion correction. This also applies to the 18-135 lens at the wide end. Easily fixed by enabling distortion correction in-camera or fixing it in post. Like @Olaf W. said: ISO 1600+ is quite high ISO, with ISO 6400 barely considered usable by most. ISO 64000 (no typo?) shouldn't be used at all. If you're disappointed with the results, this is likely the cause. Don't blame camera or lens for wrong settings or expectations.
  16. Sounds like you selected a very small aperture (large aperture value like 16 or above) in Aperture priority mode.
  17. I guess the (fairly expensive) adapters are only worth it if you're heavily invested in A-mount glass. You'll likely be able to sell the lens for close to what your parents payed for it (assuming they didn't get ripped off in their ignorance of what they were purchasing). Add the investment cost of the adapter and you'll likely be able to buy an E-mount equivalent lens, which will be optically better (newer lens design), more compact (no adapter) and better autofocussing (native autofocus rather than limited separate AF-module in LA-EA2/4 or crippled AF with LA-EA1/3).
  18. I recollect reading a similar topic on this forum but can't find it right now. I'll look for it a bit more. That being said, there's no such thing as a magic trick to prevent noise by shooting low ISO and raising exposure in post. ISO doesn't cause noise: it is already there in your photo even at ISO 100 and is amplified by raising ISO just like Lightroom amplifies noise if you raise exposure. In fact, your camera is better at preserving dynamic range than what you would get by boosting exposure in post, especially when going over ISO 640. https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3389926460/sony-a7-iii-dynamic-range-and-high-iso-improve-over-its-predecessor
  19. Likely you have electronic first curtain set to Off. Menu 2 -> Page 4 -> Item 2: e-Front Curtain Shut. Set it to On.
  20. As said, I own the Sigma 56mm and had the Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS before. Watched many comparisons and reviews and all agree on my own findings regarding those two lenses. Haven't actually used the Sony Zeiss 55mm before but all comparisons (including sample images) agree that on an APS-C camera, there's really no point buying the 55mm over the 50mm (sharpness is equal, both suffer from bad LoCA). I was actually considering buying it until the Sigma came out, just for the slightly longer focal length. The Sigma however really shows the age of both Sony lenses and blows them out of the water in terms of optical quality. The 50mm has OSS and is cheaper than the Sigma, which might be a reason to consider it. The 55mm has nothing which vouches for it compared to the other two options, especially considering the price tag. Of course, recommending something out of your own positive experience is definately a good thing. But if you only know option A, just just saying you like option A without any context or reasoning why you like it so much doesn't really help anyone to consider it over other options.
  21. I can't comment on the lens combination as I don't have the 18-55. Some thoughts: - Are you shooting photo or video? Don't think AF-A/AF-S works in video, it's either AF-C or manual focus - Have you tried AF-S? If AF-A doesn't work I don't think it does, but who knows - Have your tried spot-focus: expand flexible spot? Put the focus point over your subject and it should stay in focus really well.
  22. OP is looking for a lens on an APS-C camera. Various comparisons show the Sony 55 f/1.8 is really mediocre compared to the Sigma 56 f/1.4: - considerably less sharp - really bad chromatic abberation (especially longitudinal) - much more expensive - slower aperture The Sony Zeiss 55mm is therefore not a good suggestion, unless OP might go fullframe one day. Have a look at these comparisons, the Sigma really is that good: Even compared to the older 50mm f/1.8 OSS the optical difference is indiscernible, the Zeiss lacks OSS and costs 3 times as much.
  23. Great choice! I have the Sigma 56mm myself and consider it to be exceptional value. Fairly cheap, compact, large aperture, extremely sharp, practically zero chromatic abberation (both lateral and longitudinal) and buttery smooth backgrounds. Only drawback is that it has quite extreme pincushion distortion if you're shooting RAW. If you're using Lightroom to post-process, distortion compensation -8 should fix it entirely. If hefty distortion is the price we have to pay for such a great combination of portability and image quality, I'm all up for it: glad we live in the digital age where it can be fixed with just a mouseclick.
×
×
  • Create New...