Jump to content

Pieter

Members
  • Content Count

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Wally The Confused in Sony 55-210 OSS vs Sony 70-350 OSS   
    Have to agree with Wally. I started photography with an a6000 and the kit lenses (16-50 and 55-210) some 5 years ago, on a trip to South America as well (Patagonia in my case). I'm not much of a wildlife photographer (Google will generally get you much better pictures of the animal you just spotted) but for whatever wildlife I encountered there, the 55-210 served my needs. Anything up to about 20-30 m away will be close enough, unless you want full headshots. I've since bought a lot of lenses and sold the 16-50, but still have the 55-210. It's just too small and light to be replaced by something big and expensive for the very occasional wildlife I shoot. If you experiment a bit more with photography and find the 55-210 to be lacking for your needs, you can always upgrade and sell the 55-210 at hardly any loss.
    If you were going on an African safari I might have advised you to get the 70-350 instead as you really need the reach there, but in South America you'll likely have the 16-70 mounted 90% of the time and the 55-210 will be good enough when the occasion is there.
  2. Thanks
    Pieter got a reaction from elliot_7rN4 in Sony 55-210 OSS vs Sony 70-350 OSS   
    Have to agree with Wally. I started photography with an a6000 and the kit lenses (16-50 and 55-210) some 5 years ago, on a trip to South America as well (Patagonia in my case). I'm not much of a wildlife photographer (Google will generally get you much better pictures of the animal you just spotted) but for whatever wildlife I encountered there, the 55-210 served my needs. Anything up to about 20-30 m away will be close enough, unless you want full headshots. I've since bought a lot of lenses and sold the 16-50, but still have the 55-210. It's just too small and light to be replaced by something big and expensive for the very occasional wildlife I shoot. If you experiment a bit more with photography and find the 55-210 to be lacking for your needs, you can always upgrade and sell the 55-210 at hardly any loss.
    If you were going on an African safari I might have advised you to get the 70-350 instead as you really need the reach there, but in South America you'll likely have the 16-70 mounted 90% of the time and the 55-210 will be good enough when the occasion is there.
  3. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from mirrorlessNY(youtuber) in Best budget lenses for video   
    There is no cheap zoom lens with a large aperture, especially if you want a stabilized (OSS) lens. There is the Sony 18-105 F/4 OSS powerzoom (generally considered a decent video lens) but that one is already around €500 and not any faster than what you have now. You'd best resort to prime lenses.
    Are you using a gimbal? If not then you'd likely want to use a stabilized lens as the a6000 has no stabilized sensor.
    Your search is now narrowed down to a fast prime with OSS and autofocus. For street videography, the Sony 35mm F/1.8 comes to mind (the APS-C version, not FE). Costs about €380. For a somewhat tighter field of view you might try the Sony 50mm F/1.8 OSS at €270. Can both be found second-hand for about 60% of the retail price. Try your 16-50 kit lens a bit to see if these focal lengths work for your project.
    If you're using a gimbal then the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 DC DN might be interesting at €350, or the Sigma 16mm F/1.4 if you want to go wide.
  4. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in Sound after turning off my a6500   
    Based on your observations I checked mine and it does the same. It's a fairly mute sound so haven't ever payed attention to it. Your theory sounds plausible, I feel a very mild shake in the camera at the same time, so something is indeed moving. I'd say it's perfectly normal.
  5. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in How to beat Face Detect: Turn it off!   
    I too first envied the realtime eye AF in the newest camera's, without having to hold the eye-AF button as it is in the a6500. Now I've come to love eye-AF on a button. I always have face detect set to Off, to avoid the situations you described. When you then press and hold the eye-AF button, it simultaneously engages face detect. This way face detect doesn't interfere when you don't want it to but it's right there when you need it.
    Totally agree with your idea that eye/face detect should be affected by zone focussing, makes no sense that it doesn't.
  6. Like
    Pieter reacted to Thad E Ginathom in How to beat Face Detect: Turn it off!   
    Why, oh why, did it take me two or three years to realise this!
    I have a mixed relationship with Face Detect. I am usually photographing groups of people (musicians on a stage) and I do usually want the focus to be on one of them. And Face Detect usually  does its job. With focus zone set to wide it usually detects the face I want, which figures prominently in the frame. Sometimes, though, it goes off on its own trip, and decides that it prefers the face just behind that person, or even someone on the edge of the frame. And then it is going to be a fight, perhaps for the whole concert. So I set a flexible spot. Takes a little longer to get it on my person's face. And Face Detect overrides it! WhyOhWhy can't they have made it work with focussing zones, not independently of them? It would then be so easy to say, "Hey, this guy!"
    At long last, yesterday, I found my way out of this: turn it off.  Such a relief! And the best thing is that Face/Eye Detect is still there, at the touch of a button (a6500, not full-time).
    Maybe this is one of the simplest lessons to learn. Sometimes they take the longest to realise.
     
     
  7. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from DimitryG31 in 18-105 is Curving My Images?   
    It should indeed only affect RAW-images. Out-of-camera JPEGs are corrected for lens distortion if you enable it in camera.
  8. Haha
    Pieter reacted to Thad E Ginathom in MF setting for "walkabout" photography?   
    <Facepalm>
    Good grief, so it does! What an idiot I am. I can only think of one shot in recent months that I can recall needing manual focus adjustment for, but that's no excuse.
    Cheers!
  9. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in MF setting for "walkabout" photography?   
    Doesn't it already do that? If you toggle manual focus and turn the focus ring, you'll see a horizontal bar indicating the focus distance. Not sure if it can be disabled but if so, do check the menu for this setting.
  10. Like
    Pieter reacted to Photodog in Sony APS-C lens for women photography?   
    I have to agree with Pieter.  As I retired camera store owner myself or staff often explained that a "normal" lens on a 35mm camera was 50mm.  However a 2 1/4 medium format generally had an 80mm and likewise a 4 X 5 used a normal 135mm.  We never had the so called equivalence discussion.
    Therefore a 50mm lens on the medium format 2 1/4 camera is a wide angle.  Also a 90mm on a 4 X 5 camera is a wide angle. 
    As a "C" size sensor photographer I have no problem understanding what focal length to use.  I find new photographers to interchangeable lens cameras are often confused by all this equivalence BS.  Sue or Joe newbie are often confused by some well meaning friend, or stupid salesperson, when they are told things such as your 50mm lens is really a 75mm.  NO! a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, basic physics. 
  11. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from JPR_Deadpool in Low cost Macro lenses   
    Indeed I didn't really feel inclined to reply to your last post @Labrat1955 after I answered your previous question and you gave me zero response. Leech sounds like a fitting term for such behaviour. People voluntarily take the time to answer your question to the best of their abilities, at least have the decency to reply if an answer was helpful to you or not.
  12. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    Swap the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75 for the Sony 16-55 and tell her you cut €550 of expenses 😉 (€1000 + €850 for the Tamrons versus €1300 for the Sony here). As a dedicated APS-C shooter without plans to go FF anytime soon, to me the Sony sounds much more compelling. Maybe talk to the shop owner and see if you can pay in two terms such as not to cross that looming €1000 barrier 😆
  13. Like
    Pieter reacted to Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    Me too. Unlike the 15-50, which almost always disappoints except in really great light, though, I have had one or two nice surprises from the 55-210.
    I have high hopes for the Tamron zoom trio. I think they will win on size, cost and any performance compromise may be acceptable.  They will probably be able to take better photos than I can.
    But a brief with-wife spending review, 2020/21, today, puts a trio of zoom lenses well down the priority list! 😟
  14. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    Me neither so I'll wait for a year hoping I can find it discounted for 999 at some point 😆
    Regarding the long end: I have a kit 55-210 collecting dust as it's neither fast enough nor sharp enough for my liking. Only gets occasional use when travelling but the images always turn out dissappointing. I have high hopes for the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, which seems like a nice size for APS-C camera's and would do great as an event lens. That and the 16-55 sounds like a great set to me.
  15. Like
    Pieter reacted to deebs07 in Newbie lens choice?   
    Hi, I'm starting out and looking to get an a6400 (or possibly a6500 as I've seen quite a few lightly used examples for for a decent price) and not quite sure which path to go with lens choice. I've largely narrowed it down to the following:
    Sigma 16mm F1.4 Sigma 30mm F1.4 Sigma 56mm F1.4 Sony 18-105 F4 Sony 18-135 F3.5-5.6 I have little experience past borrowing my friends spare DSLR and I'm wanting to keep my initial costs down to see if this is really for me. The obvious choice seems to be one of the two zoom lenses but I find myself really swayed by the low light performance and sharpness of the Sigma F1.4 range. Would having only the Sigma 16mm and 56mm be too restrictive when starting out compared to one of the zoom lens options? I guess another option would be to start with one of the zoom lenses and then add the Sigma 16mm F1.4 at a later date. Any advice would be appreciated, thanks
  16. Like
    Pieter reacted to Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    I will indeed consider it! I think the Tamron will be cheaper in my country, but spending money is allocated for the next three months at least, so I am some way away from making any serious comparison, let alone decision.
    I am covered by primes 30, 50, 60 and 85. The proposed zoom would fill the wide-end gap --- but I can *imagine*  having a complimentary set of 3 zooms, which would also extend the long end. I'd have everything except really-long wild-life stuff covered. A bit like our OP's proposals in the first post.
    Imagination is one thing. The two longer zooms would be an extravagance not merited by frequent use, which all my primes get every week. 
    So far, I have not spent over 1,000 GBP on any one single photographic item. That's a big barrier to cross mentally as well as financially.
  17. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    You sure you won't consider the new Sony 16-55 f/2.8? The Tamron is in fact 17-28 so the Sony is wider and a whole lot longer. Size and weight is pretty much identical. In my country the Tamron is about €1000, the Sony €1300. Neither is exactly cheap by my standards.
    Then again, if you don't mind about the long end, €300 for 1 extra mm on the wide end does sound expensive.
  18. Like
    Pieter reacted to Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    It's another thing to think about, another thing to wonder if one is getting right. Another thing to play with until... I miss the shot. Maybe I just find it easier to fit the subject into the rectangle, rather than fit the rectangle around the subject!
    But, as I said, I am ready to try it again, perhaps with a 16-28. That would be the Tamron, which is affordable. f4 just wouldn't do for my usual photography: Indian classical musicians in not-much-more-than-lightbulb lighting. Even f2.8 is pushing it (hardly like rock musicians, but they do move the head a lot). But it would give me access to wide, and, no doubt, be a great general lens for my next holiday, whenever that is.
    I really does come down to what experience shows us we need. I wasted a lot of money on tripod. monopod and stuff, that barely get used (partly because of those fast primes). Thankfully, not too much on unwanted lenses
  19. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    While this is very true for experienced photographers, for people new to photography it can in fact be sort of a handicap. I found my photo's got more interesting when I bought my first prime. A prime forces you to move around to get the framing you want and you'll become much more aware of perspective effects and environmental elements when composing a shot. With a zoom people are often tempted to just stand where they are and zoom untill the subject is the right size in the frame, disregarding the effect of perspective changes when zooming. This approach will hardly get you any 'WOW'-shots.
    So while a zoom may seem ideal for new photographers, it will help you less on improving your skills than a prime imho.
  20. Like
    Pieter reacted to Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    It depends, of course, on what you want to photograph. I started out (again, after a break of some years using compact P&S cameras occasionally and casually) with an a6000 and the two-lens kit set. In many ways, the two lenses were a waste of money: just not fast enough to do the photography I wanted to do. Result: noisy pictures, not better than the compact. I didn't start getting the pictures I wanted until I invested in a faster prime. Or two. OK, now four.
    Also, although I've never heard this complaint from anyone else, zoom adds another factor to composition. It's simpler to fit one's subject into a nice, fixed, prime rectangle (assuming it's the right-sized rectangle of course). In fact, I now feel ready to try composing with zoom again! So next thing, I'll fill that wide-to-30mm (30mm being my widest prime) gap that I don't find the kit 16-50 fast or good enough to fill.
    The lesson for me was to buy lenses as and when I found that I needed them (and could afford them, of course) rather than trying to fully equip oneself at the beginning. Are you really going to go out and photograph everything from day one? Plainly, some people will say yes to that, and my lesson won't work for them.
  21. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in Newbie lens choice?   
    If you don't have much experience in photography, an advantage of a zoom is that you can experiment a bit with what focal lengths you really like, then in the long run buy a prime at that focal length. It can be really personal which focal length you enjoy shooting at. It'll also be very personal how much you dislike changing lenses a lot.
    I find myself deciding on which lens to use before the occasion, and only bring one backup lens just in case. I have the 18-108 zoom and 12, 24 and 56mm primes. I find myself using the 18-105 a lot for convenience during daytime outings (18-135 is a fine alternative) and bring the 56mm f1/4 when I hope to shoot some nice portraits. It's really an incredibly nice lens but the focal length can be a bit restrictive.
    When I expect to be indoors (tight space) under limiting lighting conditions, I put on the 24mm f/1.8. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a great alternative but can be a bit tight indoors.
    I've thought about the Sigma 16mm as well but I don't shoot wide angle much. Somehow a narrower field of view forces me to think more about composition, resulting in more interesting pictures. Occasionally when I want to go really wide I use the Samyang 12mm f/2. Landscapes shot that wide tend to get boring to me as there's no clear subject, so I use it for closeups instead.
    The lenses you suggest are all great for what they are so it comes down to your personal preferences. The Sigma trio really makes Sony APS-C shine.
  22. Like
    Pieter reacted to Chrissie in A6500: the mystery of the TTL flash delay   
    Basically the flash only fires, once proper focus has been acquired.
    The delay in releasing the flash is a direct consequence of the delayed focus acqusition.
    In a "flash use" situation, the lighting conditions are probably rather low, otherwise you wouldn't be using a flash in the first place. In low light conditions, the camera cannot use contrast AF, because contrast is also too low.
    So it has to use PDAF, which uses kind of a range finding mechanism, which employs the evaluation of the parallax between looking at the same object from two different positions. That's why humans and animals have two eyes, which are a little distance apart. Each eye generates a slightly different image, and the brain fuses them together for a 3D-Image, including distance estimations along the way.
    For special applications, this effext is amplified by dedicated range finders, which use an increased distance between the two lenses.
    Back to the camera:
    The base for the range finding in the camera are the left-to right (or top-to-bottom) opposite edges of the lense aperture. The wider the aperture, the easier the range finder can operate, resulting in faster focus acqusition.
    Stopped down, the base for range finding is narrowed, possibly up to the point that focus hunting occurs. Anyway, a narrow base makes precise distance computation difficult, also due to the limited precision of the computations involved. (A computer cannot distinguish infinitely miniscule differences between floating point values. Below a certain threshold ever smaller differences between two floating point values cannot be represented any more, making those values appear to be equal. In that case, a signal to move the focal plane cannot be derived any more).
  23. Thanks
    Pieter got a reaction from Peter67 in Sony Compatibly for A7R iii   
    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
  24. Thanks
    Pieter got a reaction from Jonas3 in a6400 vs a7ii   
    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?
  25. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from PeterMac in new guy with question   
    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
×
×
  • Create New...