Jump to content

Pieter

Members
  • Content Count

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Pieter reacted to tom.b in Sony Alpha A7Rii - noisy images.   
    I got the Samyang 45mm and I could not be happier - it's resolved everything! Thanks so much for your help
  2. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in When will Sony upgrade their APS-C sensors with increased megapixels for the a6xxx??   
    ISO-range of A7Riii and A7Riv are the same (100 - 32000), as is the dynamic range:
    https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a7riv-versus-a7riii-dynamic-range/
    Even though I like the absolute sharpness and detail when I pixel-peep my photo's, it hardly serves a practical purpose. It's like the whole 4k - 6k - 8k discussion in video-world. Yes you'll see the difference if you're sitting at half a meter from your 65" TV, but who does that except the guy who just bought a new TV?
    What would be an interesting concept though is if there was a native 'low-res' mode incorporated in high-res cameras. If enabled, it would still read the full high-res sensor but downsample the RAW-file to a lower resolution. That way you'd still have the ISO-performance of a full-sensor readout but stored in a lower file size RAW if you don't need all this resolution. I might even consider buying such a camera.
  3. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Benz3ne in When will Sony upgrade their APS-C sensors with increased megapixels for the a6xxx??   
    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.
  4. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from mlevin77 in Possible to control depth of field in movie mode?   
    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.
  5. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from mlevin77 in Possible to control depth of field in movie mode?   
    Menu 2 (cog wheel) -> page 6 -> MOVIE Button -> Always
  6. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from mlevin77 in Possible to control depth of field in movie mode?   
    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
  7. Thanks
    Pieter got a reaction from LukeConte in Aperture priority mode laggy   
    Sounds like you selected a very small aperture (large aperture value like 16 or above) in Aperture priority mode.
  8. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Ante.Adc in Sony 16-35mm f.4 Green Halo problem | ASTRO   
    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
  9. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Chrissie in Sony 16-35mm f.4 Green Halo problem | ASTRO   
    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
  10. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Brenda in I am looking for the best portrait lens for my a6000   
    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.
  11. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Brenda in I am looking for the best portrait lens for my a6000   
    Bear in mind there's also a 35mm f/1.8 lens with stabilization specifically designed for APS-C cameras, make sure to have a look at that one: it's about half the price of the fullframe version.
    That being said: you mention you're looking for a portraiture lens and are considering 35mm focal length. On APS-C cameras, 50-60mm is generally considered to be the ideal focal length for portraiture. Don't go blindly on this as your portraiture style might include more context around the subject, but for an a6000 camera I'd say the 50mm f/1.8 OSS or Sigma 56mm f/1.4 would be ideal portraiture lenses.
    Honestly, unless you're planning to go fullframe one day, the combination of a 'professional' fullframe lens on an a6000 camera doesn't make too much sense to me. You're paying a lot for a bigger lens to cover a sensor area you're not utilizing.
  12. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Thad E Ginathom in I am looking for the best portrait lens for my a6000   
    Bear in mind there's also a 35mm f/1.8 lens with stabilization specifically designed for APS-C cameras, make sure to have a look at that one: it's about half the price of the fullframe version.
    That being said: you mention you're looking for a portraiture lens and are considering 35mm focal length. On APS-C cameras, 50-60mm is generally considered to be the ideal focal length for portraiture. Don't go blindly on this as your portraiture style might include more context around the subject, but for an a6000 camera I'd say the 50mm f/1.8 OSS or Sigma 56mm f/1.4 would be ideal portraiture lenses.
    Honestly, unless you're planning to go fullframe one day, the combination of a 'professional' fullframe lens on an a6000 camera doesn't make too much sense to me. You're paying a lot for a bigger lens to cover a sensor area you're not utilizing.
  13. Haha
    Pieter got a reaction from mirrorlessNY(youtuber) in Low-light, wide-angle lenses for A7iii   
    How are those good wide-angle lenses?
  14. Haha
    Pieter got a reaction from Wally The Confused in Urgent : Lens Suggestion for Sony a7iii ?   
    I don't think OP cares anymore as he posted his message as 'urgent' half a year ago and never commented on any of the suggestions.
  15. Like
    Pieter got a reaction from Roy in Sony 70-350 APSC zoom lenses on a7 series   
    @Mikey Leigh I think this link might be of interest to you, look at chapter 2.2:
    https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/10/27/sony-e-70-350mm-f4-5-6-3-g-oss/
    It covers fullframe at nearly all focal lengths except at 300+ mm. No need to use auto-APS-C mode at all: if you're planning to crop in post-processing you'll be able to keep much more megapixels than just the APS-C area.
    @Roy As OP mentioned, he's planning to use it on an A7R3, so will 'only' have 18 MP in auto-crop mode.
  16. Thanks
    Pieter got a reaction from Wally The Confused in Sony 70-350 APSC zoom lenses on a7 series   
    Are you sure your A7R4 didn't automatically switch to crop mode when putting on the 70-350? That would explain why it doesn't vignette.
  17. Thanks
    Pieter got a reaction from Wally The Confused in Sony 70-350 APSC zoom lenses on a7 series   
    It was the very question the original poster was interested in: does the 70-350 cover more than the APS-C sensor size? Your post doesn't answer that question.
    Some APS-C lenses do, like the 10-18 f/4: If you put it at around 14 mm it has an image circle which covers a fullframe sensor, so there's no need to use auto-crop and loose a lot of megapixels.
    If you want to really help the OP (and others with the same question), grab your A7R4, disable auto APS-C, shoot some photos at 70, 200 and 350 mm and post them here so we can all evaluate them to see how much of a usable fullframe image one can get out of this lens.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
     
     
  24. 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.
  25. 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!
×
×
  • Create New...