Jump to content

Sony ZV-E10 Mark 1 and Sony SEL35F18F lens: Stabilization

meridius
 Share

Recommended Posts

meridius Newbie

meridius

Posted
Posted

I was recently convinced to buy the Sony SEL35F18F lens rather than the SEL35F18 because my priority is to record in low light mainly theatrical recordings and have a fixed aperture lens to manually control the aperture and not have a variable aperture lens which does the opposite when zooming.

Testing this lens with my Sony ZV-E10 on a tripod has made a big difference and many of the autofocus and low light issues I had with the ZV-E10 and the kit lens have been largely minimised.

However I am struggling with video recording results outside a tripod and by just using my hands. In the camera Settings SteadyShot is Active and set to Auto. However this lens has no Optical SteadyShot and I can't get good results without a tripod. Using stabilization software just crops the video recording and does not even solve the problem. I don't generally take many photographs but of course the camera should be stable. Would a gimbal solve this problem? Any further ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
meridius Newbie

meridius

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/21/2025 at 9:24 AM, John Lynch said:

So what exactly is your problem or request?

 

First things first, who convinced you to buy that lens? Was it someone on this forum, or a shop, or... ?

I think the lens is excellent on a tripod.

Off a tripod this may require another solution when video recording, such as a gimbal, because the recording is shaky compared to the kit lens.

I do not have enough experience of using the camera and lens using the hand-held method at the moment when taking pictures to make a proper judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • XKAES
      JPEG options?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • Cameratose
      JPEG options?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • Pieter
      JPEG options?

      By Pieter · Posted

      If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...