The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

Raymond Lin said:
The other side of the coin is unless he is specifically going for that look, it looks almost 60's colour film stock faded over the years.

However, in terms of neutral, that is quite far from it.
Click to expand...

Hallelujah.

Raymond Lin said:
It looks really flat, the blacks are not there and it's a little over exposed.
Click to expand...

twist said:
Agreed, @woof woof do you always ETTR? I noticed a lot of your shots look overexposed which makes them flat.
Click to expand...

The second picture? Taken with an old Rokkor MC with less contrast. One of these was my first old lens, old lenses don't always look like modern lenses and I like the different looks you can get and this is partly why I have multiple lenses of the same focal length.

No, I don't always ETTR but often take pictures in what I'd say is difficult light with old lenses and process for taste.

Pictures of the same subject taken with various 35, 45, 50, 55 and 85mm lenses.

DSC02431.jpg

DSC07654.JPG


DSC07924.JPG

DSC08392.JPG

DSC09089.JPG

I have the modern Sony 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 too :D

PS.
I have a folder I put pictures in which I put on a slideshow so I can glance as I come in and out of the room. I've just checked it and only one picture in it was taken with a modern AF lens, Oly 17mm f1.7 on GX80. Guess I just like a slightly off look.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
(EDIT: Whoops, just seen your images are 'do not edit.' Sorry, mate. Have removed and deleted my edit of your pic)

I shoot in that sort of situation a lot. I think your problems were mainly in temperature and saturation. When I'm editing tough lighting I start by zooming in tight on the subject and working to get the skin tone mostly right. In many situations, when you then zoom out it's perfect.
Click to expand...

No need, feel free, see my post.
:D
 
On the subject of pictures being slightly off, I had a phase of doing this and I keep thinking of having another go with my A7. What do you think? Not taken with a Sony camera.

1110113_1.jpg

_1110187_1.jpg

_1110293_1.jpg

_1110298_1.jpg

_1110313_1.jpg

I was trying to reproduce the look of old pictures I'd seen in non photography exhibits, lack of contrast, too much, blown up way too big, faded and or generally suffered over the years.
 
Last edited:
PauBass said:
Any ideas on what I might have been doing wrong? Or was it the camera?...I want to think it was me and not the camera:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've had similar experiences and I'm not sure of the cause, it's confusing because they shouldn't be difficult subjects and yet it doesn't get focus.

It's even more annoying when you turn on magnification and focus locks instantly on the same static subject, why should that make any difference to the camera?
 
PauBass said:
Yesterday I had a newborn photoshoot, it was my first with my new a7iii, for lens I chose the 24-70 GM

I opted for using AF Single with Flexible Spot small to place the focus where I wanted it, sometimes it would be on the feet, hands, fingers, eyes....
The photoshoot started and the camera seemed to focus well with no problems, after a while it would not focus at all in the eyes area, it would hunt but it would not lock focus at all, it was very frustrating.

In the room there was enough light from my strobe modelling lights and the ambient light, I was using mechanical shutter with Live Preview Off, Eye AF off too and no Face detect, just placing the focus on the eye and it would not focus at all.

Not sure if had anything to do, but as the baby was naked we had a heater on and the studio room got quite hot.

Any ideas on what I might have been doing wrong? Or was it the camera?...I want to think it was me and not the camera:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Babies are tiny! So are you sure you weren't past the MFD of the lens. I made this mistake when I was shooting my 6 month old son then realised he's small and I had gone slightly over MFD trying to get close with a 35mm.
 
nandbytes said:
Babies are tiny! So are you sure you weren't past the MFD of the lens. I made this mistake when I was shooting my 6 month old son then realised he's small and I had gone slightly over MFD trying to get close with a 35mm.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit of a fan of 35mm but I doubt I'd be recommending that length for close up baby shots too often :D
 
simonbarker said:
I've had similar experiences and I'm not sure of the cause, it's confusing because they shouldn't be difficult subjects and yet it doesn't get focus.

It's even more annoying when you turn on magnification and focus locks instantly on the same static subject, why should that make any difference to the camera?
Click to expand...

Exactly, static subject with plenty of light yet the camera did not focus.
What do you mean focusing with magnification @simonbarker ?

nandbytes said:
Babies are tiny! So are you sure you weren't past the MFD of the lens. I made this mistake when I was shooting my 6 month old son then realised he's small and I had gone slightly over MFD trying to get close with a 35mm.
Click to expand...

No, I was not taking any close ups when it started happening, I was shooting a full baby with props photo from 5 feet away, zooming in with the 24-70 to about 55mm, and it would not focus...it was very frustrating.
 
PauBass said:
Exactly, static subject with plenty of light yet the camera did not focus.
What do you mean focusing with magnification @simonbarker ?
Click to expand...

I mean the magnification option for the viewfinder, I have it bound to a custom key. Those times where getting focus should be easy but it fails it can usually acquire focus when magnified, I found that out with the FE 90mm as it seems to struggle a bit more than other lenses with AF.

Magnification is not a solution but it shows the camera should be capable of getting focus, as to why it's not? I'm still at a loss.
 
I suppose it depends on what you want to do with the final picture but if it's just to be viewed on screen or just printed to a good size rather than the side of a barn maybe standing further back to avoid perspective distortion and cropping post capture could be an option.
 
I've been trying out my new (to me) Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4 on my A7 and am starting to get used to it. As a lens it's tiny and the focusing tab felt a bit awkward at first but is beginning to feel more natural the more I use it. These were all taken at Chester Zoo yesterday on my A7.

Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4 On Sony A7 @Chester Zoo by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4 On Sony A7 @Chester Zoo by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4 On Sony A7 @Chester Zoo by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr
 
So I've just ordered the 35 and 85 art lenses after buying the 50

I've listed my brand new 55 Zeiss and Batis 85 in the classifieds
 
This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOC-VRfCt0Y
 
You do know that Ken has previously stolen images and lapped it up as his own.
snerkler said:
This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOC-VRfCt0Y
Click to expand...
 
snerkler said:
This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?
Click to expand...

Credit where credit is due, Wheeler doesn't need the help of anyone to look like a complete numpty.
 
Anyone using the Samyang 35 1.4 af lens? would be keen to hear any fed back on how you are finding it, plus if your able to compare the performance to the sigma 35mm with the MC-11 adapter on the a7iii that would be a bonus as well :) Thanks
 
RPhotos said:
Anyone using the Samyang 35 1.4 af lens? would be keen to hear any fed back on how you are finding it, plus if your able to compare the performance to the sigma 35mm with the MC-11 adapter on the a7iii that would be a bonus as well :) Thanks
Click to expand...
@twists has one
 
jonneymendoza said:
You do know that Ken has previously stolen images and lapped it up as his own.
Click to expand...
YEah I do, but I think you've missed my point. From the video and the SOOC shots it does appear like Ken's an 'all the gear and no idea' kinda fellow. However, my point was that Jason posted a completely biased video to highlight Ken's (alleged) inadequacies as a photographer. Why did he feel the need to do that? All seems a bit childish and a bit of a cheap shot to me. Just my opinion though ;)
 
snerkler said:
YEah I do, but I think you've missed my point. From the video and the SOOC shots it does appear like Ken's an 'all the gear and no idea' kinda fellow. However, my point was that Jason posted a completely biased video to highlight Ken's (alleged) inadequacies as a photographer. Why did he feel the need to do that? All seems a bit childish and a bit of a cheap shot to me. Just my opinion though ;)
Click to expand...
yea true but tbh we already have a dedicted trhead about this so am not sure why its been talked here? Have a read at my responses over the other thread plus others
 
jonneymendoza said:
yea true but tbh we already have a dedicted trhead about this so am not sure why its been talked here? Have a read at my responses over the other thread plus others
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't realise that. Last time I saw any vids/posts about it it was on here ;)
 
Sobering. On the one hand K Wheeler is a whinging ar@e that isn’t doing any harm but this shows the damage being an ar@e can do. and for what?
 
shoshone said:
Sobering. On the one hand K Wheeler is a whinging ar@e that isn’t doing any harm but this shows the damage being an ar@e can do. and for what?
Click to expand...

TAG seems to be motivated by internet hits which I suppose is understandable as it's a way to generate income. Being (arguably) obnoxious is just his USP.

I suppose with the ever marching rise of the internet and on line life this sort of spat is the future... If only we could go back to the days of demanding satisfaction at dawn...

Sorry to be smutty again :D
 
snerkler said:
This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOC-VRfCt0Y
Click to expand...

The thumbnail looks like someone has been shooting with a manual lens with the camera set to 1600 ISO. Ahem.
 
Went out today without a camera as I wanted to spend a quiet romantic time with Mrs WW and it was absolutely gorgeous, I've never seen the place we went looking so lovely. Mrs WW said "Why didn't you bring a camera?" No romance! :snaphappy:
 
razor777 said:
The thumbnail looks like someone has been shooting with a manual lens with the camera set to 1600 ISO. Ahem.
Click to expand...
Kens attempts at balancing the exposure are extremely poor. The whole point of HSS is to allow a faster shutter to block out background light yet he manages to blow the highlights by a long way in pretty much all his shots. However, are these representative of the rest of his shots from this shoot, or are these just a few that went wrong that day that Jason chose to show to make him look like a bad tog?
 
There's an interview with some Sony bosses at Luminous Landscape. As it's a subscription site I wont bother posting a link as if you don't pay you wont see it but if anyone has paid ($12 a year) it's there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top