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

woof woof said:
I think being able to compose with the main subjects face anywhere in the frame and just leave the focusing to eye or in my case face detect as I don't have eye is wonderful for fast natural shooting. I have tended to use DMC but now have aperture priority with wide area and face detect f2.8 on c1 and manual exposure with the same and 1/250 f2.8 on c2 for when the light is low and aperture or c1 would select too low a shutter speed and it seems to work for me. All I have to do is use the selector dial to go from aperture to manual or c1/c2 and set the aperture with no need to use the menu or a custom button.
Click to expand...

Do you not set a minimum shutter speed in auto iso? I’ve kept with 1/250th as per always. But I’ve added that option on my quick menu to be able to reduce quickly if the need arises. But for people, 1/250 is perfect. One crit is that the shutter increments are full stops instead of the thirds which is a bit poor but hey ho.
 
I don't know if my A7 can do that... I just use aperture until the light level causes the camera to select too low a shutter speed then I switch to manual with appropriate shutter and aperture settings. Always with auto ISO.
 
woof woof said:
I don't know if my A7 can do that... I just use aperture until the light level causes the camera to select too low a shutter speed then I switch to manual with appropriate shutter and aperture settings. Always with auto ISO.
Click to expand...

If it can, it’s one less thing to be thinking about, especially when things are happening quickly.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Do you not set a minimum shutter speed in auto iso? I’ve kept with 1/250th as per always. But I’ve added that option on my quick menu to be able to reduce quickly if the need arises. But for people, 1/250 is perfect. One crit is that the shutter increments are full stops instead of the thirds which is a bit poor but hey ho.
Click to expand...

I use 1/125 no need for 1/250
 
f/2.8 said:
I use 1/125 no need for 1/250
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends how fast they may move, maybe not the head but hands and arms maybe plus I usually like to keep the shutter speed well above 1/focal length. Yesterday there was quite a bit of wind too and some pictures showed movement in the foliage at 1/250. A little bit of blur in pictures can be a nice touch though but sometimes I do find it distracting.
 
Livin The Dream said:
At a push, yeah, for weddings. Not so hot for 3 year olds [emoji6]
Click to expand...

Taking a couple of snaps of a 3 year old running around isn’t what I would consider to be a portrait.

woof woof said:
I suppose it depends how fast they may move, maybe not the head but hands and arms maybe plus I usually like to keep the shutter speed well above 1/focal length. Yesterday there was quite a bit of wind too and some pictures showed movement in the foliage at 1/250. A little bit of blur in pictures can be a nice touch though but sometimes I do find it distracting.
Click to expand...

For portraits I use an 85mm lens so 1/125 is well above the reciprocal rule.
 
f/2.8 said:
Taking a couple of snaps of a 3 year old running around isn’t what I would consider to be a portrait.



For portraits I use an 85mm lens so 1/125 is well above the reciprocal rule.
Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a 200mm FL.

Very much dependent on what you shoot and how. I tend to shoot a mix of static and moving and so with the way today’s cameras handle high iso, that extra stop isn’t always needed. But if it is, then it’s on the quick menu. More often than not, I prefer a quick setup where you’re ready for most things.
 
f/2.8 said:
For portraits I use an 85mm lens so 1/125 is well above the reciprocal rule.
Click to expand...

Well yes but for a portrait the main issue may be camera movement but for a more natural casual walkabout people picture and the like the subject is more likely to move or be moving rather than a sit / stand there while I tske your picture portrait.
 
Sam Hurd just IG'd the EOS R is the best camera that he has ever used. Canon must be paying these people

Also watching that/them Peter McKinnon videos was cringeworthy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miserable weather out today which is typical of the first weekend to give this toy a good workout. So a bit of silliness at home. Must say, the first pic is a quick example of a picture just not possible previously, the AF is awesome! It actually puts the AUTO into auto focus!

Might just be early days, but initial thoughts are that the files aren't so clean as the 750's from base iso to around 1000 iso? They are very good at the upper end,

43766102340_f6c4893ffd_b.jpg


She's actually got dad's rocket blower lol


30642488737_2465aa050e_b.jpg


43768345160_ec63a8f576_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Livin The Dream said:
Miserable weather out today which is typical of the first weekend to give this toy a good workout. So a bit of silliness at home. Must say, the first pic is a quick example of a picture just not possible previously, the AF is awesome! It actually puts the AUTO into auto focus!

Might just be early days, but initial thoughts are that the files aren't so clean as the 750's from base iso to around 1000 iso? They are very good at the upper end...
Click to expand...

Lovely pictures and glad you're happy :D

I think high ISO performance has been pretty good for a while now and for whole pictures viewed normally I just don't worry now even though I only have a first generation A7 and a couple of MFT cameras. Actually my 1" compact is ok for whole pictures at any ISO too.

PS.
We had a lot of rain in the night and this morning but what a change in the afternoon and some lovely light too for a while.
 
Last edited:
F/1.4 said:
Sam Hurd just IG'd the EOS R is the best camera that he has ever used. Canon must be paying these people

Also watching that/them Peter McKinnon videos was cringeworthy
Click to expand...

This one had me laughing out loud but I wouldn't post it in the Nikon thread, people seem to have zero sense of humor when it comes to brands...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyZM4Tp9GDY
 
addicknchips said:
Probably be considered as trolling Alan.
Click to expand...

I posted it here for anyone who likes a laugh because I thought it was funny.

Anyone who thinks I'm trolling could consider that I was a happy Nikon SLR user for over 20 years and also that more recently bought some Nikon lenses to use on my A7 and if that's not enough to convince them I'm not trolling they could then consider that if I was I'd have posted it in the Nikon thread.

OK?

That's a minute of my life I wont get back.
 
woof woof said:
I posted it here for anyone who likes a laugh because I thought it was funny.

Anyone who thinks I'm trolling could consider that I was a happy Nikon SLR user for over 20 years and also that more recently bought some Nikon lenses to use on my A7 and if that's not enough to convince them I'm not trolling they could then consider that if I was I'd have posted it in the Nikon thread.

OK?

That's a minute of my life I wont get back.
Click to expand...

That makes us even then after I watched a minute of that tripe.
 
Just because I'm here and loving Nikon.

A7 and Nikon pre ai 50mm f2 at f2. Just about a straight b&w conversion in Nik Filters Silver Efex , wet day walk, looking at the apples...

DSC01770.jpg
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Is it attached to show how soft the lens is? None of it appears to be 'in focus'?
Click to expand...

I assume you're being serious and not facetious.

It's at f2.

She's in focus and sharp enough but as she's pretty small in the frame you have to look closely.

The lens sharp enough across most of the frame at f2 and stopped down it's respectable and in line with what I'd expect from a decent mass market lens of this age.

I bought the lens because it's apparently considered to be a classic... apparently it's sharper and cheaper than the famous name German alternatives of the time and apparently it was used extensively by news photographers, Vietnam war etc. I just thought it'd be interesting to get one and give it a go. I bought three, this plus the f1.4 version and a 35mm f2.8. Of the three I think the 50mm f2 is my favorite as it's relatively small and light and I think it's quite characterful.

It's quite a nice lens and if you like lenses that seem to be made of nothing but metal and glass you might like it. I can imagine it still being useable in 50 years time and all this fun and enjoyment for very little money.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I assume you're being serious and not facetious.

It's at f2.

She's in focus and sharp enough but as she's pretty small in the frame you have to look closely.
Click to expand...

Not being facetious at all!

The person looks very soft to me TBH no matter what you say. (might be a resolution thing?)

Here is a film scan of a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 shot at f1.8 (camera: Nikon F3) which I believe is sharper (shouldn't be as it is scanned film on an old Epson 3200 flat bed scanner).



img014 by Fraser White, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You're subject is bigger in the frame and easier to judge but to me his ear looks sharpest which is hardly ideal.

My picture. you should be able to see that the creases in her coat and trousers are sharp even at this size. You could take my word for it but I doubt you will but it's sharp enough to be able to see the stitches in her shoes at 100%.
 
woof woof said:
You're subject is bigger in the frame and easier to judge but to me his ear looks sharpest which is hardly ideal.

My picture. you should be able to see that the creases in her coat and trousers are sharp even at this size. You could take my word for it but I doubt you will but it's sharp enough to be able to see the stitches in her shoes at 100%.
Click to expand...

I can't zoom in on your picture Alan so can't view at 100%; but I don't need to - I'm sorry you are taking it the wrong way but it is definitely soft (the creases or anything on the person aren't sharp) on the image posted - sorry.

If it is sharp on your monitor then it must be the compression used whilst uploading?
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
I can't zoom in on your picture Alan so can't view at 100% - I'm sorry you are taking it the wrong way but it is definitely soft on the image posted - sorry.
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily taking your comments "the wrong way" but she looks pretty sharp on my screen and I do wonder what you expect to see sharp in a 50mm f2 shot with the subject that size in that picture. I don't think that comparisons to your picture are really the best due to the different sizes of the subjects in the frame.

I took quite a few pictures that day all wide open as that's when and where the lens is going to show the most character. I'm sure you'll know that stopped down to f5.6-8 it'll look just about like any other lens of that sort of age. That's been my experience using older lenses on digital anyway, that at wide apertures you see the character whereas when stopped down they're often much the same and just nice old lenses.

I don't file too many picture by the hardware used so over a few days or weeks I tend to forget what lens I took what picture with so although I've taken quite a few pictures with this lens now they're mostly just lost in the mix with all the rest but next time I take a shot with the subject big in the frame I'll post it, just for you.

I do think it's a nice lens. It's not as sharp as my later f1.8/1.4 FD, Zuiko or MD Rokkor lenses but they're a bit newer. It is possibly about in line or maybe just a little behind my 55mm f1.7 Rokkor MC which I think is about the same age or there abouts.
 
Like I said Alan - it isn't the character of the lens - to me the whole image looks soft and it shouldn't.

My example is a low res scan (on a very old flatbed Epson) of a 35mm negative (HP5 which isn't the sharpest film) shot at f1.8 - none of it should be anywhere near as sharp as your image but to 'my eyes' it is. The pre Ai 50mm f2 should be sharp on it's noted as one of Nikon's sharpest lenses!

Nikkor 50mm f2:

http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/nikon-50mm-12-nikkor-h-nikkor-h-c-and-ai/
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Like I said Alan - it isn't the character of the lens - to me the whole image looks soft and it shouldn't.
Click to expand...
It does to me too. But... I really rather like it and would love to see an A3-size print.
I ofter feel that judging photos posted online is like trying to identify the make of a piano purely by the sounds playing through my iphone.

And there's often no rhyme nor reason, I like markets and character shots, don't like your shot much Fraser; don't like bulldog/staffy type dogs much, liked the photo by Newbeetle
 
CharleyBird said:
It does to me too. But... I really rather like it and would love to see an A3-size print.
I ofter feel that judging photos posted online is like trying to identify the make of a piano purely by the sounds playing through my iphone.

And there's often no rhyme nor reason, I like markets and character shots, don't like your shot much Fraser; don't like bulldog/staffy type dogs much, liked the photo by Newbeetle
Click to expand...

No problems Charley - my photo was posted just to show that a Nikkor 50mm wide open should be sharp where as Alan's isn't. I am glad you agree as I was wondering if I needed an eye test :-)
 
[QUOTE="Fraser... glad you agree as...[/QUOTE]

Happens occasionally with us camera nerds...agree about the Rollei 6008 too Imagine that system updated with miniaturised batteries which lasted and weighed nothing
 
CharleyBird said:
It does to me too. But... I really rather like it and would love to see an A3-size print.
I ofter feel that judging photos posted online is like trying to identify the make of a piano purely by the sounds playing through my iphone.

And there's often no rhyme nor reason, I like markets and character shots, don't like your shot much Fraser; don't like bulldog/staffy type dogs much, liked the photo by Newbeetle
Click to expand...

Yes judging on line can be difficult which is why I like to hear opinions and read what people think. Unfortunately I think there's a bit of a problem here as I can see the picture is sharp (enough) at 100% to the point that I can see detail like the stitching on the shoes and the tag on her jacket zip. I don't think I could expect much more from a mass market lens of this age at f2. As to the soft bits, there's bound to be a lot of them as the point of focus is the Mrs and at f2 you're not going to get anything like front to back sharpness.

Anyway. The lens isn't as sharp wide open as most of my other later manual lenses but that's not the point. The point is to enjoy it and to end up with a picture that looks different to a picture I'd have taken with my Sony 55mm f1.8.

I quite like Frasers shot as the guy and a moment in time but with the proviso that I'd have to know him. If it's a random stranger street shot then I'm not interested but in another 20 years maybe it'll be a nostalgic moment in time but today it looks a bit too modern to interest me as street photography of strangers but that's just me, I don't really like modern street photography and much prefer street photography with some historical interest and character. Nice though that shot is and sharp enough too I don't think comparing it to mine tells me much about the lens I used, it isn't really all that much help as to me the shots are too different.
 
Livin The Dream said:
At a push, yeah, for weddings. Not so hot for 3 year olds [emoji6]
Click to expand...

Yeah I do the same, children even when sat down are still always moving. 1/125 is borderline so I'm always at least 1/250 as well. If they're running around then even higher as 1/250 is obviously to slow to stop that kind of motion. I've been able to drop the shutter speed as they get older :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes judging on line can be difficult which is why I like to hear opinions and read what people think. Unfortunately I think there's a bit of a problem here as I can see the picture is sharp (enough) at 100% to the point that I can see detail like the stitching on the shoes and the tag on her jacket zip. I don't think I could expect much more from a mass market lens of this age at f2. As to the soft bits, there's bound to be a lot of them as the point of focus is the Mrs and at f2 you're not going to get anything like front to back sharpness.

Anyway. The lens isn't as sharp wide open as most of my other later manual lenses but that's not the point. The point is to enjoy it and to end up with a picture that looks different to a picture I'd have taken with my Sony 55mm f1.8.

I quite like Frasers shot as the guy and a moment in time but with the proviso that I'd have to know him. If it's a random stranger street shot then I'm not interested but in another 20 years maybe it'll be a nostalgic moment in time but today it looks a bit too modern to interest me as street photography of strangers but that's just me, I don't really like modern street photography and much prefer street photography with some historical interest and character. Nice though that shot is and sharp enough too I don't think comparing it to mine tells me much about the lens I used, it isn't really all that much help as to me the shots are too different.
Click to expand...

Judging from resized shots on the internet is difficult, but that's easily remedied by uploading the full size version.
 
woof woof said:
Yes judging on line can be difficult which is why I like to hear opinions and read what people think. Unfortunately I think there's a bit of a problem here as I can see the picture is sharp (enough) at 100% to the point that I can see detail like the stitching on the shoes and the tag on her jacket zip. I don't think I could expect much more from a mass market lens of this age at f2. As to the soft bits, there's bound to be a lot of them as the point of focus is the Mrs and at f2 you're not going to get anything like front to back sharpness.

Anyway. The lens isn't as sharp wide open as most of my other later manual lenses but that's not the point. The point is to enjoy it and to end up with a picture that looks different to a picture I'd have taken with my Sony 55mm f1.8.

I quite like Frasers shot as the guy and a moment in time but with the proviso that I'd have to know him. If it's a random stranger street shot then I'm not interested but in another 20 years maybe it'll be a nostalgic moment in time but today it looks a bit too modern to interest me as street photography of strangers but that's just me, I don't really like modern street photography and much prefer street photography with some historical interest and character. Nice though that shot is and sharp enough too I don't think comparing it to mine tells me much about the lens I used, it isn't really all that much help as to me the shots are too different.
Click to expand...

Hi Alan,

The Nikon 50mm F2 is an incredibly sharp lens and is one of Nikon's best so the point of interest should be 'tack sharp' even wide open.

Forgetting the subject matter (my photo was for a competition entitled the 'decisive moment' but didn't use this one, it was just the first I came across with a 50mm Nikkor used wide open) your picture shows the subject much further away from the camera than mine so the DoF around the subject will be larger than I had where the subject is closer to the camera and the DoF on the subject is much shallower.

If your subject isn't 'tack sharp' in your frame and you intended it to be then there must be a problem in:
(1) Degraded quality during upload
(2) Fault with the lens
(3) incorrect technique (camera shake/poor focusing etc)
 
Last edited:
Sony 85mm f/1.8 ordered as my first native FF lens for my A7 III.

Anyone care to comment on the Focus Peaking for the A7 III. I use a lot of old manual glass and found it easier on the A6000 but not in the way I expected. I expected on the A7 III that the focus peaking showing the depth of focus would be a little narrower if anything but I find it quite a bit deeper than on the A6000 so it's more difficult to see the bit that's in critical focus. I know I could use zoom to focus in for fine adjustment but thats only really useful if the subject is pretty still.

For example using my Flektogon wide open at f/2.4 with a subject say 10ft away the peaking shows from a few feet in front to maybe 6 feet behind as being in focus when it obviously isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top