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

woof woof said:
With a baffled look on her face Mrs WW said yesterday "You had a vote to leave the EC but you may not leave? This is democracy? We learned democracy from the UK and you do this?"

Well... apparently so.
Click to expand...
the media love to stir up half the s*** flying around,a possible this a possible that,drop the media and everythings going ok:)
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
the media love to stir up half the s*** flying around,a possible this a possible that,drop the media and everythings going ok:)
Click to expand...
Can't help feeling that we're the laughing stock of the world. Either that or like Mrs WW they're wondering WTF is going on. Thank gosh we're known for our sense of humour.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
View attachment 138800
Click to expand...

At least Jessica sits still [emoji3]

The key could do with being a touch higher but I don’t personally mind it around there. Around 1-2 o’clock in the catchlight is optimal imo. Where’s the light on her right shoulder from? Looks like a bit of spill from the key, a touch more feathering?

Little things that I don’t always pick up until afterwards but I’m trying more to slow down and study things. But that’s with a still model. Rosie still won’t sit long enough and so everything is a little ‘loose.’
 
Last edited:
Livin The Dream said:
At least Jessica sits still [emoji3]

The key could do with being a touch higher but I don’t personally mind it around there. Around 1-2 o’clock in the catchlight is optimal imo. Where’s the light on her right shoulder from? Fill or spill off the key?
Click to expand...
Spill from the key, it's aimed 90 degrees across her. No fill light, but there probably should be, or a reflector
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Spill from the key, it's aimed 90 degrees across her. No fill light, but there probably should be, or a reflector
Click to expand...

I was editing whilst you typed. I can see it’s spill on second look.

I like heavy shadow personally, so fill is to personal taste and to the feel of what you want to achieve. Small rooms sometimes don’t help with light bouncing off and filling in anyway. I bought a 5ft reflector with a black side to help absorb. Worth picking up a cheap one. It’s a cheap V flat for home use.

Are you enjoying it? I really do, but the attention span of my in-house models isn’t particularly good.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I was editing whilst you typed. I can see it’s spill on second look.

I like heavy shadow personally, so fill is to personal taste and to the feel of what you want to achieve. Small rooms sometimes don’t help with light bouncing off and filling in anyway. I bought a 5ft reflector with a black side to help absorb. Worth picking up a cheap one. It’s a cheap V flat for home use.

Are you enjoying it? I really do, but the attention span of my in-house models isn’t particularly good.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am, the drive to Birmingham every couple of months is a pain, but worth it to learn more.

Just using the middle room in the house
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Yeah I am, the drive to Birmingham every couple of months is a pain, but worth it to learn more.

Just using the middle room in the house
Click to expand...

Where you going, flash centre?

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was, shoot in mono. Easier to see shadow detail and assess it on the fly.

I’m hoping to do a few things I have in mind before xmas if I can get Rosie interested. Got an outdoor family session this weekend though.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Where you going, flash centre?

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was, shoot in mono. Easier to see shadow detail and assess it on the fly.

I’m hoping to do a few things I have in mind before xmas if I can get Rosie interested. Got an outdoor family session this weekend though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, being trained by Gary Hill of Art Of The Portrait, using the flash centre as a base as he's in Lancaster so it's roughly half way
 
addicknchips said:
Been out all day. Did the pound rally after the slapping about it took yesterday? Can’t see grey prices falling if the sh@t show at Westminster continues.
Click to expand...

Agreed, prices will shoot up if anything....
I’m buying all my gadget / electronic needs now.... bought something with a alpha 9 processor in it ;)
Apple shopping next week or so. Lol
Still no sign of my Sony FE 24mm f1.4 GM though :(
This is probably my last GM lens.
 
Thought I would ask you all about Sony mirrorless as I’m toying with the idea of moving over. it’s likely to be the future, and now Nikon have laid out their hand there are likely to be lens changes in the future whatever manufacturer I’m with. I shoot landscapes and wildlife. For landscapes I know it would be excellent especially the lighter weight and EVF to see the image/DoF etc before taking it. For wildlife I’m not so sure about it due to concerns over low light AF (most likely it’s probably not a concern but would be great to know either way) but also the current line up of available lenses. The lack of telephoto lenses is currently a concern but I’m sure that would improve over time. Currently the 100-400 f5.6 looks like the only option for wildlife (400 f2.8 is way out of my price range a when a 300 f2.8 comes it will likely be too much too). Anyone have any experience of that lens? Other lenses I would be looking are likely to be the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4. Not sure what camera I would be looking at, probably an A7RII or A7RIII but not sure if that’s really the right camera for both wildlife and landscapes.

So what advice would anyone have?
 
rob-nikon said:
Thought I would ask you all about Sony mirrorless as I’m toying with the idea of moving over. it’s likely to be the future, and now Nikon have laid out their hand there are likely to be lens changes in the future whatever manufacturer I’m with. I shoot landscapes and wildlife. For landscapes I know it would be excellent especially the lighter weight and EVF to see the image/DoF etc before taking it. For wildlife I’m not so sure about it due to concerns over low light AF (most likely it’s probably not a concern but would be great to know either way) but also the current line up of available lenses. The lack of telephoto lenses is currently a concern but I’m sure that would improve over time. Currently the 100-400 f5.6 looks like the only option for wildlife (400 f2.8 is way out of my price range a when a 300 f2.8 comes it will likely be too much too). Anyone have any experience of that lens? Other lenses I would be looking are likely to be the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4. Not sure what camera I would be looking at, probably an A7RII or A7RIII but not sure if that’s really the right camera for both wildlife and landscapes.

So what advice would anyone have?
Click to expand...
So you’ll be changing your name to Rob-Sony.:p
 
rob-nikon said:
Thought I would ask you all about Sony mirrorless as I’m toying with the idea of moving over. it’s likely to be the future, and now Nikon have laid out their hand there are likely to be lens changes in the future whatever manufacturer I’m with. I shoot landscapes and wildlife. For landscapes I know it would be excellent especially the lighter weight and EVF to see the image/DoF etc before taking it. For wildlife I’m not so sure about it due to concerns over low light AF (most likely it’s probably not a concern but would be great to know either way) but also the current line up of available lenses. The lack of telephoto lenses is currently a concern but I’m sure that would improve over time. Currently the 100-400 f5.6 looks like the only option for wildlife (400 f2.8 is way out of my price range a when a 300 f2.8 comes it will likely be too much too). Anyone have any experience of that lens? Other lenses I would be looking are likely to be the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4. Not sure what camera I would be looking at, probably an A7RII or A7RIII but not sure if that’s really the right camera for both wildlife and landscapes.

So what advice would anyone have?
Click to expand...
Like you I'm price limited for long primes so the 100-400GM is the lens I've settled on for wildlife. With the 1.4x TC the extension to 560mm is not shabby and I cannot notice any significant degradation in quality. I use the A7R3 and the low light focus I find to be good and the 42 megapixel sensor gives me ample scope for cropping. I regularly can produce images at 10,000 ISO that I do not consider record shots only.
44753229045_106934a647_b.jpg

Palm Warbler
1/500th F8 560mm ISO10,000
shot in low light in Central Park, NYC. Cropped image.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
Thought I would ask you all about Sony mirrorless as I’m toying with the idea of moving over. it’s likely to be the future, and now Nikon have laid out their hand there are likely to be lens changes in the future whatever manufacturer I’m with. I shoot landscapes and wildlife. For landscapes I know it would be excellent especially the lighter weight and EVF to see the image/DoF etc before taking it. For wildlife I’m not so sure about it due to concerns over low light AF (most likely it’s probably not a concern but would be great to know either way) but also the current line up of available lenses. The lack of telephoto lenses is currently a concern but I’m sure that would improve over time. Currently the 100-400 f5.6 looks like the only option for wildlife (400 f2.8 is way out of my price range a when a 300 f2.8 comes it will likely be too much too). Anyone have any experience of that lens? Other lenses I would be looking are likely to be the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4. Not sure what camera I would be looking at, probably an A7RII or A7RIII but not sure if that’s really the right camera for both wildlife and landscapes.

So what advice would anyone have?
Click to expand...

I have a 70-200 f/4 it's a lens that has surprised me. It's much better then I thought it would be, very sharp even at the long end and the a.f is very fast. Thought I would miss not having a 70-200 f/2.8 but haven't at all. It isn't a range I use often which is why I went for f/4 version. The lighter weight means I take it with me a lot more than I would have done with the f/2.8 version.
 
f/2.8 said:
I have a 70-200 f/4 it's a lens that has surprised me. It's much better then I thought it would be, very sharp even at the long end and the a.f is very fast. Thought I would miss not having a 70-200 f/2.8 but haven't at all. It isn't a range I use often which is why I went for f/4 version. The lighter weight means I take it with me a lot more than I would have done with the f/2.8 version.
Click to expand...
So are you changing your name to f/4?:D
 
jonneymendoza said:
Make room as I'll probably move to mainland Europe ;)
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

There's worse things than Brexit. Life under the dream team of Corbyn and Diane Abbott springs to mind. We're really going to need our sense of humour then. Thailand here we come... at least they have a good old military dictatorship. You know where you are with a good old military dictatorship.
 
footman said:
Like you I'm price limited for long primes so the 100-400GM is the lens I've settled on for wildlife. With the 1.4x TC the extension to 560mm is not shabby and I cannot notice any significant degradation in quality. I use the A7R3 and the low light focus I find to be good and the 42 megapixel sensor gives me ample scope for cropping. I regularly can produce images at 10,000 ISO that I do not consider record shots only.
44753229045_106934a647_b.jpg

Palm Warbler
1/500th F8 560mm ISO10,000
shot in low light in Central Park, NYC. Cropped image.
Click to expand...
That would’ve the combo I’m leaning towards. The mk3 looks a good improvement on the mk2 especially with wildlife in mind. My only worry is the variable f4.5-f5.6 aperture of the 100-400 A’s I’ve been used to f2.8 and f4 lenses for many years. If it’s possible to bump up ISO that does negate that issue slightly. Do you have any more images online anywhere?

f/2.8 said:
I have a 70-200 f/4 it's a lens that has surprised me. It's much better then I thought it would be, very sharp even at the long end and the a.f is very fast. Thought I would miss not having a 70-200 f/2.8 but haven't at all. It isn't a range I use often which is why I went for f/4 version. The lighter weight means I take it with me a lot more than I would have done with the f/2.8 version.
Click to expand...
A friend has the f4 lens, it looks to be good. The only downside I can see so far is that the f4 version isn’t compatible with teleconverters. I think I would prioritise the lighter weight over using teleconverters if I could also have a longer telephoto lens.
 
woof woof said:
Good luck with that.

There's worse things than Brexit. Life under the dream team of Corbyn and Diane Abbott springs to mind. We're really going to need our sense of humour then. Thailand here we come... at least they have a good old military dictatorship. You know where you are with a good old military dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Corbyn and Abbot better comedy than Abbot and Costello :ROFLMAO:
 
rob-nikon said:
That would’ve the combo I’m leaning towards. The mk3 looks a good improvement on the mk2 especially with wildlife in mind. My only worry is the variable f4.5-f5.6 aperture of the 100-400 A’s I’ve been used to f2.8 and f4 lenses for many years. If it’s possible to bump up ISO that does negate that issue slightly. Do you have any more images online anywhere?

.
Click to expand...
Have a look at my Flickr, link in my sig. I think I’ve even got some at 12800.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The rumor site has a size comparison between the Sigma, gm and f1.8 85mm's...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/85m...new-sigma-sony-gm-and-my-favorite-sony-f-1-8/

Wowza.

I hope Sigma do get around to designing some lenses for the e mount. Hopefully they'll be smaller than these adapter SLR lenses.
Click to expand...

It’s a stupid comparison as they are only comparing the sizes of the 3 different lenses. The sigma is huge but they have made it look worse by not including the hoods where they have included the hood with the Sigma. Even with the hoods the Sigma is bigger and bulkier but it’s no where near as big of a differences shown there. The G.M is a big lens too much bigger than the Nikon equivalent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top