Damn it, I keep trying to convince myself that digital images are just as nice as film but they’re just not
Nice shots btw.
*** by Lee, on Flickr
*** by Lee, on Flickr
Maybe, but part of me thinks there must be more to it as so many people are always trying to achieve that “film look”
Digital and Film
Same morning, virtually the same time in almost the same spot
*** [Explored] by Lee, on Flickr
*** by Lee, on Flickr
And another I just thought of......
60 seconds digital, tracked with a star glow filter thingy......
4 minutes tracked on film.....
I will say, I do love the crap quality, grainy film star trail images I get on film - so much so I do keep having MF thoughts..... I am getting better at them too!
Maybe, but part of me thinks there must be more to it as so many people are always trying to achieve that “film look”
I actually prefer the digital one here. The A7 has that film look..
I think that is split though.
You have some trying to replicate an actual film.
Other's just want a trendy/Instagram faded & crushed blacks look
When you say film are you talking about Movie Film or film photography. For me the film one looks more, well film like, and the digital one looks more like 'movie'/dramatic style due to the processing.I actually prefer the digital one here. The A7 has that film look..
. I actually managed the same technique with my Canon 100-400 mkII on the R6 and achieved as many keepers at 1/80 and 400mm so I actually think the OSS on my previous combo was slightly better, however the initial AF acquisition and accuracy of the eye AF on my Sony A7IV makes up for it and I've been able to get shots I would have missed previously
Actually I have a question - would I have been able to get closer and zoom out to get better results? I guess by doing that and without changing aperture I would have increased my POF?Yes, the OSS in the lens and body allow me to shoot with quite a low shutter speed considering I was hand holding. My intention was to get as low an ISO as possible - I could have used a wider aperture but I wanted the plane of focus to encompass as much of the bird front to back as possible as it was just at minimum focus distance (I had to step back to get my lens to focus as the robin was very friendly indeed). I fired off quite a few shots and many had slight motion blur but this one was sharp
I take that back about canon IS being better than Sony's OSS. I have a few keepers at 1/160 at 600mm handheld. I do remember feeling like my arm was going to explode though trying to support the lens steady for any more than half a minute.Yes, the OSS in the lens and body allow me to shoot with quite a low shutter speed considering I was hand holding. My intention was to get as low an ISO as possible - I could have used a wider aperture but I wanted the plane of focus to encompass as much of the bird front to back as possible as it was just at minimum focus distance (I had to step back to get my lens to focus as the robin was very friendly indeed). I fired off quite a few shots and many had slight motion blur but this one was sharp
I’m not sure what you mean by this, do you mean DOF? If so it’s hard to say as moving closer decreases DOF and reducing focal length increases DOF.
That’s the trouble with the 200-600mm, it’s a tad heavy. I’ve not used the 200-600mm but based on my experience with the Tamron 150-600mm I’d have thought you should be able to get lower than 1/160. Of course this will all depend on the individual
Yes, apologies that's what I meant. I will need to try and see if the minimum focus distance also reduces as I zoom out so that I can still keep a reasonable portion of the frame filled. My little robin friend I'm sure will oblige now that I know where he/she lives. I will need to get some micro mealworms to reward it.
The birds on our garden are very skittish, not very obliging unfortunately unfortunately.
Very nice colours - how are you finding the lovely 70-200 GM II? Did you not have the Tamron 70-180mm before?
I had the Tamron 70-180mm and swapped to the 70-200mm GM II. The Tamron’s a great lens but the GM II is better in every department, but then you’d expect it to be given the price.
Thanks Gil, never had the Tamron 70-180, very briefly tried the 50-400 and wasn't impressed but I love the 28-75 G2. Very early days with the GM II, so far very impressed, so light for a large lens, today I was literally holding the body and lens with 2 fingers as I walked around, perfectly balanced. I almost went for the Tamron 35-150 but after reading a ton of feedback from owners I think there was a lot of initial hype around it, quite a few have sold up and gone with the GM II. 35-150 has no OSS, it's heavier, bulkier and doesn't balance on the body as well, seems very prone to flare and lots of reports of mediocre AF on moving subjects.
I managed 1/25 with the Tamron 150-600 on a 70DThat’s the trouble with the 200-600mm, it’s a tad heavy. I’ve not used the 200-600mm but based on my experience with the Tamron 150-600mm I’d have thought you should be able to get lower than 1/160. Of course this will all depend on the individual
Otter With Prey by Mike Stephen, on Flickr
)
I feel like the Tamron 70-180mm might be by choice of lens as I probably couldn't justify the cost at least for now on a GM for that focal length. How are you finding the 35mm GM? Would love to see some photos
.
Despite what you read on the internet I think the Sony 70-200 f4 is a much better lens, don't under estimate the OSS, it's light, internal zooming and plenty sharp enough, others on here may disagree but having owned it I have zero complaints.I feel like the Tamron 70-180mm might be by choice of lens as I probably couldn't justify the cost at least for now on a GM for that focal length. How are you finding the 35mm GM? Would love to see some photos
I feel like the Tamron 70-180mm might be by choice of lens as I probably couldn't justify the cost at least for now on a GM for that focal length. How are you finding the 35mm GM? Would love to see some photos
Sony Test by Simon Harrison, on Flickr
