Jump to content

The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

dmclalla

By dmclalla
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

Guest Holy Moly

Guest Holy Moly

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The skill in people photography is engaging with your subject. Drawing out the emotion, the expressions. The rest, quite literally, can be automated.

 

 

Congrats, you found the nugget:)

 

It's possible with 'old-school' cameras as well:

 

GRDIII Sicilian workshop | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

or NikonF Cigarettje | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dwbell

dwbell

Posted
Posted
Congrats, you found the nugget:)

 

It's possible with 'old-school' cameras as well:

 

GRDIII Sicilian workshop | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

or NikonF Cigarettje | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Lovely images.

 

It can be done, I agree. But I found it harder to do with a narrow DoF on a camera with a centre focus patch. The more emotion, the more animated he subject usually is. Animated tended to equal missed focus for me with the M cameras. I heard that the best rock and sway with the subject to constantly keep in in focus even off centre. I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Holy Moly

Guest Holy Moly

Posted
Posted

Thanks!

'Rock & sway' I'll translate it with body movement for focusing instead of focus ring turning, right?

 

It works but there is a lot of hit and miss of course. Therefore those pics where it happened to get "the" shot are those nuggets……

Here an example for doing so:

 

The eye -window to the soul | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Nikkor 50mm f2 nearest distance but a very slow movement of the guy at the bar…

Just one eye in focus the rest in creamy oof.

 

When advanced technology will help it's ok because the photograph counts. Pretty easy...

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
.... about shutter vibration, the solution ?

The shutter vibration issue explained by Joseph Holmes. | sonyalpharumors

Henry

Hmmm.. As I said in this thread before, light cameras and long lenses are not a happy combination.But increasing shutter lag? That would be a solution that does not appeal to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted
Karl logic, it's better in landscape mode versus portrait

 

I'm trying to understand this. It would seem to me that perhaps the camera mount is more stable vertically than it is horizontally since the vibration and mass are the same and only the direction of vibration relative to the tripod has changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Posted
Posted
I'm trying to understand this. It would seem to me that perhaps the camera mount is more stable vertically than it is horizontally since the vibration and mass are the same and only the direction of vibration relative to the tripod has changed.

 

Alan,

 

Thanks. If the shutter moves vertically in Landscape mode, then it would move horizontally in Portrait mode. Apparently the camera setup is less stable for the latter motions. That's what it looks like to me.

 

So similar to avoiding mirror slap by folding up the mirror ahead of time and waiting for the vibrations to die, Sony needs to close the shutter ahead of time, then wait a bit for vibrations to die, and then start the exposure sequence. Hopefully they can and will fix this through a timely firmware update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted

You might find it interesting to download vibration monitoring software to your iPhone or Android phone. I have an Android phone and have Vibrometer and Vibration Monitor. You can rest your phone on the camera and fire the camera using a self timer and get a good idea of how much it is vibrating.

 

I use this to balance and tune my propellers and motors on my quadcopter for smoother video but it works on a camera also.

 

I just used it on my Sony Nex and can clearly see that with the electronic shutter turned off there are two vibrations of about the same size and distance apart.... dependent on shutter speed of course. I guess I could compare various cameras at different speeds and settings. And it probably can also give an idea of how well a tripod or other device works to suppress the vibrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
janki

janki

Posted
Posted

Karl, - thanks for all your postings! I've been following this thread with great interest.:)

I've seen your pictures of the big crane. Vibration and motions will always occur in such a large structure. You can be totally confident that it never stands still.

 

Whatever, - maybe camera manufacturers have a bit to learn from the airline industry, - put on helmet and parachute and get ready for the big flutter test;

Airbus official, - Europe's response to the Dreamliner:

video Taking the A350 XWB to the limit: flutter test - a350, mag, a350xwb - videos AIRBUS

 

And then there's always the best, the classic and a bit frightening:

Airbus A380 Flutter Test - YouTube

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
intermediatic

intermediatic

Posted
Posted
Quote:

 

Some of the lenses on your list should be OK. But I'm surprised you expected an improvement over M240, because of course there are no lens profiles for Sony, and the increase in hi ISO is small. The extra pixels would matter only in you make XL prints.

 

 

I misspoke. It was nowhere near the level of my M 240. The A7R should not be used with rangefinder lenses.

 

I would've given up the delight of shooting with a RF window if I could sell my M 240 on eBay. I'm not attached to the Leica brand (for example, my favorite lenses are CV, not Leica), and I'd be glad to save the money.

 

Given the line of work I'm in, XL prints are a major plus for me so that would've been a plus, but the results were simply unusable. Not ok, not so so. A7R with RF glass is unusable. Maybe in a few exceptional cases something decent can be got of it, but its really not worth the trouble. If the A7R was $300, it'd be a fun toy, but at the current price it's simply not worth it as a second body or M replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JimKasson

JimKasson

Posted
Posted
The A7R should not be used with rangefinder lenses.

 

I would've given up the delight of shooting with a RF window if I could sell my M 240 on eBay. I'm not attached to the Leica brand (for example, my favorite lenses are CV, not Leica), and I'd be glad to save the money.

 

Given the line of work I'm in, XL prints are a major plus for me so that would've been a plus, but the results were simply unusable. Not ok, not so so. A7R with RF glass is unusable. Maybe in a few exceptional cases something decent can be got of it, but its really not worth the trouble.

 

I think you paint with an overly-broad brush. In my posted testing, the a7R performs well with the WATE, and the 90mm APO 'cron ASPH. Others have found the 70mm 'cron APSH a good match. My preliminary testing, thus far unpublished, indicates that the 135mm f/3.4 APO Telyt works well, too.

 

In the case of the center parts of the frame with the WATE, and most of it with the 90mm, the a7R is able to resolve information the M240 can't, which is not surprising given the pixel count.

 

Many shorter M-mount lenses do exhibit corner color casts (which are easily fixed) and/or corner smearing (which is hard to deal with), but not all. Careful testing and lens selection can reward the patient.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Well, it is a bit surprising to me that people appear to see such vast resolution improvements.

The pixel count is 7392x4920 on the A7R vs 5984x4000 on the M240. Not even a 25% resolution increase linearly….

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Hmmm… that not experience of the M8 vs.the M9. It only makes a significant resolution difference in extremely high magnification. So you can see more detail in a church wall sized print when standing close up… Or blowing the image up to an unrealistic 100% on your screen. It has no practical impact in real life.

The real benefit is that you can crop 25% more. When do you crop so extremely?

 

Noise behavior can indeed be a factor, but is normally worse on the sensor with the smaller pixel pitch, i.e. the higher resolving sensor. The reason the M9 has better performance than the M8 is that it has the same sensor in a larger size, not the resolution increase per se.

The M240 uses a completely different sensor than the M9, so that cannot be compared at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...