Jump to content

The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

dmclalla

By dmclalla
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
christer

christer

Posted
Posted
…

It is easier for Sony, as the E-mount system has been designed from the ground up in the digital era.

 

I would agree completely with that, and I agree more with that today than I did earlier.

 

Could be that I am now more convinced because I got my first lens designed for FF E-mount yesterday. It is the FE 2.8/35.

 

(Having used Leica Ms for the last 20 years, and having had my own darkroom for much longer that that, I can say that it takes some rethinking and adjustment to get the best out of the A/7r. But it is well worth throwing some well established habits over board.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest polygamer

Guest polygamer

Posted
Posted

MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!

 

St. Kilian in Fladungen/Rhön/Germany (SONY a7, Leica Elmarit 2,8/21 ASPH, ISO 50, 13 sec, f8, JPEG ooc)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
dwbell

dwbell

Posted
Posted

I took three of the best pictures of my daughter of her 6 year life this week.

 

How did I do it, and did *I* really take them? You decide.

 

The light coming through the windows was lovely, but stormy weather meant very changeable actual light levels. So I set the A7R to a 1/125 shutter and chose f/2 on the 55 FE. Auto ISO with a top limit of 3200. Then I set the camera on a table top tripod just in front of me and aimed it up at my daughter while we were both at the dining table. I was effectively looking over the top of it, but not touching it, or interacting with it in any way whatsoever. It was set to medium smile detect.

 

Every time she cracked a slightest of smiles it would fire off a perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp focussed shot of her, no matter where her face was in the frame. I just talked to her about things we both find funny, we laughed, teased, made fun of Mum, told jokes, generally messed around as we always do together.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Tens and tens of amazing "moment" images on my hard drive. So many wonderful purely emotional faces that are HER, not the photo being taken face I have too may shots of from the past. Why? I would guess because the camera truly got out of the way. I don't mean "invisible" like the pretentious wannabe Bressons, I mean it wasn't there, *I* was there. Able to gesture with my hands and engage with her fully, as I do when there is no camera around.

 

It just reinforced my already technologist photographer opinion that the there is no skill in exposure, in focus, in DoF calculations, in edge softness, in MTF charts, and all that learnable mathematical hollow crap. The skill in people photography is engaging with your subject. Drawing out the emotion, the expressions. The rest, quite literally, can be automated.

 

I need a way to trigger the camera with a small wireless remote now for occasions when a "smile" isn't the story to be told. If the camera can be just off to my side, tripod mounted, tracking the face in focus and adjusting exposure I can discretely trip the shutter via a button in the palm of my hand when the expressions are there. But without having a camera in front of my face yet retaining well exposed, perfectly sharp images.

 

Then I extrapolate my thought process and imagine a dining room with cameras off to one side and behind the shoulders of each guest facing the guest opposite them. None of them in each others shot. They're small and silent like the X100S, no clicking at all. They're all set to smile detect and have huge cards in. You let the Christmas dinner run it's course and upload the results to your computer. I can only imagine what a cache of amazing images that would yield, of everyone.

 

Compare that to a guy, even a known guy, trying to be invisible moving around the room with his M9 both in terms of output and quality. Fascinating I find.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pop

pop

Posted
Posted

...
Compare that to a guy, even a known guy, trying to be invisible moving around the room with his M9 both in terms of output and quality. Fascinating I find.


It would never have occurred to me to do any photographs in that particular way you describe. However, if producing permanent records of such events or memorable instants is what you're after, this sounds like a very reasonable and effective way to go about things.

Fascinating indeed, and yet another way of photographing, as I see it.

OTOH, I was invited just the other day to my former employer's christmas party. People expected me to show up with a camera and to do exactly the routine you did not want to go: being (invisibly) there and taking shots of selected moments.

I don't think any way is more or less valuable than the other. They're just different and might depend on your personality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took three of the best pictures of my daughter of her 6 year life this week.

 

How did I do it, and did *I* really take them? You decide.

 

The light coming through the windows was lovely, but stormy weather meant very changeable actual light levels. So I set the A7R to a 1/125 shutter and chose f/2 on the 55 FE. Auto ISO with a top limit of 3200. Then I set the camera on a table top tripod just in front of me and aimed it up at my daughter while we were both at the dining table. I was effectively looking over the top of it, but not touching it, or interacting with it in any way whatsoever. It was set to medium smile detect.

 

Every time she cracked a slightest of smiles it would fire off a perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp focussed shot of her, no matter where her face was in the frame. I just talked to her about things we both find funny, we laughed, teased, made fun of Mum, told jokes, generally messed around as we always do together.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Tens and tens of amazing "moment" images on my hard drive. So many wonderful purely emotional faces that are HER, not the photo being taken face I have too may shots of from the past. Why? I would guess because the camera truly got out of the way. I don't mean "invisible" like the pretentious wannabe Bressons, I mean it wasn't there, *I* was there. Able to gesture with my hands and engage with her fully, as I do when there is no camera around.

 

It just reinforced my already technologist photographer opinion that the there is no skill in exposure, in focus, in DoF calculations, in edge softness, in MTF charts, and all that learnable mathematical hollow crap. The skill in people photography is engaging with your subject. Drawing out the emotion, the expressions. The rest, quite literally, can be automated.

 

I need a way to trigger the camera with a small wireless remote now for occasions when a "smile" isn't the story to be told. If the camera can be just off to my side, tripod mounted, tracking the face in focus and adjusting exposure I can discretely trip the shutter via a button in the palm of my hand when the expressions are there. But without having a camera in front of my face yet retaining well exposed, perfectly sharp images.

 

Then I extrapolate my thought process and imagine a dining room with cameras off to one side and behind the shoulders of each guest facing the guest opposite them. None of them in each others shot. They're small and silent like the X100S, no clicking at all. They're all set to smile detect and have huge cards in. You let the Christmas dinner run it's course and upload the results to your computer. I can only imagine what a cache of amazing images that would yield, of everyone.

 

Compare that to a guy, even a known guy, trying to be invisible moving around the room with his M9 both in terms of output and quality. Fascinating I find.

 

 

Congratulations. You seem to have added an additional tool that gives you new creative options. That's just wonderful!

Please keep on pushing and let us occasionally in on your discoveries with these amazing tools.

Frohe Weihnachten! And enjoy the new tool!

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
Sensor layers are indeed part of the optical system. This is especially true for mirrorless designs where the short backfocal distance does not allow a high degree of telecentricity.

 

 

 

I would rather say that Leica's legacy lenses are designed for film, and Leica sensors are designed to mimic film to avoid breaking compatibility with legacy lenses. I guess the M8 sensor did not have an IR filter layer to keep the optical scheme "as film as possible".

It is easier for Sony, as the E-mount system has been designed from the ground up in the digital era.

Sorry, the M8 did have an IR filter…. 0.5 mm, 50% efficiency.
Link to post
Share on other sites
TheGodParticle/Hari

TheGodParticle/Hari

Posted
Posted
I took three of the best pictures of my daughter of her 6 year life this week.

 

How did I do it, and did *I* really take them? You decide.

 

The light coming through the windows was lovely, but stormy weather meant very changeable actual light levels. So I set the A7R to a 1/125 shutter and chose f/2 on the 55 FE. Auto ISO with a top limit of 3200. Then I set the camera on a table top tripod just in front of me and aimed it up at my daughter while we were both at the dining table. I was effectively looking over the top of it, but not touching it, or interacting with it in any way whatsoever. It was set to medium smile detect.

 

Every time she cracked a slightest of smiles it would fire off a perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp focussed shot of her, no matter where her face was in the frame. I just talked to her about things we both find funny, we laughed, teased, made fun of Mum, told jokes, generally messed around as we always do together.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Cersnick.

 

Tens and tens of amazing "moment" images on my hard drive. So many wonderful purely emotional faces that are HER, not the photo being taken face I have too may shots of from the past. Why? I would guess because the camera truly got out of the way. I don't mean "invisible" like the pretentious wannabe Bressons, I mean it wasn't there, *I* was there. Able to gesture with my hands and engage with her fully, as I do when there is no camera around.

 

It just reinforced my already technologist photographer opinion that the there is no skill in exposure, in focus, in DoF calculations, in edge softness, in MTF charts, and all that learnable mathematical hollow crap. The skill in people photography is engaging with your subject. Drawing out the emotion, the expressions. The rest, quite literally, can be automated.

 

I need a way to trigger the camera with a small wireless remote now for occasions when a "smile" isn't the story to be told. If the camera can be just off to my side, tripod mounted, tracking the face in focus and adjusting exposure I can discretely trip the shutter via a button in the palm of my hand when the expressions are there. But without having a camera in front of my face yet retaining well exposed, perfectly sharp images.

 

Then I extrapolate my thought process and imagine a dining room with cameras off to one side and behind the shoulders of each guest facing the guest opposite them. None of them in each others shot. They're small and silent like the X100S, no clicking at all. They're all set to smile detect and have huge cards in. You let the Christmas dinner run it's course and upload the results to your computer. I can only imagine what a cache of amazing images that would yield, of everyone.

 

Compare that to a guy, even a known guy, trying to be invisible moving around the room with his M9 both in terms of output and quality. Fascinating I find.

 

 

Where can I see the pictures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest polygamer

Guest polygamer

Posted
Posted

Hi, trying out the Leitz Telyt R 6,8/400 with the SONY A7:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest polygamer

Guest polygamer

Posted
Posted

And then I said to the bird:

 

"Attention! These pictures are for the International Leica Forum!":D

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

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...