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

f/2.8 said:
You can't get around physical limitations at least not yet.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what causes it tbh, but some do seem to show it less than others :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure what causes it tbh, but some do seem to show it less than others :thinking:
Click to expand...
Caused by optical vignetting which is why just like vignette the cats eye gets when better stopped. I think it just means the GM lens has more vignetting than the samyang which isn't surprising for a f1.2 lens.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure what causes it tbh, but some do seem to show it less than others :thinking:
Click to expand...

Optical vignetting...

www.bhphotovideo.com

Understanding Bokeh

In this educational article from B&H, you will learn the definition and history of bokeh, as well tips on how to use it creatively in your photography.
www.bhphotovideo.com www.bhphotovideo.com

Some lenses do it more than others. I think I read somewhere that it depends on how recessed the aperture is and some lenses may of course have a more recessed aperture than others which could explain why some lenses do it more than others at the same focal length and aperture but why the aperture should be more or less recessed I don't know. We need a lens designer or someone good at googling to tell us.
 
nandbytes said:
Caused by optical vignetting which is why just like vignette the cats eye gets when better stopped. I think it just means the GM lens has more vignetting than the samyang which isn't surprising for a f1.2 lens.
Click to expand...
To my eyes the Sony f1.4 GM is the worst of the lot. I think for someone like me who doesn't rely on having to get every shot in focus I may be better off sticking with the Samyang as it's the final image that matters to me. It's definitely the best in terms of more spherical bokeh compared to both GM's, the ZA and the Sigma DG DN.
 
snerkler said:
To my eyes the Sony f1.4 GM is the worst of the lot. I think for someone like me who doesn't rely on having to get every shot in focus I may be better off sticking with the Samyang as it's the final image that matters to me. It's definitely the best in terms of more spherical bokeh compared to both GM's, the ZA and the Sigma DG DN.
Click to expand...

For sure.

If you ned reliable a.f and f/1.2 the Samyang ain't much good though. :ROFLMAO:
 
woof woof said:
Optical vignetting...

www.bhphotovideo.com

Understanding Bokeh

In this educational article from B&H, you will learn the definition and history of bokeh, as well tips on how to use it creatively in your photography.
www.bhphotovideo.com www.bhphotovideo.com

Some lenses do it more than others. I think I read somewhere that it depends on how recessed the aperture is and some lenses may of course have a more recessed aperture than others which could explain why some lenses do it more than others at the same focal length and aperture but why the aperture should be more or less recessed I don't know. We need a lens designer or someone good at googling to tell us.
Click to expand...
Interesting that, thanks (y)
 
f/2.8 said:
For sure.

If you ned reliable a.f and f/1.2 the Samyang ain't much good though. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I've said it before if I was making money from it I'd only buy Sony lenses (y)
 
snerkler said:
To my eyes the Sony f1.4 GM is the worst of the lot. I think for someone like me who doesn't rely on having to get every shot in focus I may be better off sticking with the Samyang as it's the final image that matters to me. It's definitely the best in terms of more spherical bokeh compared to both GM's, the ZA and the Sigma DG DN.
Click to expand...
if you don't need f1.4 there's more options. The cat's eye is more easily controlled in smaller aperture lenses.
 
I've been trying to find more on the cats eye effect but not having much success.

I'm sure I read somewhere that it's due to the position of the aperture, more or less recessed, but I can't find that today. I know it's caused by the shape of the aperture when seen at an angle but I can't find an explanation as to why some lenses display this more than others at the same focal length and aperture, assuming that's true.

I assume that it is possible to decrease this effect by design as it's clearly possible to increase it as with the Petzval lenses which AFAIK make this a feature. Perhaps as some Sony lenses seem to be designed to be smaller the issue is more likely? I suppose if the lens is bigger that could help? Perhaps a larger lens perhaps with a larger image circle and with an aperture which looks more rounded even when viewed at an angle would show this less?

If anyone has a source for this pls post :D
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
if you don't need f1.4 there's more options. The cat's eye is more easily controlled in smaller aperture lenses.
Click to expand...
Needs to be f1.4 or f1.2 ;)
woof woof said:
I've been trying to find more on the cats eye effect but not having much success.

I'm sure I read somewhere that it's due to the position of the aperture, more or less recessed, but I can't find that today. I know it's caused by the shape of the aperture when seen at an angle but I can't find an explanation as to why some lenses display this more than others at the same focal length and aperture, assuming that's true.

I assume that it is possible to decrease this effect by design as it's clearly possible to increase it as with the Petzval lenses which AFAIK make this a feature. Perhaps as some Sony lenses seem to be designed to be smaller the issue is more likely? I suppose if the lens is bigger that could help? Perhaps a larger lens perhaps with a larger image circle and with an aperture which looks more rounded even when viewed at an angle would show this less?

If anyone has a source for this pls post :D
Click to expand...
That article you listed mentions that it's in the design of the lens, I'm not sure manufacturers are going to give away exactly how they designed them. It also explains how aspherical lenses reduce this effect, but increase the onion ring appearance although some manage to minimise this with certain polishing techniques. It also talks about those that have deliberately designed the lens to give the swirl bokeh effect, not sure why anyone would desire that :puke: ;)
 
snerkler said:
Needs to be f1.4 or f1.2 ;)

That article you listed mentions that it's in the design of the lens, I'm not sure manufacturers are going to give away exactly how they designed them. It also explains how aspherical lenses reduce this effect, but increase the onion ring appearance although some manage to minimise this with certain polishing techniques. It also talks about those that have deliberately designed the lens to give the swirl bokeh effect, not sure why anyone would desire that :puke: ;)
Click to expand...

I can see the appeal and I have seen some striking (in a good way) pictures showing it but I don't think I'd buy a lens specifically for this effect. As usual, I suppose whatever is out there will always find a certain number of people who'll see it as just what they want :D
 
The Vivian Maier thread got me thinking about perspective. Watching a documentary about her and also a vid made by Manny Ortiz has made me think about perspective more when taking people pictures although I suppose this first struck me in my film days when I was using a 35mm lens and realised that I could make my GF's legs look longer if I took the picture from a certain height and angle :D

I suppose we all think about camera height and angle and position for perspective effect rather than just to get the subject in some if not all of the time but I think there's also an argument for normal eye level PoV as that's how we largely see the world.

When I next get time to go out with a camera :D I might make an effort to take some eye height / normal human PoV pictures. Just for fun :D
 
Bluebells in a pot.

A7 and Minolta Rokkor 135mm f2.8 wide open and then stopped down. Both crops as the MFD is quite long.

Mtou2HI.jpg


AgCq8cT.jpg
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The Vivian Maier thread got me thinking about perspective. Watching a documentary about her and also a vid made by Manny Ortiz has made me think about perspective more when taking people pictures although I suppose this first struck me in my film days when I was using a 35mm lens and realised that I could make my GF's legs look longer if I took the picture from a certain height and angle :D

I suppose we all think about camera height and angle and position for perspective effect rather than just to get the subject in some if not all of the time but I think there's also an argument for normal eye level PoV as that's how we largely see the world.

When I next get time to go out with a camera :D I might make an effort to take some eye height / normal human PoV pictures. Just for fun :D
Click to expand...
I tend to try and do this but I'm always having to bend/squat down to do so due to being tall. I guess I could use the LCD screen and hold the camera lower down but it doesn't feel natural.
 
It's difficult taking flower shots here as the sun is in and out and mostly in and there's quite a breeze but I thought I'd give it one last go. I sometimes use a No.4 close up filter but it was too extreme on the 135mm so I tried the No.2 and then the No.1 which seemed to be the best option.

Whole pictures.

AsHzDAl.jpg


tn0pP9g.jpg


I would like a longer lens with IS for this. I do miss the Sigma 150mm macro I had.
 
snerkler said:
I tend to try and do this but I'm always having to bend/squat down to do so due to being tall. I guess I could use the LCD screen and hold the camera lower down but it doesn't feel natural.
Click to expand...

Neither bending or holding the camera down seem natural to me :D Kneeling is I suppose more stable than bending and AF does help here as it's quicker than MF. I do sometimes use the rear screen but again it's often easier with AF as judging fine focus on the screen can be a problem.

I just thought that some human eye PoV pictures might make a change :D
 
Last edited:
mstphoto said:
These are amazing!!
I tend to use my RX100vii for landscapes and environmental shots when out with the 200-600G
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike. It was a bit of an experiment and I shot about 900 frames in all with probably about 50 keepers. I could have done with exposing a bit more for the highlights but as I've not shot anything moving before with the RX100, I was quite pleased to have got some nice shots.

It has made me hanker after a 200-600 though!
 
Not interested? I can't see why not. That camera will give a look no expensive GM can match.

;)
 
Last edited:
I need to be banned from the internet, been looking at all this bokeh ball thing and am convincing myself I need the 50mm f1.2, it does have the cats eye bokeh at f1.2 but by f1.4 it's reduced quite a bit so I could shoot at f1.2 unless I find the bokeh distracting and then can stop down to f1.4 or f1.6. Shame it's so heavy, not to mention expensive :headbang: :LOL:

Screenshot 2023-05-10 at 09.29.57.jpg
 
snerkler said:
I need to be banned from the internet, been looking at all this bokeh ball thing and am convincing myself I need the 50mm f1.2, it does have the cats eye bokeh at f1.2 but by f1.4 it's reduced quite a bit so I could shoot at f1.2 unless I find the bokeh distracting and then can stop down to f1.4 or f1.6. Shame it's so heavy, not to mention expensive :headbang: :LOL:

View attachment 388967
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the expression "s***e or get of the pot?"

You have been eyeing up the 50GM since launch, just buy it.

What's the worst that could happen, you don't like it and end up selling it on?

Sure your minted anyway, probably spend more doh on going out for a bite to eat than the 50GM costs. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest, a couple of mine.

Syoptic 50mm f1.1.

aYUlbtd.jpg


Voigtlander 35mm f1.4.

GE4y1mC.jpg


I think a few things to think about Toby are the general quality of the bokeh not just the bokeh ball swirliness, how often this matters to you and the number of shots spoilt for you by cats eye bokeh balls.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Have you ever heard the expression "s***e or get of the pot?"

You have been eyeing up the 50GM since launch, just buy it.

What's the worst that could happen, you don't like it and end up selling it on?

Sure your minted anyway, probably spend more doh on going out for a bite to eat than the 50GM costs. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Never heard that expression no :LOL:

I don't ever recall the f1.2 being on my radar tbh, I've always considered it to be big and heavy. Despite having the A1 and a couple of really nice lenses I'm not as minted as you think, it's taken a long time to build up my collection and the A1 was a great surprise. I can't afford the hit of buying and selling lenses, unless I stumble across a great deal of course (y)
 
woof woof said:
I think a few things to think about Toby are the general quality of the bokeh not just the bokeh ball swirliness, how often this matters to you and the number of shots spoilt for you by cats eye bokeh balls.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but swirl and cats eye shape jump out at you without pixel peeping. Onion ring, fringing etc you have to examine more closely so whilst not ideal they're not as high up on my list as swirl and shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top