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

This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOC-VRfCt0Y
 
You do know that Ken has previously stolen images and lapped it up as his own.
snerkler said:
This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOC-VRfCt0Y
Click to expand...
 
snerkler said:
This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?
Click to expand...

Credit where credit is due, Wheeler doesn't need the help of anyone to look like a complete numpty.
 
Anyone using the Samyang 35 1.4 af lens? would be keen to hear any fed back on how you are finding it, plus if your able to compare the performance to the sigma 35mm with the MC-11 adapter on the a7iii that would be a bonus as well :) Thanks
 
RPhotos said:
Anyone using the Samyang 35 1.4 af lens? would be keen to hear any fed back on how you are finding it, plus if your able to compare the performance to the sigma 35mm with the MC-11 adapter on the a7iii that would be a bonus as well :) Thanks
Click to expand...
@twists has one
 
jonneymendoza said:
You do know that Ken has previously stolen images and lapped it up as his own.
Click to expand...
YEah I do, but I think you've missed my point. From the video and the SOOC shots it does appear like Ken's an 'all the gear and no idea' kinda fellow. However, my point was that Jason posted a completely biased video to highlight Ken's (alleged) inadequacies as a photographer. Why did he feel the need to do that? All seems a bit childish and a bit of a cheap shot to me. Just my opinion though ;)
 
snerkler said:
YEah I do, but I think you've missed my point. From the video and the SOOC shots it does appear like Ken's an 'all the gear and no idea' kinda fellow. However, my point was that Jason posted a completely biased video to highlight Ken's (alleged) inadequacies as a photographer. Why did he feel the need to do that? All seems a bit childish and a bit of a cheap shot to me. Just my opinion though ;)
Click to expand...
yea true but tbh we already have a dedicted trhead about this so am not sure why its been talked here? Have a read at my responses over the other thread plus others
 
jonneymendoza said:
yea true but tbh we already have a dedicted trhead about this so am not sure why its been talked here? Have a read at my responses over the other thread plus others
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't realise that. Last time I saw any vids/posts about it it was on here ;)
 
shoshone said:
Sobering. On the one hand K Wheeler is a whinging ar@e that isn’t doing any harm but this shows the damage being an ar@e can do. and for what?
Click to expand...

TAG seems to be motivated by internet hits which I suppose is understandable as it's a way to generate income. Being (arguably) obnoxious is just his USP.

I suppose with the ever marching rise of the internet and on line life this sort of spat is the future... If only we could go back to the days of demanding satisfaction at dawn...

Sorry to be smutty again :D
 
snerkler said:
This doesn't make me look at Jason Lanier in any better light tbh, clearly it's video to make Ken look like a complete numpty. Now I'm not saying that Ken's shots are particularly good, but you've clearly got a series of heavily processed images vs SOOC. Not sure what he's trying to prove here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOC-VRfCt0Y
Click to expand...

The thumbnail looks like someone has been shooting with a manual lens with the camera set to 1600 ISO. Ahem.
 
Went out today without a camera as I wanted to spend a quiet romantic time with Mrs WW and it was absolutely gorgeous, I've never seen the place we went looking so lovely. Mrs WW said "Why didn't you bring a camera?" No romance! :snaphappy:
 
razor777 said:
The thumbnail looks like someone has been shooting with a manual lens with the camera set to 1600 ISO. Ahem.
Click to expand...
Kens attempts at balancing the exposure are extremely poor. The whole point of HSS is to allow a faster shutter to block out background light yet he manages to blow the highlights by a long way in pretty much all his shots. However, are these representative of the rest of his shots from this shoot, or are these just a few that went wrong that day that Jason chose to show to make him look like a bad tog?
 
There's an interview with some Sony bosses at Luminous Landscape. As it's a subscription site I wont bother posting a link as if you don't pay you wont see it but if anyone has paid ($12 a year) it's there.
 
Took my very recently acquired (2 days!) A7R3 and 100-400 FE to the park this evening for our dog walk. It's the first time I've taken it out. I set the body to my M1 which I would use for static birds which essentially is CAF, auto ISO, H+ shutter and flexible spot S . The shutter speed is set at 1/1000 with lens at widest aperture permitted by focal length of the zoom, in this case 5.6 as the lens was at 400mm.
The first shot was as the dog jumped out of the car and ran through a darkened area:
42068877302_b2896b17a1_c.jpg


considering that was at 12,800 ISO I'm quite pleased with the quality.
Shortly after that I found it difficult to acquire focus, the green box failed to illuminate. This wasn't consistent, I could get some frames to focus. We then came across a small white dog in a clearing. It was trotting slowly towards us and I failed to find focus in all 6 frames:
42068878122_f58582e661_c.jpg

Could this be a problem of lack of contrast causing AF failure?
 
footman said:
Took my very recently acquired (2 days!) A7R3 and 100-400 FE to the park this evening for our dog walk. It's the first time I've taken it out. I set the body to my M1 which I would use for static birds which essentially is CAF, auto ISO, H+ shutter and flexible spot S . The shutter speed is set at 1/1000 with lens at widest aperture permitted by focal length of the zoom, in this case 5.6 as the lens was at 400mm.
The first shot was as the dog jumped out of the car and ran through a darkened area:
42068877302_b2896b17a1_c.jpg


considering that was at 12,800 ISO I'm quite pleased with the quality.
Shortly after that I found it difficult to acquire focus, the green box failed to illuminate. This wasn't consistent, I could get some frames to focus. We then came across a small white dog in a clearing. It was trotting slowly towards us and I failed to find focus in all 6 frames:
42068878122_f58582e661_c.jpg

Could this be a problem of lack of contrast causing AF failure?
Click to expand...
It could be user error ;)

You say you use flexible spot, what that spot in the middle? Your dog is definitely not in middle of the frame. You need expanded flexible spot of you want the camera to track across the frame.
 
nandbytes said:
It could be user error ;)

You say you use flexible spot, what that spot in the middle? Your dog is definitely not in middle of the frame. You need expanded flexible spot of you want the camera to track across the frame.
Click to expand...
Even if it was the middle spot/af point it’s still not focussed where it should ;)
 
snerkler said:
Even if it was the middle spot/af point it’s still not focussed where it should ;)
Click to expand...
Yes I noticed that. But it's a wall of green with CAF who knows what the silly camera was thinking. You aren't going to get good results continuously focussing on the lawn no matter what camera ;)
 
Thanks for the comments. Point taken about the white dog not being in the centre of the frame as I was using flexible spot, I should have been tracking it. This shot should have nailed it though;
42075755302_dd506e7c37_c.jpg


I was sat in the garden just now and found that finding focus was a bit iffy when the lens was set to 3m>∞ but functioned perfectly when set to full.

Generally I take the view that most of the time it's user error!
 
footman said:
Thanks for the comments. Point taken about the white dog not being in the centre of the frame as I was using flexible spot, I should have been tracking it. This shot should have nailed it though;
42075755302_dd506e7c37_c.jpg


I was sat in the garden just now and found that finding focus was a bit iffy when the lens was set to 3m>∞ but functioned perfectly when set to full.

Generally I take the view that most of the time it's user error!
Click to expand...

3m isn't that far. Less than 10feet if my mental math is still sharp. If the subject was close-ish then it wouldn't be reliable. The focus limiter is only kinda useful for far away large objects like cars, planes etc
 
nandbytes said:
3m isn't that far. Less than 10feet if my mental math is still sharp. If the subject was close-ish then it wouldn't be reliable. The focus limiter is only kinda useful for far away large objects like cars, planes etc
Click to expand...
You're quite correct, however I'm still finding an inconsistency in that if I fail to find focus in "full" mode I switch to ∞ > 3m and then back again and I find focus instantly.
 
nandbytes said:
Yes I noticed that. But it's a wall of green with CAF who knows what the silly camera was thinking. You aren't going to get good results continuously focussing on the lawn no matter what camera ;)
Click to expand...
I'm still to work out how cameras 'think' ;) TBF grass shouldn't be difficult to focus on.

footman said:
Thanks for the comments. Point taken about the white dog not being in the centre of the frame as I was using flexible spot, I should have been tracking it. This shot should have nailed it though;
42075755302_dd506e7c37_c.jpg


I was sat in the garden just now and found that finding focus was a bit iffy when the lens was set to 3m>∞ but functioned perfectly when set to full.

Generally I take the view that most of the time it's user error!
Click to expand...
That could be it. On all shots the focus is massively back focussed, perhaps the dog was closer than 3m?
 
stevelmx5 said:
I'm guessing he meant the fact that there are thousands of blades of grass within the frame so with C-AF the camera will be jumping between them.
Click to expand...
Well it should at least be one of those under the focus point, not miles away in the background :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top