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

addicknchips said:
Probably be considered as trolling Alan.
Click to expand...

I posted it here for anyone who likes a laugh because I thought it was funny.

Anyone who thinks I'm trolling could consider that I was a happy Nikon SLR user for over 20 years and also that more recently bought some Nikon lenses to use on my A7 and if that's not enough to convince them I'm not trolling they could then consider that if I was I'd have posted it in the Nikon thread.

OK?

That's a minute of my life I wont get back.
 
woof woof said:
I posted it here for anyone who likes a laugh because I thought it was funny.

Anyone who thinks I'm trolling could consider that I was a happy Nikon SLR user for over 20 years and also that more recently bought some Nikon lenses to use on my A7 and if that's not enough to convince them I'm not trolling they could then consider that if I was I'd have posted it in the Nikon thread.

OK?

That's a minute of my life I wont get back.
Click to expand...

That makes us even then after I watched a minute of that tripe.
 
Just because I'm here and loving Nikon.

A7 and Nikon pre ai 50mm f2 at f2. Just about a straight b&w conversion in Nik Filters Silver Efex , wet day walk, looking at the apples...

DSC01770.jpg
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Is it attached to show how soft the lens is? None of it appears to be 'in focus'?
Click to expand...

I assume you're being serious and not facetious.

It's at f2.

She's in focus and sharp enough but as she's pretty small in the frame you have to look closely.

The lens sharp enough across most of the frame at f2 and stopped down it's respectable and in line with what I'd expect from a decent mass market lens of this age.

I bought the lens because it's apparently considered to be a classic... apparently it's sharper and cheaper than the famous name German alternatives of the time and apparently it was used extensively by news photographers, Vietnam war etc. I just thought it'd be interesting to get one and give it a go. I bought three, this plus the f1.4 version and a 35mm f2.8. Of the three I think the 50mm f2 is my favorite as it's relatively small and light and I think it's quite characterful.

It's quite a nice lens and if you like lenses that seem to be made of nothing but metal and glass you might like it. I can imagine it still being useable in 50 years time and all this fun and enjoyment for very little money.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I assume you're being serious and not facetious.

It's at f2.

She's in focus and sharp enough but as she's pretty small in the frame you have to look closely.
Click to expand...

Not being facetious at all!

The person looks very soft to me TBH no matter what you say. (might be a resolution thing?)

Here is a film scan of a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 shot at f1.8 (camera: Nikon F3) which I believe is sharper (shouldn't be as it is scanned film on an old Epson 3200 flat bed scanner).



img014 by Fraser White, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You're subject is bigger in the frame and easier to judge but to me his ear looks sharpest which is hardly ideal.

My picture. you should be able to see that the creases in her coat and trousers are sharp even at this size. You could take my word for it but I doubt you will but it's sharp enough to be able to see the stitches in her shoes at 100%.
 
woof woof said:
You're subject is bigger in the frame and easier to judge but to me his ear looks sharpest which is hardly ideal.

My picture. you should be able to see that the creases in her coat and trousers are sharp even at this size. You could take my word for it but I doubt you will but it's sharp enough to be able to see the stitches in her shoes at 100%.
Click to expand...

I can't zoom in on your picture Alan so can't view at 100%; but I don't need to - I'm sorry you are taking it the wrong way but it is definitely soft (the creases or anything on the person aren't sharp) on the image posted - sorry.

If it is sharp on your monitor then it must be the compression used whilst uploading?
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
I can't zoom in on your picture Alan so can't view at 100% - I'm sorry you are taking it the wrong way but it is definitely soft on the image posted - sorry.
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily taking your comments "the wrong way" but she looks pretty sharp on my screen and I do wonder what you expect to see sharp in a 50mm f2 shot with the subject that size in that picture. I don't think that comparisons to your picture are really the best due to the different sizes of the subjects in the frame.

I took quite a few pictures that day all wide open as that's when and where the lens is going to show the most character. I'm sure you'll know that stopped down to f5.6-8 it'll look just about like any other lens of that sort of age. That's been my experience using older lenses on digital anyway, that at wide apertures you see the character whereas when stopped down they're often much the same and just nice old lenses.

I don't file too many picture by the hardware used so over a few days or weeks I tend to forget what lens I took what picture with so although I've taken quite a few pictures with this lens now they're mostly just lost in the mix with all the rest but next time I take a shot with the subject big in the frame I'll post it, just for you.

I do think it's a nice lens. It's not as sharp as my later f1.8/1.4 FD, Zuiko or MD Rokkor lenses but they're a bit newer. It is possibly about in line or maybe just a little behind my 55mm f1.7 Rokkor MC which I think is about the same age or there abouts.
 
Like I said Alan - it isn't the character of the lens - to me the whole image looks soft and it shouldn't.

My example is a low res scan (on a very old flatbed Epson) of a 35mm negative (HP5 which isn't the sharpest film) shot at f1.8 - none of it should be anywhere near as sharp as your image but to 'my eyes' it is. The pre Ai 50mm f2 should be sharp on it's noted as one of Nikon's sharpest lenses!

Nikkor 50mm f2:

http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/nikon-50mm-12-nikkor-h-nikkor-h-c-and-ai/
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Like I said Alan - it isn't the character of the lens - to me the whole image looks soft and it shouldn't.
Click to expand...
It does to me too. But... I really rather like it and would love to see an A3-size print.
I ofter feel that judging photos posted online is like trying to identify the make of a piano purely by the sounds playing through my iphone.

And there's often no rhyme nor reason, I like markets and character shots, don't like your shot much Fraser; don't like bulldog/staffy type dogs much, liked the photo by Newbeetle
 
Random photos from my time in Taiwan.

JwAvgC4.jpg


ygKESgB.jpg


8bGIbn3.jpg


pOzoSHB.jpg


8niqFEq.jpg


Q1wpngL.jpg


D6B1ExG.jpg
 
Last edited:
CharleyBird said:
It does to me too. But... I really rather like it and would love to see an A3-size print.
I ofter feel that judging photos posted online is like trying to identify the make of a piano purely by the sounds playing through my iphone.

And there's often no rhyme nor reason, I like markets and character shots, don't like your shot much Fraser; don't like bulldog/staffy type dogs much, liked the photo by Newbeetle
Click to expand...

No problems Charley - my photo was posted just to show that a Nikkor 50mm wide open should be sharp where as Alan's isn't. I am glad you agree as I was wondering if I needed an eye test :)
 
[QUOTE="Fraser... glad you agree as...[/QUOTE]

Happens occasionally with us camera nerds...agree about the Rollei 6008 too Imagine that system updated with miniaturised batteries which lasted and weighed nothing
 
CharleyBird said:
It does to me too. But... I really rather like it and would love to see an A3-size print.
I ofter feel that judging photos posted online is like trying to identify the make of a piano purely by the sounds playing through my iphone.

And there's often no rhyme nor reason, I like markets and character shots, don't like your shot much Fraser; don't like bulldog/staffy type dogs much, liked the photo by Newbeetle
Click to expand...

Yes judging on line can be difficult which is why I like to hear opinions and read what people think. Unfortunately I think there's a bit of a problem here as I can see the picture is sharp (enough) at 100% to the point that I can see detail like the stitching on the shoes and the tag on her jacket zip. I don't think I could expect much more from a mass market lens of this age at f2. As to the soft bits, there's bound to be a lot of them as the point of focus is the Mrs and at f2 you're not going to get anything like front to back sharpness.

Anyway. The lens isn't as sharp wide open as most of my other later manual lenses but that's not the point. The point is to enjoy it and to end up with a picture that looks different to a picture I'd have taken with my Sony 55mm f1.8.

I quite like Frasers shot as the guy and a moment in time but with the proviso that I'd have to know him. If it's a random stranger street shot then I'm not interested but in another 20 years maybe it'll be a nostalgic moment in time but today it looks a bit too modern to interest me as street photography of strangers but that's just me, I don't really like modern street photography and much prefer street photography with some historical interest and character. Nice though that shot is and sharp enough too I don't think comparing it to mine tells me much about the lens I used, it isn't really all that much help as to me the shots are too different.
 
Livin The Dream said:
At a push, yeah, for weddings. Not so hot for 3 year olds [emoji6]
Click to expand...

Yeah I do the same, children even when sat down are still always moving. 1/125 is borderline so I'm always at least 1/250 as well. If they're running around then even higher as 1/250 is obviously to slow to stop that kind of motion. I've been able to drop the shutter speed as they get older :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes judging on line can be difficult which is why I like to hear opinions and read what people think. Unfortunately I think there's a bit of a problem here as I can see the picture is sharp (enough) at 100% to the point that I can see detail like the stitching on the shoes and the tag on her jacket zip. I don't think I could expect much more from a mass market lens of this age at f2. As to the soft bits, there's bound to be a lot of them as the point of focus is the Mrs and at f2 you're not going to get anything like front to back sharpness.

Anyway. The lens isn't as sharp wide open as most of my other later manual lenses but that's not the point. The point is to enjoy it and to end up with a picture that looks different to a picture I'd have taken with my Sony 55mm f1.8.

I quite like Frasers shot as the guy and a moment in time but with the proviso that I'd have to know him. If it's a random stranger street shot then I'm not interested but in another 20 years maybe it'll be a nostalgic moment in time but today it looks a bit too modern to interest me as street photography of strangers but that's just me, I don't really like modern street photography and much prefer street photography with some historical interest and character. Nice though that shot is and sharp enough too I don't think comparing it to mine tells me much about the lens I used, it isn't really all that much help as to me the shots are too different.
Click to expand...

Judging from resized shots on the internet is difficult, but that's easily remedied by uploading the full size version.
 
woof woof said:
Yes judging on line can be difficult which is why I like to hear opinions and read what people think. Unfortunately I think there's a bit of a problem here as I can see the picture is sharp (enough) at 100% to the point that I can see detail like the stitching on the shoes and the tag on her jacket zip. I don't think I could expect much more from a mass market lens of this age at f2. As to the soft bits, there's bound to be a lot of them as the point of focus is the Mrs and at f2 you're not going to get anything like front to back sharpness.

Anyway. The lens isn't as sharp wide open as most of my other later manual lenses but that's not the point. The point is to enjoy it and to end up with a picture that looks different to a picture I'd have taken with my Sony 55mm f1.8.

I quite like Frasers shot as the guy and a moment in time but with the proviso that I'd have to know him. If it's a random stranger street shot then I'm not interested but in another 20 years maybe it'll be a nostalgic moment in time but today it looks a bit too modern to interest me as street photography of strangers but that's just me, I don't really like modern street photography and much prefer street photography with some historical interest and character. Nice though that shot is and sharp enough too I don't think comparing it to mine tells me much about the lens I used, it isn't really all that much help as to me the shots are too different.
Click to expand...

Hi Alan,

The Nikon 50mm F2 is an incredibly sharp lens and is one of Nikon's best so the point of interest should be 'tack sharp' even wide open.

Forgetting the subject matter (my photo was for a competition entitled the 'decisive moment' but didn't use this one, it was just the first I came across with a 50mm Nikkor used wide open) your picture shows the subject much further away from the camera than mine so the DoF around the subject will be larger than I had where the subject is closer to the camera and the DoF on the subject is much shallower.

If your subject isn't 'tack sharp' in your frame and you intended it to be then there must be a problem in:
(1) Degraded quality during upload
(2) Fault with the lens
(3) incorrect technique (camera shake/poor focusing etc)
 
Last edited:
Sony 85mm f/1.8 ordered as my first native FF lens for my A7 III.

Anyone care to comment on the Focus Peaking for the A7 III. I use a lot of old manual glass and found it easier on the A6000 but not in the way I expected. I expected on the A7 III that the focus peaking showing the depth of focus would be a little narrower if anything but I find it quite a bit deeper than on the A6000 so it's more difficult to see the bit that's in critical focus. I know I could use zoom to focus in for fine adjustment but thats only really useful if the subject is pretty still.

For example using my Flektogon wide open at f/2.4 with a subject say 10ft away the peaking shows from a few feet in front to maybe 6 feet behind as being in focus when it obviously isn't.
 
Fraser, I have the whole picture here it's pretty sharp on my screen to the point that I can see details in her shoes and zip at 100%. I really couldn't expect much more from a lens of this age.
 
woof woof said:
Fraser, I have the whole picture here it's pretty sharp on my screen to the point that I can see details in her shoes and zip at 100%. I really couldn't expect much more from a lens of this age.
Click to expand...

You should expect more from it Alan because the subject is very soft in the image posted - sorry
 
Fraser Euan White said:
You should expect more from it Alan because the subject is very soft in the image posted - sorry
Click to expand...

It isn't soft.

Hang on, I'll post 100% crops. If these are mangled a bit by the posting process I can't really do any more and they can't be max quality as that's too big for the forum at 1,000 wide.

DSC01770-1L.jpg

DSC01770-2L.jpg

On my screen I see the foliage as being sharp, I can see texture in her wooly trousers and finer detail in her shoes and coat. It's maybe not as good in this thread but easily sharp enough at 100%. If you still think it's soft then I'm finished and whatever the issue is for you it's staying an issue :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It isn't soft.

Hang on, I'll post 100% crops. If these are mangled a bit by the posting process I can't really do any more and they can't be max quality as that's too big for the forum at 1,000 wide.


On my screen I see the foliage as being sharp, I can see texture in her wooly trousers and finer detail in her shoes and coat. It's maybe not as good in this thread but easily sharp enough at 100%. If you still think it's soft then I'm finished and whatever the issue is for you it's staying an issue :D
Click to expand...

For whatever reason the full image on the forum looks nowhere near as sharp as the crops, probably getting buggered up by the internet gremlins somewhere along the line.
 
NewBeetle said:
For whatever reason the full image on the forum looks nowhere near as sharp as the crops, probably getting buggered up by the internet gremlins somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm giving up saying it's sharp enough after this post :D

The whole image was saved as quality 8 from CS5, the crops I managed quality 11 (out of 12) and that stayed within the forum size limits. 12 was too big.

On my screen it's easily sharp enough and it meets my expectations, easily. The next time I take it out I'll try and take some subject BIG in the frame shots but anyway, I don't tend to buy these lenses for sharpness, they're more for character and a different look. If I want sharpness I'll use my Sony 55mm f1.8.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Well, I'm giving up saying it's sharp enough after this post :D

The whole image was saved as quality 8 from CS5, the crops I managed quality 11 (out of 12) and that stayed within the forum size limits. 12 was too big.

On my screen it's easily sharp enough and it meets my expectations, easily. The next time I take it out I'll try and take some subject BIG in the frame shots but anyway, I don't tend to buy these lenses for sharpness, they're more for character and a different look. If I want sharpness I'll use my Sony 55mm f1.8.
Click to expand...

It's 100% obvious it's sharp from the crops, anyone that says otherwise is blind haha
 
NewBeetle said:
It's 100% obvious it's sharp from the crops, anyone that says otherwise is blind haha
Click to expand...

Peeps are always welcome to come and see the shot on my screen.

I don't think I'll be printing this as A3 or anything like as nice as these old lenses are the harsh light behind Mrs WW has caused a lot of nasties around her black hair which are visible if you look very closely. As a characterful oldie worldie look environmental capture of her at that moment looking at the apples at the entrance to a place we like to walk it works for me.
 
jj_glos said:
Yeah I do the same, children even when sat down are still always moving. 1/125 is borderline so I'm always at least 1/250 as well. If they're running around then even higher as 1/250 is obviously to slow to stop that kind of motion. I've been able to drop the shutter speed as they get older :D
Click to expand...
Grandma would be easy then
 
T_J_G said:
UK A7III @ Amazon £1881
Click to expand...

Worth it for the uk plug ha. The Chinese/UK effort is a bit cobbled together.

Probably been said before, but the mini usb doesn’t fully insert properly. Thankfully I didn’t force it too much, odd. However, have a cheap double charger now so rarely, if ever, used.
 
PauBass said:
Nice shot, I was there not long ago and was lucky enough to catch an awesome sunset.

Banding? Yes I do have noticed that on my a7iii too, lots of it, something I did not have problems with on my previous D750.
I have not updated my firmware yet but I believe that was one of the things they were fixing?
Click to expand...

Updating the firmware and/or switching output to Adobe RGB seems to have done the trick. Banding is very minimal now.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Here's one such photo from yesterday - I put it down to the crap AF of the A73, the hands are sharp..
Click to expand...

It's a nice picture.

I think we worry a little too much sometimes.

I took a picture of Mrs WW a few weeks ago, not posed just took the picture without her knowing with face detect and her furthest eye is sharper than the nearest. I was really disappointed but when I printed it to fill an A4 it looks lovely and you can't see that her near eye is ever so slightly drifting out of the DoF. It's framed now :D
 
Last edited:
Livin The Dream said:
And that’s all that matters, in the end. Chill men, it’s just a picture. We’ve all taken the odd snap that isn’t sharp enough but just passes from an emotional element.
Click to expand...

Dunno what people expect from a decades old lens manually focused at f2 with a subject at that distance, do peeps want to count her eyelashes in a picture posted on a forum 1,000 pixies across? Isn't gonna happen.

It is sharp on my screen though :D Not 55mm f1.8 sharp but easily good enough. I'll print it A4 this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top