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

And another I just thought of......

60 seconds digital, tracked with a star glow filter thingy......

4 minutes tracked on film.....

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

I will say, I do love the crap quality, grainy film star trail images I get on film - so much so I do keep having MF thoughts..... I am getting better at them too!
 
LeeRatters said:
I don't think it's a 'better' or 'as nice' thing.

I think it's more of a situation/location/light/feeling thing in all honesty.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but part of me thinks there must be more to it as so many people are always trying to achieve that “film look” (y)
 
LeeRatters said:
And another I just thought of......

60 seconds digital, tracked with a star glow filter thingy......

4 minutes tracked on film.....

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

I will say, I do love the crap quality, grainy film star trail images I get on film - so much so I do keep having MF thoughts..... I am getting better at them too!
Click to expand...

The film one has that original Star Wars look to it. To me the stars etc look more distant as well, giving it greater depth.
 
gman said:
I actually prefer the digital one here. The A7 has that film look..:D:p
Click to expand...
gman said:
The film one has that original Star Wars look to it. To me the stars etc look more distant as well, giving it greater depth.
Click to expand...

Personally, I agree with you on both counts ;)

The background in the film woodland is very 'painterly' though - I think that's the word they use.
 
snerkler said:
I’ve seen it said about certain cameras having more of a film look, and I even think the original X100 does, but I can’t for one second think why, other than maybe the way software processes specific cameras. AFAIK the D700, X100 etc don’t have any particular difference in sensor design that would explain it.
Click to expand...

Aye it's bizarre. Maybe it's just a perception thing and you either see it or you don't?
 
LeeRatters said:
I think that is split though.

You have some trying to replicate an actual film.

Other's just want a trendy/Instagram faded & crushed blacks look ;)
Click to expand...

I quite like the crushed black style, but I do find it has to be the right subject and situation rather than just using it for the sake of it. I do often wonder when using an exaggerated style if people viewing it who may not have any photography savvy will think there's something wrong with the photo! lol
 
gman said:
I actually prefer the digital one here. The A7 has that film look..:D:p
Click to expand...
When you say film are you talking about Movie Film or film photography. For me the film one looks more, well film like, and the digital one looks more like 'movie'/dramatic style due to the processing.
 
snerkler said:
When you say film are you talking about Movie Film or film photography. For me the film one looks more, well film like, and the digital one looks more like 'movie'/dramatic style due to the processing.
Click to expand...

Just on the subject of movies... We're watching The English at the mo (well, I am. Mrs WW has given up) and there's flare galore and focus breathing. I'm going to try Googling to see if I can find out what they used but they've certainly ended up with effects you don't see too often in movies.

"We shot 2.39:1 CinemaScope using a limited selection of Panavision Anamorphic lenses."
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
When you say film are you talking about Movie Film or film photography. For me the film one looks more, well film like, and the digital one looks more like 'movie'/dramatic style due to the processing.
Click to expand...

Probably Movie Film look, maybe even back when they actually used film.
 
Yes, the OSS in the lens and body allow me to shoot with quite a low shutter speed considering I was hand holding. My intention was to get as low an ISO as possible - I could have used a wider aperture but I wanted the plane of focus to encompass as much of the bird front to back as possible as it was just at minimum focus distance (I had to step back to get my lens to focus as the robin was very friendly indeed). I fired off quite a few shots and many had slight motion blur but this one was sharp :). I actually managed the same technique with my Canon 100-400 mkII on the R6 and achieved as many keepers at 1/80 and 400mm so I actually think the OSS on my previous combo was slightly better, however the initial AF acquisition and accuracy of the eye AF on my Sony A7IV makes up for it and I've been able to get shots I would have missed previously :)
 
Last edited:
gilbouk said:
Yes, the OSS in the lens and body allow me to shoot with quite a low shutter speed considering I was hand holding. My intention was to get as low an ISO as possible - I could have used a wider aperture but I wanted the plane of focus to encompass as much of the bird front to back as possible as it was just at minimum focus distance (I had to step back to get my lens to focus as the robin was very friendly indeed). I fired off quite a few shots and many had slight motion blur but this one was sharp :). I actually managed the same technique with my Canon 100-400 mkII on the R6 and achieved as many keepers at 1/80 and 400mm so I actually think the OSS on my previous combo was slightly better, however the initial AF acquisition and accuracy of the eye AF on my Sony A7IV makes up for it and I've been able to get shots I would have missed previously :)
Click to expand...
Actually I have a question - would I have been able to get closer and zoom out to get better results? I guess by doing that and without changing aperture I would have increased my POF?
 
gilbouk said:
Yes, the OSS in the lens and body allow me to shoot with quite a low shutter speed considering I was hand holding. My intention was to get as low an ISO as possible - I could have used a wider aperture but I wanted the plane of focus to encompass as much of the bird front to back as possible as it was just at minimum focus distance (I had to step back to get my lens to focus as the robin was very friendly indeed). I fired off quite a few shots and many had slight motion blur but this one was sharp :). I actually managed the same technique with my Canon 100-400 mkII on the R6 and achieved as many keepers at 1/80 and 400mm so I actually think the OSS on my previous combo was slightly better, however the initial AF acquisition and accuracy of the eye AF on my Sony A7IV makes up for it and I've been able to get shots I would have missed previously :)
Click to expand...
I take that back about canon IS being better than Sony's OSS. I have a few keepers at 1/160 at 600mm handheld. I do remember feeling like my arm was going to explode though trying to support the lens steady for any more than half a minute.
 
gilbouk said:
Actually I have a question - would I have been able to get closer and zoom out to get better results? I guess by doing that and without changing aperture I would have increased my POF?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by this, do you mean DOF? If so it’s hard to say as moving closer decreases DOF and reducing focal length increases DOF.
 
gilbouk said:
I take that back about canon IS being better than Sony's OSS. I have a few keepers at 1/160 at 600mm handheld. I do remember feeling like my arm was going to explode though trying to support the lens steady for any more than half a minute.
Click to expand...
That’s the trouble with the 200-600mm, it’s a tad heavy. I’ve not used the 200-600mm but based on my experience with the Tamron 150-600mm I’d have thought you should be able to get lower than 1/160. Of course this will all depend on the individual (y)
 
snerkler said:
I’m not sure what you mean by this, do you mean DOF? If so it’s hard to say as moving closer decreases DOF and reducing focal length increases DOF.
Click to expand...
Yes, apologies that's what I meant. I will need to try and see if the minimum focus distance also reduces as I zoom out so that I can still keep a reasonable portion of the frame filled. My little robin friend I'm sure will oblige now that I know where he/she lives. I will need to get some micro mealworms to reward it.
 
gilbouk said:
Yes, apologies that's what I meant. I will need to try and see if the minimum focus distance also reduces as I zoom out so that I can still keep a reasonable portion of the frame filled. My little robin friend I'm sure will oblige now that I know where he/she lives. I will need to get some micro mealworms to reward it.
Click to expand...
The birds on our garden are very skittish, not very obliging unfortunately unfortunately.
 
gilbouk said:
Very nice colours - how are you finding the lovely 70-200 GM II? Did you not have the Tamron 70-180mm before?
Click to expand...
I had the Tamron 70-180mm and swapped to the 70-200mm GM II. The Tamron’s a great lens but the GM II is better in every department, but then you’d expect it to be given the price.
 
gilbouk said:
Very nice colours - how are you finding the lovely 70-200 GM II? Did you not have the Tamron 70-180mm before?
Click to expand...
Thanks Gil, never had the Tamron 70-180, very briefly tried the 50-400 and wasn't impressed but I love the 28-75 G2. Very early days with the GM II, so far very impressed, so light for a large lens, today I was literally holding the body and lens with 2 fingers as I walked around, perfectly balanced. I almost went for the Tamron 35-150 but after reading a ton of feedback from owners I think there was a lot of initial hype around it, quite a few have sold up and gone with the GM II. 35-150 has no OSS, it's heavier, bulkier and doesn't balance on the body as well, seems very prone to flare and lots of reports of mediocre AF on moving subjects.
 
snerkler said:
That’s the trouble with the 200-600mm, it’s a tad heavy. I’ve not used the 200-600mm but based on my experience with the Tamron 150-600mm I’d have thought you should be able to get lower than 1/160. Of course this will all depend on the individual (y)
Click to expand...
I managed 1/25 with the Tamron 150-600 on a 70D ;)
Otter With Prey by Mike Stephen, on Flickr
 
The moon from this morning (just noticed I never changed the clock on my camera when the clocks went back :LOL:)


A9_07258-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
imattersuk said:
Thanks Gil, never had the Tamron 70-180, very briefly tried the 50-400 and wasn't impressed but I love the 28-75 G2. Very early days with the GM II, so far very impressed, so light for a large lens, today I was literally holding the body and lens with 2 fingers as I walked around, perfectly balanced. I almost went for the Tamron 35-150 but after reading a ton of feedback from owners I think there was a lot of initial hype around it, quite a few have sold up and gone with the GM II. 35-150 has no OSS, it's heavier, bulkier and doesn't balance on the body as well, seems very prone to flare and lots of reports of mediocre AF on moving subjects.
Click to expand...
I feel like the Tamron 70-180mm might be by choice of lens as I probably couldn't justify the cost at least for now on a GM for that focal length. How are you finding the 35mm GM? Would love to see some photos :).
 
gilbouk said:
I feel like the Tamron 70-180mm might be by choice of lens as I probably couldn't justify the cost at least for now on a GM for that focal length. How are you finding the 35mm GM? Would love to see some photos :).
Click to expand...
Despite what you read on the internet I think the Sony 70-200 f4 is a much better lens, don't under estimate the OSS, it's light, internal zooming and plenty sharp enough, others on here may disagree but having owned it I have zero complaints.

Not used the 35 GM yet, not sure I actually need it lol
 
The scene at a sunny but cold Marske.

A7 and Sony 35mm f1.8.

yl8tlYN.jpg
 
One last one from today.

Jazz hands.

dFuLc5X.jpg


My A7 froze today. Powering off and on didn't help but taking the battery out and reinserting cured it. If it's done this before I can't really remember. I hope it or the lens isn't on the way out but I suppose one isolated incident isn't too much to worry about. I hope it doesn't happen again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top