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

Raymond Lin said:
Let's go back to the start shall we?



@wibbly thinking about getting a Sony A7 or A7II.



I said old Sony bodies are not comparable to his Fuji gear.

Non-professional, enthusiast has nothing to do with his quality of images, I am talking about technical, not artistically speaking.

Using old lenses has nothing to do with the quality of his images, I am talking about technical, not artistically speaking..

His images are his images. The whole argument was whether @wibbly should chop in his Fuji gear to an older A7 or A72. @woofwoof ‘s argument is that he should because of the superior image quality and because of all the options of legacy lenses.

The only person here that I know uses an A7 and legacy lenses are him. I know of no one else. If those are the resulting images from them…it’s not really a solid argument to get an A7.

Is that not a logical argument?

I don’t look at those images and think “god, my Fuji gear can’t get those awesome colours and definition”. Would that not be what someone want to do when they upgrade gear?

This isn’t about whether the user on the other end is professional or amateur, instead of saying “I find them unacceptable to produce them to a client” is just a way of qualify them in terms of IQ. I am not, and in NO POINT have I ever mentioned the quality of the photo from an artistic merit, I have never said they are crap. I am merely talking about the IQ of the image as a result of the camera through those legacy lenses.

If the argument is using those lenses and the A7 can get you great looking images, prove it. Because it is a very hard sell to get someone who is used to using auto focus lenses to drop that habit to go into a system for the reasons of legacy lenses when you can’t even see the fruits on the other side.
Click to expand...

Whilst you're right on a lot of points, you also have no idea about other people's budgets or requirements? You may be happy having three totally separate systems with three matching lens lineups, where each lens may cost upwards of £1k but not everyone else in that position.

Wibbly didn't state anywhere that he was hoping to deliver high level portrait/wedding photography, they stated that they fancied dipping their toe in to see what the Sony is like. Your response comes across more snobby than helpful as you've simply written off an excellent value entry level full frame system because someone else suggested using legacy lenses as an affordable way to try out what is still (sometimes) quality glass. Yes, it may not have AF or use the features like eye AF but that doesn't mean they should be written off.

I've used various legacy lenses on my A7 and have been happy with the results. I've even delivered portraits/weddings for paying clients using them so whilst you may choose to only use the highest level AF lenses to deliver your work, you shouldn't disparage others for choosing to use alternatives.
 
Last edited:
I have said this many times... if you want a compact FF system ... the Sony A7 with the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 lenses is a great choice. :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
I have said this many times... if you want a compact FF system ... the Sony A7 with the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 lenses is a great choice. :)
Click to expand...

I've got an A7mk1 and agree that the AF can be frustrating in lower light and the jpeg output can often be too warm/orange but I've seen the same colour results from A7Rii/A7Riii bodies too and it's nothing that can't be fixed in most situations. Whilst I will probably upgrade to an A7iii at the end of this year, I still feel that the results from the mk1 can be excellent and easily equal to similar priced full frame cameras from other manufacturers.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
I've got an A7mk1 and agree that the AF can be frustrating in lower light and the jpeg output can often be too warm/orange but I've seen the same colour results from A7Rii/A7Riii bodies too and it's nothing that can't be fixed in most situations. Whilst I will probably upgrade to an A7iii at the end of this year, I still feel that the results from the mk1 can be excellent and easily equal similar priced full frame cameras from other manufacturers.
Click to expand...
I agree, to be fair the Sony A9 sensor IQ isn't too far ahead of the A7 / A7II in terms of ISO / DR etc which for me has always been acceptable, hence I had no worries about the IQ output of the A9.
It's a great time for Sony.. lets hope their momentum continues..... :)
 
stevelmx5 said:
I've got an A7mk1 and agree that the AF can be frustrating in lower light and the jpeg output can often be too warm/orange but I've seen the same colour results from A7Rii/A7Riii bodies too and it's nothing that can't be fixed in most situations. Whilst I will probably upgrade to an A7iii at the end of this year, I still feel that the results from the mk1 can be excellent and easily equal similar priced full frame cameras from other manufacturers.
Click to expand...
The skin tones on A7RII is lot better than A7 (having owned both at the same time). There is definitely a positive improvement in colour science.
I recently got A7RIII. There are claims that it's even better now but I haven't really been able to test it fully.
 
Last edited:
Simes123 said:
Yes, 2 genuine batteries is probably sensible. It really feels a lot like the battery life on a DSLR in that there is very little range anxiety. A lot easier to manage and less weight to carry!
Click to expand...
I got CVP match Bristol cameras. But they also have delivery charge of £5 unless I buy two batteries :(
 
Did you hear about the story about the wildlife photographer who had his face seriously burnt when his 3rd party battery in his A7R III exploded? :eek:
 
nandbytes said:
The skin tones on A7RII is lot better than A7 (having owned both at the same time). There is definitely a positive improvement in colour science.
I recently got A7RIII. There are claims that it's even better now but I haven't really been able to rest it fully.
Click to expand...

Yup, definite improvement and there is again a big improvement from a7rii to a7iii.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Whilst you're right on a lot of points, you also have no idea about other people's budgets or requirements? You may be happy having three totally separate systems with three matching lens lineups, where each lens may cost upwards of £1k but not everyone else in that position.

Wibbly didn't state anywhere that he was hoping to deliver high level portrait/wedding photography, they stated that they fancied dipping their toe in to see what the Sony is like. Your response comes across more snobby than helpful as you've simply written off an excellent value entry level full frame system because someone else suggested using legacy lenses as an affordable way to try out what is still (sometimes) quality glass. Yes, it may not have AF or use the features like eye AF but that doesn't mean they should be written off.

I've used various legacy lenses on my A7 and have been happy with the results. I've even delivered portraits/weddings for paying clients using them so whilst you may choose to only use the highest level AF lenses to deliver your work, you shouldn't disparage others for choosing to use alternatives.
Click to expand...

At no point have I ever suggested anyone getting what I have? Did I suggest any kind of lenses?

I have not mention a single auto focus lens at all.

I am saying, and I will try to be perfectly clear now if I wasn’t before....for someone who is used to auto focus lenses, to suggest to them getting an A7 FOR the option and the main reason to get into it is difficult, the manual focus aspect is one that a lot of people will have difficulty overcome.

This isn’t anything to do with budget, this isn’t anything to do with quality of glass, this isn’t anything to do with snobbery. Not sure how you got the idea of using MF lenses = budget and less good...I looked into a Canon 50/0.95 the other day and that legacy glass is anything but cheap! This is to do with the method. That’s what I’m talking about.

The other thing is if you want to sell it to someone that the body combined with the legacy glass are the way to go, I’m all for that but if I’m in a position of total unknown, wouldn’t I want you to show me some samples that looks better than what I can do now?
 
Raymond Lin said:
At no point have I ever suggested anyone getting what I have? Did I suggest any kind of lenses?

I have not mention a single auto focus lens at all.

I am saying, and I will try to be perfectly clear now if I wasn’t before....for someone who is used to auto focus lenses, to suggest to them getting an A7 FOR the option and the main reason to get into it is difficult, the manual focus aspect is one that a lot of people will have difficulty overcome.

This isn’t anything to do with budget, this isn’t anything to do with quality of glass, this isn’t anything to do with snobbery. Not sure how you got the idea of using MF lenses = budget and less good...I looked into a Canon 50/0.95 the other day and that legacy glass is anything but cheap! This is to do with the method. That’s what I’m talking about.

The other thing is if you want to sell it to someone that the body combined with the legacy glass are the way to go, I’m all for that but if I’m in a position of total unknown, wouldn’t I want you to show me some samples that looks better than what I can do now?
Click to expand...

Manually focusing a lens isn't difficult. I agree that if you've only ever used AF then it's a different approach but your post gave the impression that it wasn't worth bothering yet some of the most powerful photographs in the world were shot on manual cameras and I think they will be remembered long after any of our portrait/wedding images are forgotten about.

This was the first hit I've just got back from a search for A7 with legacy lenses to give you some examples and advice;

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-lenses-sony-a7/

Nobody is trying to sell anything? The poster suggested that they were considering trying out Sony instead of their Fuji gear and asked for opinions. They even said that they don't like the output from their two current Fuji bodies so it would be a good thing that the Sony output is different!

Your posts regarding Woof Woof's images were sneering and derogatory, suggesting that because you don't like his images (sorry they're, "unacceptable"..) then nobody can deliver good images using legacy lenses is frankly ridiculous. Also, your suggestion that 99% of photographers here only use AF lenses is also baseless. Just because you choose to only buy the top AF lenses doesn't mean you should judge anybody else's decisions on their needs. I don't shoot weddings/portraits professionally anymore so I personally wouldn't choose to spend £1500 on a lens to take family snaps but that's my choice and I wouldn't question anyone else who wants to.

Edit, a few of your generalised statements regarding Woof Woof's images and his suggestion that using legacy lenses on an A7 is a good idea;

Your obsession (?) of being able to use old lenses are VERY VERY niche, 99% of people will want auto focus and old Sony body sucks, we all know that.

Also, from what you have posted, and don't take it negatively, the files you posted, the colours from the A7 are frankly unacceptable to me, in my opinion, I would not deliver those to my clients.

But my point was based solely on what he has posted, if that is indicative of what is produced from the A7 with those manual lenses, that is unacceptable.

The only person here that I know uses an A7 and legacy lenses are him. I know of no one else. If those are the resulting images from them…it’s not really a solid argument to get an A7.

If the argument is using those lenses and the A7 can get you great looking images, prove it. Because it is a very hard sell to get someone who is used to using auto focus lenses to drop that habit to go into a system for the reasons of legacy lenses when you can’t even see the fruits on the other side.

Maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental of other photographers who choose to use their camera differently to the way you do.
 
Last edited:
I've just grabbed some examples from my Flickr feed showing manual/legacy glass used on various bodies. I'm not suggesting that a current top of the line AF lens won't deliver results with better edge sharpness/micro-contrast or will need more practice to focus than an MF lens but as an entry into the Sony system they are a good option depending on your budget.

A7 & OM Zuiko 24/2.8




36664246001_cb51ebfb24_c.jpg


A7 & Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4



A6000 & OM Zuiko 50/1.8



NEX5 & OM Zuiko 50/1.4



NEX5 & OM Zuiko 50/3.5 macro

 
stevelmx5 said:
Manually focusing a lens isn't difficult. I agree that if you've only ever used AF then it's a different approach but your post gave the impression that it wasn't worth bothering yet some of the most powerful photographs in the world were shot on manual cameras and I think they will be remembered long after any of our portrait/wedding images are forgotten about.

This was the first hit I've just got back from a search for A7 with legacy lenses to give you some examples and advice;

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-lenses-sony-a7/

Nobody is trying to sell anything? The poster suggested that they were considering trying out Sony instead of their Fuji gear and asked for opinions. They even said that they don't like the output from their two current Fuji bodies so it would be a good thing that the Sony output is different!

Your posts regarding Woof Woof's images were sneering and derogatory, suggesting that because you don't like his images (sorry they're, "unacceptable"..) then nobody can deliver good images using legacy lenses is frankly ridiculous. Also, your suggestion that 99% of photographers here only use AF lenses is also baseless. Just because you choose to only buy the top AF lenses doesn't mean you should judge anybody else's decisions on their needs. I don't shoot weddings/portraits professionally anymore so I personally wouldn't choose to spend £1500 on a lens to take family snaps but that's my choice and I wouldn't question anyone else who wants to.

Edit, a few of your generalised statements regarding Woof Woof's images and his suggestion that using legacy lenses on an A7 is a good idea;

Your obsession (?) of being able to use old lenses are VERY VERY niche, 99% of people will want auto focus and old Sony body sucks, we all know that.

Also, from what you have posted, and don't take it negatively, the files you posted, the colours from the A7 are frankly unacceptable to me, in my opinion, I would not deliver those to my clients.

But my point was based solely on what he has posted, if that is indicative of what is produced from the A7 with those manual lenses, that is unacceptable.

The only person here that I know uses an A7 and legacy lenses are him. I know of no one else. If those are the resulting images from them…it’s not really a solid argument to get an A7.

If the argument is using those lenses and the A7 can get you great looking images, prove it. Because it is a very hard sell to get someone who is used to using auto focus lenses to drop that habit to go into a system for the reasons of legacy lenses when you can’t even see the fruits on the other side.

Maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental of other photographers who choose to use their camera differently to the way you do.
Click to expand...

This is NOT about how you use your gear, I don’t judge how you shoot. will keep it as objective as I can.

Sony colour science between the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be “off”. This isn’t my opinion, this is the opinion of the general community.

Fuji colour science, even from the X-T1 are widely considered to be good, and better than the Sony of that era.

Sony Auto focus in the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be below par of that era.

Fuji auto focus from the X-T1 are considered to be great at the time, and still perfectly acceptable even now.

So it is perfectly logical for someone to suggest NOT getting the Sony A7 for those 2 reasons alone.

The argument is “go manual”. Sure you can do that, but you only have by-passed 1 of the 2 points above, it’s colour science is still below par, accordingly to the community.

And to suggest going manual lenses, then you would go into it wholly knowing the 2 downsides above, then you really have to love manual focusing that much to really sacrifice everything else. That is a niche, wouldn’t you say?

And let me be more clear now, I feel like I am repeating myself here a lot. I am sure you can get good images from it, but so can the Fuji or really most modern cameras, what we are talking here is the original files produced, the colours that comes out of the camera. Because we are talking about the camera, we are not talking about the skill of the photographer after you put it into the computer.

Sony A7/A72 would not get my recommendation given what @wibbly has already to hand.

p.s. at no point here have I talked about what lenses I have. At no point here have I talked about what lenses he should buy or any specific lenses at all. I don’t think I ever have suggested to anyone to buy any AF lenses.

The subject here is purely the A7 and its AF and files.
 
Raymond Lin said:
This is NOT about how you use your gear, I don’t judge how you shoot. will keep it as objective as I can.

Sony colour science between the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be “off”. This isn’t my opinion, this is the opinion of the general community.

Fuji colour science, even from the X-T1 are widely considered to be good, and better than the Sony of that era.

Sony Auto focus in the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be below par of that era.

Fuji auto focus from the X-T1 are considered to be great at the time, and still perfectly acceptable even now.

So it is perfectly logical for someone to suggest NOT getting the Sony A7 for those 2 reasons alone.

The argument is “go manual”. Sure you can do that, but you only have by-passed 1 of the 2 points above, it’s colour science is still below par, accordingly to the community.

And to suggest going manual lenses, then you would go into it wholly knowing the 2 downsides above, then you really have to love manual focusing that much to really sacrifice everything else. That is a niche, wouldn’t you say?

And let me be more clear now, I feel like I am repeating myself here a lot. I am sure you can get good images from it, but so can the Fuji or really most modern cameras, what we are talking here is the original files produced, the colours that comes out of the camera. Because we are talking about the camera, we are not talking about the skill of the photographer after you put it into the computer.

Sony A7/A72 would not get my recommendation given what @wibbly has already to hand.

p.s. at no point here have I talked about what lenses I have. At no point here have I talked about what lenses he should buy or any specific lenses at all. I don’t think I ever have suggested to anyone to buy any AF lenses.

The subject here is purely the A7 and its AF and files.
Click to expand...

But Wibbly doesn't like the results from his two Fuji bodies (that have the same sensor as the XT-1) so isn't it logical to suggest trying an alternative system, which was the point of their post.

"Go Manual" isn't an argument, it was a suggestion as a way to deliver a specific look that Alan likes for his own photography. We all have a personal style and tend to shoot the same variations of it. Some of us put lens flare in our shots deliberately, some of us choose to shoot in low light etc, we're all different but none of us are essentially right or wrong, that's the point of any creativity.

Whilst you didn't specifically state that Wibbly should only use certain AF lenses, you did completely rule out using manual/legacy lenses because manual focusing is too difficult and you didn't like Alan's images. I've seen many images taken on the latest kit with G-Master lenses that look ordinary at best and exactly the same as every other clinically sharp image all over Flickr at worst so again, it's impossible to generalise. I fully agree that the low light AF on the original A7 can be frustrating and the jpeg output tends to be warmer from early Sony bodies but that's why I'd shoot RAW with custom white balance for anything critical and why I also like to use manual lenses.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
But Wibbly doesn't like the results from his two Fuji bodies (that have the same sensor as the XT-1) so isn't it logical to suggest trying an alternative system, which was the point of their post.

"Go Manual" isn't an argument, it was a suggestion as a way to deliver a specific look that Alan likes for his own photography. We all have a personal style and tend to shoot the same variations of it. Some of us put lens flare in our shots deliberately, some of us choose to shoot in low light etc, we're all different but none of us are essentially right or wrong, that's the point of any creativity.

Whilst you didn't specifically state that Wibbly should only use certain AF lenses, you did completely rule out using manual/legacy lenses because manual focusing is too difficult and you didn't like Alan's images. I've seen many images taken on the latest kit with G-Master lenses that look ordinary at best and exactly the same as every other clinically sharp image all over Flickr at worst so again, it's impossible to generalise. I fully agree that the low light AF on the original A7 can be frustrating and the jpeg output tends to be warmer from early Sony bodies but that's why I'd shoot RAW with custom white balance for anything critical and why I also like to use manual lenses.
Click to expand...

So he can suggest he should go manual but I can't suggest he shouldn't?

Is that how it works?

And am I not allow to say I don't like the files (in terms of colours/contrast etc) of the files seen in the past from his legacy lenses? Is that considered judgemental? Am I not allowed that opinion?

Can we not ask whether @wibbly wants to shoot manual and put this to bed?

Wibbly asked whether the Sony A7 would be a good buy from what he has now.

My opinion is not, not only based on what Alan has posted, even if you take that out of the equation, but based on the technical aspect of the camera body alone, how is that judgemental?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
So he can suggest he should go manual but I can't suggest he shouldn't?

Is that how it works?

And am I not allow to say I don't like the files (in terms of colours/contrast etc) of the files seen in the past from his legacy lenses? Is that considered judgemental? Am I not allowed that opinion?

Wibbly asked whether the Sony A7 would be a good buy from what he has now.

My opinion is not, not only based on what Alan has posted, take that out of the equation, but based on the technical aspect of the camera body alone, how is that judgemental?
Click to expand...

Of course we can all share opinions, that’s the point of a forum. My issue was the judgemental attitude towards Alan’s images because you don’t personally like them and the fact that you dictated a sweeping suggestion that Alan is the only person using legacy lenses.

Maybe we should agree to disagree from here because we both have different opinions that probably aren’t going to meet in the middle.
 
jj_glos said:
Wow, what a witch hunt. Flame someone for airing their opinion but not the other for having the same opinion about other kit.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure it’s a witch hunt, Alan gave an option of shooting with legacy glass (as he likes them) without being judgemental against people that choose to only shoot AF or the images they share. In contrast, his images were criticised directly and in turn, all legacy/manual lenses were ruled out in a sweeping statement.

I’m only suggesting a little extra consideration of each others’ creative choices.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Of course we can all share opinions, that’s the point of a forum. My issue was the judgemental attitude towards Alan’s images because you don’t personally like them and the fact that you dictated a sweeping suggestion that Alan is the only person using legacy lenses.

Maybe we should agree to disagree from here because we both have different opinions that probably aren’t going to meet in the middle.
Click to expand...

I think I have been objective, if anyone taken that wrongly I apologise.

My "judgemental attitude" towards his images are one shared by many. We have commented on the past how they are off in colour, others have pointed it out also, Alan himself has corrected a few as a results of those. I am not sure why they were off, perhaps the A7 files are "off" SOCC, perhaps they do need more work in post. which all supports the point of Sony A7 files and its colour science are not that great in that era of Sony bodies.

As for sweeping generalisation of Alan being the only one using legacy lenses, it is just my observation of what I see in this thread of what is posted recently. Sorry you or anyone else were not included? But the point was Sony A7 colour science of that era needed work.

I don't think anyone is disputing that are we?

And we also agree that the AF is not really that great.

(again, I am not talking about they can't be made to look great, I am talking about what the camera actually produces, not what you do in the computer afterwards)
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I think I have been objective, if anyone taken that wrongly I apologise.

My "judgemental attitude" towards his images are one shared by many. We have commented on the past how they are off in colour, others have pointed it out also, Alan himself has corrected a few as a results of those. I am not sure why they were off, perhaps the A7 files are "off" SOCC, perhaps they do need more work in post. which all supports the point of Sony A7 files and its colour science are not that great in that era of Sony bodies.

As for sweeping generalisation of Alan being the only one using legacy lenses, it is just my observation of what I see in this thread of what is posted recently. Sorry you or anyone else were not included? But the point was Sony A7 colour science of that era needed work.

I don't think anyone is disputing that are we?

And we also agree that the AF is not really that great.

(again, I am not talking about they can't be made to look great, I am talking about what the camera actually produces, not what you do in the computer afterwards)
Click to expand...

My point was that other people who have commented on Alan’s images have been constructive/helpful in their criticism whereas your posts came across as uncalled for. Describing someone’s images (that they are happy with) as “unacceptable” is a little too far personally.

I’m not bothered about you not including me in your list of people who use manual/legacy glass, I use AF glass too. My issue was the generalised suggestion that Alan is the only one who does and his images don’t show a good reason to use them, just because you don’t like them.

As I’ve previously said, I agree that the AF performance and low light WB performance of the mk1 isn’t as good as later generation bodies. You didn’t say that at first though, you just ruled out MF lenses entirely.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone where I could get one of those cable clamps that come with the A7riii?
I'm after one for my A7iii.


a7RII-cablelock-web.jpg
 
Just to add my 2p. I moved from Fuji to a Sony A7ii with Voigtlander manual focus lenses and haven't looked back. I recently upgraded to the A7Riii for the megapixels to allow me more room to crop in post and also now use some AF lenses because I've started doing some model shoots, but the IQ of the A7ii is still exceptional and would highly recommend the older A7 models. The only thing I miss from my Fujifilm cameras is the menu/software.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I’m not sure it’s a witch hunt, Alan gave an option of shooting with legacy glass (as he likes them) without being judgemental against people that choose to only shoot AF or the images they share. In contrast, his images were criticised directly and in turn, all legacy/manual lenses were ruled out in a sweeping statement.

I’m only suggesting a little extra consideration of each others’ creative choices.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring that this started out because Alan said Fuji wasn't very good, yet others said they'd prefer Fuji over the Sony A7.

Manual glass may be a factor in how his images look, but we all know that old manual glass can still provide class images. So I don't think that approach is being knocked. Alan has certainly produced images with improved/different colour profiles, that was done quite recently in fact.

Raymond has stated why he wouldn't go with an A7 quite clearly I thought. Someone can not like the output they see from certain gear, that's fine. Raymond doesn't like the A7 output, Alan doesn't like the Fuji output. That's about the sum of it, quite how it descended into the depths it has I don't know but then this is the internet :D
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
My point was that other people who have commented on Alan’s images have been constructive/helpful in their criticism whereas your posts came across as uncalled for. Describing someone’s images (that they are happy with) as “unacceptable” is a little too far personally.

I’m not bothered about you not including me in your list of people who use manual/legacy glass, I use AF glass too. My issue was the generalised suggestion that Alan is the only one who does and his images don’t show a good reason to use them, just because you don’t like them.

As I’ve previously said, I agree that the AF performance and low light WB performance of the mk1 isn’t as good as later generation bodies. You didn’t say that at first though, you just ruled out MF lenses entirely.
Click to expand...

So this is all over the issue on how I see the files?

I actually pondered the choice of the word, I could have chosen many adjectives which would be worse, in the end I chose unacceptable, and added “for my work” to qualify it, giving it a perspective and a level that you can see where I am coming from, not from a snobbery point of view but from an objectivity point of view. Clearly some people took this the COMPLETE wrong way. I was hoping you would understand that is exactly what I mean by that, I think it adds a level of objectivity in a debate of the colours of those files as presented. I fully am aware that you or anyone else may find it acceptable or amazing and thought you would know that I am aware of that too. This word suggests there is a line in the sand, a cleaner cut, as opposed to an arbitrary “meh”? I would have thought you read that and thought at most “that’s your opinion but I like it.” and that’ll be that and given others have already mentioned this and have given constructive criticism in the past, including me, you would know that I wasn’t meant to offend.

W6FPcgz.png


mU6mwSu.png


5Jp5PAU.png


You can say the same thing to me, and I wouldn’t get offended, or may be I should because he said there are "more weird colours than he produces in a lifetime", is that something okay to say compare to what I have said? It’s just an opinion at the end of the day. So, sorry Alan if you are offended. It’s just an opinion, may be it was too blunt but I am not going to lie, I would give you all the tips how I think the files would look better (IMO) but if that isn’t the look of what you are going for, it would be pointless (which btw, I have said that before too to Alan), but for me, for my work, those files, as presented, are unacceptable. I am not sure whether I should lie and be fake and say “that looks fab, I would put my name on that!” that is as much as an insult because you know it’s not true.

You can be insulted by the choice of a single word, I can’t help it if you feel that way, I can’t take it back now but the truth is the truth. You can go on and say “oh, that wasn’t what you said previously blah blah blah.” and want to argue more, but take this post as my last word on the matter and I consider it closed.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
So this is all over the issue on how I see the files?

I actually pondered the choice of the word, I could have chosen many adjectives which would be worse, in the end I chose unacceptable, and added “for my work” to qualify it, giving it a perspective and a level that you can see where I am coming from, not from a snobbery point of view but from an objectivity point of view. Clearly some people took this the COMPLETE wrong way. I was hoping you would understand that is exactly what I mean by that, I think it adds a level of objectivity in a debate of the colours of those files as presented. I fully am aware that you or anyone else may find it acceptable or amazing and thought you would know that I am aware of that too. This word suggests there is a line in the sand, a cleaner cut, as opposed to an arbitrary “meh”? I would have thought you read that and thought at most “that’s your opinion but I like it.” and that’ll be that and given others have already mentioned this and have given constructive criticism in the past, including me, you would know that I wasn’t meant to offend.

W6FPcgz.png


mU6mwSu.png


5Jp5PAU.png


You can say the same thing to me, and I wouldn’t get offended, or may be I should because he said there are "more weird colours than he produces in a lifetime", is that something okay to say compare to what I have said? It’s just an opinion at the end of the day. So, sorry Alan if you are offended. It’s just an opinion, may be it was too blunt but I am not going to lie, I would give you all the tips how I think the files would look better (IMO) but if that isn’t the look of what you are going for, it would be pointless (which btw, I have said that before too to Alan), but for me, for my work, those files, as presented, are unacceptable. I am not sure whether I should lie and be fake and say “that looks fab, I would put my name on that!” that is as much as an insult because you know it’s not true.

You can be insulted by the choice of a single word, I can’t help it if you feel that way, I can’t take it back now but the truth is the truth. You can go on and say “oh, that wasn’t what you said previously blah blah blah.” and want to argue more, but take this post as my last word on the matter and I consider it closed.
Click to expand...

I’ve already suggested that we should agree to disagree. I wouldn’t expect anyone to lie and give false praise, that’s what Flickr is for. I’ve just suggested that the criticism of Alan’s work and the use of lenses that you choose not to use was unacceptable to me and I wasn’t the only one that thought it.

Anyway, virtual hug and move on with our lives. I’ve got 150 cameras to build so need all the spare time I can get!
 
Last edited:
Simes123 said:
Cracking shot - what AF mode were you using?
Click to expand...

AF-C and just the M sized AF box. The a7RII and 55mm 1.8 is staggeringly fast, I'd love to try an a7III at some point because that's apparently quicker.
 
ukaskew said:
AF-C and just the M sized AF box. The a7RII and 55mm 1.8 is staggeringly fast, I'd love to try an a7III at some point because that's apparently quicker.
Click to expand...

It is VERY fast on the a7iii.... Possibly fastest combo I've used on any system but need to test a little more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top