That’s a hard watch, feel he could of said must of that in 3 minutes and only made one video rather than several parts
That’s a hard watch, feel he could of said must of that in 3 minutes and only made one video rather than several parts
That’s a hard watch, feel he could of said must of that in 3 minutes and only made one video rather than several parts
We've found the 85 1.8 perfect for weddings, Raymond. The size and lightness is the best thing about it. Probably the quickest focusing of all the lenses I've used too.
A free bag..... just had to buy the lens to get the offerwell you kinda did get a bag i suppose...
A free bag..... just had to buy the lens to get the offer
There wasn't much wrong with the ones that caused all the debate either, the "corrected" one (which I did appreciate ) had a more natural skin tone but a purple forest floor (I much preferred my own) and you have to take into account that those shots were under a canopy of leaves (green ones) with the sun shining through them.white balance looks much better on these Alan
Looks like an Anthony Gormley "Another place" figure.What’s the figure ?
Looks like an Anthony Gormley "Another place" figure.
Agreed really annoying. Could shoot raw+jpg?I'm assuming there is no way in camera to set a bigger Jpeg preview file in RAW? The A7III ones are annoyingly small when reviewing in Photomechanic. Apart from converting to DNG, I can't think of any way to rectify this.
Agreed really annoying. Could shoot raw+jpg?
Free lens, £2000 bag.
Doing my first bit of editing the A7iii. I'm working a little harder than I normally do, but I think its a case of getting used to the colours and contrast and having edited nothing really but Nikon before. I remember that it took me about 6 months to properly adapt to the D4 after using the D700/D3s for years. The Sony files are closer to the D750 than the D700 was.
I want to like this twice.is the 2nd photo in F/8?
Thanks, Raymond - appreciate it. It was maybe as narrow as f14 if memory serves. Sun was low but still really strong. Being able to use the evf really helped.
I find this part of the photo hard to do not because of the photo but to actually “remove” the couple from their drinks, food and friends.
They gave us complete creative freedom. Said yes to everything. Technically speaking the first is a really simple shot, but practically speaking it's so difficult to do at a real wedding.
In the next couple of days I shall be making the (almost) complete switch from Olympus m4/3 to Sony EF.
To complete what I already have in lenses I'm going to look at the 16-35 f4 for wider stuff and the 24-70 F4 Zeiss for general travel. I know the 16-35 is poor at the long end but I intend to use it between 16 and 24ish. I also know that that 24-70 is poor at the edges at 24 and wide open but I will be using it stopped down more mostly I suppose between 35-70.
My main interests are wildlife so I have the 100-400GM with the 1.4TC and portraits for which I have the 85mm Batis 1.8. For general walking around in stealth mode I have the Zeiss 35mm 2.8. All of these I find excellent thus far.
I shall be looking to p/ex my Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro and my 300 F4 Pro.
I'd appreciate some comments on my choice of these last 2 lenses.
That comes from a zillion years using CanonFirstly no such thing as sony EF
That comes from a zillion years using Canon
Thanks for the other stuff, I’ve probably being reading too many reviews.
That comes from a zillion years using Canon
Thanks for the other stuff, I’ve probably being reading too many reviews.
Sony is FE, Canon is EF.
And Canon lenses on Sony works PRETTY well…..it's like Sony is trying to do something to Canon users…..
/looks at my ever increasing Sony gear collection.
Actually still not technically true.
For canon, EF is the actual mount.
For Sony, it's e-mount and FE is a lens designation to denote a FF lens apart from APS-C lens. Just like how Nikon have FX and DX designations (but no such thing as FX or DX mount).
You forgot EF-S which is APSC.
So it is correct in that FE is for Full frame lenses and EF is for Full frame lenses.
I guess Sony moved from APSC into FF where as Canon moved from FF into APSC.
EOS EF mount came in the 80's so when APSC came along, they had to add the letter, EF-S
Sony started with E-mount APSC and when FF came along, they added the F.
I think you can fit the EF-S lens into EF…you just will break the mirror if you take a photo.
True.
But other of manufacturers also moved from FF to APS-C. Nikons F-mount and sony/Minolta a-mount are both older than EF. For some reason they didn't feel the need to make a new mount
Ok ok may be saying it's a different mount is wrong but I still can't understand why they decided to make it so that you can't use EF-S lenses on EF.
Having said that canon (non-sigma) EF-S lenses don't work with MC-11 adapter. Techically shows sigma APS-C lenses are EF lenses with a smaller image circle rather than EF-S lenses. So they are somewhat different.
I suppose canon users don't have much point in using EF-S lenses on their FF bodies. On Sony is quite useful for video purposes and video centric lenses for shooting in super35 format.
One is a mirrorless, one is DSLR. I guess if you put the mirror up first then put the lens on…..it might work
I am saying if the mirror isn't there, a EF-S lens will work on say the 5D4. There is no reason why it won't and then get the same functions as a APSC lens on a A7III.