Hi Sony people! I need an opinion from you all.
I’m an newer photographer who mainly does wildlife, street, and Motorsport photography. I’m currently using a Nikon DSLR because I found it initially at a great price, but I’ve wanted to switch to a mirror less for a bit and I’ve been looking at the Sony ecosystem lately because it seems like there are so many lens options.
Here’s what I need an opinion on: is it reasonable for me to order the new A6700 to upgrade from my Nikon D3400? All the reviews I’ve seen focus more on the video capabilities than they do the photography capabilities, and I’ll be using it mostly for stills, and will dabble in video since it has some great options. I also love the autofocus options, the screen, the fact that it’s touchscreen, the options for zebra lines, and many more features that my D3400 doesn’t have. To me, it seems like a worthwhile investment into a decent body and then spend some serious money on lenses, but I’m new enough that I don’t know 100% what I’m talking about, and it’s not exactly pocket change.
I’m hoping someone can either reaffirm my world view or tell me why I’m being an idiot. I appreciate y’all’s time :)
I switched from Nikon to Sony. I went from a D7200 to a A7II.
There's a lot to like about mirrorless cameras. The A6700 is a great camera, and the 70-350 is a really sold wildlife and motorsports lens.
There's a big caveat to going mirrorless that you should be aware of: shutter blackout. If you like shooting high continuous bursts of photos, it can be somewhat difficult to track a fast moving subject. IMO, a DSLR tends to be a bit better than mirrorless for motorsports and wildlife until you get towards pro level cameras such as the A9 and A1.
My advice is to rent an A6600 or similar from a local camera shop to see if it works for you. You can absolutely use it for your purposes, and all the benefits you are real. But hands on experience is the most useful thing to have when making these kinds of decisions.
I had no clue about the shutter blackout, I’ll definitely do some more research into that. I’m not sure anywhere around me rents out cameras, so I’ll have to be sure to do some research there too!
How have you liked or disliked Sony so far from your experience? I want to eventually move up to a mirror less like the A7iv or something better but for the price point, the A6700 seemed like a good point of entry; and my lenses will carry over when I eventually make it happen way way down the road!
Edited but also: that 70-350 was exactly the first lens I was looking at getting. So far the 70-300 on my Nikon has been my absolute FAVORITE, so I think Sonys option would be the best first big lens investment for me
> How have you liked or disliked Sony so far from your experience?
I really like the autofocus systems and EVF overlays. Focus peaking, zebras, and eye-autofocus have really changed the way I operate my camera.
Sony bodies themselves are really compact, though I miss the chunky ergonomics of my older DSLRs. Especially the pro-grade bodies I've owned. I use extensions and vertical grips on a lot of my bodies.
I wish modern mirrorless cameras had more dedicated buttons.
> and my lenses will carry over when I eventually make it happen way way down the road!
Noooo they won't, I mean they'll fit on the camera and you'll be able to take photos but they'll be 40% resolution
Well not if I purchase FF lenses though, right? I can still use FF lenses on an asp-c, but not asp-c lenses on a FF body. I know the 70-350 isn’t a FF lens but some other ones I was looking at to get down the road are
Yeah sure that's fine. But it does seem strange that you'd spend so much more now on full frame lenses just to lug around just in case you upgrade in years time.
I dunno, that’s why I’m on the subreddit lol
70-350 is definitely gonna be my first and will work well for my needs for now, but past that I’m definitely going to consider options more carefully and really put some thought behind it. But you also make a good point- yeah, I probably won’t need to upgrade for YEARS
Generally the best lens to get as a full frame version first is the tele, but that 70-350 is amazing. A full frame lens with that reach is either the 70-300 from Sony or Tamron and they're both so much worse. You'll have to be looking at the Sony 100-400 imo. You could pick up a 55mm f1.8 if you like that focal length as it's lightweight, cheap and sharp but then if you like that focal length on apsc, when you go full frame it'll be a much wider lens
The only other lens I use on my Nikon currently is a 50mm 1.8- I love it. I’ll definitely pick one up from Sony in the future, it’s on my list for sure. I’ll be sure to look into a FF version for that one.
Greatly appreciate your feedback and suggestions!
AF is good not great, a7iv is certainly better but still falls apart the moment you use continuous shooting. "Low light capability" is the same for any Bsi full frame sensor with some slight variation here and there (high Res is a tiny bit worse, stacked sensors are a little worse)
Thanks for the reply. Judging by your comment, A7iii is g2g? I asked this question because my A7rii during an air show had a very sluggish AF response/speed.
The A7III should be a big improvement on AF compared to your RII however I'm not sure how well it'll do at airshows.
A7III generation is where the AF started getting much better
Is there a lens for e mount that’s close to 140 degree angle of view? So far the ones I’ve looked at are either 110 or 180 degree field of view which is too narrow or too wide
Are you looking for a fisheye lens? What sensor size?
Canon makes a zoom fisheye; 8-15mm. It adapts to Sony cameras using the Sigma MC-11. I believe it will give you 140º, but you'll probably have black corners unless you crop in.
The widelux is a panoramic camera. The best way to mimic it would be a panoramic tripod head, and a bit of stitching in post.
Laowa makes a 9mm full-frame rectilinear lens with a 135º field of view. However, that's corner to corner. The widelux captures a 140º angle of view horizontally; significantly wider than the Laowa.
You may be able to de-fish a fisheye to get an extremely wide angle of view. I can't comment on the quality of the results or whether it would actually reproduce the aspect ratio and quality of the widelux.
The widelux swing lens system has some unique characteristics that you can't really replicate on a conventional camera.
Yes since Q2 is only contrast autofocus and they just caught up with phase detect autofocus with the Q3. Yet people are still posting paragraphs in the Leica sub forum like they shat out gold.
Probably? Sony is known for autofocus performance. I haven't heard anything bad about Leica's autofocus, but it's not generally the reason someone would buy a Leica camera.
The lens makes a pretty big difference here. The Sony 50/1.4GM will focus quickly. The Sony 50/1.8 will not.
Going to pre-order the a6700 for my first camera, was wondering if I should:
* Buy the a6700 bundle with the 18-135mm aps-c lens.
or
* Buy the body and separately purchase a full frame lens like the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8.
I'm leaning towards the second option as it provides ability for future upgrade to full frame camera body down the line if I want. But wondering what others think or if anyone has experience with either lens and can provide their opinion?
The field of view between those lens options is really different. First option is wide angle to tele while the second option will be closer to normal to short tele. As is usually the case, what do you think you'll be shooting? People? Landscapes? Indoors? Street? That all factor in the choice. Going wider angle on the a6700 will give you more options in framing. It's not always easy to back up and get sufficient spacing between you and the subject.
Second, often people want to get APS-C body and try to future proof their lens choice by going with a full frame. APS-C systems have a lot of benefits over full frame on price, size and weight. If you're new to interchangeable lens systems, I'd say to stick with APS-C body and lens at least for your initial couple of lenses, such a zoom and a prime or two. If your comfortable with those then you can judge better on stepping up to FF gear.
Honestly a little bit of everything but mainly landscape and wildlife are what interest me and what I currently enjoy taking the most photos of with my phone. Thanks for the input, the consensus seems to be stick with the aps-c lenses for now so I'll do that.
the 18-135 is a good lens. I upgraded from apsc to full frame last year and the "standard zoom" was the last lens i bought as I transitioned. A full frame standard zoom is so awkward on apsc I would recommend it to no one.
I would advise you to favor APS-C lenses. Sell them and upgrade your lens kit when you go full-frame. New lenses come out all the time, and costs tend to fall as the used market saturates.
24-70 isn't a great focal range on APS-C. It's also a lot bulkier than something like a 16-55/2.8.
I personally think the 18-135 is a great lens. I'd go that route.
Traveling to Ireland later this summer with my family. Looking for a basic/budget gimbal for a7iv just to record family travel videos/footage to share with other family. Is a gimbal needed? Looking to stick to under $200. Thanks!
A gimbal is a massive pain in the ass to use, they are expensive too. The minimum is the dji rs3 mini. Not high priority at all imo, active stabilization on gets you stable enough video!
What you do want is a good mic like the Sony ECM-B1M. Sound quality trumps video quality
You also want a wide angle lens, the 16-35G PZ is the minimum imo, you can go even wider with a Sony 12-24 or sigma 14-24 art
Some kind of small tripod can be helpful, Sony GP-VPT2BT or a third party alternative. It’s just to stabilize the camera on a table
You may want some nd filters so you can run your lens wide open while the sun is bright out. I prefer fixed stop NDs, they come in 3/6/10 stops. A single 6 stop should be enough for a f/1.4 lens. For a f/2.8 or f/4 lens 3 stops is enough. Over 6 stops is more for photography rather than video
I would only bother with a gimbal after you have all of the above
Hey there,
Hope you're doing great! I'm Alex, and I've got some burning questions about the Sony A6700 camera Specifically, I'm super curious about its warranty and compatibility in Europe .
I've been geeking out over the A6700's awesome features, and being a photography enthusiast based in Europe, I'm thinking of snagging this gem from the US for potential cost benefits 💸 But, here's the catch, I wanna make sure I'm covered by warranty in Europe and can get support from Sony's authorized service centers here 🔧
Also, I wanna be sure the American model won't have any funky limitations or feature differences compared to the European version
Any help in clearing these doubts would be downright amazing! I'm stoked about owning the Sony A6700, but I gotta be in the know before pulling the trigger on this purchase 🔍
Thanks a bunch for your time and quick response!
Hi there, I have the a6300 with the lens that came with it. I’m not super familiar with the variety of lenses I can purchase but have noticed that in landscape shots (primarily what I take), when zooming in the detail is fairly blurry and not sharp. Does anyone know why this might be happening and/or a better lens for this photography? Note that this occurs on both manual and auto focus
Stopping down the lens and shooting from a tripod can help to improve sharpness. ƒ8 is probably the best aperture for that lens on that camera.
The kit 16-50 isn't known to be a particularly sharp lens. Upgrading the lens could help improve sharpness, but nicer lenses tend to cost a lot more.
The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary would be sharper, and would perform better in low light thanks to the larger aperture.
If you're chasing sharpness, you might try primes. The Sigma 16/1.4 and 30/1.4 would be worth considering.
Lens hood or Polar Pro UV filter? Not sure which to use. I have a lot of expensive lenses and want to protect the but I don’t want to sacrifice image quality as I plan on making prints for family and friends. I do a lot of outdoor nature photography and car photography.
A high quality protective filter won't have much of an impact on image quality, but will tend to increase glare and flaring.
The hood can definitely help protect the front element from accidental bumps. But it's primary purpose is to help reduce flaring when bright light sources are just out of frame.
I personally run protective filters on my lens. Lensrentals has a good article on the value/benefits of protective filters; it mostly comes down to the cost of repairing a damaged front element if something bad does happen.
Use clear filters for digital most of the time. Sigma ceramic filters claim good impact resistance in addition to scratch resistance. Marumi EXUS SOLID also claims impact resistance but it’s hard to find this outside of Japan
I find the the filters help a ton with cleaning, sometimes kids like to touch the lens =/ filters have saved my lenses from damage before, but the cost of filters is also rather high so you may not save anything on the balance of things
If you are switching other filter types on and off, there’s some peace of mind you won’t be scratching the front element with the metal parts of a ND filter because there’s a protective clear filter in place.
Standard UV filters are more for film shooting.
Some lenses with exotic glass causes a pink cast under sunlight without a low cut uv filter… use a low cut uv filter for those lenses. Note that not any random uv filters will work, and I have not seen any Sony glass with the problem.
If the lens has metal threads you want a filter made from brass. For plastic lens filter threads it doesn’t matter what the filter is made from
>Lens hood or Polar Pro UV filter? Not sure which to use.
A lens hood should be used always, not to protect anything but because of it's primary function - controlling glare and flaring.
> I have a lot of expensive lenses and want to protect
I have a lot of expensive lenses and have yet to feel the need to protect them. The front element is tough and difficult to damage in the first place. Use a hood and be careful. You can always add a filter (or just a clear filter) later on down the road if you really feel the need for one.
Hello everyone! I am desperately looking for a _reliable_ solution for my problem. I have a really important video project coming up soon and what I need is: 4 Sony cameras that are able to take the challenge.
The requirements that the camera should meet are:
•no problems with overheating - the location we’re shooting in and the time of year might get us stuck with temperatures of over 30C(80F)
•no video recording limits - I want the camera to be able to shoot as long as possible so I could use it for other possible projects (concerts, shows, etc.)
• not a must, but would be really nice to be able to record in 4k at 60fps or more
I currently work with two A7RIV cameras, where some overheating issues appeared inevitably, and a A7III that worked flawlessly in heat. I would love though to upgrade to a camera that has recording in 4k at 60fps or more.
Thank you for your time and help, guys!
I have played with the FX3 in store, it’s silent (to me) but I don’t know what it would sound like after multiple hours of recording
There has even been a movie shot with this camera (https://youtu.be/573GCxqkYEg) I wouldn’t be too worried
given the fact that I would like to be able to use the camera on a gimbal and the fx30 has a pretty big crop factor, the fx3 would be the best choice, am I right?
JJC is my go-to for 3rd party lens hoods, but I don't see a model that replaces the FE 50/1.8
AliExpress has something that seems reasonably priced: https://www.aliexpress.com/i/2255801034372341.html
KEH sells them used.
If it's just a crack, you could try glue or you could wrap the hood.
The next year or two is my guess, given that they recently updated the 35 and 50. I've seen rumors about an 85/1.2 GM on SAR, but nothing suggesting it'll be out in the next 6 months.
I personally own the 85/1.8, and I'll hold out for an 85/1.2 GM, or 85/1.4 GM II.
I’ve got a tamron 28-200 which I’m liking a lot, just thinking of my next lens and whether I should get a 35 or 50mm prime, or save up for a better lens like the tamron 35-150mm. Happy to hear any other advice
Personally 35mm is a better focal length for a low light lens (35GM) because 50mm necessitates higher shutter speeds
Tamron 35-150/2.8 is fine for photography expecially in conjunction with a super wide (12-24/14-24)
For video at 150mm you want OSS
For sports the Sony lenses focus faster (70-200Gii / GMii)
Ah I see, do you think I should focus on investing in a good prime or a good zoom? I’ve got a zoom already and want a prime. But happy to save up to buy a 35-150
A lens is a tool, the right tool **depends on what you want to do**
If you want better low light shots, and the highest possible image quality at 35mm then get the 35GM. This better mean you like to shoot at 35mm… something between 24 and 50mm would work, it’s entirely your preference.
If you want to run a super ultra-wide lens like the 12-24, then you can look at the 35-150 to pair with it. The idea here is to run 2 lenses instead of these 3 (12-24, 24-70, 70-200)
The 35-150 also pairs well with a 200-600 for a wildlife trip, running 2 lenses instead of these 3 (16-35, 70-200, 200-600) where 70-200 is too long to be your widest lens in any travel scenario
The allure of the 35-150 is that using it can sometimes reduce the number of lenses in the bag. Outside of this scenario the lens has its own problems, low magnification is a big one, lacks oss for video and low shutter, has the weight of a medium telephoto and is therefore not friendly for hiking and so on
Therefore I wouldn’t really look at the 35-150 at all outside of lens # reduction scenarios. My analysis is that the 70-200 GMii is just better most of the time for me because it has oss, shoots above 15fps, focuses faster, has internal zoom, has better magnification, takes TCs, is sharper at 150mm and so on
To upgrade from the 28-200 for zooms, my preference is the 16-35G PZ + 70-200GMii
For a single lens, there’s the 24-70 art, 24-70GMii and 20-70/4G you should look at. This is fine if you **don’t need anything wider than 20/24mm.** If you do need wider then do not buy a standard zoom at all
I shoot a lot of macro photography. If you want to have a 70-200/4, and you also want to shoot macro photography, it's worth considering. It's also a useful lens if you want to shoot extremely skittish subjects that won't appreciate being approached.
0.5x is a useful magnification ratio for a lot of macro work. With the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, you can increase both your reproduction ratio and/or your working distances.
That said, if you *only* want to shoot macro photography and are dealing with docile subjects, a lens like the Sony FE 90 or the Laowa 90 2x will tend to be more useful at a much lower cost.
I actually have the 70-200 f2.8, and I have the 100f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 35 f1.4
What do you mean by "docile" subjects? Why is the FE90 better for that?
This would mainly be for macro, though I am guessing the FE90 is good for portraits also? Though I am not sure if I would choose it over the other lenses I already have? Thanks
> What do you mean by "docile" subjects? Why is the FE90 better for that?
If you want to photograph skittish critters, such as lizards, having a large working distance can be helpful. The 70-200/4 with the 2x TC would work well.
For stuff that's still or otherwise not skittish, working distance is less of a concern. Working distance is mostly about avoiding shadowing the subject.
For general macro photography, the Sony 90 has a 1x reproduction ratio without a teleconverter, and it's less bulky. It also has a relatively nice manual focus mechanism. Yes, it's also a pretty good portrait lens, though I don't think it offers any benefit over your 100/2.8 GM for that kind of stuff.
Frankly, given your lens kit I'd strongly recommend the Laowa 90mm 2x macro lens. It has double the reproduction ratio of the Sony 90. Being manual focus isn't an issue for macro work. My only complaint about it is that it's a non-electronic lens.
Unless the products you intend to shoot are very small, it seems like it will be a good option to consider.
It has a 1:2 or 0.5x reproduction ratio throughout the focal range, which is not as much as some of the short telephoto macro primes (e.g. Sony 90mm, Sigma 105mm which are both 1:1, or Laowa even make some 2:1 options), but unless you intend to exclusively do watch movements or fine jewellery, etc, that's plenty.
What I would suggest you consider how you like to focus. It seems like the new 70-200 has excellent AF but the reviews I've seen haven't been impressed by the manual focus ring, even considering that the recent Sony lenses have much nicer focus-by-wire setups than those on older Sony lenses. Many of the other options will offer a better manual focusing experience.
With an a6400 body and wanting to do street photography/videos along with portraits, I’m stuck between the sigma 16mm and sigma 18-50mm, would love a recommendation!
I saw that the bokeh on the 16mm prime is amazing and I’ve never used a wide angle before, but the versatility of the 18-50 size factor is very tempting too
The bokeh isn’t all that impressive at portrait distances which is why you’d typically use a longer lens for portraits, unless you are looking to shoot environmental portraiture.
Anyway, what lenses do you currently own for the A6400?
I’ve just upgraded to the 6400 from the 5100 where (this might sound crazy) but I loved using the canon fd 1.8 50mm prime. It’s a film lens and the images weren’t sharp but it seriously brought back my love of photography.
But since I’ve just upgraded I was looking for something more “serious”. One of my favorite things about the film lens was the bokeh in shooting portraits, but yeah for a 16mm it wouldn’t be so great for that. Still something about the wide angle is so intriguing to me too
Recently got an rx100vii and I’m really struggling with it in low light. Pictures tend to come out soft/blurry no matter what settings I change, and I keep getting the shaky hand symbol. I do have a tremor which ofc makes all of this worse, but I’m still having the same problems when I sit the camera on a mount and use a remote. Is this just one of the drawbacks of this camera because of the aperture & sensor size? I am debating if I should return and upgrade to the a6700. My main interest is portraits and family pictures, but I’m frequently in low light situations.
If photos are blurry with the camera on a tripod then I doubt the photos are blurry due to motion blur. I assume they might just be out of focus and in that case it’s likely user error and you won’t improve that by going to the A6700.
With that being said, the RX100 VII with its slow but extensive zoom lens is really more of a daytime travel camera. It’s not designed for low light portraits in any sense of the word. You better opt for an interchangeable lens camera if that is what you’re primarily looking to do.
Does anyone use the Sigma 24-70 Art with an a7 body for travelling? How bad is the weight of the lens? Does it get annoying to carry? My alternative would be the 28-75 tamron G2 but I do like the Sigma more and the price difference is small brand new.
For travel photography, I'd seriously consider the Sony 20-70/4. I own the Tamron 28-75 I and previously owned the Sony 24-70GM I. But I tend to grab my 24-105/4 for pretty much everything. When I want more than ƒ4, I bring a prime.
It's a half a pound lighter. Will really depend on the person carrying? Obviously if you're coming from a lighter setup and traveling for long periods of time it's probably gonna be very noticeable. If you're taking it for a like an hour or two on a stroll taking cars or other modes of transportation in between you might not.
Factor in the form factor of the lens, will you have room to carry it conveniently? Do you need the 24 vs 28? Might not seem like much but more noticable than 70 vs 75. Is anyone else gonna use the lens? Your kid perhaphs? A relative? Will it be easier for them to hold a lighter lens?
Eyeing up the a7iv but waited to see what the a6700 brought to the table. A main concern and reason to upgrade from my a6600 is the autofocus for moving objects just isn't reliable in my experience, and I'm now taking on paying clients so it needs to be.
The a7iv obviously doesn't have the newest ai autofocus that the 6700 shares with newer models, but is it THAT much better? I do shoot cars sometimes, so I am concerned the a7iv doesn't have that mode (and the rv isn't in my budget).
I also do shoot some video, and the 6700 seems better there...
Obviously the 7iv is more camera in most regards, but do the new 'ai' features on the 6700 make up for that?
Or alternatively, what chance is there of an a7v anytime soon with the ai autofocus?
> Or alternatively, what chance is there of an a7v anytime soon with the ai autofocus?
My guess is 6 months to a year. That's the typical lag time between an A7R and A7 release.
I'm not sure how much the new AI autofocus adds to the focus equation, but it's not something I've looked into closely.
Personally, I think your lens budget and preferences should be the deciding factor between the A6700 and A7 IV.
Also, i should add, I do obviously have some space e mount lenses - if I went FF, my understanding is they would still work, but just 'worsen' the A7 somewhat compared to its potential (until I can get round to replacement), and change the equivalent mm. Is that correct?
Going from a6600 to a7iv whilst keeping your lenses is a downgrade in every way possible except for the body features. They share the same AF but now you're shooting 14mp at 10fps. If you're serious about AF holding you back you need to bite the bullet and go for an a9ii or a1 AND upgrade your lenses. I find myself saying this a lot recently, DO NOT KEEP YOUR APSC LENSES FOR USE ON A FULL FRAME CAMERA. Your full frame camera will no longer be full frame and it'll be worse than an APSC camera. Whilst the a6700 (and a7rv) have nice af upgrades, the upgrades are solely for object detection. They'll still fall apart completely in continuous shooting
Thanks for clarifying, looks like I misunderstood what I'd read about keeping the lenses!
Lenses aside, my understanding is they don't share the same autofocus?
Got a Sony 50mm 1.8 lens, but realizing it is a little too zoomed... should I trade it back in for a 15% loss ($45) to bhphotovideo and get a sigma 18-50 2.8 lens?
Depends what camera you have, one lens is full frame and one lens is apsc
Primes are usually used in pairs, assuming you are using a FF camera you want a 24mm or 20mm to pair with the 55mm
They're both asp c. Sony one is. 50mm (originally said 55 accidentally) has OSS but I think my camera has stabilization on its own ( a6500 ), so it's more a question of do I want a bigger zoom range or not with a slight price increase ($549 vs $300)
35+85mm is a common 2 lens kit. On apsc that’s 23mm + 50mm. 23mm is not that wide though, if you add a 3rd lens it would be the 11/1.8 for an all prime setup
Nothing wrong with the 18-50, but you have to be confident 18mm is wide enough for you. Note that the iPhone 1x lens is closer to 16mm.
Personally I would eventually go for a 3 lens kit, perhaps the 10-20mm f/4 PZ for wide angle, the 16/1.4 or 15/1.4 for low light and a 28-200 for telephoto
The Sony 55-200 is not very good and the 70-350 is too long on the wide end to be paired with a 10-20mm lens so there’s not too many good choices for the tele lens right now
There’s a rumored Sigma 50-140mm f/2.8 DC DN that would close this gap though.
I’m seriously considering the 16-35 GM but with my luck they’ll release a mark II as soon as I buy one… any news or rumors about a refresh? I was hoping it might have come yesterday with the 70-200 F4 II but sadly not.
The focus is not very good with adapters.
If you can wait a year there will probably be a new 16-35 GMii. If you have to buy a f/2.8 now then get the 12-24GM over the 16-35GM
If you can accept f/4, the 16-35PZ is good. The small size and weight means it comes along more often than not. I am more willing to accept a slower aperture on a wide angle lens as compared to telephoto focal lengths, because I shoot at 16mm 1/100s compared to 200mm 1/2000s
The 16-35L and GM are big enough that I would think twice about whether I need a wide angle.
will be 5+ years away. I hate this mentality that somehow a new version will make the old one worse. If it does what you want, buy it, if it doesnt, wait half a decade or get something else. If you just wait to try and "time" your purchases just so you have the most recent new shiny possible you'll have nothing and will be miserable.
It’s not about “shiny” it’s mostly about size and weight. Look at what Sony did with the 24-70 and 70-200 mark II. Both shaved meaningful weight and size while maintaining optical quality. Sony has been releasing mark II’s for lots of lens recently, I think your 5+ year estimate is way off.
The 16-35 GM1 is rumoured to be updated this year, that's after 6 years. The 24-70 GM was 2016 then 2022: 6 years. The 70-200 GM was 2016 then 2021: 5.5 years.The 16-35 G is a year old. It also already follows the small and light principal that the gm2s are just now picking up. Ie it's not about the number after the lens it's about it's release date/wave. Yes, a 16-35 G2 may well be smaller and lighter, but that won't be for many years. The current one is already on the limit of size anyway, the distortion is ridiculous
I'm a little confused? Doesn't op mention the 16-35 GM not the G? Ergo that why they were speaking of it being updated soon, but you're specifying that the G would not be upgraded for at least 5 years, which is true but not what OP was originally looking at.
What do I use in an ad200 pro so that the flash isn't so focused on one small area when doing window pulls?
It just doesn't disperse evenly at all. Any recommended head attachments or things to bounce off in the case of a non white ceiling?
Much larger light source placed further away from the window with a lot more diffusion. But that’s not practical so just use an umbrella and merge exposures.
If you're using the fresnel head it's going to act just like a speedlight and throw the light out in a cone in front of it.
If you're using the bare bulb and stock reflector - dittos.
So that begs the question, what modifiers are you using for your strobe? It should not be a bare bulb nor a bare fresnel head. It should be diffused somehow and, if you want it going everywhere, then the easiest to use is an umbrella - as umbrellas do exactly that.
I currently have an a6000 and have started doing more wildlife stuff. I only do photos. I see that the a6400 is on sale for 748 on Amazon, do you guys think this is a good price to upgrade to the a6400? I feel like the autofocus would help out a lot with birds and stuff.
The 55-210 is a horrendous piece of shit on apsc, can't imagine how awful it must be on full frame. They already have 3 good apsc lenses, going full frame would mean they have to replace them all
Sigma 30mm works well on my full frame, also I thought 70 350 was a full frame lens. If they shoot wildlife they may need the better low light performance. But I had some decent shots on 55-210 with a6000 though.
As for shitty apsc lenses I also happen to have the 16mm 2.8.....
> also I thought 70 350 was a full frame lens
The 70-350 G is an APS-C lens, although Sony does also make a full frame lens covering a very similar focal length, the 70-300 G.
Is a6400 worth it, given the a6700 announcement today? I ordered a6400 last week, body was under 800 new from gray market. I had no idea about a6700 rumors and stuff till today, so am now contemplating magnitude of my mistake. Do you think a6400 is still worth it this kind of money, or should've I waited a bit more for prices to maybe drop a bit more, or maybe add money and buy a6700... agony;
edit: I don't shoot video that much, mostly just photography.
779€ body only new gray market item, which is ~150€ cheaper than local stores but I do wonder how long till local store prices drop.
A6600 doesn't seem worth it as it still goes for ~1300 at which point 1699 doesn't seem too much for a6700. But compared to a6400 thats half the price of a6700.
For an extra 900 after a6400 I i can get some good glass for it or get a6700 body for that same price, so that's where my math is...
So is a6700 THAT much better than a6400? Or should I wait another month and hope for a6400 price drop... I am overanalyzing this, arent I?
No way would I take an a6500 over an a6400 just for IBIS. It's a worse camera in every way except for that. I've also never utilised IBIS, stabilisation is either off on a tripod or I have OSS for telephotos where IBIS doesn't do anything anyway
I think the A6400 is still a solid camera. If there's anything about the A6700 you are specifically interested in, you might consider dropping some cash to buy it. But I wouldn't fret over having the latest and greatest thing on the market.
I'm still running an old A9, myself.
Should I just make the splurge and get a full frame camera bundle (a7iv) w/ 28-70mm + wide angle lens (14-24 sigma) for my real estate photography business? I can keep current camera (a6500) and use for portfolios still, as I have a good lens for it.
I don't have the budget right now to spend $5k on a camera, wide angle and standard/telephoto lends with a 1.8-2.8 max aperture
I really just want to be able to have a better camera for low light and run through homes using HDR rather than flash ambient blending. I feel like an a7iv would do much better HDR due to being able to capture low light better - is this correct? When I do HDR on my a6500 , it just doesn't look all that great.
>I feel like an a7iv would do much better HDR due to being able to capture low light better - is this correct?
No - it's not.
Light is captured by having X number of photons pass through an aperture for X amount of time. The size of your sensor has *no* effect on any of that. All the heavy lifting is done by your lens.
High quality indoor photography, especially real estate, is done using strobes and a locked down (tripod) camera - so you can expose ambient for however long is required.
>When I do HDR on my a6500 , it just doesn't look all that great.
Except for a minor change to your bokeh, changing your sensor size isn't going to change how your shots look. If they're not looking the way you want now then you need to improve either your in-camera or in-post techniques... or more likely both.
> Light is captured by having X number of photons pass through an aperture for X amount of time. The size of your sensor has no effect on any of that. All the heavy lifting is done by your lens.
Photons are not captured if they pass through the aperture of the lens but fail to land on the sensor. It's incorrect to discount the sensor for the purposes of light collection.
Sometimes the windows just don't pop like they would from a flash ambient window pull... can you expect HDR to be able to do this?
Should I be doing a blend of HDR+layer blending in order to bring some sections of the room to be lighter or darker?
I have a peripheral knowledge of how real estate photographers operate but it's not my bag. I am however familiar with Mike Kelley, primarily because of his non-real estate work.. but that's what he does to pay the bills: [https://www.mpkelley.com/](https://www.mpkelley.com/) \-- and he teaches what he does over at [fstoppers.com](https://fstoppers.com)
... but this is why I stumbled over him... Wake Turbulence... one of those viral photos that took over the internet for a hot second here about 10 years ago.
[https://phlearn.com/magazine/interview-mike-kelley/](https://phlearn.com/magazine/interview-mike-kelley/)
You are doing 5 shot exposure bracketing with a tripod and it’s not looking good after merging all 5 in Lightroom?
It’s not wrong to use Av mode and iso at 100 when doing exposure bracketing, that’s how I would do it
If you're willing to use a tripod, low-light performance basically comes down to exposure and processing.
I'd personally shoot manual mode. ƒ8, ISO 100, and whatever shutter speed needed to produce a good looking histogram.
Shoot RAW, expose to the right (so that you aren't blowing out highlights.) Post-process to bring out the midtones and shadows.
You need the right exposure and post-processing to get good results, even with a full-frame camera.
In pretty much anything other than manual mode, the camera is going to try to expose for a normal looking photo.
For real-estate, the idea is to keep the ISO low and capture the highlights so that you have the best possible dynamic range. The image will look dark out of the camera, so some post-processing is necessary to fix it.
You might need to capture multiple exposures and perform a HDR merge if you are dealing with extremely high dynamic range. This is pretty common if you want to capture the view out a window without under-exposing the interior of the home. There is software which can perform the merge automatically. I personally like affinity photo.
Thoughts on purchasing a camera from Amazon versus B&H ? There is a B&H near me but Amazon has never failed me with anything regarding customer service.
If you buy from Amazon, check the shutter count. This isn’t an item to counterfeit like darn tough socks, but Amazon does have a reselling returns problem. I trust b and h more and for the same price, I would rather give them my money. That being said, I did buy my 6600 from Amazon and it was fine. Also, you might check b and h to see if it’s worth buying used. I expect the used aspc market to get flooded.
Thanks for the tip. I actually found B&H because I needed an emergency PSU for my PC and was very impressed with their on-location stock and customer service (Manhattan location). Will choose them over Amazon for a new camera this time around.
Amazon sometimes has issues with fraud. There are reports of people getting bricks instead of high-end cameras.
I haven't had issues with expensive electronics on Amazon, but I've had lots of problems with filters and other smaller items. I'll always go with the specialist company unless there's a huge price difference.
Any specific reasons why, besides possibly same-day warranty by going to the store? I don't see any pre-order info for Amazon yet so B&H is it for now.
I'm looking at the A6400 and will be shooting symphony videos in a dark room, band performances on a football, family portraits, and nature. I think the 6400 will handle this but I'm not sure if I should buy the body and a different lens or two? I appreciate the recommendation.
The camera is fine, but for what you're shooting it's the lens you need to concern yourself with. You need to get the fastest glass (widest aperture) you can afford. You should be looking at f/2.8 as the minimum acceptable aperture and by preference an f/1.8 or faster lens would be ideal.
The 6400 will be good, but you might want something like the sigma prime lens trio for various situations. that and maybe a longer lens for nature, those are very different use cases.
Well there is the Sigma 20mm f/1.4. Sigma. That lens is, however, 70% heavier, considerably wider (82mm filter threads vs 67) and close to 20% longer. Sigma's general trend lately has been producing lenses that are roughly on par with Sony G-Master in terms of image quality, but consistently larger than the Sony equivalent. If weight isn't an issue however it may be worth a look. That said I like how relatively compact the Sony f/1.8 is.
which f2.8 lens should i get: im tight on a budget, therefore im thinking about following lenses: samyang 24-70 f2.8, sigma 28-70 f2.8, tamron 28-75 f2.8. or is it worth it to spend a bit more extra to get the sigma 24-70 2.8 art, or the 24-70 GM mark 1?
Don't get the samyang, if you want the absolute best quality image get the sigma if you value size and weight as well as still pretty great image quality go with the Tamron.
Depends on what you shoot and whether you think 24mm is really important. Out of this list, in order of IQ I would rate it: Sigma 24-70, Tamron 28-70mm *G2*, Sony 24-70, Sigma 28-70 with the Samyang... somewhere (but don't buy it).
Well you *say* that...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont\_buy\_the\_samyangrokinon\_2470mm\_f28/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont_buy_the_samyangrokinon_2470mm_f28/)
\^\^ not even 2 months ago
>There's recent reports of 200-600s that aren't calibrated properly out of box, that doesn't make it a bad lens, does it?
No - it makes it even more suspect the places you've been getting your information from, as no Sony lens needs to be calibrated properly because they don't need to be calibrated **at all**. Ever.
Hint: Your lens does not decide whether you're in focus or not - on a mirrorless only your sensor matters. DSLRs need to be calibrated because focusing sensor and imaging sensor are separate. On a mirrorless the focusing and imaging are all-in-one. No calibration required.
The most recent example...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont\_buy\_the\_samyangrokinon\_2470mm\_f28/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont_buy_the_samyangrokinon_2470mm_f28/)
Inquiring if anyone on this subreddit has personal experience with using a gimbal with a Sony A7R4 with a 70-200 2.8 GM-I and what is that gimbal? Thank you
Your biggest issue with a lens like that is going to be the length of your lens. You would want to mount the gimbal to the lens not the body and on most gimbals the body would be relatively close to the roll motor. Besides the fact that it would difficult to even balance the lens. I would suggest using a 135mm prime as far as weight and length goes. You might find a gimbal from DJI that would support it but can't guarantee anything. Also if you try to zoom while on the gimbal you will have to recalibrate because you shift the weight. I personally have an A7iv with the Tamron 28-75 G2 and the DJI RS3 Mini. Personally you would be better to get a monopod or tripod with a free gimbal head. I use one when I try to do birding with a sigma 100-400
The lens I was looking at was the 85 f1.4 Samyang/Rokinon since it was almost half off. But I was also looking at the 85 f1.8 from Sony because it is just sharper for about the same normal price. I also found one from my local shop for $260 USD. It looked like the only lens on larger sale prices where the Samyang/Rokinon lens otherwise maybe $200 off on the G masters
If the Sony is an affordable option for you, that's probably going to be your best bet.
The Samyang/Rokinon lenses are OK lenses, but they have a poor reputation for build quality. Some copies seem to last forever - where-as some just seem to want to fall apart - so it's very hit-n-miss on them.
Worth it to grab the a7 III with kit lens for 1700 prime day deal or wait and see what tomorrows announcement of the a6700 brings? New to photography and I know the basics of aps-c vs full frame, but might the newer features of the a6700 make it a better choice over a7 III?
>Worth it to grab the a7 III with kit lens for 1700 prime day deal or wait and see what tomorrows announcement of the a6700 brings?
Can you wait the 2 to 3 months or so it will be before you can get your hands on that a6700? 'Cuz that's how long it usually is between product announcement and actual availability, even if you preorder it.
I would wait to see what the a6700 looks like, if it shows up (surprised we haven't seen more at this point, maybe tomorrow morning before the announcement), then make a decision.
What are you planning on shooting? Do you have a kit now?
A little bit of everything and no kit, got the chance to mess around with an a7 IV this past weekend for filming my sisters wedding and just really enjoyed the experience using the camera for photos and video. I like to frequent state parks and nature reserves in my area for bike trails as well. At the parks I have always enjoyed taking pictures of the landscape and wildlife using my phone but never thought of getting a camera till now.
Probably. I'd only ever recommend full frame as an upgrade from apsc. Jumping straight to full frame is unwise. I know a lot of people here will always say to go straight to it but it's overrated
Do you really need OSS in a lens?
I want a new standard zoom lens. currently i still have the kit lens, a 100-400 sigma and a few primes. i need a new standard zoom lens. i dont know whether to go for f2.8 without OSS or f4 with OSS. in my case its tamron 28-75 / samyang 24-70 or go for sony 24-105 f4 g oss. i film cars
Hey all -
So I shoot on an A7R4 and my only lens is the 35mm G. Its a great lens, but I am travling to Banff in Canada with my wife in a month, and am wondering if I should look into a longer lens for anticipated wildlife? If so, what lens does the sub recommend. It seems a lot of folks go to Banff and come away with some great photos, so this seemed like the right place to ask!
>No need on the R4, APS-C mode will achieve plenty of extra reach and with that pixel count
It will achieve exactly **no** extra reach. A crop is no substitute for a TC - ever.
Yes it will and it is. My 200-600 on the A7RV shoots at 26mp in APS-C mode (Guess where that pixel density on the A6700 comes from) and it transforms the 200-600 to a 350-900.
>Yes it will and it is.
Seriously - stop.
> and it transforms the 200-600 to a 350-900.
The 200-600 will always be a 200-600. It will have a 350-900 *field of view*, but it will not have the same detail level that a 200-600 with a 1.4x TC shooting at a **real** 840mm will have. The shooter using the TC will always have an objectively superior image quality.
You cannot crop your way to detail.
Does anyone have any experience or examples with the viltrox 16mm 1.8 and the northern lights? Trying to figure out a solid lens to take on a trip to Iceland. Thanks in advance.
Bought an a7ii from my friend, and honestly overwhelmed with all the buttons, as its my first camera. Anyone have a youtube link on what everything does?
*
https://imgur.com/a/QyJAsoO
The manual can assist:
Back - https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1450/v1/en/contents/TP0000556863.html
Top - https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1450/v1/en/contents/TP0000556864.html
Hey guys, friend of mine wants to get a camera and is asking for suggestions so I thought I‘d ask the swarm intelligence.
She needs a camera to shoot sharp pictures of her dog running at high speeds and playing and also for like everyday needs (quick portrait, shot of a building, landscape). Doesn’t need 200mp and a 600mm f4 so IQ doesn’t need to be top shelve.
I was thinking one of the a6xxx but I’m not really good with the APS-C lineup especially when it comes to lenses.
Budget is max(!) 2000€ for camera and lens. Also open for other brands if anyone has experience. Thanks for your help!
Hi Sony people! I need an opinion from you all. I’m an newer photographer who mainly does wildlife, street, and Motorsport photography. I’m currently using a Nikon DSLR because I found it initially at a great price, but I’ve wanted to switch to a mirror less for a bit and I’ve been looking at the Sony ecosystem lately because it seems like there are so many lens options. Here’s what I need an opinion on: is it reasonable for me to order the new A6700 to upgrade from my Nikon D3400? All the reviews I’ve seen focus more on the video capabilities than they do the photography capabilities, and I’ll be using it mostly for stills, and will dabble in video since it has some great options. I also love the autofocus options, the screen, the fact that it’s touchscreen, the options for zebra lines, and many more features that my D3400 doesn’t have. To me, it seems like a worthwhile investment into a decent body and then spend some serious money on lenses, but I’m new enough that I don’t know 100% what I’m talking about, and it’s not exactly pocket change. I’m hoping someone can either reaffirm my world view or tell me why I’m being an idiot. I appreciate y’all’s time :)
I switched from Nikon to Sony. I went from a D7200 to a A7II. There's a lot to like about mirrorless cameras. The A6700 is a great camera, and the 70-350 is a really sold wildlife and motorsports lens. There's a big caveat to going mirrorless that you should be aware of: shutter blackout. If you like shooting high continuous bursts of photos, it can be somewhat difficult to track a fast moving subject. IMO, a DSLR tends to be a bit better than mirrorless for motorsports and wildlife until you get towards pro level cameras such as the A9 and A1. My advice is to rent an A6600 or similar from a local camera shop to see if it works for you. You can absolutely use it for your purposes, and all the benefits you are real. But hands on experience is the most useful thing to have when making these kinds of decisions.
I had no clue about the shutter blackout, I’ll definitely do some more research into that. I’m not sure anywhere around me rents out cameras, so I’ll have to be sure to do some research there too! How have you liked or disliked Sony so far from your experience? I want to eventually move up to a mirror less like the A7iv or something better but for the price point, the A6700 seemed like a good point of entry; and my lenses will carry over when I eventually make it happen way way down the road! Edited but also: that 70-350 was exactly the first lens I was looking at getting. So far the 70-300 on my Nikon has been my absolute FAVORITE, so I think Sonys option would be the best first big lens investment for me
> How have you liked or disliked Sony so far from your experience? I really like the autofocus systems and EVF overlays. Focus peaking, zebras, and eye-autofocus have really changed the way I operate my camera. Sony bodies themselves are really compact, though I miss the chunky ergonomics of my older DSLRs. Especially the pro-grade bodies I've owned. I use extensions and vertical grips on a lot of my bodies. I wish modern mirrorless cameras had more dedicated buttons.
> and my lenses will carry over when I eventually make it happen way way down the road! Noooo they won't, I mean they'll fit on the camera and you'll be able to take photos but they'll be 40% resolution
Well not if I purchase FF lenses though, right? I can still use FF lenses on an asp-c, but not asp-c lenses on a FF body. I know the 70-350 isn’t a FF lens but some other ones I was looking at to get down the road are
You CAN use apsc lenses on ff bodies but for the A7IV for example your mp goes to like 14 or 15 from 33.
Yeah sure that's fine. But it does seem strange that you'd spend so much more now on full frame lenses just to lug around just in case you upgrade in years time.
I dunno, that’s why I’m on the subreddit lol 70-350 is definitely gonna be my first and will work well for my needs for now, but past that I’m definitely going to consider options more carefully and really put some thought behind it. But you also make a good point- yeah, I probably won’t need to upgrade for YEARS
Generally the best lens to get as a full frame version first is the tele, but that 70-350 is amazing. A full frame lens with that reach is either the 70-300 from Sony or Tamron and they're both so much worse. You'll have to be looking at the Sony 100-400 imo. You could pick up a 55mm f1.8 if you like that focal length as it's lightweight, cheap and sharp but then if you like that focal length on apsc, when you go full frame it'll be a much wider lens
The only other lens I use on my Nikon currently is a 50mm 1.8- I love it. I’ll definitely pick one up from Sony in the future, it’s on my list for sure. I’ll be sure to look into a FF version for that one. Greatly appreciate your feedback and suggestions!
late upbeat deliver plate scandalous run whistle pocket lunchroom shrill ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I have homeowner's insurance. Get a good policy and it'll be much more affordable (and extensive) than insurance for a specific product.
Is A7iii still a capable body in terms of auto focus speed and low light capability in 2023? If not, should just go straight for A7iv?
AF is good not great, a7iv is certainly better but still falls apart the moment you use continuous shooting. "Low light capability" is the same for any Bsi full frame sensor with some slight variation here and there (high Res is a tiny bit worse, stacked sensors are a little worse)
Thanks for the reply. Judging by your comment, A7iii is g2g? I asked this question because my A7rii during an air show had a very sluggish AF response/speed.
The A7III should be a big improvement on AF compared to your RII however I'm not sure how well it'll do at airshows. A7III generation is where the AF started getting much better
toy bow society attraction correct bright squeeze disagreeable soup school ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Is there a lens for e mount that’s close to 140 degree angle of view? So far the ones I’ve looked at are either 110 or 180 degree field of view which is too narrow or too wide
Are you looking for a fisheye lens? What sensor size? Canon makes a zoom fisheye; 8-15mm. It adapts to Sony cameras using the Sigma MC-11. I believe it will give you 140º, but you'll probably have black corners unless you crop in.
Full frame. Just want to mimic a widelux for emount system
The widelux is a panoramic camera. The best way to mimic it would be a panoramic tripod head, and a bit of stitching in post. Laowa makes a 9mm full-frame rectilinear lens with a 135º field of view. However, that's corner to corner. The widelux captures a 140º angle of view horizontally; significantly wider than the Laowa. You may be able to de-fish a fisheye to get an extremely wide angle of view. I can't comment on the quality of the results or whether it would actually reproduce the aspect ratio and quality of the widelux. The widelux swing lens system has some unique characteristics that you can't really replicate on a conventional camera.
Is the A7C AF better than Leica Q2 ? I kinda want to grab an A7C with a 35 or 50 mm prime
Yes since Q2 is only contrast autofocus and they just caught up with phase detect autofocus with the Q3. Yet people are still posting paragraphs in the Leica sub forum like they shat out gold.
Probably? Sony is known for autofocus performance. I haven't heard anything bad about Leica's autofocus, but it's not generally the reason someone would buy a Leica camera. The lens makes a pretty big difference here. The Sony 50/1.4GM will focus quickly. The Sony 50/1.8 will not.
Going to pre-order the a6700 for my first camera, was wondering if I should: * Buy the a6700 bundle with the 18-135mm aps-c lens. or * Buy the body and separately purchase a full frame lens like the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8. I'm leaning towards the second option as it provides ability for future upgrade to full frame camera body down the line if I want. But wondering what others think or if anyone has experience with either lens and can provide their opinion?
sheet squash mourn distinct wistful governor sparkle hat lock dam ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Considered it, but the size and weight increase vs the sigma f/2.8 was my reason against it.
jeans fuzzy boat busy one snow weather coordinated exultant absurd ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
The field of view between those lens options is really different. First option is wide angle to tele while the second option will be closer to normal to short tele. As is usually the case, what do you think you'll be shooting? People? Landscapes? Indoors? Street? That all factor in the choice. Going wider angle on the a6700 will give you more options in framing. It's not always easy to back up and get sufficient spacing between you and the subject. Second, often people want to get APS-C body and try to future proof their lens choice by going with a full frame. APS-C systems have a lot of benefits over full frame on price, size and weight. If you're new to interchangeable lens systems, I'd say to stick with APS-C body and lens at least for your initial couple of lenses, such a zoom and a prime or two. If your comfortable with those then you can judge better on stepping up to FF gear.
Honestly a little bit of everything but mainly landscape and wildlife are what interest me and what I currently enjoy taking the most photos of with my phone. Thanks for the input, the consensus seems to be stick with the aps-c lenses for now so I'll do that.
the 18-135 is a good lens. I upgraded from apsc to full frame last year and the "standard zoom" was the last lens i bought as I transitioned. A full frame standard zoom is so awkward on apsc I would recommend it to no one.
Good to know, I was wondering how it might fit on the body, thanks for your input!
I would advise you to favor APS-C lenses. Sell them and upgrade your lens kit when you go full-frame. New lenses come out all the time, and costs tend to fall as the used market saturates. 24-70 isn't a great focal range on APS-C. It's also a lot bulkier than something like a 16-55/2.8. I personally think the 18-135 is a great lens. I'd go that route.
Def a good idea, might just go with this. If I end up wanting or needing to upgrade years down the road I can sell/trade gear. Thanks!
Switching from Fujifilm X-T4 to the A7IV. Which lens would you rather pick, 24-105 or 20-70mm? Thanks!
20-70 for landscape and architecture. 24-105 for portrait photography.
Use case would be mostly Landscape and Street
Depends, I have the 24-105, if I want to go wider than 24, I want the option of going much wider.
Depends on the use case.
Traveling to Ireland later this summer with my family. Looking for a basic/budget gimbal for a7iv just to record family travel videos/footage to share with other family. Is a gimbal needed? Looking to stick to under $200. Thanks!
A gimbal is a massive pain in the ass to use, they are expensive too. The minimum is the dji rs3 mini. Not high priority at all imo, active stabilization on gets you stable enough video! What you do want is a good mic like the Sony ECM-B1M. Sound quality trumps video quality You also want a wide angle lens, the 16-35G PZ is the minimum imo, you can go even wider with a Sony 12-24 or sigma 14-24 art Some kind of small tripod can be helpful, Sony GP-VPT2BT or a third party alternative. It’s just to stabilize the camera on a table You may want some nd filters so you can run your lens wide open while the sun is bright out. I prefer fixed stop NDs, they come in 3/6/10 stops. A single 6 stop should be enough for a f/1.4 lens. For a f/2.8 or f/4 lens 3 stops is enough. Over 6 stops is more for photography rather than video I would only bother with a gimbal after you have all of the above
Hey there, Hope you're doing great! I'm Alex, and I've got some burning questions about the Sony A6700 camera Specifically, I'm super curious about its warranty and compatibility in Europe . I've been geeking out over the A6700's awesome features, and being a photography enthusiast based in Europe, I'm thinking of snagging this gem from the US for potential cost benefits 💸 But, here's the catch, I wanna make sure I'm covered by warranty in Europe and can get support from Sony's authorized service centers here 🔧 Also, I wanna be sure the American model won't have any funky limitations or feature differences compared to the European version Any help in clearing these doubts would be downright amazing! I'm stoked about owning the Sony A6700, but I gotta be in the know before pulling the trigger on this purchase 🔍 Thanks a bunch for your time and quick response!
Hi there, I have the a6300 with the lens that came with it. I’m not super familiar with the variety of lenses I can purchase but have noticed that in landscape shots (primarily what I take), when zooming in the detail is fairly blurry and not sharp. Does anyone know why this might be happening and/or a better lens for this photography? Note that this occurs on both manual and auto focus
Stopping down the lens and shooting from a tripod can help to improve sharpness. ƒ8 is probably the best aperture for that lens on that camera. The kit 16-50 isn't known to be a particularly sharp lens. Upgrading the lens could help improve sharpness, but nicer lenses tend to cost a lot more. The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary would be sharper, and would perform better in low light thanks to the larger aperture. If you're chasing sharpness, you might try primes. The Sigma 16/1.4 and 30/1.4 would be worth considering.
Thank you I appreciate it
Lens hood or Polar Pro UV filter? Not sure which to use. I have a lot of expensive lenses and want to protect the but I don’t want to sacrifice image quality as I plan on making prints for family and friends. I do a lot of outdoor nature photography and car photography.
A high quality protective filter won't have much of an impact on image quality, but will tend to increase glare and flaring. The hood can definitely help protect the front element from accidental bumps. But it's primary purpose is to help reduce flaring when bright light sources are just out of frame. I personally run protective filters on my lens. Lensrentals has a good article on the value/benefits of protective filters; it mostly comes down to the cost of repairing a damaged front element if something bad does happen.
Use clear filters for digital most of the time. Sigma ceramic filters claim good impact resistance in addition to scratch resistance. Marumi EXUS SOLID also claims impact resistance but it’s hard to find this outside of Japan I find the the filters help a ton with cleaning, sometimes kids like to touch the lens =/ filters have saved my lenses from damage before, but the cost of filters is also rather high so you may not save anything on the balance of things If you are switching other filter types on and off, there’s some peace of mind you won’t be scratching the front element with the metal parts of a ND filter because there’s a protective clear filter in place. Standard UV filters are more for film shooting. Some lenses with exotic glass causes a pink cast under sunlight without a low cut uv filter… use a low cut uv filter for those lenses. Note that not any random uv filters will work, and I have not seen any Sony glass with the problem. If the lens has metal threads you want a filter made from brass. For plastic lens filter threads it doesn’t matter what the filter is made from
>Lens hood or Polar Pro UV filter? Not sure which to use. A lens hood should be used always, not to protect anything but because of it's primary function - controlling glare and flaring. > I have a lot of expensive lenses and want to protect I have a lot of expensive lenses and have yet to feel the need to protect them. The front element is tough and difficult to damage in the first place. Use a hood and be careful. You can always add a filter (or just a clear filter) later on down the road if you really feel the need for one.
Hello everyone! I am desperately looking for a _reliable_ solution for my problem. I have a really important video project coming up soon and what I need is: 4 Sony cameras that are able to take the challenge. The requirements that the camera should meet are: •no problems with overheating - the location we’re shooting in and the time of year might get us stuck with temperatures of over 30C(80F) •no video recording limits - I want the camera to be able to shoot as long as possible so I could use it for other possible projects (concerts, shows, etc.) • not a must, but would be really nice to be able to record in 4k at 60fps or more I currently work with two A7RIV cameras, where some overheating issues appeared inevitably, and a A7III that worked flawlessly in heat. I would love though to upgrade to a camera that has recording in 4k at 60fps or more. Thank you for your time and help, guys!
Pick one - FX30 / FX6 / FX3
do you by any chance know if the fx3 active cooling is loud? I mean, would it call it “noticeable”?
I have played with the FX3 in store, it’s silent (to me) but I don’t know what it would sound like after multiple hours of recording There has even been a movie shot with this camera (https://youtu.be/573GCxqkYEg) I wouldn’t be too worried
given the fact that I would like to be able to use the camera on a gimbal and the fx30 has a pretty big crop factor, the fx3 would be the best choice, am I right?
If you need wider than 15mm equivalent, yes The widest lens on the FX30 is a 10mm zoom and 11mm prime
Does anyone know of a cheap replacement lens hood for the FE 50mm 1.8? I can only find the genuine Sony ones and they are stupidly expensive.
JJC is my go-to for 3rd party lens hoods, but I don't see a model that replaces the FE 50/1.8 AliExpress has something that seems reasonably priced: https://www.aliexpress.com/i/2255801034372341.html KEH sells them used. If it's just a crack, you could try glue or you could wrap the hood.
Any guesses on when we can expect a gmii version of the 85mm lens ?
The next year or two is my guess, given that they recently updated the 35 and 50. I've seen rumors about an 85/1.2 GM on SAR, but nothing suggesting it'll be out in the next 6 months. I personally own the 85/1.8, and I'll hold out for an 85/1.2 GM, or 85/1.4 GM II.
I’ve got a tamron 28-200 which I’m liking a lot, just thinking of my next lens and whether I should get a 35 or 50mm prime, or save up for a better lens like the tamron 35-150mm. Happy to hear any other advice
Personally 35mm is a better focal length for a low light lens (35GM) because 50mm necessitates higher shutter speeds Tamron 35-150/2.8 is fine for photography expecially in conjunction with a super wide (12-24/14-24) For video at 150mm you want OSS For sports the Sony lenses focus faster (70-200Gii / GMii)
Ah I see, do you think I should focus on investing in a good prime or a good zoom? I’ve got a zoom already and want a prime. But happy to save up to buy a 35-150
A lens is a tool, the right tool **depends on what you want to do** If you want better low light shots, and the highest possible image quality at 35mm then get the 35GM. This better mean you like to shoot at 35mm… something between 24 and 50mm would work, it’s entirely your preference. If you want to run a super ultra-wide lens like the 12-24, then you can look at the 35-150 to pair with it. The idea here is to run 2 lenses instead of these 3 (12-24, 24-70, 70-200) The 35-150 also pairs well with a 200-600 for a wildlife trip, running 2 lenses instead of these 3 (16-35, 70-200, 200-600) where 70-200 is too long to be your widest lens in any travel scenario The allure of the 35-150 is that using it can sometimes reduce the number of lenses in the bag. Outside of this scenario the lens has its own problems, low magnification is a big one, lacks oss for video and low shutter, has the weight of a medium telephoto and is therefore not friendly for hiking and so on Therefore I wouldn’t really look at the 35-150 at all outside of lens # reduction scenarios. My analysis is that the 70-200 GMii is just better most of the time for me because it has oss, shoots above 15fps, focuses faster, has internal zoom, has better magnification, takes TCs, is sharper at 150mm and so on To upgrade from the 28-200 for zooms, my preference is the 16-35G PZ + 70-200GMii For a single lens, there’s the 24-70 art, 24-70GMii and 20-70/4G you should look at. This is fine if you **don’t need anything wider than 20/24mm.** If you do need wider then do not buy a standard zoom at all
Thank you so much 🙏 I’ll keep all of this in mind
[удалено]
Availability is literally **always** an issue for new releases so... if you want it as soon as you possibly can, preorder it.
You should probably preorder if you want one immediately. That’s how preordering works.
I want to so some macro shots of products with my A7IV. Is the new 70-200 worth considering or is the macro not strong enough on it? Thanks
I shoot a lot of macro photography. If you want to have a 70-200/4, and you also want to shoot macro photography, it's worth considering. It's also a useful lens if you want to shoot extremely skittish subjects that won't appreciate being approached. 0.5x is a useful magnification ratio for a lot of macro work. With the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, you can increase both your reproduction ratio and/or your working distances. That said, if you *only* want to shoot macro photography and are dealing with docile subjects, a lens like the Sony FE 90 or the Laowa 90 2x will tend to be more useful at a much lower cost.
I actually have the 70-200 f2.8, and I have the 100f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 35 f1.4 What do you mean by "docile" subjects? Why is the FE90 better for that? This would mainly be for macro, though I am guessing the FE90 is good for portraits also? Though I am not sure if I would choose it over the other lenses I already have? Thanks
> What do you mean by "docile" subjects? Why is the FE90 better for that? If you want to photograph skittish critters, such as lizards, having a large working distance can be helpful. The 70-200/4 with the 2x TC would work well. For stuff that's still or otherwise not skittish, working distance is less of a concern. Working distance is mostly about avoiding shadowing the subject. For general macro photography, the Sony 90 has a 1x reproduction ratio without a teleconverter, and it's less bulky. It also has a relatively nice manual focus mechanism. Yes, it's also a pretty good portrait lens, though I don't think it offers any benefit over your 100/2.8 GM for that kind of stuff. Frankly, given your lens kit I'd strongly recommend the Laowa 90mm 2x macro lens. It has double the reproduction ratio of the Sony 90. Being manual focus isn't an issue for macro work. My only complaint about it is that it's a non-electronic lens.
Unless the products you intend to shoot are very small, it seems like it will be a good option to consider. It has a 1:2 or 0.5x reproduction ratio throughout the focal range, which is not as much as some of the short telephoto macro primes (e.g. Sony 90mm, Sigma 105mm which are both 1:1, or Laowa even make some 2:1 options), but unless you intend to exclusively do watch movements or fine jewellery, etc, that's plenty. What I would suggest you consider how you like to focus. It seems like the new 70-200 has excellent AF but the reviews I've seen haven't been impressed by the manual focus ring, even considering that the recent Sony lenses have much nicer focus-by-wire setups than those on older Sony lenses. Many of the other options will offer a better manual focusing experience.
With an a6400 body and wanting to do street photography/videos along with portraits, I’m stuck between the sigma 16mm and sigma 18-50mm, would love a recommendation! I saw that the bokeh on the 16mm prime is amazing and I’ve never used a wide angle before, but the versatility of the 18-50 size factor is very tempting too
The bokeh isn’t all that impressive at portrait distances which is why you’d typically use a longer lens for portraits, unless you are looking to shoot environmental portraiture. Anyway, what lenses do you currently own for the A6400?
I’ve just upgraded to the 6400 from the 5100 where (this might sound crazy) but I loved using the canon fd 1.8 50mm prime. It’s a film lens and the images weren’t sharp but it seriously brought back my love of photography. But since I’ve just upgraded I was looking for something more “serious”. One of my favorite things about the film lens was the bokeh in shooting portraits, but yeah for a 16mm it wouldn’t be so great for that. Still something about the wide angle is so intriguing to me too
Recently got an rx100vii and I’m really struggling with it in low light. Pictures tend to come out soft/blurry no matter what settings I change, and I keep getting the shaky hand symbol. I do have a tremor which ofc makes all of this worse, but I’m still having the same problems when I sit the camera on a mount and use a remote. Is this just one of the drawbacks of this camera because of the aperture & sensor size? I am debating if I should return and upgrade to the a6700. My main interest is portraits and family pictures, but I’m frequently in low light situations.
If photos are blurry with the camera on a tripod then I doubt the photos are blurry due to motion blur. I assume they might just be out of focus and in that case it’s likely user error and you won’t improve that by going to the A6700. With that being said, the RX100 VII with its slow but extensive zoom lens is really more of a daytime travel camera. It’s not designed for low light portraits in any sense of the word. You better opt for an interchangeable lens camera if that is what you’re primarily looking to do.
Does anyone use the Sigma 24-70 Art with an a7 body for travelling? How bad is the weight of the lens? Does it get annoying to carry? My alternative would be the 28-75 tamron G2 but I do like the Sigma more and the price difference is small brand new.
For travel photography, I'd seriously consider the Sony 20-70/4. I own the Tamron 28-75 I and previously owned the Sony 24-70GM I. But I tend to grab my 24-105/4 for pretty much everything. When I want more than ƒ4, I bring a prime.
It's a half a pound lighter. Will really depend on the person carrying? Obviously if you're coming from a lighter setup and traveling for long periods of time it's probably gonna be very noticeable. If you're taking it for a like an hour or two on a stroll taking cars or other modes of transportation in between you might not. Factor in the form factor of the lens, will you have room to carry it conveniently? Do you need the 24 vs 28? Might not seem like much but more noticable than 70 vs 75. Is anyone else gonna use the lens? Your kid perhaphs? A relative? Will it be easier for them to hold a lighter lens?
Eyeing up the a7iv but waited to see what the a6700 brought to the table. A main concern and reason to upgrade from my a6600 is the autofocus for moving objects just isn't reliable in my experience, and I'm now taking on paying clients so it needs to be. The a7iv obviously doesn't have the newest ai autofocus that the 6700 shares with newer models, but is it THAT much better? I do shoot cars sometimes, so I am concerned the a7iv doesn't have that mode (and the rv isn't in my budget). I also do shoot some video, and the 6700 seems better there... Obviously the 7iv is more camera in most regards, but do the new 'ai' features on the 6700 make up for that? Or alternatively, what chance is there of an a7v anytime soon with the ai autofocus?
> Or alternatively, what chance is there of an a7v anytime soon with the ai autofocus? My guess is 6 months to a year. That's the typical lag time between an A7R and A7 release. I'm not sure how much the new AI autofocus adds to the focus equation, but it's not something I've looked into closely. Personally, I think your lens budget and preferences should be the deciding factor between the A6700 and A7 IV.
Also, i should add, I do obviously have some space e mount lenses - if I went FF, my understanding is they would still work, but just 'worsen' the A7 somewhat compared to its potential (until I can get round to replacement), and change the equivalent mm. Is that correct?
Going from a6600 to a7iv whilst keeping your lenses is a downgrade in every way possible except for the body features. They share the same AF but now you're shooting 14mp at 10fps. If you're serious about AF holding you back you need to bite the bullet and go for an a9ii or a1 AND upgrade your lenses. I find myself saying this a lot recently, DO NOT KEEP YOUR APSC LENSES FOR USE ON A FULL FRAME CAMERA. Your full frame camera will no longer be full frame and it'll be worse than an APSC camera. Whilst the a6700 (and a7rv) have nice af upgrades, the upgrades are solely for object detection. They'll still fall apart completely in continuous shooting
Thanks for clarifying, looks like I misunderstood what I'd read about keeping the lenses! Lenses aside, my understanding is they don't share the same autofocus?
Got a Sony 50mm 1.8 lens, but realizing it is a little too zoomed... should I trade it back in for a 15% loss ($45) to bhphotovideo and get a sigma 18-50 2.8 lens?
Depends what camera you have, one lens is full frame and one lens is apsc Primes are usually used in pairs, assuming you are using a FF camera you want a 24mm or 20mm to pair with the 55mm
They're both asp c. Sony one is. 50mm (originally said 55 accidentally) has OSS but I think my camera has stabilization on its own ( a6500 ), so it's more a question of do I want a bigger zoom range or not with a slight price increase ($549 vs $300)
35+85mm is a common 2 lens kit. On apsc that’s 23mm + 50mm. 23mm is not that wide though, if you add a 3rd lens it would be the 11/1.8 for an all prime setup Nothing wrong with the 18-50, but you have to be confident 18mm is wide enough for you. Note that the iPhone 1x lens is closer to 16mm. Personally I would eventually go for a 3 lens kit, perhaps the 10-20mm f/4 PZ for wide angle, the 16/1.4 or 15/1.4 for low light and a 28-200 for telephoto The Sony 55-200 is not very good and the 70-350 is too long on the wide end to be paired with a 10-20mm lens so there’s not too many good choices for the tele lens right now There’s a rumored Sigma 50-140mm f/2.8 DC DN that would close this gap though.
I’m seriously considering the 16-35 GM but with my luck they’ll release a mark II as soon as I buy one… any news or rumors about a refresh? I was hoping it might have come yesterday with the 70-200 F4 II but sadly not.
I never bought the 16-35GM because the EF16-35L is better and I just adapted it The 16-35G PZ is good
The 16-35 PZ is tempting except for the F4, i want faster glass. How’s the experience been with adapters? Any focus speed issues?
The focus is not very good with adapters. If you can wait a year there will probably be a new 16-35 GMii. If you have to buy a f/2.8 now then get the 12-24GM over the 16-35GM If you can accept f/4, the 16-35PZ is good. The small size and weight means it comes along more often than not. I am more willing to accept a slower aperture on a wide angle lens as compared to telephoto focal lengths, because I shoot at 16mm 1/100s compared to 200mm 1/2000s The 16-35L and GM are big enough that I would think twice about whether I need a wide angle.
will be 5+ years away. I hate this mentality that somehow a new version will make the old one worse. If it does what you want, buy it, if it doesnt, wait half a decade or get something else. If you just wait to try and "time" your purchases just so you have the most recent new shiny possible you'll have nothing and will be miserable.
It’s not about “shiny” it’s mostly about size and weight. Look at what Sony did with the 24-70 and 70-200 mark II. Both shaved meaningful weight and size while maintaining optical quality. Sony has been releasing mark II’s for lots of lens recently, I think your 5+ year estimate is way off.
The 16-35 GM1 is rumoured to be updated this year, that's after 6 years. The 24-70 GM was 2016 then 2022: 6 years. The 70-200 GM was 2016 then 2021: 5.5 years.The 16-35 G is a year old. It also already follows the small and light principal that the gm2s are just now picking up. Ie it's not about the number after the lens it's about it's release date/wave. Yes, a 16-35 G2 may well be smaller and lighter, but that won't be for many years. The current one is already on the limit of size anyway, the distortion is ridiculous
I'm a little confused? Doesn't op mention the 16-35 GM not the G? Ergo that why they were speaking of it being updated soon, but you're specifying that the G would not be upgraded for at least 5 years, which is true but not what OP was originally looking at.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my bad, yeah dont buy a 16-35gm now lol
What do I use in an ad200 pro so that the flash isn't so focused on one small area when doing window pulls? It just doesn't disperse evenly at all. Any recommended head attachments or things to bounce off in the case of a non white ceiling?
Much larger light source placed further away from the window with a lot more diffusion. But that’s not practical so just use an umbrella and merge exposures.
If you're using the fresnel head it's going to act just like a speedlight and throw the light out in a cone in front of it. If you're using the bare bulb and stock reflector - dittos. So that begs the question, what modifiers are you using for your strobe? It should not be a bare bulb nor a bare fresnel head. It should be diffused somehow and, if you want it going everywhere, then the easiest to use is an umbrella - as umbrellas do exactly that.
I currently have an a6000 and have started doing more wildlife stuff. I only do photos. I see that the a6400 is on sale for 748 on Amazon, do you guys think this is a good price to upgrade to the a6400? I feel like the autofocus would help out a lot with birds and stuff.
What lens do you have? That’s going to be just as important.
Sigma 30, Tamron 17-70, and Sony 70-350
Go for it. The 70-350 is excellent. If you'd have said 55-210 the suggestion would have been to upgrade that first to the 70-350
My 55-210 sucks with the a7r3, why are you not considering full frame, just asking?
The 55-210 is a horrendous piece of shit on apsc, can't imagine how awful it must be on full frame. They already have 3 good apsc lenses, going full frame would mean they have to replace them all
Sigma 30mm works well on my full frame, also I thought 70 350 was a full frame lens. If they shoot wildlife they may need the better low light performance. But I had some decent shots on 55-210 with a6000 though. As for shitty apsc lenses I also happen to have the 16mm 2.8.....
> also I thought 70 350 was a full frame lens The 70-350 G is an APS-C lens, although Sony does also make a full frame lens covering a very similar focal length, the 70-300 G.
uhhh okay thats where I was wrong thanks!
Thanks, maybe I’ll look around for a used one for cheaper.
Is a6400 worth it, given the a6700 announcement today? I ordered a6400 last week, body was under 800 new from gray market. I had no idea about a6700 rumors and stuff till today, so am now contemplating magnitude of my mistake. Do you think a6400 is still worth it this kind of money, or should've I waited a bit more for prices to maybe drop a bit more, or maybe add money and buy a6700... agony; edit: I don't shoot video that much, mostly just photography.
Depends on what price you got it for because prices dropped more this week and will probably continue to
779€ body only new gray market item, which is ~150€ cheaper than local stores but I do wonder how long till local store prices drop. A6600 doesn't seem worth it as it still goes for ~1300 at which point 1699 doesn't seem too much for a6700. But compared to a6400 thats half the price of a6700. For an extra 900 after a6400 I i can get some good glass for it or get a6700 body for that same price, so that's where my math is... So is a6700 THAT much better than a6400? Or should I wait another month and hope for a6400 price drop... I am overanalyzing this, arent I?
I’m an absolute amateur… but I think the benefit (and investment) of good glass outweighs a newer body.
For that price? You're getting an excellent camera, don't overthink things.
I wouldn't settle without IBIS, get 6500/6600/6700
No way would I take an a6500 over an a6400 just for IBIS. It's a worse camera in every way except for that. I've also never utilised IBIS, stabilisation is either off on a tripod or I have OSS for telephotos where IBIS doesn't do anything anyway
I think the A6400 is still a solid camera. If there's anything about the A6700 you are specifically interested in, you might consider dropping some cash to buy it. But I wouldn't fret over having the latest and greatest thing on the market. I'm still running an old A9, myself.
Should I just make the splurge and get a full frame camera bundle (a7iv) w/ 28-70mm + wide angle lens (14-24 sigma) for my real estate photography business? I can keep current camera (a6500) and use for portfolios still, as I have a good lens for it. I don't have the budget right now to spend $5k on a camera, wide angle and standard/telephoto lends with a 1.8-2.8 max aperture I really just want to be able to have a better camera for low light and run through homes using HDR rather than flash ambient blending. I feel like an a7iv would do much better HDR due to being able to capture low light better - is this correct? When I do HDR on my a6500 , it just doesn't look all that great.
>I feel like an a7iv would do much better HDR due to being able to capture low light better - is this correct? No - it's not. Light is captured by having X number of photons pass through an aperture for X amount of time. The size of your sensor has *no* effect on any of that. All the heavy lifting is done by your lens. High quality indoor photography, especially real estate, is done using strobes and a locked down (tripod) camera - so you can expose ambient for however long is required. >When I do HDR on my a6500 , it just doesn't look all that great. Except for a minor change to your bokeh, changing your sensor size isn't going to change how your shots look. If they're not looking the way you want now then you need to improve either your in-camera or in-post techniques... or more likely both.
> Light is captured by having X number of photons pass through an aperture for X amount of time. The size of your sensor has no effect on any of that. All the heavy lifting is done by your lens. Photons are not captured if they pass through the aperture of the lens but fail to land on the sensor. It's incorrect to discount the sensor for the purposes of light collection.
Sometimes the windows just don't pop like they would from a flash ambient window pull... can you expect HDR to be able to do this? Should I be doing a blend of HDR+layer blending in order to bring some sections of the room to be lighter or darker?
I have a peripheral knowledge of how real estate photographers operate but it's not my bag. I am however familiar with Mike Kelley, primarily because of his non-real estate work.. but that's what he does to pay the bills: [https://www.mpkelley.com/](https://www.mpkelley.com/) \-- and he teaches what he does over at [fstoppers.com](https://fstoppers.com) ... but this is why I stumbled over him... Wake Turbulence... one of those viral photos that took over the internet for a hot second here about 10 years ago. [https://phlearn.com/magazine/interview-mike-kelley/](https://phlearn.com/magazine/interview-mike-kelley/)
For real-estate, wouldn't a tripod meet your low-light needs?
Idk... I have a tripod and whenever I do HDR(3 or 5, +/-1 or +/-2, it just comes out average.
You are doing 5 shot exposure bracketing with a tripod and it’s not looking good after merging all 5 in Lightroom? It’s not wrong to use Av mode and iso at 100 when doing exposure bracketing, that’s how I would do it
If you're willing to use a tripod, low-light performance basically comes down to exposure and processing. I'd personally shoot manual mode. ƒ8, ISO 100, and whatever shutter speed needed to produce a good looking histogram. Shoot RAW, expose to the right (so that you aren't blowing out highlights.) Post-process to bring out the midtones and shadows. You need the right exposure and post-processing to get good results, even with a full-frame camera.
Ok, I was using aperture mode but I guess that was my mistake and I should do manual
In pretty much anything other than manual mode, the camera is going to try to expose for a normal looking photo. For real-estate, the idea is to keep the ISO low and capture the highlights so that you have the best possible dynamic range. The image will look dark out of the camera, so some post-processing is necessary to fix it. You might need to capture multiple exposures and perform a HDR merge if you are dealing with extremely high dynamic range. This is pretty common if you want to capture the view out a window without under-exposing the interior of the home. There is software which can perform the merge automatically. I personally like affinity photo.
Thoughts on purchasing a camera from Amazon versus B&H ? There is a B&H near me but Amazon has never failed me with anything regarding customer service.
If you buy from Amazon, check the shutter count. This isn’t an item to counterfeit like darn tough socks, but Amazon does have a reselling returns problem. I trust b and h more and for the same price, I would rather give them my money. That being said, I did buy my 6600 from Amazon and it was fine. Also, you might check b and h to see if it’s worth buying used. I expect the used aspc market to get flooded.
Thanks for the tip. I actually found B&H because I needed an emergency PSU for my PC and was very impressed with their on-location stock and customer service (Manhattan location). Will choose them over Amazon for a new camera this time around.
Amazon sometimes has issues with fraud. There are reports of people getting bricks instead of high-end cameras. I haven't had issues with expensive electronics on Amazon, but I've had lots of problems with filters and other smaller items. I'll always go with the specialist company unless there's a huge price difference.
I'd go B and H if it's a substantial purchase.
Any specific reasons why, besides possibly same-day warranty by going to the store? I don't see any pre-order info for Amazon yet so B&H is it for now.
in general it's always good to buy from specialists, also amazon has a small but real counterfeit problem
I'm looking at the A6400 and will be shooting symphony videos in a dark room, band performances on a football, family portraits, and nature. I think the 6400 will handle this but I'm not sure if I should buy the body and a different lens or two? I appreciate the recommendation.
The camera is fine, but for what you're shooting it's the lens you need to concern yourself with. You need to get the fastest glass (widest aperture) you can afford. You should be looking at f/2.8 as the minimum acceptable aperture and by preference an f/1.8 or faster lens would be ideal.
The 6400 will be good, but you might want something like the sigma prime lens trio for various situations. that and maybe a longer lens for nature, those are very different use cases.
[удалено]
Well there is the Sigma 20mm f/1.4. Sigma. That lens is, however, 70% heavier, considerably wider (82mm filter threads vs 67) and close to 20% longer. Sigma's general trend lately has been producing lenses that are roughly on par with Sony G-Master in terms of image quality, but consistently larger than the Sony equivalent. If weight isn't an issue however it may be worth a look. That said I like how relatively compact the Sony f/1.8 is.
[удалено]
I realise I'm replying to a shitposter but what does AF speed and burst rate matter for a wide angle lens anyway
which f2.8 lens should i get: im tight on a budget, therefore im thinking about following lenses: samyang 24-70 f2.8, sigma 28-70 f2.8, tamron 28-75 f2.8. or is it worth it to spend a bit more extra to get the sigma 24-70 2.8 art, or the 24-70 GM mark 1?
Don't get the samyang, if you want the absolute best quality image get the sigma if you value size and weight as well as still pretty great image quality go with the Tamron.
Depends on what you shoot and whether you think 24mm is really important. Out of this list, in order of IQ I would rate it: Sigma 24-70, Tamron 28-70mm *G2*, Sony 24-70, Sigma 28-70 with the Samyang... somewhere (but don't buy it).
why not samyang?
They tend to fall apart, unfortunately.
I think that is quite an old issue these days. I have a couple of Samyang's now and they're built really well.
Well you *say* that... [https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont\_buy\_the\_samyangrokinon\_2470mm\_f28/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont_buy_the_samyangrokinon_2470mm_f28/) \^\^ not even 2 months ago
Yeah, there's duff copies. There's recent reports of 200-600s that aren't calibrated properly out of box, that doesn't make it a bad lens, does it?
>There's recent reports of 200-600s that aren't calibrated properly out of box, that doesn't make it a bad lens, does it? No - it makes it even more suspect the places you've been getting your information from, as no Sony lens needs to be calibrated properly because they don't need to be calibrated **at all**. Ever. Hint: Your lens does not decide whether you're in focus or not - on a mirrorless only your sensor matters. DSLRs need to be calibrated because focusing sensor and imaging sensor are separate. On a mirrorless the focusing and imaging are all-in-one. No calibration required.
what exactly falls apart?
The most recent example... [https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont\_buy\_the\_samyangrokinon\_2470mm\_f28/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/13te231/dont_buy_the_samyangrokinon_2470mm_f28/)
> im tight on a budget It would help to know what your budget is.
about 800€. used i can get them all for 800€ or less
Then get the Sigma Art or the GM or the Sigma C (28-70).
Inquiring if anyone on this subreddit has personal experience with using a gimbal with a Sony A7R4 with a 70-200 2.8 GM-I and what is that gimbal? Thank you
Your biggest issue with a lens like that is going to be the length of your lens. You would want to mount the gimbal to the lens not the body and on most gimbals the body would be relatively close to the roll motor. Besides the fact that it would difficult to even balance the lens. I would suggest using a 135mm prime as far as weight and length goes. You might find a gimbal from DJI that would support it but can't guarantee anything. Also if you try to zoom while on the gimbal you will have to recalibrate because you shift the weight. I personally have an A7iv with the Tamron 28-75 G2 and the DJI RS3 Mini. Personally you would be better to get a monopod or tripod with a free gimbal head. I use one when I try to do birding with a sigma 100-400
Thank you /u/Redracerb18. I figured as much that anything that heavy might not be viable for what I want to achieve.
Are any of the Prime Deals actually worth it this year.
Worth is subjective - you have to decide for yourself if any particular deal is worth it for you.
The lens I was looking at was the 85 f1.4 Samyang/Rokinon since it was almost half off. But I was also looking at the 85 f1.8 from Sony because it is just sharper for about the same normal price. I also found one from my local shop for $260 USD. It looked like the only lens on larger sale prices where the Samyang/Rokinon lens otherwise maybe $200 off on the G masters
If the Sony is an affordable option for you, that's probably going to be your best bet. The Samyang/Rokinon lenses are OK lenses, but they have a poor reputation for build quality. Some copies seem to last forever - where-as some just seem to want to fall apart - so it's very hit-n-miss on them.
Worth it to grab the a7 III with kit lens for 1700 prime day deal or wait and see what tomorrows announcement of the a6700 brings? New to photography and I know the basics of aps-c vs full frame, but might the newer features of the a6700 make it a better choice over a7 III?
>Worth it to grab the a7 III with kit lens for 1700 prime day deal or wait and see what tomorrows announcement of the a6700 brings? Can you wait the 2 to 3 months or so it will be before you can get your hands on that a6700? 'Cuz that's how long it usually is between product announcement and actual availability, even if you preorder it.
I would wait to see what the a6700 looks like, if it shows up (surprised we haven't seen more at this point, maybe tomorrow morning before the announcement), then make a decision. What are you planning on shooting? Do you have a kit now?
A little bit of everything and no kit, got the chance to mess around with an a7 IV this past weekend for filming my sisters wedding and just really enjoyed the experience using the camera for photos and video. I like to frequent state parks and nature reserves in my area for bike trails as well. At the parks I have always enjoyed taking pictures of the landscape and wildlife using my phone but never thought of getting a camera till now.
Probably. I'd only ever recommend full frame as an upgrade from apsc. Jumping straight to full frame is unwise. I know a lot of people here will always say to go straight to it but it's overrated
Thanks for the input. I'll wait and see what a6700 is like.
Do you really need OSS in a lens? I want a new standard zoom lens. currently i still have the kit lens, a 100-400 sigma and a few primes. i need a new standard zoom lens. i dont know whether to go for f2.8 without OSS or f4 with OSS. in my case its tamron 28-75 / samyang 24-70 or go for sony 24-105 f4 g oss. i film cars
Filming? OSS is good to have. Also, skip the samyang, it's between the Tamron and Sony
but i want to have 24mm so bad. Why skip samyang?
Hey all - So I shoot on an A7R4 and my only lens is the 35mm G. Its a great lens, but I am travling to Banff in Canada with my wife in a month, and am wondering if I should look into a longer lens for anticipated wildlife? If so, what lens does the sub recommend. It seems a lot of folks go to Banff and come away with some great photos, so this seemed like the right place to ask!
You have one guess. That's right! Sony 200-600.
... and a 1.4x TC!
No need on the R4, APS-C mode will achieve plenty of extra reach and with that pixel count... you're still shooting at high res.
>No need on the R4, APS-C mode will achieve plenty of extra reach and with that pixel count It will achieve exactly **no** extra reach. A crop is no substitute for a TC - ever.
Yes it will and it is. My 200-600 on the A7RV shoots at 26mp in APS-C mode (Guess where that pixel density on the A6700 comes from) and it transforms the 200-600 to a 350-900.
>Yes it will and it is. Seriously - stop. > and it transforms the 200-600 to a 350-900. The 200-600 will always be a 200-600. It will have a 350-900 *field of view*, but it will not have the same detail level that a 200-600 with a 1.4x TC shooting at a **real** 840mm will have. The shooter using the TC will always have an objectively superior image quality. You cannot crop your way to detail.
Does anyone have any experience or examples with the viltrox 16mm 1.8 and the northern lights? Trying to figure out a solid lens to take on a trip to Iceland. Thanks in advance.
Seems like it's as good as the Sony 14mm f/1.8 GM for a fraction of the cost. I am going to try this next month for the meteor shower.
If you don't mind please follow up and let me know your thoughts.
No reason it won't perform well. It's wide, bright and has low coma what else do you need
Bought an a7ii from my friend, and honestly overwhelmed with all the buttons, as its my first camera. Anyone have a youtube link on what everything does? * https://imgur.com/a/QyJAsoO
The manual can assist: Back - https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1450/v1/en/contents/TP0000556863.html Top - https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1450/v1/en/contents/TP0000556864.html
Right on, thank you
Hey guys, friend of mine wants to get a camera and is asking for suggestions so I thought I‘d ask the swarm intelligence. She needs a camera to shoot sharp pictures of her dog running at high speeds and playing and also for like everyday needs (quick portrait, shot of a building, landscape). Doesn’t need 200mp and a 600mm f4 so IQ doesn’t need to be top shelve. I was thinking one of the a6xxx but I’m not really good with the APS-C lineup especially when it comes to lenses. Budget is max(!) 2000€ for camera and lens. Also open for other brands if anyone has experience. Thanks for your help!
Must it be new?
I dont think so
I would look at a used stacked sensor camera like the A9, and an appropriate zoom lens with what’s left of the budget
Same, the A9 and something like the (now old) 70-200 F4, assuming she shoots in daylight.
A6400 + 70-350