shutterbud

<p>One thing is clear: Sony is a big player and they seem committed to photography. Give it....hhmmm I don't know, ten years and they should be second to none.<br>

On a nicer note, Canon seem to be doing good things with their sensors now. I'm happy to see that. </p>

<p>There is no way to know the truth of the situation, but one thing that struck me was how many photographers on another website explicitly stated they didn't care about the workers' rights' or feelings, which I found unbelievably callous, as well as stupid.</p>

<p>Alan, you're just embarassing yourself now. </p>

<p>I take great exception to the idea that Street is some kind of bargain basement category of photography for which the gear doesn't matter very much. This is nonsense. As we all know, Street is the red-headed step-child of the photography world and as such incredibly misunderstood, even by many so-called Street Photographers.<br>

The technical challenges of Street are as real as they are misunderstood, which is why almost every so-called Street forum on the web is full of the same crappy shots. </p>

<p>Lens choice for the A7 is not limited. I have no idea why you think that<br>

On Sony's UK site right now there are 18 full frame lenses, which is a lot smaller than Canon's 50 or so, but at least a third of these lenses are speciaist, so the largest photography company on earth, which started making lenses in the '30s, now has about twice that of a company which has been making FF cameras for less than 4 years.<br>

Wow. I can understand why you feel let-down!<br>

Don't forget, you can also use Sigma and other 3rd party lenses as well as every M-mount Zeiss, Leica & Voigtlander lens, as well as<em> Canon and Nikon glass,</em> albeit with limited AF. In fact I believe that there are more lenses for the A7 than <em>any other camera</em>. <br>

You are correct in saying that Sony have decided to concentrate on making high end glass of late, for which I applaud them, but there are many decent lenses out there which don't cost too much. The Zeiss 55/1.8 has halved in price in 2 years and is now an outstanding proposition. <br>

I suspect that there are one or two lenses from other systems that you wish were mirrored in the Sony system, for a small price.<br>

That was never going to happen.<br>

Fuji lenses are not cheap either. Nor should they be; they are very good. Sony FF is quite clearly being developed as a high end product for portraits, landscapes and other non-sports related photography. The new lenses are extremely good and many of them are Zeiss. If Sony doesn't give you what you want, it might make sense to move on, but I feel it is best to be clearheaded about the situation, rather than pretending that Sony have let you down or are in some way in dereliction of duty. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I own one camera and one lens. A couple of years ago I owned two cameras and four lenses. But the piece of gear I used least was my 14/2.5 for u4/3. </p>

<p>I think the OP is missing the point. Why<em> should Sony</em> be preferred by professional sports photographers?<br>

Only in the past 2 or 3 years have they got serious about photography and professional sports is not their focus.<br>

For everyday photographers and/or portrait/landscapers they are great. There is no doubt that they make wonderful cameras for these applications which people can make money using. For sports they are not even on the RADAR. <br>

There is no point pretending otherwise.</p>

 

<p>I suggest you put an unthreatening prime on your 7D and set it to auto-everything so she can forget about everything except framing. At the same time, go out with her with a massive lens on your 1D so the relative smallness of her set-up is emphasised. If and when she asks questions while viewing the shots, this might be the time to mention a few basics."Why is that so ugly close-up?" "Well, the signal had to be pushed...see this? ISO? The higher it is the noisier it is."</p>

<p>Spending money on something less threatening is a mistake in my opinion as <br>

Either your wife will become interested in photography, at which point she will want a more capable camera anyway<br>

or<br>

she won't, so you'll have bought a camera neither of you might want to use. <br>

I found out last night that one of my friends considers my camera "scary." It is a Sony A6000!</p>

<p>"Buddhism too, needed to have its martyrs"<br>

Ah, The Daily Mail, how disgusting it is.</p>

<p>Having said that, the work is stunning. Much better than previous attempts. </p>

<p>The first statement from the "police office" shows he is a liar. It shows he wanted to prosecute someone and it just happened to be you. If it<em> is</em> illegal to transfer medication to another bottle, then you will probably get into trouble with that, but I think your lawyer should first demand records of this....<em>police officer's </em>arrest/stop practices.<em> </em><br></p><br><br>

<p><i>Mod Note: Commentary edited. Please stay on topic. Some latitude has been provided to previous contributions which wandered off the photography aspect of this discussion - but this is certainly <strong>not</strong> the place for a personal comment on the why's and wherefores of which country(ies) one would like to visit.</i></p>

<p>Don't foget the superwide fetishists.<br>

Anything <24mm gets +1. Anything <12mm gets +2.<br>

Distance scale gives an automatic +1<br>

Any Landscape lens slower than f/2.8 gets -1, despite no-one using f/2.8 for landscape!<br>

And equiv. focal length: 85mm = 0; 82.5mm = -1 despite zero difference.<br>

More than 7 "science letters" in the name = +1 <br>

Addition of elements/groups irrespective of image quality +1 per 2 additional. </p>

<p>Some terrifying stories!<br>

I've been quite lucky in my 6 years in China. I have often been tolerated, or even welcomed in extremely poor communities, although sometimes I have felt like I was being rude simply by being there. Of course, there have been a few instances of local disgruntlement in those years at which point I apologise, put my camera away and walk out of the area. I remember once I stumbled into a...well it was a ghetto, no other word for it, on my electric motorbike which cost 4,000 RMB and a few kids ran after it shouting "Yeah! So Beautiful! Cool!". This made me feel very strange; it was a nice bike, but hardly exceptional and I was literally 3/4 a mile from the main road and real motorbikes. A few minutes later I noticed one of my best students walking with her father. This 6 year old girl was so poor she was lucky to have air conditioning but absolutely shone in my class; always full of joy and eager to learn. <br>

I have been the focus of genuine aggression only twice: once when I snapped a mah jong parlour and the men inside became furious, throwing small things at me like cigarette packets and empty plastic cups and shouting as if I'd just groped all their wives. I put my camera away and told them to calm down as I was walking away and no-one followed. There seemed to be an element of fear of being photographed on their part. And once when I slipped into the back street behind the main facade of a red light district. Two pimps came by in a big black Audi as I photographed the off-duty girls. They parked the car and started walking towards me and I thought "Oh, sh*t!" so I did everything I could to look like an idiot, taking pictures of lamposts, talking to myself etc. They walked passed me and one loudly said "Laowai!" while the other clapped me on my shoulder. Hard. I immediately put my camera away and got on the main drag. It was a curiously Chinese confrontation but I was in no doubt I had to leave.</p>

<p>Of course, Landscape and Street require different strengths in a camera, but modern enthusiast cameras are good enough for both. Whenever Sony is mentioned, the lack of lenses is cited, for good reason. These days, Sony has a LOT to offer full frame users, but seem to have given up on crop lenses, whereas Fuji are crop specialists. This might make a big difference to you. I am very happy with my A6000 but I only use one prime lens and sometimes I just can't get the shot; this is a trade-off I am willing to make to get the best IQ possible from my camera. But I certainly wouldn't expect others to share my view. There is little doubt that Fuji is an admirable system. Sony crop cameras are very good indeed; if you find the lenses you need from Sony, I am sure you will be very happy, but there is far more choice from Fuji...for crop.<br>

Fuji has no full frame option at all.<br>

Sony excels in full frame.<br>

So perhaps the first question you should ask yourself is whether you want to move up to full frame at some point?<br>

If not, if you are comfortable with the Fuji ergonomics and slower AF, then go for it. If you want much better AF to prioritise Street over landscape, the Sony might be better. </p>

 

<p>Its their film emulation. It is seductive, but ultimately redundant. Like getting a Gibson Les Paul, putting it through a Marshall stack and playing a power chord. Sounds great. Sounds exactly like everyone else. This is why I decided not to buy one. </p>

<p>Wow. No-one on this site has used both an A6K and an A7?<br>

Surprising.</p>

<p>Hello all<br>

A year ago an A7 plus Zeiss 55/1.8 was my dream setup. I now have the Zeiss and can afford the A7. I am currently using the A6000. I have trawled the internet and the posts I have found on this very question have been mixed. Most are satisfied with the better IQ but not ecstatic and some have returned to a smaller, more nimble camera. It certainly doesn't seem like the jump in the IQ of the A7 is much more than incremental from the A6000; richer but not substantively different. In technical terms I gain a stop in DR, 0.8 bits CD and 0.75ish EV in high ISO ability. But I also 'gain' a loud shutter and noticeably less competent AF. The specs on the EVF are similar apart from resolution but am I correct in thinking that 100%/0.7 of a full frame sensor is in fact commensurately large than 100%/0.7 of a crop sensor? As I am not a wide-angle user, this is not much of an issue, but I do wish the 35/2.8 Zeiss was a bit better than it appears to be.<br>

Would anyone be able to comment on this from personal experience please?</p>

 

<p>/</p>

<p>This thread should have been entitled "Show us all a photograph you've ruined." There are a couple of nice ones, basically because they don't meet the remit, but most of them are dreadful treatments from people desperate to manufacture "edge".</p>

<p>My contribution</p><div></div>

<p>I support the WPP decision. I mean, if the output from a Professional modern camera is not good enough to present a scene without messing about with it, these photographers are surely doing something wrong. </p>

<p>The Holocaust?<br>

Again?<br>

For God's sake! Why didn't he do something relevant, like the current sufferings of those forced to live under ISIS, or the current concentration camps in The West Bank?<br>

"My best friend at school knew someone she thought was Jewish so this very relevant to me. Thanks for sharing" Purlease!</p>

<p>When editting gets in the way, it ruins a shot. I view a shot within its context, I think we all have to. When I see a shot of the first Le Mans winner, I'm looking for composition and a good basic exposure. If I am viewing "National Geographic Portraiture Awards 2015" I expect to see something else, most of which is un-necessary, most of which results in a hyperrealistic con and most of which is totally missing the point. And as for cloning, bleeuuuchhh!</p>

<p>Speak for yourself Alan. Mine snapped in two when I reailsed where it was supposed to go! EBAAAAAAAY!!<br>

It is funny to see The OP go on a rantathon while those around him reply in reasonable terms. Makes me feel sorry for the seller. </p>

<p>I've been wanting to take this shot for years, since my first visit to The Hai, but only a few days ago a very special event happened. A completely empty train pulled up!</p>

<div></div>

<p>Zooms are not Sony's forte at the moment. If you are willing to use primes, you'll get much better results for not a lot of money.</p>