• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

|OT| NeoGAF Photography & Camera Gear Community

  • Thread starter Deleted member 17706
  • Start date
  • 329

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
12,688
7,809
1,690
Spain
Took this in Wales. Wanted to create something with it so flipped a reflection, took the colour out. Enhanced detail and changed colour at. Bottom.

Has a surreal quality to it.

Very nice đź‘Ť
 

dcll

Member
Apr 28, 2017
1,483
3,429
580
That's the night lens right there! I'm waiting for Laowa's 35mm and 45mm f/0.95 and see how they do at night, if not so good then might just go with the new Sony GM 50mm f/1.2 later. Great lens you have!
I bought a Pixel 5 a couple months ago for $200 off Facebook and it had a warranty issue so google replaced it so I trade the replacement and $250 for the lens. Unbelievable deal, I can easily make money on it if I decide to stick with my 50 1.8 srm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
Been playing around with the camera and Luminar 4.

Here's a shot that is considered bad settings:

Camera: Sony a7S III + Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art lens
f/2.8
Exposure 0
Shutter 1/80 sec
ISO 100
Focal length 66mm
Raw photo (ARW)

Originally shot in S-Cinetone (better pre-edit it in Sony Imaging Edge Desktop app then export it as TIF) but this is out of RAW with all the lens flaws and no picture profile. In Lightroom you can download lens profile I think, but you may as well use Sony Imaging Edge Desktop app that preserves S-Cinetone and can as well modify it there, but I export it as 16-bit TIF with Wide Color Gamut preset to preserve all possible aspects of the original raw photo. My daughter eating chips :messenger_winking_tongue: :



The JPG with S-Cinetone and lens correction on by default which shows more details than the above:


The raw photo in less than 10 seconds (lighting only) in Luminar 4, you can push the photo a lot more with ease but wanted it to look as natural as possible:



Here is another shot same settings above but Exposure is -0.3 and ISO 800, JPG unedited with S-Cinetone picture profile. You can see the details being blown away, and the underneath photo is RAW with no picture profile (you can preserve S-Cinetone and lens correction in Sony Imaging Edge Desktop then export it as TIF) with enhanced AI lighting in Luminar 4.




Still trying to learn and practice with the camera!

And testing the capabilities of the low light, of course a faster lens at f/1.4 for example would be much better.

This is closer to what you see with the naked eye. It's slightly darker in person.

f/2.8
24mm
1/50 sec
ISO 12,800 (pretty high, I know)



Pushed ISO to 2,000, shutter speed to 0.62sec for this:



And a portrait attempt in such a dark scene, with the same settings above but at 70mm, my brother-in-law:



And minor editing in Luminar 4 to enhance, crop, and rotate it:



All images are originally shot in P11 picture profile (S-Cinetone).
 
Last edited:

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
Love the S-Cinetone look.

Yeah it's nice and gives better workflow and you may turn it off easily here (you choose ST for standard or NT for neutral picture profile, under "Creative Look", or you can change the profile to another one in Sony Imaging Edge Desktop, free app):



Sony's RAW is 14-bit, but I prefer to export from here with wide color gamut, 16-bit as TIF, which is an overkill, to keep all the details of the RAW file + lens correction + Creative Look. As it stands it already gives around 13-stops of dynamic range, but you can turn the picture profile to standard and it'll appear darker then work around it from there if that's your thing.

Settings: 24mm, f/2.8, 1/3200sec, ISO 100, -0.3 exposure, S-Cinetone (P11 in Creative Look).



After a quick AI Enhance (lighting) in Luminar 4, like 1 second job, you may still push the photo further though as there is enough room, but it's been exported as JPG in the end like the rest of the photos anyway. PNG, of course, is preferred for much higher quality and to avoid banding:

 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
Finally got a FE 50mm f1/.8 budget lens to move up from the kit lens that I had.

Although even with f/8, the mask itself is blurry (I had the focus point set towards my eye/face).

Details:

1/4th
f/8
ISO 1000
FL 50mm


With the lens and aperture, the mask is definitely not out of focus because of a shallow depth of field. You could have stopped down even further and the result would have been identical.
The reason why the mask is out of focus is the SS of 1/4s. So movement and/or too long exposure time is the problem. If somethings is out of focus it also generally looks quite different from motion blur. You can see this especially when cropping, but also in general unwanted motion blur is not pleasant for the viewer (thanks to our brains).




I have read a lot and I'm a bit confused about megapixel vs print sizes. I'm planning to buy a 44" canon printer for business in the near future, and own a7S III which is 12.1 MP. I read a lot on the web that you need to have like at least 150ppi, which is around 35MP for A0.



But let's look at realistic figures. Of course that nearly drove me to sell my a7S III and push further to get a1 with 50MP, of course it'll look much more sharper and cleaner at A0. But what is the actually dimensions of A0?



1189 x 841 mm46.8 x 33.1 in

Now, I have a 55" 4K HDR tv that I use for PC, Netflix, and PS5. 4K is actually only 8.29MP, so what is the size of 55" tv?


47.9" 121.7 cm
27.0" 68.6 cm

So the TV is slightly wider (horizontally) by 1.1" (2.8cm) and a bit shorter than A0 by 6.1" (15.5cm). So the PPI/DPI of the 4K is only 80.11 PPI at 55" TV vs 87.2 PPI for 12.1MP (4000x3000px) for the A0 size (diagonal is 57.34" or 145.64cm):


4K footage look amazing and even 12MP photos look wonderful and sharp from around 1 meter away, so why not the prints?

So, did anyone have any experience printing massive prints at A0 with only 12MP, or any MP in that regard? Thanks!

Simply speaking, 12 MP can be enough, but it also depends on the distance of the viewer to the object. For example, if you want to use it in a format like A0 as a large picture for your home, then you can do that without any problems. If the print is meant to be viewed at "reading distance", then rather not.

Either way, it's worth upscaling 12MP for larger prints beforehand. There are plenty of options that do this for free quite well and with which you can achieve a better result for large prints.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
Simply speaking, 12 MP can be enough, but it also depends on the distance of the viewer to the object. For example, if you want to use it in a format like A0 as a large picture for your home, then you can do that without any problems. If the print is meant to be viewed at "reading distance", then rather not.

Either way, it's worth upscaling 12MP for larger prints beforehand. There are plenty of options that do this for free quite well and with which you can achieve a better result for large prints.

That is exactly what I'm exploring recently! Trying to buy/sub in some as at 12MP they seem to refuse to upscale it further. I'll see a proper app for that when I get the printer.

Been watching many lower rez photos being printed way above their suggested sizes. And for reading distance it'll be A3 max for book-like albums so I think I'll be safe. The only upgrade to my needs from a7S III would be a1 as it's ridiculously capable in low light even with 50.1MP. Might as well wait for that sensor to be introduced to next a7S IV at around 18MP for 6K or 34MP for 8K (doubt the later). All depends on how much money I'll be making and after getting a wide range of lenses and studio accessories.

Thanks for the input! My next TV will still be 4K 55" for reference (Sony X90J) and would upgrade to 8K 65-75" when I get an 8K-capable camera with 12-bit panel and a new HDMI bandwidth in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: betrayal

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
That is exactly what I'm exploring recently! Trying to buy/sub in some as at 12MP they seem to refuse to upscale it further. I'll see a proper app for that when I get the printer.

Been watching many lower rez photos being printed way above their suggested sizes. And for reading distance it'll be A3 max for book-like albums so I think I'll be safe. The only upgrade to my needs from a7S III would be a1 as it's ridiculously capable in low light even with 50.1MP. Might as well wait for that sensor to be introduced to next a7S IV at around 18MP for 6K or 34MP for 8K (doubt the later). All depends on how much money I'll be making and after getting a wide range of lenses and studio accessories.

Thanks for the input! My next TV will still be 4K 55" for reference (Sony X90J) and would upgrade to 8K 65-75" when I get an 8K-capable camera with 12-bit panel and a new HDMI bandwidth in the future.
What do you mainly use the a7S III for? Normally people use it more for videos and less for photography, unless you really take most of your pictures in low light. But even then it depends on the subject, ISO range etc. and you can be better off with other cameras (especially with downsampling) when it comes to image quality.

There are three variants of the Sony 7 series. 7R for pictures, 7S for videos and 7 is more or less a hybrid. Now this is very simplified and for most users you can use any model for (almost) all scenarios, but those who primarily take pictures will mostly come up with the R series or hybrid series. The 7S III is of course very good, but I personally would be bothered by the too few MP. But as I said, it depends on what you use it for. In the end, the photographer is still by far the most important factor for good pictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
What do you mainly use the a7S III for? Normally people use it more for videos and less for photography, unless you really take most of your pictures in low light. But even then it depends on the subject, ISO range etc. and you can be better off with other cameras (especially with downsampling) when it comes to image quality.

There are three variants of the Sony 7 series. 7R for pictures, 7S for videos and 7 is more or less a hybrid. Now this is very simplified and for most users you can use any model for (almost) all scenarios, but those who primarily take pictures will mostly come up with the R series or hybrid series. The 7S III is of course very good, but I personally would be bothered by the too few MP. But as I said, it depends on what you use it for. In the end, the photographer is still by far the most important factor for good pictures.

This might sound funny, but I've been waiting for more than 5 years to get the a7S III for 4K@60fps (at least). 30fps is a deal breaker to me, that goes for drones, osmo pocket, and even my next cellphone (Xperia 5 II if I'm not busy buying stuff, or the next mark III). Nearly got the Panasonic S1H but the lack of decent lens selection and not so good ISO made me hold back a bit.

Both are very important to me (photos/videos), but currently only videos are making me money. Also ISO is so critical to me, and I might start filming at night as well for some sneaky animals that are active at night. Also during the monsoon season, we rarely see the sun in like 3-4 months (June-September), so ISO also comes in handy here.



This was shot in 20-Aug-2015, ISO-80 and shutter speed at 1/400 handheld at around 3:38pm with the compact Lumix FZ35 (2009 camera). Photographing or filming birds, especially at 60-120fps, could be tricky with the lack of enough light with thick low altitude clouds and all the fog/haze with humidity being 100%. The weather itself is cool at around 25-26C all-day-round in sea level and of course less on higher grounds.

High framerates are needed for slowmo, especially for birds and insects, or for business like ads and so, and 4K@120fps 10-bit would be my standard mode, but would go to 60fps or even 24fps with not enough light situations. When something as rare as finding an Arabian leopard or so I would not be photographing at all and would instead use video stills. 8.29MP stills aren't bad at all, here's a video still from a 4K@120fps clip (unedited):



This is another reason why I'm excited for going 8K in the future, that's 33.2MP! Or at least 6K (19.4MP). But hope 10TB SSD's or more are cheaper by then. Planning to get the new Samsung 8TB SSD to add to the current 2TB SATA3 SSD and 1TB (main) NVMe m.2 SSD. Video stills would be so good from 6K and 8K videos!

More resolution is important, don't get me wrong, but it's not the top priority to me. For large prints, selling my own photos are secondary, actually planning to offer them for free with no extra charge, but of course not gonna give them the digital photos to print them outside my shop. Graphics design, costumers own photos prints might be more common than using my nature photos. But of course, photographing the customer is another story, but I doubt many would ask for A0 prints and there is literally no competition when I start printing fine art prints.

Still most of this talk is in the air, but should take it step by step.
 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
Bo_Hazem Bo_Hazem I asked because I wasn't sure if you were primarily going for stills or video with the a7S III. For videos, the a7S III is of course one of the best on the market. Even more so for the environments you describe.

The single frame you posted is indeed pretty impressive. I really didn't expect such a quality (I do not have a a7S III and also rarely make videos).
 
  • Strength
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
Bo_Hazem Bo_Hazem I asked because I wasn't sure if you were primarily going for stills or video with the a7S III. For videos, the a7S III is of course one of the best on the market. Even more so for the environments you describe.

The single frame you posted is indeed pretty impressive. I really didn't expect such a quality (I do not have a a7S III and also rarely make videos).

Canon's R5 4K HQ stills are even more closer to photography as it's literally 8K downsampled to 4K. The idea of using video stills as photos came when I was planning to get the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K, which has many flaws like cropped sensor, shit auto-focus, and not full-frame, inferior ISO that drove me away. But I once downloaded a 6K RAW 12-bit still from one website and couldn't believe what I've seen! Especially when pushing the still and editing it it holds very well!

I think I'll be buying another body later, as I would want to have higher PPI for like photographing big family/tribe/team/company photo like this. You would want to get very close and see as much details as possible:



Probably an a7R IV (61MP) would be great, as it has crazy resolution. Just zoom in to be amazed!



From:

 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
Ya, i know all the images provided by dpreview. I love the 7R IV and had been able to try it out. I still have a 7 III after switching from Canon to Sony, but I have already ordered the 7R IV and it should arrive in 1-2 weeks. Gray import is about 1.000 - 1.500$ cheaper in our country, so the longer waiting time is ok.
Since I rarely shoot in low light scenarios and the 7R IV is not that much worse (up to ISO 6400) I will probably sell the 7 III. Unfortunately the 7RV is unlikely to be released this year and the 7IV will "only" have 30 MP and will not be better than the 7R IV in many other aspects.

The high resolution has not only advantages, but for landscapes, wildlife and many other things, the 7R IV is one of the best you can get. The enormous cropping potential is really amazing.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
I love the 7R IV and had been able to try it out. I still have a 7 III after switching from Canon to Sony, but I have already ordered the 7R IV and it should arrive in 1-2 weeks. Gray import is about 1.000 - 1.500$ cheaper in our country, so the longer waiting time is ok.
Since I rarely shoot in low light scenarios and the 7R IV is not that much worse (up to ISO 6400) I will probably sell the 7 III.

The high resolution has not only advantages, but for landscapes, wildlife and many other things, the 7R IV is one of the best you can get. The enormous cropping potential is really amazing.

Indeed! I nearly returned backed my a7S III and bought the a1 for resolution + 1.5x crop mode that is still native 4K + 1.5x Clear Image Zoom with the 200-600mm G lens that would translate to around 1,350mm without even using extenders! And not using extenders is important as this lens has already a narrow f/6.3 at max focal length. If I can stretch to a1 I would go for it, if not I would settle for a7R IV which is slightly "wasteful" and doesn't feel like dual camera bodies for my needs. The a1 stands solid vs a7S III in low light photography/videography, and overall it's a much superior camera. Not sure what magic did Sony do there to have that 50.1MP perform this good at high ISO:




The a7R IV is still solid in low light like all Sony alpha cameras, but the a1 is crazy good for such a high pixel count. Anyway, it's a futuristic plan. Congrats for your new toy! I'm learning here as well so share whatever you have in mind and your own photos.
 
  • Strength
Reactions: betrayal

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
The A1 is undoubtedly unbeatable overall, but for me as a hobbyist, it's not worth the money for now (converted to dollars, it costs about $8,500 here). For my goals, the 7R IV should deliver similar results. For some things like wildlife, the A9 II might be better, but it just doesn't deliver that enormous potential for crops, which I think is hugely underestimated by many.

The APS-C mode of the 7R IV still delivers 26 MP, which is more than most APS-C cameras offer. As far as high focal lengths are concerned, which I actually only need for wildlife photography, I'm still pretty weak on the road and haven't gotten beyond a Sony 70-300G. 600mm and a 1.4 teleconverter (and cropping in post) on the 7R IV is a strong combination when the light is right, but I'm still unsure if it's worth the purchase for only this area, especially since most of it is on hikes rather than dedicated photo tours where there's already enough equipment to carry. As for the loss of a stop of light, it probably doesn't matter whether teleconverter or APS-C mode -> https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1620132/0

So far, when I needed high focal lengths, I used the Nikon P950 with 2000mm. Sure, it's no comparison to higher quality gear and you have a lower keeper rate, but what you get for the price of the P950 is very good and it weighs almost nothing.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
The A1 is undoubtedly unbeatable overall, but for me as a hobbyist, it's not worth the money for now (converted to dollars, it costs about $8,500 here). For my goals, the 7R IV should deliver similar results. For some things like wildlife, the A9 II might be better, but it just doesn't deliver that enormous potential for crops, which I think is hugely underestimated by many.

The APS-C mode of the 7R IV still delivers 26 MP, which is more than most APS-C cameras offer. As far as high focal lengths are concerned, which I actually only need for wildlife photography, I'm still pretty weak on the road and haven't gotten beyond a Sony 70-300G. 600mm and a 1.4 teleconverter (and cropping in post) on the 7R IV is a strong combination when the light is right, but I'm still unsure if it's worth the purchase for only this area, especially since most of it is on hikes rather than dedicated photo tours where there's already enough equipment to carry. As for the loss of a stop of light, it probably doesn't matter whether teleconverter or APS-C mode -> https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1620132/0

So far, when I needed high focal lengths, I used the Nikon P950 with 2000mm. Sure, it's no comparison to higher quality gear and you have a lower keeper rate, but what you get for the price of the P950 is very good and it weighs almost nothing.

For photography, a7R IV is a killer camera. Of course, if you're not making money back you shouldn't spend much, but better have monetization in the back of your head, even starting with "occasional" jobs. I would as well go to hotels, photograph everything, make video montage etc and ask no money in advance (if not been asked to). Then show them the photos/videos with X or few lines so they can see but they can't use. It's a way to "force" their hands, as they got nothing to lose ;) .

The teleconverter combination with crop would be wonderful on a7R IV indeed. With a7S III I have to invest more as crop is vastly limited in comparison. It's a negative that I have to deal with so I can get other advantages. a1 is nearly everything without compromises!
 
  • Like
Reactions: betrayal

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
You guys talk about the most modern cameras while I'm still taking pictures with a Sony Alpha 500 (A500)!^^

This is my second camera, and the first interchangeable-lens camera. My previous one is Panasonic Lumix FZ-35 I bought in 2009! Since then I threw too much money on modifying cars and engines that were not necessary at all and very wasteful.

Raad (Thunder), 1997 Nissan Patrol, 5-door, 4.2L I-6 (swapped a VK56DE 5.6L V8 then TB48DE 4.8L I-6 engines, although the original engine was working fine)





Now 2016 Nissan Patrol (Julmood "Boulder"), 3-door, 5-speed MT, 4.8L I-6.





Both with 2" lift and 35" mud tires. Now I'm more focused :)
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
I'm surprised there's so little going on in this thread. Various screenshot threads for games are flooded, but here there seems to be hardly any people interested in photography. I would actually argue that people who like to take screenshots are also the ones who would like to take photos in the real world, if they would just get into it first. I can't think of anyone who has ever said "photography is boring and sucks".

So where are the people? :messenger_mr_smith_who_are_you_going_to_call:
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
I'm surprised there's so little going on in this thread. Various screenshot threads for games are flooded, but here there seems to be hardly any people interested in photography. I would actually argue that people who like to take screenshots are also the ones who would like to take photos in the real world, if they would just get into it first. I can't think of anyone who has ever said "photography is boring and sucks".

So where are the people? :messenger_mr_smith_who_are_you_going_to_call:

Most of them don't even know that this thread exists. To be honest, I came here through a friend as I spend 99% of my time in the gaming section. We should advertise the thread more ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: betrayal

Prime Time

Neo Member
Feb 15, 2021
5
3
90
M43? That's a camera (which i don't know) or do you mean the sensor format micro four thirds?
Sorry. That's how it the micro four thirds system commonly referred to in photography circles.

I own a Lumix G85 and a 25mm and 42.5mm lens. I'm primarily interested in doing product photography and some portraits.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

chilichote

Member
Jan 6, 2020
656
2,000
405
Germany
Anyone else on the M43 system? Am I wasting my time investing into it?
I have a Yi M1 as a "pocket camera".

This is a really cheap MFT camera that I bought used for 150 € including 2 lenses. The fixed focal length-lens is pretty good, the Sony sensor is okay too, but I have a very strange pattern in very dark areas that bothers me a little. But it could also be due to Luminar 3 that I use to develop the RAW files - I don't know.

I hope that Sony may finally enter the MFT market, they already supply sensors ^^
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
Sorry. That's how it the micro four thirds system commonly referred to in photography circles.

I own a Lumix G85 and a 25mm and 42.5mm lens. I'm primarily interested in doing product photography and some portraits.
I know MFT etc., but I had never heard M43, even though I was actually quite sure that you meant the sensor.

What kind of pictures do you take with the camera? I've never had a camera with MFT, but APS-C. Of course, it always depends on the use cases, but I myself was never really happy with it. Among other things, I often take indoor photos or shoot in the evening (all without flash) and it was quite difficult. Sure, if nothing moves, then it works, but somehow images with smaller sensors have never really satisfied me.

Many professionals always say that if you want to start taking pictures, you should first get a cheap APS-C or MFT camera. But I can't agree with that at all, because in my experience beginners often want to take pictures of their family, children, parties or in less than optimal light, and those are the areas where APS-C and MFT tend to be inferior.
 

dcll

Member
Apr 28, 2017
1,483
3,429
580
What photo editing app would y'all recommend for a casual on Mac? I do not want a subscription, I messed with editing in iPhoto and it may be just fine for me but I'm open to suggestions
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
12,688
7,809
1,690
Spain
I know MFT etc., but I had never heard M43, even though I was actually quite sure that you meant the sensor.

What kind of pictures do you take with the camera? I've never had a camera with MFT, but APS-C. Of course, it always depends on the use cases, but I myself was never really happy with it. Among other things, I often take indoor photos or shoot in the evening (all without flash) and it was quite difficult. Sure, if nothing moves, then it works, but somehow images with smaller sensors have never really satisfied me.

Many professionals always say that if you want to start taking pictures, you should first get a cheap APS-C or MFT camera. But I can't agree with that at all, because in my experience beginners often want to take pictures of their family, children, parties or in less than optimal light, and those are the areas where APS-C and MFT tend to be inferior.

You don’t need 56000 iso to take those photos...

Sensor size snobbery 🤨
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
What photo editing app would y'all recommend for a casual on Mac? I do not want a subscription, I messed with editing in iPhoto and it may be just fine for me but I'm open to suggestions

Highly recommend Luminar 4, I use it myself. Simply overpowered with its AI beyond what Lightroom and traditional editing apps can do in terms of fast and near-impossible results.

You don’t need 56000 iso to take those photos...

Sensor size snobbery 🤨

Most cameras breakdown at way much lower than that with normal speed shutters, honestly.
 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
You don’t need 56000 iso to take those photos...

Sensor size snobbery 🤨

I have a completely different view based on a lot of personal experience. At parties, with children or generally with less light, which is often the case during the day indoors, small sensors do me no favors if I do not want to work with flash.
Sure, if the subject hardly moves, then you get good pictures, but often you do not get good and certainly not sharp pictures. If I say "Hey, look at me, I'm taking a picture!", then that can work, but if you want to take pictures of dancing people, children playing or similar things where there is movement, then you hardly have a chance to get sharp pictures indoors or generally at low light. And we don't even talk about taking pictures during evening or night, where the differences between the individual sensors become even more apparent.
For this reason, I would recommend an FF sensor to anyone who wants to photograph such things and get sharp images. And the vast majority of people who are faced with the decision to buy a camera want to photograph exactly these things the most.

Apart from that, the whole thing has a lot more to do than just with ISO.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
I have a completely different view based on a lot of personal experience. At parties, with children or generally with less light, which is often the case during the day indoors, small sensors do me no favors if I do not want to work with flash.
Sure, if the subject hardly moves, then you get good pictures, but often you do not get good and certainly not sharp pictures. If I say "Hey, look at me, I'm taking a picture!", then that can work, but if you want to take pictures of dancing people, children playing or similar things where there is movement, then you hardly have a chance to get sharp pictures indoors or generally at low light. And we don't even talk about taking pictures during evening or night, where the differences between the individual sensors become even more apparent.
For this reason, I would recommend an FF sensor to anyone who wants to photograph such things and get sharp images. And the vast majority of people who are faced with the decision to buy a camera want to photograph exactly these things the most.

Apart from that, the whole thing has a lot more to do than just with ISO.

Yup, that combined with a fast lens, at least f/2.8 but f/1.8-1.2 would be much better to push the shutter speed higher and the ISO lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: betrayal

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
Speaking of low light indoors, this is a video still (not a photo) from a 4K@120fps video at a shutter speed of 1/406 sec and ISO at 6,400 with f/2.8. I know many of the FF sensors would show much more noise at that ISO, especially that most Cinema cameras are locked at ISO 3,200 max. It was during sunset, not much light and this is like ~2x what you are actually seeing with the naked eye. Some might think that this is exaggerated, but I'm willing to make photos/videos inside caves, a bird inside a tree during a cloudy day, and many other situations that you don't have full control of.





That's why I'm really interested in fast lenses for night/low light photography/videography. Sony's 400mm GM f/2.8 would be crazy for night wildlife photography/videography but I don't have $12K to spare for it. Then Sony's FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS would still be "usable" with ISO compensation at night. Hope one day I share photos/videos of owls, genets, wolves, hyenas etc at night. A video by my cousin using trap cameras:

Arabian leopard:



This is the hardest animal to track and photograph, never seen one in person. Many have bumped into it though:





I came a cross one in 2010 few meters away at 3am in pitch black night and only heard the ear-deafening roar in a very quite night. Glad it ran away though as I was on foot with a German zoologist, unarmed. He was after insects and small species: (using my Lumix FZ35 compact zoom camera)



 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: betrayal

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
12,688
7,809
1,690
Spain
Highly recommend Luminar 4, I use it myself. Simply overpowered with its AI beyond what Lightroom and traditional editing apps can do in terms of fast and near-impossible results.



Most cameras breakdown at way much lower than that with normal speed shutters, honestly.

For web/social media/whatsapp and average sized prints, m43/apsc works well up to 3200 and even 6400 iso. And I doubt you're shooting at 12k iso very often...

When pros say buy m43/apsc to start out, they do it because they know you can get fantastic results and have access to a large array of lenses cheaper than full frame. And honestly if you're that worried about ultra high iso, why not buy medium format? So called full frame (35mm) is a rather small format compared to medium and large format who have also access to leaf shutter lenses... I'd rather throw money at medium format and leaf shutter lenses than 35mm.

35mm fetishism is just marketing an e-peen bragging.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
For web/social media/whatsapp and average sized prints, m43/apsc works well up to 3200 and even 6400 iso. And I doubt you're shooting at 12k iso very often...

When pros say buy m43/apsc to start out, they do it because they know you can get fantastic results and have access to a large array of lenses cheaper than full frame. And honestly if you're that worried about ultra high iso, why not buy medium format? So called full frame (35mm) is a rather small format compared to medium and large format who have also access to leaf shutter lenses... I'd rather throw money at medium format and leaf shutter lenses than 35mm.

35mm fetishism is just marketing an e-peen bragging.

Man, don't laugh but I didn't even know about the existence of Medium format. I thought you go from full frame to IMAX. Interesting as I was just checking out but they seem to be maximizing pixel count over ISO performance as checked Hasselblad and Fujifilm. Can't see them beating a7s III in low light, nor a1 at the similar price point. Lens selection? No idea but can't think it'll be as diverse as E-Mount. Overall it seems it'll cost me more and give me less. I would really love to see a Sony medium format sensor though.


Hey, I started with a freaking compact camera, it doesn't mean m43/APS-C are irrelevant, you only need to know your own needs and invest accordingly. Medium format seems definitely superior to FF but you need to have access to a wide range of lenses for it to make sense to most consumers.
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
For web/social media/whatsapp and average sized prints, m43/apsc works well up to 3200 and even 6400 iso. And I doubt you're shooting at 12k iso very often...

When pros say buy m43/apsc to start out, they do it because they know you can get fantastic results and have access to a large array of lenses cheaper than full frame. And honestly if you're that worried about ultra high iso, why not buy medium format? So called full frame (35mm) is a rather small format compared to medium and large format who have also access to leaf shutter lenses... I'd rather throw money at medium format and leaf shutter lenses than 35mm.

35mm fetishism is just marketing an e-peen bragging.

It's all about the price. FF starts at 1000$. Medium format cameras somewhere around 3000 to 4000$. The prices for lenses are also often significantly higher for medium format cameras.

FF has nothing at all to do with marketing or e-peen bragging. But that would certainly apply to medium format cameras if you don't make money with them.

Hey, I started with a freaking compact camera, it doesn't mean m43/APS-C are irrelevant, you only need to know your own needs and invest accordingly. Medium format seems definitely superior to FF but you need to have access to a wide range of lenses for it to make sense to most consumers.

That's so true and that's also the reason why M43 or APS-C are relevant for some people, but probably not always the best options.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
12,688
7,809
1,690
Spain
Man, don't laugh but I didn't even know about the existence of Medium format. I thought you go from full frame to IMAX. Interesting as I was just checking out but they seem to be maximizing pixel count over ISO performance as checked Hasselblad and Fujifilm. Can't see them beating a7s III in low light, nor a1 at the similar price point. Lens selection? No idea but can't think it'll be as diverse as E-Mount. Overall it seems it'll cost me more and give me less. I would really love to see a Sony medium format sensor though.


Hey, I started with a freaking compact camera, it doesn't mean m43/APS-C are irrelevant, you only need to know your own needs and invest accordingly. Medium format seems definitely superior to FF but you need to have access to a wide range of lenses for it to make sense to most consumers.

Life doesn't stop at medium format neither.... large format exists :)

Of course you need something like this to shoot the massive 8x10 film slides it uses.... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Studijskifotoaparat.JPG

But yeah, the whole "full frame" moniker is clever marketing to sell the idea it's the best of the best and there's nothing better.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
Sep 5, 2014
10,908
21,016
1,340
USA
What's the best go-to camera on the market these days? I have an old Canon EOS Rebel T1i I bought off a buddy years and years ago and it's starting to show it's age. Ideal use for a new camera would be primarily photos outdoors with some at nighttime.

From what I gather, it looks like the Sony a7 III is the way to go. If I pick this up, does anyone have any recs on wide angle lenses or other lenses?

Any recs on a good camera upgrade, GAF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
What's the best go-to camera on the market these days? I have an old Canon EOS Rebel T1i I bought off a buddy years and years ago and it's starting to show it's age. Ideal use for a new camera would be primarily photos outdoors with some at nighttime.

From what I gather, it looks like the Sony a7 III is the way to go. If I pick this up, does anyone have any recs on wide angle lenses or other lenses?

Any recs on a good camera upgrade, GAF?

a7 III and a7C are solid, great all-around cameras in different situations. I would recommend the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art lens for wide range of purposes as a starter, I started with that myself.


Going for this for ultra wide for astrophotography and potentially other commercial uses:


The new 50mm f/1.2 is perfect for low light:


It all depend on your needs though. Those are my high priority lenses:

1
2
3
4
5

Gonna add more later, only own the first for now.
 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
I currently have the a7 III and the a7R IV. The a7 III is certainly one of the best you can get when it comes to price/performance.

If you buy the body new, the a7 III costs somewhere between $1,800 - $2,000 (new). For ~$2,500 you can get the a7R IV as a gray import, otherwise it usually costs somewhere between $3,500 and $4,000. So it might be worth considering buying the a7R IV if you can accept the disadvantages of a gray import (in case of later damage, you might be stuck with the costs because Sony might deny the warranty).
Of course, it also depends on what kind of photos you take. The immense crop capability of the 7R IV is of course useful for many things, and it also increases the focal length to some extent.
For night photos, the a7 III is of course a bit better, but honestly, I could hardly notice any differences myself and if you scale down the 60MP of the a7R IV to 24MP of an a7 III, then there are actually no noticeable differences anymore.
I just wanted to mention the topic "a7 III vs a7R IV" because it might make sense to at least consider all options when buying a new camera.

Either way, the a7 III is really great and will suffice for most people. But maybe it's worth waiting until summer/fall. The next model, the a7 IV, is expected to come out then. That will certainly be another good upgrade, or the a7 III will at least go down in price a bit.

I can say little about wide-angle lenses. Apart from the very average kit lens, I have no experience with wide-angle lenses.
 

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
Yeah for wide angle lenses it depends on your usage. For astrophotography you should be very careful as some might looks so great but have bad results, with the Sony 24mm GM being the perfect lens quality wise. The wider the lens the longer you can keep the shutter open indeed without star trails. Also there are star trackers which I'm not really aware of.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Maiden Voyage

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
4

I changed that suggestion/plan! Sony has just released a new 14mm f/1.8 G Master lens that looks to be much better, sharper edge-to-edge and superior overall for the very same price! A killer lens for astrophotgraphy:


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Maiden Voyage

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
I'm very surprised by the quality for the price here. Especially considering it all fits in my pockets.

DJI drones are a must for any photographer/videographer, although I'm intrigued by Sony's Airpeak drone. It's more professional and superior as you mount full-frame cameras there, but a bigger gamble as if you can afford any accidents. I think I can't take that risk for now.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Werewolfgrandma

Dural

Member
Sep 18, 2006
1,004
951
1,545
Bought my wife a Canon M200 and the 22mm prime lens. We're both newbs to photography and the Canon is supposed to be the easiest to transition from a phone to an actual camera. The camera is tiny so it makes it easy to take with us, it will mostly be used for pics of the kids and vacations. So far the pictures are unbelievable with the 22mm lens, also have the 15mm-45mm zoom lens but haven't used it much.
 
  • Strength
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,775
82,979
965
36
Salalah, Oman
Bought my wife a Canon M200 and the 22mm prime lens. We're both newbs to photography and the Canon is supposed to be the easiest to transition from a phone to an actual camera. The camera is tiny so it makes it easy to take with us, it will mostly be used for pics of the kids and vacations. So far the pictures are unbelievable with the 22mm lens, also have the 15mm-45mm zoom lens but haven't used it much.

It starts somewhere until you find yourself more advanced and more ready for an upgrade in the future. Same here, learning every time. Glad you're enjoying it and if you happen to share anything not private we'll be happy to see!
 

Platinumstorm

Member
Oct 19, 2011
1,772
1,007
1,020
Felt like sharing a couple of snowy photos for today. Mixture of S3, S7, S9.

Trees at Beaver Creek, CO in 2015



These are the Collegiate Mountains in central Colorado. I love the really odd way my S3 handled the brightness and how the colors on the top half of the screen are rich and vibrant, and then utterly drab and lifeless near the ground. This was in ... 2016


This is Arapahoe Basin on what I consider the most beautiful day I have ever seen while skiing. This is a personal favorite from mid-April of 2017.



A snow squall at the top of Eldora, CO in 2019


I took this picture to capture the heavy winds blowing the snow off of Jacques peak in the background at Copper Mountain. The foreground skier though really ended up stealing this shot.


Just a Gopro capture of me skiing Union Peak
 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,793
2,688
445
Here are also some initial pictures of the last weeks. Like most, I'm still learning. Actually I don't like to photograph small stuff like birds etc. (and i still only have 300mm at best available right now), but that was the only thing I really could find. Most images are heavily cropped and downscaled (some JPGs are 50MB+ otherwise). The pictures were taken with the Nikon P950, A7 III or 7R IV.



A bee (pic made with ultra tele lens, heavily cropped).


Occasional moon pic (P950, 2000mm equivalent [~83 optical zoom]).



A dragonfly (heavily cropped) made with an ultra tele lens.



Two far away hawks having fun (heavily cropped).



A blue tit (TIL that's really their english name), heavily cropped.



Two duck mothers with ducklings.



A out of focus robin (heavily cropped).
 
Last edited: