[GeneV]

It doesn't look Photoshopped it looks Lightroomed

I think I'll go with Photoshop, since I don't think you can drop a photo into another photo in Lightroom, but I may just not have the LR skills.

[osv]

What is the relevance of comparing a 10 year old APS-C camera with a modern full frame one?

because spiralcity said "for the most part(cameras) it's all irrelevant", nicolas said "The 2 devices(k3 vs. a7r) do exactly the same thing", etc.

not saying that aps-c can't deliver, i probably made enough money off of the k10d to nearly pay for the body... give it really good light and you'll get a decent pic, but there is zero margin for error.

yes, the background separation thing is very desirable, it's not a gimmick the shot is processed of course but i don't have lightroom software, the effect really came from things like picking a shutter speed that's slow enough to show slight blur on the paddles of the rear tires and slight background blur during the pan, but yet fast enough to freeze the vehicle... i probably used f/10, because it's manual focus and it's the first time that i ever shot those cars... there was a bunch of dust and sand blowing around, you can see it in the tree area.

here is that same lens on the k10d, even with a nearly full-width crop, the shot is only acceptable because of dxo noise reduction, the dark area under the lip was really noisy ... gear matters.



---------- Post added 09-04-15 at 04:33 PM ----------

I think I'll go with Photoshop, since I don't think you can drop a photo into another photo in Lightroom.

you guys really think that it's photochopped? i'll take that as a compliment look at the 1920x1080 versions on flickr...

ooc jpeg of this shot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5u36sxm2aauxd94/DSC02956.JPG?dl=0

[Sliver-Surfer]

Me saying Lightroom was not meant as an insult I use Lightroom. I think that you have picked a very thoughtful shutterspeed to freeze everything but the outermost parts of the tire and the thrown sand.

[osv]

thanks... the lr/photochop thing was just joking around... i only went with dxo because of the insanely good noise reduction, but the interface is clumsy compared to photoshop and lightroom.

[pinholecam]

we've all purchased and used lenses from companies that have abandoned mounts, or been out of the lens business for many years.

konica ar-mount and canon fdn for mf use, for example... lenses don't become unusable just because they don't have any company support.

sony bought the minolta a-mount nine years ago, and sony still sells adapters with electronic interface... if anything, the laea3 adapter is getting more use than it ever did with the release of the a7rii.

b&h has 82 ff a-mount lenses for sale, and 21 of those are sony lenses: SLR Lenses, DSLR Lenses | B&H Photo Video

i've not seen any evidence that sony nor any 3rd party a-mount lens manufacturer is abandoning a-mount? did someone stop making a-mount lenses, for instance?

I think this gives a good impression of the worries over the A-mount for existing users.
The Future of Sony A Mount: Sony Alpha SLR/SLT A-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
pretty much the same thing over in my local forums

Of course to buy into A-mount now or not is a personal decision.
My take is that at its current price (a non obsolete system price), I don't think its a good idea to buy into them, nor would I advise anyone to buy.
If they can get it at good prices, then thats another story.

[Nicolas06]

modern m4/3 would have been better than the k10d, but it would have also failed there.

look at the shadow on the front tires... you don't know the lighting conditions nor the settings that i had to use to make it happen... the noise is because it's heavily cropped, i shot it much too loosely, but with 36mp, you have room to make up for mistakes.

can't do that with m4/3, not at all.

Just to be clear you explained you cropped the image. The noise and heavy post processing show that. It is grainy. That not at all an issue: the quality is good enough but it show that there not much absolute quality in it.This is not a 36MP picture anymore and you could tell us but I'am not sure it is even 24MP anymore. Maybe there only 8-10MP remaining. And due to the lense this would not be even pixel sharp.

So then another photographer could have beeen exactly at the same position as your and could have used exactly the same lense, apperture and focal length. It could have used an A6000 instead of A7R, taken a bit more care of the framing and got exactly the same result but indeed with more definition as the sensor has greater pixel density... For aspects like noise, bokeh etc, once the crop is more agressive than the APSC crop factor, as long as the APSC shooter frame less carelessly then he will get exactly the same thing... After all it is exactly as if you choosed to use your A7 in APSC crop mode and framed better.

If the crop is heavy you can extend that to m4/3 too...

There another option. The 60-300 tamron adapt all is far from being the best lense in the world. So the APSC used could have well add used some 70-200 (for example the tamron that one can find used for 450€) to have the same possibility for not framing too carefully and to get as much detail. With a bit more open by 1 stop the level of noise would match. With more carefull framing than you did, he would have got a technically superior image, even with APSC.

And this can be extended to m4/3 too. They have some truely great pro lenses you know.


You took an FF to shoot, you post processed it quite a bit and all of this got you a great image without much detail if you want to be picky. That not important because well anyway our eyes can't benefit for 36MP or even 24MP. It could have been better with better post processing (removing the noise). Could have been better with a better lense. Could have been better with more carefull framing.

The format was a factor among many other and so was not the limiting factor in this case. Sure if you don't want to get a better lense, or to frame better or to improve your post procressing skills, that may be a "free" asset to you. You spent less on the lense, are restricted to MF but got a bigger sensor. One could have used a better lense and a better camera. Or same lense, APSC camera and a bit better noise post processing software (like DxO Prime).

In anyway, there chances in 3-5 years that far less expensive camera with smaller sensor will do as good or better. But the better lenses, they would stay exactly at good. When somebody invest in gear he should think carefull when it is worth to invest more on lenses, when it is worth to invest more on camera, when it is worth to invest more on post processing skill.

Still the best investment by far would be by far to invest to become a better photographer.

[osv]

thx for the link pinholecam... the anecdotal comments about a lack of lens stock in australia and canada was the only evidence of a-mount going away, but it's a bit unnerving... 20 of the 21 sony a-mount lenses on that b&h list are in stock, but who knows what the future will hold.

i certainly would not be buying an a-mount body, but as e-mount users we only care about the future of the glass and the adapters.

from your thread link: "Because of this thread I started reading in the Nikon 600-800 segment, ques what?? Same discussion there.

They are afraid the whole DSLR system is going to be ended."

---------- Post added 09-05-15 at 09:20 AM ----------

Just to be clear you explained you cropped the image. The noise and heavy post processing show that. It is grainy. That not at all an issue but to me it look like while there enough there not much remaining detail or outstanding IQ. It is great but is not a 36MP picture anymore.

agreed, what i was saying was that if you made a mistake like i did there with m4/3, and had to crop at least half of the shot out, it wouldn't be nearly as good as what i got there... i wasn't anywhere close to 300mm.

that's one reason why format matters; dr, latitude, and iso performance are the others... for instance, there isn't any way to measure latitude, but look at this shadow recovery comparison: Sony A7R teams up with Canon glass

no crop camera can touch that... if i could shoot everything with a slow shutter at iso100, i wouldn't have gone with ff... gotta get the camera that works for what you need to shoot.

[Nicolas06]

it's a game for noobs who don't understand how cameras work, i'll pass

Clients are noobs and low rez pic make it to the fashion magazine and get pulizer prices. Nobody care of the technique, only the result. Only photographer like us that spend to much time on forum care of the gear.

You should take gear that match your needs; that's true. And then take pictures. Due to marginal improvement between m4/3 and APSC and APSC and FF it is perfectly legitimate to consider all the range of available options. They all take great pictures. if you want cheap price, APSC DSLR tend to get you a lot for very few. Low price, lot of cheap used glass, great performance. m4/3 give you the possibility to get smaller/lighter gear, be less intrusive to your subjects and if you are not noise limited in your practice, that a perfectly acceptable solution; FF is great but the tradeoff is often price and size/weight.

If I want 200mm framing on FF and f/2.8 this is big. I guess more subject separation than 135mm f/2.8 on APSC, and less noise true, but if I don't need that, or if I value more size/weight, that not a better choice.

[Nicolas06]

that's one reason why format matters; dr, latitude, and iso performance are the others... for instance, there isn't any way to measure latitude, but look at this shadow recovery comparison: Sony A7R teams up with Canon glass

no crop camera can touch that... if i could shoot everything with a slow shutter at iso100, i wouldn't have gone with ff... gotta get the camera that works for what you need to shoot.

"No crop camera can touch that", that's misleading. A plain old K5 has more dynamic range the latest Canon FF. The comparison was made between Canon and Sony A7 but even an APSC sensor would have given you that. After all that the same sensor only smaller. What count only is what we accept to put in an APSC camera. Nothing prevent to not add a 50iso mode on APSC. And having played quite a bit with DA15, for dynamic range I can say to you that having a slow lense with few glass element, great coating and expectionnal flare resistance is a important as a great sensor for capturing the dynamic range.

Sure latest FF get a bit more, but then it will depend from model to model and the camera of a given format may be soon matched by a smaller format a few years after. APSC CMOS did outperform all the FF DSLR as an example and digital APSC CCD did outperform MF film for sharpness. Technology evolve. Not long ago, we heard of sensor that could not longer be overexposed because it just count the number of time the photosite was flushed. In 5 years we may get camera with 25EV of dynamic range and the 1EV difference between the best APSC and best FF with not seem like much.

Maybe you get 3 years head on with FF and pay the price for it but when you'll turn back in 50 years, nobody will notice that.

[osv]

"No crop camera can touch that", that's misleading. A plain old K5 has more dynamic range the latest Canon FF.

you still don't get it.

repeat after me: dr is not latitude.

The comparison was made between Canon and Sony A7 but even an APSC sensor would have given you that.

no, it was the best canon camera on the market at the time, compared to an a7r, not an a7.

the d750 is an example of good latitude capability with apsc, the files can be pushed in post, but overall it's not in the same league as a d810.

the fact that you don't understand the difference between dr and latitude, despite the proof in front of your face, says it all.

---------- Post added 09-05-15 at 10:28 AM ----------

Clients are noobs and low rez pic make it to the fashion magazine and get pulizer prices.

since you believe that garbage, why are you on this forum? why do you own a pentax?

sell your camera, and go hang out in that smartphone forum.

[Nicolas06]

since you believe that garbage, why are you on this forum? why do you own a pentax?

sell your camera, and go hang out in that smartphone forum.

And you using a Sony FF and poluting the forum with your fanboyism for non Pentax gear and bashing it all day long... What are you doing on this forum?

All I have seen from your sig and your posts is lots of ads, blind confidence that the shoot you get come only from your gear and not your technique and photographic capabilities, very low res video and finally as an example of ultimate FF and Sony 36MP superiority a link to a flicker image, 2MP, heavily cropped by your own words and taken with a 60-300 tamron lense at f/10 with visible noise and oversharpening artefacts. Could have been done by a K30 + 50-200 and still possible to get something better.

I also find your attitude very depressive for yourself and other photographers. Its seems all you can manage to achieve is only due to the gear performance and not your artistic taste and photographic technique.

And as for you question. I least I use a Pentax DLSR as my primary camera. I'am not sure you can say the same. At least you don't speak of it that often.

[osv]

And you using a Sony FF and poluting the forum with your fanboyism for non Pentax gear

you keep claiming that pentax people don't need ff, your smartphone is just as good as your pentax camera... talk about insulting!

a link to a flicker image, 2MP, heavily cropped by your own words

i posted a full-size ooc jpeg link.

visible noise

that photo was run through dxo prime, there is zero noise in it.

congrats on proving that you can't tell the difference between noise and grain in a photo!

I least I use a Pentax DLSR as my primary camera.

i'll ask again: you said that cameras don't matter, so why do you own a pentax? stop avoiding the question.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Man you really don't get it. I don't buy RAW files, I don't buy bits, I don't buy specs. I buy actual images. What will make an image good is your talent for composition, to get the right instant, to have an interresting subject to get the mood, to craft the scene with the light.

The 2 devices do exactly the same thing and once you took the photo and try to show it to friend or sell it, nobody care the brand the megapicke or if it was taken with a FF, APSC crop or MF with digital back. Not like the A7 will give you a blue sky when the sky is cloudy anyway. Not like there screen that can display more than 4K (8MP) or there human than can appreciate a picture with more than 10MP anyway. The eyes don't follow. 24MP give you some comfort for cropping and yeah 36MP on the FF allow you to use a shorter focal length and crop more to keep the gear small, but that all. In a sense the 36MP of the Sony are needed to conpensate for it downside of needing such long lenses to get the job done.

People want FF because people always want more. They want more MP for the same reason. There even phones with 40MP, maybe they give sharper images? Then they shoot brickwall and stare at them at 100%... Real photographers go out and take pictures of real subjects

.

Or some FF photographer have looked and weighed the cost of the equipment and performance over what a cropped camera can provide then realized that going FF cost them nothing more than what it would have cost with a cropped camera ( other than the cost of the body).
16-50 F2.8 $1070
50-135 F2.8 $1170
200 F2 $6800
300 F2.8 $7500
Total =$16540
FF
24-70 F4 $1370
70-200 F4 $1300
300 F2.8 $7500
400 F4 $7500
Total=$17670

They have also came to the conclusion that the FF body in the long run would give them the best performance and cost savings, as my 3 year old FF still at this time has no equal in cropped sensor in image resolution, DR & low light performance .

In 100,000 photographs the FF has cost me per photograph 2 cents more than what a cropped camera would have cost. Over the day that less than some of the coffees I buy during that time I use camera.

[Rondec]

Or some FF photographer have looked and weighed the cost of the equipment and performance over what a cropped camera can provide then realized that going FF cost them nothing more than what it would have cost with a cropped camera ( other than the cost of the body).
16-50 F2.8 $1070
50-135 F2.8 $1170
200 F2 $6800
300 F2.8 $7500
Total =$16540
FF
24-70 F4 $1370
70-200 F4 $1300
300 F2.8 $7500
400 F4 $7500
Total=$17670

They have also came to the conclusion that the FF body in the long run would give them the best performance and cost savings, as my 3 year old FF still at this time has no equal in cropped sensor in image resolution, DR & low light performance .

In 100,000 photographs the FF has cost me per photograph 2 cents more than what a cropped camera would have cost. Over the day that less than some of the coffees I buy during that time I use camera.

I guess I would quibble with your run down, in that most folks who go full frame are interested in getting faster lenses than are available for APS-C, not shooting lenses that are exactly equivalent to their APS-C lenses. I shoot with a 16-50 f2.8 on APS-C, but if I went with a full frame camera, I would get a 24-70 f2.8. In the end, full frame gear does tend to be more expensive, because folks who go that direction want faster lenses. Many people who shoot APS-C are satisfied with am 18-135 or 16-85 and a 50 f1.8 for situations where they need a faster lens.

[Sliver-Surfer]

I'll list my favorite lenses to use on my A7
Rokinon 1.4/85mm with macro focusing helicoid adapter $200
Pentax 1.2/50mm $250 in bag/on camera always
Minolta Maxxum 70-200mm f4 $30 Goodwill in bag/on camera half the time
Minolta Maxxum 1.4/50mm $150 in bag/on camera half the time
Minolta Maxxum 35-70mm f4 $30 in bag/on camera half the time
Vivitar series 1 1.9/28mm $50 in bag/on camera always
non ai Nikkor 2.5/105mm $15 Goodwill
nikkor-pc 2.8/35mm Shift Lens with tilt adapter $200
Takumar 4/20mm with tilt adapter $150
Tamron 80-200mm 2.8 SP Adaptall $150 Indoor events where I cant zoom with my feet
Tamron
Lea4 $100 with purchase of 1st gen A7 promo