Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

havoc315

Members
  • Content Count

    1,206
  • Joined

About havoc315

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/sony-70-200mm-f-2-8-gm-review/ My just published review of the Sony 70-200 2.8.
  2. One should never fear swapping lenses, that's why they are called INTERCHANGEABLE lens cameras. The "do everything" lenses tend to make massive compromises so they do everything poorly. Which would you rather have -- steak 1 night and pasta another night. Or some dish that tries to make pasta taste like steak, and eat it both nights. Another factor -- If this is a 1-time use lens, just rent it. Instead of spending $1,000 on a so-so telephoto lens, go spend $150 and rent the G2 for the week.
  3. On the a7r4, that can be $40 worth of HD for a busy day of uncompressed shooting. But it’s not just storage. If it takes you 30 minutes to upload your 24mp files, could take over an hour and a half to upload 61mp files. When I use a tooth whitening brush... on a 24mp file, my edits are nearly instant. On a 42mp file, there is a 3-5 second lag with every edit. With a 61mp lag, I’d expect a 5-8 second lag. When editing hundreds of photos, that’s no fun. Look at it this way... it’s better to have a million dollars in cash than $10 in cash, right? what if you’re sitting on a crowded beach and just need enough to buy a soda? You probably don’t want to have $1 million in cash sitting in your beach bag as you go for a swim. It’s nice to have the money when you need it, but it can be cumbersome to carry it all around all the time. (Which is why you keep most in the bank).
  4. hmmm...... I mean a PC with 64gb of ram and terms about quad core processors that I don't understand. I mean a souped up Mac Pro. Though I will say, Lightroom on my iPad Pro is much faster than Lightroom Classic on my PC. Alas, Lightroom Classic is still more powerful, especially when using custom brushes. So as it stands, sometimes I do my heavy portrait editing, first in Lightroom CC. I'll do my culling, exposure adjustments, cropping, some aspects of general brush work. But then go back into Lightroom Classic, to use my teeth whitening brush, eye brightening brush, skin smoothing brush. Based on experience with 42mp vs 24mp... I can say this type of workflow would be maddening with 61mp, unless you really have a "super computer." One big objection to Sony, especially as resolution gets higher: Canon and Nikon allow the user to choose from multiple types of compression. On the Nikon D850, you can even choose to shoot 24mp files, for example. (The 45mp files get compressed to 24mp). It would be really nice if Sony incorporated a similar feature -- You can appreciate as a travel photographer -- Switch to the full 61mp when you have that perfect sunset that might make a great massive wall print. Switch back to 24mp for the hundred family candids.
  5. As you've limited yourself to date with 24mp cameras and mostly shoot jpeg... Not sure you appreciate the downside of all that resolution. File size increases exponentially, with limited actual value to the resolution. If you're printing 20x30 or so (which is darn big), you won't even notice a difference between 24mp and 61mp. If you want to crop... 61mp will give you a good amount extra over 24mp.... But less then you might think. Basically... take a 200mm lens: on the A7iii, you can easily crop it to 300mm. On the A7riii, you can easily crop it to 400mm. On the A7riv, my math takes it to 460mm. Meanwhile, the jpg files on the A7riv are bigger than the raw files on the A7iii. If you want to process the raw files of the A7riv and you don't have a professional computer set up -- relying more on a good consumer computer set-up, your processing will be greatly slowed down. Even just transferring files to the computer: After shooting a wedding, it can take me 2+ hours to transfer A7riii files into lightroom. A7riv would increase that by another 50%. The extra resolution is mostly good for amazing yourself with pixel peeping.
  6. Really want Justin's feedback on this: https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/sonya7riv-resolution-benefits/ So a word about the history of this article. I have many posts in many stages of development. I have a lens review where all the photos are taken but I still need to write the review. I have some posts that I half-wrote and abandoned. (like death of the A-mount). I have some in the idea stage -- Before the A7riv was released, I was going to do a detailed comparison of 24mp vs 42mp.... I didn't expect to see an A7r4 until next year, at the earliest. So with the surprise announcement of the 61mp A7r4, I decided it was time to push through the article, along with extrapolation to 61mp. I had to do a lot of math, lol. Anyway, though I had my suspicions, I wasn't sure what I would find until I started doing sample images and the mathematical calculations. My conclusion: Major diminishing returns with resolution improvements. If you went straight from 24mp to 61mp, you get a big difference. But even then, the difference isn't massive for real world uses. It's significant enough but not massive. If you go from 24-42, you get a fair amount of benefit in terms of cropping and printing. Not huge, but a fair amount. Going from 42mp to 61mp.. you really get very very little benefit. And you get the cost of all your files suddenly being 50% bigger. A lot of people wrongly conclude "it's 50% more resolution than 42mp!" No, it's not. It's 50% more megapixels. In terms of linear resolution, it's only an 18% difference. In terms of cropping, it only gives you 18% more cropping room. In terms of printing, I've seen people say it will make a huge difference in print sizes. Not really. How big does anyone really print? If you're a medium format type printer, then sure.... But you can comfortably print acceptable 30X40 with 24mp, you getn print gorgeous 30x40 with 42mp... Add the 18%, you'll be able to print gorgeous 36X48. But some people are acting like they are going from 20 inch prints to 60inch prints. Ummm, no. Lots of affluent enthusiasts may purchase the A7r4, like they did the A7r3. But the downside of megapixels is starting to outweigh the upside at 61mp. I think most of the people buying it should probably think twice.
  7. I tried the RX100v as a "travel cam" to Washington DC last year.... As a former RX100 lover, I was simply disappointed now. IQ was no better than a phone in most cases. The controls are tiny and cramped and poorly laid out. Doing any sort of "advanced" photography was unpleasant. Easier to use as just a P&S.. and then the phone is still simpler. And yes, it's small and pocketable.. but not as small and pocketable as the phone already in my pocket. Yes, the RX100 had some advantages-- mostly in focal length, a little wider and a little longer. But to pay $1,000 for a less convenient camera, that is unpleasant to use, that doesn't offer better IQ... just to get slightly more focal length variability. (my iPhone is effective 28mm to 55mm). Shooting kids sports? Guess if you are shooting in excellent light and can get close enough to shoot at 200mm. But for most outdoor sports shooting, 200mm isn't really long enough. And once you move indoors, or even a cloudy day outdoors, the RX100 ISO and IQ won't let you shoot at a fast enough shutter speed for sports. Getting back to light weight travel camera.. Tangent, but I paid close attention on my trip to Paris. I see fewer and fewer "real" cameras. EVERYONE was taking pictures at the Eiffel Tower -- but 95% were with phones, if not more. I only noticed a fair number of "real" cameras in 2 locations: GIverny -- the home and gardens of Claude Monet. Guess it attracts artistic photographers. Saw 1 person shooting Medium format. Saw 1 person shooting a film camera. Saw 2 Nikon D850's. Saw another A7riii, along with my own. Saw a photographer shooting Canon with the 70-200/2.8, set up doing a time lapse of a lilly pond. So saw lots of very very serious cameras... almost no P&S. It was serious cameras... and then phones. Then at the tour of the opera house. But for a reason that sounds like a cliche - We were there at the same time as a Japanese tourist group. It sounds so cliche but there is some truth to it, a high portion of the Japanese tourists were lugging around impressive cameras. Other than that.. the Louvre, Saint Chapelle, Eiffel Tower, Versailles.. it was all phones. An occasional aps-c camera. In total, in a week, maybe 5-10 P&S/Bridge cameras. Getting back to the subject, the market for a decent performing travel camera is really tiny. We are very very quickly getting to the point of 3% of people using a serious camera and 97% using just their phone. Canon reported even worse sales than expected, with problems moving aps-c cameras. I suddenly can no longer get students to take my photography class, that was geared towards the aps-c-type somewhat new photographer.
  8. As an early rx100 adopter... I will announce that point and shoot is dead. Going on memory — the original RX100 was 2012. Around that time, phones were starting to catch up to basic small sensor P&S. The RX100 started to approach aps-c quality. Fast forward 7 years... while there have been some advancements in RX100 quality, phones have improved even more. In many cases, phones are now approaching aps-c quality. There are a few advantages of the rx100vii over a phone of course. But for many typical shooters, the phone has more advantages. The camera can do some special things like blackout free 20fps shooting .... but how often does someone need to shoot at 20fps with a slow 200mm lens on a 1” sensor.
  9. Best guess: Upcoming low end P&S Upcoming RX Not sure what else is imminent -- Maybe an aps-c, but I really don't know.
  10. My lengthy comments here: https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/sony-a7r4-upgrade-thoughts-and-questions/ In brief, as an owner of the Sony A7riii... a lot of the updates appeal to me, EXCEPT the 61mp (and price). I seldom actually need the 42mp of the Sony A7riii. The downside of 61mp (slower workflow, destroying hard drives) beats the upside. The Nikon D850/Z7 allow the user to shoot "small" and "medium" raw. But even compressed Sony raw files from the A7riii are 41mb.... the A7riv will likely be over 60mb. I'm not interested unless Sony offers smaller raw file sizes.
  11. CShows you to ignore SAR rumors till right before announcement. The $1000 price drop on the a9 isn’t new... been that price for most of the last year. Which still keeps it the most expensive mirrorless of the big brands, and much more expensive than the other Sony cameras. But a7riii just barely more than the a7iii (which still hasn’t gotten a price cut). Shows you the value of buzz — the a7iii got lots and lots of buzz. So appears to be selling well even without price cuts. But at only a $500 difference, the a7riii is a better value. Just doesn’t have the buzz of the a7iii. A7riv.... not sure what it will offer besides the a9 real time AF tracking.
  12. It’s a7riv. A month ago, I didn’t expect it until next year. But the price drop of the a7riii to $2500 was a big hint of the possibility. Still, I’m not going to even venture a guess as to specs. I will say—- it’s about to be a great time to pick up a used a7riii. You’ll likely be able to get a like-new a7riii for cheaper than a new a7iii... and unless you hate large files, the a7riii is the better camera.
  13. It’s a7riv, a9ii or a7siii.
  14. If you’re using a tablet, lumafusion is much cheaper and, IMO, better than Premiere.
  15. Thought I'd share how I pack for a photo heavy trip.. This post takes us through the planning that went into packing the Sony A7riii.. which lenses, why.... and some images of Paris.. https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/paris-vacation-photography/
×
×
  • Create New...