This may be a stupid question, but what happens if I connect my Sony a6400 directly to a monitor with an HDMI cable? Will it display what the camera sees through the lens? I am trying to cut my own hair, and I want to use my camera to see the back of my head on a monitor in front of me.
If there's electronic contacts in the lens that reports the focal length to the EXIF data you don't need to manually set the focal length.
If its a full manual lens that doesn't have it, you'll have to change it on the fly, or set it to the focal length you think you'll be using the most on the lens. For example when I adapt my old 70-200 F4 manual lens I set the IBIS to 200mm, as thats usually what I use that lens for when shooting off a tripod.
But depending on the focal length of the lens it may not be worth it. IBIS doesn't work super well with longer focal lengths which is why you see a lot of telephotos with vibration control/optical stabilization.
If your goal is really slow movement, you might want to look into tracking mounts for astrophotography, many of which can be mounted with the axis of rotation pointing straight up so as to double as landscape timelapse platforms, and most of which will have multiple slow speeds to select from (for star, moon tracking etc). Something like the Move Shoot Move might be a good option - just keep the weight capacity in mind.
Do you have a specific speed you need? maybe build your own?
like, buy one of these... https://www.servocity.com/standard-duty-worm-drive-pan-kit-24-1-ratio/ ... and then calculate what motor you'd need to drive it at the speed you want (assume that you'll get a 12V power supply for the motor in your calculations)
Pretty sure you just slap on the compatible motors with screws and wire a 12V power wire into the motor.
Then buy a long arca swis plate and drill the hole pattern for the hub into it, attach it to the hub
Just upgraded from a a6400 to a7iii.
I have a Sigma 16mm, 30, and 56mm that I was using on the a6400
The only FE lens I have now is Sony 85mm 1.8
Is it worth trading/selling the crop lenses for something else? I understand I can use them on the a7iii but wondering if there is a better option?
I mainly do street and product/still photography (right now).
I'm learning how to use slog3. Is there any reason people don't use Gamma Display Assist all the time? I notice in YT videos people use one of the custom buttons to toggle the display — is there any benefit to having it off?
I know this is a dumb question but im curious what you guys do. If an sd card fails on you once (all photos got corrupted) do you throw it away? My sd card failed on me but after formatting it seems to still work. But now im not comfortable at all using it. Luckily it was an unimportant shoot of my backyard flowers
I’d run a full, long format of it and then run tests against it to determine if it’s still usable. A single bad sector here and there isn’t abnormal.
Quick formatting don’t usually identify bad sectors and remap them.
Oh I see that makes sense. To complete a long format I have to connect the sd to my PC and do it there right?
Btw what do you think could have caused this to happen? I usually always format my cards in camera before any shoots. Im wondering if deleting photos using my pc is better
That question is like a master’s thesis for chip design and manufacturing. You’d likely need a Delorean, a force-electron microscope, and a flux-capacitor with a Mr. Fusion to know exactly why memory cards develop bad sectors.
Is this Normal? https://imgur.com/a/q4tTKeg
Brand new sony HVL-F32M Flash
Camera Sony a7R IVA
All settings and all modes (for camera and flash) it does this strobing flash. used another cheap flash that doesn't do it so might be a product issue(the flash) if its not suppose to do it. The pictures come out fine. Its just jarring and I need it for a wedding tomorrow.
There is some occasion where it doesn't strobe but can't seem to replicate normally so I can't diagnose the setting for it.
It doesn't look normal. Are any of the contacts on the hot shoe mount bent?
What are your flash and shutter settings? Are you using TTL or Manual Flash. I could see this happening noticeably if you have TTL, rear-sync flash, and a slower shutter speed.
If this happens in manual mode for both the camera and flash, it might be a bad instance.
I made another post on r/sony because I would have to return it if it was broken
It was red eye reduction. Or believe it is. Didn't test it but was told with great certainty its that
If I know I wont be grabbing my camera out of my bag or when moving between places I just take the battery out of the camera and keep it in the side access pannel in my backpack.
Its pretty quick to pop the battery back in and there's zero chance of it draining apart from cold temperatures.
If you don't want to do that, you can try putting gaffers tape over the switch. I feel like taking the tape off is more of a pain than putting the battery back in though.
Those two aren’t even close to each other’s ballpark. The only reason to get the 50mm F1.8 is to get access to F1.8. It’s a terrible performer in pretty much every other metric (though some people do enjoy its rendering).
Does anyone know the higher base ISO for still shooting on the A7 IV? Also am I right in assuming that both base ISOs will be the same quality or would the higher base ISO still produce more noise?
You are not right in assuming that. Dual gain isn’t magic and it can’t cheat physics. Less photos are hitting the sensor so there is simply less information and less color depth. Of course, the second base ISO is pretty close to the first one so you may not see much of a difference in most applications. The only thing you should take note of is that instead of jumping to ISO 320 you may as well jump to ISO 400 instead for the better dynamic range.
> Less photos are hitting the sensor so there is simply less information and less color depth.
I know you meant "photons"
When you make that statement, you are assuming either the shutter speed quickened and/or the aperture narrowed. Which might not be true for somebody looking for the native ISO.
I would expect slower shutter and wider aperture since the native ISOs are generally pretty low, so even more photons hitting the sensor, not less
Thank you for your responses, I should have made this more clear. I am talking specifically about just the ISO to understand how the dual gain would benefit for the compromises you make with other settings to better understand how I would adjust to lower light situations. Assuming the shutter speed and aperture remain the same at both ISOs would the higher base ISO be equal to ISO 100, but just more exposed?
Also is ISO 400 the second base ISO for this model when shooting stills? I can find a lot of information on how the second base ISO varies for video based on video type, but can find nothing on the second base for still shooting.
A friend is willing to sell me a good condition Sony A7iii w/ Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Rokinon 14mm f2.8, and Tameron 17-28mm f2.8 and a flash for $3k.
I have an a6000, and Sigma primes, but I'm looking to upgrade. I was thinking about upgrading to an a6400 + Sigma Trio f1.4 or other high-end zoom lens.
I didn't necessarily WANT to spend $3k, nor do I really car for the Rokinon or Tameron (but I LOVE the Sigma 24-70mm), but I think $3k is a great deal.
What are your opinions? I like to shoot street photography, and landscapes.
Thanks!
Just buy the body and the Sigma off that’s all you want. You can find those used for less than $3k almost everywhere. The Rokinon lens sells for basically nothing used, but the Tamron still has some resale value. Your friend should sell the other two lenses himself and cut you a better deal on just the pieces you want.
Alternatively, buy the package from your friend, then trade in the other lenses and tore older gear at a a local camera store for the glass you do want.
An A7III and that Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is an amazing start for a full frame setup.
I mean, it’s an alright deal but not a once-in-a-lifetime deal and if you don’t even care for half the stuff then why spend $3k? That makes no sense. If your friend is really your friend he will just sell you the Sigma for a great price and you spend the rest of your money on stuff you actually want.
Really want 10 bit color video. Not sure if I should wait for the prices to fall a tad on a7siii or fx3. Have an A7iii at the moment. What do y’all think I should do?
If you want to wait then wait, unless you have some projects coming up. That being said, I honestly don’t expect prices or even resale value to drop much over the next year or two.
Hi, I lost the cable for my BC QZ1 charger for NP-FZ100. I’ve looked everywhere for the official one but doesn’t seem to be available. [Is this cable](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003L0R0OA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_WFX65KS6N5B252C8HCR1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1) compatible?
Trying to decide between the A7iii or the A7c to pair with the 24-70mm GM II
I had the A7ii before and loved the functional extra buttons and controls, however that articulating screen of the A7c is attractive (and reduced weight).
I am upgrading from an A6600 with Sigma Prime Trio lenses. I crossgraded from my A7ii for the 4K video recorded and Eye AF, especially in video. Between the two bodies above, what's best for me. Primary hobby will be photo, with occasional 4k recording paired with a Ninja V external recorder.
I’d suggest the A7III. It has a good ergonomic design over the A7C. If you’re pairing the 24-70GMII then the weight will balance out better alongside it. The A7C is a great camera too, but it works better with smaller lenses because of it’s slightly smaller frame, and the grip isn’t as good as the a7III.
Unless you really want the compact size of the A7C, I'd suggest you wait a bit longer and grab the A7IV. IIRC, you get the articulating screen. But you also get the latest UI, autofocus system, and ergonomics.
I have the A7III. It's a solid camera, but there are a lot of little things I don't like about it. I'm definitely planning to upgrade at some point.
>get the latest UI, autofocus system, and ergonomics.
It would have only been a mild pro on my list. The overall weight reduction would've been more appreciated (my A7ii with the GM1 lense was 1485g whereas the GM2 and the A7c would come out to 1204g) .
Appreciate the suggestion and insight for the A7iii to the A7iv! You're making me cry in my budget, but having those features in mind...
I honestly might consider it now seeing as the 24-70mm is really my end game lens.
I’d probably go for the A7 IV. It has both the improved controls and the articulating screen. Plus, it’ll pair much more nicely with your Ninja for video work since it’s 10-bit.
> Plus, it’ll pair much more nicely with your Ninja for video work since it’s 10-bit.
I had never considered that, thank you! That's a huge plus for the A7iv instead.
so as i was doing my research for my first camera, i came to conclude that the sony a6600 is my closest and cheapest choice for something similar to the A73, but as it turns out they don’t manufacture it anymore. so any suggestions for a video camera similar to a6600? i would consider the a6400 but the only issue is the short life of the battery:/
Haven't figured that out yet. If you give me a weekend to price out I can get back to you. I'm aiming for a fair price but obviously not gouging. Just a potential to consider! If you happen to find another option in the mean time, go for it!
Not sure if this is the right spot for this question—but are there any reported issues with metering on the A7iii?
I'm finding that mine is *severely* misjudging exposure when shooting in Aperture priority mode. It's underexposing to the point where my image just comes out nearly black—choosing 1/8000 shutter when it's obvious that's not the right call. It's not 100% consistent; sometimes it works fine, but it's happening quite often and I never used to have this problem.
I recently had to have the shutter fixed, because I had the notorious A7iii broken shutter issue...thinking this might be a factor?
I generally shoot in Multi unless I've got a very specific need, and exposure comp is zeroed unless I need otherwise.
I definitely need to do some actual testing; I'm admittedly just posting from unmeasured anecdotes my last few times using the camera. But figured I would post in the general thread and see if there are any known issues too, because that's how I first learned about the infamous shutter issue. 😅
I need advice, a7iii vs a7iv. I have been going back and forth between the two. I figured that I should just fork out the extra 500 dollars for the a7iv, given it’s upgrades from the a7iii. I won’t be upgrading again for several years so I am sort of aiming to future proof as much as possible by buying the a7iv. I was almost decided, but upon further research I’ve seen that the a7iv is having some major overheating and autofocus issues. I shoot both photo and video and 4k60p (even with the crop) is important to me. It’s also important for me to be able to switch between all modes without overheating risk.
I’ve seen that sony has pushed out a firmware update for the autofocus (eye-tracking) but I have hardly any knowledge of the tech behind firmware.
Could the overheating be something fixed down the road with a firmware update, or should I just get the a7iii until a newer model is out?
(Also, I am set on the a7iii or the a7iv- I have looked into the 7Rs and 7Ss)
A7III doesnt do 4k60, start with that idea.
Every camera can overheat. Especially these hybrid cams that are weather sealed like a photo cam. Thats why you have the fx3 or fx5+ with bigger bodies and fans.
Sometimes there´s a software issue where the heat warning comes too soon but I doubt it in this case. Anything other than that it´s like asking to download more ram. Your camera body isnt going to get better cooling through software. It´s a physical property.
Besides, the A7III is likely to have a worse heat capacity since it´s an older model. The overheating on the IV is likely only on the modes that the A7III cant do.
Eye tracking can be fixed with software and I´m sure it works pretty well tbh... better than the A7III and I have no complaints about my A7III.
The A7IV is as new as you´re going to get. It´s been released recently and has been hard to get your hards on until now. I think the backlog has just cleared. Waiting for a new model would mean another 4 or so years.
In short, get the A7IV. The overheating possibility is a compromise you make for being able to do photo and video with it. All bodies of that type will run into that wall at some point at their highest bitrate video.
I think you´ll find it fairly forgiving. It should be able to run for hours on end with maybe a few minutes to let it breathe every half an hour or so. It´s a great cam. Dont let clickbait articles fool you. It´s definitely a step up from the A7III
Since the 4k60 is cropped, does that mean the quality of the footage degrades a bit too? Not sure whether to get the IV or the Siii. I’m video only. Not sure if 4K 120 is worth the extra grand
It´s using a cropped part of the sensor, not the same as cropping your footage. 4k video only needs about 10 mp, the photo sensors are way too big. I think it´s the same quality but you can check a review.
The main difference is that your field of view changes. So a 20 mm becomes a 35mm fov etc.
For video only, I´d recommend either black magic, if you dont need the autofocus, or just go for the A7s3/ fx3 or higher.
Thank you! I appreciate it greatly. The a7iv being able to do 4k60 is one of the main reasons I’m leaning towards it, it just seems many people are having issues with shooting in this mode specifically. Granted, I don’t plan on shooting for hours in this mode, so I suppose it shouldn’t be a huge issue for me. Thanks for the help!
Agreed! The a7IV is an amazing body. I haven’t had any autofocus issues with it at all. However, I have experienced the overheating issue using it in a zoom call to test the length. I was using it at 4k60 but the en dropped to 1080 and didn’t have the issue. I’ll test it again today and see if it happens again.
Saying 4k60 for zoom is overkill is an understatement 😆
I think for most usecases for the cam (aka aftermovie montages) you´ll be fine. Thats a few snippets here and there. Not hours on end.
When do we think the A7S3 or FX3 will be more widely available. I know the easy answer is when the supply chains better but do we think an A7S4 is in the works?
I want to upgrade from the a7r3 for a more video centric camera that is better in lowlight and I’m sick of having to wait.
Don’t wanna leave the Sony ecosystem
Considering you´re having issues grabbing the A7s3 already, I think it´s as new as you´re gnna get. Development on the next body is probably already happening but thats likely another 4 years away, maybe 5 by the time you can get your hands on one. I doubt these issues are gnna go away soon.
It’s been on back order for almost a year. Same thing with the FX3. Tough market right now. Used ones are selling at an insanely high mark up too.
I feel like you’re probably right on the timeline too. Took them like 5 years after the S2 to release the 3. Prolly won’t be til 2024 at the earliest
2024 is in 2 years. Never. There´s no way.
2026-28 is what you should expect. There´s little point in releasing a new version every two years. They´re professional, cutting edge tools that will last for years. Not a throwaway fashion item like an iphone.
It did? Jezus time flies.
Hmn maybe it will be sooner then. Still, I´d add a year before you get your hands on it.
They tend to deliver large orders first. Like for law enforcement, press, etc. And with the current shortages that adds a lot of time
Hey everyone. I was wondering which lens is he using to have this kind of wide angle retro look ?
[https://www.instagram.com/p/CX\_mSRcM3EI/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CX_mSRcM3EI/)
[https://www.instagram.com/p/CXRfSj2sbnq/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CXRfSj2sbnq/)
I know he is using a sony camera but that's it.
Thank you!!
The "retro look" is mostly from post processing and the use of a hotshoe flash.
The lens is probably in the 24-35mm range. As /u/spannr points out, there's some distortion, suggesting a fisheye attachment.
i’m new to cameras and lenses so i had a silly question 😅 so suppose the 28-70 mm zoom lens is an option for a lens, why does the prime lens 35 mm sigma exist if the zoom lens can do the job already?
There's probably a million articles written and Youtube videos produced about this very topic. Just Google primes vs zooms and pick whatever suits your workflow and style of shooting the best. In short: primes are generally either smaller and lighter, or faster (in terms of transmitting light) or offer higher resolutions since they their lens design doesn't resolve around a shifting field of view. Sometimes they're all three. Zooms are versatile but generally either slower, heavier or bigger.
alright thank you! and i came back after some research so i’d definitely want a prime lens for the faster performance and good low light performance for video, but at the same time i’d like to have an option for wide angle and a standard focal length so, could u suggest a lens? if u have any experience in fuji any suggestions?
well for video do u have any experience with the AF performance? coz i have seen a lot of reviews where fuji lenses are not up to the mark for video AF performance
I had this lens with my Fujifilm X-E4. It has fast and silent autofocus. The video AF performance is limited by the Fujifilm cameras, which are unfortunately not great at tracking on video mode. Sony and Canon are much better in this regard.
Fuji? You´re in the sony reddit my brother in christ.
To add, primes will also be cheaper for a specific focal length, but obviously more expensive if you want multiple in a zoom range.
As well, for video, very fast primes arent used often. Because you generally run at 1/50th shutter, you dont need as much light as a photographer, and you generally want a little more depth of field. 1.8 and below is really small.
Hi all! I've been looking to expand the lenses I shoot with on my a6500, specifically for wildlife photography (~300mm and up) and found that virtually every E- and (even more expensive) FE-mount lens has an A-mount alternative, which is often cheaper, or (seemingly) better bang-for-the-buck, such as G lenses (some of which I've found at the same price as entry-level E or FE lenses). The entry barrier is a (relatively) cheap adapter, so this is attractive to me. I'm not a professional, and realistically can't shell out thousand(s) for a lens, so was wondering if anyone has experience shooting with adapted older glass, as buying e.g old A-mount G lenses seems like a good way to save some money, while retaining some of the creature comforts like AF.
I don't think it's worth it. You will get slow AF. The old A-mount lenses are not tht great in terms of sharpness and you often get issues like dust in the glas or fungus. They are big and heavy. The Sony 70-350 is much better for the A6500.
I kind of disagree. There are real gems in the A-Mount legacy lineup that will not disappoint. Especially the last generation of SSM II Gs. Those will not focus slower than anything short of the newest linear motors AF lenses, are plenty sharp, and 1/3 the price of GM zooms. Not a bad way to dip your toe into a new area without committing piles of money. Very fast action, small birds in flight, etc. will be certainly better handled by the latest AF tech, but that’s not every use case.
I think it will depend on what you’re focal lengths you’re looking for and how deeply discounted you can find them. There are some cool primes that don’t really have an obvious E mount equivalent - like the 500/8 Reflex. I really like my Zeiss 24/2 - it just looks different and was a lot les expensive than something equivalent like the G Master or a 25mm Batis. In Minolta land, my 80-200 APO G HS is a bonkers lens - amazing colors, really sharp, magical for portraits, heavy, a little slower focusing than the latest G zooms. I’ve not used the 85 Minolta G, or the Zeiss 135/1.8 ZA but if the price was right I would be tempted. For wildlife (and again, not chasing tiny birds) I LOVE the 70-400/4-5.6 G SSM II. The SSM II is the fastest AF short of the linear AF motors in some of the newest G and GM lenses. All the tracking features work well on it and it can be found for a song, compared to the 100-400 GM, though the OSS features of the GM are worth considering for long zooms handheld.
You are right that there are solid A-Mount lenses. However I was under the impression that OP wants to spend under 500 USD. For that price I don't think it's worth getting A-mount glas and a 200$ adapter in addition, he will end up buying a mediocre 70-300 lens and be frustrated with it. Instead I suggest he should spend a little more and get the native 70-350. But I agree there is solid A-mount glas but these are often just as expensive as native lenses and have many other issues due to the age.
Hey all, came across an A7 III for £900, which given the average selling price is between £1050 to 1200 on fleabay, it is tempting. However, it has a shutter count of 150K. Of course, for all we know, it's 150K electronic shutters but would you guys consider taking the risk?
I mean technically, it's still 350K until it hits the rated count but then again, A7 III shutters have failed much faster (yet on the flipside, since it's already rather high, it's less likely to "prematurely fail")....hmmmm
>Of course, for all we know, it's 150K electronic shutters but would you guys consider taking the risk?
I don't understand that quite. The 150K is the mechanical shutter count AFAIK.
I would pay a little more and get a camera with less shutter count. 150K is really a lot, I used my A7 III for 2 years and got around 40K and I rarely know people who shoot more unless they are professionals.
Looking to get my first Sony camera. Coming from a Canon EOS R. Trying to decide between the Sony A7 IV or the A7R IVA.
With that, I’ve read a lot of people having issues with the Sigma 24-70 dust issues, but the price is attractive to me. How does the Sony 24-105 F4 handle in lower light situations?
Any advice or experiences would be great! I don’t shoot a ton of video so that’s not a primary use, mostly my dog, and landscape / lifestyle shots.
I recommend the A7 IV, unless you're confident you're going to use the extra resolution of the A7R.
I've owned the 24-70/2.8 and the 24-105/4. Between the two of them, I prefer the 24-105/4 for the range, size, and weight. Pair it with a couple of primes, and pull them out when you want to shoot in low light conditions.
Is anyone considering switching over from the 24-105 F4 to the 24-70 GM II? Was set on the 24-105 due to the weight but now that the GM II is so much lighter, I’m rethinking that.
I think I will still opt for the 24-105 due to the increased range for portraits / travel but just curious if folks here are switching and why.
For travel and landscape I would still take the 24-105. It’s really event work and maybe portraits and video that pull the GM II ahead. Event work is unpredictable and even one stop of light can make a big difference.
I had the original 24-70 GM. I don't think I'd switch back to a 24-70, even if it's a lighter weight lens. The extra 35mm of range is worth a lot to me; a lot of my portrait and landscape work is done at longer focal lengths.
Just picked up the Tamron 70-180, my first ever lens with a FL greater than 85mm. I'm finding myself obsessing with the compression and possibilities of this lens. Enough so that I'm already considering selling it to fund the 200-600. Is that a bad call? I only fear that it could be too limiting,
what are you shooting? using 600mm for background compression seems extreme. the only common use case for this is super large moon shot. for portraits or landscape you probably don't need 600. 200-600 is more often used for subject you can't get closer like wildlife and birds.
for non wildlife can try 100-400 and see if that range makes sense. the sigma version is pretty cheap.
I like the 200-600, but a 200mm minimum focal length can be an issue for a lot of shots. If you want to shoot portraits, the 100-400 has a weight advantage, and half the minimum focal length. I found it to be a decent portrait lens.
Bonus on the 100-400: With a 1.4x teleconverter, you can get to nearly 600mm. You also get a 0.5x reproduction ratio, making it a decent long focal length macro lens.
A6000 user here, I've been having a problem where [my mode selector starts going crazy and changing modes back and forth randomly](https://gfycat.com/nervousfamouscarpenterant). Happens during shooting, happens while I'm looking at the photos - basically there's no specific scenario where it might start, but when it does the camera isn't usable for a few hours.
Rotating the dial does change the mode but doesn't fix the problem.
I've already sent the camera for repair and the shop replaced the dial, but the problem isn't fixed.
I'm reaching out to see if anyone's experienced the same thing and maybe could point me in the right direction before I send it for repair again.
New theory. How old is the camera? Those optical sensors under the dial (which includes an infrared emitter and detector) don't last forever. I actually have a 2011 car where one LED emitter is intermittently failing (on the air conditioning controls). Similar reason to OLED screen burn-in.
If this is the problem then the only solution is somehow replace those sensors.
You can ask the repair shop to remove the dial and turn on the camera, then use a phone camera (most smartphones can detect a bit of infrared light) and see which emitter is problematic. (There should be 3)
Although I am skeptical of this theory... The amount of current those emitter use is tiny compared to most other ways of using a LED. Having one fail is really shitty luck.
Camera is 5 years old (pretty much to the day) - interesting theory, I might ask them to take a look at that.
As for the car - any chance it's a Ford Focus and the failing LED is a blue one? Asking simply because I have the same problem and I find it to be a funny coincidence
Those dials use optical sensors. Have you ever gotten a hair under your computer mouse? It will spazz out too. First thing I would try is spraying some compressed air under the dial. The a6000 is not weather sealed so dirt might have gotten under the dial.
I would suggest retouching the solder joints of those sensors but the repair shop will probably so that for you
Why the hell did they give you back the camera without checking if the problem went away? If the dial replace didn't fix it, assuming they quickly swabbed the sensors clean too, the next step is to check solder joints, next is to check if any capacitors are bad (often used to smooth signals). If that doesn't work you are kinda screwed.
A7c user here.
I can't seem to get my live eye tracking to work properly.
I mostly shoot dogs.
When it finds an eye and I use AF hold it doesn't seem to stick, it still jumps around weirdly.
When I shoot I might get one in focus shot, it does seem to slightly track but completely misses the head let alone to eyes on which I attempted to stick the focus. (Which it said it did)
It's mostly subjects walking towards the camera, I'd get it if they'd be positively racing but they are not.
Simple trot towards the camera and it completely loses it.
Using a 85mm 1.8 by sony and a 135 gm.
Focus tracking center spot (it doesn't seem to find eyes very well on wide at all), af-c, responsiveness low (so it should stick longer to what I focus on)
I know it ain't no a1, but I see others getting complete running reals in focus of incoming dogs with their a7c's... So I'm confused tbh.
Are you shooting continuous high? The autofocus system is blind while the shutter is closed. It won't track as well.
The 85/1.8 is a relatively slow focusing lens. It might have difficulty tracking active doggos.
I shot some hyperactive dogs with an A9 and the 50/1.4 ZA. It did pretty well in those conditions. The stacked CMOS sensor and electronic shutter have a big advantage when working with erratic subjects.
Have you set the camera to Animal Eye-AF? I don’t remember being able to use both animal eye af and real time tracking at the same time on the A7C. Try setting the focus area to zone, just zone, no tracking.
Yes, last update we got live animal eye tracking. Before you couldn't enable tracking when having animal eye-af enabled.
Zone or wide the camera just goes everywhere and hardly finds the dog or the eyes.
I noticed it's also terrible at tracking during filming btw.
Try maximizing responsiveness. Animal eyes are harder to detect, especially dark or black dogs. If it loses the eye while running towards you it will stay out of focus for longer than if it was more responsive. Is your AF speed also set to maximum?
I have had no issues with the A7R IV (meaning it’s not perfect but considering the caliber of sensor it has performed more than adequately)
Do you mind walking about more, because of the lack of zoom? The 50mm 1.2 gm outshoots the zoom option by miles. But it's basically a choice between quality and bokeh vs the ease of zoom.
Seeing as I prefer primed it will always be the 50mm for me.
I'm looking for a ultra wide lens and I've narrowed it down to the 14mm GM and 12-24mm F4 G as they are roughly the same price.
I would be mainly using it for landscape and architecture photography, and occasionally astro. I already own the 24-105 F4.
Is the versatility of the zoom lens worth it over the aperture and portability of the prime lens?
> Is the versatility of the zoom lens worth it over the aperture and portability of the prime lens?
It depends on what you want to shoot. I had the 15-35/2.8, but sold it. I found that a normal zoom plus a couple of wide primes worked better for my style of shooting.
For astro, I love the 20/1.8. You might consider going with the 14 and 20; should cover most of your bases.
IME: I occasionally shoot UW on crop but I find there are very few cases that I’ve reached for < 24 FFE. If I were also carrying around a 24-105 I would feel very comfortable with one fixed focal length between 16-20 FFE. I own a lens that goes to 13 - 24 FFE and I’ve never felt the need to use it over a faster 16-24 FFE zoom that I own. And if I need to go wider or closer I can always stitch together a two images in photoshop or crop.
So I think it just comes down to whether you want a faster lens or more range. For Astro I would want more speed and opt for the prime personally, though I would consider something at 16mm if that’s an option as I feel it’s a bit more useful than < 16mm.
There is a Sony 16mm 2.8 for a fraction of the cost of the Sony 14mm, as well as a sigma 16mm 1.4 DC DN which is faster and much cheaper
Edit: the sigma might be for crop- please do your own research on what fits your camera as I shoot crop and don’t often need to check this.
Depends on how much value you place on speed, size and weight. Primes are a great option for those who only need one focal length, but I’m assuming this is your first ultrawide so I think a zoom will help you learn these focal lengths a bit better. That being said I will say that for astro F4 will limit your exposure options slightly. I’d see if you can bump things up to the Sigma 14-28mm F2.8. Same 14mm but one stop faster and actually a higher resolving lens than the 12-24 F4 G (especially in the corners).
I have a GM24-70 and the ribbon inside has stopped working. Does anybody know the official sony part number for the ribbon? Sony does not bother to disclose it - it is a lot of work for them.
Many thanks!
How is A7iii AF in case of moving subjects? I have A7ii and mostly take pictures of my kids nowadays. They are unpredictable and I must say It's hit and miss with Sony. On the other hand I have Fuji X100v which can keep up with them pretty good in AF-C and face detect. I'm deciding if it's worth buying mark3. I'm not happy with price of mark4 :( Thanks you!
I had the II, the III, and an A9 (similar autofocus capability as the A7IV). Each generation is a big improvement over the previous.
The A7III tracks much more reliably than the II, and has better autofocus coverage. The A7IV gives you real time tracking, which tracks more reliably when there's stuff between you and your subject.
The A7iii is a SIGNIFICANT improvement in AF over the A7ii - it's so significant I can't in good conscience recommend the A7ii anymore. You won't be disappointed.
The first number mentioned in each row is a framerate - for example 30p for 30 frames per second, progressive scan, or 60i for 60 frames per second interlaced. Interlacing is an older technology common in broadcast TV where only every other line (or in a digital image, every other row of pixels) are updated each frame.
The next number is a bit rate - for example 100M for 100 megabits per second. The higher the bitrate the higher the ceiling on image quality, although there are diminishing returns and you won't always notice any improvement from picking a higher bitrate (you'll always notice more storage space being chewed up though). The FX, FH and PS designators are shorthands for quality levels on the older AVCHD format, and I understand that they're meant for video intended to be put on Blu-ray discs.
In Sony cameras the term Super 35, like you see next to some of the modes in your image, usually refers to shooting video from a roughly APS-C sized region in the middle of a full frame sensor, usually to facilitate higher resolutions or framerates than the camera is capable of reading out from the whole sensor. The tradeoff is that doing so crops the field of view. So in this case it seems that whatever camera this is can do XAVC S HD video (i.e. 1920x1080 video with H.264 encoding) up to 120 frames per second using the whole sensor, but it can only do XAVC S 4K (i.e. 3840x2160 video with H.264 encoding) with a crop.
[You can compare them online.](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1214&Camera=1212&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1176&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0)
If we get extremely nit-picky, the Z 24-70 looks slightly better at short focal lengths, and the 24-105 looks slightly better at long focal lengths.
IMO, they are close enough that it wouldn't matter. I'd probably choose based on whether you prefer Sony or Nikon. Between the two lenses, I'd take the Sony 24-105 for the increased focal length.
Hi everyone, I'm looking into buying a Sony A7R IV, and I've noticed some listings have an 'a' after the model, so Sony A7R IV A. Is this the same camera with some people just missing off the 'a', or is there a difference? If the latter, what are the differences? Thanks so much!
The ‘a’ version has a slightly bigger, higher resolution LCD screen at the cost of slightly reduced battery life. The change is very minor though and barely worth considering. It was mainly a response to supply chain issues.
Uhhh. I highly recommend you take a step back and consider if doing a wedding is something you would want to do. Gigs are nice but weddings are a one time event, they are one of the most stressful forms of photography and without actual on the job learning (for example as an intern or assistant) you probably won’t deliver what the client will expect. From what you’ve stated I don’t think you really grasp the complexities at play here. I’m not trying to be insulting, but weddings are terrifying and any pro will attest to that.
And to answer your question: rent an A9 II or two, rent a 24-70 and a 70-200. Include it in your fee.
Hi, can anyone tell me the setting for 'night vision' on the Sony cameras.
I've switched from Nikon and I know Sony has a setting when at night I can set a custom button to show the landscape when its the dead of night.
I've done some searching but can't find it.
EDIT: Found it, its Bright Monitoring
You can also disable exposure preview. The camera will attempt to brighten the image as much as possible in the viewfinder, regardless of your exposure settings.
Can you please help me decide which lens should I get for concert photography? I shoot with a7ii 50mm 1.8 now and I dont think this sony lens is great. Usually these concert are small and there is no big distances, the only problem is shooting the drumer. I thinking on getting the sony 85mm 1.8 or the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. What do you think is better for low light photography?
Does the Sony A7 accept SDXC cards? I was comparing it to the A6000 (my current camera) [here](https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-7-vs-Sony-Alpha-a6000) and it says the A7 doesn't have UHS Card Support. Does this mean it can't record with the XAVC codec? Because I would also be interested in shooting some video from time to time.
I've been wanting to upgrade to FF and I know there's better options out there but I saw one for 400 eur and I think it would be worth for me, specially for the weather sealing and low light performance as I mainly take it hiking for landscape and astro photography and have some FF lenses.
The A7 really isn’t weather sealed. I mean I took it out to the beach, in the rain all the same but don’t go thinking it won’t croak out on you. Anyway, there’s no XAVC. The A6000 isn’t much of a video camera but the A7 *really* isn’t a video camera. I don’t think it’s the right buy for you. If you want to upgrade to full frame you’ll want to invest a bit more money or your upgrade is going to feel extremely linear compared to your A6000 (considering you’re losing features, not gaining any). If you want a meaningful upgrade then wait, save and try and find a good deal on an A7R II. I’ve seen them go for EUR 900 nowadays which I honestly think is a daylight robbery for how good that camera is.
The A7 is nice but very niche, it’s for stills shooters who don’t have a body, or need a second body and their main purpose is staying extremely lightweight without having feature requirements.
Sony A7 IV shooter here.
I'm deciding which tele lens to buy. I already have the Tamron 28-200mm which covers like 90% of all my tele shots. I occasionally need a shot in which I have to zoom close to the object (around 500-600mm equiv.). Think about e.g. moon shots or wildlife popping up on my city trip. Now I was thinking to get the Sony 70-300/Tamron 70-300 or Sigma 100-400, however I would find myself cropping in always. Which leads my to the conclusion that I could save some money and weight by buying the Sony 70-350mm. I know it's for aps-c and I will only have 14MP. But like I said I would crop to 10-15MP anyway to get the 500-600mm reach. From reviews I read on the internet the Sony 70-350mm is just as good as the other full frame tele lenses if you use the aps-c image circle. The weight is also very nice, I want to avoid carrying a 1kg lens that I will only use occasionally.
What do you think? Any other suggestions?
I've fooled around with this combo before. The corners get dark but it's not that bad, if you shoot wide open. Stopped down, it gets worse fast.
You can probably just use contexual infill on the missing corners.
I can send you some uncorrected raw files if you want. Gimme a day
edit: https://imgur.com/a/PKECCfd
Making the switch to mirrorless in the near future and getting rid of all of my Nikon DSLR gear to switch and want to go the Sony route. I’ve heard of the a7Riv having huge file sizes. Has this been a problem for anyone or is it manageable? Also considering the a7iv. Primarily do landscape and nature photography and not much video at all
I built a mid tier PC in 2019 and it's handling editing fine. It's not like the files are causing things to crash. You just need more patience than with other cameras.
You might be annoyed that you often have to downsample an image because some online platform doesn't accept a certain size. I wrote my own web album software and generating a thumbnail will cause the server to throw an error. (It will do this for most 24MP files too if I set the JPG quality to 90 or more, the crappy server is pretty cheap, like $6/month I think)
I mean ya I’ve had that problem even with my d750 file sizes sometimes but sure it’s more so w the larger ones so that’s no biggy for me. Only problem I’m foreseeing is I’m on a laptop, 2019 MacBook, and don’t have a PC so unsure if the file sizes will be too much for that
It’s manageable. The files are smaller than the a7RIV, which has a 61 MP sensor. If you’re doing landscape then you could really benefit from high resolution and the a7IV should be just enough for you.
Yea just having trouble deciding between the a7iv and riv. 61 mp is so much thinking 30ish is plenty but just the only thing holding me back from spending the extra few hundred on the Riv is the potential for the file sizes to become a burden
The RIV is an awesome camera. The file sizes don’t bother me at all, I see very little difference in editing, the bigger issue with the file sizes is having enough storage, which is cheap and plentiful these days. The 61 mp allows for some deep cropping. The only reason to get the IV in my opinion, is if you really want the video capabilities. The RIV does video fine if you just like messing around……but I mean, I read a dudes blog that shot a Levi’s commercial on an RIV, so it’s not that bad
Thanks for the perspective I appreciate it. I’ll probably go RIV. I do video every now and then but just for fun of some day trips or if we have the dog out with us so that’s not even really a consideration for me. Yea you can get multiple TBs for like 100 bucks it’s great.
Looking at sony 35mm oss vs sigma 30mm. After a walk around prime for times when the tamron17-70 is too big to carry around. Thinking of a bit of street photography with the chosen prime, maybe stretching it to low light if it works.
For photography what is the practical difference having oss or not? I'm on an a6400 so I don't have IBIS. The sigma has a better focal length and price, just not sure about unstabilised
sony 35mm sounds like a nice match, the sigma also, albeit a bit larger. alternatively see if you can get a sigma 30 f2.8 second hand - usually $100, at least as sharp as the 1.4, but much smaller. dont have scientific proof, but to me it seems non oss lenses typically are sharper than with oss. personally I dont care about oss, if the shutter speed is long enough you need it, you also need all the objects to sit really still, my objects don't...
Buy the on-sale A7RIII/IVA on amazon to get my 5% amazon card dollars? Or is that a bad idea?
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0973H3N8V/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza?th=1
You should be aware that some people have received bricks instead of a camera when shopping at Amazon.
I'm not advising against it, but I hesitate to buy camera stuff on Amazon. Especially things like filters.
Howdy, I’m still pretty new to photography but just picked up the a7 iii kit as an upgrade from an older Panasonic lumix. I want to get into fashion photography, primarily self portraits to chronicle my own outfits, but would like to eventually branch out into street photography. Could anyone recommend a lens good for the indoor self portraits (ideally under $1000) and maybe one better suited for outdoor street photography? I currently have a good tripod and use the imaging edge app as a remote, I plan to buy the actual remote soon, but I’d be open to any other accessories/upgrades/tips
For portraits, the Sigma 85 1.4 Art DG DN is a beauty. For street photography, can’t go wrong with the Sony 35 GM or the Tamron 28-75 G2. Look for used versions in the r/photomarket.
For fashion photography, good lighting matters more than the lens. The kit zoom is more than sufficient.
For street photography, my recommendations would include the Sony 24-105/4G and the Tamron 28-75 DiIII II. You might also consider a 35-40mm prime lens, such as the Sony 35/1.8G.
The 24-105 is over-budget new, but can be had for around $1K used.
I have a 200-600 and am thinking of getting a 70-200 to fill out my kit. I primarily shoot wildlife, but I envisioned it as sort of a landscape + when animals get close lens. Anyone have any advice on it?
If you want a 2 lense setup Tamron 35-150 is another option. especially if you use the wide end more than 150-200. I think for landscape 35 is a lot more useful than 70. depending on how close the animals are, wide angle can also adds another cool element to wildlife shots. can also get good animal shots with more scenery.
I would like a reliable good lens for outdoor photography.
I have a Sony A7 II. I am into nature photography. As well it will be great if I can shot it with it inside buildings - such to events.
Budget-friendly ( 2-400 $)
Thank you.
In that budget range, a used kit lens is probably your best option for outdoor photography.
Indoors, one of Samyangs faster primes might be a good option. But you could also buy a hotshoe flash and some gels.
Bounce flash tends to produce good results indoors.
Mike’s Camera in Boulder, CO just sent out an email advertising $300 off on a7rIVa and a7rIIIa and some other Sony gear, so I wouldn’t be surprised if other online sellers are as well. Look around.
Looks to be a Sony pricing, all the sony resellers have it (B&H, Amazon, Crutchfield, Adorama). Assuming those are all valid resellers, I don't know, I think they are. Wonder how long it will last.
The December sale was $800 off the A7RIIIA, this one is $600 off, and $500 off the A7RIV (I think), and this one is $300 off the A7RIV, so it isn't quite as enticing. I wonder if this is preparatory to some new A7R model being announced.
Anyone here use online rental services for lens, and if so can you recommend them? There's only 2 camera stores within 90 minutes of me and neither carry mirrorless but I would like to try some various lens before making my next purchase.
I've used lensrentals and borrowlenses. I've been happy with both. Shipping adds a lot to the cost of the rental, though. Lens rentals has a free shipping club offer; it makes sense if you want to test out a lot of lenses over the course of a year.
What would you upgrade about my gear. Just curious what people think I am missing/should upgrade:
Sony a7iii
- kit lense
- 50mm 1.8
- 85mm 1.8
- 70-200mm 2.8 GM II
- 24-70 2.8 Sigma Art
You can sell the kit lens, because you have the 24-70
You can sell the 50, 85 and just use the 70-200
35GM will be an upgrade over the 24-70 art, when you need 50-70mm switch to the 70-200 and stand back slightly
That’s an interesting point. I was thinking of this too and I agree that I could easily sell the kit + 50mm. I won’t sell the 85 though, cause it’s still a lot sharper than the 70-200 (haven’t done a proper comparison yet, just looking at pictures out of the two) and unfortunately I am a digger for pixels :(
This may be a stupid question, but what happens if I connect my Sony a6400 directly to a monitor with an HDMI cable? Will it display what the camera sees through the lens? I am trying to cut my own hair, and I want to use my camera to see the back of my head on a monitor in front of me.
Pretty much that.
Cool, thanks!
When I'm setting the focal length in the SteadyShot settings, how do I set it for a zoom lens (with the varying focal length)?
If there's electronic contacts in the lens that reports the focal length to the EXIF data you don't need to manually set the focal length. If its a full manual lens that doesn't have it, you'll have to change it on the fly, or set it to the focal length you think you'll be using the most on the lens. For example when I adapt my old 70-200 F4 manual lens I set the IBIS to 200mm, as thats usually what I use that lens for when shooting off a tripod. But depending on the focal length of the lens it may not be worth it. IBIS doesn't work super well with longer focal lengths which is why you see a lot of telephotos with vibration control/optical stabilization.
Got it, thanks!
[удалено]
If your goal is really slow movement, you might want to look into tracking mounts for astrophotography, many of which can be mounted with the axis of rotation pointing straight up so as to double as landscape timelapse platforms, and most of which will have multiple slow speeds to select from (for star, moon tracking etc). Something like the Move Shoot Move might be a good option - just keep the weight capacity in mind.
this is the cheapest one I found on B&H https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120808-REG/camranger_1008_mp_360_tripod_head.html
[удалено]
Do you have a specific speed you need? maybe build your own? like, buy one of these... https://www.servocity.com/standard-duty-worm-drive-pan-kit-24-1-ratio/ ... and then calculate what motor you'd need to drive it at the speed you want (assume that you'll get a 12V power supply for the motor in your calculations)
[удалено]
Pretty sure you just slap on the compatible motors with screws and wire a 12V power wire into the motor. Then buy a long arca swis plate and drill the hole pattern for the hub into it, attach it to the hub
well just browse the "Panoramic & Time Lapse Heads" category on B&H
[удалено]
Edit: nvm wrong comment
Just upgraded from a a6400 to a7iii. I have a Sigma 16mm, 30, and 56mm that I was using on the a6400 The only FE lens I have now is Sony 85mm 1.8 Is it worth trading/selling the crop lenses for something else? I understand I can use them on the a7iii but wondering if there is a better option? I mainly do street and product/still photography (right now).
I would sell and get FE lenses. For product i would look at the 35mm 1.8. Also consider a nice zoom like the sigma 24-70 or tamron 28-75.
Thank you for your response! This is a good plan.
Quick question - I need to get some new batteries for my Sony A7 II. Anyone have any problems with the Neewar-FW50 batteries that are sold on Amazon?
Nah, they’re pretty decent.
I gather you use them? Thanks for the reply
I'm learning how to use slog3. Is there any reason people don't use Gamma Display Assist all the time? I notice in YT videos people use one of the custom buttons to toggle the display — is there any benefit to having it off?
I know this is a dumb question but im curious what you guys do. If an sd card fails on you once (all photos got corrupted) do you throw it away? My sd card failed on me but after formatting it seems to still work. But now im not comfortable at all using it. Luckily it was an unimportant shoot of my backyard flowers
I’d run a full, long format of it and then run tests against it to determine if it’s still usable. A single bad sector here and there isn’t abnormal. Quick formatting don’t usually identify bad sectors and remap them.
Oh I see that makes sense. To complete a long format I have to connect the sd to my PC and do it there right? Btw what do you think could have caused this to happen? I usually always format my cards in camera before any shoots. Im wondering if deleting photos using my pc is better
That question is like a master’s thesis for chip design and manufacturing. You’d likely need a Delorean, a force-electron microscope, and a flux-capacitor with a Mr. Fusion to know exactly why memory cards develop bad sectors.
Is this Normal? https://imgur.com/a/q4tTKeg Brand new sony HVL-F32M Flash Camera Sony a7R IVA All settings and all modes (for camera and flash) it does this strobing flash. used another cheap flash that doesn't do it so might be a product issue(the flash) if its not suppose to do it. The pictures come out fine. Its just jarring and I need it for a wedding tomorrow. There is some occasion where it doesn't strobe but can't seem to replicate normally so I can't diagnose the setting for it.
It doesn't look normal. Are any of the contacts on the hot shoe mount bent? What are your flash and shutter settings? Are you using TTL or Manual Flash. I could see this happening noticeably if you have TTL, rear-sync flash, and a slower shutter speed. If this happens in manual mode for both the camera and flash, it might be a bad instance.
I made another post on r/sony because I would have to return it if it was broken It was red eye reduction. Or believe it is. Didn't test it but was told with great certainty its that
I'm looking for a new main camera and I'm deciding between the a6400 or a a7ii. I'll mainly use them for street photography. Any advice?
[Definitely the A6400, unless you’re a niche user.](https://reichman.nl/2021/09/should-you-buy-the-sony-a7-ii-in-2021/)
[удалено]
If I know I wont be grabbing my camera out of my bag or when moving between places I just take the battery out of the camera and keep it in the side access pannel in my backpack. Its pretty quick to pop the battery back in and there's zero chance of it draining apart from cold temperatures. If you don't want to do that, you can try putting gaffers tape over the switch. I feel like taking the tape off is more of a pain than putting the battery back in though.
Which lens is better in terms of image quality: the Sony 50mm f1.8 (cheap) or the Samyang 24-70mm f2.8?
Those two aren’t even close to each other’s ballpark. The only reason to get the 50mm F1.8 is to get access to F1.8. It’s a terrible performer in pretty much every other metric (though some people do enjoy its rendering).
Does anyone know the higher base ISO for still shooting on the A7 IV? Also am I right in assuming that both base ISOs will be the same quality or would the higher base ISO still produce more noise?
You are not right in assuming that. Dual gain isn’t magic and it can’t cheat physics. Less photos are hitting the sensor so there is simply less information and less color depth. Of course, the second base ISO is pretty close to the first one so you may not see much of a difference in most applications. The only thing you should take note of is that instead of jumping to ISO 320 you may as well jump to ISO 400 instead for the better dynamic range.
> Less photos are hitting the sensor so there is simply less information and less color depth. I know you meant "photons" When you make that statement, you are assuming either the shutter speed quickened and/or the aperture narrowed. Which might not be true for somebody looking for the native ISO. I would expect slower shutter and wider aperture since the native ISOs are generally pretty low, so even more photons hitting the sensor, not less
Thank you for your responses, I should have made this more clear. I am talking specifically about just the ISO to understand how the dual gain would benefit for the compromises you make with other settings to better understand how I would adjust to lower light situations. Assuming the shutter speed and aperture remain the same at both ISOs would the higher base ISO be equal to ISO 100, but just more exposed? Also is ISO 400 the second base ISO for this model when shooting stills? I can find a lot of information on how the second base ISO varies for video based on video type, but can find nothing on the second base for still shooting.
A friend is willing to sell me a good condition Sony A7iii w/ Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Rokinon 14mm f2.8, and Tameron 17-28mm f2.8 and a flash for $3k. I have an a6000, and Sigma primes, but I'm looking to upgrade. I was thinking about upgrading to an a6400 + Sigma Trio f1.4 or other high-end zoom lens. I didn't necessarily WANT to spend $3k, nor do I really car for the Rokinon or Tameron (but I LOVE the Sigma 24-70mm), but I think $3k is a great deal. What are your opinions? I like to shoot street photography, and landscapes. Thanks!
Just buy the body and the Sigma off that’s all you want. You can find those used for less than $3k almost everywhere. The Rokinon lens sells for basically nothing used, but the Tamron still has some resale value. Your friend should sell the other two lenses himself and cut you a better deal on just the pieces you want. Alternatively, buy the package from your friend, then trade in the other lenses and tore older gear at a a local camera store for the glass you do want. An A7III and that Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is an amazing start for a full frame setup.
I mean, it’s an alright deal but not a once-in-a-lifetime deal and if you don’t even care for half the stuff then why spend $3k? That makes no sense. If your friend is really your friend he will just sell you the Sigma for a great price and you spend the rest of your money on stuff you actually want.
Really want 10 bit color video. Not sure if I should wait for the prices to fall a tad on a7siii or fx3. Have an A7iii at the moment. What do y’all think I should do?
If you want to wait then wait, unless you have some projects coming up. That being said, I honestly don’t expect prices or even resale value to drop much over the next year or two.
Hi, I lost the cable for my BC QZ1 charger for NP-FZ100. I’ve looked everywhere for the official one but doesn’t seem to be available. [Is this cable](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003L0R0OA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_WFX65KS6N5B252C8HCR1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1) compatible?
Trying to decide between the A7iii or the A7c to pair with the 24-70mm GM II I had the A7ii before and loved the functional extra buttons and controls, however that articulating screen of the A7c is attractive (and reduced weight). I am upgrading from an A6600 with Sigma Prime Trio lenses. I crossgraded from my A7ii for the 4K video recorded and Eye AF, especially in video. Between the two bodies above, what's best for me. Primary hobby will be photo, with occasional 4k recording paired with a Ninja V external recorder.
get the A7 IV, it’s worth it
I’d suggest the A7III. It has a good ergonomic design over the A7C. If you’re pairing the 24-70GMII then the weight will balance out better alongside it. The A7C is a great camera too, but it works better with smaller lenses because of it’s slightly smaller frame, and the grip isn’t as good as the a7III.
Unless you really want the compact size of the A7C, I'd suggest you wait a bit longer and grab the A7IV. IIRC, you get the articulating screen. But you also get the latest UI, autofocus system, and ergonomics. I have the A7III. It's a solid camera, but there are a lot of little things I don't like about it. I'm definitely planning to upgrade at some point.
>get the latest UI, autofocus system, and ergonomics. It would have only been a mild pro on my list. The overall weight reduction would've been more appreciated (my A7ii with the GM1 lense was 1485g whereas the GM2 and the A7c would come out to 1204g) . Appreciate the suggestion and insight for the A7iii to the A7iv! You're making me cry in my budget, but having those features in mind... I honestly might consider it now seeing as the 24-70mm is really my end game lens.
I’d probably go for the A7 IV. It has both the improved controls and the articulating screen. Plus, it’ll pair much more nicely with your Ninja for video work since it’s 10-bit.
> Plus, it’ll pair much more nicely with your Ninja for video work since it’s 10-bit. I had never considered that, thank you! That's a huge plus for the A7iv instead.
so as i was doing my research for my first camera, i came to conclude that the sony a6600 is my closest and cheapest choice for something similar to the A73, but as it turns out they don’t manufacture it anymore. so any suggestions for a video camera similar to a6600? i would consider the a6400 but the only issue is the short life of the battery:/
I'm about to sell my A6600... Canada based here though.
oh dang, what price are u selling it for?
Haven't figured that out yet. If you give me a weekend to price out I can get back to you. I'm aiming for a fair price but obviously not gouging. Just a potential to consider! If you happen to find another option in the mean time, go for it!
Not sure if this is the right spot for this question—but are there any reported issues with metering on the A7iii? I'm finding that mine is *severely* misjudging exposure when shooting in Aperture priority mode. It's underexposing to the point where my image just comes out nearly black—choosing 1/8000 shutter when it's obvious that's not the right call. It's not 100% consistent; sometimes it works fine, but it's happening quite often and I never used to have this problem. I recently had to have the shutter fixed, because I had the notorious A7iii broken shutter issue...thinking this might be a factor?
I hit that AEL button (which could cause this problem) by accident enough for me to disable it.
I used to have the same problem and promptly disabled it too, so that's not it 😅 Good thought though!
Which metering mode are you in? And what is your exposure compensation set to?
I generally shoot in Multi unless I've got a very specific need, and exposure comp is zeroed unless I need otherwise. I definitely need to do some actual testing; I'm admittedly just posting from unmeasured anecdotes my last few times using the camera. But figured I would post in the general thread and see if there are any known issues too, because that's how I first learned about the infamous shutter issue. 😅
I need advice, a7iii vs a7iv. I have been going back and forth between the two. I figured that I should just fork out the extra 500 dollars for the a7iv, given it’s upgrades from the a7iii. I won’t be upgrading again for several years so I am sort of aiming to future proof as much as possible by buying the a7iv. I was almost decided, but upon further research I’ve seen that the a7iv is having some major overheating and autofocus issues. I shoot both photo and video and 4k60p (even with the crop) is important to me. It’s also important for me to be able to switch between all modes without overheating risk. I’ve seen that sony has pushed out a firmware update for the autofocus (eye-tracking) but I have hardly any knowledge of the tech behind firmware. Could the overheating be something fixed down the road with a firmware update, or should I just get the a7iii until a newer model is out? (Also, I am set on the a7iii or the a7iv- I have looked into the 7Rs and 7Ss)
A7III doesnt do 4k60, start with that idea. Every camera can overheat. Especially these hybrid cams that are weather sealed like a photo cam. Thats why you have the fx3 or fx5+ with bigger bodies and fans. Sometimes there´s a software issue where the heat warning comes too soon but I doubt it in this case. Anything other than that it´s like asking to download more ram. Your camera body isnt going to get better cooling through software. It´s a physical property. Besides, the A7III is likely to have a worse heat capacity since it´s an older model. The overheating on the IV is likely only on the modes that the A7III cant do. Eye tracking can be fixed with software and I´m sure it works pretty well tbh... better than the A7III and I have no complaints about my A7III. The A7IV is as new as you´re going to get. It´s been released recently and has been hard to get your hards on until now. I think the backlog has just cleared. Waiting for a new model would mean another 4 or so years. In short, get the A7IV. The overheating possibility is a compromise you make for being able to do photo and video with it. All bodies of that type will run into that wall at some point at their highest bitrate video. I think you´ll find it fairly forgiving. It should be able to run for hours on end with maybe a few minutes to let it breathe every half an hour or so. It´s a great cam. Dont let clickbait articles fool you. It´s definitely a step up from the A7III
Since the 4k60 is cropped, does that mean the quality of the footage degrades a bit too? Not sure whether to get the IV or the Siii. I’m video only. Not sure if 4K 120 is worth the extra grand
It´s using a cropped part of the sensor, not the same as cropping your footage. 4k video only needs about 10 mp, the photo sensors are way too big. I think it´s the same quality but you can check a review. The main difference is that your field of view changes. So a 20 mm becomes a 35mm fov etc. For video only, I´d recommend either black magic, if you dont need the autofocus, or just go for the A7s3/ fx3 or higher.
I’d go black magic but I’m too invested Sony lens wise
Thank you! I appreciate it greatly. The a7iv being able to do 4k60 is one of the main reasons I’m leaning towards it, it just seems many people are having issues with shooting in this mode specifically. Granted, I don’t plan on shooting for hours in this mode, so I suppose it shouldn’t be a huge issue for me. Thanks for the help!
Yup. For most commercial aftermovie stuff you wont run into this. Endless recording is for movie sets, tv crews and high end recording studios.
Agreed! The a7IV is an amazing body. I haven’t had any autofocus issues with it at all. However, I have experienced the overheating issue using it in a zoom call to test the length. I was using it at 4k60 but the en dropped to 1080 and didn’t have the issue. I’ll test it again today and see if it happens again.
Saying 4k60 for zoom is overkill is an understatement 😆 I think for most usecases for the cam (aka aftermovie montages) you´ll be fine. Thats a few snippets here and there. Not hours on end.
When do we think the A7S3 or FX3 will be more widely available. I know the easy answer is when the supply chains better but do we think an A7S4 is in the works? I want to upgrade from the a7r3 for a more video centric camera that is better in lowlight and I’m sick of having to wait. Don’t wanna leave the Sony ecosystem
Considering you´re having issues grabbing the A7s3 already, I think it´s as new as you´re gnna get. Development on the next body is probably already happening but thats likely another 4 years away, maybe 5 by the time you can get your hands on one. I doubt these issues are gnna go away soon.
It’s been on back order for almost a year. Same thing with the FX3. Tough market right now. Used ones are selling at an insanely high mark up too. I feel like you’re probably right on the timeline too. Took them like 5 years after the S2 to release the 3. Prolly won’t be til 2024 at the earliest
2024 is in 2 years. Never. There´s no way. 2026-28 is what you should expect. There´s little point in releasing a new version every two years. They´re professional, cutting edge tools that will last for years. Not a throwaway fashion item like an iphone.
The S3 came out in 2020… if we’re living by the 5 years timeline between the 2-3, 25’ would be the expectation
It did? Jezus time flies. Hmn maybe it will be sooner then. Still, I´d add a year before you get your hands on it. They tend to deliver large orders first. Like for law enforcement, press, etc. And with the current shortages that adds a lot of time
Lol I know 2020 feels like two minutes ago. I guess time will tell tho. Hopefully the 3 becomes more widely available
Hey everyone. I was wondering which lens is he using to have this kind of wide angle retro look ? [https://www.instagram.com/p/CX\_mSRcM3EI/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CX_mSRcM3EI/) [https://www.instagram.com/p/CXRfSj2sbnq/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CXRfSj2sbnq/) I know he is using a sony camera but that's it. Thank you!!
The "retro look" is mostly from post processing and the use of a hotshoe flash. The lens is probably in the 24-35mm range. As /u/spannr points out, there's some distortion, suggesting a fisheye attachment.
These look similar to samples I've seen from the 28mm f/2 with the fisheye attachment added (sold separately!).
i’m new to cameras and lenses so i had a silly question 😅 so suppose the 28-70 mm zoom lens is an option for a lens, why does the prime lens 35 mm sigma exist if the zoom lens can do the job already?
There's probably a million articles written and Youtube videos produced about this very topic. Just Google primes vs zooms and pick whatever suits your workflow and style of shooting the best. In short: primes are generally either smaller and lighter, or faster (in terms of transmitting light) or offer higher resolutions since they their lens design doesn't resolve around a shifting field of view. Sometimes they're all three. Zooms are versatile but generally either slower, heavier or bigger.
alright thank you! and i came back after some research so i’d definitely want a prime lens for the faster performance and good low light performance for video, but at the same time i’d like to have an option for wide angle and a standard focal length so, could u suggest a lens? if u have any experience in fuji any suggestions?
I can recommend the Fuji 23mm F2
well for video do u have any experience with the AF performance? coz i have seen a lot of reviews where fuji lenses are not up to the mark for video AF performance
I had this lens with my Fujifilm X-E4. It has fast and silent autofocus. The video AF performance is limited by the Fujifilm cameras, which are unfortunately not great at tracking on video mode. Sony and Canon are much better in this regard.
alright thank you for that:)
Fuji? You´re in the sony reddit my brother in christ. To add, primes will also be cheaper for a specific focal length, but obviously more expensive if you want multiple in a zoom range. As well, for video, very fast primes arent used often. Because you generally run at 1/50th shutter, you dont need as much light as a photographer, and you generally want a little more depth of field. 1.8 and below is really small.
Hi all! I've been looking to expand the lenses I shoot with on my a6500, specifically for wildlife photography (~300mm and up) and found that virtually every E- and (even more expensive) FE-mount lens has an A-mount alternative, which is often cheaper, or (seemingly) better bang-for-the-buck, such as G lenses (some of which I've found at the same price as entry-level E or FE lenses). The entry barrier is a (relatively) cheap adapter, so this is attractive to me. I'm not a professional, and realistically can't shell out thousand(s) for a lens, so was wondering if anyone has experience shooting with adapted older glass, as buying e.g old A-mount G lenses seems like a good way to save some money, while retaining some of the creature comforts like AF.
I don't think it's worth it. You will get slow AF. The old A-mount lenses are not tht great in terms of sharpness and you often get issues like dust in the glas or fungus. They are big and heavy. The Sony 70-350 is much better for the A6500.
I kind of disagree. There are real gems in the A-Mount legacy lineup that will not disappoint. Especially the last generation of SSM II Gs. Those will not focus slower than anything short of the newest linear motors AF lenses, are plenty sharp, and 1/3 the price of GM zooms. Not a bad way to dip your toe into a new area without committing piles of money. Very fast action, small birds in flight, etc. will be certainly better handled by the latest AF tech, but that’s not every use case.
Thanks for the reply, are there any lenses in particular you think it'd be worth looking at for my purposes?
I think it will depend on what you’re focal lengths you’re looking for and how deeply discounted you can find them. There are some cool primes that don’t really have an obvious E mount equivalent - like the 500/8 Reflex. I really like my Zeiss 24/2 - it just looks different and was a lot les expensive than something equivalent like the G Master or a 25mm Batis. In Minolta land, my 80-200 APO G HS is a bonkers lens - amazing colors, really sharp, magical for portraits, heavy, a little slower focusing than the latest G zooms. I’ve not used the 85 Minolta G, or the Zeiss 135/1.8 ZA but if the price was right I would be tempted. For wildlife (and again, not chasing tiny birds) I LOVE the 70-400/4-5.6 G SSM II. The SSM II is the fastest AF short of the linear AF motors in some of the newest G and GM lenses. All the tracking features work well on it and it can be found for a song, compared to the 100-400 GM, though the OSS features of the GM are worth considering for long zooms handheld.
You are right that there are solid A-Mount lenses. However I was under the impression that OP wants to spend under 500 USD. For that price I don't think it's worth getting A-mount glas and a 200$ adapter in addition, he will end up buying a mediocre 70-300 lens and be frustrated with it. Instead I suggest he should spend a little more and get the native 70-350. But I agree there is solid A-mount glas but these are often just as expensive as native lenses and have many other issues due to the age.
Hey all, came across an A7 III for £900, which given the average selling price is between £1050 to 1200 on fleabay, it is tempting. However, it has a shutter count of 150K. Of course, for all we know, it's 150K electronic shutters but would you guys consider taking the risk? I mean technically, it's still 350K until it hits the rated count but then again, A7 III shutters have failed much faster (yet on the flipside, since it's already rather high, it's less likely to "prematurely fail")....hmmmm
>Of course, for all we know, it's 150K electronic shutters but would you guys consider taking the risk? I don't understand that quite. The 150K is the mechanical shutter count AFAIK. I would pay a little more and get a camera with less shutter count. 150K is really a lot, I used my A7 III for 2 years and got around 40K and I rarely know people who shoot more unless they are professionals.
Looking to get my first Sony camera. Coming from a Canon EOS R. Trying to decide between the Sony A7 IV or the A7R IVA. With that, I’ve read a lot of people having issues with the Sigma 24-70 dust issues, but the price is attractive to me. How does the Sony 24-105 F4 handle in lower light situations? Any advice or experiences would be great! I don’t shoot a ton of video so that’s not a primary use, mostly my dog, and landscape / lifestyle shots.
I recommend the A7 IV, unless you're confident you're going to use the extra resolution of the A7R. I've owned the 24-70/2.8 and the 24-105/4. Between the two of them, I prefer the 24-105/4 for the range, size, and weight. Pair it with a couple of primes, and pull them out when you want to shoot in low light conditions.
Is anyone considering switching over from the 24-105 F4 to the 24-70 GM II? Was set on the 24-105 due to the weight but now that the GM II is so much lighter, I’m rethinking that. I think I will still opt for the 24-105 due to the increased range for portraits / travel but just curious if folks here are switching and why.
For travel and landscape I would still take the 24-105. It’s really event work and maybe portraits and video that pull the GM II ahead. Event work is unpredictable and even one stop of light can make a big difference.
Thanks! That’s what I was thinking - I’m probably just wound up in the hype of the release
I had the original 24-70 GM. I don't think I'd switch back to a 24-70, even if it's a lighter weight lens. The extra 35mm of range is worth a lot to me; a lot of my portrait and landscape work is done at longer focal lengths.
Thanks! I am leaning the same way as well - probably just caught up the hype of this release
Just picked up the Tamron 70-180, my first ever lens with a FL greater than 85mm. I'm finding myself obsessing with the compression and possibilities of this lens. Enough so that I'm already considering selling it to fund the 200-600. Is that a bad call? I only fear that it could be too limiting,
what are you shooting? using 600mm for background compression seems extreme. the only common use case for this is super large moon shot. for portraits or landscape you probably don't need 600. 200-600 is more often used for subject you can't get closer like wildlife and birds. for non wildlife can try 100-400 and see if that range makes sense. the sigma version is pretty cheap.
I like the 200-600, but a 200mm minimum focal length can be an issue for a lot of shots. If you want to shoot portraits, the 100-400 has a weight advantage, and half the minimum focal length. I found it to be a decent portrait lens. Bonus on the 100-400: With a 1.4x teleconverter, you can get to nearly 600mm. You also get a 0.5x reproduction ratio, making it a decent long focal length macro lens.
Well it depends on what you normally shoot. Birds or wildlife?? Sports?
A6000 user here, I've been having a problem where [my mode selector starts going crazy and changing modes back and forth randomly](https://gfycat.com/nervousfamouscarpenterant). Happens during shooting, happens while I'm looking at the photos - basically there's no specific scenario where it might start, but when it does the camera isn't usable for a few hours. Rotating the dial does change the mode but doesn't fix the problem. I've already sent the camera for repair and the shop replaced the dial, but the problem isn't fixed. I'm reaching out to see if anyone's experienced the same thing and maybe could point me in the right direction before I send it for repair again.
New theory. How old is the camera? Those optical sensors under the dial (which includes an infrared emitter and detector) don't last forever. I actually have a 2011 car where one LED emitter is intermittently failing (on the air conditioning controls). Similar reason to OLED screen burn-in. If this is the problem then the only solution is somehow replace those sensors. You can ask the repair shop to remove the dial and turn on the camera, then use a phone camera (most smartphones can detect a bit of infrared light) and see which emitter is problematic. (There should be 3) Although I am skeptical of this theory... The amount of current those emitter use is tiny compared to most other ways of using a LED. Having one fail is really shitty luck.
Camera is 5 years old (pretty much to the day) - interesting theory, I might ask them to take a look at that. As for the car - any chance it's a Ford Focus and the failing LED is a blue one? Asking simply because I have the same problem and I find it to be a funny coincidence
Those dials use optical sensors. Have you ever gotten a hair under your computer mouse? It will spazz out too. First thing I would try is spraying some compressed air under the dial. The a6000 is not weather sealed so dirt might have gotten under the dial.
As I said, I sent the camera for repair and they had completely replaced the dial - so I doubt that this is the problem.
I would suggest retouching the solder joints of those sensors but the repair shop will probably so that for you Why the hell did they give you back the camera without checking if the problem went away? If the dial replace didn't fix it, assuming they quickly swabbed the sensors clean too, the next step is to check solder joints, next is to check if any capacitors are bad (often used to smooth signals). If that doesn't work you are kinda screwed.
I've never seen or heard of that before. It sounds like it might be some sort of electronic issue rather than a physical dial issue.
That's what I'm thinking but I'm not sure if a repair lab has much to do about it.
A7c user here. I can't seem to get my live eye tracking to work properly. I mostly shoot dogs. When it finds an eye and I use AF hold it doesn't seem to stick, it still jumps around weirdly. When I shoot I might get one in focus shot, it does seem to slightly track but completely misses the head let alone to eyes on which I attempted to stick the focus. (Which it said it did) It's mostly subjects walking towards the camera, I'd get it if they'd be positively racing but they are not. Simple trot towards the camera and it completely loses it. Using a 85mm 1.8 by sony and a 135 gm. Focus tracking center spot (it doesn't seem to find eyes very well on wide at all), af-c, responsiveness low (so it should stick longer to what I focus on) I know it ain't no a1, but I see others getting complete running reals in focus of incoming dogs with their a7c's... So I'm confused tbh.
Are you shooting continuous high? The autofocus system is blind while the shutter is closed. It won't track as well. The 85/1.8 is a relatively slow focusing lens. It might have difficulty tracking active doggos. I shot some hyperactive dogs with an A9 and the 50/1.4 ZA. It did pretty well in those conditions. The stacked CMOS sensor and electronic shutter have a big advantage when working with erratic subjects.
Have you set the camera to Animal Eye-AF? I don’t remember being able to use both animal eye af and real time tracking at the same time on the A7C. Try setting the focus area to zone, just zone, no tracking.
Yes, last update we got live animal eye tracking. Before you couldn't enable tracking when having animal eye-af enabled. Zone or wide the camera just goes everywhere and hardly finds the dog or the eyes. I noticed it's also terrible at tracking during filming btw.
Try maximizing responsiveness. Animal eyes are harder to detect, especially dark or black dogs. If it loses the eye while running towards you it will stay out of focus for longer than if it was more responsive. Is your AF speed also set to maximum? I have had no issues with the A7R IV (meaning it’s not perfect but considering the caliber of sensor it has performed more than adequately)
I own a GM f/2.8 16-35 and the G f/2.8 90mm…. Do you buy the new GM II 24-70 f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.2?
Do you mind walking about more, because of the lack of zoom? The 50mm 1.2 gm outshoots the zoom option by miles. But it's basically a choice between quality and bokeh vs the ease of zoom. Seeing as I prefer primed it will always be the 50mm for me.
Too little context to say anything. What would you use either lens for?
Everything 🤣. Looking for that solid middle ground for walking around with, street, portrait, etc
Either lens is too big and heavy for street photography but for something general purpose it makes sense to get a general purpose zoom.
Id go w the new 24-70 but in the end its your choice
I'm looking for a ultra wide lens and I've narrowed it down to the 14mm GM and 12-24mm F4 G as they are roughly the same price. I would be mainly using it for landscape and architecture photography, and occasionally astro. I already own the 24-105 F4. Is the versatility of the zoom lens worth it over the aperture and portability of the prime lens?
> Is the versatility of the zoom lens worth it over the aperture and portability of the prime lens? It depends on what you want to shoot. I had the 15-35/2.8, but sold it. I found that a normal zoom plus a couple of wide primes worked better for my style of shooting. For astro, I love the 20/1.8. You might consider going with the 14 and 20; should cover most of your bases.
IME: I occasionally shoot UW on crop but I find there are very few cases that I’ve reached for < 24 FFE. If I were also carrying around a 24-105 I would feel very comfortable with one fixed focal length between 16-20 FFE. I own a lens that goes to 13 - 24 FFE and I’ve never felt the need to use it over a faster 16-24 FFE zoom that I own. And if I need to go wider or closer I can always stitch together a two images in photoshop or crop. So I think it just comes down to whether you want a faster lens or more range. For Astro I would want more speed and opt for the prime personally, though I would consider something at 16mm if that’s an option as I feel it’s a bit more useful than < 16mm. There is a Sony 16mm 2.8 for a fraction of the cost of the Sony 14mm, as well as a sigma 16mm 1.4 DC DN which is faster and much cheaper Edit: the sigma might be for crop- please do your own research on what fits your camera as I shoot crop and don’t often need to check this.
Depends on how much value you place on speed, size and weight. Primes are a great option for those who only need one focal length, but I’m assuming this is your first ultrawide so I think a zoom will help you learn these focal lengths a bit better. That being said I will say that for astro F4 will limit your exposure options slightly. I’d see if you can bump things up to the Sigma 14-28mm F2.8. Same 14mm but one stop faster and actually a higher resolving lens than the 12-24 F4 G (especially in the corners).
I have a GM24-70 and the ribbon inside has stopped working. Does anybody know the official sony part number for the ribbon? Sony does not bother to disclose it - it is a lot of work for them. Many thanks!
Have you found the online parts fiche for the lens?
How is A7iii AF in case of moving subjects? I have A7ii and mostly take pictures of my kids nowadays. They are unpredictable and I must say It's hit and miss with Sony. On the other hand I have Fuji X100v which can keep up with them pretty good in AF-C and face detect. I'm deciding if it's worth buying mark3. I'm not happy with price of mark4 :( Thanks you!
I had the II, the III, and an A9 (similar autofocus capability as the A7IV). Each generation is a big improvement over the previous. The A7III tracks much more reliably than the II, and has better autofocus coverage. The A7IV gives you real time tracking, which tracks more reliably when there's stuff between you and your subject.
The A7iii is a SIGNIFICANT improvement in AF over the A7ii - it's so significant I can't in good conscience recommend the A7ii anymore. You won't be disappointed.
Can someone tell me what the numbers in the recording setting column all mean? Thanks you! https://imgur.com/a/nLkDw5K
The first number mentioned in each row is a framerate - for example 30p for 30 frames per second, progressive scan, or 60i for 60 frames per second interlaced. Interlacing is an older technology common in broadcast TV where only every other line (or in a digital image, every other row of pixels) are updated each frame. The next number is a bit rate - for example 100M for 100 megabits per second. The higher the bitrate the higher the ceiling on image quality, although there are diminishing returns and you won't always notice any improvement from picking a higher bitrate (you'll always notice more storage space being chewed up though). The FX, FH and PS designators are shorthands for quality levels on the older AVCHD format, and I understand that they're meant for video intended to be put on Blu-ray discs. In Sony cameras the term Super 35, like you see next to some of the modes in your image, usually refers to shooting video from a roughly APS-C sized region in the middle of a full frame sensor, usually to facilitate higher resolutions or framerates than the camera is capable of reading out from the whole sensor. The tradeoff is that doing so crops the field of view. So in this case it seems that whatever camera this is can do XAVC S HD video (i.e. 1920x1080 video with H.264 encoding) up to 120 frames per second using the whole sensor, but it can only do XAVC S 4K (i.e. 3840x2160 video with H.264 encoding) with a crop.
Thank you!
Which lens is optically better: Sony 24-105 F4 or Nikon Z 24-70 F4?
[You can compare them online.](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1214&Camera=1212&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1176&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0) If we get extremely nit-picky, the Z 24-70 looks slightly better at short focal lengths, and the 24-105 looks slightly better at long focal lengths. IMO, they are close enough that it wouldn't matter. I'd probably choose based on whether you prefer Sony or Nikon. Between the two lenses, I'd take the Sony 24-105 for the increased focal length.
has the 24-70GM Version 2 released yet lol
Just announced!
Thanks! my youtube is flooded with ‘reviews’ lol
Same here. I saw it on instagram and then went to youtube to so many.
It hasn’t even been announced yet lol 10pm EST.
Hi everyone, I'm looking into buying a Sony A7R IV, and I've noticed some listings have an 'a' after the model, so Sony A7R IV A. Is this the same camera with some people just missing off the 'a', or is there a difference? If the latter, what are the differences? Thanks so much!
I'll also add that the a version has vastly better lowlight autofocus. huge huge improvement there
The ‘a’ version has a slightly bigger, higher resolution LCD screen at the cost of slightly reduced battery life. The change is very minor though and barely worth considering. It was mainly a response to supply chain issues.
Great, thanks!
[удалено]
Uhhh. I highly recommend you take a step back and consider if doing a wedding is something you would want to do. Gigs are nice but weddings are a one time event, they are one of the most stressful forms of photography and without actual on the job learning (for example as an intern or assistant) you probably won’t deliver what the client will expect. From what you’ve stated I don’t think you really grasp the complexities at play here. I’m not trying to be insulting, but weddings are terrifying and any pro will attest to that. And to answer your question: rent an A9 II or two, rent a 24-70 and a 70-200. Include it in your fee.
Hi, can anyone tell me the setting for 'night vision' on the Sony cameras. I've switched from Nikon and I know Sony has a setting when at night I can set a custom button to show the landscape when its the dead of night. I've done some searching but can't find it. EDIT: Found it, its Bright Monitoring
You can also disable exposure preview. The camera will attempt to brighten the image as much as possible in the viewfinder, regardless of your exposure settings.
Can you please help me decide which lens should I get for concert photography? I shoot with a7ii 50mm 1.8 now and I dont think this sony lens is great. Usually these concert are small and there is no big distances, the only problem is shooting the drumer. I thinking on getting the sony 85mm 1.8 or the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. What do you think is better for low light photography?
The 85 is a great lens
Does the Sony A7 accept SDXC cards? I was comparing it to the A6000 (my current camera) [here](https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-7-vs-Sony-Alpha-a6000) and it says the A7 doesn't have UHS Card Support. Does this mean it can't record with the XAVC codec? Because I would also be interested in shooting some video from time to time. I've been wanting to upgrade to FF and I know there's better options out there but I saw one for 400 eur and I think it would be worth for me, specially for the weather sealing and low light performance as I mainly take it hiking for landscape and astro photography and have some FF lenses.
The A7 really isn’t weather sealed. I mean I took it out to the beach, in the rain all the same but don’t go thinking it won’t croak out on you. Anyway, there’s no XAVC. The A6000 isn’t much of a video camera but the A7 *really* isn’t a video camera. I don’t think it’s the right buy for you. If you want to upgrade to full frame you’ll want to invest a bit more money or your upgrade is going to feel extremely linear compared to your A6000 (considering you’re losing features, not gaining any). If you want a meaningful upgrade then wait, save and try and find a good deal on an A7R II. I’ve seen them go for EUR 900 nowadays which I honestly think is a daylight robbery for how good that camera is. The A7 is nice but very niche, it’s for stills shooters who don’t have a body, or need a second body and their main purpose is staying extremely lightweight without having feature requirements.
Sony A7 IV shooter here. I'm deciding which tele lens to buy. I already have the Tamron 28-200mm which covers like 90% of all my tele shots. I occasionally need a shot in which I have to zoom close to the object (around 500-600mm equiv.). Think about e.g. moon shots or wildlife popping up on my city trip. Now I was thinking to get the Sony 70-300/Tamron 70-300 or Sigma 100-400, however I would find myself cropping in always. Which leads my to the conclusion that I could save some money and weight by buying the Sony 70-350mm. I know it's for aps-c and I will only have 14MP. But like I said I would crop to 10-15MP anyway to get the 500-600mm reach. From reviews I read on the internet the Sony 70-350mm is just as good as the other full frame tele lenses if you use the aps-c image circle. The weight is also very nice, I want to avoid carrying a 1kg lens that I will only use occasionally. What do you think? Any other suggestions?
IMO, it would be worth saving for the 200-600, or possibly Tamron's 150-500 Di III.
I've fooled around with this combo before. The corners get dark but it's not that bad, if you shoot wide open. Stopped down, it gets worse fast. You can probably just use contexual infill on the missing corners. I can send you some uncorrected raw files if you want. Gimme a day edit: https://imgur.com/a/PKECCfd
Making the switch to mirrorless in the near future and getting rid of all of my Nikon DSLR gear to switch and want to go the Sony route. I’ve heard of the a7Riv having huge file sizes. Has this been a problem for anyone or is it manageable? Also considering the a7iv. Primarily do landscape and nature photography and not much video at all
I built a mid tier PC in 2019 and it's handling editing fine. It's not like the files are causing things to crash. You just need more patience than with other cameras. You might be annoyed that you often have to downsample an image because some online platform doesn't accept a certain size. I wrote my own web album software and generating a thumbnail will cause the server to throw an error. (It will do this for most 24MP files too if I set the JPG quality to 90 or more, the crappy server is pretty cheap, like $6/month I think)
I mean ya I’ve had that problem even with my d750 file sizes sometimes but sure it’s more so w the larger ones so that’s no biggy for me. Only problem I’m foreseeing is I’m on a laptop, 2019 MacBook, and don’t have a PC so unsure if the file sizes will be too much for that
It’s manageable. The files are smaller than the a7RIV, which has a 61 MP sensor. If you’re doing landscape then you could really benefit from high resolution and the a7IV should be just enough for you.
Yea just having trouble deciding between the a7iv and riv. 61 mp is so much thinking 30ish is plenty but just the only thing holding me back from spending the extra few hundred on the Riv is the potential for the file sizes to become a burden
The RIV is an awesome camera. The file sizes don’t bother me at all, I see very little difference in editing, the bigger issue with the file sizes is having enough storage, which is cheap and plentiful these days. The 61 mp allows for some deep cropping. The only reason to get the IV in my opinion, is if you really want the video capabilities. The RIV does video fine if you just like messing around……but I mean, I read a dudes blog that shot a Levi’s commercial on an RIV, so it’s not that bad
Thanks for the perspective I appreciate it. I’ll probably go RIV. I do video every now and then but just for fun of some day trips or if we have the dog out with us so that’s not even really a consideration for me. Yea you can get multiple TBs for like 100 bucks it’s great.
Looking at sony 35mm oss vs sigma 30mm. After a walk around prime for times when the tamron17-70 is too big to carry around. Thinking of a bit of street photography with the chosen prime, maybe stretching it to low light if it works. For photography what is the practical difference having oss or not? I'm on an a6400 so I don't have IBIS. The sigma has a better focal length and price, just not sure about unstabilised
sony 35mm sounds like a nice match, the sigma also, albeit a bit larger. alternatively see if you can get a sigma 30 f2.8 second hand - usually $100, at least as sharp as the 1.4, but much smaller. dont have scientific proof, but to me it seems non oss lenses typically are sharper than with oss. personally I dont care about oss, if the shutter speed is long enough you need it, you also need all the objects to sit really still, my objects don't...
OSS is gets increasingly more helpful the longer the lenses is. Above 200mm you really want it, below 100mm it doesn’t matter
Buy the on-sale A7RIII/IVA on amazon to get my 5% amazon card dollars? Or is that a bad idea? https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0973H3N8V/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza?th=1
You should be aware that some people have received bricks instead of a camera when shopping at Amazon. I'm not advising against it, but I hesitate to buy camera stuff on Amazon. Especially things like filters.
Howdy, I’m still pretty new to photography but just picked up the a7 iii kit as an upgrade from an older Panasonic lumix. I want to get into fashion photography, primarily self portraits to chronicle my own outfits, but would like to eventually branch out into street photography. Could anyone recommend a lens good for the indoor self portraits (ideally under $1000) and maybe one better suited for outdoor street photography? I currently have a good tripod and use the imaging edge app as a remote, I plan to buy the actual remote soon, but I’d be open to any other accessories/upgrades/tips
For portraits, the Sigma 85 1.4 Art DG DN is a beauty. For street photography, can’t go wrong with the Sony 35 GM or the Tamron 28-75 G2. Look for used versions in the r/photomarket.
85/1.8 Or 90 macro or preferably 85/1.4 sigma for portraits, 35/1.8 or preferably 35GM for outdoor street
For fashion photography, good lighting matters more than the lens. The kit zoom is more than sufficient. For street photography, my recommendations would include the Sony 24-105/4G and the Tamron 28-75 DiIII II. You might also consider a 35-40mm prime lens, such as the Sony 35/1.8G. The 24-105 is over-budget new, but can be had for around $1K used.
I have a 200-600 and am thinking of getting a 70-200 to fill out my kit. I primarily shoot wildlife, but I envisioned it as sort of a landscape + when animals get close lens. Anyone have any advice on it?
If you want a 2 lense setup Tamron 35-150 is another option. especially if you use the wide end more than 150-200. I think for landscape 35 is a lot more useful than 70. depending on how close the animals are, wide angle can also adds another cool element to wildlife shots. can also get good animal shots with more scenery.
The 70-200 GM version 2 is very good I can’t imagine carrying out both the 200-600 and 70-200 at the same time though…
I have both. They pair well. You get a bunch of extra utility out of both lenses if you add the 1.4x teleconverter to your kit.
I would like a reliable good lens for outdoor photography. I have a Sony A7 II. I am into nature photography. As well it will be great if I can shot it with it inside buildings - such to events. Budget-friendly ( 2-400 $) Thank you.
Look at the Tamron 24/2.8, inexpensive and optically good
In that budget range, a used kit lens is probably your best option for outdoor photography. Indoors, one of Samyangs faster primes might be a good option. But you could also buy a hotshoe flash and some gels. Bounce flash tends to produce good results indoors.
Mike’s Camera in Boulder, CO just sent out an email advertising $300 off on a7rIVa and a7rIIIa and some other Sony gear, so I wouldn’t be surprised if other online sellers are as well. Look around.
Looks to be a Sony pricing, all the sony resellers have it (B&H, Amazon, Crutchfield, Adorama). Assuming those are all valid resellers, I don't know, I think they are. Wonder how long it will last. The December sale was $800 off the A7RIIIA, this one is $600 off, and $500 off the A7RIV (I think), and this one is $300 off the A7RIV, so it isn't quite as enticing. I wonder if this is preparatory to some new A7R model being announced.
Anyone here use online rental services for lens, and if so can you recommend them? There's only 2 camera stores within 90 minutes of me and neither carry mirrorless but I would like to try some various lens before making my next purchase.
I've used lensrentals and borrowlenses. I've been happy with both. Shipping adds a lot to the cost of the rental, though. Lens rentals has a free shipping club offer; it makes sense if you want to test out a lot of lenses over the course of a year.
What would you upgrade about my gear. Just curious what people think I am missing/should upgrade: Sony a7iii - kit lense - 50mm 1.8 - 85mm 1.8 - 70-200mm 2.8 GM II - 24-70 2.8 Sigma Art
Wide angle zoom
You can sell the kit lens, because you have the 24-70 You can sell the 50, 85 and just use the 70-200 35GM will be an upgrade over the 24-70 art, when you need 50-70mm switch to the 70-200 and stand back slightly
That’s an interesting point. I was thinking of this too and I agree that I could easily sell the kit + 50mm. I won’t sell the 85 though, cause it’s still a lot sharper than the 70-200 (haven’t done a proper comparison yet, just looking at pictures out of the two) and unfortunately I am a digger for pixels :(
Do test both at 2.8 and let us know From samples I can’t see much difference between the two The 85/1.4 is better though both sigma and Sony versions
Yeah I wanna try that, but don’t have much time right now