If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
In article , Ken Hart wrote:
Sandman: Also, what system is "more portable" than a Sony A7? Alfred Molon: FF lenses are HUGE ;-) Sandman: Which ones? I have plenty of smaller ones. The thing with crop lenses is that they let in less light - well, there are plenty of slower lenses for FF as well. Also, that's weight/size, not portability. Something doesn't become less portable for being slightly heavier or slightly bigger. You still need a camera bag for a crop camera, it's not like you can put it in your pocket. My iPhone is certainly more portable than my A7, but a Sony A6500 isn't more portable than a Sony A7 just because it's a crop camera with overall slightly smaller lenses. Exactly so. Easy to carry is kind of a definition of portable. None of my full format cameras and lenses are "hard" to carry. Granted, if you prefer to run around with a 70-200/2.8 attached at all times, I can see how a smaller non-equivalent lens would look less cumbersome to you. But a A7 with the 55/1.8 attached is anything but big or "hard" to carry. The point is moot in the APS/FF discussion. I find my Canon FX to be easy to carry. If I'm shooting with no real goal, I mount the 55-135mm, and put a 35mm lens in a pocket (cargo pants or jacket). The camera and zoom fits my hand easily, and the weight is maybe 3 pounds total. OTOH, I find my Mamiya 645 SLR to be quite non-portable. The weight is probably about the same as the 'walking-around' kit above, but the camera does not easily fit my hand. But the discussion was crop vs. FF, not crop vs. MF. While portable by any definition of the word, a Mamiya 645 is worlds apart from a A7. -- Sandman |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
In article sandman-
, says... There are plenty of slower, and thus smaller, lenses for FF too. FF lenses are generally bigger because they are faster. Lenses are heavier or lighter, not faster or slower. Hint: they don't move. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote: There are plenty of slower, and thus smaller, lenses for FF too. FF lenses are generally bigger because they are faster. Lenses are heavier or lighter, not faster or slower. Hint: they don't move. hint: you haven't any clue about photography. z-e-r-o. zero. lens speed is basic photography 101 level stuff. and actually, lenses *do* move to be able to focus, zoom, adjust aperture and stabilize camera motion. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
On Aug 4, 2019, nospam wrote
(in ) : In . com, Alfred Molon wrote: There are plenty of slower, and thus smaller, lenses for FF too. FF lenses are generally bigger because they are faster. Lenses are heavier or lighter, not faster or slower. Hint: they don't move. hint: you haven't any clue about photography. z-e-r-o. zero. lens speed is basic photography 101 level stuff. and actually, lenses *do* move to be able to focus, zoom, adjust aperture and stabilize camera motion. I believe that Alfred was using “move” metaphorically, as in having the inability to physically “move” from point A to point B. That rather than actual movement of lens components to move when focusing, zooming, aperture adjustment, or OIS. His remark might easily have been considered a joke. As far as terming a lens “fast” there are two areas where lenses can be described as “fast”. The first depends on the optical quality, and characteristics of the lens which effect shutter speed. Generally when one sees the lens specs it is the lens aperture which determines whether, or not one describes it as “fast” or “slow”. That also provides a hint at low light, and DoF depth capability. The second is AF focus speed, and that is determined by lens design which includes type, and number of AF motors, along with matched camera CPU/sensor focus capability when/whether using Phase detect, or Contrast detect, or both. There are after all optically “fast” lenses which do not particularly focus all that “fast”, just as there are some quite “fast” focusing lenses which do not have particularly wide aperture, and are restricted to slower shutter speeds. So when one speaks of a “fast” lens It is usually best to clarify which lens characteristic one is referring to, optical light collecting capability, or focus speed.Though generally when most photographers, myself included, talk about lens speed it is max aperture width, or f-stop and light collection ability that we are referring to. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
On 04/08/2019 15:20, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 4, 2019, nospam wrote (in ) : In . com, Alfred Molon wrote: There are plenty of slower, and thus smaller, lenses for FF too. FF lenses are generally bigger because they are faster. Lenses are heavier or lighter, not faster or slower. Hint: they don't move. hint: you haven't any clue about photography. z-e-r-o. zero. lens speed is basic photography 101 level stuff. and actually, lenses *do* move to be able to focus, zoom, adjust aperture and stabilize camera motion. I believe that Alfred was using “move” metaphorically, as in having the inability to physically “move” from point A to point B. That rather than actual movement of lens components to move when focusing, zooming, aperture adjustment, or OIS. His remark might easily have been considered a joke. As far as terming a lens “fast” there are two areas where lenses can be described as “fast”. The first depends on the optical quality, and characteristics of the lens which effect shutter speed. Generally when one sees the lens specs it is the lens aperture which determines whether, or not one describes it as “fast” or “slow”. That also provides a hint at low light, and DoF depth capability. The second is AF focus speed, and that is determined by lens design which includes type, and number of AF motors, along with matched camera CPU/sensor focus capability when/whether using Phase detect, or Contrast detect, or both. There are after all optically “fast” lenses which do not particularly focus all that “fast”, just as there are some quite “fast” focusing lenses which do not have particularly wide aperture, and are restricted to slower shutter speeds. So when one speaks of a “fast” lens It is usually best to clarify which lens characteristic one is referring to, optical light collecting capability, or focus speed.Though generally when most photographers, myself included, talk about lens speed it is max aperture width, or f-stop and light collection ability that we are referring to. I've always taken fast to mean wide aperture. I wouldn't infer anything else. -- Cheers, Rob |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: There are plenty of slower, and thus smaller, lenses for FF too. FF lenses are generally bigger because they are faster. Lenses are heavier or lighter, not faster or slower. Hint: they don't move. hint: you haven't any clue about photography. z-e-r-o. zero. lens speed is basic photography 101 level stuff. and actually, lenses *do* move to be able to focus, zoom, adjust aperture and stabilize camera motion. I believe that Alfred was using move metaphorically, as in having the inability to physically move from point A to point B. That rather than actual movement of lens components to move when focusing, zooming, aperture adjustment, or OIS. His remark might easily have been considered a joke. it does not appear he is joking. and it's not just lenses which are fast or slow, but also film and sensors. As far as terming a lens fast there are two areas where lenses can be described as fast. The first depends on the optical quality, and characteristics of the lens which effect shutter speed. Generally when one sees the lens specs it is the lens aperture which determines whether, or not one describes it as fast or slow. That also provides a hint at low light, and DoF depth capability. The second is AF focus speed, and that is determined by lens design which includes type, and number of AF motors, along with matched camera CPU/sensor focus capability when/whether using Phase detect, or Contrast detect, or both. There are after all optically fast lenses which do not particularly focus all that fast, just as there are some quite fast focusing lenses which do not have particularly wide aperture, and are restricted to slower shutter speeds. So when one speaks of a fast lens It is usually best to clarify which lens characteristic one is referring to, optical light collecting capability, or focus speed.Though generally when most photographers, myself included, talk about lens speed it is max aperture width, or f-stop and light collection ability that we are referring to. normally 'fast lens' refers to the aperture. autofocus speed is mostly a function of the camera and how fast it can tell the lens what to do. phase detection is faster than contrast detection, although these days, the latter is pretty good. older autofocus lenses driven by a cam depend on the motor in the camera. higher end cameras with more powerful motors can move the focus mechanism faster than lower end cameras. as always, there are exceptions. some ultrasonic motors are not as fast as others, and if the camera body has a powerful motor, a cam driven lens can focus as fast or faster than one with an ultrasonic motor. most cameras these days can focus *very* fast, much faster and more reliably than any human can, especially when the subject is moving. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
On Sat Aug 3 06:50:34 2019 Sandman wrote:
There is no doubt that the Sony A7 is one of the best cameras you can get today, \\ Get off the sauce. You must be badly in delirium shakes to think that ... But then again everyone is free to make mistakes in life. Hopefully you will learn from them ... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
In article , TM
wrote: On Sat Aug 3 06:50:34 2019 Sandman wrote: There is no doubt that the Sony A7 is one of the best cameras you can get today, \\ Get off the sauce. You must be badly in delirium shakes to think that ... he's right. But then again everyone is free to make mistakes in life. Hopefully you will learn from them ... you've certainly made many. there's still a non-zero chance you might learn from one of them, despite the chances being incredibly small. winning the lottery is more likely. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Going all-in on Sony
In article , Alfred Molon wrote:
Sandman: There are plenty of slower, and thus smaller, lenses for FF too. FF lenses are generally bigger because they are faster. Lenses are heavier or lighter, not faster or slower. Hint: they don't move. A slow lens is a lens that lets in less light and thus requires a longer (slower) shutter speed. A fast lens is a lens with a large aperture and thus lets in more light and can take the same picture with a shorter (faster) shutter speed. Hence - slow and fast lens. -- Sandman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MPG movie files (I recorded on my Sony Cybershot) will not playback on my phone (Sony Ericsson k750i) | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 7 | February 16th 07 10:58 PM |
Dear Sony...specks of dirt INSIDE my Sony Alpha lens! | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 23 | December 23rd 06 12:27 AM |
FA - Sony F717 + Sony Aluminum Case, Extra Battery and Filters. Great Deal!!!! | Hamish | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 2nd 05 10:25 PM |
FA: Sony DSC-F717 Digital Camera MIB + Extended Sony Warranty | Bob Matyas | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 19th 03 06:38 PM |
FS: Sony DSC-F717, NIB, 2 extra batts/Sony case--($950)--Sell $775 + shipping. | Mr. Viagra | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 31st 03 10:01 PM |