A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Going all-in on Sony



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 4th 19, 09:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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
  #23  
Old August 4th 19, 02:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old August 4th 19, 03:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old August 4th 19, 03:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
RJH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default 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  
Old August 4th 19, 04:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old August 4th 19, 04:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
FlipChip(tm)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 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  
Old August 4th 19, 05:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old August 4th 19, 11:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.