BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Yep, Sony A7 and I own two Zeiss lenses and a vintage 105/2.5 nikkor lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Yep, Sony A7 and I own two Zeiss lenses and a vintage 105/2.5 nikkor lol
haha same here.
Sony lenses are just too expensive to be honest (or either the Zeiss lenses) Using the Sigma 35mm 1.4 (canon adapter) on my A7II.
Blackpuppy
Member
Not now definitely, but perhaps in 10 years or so when the technology is cheaper.
Astral/H3X
Member
I mean Leica doesn't even make that camera. Their FF MILC is fucking gigantor. Then again, I have some opinions on Leica...
As to Sony making Leica-like lenses, while you can easily adapt Leica lenses onto Sony bodies, the way that the Leica lenses are designed, they bend the light at different angles than DSLR/MILC designs, and apparently the glass element in front of the sensor on Sony bodies will fuck with that a bit, so you end up losing a bit of IQ with them. I'm wondering if that's why Sony doesn't make more Leica like designs.
EDIT: If I were a pro, or even just made side money, I'd happily buy the Zeiss or Sony lenses. They're all apparently excellent, they just don't bother making cheaper ones for whatever reason.
As to Sony making Leica-like lenses, while you can easily adapt Leica lenses onto Sony bodies, the way that the Leica lenses are designed, they bend the light at different angles than DSLR/MILC designs, and apparently the glass element in front of the sensor on Sony bodies will fuck with that a bit, so you end up losing a bit of IQ with them. I'm wondering if that's why Sony doesn't make more Leica like designs.
EDIT: If I were a pro, or even just made side money, I'd happily buy the Zeiss or Sony lenses. They're all apparently excellent, they just don't bother making cheaper ones for whatever reason.
JadedWriter
Member
I was at a C Town last night and I swear some dude adapted a Canon crop sensor kit lens. Whatever it was, it was not L glass and usually Canon throws the 24-105 F4 lens into a kit so he must have Ebayed the cheapest thing he could find for that camera.
I don't think any manufacturer is trying to cut into Leica's niche market. I think anybody willing to spend six grand for a street photography body will just buy a Leica, anybody else I think for the most part just knows to buy Fuji.
I don't think I'd ever buy Leica, even if I had 6 grand to blow on a camera I'd look for something else...anything else actually, I don't even hate the brand, just the prices piss me off and yeah their FF camera is fucking huge. I saw one of the lenses for it and thought it was a damn stove pipe.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Yikes lol
The lengths people go to to avoid native e-mount lenses
Both my Zeiss lenses are used and adapted from other mounts. But yeah the line seems to be priced as premium. I wouldnt mind getting the Loxia 50mm though.
JadedWriter
Member
I know right. I'm actually thinking about getting an X-T1 and just adapting my Sigma 18-35 for it. I can find it body alone used for like $680 at B&H. Would actually make for an interesting shooting experience. Only thing is I'd need an adapter that controls the aperture and a good one actually.
Astral/H3X
Member
I'm sure that Leica does some good stuff, obviously something they do has to be good, but their $6000 APSC MILC doesn't even match up to the $600 Sony camera in specs. Like, I don't know what the hell they are doing that deserves a $5400 markup for across the board worse tech specs. Not even Apple can claim that level of markup.
I think the issue with Sony lenses is that they partnered up with Zeiss to help them get lenses out, Zeiss of course only makes really great lenses, and now that Sony is starting to get their OWN lenses out, they decide they want to one-up the Zeiss lenses, instead of focusing on the gap at the cheap end. I'm guessing this will start to correct itself but UGH.
Lys Skygge
Member
Not really a camera, but I just ordered an Epson Perfection V850 Scanner for my large format photography. I'm so excited! Just in time for a shoot I have tomorrow morning 
JadedWriter
Member
German science is the best in the world SEKAI ICHIIIIII!!!!
thesoapster
Member
Leica primes perform very well. They are also insanely expensive. Their "consumer" (lol) camera bodies are mostly a joke to me at this point. It is kind of neat that they still sell a real rangefinder camera, but I view it as more of a novelty.
Astral/H3X
Member
Yeah I can get the markup on their lenses, but their bodies are just ridiculous at this point. There was one video where a guy was talking about how he sold all his gear because he was afraid of the potential loss if someone stole it while he was out and about.... and then got Leica shit to replace it. Like, HUH? They could freaking steal your freaking eyecup and you'll have lost more $$$ than all your Canon gear together.
Lemme know when these cameras give me a machine gun belly button. Fuck, $6000 will be cheap at that point.
Also what you said was redundant.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Real talk, I'm currently shooting with my second place dream lens, the Zeiss 28mm/2 Distagon but, on the topic of Leica, if I won a substantial amount of money, my first purchase would be the 28mm/2 Summicron Aspherical. Its sharper, and holds contrast better than my zeiss at half its size. Leicas strength has always been in their lenses.
Astral/H3X
Member
You know, I actually don't think I have a "dream lens". I've been so focused on "value lens" buying that I don't really think about what I'd want in a dream lens, and thus find a dream lens.
I suppose, a tack sharp wide open F2 85mm Macro that went to 1:1 would be awesome... But I wouldn't know of such a lens. But it would be great for my figure photos. My FD 50mm 1.4 gets the right amount of bokeh that I like, but of course doesn't get close enough. My 100mm gets close enough, but I like the look of the 50mm a smidge better.
I suppose, a tack sharp wide open F2 85mm Macro that went to 1:1 would be awesome... But I wouldn't know of such a lens. But it would be great for my figure photos. My FD 50mm 1.4 gets the right amount of bokeh that I like, but of course doesn't get close enough. My 100mm gets close enough, but I like the look of the 50mm a smidge better.
JadedWriter
Member
Man, I'm just here looking at a $600 XT1 waiting for the seller to tell me the amount of shutter clicks and just to double confirm that it's in the condition the pictures state it is in cause it looks damn fucking good. Once that's known I'll probably pick up the Metabones Nikon to Fuji adapter...not the $400 speed booster one. It's not like I can't at some point get AF lenses for it down the line. Could probably trade in my Sigma 17-50 for some credit since I don't use it anymore cause the AF on it pisses me off.
Lasthope106
Member
I read the FD lens was used in conjunction with an extension tube in order to really get 1:1 magnification and allow for closer focus. Are you using one of those? I got one on ebay for $18.
Canon Macro Extension Tube FD 25 25mm is the name. Something to look into if you haven't.
Astral/H3X
Member
I have it (And the FD 50mm 3.5 Macro), but a non-macro lens won't really perform as well as a dedicated macro lens. Macro lenses are designed to be super sharp, and with a really flat focus field. Regular lenses aren't, and those will become more apparent.
But, I might go ahead and give it a try.
Also, I was referring to the 50mm 1.4, which is not a macro lens.
Owning a Leica 50mm Summilux and so many other lenses in other mounts, the difference really boils down to size in my mind.
My favorite lens is my Canon 55mm FD 1.2 Aspherical on a Speedbooster Ultra Fuji Adapter to use on my Fuji gear. That summilux is great but it stays on my M3 mostly. On my M8, I keep a 35mm 2.8 Summicron as that gets it to about a 50mm focal length on the cropped sensor.
A dream lens would be the 0.95 Noctilux, or even crazier and rarer, the Zeiss 0.75 Kubrick used on Barry Lyndon.
My favorite lens is my Canon 55mm FD 1.2 Aspherical on a Speedbooster Ultra Fuji Adapter to use on my Fuji gear. That summilux is great but it stays on my M3 mostly. On my M8, I keep a 35mm 2.8 Summicron as that gets it to about a 50mm focal length on the cropped sensor.
A dream lens would be the 0.95 Noctilux, or even crazier and rarer, the Zeiss 0.75 Kubrick used on Barry Lyndon.
Astral/H3X
Member
Actually yeah, if I were to declare a dream lens, it'd be one of those 50mm f0.95 lenses... I think Zeiss makes one, but I'm definitely going to settle for the Mitakon one.
that 55mm I use gives an effective 0.95 aperture with the adapter and it produces beautiful images, s oI can settle for that right now. but yeah a Noctilux would be amazing.
Skel1ingt0n
I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
I actually had the chance to shoot with the Leica f1 (not the .95, unfortunately); but it could still basically see in the dark. Shit was insane.
I played with a model lighting a match and holding it by her waist. Her face was clear as day in the dead of night. Very, very cool.
But, with such a TINY focusing depth, it's a very, very specific lens for specific purpose. Fun to screw with, but I'd have to make mucho-bucks to ever justify buying one. So yeah... perfect dream lens ;p
I played with a model lighting a match and holding it by her waist. Her face was clear as day in the dead of night. Very, very cool.
But, with such a TINY focusing depth, it's a very, very specific lens for specific purpose. Fun to screw with, but I'd have to make mucho-bucks to ever justify buying one. So yeah... perfect dream lens ;p
JadedWriter
Member
I wonder how close you have to stand in front of a person to get their face in focus wide open.
Astral/H3X
Member
The point of that lens would be to focus purely on the eyes, and let the face melt away into bokehhhhh
JadedWriter
Member
Not surprisng at all since at 1.8 you get an eye, a cheek and then the ears are gone.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I think that's the joke lol
QualityPixel
Banned
Not really a camera, but I just ordered an Epson Perfection V850 Scanner for my large format photography. I'm so excited! Just in time for a shoot I have tomorrow morning
Nice, I'd love to see some full rez scans on flickr. What size film are you shooting?
yeah, me too. I've been looking at the v800. So much money to have my film processed and scanned. Would like to do the scanning myself and eventually develop my stuff too.
jongkookie
Member
*raises hand*
Yeah, Sony lenses are just prohibitively expensive and the quality doesn't necessarily surpass Nikon or Canon glass either so it's sorta ridiculous that you could get an A7RII for the price of a 24-70 2.8 G-Master. Any sane professional would look at it, laugh, proceed to buy the A7RII or SII then buy a Metabones adapter and a Canon 24-70 2.8L instead.
A lot of the experienced Sony videographers I've met through my wedding gigs use a Sony A7SII with Canon L glass on it. Meanwhile, a newbie or less experienced videog has a G-Master lens instead. I was telling the photog I work with about how much that shit costs and she just laughed and rolled her eyes haha.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah if I bought a Sony I'd be using adapted Canon glass as well. I don't specifically hate the company or the product but if you're going to be charging "fuck off" prices don't be surprised if I look for other things. I wonder if there's a Canon to Fuji AF adapter.
Lys Skygge
Member
I shoot 4x5
. I've been using a V500 for the past 5 years. It wasn't until I saw one of my negatives scanned on a V700 that I decided I needed to upgrade haha.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
GFX beats them by more than a small amount, IMO.
I'd agree. Though they have to tie into their previous article that was kind of a train wreck. So they had keep that narrative going.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
I'm here for a rant: I recently had to move to Lightroom from Capture One Pro, because its color profiles for Canon cameras are trash. RAW files are downright daltonic on this program, completely unable of properly differenciating reds, oranges, yellows and even greens on the same image. Then you open the image and those colors are all funky. Yellows are orange, skintones are extremely pink/orange and very saturated, wheat looks radioactive... When greens have an orange tinge you know something is wrong. And if those tones don't coexist in the same image it's fine as you can use the color editor, but try to shoot photos of people alongside wheatfields/autumn forests and you are SOL.
Later on I found out it's because of Canon's sensors using orange photosites instead of pure red ones, but Lightroom looks fine color-wise, even though I prefer the tools in Capture One.
Do people use custom color profiles on that program or what do they do?
Edit: Lightroom is fine using the Camera Whatever profiles, Adobe Standard is terrible and gave me a big scare in my beginning years. Why does it make purple neon lights take a deep, clipped blue color? I keep seeing that problem in DPReview sample JPEGs too...
Later on I found out it's because of Canon's sensors using orange photosites instead of pure red ones, but Lightroom looks fine color-wise, even though I prefer the tools in Capture One.
Do people use custom color profiles on that program or what do they do?
Edit: Lightroom is fine using the Camera Whatever profiles, Adobe Standard is terrible and gave me a big scare in my beginning years. Why does it make purple neon lights take a deep, clipped blue color? I keep seeing that problem in DPReview sample JPEGs too...
Astral/H3X
Member
Cross post from main photo thread:
Hey guys, so I'm wanting to improve my portraits. I know how to work a camera pretty good, and if I ever get flash I feel pretty confident using it right, but my problem is I'm not super good at posing or picking spots. I'm wanting to figure out how to really change that, but I need either pointers, tips, comments, suggestions, whatever it may be.
I've got an album of my most recent portrait shots here, so you guys can take a look and come up with some ideas on critiques for me, if you could be so kind:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNwJg5Y
Related: If I'm getting a Medium Format camera, it's going to be a film medium format. Probably a 645 but EH.
Hey guys, so I'm wanting to improve my portraits. I know how to work a camera pretty good, and if I ever get flash I feel pretty confident using it right, but my problem is I'm not super good at posing or picking spots. I'm wanting to figure out how to really change that, but I need either pointers, tips, comments, suggestions, whatever it may be.
I've got an album of my most recent portrait shots here, so you guys can take a look and come up with some ideas on critiques for me, if you could be so kind:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNwJg5Y
Related: If I'm getting a Medium Format camera, it's going to be a film medium format. Probably a 645 but EH.
Any ideas on which camera you'd want?
Astral/H3X
Member
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Not technique but maybe look into getting a reflector and play with bouncing natural light. Would be light and portable. The only problem is it may require a second set of hands at times unless you can prop it up. Its a good cheap way to bounce light harsher light and diffuse it.
I'm as far away from a portrait photographer as it gets but here's an example of my foray into this world with a reflector, in harsh mid-day light. She's sitting in shadow and I'm using the reflector to bring a specific area into better exposure.
JadedWriter
Member
I usually use my hotshoe flash and a reflector umbrella for portraits depending on lighting and the amount of shit I want to lug around.
I asked because you said you'd get a film medium format camera. I was curious if you had any in mind.
Astral/H3X
Member
I actually haven't done any lighting outdoors other than natural light, aside from those at night photos that I took in that album. I guess I haven't really seen how important it is haha.
OH. Iunno a Mamiya 645 looked good, but it hasn't exactly been on my mind enough to care too much.
I wouldn't recommend going with a 645. The negs aren't a large enough improvement over 35mm. At the bare minimum, go with a 6x6. A 6x7 would be even better. You can pick a Mamiya RB67 in good condition with a lens for under $300 these days.
Astral/H3X
Member
It may have been that then, it was a while ago that I did some cursory searching, and I know I came across a Mamiya around $300.
JadedWriter
Member
Lighting is very important which I learned while doing studio head shots. I was contemplating getting a second flash for modeling stuff, but no point since I don't really do that that often after getting sick of the no money, attitudes and other bullshit behind it. I pretty much just do natural light now. If you're not going to pay me why should I put in any effort for a stranger that doesn't respect my work.
Have you shot with a medium format film camera before? It's a pretty big departure from shooting with a DSLR.
Astral/H3X
Member
I have not shot with film of any kind, no, but I am aware it's quite a different beast. I'm hoping for one with metering so I can at least get that out of the way haha.
Yeah, I've got lights and a flash that I use for my figure photos, just haven't bothered taking them with me to any outdoor shoots.
JadedWriter
Member
If you don't have one make sure you get a wireless flash trigger and transmitter. That stuff helps a lot, I don't know how you're setting everything for your macro shots. You could set the flash as a slave to go off when it sees pop up flash, but I never use that because of interference, range and it being an extra light source.
Astral/H3X
Member
I use the Yongnuo 560 IV and the 560 TN, which handles my wireless flash haha.
Also A7 doesn't have pop up flash, which idgaf cuz I never use it anyway.
Typically I'll have the flash on a stand and I've got a lightbulb that I use for fill light. Thinking of getting another 560, probably just the III, but first want to get lighting umbrellas.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 47027
- Off-Topic Community Archive