I figured that was probably the case. It was ultimately feature set that directed me toward the Sony, and not so much specs. From what I gathered it takes pretty good pictures on the auto settings, but as I learn more about other settings I could implement them into my shooting. I'm not entirely sure if I'm ever going to start printing, but I figured if I really take to the hobby it might be worthwhile. Again, it was a reason I jumped in at this level of camera; a "just in case" thing.
Sony cameras are notorious for being too small for people with medium sized hands. Their fingers get jammed if they mount a large lens on it. Check them out with big lenses before you buy. They're not very intuitive cameras either. I would definitely rent one and play with it before buying and whatever you buy, buy it used. You'll save a lot of money and won't be any worse for wear.
I ended up just biting the bullet and buying the Sony. I'm not super concerned about comfort, as my hands are fairly small. I also bought new, as the used prices are only about $200 cheaper, and for such an expensive item the peace of mind of having warranty is worth the premium.
I ended up just biting the bullet and buying the Sony. I'm not super concerned about comfort, as my hands are fairly small. I also bought new, as the used prices are only about $200 cheaper, and for such an expensive item the peace of mind of having warranty is worth the premium.
Lens finally came in, after two days of UPS refusing to deliver it. Body got here Monday, so it's just been sitting there taunting me.
Too late to go out shooting now, but might wander around in the morning.
If I had to nitpick it, I'd say the lens is pretty poor at extreme closeups. Thankfully that's not really going to be my focus, but it would have been nice for some glamor shots of my gear.
So I have a question, hoping you can chime in. Does decreasing lens aperture, as a rule, increase sharpness? I've seen a number of lens reviews show that, but I'm not sure if that's just the specific lenses and how they're engineered, or if it can broadly be considered true. Playing around with aperture and shutter speed myself I was able to find I could indeed pull more detail with lower aperture, but that could be because I was using a lower shutter speed.
So I have a question, hoping you can chime in. Does decreasing lens aperture, as a rule, increase sharpness? I've seen a number of lens reviews show that, but I'm not sure if that's just the specific lenses and how they're engineered, or if it can broadly be considered true. Playing around with aperture and shutter speed myself I was able to find I could indeed pull more detail with lower aperture, but that could be because I was using a lower shutter speed.
As a rule it does. If you had a perfect lens, then lens sharpness would DECREASE as you stopped down, but since no lens is perfect, lenses do become sharper as the aperture decreases (up to a point) The better the lens is made, the less you have to stop it down to achieve maximum sharpness.
Note that I'm referring to the actual resolution of the lens, not depth of field, which is another matter.
That's good to know. One more reason for me to continue working my way out of auto mode. I've been experimenting with manually setting aperture and shutter speed, but haven't really gotten out to shoot much.
So I have a question, hoping you can chime in. Does decreasing lens aperture, as a rule, increase sharpness? I've seen a number of lens reviews show that, but I'm not sure if that's just the specific lenses and how they're engineered, or if it can broadly be considered true. Playing around with aperture and shutter speed myself I was able to find I could indeed pull more detail with lower aperture, but that could be because I was using a lower shutter speed.
High quality lenses (Leica and Zeiss coming into mind) are razor sharp even wide open. In general, lenses do get sharper when stop down a little. But that should be the last thing to worry about unless you are doing commercial work and the images will be blown up onto a billboard. Setting the aperture for the situation, such as larger for faster shutter speed to freeze action or smaller for more depth of field or longer exposure. One thing to watch out is not to set aperture too small (like beyond f21, I normally don't go beyond f16 unless absolutely necessary), otherwise refraction effect may kick in and drastically reduce sharpness.
I think its broadly the way so. When I shoot with my canon primes, they get really sharp when I stop them down to f4 or f5.6. Its definitely slower, but I tend to shoot in the day so I think its a good trade off to get the sharpest image.
Part of me wants to get into vintage lenses. I've been looking into them a bit, but I'm not 100% set on it yet. I'm absolutely in love with some of the imperfections I see in vintage lenses; most notably some of the crazy bokeh effects some have. Some of the old radioactive lenses are also super neat, although I'm not sure I'd be comfortable having one in the house, even if the radioactivity is pretty mild.
Typically a lens will have an f stop that that it’s sharpest at. Meaning even if you stop down farther like to f16 it will have an increase in depth-of-feld but will still be the sharpest at what ever f stop it’s sharpest at. At least that is the way it used to be. I like the effect of a wider f stop. I don’t know what your talking about with radioactive lenses?
I think its broadly the way so. When I shoot with my canon primes, they get really sharp when I stop them down to f4 or f5.6. Its definitely slower, but I tend to shoot in the day so I think its a good trade off to get the sharpest image.
From what I gathered it was fairly common in the 60s and 70s for lenses to use thorium in the construction of the glass, which after years causes the lens to turn yellow or brown.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
