[shigzeo]

Cameras!!!! I was in bed (really sick) when I typed the last email about the a7r. Remember, I have no use for AF nor have I any AF lenses. I'm a still-life photographer, but I also do events for different audio mags here in Japan and abroad. I still have no need for AF, the expense, or the weight. Last even I shot for one magazine was done 95% on the 50mm f/2 Ai Nikkor.
 
Anyway, the link to the a7r review is: http://ohm-image.net/opinion/photophile/review-sony-a7r-ilce-7r
 
It is the first porridge I've given out.

 

[AnakChan]

I was seriously considering about the Sony a7R as an astro camera 'cos it's lighter and easier on the RA motor drive however an EVF is really not suitable for astrophotography. It's hard enough to focus with a glass pentaprism but it's even harder (or impractical even) with an EVF.
 
How well does the EVF perform in really lowlight situations? Let's just pick valve tube amp glows in pitch black condition. Is it easy to compose, and more importantly manually focus in that condition? (yes I know I could focus with the light on and switch the light off later).

 

[gkanai]

I want to like the Sony but the lens selection is poor for those who want AF. And the AF is slow too.
 
I want one camera that does photos and videos well. I'm tired of Nikon's poor video codecs but I have too many Nikkors...

 

[Currawong]

I keep wanting someone to make a great, high-res mirror-less camera, but I guess that's not going to happen for a while, so I'll stick to lugging around my D800.
 
Anyone who has tried to capture a bunch of kids all facing the same way at the same time while playing in an interesting shot will understand. This trip to the park where we ran into my daughter's friend, her brother and other friends resulted in my favourite photos for the whole year.
 
         

 

[gkanai]

Nice shots! What focal length?

I have been in a funk WRT my photography for a while now.
 
The D700 is ok. I don't like the 600 or 610 and the 800 is just too much.

I'm mainly using the 28/1.8G with occasional use of the 85/1.8D. I have the 14-24 but I haven't used it at all this year so I think I'm going to auction it.

I have an old 80-200/2.8D which still works well so haven't upgraded to AFS or VR.

I'd love a zoom but haven't found one I like.

I'm seriously thinking about the Sigma ART 35/1.4 as it is the best 35mm- even better than the Zeiss.

 

[Currawong]

I'm thinking the Sigma too as it is supposed to be sharper than the Nikon, but half the price. 
 
The shots were with the 28-300. It's far better at 300mm than the 18-200 was at 200mm. Some days I take absolute crap, then the next day I'll nail it (such as with a run I just did on the new Audeze LCD-X and XC).
 
What do you want for the 14-24? I don't really need it with the 16-35mm, but I suspect that the 16-35mm lens is bad in some respects, because it is too easy to switch from normal to wide angle and then take rubbish shots. I'm thinking of switching to ONLY normal or ONLY wide so I have to pay attention all the time.

 

[shigzeo]

The 28-300 is a fantastic lens. I don't really do school photo any more at the same studio I was in, but we always used that lens. Yep, fully professional cameramen used a lens that the idiots at the DPReview forums pan as amateur! Love it. 
 
I'm not that good with AF lenses, though. Well, the 80-200/2,8 dual ring AFD version that Gen/George has is amazing. Sharp, contrasty, and pretty fast AF. It's light enough, which matters to me. The 28-300 has the unfortunate problem of extending when it isn't supposed to. That is annoying as you can't expect it to be at the same focal length you had used just seconds before. 
 
We always use flash when doing school photo. Adds amazing pop to the kids. The 700 works just fine, though I've had it overheat many many times in the summer. I suppose that is better than frying out. 
 
But manual focus lenses can be just as good, providing you have lenses that 'pop' into focus. I have two that do:
 
50/2 Ai
85/1,8K (ai converted)
 
As long as you keep track of focal distances, both lenses will pick up exactly what you want with a minimum of time and fuss. I rely on them more than I do on any AF lens for paid projects. Of course, they are useless if you have to cover wide angle to telephoto lengths. But if either of you want to try, I can bring one or the other when we meet next. 
 
I have the flu and have it bad. I may not make this weekend. 

 

[mtthefirst]

  I'm thinking the Sigma too as it is supposed to be sharper than the Nikon, but half the price. 
 
The shots were with the 28-300. It's far better at 300mm than the 18-200 was at 200mm. Some days I take absolute crap, then the next day I'll nail it (such as with a run I just did on the new Audeze LCD-X and XC).
 
What do you want for the 14-24? I don't really need it with the 16-35mm, but I suspect that the 16-35mm lens is bad in some respects, because it is too easy to switch from normal to wide angle and then take rubbish shots. I'm thinking of switching to ONLY normal or ONLY wide so I have to pay attention all the time.

At the wider end 16-35 has very nasty distortion compare to 14-24. Yesterday, I just pull the trigger on this 16-28 f/2.8 baby. 

 
If it not rain tonight, I will be shooting with it at 仙台光のページェント.

 

[Currawong]

Ooh, that looks something that might interest me. How is it?

 

[mtthefirst]

  Ooh, that looks something that might interest me. How is it?

 
I haven't had enough time to play with it yet but based on my reading this lens is just slightly behind 14-24 but at a third of its price.

 

[shigzeo]

Sounds like a great option. But you guys are muscle men. I'm an LTM and M prime guy.

 

[mtthefirst]

  Sounds like a great option. But you guys are muscle men. I'm an LTM and M prime guy.

I'm a fix aperture guy.

50 f/1.8D
50 f/1.2
11-16 f/2.8
16-28 f/2.8
17-55 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8

 

[gkanai]

Oh I have a bunch of MF primes too. So my full list is:
 
80-200/2.8 AF-D
105/1.8 AIS http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/105mmnikkor/105mm18.htm
85/1.8 AF-D
35/1.4 AIS
28/1.8 AFS
24/2.0 AIS
14-24/2.8 AFS
 
I used to have the 50/1.2 AIS but I can't seem to find it, so I may go for a new 50mm. Not decided yet but leaning towards the 50/1.8 AFS as the price/performance is quite decent.
 
I should shoot with my 35/1.4 AIS more before I spend money on a Sigma.

 

[gkanai]

  I'm thinking the Sigma too as it is supposed to be sharper than the Nikon, but half the price. 
 
The shots were with the 28-300. It's far better at 300mm than the 18-200 was at 200mm. Some days I take absolute crap, then the next day I'll nail it (such as with a run I just did on the new Audeze LCD-X and XC).
 
What do you want for the 14-24? I don't really need it with the 16-35mm, but I suspect that the 16-35mm lens is bad in some respects, because it is too easy to switch from normal to wide angle and then take rubbish shots. I'm thinking of switching to ONLY normal or ONLY wide so I have to pay attention all the time.

 
The Sigma 35 is best in class right now. Quite an impressive lens. Really changed my image of Sigma.
 
PMed you re: 14-24. It's a no-compromise lens. Rectilinear at 14 with no distortion. Canon owners buy adapters just to use this lens but I just don't have enough uses for it.

 

[shigzeo]

G.K.
 
I had the 50/1,2. Nice lens, but a bit wild. I have the 50/2 Ai... madly sharp. Too sharp in fact that I have to be careful with flash photography as it aliases too much with the D800 at anything from f/4 to f/8. It is sharper in the centre than are any of my macro lenses. Are you using your 20/2,8 AiS? I love that lens as sometimes I use it at the school photography studio. Amazing lens. I've been thinking of purchasing one.