noone

You know you can get an adapter for your micro SD card slot. and they are not expensive (or should not be)? 

That will give you a lot more choices for the card you use as you need a particular card to shoot 4k depending on camera (and in some cases like Sony XACVs you need particular cards for better 1080).

On 8/21/2020 at 8:19 AM, Oliver Daniel said:

Never used that type of kit but it sounds interesting for low key subjects.

On the broader topic, it can be a shame to see so many creators neglecting lighting in favour of constant camera body upgrades. Or using the ISO as a light source 😂. Then complaining the image isn’t good enough. Laziness?

Just off a tangent a little, my daughter was watching Detective Pikachu - the lighting in that film is incredible! Great use of contrast and colour. 

 

If you can, of course you should always have the best light available or that YOU want same as you should use the lowest ISO you can get away with.

Most of my shooting (both video and photo) is available light though (EG bands on stage) and for that I would get shot if I tried lighting though I have seen the odd video shooter try using small camera light at gigs when their cameras were not great in lowish light and it gets VERY annoying (even more than those that use flash on bands).

While I do want a proper light, I have found this to be useful for my needs.    I think it cost me $1  from memory from a charity shop.

11 hours ago, TsK said:

Its there so that the camera remembers things such as time and date (and the clock keeps on running) even when the camera has no battery. Without any power it’d forget those things. 

My Early DSLRs had those batteries (they were easy to access and user replaceable) but  I thought they were a thing of the past.

2 hours ago, Dave Del Real said:

How on earth did he adjust those Standard settings? All I see on my A7III is Contrast, Saturation and Sharpness and all can only be adjusted +or- 3. Is a new setting on the A7SIII????

Makes me wonder why Sony stopped allowing apps in camera.

The first version A7s (and the A7s ii) and many other Sony cameras can download the Sony liveview grading app and that gives you soooo much control over those settings.     So many variations it could literally take years to go through them all.

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000010

Wait!    Why does there even need to be a battery in there and how long will it work before needing replacement?

1 hour ago, aaa123jc said:

May I ask what kind of documentary are you filming? Are you filming wildlife?

Usually, superzoom lenses like 28-300mm already has stabilization on the lens. But they are in general not fast enough for shooting at night. You will need a bigger zoom lens or a tele prime. They are not cheap though, but depends on your work may be worthwhile to invest in. 

As for high iso performance, I believe a Sony A6600 is not that far behind A7S2, if not just as good or better. Still, no matter how good at high iso the camera is, there is a limit. High iso performance simply can't replace better lighting or faster lens. 

I think the A6600 would match it with the A7s ii until ISO 1600 but at ISO 25600 (24000 for the OP?), well the FF camera has almost 2 stops more DR then.

Mind you, an A6600 and a 2.8 lens would be about the same as the FF camera with a 5.6 lens but if you stick the 5.6 lens on APSC I do not think there are any that would be great right now.

Good  APSC camera with a lens like the Sigma 50-100 1.8 (75-150 FF angle of view)? 

Sigma 120-300 2.8?    Expensive but you can not have it all.

Maybe M43 and stick to no more than 12800 with a four thirds (not m43) Olympus 35-100 f2 zoom (70-200) though it is much better for AF on the EM1 and latest Em5 bodies only (not sure about video).    Very expensive again though.

22 hours ago, Dan Wake said:

Does exist a super 35mm /apsc camera that have very good low light iso (similar to sony a7s2) and good internal stabilization? Thx

In a word, NO.

There ARE a lot of APSC cameras now that are much better than they used to be.

What zooms are you going to be using?    Why the need for f5, dof?    2.8 would bring a lot more cameras into play (meaning you might only need a usable 12800 or so).

In a pinch how about a Sony APSC camera with a fast prime used as zoom (clearzoom).     Not perfect but it works ok.

I can not believe that Ebay "thinks" my ancient Canon 24 1.4 L FD is worth more than my Canon 17mm tilt shift?

This photo with the TS (with a lowly 12mp "non photo" camera) got a highly commended at the Mono awards 2020 (Australian B&W photo competition that attracts thousands of entries) and highly commended means it got past the second short list but not the final thirty.

IF live music ever starts up again, I look forward to getting back to using the TS for both video and photos of full bands from next to the stage.

8 hours ago, ajay said:

I get that. But just like other Sony cameras using Clear Image Zoom, I would think (and hope) it will do some form of autofocus but w/o eye AF and no tracking.

Agreed.     Maybe it is ONLY eye AF disabled.    

What is this "tracking" thing of which you speak (in an A7s!)?  

Nah, I think I would be very very happy with the A7siii for tracking since its granddad can barely track a seated musician

6 minutes ago, noone said:

Against my better judgement FFS  If they made it so it did not change the size of the aperture to the same constant f stop it is no longer a constant aperture lens ...how difficult is THAT.....It is simple physics/maths, focal length divided by f stop gives aperture diameter.     They build them like that for lots of reasons and of course a lens COULD be brighter at the short end if they chose but a constant f2 lens for example is just as bright at the short end than it is at the long end and NOT brighter at one end as you claimed  

Other properties will depend on the lens.    I have owned a lens that was just like that (2.8-4) and it was just as complex as any other and while i liked it it was nothing special  and the constant zooms i have had have generally been better.

The change looking through the front and seeing the aperture changing is exactly what the maths says it will be with any zoom    On a short slow lens you will not see much but even your 24-105 f4 zoom would be very visible if you can see through it wide open  I forgot I have a third constant aperture zoom but i do not use it and it has an aperture of around 17mm diameter at the short end and about 77mm at the long end so there is a very noticeable and large change (there will still be no difference though if I shot a target).

Not sure what you are trying to say now ( it seems you are now saying they can build lenses that are not constant or they can build them that are and the constant ones have a mechanical way of keeping the aperture constant)....well gee, of course but that does NOT mean a constant zoom is a stop or so slower at the short end than it is at the long end and that is what you said.

NOW I am done.

 

 

Tried to delete, ran out of time.

If you like, Yes, they are "crippling" zooms by making them constant...happy now?   They make the constant for many reasons and I am glad they do (not crippling).     You want faster?   Add a speed booster (which is how some faster zooms are made- by adding a focal reducer group in the lens).

7 hours ago, Enjay said:

This is oversimplified of course - the effective entrance pupil, depending on the exact construction of the zoom (elements in front and back of the aperture), does change as you change focal length. That is what I called "magnification" of the aperture, as seen through the front lens.

But not that much, which is why all these zooms have values like 3.5-5.6.

A standard pro 24-70/2.8 zoom would definitely be something like a 2-2.8 if it wasn't for the said mechanism or additional light baffle, depending on the exact model. The f/2 would be soft and have strong vignetting, but it would at least be available.

Against my better judgement FFS  If they made it so it did not change the size of the aperture to the same constant f stop it is no longer a constant aperture lens ...how difficult is THAT.....It is simple physics/maths, focal length divided by f stop gives aperture diameter.     They build them like that for lots of reasons and of course a lens COULD be brighter at the short end if they chose but a constant f2 lens for example is just as bright at the short end than it is at the long end and NOT brighter at one end as you claimed  

Other properties will depend on the lens.    I have owned a lens that was just like that (2.8-4) and it was just as complex as any other and while i liked it it was nothing special  and the constant zooms i have had have generally been better.

The change looking through the front and seeing the aperture changing is exactly what the maths says it will be with any zoom    On a short slow lens you will not see much but even your 24-105 f4 zoom would be very visible if you can see through it wide open  I forgot I have a third constant aperture zoom but i do not use it and it has an aperture of around 17mm diameter at the short end and about 77mm at the long end so there is a very noticeable and large change (there will still be no difference though if I shot a target).

Not sure what you are trying to say now ( it seems you are now saying they can build lenses that are not constant or they can build them that are and the constant ones have a mechanical way of keeping the aperture constant)....well gee, of course but that does NOT mean a constant zoom is a stop or so slower at the short end than it is at the long end and that is what you said.

NOW I am done.

3 hours ago, ajay said:

Are you sure about this? I had heard that it disables eye and tracking AF, but didn't disable AF completely.

PB in the video between your and my post says eye AF is disabled in clearzoom.

Who's money am I spending?   Mine or yours?

If mine, the last one, if yours the second last one.

7 hours ago, scotchtape said:

You have to follow the camera news, CIZ disables AF in A7SIII unless they change it down the road.

Are you sure about that?

I think i saw that clear zoom does not work in 4k or some of the 4k modes but does work in full HD (not sure which exactly).

It will not work in RAW video externally or for RAW photos of course.

Even the first version A7s clear zoom works with AF.

5 hours ago, Enjay said:

The brightness is equal, but only because there is a special aperture that closes down at the short end because otherwise the physical aperture size does not change while the focal length varies. With a 4x zoom, the same physical aperture is (relatively) 4x wider at the short end than the long end.

Some of this is for technical reasons. A 4x zoom with let's say 1.4-5.6 would be very soft at the short end, and I'm not sure modern zoom designs have the same effective aperture at all focal lengths (the "aperture image" is magnified depending on the focal length). But the f-number definitely does not stay constant unless the manufacturer artifically creates this effect. It's marketing because people associate high-end lenses with constant f-number. Decades ago, when cameras could not easily compensate for changing f-number, pros really did need the constant aperture value, which I guess is the source of all this.

Last I will say on this because it should not be so difficult.

A prime lens that is exactly 100mm and f2 will have an aperture of 50mm and a prime lens of exactly 50mm and f2 will have an aperture of 25mm.  

A zoom lens that is exactly 50-100 f2 will have an aperture that is 25mm at 50mm and 50mm at 100mm focal length.

It is more difficult to make a zoom than a prime and I am guessing it would be more difficult to make a zoom that straddles wide and tele (like your two do) so maybe what you are seeing is something to do with the construction of your lenses.

My two are a wide only (20-35) and a tele only (60-120) and the 60-120 especially is easy to see how the aperture changes as you zoom.

Dunno if i am getting any of the terminology wrong but the end result is there is no difference in brightness with a constant 2.8 or whatever zoom at the long and short ends.

Wow am I out of touch!

Just looked up some FD lenses on Ebay (worldwide available to Australia).

There are plenty of FD 85 1.2 L lenses though the prices are mostly still fairly high though maybe about what i would expect.

When it comes to the 24mm lenses though, the FD 24 1.4 asphericals are all (five of them) over $6000 Australian (I know our dollar is a bit in the toilet but that is ridiculous!).      The FD 24 1.4 Ls are all over $3000 (but only three of them) and even an f2 non aspherical is over $1000 Australian though most are a bit lower. 

There is a mint set of EF converted lenses for over 30 grand.

I would have thought that now that there are many more different 24 1.4 lenses available the prices would havecome down a lot rather than gone up.

Makes me glad i got no bidders when i put my 24 1.4 L on Ebay a couple of years ago with a starting bid of around $400 Australian and would have taken not much more (it looks a bit ratty externally but the glass is fine).

24 minutes ago, Enjay said:

The brightness is equal, but only because there is a special aperture that closes down at the short end because otherwise the physical aperture size does not change while the focal length varies. With a 4x zoom, the same physical aperture is (relatively) 4x wider at the short end than the long end.

Some of this is for technical reasons. A 4x zoom with let's say 1.4-5.6 would be very soft at the short end, and I'm not sure modern zoom designs have the same effective aperture at all focal lengths (the "aperture image" is magnified depending on the focal length). But the f-number definitely does not stay constant unless the manufacturer artifically creates this effect. It's marketing because people associate high-end lenses with constant f-number. Decades ago, when cameras could not easily compensate for changing f-number, pros really did need the constant aperture value, which I guess is the source of all this.

Huh?    If the physical size of the aperture does not change with focal length it can not be a constant aperture lens (that is why I said maybe it should be called a constant f stop lens instead).     Aperture is NOT the fixed size of the rear end of the lens and the thing that remains constant is the ratio and that is why there is not change in brightness.

My 300mm 2.8 lens is a hell of a lot bigger than my 60-120 2.8 lens but if I somehow merged them into a 60-300 2.8 zoom it would be more or less the same size as my 300mm in the size of the hole from the front but the lens would be no different in brightness at 60mm to my existing lens.

Just do what Kye suggested and shoot you either of your lenses at each end against a target.

5 hours ago, meudig said:

Media Division released another video, I bet many of you already watched it. This time they are examining the Canon FDs and their similarity to the legendary Canon K35s. It's one hour and 24 minutes long, and holds the same quality as their video on the C/Y Carl Zeiss video. 

By the way, there's a segment on removing yellow tint on thorium coated lenses with a cheap Ikea lamp @ 1h15m. I thought you might be interested @mercer

That was great!

I do wish they had done an FD aspherical VS FD L comparison though since the FDLs are going to be the ones more people use since the Aspericals are much much rarer and a lot of the few there are are in collectors display cabinets.

I always thought the FD Ls had hand ground aspheric elements too but it seems only the earlier asphericals do.

If buying the FD Ls ALWAYS ask or check the focus as they can have dissolving bearings (like my 85 1.2 L) where focus gets very loose.

They did make one tiny error when they said all FDs are manual as Canon did make a few AF FDs towards the end (I have an AF 50 FD).

Posting while gently stroking my 24 1.4 FD L!

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

24,000 ISO is kinda getting ridiculous for most purposes, what do you need it for? Why not just use T0.95 lenses then you could get a Panasonic G9/GH5 for sub US$1K?

Not the OP of course but sometimes you might want deeper DOF or faster shutter speeds and sometimes you might need super high ISOs AND fast lenses.

25600 is quite common for me.

7 minutes ago, kye said:

I think we're getting our wires crossed here.

Your above test is what I would expect.

If you have an 18-55mm f2.8-4 zoom then you would expect for it to be brighter at f2.8 than at f4.  If the manufacturer decides to offer a constant aperture 18-44 zoom then it might take that design and just make it 18-55/4, which it can do by taking the 2.8-4 design and changing it so that the 2.8 isn't available at the wide end.  ie, crippling the lens.

Indeed but he was saying a constant aperture zoom is crippled and brighter at one end than the other by  about a stop and that is wrong (and his examples are a constant f4 zoom and a constant 2.8 zoom)     Any variable aperture zoom is of course going to be different and the long end is going to be dimmer regardless of if it was made that way from scratch or using another lens as its base.

I just shot my bedroom blinds (vertical blinds) with my 60-120 2.8 at both 60mm and 120 both at 2.8 and both at 1/100.

I used auto ISO and both shots are at ISO 500.

There is a very slight difference in the histograms (same pattern but slightly higher peaks) but that is because at 120mm the thin gaps in the blind are a bit different at the different focal lengths....There is NO difference in brightness.

This is exactly as I expected.

2 minutes ago, kye said:

Aperture is literally the ratio of the diameter of the hole to the focal length.

At a constant aperture it should approximate a constant exposure.  I say "approximate" because exposure takes into account other things like the transparency of the glass and internal reflections etc, but it should be pretty darn close to exact.

I suggest you do a test - put the camera into full manual, find a large blank surface, and zoom in and out at constant aperture as well as at maximum aperture and see if the brightness of that surface changes.

You should see an increase in exposure (of that reference surface) when you open the aperture when zooming out.

Put it this way.     If you look through a 2.8 zoom from the camera end (using my 60-120 2.8 for example) at both 60mm and 120mm, there will not be a difference but if you look through it from the front, at 120mm  the hole will be twice the size it is at 60mm. 

I agree it should be close to constant (and my experience is that it is) but that is not what he said.

6 minutes ago, kye said:

I think what @Enjay is saying is that when you design a zoom it's maximum aperture will always be larger on the wide end, so in order to make a constant aperture zoom they just design it so that it closes down at the wide end to match the maximum aperture of the long end.

In this sense, if you had a variable aperture zoom, say an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, then you could just set it to f5.6 and then zoom in and out and you'd have the benefits of a constant aperture, as well as being able to open up wider than f5.6 in the middle and at the wider end.

Maybe but it still does not make sense how he put it.

I used to use my Sony 28-70 FE kit lens AS a constant aperture 5.6 lens but I do not think it was less bright at 28mm than 70mm (when both at 5.6) and likewise, i do not think either of my two 2.8 zooms (Canon 20-35 2.8L and Tokina 60-120 2.8) are less bright at the long end.     The size of the hole internally changes but so does the focal length and the hole is smaller at 60mm than 120mm for instance with my 60-120 and they have the same ratio.

7 hours ago, Enjay said:

Have you guys ever considered that constant aperture zooms are also seriously crippled? They are really brighter at the short end, I would say by about 1 stop. The diaphragm starts to close as you zoom out.

This is easily visible e.g. with the current RF 24-105/4L and also with my old Sigma 24-60/2.8.

Speaking of which, I just compared the two lenses at 35mm f/5.6. The Sigma's performance, which came out in 2004 and was always much cheaper, is almost identical.

Not sure I get that.

F stop is a ratio and a constant aperture zoom has a constant ratio (IE 2.8 at 24 and 2.8 at 60 for your Sigma).   

The physical size of the lens will be determined by the longest focal length if it is constant aperture.

Probably should be called a constant f stop zoom rather than constant aperture.

Those awards seem a bit like every player wins a prize to me!