I saw one of his gear vids once, googled the prices and was like, "Nope." He loves that stuff though, he shoots weird to me though, I'm a viewfinder shooter so it just looks odd to me.
He's on the Sony "Artisans of Imagery " (lol) program. I bet he gets some gear and/or discounts.
Somebody on here posted what the silent shutter did to a low light pic and it created banding I think, it didn't look great and probably something I wouldn't see an actual pro going for, then again, that's just me and I'm not an expert on stuff like that.
He claims he doesn't, but who knows really.
I like a lot of the tech in mirrorless honestly, but at the same time, it's just tech and helps video shooters out more than me, not to mention I like physical buttons, the layouts of Sony's just don't mesh with me. I'd have to map very specific things to the Fn buttons, which I'd probably have to spend a day dealing with.
The question is how much do you lose by using it and how much rolling shutter does the electronic one have :S
"Quick-charging"
It's a stacked sensor. The readout is so much faster that it eliminates the need for physical shutter. There's a reason they're using a 24mp sensor and it's not just ISO. At such a readout speed there should be no rolling shutter at all nor the banding usually associated with electronic shutters.
I would hope Sony tested that out, but you never know.
85's are great. I mean yeah I probably wouldn't mind the stuff at all, but at the same time I do not want to invest in another lens ecosystem. It's not like I can't do perfectly fine with what I have.
But everything was blown highlights...
I know lol. I need to learn how to start underexposing a bit during the day time. The light meter in my camera is sort of half knackered. It's accurate, but man it's just odd for me after shooting at night for so many months straight to have all of this light bouncing off of skin.
IIRC, ISO50 is a "fake" ISO, in that it doesn't change the sensor at all but instead just drops EV on the file it saves -- ie, if it would be a blown highlight at ISO100, it will be a blown highlight at ISO50.
That's fake iso. Most cameras don't have a base iso of 50. My D810 having a base iso of 64 was actually one of it's selling points.
Whoa...I actually wouldn't mind an ISO 35, on sunny days that would really come in handy, which company allows that?Well like I said, depends on the sensor. I've shot with digital backs that natively went down to ISO 35
(Also I couldn't remember if the D810 was ISO64 or ISO50
How is a camera noisy passed ISO 100? That's crazy. Old digital really is a crime.
Boo. There goes any interest I had in that product, unless I missed something.
That's pretty sexy, but the 120mm f4 that they launched with already has a crazy thin DoF if you're focusing close. There are also other (cheaper) lens options out there that go as far as f2.8 because of all the adapters that are out.While we're on the subject of newly announced gear that nobody can afford, I found this pretty interesting:
Fujifilm just announced a 110mm f/2 lens for their GF mount (medium format mirrorless). One of the criticisms of the GFX 50S is that the lens lineup doesn't have much in the way of wide apertures, which negates two of the big advantages of using a larger sensor (better low light performance and shallower depth of field). This looks like the perfect portrait lens, though, at 87mm equivalent and pretty much the widest aperture you're going to get on a medium format lens. It doesn't look too big, either, given the wide aperture. Of course it's $2799 (ignoring the cost of the camera itself), but it's definitely going on the "if I win the lottery" list.
Leaving aside price it's only really a matter if the extra features out-weight the 42mp of the AR7M2. Everything else is just better on the A9. But again, it's really hard to put aside price since the A9 is almost twice the price.
With the size of phone camera sensors I'm not surprised. I'm never looking forward to phone cameras, then again why would I? The depth of field on those is pretty horrible on them as well.
In the meantime, here is my gear so far:
I think if I opt for a smaller on the go camera it might be like a G85 or something. I have no love for phone cameras at all.