• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II

D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
What are the pros/cons between full frame and APS-C?

Full frame will, in general, give you better low light performance because the sensor is larger and it can capture more light than an equivalent APS-C sensor. This should also help you obtain focus more quickly in darker scenes. You also, generally, get lower noise and more flexibility in pulling detail out of shadows and such with a full frame compared to an equivalent APS-C. Another benefit is more control over depth of field (being able to blur backgrounds further). In general, the quality will be better with a full frame sensor.

With that said, full frames are more expensive, the bodies are larger, the lenses they use are larger, and they all weigh more than APS-C bodies and lenses. Modern higher end APS-C cameras are much better at higher ISOs than they used to be.

There's more to it of course, but unless you know you want a full frame, you're probably better off with APS-C. It's not like going with APS-C will prevent you from taking incredible images.
 
What are the pros/cons between full frame and APS-C?

I will tackle your question in a slightly different way.

I was thinking about this yesterday. You see, the way that any semiconductor is processed to make integrated circuits, the bigger the area, the more likely it is to have an issue. Because of that, engineers chose to make a sensor that was small enough to get you the same, if not better quality, as what you would get in film for a reasonable price. The size chosen would lead to a better yield, and thus to better quality. However, this introduced an issue of changing the amount of image that you would get with a lens made for 35mm film cameras. This is where you hear the term "Crop," "Crop factor," etc.

The solution was to make a sensor that was the exact size as the 35mm film, and this is what we know as full frame. Since the size is quite bigger, FF sensors are harder to manufacture, and the entire camera has to be designed to account for this. Unfortunately, this had the effect of making everyone feel insecure about their APS-C cameras, and having everyone believe that you need a full frame sensor to get the "real" quality that you would get in a film camera. This is nonsense IMO. A modern camera with an APS-C sensor is capable of giving you stunning images, along with a plethora of technology, which people who used SLRs back in the day only dreamed of.

I'm going to argue that APS-C is not in fact inferior to Full Frame, but rather different. With FF, as others have said, you get "better" ISO and thus less noise. With APS-C, you get a smaller camera, and the crop factor which can be a benefit if you require more reach. I think what compounds this myth that APS-C is inferior is the fact that most manufacturers only make the best lenses for their Full Frame camera lines. If those same companies spent as much money into developing amazing glass for their crop bodies, nobody would be every complaining about APS-C.
 
What's the best 550D/T2i equivalent today? Mine's showing it's age and I'm interested in an upgrade. ~£500.

7D Mark II?

*EDIT* Looking to merge into the 'Enthusiast' range, so I'm open to ideas/higher prices.
 
What are the pros/cons between full frame and APS-C?
If you want small don't touch full frame. If you're going to be shooting a lot indoors at stupid high iso levels go full frame. If you want crazy background blur for portraits go full frame, it you don't care, then really it doesn't matter what you get. If you want something light and high quality just get a Fuji X-T20.
Übermatik;239546713 said:
What's the best 550D/T2i equivalent today? Mine's showing it's age and I'm interested in an upgrade. ~£500.

7D Mark II?

*EDIT* Looking to merge into the 'Enthusiast' range, so I'm open to ideas/higher prices.
7DmkII might be more expensive than that I think since it's going against the Nikon D500...and losing. I think you might be looking at stuff like the Canon 80D? I can never get my head around the Canon line tiers, but I usually just don't recommend the Rebel series. You might be looking for the 77D.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
just to chime in on ISO. Base (lowest ISO) is not always "native" ISO. Sony cams for example are native 1600. That is why you have to be at least at that in slog to get max dynamic range. I believe canon was 320 or something. GH5 is 400.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Übermatik;239546713 said:
What's the best 550D/T2i equivalent today? Mine's showing it's age and I'm interested in an upgrade. ~£500.

7D Mark II?

*EDIT* Looking to merge into the 'Enthusiast' range, so I'm open to ideas/higher prices.

If you're sticking with Canon, then I think you would be better off with an 80D than the 7D Mark II. It's worse at auto-focus, especially with moving targets, and can shoot at 7 fps vs 10 fps, but just about everything else is better and it's cheaper and newer to boot. It also has an articulating touch screen which will make it great for video.
 
7DmkII might be more expensive than that I think since it's going against the Nikon D500...and losing. I think you might be looking at stuff like the Canon 80D? I can never get my head around the Canon line tiers, but I usually just don't recommend the Rebel series. You might be looking for the 77D.

I think it's £700 vs. £900, more or less.
As for the Rebel line, the 550D was excellent when it first released I believe... But I'm looking above that now, so yeah, let's change that estimate to ~£700 I suppose haha.

Hmmm... Not much choice I suppose.

If you're sticking with Canon, then I think you would be better off with an 80D than the 7D Mark II. It's worse at auto-focus, especially with moving targets, and can shoot at 7 fps vs 10 fps, but just about everything else is better and it's cheaper and newer to boot. It also has an articulating touch screen which will make it great for video.

Noted. Video is something I'd like to explore, especially since I invested in a tripod recently.
The autofocus you've mentioned puts me off a little though, as blurry stills annoy me no end! Still, I suppose the lens you use is half to blame - plus anything is better than my 550D these days.

Is there anything on the horizon for Canon in a similar range? Guessing not, but I'll have to wait a while yet anyway (around the end of the year).
 
Übermatik;239548009 said:
I think it's £700 vs. £900, more or less.
As for the Rebel line, the 550D was excellent when it first released I believe... But I'm looking above that now, so yeah, let's change that estimate to ~£700 I suppose haha.

Hmmm... Not much choice I suppose.



Noted. Video is something I'd like to explore, especially since I invested in a tripod recently.
The autofocus you've mentioned puts me off a little though, as blurry stills annoy me no end! Still, I suppose the lens you use is half to blame - plus anything is better than my 550D these days.

Is there anything on the horizon for Canon in a similar range? Guessing not, but I'll have to wait a while yet anyway (around the end of the year).
If you can afford the 7DmkII then get that depending on how vital video is for you.
 
What are the pros/cons between full frame and APS-C?
APS-C is generally much cheaper, which is only a good thing. However depending on what you want it might simply not be possible. For instance, an APS-C DSLR with standard/wide primes that offer DOF control is a no-no due to the flange distance, but it's possible in mirrorless. So if you want an optical viewfinder AND DOF control, you need full frame.
Other than that, APS-C is great in focal-lengh constrained scenarios, especially when you want to keep weight and price at bay. That's why the 7Ds and the D500 are so popular for wildlife (On top of their pro-grade features, AF systems and burst rates)

If you want something for sports at a low price, APS-C is the way to go.
For most things it can be, but if the system doesn't have the lenses for what you want then it can be a problem.
So it's not so much a problem of sensor size per se, but of what the system offers for that sensor size.
 

ecosse_011172

Junior Member
Thanks guys, as my D90 has an APS-C sensor and I'm very happy with the photo quality then a small APS-C mirrorless camera should be fine.
 
A couple weeks ago I bought a Canon T6i and purchased a Canon 250mm zoom lens. This is my first real camera and I am very happy with the results. I intend to do more special photography like capturing lightning and the Aurora. So far I really like it. In the future I intent to purchase the Sigma F 1.8 18-35mm lens, which is the best and sharpest lens for my camera.

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00DBL0NLQ/
 
Angry Photographer's testing indicates that he couldn't get the A9 to overheat and that banding wasn't an issue.

Good to hear about the minimal banding via that video and the one I posted earlier shooting MMA. What could be causing the difference in experience among users?
I saw the full review and that man did not love that camera.
 
I saw the full review and that man did not love that camera.

Angry Photographer does not like anything "serious" that's MILC, unless he's come around on that.

He suggested such things as MILCs being inherently slower workflow (like changing lenses and exposure settings, which is ridiculous given there's no difference), EVFs having absolutely no value (which is horseshit, there are pros and cons), and that it would be easier to grab and use a ladder to take a photo from a high angle than it would be to tilt a screen downwards.

I think he has a Fuji that he sees as a toy camera, just for "idgaf just shoot some random crap" sorts of photos, but yeah, I would never expect AP to like a serious MILC.

He was, at least when I was watching, very much in the camp of "MILC will never be suitable for any professional of any kind ever", and not the "Well let's give it a bit it's an in progress thing".
 
Angry Photographer does not like anything "serious" that's MILC, unless he's come around on that.

He suggested such things as MILCs being inherently slower workflow (like changing lenses and exposure settings, which is ridiculous given there's no difference), EVFs having absolutely no value (which is horseshit, there are pros and cons), and that it would be easier to grab and use a ladder to take a photo from a high angle than it would be to tilt a screen downwards.

I think he has a Fuji that he sees as a toy camera, just for "idgaf just shoot some random crap" sorts of photos, but yeah, I would never expect AP to like a serious MILC.

He was, at least when I was watching, very much in the camp of "MILC will never be suitable for any professional of any kind ever", and not the "Well let's give it a bit it's an in progress thing".
He is actually quite the fan of Fuji's and considers them the best camera maker. He loves the X-T2 and loves the GFX, so it's probably been a long time since you've seen one of his videos. He even actually likes the X-T1, but at the time he didn't consider it "there" yet. Loves the Fuji ecosystem as well. He just doesn't consider it a contender for hardcore sports, action and wildlife because Fuji lacks the long glass primes and long fast glass like Nikon and Canon has. He doesn't really hate mirrorless and even had nice things to say regarding the A9, but there were a lot of things that added up combined with his tone that sounded like, "he'd never buy this thing" at full price. It's pretty much an electronic shutter camera, if you need anything to do with a mechanical shutter which he does because he's into speedlight photography, and other event photographers do so they can trigger their flash it's not really what you should spend 4K on. I'm still sitting here trying to figure out why so many portrait photographers are using the A9. You're using the mechanical shutter mostly to trigger your flash, just use an A7R2. It looks like the banding is nowhere near as bad as I was expecting and I was watching a video from a wedding photographer that loves it so it does have its uses.
 
He is actually quite the fan of Fuji's and considers them the best camera maker. He loves the X-T2 and loves the GFX, so it's probably been a long time since you've seen one of his videos. He even actually likes the X-T1, but at the time he didn't consider it "there" yet. Loves the Fuji ecosystem as well. He just doesn't consider it a contender for hardcore sports, action and wildlife because Fuji lacks the long glass primes and long fast glass like Nikon and Canon has. He doesn't really hate mirrorless and even had nice things to say regarding the A9, but there were a lot of things that added up combined with his tone that sounded like, "he'd never buy this thing" at full price. It's pretty much an electronic shutter camera, if you need anything to do with a mechanical shutter which he does because he's into speedlight photography, and other event photographers do so they can trigger their flash it's not really what you should spend 4K on. I'm still sitting here trying to figure out why so many portrait photographers are using the A9. You're using the mechanical shutter mostly to trigger your flash, just use an A7R2. It looks like the banding is nowhere near as bad as I was expecting and I was watching a video from a wedding photographer that loves it so it does have its uses.

Yeah, last video I saw was him talking about the XT-1, so I guess it's been a while.
 
Yeah, last video I saw was him talking about the XT-1, so I guess it's been a while.
Yeah the guy is very picky. He can be and is an asshole at times, but he does know his shit for the most part. X-T1 was Fuji in its infancy a little bit, but they still put together a damn good camera with the X-T2 being that system perfected. It can do a bit of everything, it just doesn't have the glass to fully push it to the limits. Like Fuji could use a 2.8 400mm, but they'll probably never make one.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I saw the full review and that man did not love that camera.

Really? He praised the aspects that define the camera: it's auto-focus capabilities and 20 frames per second silent shooting with an electronic shutter that almost eliminates banding associated with electronic shutters.

With that said, he thinks it's a terrible value. He's probably right that it absolutely shouldn't be a $4,500 camera, but I see why Sony priced it as they did. It's currently the only thing on the market t hat does what it does. I imagine we'll see it's defining traits trickle down to cheaper cameras as competition heats up, though.
 
Really? He praised the aspects that define the camera: it's auto-focus capabilities and 20 frames per second silent shooting with an electronic shutter that almost eliminates banding associated with electronic shutters.

With that said, he thinks it's a terrible value. He's probably right that it absolutely shouldn't be a $4,500 camera, but I see why Sony priced it as they did. It's currently the only thing on the market t hat does what it does. I imagine we'll see it's defining traits trickle down to cheaper cameras as competition heats up, though.
I've seen enough of his videos to know when he does and doesn't like something. He praised it's defining traits but believes in his own words that it's "lopsided." He'd rather buy a D810 and X-T2 over this thing. Just the fact that the thing hurts his fingers would be a reason that he'd leave it at home.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I've seen enough of his videos to know when he does and doesn't like something. He praised it's defining traits but believes in his own words that it's "lopsided." He'd rather buy a D810 and X-T2 over this thing. Just the fact that the thing hurts his fingers would be a reason that he'd leave it at home.

Oh, for sure. He, personally, did not like it, but he absolutely recommended it for anyone who wants to have the best auto-focus and fast frame rate capabilities. He's just saying it's overpriced, and I think he's right. Then again, it's clear that Sony is targeting the Nikon D5 with the A9 and if sports photography is your thing, then it sounds like the A9 is a good deal.

It is clear that Sony compromised on just about every other aspect of the camera, though. Either they wanted to get it to market quickly or didn't want this to be an all-rounder camera, but it certainly seems lacking in some key areas considering the price.
 
Oh, for sure. He, personally, did not like it, but he absolutely recommended it for anyone who wants to have the best auto-focus and fast frame rate capabilities. He's just saying it's overpriced, and I think he's right. Then again, it's clear that Sony is targeting the Nikon D5 with the A9 and if sports photography is your thing, then it sounds like the A9 is a good deal.

It is clear that Sony compromised on just about every other aspect of the camera, though. Either they wanted to get it to market quickly or didn't want this to be an all-rounder camera, but it certainly seems lacking in some key areas considering the price.
Get the A9 for sports, where there isn't a lot of sports glass for it, but I get what you mean. The shit I actually enjoy doing is watching new broadcasts or looking at pics of scores of photojournalists and seeing what they have. I'd pair something with the A9, it's definitely side body worthy in my opinion, but not as my only camera. Same with pretty much any camera, it would just be with what since lens ecosystems and what not.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Get the A9 for sports, where there isn't a lot of sports glass for it, but I get what you mean. The shit I actually enjoy doing is watching new broadcasts or looking at pics of scores of photojournalists and seeing what they have. I'd pair something with the A9, it's definitely side body worthy in my opinion, but not as my only camera. Same with pretty much any camera, it would just be with what since lens ecosystems and what not.

I'm not a pro, so I can't really comment on the lens lineup. They released a 100-400 high-end lens alongside the A9, so I'm sure that was targeting sports folks.

Then again, if you're already a pro sports photographer, you've probably already got a D4 or D5 and a bunch of lenses, so the A9 definitely doesn't seem like a huge reason to switch.

All I know is that I hope the A9 price drops dramatically or its features creep into lower end models, because it looks incredible, but I can't justify that price.
 
I'm not a pro, so I can't really comment on the lens lineup. They released a 100-400 high-end lens alongside the A9, so I'm sure that was targeting sports folks.

Then again, if you're already a pro sports photographer, you've probably already got a D4 or D5 and a bunch of lenses, so the A9 definitely doesn't seem like a huge reason to switch.

All I know is that I hope the A9 price drops dramatically or its features creep into lower end models, because it looks incredible, but I can't justify that price.
I'm personally hoping A7R2 prices crater. Granted I'd have to buy some Canon glass, but I'd buy one of those...or an X-T2.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I'm personally hoping A7R2 prices crater. Granted I'd have to buy some Canon glass, but I'd buy one of those...or an X-T2.

A7R2 is already down to $2700 from $3200 when I bought it last November last year :(. Oh well, I got plenty of good shots over the last six months, so I can't be too disappointed. Hopefully it gets even cheaper once Sony starts announcing their A7 line refresh models, which I imagine will be later this year.
 
A7R2 is already down to $2700 from $3200 when I bought it last November last year :(. Oh well, I got plenty of good shots over the last six months, so I can't be too disappointed. Hopefully it gets even cheaper once Sony starts announcing their A7 line refresh models, which I imagine will be later this year.
I think I'd also be perfectly fine with an A7ii. Half the problem for me is finding glass for it. The body price isn't bad, but the hassle of what hell do I attach to it is the problem. I haven't bought an X-T1 for this specific reason.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I think I'd also be perfectly fine with an A7ii. Half the problem for me is finding glass for it. The body price isn't bad, but the hassle of what hell do I attach to it is the problem. I haven't bought an X-T1 for this specific reason.

I'm no pro, but there are a lot of great native Sony lenses at this point. It's my understanding that a great many Canon lenses in particular play nicely with the A7 series when using an adapter. I've never messed around with that, though.
 
I'm no pro, but there are a lot of great native Sony lenses at this point. It's my understanding that a great many Canon lenses in particular play nicely with the A7 series when using an adapter. I've never messed around with that, though.
This is true and most Sony users out in the wild use adapted Canon glass any way. The Sony stuff is fine, but it's just way too over priced, which is something even the pros know. Out in the wild you'll rarely see a Sony lens on a Sony camera. The only reason why I don't have a mirrorless is because the Nikon lenses just adapt poorly to them unless you want nothing but manual focus.
 
If it's a second system, I'd just get the 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8, and focus on those primes. Get that sweet bokeh and that sweet eye AF and shit.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
While expensive, I would highly recommend the Zeiss 35/2.8. The size of that thing really turns the cameras into super compact and light devices. I think Samyang is on the verge of releasing a cheaper version with similar size and specs, too.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
I really don't know who the A9 is for. Even shooting the D500 vs A7s ii I had way to many photos to sort through.

I have to agree with angry photographer, haven't held an A9 but sony ergonomics are just bad.
 
I really don't know who the A9 is for. Even shooting the D500 vs A7s ii I had way to many photos to sort through.

I have to agree with angry photographer, haven't held an A9 but sony ergonomics are just bad.
Yeah the ergonomics is what keeps me off them. And yeah 20fps would drive me bat shit with photo sorting since even with 5fps I hate dealing with it.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I really don't know who the A9 is for. Even shooting the D500 vs A7s ii I had way to many photos to sort through.

I have to agree with angry photographer, haven't held an A9 but sony ergonomics are just bad.

While I certainly don't need 20 fps, having consecutive silent shooting functionality with no banding and that top-class auto-focus and subject tracking (and *amazing* eye-tracking) functionality would be incredibly useful for how I use my camera primarily, which is pictures of my kids playing. I certainly can't justify paying $4,500 for that, though!

I have an A7r ii, though and I can't complain about the ergonomics. I think it's just fine to hold even with somewhat larger lenses attached. I don't have any of those bulky monsters like the 100-400 G Master, though.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
I just don't find the Sony cams enjoyable to use. They are technically amazing, you really cannot fault them on the spec sheet.

If I'm working though I want something reliable and if I'm playing I want something fun to use. A9 seems to be heading in the right direction though. I just don't get why they kept the body so small when the target market is lugging around 10lb lenses on mono pods.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
^just saw that. Most impressive. Most impressive indeed.

I think the AF coverage combined with the performance is the real game changer. Give me that over 20fps everyday. I must admit I have struggled at times with nikons narrow AF coverage. They really need to improve that on the D6.
 
I didn't realize until I saw a video the other day that not everyone holds their camera by the lens, so I've never really understood the "balance" argument. To me, where it was balanced was purely a function of where the focus wheel was. *shrug*
 
I didn't realize until I saw a video the other day that not everyone holds their camera by the lens, so I've never really understood the "balance" argument. To me, where it was balanced was purely a function of where the focus wheel was. *shrug*
Balance isn't that much of thing with small lenses. I pretty much hold my camera with a 85, 24-70 and 70-200 3 different ways. The 70-200,'s are a problem just due to how they move around and the shear effect that whole thing can have depending on your focal length and shutter speed. Run those too low with and unstable hand and you're gonna have more blur in your photo than you should have. VR doesn't solve everything.
 

TFGB

Member
Finally took some pics of my kit/partner's Lumix.

9asWhxO.jpg


My P4P and Polar Pro filters.

ztroBHL.jpg


My new 200-500 turned up yesterday for my D800E along with my B+W 95mm XS Pro UV. It's a behemoth of a lens and weighty too. Can't wait to get stuck in trying it out. 😊

9NFXbgO.jpg


MyBHPNY.jpg


(Last pic was a quick (overexposed) test shot with the GH5 and 12-60)
 
Finally took some pics of my kit/partner's Lumix.

9asWhxO.jpg


My P4P and Polar Pro filters.

ztroBHL.jpg


My new 200-500 turned up yesterday for my D800E along with my B+W 95mm XS Pro UV. It's a behemoth of a lens and weighty too. Can't wait to get stuck in trying it out. 😊

9NFXbgO.jpg


MyBHPNY.jpg


(Last pic was a quick (overexposed) test shot with the GH5 and 12-60)

Impressive. What do you do for a living?
 

TFGB

Member
Impressive. What do you do for a living?

Cheers! I run a small business with my other half, though I'm sort of semi-retired at the moment...until I get bored of it lol.

I've taken a break from excessive gaming and looking to get back into photography a bit more as I used to enjoy it immensely.
 

21x2

Member
Hey CameraGaf, I'm pretty new to photography and I'm trying to learn more about the technical/equipment side of things. Basically learning how to understand the properties of bodies and lenses when just reading about them. What's a good resource to read up on this stuff?
 

Got

Banned
Hey CameraGaf, I'm pretty new to photography and I'm trying to learn more about the technical/equipment side of things. Basically learning how to understand the properties of bodies and lenses when just reading about them. What's a good resource to read up on this stuff?

The OP has some info.
 

21x2

Member
The OP has some info.

Are you talking about the book? My impression of it is that it seems to be more about how to operate a camera in manual mode, and I've got that down. What I'm looking for is more related to understanding how the camera equipment works. For example, if I were to buy a new lens, I wouldn't really know how to read what the properties different lenses mean. Does the book go into these details as well?
 

Ty4on

Member
Are you talking about the book? My impression of it is that it seems to be more about how to operate a camera in manual mode, and I've got that down. What I'm looking for is more related to understanding how the camera equipment works. For example, if I were to buy a new lens, I wouldn't really know how to read what the properties different lenses mean. Does the book go into these details as well?

Focal length - Basically gives you the angle of view

Sensor size - Size of the imaging sensor. This also affects angle of view because a bigger sensor will capture a bigger picture. Usually big full frame sensors (size of 35mm film) are used as the default and you use crop factors to convert focal lengths. Focal length never changes, but a 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop camera will give the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on a 1x crop camera.
Bigger sensor also typically equals better image quality, but they're much more expensive to produce. A lens with a focal length of say 200mm also has to be roughly 200mm long so long tele lenses end up being really big.

Aperture - Size of the lens pupil. Aperture is defined as the value you have to divide the focal length by so a smaller value means a bigger aperture. It takes some getting used to. Aperture tell you how bright the lens is and if you multiply with 1.4 (square root of 2) you halve the brightness.
f/1 - f/1.4 - f/2 - f/2.8 etc
Like I said with it being a factor of the focal length you can maybe see that a 200mm lens with an f/2 aperture would have to be pretty big. The aperture diameter in that lens is 100mm which means the glass has to be massive.
Aperture also affects depth of field together with focal length (not quite, but it helps to look at it this way). So if you take a picture of someone at 200mm and f/2 the background will just be blur where as if you use 28mm at f/11 it'll be pretty much in focus.
Making it smaller is called stopping it down and is used to change the property of the lens. Using a, say, f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 is called using it wide open. The bigger the aperture the faster the lens is said to be because you can use a fast shutter speed.

Zoom and prime - Prime have a fixed focal length while zooms can change focal length. Primes are usually smaller, simpler and superior in image quality and have a bigger aperture, but there's a lot of money put into zoom development making them good enough for most users and way more practical. Zooms can also be cheaper when you factor in the cost of multiple primes. Nothing I said was absolute either, you have tiny primes that have smaller apertures than some zooms and especially some older primes can have lower image quality.

Lens imperfections - There are a ton. All lenses are somewhat corrected, but in different ways. Generally imperfections that lower sharpness can be fixed by stopping down the aperture, but as you reach a point making it smaller makes the entire image softer due to something known as diffraction. It's a physical property that cannot be fixed.
Focus, basically whether focus plane is flat. Not that important when you're taking a headshot, but important for a landscape or taking pictures of something flat.
Chromatic aberration, color fringes. You can see this either as color fringes around high constrast scenes like tree branches in front of a sky or in high contrast scenes with out of focus objects.
CA-2.jpg

Note specs ahead of focus are purple, behind focus are green.
Distortion, how straight lines are. Barrel distortion will look kinda like a fisheye while pincushion will look like the opposite. Unless it's really bad this is easy to fix with software and most cameras do it automatically.
 

TheShinobi

Neo Member
I really don't know who the A9 is for. Even shooting the D500 vs A7s ii I had way to many photos to sort through.

I have to agree with angry photographer, haven't held an A9 but sony ergonomics are just bad.
High framerates is really nice for wildlife photographers.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Just got my first off camera flash today. Wow. This is a "The real Dark Souls starts here" moment.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom