Photography The Sony Alpha Thread V33!, The Orange Legion
|
|
 Oct 28 2009, 11:26 AM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
 
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005 
|
QUOTE(vileclaw @ Oct 28 2009, 10:46 AM) some of my iso testing NO PP just resize.. (quick snap, not much time to play with it yet) like.no.others impresses me this time  ISO 1600 MF CHECK LV » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «   |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 29 2009, 12:09 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(lildaredevil906 @ Oct 29 2009, 11:17 AM) jika u upgrade items.. lens, flash etc etc.. the leather case willl collect dust.. cause if your like me, i tend to chuck everything in one bigbag (im carrying L size bagman) then carry the whole load out.. I previously wanted to get the leather case.. looks so nice.. but come to think of it.. when i go out, i need my flash.. cannot fit lar.. samore im carrying another additional zoom lens.. F58 is good when shooting in portrait (camera vertical) mode too.if ur going on 1 lens all the way no flash.. then should be ok lar.. if u like to lug ur gear around, then no point.. Added on October 29, 2009, 11:25 am more powwaaaa.. u take the f42 and the f58 from the sony website and do side by side comparison lar.. but really i got no regrets by going staight to f58.. its a nice toy to havebecause the flash head will be closer to be camera...without that feature the flash head is actually slightly left/right when shooting in portrait mode causing the flash to be seen coming from left/right side. if u get what i mean |
|
|
Oct 29 2009, 03:57 PM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
what model ???looks funky
|
|
|
Nov 2 2009, 12:17 PM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(lildaredevil906 @ Nov 2 2009, 11:52 AM) hey guys.. i need some help here =].. wow that's pretty bad uh. i took a look at the histrogram and there arent much details left except "WHITE".....I see you guys do wonders on recovering an over exposed picture.. I have trouble recovering this pictre.. i just download raw therapee and is messing around with this picture for at least 1 hour and i still cannot get the "feel", and i cant seem to get it right.. im reading up on google how to's and i still cannot get it right.. i need some sifu to point me to the right direction below is the jpeg.. » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « i only took one picture of the house.. i should have taken more ... but.. i was thinking.. dont waste space.. >.< cause im shooting raw lol.. so.. tolong skit? here is the raw i tried saving it but it looked pretty awkward ahha...wait for master chew  underexposed can be saved but overexposed is  from my exp la |
|
|
Nov 2 2009, 01:10 PM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(ieR @ Nov 2 2009, 12:39 PM) well, u can always switch the view during display/review on the camera to see the histogram and blowout and pitch black in the photo (they will blink) i forgot what do we call that. but it will tell u if that area is coded as '0 0 0' or '255 255 255' which either pure white or pure black which is, not recoverable. highlight warning? |
|
|
Nov 2 2009, 02:19 PM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(ieR @ Nov 2 2009, 02:03 PM) yesssss... hahaha such simple english word i also forgot,... oh dear,.. old already me...  lol, remember this? if u do then probably u are as old as me and yeah i am feeling old hahaha.. younger kids probably wouldnt have seen this before. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(countdracula @ Nov 2 2009, 02:26 PM)  from old pic or u still keeping it? mcline_007: i believe its normal, my previous 1750 also like that and i prefer it to be tight rathter than lose.. |
|
|
Nov 2 2009, 04:14 PM
Return to original view | Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(mcline_007 @ Nov 2 2009, 03:51 PM) Added on November 2, 2009, 4:03 pmhey guys how fast our lens get fungus? & how to prevent it to get fungus. i now we hav to get dry box if no dry box how then>? |
|
|
Nov 3 2009, 03:31 PM
Return to original view | Post
#9
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
albnok: that's a long name!
|
|
|
Nov 3 2009, 10:39 PM
Return to original view | Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(ieR @ Nov 3 2009, 10:23 PM) 1. A300 and brothers, doesnt has a AF illuminator, they use the pop up as AF assist. the advantage of having a brighter aperture does help before shutter release la..it helps in AF...2. attach ur flash, to use the build in AF illuminator. your tamron Will Not Hunt Anymore. 3. F2.8 advantage is not before shutter release, the advantage is During shuttle release. meaning, with 16105, F5.6, shooting the same subject with natural light, gives u 1/5ss, while the F2.8 give u a decent 1/25ss which prompt to less motionblur. F2.8 is like bumping iso to 1600 on F5.6 with less noise. 4. tammy 1750, well, Practically, its for indoor use. not outdoor with wide ground. even i rate 55200 is better then 16-105 for outdoor street shooting. (my opinion, but many prefer 16105) f/2.8 focuses faster than f/3.5 ....because it allows more light if im not mistaken, ur lens will open at its max aperture (brightest, f/2.8 for 1750 and /f/3.5 for 16105) before the shutter... correct me if im wrong.... This post has been edited by Sp00kY: Nov 3 2009, 10:44 PM |
|
|
Nov 3 2009, 11:59 PM
Return to original view | Post
#11
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
this is what i understand :
"A faster lens (wider max aperture) allows more light into the camera and gives the AF system more light to work with, so a faster lens will allow better AF performance when light levels get low enough to start effecting the AF speed" quoted from someone:) Added on November 3, 2009, 11:59 pman f2.8 lens allows twice the light as an f4, and an f4 allows twice that of an f5.6 This post has been edited by Sp00kY: Nov 3 2009, 11:59 PM |
|
|
Nov 4 2009, 08:37 AM
Return to original view | Post
#12
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(AlphaBeta @ Nov 4 2009, 12:05 AM) Yea..by using Flash AF illuminator..u wont have problem focusing. sp00ky..i believe kysham said tht before. Aperture isnt that importan...even if it hunts, the fast motor will make me feel that it din hunt |
|
|
Nov 4 2009, 11:59 AM
Return to original view | Post
#13
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(albnok @ Nov 4 2009, 11:43 AM) ieR: F2.8 to F5.6 is TWO stops! That means 4x the light. Nice and thanks...someone should put this up into the first page » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 4 2009, 03:07 PM
Return to original view | Post
#14
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
minolta colors!
 |
|
|
Nov 4 2009, 03:17 PM
Return to original view | Post
#15
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(MechaHerc @ Nov 4 2009, 03:15 PM) u need raw plugin for photoshop, or u can use the sony converter 1 (from the Alpha CD) agree, RAW only useful if u do a lot of tweaking, the curent technology is good enuf for me hence i dont really shoot raw unless i use super high ISO and tricky ligting...or super important eventslike i said before, the RAW file IS the original picture that camera take without compression, without data loss, without any image processing done.. more headroom when procssing raw compare to jpeg.. RAW- we can tweak there, tweak here (like we forgot to adjust WB will make the pic more bluish@yellowish) until we satisfied then save to jpeg for further manipulation.. u need to try it 1st for futher understanding..  |
|
|
Nov 4 2009, 03:19 PM
Return to original view | Post
#16
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(achew @ Nov 4 2009, 03:17 PM) the yellow look abit over exposed on my lcd.. i felt that too.(too glaring hha).i realized that the exif: 1/4000 at f/1.7 and ISO 100 since u learn that take raw is a better choice...i believe u shd know raw allows u more room to do post processing...maybe ur question should change to "y i cant edit my raw in photoshop" instead  hhha...i was too in love with f/1.7 lsat time hhehe...nonetheless, the colors are very nice (i find it la)This post has been edited by Sp00kY: Nov 4 2009, 03:25 PM |
|
|
Nov 4 2009, 03:30 PM
Return to original view | Post
#17
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(achew @ Nov 4 2009, 03:25 PM) i had that problem once too..keep shooting in F1.4 then realize shutter limit was at 1/4000..lol prime lens are so poisonous ......when ya getting a 85mm/135mm .... |
|
|
Nov 5 2009, 09:13 PM
Return to original view | Post
#18
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
I want ZEISSSS
|
|
|
Nov 6 2009, 10:32 AM
Return to original view | Post
#19
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
QUOTE(ieR @ Nov 6 2009, 10:15 AM) A550  a550 FTW |
|
|
Nov 9 2009, 03:57 PM
Return to original view | Post
#20
|
|
Senior Member
3,366 posts Joined: Oct 2005
|
noprob: #3 is nice...
#1,#2 look blurry/misty |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: |  0.0217sec
 0.43
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 01:57 AM |
Quote
