Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Photography The Sony Alpha Thread V34!, The Orange Legion

views
     
Sp00kY
post Nov 23 2009, 04:56 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(Kul | Mo0 @ Nov 23 2009, 03:01 PM)
I nvr complain or anything. But the 1116 is really nice wei. How you la now?
*
mind sharing what is nice in that lens?
f/2.8? range? built? IQ? AF speed or?
just wana know coz i havent tried that lens
Sp00kY
post Dec 5 2009, 11:01 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(gizmo_pony @ Dec 5 2009, 10:54 AM)
Q : quick question, is there any extra advantages by using lens with optical stabilization built-in in addition to alpha in-body SSS ? thanks in advance.
*
i dun think there are any lens with OS (Sigma)/VC (tamron) for sony mount..
Sp00kY
post Dec 5 2009, 12:40 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
what moo is trying to say is that the older sigma lenses for sony were without OS (even if there is OS for other mounts).

from dpreview, it says that
"For Sony and Pentax mount, the built-in OS function of this lens can be used even if the camera body is equipped with an anti-shake function. As the compensation for camera shake is visible in the view finder, the photographer can easily check for accurate focus and ensure there is no subject movement"

Something new for sony then....u can now feel the OS in the VF!
Sp00kY
post Dec 8 2009, 12:41 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
the high key feel is certainly there...put in some blurriness perhaps? hehe increase the high key to super high?
Sp00kY
post Dec 9 2009, 09:09 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(Braynumb @ Dec 9 2009, 09:02 AM)
Wahhhh... manyak duit wooo...

anyways,

Morning Pic Sepam!

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


C&C is most Appreciated!
*
among all, i prefer the compo of #2. i think it would be better if u shoot only the side of the face or include more of the front. get what i mean?

#3 harsh lighting and the tree looks weird over there.

#6, try a tighter crop or stand further away...make the subject smaller..?

why do the pics look hazy? lack of the sharpness and oomph....

just my 2 cents
Sp00kY
post Dec 10 2009, 11:58 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(destfull @ Dec 10 2009, 05:00 AM)
http://bit.ly/8fnHt6 - Yeay! A review of Sony a550 DSLR at last! Now, D90 or a550?
*
pretty weird why they only give "recommended"...i think it deserve highly recommended instead...yes?no?
Sp00kY
post Dec 14 2009, 08:43 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(hokc77 @ Dec 13 2009, 07:18 PM)
ieR: thanks.

some bike shot from this morning @ Sepang

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
nice panning again from hokc!
Sp00kY
post Dec 14 2009, 09:54 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(shootkk @ Dec 14 2009, 09:39 AM)
In this kind of scenario, you would need an external flash. If you want to get a balanced picture without doing extensive PP, here's what you can do:

1. Have an external flash ready.
2. Meter the background to get a proper exposure and lock the exposure on the background.

Step no. 2 will guarantee you that your subject and/or foreground will be UNDEREXPOSED
. So to bring it up:

3. Use your flash in manual mode and dial in the setting so that the subject will be properly exposed. The background will not blow out coz you've metered it correctly.

It may be time consuming to set/reset the flash power output so in a hectic shoot, it may not be practical. I haven't tried TTL in this kind of scenario so I don't know if it will give the correct flash output.

Else you can find a different angle where the background is not so bright.

Hope that helps.
*
I am just curious, why would step 2 cause a underexposed pic? Couldnt understand it....because if flash is set at TTL, shouldnt it be properly exposed? Unless the TTL isnt that accurate...please enlighten me

may i know what setting are u referring?
Thanks
Sp00kY
post Dec 14 2009, 10:25 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(Uzumaki NaruTo @ Dec 14 2009, 09:59 AM)
is it because he meters the background? If meter the background correctly (no overexpose) Then the foreground will be somewhat darker than the background right?
*
phew, i tot with flash also it will underexposed....

QUOTE(shootkk @ Dec 14 2009, 10:08 AM)
Exactly! You are metering for a bright background. So if the background is exposed properly, then the foreground which is in some shade or is less bright will be underexposed. Thus you need to bring it up using your flash. Like I said, I have not tried using the flash in TTL when I am metering not on the subject but the background. You guys could try it out and see what the result is.
*
flash in TTL should work but i always set my Flash EV to -1.0 or more for such situation...


mcline_007: should be f/2.8 isit?
Sp00kY
post Dec 14 2009, 12:05 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(lwliam @ Dec 14 2009, 11:29 AM)
your camera's sensor does not have a wide enough dynamic range to cover these areas for bright and dark. normally, for that type of pics, its alright as long your subject is properly exposed, then the b/g doesnt really matter that much..

unless you're speaking in technical terms, then yes, only a flash can remedy it.
*
for most of my shots, i prefer foreground and background to be properly exposed...unless i am doing creative shots la smile.gif

QUOTE(ieR @ Dec 14 2009, 11:36 AM)
spooky: time for A850 with high dro feature. lol
*
erh, im not asking for DRO la hehe, just curious on shootkk post wink.gif..


Added on December 14, 2009, 12:11 pma850 DR 12.2/15 in DxO
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor
a900 higher with 12.3:)

This post has been edited by Sp00kY: Dec 14 2009, 12:11 PM
Sp00kY
post Dec 14 2009, 01:31 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(albnok @ Dec 14 2009, 12:37 PM)

ieR: The SB-800 and SB-900 have modelling light buttons on the flash (which is pretty much like our Test button.) There are previous models with it too but I don't remember which.
*
the modelling light is pretty 'extra'-- if u get what i mean
Sp00kY
post Dec 17 2009, 08:18 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(albnok @ Dec 17 2009, 03:19 AM)
hkhk: Some lenses change focus distance when you change focal length - they are called vari-focal lenses. However I find the Sony 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 DT to maintain focus - in fact, if you zoomed to 70mm and focused, then turned to 18mm, the focus would just be much, much sharper.
*
this is interesting rclxms.gif
from tech/spec sheet, how can we tell that a lens is varifocal or parfocal(if im correct)?


Sp00kY
post Dec 23 2009, 04:01 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(5564321 @ Dec 23 2009, 03:29 PM)
UWA 11-18 or G 70300?
*
diff thing la
Sp00kY
post Dec 24 2009, 04:21 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,366 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(e-jump @ Dec 24 2009, 12:21 PM)
hi thar wave.gif
So I was at comic fiesta, and i feel my Tamron 17-50 F2.8 on a300
- not that fast under low light
- the bokeh isolation of cosplayers to the busy background not ummph enough

So im thinking primes (never had one) either one below (under 2K)
-Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM = RM17XX (Local Warranty)
-Sigma 24mm F1.8 EX DG =RM14XX (Local Warranty)
-28mm F1.8 EX DG Asp =RM11XX (Local Warranty)
- you suggest

*im stinking something that not exceeds 50mm in actual film equivalent
which one do you think best bang for the bucks?
im open to suggestions as well smile.gif
*
go for sigma 20mm f/1.8

QUOTE(albnok @ Dec 24 2009, 01:14 PM)
If you're thinking of full-body shots at close range, under 1 meter, the 20mm F1.8 would be your best bet. It's the closest you can get to 17mm anyway!
*
yeah...i second that

Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0444sec    0.48    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 3rd December 2025 - 07:55 AM