The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread

[jonneymendoza]

Far too much movement blur on the cars, they should be sharper and more in focus. You can see many examples if you google image search https://www.google.ch/search?q=form...gbzcAhWliaYKHdovC3QQ_AUICygC&biw=1536&bih=758

PS: Black text and a tiny font makes your post hard to read, please do a little basic formatting when copying and pasting from other places.

This ain't sharp and has more blur then my ones https://www.google.ch/search?q=form...r&pli=1#gfe_rd=mr&imgrc=pK_0-_bpPKibFM:&pli=1 yet I like the look of it! Was trying to emulate that

 

[Richdog]

This ain't sharp and has more blur then my ones https://www.google.ch/search?q=form...r&pli=1#gfe_rd=mr&imgrc=pK_0-_bpPKibFM:&pli=1 yet I like the look of it! Was trying to emulate that

Maybe better to say that in your initial post then if you were trying for a specific look that is not in line with 99% of race car panning.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Maybe better to say that in your initial post then if you were trying for a specific look that is not in line with 99% of race car panning.

Yea true thanks! i am trying to be different a bit!

this is more in line of how many people pan

marseille-f1-2019-pt2-a9-699.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

 

[The_Abyss]

That's focussed on the rear wheel for some reason...

I didn't think many of your shots were in focus tbh. I've tried to do what you have, without a tripod or monopod, and it is bloody difficult.

 

[Minstadave]

I actually really like the last 2 photos in you initial batch, it gives a real sense of speed. Particularly the wet one.

 

[jonneymendoza]

That's focussed on the rear wheel for some reason...

I didn't think many of your shots were in focus tbh. I've tried to do what you have, without a tripod or monopod, and it is bloody difficult.

maybe an issue on my camera? DOF should be high as i shot at low shutter so plenty of room for focus.

 

[Richdog]

maybe an issue on my camera? DOF should be high as i shot at low shutter so plenty of room for focus.

I think the shots not in focus is simply a case of the shutter speed being too low in combination with your panning not being steady enough (not a criticism, just an explanation).

 

[jonneymendoza]

I think the shots not in focus is simply a case of the shutter speed being too low in combination with your panning not being steady enough (not a criticism, just an explanation).

ahh ok cool. i did them without a tripod or monopod

 

[Combat Fighter]

I thought I had cataracts looking at them f1 pics.

My iphone could have done a better job!

 

[aimless]

great pics

 

[jonneymendoza]

thanks

 

[Spleen Sauce]

Anyone have the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

 

[Greebo]

Anyone have the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

Got one. Love it. It may not quite have the sensional sharpness of the the f2.8 but it’s still incredible sharp and you would only see the difference by pixel peeping and it’s light and not too big plus has the added advantage that it will take screw in filters and costs half the money.

So unless you pixel peep really closely or they is a very good reason to need f2.8, the f4 ticks all the boxes. The 16-35 and the 100-400 are my two most used lenses atm.

 

[Richdog]

it’s light and not too big plus has the added advantage that it will take screw in filters and costs half the money.

Cost is the only real advantage the f4 has. The f2.8 is only 160g heavier and does take 82mm screw filters. But yes, it is almost double the cost.

 

[Greebo]

Cost is the only real advantage the f4 has. The f2.8 is only 160g heavier and does take 82mm screw filters. But yes, it is almost double the cost.

Oops my mistake. Had forgotten when making my mind up between them the f2.8 does have filter threads. The f2.8 is physically much much larger as well and I take on board the 160g doesn5 seem like much but starts to all add up if you have several lens.

But for me personally I didn’t need the f2.8 and at double the cost the very slight extra sharpness just wasn’t worth it for double the cost. For roughly the same money I got the f4 and the 90mm macro so two lens.

 

[tatts]

I have the 16-35 F4 but to be honest its very rare I use it. I bought it as it was one of the lenses I was told is a 'must have' along with the 55mm, I've used my 55mm twice and the 16-35 about 4 times

 

[Raymond Lin]

I have the 16-35 F4 but to be honest its very rare I use it. I bought it as it was one of the lenses I was told is a 'must have' along with the 55mm, I've used my 55mm twice and the 16-35 about 4 times

Sounds like a case of using the camera, not just the lens.

 

[Spleen Sauce]

Thanks for the feedback on the 16-35 f4. Got mine coming in about a week or so, looking forward to using it (and taking it to Bali and Singapore next month where it should get some real use).

Next question - filters. Is the LEE filter system worth investing in? Or is there a cheaper system that is a good price/performance compromise (but still with solid results)? I’ve got away with most of my landscape images just with the camera and some editing, but I want to step it up now.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Some Peak District shots using the 24-70 GM and a7r3

PeakDistrict-160.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

PeakDistrict-84.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

PeakDistrict-143.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

PeakDistrict-97.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

 

[tatts]

How are you finding the 24-70 GM?
I'm currently awaiting a response from sony, any thing over 60mm it's so soft it looks like it has missed focus. Had I bought it online I could just return it has I've only had it 7 days but I bought mine from a local store to support the local smaller businesses Just hope it doesn't leave me with a crap copy.