millsart wrote:
I've never had any issues at any cemetery, just be mindful of when posted signage says they are open/closed for the day (even if great light doesn't happen until after then) and don't do anything disrespectful like move flowers or a wreath just because you think it hurts the shot and you should be fine.
Most of them are technically privately owned land, so you can't act like your on public property, but I've never encounter any that ever has issue with visiting/taking photos of the monuments (at least for personal use, I'm sure there are limits such as if you try do a portrait shoot or something crazy like that)
I've typically had grounds keepers even mention spots that they think are great for photos or unique headstones etc.
Finally, and this goes without saying, yield to anyone there to pay their respects and just go to a different area. Their saying goodbye trumps any photo
Overall though, its pretty common to see people visiting cemeteries and taking photos, there is nice landscaping, tons of history, and some really cool and unique headstones and monuments, especially in older cemeteries. I don't think there is anything frowned up by society as a whole about taking photos is a respectful manner, so I don't think you should feel uncomfortable in the least.
The whole point of those big old monuments and such was to show off how wealthy and important a person was, a "mine is bigger than yours" type of deal. Taking a photo is really paying them a respect in some ways of looking at it.
After all, you don't spend a ton of money on a 15 foot tall marble obelisks because you didn't want people admiring it.......Show more →
Thank you so much for your very thoughtful response to my question.
I've enjoyed shooting for so many years and have admired the work of those who spend time in beautiful cemeteries and share that with us.
It is time for me to attempt to do the same. Again I appreciate all of your advice and suggestions for helping me feel more comfortable doing something I have desired for a long time
Yes you CAN shoot kids with the A7.
Just three examples with the FE 55 1.8 Wide open, AF-C from today.
Quite good keeper rate actually (reading about the A7:s one could think you would not be able to take shots like this at all). Today i took 65 pictures in these series, with High speed setting. Missed focus in some (following Ted's movements in the swing..) but 42 was sharp and ok. Then i was both handling the camera and pushing the swing so.. Sure it's not random movements (which is harder to track) but still :-)
frezeiss wrote:
Yeah, that has happened to me too while doing some street stuff. I also had experience with the XE-1 which should have higher pixel density but not as prone to shake as the A7s.
Very nice shot BTW.
thanks, it doesn't happen as often with other lenses though. maybe I'm being careless because the lens/camera combo weighs nothing? I don't chimp after taking pictures (maybe I should) with my 5D I just press the shutter and never look back. Now with the A7+FE35 the keeper rate isn't what I want it to be.
Yes you CAN shoot kids with the A7.
Just three examples with the FE 55 1.8 Wide open, AF-C from today.
Quite good keeper rate actually (reading about the A7:s one could think you would not be able to take shots like this at all). Today i took 65 pictures in these series, with High speed setting. Missed focus in some (following Ted's movements in the swing..) but 42 was sharp and ok. Then i was both handling the camera and pushing the swing so.. Sure it's not random movements (which is harder to track) but still :-)
frezeiss wrote:
Sebboh, I was curious, why did you bought the 75 summarit? Is it for drawing style or you just prefer 75 as a focal length..
i haven't bought it yet, just borrowing it to decide whether i should get one for myself.
i do prefer the 75mm focal length to the 85-100mm range, the size of the summarit is perfect, and i've always been very impressed by the rendering i've seen from it (more so than what i've seen from the cron AA). the question is do i prefer it enough to justify the premium compared to the relatively sparse competition at the focal length. so far my conclusion is that it produces beautiful images and is very versatile, but that i would actually prefer a bit more funkiness and glow at full aperture for this focal length. i'm curious about the cv 75/1.8 now and would love a lux...
sebboh wrote:
i haven't bought it yet, just borrowing it to decide whether i should get one for myself.
i do prefer the 75mm focal length to the 85-100mm range, the size of the summarit is perfect, and i've always been very impressed by the rendering i've seen from it (more so than what i've seen from the cron AA). the question is do i prefer it enough to justify the premium compared to the relatively sparse competition at the focal length. so far my conclusion is that it produces beautiful images and is very versatile, but that i would actually prefer a bit more funkiness and glow at full aperture for this focal length. i'm curious about the cv 75/1.8 now and would love a lux...
...Show more →
The Lux seems to be a gorgeous lens with absolutely beatiful bok at f/1.4 BUT it costs 2.000€ or more and it is rather heavy.
I remember that Denoir (too bad that he is rarely seen here, he was my biggest inspriation when I first came here) didn't like the Cron AA because it was too perfect, but I actually liked his images with it quite a bit. Totally different drawing from the Lux, but intriguing none the less.
I like the looks of the 75 Summarit shots I've seen (though I haven't seen many - some from Matt Driscoll over at GetDPI and then yours here).
Don't forget that (from what I've heard) the 80 Lux R is essentially the same as the 75 Lux M, and usually cheaper.
Phillip I also agree that the 75/90 Cron renderings are pretty nice, not at all clinical. At least the 90 - I think it has some fairly funky bokeh. The 75 might be sharper?
As a young guy I worked for a few weeks in one of these factory halls. A company named Stork used to produce ship engines in here. Now it looks like playground.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The Lux seems to be a gorgeous lens with absolutely beatiful bok at f/1.4 BUT it costs 2.000€ or more and it is rather heavy.
I remember that Denoir (too bad that he is rarely seen here, he was my biggest inspriation when I first came here) didn't like the Cron AA because it was too perfect, but I actually liked his images with it quite a bit. Totally different drawing from the Lux, but intriguing none the less.
The 75 Cron AA is somewhat sterile, but the 90 Cron AA is wonderful.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The Lux seems to be a gorgeous lens with absolutely beatiful bok at f/1.4 BUT it costs 2.000€ or more and it is rather heavy.
I remember that Denoir (too bad that he is rarely seen here, he was my biggest inspriation when I first came here) didn't like the Cron AA because it was too perfect, but I actually liked his images with it quite a bit. Totally different drawing from the Lux, but intriguing none the less.
yeah, a lot of my opinions about m lenses is based on luka's shots since he was so prolific and would often shoot the same things with many different lenses on both his m9 and canon making comparisons easy. i may have picked up my bias against the 75 cron partially because of his own. i think you tend to prefer less funky bokeh to me in general too and probably luka.
carstenw wrote:
The 75 Cron AA is somewhat sterile, but the 90 Cron AA is wonderful.
the 90 cron AA is great, except it has truly horrendous bokeh at mid distance unless the background is very distant and low contrast.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
I like the looks of the 75 Summarit shots I've seen (though I haven't seen many - some from Matt Driscoll over at GetDPI and then yours here).
Don't forget that (from what I've heard) the 80 Lux R is essentially the same as the 75 Lux M, and usually cheaper.
Phillip I also agree that the 75/90 Cron renderings are pretty nice, not at all clinical. At least the 90 - I think it has some fairly funky bokeh. The 75 might be sharper?
it seems like recently the 80 lux has risen to nearly the same price, plus isn't it a fair bit fatter body (i've never looked at a direct comparison)?
I think the 80 is essentially a minor tweak on the 75 optically, though I don't know the real effective differences. Same max magnification (1:8), so there's no "you get closer focus on the SLR lens" effect here either.
80 uses E67 filters, 75 uses E60. So another win for the 75 there probably.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
I think the 80 is essentially a minor tweak on the 75 optically...
Summilux-R 80 is a large, heavy lens so perhaps 75mm M version may be a better match for Sony a7/R.
However, Lux-r 80 seems to still compare well. Scroll down mid page to The 80mm Noctilux...
