Okay a little off topic but a good learning sample and something you really need to pay attention too when working with stage lighting in todays new world. I knew this was happening the whole time. Sometimes I was not shooting the screen and can get away with it and sometimes i switched to mechnical shutter with anti flicker to correct the banding in the screens. This is coming from LEDs in the lamp fixtures. Another are is all those RED uprights are all LED lighting. I can see banding even in the white walls of the stage. Its not so bad you can get away with it but using electronic shutter is causing all of this with the banding. From memory I THINK the A9 handles this better, maybe another reason i want a A9 in hand again as I remember shooting a whole runway show in electronic shutter and this did not show .
But watch the big screens here the first image is polluted with banding that was shot with electronic shutter the second image I was on mechnical shutter and notice no banding on the screen.
Okay im in a big conference and using electronic shutter keeps me quiet and if its only one person speaking , trust me you can here the shutter but sometimes you just have to use it
So first shot is with electronic shutter
Second shot is with mechnical and anti flicker on
vdo1 wrote:
they’re focused slightly differently I think....
Keep in mind that one lens is sharper than the other and the difference is noticeable at 1:1.
I used MF for both lenses to make sure focus was accurate. (best of 3)
What I see is that in the first 1:1 details shot, the metal ring seems sharper than in the second shot. However, the white spot (bird droppings) in the bottom left corner is sharper in the second shot. Which makes me think that in the second shot the focus point was slightly closer to the camera.
Coming back to the full shots, the bokeh in the first one looks a little more detailed and aggressive, while the second one looks blotchy, in this particular case I prefer the more aggressive one as I dislike blotchy even more.
GMPhotography wrote:
Okay a little off topic but a good learning sample and something you really need to pay attention too when working with stage lighting in todays new world. I knew this was happening the whole time. Sometimes I was not shooting the screen and can get away with it and sometimes i switched to mechnical shutter with anti flicker to correct the banding in the screens. This is coming from LEDs in the lamp fixtures. Another are is all those RED uprights are all LED lighting. I can see banding even in the white walls of the stage. Its not so bad you can get away with it but using electronic shutter is causing all of this with the banding. From memory I THINK the A9 handles this better, maybe another reason i want a A9 in hand again as I remember shooting a whole runway show in electronic shutter and this did not show .
But watch the big screens here the first image is polluted with banding that was shot with electronic shutter the second image I was on mechnical shutter and notice no banding on the screen.
Okay im in a big conference and using electronic shutter keeps me quiet and if its only one person speaking , trust me you can here the shutter but sometimes you just have to use it
So first shot is with electronic shutter
Second shot is with mechnical and anti flicker on
Like to confirm the A9 about this subject matter...Show more →
Aesthetically speaking I prefer the one with the stripes, it makes the screen more interesting.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 50/1.4 ZA is way sharper in the center compared to both Otus 55 and Sigma 40...However, it does not fare as well across the field compared to them.
It is indeed sharper in the very center but it dramatically drops after that as you mentioned which to me, as I use the 40mm as an environmental portrait lens, being sharper away from the center matters a lot more since that is where I will normally place my subject when using it. Also nice to know I can do a family shoot or group shot and my subjects can still have tons of detail not matter where I place them.
Sorry to get this derailed about the 40mm..
OK, so I take back what I said earlier about keeping the Sigma over the the Sony. I have shot thousands and edited hundreds of photos of this orchestra at this venue with the A9 and the Sigma 135. I just got back from using the Sony for one of their concerts and my initial impressions while shooting, reviewing in camera, and editing a few is that the Sony is better. More consistent focus, sharper, and the colours from RAW using just auto WB are just right. I only did minimal tweaking compared to what I needed to do with the Sigma. Reminds me of when I started using the Sony 50 f1.4 - the colours were just RIGHT - super easy to edit.
I'll have to sleep on it, but my gut is now telling me to keep the Sony. Big time.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
It is indeed sharper in the very center but it dramatically drops after that as you mentioned which to me, as I use the 40mm as an environmental portrait lens, being sharper away from the center matters a lot more since that is where I will normally place my subject when using it. Also nice to know I can do a family shoot or group shot and my subjects can still have tons of detail not matter where I place them.
Sorry to get this derailed about the 40mm..
I agree with that and also prefer lenses with more consistant center and mid-field. It's the only flaw I find in the 50/1.4 ZA.
How does the Sigma 40/1.4 renders?
Did you replace your 85/1.4 GM for the Samyang?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree with that and also prefer lenses with more consistant center and mid-field. It's the only flaw I find in the 50/1.4 ZA.
How does the Sigma 40/1.4 renders?
Did you replace your 85/1.4 GM for the Samyang?
So far I really like the Sigma but tomorrow I am doing the first formal outdoor shoot with it.
I actually did not replace the GM with the Sigma because for my taste the bokeh was too nervous plus I had issues with close up focusing shots. But out of nowhere came the Sigma Art from a local seller! I met him thinking I was going to take a few sample shots for my video review and that was it. I was so impressed by the rendering and the insane sharpness across the frame wide open that I called him back and bought it from him. A big and surprising plus was that the Sigma bokeh is actually very good! In some areas even better than GM while in others the GM wins. Accuracy of Eye AF is also fantastic at all distances. Sure is huge but you know me..., I love those big lenses
So in the end, I replaced the GM with the Sigma Art. So now I got 3 Art lenses although the 135mm will likely be replaced with the GM at some point. With the recent firmware updates it is so accurate with Eye AF that I no longer feel the same urgency to replace it as I had earlier.
oddjobprime wrote:
OK, so I take back what I said earlier about keeping the Sigma over the the Sony. I have shot thousands and edited hundreds of photos of this orchestra at this venue with the A9 and the Sigma 135. I just got back from using the Sony for one of their concerts and my initial impressions while shooting, reviewing in camera, and editing a few is that the Sony is better. More consistent focus, sharper, and the colours from RAW using just auto WB are just right. I only did minimal tweaking compared to what I needed to do with the Sigma. Reminds me of when I started using the Sony 50 f1.4 - the colours were just RIGHT - super easy to edit.
I'll have to sleep on it, but my gut is now telling me to keep the Sony. Big time.
After like the images above from that job . It was a extremely easy decision to go with the Sony all the way. For that kind of work with lower light and the actually need for 1.8 than in my mind nothing is better and I seriously would have paid double to get it. More like 2600 I would consider fair for ME. I need this type of lens
Took mine out today up Mt. Wilson. Wow is pretty much the result every time. Makes driving twice as fun up the mountain knowing I’ve got a special piece of glass to use when I get to the top!
You’ll be happy to know that it actually costs $2600 in Canada, lol. So you’re literally right on the money!
GMPhotography wrote:
After like the images above from that job . It was a extremely easy decision to go with the Sony all the way. For that kind of work with lower light and the actually need for 1.8 than in my mind nothing is better and I seriously would have paid double to get it. More like 2600 I would consider fair for ME. I need this type of lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
Keep in mind that one lens is sharper than the other and the difference is noticeable at 1:1.
I used MF for both lenses to make sure focus was accurate. (best of 3)
This is the very first lens I’ve ever bought brand new and paid full price for. I’m not regretting the purchase at all. Can’t wait to try it out in a low light environment. Shawn @oddjobprime, those orchestra images are real sweet!
Here’s a wed open portrait straight out of the A9.
