Photoshopping smiles on holiday family portraits IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE?!?
Hahaha.
I actually like the one where he's frowning too. I have quite a few family portraits from when I was a kid and I look totally miserable - I see them now and they're hilarious. Now that my kid is 5,he's in a "no pictures!!“ phase and will turn his back to me or start moving around really fast as soon as he sees the camera. It's become a sport to try to get any pictures of him, a family portrait is out of the question.
This is a really great photo (both versions) - love the sweater!! Kit Laughlin wrote:
A second images, taken a second later!
I did not see the original image, so I don't know who was not smiling. I'm guessing it was Fred. I find when I am in an image after handing the camera off to someone or using a remote it is hard to move my attention to a smile as opposed to thinking about the camera.
I echo smpetty, this site is a wonder. Thanks Fred.
First day out and about with the Sigma 45 on A7II and I like it. As others have said, feels great on the camera and performs well. I'll wait until I get it on the A7III to really test it.
Very nice family photo, Fred! I’m thinking it’s finally time to break down and pick this one up. I have way too many lenses around this FL, but something small with AF and good rendering is desirable to me. I may part with my 50ZA, which is great but quite large for this use case. The CV 40 and CV 50 APO are staying, of course
I do find the AF-C on my Sigma 85DN just a notch behind what I’ve seen with the Sony 85/1.8, but it hasn’t stopped me from getting some pretty tack sharp shots even of my constantly moving kids even at f/1.4.
First impressions. I could see a tiny bit of de-centering in my test wide open at 100 meters, but at 3 meters at F4 I could not see the same, so think it's fine.
It does not, contrary to what I thought I read on here, arrive into lightroom with the profile automatically applied. (normally I like leaving the profile correction switched off as I find the vignette correction too high, or that a slight darkening of the corners helps nearly all of my pictures.)
What I did notice, is with the correction turned off and photographing a large rectangular window, it has huge distortion, not quite as bad as my 28mm sony, but easily the next worse of my lens to that one.
The way it attached to my a7r3 felt too tight and nowhere near as smooth as my Batis or native Sony lenses.
It is beautiful to hold in the hand, the form factor, focus ring, and aperture ring are as advertised. I'm attaching some quick comparisons with the Batis 40. On the first cactus picture, close up, the Batis smokes it in terms of sharpness, while the Sigma obviously is smoother in the out of focus areas.
This was handheld on autofocus using AF-S - not very scientific I realize.
I brought it inside and photographed a pin taped to the wall using a tripod, manual focus, and 5 second shutter delay. The pin was near the center of the frame at F5. The sigma appears sharper, tho this may be extra focal length. Also worth noting that the color between the 2 lenses is fairly different, I had to subtly adjust in LR to match.
Irving wrote:
Just received my copy from Adorama today.
First impressions. I could see a tiny bit of de-centering in my test wide open at 100 meters, but at 3 meters at F4 I could not see the same, so think it's fine.
It does not, contrary to what I though I read on here, arrive into lightroom, with the profile automatically applied. (normally I like leaving the profile correction switched off as I find the vignette correction too high, or that a slight darkening of the corners helps nearly all of my pictures.
What I did notice, is with the correction turned off and photographing a large rectangular window, it has huge distortion, not quite as bad as my 28mm sony, but easily the next worse of my lens to that one.
The way it attached to my a7r3 felt too tight and nowhere near as smooth as my Batis or native Sony lenses.
It is beautiful to hold in the hand, the form factor, focus ring, and aperture ring are as advertised. I'm attaching some quick comparisons with the Batis 40. On the first cactus picture, close up, the Batis smokes it in terms of sharpness, while the Sigma obviously is smoother in the out of focus areas.
This was handheld on autofocus using AF-S - not very scientific I realize.
I brought it inside and photographed a pin taped to the wall using a tripod, manual focus, and 5 second shutter delay. The pin was near the center of the frame at F5. The sigma appears sharper, tho this may be extra focal length. Also worth noting that the color between the 2 lenses is fairly different, I had to subtly adjust in LR to match.
Nice comparison! I think Sigma sharpens up considerably once you step away a bit (close-up it simply "glows").
However, I think these two lenses are comparable only on paper (similar focal length, CF capability, not that far off aperture). Batis is clearly focused on resolution across the frame, contrast, correction and close-up performance (at the cost of light). Sigma has a unique look going for it. Both have their share of AF issues, though different...
I guess when stopped down they become closer in performance, but to me many lenses then do .
I am not saying anything new, but it surprises me people see these two lenses as rivals.
j4nu wrote:
but it surprises me people see these two lenses as rivals.
Nature of the beast ... always trying to prove theirs is "better", rather than embracing the concept of "different".
Optics is such an exercise in compromises. Make it sharper, bokeh suffers. Make better bokeh, sharpness suffers. Make it focus closer with a wider aperture and contrast suffers. Do everything perfectly well, your back and wallet suffers.
)
