Still playing with my 400 DO II with my A7RIV. I need to retest some of my other Canon glass since the repair of my camera. The degree you can crop with this thing is just amazing.
Kathy White wrote:
Still playing with my 400 DO II with my A7RIV. I need to retest some of my other Canon glass since the repair of my camera. The degree you can crop with this thing is just amazing.
Details color bokeh all 10 star on this n.Card.
I glanced out the window yesterday afternoon and saw 6 males in one tree and 2 on the ground. Snow covered branches but light abysmal.
I am really intrigued by the 200-600mm and A7R IV combo. You guys seem to be getting some cracking shots with it. I might have to check it out. In the mean time, I am loving the 35mm 1.2 Art and 85mm GM. Tamron's 28-75mm is well, uninspiring. There is nothing wrong with it but it is not exciting in the way other two are! I have been leaving it at home and taking the 35mm and 85mm with me. Maybe I should try the Sigma's new 24-70mm.
May I ask questions on an "image thread"? Not sure about the etiquette here:
1. Edit speed impact of 60+mp image size? I have a maxed out 13" MacBook Pro that edits 24mp and 36mp images plenty fast enough in PS or C1. Considering a new 16" MacBook Pro but not eager to spend on it ...
2. Are the skin tones better on A7R4 vs prior models? I shoot raw. I'm running A73 right now and skin tones seem nice much of the time, but often need color correction d/t excess green/yellow. (Still using Nikon D810/D750 mostly in studio.)
3. Image quality overall rendering A7R4 vs the A7R3? I realize there are endless other reasons to go with the A7R4 such as better autofocus and better grip, just trying to understand the IQ implications.
My first landscape shot with it. and my first landscape shot in a long while. from tonight.
canon 16-35 f4LIS, 75 sec exposre, f11, iso 200 10 stop ND filter,
May I ask questions on an "image thread"? Not sure about the etiquette here:
1. Edit speed impact of 60+mp image size? I have a maxed out 13" MacBook Pro that edits 24mp and 36mp images plenty fast enough in PS or C1. Considering a new 16" MacBook Pro but not eager to spend on it ...
2. Are the skin tones better on A7R4 vs prior models? I shoot raw. I'm running A73 right now and skin tones seem nice much of the time, but often need color correction d/t excess green/yellow. (Still using Nikon D810/D750 mostly in studio.)
3. Image quality overall rendering A7R4 vs the A7R3? I realize there are endless other reasons to go with the A7R4 such as better autofocus and better grip, just trying to understand the IQ implications.
I came from A7RII and A7RIII, the edit speed for the Iv is slower but not by much, at least from what I could tell.
No comment on skin tones as I don't usually photograph people
Your 3rd question is difficult to answer, maybe the rendering thingy is more lens related? I remember some mentioned that the images from the IV have more 3-D look to them, but I think it's hard to quantify unless you do at controlled test.
One of the best things about the IV is the ability to crop big time and still get a decent image. This may not matter to most but for folks shooting birds it can come in handy.
May I ask questions on an "image thread"? Not sure about the etiquette here:
1. Edit speed impact of 60+mp image size? I have a maxed out 13" MacBook Pro that edits 24mp and 36mp images plenty fast enough in PS or C1. Considering a new 16" MacBook Pro but not eager to spend on it ...
2. Are the skin tones better on A7R4 vs prior models? I shoot raw. I'm running A73 right now and skin tones seem nice much of the time, but often need color correction d/t excess green/yellow. (Still using Nikon D810/D750 mostly in studio.)
3. Image quality overall rendering A7R4 vs the A7R3? I realize there are endless other reasons to go with the A7R4 such as better autofocus and better grip, just trying to understand the IQ implications.
Questions 2 and 3 are subjective, so it's best if you download sample files yourself and see if the rendering is acceptable to you. Downloading sample files yourself will also answer question 1 for your current computer.
You can download sample files from below to start off with.
I came from Nikon world as well and I would say skin tones...well Sony colour science is a different beast and one has to develop one's own post-processing method to arrive at skin tones that one likes.
As far as #1 is concerned, well MBP 16 will be great at handling the files but will only last an hour on battery while doing it. I invested heavily into the MBP 16 thinking I can get some editing done on the go (let's say do some batch edits with minor WB and Exposure etc adjustments) but Adobe run that i9 9980H hard and hot. MBP 13 would of course fare better at battery life but you will loose performance. For me the ideal work flow now involves iMac at home to do heavy post processing and using a more portable solution in form of an iPad to back up photos and if the need be to make minor adjustments in Photoshop/LR Mobile.
In terms of image quality, A7R IV produces obscenely good images, so much so that I do not really know what to do with it I would have been perfectly happy with A7R III provided that it had IV's ergonomics and viewfinder. Having said that, based on my limited experience; I cannot imagine there being a massive difference in the image quality between two sensors for most types of photography unless you have a specific user-case involving highest possible dynamic range and ability to print at truly gargantuan sizes.
Anyone use the a7Riv+100400GM ??
I might have an opportunity to use this combo my next week off.
So far I've only used the 200600.
What to expect for BIF?
Can I use the 1.4TC with the 100400?
Just curious. I'll find out on my own if the mini-trip pans out.
If you all say it's great I'm going to leave the a9+200600 at home
and 'force' an A7Riv bonding
kdrk888 wrote:
I came from A7RII and A7RIII, the edit speed for the Iv is slower but not by much, at least from what I could tell.
No comment on skin tones as I don't usually photograph people
Your 3rd question is difficult to answer, maybe the rendering thingy is more lens related? I remember some mentioned that the images from the IV have more 3-D look to them, but I think it's hard to quantify unless you do at controlled test.
One of the best things about the IV is the ability to crop big time and still get a decent image. This may not matter to most but for folks shooting birds it can come in handy.
kdrk888 wrote:
I came from A7RII and A7RIII, the edit speed for the Iv is slower but not by much, at least from what I could tell.
No comment on skin tones as I don't usually photograph people
Your 3rd question is difficult to answer, maybe the rendering thingy is more lens related? I remember some mentioned that the images from the IV have more 3-D look to them, but I think it's hard to quantify unless you do at controlled test.
One of the best things about the IV is the ability to crop big time and still get a decent image. This may not matter to most but for folks shooting birds it can come in handy.
