Jman13 wrote:
Just a note - if you have your pictures hosted anywhere else, you can embed them here without the paid account. I have the account because I sell stuff here, but all my photos are links to my website.
Ok thanks for the tip! OT: You the same guy I see on GolfWRX?
TeamSpeed wrote:
Great shots! I personally don't think these aren't that challenging for a DSLR. In all cases, a single spot AF point landed on the couple's faces would have worked very well. It is nicer with eye af though for compositional reasons in a shoot like that though.
The centerpoint on my 6D was pretty great, but the outer af points could not be trusted so much (especially wide-open). When I first tested the RF system, I did a "shoot" with my 6D and the RP, and almost every shot from the RP was nice and sharp while many of my favorites from the 6D were... less so. I was instantly sold on it and got the R soon after.
The 5D4 does very well with off center AF points though, as do a few other models. Not sure about the extreme outer ones though, but I wouldn't really stray off the center by more than 2 points on the 5D4 or 7D2.
The eye AF allows you to no longer worry about focus and recompose, or shooting more loosely and cropping for composition later. To me this is almost a bigger deal with eye AF/mirrorless than some of the other aspects of mirrorless/AF systems, I can frame and compose now without regard of setting AF points, as it will follow the eyes for me. This is a great boon to digital photography IMO.
When I owned my 6D then tried a M3 I was already sold on how much better the AF was in Mirrorless which is why I sold the 6D2 so quickly after owning it as I knew DSLR’s and their AF just wasn’t for me.
To me being able to focus anywhere on the frame and not having to do AFMA are enough reason for any DSLR user to switch.
TeamSpeed wrote:
I bought a Sigma 135 from someone at a great price with the intent of using just once and then selling for a profit. However just like what happened years ago with the 85L, I fell in love with the IQ of that lens, and it has been in my bag ever since.
Yea I bought the lens at launch for an amazing price (perks of having a mate that works at a camera store haha) after falling in love straight away with the IQ testing the lens. So well corrected and still has such nice rendering; I use the lens for astrophotography too. If I were to ever sell this lens it'd be to replace it with the Sigma 105 1.4 which is phenomenal as well.
Nice to see satisfied folks using an R6 after switching from Sony A7III or A7RIV. I'm a hybrid shooter and it seems like Sony is outpacing everyone with video, but the photo quality here is great!
bballfreak6 wrote:
Yea I bought the lens at launch for an amazing price (perks of having a mate that works at a camera store haha) after falling in love straight away with the IQ testing the lens. So well corrected and still has such nice rendering; I use the lens for astrophotography too. If I were to ever sell this lens it'd be to replace it with the Sigma 105 1.4 which is phenomenal as well.
I was trying to get my hands on one before I "cheaped out" for a Canon 135L. They are so affordable now and the AF and IQ is exceptional for the price. My only qualm with the Canon is that there is pretty harsh purple/pink fringing with strong backlighting.
amacal1 wrote:
I was trying to get my hands on one before I "cheaped out" for a Canon 135L. They are so affordable now and the AF and IQ is exceptional for the price. My only qualm with the Canon is that there is pretty harsh purple/pink fringing with strong backlighting.
If my memory is correct at launch here in Australia the Sigma was priced about the same as the Canon (the Canon might've even been a touch more expensive) so after the "family and friends" discount my mate gave me the Sigma was a no brainer haha.
In saying that the 135L is still a great lens even if it's showing its age a bit. With the Sigma you're really getting the best of both worlds in terms of technical performance (sharpness, lack of aberration etc) and rendering. I have zero reasons to step down the Sigma unless it's for DOF control.
As I mentioned the Sigma 105 1.4 is super special too and I'd be lying if I said I didn't want that lens as well (to potentially replace the 135).
Also coming from the 5D4 not sure if it's just me imagining it but I feel the files look (for a lack of better term) "cleaner" or more "crisp" than that of the 5D4 even at lower/base ISO? I'm not talking about pixel peeping but just looking at an image as a whole. Could it be because of the larger pixel size?
bballfreak6 wrote:
If my memory is correct at launch here in Australia the Sigma was priced about the same as the Canon (the Canon might've even been a touch more expensive) so after the "family and friends" discount my mate gave me the Sigma was a no brainer haha.
In saying that the 135L is still a great lens even if it's showing its age a bit. With the Sigma you're really getting the best of both worlds in terms of technical performance (sharpness, lack of aberration etc) and rendering. I have zero reasons to step down the Sigma unless it's for DOF control.
As I mentioned the Sigma 105 1.4 is super special too and I'd be lying if I said I didn't want that lens as well (to potentially replace the 135)....Show more →
I had tested many 135mm including two copies of the L the Sigma 135mm and the Sony135mm GM. While the Sony is sharper I liked the slightly smoother bokeh of the Sigma better. But the 105mm was the one that blew me away and I ended up selling the 85mm and 135mm and moving to the 105mm 1.4 alone.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
I had tested many 135mm including two copies of the L the Sigma 135mm and the Sony135mm GM. While the Sony is sharper I liked the slightly smoother bokeh of the Sigma better. But the 105mm was the one that blew me away and I ended up selling the 85mm and 135mm and moving to the 105mm 1.4 alone.
Right? When I tested the Sigma 105 against my 135 in shop my finding was that wide open the 135 still seems to be just a touch sharper (but you're really massively pixel peeping here) and things like OOF specular highlights (or bokeh balls) looked bigger due to more compression on the 135; where the 105 to me comes ahead in rendering though is one OOF area looks smoother (less contrasty therefore less busy looking) and two (and to me the biggest differentiator) the transition from in to out of focus is noticeably smoother/more gradual compared to the 135 which was noticeably more abrupt.
Also as you did getting the 105 to replace both the 85 and 135 that was my thought process too! Thinking about getting an 85 just for the fact that at times the 135 is a bit long and also starting to get annoying communicating with subject when doing full body shots an 105 is like the best of both worlds.
bballfreak6 wrote:
Right? When I tested the Sigma 105 against my 135 in shop my finding was that wide open the 135 still seems to be just a touch sharper (but you're really massively pixel peeping here) and things like OOF specular highlights (or bokeh balls) looked bigger due to more compression on the 135; where the 105 to me comes ahead in rendering though is one OOF area looks smoother (less contrasty therefore less busy looking) and two (and to me the biggest differentiator) the transition from in to out of focus is noticeably smoother/more gradual compared to the 135 which was noticeably more abrupt.
Also as you did getting the 105 to replace both the 85 and 135 that was my thought process too! Thinking about getting an 85 just for the fact that at times the 135 is a bit long and also starting to get annoying communicating with subject when doing full body shots an 105 is like the best of both worlds. ...Show more →
bballfreak6 wrote:
Right? When I tested the Sigma 105 against my 135 in shop my finding was that wide open the 135 still seems to be just a touch sharper (but you're really massively pixel peeping here) and things like OOF specular highlights (or bokeh balls) looked bigger due to more compression on the 135; where the 105 to me comes ahead in rendering though is one OOF area looks smoother (less contrasty therefore less busy looking) and two (and to me the biggest differentiator) the transition from in to out of focus is noticeably smoother/more gradual compared to the 135 which was noticeably more abrupt.
Also as you did getting the 105 to replace both the 85 and 135 that was my thought process too! Thinking about getting an 85 just for the fact that at times the 135 is a bit long and also starting to get annoying communicating with subject when doing full body shots an 105 is like the best of both worlds. ...Show more →
The 135 does well with sports on the R6 too, makes for some interesting shots with narrow DOF.
Sure the R6 does, tons of videos talk about eye af with animals on the R6. The problem is that with a sibling that has substantially more resolution with the same AF system, there is now a cloud that hangs over the R6. It is always better to have the resolution and not always have to use it than to need it and not have it.
The trouble with that argument is what is enough resolution? There never is. Those who say they need the high resolution cameras of today will say they're not enough tomorrow. Ultimately, what do you need the megapixels for? To crop? High crops very much look like they have been cropped due to atmospheric conditions, camera shake, the lens unable to resolve the lens, technique, etc.
Not saying having lots of megapixels is a bad thing, but the reasons people believe they need them for is often faulty. They're often taken in by marketing, social media pressure and forums the feed the need for more and more resolution.
As far as 'tons of videos talk about the eye af', most of those videos are not recognition of the camera as a wildlife camera but of it's focusing, which is the whole point. It has the same AF but people still don't see it as a wildlife camera because it 'only has' 20 megapixels.
There will always be people who want more than 45MP (landscape and bird photographers) and people who don’t want much more than 24MP (PJ and sports photographers) as people have different needs and wants, and camera makers know this. So why do we even have to debate the MP issue or deride those who want more/less MP, as there will be a camera model to please almost everybody.
I stand amongst those who want more MP, as I do mostly landscape and bird photography (I do heavy crops) and my reasoning for wanting more MP is not misplaced or faulty. And I do recognize and respect those who don’t want a high MP sensor. It’s all good.
