This topic is in the 2023 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2023Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
p.8 #1Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
SpecFoto wrote:
Maybe I just underestimate the number of photographers doing technical HSS shooting with strobes and super fast glass on an entry level body. The R isn't entry level and at that price point Sony probably could have afforded to put the more expensive shutter in (although the R is a full $900 cheaper than the 5!!!) but the ii will be Sony's cheapest FF camera that isn't at least 5 years old. I think people who are frustrated about the cheaper shutter mechanism might be missing the target audience for this camera. That being said, I reserve the right to be wrong 
Not everything is about the money. Some people just want a small camera that can do it all. Would save me from owning multiple camera bodies. Unfortunately this camera isn't it because it doesn't have a mechanical shutter.The corporate investors and management might think differently than you. At the end Sony’s responsibility is to its investors and not its customers or the market or the photography community. Sony has done what they think is the best tradeoff to meet their responsibilities. No camera is perfect. They made tradeoffs to price the A7CR $1000 USD below the A7RV. If I want all the features, like I do, I bought the A7RV. I can now buy it for much less and the only thing I have to compromise is size and weight. We all have to decide what is important to us.I mean not everything is about the money for the customer. Many are happy to pay more for more features.
I am not interested in a large camera. I don't care about what features it has. I am also not interested in a small camera, if it lacks the basic features that has been in digital cameras for decades (like a mechanical shutter). So Sony's strategy didn't work on me. Now they got zero sales instead of one.Given the poll in another thread shows 35% of the members that voted will be purchasing either the A7c or A7cr…I’m not sure Sony will miss your potential sale. 😊And 65% of the people who voted in that thread decided NOT to buy the camera. Many who commented said it was because of missing features that they felt SHOULD have been in the cameras at the prices being charged. In my case I voted no because of the lack of the mechanical shutter.
I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical...Show more →
If that 35% is really true, that’s a huge percentage of people purchasing the camera. I would think the majority of people that voted no, they would have voted no irregardless of what features the camera had. They already have their gear and have no interest in more cameras.
Well, you should be happy to have saved $1600…I don’t get your angst here if the $1400 camera meets your needs. Seems to me you would be throwing away $1600 on the A7cr if the a6700 fits your needs.
chez wrote
jaygould wrote
swldstn wrote
jaygould wrote
gunmetal wrote
I guess Maybe I just underestimate the number of photographers doing technical HSS shooting with strobes and super fast glass on an entry level body. The R isn't entry level and at that price point Sony probably could have afforded to put the more expensive shutter in (although the R is a full $900 cheaper than the 5!!!) but the ii will be Sony's cheapest FF camera that isn't at least 5 years old. I think people who are frustrated about the cheaper shutter mechanism might be missing the target audience for this camera. That being said, I reserve the right to be wrong Earlier quote
I bought the A7RV. I can now buy it for much less and the only thing I have to compromise is size and weight. We all have to decide what is important to us.I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical...Show more →
If that 35% is really true, that’s a huge percentage of people purchasing the camera. I would think the majority of people that voted no, they would have voted no irregardless of what features the camera had. They already have their gear and have no interest in more cameras.
Well, you should be happy to have saved $1600…I don’t get your angst here if the $1400 camera meets your needs. Seems to me you would be throwing away $1600 on the A7cr if the a6700 fits your needs.
Sep 05, 2023 at 08:49 AM
p.8 #2Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chez wrote:
If that 35% is really true, that’s a huge percentage of people purchasing the camera. I would think the majority of people that voted no, they would have voted no irregardless of what features the camera had. They already have their gear and have no interest in more cameras.
It's 35% of people on FredMiranda who care enough to even open the poll thread AND care enough to click a response in the the thread. It's more or less meaningless. If you wanted to try to use it to gauge approval or whatever you would want to compare it to similar polls here. The last two "would you buy" polls I could find had yes at 23-30% so this result is not substantially different and is more likely measuring FM poster behavior than any actual consumer preference.
Sep 05, 2023 at 09:06 AM
p.8 #3Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
lostinaustin wrote:
It's 35% of people on FredMiranda who care enough to even open the poll thread AND care enough to click a response in the the thread. It's more or less meaningless. If you wanted to try to use it to gauge approval or whatever you would want to compare it to similar polls here. The last two "would you buy" polls I could find had yes at 23-30% so this result is not substantially different and is more likely measuring FM poster behavior than any actual consumer preference.
That’s exactly what I’m going by. This poll is at the high end of polls which is a good sign as far as how well received these two cameras are. Obviously the 35% won’t translate into overall consumer preference…but a high poll result is a positive view for these two cameras.
chez wrote
If that 35% is really true, that’s a huge percentage of people purchasing the camera. I would think the majority of people that voted no, they would have voted no irregardless of what features the camera had. They already have their gear and have no interest in more cameras.That’s exactly what I’m going by. This poll is at the high end of polls which is a good sign as far as how well received these two cameras are. Obviously the 35% won’t translate into overall consumer preference…but a high poll result is a positive view for these two cameras.
Sep 05, 2023 at 09:20 AM
p.8 #4Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
SpecFoto wrote:
I mean not everything is about the money for the customer. Many are happy to pay more for more features.
I am not interested in a large camera. I don't care about what features it has. I am also not interested in a small camera, if it lacks the basic features that has been in digital cameras for decades (like a mechanical shutter). So Sony's strategy didn't work on me. Now they got zero sales instead of one.Given the poll in another thread shows 35% of the members that voted will be purchasing either the A7c or A7cr…I’m not sure Sony will miss your potential sale. 😊And 65% of the people who voted in that thread decided NOT to buy the camera. Many who commented said it was because of missing features that they felt SHOULD have been in the cameras at the prices being charged. In my case I voted no because of the lack of the mechanical shutter.
In my case I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical shutter since when doing portraits, as it works best for me. Also at times I use high power OCF and I need the fastest flash sync shutter speed I can get. The A6700 is 1/200 vs 1/160 for the A7C new bodies.
Doesn’t mean that for 95% of others the lack of a mechanical shutter will be an issue, but for me it is, and people here need to quit dismissing it as a real issue just because it doesn't affect them.
So I decided to buy an A6700 instead. How is it that a brand new 2023 $1,400 body can have a full mechanical shutter but a $3,000 high res 2023 camera cannot? Doesn't make business sense to me and Sony got $1,600 less because of this business decision.Fair. But now you're going to shoot fast primes on APSC? Seems like you could shoot equivalent full frame (f2, f2.8) and never have an issue with unsightly bokeh with the efcs. No?Been shooting my A7RIV in APS-C mode for a long time for portraits, love using my Batis 135mm at 202mm.
At ISO 100 an f 2 lens wide open will need 1/4,000ss on a “sunny 16” day, FF or APS-C it doesn’t matter. f2.8 needs 1/2,000 and a f1.4 lens, like my 35 & 50 GM, needs 1/8,000. The issue starts to appear at 1/1,000ss, so it remains- The slightly added DOF is not going to change the distant (bad) bokeh I feel
But shooting in APSC mode on a full frame camera isn't the same in terms of DOF as shooting on an APSC sensor (It's just a crop on the existing full frame image). My point was that by using the 6700 you're effectively stopping the lenses down in regards to DOF. I think.
. I mean if you have a F1.8 FF lens on the 6700, you're getting the DOF/Bokeh of about F2.8, right? My line of thinking is that any negative effects would be significantly reduced because of the greater depth of field. But maybe it still would make it look wonky?!?! Anyhow, I'm not trying to be a nutjob (it just comes easy) and I respect your opinion and decision.
gunmetal wrote
SpecFoto wrote
chez wrote
jaygould wrote
swldstn wrote
The corporate investors and management might think differently than you. At the end Sony’s responsibility is to its investors and not its customers or the market or the photography community. Sony has done what they think is the best tradeoff to meet their responsibilities. No camera is perfect. They made tradeoffs to price the A7CR $1000 USD below the A7RV. If I want all the features, like I do, I bought the A7RV. I can now buy it for much less and the only thing I have to compromise is size and weight. We all have to decide what is important to us.Earlier quote
I bought the A7RV. I can now buy it for much less and the only thing I have to compromise is size and weight. We all have to decide what is important to us.In my case I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical shutter since when doing portraits, as it works best for me. Also at times I use high power OCF and I need the fastest flash sync shutter speed I can get. The A6700 is 1/200 vs 1/160 for the A7C new bodies.
Doesn’t mean that for 95% of others the lack of a mechanical shutter will be an issue, but for me it is, and people here need to quit dismissing it as a real issue just because it doesn't affect them.
So I decided to buy an A6700 instead. How is it that a brand new 2023 $1,400 body can have a full mechanical shutter but a $3,000 high res 2023 camera cannot? Doesn't make business sense to me and Sony got $1,600 less because of this business decision.
At ISO 100 an f 2 lens wide open will need 1/4,000ss on a “sunny 16” day, FF or APS-C it doesn’t matter. f2.8 needs 1/2,000 and a f1.4 lens, like my 35 & 50 GM, needs 1/8,000. The issue starts to appear at 1/1,000ss, so it remains- The slightly added DOF is not going to change the distant (bad) bokeh I feel
But shooting in APSC mode on a full frame camera isn't the same in terms of DOF as shooting on an APSC sensor (It's just a crop on the existing full frame image). My point was that by using the 6700 you're effectively stopping the lenses down in regards to DOF. I think.
. I mean if you have a F1.8 FF lens on the 6700, you're getting the DOF/Bokeh of about F2.8, right? My line of thinking is that any negative effects would be significantly reduced because of the greater depth of field. But maybe it still would make it look wonky?!?! Anyhow, I'm not trying to be a nutjob (it just comes easy) and I respect your opinion and decision. Sep 05, 2023 at 09:40 AM
p.8 #5Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chez wrote:
That’s exactly what I’m going by. This poll is at the high end of polls which is a good sign as far as how well received these two cameras are. Obviously the 35% won’t translate into overall consumer preference…but a high poll result is a positive view for these two cameras.
I don't think that's a great conclusion to make. 35 vs 30 or even 23 is almost certainly not a significant difference especially given the number of people responding to it (only 66 responses to the GM 16-35 II poll for example). And there's no cost to saying "yes" even if you won't buy one, it's at best a measure of enthusiasm or approval for free. And there's no way to know if FM poll respondents corresponding to potential sony buyers in general.
If it were something huge like 50+% want to buy it or 5% want to buy it, I would agree with you that it's probably measuring something real.
Sep 05, 2023 at 09:58 AM
p.8 #6Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Eruditass wrote:
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land!
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land!
Sep 05, 2023 at 09:59 AM
p.8 #7Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
lostinaustin wrote:
I don't think that's a great conclusion to make. 35 vs 30 or even 23 is almost certainly not a significant difference especially given the number of people responding to it (only 66 responses to the GM 16-35 II poll for example). And there's no cost to saying "yes" even if you won't buy one, it's at best a measure of enthusiasm or approval for free. And there's no way to know if FM poll respondents corresponding to potential sony buyers in general.
If it were something huge like 50+% want to buy it or 5% want to buy it,...Show more →
The poll result is more positive than other polls. That is a good indicator. If a product was a total dud ( as a few here indicate ) the poll results would not be at the high end of other polls. I’m not saying 35% of photographers will be buying the camera…I’m saying members in general are quite happy with the release of the cameras…more so than the whining we are hearing here.
chez wrote
That’s exactly what I’m going by. This poll is at the high end of polls which is a good sign as far as how well received these two cameras are. Obviously the 35% won’t translate into overall consumer preference…but a high poll result is a positive view for these two cameras.If it were something huge like 50+% want to buy it or 5% want to buy it,...Show more →
The poll result is more positive than other polls. That is a good indicator. If a product was a total dud ( as a few here indicate ) the poll results would not be at the high end of other polls. I’m not saying 35% of photographers will be buying the camera…I’m saying members in general are quite happy with the release of the cameras…more so than the whining we are hearing here.
Sep 05, 2023 at 10:06 AM
p.8 #8Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
molson wrote:
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land!
But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.
Eruditass wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.
Sep 05, 2023 at 10:21 AM
p.8 #9Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
gunmetal wrote:
I am not interested in a large camera. I don't care about what features it has. I am also not interested in a small camera, if it lacks the basic features that has been in digital cameras for decades (like a mechanical shutter). So Sony's strategy didn't work on me. Now they got zero sales instead of one.Given the poll in another thread shows 35% of the members that voted will be purchasing either the A7c or A7cr…I’m not sure Sony will miss your potential sale. 😊And 65% of the people who voted in that thread decided NOT to buy the camera. Many who commented said it was because of missing features that they felt SHOULD have been in the cameras at the prices being charged. In my case I voted no because of the lack of the mechanical shutter.
In my case I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical shutter since when doing portraits, as it works best for me. Also at times I use high power OCF and I need the fastest flash sync shutter speed I can get. The A6700 is 1/200 vs 1/160 for the A7C new bodies.
Doesn’t mean that for 95% of others the lack of a mechanical shutter will be an issue, but for me it is, and people here need to quit dismissing it as a real issue just because it doesn't affect them.
So I decided to buy an A6700 instead. How is it that a brand new 2023 $1,400 body can have a full mechanical shutter but a $3,000 high res 2023 camera cannot? Doesn't make business sense to me and Sony got $1,600 less because of this business decision.Fair. But now you're going to shoot fast primes on APSC? Seems like you could shoot equivalent full frame (f2, f2.8) and never have an issue with unsightly bokeh with the efcs. No?Been shooting my A7RIV in APS-C mode for a long time for portraits, love using my Batis 135mm at 202mm.
At ISO 100 an f 2 lens wide open will need 1/4,000ss on a “sunny 16” day, FF or APS-C it doesn’t matter. f2.8 needs 1/2,000 and a f1.4 lens, like my 35 & 50 GM, needs 1/8,000. The issue starts to appear at 1/1,000ss, so it remains- The slightly added DOF is not going to change the distant (bad) bokeh I feelBut shooting in APSC mode on a full frame camera isn't the same in terms of DOF as shooting on an APSC sensor (It's just a crop on the existing full frame image). My point was that by using the 6700 you're effectively stopping the lenses down in regards to DOF. I think. . I mean if you have a F1.8 FF lens on the 6700, you're getting the DOF/Bokeh of about F2.8, right? My line of thinking is that any negative effects would be significantly reduced because of the greater depth of field. But maybe it still would make...Show more →
No, this is not correct. By shooting in APS-C mode on a full-frame camera you get exactly the same depth of field as you would with an APS-C camera with the same lens and aperture. The increase in depth of field compared to full-frame at the same aperture is because you would need to use a 1.5x longer focal length lens on the full-frame camera to get the same field of view.
SpecFoto wrote
gunmetal wrote
SpecFoto wrote
chez wrote
jaygould wrote
I mean not everything is about the money for the customer. Many are happy to pay more for more features.I am not interested in a large camera. I don't care about what features it has. I am also not interested in a small camera, if it lacks the basic features that has been in digital cameras for decades (like a mechanical shutter). So Sony's strategy didn't work on me. Now they got zero sales instead of one.
In my case I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical shutter since when doing portraits, as it works best for me. Also at times I use high power OCF and I need the fastest flash sync shutter speed I can get. The A6700 is 1/200 vs 1/160 for the A7C new bodies.
Doesn’t mean that for 95% of others the lack of a mechanical shutter will be an issue, but for me it is, and people here need to quit dismissing it as a real issue just because it doesn't affect them.
So I decided to buy an A6700 instead. How is it that a brand new 2023 $1,400 body can have a full mechanical shutter but a $3,000 high res 2023 camera cannot? Doesn't make business sense to me and Sony got $1,600 less because of this business decision.
At ISO 100 an f 2 lens wide open will need 1/4,000ss on a “sunny 16” day, FF or APS-C it doesn’t matter. f2.8 needs 1/2,000 and a f1.4 lens, like my 35 & 50 GM, needs 1/8,000. The issue starts to appear at 1/1,000ss, so it remains- The slightly added DOF is not going to change the distant (bad) bokeh I feel
. I mean if you have a F1.8 FF lens on the 6700, you're getting the DOF/Bokeh of about F2.8, right? My line of thinking is that any negative effects would be significantly reduced because of the greater depth of field. But maybe it still would make...Show more →No, this is not correct. By shooting in APS-C mode on a full-frame camera you get exactly the same depth of field as you would with an APS-C camera with the same lens and aperture. The increase in depth of field compared to full-frame at the same aperture is because you would need to use a 1.5x longer focal length lens on the full-frame camera to get the same field of view.
Sep 05, 2023 at 10:40 AM
p.8 #10Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Eruditass wrote:
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land! But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.
The subject of the photo is what should draw one’s eyes…not the out of focus background. If one looking at photos zeros in on the bikes, that tells me a lot about that person.
molson wrote
Eruditass wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.The subject of the photo is what should draw one’s eyes…not the out of focus background. If one looking at photos zeros in on the bikes, that tells me a lot about that person.
Sep 05, 2023 at 10:42 AM
p.8 #11Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chez wrote:
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land! But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.The subject of the photo is what should draw one’s eyes…not the out of focus background. If one looking at photos zeros in on the bikes, that tells me a lot about that person.
It's very rarely one element that makes or breaks a given artwork, but all the little pieces that impact the overall impression. You can say the same thing with a minor change in aperture, shutter speed, noise level, resolution, color choice, change in pose, slight positioning of elements, and so forth. Applied to other mediums as well.
Of course you can certainly debate the relative impact.
Edited on Sep 05, 2023 at 10:51 AM · View previous versions
Eruditass wrote
molson wrote
Eruditass wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.It's very rarely one element that makes or breaks a given artwork, but all the little pieces that impact the overall impression. You can say the same thing with a minor change in aperture, shutter speed, noise level, resolution, color choice, change in pose, slight positioning of elements, and so forth. Applied to other mediums as well.
Of course you can certainly debate the relative impact.
Edited on Sep 05, 2023 at 10:51 AM · View previous versions
Sep 05, 2023 at 10:45 AM
p.8 #12Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Eruditass wrote:
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land! But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.The subject of the photo is what should draw one’s eyes…not the out of focus background. If one looking at photos zeros in on the bikes, that tells me a lot about that person.It's very rarely one element that makes or breaks a given artwork, but all the little pieces that impact the overall impression. You can say the same thing with a slight change in aperture, shutter speed, noise level, resolution, color choice, change in pose, slight positioning of elements, and so forth.
For me, the subject is the most important element in the photo. The out of focus background doesn’t even get noticed if the subject is strong. A weak subject might invite the viewer to start wandering into other aspects of the image.
chez wrote
Eruditass wrote
molson wrote
Eruditass wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.For me, the subject is the most important element in the photo. The out of focus background doesn’t even get noticed if the subject is strong. A weak subject might invite the viewer to start wandering into other aspects of the image.
Sep 05, 2023 at 10:50 AM
p.8 #13Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chez wrote:
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land! But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.The subject of the photo is what should draw one’s eyes…not the out of focus background. If one looking at photos zeros in on the bikes, that tells me a lot about that person.It's very rarely one element that makes or breaks a given artwork, but all the little pieces that impact the overall impression. You can say the same thing with a slight change in aperture, shutter speed, noise level, resolution, color choice, change in pose, slight positioning of elements, and so forth.For me, the subject is the most important element in the photo. The out of focus background doesn’t even get noticed if the subject is string. A weak subject might invite the viewer to start wandering into other aspects of the image.
Sure, I agree with that. But it's still relative. A subject's level of strikingness is relative to other things in the frame. It's why we dodge and burn specific parts of an image or other local adjustments, to give more or less attention and attempt to guide the path of the viewer. And a subject is neither just strong or weak, but a spectrum.
Eruditass wrote
chez wrote
Eruditass wrote
molson wrote
Eruditass wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.Sure, I agree with that. But it's still relative. A subject's level of strikingness is relative to other things in the frame. It's why we dodge and burn specific parts of an image or other local adjustments, to give more or less attention and attempt to guide the path of the viewer. And a subject is neither just strong or weak, but a spectrum.
Sep 05, 2023 at 10:54 AM
p.8 #14Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chez wrote:
The poll result is more positive than other polls. That is a good indicator. If a product was a total dud ( as a few here indicate ) the poll results would not be at the high end of other polls. I’m not saying 35% of photographers will be buying the camera…I’m saying members in general are quite happy with the release of the cameras…more so than the whining we are hearing here.
The margin of error is effectively impossible to know since we don't know how representative or unrepresentative a sample this is. Assuming the absolute best case that it is a perfectly representative sample, you're looking at about a 10% margin of error for the number of respondents on that poll (now consider that its more like 15%+ for the 16-35 II poll we are comparing it to). So no, that increase in positivity is not enough to necessarily measure anything.
I will also go to bat against calling this whining. Does sony have any other $3000 cameras that effectively deliberately introduce image defects into shots at greater than 1/2000s? What other Sony cameras lack a mechanical curtain at this price level?
The problem is overstated, I agree, but it's perfectly fair (and even necessary) for people to complain and criticize Sony for this. If you don't complain, then what incentive is there for Sony to improve? Consumer sentiment is the other half of how markets work.
Now the folk complaining their A1 from 2 years ago isn't magically getting its own AI auto focus chip for free is definitely whining. Sony can and should do better on the firmware front (like their competitors), but expecting the best camera from 2021 to get the newest, greatest features 2 years later is silly.
Sep 05, 2023 at 11:27 AM
p.8 #15Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chez wrote:
For me, the subject is the most important element in the photo. The out of focus background doesn’t even get noticed if the subject is strong. A weak subject might invite the viewer to start wandering into other aspects of the image.
That's the crux of it all... if you have weak composition skills and weak lighting skills, or just a plain uninteresting subject, you start looking for gimmicks to make your photos interesting.
For me, the subject is the most important element in the photo. The out of focus background doesn’t even get noticed if the subject is strong. A weak subject might invite the viewer to start wandering into other aspects of the image.
That's the crux of it all... if you have weak composition skills and weak lighting skills, or just a plain uninteresting subject, you start looking for gimmicks to make your photos interesting.
Sep 05, 2023 at 12:12 PM
p.8 #16Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Maybe someone should tell that to Fred, as he's always devoting a considerable part of his reviews to the quality of bokeh and transition zone 
...
Jokes aside, I've been shooting the last few days EFCS vs Silent to see how well I remembered it from my A7III times. I think I've run into some pretty extreme cases in the past, as now it didn't look *that* bad I'd say. Well, maybe except shots like that city one posted before at 1/8000s, where it can really ruin the photo IMHO. ... but since A7C II and R are limited to 1/4000s, it's outside of this discussion.
Here's a 50% crop (open in new tab for fullsize) of 35mm @ f/1.2 & 1/4000s shot (with LR denoise & enhance). I think it's passable, but you can see the blur becoming unnatural and nervous.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53166248757_fce7247cc0_o.jpg
I've taken a lot of shots (you can switch between silent / EFCS with a touch of a button on A1) with 35/50/135 mm but I don't think I have the strength to go through all of them , especially since the exposure needs be adjusted on each (EFCS is about 0.3 stop, maybe more, brighter at high SS).
Fullsize pictures for reference:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53167152091_a22c53f766_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53166565267_3d9805cf42_o.jpg
And an example how bokeh gets busy at 1/4000s:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53166595417_0987413bcc_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53167182196_f184bd175c_o.jpg
Edited on Sep 05, 2023 at 05:01 PM · View previous versions
...Jokes aside, I've been shooting the last few days EFCS vs Silent to see how well I remembered it from my A7III times. I think I've run into some pretty extreme cases in the past, as now it didn't look *that* bad I'd say. Well, maybe except shots like that city one posted before at 1/8000s, where it can really ruin the photo IMHO. ... but since A7C II and R are limited to 1/4000s, it's outside of this discussion.
Here's a 50% crop (open in new tab for fullsize) of 35mm @ f/1.2 & 1/4000s shot (with LR denoise & enhance). I think it's passable, but you can see the blur becoming unnatural and nervous.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53166248757_fce7247cc0_o.jpg
I've taken a lot of shots (you can switch between silent / EFCS with a touch of a button on A1) with 35/50/135 mm but I don't think I have the strength to go through all of them
, especially since the exposure needs be adjusted on each (EFCS is about 0.3 stop, maybe more, brighter at high SS).Fullsize pictures for reference:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53167152091_a22c53f766_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53166565267_3d9805cf42_o.jpg
And an example how bokeh gets busy at 1/4000s:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53166595417_0987413bcc_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53167182196_f184bd175c_o.jpg
Edited on Sep 05, 2023 at 05:01 PM · View previous versions
Sep 05, 2023 at 01:58 PM
p.8 #17Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Eruditass wrote:
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land! But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.
Exactly…. If u look at the gear discussions on forums, stuff like wide open corner sharpness, 61 vs 33 mp, 13 vs 12 stops dr, transitional bokeh, etc, etc, this cut of half moon bokeh is by far the most intrusive and obvious.
Yet people say it is barely perceptible. For non photographers layman maybe. But for people who wants to take “good” photos, I don’t think u can/should ignore it.
The conditions to trigger it is not really rare, sunny with f1.4, but rather at that harsh lighting conditions precludes getting a keeper usually.
molson wrote
Eruditass wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.Exactly…. If u look at the gear discussions on forums, stuff like wide open corner sharpness, 61 vs 33 mp, 13 vs 12 stops dr, transitional bokeh, etc, etc, this cut of half moon bokeh is by far the most intrusive and obvious.
Yet people say it is barely perceptible. For non photographers layman maybe. But for people who wants to take “good” photos, I don’t think u can/should ignore it.
The conditions to trigger it is not really rare, sunny with f1.4, but rather at that harsh lighting conditions precludes getting a keeper usually.
Sep 05, 2023 at 02:25 PM
p.8 #18Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chez wrote:
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land! But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.The subject of the photo is what should draw one’s eyes…not the out of focus background. If one looking at photos zeros in on the bikes, that tells me a lot about that person.It's very rarely one element that makes or breaks a given artwork, but all the little pieces that impact the overall impression. You can say the same thing with a slight change in aperture, shutter speed, noise level, resolution, color choice, change in pose, slight positioning of elements, and so forth.For me, the subject is the most important element in the photo. The out of focus background doesn’t even get noticed if the subject is strong. A weak subject might invite the viewer to start wandering into other aspects of the image.
? Isn’t the way to make a strong subject to remove distracting stuff from the frame?
Half moon bokeh looks weird to me and distracting…..
Eruditass wrote
chez wrote
Eruditass wrote
molson wrote
Eruditass wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, earlier in this thread links to probably the best realistic comparisons. The others are more synthetic that specifically highlight the issue.? Isn’t the way to make a strong subject to remove distracting stuff from the frame? Half moon bokeh looks weird to me and distracting…..
Sep 05, 2023 at 02:28 PM
p.8 #19Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
ilkka_nissila wrote:
And 65% of the people who voted in that thread decided NOT to buy the camera. Many who commented said it was because of missing features that they felt SHOULD have been in the cameras at the prices being charged. In my case I voted no because of the lack of the mechanical shutter.
In my case I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical shutter since when doing portraits, as it works best for me. Also at times I use high power OCF and I need the fastest flash sync shutter speed I can get. The A6700 is 1/200 vs 1/160 for the A7C new bodies.
Doesn’t mean that for 95% of others the lack of a mechanical shutter will be an issue, but for me it is, and people here need to quit dismissing it as a real issue just because it doesn't affect them.
So I decided to buy an A6700 instead. How is it that a brand new 2023 $1,400 body can have a full mechanical shutter but a $3,000 high res 2023 camera cannot? Doesn't make business sense to me and Sony got $1,600 less because of this business decision.Fair. But now you're going to shoot fast primes on APSC? Seems like you could shoot equivalent full frame (f2, f2.8) and never have an issue with unsightly bokeh with the efcs. No?Been shooting my A7RIV in APS-C mode for a long time for portraits, love using my Batis 135mm at 202mm.
At ISO 100 an f 2 lens wide open will need 1/4,000ss on a “sunny 16” day, FF or APS-C it doesn’t matter. f2.8 needs 1/2,000 and a f1.4 lens, like my 35 & 50 GM, needs 1/8,000. The issue starts to appear at 1/1,000ss, so it remains- The slightly added DOF is not going to change the distant (bad) bokeh I feelBut shooting in APSC mode on a full frame camera isn't the same in terms of DOF as shooting on an APSC sensor (It's just a crop on the existing full frame image). My point was that by using the 6700 you're effectively stopping the lenses down in regards to DOF. I think. . I mean if you have a F1.8 FF lens on the 6700, you're getting the DOF/Bokeh of about F2.8, right? My line of thinking is that any negative effects would be significantly reduced because of the greater depth of field. But maybe it still would make it look wonky?!?! Anyhow, I'm not trying to be a nutjob (it just comes easy) and I respect your opinion and decision.No, this is not correct. By shooting in APS-C mode on a full-frame camera you get exactly the same depth of field as you would with an APS-C camera with the same lens and aperture. The increase in depth of field compared to full-frame at the same aperture is because you would need to use a 1.5x longer focal length lens on the full-frame camera to get the same field of view.
Not if you keep subject magnification the same. In other words, if you're shooting a 50mm 1.8 on a FF and then switch to APSC mode, you would need to move back or have the subject move away in order to get the same subject magnification. As a result your DOF would be similar to a 2.8. No?
gunmetal wrote
SpecFoto wrote
gunmetal wrote
SpecFoto wrote
chez wrote
Given the poll in another thread shows 35% of the members that voted will be purchasing either the A7c or A7cr…I’m not sure Sony will miss your potential sale. 😊In my case I want my 2nd smaller body to have a mechanical shutter. I shoot portraits with fast primes wide open in sunny conditions (I live in the desert) and long ago found out the EFCS in my A7RIV degraded the look. I have shot only with the mechanical shutter since when doing portraits, as it works best for me. Also at times I use high power OCF and I need the fastest flash sync shutter speed I can get. The A6700 is 1/200 vs 1/160 for the A7C new bodies.
Doesn’t mean that for 95% of others the lack of a mechanical shutter will be an issue, but for me it is, and people here need to quit dismissing it as a real issue just because it doesn't affect them.
So I decided to buy an A6700 instead. How is it that a brand new 2023 $1,400 body can have a full mechanical shutter but a $3,000 high res 2023 camera cannot? Doesn't make business sense to me and Sony got $1,600 less because of this business decision.
At ISO 100 an f 2 lens wide open will need 1/4,000ss on a “sunny 16” day, FF or APS-C it doesn’t matter. f2.8 needs 1/2,000 and a f1.4 lens, like my 35 & 50 GM, needs 1/8,000. The issue starts to appear at 1/1,000ss, so it remains- The slightly added DOF is not going to change the distant (bad) bokeh I feel
. I mean if you have a F1.8 FF lens on the 6700, you're getting the DOF/Bokeh of about F2.8, right? My line of thinking is that any negative effects would be significantly reduced because of the greater depth of field. But maybe it still would make it look wonky?!?! Anyhow, I'm not trying to be a nutjob (it just comes easy) and I respect your opinion and decision.Not if you keep subject magnification the same. In other words, if you're shooting a 50mm 1.8 on a FF and then switch to APSC mode, you would need to move back or have the subject move away in order to get the same subject magnification. As a result your DOF would be similar to a 2.8. No?
Sep 05, 2023 at 03:00 PM
p.8 #20Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
wind30 wrote:
But that is the only way those poor YouTubers can survive! But well at least it helps gets the word out, and while it doesn't ruin photos, I do wish I knew about it earlier. While certainly not a common occurrence, it sucks because I can't go back and capture certain photos. Barely perceptible is a good qualifier for the average person/consumer of photos: on a forum where people closely analyze bokeh particularly in the transition zone and its level of structure, I'm not so sure.The subject of the photo is what should draw one’s eyes…not the out of focus background. If one looking at photos zeros in on the bikes, that tells me a lot about that person.It's very rarely one element that makes or breaks a given artwork, but all the little pieces that impact the overall impression. You can say the same thing with a slight change in aperture, shutter speed, noise level, resolution, color choice, change in pose, slight positioning of elements, and so forth.For me, the subject is the most important element in the photo. The out of focus background doesn’t even get noticed if the subject is strong. A weak subject might invite the viewer to start wandering into other aspects of the image.? Isn’t the way to make a strong subject to remove distracting stuff from the frame?
Half moon bokeh looks weird to me and distracting…..
That’s one overly used method…but many times the surrounding environment adds to the image and provides actual context for the image. The total blurred out background shot could be taken anywhere…even your living room.
Overused forced bokeh looks boring to me.
chez wrote
Eruditass wrote
chez wrote
Eruditass wrote
molson wrote
Since when does "a barely perceptible difference only under rare circumstances" equate to "ruined"? Oh, I forgot... it's clickbait land!? Isn’t the way to make a strong subject to remove distracting stuff from the frame? Half moon bokeh looks weird to me and distracting…..
That’s one overly used method…but many times the surrounding environment adds to the image and provides actual context for the image. The total blurred out background shot could be taken anywhere…even your living room.
Overused forced bokeh looks boring to me.
Sep 05, 2023 at 03:09 PM