philber wrote:
Really nice, Jim! Except the bokeh makes bridge look weird to my eyes on the last shot...
Love your G45 picture, Bob! You make that lens sing! Your B&W is also very nice. I cannot say that I totally enjoy the Sigma's colours, but, for the money, I am being a bit of an obnoxious snob, I know...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but for the money, I can't complain. Besides, my intent is to use those Sigmas for street shooting which means post processing into black and white. While not as fast as the Zeiss 24, it's only 1/5 the cost and I want auto focus for street.
rji2goleez wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree with you but for the money, I can't complain. Besides, my intent is to use those Sigmas for street shooting which means post processing into black and white. While not as fast as the Zeiss 24, it's only 1/5 the cost and I want auto focus for street.
I agree about AF for the street, but my solution now is to use my RX100.I find the results to be comparable or better than the NEX plus kit lens. It's so small that I often take it along with my NEX 7.
I keep looking at the RX100 . . . So many good reviews. But I like the idea of fitting various high/low end lenses on the NEX-7. For example, I would have a hard time doing without the G45 and CV35. They are both just superb.
rji2goleez wrote:
I keep looking at the RX100 . . . So many good reviews. But I like the idea of fitting various high/low end lenses on the NEX-7. For example, I would have a hard time doing without the G45 and CV35. They are both just superb.
I am not suggesting selling your NEX 7. Personally, I'm going to sell my 5N and keep the RX100 and NEX 7 as my primary cameras. I think the NEX 7 is the best camera out there for manual focusing of Alt glass. But there are certain situations where I like to AF quickly and I'm finding I would rather use the RX100 than get the two Sigmas or use my kit lens.
I find AF usually lacking for critical focusing of really good glass. I was using the NEX 7 with my Pentax 77/1.8 this weekend and the photos I've taken are much better than I can get using AF on my Pentax K-5. I never realized how sharp the center of the image is on the 77/1.8 wide open until I looked at the results of the NEX. I was hanging on to my K-5 for situations where I wanted to be able to use AF in a camera with image stabilization. For those situations, I will now use my RX 100, which is really sharp at 28mm and F 1.8. So my K-5 is going to be sold very soon.
So tempting . . . but how many cameras can I own and actually use?!? I originally bought into the NEX system as my lightweight travel camera when traveling for my day job. It's so much fun to use with alt glass and very portable for business travel. But I agree with you . . . that RX100 keeps staring at me.
rji2goleez wrote:
So tempting . . . but how many cameras can I own and actually use?!? I originally bought into the NEX system as my lightweight travel camera when traveling for my day job. It's so much fun to use with alt glass and very portable for business travel. But I agree with you . . . that RX100 keeps staring at me.
When I bought my first NEX camera, it never occurred to me that I would prefer shooting my Pentax lenses on my NEX versus my K-5. I'm really consolidating my photo equipment. In a few weeks after I've sold three more cameras bodies, my only cameras will be my NEX 7, RX100 and one Nikon DSLR.
Jeff Kott wrote:
When I bought my first NEX camera, it never occurred to me that I would prefer shooting my Pentax lenses on my NEX versus my K-5. I'm really consolidating my photo equipment. In a few weeks after I've sold three more cameras bodies, my only cameras will be my NEX 7, RX100 and one Nikon DSLR.
I don't even own a DSLR anymore! The only thing I miss it for is auto-lighting, which I can still do on the NEX manually.
rji2goleez wrote:
I don't see myself living without my DSLR . . . at least not yet!
It will not surprise you that I decided to do just that, Bob, and sold my DSLR/Zeiss rig. No point, as I see it, in investing in a platform that I now use only 2% of the time, which evolves on a 3 1/2-year cycle whereas the M-mount does so on a 1-year one, and where my "small" camera already outperforms my large one in areas that are key for me: colours and DR. Even though it does not do so in others, such as high ISO, viewfinder, shallow depth-of-field. I am not positing this as the truth, only as what works for me. Ideally, I will have the best of both worlds when one of the 6 M-mount players comes out with a FF camera that is either as good as but significantly more useable than the M9, or significantly cheaper.
philber wrote:
It will not surprise you that I decided to do just that, Bob, and sold my DSLR/Zeiss rig. No point, as I see it, in investing in a platform that I now use only 2% of the time, which evolves on a 3 1/2-year cycle whereas the M-mount does so on a 1-year one, and where my "small" camera already outperforms my large one in areas that are key for me: colours and DR. Even though it does not do so in others, such as high ISO, viewfinder, shallow depth-of-field. I am not positing this as the truth, only as what works for me. Ideally, I will have the best of both worlds when one of the 6 M-mount players comes out with a FF camera that is either as good as but significantly more useable than the M9, or significantly cheaper....Show more →
Give me a significantly cheaper full frame M9 and I will be one step closer to following you.
Some snaps with FD 24mm f2 on NEX-5N. These were supposed to be sample shots for potential buyers so I just captured whatever I found on my way from my car to the office. However now I am having second thoughts about selling it!
curious80 wrote:
FD 24mm f2 on NEX-5N. http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8157/7683230848_5f8fbdc8ee_b.jpg
Nice shot, though it looks to me like the oof blur has been sharpened to look crunchy. Sorry to criticize, I just wonder if it doesn't bother you/others? Personally I take pains to selectively sharpen and avoid this effect. Nice lens, I've had my eye out for one (at the right price!).
alan_m wrote:
Nice shot, though it looks to me like the oof blur has been sharpened to look crunchy. Sorry to criticize, I just wonder if it doesn't bother you/others? Personally I take pains to selectively sharpen and avoid this effect. Nice lens, I've had my eye out for one (at the right price!).
Nice shot with the olympus!
Yes I noticed the crunchy oof areas when I posted the shot. I think flickr has added its own sharpening to this shot while resizing which has enhanced the effect. The oof portions are smoother on my local copy. Plus its an ISO 1000 shot processed in a quick and dirty manner. Though I actually like the effect in this case which its why I left it as is.
rji2goleez wrote:
Thanks Freak . . . that image is wide open, love that lens. And the harnesses are actually on correctly. They;re just loose!
Really? What kind of harnesses are those? I've never seen one with the lead ring in the front. It usually sits on their back between their shoulder blades.
freaklikeme wrote:
Really? What kind of harnesses are those? I've never seen one with the lead ring in the front. It usually sits on their back between their shoulder blades.
I don't remember the brand but I've seen both kinds. In fact, I was expecting to buy the kind with the lead ring on top but Petco and Petsmart only had these.
