FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

What can change in only 35 years?

Page  <12
Author
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14341
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 June 2016 at 22:48
Flare? Those perfectly round pastel flare spots in the bench pose are very cool. Don't even think about taking them away.

Bokeh? I doubt many wedding clients are even aware of bokeh, either 'good' or 'bad'.
 



Back to Top
woodrim View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 October 2009
Country: United States
Location: Charleston, SC
Status: Offline
Posts: 1761
Post Options Post Options   Quote woodrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 June 2016 at 16:37
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Flare? Those perfectly round pastel flare spots in the bench pose are very cool. Don't even think about taking them away.

Bokeh? I doubt many wedding clients are even aware of bokeh, either 'good' or 'bad'.


Funny. That is not the version of the picture I meant to post. That one is manufactured. I added the flare with simple Photoshop filter. However, I did screw up the shot. I meant to shoot it at wide open for a better background using my Tair-11, which has lovely bokeh. My habit is to always return the aperture stop down ring to fully open after every use, but somehow didn't do it on the shots before that one, so I shot it stopped down without knowing until we had moved on. I think it would have been much nicer had I shot wide open.

And while it is true that the masses don't know about bokeh or what creates it, they probably do appreciate some pictures more than others without knowing why.

As it turned out, the day was too bright to get the best from the Tair because most shots were stopped down considerably. Someone here mentioned a ND filter which would have been a good idea and allowed me to do more. I really should have thought of that.
Regards,

woodrim
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14341
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 June 2016 at 17:04
Originally posted by woodrim woodrim wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Flare? Those perfectly round pastel flare spots in the bench pose are very cool. Don't even think about taking them away.

Bokeh? I doubt many wedding clients are even aware of bokeh, either 'good' or 'bad'.


Funny. That is not the version of the picture I meant to post. That one is manufactured. I added the flare with simple Photoshop filter.

I suspected it was too good to be true. I'm disappointed.

And while it is true that the masses don't know about bokeh or what creates it, they probably do appreciate some pictures more than others without knowing why.

I am quite certain that the entire concept of bokeh is completely absent among viewers who have not been pre-conditioned to look for it, and it will not even subliminally affect their perception of a photo as long as it's not insanely swirly and vertigo-inducing. Test the hypothesis by asking non-photographers, such as wedding clients who pay for photos, what they like or dislike in your portfolio. Sneak in some moderately 'bad' bokeh (without even mentioning the concept) as seen in the examples you've already posted and see if anyone makes a peep about it.
Back to Top
Macca View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 January 2012
Country: Scotland
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Posts: 1763
Post Options Post Options   Quote Macca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 June 2016 at 22:11
Mike I`ve tried MF lenses at two friends weddings doing candids and while they had their uses AF was more reliable in the end as my eyes are getting older,you are shooting more volume wise and I miss more in MF even with focus peaking.

I have another of my partners friends in August and been asked to do some candids again.

The 100mm Oreston was handy for high contrast situations where the Zeiss 135mm was too sharp and contrasty,but the backgrounds I dealt with were less busy than yours. I used two bodies the A99 and A7ii and had an AF lens on both or AF and MF depending on where I was shooting at the time. Indoors almost entirely AF other than speeches where you generally have a sedentary,captive audience and can capture reactions just as easily on prefocused MF.

You could easily take your nex and MF lenses and with AF on an 850 or similar and do a bit of both depending on the environment.The 3600hsd Minolta can be picked up reasonably priced and worked well in manual mode in my limited experience with flash on the A99 so far.

Back to Top
woodrim View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 October 2009
Country: United States
Location: Charleston, SC
Status: Offline
Posts: 1761
Post Options Post Options   Quote woodrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 June 2016 at 23:53
Thanks, Chris, I pretty much agree. I jad to give it a try and not being responsible for results, this was my opportunity. I learned precisely what you said. I think if I do this again in the future I will pretty much abandon MF lenses except for maybe the few moments where I have the time to mess around. As a third shooter, I also found that by the time I had focused, the others had already taken their shots and the poses were breaking up. I had to do this for my own curiosity and satisfaction. Of course when I did this work MF was the only option and people were accustomed to holding still for a photographer.

Having been disappointed with my performance, I've been rather consumed with looking for alternative gear. I do think FF is necessary as well as a good flash. Since starting this post I've almost abandoned my thoughts about reviving my Metz 402 (403 is impossible) and Sunpak 522. I've ignored flash technology for decades and now see all that is involved. It is looking like HSS and TTL is the way to go. Except for my concerns with build quality and reliability, for value I'm liking the Godox TT685 and 4500mah battery pack. I need to investigate more - I have a learning curve to deal with.

Just BTW, I expected to read you had used Fujinon lenses.
Regards,

woodrim
Back to Top
Macca View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 January 2012
Country: Scotland
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Posts: 1763
Post Options Post Options   Quote Macca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 June 2016 at 22:20
Mike sorry for the late reply. I have now sold both the 50mm 1.4 amd 135mm 2.5 Fujinons, both lovely lenses, the 50mm 1.4 had nice bokeh and 135mm was sharp but I needed the money for a CZ 50mm 1.4 ZA and LAea3 adapter. I kept the 55mm 1.8 Fujinon as it had less value.

If i do shoot some MF at these occasions I`ll take something with a little more character,eg. the Topcon 58mm 1.4 is a lovely portrait lens,with silky bokeh. I thought I read you picked one up somewhere but hadn`t seen you post anything with it yet?

I`ve got my daughters dance show to shoot again this year,this Saturday in fact and decided to go for an AF 50mm I can use on both systems, plus they have come way down in cost. Good A mount AF glass has become more affordable recently which should help your hunt.
 



Back to Top
artuk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3751
Post Options Post Options   Quote artuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 June 2016 at 05:39
Just a few random thoughts.

I assume your old MF lenses are being used on your current NEX body and cannot be fitted to the A mount A200?

If you want to use all your lenses old and new on the same body, an E mount camera gives you most flexibility.

If you want the most assured focusing on any light, I think A mount is still slightly better in low lighting. However outdoors or indoors in decent light, E mount will work just as well.

The full frame Sony A7 is currently a bargain but doesn't have all the latest features.

Your A200 is still a decent image maker in good to ok light (sensor is less good above iso800). Newer cameras have sensors that allow much greater latitude for post processing from raw, particularly the ability to dodge the shadows, and fewer problems with clipped highlights.

Before anyone convinces you to spend any money by naming their favourite cameras and lenses that may or may bot be suitable for your needs, work out what you want to do with your camera and then find the best solution to meet your needs. We all have our favourites and preferences but they may not be yours. The A6000 is an excellent camera and when used with E mount lenses will focus very quickly in good light - but you may not like the size, EVF, ergonomics etc. You get no real "image quality" benefit with a camera like the older A850/900 except a greater control over Depth Of Field - which with slower aperture zoom lenses may not be an issue, nor a requirement for your work. I would suggest looking at an A7 for its ability to be used with your MF lenses, but I'm not 100% confident about its focusing with native lenses at weddings - I used mine for stage competitions in "ok" lighting (iso1000 f4 1/160s) but I fear if you want to photograph inside churches or evening parties it probably isn't the best tool for the job. The newer A7 cameras do better, but cost much much more.
Art
Back to Top
thornburg View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 July 2013
Country: United States
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Posts: 3765
Post Options Post Options   Quote thornburg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 June 2016 at 17:07
As someone with some similar tendencies (I like funky old manual focus lenses), who has also done some "third shooter" type stuff at a few weddings, I feel like I might have some useful things to say:

1) When shooting with old manual lenses, using flash, don't even bother trying TTL -- you'll be happier with the results you get on manual (and it will always work, regardless of camera/lens/flash combination, as long as the flash supports manual mode).
I've been happy with my Neewer TT560 -- it's quite cheap, and gets the job done if you don't need TTL. Note, AFAIK, it doesn't come in the old shoe, so you'd have to adapt if you want to use it on iISO instead of MIS -- it might make more sense just to buy something with the iISO shoe).

As others have said, if you want TTL some of the time, the Minolta 5600 HS (D) would be a good choice. Avoid the 3600 HS (D) as it doesn't support full manual mode.

2) Camera body suggestions:
If you're just doing this for fun, and that limits the budget, you have lots of options, each with pros/cons (A850/900, A7/A7ii, A6000, etc)

If you hope you to make some money, you'll probably find that inventing a bit more is worth it, primarily in reliability of getting the shots you need. For example, an A850 will take beautiful photos, but there are situations where it will struggle that a more modern camera won't.

I'm sure you know this already from you past experience already, but I'll say it for the benefit of others who may be less seasoned: if you're ever going to be the primary shooter, make sure you've got a backup camera, a backup flash, and enough lenses (with you at the event) that you can keep going if one of them fails. Oh, and lots of batteries, for everything.

3) Lenses:
My favorite wedding lens is my Vivitar (Samyang) 85mm f/1.4 -- it's manual focus, but I'm sure you're OK with that.

My second most frequently used wedding lens is actually the humble Minolta AF 50/1.7! It does just fine on my A99.

Your 35-105 will serve you quite well.

If you're shooting full frame, you may find you sometimes need a bit more reach than 105 will get you (maybe even with APS-C, if you're outdoors or at a huge venue). For budget options, the 70-210 "Beercan" is quite nice. For (quite) a bit more cash, a Tamron 70-200/2.8 or Minolta AF 80-200/2.8 might be a better overall choice (although they're heavy).

(Footnote: I skimmed the thread, but did not read the details of every post.)

Edited by thornburg - 17 June 2016 at 17:11
Sony a3000, a6000, a57, a99 - Sony E 16-50, 28/2 | Vivitar 13, 85 | Minolta 24, 28-105, 35-105, 50/1.7, 75-300 | Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 | Sigma 70/2.8 Macro | Tamron 70-200/2.8 | Celestron 1000/11
Back to Top
pdeley View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 June 2008
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 2718
Post Options Post Options   Quote pdeley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 June 2016 at 19:31
As someone who likes to play with old MF lenses as well, who's been third shooter exactly once (with an a700 and a57), and who is entirely flash illiterate - my five cents would be:

- If budget is a constraint then I would hold off on going full frame for now. I have an a7 and it's great for MF lenses in terms of sensor performance and mount adapting mechanics, but the battery life, button responsiveness/layout and general handling are not what I'd want for a fast-paced shooting session, especially if the results will genuinely matter to other people.

Battery life can be addressed with a grip, though to me the buttons/controls of my Sony battery grip are even worse than those of the a7 itself. And even with two fully charged type W batteries, you still get no more shots than a single M type battery would give you (and that even in the hungriest alpha mount models). I haven't used any ii generation FE models though. The a7ii presumably handles better, but unfortunately costs more $$, and like its predecessor it also requires a battery grip to minimize swapping hassles in midair ... or in this case mid-wedding.


- Consider replacing your a200 with an a57 so you'll have the fully tiltable/swiveling rear LCD and focus peaking in a body with roughly comparable ergonomics and button layout/response. Plus getting effectively the same sensor performance as that of your Nex 5N. In terms of mount mechanics an a57 won't give you more freedom to adapt MF lenses than your a200, but unlike the a200 you will get a menu option to release the shutter with "no lens attached", so you'll be able to use aperture priority exposure mode with M42, adaptall, T or TX mount lenses.

If bugs and flowers will remain a major subject for your personal shooting then an a65 or a77 would give you extra resolution in EVF and final images, for respectively identical or decidedly better ergonomics and at fairly limited extra expense. I much prefer my a65 for macro than the a57 I used before it, because the better EVF makes MF with focus peaking that much more accurate. Note however that the a65 runs out of buffer space much faster than a57 or a77, so for high fps situations it's the weakest of the three.


- Oh one last thought: my single experience at a wedding was also the one time I liked shooting with the Sigma 20 1.8 that I had at the time, especially during the evening party and without flash. People really responded well to that big bulging glass element up close!

Edited by pdeley - 17 June 2016 at 20:01
a450, a500, a65, a7, 700si & other 35 mm bodies, Sig 15-30, sam 30 2.8 macro, Pentax 40 2.8 pan, Sig 70 f2.8 macro, Vivi 90 f2.8 macro, Mino 100-400 apo, 300 f4, 500 f8, 600 f4
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Community > Photography as a Business Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.