D
Deleted Member 5045
Guest
If I got down to less than 130 bottles of wine in the cellar, it would be a major day of celebration
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If I got down to less than 130 bottles of wine in the cellar, it would be a major day of celebration
I collect Rum, so I know how you guys could enjoy collecting Whiskey/Scotch. I probably only have 3 dozen different bottles in my collection though...Oh wow Timmy, I was going to ask on this site who collects whisky.
I have Scottish, Japanese and Australian whiskies. I also have a handful of bourbon bottlings there too. I have about 130 bottles all up. If your whiskey collection is anything like your old camera collection then it must really be quite a sight I'd imagine!
People are horrified when they see that I am a full whisky nutter because I am a complete health freak. My diet is impeccable and I've been extremely lean for my whole life. I do actually believe that 30ml of whisky a night is really good for us, so that's what I do.
Some of my favourite brands are Macallan, Aberlour, Balvenie, Glendronach, Glenfiddich, Bladnoch, Glenmorangie, Rudd Bros, Talisker, Suntory, Morris, Carowra, 78 degrees. This list could be never ending...
I wondered when Sigma might spot the gap for a couple of e-mount primes, I think 500 would be good if they had a 1.4 teleconverter that worked well
I'll be interested to see if Sigma can produce the goods on those lengths, with a sensible price tag. A 400/4 would be tempting at around 2-3k, if they can get it to focus as quickly as the Sony OM. Optically I've never had a bad Sigma. Tamron hold patents to make similar, but have never done so yet. As I've mentioned before, no one has come up with anything like the Nikon PF lenses, and that would be a killer lens on any Sony.
Yes they are limited, I think all 3rd party lenses are, and I'm not sure it's necessarily the electronics/software to blame, but more likely the type of focus motors that they use, because Sony must have some very special motors to allow AF to keep up at 30fps.Not sure if it applies to other lenses from Sigma and Tamron, but I remember the 150-600mm and the 150-500mm are limited to 10fps I think. To me that is irrelevant but I think to an A1 or A9 shooter it will mean a lot. If Sony allowed a fast third party telephoto prime to have that software accessibility then it would be a real big deal in the Sony shooter world.
I'm heading to Olympus so it doesn't really bother me. My days of hiding my disgraced lens hoods are over...
DOF. The camera doesn't have to refocus every time, and even shutter clicks where the lens is in between will still be in focus on a lot of subjects.Yes they are limited, I think all 3rd party lenses are, and I'm not sure it's necessarily the electronics/software to blame, but more likely the type of focus motors that they use, because Sony must have some very special motors to allow AF to keep up at 30fps.
I think a 400 f4 at 2-3 k is hoping KevI'll be interested to see if Sigma can produce the goods on those lengths, with a sensible price tag. A 400/4 would be tempting at around 2-3k, if they can get it to focus as quickly as the Sony OM. Optically I've never had a bad Sigma. Tamron hold patents to make similar, but have never done so yet. As I've mentioned before, no one has come up with anything like the Nikon PF lenses, and that would be a killer lens on any Sony.
Hey, we can dreamI think a 400 f4 at 2-3 k is hoping Kev
That is always going to be the best way, but also the most costly of course. IQ on the new Tamron and Sigmas is just as good, it's the AF speed and FPS where they get limited, and I have had some Sigmas on my old kit that hunt a bit. Not so with Tamron, and given that they used to make Sonys lenses, I would expect not. The Tamron 70-200 2,8 on my Nikon was way better than the Nikon OM, so there are definitely some exceptions.Clearly I am an outlier here, but I have always held firm to the belief that when I buy a particular brand of camera that I will also buy the lenses which are specifically designed and engineered to work flawlessly with the chosen camera body. Sure, buying a third-party lens is going to be cheaper.....and my hunch is that nine times out of ten the resulting images are not as good as they would have been with a Sony lens. I'd rather spend the extra money and get quality images.
This whole thing of using adapters and whatnot to try and fashion some sort of Rube Goldberg scenario out of a camera body suddenly faced with a foreign lens or other add-ons never meant for it in the first place really fascinates me. The latest trend I'm seeing mention of now is people who buy a digital medium format camera and then promptly use adapters to stick another camera brand's digital FF 35mm lens on it. Now where is the sense in that??
It's not always the best way, not by a long shot. Anyone who believes a lens is better simply because it says 'Sony' on it is ill-informed.That is always going to be the best way, but also the most costly of course. IQ on the new Tamron and Sigmas is just as good, it's the AF speed and FPS where they get limited, and I have had some Sigmas on my old kit that hunt a bit. Not so with Tamron, and given that they used to make Sonys lenses, I would expect not. The Tamron 70-200 2,8 on my Nikon was way better than the Nikon OM, so there are definitely some exceptions.
Well images speak volumes and there are thousands of people getting great results from adapted glass, across many brands, and great images from third party glassAdd to it that Sony owns a major part of Tamron. Focus speed isn't always an issue either. Give the Tamron 17-28/2.8 a try. The IQ exceeds that of the Sony 16-35/4, the truth is out there.
There are entire forums dedicated to using adapted lenses on cameras. Some people really enjoy it. Other than a novelty and a bit of fun now and then, my adapted lenses are limited to A-Mount. Some people enjoy using very old glass and rarely even purchase a native lens. Not my cup of tea, but there's nothing wrong with it either. I'm pretty sure the cameras don't mind, not sure why anyone would.
It's not always the best way, not by a long shot. Anyone who believes a lens is better simply because it says 'Sony' on it is ill-informed.
Add to it that Sony owns over 12% of Tamron, they're the second largest shareholder. That's not by accident.
Focus speed isn't always an issue either. Give the Tamron 17-28/2.8 a try. The IQ exceeds that of the Sony 16-35/4, the truth is out there for anyone interested in investing a bit of time.
There are entire forums dedicated to using adapted lenses on cameras. Some people really enjoy it. Other than a novelty and a bit of fun now and then, my adapted lenses are limited to A-Mount. Some people enjoy using very old glass and rarely even purchase a native lens. Not my cup of tea, but there's nothing wrong with it either. I'm pretty sure the cameras don't mind, not sure why anyone would.
Well, I have AF (including eye AF) with lenses that don't have AF motors. One of my favorites is the Nikon 35 AF-D, a lens that you cannot get AF with on a Nikon Z camera even with a FTZ adapter but I can on my Sony cameras. Much nicer than purchasing a Nikon DSLR that supports AF-D lenses. And for my Olympus Zuiko, I would have to use a film camera and not have AF. And then there are those Russian lenses (quite a sight to see with the Industar 50 on the adapter but I love it). I would require a M42 mount film camera for those lenses and again no AF like I have now.Clearly I am an outlier here, but I have always held firm to the belief that when I buy a particular brand of camera that I will also buy the lenses which are specifically designed and engineered to work flawlessly with the chosen camera body. Sure, buying a third-party lens is going to be cheaper.....and my hunch is that nine times out of ten the resulting images are not as good as they would have been with a Sony lens. I'd rather spend the extra money and get quality images.
This whole thing of using adapters and whatnot to try and fashion some sort of Rube Goldberg scenario out of a camera body suddenly faced with a foreign lens or other add-ons never meant for it in the first place really fascinates me. The latest trend I'm seeing mention of now is people who buy a digital medium format camera and then promptly use adapters to stick another camera brand's digital FF 35mm lens on it. Now where is the sense in that??
No one is insisting that or anything else. The point is exactly the opposite. Insisting that using anything but Sony lenses (or for that matter the red badge) because they're unilaterally superior to everything else is just as ridiculous.I guess what I am trying to say is: “Let’s not insist that there is only virtue in doing things the hard way.” If we get a great image, it’s good, whether we did it using the latest high tech, or using a lens older than ourselves.
It's been years since I've shot infrared; at one point I had one of my Nikon cameras converted to an IR camera and it was an interesting and fun experience but also a bit too much of a novelty and I rarely used the converted camera beyond the first several times.Well, I have AF (including eye AF) with lenses that don't have AF motors. One of my favorites is the Nikon 35 AF-D, a lens that you cannot get AF with on a Nikon Z camera even with a FTZ adapter but I can on my Sony cameras. Much nicer than purchasing a Nikon DSLR that supports AF-D lenses. And for my Olympus Zuiko, I would have to use a film camera and not have AF. And then there are those Russian lenses (quite a sight to see with the Industar 50 on the adapter but I love it). I would require a M42 mount film camera for those lenses and again no AF like I have now.
For third-party lenses, there is not a single Sony zoom lens that can match the Tamron 17-28 and 28-200 for infrared.
But of course, I am an outlier for different styles of photography.
My commentary was not aimed at anyone on this site (sanity prevails here!), but more at the sort of thing we see elsewhere - you encounter some, shall we say "fervid", fans who say things like "You have to be mad to buy GM lenses when you can get better lens for far less" (followed by espousal of their particular favourite brand).No one is insisting that or anything else. The point is exactly the opposite. Insisting that using anything but Sony lenses (or for that matter the red badge) because they're unilaterally superior to everything else is just as ridiculous.
Someone did a review of my credit card for my whisky purchases during COVID. I ought to have purchased camera gear, or even cars! Nothing to show for it now.Fantastic write up from years of experience. I can relate in regards to cars/bikes and audio but instead of wine I collect whisky. The money I've spent on camera equipment doesn't even hold a candle to any of these...
I do love quality sound which I can justify the cost, sort of. But whisky, I constantly question my sanity... ️
Someone did a review of my credit card for my whisky purchases during COVID. I ought to have purchased camera gear, or even cars! Nothing to show for it now.