Calling all Photography nerds!

There is nothing wrong with "photoshopping" images. I put that in quotes because you're using the word, not only in a derogatory manner, but in the wrong context as well. You're actually referring to post processing because not every post processed image goes through photoshop, but every photoshopped image is post processed. Not every square is rectangle yada yada. Anyways! Your comment comes off extremely sanctimonious as if people that post process their photos aren't creating art, or that by processing images, they are correcting mistakes. It's quite the opposite actually. Can you correct mistakes? Of course. But its not always done. Using myself as an example, I use lightroom to process my pictures. Even so, I get it as perfect as I can in camera, only using lightroom to enhance what I want to make of the piece. So if I take a pic and notice the crop is off, I don't just take it to lightroom to fix the crop, I fix the crop on site. An extremely easy fix in lightroom.

Seeing as the pictures you've posted can fall in the architecture category I'll use Mike Kelley as an example as well. Arguably the best architectural photographer in the world who understands composition as well as Einstein knew physics. He also post processes his images which could easily be taken out of camera and printed in a magazine.

All this to say, I would recommend not being so worried about what other people are doing and focus on much needed improvement in your own "artwork".

 

Rattlesnake Lake, WA

 

Canon 6D with 50mm 1.4.

 

These are really really nice.
Zim

 

Some of my favorites from my most recent shoot.

 

Very much this.

I've bought and sold a bag full of gear on Fred Miranda and have nothing but good to say about it.

 

Valley of Fire State Park, NV
sony a7R / sony 2.8f 16mm fisheye

 

Cascade Loop, WA

 

Here's a "high resolution" mode shot in the Carlsbad Caverns taken with my Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkIII sitting on a Peak Design tripod while wearing an Olympus 17mm f/1.8.




I got PLENTY of handheld images with that camera and lens in the caverns. It is a thoroughly impressive little camera!

And one of the truck in Arizona:

 

how do you get the headlights in the shot without lens flare? Filter? PS editing? Seems like no matter how hard I try, I always get lens flare. I’ll try the fast shutter and it doesn’t let enough light in. I’ve tried taking a fast one to get the lights then turn the lights Off with a longer exposure to get the surrounding and then photoshopping them in but it never looks quite right.

teach me your ways Obi-Won. Lol

 

Carlsbad Caverns are amazing! Other worldly even. I took one of the tours where they make you sit down and turn out all the lights so that you feel the disorientation of true pitch black. I asked the guide if I could stand and hold on to my tripod and he said go for it. That was something else!

 

I use a circular polarizer linear aka CPL filter which screws on to the end of the lens. You rotate it to cut down on glare and reflections. Probably one of the single best purchases I've made other than a full frame camera, 50mm 1.4 lens and Adobe lightroom.

 

Sometimes the best camera is what you have

 

Anyone have experience with adapted lenses on the Sony a6400?

I have been using some of my old Canon FD glass with a Metabones adapter with good results. My 200mm F2 lens is quite sharp, but gives a nice "vintage" look to the images.

I had always considered the newer EF-S lenses with another adapter because they are so plentiful, and I like Canon glass.

I am preparing for our upcoming trip to Iceland (hopefully), and I want to bring a longer lens. I like the 200mm I have (300 equivalent on the APSC sensor) but it is cumbersome to focus. I already plan to get the Sigma 16mm 1.4, but the Canon 55-250 is tempting.

I'm open to suggestions...

 

Is the excellent Sony 70-200 f4 an option? There should also be a Sony lens equivalent to that Canon.

Are you trying to stick with adapted lenses because of budget or a certain performance or look?

I would stick with the 16mm as an only lens, but I like wides for travel and I like not bringing lots of extra stuff on vacations.

 

If money were no object, that lens would be the one. As it is, I have a few other things to get and I'm no professional. The expense is hard to justify so I am going for bang/buck here. That Canon lens got good reviews when adapted to the A6x00 bodies as far as I can find. It doesn't quite get to the 300 that my FD lens does, but I think it would be more than adequate. Besides the lens and Metabones adapter is about as cheap as you can get 250mm for, and it opens me up to be able to pick up other Canon glass in the future. I'm not really trying to get any certain "look" from adapting lenses. It's more function/performance over form. I've never been one to shy away from duct tape and zip ties if it works.

I am expecting to shoot some wildlife so a zoom or longer prime will be coming with me. The 16mm is most likely going to be on the camera the majority of the time or the 18-135 Sony. I am trying to bring at most, 3 lenses with me along with a compact shortie tripod so I can get some shots of the wife and I together. I expect the 16mm to also be great (good enough) for a little bit of astrophotography.

 

@skierd

How does that lens perform on the APS-C sendsor of the a6x00 cameras? Is the theoretical loss of 1 f-stop limiting?

 

What 1 f-stop loss? f4 is f4 when it comes to exposure.

The “f stop equivalence” nonsense is just that. The lens is always a 70-200mm f4 lens that covers a 35mm sensor. It doesn’t matter is it’s on an aps-c sensor camera or a 35mm sensor camera; the crop sensor just records a smaller portion of the image circle. If anything it makes the lens better for aps-c since it leaves off the edges which generally are not as good as the center of the image circle.

The lens equivalence bs is really just supposed to be a guide if you change from crop sensor to full frame, or vice versa. If you like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera, you’ll want a 23.33 mm lens on your crop camera for the same angle of view. If you like a 50mm lens on your crop camera, you’ll want a 75mm lens for a 35mm camera for the same angle of view.

The f-stop equivalence is part of this format change guidance because larger formats need longer lenses to cover the same angle of view, and consequently have a smaller depth of field at the same angle of view all things being equal. Example: A 75mm at f2 on 35mm has a shallower depth of field than a 50mm lens at f2 on aps-c, by roughly one stop, because the lens is longer. A 50mm at f1.4 would have a similar depth of field. That’s it. That’s all. You aren’t losing a stop of light or a stop of performance; it’s just a guide for depth of field and angle of view and it’s something waaaay too many internet bloggers and forums are obsessed over.

 

I guess in the back of my mind I knew that... The covered area of the sensor is the same if you use that lens on a FF body in crop mode. Looking into used options for that lens now. Still probably going to get the MB adapter and Canon 55-250 to play with, but I would definitely prefer to stay with a native lens.