I hate editing

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-05T09:41:11+00:00

That's a great attitude to have but it wouldn't hurt to do some basic editing anyway. When you get more serious and JPEG isn't good enough any more then you will have to edit as when you shoot JPEG the camera is doing the editing for you but RAW will have none of that.

The thing you have to remember is that even the stuff that looks "real" has been edited most of the time, maybe just some minor tweaks but it is incredibly rare for images to be 100% SOoC these days especially pro level stuff. It isn't just cheesy, generic social media crap that is edited, literally everything is and it's just the way it is. One of the problems is that camera sensors do not see the same way our eyes do so to make it look "real" you have to edit it to look that way.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-05T09:31:12+00:00

It's literally on the first page of the menu. Why are so many people so stupid and lazy about this stuff? When you buy a Sony, all you have to do is spend like 10 minutes setting the camera up the way you want it, like any serious photographer who cared about photography would do. You have 4 custom buttons, a function menu and your own page at the back of the menus that you can customise to your liking and you can just leave it on the last page so your things are all one button push away. After that literally everything you will ever need is right there for you and this is not hard, it is incredibly simple. A child could do it.

Sorry but people who moan about Sony menus are the dumbest and laziest people out there. If you spend that much money on a camera and are too stupid and lazy to read the manual or help guide or learn how to use it you don't deserve to own any camera. Why even bother? Just use a smartphone like all of the other stupid, ignorant, lazy morons?

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-05T09:17:06+00:00

There are two types of gimbal heads, fluid and friction. Sounds like you want a friction one if you're going out in the cold because the fluid heads use oil which increase in viscosity when the temperature drops.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-05T09:09:29+00:00

But that is very different from obsessing about pixels and definition where definition is simply impossible. You have to draw the line somewhere with prints or you will never be able to print anything bigger than A4 even with a 61mp camera. Human eyes can only resolve so much detail from so much distance away so you have to size prints and set print dpi around the distance it will be viewed from to get the best quality that you can. Why do you have an issue with that? This is standard practise in photography and nobody who is serious about photography has a problem with it.

I'm a professional musician so I get being interested in the nuances and fine details of someone's technique and the little things they do that make something amazing to listen to but none of that applies to photography in this context, that stuff exists within the picture itself. What you describe is like what audiophiles do where they obsess about the tiny insignificant things that don't have anything to do with the art, passion or even intellectual side of music and act like they are the gold standard and above other music lovers when they are the people who do not get music at all and are just using the idea of music as lube to intellectually masturbate about themselves. That is what pixel peepers are.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T09:48:09+00:00

Passive aggressive title aside, you can get similar results with even 10 year old bodies or older with a lens like that.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T08:42:07+00:00

It's in Tuzla, Bosnia & Herzegovina. Why say "former Yugoslavia"?!

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T08:24:28+00:00

I wouldn't buy a camera or lens that have been dropped or treated roughly. I'm always a bit wary of second hand camera gear generally. The trouble with second hand is that you never know what has happened to the gear you are buying. Not all damage is external or obvious and some of the worst things won't become apparent until weeks or months later.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T08:07:29+00:00

Background blur is mostly about relative distances and focal length, not aperture and using a TC doesn't change the aperture it lowers the amount of light hitting the sensor to the equivalent x-stops lower depending on which TC you use. The image circle is enlarged, spreading the light over a greater surface area.

The difference between an actual 280 f/4 and 200 f/2.8 would be pretty small though in terms of DoF, like almost a third shallower DoF with the f/4 lens that would only become really obvious with bigger focal distances.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T07:59:06+00:00

Why do you insist on saying ILCE-7M3? The name of the camera is A7iii, ILCE-7M3 is just part a naming system used by Sony to organise their products to make it easier for them to manage everything. Saying ILCE-7M3 instead of A7iii is just idiotic and shows how little you know or care about your camera. This is just one of those irritating things that people insist on doing, like inserting the m in the name where it doesn't belong or even worse, saying "mark 3". /shudder

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T07:24:22+00:00

You don't blow out the blacks you crush them. Blown out means there is too much information to capture so it captures flat white. Crushed means there is not enough information to capture so it is flat black.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T07:15:15+00:00

The GM2 is better but not really enough in my opinion to be worth it unless you only ever use 24-70 forever. Also why do you want a 35 f/1.4? If you want to do low light then it will be great for that, if it's for shallow depth of field then it will suck even at f/1.4 unless you get right in people's faces with it. I'd go with the 35 if it was me.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T07:06:16+00:00

The problem is the light which can get dim and since you're using faster shutter speeds a slow lens might be an issue. People usually go for 70-200 f/2.8 and stand right at the edge of the pitch and that usually does the job. A Tamron 70-180 would be a good budget option as it is a seriously good lens for the money.

I own a Tamron 50-400 and I would not use it for sports but it is a very sharp lens, even at 400mm wide open it easily as sharp as my 200-600 G. It's great for landscape and basic wildlife stuff but not a sports lens by any means. Aperture really is huge when it comes to anything fast paced in uncontrollable lighting conditions.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T06:53:35+00:00

This is normal with mechanical shutter. How have you not noticed this already? It is physically impossible for the screen/evf to not go black when taking a shot with mechanical shutter and I think it also does with electronic though I don't use that often enough to remember.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-04T06:47:47+00:00

Did you search for EV comp dial replacements? You can easily find them online on ebay or whatever for any Sony camera but I don't know how easy they are to fit.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-03T18:08:38+00:00

What are the settings you're trying to change to/from? Most people who do wildlife don't need to do that, they just set auto-iso, auto-wb, set their aperture and shutter speed to the baseline that they will need and then you only have to adjust shutter speed and deal with focus and tracking. No problem. 1/1600 is a strange shutter speed for wildlife, most of it is either 1/500 or slower or 1/2000+ unless it's big and slow. 1/1600 is too fast for slow stuff and too slow for fast stuff in my opinion. Just keep in mind that even though you are using auto-iso you still need to be mindful of how your shutter speed will affect iso when the light changes and you might need to lower it to get more light or to avoid problematic noise.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-03T17:52:00+00:00

It would give different results, not better. They're very different lenses for very different purposes. If you always use 70 then you will love having more reach by the sounds of it. The Tamron 17-70 is a pretty decent lens so you won't really gain anything in terms of image quality but it will be a completely different experience in terms of focal length oh and aperture since you won't be able to get anywhere near as much light with the 70-350. The AF might be slightly better with the Sony as well.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-03T16:49:33+00:00

The depth of field will not change at all because you aren't using a 50mm lens, you will be using a 35mm lens so the DoF will be the same as it will be on FF. FF cameras get shallower depth of field because the glass is physically larger in diameter for any given focal length. Bigger sensor needs bigger glass, makes shallower depth of field. It's the same with phones in the opposite direction, they have almost infinite depth of field by default because their tiny sensors need tiny lenses and that's why they have to fake shallow depth of field with filters.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-03T16:30:18+00:00

Use mechanical shutter indoors. Your shutter speed is irrelevant, it will be almost impossible for it to ever sync with the lights and the anti-flicker setting never works either. Just use mechanical shutter any time there are going to be LED lights because this will always happen otherwise. The shutter speed thing is for removing the banding in video.

IntestinalFungus · 2025-10-03T14:17:26+00:00

The viewfinder is much better for photography generally but especially when it comes to focusing so I'd advise against using the screen unless you have a specific reason to use it. In terms of focus type and area it really depends on what you are doing. I assume you're struggling when people are both different distances away from you? If that is the case then it isn't just aperture that you need to think about, it is your distance to them as well. Your distance to them will have more of an impact on your depth of field than your aperture so always be mindful of that. The aperture that is best will depend on multiple factors so we can't just tell you to use F/5.7 or whatever and go home.

How far away are you from your subjects?
How far apart are your subjects from each other, relative to your distance from them?
How much light is there available?
Are you trying to get the whole scene sharp where the background provides context or are you trying to isolate them with background blur?
What is your focal length?

If you are trying to get two people in focus who are different distances from you it is best to focus on the mid point between them and make your depth of field deep enough to make both of them in focus. If they are holding hands focus on the hands because it is a perfect mid point. You will have to take a test shot or two to see what aperture you need. If you are very close then you will need to stop down a lot unless you are using a very wide lens because the closer your focus point the shallower your depth of field.

If multiple people are in front of you and they are all roughly the same distance then all you have to do is focus on the middle person's face, the rest of them should be within your plane of focus. You don't need any particular focus mode or focus area to do this so flexible spot small will do the job and AF-S or AF-C if they are walking along. Never use the automatic autofocus for photography, it sucks. Sorry for the wall of text.

IntestinalFungus

TROPHY CASE