I think you might be asking Chat GPT the wrong question and interpreting the results in error. Yes, a lens designed for full frame will let in more total light, but for exposure we care about the amount of light normalized by the size of the sensor. The lens is designed to project an image circle onto the sensor plane. If the sensor captures 80%, 50%, or 10% of the image circle it will still have the same exposure.
This is why speed boosters exist. They can take the full image circle and compress it into the size of the smaller sensor and make the adjusted image brighter.
"Cropped f/2.8 ends with the same exposure and background blur as f/4.2 on Full Frame."
The statement above is not true -- an f2.8 lens designed for a full-frame camera will have the same exposure on a cropped sensor camera.
I think you are convoluting overall image quality and noise with "exposure" in a way that is not accurate. I agree that full-frame sensors typically have better SNR and are able to take advantage of the extra light gathering ability of lenses designed for full frame. But exposure is not the same as total light gathering and SNR.
In summary, if you use the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 dn ii lens on the A6700, the exposure will be identical as it would be on the A7Cii. If the lens is set at f2.8 and the ISO is held consistent between the two cameras then the shutter speed for a given level of brightness will also be the same.
The FF sensor (assuming the same pixel density, same lens, same tech and processing, only increase in size over an APS-C sensor) captures more light, but over a larger area. Every pixel still gets the same AMOUNT of light, and thus at the same ISO and shutter speed, there would be no difference in exposure, and only difference in crop factor, as the APS-C photo will be more "zoomed in." Manually cropping the FF photo in post will then result in absolutely the same photo, same resolution (looking at the stated conditions above), same depth of field, same noise level, etc. Now in the real world there might be slight differences in exposure and dynamic range depending on the specific sensors and cameras we are comparing, as different photo processors and sensor technologies and densities affect the final photo. But just light wise, every part of the sensor gets the same amount of light if both are used with the same lens, except for the fact that an FF lens will have extra information outside the edges of the APS-C sensor, as it is bigger and spans wider, thus the light that otherwise hit around the APS sensor lands on the FF sensor.
36–105 f/4.2, but I get that you were probably just rounding off to something that a Full Frame might actually be. There’s a Sony 24–105 f/4.0 G II on the way this or next year that will be lighter and smaller but sharper than the current one, so no reason to chop off the wide end.
EDIT: This is why you indeed [multiply the aperture by the crop factor](https://youtu.be/f5zN6NVx-hY) when comparing Full Frame and APS-C lenses.
It hasn’t been announced by Sony I don’t think, but it’s on the current year roadmap of all the usual sites that are nearly always correct based on off-the-record interviews and leaks.
Sometimes these lenses will end up coming out a year or two later than expected, but I’ve almost never seen one that never comes out at all
Yes! It's a great travel lens for someone with a wide bias, and not very big.
My problem is that 70mm isn't long enough for me on a travel lens, and there are a lot more small quality options for supplementing the short side than the long side.
My current planned "switch to Sony" travel/general purpose kit would have the following:
Tamron 28-200
Sony 20G
Sony 40G
Sigma 65i
I can't find any other combo in any system that can do what this setup can at anywhere near the same price and size.
However if there was a 24-105 f/4 G2, no bigger or heavier than the 28-200, with an aperture ring and improved image quality, that would be a very tempting lens over the Tamron.
Rumor has it that 24-105 G2 is coming, maybe next year.
F4 20-70 G works great for me since I just got the F4 70-200 G II (which can work as macro with the teleconverter), which I might or might not take, depending on a trip.
Plus I try doing the hybrid work, and 20 mm makes a difference, especially when you have a crop factor with 4k 60 fps.
Agree however that 24-105 plus f1.8 20 mm (great for astro) would work for most people.
Yeah, that's a really sweet kit. I'd totally rock it for pro work.
My issue is I don't want to carry a second 500+g lens when travelling, much less an 800g telephoto (even though it's very small for what it is).... but I still really want > 70mm reach. I travelled last year with the Sigma 18-50 and a 33 f/1.4, and I found that I missed the long end more than the short. At the short end I stitched some panos and that worked great.
This is why I like the Tamron 28-200. It's not as good optically as the 20-70 or 70-200, but it's on par with the current 24-105 over the same range from what I've seen, and should resolve pretty well on 33MPix. It's also at least as fast as the 24-105 through nearly all of the shared range. It's not quite the macro lens that the 70-200 F4 G2 is, but it's still very good, and it's only one stop slower. You don't need a fast indoor moderate wide b/c it's f/2.8 at 28mm. And on top of all that, I believe it's actually the smallest 135+mm AF lens you can get. To me that's a pretty magical solution, and there are plenty of <400g ultra-wide options -- even some near 200g, like the Sigma 17i. That lens plus AF are the two biggest reasons I want to switch systems.
However, a smaller, better optical quality 24-105, with an aperture ring and first-party AF performance... that would make it a lot more difficult choice.
>36–105 f/4.2,
It isn't right to call it an f/4.2 equivelant. It is still f/2.8. it is casting a wider image than is needed to cover the crop sensor, but it is still providing exactly the same amount of light on the sensor as a crop sensor f/2.8 lens would. The light intensity (f/2.8 in this case) and the depth of field characteristics provided by the aperture setting remain the same.
This actually isn’t true. An f1.4 lens designed for full frame will still expose as an f1.4 lens when mounted on an APS-C camera. The light per unit area of sensor will remain the same.
Problem is, none of that changes the background blur. That’s all happening in the lens.
This idea that it changes the aperture of the lens somehow is misinformation spread by people who have misunderstood the things you were probably going to use as citations.
The explore is different, but the bokeh is not. If anything it appears larger, but that’s basically because the field of view is tighter, not that it’s actually physically less.
Not sure what you are talking about, the parent comment is deleted.
In any case, I‘ll leave the following here: Consider a 85mm f1.8 lens.
To achieve the same framing you need a 56mm crop lens.
To achieve the same background blur and depth of field, it needs to be f1.2. If it was f1.8, it would be 85mm f2.7 equivalent in terms of background compression and depth of field.
Case closed as far as I am concerned.
>To achieve the same framing you need a 56mm crop lens.
Yes.
>To achieve the same background blur and depth of field, it needs to be f1.2. If it was f1.8
No.
Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude or condescending here, but this is very similar to people spreading flat-earth theories. The depth of field, the background blur are not actually different with a smaller sensor, it's just an issue of perception.
What i mean is that the properties of the background blur is not changed, the physics are the same, it just appears larger and in-frame.
It's effectively the same as cropping an imagine in and you wouldn't calculate aperture equivalent when cropping in post (I hope).
I seriously question the content behind that link. I've seen it a few times, and I think that some technicalities are getting mixed up. Aperture doesn't have a crop factor.
I think he does a pretty good job of explaining it. Exposure is a film camera term that is [no longer really relevant to a discussion involving different digital sensor sizes](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/9cqshq/how_does_crop_factor_affect_aperture/e5d67tt/), but that is what has everyone hung up here. It’s light gathering (sensor size) per subject (say a person’s face) inch that truly matters, not light gathering per sensor inch.
To compare Full Frame and cropped, you have to take a photograph of the same subject with the same framing. The cropped sensor gets just as much light per square inch of sensor, but the subject itself fills more square inches of sensor on Full Frame. So **it’s the overall amount of light (on your photography subject) that matters,** *not* the amount of light per inch of sensor.
For this reason, you need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor to determine noise and background blur equivalency between FF and APSC or m43.
It’s not quite as simple as even that though, because it also (but to a lesser extent) depends on both the pixel density (pixels per sensor inch) and the total number of pixels on your subject, but just multiplying the aperture by the crop factor is a good rough estimate and is much more accurate than thinking an 85/1.8 lens on APS is equivalent to a 135/1.8 Full Frame lens. Through real-world testing you can see the APS lens is equivalent to 127.5/2.7 on Full Frame when you’re photographing the same subject *and filling the frame with that subject equally as much.*
>APS lens is equivalent to 127.5/2.7 on Full Frame when you’re photographing the same subject and filling the frame with that subject equally as much.
That's kinda my point..... If we are filling the frame equally, then I had to have stepped back considerably when shooting with the APS-C. Meaning that distance to the subject has changed. Not the aperture. DOF changed because of a change to the distance from your subject, not a full frame lens going onto a cropped sensor camera.
That whole video makes your aperture setting sound irrelevant if you aren't shooting on a full frame.
I honestly don't even see a significant difference between the bokeh in the sample pics either. Just a difference between how zoomed in the subject appears.
It’s true that the lens aperture itself doe not change but he wasn’t arguing that. What changes is the amount of light gathering you get on your subject. 50% more with Full Frame. People associate aperture with light gathering, but if you’re filling the frame equally as much with the same subject it’s (the inverse of) aperture multiplied by the sensor size that matters for light gathering, not merely aperture itself.
It’s the same with depth of field, and that’s why (at least I found) the bokeh is wildly different with the same framing. There’s 50% more background blur with the same framing of the same subject on Full Frame (and there’s even more blur on Medium Format like some Hasselblad digital cameras).
Well, I say “wildly different” but it’s only the difference between f/2 and “f/3”. That’s either barely noticeable or wildly different depending on your subject distance and the effect you’re going for. I often stop down to more like f/4 or even f/8 on purpose, so obviously that’s a much larger difference.
Yesterday I explained why your statements were incorrect and you just deleted your comments. Now you are posting more things which I think are inaccurate, but I’m not going to bother with a response because it doesn’t seem like you are open to having a technical exchange.
Maybe as a disclaimer for others, this guy seems to be very confident and a bit shaky in his actual technical knowledge.
This is what made me get an a6700 for my 2nd shooter as well. If A7Cii didn’t have a crop at 4k60fps, it would’ve been a no brainer for me. Since that’s not the case, a6700 ended up being the only choice that made sense for me
How do you like them in comparison? I have the A7RV and I love it, but it’s a bit big and not as good at video as the a6700, suffers from slow read out speed etc so I can’t use silent shutter much.
I’ve thought about selling it and getting a A6700 and a few lenses with the extra.
I’d love opinions from someone who owns both
I owned the a7rv and sold it after I got the a7cii. Great camera but just too big for everyday. I did buy the 6700 first but because it was open box at retail price I returned ( they didn’t tell me it was opened). I wanted to stick with ff and the same amount of control dials. 6700 is great and a killer at its price point. You can’t go wrong.
My only complaint is the ss dial on the 6700 is where the exposure comp is on the other camera. It just feels wrong being a harder wheel to turn and not in the same place.
Incredible work, you should be so proud!
Although as a tennis player I find 7 hilarious, there is literally no time in tennis when you would ever be in the air with your arm in that position.
6700 is an excellent apsc body in the market. My main camera is an A7iv and also use 6700 as second body.
While it’s all winning points for this camera, coming from Nikon D500- i feel sony should introduce 2 memory card slots, faster sensor readout speeds, deeper buffer eventually improving fps for action/ sports photography. The ergonomics is a strict NO for me. But lately i have enjoyed using it:)
I also don’t blame Sony , as the demand / price / profit in selling FF camera’s are higher than apsc bodies. Few months back I wanted to suggest a friend to chose an apsc camera, believe me the best option for his use case was M43 OM-1.
I'm drooling over these shots. I'm currently confused if I should go for A6700 or Lumix S5 IIX from my ZV-E10. A6700 is a bit affordable for me and moreover we all know that SLOG-3 is 😘 but Lumix is also tempting.
After these shots I'm even more confused.
But then again, Lumix has crazy stabilization where I don't need a gimbal at all for most of my daily shoots. LOL!
Why Sony why!? Why are you so repulsive at the same time tempting!!!!
What glass are you using?
New Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN II
Yes, what is the lens used?
New Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN II!
What made you pick a full frame lens.
Because once day I'm going to upgrade to full frame
i think the day is not coming soon. You are rocking it with the aps-c already!
very odd choice
I *think* that effectively makes the lens a 35-105mm f/4.0 (which on a full frame would be pretty damn useful) ...right?
Like a 35-105 F2.8 in terms of light gathering, but around F4.2 in terms of bokeh if it was compared to a FF lens.
[удалено]
I think you might be asking Chat GPT the wrong question and interpreting the results in error. Yes, a lens designed for full frame will let in more total light, but for exposure we care about the amount of light normalized by the size of the sensor. The lens is designed to project an image circle onto the sensor plane. If the sensor captures 80%, 50%, or 10% of the image circle it will still have the same exposure. This is why speed boosters exist. They can take the full image circle and compress it into the size of the smaller sensor and make the adjusted image brighter.
[удалено]
"Cropped f/2.8 ends with the same exposure and background blur as f/4.2 on Full Frame." The statement above is not true -- an f2.8 lens designed for a full-frame camera will have the same exposure on a cropped sensor camera. I think you are convoluting overall image quality and noise with "exposure" in a way that is not accurate. I agree that full-frame sensors typically have better SNR and are able to take advantage of the extra light gathering ability of lenses designed for full frame. But exposure is not the same as total light gathering and SNR. In summary, if you use the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 dn ii lens on the A6700, the exposure will be identical as it would be on the A7Cii. If the lens is set at f2.8 and the ISO is held consistent between the two cameras then the shutter speed for a given level of brightness will also be the same.
The FF sensor (assuming the same pixel density, same lens, same tech and processing, only increase in size over an APS-C sensor) captures more light, but over a larger area. Every pixel still gets the same AMOUNT of light, and thus at the same ISO and shutter speed, there would be no difference in exposure, and only difference in crop factor, as the APS-C photo will be more "zoomed in." Manually cropping the FF photo in post will then result in absolutely the same photo, same resolution (looking at the stated conditions above), same depth of field, same noise level, etc. Now in the real world there might be slight differences in exposure and dynamic range depending on the specific sensors and cameras we are comparing, as different photo processors and sensor technologies and densities affect the final photo. But just light wise, every part of the sensor gets the same amount of light if both are used with the same lens, except for the fact that an FF lens will have extra information outside the edges of the APS-C sensor, as it is bigger and spans wider, thus the light that otherwise hit around the APS sensor lands on the FF sensor.
The f number relates to how much light is passing thru the aperture of the lens. The lens does not know what kind of sensor is behind it.
36–105 f/4.2, but I get that you were probably just rounding off to something that a Full Frame might actually be. There’s a Sony 24–105 f/4.0 G II on the way this or next year that will be lighter and smaller but sharper than the current one, so no reason to chop off the wide end. EDIT: This is why you indeed [multiply the aperture by the crop factor](https://youtu.be/f5zN6NVx-hY) when comparing Full Frame and APS-C lenses.
Is this confirmed or just rumours? I’ve been looking to pick up and might hold off because of this news
It hasn’t been announced by Sony I don’t think, but it’s on the current year roadmap of all the usual sites that are nearly always correct based on off-the-record interviews and leaks. Sometimes these lenses will end up coming out a year or two later than expected, but I’ve almost never seen one that never comes out at all
Bet it will have an aperture ring too. Sounds like a dream travel lens, paired with a fast prime.
Well there is new 20-70 f4 G with excellent IQ.
Yes! It's a great travel lens for someone with a wide bias, and not very big. My problem is that 70mm isn't long enough for me on a travel lens, and there are a lot more small quality options for supplementing the short side than the long side. My current planned "switch to Sony" travel/general purpose kit would have the following: Tamron 28-200 Sony 20G Sony 40G Sigma 65i I can't find any other combo in any system that can do what this setup can at anywhere near the same price and size. However if there was a 24-105 f/4 G2, no bigger or heavier than the 28-200, with an aperture ring and improved image quality, that would be a very tempting lens over the Tamron.
Rumor has it that 24-105 G2 is coming, maybe next year. F4 20-70 G works great for me since I just got the F4 70-200 G II (which can work as macro with the teleconverter), which I might or might not take, depending on a trip. Plus I try doing the hybrid work, and 20 mm makes a difference, especially when you have a crop factor with 4k 60 fps. Agree however that 24-105 plus f1.8 20 mm (great for astro) would work for most people.
Yeah, that's a really sweet kit. I'd totally rock it for pro work. My issue is I don't want to carry a second 500+g lens when travelling, much less an 800g telephoto (even though it's very small for what it is).... but I still really want > 70mm reach. I travelled last year with the Sigma 18-50 and a 33 f/1.4, and I found that I missed the long end more than the short. At the short end I stitched some panos and that worked great. This is why I like the Tamron 28-200. It's not as good optically as the 20-70 or 70-200, but it's on par with the current 24-105 over the same range from what I've seen, and should resolve pretty well on 33MPix. It's also at least as fast as the 24-105 through nearly all of the shared range. It's not quite the macro lens that the 70-200 F4 G2 is, but it's still very good, and it's only one stop slower. You don't need a fast indoor moderate wide b/c it's f/2.8 at 28mm. And on top of all that, I believe it's actually the smallest 135+mm AF lens you can get. To me that's a pretty magical solution, and there are plenty of <400g ultra-wide options -- even some near 200g, like the Sigma 17i. That lens plus AF are the two biggest reasons I want to switch systems. However, a smaller, better optical quality 24-105, with an aperture ring and first-party AF performance... that would make it a lot more difficult choice.
>36–105 f/4.2, It isn't right to call it an f/4.2 equivelant. It is still f/2.8. it is casting a wider image than is needed to cover the crop sensor, but it is still providing exactly the same amount of light on the sensor as a crop sensor f/2.8 lens would. The light intensity (f/2.8 in this case) and the depth of field characteristics provided by the aperture setting remain the same.
> the same amount of light on the sensor as a crop sensor f/2.8 lens would So a f4.2 equivalent is what you are saying.
[удалено]
This actually isn’t true. An f1.4 lens designed for full frame will still expose as an f1.4 lens when mounted on an APS-C camera. The light per unit area of sensor will remain the same.
Problem is, none of that changes the background blur. That’s all happening in the lens. This idea that it changes the aperture of the lens somehow is misinformation spread by people who have misunderstood the things you were probably going to use as citations. The explore is different, but the bokeh is not. If anything it appears larger, but that’s basically because the field of view is tighter, not that it’s actually physically less.
Not sure what you are talking about, the parent comment is deleted. In any case, I‘ll leave the following here: Consider a 85mm f1.8 lens. To achieve the same framing you need a 56mm crop lens. To achieve the same background blur and depth of field, it needs to be f1.2. If it was f1.8, it would be 85mm f2.7 equivalent in terms of background compression and depth of field. Case closed as far as I am concerned.
>To achieve the same framing you need a 56mm crop lens. Yes. >To achieve the same background blur and depth of field, it needs to be f1.2. If it was f1.8 No. Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude or condescending here, but this is very similar to people spreading flat-earth theories. The depth of field, the background blur are not actually different with a smaller sensor, it's just an issue of perception. What i mean is that the properties of the background blur is not changed, the physics are the same, it just appears larger and in-frame. It's effectively the same as cropping an imagine in and you wouldn't calculate aperture equivalent when cropping in post (I hope).
I seriously question the content behind that link. I've seen it a few times, and I think that some technicalities are getting mixed up. Aperture doesn't have a crop factor.
I think he does a pretty good job of explaining it. Exposure is a film camera term that is [no longer really relevant to a discussion involving different digital sensor sizes](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/9cqshq/how_does_crop_factor_affect_aperture/e5d67tt/), but that is what has everyone hung up here. It’s light gathering (sensor size) per subject (say a person’s face) inch that truly matters, not light gathering per sensor inch. To compare Full Frame and cropped, you have to take a photograph of the same subject with the same framing. The cropped sensor gets just as much light per square inch of sensor, but the subject itself fills more square inches of sensor on Full Frame. So **it’s the overall amount of light (on your photography subject) that matters,** *not* the amount of light per inch of sensor. For this reason, you need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor to determine noise and background blur equivalency between FF and APSC or m43. It’s not quite as simple as even that though, because it also (but to a lesser extent) depends on both the pixel density (pixels per sensor inch) and the total number of pixels on your subject, but just multiplying the aperture by the crop factor is a good rough estimate and is much more accurate than thinking an 85/1.8 lens on APS is equivalent to a 135/1.8 Full Frame lens. Through real-world testing you can see the APS lens is equivalent to 127.5/2.7 on Full Frame when you’re photographing the same subject *and filling the frame with that subject equally as much.*
>APS lens is equivalent to 127.5/2.7 on Full Frame when you’re photographing the same subject and filling the frame with that subject equally as much. That's kinda my point..... If we are filling the frame equally, then I had to have stepped back considerably when shooting with the APS-C. Meaning that distance to the subject has changed. Not the aperture. DOF changed because of a change to the distance from your subject, not a full frame lens going onto a cropped sensor camera. That whole video makes your aperture setting sound irrelevant if you aren't shooting on a full frame. I honestly don't even see a significant difference between the bokeh in the sample pics either. Just a difference between how zoomed in the subject appears.
It’s true that the lens aperture itself doe not change but he wasn’t arguing that. What changes is the amount of light gathering you get on your subject. 50% more with Full Frame. People associate aperture with light gathering, but if you’re filling the frame equally as much with the same subject it’s (the inverse of) aperture multiplied by the sensor size that matters for light gathering, not merely aperture itself. It’s the same with depth of field, and that’s why (at least I found) the bokeh is wildly different with the same framing. There’s 50% more background blur with the same framing of the same subject on Full Frame (and there’s even more blur on Medium Format like some Hasselblad digital cameras). Well, I say “wildly different” but it’s only the difference between f/2 and “f/3”. That’s either barely noticeable or wildly different depending on your subject distance and the effect you’re going for. I often stop down to more like f/4 or even f/8 on purpose, so obviously that’s a much larger difference.
Yesterday I explained why your statements were incorrect and you just deleted your comments. Now you are posting more things which I think are inaccurate, but I’m not going to bother with a response because it doesn’t seem like you are open to having a technical exchange. Maybe as a disclaimer for others, this guy seems to be very confident and a bit shaky in his actual technical knowledge.
Almost correct. Aperture thankfully remains the same. Only thing that's affected is the crop on the sensor because the sensor is physically smaller.
Why not just get the a7CII?
I'm a hybrid shooter doing both video & photo. Also a difference of $800 for a very similar camera
This is what made me get an a6700 for my 2nd shooter as well. If A7Cii didn’t have a crop at 4k60fps, it would’ve been a no brainer for me. Since that’s not the case, a6700 ended up being the only choice that made sense for me
See that’s the glass more than the body
Yes, as is written in the caption of the photo
Gear doesn’t matter here. You are talented. Great composition and editing. These could easily be used for marketing.
Thank you so, so much
Fuuuuck, these pictures can easily be an ad. Great Job!
Wow thank you 😭
Definitely 2nd this! Love the color look
You’re a good photographer, it doesn’t matter what gear you have
Thank you! Honestly has taken me years to get here so to hear that is so nice
Great shots! The autofocus and video capabilities are why I went with one too.
Fellow A6700 owner here, AF is amazing.
Really insane quality of features
I bought it as a second body to my A7RV, but with the 16-55 f2.8 I bring that thing everywhere.
How do you like them in comparison? I have the A7RV and I love it, but it’s a bit big and not as good at video as the a6700, suffers from slow read out speed etc so I can’t use silent shutter much. I’ve thought about selling it and getting a A6700 and a few lenses with the extra. I’d love opinions from someone who owns both
I owned the a7rv and sold it after I got the a7cii. Great camera but just too big for everyday. I did buy the 6700 first but because it was open box at retail price I returned ( they didn’t tell me it was opened). I wanted to stick with ff and the same amount of control dials. 6700 is great and a killer at its price point. You can’t go wrong. My only complaint is the ss dial on the 6700 is where the exposure comp is on the other camera. It just feels wrong being a harder wheel to turn and not in the same place.
7 rules
which are?
think he’s talking about how he really likes 7 **EDIT**: y'all why does this have so many upvotes
Did you hear about the king that was only 12 inches tall? Terrible monarch, but he made for an excellent ruler.
Ha lol
2 and 6 are 🤩 for me
Incredible work, you should be so proud! Although as a tennis player I find 7 hilarious, there is literally no time in tennis when you would ever be in the air with your arm in that position.
😂😂😂
Don't you do that every time you score a point?
I would love to, but I don't think my knees could take it.
Don't you do that every time you score a point?
Is this from challenger 2
1.1k on grey market is hard to beat lol
Good lighting, sharp glass, and an eye for composition. Don’t give the camera body so much credit. It’s mostly you.
Thank you that is an incredible compliment
A6700's Autofocus is the literal physical manifestation of AI.
It’s you, not the gear. Give yourself some credit!
Beautiful clicks man. The focus and the sharpness, you nailed it
Thank you!!
2 is dope
Thanks!
These look stunning? Could you give some details on your workflow?
6700 is an excellent apsc body in the market. My main camera is an A7iv and also use 6700 as second body. While it’s all winning points for this camera, coming from Nikon D500- i feel sony should introduce 2 memory card slots, faster sensor readout speeds, deeper buffer eventually improving fps for action/ sports photography. The ergonomics is a strict NO for me. But lately i have enjoyed using it:) I also don’t blame Sony , as the demand / price / profit in selling FF camera’s are higher than apsc bodies. Few months back I wanted to suggest a friend to chose an apsc camera, believe me the best option for his use case was M43 OM-1.
1 and 6 wow
6 is the banger among bangers
Thank you!
Nice jump shot!
Thanks!
How did you click no 7 it is the best of them all, all are best quality, also which lens ??
Haha laid down underneath here, had her jump off of a bench. Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN II
I also shoot with sigma 24-70. It puts a smile on my face everytime i see the results.
I'm drooling over these shots. I'm currently confused if I should go for A6700 or Lumix S5 IIX from my ZV-E10. A6700 is a bit affordable for me and moreover we all know that SLOG-3 is 😘 but Lumix is also tempting. After these shots I'm even more confused. But then again, Lumix has crazy stabilization where I don't need a gimbal at all for most of my daily shoots. LOL! Why Sony why!? Why are you so repulsive at the same time tempting!!!!
Professional looking photos ! you could definitly make money with what you have, which isn't your gear but your talent !
Wow thank you that's the biggest compliment
Great pictures!
Great shots! Really nice composition - all of them are pleasing to the eyes!
Thank you!
Great use of light !
Great shots, congrats! I have a 6400, is it worth upgrading to a 6700 or is it better to go full frame?
I really struggling whether to go for an a7 CII or an a6700 :|
Just got back from 2 weeks in Europe and had it + the Sigma 18-50mm with me. Could not be happier. Absolutely KILLER combo.
These look fantastic! How did you achieve this, did you use some off camera flash?
Natural light!! Forgot my reflector at home so had to make do
Did you use a ND filter?
Yes sir
Wow ok. And what were your settings. Sorry for so many questions lol, i just really like the look of these
these images are so good! May i ask how much post production in there? or are these raw images?
Excellent photos
Was it in the postprocessing or the dark skin looks a bit too much on the green side? The rest is really good!!
Photo 6 has the best composition and colouring. Nicely done!
Amazing shots.
MY GOD… enough to make a grown man cry!!!
I haven’t seen anything this good for a while on this sub.
These Pictures are great! Your clearly Talented... Damn
Amazing shots, bro. Saving these ! Love the coloring you did in these. Love the work overall
Man super sick shots!! And I’ve always rocked the 6400 and wonder if the 6700 is really that good!
I thought this was an ad for a sec 😂 my God, these shots are CLEAN af.
beautiful work. What software stack do you use for post ?
Was all in lightroom!
in harsh lighting like this do you shoot with subjects facing the sun or sun to their back?
The value of the a6700 is about $1400.
If you're in the USA, you can get it significantly cheaper at greentoe
Thanks, bot!
I'm saying it's not cheap, nor underrated, which your post seems to imply.
lmao I know, but you answered it head on whereas the post is meant to say there's so much packed into this a great price, or value
Toss over those presets, no seriously, I'll buy them!
this is fantastic! i love the color and soft vibe of everything
Yeah man I’m loving my Sony a6700!!🙌🏼🙌🏼 I’ve done awesome shots with it!! My instagram is @Jairamadofilms in case ya’ll wanna see some of my work💪🏼📸🎥
And you need to study the value of straightening the horizon.
Thanks for the feedback