Lost in too many messages..I meant cap with a little piece of chord/strap to attach it to the camera body
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
From bridge camera to DSLR or Mirrorless: tips?
- Thread starter katbel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dslr mirrorless camera
- Sort by reaction score
You know, I almost started a poll about filters. Based on the reactions, it sounds like it might become a hot potato thread!
When out on an excursion and carrying the camera with a couple of lenses, which necessitates a camera bag, when putting the lens on the body, I immediately drop the three caps: body cap, rear lens cap and front lens cap, right into the bag in the same section from which I've just removed the lens. If I'm at home and just taking a stroll around the neighborhood and lake with my camera and just one lens, I remove the caps and put the lens on at home. Sometimes I do forget to take off the front lens cap and get outdoors, turn on the camera, ready to shoot and....uh....why can't I see anything but darkness? Duh! In that situation, I simply put the lens cap into a pocket, as usually I am wearing shorts or pants anyway. In cooler weather, I wear either a down-filled vest or a jacket, depending on how cold it is.
One can order extra body caps, front and rear lens caps, too, from B&H and other places. Not long after getting my A7R IV two years ago I ordered extra body caps and rear lens caps from B&H. Those are standardized sizes for the Sony E-mount lenses and camera bodies. Front lens cap replacements can also be ordered when one knows the size that is needed. I've only had to do that one time, some years ago, when I had lost the lens cap from my RX10 IV -- or thought I had. Of course, the day after the replacement cap arrived, wouldn't you know, I found the original after all.
And, yes, there are lens cap "keepers" or whatever they're called, some of which let the front lens cap dangle on a cord from the camera when off, and some which I think connect to the camera strap somehow. I have never used those things, though.
When walking around the neighborhood with the camera I carry a small pouch which has an extra battery in it and although I'm not likely to need it since I've got both memory card slots filled, an extra memory card or two. When using a camera with just one memory card slot it's even more important to have an extra memory card at hand. Having a spare battery and spare memory card right with me saves me having to make an unexpected walk back home if I've run out of memory or run out of battery power. Learned that lesson some years ago!
i live on the edge. i keep my lens cap in a pocket.
I should have been more precise in my usage, as there are various types of straps: neck straps, which just as they sound, hang the camera from the neck. When I wrote "shoulder strap" I actually should have written "sling," which is the correct terminology. With a sling strap, one has the strap on one shoulder, the camera on a long strap that goes across the body so that the camera rests near or around the hip area on the other side and can easily be pulled up into position for use without the strap interfering. Since I am short I can actually more-or-less hang my regular neck strap across my body, but then the strap does get in the way when shooting, so I tend not to do that. I hold my camera while walking around so that it is not hanging, suspended, from my neck.
I often do the same, specially with lens caps such as the one on my Tokina 16-28mm SWA. This thing is enormous!
I tried to shoot few photos: AMAZING camera❤️
I compared photos taken using the same subject with the old one and the new Sony.
Light, focus everything is fantastic and I don't know yet anything.
Going to study and play: thanks again for all your input!!
mollyc :The 210mm came with the hood and bought the cap with the strap
I compared photos taken using the same subject with the old one and the new Sony.
Light, focus everything is fantastic and I don't know yet anything.
Going to study and play: thanks again for all your input!!
mollyc :The 210mm came with the hood and bought the cap with the strap
One last question: the camera has the latest firmware already installed
Should I download it from Sony and keep it just in case some new firmware makes a mess and I can go back
or it doesnt work the same way as computers and phones?
Should I download it from Sony and keep it just in case some new firmware makes a mess and I can go back
or it doesnt work the same way as computers and phones?
You may want to watch some YouTube users of this camera model - visually seeing the bells and whistles can be helpfulI tried to shoot few photos: AMAZING camera
I compared photos taken using the same subject with the old one and the new Sony.
Light, focus everything is fantastic and I don't know yet anything.
Going to study and play: thanks again for all your input!!
mollyc :The 210mm came with the hood and bought the cap with the strap
Me too. The hard part is remembering which pocket it was.
Something about this was niggling at me, and I finally got around to taking a look and clarifying something for myself. Ok, I think I've got this figured out.
Yet another piece of info as we induct our new mirrorless ILC user into this new world..... When using interchangeable lenses, one always refers to them as "primes" or "zooms." When talking about a prime lens, for instance, one would say that he or she was using the 35mm and then specify the specific f/number (f/2.8mm, f/1.8mm, f/1.4mm, whatever). When talking about zoom lenses one usually refers to the range that the zoom lens covers: i.e.: 12-24mm, 200-600mm, 100-400mm, etc. , as zooms can be either variable apertures or fixed apertures. So one would say, "I'm using my 70-200mm lens today to shoot when we're at the zoo." The range is often more important and meaningful in this situation.
When I go out on my deck to shoot the ducks, geese and my beloved Alfred, I've always got a zoom lens on the camera, and if asked, I usually will specify the range of that particular lens. When I'm shooting indoors and doing a tabletop scene or a macro shoot, I'm going to be using a prime lens, and so I would specify that it's the 90mm Sony macro or the Voigtlander 110mm macro, whatever it is....This info, or at least some of it, also shows up, by the way, in the EXIF that we can now see in the Media section here on MR under our own or others' accounts, so that if I post a photo of a flower, a Hooded Merganser or Alfred, members here can check the media info for that image and in most cases learn just what I used to shoot that image. However, this doesn't always work, as it is dependent upon various factors, so not everyone's EXIF info as presented on MR will be available or complete.
So,getting back on track here, what caught my attention in the original mention of what had been newly purchased was the reference to a 210mm lens. Something was tickling at my brain and I wasn't sure that Sony has ever released a 210mm prime lens, so had a look via Google to find out.
I am thinking now, Katbel, that what you've got for starters, and it's a good kit, is the Sony 16-50mm zoom and the 55-210 zoom, both nice lenses, which will get you off to a good start within a fairly wide range spectrum. Your mention of wanting a pancake lens, then, means that maybe you also want to add an ultrawide lens to your gear at some point, right? Or a fast lens that is a pancake lens? Actually, I think that for a while you'll have plenty to keep you busy with your two new lenses and seeing what they will and won't do for you.
One major difference between primes and zooms aside from the obvious, of course, is that prime lenses are often faster. This is where you'll find the f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.0 lenses....... Some, but not too many, zoom lenses do offer a fixed aperture of f/2.8 or f/4, but not a lot of them. Variable apertures within a zoom lens' range is more the name of the game and for the most part it really doesn't make a big difference as long as one is shooting under good lighting conditions anyway, and these days one can go to a higher ISO without running into too much of a problem with noise, too.
It takes a while to figure all these things out, and eventually many photographers find that they seem to prefer primes to zooms or vice-versa, and they develop their lens "family" accordingly. Most people have a mixture of both but still tend to reach for one type of lens over another, depending upon what the shooting goal is, the subject, the potential lighting situation, etc.
I hope this helps you and hasn't confused you!
Last edited:
Now I know the difference between pancake and wide lenses, ? I didn't before
English is not my first language and I miss several technical words .
No actually, it's helping because my husband was asking the exact same questions about aperture and my lenses etc
He had a SLR long time ago and became quite an expert. Then he lost interest.
This morning I was a little worried about the 210mm lens: I was surprise that was "cheaper" compared to others and of course f/4.5-6.3 is not that much. I tried it in the shop yesterday an I found it a little too dark.
Today arriving at home I was surprise how good was -for being what it is - and I was able to get nice photos of my favorite hummingbird and I still need to learn all the tricks.
As a beginner I think is a good start and a big improvement . I will follow Steven-iphone
advice to watch videos and I already downloaded several tutorials.
I agree. For me, any filter is an impediment to the optical path, clear or otherwise. Even the highest quality ones. Use them in the right circumstances, for long exposures or to block spectrum, UV/IR, specific colors or otherwise. And definitely, people use them for lens protection, which is awesome, but for me, I want it to have a specific optical purpose related to the final image.
Edit: As others have said, protection filters-vs-none can be like religious wars, which are never worthwhile or interesting. Like raw processors (go Capture One!). Choose your tribe and go
.
Last edited:
Re: filters-
If I'm using a filter on a lens, there's a reason for it. I do use polarizers and ND filters, but don't see much use in others for digital.
With film, I'll sometimes leave an 81A when I'm shooting slides(slight warming filter), and B&W gets yellow/orange/red depending on the situation. I also have several Moose polarizers, which are combination 81A and circular polarizer(extra handy since many polarizers are slightly cool-doesn't matter on digital but can matter on slide film). I also only carry special purpose filters in one size at a time-52mm if I'm doing manual focus since 90% of MF Nikons use that size, and 77mm if I'm using modern stuff. I use a step ring if a particular lens is smaller.
In any case, I always use quality filters. Nikon and B+W are my first choice, and Hoya a 3rd especially if I need a particular filter they make and no one else does(see, again, Moose polarizers). Make sure they're multicoated.
Aside from optical quality, though, when I could do it easily I use to check light transmission(vs. wavelength) of all my filters, something that would show color casts or the like on filters. It was a real shock when I ordered an off brand red #25 67mm filter and found that it actually wasn't a true "cut off" filter like what you'd use for B&W photography(i.e. a normal #25 is opaque above ~600nm, and this one had a couple of cut off "notches" but not a continuous spectrum).
Some lenses do require a filter, but I'm not aware of any that require a front mounted filter. If you have a super-tele with a "drawer", generally the refractive index of the filter-and not just any filter but one of the exact glass type and thickness specified by the manufacturer-must be installed. These are provided with the lens-or at least a clear sometimes skylight-and also buried deep within and protected. Some Nikon UW and Fisheyes(note-since I saw it mentioned upthread-that fisheye refers to the type of projection the lens makes-ultrawide lenses can also be rectilinear) have a rear mounted bayonet filter that is SUPPOSED to be there, although I've not seen a practical difference between on and off. A couple of Nikon lenses even have filter "wheels" on them...the 8mm fisheye and 13mm(which I think had double digit or low triple digit production numbers) had this.
If I'm using a filter on a lens, there's a reason for it. I do use polarizers and ND filters, but don't see much use in others for digital.
With film, I'll sometimes leave an 81A when I'm shooting slides(slight warming filter), and B&W gets yellow/orange/red depending on the situation. I also have several Moose polarizers, which are combination 81A and circular polarizer(extra handy since many polarizers are slightly cool-doesn't matter on digital but can matter on slide film). I also only carry special purpose filters in one size at a time-52mm if I'm doing manual focus since 90% of MF Nikons use that size, and 77mm if I'm using modern stuff. I use a step ring if a particular lens is smaller.
In any case, I always use quality filters. Nikon and B+W are my first choice, and Hoya a 3rd especially if I need a particular filter they make and no one else does(see, again, Moose polarizers). Make sure they're multicoated.
Aside from optical quality, though, when I could do it easily I use to check light transmission(vs. wavelength) of all my filters, something that would show color casts or the like on filters. It was a real shock when I ordered an off brand red #25 67mm filter and found that it actually wasn't a true "cut off" filter like what you'd use for B&W photography(i.e. a normal #25 is opaque above ~600nm, and this one had a couple of cut off "notches" but not a continuous spectrum).
Some lenses do require a filter, but I'm not aware of any that require a front mounted filter. If you have a super-tele with a "drawer", generally the refractive index of the filter-and not just any filter but one of the exact glass type and thickness specified by the manufacturer-must be installed. These are provided with the lens-or at least a clear sometimes skylight-and also buried deep within and protected. Some Nikon UW and Fisheyes(note-since I saw it mentioned upthread-that fisheye refers to the type of projection the lens makes-ultrawide lenses can also be rectilinear) have a rear mounted bayonet filter that is SUPPOSED to be there, although I've not seen a practical difference between on and off. A couple of Nikon lenses even have filter "wheels" on them...the 8mm fisheye and 13mm(which I think had double digit or low triple digit production numbers) had this.
I agree. For me, any filter is an impediment to the optical path, clear or otherwise. Even the highest quality ones. Use them in the right circumstances, for long exposures or to block spectrum, UV/IR, specific colors or otherwise. And definitely, people use them for lens protection, which is awesome, but for me, I want it to have a specific optical purpose related to the final image.
Edit: As others have said, protection filters-vs-none can be like religious wars, which are never worthwhile or interesting. Like raw processors (go Capture One!). Choose your tribe and go
Capture One for a beginner????!!! A couple of years ago I went with Capture One in my search to move beyond Aperture, which was going away, and maybe it's just me, I'm not really into retouching and editing and such, and I'm sure no artist, nor do I have a studio setup where I need to tether my camera to a computer while shooting live models for a magazine cover or article, whatever. I found Capture One to be overwhelming and far beyond my simple, basic editing needs. I finally threw in the towel and looked for something else which was more suited to my approach to editing, which is pretty uncomplicated and basic.
Each of us does have to find the software editing program which works best for us.....
Yes, it can have a learning curve but my weird brain gels with it quite nicely
. They have superb learning materials and it gets me where I want to be the fastest for my camera systems, for the way I like to work. There’s great software out there to suit every taste, though. It’s a golden age for raw processing.For those just starting out and in the Apple ecosystem, no one should discount Photos (I mentioned this somewhere recently). It’s crazy fast and is free. They’re a little slow on camera support but they support OP’s a6400. Another great option by one of the former leads on Aperture is RAWPower. It has great integration with Photos and takes it to a different level. He’s also trying to tackle the slow camera support from Apple in a first class way, which is awesome.
My weird brain just couldn't wrap itself around and embrace Capture One.....
RAWPower is a terrific little program. I don't use Photos, nor did I use iPhoto, its predecessor, but to each their own...
RAWPower is a terrific little program. I don't use Photos, nor did I use iPhoto, its predecessor, but to each their own...