Nikkor

You have to get the purple out of there , another thing is that I would avoid bright backgrounds especially with dark skin. (I think Im underexposing/pulling too much, but meh)

I'm getting eye cancer ^^, the problem might be bad fluorescent light with wrong WB. This is how I imagine it looked in RL, the second is correcting for overexposure and colorshift

I think the mirrorless is totally awesome (for stills obviously) and the estetics gave me a gear-kind of hardon.

For 50€ I would buy it :D

Andrew said something about shooting in slog in photomode.

Here are 4 raws, 28 1.4 @ 2.8 and 50 1.2 @ 2.8, with the D3 and the D800. I focused so the aberrations are the same = focus point is the same. There is a sandstorm over my place now so there is no direct sunlight, the subject was picked for medium-fine detail (the wild cats in my garden won't hold still ) https://www.wetransfer.com/downloads/61e154d4c7d570c739ef4545d238f96d20160222140446/b4bd4f2154c342fd1f4306b6256c90e320160222140446/dd4e9a

Upload is taking forever, what I can see is that the d800 are much sharper (just open one D3 file in Photoshop, then drag and drop the d800 on top with matched WB)

I can do some comparison shots of the D3 and D800, maybe you can see it in the D3/d700 Files too Should I give it a shot?

But it's kind of strange to talk about the sharpness of cameras and then compare linear 1300pixel reductions from 4000-6000 pixels

When I click it takes me to a 1300pixel version.

Unless you make a side by side comparison it's hard to tell from those tiny pics Old CCD sensors with few megapixels and without olfp filter (like 22mp MF digital backs) give a very sharp image, large pixels ,sharp lenses,no pixelblur. Maybe it's something like that. What really interests me about the a7sii is the fullwell capacity. I wonder if you could do a comparison between the d750 and the a7sii where you have a blown cloudy sky in the background and then recover it, maybe the a7sii gives some surprise.

Is that a DOF adapter with groundglass?

This is a thread about the 50-150 1.8, and some people compare it to fullframe 70-200 2.8 lenses. So the whole discussion, if relevant, is about 1.8 crop vs 2.8 fullframe (or boosted).

Did you write the names wrong on the a7sii? The first one (slog3) looks horrible with a bad readout, the second one looks ok, it looks like two different readout methods.

But the XL will make the 1.8 f1.15 The problem is that such a long lens without stabilization is kind of useless right now.

But the tits are big on all three, aren't they? Anyway, imagine you crop a fullframe image, voilá, there you have your aps-c, micro four thirds or whatever you want. If the image is darker it's only because he either hasn't set the same iso and shutter speed or because the iso has some variation (iso is a standart, but it's never spot on -see dxo-). The F number, the ISO, and the shutter speed, are the three parameters that will let you expose correctly no matter what sensor ,film or whatever you are using. Another story is noise, dynamic range,etc...

That's not my problem, get your methylation working again.

Lol, what speedbooster on canon cameras, what are you talking about. The 70-200 2.8 is a fullframe lens, you can only use it with speedboosters on aps-c sensors. Do you understand what a speedbooster/focal reducer is/does?

So you were in fact wrong, right?

Global Shutter will have less Dynamic Range (atleast that's what they said over year ago when they announced it)

I won't read through your posts. If you take a 70-200 2.8, put a 0.7x speedbooster behind it will give you a 49-140mm f1.96 lens, with an APS-C sized image circle. The sigma is 50-150 f1.8, so it will be brighter. End of story.

That's incorrect, the fstop is a standart, if after speedboosting you get f2, it will be slower than f1.8

Well ,unless Sony fucks up bigtime, the a6300 is supposed to be a A7rii without fullframe mode and ibis.

They don't actually I hate canon still raw files, they are thinner than air and when you pixel peep you feel like taking a trip 8 years back in the digital world.

Unless the gh4 firmware upgrade inclufes raw, the a6300 is 1000x more interesting.