Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

Morning on Deck by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Hockeyman]

I'm considering changing systems as well.
But remember, it's not a wash-out --- You need to either buy the adapter, and/or buy new lenses. The FE lenses tend to be more expensive than comparable lenses in other systems. If you use the adapter, you are losing stabilization.
And for the most part, the FE lenses are slower (F4 lenses).

The A7 is still on my list of options, but I'm actually more inclined towards the D750 --- I love the responsiveness of the autofocus, and it should be among the best low light cameras apart from the A7s. I'd bet it will be the best 24mp low light camera.
Problem is, switching to the D750 is costly. The re-sale value of A-mount stuff has gotten really low, as it is looking more and more like Sony is going to ultimately dump the a-mount, even if not official for a while.

My vast A-mount collection, might only be enough to finance a D750 and 1-2 lenses. If I went with the A7... Save $1,000 on the body.... but, access to a wider selection of more affordable glass with the Nikon.

A7 pros -- Smaller, EVF.
Nikon D750 pros -- more lens support, more faster lenses, far superior AF.

So maybe getting rid of the A99 is a little more on the proactive side? Im sticking with Sony however so its either a99 or A7 for me, for now. I like where the A7 line is headed. A7 is something I can grow into over time. Sure id be stuck with an adapter for a year but over time can pick up a lens or two to build up my collection, since it seems like they are moving away from A mount like you said.

A few concerns/questions

How does the AF compare between the A99 and A7. I missed a lot of shots last week at HHN with the A99 and Sigma 50mm f1.4 because my camera was fighting to focus.

Any difference in ISO at low light levels between the two. I was hardly impressed with the A99 at ISO 8000

 

[fractal]

I'm considering changing systems as well.
But remember, it's not a wash-out --- You need to either buy the adapter, and/or buy new lenses. The FE lenses tend to be more expensive than comparable lenses in other systems. If you use the adapter, you are losing stabilization.
And for the most part, the FE lenses are slower (F4 lenses).

The A7 is still on my list of options, but I'm actually more inclined towards the D750 --- I love the responsiveness of the autofocus, and it should be among the best low light cameras apart from the A7s. I'd bet it will be the best 24mp low light camera.
Problem is, switching to the D750 is costly. The re-sale value of A-mount stuff has gotten really low, as it is looking more and more like Sony is going to ultimately dump the a-mount, even if not official for a while.

My vast A-mount collection, might only be enough to finance a D750 and 1-2 lenses. If I went with the A7... Save $1,000 on the body.... but, access to a wider selection of more affordable glass with the Nikon.

A7 pros -- Smaller, EVF.
Nikon D750 pros -- more lens support, more faster lenses, far superior AF.

Yes, if you buy the Zeiss FE lenses they are more expensive, but they are Zeiss lenses afterall. The stabilized Sony FE 28-70 goes for $499.00 vs. $599 for the stabilized Nikon 24-85 ( I know a bit more range but still more $).

With the A7 you have the option of using existing lenses even if you lose stabilization. Not so with the Nikon. Also with the Sony you can use classic Minolta or Canon FD (and other) lenses that are beautiful, unique and cheap. With Sony's focus peaking they are a fun to shoot with and opens up an entirely different photographic road you can venture down.

 

[havoc315]

So maybe getting rid of the A99 is a little more on the proactive side? Im sticking with Sony however so its either a99 or A7 for me, for now. I like where the A7 line is headed. A7 is something I can grow into over time. Sure id be stuck with an adapter for a year but over time can pick up a lens or two to build up my collection, since it seems like they are moving away from A mount like you said.

A few concerns/questions

How does the AF compare between the A99 and A7. I missed a lot of shots last week at HHN with the A99 and Sigma 50mm f1.4 because my camera was fighting to focus.

Any difference in ISO at low light levels between the two. I was hardly impressed with the A99 at ISO 8000

No scientific testing, but I did play around with the A7 (with 28-70 lens), as well as the Nikon D750 (with 24-120) basically side by side. And I know the A99 of course.

the A7 autofocus feels slow, feels much slower than the A99. On the plus side, you can get focus anywhere on the sensor, as opposed to just the center. But it did not feel quick and nimble. Certainly it was faster than using live view on a camera like the D750. For posed shots, for set-up shots, the focus was fast enough. If you like to take candids of your kids running around, the AF on the A7 felt too slow to me.

Imaging-resource does run tests of shutter response, power on time, etc. Across the board, it seems the A99 is pretty significantly faster.

The A7 *should* certainly give you better noise performance.
But remember -- If you use the LAEA4 adapter, it becomes a SLT camera. So if you use the adapter, you won't get any ISO improvement.

But if you use a native lens, or use the LAEA3 adapter is manual focus -- You should see ISO improvement.

According to the DXO charts -- You asked at ISO 8000 -- The closest is 6400.
According to the DXO charts, assuming you set both the A99 and A7 to ISO 6400 on the dial -- You get a signal strength on the A7 of 26.7, compared to 26.2 on the A99. At 12800, it is 23.5 vs 23. So very close until you pass 12800. At 25600, it is 21.7 vs 16.7. So the difference becomes massive -- This is consistent with my experience with the camera. Up to ISO 10000/12800 on the A99, the IQ slowly worsens, but then it suddenly gets horrible past the 12800 mark. Dynamic range is the same -- the A7 stays slightly better, but then gets much better when you hit the 12800 mark.
The Nikon D610 (and the Nikon D750 should score even better) stays consistently slightly above the A7. So by that point, you get some visible improvement over the A99.

I've also done the image comparisons on imaging-resource of A99 vs A7 --- The A7 doesn't really look any better to me at high ISO. Granted, you are looked at jpegs. The A7 images look slightly cleaner, but the A99 images look much more detailed.

Basically, I wouldn't make the change from the A99 to the A7 just for the fractional improvement in low light performance. (which is counterbalanced by faster lenses and IBIS on the A99).
But it is a worthwhile change possible for:
1 -- reduced size
2-- potentially better future support.

But then personally, I say to myself --- How reduced is the size once I start attaching lenses. And there are things I like about the large body.
And yes, Sony right now is releasing lots of FE lenses. And you can use lots of lenses with manual focus on the A7.
But how long till there is really a large library of fully supported AF lenses? And if Sony treats it like they treated the A-mount for nearly 10 years... They will produce a dozen lenses, many of which are overpriced, and then say, "ok, that's enough to cover the basics... we can stop now."

I also wouldn't be shocked if we see an A7ii in the next 6 months --- You may see an A7 with better low light performance AND improved AF. So I might also just wait.

 

[havoc315]

Yes, if you buy the Zeiss FE lenses they are more expensive, but they are Zeiss lenses afterall. The stabilized Sony FE 28-70 goes for $499.00 vs. $599 for the stabilized Nikon 24-85 ( I know a bit more range but still more $).

With the A7 you have the option of using existing lenses even if you lose stabilization. Not so with the Nikon. Also with the Sony you can use classic Minolta or Canon FD (and other) lenses that are beautiful, unique and cheap. With Sony's focus peaking they are a fun to shoot with and opens up an entirely different photographic road you can venture down.

Adapting manual lenses is a fun novelty for some people, including yourself. Nothing wrong with that. But I think most consumers buy cameras with advanced AF systems, so that they can use high quality AF!

Yes, the Sony FE Zeiss lenses are properly priced for Zeiss lenses. The problem is similar to a problem they have with A-mount lenses, but even more extreme -- A lack of in-between options.

The Nikon 24-85 may be $100 more than the Sony FE 28-70, but it is a much better lens. It has faster aperture through the range. It is a very sharp lens. And 24mm is much wider than 28. (and 70 vs 85 is not irrelevant either).

But let's not stop there... The other Sony option is the FE 24-70 Zeiss for $1200!
Those are the only 2 FE standard zoom options. There are no other options from Sony, or from third-parties, if you want fully supported AF standard zoom lenses.

Now, let's look at Nikon:
There is the 24-85 for $600.
There is the 24-120 F4 for $1300. ($100 more than the FE, but much more range).
There is the Nikon 24-70 2.8 for about $1900.
Then there is the Sigma 24-105 4 for $900.
The Sigma 24-70 2.8 for about $800. ($400 less than the FE, and a whole stop faster!)
Tamron 24-70 USD 2.8 for $1300. (About the same price as the FE, but a whole stop faster!)

Not to mention, lenses like Tamron 28-75/2.8 for Nikon for $499. (same price and range as the FE, but a whole stop faster).

So with FE, you have 2 options -- 1 mediocre lens for $500, one great lens, but F4, for $1200. (Actually, the reviews aren't that great).
For the Nikon, this isn't even a complete list -- I thought of 7 options, many of which are 2.8 lenses, most of which are cheaper than the FE alternatives.

There is currently only one FE telephoto zoom lens -- and it is $1500. How many telephoto zoom lens options does a Nikon user have? (9 Nikon branded current telephoto zoom lenses, plus of course countless more from 3rd parties. 5 out of the 9 are priced below the FE telephoto zoom option).

A7 definitely has advantages. But it's no where close to being a complete system yet.

 

[Hockeyman]

No scientific testing, but I did play around with the A7 (with 28-70 lens), as well as the Nikon D750 (with 24-120) basically side by side. And I know the A99 of course.

the A7 autofocus feels slow, feels much slower than the A99. On the plus side, you can get focus anywhere on the sensor, as opposed to just the center. But it did not feel quick and nimble. Certainly it was faster than using live view on a camera like the D750. For posed shots, for set-up shots, the focus was fast enough. If you like to take candids of your kids running around, the AF on the A7 felt too slow to me.

Imaging-resource does run tests of shutter response, power on time, etc. Across the board, it seems the A99 is pretty significantly faster.

The A7 *should* certainly give you better noise performance.
But remember -- If you use the LAEA4 adapter, it becomes a SLT camera. So if you use the adapter, you won't get any ISO improvement.

But if you use a native lens, or use the LAEA3 adapter is manual focus -- You should see ISO improvement.

According to the DXO charts -- You asked at ISO 8000 -- The closest is 6400.
According to the DXO charts, assuming you set both the A99 and A7 to ISO 6400 on the dial -- You get a signal strength on the A7 of 26.7, compared to 26.2 on the A99. At 12800, it is 23.5 vs 23. So very close until you pass 12800. At 25600, it is 21.7 vs 16.7. So the difference becomes massive -- This is consistent with my experience with the camera. Up to ISO 10000/12800 on the A99, the IQ slowly worsens, but then it suddenly gets horrible past the 12800 mark. Dynamic range is the same -- the A7 stays slightly better, but then gets much better when you hit the 12800 mark.
The Nikon D610 (and the Nikon D750 should score even better) stays consistently slightly above the A7. So by that point, you get some visible improvement over the A99.

I've also done the image comparisons on imaging-resource of A99 vs A7 --- The A7 doesn't really look any better to me at high ISO. Granted, you are looked at jpegs. The A7 images look slightly cleaner, but the A99 images look much more detailed.

Basically, I wouldn't make the change from the A99 to the A7 just for the fractional improvement in low light performance. (which is counterbalanced by faster lenses and IBIS on the A99).
But it is a worthwhile change possible for:
1 -- reduced size
2-- potentially better future support.

But then personally, I say to myself --- How reduced is the size once I start attaching lenses. And there are things I like about the large body.
And yes, Sony right now is releasing lots of FE lenses. And you can use lots of lenses with manual focus on the A7.
But how long till there is really a large library of fully supported AF lenses? And if Sony treats it like they treated the A-mount for nearly 10 years... They will produce a dozen lenses, many of which are overpriced, and then say, "ok, that's enough to cover the basics... we can stop now."

I also wouldn't be shocked if we see an A7ii in the next 6 months --- You may see an A7 with better low light performance AND improved AF. So I might also just wait.

If I went A7 and go with the LAEA3 adapter and keep my Sigma 50 f1.4. No sense in using the other adapter if part of the reason im switching is a little increase in ISO. I believe my Sigma has the hyper sonic motor so should be able to use AF, I use MF a bunch with this lens also so either way works for me.

My 14mm Rokinon is MF so no change there besides losing the IBIS.

I wouldn't do this until Feb of next year so things always change and I would most certainly consider an A7II.

 

[havoc315]

If I went A7 and go with the LAEA3 adapter and keep my Sigma 50 f1.4. No sense in using the other adapter if part of the reason im switching is a little increase in ISO. I believe my Sigma has the hyper sonic motor so should be able to use AF, I use MF a bunch with this lens also so either way works for me.

My 14mm Rokinon is MF so no change there besides losing the IBIS.

I wouldn't do this until Feb of next year so things always change and I would most certainly consider an A7II.

The HSM should focus, but it will be very slow focusing.

Yes, the landscape can change quite a bit by early 2015. At the very least, you may get a clearer idea of A-mount future. Maybe there will be be an A99ii with better AF and better low light performance. (the A77ii saw a good jump in low light performance over the A77... so even with the SLT mirror, you can see some improvement).

I allowed myself to collect too much glass.... Even though I bought it all used, value has dropped with the future of the A-mount in so much doubt.

I also post on Sony message boards (like on depreview forums). There is a sense of denial among Sony A-mount fanboys. Every shred of evidence that the A-mount is being killed off, they somehow twist it into evidence that the A-mount is alive and well. (Sony has basically pulled the A99 off their camera webpage, which now focuses almost entirely on the E-mounts... it must be because a brand new amazing A99 is imminent! As opposed to the more obvious.. yeah... they are letting the A-mounts have a quiet death).

 

[fractal]

Adapting manual lenses is a fun novelty for some people, including yourself. Nothing wrong with that. But I think most consumers buy cameras with advanced AF systems, so that they can use high quality AF!

Yes, the Sony FE Zeiss lenses are properly priced for Zeiss lenses. The problem is similar to a problem they have with A-mount lenses, but even more extreme -- A lack of in-between options.

The Nikon 24-85 may be $100 more than the Sony FE 28-70, but it is a much better lens. It has faster aperture through the range. It is a very sharp lens. And 24mm is much wider than 28. (and 70 vs 85 is not irrelevant either).

But let's not stop there... The other Sony option is the FE 24-70 Zeiss for $1200!
Those are the only 2 FE standard zoom options. There are no other options from Sony, or from third-parties, if you want fully supported AF standard zoom lenses.

Now, let's look at Nikon:
There is the 24-85 for $600.
There is the 24-120 F4 for $1300. ($100 more than the FE, but much more range).
There is the Nikon 24-70 2.8 for about $1900.
Then there is the Sigma 24-105 4 for $900.
The Sigma 24-70 2.8 for about $800. ($400 less than the FE, and a whole stop faster!)
Tamron 24-70 USD 2.8 for $1300. (About the same price as the FE, but a whole stop faster!)

Not to mention, lenses like Tamron 28-75/2.8 for Nikon for $499. (same price and range as the FE, but a whole stop faster).

So with FE, you have 2 options -- 1 mediocre lens for $500, one great lens, but F4, for $1200. (Actually, the reviews aren't that great).
For the Nikon, this isn't even a complete list -- I thought of 7 options, many of which are 2.8 lenses, most of which are cheaper than the FE alternatives.

There is currently only one FE telephoto zoom lens -- and it is $1500. How many telephoto zoom lens options does a Nikon user have? (9 Nikon branded current telephoto zoom lenses, plus of course countless more from 3rd parties. 5 out of the 9 are priced below the FE telephoto zoom option).

A7 definitely has advantages. But it's no where close to being a complete system yet.

I guess it depends on how much you value AF. I believe the A7 AF is as good as if not better than the NEX-7 and I never felt that I've missed shots because of AF ( beyond what would be normal ). Now if I were a professional sports photographer I might feel different.

It also depends on what kind of photographer you are. The A7s and the NEX's are more "rangefinder" type cameras. You have to be a bit more aware of things as you are more a part of the photographic process - like driving a stick shift - you are more connected to the camera. A top DSLR is like a driving a high performance car with a smooth auto transmission. Just stomp on the pedal and fly. DSLR's are optimally designed to capture a micro second in time in the most efficient way. Point and spray and great chance you got the shot.

These Sony mirrorless cameras are different because of the inherent shortcomings of missing a mirror. More measured, more input required and many feel much more satisfying experience. The feeling of slapping on an old manual lens and completely controlling the aperture, the shutterspeed and focus through peaking is more than a novelty. As a photographer it is why many people, including pros are making the switch. You can never get that with a DSLR. I would gladly trade a micro second slower AF for that.

You can also get an adapter for Canon lenses with AF (albeit slower af)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_RuKvnxj9o#t=134

 

[fractal]

DXO has the Sony FE zoom rated higher than the Nikon; 22 to 18. The Sony scoring better in sharpness with less vignetting and CA. Unless I have the wrong Nikon lens?

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...F35-45G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D3X___1244_917_814_485

 

[havoc315]

DXO has the Sony FE zoom rated higher than the Nikon; 22 to 18. The Sony scoring better in sharpness with less vignetting and CA. Unless I have the wrong Nikon lens?

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...F35-45G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D3X___1244_917_814_485

Wrong lens and wrong body -- the score is based on lens and body combination. So put a great lens on a 12mp body, it could get a worse score than a 36mp body with a mediocre body.

The correct Nikon lens -- the current version, on the D800, scores 24-- out scoring the FE lens. Plus more range and faster aperture.

Getting to the AF point -- certainly some pros have embraced the e-mount, but I would say despite MF, not because of it. It allows them to use their CaNikon lenses on a small portable body.

Clearly, Sony thinks great AF is important to the e-mount. They implemented fantastic AF in the a6000 and a5100. I suspect that similar AF will go into the a7 series within the next generation or 2.

 

[HPS3]

Hey Fractal, you can't compare the Sony 28-70 to the Nikon 24-85 as far as sharpness and range. The Nikon is better in both regards. The 28-70 I used was a dog.

The Zeiss 55 gets rave reviews but the 35 is rated just good not great. If I'm not mistaken, the lenses are actually made by Sony and just labeled Zeiss. They are still nice though.

My problems with the A7 are the slow startup and indecisive AF. In dim light its pretty rough. Sometimes it just doesn't focus(with or without assist light).

I was definitely underwhelmed by the noise at 6400 and above. Unless you're pixel peeping, I don't see the advantage. Maybe if you need very shallow DOF.

With the Fuji lenses being as amazing as they are, I find the files just as good as the A7 on my laptop and printed at 13x19 on my Pixma Pro 100.

 

[fractal]

Wrong lens and wrong body -- the score is based on lens and body combination. So put a great lens on a 12mp body, it could get a worse score than a 36mp body with a mediocre body.

The correct Nikon lens -- the current version, on the D800, scores 24-- out scoring the FE lens. Plus more range and faster aperture.

Getting to the AF point -- certainly some pros have embraced the e-mount, but I would say despite MF, not because of it. It allows them to use their CaNikon lenses on a small portable body.

Clearly, Sony thinks great AF is important to the e-mount. They implemented fantastic AF in the a6000 and a5100. I suspect that similar AF will go into the a7 series within the next generation or 2.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I do think the FE "kit" zoom gets a bad rap. 22 is not a bad score and I know Harry is not crazy about it. But I post on an e-mount board and there's a whole thread about how underrated this lens is along with some nice sample photos.

Also a lot of Leica M users switched to the A series for their Leica and Voigtlander lenses. Again - can't use them with a Nikon.

Only a matter of time for AF gap to close between DSLR and mirrorless.

For Mike's benefit, here is a post from a A7r user comparing it to his Oly em-1. It gives a nice idea of the strength's and weakness of the A7r (many of which would translate to the A7)...

I have both the E-M1 and the A7r (see my sig for the rest of my gear; if you have questions, go ahead and ask). My impressions:

- The E-M1 is by far the more polished product. Faster start-up, handling, better ergonomics, much, much better autofocus in both good and low light (the Sony's contrast detect AF is fine in good light, if unimpressive, and gets pretty dire in poor light; the E-M1 just locks with a lens like the 12-40). Customizability is higher, AF point selection is much easier (touch screen!) and it's the more user friendly camera, and, for static scenes, the better camera for low light because of the excellent IBIS, meaning you can use much lower than 1/focal length shutter speeds where the A7r will require higher than 1/focal length shutter speeds for perfect results.

- Having said all that, the A7r is a FANTASTIC image making machine. The files are quite simply a cut above the E-M1, and for people shots and landscapes I love having the dynamic range and depth of field control of a FF sensor back. It's the camera that made me finally sell my 5DII and L glass collection, which was gathering dust due to simply being too big. Like many reviews I've read have noted, it tends to slow you down - be methodical, use good technique, shoot 1/2x focal length to hit the sharpness sweet spot. I haven't had any shutter shock issues either. I like the handling quite a lot; the shutter button's a touch too far back, it's a tad mushy, and the main annoyance for me is lack of a touchscreen (AF point selection is slow), and I miss Oly's pretty genius 2x2 dial implementation, but the two cameras actually feel very similar in hand. The biggest selling point for me is the pair of native primes, however - the 55/1.8 is a *stunning* lens, sharp wide open, and hands-down my favoruite 50 I've ever used (other than those in my signature, I also owned the sigma 50/1.4, which I loved). The 35/2.8 is less 'sexy' but it's a great little walkaround lens, and only 120 grams. The only adapted lens I've used extensively on it is the Voightlander 35/1.2 II, which is heavy but lovely, and the peaking works great.

- Both cameras actually feel surprisingly similar in hand; 'just right' sized, comfortable to hold, great EVFs (there's not much at all between them), and complement each other perfectly: the ideal 'high performance' all-rounder, high speed, flexible camera that is the E-M1, and the 'pure quality', 'portable Medium Format' high-resolution monster that is the A7r. My passion is landscape, which is why I got the A7r in the first place, and it's become my 'prime lens' camera of choice. I may add the 24-70, but I'm waiting on a few more reviews (and some cash flow) first.


http://www.talkemount.com/showthread.php?t=6158

 

[fractal]

Hey Fractal, you can't compare the Sony 28-70 to the Nikon 24-85 as far as sharpness and range. The Nikon is better in both regards. The 28-70 I used was a dog.

The Zeiss 55 gets rave reviews but the 35 is rated just good not great. If I'm not mistaken, the lenses are actually made by Sony and just labeled Zeiss. They are still nice though.

My problems with the A7 are the slow startup and indecisive AF. In dim light its pretty rough. Sometimes it just doesn't focus(with or without assist light).

I was definitely underwhelmed by the noise at 6400 and above. Unless you're pixel peeping, I don't see the advantage. Maybe if you need very shallow DOF.

With the Fuji lenses being as amazing as they are, I find the files just as good as the A7 on my laptop and printed at 13x19 on my Pixma Pro 100.

Harry, to each his own. I think from the comments I've read about the kit lens and the sample images, it's underrated. Plus my point was that Sony lenses aren't necessarily always more than Nikon's. It's a full frame mid zoom for under $500.

Every review and every personal experience post I've read about the SZ 55mm and the 35mm are great. I think the issue most have with the 35mm is it's "slow" aperture of 2.8.

Those problems seem pretty consistent with the A7. I was reading a one year with the A7 review on Steve Huff and the slow start up was one of the negatives ( still loved the camera overall though ).

If I would switch to another mirrorless family right now it would be Fuji. I love their dedication to the X line and the lens choices are great. The 56mm 1.2 appears to be a dream lens. I just don't like what they did to the Sony sensor. I'm not a fan of the colors from the X-trans sensor. I've seen some amazing images from the X cameras but I always feel they are a bit flat. Again - to each their own. The X-T1 right now seems like to best new APS-C mirrorless going. It's just great to have all these options.

Chris

 

[fractal]

Justin,

those bird/animal shots are amazing!

 

[HPS3]

Justin, those are awesome as usual! I was looking at your shots on TMIP with the A6000. Your high iso shots look great.

Chris, I'm looking forward to the next generation of A7's. I hope they put the A6K focus system or better in it. I'm a Sony fan who really loved the Nex 6/7 and wanted to love the A7 too.

I really wish they would put the FF sensor in the A6/7 body. In Fuji land, I still prefer the X-E2 body to the X-T1. I'm right eyed and just really feel comfortable without my nose smashing into the LCD. Plus I like the size of the rangefinder style.

Talking about Fuji colors, you either like them or not. They are very distinguishable. Most of the photos you see are probably Jpegs and Fuji uses their film simulations. I find them fantastic, but you have to change them for the subject you're shooting. I also usual have the color to -1.

 

[Hockeyman]

The last morning of our trip started off with a really neat surprise. Naturally the kids where up before us so we got to watch the sunrise over the Savanna at AKL but to our surprise a couple hot air balloons popped up over the horizon.

Animal Hot Air Balloon Lodge by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


A giraffe enjoying a snack on the Kilimanjaro Safari at AK.

Kilimanjaro Giraffe by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Maybe I should have cropped this tighter.....

Bee and the flower by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[zackiedawg]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

Havoc - great shot on that flower and bee - it's close enough that I almost felt myself getting stung by looking at it.

 

[fractal]

 

[fractal]

10 Reasons why a pro photographer switched from Nikon to Sony mirrorless.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wM_5nROeaw