24mm isn't great for video. Makes your body look amorphous. Head larger than body.

I was just thinking how well would this look on the 135

35 is 1.8

@@Sy-kv6hy yes obviously a 35/1.8 is f1.8. The 24mm looks like a 36/2.1 if you crop it.

How big is your file when using the crop-mode? Around ~24mb?

About that

Casey Hardman It all depends on what focal length you need. You could also do that on the 35 mm and get a 52.5mm

Funny story... I sold both my A7R3’s to get 2x A7R4’s A few weeks ago. After using one from Sony for a couple weddings I decided to stick with the R3 and bough 2x brand new A7R3’s 😂 it’s a great camera but I don’t think it suits weddings as much as the R3

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer Why do you say it doesn't suit weddings? I'm just curious

@@mrmonday42 I mean remembering this was 2 years ago, but mostly cause of the size of the files and worse low light. The R3 has better low light still and the files are more manageable. However I wouldn’t go for either now with the A74 out

Thanks mate. Appreciate that.

Thanks bro

Yeah that’ll help only because you’ll naturally step back further when viewing in crop mode

Yeah it’s fine in video crop mode

Hey no you don’t lose any resolution in video crop mode, and yeah the A73 rear screen is shocker. The R3 isn’t amazing but it’s definitely better, view finder is better also

The sigma is definitely better optically but you just have to deal with the size haha

@Mr. Nice and the size!

I do have the Sigma 35mm f1.2 and it is exceptional. What I love the most about is the quality of the bokeh (not only the amount of it). It is really heavy though, so please keep that in mind. I'd say it's worth it if you really love taking portraits at 35mm and do go to the gym regularly.

That only works in video and JPG photo not RAW, why can’t you see your focus point? I can when in crop mode

use crop mode instead of the clear image zoom...you lose certain auto focus functionality with clear image zoom

Hey thanks! I don’t really notice any difference between the files when editing (speed wise) just make sure if your editing on an external drive you get an external SSD like the Samsung T5 drives

Thank you your prompt reply. This helps making a decision - getting the a7Riii vs a7iii should reduce the number of lens without sacrificing much resolution & processing speed.

Have the same setup but now I’m getting some ff lens otherwise the a7iii will just be used half of the sensor. First lens I get is the samyang 85 1.4 af which is very sharp. Would love the 24gm but it cost too much if you think the equivalent sigma 16mm cost 350€

Cost twice.

@Yavor Kapitanov Europe or USA.

Yavor Kapitanov that’s exactly it. You should look up some of the return policies here in USA.

Visually yeah, not “actually”

Yes that’s true.

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer Thank you for the info. It will be fun to see how that compares to the A9 and A7IV.

I’d probably just buy a 35mm if you already have an A7iii

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer Yeah, I've put my eyes on the loxia 35mm f/2

Either one. But if it’s your first wedding I’d probably go with the 35 just because it’ll be a little easier. Unless it’s a real small room

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer Thank you I think ive been holding out on the 35mm I went with that. Im sure I will manage with that.

Yes that’s correct.

But your distance to the subject with a 24mm in crop mode and 35mm in FF mode would be very similar if aiming for similar framing, so the DOF winds up very close at equivalent (but not identical) apertures (with the equivalence accounting for different magnification to the final image from different effective sensor sizes). So 24mm/1.4 in crop works out to the same DOF as 36mm/2.1 if standing in the same spot and framing and focusing on the same thing. Exposure on the 1.4 will be higher, but that's good because you'll also reveal more noise with the higher magnification of the capture from cropping, so you can lower the ISO accordingly (unless already at base ISO) and make noise performance basically a wash too.

Depth of field on the sensor is not affected by crop but the senor image has to be enlarged for almost all viewing situations. Depth of field will reduce as enlargement increases. So a full sensor area 6x4" print will have more dof than a 16x20" print seen at the same viewing distance.

Simon King PPT I’ve got the 6600 as well with the 16 1.4 and I’m very much considering the 24 1.4 GM. Although I’m also considering the 16-55 2.8 G. Tough decisions for this awesome little camera

Chris Poli I have the 16-55mm at the moment, although I’m about to sell it to upgrade one of my 6400’s to a second a7iii as I’m doing more photo work this year (as well as some video still so keeping hold of the 6600). The 16-55 is an extremely impressive lens! I did a not hugely interesting comparison between the sharpness of it compared to the sigma 16mm (same settings) and also the sigma 56mm which I have. I found the sigmas to be ever so slightly sharper, bit better contrast, but I had to go in to a 1:1 view to notice any difference and I did feel it was extremely minimal. So I’d highly recommend the 16-55 if you’re keen for a zoom, I just couldn’t justify keeping it as I have the tamron 28-75 and the 17-28 for my a7iii, and felt it would make much more sense to sell up a few apsc things and get a second a7iii body. Finally, I ended up getting the apsc Zeiss 24mm f1.8 lens instead of this g-master. Like you, I really like that 35mm FOV equivalent but I couldn’t justify the 24 g-master so went for a second hand Zeiss and it’s extremely sharp so if you can find one of them that would be a great shout! It is an apsc lens though so you wouldn’t have the flexibility of the wider FOV if you ever put it on a full frame body.

Simon King PPT thanks for that reply! I actually considered that 24 1.8 zeiss a couple years ago when I had the a6000. The 16 1.4 really opened my eyes, but I feel the eye AF is hit or miss in lower light. I’ve heard that the Sony lenses hold up a little better in that regard. As for the 24 GM, I was planning on keeping that one for a while. Although I haven’t seen many reviews of people using that lens on the APSC sensor. The 16-55 2.8 is probably an auto buy on my part. I think it’ll serve me well when it comes to taking pics of the family/kids. I’m going to rent the 24 1.4 in the next couple weeks to see how it performs. Did you like the 24 1.4 on the 6600?

Chris Poli yeah if the 16-55 is for everyday stuff it’s a great choice! Interesting you’ve found the sigma hit or miss in low light for autofocus - it’s my go to lens for the dancing shots at weddings (for video) and I think it’s sensational in every way!! Ha! I love it! I’ve never had the 24 f1.4, so can’t comment on how I felt it was on the apsc body. I went with the Zeiss instead as it was less than half the cost and felt it was a better value buy for what use I was going to get from it. If you’re ever planning to go to a full frame body though I’d say buying the g-master would be a better idea!

Not at all. Your simply cropping in

In video mode there is some difference in DR between both modes. And Crop Mode in video is Sharper

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer DR is tested when downsized 8 MP, I think crop will lose DR

@@xyxysun5056 I dont know 100% but if it is I can tell the difference so it must be minimal if so

According to a 7 year old thread I came across, this loss of DR comes about because of lesser downsampling in the case of the cropped. Note; for the comparison below to be fully valid, you'd have to compare images differing only in resolution - i.e. an image using crop mode with this 24mm lens vs. a similarly framed FF image using an actual (and equally capable) 35/36mm lens. To take an extreme downsampling example, where every 9 pixels from the FF image ends up reduced to 1 in the final (printed/displayed) image, for the cropped image only a 4:1 ratio is required in order to create the same. Because of the greater sample size, the 9:1 reduction and the random nature of noise means that any variation is better suppressed and the noise floor drops (obviously the shadows benefit the most from this). Even when downsampling the FF to APS-C (where 2.25 become one) apparently there is roughly 1 stop of improvement in DR compared to the original cropped image: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3(APS-C) So, if you had a 35mm lens equal in quality to the 24/1.4, but haven't got enough time to swap them (or because your computer struggles with huge files) and opt for crop mode instead, you're losing out whenever downsampling is involved. In summary, although we're dealing here with 2 images differing in FoV, so one is not a miniature of the other, the general principle holds. If and when both are downsampled, there is going to be a difference in DR. If no downsampling is involved, then the DR will be the same, since it's a simple crop and any individual pixel on the cropped won't suddenly have an inferior SNR simply because they find themselves in fewer company. I stand to be corrected on this, but I imagine this is why 4k video downsampled from 6k is acknowledged to be superior to shooting natively. Disclaimer: I'm new to the world of photography, but I believe this is an accurate interpretation of what I've read.

Oops lol typo. “Own”

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer Haha, makes more sense! Watching this vid now. It's great. I'll stick with my 24mm for now in crop mode

It really doesn’t make that much of a difference. I’ve watched the videos about it. Tried it on and off the difference is hardly noticeable

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer I mean, just speaking as a viewer who watches lens reviews often to evaluate the bokeh quality of a lens, it's really difficult to do that fairly when EFC shutter is on. For me personally, I would find your comparisons more useful if I didn't have to wonder if part of the bokeh in your photos is because of the lens itself or because of the camera settings. This isn't to drag people who don't see a difference; that's fine and I get it. Just pointing out that some people can and it might bother them if they come to your videos to compare or evaluate bokeh quality from your shots.

timothy yeah that’s cool man I get it, I’ll consider it in the future (I hate the noise lol) but thanks for the feedback

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer yeah, I feel that. for what it's worth, the issue doesn't show up when shooting in full electronic shutter mode. But then you run into a whole other set of issues. lol It would be nice if Sony had a way to set up shutter settings to switch automatically based on shutter speed, but I guess that's just wishful thinking 🤷‍♂️

@@officialtiimo buy a Fuji (Edit*which can set up shutter settings) or buy a Sony A9 where EFC doesn't effect bokeh.

Because it’s better than my brick wall and all I could afford at the time, I don’t know about everyone else.

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer i think a brick wall is pretty 😉

@@leodejongful Thats an absolute legit approach. i like this feature and use it very often. and i dont even care for the lower resolution

I’m doing the same right now. Amir too but a 24 1.4 and use crop mode to have a 35 too

Hardly ever 35, probably about 80% 24mm, 10% 50mm and 10% 85mm

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer Same % for video?

Oops lol typo

Thanks mate. That’s not my strategy I would never do it. I just did it for you guys to see the difference haha

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer ok I misunderstood. I guess you use 24 on one and 85 on the other. I use 35 and 85 with the A9, but if I were using the 7r3 or 7r4 I would switch from the 35 to the 24 and use crop mode to get 37.

Charles Le Usually with an engagement shoot I just use the 24 and one camera, for weddings I’d use 24/85 but yesterday I shot a wedding with the 24/55, it was awesome

@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer yeah, I would use 24 and 55 would be ideal for you. I really like being able to get 135 with the 85 in crop for that extended each during ceremonies and speeches and for larger reception venues.

No, raws are cropped as well.

Good point, but the ability to capture detail surely differs. Extreme example, represent an apple with 106 pixels, 178 pixels or 260 pixels.

gutenmuach I legit just had to google it. Had no idea. It’s a few hundred kilometres away from me

he shot in super35mm mode not the clear image zoom, though.... which means the RAWs are cropped as is.