Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
fabs said:
Unfortunately Sue's taken an interest in my A100 and likes this lens because it has the zoom of a compact, so it looks like it may be staying here for a little while longer.
Click to expand...

We women know what we like don't we!!;) I hope she enjoys it!
 
This is not in response to anything, but I think this is a logical place to post it. Although I'm really enjoying my a200, I am just a bit envious of the canikon crew, and I'll tell you why. There's nothing I really need at the moment, but I have serious gear lust - that's not unusual, I always have it. I buy myself a new toy, I get the glee for a few weeks, then start lusting after something else. Usually it's not anything I need - I just want to buy something.

And that's where the canikon users have the edge - there's always loads of goodies to be had, especially in the classifieds section on here. It's seriously making me think of selling my gear and going either canon or nikon.

Somebody talk me out of it, a bit sharpish ;)
 
Ok first 'proper' post so be gentle...

I'm getting an a300 in a couple of weeks, what accessories should i be getting for it, other than lenses?

Someone is bound to mention bags but which should I go for?
 
rob_t said:
Ok first 'proper' post so be gentle...

I'm getting an a300 in a couple of weeks, what accessories should i be getting for it, other than lenses?

Someone is bound to mention bags but which should I go for?
Click to expand...

Well that depends on many things. How much kit to you expect to accumulate? How much of it do you want to carry around with you? Do you want a shoulder bag or back pack?

As for brands, I've become quite fond of the Tamrac bags lately, but they're all much of a muchness and again different ones will suit different selections of kit.

Also have you thought about a tripod?

Are you prepared for bankruptcy? :D
 
don't mean to crash the thread but if someone wants a bargain then:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SLR-Camera-Dy...14&_trkparms=72:1690|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318

it ends at about ten to eight, and gives you a "beercan" 70-300 for next to nought. (it is only £20 at the moment). Of course, you have to like silver.....

compatable with the alpha system, hence on here.


oh yeah, collect from selby, north yorks only...
HTH
 
fabs said:
Well that depends on many things. How much kit to you expect to accumulate? How much of it do you want to carry around with you? Do you want a shoulder bag or back pack?

As for brands, I've become quite fond of the Tamrac bags lately, but they're all much of a muchness and again different ones will suit different selections of kit.

Also have you thought about a tripod?

Are you prepared for bankruptcy? :D
Click to expand...

I don't expect to get much kit within the next year, finances have taken a bit of hammering recently, but I'd like to be able carry most of it around with me. I'll probably stick to the body + 1 other lens, filters and maybe a gorillapod.

What should I look for in a tripod? Preferably 1 that isn't going to break the bank...
 
lawrie29 said:
fair nuff, just trying to help. don't know that much about these lenses :)

went for £31.50 to what looks like a dealer.

just for my reference, is this the same lens??

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-dynax...14&_trkparms=72:1690|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318
Click to expand...

Lawrie.

I think so, here is the Dyxum link, http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=55 Personally I try not to go for any lens with a Dyxum score of less than 4.

Sorry for the short answer before, my OH was looking over my shoulder saying 'You on that web site again' :)
 
chrism_scotland said:
Hi folks,

Still looking at flashguns and trying to pick between the Sony HVL-F42AM flash which is still around £150, or a Sigma EF-530 DG Super Flash.

Has anyone ever used the Sigma flash?
Click to expand...

Just buy the HVL-F42AM and move on! It will do all you need and you'll know that it will have all the functionality that your Sony camera offers in terms of wireless functionality.

I'm sure the Sigma flash is a fine flash, but how much cheaper is it than the Sony?
 
rob_t said:
I don't expect to get much kit within the next year, finances have taken a bit of hammering recently, but I'd like to be able carry most of it around with me. I'll probably stick to the body + 1 other lens, filters and maybe a gorillapod.

What should I look for in a tripod? Preferably 1 that isn't going to break the bank...
Click to expand...

If you can get to a shop it's probably best to try out some bags for yourself but from personal experience, the Tamrac Adventure 7 sounds like it might be ideal. I'm looking to get a Gorillapod myself soon so I can take it on holiday.

As for tripods, I would aim to get something decent now as the cheap ones will not last you very long. Have a look at the Manfrotto and Redsnapper ranges, you will probably be looking at £80-100 for a decent set of legs and a head.
 
Lasagne said:
This is not in response to anything, but I think this is a logical place to post it. Although I'm really enjoying my a200, I am just a bit envious of the canikon crew, and I'll tell you why. There's nothing I really need at the moment, but I have serious gear lust - that's not unusual, I always have it. I buy myself a new toy, I get the glee for a few weeks, then start lusting after something else. Usually it's not anything I need - I just want to buy something.

And that's where the canikon users have the edge - there's always loads of goodies to be had, especially in the classifieds section on here. It's seriously making me think of selling my gear and going either canon or nikon.

Somebody talk me out of it, a bit sharpish ;)
Click to expand...

Been there, done that, eventually sanity prevailed and I calmed down and got on with enjoying what I had and not what I was lusting for, but could not afford.

I was after a kit lens replacment and was not in a position to just go out and spend £300 on one. I thought about selling all my Sony kit and buying a 450D and 55-250. In the end I managed to get a couple of cracking Minolta lenses and have not worried since.

If I move on from my current camera, it would most likely be to a D90, unless Sony bring out something as good.

I have always thought of the a200 as good way to get back into SLR type photography, but I would not be too worried about changeing systems.
 
springtide said:
Just buy the HVL-F42AM and move on! It will do all you need and you'll know that it will have all the functionality that your Sony camera offers in terms of wireless functionality.

I'm sure the Sigma flash is a fine flash, but how much cheaper is it than the Sony?
Click to expand...

Well the Sigma is £120, cheapest Sony seems to be around £158 now.
 
chrism_scotland said:
The 3600 is basically the Sony F-36, yeah?
I though it had no manual options.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is correct on both accounts. The KM 3600/5600 are exactly the same as the Sony flashes.

3600HSD => HVL-F36AM
5600HSD => HVL-F56AM

As you don't really know what you plan to use the flash for, get the 36 and if you feel this it limiting in the future - sell it on.
 
springtide said:
Yes, that is correct on both accounts. The KM 3600/5600 are exactly the same as the Sony flashes.

3600HSD => HVL-F36AM
5600HSD => HVL-F56AM

As you don't really know what you plan to use the flash for, get the 36 and if you feel this it limiting in the future - sell it on.
Click to expand...

Cheers Springtide, I think I'll see if Dixons get the F42AM back in at £139.99, if they do I'll buy one while its cheap, if not the 3600HSD will probably be my pick.
 
bear in mind that the 3600/36 don't have swivel -vertical bounce only.
 
Final Flash related questions, I've had a look at the specs of the Sigma EF-530 DG Super and the Sony 42AM, 58AM.

Ideally I'd buy the 58AM Sony but price is a little out of reach!
Looking at the specs there seems little to choose between the Sigma EF-530 Super and the Sony 42AM, am I missing something?
 
Hey guys I'm new here but been enjoying my a100 for about 9 months now...had minolta before so my lenses fit (yea me). Been looking at teleconverters versus buying larger lenses and was wondering what to look for. I have a quantaray (probly sigma nowadays) 70-300, f4-5.6 Its a tech 10 mx-af. It works well with the camera although it's slow at times. Looking to double my lens with a 2x converter...have seen several on ebay and around but thought I'd ask the experts. Any thoughts?
 
dmyrick1967 said:
Hey guys I'm new here but been enjoying my a100 for about 9 months now...had minolta before so my lenses fit (yea me). Been looking at teleconverters versus buying larger lenses and was wondering what to look for. I have a quantaray (probly sigma nowadays) 70-300, f4-5.6 Its a tech 10 mx-af. It works well with the camera although it's slow at times. Looking to double my lens with a 2x converter...have seen several on ebay and around but thought I'd ask the experts. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

hi dmyrick,and welcome to TP :wave:

okay,formalities over..if i read your question right,your looking to add a 2X teleconverter to your sigma 70-300 F/4.5-5.6.....

basically,it won't work.without going into all the techy stuff..teleconverters were really only meant to be used with fast primes,ie: F/2.8 lens'.if you use a 2X T/C with anF/2.8 lens,it becomes an F/5.6 lens.if you tried to use a 2X T/C with your 70-300,it would become an F/9-F/11.2(or the nearest stop).AF wouldn't work(doesn't work at F/8 and above)and the IQ would be miserable to say the least.i'm sure someone will be able to explain it better than me,but your best bet would be to get a longer zoom lens like a sigma 50-500 etc...

hope this helps
 
Considering Kit Lens replacements and have one mind on the Minolta 24-85, but as new options I've looked at the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 17-50.
In terms of range I'd prefer the 17-70 as it would replace two lenses but I was just wondering about its low light performance?
I know the Tamron with the fixed aperature is meant to be an excellent low light lens but was just wondering what the view was on the Siggy?
 
chrism_scotland said:
Considering Kit Lens replacements and have one mind on the Minolta 24-85, but as new options I've looked at the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 17-50.
In terms of range I'd prefer the 17-70 as it would replace two lenses but I was just wondering about its low light performance?
I know the Tamron with the fixed aperature is meant to be an excellent low light lens but was just wondering what the view was on the Siggy?
Click to expand...

hi chris

i would say it depends on your intended use.if you intend to do low light shoolting,then the tamron would be the most useful as the sigma is only wide open at 17mm,and F/4.5 at 70mm.i have the 17-70 and the 24-70,and i've only kept the 17-70 for landscape work as i find the 24-70 not wide enough for some shots.ideally,i'd like to get a 10-20 or similar to replace the 17-70,but the thought of replacing my filter kit for a more expensive set is kinda putting me off going that wide TBH....

can't comment on the sigma 24-85 as i've no experience of them i'm afraid.
 
Cheers Stan,

I'll need to decide what I'm looking for, I have my Sigma 10-20 for landscapes but I'd like a kit lens that covers a large range of focal length so that I can perhaps use it by itself instead of lugging lenses around.
I would ideally like something that will be a good all rounder, sharper than the kit lens and also a bit better for low light photos, I think maybe I should take a look at something like the Minolta 35-105 as it might give a bit more range than a Tamron, but I guess image quality of the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 will blow any of the old Minolta lens out of the water??
 
chrism_scotland said:
Cheers Stan,

I'll need to decide what I'm looking for, I have my Sigma 10-20 for landscapes but I'd like a kit lens that covers a large range of focal length so that I can perhaps use it by itself instead of lugging lenses around.
I would ideally like something that will be a good all rounder, sharper than the kit lens and also a bit better for low light photos, I think maybe I should take a look at something like the Minolta 35-105 as it might give a bit more range than a Tamron, but I guess image quality of the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 will blow any of the old Minolta lens out of the water??
Click to expand...

hi chris,all i will say is,do your homework before you decide as it could otherwise be a costly mistake.there are plenty reviews around on each lens on websites like dyxum

http://www.dyxum.com/

or ephotozine

http://www.ephotozine.com/

the image quality on the 17-70 is much better than the kit lens,but i'm led to believe the tamron 17-50 to be better again,and with the constant aperture..is sure to be a winner.if your looking for low light performance,forget anything with a smaller aperture than F/2.8(like f/4.5-5.6 etc..).in an ideal world,a lens of say 10-400 F/2.8 would be magic,but the weight and cost to produce such a lens would be astronomical :eek:

good luck with your quest :thumbs:
 
stan the man said:
hi chris,all i will say is,do your homework before you decide as it could otherwise be a costly mistake.there are plenty reviews around on each lens on websites like dyxum

http://www.dyxum.com/

or ephotozine

http://www.ephotozine.com/

the image quality on the 17-70 is much better than the kit lens,but i'm led to believe the tamron 17-50 to be better again,and with the constant aperture..is sure to be a winner.if your looking for low light performance,forget anything with a smaller aperture than F/2.8(like f/4.5-5.6 etc..).in an ideal world,a lens of say 10-400 F/2.8 would be magic,but the weight and cost to produce such a lens would be astronomical :eek:

good luck with your quest :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks again Stan,

The Sigma is slightly cheaper at around £250 is about £340, so don't know if I would be able to stretch the extra almost £100 for the Tamron, although ideally I think I'd rather have that as it seems to have a better write up than the Sigma.
 
hey, got myself the a300 about 3 weeks ago, loving it, had a 3 day weekend in milan and took hundreds of photo's without even charging the battery, i think i got down to 35%(i am using it on full manual/manual focus/ without live view), was carrying it all weekend without neck ache, so its not heavy, love it!
 
driftwoodywood said:
hey, got myself the a300 about 3 weeks ago, loving it, had a 3 day weekend in milan and took hundreds of photo's without even charging the battery, i think i got down to 35%(i am using it on full manual/manual focus/ without live view), was carrying it all weekend without neck ache, so its not heavy, love it!
Click to expand...

The battery is good, live view does eat power but I've got 2 Sony Batteries now so I know that I should never be caught short!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Considering Kit Lens replacements and have one mind on the Minolta 24-85, but as new options I've looked at the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 17-50.
In terms of range I'd prefer the 17-70 as it would replace two lenses but I was just wondering about its low light performance?
I know the Tamron with the fixed aperature is meant to be an excellent low light lens but was just wondering what the view was on the Siggy?
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

I've a couple available on here, just depends what you're looking for.
 
Hey, can someone tell me which 70-300 lens to go for. Looking at the Sigma, Tamron or Sony equivalents. The Sony doesn't get a very good review on dyxum so I want to know from the people in the know which is the lenses is best for the price. Or are there any others I should be looking at?
 
The Sigma APO is reputedly the sharpest of the 3 but has a reputation for suffering from (plastic) AF gear failure on Sonys due to the high torque motor.
As for the Tamron http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/06/06/tamron-70-300mm-f4-56-tele-macro-ld-di/
Which brings out another possibility a s/h Minolta 100-300mm APO - David Kilpatrick recently found out that his copy of the 100-300mm APO appears to be at the low end of sample variation compared to others' copies so you might want to bear that in mind whilst reading the comparison which was written before he realised this.
 
I am thinking about getting a teleconverter. The 2 main choices seem to be either the Sigma 1.4x about £175 or Kenko 1.5x about £75.

Does anyone have either of these ? Does the Sigma warrant the £100 difference ?
 
Is the A700 a significant upgrade on an A300?
Its just that while the A700 body only is really cheap I'm considering selling my A300 and putting the cash toward an A 700 body.
I already have all my lenses, tripod, bag, etc so aside from getting a new Kit Lens which I'm looking for I'd already have a setup for the A700.
I know that its likely to be replaced soon but £550 I can afford, if the new one is circa £1000 then its just not going to happen, so I'm wondering whether its worth striking while the iron is hot you might say!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top