Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 4)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kev M said:
He does make an interesting point about the impracticality of shooting anything at less than 2.8 unless you just want to show off DOF.
Click to expand...

That sounds like plop really - look at the results from the Zeiss f/1.8 or f/1.4 or the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8

Thats just "spin" probably came right off the "Notes for Editors" sheet Sony would have sent in with the lens.
 
Beer_Stalker said:
Strange. It works here and I'm currently in no man's land internet wise (Myanmar).

The guy says: "Working wide-open and at a distance of just a few feet, I found depth of field just about shallow enough without feeling I wanted to open the aperture any more. A diffused desk lamp allowed a hand-hold-able shutter speed of 1/50sec at ISO 1600 – so I didn't feel deprived at all.

The resulting images are sharp and crisp, with attractive out of focus areas. In all, I am very pleased with the results."
Click to expand...


you might have old internet ! :p :lol:


puddleduck said:
That sounds like plop really - look at the results from the Zeiss f/1.8 or f/1.4 or the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8

Thats just "spin" probably came right off the "Notes for Editors" sheet Sony would have sent in with the lens.
Click to expand...


:lol:

but it is the poor mans 70-200mm f2.8 or 135mm f1.8 on FF .
so it o.k. for you to really not like it ! :D
 
Starastin said:
but it is the poor mans 70-200mm f2.8 or 135mm f1.8 on FF .
so it o.k. for you to really not like it ! :D
Click to expand...


I've never seen the lens but claiming that users have no idea how to use an f/1.8 lens so make it just f/2.8 is offensive to anyone who knows what they are doing tbh. Nikon and Canon users seem to manage OK. That's just horrid marketing spin and has no place in a review.

That review reflects badly on the reviewer - especially his skill in using fast lenses.

Next logical step for him would be to suggest Sony scrap the f/1.8 50mm and 35mm because the DOF is too shallow :nuts:

Not very credible at all.
 
Last edited:
puddleduck said:
Next logical step for him would be to suggest Sony scrap the f/1.8 50mm and 35mm because the DOF is too shallow :nuts:
Click to expand...

But those are DT lenses. As I said the 85mm doesn't make sense on APS-C. It's really for A850 owners (the A850 should be cheaper, Sony UK have pitched it too high) and maybe a forthcoming cheaper FF (a pellicle mirror would negate the need for an expensive prism).
 
Beer_Stalker said:
But those are DT lenses. As I said the 85mm doesn't make sense on APS-C. It's really for A850 owners (the A850 should be cheaper, Sony UK have pitched it too high) and maybe a forthcoming cheaper FF (a pellicle mirror would negate the need for an expensive prism).
Click to expand...

yeah there is going to be four models introduced at photokina later this year.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-names-fps-and-availability-of-the-next-four-alpha-cameras/

looks like two with the pellicle mirrors and two normal ones. also on the same website is a post for the new FF possibly for early 2011.
 
I think they're a bit optimistic suggesting that an A5xx series is going to compete with a Canon 7D.
 
If it's going to compete with the 7D it needs a metal body and some weather sealing, not to mention improved AF. Why would they put a camera of that level in the A5xx range?

Either they've got the specs (what little there is) wrong or the numbers wrong IMO.
 
Can't see the point in a weather sealed body when we don't have weather sealed lenses. That would just be marketing...
 
puddleduck said:
Can't see the point in a weather sealed body when we don't have weather sealed lenses. That would just be marketing...
Click to expand...

yeah to be honest weather sealing is only a niche for some photographers such as sports and motor sports etc. I don't need it because I do portraits and product photography where I'm not working in dangerous conditions.
 
puddleduck said:
Can't see the point in a weather sealed body when we don't have weather sealed lenses. That would just be marketing...
Click to expand...

But just because there aren't weather sealed lenses now doesn't mean their won't be next year. Having said that, if they are going to drop the full frame range then they're obviously going to abandon plans to attack the pro market and if that happens then I doubt there will ever be weather sealed lenses.

mastertrinity said:
yeah to be honest weather sealing is only a niche for some photographers such as sports and motor sports etc. I don't need it because I do portraits and product photography where I'm not working in dangerous conditions.
Click to expand...

As you've alluded to Luke, you might not want it but others do (and I'm not sure you could call sports photography a niche market;)). So sony either make cameras for every level in every market or they make a camera for each level (or as seems to be the case more than one camera for each level) which covers every market.

Assuming they go for the latter approach of aiming a camera at one level across the market then they're better off adding things such as weather sealing (as an example) which you might not need than leave of something that other users deem necessary. If they made an A700 replacement, you're not going to avoid it because it has weather sealing but a sports or wildlife photographer might because it doesn't have it.
 
Well the point is that if you have a "7d competitor" then you are lining yourself up for a Con for DPReview - "no weather sealed lenses for the sealed body"

A 1p Tesco bag is better than any weather sealing.
 
billybob99 said:
my a200 came with one in the box funny looking black clip thing i nearly chucked it out !!
Click to expand...

I have found it however it cant be used whilst the eye cup is on which is a bit annoying, so its either one or the other.

The only way I could do it is put the plastic thing in the other way around and tape it in when doing long exposures with my ND110 filter but I do risk moving the tripod and messing up the shot. :|
 
I think you're worrying too much mate. If your tripod is going to move while you remove the eyecup and install the cover then you need a sturdier tripod! It shouldn't move that much if any at all.
 
as if you could focus with the filter on, so you still need to do stuff with the camera. why can't you take a photo without the eyecup ?
 
The tripod does not move too much when I used it last time, I think it might be me just being too over cautious or to clumsy.

Yeah sorry didn't focus with the filter on, did all that before putting it on. I suppose I could take the photo without the eyecup but not sure how easy it is to remove/put back on on a Sony A200? If I just left the eyecup off and also did not use viewfinder cover even more light would get it.
 
TurnipFarmer said:
The tripod does not move too much when I used it last time, I think it might be me just being too over cautious or to clumsy.

Yeah sorry didn't focus with the filter on, did all that before putting it on. I suppose I could take the photo without the eyecup but not sure how easy it is to remove/put back on on a Sony A200? If I just left the eyecup off and also did not use viewfinder cover even more light would get it.
Click to expand...

not easy but not that hard actually.

any results ?
 
Starastin said:
blast ! the a450 price has gone up again ! :( .. it's a shame . that was such a lovely number
Click to expand...

I ended up ordering one - it arrived on Monday.

Not opened it yet - if I decide I don't want it, you can have it for the £299 and I'll give you a copy of my Comet receipt.

Not sure whether to bother with it, or stick to my A350.. tbh I just hardly ever use crop bodies! :lol:

I ended up picking up another A900 today instead :)
 
Last edited:
don't you have like a500, a350, a450, a900 ? :lol: . no, unfortunately I could only exchange it with my sigma 24-70mm which you don't like, but I STILL think that it's a cracking lens for the price and for the crop bodies :p
oh ! and now you have 2x a900 ! :lol: not to mention the nikons etc.

p.s. there are some a450 now Unopened from a "big" shop with warranty etc in ebay for around 350 :lol:


thanks for the offer ! :)
 
Starastin said:
not easy but not that hard actually.

any results ?
Click to expand...

Not yet, not been able to get out with the camera because of the rain hopefully tomorrow. I have got some insulation tape so might use that first and see how I get on with that. I still have not been able to work out how to take the eye cup off yet, feels like it does not want to come off easy.

Oh also I am also thinking about maybe upgrading my camera soon, are there android deals on any Sony DSLR which Is better than my a200?
 
TurnipFarmer said:
Not yet, not been able to get out with the camera because of the rain hopefully tomorrow. I have got some insulation tape so might use that first and see how I get on with that. I still have not been able to work out how to take the eye cup off yet, feels like it does not want to come off easy.

Oh also I am also thinking about maybe upgrading my camera soon, are there android deals on any Sony DSLR which Is better than my a200?
Click to expand...

the a450 was a cracking deal . other than that, the a850 body goes for 1330 something and I think there was a good deal from tp advertiser, can't remember the companies name.
 
TurnipFarmer said:
Oh also I am also thinking about maybe upgrading my camera soon, are there android deals on any Sony DSLR which Is better than my a200?
Click to expand...

Now that the Comet deal has gone the best I've seen the A450 for is #360 (body only) at Play.com.
 
TurnipFarmer said:
Not yet, not been able to get out with the camera because of the rain hopefully tomorrow. I have got some insulation tape so might use that first and see how I get on with that. I still have not been able to work out how to take the eye cup off yet, feels like it does not want to come off easy.

Oh also I am also thinking about maybe upgrading my camera soon, are there android deals on any Sony DSLR which Is better than my a200?
Click to expand...

I got a Sony A500 body from Currys when the £80 cashback was on. Still not used it, so its brand new. If you want it, put a WTD up..would do it for £350 posted.
 
puddleduck said:
Can't see the point in a weather sealed body when we don't have weather sealed lenses. That would just be marketing...
Click to expand...

Weather sealing your lenses is relatively simple to do compared to weather sealing some of the buttons on most bodies.
 
Savagestorm said:
Weather sealing your lenses is relatively simple to do compared to weather sealing some of the buttons on most bodies.
Click to expand...

The A900 seems pretty well sealed.

I don't quite see your argument though - take the Ziess 24-70 or Sony 70-400 SSM - both of these lens have extending barrels (so will draw water into the lens if wet) and both have buttoms for focus lock / hold.

Why do you think this is easier to seal than a body - I think the lens is going to be the weak point - and in many cases the lenses are much more expensive than the body as well.

I'm not "anti sealing" but I just don't see if being a big factor with unsealed lenses, and without the lenses feels like a marketing feature.
 
puddleduck said:
The A900 seems pretty well sealed.

I don't quite see your argument though - take the Ziess 24-70 or Sony 70-400 SSM - both of these lens have extending barrels (so will draw water into the lens if wet) and both have buttoms for focus lock / hold.

Why do you think this is easier to seal than a body - I think the lens is going to be the weak point - and in many cases the lenses are much more expensive than the body as well.

I'm not "anti sealing" but I just don't see if being a big factor with unsealed lenses, and without the lenses feels like a marketing feature.
Click to expand...

All valid points - but with a body having more electronics in it than the lens, maybe this is why? I'd imagine a lens would be super hard to weather seal. The chances of a lens drawing water in to the sensor would seem minimal....the only thing that would concern me with lenses and water is the risk of fungus.
 
looks like i may be joining you guys in the sony world!

just sold my camera so got the rest of my canon gear to get rid of then im looking at the sony a850 or nikon d700?

what lenses are acceptable performance wise? i would love the zeiss lenses but not a chance in affording them any time soon. i have seen lots on ebay but unsure as i have never even looked at minolta lenses before now.

is the minolta 24-105mm any good? same goes with the minolta 17-35mm?

also, anyone know of anyone selling an a850, give me a shout, or a a900 if its cheap :D
 
onefunkypenguin said:
looks like i may be joining you guys in the sony world!

just sold my camera so got the rest of my canon gear to get rid of then im looking at the sony a850 or nikon d700?

what lenses are acceptable performance wise? i would love the zeiss lenses but not a chance in affording them any time soon. i have seen lots on ebay but unsure as i have never even looked at minolta lenses before now.

is the minolta 24-105mm any good? same goes with the minolta 17-35mm?

also, anyone know of anyone selling an a850, give me a shout, or a a900 if its cheap :D
Click to expand...

The 28-75mm is the a850's kit lens and it performs very well however if you don't get the kit then buy the Tamron version that performs just as good for relatively cheap.

For telephoto you could get the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM which is also a corker.

For low light you can get the 50mm f1.4 which also is an excellent lens.

This should be a pretty decent set up.
 
thanks luke, how much is the 70-300mm lens? im not much of a telephoto user, i have the sigma 70-200mm for canon and whilst i use it, i prefer getting in close so an 85mm would be better i think.

im definitely looking at the 50mm f1.4, how much better is it than the 50mm f1.7 minolta?
 
I've got a D700 and a A900 and the A900 smokes the D700 for image quality - dynamic range and resolution (accuity) are much higher. A850 should be the same.

As for lenses.. the Minolta 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4 is excellent and certainly up to A900 resolution at typical landscape apertures.

There are a couple of A900's on Ebay at the moment for approx £1500 which is a very decent price.. an A850 is cheaper. I prefer the A900 as the viewfinder is better and 5fps vs 3ps is probably worth a couple of hundred to most people.

Can't comment on the Minolta 24-105. I can recommended the Tamron 24-135 - a favourite of mine in both Nikon fit and Sony.

I'd recommend the Zeiss 24-70 or Tamron / Konica Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 - the Zeiss IS better than the 28-75 but its not a vast gulf.

Do make sure you get the lenses to go with a high resolution body!
 
thanks andy, i was thinking that 24mp is a hell of a lot so the old glass may not be up to it in some cases?

i owned the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and liked it so not a problem buying again.

another few questions, what about the minolta 85mm f1.4 and the minolta 100mm macro? portraiture is my thing so either would be lovely.
 
Sorry can't comment on the Minolta 85mm - never seen or used it, and people photography is something I really have no interest in, so don't feel able to comment! However I think you might find the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 very interesting - a super optic!

The Minolta 100mm macro is excellent as are all macro lenses. You missed out of Jessops selling the Sony version for £299 a week or so back.
 
puddleduck said:
Sorry can't comment on the Minolta 85mm - never seen or used it, and people photography is something I really have no interest in, so don't feel able to comment! However I think you might find the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 very interesting - a super optic!

The Minolta 100mm macro is excellent as are all macro lenses. You missed out of Jessops selling the Sony version for £299 a week or so back.
Click to expand...

bloody typical :bang:

the words zeiss before a lens usually means its way out of my budget!

where is good for second hand sony equipment? there doesnt seem to be much on the forums!
 
The Zeiss is very nice, and yes its expensive. But considering its an f/1.8 and far superior to Canon and Nikon's f/2.0 lenses I would seriously consider than. There is also a Minolta 100mm f/2 which I've never seen either but which is a bit cheaper - if you can find one.

For Sony stuff.. try Ebay or Dyxum classified - Dyxum is very good, I picked up a mint Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 from a chap just up the road last week.
 
Oh.. and if you want 4 lenses that are absolutely the equal of Canon and Nikon's offerings.

1) Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 SSM
2) Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM
3) Zeiss 135mm f/1.8
4) Sony 70-400 SSM

All 4 of those are easily as good (if not better) than Canon's (all the lenses above are better than Canon equivilants, and 3 out of those 4 are better than Nikon's).
 
andy, if i win the lottery tomorrow il buy them, otherwise il need to stick to minolta and third party for the time being, that said, the 135mm and 85mm are not that much!

luke, do you know anything about the 85mm f2.8? price? release date etc. and its strange that its 2.8 when everyone else makes a 1.8 and 1.4/1.2 version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top