Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 4)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've had my A450 for a few weeks and I'm getting to grips with it, I was wondering what people do about exposure compensation? I've read that Alpha's over expose a little and should be toned down a little to like -0.3, is this true or should I just leave it at 0 for most shots?
 
Broken Hope said:
I've had my A450 for a few weeks and I'm getting to grips with it, I was wondering what people do about exposure compensation? I've read that Alpha's over expose a little and should be toned down a little to like -0.3, is this true or should I just leave it at 0 for most shots?
Click to expand...

I leave mine at 0 unless I need to bump it up or lower it down for product shots, everything else is spot on most of the time.
 
Hi

I'm quite keen on the new Zeiss 24mm but at over £1k I thought I'd see if I actually use 24mm enough to justify.

So I ran "Jeffrey's Focal Length Plot" over all my A900 images:



lens-use.jpg


​

I do shoot around 24mm a lot - but not exclusively! Only 16% of the time between 24mm and 39mm.

I shoot a LOT with my 70-400 SSM, and its my most used lens! That really surpirsed me, as I only got it from "Stan The Man" here earily this year :eek:

So.. the raw figures say that I can't really justify the 24mm, and I'm shooting enough at 16mm through 35mm for the Zeiss 16-35mm to stay in the bag and cover that range.

I think I just saved myself £1k... but I still want one :lol:
 
anyone know if my fitp wireless triggers will work with the sony speedlights? obviously they wont fit so will need an adaptor, any ideas???

also looking at a sony a700 as a back up body, is this a good idea?
 
what's a fitp trigger?

A700 is quite nice..as a body its the only APS-C that feels like the A850 or A900 in handling.
 
flash in the pan ;)

thinking i can stick a longer lens on the a700 and the wide on the a850, gives me two bodies which is really handy for when im doing weddings.
 
TBH if you are anything like me, I find that I just don't use APS-C bodies when I have a nice full frame - I find this in Nikon and Sony.

Going from the A900 viewfinder to anything else is like peering down a dark tunnel.

A700 is very capable, and I do like it a lot. But not enought to keep one. I tend to favour the A200 or A350 as backups, mainly as they are tiny.
 
iv not handled a non full frame camera in a long time so that is a worry, its just having two camera bodies does come in handy and the build quality of the a700 is surely pretty good?
 
Build quality wise the A700 is fine. Very similar to the A900 / A850 size wise / handling.

Image quality wise its on a par with the Nikon D300 / Canon 40D for high ISO.
 
think i have just about decided on my lens choices, here goes...

minolta 17-35mm f2.8-f4
sony 50mm f1.4
tamron 70-200mm f2.8
tamron 90mm macro

or

minolta 17-35mm f2.8-f4
sony 50mm f1.4
minolta 85mm f1.4
minolta beercan

i shoot wide angle a lot, so that is definitely needed and i already own the 50mm f1.4 so it boils down to the other two choices, both very similar, just one gives me a good macro and min of 2.8 across all lenses or one gives me a fantastic portrait lens and an f4 which im not that bothered about!

help? :bang: :bang: :bang:
 
Been ages since I've posted, but have owned a few of the lenses you quote. Comments are based on using an a900, but only my humble opinion. Take with pinch of salt.

In preference between the Beercan and T 70-200. The Tamron is probably the slightly better at focusing speed, but only slightly (T uses body AF motor, unlike most reviews that test with N/C mount that use a lens based focus motor - which is v slowwwwww.). I would say my Tamron was sharper at f2.8 than the beercan was at f4, but again only slightly (and haven't ever pixel peeped both side by side, so a bit of a guess)
But the Tamron is larger and more expensive. Beercan is a bargain and a fantastic lens for the money, so take your pick.

I have the Sony 85/1.4. Lovely lenses and is not comparable to the Tamron macro (actually had the Sigma 105mm). Large aperture (1.4/1.8) lenses almost demand you shoot wide open, so is hard to compare the two lenses.
I would say, depends on my style of photography.

Sony 24-70 is the lens to save your pennies for. Amazing lens, probably sharper than my Sigma 50mm f1.4 prime at f2.8, but a heavy package. Tamron 28-75/2.8 was a great alternative for much less money, which was fantrastic from about f4 (but fine at 2.8)
 
Last edited:
thanks for some input.

the way im seeing it is that the tamron macro will quite happily double up as a portrait lens and lets me play around with macro shots but the 85mm f1.4 is meant to be gorgeous!

is the beercan that good?
 
My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is superb on my A900.

I always seem to have rotten luck with Sigma zooms (yet another stinker came in..this time a 100-300 f/4) but the Siggy 1.4 is excellent.

Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 is a STUNNER. I don't shoot people or portraits so wasn't a lens I could justify keeping but that is WAY better than Canon or Nikon's f/2 135mms.

The Minolta 17-35 is very nice indeed. Beercan - since I got my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 SP two weeks ago I'll never use it again but I recommend it as its an f/4 70-210 for a bargain price.

PS: I see you joined Dyxum. Excellent forum, which seems to be my "Home forum" recently.
 
sure did andy, i thought id join a forum where people dont bash sony as much :thumbs: that said, this is still my number one choice for forums, the layout over there needs changing me thinks!

i would love the 135mm but think i will have too much of a gap to cover between 50mm and 135mm.

i am swaying towards the minolta 85mm f1.4 and beercan i think.
 
onefunkypenguin said:
sure did andy, i thought id join a forum where people dont bash sony as much :thumbs:
Click to expand...

There are loads of folks over there with dual systems.. mainly due to the A900 I think, so plenty of us can talk about Sony / Nikon or Sony / Canon from experience rather than fanboy-ism you get with Nikon / Canon orientated places.

Bashing is usually based on ignorance rather than first hand experience IMHO :lol:
 
well im never one to slag anyones equipment, loads of people on my course use entry level models and have came up with plenty of fine prints!

i love my lomo diana even though its possibly the worst camera ever made but it just appeals to me.

iv taken a fair amount of abuse from switching to sony but they wont be saying that when i finally get some shots with the bloody thing.
 
No one buys DSLR's for video.

Sony won't sell more because they added it.

If it was me in charge, I'd be sticking two fingers up to the "me want video!" crowd and telling them to sod off ;)

- I'd rather camera companies would look at things like improving DR, tonality, IQ not silly pointless "me too!" features that no one will use.
 
If anyone is thinking of getting an A700, I just found one on mifsuds' website described as Excellent++ condition for £379. Lot of camera for that amount of money. I'm guessing the replacement will be knocking on the door of four figures, if Sony ever announce it!
 
looks like im going the 85mm f1.4 route with the beercan until i can afford the tamron 70-200mm f2.8.

now, all i need to do is wait for money coming in so i can pay for it!
 
onomatopoeia said:
If anyone is thinking of getting an A700, I just found one on mifsuds' website described as Excellent++ condition for £379. Lot of camera for that amount of money. I'm guessing the replacement will be knocking on the door of four figures, if Sony ever announce it!
Click to expand...

I had an A700 for a couple of weeks last year. I wasn't planning on upgrading and just bought it because it was a really good deal. However, I didn't like the extra size over my A200 so ended up selling it. Although now that I'm starting to outgrow my A200 a bit I'm very tempted to buy an A700 again, but I don't know!

Also in the market for either a Macro lens or a UWA at the moment. Not really sure what to look for, gonna be scouring ebay over the next few weeks I think :) Also selling/swapping my Tamron 18-200 very soon hopefully, I've stuck a thread in the classifieds if anyone's interested. Reason I'm selling that is because since I've bought the 16-105mm the 18-200 has become a bit redundant. Very nice budget all rounder though.
 
onomatopoeia said:
If anyone is thinking of getting an A700, I just found one on mifsuds' website described as Excellent++ condition for £379. Lot of camera for that amount of money. I'm guessing the replacement will be knocking on the door of four figures, if Sony ever announce it!
Click to expand...

what a lovely price ! :)
 
I've seen minolta 135mm f2.8 for 100+ quid. can that be true ? as I know that new sonys are going for around 800. or is it in completely different league ?
 
onefunkypenguin said:
Minolta, also think I'm going for the 135mm f2.8 instead of beercan!
Click to expand...

I had one of those.. ended up getting a Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 instead.

Both nice lenses. The 135mm f/1.8 is spectacular wide open. Wasn't a lens I could justify keeping as I don't do people so wasted on me, but very good lens.

The 135mm f/2.8 is very nice... small tiny and light.

Are you any good with manual focus? For under £50, the Tamron 135mm f/2.5 SP is very nice indeed.
 
has anyone tried this one ?
I'm pretty sure that i've seen it go for around 180 or so. this one is ~280 :(
Minolta135mmAF01.jpg
 
Starastin said:
I've seen minolta 135mm f2.8 for 100+ quid. can that be true ? as I know that new sonys are going for around 800. or is it in completely different league ?
Click to expand...

By new Sonys do you mean the STF? That's a completely different lens and aside from the Zeiss 135/1.8 the only Sony lens in that focal length. The STF is £850+ and the ZA 135/1.8 comfortably over 1k for new UK stock. Sony don't make a "standard" 135/2.8 like Minolta used to.
 
Never really tried manual on a dslr, on my rb67 it's easy but think the small viewfinder may make things hard!
 
Broken Hope said:
There seems to be more info/pictures regarding the A33 and A55 camera's that Sony are apparently releasing. I'm surprised how small they are.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/
Click to expand...

lol I saw that earlier and never posted the link so cheers for posting it.

i think the a55 and a33 could be very competitive but i don't know what they are in comparison to nikon/canon wise.
 
Electronic viewfinders :gag:

I think Sony have gone a bit mental.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top