Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 5)

PDub said:
Is anyone using Nik Silver efex from lightroom 4 on Sony Raw files?
Click to expand...

HI I'm using it on PhotoShop cs5 but it won't work in raw will it ? I thought it was a plug in for PhotoShop or am I missing something ?
 
their website says that it works with LR4 (presumably Adobe Camera RAW).
 
I have been lucky enough to secure one of these A65's from the outlet!! What a deal!.. Will be arriving tomorrow morning :).
 
lucky you - think that the A65s have gone as now showing "coming soon".
 
I believe I got the last one of that batch! Nothing to lose getting a refurbed one! Cant wait.. With the 18-55 lens.. Be silly not to!
 
Just taken delivery of mine.

Just had a little look at it, to me, the EVF doesn't seem that sharp at all.. The top and bottom menu lines are fairly difficult to make out.. Does this seem normal??
 
Dom7 said:
Just taken delivery of mine.

Just had a little look at it, to me, the EVF doesn't seem that sharp at all.. The top and bottom menu lines are fairly difficult to make out.. Does this seem normal??
Click to expand...
No, should be bright, I take it you have adjusted the diopter
 
Just done it.

Thanks SussexBlue!! That serves me right for diving straight in without reading how to adjust settings.

What a camera this is! For £500!
 
Last edited:
Haha, even at 25 I am still like a child on Christmas day when it comes to a new toy! I hope I am not the only one!!
 
Ok ive been away from sony since i sold my a200 a while back.
Since then ive seen full frame cameras, 2.8 lenses and all sorts come onto the market.

Im thinking of selling my d300 as i have a buyer for my main lens and was looking to upgrade to the d700 and 24-702.8

I now see the a77 with 16-50 2.8 being a possible alternative as well as being cheaper...
Or would i be better off going with a secondhand a900 and getting hold of a 24-70 2.8?

I love the idea of in camera IS for shooting at weddings and parties (im a second/assistant) as well as other forms of photography.

People have complained about lack of lenses but all i use tbh is 18-200 range and macro.
I could get the 16-50 or 24-70 2.8 and the 100mm macro, or get the tamron 90mm macro which ive heard is a good lens.
 
evilonion said:
Ok ive been away from sony since i sold my a200 a while back.
Since then ive seen full frame cameras, 2.8 lenses and all sorts come onto the market.

Im thinking of selling my d300 as i have a buyer for my main lens and was looking to upgrade to the d700 and 24-702.8

I now see the a77 with 16-50 2.8 being a possible alternative as well as being cheaper...
Or would i be better off going with a secondhand a900 and getting hold of a 24-70 2.8?

I love the idea of in camera IS for shooting at weddings and parties (im a second/assistant) as well as other forms of photography.

People have complained about lack of lenses but all i use tbh is 18-200 range and macro.
I could get the 16-50 or 24-70 2.8 and the 100mm macro, or get the tamron 90mm macro which ive heard is a good lens.
Click to expand...

To be honest if you're looking at the (full frame) D700 I think you'd be better off waiting a couple of months to see what the A99 brings to the table instead of the A77 which although being a great camera it's no low light performer compared to the D700
 
Does it struggle to focus then in low light?

Im in no rush, the d300 still does me fine.
Although if its too long id just get the 24-70 nikon and get the d700 a bit later.
 
new cashback incl. £100 for A77
http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/1237485521135

evilonion said:
Does it struggle to focus then in low light?
Click to expand...
No, but historically Sony favour improving performance at the ISOs that people use the majority of the time over pushing the high ISO noise envelope.
All things being equal a 12MP FF sensor is going to produce less noise at high ISO than a 24MP APS-C.
 
Last edited:
The photos just aren't as 'clean' at higher iso's noise becomes an issue quite early, I love my A77 but will sell it in a flash if the new 99 hits the spot lol
 
Well i only ever go up to 3200 iso... ive never needed to go past that even in a dark church.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/82616/show.html

I was looking at some thing like that.
With the money id get for the d300 as well as my lenses and possibly selling the sb900 i should be able to get that as well as a flashgun, triggers and a tamron 90mm macro.

So it has noise above say 3200? not too much of an issue because at double the mp of the d700 i shouldnt think its very noticable at the usual print sizes that people would request.
 
i guess the one to compare it to really is my d300....
The d300 has been a great work horse for me and ive never had a need to upgrade.

so a77 16-50mm 2.8 vs d300 24-70 2.8 (which i borrow)

How does the a77 compare to the a900 FF camera?
 
The A900 is a pure "old school" camera - lots of dedicated controls, no video & no Liveview.
It's got what is widely regarded as the best viewfinder ever fitted to a FF or APS DSLR.
Uses the same sensor as the D3X but differs in processing so it's not quite as good at high ISO as the D3X but then it was 1/3 of the price!
"Only" 5fps iirc.

The A77 obviously has newer tech & more bells & whistles (12fps, Live View, video etc.) but again all things being equal 24MP FF sensor will outperform a 24MP APS sensor at high ISO - I think there is maybe a stop in it.

If I was you I would wait to see not only the A99 but the also rumoured D600.
 
Last edited:
A99 sounds interesting.
I noticed a few cameras are now marked as discontinued on various websites so im guess the a99 isnt that far off... hopefully not 'too' far off though as i would like to upgrade soon as i want better pictures than im getting from my sigma 18-50 2.8!
 
we believe that the announcement is in August.
Failing that Photokina is September.
 
Looking into new lenses for my newly acquired A65.. Is there much difference in the quality of the older Minolta lenses to that of the newer Sony lenses?
 
Dom7 said:
Looking into new lenses for my newly acquired A65.. Is there much difference in the quality of the older Minolta lenses to that of the newer Sony lenses?
Click to expand...
Simple terms yes, the newer lenses are better, that said there is a lot of Minolta glass worth having as the price is usually a lot less, of course if you mean older manual focus prime lenses, then many of the better ones cost as much sometimes more than the newer ones, zooms are probably where you'll see a bigger difference, coatings on newer glass is generally better and more resistant to flare

Edit: check out the lens reviews over on Dyxum
 
Last edited:
Dom7 said:
Looking into new lenses for my newly acquired A65.. Is there much difference in the quality of the older Minolta lenses to that of the newer Sony lenses?
Click to expand...

Minolta made some fabulous lenses and were careful about colour consistency throughout the range. There were some average ones as well, it's better to look on a case by case basis.
 
Dom7 said:
Looking into new lenses for my newly acquired A65.. Is there much difference in the quality of the older Minolta lenses to that of the newer Sony lenses?
Click to expand...

The newer lenses will have modern coatings, which can make them superior to the equivelent Minolta versions - however, there are also a lot of high quality Minolta lenses which are still superior to the budget end of the Sony range.

Basically, any Minolta 'G' lens will be good!
 
I've just came across a Minolta 35-105mm lens, seems to be a nice range. Has anyone had any use with this lens? How would it stack up to my kit lens with the A65?
 
I'm looking to go from the a580 to the a77 but i'm not sure whether or not to go body only or the a77 with the 16-50 Sony f/2.8 as I already have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.
 
really up to you.
how much will the Sony 16-50/2.8 cost you after you have sold your 17-50/2.8 & are things like build-quality, the in-camera correction & SSM worth that to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top