|
Am I crazy for thinking that when Sony release a new A mount full frame the price of second hand a99's should drop a decent amount?
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
I seriously spent probably 10-12 hours of the last two days scouring lens sites, but at the end of today I have the following in the mail and on their way, all in excellent condition with flawless glass, and I'll include where I got them in case anyone else is interested in going down a similar path: Minolta MD W.Rokkor-X 24mm 2.8 metal body, which is one of the lenses that so impressed Leitz that they just rebranded it and sold it with a Leica R mount (FredMiranda) Minolta MD 85mm 2, which after going through A LOT of online comparison shots is by far the best IQ 85 from the MC/MD mount (Adorama, where it was about $200 cheaper than I could find on ebay) Minolta MD 135mm 2.8 Rokkor-X (the 135s were pretty lackluster compared to the other focal distances, but I wanted to fill that gap with something and this was less than $100 and is pretty good past 5.6) Minolta MC Tele Rokkor 200mm 4 (best 200mm I found, almost no CA, even at f4, plus it's MC so it's built like a tank) I spent a couple dollars over $800 for all 4. Oh, and I bought some cheapo $10 adapter off Amazon just to test and see how I liked the 58mm before I bought more lenses and presumably would buy a sturdier adapter like the Novoflex, and the thing fits perfectly on both ends with no wiggle room and no difficulty mounting. And finally here's a crop of a full auto-focus shot with the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8 @ 2.8, 1/125th (left) next to a crop of a full manual shot from the MC 58mm 1.2 @ 2, 1/125th (right). Both shots completely unedited raws from the A7.  And the photo the manual focus was cropped from (both shots are almost identical at distance).  If anyone has any questions about Minolta MC/MD lenses, I feel pretty knowledgeable about them now so ask away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
ruro posted:Am I crazy for thinking that when Sony release a new A mount full frame the price of second hand a99's should drop a decent amount? You're crazy for thinking sony is going to release another FF A-Mount.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:You're crazy for thinking sony is going to release another FF A-Mount. Sigh, but I have all this glass! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:You're crazy for thinking sony is going to release another FF A-Mount. We know we're getting at least one more to replace the a99, but after that, it is probably a mystery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
I've got a lead on an A230 with the kit lens and a Tamron 28-80 mm wide angle for $120. I'm thinking it's worth it at the price. Was the A230 bad enough to make me wrong on this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
The a230 was bad, but not that bad. Assuming both it and the lens are in proper working order, that's a good price. Add in a Beercan and a 35mm f/1.8 and you'll have a really great starter setup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I was pretty happy with it and the 35mm 1.8 as my 1st DSLR setup. Plently of shots using it (poorly) in my Flickr. If you end up grabbing it, I have some batteries leftover I would send you if you covered shipping. edit: VVV aww thanks - use it for a bit and if you think it's a keeper, PM and we'l work out the battery details. Bud fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
I did pick it up. I figured for the price, if I don't use it, I can always get my money back out of it. Extra batteries couldn't hurt, thanks for the offer, Bud! I guess my eye for photos may get better as I get into it more, but I don't see that your flickr series is shot poorly at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Bud, your shots are nice. I like this one, which I can't pull the BB code for due to your setting or my alcohol. Lucid, buy this beercan and either this 35mm f/1.8 or, if that's too rich for your blood, this 28mm f/2.8 is a good option. If you want a portrait lens, this Minolta 50mm f/1.7 will do a great job. Welcome to the mind of Minolta. Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
 Figured it out - with new flickr you need to enable others to share your photos in the privacy & permission page. It doesn't matter if the photo itself is set to "public". The BB code is the pin icon but it still doesn't show the title and link page to the user underneath. This is and will remain forever my favorite photo taken with that camera. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Bud, your shots are nice. I like this one, which I can't pull the BB code for due to your setting or my alcohol. Thanks. I'm playing with the two that came with it, and working on relearning the basics, so I'm sure I'll be ready for additional lenses after I've figure some stuff out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is a great place to start because you should be able to get one for less than $100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
So I haven't had a Sony for ages now. I sold my last Sony DSLR back in 2007 (A700). I remember back during the A700 days there was quite the uproar on NR done on the raw files. Basically creating a water color smear effect at higher ISOs. I haven't followed Sony much since 2007 but I was reading some newer Sony reviews which say this is still around(NR applied to RAW). Can anyone elaborate on how things have changed since 2007?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So I haven't had a Sony for ages now. I sold my last Sony DSLR back in 2007 (A700). I remember back during the A700 days there was quite the uproar on NR done on the raw files. Basically creating a water color smear effect at higher ISOs. I haven't followed Sony much since 2007 but I was reading some newer Sony reviews which say this is still around(NR applied to RAW). Can anyone elaborate on how things have changed since 2007? A firmware update disabled the always-on NR on the A700. Don't know about current models but I doubt they've re-enabled it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
seravid posted:A firmware update disabled the always-on NR on the A700. Don't know about current models but I doubt they've re-enabled it. I remember the FW updates allowed you to 'turn down' the NR but AFAIK it was never fully disabled. And compared to the same 12MP APS-C Nikons at the time the noise profile indicated there was still some NR on the Sony raws even after the FW update. I guess I'll have to download some newer Sony raw file and check myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Pretty sure it still does it to a degree on my A7. It's annoying but it rarely ruins a photo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
I believe NR can be completely disabled for RAW files on the a700, a850, and a900. I suspect it's still on with newer bodies at higher ISOs, even while shooting RAW. In practice, it's no big deal at typical monitor/print resolutions, but could be an issue if you're making 20x30 or 24x36 prints of high-detail scenes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I believe NR can be completely disabled for RAW files on the a700, a850, and a900. I suspect it's still on with newer bodies at higher ISOs, even while shooting RAW. In practice, it's no big deal at typical monitor/print resolutions, but could be an issue if you're making 20x30 or 24x36 prints of high-detail scenes. It is not on for RAWs on the a99 or a7 series. I took an ISO 6400 shot and it has a lovely grain structure, but no noise reduction. When you set NR to "off" on newer bodies, it really is off. quote:I remember the FW updates allowed you to 'turn down' the NR but AFAIK it was never fully disabled. And compared to the same 12MP APS-C Nikons at the time the noise profile indicated there was still some NR on the Sony raws even after the FW update. Firmware 1.04 (I forget the exact last version number) had an option for actual off, and it was proven to be off. Iliah Borg (who pointed out the initial RAW compression) confirmed it. The last a700 firmware update makes the camera behave exactly as the a850/a900. The current "issue" such as it is is that all RAWs are cRAWs now. Even though people have managed to set up manipulated scenarios where the cRAW could cause quantization (such as taking a black frame and pushing the values in a certain way), it never shows up in actual pictures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:It is not on for RAWs on the a99 or a7 series. I took an ISO 6400 shot and it has a lovely grain structure, but no noise reduction. When you set NR to "off" on newer bodies, it really is off. Ah, good to know, thanks. I'm about to take a loaner A7 for a spin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Coworker just told me about the $300 trade in program for the A7. Kind of ridiculous since a local store is doing it on site and you can just buy a new $10 camera from them for the trade in. Plus no-tax.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
I personally would try to go for the a7r. The image quality makes the compromises a bit easier to live with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
^^^ Sorry bro ^^^ I'm back. Impulse buy no doubt. Local camera store was all ready for the $300 scam. Didn't even have to make 2 transactions to return the $10 dummy camera. Their POS system could do it all in one transaction.  They literally had the lovely $10 right next to all the A7 boxes to facilitate all the people getting the deal. Had to pay tax though but I got the LA-EA3 for $140. The MD 50/1.2 fits naturally on the LA-EA3 really well. Camera still on the charger though.
Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:I personally would try to go for the a7r. The image quality makes the compromises a bit easier to live with. What compromises? Having a smaller, lighter weight camera? You're never going to even notice the quality difference if you're not doing giant prints or incessantly pixel peeping, and the A7 has faster burst shooting, better autofocus, and it doesn't have the shutter vibration that a ton of people have been bitching about on the A7R.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:What compromises? Having a smaller, lighter weight camera?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Shutter snap and incompetent AF! By all accounts the AF on the a7R with FE lenses is perfectly fine, but you're not going to be doing continuous shooting with it. I already have a Sony 24 MP full frame camera, so the a7 doesn't do much for me. When I want a more compact camera, I grab the RX100. Having what amounts to medium format quality in that form factor is a unique point that nothing else can quite match except a D800 which is massively larger. I like cropping and making big prints and even besides the resolution the 36 MP sensor has some good quality characteristics for color and dynamic range. The "compromises" are, for the time being, the limited native lens selection that you get with either FE camera, lack of IBIS, limited frame rate on the a7R, the risk of vibrations, and probably the light leak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
This may seem dumb but I found the menu setting in the A7 to turn off the UI shutter/aperture/iso animation when clicking through them via the command dials. This is such a relief because I've been with cameras that did not have the option and UI animations on cameras bug me a lot. Especially when they happen in the main composition view.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Shutter snap and incompetent AF! The limitations of the AF are going to affect like 1% of shooters and anyone who actually needs the AF is going to be limited to subset of cameras designed for that kind of shooting and they're not even going to be looking at the A7. And I'm not sure what "shutter snap" is. If you mean the shutter vibration, that's only on the A7R and it's honestly negligible outside of long exposures on telephotos. kefkafloyd posted:The "compromises" are, for the time being, the limited native lens selection that you get with either FE camera, lack of IBIS, limited frame rate on the a7R, the risk of vibrations, and probably the light leak. Limited lens range is absolutely a weakness, I'll give you that. But focus peaking makes it so much easier to use manual focus legacy lenses that it really hasn't bothered me. As for the rest, few cameras have IBIS, the framerate on the A7R is more middling than actually slow, and the light leak issue is being way blown out of proportion. You have to have a light directly next to the barrel and you have to shoot at something like 1 second exposures to even be able to see it. I admit it's somewhat worrisome as far as dust and moisture, but the risk of it affecting photos is nearly non-existent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Apparently the 5D Mark III and the D800E both have the same issue.quote:We decided to test two high-end full-frame cameras we've reviewed exhaustively and which have never exhibited real-world problems with light leaks in our usage: the Nikon D800E and Canon 5D Mark III. The results are illuminating (excuse the pun): I guess if you want to shoot strobes into your camera while you take a dark frame you'll just have to put a scrunchee or a rubber band over the mount. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Mar 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Apparently the 5D Mark III and the D800E both have the same issue. Pretty much what I would have guessed. People have been trying very hard to undermine the A7(r) because it's the new thing and it's not by one of the big two. I get the skepticism, but it really is a revolutionary camera. A year ago if someone told me I'd sell all my Canon gear and switch to Sony I would have thought they were insane because the rest of their interchangeable lens offerings have been pretty ho-hum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:The limitations of the AF are going to affect like 1% of shooters and anyone who actually needs the AF is going to be limited to subset of cameras designed for that kind of shooting and they're not even going to be looking at the A7. And I'm not sure what "shutter snap" is. If you mean the shutter vibration, that's only on the A7R and it's honestly negligible outside of long exposures on telephotos. The persecution syndrome is hilAri ous. If Sony made the 7r as competent and didn't have a history of loving people over I'd gladly use their camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If Sony made the 7r as competent and didn't have a history of loving people over I'd gladly use their camera. The a7r is a camera, they all have compromises/flaws. To say it is less than competent is a lovely statement at best; at what it aims to do (being a small, interchangeable lens full frame camera) at the price it sells for is outright fantastic. I'm a Sony user, I was just stating my preference that given my setup, I would use the a7r over the a7 because the image quality is that good. The compromises are fine; every camera has compromises, but the a7r's IQ outweighs all of them handily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:The a7r is a camera, they all have compromises/flaws. To say it is less than competent is a lovely statement at best; at what it aims to do (being a small, interchangeable lens full frame camera) at the price it sells for is outright fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I meant generally as competent as the a7. I agree that it's a lot of camera for the money, I'll just never trust sony to not gently caress me over down the line. If the r behaved like an a7 and had an actual lineup, and was made by a company with vision besides "let's see what we can get away with" I'd have gotten one to replace my d800. Here's a tip: all of these companies "screw over their customers" in one way or another. I've been an A-mount user for ten years (since before Sony took over) and the only time I've felt "screwed over" was in the amount of time it took Sony to release the no RAW NR firmware update for the a700 (which took about a year's time). Of course, how "screwed over" you feel might change depending on your opinion of optical viewfinders. Sony's just ahead of the curve on that front. Had Sony not continued the mount, then I would have REALLY been screwed over, but I'm still using my Minolta glass and I've had a better supertelephoto zoom than you for five years that Nikon JUST FINALLY matched, and could not cleanly beat. Compared to ten years ago, the A-mount has it pretty sweet in terms of support. Are you concerned that Sony will just disappear? They've been in the optical/semiconductor business for decades. Sony clearly has a vision, it's the convergence of video and stills to the point that the two are indistinguishable. They're not there yet, but every move they've made in the past five years both in semiconductors and cameras have pointed in that direction. What you're discussing is a personal rationalization; it has no actual place in discussing long-term prospects. Sony's not going to discontinue the A-mount or E-mount any more than Olympus is going to get out of the business. You're at a bigger risk buying into a Fujifilm or Pentax system. You don't know what "screwing your customer over" is until some company buys out your back-end workflow, discontinues the product, and forklifts it with something that costs three times as much while only giving you weeks to decide whether or not to stick with it. Compared to what happened to Scitex, the shenanigans camera companies pull are bush league. kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
I'm hoping this is the best place to ask since there are about three other threads this could apply to. I've got an a290 I purchased some time back while traveling and I figure I'm overdue in learning to use it. I've started playing around and have already realized the kit lens isn't doing it for me. Since I'm currently living in the middle of the jungle with cool insects everywhere, and macro shots have always interested me, I'd like to get a macro lens. I see an overwhelming amount of websites and tech info to choose from and don't want to mess my selection up. I've got about $250 or so I'd like to spend, less is better however. Is this a worthwhile lens? http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SAL30M28...IN%3DB004MB45Y0 Any other suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
The 30/2.8 is only a good choice if you're going to shoot minerals, flowers, LEGO's or dead cool insects; its working distance is so short (2cm at 1:1) you'll scare most of the live ones. If you just want to mess around, slap on a close-up lens or a couple of extension tubes on a regular ol' 50mm and presto cheapo macro kit. If you're committed and you want to shoot living critters in the field, you're going to need a longer focal length. This means upping your budget a bit and the Minolta 100/2.8 Macro is the best bang for your buck. Check Dyxum to see the differences between the three existing models; unless you find a amazing deal, I'd recommend staying clear of the first (called "old") one. Keep in mind lighting your subjects at high magnifications is a pain in the rear end and natural light alone won't cut it more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
huhu posted:I'm hoping this is the best place to ask since there are about three other threads this could apply to. I've got an a290 I purchased some time back while traveling and I figure I'm overdue in learning to use it. I've started playing around and have already realized the kit lens isn't doing it for me. Since I'm currently living in the middle of the jungle with cool insects everywhere, and macro shots have always interested me, I'd like to get a macro lens. I see an overwhelming amount of websites and tech info to choose from and don't want to mess my selection up. I've got about $250 or so I'd like to spend, less is better however. Is this a worthwhile lens? If you want to buy something now, the Minolta 50mm f/2.8 macro can be found for $150-$200. That, plus a cheapo flash, would make for a decent macro setup. It's probably going to spook and/or antagonize some bugs, so don't try it with aggressive tarantulas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
There's always the Tamron 60mm and 90mm macros as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Tamron 90mm macro is the poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
zmcnulty posted:Tamron 90mm macro is Well said. A working distance of 10cm for a 90mm lens is a disgrace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 05:52
|
|