In preparation for the Full Frame

[DonSchap]

On my own authority ... LOL ... I have taken upon my self to prepare for the "Flagship" Full Frame from SONY.

In regards to this, I have three Di-style lenses coming to supplement the woeful array I already have. While I could and can use the PRIMES and TAMRON Adaptall2 lenses, I have opted for these two zooms:

TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO
Konica Minolta AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D)

and for good measure, threw in the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD Super-zoom, to support the new camera until such time that I decide (and figure out how to pay for) on selected SONY-glass.

I hope (and pray) TAMRON will finally get to market the SONY-mount of the SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD, to gap fill ... or this is going to be one long downhill ride.

I have experienced a lot of serious debate concerning how the camera is going to react to "lesser" glass and am quite interested to see what it is all about, as no one has much of anything to show in the way of proof or collected data.

Honestly, it is always the challenge ... but more so, this time, as this is a much larger sensor and has the built-in stabilization (unseen in any other full frame camera).

Anyway ... the little bag is getting full. Choices upon choices. :rolleyes:

[sparkie1263]

Don that is using your head spend the cash on lenses instead of on a lawyer to start a class action suite. LOL
Frank

[dr4gon]

Sony for life! ;)

Can't wait to see some test shots/comparisons!

[DonSchap]

Frank,

I just feel the market is being manipulated very devisively. I just seems wrong. But, I also know it is relatively impossible to move against these "godlike" monolithic companies, who have their fingers in everything. Even if the entire nation boycotted SONY cameras ... I do not believe they could change that much. Most of the high-end lens money is coming in from the Middle East and the rest of Asia. Now, if they put up a stink ... then there might be some reaction.

On the horizon, I do not believe the "Full Frame" will do well here, with that kind of burden on the front of it. A $10,000 system is far from the reach of even the most avid hobbyiest. I may be able to pony up for the body ... but the glass will be effectively a long way off. :(

There's no money in this ... it's just "love of the game."

[sparkie1263]

I hear what you are saying but like you said there is not much we can do. I hope you are wrong because I am looking to upgrade to the A700 soon. I might have to get some good lenses first. Then look to get the A700. I don't think I will ever need the A900 but you never know. I cannot believe the price of the A200 is cheaper than my A100 that I got for about $200.00 less then the price at any store. Had I known then what I know now (which isn't much more) I would have gotten the A700. I didn't even know it was coming out when I ordered mine. We will just have to wait and see. At least somebody is on top of things.
Frank

[dr4gon]

It's hard (expensive) to keep on top of technology. But you it's definitely good to learn what you got so you can make better informed decisions in the future :D. I'll probably keep my a300 for another 3-4 years and see what's out by then. Until then, more glass it is :D.

I am digging my Sony trench one lens/accessory at a time, lol.

[seanhoxx]

Part of the reason I went with sony was to be different to stand out from the crowd, supporting the scrappy underdog as it were. Now it almost seems that Sony is making it hard on its own troops, never a good move. Speaking of glass, is there any idea of a date for the Tamron 70 - 200 f2.8 ? I really want it next, but might go ahead and get the 200 - 500 depending on how long I have to wait for the 70-200

[DonSchap]

Part of the reason I went with sony was to be different to stand out from the crowd, supporting the scrappy underdog as it were. Now it almost seems that Sony is making it hard on its own troops, never a good move. Speaking of glass, is there any idea of a date for the Tamron 70 - 200 f2.8 ? I really want it next, but might go ahead and get the 200 - 500 depending on how long I have to wait for the 70-200

Now, don't anyone quote me on this, but I believe we are looking at the end of August (nice, huh?) for the SONY-mount release. TAMRON is firing these out as fast as production can do it, but it is annoying to have to wait. The entire Summer lost to lesser glass. Geez.

B&H shipped my 200-500 today ... should be here, Thursday. Then ...the flightline of the EAA. August 2nd and 3rd.

[DonSchap]

I trekked over to Calumet Photographic, down at Oakbrook Center ...

37946
A700 w/ K-M 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D)
@17mm - f/2.8 - 1/20 sec. - ISO-800 - available lighting

and caught sight of a TAMRON 70-200 f/2.8 (Canon-mount). The counter dude on the left is diving for the lens (hence the blur). After giving it the "once over", I am anxious for one when the SONY-mount arrives. I remember thinking (if you're just a hobbiest, you would have to be an absolute dufus or just a plain old fan-boy to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM (non-IS), now that this is out ... at about half the price.) It many not be as quiet as USM, but with all the cell phones going off these days ... where you going get quiet, anyway? I can live with a little more sound at $500 less ... you can buy quite a few earplugs for that kind of coin.

[TenD]

I remember thinking (if you're just a hobbiest, you would have to be an absolute dufus or just a plain old fan-boy to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM (non-IS), now that this is out ... at about half the price.)

Name calling isn't very nice Don. I take offense your statement, and I don't even own a 70-200. I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 70-200 to fit my needs, and that would be the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L or 70-200 f/2.8L IS. So that fits me precisely into your dufus category or your fanboy category. I consider myself neither.

People make choices for different reasons, I personally like my equipment to focus accurately and have full time manual focus. DPreview. (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/page6.asp) You choose to buy what you consider bargain glass, but then buy 4 times the amount required to cover a range, essentially saving you nothing. Tamron can certainly be bargain glass, incredibly good for what you pay for it, the 28-75 Xr Di f/2.8 is a good example. I'd still buy the Canon though, the build quality blows the Tammy away.

Part of the reason I went with sony was to be different to stand out from the crowd, supporting the scrappy underdog as it were.
Nice sentiment there, but Sony is hardly an underdog. Sony is an electronics giant with an eye on monopoly all of the time. Sony always uses proprietary formats: Betamax, Memory Stick, Blu Ray, UMD, etc. and then tries to lever their way into being the only format with exclusive licensing rights. Pentax, Oly, Sigma, or Fuji, now there would be an underdog.

[Rooz]

agree with TenD for sure. the canon version of the lens will likely AF faster, be quieter, be way more accurate, have better optical quality and far better construction.

as for sony's corporate method. yes, like most successful companies they can be ruthless and do whats best for its shareholders first and customer second. BUT my take on it is this...until sony entered the market the big 2 were a content, lazy bunch of pricks with the market essentially to themselves. pentax and oly pretty much succumbed to their "place" in the market with no attempt to take them on really. oly i suppose less so cos they went for the 4/3 direction...good for them. fuji and sigma elected to be niche market cameras. that led to overpriced equipment and/ or equipment that underdelivered.

sony has shaken this market to its core and the level of innovation and quality, (from nikon especially at the moment), has been staggering. look at the amount of consumer grade IS/VR lens'. look at the dslr innovation like LV, Hi RES screens, body lifecycles, lens upgrades, sensor performace etc. do you think it was a co-incidence that all of that occurred round about the time of the a100 and significantly ramped up with the a200/300/350/700 ? i think not.

sony is many things, but as a nikon owner who is reeping the rewards of a company responding ferociously to this new threat...i couldn;t be happier that sony is here. canon will surely do the same to respond to the challenge. so in my view, we should be thumbing our noses at canon and nikon while giving them the finger asking..."what the hell took you so long ?"

[DonSchap]

Look, I do understand the resentment Canon owners might feel toward a cheaper and "just-as-good-a-shot" contender coming on the market. I know if spent that extra cash and got nothing significant in return for it, other than a white paint job and a logo ... man, the steam! :mad:

So, TenD ... I feel your pain, but not one ounce of sympathy if you do go ahead and get stung for the additional cost for the paint & logo. The reviews are out there ... take a look ... and then, drive on down to the lens store and slap one on. Heck, do a side by side, before you reach for that wallet. After that ... there is nothing but "dry eyes" in the house and the all too familiar look from the spouse -> :eek:

@Rooz - the race is on, dude! I wonder how many NEW cameras Nikon is planning on releasing, this year, alone? How do you guys keep up? Is it like "days of the week" underwear or something? D40, D40x, D50, D60, D80, D100, D200, D300, D700.

[TenD]

sony has shaken this market to its core and the level of innovation and quality, (from nikon especially at the moment), has been staggering. look at the amount of consumer grade IS/VR lens'. look at the dslr innovation like LV, Hi RES screens, body lifecycles, lens upgrades, sensor performace etc. do you think it was a co-incidence that all of that occurred round about the time of the a100 and significantly ramped up with the a200/300/350/700 ? i think not.


Sony took what Minolta already had in development and marketed it. Sony benefited greatly from Minolta. I can't agree that Sony is doing anything to heavily push the market. Many of the "innovations" you see now are nothing but response to a general public that has lit the photography market on fire. Everyone is responding to public demands, demands no one ever thought meant anything to photography.

IS: this is relatively new technology and something that became first available on a consumer grade lens and migrated elsewhere. Indispensable? No. Does the public think its cool? YES, are they told constantly that they can take so much better photos because of it? YES. Should we make more of it? YES it will sell more lenses. Is it because of Sony? I think maybe it's because in body IS has made this readily available to every lens, therefore we need more lenses with it.

LV- totally a response to a non photographic public cry for a DSLR to be like their point and shoot. Everyone is trying to catch up to this. Thought it was silly on a P&S still think so. Hate seeing people compose at arms length, this takes away from proper technique and results in many bad photos. Useful for Macro work.

Hi Res screens? I really don't see any use here at all. What really can you see in your little 3" HiRes screen? Same thing you could see in your 1.5" low res screen, exposure(histogram), basic composition. The photo still needs to be uploaded to a computer to really see what's there. Again totally driven by general public P&S technology. This is how I want to compose, edit, view, show, print from, etc. etc. and everyone knows bigger is better...

Body Lifecycles? The shutter was always made to be replaced. It's a component that has to move with precision and speed. With the advent of "free" film people tend to indiscriminately fire away and throw away(95%)the bad ones. With film it was impossible to to this, it was just too expensive. The increases in shutter life for all manufacturers was a direct response to the machine gun tactic the DSLR has produced. Sony benefited from being late into the market, no one could predict a consumer body less than a month old with 5000 actuations on it...crazy, that's why pro level bodies were made that way. Nothing but sloppy and poor technique...

Lens upgrades? This market has exploded, people are clamoring for new equipment. Nikon had some holes in their lens lineup, Canon was pretty set except for UWA, and Sony had a clean slate. I am personally very pleased with the selection of lenses I have available to me from Canon. In the last 10 years I can't think of a single time I said I wish Canon would come out with a -- lens. But still they have and I don't believe for a minute Sony had a thing to do with it.

The market has exploded: there are more people out there spending vast amounts of money on camera equipment they have no idea of how to use(push this button and fire away). No idea that the lens they put in front of the "expensive" body will make much more difference than the body itself. No idea what makes a good lens, what an f/stop means, what lens speed is, etc. But we all do have one thing in common, we want good photos and will buy more things to get them. Hence more lenses being introduced. Sony is just part of this whole picture, they are in the center of the same maelstrom.

Noink's sensor performance was completely tied to Sony...Sony made their sensors. They were completely tied to Sony's technology. Canon has been making their own CMOS sensors for a long time, Sony has finally caught up. All of the manufacturers have been pushing the envelope, finding the edge. All of the manufacturers have advanced digital photography at a staggering pace. Many of the "innovations" aren't necessary for good photography, and I really can't view them as advancements. They are at the very most convenience items aimed at this huge untrained market.

[TenD]

So, TenD ... I feel your pain, but not one ounce of sympathy if you do go ahead and get stung for the additional cost for the paint & logo. The reviews are out there ... take a look ... and then, drive on down to the lens store and slap one on. Heck, do a side by side, before you reach for that wallet. After that ... there is nothing but "dry eyes" in the house and the all too familiar look from the spouse -> :eek:
.
Did you even read the review I conveniently linked Don? Slower focusing, poorer build, clunky AF/MF mode. Lack of distance switching.
I don't feel an ounce of pain. None. I paid close to the same thing for my 6 lenses that you paid for your collection of I can't remember how many and cover the same range. And every one of my lenses produces professional results.

[DonSchap]

TenD .. a lot of my lenses (the infamous "collection") are from yesteryear. I usually never get rid of what I own. Yeah, they're still here .. and usable. I'm not out to spend myself broke either, to get a relatively decent shot or two. Will I win awards with what I have ... well, yeah. I have ... but, so what?

Pushing people to use professional grade lenses for their daily stuff is just "overkill" in my way of reasoning. I love the idea that the A700 is just as comfortable with a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 as it is with a SONY 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM. Only the photographer really knows what he is trying to acheive with his lens selection ... but, understandably, a decent shot from either lens would be nice. It only takes one misfocus to "blow it" for either one.

The Full Frame camera should not be a "professional" option. It really should be what the 35mm-film is ... using the same "stamped-on-the-side" lens focal length and not some damn conversion factor. It is a true digital version of the 35mm standard frame.

To heck with the APS-C sensor. -> Make all DSLR cameras FULL FRAME from now on, I say.

The technology is here to make it happen, in grand style. The small sensor is regressive and should be written off as a cheap attempt to bring digital into the market. It worked. But, it can now be retired.

Going forward -> LET'S GET BACK TO NORMAL.

[TenD]

Yeah, but my point is that you did afford it, you didn't spend yourself broke, you just spent the money on a solution to find every lens(of a particular brand)with every sweet spot to cover the same ground you could have with a few high dollar lenses, and nearly ended up spending what you would have buying those pro lenses to start with.

I agree in most peoples practices pro gear is absolutely overkill. But why buy the hottest body and cripple it with poor glass. Wouldn't it be better to buy an older body and spend the difference on getting the best possible light to the sensor with good glass? Why start the compromise there?

Will you win awards? yeah, of course you will, but we both know that award is a relative term. Those shots of the buildings on the west side look pretty good, sharp clean...taken with what I imagine is a pretty good piece of glass. I know what I want from my lens collection: The ability to take a shot and view it at 100% and still find it acceptably sharp with good detail. Which means if it is something important I can enlarge it reasonably and still have a great shot.

I am glad you are able to use your Minolta gear again, Sony is good for competition as much as I hate their Microsoft/Walmart-like tactics. I would never call you a Dufus for using Sony gear, it's what you use. If you wouldn't have called me a dufus/fanboy, I wouldn't have even joined this discussion. I quite possibly will never fit another Tamron lens to any of my Cameras and I will promote what I have used that works, so far it's been Canon, Tokina, and Sigma.

I don't mind using brand X in a lot of cases, but it better perform as well or better than my brand. I refuse to spend $500 on PS, PSP does everything I need to for photography, it's a bargain. I buy any gasoline(at a given octane)that's cheaper than any other gasoline. I've tried no less than 8 different brands of headset for work and ended up going with the big brand because, well, it works. I want a product that works, I have never been disappointed by Canon, I have by Tamron, Sigma, Sony, Panasonic.

I really don't know what full frame has to do with the dufus discussion but I see APS-c and FF living peacefully side by side. Full frame definitely has a lot of advantages, but APS-c holds it's own quite nicely. I will continue to shoot with a FF and APS-c side by side, the APS-c will hold my longer lenses and the wide angles will reside on the FF.

[DonSchap]

There is a level of sillyness to APS-C ... by having to duplicate lensing for the Full Frame or vice-versa. I am utterly surprised that with your level of analytical evaluation, you would not see that. Cost-wise, for everyone, it would be a boon to simplify the selection and not have to support

TWO!!!


The artifically created one in 2004 (APS-C) and the real one (Full Frame) from the beginning of 35mm-film!


But, obviously, my thinking must be flawed ... :rolleyes:

I suspect that once the SONY Full Frame establishes itself ... this may be the correction needed to bring these two methods back together. Ahh, but there is money to be made ...

[TenD]

I haven't duplicated any lenses. I don't have a wide angle lens beyond my 17mm which is a true 17mm on the 5D and has the field of view of a 28mm lens on the APS-c body. And on the other end I have a 100-400mm which has the FOV of a 640mm lens on the APS-c. Plenty of range to go around for each camera, I use them as a pair. Shoot long with the APS-c and wide with the FF. It works out perfectly for me.

[DonSchap]

Perhaps the most frustating aspect is that you go out and you buy a high quality 14mm f/2.8 lens (easily $1200+) and put it on the newest APS-C camera you can find ... and you have just made it a 21mm or 22mm. That is just wrong. :eek: :rolleyes: :p LOL ... sorry.

It just grates on my wide-side.

[Rooz]

Sony took what Minolta already had in development and marketed it. Sony benefited greatly from Minolta. I can't agree that Sony is doing anything to heavily push the market. Many of the "innovations" you see now are nothing but response to a general public that has lit the photography market on fire. Everyone is responding to public demands, demands no one ever thought meant anything to photography.

we will have to agree to disagree. competition breeds innovation, no matter what industry. sony is a BIG player with big pockets. they came to play and te big 2 needed to respond. that in itself put a rocket up Canikon's collective asses imo.

IS: this is relatively new technology and something that became first available on a consumer grade lens and migrated elsewhere. Indispensable? No. Does the public think its cool? YES, are they told constantly that they can take so much better photos because of it? YES. Should we make more of it? YES it will sell more lenses. Is it because of Sony? I think maybe it's because in body IS has made this readily available to every lens, therefore we need more lenses with it.

not quite sure what you are saying here. the facts are these. IS/VR is useful. indispensable ? hardly. before sony hit the market with in-body IS there were limited choices in IS lens' for consumers. that has radically changed. there is now a comprehensive IS lens market. imo this is a direct response to in-body IS. ie: take away the primary competitive advantage of the competition. again, a good thing for everyone.

LV- totally a response to a non photographic public cry for a DSLR to be like their point and shoot. Everyone is trying to catch up to this. Thought it was silly on a P&S still think so. Hate seeing people compose at arms length, this takes away from proper technique and results in many bad photos. Useful for Macro work.

well, i think you;re a little too old school here. LV is brilliant for macro. just briliant. its also useful, (not right now cos its too slow), at geting more versatility out of your equipment. its about having that option. i dont use it to compose at arms length but i also really like shooting at different angles and perspectives. LV makes that much easier. and if people DO want to shoot at arms length, so be it. give them the option. thats not a bad thing at all. how could it be ?

Hi Res screens? I really don't see any use here at all. What really can you see in your little 3" HiRes screen? Same thing you could see in your 1.5" low res screen, exposure(histogram), basic composition. The photo still needs to be uploaded to a computer to really see what's there. Again totally driven by general public P&S technology. This is how I want to compose, edit, view, show, print from, etc. etc. and everyone knows bigger is better...

sorry, this is just plain incorrect. hi res screens are BRILLIANT for everything from colour rendition to detail to checking for focus to just making it a better experience. it is INCOMPARABLE to 1.5inch screens and very far removed from even a 3inch non-hi res screen. this is not debatable. i consider the d300's screen to be invaluable compared to my already very good d80 2.5inch screen. i would go so far as to say that i would not buy another camera body without it.

Body Lifecycles? The shutter was always made to be replaced. It's a component that has to move with precision and speed. With the advent of "free" film people tend to indiscriminately fire away and throw away(95%)the bad ones. With film it was impossible to to this, it was just too expensive. The increases in shutter life for all manufacturers was a direct response to the machine gun tactic the DSLR has produced. Sony benefited from being late into the market, no one could predict a consumer body less than a month old with 5000 actuations on it...crazy, that's why pro level bodies were made that way. Nothing but sloppy and poor technique...

again, you're thinking of things from another era. times change. cars have cupholders and seat warmers. thats life, thats technology. sloppy technique is sloppy technique. thats all it is. people choose what techniques to use, the camera body doesnt force that on anyone.

Lens upgrades? This market has exploded, people are clamoring for new equipment. Nikon had some holes in their lens lineup, Canon was pretty set except for UWA, and Sony had a clean slate. I am personally very pleased with the selection of lenses I have available to me from Canon. In the last 10 years I can't think of a single time I said I wish Canon would come out with a -- lens. But still they have and I don't believe for a minute Sony had a thing to do with it.

again, we have to agree to disagree. i think sony pushed the impotus on manufacturers to innvoate more and give consumers a broader range. you are being far too self-centred in your assesment. canon did not have a complete range at all. the new 18-55IS kit lens is excellent compared to the shitbox previous kit lens and they also brought in the 55-250IS which is another great innovation and gives people more choice. in time that will also drive prices down...another GREAT thing. look at what you can get now for the same dollars as before. competition drives prices more than anything else.

The market has exploded:

true and sony can take part of that credit. they have big marketing budgets and sell photography well. sony is a household name more so than canon or nikon so they get involved and things get shaken up and our medium of expression gets taken to a wider market. that drives more people to photography, opens the market up more and more. drives people into dslr from P&S which then drives the need to reduce prices, improve performance and pack more into them.

there are more people out there spending vast amounts of money on camera equipment they have no idea of how to use(push this button and fire away). No idea that the lens they put in front of the "expensive" body will make much more difference than the body itself. No idea what makes a good lens, what an f/stop means, what lens speed is, etc. But we all do have one thing in common, we want good photos and will buy more things to get them. Hence more lenses being introduced. Sony is just part of this whole picture, they are in the center of the same maelstrom.

so what ? i could care less if thats the case. as long as i know what i'm doing, who cares how lazy or incompetant others are ? thats like saying whats the point of having a car with 400hp, traction control, 4wd etc etc etc. 95% of the people dont use it but its still THERE. thats not a bad thing in the slightest.

the fact is lens' and bodies are getting MUCH better. better optically, much better IS technology, much better AF, even allowing for focus changes in body like the d300, (no need to service a lens for small backfous issues just adjust in cam). thats a result of not only innovation and demand but also demand in the presence of alternatives.

Noink's sensor performance was completely tied to Sony...Sony made their sensors. They were completely tied to Sony's technology. Canon has been making their own CMOS sensors for a long time, Sony has finally caught up. All of the manufacturers have been pushing the envelope, finding the edge. All of the manufacturers have advanced digital photography at a staggering pace.

the D3 was a breakthru not just for nikon but for photography as a whole. just like the d300 just like the d700 and just like the a900 will, (if it is FF with SS). not just becasue of their performance but again, because of the competition it brings. it forces everyone to lift.

Many of the "innovations" aren't necessary for good photography, and I really can't view them as advancements. They are at the very most convenience items aimed at this huge untrained market.

what isnt for the good of photography ? :confused: sorry this makes no sense. unless they DEGRADE the perfomance of something important that NO innovation is bad innovation. it may not be useful to YOU but any advance that doesnt comprimse the photographic integrity of the equipment is good advance imo. i think its quite selfish to suggest that what isnt important to you just isnt important period. what gives you the right to determine what is and isn;t useful ? what is and isn;t relevant ? what is and isnt "good" photography ?

again, you are looking at this with blinkers on thinking back "in the day". the day has changed. welcome to the new world. :)

[DonSchap]

Well, I ordered a TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD from B&H Video, on Saturday night ... it arrived today, via UPS ... looking like this:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/test%20data/200-500-shipping-box.jpg

then, upon opening said packaging ... I found this:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/test%20data/200-500-lens-box.jpg

BTW: If you look through my truck's windowshield glass ... you will barely make out the UPS truck behind it ... the golden UPS logo on the side, because I had the UPS driver "standby" as I "documented" and opened the darn thing. Happily, the lens survived this treatment. And, oh, speak of the devil ... here it is!


http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/T200-500-Sony.jpg

One thing is for certain, it'll be a while before this lens suffers from "zoom creep" ... it's good and stiff.

And this ... is my dog ... with that lens, handheld, cropped at 100%

38026

Out of this original

38027
EXIF: A700 w/ 200-500 f/5-6.3
@ 200mm - f/6.7 - 1/30 sec - ISO-400 - Reflected light - M

Uh, guys ... that's HANDHELD ... at 200mm ... 1/30th ... of ... a ... second? Hey ... no photoshop magic, either. Just a crop and a raw lens.

[dr4gon]

Very nice! I hate it when boxes arrived all smushed. :(

[DonSchap]

Well, I guess I am wondering why B&H did not mark it clearly "FRAGILE. Toss underhand!"

I've been in these delivery facilities when the trucks come in and the swap begins. I know they are in a hurry, but from cryin' out loud, this is OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF!

Well, at least I did NOT have to return this one, but it does give me pause.

[DonSchap]

Okay ... zoo stuff. I kind of messed up, today ... because BEFORE I got to the zoo, I took a left and went to Chicago ... to the only place that just happened to have the SONY 135mm f/1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar lens. Uh, like the last one in stock ??? In the entire city ... know what I mean? Talk about pressure. Then, like an idiot ... I like went and shot through it? Holy smokes!!! It's like getting into a Ferrari ... after driving a Corvette. Something in you changes ... and you are like ... never the same.

So ... obviously ... yeah, I popped for it ... and it's now, like, my favorite lens. LOL :rolleyes:

Anyway ... back to the zoo ... w/ the 200-500. Here is my 200-500mm shot of the Mandrill ... which I had a hell of a time getting with the 80-400mm, last time. A much better effort, I do believe. I really like that lens. Sure, it's kind of big, but it does deliver.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/fauna/Mandrill.jpg

.
.
And his neighbor, one of the tree apes, snackin' down. This not a crop ... the lens gets right in there at 500mm

38070


I hope that answers a few questions. The airshow is getting closer ...

[Rooz]

are you having AF issues with the a700 ? the mandrill shot looks great but the gorilla and some of your other shots in the other thread look misfocussed to me. not being a smart ass here, just an observation.

[DonSchap]

No, you're right ... I was focused on that darn branch right in front of him. LOL

Honestly, I could not quite tell on the LCD, even magnified ... and I did not have any other shots that I liked from that particular run.

Today, well ... I got this guy with the 200-500 ... no branch!

[Rooz]

overexcited hands Don ? lol

[DonSchap]

I'll tell ya ... today's effort at the Zoo was not quite as fruitful as the first one, that I did on the 1st. It was 98-degrees, here, today, and the animals were not pleased. Oh the giraffes and zebras did not seem to mind ... in fact, they were "playful."

38077

38078

38074

38075


The big, furry mammals took the day off ... sleeping or hiding in their "habitats."


38076


I have to quit picking the "hottest days" to go.

[seanhoxx]

Have been waiting and thinking, and asking advice in other posts about waiting for the 70-200 2.8 or the 200-500mm looks at don's pics, makes note of hand held hmmmmmm. checks the bank account, going to sign off here and check B&H and a few others for instock and price........WOW my third lens and havent even had the camera 2 months yet!!
do you think I have a lens problem;)

[DonSchap]

No ... no problem. Why do you ask? :confused: LOL

[DonSchap]

Again, another trip to the zoo ... but that temperature just soared into the 90s. A great summer day for humans ... the animals ... take it on the chin!

38168
EXIF: TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
@ 500mm - f/5.6 - 1/350 sec. - ISO-400 - M


The polar bear, had his cool pool ...and something to snack on ...

38169
EXIF: TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
@ 200mm - f/5.6 - 1/1000 sec. - ISO-400 - M



And then I find out the Tiger has recently broken his lower left tooth. Man, that's gotta hurt. :( How does something like that happen, in a zoo?

38170
EXIF: TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
@ 330mm - f/5.6 - 1/200 sec. - ISO-400 - M


Taking a closer look at the tiger's skull ... that's a lot of tooth loss.

38171
EXIF: 135mm - f/1.8 - ISO-100 - 1/1000 sec - Spot Focus - Spot Metering - M - Direct Sun

[dr4gon]

these latest zoo pics with the giraffe, zebras, lion, and polar bear, are these all with the 200-500mm? they are very sharp! (although, not as sharp as those teeth!)

[DonSchap]

Yes, the 200-500mm at various lengths. I made the case for this lens a year ago, when I shot it against Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and found it amazingly similar ... for half the price!

Anyway, I waited until this summer, when I knew I could use it ... to get one for the SONY. For the past year, since September, I have made due with the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5,6 which really is a good, lightweight nature lens. But, like I have said in the past, unlike many other 500mm lenses ... this baby puts the punch in.

I have yet to see someone on here post a SIGMA 200-500mm f/2.8 shot. Where are these shots, already? :confused:

But the way, every shot is handheld. I'll go back and toss in the EXIF specifics, for you.

Here's is the one other shot that was a little overexposed ...

38179
EXIF: 135mm - f/4 - ISO-400 - 1/250 sec - Spot Focus - Spot Metering - M - Direct Sun



but, it was taken with the 135mm f/1.8 Carl Zeiss®, "the light gatherer", into the sun. There are some tough angles on these characters, sometimes. Last time: the darn thing submerged and that was the last time I saw him for over 15 minutes ... I just gave up. I figure if someone can hold their breath, for that long, to avoid the camera ... the heck with 'em! :rolleyes: I'm rolling on.

[dr4gon]

I really appreciate taking the time putting in the EXIF info, just for me :rolleyes: (but I'm sure someone else could use em). I really wish I could afford a lens like that right now. But 300mm will have to make do. ;) I can't wait to go to the zoo now!

[DonSchap]

Well, here's the Tiger's profile. It has a slight crop to it, to get rid of negative space, but I think it came out quite well.

38181
Original EXIF: 500mm - f/5.6 - 1/350 sec. - ISO-400 - SPot FOcus - SPot Metering - M


The 300mm shot provides you the tiger laying around ... the 500mmm gets the profile shot. Sure, you can always crop ... but, the images do not get better, but noticeably worse, after a 20% crop, so be careful when you do it. Cropping should be a framing adjustment ... not a method to blow the image up.

[dr4gon]

yeah, most definitely to only frame, quality goes down way too much.

I actually prefer the full body shot as opposed to the profile, but the more I look at the profile it just shows how awesome that tiger really is! that lens is just great!

[DonSchap]

I tend to agree ... because w/o the 200-500mm, I just could not have gotten this close ... that is w/o joining Mr. Tigre' for lunch. Uh, no thanks.

Honestly, at the zoo, shooting the outdoor exhibits, I found no need to remove the 200-500 from the camera. I was shooting stuff the surrounding crowd couldn't even dream of getting. Not that it was my purpose, but it was kind of amusing to have some mom lean over and say, "Just how close can you get with that?" ... and then, show her.

Indoors, though ... the opportunities were better suited to the 90mm and the 135mm PRIMES. I really have no need for the 17-50mm, that I could fathom ... and the 10-20mm was pointless and not missed in the least.

I may try the porpoise show, this coming week. The last time I went, I had only a 105mm maximum range with me ... and it was too short. So it will be a three-lens bag, next time. The rest can sit in the truck, waiting for their moment ... in the sun.

For the moment, these three are the "Zoo lenses." :cool:

90mm f/2.8 . . . . . 200-500mm f/5-6.3 . . . . . 135mm f/1.8

38214
EXIF: A700 w/ SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6
@ 15mm - f/8 - 1/60 sec - ISO-400 - Ext flash (Manual 1:1) - M


I know you would think the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 would be enough, but it is just not bright enough, indoors, without flash assistance. A lot of animals will not put up with that, after the first shot, hence the wider PRIMES. Oh sure, the 85mm f/1.4 might be a better choice than the 90mm f/2.8, but what the heck, I can MACRO butterfiles in the Butterfly display. So, maybe next year.

[dr4gon]

About how often did you change lenses on your zoo trip. For the health of the camera (and mainly my sanity to keep my paranoia at bay), I'd like to change it as few times as possible. But I think you did say one time you could probably make do with the 70-300mm. I agree that it's excellent for outdoors, not nearly as good indoors.

Are you talking about the 90mm Tamron Macro prime lens? I'm thinking of that being my next lens. Although, I can't help but think of an 18-250mm (I believe that's the right model).

For the fourth of july, I did a parade and 2 shows both with the 17-50. I was really close to one of the shows and to the parade so everything got framed nicely.

[DonSchap]

In the zoo, the subject is pretty much limited in size and scope. A parade ... the scope widens quite a bit and gets considerably larger. The lensing is completely different. You are usually curbside, with a twenty-foot float only ten to twenty feet away. With the animals, they are (at the largest) about five to fifteen feet in size and usually thirty plus feet away ... or you had better hope so. :eek:

It should always be kept in mind, though, that these lens lengths are multiplied with the APS-C sensor 1.5x ... therefore, that 500mm-shot of Mr. Tigre' was really a 750mm-shot on a Full Frame sensor. I may not have enough lens :eek: when the A900 shows up!

Ah, what the heck ... it's all for fun, anyway. :rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

Looking over the wide-angle requirements of the Full Frame, I realized that to truly get a decent ultra-wide angle, rectilinear shot ... the 17-35mmm just is not going to hack it. Again, this lens has been discontinued by TAMRON for the SONY mount ... and the existing K-Ms are now few and far between.

TAMRON, within the last three months, has also discontinued the SP AF 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical Rectilinear lens ... which many considered a pretty top drawer piece of glass. It renders a very distortion-free looking image and I figure that could be a boon on the upcoming full frame.

I have spoken to some folks and there is buzz about SONY releasing a wide-angle of some type, in September, to fiill this obvious gap for the Full Frame DSLR, but like everything else in the world of their glass ... it is shrouded in mystery and seemingly $400 beyond the very similar item ... you could have purchased earlier (like three months ago).

Well, I'm not waiting. Like I stated, when I started this thread, I found a SP AF 14mm f/2.8 and I have decided to purchase it. There's a good chance I can also get the current TAMRON rebate ($100) on the darn thing, too (That, at least, makes its purchase a little more palatable).

EDIT: After checking with the "real time" ordering folks, this lens is "O-O-S" and they're not sure when they will have it. I told them to cancel it (because that's the kiss of death with discontinued TAMRON lenses ... if it isn't in stock when you order it ... it won't ever be.)

[DonSchap]

On the issue of the 200-500mm lens and some ... particulars.

Concerning EXIF reporting from the A700 w/ the 200-500 mounted.

I took and positioned the lens at various zoom ranges, as indicated by the painted numbers on the zoom ring. The second column is the reported zoom (somebody might note this irregularity).

Indicated . . . . . Reported EXIF
200 . . . . . . . . . . 200
250 . . . . . . . . . . 250
300 . . . . . . . . . . 300
350 . . . . . . . . . . 360
400 . . . . . . . . . . 420
450 . . . . . . . . . . 420
500 . . . . . . . . . . 500

That's not a mistake, EXIF specifies 420 @ 400 & 450 indicated.

Hey, it kind of did the same thing on the Canon EOS, too, so no big deal, but you should remember your zoom should you be above 350mm and not yet at 500mm.

[dr4gon]

that's odd regarding the exif.

perhaps tamron is coming out with a replacement for these lenses (maybe you already discussed this possibility?). but they might be more expensive too, but likely in the same price range. but I think you did conclude that sony was branding them as their own to sell exclusively at a higher price tag. I find it hard to believe tamron would discontinue several of their popular top notch lenses (sellers) and not have a replacement under their name to have a nice catalog of lenses.

[DonSchap]

My sense is that SONY has taken away the SONY-mount from all but a few of the lenses ... ones they already have duplicated in the line-up, like the 18-200, 18-250, 11-18, 70-300, and 70-200.

They want their money ... having lost roughly 2 billion on PS3 (http://news.spong.com/article/15641/Sonys_Two_Billion_Dollar_PS3_R_D_Loss)

It's just going to be rough drilling into the profit margin for any kind of bargain.

[dr4gon]

Speaking of lenses, maybe I should make a new thread....

Is the Tamron 28-300mm (http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300mm-3-5-6-3-Asperical-Digital/dp/B00067ILI0/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1216927070&sr=8-4) f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD better glass than my current Tamron 70-300mm? F/4-5.6? Judging by the price, it seems that way.

I'd like something more versatile and it seems like it would make an OK indoor lens and a decent outdoor lens to cover wider shots over the 70-300mm. Although at 300mm (if I'm understanding the numbers correctly), it's going to be f/6.3 which is a lot "slower" than my current F/5.6. What is your opinion on these two? I will primarily be using the 300mm end for outdoor shots (like a trip to the zoo and animals) and for some astrophotography (moon and planets and such).

Or maybe I should opt for an 18-200 or 18-250 (18-250 is better built? i know you own it). But I would be selling my current and replacing it with one of these three, maybe.

[DonSchap]

You need to understand the mission of the lens you have named. The 28-300mm and the 18-200(250) have basically the same mission on two different cameras. That being one of a single, utilitarian lens. A vacation lens, if you will. It offers minimum fuss by reducing the number of glass you have to heave with you ... but then again, you do not have the luxury of low light aperture, except at the widest range.

The 28-300 was designed for use on 35mm-film and Full Frame cameras, but can also be used on the APS-C sensor digitals.

The 18-200(250) was designed ONLY to work on the APS-C sensor cameras ... effectively reproducing the same shot you would get on a full frame with the 28-300mm.

If you were to go this route, I would split the difference and toss a 50mm f/1.7 or f/1.4 into the vacation bag, for those "just in case" moments, when light just sucks. Also, (and this is really important) get an external flash (HVL-F36AM or F56AM), because the pop-up just will not have enough "pop" to do it for the focal range of these kind of lenses. It will offer you a much greater use of the lens.

They are designed, primarily for outdoor use, when you are touring or for "Mom-stuff", when you are imaging the kiddies.

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is primarily an outdoor lens, also ... but, its mission is a bit different. It will provide less distortion sweep from maximum to minimum focal range. Sunlight is its best friend. It is definitely cheaper ($179) and usually delivers a nice shot. But, the down side is that you need something to fill in the bottom range. This usually comes in the form of a 17-50mm f/2.8 for indoor use. That lens is around $420, but well worth it. It delivers extraordinary sharpness and low light needs.

I hope this explains it. ;)

BTW: I'm with you on this idea. I have decided to take advantage of TAMRON's $50 rebate on the AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) lens, which ends this month (7/31). This lens should cover a lot of bases with the upcoming A900 and for $329 (after rebate), not such a bad deal. I mean if you simply DO NOT want to carry three tons of glassware around in your valise ... this lens does it. Yes, there are compromises ... but, if they are of serious concern, go get a handcart and approach the problem differently.

[dr4gon]

Wow, that certainly gives me a ton to think about. I'm not planning on going on any out of state/region vacations within the next year or two, but certainly after that when I get more time. But for a grab and go 1 size sorta fits all lens it is tempting.

And maybe you forgot or was writing this more generally, I do have the 17-50mm Tamron DI-II and am looking for a replacement for the 70-300mm. For fear of dust and having to carry extra lenses, I was looking for something that would cover both wider and narrower shots because sometimes (a lot of the time), 50mm just isn't enough, especially outdoors. And when outdoors, 70mm can be too much. I wish the Tamron 17-50 was actually like the Sony DT and be 17-70. Then I doubt I would be looking for something. :\

Another concern is if I get a 28-300, i'll get lazy and ignore my nice 17-50mm lol... I just hate spending money on something I can't (don't want to) use.

I'm also dealing with the transition of using a point and shoot digital camera that's small and "handy" and now lugging (carrying) an SLR (a300, slightly smaller than your a700).

[DonSchap]

There is nothing "slightly" about the difference between a full fledged A700 (w/ VG) and an A300. The A700 is a definite handful of camera. It fit's my big ol' paw so naturally, I can only hope the A900 does likewise.

Obviously, SONY is betting that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the lens people will clamor to. A lot of professionals shoot this range in the Canon and Nikon. So the transition is still natural.

If TAMRON actually offered this range, there would be hell to pay. Especially in light of what has been quietly going on with the SONY-mount Di lenses and their selective discontinuation.

Future third-party support of the SONY line seems pretty much doomed in my estimation. It'll be SONY bodies and SONY lenses, whatever the cost. Personally, I am trying to get ahead of that demolition, with my current Di-lens purchases. I am certain some people think I may be willy-nilly about this, but when that A900 finally hits the street, just watch the outcry for lenses. I have filled in the focal range gaps with third-party lenses ... in an effort to keep shooting with the new camera.

I fell a little short on the Ultra-Wide, though. I'll have to be content with 17mm, distorted (to be straightened out in Photoshop).

Let's face it, does it not seem to be rather pointless to have a fantastic camera body with absolutely no glass to go on it? Be the glass mediocre or whatever ... nothing is still nothing. I honestly do not have the extra $10,000 to fill in the gaps with SONY glass. The 135mm f/1.8 was a visionary purchase, providing for a gap in my PRIMES, but there will be no 85mm f/1.4 to go along with it. Between those two lenses, alone ... we're looking at roughly $2,700. A hobby, huh?

Not to be boring, but then add your zooms ... SONY SAL 24-70mm f/2.8Z ($1749.99) and the SAL 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM ($1799.99) ... total those two = $3549.98! Bet you didn't consider that when you went out lens shopping!

[dr4gon]

I see myself upgrading to a full frame maybe in 3-4 years down the line as I'm still getting acquainted with my camera now. I would really love to stick with SONY and hope the community continues to grow to a size like Canon or Nikon. A thriving, popular, 3rd brand.

I think I'll sleep on a new lens for a little while at least and see how the 70-300mm gets along. I'll be going to this place called fossil rim (http://www.fossilrim.com/) which is like an African safari you get to drive through but not quite as far in a couple of weeks. Maybe the 70-300mm will be good enough, although the animals do poke their heads in the car on occasion, something the 70-300mm can't deal with.

[DonSchap]

@ dr4gon: One lens, I have not discussed and have little familarity ... which you should really look at is the SONY SAL 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5. It may just solve the issues you address ... and it really is not that expensive, comparitively ($469.99). Wide and semi-long ... for walk around. It is NOT a "DT" lens, so it will work on the A900. It will more than likely be the "kit" lens. If it is, I will purchase my A900 with it.

I also took a peek at a review on the lens and it seems to be pretty good, overall. Guess the proof is in the shooting, but at least it is not a complaint. LOL

I made arrangements to have the SONY 24-105 lens brought in to the local store for evaluation, in about a week. I am curious to see how it shoots against the "tuned-up" TAMRON 28-75mm Di f/2.8, TAMRON 18-250mm Di-II and the TAMRON 90mm f/2.8 Di. A good side-by-side, indoor and outdoor, should reveal much.

[DonSchap]

The AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO (Model 061M) just arrived, today, a few minutes ago. It was still hot off the UPS truck. In fact, here's the opened box taken by the lens. Just like Christmas in July ...

38380
A700 w/ 28-300 f/3.5-5.6
@ 55mm - f/8 - 1/60 sec - ISO-400 M - Pop-up flash


Looks good and in focus. I'll do a closer examination, later on.

The "all-in-one" for the A900 ... check'd off.

[dr4gon]

All in one sounds good to me! I was reading up on that lens in dyxum and aprently it's slow and noisy (I imagine it's like my 70-300 which tends to be quite noisy and hunts a lot more indoor and especially in low light). What are you initial thoughts?

I looked up that sony lens you suggested and it does sound like a good sharp indoor multipurpose/semi-vacation lens but it's just really expensive at $400+. I was thinking something under $200, but we'll see since I don't need it now, and it can't hurt to wait since new things are always hitting the market, and prices drop.

Are those iron man and xmen games in the background? Nice logi g11 keyboard!

[DonSchap]

Are those iron man and xmen games in the background? Nice logi g11 keyboard!

Yeah ... something to do between shots. It's a G15 keyboard, by the way! LOL

The lens is no more noiser than the TAMRON 17-50mm f/2.8, so I don't know what the heck people are talking about. I mean, really ... who cares? Give me a good focus!

[dr4gon]

Yeah I'm not too picky on the noise, but I can see myself in a family type wedding situation and the bride/groom/minister having to put up with the motor :D LOL, that's the price they'll have to pay for good pictures!

Ah yeah ok got my logitech keyboards mixed up.... I am a huge fan of their mice. I love my MX revolution, more buttons than I know what to do with!

[DonSchap]

Yeah ... well welcome to the twenty-first century, right? You want candle-light ... and dead silence ... there are towns where that is pretty commonplace. No electricity for miles!

You want solid imagery ... smile and be happy. I can just see a lens rigged ... with a silencer!

Just for a thrill, here is an actual working "tank-silencer". You know ... for Hospital-Zones ... or Wedding Chapels.

38389

"They'll never HEAR what hit 'em!"


You have ask yourself, "What other stupid stuff can we worry about as photographers?"

[dr4gon]

lol a silencer .... can I add a laser sight too? :eek:

[seanhoxx]

That has to be some kind of spec. ops. pysch. warfare stuff. while the enemy is laughing and spurting while looking over the spy photos we sneak up on "won't be able to hear us with all the laughing" and are so distracted we capyure them with out firing a shot.

[seanhoxx]

Does there seem to be a "glass panic" going on among buyers of used minolta glass? is it full frame preperation out iof control? After doing my research, online reading and listening to lot of what I see here I have been looking to buy a Minolta 50mm AF 1.7, well so has apparently eveyone else in the world :( So should I join the fry and pick one up now, prices seem to be averaging around $115.00 - $140.00 or would that be money better spent else where in used glass buying? opinions, comments, and suggestions most welcom!
Sean

[DonSchap]

Wow, that much, huh? When the SONY A100 was introduced (2006), it was all of $50, if that. The weird thing is that there are more Minolta 50mm f/1.7 lenses out there than ANY other lens they produced. Guess I should have bought a few. Just like stock, eh?

[seanhoxx]

for example, yesterday 4 of them ended on ebay within a 3 hr. time frame, i was watching/bidding on all three. Now to be fair one was a true gem all orig. package including the plastic wrap, had to unwrap lens to take pic of it. all paperwork, "passed" sticker on it, no signs of wear or use at all. it went for $148.00plus $12.00 shipping. the other 3 went for $128.00, $120.00 and $115.00 for one that was lens only no package, no lens caps, no filter.
there is one ending today I think with a buy it now of $134.00. it just seems a bit high for me, thats a lot of cash I could use towards other glass.

[Panda Bear]

I'd tend to agree; I watched several lenses, and bid on some, and watched them get bid up to very near the price of new stuff, on used equipment, and from unknown sources! And I've seen some questionable old stuff go for a lot, apparently taking advantage of auction mania. With auctions, its best (IMO) to set a budget for yourself, but it's frustrating to spend the time researching and bidding, and then watch someone with more money than brains overbid.

[DonSchap]

I've had mixed results from buying on ebay. Personally, there just is not enough $aving$ to make doing it worth the risk, anymore. I find that if you cultivate a relationship with a photo retailer, it goes a long way in FUTURE $AVING$. It is a rare thing going back to an ebay-seller! LOL :eek: OMG! As if ... huh?

[DonSchap]

Well, this weekend exposed a problem using the TAMRON 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD at full zoom. It is terribly soft ... or just plain short on infinity focus. I really don't know if TAMRON can or will adjust it ... being the ragged end of the focal spectrum.

I shot everything I could imagine and not one image turned out sharp ... in the least. Now, working closer ... it was fine. It is clear that on the APS-C sensor, the AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD is far ahead of this lens, in that kind of performance.

If you plan of shooting 300mm stuff for distance, my suggestion is to use the AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD instead. Far cheaper and sharper. It may not be as chromatically controlled as the "XR" coating is on the 28-300mm ... so depending on your use ... you've definitely got some thinking to do.

[dr4gon]

Thanks for the tip ;) probably be staying with it a little while longer. I think I'm gonna start looking at primes (50mm minolta RS macro, perhaps).

[Panda Bear]

Thanks for that report. I too am considering several options, and they are expensive options, very expensive for trial and error. All real world experiences like this are helpful.

[DonSchap]

In the elusive search for more information on the SONY A900, I found this link which has some pretty good snaps of the camera.

A900 elsewhere (http://cameras.webhostingoverview.com/2008/03/23/sony-alpha-a900-the-first-photos-of-24-mp-dslr-camera/)

[DonSchap]

Now, how about that? I sent in the all the TAMRON lens rebate claims, last week, and today ... they're here!

39214

Cripes, Canon took nearly six months, when I did their wonderful :rolleyes: rebates. Turned them in on October 2005 ... got them back in March 2006. :mad: Nothing like a good customer-milking, eh? :(

Anyway, thank you to TAMRON for a very timely turn-around. You guys are great.

[dr4gon]

WOW, that's ridiculously quick....I was thinking the normal 8-10 weeks. I want my 90mm so I can get my $90!! :mad:

[DonSchap]

WOW, that's ridiculously quick....I was thinking the normal 8-10 weeks. I want my 90mm so I can get my $90!! :mad:

I found this one, on EBAY (http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-90mm-F2-8-AF-DI-SP-Macro-for-Canon-Nikon-Sony_W0QQitemZ230282826641QQihZ013QQcategoryZ30070 QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD2VQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp16 38Q2em122) ... for about the same as you would pay after the rebate.

Who knows, maybe you could STILL get the rebate anyway?

[dr4gon]

I'm hesitant about buying from hong kong. Don't they get less warranty? On the auction, it says 12 months. But thanks don!

[DonSchap]

Well, just to cap off a rather intense buying-binge on glass, I picked up a KM AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 "D" (yes, 8-contact) lens from B&H. I got it for about $200 off the new SONY-labeled one. It is supposedly in perfect condition ... and I am anxious to compare it against the 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3, the 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 (when it gets back from TAMRON), the 28-75mm f2.8, and a couple other surprise guests from the glass farm.

Some ask, "Don, isn't that just overlap?"

That's kind of obvious, ain't it? I'm looking to find a good combination and what glass will deliver what. I know the pricey stuff will do a decent job ... but, I'm more concerned with the mid-level shots, using glass that most people can afford ... not just dream about. For about the price of the SONY CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 ... I have been able to buy four lenses (28-300mm f/3.5-6.3, 28-75mm f/2.8, 200-500mm f/5-6.3 & this 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5).

I figure if you actually have a extra $10,000 that you can drop on glass, then you will not even be concerned with mid-range glass. But, if you are like most of us ... scraping to rub two "hundreds" together ... then getting the most out of the lesser offerings is the name of the game.

[seanhoxx]

Don I have been browsing the KM AF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 NOT D any comments? they seem to be fairly resonable. A bit less then the 24-105, reviews range all over the place? Adorma has one listed in E+ condition for about $55.00, but it does not have a picture of it, nor does it say if lens caps etc. are included. also some on the ebay. also looking at KM AF 70-210 3.5 - 4.5, "not the beer can constant f4". just looking and plotting at the moment.

[DonSchap]

The lenses you have mentioned are FILM lenses and you will tend to see the purple-fringe flare on your images, with reflected contrasty light. Honestly, if you can get "coated" lenses, you'll be a lot happier with zooms.

I have tried to demonstrate the problem. I really do not know how to do a better job of it. I have lenses in great shape, but that means nothing ... they do not work well with digital sensors. Now, if you are going back to film .... well, then you are on the road to happy savings ... as far as glass goes ... film-processing is definitely getting more expensive. By buying the more expensive "digital" lenses, you are trading for the much lower cost of producing digital images versus film-based images. That's the savings you have to factor in to purchase your newer glass. You just cannot have it both ways ... older zoom glass with newer sensors. Now, if someone will re-coat the back of the lens for you ... whoa, that would be cool. :D

[seanhoxx]

a lense recoating company, hmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnn how much capital is needed for that start up eh. I guess one just really can't have it both ways.
as always thanks for the education Don.

[DonSchap]

I have decided to get two more PRIME lenses ... a 20mm f/2.8 and a 24mm f/2.8, which, of course, will fill in my bottom prime selections. I've got the 24mm ... and the 20mm may be along, soon. We'll see.

They should provide a nice, wide range for the Full Frame.

[TenD]

Leading more down the path...I shoot with Canon's best glass, their "L" glass which Don thinks is exorbitantly priced. He's right it's expensive. I think it's worth it, he does not.

My point is not the cost of the glass, but the fact that none of this high quality glass(some of the best made)is Di or Dx or digital in any way. Coated lenses have been around forever, even in the days of film. CA(purple fringing is a component)has also been around forever, even before photography. Shooting wide open with a wide angle lens will usually see some CA, no matter which lens you use, film or digital.

"Digital" lenses may have some new coatings on them, but the best way to eliminate CA is to avoid the conditions that cause it: high contrast scenes, shooting wide open, wide angle lenses in these situations. Purchasing older "film" lenses is a low cost way to fill your lens collection with excellent glass.

Chromatic Aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration)

[DonSchap]

"TenD" ... again you mock my intent. "L"-glass is considered the high-end optic in the Canon line-up ... SONY is touting the "G" glass and the Carl Zeiss lenses as their high-end optic. Both are equally as pricey, but instead of having to stuff an IS-mechanism inside the lens, making it that much heavier, overall ... SONY has it in the camera body ... and the lenses are truly all optic, with perhaps an occasional focusing motor.

YMMV ... and TAMRON's Di and Di-II coatings do reduce the purple fringe effect. I have plenty of lenses with and without it to demonstrate this problematic effect. Also, better construction of the optic (multiple LD and SD glass elements) will also reduce this effect. Yes, I've got that part covered, too.

Acheiving a better understanding of cause and effect is in the best interest of everyone ... but, if you want a lesson between the OLD and the NEW ... I have it covered ... TOO!

Expensive lenses may improve an overall, random shot, but there is certainly a lot you can do with position and aperture-control to cost-effectively help yourself out. It does not take a lot to screw up a routinely good shot. I will not refute the idea that top drawer equipment does offer a simpler solution, but then again ... you simply have to reach into the old wallet and evaluate how much top drawer costs you. When a photographer is making do with rather mediocre equipment ... and turning out impressive work ... that, my friend, is someone who truly knows how to take an image. Perhaps, there is something to be learned from such an individual.

Ah, but what do I know? :confused:

[dr4gon]

"Digital" lenses may have some new coatings on them, but the best way to eliminate CA is to avoid the conditions that cause it: high contrast scenes, shooting wide open, wide angle lenses in these situations. Purchasing older "film" lenses is a low cost way to fill your lens collection with excellent glass.

Chromatic Aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration)

I believe he was also commending your purchase.

[seanhoxx]

wow, and all I want to do is try and make good images!! I don't think I will ever be good enough, or serious enough to justify top end gear, maybe mid level, the top end of mid level, and lots of practice and education, learning on my own and taking the advice and comments from others here has been VERY helpful. The quest continues, and hey if it's not fun, it's a job lol.

[TenD]

I am not mocking your intent. I am saying there is hardly any downside to buying film lenses...Hey, so do you in the Canon forum where you are stirring up trouble again. You tell us what a "budget" system Sony is with it's 1.6 stop IS(compared to Canon's 3 stops or better). We tell you that Sony lens costs(no IS)are higher than Canon's lens costs(with IS)for a given level, and how do you answer? You say to purchase older Minolta lenses to bring the cost down. So Sean, if you go to the Canon forum it's OK to purchase older Minolta lenses, but not so here.

[DonSchap]

I do not agree with SONY's pricing plan and I have so stated that. I believe that the bulk of their offerings are 25-35% over a fair market value. So, take that to the bank. I do not have controlling interest in SONY and they have screwed up, big time, with other aspects of the company. Unfortunately, that is so reflected in these price points.

Canon ... has no such excuse. Their sorry refusal to put IS-in-the-body is kind of sad and truly disturbing. If they did that one thing ... the SONY threat would probably be terminated ... and I and Minolta would be vindicated.

This is not an argument ANY of us can win. So ... enjoy your choices and I'll live with mine. I will not support Canon as long as ignorance continues ... and they can take that to the bank .... or not. :rolleyes:

[TenD]

Don, in body IS is simply not up to the quality of in lens IS. 1.6 stops against over 3 stops! Yes, as I have stated it is somewhat nice to have IS for every lens, but in most cases handholding a 28mm lens @ 1/30 is within just about anyone's capabilities with good technique. Handholding a 300mm at 1/30 isn't.

I don't find Canon's(or Nikon's) lack of in body IS is disturbing at all, even their point and shoots have the IS in the lens. It just makes sense, more stops, more efficient, the viewfinder becomes stable. They have an IS system that works, and works better than any other camera manufacturers system. Why change? Oly, Pentax, Sony, Minolta etc. needed a gimmick, something to set them apart, in body IS is that thing. It's a great idea, it's not close to mature yet.

[DonSchap]

Well, I find my "immature" shooting a far cry better than the shots I had serious trouble getting from the Canon EOS 20D, w/o a tripod or some other stable support. Where it really bugged me, to be honest, was in venues that forbid stability enhancing devices (such as tripods, monopods ... what have you), such as museums; stadiums; aquariums; train stations; ... aw heck, just about any "controlled access" public forum.

So when I pluck my SONY (in-the-body-IS) camera from its camera case ... throw on a 50mm f/1.4 lens ... and take a low-light shot at 1/15th - ISO 800 ... I get something other than a fuzzy smudge for a subject, like I used to with the EOS 20D.

I know that can be hard to understand for someone who has ONLY shot with a Canon device, but ... I tell you, it is true. A stabilized shot with a PRIME lens! :eek: Yes, Virginia ... it is possible.

[dr4gon]

Don, in body IS is simply not up to the quality of in lens IS. 1.6 stops against over 3 stops! Yes, as I have stated it is somewhat nice to have IS for every lens, but in most cases handholding a 28mm lens @ 1/30 is within just about anyone's capabilities with good technique. Handholding a 300mm at 1/30 isn't.

I don't find Canon's(or Nikon's) lack of in body IS is disturbing at all, even their point and shoots have the IS in the lens. It just makes sense, more stops, more efficient, the viewfinder becomes stable. They have an IS system that works, and works better than any other camera manufacturers system. Why change? Oly, Pentax, Sony, Minolta etc. needed a gimmick, something to set them apart, in body IS is that thing. It's a great idea, it's not close to mature yet.

Do you have a source regarding 1.6 vs 3 stops with in-body vs. in-lens?


From reading up now and before I bought my camera, it seems the difference isn't that big. You benefit mostly throughout the lens lineup at about sub ~300mm since compensation is much lower at wider shots.

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=academy_new&article=041607

However in-camera stabilization works with just about any lens you mount on the camera, so you only have to pay for it once and the cost isn't very high (maybe $100-$200). In-lens stabilization adds at least $200 (sometimes more) to the cost of every lens that it's used in--and not all lenses (particularly wide and normal prime lenses) are available in an IS version.

In practice, both systems seem to provide similar levels of stabilization for wide, normal and short telephoto lenses used on APS-C sensor DSLRs. If and when more cameras with full frame sensors become avialable, image stabilized lenses will still be effective on them (as they are on current 35mm film cameras). With the additional size and mass of a full frame sensor, it may be difficult to impement a full frame sensor camera with in-body stabilization.

In-lens stabilization may also be more effective than in-body stabilization for long telephoto lenses. This is because the image shift is proportional to focal length and can become quite high at long focal engths. For example for a 0.5° deflection of a 600mm lens, the image moves by about 5.5mm, and Canon IS telephoto lenses can shift the image by this amount. Moving a whole sensor +/- 5mm both horizontally and vertically to compensate for image movement is difficult, even for APS-C sized sensors, due to both space constraints and limitations on how fast the mass of the whole sensor assembly can be moved. Optical stabilization in the lens can be designed so that a small movement of the optical steering elements causes a large deflection of the image and so rapid and effective stabilization is possible even for large image shifts.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-in-camera-vs-in-lens-image.html

It's a bit biased I must say, but these are true.

In-Lens Systems
Advantages
1. More effective with longer lenses
2. You don't pay for it except with the lenses you need it for
3. You see the stabilization effects through the viewfinder

Disadvantages
1. More expensive, especially if you want the feature in more than one lens
2. Not available with all lenses

In-Body Systems
Advantages
1. Works with every lens you mount to the body, and may be the only option for many shorter and faster lenses
2. Less expensive, especially if you want the feature with more than one lens

Disadvantages
1. Progressively less effective with longer and longer lenses (you would probably use a tripod anyway or at least be in good light!)
2. Progressively harder to implement with larger image sensors. (not an issue yet with the current a100-700 lineup :rolleyes:)

[DonSchap]

@Dr4gon ... it's kind of pointless with the "drink the kool-aid" bunch. They've got a lot of cash tied up in their systems ... I know, I was one of them ... and just chucked it all, when Canon refused to put IS in the camera, TOO!

I wasn't afraid to pop the "single-gun salute" to an organization that put corporate greed ahead of good sense. That, plus the fact that Minolta has always been a fun line of cameras ... their challenge to improve photography was commendable, although cutting edge can kill ya. Now, is SONY up to the same thing? I suppose, but my bag is pretty complete, at this point. The cameras do what I want ... and that, my friend, is half the battle. The Canon EOS-system did not ... and still, does not.

So ... we are where we are. Shooting with our respective equipment ... and trying to justify the choices.

[TenD]

Do you have a source regarding 1.6 vs 3 stops with in-body vs. in-lens?
DPreview I can't find the specific pages but it's in there, Don doesn't refute this.


From reading up now and before I bought my camera, it seems the difference isn't that big. You benefit mostly throughout the lens lineup at about sub ~300mm since compensation is much lower at wider shots.
True, because the in body IS is not tailored to anything, it has diminishing returns as the focal lengths increase. In lens IS is tailored to the lens it is placed in.

Cost? Sony's non IS lenses cost more than Canons lenses with the IS built in. If you want top quality glass, you pay for it, if you have a Sony you pay a little more for it. In the end it becomes a wash, with Sony being slightly more expensive. ex. Sony 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3 lbs B&H price $1799, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3.5 lbs $1699, where are the savings?

Your final statements are all true, although very biased toward in body IS. Although as you can see above the $$ savings aren't necessarily true. True with primes, true with lesser lenses. When you get to the pro level, not true at all.

[DonSchap]

Excuse me, "TenD" ... are you going for the new 50D, this time? Or are you done with the "kool-aid" and making your way to the new wave of professional standards?

We're all friends, here. 'fess up?

[Rooz]

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=556627

[DonSchap]

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=556627

Just have CW send the lens to the house. Thanks. LOL :D

[Rooz]

looks a little too real to be a fake. it says "steadyshot inside", is that the normal way they normally describe it ? i thought it was called super steady shot or something like that.

[DonSchap]

They are apparently going with the "Intel Inside" approach, to reduce the name size.

I just found out that the camera has an APS-C crop mode, which means ALL lens will be usable on this baby!

Holy cow ... now, I've got glass galore! :eek:

Also, most of the focusing and metering takes place within the APS-C frame ... not full frame, so that might speed up the AF quite a bit and limit issues with edge sensors.

[dr4gon]

DPreview I can't find the specific pages but it's in there, Don doesn't refute this.


True, because the in body IS is not tailored to anything, it has diminishing returns as the focal lengths increase. In lens IS is tailored to the lens it is placed in.

Cost? Sony's non IS lenses cost more than Canons lenses with the IS built in. If you want top quality glass, you pay for it, if you have a Sony you pay a little more for it. In the end it becomes a wash, with Sony being slightly more expensive. ex. Sony 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3 lbs B&H price $1799, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3.5 lbs $1699, where are the savings?

Your final statements are all true, although very biased toward in body IS. Although as you can see above the $$ savings aren't necessarily true. True with primes, true with lesser lenses. When you get to the pro level, not true at all.

Of course I'm biased..... I don't claim to not be.

I really don't want to get too much into this... but None of us here though are at the pro level. It just makes more sense economically for us as amateurs that we would see the savings with built in IS. The Sony bodies I believe are also cheaper. (We'll see when the A900 comes out).

I'd still like to see the source at dpreview (couldn't find it in my limited googling)

[DonSchap]

I remember one poor soul I ran into at the local convention, who staggered up and said, "I used to have money ... then, I met Canon." Then, awkwardly, he passed out from lens-weight issues. It happens far too often, these days. I usually tell them to "take two SONYs and call me in the morning."

Sorry, I digress.

[TenD]

Of course I'm biased..... I don't claim to not be.

I really don't want to get too much into this... but None of us here though are at the pro level. It just makes more sense economically for us as amateurs that we would see the savings with built in IS. The Sony bodies I believe are also cheaper. (We'll see when the A900 comes out).

I'd still like to see the source at dpreview (couldn't find it in my limited googling)
I am glad you are happy with your Sony camera and I hope you are able to take a lot of fine photographs with it. I can't find my evidence on DPreview right now either. I will keep looking for it though, for right now you can say I am wrong. I don't have a problem with that.

I agree having the SSS built in can be a good thing. My system doesn't have this and yet I am still perfectly happy with it. I like my system and unlike some, OK one, of you, will say it's perfectly capable of taking very fine photographs. All of us have some personal pride in the system we have invested in. We did our research and we bought what we bought. Mine started 30+ years ago. I haven't seen a reason to change.

I feel no need whatsoever to come to this forum and tell you that your system sux(it doesn't), or you are drinking the kool-aid(you aren't), or you should have bought into my system(you shouldn't have).

Don Schap, your most popular poster, somehow always feels the need to visit his old Canon haunt and tell everyone there that they are inferior because they fail to see the light like he did. He shows up there and stirs the pot trying(and succeeding)to rile people up by being just plain immature and annoying.

When he was a Canonite he railed on Canon lenses and felt the need to preach Tamron to everyone there. Canon charged way too much for their lenses, and Tamron provided the big bargain. Yet he still owned enough Tamron lenses(overlapping focal lengths throughout)to purchase top Canon glass and cover a reasonable range. This is just another long, ongoing, trolling by Don. If you don't agree with him, he keeps jabbing, if you prove him wrong, he changes the subject, if you challenge him to prove his ranting, he demurs, then changes the subject.

I have many times challenged Don to back his senseless ranting up. He says he's above that...then comes into another forum's living room and $hits on the floor. You don't see Cannonites, or Nikonians, or whoever coming here to bash your system. Don does this on a regular basis.

This is the first time I have come here and said anything bad about Sony. I apologize for that. I shouldn't jump into the middle of a Sony forum and say bad things about the cameras you have chosen. Good luck with your system, and like I said above take some great photos with it.

[DonSchap]

@TenD ... Thanks for stopping by, pal.

It has been a fun three years of swapping glass, buying camera systems and learning that Canon simply will not accept the tide of change. Your appreciation of their stagnation is remarkable and ... regrettable. They need to answer the call.

SONY is dialing it up ... ring ring ... "Anyone home?" "No, this number is ... disconnected from the users ... sorry."

Enjoy your choice ... you could have been treated BETTER by Mother Canon ... forget SONY, as they simply put everyone on notice ... "in-the-body-IS is a great idea."

Canon could have done it ... but hey decided their profits were more important than their users. That's kool-aid drinkin', my friend. No thanks. You can have it. ;)

[TenD]

Enjoy your walkman Don.

[DonSchap]

Now, who is being disrespectful and dismissive, my friend?

We are all entitled to our opinions ... and regardless of whether or not yours agrees with mine, I know I am right.

Go get 'em, Tiger

39489

Go back to Canon and tell them to give you in-the-body-IS, too!

[TenD]

Now, who is being disrespectful and dismissive, my friend?

We are all entitled to our opinions ... and regardless of whether or not yours agrees with mine, I know I am right.

Go get 'em, Tiger

39489

Go back to Canon and tell them to give you in-the-body-IS, too!
Me! But it's not directed at the folks(maybe one)in this forum. Is the photo your example of what I could do if Canon would only give me in body IS? If it is, then I don't want it. What's wrong? OOF or camera shake, noisy, poor saturation.

Here, no IS, toy camera(rebel XT)300 f/4L+1.4x HANDHELD.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r7/casaflyer/CanonEOSDIGITALREBELXT3735.jpg
I don't need in body IS, I don't need IS at all. Good photographs with any equipment are completely possible, IS or not. I'll stay with what I have and keep making photos, you keep making your photos. Show them off. Be proud. But don't come over to my house and tell me my equipment isn't capable, it is. Coming over to Canon to gloat that they didn't introduce a worthy camera is just poor form.

[DonSchap]

Given the sun ... yeah ... you have that right. Any brilliant light source eliminates the need for IS, that's for sure.
Crank that bad boy up to 1/500th second and you could probably drop out of a building ... and get a stable looking
image.

I'll make sure I drag the sun with me, when I go indoors ...

39490

perhaps during a wedding shoot or some such and fire that puppy right up! All I have to do, then, is say the
magic-phrase handed down to me by 'TenD' ...

"It's okay, folks! I am shooting with a Canon DSLR ... no IS, don't ya know? Let there be light!"

Sorry ... everything in its place, my friend. Even in-the-body-IS.

"Excuse me, folks ... go ahead and close the curtains, again ... I have a SONY. Sorry about all that." :rolleyes:

Okay, perhaps a little extreme, but this argument is getting rather pointless. My suggestion is and has always been
(regardless of how you or anyone else wants to argue it) IS should be in BOTH the longer lenses and the
body, with the option of choosing is made by the operator. That's real choice and I know Canon and Nikon could
do it ... if they so desired. They do not, so your option is gone ... by their default. So endeth the lesson. If SONY
decides to put TAMRON's developed "VC" in the 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/4 ...

I'm only parroting back the things you've already heard, though.

39491

LOL Oh boy! Let the games begin. ;)

[dr4gon]

Yay I'm glad we came to a compromise.... :D Makes sense to have it in both places and to maximize effectiveness across the wide and longer lengths!

IS/VR/whatever at >300mm would be great for Sonys!

[seanhoxx]

Wow guys how about we all have a beer and shoot some pics. this thread is starting to sound like lots and lots of threads at some of those other sites that I don't belong to.
All I want to do is learn how to be a better photographer, learn new things, get the most for my money, have a few laughs, and feel like I belong. oh what the hell, world peace wouldnt be to bad either!

[seanhoxx]

Dr4gon how about this, can you imagine the Tamron 200-500 with VC in the lense and then flick on SSS........... hmmm, or would they conflict each other and not work at same time? Don?
More importantly why the hell am I still up LOL

[DonSchap]

Hey ... it's that radical left bunch, from up the forum page list. LOL Every once in a whiole, they get nervous. Usually around the same time that new bodies are tossed out of the bus.

Sean ... what ISO are you finding to work best for your images? Mine is ISO-800 ... for most indoor stuff using the standard zooms ... and 100 when doing low speed, outdoors.

Yes, SSS and VC conflict with one another ... and make for a very poor image. The experiment was conducted about a year ago, with an IS-equipped lens on (I believe) an Olympus IS body. Anyway, it was a failure, to be sure. One of the guys on the forum did it and presented the images. In effect: It is one or the other, operating, not both. The preferred method is to have the IS-in-the-body DETECT an IS-equipped lens and automatically disable itself. That makes the most sense to me. Obviously, with SSS currently capable of being disabled on the back of the camera ...

39492

you still could "manually" handle that decision.

[seanhoxx]

I have lots of noise at 800, less of course with the KM 50mm 1.7 but still noticeable, alot of that may be because I don't understand the fine tunning of the camera yet, and still using the onboard flash. outside I go back and forth between 200 and 400 again I am mostly shooting action 100 don't seem to cut it unless it is nice and bright. I hate to admit it but shooting soccer and football as it gets darker during the game I have left ISO on auto a lot. I also use SSS on all sports shooting unless in bright sunshine, I admit I need a better grip and a steadier hand

[DonSchap]

Have you considered the vertical grip? It does change the stability of holding that bad boy.

39493

[seanhoxx]

On my list of things I need to get, I also think it will help me level up my shots, still getting a fair amout of "crooked" images, mostly not bad but bad enough. However I think for the money a flash unit will come before the grip. but I do plan on having a VG before soccer and footbal next year. and my lens investment plan calls for me to get the Tamron 200 - 500 in the spring VG would really help keep that bad boy under control, and yes yes I know I better be putting that on a solid monopod / tripod LOL Damn! I used to have money!!

[dr4gon]

I really try to stay at 100 at all times lol... Sometimes I do feel the need to go up to 200 or 400 depending on the light. I just can't bear to have the noise. I think the Sony's (lower end anyway) weak point is the noise at higher ISOs. Quality really deteriorates much rapidly after 400. But then again, it depends also on the size of the final image. I have a 24" LCD so at 1920x1200, I like to be able to at least fill up the screen but always strive for the best pushing it all the way to 1:1 sizing. I would really like a grip, but not sure if it's worthwhile on a low end camera... :\. Maybe the next camera. It won't fit in my current camera+one and a half lens bag (fits my camera, memory cards, 17-50/2.8 with hood, sony p&s, and barely the minolta 50/1.7 in the side pocket!) ha!

And regarding IS, if you could have the body detect an IS lens that's like 200mm+ or whatever that optimal point is and switch off SSS, that would be just like a camera made in heaven, well build wise.... (obviously still not friendly to the wallet ;))

[dr4gon]

Damn! I used to have money!!

I know right? .... ugh :( It's hard to keep up with everyone!

[DonSchap]

No matter what manufacturer you go with, you are in for the $5000 ride ... to get the basic bag o' glass. We all go through it ... and I do not remember anyone cheering about it along the way.

[dr4gon]

No matter what manufacturer you go with, you are in for the $5000 ride ... to get the basic bag o' glass. We all go through it ... and I do not remember anyone cheering about it along the way.

and then you gotta add along to the glass (and camera) a good solid tripod, flash unit, grip, batteries (which in the case of Sony are ridiculously expensive, no OEMs :(), memory cards, software... the list goes on. And then you gotta print the good ones! But the last step is totally justifiable since all your hard work turns into a hard copy. WYSIWYG in this case from computer > paper, rather than reality>image which isn't the case.

[DonSchap]

Oh, you said nothing about printing your shots ... LOL :rolleyes:

[seanhoxx]

Well here is my game plan, unless something new and amazing pops up.
tamron 70-200 2.8 as soon as I can lay my hands on it. Christmas flash unit most likely the Sony 56, April 2009 tamron 200 - 500mm, heavy duty monopod and quality head after the first of year when ever I find a "good deal" {pan head, ball head, quick release} questions questions. June or July vertical grip. fall or winter 2009 Tamron 90mm or maybe just maybe the Sony CZ 135, it's 135 isn't it? Oh yea watching and waiting to get a KM 24-105mm and I need a new bag lowepro AW300 I think.

[dr4gon]

Oh, you said nothing about printing your shots ... LOL :rolleyes:

?

I did.

I just sent off a bunch to shutterfly last night. Physical prints are great for show and tell to friends and relatives. They are really impressed!

At 4x6 and 5x7, and some at 8x10 it's pretty forgiving!

Who do you use to print?

[seanhoxx]

I eamil and burn to cd, I have a Dell all in one 942 and when I print I have the photo ink cartridge lol And before you even start I know I need new software just not sure what i want to pop for yet, everyone says PS CS3 with elements 6 is THE way to go, and I can also pick up a 320 gig portable hard drive for like only $30.00 out of pocket if I use my Best Buy reward coupons. And yes I need a nicer cleaning kit then what I have, And that book on understanding exposure that "everyone" says you should get. LOL

[dr4gon]

I eamil and burn to cd, I have a Dell all in one 942 and when I print I have the photo ink cartridge lol And before you even start I know I need new software just not sure what i want to pop for yet, everyone says PS CS3 with elements 6 is THE way to go, and I can also pick up a 320 gig portable hard drive for like only $30.00 out of pocket if I use my Best Buy reward coupons. And yes I need a nicer cleaning kit then what I have, And that book on understanding exposure that "everyone" says you should get. LOL

You don't need photoshop and photoshop elements (watered down version). Just photoshop cs4 (announcement later this month). Or you could opt for lightroom (only $99 if you know someone in school and can get an academic copy). It can do a lot of things for RAWs and general editing, white blance, curves, etc..... Great for batch processing and organizing especially. I would rather just not have to go through the trouble of printing myself, professional quality just seems a lot better. As for understanding exposure, I'm on the waiting list at my local library lol. Have you read any of scott kelby's books like his volume 1 and 2 of digital photography? They are both quick reads and I read both in a day each. Couldn't stop reading through the short article like chapters.

[TenD]

I am glad you are happy with your Sony camera and I hope you are able to take a lot of fine photographs with it. I can't find my evidence on DPreview right now either. I will keep looking for it though, for right now you can say I am wrong. I don't have a problem with that.


I went through DPreview today some and found where they give F-stop numbers on the Sony SSS.
The A700 is quoted as having a 1.0-1.5 stops improvement in their tests, this quote is in the "overall conclusion" section second paragraph. (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page32.asp)

The A350 is quoted as having a 1.6 stop improvement in the "features" section of the review. (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra350/page15.asp)This page also has the parameters they used in both test to come up with those figures.

The Canon in lens IS system is widely regarded as being able to produce close to 3 stops of hand-holdablility(I just made that word up). DPreview corroborates this with their test of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens. (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page5.asp)

Excuse me, "TenD" ... are you going for the new 50D, this time? Or are you done with the "kool-aid" and making your way to the new wave of professional standards?

We're all friends, here. 'fess up?

I missed this before. You know me better than that Don, I'm the guy that prefers lenses to new bodies, remember? I am still shooting with a 30D and 5D, and will be for quite some time. They haven't changed sensor technology enough for me to change, and the resolution of my bodies is plenty for what I do with my photos. I'd rather spend my money on heavy expensive glass that gets fantastic images to my inferior sensors...

[dr4gon]

alright thanks. Lol My camera gets a slight quoted edge over the A700, craziness.

The A900 is far superior though with "steadyshot inside"


Anti-Blur
Well, a lot of people said it wasn't possible, but Sony has managed to produce a sensor-shift SteadyShot image stabilization system with a full frame sensor. Its actuator is 1.5x more powerful and 1.3x faster than previous models, and is claimed to offer an up to 4 stops advantage. It's compatible with all lenses. The CCD shift is also used (in conjunction with a special anti-static coating on the sensor) to offer a dust removal feature.

Source: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonydslra900/

Sony says that you should be able to get between 2.5 and 4 stops of shutter speeds that would be otherwise unusable.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a900-review/index.shtml

We'll certainly see when the time comes!

[DonSchap]

The monster monetary screw-up had produced a real bubble in the economy ... meaning the price of the α900 should now plummet, because SONY does not want to eat this new camera. It is much easier to sell them at a loss ... to get the pricier lens market running, otherwise ... nothing gets bought.

C'mon $2000 α900 ... I'm waiting! No reason to buy that CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 w/o it!

[sparkie1263]

How can this be A700 body only for $715.00 Free shipping.
http://www.prestigecamera.com/ViewProduct.aspx?Id=3717816
Frank

[Rooz]

How can this be A700 body only for $715.00 Free shipping.
http://www.prestigecamera.com/ViewProduct.aspx?Id=3717816
Frank

cos they are part of the crooked "broadway photo" group. stay well away.
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo

put a "D" in front of that 700 and get yourself a real camera frankie. :D

[dr4gon]

Frankie? :p

Yeah, they are absolute crooks. They'll try to shove accessories down your throat making you cancel the order or buy overpriced batteries or buy a "US version." One guy did manage to get a sony slr and said the box was badly damaged (looked like it had been dropped) but said the camera functioned just fine.

I would seriously save yourself the headache and just avoid all of their companies.

A $2000 A900 is definitely what we (and everyone else :D) needs!

[seanhoxx]

Frank stay AWAY from anyone in the "Brooklyn triangle" go to www.sheddingsomelight.com for a good outline on all these interlinked "companies" and then stay away!
I'm holding out for a $1900.00 a900!
anybody want to buy a kidney?

[dr4gon]

OMG!

$2650 Sony A900 New, LOL!! BUYBUYBUY (ok this is a joke.)

http://www.broadwayphoto.com/cat/DigitalCameras/10064801/SONY_DSLR-A900_SLR_DIG_CAM_BOD_KIT/

(please don't buy.)
hmmm, I doubt anyone would price match. :rolleyes: