No IS in my glass ...
Okay, you make my point for me ... the "105VR" is roughly $750 to $1000, depending on how badly you need to be finally burned. The lens I spoke of was a mere $200 ... on either frame. So, let's take that left over $550 and get some more (non-IS) glass to mount and shoot CLEARLY.
Originally Posted by Rooz
This is a silly dispute, because the indoor shooting with IS is useful on all these lenses. I don't HAVE to be picky ... as you are suggesting.
Welcome to my world ... have SONY ... no special lens. :D Take that on fact, not faith
This is a common argument, and no, Nikon offers very little in the midrange. They have some f/4's.....but very little. In the 17-55 and 70-200 ranges they only have basic consumer (f/3.5-5.6) and pro (f/2.8) covered, no f/4's there which is where we really need them.
Originally Posted by laydros
In your case though you are wanting high ISO, low noise, and great prime performance. Right now Nikon is the clear winner, pun intended.
My current line of thinking is to have good sharp general use zooms for day to day, when I don't need the low light, then 2-3 good primes for the low light.
Originally Posted by Visual Reality
Ken Rockwell will argue all day long that a VR kit lens and the 75-300 VR are all anybody ever needs, but I expect I would be frustrated with that.
I am however really impressed that Nikon is bringing a good quality DX normal prime. Thats a good move that makes a lot of sense, I'm not sure why Canon and Sony haven't done the same.
Well this is all very interesting, but Jason you may just be in the end of winter funk, and toss in the thrill /stress of a baby man some things just gotta go to the back burner. No I think we are all missing the most important question what the hell was a martini glass doing in a Irish pub? I also noticed a distinct lack of Bushmills, Paddys, Powers, green spot etc on your table! You can always blame your 'bad' pictures on a wee bit to much. Jason you were hanging out with friends in dim location, your pictures capture that friends being natural in dim light, call it digital realism. You could always pop up the flash and shoot a couple of group posed shots in the parking lot before or after. be different my friend and stay with Sony, just ask yourself are you having fun with your camera? would you be having any more fun if it were Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc.? Are your night out pics great? no, better then mine, yea! Are they valid memories? Bars are dark, friends sit to close, people in the background move, its real life not still life. As otheres here will say its the difficulty that provides the challenge. Anyway sorry for the ramble and the total lack of valid input as to gear or settings, I guess i will always be a picture taker and not a photographer. And buy a amp you got a kid to teach how to play guitar, o.k. that can wait a few years! Where is me glenfiddich?
the reason that lens is $200 is cos its crap, like the other 95% of your lens collection. i'm not looking for bargains out of the basement to brag about how many lens i got, i'm looking for great glass that takes the best pictures. so yeah, you can take the leftover $550 and buy even more rubbish.
Originally Posted by DonSchap
... and then the aggressiveness and the defiance pops up. This is schoolbook psychology. I'll reply to each of your points.
Originally Posted by Rooz
1. It has everything to do with the apparently uncontrollable desire of some to "tell others": coming over to the Sony Forum and telling us misguided Sony users about the incorrectness of our ways. The spreading-the-gospel-analogy certainly springs to mind.
2. It has nothing to do with "being sold" on the Sony brand. I have used Contax (still use it), Nikon and Minolta (film) in the past and have now chosen for Sony after much pondering, reading reviews and tests and looking at pictures on the web. I am fully aware of the + and - of Sony and the + and - of other brands. I have actually even tested a D3 with some Nikon glass for a week before making any decision. In the end I decided that "for me" the A900 with Zeiss glass was the choice I preferred.
3. Oh boy, did I miss something, am I in court and you the prosecutor? Where do you get the idea that I need to give any evidence to you as to how good this is working for me? When and if I, and I alone, consider, for whatever reason, I have photos that I would like to show to others, I will post. By the way, in photography as in everything else, people tend to be more extrovert or more introvert. Putting photos on the web is a step which some may be reluctant to take. Not posting in no way proves anything about the quality of their photos. Although I see how using this false argument is very handy, it is also quite trivial and obvious.
4. Strange logic. It is not I who has put his mouth anywhere but rather you who are putting it everywhere.
As most users of the Sony brand, I am not blind to certain shortcomings. Actually many of us, me included, have complained about various aspects on various forums as well as sent emails to Sony and Zeiss in an effort to improve what is not yet as it should be. But in the meantime, we enjoy what we have. This is one of the reasons I come to this and other forums, to enjoy a nice moment, to have a nice(!) chat with fellow users, to find out something I did not know, to find out the opinion of other users, maybe sometimes to help out or give my opinion if I think it is worth anything, etc... In no way am I interested in witnessing the repeated condescending, pedantic and confrontational talk of Nikon and Canon users. Enjoy your stuff, have the courtesy to let us enjoy ours.
You are most welcome!
Originally Posted by DonSchap
The way Don talks you'd think we never took clear shots before the invention of IS...:rolleyes:
Jason, have you tried "pushing" your stuff. I don't know if the term is still relevent but we used it back in the days of film.
I will explain, or rather demonstrate.
I used the same lens as yours (50mm AF f1.7) and took the attached picture metering for the black areas (blown the highlights a bit). And then underexposed three more.
The sequence top to bottom is
f2.8@1/125th. All taken in RAW with A700 and 50mm AF f1.7.
I then used Lightroom to "push" the underexposed pics back to where they should be, more or less.
What do you (anybody) think? Are the pics Ok? Should I have done anything differently?
I realise it doesn't make much sense without an ISO comparison. So same idea but
ISO1600 this one looks more noisy.