Should it look like this?
Should it look like this?
Since you say you like HDR I quickly threw one together:
I think I like the one I just lowered the EV on and applied a slight curve to though:
How's the high ISO performance of that FF? I have had a 5D for over a year now and I have been nothing but impressed with it. I thought you were going to get some high quality lenses instead of a new body?
Glass is where it's at
The idea of finally having an affordable FF was more appealing than I thought. I have been struggling with APS-C limitations for several years. I certainly would not consider ANOTHER APS-C sensor camera, as any kind of upgrade.
The CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 or CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 are lenses that I can eventually adopt, when finances provide. We are talking in excess of $3500 to make that move. I have decided to "limp" by with rather the "acceptable" results of the "28-75 f/2.8" and "17-35 f/2.8-4" TAMRONs. Specifically, I acquired the AF 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS to have a long and fast telephoto. The TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 is a terrific and flexible lens, but when it comes to action ... it's a little tardy.
I also built up a wide-angle assortment of PRIMES (14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8), but they really lacked their true W-I-D-T-H when placed on an APS-C sensor. These excellent lenses are, quite, literally driven back into much tighter widths (FOVs) on the APS-C. Please note that my CZ 135mm f/1.8 also reverts back to its true "portrait" size of 135mm ... where it had acted like a 200mm f/1.8 (only) when mounted on the APS-C sensor. I did not want to drop another $1400 for the purchase of a CZ 85mm f/1.4 simply to effectively achieve a "135mm portrait" lens, that I already ready had ... on a FF. On the FF ... these lenses instantly achieve their designed operation. There is a monster-effect on all of my glass and well worth the extra few bucks it costs. Like I said ... it isn't going from APS-C to APS-C ... it is moving to Full Frame ... and where, I feel, the art should be going back to. Heck, I am putting my money where my mouth has been ... it is not a hypocritical belief.
These are "chess-moves", in my opinion ... jockeying for position and advantage, with the resources I have available ... without being skinned alive! It is similar in notion to the improvement of non-stabilized lenses being placed on SONY DSLR bodies. Unlike Canon or Nikon ... you immediately get "stabilized-shots" out of EVERY single lens you mount on the SONY for no further expense. That has always been attractive. So much so, I threw off the Canon System, back in 2007 to adopt it fully. Now, here we have a stabilized, Full Frame camera body ... which is the "complete" camera, providing the full W-I-D-T-H to your wide-angle glass and offering stabilization, again, to every single lens you mount. I mean, why not?
Anyway. the 200mm HS and 8mm Fisheye are the extent of my glass purchases, for the remainder of this year. Having the Full Frame sensor behind it makes for the most "complete" package I can achieve, in my estimation.
Glass refinement will eventually take place as funds provide, as there is a limit even to my available resources.
As far as ISO results ... they are the same as the α900. There has been no further improvement that I can detect, along those lines, and SONY has used the identical processing path to achieve them ... so I would not expect much of a change, either.
The biggest "reward" out of the α850 ... is that I not only saved $700 on the body and 15% on the accessories by purchasing it, without having to sacrifice much at all, but that:
I have extended the capability of every single lens in my bag, in one relatively low-cost and swift move.
The α850 really is the α900 Jr.
It's just a year later. :rolleyes:
So we'll pencil ya in for some zeiss in january
Cripes, Steve ... you want to be my accountant? LOL
I'm not a business ... I just spend like one.
I really don't think that image is a prime HDR subject at all.
So Don, is the Tammy 28-75mm only mediocre on the a850?
How good is the focus speed on it?