Originally Posted by Rooz
You know, Don: you never talked this much junk about full frame cameras UNTIL you bought your a850. All of a sudden, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Like I've said before, there are literally thousands of professional photographers (some very well known, like Bob Krist) that use crop-sensor cameras for their work. And here you are, pretending to know better than them...
[Channeling Don]: But Rooz, the D5100 won't have anti-shake technology in the body like Sony cameras do![/End of Channeling Don] Ok, enough sarcasm for now... :)
lol...unfortunately for me and my arguments about inbody IS, the anti shake would have been a much appreciated addition to the d5100 cos i will be using it alot for video with a 50/1.4. I couldnt give a rats about inbody IS for photography but for video i get the impression im going to suffer unless i use a stabilised lens. IS is far more important for moving pictures than it is for still shots.
Originally Posted by jr_rodriguez
Still, i cant wait to get it. I have been waiting for this camera spec for a couple of years. Nikon delivered albeit taking their sweet time. lol
Adding no value ...
@ 'Rooz', just in case it may have slipped your notice, there's been this earthquake/flood/radiation issue that the Japanese have had to deal with. It put a nasty hick-up in their giddy-up, so I would not be too hard on 'em.
@ 'J.R.' : Hey, [channeling Minolta]this in-the-body stabilization is hot snot, huh?[/channel]
To be clear, I did not say the Full Frame image was better ... all I said was it was BIGGER. You can get ALL of the lens image circle to work for you, it puts it ALL on the little bitty memory card, then you can print it or upload it ... and share it with all your friends and the entire world.
God bless us all. Stop the nonsense. You demean the discussion with the implications.
Haha, great explanation! I think the other thing to stress about FF is the improvement in bokeh; for the same shot (both composed the same), the togger is closer to the subject on FF and so the depth of field is shallower and so the bokeh is nicer. [hurls crop sensor vs. ff grenade and dives for cover\]
Originally Posted by DonSchap
Oh yeah, and reason for clicking through was to sing the praises of the minolta 85 1.4, but it looks like the OP is old news....
Okay... I got a little more time with my SIGMA 85mm f/1.4 DG EX HSM and found it backfocusing by an micro adjust setting of -3. Unfortunately, that requires a return of the lens... and makes it kind of a pain. Otherwise, this lens is an awesome selection, if you do not want to pay SONY/Ziess prices. The more SIGMA steps up, the better for the SONY user.
Personally, I really would like to see the SIGMA 85mm and the 120-300mm f/2.8 DG HSM with the USB-focus adjust produced in the SONY mount. For some reason, SIGMA does not take the SONY-line seriously. I mean, SONY has now been around for nearly ten years. Excuse my French, but WTF does it take? I have to add that it really does concern me. I have actually lost sleep over their reservation. Can you imagine?
The new SIGMA 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM is definitely a spear through the heart of the SONY 35mm f/1.4 G lens.
Anyway... I just wanted to get that out there, in case someone is considering the 85mm as an alternative. Backfocus seems to still be an issue with SIGMA. It was significantly worse from 2007-2010.