Bought me an A100K...
Through a timely coupon, I was able to save 10% on an A100K rig. I was hoping for something along this line and, oh yeah, good things happen. So, I bought the kit and wound up effectively getting the kit lens for nothing!
Okay... enough "happy talk", as they say.. let's get down to some brass tacks.
I ran the SONY through most of my Minolta lenses... to see how she weighed in and dog gone it... a side-by-side with the Canon 20D showed me some really strange results. I need to look closer at it, but the purported SONY "noise issues" seem to be more the Canon's issue, but more on that later... we have time.
Okay.. I left the ISO at the "AUTO" setting and "HANDHELD" every shot.
50mm setting on the SONY 18-70mm kit lens... Super SteadyShot "on"
The kit lens is rather unremarkable, as others have noted. It did not allow for good saturation of the image... which implies a lack of element quality. But, here it is, unretouched.
Then... I took the second lens I had planned on using with this rig, the Ozunon 70-210mm f/4.5 and popped a shot from it... 70mm at f/4.5
A sharp result and well-worth using this "old glass" (20 years old, to be sure).
Trying the Minolta 35-70mm f/4 Macro... yielded this at ISO-400
and this... at ISO-1600 (Note the noise in the black square... yes, it is there.)
I ran the Minolta 50mm f/1.4 at f/4.5
Then the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 at f/4.5 (Another 20-year veteran lens)
This stuff is not looking bad... but then came the kicker... which I really didn't expect... the side-by-side, with the Canon EOS 20D using an EF 50mm f/1.8 ISO400
If you compare the last two images... you will notice a vertical distortion to the Canon Image. It actually looks "squat", and I assure you... this same target was used, tonight. Not only that.. look at the noise level in this photograph. Quite a bit more, in my estimation. Also, you can see that the Canon went for a more saturated color image... while the SONY lightened it up a bit. Could be an AWB issue, but automatic features should work.
I will shift from SONY's "AUTO" ISO to ISO-400, later on... but this is a rather disturbing comparison. There was only the room's lighting for illumination... three flourescent bulbs and a tunsten bulb on a shaded desk lamp.
I used Aperture Priority (set to f/4.5) for all the shots and allowed both of the cameras to decide the rest, except for the Canon 20D's ISO of 400. To be honest, I wanted a casual, natural setting for the images... nothing too contrived. Just walk into the room, set your aperture and fire off a few of your favorite subject... why, the focusing chart, of course. LOL
The use of the Minolta-glass seems to produce readily acceptable shots... the clarity is remarkable. The "nifty-fifty" doesn't even compare to the Minolta f/1.7 prime, but then again... the Minolta lens is better glass. Unlike Canon's 50mm f/1.4, the Minolta f/1.4 delivers a softer shot. I do not quite remember the design notes on this particular lens, but over the years, I had often heard the f/1.7 was the sharper of the two. In the quick comparison, tonight, that bears out.
The SONY kit lens does show its weak points, right up front... but what do you want for effectively "free"? You can bet I'll be using the Minolta 35-70mm f/4, instead... unless I am forced to go with a wider shot.
Like I've have said, if you have any Minolta-glass from prior cameras... in my opinion, you really should consider the SONY before you commit to another brand. It seems to be able to deliver the goods with the old glass... and probably will do great with the newer stuff.
Tomorrow, the Great Outdoors... and the heat!
GET THE SHOT!
Last edited by DonSchap; 08-07-2006 at 11:08 PM.
- BFA, Digital Photography
A Photographer Is Forever
Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.