Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    32

    Greetings to everyone

    Greetings to everyone. I've just joined this forum hoping to have great feedbacks with all members of this forum.
    Well, enough of saluting! A brief history of me, photographically-wise.
    I am realtively new regarding taking pics, actively and regularly, that is. I got my first point and shoot about 8 years ago. The first two years were quite uneventfu, except for shooting non stop. Afterwards I started upgrading almost twice a year mainly because I was advancing in giant leaps, technically and, should I dare say so?, artistically. I was hooked, I had a severe case of the shutter bug! I was demanding more and more of the subsequent point and shoots that I was owning.
    Up until this point, I never considered a dslr. I just did not need it, those were for the pros and the snobs, right? The last point and shoot that I owned was the Sony H5, an excellent camera may I add. It took me about 6 months of using this camera and extracting every single drop out of it, to realize that I needed a dslr. So it began an extensive research. I must stop here to tell you about a particular trait of mine: all that I care about is results. I do not buy brands, I do not follow trends blindly, I am not loyal to any brand (are they loyal to your?), all I care about is...you guessed it, results. I started to handle (really handle), to research, to compare every single dslr in the market. The obvious choice for a novice will be to follow the dogma. I mean Nikon, Canon, Olympus are excellent choices and they are quite established names in the field. But the more I researched, the more I compared, the more I came to realize that, even if it sounds like blasphemy, they were all about the same.
    So it was a matter of what was offered for the price and my possibilities of expansion. Oh man, and did the Alpha win!!! I've had the Alpha for about 7 months now. I can tell you that the only mistake I made was to buy the kit with the 18-70 mm, no need to go any further about this particular lens. I have armed myself with several used Minoltas and all I can say is WOW. About the pros, I will not even begin. The camera is excellent in most aspects. A couple of features I would love to see in the camera are the "time lapse" and a bit more speed. The thing I do despise about it is the proprietary policy of Sony regarding the accesories. Surprisingly enough, even when I come from the point and shoot world I can tell you that I do not miss at all having a live preview, and yes even if it offends the purists (purists are really funny), I would love to have the capability of recording video, it is a good option to have, period.
    And so we come to the end of the story of this newbie in this forum. My limited experiece is at your service and I hope I can benefit from yours which is vast and collective.
    Last edited by fos; 04-06-2007 at 07:51 PM.
    Ti eukolon? To allo hupotithestai

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Talking Welcome to the forum!

    Glad to have you aboard, "fos." Your experiences are valued and it's always nice to have another pair of eyes for issues and concerns.

    Obviously, you and the 18-70mm have met and the meeting was less than satisfying. I also came away with the same impression, only a day after I acquired the SONY A100K. But then again, I had a bag of Minolta-mount glass to turn to (one of the primary motivations in purchasing the SONY).

    My current plan is to mount the TAMRON AF18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) lens on it, as soon as it comes in. I am anxious to compare it directly against the result I get from the TAMRON AF18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) on my Canon 20D.

    In a way, it is a method I can use to check the color saturation of the SONY sensor, versus the Canon. Currently, the SONY seems to do a better job, in spectrum results ... but until I get these two side-by-side, I am still unconvinced.

    Some A100 observations, so far:

    You probably will find that the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 will be sharper than the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4. It is a weird twist to what you might have expected, I know it was for me.

    Also, the Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 makes for a good normal lens, with the SONY.

    The Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4.5 Macro is a good, short lens. Not super sharp, but it'll work until you can get the real digital lenses working.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-06-2007 at 07:55 PM.
    Don Schap - 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.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    32

    Funny you mention that Don

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    You probably will find that the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 will be sharper than the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4. It is a weird twist to what you might have expected, I know it was for me.

    Also, the Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 makes for a good normal lens, with the SONY

    Funny you mention that Don. Those are two of the lenses that I put my hands on almost immediately and I love the results. About the 50mm f/1.4, I decided not to buy it, basically because I rather have it new from Sony and not only about a hundred dollars less for the used Minoltas that you can get, say, over e-Bay.

    Another lens that I am planning to have soon is 50mm f2.8 Macro (I am a sucker for macro). By the way, what is your view on the Sigma?. There I can save a buck or two compared with its counterpart from Sony.
    Ti eukolon? To allo hupotithestai

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    SIGMA and SONY ... uh, nope

    Quote Originally Posted by fos View Post
    By the way, what is your view on the Sigma?. There I can save a buck or two compared with its counterpart from Sony.
    Every SIGMA lens I have had, I either sold or lent away. I guess that has to be telling.

    The TAMRONs have delivered good and solid results. Any issues with them have been solved quickly and the first time. The six-year warranty doesn't hurt, either. I'm in for the long haul, anyway.

    If you are in the mood for a 70-200mm f/2.8, TAMRON has one coming out in Fall 2007. It looks like a solid entry and I have it on my "to get" list, for the SONY. Unlike the other manufacturer's offerings, it weighs a mere 39 ounces and a minimum focuusing distance of 37 inches (0.95 m). (I have an image of it on my Gear List.)

    Although the next lens does not sport the fastest focusing on the planet, the TAMRON AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD serves up a decent looking shot for only $150. It is what I am using, instead of my older TAMRON 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 and in lieu of the new TAMRON AF18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF), which I have on order. SONY-mounts tend to lag the Nikon and Canon mounts by a month or two.

    The 18-250mm is a much faster focus and has a minimum focusing distance of only 18 inches. That's good stuff, indoors.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-06-2007 at 09:36 PM.
    Don Schap - 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.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    32

    THX Don

    Good 2 know.
    Ti eukolon? To allo hupotithestai

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •