Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557
    TAMRON's SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD still has yet to be released in the SONY-mount, so I can wait until there is actually something to look at. It will be nothing to do the test once I get my hands on that puppy.

    If it doesn't work well on a SONY ... there's not much hope for the rest of them.
    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

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    I think if you are really into photography, $3000 isn't a negligble amount of money, but it isn't huge. For someone on my level and budget, a FF camera is still out of my reach, but for anyone more serious or making money, the $3000 is probably more than worth it, not just for wide angle, but depth of field and low light. Those are the two things I find myself wanting more of from my APS-C sensor.

    I'm not quite sold on the concept that many are that FF will completely replace APS-C. I think there is too much investment in glass by consumers, and too many wildlife and sports photographers prefer the extra reach. However I expect we will see at least A700 and 50D/D90 level cameras, or maybe lower, feature FF in the future. Perhaps FF and APS will exist side by side for different reasons. I know if money was less of an issue I would have an A900 for day to day, and keep an A700 in my bag for shooting football games, birds, and as a backup. I get the impression its a fairly common setup for many these days.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    There's some flawed logic here.

    Regarding the extra reach of the APS-C; it doesn't have any. It has a narrower field of view due to the 1.5 (Sony) crop factor which just means that the sensor captures a smaller part of the Lens' image circle (if the lens was designed for full frame that is).

    Just picture it in your mind; say a 50mm f1.7 on your A100/700 and imagine the defference between 35mm film and the APS-C sensor. The sensor see exactly the same image as the film strip, just a smaller part of it, so the "reach" is no different, just the field (or angle) of view. In this case the field of view is the same as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.

    If the Pixel Density of the APS-C sensor and the FF sensor were the same; you could crop the FF image and get exactly the same image as the one taken by the APS-C sensor. In the real world of course the densities are not the same but things are changing all the time.
    If you compare the full frame Canon 12.8 megapixel 5D with the 8.2megapixel 20D you will see the pixel density of the 20D is a 62% higher at 14.9k and you might be forgiven for concluding it had a longer reach than the 5D (leaving aside IQ). On the other hand, at 33.4k the A700 has only a 17% higher pixel density than the A900's 28.5k so keeping the A700 just for football and bird shots would not be "a good thing".

    As an aside; there is an advantage in using a FF Lens on APS-C which is the reduced amount of vignetting and sharper corners (in general) on the APS-C, because it crops off the "worse" parts of the image circle produced by the lens.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Question Does your selection of lens deliver?

    I agree ... Light fall off for a lens is much less noticeable at the wider apertures ... but then again, who uses those? Why, I do ... indoors.

    Processing large files for images (24.6MP) is time consuming for most PCs and if you are constantly chopping off 25% to get tthe same thing you would get from an α700, it just sounds a little tedious.

    The α900 has to have good lenses for a wide open shot. Light fall off has to be a serious consideration, or you are constantly going to be touching up the image.

    Because of this extra "edge work" you are dealing with, you may just be buying into a lot more overhead, than just pixel area. I tell you, it has me thinking it all over, again. In other words, does Full Frame mean saying goodbye to f/2.8 shots?
    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. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    ....... Processing large files for images (24.6MP) is time consuming for most PCs and if you are constantly chopping off 25% to get tthe same thing you would get from an α700, it just sounds a little tedious.
    I didn't make myself clear; I'm not advocating that anyone would crop the A900 as a matter of course, just making the point that the image from the A900 includes the smaller one taken by the A700. Just as, if you use an APS-C lens on the A900 you get a reduced pixel image.

    I was also saying that the A700 is more forgiving of an inferior lens, given that edge sharpness and light fall figure large at the cheaper end. This doesn't mean I wouldn't like a 900, far from it.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    I didn't make myself clear; I'm not advocating that anyone would crop the A900 as a matter of course, just making the point that the image from the A900 includes the smaller one taken by the A700. Just as, if you use an APS-C lens on the A900 you get a reduced pixel image.

    I was also saying that the A700 is more forgiving of an inferior lens, given that edge sharpness and light fall figure large at the cheaper end. This doesn't mean I wouldn't like a 900, far from it.
    No ... and I had hoped my point was in "concert" with your own. Arguably ... the cost difference between an α900 and the α700 leaves one to take a serious pause before jumping in for ... arguably, for minimal improved results with existing lenses.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 01-06-2009 at 01:39 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

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Ah! Ok, gotcha.

    It's the rule of diminishing returns, then. It's always the case that the higher up the ladder you are, the more it costs for less and less, and not just in photography. Is it worth it, who can say, only the individual.

Posting Permissions

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