alanbrowne

<p>First off, don't worry. Your current lenses will likely serve you very well for most photographs. In the end, the lens resolution impacts only the largest enlargements. If you do a lot of large prints, then you would already have bought the better lenses. If you don't do a lot of large prints (or deep cropping) then it likely didn't matter before and won't matter much now.<br>

If you're intent on the camera, then get it and work with it to determine where, if any, weak areas in your lens collection appear. Then you'll know what to do.<br>

Offhand, I find several of my lenses showing limitations at 24.6 Mpix (a900) when printed large (16x24 inches). But generally they are acceptable. With the smaller sensor of the a65 at that many pixels, these limitations would show even more. But again - this is printing large - and from full frame where corner softness is more apparent - nothing to worry about in a portrait but can have some effect on a landscape printed large.</p>

<p>Charles, you're right on - somebody pointed me to:<br>

<a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9991-10061">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9991-10061</a><br>

So I guess the 'bees version (if not dead) will be later or perhaps fewer models. With such a wide and finely selectable power range it doesn't make sense to have too many models. Perhaps a low power model and a high power model are all that are needed.</p>

 

<p>Look at the monolight in the upper left - a hybrid bee/Einstein? I found this as part of some fluff regarding their former Swiss distributor.<br /><br />Note that it has the AB "colours", an "Alien Bees" label, but the Einstein diffuser and trigger antenna...<br /><br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10969343-lg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="640" /></p>

<p>J'ai impression qu'on se connait Michel?<br>

Here are my comments that I posted on another forum regarding that video.<br>

----- 2010.04.09 on Dyxum<br>

I watched it and while I appreciated it I really feel that such presentations lack essential information for people learning to light. <br />I "got it", but someone new to studio lighting would be left with more questions than answers. <br /> <br />I've looked at several such videos (always on the look for good ideas to steal - and I do learn the odd tidbit) but they all lack a good structure. The main failing here, I think, is that great photogs are not necessarily great teacher/presenters. <br /> <br />Strong points <br />-mixed lighting considerations (ambient + flash or flash + flash and exposing bg and subject differently giving more creative latitude) <br />-location choice <br />-use of scrim, light "focusing", beauty dish, softbox. (Not elaborated enough - see 'goof' below.) <br />-he endorsed the idea that he was "over equipped" for the shoot and could have achieved the same with less - even a few speedlights. <br />-admitted that some shoots (inc. this one) were "structure on the fly/decision on the fly/exposure on the fly" and not always planned to the t. <br /> <br />Weak points <br />-Far too long a video (could have taken 20-30 minutes for the content given - or could have been as long with more useful content). <br />-Poor graphic presentation (detail was not visible, or hardly so) <br />-equipment lists were not in sync with the shots <br />-Too "static" a presentation <br />-Did not show metering actively - this is something beginners need more of (I think. I really learned the essential truths of metering for studio when a pro came to do some corporate shots at work. In 3 minutes I learned more about metering than in any other form). <br /> <br />Goofs:<br>

-Using a sock over a grid (though he admits to this folly at the end).<br /> -a "caller" asked what "specular" meant. His explanation was wrong. Way.</p>

<p>2 stops is 1.3 stops too many ... you'll have bleed coming around edges and through hair. <br>

One photographer blog says to measure the light bouncing off the back of the wall at the position of the model. If it is 1/3 stop over aperture, it is enough.</p>

<p>Lot's of stuff useful for photography. Fast glass, high end flash, MF lens adaptors, and all sorts of little odds and ends that help in ways that lists of lenses and stuff can't do.</p>

<p>I have the pdf of the original 5600HS manual, although as the other poster says it's the same as the Sony version.<br>

e-meil me at alan daht browne at videotron daht ca and I'll e-meil it to you.<br>

The 3 bolts is for a 3 shot "modeling" light test; the Multi is for a long continuous blast of pulses (modeling light). Both modes are pretty useless AFAIAC.</p>

 

<p>Go full frame and never go back.<br>

I stayed fast and true to FF lenses during the lean Minolta/KM years hoping for a FF camera (and maintaining FF for my film cameras).</p>

<p>The histogram is based on a small/local (camera) jpg copy and not the raw image. So there will be differences.<br>

Forget your monitor (for the time being). What does the photoshop (or other editor) or raw converter histogram show?<br>

Shoot a grey card, spot metered, out of focus. Shoot it nominal, -2 and +2 stops and see how those produce in photoshop's histo (and/or raw import).</p>

 

<p>The MF I most regret not buying was an RB67 with 180mm f/4.5 (?) lens, extender and VF. Would have been a killer in the studio.<br>

However, I did buy a Hassy 500 C/M with an 80mm f/2.8 and 150 f/4. Eventually added a 120 f/4 Makro and I'm seeking a 40mm f/4 (There is one on e-bay closing in an hour or so that looks good for around $600). Great machine (added a Sekonic 558 and Nikon 9000ED. Eventually added an Epson 3800 printer).</p>

<p>The absence of 64 bit drivers should not make any difference at all as long as the OS will still run the 32 bit drivers (eg: this is not an issue on the Mac under Snow Leopard).<br>

Windblows, eh?<br>

(Guido: Hamrick back engineered his interface to just about all the scanners he supports).</p>

<p>The basic 500 C/M is a great camera - as long as you have a good incident/reflective meter. Mine has never broken nor jammed. These are not super robust cameras and should be treated with care. That is to say turn the winder crank gently, not rapidly, carry it in a padded hard case. Put lens back caps on immediately. Don't leave the dark slide in unused backs (weakens the slot cover spring) or in the back when camera mounted. If you can get CF lenses, so much the better (less awkward to work with, better coatings) but the older lenses are cheaper and fine IF the shutter speeds are reasonably accurate. You can also rent lenses in most large cities if you have particular needs. (eg: on holiday in California I rented a 40mm f/4 for $180 for 2.5 weeks).<br>

The point, I guess, is that if this is a secondary system for you, then getting the fancier models might not be worth the extra money. 500 C/M's with a back and 80mm f/2.8 can be found in any camera swap meet at very affordable prices. Then slowly add a lens here and a lens there as you spot bargains (I got a 120 f/4 Makro CF in mint condition for CAD$1100 (US$950 at the time).</p>

<p>Maybe buy a couple a100's from ebay and use them while your failed camera can be used for parts to support the ones you buy?</p>

<p>Regarding your desire for very high quality APS-C fixed-focal-length lenses, I sincerely hope that Sony do not hear you.<br>

I desire high quality full frame FFL lenses and that's where I hope Sony, Tamron and Carl Zeiss focus their efforts.<br>

When K-M came out with the 7D, I bought one and bought a couple more lenses - always making sure they were full frame as I still shot film (Maxxum 9) and was pretty sure that Nikon would need a FF sensor and that Sony would provided it to them. From there the possibility that a full frame K-M might come out was less than a fantasy. As soon as I saw the huge prism box on the 'outing' of the new high end Sony I was sure it would be FF.<br>

As time goes on, FF will become more the norm than the exception amongst serious amateur/enthusiasts and pros using the Sony system - being caught with cropped lenses will seem at least unfortunate to those owners.</p>

<p>Aperture is a ratio, period, so the amount of light per unit area of film or sensor is the same regardless of ... well anything (unless you have an extender and/or filter in place).<br>

The lenses are similarly complex, so light loss to glass would be negligibly different. Though colour may be different (and appears to be so in this case).<br>

Actually I don't have a filter for the 120 Makro and I forgot to remove the filter from the Sony (a Nikon NC/multicoat) so it would have softened the image (negligible), coloured the image (should be neutral) and stopped some light (negligible) ... why do I even mention it?</p>

<p>Sweat has salt. Conductive. I would rinse the area with clean water (small amounts) with the camera upside down to promote evacuation. Then use alcohol to clean up and finally put the camera in a bag with some dessicant (silica gel) that has been discharged (put the silica gel pouches in the oven at about 100C for a few hours to discharge the humidity).</p>

<p>I would bet the Nikon is sharper, but it has hideous bokeh.<br>

The Leica's blow away everyone from wide open to f/16 and perhaps smaller.<br>

The Minolta/Sony is soft wide open, though it can produce sharp images at f/3.5 or so.<br>

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6168907&size=lg<br>

Using it for say, product photos is useless as the perspective distortion is plain awful (can be done with great care).<br>

The 50 f/1.7 - f/1.8 is a very simple and basic lens - all OEM's have very good examples of it. Really nothing to make too much hay of.</p>

<p>It all really depends on viewing / print size. If you intend to print large you need IS/VR/AS (whatever Sony calls it) or best, a tripod, cable release and mirror lockup.<br>

I find the a900 anti-shake to be very good for 3:1 over rule of thumb if I'm printing to 12x8 or less. Above that I tend towards 1:1 on rule of thumb - OTOH, I'm definitely a tripod oriented shooter when not in the studio.<br>

All in all, the lens based systems are better than in-camera. However, Minolta set the direction with anti-shake and that's what Sony have pursued. The advantage is of course that all my pre-anti-shake lenses work with it and that includes some seriously expensive lenses.</p>

<p>You shouldn't be shocked that they ask you to call. The people who reply to these e-mails are, to be impolite, drones with a very narrow range of responses. They use checklists to see who to refer you to. At that, the line you call may not be very much better.<br>

See the article at Luminous Landscapes on the author's trip to Antarctica. Where some Canon's and a Nikon or two were struggling with the moisture, mist and cold, the Sony a900's on the trip (only 2 alas) had no problems at all.<br>

A few years ago, a regular poster (although maybe not here) dumped a Minolta 7 (film) in a stream in the mountains of Switzerland (or Austria ... in that area, IAC). He dried his system out and had them up and going for the next weekend. This Minolta legacy has been passed on to the Sony crew - they are pretty much the same people at the engineering and manufacturing level.</p>

<p>If you have the bucks, the Minolta/Sony 135 f/2.8 [T4.5] STF is one of the finest portrait lenses of any system, though on a cropped sensor you will need a lot of working distance. This lens will cream the background out to absolute smooth bokeh while making a tack sharp image of the subject and allow precise DOF control on the face when wide open. It is manual focus only - a true craftsman's lens.<br>

The Sony-Carl Zeiss 135 f/1.8 is a very fine, very sharp lens that lends itself to portraits very well and also has a remarkable bokeh. These two lenses above are about the same price (the later is much faster (f/1.8 v. T4.5) and has AF), but the STF is the better portrait specific lens (f/2.8 DOF is more than adequate @ 135mm - exposure is only fT/4.5 however).<br>

The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is well regarded as both a superb macro lens and a _fine_ portrait lens.<br>

The Minolta/Sony or Sony-Carl Zeiss 85 f/1.4's are supperb.<br>

80-200 / 70-200 f/2.8's make for versatile portrait lenses.<br>

(Note: an advantage of shooting portraits long (say 135 - 200mm) is that the subject is flattened making "geometrically challenged" faces less awkward looking. I've shot portraits at 300 as well (Minolta 300 f/2.8) that were very nice - need a lot of room).<br>

On the budget end, the 50 f/1.7 is a possibility, esp. with a cropped sensor, however I find the Minolta/Sony to be distortion prone if not used with a lot of care. Geometrically challenging faces can be made to look a bid hideous...</p>

<p>I'd look at the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. Very sharp and very nice as a portrait lens as well.<br>

Seriously consider the Sigma 180mm.<br>

IMO you should avoid shorter macros like the 50mm or so. Working distances for insects are too short (spook them or get stung/bitten) and blocks natural light and makes flash work a real pain w/o a ring light.<br>

I've been stung (wasps, hornets) and that's no big deal. I've been bitten by spiders resultin in necrotized flesh that took 2 months to heal - and itched like crazy. Go long if you photograph aggressive spiders.<br>

For static macro the benefits of a focusing rail can't be understated if you want true 1:1 shots.</p>

<p>a Minolta 135 f/2.8 [T4.5] STF.<br>

a Sony Carl-Zeiss 85 f/1.4<br>

a Sony Carl-Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8<br>

a set of Alien Bees monolights, softboxes and other nifty accessories<br>

a 70-200 f/2.8<br>

...</p>

 

<p>The a900 has either polarity (+/-) tolerance up to about 400V (see the manual). This is at the PC sync socket, not the shoe adaptor (I don't know what its voltage limit is, may be considerably lower).<br>

Your Metz comes in at under 15V.<br>

If not sure, you can, with steady hands, measure the sync voltage of the PC cord from the flash with a voltmeter.<br>

See this table: http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html<br>

I think you're quite safe with the Metz.</p>

<p>I would assume the late Maxxum's (9, 7, 5). My 9 works with the 58 (to the extent that I tested, which was not exhaustive). Not sure, however, if I could mix the 58 and the 5600HS wirelessly on the Max 9 using the Max 9's flash as the controller. (I'm still PO'd that Sony didn't include a flash on the a900 as I found it very convenient for such and to fire studio lights as slaves).<br>

IMO the best consistency in lighting comes from driving the Minolta/Sony flashes manually and with wireless sync (radio) rather than the Minolta/Sony flash based wireless. This involves buying sync trigger widgets, radio sync sets, setting power manually and shooting that way (more like studio shooting). Using a meter for ratios helps as well. (The Minolta/Sony wireless ratio mode is not at all consistent in my experience).<br>

An advantage of digital, of course, is that in any wireless mashup you can do a lot of testing before committing a shot - esp. with the a900/850 intelligent preview.</p>

<p><br /> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg<br /> <br /> The focus point is slightly off in each shot. The Hassy is sharpest at the bottom, the Sony at the top of the coin. For sharpness it's a wash (and the Sony "sweet spot" is actually at f/4, so possibly even sharper).<br /> <br /> Further, the Sony lens had a MC/NC (Nikon) filter, where the Hassy had no filter.<br /> <br /> Colour is a bit different, the Hassy being a little warmer.<br>

(Setup:<br>

Sony a900 shot at ISO 200, 1/250, raw image (WB:flash in camera, not changed in raw import).<br>

Sony 135 f/1.8 (Carl Zeiss design) shot just shy of closest focus.<br>

Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss built) 120 f/4 Makro CF shot just shy of closest focus.<br>

Hassy to A-Mount adaptor for the Hassy lens.<br>

1 Alien Bee monolight at same power setting for both shots fired by sync behind a beauty dish with sock.)</p>