nate_macdonald

<p>$4250 US?</p>

<p>Can't beat that without crossing the border.</p>

<p>What's the sin of DT lenses on full frame?</p>

<p>These were taken on a film camera (Maxxum 5 I think), with the KonicaMinolta 11-18 DT:</p>

<p>11mm:<br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/shercando/KM%2011-18%20Film/1118ZOO5at11mm1100thf6.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="540" /></p>

<p>12mm:</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/shercando/KM%2011-18%20Film/1118ZOO4at12mm1125thf8.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="540" /></p>

<p>14mm:<br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/shercando/KM%2011-18%20Film/1118ZOO3at14mm1180thf9.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="540" /></p>

<p>16mm:</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/shercando/KM%2011-18%20Film/1118ZOO2at16mm1180thf9.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="540" /></p>

<p>Obviously, the corners are deplorable, but the fact you're getting an image at all is something. I'm not sure what the other settings were, these were photos I had bookmarked from a thread on dpreview.</p>

<p>I had thought the d700 was recently dropped to somehwhere below $2500, but looking at BH, it's still $3000 with a $300 instant rebate and Adorama has it at $2700.<br>

I personally think Sony should prove they can produce a good low light camera before pushing the megapixels. Canon couldn't do 15 mp on aps, the only camera that Sony has produced that suggests they might be able to is the a700. If this rumoured spec is accurate, hopefully the backlit sensor preforms way above expectations or Sony has made huge improvements with their low-light capability.<br>

If this were full frame, it'd would be an almost perfect camera for me. 15 mp is plenty, the noise would persumably be much better, good frame rate, big step with AF and I think I saw somewhere that it had video which is a nice bonus. I agree that a full frame version of this priced around $2000 would be a killer camera for Sony. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the info. It's a great insight to hear from an experienced professional on their experience with the a-mount system, you deliver decisive observations without any appearance of bias - it's quite refreshing.<br>

Thank you,</p>

<p>Hey ... that's at Bloor and University... where'd you get the lens??</p>

The a900 isn't really a successor the a700. It's going to be in the same league as the Nikon d700 and the expected

Canon 5dII (or 7d or whatever it's going to be called). These are all "budget" full frame cameras, wheras the a700 is

competing in the enthusiast aps-c segment (Nikon d300 and d90, Canon 50d, Pentax k20). So the speculation is if

we'll see a new model from Sony in this, the enthusaist aps market.

It might depend on what the big white lens that's been seen in the various Sony showcases turns out to be.

 

If it were me, I'd be inclined to sell it now.

No one seems to think that Sony is going to announce an a700 successor with Photokina, but no one thought Sony would announce the enthusiast a700 and a full frame camera at PMA last year either. And then they pulled three more cameras out on top of that too.

I'd suggest looking for the minolta 100 - 400mm on the used market. Not fast, but it'd cover most of the range you need.

The Sigma 135-400 is a bit faster and the Sigma 170-500 has a little extra pull - both are available currently.

Have you tried bracketing your shots? At least to give you an idea of how much it's underexposing?

This has to be the least expected question imaginable on a photography forum.

 

I would get a good camera repair shop to clean it, especially since it sounds like you'd need to take it apart to have

it done properly.

 

Percision Camera has a really good reputation, you can find them here:

http://www.precisioncamera.com/

Quick answer:

 

On a budget: Maxxum 70 or Maxxum 5

 

With some bucks to spend: Maxxum 7

 

-

 

The 70s and 5s are plentiful on the used market, you shouldn't have a problem finding either for less than $100. The

5 has better wireless flash control (ratio), otherwise, they're very comparable cameras.

 

The 7 is arguably the best non-pro AF 35mm SLR in existence. Many people go to bed dreaming that some genious

at Sony is going to take this camera and drop a 14mp full frame sensor in it.

 

It still retains much of its orginal value, so if you see it, you can expect to pay more than you would for an a200 - but

the camera is simply a joy to use.

There's a feature on Nikon's D3 that automatically crops the sensor to an APS size when you connect a "digital" lens. No reason why Sony can't implement a similar function.

Quite a few Metz flashes work with the Minolta system as well, and some are more powerful than the Minoltas. Of course, you'll pay a premium for those models.

There's a very good read on Minolta bellows and enlarging options here:

http://members.aol.com/manualminolta/close.htm

 

I have the 50mm 2.8 macro, it is very sharp, but there are a couple of things of note: First, there's no focus limiter on it, so it can hunt a lot - I actually use manual focus most of the time with this lens.

The other thing is with the 50mm length, you have to get really close to your subject for 1:1.

 

The 100mm macro alleviates both of these issues, and is also very sharp.

The Nikon F5 is going from anywhere from $300.00 to $900.00, the Canon Eos 1 is around $250.00 to $350.00 (not a lot of those for sale) and the Contax N1 is between $400.00 and $900.00.

 

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that that 9 is vastly over inflated at $300.00.

Do you need a zoom?

A 24mm /2.8 and the 28mm /2.0 are two superb primes and they're not horribly expensive.

There's lots of rumours flying, if there's any credibility to the popular ones, the Sony "flagship's" sensor will be more than the 21 MP from Canon.

 

I think that both would be coming close, in some cases exceeding the resolving power of many lenses.

 

Very interesting times ahead.

I expect that once the new alphas are announced/released, folks like Sigma will be more keen on releasing high-end glass for it.

Typically, pro-level camera users will also spring for pro-level glass. Typically... You are right though, one is not synonymous with the other, pro level glass will improve shots on the alpha-100 just as well as with any camera.

For shooting weddings, the old beercan may suit your needs in the interim. Granted it's not as fast, and the autofocus is kinda slow, but f/4 isn't horrible either and it comes in at a very good price.

Yes, people can be wondering about this. It's not an unreasonable question, it's just, well, annoying to see it brought up on the forums so often that people tire of answering it.

 

I'd love to see a FAQ or something linked here so we can clear issues like this up striaght away. When is the new Sony dSLR coming out? What flashes work on my Alpha? Where do I go to fix back-focusing on the 7d? etc.

With a tougher body comes weight or overly high manufacturing costs. That's just the way it is. I doubt that either of the upcoming dSLRs will be significantly lighter than the 7d.

 

Sony has stated that one of their two new models will be out this year. They didn't say whether that would be the pro or semi-pro model and months later, they still haven't released any details on either of them. It's looking doubtful that we'll see one this year based on that, but it can still happen.

It also alludes that the anti-shake meter is a Sony innovation, but that was part of the 7d and I believe the 5d as well.

 

Still good press, can't complain too much about that.

You'll be better equipped for low light with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.7. The 1.7 will also be cheaper than those zooms....not sure about the 1.4.

 

The 2.8 will do better in low light if you need a zoom and you might get away with it with the anti-shake on, but I'd still recommend going for one of the 50mm primes.

As far as macros go, the Tamron 90mm macro is probably the best performance:price option on the market. It'll give you a good working distance, has good performance and you can buy it at a great price for almost any mount.

That looks dangerously close to where the film canister sits.

 

I wouldn't think it would be an expensive fix, I'm sure Sony could handle it assuming that it will be a problem.