robert_paul1

<p>As someone who was a Minolta rep back in then, I can say that the MD lenses had a second lug to communicate to the body the minimum aperture of the lens.</p>

<p>If you check the Sony website, you'll get your answer. Look at the Sony DSLR accessories page. Check the 'Compatibility' tab on the page of the remote you're asking about.</p>

<p>Eliza, it's hard to tell you what I'd recommend, without knowing more about what you're looking for in a camera, how much money you're looking to spend, whether you're just starting off, or have a 'system' already, what you're planning to shoot, what you plan to do with the pictures, etc.<br>

It's easy to spend someone else's money, but I've learn not to do so, as someone else may not have the same goals as I do. As I've been in photography for awhile, my wants might be different than some one who's main purpose is to take pictures of the kids and family dog that they'll email to the grandparents and friends. Do you plan to print your shots, and if so, how big are you planning to make your prints?<br>

If you give more information, you'll get a better answer.</p>

<p>Your post is somewhat confusing, but if I read it right, you're planning to use a couple of adapters in order to use your Canon lenses. If you increase the flange to sensor (film) distance more than it was designed for, it's the same as if you used an extension tube. You'll be able to take macro photos, but will not be able to focus to infinity without some optics in between to correct for that.</p>

<p>Jim, I've made very good 8x10 prints from P&S cameras with only 5 megapixels. And if you consider that some of the 5 megapixels were lost to cropping, you see that you have nothing to fear.</p>

<p>As you seem to know what to do, I don't think there's much more to add, other than you might want to use the smart teleconverter (digital zoom) function, although you'll have to record to jpeg.</p>

<p>Mike, any SRT (not to mention most film cameras with a film rewind button)could do multiple exposure shots. Did the SRT-102 have a special feature? And as far as I recall, the only differences between the SRT-101 and the SRT-1 02, was the hot shoe. I had two SRT-101s. the first was silver and had the older style shutter speed dial, the other was black with the newer dial, plus the dial was black.</p>

<p>Harry, Sony has plans for a new full-frame camera, just not sure if it'll be a DSLR or a DSLT.</p>

<p>Michael, my comment that Zeiss does not make the lenses is accurate. Zeiss does the design work, and ensures the quality of the lenses meets Zeiss' standards, but they do not actually make the lenses, nor does Sony. The lenses are made in a factory that both Sony and Zeiss have agreed to. This is from the link I posted- "<strong>The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss</strong>." It does not say that Sony or Zeiss owns the factory.<br>

<br /> Looking at the information available on the internet, I think the actual manufacturer of the Zeiss ZA lenses is done by Cosina. Cosina makes other Zeiss labelled lenses. If yopu look at this Zeiss link, you'll see that they openly admit that Cosina manufactures Zeiss lenses in Japan-<br>

<br /> http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/other/products/what_makes_the_difference/carl_zeiss_quality_made_by_cosina.html<br>

<br /> Sony is the distributor of the Zeiss ZA lenses, and Zeiss is the designer, and they QC the product, but neither company actually makes the lenses. That is left up to a third party.<br>

<br /> The fact in the camera industry is that many times, a third party makes certain lenses for the camera companies. Canon has some lenses made by Sigma, Nikon has some lenses made by Tamron, just like Sony. Minolta had lenses made by Tokina. Normally, the companies don't put another company's name on the lenses, so the Sony/Zeiss situation is a little different.<br>

<br /> However, that does not negate the accuracy of my original statement.</p>

<p>Contrary to popular belief, Carl Zeiss does not make the lenses for Sony. This is from the Zeiss website-<br>

http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/service/FAQ/sony/003_Sony_production.html</p>

<p>Ken, I see that you took a vacation in Hawaii. Which island did you visit? Did you visit the beach by any chance? Was it windy?<br>

I ask these questions because I live in Hawaii, and corrosive is a very big problem in the islands. IF you were on the windward side of Oahu (for example), and you stopped at the Makapu'u lookout, overlooking Sea Life Park, there is a lot of sea spray being sent into the air. If you look in the distance, you can see the sea spray as it goes over to the other side of the mountain. If you wear glasses, odds are that when you got into the car, you had to wipe off the salt spray.<br>

If you were at the Blow Hole, and the wind is causing the spray to move over the observation area, that salt-spray can get into your camera. This is why, I'm very leery about taking my camera out into those conditions.<br>

Of course, you could have taken a swim in the ocean, then came out and used your towel to dry off. Afterwards, you may have used that towel to wrap around your camera. Bad idea.<br>

I don't know if you remember the old days when cars didn't have the corrosion resistance like they do today. There was a company called Zeibart, which had a rust proofing spray. On the mainland, the product came with lifetime guarantee from rust. However, in the islands, the warranty was only for five years.<br>

I when to college in Tacoma. While there I saw a lot of old cars being driven around with no rust. That's something I didn't see back home.</p>

<p>Why not wait for the upcoming A77? Reportedly, it will resolve your issues. Or, in spite of what you read about Sony only coming out with translucent mirror technology, Sony is reported to have a pentaprism replacement for the Full-Frame A900/A850. Even if all your lenses are designed for APS-C sized sensor cameras, you could use them on the FF body, as the camera will automatically crop the image.</p>

<p>Minolta had a 7D, not a D-7. The problem with the Sigma lenses is that Sigma refuses to pay for the 'codes' that the manufacturers use. Instead they reverse engineer the software. However, this does not guarantee compatibility with future camera bodies. Unless it is a fairly new lens, Sigma will not upgrade the lenses. I don't know if Sigma will sell you a chip that is used on a new version of an old lens, i.e., if you have an old 70-300, and hope to install the chip from the current version.<br>

The only hope, as I see it, is that you learn computer programming and try and hack the chip.</p>

<p>The name of the camera is NOT 'SR5'. That's the level of credibility given to the rumor. The 'SR5' rating indicates that the rumor is highly credible, as opposed to a 'SR1' level rating.</p>

<p>Seeing as how Minolta got out of the photo business several years ago, it is unlikely that you're going to finding a reliable 'source' for accessories. Your best bet is to look through the usual sources for used equipment- eBay, KEH, Craigslist, etc., on a regular basis.</p>

<p>Dale, the front of the lens hood, that is already on the lens, IS threaded. That's how I put my Sonia 82mm lens hood on my camera. You can unscrew the hood that can with the lens, but you would just screw the new hood onto the existing hood.<br>

And, if you decide to put an 82mm filter on the 500mm, you're probably be the only one who does.</p>

<p>I hope you don't really believe the Vectis is "weatherproof"? The camera is "splash proof" meaning it can be used in "light rain or snow." Weatherproof implies a lot more than 'splash proof' does.</p>

<p>Hate to sound negative, but why waste film taking a picture of the moon? Especially if you're going to just fill the frame with the moon, and not have any other subject matter in the frame. You can get a picture from any astronomy book, or online. Your picture will look like a zillion other full-frame shots of the moon. Save your film for other, more interesting shots.</p>

<p>The 500mm f/8 can take an 82mm front filter, but they'll be expensive, so it's best to use the drop-in filters. But be careful, the stem that is used to 'lock-in' the filter is thin, and can break, and the replacement is also expensive. Most people I know don't even bother changing the filters. One filter is a clear, and the other is an 8X ND.<br>

One thing you might look for is an 82mm extended lens hood. The one I have matches the existing hood, and just extends it. This helps reduce flare and increases contrast.</p>

<p>Forgot to add- Would you rather have a lens you're going to grow out of, or a lens that you can grow into?</p>

<p>Don't be afraid if the lens is "over kill" for the body. A year from now, you might decide to buy another, more advanced body, and then you'll be asking if the lens is good enough for the body. In the days of film, it was said to invest in the best lens you could buy, as you'll buy another body, and the same thing applies to digital.<br>

The HSM will work with the A100. It is the Sigma version of a SSM Sony/Minolta lens.</p>

<p>Tom, it would be silly to think that lens technology went backwards when Minolta when to the A-mount. After all the early MC/MD lenses were designed by engineers that used slide rules. And by the time Minolta ended any new development of lenses, before they sold the Photo Imaging Division to Sony, they were using computers.</p>

<p>Paul, Richard's post is not merely a less than perfect fit on the Sony/Minolta SLR System Forum, it doesn't fit at all. And, Richard doesn't even have the courtesy of labeling his post as 'Off Topic', and he doesn't even apologize for it, when he's called out. He doesn't respect the owner's of Photo.net rule that this forum is for discussion of items that relate to Sony/Minolta SLRs, acting like he owns the forum, posting whatever he wants, rather than posting in an appropriate forum.</p>

<p>He should act as a guest of this forum, rather than the owner. If this were his website, he can do as he wishes, but he's not. He should respect the rules set-up by the owners, plain and simple.</p>

<p>Richard, at least I know what Sony is, and what a SLR is. Some posters don't know that Samsung is not part of Sony, and that the EX-1 is not a SLR. Must be that some posters think that if the name starts with a squiggly line, it must be a Sony.</p>

<p>Wow!!! I didn't know that Samsung was now part of Sony, and that a compact camera is now considered as a DSLR. Amazing!!!</p>