jiun_der_chung

<p>Just an additional response for those in Australia (well at least Sydney anyway) who want to know how to get Sony gear repaired. I have had not problems getting my gear serviced and/or repaired.<br>

There is a professional photography repair place called Progear. They can pretty much repair anything where parts are still available I think. However, from my experience, they are expensive and prone to over servicing, so I would not use them unless it is a warranty or insurance repair. Their details are as follows:<br>

Progear Australia<br>

Unit 12, 16 Aquatic Drive,<br>

Frenchs Forest NSW 2086<br>

p <a href="tel:02%209451%205311" target="_blank">02 9451 5311</a> f <a href="tel:02%209451%207237" target="_blank">02 9451 7237</a><br>

<br>

Alternatively, I also know a guy who does camera gear repairs, he is actually retired and downsized to working out of a garage. If he can't personally repair your gear, he can forward it on to someone who can. He is honest, very reasonably priced and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him. <br>

Jackie - Legend Camera Service<br>

legend_camera@yahoo.com.au<br>

+61408226097</p>

<p>Hope this helps those who require it</p>

<p>Check out the following lens review</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/543-sony1855f3556nex">http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/543-sony1855f3556nex</a></p>

<p>Basically it seems to say that it is a decent lens. Reasonably sharp but nothing amazing but poor CA. Reading this review, it seems more or less consistent with other things I have read about it. To me it seems to be about what you might expect from a kit lens. I'm not exactly sure why people expect more from kit lenses.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'll have one coming with my NEX-7 order (if it ever arrives) so I'll let you know my first hand experience.</p>

<p>Well seeing as I just pre-ordered the NEX-7, together with my A900 I think I am sorted for a while. So the only thing I don't have is 12fps (not a big deal for me) and GPS (don't care). So for me to buy the A99, there would have to be a big improvement to what I already have.<br>

I think I would rather put my money into glass, or more film camera systems. lol</p>

<p>I have got exactly the same situation as you. I have pre-ordered the NEX-7 and have a number of different lenses in different mounts that I am interested in using. From my point of view, the thought of constantly changing adapters would be annoying. Looking at the prices for adapters on ebay and also some reviews, it seems that the cheap adapters seem to perform pretty much as well as the expensive ones.</p>

<p>Therefore I am of the mind to just buy a separate adapter for each of the different lenses I intend to use regularly and therefore in practice they become almost like OEM lenses (except for AF of course). It seems to me $20-30 for an adapter isn't much compared to the value of some of the lenses I want to use.</p>

<p>How on earth can you make any kind of realistic comparison of 2 different sized images? A 100% crop of the A55 image is quite obviously not going to be a fair comparison as a 100% crop of the A77 image.<br>

<br /> In fact I am entirely not surprised that the 100% crops look close. But of course if you were to upscale the A55 image to match or downscale the A77 to match, then you will see a very significant difference.</p>

<p>Well I have to say that for me personally, that I have been waiting for the NEX7. I thought about getting the NEX5 but decided not to because I thought it would be too much of a pain to use. My main purpose for getting the NEX7 is firstly as a backup for my A900. Yes it won't be as usable as an SLR, but then I am not really expecting it to be. Erganonics aside, I am assuming that it would produce significantly better image quality than my A700. Which means I no longer have to lug my A700 around as a backup.</p>

<p>Secondly, the NEX7 will also be my second body for when I go travelling and/or climbing. For the times when I want to carry something small round. The fact that I can use it for video as well is a bonus as that is not a feature I want for my main camera.</p>

<p>I am at this stage not planning to get any NEX lenses at all but rather just buy the converter and use my alpha mount lenses. I figure that even with the converter, the whole package will be significantly smaller and lighter than the A900 combo. I just think that it now starts to be quite a good match in specification as a alternative to the A900 and the existing lenses I already have. With any luck, the next generation of NEX bodies will continue to improve the erganomics and handling.</p>

<p>Well it seems to me that part of the fence is in sharper focus than the distant vegetation, which would seem to suggest that while you have manually focused it to infinity, it is actually focused closer than infinity.</p>

<p>Have you tried to focus it manually to a know distance?</p>

<p>Richard, yes both film and digital clip, but the problem is digital tends to clip very abruptly and in a very unnatural looking way. And even worse, the channels tend to clip separately leading to coloured posterisation. All in all really doesn't look very good in comparison to film.For me when you get blown out highlights on film, it still looks good and I have to do very little to try and fix it.</p>

<p>And yes I agree with you Craig that good AF performance has already been achieved by other manufacturers without SLT technology, something that Sony seems to have not been able to achieve. Perhaps because they have been pursuing the SLT line instead? But from what I read, the AF performance of the SLT cameras is not as good as the theory might lead you to believe anyway.</p>

<p>I sincerely doubt that Sony is a dying line, given the size of Sony and their investment in this area. Furthermore they are improving market share all the time. The real question for me is whether Sony will choose to pursue market share at the end of the lower end of the market, which would leave higher end users like me with a little bit of a problem in the future.</p>

<p>Congratulations on getting a truly excellent camera. There should be quite a few Minolta 50mm F1.4 lenses out there, the question is can you get one for a decent price compared to the Sony. But I assure you that the Minolta is a excellent lens unless you particularly need the ADI.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For me personally, I already think that the a900 is an excellent camera. Of course things can always be improved, but for me I would be looking for tweaks rather than radical overhauls. You can always have improved noise performace, but more important from my point of view, I would like better autofocus performance, something that is already possible with existing technology. So SLT technology is not something that I particularly look forward to as it doesn't necessarily improve the things that I would like.</p>

<p>If we are talking about massive long term improvements, I would like to see a dramatic improvement in dynamic range, something that digital cameras still lag far behind compared to film. All the talk about 10fps bores me stupid to be honest, for me the 5fps is already plenty and I still rely on timing to get the shot rather than hold down the shutter and hope for the best. Besides, if you are using flash as I often do, your fps is limited by how quickly the flash can recharge. The other thing I would like to see is faster flash sync.</p>

<p>Anyway, writing all this reminds me how old fashioned I am when it comes to photography. lol At the end of the day the image is everything and the technology that helps you to achieve that image is merely incidental.</p>

<p>Like you I Yiannis I came from (and still use) the Maxxum 7 and so was used to the amazing handling, ergonomics and functionality of a near professional camera. So to me the A100 felt like a backward step including image quality.</p>

<p>I went from the A100 to the A700 to the A900 and I have to say that each step was a major improvement in handling and image quality (a slight handling improvement from the A700 to the A900). I certainly didn't regret each move and do not regard them as buying into any way an inferior camera (compared to the competition).</p>

<p>As I said in my earlier post, the A100 is so far behind the current offerings of ANY manufacturer that any new dslr you purchase will be a major step up. I can't help but find it amusing when ever people agonise and hold off about buying the latest Sony offering because they worry whether there will be a better one down the track and whether other manufacturers offers a better one, when at the same time they continue to use a vastly inferior camera. I understand the concept of wanting to get the best value for money by purchasing the best available camera (within your budget) at the time. But the reality is that there is ALWAYS a better camera available down the track if you wait long enough. Furthermore manufacturers tend to leapfrog each other every time they bring out a new offering.</p>

<p>Just my personal opinion but I tend to prefer to have a camera in hand right now that I enjoy using and takes images that I am happy with rather than to worry about what might come in the future.</p>

<p>I must say that I find it amusing that you have hung on to using your A100 for so long and yet are worried about upgrading to a new camera and worrying about whether that new camera will be any good.</p>

<p>Personally I found the A100 whilst it made decent images, it was quite irritating to use for many of the reasons that you mention and I couldn't wait to get rid of it for a higher end body. And to be honest, I haven't looked back since. Any higher end body will be streets ahead of what you are used to on the A100 and there will be no comparison in image quality and handling.</p>

<p>As to the question whether it will be worthwhile to change systems, only you can ultimately decide whether it is worth the money and more importantly, whether you want to go through the process of learning to use a new system. In terms of lenses, you don't have that many and most of them aren't amazing lenses.</p>

<p>Personally I think that at the end of the day all the systems have their merits and no major manufacturer makes a bad dslr. And secondly I think that the Sony system still has a cost advantage (for the bodies anyway) over Canon and Nikon if that is important to you.</p>

<p>The macro mode on the camera is just a setting for ease of use. I presume that it will use a smaller aperture to increase DOF. You can use the lens in any mode and guess what, even retain control of the results in A, S and M modes.</p>

<p>Generally with macro photography, control of shutter speed and DOF is critical to the image</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that the HVL-58AM needs to be the controller as the 5600HS can't be used as a controller. But it should be capable of being triggered wirelessly.</p>

<p>You can also get the HVL-20AM as your controller if you like as it is a bit of a waste to use the 58AM as the controller.</p>

<p>Working from memory a bit here but I think you need to mount each off camera flash onto the camera and switch to wireless mode in order to sync the flash to the camera. You can then take the flash off the camera and it will stay in wireless mode as long as you don't turn it off.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that the HVL-58AM needs to be the controller as the 5600HS can't be used as a controller. But it should be capable of being triggered wirelessly.</p>

<p>You can also get the HVL-20AM as your controller if you like as it is a bit of a waste to use the 58AM as the controller.</p>

<p>Working from memory a bit here but I think you need to mount each off camera flash onto the camera and switch to wireless mode in order to sync the flash to the camera. You can then take the flash off the camera and it will stay in wireless mode as long as you don't turn it off.</p>

<p>That's a good point Joe sharpness on manual focus lenses obviously depends on your ability to focus them well in the first place.<br>

<br />Besides, what has MF or AF got to do with lens sharpness anyway. They are unrelated issued. If you wanted to discuss zoom lenses vs fixed focals that would be a different story.</p>

<p>But at the end of the day it is pretty silly to think that optical quality would have gone backwards in the last 20 or so years.</p>

<p>Yeah I think the more RAM you have the better when it comes to processing large files, particularly if using Photoshop with multiple layers.<br>

<br />Also I noticed that LR3 is WAY slower than LR2 even when using a fast computer.</p>

<p>But basically part of the upgrade cost is also a fast computer!</p>

<p>And there by your response you have shown us the secret of your success. Dedication! Unlike a more opportunistic photographer like me.</p>

<p>Yes you are absolutely right, it can be darn hard holding the camera steady whilst crouched / leaning over at an awkward angle, hence why I sometimes have to resort to a tripod.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, the 135/1.8 makes a decent macro lens. The 100mm Macro is sharper but the 135 gives nicer bokeh and more light if you need it.</p><div></div>

<p>Paul, beautiful shots. How on earth do you manage to get so close with a 30mm without scaring them away? I struggle with a 100mm. Or have you just cropped in a lot.</p>

<p>Other issue I find is in order to get decent DOF and shutter speed, I have to mount onto a tripod to get any decent shots.</p>

<p>Share with us your secrets oh Master! lol</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A lensbaby is not really a real lens as such, it is more kind of a special effects tool which is quite different to a t/s lens.</p>

<p>Richard has given you some good pointers to sources. Another excellent one is the Hartblei lenses. They make them in a while range of different forms and in a whole pile of different mounts including the Sony alpha mount. They are excellent lenses and surprisingly good value.</p>

<p>http://www.hartblei.com/</p>

<p>You can use them just like a normal lens except for the fact that you have to stop down the aperture manually. If you are going to go down this path, I would recommend forgetting getting a shift lens only and get a tilt/shift lens.</p>

<p>I personally think that the reality is that the high end DSLRs already exceed what most of us need. I mean to be honest, how many of you need the A900 for example. And by need I mean that you are a professional photographer who would lose a client because you don't have 24MP (non-stitched) and good high-iso performance and dynamic range. I suspect that most of us on the board don't NEED that level of performance.</p>

<p>Whether you want that kind of performance of course and are willing to pay for it is a whole other story. That is where the point that Richard makes about consumerism comes in.</p>

<p>Yeah I have never been a big fan of a direct backup as it practically means that it ends up sitting there doing nothing. And let's face it, with wedding photography, you have enough other stuff to carry around without carrying direct duplicates not to mention the financial cost. I would rather carry another body/lens that could serve as a backup but still bring something extra to the table.</p>

<p>Before I got a 2nd digital body, I use to bring a film body as a backup (as I use film anyway) even though many people thought that I was crazy not to have a backup DSLR. But I am very comfortable with that because I am secure enough in my photography skills and knowledge of film to know that I can make it work. In fact I have shot an entire wedding on film only.</p>

<p>There is also the Zeiss 24/2 if you can justify the dollars. The funny thing about wedding photography is that of all the shots, the best ones are still always from the wide aperture lenses.</p>