gregory_king1

Yeah, sadly they put this in the top three cameras before, but took it out of the A77 for some unknown reason. So the

only new camera that does it is the A99.

 

I bought the A850 mainly to add tethering to my A77.

 

And no, you don't need to change the setting back to mass storage, unless you actually use the USB port for transferring

files. The cable port is so spindly, I only use it for tethering.

Kenneth,

 

You're implying that adding that feature somehow compromises its useabilility for taking stills?

 

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. :-)

<p>I suppose large format lenses on a small format body averages out to medium format? ;-)</p>

<p>Curious problem. </p>

<p>Very good analysis. Yeah, pretty much doing ANYTHING different is better than trying to compete head-to-head. Being the same would definitely not have won them market share.</p>

<p>Wow, this A850 OVF is nice. Too bad I can't use focus peaking to dial in my lenses, though. ;-)</p>

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>Sounds like you had a defective camera...which makes your data point a bit of a "no test".<br /><br /><br />But your play analogy is a good one. As an immersive experience, the play is arguably preferable, I'll agree with you there. And once you leave the show, it's over. <br /> <br />In my use, the capture isn't the experience...it's the resulting image. To each their own.<br>

However, using live view (in C/N incarnation) has its own issues...namely losing PDAF and having to hold the camera at arm's length. Both are deal breakers for me. I actually prefer to review photos in the EVF in bright light, when the rear display is washed out.<br /> <br />But you're generally correct...rear screen live view does provide many of the benefits of EVF while retaining OVF.</p>

<p>Oops, we're off topic. Time to go pick up my A850. :-)</p>

<p>The list of benefits for EVF is too long to type.<br /><br />The list of benefits for OVF is:<br>

1. I see the same thing my eye saw before I put the camera up to take the picture.<br /><br />If your idea of an enjoyable afternoon is walking around seeing the world through the lens instead of with the naked eye, then perhaps the OVF is for you. <br /><br />If, however, the reason you took the camera with you is to take PHOTOS, then the EVF will be the better tool. <br /><br />No offense intended, Jeff. And that's not saying a good OVF is MUCH better than a bad OVF, or that an EVF doesn't take some getting used to. I'm just saying the EVF provides a much more useful FUNCTIONAL interface than the OVF, with very little downside for the purpose it's intended for. <br /><br />So many people wax nostalgically about the OVF as if they literally walk around all day looking at the world through their camera. They also make PAINFUL leaps of logic to claim the EVF isn't for pros. One tool (who wrote a "pro" review) even claimed the OVF is preferable because you can frame a shot with the camera off, which helps get a shot when your battery is nearly dead. REALLY??? Please.<br /><br />Granted, I'll be picking up my A850 tomorrow. But only because I got my A77 for cheap, and the A99 doesn't add $2000 in value for me. The combination of A77 for sports and normal use, the A850 for portraits (and everything else FF), and the A55 for travel is a good combo for me. No one camera could do it all.<br /><br />Whether or not the A850 will displace my MFDB remains to be seen. Stay tuned. :-)</p>

<p>You're correct. The 150mm roughly translates to 90mm+ on 35mm, making it the "portrait lens". <br>

The 110mm doesn't really have an equivalent in most 35mm formats. They also didn't replicate it in the 645AF line, if that means anything.</p>

<p>The RS version has a shorter throw on the focusing helicoid, or a different gear ratio. So it may focus faster. <br /><br />But it's also more plasticy, so the focus seems to bind up easier. Fewer RS models I'm touched have as smooth a focus as older models.<br>

<br />On the flip side, stay away from XX models...they are the oldest and most often are oily. People try to sell them for more due to the different logo, which is somewhere between silly, stupid, and deceitful. ;-)</p>

<p>Sheldon pretty much nailed all of it. The only thing I'll add is that you have the option of cheaper backs if you could do without instant review. I initially used the 11mp H10 (with a homemade wakeup cable). It wasn't quite effective on the RZ since it was a 24x36 back. It had to be used tethered.<br /><br />I upgraded to the Valeo 22wi and it's obviously much more useful. It also doesn't have a screen on it...it's the Aptus 22 without a screen. It can be shot tethered or with a data/battery pack. <br>

<br />I used both on the same Leaf 17 adapter. It required some slight mod to fit the Phase back, but it works with both now.</p>

<p>Jose, where are you located? I may be selling my stuff soon if I decide to go fully FF.</p>

<p>One question I have for Sheldon...my adapter shows up as ISO800 on my RZ. Or at least that's what it seems to be telling the AE finder based on exposure calcs. Yair said it should show up as ISO25 or ISO50.<br /><br />Not that I use it on AE much, but any ideas what the problem might be?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You made a typo above...you want an RZ67. :-)<br>

<br />You can use both Phase and Leaf backs on the RZ Pro/Pro II. You'll need an adapter, and in the case of the Phase...a wake up cable. The adapter is just a piece of metal...no electronics. I use the Mamiya 645AF back.<br /><br />I can't recall what the Pro IID brings to the table...I think it can use the ZD back (which can't be used on the older cameras). But it uses a much more expensive adapter.<br>

<br />But then, everything associated with MFDB is expensive. :-)</p>

<p>Correction...120 developing has NOT CHANGED. Only 35mm is going CD.<br>

<br />Just got my medium format negatives back...same price...under $3 with prints.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Just got my medium format negatives back...same price...under $3 with prints.<br /><br />Maybe 35mm is the only one that changed.</p>

<p>I have both. The 35 1.8 is a great lens for the price, and possibly better in ways than the 1.4. There's really no reason to buy the 1.4 for an APS-C camera.</p>

<p>Its only negative is some chromatic aberration at wide apertures, but most lenses do this. I actually tested it against an 80mm lens on medium format digital (which has the same field of view) and it performed quite well for resolution. That CA shows up at high contrast edges, but it's manageable in Lightroom.</p>

<p>You have nothing at all to worry about.</p>

I've seen them go between $800 and $3000 recently. I sold mine for $2000 last year and probably sold it cheap.

 

If it's in good shape, you should have no issues making your money back.

<p>Not really excited. I spent $2000 less and got an A77. This has one stop better performance and gets to use my lenses "properly". That's about it. (Oh, and the tethering the A77 should have had in the first place).</p>

<p>But in trade, I lose my built-in flash, wireless flash control, native flash mount, and almost half my FPS.</p>

<p>So, the A99 cannot replace the A77. It's a pro-optimized rig that loses advanced amateur usability and allure.</p>

<p>And if I have to keep my A77, then why not get the A850 or A900 for less than half the price (and get the A77 for "free" and get the best of both worlds?</p>

<p>The movie feature and all the other fast-shooting features on the A99 are lost on me if it's a dedicated studio/"work" camera.</p>

<p>I'll wait for the A88 and hope they pull their head out and put a flash on it. Until then, I can get better-than-A99 studio performance with my MFDB rig (which also cost less!).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That would indeed be interesting! Be tempted! ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is this thread dead? I'm a slacker. :-)<br>

I now have a 24mp A77, so I could compare directly to the 22mp MFDB with respect to IQ at the same resolution and framing. Yes, I used different lenses (35mm and 80mm) to get the same perspective.<br /><br />The results were telling.<br>

<br /> I did some comparisons at ISO 100 to my medium format digital back (9 year old technology at ISO 25) to ISO 100 on the A77. Conveniently, both images are 4000 pixels high, with one sensor with pixels 1/4 the size of the other.<br /><br />Interestingly, the purported "noise at base ISO" on the A77 was painfully obvious in the shadows. I hadn't seen it before, without a reference. Compared to the MFDB, which had no discernible noise anywhere...as it was capturing 16x the light per pixel...4x the exposure and 4x the size. <br /><br />At first I was shocked. Then I thought about it and realized those shadows were capturing about 5-8 stops less light. So, by definition, a properly exposed 100 ISO photo is going to have areas that are equivalent to normally exposed 3200 ISO shots...hence, noisy. <br /><br />Especially when those areas are DRO enhanced. By comparison, the MFDB does no amplification, so the dark areas were dark...noise-free, but less visible detail. I guess they have more overhead (ISO25 and 9 micron) to pick up a few stray photons and "stay clean".<br /><br />The other problem was some severe PF showed up that needed correction, but that can be expected at that aperture. It's a lens problem, anyways...guess the Mamiya lenses are worth their salt.<br /> <br />Now, it's not all bad. The good news is...all the detail was there. The 35mm 1.8 lens was plenty sharp at 2.0. Minor noise reduction cleaned up the shot and had it compare favorably to the medium format image. The highlight detail was also better on the A77.<br /><br />So, in a way, the A77 shot like ISO200 or ISO400 C-41 negative film, will visible (but pleasant) grain that won't show up on prints smaller than 11x14. The MFDB shot like ISO50 or ISO100 slide film, with an overly pure punchy contrasty image without any flaws that requires a bit more care and handling to avoid blowing highlights. You just don't take it out and shoot like you can with the A77.<br /><br />Since I'm weaning myself from film, I'm almost glad that the A77 gives me many of the benefits I got shooting C-41 in the first place. I haven't compared shooting RAW...I'm thinking the results may be more comparable.</p>

<p>Aha. B/W mode has no effect on raw files. RAW is color. Unless you remove the Bayer filter. ;)</p>

<p>Not necessarily related, but I scanned some B/W photos (in B/W mode) and LR imported them with a color hue like sepia. I left it that way rather than "reminding" LR that they were B/W.<br>

Odd that any color information existed in the TIFF file.</p>

More like five bucks. Developing is now $ 7-10,

including prints, versus under $ 3 before. I put in

a sample of Ektar (apropos)...we'll see what they do

(if anything).

 

No other cheap place...I may ditch film.

<p>I only shoot JPG, and haven't found any issues with A77 JPG rendition. But I'm probably not too picky. :-)<br /><br />I should compare the A77 to my 22mp MFDB and see how they compare. I'm sure the A77 will handle noise better, considering the MFDB starts at ISO 25 and craps out around 100 or 200. ;-)</p>

<p>Like you, I prefer larger bodies. But I'm probably going to keep the A55 since it's almost as small as my u4/3 and performs better. <br>

The A550 might be your best choice. Someone sold one for under $400 recently on Amazon (with lens), so you could get lucky again. It vs the A700 is a toss up...not sure which I would buy given the same price. The A700 has better controls, but the A550 is newer and has video and better ISO and resolution.</p>

<p>This pretty much sums it up.</p>

<p><a href="http://snapsort.com/compare/Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A550-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A700">http://snapsort.com/compare/Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A550-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A700</a></p>

<p>Why exactly is the A77 not a consideration? It takes better pictures than the A700.</p>

<p>But then, you can get an A850 for not much more. So both are probably out of your budget.</p>

<p>If you want to stick with OVF, you have to find an A550 or A580. I replace my A700 with the A550, and it's a pretty close match. Even takes cheap or OEM vertical grips.</p>

<p>The problem is, they both have a 1/160 shutter and no tethering. If you want 1/250 and tethering, you either get an A700 or 850/900.</p>

<p>So you seem to be in a conundrum. If budget won't afford a FF camera, then no point in waiting for another body you can't afford. Start looking for a cheap A700.</p>

Not excited at all. If I wanted a camera with no onboard flash and an ISO hot shoe, I'd buy a Nikon. Duh.

 

 

Just got the A77 on sale, and only used the onboard flash about half the shots today. Most of the rest, I used a flash I could remove with

one hand.

 

 

The novelty of the SLT works best being novel. Trying to make it compete on similarity with the competition is about as stupid as you

can get.

<p>Yep. The A77 has the ergonomics of the A700...and the 1/250 shutter, amongst other things. Plus, it can use the grip...mine comes today.<br /><br />Ironically, I may actually keep my A55 because it's so tiny. With the 18-55mm lens, it's close enough in size to my E-PL1 that I may ditch the 4/3 camera and get the better benefits of the SLT. Too bad it uses different batteries.</p>

<p>That lens is rather pedestrian...not worth spending much getting it to be useful. But if you have a NEX or u4/3 camera, you could get an adapter and use it that way (with crop factor).</p>

<p>Either way, you're spending about $20 (film camera or adapter).</p>

<p>Most (if not all) lens shutters (also known as leaf shutters) are located NEXT TO the aperture, but are different pieces of equipment. <br>

<br />Yes, the shutter stays open during SLR viewing. The aperture also stays open, or closes down to the desired aperture for DOF preview. Automatic cameras leave the aperture open to make focusing easier and more accurate.</p>

<p>So, prior to exposure, many things happen. The shutter closes, the aperture sets to the correct diameter, and the mirror moves out of the way. Only now is the film "seeing" the back of the lens. Then, the shutter opens and closes for the correct duration, exposing the film. </p>

<p>On Mamiya, you have to recock the shutter and mirror to return to a viewfinder image. The mirror has to move down to protect the film before the shutter can reopen.<br>

<br />No help on the Zenzanon...sorry. :-)</p>