gregory_king1

<p>Sounds correct, but you can always try shooting it in A mode to see if it solves the problem. I've never tried it that way, but yes, it does seem like somehow the metering is "double counting".</p>

<p>Did you check your camera's meter to see if it's correct?</p>

<p>Which lenses do you have? Those lenses don't exist. :-) <br /><br />You can get 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 2.8 lenses for around $200 each which will work on any APS-C Sony and give you full automatic control and arguably better performance. <br /><br />Once you buy into a DSLR system, money is (at the same time) not an issue and always an issue. After spending $400-600 on a body...is $400 more for lenses that give you all the capability of that camera a lot? It's pocket change relative to the many lenses that sell for $1000+<br>

But ergonomics is a better question. If you don't like your Canon, you'll need to find a body that you like first...be it NEX or Alpha or whatever.</p>

<p>Better question may be...what are these MD lenses you are so enamored with? Not many of them are probably worth the hassle...since modern AF lenses will give similar or better images. And that's before you factor in the likilihood of lost images due to misfocus or misaperture.<br /><br />The 50mm and 58mm 1.2 lenses are obviously valuable and uncomparable in any newer glass. The 21mm is also rare. Beyond that, a few of the faster and smaller lenses (eg. 35mm 1.8) are holding value for use on cameras like the NEX, but I doubt anyone is using them on a DSLR.</p>

<p>I shot my 35mm 1.8 and 58mm 1.2 for the last time on Kodachrome. I sold off the 1.8 since my 35mm 1.4 is a much better lens. The 1.2 is in storage, pending a useful FF camera to put it on. The rest of my "pedestrian" MD lenses will be sold off with my XD-11 as soon as I get around to it.</p>

<p>That's a good deal. I guess the film back is a moot point for you, whether you got one or not. ;-)</p>

<p>80mm AF are rarely sold alone, but ironically can be cheap since most people have one.</p>

<p>THe MF lenses are hard to focus using the stock screen (in my opinion), but do provide focus confirmation using the AF sensor. A special screen designed for MF can be purchased and installed, with a lower transmissivity design and more microprisms. They also make a screen with hash marks showing the framing for the ZD back...but it has the same bright design not suited for manual focusing. Framing on the ZD isn't hard...just leave a little around the edges.</p>

<p>To find the best focal length for your uses, take your favorite D700 focal length and add 30%. :-)</p>

 

<p>As Frank said...the books cost more than the cameras. They can be had for under $20 any day of the week.</p>

<p>The f/4 gets lowest billing (and lowest cost) of all three 150mm lenses. I doubt they sell for much over $100, considering the heralded f/2.8 model sells for under $250 these days.</p>

<p>I'd stick with buying the camera as a package with a back and 80mm lens. Buying them separately will add a lot of cost. A 645AFD II with back for $1000 isn't a bad price, probably good for Europe. But you can get an AFD with lens and back for under $800 in the states. </p>

<p>And $250 for a manual lens is way overpriced. Most go for $100 or less. The AF lenses usually sell for around $400...less for the 150mm AF which can sell for under $300.<br>

Only the 35mm seems to go for more...over $150 for manual and $500+ for AF...last time I checked.</p>

<p>Ray's info is excellent and correct. I didn't bother mentioning the manual focus cameras since they add a lot of hassle to the mix. Not to mention that with the cost you'd spend, you'd lose all the money you've saved so far. ;-) <br>

<br />For the record, I've shot my older 11mp back on both 645 and RZ 110mm lens and didn't see any difference in IQ. Now, the image did look different (perhaps due to distortion), so I'm tempted to retry the experiment with my 22mp back to see if it makes any difference with a larger sensor. The main benefit to using the RZ is the leaf shutter lenses that allow 1/400 speeds with flash (vs 1/125 on 645AFD), but at the low ISO50 you'll be shooting, that's not necessary much.</p>

<p>Yep, all film cameras are now disposable cameras. They just can be reloaded with film and have more features. ;-)</p>

<p>A "very, very good price" for a Maxxum 4 would be less than $40, in any condition. Maxxum 5's go for $50.</p>

<p>200 bucks! Wow...you hit the jackpot.</p>

<p>The AFDII is much more expensive for very little AF benefit, as I see it. Maybe pricing is different there.</p>

<p>Never had a problem with any of the Mamiya lenses myself. I compared a $50 55mm Mamiya manual lens to my $1200 35mm 1.4 lens on identical shots and found the MFDB still performed better.</p>

<p>Wide angle, 55mm gets better marks than 45mm which is better than 35mm...but again, I'm not picky enough to see much difference in my limited experience.</p>

<p>Mamiya 645 and 645AF lenses are the ones that fit. Leaf shutter (LS) lenses won't work. </p>

<p>Yeah, the Metz is a great flash...can work on your Nikon too. :-)</p>

<p>...a Mamiya 645AFD. It's pretty much your only meaningful option (especially as a rookie).</p>

<p>It should come with an 80mm lens, which works well enough. It's 50mm in 35mm terms, or more like 60mm when you factor in the crop factor of the ZD back (which takes off the outer edge of the frame).</p>

<p>Manual focus Mamiya lenses will work on the AFD, and are much cheaper. They will provide focus confirmation, but no auto-stop-down. You'll have to focus wide open then stop down to shoot.</p>

<p>The 150mm AF lens is cheap and a good addition.</p>

<p>Metz makes a nice compatible autoflash, if you can find an SCA 3952 adapter. </p>

<p>(Which ironically, is how I got into Mamiya. I got one attached to a flash I bought, and I googled it. "Ah, a medium format camera...interesting". Now I have an AFD, a digital back, and a whole suite of glass.) </p>

<p>Looks like you're coming at it from the other direction, but equally haphazardly. :-) Have fun!</p>

<p>Interesting. A seach of Google and the forums doesn't turn up this topid.</p>

<p>Sounds like Tamron has some physical overhang on the lens that didn't interfere with older cameras? Again, I can't imagine a scenario where an adapter would fix anything. A file, on the other hand... ;-)</p>

<p>And the Sigma lenses I'm referring to are the really old ones. </p>

<p>I have the 28-300 and the 300 2.8. We'll see.</p>

<p>Ted,<br /><br />Where did you hear that those lenses won't work on the new camera? AFAIK, only really old Sigmas have problems on newer cameras, and that would include yours. <br /><br />Any lens that works on the A580 should work on newer cameras. No adapter would be possible, as it would affect the registration distance.<br /><br />Greg</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, lens-specific micro-focus-adjust is the one feature that I'd really want that the A77 has but the A65 doesn't. But the A65 <em>also</em> has the 1/250 s x-sync.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I read that the A65 only has 1/160 sync, which corresponds correctly with its 1/4000 max shutter. <br /><br />Deal killer for me...as is the micro-focus.</p>

<p>They're excessive if I don't want them, or if they result in unacceptable noise. :) But as I said, I would be happy shooting at 12mp, if need be. <br>

<br />I'm not going to get in computer debates. The fact is...the same files edited fine on LR2 and they don't now on LR3. That's a software issue, not a hardware issue. Having to upgrade my computer just to buy a new camera is arguably a bit excessive. I'll look into more memory, or just not running that memory hogging Firefox at the same time. <br /><br /><br />Coincidentally, Best Buy just called yesterday and said rather than replacing a loose flash shoe on my A700, they'll give me a new "comparable model". (Yes, they replaced the shoe when I broke it a year ago, and the new one never held my flash firmly). So, indications are that they'll have to upgrade me to an A77. I just hope I can get my "broken" A700 back for cheap. ;-)</p>

<p>My PC is new, but designed for efficiency, not speed. It worked FINE on LR2, and many have noted LR3 is much slower. 4gb of RAM should be plenty.</p>

<p>HDD space is cheap, but carrying 2x the storage than I need is still 2x more than I need. :) Having to changeout drives is also a pain. Having to upgrade multi-disc raids is also a pain. We don't all have enterprise storage that just allows us to "Voila!" pop in a new HDD to add a terabyte when we need one.<br>

<br />In fact, it's the NAS device that I use to explicitly hold all my large files (film scans and MFDB files) that results in even SLOWER editing times due to access speed. I can't put those files inside my computer lest I fill it up that much sooner.</p>

<p>You want to improve the A700 ergonomics and said they got worse. I'm saying what choice do you have? The ergonomics are better than any other Sony APS-C camera, so unless I want to buy a FF camera, I'm stuck with the A77.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sadly, the A700 ergonomics needed to be improved on, and they haven't they've been diluted further. Sony seems more focused on "wizz" and "bang" than refining a photographic tool - something I didn't think would be the case with a 7 series.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compared to what? A850/A900? I'm just saying I need a bigger camera with VG and NONE of the other APS-C SLR's work for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You don't <em>lose</em> anything by using a higher MP sensor, really</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You lose a lot of HDD space and, unfortunately with the new LR3, a LOT of time editing the files. I'm so incredibly frustrated with how slow Lightroom is now, particularly with larger files. 24mp would absolutely not work for me on my computer. LR2 was so much faster.</p>

<p>I'd say the excess of 24mp you speak of is exactly what makes the A65 NOT worth it in my opinion. It's the OTHER features of the A77 that make it worth the money, in spite of the sensor. <br /><br />The A700 ergonomics (dual wheel, vertical grip) plus the 1/250 sync, micro adjust focus, and probably a few other features are what make the A77 the only upgrade option for me. <br>

<br />The fact that both cameras have too many MP is a downer. ;) I guess I'll shoot at 12mp and hope it's better than my A700?</p>

<p>I'm not sure why I still shoot MF film...even to the point of collecting, lugging around, and occasionally hassling with my RZ67 instead of my 645AF. The workflow sucks, including having to wait 1-2 weeks for Walmart to develop my film, and then hassling with the lowly V500 scanner.</p>

<p>At best, I get a 30-40mp photo that I downsize to under the 12mp I get on my DSLR...to rarely print and usually keep on the screen. The sharpness is questionable, because the grain impacts my ability to sharpen, and my focusing was probably off in the first place.</p>

<p>BUT...I still get enough keepers (a higher percentage than with my DSLR) to keep me motivated. (Although I vascillate back and forth with each roll of results). In my case, I mainly shoot C-41 color, so I appreciate the highlight compression it affords me over digital (or slide film).<br>

<br />To complicate things further, I grabbed a 22mp digital back for my 645AF...so now I have a third option, in between DSLR and MF film. In many cases, it's no easier to use than film...but it kept me from buying a FF DSLR for a while.<br /><br /><br />Coincidentally, Best Buy wants to replace my A700 rather than fixing a minor niggle on it (???). So, it's possible that serendipity may deliver me an A77 in a few weeks, with its associated higher resolution (and TBD performance) over my MFDB. <br>

<br />If it puts the nail in the coffin of the MFDB, it's only a short leap of logic to argue the rest of the film gear should go. It'd free up a bunch of cash, for sure. :-)<br>

<br />So...we'll see...</p>

<p>Seems easy enough to determine if the defect is inside (as your local guys say), or outside (as Sigma claims). If it's outside, it should almost be able to be felt by touch.<br>

<br />If it's inside, you have a case. Although...how did it magically appear?</p>

<p>If outside, I think their case seems pretty solid.</p>

<p>I generally hate Sigma, but I'm inclined to side with them based on what I see so far.</p>

<p>Those points look to be in the "standard" position to me. I'd say they are meeting the rule of thirds, at least in the horizontal direction.</p>

<p>I'm fairly certain that the farther out a sensor is, the larger the aperture needs to be to feed it light. As an example, at f/6.3-f/8, only the central AF sensor works on the current cameras. So, if they put them further out, they would not function reliably.</p>

<p>And yes, current cameras have a dual display for batteries in the VG.</p>

<p>All good points, but they seem moot. The A900 is still available, new. Unless they discontinue it as well, the price is quite unlikely to increase. And until the next FF camera is announced, I wouldn't be too worried about it being pulled instantly off the shelves.</p>

<p>My biggest issues AGAINST getting the 850 or 900 are two....lack of on-board flash and reportedly poor JPG compression. Both features mean it couldn't "replace" my A700 for the bulk of my shooting, and would be a hanger queen used only for portraits and other non-snapshot work.</p>

<p>So, instead I spent the $1800 on a 24x36 22mp digital back for my Mamiya. It has all the disadvantages of the A850...tripled. ;-) It'll hold me over until I find a good FF Sony to use my Minolta glass on...or run out of film.</p>

<p>I haven't tried it, but heard it gets good reviews. One advantage of the newer lenses over the beercan (including the lowly 55-200mm that I do have) is that they have less CA than the beercan. I won't use the beercan in bright light, because it leaves harsh purple lines around any high contrast edges.</p>

<p>Wolf,</p>

<p>I got a cheaper solution for those people with unused RZ/RB lenses...buy an RZ or RB camera and use them on that. How's that for "simple"? :-)</p>

<p>Putting them on a 645 camera just crops out a bunch of the image and makes the whole process more difficult.</p>

<p>A "good photographer" wouldn't be letting those lenses sit unused, too, right? </p>

<p>From my experience having full sets of both 645 and RZ67 equipment, I can't see any logical reason to conjoin the two, hence my question.</p>

<p>Going further, to 35mm mount makes a bit of sense, since most people may have DSLR gear and not 645 gear. But, it crops out even more of the lens, making it even less useful. They argue this is beneficial, by using the "sweet spot". However, most people claim 35mm lenses are sharper to start with, so you're starting from a deficit.</p>

<p>There may be a few examples of RZ lenses (like the 180SF) providing benefits unattainable on 35mm, but for that price, it seems to be a stretch.</p>

<p>Are there any reasons worth $1500 and loss of autofocus and autoaperture where this would give that much better performance than a 645 lens?</p>

<p>I tested the 110mm RZ against the 645 and didn't see any meaningful difference.</p>

<p>And moreso, the Aptus 22/5 has a 48mm x 36mm sensor...and only 22mp. 9 micron pixels.</p>

<p>Now, that's a 10% linear dimiensional increase, or 20% on surface area. Not so trivial. :-)</p>

<p>Obviously making smaller sensors is cheaper, but I've never heard of a breakpoint for MFDB's. APS-C sensors, for example, can be made with a single pass using standard chipmaking equipment. FF sensors require multiple passes. Add that to all the cumulative effects of more defects per sq. in, more sq in for defects per chip, fewer chips per wafer, and a few other factors I can't recall, and you can see what the yield goes down exponentially as chip size goes up.</p>

<p>Why these few mm matter...I've no clue.</p>