gregory_king1

<p>As Rich said, what's the concern with using a zoom? I find no advantage to using a prime below 28mm. The zooms aren't much slower, and you're using shooting stopped down anyways. Most importantly, framing at wide angles is much more finicky with respect to focal length, so having that adjustment capability is more important than edge-to-edge sharpness.</p>

<p>But then, I don't shoot landscapes. :-) </p>

<p>The camera and kit lens are fairly basic. Don't expect much from the photos. But all SLR image quality is based on the lens (and film)...since the body just helps you get there.</p>

<p>100-300 is 50% longer than 70-200...so you get more reach. </p>

<p>The A55 is too small for me. Physically, it could never be comfortable to hold. Until they get a form factor similar to the A700 w/grip, I'll stick with what I have.</p>

<p>Question is...what do you need beyond your A350?</p>

<p>Last I checked, that's about going rate. If you are going to shoot just film, you might be able to get a 645AF model for more like $600. The D model just adds digital capability, but finding a cheap back these days is like finding hens' teeth.</p>

<p>The RZ lenses are electronic (shutter timing). The RB have mechanical shutter controls on the lens. The RZ's do not.</p>

<p>Find a 35/2. It's exactly what you're looking for. They are hard to find, though...and will run $400-600.</p>

<p>However, if you're looking for the same FOV as 35mm on film, you'll need a 24mm lens. The Minolta 24/2.8 isn't that good unless it's stopped down. The best one these days is the CZ 24/2.</p>

<p>Ouch...I thought it would be closer to the $99 I paid for their 35mm scanner that did a decent job.</p>

<p>for that price, I'll stick with 2000-2400 dpi from my $200 Epson V500. The whole reason I shoot 120 is that it's so much more forgiving to scan than 35mm. You can print pretty big out of 6x7 at 2400dpi, and 3200dpi isn't that much of a jump.</p>

<p>Yes, there are other benefits to scanning with an expensive scanner, but I compared my lowly scanner to a $10,000 Tango drum scan of the same Kodachrome slide, and didn't see a stark difference. If something as hard to scan as K-14 doesn't show serious flaws vs the best scanner available, I'd expect almost no visible difference between the V500 and this puppy.</p>

 

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>Never shot video, huh? It's been electronic viewfinders on those for 20+ years. :-)</p>

<p>I just looked through one the other day, and it was fine. It is similar to looking through a video camera, but higher resolution. I didn't use it enough to see if it smeared at high panning rates.</p>

<p>Some of the advantages? Auto gain-up in low light. Exact DOF/bokeh preview (optical viewfinders overestimate DOF). Exact preview of exposure settings. No blackout during shooting. Stuff like that.</p>

<p>Not ready to jump on one yet, but I suspect my next camera will be a SLT.</p>

<p>The AFD II and III seem to command higher resale values, but I'm not sure why. Reportedly, only the AFD III only has noticeably better AF value.</p>

<p>I have an AFD and it works well enough. No need to upgrade.</p>

<p> </p>

Get a Mirex adapter, and some 645 lenses. I have one, but have yet to use it.

<p>Well, you can check the histogram right on the screen, which will give you better results than any light meter, no?<br>

<br />I have mine and never use it. Too lazy or in a rush. Maybe just for tuning strobes when doing studio shots.</p>

<p>Melissa,<br>

Yeah, I hear ya. I think some of that may be the A-S mode. IIRC, the camera can be set to area mode or spot mode, or in "both" mode, it takes an area calculation unless it's more than 2 stops different, and then it reverts to "spot". Something like that. That could be causing the problem.</p>

<p>In my limited experience, I set the exposure to manual (and ignore the meter) if I need consistent exposure and/or am using flash to fill. Either way can work for you, especially since you have a display to show your results.<br>

<br />With my MFDB, I have to use an Ipaq to review results, so I'm envious. ;-)</p>

<p>Richard,<br /><br />You forgot to read the rest of my sentence...."you have to back up to maintain the same framing". The problem with all these arguments/myths that everyone throws about is that they are comparing essentially DIFFERENT photos. In my opinion, that's absurd.<br /><br />Read his next myth...ironically, it was my point.<br /><br />"Bokeh effect" and "DOF" could be interpreted differently, and yes, I'd say "bokeh effect" is more pronounced with longer lenses, because it minimizes the background. But I prefer to include the background, just to blur it. So I prefer shorter lenses.</p>

<p>It's all moot, though, since he already tried the 50mm and didn't like it. :-)</p>

<p>And your reference to the 35mm 1.8 means something different if you're using it on film, or on an APS-C sensor. The distortions should be similar to a 50mm on FF if used on a crop, no?</p>

<p>And coincidentally, I find no issues with using it on film either...although I sold it after taking this last shot on Kodachrome...</p>

<p><img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13033173-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="421" /></p>

<p>Melissa,</p>

<p>I'm confused. I thought the point of shooting in manual mode was to essentially ignore those meter fluctuations and do an effective exposure lock at whatever EV you pick.<br /><br />However, if you shoot moving subjects (as I do), using an automatic mode will help. Adjust the EV compensation a bit to deal with overexposure. Remember, the dynamic range on your back is less than film, so it may stand to reason that the camera would naturally clip highlights that would be fine on film.</p>

<p>Av mode adjusts shutter speed to the correct exposure for your selected aperture. Manual mode, you have to adjust both manully.</p>

<p>Will and Ikka,<br>

<br />You apparently didn't read his post clearly. He said he has used the 50mm already and it's too long. So stop telling him to get a 50mm. He wants a lens to do full body shots.</p>

<p>And Will, longer focal length does NOT offset smaller aperture. Any f/1.7 lens will ALWAYS provide shallower DOF than any f/2.8 lens, regardless of focal length, when shot at the same framing/magnification. Check the math.</p>

<p>A longer focal length lens adjusts perspective and changes the magnification of the OOF highlights, but the DOF is the same because you have to back up to keep the same framing.</p>

<p>I get plenty of bokeh with my 35 1.4, and I have no problems with perspective.</p>

<p>Good logic. I think you'll be very happy. I have the 35 1.4 and it does what you want. </p>

<p>Might be better to get it from Amazon, though. Free shipping and all.</p>

<p>Rich,</p>

<p>True. I guess I should have said which one is BETTER is arguable. Most seem to say the CZ is colder and more clinical, the Minolta warmer and cozier.</p>

<p>One thought to consider is the 100/2. I find it sharper than the 85/1.4. It's rarer, but usually runs about the same price. If you can find one, it's a reasonable alternate choice.</p>

<p>There's obviously a lot of perceived difference between the Minoltas and the CZ. How much of it is real is arguable. ;) I haven't used the CZ, so I can't comment.</p>

<p>The three Minolta versions are optically similar, if not indistinguishable. (I'll ignore the LE, since it's a hen's tooth". The RS and G(D) are smoother looking and have circular(er?) apertures. The G(D) also has ADI, but you'll rarely use it.<br>

<br />Having shot all three, I didn't see a noticeable difference. They seem to run $600-700 for the original depending on condition, with $100 and $200 premiums for the later models respectively.</p>

<p>PL401 is the cable, I think. It's the one that came with my 150mm.</p>

<p>You're shooting film at a wedding? Impressive. :-)</p>

<p>The lens will communicate the aperture to the camera at all times. This will allow the meter to provide the correct shutter speed, which will be shown on the display. This shutter speed can either be used automatically (in F mode) or set manually in leaf mode on the lens. </p>

<p>So the display will show the selected shutter speed (1/8 or whatever, to ensure proper leaf operation), but the blinking cursor will show the metered speed suggestion from the prism.</p>

<p>I don't think you need to recock the lens in F mode, but yes, you'll need to recock in leaf mode.</p>

<p>Right. The number in parenthesis is the minimum aperture, which is (usually?) constant on all lenses, and rarely important.</p>

<p>Any numbers stated as a range, with a dash, are the maximum apertures available at the end of the zoom range. Some zooms (and obviously all primes) have a single number for maximum aperture, since it never changes.</p>

<p>If it's autofocus for the Minolta mount, it'll fit. If it's Minolta, it'll work. If it's Sigma, and older, it may not.</p>

<p>Most of us use old Minolta lenses. I only have a couple Sony lenses.</p>

<p>The 17-50 is a constant 2.8. I'd go with that one. HSM...meh. ;)</p>

<p>I would think not as well...the Aptus II reportedly doesn't use one, and AFAIK it's the same sensor.<br /><br />However, the Valeo 22 (same sensor as well, I think) I have seems to require more sharpening than my old Phase H10. Why that is, I'm not sure. </p>

<p>The 7000i has the new Minolta/Sony shoe, but not the wireless protocol. So you get the worst of both worlds...the unique shoe (that won't fit your 4000AF or most triggers), and still no wireless protocol like the 7xi and newer.</p>

<p>You can use a wireless trigger either with adapter, with PC cord, or one designed for that shoe. They have them on Ebay. There's another current thread on here with similar issues.</p>