douglas_ferling

<p>The way I understand it, SSS still works without a chipped adapter on the A900, but, because the lens doesn't communicate to the camera the focal length, the camera uses a generic setting for 50mm lenses. With my Hasselblad 150 lens mounted on the A900 via chipless adapter, I've noticed an improvement in shake with SSS switched on in my brief tests.</p>

<p>p.s. the Zeiss Jena 35mm 2.4 and 135mm 4.5 are really good m42 lenses. Granted, the Jenna 135 isn't nearly as good as the ZA 135 at wide apertures, but at f8 they're not far off.</p>

I hope you're right, Howard. I can wait another few weeks for the fullframe at this point.

Here's the deal with the A900 24MP. If you export the RAW at 12MP, or shoot jpeg 12MP, or sony provides a smaller cRAW at only 12MP, this camera will be very close to the Nikon D3 in performance. It is misleading to think that 24MP will be incredibly noisy, because you shouldn't compare crops between a 24MP and 12MP sensor at 100%. You should compare them at the same size. The D3 and 1Ds III are very similar in noise when both are compared at 12MP, and the 1Ds III has the ability to go to a much higher resolution. Sensor size and technology have to do with noise more than pixel size does.

Yep. Where do I sign? I've been waiting for this thing for a year.

There is no A800 waiting in the wings. Wishful thinking only.

Uh, I think this thread may be at the risk of being too much information for the OP.

Jania, welcome to the forum. The above posters are correct about the 50mm 1.7 Minolta autofocus lens. The kit lenses that come with all of the entry level DSLRs, including your nice A200, are not made to handle much with low light photography, and that 50mm is the cheapest way to enter that world. Your kit lens will work well in good lighting or flash scenarios, but you need a fast prime for lowlight. Besides, buying more lenses is one of the main advantages of DSLRs in the first place. Good luck! :)

I would imagine that high ISO wouldn't be too much of an issue if your friend is opening a studio. The Nikon D3x is only rumor at this point, whereas the A900 has been shown for 6 months, but, assuming the D3x is a reality, neither it nor the A900 will have high ISO like the D3. Very different cameras for different uses.

 

Sony's current fullframe Zeiss lenses are testing better than anything out there, and more are on the way. Those lenses, combined with a ~$3000 24MP fullframe, are focused directly at a shooter like your friend. I'm moving away from medium format to the Sony system for this very reason.

Looks like the actual camera will be called Alpha Pro. Check this:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=28011763

There is a setting in the menus that allows your lens to be mounted, but I don't have the camera in front of me, so I don't remember what it's called.

Cool, thanks!

What film?

I agree with that link...mostly. I think a light meter is overkill in most situations, but if you're a studio shooter, time is of the essence. Getting light ratios down with a lightmeter is a big time saver. Plus, it looks unprofessional to a client to shoot and reshoot a million times in order to get ratios correct.

 

Either way, it doesn't sound like you need one for your purposes.

I shoot Sony and Hasselblad, and I've been pretty impressed with the A700 and Zeiss lenses plus Alien Ware's Exposure 2 plug-in. The Hasselblad's are getting a bit dusty now, and, when the FF comes, they will be reserved for very few fine art projects, but that's about it.

 

I recommend all film to digital converts to check out Exposure 2. It gets really close to that special something that film has.

I see the bias with salesmen, but that's changing. Most pros don't have much digital camera brand bias, because, unless you're shooting an H3D II, your playing with toys anyway. lol.

Ilkka, there are lots of reviews of the CZ 24-70 now, and most are saying it's the sharpest zoom in that range from anyone. In my case, the sharpness, micro contrast and overall look of this lens is much better than my 28-75 2.8, and this lens is proving sharper than the Canon L (not that great to begin with) and Nikon 24-70 as well. When we get the fullframe, this lens will really show what it can do. The Canon L and 28-75 2.8 are comparable on APS-C, but the L trounces the 28-75 on fullframe, and that is why I replaced it with the Zeiss.

Absolutely. This is all speculation from me. The only other rumors I've heard were from forum posters last November saying that some kind of Sony "engineer" or something said Sony was building a more cost effective 70-200mm. Who knows???

There are reasons to replace the current G. It's manufacturing is expensive, and the price reflects that. Also, with the Zeiss 24-70, it would make since to add a Zeiss 70-200mm with the same IQ and "look" to cement the system. The Sony 70-200G is a great lens, but I'd bet a replacement is coming.

The 24-70 Zeiss is similar in price to the Nikon 24-70. The 70-300G is a completely different range of lens with a variable aperture, and it is hardly worth comparing it to the 24-70. The 24-70 is the best lens I've ever owned. My primes are getting very little use now.

Weird. I don't read anything snotty in the above posts. Just sounds like some people trying to prevent you from damaging your equipment. :)

I have both the KM 28-75 and the CZ 24-70. They are definitely in a different league.

I take popphoto, like all review mags, with a grain of salt, but they released

a review of the Zeiss 24-70mm 2.8. "Undeniable best-in-class showing" pretty

much says it all. Tests better than both Canon and Nikon. I thought there was

a reason why my other lenses have to beg me to take the 24-70 off of my camera :)

 

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/lens-test-sony-24-70mm-f28-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-za-ssm-af.html

I'm digging my current hybrid system of the 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, Zeiss 85mm 1.4, and Zeiss 135mm 3.5 m42, being supplemented by the CZ 24-70 and the 70-210 f4. I may get the CZ 135mm 1.8 down the road, but my m42 is ok. I don't really need much else, except maybe more wide angle, and the full frame will take care of that should I opt for it. Ultimately, the 24-70 is appropriate for 75% of my type of shooting.

I think he was being sarcastic about the lightmeter, no?

You will undoubtedly start a flame war with this question. I use both PC and Mac, and I find little difference between them. I usually use MAC laptops and PC home computers. Remember, if you primarily use Adobe programs like CS3 and Lightroom, they are system RAM dependent, so getting a good graphics card for them isn't necessary, however Apple's Aperture does use more graphics card power.