douglas_ferling
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by douglas_ferling
-
-
IMHO Get the Sony A200 and add the Zeiss 16-80mm. It'll be around $1300, but you'll have a leading entry level cam with one of the best zooms available....plus it will be stabilized. You could always sell the kit lens that comes with the A200 for a hundred bucks to get down to $1200.
Go here:
-
Go to Berger Bros. Good sellers with the best deals.
-
The A700 is a large step up in camera to the A350, and it has some of the best ergonomics available. Think Nikon D300-lite.
-
I used to have a digital back. They are the ultimate in image quality, but aren't very versatile and are very expensive. I would go with the Canon 1Ds III, or do what I'm doing and wait for the 24.6MP Sony full-frame in August. It should be around $3000 US :)
-
Yep. The most solid fact/rumors say 24.6MP, in-body stabilization, body a smidgen bigger than the Sony A700, expect a price between $3000-$4000 US. I'm planning on buying it, as it looks to be an affordable alternative to medium format digital and the Canon 1Ds III.
-
They've already released 3 full-frame Zeiss autofocus lenses for Sony that are top flight. They have different formulas compared to the Nikon ZF lenses (ZA look to be better at the edges.) The Sony's are ZA.
85mm 1.4 ~$1280
135mm 1.8 ~$1350
24-70mm 2.8 ~$1750
There is also a lower end Zeiss zoom with a plastic build for APS-C cameras that has very good optics as well. It's a 16-80mm 3.5-4.5
Allegedly, three more Zeiss' are coming this year, and from the prototypes I've seen, I'm guessing a f2.8 wide-angle zoom, and two wide angle primes. I can't wait for the full frame camera :)
-
I hope so! The mock-up lenses look to also include a fast wide angle zoom and some wide angle primes. I have CZ 24-70 and CZ 85mm, and adding a wide angle 2.8 zoom and the 135mm will give me all that I need for the kind of studio/portrait work that I do :)
-
btw. the newest rumor from someone that tends to be in the know is the flagship will be shown at Photokina with 3 new Zeiss lenses and 3 new G SSM lenses. ah, don't you love speculation. lol.
-
Agreed, Tim. It looks like Sony is gonna build their users from the ground up with their consumer DSLRs, and this "A9" is gonna be exactly what it's label indicates. A flagship. There needs to be a camera like this at the top of the line to attract entry-level people. Canon does a good job with this with their 1 and 5 series and their huge lens line-up. Every time you ask a Canon user which entry-level DSLR to buy, they're gonna say Canon because of the lens selection and the upgrade path, but we all know that the large majority of users only buy a couple of lenses and never even think about spending over $3K for a body. The appeal of the line draws people in.
Sony will no doubt expand their top-end once they have some time in the market. When you look at their pro HD cam line-up and professional services, it's obvious that Sony has the wherewithal and infrastructure to have a pro DSLR line. IMO it's just a matter of time.
There is no way that the kind of pro that has a gigantic Canon system with 20 lenses and 4 bodies is gonna waste their time with the "A9," but there are lot of pros that I know that have a few smaller camera systems using different formats, and I would imagine this kind of independent pro will be interested in the "A9." I certainly will be.
-
I realize it is ALL speculation, but this is info from the rep at PMA, take it or leave it. We don't know if Sony is licensing the chip or not. My guess is yes, but in an expensive Nikon D3x.
When I said the Sony will be $2K-$5K cheaper than the Nikon/Canon equivalents, I was talking about megapixel equivalent, meaning the 1Ds III and the possible D3x, and the Sony will have an aggressive price compared to those two. I know of a lot of people that would love a 1Ds III for the resolution, but don't need the other bells and whistles of the 1D series, and can't put up the $8K. A 25MP for ~$3500 is a very aggressive price. Suddenly, Canon will have to answer why the 1Ds III has such a premium price over the 1D III.
Here is my speculation for the full-frame (plus the 1D III) cameras, and it shows why the Sony has a nice slot to fill:
Canon 1Ds III 21MP $8000
Nikon D3x 25MP >$5000
Nikon D3 12MP $5000
Canon 1D III 12MP $4500
Sony "A9" 25MP ~$3200
Canon 5D "II" ~16MP ~$3200
I realize the next 5D will blow away the "A9" in sales, and more people will want the better high ISO of the lower megapixels, but I think the Sony will attract some buyers for fashion, landscape, interiors, etc., and should do ok. If Nikon brings a D3x, Canon will have it's hands full.
-
I couldn't disagree with you more. The Sony full-frame will be aggressively marketed if the price for 25MP is around $3200. Don't forget the 5D was around that price originally, and the 5D replacement will more than likely be near that price as well, if not a touch less.
As far as Nikon is concerned, I think it depends how they use the chip. If Nikon uses it for a fully pro D3x at $5K+, then the Sony will have a comfortable niche as a high MP, affordable camera. Similar to how the A700 is 95% of the D300 for 75% of the money. If Nikon releases a D300 style camera with full-frame, then I think the Sony will struggle more if the Nikon and Sony are close in price. I'd bet the former is true.
As far as studio shooters are concerned, Sony stated at PMA that the flagship is geared towards independent pros who need affordable resolution. Like I said earlier, if this cam is $2K-$5K cheaper than the Nikon/Canon equivalents, I know many will bite. Especially medium format shooters that I've worked with who shoot with multiple systems and could care less about dropping a few grand on the Sony and some Zeiss lenses. I think some pros will add this camera to their lineup rather than switching entire systems.
Which brings me to another point....Zeiss AF lenses. These are the real deal (minus the plastic 16-80mm made for APS-C,) and I've heard a lot of pro interest in the Sony FF because of them.
I know few fashion photographers that always use a tripod, btw.
-
BTW. I doubt the Sony camera won't be "GOOD," considering the A700 stacks up well against the 40D and D300, and this new flagship is going to take on the 5D replacement camera.
-
Andrew, the camera shown at PMA '08 is more than just a "mock-up under glass." This year's camera is a (allegedly) functional prototype that has both 24.6MP and image stabilization, and has changed quite a bit since the "mock-up." Are you thinking of LAST year's PMA??
-
I think the 25mp is pretty aggressive. Only thing close to it in resolution will be the $8K, 21MP 1Ds III. If the Sony is around the same price as the upcoming 5D replacement (like has been implied by Sony,) it will be very competitive...especially for studio shooters.
-
It really isn't too big of a camera. Looks to be just a bit larger than the A700, and I agree about the consistency of the design. It's kind of a A700 XL :)
-
I think you're right, although this year's "prototype" has changed quite a bit from last years "mock-up." The prototype is working, allegedly.
-
Here is a cool video from P.I.E. '08 in China. Looks like the top LCD has a
sticker (it says f1.8 for an f2.8 lens,) but I'd bet this camera is getting
close to being ready. Also, is the back LCD larger than 3"??
-
Agreed that Canon and Nikon is the way to go for sports, but the OP is doing landscape, art, weddings and portraits. Sony is great for that.
-
I was confronted with this same question, because both of the cameras are great. I was shooting medium format film, and had decided to give DSLRs a try in 2006 with the A100. I liked the camera, but knew that I would be upgrading rather soon. This past fall, I had to decide between the A700 and D300. The D300 has a bigger feature set, however, taking into account my kind of shooting, I realized that most of them wouldn't be used, and it was missing a MAJOR feature that I love for low-light portraits. Super Steady Shot. The image quality between the D300 and A700 is basically a wash, so deciding which features you'll actually use is what's important.
Canon and Nikon people love to tell you that Sony's lens line-up is limited, but it really just depends on what you need. For me personally, there are more than enough lenses from Sony/Minolta to suit any shooting that I do (plus more are coming.) I've got a couple of the new Zeiss lenses for the A700, and I would put that up against the D300 with any lens, any day. Now, we get to wait on a 25mp full frame :)
-
-
BTW. Here is a nice link about the 135mm STF. The last paragraph is particularly interesting ;)
-
The newer 50mm 1.4 from the '90s also added the circular aperture for more pleasing bokeh.
-
Yeah, I do portrait/fashion part-time, and I assist for a relatively well known photographer on days off. I'm lucky to live in Los Angeles, so I think with the right dedication I can eventually make a living with it.
I really hate to sell the CZ 85mm, but I can't afford to keep it if I get the 70-200. The 85mm is a near perfect lens, but I've gotta figure out the best IQ for the money, and right now I can't afford it. Now that I'm pretty sure what I want my photography focus to be, I think the 24-70 and 70-200 will cover most of it, and I'll have to put off an all primes line-up till later.
m42 primes are a great option. I dropped a bit of money on the Haoda Fu adapter, but it activates the green focus confirmation light in the viewfinder, as well as tells the SSS what focal length the lens is, so I think it was worth it. I'll have to look at that Takumar 85.
--d
-
Richard, times are changing for me. I'm thinking about getting rid of a couple of primes! I've been doing more and more portraiture/fashion, and I'm realizing that the speed of zooms is good for that with my limited studio space, so I just, gulp, ordered the CZ 24-70mm. I've been giving it some thought, and I may just go ahead and sell my KM 28-75 2.8, KM 24mm 2.8, beercan, and CZ 85mm 1.4 and buy the darn 70-200 SSM. The 85mm will be very hard to loose, but it is not a great focal length for me in my studio, so I think I'd be ok (i could always get another one later.)
I'd be left with a KM 20 2.8, 50 1.4 for lowlight, Zeiss 135mm m42, CZ 24-70mm, and the 70-200 SSM. I don't think that Sony is gonna do a Zeiss 70-200 anytime soon, so I may as well just get the G. What do you think...other than I'm gonna be broke! lol
SAL-70300 G series
in Sony/Minolta
Posted