fotolopithecus

True, but by that logic you can say any zoom range less than another is less useful, and then we'd all be attaching telescopes to our cameras.

I believe it's been done before. I'm not against it as long as the front, and rear elements are glass to prevent them from being so easily scratched. Otherwise, anything that saves weight without sacrificing optical IQ is fine with me.

Yeah, my primary interest is to have something a little more versatile, small, and light weight, which is still optically reasonable. It seems almost to good to be true, even having a weather sealing gasket on the lens mount. I do love the 40mm, but it's a bit limiting sometimes walking around. I'll never give the Zeiss up though I made that mistake once before when I sold off my Zeiss 35-70 f/3.4. I'm still kicking myself over that one.

because of the size, weight, and reported very good performance. I have a Zeiss 40mm on my A7RIII right now, but while not bad is still too big, and heavy, for the body in my estimation. If the new zoom is as good as claims it should be the perfect walk around lens if you're not a bokeh aficionado. Anyone else planning on getting this lens?

You need to see Blad the Repairer. Just joking, wish I could help, but there must be many such places that repair them. Ask Hasselblad for some names, they must have them.

My cameras are already better company than most people, who knows where talking to cameras could lead us.......nowhere good according to the Mrs.

It can, that's what I like about it. Read what I wrote to Mike for why I want something else.

Thanks Mike, Well my primary motivation for wanting to change is the hassle I encountered when putting Lightroom on a new pc. I was forced to register it again by the dvd which caused the software to think I had a fake copy. Then when I straightened that out via phone with adobe my LR software wouldn't update to the 6.14 which was one of their last, and included my camera. Finally Again, I got them on the phone, and they gave me a link to get the 6.14 which I did have previously. It seems if you try to update your LR via updates it tells you you have the last update, but you don't. My thinking is that they're playing games with people that own their copy of LR, but who knows. I've also read on line that some are encountering bugs in their copies because Adobe hasn't paid other companies lic fees to keep LR operating properly. I haven't experienced any of that so far, but who knows what's next.

I want to replace my Lightroom 6 with something also non subscription, which is similar, and in particular can import directly from the camera via usb cable, because I don't like taking cards out. I mainly use Sony A7RIII, and A7III cameras, and would appreciate any suggestions you might have. Quality of results being quite important to me as well.

Thanks I think that's the guy.

Years ago in the eighties there was a popular photographer who did magazine ads for Bacardi rum......I think. I remember these great beach scenes of Bacardi bottles drawn in the sand, and other miniature type shots done in studio. I might have my information messed up, or be having confused memories because I can't find anything on him or these what seemed like great images he took. Anyone remember this guy?

I have an A7lll, and if it were me I'd just make sure it had lots of soft stuff around the camera to absorb vibration. There is a sensor lock down for cleaning purposes, but the camera would have to be on in that mode, and would probably drain the battery quickly.

So I called Tamron, and they told me at issue is something called carbon black I believe. They said it's in many everyday items people use. I asked them if the lens is safe to use, but they wouldn't say. I asked them if it's in other lenses, but again they wouldn't, or couldn't say. I got the impression that it's something they don't want to talk about. From a little research I've done it's apparently used to color things, and strengthen some other stuff. It would be nice to know if the lens is safe to use for sure, and if any of you have new lenses of any brand bought in CA I'd be interested if such a warning sticker is on the box. Possibly the lens would have to be black in color, or with black rubber on it somewhere. I'd probably think that it's not dangerous, as the only thing I've seen about it referenced breathing it in during manufacture, but the unwillingness to say it's safe do make one wonder.

No, go ask Alice

I have no problem with the warning as long as they expand on what they're talking about in a particular case, and if the lens is safe to use as intended. Otherwise they're just stoking paranoia.

Thanks Ed, I remember the radioactive lenses, and was worried that it could be something like that. In any event, it's really a shame they couldn't be a little more descriptive on what they're talking about.

I took out the Fairly new Tamron 28-75 2.8 zoom the other day to put on my Sony A7RIII and noticed the following sticker on the box. " WARNING! Cancer and reproductive harm. www.P65Warnings.CA.gov. This is disconcerting, and I wonder if anyone else has noticed it, and knows what it's all about. Tried calling Tamron, but they were either closed or didn't answer the phone, called Adorama, but they didn't know anything about it either. Bottom line I ain't using it until I know what the Heck this is about.

Indoors in Winter, because I hate cold grey weather, and outdoors the rest of the year. I had lights, but threw them out years ago when I moved. Now it's mostly just light from windows or lamps, etc. I may buy some new lights next year as Winter here is quite long especially this year.

No doubt that would have gotten more responses.

Thanks Ed, and as I anticipated this topic is burning up the boards! :rolleyes:

I remember a few years ago reading about how the removal of lead from solder would result in whiskers growing within electrical devices such as cameras resulting in shorts. Given the ever shrinking size of cameras, and Mirror-less in particular, I've wondered why we haven't heard much, or anything, about the issue since. Supposedly the problem would be more pronounced in either cold , or hot conditions I cant remember. Anyway, have they done something to render the condition a nonissue?

I don't think I'll be entertaining any of your suggestions, but thanks all the same.

Can't help what it sounds like to you Fred, it's the truth as I see it.

It's hilarious that Millennials think that film is complicated ancient technology. I thought it was a lot easier to understand than the menus of endless useless features on digital cameras.