dan_moore5

July 17, 2013

Hello,

Last week I dropped my Sigma 8-16mm lens. Aaaaahhh!!! Luckily, the glass survived. It landed on the metal lens cap ring, which bent badly, but the lens still works. It does however make a grinding sound when focusing. The focus still seems accurate, but it's slower and noisier.

My question is if any of you have experience with Sigma's customer support. I'm inclined to see if the lens can be fixed, but considering that it still works I don't want to pay through the nose or deal with a major hassle to get that done. Before I contact them I though I'd see if anyone had any experience/dire warnings about dealing with them.

Thanks!

-Dan

January 7, 2013

Hello,

I'm wondering if any of the later Minolta film bodies have a port for an electronic cable release that's the same as on my a77. I have a timed shutter release thingy (that's the technical term, I'm sure :-) ) that I use for doing time lapse on the a77. What I want to do is set up a film camera in the evening, set the timer to open the shutter a few hours later, after dark, take a hours-long exposure, have it close the shutter, and then await my return in the morning. I'm not inclined to leave my a77 out unattended all night, though I suppose I could set my a35 to do a series of exposures and then compile them in post, but the best solution seems to be a single exposure on film if the cable port could match.

Thanks in advance, -Dan

December 7, 2011

Thanks, Scott. Based upon the comments on here, and the reviews I've found on the web, it does seem that the 8-16 is the best choice for me.

Beyond that, does anyone have thoughts regarding a moderate telephoto? The Sigma 50-150 looks decent, especially for it's size, which is a meaningful aspect for me if I'm going to go hiking with the lens. Does anyone have experience with this lens? There are many 70-200 options out there, but I don't really want to give up the 50-70mm range if I don't have to, and they seems to be full frame lenses and much larger and heavier.

On the surface, the Sigma 8-16, Sony 16-50, and Sigma 50-150 would seem to set me up pretty well for landscape photography, and be a pretty portable combination.

December 1, 2011

Thanks for the reply. I picked up my a77 yesterday evening, and so far I'm really impressed. Not that I can say all that much about it after playing with it for about two hours last night, but it is easy to understand and I felt pretty comfortable with the controls almost immediately. The 16-50 does seem like a excellent lens too, certainly the build and function of it is what I was looking for.

As regards the ultra-wide, the Sigma 8-16 is my most likely option. Thanks for the input.

November 29, 2011

Building on this, can anyone comment one the various Sigma ultra-wides. I see there are several with a wide end between 8 and 10mm, followed by the alphabet soup of letters. Just yesterday I was in a local store to test out the a77, and I'm sold, so I'm selling off my Olympus gear (I've been wanting to abandon the sinking ship that is Olympus for some time now), and besides the new a77 and 12-50, the first thing I'll want to add is a reasonably priced ultra wide. Thanks in advance for your input.

November 1, 2011

Richard,

I've always felt that if you are going to add or change gear, it's wise to know what exactly you hope to get out of it. So, for instance, if you have a significant number of photos that are not coming out due to lack of dynamic range, then looking for a camera with better dynamic range makes sense as you know specifically what you will get out of it and what pictures will be improved. On the other hand if you look at your photos and dynamic range is rarely if ever an issue, but you just have a feeling that there's something better out there, then I think you'd be setting yourself up for disappointment if you spend money for new gear but were achieving the same results. The same case could be made for noise, resolution, etc.

We have so much information about cameras these days, I think it can really become a burden. Almost all the cameras out there are very, very good. It's not that differences don't matter, and if someone is buying into their first system I'd encourage them to get the most capable thing they can afford for what it is they want to do. That said, if someone has already invested in a bunch of gear, I'd encourage them to know exactly, in terms out output, it is they are going to get from the new gear before they spend the cash.

-Dan

March 31, 2011

Ilkka, good point on RAW. To be honest, more than anything I was attempting humor in saying that I'm too lazy to use RAW, it's really down to, for me, wanting to keep file sizes down and the fact that with the Oly jpg engine you gain very little extra range from shooting RAW. I've just never seen the benefit.

In terms of the work I've done on the photos in photoshop, here's what I've done:

Delicate Arch: Mostly just minor curves adjustments for brightness and contrast. I really actually did very little to this, with one big exception: Orion's stars. See, some clouds rolled in as I was taking photos from this angle (I took 5 or 6 exposures, this being the last one), and in that time the two bottom stars got covered up. I have real mixed feelings about adding or removing things in Photoshop, but I couldn't help myself here.

Mesa Arch: no camera in the world (to my knowledge) can capture the dynamic range needed to get the mountains on the horizon (I needed the 1/1000 exposure for that) and the shadows on the arch (1/30). So I used the Photoshop merge to HDR to bring 7 exposures together (I also tried Photomatix pro but didn't like it as well in this instance). I made three layers in Photoshop, two of the HDR version and one more of the, IIRC, 1/250 exposure, and did curves adjustments on each, focusing on different areas. Then I erased/blended areas together to get the effect I want. I spent a good few hours on this, and if it weren't for the mountains on the horizon, I could have done it with one RAW file and a few minutes of editing, I'm sure.

The Juniper: Didn't do to much. Jpg captured all the range I needed. I just used the Black & White conversion, adjusting the color sliders to get the values and contrasts I wanted, then to a little bit of dodging and burning.

All in all, I'm just not sure where I could have saved much time shooting RAW. Not that it doesn't have it's place, it's just not usually part of my work flow. In two of the above images I really made fairly minor changes (well, changing to B&W isn't minor, but it's not necessarily time-consuming), and the jpg was capturing the picture that I wanted. In the case of Mesa Arch, I have a hard time seeing how I was really going to save that much time shooting RAW, as I was still going to need multiple exposures to get what I wanted.

In the broad sense I see that you are right, that in certain (perhaps many) cases it would be easier to shoot a RAW file and work off that than trying to work off of a jpg. It's also possible I'm just not understanding the benefits of RAW, but it's rare that I have a photo and wish I could do something with it that I'm unable to do with a jpg.

March 30, 2011

Thanks all!

One note, I see I listed the shutter speed for the night shot as 1/30 of a second. I'm dumb. It was a 30 second exposure.

March 29, 2011

Thanks for the compliments!

Greg, #2 is indeed the "standard shot" for Mesa Arch, but with good reason. I have another one taken with the 9-18 from off to the right side of the arch which I've yet to work with yet, but which is a bit more of a unique angle and I think it should work well. Although, just how unique it is I don't know... I'm sure just about everything imaginable has been done with Mesa Arch at dawn.

Hosteen, I didn't camp overnight. Camping at Arches outside of the campground isn't allowed. It is about a 1.5 mile walk uphill from the trailhead to the arch, and a pretty well marked trail. I started at about 9:00 pm local time last Tuesday, and was back to the car by about 11:30. I think moonrise was at about 11:30 or 12, so I wanted to shoot in the window after dark but before the moon started to cast some light.

March 29, 2011

So, last week I ventured west to see some of western Colorado and eastern Utah. This is about my favorite part of the country. While I was there photographing away with my E-600, a couple of thoughts popped into my head:

1) This was my first extended use of my 12-60 SWD. Wow. I'm really glad I bought that.

2) The 40-150 kit lens is small. So, uh, I guess it's good for being small, but I really need to upgrade that. Not that you can't take a good photo with it, but when I look at one shot with even my 14-42 kit lens, and then another with the 40-150, there is (to me) a noticeable gap in quality.

3) I've had my 9-18mm for a while now, and it continues to impress. I'd like a 7-14, but this is so good that it allows me to hold off. That and the price of the 7-14.

4) I was out shooting at sunrise and sunset, usually with a tripod. But at almost every session, there'd be an angle I wanted to shoot where a tripod would be difficult to use. It is a moments like these where the 4/3 sensor really shines. I don't have to choose between a hand-holdable shutter speed and depth-of-field. I can have both. There were a couple of shots that I just don't know if I could have taken with a full-frame sensor due to this.

5) If I never have more than 12 megapixels, that's quite fine by me.

6) I shall never buy a camera without a tilt-swivel screen.

7) I'm much too lazy to shoot raw. I've always been pleased with super-fine jpg. I don't intend to change that now.

Now, I don't mean to come across as an Olympus fan-boy. In the end, some cameras have an advantage in one area and others in another, and it's up to the photographer to exploit the advantages of whatever they have. That said, every time I go out for any extended amount of shooting, I'm very happy with what Olympus has sold me, and I really doubt I'd produce significantly better results with another brand's cameras.

Finally, a few photos from the trip. I have a lot more to work through, but these ore the few that I've worked on to date.

Delicate Arch at night. 12-60mm at 12mm, f2.8 1/30 of a second, ISO 640. Brought a spotlight up with me.

Mesa Arch at Dawn. 12-60mm at 12mm, f8, ISO 200. The is 6 exposures between 1/30 and 1/1000 combined in various ways in Photoshop.

Juniper at Capitol Reef National Park. 12-60mm at 14mm. f8, 1/500, ISO 200. Made Black and White using the Image > Adjustments > Black & White tool in Photoshop.

February 8, 2011

Thanks all for the comparison between the SWD and non-SWD versions. That is very helpful to me.

February 7, 2011

Any thoughts on the SWD versus older non-SWD versions? As far as I can tell they are optically the same, is the extra cost of the SWD worth it?

February 7, 2011

I've done similar shooting with a Tokina 100-300 f4 (Minolta MD mount) on my E-600. The focus takes some practice, but I've been pretty pleased with the result. Did most of the shooting hand held, but in really good light so I was at about f8 and 1000th of a second. I don't hit them all right on, but with focus bracketing I was able to get a decent shot of most things. It's kind of fun, and you don't have to worry about the AF hunting!

December 28, 2010

I can only speak to the MD to 4/3 adapter I have. I got the one with the chip in it. The general build quality of the adapter is okay but the chip broke off. I could glue it back on easily enough, but in truth I found it to be nearly useless. Either I have time and I can zoom in in live view to get accurate focus, or I'm focusing on something moving and I don't have time to look and see if the little light is on to tell me that the subject is in focus. Either way, the chip is useless to me. In any case, manual focus is easier than I though it would be. Not that it's exactly easy... just easier than I thought.

The MD to 4/3 adapter is really thin, and you have to use an alan key to lock it on the lens. But it allows you to use the lens on a relatively larger camera with an optical viewfinder. The adapters to micro 4/3 and NEX are longer due the the cameras' shorter registration distance, so I'd guess those adapters are a bit less awkward to use. NEX also has an advantage of only a 1.5x crop versus 2x for 4/3 and micro 4/3.

I think all three should work reasonably well, it just depends on what you like best, as all three of these options have pluses and minuses. Oh, how I dream of a full-frame camera that can take an adapter for MD lenses with aperture control...

December 6, 2010

One of the reasons I bought an Olympus E-620 was so I could use some of my old Minolta MD glass. The 2x crop raises some issues, in that a lens like the 24 2.8 (my favorite film lens) becomes a not so special equivalent of 48 2.8... or in terms of depth of field, 48 5.6. I did some quick and unscientific tests (I had intended to do more, and never got around to it) which seemed to indicate that the Minolta lens was slightly better than the Olympus kit lens (mostly due to increased contrast), but in practical situations it's pretty much a wash, and the auto-focus and aperture control with the kit lens make up for it. So for me, in practical terms, the Minolta lenses aren't an advantage for wide-angle (well, essentially they there is no wide angle because of the crop factor, unless you want to mount a 17mm MD for a 34mm equivalent) through to normal focal lengths.

Now, in terms of portrait lenses, macro lenses and especially telephoto, my experience is different. I have a 50mm 1.4 MD that's pretty handy, and also a 50mm macro which performs very well. You can set up in live view, zoom in, and manual focus with precision and get excellent results. I also really enjoy my 135mm 2.8 MD, and my Tokina 100-300 f4 ATX. For the cost, try finding lenses that long and fast that perform that well! I'm linking to a couple of samples below. Sure, manual focus isn't always the easiest, but it really has gone better than I imagined it would. I just shoot a lot and focus-bracket. I just couldn't afford modern lenses like these, so the ability to use the MD lenses opens up opportunities I wouldn't otherwise have. In terms of image quality, I'd rate it as easily "good enough." At some point I'd like to upgrade to some of the Olympus telephotos, and I think I'd get better results with them, but I'm certainly happy enough with the Minolta glass that I'm in no hurry to spend $1,000 or $2,000 to upgrade.

Hope that helps.

Bison calf, taken with Tokina 100-300 f4 at 300mm and stopped down to f8: http://www.danillo.com/nationalparkphotography/yell006.htm

A few concert photos taken with the 135mm 2.8, wide open: http://nationalparksartist.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/having-fun-with-concert-photography/

August 27, 2010

"Insane. A lens with the light gathering ability and DOF of a 50mm f1.8 on FF..."

Actually, it has the field of view and depth of field of a 50 f1.8, but the light gathering of a f.95.

July 5, 2010

I'll add to those that have said the grip is useful form more than just holding an extra battery. In fact, the availability of the grip is one of the reasons I got an E-600. I've got pretty big hands, and was worried about the handling of such a small camera. The battery grip really helps with that, so now I have the option to use that or if I want to carry the minimum in bulk I can go without. I was recently shooting wildlife with the E-600 + vertical grip and my old Tokina 100-300 F4, Minolta MF mount (if you aren't familiar with that lens, it's a big boy), and found that the combo felt really good in my hands. And as Greg pointed out, the grip has a really nice storage spot for the door so you can't lose it if you use it as intended.

May 20, 2010

I really can't suggest anything. I know that my Minolta lenses work on my E-600. They actually work better than I expected. As Michael points out, the viewfinder is small, especially when compared to my X-700. I was worried about that. But in practice, both cameras are showing the image at 100%, and when focusing I'm usually concentrating on the thing I'm focusing on and not the whole frame, so any individual element appears the same size basically. It works better than I expected it would. Using the adapter is pretty easy, though the adapters to Micro 4/3 should be even easier because I don't believe they need the allen screw to hold the Minolta lens.

That said I've never used, held, or even seen a G-1 in person. I'm sure it's a great camera, and has some advantages and some disadvantages as compared to the E-600. I can't possibly begin to make a suggestion. All I can say is that I'm happy with my E-600, and that G-1 owners appear happy with their cameras too. I doubt you'll really go wrong.

May 19, 2010

refurbished

May 18, 2010

I can't compare to the 620 because I only have a 600, but it does everything I need and more. Mine was a similar deal to yours, and I'm very happy with it. Off the top of my head, one feature it lacks that the 620 has is back-lit buttons.

April 18, 2010

A few thoughts now that I've had the weekend to use the adapter:

1) My tests didn't go super well. The biggest thing is that the aperture pin on many of the MD lenses rubs against the plastic inside the E-600, so most of them need to have that filed down just a little bit in order to be stopped down. Because of this, with only a couple of exceptions, I could only test them wide-open. I also messed up the focus on a few of the shots with the Olympus lenses (I forgot I had it on manual focus). So hopefully in the next week I'll got those tests done and be able to post the results to my web site.

2) That said, I do have a few first impressions that I hope to verify later. The MD lenses performed really well. I suspect many of them will produce slightly better results than the 14-42 and 40-150. But that's in a controlled environment. In the real world I think the Olympus kit lenses will almost always outperform the Minoltas, with a few exceptions which I will touch on below. In the long run, I want to get a Olympus 12-60, and I'd be shocked if that doesn't outperform the Minoltas.

3) The Minolta 50mm Macro ROCKS. I can't compare it to the Olympus 50mm f2 macro, but it did really well, and I can't stop it down right now. I think stopped down a click or two, it will be really sharp. It's certainly good value for the money.

4) I took my Tokina 100-300 f4 to the zoo today, and am very impressed. Focusing was easy, the photos are sharp, and in this case too I can't stop it down yet. Once I take care of that and am able to stop down a stop or two, I think it's going to be outstanding. It will save me the $400 on the Olympus 70-300.

5) I need to do the depth-of-field comparisons, but naturally the faster lenses should do well there.

6) As notes elsewhere, the fast lenses with their large rear elements don't meter correctly wide open. Actual exposure needs to be a stop or two faster.

7) The focus-confirmation chip is borderline useless. Either you are shooting something that moves, like an animal, and you just don't have the time to fiddle with the little focus confirmation light, or you are doing something like a macro shot of a flower and have plenty of time to adjust the focus. Others opinions may vary, but I'd save the $50 or whatever and just get the mechanical coupler. Also, the focus assist pin on the MD lenses hits the focus confirmation chip, which is a problem with some lenses.

8) Focal length is not saved in the EXIF data.

April 13, 2010

Hmmm.... Dan Moore... dan Mar... maybe we are the same person, and this is an episode of the Twilight Zone!

Do do do do. Do do do do...

April 12, 2010

I do have the adapter with the focus confirmation, and that helps, but it's not perfect. With a moving animal you can't exactly fiddle with the light to get focus. So I think it will help for some uses and not for others.

I will make sure to post things with the 35mm.

All of my Minolta lenses are MD. I had more of a mix of things but decided to narrow my collection to the MD versions. My Minolta camera is an X-700, so that seemed to make sense. Plus, the MD Rokkor or Rokkor-X versions seem to be more sought after, so I often can get the plain MD version for a bit less, sometimes for basically the exact same thing (but sometimes not).

April 12, 2010

I'll keep you posted, dan Mar. I got the adapter today, so I went on kitty safari around the house. The following were taken with my 50 1.4. This was taken (if I remember right) wide open, 1/30 second (aperture priority), ISO 800. It's back-lit a bit, but that's okay for the purposes of the picture.

Here's a detail:

It'll take some getting used to the focusing, but it seems doable. Certainly if you have a bit of time to use live view and zoom in to refine the focus, this seems like it will do quite well. Focus bracketing is a good idea, and that's how I got the focusing right here.

I did take a couple of quick shots with the 35mm 1.8 and it seemed good. I think it would be an excellent portrait lens. I don't have anything to post but I will down the road.

April 12, 2010

You stated that you are familiar with Minolta glass, so this many not be of great help to you, but it may be.

I have had my E-600 for a few weeks now, and will be getting my MD to 4/3 adapter this week. So this weekend or next I'm going to go out and shoot some comparisons between the Olympus 14-42 and 40-150 kit lenses versus my Minolta MD glass (I'll shoot with my 24 2.8, 35 1.8, 50 1.4 and 50 3.5 macro, 85 2, 135 2.8, and probably some with my Tokina ATX 100-300 4, though that's obviously a longer lens than the Olympus so only comparable at the short end). I'll make a review page for this on my website and put up a link to it here. It's not going to be the most rigorous test in the world, but it should give you some idea how the Minolta lenses (in your case, the 50 1.4 in particular) do.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by dan_moore5