 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2007Sony Alpha A-100 - Quality?????
I recently purchased a Sony Alpha A-100 DSLR camera and just learning the ins and outs. I have the following lenses with my old Minolta Maxxum 9000 that I have been using with it. Phoenix 1:4.0-6.3 28-300mm 77mm face thread Minolta AF 28-80 1:3.5(22) - 5.6 D 55mm face thread Vivitar 500mm f/8 1:2.7 x Macro Focusing 72mm face thread The main lens I have been using is the Phoenix as the zoom range is good across the board. I have had the camera a couple months and so far I have been rather disappointed with the quality of the shots. I have used it indoors with the Minolta AF lens and those shots appear much higher quality then the Phoenix but I got good shots with the Phoenix with the 35mm Maxxum 9000. The 500mm (and I have a doubler to make it 1000mm) is just too much magnification even when using it on a tripod. I had a Konika Minolta Z3 that I had been using for years and got crisp clear shots all the time and with the 10X optical and super macro I had the whole range across the board. I was thinking the A-100 would improve the quality of my shots but so far it's not proven itself to me. Not sure if it's the lens, the settings or the operator (I know a lot is the operator but he's learning). On the automatic setting many of my shots are washed out so I learned how to manually step down the aperture but on the small camera screen it's hard to tell exactly the effect you had. On the Z3 you could see the captured image in the eyepiece and since ambient light was blocked out you could get a good feel for what you just did. But the main thing is the images do not appear very crisp, even when taken in full sunlight. And often the auto focus is not focused very well at all. I have been playing with the focus settings for spot, etc, and ISO settings (using 100 for outdoor stuff) but still don't see the quality I'd like. Not sure if the lens, or maybe the filter, might have something to do with it, too. Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated!!!! >I recently purchased a Sony Alpha A-100 DSLR camera and just learning > the ins and outs. I have the following lenses with my old Minolta [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated!!!! One answer about the lenses is that a 28-300mm Canon lens is about $2,200 and a 28-300mm Phoenix lens is abou $200. The Minolta is the only lens in your collection that is in the same league as the Sony Alpha A-100. Perhaps you should limit the extreme range of focal lengths and concentrate on a high quality lens with a zoom range that you most likely would be using. One that I know of that might be a steal is a used Nikon 70-300AF ED lens which goes for under $200. There is a brand new MINOLTA AF 28-80MM 3.5-5.6 D LENS F/ SONY ALPHA/MAXXUM being offered at Ebay now at $5.50. I wonder how good it is? >I recently purchased a Sony Alpha A-100 DSLR camera and just learning > the ins and outs. I have the following lenses with my old Minolta [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated!!!! > I recently purchased a Sony Alpha A-100 DSLR camera and just learning > the ins and outs. I have the following lenses with my old Minolta [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated!!!! Hello, It's hard to say like this. Could you possibly upload a couple of the photographs that you don't like somewhere, and link to them? That's way it's easier to work out an answer. In article <155b0be5-c068-46fa-b7c8-cb15bfde4649@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > But the main thing is the images do not appear very crisp, even when > taken in full sunlight. And often the auto focus is not focused very > well at all. I have been playing with the focus settings for spot, > etc, and ISO settings (using 100 for outdoor stuff) but still don't > see the quality I'd like. Not sure if the lens, or maybe the filter, > might have something to do with it, too. I've never thought much of any Sony product. Their digital cameras use oddball memory sticks and the quality just isn't there. > In article > <155b0be5-c068-46fa-b7c8-cb15bfde4649@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > use > oddball memory sticks and the quality just isn't there. And Mr Strat's quality? > And Mr Strat's quality? My Canon is made far better than any camera Sony has ever made. > In article <B6X3j.18490$mb.16808@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, Frank > Arthur [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My Canon is made far better than any camera Sony has ever made. Thus spake Strat! >> In article <B6X3j.18490$mb.16808@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, Frank >> Arthur [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thus spake Strat! in his humble, non subjective opinion.. :) > >>> And Mr Strat's quality? > >> My Canon is made far better than any camera Sony has ever made. > > Thus spake Strat! > in his humble, non subjective opinion.. Actually my Konika-Minolta Z3 fell off my kayak and sunk to the bottom of the Manatee River (not in anything, just splashed in), fell out of my pack on my mountain bike down a trail, was dropped out of my unclosed backpack and bounced (in pieces) across my concrete driveway, is held together with JB Weld, Superglue, a piece of a paper clip, and a cut section of bicycle tire tube (holding the battery case shut) and it still takes good pictures. But none of that helps me take better pictures with my A-100 :O) In article <4ad2712e-f55b-49a5-9879-e8d24737abfc@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Actually my Konika-Minolta Z3 fell off my kayak and sunk to the bottom > of the Manatee River (not in anything, just splashed in), fell out of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it still takes good pictures. But none of that helps me take better > pictures with my A-100 :O) I don't believe I specified a model number. I use a DSLR. You'd have been best off leaving the Konica at the bottom of the river. > You'd have been best off leaving the Konica at the bottom of the river. The dried out patched together dinky Z3 has won me a state photo contests here and in NC, been published in several magazines, map cover images for printing companies, newpaper front pages and a few other things, and considering I'm a total hack just dragging the thing along on hiking/kayaking trips between engineering jobs, I'm satisfied :O) Some of us make do with what we have and photography as an art is as much, if not more, in the eye and the imagination of the photographer as the equipment he or she uses. > > My Canon is made far better than any camera Sony has ever made. > > Thus spake Strat! Feel free to buy a Sony digital camera, and then tell your friends that you have pro-level gear. They probably won't know that you're talking out of your a.s. > Their digital cameras use >oddball memory sticks No, they use CF cards... You don't know too much... >and the quality just isn't there. Ya like you would know!!! Nikon uses Sony sensors ! The new Sony 700 beats any Canon... That makes Canon #3 or less... > Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated!!!! Ignore the trollery about oddball memory (as you know, it takes CF cards) etc. The A100 is capable of slaughtering the Z3 in image quality, but not with a cheap pre-digital Phoenix superzoom 28-300mm. Even Sigma had to redesign their entire range for digital, improving the coatings and enhancing contrast and resolution, in the DG and DC series lenses. The Phoenix is a film-era dinosaur; the results looked good because film is such a vague and tolerant medium, and you don't examine the pictures as closely. Digital is critical - anything poor is shown up immediately - and you look at the images as if they were all 20 x 16 prints. First of all, get a single decent lens - even your Minolta 28-80mm is pre-digital, and one of the cheapest kit lenses they made, if not bad on film. The Konica Minolta 18-70mm or the new Sony 18-70mm (both can be found for under $100 used, or even new) makes a much better matched standard zoom. However, there is one lens which will make this camera sing - the Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3. It's not quite 300mm, but it is long enough, and the optical quality is a quantum leap ahead of earlier 18-200mm/28-300mm etc designs. It can be obtained for about $400 (I think - it is £299 in the UK) and while that sounds a lot, you end up with one lens which will do pretty much everything you will ever need, and do it much better than it deserves to. Go into the camera menus and set VIVID sRGB for your JPEG style. Use the DEC menu to set +2 sharpness instead of the default of 0, if you want the images to look more like the Z3. To really see what the camera can do, try shooting RAW and buy a copy of Photoshop Elements 5.0PC/4.0Mac or later which will give you very fast conversion of the raw files - or load up the Sony software, which is good for colour quality, but a bit slow and with a poor user interface. David Thanks for all the great info, and we all have differring tastes so not expecting everyone to have the same opinion. Many thanks to David for the massive detailed information. We'd heading up to a state park this weekend and the weather should be great so it will be a good chance to try some new settings. Yeah, west central Florida, weekend, mostly sunny, no chance of rain, high in the lower 80's. Good shootin' weather :O) I actually thought the Minolta was a post digital lens but I have been wrong with other things. I was looking at some lenses that were Minolta's around 18-200 (or something around that) as I really like the close focal range but seeing as they are "Minolta" they were probably pre-digital. I'll search around for the Tamron and see what I can find. I am willing to get a decent lens and if the broader the range the better. Probably post what I find in here as it sounds like a lot of experience is floating around. I will probably pick up some macro extension tubes, too, as I really like close-up macro shots and that way I can haul them around with worry as they don't have glass. And AF doesn't do too good with close macro work and that's fine with me. Is there any issues with dust or debris getting in the body when changing lenses in the field? I took some shots last weekend and had a smudge spot on the same place on all the images. Wasn't on the lense so I gently blew dusting air towards the camera without a lense on and snapped the shutter. The spot was gone... whew! Only had this a couple months so hopefully not in need of a cleaning yet. What is the file size difference between RAW and the JPEG? Not worried about the conversion process but does a RAW converted toi JPEG on a PC have better quality then starting with a JPEG on the camera? I only have a 2Gb card right now but I can see a need for more memory. Got a nice little Toughbook laptop and a 720Gb USB drive so I can offload the images on the road. I'll play with the setting this weekend but it gets tough when my GF is wanting to hike on and I find a good shot and start fiddling with the settings. We usually compromise :O) I do have examples of my Z3 work at http://www.infinitempg.com/pix and getting up to speed with the A-100 is something pretty high up on my hit list. Thanks to everyone for the info. Scott And while you are at it, visit www.photoclubalpha.com and read a few of the articles on the A100, and see some of the pix. Also try visiting www.dyxum.com which is a community very much able to show you what the A100 can do. David GREAT SITES!!!! I can see I won't be getting much work done this afternoon.... :O) THANKS! > And while you are at it, visit www.photoclubalpha.com > and read a few of the articles on the A100, and see some of the pix. > Also try visiting www.dyxum.com > which is a community very much able to show you what the A100 can do. >I recently purchased a Sony Alpha A-100 DSLR camera and just learning >the ins and outs. I have the following lenses with my old Minolta [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated!!!! First of all - you need a good lens to get good shots... I think some of your lenses should be junked... get something good that will suit your needs. I use mostly the 18-200 Sony lens, but I plan to get a good 24mm 1.8 some day... will cost more than the camera! Next... use RAW pictures with this camera, the jpegs tend to suck... see my site here: http://www.pbase.com/flintstonestudio/sony And over here you will see how the camera functions as a "snapshot device"... http://www.pbase.com/flintstonestudio/railway_maintenance Since I was kind of working at the time, I could only use the camera in P-auto mode. Note I am also only learning to use this camera, but I am quite happy with it. One thing I do know - TRY other settings! Sometimes the logical setting is not the best! Bob > First of all - you need a good lens to get good shots... I think some of your lenses should be junked... get something good that will suit your needs. Agreed! On my shopping list (and my Christmas list) >>I use mostly the 18-200 Sony lens, but I plan to get a good 24mm 1.8 some day... will cost more than the camera! Something in that 18-200/250 range I think is what I need. Good universal range. What would you be using the 24mm 1.8 for and why so pricey? > Next... use RAW pictures with this camera, the jpegs tend to suck... see my site here: > http://www.pbase.com/flintstonestudio/sony > And over here you will see how the camera functions as a "snapshot device"... > http://www.pbase.com/flintstonestudio/railway_maintenance Good shots even if for work. Nice crisp and clear. What do you use to do the RAW-->JPEG conversion? > Since I was kind of working at the time, I could only use the camera in P-auto mode. > Note I am also only learning to use this camera, but I am quite happy with it. > One thing I do know - TRY other settings! Sometimes the logical setting is not > the best! I am definitely just scratching the surface. THANKS!!!! >> First of all - you need a good lens to get good shots... I think some of your lenses should be junked... get something good that will suit your needs. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Something in that 18-200/250 range I think is what I need. Good >universal range. The 18-200 Sony is a good walking around lens, there is also a Sigma 28-300 you could consider, only around $400 I think and a good "tourist" lens. (It's on sale at Amazon). > What would you be using the 24mm 1.8 for and why so >pricey? The 24 becomes a 36 in the camera, a very useful wide angle lens, and it probably will do macro focus as well. The 1.8 is to get very narrow depth of field or lots of light or both... this will be a good lens for closeups and for scenery. Whenever you see a 'f' number of 1.8 or so, be prepared to open your wallet! >> Next... use RAW pictures with this camera, the jpegs tend to suck... see my site here: >> http://www.pbase.com/flintstonestudio/sony [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Good shots even if for work. Nice crisp and clear. What do you use >to do the RAW-->JPEG conversion? The Sony converter that comes with the camera is the best I've seen, better even than Lightroom from Adobe that I tried. >> Since I was kind of working at the time, I could only use the camera in P-auto mode. >> Note I am also only learning to use this camera, but I am quite happy with it. >> One thing I do know - TRY other settings! Sometimes the logical setting is not >> the best! > >I am definitely just scratching the surface. THANKS!!!! Thanks for all the info and as usual, great data and very helpful. Does anyone have any knowledge of how any of these lenses would work wtih the A-100? Sigma 28-200mm DL Hyperzoom Macro Lens TAMRON 28-200mm LD IF Tamron 28-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 Aspherical Element lens in Minolta AF mount Sigma AF 28-300/3.5-6.3 ASPHERICAL IF DG MACRO F/MINOLTA MAXXUM (62MM) And that explains nicely on the 1.8 and that would be a lens such as the SIGMA Wide 28mm f/1.8 (D)EX Aspherical DG. Would something like that be good? Still would like to snag a set of macro extension tubes for really tight work. Had a set with my old STR-201 (MD mount). Can find M42 to Sony AF extension tubes for $20 but straight Sony AF extension tubes seem to be around $100. The same set for Nikon is $10. Anyone have experience with the extension tubes and the A-100? Thanks again, your help has been very valuable, Scott >Thanks for all the info and as usual, great data and very helpful. >Does anyone have any knowledge of how any of these lenses would work [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Thanks again, your help has been very valuable, >Scott I have a Sigma 24 f1.8 that I used to use with my Nikon, but I sold the Nikon, and may sell all of the other stuff as well, and stick with Sony... I'm still thinking about it... I am going downtown Monday or Tuesday to get the same lens for my Sony, it's somewhere between $400 - $500... It's a very sharp and capable lens, and doesn't have the distortion of a 20 that is also for sale. I bought Sony's 18-200 lens when it was on half price offer. This is basically a rebadged Tamron. Having read the test report here http://pics.dmm.co.jp/mono/movie/btyd014/btyd014pl.jpg I wasn't expecting great things. It's a SuperZoom and there are compromises but it's now a permanent fixture and lets me leave the Kit Bag at Home. Great for travel shots and action. > I bought Sony's 18-200 lens when it was on half price offer. This is > basically a rebadged Tamron. Found some Tamron's that are 28-300 and thinking about that as the higher zoom I like. If you had the choice between an 18-200 or a 28-300 (both Tamron) which would you choose? >> I bought Sony's 18-200 lens when it was on half price offer. This is >> basically a rebadged Tamron. > >Found some Tamron's that are 28-300 and thinking about that as the >higher zoom I like. If you had the choice between an 18-200 or a >28-300 (both Tamron) which would you choose? The 18-200 was designed for digital and is by all accounts a very good performer. For that reason it is probably a better choice than a 28-300mm. > I bought Sony's 18-200 lens when it was on half price offer. This is basically a rebadged Tamron. Any opinions comparing the Tamron 28-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 and a Tamron or Sigma 28-300? I like the idea of the 18-200 but would like a higher magnification like the 28-300 and not sure what loss would occur between the 28 and the 18??? >>I bought Sony's 18-200 lens when it was on half price offer. This is basically a rebadged Tamron. > > Any opinions comparing the Tamron 28-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 and a Tamron or > Sigma 28-300? I like the idea of the 18-200 but would like a higher > magnification like the 28-300 and not sure what loss would occur > between the 28 and the 18??? The best one by far is the new 18-250mm - it is far better than the 18-200mm, whether in Sony or Tamron version. Sigma does not have an equivalent. Really, on APS-C it's so useful to have 18mm. It is the difference between having a 28mm lens available, and being stuck with 42mm as your shortest length. David Sounds like the Tamron (or remarked Sony) 18-250 f3.5/6.3 is the way to go or maybe a good digitally optimized 28-300 (would go more then 300 if my pocketbook would support it) for our travels in the wild. The 17-70 Sigma would be nice but if I got the 18-250 Tamron that would pretty much cover that range (but the f2.8 of the Sigma would be much better close up then the f3.5 of the Sony) If I wanted to get closer (or higher magnification) then the Sigma 17-70, like to do macro portrait shots of bugs and stuff like that, what would be my best bet? And as always, many thanks to all of you for your helpful input. As impulsive as I can get with my checkbook in hand I have managed to pull my pen back and investigate first. Thanks again, Scott Just want to check descriptively, is this the lens we have been talking about : Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical IF AF Lens Thanks, Scott Saw a deal with a Sigma 28-80 F 3.5-5.6 Autofocus Zoom and a Sigma 70-300 F 4-5.6 Autofocus Zoom bundled together. Heard some things about a broad zoom lens loosing quality at one end or the other. Would it be a good starting point to have these to 'learn' with and then maybe step up to something like the 18-250 or the 28-300 and get to just having one lens down the road when I know what I am doing better? I could land both these for less then 1/2 the cost of either the 18-250 or the 28-300. > Saw a deal with a Sigma 28-80 F 3.5-5.6 Autofocus Zoom and a Sigma > 70-300 F 4-5.6 Autofocus Zoom bundled together. Heard some things [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > better? I could land both these for less then 1/2 the cost of either > the 18-250 or the 28-300. They are almost certainly not DG or DC lenses. They are old-type lenses intended for cheap bundles with film cameras. Trust what you hear - the 18-250mm will not be regretted. You identified the right lens. It was designed for digital from the start, and only works/covers with digital cameras (not film). The Sigma 17-70mm does indeed go very close, but unfortunately it's not that good for bugs. The lens ends up 2cm from the bug, casting a shadow or disturbing it. The 18-250mm Tamron does the equivalent of 1:2.3 (relative to full frame stated repro ratios): Here's their text - 3. Revolutionary Minimum Focusing Distance of 0.45m (17.7”) throughout the Entire Zoom Range Affords a 1:3.5 Macro Capability The new zoom lens achieves a minimum focus distance of 0.45m (17.7”) throughout the entire zoom range, top of the class capability among high power zoom lenses for digital SLR cameras, which results in a maximum magnification ratio of 1:3.5 at the 250mm tele-end.(*4) (*4) Since the APS-C sized imager is smaller than the 35mm format film, the new zoom lens can fill the frame with almost the same scope (approx. 8 x 5.5cm) as a lens with a maximum magnification ratio of 1:2.3 on a 35mm film SLR camera. If you buy a 62mm 2, 3 or 4 dioptre achromatic close up lens you will maintin a reasonable working distance - still 10cm or so instead of the extremely close quarters of the Sigma 17-70mm - and get excellent close-ups. Also, with a close-up lens, you get the ability to autofocus without any extra payload, and zoom if you want to reframe. David  SignatureIcon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL VAT Reg No GB458101463 Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk - www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk Tel +44 1573 226032 > Trust what you hear - the 18-250mm will not be regretted. You identified > the right lens. It was designed for digital from the start, and only > works/covers with digital cameras (not film). Still shopping for the Tamron 18-250. Find it rather amuzing that the same lens for a Nikon is $100 cheaper then it is for Sony/Minolta. Well, not amusing, more like financially disappointing. Yeah, on a tight budget and just finished two major birthdays and still spitting out the buck$ for Christmas and another two birthdays early in January. Not the best time of year to be trying to pull of another purchase ::sigh:: Thanks again for your help, Scott Just got the shipping firmed up, shopped around a looked at photo galleries of people using the Tamron 18-250 and was very impressed. So this afternoon I'm breaking down and ordering the Tamron 18-250 for my A-100. I guess I decided I needed to get myself a good Christmas present, been a tough year. Now the next step is to see what I can find to do really close macro shots without knocking the bugs off the leaf with the lens :O) Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a great start to the New Year! Scott Got my Tamron 18-250 lens yesterday and although I have a ton of learning to do, it's night and day apart from the pictures I was getting with my old Maxxum lenses. The quality is crisp, the focus good, learning to use the shutter speed better for action shots. Spent the whole day yesterday just traveling around the area finding odds and ends to practice shooting. Shot 165 pictures and was liking what I am seeing so far! Thanks again for all your assistance and I appreciate all the input. Thanks again and hope everyone had a great Christmas and has a good start to the New Year! Scott > I have a Sigma 24 f1.8 that I used to use with my Nikon, but I sold the Nikon, > and may sell all of the other stuff as well, and stick with Sony... > It's a very sharp and capable lens, and doesn't have the distortion of a 20 that > is also for sale.- Hide quoted text - Wouldn't that be for closeup work like portraits? The vast majority of my work is out in parks and nature spots, hiking and dragging the gear along. A more universal zoom would probably be a better selection as a fixed lens is limited when sometimes the subject is 10- feet away, and sometimes 100-feet, and you don't have the reaction time to change lenses or what you wanted to shoot is gone. >> I have a Sigma 24 f1.8 that I used to use with my Nikon, but I sold the Nikon, >> and may sell all of the other stuff as well, and stick with Sony... >> It's a very sharp and capable lens, and doesn't have the distortion of a 20 that >> is also for sale.- Hide quoted text - > >Wouldn't that be for closeup work like portraits? OOOOOOOO you don't want to use a 24mm for portraits unless you don't like the person!! It will give them big noses!! 70mm is a portrait lens... > The vast majority >of my work is out in parks and nature spots, hiking and dragging the >gear along. A more universal zoom would probably be a better >selection as a fixed lens is limited when sometimes the subject is 10- >feet away, and sometimes 100-feet, and you don't have the reaction >time to change lenses or what you wanted to shoot is gone. You want a "tourist" lens... a super zoom, maybe a 28-300 or 50-500... You only need wide angle for the panorama shots, you need to decide what percentage you do wide or tele... You could go with 2 zooms, a 17-70 and a 28-300 or 50-500 I like the 28-300 more than the 18-200 if that helps you, for a "walking around" lens. You can always stitch together wide shots to make them wider, but nothing beats a long lens! If you are wondering, I use the 24 for product shots... electronic equipment. It can also get close with the macro feature. > Thanks for all the info and as usual, great data and very helpful. > Does anyone have any knowledge of how any of these lenses would work [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > extension tubes seem to be around $100. The same set for Nikon is > $10. Anyone have experience with the extension tubes and the A-100? Sigma DG is digially optimized. Remember - these lenses will all be equal to 42-450mm on your A100. If you want a more versatile lens, try to get the Tamron 18-250mm. And don't get extension tubes. For one, they are very expensive; two, they work badly with the zooms. Buy a suitable (62mm) 3 or 4 dioptre achromatic close-up lens like the Sigma 2-element type. Be sure to stop down well, to f11. The benefit of the close-up lens is that AF still works perfectly (it does not with tubes), the aperture is not affected for viewing, and the zoom still works (which it does not with tubes). David >> Thanks for all the info and as usual, great data and very helpful. >> Does anyone have any knowledge of how any of these lenses would work [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >equal to 42-450mm on your A100. If you want a more versatile lens, try >to get the Tamron 18-250mm. Didn't Sony just release a 18-250? >And don't get extension tubes. For one, they are very expensive; two, >they work badly with the zooms. Buy a suitable (62mm) 3 or 4 dioptre [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >David >>>Thanks for all the info and as usual, great data and very helpful. >>>Does anyone have any knowledge of how any of these lenses would work [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Didn't Sony just release a 18-250? Yes, but budget appears to be an issue with the buyer, and the Tamron is $100 cheaper. We use the Tamron :-) David > I recently purchased a Sony Alpha A-100 DSLR camera and just learning > the ins and outs. I have the following lenses with my old Minolta [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > A-100 would improve the quality of my shots but so far it's not proven > itself to me. The Sony's tested resolution is among the highest of the current 10 megapixel cameras. Mostly because they didn't go mad with the moire filter. It's the lens that is the problem. My advice (because I've seen boxes of them for about $20-$30 each or less) is to buy a 50mm f1.7 manual or AF Minolta of Ebay, wherever, put the thing on a tripod and take some shots that way. Try raw and JPEG and see what it's like. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.