a100 mirror lock-up

[alanscape]

I changed my a200 for an old (and 'well-loved') a100 in the hope that I could use the mirror lock-up function.
I find that, probably because I'm using Tamron SP lenses (via a no-chip adapter) I cannot use the lock-up. Using the 'sensor-clean' makes no difference.
This is likely to be my error being used to 'blads and Mamiya cameras.
Is there a 'Firmware' to solve this or a way I haven't thought of? I am not an amateur or a novice but don't see an obvious solution (I cannot get any response from Sony).
Perhaps I should save up for a Leaf digital back for my 645 pro. and am expecting too much from a consumer camera.

Any helpful tips please?

[Dr. Harout]

First of all, welcome to the forum Alanscape
Second, as far as I remember A100 does the mirror lock up only in 2 conditions: in cleaning mode and during the 2 second timer.
As for being a software issue, I think it might, but they would include it not in every DSLR.

[alfake]

Alanscape: First of all, welcome from me too. I use the A100 with old Mamiya 645 MF lenses (with a mechanical Mirex adaptor), and the MLU function works flawlessly (via activating the 2s self-timer). So the use of a non-chip adapter cannot be the cause of your problem.
Alfonso

[alanscape]

Many thanks to you both and for the welcome. I'm sure that you're right because just before I logged back on I tried it with the 2 sec. timer
and all sounds well.
For some reason the a100 seems to be a touch sharper (AA filter?) but we all know how subjective that can be. Remember the battles between Leica and Zeiss
users re: sharpness and contrast?
I have an R1 which I find to be perfect (as a 645 pro. man) and in fact I'm now on my second one! The a100 was bought to mount my SP's on and now,
thanks to you gentlemen... I'm a happy bunny!
I belong to the MF lenses forum where much discussion and bargains emerge daily.
Before I sign off I'd value your opinion on this: I hear much about noise and sharpness and IQ and the current trend of 'pixel cramming' but I have always
aimed at a sharp print viewed at 8"-10" (double-page magazine size) which has proved fine for me and my clients, is this '...when viewed at 100%
it exhibits XXXYYYZZZ...' becoming a bit too much like marketing?
With so many makes, developments and 'whistles and bells' perhaps sight is being lost of the fact that more or less any 6-10mp dslr will produce a
very good A3 image in the right hands?
O.K. gone are the days when Nikons for press, Olympus for fashion and Canon for sports was the norm. but it still depends on your 'glass'.
Nobody can 'market-away' Physics.
Again my thanks.
Andrew Alan Cameron.

[jcoffin]

[ ... ]

Before I sign off I'd value your opinion on this: I hear much about noise and sharpness and IQ and the current trend of 'pixel cramming' but I have always aimed at a sharp print viewed at 8"-10" (double-page magazine size) which has proved fine for me and my clients, is this '...when viewed at 100% it exhibits XXXYYYZZZ...' becoming a bit too much like marketing? With so many makes, developments and 'whistles and bells' perhaps sight is being lost of the fact that more or less any 6-10mp dslr will produce a very good A3 image in the right hands?

Yes, certainly. A lot of it is done simply because it's so easy to do. Since a lot of the viewing is done on computers, zooming to 100% is trivially easy -- even though at that point, you should generally think of that as being at least 200%. A typical monitor is about 72 to 100 DPI, but for an 8x10 print you're normally looking for 150 DPI as a bare minimum, and usually somewhat higher.

At the same time, there is some sense to it as well. A 6 MP camera can produce a fine 8x10 (or so) picture, but doesn't leave room for much cropping when you do that. With a good enough lens, a 12 MP camera leaves room for a fair amount of cropping, and a 24 MP for quite a lot of cropping. There's also the fact that some people produce pictures a lot larger than 8x10. A full-frame DSLR can easily produce clean looking prints in a size range that would require a medium format camera to produce similar results from film.

I think it's also interesting to note that while it's now common at the consumer level, to a large extent a similar attitude has been around for a long time. Twenty years ago (or so), most pictures that were shot for print advertising were done on 4x5 cameras. Those were routinely examine through a 10x loupe, even though the final result was usually going into a magazine, often at original or even reduced size, with halftoning to reduce the resolution, and print processes that couldn't produce anywhere close to the original gamut. Likewise, proofs were always viewed under calibrated lights, even though most people buying the magazine wouldn't have known a calibrated light if it bit them. Of course, a lot of this was done just because they could -- a single 30 second television ad costs more than a lot of companies spend on print advertising for an entire year!

[alanscape]

Absolutely, many of your points take me back to the old rotary letterpress days when a '65 screen half-tone covered a multitude of focus errors.
I worked for Westminster Press both in book publishing (Linhof) and newspapers (Nikon F)... I think 'horses for courses' still sums it up.
As for full frame well my pal's just bought a Canon 5D but against my advice he's also bought a Sigma 18-200mm lens for it! He sold his 20D and 17-40mm L
and his 70-210mm L (against my advice) because he read a report in the Independent/Telegraph or some such 'paper.
I've wondered about full frame but I'd need to sit down and have a long chat with someone before splashing out. My Tamrons ( 17mm - 24mm - 90mm - 28-80mm and 70--210mm would probably be fine on an a900 as they were (obviously) designed for slr's.

Thanks for giving me a different perspective - no pun intended!
Andrew Alan Cameron.