Involved?

[pakodominguez]

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/1 ... alpha-900/
"...but you need to take that step in full awareness of everything involved"

David, do you meant that the APS size/system is Panacea? Or you are just targeting this article to "digital photographers" that don't even know how to focus manually?

In my particular case, the A900 and the full frame sensor is getting back to my standards, to the parameters I know and understand better...

[David Kilpatrick]

I'm saying that lack of depth of field was often a problem with full frame. I can think of countless times I shot what seemed a great image when checking contacts or 6 x 4" proofs, only to find it did not have enough d-o-f for a good 10 x 8 let alone a 20 x 16 (which I very rarely made from film). In the studio, we worked at apertures like f16 and f22 on rollfilm and frequently went down to f45 on 5 x 4 - no-one even considered whether diffraction was softening the image, the depth of field was critical.

APS-C came along and gave everyone the same d-o-f benefits as half frame, and it remains very useful for any kind of casual shooting - flash, tele shots in poor light, long lenses used when you should be closer.

I don't think focusing manually has anything do with it. Two things happen with the A900 - first, you get less depth of field for a given angle of view and aperture; second, you view the image proportionately closer, and are likely to want to print larger, both conditions which call for the best depth of field. The A900 will be much more likely to find itself on a tripod. And you really also need better lenses.

I'm just sorting out my lenses now. It's clear that I am ultimately wasting quality unless I eventually do get a CZ 24-70mm and 16-35mm, and an additional HVL-F58AM flash. So, the 70-200mm SSM G 2.8, 2X, 200mm f4 Apo Macro G, 35-200xi, 35-70 f4, 24-105mm D, 100-300mm Apo D, 5600 and 3600 flash units will all go on ebay along with our A200 and 16-105mm.

That's the sort of thing I mean by 'everything involved'... get into the Alpha 900 system, and unless you have deep pockets, you risk only getting half there. My 17-35 and 28-75 will do for now but I want perfection with this camera, not 'good enough'.

David

[pakodominguez]

I'm saying that lack of depth of field was often a problem with full frame. I can think of countless times I shot what seemed a great image when checking contacts or 6 x 4" proofs, only to find it did not have enough d-o-f for a good 10 x 8 let alone a 20 x 16 (which I very rarely made from film). In the studio, we worked at apertures like f16 and f22 on rollfilm and frequently went down to f45 on 5 x 4 - no-one even considered whether diffraction was softening the image, the depth of field was critical.

I know what you mean -after suffering about lighting my subjects (events, portraits or studio...) I learned I had to get the biggest/stronger flash I can afford. But we got used (we learned how to) living with that and I don't find any "involvement" in that constraint.

I don't think focusing manually has anything do with it.

I was talking about photographers that arrive to this word after the AF revolution and don't know (because they never had to) focus manually. I know a lot of photographers of this kind, and they make me feel old, even if I'm only almost 38...

I'm just sorting out my lenses now. It's clear that I am ultimately wasting quality unless I eventually do get a CZ 24-70mm and 16-35mm, and an additional HVL-F58AM flash. So, the 70-200mm SSM G 2.8, 2X, 200mm f4 Apo Macro G, 35-200xi, 35-70 f4, 24-105mm D, 100-300mm Apo D, 5600 and 3600 flash units will all go on ebay along with our A200 and 16-105mm.

The 35-200xi is a good performer on the A700 (at least the samples I have) but I don't expect them been "perfect" en the A900. The 24-105 was ok on the 7D, but it isn't even good on the A700

What surprise me is that even the 70-200 2.8 or the 200 f4 macro don't match the A900 resolution! I bought the nu Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and I was trying to convince myself that the Beercan is equally good, in order to send it back to the store, but It isn't. The Tamron is better (but focusing speed is equal to the beercan, means: slow...) I still will love to compare it with the Minolta/Sony one, but nobody answered to my call last month...

Regarding the flash on the A900, it is a shame Sony haven't respect nor the Minolta legacy, nor their own legacy, making the 5600/F56AM just half compatible with the F58AM. They have to resolve this, and the lack of on board flash/wireless controller. A small flash/controller is what Sony have to GIVE to A900 owners in order to compensate for this mistake.

That's the sort of thing I mean by 'everything involved'... get into the Alpha 900 system, and unless you have deep pockets, you risk only getting half there. My 17-35 and 28-75 will do for now but I want perfection with this camera, not 'good enough'.

I just come back from a week in northern California (San Francisco, Napa, Yosemite, Monterey and Big Sur) shooting with A700 and 17-35 f2.8-4; 28-75 f2.8; Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and a couple of shots with the Lensbaby G3 (I took the Dimage A2 for panoramas to be stitched) and, over all, I'm happy with the result, but I have to review all the images again and make a selection.

If we simplify this by a FF vs. APS, I prefer avoiding ultra wide angles and "loose" that 1.5 DOF.

Regards

[ianmiddy]

200mm f4 Apo Macro G...will all go on ebay

Curious - is that a lens quality [thought it was supposed to be very good] or lack-of-use issue ?

Cheers

IDM

[David Kilpatrick]

Lack of use. I have no special need for 200mm Apo G, it was acquired because Morgan had one when KM closed down and I offered for a bunch of lenses. Had I known the prices they wanted and certain arrival of full frame, I would have had a 35mm f1.4, 100mm f2 and 85mm f1.4 as well or instead - but I just put myself down for a 28mm f2, 100mm SF and the 200 macro - a sort of 'spread' of focal lengths, based on APS-C uses.

It is actually much heavier than the 70-200mm f2.8, and when walking, I can feel the lens stressing the lens mount unless it is firmly held all the time. It is a fantastic landscape lens, very sharp at infinity, but I am mainly a travelling photographer and both it and the 70-200mm are just to big and heavy. My final working kit will be the 17-35, 28-75 and 70-300mm SSM G though that lens is very far for perfect and maybe replaced by the 70-210mm f4 most of the time, since the beercan has much better geometry and illumination.

The 35-200mm xi by the way is superb on full frame. Even wide open, across the range, it beats most lenses except the beercan and the 70-300mm SSM for sharpness corner to corner. I just don't happen to need it. It's even better on APS-C, the centre is exceptionally sharp.

David

[ianmiddy]

it was acquired because Morgan had one when KM closed down and I offered for a bunch of lenses. Had I known the prices they wanted and certain arrival of full frame, I would have had a 35mm f1.4, 100mm f2 and 85mm f1.4 as well or instead - but I just put myself down for a 28mm f2, 100mm SF and the 200 macro

Ahh, I see - the famous 'spreadsheet' [you may even have been the one who made me aware of it ?] - unfortunately, by the time I saw it most of the lenses had gone, and all I managed was the 7D [which has finally gone in for FFB, along with the 5D] and a 75-300D...certainly, the 100/2 would have been a really good investment, based on recent 'Bay prices!

...I later had a chance in a local shop s/h group for a 35/1.4, but went for the 28/2 they had at third the price - and uhmmed & aahed over the 300/4 in the same collection for too long - but then they had a 2.8 a few weeks later for only £40 more, so counted myself lucky.

Cheers

IDM

[Gianluca]

Lack of use. I have no special need for 200mm Apo G, it was acquired because Morgan had one when KM closed down and I offered for a bunch of lenses. Had I known the prices they wanted and certain arrival of full frame, I would have had a 35mm f1.4, 100mm f2 and 85mm f1.4 as well or instead - but I just put myself down for a 28mm f2, 100mm SF and the 200 macro - a sort of 'spread' of focal lengths, based on APS-C uses.

It is actually much heavier than the 70-200mm f2.8, and when walking, I can feel the lens stressing the lens mount unless it is firmly held all the time. It is a fantastic landscape lens, very sharp at infinity, but I am mainly a travelling photographer and both it and the 70-200mm are just to big and heavy. My final working kit will be the 17-35, 28-75 and 70-300mm SSM G though that lens is very far for perfect and maybe replaced by the 70-210mm f4 most of the time, since the beercan has much better geometry and illumination.

I think that you got the wrong 200mm prime

http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=com ... &Itemid=62

A900 + APO 200/2.8 HS is a terrific combo.

If you don't mind to manual focus with your A900, in my opinion the STF is also a must

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts ... 37675&PN=1

Actually I'm using a tamron 17-50/2.8 and I don't like it very much above 30mm at any aperture.
I know that I will go full frame somewhere in the future, so I'm waiting for the 16-35/2.8 too.
I hope that it will be PERFECT, because of its price, and because it's the only option we will have in high quality wide-zoom land.

16-35, 50, 85/1.4, 135 STF, 200/2.8 HS, TC 2x is my actual dream line up.

[ianmiddy]

Congrats on the 200/4 sale, David [& the other items] - over twice the value of the last one I saw for sale [but that was 6mths or so ago] !

IDM

[David Kilpatrick]

And considerably more than its original price. I'm baffled. But not my job to question why.

I was considering spending the (unexpected) profit on a Sony Bravia 40 inch HDTV, but we went today to COMET and unlike Tesco, they had real broadcasts on show. They were unwatchable. Just awful. Tesco show BBC HDTV preview DVDs to make the sets look OK. COMET were showing the actual local digital broadcasts and I could not watch ANY of the screens they had, larger than 22 inches, without being more than aware of the MPEG compression blocks, sharpening effects, smoothing effects and horrible digital 'look'.

Then, the salesman asked what TV we had. We have a 32 inch Sony WEGA digital flatscreen CRT. He effectively said don't buy a new LCD TV unless you are watching satellite or watch DVDs (we do neither, and never plan to have satellite) and admitted that he himself had stuck with his 28 inch CRT based TV because he thought it was better than any of the HDTVs with LCD screens.

So we decided not to... I think I'll buy a 1080p digital projector instead.

David

[ianmiddy]

So we decided not to... I think I'll buy a 1080p digital projector instead.

Have you got a nice, big white wall in the 'castle' ? - that'd show off the A700/900 nicely at, say, 15'x10' !

IDM

[David Kilpatrick]

There is a big grey wall in my studio and in theory a big wall in one room. I have a 60 inch projection screen. I realise that I have a Leitz Pradovit 2500 with two excellent lenses, unused for ten years, never likely to be used again - I have a perfectly good little Reflecta projector if I really need to view a slide that way. I guess there may be some enthusiasts who would go for the Pradovit. I've also got enough filing sheets for 35mm slides to furnish a library, unused. I might eBay that lot and see how far I got towards a usable projector, like a BenQ or Optoma. Can't afford a Sony!

David

[braeside]

I also must admit, every time I go into a TV shop and see those big flat LCD screen screens, I am underwhelmed by the picture quality compared to my Sony CRT TV.

Maybe when HDTV transmission becomes the norm I may change my mind.

One other benefit of the CRT is that no-one is going to steal it because it is too heavy and old fashioned.