kkleong
New Member
Well said bro :thumbsup:
It's the person behind the camera... but equipment helps too :think:
Are you taking pride with your sony systems?
- Thread starter tank0085
- Start date
- Status
Well said bro :thumbsup:
It's the person behind the camera... but equipment helps too :think:
Hey all...
Bought a sony DSLR a few months ago - A200 including a kit len with a bunch of goodies give-aways (tripod, extra card, cabinat) during Comex.
Loved it so much and have since bought a Sony 100mm F2.8 Macro recently while I was in HK... However found that Sony lens are more expensive that Nikon or Cannon lenses. Did not know Sigma lense can be used on Sony Body until recently... Oh well!!
Stumbled upon this site and am beginning to 'park' here. A wealth of information here for me to pick up this hobby properly! Hope to learn from all you gurus out there
Cheers
Gaz
Bought a sony DSLR a few months ago - A200 including a kit len with a bunch of goodies give-aways (tripod, extra card, cabinat) during Comex.
Loved it so much and have since bought a Sony 100mm F2.8 Macro recently while I was in HK... However found that Sony lens are more expensive that Nikon or Cannon lenses. Did not know Sigma lense can be used on Sony Body until recently... Oh well!!
Stumbled upon this site and am beginning to 'park' here. A wealth of information here for me to pick up this hobby properly! Hope to learn from all you gurus out there
Cheers
Gaz
I think there are many people around in cs to give u a personal review of their A700s, here's a review by dpreview - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/ -
I think is pretty hard to find a KM dslr camera nowadays, I may be wrong tho.. Here's a review for KM 7D - http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/minolta/maxxum_7d-review/ -
KM 7D only 6.1 megapix, you sure u getting that? Wouldn't be like a down grade from A100, altho features wise KM 7D may be better?
Yes, but at least you get image stabilization on your 100mm macro. Good luck getting that elsewhere.
And actually, if you know where to look and who to ask, the lens prices are the same or cheaper.
OldFlower
New Member
The SIGMA 24-70mm stacks NO WHERE near CZ 24-70mm. Eversince I got the CZ85mm Plannar T, I realize what I have been missing all these while. If I'm richer, I'd get all of SONY's CZ lenses! ;p
OldFlower
New Member
TME, you are definitely much more experienced photographer than me; I only know that I can re-chip my car when modding it, but not my lenses..! :bsmilie:
Yes, it does appear SIGMA's coating tend towards yellowish to brownish tint in certain shots under certain lighting conditions. But this I think in Digital Imaging, can be easily corrected compare to the days of Film Shooting - it is more horrifying back then.
I still have an old Sigma 17-35mm f2.8, it's still performs reasonably, only that I avoid using that for group shots of people; barrel distortion is quite extreme.
Mileage for all my equipment are very low, as I don't shoot often and enjoy collecting them more. Weird huh...
OldFlower
New Member
Very true, and I agree.
But what I am generally praising SONY for is their ability to take Minolta's blueprints of their camera division products, and re-invent, innovate, and improvise into something so long waited for by many Minolta users. You shoudl see how white my face went, the day I discovered Minolta gave up to SONY!
And I realize that comparing pictures, and or compositions, can become quite a hairy topic because viewpoints, and photographic philosophies (especially amongst the seasoned shooters) varies greatly. And it can almost be akin to talking about each other's religious believes. This much after all these years, I know.
TME, you are definitely much more experienced photographer than me; I only know that I can re-chip my car when modding it, but not my lenses..! :bsmilie:
Yes, it does appear SIGMA's coating tend towards yellowish to brownish tint in certain shots under certain lighting conditions. But this I think in Digital Imaging, can be easily corrected compare to the days of Film Shooting - it is more horrifying back then.
I still have an old Sigma 17-35mm f2.8, it's still performs reasonably, only that I avoid using that for group shots of people; barrel distortion is quite extreme.
Mileage for all my equipment are very low, as I don't shoot often and enjoy collecting them more. Weird huh...
Different people have different interests even in buying camera equipment... if you're happy collecting then by all means!
And yeah I agree the barrel distortion of the Sigma 17-35mm at the edges is pretty extreme... really quite bad for people who are at the edge of the group shot... hahaha...
My suggestion is NOT to buy the 7D.... WHY?
I am using the 7D now and here are the cons:
1) The AF is slow in today's context... and not very accurate either especially in low light... even medium light it may hunt.
2) The flash exposure system isn't working properly... I'm using the 5600HS(D)... pretty weird exposure...
3) On most copies, the metering scale of the exposure module is not working. I.e. if you set a aperture and shutter speed in M mode and then change the composition, the mark on the metering scale doesn't shift to show you over- or under-exposure. I tried a few copies at the old Minolta service centre at Haw Par Building at Commonwealth and found this out... it's some firmware bug that was never solved. My current copy of the 7D has a working metering scale in M mode... really weird...
4) The vertical grip plays havoc with your battery life. Most often the battery indicator will tell you your batteries are dead (double NP-400 in the grip). But if you disconnect the grip and put in the battery in the body, you find that you can shoot for another 50-70 shots before it is really dead... somehow or other the increased distance causes the indicator to under-report the battery life...
These are the cons that have been resolved in the A700. So get the A700... definitely worth the money. Wait for SITEX, it might give you better price... anyway for a 12MP DSLR at $1600 very good already... or you might get good freebies like extra batteries or a dual battery charger or something like that... or can buy the grip or 58 flash at a good discount...
isomers007
Senior Member
i echo the above post. why not just get an A700? price is pretty good for an excellent camera. i used a km7d before and while I enjoyed using it, it has its many quirks.
OldFlower
New Member
... I saw people's cheeks get pinched towards the edge of the Sigma 17-35mm..
sort of like the face got smeared in Photoshop.. very bad. But for lanscapes, it's quite negligible unless, there's something upright or vertical near the edges.
Well you're right, I am happiest collecting!!! :bsmilie::bsmilie:
is the a700 viewfinder much bigger??... when i use my a200 i find the VF too small.. sometimes i cant even see the settings from the VF when i compose the shot... probably its the way i position my eyes.. there was once i think i 'strain' my eyes too much by concentrating too hard and long on the VF due to low light env and manual focus...
is the a700 AF faster also??.. i find that in a200 even with good lighting condition the AF does move a bit slower.. maybe my expectation too high cos its normal for most camera? haha... its my first dslr so i cant compare much... i used to use a minolta slr which i bought during the school dayz 15 yrs back.. they were manual focus... have to stop shooting cos broke... no money to develop the film.. haha... i think it might due to the lens also.. anyway.. i juz asking this in general not really going into details for contrast of subject or lens use... assuming both their setup is the same...
is the a700 AF faster also??.. i find that in a200 even with good lighting condition the AF does move a bit slower.. maybe my expectation too high cos its normal for most camera? haha... its my first dslr so i cant compare much... i used to use a minolta slr which i bought during the school dayz 15 yrs back.. they were manual focus... have to stop shooting cos broke... no money to develop the film.. haha... i think it might due to the lens also.. anyway.. i juz asking this in general not really going into details for contrast of subject or lens use... assuming both their setup is the same...
Last edited:
The A200 is an excellent entry-level, budget DSLR. That being said, the A700 is better than the A200 in almost every regard... VF is better, AF is faster and more accurate (A700 won AF shootouts against the other brands), etc etc etc
Must add it's central AF sensor only that the A700 win lar...
hey bro... u beginning to make my backside itch again... think i going to get the BBB virus soon...
whitewings05
New Member
Heh, way to bring up a dead(ish) thread with my first post.
I'm one of those who when Sony first released the A100 went for it.
Til this date, I'm still using it!
It's served me well for the past few years, and I've only ever got one more lens for it apart from the kit lens that it came with.
100mm Macro (the Sony one). Only now am I starting to look at getting some nicer and rarer glass to give some company to this amazing camera. I reckon if you can get good with the kit lens then anything else you use you'll already be a step up from another person just buying all the expensive stuff at first and then thinking "oh wow, I can't take good pictures even with the best of the best". Nothing is ever the best unless the person himself/herself is the best at doing it. Your equipment is only going to be as good as you are.
I remember meeting a person in a second hand camera shop once, avid nikon user, so bleeding stuck up. Saying "yah, nikon so much better". Better orly? Just because Sony has been getting bad rap from idiots around in this world, nobody ever realises Sony does infact manufacture Nikons sensors =p AND added to that Sony bought KM, KM being one of the most radical DSLR/SLR players back in their day.
They've got all the best lenses, the Mirror lens, the STF lens, soft focus lenses. All these crazy and fun lenses, but nikon and canon are too focused on making bog standard "out-do" the competition stuff with all their random numbers an EX's and iii's and FX DG OBI's or whatever.
Ah well, rant over?
haha. Hope I didn't offend anyone on me first post.
oh and yes, I'm insanely proud to say, "I'm shooting with a Sony Alpha A-One-Hundred".
I'm one of those who when Sony first released the A100 went for it.
Til this date, I'm still using it!
It's served me well for the past few years, and I've only ever got one more lens for it apart from the kit lens that it came with.
100mm Macro (the Sony one). Only now am I starting to look at getting some nicer and rarer glass to give some company to this amazing camera. I reckon if you can get good with the kit lens then anything else you use you'll already be a step up from another person just buying all the expensive stuff at first and then thinking "oh wow, I can't take good pictures even with the best of the best". Nothing is ever the best unless the person himself/herself is the best at doing it. Your equipment is only going to be as good as you are.
I remember meeting a person in a second hand camera shop once, avid nikon user, so bleeding stuck up. Saying "yah, nikon so much better". Better orly? Just because Sony has been getting bad rap from idiots around in this world, nobody ever realises Sony does infact manufacture Nikons sensors =p AND added to that Sony bought KM, KM being one of the most radical DSLR/SLR players back in their day.
They've got all the best lenses, the Mirror lens, the STF lens, soft focus lenses. All these crazy and fun lenses, but nikon and canon are too focused on making bog standard "out-do" the competition stuff with all their random numbers an EX's and iii's and FX DG OBI's or whatever.
Ah well, rant over?
haha. Hope I didn't offend anyone on me first post.
oh and yes, I'm insanely proud to say, "I'm shooting with a Sony Alpha A-One-Hundred".
- Status
Similar threads
