|
There was a minolta MC 85 1.7 on craigslist as part of a srt 101 + 50 + 28 package for $50 and I missed it by a day because I suck. I have been pissed about it for 3 days now and am venting whenever possible.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
Bud posted:There was a minolta MC 85 1.7 on craigslist as part of a srt 101 + 50 + 28 package for $50 and I missed it by a day because I suck. I have been pissed about it for 3 days now and am venting whenever possible. The 2.0 has better IQ anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
So now that the A7 is out and lacks in body stabilization, have any 3rd party lens makers said anything about enabling in-lens stabilization for A-mount/E-mount lenses? Edit: I guess -some- lenses have it and some don't? Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So now that the A7 is out and lacks in body stabilization, have any 3rd party lens makers said anything about enabling in-lens stabilization for A-mount/E-mount lenses? E-mount has never had IBIS; A-mount does. It is a little annoying for the time being, but I think it's something that'll work itself out in time. Until then, you can buy a few A-mount lenses with stabilization from someone like Sigma (and use them with the LA-EA4 or w/e) that I believe work. For the most part, no one is making 3rd party E-mount lenses that cover a full frame image circle at all (barring some slapdash converts like Samyang's recent offerings). I think that'll change over the next year or so. As far as native lenses go, you've got the 24-70, 70-200 G, and 28-70 kit lens which all offer OSS. mediaphage fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
No one official has stated it in quite as many words, but there was a rumor back in mid-2013 that Sony and Olympus were collaboratively developing 5-axis IBIS, and Olympus has confirmed that they are collaborating (sharing components) with Sony, so it's reasonable to expect an IBIS Sony E-mount camera at some point. It's one of the key things that Olympus offers in that arrangement. Unless, of course, Sony's design chief has his regularly-scheduled semi-annual ADHD attack and is now pouring all their resources into something completely different of course. You never can tell with Sony. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
I'm kinda bummed the new Sigma 24-105/4 doesn't have IS for A mount(for use on an A7).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
I've resisted picking up an A-mount adapter thus far; I just picked up the A7r and FE55. My next purchase will probably be the 70-200G. After that, I'd want a good wide-angle and a macro, and that's pretty much everything I'd need for what I do. I'm medium tempted to pick up a basic Canon adapter and that wackyawesome MP-E 65 for macro work, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
All the AF adapters for the A7 are wonky as hell and I wouldn't recommend them for anything serious. Either adapt manual or use native AF lenses, IMO. With the Canon and A-mount adapters you're just taking two great pieces of engineering and getting mediocre results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:All the AF adapters for the A7 are wonky as hell and I wouldn't recommend them for anything serious. Either adapt manual or use native AF lenses, IMO. With the Canon and A-mount adapters you're just taking two great pieces of engineering and getting mediocre results. I definitely agree with the Canon/Metabones AF adapters. I thought that the nicer Sony A-mount adapters worked pretty well, though? I prolly won't use them since the whole reason for the A7 was to slim down a bit, but I've heard good things - at least for the LA-EA4, which basically gives you the A99 AF system, I think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
The Sony AF adapters are fine, he's referring to EOS AF adapters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:The Sony AF adapters are fine, he's referring to EOS AF adapters. I was referring to both. The Sony adapter (I've only used the LA-EA4, which is the most recent adapter) is "fine" yeah, but for thousands of dollars of equipment you should be getting better than fine and it doesn't at all compare to using a native FF E-mount lens as far as reliability, speed and utility (the AF features are extremely limited with an A-mount lens and adapter compared to a native lens). It's just silly. If you want a small camera, buy a small camera and lenses to go with it. If you want to use your beefy DSLR lenses, buy a DSLR. The results of a uniform system are going to be superior to mixing and matching and about the same price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
The LA-EA4 blows the socks off of a LA-EA1. You didn't want to be in the mount around that time. Of course the options are more limited because of using the PDAF module which is less flexible than the on-sensor AF, but if you're OK with using an a77's AF, you should be reasonably OK with the LA-EA4. It's serviceable and it's worked reliably (in that it locks focus and tracks in AF-C). It won't ever be as good as an actual A-mount body, but adaptors are always hacks. The main flaws with the A-mount adapters I've found are not AF-related, but the fact that you can't use the tripod socket when the bodies have a vertical grip installed, or that you get the SLT drawback of losing half a stop. Plus, the lack of steadyshot. They also might have more issues with third party lenses; I only have Sony and Minolta lenses (with one Tamron). No teleconverters allowed, either. quote:It's just silly. If you want a small camera, buy a small camera and lenses to go with it. If you want to use your beefy DSLR lenses, buy a DSLR. The results of a uniform system are going to be superior to mixing and matching and about the same price. No disagreement. Generally yeah, sticking with native glass is the best result, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone buy a NEX/FE body with the express interest of only using A-mount glass. The main reason to stick with A-mount bodies if you have a lot of A-mount glass is steadyshot, so if you want to stick with Alpha glass, then buy an a99. Adaptors exist mostly to take the sting out of people who already own a lot of glass and want to use it with their other body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
I have both the LA-EA4 and LA-EA3 because they were balls cheap during the discount last month. I haven't had any issues with either. The LA-EA4 is especially fun with the A7R because it lacks phase detect AF. I've put on the classic 28-135 and newer 50/1.4 and they both focus really fast and accurately. I'd have to see how fast it is compared to my film 7 though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
   Not so bad in terms of size but I think the L-plate really helps in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
I didn't want to interrupt the fujichat in the mirrorless thread and it might be better suited to ask here anyway. I had this idea, because there is no good E mount long zoom option: NEX-7 + LA-EA4 + Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens Am I crazy for considering this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
You'd be better off with the Sony 70-400. I know that 400 < 500, but the 70-400 is one of the best lenses in Sony's lineup, and probably involves the blood of virgins in the manufacturing process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:You'd be better off with the Sony 70-400. I know that 400 < 500, but the 70-400 is one of the best lenses in Sony's lineup, and probably involves the blood of virgins in the manufacturing process. Thanks for the suggestion but it's more than double the price of the sigma. With the adapter added I'd be looking at $2.5k, more than I'm willing to spend at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
My biggest concern would be adding a grip or something so that you can hold onto the nex in a reasonable fashion. Using a 400mm with my om-d is much nicer with the grip attached.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
indigoe posted:Thanks for the suggestion but it's more than double the price of the sigma. With the adapter added I'd be looking at $2.5k, more than I'm willing to spend at this point. The 70-400G is worth every cent. If you don't need 400mm, go for the 70-300G.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:The 70-400G is worth every cent. If you don't need 400mm, go for the 70-300G. Thanks, I might just shelve this idea for now  I was frustrated with the miss rate of the old, manual focus 70-200mm, and don't want to invest too heavily this early into my "career". The sigma seemed like a good compromise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Sony announced the a77 mark2 today, with an actual legit 79 point AF module with very wide coverage and a competitive buffer. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a77-ii/sony-a77-iiA.HTM
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
It's a long time coming, but the iso noise on my a300 is frustrating me enough recently to look at an upgrade. Is the upgraded sensor in the A77 II going to impact low light performance, or is it an opportunity to pick up an original A77 on runout?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
I think the main upgrade in the a77 II is the autofocus, though there is supposed to be some new noise reduction scheme for high iso shooting. Though, coming from an a300 you'll see a big difference going to the regular a77, or any other of the higher model DSLR's.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
The a77mk2 has much better buffer performance and responsiveness as well, which was a problem on the a77. Unless you need a camera tomorrow I would suggest waiting.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
I would kill for my RX1 to have the pop-up EVF this new RX100III has. And a firmware update. But mostly the EVF.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
I think I could see the appeal of it on the RX1 - that's basically the A7, minus the hump. I don't really see the appeal on the RX100, though. Whenever I used the RX100, I never wished for a viewfinder; I was fine with the screen since it's so small. The LCD on the back of those things is bright as hell; I was able to use it in summer in Rome, outside, with no visibility issues. poo poo, while I do use the viewfinder on the A7r a majority of the time, I use the screen way more than I thought I would, simply because it's so much better than a typical DSLR clunky live view mode.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
So I've decided to change my priorities for a bit and not focus on macro for the time being due to price. (Unless I've stupidly listed a macro lenses in my choices.) After reading through the original post and searching a bit, I decided on Minolta 50mm f1.7 AF Lens and Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAM DT. Are these good choices for the next step after my kit lenses?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
huhu posted:So I've decided to change my priorities for a bit and not focus on macro for the time being due to price. (Unless I've stupidly listed a macro lenses in my choices.) After reading through the original post and searching a bit, I decided on Minolta 50mm f1.7 AF Lens and Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAM DT. Are these good choices for the next step after my kit lenses? Good choices for what? The 50 is nice for portrait but a little long for general use on APS-C cameras. The 55-200 should be pretty versatile, I guess, but too short for wildlife. The Minolta used to be drat cheap, but nowadays the Sony 50/1.8 SAM is probably the better choice. YMMV, good luck on ebay, watch out for fungi and oily blades, etc. As for the telephoto, can't help you there, but Kurt Munger is a cool dude and he seems to like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
I had the 55-200 before I got a Beercan. Optically, it's a pretty nice lens, certainly nicer than the price implies. While I prefer the Beercan, the 55-200 is lighter, more compact, and has more modern coatings that prevent purple fringing in high-contrast shooting conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
So my A-500 have a broken flash mount and there is no cheep and easy way to fix it with out sending it in. I can pick up a new A-58 for $348 with the kit lens. Good idea? I like my A-500 and have a couple lens for it, but the plastic flash mount that can't easily be replaced kind of pisses me off. How does the 58 compare to the 500?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
The A-58 will be a nice upgrade, but do know you're moving to the SLT line. Sony's OLED viewfinders are really good, but expect a transition. Also it has a more traditional hotshoe, so you'll need a converter or something if you have a Minolta mount flash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I have the 42 Sony branded flash, it also broke when my wife dumped it off the end table. At least it was easy and cheap to fix myself. I know Sony makes an adapter but it has crap reviews, so I would probably buy a different flash and just remote my 42.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
So the A58 has some sort of plastic lens mount. I don't know how that sits with me after the while flash thing. KEH has the A-900 and A-850 ex+ for 1000 and 900. I didn't see any real difference on the dpreview comparison between the 2, so what is the difference? Why can't camera's be easy or at least cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
The a850 only does 3 FPS, while the a900 does 5. The a850 also has a slightly cropped viewfinder that you might not notice (98% vs 100%). Spend the extra hundred for an a900. Or save up a little more and get an a77mk2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
I may have slipped, fell, and ordered an a77 mk2 as an upgrade from my crappy a330. My poor wallet
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
That's not an upgrade, that's a quantum leap. Enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:
I am so utterly confused when it comes to how to get different lenses on my a7. I understand how to get canon glass on it with the metabones stuff, but i hear the autofocus sucks so im not really interested in that, rather just use some old nice manual focus lens. But it looks like you have an old minolta 55mm f1.4 on the LE-A4? hows the auto focus on that work? Whats the other lens btw? Do some minolta lenses just slap into the a7 with no adapter? Im coming from a canon system so im a complete idiot when it comes to this. coolskillrex remix fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
It might be an MD 58/1.2 that was converted to the Minolta AF / a-mount. It's a popular lens to convert to other mounts due to its smooth bokeh and fast aperture. Any Minolta autofocus lens will mount and autofocus on the a7 via the LA-EA4 adapter. The Minolta 135mm f/2.8 (T/4.5) STF will mount and function properly, but obviously won't autofocus. Most 3rd party lenses in the Minolta AF / a-mount should work as well, but you might have trouble with some of the earlier Sigma lenses (maybe Tokina as well?). Minolta MC/MD lenses, such as the Minolta 58mm f/1.2, are all manual focus and require an adapter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:It might be an MD 58/1.2 that was converted to the Minolta AF / a-mount. It's a popular lens to convert to other mounts due to its smooth bokeh and fast aperture. Thanks, that does help a bit Something i just realized was that i dont think manual lenses will work out for me. Call me a baby but after setting the dial to M mode on canons for years i just keep the sony in aperture priority mode, set it to +1 stop, and shoot away. I find it way too hard to see the evf in sunlight properly (due to glasses? not sure) and actually expose photos correctly at all, i tend to severely underexpose them. Is there some novoflex/metabones adapter that takes manual focus lenses but is automatic aperture/shutter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
How do you underexpose when the EVF shows you the exact exposure of your shot?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 10:54
|
|