Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
fabs said:
Don't know that one. You could ask the question on the Dyxum forum, if you can get an answer anywhee, you'll get it there.
Click to expand...

Well the seller gave me a link to Dyxum it is indeed a Sony lens, I would use it as a partial replacement for my kit lens but for landscapes & buildings would I be better with something wider?

Also, The main type of photo I like to take is outdoor, landscapes and buildings. Now that I am getting my tripod I really want to dabble in night photography, lit up landmarks, buildings, etc.
Would a flashgun allow me to play with light a little in shots like this? I know that on a landscape its not going to make much odds but on for example a building or statue would it be of use?

Chris
 
chrism_scotland said:
Well the seller gave me a link to Dyxum it is indeed a Sony lens, I would use it as a partial replacement for my kit lens but for landscapes & buildings would I be better with something wider?

Also, The main type of photo I like to take is outdoor, landscapes and buildings. Now that I am getting my tripod I really want to dabble in night photography, lit up landmarks, buildings, etc.
Would a flashgun allow me to play with light a little in shots like this? I know that on a landscape its not going to make much odds but on for example a building or statue would it be of use?

Chris
Click to expand...

Interesting, could you post up the Dyxum link?

I'm not really into landscapes and buildings as such, but I'm sure a bit of fill from a flashgun could help with buildings and certainly statues.
 
I have just got off the phone with Sigma having received an invoice this morning for £79.99 for the repair of the 24-70. :eek: Even though it says at the bottom "Payment received with thanks", I still gave them a call as I knew I hadn't paid them anything. It turns out that Microglobe didn't provide Sigma with the relevant documentation, they actually paid them for the repair. Draw your own conclusions at that. :suspect:
 
fabs said:
Thanks for that. One of the negatives appears to be distortion at 17mm and as that would be my main reason for getting it, I may well give it a miss.
Click to expand...

I have the Minolta version of this lens that I've used on my a900. The Minolta version used to be the 'kit lens' with the KM 7D's etc. I know a few people with D700's that use the Tam 17-35 and have been pleased for the money (rather than paying £1k for the Canon/Nikon/Sony f2.8 UWA)

For a UWA on FF I'm pretty pleased with the lens. But for APS-C the Tam 17-50 would be a better fit.

The biggest issue with the lens are CA's, but they do clean up pretty well. Depends on whether the price is right :)
 
Quick question... How do you guys find the noise-handling on your sonys?

I have a sony a100... my tech tutor questioned me why my images were so grainy at IS0 1600, and I was like 'cause i was shooting at ISO 1600!' but she thought they were noisier than they should have been! (my fault or noise-handling of the camera?)

But yeah, i think i read somewhere that Sony had that problem, is it just the A100?
 
TinySpark said:
Quick question... How do you guys find the noise-handling on your sonys?

I have a sony a100... my tech tutor questioned me why my images were so grainy at IS0 1600, and I was like 'cause i was shooting at ISO 1600!' but she thought they were noisier than they should have been! (my fault or noise-handling of the camera?)

But yeah, i think i read somewhere that Sony had that problem, is it just the A100?
Click to expand...

The Sony's seem to have a slight issue with noise but usually above ISO 1600, that said I believe the noise handling on the A200 - A 300 & A350 are much better than they were on the A100 but I may be wrong about that.
 
TinySpark said:
Quick question... How do you guys find the noise-handling on your sonys?

I have a sony a100... my tech tutor questioned me why my images were so grainy at IS0 1600, and I was like 'cause i was shooting at ISO 1600!' but she thought they were noisier than they should have been! (my fault or noise-handling of the camera?)

But yeah, i think i read somewhere that Sony had that problem, is it just the A100?
Click to expand...

The A100 was quite poor at noise handling and I found I could never really use it above ISO400 with any degree of confidence. It improved considerable with the A700 and even more so when Firmware version 4 was released. I don't have first hand knowledge of the A200/300.350 but I would imagine they will be better than the A100.
 
the A100 was quite poor at handling noise above ISO400 as fabs says.it is improved upon with the A350(A200+A300 are supposed to be better than A350)as using it at ISO800 produced pretty good results,but again,at ISO1600..noise is present and doesn't give you a lot of confidence shooting at that.the A700 is a marked improvement,especially since the V4 firmware update.

have you tried running your images through a programme like noise ninja?these programmes will remove noise,but at a slight loss in IQ/sharpness.i use a free programme called noiseware community,and it does a good job IMHO...certainly worth a try :thumbs:
 
TinySpark said:
Quick question... How do you guys find the noise-handling on your sonys?

I have a sony a100... my tech tutor questioned me why my images were so grainy at IS0 1600, and I was like 'cause i was shooting at ISO 1600!' but she thought they were noisier than they should have been! (my fault or noise-handling of the camera?)

But yeah, i think i read somewhere that Sony had that problem, is it just the A100?
Click to expand...

Noise handling with the A100 is an aquired skill. There are many schools of thought, including those that think it's unusable over iso 400. Personally I don't subscribe to this idea. The A100 is perfectly capable of producing good results at high iso and it records a staggering amount of detail too, if used correctly.
This is iso 800:
EXP00108copy.jpg


I've got iso 800 & 1600 images on Alamy.

As already mentioned, firmware v1.04 helps but it's only part of the story.
The first thing you have to accept is that Sony appear to have approached noise handling with a different philosophy to the competition. They have concentrated on retaining detail over noise reduction and have tried to make the consequential grain appear more like film grain than the white noise you tend to see in most noisey images. With the A100 they were successful only to a point.

If you keep the exposure within the parameters that the camera can cope with you will get great results. That means that you need to concentrate on getting the exposure spot on. Expose to the right of the histogram.
The A100 has a tendency to underexpose to protect the highlights, which will always result in noise. If you are shooting in low light and including bright light sources like tungsten lights in the image you are likely to see bad chroma noise and banding.

This leads on to the other reason for noise in the Sony line-up. DRO.
The way that DRO works is different to the way that other manufacturers approach extending dynamic range. Most manufacturers throw a tone curve at the image, rather like you'd do in PP with photoshop. DRO identifies dark areas of the image and amplifies the signal from the sensor to increase the detail, effectively increasing the iso locally in that area. Whilst this works superbly with a well exposed image, with low light shooting it can cause a great deal of noise in your JPEGs.

So to summarise; Make sure you have firmware v1.04, get your exposure right, shoot to the right of the histogram, be prepared to back off the DRO in some situations and there is one more thing, buy some noise reduction software! The A100 is brilliant but flawed. There will be times when you just can't avoid the noise. Some noise software will help immensly. I use Neat Image to attack Chroma noise quite aggresively and luminance noise just a little, but there are many packages out there which work as well.
 
Don't s'pose anyone is thinking about offloading their 70-200G & 1.4 TC is there? :whistling:
 
Hi,

Picked up the A200 today. I've been using a Fuji bridge for about a year, and borrowed my friend's Canon 450 for a recent short holiday and had a great time with the camera. So I've bought the A200 as an entry level DSLR which I expect will provide me with a couple of years of learning and good quality photos at the same time.

However, I just wanted to run something past some of the experienced Sony users here. I've been playing around with the camera this afternoon after work, and after putting on the kit lens, i noticed a bit of a strange sound. It happens when i'm 'zooming in' only, and only between around the 35-50 range on the lens. It's a very faint metally sound, almost like a spring coiling up. It doesn't happen when I zoom out, or at any other ranges.

I was wondering if someone could suggest what the sound is, whethere it's likely to be a fault with the lens or the body, and what the best course of action is likely to be. I've picked it up from Argos (as Amazon have jacked the prices up overnight, and its out of stock in London John Lewis stores), so will only be able to return the camera if there's a fault with it.

Thanks for your help.
 
GafferTape said:
Hi,

Picked up the A200 today. I've been using a Fuji bridge for about a year, and borrowed my friend's Canon 450 for a recent short holiday and had a great time with the camera. So I've bought the A200 as an entry level DSLR which I expect will provide me with a couple of years of learning and good quality photos at the same time.

However, I just wanted to run something past some of the experienced Sony users here. I've been playing around with the camera this afternoon after work, and after putting on the kit lens, i noticed a bit of a strange sound. It happens when i'm 'zooming in' only, and only between around the 35-50 range on the lens. It's a very faint metally sound, almost like a spring coiling up. It doesn't happen when I zoom out, or at any other ranges.

I was wondering if someone could suggest what the sound is, whethere it's likely to be a fault with the lens or the body, and what the best course of action is likely to be. I've picked it up from Argos (as Amazon have jacked the prices up overnight, and its out of stock in London John Lewis stores), so will only be able to return the camera if there's a fault with it.

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...


i've not experienced that before...is it with the 18-70 kit lens?

personally,i would return it to argos and get a replacement as it sounds like it's faulty(most probably the lens IMO).it's most probably the lens by the sound of it,but you don't need to know that..just thats all's not right with it.

hope this helps..
 
TinySpark said:
Quick question... How do you guys find the noise-handling on your sonys?

I have a sony a100... my tech tutor questioned me why my images were so grainy at IS0 1600, and I was like 'cause i was shooting at ISO 1600!' but she thought they were noisier than they should have been! (my fault or noise-handling of the camera?)
Click to expand...
also in addition to above comments were you shooting RAW or JPEG & what were you using to process?
Sony's JPEG engine isn't great at higher ISOs & ACR often isn't the best programme for post processing Sony RAW.

On the other hand I think that you will find that at low ISOs very few cameras match the A100's detail.
It's all a balancing match between sensitivity, detail & noise & different companies have different approaches with Sony tending to veer towards detail at the ISOs that most people use most of the time rather than lowest posssible noise at ISOs that only a minority of people use a minority of the time.
 
heidfirst said:
also in addition to above comments were you shooting RAW or JPEG & what were you using to process?
Sony's JPEG engine isn't great at higher ISOs & ACR often isn't the best programme for post processing Sony RAW.

On the other hand I think that you will find that at low ISOs very few cameras match the A100's detail.
It's all a balancing match between sensitivity, detail & noise & different companies have different approaches with Sony tending to veer towards detail at the ISOs that most people use most of the time rather than lowest posssible noise at ISOs that only a minority of people use a minority of the time.
Click to expand...

I have just started shooting in Sony RAW and intend to use PSE6 for post processing (as I already have it!). Is this an OK programme to use, or is anything else recommended?
Thank you
 
Looking for a fairly cheap flash for my A300, was thinking about the F-42 which is about £150 just now but is there a cheaper maybe not quite as specced Minolta that would be a good bet?

For example what would I be losing with a Minolta 3600 rather than the Sony F-42?

Also looking for a little advice re Telephoto Lens and Wide Angle.

Been offered a Sigma 10-20mm for £250 in practically brand new condition, good idea?

Also been looking at a 70-300mm and I know the Sigma APO tends to be the budget option that is reccomended but I've seen a Tamron 70-300mm used fairly cheap, is it a decent lens?
 
chrism_scotland said:
Looking for a fairly cheap flash for my A300, was thinking about the F-42 which is about £150 just now but is there a cheaper maybe not quite as specced Minolta that would be a good bet?

For example what would I be losing with a Minolta 3600 rather than the Sony F-42?

Also looking for a little advice re Telephoto Lens and Wide Angle.

Been offered a Sigma 10-20mm for £250 in practically brand new condition, good idea?

Also been looking at a 70-300mm and I know the Sigma APO tends to be the budget option that is reccomended but I've seen a Tamron 70-300mm used fairly cheap, is it a decent lens?
Click to expand...

Hi Chris. The Minolta 3600 is the equivalent of the Sony HVL-36AM. It has a guide number of 36 as opposed to the F-42 which is 42 so the latter is a little more powerful. That said, the Minolta would do you fine I would imagine (It's not often you use a flash on full power).

I have just bought a Sigma 10-20 and for £250 in that sort of condition I would be invlined to bite the seller's hand off!
 
Re: Sony 36 vs 42 Flash

The main difference for me would be the lack of manual control of the flash power on the 36. I think the 42's have a manual flash mode.

You obviously can use flash comp to reduce/increase the power in auto mode on the 36's, but manual control is very useful is you ever go the route of triggering the flashes using radio triggers etc (or stuff like macro etc)
 
fabs said:
Hi Chris. The Minolta 3600 is the equivalent of the Sony HVL-36AM. It has a guide number of 36 as opposed to the F-42 which is 42 so the latter is a little more powerful. That said, the Minolta would do you fine I would imagine (It's not often you use a flash on full power).

I have just bought a Sigma 10-20 and for £250 in that sort of condition I would be invlined to bite the seller's hand off!
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed that the 10-20 seem to be around £400 new, I'm just a bit conflicted between the 10-20mm or getting a more versatile Kit Lens replacement like the Tamron 17-50 mm
 
chrism_scotland said:
Yeah I noticed that the 10-20 seem to be around £400 new, I'm just a bit conflicted between the 10-20mm or getting a more versatile Kit Lens replacement like the Tamron 17-50 mm
Click to expand...

If the 10-20mm appeals to you and you think you might add it to your kitbag at some stage, get it now or you will regret it and will always be looking for one at that price and be disappointed. The 17-50 or thereabout zooms always seem to be available second hand, even the f2.8s. I love my 10-20 even though I'm not a landscape photographer, but the number of times I need to take a picture of a large group in a small room means it gets regular use. I was undecided between the 10-20mm and the sigma 24-70 f2.8, went with the 10-20 first and continued with my kit lens until I could afford both as it gave me an option I didn't already have
 
Zebedee101 said:
If the 10-20mm appeals to you and you think you might add it to your kitbag at some stage, get it now or you will regret it and will always be looking for one at that price and be disappointed. The 17-50 or thereabout zooms always seem to be available second hand, even the f2.8s. I love my 10-20 even though I'm not a landscape photographer, but the number of times I need to take a picture of a large group in a small room means it gets regular use. I was undecided between the 10-20mm and the sigma 24-70 f2.8, went with the 10-20 first and continued with my kit lens until I could afford both as it gave me an option I didn't already have
Click to expand...

Thanks Zebedee its true it is a bargain at £260.00, I'm just stuck as to whether I really need it, I was going to buy a Sony Flashgun so I could experiment with light, but I can't get both!!!!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Thanks mate, mulling over purchasing the Sigma 10-20 or trying to get some sort of kit lens replacement that goes down to 17 or 18mm, I think I would use a kit lens replacement more perhaps.
Click to expand...

If you have the cash mate I would go with the 10-20 you seem to be covered for all the other focal lengths by what lenses you already have.
 
MrAngry2 said:
If you have the cash mate I would go with the 10-20 you seem to be covered for all the other focal lengths by what lenses you already have.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm thinking that myself, its a big purchase and I'm just trying to tell myself to buy it!
I'm just not convinced that I would get enough usage out of it to make an almost £300 investment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top