A question here for "Uncle" albnok... Rm3200 for a brand new a700, is that an ok price or am I just going to be ripped off??... or, should I save some more and sell off my a200 to get the a850 instead???

ieR: F2.8 to F5.6 is TWO stops! That means 4x the light.

Okay let's say in the dark:

50mm F2.8 has a physical aperture of 50mm/2.8 = 17.8571mm. The surface area is (17.8571/2)^2*pi = 79.719mm2*3.14156 = 250.44mm2
50mm F3.5 has a physical aperture of 50mm/3.5 = 14.2857mm. The surface area is (14.2857/2)^2*pi = 51.02mm2*3.14156 = 160.28mm2
50mm F4.0 has a physical aperture of 50mm/4.0 = 12.5000mm. The surface area is (12.5000/2)^2*pi = 39.0625mm2*3.14156 = 122.72mm2

250mm2 / 160mm2 = 1.56

Thus the difference is 56% more between F2.8 and F3.5. The difference is around 104% between F2.8 and F4.0 but this is not precise. Why? F2.8 is not really F2.80000; it is SQRT(8) or F2.8284271.

All full aperture stops are square roots of multiples of 2:

F1.0
F1.4
F2.0
F2.8
F4.0
F5.6
F8.0
F11
F16

squared:
F1.0
F2.0
F4.0
F8.0
F16
F32
F64
F128
F256

Which is also:
2^0
2^1
2^2
2^3
2^4
2^5
2^6
2^7
2^8

How about half stops or one-third stops?
2^0
2^0.3333
2^0.6666
2^1

2^0
2^0.5
2^1
2^1.5
2^2

Alternatively, let's see what true aperture numbers are:
SQRT(1)
SQRT(2)
SQRT(4)
SQRT(8)
SQRT(16)
SQRT(32)

square roots:
F1.0
F1.4142
F2.0
F2.8284
F4.0
F5.6569

Braynumb: Do you want full frame or not? Are you prepared with FF lenses?

This post has been edited by albnok: Nov 4 2009, 11:44 AM

Braynumb : RM3200 for a brand new A700 with full warranty is a fair price.

As for FF or not, then it's up to what you already have. Looking at your lens collection I would suggest that you stick with the A700. Going FF, you will only have the 50mm lens to play around with. I don't know if your prinzflex 28mm is a FF lens or not.

The 16-105 can work on the FF but you will have difficulties trying to frame your shots as the markers for the APS-C area in the viewfinder is quite difficult to see. Trust me - I've tried it and it's quite frustrating.

For my recent Taiwan trip, I borrowed a Minolta 24-85mm lens from a friend of mine. The lens has a bit of a back focus problem and has some problems focussing on areas close to you when zoomed out to max but I used it mainly for wide landscape shots and kept the aperture to f8 so it's okay.

So for you, it's best you keep the 16-105 on the A700. No need to hunt for extra lenses.

shootkk: There is AF Microadjust on your A850; would have helped greatly with AF!

This post has been edited by albnok: Nov 4 2009, 11:48 AM

albnok : I know but I didn't bother with it since the plan was to go wide and keep the aperture small. The lens worked ok as long as I focussed it to infinity and kept it wide. My fren had it in cold storage for a long time. He had a Minolta Dynax 9xi film SLR but has since stopped shooting.

Nice and thanks...someone should put this up into the first page

TT session 04/11/09

if u hate fly, swim kao to kl hahahaha

looks like you guys really enjoyed yourselves that nite...

shoot RAW+jpeg. problem solved. this talk has been over and over every version of the thread. conculsion, shoot RAW+jpeg, u get to have both

It was a good TT, covers a LOT of topics...from microsoft vs opensource...business...photography...IT...mobile...etc

This post has been edited by finejava: Nov 4 2009, 12:19 PM

yup, like A300 MKII hahaha

---

Added on November 4, 2009, 12:19 pmreally? wahahha then get from sony, i always tot simple accesories like those cost a bomb from sony.

---

Added on November 4, 2009, 12:34 pm*faints* i am never good with maths... hahaha, so, like u mentioned, a 56% increasement, does it really help? if light is a full scale of 1(i dont know how to scale light). lowlight means 0.1, 56% = 0.15? does that really help? the 0.05 up...
also so that that mean when u gotten more then 0.5scale of light(room with lights), 56% is like boost to 0.75, thus more light is always a big help? so how would be the conclusion @.@ F2.8 helps in daylight but near to nothing at lowlight?

but the main question is, (not how much light does it really comes from F2.8 to F5.6) does F2.8 helps on A2/3/330/550 in lowlight? (to answer the people with these question, and my own answer still a NO)

again, i shoot very well in the dark because everytime i shoot, i try target something with contrast, not plain flat surface in the dark. something obviously shows black to white, thus i always archive proper focus when i dont mount my flash, if i have my flash, i dont even think focus was the problem. *edit: so this is the technique for the people to learn to improve shooting technique at night.

and not forgetting the source of this discussion, worth to upgrade to 16105 from 1750. 16105. hmmm... (for those who still owns a A300 or similiar series, that yet to upgrade to 550 or 700 or 850)

but i could state this very well, because my uncle owns a cz1680, and and i play with it often, i made a conclusion, although CZ is higher in apperture, it focus hunt better then 1750, because of the coating that improves contrast which help in focusing. (wayyyyy better) so for those who wans to upgrade from 1750 to CZ, yes it is possible worth your money. but some people just need that F2.8 even at daytime. and CZ might suffer from slow shutter at lowlight iether way. your pick.

This post has been edited by ieR: Nov 4 2009, 12:44 PM

ieR : Don't sweat the maths stuff... just go out there and shoot pictures. End of the day people never ask you how to calculate ratio of light or whatever... to get the shot. Usually they just say, "That's a nice one!"

If you go picking albnok's mind about all these technical things you'll never get out of the house to take pics! I just go - Hmm! This Albert knows lots of technical stuff! - and then go take more pics. If I understand then I understand. If I don't then I just let it go. There will come a time when you will come to understand the stuff in your own way - when you have taken enough shots.

hahahaha. yea no ma, this question been asked around many times, and still noone gotten the excate answer, hope albnok can help enlighten us >.< i also blur at time. hehehehe, i am not picking on sifu albnok, i just a curious guy

havent been here a long time.. never knew got TT last nite

eerrr...... y they need both??

i
its depend on photog him/herself, sumone like to shoot raw, others like jpeg, i'm a raw guys.. easily to manipulate the WB, exposure etc2 in RAW,
sum people maybe like JPEG+RAW, raw for later adjustment, the jpeg for easy review at laptop or pc..

---

Added on November 4, 2009, 1:46 pmi
its depend on photog him/herself, sumone like to shoot raw, others like jpeg, i'm a raw guys.. easily to manipulate the WB, exposure etc2 in RAW,
sum people maybe like JPEG+RAW, raw for adjust, the jpeg for easy review at laptop or pc..

This post has been edited by MechaHerc: Nov 4 2009, 01:46 PM

When u take a photo, it basically takes everything in RAW format. If we select JPEG output, then the camera will do the processing inside the camera itself. That's when all the DRO, creative style are being applied to your pics. The review image u see in your camera LCD screen is that final product.

When you shoot in RAW, none of the DRO or creative style are being applied. The output is raw lor... unprocessed.

Why JPEG? You save time in doing post processing, what you see is what you get. Also, the file size is smaller
Why RAW? Beacuse you have more flexibility in post processing. Problems like under expose, over expose etc is easier to salvage from a RAW file than from a JPEG.

Why take both? So you can compare. If the JPEG output is what u want, great. If you screw up somewhere and need to rescue the pic, then u have the RAW as backup.

Downside: U gonna need a lot of card space

ooo..... ic!
thanks....
tried tat feature before but never really think of utilising the JPEG file format......