mine only 1 out of 3

anyone can recommend lens that best for landscape and macro?
budget around Rm500 below or around.
>,<

I see that you have the A100. If you can live with that then any of the newer Alpha bodies will be great boost in performance for you.

What is the reason for jumping ship? Is there anything in the alpha mount that you want but cannot be provided for by Sony? If not then there's really no reason to jump.

Why I stuck to Sony:

1. I am not a high ISO pixel peeper thus all the Sony has poor high ISO performance crap does not affect me. With the A550, that argument is getting real old, real fast anyway.

2. The F58 flash - it is cheaper than the canikon's counterpart. It is more versatile and real fast in usage. Turning from landscape to portrait orientation is a SNAP, literally!!! I challenge any 580EXII and SB-900 users to beat the F58's speed in turning from landscape to portrait orientation without the use of any brackets. Problem is you will only miss it when it's not there.

3. Steady Shot Inside - all mountable lens (except for unchipped, manual focus lenses) stabilized! 'Nuff said.


braindead_fr3ak
For APS-C bodies you will need 16mm for a proper wide angle. 18mm is like 28mm on a FF - acceptable but some of you would wish it was wider at times. 24mm on APS-C is cramped! 28mm? DO NOT even go there!

The 24mm and 28mm are for FF. I like 24mm better than 28mm - that's why the new 28-75mm F2.8 lens holds no interest for me. I would rather they have a 24-70mm F4 or even a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 for a budget alternative to the 24-70mm f2.8 Zeiss.

all moving towards FF

but for myself, I will probably move towards m4/3 or APS-C EVIL camera (if sony makes one) when they mature. i prefer smaller camera

---

Added on January 26, 2010, 9:55 ammy sentiments exactly! Have been using A100 for 2 years now and still loving it!

1. although i would prefer it to have better high ISO, but i wouldn't trade it for the ISO 80 that is just so useful
2. ditto on the F58. i haven't use any other flash so it's not fair for me to compare. but F58 is just a breeze to use
3. i once tried using my friend's camera with a 50mm mounted and wondered why my photo are still soft when i used 1/30s. too pampered by steady shot

This post has been edited by weixuan: Jan 26 2010, 09:55 AM

lwliam: Unique as in, there is no Canon 14-24mm. The 14-24mm is not quite considered 'in' the holy trinity the way the Nikkor 17-35mm is (the 24-35mm end of the 17-35mm comes in very crucially for emergency un-distorted shots.)

Ok... I stand Corrected... so the ZE mount's contacts are for focus confirmation izzit?

didn't say must jump la... sticking with Sony anyways...

well... good thing I didn't sell my 16105 coz of impulse sold it coz need the money... hehehe...

dayum! very nais set indeed...

this is seriously poisonous!

Braynumb: Yes, for focus confirm.

There was only one other mount which Carl Zeiss made autofocusing full-frame lenses for - the contax N Digital. It was the world's first full-frame dSLR (and using CCD)! The body reminds me too much of a Nikon F4. Sadly this was discontinued in 2005. Don't hope to find any of these N-mount lenses, they are obscenely rare (and the slightly more common C/Y mount is very rare, too.)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-digital.shtml
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02022505...gitalinhand.asp

Contax was a brand developed by Zeiss Ikon to counter the Leicas. So in that sense it was a system developed by a lens company, instead of a camera company developing lenses!

Somebody else asked what the T in T* stands for - apparently, Tarnung:


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contax.

waaa... the contax N looks gorgeous! a great collector's item... btw, the Zeiss Icon is a film camera right? albert, with film cameras, if the film is ISO400, does it mean that i can't/shouldn't set my camera to more than ISO400 or i can, but would cause noise?

the rubber on the hand grip of my a100 is quite loose dy.. how much to change it in sony service centre ya?? any idea?

Bro, films have fixed ISO values. You cannot push the ISO values of film. If you increase the camera's ISO setting, you will only cause the shot to be underexposed (because the camera thinks you are using a higher ISO value film, but in actual fact you are not). Noise in DSLR is only relevant because it is digital noise. Film is analogue, so it doesn't have digital noise. Having said that, higher ISO films have grains.... these are very different than digital noise and in some cases is actually quite pleasing.

I remember I used to have ISO400 films and I have to store them in my fridge because at ambient temperature, the film will go haywire....

First to fouth pictures edited with Photoshop. First time making use of HDR Pictures taken in Cameron Highlands recently. Using a200 + kitlens 18-70. Comments are greatly welcomed to improve the pictures Thanks

PS: How to get rid of the purple marks on the clouds

This post has been edited by ReaperOfSoul: Jan 26 2010, 11:47 AM

Nice. Really love #4 detail. Anyone up to broga? hehe. Really want to again. There 's a lot of detail place that i missed out.

uzu, nk ikut!

u drive la , i follow

Yes the Zeiss Ikon is a film rangefinder.

Yes, you can 'push' film by processing it longer e.g. 8 minutes instead of 4 minutes. This was common practice with some black-and-white films which have no fixed ASA value but work approximately best at ASA400. Black-and-white films have the most flexibility; color negatives in between; color positive slide film has the lowest flexibility and latitude.


Minolta 50mm F1.4 on Minolta Dynax 7 with Lucky ASA100


Minolta 58mm F1.2 MD (modified mount) on Minolta Dynax 7 with Kodak BW 400 CN


Vivitar 24mm F2.0 on Olympus OM-2000 with Kodak Gold ASA 400 (one of my favorite shots, with film you won't use burst mode)

Instead of noise it has grain and it usually looks alright.

Oh, and the Contax N Digital does look quite like the Konica Minolta 7 Digital:


Here's the Nikon F4:


And the Contax N Digital again:


signither: No idea but when it was under warranty it was free. Let us know!

ReaperOfSoul: Your masking isn't done well. Use a gradient instead. Also, do multiple exposures instead of one RAW - that will increase tonality.

This post has been edited by albnok: Jan 26 2010, 12:19 PM

funny, i not sure bout albnok and CJlai, my fisheye is SSSed. ^^;

18mm is consider wide. because u still stand infront of all other compact camera to shoot group photo. and i always turn to 24(even apsc) to shoot, it is less distorted then 18mm.
16 and 18, a minor diff in space/area, but the distortion is big.

This post has been edited by ieR: Jan 26 2010, 12:21 PM

albnok! pushing the film in post-processing do not count as changing the ISO setting in the camera!

wah..very hard to satisfy,,especially the 500buck price tag

if ur macro means still life toy/flower..the closest i can think off is the sony 30 2.8...but if u wanna use it to shoot bugs..thats gonna be so dam challenging..
well..not very wide for landscape..but i cant think of anything else..lol


i think u can use ur kitlens(if any) to shoot landscape first..nothing wrong with that..when u have a zoom(i see u r buying a zoom) get a macro converter like Raynox 250...its very cheap..and it can last u awhile until u have the budget to buy a true macro lens..

This post has been edited by achew: Jan 26 2010, 12:30 PM

Planning to get a cheap old school Minolta to mingle around. Any cheap deals? (:

moo, try dinodino..