Hi, I am a total newbie when it comes to DSLR, just came across the NEX series recently and really interested in it, so I wanna ask all the pros here whether it's a good camera and what are the pros and cons, sufficient for an entry level? And I saw the price list posted on the 1st page, where can I get those prices cause I thought cameras are all fixed price just diff goodies..

view % on the OVF does not effect the image output, the output will still be the same. its when you look through the viewfinder, then with the 98% on the A850, you wont be able to see 2% from the edges of the entire captured image only. whereas for the A900, what you see in the OVF is what you capture. so, having how many mm lens in front of either Sony FF does not contribute to the image difference. and 2% is totally negligible IMO.

but i know what you meant in the 28mm to 42mm issue, i know u understand the concept, just the sentence was terbalik only.. haha, i was pulling your leg there bro..

yea its a very very good camera for that size. cons a...well it could be cheaper.

u can get those prices at any camera shop selling sony goods...

only those that u buy from sony style are fixed price...

I planning to get the NEX-3, since NEX-5 only offers better video in which 720P in NEX-3 is already sufficient I think... Is there any difference though getting at other shops? Do they offer freebies like Sony Stylez does?

So it's better to get the 18-55mm instead of 16mm right?

why not u do a survey and tell us? don't pay too much attention for the freebies though..compare the price of the lens and body is more important..

hmmm..for beginners i would suggest the 18-55mm to get a feel of zoom lens la..although 16mm is a very good choice too. having said that, 2 also buy la!!!

SAL 85F28 reviewed

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/...ffset=&offset=1

Hahaha... sorry if this is a noob question, but what can the 16mm do that the 18-55m cant?

the 16mm cannot zoom lor

18-55 cannot do f/2.8 lor

Nono I know that lar.. I mean what does the 16mm have but 18-55mm dun have??? Is it better taking close up photos?

16mm = wider

18-55mm = can zoom.

The more the mm, the further the zoom.

erm. a 16mm does not have a 55mm?

for those who are lazy to click the link:

New Sony DSLR lenses previewed - Sony 85mm f/2.8 SAM (SAL85F28) by Damien Demolder



This really does not look or feel like a full frame lens. It weighs 175g and has a plastic barrel and a plastic mount. I had to try it on the A900 just to make sure it wasn't designed just for APS-C. When on the camera it makes so little difference to the over all weight that you might need to constantly check you have a lens attached at all. Built to a Sonnar-style design it features just six elements in five groups, and uses Sony's SAM (Smooth Autofocus Motor) to drive the AF.



To be honest I didn't expect it to be much good. It feels like a cheap kit lens, and a maximum aperture of f/2.8 – slow for this focal length – suggests some stopping-down to mask optical problems. The 85mm portrait lens is still very much in fashion, but most feature an aperture wider than f/2 – f/1.2 being the ultimate and f/1.8 the norm. F/2.8 seems somewhat staid in comparison.

In use it actually performs very well. The unit I was using was not completely finished, but it didn't show. The AF is quick and the pictures are sharp. Although f/2.8 doesn't allow the low-light working that wider apertures do, it is still respectable, and in fact most ultra-wide aperture 85mm lenses do not perform at their best wide open. In practical terms too, for a headshot f/1.4 presents depth of field a little too shallow - except for showing off shallow depth of field.

Working wide-open and at a distance of just a few feet, I found depth of field just about shallow enough without feeling I wanted to open the aperture any more. A diffused desk lamp allowed a hand-hold-able shutter speed of 1/50sec at ISO 1600 – so I didn't feel deprived at all.

The resulting images are sharp and crisp, with attractive out of focus areas. In all, I am very pleased with the results.

Sony has yet to announce a price for this lens, but a spokesperson has indicated to me that we should expect it to cost in the region of £175. To be frank, in the hand the lens feels like a £175 lens, but the results demonstrate that it really will be excellent value for money. The existing 85mm option for Sony users is the Carl Zeiss T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA (SAL85F14Z), which will set you back a more full-frame-price of £1200.

The new lens is due to go on sale in September.




more poisons

mainly, i think on what you are questioning is that the 16mm is basically wider (mm difference shows more on the wide end than on the tele end), the 16mm is a few stops faster, thus making it possible to be used in low light handheld. its a pancake lens, where it is small enough to be considered as a PnS (not doable with the 18-55)

Too bad it is F2.8 but if the price is very freaking cheap then it would be great

the 16mm suits the Fish Eye and Wide Angle
the SEL1855 can fit the FE but vignetting kaw kaw. Wide angle adapter im not sure

but what the guy said seems true..

you won't be shooting f1.4 all the time or f1.8..

depth of field a bit too shallow sometimes..anyway that's personal preference although the light gathering capability at f1.4 is alluring ><

Even when I got the 50mm 1.4, I shot at F4, F5.6 & F7.1 most of the time

Need to be sharp when shooting artistes, I only used 1.4 if I confirm he's not moving for a short time/when his background has nice lights/bokeh-able things

its the fact that you know that you HAVE a f/1.4 at the scroll of a dial that is poisoning, doesnt matter if u even use it or not. but to justify the fact that the Zeiss costs 2 of my A700 with grip, compared to a (nearly) pocketable lens with the sacrifice of a couple of stops at a tiny fraction of the cost, now THAT's alluring.. i even have to think again whether to get the sp90 or not, coz the SP would have a longer focus throw and bigger size - then again, the sp90 is undoubtedly sharp and is a 1:1 magnification...

---

Added on July 28, 2010, 10:04 pmbut isnt that a contradiction? you're supposed to use a bigger aperture to so that you can get a faster shutter speed to freeze the movement. if i have a 1.4, i'd use 1.8/2.0 range all the time... now with my 1.7, i need to use 2.8 range to avoid softness

This post has been edited by lwliam: Jul 28 2010, 10:04 PM

But in dark conditions, usually my flash is on. Shot using 1.4 in The Opera

But when I set 1.4, I just use pop up flash, much nicer after some R&D

When I shoot 4/5.6/7.1, it's either bright during the press conference, or when he's a distance away/on the stage dancing fast moves, I use my flashgun to keep the image sharp while properly exposed.


Editted my sentence, so it's not so confusing

This post has been edited by cassplayer: Jul 28 2010, 10:17 PM