zstan : If you can find a way to bounce the signal behind your cam to reach the flash, then it will fire lor...

zstan : Believe it or not you can bounce it like you bounce your flash lor. If you're in a room with a low ceiling, you can pretty much trigger the flash anywhere you place it.

zstan : Aiyooo... talk so long ady, still never catch what I say... yalar... the signal comes from the pop-up lar...

I've triggered a flash wirelessly outdoors, in sunlight (although we were in the shade), with the flash placed behind my models (blocking the line of sight from my cam) and surrounded with nothing but trees using my A100 pop up.

8tvt : Then get the A700/A850/A900 lor... then can use F58 as commander to trigger other flashes lor.

The whole idea of a flash is to help with the lighting, whether it is direct or bounced. The flash is not a magical device that will turn your photography into some genius level or what-not.

Photography needs light to work, no question about it. Flashes provide light but you control the exposure. Keep that in mind. There's no such thing as direct flash or bounce or whatever is better. It should be how you want it to be.

Here are a few generally misunderstood notions about pop-up flash:

1. Pop-up flash are harsh
Really? Why is that so? The fact is that the pop-up flash is the weakest flash you can have. The external flashes are all more powerful than the puny pop-up so why is the pop-up flash labelled as harsh? Doesn't it make more sense that more powerful light will create harsher lighting? Don't believe me? Try looking at a spotlight at close range.

The pop up is in fact not as harsh as you would believe it to be. It's limited by it's weak output. To get decent lighting from the flash you have to get close but sometimes you're too close. Thus the harshness.

2. The pop-up flash sucks as a light source
This happens when people try to make the pop-up flash their main light source. It's never design to be a main light source for anything. It's designed more as a fill flash. Use it accordingly and it will work well for you. Use it more during the daytime and not during the nightime when you know you don't have a good enough light source to work with.

Flash photography is not just about having a flash gun. It's more about how you use the light from the flash gun to help you get the pics you want.

Yes. You're gonna miss out on the 18-250mm. Get this rather than the 18-200mm if you are planning to get a new Sony one.

lwliam : I was sick. That's true. Just recovered only. Feeling a bit weak. Stupid doctor gave me meds that don't really help. The virus ran its course I guess.

I dunno yet if I can make it on Saturday. Still not feeling optimal and I may not feel like getting up that early. Will let you know tomorrow by afternoon or evening if I will be there. That's a promise.

People want zoom far, far mar so I suggest he zoom further lor...

Funny how all of us who are recommending lenses don't have those said lenses or no longer have them...

Chrisky : Truth is, there's not much difference between your 2 choices. One you need to swap lens. The other you don't need to.

If convenience is important to you then go for the all-in-one. One thing that you might want to consider is that people tend to use only the ends of a zoom lens rather than all the focal ranges. E.g. if you have an 18-200mm zoom, you will probably be using the 18mm to about 28mm and the 200mm focal lengths most of the time. Most other focal lenghts are seldom/rarely used. So the real question is 'Do you really NEED telephoto?'

I'm coming!

PC Fair pic spam.. a little ...

Sony really should pay us some money since we were demonstrating wireless flash tech in front of Sony's booth.

More pic spam from PC Fair.

noprob Thanks!

It's not worth repairing. You can send it to Sony's service center but it'll cost you RM150 alone for the labour charge and you can get a second hand kitlens for less than RM300.

Raiko : How does the A200 suck? I have the A100 and it still takes fine pics.

albnok : Thanks! I'm getting real tired of a certain someone going on and on about WB, know what I mean? So figured that it'll be much less of a hassle to get the WB right in cam.

Yes, in a sense, but I'll enjoy my meals better without someone nagging at me...

Here's a few suggestions that costs less than RM 2k:

1. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 <-- constant aperture
2. Sony 18-55mm SAM f3.5-f5.6 <-- you could get a second hand unit for around RM300
3. Sony 16-105mm f3.4-f5.6 <-- good walkaround lens for landscape and portrait.
4. Sony 18-250mm f3.5-f6.3 <-- if you want the range
5. Tamron 18-200mm f3.5-f6.3 <-- cheapest superzoom in the market

Well you can always buy SAL lenses and use a converter.... just that you need to MF lor...

If you are seriously looking for a flash then the F58 is the one to get. Once you get this it will end all your flash lusting. It is NOT expensive at all. You can get it around Rm11xx street price and it is much more affordable than the C and N counterparts. Third party brands is cheaper but don't give you full features, like don't have ADI or don't support wireless etc. Most importantly no other flashes gives you the 'cobra' action!! You just have to experience it to know how good it is.


As for comments on A100 users feeling frustrated and jumping ship - I am an A100 user and one of the early Alpha adopters. I don't feel deprived at all. There are way more lenses from Sony than I can ever find use for. So what if C and N brands have more lenses. It's not like I will use all of them. People just like to say things like that but they themselves really have no use for the so called lenses.

I don't do macro so macro lenses are not for me no matter how sharp or how good the macro capabilities are. I have no need for a 300mm f2.8 lens so it's existence do not add anything to my photography experience. Big, heavy zoom lenses are falling out of favor with me so lenses like the 16-35 and the 24-70 and the 70-200G f2.8 are not very appealing to me. So what does that leave me with - a 50mm prime and I am lusting after the 24mm Zeiss but currently that place is filled by a 20mm prime and I am using a friend's Minolta 24-85mm normal zoom which is just nice. Not too big and heavy. These 3 lenses are enough for me. I might want the newly announced 85mm SAM prime but that depends a lot on the price.

So how many lenses do you really NEED? Do you really have to have every lens in a brand's stable to be able to enjoy your photography? If you have more than 5 lenses you're probably more of a lens collector than a photography enthusiast. Take more pics. Not buy more lenses. A photographer knows how to use the gears he/she has to get the pics he/she wants.

Sorry bro. Most probably they have stopped support for the older versions. It's a strategy to get people to use the newer versions. That's life, unfortunately.