I echo that. Now when is my camera coming......

well...after reading the "rumour"...seems logical why A200 was launched at CES...prepare for a fistfight....here

This post has been edited by Mr7077: Jan 25 2008, 09:17 AM

hm, but it won't be long before u'll be looking out for an upgrade right?

Not so fast lah, beginner here. So the A200 twin lens in ideal starter...

that's the real contender for 450D

---

Added on January 25, 2008, 10:17 amsorry but i wasn't referring to that. there's another link within that topic which leads to a pdf file, a test between:

Canon 17-85 IS USM
Nikon 24-120 AF-S VR
Sigma 17-70 DC Macro
Tamron 24-135 AD IF Aspheric
Sony Zeiss 16-80 T*ZA

with their respective bodies except for Sigma and Tamron

---

Added on January 25, 2008, 10:20 amI don't know, it seems like those Sony haters suddenly come into our thread arguing about how 'value' our Sony system is since the release of A200. I never recall them being in our 'home' before this

This post has been edited by soulfly: Jan 25 2008, 10:21 AM

dx_myrddraal: The Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM Recommended Retail Price is RM8,999. RM10,888 is the old price. Expect 10-20% discount at Sg. Wang.

Minolta lenses have always been regarded for their "liquid" bokeh and color consistency across lenses. (This is one thing Canon did not bother with - matching color coatings.) No, bokeh is not as simple as "big circles" or "smooth backgrounds". Good bokeh shows when you have a complicated background, but it smoothens out nicely, is not too contrasty (gives a 2D poster background) and has nice color.

This does NOT count as good bokeh: (shot with a Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX)


This is good bokeh: (shot with a Minolta 70-210mm F4, note how the sweeper is 3D-ish, the background 2D-ish)


If you really love bokeh, Google the Minolta/Sony 135mm F2.8/T4.5 Smooth Transition Focus lens. It is unique to the Alpha mount, and no other lens comes close to the effect it gives.

ALL Sony lenses except the 28mm F2.8 have circular aperture blades.

The Canon 50mm F1.4 Mark I is a slowpoke, much slower than the Sony with 50mm F1.4, vincent_audio I believe we have had a hands-on.

I have a Tamron 200-400mm F5.6 (under RM1500 new) and the Sony will stabilize it. I know I don't use a tripod for shots at 1/60s even.

Here's another thought - holding your camera out when using LiveView will add camera shake, since it's not resting against your face. Also, LiveView kills your shutter count each time you AF. Yes your shutter will die twice as fast.

Great stuff there. I was Minolta PnS user. I think they make great optic with less purple fringing.

Anyway, LiveView kill shutter count is the first time I heard. Another great info...

If anyone thinks LiveView is necessary NOW, go out and try any dSLR with LiveView. LiveView has not been done properly yet. Sony has said they won't do it, until they do it properly.

I'm not going to rush out to buy the first half-baked LiveView dSLR just because it has LiveView.

The shutter opens in LiveView. When you shoot, the shutter closes and then opens again. What for? Still, it halves your shutter count.

When you use Phase-Detect AF in LiveView, the mirror goes down and up. I don't know if the shutter closes then. Gotta listen for it.

Contrast-Detect AF in LiveView isn't so great either - ever tried a Nikon D300? Slow even in a balcony with sunlight coming in.

Just wanna get all the facts to make a better decision.

Thanks for the info anyway albnok

Well, check out this pdf attachment, something interesting to read.


Attached File(s)
 AmateurPhotographer_Magazine_Sony_vitaz_testu.pdf ( 964.2k ) Number of downloads: 64

albnok: i'll prefer a round shape than pentagonal one if given the choice

and i'll prefer this kind of bokeh


which blurred out the background. That is also a main reason why some people go for bigger aperture lens.

To me, the man sweeping the floor is just doesn't have enough bokeh to isolate the background, unless u want to do composition. Maybe the tree behind is a famous tree or the lake has nice swan.

Now this is what I call as good bokeh

the lack of bokeh might also be because of the distance between the camera and the sweeping man... since dof also increase when the distance between subject and camera (or sensor/film to be precise) increase

This is typical "smear the background" out which any bright aperture lens can do, but there are some artifacts around the swing/tree on the far left. Also, there is a weird donut at her mouth level, to the left of the green spot. This isn't SUPERB bokeh. The artifacts are hidden by the bright aperture but they are still there.

The point about my sweeper picture is that you can still see what is in the background. It is not a picture of a sweeper on a big Gaussian Blur background.

It is a picture of a sweeper, where? At a park. How do you know this? Because you can see the background. Which park? KLPAC. Because you can see a white duck and some cats tail plants.

Some lenses can make the cats tail plants (the thing growing by the lake) look pokey and distracting, even at the same setting. That's why this is a good test of bokeh.

You won't always get a very strong Gaussian Blur background even with a F2.8 lens if the subject and background are near. Then, you can see how well the lens isolates subject and background.


In this example, the bokeh is bad, why? Because the circles have bright lines around them. It can be very distracting if there is a subject in front.

This post has been edited by albnok: Jan 25 2008, 02:31 PM

Actually I think I can feel it too. Thanks to Sony A200 pricing, feature and availability. I think never before Sony dumping price of their new product.
I guess Sony learn from their mistake by charging A100 so expensive and does not get new customer but only Minolta die hard fan.

sony's revenue and sales very bad...so now i think they r changing their strategies....

more bokeh goodness

....is this liquid enough?




actually sony sell more than what you could think of... remember they not only sell sony alpha

This post has been edited by soulfly: Jan 25 2008, 04:16 PM

something new to learn here.. kekeek. now i'm start to confuse on bokeh ..i thought every blur image in the behind is a bokeh..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/bokeh-comparison.htm

which one is the correct one?

This post has been edited by ganz: Jan 25 2008, 05:02 PM

you tell me which one you like

you are confused because the background used earlier were different, which i have to agree is not a fair comparison. That compasion by kenrockwell is more accurate as they use same object n same background.

This post has been edited by vincent_audio: Jan 25 2008, 05:56 PM

the last one is totally plain.. and i kind of like it..