Got mine for RM7xx last time

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Nov 22 2007, 02:52 AM

Bought mine for RM7xx 6 months ago but sold off together with my Alpha + Kit + 70-300mm for 6.5k

Also, it's very hard to get used Sony / Minolta lens. Simply because, low number of people selling it and even if you manage to find one, it gonna be overpriced cause everybody fighting for it since it's limited. Take for instance a used Minolta 50mm f1.7, some people are selling it for RM400-500. A used Canon 50mm f1.8 is just around RM2xx, if you are lucky enough you can even get it @ RM180 like one of our forumer.

I was an Alpha user last time, each time I could only drool whenever I came across people selling used lens. Simply because it gonna be either Canon / Nikon. Sony / Minolta? maybe once in a blue moon, that also sold overpriced. Brand new Sony 70-200mm f2.8 is pricey and because of that most of them would just opt for the legendary Minolta 70-200mm f4. You might wanna ask the Alpha users, how many of them actually own the Sony 70-200mm f2.8?

RRP RM1999, I believe the sellers can do better than that either by giving gift or quote a slightly lower price.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Jan 22 2008, 12:19 AM

Fixed,

Conclusion, you might get to start cheap with Sony, however in long term run, you gonna pay aloooot more to buy Sony lens compare to buying Canon lens at the same spec. If you guys just wanna get a DSLR for the sake of buying one, maybe you can start cheap with Alpha 200 and it's just the matter of time before you change to Canon once you start to know how to calculate better.

Average selling price for a used Minolta 50mm f1.7 is RM4xx-5xx and you only get to see people selling that lens once in a blue moon. A used Canon 50mm f1.8 is around RM2xx, if you are lucky, you can get it for Rm180 like one of our forumer, do a random search at our Trade Zone and you'll know how easy it is to get a used Canon 50mm f1.8 compared to getting one for Sony

Now this is what I call as good bokeh

How about this 2?

What's next? A700?
btw how much are you selling your alpha for?

That's pretty common in 50mm f1.8. Sometimes I'll need to remove it and resnap to get rid of the glare.

I personally don't hate any brand. About Alpha A100, I said that the picture quality @ ISO 400 and above sark hard. There's no such thing as "I used A100 before and that made me angry".

Now stop crying out loud like a little girl here. Go play somewhere else if you choose to post more posts like this. This is not a place for you to whine like a little girl.

Maybe you are still new on issues faced by alpha users. You might wanna read this, do a simple google and you'll realize that I'm not the only one complaining about the noise issue. Or maybe you should really try shooting with your friend's alpha. Shoot @ ISO 800 and you'll see.

I agreed that A200's noise has reduced drastically. However it still loses to 400D's noise control system.

I hardly understand what you are trying to say. There's no such thing as noise will increase when I shoot it in dark places. I used my Alpha to shoot weddings, potraits, and so.

If you said so, why bother reading it then? Your statements controdicts.

Smart, I always advice A200 users to not to get the Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 lens. It's slower and Siggy comes with macro.

Let me make it clear to you boy, at the same ISO, noise is MORE VISIBLE when you shoot at dark places NOT increase.

---

Added on February 6, 2008, 2:25 pmLooking at the f number, we already know which is faster than which. I used to have the Sony 75-300mm, did a side by side with Siggy 70-300mm. Pictures are brighter and sharper.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Feb 6 2008, 02:25 PM

btw how much you bought your Siggy?

That's not a good reason to switch to Alpha. I was a S3 IS user and I switched to A100 + 400D before ditching Alpha because of the bad noise control and hard to get used lens.

Wow, I never thought that non-alpha users are considered as enemy here. I believe this is a forum where we do sharing with each other regardless any brands. When something is good, we say that it's good. When something is proven bad with facts supporting it, we just accept it and move on. For instance the Sony 75-300mm, I would suggest my alpha friends to get the Siggy instead of the Sony lens simply because it's sharper and better.

This is a forum not flats or terrace houses where you can't simply go to other people's house to comment on their stuff. Forum is a free place where everybody comes in and out to share their opinions here. Your statement sounded as if I must only give good comments on Sony stuff when I enter here? I hope not.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Feb 6 2008, 03:11 PM

I'm just merely doing comparisons between "400D and A200's noise control" and "Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 with Sigma 75-300mm f4-5.6 Macro"

btw thanks calvin_gsc. Glad to know that my statements are not considered as bashing blindly. I only take it as a healthy debate where we share facts to compare when we are comparing certain stuff.

p/s: We don't label photographers here as enemy or alliances base on what system they are using. We are all brothers, sharing views under the same LYN forum and that's how we manage to gather different users to join us during the previous outings.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Feb 6 2008, 03:47 PM

So you too are indirectly telling me that I shouldn't post something that show Alpha's noise control is worse than Canon's though it's a healthy and fair comparison?

and No, the purpose I posted that comparison is to answer albnok's question here

He was asking , "Where is the 400D better than the A200's ISO1600? Please share the link."

I don't see anything wrong replying him. Why the discussion came into this thread? Do a follow up on that thread and you'll realize that little girl gogo2 who brought it over here. I wouldn't wanna comment much on how girlish he is.

p/s: I don't gain any benefit by dropping so-called "silent" hint here. All I wanted to do is just have a healthy discussion. I certainly don't understand why posting a healthy comparison will lead you guys to think as if I'm trying to do some "silent Sony-Canon conversion".

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Feb 6 2008, 05:29 PM

I bet you wouldn't wanna carry a MP3 player weighing few kgs.

Having 4MB ms to play movies is sure a problem

---

Added on February 6, 2008, 5:39 pmI've cleared said that, reason I posted that comparison is just to answer albnok's question. I don't feel like going further to discuss what's my intention and those. Going off to KL now, cheers and happy CNY everyone



This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Feb 6 2008, 05:40 PM

Yes, Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro
Sharp lens for macro shots.