Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[HPS3]

Sounds like the XE2 outperforms it's sensor size. I feel the same way about the Sony RX100 sensor. I haven't heard much of a downside to the XE2........ So you've shot with almost everything it seems.... What are the cons of the XE2? The most obvious is the somewhat limited lens lineup. (Even if they do offer some great lenses). Of course, looking at their roadmap, the lens lineup should get pretty well filled out in the next year or two.
So if you stepped back and looked at it objectively, what are the cons of the Fuji?

#1 is definitely RAW support! LR5.3 is just mediocre when it comes to the X Trans sensor. I've just downloaded Capture One to test. Fuji photos look soft and the colors/WB look worse than the JPEG when processing through most programs. I hear Capture One is supposed to be the best then maybe Photo Ninja. LR is one of the worst. It has to do with Fuji's sensor array, the X Trans uses a different pattern than Bayer sensors. From what I read, Fuji hasn't released their algorithm.

#2 is that the XE2 doesn't have a tilting screen which I really like to shoot waist level.

#3 is battery life (just like the nex series), I get about 300 shots. I have 3 batteries and 2 chargers.

#4 is cost of lenses. You pay for top quality. The 23 f1.4 is $900 and the new 56 f1.2 is $1000. Both of which I would love both but can't afford either right now.

#5 When using flash, the WB on the background looks ok but the flash looks whitish blue. To better balance you need to gel. I bought the EF42 flash and mounted a 1/4 CTO just to make it warmer. Both on board and external flash look too white on auto or flash WB. I need to find a way to gel the on board flash.

I don't know how to explain it, but the camera is just fun to use. Sure the A7 beats it in IQ and noise when pixel peeping but not by enough to justify the cost difference to me. Even though I used manual lenses on the Nex 6/7, it was so much harder and slower on the A7. Fuji also listens to their customers and makes their cameras better with each firmware update.

Steve Huff really needs to test the Fuji with Capture One 7 in order to take advantage of the RAW files.

Check out Jim Radcliffe and his thoughts on the XE2. He's got some really great shots from many cameras.

http://www.boxedlight.com/XE2/index.htm

 

[havoc315]

#5 When using flash, the WB on the background looks ok but the flash looks whitish blue. To better balance you need to gel. I bought the EF42 flash and mounted a 1/4 CTO just to make it warmer. Both on board and external flash look too white on auto or flash WB. I need to find a way to gel the on board flash.

I don't know how to explain it, but the camera is just fun to use. Sure the A7 beats it in IQ and noise when pixel peeping but not by enough to justify the cost difference to me. Even though I used manual lenses on the Nex 6/7, it was so much harder and slower on the A7. Fuji also listens to their customers and makes their cameras better with each firmware update.


http://www.boxedlight.com/XE2/index.htm

I've just started to teach myself how to use gels. Outside of pure tungsten lighting situations, I'm still pretty lost.
But I've decided that perhaps the most cost effective way for most people to truly upgrade their photography (depending on what they shoot)...you can skip upgrading body, skip spending big money on lenses, but get a decent flash and some basic cheap lens accessories (and learn to use them).

So why were manual lenses harder and slower on the A7 than the NEX?

I go back and forth on what I consider "fun" shooting. I go through stretches where my tiny RX100 is "fun" in providing a quality shooting experience in such a tiny package. And then stretches where I need a true big dSLR for "fun" just for the depth of control I can take and the responsiveness.

Anyway, enjoy your camera. It sounds really great.

 

[HPS3]

I found peaking on the Nex to be really close and pretty accurate and seldom used magnification. On the A7 peaking is no where near accurate and magnifying takes a 2 step process. You have to push the C button then zoom in. I also missed the scroll wheel zoom on the Nex when reviewing. I think the peaking isn't forgiving at wide apertures due to the thin DOF on FF. I found it easier with peaking off on the a7.

I don't know how Huff had a 40% missed focuses on the XE2 because I found it more reliable indoors than the A7 or Nex. That's testing in dim lighting in my living room. I found the A7 to hunt quite a bit in low light with the kit lens. On his site plenty of comments mention the accuracy of the XE2.

 

[fractal]

 

[Hockeyman]

Hockeyman,

SAR is now reporting that the A77 replacement will be in stores by June. They go on to say that Sony is being tightlipped about it since they developed several prototypes and don't want it leaked which will win out. The changes are NOT expected to be small.

Yeah I saw that and seems more and more like Havoc's predictions are coming true lol. I cant wait till summer so looking like ill be headed down the A99 path. Ive been keeping a close eye on some used ones on Ebay and have been going for around $1,800.

 

[Hockeyman]

Hey guys I figured I would start off with two FF lenses when I do make the jump and besides the 50mm 1.4 Minolta what would be a good lens but not break the bank? Im looking for something in the range of my Tamron 17-50 now, a little bit of zoom and a little bit of width also.

 

[havoc315]

Hey guys I figured I would start off with two FF lenses when I do make the jump and besides the 50mm 1.4 Minolta what would be a good lens but not break the bank? Im looking for something in the range of my Tamron 17-50 now, a little bit of zoom and a little bit of width also.

If you're patient, you can definitely get the A99 for $1750-$1850. Also watch Dyxum sales page. A couple of the camera stores also list used models with a "best offer" -- You can try offering $1800, as that is the price point where they have been selling.

I've also been considering lens options in that range. I posted a review on Dpreview of the Minolta 24-85 versus the Minolta 35-105 (original version).
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52941316

Both lenses go for about $100 for a good copy. So they are nice and CHEAP.

The 24-85 matches up nicely with your 17-50 for focal length -- Unfortunately, I didnt really like the performance. It was usable, but too much distortion and too soft for my tastes.
The 35-105 is AMAZING in terms of image quality, especially for $100. Unfortunately, it isn't very wide, and also suffers from bizarre minimum focus distance (except for a weird manual focus macro mode, you normally need to be more than 5 feet from your subject). But if you are at least 5 feet from your subject and ok with 35mm, you get fantastic amazing results with this lens.

More modern affordable options:

The Minolta "secret handshake" lens -- 28-135 is pretty highly rated. They go for around $250. Not quite as wide as your 17-50 (which is 25.5-75 equivalent), but you get a very nice range.

All of the affordable good lenses really start at 28..
There are Minolta/Sony/Tamron 28-75/2.8 lenses --- Optically, all 3 are supposedly the same. But the Sony version is much more expensive, it is SAM, and on the A99, it would support in-camera lens corrections and AF-D mode. But it won't support DMF! The Minolta/Tamron versions are screw lenses -- they support DMF, but not AF-D and lens corrections. The Minolta-Tamron versions go for about $300 used. The Sony version is $900 new...... But you can occasionally get it much cheaper used (I'm being patient watching on eBay.... 1 went for $450 a few days ago, but I missed my bidding chance).
The only modern "24" that is somewhat affordable -- I've seen the Sigma 24-70/2.8 go for about $500. It has a silent focus motor, so it's a pretty good deal. (New, it is $900).
If you can be patient, Sigma is going to release their new 24-105/f4 lens for $900 for Sony. This lens is getting amazing reviews. And f4 on the A99 is much like using 2.8 on the A55.

Knowing your shooting style, you may also keep on your wish list:
Expensive: Sigma 12-24.
Affordable ($300ish) -- Minolta 17-35.
Two nice ultra wide lenses. 17 might not be ultra-ultra wide..... But it would be the same as the Tokina 11-16 on APS-C. So definitely qualifies as ultra wide.

If you want a good telephoto zoom --- The best affordable full frame option is the Tamon 70-300 usd. (And the A99 actually recognizes it as being the same as the Sony 70-300G, and applies AF-D, lens corrections, and DMF modes all work). You can get this lens for $250-$300 used. As far as I'm concerned, it's a great lens to match with the A99 unless you really really need a 2.8 telephoto lens.

My own lens plans for the A99:
Either use my 35-105 as my "kit" lens, and save up for the Sigma 24-105. Or spend $400-$500 on the Sony 28-75, with plans to add the Minolta 17-35, or the Sigma 12-24, down the road.

 

[HPS3]

Mike, I would definitely start at 24 for a general purpose lens. When I had the A7 here, I hated that the kit was 28-75. I think 24 is nice on FF. Another great wide is the Rokinon 14 f2.8 (Bower, Samyang etc.). It has some distortion but LR has a correction for it. It's really sharp and gets great reviews. I've tried it on a D600 (Havoc......shhhh! LoL!)

 

[havoc315]

Mike, I would definitely start at 24 for a general purpose lens. When I had the A7 here, I hated that the kit was 28-75. I think 24 is nice on FF. Another great wide is the Rokinon 14 f2.8 (Bower, Samyang etc.). It has some distortion but LR has a correction for it. It's really sharp and gets great reviews. I've tried it on a D600 (Havoc......shhhh! LoL!)

Yeah.. you knew what I was going to say.....

I tend to find the "weak Sony lens lineup" to be exaggerated, especially as to APS-C. But there is truth to it for full frame.
Sticking within the Sony brand, there are no moderately priced 24mm zoom lenses. There is a Zeiss 16-35 -- $2,000 new. And the Zeiss 24-70, also $2,000 new.

They really need a couple affordable lens options that are wider. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 for $900 should be a great option, but won't be available for a few months.

If you can live without a 24mm zoom, you can save a lot of money. There are some very good zoom lenses that start at 28mm. You can cover the focal length affordably with the Minolta 17-35. Or you can use a prime for wide angle purposes -- Minolta 24/2.8 for $150. The Samyang Rokinon 14mm for $300ish. Or if you are willing to sacrifice IQ a bit for the 24mm range, you can very cheaply get something like the Minolta 24-85.

But getting a GOOD zoom lens that covers 24mm for A-mount, is darn expensive.

 

[havoc315]

here you go Mike...
Instead of just 1 lens..... Here are 3 lenses that even combined, won't bust your wallet. And while they lack modern conveniences like SSM, all 3 are very good lenses in terms of IQ:

Minolta 24 2.8 as a wide angle prime. About $175. (True, it's not ultrawide, but it is slightly wider than your Tamron)
Then, either the Tamron 28-75 /2.8 for about $325 --- This is really basically the same lens as your current Tamron, just slightly less wide. (Your Tamron is 25.5... this is 28).
Or, really save money and get a really wide focal range -- The Minolta 28-135 -- $200-$250.
And to cover some moderate telephoto, in a fast lens -- The famous Minolta beercan, 70-210 f4 -- $90-$150.

So that will cover you from 24-210... with high performing lenses, for a total of $475 - $650.

 

[havoc315]

Dpreview posted their review of the A7....
It is a pretty timid review overall. They didn't give it any of their 'awards'..
They had some pretty significant issues with it overall. (poor jpeg quality, an issue with needing to use Shutter priority mode, because shutter speed was set too low in other modes).

 

[fractal]

Dpreview posted their review of the A7....
It is a pretty timid review overall. They didn't give it any of their 'awards'..
They had some pretty significant issues with it overall. (poor jpeg quality, an issue with needing to use Shutter priority mode, because shutter speed was set too low in other modes).

Actually they gave the A7 the "Silver Award".

I'm surprised about the JPEG complaint as others have raved about the new JPEG engine and results.

"Ultimately, the Alpha 7 is a nice step-up for current NEX owners, and will certainly tempt those who want something smaller than conventional full-frame cameras. However, while Sony has done many things right with the a7, the issues raised in this review are significant enough to keep it from getting our top award."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7

 

[havoc315]

Actually they gave the A7 the "Silver Award".

I'm surprised about the JPEG complaint as others have raved about the new JPEG engine and results.

"Ultimately, the Alpha 7 is a nice step-up for current NEX owners, and will certainly tempt those who want something smaller than conventional full-frame cameras. However, while Sony has done many things right with the a7, the issues raised in this review are significant enough to keep it from getting our top award."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7

Not sure how I missed that. Of course, they give almost every camera at least a silver award, lol. They are in bed with the camera companies, since the rely on their ad placement.

I was a little surprised by the jpeg comments. Sony did have a reputation for bad jpeg processing, but thought they mostly fixed it by the a99.

Not surprised by the shutter speed/ISO issue. Been hearing it a lot, with lots of complaints that you need a tripod or shutter priority mode. (What's the point of a compact camera if it needs a tripod??).

As I've said before... It probably does represent the future. But I do t think it's fully baked yet.

 

[fractal]

Not sure how I missed that. Of course, they give almost every camera at least a silver award, lol. They are in bed with the camera companies, since the rely on their ad placement.

I was a little surprised by the jpeg comments. Sony did have a reputation for bad jpeg processing, but thought they mostly fixed it by the a99.

Not surprised by the shutter speed/ISO issue. Been hearing it a lot, with lots of complaints that you need a tripod or shutter priority mode. (What's the point of a compact camera if it needs a tripod??).

As I've said before... It probably does represent the future. But I do t think it's fully baked yet.

I tend to agree which is why I'm holding on to my NEX-7. I want to see what the new A-mounts look like and the next gen of E mounts. I'm also considering going the "speedbooster" route to quench my "full frame thirst".

 

[havoc315]

I tend to agree which is why I'm holding on to my NEX-7. I want to see what the new A-mounts look like and the next gen of E mounts. I'm also considering going the "speedbooster" route to quench my "full frame thirst".

I'm annoyed at how little love Sony has given it's own "flagship" full frame, the a99. It is the greatest "dSLR" Sony has ever made. While not perfect, it's an amazing camera.
While I haven't personally done a hands on comparison with the A7, everything I read suggests it is a better camera, except obviously bulkier.

And I truly doubt that the A7 is significantly cheaper to produce than the a99.
Yet, they price the A7 at $1700, and the A99 at $2800 ( though they now throw in a flash and grip for that price).

If Sony priced the A99 in the $1700 ballpark, it would get raves for it's value. Feels like Sony is intentionally keeping the a99 price artificially high, because they don't want it to compete with the a7--- they want to push the innovative a7 as the bargain full frame to compete with the more traditional Canon 6d and Nikon d610.

Anyway, as to your thirst... Lets see what the new A7000 offers in terms of improved aps-c. As long as you buy it used or from one of the few online retailers offering a cheaper price, I can still highly recommend the a99.

I need to do some shooting. My posts have been too much talk lately. (Just not getting out much in the cold of winter).

 

[Hockeyman]

Ok so im pretty much set on the A99. Just got my w-2 and needless to say my refund is going to pretty nice this year so think its about time to put my good old A55 up for sale which means I might be camera less for 2-3 weeks but wanted to get that cash in hand to put towards the A99 before I pull the trigger. Definitely getting excited

 

[havoc315]

Ok so im pretty much set on the A99. Just got my w-2 and needless to say my refund is going to pretty nice this year so think its about time to put my good old A55 up for sale which means I might be camera less for 2-3 weeks but wanted to get that cash in hand to put towards the A99 before I pull the trigger. Definitely getting excited

Don't mean to feed your impatience.... but if you use Paypal/eBay combo.... And you haven't previously used it, you can use "Bill me Later" --- No interest as long as you pay it off within 6 months. So you can sell/buy simultaneously... and once you get paid for your A55 and lenses, just apply it towards the Bill Me Later.

One should never go camera-less for weeks at a time!

 

[Hockeyman]

Don't mean to feed your impatience.... but if you use Paypal/eBay combo.... And you haven't previously used it, you can use "Bill me Later" --- No interest as long as you pay it off within 6 months. So you can sell/buy simultaneously... and once you get paid for your A55 and lenses, just apply it towards the Bill Me Later.

One should never go camera-less for weeks at a time!

Lol I have thought of doing that also. Still have to see who has the better price when it does come time to plunk down on the A99. See some on Ebay that weren't too bad, even on Amazon used there is one going for $1,679 right now.

 

[Hockeyman]

Also Sony 50mm f/1.4 versus Sigma 50mm F/1.4, what is your take on the two? They are relatively close in price new

 

[havoc315]

Also Sony 50mm f/1.4 versus Sigma 50mm F/1.4, what is your take on the two? They are relatively close in price new

Haven't used either. But are you familiar with the dyxum lens database?
Dyxum.com -- go become an expert on every a-mount lens ever made.

$1679 on Amazon... Hmmm, reputable seller? Sounds a little too low. (Edit, looked it up... looks like a good seller. That is about the lowest real selling price I've seen. A handful of eBay sales in the 1600's.... mostly $1750-$1850 ball park. ).