Got my Sony Alpha today!

Joan wrote:
Fabulous Mike. I went to a wedding yesterday and took along a 50mm
1.4 to see how it would go, but I only used it for about half an hour
indoors and then switched back to the 18-200, it's just so versatile.

Some of the wedding pics are on flickr, but they'll only be visible
for a few more days as I don't like putting people pics in the public
domain without their permission, but just wanted a few friends to be
able to see them. I've left the EXIF in place.

I had a look but couldn't find the EXIF data. Probably just too late at
night
after working all weekend. They all look sharp.

-Mike

add me to the list.

No. I'm not in the mood. Twit.

Then welcome to mine knob end!

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

I guess you can go in the killfile too.

It's going to be VERY crowded in there.

Never seen so many people with nothing better to than whine
about posting style.

Using terms like "plonk" and "killfile" you probably aren't a newbie. Given
that, your reaction to the complaints about your unedited article (reply) are
surprising but VERY revealing.

When the lot of you get lives get back to me.

I have a better idea: When YOU grow some thicker skin, get back to US.
--
sigh
JR

J. Clarke wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:


I go by performance, not label. A dog that says "Zeiss" is still a dog.

And what Zeiss "dogs" do you have experience with?


What I might or might not have is irrelevant to the issue. What counts is
the performance and you can't tell anything about the performance by
reading the label.

I've never heard of Zeiss making a dog lens. In the lenses offered by
Sony for the A100, I would put the prime lens as a slam dunk and any
shortcomings it may have will be at the margins. The zoom lens will not
be as good as a prime, obviously, but as zooms go, again I would expect
exceptional performance.

I'll hapilly wager that the upcoming CZ lenses will not be less than
excellent, perfection being a journey, not a destination.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

wrote:

Did I tell you the VR at 70mm can give a good focused shot at 1/10 sec?
Impressive!

I'd say that's as much luck and a steady hold as the A-S (whatever Sony
call it). I don't expect it to deliver more than 2 stops of
"steadying", so for 70mm, I'd put it at around 1/20 sec for a "safe"
bet. At that, it would really depend on how large one intends to print.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Fred McKenzie wrote:

I also have the 70-210 f/4 Minolta lens, although I never heard it called
"beercan" before. I purchased it used, but never had a chance to use it
on my film cameras. Naturally I had to try it, along with the rest of my
collection, on the Sony Alpha. Surprise! I observed the most vivid
purple cast or fringing I've ever seen (small objects against cloudy sky,
210mm f/4).

I assume it was caused by the lens, since the same subject was
photographed by several other lenses without the effect. Have you ever
observed this with yours?

I've seen this occur in overexposed BG's (snow) with fine detail in
focus FG (thin branches in the woods). By getting the BG exposed at the
edges of the histo, the fringing disapeared.

I let the chance go to buy a used 70-210 f/4 Minolta before ... a
mistake I won't make again.

Cheers,
ALan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

J. Clarke wrote:

When the lot of you get lives get back to me.

We have lives. Which is why we don't like cluttered posts that waste
our time. Be courteous, edit and save everyones time as that is what is
done for you.

See also: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:


I guess you can go in the killfile too.


It's going to be VERY crowded in there.


Sounds like he's growing weary of plonking but he can add me if he's
still plonking people who express displeasure at his unclipped post.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone.

Amen! However, it should be referred to as "extraneous" text since it
certainly is relevant but redundant.

Multi-generational quoting comprising several screens-worth of quoted text,
with but a SINGLE line (or two) of original reply is the epitome of poor taste
and laziness.

Agreed. And have you noticed that is often the very same people who
refuse to "trim" previous posts who are the first ones bitching about
top posting?

G.T. wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:


I guess you can go in the killfile too.


It's going to be VERY crowded in there.


Sounds like he's growing weary of plonking but he can add me if he's
still plonking people who express displeasure at his unclipped post.

No, just becoming recalcitrant at being given orders by assholes.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)