Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Sony flash units that have their name end with M (no AM) like HVL-F20M, HVL-F32M, F43M or F60M.

With the 32M, you will lose the AF illuminator function since it was designed for the mirrorless cameras that use a different system that is built-into the camera body.

The Sony made adapter to the older Minolta / Sony shoe is called: ADP-MAA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Posts

    • It would really help if you provided some more info with your question. I'll have to deduce some assumptions based on your question, so please correct me if I'm wrong here:  - Your budget is limited (lenses over $1000 disregarded)  - You're not planning to go fullframe in the foreseeable future (lens with fullframe coverage is not required)  - By nature/wildlife you mean distant subjects (only lenses with 200mm focal length or longer considered)  - You want quick autofocus and lens stabilization (wildlife moves around a lot and stabilized optics help a lot in reducing motion blur) With these starting points the options are narrowed down to the following options I'd consider: Sony E 55-210mm: cheap, small, lightweight, fairly decent for any new photographer Sony E 70-350mm: fairly expensive, bigger and heavier but longer reach and much better image quality than the 55-210 If you want to have the option to go fullframe one day the Sigma 100-400 DG DN might be an option, but it's much bigger still than the Sony 70-350.
    • Hi I am no expert, but have looked at quite a bit at info on-line and in books. I have not been fortunate enough to use the Sony 200-600 (G?) lens but do have a cheaper Sigma 170-500mm and an old Minolta 500mm reflex. I use an Alpha 99 body. I know ISO performance is getting better and better but I still consider ISO 640 as quite high, so I would expect more graininess than you have - I only really noticed it from your samples when I zoomed in on your samples. Graininess (or noise can be improved with most post production software - which I assume you are using as you are shooting in RAW. As I generally print at A3 size, I try to use an ISO of 400 or lower, but sometimes go higher in low light or with fast moving subjects, and accept that there will be some degradation. Your lens is a quality zoom lens, but at these lengths in particular I think you are always going to look at a trade off between convenience and quality. Quality seems to be better in prime lenses especially at longer lengths, but from looking at your samples I would be very happy with your set up.
    • Hello all, Bought an a6000 a few months back to kickstart my quarantine hobby and have been loving it since! I was curious to know what lenses some of you use/recommend for nature/wildlife/landscape photography. Still learning every day, as I'm still very new to this, but the right equipment goes a long way!
    • Focus zone? Wide? Spot? Flexible?
    • I recently purchased a Sony A9 and took some pictures at a reasonably low ISO (640). I noticed some grainy-ness at 100% crop specifically in the background. Both pictures taken using a Sony 200-600 lens at 6.3 and 640 ISO. I would like to get some opinions what might be driving this: 1. This is typical 2. This is due to some settings I have that need to be changed that I'm not aware of 3. This is an issue with my particular camera Raw files saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lfbgxewtjamha2p/AADUsNd8Y360kdjHq910YTIsa?dl=0  
  • Topics

  • Create New...