Sony a3000 newbie

[photo trucker]

Evidently.


I don't know which lens you're talking about, but I'm willing to bet it's a mirror lens. One that's 600mm f/8 and then they add a 2x tc to make it a 1200 f/16? You're not likely to be happy with it, although you might get some moon photos you like out of it. But generally, you get what you pay for, and a $200 1600mm lens that you can't control the aperture on and that doesn't autofocus probably wouldn't seem like a bargain to most of us. Unfortunately, with optics, you do get what you pay for.


Well, you've mentioned what you'd like to do, but what do you NEED to do? I only know Canon gear, but if you really wanted to devote about 90% of your shooting to astronomy shots, I'd say maybe a 60Da body. But that's about three times the cost of your A3000. And we haven't even started looking at lenses yet.

I may be wrong, but if one of the reasons you were attracted to the A3000 was the price, chances are good that what you want to do isn't going to be compatible with your budget. I generally tell people they'll need $2k-3k to outfit themselves with a body and three or four lenses. Having additional interests like macro and supertelephoto just add to the cost. You can do things for cheaper, but you're going to lose functionality and handling capability. Probably not image quality, though. The difference between lower end and higher end bodies are typically those of usability features. A lot of camera bodies in a lineup will share the same processor and sensor, so they tend to share the same image quality.


Key word "appears". While it's touted as a 24-1000 equivalent lens, it only manages that because the 1/2.3" sensor has a 5x crop factor. The actual focal length of the lens is 4.3-180mm.

Also you probably want to stop using "zoom" as a term that means a lot of magnification. Zoom in interchangeable lens terms typically only means a lens that can vary its focal length. The Tokina 11-16mm, for example is an ultrawide zoom.


Yup. It takes a while to wrap your head around all of this stuff. But you may want to start before you make any other purchases that aren't going to fit what you want to do. My advice would be to figure out what your A3000 can do, and then work to its strengths, and do some research on the lenses it can use, and how they'll work. You may not have a supertelephoto wildlife camera, but it's probably very good at landscapes, macro, and portrait.


Actually, you kind of can't. With a very small lens and sensor, as with most P&S cameras, you have a very very deep depth of field, and everything's in focus. It's very difficult to blur the background and to select only one thing in an image to be in focus. While you have a lot more in focus, you actually have less control than with a larger-sensored camera. Very tough to do something like this, where you can choose exactly what's in focus and what isn't:


Canon XT/350D. EF 135mm f/2L USM.

Whether being able to get things out of focus is a feature or a bug is up to you and the type of images you want to make.


Then don't buy just yet. Learn about lenses. Learn about things other than mere focal length. A lens's max. aperture, whether it's a prime or a zoom, what kind of focus motor it has, what other shooting features it encompasses, whether or not it's stabilized, etc. all make a difference in terms of character, cost, and usefulness. Buying a lens is kind of like buying clothes: there are no "bests" that fit everyone. It all comes down to budget and what/how you want to shoot.

Sounds like quite a learning curve, rather discouraging but thank you for the hard honesty.....I've got about 15 days to play around with it so when I get back to my computer I'll upload the shots I've taken so far for opinions. Comp etc so I can look to shooting better..

[photo trucker]

IF you can find either a x1.4 or a x1.5 or x2.0 or x3.0 tele-converter to physically FIT the lens and the camera, then I see no reason why you will not be able to "make it work".

The point I was making was, it won't work very well and it will work less well, the greater the size of the tele-converter.

The reason is that tele-converters are made with the general premise that they will only be used on PRIME LENSES and also FAST LENSES.

When tele-converters are adapted to Zoom Lenses the resultant image is usually compromised to some degree sometimes greatly and more so as the tele-converter's range increases: and I would expect that degradation to be quite noticeable in your situation with that zoom lens.

When tele-converters are used with Slow Lenses (like your F/6.3 Lens) then the slow maximum aperture presents shooting limitations as I have described and although it might "work" what I was drawing your attention to is that you might be dissatisfied with the limitations of what you can effectively shoot, even with a x1.4 Tele-converter.

WW

Ahh ok gotcha, well I've sure way to find out then buy and try, if it doesn't work m then return lol no loss. Only lessons learned.

[William W]

Ahh ok gotcha,

Good: happy that you understand.

*

. . . well I've sure way to find out then buy and try, if it doesn't work m then return lol no loss. Only lessons learned.

You are fortunate that you are buying from and / or live in an area which allows a purchaser to return goods simply because they change their mind.

WW

[photo trucker]

Good: happy that you understand.

*



You are fortunate that you are buying from and / or live in an area which allows a purchaser to return goods simply because they change their mind.

WW

Amazon, 30 day return, if not damaged 100% refund....each company that sells on there is slightly different but you can return for any reason.

[RobertsMx]

Should I return the 18-270 for the 70-300 I think f goes it 5.6 on that one though

You choice really depends on what you want to use the camera for. Tamron 70-300 USD is a very good lens, and priced reasonably. However, do note that the Tamron does not have optical stabilization so, especially at longer FL, you may want to make sure the shutter speed is fast enough at all times. But, the same would be true for the 18-270 as well.

What other lenses do you have? What do you plan to shoot?

[photo trucker]

You choice really depends on what you want to use the camera for. Tamron 70-300 USD is a very good lens, and priced reasonably. However, do note that the Tamron does not have optical stabilization so, especially at longer FL, you may want to make sure the shutter speed is fast enough at all times. But, the same would be true for the 18-270 as well.

What other lenses do you have? What do you plan to shoot?

The moon, nature, family, buildings, anything I can see basically but I can't get very close most the time hence those lenses, my camera has stabilization if I'm remembering correctly.

[inkista]

The moon, nature, family, buildings, anything I can see basically but I can't get very close most the time hence those lenses, my camera has stabilization if I'm remembering correctly.

Ummm... the dpreview specs say that the stabilization is optical, not sensor-based, so your lens has to be stabilized (i.e., have OSS) to get stabilization, as with Canon and Nikon dSLRs. The NEX cameras don't have IBIS (in-body image stabilization) like the Alphas do.

This is just me, but while the moon and wildlife require long glass and more reach, landscapes, people, and cityscapes are generally subjects I'd think of that require wide angle (short) lenses.

I use the 14-42 kit lens on my Panasonic G3 to do these shots, similar to how an 18-55 kit lens would work on your A3000 (micro four-thirds cameras have a 2x crop factor, not a 1.5x crop factor, so they use shorter lenses to get the same field of view):

Landscape:


People:


Cityscape:


And for slower-moving non-shy wildlife, my 45-200 (equivalent to a 70-300 for 1.5x crop) does just fine.

[RobertsMx]

The moon, nature, family, buildings, anything I can see basically but I can't get very close most the time hence those lenses, my camera has stabilization if I'm remembering correctly.

Sony E-mount cameras (NEX bodies, and A3000) rely on optical stabilization (so, lens will need to have optical stabilization, and in Sony world, this is identified as "OSS" and your kit lens has it). Sony A-mount cameras (DSLRs and DSLTs) have in-body stabilization (so, any lens will have stabilization).

IMO, your kit lens offers a good start for landscape and people photography. Depending on your budget, you should consider either 35/1.8 OSS (very good all around lens) or 50/1.8 OSS (it will work well for portraits). Both of these lenses are fast, so they will enhance your ability to shoot in low light conditions.

With Sony E-mount camera (like your A3000), your options for legacy lenses are practically unlimited. None of these will have optical stabilization, but in most cases, you don't really need it, especially if you choose fast lenses.

If you want to use your A3000 for sports/action with super fast AF, then Sony LA-EA2 adapter becomes a logical solution, and with it, you can use any Sony or Minolta A-mount lens with DSLR like AF. Only Sigma has made A-mount lenses with optical stabilization however, so if that is a criteria, you could look into that option as well.

Sony LA-EA1 adapter is cheaper, smaller and lighter for mounting A-mount lenses on A3000 (and NEX), but its AF works only with Sony SSM and SAM lenses and very slow, and does not support AF for screw drive lenses unlike LA-EA2. But if you don't mind manually focusing, LA-EA1 may be the logical solution (and definitely if you want to consider macro lens).

And speaking of macro, you could consider Sigma 70/2.8 or Tamron 90/2.8, both of which are relatively inexpensive and excellent and can also be used as portrait lenses.

You could also consider Sony 55-210 OSS lens for your telephoto option. I picked one up recently when I discovered one for a great deal ($150) and it is a very good lens:

(Sony NEX-3 + Sony 55-210 OSS)

Here is the same combination, with a Sony 1.7x teleconversion lens (Sony DH1758) in front of the 55-210, taken around 11 pm in a parking lot of a park (very dark):


With 1.7x teleconversion lens, the focal length effectively becomes about 360mm (540mm full frame equivalent).

[jcuknz]

My information [ www.dpreview.com ] tells me that your camera does NOT have any stabilisation and this comes from the lens it uses which is like my current camera in most use. Becuase I have old lenses from film days I went to Olympus for their IBIS cameras [ In Body Image Stabilisation ] ... But I have been using AF cameras for over a decade now, I'm getting older, and prefer AF to MF and AE to Manual exposure so the Oly was an interesting but questionable purchase [ US$178 I think, body only ].

I took am I guess a 'reach junky' and with my bridge camera, itself just a x12 zoom 35-430mm equivalent Angle of view, I have two telephoto adaptors. These fit on the front of the fixed bridge camera lens as opposed to the Telephoto converter which fits between camera body and the lens. The bridge camera and the telephoto adaptor is the poor man's way of getting reach assuming one is prepared to live with restrictions such as working at 100 ISO [ perhaps a bit faster with modern bridges ]

The tele-adaptor is not really a DSLR option, since I have both x1.7 and x2.2 TAs I tried and the resulting loss of light was very similar to had I a Tele-converter [x2] so I waved the idea.

I have a choice of 750 AoV and 950 AoV with the TAs on the bridge camera and for around $350 you can get a Panasonic FZ70 which has 1000mm reach if starting from fresh.

It depends on what you want the reach for, if for the birds and animals in the wild the bridge camera restriction could be serious but if to photograph the moon it hardly matters as the moon is in bright sunlight.

If you cannot get close to your subject then you can explore ways of bringing the subject to you by feeding or audio recordings of their song .... my best bird shots were taken with a feeding table about 18 inches from a window which was fitted with a cardboard screen and hole for camera lens with curtains drawn to cardboard edge. The best birder I know is working with a 100-300 lens for that purpose and using audio.

Finally you can take a leaf out of the bridge camera users book and instead of getting a 'macro' lens you simply need a close-up lens to screw onto the front of the 300mm zoom you have and if you get a 4 dioptre [ 250mm ] you will get 1:1 or double extension and a bit more with it. Currently I have a 2 dioptre which served all my needs for bugs and things with the 430 AoV lens on the bridge camera and you have 450mm AoV which will get you a bit tighter. I have a 4 dioptre on order but on reflection I wonder if I really need it as of recent times I have learnt about staying back a bit and cropping to achieve the tight framing with better Depth of Field ... So I see no need to spend up on a macro lens, a modern convienience tool Note ... if I want to go even tighter I have a bellows attachment from film days, got a x9 with it once with my old SLR, but for day to day shooting of creepy crawlies around the house the CU lens and zoom meets my needs.
http://jcuknz-photos.com/PHOTOS2013/P1110486W.jpg and http://jcuknz-photos.com/PHOTOS2013/P1100968ZW.jpg for a couple of recent visitors

[jcuknz]

Like Kathy I am using Panasonic but have the 14-140 zoom which gives me 28-280 AoV .... coming from my bridge camera I felt very restricted with the kit lens [14-42] .... the reduction of from 430 > 280 was the reasoning behind my perceived need for a four dioptre CU lens for tight framed shots, the 2D with 280 simply doesn't get the tight framing I am used to.

The advantage of using the longer lens is that you work from further back to avoid scaring the wee things, helps with lighting getting at subject, protects you a bit from the venomous .... and for a given frame size there is no difference in depth of field. Whereas the short macro lens has you in on top of the subject. My original bridge, a wonderful Nikon 5700, had what I think was a unique focusing system for its day which enabled me to focus to fill the sensor with an inch and a half across subject .... but I was almost touching the subject. Whereas using my 2 dioptre I was nine inches back.
It too was only 280AoV at full zoom and a reason for going to Panasonic FZ cameras when the FZ20 came out and with the 430 AoV I was back at 13 inches for the same framing..