Minolta 35-70mm f4 Quick Test Pt2

Went out this afternoon to put the a200 and 35-70mm through their paces with the other side of my photography - landscapes.

I set the camera to f11 to give me good depth of field, and probably the sweet spot in terms of overall lens sharpness. Then I headed out to the coast road, and to our local wharf area.

There was some nice low late afternoon winter light coming in off the sea, so I stopped at a popular spot along the coast to take grab a view of the coastline. Even though the 35mm end equates to around 52mm (normal field of view) in traditional terms, I still got enough of the scene in to suggest an expansive landscape. It may not be ultra-wide, but it's good enough.

Although only really a 'grab' shot, I do like the light coming in from the left, forming those shadowed curves in the sea from the breaking waves. And not surprisingly, at f11 everything is super sharp - from front to back. I'm liking this little lens more and more every time I use it.

Then it was off to the wharf. There are a couple of old cranes that have been a part of the Greymouth urban landcsape for as long as anyone can remember - but they are in danger of being torn down now by the council. They are old - and probably dangerous (they are fenced off from the public), but make a great subject. I decided I'd better photograph them before they disappear. 

One criticism leveled at the 35-70mm f4 lens is that it's prone to flare. The lens hood that is supposed to go with it is very small and doesn't give much protection from glare, so I decided to use a deeper rubber one instead. I shot with the sun just outside the frame to 'torture-test' the lens, and although I did get flare in some of the images, overall I thought it handled my 'worst-case-scenario' very well.

I also decided to shoot with the sun full in the frame, and was surprised with the result. The sensor on the Sony handled it beautifully, and I got my favorite shot of the evening.

The late afternoon sun was casting some beautiful golden light, ideal for shooting this building down at an historical park at the end of the wharf. Still on f11, the 35-70mm is a beautifully sharp lens, and I really love the colours it produces. Very true to life - yet quite vibrant at the same time.

As I was leaving, I saw that the building silhouetted nicely with a couple of cabbage trees, and I couldn't resist taking a few last shots. I have the a200 set on 'standard' Dynamic Range Optimiser, yet I was still surprised at the amount of detail retained in the black shadows of the RAW file - even though the histogram of the jpeg on the lcd screen showed clipping.

So I've used the Sony a200 over the weekend now, paired with the Minolta 35-70mm f4 lens - a combination that all-up cost me $350.00NZ. I've used it to take portraits, landscapes, and macros - tortured it with sun, and checked it out for sharpness. And as far as I'm concerned it's passed everything with flying colours (almost literally :-) Am I happy with the purchase? You bet I am.

Minolta 35-70mm f4 Quick test

Was busy at home today, but managed to get out this afternoon and fire off a few quick portrait shots with the 35-70mm f4. Since the 35 to 70mm on the A200 relates to a 50 to 105mm (roughly) in 35mm film terms, it's really the ideal portrait/candid style lens. And it's so tiny! Uses a 49mm filter thread. Here it is attached to the A200. Doesn't look too out of place because the A200 isn't that big either!

Took my model (my ever willing daughter Emily) outside and stayed about 1.5meters away to gauge how a subject would fill the frame at 35, 50 and 70mm.

The first image was shot at the 35mm end, and this equates to about a 52mm (normal) focal length in traditional terms. Opened the aperture up to f4, cause I always shoot portraits wide open - and had a reasonable distance between Emily and the background (about 6 meters). Not surprisingly, f4 hasn't blurred the background out hugely - but man-oh-man is she sharp! Great overall sharpness, even wide open. Oh yeah, that's what I like.

Now we have f4 at 50mm (75mm equiv). Still amazingly sharp, and now, because of the change in focal length, the background bokeh is starting to work for us. Still not great, but softening nonetheless. Nothing else has changed in terms of mine or Emily's position. I simply zoomed in closer with the lens. Really great colours for an overcast day, and did I mention how sharp the image is overall!?

And finally, f4 at 70mm (105mm equiv). Background has softened up more - although it's fairly harsh in terms of bokeh. But Emily is still tack sharp, and I would have no hesitation in using this lens wide open for portraiture. Of course I still haven't used it extensively, but early indications are that it is as good a lens as the user reports on Dyxum.com would indicate it to be. Very pleased :-)

Also finished with a quick test of the stabilisation that Sony uses - Steady Shot. And early indications would suggest that this too works as it should.

Took one shot inside at 10th of a second without Steady Shot turned on..

and then another shot straight after with Steady Shot turned on...

The results are - quite plainly - clear :-)  Steady Shot does make a measurable difference, with pretty good results down to one 10th of a second (using the 35-70mm zoomed all the way to 70mm). You can't actually see any difference while you are taking the shot, although when you turn Steady Shot on, a small bar graph appears in the viewfinder to show you that it's working. Wait until the bars move down to the smallest, and take the shot (it's easier to do that it is to explain). Anyway, seems to work a treat, and I intend to simply leave it on all the time, unless I mount the camera to a tripod (in which case it is recommended that you turn it off).

First shots with Sony A200

The Minolta 35-70mm f4 arrived yesterday, and I got a chance at lunch time today to get a couple of quick shots with my new kit.

The lens has a quasi 'macro' function - when you flick a switch at the 70mm position it takes you into 'macro' mode, which you then have to focus manually. There is a hack for this that requires a little lens surgery so that you can use autofocus in the macro mode - but I think I'll leave it as it is. I don't think macro is something I'll use the lens for a lot, so I don't mind focusing manually the few times I have to.

But having said all that, it was the macro mode on the lens that I decided to try out at lunchtime.

I've been reading a few lens user reviews over at Dyxum.com (great site for Minolta/Sony users), and many write about the Minolta 'look' to certain lenses. If that's true (and the 35-70mm f4 is said to have 'the look'), then I like it - very much. Clear, saturated, yet true-to-life colours - the 35-70mm performed very well. I only took a handful of shots, but the ones I took were very pleasing. And the macro mode worked well, even with manual focusing - although the manual focus ring itself is very small. Workable, but small.

The shots here were taken in macro, ISO 100, f8 @ 125th (or there abouts), and while the depth of field is pretty shallow, the area of focus is bitingly sharp! Bokeh looks good too. Reasonably creamy and not too harsh.

The A200 handled the colours - especially the vibrant purples, exceptionally well, and overall I was very pleased with my first few shots. I will take more this weekend, using the lens in its 'normal' range (i.e. not macro), to give it a full test of sharpness etc.

And in one final note: I've set the A200 to shoot in Adobe RGB, using the single central focus point, auto ISO (which will limit its range from ISO 100 to 400), auto WB, and shooting RAW. Pretty much how I set up all the cameras I use - although I play around a lot more with these settings on my Nikon D300. I'll probably tend to leave the Sony pretty much as-is? Anyway, more soon.

Sony Alpha 200

Just bought a new 'toy' - the Sony Alpha 200 DSLR. Couldn't help myself, as it was going for an absolute song, brand-new, at a local electronics store. They were selling it without the lens (body only) so were basically giving it away. Picked up the body for $299NZ (about $200US).

Did a bit of reading up on it before handing over he cash, but for that price it was really a no brainer! And even though the a200 is now a discontinued model, it's got everything I want in a 'back up' system, and then some.

Obviously based on the Minolta DSLR's of old (like the 5D and 7D - yes, Minolta had them before Canon did), the Sony is packed with all the features I like, and none of the features I don't like. For example - no Live View (yeah) and no Movie mode (double yeah). But it does have 10.2 MP (just about right I reckon), image stabilisation - Sony call it 'Steady Shot' - built into the body (yeah), a self cleaning sensor (double yeah), and a very sexy vertical grip that I will get eventually (triple yeah)! It's also compatible with all the Minolta AF lenses as well as the new Sony ones (of course).

Speaking of lenses - because it doesn't come with one, I've purchased an old Minolta 35-70mm f4 macro AF lens off of Trademe just to get me going. The lens has very good reviews on the minolta users sites, and is known as the 'mini beercan'. If you know anything about Minolta lenses, you'll be aware of a 70-210mm f4 lens known affectionately as the 'Beercan' because of its looks and size. It also has great optics. I owned the 70-210mm f4 Beercan for a short time when I had a Minolta 600si film camera (what an amazing film camera that was), and am looking forward to getting another one now that I have the Sony Alpha 200.

Told you the vertical grip was sexy! I like more area to hang on to with any camera, but especially with the lighter, more plastic cameras. And the a200 is a light, plastic camera - but in a good way. Of course, I have to qualify all this by saying I actually haven't shot with it yet :-) The 35-70mm f4 hasn't arrived. But I do have the body in my hands - and I have used its younger sister, the Sony Alpha 100. I reviewed it for D-Photo when it was first released (about 4yrs or so ago), and really enjoyed the experience. Gave it a very positive review (from what I can remember). So I'm expecting as good, if not better things, from the a200.

Yes, I know that the low-light, high ISO capabilities of the Sony could be better (I'll try to leave it on ISO 400 or below), but it's all relative. I still remember shooting film and never daring to go past 400. And for those times when I go over 400, I've got Noise Ninja to deal with it anyway. And RAW - always shoot in RAW for better noise control.

I love the styling of the Sony (Minolta) DSLR's - with clever touches such as eye control AF (bring the camera to your eye and the lens begins to focus), a beautiful lcd display that automatically adjusts its orientation when you switch between portrait or landscape composition, and, of course, the in-built image stabilisation that means every lens you own is now an IS lens. OK, it's debatable as to whether in-lens or in-camera stabilisation is better - but at least with the Sony you get it ALL the time. With Canon and Nikon you pay extra to have it in the lens.

I'm looking forward to using it (this weekend), and posting some images, together with my initial shooting experiences. But as I said right at the start of this post, for $200US you can't really go wrong!?

Lens rundown & new landscapes.

Ok, so the studio didn't actually happen.

Trust me, I looked at it very long and very hard - and was almost to the point of signing up for a space to lease. But I did the math several times, and the best case scenario (in the short term at least) was only break-even, for a heck of a lot more work! So I decided - rather wisely I must say in hindsight - to flag the idea for now. Just as well too, because since then my design work has gone crazy and there aren't enough hours in the day just doing that. Starting a photography studio on top of that would have been crazy!

So I've been getting out and taking some landscapes - now that the wedding season is over. And I've got someone joining me on some my excursions now too. My 10yr old daughter, Emily, is still excited about photography, so I decided to encourage her further by taking her out with me a bit more, and getting her a 'real' digital camera, a Canon 10D.

We've gone out a couple of times, and I'm really glad I got her the 10D. It's still a great camera, with a 6MP sensor and the rugged DSLR chassis that will take the knocks without being too heavy for her. The 'pro' thumb wheel on the back for quick selection is also a big plus.

Her 10D came with a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime, which is a great combination. Granted she is a little limited in terms of focal length compared to what a zoom could offer her, but at the moment it's just about getting used to using the camera and all its controls. Eventually I will get her an 18-70mm zoom - probably the Sigma f2.8-4.5. Something light, but still with decent image quality.

For my own gear, I've settled on a middle-of-the-road kit for the time being - although that's been peppered with some very nice primes. I am still using the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 'kit' lens with my D300, and still enjoy using it. It's a light, fast focusing, silent lens which I have no problem using wide open at any focal length. It's on the D300 80% of the time, and I can't really fault the images I create with it.

Recently (like two weeks ago) I added the Nikkor 70-300mm f4-5.6 ED zoom to my arsenal, to give me more telephoto reach in a zoom lens. I haven't used it all that much yet, but I owned this lens a few years ago when I had my D70 kit and found it to be a very good performer - especially up to 250mm. I don't do a heck of a lot of long telephoto stuff - but it's nice to have the option now for when I do. I'll do a lens test and post that soon, giving my impressions and some examples of what it can do etc.

So my zoom range now covers from 18 to 300mm with mid-range glass. I'll find it hard to replace the 18-70mm - for the price it's just a heck of a good lens, but I will eventually replace the 70-300mm with the 'pro' Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8. That will probably be my only lens purchase next year from the wedding season takings.

To supplement my zooms, I have a trio of primes: 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8. On my D300 the 24mm becomes a 35mm (still ok for wide-ish landscapes, and a great walk-around street lens), the 50mm becomes a 75mm f1.8 (fantastic for portraits), while the 85mm turns into a 130mm f1.8 (roughly).
I got the 85mm towards the end of the wedding season, so didn't really use it as much as I would have liked, whereas I use the 50mm all the time, and surprisingly have been making good use of the 24mm as well.

I got the 24mm really cheap because it had been banged on the front and a chip taken out of the filter thread. I 'ummed' and 'arred' over getting it, but in the end thought 'what the heck' for the price I was paying for it. Turned out to be a bargain, and a great lens. Because it's a prime, which doesn't use many lens elements, and because it's so small and well-made, it can take the knocks and come out smiling. I even dropped it myself on the first wedding I shot! No problems though. Just put it back on the camera and away it went. Sharp, clear, contrasty images every time.

I'm very happy with the primes I have, matched with the D300 Nikon body - using the 18-70mm as my main zoom lens. The only lens I will 'eventually' replace will be the 70-300mm - with the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. The 'second generation' of this lens was released this year, so a lot of first generation lenses are finding their way to the internet trading sites. Because I shoot with a D300 I don't need the newer lens, so I'll save myself a couple of grand and opt for the first generation model.

And as much as I would like to own a 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor, i really don't want to pay the $2500.00NZ that it would cost to get one. Are they really $2000 better than my 18-70mm kit lens? Maybe. But somehow, I don't think so.

Wadda ya know... a new post

Ok, so it's been a few months since I wrote here. I've been busy shooting weddings - none of which I've posted! But I've also been doing a bit of 'soul searching' (oh, sounds a bit deep), and some serious thinking about my photographic future.

It all started before Christmas, when I shot my brothers wedding in Christchurch (which I did post). I met a guy who had been running a wedding photography business in Christchurch ('hi Alan'), but was now running a restaurant instead. He mentioned that he had some wedding albums and other gear left over that I might be interested in, if I wanted to take a look.

Didn't think much about it at the time, but early in the new year we were back in Christchurch, and I contacted him to take a look. Long story short - it's probably changed my life!

Turns out he had an entire studio's worth of gear to 'get rid of', as well as dozens of Italian Leather-bound albums of the absolute highest quality. Did I want them? Does a bear *you know what* in the woods!

Once I got all this gear home, however, I needed to sit down and think seriously about what I was going to do with it all. The most obvious thing, of course, was to start my own studio.

Easier said than done though - right? Of course the big issues are where, and how much. No good if you can't find a space, or can't afford any of the spaces that you do find. And then there's the issues of branding, marketing, costing, selling etc,

It's been a couple of months since then, and I think I've got a handle on most of the questions and issues I had at the beginning. I've finally found a space that will work as a studio, with only relatively minor tweaking, and I'm off to the accountant in half an hour to work through the other aspect of that - can I afford it! I must admit that initially I was very pessimistic about the cost of it all, but my accountant seems to be exactly the opposite, and meeting with him initially was the turning point in my decision to really go for it.

I've gone back and forth with the whole 'name' thing, trying to think of something catchy/cool/funny/relevant. But in the end, I keep coming back to Lorimer Photography Studio. Kinda says it all really. And we, as photographers, get to be known on a personal level with our clients as much as anything else. So why try and brand it as something other than what it really is - me running a photography studio.

My plan is to continue on with the Graphic Design working from my current office at the printing firm who are my major contract, and run the studio almost by 'appointment only'. Perhaps doing an 80/20 split of my time between the printing base for design work, and studio space in town for photography. Of course, I hope that eventually 80/20 will become 70/30, then 60/40, and so on and so forth.

In the meantime, I still have to decide whether or not I can afford any of it. So it's off to the accountant... Wish me luck.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS4 and my new blog

I started a new blog last week: wayne-ayearinpictures.blogspot.com

It's part of my 'creative' new-years resolution to take more pictures. If I stick to it (and so far so good), then I will have to take at least one new photograph every day, for the rest of the year. That's a lot more than I took last year, and although rather daunting, it's started very well.

It has also meant that I now make sure I always have a camera with me. And for the sake of ease-of-use and sheer portability, that was always going to be a compact point-and-shoot. My weapon of choice is the Panasonic Lumix DMC - FS4 (and no, I don't know what all those letters stand for either?!)

But when I say 'weapon of choice', what I'm really saying is that it's the only point-and-shoot I own. I purchased it late last year on a whim (because it was cheap, and came with heaps of accessories), and I'd be lying if I said I didn't experience a good amount of 'buyers remorse' soon after purchasing it.


Don't get me wrong, I think Panasonic make some of the best point-and-shoots you can get. But the DMC-FS4 is the very basic, entry-level model with very limited user control. In fact, it really only functions using 'Scene' modes. Pretty crap, I thought, and left it in the box.


But - now I've got this new blog. And now I need to have a camera with me all the time. And now I have to actually use it. And boy, am I glad I did. Because it turns out the DMC-FS4 is an absolute cracker of a camera. A wee gem. And I'm loving using it. Not to mention the results I'm getting from it!


It may only have scene modes (and dozens of them), but they work brilliantly, and I'm not disappointed by the results from such a cheap camera. It doesn't have an optical viewfinder (they're junk on these wee compacts anyway), but does have a big, bright 2.5" lcd screen, with optional gridlines for aiding composition and keeping horizons straight. It also has image stabilization built-in (Panasonic call it Mega O.I.S.) as well as automatic ISO control - both working together to reduce blurry photos due to camera shake.

This was shot using the Panasonic's 'macro' setting (make sure the lens is set for wide angle otherwise macro doesn't work), and I'm just amazed that it allowed me to capture the fly, let alone produce a sharp image. This tiny little fly was on the leaf for all of a nano second, yet the result is tack sharp on the fly, and beautifully soft in the background. Wow!

And it was by no means a fluke - I got dozens of useable images, just from half an hour spent at lunchtime chasing insects around the garden. I don't know, but I reckon I'd be hard pressed to do that with my SLR?

But it's not just the macro's that have impressed me. Over the last 5 days I've taken indoor and outdoor portraits under varying lighting conditions, as well as landscapes - all using the various scene modes - and the camera has handled it all brilliantly.


Even in 'standard' mode, the colours are punchy and vibrant - the lens is sharp, contrasty and renders colour accurately. The exposures from the camera have been 99.9% accurate, without any need for exposure compensation (you can set +/- 2 stops), under some very tricky lighting conditions - from harsh sunlight to dark interiors. Check out my 'A Year in Pictures' blog for more examples of what the Lumix has been producing for me over the last week.

For a point-and-shoot camera that I was initially disappointed in due to its perceived lack of control, the Panasonic Lumix has turned out to be a stellar performer - under all conditions. Yes, I'm sure it has it's limitations. I'd love for the lens to go a little wider (it's a 33-132mm equivalent lens), and the ability to shoot RAW - but having said that, the jpegs it produces with its 8MP sensor look gorgeous! I'd also like it to be heavier - not so much plastic - but keep the same size (very pocketable).

Yet despite all that, and much to my surprise, I'm loving using the Panasonic DMC-FS4. And given that I have to take at least one image, every day, for the next 360 days, I hope to become even more impressed by this pocket-sized picture maker. If you're on the look out for a cheap, but very capable little point-and-shoot, then look no further than the Lumix DMC-FS4.