advice for manual photography, please

[MonkMayfair1937]

My camera Sony alpha 77 SLT-A77V, lens Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-63 Di II PZD (shooting in RAW mode). The Tamron lens says for Sony, but does anyone know if it works on Canon and Nikons?

I'm no newbie to point and shoot photography, but I've never had any luck with manual photography. No matter even if I copy the exposure and ISO of successful auto photos, it's always blurry or not crisp enough. It's very frustrating. I switch to the manual button, and the manual switch on the lens, of course.

Any suggestions for settings for inside photography (like family events, etc) and daylight outside?

I've not done a lot of photography lately. I've been unhappy with the alpha 77 (2012 vintage) for most of the time I've had it. The photos are inferior to the old Sony DSC-F828, which I really loved. A LOT of grain, compared to the old one, or in general, for that matter, and the F828 was crisper with better color. The lowest ISO it'll seem to go in auto is 400 (with a rare 250). The 828 went 64 or 80. (onboard flash). I had hot shoe flash for the F828, but it was useless. It never synced up with the camera.



Initial photos were less grainy. I've just restored to factory settings (and adjusting back to raw) to see if that helps. I also hit the clean sensor button (it vibrated for a second).

The videos weren't too bad. Not a lot of grain. So perhaps it isn't something to do with the firmware? HUGE files, about 250 MB per minute (.mts file).

Color mode: I have it at the factory setting, but there's a choice for adobe RGB. Which is better?

I should have went with a Canon or Nikon, but I was very happy with the 828. I halfway thought of ditching it and getting a Nikon 3400, but I didn't want to sink a bunch more money into it.

I have a question in the accessories section about a proper AC Adapter for the alpha 77. $99 is pretty extortionate for the official one. There's a knockoff for $16.50, but several user reviews warned of the mobo being fried. Is there any happy medium? The 828 came with one in the box,IIRC. The 828 one is incompatible,unfortunately.

 

[480sparky]

My camera Sony alpha 77 SLT-A77V, lens Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-63 Di II PZD (shooting in RAW mode). The Tamron lens says for Sony, but does anyone know if it works on Canon and Nikons?...

No. You can buy versions that are, but they're made with Canon and Nikon mounts, respectively.

............Any suggestions for settings for inside photography (like family events, etc) and daylight outside?...

Pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's book, Understanding Exposure.

............I've not done a lot of photography lately. I've been unhappy with the alpha 77 (2012 vintage) for most of the time I've had it. The photos are inferior to the old Sony DSC-F828, which I really loved. A LOT of grain, compared to the old one, or in general, for that matter, and the F828 was crisper with better color. The lowest ISO it'll seem to go in auto is 400 (with a rare 250). The 828 went 64 or 80. (onboard flash). I had hot shoe flash for the F828, but it was useless. It never synced up with the camera.
Initial photos were less grainy. I've just restored to factory settings (and adjusting back to raw) to see if that helps. I also hit the clean sensor button (it vibrated for a second).
The videos weren't too bad. Not a lot of grain. So perhaps it isn't something to do with the firmware? HUGE files, about 250 MB per minute (.mts file)....

Digital does not have grain, film does. What you're seeing is noise.

............I have a question in the accessories section about a proper AC Adapter for the alpha 77. $99 is pretty extortionate for the official one. There's a knockoff for $16.50, but several user reviews warned of the mobo being fried. Is there any happy medium? The 828 came with one in the box,IIRC. The 828 one is incompatible,unfortunately.

You're taking a chance with 3rd-party gear. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

 

[MonkMayfair1937]

Thanks for the info.

Any suggestions for lessening noise? It's a massive amount more than the F828 had. Really too much for a $1,000 camera. Of course, one can expect more for indoor, but it's a lot. (And there's noise outside, although less). There's not a ton of noise in the video mode, so it must have something to do with the settings.

I suppose I'll go with the extortionate $99 AC adapter to be safe.

I am thinking of experimenting with an LED light ring.

Also, what's the difference between "Color Space" sRGB (selected) and Adobe RGB? Which is preferable?

 

[480sparky]

Lower ISO generally mean less noise.

 

[Derrel]

I cannot imagine the need for an AC adapter these days, except for rare situations. I think additional batteries makes more sense than using an AC adapter.

The 828 might have been performing some noise reduction. Still, the 77 is from 2012.

The real "problem" indoors is this: 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3...that is one dog-slow lens...it does not admit much light, except at the shorter focal length range. This causes high ISO settings to be required, or flash, for lower,indoor lighting conditions.

 

[MonkMayfair1937]

Ah, the lens. What wouldbe proper? It's a Sony, so perhaps a used lens would be harder to find. The camera store guy sold me this lens. That would make sense. It takes forever and a day for it to focus and take the picture.


Perhaps the Carl Zeiss lens on the F828 was the game-changer.

I cannot imagine the need for an AC adapter these days, except for rare situations. I think additional batteries makes more sense than using an AC adapter.

The 828 might have been performing some noise reduction. Still, the 77 is from 2012.

The real "problem" indoors is this: 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3...that is one dog-slow lens...it does not admit much light, except at the shorter focal length range. This causes high ISO settings to be required, or flash, for lower,indoor lighting conditions.

Would a Nikon 3400 out of the box be better for my needs? I want to stay with raw, and what format does nikon offer for the video? That might be cheaper than a new lens.

 

[dxqcanada]

I had the Sony A-77 and I did not notice any major noise issues until I set the ISO above 800.

If you take the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO from the camera in Auto exposure ... and then use the same in Manual exposure, you should end up with the same shot ... so I suspect you are not doing something correctly.

You mention setting the manual switch on the lens and body ... umm, that would mean you have set the camera/lens to manual focus.

 

[MonkMayfair1937]

I had the Sony A-77 and I did not notice any major noise issues until I set the ISO above 800.

If you take the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO from the camera in Auto exposure ... and then use the same in Manual exposure, you should end up with the same shot ... so I suspect you are not doing something correctly.

You mention setting the manual switch on the lens and body ... umm, that would mean you have set the lens to manual focus.

No, just for the times that I had tried manual mode...

Per the lens (the slow lens) that I have. What applications would it be intended for?

 

[dxqcanada]

Typically people buy that type of lens for outdoor images and primarily to have one lens that covers a wide focal range.
You sacrifice some things like light gathering and image quality to get an all-in-one type lens.

 

[MonkMayfair1937]

Thank you. It looks like the slow lens is probably the main culprit. If insufficient light is getting in, that would probably explain the horrible noise. Could you specify what lens specifications I would need for A) indoor family stuff and B) typical outdoor (not sports) still photography,respectively? (edit; re-reading the previous response,my old one is suited for "B", but still need advice on indoor one).

I'm browsing on Amazon,and the lenses are a lot less than what I paid for the Tamron back then. The camera shops went extinct, so I'd need something online. Sony lenses would probably be harder to find used from reputable sources.

If you were in my shoes, would it better to try the new lens, or go with the 3400?

 

[Derrel]

"Would a Nikon 3400 out of the box be better for my needs?"

Only a little bit. The sensors in each camera perform similarly. I suspect that the issue is the slow minimum aperture of the wide-ranging zoom you have, and yes, it is _not_ allowing in a lot of light, especially in dimmer lighting conditions. Indoor family stuff would be best with a shorter zoom lens, but actually FLASH bounced off of the ceiling or off walls would be better in terms of creating nice, beautiful lighting.

A 17-50 or 17-55mm f/2.8 lens would be wonderful for indoor and outdoor work at closer distances of up to 30 feet. For longer ranges, a 55-200 or so lens would be useful. I think the lens you own now would be adequate for outdoor work.

In fixed lenses, a 35mm f/1.8 would be nice. A 50mm f/1.8 would also be nice. An 85mm f/1.8 would make a nice short telephoto prime lens for concerts, plays, things like that where the action is 20 to 40 meters distant, or for close-up portraiture. These three lenses all admit a lot of light, f/1.8 worth, and are contrasty and crisp and clear imagers. You could look for these in original Sony or in Minolta AF mount, or from third party vendors.

 

[ac12]

Thank you. It looks like the slow lens is probably the main culprit. If insufficient light is getting in, that would probably explain the horrible noise. Could you specify what lens specifications I would need for A) indoor family stuff and B) typical outdoor (not sports) still photography,respectively? (edit; re-reading the previous response,my old one is suited for "B", but still need advice on indoor one).

I'm browsing on Amazon,and the lenses are a lot less than what I paid for the Tamron back then. The camera shops went extinct, so I'd need something online. Sony lenses would probably be harder to find used from reputable sources.

If you were in my shoes, would it better to try the new lens, or go with the 3400?

A1) A short zoom (anything in the 17-55 range, or your 18-270) WITH A FLASH. And bounce the flash off the ceiling. This is what I do.
A2) A 35mm f/1.8 lens. A wider 24 f/1.8 would be better. You will still be limited, in how dim you can shoot in (without a flash), and you will still have to raise the ISO level.

B) A longer mid-range zoom in the 18-100 range. Your 18-270 is fine. You have sunlight, so you are fine with a slower lens.

 

[MonkMayfair1937]

Thanks very much, Derrel! I saved the info. Would this https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Alpha-S...27545261&rpp=bsm://SONY||SLT+ALPHA+A77&sr=1-5 be the correct one? Stupid question, but is the SLT-A77V an A-mount?

Or this one https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50...93&sr=8-1&keywords=17-50mm+f/2.8+lens+Minolta

I'd rather have the zoomable one. I hope I'm not violating any rules by posting links. I'm not advocating for buying from a certain vendor. I just want to make double sure I'm getting the right thing.

And just to make double sure, both would fit on the camera,as-is?

There was a Sigma version https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50m...98&sr=8-2&keywords=17-50mm+f/2.8+lens+Minolta

Unfortunately, looking at the Tamron one, looks like it's a second party vendor and they ship UPS, judging by a user review. That's a near-deal breaker.

Per the AC adapter, it would probably be more cost effective to buy a second battery.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, that 35mm f/1.8 is a nice Sony-made model, and it is the Alpha or A-mount. Same with the Tamron lens, A-mount. Both will fit directly onto the camera and work properly. The Sony A-mount is or "was" the Minolta AF mount. Minolta sold its camera intellectual property and designs to Sony. The Tamron lens is available from many USA vendors on-line.

In the used lens market, there are a fair number of Minolta Maxxum AF lenses available second hand, and those could be used on the A77 you own.

I agree: skip any kind of AC adapter, and buy a second battery.

The Tamron 17-50mm zoom is available for $299 from B&H Photo on-=line
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Lens for Digital AF016M-700 B&H

 

[dxqcanada]

As Derrel mentioned ... two lenses would be better than one.
The Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 is good for low light and has very good IQ.