Tamron 17-50/2.8 vs Minolta 24-50/4, primes, etc.

Thanks for sharing this.
I'd like to run a few comparisons myself. Where did you get a test chart?

Thanks,
Sashi

I generally use A3 sheets and print the chart so it fills half the image width. This way the resolution of the printer is distinctly better than the sensor. I centre the shot on the rh edge where I have drawn some large black rectangles to focus on, and check the lh edge where I have drawn large triangles, so the points are just in shot.

re the lenses, the dt 50mm seems to come out well, and the dt zooms aren't disgraced in the corners either, though clearly some of them are worse than others.

Anyway, thanks for sharing these tests. It's nice to check subjective impressions against tests occasionally.

Manual focus with magnification on the rear screen with lots of wiggling the focus back and forth. I've ordered an HDMI cable for the A65 so I can use a 1920x1080 monitor.

I just use the standard wide metering with +1 ev exposure comp dialed in from checking the histogram. I definitely could use a better light source.

Edited by QuietOC - 29 June 2016 at 01:17

For anyone considering it, live-view on the A65 hdmi output only uses a 4:3 center crop in the 16:9 1920x1080 output, and the actual sensor view is an additional 3:2 crop (or 16:9 crop) of that 4:3 crop. So, hdmi live-view on the A65 displays at most 1440x960 pixels--that still better than 1024x683 pixels on the EVF or 640x427 pixels on the rear screen.

It sounds like the A33/A35/A55 cameras didn't have this 4:3 crop on their live-view HDMI output maybe since they had 16:9 displays.

All lenses with moving parts those parts wobble some amount. I find the telephoto zooms the worst. The hardest time I've had is using the 55-300 with several teleconverters to image the moon. The moon doesn't sit still either.

Edited by QuietOC - 30 June 2016 at 21:47