Albert returns with a chock-ful of photogeeking!

Yes boys and girls, this is my flash triad – from left to right, the Sony HVL-F42AM, Sony HVL-F58AM and the newly bought Sunpak PF20XD!

And here’s a less flashy picture – from left to right, my Nikon SB-28 (dynamite edition), Sony HVL-F42AM, Sony HVL-F58AM and the Sunpak PF20XD in front.

The rear is very simple – A1/A2/A3 is auto exposure, and the sync mode can be set to skip the pre-flash. I’m not sure if it skips the wireless signal from an Alpha pop-up flash simply because I don’t have an Alpha pop-up flash on my A900 to test this with.

Which is why I got this flash in the first place – as a replacement for my missing pop-up flash. This one of course is more powerful, dishing out 20 meters at ISO100.

Here it is mounted on my Minolta X300 – yes, it’s the standard ISO hotshoe mount, with 2 pins just to trigger the flash. So it’s not a Canon-mount or Nikon-mount flash!

It has a built-in diffuser which can be pulled up, which supposedly covers a 24mm focal length on full-frame, but…

…it amazingly reaches to the sides on my Peleng 8mm F3.5 circular fisheye!

I will be bringing this little baby to the clubs where the F42 is simply too big. Bouncing light with the F58 and fisheye is not easy, either! So I might as well go for direct and blend in ambient light. It looks good enough anyway!

Also spotted at the same shop, dSLR in Subang Parade, was this mega-pack! The Olympus E-520 with the ZD 9-18mm F4.0-5.6, ZD 14-42mm F3.5-5.6, ZD 40-150mm F4.0-5.6, ZD 70-300mm F4.0-5.6! Only thing missing was the ZD 25mm F2.8.

And then I headed to Sony Style KLCC to find the Sony A700/A900 remote, the RMT-DSLR1!

The case of the manual-focus only Minolta/Sony 135mm F2.8/T4.5 Smooth Transition Focus (STF) lens

I’ve always wondered why the Minolta/Sony 135mm F2.8/T4.5 Smooth Transition Focus (STF) lens was manual focus only. So, I decided to test this theory by mounting it on my Minolta X300!

First I had to keep the aperture blades open, so I stuck some tape to hold the lever in place. As you can see, inside the lens, the edges are gradually darker due to the apodization filter inside.

Then, I positioned the lens and body together, with an eraser and CF card holder to keep the lens from rolling.

I looked through it, and it confirmed my theory – the upper half and lower half of the split prism would never match due to the gradual darkening coming from opposite ends!

This is due to the apodization filter which darkens the periphery of the lens (giving the beautiful bokeh that the STF possesses.) Obviously, the top half is looking through the right side of the lens while the bottom half is looking through the left side of the lens.

Phase-detect auto-focus works in a very similiar way to a split-prism on a manual-focus viewfinder – it looks at the subject from two opposite ends of the lens and drives the lens to focus so that the two images are aligned.

If you’ve tried a darker lens on a split-prism viewfinder, you might find that one of the two halves will be darker than the other – this just means that your eye is not centered in the viewfinder, so you need to move slightly to your left or right until the brightness matches. However, you would never see a gradient darkening with a non-STF lens!

This is what an out-of-focus picture looks like through a split-prism viewfinder. You need to focus the lens by turning it until the top and bottom halves of the split-prism align.

This will be easiest to focus on vertical lines and almost impossible with horizontal lines!

I then tried to see if the gradient darkening happened with a normal lens by moving the camera left and right of the viewfinder – it didn’t. Instead, one half got uniformly darker than the other.

Of course, on an phase-detect auto-focus system, the ‘eye’ never actually moves left and right, and it’s always aligned on the center.

So how does a regular phase-detect auto-focus system work?

Each AF sensor has two lines of sensors – one line of CCDs that sees the upper half, one line of CCDs that sees the lower half. It can see how ‘far’ each line is from each other, and know immediately where to focus the lens.

So, the lens is driven to the focus point, and then the camera looks at the two halves again and makes micro adjustments.

Cross-type sensors

Cross-type sensors are just a pair of line sensors at 90 degrees from each other, so it is sensitive to both horizontal and vertical detail.

So why doesn’t the STF work with auto-focus?

As you saw earlier, the top and bottom halves have a gradual darkening coming from opposite ends. So, even if the object was in focus, the CCDs will never say it’s a match!

A way that might’ve worked is that the camera knows that the STF is being used, and compensates for the gradual darkening when comparing what the two CCDs see.

My guess is that the gradual darkening differs with focus range and aperture setting, so it might’ve been too complicated for Minolta to program into the bodies when they first released the STF.

So what’s the big deal about the STF anyway?

Sony 135mm F2.8/T4.5 STF at T4.5. Note how the out-of-focus highlights are circles with gradually darker edges.

Minolta 50mm F1.4 at F1.4 (cropped to give the same angle of view.) Note how the out-of-focus highlights have ugly, distracting borders (especially at the bottom of the picture.) These borders are called bright-line bokeh.

Here is another example also from the 50mm F1.4. The lights on top really should be out of focus and thus not distracting, but they pop out of the background!

Of course, the 50mm F1.4 and Minolta 50mm F1.7 are very poor examples – a lot of old Minolta zooms and primes have much better rendition of out-of-focus highlights.

And in other news…

And now, on to the Olympus E-30! I found out why it’s said to be the poor man’s E-3.

They still had the clunky way of adjusting Kelvin WB in Live View (an immensely useful feature) but it was slightly easier to hold down the EV button while rolling the rear dial now.

How about the DCIM Show that happened recently at Midvalley Megamall?

Disappointing. No, not the Panasonic G1 – the lack of anything really fresh, new or upcoming. The Panasonic GH-1, with honestly the best implementation of video in a digital interchangeable lens system, was not there.

The GH-1 has an external gun mike, a Wind Cut function, fast AF tracking while recording videos (like a proper camcorder) and a lot of other things that make the Canon 500D’s video mode even more of a joke.

Oh, and Canon didn’t have the Canon EOS 500D there, either!

Fortunately, Nikon brought some cool stuff, like the Nikkor 24mm F3.5 tilt-shift!

Then there was the magnificent Nikkor AF-S 200mm F2.0 VR…

…and the diminutive Nikkor AF-S 35mm F1.8 DX.

I then spotted a Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G, in black! This is not the HS version which is white.

People then spotted my Fujifilm Digital Q1 infrared-modded interchangeable-lens camera!

This is what a fish sees when they see a photographer.

The Panasonic FZ-28 has a Kelvin WB setting! SWEET!

(The Canon 500D and Nikon D60 both do not have Kelvin WB settings, sucks to be them…)

Step up for the model shoot challenge!

A quick and dirty F2.8 full-frame telephoto zoom lens comparison for Alpha mount!

Click here for large version.

The big guns, left to right, arranged in order of MFD:
Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO, 1.8m MFD – Asyraf’s copy
Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM, 1.2m MFD – Nic’s copy
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Macro, 1.0m MFD – Sham’s copy
Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Macro, 0.95m MFD – shop copy
Sony Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8, 0.72m MFD – my copy

I didn’t bring my lens hood. 🙁

* MFD = Minimum Focus Distance

All tests done with a Sony Alpha 900 firmware Version 1.00. The A900 seems to make the Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM focus faster, subjectively, but at the same time it is hampered by the smaller AF sensor layout. Regardless, the AF assist sensors and the F2.8 dual-cross type center sensor should bring out the best in the worst conditions, namely an indoor flourescent-lit shopping mall!

We were time-limited; the shop was closing soon, and unfortunately we’d rarely ever get to see such a full combination of 70-200mm F2.8 lens ranges.

Settings – Standard Small JPG, DRO Off, ISO1600, F2.8 (or F1.8 on the Zeiss), AWB, Multi-segment metering, center spot AF, AF-C.

We did a comparison with a moving target, in this case a friend walking towards us. I attempted to keep the center spot AF point on the eye of the moving subject.

Tamron 70-200mm sample walk.

Lens Name; number of shots; good/bad shot ratio *

Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Macro; 14 shots; 8:6
Timestamps: 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:42 8:54:42 8:54:42 8:54:42 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:46 8:54:46 8:54:46 8:54:46

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Macro; 12 shots; 5:7
Timestamps: 8:55:26 8:55:28 8:55:28 8:55:28 8:55:28 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:32 8:55:32

Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM; 13 shots; 6:7
Timestamps: 8:56:52 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:56 8:56:56 8:56:56 8:56:56 8:56:58 8:56:58

Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO; 17 shots; 8:9
Timestamps: 9:00:14 9:00:14 9:00:14 9:00:14 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:20 9:00:20 9:00:20

Sony Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8; 14 shots**; 9:5
Timestamps: 9:00:52 9:00:54 9:00:54 9:00:54 9:00:54 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:58 9:00:58 9:00:58

Number of shots were derived from comparing magnification; magnifications outside the norm were discarded.

Interesting that the timestamp of the file may not be truly representative of the time it was taken; I reckon the A900 writes to the card every 2 seconds, or that it can’t count in odd seconds. So there goes my plan to use the timestamps to show how fast it can focus!

* good shots meaning it was obvious that the lens managed to cope up and focus (some shots had motion blur so I accounted for that as you can still see the relative region of focus); bad shots meaning it was obvious that the lens didn’t manage to keep focus and you’d want to delete that shot.

** 14 shots on the Zeiss are not comparable because of the different start/stop points; I cannot measure this versus the other lenses because they don’t have the same magnification so I can’t measure the start/end points easily.

My Subjective Opinion

(Click for larger view.)
Tamron at 200mm F2.8 1/125s ISO400. This is not a picture of me!

I will assure you that the Sigma at 200mm F2.8 and this close range (on the A900) will not give you this amount of sharpness. The Tamron without a doubt is good at 200mm F2.8 in the 1-2 meters range (estimated) where the Sigma falters.

My previous findings on the Sigma here.

The Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 and Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO, both being screw-drive lenses, let the A900 fire away more frames at the beginning of the walk. It focused more confidently. There was an obvious audible difference between the 5 FPS of screw-drives and the slower, more hesitant pauses between HSM/SSM lenses. Everybody noticed this.

Given the low sample rate I have here, I hope somebody out there can take this further especially on the 200mm end – the shop confines didn’t allow for 200mm tracking. That said the test was very gruelling on the lenses as it is in poor flourescent lighting so I cannot imagine how it would fare at 200mm. I would imagine that all these lenses would do much better in a daylight drag race at 200mm!

Approaching the minimum focusing distance all lenses struggled mainly because of the A900’s small AF sensor layout.

The Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO’s MFD of 1.8 meters makes itself very apparent in the confines of a shop. Modern lenses do 1.2 meters at least which is great! The Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G SSM is another excellent example, going 1.2 meters close too, a record for any lens that gets to 300mm! Of course, the Minolta 70-210mm F4 beercan has been focusing 1.1 meters close since 1985…

Of course, in the name of science, all tests should be done 3 times. But we didn’t want to agitate the very nice shopkeeper who let us test this lens. And this was gonna be quick and dirty, not precision. I think a much more precise method would be with the camera on a tripod trying to track a (weighted) racecar with a bright contrasty plastic cone (for a flag) on a track, heading towards the camera in a straight line before turning off.

70-135-200mm comparison

I focused on the S of the Sony A700. Unfortunately this was not a tripod-mounted test!

(Click for larger view.)
Left to right: 70mm, 135mm, 200mm all at F2.8
Top is Tamron, bottom is Sigma. It seems the Tamron has corrected for longitudinal chromatic aberration, or color ‘bokeh’. It looks odd to me though since I’m so used to LCA and regard it as a natural property of lenses.

(Click for larger view.)
Left to right: 70mm/80mm, 135mm, 200mm all at F2.8
Top is Sony, bottom is Minolta.

(Click for larger view.)
Zeiss at 135mm F1.8.

(Click for larger view.)
Left to right: 70mm, 135mm, 200mm all at F2.8
Top is Tamron, middle is Sigma, bottom is Sony.

(Click for larger view.)
Zeiss at 135mm F1.8.

The Sigma and Tamron have much more obvious spherical aberration. I thought the Tamron was alright at 135mm and a heck lot better than the Sigma at 200mm and close focus (1-2 meters.) The Sigma has very obvious softening!

Stuff I Did Not Compare

Color – I was in flourescent lighting. 🙁

Bokeh – the shop people kept moving about so the background changed quite a bit as you can see.

My new mouse, the A4Tech NB-57D, is a battery-less mouse which gets power from magnetic induction generated by the magnetic fields of the mousepad!

I have always loved A4Tech for their very innovative ideas, like one of my beloved wireless mice from way before – to charge it, you’d just plug the USB charger into the head of the mouse (in effect, making it a wired mouse.) The thing that was different though, was that the plug was a standard classic Nokia charger plug! So, I could charge my Nokia when not charging my mouse… and, the mouse took rechargeable AAA batteries, so it was also a USB AAA battery charger!

Such genius, and yet they discontinued it (possibly Nokia sued?) so their later mice were all charged by docking, which is a very stupid place for a mouse to be in.

I had seen this magnetic-field powered mouse before years ago, but it had a label that said not to bring it within a certain distance of CRT monitors to prevent interference. I still use a 21″ IBM 6558 P202 for its superb color and gamma (I dislike the unnatural gamma of LCD monitors.)

And so, when my current mouse could not middle-click consistently, it was time to get a new one.

When I saw the box, it didn’t have any indication that it was incompatible with CRT monitors. Was this a new packaging where they assumed that CRTs went extinct? But then, the packaging said it was compatible with Windows XP and below. There was no sign of Windows Vista. So it could be old enough to exist before Windows Vista while having fixed the problems with CRT monitors.

Oh well, a gamble it was then.

So did it interfere? Yes it did, causing tiny black lines which disappeared after I removed the mousepad from the surface of the screen. So it wasn’t a problem at all.

And how about the mouse? It was smooooth! The mousepad had a very nice texture with a slightly slippery feel. I played a Tier of Quake 3 and it didn’t let me down at all.

(This is not a sponsored post – I am honestly marvelled by A4Tech’s innovations.)

Oh and how many of you can name the good use of a middle-click? Yes, you can click down on your scroll wheel!

I asked around, and the most popular response, was of course, to make an auto-scroller. (There was also a very sad person who did not know you could middle-click.)

However, about nobody knew that middle-clicking on a link in Internet Explorer 7/8 or Firefox would open the link in a new tab. There you go you’ve learnt something new today!

Why was this a big deal? I was middle-clicking on links in emails using my previous mouse, not realizing it wasn’t working, and then deleting those emails…

Here goes some random crowd shots from Sunburst 2009! (Yes, my camera was authorized but it was horribly inconvenient for the kids who took the bus all the way from Ipoh to come see KoRn only to be told they couldn’t bring in SLRs.)

Captain’s Log, 21st March 2009 Anno Domini, haha get it Captain’s Log, a line out of Star Trak.

My camera obviously has a bike fetish.

I see primarily 3 colors in this photo.

Here’s the obligatory Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm F1.8 ZA advertisement, although I am not paid to do this.

Checkout her shades yo!

A different kind of shade.

It looks so transformable, if I was 6 I would go up and transform it.

The VIP area offered little drinks, Pepsi, mineral water, alcohol and finger food. I was more excited about the typical concertgoer’s Ramly Burger meal. Only thing nice about this place was of course, proper toilets!

“Gee, which stage to next?”

On the big Sun stage, I spotted a Nikkor AF-S 200mm F2.0 VR on a Nikon D3! 300mm F2.8s don’t hold any special interest with me anymore, while this rare 200mm was notable. Interestingly, very few Nikon users have seen or touched the Nikkor AF-D 135mm F2.0 Defocus Control, which my colleague was interested in!

Out in the field was a classic – the Sony Cybershot DSC-F828 with a Carl Zeiss lens.

Of course, Jenifer is far more enthralled with my Peleng 8mm F3.5 circular fisheye!

Out in tents, the Livesounds and Loud & Clear stages are opposite each other.

Justin explains something to me while his colleague chimps a shot with my Zeiss.

OMGITSLIYANAESTRELLAAIAAAAAIIIYEEEESOCUUUTE!!!

Screen resting.

Kellster is the new Fun-Size.

…well I was not going to wait for the wind to blow harder to get a cooler shot.

Wazzaaa Azza!

I spy in your little eye…

I contemplated getting KFC instead.

Flash at 24mm, lens at 8mm. Obvious spotlighting effect will occur!

Mmm Sicilian/Malay mixed light-spinning twins!

The mighty sweaty Alfred captures me and drags me into the Stargate.

Thanks Hayley for taking this shot. I think. Well I thought it was you in that location behind the camera.