Sony Alpha a230 "older camera but new to me"

This is my first DSLR and any gallery that you see is only composed of photos shot by a Fuji F300 EXR. That is also a great camera "to be fair" and I have used it extensively with great results. I have learned all of its features and then decided I should move on.

With that said I purchased the Sony Alpha a230 from Wal-Mart for $298 plus taxes which also came with the kit lens. The camera was a display model about two years ago and since it was never sold, was put away. Over time the price came down and hence the reason for the purchase.

When I got the camera home, I looked it over more closely and discovered unsightly fingerprints everywhere. They were even on the inside of the camera. I spoke to someone who is quite knowledgeable about cameras and they had the camera professionally cleaned.

Anyway to make a long story short I would like to know if anyone has used this camera and what are the right settings to achieve the best results. I am familiar with aperture, exposure compensation and shutter priority but would like to learn from those who have/are still using this camera. Also since it is an entry-level DSLR, how long will this camera last? Longevity?

Regards,
James

Hi - I'm a beginner, but moved up from the a230 to the a500 a few months ago. The a230 is a great introduction to the world of SLR's.

I'm not sure what your budget is like, but given your choice to wait on the floor model, it sounds like you're watching your pennies - like me!

If you're planning on shooting indoors much, for the money, I would strongly urge you to purchase the Minolta AF 50mm 1.7. You can typically get them for $70-$100 on ebay, and it is outstanding for indoor/portrait shooting. It stays on my camera most of the time. The kit lens is better then most, but if you are trying to shoot people indoors in standard house lighting, you won't get a good shot.

In terms of settings for the a230, obviously play with it and find what you like. I prefer to use (and learn using) Apreture mode. If I'm struggling to take a shot, I'll sometimes flip to one of the auto settings, take the shot, and then display the properties the camera used on auto to try and figure out how to adjust the settings myself. You can get some great shots with the a230 - as the other posters gallery indicated. One thing I would avoid is the Auto ISO setting. Probably the biggest limitation I had with the a230 was it's high ISO performance. I found to achieve good quality, I had to stay within 100-400, occassionally I could get decent results from 800, but never above 800. If you use the auto settings, the camera will often select high ISO settings in lower lighting, which negatively impacts the quality of the pic.

Good luck,
Matt

I owned a A230 for a couple years but unfortunately I don't have much advice other then just experiment with it, try different settings, it's how I first started understanding shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc. I think it's agreat camera to start with since it doesn't have all the bells and whistles but it can still take quality shots. As far as longevity I believe it's rated for 40,000-50,000 shots or so. Have fun!

Well I'm hoping that this camera will be worth the $$ in lenses and I have also noticed a lot of noise at high ISOs. I've never owned a camera that didn't have trouble above ISO 800 so I always tend to stay with the lower. I will be on the lookout for a deal on the Minolta AF 50mm 1.7. One of the good things is being able to take those lenses and carry them over to one of the newer Alphas.

I am serious about photography which is why I wonder about longevity so I intend to make use of this camera at its fullest ability. Once learned fully, I hope that this camera will be tough enough to be carried along with me on my hiking trips and bike rides through some pretty rough terrain. Sometimes you've got to push yourself to get too your next shot

Thanks for the advice both of you

mmhendrie said:

Hi - I'm a beginner, but moved up from the a230 to the a500 a few months ago. The a230 is a great introduction to the world of SLR's.

I'm not sure what your budget is like, but given your choice to wait on the floor model, it sounds like you're watching your pennies - like me!

If you're planning on shooting indoors much, for the money, I would strongly urge you to purchase the Minolta AF 50mm 1.7. You can typically get them for $70-$100 on ebay, and it is outstanding for indoor/portrait shooting. It stays on my camera most of the time. The kit lens is better then most, but if you are trying to shoot people indoors in standard house lighting, you won't get a good shot.

In terms of settings for the a230, obviously play with it and find what you like. I prefer to use (and learn using) Apreture mode. If I'm struggling to take a shot, I'll sometimes flip to one of the auto settings, take the shot, and then display the properties the camera used on auto to try and figure out how to adjust the settings myself. You can get some great shots with the a230 - as the other posters gallery indicated. One thing I would avoid is the Auto ISO setting. Probably the biggest limitation I had with the a230 was it's high ISO performance. I found to achieve good quality, I had to stay within 100-400, occassionally I could get decent results from 800, but never above 800. If you use the auto settings, the camera will often select high ISO settings in lower lighting, which negatively impacts the quality of the pic.

Good luck,
Matt

Click to expand...

I've had an A230 for a year and a half and granted, it's an older model without alot of the bells and whistles you get with the bigger boys, don't be fooled by it's " plain jane" persona... this little machine has alot of horsepower 'neath it's hood and can pack just as powerful a punch as it's pricier brethren. Easy to learn, simple to operate and lightweight enough to carry around without strain, it's ideal for just about any situation and a real joy to use. The colors are wonderful the AF snappy and with the right lenses, performs just fine in low light situations....simply put, it's a terrific little camera with alot of bang for the buck.

Here's a few examples of just how capable this humble little snapper is:









































Most of these were shot in manual mode, btw...I'll occasionally use shutter or aperture priority in certain situations if I'm shooting a moving critter or other sort of action...auto mode is unfortunately one of it's few faults as it does sometimes overcompensate a bit light wise.

these all look really nice but I notice a lot of noise in your pictures even at ISO 400. Did you crop these? Did you perhaps sharpen them too much in postprocessing? They look stunning besides what I see in noise. Or is this a drawback of using an entry-level DSLR?

maxeythecat said:

I've had an A230 for a year and a half and granted, it's an older model without alot of the bells and whistles you get with the bigger boys, don't be fooled by it's " plain jane" persona... this little machine has alot of horsepower 'neath it's hood and can pack just as powerful a punch as it's pricier brethren. Easy to learn, simple to operate and lightweight enough to carry around without strain, it's ideal for just about any situation and a real joy to use. The colors are wonderful the AF snappy and with the right lenses, performs just fine in low light situations....simply put, it's a terrific little camera with alot of bang for the buck.

Here's a few examples of just how capable this humble little snapper is:

Most of these were shot in manual mode, btw...I'll occasionally use shutter or aperture priority in certain situations if I'm shooting a moving critter or other sort of action...auto mode is unfortunately one of it's few faults as it does sometimes overcompensate a bit light wise.

Click to expand...

james2k50 said:

these all look really nice but I notice a lot of noise in your pictures even at ISO 400. Did you crop these? Did you perhaps sharpen them too much in postprocessing?

Click to expand...

I'd say hummingbird and raindrops are cropped quite a bit and seriously oversharpened. The fly picture is pretty much what you should expect.

james2k50 said:

They look stunning besides what I see in noise. Or is this a drawback of using an entry-level DSLR?

Click to expand...

Entry level not necessarily, old yes. The A230 uses the same sensor that equipped the A200/300 in 2008. There have been huge improvements in sensitivity/noise in the following years, easily 3 stops in 2 years.

I had an A300, and considered ISO400 to by my maximum "everyday" ISO, that would require a bit of cleaning. 800 took really long, so I really tried to stop at 200 if I could.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kilrah/
http://www.youtube.com/user/kilrahvp

You will enjoy the A230. I receive more compliments from shots taken with that camera than any other. There is something about the color and tone right out of the camera that I find pleasing. I would not worry about the the durability either, mine is quite old and still works well. Your landscapes look quite nice. The Sony should be very good for that kind of shooting.

--
Klimt

I knew something wasn't quite right but everything he said I believe is true about this camera. If those are cropped and perhaps he could have gotten a little closer to prevent cropping so much. Even the fly looks sharpened quite a bit. So from what you say I shouldn't go over anything more than ISO 400. To me that is terrible because it eliminates night shooting or late evening. It's not often I'll shoot something at night but as the sun goes down on a beach, creates a nice silhouette. When I got this camera one week ago, it was already three years old.

I would like to be happy with this camera but question is should I invest in more lenses if the body itself is below par in regards to anything above ISO 400?

Kilrah said:

james2k50 said:

these all look really nice but I notice a lot of noise in your pictures even at ISO 400. Did you crop these? Did you perhaps sharpen them too much in postprocessing?

Click to expand...

I'd say hummingbird and raindrops are cropped quite a bit and seriously oversharpened. The fly picture is pretty much what you should expect.

Kilrah said:

They look stunning besides what I see in noise. Or is this a drawback of using an entry-level DSLR?

Click to expand...

Entry level not necessarily, old yes. The A230 uses the same sensor that equipped the A200/300 in 2008. There have been huge improvements in sensitivity/noise in the following years, easily 3 stops in 2 years.

I had an A300, and considered ISO400 to by my maximum "everyday" ISO, that would require a bit of cleaning. 800 took really long, so I really tried to stop at 200 if I could.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kilrah/
http://www.youtube.com/user/kilrahvp

Click to expand...

that's a really nice shot! Would love to see more of that but find it hard to believe that the colors come straight out of camera without postprocessing. Problem I have had is the camera seems to over saturate a bit. Auto mode color is flat so I tend to stick with P. mode and adjust accordingly. But with DSLR, P. mode just isn't enough and it becomes another expensive point-and-shoot. If you know what I mean, DSLR is much more capable and I would like to realize that in the Alpha a230.

when I first went out with this camera I expected far more than the results I received. But I am still learning and would expect this camera to rival any point-and-shoot correct?

Klimt z said:

You will enjoy the A230. I receive more compliments from shots taken with that camera than any other. There is something about the color and tone right out of the camera that I find pleasing. I would not worry about the the durability either, mine is quite old and still works well. Your landscapes look quite nice. The Sony should be very good for that kind of shooting.

--
Klimt

Click to expand...

well, remember, if you're enjoying Sony otherwise, you can get a better Sony body and continue with your lenses.

I ran into the high ISO issues with the a230, and that's why I went to the a500. I got a refurbished a500 direct from Sony for $360, and it has everything the a230 has, is a little larger with a larger grip, the screen flips out, has a couple of extra mp's, but the big gain was I can shoot beautifully up to 1600ISO, and occassionally well at 3200.

-Matt

I agree but I'm a pretty fussy guy. Just ask my wife ;-) she knows how much I complain and at times senselessly. Wouldn't the a230 be better than any point-and-shoot? I've compared this camera to a couple point-and-shoot as we have and there's not a whole lot of difference in quality. This surprises me unless I'm missing something, and remember I'm fairly new to DSLR. I was surprised that DSLR's have problems with noise, similarly to the point and shoots.

mmhendrie said:

well, remember, if you're enjoying Sony otherwise, you can get a better Sony body and continue with your lenses.

I ran into the high ISO issues with the a230, and that's why I went to the a500. I got a refurbished a500 direct from Sony for $360, and it has everything the a230 has, is a little larger with a larger grip, the screen flips out, has a couple of extra mp's, but the big gain was I can shoot beautifully up to 1600ISO, and occassionally well at 3200.

-Matt

Click to expand...

The lens I used on the three particular shots mentioned was an old Sigma 70-300 APO macro I'd picked up for 30$. While there really wasn't as much cropping as has been speculated, these snaps did get a bit of sharpening to make up for the fact that the quality of the glass rather sucked. Needless to say I don't use it very much. As for all the other pics, they're a much better representation of what the camera is capable of doing when you use a decent lens...the cat photos and still life image were shot with my Minolta 50 f/1.7 prime, very little cropping on those btw. The sparrow on the fence was taken with my SAL 75 300 "kit" lens and the sparrow in the tree was snapped with my Tamron 200 400 LD 75 superzoom...aside from a teensy bit of color correction and cropping are pretty much straight from the camera. Point is this...despite the fact that the sensor is an older one it's still a pretty solid little performer, well worth the money you paid for it and indeed much better than a point and shoot.

Kilrah said:

james2k50 said:

these all look really nice but I notice a lot of noise in your pictures even at ISO 400. Did you crop these? Did you perhaps sharpen them too much in postprocessing?

Click to expand...

I'd say hummingbird and raindrops are cropped quite a bit and seriously oversharpened. The fly picture is pretty much what you should expect.

Kilrah said:

They look stunning besides what I see in noise. Or is this a drawback of using an entry-level DSLR?

Click to expand...

Entry level not necessarily, old yes. The A230 uses the same sensor that equipped the A200/300 in 2008. There have been huge improvements in sensitivity/noise in the following years, easily 3 stops in 2 years.

I had an A300, and considered ISO400 to by my maximum "everyday" ISO, that would require a bit of cleaning. 800 took really long, so I really tried to stop at 200 if I could.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kilrah/
http://www.youtube.com/user/kilrahvp

Click to expand...

those are some really impressive shots! Much clearer than the others so it does make a difference with the quality of the lens. It doesn't help me decide if I should keep this camera or not. My main concern at this point is that anything past ISO 400 would show noise without pixel peeping. For me this would eliminate late evening and night shots. So it looks like the camera is confined to ISO 100/400 with 800 becoming unusable and especially if cropping.

However despite having key features missing, live view, mirror lock, histogram and another I can't think of, it does take nice pictures in the right conditions. Again it's all about knowing the limitations of your camera. I just don't feel that a DSLR should be this limited and as a result becomes underwhelming very quickly. But I do see great results which is making it difficult to hate this camera lol

Were you in P mode when you took those pictures? Do you like to manually focus the lens or leave it in auto?

maxeythecat said:

The lens I used on the three particular shots mentioned was an old Sigma 70-300 APO macro I'd picked up for 30$. While there really wasn't as much cropping as has been speculated, these snaps did get a bit of sharpening to make up for the fact that the quality of the glass rather sucked. Needless to say I don't use it very much. As for all the other pics, they're a much better representation of what the camera is capable of doing when you use a decent lens...the cat photos and still life image were shot with my Minolta 50 f/1.7 prime, very little cropping on those btw. The sparrow on the fence was taken with my SAL 75 300 "kit" lens and the sparrow in the tree was snapped with my Tamron 200 400 LD 75 superzoom...aside from a teensy bit of color correction and cropping are pretty much straight from the camera. Point is this...despite the fact that the sensor is an older one it's still a pretty solid little performer, well worth the money you paid for it and indeed much better than a point and shoot.

Kilrah said:

james2k50 said:

these all look really nice but I notice a lot of noise in your pictures even at ISO 400. Did you crop these? Did you perhaps sharpen them too much in postprocessing?

Click to expand...

I'd say hummingbird and raindrops are cropped quite a bit and seriously oversharpened. The fly picture is pretty much what you should expect.

maxeythecat said:

They look stunning besides what I see in noise. Or is this a drawback of using an entry-level DSLR?

Click to expand...

Entry level not necessarily, old yes. The A230 uses the same sensor that equipped the A200/300 in 2008. There have been huge improvements in sensitivity/noise in the following years, easily 3 stops in 2 years.

I had an A300, and considered ISO400 to by my maximum "everyday" ISO, that would require a bit of cleaning. 800 took really long, so I really tried to stop at 200 if I could.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kilrah/
http://www.youtube.com/user/kilrahvp

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm new here but I have the A230 so I decided to respond to your thread. I only use the Sony 35mm F1.8 lens on my A230, it's light and produces tack sharp pictures with great colors. I don't mind using "Foot Zoom", my first SLR was a Minolta SRT 101 with a 50mm F1.7. The crop factor on the A230 brings the 35mm to a 52mm equivalent so it's perfect for what I use the camera for.

At F2 the 35mm F1.8 Sony lens is sharp and allows you to get some great shots at night at ISO 400 and 800 if necessary, and it's only about $180.00. I'm not a Pro, I just like taking pictures like a lot of people, so I'll probably never spend a lot of money on cameras. I may buy a Sony A35 in the future but for now the A230 works great for me.

Welcome to the forums! I've been a member here at dpreview since 2007. Nice to know about the ability to take night shots with that lens. It means that this camera isn't really limited but solely by the user. I will have to put this in consideration and I have made a note for the lenses you specified. Thanks

Beach Cruiser said:

I'm new here but I have the A230 so I decided to respond to your thread. I only use the Sony 35mm F1.8 lens on my A230, it's light and produces tack sharp pictures with great colors. I don't mind using "Foot Zoom", my first SLR was a Minolta SRT 101 with a 50mm F1.7. The crop factor on the A230 brings the 35mm to a 52mm equivalent so it's perfect for what I use the camera for.

At F2 the 35mm F1.8 Sony lens is sharp and allows you to get some great shots at night at ISO 400 and 800 if necessary, and it's only about $180.00. I'm not a Pro, I just like taking pictures like a lot of people, so I'll probably never spend a lot of money on cameras. I may buy a Sony A35 in the future but for now the A230 works great for me.

Click to expand...

james2k50 said:

Again it's all about knowing the limitations of your camera.

Click to expand...

Exact!...

james2k50 said:

For me this would eliminate late evening and night shots.

Click to expand...

...and working around them. Compensate the lower ISO with fast glass and/or slower shutter speeds if you can keep the camera and subject steady. For landscapes, get a tripod, and you'll be able to do 10sec exposures at ISO100 if needed.

Here's an entire gallery of low light shots taken at ISO400 with my A300. RAW and suitable but not too extensive PP applied: http://www.andrebernet.ch/gallery/v/events/090209_Broadway/
For these I was using an old Minolta 50mm F1.7.

james2k50 said:

I just don't feel that a DSLR should be this limited and as a result becomes underwhelming very quickly.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what goes with having chosen an old entry model. Again it's a compromise to make. You got a very decent camera for cheap, but it does have limitaitons. Now it's your choice to work with them or invest a bit more and go for something better. On an A500 series model you can go to ISO1600 without second thought, it will be easier to get some shots, probably you'll be able to shoot other things you simply can't with the A230. You just need to know where to stop, as you could buy a $10k kit if you wanted everything

james2k50 said:

Were you in P mode when you took those pictures? Do you like to manually focus the lens or leave it in auto?

Click to expand...

Not directed to me, but I guess some input is still welcome - I shoot P probably 80% of the time. Switch to A,S,M when needed (for example need for more DOF and want to close aperture more than the camera would, I'm moving or my subject is so I need to force shutter speed faster, or both...)
AF 95% of the time. Just not for macro.

With the A77 I do use MF quite regularly but that's due to the EVF and peaking function that makes it very easy and enjoyable.

james2k50 said:

But with DSLR, P. mode just isn't enough and it becomes another expensive point-and-shoot. If you know what I mean, DSLR is much more capable and I would like to realize that in the Alpha a230.

Click to expand...

The mode that's "enough" is the one that lets you get the shot you want. No need to be shooting M all the time just for the sake of it - you might end with pictures that are a lot less good than what you hope for if you don't know what you do. A common learning curve would usually have you use auto so you can learn what the camera does, understand the interactions between the parameters, and then start playing with them accordingly.

james2k50 said:

Wouldn't the a230 be better than any point-and-shoot? I've compared this camera to a couple point-and-shoot as we have and there's not a whole lot of difference in quality. This surprises me unless I'm missing something, and remember I'm fairly new to DSLR. I was surprised that DSLR's have problems with noise, similarly to the point and shoots.

Click to expand...

Depends what you consider "better". In terms of noise, how old is your P&S? If you compare a 2011 P&S to the A230 you probably won't see much difference. However, a typical 2008 P&S usually was a pack of noise at anything above ISO100. Both categories are evolving.

For the rest, it's common for a new DSLR user to be disappointed at first (I was too). The P&S is really that. A DSLR requires you to be aware of more characteristics and limitations. One of them, and probably the most frustrating is DoF. The large sensor has the advantage of allowing you to isolate the subject from its surroundings due to the possiblilty of getting a shallow depth of field. But the large sensor has the drawback of sometimes simply not allowing you to get the entirely sharp photo you're used to and expect when you come from a P&S, requiring you to select a subject and create that photo knowing this limitation.

The A230 will limit you to low ISOs, so you'll have to use fast glass, which has a shallow depth of field, which means you'll have to pick one subject you'll focus on and frame such as to turn it into a nice photo, etc. It's totally possible, just requires some learning. Taking a DSLR and using it as a P&S usually turns out worse than using a P&S in a first place. You have to do some work yourself

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kilrah/
http://www.youtube.com/user/kilrahvp

For me this would eliminate late evening and night shots.

Kilrah said:

...and working around them. Compensate the lower ISO with fast glass and/or slower shutter speeds if you can keep the camera and subject steady. For landscapes, get a tripod, and you'll be able to do 10sec exposures at ISO100 if needed.

Click to expand...

You see that's why I come here I just learned something new and that is the lens is what really makes the difference. With a point and shoot, there is no need to change lenses which is one of the benefits. But I wanted to be more flexible and have the ability to manipulate more with the lens. I see things differently than most people, I can walk the same road every day and find something to photograph.

Kilrah said:

Here's an entire gallery of low light shots taken at ISO400 with my A300. RAW and suitable but not too extensive PP applied
For these I was using an old Minolta 50mm F1.7.

Click to expand...

Very nice shots but would love to see the originals. I will be on the lookout for that lens

Kilrah said:

Kilrah said:

I just don't feel that a DSLR should be this limited and as a result becomes underwhelming very quickly.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what goes with having chosen an old entry model. Again it's a compromise to make. You got a very decent camera for cheap, but it does have limitaitons. Now it's your choice to work with them or invest a bit more and go for something better. On an A500 series model you can go to ISO1600 without second thought, it will be easier to get some shots, probably you'll be able to shoot other things you simply can't with the A230. You just need to know where to stop, as you could buy a $10k kit if you wanted everything

Click to expand...

I knew it would have limitations before I bought it but considering that it's a DSLR, coming from a point and shoot I didn't even factor in the noise. I rarely take night shots but I'm hoping this camera will do fairly well for inside photography when needed. Perhaps the a500 will be something to think about when I decide to venture a little further in the DSLR world. For now I think I will work around this camera's limitations. I think my "$10k" would be better off spent elsewhere.

Kilrah said:

Kilrah said:

Were you in P mode when you took those pictures? Do you like to manually focus the lens or leave it in auto?

Click to expand...

Not directed to me, but I guess some input is still welcome - I shoot P probably 80% of the time. Switch to A,S,M when needed (for example need for more DOF and want to close aperture more than the camera would, I'm moving or my subject is so I need to force shutter speed faster, or both...)
AF 95% of the time. Just not for macro.

With the A77 I do use MF quite regularly but that's due to the EVF and peaking function that makes it very easy and enjoyable.

Click to expand...

I find P mode to work well on this camera so it's what I've been using to help simplify things for now. I also use aperture and shutter depending on the opportunity and complexity of the shot. I find autofocus works well in most cases but sometimes I prefer to manual focus if the subject isn't too far away.

But with DSLR, P. mode just isn't enough and it becomes another expensive point-and-shoot. If you know what I mean, DSLR is much more capable and I would like to realize that in the Alpha a230.

Kilrah said:

The mode that's "enough" is the one that lets you get the shot you want. No need to be shooting M all the time just for the sake of it - you might end with pictures that are a lot less good than what you hope for if you don't know what you do. A common learning curve would usually have you use auto so you can learn what the camera does, understand the interactions between the parameters, and then start playing with them accordingly.

Click to expand...

I come from having learned a lot previously so I had an idea with this camera. It's semi manual for me with a choice of aperture and shutter when I feel a need it. As for pictures not turning out the way they should, that happens to every camera and it's up to the user to make good with the equipment he/she has. It is very common to learn in auto, but becomes an expensive "point and shoot" with interchangeable lenses

Kilrah said:

Kilrah said:

Wouldn't the a230 be better than any point-and-shoot? I've compared this camera to a couple point-and-shoot as we have and there's not a whole lot of difference in quality. This surprises me unless I'm missing something, and remember I'm fairly new to DSLR. I was surprised that DSLR's have problems with noise, similarly to the point and shoots.

Click to expand...

Depends what you consider "better". In terms of noise, how old is your P&S? If you compare a 2011 P&S to the A230 you probably won't see much difference. However, a typical 2008 P&S usually was a pack of noise at anything above ISO100. Both categories are evolving.

Click to expand...

I'm hoping that the a230 will serve me well for the next couple of years or more. I don't like to compare to newer technologies because I know you can always buy better. However I like to challenge a higher end DSLR in terms of picture quality when both are being used when all conditions and limitations are met.

Kilrah said:

For the rest, it's common for a new DSLR user to be disappointed at first (I was too). The P&S is really that. A DSLR requires you to be aware of more characteristics and limitations. One of them, and probably the most frustrating is DoF. The large sensor has the advantage of allowing you to isolate the subject from its surroundings due to the possiblilty of getting a shallow depth of field. But the large sensor has the drawback of sometimes simply not allowing you to get the entirely sharp photo you're used to and expect when you come from a P&S, requiring you to select a subject and create that photo knowing this limitation.

Click to expand...

Again I am aware that I won't always get that sharp photo but I'm hoping that most of my results will be satisfactory and above all else usable in terms of IQ. I didn't buy a DSLR to go backwards from my point-and-shoot after all! I love shallow depth of field!