I'm a long time Minolta to Konica to Sony user, starting with the Minolta SRT101. I just upgraded to an Alpha 65 from an A100. Originally, my reason for staying with Konica/Minolta/Sony was to use my old lenses. I'm happy I made that decision, since it seems Sony is now making spectacular advances and has a camera every bit as good, or better, than Canons and Nikons. The only problem with DSLRs is the steep learning curve. There are so many things the camera can do that it's mind boggling. I'm just trying to focus on learning the features I'll need for landscape photography and will ignore the rest. I suppose it's like the human brain. I've heard we only use a small percentage of our brain's true capability. It'll be the same with my camera.

"Enjoy these photos"
'I need help with my photo"

Sunrise over the 17th hole at the Bayou Country Club, Largo FL

I'm an amateur landscape photographer and have a Sony A65 coming in today. I like the concept of a 18-270 wide to telephoto lens. Reviews on the new Tamron with PZ drive seem good. Anyone have comparative experience with the Tamrons and/or the Sony lens?