 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2006Sony's Alpha..I saw it, nice "try" better luck next time...
But really, it's reasonable at the price point. --I got a chance to try it out. I was 1/2 impressed, 1/2 depressed. What's bad: -Build quality. It is so far below the E-1 or the Nikon D200 it isn't funny. In fact, I had the D200 next to it and the differences are enough to make you cry. Side issue; My only gripe about the Nikon, the eyepiece and the back of the camera are too flush. You tend to impact the LCD with your nose. Olympus's E-330 has it all over any camera in this dept. Yes, it's an entry-level camera but it reminded me of Canon's XT. Cost control is highly evident, from the switch quality to the thunderous slap of the mirror/shutter. It just looks and feels cheezy. This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! -Feel; Not great. IMO, it's too small and not very comfortable. It's the kind of camera you load a CF card into carefully for fear sloppy tolerances could mean bent pins. What's good; -Outstanding auto WB in an enclosed environment. -Good resolution -Decent noise control -A beautiful LCD display Some images: WARNING full sized and large The Sony 400 ISO http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/64615083 E-1 400 ISO http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/64615374 >But really, it's reasonable at the price point. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >funny. In fact, I had the D200 next to it and the differences are >enough to make you cry. The extra $1000 in my pocket makes me happy... > Side issue; My only gripe about the Nikon, >the eyepiece and the back of the camera are too flush. You tend to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >quality to the thunderous slap of the mirror/shutter. It just looks >and feels cheezy. That's just your opinion, the camera looks fine to me. > This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to >cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! But it's just your opinion... not fact. >-Feel; Not great. IMO, it's too small and not very comfortable. Another opinion... I like the size, it fits into a small camera bag and is easy to carry. Fits my hand fairly well, and unlike the Canon 30D, my finger falls on the shutter, I don't have to look for it. > It's >the kind of camera you load a CF card into carefully for fear sloppy >tolerances could mean bent pins. yawn.... quite impossible. >What's good; >-Outstanding auto WB in an enclosed environment. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >E-1 400 ISO >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/64615374 B...@nospam.com wrote: > >But really, it's reasonable at the price point. > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > But it's just your opinion... not fact. Actually, it's not. Tests have already shown that some DSLRs around the 1/10-1/30 second mark do suffer from image blur caused by excessive mirror slap. Some have mechanisms that will raise the mirror, then release the shutter a couple to a few seconds later to avoid image blur. The Sony has the worst mirror slap I've felt in a DSLR. The Canon Rebel XT is the second worst I've felt. r opinion, the camera looks fine to me. >>>This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to >>>cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > mirror slap I've felt in a DSLR. The Canon Rebel XT is the second > worst I've felt. The Sony does not have bad mirror slap. You are talking about sound. Put plugs in your ears, FEEL the cameras, and you'll find that more damped actions usually transmit the energy as vibration into the body at a fairly low frequency. Noisy actions like the Sony transmit the energy externally as sound which typically has frequencies above the 70Hz maximum response of the anti-shake gyros. A relatively high pitched sound from the mirror/shutter action transmits no damaging vibration to the camera; a soft low-pitched muffled sound transmits potential shake. Anyone who worked in the past with cameras such as the Miranda T used on microscope assemblies will be aware of this - clang like a bell when fired, no vibration sustained in the mechanism. The KM Sony mirror/shutter mechanism was designed to run using low energy (relatively slow action) and mass, to avoid triggering the in-body gyros. I have interviewed two KM design team staff about this, it was one of the first questions which arose when discussion the 7D at photokina - why is the shutter so slow, why is the action so noisy? The question was immediately understoof and a full explanation given, including references to the frequencies, and the absorption of energy into the body by quieter SLRs. A side benefit is that the shutter has an expected cycle before failure of 140,000 shots. This also applies to other cameras, like the Nikon D70, Pentax *1st series, using the same low mass, low energy assemblies by KM/Sony has the slowest transit time and lowest energy requirement of all. The shutter is calibrated for flash at 1/180th in the factory (a speed not available via camera controls) and syncs at 1/160th officially. In practice it works up to 1/200th with normal flashguns. SSS or AS is improved on the KM and Sony models by using the 2 second mirror pre-lift (tested and proved) but it's a bit of a strange thing to do without a tripod, and AS/SSS should be disabled when using a pod. So the mirror and shutter actions definitely do affect AS/SSS despite all attempts to prevent this. No doubt the same applies to in-lens IS systems, depending on where the gyros are located. David >> > This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to >> >cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! >> >> But it's just your opinion... not fact. >> >Actually, it's not. Tests have already shown that some DSLRs around Some? Some? Like I said - it's your opinion, not proven by experimentation. AND disproved by careful examination of pictures I have taken without VR engaged. Pictures are as sharp as can be, even at 70mm. and blown up x2. BTW - what are your qualifications to review the engineering of a camera? I am an electronics technologist, and I work with optical equipment as well as miniature electronics. The Sony Alpha is well made for the price, and all of your observations seem to be that - amateurish observations! "Don't judge a book by it's cover" is a phrase you need to learn. > >> > This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to > >> >cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > disproved by careful examination of pictures I have taken without VR engaged. > Pictures are as sharp as can be, even at 70mm. and blown up x2. It's not opinion. There have been tests done. Put a 300mm lens on a camera, then put it on a tripod and take a shot at 1/15th of a second. Then actuate the mirror lockup mechanism and do it again. Compare the shots Just because you've never run across the effect does not mean it doesn't exist. > BTW - what are your qualifications to review the engineering of a camera? > > I am an electronics technologist, and I work with optical equipment as well as > miniature electronics. The Sony Alpha is well made for the price, and all of > your observations seem to be that - amateurish observations! "Don't judge a > book by it's cover" is a phrase you need to learn. Electronics technologist? That means you are exposed to electro-optical equipment that has about as much in common with the Sony as a Toyota has with an M-1 tank. And that makes you an some kind of expert on cameras?? Judging a book by it's cover is looking at something and not using it. IMO, the Sony is reasonable value for the money, but not great. It's not anywhere NEAR the same league as intermediate cameras like Canon's 30D or Nikon's D200. >> >> > This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to >> >> >cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >lockup mechanism and do it again. Compare the shots Just because >you've never run across the effect does not mean it doesn't exist. And you have done this with the Sony Alpha? >> BTW - what are your qualifications to review the engineering of a camera? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Sony as a Toyota has with an M-1 tank. And that makes you an some kind >of expert on cameras?? It makes me an expert on judging build quality. And you don't know what optic equipment I work on anyway. I started as a visual aids tech 36 years ago, then worked on large scale camera equipment. Can you tell me what a solid germanium lens is used for? > Judging a book by it's cover is looking at >something and not using it. IMO, the Sony is reasonable value for the >money, but not great. It's not anywhere NEAR the same league as >intermediate cameras like Canon's 30D or Nikon's D200. I never said it was, it's half the price. But you made it out to be crap, which it isn't. It beats the crap out of a Dimage in build quality, don't you think? > >> >> > This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to > >> >> >cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I never said it was, it's half the price. But you made it out to be crap, which > it isn't. No, I didn't. I said what most reviewers said about the R1, that it was a good attempt but that there were problems with the execution. >It beats the crap out of a Dimage in build quality, don't you think? I don't know, I've never handled a Dimage. The only P&S's I've used were Olympus and their build quality was pretty high, especially the C8080. >> I never said it was, it's half the price. But you made it out to be crap, which >> it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >were Olympus >and their build quality was pretty high, especially the C8080. The Olympus I used once was pretty poor... but that was a while ago. If you want cheesy, find a Dimage... As for your original post , this is what you said: > Cost control is highly evident, from the switch >quality to the thunderous slap of the mirror/shutter. It just looks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the kind of camera you load a CF card into carefully for fear sloppy >tolerances could mean bent pins. First off, unless you remove a switch and open it for inspection you can't tell it's quality. The switches seem quite good to me. I'll tell you after 2 or 3 years of use... As for mirror slap - you have no way of knowing if you are hearing the mirror or the shutter. You also have no way of determining it's a problem. Shots I've taken are in perfect focus so I don't think there is any problem. And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a remove lever. The fit is exactly like my D70. I think you went a tad overboard with your assessment, perhaps you are a Sony hater? Lots of them around... and maybe you handled a store demo unit that has been raped by the public? The pictures and features on this cam are not in the same league as the big Canons and Nikons, but neither is the price. BUT at this price it sure beats out the P&S cams around that sell for almost as much. > And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a remove > lever. Have you used a Nikon? >> And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a >> remove >> lever. >> > Have you used a Nikon? I would have thought all CF cards in any device would have a lever or push button release system unless the card sat out far enough to actually grab it? >>> And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a >>> remove [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > button release system unless the card sat out far enough to actually grab > it? Nikon generally has a remove button, not a lever. Not sure why the lever is any particular advantage, the button generally works fine. On the Nikons I've used (and I do not claim extensive experience with them) the button folds down for storage for some reason--perhaps BobF just didn't notice its presence or tried to push it in the folded position and concluded that it was mere decor.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a >>>>remove [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > presence or tried to push it in the folded position and concluded that it > was mere decor. The A100 is a button. There is a lever inside, obviously, to make it work. The button is really a stalk acting on a lever. David >>>And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a >>>remove [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > button release system unless the card sat out far enough to actually grab > it? There might be some early Nikon Coolpix models or something with a plain slot. Certainly, Nikon DSLRs have a regular eject button combined with some careful double-locking. The A100 eject button is much improved, big fingerpad on the end, quite different in feel and action to the usual skinny square type. The CF assembly used has already been shown to be the fastest for card writing speeds of any DSLR in this class (maybe even faster than higher end DSLRs too) and to have a very fast USB. It's probably a relatively new CF unit/controller, appearing for the first time, and we can expect to see it in other makes and models. The cameras tend to be built around the available assemblies, not the other way round. The CF card adaptor for Memory Stick Duo is especially good to use - very safe, exact fitting. David >>> And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a >>> remove [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > button release system unless the card sat out far enough to actually grab > it? You bet. At least, every camera I own that takes CF cards has either one or the other, whether Nikon or other brand. The Nikon D70s has a pushbutton, works just as well as any lever. Neil > If you want cheesy, find a Dimage... Dimage models came from half a dozen factories and have a full range of build types and qualities. My A2 is definitely on the light side for items like plastic card door, but the lens is well put together. It's definitely a fragile camera, and the connecting cords to the EVF are prone to failure. On the other hand my Konica-era G600 is built like a weapon. I felt very guilty that by dropping my test-review Ricoh GR Digital about half a metre on to the floor, I destroyed the camera (no external damage visible, but the CCD was affected by the shock and all images came our bright purple and blurred from then on). So I decided to do a test, dropping my own G600 from a greater height. That was a difficult thing to do. No damage at all - perfect. So I put it in its pouch and chucked it across the room. Still perfect. I'd never dare do that with my A2. One knock to the very well assembled lens and I am sure the sharpness - which is exceptional - would be gone for ever. The Dimage F and G series cameras are very solidly made. The 7/A series is unique in image quality (for RAW shooters) but fragile. The X-series is just Sony T-series in an earlier incarnation - not cheesy, but pushing the limits of the folded optical design - and the Z-series were of course what has now become Sony H, even more fragile that the 7/A but surprising functional. David [ . . . ] > The Dimage F and G series cameras are very solidly made. I've no experience with the G series (which were really Konicas, unlike all the other DiMAGE models), but it's certainly true that the F series was very well built. I dropped my F300 about three feet onto the corner of a steel rail, put a ding in the bezel surrounding the lens but had no effect on the functioning of the camera itself, still working perfectly today about three years after I did that to it. > The 7/A series is unique in image quality (for RAW shooters) but fragile. > The X-series is just Sony T-series in an earlier incarnation - not cheesy, > but pushing the limits of the folded optical design - and the Z-series > were of course what has now become Sony H, even more fragile that the 7/A > but surprising functional. The later Z models (after they dumped that flipping-mirror scheme) are probably okay. But I had a Z1 that broke within two hours of my taking it out of the box. The mirror apparently got stuck in mid-flip, the edge of it was visible on the rear viewing screen, nothing would dislodge it and Minolta's rep at their 800 help number couldn't help. So back it went. The two X-series cameras I own (Xt and Xg) are fine, provided I can remember to keep my finger out of the picture. I had an X20 at one time but that was of obviously cheaper (silver-painted plastic) build quality. Neil >And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a remove >lever. The fit is exactly like my D70. I don't understand this part about the remove lever. Every Nikon that uses a CF card has a big push button to eject the disk. I like it better than the small Canon buttons. And it looks like the Sony has a big button too. >> And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a remove >> lever. The fit is exactly like my D70. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I like it better than the small Canon buttons. And it looks like the > Sony has a big button too. I don't understand it either. IMO you would be hard pushed to have used a Nikon DSLR without noticing the CF release button. For his comparisons between cameras, I'd have preferred if BobF had waited a few days and pretended that he had a D80 to compare with his a100 - instead of a D70. >>> And last, the CF card fits very tight, and unlike Nikon, there is a remove >>> lever. The fit is exactly like my D70. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >days and pretended that he had a D80 to compare with his a100 - instead >of a D70. My D70 is in the shop - has been there for 6 weeks now... You may be right about the CF button, I may be thinking about another camera... since I haven't seen my Nikon in so long... I've been using some other P&S crapboxes in the meantime... I don't need to 'pretend' to own any cameras, there are at least 10 around here, and I may not keep them all straight as for their particular features. I do have other things to occupy my mind besides photography... The odds of me buying a D80 are rather low... when multiplied by infinity the odds don't even reach one... > Actually, it's not. Tests have already shown that some DSLRs around > the > 1/10-1/30 second mark do suffer from image blur caused by excessive > mirror > slap. Mirror slap happens to most SLR's in a speed range that is unique to each specific model. Generally it's in the 1/10 - 1/125 range, but again, it's specific to each model and the dynamics of the mirror and the body. IOW, if the same mirror assembly was used in two different camera models, the slap impulse would be the same, but the dampening characteristic of the different bodies would be different. Good cameras have one form or another of mirror lock up (a lever, a timer or pre-fire) to eliminate the slap. Minolta mirrors (in the AF line) are LOUD to be sure so it's no surprise if they are loud in the DSLR from Sony. It puzzles me that Canon have not used their excellent mirror system from the Elan 7 in more of their SLR/DSLR's. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Bob...please stop replying to Rich...I have to read his drivel when you do that. :-/ >>--I got a chance to try it out. I was 1/2 impressed, 1/2 depressed. >>What's bad: >>-Build quality. It is so far below the E-1 or the Nikon D200 it isn't >>funny. In fact, I had the D200 next to it and the differences are >>enough to make you cry. Oh my god!!! Look everyone, Rich was in a camera store actually looking at DSLR bodies, for real, in the flesh! Perchance he will buy a camera? ACK! Will wonders never cease? :-) >Bob...please stop replying to Rich...I have to read his drivel when you >do that. Thanks for the tip! > and feels cheezy. This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to > cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They compensate for body motion measured up to shutter depression. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> and feels cheezy. This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to >> cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! > > A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They compensate > for body motion measured up to shutter depression. Seems kind of useless then. To be useful it needs to compensate for body motion while the shutter is open. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) [] > Seems kind of useless then. To be useful it needs to compensate for > body motion while the shutter is open. To appreciate how useful or useless it is, why not try it [image stabilisation] out for yourself? David > [] >> Seems kind of useless then. To be useful it needs to compensate for >> body motion while the shutter is open. > > To appreciate how useful or useless it is, why not try it [image > stabilisation] out for yourself? Let me rephrase: <sarcasm/>Seems kind of useless then. To be useful it needs to compensate for body motion while the shutter is open.</sarcasm> Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>[] >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > <sarcasm/>Seems kind of useless then. To be useful it needs to compensate > for body motion while the shutter is open.</sarcasm> The KM AS/Sony SSS does this, just the same way that any VR/IS lens do. The demo rig, using a live CCD with a feed to a TV monitor, has the camera swaying around constantly and shows a stable image on screen, and you can see the sensor moving through the clear plastic back made for this special exhibition version of the camera. Reps were supplied with similar, non-TV, clear plastic backed models of the KM 7D to demonstrate the CCD movement during long exposures while waving the camera freehand. David >>>and feels cheezy. This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to >>>cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Seems kind of useless then. To be useful it needs to compensate for body > motion while the shutter is open. Sorry, I did mis-state that badly. The initial state of compensation will be that of the motion up to the time of shutter release, but the system continues to track through the exposure. However, the mirror slap will be well outside the bandwidth of the measurment and compensation in most of its f components. Note also that VR/IS/A-S are not meant for long exposures, just exposures that are relatively short v. the hoary old 1/f "rule". Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> and feels cheezy. This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside it to >> cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! > > A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They compensate for > body motion measured up to shutter depression. I'll not argue with that statement but from my laymans point of view the mirroslap must be a known constant which could be allowed for even if the sensor part of the antishake system doesn't/can't detect the mirrorslap. This is based on the assumption that regardless of drive mode or shutter speed the mirror speed is always the same. [] >> A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They >> compensate for body motion measured up to shutter depression. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is based on the assumption that regardless of drive mode or > shutter speed the mirror speed is always the same. The impulse from the mirror slap may be a constant, but you would need to know the mass (moment of inertia?) and zoom of the attached lens to be able to compensate automatically. When using non-SLR cameras, I have consistently found that I can hand-hold at longer exposures than with an SLR camera, and I put this down to both mirror-slap and the acoustic noise causing me to make a slight jump. David > [] >>> A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > at longer exposures than with an SLR camera, and I put this down to both > mirror-slap and the acoustic noise causing me to make a slight jump. What leads you to believe that the anti-vibration system of whatever nature treats mirror slap any differently from the way it treats any other camera movement? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> [] >>>> A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > nature treats mirror slap any differently from the way it treats any > other camera movement? I don't believe that I said that I thought that (although it's an interesting topic to discuss). One obvious difference would be that the impulse from the mirror slap may be much more predictable in terms of magnitude and direction than the random input from hand-holding a camera. David David >>> [] >>>>> A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > impulse from the mirror slap may be much more predictable in terms of > magnitude and direction than the random input from hand-holding a camera. If you don't believe that then why would you believe that it was necessary to know things about the lens to compensate for mirror slap that do not have to be known to compensate for other movements? Now, I would agree that the focal length has to be known in order for sensor-movement anti-shake to work, but that is the general case and not specific to mirror-slap. I don't see any reason that the moment of inertia and the mass of the lens need to be known if an inertial sensor is used to determine movement. So it would seem that the anti-shake system, if it is working at all, should compensate for mirror-slap the same way it does any other movement, unless the mirror-slap results in a movement of such magnitude and duration as to be beyond the capabilities of the anti-shake system. This discussion does point out however that unless there is some method of manually inputting the focal length the Sony/KM/Pentax type anti-shake system should not work with lenses that do not report their focal length to the body in some fashion. Now, if the algorithms used also account for flexing in the mount due to camera movement then the mass and moment of inertia of the lens would matter, but that is so dependent on hold (consider for example camera hand-held entirely by body vs hand-held with one hand on lens and the other on body) that I doubt that they go that far. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> [] >>>>>> A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > camera hand-held entirely by body vs hand-held with one hand on lens > and the other on body) that I doubt that they go that far. This is getting overly pedantic: what I said was that I did not believe that I said: ".. the anti-vibration system of whatever nature treats mirror slap any differently from the way it treats any other camera movement?". Those were your words. I welcome your other comments, though. I would hope that in a well-designed camera, the input from mirror-slap was less than from hand-holding, but I don't see the review sites characterising this at all. I'm sure that flexing in the mount isn't allowed for - interesting idea! By the way, what I did originally point out was: "When using non-SLR cameras, I have consistently found that I can hand-hold at longer exposures than with an SLR camera, and I put this down to both mirror-slap and the acoustic noise causing me to make a slight jump." David > What leads you to believe that the anti-vibration system of whatever nature > treats mirror slap any differently from the way it treats any other camera > movement? Bandwidth. Mirror slap generates many frequency components, and many of those outside the bandwidth of the measurement and/or compensation mechanism. Configuration. Camera response will change according to what is mounted to the camera (eg: different size/mass lenses and other accessories. Could it be modeled for each config? Probably. Is the bandwidth of the compensation adequate? No. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > [] >>> A/S cannot cope with mirror slap (nor can VR or IS). They [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > know the mass (moment of inertia?) and zoom of the attached lens to be > able to compensate automatically. focusing and flash metering take into account the lens info. Minolta is known for it. They take focusing distance into account. The mass of the mirror will of course be constant. Providing the speed is consistent, which i believe it is, then its inertia can be calculated. With the lens info being known as well all the info you need is now available. > When using non-SLR cameras, I have consistently found that I can hand-hold > at longer exposures than with an SLR camera, and I put this down to both > mirror-slap and the acoustic noise causing me to make a slight jump. Many compact cameras are leaf shutter rather than focal plane. That is the iris is also the shutter. Mirror slap will of course be eliminated if there isn't a mirror. With the absence of the mirror the lens can be a great deal closer to the film/sensor plane. This should also improve image quality as any leica rangefinder owner will tell you. As an aside they won't tell you why despite it being easier that the lenses actually cost more. > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> > > The impulse from the mirror slap may be a constant, but you would need to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i believe it is, then its inertia can be calculated. With the lens info > being known as well all the info you need is now available. However, the impulse from the mirror is transferred to the combined object camera+lens+hand holding them+... It would be impossible to tell a priory what the moment of inertia etc will be. If eg the camera is set upon a rock, its reaction will be different than if I handhold it, or if it's on a tripod etc. All this is academic though. >>> and feels cheezy. This reskinned D5 Minolta NEEDS the IS inside >>> it to cope with the shutter/mirror slap, this is no joke! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > This is based on the assumption that regardless of drive mode or > shutter speed the mirror speed is always the same. It's possible, but the dynamic of a mirror slap is probably outside the actuation characteristics of the A/S (or VR or IS). The EOS-1V has a an active mirror capture mechanism that "grabs and cacels" the slap of the mirror. This is the superior approach as it reduces the effect rather than attempt to stabilize the image against the slap. Unlike the somewhat low frequency and cyclic movement of handholding a camera, mirror slap generates many frequency components and would be much more difficult to compensate for much bandwidth. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. So let me get this straight. You went into a shop and under a completely uncontrolled situation, tested this camera and decided that it is not as good as a D200 and then posted two photos at completley differing compressions (3.5MP versus 6.5MP) and have decided all this below. You are truly a GOD Rich. A man way ahead of your time. World peace next? > But really, it's reasonable at the price point. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > E-1 400 ISO > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/64615374 Oh and by the way, how many shots did you print? > So let me get this straight. > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> E-1 400 ISO >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/64615374 > So let me get this straight. > > You went into a shop and under a completely uncontrolled situation, tested > this camera and decided that it is not as good as a D200 and then posted two > photos at completley differing compressions (3.5MP versus 6.5MP) and have > decided all this below. Check out what Sony considers "fine" mode then come back. It's different with the E-1. Even the 640x480 mode in high quality is nearly uncompressed relative to other cameras. Some "CRUSH" their JPEGs some don't. Nothing much I can do about that. Most people are going to be shooting in JPEG with the camera anyway. However, if your insinuation was that shooting RAW through both would be a better comparison, maybe. But I don't know why anyone would freak out, the Sony image is 10 megapixel and clearly had higher resolution. Lord, I bow to you, you are indeed a GOD, you have already decided what I was thinking. No longer can I use OMG, I now must use OMR, <bow><bow><scrape>. >> So let me get this straight. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the Sony > image is 10 megapixel and clearly had higher resolution. > Lord, I bow to you, you are indeed a GOD, you have already decided what I > was thinking. > > No longer can I use OMG, I now must use OMR, <bow><bow><scrape>. Your crying histrionics paint you as about 10 years old. >> Lord, I bow to you, you are indeed a GOD, you have already decided what I >> was thinking. >> >> No longer can I use OMG, I now must use OMR, <bow><bow><scrape>. > > Your crying histrionics paint you as about 10 years old. Sorry GOD, I will try better next time. <snivel> <grovel> > So let me get this straight. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are truly a GOD Rich. A man way ahead of your time. World peace next? He's not all wrong. The camera is significantly worse than the D200 at 800 and 1600 ISO. I've been comparing with many sample pictures taken with all kinds of DSLRs over the last couple of years and and the A100 at 1600 is, quite simply, the noisiest image of any APS-C model and that includes the Nikon D100 used at 6400. To find anything noisier, I have to dig up Olympus 4/3rds shots at high ISOs or the Sigma SD-10 at 800. There is one full-frame camera which is similar in noise, the Kodak DCS Pro (14 or /c /n). You wouldn't really want to use these above 400. The D200 definitely has a better image at 800. At 1600, I wouldn't really want to use either the A100 or D200. So far the A100 looks to have a better ISO 100 image than the D200 - just a nicer looking all-round image, more detailed, a slightly more lively colour palette, and better balance of contrast and dynamic range. This sensor definitely does not like to be rescued from underexposure or incorrect WB settings from RAW, either in the A100 or D200 implementation. Doing so increases the noise substantially even at 200 or 400. Sony's own converter has radically different definitions of WB colour temperature, and exposure compensation, compared to ACR 3.4. It only offers a +/- 2 stop exposure compensation (not +-/ 4 stops like ACR) but the effect is extreme. At +2 stops light midtones are totally burned out and dense shadows become normal. It's interesting to note that if you do this, even ISO 100 produces a very hard, strong noise pattern in Sony's converter. It's necessary to shoot a lot of images with the A100 to find out where it is weak, and where it's strong. I have a lot of shooting to do. I'm waiting for a final - not beta - .ARW conversion in ACR before reaching any conclusions. What I can tell you is I'd take a Nikon D200 over an A100 JPEG any day. However, I have no use for JPEGs out of camera except for product snaps in the studio, and those are fine. David David, two questions: > He's not all wrong. The camera is significantly worse than the D200 at > 800 and 1600 ISO. I've been comparing with many sample pictures taken [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is one full-frame camera which is similar in noise, the Kodak DCS > Pro (14 or /c /n). You wouldn't really want to use these above 400. Are you talking about jpegs? Or is there a significant difference in images converted from raw files? > This sensor definitely does not like to be rescued from underexposure or > incorrect WB settings from RAW, either in the A100 or D200 > implementation. Doing so increases the noise substantially even at 200 > or 400. You say that it does not like to be rescued from incorrect WB settings from raw. Are you saying that the raw data is affected by the WB setting in the Sony? Cheers. > David, two questions: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Are you talking about jpegs? Or is there a significant difference in > images converted from raw files? JPEGs are, right now, better than raw conversions at 800 and 1600. If you don't like noise, you don't want to see what an ACR conversion looks like from 800 or 1600 before any level of NR is applied. It is very crisp, regular, high contrast 'grain'. To be able to use 800 or 1600 with raw conversion, Sony's image converter is the only option for me so far on Mac - Lightroom and ACR just can't do the same NR/detail recovery job. The high ISO noise is related to exposure. There is minimal noise in highlights, acceptable in brighter tones, and it gets serious in darker colours then unacceptable in shadows. Pro users are going to have to tackle this matter. I can see the possibility for using the noise creatively. >>This sensor definitely does not like to be rescued from underexposure or >>incorrect WB settings from RAW, either in the A100 or D200 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from raw. Are you saying that the raw data is affected by the WB > setting in the Sony? It looks like the WB does affect the exposure - only the exposure, not the channel balance - in most cameras, and the D200 and A100 certainly. The exposure of the raw file is also affected by the Hi200 setting, which is why this has more noise than the regular 200 setting. If you stop to think about it, WB alterations either have to use highlight headroom - which they appear to do on the KM 5D and 7D, resulting in some difficult situations if a highlight burns out in a tungsten shot - or drop the exposure down to suit the brightest channel. The WB conversion then boosts the other channel/s (usually blue). The result is a bit like underexposing and correcting when converting the raw file, a process which always boosts noise. When testing the D200, I accidentally shot two different batches of shots using wrong settings - I found the D200 interface very easy to 'forget' settings on, and the display's desaturation and dimness (in daylight) and the illegibility of the LCD top display meant I didn't even notice shooting a whole run of outdoor pix with WB set to tungsten. I also shot some sunny day scene at 400 with -2 exposure accidentally set - not a lot, I spotted it after half a dozen frames, but I decided to examine the results. Corrected, VERY noisy indeed. I am aware that 400 at -2 is effectively shooting at 1600. I'm pretty sure the A100 would fare even worse, but so far I am finding I make very few mistakes. It sort of flashes up info large enough for me to spot settings easily because of the ultra-large type on the rear screen. So far, what I am finding is that the A100 is fairly demanding; it can produce some of the best results in its class or above, but only with care. You have to treat it like a roll of Kodachrome. David > > Are you talking about jpegs? Or is there a significant difference in > > images converted from raw files? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > tackle this matter. I can see the possibility for using the noise > creatively. I see. This sounds a lot like what I see with my D200 in ACR. But you have used both, so you know better. I suppose it could be due to bad raw conversion (eg perhaps the available converters are not yet optimal). Or maybe the readout of the sensor introduces more noise than in the D200? Otherwise, why the difference? > It looks like the WB does affect the exposure - only the exposure, not > the channel balance - in most cameras, and the D200 and A100 certainly. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > result is a bit like underexposing and correcting when converting the > raw file, a process which always boosts noise. Indeed, white balancing involves amplifying one channel so one would expect that the manufacturers would take that into account in their autoexposure algorithms. However, I must say that, with my D200 at least, WB does seem to affect the exposure (at least in aperture priority, which is what I tested this in). I mean that if I point the camera to a white wall, set it to aperture priority and change the WB from 2500K to 10000K, the selected exposure does not change (this is with matrix metering). I don't know, maybe it does in program or with centreweighted. I don't have much experience with these things because I normally use spot and manual mode, however. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "it affects the exposure"? > When testing the D200, I accidentally shot two different batches of > shots using wrong settings - I found the D200 interface very easy to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to examine the results. Corrected, VERY noisy indeed. I am aware that > 400 at -2 is effectively shooting at 1600. Indeed, the D200 has a lot of noise in the shadows. Maybe it's the price we pay for 10 megapixels on a sensor of this size. > I'm pretty sure the A100 would fare even worse, but so far I am finding > I make very few mistakes. It sort of flashes up info large enough for me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > produce some of the best results in its class or above, but only with > care. You have to treat it like a roll of Kodachrome. Thanks for the reply. > I don't have much experience with these things because I normally use > spot and manual mode, however. Could you please elaborate on what you > mean by "it affects the exposure"? Using ACR, turn all auto presets off, and save this as camera raw defaults. If the raw file looks darker than normal, something's being done in the gain stage or the exposure to get it that way. If the raw file is not any darker in tungsten or other extreme WB change shots, then it's relying entirely on headroom for the correction. I have not yet shot any tests which would show me for sure whether the A100 or D200 reduce exposure or raw file values for WB changes. It could just be that the conditions I used the D200 in produced fairly dark raw files anyway. > Indeed, the D200 has a lot of noise in the shadows. Maybe it's the > price we pay for 10 megapixels on a sensor of this size. I won't really know much more until we have some more raw converters around for the A100 - or an ACR conversion which does not display 'beta' in the camera profile window! David > > I don't have much experience with these things because I normally use > > spot and manual mode, however. Could you please elaborate on what you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > file is not any darker in tungsten or other extreme WB change shots, > then it's relying entirely on headroom for the correction. David, Thank you. I was not asking how one can check if the gain is changed, I was asking what you meant when you said WB affects the exposure (ie if you have actually checked it), because I have thought about this also some time ago but never checked (I don't know why). I'll check tonight, as I am curious. > I have not yet shot any tests which would show me for sure whether the > A100 or D200 reduce exposure or raw file values for WB changes. It could > just be that the conditions I used the D200 in produced fairly dark raw > files anyway. However, I once took around 8 photographs at the same exposure (to stack), and they seemed to have slightly different exposure levels (this happened in all the raw converters I tried, so it's not the converter; I also set WB, exposure etc the same for all frames in raw conversion). Since I had WB to auto, it changed a bit between them, and I thought at the time about exactly this (it's either that, or small variations in the ambient light during my exposures, which is unlikely) . However, I was too excited about the photographs to check, so never did. I'm sufficiently curious to check tonight, however. > I have not yet shot any tests which would show me for sure whether the > A100 or D200 reduce exposure or raw file values for WB changes. It could > just be that the conditions I used the D200 in produced fairly dark raw > files anyway. Well, I checked by taking two identical shots except WB set to 2500K and 10000K (with the D200). Very little difference in the converted files. Actually I just remembered that I checked when I first got the D200 as it was raining nonstop and I had to do something with it... Anyway, as far as I can tell, the WB does not affect the raw data. >>I have not yet shot any tests which would show me for sure whether the >>A100 or D200 reduce exposure or raw file values for WB changes. It could [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Anyway, as far as I can tell, the WB does not affect the raw data. I guess one of the problems I had was fairly consistent underexposure combined with the accidental WB set to tungsten. It was January in Scottish Highlands, and the ground does tend to be quite dark, with white skies, so the conditions were not typical. I'm working on the use of 80B/B12 type filters in tungsten light with DSLRs. In theory, especially if the raw file is just being produced with a permanent headroom of about 2 stops needed to enable fully neutral white balance over a 2500 to 10000 K range, using a conversion filter should permit better results and so far, that seems to be the case. What bothers me is that Auto WB - or preset WBs - must use up the entire two highest bits of a 12-bit raw file, just to be possible. These bits already account for three-quarters of the possible histogram length (never seen in the actual image histo, because they are beyond the normal conversion parameters). I need to talk to a few engineers/techs from within the system. David > I'm working on the use of 80B/B12 type filters in tungsten light with > DSLRs. In theory, especially if the raw file is just being produced with > a permanent headroom of about 2 stops needed to enable fully neutral > white balance over a 2500 to 10000 K range, using a conversion filter > should permit better results and so far, that seems to be the case. I also use a blue filter when shooting under very imbalanced light to try to equalise the channels, especially for long exposures (actually my filter broke and I am looking for one, it's hard to find them nowadays). I don't know about the extra headroom, I mostly use Raw Magick Lite and it seems to convert everything when in high DR mode (but I haven't really bothered to check in detail). Very slow, though. >>I'm working on the use of 80B/B12 type filters in tungsten light with >>DSLRs. In theory, especially if the raw file is just being produced with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Magick Lite and it seems to convert everything when in high DR mode > (but I haven't really bothered to check in detail). Very slow, though. I have original Minolta AC coated B12's in 55mm, 62mm and probably some odd sizes like 40.5mm not of much use to anyone. They are listed in the sets of vintage (but new) Minolta filters we have been selling (www.iconpublications.com) since acquiring a pallet load of them from the closure of Konica Minolta in the UK. The 55mms can sell to anywhere (worldwide) for £15 inc p&p and the 62mms for £20, split off from the sets. What I found was that auto WB never did tungsten properly on its own - fit a B12/80B conversion filter, and auto WB does domestic tungsten perfectly. No trace of a cast on JPEGs, makes it easy to use 60-150W household bulbs for studio/product shots. David > I have original Minolta AC coated B12's in 55mm, 62mm and probably some > odd sizes like 40.5mm not of much use to anyone. They are listed in the > sets of vintage (but new) Minolta filters we have been selling > (www.iconpublications.com) since acquiring a pallet load of them from > the closure of Konica Minolta in the UK. The 55mms can sell to anywhere > (worldwide) for £15 inc p&p and the 62mms for £20, split off from the sets. Link broken. > What I found was that auto WB never did tungsten properly on its own - > fit a B12/80B conversion filter, and auto WB does domestic tungsten > perfectly. No trace of a cast on JPEGs, makes it easy to use 60-150W > household bulbs for studio/product shots. I mostly need them for night street photography. Usually,auto WB doesn't have a chance there. >>I have original Minolta AC coated B12's in 55mm, 62mm and probably some >>odd sizes like 40.5mm not of much use to anyone. They are listed in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Link broken. Router restart. Just updated NoIP and it should be identified now. David > Router restart. Just updated NoIP and it should be identified now. No. >>Router restart. Just updated NoIP and it should be identified now. > > No. Very odd. Some event - not me - had switched on remote web administration on my router and switched off port forwarding. We lost ADSL briefly for a period yesterday. Anyway, www.iconpublications.com is back up and running and checked from a remote location (I can't test it from my own end). Thanks! David > What bothers me is that Auto WB - or preset WBs - must use up the entire > two highest bits of a 12-bit raw file, just to be possible. These bits > already account for three-quarters of the possible histogram length White balance should not affect the RAW file at all (other than perhaps in the settings recording, but not the actual image data). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> What bothers me is that Auto WB - or preset WBs - must use up the >> entire two highest bits of a 12-bit raw file, just to be possible. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > White balance should not affect the RAW file at all (other than perhaps > in the settings recording, but not the actual image data). Ideally, using a non-native WB should cause the exposure (or sensitivity) to be cut slightly, just the same as the Hi200 mode of the A100 or Hi250 mode of the Dynax 5D. This would ensure the best chance of a clean white point. But the penalty would be increased shadow noise, and of course, that's where auto WB/tungsten light/high ISO really hurts noise performance. I'm working with Apical (the DRO people) on some ideas for altering this status quo and getting better tungsten low light high ISO performance. David >>> What bothers me is that Auto WB - or preset WBs - must use up the >>> entire two highest bits of a 12-bit raw file, just to be possible. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'm working with Apical (the DRO people) on some ideas for altering this > status quo and getting better tungsten low light high ISO performance. I still don't see why the WB setting would affect the MS 2 bits in the raw files per your claim above. The raw files record, simply, the R,G and B levels of each sensor without any other consideration. The RAW also contains other tag data, but the image data is, well, raw. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. This whole conversation, or at least significant portions of it amazes me. First of all, when comparing the A100 to the D200 you are comparing a >$1K to a $2K camera. Apples and oranges. Then of course, we have the inevitable "brand zealots" who will never be convinced that any other brand is better then "theirs." As far as I can tell, based on everything I have read, both during the lead up to the release and from those who now have an A100 in hand, but never having handled one personally, is that the A100 is basically an updated and re-branded KM 5D. OK, the 5D was ALWAYS and "consumer" grade camera. It was designed as such and never meant to be a "pro" camera. By design it was a mass market product. Again, comparison to a D200 is apples and oranges. I have two 7Ds. I could have bought a 5D when I bought the second 7D and saved some $ but I didn't like the 5D. I didn't like the "heft and feel" or the size. That was my opinion then, and the 10MP capabilities of the A100 has done nothing to change my mind. YMMV. That being said, I might very well buy an A100 for my son as a starter DSLR (once the price drops a bit) because I have a bunch of lenses and accessories that he could use with it and that would save me/him a ton of cash. Another reason would be to encourage Sony to further develop the line and perhaps come out with what a 9D would/should have been. While I like the 7Ds, that would be a camera I buy in heartbeat. But the possibility of a 9D like camera aside, as previously stated I have a ton of $ in Minolta cameras and accessories and anything that means the continued availability of compatible components and accessories for the equipment I already have an investment in is a good thing for me and those in the same situation. This my camera is better than your camera nonsense is just plain juvenile, IMNSHO. It borders on the same madness that has half the world trying to kill the other half because they do not pray to same invisible man, or in exactly the same way. The bottom line is that "best," "better" or [insert term of choice here] are PURELY SUBJECTIVE! If you like a particular camera/make better than the one I like, bully for you. Use it. In fact, it may well be "better" for YOU. That does not mean it's better for me. Why is it that whenever somebody here expresses an opinion about a particular camera/brand it seems to always devolve into a brand pissing contest??? KMA > This whole conversation, or at least significant portions of it amazes > me. First of all, when comparing the A100 to the D200 you are comparing [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > the one I like, bully for you. Use it. In fact, it may well be "better" > for YOU. That does not mean it's better for me. Better in terms of build quality is not subjective. Better is better. The Nikon (yes, we know it costs much more) is better built than the Sony, period. > Why is it that whenever somebody here expresses an opinion about a > particular camera/brand it seems to always devolve into a brand pissing > contest??? Because too many people have fragile little feelings so that anything said about shortcomings of something they personally own (they think) is a reflection on their taste or ability to judge good from bad. So rather than think about it, they lash out emotionally. Usually, the last gasp after the inevitable tirades is "Well, it suits me just fine!" Well fine then, so why get so angry to begin with? > KMA >Why is it that whenever somebody here expresses an opinion about a >particular camera/brand it seems to always devolve into a brand pissing >contest??? I'm not a brand zealot, and in fact I regularly use both Canon and Nikon gear. But that's only because everything else sucks. :-) {} > I'm not a brand zealot, and in fact I regularly use both Canon and > Nikon gear. But that's only because everything else sucks. > > :-) <G> David > As far as I can tell, based on everything I have read, both during the > lead up to the release and from those who now have an A100 in hand, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > design it was a mass market product. Again, comparison to a D200 is > apples and oranges. KMA- A local ex-KM dealer showed me the 5D when I showed him the Sony A100. You have to look closely to see the differences. Perhaps someone here can answer a question about the difference. DP Review says the A100 has a "penta mirror" viewfinder system. The A100 User's Guide says the viewfinder type is "Fixed eye-level system with roof mirror type pentaprism" (Specifications, page 149). Is this just a weasel-worded way for Sony to say "penta mirror", or is DP Review misinformed? Fred > Perhaps someone here can answer a question about the difference. DP > Review says the A100 has a "penta mirror" viewfinder system. The A100 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is this just a weasel-worded way for Sony to say "penta mirror", or is DP > Review misinformed? "Roof mirror," "penta mirror," "penta-Dach-mirror," and sometimes "mirror prism" are all ways of saying the same thing: mirrors arranged like the reflecting surfaces of a solid glass pentaprism, so that they act like a pentaprism. Neil >Perhaps someone here can answer a question about the difference. DP >Review says the A100 has a "penta mirror" viewfinder system. The A100 >User's Guide says the viewfinder type is "Fixed eye-level system with roof >mirror type pentaprism" (Specifications, page 149). > >Is this just a weasel-worded way for Sony to say "penta mirror", Yes...it's a penta-mirror viewfinder. My guess is Sony is using the term pentaprism because that's what they figure amateur photographers are used to hearing. >>Perhaps someone here can answer a question about the difference. DP >>Review says the A100 has a "penta mirror" viewfinder system. The A100 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My guess is Sony is using the term pentaprism because that's what they > figure amateur photographers are used to hearing. Regretfully for Sony it is shoddy advertising. A pentaprism implies a "prism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaprism v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentamirror People who know cameras know the difference between "mirror" pentaprisms and true pentaprisms. Regretfully, fewew and fewer people buy cameras where they are likely to meet a sales person who knows the difference or who cares to explain it clearly to the customer. The sole advantage of the mirror type, other than lower cost, is it is lighter. Otherwise, a penta-mirror is slightly dimmer in the viewfinder. Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. [ . . . ] > The sole advantage of the mirror type, other than lower cost, is it is > lighter. Which is, in fact, a real advantage for many users. > Otherwise, a penta-mirror is slightly dimmer in the viewfinder. Not necessarily true, though reportedly it was so with the very early roof-mirror cameras. My Maxxum 5 has a roof mirror and my 600si has a solid glass pentaprism. With identical or similar lenses there is no noticeable difference in viewfinder brightness. Neil > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >>Otherwise, a penta-mirror is slightly dimmer in the viewfinder. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > With identical or similar lenses there is no noticeable difference in > viewfinder brightness. My SO has a Maxxum 5. I have a Maxxum 9 and 7D. The later are both noticeably brighter, esp. in low light conditions (with the same lens) making early morning/late evening photography difficult with the 5. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > noticeably brighter, esp. in low light conditions (with the same lens) > making early morning/late evening photography difficult with the 5. I will recheck the Maxxum 5, 600si and probably a couple of other models. It's a long time since I made those comparisons, and I didn't do it under a wide variety of lighting conditions, so under really poor conditions they may not be as similar as I thought. I have two 50mm f/1.7 lenses, so making side-by-side comparisons will be easy. I also have some kit lenses, (e.g., the late kit 28-80 and 28-100), not identical but similar enough at the short end that they can serve for side-by-sides. One really impressive thing about the Maxxum 5 is its low-light AF ability. Absolutely stupendous. It can easily, quickly and accurately focus in light far too low to take a hand-held shot. (No numbers off the top of my head, but very, very low light.) The 5D too, for that matter. Neil >>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the late kit 28-80 and 28-100), not identical but similar enough at the > short end that they can serve for side-by-sides. You can only do this under low conditions as you eye will adapt quickly to the dimmer (but nonetheless pretty bright) viewfinder if there is bright enough light. In lower light conditions, you should get more light with the 600si than with the 5 as your pupil will be fully dilated. Once fully dilated you can make a better subjective comparison. > One really impressive thing about the Maxxum 5 is its low-light AF ability. > Absolutely stupendous. It can easily, quickly and accurately focus in light > far too low to take a hand-held shot. (No numbers off the top of my head, > but very, very low light.) The 5D too, for that matter. My SO mixes AF and manual focus shooting in terrible light and manages, gnerally, to get sharp results. However, she is also prone to shooting without a tripod in low light which has the expected result. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Perhaps someone here can answer a question about the difference. DP > Review says the A100 has a "penta mirror" viewfinder system. The A100 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is this just a weasel-worded way for Sony to say "penta mirror", or is DP > Review misinformed? The light loss with such an arrangement is such as to reduce autofocus performance in low light and make manual focusing for people with variable aperture lenses difficult. A "true amateur" photographer wants as much light as possible in the viewfinder and a pentaprism is required for that (or better yet, a rangefinder camera). Just more proof that the A100, like the Maxxum 5D is a glorified P&S camera. The Maxxum 7/7D/9 (and most older Minoltas) have pentaprisms, and the Maxxum 9 in particular has an extrmely bright and high contrast viewfinder. A real photography tool. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > The light loss with such an arrangement is such as to reduce autofocus > performance in low light I'll retract that last bit as I'm not sure if the AF sensors are prior to light entry into the pentaprism/mirror block. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> The light loss with such an arrangement is such as to reduce autofocus >> performance in low light > >I'll retract that last bit as I'm not sure if the AF sensors are prior >to light entry into the pentaprism/mirror block. If it's like most SLR cameras, the sensors are in the bottom of the mirror-box chamber, below the mirror. Some of the TTL light is reflected down to the sensors for metering and focus. >>>The light loss with such an arrangement is such as to red |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message