Overall, the A900 is a great camera. But, where I feel it does really well is with the built in image stabilization. It works with any lens since it is stabilized at the sensor and not the lens.
I shot this today hand held at 1/6 of a second.
many others with low shutter speed here as well. Just look at the exif data.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
Overall, the A900 is a great camera. But, where I feel it does really well is with the built in image stabilization. It works with any lens since it is stabilized at the sensor and not the lens.
Yep, great feature and I always thought Canon got it all wrong with their stabilised lenses. This is the way to go for handheld work.
I am primarily a still life, standard lens shooter, and being able to shoot down around 1/8-1/15 sec with a fast fifty is incredibly useful to me when the light goes down, and I'm not sure I could go back. A stabilized 85 and 24-70 has been pretty nice, too.
Canon is between a rock and hard place, since their stabilization has been around since film, and I'm sure they've enjoyed the mark-up of the stabilized lenses. Plus, for some applications, lens IS makes sense. Having the choice between both in a single system would be ideal.
Both Canon and Nikon go with the stabilization in the lens because you can get more stablization than the in camera type for long tele lenses. The ultimate case would be to have both kinds so that you can use the in camera for lenses that don't have IS and still have the better in lens IS for your teles that have IS.
Go shoot a bird-in-flight(BIF) handholding a 500L with IS and you will see the benefits of in lens IS.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Both Canon and Nikon go with the stabilization in the lens because you can get more stablization than the in camera type for long tele lenses. The ultimate case would be to have both kinds so that you can use the in camera for lenses that don't have IS and still have the better in lens IS for your teles that have IS.
Go shoot a bird-in-flight(BIF) handholding a 500L with IS and you will see the benefits of in lens IS.
It's not even that. Both Canon and Nikon got started with stabilization back in the days of film and with film lens stabilization was the only practical method. They stick with lens stabilization for a variety of reasons including the fact it's more effective with long lenses.
Ironically Pentax, being the odd company it is, had been working on sensor-based stabilization back in the film era (Long before Minolta, even though the latter would be first to market).
and it's the best combo for what i use it for, but yea, having a 200/2 IS & ISO 12800 would by great for other things too.
Actually, you've got ISO 12800, too, Jim, because you can just boost exposure in the RAW converter. There isn't a camera around that I know of (haven't heard about the D3s yet) that benefits from shooting over ISO 1600. DR is preserved to keep most cameras at ISO 1600 (A900 at ISO 800) and boost exposure in raw converter after that. I haven't shot the A900 over ISO 800 in many months, and I've had good results boosting at least to the equivalent of ISO 6400. Granted, ISO 12800 is probably a stretch, depending on your output size.
mawz wrote:
It's not even that. Both Canon and Nikon got started with stabilization back in the days of film and with film lens stabilization was the only practical method. They stick with lens stabilization for a variety of reasons including the fact it's more effective with long lenses.
Ironically Pentax, being the odd company it is, had been working on sensor-based stabilization back in the film era (Long before Minolta, even though the latter would be first to market).
right on about the Canon/Nikon IS issue being from film days but ignorant people want to for get this...you realize how much money in R&D both would throw away if they copied the likes of Sony and adopted in camera IS,sorry but it wont happen at least on the Canon side anytime soon but may end up on sNikony
I really can't see why people find the Sonys "ugly"... (re: Jims A900/Rokkor kit) :-) That's a serious looking kit by any definition. I second the part about havig stabilized normal/short fast lenses, and that's why I'm looking at an 850 when Xmas is over.
My 70-300 SAL at the longer end is damn close handheld to my tripod shots at times, despite IS/VR being better at long FLs - I'll take the experts' word for that.
There is very little to dislike about the A850/900, and much that is best practice; they feel great with a smallish lens, being a light body - if they made a 14-24/2.8 or high end 24-28-35 f2 lenses, sales would climb substantially.
Yes, there, is: the choice of lenses. Sony will not let Zeiss introduce a 50mm prime, because they have their own offering. Zeiss primes are what I use, Sony is Zeiss' premier partner, and the only major DSLR brand on which you can't use a full collection of Zeiss primes is....Sony.
Yeah, but the only AF Zeiss lenses are Sony. If AF isn't needed, there are a few Contax 50mm lenses, and the ZS 50 1.4 that are easily usable with Sony.
The IS in Canon tele's have a mode switch to allow stabilization of movement in the vertical direction but not in the hoirzontal direction which is usefull while the user is panning horizontally in one mode or the usual mode of stabilizing motion in both horizontal and veritcal directions.Canon and Nikon have this in lens stabilization for the lucrative professional sports photography segment of the market.
I don't see why Canon and Nikon could not put in an extra in camera IS unit so that they could have the best of both worlds. Not sure how much more cost that would be.
