CKrueger wrote:
I have to admit, the combination of FF and in-body IS is very tempting to me. ..........................
Digllloyd did sharpness testing (on his subscription site I think) and found for critical sharpness Lens IS was not a substitute for shutter speed. If this is true for camera IS, trading high ISO performance for image stabilization is a not a beneficial choice.
ichiro17 wrote:
I agree with the statements above. I read his website because he's offering a point of view, but its becoming more radical than informative. Just my opinion, may not mean much to many people though ...
I agree also.
It probably doesn't mean that much to most people, but apparently it's quite popular. I suppose that means that his following buy a lot of new toys, but odds are they spend a lot of time at his site debating new toys rather than using their toys.
In the end, the best camera is the one you use.
The best content on his site is from the 3rd party authors, IMO -- Alain Briot in particularly for me.
Noticing a couple of posts about how big the Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 is. Exactly how big/heavy is this lens compared to the monster from Nikon or the brick of a lens in the Canon L flavor.
These 24-70mm f2.8 lenses aren't exactly light - they don't balance well on SLR's without a grip - they seem to be made for the 1-series or the D3 type body. The Canon L, which is by no means a small lens is probably the smallest of the 3. I have not seen the Minolta 24-70mm f2.8 G, but I am presuming it's the same size. Even the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f2.0 is not a light or small lens - but it is smaller than the Nikon or Canon versions.
So why the complaints against the lens size of an f2.8 zoom - really... who was expecting a lightweight lens
It appears sony has a killer camera on it's hands. Even if ISO 1600 and 3200 is not on par with the Nikon or Canon's, it is still some serious resolution in a pro grade body at a very reasonable price.... something all consumers (amatuer or professional photographers) might favor.
pascal03 wrote:
Even if ISO 1600 and 3200 is not on par with the Nikon or Canon's, it is still some serious resolution in a pro grade body at a very reasonable price.... something all consumers (amatuer or professional photographers) might favor.
Well, its not a pro grade body in the sense of a Nikon D3 or Canon 1 series.
dcmiller wrote
Digllloyd did sharpness testing (on his subscription site I think) and found for critical sharpness Lens IS was not a substitute for shutter speed. If this is true for camera IS, trading high ISO performance for image stabilization is a not a beneficial choice.{emphasis added}
I think that is too strong a conclusion. Perhaps not for all, but for many uses it could indeed be a beneficial choice. Not all uses require "critical" sharpness.
This is similar to hand-held vs. tripod issues. Hand-held images are rarely "critically" sharp, yet are certainly sharp enough for many uses. If you truly require critical sharpness, your camera will never leave a tripod.
Everything is a matter of degree. IS may not be a (complete) substitute for shutter speed, but that does not mean it provides no benefits, or that it won't provide quality, sell-able images in a wide variety of situations.
mawz wrote:
Yeah, the f2.8 G's are ridiculously priced (the 70-200G needs to drop by $500 as well). Minolta 300/2.8G's can be had for reasonable money on the used market though.
Don't hold the lack of SSM against the 85, Sony's AF drive motors in the 700 and 900 are VERY powerful (To the point where stripping AF drives in some 3rd party lenses can be an issue) and can throw the ZA 85's focus around quite quickly, The lack of SSM in the primes is not an issue short of the 300, and that has SSM.
Yes, set the variable focus limiter on the 300/2.8 and you're golden... and if the lens is HS upgraded, even better.
The original 1985 Minolta AF lenses have had this seemingly cult-like following, moreso compared to Canon or Nikon's first AF equivalents - although Nikon's vintage AF lenses do not differ in appearance much from their most recent releases, so it's not as obvious.
If memory serves, the Maxxum 7 was cited for having the fastest screw drive of it's era. (Mawz, you can probably attest to this personally). The initial KM digital bodies did not have an equally powerful motor (or the a100), though the a700 and now the a900 match or exceed the 7's capabilities.
Do you know how the screw drives of the Nikons compare?
mawz wrote:
I've heard much good about the (rarish) Minolta 28/2 as well. It's got a better rep than the f2.8 version.
Yes, the 28/2 Minolta trumps the 2.8 any day of the week. That being said, I believe the 28/2 is also a recycled optical design from the Rokkor days, and I believe there has been a thread in this forum where someone did an EOS conversion of that MD lens.
hotwire wrote:
Yes, set the variable focus limiter on the 300/2.8 and you're golden... and if the lens is HS upgraded, even better.
The original 1985 Minolta AF lenses have had this seemingly cult-like following, moreso compared to Canon or Nikon's first AF equivalents - although Nikon's vintage AF lenses do not differ in appearance much from their most recent releases, so it's not as obvious.
If memory serves, the Maxxum 7 was cited for having the fastest screw drive of it's era. (Mawz, you can probably attest to this personally). The initial KM digital bodies did not have an equally powerful motor (or the a100), though the a700 and now the a900 match or exceed the 7's capabilities.
Do you know how the screw drives of the Nikons compare?
Having owned (Among others) the F100, F90x, F801(s) and Maxxum 7, the 7 was very, very quick on the centre sensor but the F100 was much better on the outer sensors despite the lower sensor count and poorer sensor layout. The extra cross sensor made a big difference (F100's got 3, Maxxum 7 only has 1). AF drive on the 7 was occasionally too strong, a tendency to overshoot was something I saw with the 28/2.8, less so with the 24-105D.
Nikon's old AF lenses don't really have a cult following outside of the 70-210/4. this is because the newer lenses are either the same basic design or all-round upgrades. The 70-210/4 has a very undeserved reputation. It's a decent lens and arguably better than the 75-300 and 70-240 lenses which replaced it, but it was never more than a decent lens and the newer 70-300ED outperformed it. The 70-300VR stomps all the Nikon consumer zooms in this range other than the 75-150 Series E.
