Where the A900 really shines

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 5 6 end

Archive 2009 · Where the A900 really shines

Jorge Torralba
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

many others with low shutter speed here as well. Just look at the exif data.

http://www.icameradb.com/showgallery.php?membercollection=61

Dec 21, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Where the A900 really shines

Nice shot. That 35 1.4 does give a very distinct, lovely rendering.

Dec 21, 2009 at 11:27 PM

BenW
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Where the A900 really shines

Nice lathe tools.

Dec 21, 2009 at 11:37 PM

vario1
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Where the A900 really shines

Just a few quick change tool holders there<G>

Dec 22, 2009 at 12:24 AM

Graham Mitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 12:48 AM

morpheus2891
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Where the A900 really shines

canon got it all right from the business side of things :P

Dec 22, 2009 at 12:53 AM

douglasf13
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 01:05 AM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 01:03 AM

wayne seltzer
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 01:04 AM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.1 #9 · Where the A900 really shines

I shoot people. They move, and I find IS no substitute at all for f1.2 and iso 12800.

Dec 22, 2009 at 01:15 AM

JimU
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Where the A900 really shines

the ideal system would have both.

i've got a900+58/1.2

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 02:08 AM

ken.vs.ryu
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Where the A900 really shines

ibis + alt lenses = heaven?

Dec 22, 2009 at 02:17 AM

mawz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Where the A900 really shines

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).

Dec 22, 2009 at 02:20 AM

douglasf13
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Where the A900 really shines

JimU wrote:
the ideal system would have both.

i've got a900+58/1.2

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 02:26 AM

digitalbug30d
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Where the A900 really shines

brainiac wrote:
I shoot people. They move, and I find IS no substitute at all for f1.2 and iso 12800.
not every pic is a f1.2 iso 12,800 world

Dec 22, 2009 at 04:04 AM

digitalbug30d
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Where the A900 really shines

mawz wrote:
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).
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

Dec 22, 2009 at 04:09 AM

theSuede
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 04:11 AM

philip_pj
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:09 AM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:21 AM

douglasf13
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:52 AM

wayne seltzer
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Where the A900 really shines

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.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:56 AM

douglasf13
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · Where the A900 really shines

Sony's SSS automatically detects horizontal panning and adapts accordingly. This has been the case since Konica Minolta DSLRs.

I believe that Canon doesn't include in-body IS for two reasons. 1) it would cannibalize IS lens sales 2) they've been issuing white papers for years arguing that in-body IS is inferior.

A dual system would certainly be ideal.

Regardless, there is no better IS system than body-based IS when it comes to alternative lenses.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:58 AM

wickerprints
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · Where the A900 really shines

Wow, there is just so much misinformation in this thread about IS that it's not even funny.

One of the greatest advantages to lens-based IS has to be the stabilization of the image in the optical viewfinder, which enables two very critical features: first, the accurate composition of subjects, and second, the accurate acquisition of AF due to the stability of the resultant optical projection through the AF system.

These significant advantages cannot be denied and are NOT possible with sensor-based IS.

To hear all these people go on about lens IS being nothing more than a holdover from the film days and/or an excuse for larger profit margins, really does a disservice to the research that went into this technological development. It also reflects paranoia and ignorance.

Dec 22, 2009 at 08:13 AM

douglasf13
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · Where the A900 really shines

I haven't seen any misinformation. I said that Canon isn't introducing body based IS as a complimentary system to lens based IS because of profit margins (partly.) Both body based and lens based IS have their advantages, and having the option of both in one system would be ideal.

Dec 22, 2009 at 08:37 AM

wickerprints
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · Where the A900 really shines

douglasf13 wrote:
I haven't seen any misinformation. I said that Canon isn't introducing body based IS as a complimentary system to lens based IS because of profit margins (partly.) Both body based and lens based IS have their advantages, and having the option of both in one system would be ideal.

Then why wouldn't they do it? By your reasoning, adding in-body IS would simply give Canon all the more reason to charge more for their bodies, which easily sell at far higher volumes than the big whites. You can't have your argument both ways.

In fact, many optical designs cannot accommodate an optical IS group because there simply is no space for it to fit, such as in the EF 85/1.2L II, not to mention virtually all wide and ultra-wide primes. Because these designs could not be produced with in-lens IS, you would think the option to have in-body IS for these lenses is a no-brainer. And yet they don't because...? How does your reasoning make any sense in this context when lens-based IS cannot be implemented at all?

At the risk of repeating myself--lens-based IS would never be functionally supplanted by in-body IS for many of those lenses in which in-lens IS exists. Would it be nice to have the option of both? Sure. But to state that sensor-based IS would cut into profit margins on lens-based IS designs is misinformed. It's not like the non-IS versions were all that much cheaper, sharper, or lighter. It's not like Canon/Nikon can't set their profit margins however they want. And most importantly, it's not like the sensor-based IS performance could ever be a match for the lens-based IS for the precise reasons I mentioned earlier.

Many people said the same stuff about USM, and Canon's decision to put the AF motor in the lens when they developed the EF mount. And look at where we are now. Nobody questions the superiority of having AF housed in the barrel instead of the body.

When phase detect AF + SLR technology is replaced by something better and faster, then we can expect to see changes in IS implementation.

Dec 22, 2009 at 09:28 AM

kosmoskatten
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · Where the A900 really shines

wickerprints: it is probably all true what you write.

For me the benefits that outweigh the lens based IS are numerous but most significantly the fact that I can use my old manual focus lenses and have IS in camera. Which works great by the way.

With a camera that would only allow for lens based IS I would not be helped at all.

With Sony there is the odd chance that they could introduce longer glass with IS in the lens. All there is to it would be to hit that switch on the back of the camera and turn off in camera IS.

With Canon there is the odd chance that they might introduce in body IS and allow their users the best of both - with the added bonus of having an existing IS lens line.

As long as they don't they are doing their users a disservice.

I agree with Brainiac to a certain degree that stabilizers are not a replacement for really fast glass and good high ISO performance. But in my case it has stretched the possibilities a lot. With the 135/1.8 I have had success down to 1/8th of a second at close range which to me is simply amazing. Had the subject moved at all I would still not have gotten the shot.

If I have to choose between in body IS and a "noise free" ISO setting or no in body IS and a noisy ISO setting that introduces banding and other artefacts that completely ruins the image the choice is easy. IS any day. Oh, and a lot of sedative in the drinks and have the DJ pitch down the beat so people dance in slo mo.

Dec 22, 2009 at 09:55 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end