jamesdak wrote:
The play zoom issue is how all of my DSLRs from both makers have worked so it's second nature too me.
Like I said - people used to swear by their muskets.
>Not sure what you are addressing in the histogram/ review part. Do you want full size review with the histogram overtop??
Yes. And for £5000 I think I should get it.
>My "joystick" does move my focus points on both of my EOS bodies. Sounds like they've dummy'd down the 1Ds3.
After a gazillion user complaints, 10% of which were from me, on April 30th they issued a 9-month-late firmware update which finally fixed this aspect of the 1 series interface distaster.
So, do you want the image to stay up after you shoot and then you can zoom in directly. I guess that would be ok but wouldn't that mean having to turn the display off after everyshot? Or just while in the delayed initial display you can zoom in. I would find the second option useful I guess.
I'm not sure about the histogram/review thing. Do you mean the histogram superimposed on the full size image?
The joystick is the important one to me. I use that all the time.
- Yes, those pics above are from the consumer class A300/A350 live view. It is doubtful Sony is putting this in the "A900."
- Hubsand, this camera has never been slated as fully pro. I've been tracking this thing since the beginning of '07, and, from reading every interview and seeing every pic available since then, I am still convinced that it is more or less a "big" A700 with a top LCD. May have a few more cross sensors and other minor differences, but it should more or less be an A700 with fullframe accomodations. I'm not sure what this would cost to make over the A700?? The Canon 1Ds and Nikon D3x series don't have to worry about specs competition with this camera, just price.
- OzPic, there is a lock on all buttons and dials that is activated when you press the shutter on the A700. There has never been a camera I've seen that is so completely operable with one hand like the A700, but to each his own.
- brainiac, we don't know the size of the viewfinder yet, but Sony has one of the better matte's out there, so it will definitely be bright.
- jamesdak, AFAIK a recent firmware upgrade allows the joystick to select focus points on the 1Ds III.
jamesdak wrote:
So, do you want the image to stay up after you shoot and then you can zoom in directly. I guess that would be ok but wouldn't that mean having to turn the display off after everyshot? Or just while in the delayed initial display you can zoom in. I would find the second option useful I guess.
Zooming should be done with a button other than one you use to effect focus point selection. I don't care if the best they come up with is to build an extra button, although I don't think that will be necessary, but forcing me to take my left hand away from the lens in order to press the 'play' button every time I want to review in detail is getting seriously tiring. I estimate Canon has made me press that stupid play button hundreds of thousands of times in the last 2.5 years. Perhaps I should bill them for the accumulated hours that this obstructive interface design has stolen from my workflow.
I'm not sure about the histogram/review thing. Do you mean the histogram superimposed on the full size image?
Yes. I want a full screen image, with blinkenlights, and a smallish histogram. Right now I can see either an image at a reasonable size OR a histogram. Never both. The result is I'm always having to cycle through the review modes by repeatedly pressing the info button. Yet more accumulated wastage of my time. Other cameras have a full size review image with the histogram superimposed. Why the hell can't Canon provide this simple review mode in addition to the existing ones? What's more, why can't we have a separate memory for the review and playback settings so that, for example, review would show in superimposed histogram mode, while playback would be the plain image. It's not hard to get these things right. Especially at £5500. Canon interface design doesn't seem to have worked out that fewer button presses to achieve the same task is better, not worse. Maybe they just really like pressing buttons all day.
To bring this back on topic, I played with an α700 the other day and the interface was excellent - a notch or two above Canon 1 series mk3.
That is the one slightly disappointing thing about my Sony/Zeiss 85mm 1.4 It's IQ is incredible, but the manual focus ring, although a decent size and metal, has a little play in it when you change directions. I've heard the Sony/Zeiss 135mm 1.8 has the same issue. It's a minor gripe, but it can be annoying. The Zeiss 24-70 2.8 is much better in this regard.
Having spent enough time with the A700 to understand its strengths and limitations, I've decided (today) to split my regular shooting kit in two, keeping a few indispensable Canon lenses with the 5D for specific needs, but relying on the Sony where possible to come up with the goods.
The more I use the A700, the more I feel that the attraction of a full frame version with these Zeiss lenses – especially at the suggested price – will prove irresistible.
So the Canon kit for now will consist solely of the 14-24G, 24L, Leica 28, 85L and 70-200/4 L IS, each of which (to my mind) is irreplaceable. In fact, iI believe the 70-200/4 is as close to perfect as it's possible for a lens to be.
The A700 gets the 17-50/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 50 Macro, 85/1.4, 135/1.8, 200/2.8 and the new 70-300mm G, and both share the Mirex + Mamiya 35 / 55 / 80 Macro combo.
I'm confident in that system for now. When the flagship arrives, I should be able to sell the 85L abd convert the Leica to Sony mount – this is dead easy, actually . . . I'm about 45° and 1mm out with this ten-minute conversion . . . http://www.welsh4.com/leica28_a700.jpg
. . . and then see whether the 70-200, and new ultrawide zoom and fast wide primes are good enough to sell the 24L, 14-24 and 5D.
douglasf13 wrote:
That is the one slightly disappointing thing about my Sony/Zeiss 85mm 1.4 It's IQ is incredible, but the manual focus ring, although a decent size and metal, has a little play in it when you change directions. I've heard the Sony/Zeiss 135mm 1.8 has the same issue. It's a minor gripe, but it can be annoying.
IMO it is a major obstacle to getting sharp pictures at wide apertures, and in the age of 20+ megapixel cameras it will mean an awful lot of wasted pixels and frustration. Liveview and accurate manual focus rings are proving to be about the only way to reliably make all those pixels pay. AF and viewfinder focussing are pretty hit and miss at these resolutions. I tried a Sony 85 and found the play in manual focus very very off-putting.
I picked up a Sony alpha 350 (14Mpix) and a few lenses to see what the fuss was about. As people speculated from the pictures, the body does look plasticky and button studded. But I will say the buttons are kind of useful once you get a little acclimated. I hate the "everything on the back LCD" setup but looks like the A900 has a second LCD.
I've only shot with it for a half day, mostly just playing around, but I've posted some pics with various lenses: http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/sony350
A couple of quick impressions:
1) The camera can't handle high ISO. Its very nice at 400, 800 definitely requires noise reduction. I'd say similar to my old 20D.
2) The in body IS works really well. I'm caffeine saturated most of the time and use almost all IS lenses, at a quick take the Sony in body system is pretty close to the Canon in lens system as far as effectiveness. I know all the 'through the viewfinder' advantages of in lens IS stuff, just saying it works, its not a gimmick.
3) The Zeiss 16-80 is a sweet little zoom. Its aperture challenged but nice and sharp.
4) The Sony brand lenses I got (50 f1.4, 50 Macro, 100 Macro) are well built, feel very similar to their Canon counterparts, all are nice and sharp. Shooting 100 Macro with IS is a pleasure I can't get with my Canon gear.
5) One of the very fun things I got was the 500 f8 mirror lens. I only bought it because I thought, much as I hate reflex bokeh, the in camera IS might actually make the little 500 usable handheld. And it does. I'd say surprisingly adequate. Here's a quick handheld garbage shot with it
I saw a review of the 350 in PopPhoto which basically said that it isn't able to resolve detail any greater than most of the competition's 10mp models, supposedly becuase of heavy AA filters, in-camera processing etc... This was one of the reasons I chose the K20D instead, plus the wonderful Pentax Limited primes.
Well, there are lots of reviews that state the contrary. Plus, unfortunately for the K20D, the A700 is closer in price, and is a better camera in most regards.
The consumer A350 has little to do with this thread.
brainiac wrote:
IMO it is a major obstacle to getting sharp pictures at wide apertures, and in the age of 20+ megapixel cameras it will mean an awful lot of wasted pixels and frustration. Liveview and accurate manual focus rings are proving to be about the only way to reliably make all those pixels pay. AF and viewfinder focussing are pretty hit and miss at these resolutions. I tried a Sony 85 and found the play in manual focus very very off-putting.
How is the nikon 14-24 G in terms of manual focus ring...it certainly makes a big difference not just in the user experience, that counts for something I feel, but more importantly, a stated, in getting accurate focus.
ChrisDM wrote:
I saw a review of the 350 in PopPhoto which basically said that it isn't able to resolve detail any greater than most of the competition's 10mp models, supposedly becuase of heavy AA filters, in-camera processing etc... This was one of the reasons I chose the K20D instead, plus the wonderful Pentax Limited primes.
As tested, maybe. The trouble is that many RAW processors – particularly Adobe Camera Raw which, for some reason, is widely used among testers – handle Sony ARW files very badly. Properly processed, the A700 is a very close match for the similarly specced D300.
The A350 does resolve slightly better overall, and they have fixed that troublesome blue channel noise in the A700, but it feels cheap, the AF isn't as good and it's poor at high ISO. Versus the K20D, the Pentax is better made than both (though the A700 feels similar), and the resolution is superb, but the AF isn't . . .
At this price point, everything's a compromise. The most complete APS-C camera seems to be the D300, but it's way overpriced. Though it's fractionally outresolved by some, the A700 is a mature and well balanced package – a bit like the 5D.
Thanks Mark, that is good to know, as that lens may come into my shooting kit near the end of this year...if I upgrade to a top end dslr system as opposed to going the whole hog and to mf digital. (at the moment, shooting 5d / 1ds at F11 on a tripod I have found simple canon L zooms to be as good in terms of i.q. as my alternative primes...even if not as nice to focus)
marcwilson wroteHow is the nikon 14-24 G in terms of manual focus ring...it certainly makes a big difference not just in the user experience, that counts for something I feel, but more importantly, a stated, in getting accurate focus.
Well, (ultra) wide angle like 14-24 and f2.8 has little to do with 85mm and 1.2/1.4 when it comes to focusing.
(edited as I should not be sarcastic here....apologies)
Agreed a 14-24 is very different to an 85mm lens in focussing, not to mention everything else, but the manual focus usability of any lens you are going to manual focus is still an important issue...wether 12mm or 300mm.
