ulrikft2 wrote:
I would love to have the d3x resolution, the d700 iso capacity (the d3x is close i guess, when re-ressing), in house stabilization for my alternativ lenses, the a900 viewfinder... i guess the a900 only misses on iso capacity
Like the D3x, it really isnt too shabby when sized to 12mp for comparrison. Especially if you expose and process properly, there is nothing wrong with 3200 or even a bit more on the a900. It's not phenomenal, and it aint a D700, but at an equal pixel pitch in the right hands, its pretty darned good
Sean Mills wrote:
I did, when it came out, maybe just due to the different look of the pentaprism, but I have since come around... it is actually quite sleek, especially with the zeiss glass attached.
As far as body aesthetics go (of as insignificant importance as they are), I actually think it's the best looking SLR on the market, my other camera, a D700, being one of the ugliest (basically tied with all Nikon bodies ).
Oh it was love at first sight for me!!! One day I may venture into the 900 /850 territory if I get pursuaded to get into FF again.
Very nice industrial design right there, followed by NIKON, and Canon at the end with the "sleek-and-rounded computer-gadget" ressembling 5D /mkII...
Sean Mills wrote:
Like the D3x, it really isnt too shabby when sized to 12mp for comparrison. Especially if you expose and process properly, there is nothing wrong with 3200 or even a bit more on the a900. It's not phenomenal, and it aint a D700, but at an equal pixel pitch in the right hands, its pretty darned good
That is true!
If I could use my nikon glass easily with adapters on a sony body, I think an a900 or an a850 would be a very nice buy for me. Then my low-iso portraits would get more detail, my tripod landscapes would get more detail and i could use my rokkor 58 1.2 with stabilizing and with infinity focus at 1.2 (iirc?)
i think the d700 looks quite man sized. not all soft and pudgy like a 1D.
i've only handled an IS lens (D200+70-200VR and 5dmk1 + 100-400IS) for a short amount of time and found it a bit unusual. i'm sure with proper technique it could help with composition, but i didn't find it critical. i can't speak of AF tracking, but on a 5D, i wouldn't even bother.
i'm sure if Canon wanted to, they'd be able to fit lens IS into the 85/1.2. it's just no one would buy it cuz it'd be like a barrel. the 85/1.2 is too big already.
i'd argue that Canon & Nikon can't set their margins. they don't got a monopoly.
JimU wrote:
i'm sure if Canon wanted to, they'd be able to fit lens IS into the 85/1.2. it's just no one would buy it cuz it'd be like a barrel. the 85/1.2 is too big already.
The 85 f1.2 is much smaller than many popular Canon lenses. The real problem is power more than size. Any IS lens group would have to be quite big, and would require quite powerful motors to accelerate it.
"I am not arguing against in-body stabilisation in itself. If I could get it for free, meaning for no money, no extra weight, no battery usage, no increase in complexity/potential problems, I would certainly not object."
The A850/A900 sells for less than its competitors, weighs less than them, is not too bad a battery hog (carry a spare), and does not suffer SSS related breakdowns.
What is the long term prognosis for VR/IS lenses? Bodes come and go, most of us really want lenses to last, to use or buy/sell in top condition.
wickerprints wrote:
You ignored ALL of these statements of fact. Just because I could have in-body IS on a 16-35mm zoom doesn't mean I particularly care to; whereas I *need* lens-based IS if I'm shooting @ 600mm f/8 handheld.
When I'm shooting my Minolta 300/2.8 APO with 2x stopped down to f/8, I'm using at least a monopod, and preferably a tripod. It's just too heavy of a lens combo to be handholding in the first place.
i'm a bit late to this but i can't think of a single reason for canon and nikon not to put in body IS into their cameras in addition to having IS lenses other than the fact that it would hurt sales of IS lenses. it is awesome to have stabilized normal primes and the lack of IBIS has actually kept me from buying a canon/nikon. unfortunately, from a business perspective i think they may be right. i would probably never buy an IS lens even at the long end if i had IBIS unless i had an unlimited budget. all the advantages listed for in lens IS are probably true but IBIS still works really well even at 800mm equivalent (longest i've tried). here is an example shot taken at the equivalent of 700mm hand held at 1/20 with in body image stabilization: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3486285034_27180a6788_b.jpg
this shot isn't the greatest since it's through a very dirty window (it was the easiest for me to find) - but there is no obvious blur even at 100%.
i try not to shoot wildlife that slow because they might move, but this type of result is easily reproducible if i shoot a burst.
Eehh, that is good enough for me by a wide margin. Makes Wickerprints defense of in lens IS advantages look both redundant and futile to me. If ever I had a feeling that in lens IS would be superior in reality it is all gone now.
I need to see how low I can go with my 135/1.8, I haven't tried longer shutter speeds than 1/8s but even that is great in my book. As in the case with the bird shot we are down to shutter speeds long enough that hand holding is not as much a problem as movement of subject matter is. From the get go I have always seen IS an alternative or a complement to a monopod for shooting static subjects in poor light. Problem in the beginning was that IS lenses were usually rather slow and thereby the IS advantage was often negated as compared to fast non IS glass.
I like the fact that super fast glass can be used with in body IS.
1/20s @ "700mm equivalent" is about 5 stops using the 1/f rule.
I never claimed that in-lens IS achieves more stops of stabilization than in-body IS. That is not the end-all and be-all of IS performance. I keep saying this but it is really amazing to me how many people keep ignoring it.
Lens-based IS stabilizes the image in the optical viewfinder. It also stabilizes the image for the AF system.
How many times do I have to say this before the importance of this fact becomes understood? Maybe it's because none of you have ever tried tracking a bird in flight with a 600mm lens?
Finally, and this is my final say on this subject: defending Canon/Nikon's decision to develop in-lens IS is NOT the same thing as defending their decision to not implement in-body IS. These are not mutually exclusive technologies (in the sense of feasibility). I DO NOT defend the lack of in-body IS. For the last time, I am merely pointing out WHY lens-based IS exists, what specific advantages it confers that in-body IS does not, and furnishing this as a reason why in-lens IS continues to be developed.
Saying that it is about profit does NOT make sense because you assume that these companies would somehow be forced to accept lower margins when they already exercise a great deal of pricing control on ALL their products, both bodies and lenses! Saying that in-body IS would cannibalize their supertele IS profits is completely illogical. The non-IS versions weren't that much cheaper, if at all (inflation adjusted), and you're not considering that people aren't buying the current generation for IS, they're buying it for the focal length and the fact that these lenses cost a lot because the GLASS costs a lot to produce. The way some of you are making this out, it's as if you think IS costs half the price of the lens! Finally--and again, I already pointed this out--why WOULDN'T they add on in-body IS? It just gives them another feature to differentiate their product line, a new 1-series feature if you will, with a price tag to match.
A lot of you really aren't thinking logically about this. You seem to think I'm against in-body IS or that I believe it is technologically inferior. I am saying it is DIFFERENT and I do NOT have a reason as to why Canon/Nikon have not bothered. If I had to speculate it might have to do with patent/IP issues, and/or a desire to limit the complexity of the sensor assembly. The bottom line is I don't know. It's great that Sony does it. Good for them. They more or less have to given that Zeiss is not the sort of company to bother with in-lens IS.
Sheesh. Honestly, I can't believe how much criticism arose out of my simple explanation of why in-lens IS exists.
This IBIS was their Idea,second when you build your manufacturing around 'IS' in the lenses for many years it would be suicidal to change your philosophy just because Sony has something different and you somehow feel cheated,or they Canon/Nikon dont know what they are doing by not having "IBIS" this is moot at best...to me Sony/Minolta are the odd man out on this issue,maybe this is why Minolta may have had great cameras but insisted to be different with"IBIS" going against the norm doesnt automatically make your system the best.
Saying that I do feel Canon "IS" lenses are somewhat overpriced...
To be honest it would not surprise me if canon/nikon feel some pressure to add body is. It isn't just sony that has it but basically everyone BUT canon/nikon oh and panasonic (where you also have the ois vs body is conflict between olympus and panasonic).
I'm mixed about the whole thing; playing with the xsi in body is would definitely help for short lenses but I have no doubt that for longer lenses (200+) lens is performs a bit better.
Anyways; hopefully the next generation of cameras will bring improved everything (view finders; sensors, colour rendering, stabilization, ... and everyone's favorite low noise at high iso)
This IBIS was their Idea,second when you build your manufacturing around 'IS' in the lenses for many years it would be suicidal to change your philosophy just because Sony has something different and you somehow feel cheated,or they Canon/Nikon dont know what they are doing by not having "IBIS" this is moot at best...to me Sony/Minolta are the odd man out on this issue,maybe this is why Minolta may have had great cameras but insisted to be different with"IBIS" going against the norm doesnt automatically make your system the best.
Saying that I do feel Canon "IS" lenses are somewhat overpriced...
One thing to remember also is that in-body IS is only in it's infancy....generation 1 whereas lens based IS is well into it's 3rd / 4th generations. I have to wonder just how much better in-body IS will become with time.
wickerprints wrote:
1/20s @ "700mm equivalent" is about 5 stops using the 1/f rule.
I never claimed that in-lens IS achieves more stops of stabilization than in-body IS. That is not the end-all and be-all of IS performance. I keep saying this but it is really amazing to me how many people keep ignoring it.
Lens-based IS stabilizes the image in the optical viewfinder. It also stabilizes the image for the AF system.
How many times do I have to say this before the importance of this fact becomes understood? Maybe it's because none of you have ever tried tracking a bird in flight with a 600mm lens?
Finally, and this is my final say on this subject: defending Canon/Nikon's decision to develop in-lens IS is NOT the same thing as defending their decision to not implement in-body IS. These are not mutually exclusive technologies (in the sense of feasibility). I DO NOT defend the lack of in-body IS. For the last time, I am merely pointing out WHY lens-based IS exists, what specific advantages it confers that in-body IS does not, and furnishing this as a reason why in-lens IS continues to be developed.
Saying that it is about profit does NOT make sense because you assume that these companies would somehow be forced to accept lower margins when they already exercise a great deal of pricing control on ALL their products, both bodies and lenses! Saying that in-body IS would cannibalize their supertele IS profits is completely illogical. The non-IS versions weren't that much cheaper, if at all (inflation adjusted), and you're not considering that people aren't buying the current generation for IS, they're buying it for the focal length and the fact that these lenses cost a lot because the GLASS costs a lot to produce. The way some of you are making this out, it's as if you think IS costs half the price of the lens! Finally--and again, I already pointed this out--why WOULDN'T they add on in-body IS? It just gives them another feature to differentiate their product line, a new 1-series feature if you will, with a price tag to match.
A lot of you really aren't thinking logically about this. You seem to think I'm against in-body IS or that I believe it is technologically inferior. I am saying it is DIFFERENT and I do NOT have a reason as to why Canon/Nikon have not bothered. If I had to speculate it might have to do with patent/IP issues, and/or a desire to limit the complexity of the sensor assembly. The bottom line is I don't know. It's great that Sony does it. Good for them. They more or less have to given that Zeiss is not the sort of company to bother with in-lens IS.
Sheesh. Honestly, I can't believe how much criticism arose out of my simple explanation of why in-lens IS exists....Show more →
i never disagreed with any of the advantages of in lens IS you listed and i didn't really notice anyone else disputing them. people have been attacking canon and nikon for not introducing IBIS not attacking the in lens IS tech. i do think IBIS would reduce the number of IS lenses purchased though. there is in fact a substantial price difference (sometimes nearly a factor of 2) when canon replaces an unstabilized lens with a stabilized one. i and everyone else has just been saying that having IBIS would be great to have as well. incidently i have tried to track birds in flight with a 600mm equiv stabilized lens - though it wasn't the greatest example (nikkor 80-400mm VR on a D1x). unfortunately, the main advantage of stabilized view was not fully realized due to the slow autofocus on this lens. i ended up just using manual focus which was somewhat improved by a stabilized view - though i don't wobble much panning at this focal length. on a longer lens i'm sure the advantage would be bigger.
wickerprints wrote:
... none of you have ever tried tracking a bird in flight with a 600mm lens?
No stabilization of any kind, BTW. I understand and appreciate in-lens stabilizing technology, I also understand its drawbacks and liabilities, which apparently are invisible to many IS / VR fans. I'd rather not screw with the lens' imaging qualities if I can avoid it so I prefer in-body stabilization. YMMV.
Where the A850 and A900 really shine is at making Canon and Nikon guys squirm. We all know that the lens based system response hasn't been to add a body based alternative but to add lens based consumer (typically aps-c) kit lenses. Now if one can just get passed the cropping and the small apertures, you can put one on your D700 and have the best of both worlds.
There's a world of difference between the few who use $8000-$10,000 lens handheld and can frame so tightly on moving objects that neither the jumping image nor the moving sensor seem to bother them at all and the mere mortals who keep the camera companies in business. We keep reading that it's the photographer, not the camera, etc. But most of us also know that for some jobs, it really does take the right tool, so let everybody choose their favorite hammer.
chez wrote:
One thing to remember also is that in-body IS is only in it's infancy....generation 1 whereas lens based IS is well into it's 3rd / 4th generations. I have to wonder just how much better in-body IS will become with time.
is that so?
the steadyshot on a 2008 a900 is the same as the super steadyshot as the 2006 a100 which the same as the antishake on a 2004 7d?
the steadyshot on a 2008 a900 is the same as the super steadyshot as the 2006 a100 which the same as the antishake on a 2004 7d?
It's quite so that it is in it's infancy.
IS lenses have been out for..*googling*.... nearly 15 years. Canon's first coming in 1995.
And barely 5 for in body IS with Minolta / Sony.
The a900 and the a100 probably don't have the same exact implementation of SS, the sensor size is different and needs to be treated differently, but it is quite possible that the 7D and a100 do share the same in body IS.
A few more cams, a few more generations, and it should be really interesting what in body has to offer over in lens.
Currently it's already a boon for me because, I generally don't shoot long lenses (the ones Canon and Nikon deem IS worthy) and instantly all my lenses are IS. So, win win for me, where as in lens was not. I don't care if it is currently inferior, every body will "upgrade" the IS in ALL of my lenses.
).