Chris48 wrote:
Do some research.
I got to page 3 of google and the only one I find is an ancient Minolta.
No, I don't count the 70-400 or the 500mm reflex mirror lens as competitors or proper solutions for a 400mm 500mm 600mm 800mm prime lens like many people want.
So where is Sony's answer to this?
RZetter wrote:
@Hans, there's M4/3 bodies with IBIS and live view, so it should be possible, right?
That is because it has a smaller sensor and also the response time is slower on the Oly EP/EPL that explain why people are saying the Peny autofocus slightly faster. No one told them that it is also cause by the IBIS.
Just to add to the above. Whenever one uses Live View it will always be slower than OVF due to the processing time require.
Now, you see why I was hoping that Peny makes an OVF for the GF1.
I did that first, actually they also have nothing available mfg by sony or zeiss for the 400mm - 800mm primes.
The reflex mirror 500 doesn't count, cant even adjust the f stop on that horrid thing.
Maybe you should post something you know about?
Instead of accusing me ot trolling, just straight up explain it.
I've been asking this question 3 pages or more and no one will reply with a direct answer.
dear schristie11, what is your main goal on trolling on this thread?
If your goal was to help the op and other people to decide which system to buy, you have failed miserably. You repeat the price differences and quantity of the lenses manufactured for Canon, not the quality differences between comparable lenses like 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and the 85 & 135mm primes.
If your goal was to prove to whole photographing community how much you dont know, you have made it very clear.
Theres a difference between camera owner and a photographer, you know that?
Heh, you all can attack me if that helps you sleep better at night.
No one is perfect, perhaps least of all you.
It won’t make you any more right.
Fact is, Sony photography systems seem to be very good at a very narrow list of things which you will pay dearly to do, that is all there is to it.
Additionally it has been made clear by other posters as well that Nikon and Canon are clearly the answer for anything outside of the narrow list of things Sony does well.
I suppose this is why so few people, especially professional photographers invest in Sony camera systems.
Heck, fredmiranda.com doesn’t even have a Sony section.
So why do you all take it so seriously?
So what do you all think about the OP's questions?
Have any advice for him?
Which Lenses which Body should he use?
Oh, and how much should he expect to spend?
OwlsEyes wrote:
I am looking for input from those who have gone this route.
I am wishing to shake things up a bit w/ regards to my gear... searching for inspiration and challenging my thought photographic though processes.
I am a nature photographer w/ some pretty decent Canon gear... see list:
1DsII, 7D, 300 f2.8IS, 17-40L, 70-200 f4L, and 1.4x
I am a bit of a minimalist in the nature photo world, but do pretty well w/ the limited gear that I carry. I follow this approach because I travel and hike extensively w/ my gear and do not wish to be encumbered.
I have been pondering a switch to a Sony body (850 or 900) and 3 good lenses. I shoot all things nature... wildlife, macro, landscape and environmental documentary. I exhibit work in galleries and actively blog (once a week)... see my blog, website and flicker for examples.
I looking for advice from those who have made a similar switch... are you happy? do you wish you went a different way? do you want to switch back?
What do I lose? What will I gain?
thanks for your thoughts and regards,
bruce...Show more →
Chris48 wrote:
You have earned your pay. Now go away. BTW, apart from the mirror, there's a fisheye, a 20mm, some WA zooms, the 70-400mm and many Minolta lenses.
Oh so you concede then? that Sony only offers very narrow list of Lens options, what a very sad story.
Ok, I'll give up now too.
hans98ko wrote:
OK! Now lets divert the issue to No Live View on the Sony bodies that has IBIS. My opinion is that they will never be able to come out with one anytime soon.
Look at it this way: with OIS/IS/VR the element group shift in the opposite direction of the movement and so one is still able to see the subject in Live View.
Now with IBIS, the sensor move in the opposite direction as the motion, so what do you think you will see? Yes! Blury picture unless your brain is able to decipher it fast enough.
all or nearly all the modern sony aps-c cameras have both liveview and IBIS. most IBIS cameras only activate IS when the shot is taken not when viewing through liveview (i believe this is to save batteries), however some olympus (and possibly others?) do have a button you can push that activates IBIS while view in liveview. it works spectacularly on my old oly e520, to bad the rest of that camera's liveview implementation is so clunky and the sensor so noisy.
I think my subsequent reply brought out 2 reasons why it will not be acceptable on a Pro-level FF camera like the A850 & A900, or at lease at the moment with its present sensor density and processing speed.
Users will be complaining about shutter lag and blackout time (if the mirror is not already up and remember FT/ MFT does not have a mirror) if they compare with others.
1) larger sensor size as in dimension will increase it damping and tracking time.
2) Higher density will increase processing time.
Just take it with a pinch of salt, I might be totally wrong.
hans98ko wrote:
I think my subsequence reply brought out 2 reasons why it will not be acceptable on a Pro-level FF camera like the A850 & A900, or at lease at the moment with its present sensor density and processing speed.
Users will be complaining about shutter lag and blackout time (remember FT/ MFT does not have a mirror) if they compare with others.
1) larger sensor size as in dimension will increase it damping and tracking time.
2) Higher density will increase processing time.
Just take it with a pinch of salt, I might be totally wrong.
1) liveview won't incease this and IBIS appears to work fine on a900/850. i think they just left LV off because sony wasn't happy with the slow focus of it and thought it wasn't a pro feature.
2) higher density should have no impact on IS calculation and minimal impact on LV calculation.
schristie11 wrote:
Heh, you all can attack me if that helps you sleep better at night.
Of course we attack you; you're obviously bent on going against the grain of this forum.
You're a troll because you're just posting to provoke reactions, not to have an actual discussion. You could have voiced your opinion in a single post but you keep spreading the same thing out over countless posts.
Well again I might be totally wrong.
You see focusing can be affected by the IBIS damping and tracking speed because when it is set to LV it uses contrast focusing. So both IBIS and focusing must be in syn, which I think is not an easy thing to do.
hans98ko wrote:
Well again I might be totally wrong.
You see focusing can be affected by the IBIS damping and tracking speed because when it is set to LV it uses contrast focusing. So both IBIS and focusing must be in syn, which I think is not an easy thing to do.
not sure but i don't think the problem is any different (actually better) than using cdaf with no IS where the sensor is stuck with all the movement due to camera shake.
Oh and BTW - 