Buying a camera is frustrating

[usayit]

I wouldn't buy a nikon TV since they don't make them. I'd buy a sony.

Do people not realize sony makes the majority of the CCDs out there for cameras of all makes? ( Nikon, Canon P&S, included) Do they not realize that the SLR division IS minolta? Do they not realize that lenses ARE minolta and soon to be Zeiss?

 

[usayit]

Not any more. Not since the Pentax K100D and K10D came out! The Canons only slightly edge out the Pentaxes for color accuracy too...

let me guess. you shoot with a Pentax.

oh yes... IS is like majik.. everything turns out perfect..

 

[Don Simon]

This has been said before, but I'm going to say it again. Anti-shake, shake reduction, image stabilisation, vibration reduction, whether camera or lens based... they are not equivalent to a faster lens. I believe they're also a poor substitute for good technique. It's not impossible to get a good handheld shot slower than the shutter speed/focal length "rule" without special technology. It's been done.

That said, like most things in photography neither system is 'better' than the other, there is only the more suitable. I shoot with a variety of focal lengths but mainly 'standard' to short telephoto, often handheld in low light. As such, the anti-shake system in my camera can be a very effective aid to getting acceptably sharp shots. It doesn't work miracles, it just helps a little, that's what I expect of it and I'm happy with it. For people whose main work involves handheld long telephoto shots in relatively low light, of course a dedicated 'stabilised' lens is probably better. Either way, I'd want the fastest lens I could comfortably afford.

As for Sony... believe me, I am not a Sony fanboy (I dislike their insistence on proprietary formats and some of their products have atrocious software) and about 95% of any enthusiasm for Sony's dSLR system on my part is the Minolta factor... but I'm having trouble with the "not a camera company" thing. Canon, Nikon and Pentax are in imaging... anyone who believes Sony is not also in imaging obviously needs to inform those other three companies since they're using Sony sensors. And regarding the bit about Sony attempting to capture part of the market, well Canon Nikon and Pentax are well established in photography but that doesn't stop them sometimes knocking out fairly unexception products to target specific market segments. The difference is Sony have more to prove as a new name to the SLR market; as such they're taking it very seriously, and I wouldn't discount them for making Playstations and TVs any more than I would discount Canon for making office products.

 

[sothoth]

Do people not realize sony makes the majority of the CCDs out there for cameras of all makes? ( Nikon, Canon P&S, included) Do they not realize that the SLR division IS minolta? Do they not realize that lenses ARE minolta and soon to be Zeiss?

usayit: don't worry, I got it.

I think another factor with Sony is that, while their sensors are quite good (as you pointed out), they seem to have JUST NOW decided to make a good enough DSLR to compete with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. So some of people's reluctance to take them as seriously is that they haven't put out a very serious product up to this point. I would consider the alpha today, but three months ago, I never would have guessed I'd look at their stuff. Things change as their commitment translates into good cameras. They'll be taken more seriously if they keep it up, but it'll take time. I still run over to the Canon and Nikon sections to see what they have, then to Pentax, then look at everything else, in that order. I started doing that based on who "usually" makes good stuff that always tends to be on the cutting edge.

 

[Jeremy Z]

let me guess. you shoot with a Pentax.

I've shot Nikon (FM, FM2, FE, Nikkormat FT2), Olympus (OM1n, OM4, C-750), Pentax (K1000, ME Super, K100D) Canon (EOS 620, 850, Rebel G, Elan II, AE-1 Program, F-1, Ftb), Leica (M6), Rollei (Rolleiflex 3.5, XF35, 35S), Yashica (FX-3 Super w/Zeiss, Electro 35) I'm not brand-biased, in other words.

oh yes... IS is like majik.. everything turns out perfect..

Don't knock it until you've tried it. It is like magic. For landscapes during the magic hours of light, the extra two stops are free. Does the fact that I can use a slower shutter speed than anyone with an equivalent lens means I am substituting technology for good technique? The fact that I can go two stops slower without a tripod means I have bad technique? Please. :er:

Body-integral Anti-Shake is a kickass technology, which saves money on lenses. It doesn't replace a fast lens when it comes to subject movement, but for many other things, it does. Users of Minolta 5D, 7D, Sony A100, and Pentax K10D and K100D will all back me up on this. It is said to not be as effective at telephoto focal lengths, I can't speak to this personally yet. But I can tell you that my 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 does behave like an f/2-2.8 on stationary subjects.

Do they not realize that lenses ARE minolta and soon to be Zeiss?

They already have some Zeiss lenses for the Minolta mount. I don't think the whole lens line is going Zeiss, just the high-end stuff. If you have some further information on this, I'd be curious to see a link. Sony has been in bed with Zeiss for a while. Buying the use of a respected brand name is nothing new. If Sony designs a lens that meets Zeiss' specs, Zeiss will sell the rights to use their name on that lens. Ditto for Schneider-Kreuznach (Kodak, Samsung) and Leica (Panasonic). Those names don't carry the same weight they did 50 years ago, or even 20.

Being a serious photographer for 30+ years it is easy to see why people are snapping up Nikons and Canons w/o anti-shake. I don't own one of Canon's IS lenses nor do I plan on owning one anytime in the near future for my system. Things like anti-shake will never replace good technique and knowledge.

I never said it would replace good technique and knowledge. But it does free up photographers from the old tripod quite a bit.

Since I haven't been shooting for 30+ years (I am 30 years old) and since I'm not a pro, I will quote Glen Johnson here, from his book Digital Wedding Photography: Capturing Beautiful Memories.

"By far the heaviest lens in my camera box is the 70-200 f/2.8 with image stabilizer. This lens is so valuable to me that I absolutely have to carry it despite the weight and added expense. I typically shoot the entire ceremony, the romantic portraits, and some of the dressing room shots with this lens.

Many telephoto lenses on the market don't have the wide f/2.8 aperture, or the image stabilizer. You can save weight and money if you purchase one. However, if you can manage to scrape enough cash together for this lens, you will almost immediately fall in love with it. After the first wedding, you'll wonder how you ever worked without it."

Glen is not really proving my specific point about body integral anti-shake. He had already bought into the Canon system. Canon invented optical image stabilization many years ago, in binoculars, I believe.

Having body-integral anti-shake is the poor man's version of this. It saves weight and money, and it does work. If you are too stubborn or bitter to try it, it is your loss. If you always use a tripod anyhow, don't bother.

At any rate, let's not pretend that making use of this new technology indicates that the photographer has bad technique.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I think another factor with Sony is that, while their sensors are quite good (as you pointed out), they seem to have JUST NOW decided to make a good enough DSLR to compete with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc.

Just to clear one thing up, sothoth: Sony bought Minolta a while back. The Sony A100 is a lightly-massaged Minolta Maxxum 5D. There are a couple of minor improvements, but for all intents & purposes, it is a Minolta. You may already know that, just making sure.

 

[sothoth]

Sony bought Minolta a while back. The Sony A100 is a lightly-massaged Minolta Maxxum 5D.

Yeah, it's clear. But it's a perception thing, since until now, no "Sony" DSLR was on the market that was a contender. Now there is, albeit a Minolta in Sony clothing. If there is suddenly a DSLR on the market with a Sony stamp on it, I think people will think "hmm, when did Sony start to make DSLRs? Could it be that good? I see ads for Canon with Maria Sharapova in a little skirt, my dad had a Minolta and my uncle had an olympus. I had a pentax. What does Sony know about cameras?"

And frankly, I think Sony's p-a-s cameras aren't that good even if their sensors are nice. No offense to them, I know their getting more serious. But taking on the Minolta business is still fairly recent (I think it was early 2006, right) so still less than a year.

 

[darich]

But how can the body be moving without the lens also moving? If either one moves, the image suffers. I've also read that it isn't as effective in the body as in the lens, but I can settle for a two-stop advantage

Because if the camera body is taken as the centre of a circle and the end of the lens is the circumference, the body will be stationary but the end of the lens moving. This would result in a blurred image. The anti shake in the camera would detect minimal movement. The anti shake in the lens fells much more. In the lens it is much more effective.

Let's say you have a 50mm set to f/1.8 and your exposure is 1/15s at ISO800. With a Canon body, you would have to go up two more ISO settings to guaruntee a sharp image. With the Pentax and the same settings, you could still shoot at ISO800 and get a sharp image. The end result will be a better image from the Pentax, no matter which Canon body you compare it with. What about if the exposure is 1/15s at ISO 3200? Quite simply, the Pentax will make a sharp shot, and the Canon or Nikon won't. For low, ambient light photography, (especially at shorter focal lengths) the body-based anti-shake systems rule.

Can't argue with that but i think for most photographers that situation would rarely arise. It will now and again, but if a 50mm f1.8 and ISO800 is only giving 1/15 then it's pretty dark. You're right in what you say but the photographer would have to decide are the few occasions those settings are required worth buying a completely different system?


also moving? If either one moves, the image suffers. I've also read that it isn't as effective in the body as in the lens, but I can settle for a two-stop advantage [/QUOTE]

Because if the camera body is taken as the centre of a circle and the end of the lens is the circumference, the body will be stationary but the end of the lens moving. This would result in a blurred image. The anti shake in the camera would detect minimal movement. The anti shake in the lens fells much more. In the lens it is much more effective.

Do people not realize sony makes the majority of the CCDs out there for cameras of all makes? ( Nikon, Canon P&S, included)

Canon make their own CMOS sensors. Nikon use Sony's CCDs.

 

[darich]

Let's say you have a 50mm set to f/1.8

Incidentally Jeremy, the lens is great!!
super shallow DOF and so light it almost feels like no lens on the camera...but I'm used to a 24-70mm L so pretty much anything would be waaaaaay lighter!!!

cheers!

 

[Don Simon]

Canon make their own CMOS sensors. Nikon use Sony's CCDs.

Yes Canon use their own CMOS sensors for all their dSLRs... but they use Sony CCDs for several compact models.

Can't argue with that but i think for most photographers that situation would rarely arise. It will now and again, but if a 50mm f1.8 and ISO800 is only giving 1/15 then it's pretty dark. You're right in what you say but the photographer would have to decide are the few occasions those settings are required worth buying a completely different system?

Ah but doesn't that cut both ways? As in, the photographer has to decide if the occasions when they might want an IS or VR lens are worth buying that system? In other words are we assuming that Canon's system is the obvious choice, and the alternatives are a "completely different system? That's not necessarily the case for someone with no prior investment in any system.

 

[Chickenhawk]

I echo everything JEREMY Z ha written. I also feel that there is a snobbery element in photography - Nikon and Canon owners look down on the rest. I am a Sony Alpha user and bought the camera because I had several Minolta lenses from my film days, so it was a no brainer buying the Sony. I have absolutely no complaints about the camera, it does everything I want it to do and there is a huge range of lenses to choose from, all cheaper than Canon or Nikon.
Sony is a massive company and their cameras will only improve with each release. I believe the next release will have a stronger body, increased pixel count and increased price.

 

[usayit]

Whooohoo...
Read what ZaphodB said... read it again... Landmark photos have been made well before IS was around.

In regards to Sony.....

Sony is HUGE.. with pocketbooks and R&D capability.
Sony is a leader in CONSUMER and professional electronics.
Sony IS a camera company. For YEARS they have made cameras... not DSLRs but cameras.
Sony did not have any SLR camera design group to compete with Nikon and Canon.
Sony makes more than 80% of all the CCDs used in digital cameras today.
Face it... cameras todays are electronic gizmos.. they are not the mechanical wonders they used to be.

Take all that

Add the purchase of Minolta.
Add the puchase of Minolta's expertise
Add the partnership with Zeiss to produce high end lenses
Add the backward compatibility of Minotla's equipment and pre-existing customer base.

and you guys still think they don't have a chance? My opinion, the only thing that can really screw this up is mismanagement and planning oversight on Sony. NO... I do not shoot with Sony (although I have a Minolta 7000) but I find their entrance into the market very exciting. I've already bet money on it.



>> let me guess. you shoot with a Pentax <<

Yo.. Jeremy... Chill... Go out and take some photos of something nice and calming. I recommend a nice sunset.


^^ that was being sarcastic. I love pentax.. I have a collection of every Pentax from the Asahiflex IIb all the way to the ME. I even have a pretty rare complete working ME-F with the only AF lens made specifically for it. Still considered one of Pentax's worst projects but yes.. I still have it. Even have a a 645 and 6x7 both still in use for B&W Medium format. I also love the Canon EOS system. It works for me perfectly.

Yet, you sound more like a Pentax sales dude than anyone else in this thread... more so than Canon or the Nikon folk here.

Oh nice camera list... I won't post mine. Mitica and a few others will always have me beat. Wife still thinks I'm nuts.. perhaps I am.

>> Don't knock it until you've tried it. It is like magic. <<

Yo.. every Zoom lens I own in my Canon System is an IS lens... and yet I primarily shoot with primes that don't have it. Go figure...

Oh yeh.. Tripods rule. Hehehe..

 

[usayit]

btw... If memory serves me correctly.. Konica Minolta (now Sony) pioneered the in body IS technology.

---
Do people not realize sony makes the majority of the CCDs out there for cameras of all makes? ( Nikon, Canon P&S, included)
---


ZaphodB is correct.. Canon CMOS in DSLR.. Sony CCDs in Canon P&S. Many people miss this fact hence "Canon P&S" in my original posting.

Now if Polaroid and Kodak get off their bums and join the party...

 

[Jeremy Z]

Because if the camera body is taken as the centre of a circle and the end of the lens is the circumference, the body will be stationary but the end of the lens moving. This would result in a blurred image. The anti shake in the camera would detect minimal movement. The anti shake in the lens fells much more. In the lens it is much more effective.

This makes sense, but who says it is always the end of the lens that moves and not the camera body? Especially with heavy lenses, where that mass is harder to move than the relatively lightweight camera body.

By all accounts, lens-based IS is more effective. I'm not arguing that. But it is also the more expensive way. Many of us either can't or prefer not to pay that much. If money is no object, either get the lens-based IS or buy all f/2.8 lenses.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Back on topic for a moment: Jimi - have you made the purchase yet? Is the Sony in the mail yet?