The Mirror Lock Up battle goes on...

[cgarrard]

Its a great thought actually.

In my eyes they could have even named it the A500 to begin with. After all, it was a "5" descendant and still sits in between the A700 and the rest of the gang with features etc even some 2-3 years after its release.

That would have been in line with the Minolta lineage just the same as the A700/900 are today.
--
http://www.CarlGarrardPhotography.com

 

[Timothy S Broadley]

Barry:

I believe the A900 is the first A-Mount derived camera to have true MLU since the XK in the seventies (although I'm not sure about the 9000). Even when the Maxxum/Dynax 9 was introduced it had the 2sec lockup. At the time there was much weepng over that in the old Minolta Group about that. Minolta when queried on that said basically (I paraphase) that there was no need for an MLU as the Mirror damping on the Minolta 9/9xi and other was more than sufficent to absorb the transient shock and that anything left over would not affect image quality

The 2sec MLU has been around for along time ever since the 9 was introduced. However, if Sony gets it wrong, Canon apparently doesn't have a clue as that topic seems to be a popular discussion items especially on the high end cameras.

Cheers
Tim

 

[Glenn]

Can you show that it's even needed on the A200? I haven't see a good example yet of a picture that was blured from mirror slap on an A200. I tried but it's really hard to test becuase the A700 has a harsher mirror and when I try and get the same blur (aroung 1/6sec sutter) on the A200 I can't get it and the pic is just as sharp as the a700
--
F717 (Legendary)
A700 (what a fantastic machine)
A200 (Almost as fantastic)

 

[Russell Ervin]

The real issue is that MLU was there in the original cameras (KM 5D,
A100) on which the A200 was likely based - it even has some of the
same bugs. It probably cost Sony more to remove MLU than it would
have to keep it in.

--
fjbyrne

That may be true. But it'll cost them a few bucks more just to put it
back in. In terms of a percentage, how many users are asking for it?
I would guess many/most of these users don't know or don't care for
it.

The A200 has been out for almost a year. I've had mine for 10 months
now. A replacement will likely come out in the next six months (18
month cycle?). Anyone really needing MLU has other choices - such as
the A700, or even another brand. Heck, even a used A100.

True. Hopefully they put MLU back in the A200 replacement. It was
really stupid IMO to remove it in the first place.

--
fjbyrne

I agree they shouldn't have removed it on the A200, but I think they are probably more concerned right now about how the A200 replacement will be featured, instead of thinking about changing features in a model that has been out a while.

I don't think companies spend much time worrying about a model that has been out a while and has done well in sales. Fixing bugs in current models yes, but adding a feature they they left out(for whatever reason) probably not. Just the way it is.

Sony has probably seen this thread and already discussed it and dismissed it or decided to do something about it. I know Barry thinks if he keeps the threads up, it will change things....heheh. I personally don't think so, it's just not that important any more. If people had raised heck the day the A200 came out and refused to buy it because of MLU, it would be a different story. It's just too late now, people including Barry accepted the A200 as it stood and bought it.

I don't think Sony is worried that this thread is going to bother future sales of the A200. Just my thoughts on the subject.
Russ

B.S. Barry, don't bother taking apart my 'opinion' sentence by sentence....heheh. It's just an opinion. You can just reply by saying I'm wrong and leave it at that. I won't reply back to you anyway.
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/quietrvr/
Gear=A camera with a lens.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Barry:
I believe the A900 is the first A-Mount derived camera to have true
MLU since the XK in the seventies (although I'm not sure about the
9000). Even when the Maxxum/Dynax 9 was introduced it had the 2sec
lockup. At the time there was much weepng over that in the old
Minolta Group about that. Minolta when queried on that said basically
(I paraphase) that there was no need for an MLU as the Mirror damping
on the Minolta 9/9xi and other was more than sufficent to absorb the
transient shock and that anything left over would not affect image
quality

The 2sec MLU has been around for along time ever since the 9 was
introduced. However, if Sony gets it wrong, Canon apparently doesn't
have a clue as that topic seems to be a popular discussion items
especially on the high end cameras.

I saw the article on the luminous landscape, and it was having a go at Canon..
You can also pick on Nikon a bit too..

So yes, you are right..

But my view is that having the MLU on the range, is a positive advantage..top to bottom. And something Sony can at least tout..to a point. I know the LL gets a good few hits each month..what better PR for a company such as sony (who have got a mostly positive write up on the A900 on the LL), to have stuff it's rivals do not.

Honestly I don't expect half the suggestions I made..maybe we will get nothing, but I firmly feel, it's at least worth trying..

I would have less of a case if there were an A500 on sale, priced in between the A200 and A700, but nothing so far..even if there was..I would still call for MLU on every model..

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

It's just too late

now, people including Barry accepted the A200 as it stood and bought
it.

Sorry I don't accept your line. I bought it, but so did A700 owners..now according to some here, there was nothing wrong with that at all..some said they even liked the NR on raw ;-)

I don't think Sony is worried that this thread is going to bother
future sales of the A200. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Maybe not, but it makes the camera less appealing to potential buyers, not that my goal is to damage sony sales, but to give them a wake up call..I believe many users support my line..

B.S. Barry, don't bother taking apart my 'opinion' sentence by
sentence....heheh. It's just an opinion. You can just reply by saying
I'm wrong and leave it at that. I won't reply back to you anyway.

I don'r really care, but what bothers me the most is you seem to try and cut it both ways. Had I refused to buy an A200..the usual crowd would come along and moan about me not owning the camera, what right do I have to comment.

Well I do own it..and I will comment..and make requests.

And point out good and not so good areas. I surely got enough stick for pushing the bionz raw issue, and a lot of personal hate email. Funny thing is when those users got their firmware update, few apologies to be seen..

Just about sums up some users on this forum.

I think what I am saying is, don't stand in the way of a decent stab at making things better for some users. I don't have a lot of time for folks who are beaten before they start, and just give up..oh well, never mind..oh well.

Sorry, I don't work like that. If I gain nothing, no firmware update, I will at least have the satisfaction of trying..and that counts for something. Most objections here are from non lower end A mount users, who don't want the cheap ones to be too good..right, I think we can see who they are looking after ;-)

 

[al.]

That may be true. But it'll cost them a few bucks more just to put it
back in. In terms of a percentage, how many users are asking for it?
I would guess many/most of these users don't know or don't care for
it.

Maybe so, but there are users who do want it, let's not get
complacent..let's get something done ;-)

The A200 has been out for almost a year. I've had mine for 10 months
now. A replacement will likely come out in the next six months (18
month cycle?). Anyone really needing MLU has other choices - such as
the A700, or even another brand. Heck, even a used A100.

I have the 5d which has it, but that's not the point..

Waiting 6 months isnt an option..I want to see an update to the lower
end models..no question. You shouldn't have to buy an A700 or used
A100 to get MLU, it's a very basic request..

I won't give up..I need folks who feel the same way to make their
views heard.

Oh well never mind isnt an option..
--

Good luck on your quest.

Like Glenn stated, have you tried a shot at a slow shutter speed and noticed any difference between the 5d and A200? The mirror slap on the A200 is much quieter than both the A100 and A700, so vibrations from the mirror slap may have been reduced.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Like Glenn stated, have you tried a shot at a slow shutter speed and
noticed any difference between the 5d and A200? The mirror slap on
the A200 is much quieter than both the A100 and A700, so vibrations
from the mirror slap may have been reduced.

I have tried it, and I do feel that whilst the shutter is likely more dampened, it does not eliminate vibration, and that it does/can effect IQ.

That was only on a quick test, I will do a better more controlled one, and report back when I get the chance..

 

[fjbyrne]

Like Glenn stated, have you tried a shot at a slow shutter speed and
noticed any difference between the 5d and A200? The mirror slap on
the A200 is much quieter than both the A100 and A700, so vibrations
from the mirror slap may have been reduced.

I have tried it, and I do feel that whilst the shutter is likely more
dampened, it does not eliminate vibration, and that it does/can
effect IQ.

That was only on a quick test, I will do a better more controlled
one, and report back when I get the chance..

--

But MLU would make sure there was no shake due to the mirror. Better than a hope or a guess IMO.

--
fjbyrne

 

[WaltKnapp]

I've posted on both their blogs about the macro ringflash as have others. Nothing has happened on that, not even a response. And we have had at least one person on this group who gave that as their reason for leaving Sony. (and that's not me yet)

Walt

 

[WaltKnapp]

Mirror lock up is nice to have on the A200, but I doubt Sony will put
it in. This is would involve much work to test to make sure it
doesn't screw up something else just to put it in. And I wonder how
many A200 users really know what they are missing?

Or even have, or would buy a tripod that was good enough to even notice it's lack. That tripod plus head plus remote release would probably cost more than the camera and it's kit lens.

When the a200 was first released it seems I remember a lot of posts from folks buying a200 - a350 going "what's mirror lockup?" I doubt that's changed with new a200 customers.

Walt

 

[WaltKnapp]

The real issue is that MLU was there in the original cameras (KM 5D,
A100) on which the A200 was likely based - it even has some of the
same bugs. It probably cost Sony more to remove MLU than it would
have to keep it in.

We know that between the a100 and the a700 that Sony completely redesigned and improved the shutter mechanism. They probably did the same with the mirror mechanism. Certainly did so with the anti shake. It's seems quite a reach that they are using the old Minolta mechanisms on the a200.

Walt

 

[WaltKnapp]

Sorry I don't accept your line. I bought it, but so did A700
owners..now according to some here, there was nothing wrong with that
at all..some said they even liked the NR on raw ;-)

I do not remember a single person saying that. There were quite a few who did not consider it a problem, but that's different from liking it. And some of us tried and found ways to get around it. And found that the source of the problem was not just Sony.

Maybe not, but it makes the camera less appealing to potential
buyers, not that my goal is to damage sony sales, but to give them a
wake up call..I believe many users support my line..

You did specifically say last fall your goal was to damage sony sales. I believe you have already said that about this issue too.

How about putting numbers on this, where is your poll of potential buyers? Actual ones buying a200's. Loss of sales numbers due to lack of MLU?

I don'r really care, but what bothers me the most is you seem to try
and cut it both ways. Had I refused to buy an A200..the usual crowd
would come along and moan about me not owning the camera, what right
do I have to comment.

Well I do own it..and I will comment..and make requests.

According to the rules of this forum you can bring it up. But repeating is another thing and clearly not approved, though tolerated some. You are way into repeating - again.

Most objections here are from non lower end A mount users,
who don't want the cheap ones to be too good..right, I think we can
see who they are looking after ;-)

No, it's because the a200 buyers for the most part don't care, would not even be using it if it was there. They are enjoying the quality photos they can take with the a200 and liking it.

Walt

 

[gpr2020]

Sorry I don't accept your line. I bought it, but so did A700
owners..now according to some here, there was nothing wrong with that
at all..some said they even liked the NR on raw ;-)

I do not remember a single person saying that. There were quite a
few who did not consider it a problem, but that's different from
liking it. And some of us tried and found ways to get around it.
And found that the source of the problem was not just Sony.

Maybe not, but it makes the camera less appealing to potential
buyers, not that my goal is to damage sony sales, but to give them a
wake up call..I believe many users support my line..

You did specifically say last fall your goal was to damage sony
sales. I believe you have already said that about this issue too.

How about putting numbers on this, where is your poll of potential
buyers? Actual ones buying a200's. Loss of sales numbers due to lack
of MLU?

I don'r really care, but what bothers me the most is you seem to try
and cut it both ways. Had I refused to buy an A200..the usual crowd
would come along and moan about me not owning the camera, what right
do I have to comment.

Well I do own it..and I will comment..and make requests.

According to the rules of this forum you can bring it up. But
repeating is another thing and clearly not approved, though tolerated
some. You are way into repeating - again.

Most objections here are from non lower end A mount users,
who don't want the cheap ones to be too good..right, I think we can
see who they are looking after ;-)

No, it's because the a200 buyers for the most part don't care, would
not even be using it if it was there. They are enjoying the quality
photos they can take with the a200 and liking it.

Walt

--

I agree with you Walt. The majority of the a200 owners are people coming from ps and that want to enter the DSLR world. They have not such requirement. The more experienced photographers will be getting the a700 or a900 as they know exactly what they are shopping for.

I also personnaly seen some experienced photographer buying a350 just to wait for the a900 to come out. And when they bought the camera they knew what they were buying and did not try to go after Sony to add an option that was not on the camera at the begining.

 

[WaltKnapp]

But MLU would make sure there was no shake due to the mirror. Better
than a hope or a guess IMO.

MLU by itself assures nothing. Without a suitable support under the camera in the form of a quality tripod and head it's totally useless. How many a200 users own or will even buy such a tripod?

It's false representation that MLU is a free vibration elimination. It's going to cost real money to buy the equipment to even make it at all useful. And to make sure, well the tripod for that is up way above the cost of the a200. How many a200 users will spend more than the camera on a tripod? Probably lots more.

Walt

 

[WaltKnapp]

I agree with you Walt. The majority of the a200 owners are people
coming from ps and that want to enter the DSLR world. They have not
such requirement. The more experienced photographers will be getting
the a700 or a900 as they know exactly what they are shopping for.
I also personnaly seen some experienced photographer buying a350 just
to wait for the a900 to come out. And when they bought the camera
they knew what they were buying and did not try to go after Sony to
add an option that was not on the camera at the begining.

A number of a700 users have bought the a200 as a cheap knockabout 2nd DSLR. If they are going to do something that requires MLU and all the other features that go around it, they use their a700.

I own and use a Minolta Z6 P&S, and an a700. But I use them in different ways. The Z6 is a lightweight, cheap knockabout for when I don't want the weight and bulk of the DSLR or don't want to risk such an expensive kit. If I'm going for a elaborate shot with a big tele (the main use for MLU) then I use the a700 with every advantage it's got.

Walt

 

[KEITH-C]

So Walt A200 owners are ignorant peasants who don' know or can't afford tripods & therefore don't deserve to have even a 2 sec timer MLU ? A little condescending don't you think ?

I really can't understand people defending Sony over this issue although there are some here in the pay of Sony but they don't actually do a very good job of representing Sony's interests in the long term if you ask me.

Keith-C

 

[Klipsen]

Adding features at the low end would be less important to Sony as the low end is selling quite well.

Nothing wrong with making great numbers of people happy, although a large portion of A200 owners may not actively seek firmware updates, let alone upgrade their cameras.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

al. wrote:
Or even have, or would buy a tripod that was good enough to even
notice it's lack. That tripod plus head plus remote release would
probably cost more than the camera and it's kit lens.

When the a200 was first released it seems I remember a lot of posts
from folks buying a200 - a350 going "what's mirror lockup?" I doubt
that's changed with new a200 customers.

Walt

Same old Walt of old, standing in the way of making things better for users. I am still waiting for you to admit you updated your firmware to V4..but the silence is very telling.

The other issue you pointed the finger to me at, was suggesting I am attempting to hurt Sony sales. I dislike that kind of remark, and it really is not the case at all. As an A mount user, I have invited other Sony users to give their thoughts, and to actively seek enhancements. If A700 and A100 owners can get updates, so can we.

Just out of interest, you said for all you know sony have updated the mirror mechanism..and the need for MLU is not there..but there is a problem.

If I compare the shutter sound to my Dynax 60, it is notably louder..I cannot claim one is less vibration prone than the other..but that while the A200 is indeed quieter than the Km5d, it's nowhere near as quiet as the 60. And that is a larger mirror mechanism too.

The sad thing is, about 3 posters here are doing there very best to stop any useful improvements to the A200/300/350. Using remarks like some A700 users have an A200 as a knock around camera..and they use the real one for MLU work. For those of us that do not have an A700., I think your remarks are out of line. And rather ignorant of the situation.

If you wish to take the no firmware line, then please do not ever update any firmware on any of your cameras. If you cannot do that, then don't object to others who request improvements. Aside from a slightly snobby attitude from some, there is clearly a fear of making the lower cameras "too good" from some. I will repeat again, the significant differences between the A700 and lower cameras..

There are some on this forum who have the interests of others at heart, and some who have only their own...

 

[fjbyrne]

But MLU would make sure there was no shake due to the mirror. Better
than a hope or a guess IMO.

MLU by itself assures nothing. Without a suitable support under the
camera in the form of a quality tripod and head it's totally useless.
How many a200 users own or will even buy such a tripod?

Yes but on a tripod MLU will NEVER HURT the situation. I guess they should just delete the tripod mount from the bottom of the A200 since no one will ever use a tripod with it?

I'll bet even less people will be using the A200 with a wireless flash. I guess that should have gone too. Heck, delete the whole external flash support since those rubes using the A200 probably don't even know such a thing exists.

Many P&S cameras have a tripod mount and they get used. There is even a market for small tripods to use with these cameras. It is rather presumptuous - and wrong IMO - to assume that a fair number of A200 users would not ever use a tripod.

It's false representation that MLU is a free vibration elimination.
It's going to cost real money to buy the equipment to even make it at
all useful. And to make sure, well the tripod for that is up way
above the cost of the a200. How many a200 users will spend more than
the camera on a tripod? Probably lots more.

So only a $600 Gitzo and $600 RRS ball head would make MLU usable? I don't agree.

But the main point is that MLU was a no-cost option for Sony - it probably cost them to eliminate it. So leaving it in would have been the better option IMO.

Walt

--
fjbyrne