Dirk Dittert
Forum Enthusiast
However, another interpretation might be that Sony had to move because Nikon is on the verge of introducing it's own sensor.
Time will tell.
Time will tell.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sony vs Canon.....
- Thread starter pahountisg
- Start date
E
Eugene Powers
Guest
Nikon uses Sony's sensors not Canon.
--
Eugene
The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.
Lee Jay
--
Eugene
The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.
Lee Jay
Steven Noyes
Forum Pro
Still sounds like a sweet lens. Add that with the in camera AS (or what-ever) and you have a killer low light combo.
Steven
--
---
Spring 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_spring_2006
Steven
--
---
Spring 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_spring_2006
RobertMartinu
Leading Member
The first one would be a step back, at least for long focal lengths.
Even if the SSS does the 3.5 stops you still have no stabilization during focusing. Wouldn't want to miss the optical stabilizer in this case.
Bernie_King
Senior Member
I've read in several quarters that Canon does use some Sony sensors in their P&S cameras. Even so, who cares. We're talking about SLR's here, not P&S.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking
Tom Rowland
Veteran Member
I am not sure ISO 1600 is what I call spec'ed well. One of Canons greatest strengths is that you can shoot 3200 in a pinch and 800 with impunity. I would much rather have a sharp image with noise I can bash with Noise Ningia than a blurry image.
Bernie_King
Senior Member
This is the thing I don't get. How long a focal length are you talking about? I hand hold my Sigma 170-500 @ 500mm all the time and have no problem keeping it steady enough to compose my shot. The AS helps enormously since this lens is slow (f6.3), but I only need it at exposure time. Heck, I usually don't get past one bar on the AS meter.
3.5 stops is serious. I'm not dogging IS lenses, just saying that AS or (SSS) is very valuable. It works great on my 7D.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking
That was a price based assesment. At $900, it a competitor for both the 350D and the D50. But Canon doesn't get their sensors from Sony, Nikon does. Thus the comment. Any comparison of Sony's offering to the 350D in that context wasn't apropos.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
thx1138
Veteran Member
Just because it's plastic doesn't mean its rubbish. No one would deny the EOS 3 was a well built camera. Phil Askey said the Sony feels much better built than a 350D and handles much better.
thx1138
Veteran Member
But good glass lasts forever, bad games have a half life of 2 hours.I don't understand how everyone can get so hyped up for something
before seeing actual results.
It is spec'ed well. That is all we know at the moment.
Well that and the lens are way over priced.
Just like Sony. Lose money on the system (PSP/PS2/Alpha100), get
you with the games (Lenses).
--
Dave
your note. I value it highly and plan to sell my Canon 350XT and 2 stabilized lenses and switch to Sony if Canon does not introduce in-body stabilization at Photokina. Having every lens stabilized for me is extremely valuable since most of my work is done low-light no flash.
--
Best wishes, rennie12
'Do not wish for things to be as you would like them to be -
Wish to like things as they are'
--
Best wishes, rennie12
'Do not wish for things to be as you would like them to be -
Wish to like things as they are'
JPH3
Well-known member
There are many people with Maxxum 7's and 9's who have spent thousands of dollars on lenses. People love nice lenses. As mentioned many times, Minolta G lenses are second to none. And, Zeiss lenses have always been recognized as being a notch above Minolta, Nikon, and Canon glass.
Minolta users are used to G lenses which have always been priced higher than L lenses.
I bought the 7d and am not impressed with the AF, But the maxxum 7(film), which i have owned since 2000, was touted as having the Fastest AF In The World and i dont think any other camera has tried taking the title.
Its just matter of implementing the Maxxum 7 AF on the new DSLR body
Also the Minolta screens are the industry standard and Beattie(.sp??) never made screens for minolta.
I dont think Canon has to be too worried, although they will lose market share. I believe its nikon who should truly be terrified.
--
JPH3
'Photography may lie a little but it doesn't cheat.'
Minolta users are used to G lenses which have always been priced higher than L lenses.
I bought the 7d and am not impressed with the AF, But the maxxum 7(film), which i have owned since
Its just matter of implementing the Maxxum 7 AF on the new DSLR body
Also the Minolta screens are the industry standard and Beattie(.sp??) never made screens for minolta.
I dont think Canon has to be too worried, although they will lose market share. I believe its nikon who should truly be terrified.
--
JPH3
'Photography may lie a little but it doesn't cheat.'
Well, it looks like Sony is moslty offering the previous Minolta system. That "Zeiss" 85/1.4 seems suspiciously a lot like the Minolta 85/1.4 G, and I think the same could be said for the 135mm. As for the rest of those lenses I think there's maybe three or four that aren't just rebadged Minolta lenses.
So really, the question is, is Minolta glass better than Canon or Nikon glass? Would you have bought a Minolta in Minolta-days because of their lens system? Their lenses always cost more (don't know that that makes them better though).
But given that Zeiss will appearantly let Sony slap their name on any piece of plastic they want to use as a lens, I don't know that I hold much esteem for Sony produced Zeiss lenses. Leica maintains much more strict quality control over the Panasonic Leica's, and Zeiss should do the same with Sony.
JPH3
Well-known member
"Minolta users are used to G lenses which have always been priced higher than L lenses."
this was directed at a previous poster who implied that Sony/Minolta user's will not spend $1000's on lenses. I am stating that we did and will spend our money on expensive lenses, and that we are acustomed to paying a premium price for G lenses because of the smaller market that minolta held.
--
JPH3
'Photography may lie a little but it doesn't cheat.'
this was directed at a previous poster who implied that Sony/Minolta user's will not spend $1000's on lenses. I am stating that we did and will spend our money on expensive lenses, and that we are acustomed to paying a premium price for G lenses because of the smaller market that minolta held.
--
JPH3
'Photography may lie a little but it doesn't cheat.'
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
The new "Carl Zeiss" lenses have nothing Zeiss about them other than the brand and supposedly "approval of the quality control process." Marketing, IOW. They're designed and built by Sony. I've no doubt they'll be excellent lenses, though.
To answer your question, I doubt the arrival of Sony on the scene will cause prices to come down much. However, I think and hope that it will result in feature improvements in the competition and keep Canon et al. from dumbing down their lower-end models for product differentiation purposes. I'd like to see a glass prism viewfinder in low-end cameras, and the dustbuster would be nice too.
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
To answer your question, I doubt the arrival of Sony on the scene will cause prices to come down much. However, I think and hope that it will result in feature improvements in the competition and keep Canon et al. from dumbing down their lower-end models for product differentiation purposes. I'd like to see a glass prism viewfinder in low-end cameras, and the dustbuster would be nice too.
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Agreed. It seems like it's aimed pretty hard at the introductory level DSLR purchaser. The things that are nice about it are the same things that someone considering a Rebel XT would be concerned with, and there's enough in the A100 to justify the price difference. The only problem is that people that are looking to buy one body and one or two lenses aren't the big money makers that the advanced amatures are, so if Sony want's to draw them in also they might have to release a more 7D-like camera as well.
That said, Sony (and everyone else for that matter) had better make a reliable camera that'll last several years. Jack and Jane Photo aren't typically planning on dropping a grand on a camera every few years. The image quality should be there in this model, so there's little reason why J&J Photo would ever want to just upgrade if all they're doing is taking pictures of the kids at soccer practice. Look at how many people are still using their old Minoltas because the image quality is good enough for what they want.
Just a thought here, could the low availability of the D200 be driven by a shortage of CCDs for the camera, brought on by Sony's own demand for the sensor for this camera? I was starting to think that it was just a way of artificially increasing demand for the D200, but I'd rather like to think it was a problem with the parts supplier. I expect Sony to underproduce things like they did with the PSP launch but not Nikon.
As one of those Canon faithful, I would like to state for the record that I never once dogged any 6MP, 5MP, 4MP, or even 3MP camera for being too low res. I personally think people are far too concerned with pixel-count when there's many more important things to consider.
ab012_KM7D
Senior Member
No ZA85 1.4 its not not 85G - optical formula is different (elements/groups)
and also no Minolta never had a 135 1.8 either
(nor 16-80)
--
Bernard
AS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!
John139895
Forum Enthusiast
I'd agree with Petterri on this. Hopefully we will see some of these features appearing on all cameras, particularly the anti-dust sensor feature. Considering the threads we read about user retinence, and the hassle associated with cleaning sensor dust, this is something I feel alot of people would benefit from.
If the in camera Anti-shake feature works well too, I can see other manufacturers having to adopt a similar feature to compete. I have a few IS lenses, but I like the idea of the feature being inherent to the body so that I would get the benefit with any lens I choose.
The only thing that I have reservations on is the high iso performance.
I will be interested in reading a full review.
If the in camera Anti-shake feature works well too, I can see other manufacturers having to adopt a similar feature to compete. I have a few IS lenses, but I like the idea of the feature being inherent to the body so that I would get the benefit with any lens I choose.
The only thing that I have reservations on is the high iso performance.
I will be interested in reading a full review.
Ah, well I stand corrected on that point. Hopefully, Zeiss will utilize some of that quality control inspection that we hear so much about.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum