Reading mode: Light Dark

Phil's A100 review up - Highly Recommended!

Go to last post
sure, ssm is better, but Minolta has only few (and very expensive) ssm lenses. What makes you think, that in camera AF motor is an advantage over Canon?
 
marek b said:
sure, ssm is better, but Minolta has only few (and very expensive)
ssm lenses. What makes you think, that in camera AF motor is an
advantage over Canon?
Click to expand...
Camera AF is not necessarily better than lens based but having BOTH is definitely better. Especially if Sony starts offering SSM in lenses as an option. If I can choose if I want to pay extra for SSM in a lens that would be the ideal situation.

Don't get me wrong I like Canon equipment. It just bothers me that people see having the body based AF option as a bad thing.
 
David Kilpatrick said:
Bulb said:
I wonder why he chose the 50mm lens instead of the kit lens for two
of the comparision tests...

since Sony also has a 18-70 lens...

why not mount the D200 with Nikkor 18-70mm lens as well...
Click to expand...
Because this is Phil's standard method. He uses the 50mm f1.4 for
all makes if available.

Hate to say it, but the high resolution figure compared to the
Nikon D200 is probably nothing to do with the camera. He has ended
up testing the lens instead. If there was any way you could fit a
50mm f1.4 Minolta to the Nikon, it would probably match the figures!
Click to expand...
It's actually the more agressive AA filter used on the D200. When you observe the resolution charts, notice the smooth transition into extinction with the D200. On the A100 charts, the transition, while gaining a slight res. advantage, yields to obvious aliasing. It is a trade-off. I believe if you push your res. into the aliasing realm, you've gone a bit far. Some will prefer the res. gain, though.

As far as the 50mm 1.4 lenses, they are all excellent and able to easily outresolve any sensor we've yet seen!
 
I think that most people would agree, that in general Canon AF is faster and quiter. In-body AF works great with lenses like 50mm prime, but with some lenses its pain and its loud. Minolta lenses are also not cheaper or noticeably smaller, no hsm from sigma etc. Would you mind, if all Sony lenses were ssm's?
 
Interesting that the A100 jpeg of the resolution chart is 2,213 KB and for the R1 it is 3,739 KB:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page29.asp

We knew the A100 compresses more than the 7D/5D, but I am surprised that it also compresses a lot more than the 10mp R1 also.

I wonder if Sony has a new, higher quality jpeg compression algorithm that allows equal quality at smaller file sizes? Or, is it all at the expense of jpeg quality?

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.hrich.com
http://www.printroom.com/pro/intrepid
 
4MB JPEGs and 20MB RAW files are clear signs of software incompetence.

It's just one of the few major gripes I have with my R1.

Brendan
--

If you shoot Nikon don't argue with Canon measurbators, they have much longer rulers.
 
I don't think the proprietary hot shoe is a problem since most flashes are not interchangeable across camera brands anyway. The factor that really limits flash choice is not the shape of the hot shoe, but the proprietary electronic circuitry of the flashes for DSLR cameras. Most manufacturers have obsoleted the old film camera flashes and replaced them with proprietary and incompatible designs. For the short term future, independent flash makers are unlikely to be able to supply flashes for DSLR cameras, making flashes a cash cow for DSLR makers.
celltech161 said:
This is sort of a hot button with me this week, after having fallen
into this trap recently....

Phil's summary suggest that one of the 'cons' is the proprietary
Minolta hot shoe. As a former Minolta/KM user and a current Canon
user, I can say with no hesitation that Minolta was doing something
right. A self-locking hot shoe that required only a press of a
button to release the flash. No way to partially engage the flash
in the shoe such as is possible with the ISO shoe - that causes TTL
to malfunction until you fully seat the flash. (It's fun trying to
figure out why your flash fires full power when you're under the
stress of an important shoot. Then you realize the flash isn't
fully seated - doh! This never happens with the Minolta shoe)

The flash half of the hot shoe connection is also a weak-link which
allows easy replacement of the flash foot in the event you drop the
setup. I'd hate to think what the weak link of a D200/SB800 combo
is. My guess is that it's more than $30 to fix, though.

The modern adaptations of the old ISO hotshoe are just rehashes of
something that is antique. Minolta was thinking outside the box
when they went with the new design.

No, Phil, in reality the Minolta hot shoe is a strong PLUS. Use
it for a while and you'll agree.
Click to expand...
 
Yes I think it is the different AA filter... I had been noticing that

even the unsharpened raw is much crisper then what i expected aliasing turns up more often then expected
PhillyFotog said:
David Kilpatrick said:
Bulb said:
I wonder why he chose the 50mm lens instead of the kit lens for two
of the comparision tests...

since Sony also has a 18-70 lens...

why not mount the D200 with Nikkor 18-70mm lens as well...
Click to expand...
Because this is Phil's standard method. He uses the 50mm f1.4 for
all makes if available.

Hate to say it, but the high resolution figure compared to the
Nikon D200 is probably nothing to do with the camera. He has ended
up testing the lens instead. If there was any way you could fit a
50mm f1.4 Minolta to the Nikon, it would probably match the figures!
Click to expand...
It's actually the more agressive AA filter used on the D200. When
you observe the resolution charts, notice the smooth transition
into extinction with the D200. On the A100 charts, the transition,
while gaining a slight res. advantage, yields to obvious aliasing.
It is a trade-off. I believe if you push your res. into the
aliasing realm, you've gone a bit far. Some will prefer the res.
gain, though.

As far as the 50mm 1.4 lenses, they are all excellent and able to
easily outresolve any sensor we've yet seen!
Click to expand...
--
Bernard

Consider..T17-50/2.8 + S30/1.4 + T90Macro + S70-200/2.8 + Bigma/T200-500... all stabilized?

AS/SSS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!
 
Detail (D-SLR) Rating (out of 10)

Build quality 8.0
Ergonomics & handling 8.5
Features 9.0
Image quality 8.0
Performance (speed) 8.0
Value 8.5

----
Another camera that hasn't got IQ as priority. Too bad. :(
It sounds like Olympus. :(
 
Hi,

Nice review, but i would have like to see the SuperSteady Shot (SSS) tests done with a telephoto lens, say 200mm. I have a feeling that, since camera movement is magnified by focal length, sensor movement based image stabilization will be significantly less effective at longer focal lengths. This greatly reduces the value of SSS.

Would any of you who have gotten your hands of an A100 care to try out the effectiveness of SSS at 200mm or longer and post your results here?

lhk
 
As dave mentioned, and the review mentioned, he uses such a lens for all those test as a solid base line. All makes make solid 50mm primes. And you want to put a sharp peice of glass there. Otherwise you are testing the lens.

We also all told Phil he should try and get a 50 1.4 for testing a while back (doubt it had an impact though).

Maybe though he should switch to 50mm macros in the future, cameras will only get higher in resolution so lenses will start to be the limiter.
 
Maybe it was assumed that a 5D/7D users could insert all such comparisons. Upgraders are the only reason for such a comparison since the 5D and 7D are discontinued, no one will be buying them. You want to compare to current models.

I personally don't like the 2 cameras he compared it too. I think it should have gone against the D70 and 350D for some stuff, and the 30D and D200 for some others. Since it's a D70 level camera with a D200 level sensor.
 
jonny1976 said:
pitaw said:
Hmmm...noisy on iso 800 & iso 1600...
Click to expand...
yes but much more detail than canon 30d..see the bailey's
crop...for me you can shot iso 1600 and then use noise ninja and
have the same results than canon 30 d at iso 1600...you can
reproduce more detail if they are not there, but you an conrol
noise if it's there.
it's a great review for me, and the only con i can see is noise,
the other for me are more con added than real con, sorry phil but i
think this. great review but it seems to me that the cons are a
little bit stretched.
In the conclusion ihaven't read a clear judgement about Af
improvement, but it seems it's improved on behalf the minolta 7 and
5d

--
http://www.pbase.com/jon1976
Click to expand...
so, it's a wash but I prefer not to do excessive pp if one needs to use high iso often.
 
Henry Richardson said:
Interesting that the A100 jpeg of the resolution chart is 2,213 KB
and for the R1 it is 3,739 KB:
Click to expand...
You can't really go by the size. It might be, for example that the R1 shots are just a teeny bit noisier. Fine grain pixel to pixel variation is difficult to compress with JPEG. It does not mean that the R1 has lower compression, it might just have more noise.

-Bryan
 
PhotoTraveler said:
Maybe it was assumed that a 5D/7D users could insert all such
comparisons. Upgraders are the only reason for such a comparison
since the 5D and 7D are discontinued, no one will be buying them.
You want to compare to current models.
Click to expand...
I've been doing that with his 7D review.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/
5D users are out of luck on doing this, no review.

In some ways it's a interesting study in just how much his reviews and his attitudes have changed in the interval between the two.

In other ways it's frustraiting when he's not using the same tests. Or when something is missing, like the number ratings that are at the end of the A100 review, but not the 7D.

Also worth noting how much various sections of the in camera processing is the same. More carryover from Minolta software than I expected based on recent talk.
PhotoTraveler said:
I personally don't like the 2 cameras he compared it too. I think
it should have gone against the D70 and 350D for some stuff, and
the 30D and D200 for some others. Since it's a D70 level camera
with a D200 level sensor.
Click to expand...
The one I found a little strange to include is the R1. Though in quite a few places it was in there but not much talked about.

Walt
 
according to some user report, the SSS did improved over KM AS greatly, at least I didn't see any report that SSS is worse than AS, although Phil's review didn't show the improved.

Furthemore, from those reports, against common misunderstand, in body AS/SSS actually works well on long focal, they are more effective on long focal than wide angle.

I did'nt run any report though.
 
Yeah, the R1 I forgot about. I also don't see how it fits. It being a sony is about the only connection, but the cameras have completely different pedigree. Can't even compare it with the same lens. And simply is a different class of camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Your forum concerns: from Ben Bowers, Chief Content Officer at Gear Patrol
16 17 18
Replies
350
Views
124K
xpatUSA2
xpatUSA2
Mathew Anderson
  • Sticky
  • Featured
Announcement Welcome to the new forum system!
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
2M
Wildbegonia
Wildbegonia
Night Pixel
REVIEW: DxO PhotoLab 9
5 6 7
Replies
135
Views
124K
Digital Nigel
D
Handiworks
Your Most-Used Lens?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
22K
Rod McD
R
Mathew Anderson
  • Featured
  • Photo Photo
DPR Update XenForo pre-launch FAQ
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
308K
Andy01
Andy01

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top