so i go to best buy yesterday.....

luapynot said:

this waswhat i was primarly doing, shooting wide open on alot of
the shots. that were i like to shoot, crisp on the front end and
forget about the back end-----, whats the use of having fast lens',
if you cant shoot em wide open? yesterday i rented my studio out
for a couple of hours to a photographer with a old 20d and a 85mmm
1.4, he turned off the strobes and just used the modeling lights.
tack freaking sharp at 1.4. he says he shoots all the time at 1.4
around 400 and 800iso inside with great consitanty. he also shoots
a 70-200 at 2.8 all day long with tack sharp images.
since i own a 85mm 1.4g a 28-105mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, i would like to
be able to use these, but it isnt happening with the a100....
atleast the one at best buy.....

Click to expand...

It's not going to happen with the 28-105mm f2.8 (Tamron?) because it isn't sharp at f2.8 - it might look it on film, but it can't manage 10 megapixel digital. The 50mm f1.4 is not much good either, I have one; it's OK, but only if you want an extreme differential focus, and the focusing screen is not guide at all - it shows the depth of field as if at f6.3, even when the lens is set to f1.4, due to the clarity of the microprismatic surface. The 85mm f1.4 is the only lens in your set which I would trust to be 'tack sharp' at 1.4. The 50mm f1.4 is worth stopping down to f2 or f2.8 to remove residual aberrations from a very traditional design of lens.

Frankly, anyone shooting wide open on an 85mm f1.4 (Canon doesn't have one, so he can't have been - they have an f1.2 and an f1.8) will get eyelashes in focus, eyeball out of focus. 70-200mm f2.8 is not a whole lot much better at f2.8 - really, the depth of field is so limited that your focusing choices have to be very skilfull indeed.

David

mcilenti said:

Did you test an A100 that you know was good? I have 2 7D's and
tried aa A100 at a local store and the results were very good. I'm
in the need for more FPS.

Click to expand...

Although the A100 can't offer more FPS, don't go by the published spec for maximum RAW etc. With a Sandisk Extreme IV, it will shoot 9 continuous 3fps frames in RAW; Extreme III, 8 continuous; Ultra II, 7 continuous; Sony MemoryStick in adaptor, and ANY slower card, 6 continuous. The buffer is capable of accepting 6 continuous RAW.

I've just been benchmarking a set of cards. A so-called 133X from MyMemory (very cheap 2GB) shot 6 frames then required 8 to 10 seconds between shots. The Sandisk Extreme IV shot 9 frames at 2.8 FPS with AS/auto/AF, then settled down to 1.4 FPS continuous until card full. That's how good the A100 is with a good fast card.

If you want the stated 3fps, you have to switch off AS and use manual focus and exposure. Most camera makes have the same situation. They quote the fastest FPS you can get. Any auto stage slows them down.

David

Bernie_King said:

MattInMD said:

At nearly twice the price on the street, the 30d really should
out perform the a100.

Click to expand...

The 30D can now be had, after rebate (if you also buy a lens) for
$939.00.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking

Click to expand...

And the A100 Body alone, can be had for $650, shopping around, or $700 direct from sonystyle.com. (And with no rebates to fill out, or having to buy one of their own branded lenses, if such points matter to you.)

So you're right, it's not nearly twice the price, you can get it down to 1.34 times the price given the current rebate program (which I was unaware of). But regardless of the specifics of the prices and deals of the day, the fact remains that the 30d is clearly a noticeably higher priced camera.

As such, I don't find it surprising that many find the 30d shoots better.

Canon is not completely incompetent and I'd be quite disappointed if one of their SLR cameras failed to perform generally better than competing models costing 75% as much (or less).

(note: again, I'm talking general performance, it's easy to make something a lot cheaper that's better at one thing and worse at most others. It's much harder to make something a lot cheaper that is on average just as good)

I've been sticking by them for years...Evertime I see a test they are really fast.

I got one of these for just over $50 from BH photo after rebate...Seems they don't have them now so I bet they are coming out w/ a faster version.

http://store.lexar.com/index.cfm?productid=CF4GB-133-380&bhcp=1

I get 10 RAW shots in the hi-speed mode

I have always used Lexar Pro 80X, but I've not had any of the 133X etc. They are particularly fast with the Dynax 7D and 5D, and the Sigma SD10, all of which can use the accelerated write mode.

RAW file writing on the A100 in run-length compressed using a format which divides the data into red, green and blue strings. The best I have had has been 19 frames RAW continuously, but this was for a spotlit subject - large black surround, small light detailed subject in the middle. Because the RAW writing speed depends on compression, and the raw file size is variable, I used an average scene for my latest card tests.

David

MattInMD said:

Canon is not completely incompetent and I'd be quite disappointed
if one of their SLR cameras failed to perform generally better than
competing models costing 75% as much (or less).

Click to expand...

The 30D is also a second-generation revision, with unchanged sensor (different AA filter) based on the 20D. It's a very mature camera and very unchallenging in pixel count, so it should behave impeccably.

David

i'm not sure it's fair to compare them using the temporary rebate program.

Sure, if you're actually going to buy a lens today that is a consideration, you'd shop around for the best deal you can get.

But if you include rebates, why not go whole hog and include the canon 5D at $1,700??? that was the deal from dell not too long ago...that included the double rebates from canon, plus double 15% rebates from dell...