Criticism of the Sony DSLR product strategy

Ken_5D · May 21, 2007

fjbyrne said:
Ken_5D said:

fjbyrne said:

Having shot a lot of sports (will be doing 2 soccer games this
afternoon) I can say that AS/SSS/IS/VR/etc are really just
substitutes for a monopod/tripod. They are great but they don't
help to freeze dynamic subjects. The A100/7D/5D are not a good
choice for dynamic subjects (sports, etc) IMO. I don't really
expect the A100/5D to be since they are entry level. But the new
cameras that are supposed to compete with the D200/30D(40D?) will
need to provide better performance in these areas (i.e. AF & AF
tracking, fps, shutter lag, High ISO performance, etc). This is
stuff that SSS doesn't address - its all about AF performance and
shutter speed IMO. (I won't rant about the price/availability of
SSM this time

Click to expand...

REALLY.... Even though the 7D and 5D have great low light
peformance...
This is the key if you are a good photographer you can get the job
done without all the tech toys... There were great sports shots
taken before all the AF etc. It's called technique.. and some of
them even were shot with pushed Extrachrome that would make the
A100 1600 ISO look like glass.

Click to expand...

So that is why all the pro shoot the most basic featureless cameras
out there I guess. I also guess that those poor morons who did
spend the extra money on all the unneeded gadgetry aren't getting
more keepers than they did with there old manual film cameras?
Wow. That must have been some marketing campaign to dupe all those
good photographers with proper technique into buying these cameras
with all this worthless added stuff!

It is marketing... and photography by Dumb luck is not to be celebrated...

There was another thread about someone watching a guy at the Zoo with a tripod a 30D, and a Big White Lens... shooting a tiger dozens of feet away with the built in flash.... The 30D & CN 5D etc have some nice sensors and the lenses are nice.. but worthless without skill.

fjbyrne said:
fjbyrne said:

So yes cameras have entered the Geek age and mine is faster than
yours.. and guess what I could put an old F1 with manual focus in
the hands of a good photographer and he/she would probably shoot
circles around all the pixle peepers and stats comparers that we
often become these days.

Click to expand...

Yup. That is why Canon will sell their new 1DIII to all those
"wannabe" photographers I guess. No self respecting "pro" would be
caught dead with one of these I guess.

No-self respecting Pro would be heald back by whatever camera was place in his/her hand...And I suspect the shots taken with a 1DIII and an A100 buy the same person would be hard to tell apart.

fjbyrne said:
fjbyrne said:

So when you say the camera is not able to take pictures of a
subject... you have it BAS AKWARDS... any of these DLSRs can get
great shots just about anywhere.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it couldn't take pictures of the subjects with any
camera. I said I didn't think the A100/5D/7D were a good choice
for sports compared to the D200/30D (won't even mention the pro
camera that the PROS ACTUALLY USE).

I think the shooter has more effect than the nuanced differences of the camera at this level...

fjbyrne said:
With that logic you might as well just stick with a
point-and-shoot. I used to get some good shots with my P&S. I get
even more with my DSLR. I would get even more with a more capable
DSLR.

fjbyrne said:

So if you can't get good sports shots with a 5d/7d/a100... hint..
it isn't the camera

Click to expand...

I have gotten some great sports shots with my 5D. And I agree that
a proper technique is critical regardless of the equipment but I
know I would get even better shots with better AF, AF tracking and
more fps. It is a tool and a better tool in the hands of skilled
person yields better results. A carpenter could use a hammer but a
nail gun gets the job done quicker/better.

An yet I would not want some kinds of furnature or musical instruments made with a nail gun

fjbyrne said:
I did a quick check of your site (nice stuff BTW) and didn't see
any sports pictures. It seems that everyone that drags out the
"technique is everything" argument doesn't actually shoot
sports/action.

So you think that a 5D/7D/A100 will get just as good sports shots
as the D200/30D?

I have no interest in shooting sports these days. I did in my younger days shoot film in HS and got some very good shots without an autowinder. Partially because I took some college level courses with instructors who shot for the Seattle Times.

I remember one story a sports photographer told in response to a question about autowinders. That a photographer at a bull fight witnessed the violent injury of a famous bull fighter and just as he realized the bull was going to strike... he let the winder go at 5 fps. When the roll was developed.. he had missed the key shots. contact and the moment the fighter was pushed into the air, impaled were between the frames.

His point to us was that skill and timing have more to do with good action photography than equipment. Lets just say that moment stuck with me to this day over 24 years later.

And the answer is yes... in the hands of someone who has taken the time to practice and learn..vs assuming the camera can do it..yes.. those cameras can take just as good a shot.. that is my point.

So I really don't think an A100 and a 30D with a good lens will be that different.. Except for a bit of noise in the unprocessed RAW that may not show in most common display formats.
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Ken_5D · May 21, 2007

john dickinson said:
Go farther up in the post and you will see that my original post
was about cost of the systems, Sony, Nikon, and Canon. In that
cost analysis I do put VR and IS zoom lenses in the C & N systems,
for this type of shot. In my cost comparison,using current new
prices from B&H all US market (i.e.not gray) based as close to my
current equipment as I can get but with better glass on the 70-200
range and VR/IS for C&N in the Zooms. The cameras ; Sony, A100 with
G/SSM : Nikon, D200 w/grip, Canon, 30D with grip and L glass on the
Zooms.

the "kits" cost

Canon $4,504
Nikon $5,369
Sony $5,318

the problem with the cost????.........The Canon 30D and Nikon D200
are better cameras for less (when you look at the system). When
the Sony High-amateur model comes out at it expected price of
$1600+ (hopefully that will allow for grip) then they go to the top
with a "kit" price of $6300+; for a $1000 savings I believe many
"informed" buyers will go with a Nikon system, and for $2000 many
more will go with a Canon system, The ORIGINAL POST was about
criticism of Sony's marketing and their price is going to drive
many potential customers to C&N. Because of my current equipment I
am staying in the Sony Camp (unless the High-amateur is a total let
down i.e. little improvement over the 7D or extremely high priced)

If you also read my posts I never mention "no use for Stabalized
wides" I Stated "AS/SSS/IS/VR are not needed on the wider prime
lenses" Key words "not needed" this means there are other ways to
get the pic higher ISO or wider aperture/faster shutter.

On the 50mm and below (primes) most can already shoot at 1/30 sec
without the need for image stabilization, get much below that and
you start to get subject movement blur, get below 1/6 sec and you
should be breaking out the tripod or be bracing yourself/camera.
--
'Photography is an art form many try to master with equipment
alone. To me the most important piece of equipment is the
photographers imagination'

Maxxum 7D w/VC-7D
20mm f2.8
28mm f2.8
50mm f1.7
100mm f2.8 macro
24-85mm f3.5/4.5
70-210mm f4
80-400mm f4.5/5.6 (Tokina AT-X)

That is the famous Sony 2.8 SSM strawman argument...

First of all, few people even in the 30D market have the budget for $5000 in lenses.. The board full of enthusasts skews that perspective.

Lets try this:

How Much for a Canon 30D with:
10-20 MM IS

24-135 2.8-4.5 IS

70-300 4.5-5.6 IS

For my KM 5D total cost was... $1420

Now the A100 is almost the same price I paid for that camera.

Given unlimited Funds... I would love a 30D with all IS glass.. but like many I don't have unlimited funds and try to cover as much as I can making smart purchases of moderately prices lenes.

The problem with rules of thumb is not all thumbs are created equal.. with my 10-20... I have found that it helps when I am shooting candids and the circumstances don't allow for the careful steadying of the hand before shooting (and my hands are not steady to start with)

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Kiril Karaatanasov · May 21, 2007

Tthese design things seem of little importance.

What about AF speed, high ISO noise, lens noise, shutter noise, availability of upgrade options?

What about enriching the lens catalog? There is no 100-400 lens, there is no cheap 50mm, there is no mid-quality-level telephoto zoom like 70-210 f4 only low end and high end. Perhaps some equivalent to the Canon 16-40 4L. Perhaps a cheaper portrait lens 85 f1.8?

Any new SSM lenses? Nikon will probably stop making non-AF-S lenses by the time a new SSM lens is released.

Lens prices? Some of them are ridiculous compared to Nikon and Canon.

Two Truths · May 21, 2007

auksnapper said:
Two Truths said:

Thisjustin said:

Actually all 4/3s lenses have motors in them... there is no drive
on the mount at all, not on my E-300 not on my Panny L1.

Click to expand...

As I said before; Olympus and Panasonic have yet to implement a
SSM-type drive into their four-thirds system. They may have motors
in the lenses rather than camera, however, those motors are not HSM
/ SSM / USM.

auksnapper said:

Second off, other than the 80-400 and 10.5 fish, when was the last
time any of those lenses where redesigned? The point he was making,
i believe, was there Sony needs to not introduce NEW lenses with
out motors in them. Not current lenses but new/futures lenses.

Click to expand...

The original poster stated: "Every single D/DX Nikkor, every Canon,
Every Olympus, Every Pentax, Every Samsung is an SSM."

That statement was incorrect. I corrected that statement.

most Nikon D/DX lenses are not SSM

no Four-thirds lenses are SSM

only the two pre-announced Pentax / Samsung lenses are SSM

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Click to expand...

For Sony to challenge for no.2 spot let alone no.1 they need to
reduce the price of their lens range to be on a par with both C & N
who in many instances have comparable lenses with SSM & IS / VR
which are much cheaper than Sony's offerings.

Except that Canon and Nikon do not offer IS or VR on:

second-hand, classic lenses such as the Beercan
all wide, normal, or short-tele primes (i.e. less than 200mm)
all standard kit lenses
all third-party lenses

And there are far more examples of where you can get a cheaper lens deal with Sony's AS than with Canon or Nikon's IS or VR.

auksnapper said:
Also the competition doesn't stand still, rumour has it that Nikon
is in the midst of updating a large number of its primes & zooms in
readyness of the D3. Expect announcements soon.

Canon has also been very quiet during the last 12 months, but I'm
sure they will have a stack of new lenses when the 1DsMKIII arrives.

Nikon and Canon will do as they have always done every year for however long; they will release maybe one or two new or revised lenses. This isn't Doomsday, they aren't going to suddenly change their range overnight.

Meanwhile; Sony has already announced that they are releasing eight new lenses.

Eight vs. One or two.
Hmmm....

auksnapper said:
This is all speculation but I expect all of the new as yet unknown
lens offerings from C & N will have SSM & many will also have IS,
oh and they will be cheaper than Sony's.

I expect that Sony's new lenses will be pretty competitive in comparison to what is offered by Canon and Nikon. I also expect that Canon and Nikon's new lens offerings will be a tad over-priced.

Finally; I expect that the best bargains will be found by shopping around, considering other options such as third-party or second-hand lenses, and remembering that with Sony every lens is stabilised.

auksnapper said:
Sony needs to wake up & move forward or get left behind & be a
small bit player.

Oh look! Sony's already doing just that!
How strange!

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

foot · May 21, 2007

fjbyrne said:
foot said:

fjbyrne said:

I can say that AS/SSS/IS/VR/etc are really just
substitutes for a monopod/tripod.

Click to expand...

Man, I almost fell off my chair laughing!

Click to expand...

What was so funny? Tripods were used to stabilize the shooting
platform. All these image stabilization techniques do the same
type of thing (not as good as a tripod) but allow you to hand hold
the platform. Neither helps with dynamic subjects - you need a
fast enough shutter speed.

fjbyrne said:

I do agree with you that Sony needs much better bodies to compete
with the 30D/D200 (and their successors). Much better AF especially
tracking AF,
much much much better high ISO, and the other points you made.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

--
fjbyrne

I was just imagining what I'd look like walking around with a tripod all the time!! I'd be constantly tripping all over myself!

Look at it this way. If AS/IS/VR wasn't important to people, canikon wouldn't have such expensive lesnes for it.

Plus there are a lot of ppl that just have problems holding the camera steady while framing and taking a picture.

I remember some time ago reading about IBM getting a patent on a computer mouse that would detect and smooth out hand tremors.

john dickinson306171 · May 21, 2007

Ken_5D said:
First of all, few people even in the 30D market have the budget for $5000 in lenses.. The board full of enthusasts skews that perspective.

Lets try this:

Ken_5D said:
How Much for a Canon 30D with:

10-20 MM IS

Ken_5D said:
24-135 2.8-4.5 IS

Ken_5D said:
70-300 4.5-5.6 IS

Ken_5D said:
For my KM 5D total cost was... $1420

Ken_5D said:
Now the A100 is almost the same price I paid for that camera.

OK you got me, your right for the complete entry level user who has no aspirations of ever owning top gear the Sony system is about $511 cheaper.

This is comparing the A100 with the Rebel as it is not in the same class as the D30. But for that $511 difference you also get usm in all your lenses and I personally would not own the Sony/KM 70-300 (had one and dumped it within a few months for the beercan). This still doesn't change the fact that if you want to upgrade in the future you will pay heavily for the Sony/KM system

Ken_5D said:
The problem with rules of thumb is not all thumbs are created equal.. with my 10-20... I have found that it helps when I am shooting candids and the circumstances don't allow for the careful steadying of the hand before shooting (and my hands are not steady to start with)

My personal experience has shown me that just as there is a point of diminishing returns on the tele end there is also one on the wide end when it comes to stabilization. I mean think about it, a 3 stop difference at 10mm puts you at almost a full sec. Your last comment is probably the most telling as to why you advocate AS so much and I don't use it much for my primes I don't feel I need it that much (but then I was also an offhand target shooter for several years and have developed a very steady base and squeeze). I do however use it with my zooms since I sometimes meter more for exposure and forget about what focal length I am using.

--

'Photography is an art form many try to master with equipment alone. To me the most important piece of equipment in the photographers imagination'

Maxxum 7D w/VC-7D
20mm f2.8
28mm f2.8
50mm f1.7
100mm f2.8 macro
24-85mm f3.4/4.5
70-210mm f4
80-400mm f4.5/5.6 (Tokina AT-X)

fjbyrne · May 21, 2007

Ken_5D said:
Ken_5D said:

Yup. That is why Canon will sell their new 1DIII to all those
"wannabe" photographers I guess. No self respecting "pro" would be
caught dead with one of these I guess.

Click to expand...

No-self respecting Pro would be heald back by whatever camera was
place in his/her hand...And I suspect the shots taken with a 1DIII
and an A100 buy the same person would be hard to tell apart.

On some shots. There are many circumstances when the A100 would not be able to keep up with the 1DIII. That is to be expected as the A100 is entry level and the 1DIII is pro. Does that make the A100 useless? Not at all. Does that negate the benefits of the 1DIII? Not at all.

Ken_5D said:
Ken_5D said:

I didn't say it couldn't take pictures of the subjects with any
camera. I said I didn't think the A100/5D/7D were a good choice
for sports compared to the D200/30D (won't even mention the pro
camera that the PROS ACTUALLY USE).

Click to expand...

I think the shooter has more effect than the nuanced differences of
the camera at this level...

You are probably right but there is no denying that there are some advantages of the D200/D30 and hopefully the new Sonys

Ken_5D said:
Ken_5D said:

I have gotten some great sports shots with my 5D. And I agree that
a proper technique is critical regardless of the equipment but I
know I would get even better shots with better AF, AF tracking and
more fps. It is a tool and a better tool in the hands of skilled
person yields better results. A carpenter could use a hammer but a
nail gun gets the job done quicker/better.

Click to expand...

An yet I would not want some kinds of furnature or musical
instruments made with a nail gun

Can't argue there.

Ken_5D said:
Ken_5D said:

I did a quick check of your site (nice stuff BTW) and didn't see
any sports pictures. It seems that everyone that drags out the
"technique is everything" argument doesn't actually shoot
sports/action.

So you think that a 5D/7D/A100 will get just as good sports shots
as the D200/30D?

Click to expand...

I have no interest in shooting sports these days. I did in my
younger days shoot film in HS and got some very good shots without
an autowinder. Partially because I took some college level courses
with instructors who shot for the Seattle Times.

And I have been shooting a lot of sports and this is where the short comings of the entry level camera are most apparent IMO. Again it doesn't make it impossible to get good shots just more difficult IMO.

Ken_5D said:
I remember one story a sports photographer told in response to a
question about autowinders. That a photographer at a bull fight
witnessed the violent injury of a famous bull fighter and just as
he realized the bull was going to strike... he let the winder go at
5 fps. When the roll was developed.. he had missed the key shots.
contact and the moment the fighter was pushed into the air, impaled
were between the frames.

There is no doubt that predicting the action is very important. Some sports are easier than others. Baseball is easier than soccer because it is easier to predict where the action will be. For soccer I find just holding the shutter down during certain action provides good results. 3fps is OK, 5 fps would be better and 10 fps would be better still.

Ken_5D said:
His point to us was that skill and timing have more to do with good
action photography than equipment. Lets just say that moment stuck
with me to this day over 24 years later.

Won't argue but equipment can help is all I am saying.

Ken_5D said:
And the answer is yes... in the hands of someone who has taken the
time to practice and learn..vs assuming the camera can do it..yes..
those cameras can take just as good a shot.. that is my point.

But if it is easier with the better camera then it is worth it IMO. It's about the shot and not how much work you put into it. My kids are only this age once. The more keepers I get the better.

Ken_5D said:
So I really don't think an A100 and a 30D with a good lens will be
that different.. Except for a bit of noise in the unprocessed RAW
that may not show in most common display formats.

I think the AF tracking would be a bigger differentiator for what I shoot IMO.

Ken_5D said:
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

--
fjbyrne

Ken_5D · May 21, 2007

fjbyrne said:
fjbyrne said:

fjbyrne said:

Yup. That is why Canon will sell their new 1DIII to all those
"wannabe" photographers I guess. No self respecting "pro" would be
caught dead with one of these I guess.

Click to expand...

No-self respecting Pro would be heald back by whatever camera was
place in his/her hand...And I suspect the shots taken with a 1DIII
and an A100 buy the same person would be hard to tell apart.

Click to expand...

On some shots. There are many circumstances when the A100 would
not be able to keep up with the 1DIII. That is to be expected as
the A100 is entry level and the 1DIII is pro. Does that make the
A100 useless? Not at all. Does that negate the benefits of the
1DIII? Not at all.

fjbyrne said:

fjbyrne said:

I didn't say it couldn't take pictures of the subjects with any
camera. I said I didn't think the A100/5D/7D were a good choice
for sports compared to the D200/30D (won't even mention the pro
camera that the PROS ACTUALLY USE).

Click to expand...

I think the shooter has more effect than the nuanced differences of
the camera at this level...

Click to expand...

You are probably right but there is no denying that there are some
advantages of the D200/D30 and hopefully the new Sonys

fjbyrne said:

fjbyrne said:

I have gotten some great sports shots with my 5D. And I agree that
a proper technique is critical regardless of the equipment but I
know I would get even better shots with better AF, AF tracking and
more fps. It is a tool and a better tool in the hands of skilled
person yields better results. A carpenter could use a hammer but a
nail gun gets the job done quicker/better.

Click to expand...

An yet I would not want some kinds of furnature or musical
instruments made with a nail gun

Click to expand...

Can't argue there.

fjbyrne said:

fjbyrne said:

I did a quick check of your site (nice stuff BTW) and didn't see
any sports pictures. It seems that everyone that drags out the
"technique is everything" argument doesn't actually shoot
sports/action.

So you think that a 5D/7D/A100 will get just as good sports shots
as the D200/30D?

Click to expand...

I have no interest in shooting sports these days. I did in my
younger days shoot film in HS and got some very good shots without
an autowinder. Partially because I took some college level courses
with instructors who shot for the Seattle Times.

Click to expand...

And I have been shooting a lot of sports and this is where the
short comings of the entry level camera are most apparent IMO.
Again it doesn't make it impossible to get good shots just more
difficult IMO.

fjbyrne said:

I remember one story a sports photographer told in response to a
question about autowinders. That a photographer at a bull fight
witnessed the violent injury of a famous bull fighter and just as
he realized the bull was going to strike... he let the winder go at
5 fps. When the roll was developed.. he had missed the key shots.
contact and the moment the fighter was pushed into the air, impaled
were between the frames.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that predicting the action is very important.
Some sports are easier than others. Baseball is easier than soccer
because it is easier to predict where the action will be. For
soccer I find just holding the shutter down during certain action
provides good results. 3fps is OK, 5 fps would be better and 10
fps would be better still.

fjbyrne said:

His point to us was that skill and timing have more to do with good
action photography than equipment. Lets just say that moment stuck
with me to this day over 24 years later.

Click to expand...

Won't argue but equipment can help is all I am saying.

fjbyrne said:

And the answer is yes... in the hands of someone who has taken the
time to practice and learn..vs assuming the camera can do it..yes..
those cameras can take just as good a shot.. that is my point.

Click to expand...

But if it is easier with the better camera then it is worth it IMO.
It's about the shot and not how much work you put into it. My kids
are only this age once. The more keepers I get the better.

fjbyrne said:

So I really don't think an A100 and a 30D with a good lens will be
that different.. Except for a bit of noise in the unprocessed RAW
that may not show in most common display formats.

Click to expand...

I think the AF tracking would be a bigger differentiator for what I
shoot IMO.

That all makes sense...

I would hope a $4000 camera is better than a $1000 camera...But lets say in the range... The A100 5D 7D can hold thier own on any subject

--
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Ken_5D · May 21, 2007

john dickinson said:
john dickinson306171 said:

First of all, few people even in the 30D market have the budget for $5000 in lenses.. The board full of enthusasts skews that perspective.

Click to expand...

Lets try this:

john dickinson306171 said:

How Much for a Canon 30D with:

Click to expand...

10-20 MM IS

john dickinson306171 said:

24-135 2.8-4.5 IS

Click to expand...

john dickinson306171 said:

70-300 4.5-5.6 IS

Click to expand...

john dickinson306171 said:

For my KM 5D total cost was... $1420

Click to expand...

You didn't want to do the math so I will B&H prices:

Canon 30D Body = 1069
Since Canon doesn't give me an IS superwide option... $500 same as I paid
70-300 IS $550
28-135 3.5-5.6 IS $499 (not as nice a lense but IS so I am being nice)

Total: $2618... the 70-300 are probably pretty comparable my 34-135 is a bit nicer..

Note: that is not $511 it is $1200!!

So basically double and we won't even get into a crippled Rebel.. the A100 is a whole lot more camera than an Xti / 400D

Basically I would rather shoot Sony Now.. and dream of better Sony or Canon later than Shoot Canon Now and dream of my 2nd and third lens later

john dickinson306171 said:
john dickinson306171 said:

Now the A100 is almost the same price I paid for that camera.

Click to expand...

OK you got me, your right for the complete entry level user who has
no aspirations of ever owning top gear the Sony system is about
$511 cheaper.

Nice Marketing Word "Aspirations" ... Wammm with the putdown...

Oddly enough If I were to get to a new level of budget I can add or even trade out equipment.. so I might say The Canon system works for some one who wants to limit thier ability to explore photography on a budget.

john dickinson306171 said:
This is comparing the A100 with the Rebel as it is not in the same
class as the D30. But for that $511 difference you also get usm

You do realize that USM is a marketing name and not all of them are really that great and on the lower end the Sony system is just as good. That said I would like to see HSM on Sigmas for Sony when it is there for C/N and I would like to see Sony expand the SSM lenses for the future...

john dickinson306171 said:
in all your lenses and I personally would not own the Sony/KM 70-300

I don't because I am not hamstrung by brand I have the Sigma APO DG model

john dickinson306171 said:
(had one and dumped it within a few months for the beercan). This
still doesn't change the fact that if you want to upgrade in the
future you will pay heavily for the Sony/KM system

john dickinson306171 said:
john dickinson306171 said:

The problem with rules of thumb is not all thumbs are created equal.. with my 10-20... I have found that it helps when I am shooting candids and the circumstances don't allow for the careful steadying of the hand before shooting (and my hands are not steady to start with)

Click to expand...

My personal experience has shown me that just as there is a point
of diminishing returns on the tele end there is also one on the
wide end when it comes to stabilization. I mean think about it, a
3 stop difference at 10mm puts you at almost a full sec. Your
last comment is probably the most telling as to why you advocate AS
so much and I don't use it much for my primes I don't feel I need
it that much (but then I was also an offhand target shooter for
several years and have developed a very steady base and squeeze).
I do however use it with my zooms since I sometimes meter more for
exposure and forget about what focal length I am using.
--
'Photography is an art form many try to master with equipment
alone. To me the most important piece of equipment in the
photographers imagination'

BINGO!!! Agree with that 100%

john dickinson306171 said:
Maxxum 7D w/VC-7D
20mm f2.8
28mm f2.8
50mm f1.7
100mm f2.8 macro
24-85mm f3.4/4.5
70-210mm f4
80-400mm f4.5/5.6 (Tokina AT-X)

--
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Mark VB · May 21, 2007

tweedle said:
Mark VB said:

The exceptions to this would have been the CZ
lenses, which supposedly were all new designs (but I still wonder
about the 85/1.4).

Click to expand...

What is there to wonder about what excactly?

The Zeiss Alpha T* 85/1.4 is designed with 8 lens elements in 7
groups. Weight: 560g

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/858dbbbbd2fb78a6c125711800592377

This is different from any other Zeiss 85/1.4 lens from the last 40
years:

The Zeiss F-mount T* 85/1.4 (now made by Cosina, earlier editions
of the same design made for Contax C/Y-mount, 1976-2005, and
Contarex, 1968-72) is designed with 6 lens elements in 5 groups.
Weight: 570g

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar_1-4_85_ZFen/ $File/P1_4_85ZF_EN.pdf

The Zeiss N-mount T* 85/1.4 (for the late Contax N-system) is
designed with 10 lens elements in 9 groups. Weight: 800g

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar1.4_85mm_e/ $File/Planar1.4_85mm_e.pdf

BY comparison, the Minolta G 85/1.4 is designed with 7 lens
elements in 6 groups. Weigth: 490g
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=14

So ... what is there to wonder about?

It would seem nothing.

When I tried out the CZ 85/1.4 last November at the NY show, it struck me as very similar in size and operation to the Minolta 85/1.4, including the too slow AF performance. Indeed, it was mostly the slow AF that had me thinking this was a rebadge of the Minolta lens, in CZ "colors." But, if it has a different optical formula (which I never checked), then obviously it is not the same lens. But it sure does have the same (or similar) slow AF. A serious design flaw in my book. The CZ 135/1.8 (clearly a new lens) is not as bad in the AF department, but still not up to SSM standards, which both of these lenses should have had.

--
Mark Van Bergh

john dickinson306171 · May 21, 2007

Ken_5D said:
Ken_5D said:

in all your lenses and I personally would not own the Sony/KM 70-300

Click to expand...

Ken_5D said:
I don't because I am not hamstrung by brand I have the Sigma APO DG model

I am not "hamstrung" by brand, the primes I have are Minolta since there are limited options in secondary market for primes, you can't argue with why I have the 70-210 or the 100mm macro, besides the Tokina listed below I also have a 24-200 my wife uses with her 5D.

your insistence that the A100 is in the same level as the 30D, haven't used both have you? I to an extent agree with you on the Rebel, that is why I own a 7D (didn't think much of the 350). From a entry level point though the A100 is more closely matched by the Rebel.

I did my original assessment of prices based on MY needs if the next 2 Sony's (plan A) fail to deliver (kind of a plan B). In that case I will probably be selling my KM gear (don't want to but I ain't waiting for camera 4). If I make the change it will probably be for the Nikon D200 since it felt natural in my hands (kind of like the 7D) and 2 VR zooms to start followed by a macro since these are what I use the most. You see I won't be limiting myself as the gear I need is more readily available for the evil brands, i.e. good flash system, wireless trigger for studio flash, more accurate AF, faster AF, weather sealed body.

All that being said I really do hope Sony delivers in 07 or early 08, a new camera is easier than a new system.

--

'Photography is an art form many try to master with equipment alone. To me the most important piece of equipment is the photographers imagination'

Maxxum 7D w/VC-7D
20mm f2.8
28mm f2.8
50mm f1.7
100mm f2.8 macro
24-85mm f3.5/4.5
70-210mm f4
80-400mm f4.5/5.6 (Tokina AT-X)

CM PHoto · May 21, 2007

Ken_5D said:
So if you can't get good sports shots with a 5d/7d/a100... hint..
it isn't the camera

I could get a good sports shot with my 7D. I had to throw a TON of misses away to get that good shot.

My toss rate with my 7D was over 1/3 for AF issues alone on objects moving a mere 20mph.

My toss rate with my D200 and 70-200 afs vr is less than 10%.

It's the camera.

chad

Ken_5D said:
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

--
A camera is just a tool.
. . . And I couldn't wait forever.

PhotoTraveler · May 21, 2007

You completely miss that a vast chunk of us won't buy APS lenses. Even if Sony never was to bring an FF body, I'd only buy FF lenses. They are better lenses, work on film bodies if I want, and always will be there for a FF body coming.

If they were selling no FF lenses, they would have very little for lenses to sell.

Look at Nikon, they keep bringing FF lenses too. You only make APS lenses where they are needed, stuff that starts wide, re-adjusted fisheyes, super extreme zooms.

josefnemecek · May 21, 2007

The Zeiss 85/1.4 has indeed a different optical design. The last group has - as far as I can remember - one lens more than the Minolta design. Probably a sign that the optical path was optimized for DSLR cameras, since sensors prefer "homogenuous, orthogonal light reception".

Regards, Josef.

fjbyrne · May 22, 2007

Ken_5D said:
That all makes sense...
I would hope a $4000 camera is better than a $1000 camera...But
lets say in the range... The A100 5D 7D can hold thier own on any
subject

I think we can agree on that

Ken_5D said:
--
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

--
fjbyrne

Chad Marek · May 22, 2007

PhotoTraveler said:
You completely miss that a vast chunk of us won't buy APS lenses.
Even if Sony never was to bring an FF body, I'd only buy FF lenses.
They are better lenses, work on film bodies if I want, and always
will be there for a FF body coming.

Define "a vast chunk". I would love to see what data you are using to make that assumption.

PhotoTraveler said:
If they were selling no FF lenses, they would have very little for
lenses to sell.

Look at Nikon, they keep bringing FF lenses too. You only make APS
lenses where they are needed, stuff that starts wide, re-adjusted
fisheyes, super extreme zooms.

You mean like the 55-200 vr and the 18-200 vr? Both of those are APS-c. The only FF lens Nikon has brought out in the last year or two was the 105 macro.

chad

fjbyrne · May 22, 2007

CM PHoto said:
Ken_5D said:

So if you can't get good sports shots with a 5d/7d/a100... hint..
it isn't the camera

Click to expand...

I could get a good sports shot with my 7D. I had to throw a TON of
misses away to get that good shot.

My toss rate with my 7D was over 1/3 for AF issues alone on objects
moving a mere 20mph.

My toss rate with my D200 and 70-200 afs vr is less than 10%.

It's the camera.

chad

CM PHoto said:

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Click to expand...

--
A camera is just a tool.
. . . And I couldn't wait forever.

Hey Chad how are you doing? Haven't corresponded in a while. Hope everything is well and the new kit is working for you.

Also thanks for making my point with some real world experience.

--
fjbyrne

Search

Criticism of the Sony DSLR product strategy

Ken_5D

Forum Pro

Ken_5D

Forum Pro

Kiril Karaatanasov

Senior Member

Two Truths

Veteran Member

foot

Veteran Member

john dickinson306171

Forum Enthusiast

fjbyrne

Veteran Member

Ken_5D

Forum Pro

Ken_5D

Forum Pro

Mark VB

Veteran Member

john dickinson306171

Forum Enthusiast

CM PHoto

Senior Member

PhotoTraveler

Forum Pro

josefnemecek

Leading Member

fjbyrne

Veteran Member

Chad Marek

Senior Member

fjbyrne

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts