big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
why only nikon and canon???
- Thread starter evilonion
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What you are neglecting andy is that if you didnt agree with RBY ( I hope he's not related to TBY 
) then your post was obviously waffle and not worth him reading
Massive deja vu for anyone who was involved with or read the raw vs jpeg thread - theres a bridge somewhere thats being crossed by billy goats with impunity
) then your post was obviously waffle and not worth him readingMassive deja vu for anyone who was involved with or read the raw vs jpeg thread - theres a bridge somewhere thats being crossed by billy goats with impunity
Last edited:
- Messages
- 77
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
This was an interesting thread, but as so often happens it has degenerated into offensive remarks by those who have nothing of value to say.
OP
- Messages
- 802
- Name
- Dave Peacock
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Any chance of getting the thread back on topic?
I was quite interested to hear peoples views about where they see companies being and going in the dslr and mid-pro level market.
I have a few questions still.
Are medium format cameras not suited to wedding photography?
I mean does a hasselblad for example not have as good iso control as a d4?
The reason i said to ignore cost is because im not asking why they are not used, im asking could they be used, and if there were, would they be better than say a d4 for a wedding?
Or are they specific to studio work?
I was quite interested to hear peoples views about where they see companies being and going in the dslr and mid-pro level market.
I have a few questions still.
Are medium format cameras not suited to wedding photography?
I mean does a hasselblad for example not have as good iso control as a d4?
The reason i said to ignore cost is because im not asking why they are not used, im asking could they be used, and if there were, would they be better than say a d4 for a wedding?
Or are they specific to studio work?
Marc
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 34,282
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I see nothing offensive in this thread but what I have seen is you constantly belittle others by dismissing their opinions as "waffle" and "nothing of value".
You asked a question and people have answered it. You may not agree with those answers but that doesn't mean you shouldn't show some manners in your responses.
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
Sony (DSLT) & Panasonic (now calling theirs DSLM) are already there.
& the lack of mirror slap & the option to use an electronic first curtain does seem to help at low shutter speeds.
OP
- Messages
- 802
- Name
- Dave Peacock
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I must admit i am actually slightly confused by people saying its all over for sony when ive been looking at a whole lot of new slt and slr products on the market from sony at much less cost to rivals... a 16-50 2.8 lens for example at £500
The issue with Sony currently is that they appear to have switched from DSLR to DSLT - with the inherent implication that new models will have an EVF.
The EVF in the A77 is very good, and has a number of significant advantages over an OVF - the level of information that can be presented, ability to see effect of setting changes in the viewfinder, etc. - BUT while they are clearly superior to the OVF in entry level and some mid level cameras (IE those with pentamirror rather than pentaprism viewfinders), once you move to the better OVF, and in particular the sort of 100% OVF on a FF model, it becomes much more of a personal preference thing - and a number of 'Traditional' Sony users have decided to switch to Canon or Nikon as that allows them to buy something that meets what they want (If you look at the specs for the D800 is sounds like what many believe Sony should have brought out as the A900 successor).
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
the current rumour afaik is that the next Sony FF will be 24MP & the one after that 36MP (possibly similar sensor to D800).
I wouldn't expect even that to be just a rebranded D800 - look at the A900 & the D3X, same sensor but quite different cameras.
I wouldn't expect even that to be just a rebranded D800 - look at the A900 & the D3X, same sensor but quite different cameras.
- Messages
- 6,904
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But while it may have the same sensor, 'if' Sony made the D800 sensor, then it will probably be a SLT camera with the EVF. :shrug: If that's OK, then fine, it may be what a lot of people are waiting for.
As far as the in camera stabilisation is concerned, yes, it does make every lens attached stabilised, and so works with cheaper, though still quality, lenses.
The downside with Sensor stabilisation was that you couldn't see the stabilisation working on their DSLRs because it worked while the shutter was open, and so the viewfinder blacked out. It is also generally accepted that lens stabilisation works better the sensor stabilisation. Though you do pay for it.
You can also see the stabilisation work through the viewfinder, and so may aid in focusing and seeing the subject correctly. I love the effect of when I switch the VR on, on my 70-300mm. Everything seems to calm down. Of course with the SLT cameras you should see it working in the EVF too, because the Sensor is always open, and the stabilisation working when it needs to.
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
maybe by some, I've never subscribed to it. If there is a difference it's not a big one.
Is it possible that in-lens is better under certain circumstances? Yes.
Is it possible that in-body is better under certain circumstances? Yes.
Do they both have pros & cons? Yes.
Let's call it a draw.
some people like that, some people feel motion sick when viewing with in-lens stabilisation. & some say that different manufacturers with different in-lens stabilisation tech. (e.g. Canon & Tamron) give different viewfinder behaviour.You can also see the stabilisation work through the viewfinder, and so may aid in focusing and seeing the subject correctly. I love the effect of when I switch the VR on, on my 70-300mm. Everything seems to calm down.
Canon recently introduced a mode (mode 3) into their latest IS where it doesn't become active until the shutter button is fully depressed so they must see an advantage to not having your viewfinder stabilised under certain situations ...
it does in video on current SLTs but that's now done electronically rather than by sensor shift.Of course with the SLT cameras you should see it working in the EVF too, because the Sensor is always open, and the stabilisation working when it needs to.
In stills the sensor shift should only kick in during the actual exposure afaik.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,904
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jeez, I'm getting deja vu. Every review, and every comparison of the tech I've read has said that lens stabilisation is better. But OK, you don't agree, so they are equal, but 'If there is a difference it's not a big one'.
Which could possibly make one tech better than the other, but 'Let's call it a draw'. :bonk: 
That's Sony's main problem, and the reason I switched... everything with Sony is 'x is on it's way' or 'we're developing a new y'... There's only so long the customers are willing to wait, Sony. :bang:
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Regarding ISO control, in short nothing like. But that far from the whole story with them and there are photographers using them to take some fantastic photographs at weddings.
They don't suit many photographers who prefer the speed and ease of use a DSLR gives them in that environment. But they can be, and are used.
- Messages
- 222
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats rich coming from you !!!:bang::bang::bang:
It seems as though you have set out to annoy most people on this forum, I think a word with the moderators is required!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Robgigphot said:
He gives us something to laugh about at least.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why is that? You don`t have to read the inane drivel that he types.........
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Going back the original point of thread if DSLT/M are the future of 'DSLR' type photography - does it not seem likely that both canon and nikon will get in on the act and maybe even come to dominate the feild by tying their already proven firmware/focus systems etc to a mirrorless system in a SLR type body ?
It certainly doesnt seem likely that the two main players in pro photography would mis the boat completely.
It certainly doesnt seem likely that the two main players in pro photography would mis the boat completely.
- Messages
- 10,526
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A non stabilised viewfinder tells you how much wobble you actually have so you can steady yourself the best you can so the IS has less work to do.
In lens IS also slows down AF. Is this also the case for in-body IS?? I've always been curious. If AF isn't slowed by in-body IS then that's another positive in its favour. Also if you have in-body IS there is nothing stopping you buying a stabilised lens and choosing which works best. If you haven't got in-body IS you don't have that luxury.
In lens IS also slows down AF. Is this also the case for in-body IS?? I've always been curious. If AF isn't slowed by in-body IS then that's another positive in its favour. Also if you have in-body IS there is nothing stopping you buying a stabilised lens and choosing which works best. If you haven't got in-body IS you don't have that luxury.
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
It's because I really don't want to get into a long drawn out debate over the minutiae of IS when at the end of the day the overall* real world difference if there is one is very little. You've seen how long this thread has become & with more than a few error strewn statements in it.Jeez, I'm getting deja vu. Every review, and every comparison of the tech I've read has said that lens stabilisation is better. But OK, you don't agree, so they are equal, but 'If there is a difference it's not a big one'.
A lot of it is just the same supposed common knowledge being regurgitated & there are lots of opinions but not so much real data.
The thing is that pretty much every pro for 1 you can find a negative for as well. e.g. some people like the stabilised viewfinder of in-lens but it makes other people feel sick. & even Canon seem to agree that there are at least some situations where you are better without it.
On the other hand a non-stabilised viewer encourages better technique which may in itself gain a stop or so.
The ideal of course is to have the option of both & in a few cases where there is an in-lens stabilised lens available for a mount that has in-body that is possible.
* that's not to say that under certain conditions one may perform better than the other but it's just as likely that under certain different other conditions the other maybe the better solution
What did you need that wasn't available?
There certainly are a few gaps but not major ones (of course if you have the need for one of those then it is of course major for you & absolutely right for you to change).
( & remember that it takes something like 3-4 years under normal circumstances to develop & release to market a high end lens. Even Canon & Nikon with more experience don't always get them on time either.)
I agree & as long as they keep compatibility with their existing lens catalogue they maintain what is almost certainly their main strength. Firmware/focus systems I think less so - e.g. if you believe the rumours the next Sony FF has a 102 all cross point AF system.
If they have to bring out a new mount it puts them on a level footing or even behind the rest of the pack.
This is where Canon have an advantage as they already had an all-electronic mount.
However, as we get more still/video convergence we are moving into an area where Panasonic & Sony have more experience than Nikon & to a lesser extent Canon.
Last edited:
The truth is not much.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Never heard that before, and given that almost all the big sports and action-orientated lenses have IS, it seems unlikely. It's actually with long lenses where in-lens is claimed to be better. The pre-stabilised image on the AF sensor is part of that.
For most people, the major benefit of in-camera stabilisation is it works with everything. Even die-hard Canikon fans might admit that a stabilised 35 or 50/1.4 etc would be nice now and then.
The one thing that CSCs can't do is focus-track fast moving subjects (or even slow ones) ie cameras using contrast-detect AF instead of the DSLRs phase-detect AF. They're hopeless at it.
This is being addressed by a couple of manufacturers (notably Nikon with their 1-Series) using phase-detect pixels embedded in the sensor. It's not very good yet, still can't hold a candle to a DSLR, but it's an improvement and the fact that serious effort is being put behind the idea suggests it has promise.
If that really does get as good as the cameras we have now, the DSLR's days will be short indeed. That would give us a fully solid-state camera - the fully electronic shutter is virtually here already, and electronic viewfinders (eg Sony) are also pretty good and can only improve.
The skids would be truly under DSLRs then, as these new cameras would be simply better in every way. An all-electronic camera could also be cheaper to make, development costs aside. That's the nirvana manufacturers are chasing. Personally, I'm looking forward to it
- Messages
- 10,526
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's quoted on this forum regularly as a reason to have it switched off!
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
There are reasons to switch off IS, and they apply to in-camera just as much.
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. You have to wait like half a second for the IS to spin up after activating it (half-pressure on the shutter release of course), and some people have cited that as a disadvantage, but once it's up and running there's no delay.
Personally, I don't understand how anyone can stab at the shutter release like that, but I guess it takes all sorts
- Messages
- 10,526
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There are reasons to switch off IS, and they apply to in-camera just as much.
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. You have to wait like half a second for the IS to spin up after activating it (half-pressure on the shutter release of course), and some people have cited that as a disadvantage, but once it's up and running there's no delay.
Personally, I don't understand how anyone can stab at the shutter release like that, but I guess it takes all sorts
Ah. I thought they mean it slowed AF when you were actually already pressing the shutter button ie it took slightly longer to focus as the lens gubbins jiggled about to steady the shot. If you linked it to an eye start type of system then there wouldn't be any delay at all.
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm pretty sure that I've read that too but I couldn't say where.
I was already aware of the 0.5-1 second (depending upon IS generation) delay as the in-lens elements moved & stabilised. In-body of course only kicks in during the actual exposure so is effectively instantaneous.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
They jiggle about pretty damn quick, like small factions of a ms. Though there doesn't seem to be much published data about this stuff, the technology is similar to the coils in a loudspeaker (in-lens or in-camera) and those jobbies can twitch about at like 50,000MHz.
In practise it seems to be accepted that in-lens stabilisation makes AF more reliable, but I don't think there's much in it TBH. The improvement of in-lens IS with longer lenses is more along the lines of being optimised to handle the bigger shifts you're likely to get with camera-shake at higher magnifications.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Sony told me, with the A77 at least, that the stabilisation was activated by half-pressure on the shutter release and therefore also provided a stabilised EVF image.
I asked specifically becuase with the only lens I had (18-50 2.8) it wasn't long enough to be able to tell with any certainty just by looking.
TBF Sony UK had only had pre-production cameras about five minutes at the time, so might have been kinda guessing. I'd be interested if you know this for fact though - seems a bit daft for a stabilised viewfinder not to be at least an option. Personally I find it a big advantage with long lenses, BIFing and stuff, and I get seasick very easily
- Messages
- 25,327
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I set off here knowing b*gger all about CSC's, and I was intrigued, I may have missed something.
An AF camera that can't focus on a moving subject.
No REAL WORLD DISADVANTAGE. FFS:razz:
So I can forget about CSC's again for a few years until they've sorted that out.:bang:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Calm down Phil
The problem with contrast-detect AF is that it has to hunt for sharp focus. It only knows when it's sharp after it's racked past it, so has to double back. They can double back extremely quickly, but if the subject has since moved, they basically have to start again and end up chasing their tails.
Some of these CSC cameras also have very rapid frame rates, much faster than most DSLRs, which sounds great for action photography. Until you try it. Useless. Nikon V1 is the best I've tried, with its hybrid on-sensor phase/contrast detect system, but it's kinda hard to tell how good that is when the small sensor's generous depth of field hides everything. How convenient
Phase-detect AF knows where sharp focus is before it starts, and can also see fore and after. I've been doing some focus tracking tests recently for a magazine review, with some deliberately tricky subjects like a runner back and forth around some cones, and a motorbike heading straight for the camera at speed. Not all DSLRs can cope with that, but the best ones are frankly astonishingly good. I was amazed
The problem with contrast-detect AF is that it has to hunt for sharp focus. It only knows when it's sharp after it's racked past it, so has to double back. They can double back extremely quickly, but if the subject has since moved, they basically have to start again and end up chasing their tails.
Some of these CSC cameras also have very rapid frame rates, much faster than most DSLRs, which sounds great for action photography. Until you try it. Useless. Nikon V1 is the best I've tried, with its hybrid on-sensor phase/contrast detect system, but it's kinda hard to tell how good that is when the small sensor's generous depth of field hides everything. How convenient
Phase-detect AF knows where sharp focus is before it starts, and can also see fore and after. I've been doing some focus tracking tests recently for a magazine review, with some deliberately tricky subjects like a runner back and forth around some cones, and a motorbike heading straight for the camera at speed. Not all DSLRs can cope with that, but the best ones are frankly astonishingly good. I was amazed
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I set off here knowing b*gger all about CSC's, and I was intrigued, I may have missed something.
An AF camera that can't focus on a moving subject.
No REAL WORLD DISADVANTAGE. FFS:razz:
So I can forget about CSC's again for a few years until they've sorted that out.:bang:
I wouldnt sweat it phil - looking back at RBYs previous posts , he is using a sony NEX with legacy (ie manual focus) lenses for 'street photography' - so of course he isn't going to see a disadvantage in AF not working so well.
He as also previously said he doesnt care what anyone else thinks of his shots, argued that an iphone is "better than a DSLR" and sees no point to Raw
His failing is in not realising that not all amateur photographers fit the same mould, and that its not just pro's who care whether their shots are decent, and require AF systems that can actually lock on to a moving target.
If the definition of a 'pleasure only photographer' is someone just like RBY then he is correct that DSLR offers them no particular advantage - however if the definition is widened to anyone who is not a pro , then he very wide of the mark.
- Messages
- 25,327
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Calm down Phil
The problem with contrast-detect AF is that it has to hunt for sharp focus. It only knows when it's sharp after it's racked past it, so has to double back. They can double back extremely quickly, but if the subject has since moved, they basically have to start again and end up chasing their tails.
Some of these CSC cameras also have very rapid frame rates, much faster than most DSLRs, which sounds great for action photography. Until you try it. Useless. Nikon V1 is the best I've tried, with its hybrid on-sensor phase/contrast detect system, but it's kinda hard to tell how good that is when the small sensor's generous depth of field hides everything. How convenient
Phase-detect AF knows where sharp focus is before it starts, and can also see fore and after. I've been doing some focus tracking tests recently for a magazine review, with some deliberately tricky subjects like a runner back and forth around some cones, and a motorbike heading straight for the camera at speed. Not all DSLRs can cope with that, but the best ones are frankly astonishingly good. I was amazed
I knew about the issues with contrast detect AF but I had no idea that CSCs used them
Like I said, I'm not in the market ATM for a small camera, so I don't read up on them.
- Messages
- 25,327
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I hadn't realised it was HIM:bang:
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't have a DSLT although I have used them for a reasonable period of time.
Certainly on the DSLRs AF is initiated with half-press but I'm fairly certain that the sensor shift isn't actually activated (probably processing going on though in readiness for an exposure). You can normally hear a slight buzz when it is active (switch on & sensor clean, long exposures). In normal exposures the noise of the shutter & mirror covers it.
I presume that it's the same for DSLT but I'm not 100%.
On my A580 when in LiveView the rear screen image is stabilised (OVF is obviously not in use).
On the newer DSLTs the image in the viewfinder (& recorded) for video is stabilised electronically by pixel-shifting as this avoids overheating the sensor as sensor shift is more likely to do over long periods.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah right. With an optical VF there's obviously no point in having the sensor stabilisation working full time. Wastes battery for one thing, which is at least one of the reasons in-lens IS switches off after only a couple of seconds.
But maybe the Sony man is right when he told me the SLT's EVF is indeed stabilised whenever there's half-pressure on the shutter release. He seemed positive at the time. Maybe an owner can confirm 100%.
That pixel jiggling video thing is different of course.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 77
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
Just to clear things up for those I seem to have offended, most of what is said here is correct except I don't think I said an iphone is better than a DSLR, I don't own either so could not offer an opinion like that.
I know little or nothing about Photography, I have never been able to afford a DSLR, I asked the question "What advantages a DSLR has over a CSC for a Pleasure Photographer."
The nearest thing to an answer I got was this ....
Originally Posted by arad85
It has a better picture quality for a given print size, has better (i.e. lower) depth of field for any given shutter/F number combination, handles higher ISO better, has a better range of high quality lenses, higher quality focusing system - especially for moving objects, better battery life, better in the hand for those with larger hands (like me)...
Should I go on?
Which to me is meaningless, arad65 does not attach any test figures to support anything said here, what does "better picture quality at a given print size mean" how did he measure Depth of Field. Better Battery Life, one battery lasts me all day, I have a spare battery and an in-car charger.
Which Cameras were used as a comparison here, was it a £500 CSC against a £5,000 (back only) DSLR or something else. Maybe a Leica M9 against an entry level DSLR, he does not tell us.
It all sounds very definate, unquestionable, handed down from above, but without actual test figures produced by a recognised body, it means nothing, its just stuff he has read somewhere.
I'm still reading this thread because in among the offensive posts made by some who have nothing else to offer, are some very informative and knowledgeable posts which add to my understanding of the world of Photography. If on the other hand you all just want to ignore me, chase me off the Forum with offensive comments, deride the equipment of choice, then thats ok. it happens in the Photography Clubs too and this is just a big Photography Club, if you think that the Elite can do nicely without the biggest slice of equipment buyers in the world (dummies like me) then carry on, I thought maybe 5 years but it could be less.