Why do you say that? You do know why the α700 is called the α700, right? I honeslty think Sony will maintain consistency here. The successor to the α100 will be the α500, and there will be a D40 type entry level model called the α300.
I know the Minolta naming tradition. I also know it's confusing and limiting. The Maxxum 9 and 9000 were "advanced amateur" models under the Minolta brand as well. Why didn't Sony just call the A100 the A700 or A500 in the first place? What's going to happen at the next product cycle? The Alpha 9000? Minolta already used that name.
Quote:
Also remember that in the case of the Sony and the Pentax, every lens is stabilized. Even the 35/1.4G you use for those incredible concert shots and the $300 50mm 1.4 you use for just about anything. That's something you can't get with Nikon and Canon.
That's great, but a floating element is largely worthless at those focal lengths, and in some cases would probably induce a detectable amount of blur when the sensors stutter on pitch and yaw detection. I would surely turn it off to shoot with those lenses. Why do you think Nikon omitted image stabilization from the brand new professional 24-70mm f/2.8?
Quote:
That's a pretty sweeping claim, based on no real science or evidence. And again, the tests show otherwise. The picture is what's important, not what "seems" better in your mind, right?
Why did I even bother to post here? Maybe I should just stop replying so I don't have to wade through your absurd bullshit. I provided multiple explanations on why lens based technology is advantageous.
Quote:
I don't understand why, except in a psychological sense, you would need to. And... although the α700 doesn't have live view mode, you could use live view in a future body if you really wanted that gimmick. And... your statement is not entirely true. I think in the future, some bodies might lose the mirror altogether, and have an EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens) system with an electronic eye-level viewfinder in addition to the screen (not like the Oly E-330 which has screen view only). In such a case, you would see the stabilization in the (electronic) viewfinder.
If image stabilization were impossibly perfect, then you'd have a point. It doesn't compensate for all of the shake in most cases. Sometimes the anti-shake system works against you, and the only way you can be aware of that is if you see what the sensor sees.
You do realize why nobody uses electronic viewfinders in SLRs, don't you? The focusing sensor must be in the optical path, so unless you want an thin screen in front of your sensor, you're going to be limited to slow contrast-based autofocus.
Quote:
Have you ever shot with a super telephoto? Where is the fulcrum again? And again, the tests don't support your claim.
The tripod collar is never near the stabilized element by design. In addition, lenses like the 200-400mm Nikkor have model specific features...such as a tripod VR mode.
Comments
Why do you say that? You do know why the α700 is called the α700, right? I honeslty think Sony will maintain consistency here. The successor to the α100 will be the α500, and there will be a D40 type entry level model called the α300.
I know the Minolta naming tradition. I also know it's confusing and limiting. The Maxxum 9 and 9000 were "advanced amateur" models under the Minolta brand as well. Why didn't Sony just call the A100 the A700 or A500 in the first place? What's going to happen at the next product cycle? The Alpha 9000? Minolta already used that name.
Also remember that in the case of the Sony and the Pentax, every lens is stabilized. Even the 35/1.4G you use for those incredible concert shots and the $300 50mm 1.4 you use for just about anything. That's something you can't get with Nikon and Canon.
That's great, but a floating element is largely worthless at those focal lengths, and in some cases would probably induce a detectable amount of blur when the sensors stutter on pitch and yaw detection. I would surely turn it off to shoot with those lenses. Why do you think Nikon omitted image stabilization from the brand new professional 24-70mm f/2.8?
That's a pretty sweeping claim, based on no real science or evidence. And again, the tests show otherwise. The picture is what's important, not what "seems" better in your mind, right?
Why did I even bother to post here? Maybe I should just stop replying so I don't have to wade through your absurd bullshit. I provided multiple explanations on why lens based technology is advantageous.
I don't understand why, except in a psychological sense, you would need to. And... although the α700 doesn't have live view mode, you could use live view in a future body if you really wanted that gimmick. And... your statement is not entirely true. I think in the future, some bodies might lose the mirror altogether, and have an EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens) system with an electronic eye-level viewfinder in addition to the screen (not like the Oly E-330 which has screen view only). In such a case, you would see the stabilization in the (electronic) viewfinder.
If image stabilization were impossibly perfect, then you'd have a point. It doesn't compensate for all of the shake in most cases. Sometimes the anti-shake system works against you, and the only way you can be aware of that is if you see what the sensor sees.
You do realize why nobody uses electronic viewfinders in SLRs, don't you? The focusing sensor must be in the optical path, so unless you want an thin screen in front of your sensor, you're going to be limited to slow contrast-based autofocus.
Have you ever shot with a super telephoto? Where is the fulcrum again? And again, the tests don't support your claim.
The tripod collar is never near the stabilized element by design. In addition, lenses like the 200-400mm Nikkor have model specific features...such as a tripod VR mode.