In preparation for the Full Frame

agree with TenD for sure. the canon version of the lens will likely AF faster, be quieter, be way more accurate, have better optical quality and far better construction.

as for sony's corporate method. yes, like most successful companies they can be ruthless and do whats best for its shareholders first and customer second. BUT my take on it is this...until sony entered the market the big 2 were a content, lazy bunch of pricks with the market essentially to themselves. pentax and oly pretty much succumbed to their "place" in the market with no attempt to take them on really. oly i suppose less so cos they went for the 4/3 direction...good for them. fuji and sigma elected to be niche market cameras. that led to overpriced equipment and/ or equipment that underdelivered.

sony has shaken this market to its core and the level of innovation and quality, (from nikon especially at the moment), has been staggering. look at the amount of consumer grade IS/VR lens'. look at the dslr innovation like LV, Hi RES screens, body lifecycles, lens upgrades, sensor performace etc. do you think it was a co-incidence that all of that occurred round about the time of the a100 and significantly ramped up with the a200/300/350/700 ? i think not.

sony is many things, but as a nikon owner who is reeping the rewards of a company responding ferociously to this new threat...i couldn;t be happier that sony is here. canon will surely do the same to respond to the challenge. so in my view, we should be thumbing our noses at canon and nikon while giving them the finger asking..."what the hell took you so long ?"

Look, I do understand the resentment Canon owners might feel toward a cheaper and "just-as-good-a-shot" contender coming on the market. I know if spent that extra cash and got nothing significant in return for it, other than a white paint job and a logo ... man, the steam! :mad:

So, TenD ... I feel your pain, but not one ounce of sympathy if you do go ahead and get stung for the additional cost for the paint & logo. The reviews are out there ... take a look ... and then, drive on down to the lens store and slap one on. Heck, do a side by side, before you reach for that wallet. After that ... there is nothing but "dry eyes" in the house and the all too familiar look from the spouse -> :eek:

@Rooz - the race is on, dude! I wonder how many NEW cameras Nikon is planning on releasing, this year, alone? How do you guys keep up? Is it like "days of the week" underwear or something? D40, D40x, D50, D60, D80, D100, D200, D300, D700.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rooz

sony has shaken this market to its core and the level of innovation and quality, (from nikon especially at the moment), has been staggering. look at the amount of consumer grade IS/VR lens'. look at the dslr innovation like LV, Hi RES screens, body lifecycles, lens upgrades, sensor performace etc. do you think it was a co-incidence that all of that occurred round about the time of the a100 and significantly ramped up with the a200/300/350/700 ? i think not.

---

Sony took what Minolta already had in development and marketed it. Sony benefited greatly from Minolta. I can't agree that Sony is doing anything to heavily push the market. Many of the "innovations" you see now are nothing but response to a general public that has lit the photography market on fire. Everyone is responding to public demands, demands no one ever thought meant anything to photography.

IS: this is relatively new technology and something that became first available on a consumer grade lens and migrated elsewhere. Indispensable? No. Does the public think its cool? YES, are they told constantly that they can take so much better photos because of it? YES. Should we make more of it? YES it will sell more lenses. Is it because of Sony? I think maybe it's because in body IS has made this readily available to every lens, therefore we need more lenses with it.

LV- totally a response to a non photographic public cry for a DSLR to be like their point and shoot. Everyone is trying to catch up to this. Thought it was silly on a P&S still think so. Hate seeing people compose at arms length, this takes away from proper technique and results in many bad photos. Useful for Macro work.

Hi Res screens? I really don't see any use here at all. What really can you see in your little 3" HiRes screen? Same thing you could see in your 1.5" low res screen, exposure(histogram), basic composition. The photo still needs to be uploaded to a computer to really see what's there. Again totally driven by general public P&S technology. This is how I want to compose, edit, view, show, print from, etc. etc. and everyone knows bigger is better...

Body Lifecycles? The shutter was always made to be replaced. It's a component that has to move with precision and speed. With the advent of "free" film people tend to indiscriminately fire away and throw away(95%)the bad ones. With film it was impossible to to this, it was just too expensive. The increases in shutter life for all manufacturers was a direct response to the machine gun tactic the DSLR has produced. Sony benefited from being late into the market, no one could predict a consumer body less than a month old with 5000 actuations on it...crazy, that's why pro level bodies were made that way. Nothing but sloppy and poor technique...

Lens upgrades? This market has exploded, people are clamoring for new equipment. Nikon had some holes in their lens lineup, Canon was pretty set except for UWA, and Sony had a clean slate. I am personally very pleased with the selection of lenses I have available to me from Canon. In the last 10 years I can't think of a single time I said I wish Canon would come out with a -- lens. But still they have and I don't believe for a minute Sony had a thing to do with it.

The market has exploded: there are more people out there spending vast amounts of money on camera equipment they have no idea of how to use(push this button and fire away). No idea that the lens they put in front of the "expensive" body will make much more difference than the body itself. No idea what makes a good lens, what an f/stop means, what lens speed is, etc. But we all do have one thing in common, we want good photos and will buy more things to get them. Hence more lenses being introduced. Sony is just part of this whole picture, they are in the center of the same maelstrom.

Noink's sensor performance was completely tied to Sony...Sony made their sensors. They were completely tied to Sony's technology. Canon has been making their own CMOS sensors for a long time, Sony has finally caught up. All of the manufacturers have been pushing the envelope, finding the edge. All of the manufacturers have advanced digital photography at a staggering pace. Many of the "innovations" aren't necessary for good photography, and I really can't view them as advancements. They are at the very most convenience items aimed at this huge untrained market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

So, TenD ... I feel your pain, but not one ounce of sympathy if you do go ahead and get stung for the additional cost for the paint & logo. The reviews are out there ... take a look ... and then, drive on down to the lens store and slap one on. Heck, do a side by side, before you reach for that wallet. After that ... there is nothing but "dry eyes" in the house and the all too familiar look from the spouse -> :eek:
.

---

Did you even read the review I conveniently linked Don? Slower focusing, poorer build, clunky AF/MF mode. Lack of distance switching.
I don't feel an ounce of pain. None. I paid close to the same thing for my 6 lenses that you paid for your collection of I can't remember how many and cover the same range. And every one of my lenses produces professional results.

TenD .. a lot of my lenses (the infamous "collection") are from yesteryear. I usually never get rid of what I own. Yeah, they're still here .. and usable. I'm not out to spend myself broke either, to get a relatively decent shot or two. Will I win awards with what I have ... well, yeah. I have ... but, so what?

Pushing people to use professional grade lenses for their daily stuff is just "overkill" in my way of reasoning. I love the idea that the A700 is just as comfortable with a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 as it is with a SONY 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM. Only the photographer really knows what he is trying to acheive with his lens selection ... but, understandably, a decent shot from either lens would be nice. It only takes one misfocus to "blow it" for either one.

The Full Frame camera should not be a "professional" option. It really should be what the 35mm-film is ... using the same "stamped-on-the-side" lens focal length and not some damn conversion factor. It is a true digital version of the 35mm standard frame.

To heck with the APS-C sensor. -> Make all DSLR cameras FULL FRAME from now on, I say.

The technology is here to make it happen, in grand style. The small sensor is regressive and should be written off as a cheap attempt to bring digital into the market. It worked. But, it can now be retired.

Going forward -> LET'S GET BACK TO NORMAL.

Yeah, but my point is that you did afford it, you didn't spend yourself broke, you just spent the money on a solution to find every lens(of a particular brand)with every sweet spot to cover the same ground you could have with a few high dollar lenses, and nearly ended up spending what you would have buying those pro lenses to start with.

I agree in most peoples practices pro gear is absolutely overkill. But why buy the hottest body and cripple it with poor glass. Wouldn't it be better to buy an older body and spend the difference on getting the best possible light to the sensor with good glass? Why start the compromise there?

Will you win awards? yeah, of course you will, but we both know that award is a relative term. Those shots of the buildings on the west side look pretty good, sharp clean...taken with what I imagine is a pretty good piece of glass. I know what I want from my lens collection: The ability to take a shot and view it at 100% and still find it acceptably sharp with good detail. Which means if it is something important I can enlarge it reasonably and still have a great shot.

I am glad you are able to use your Minolta gear again, Sony is good for competition as much as I hate their Microsoft/Walmart-like tactics. I would never call you a Dufus for using Sony gear, it's what you use. If you wouldn't have called me a dufus/fanboy, I wouldn't have even joined this discussion. I quite possibly will never fit another Tamron lens to any of my Cameras and I will promote what I have used that works, so far it's been Canon, Tokina, and Sigma.

I don't mind using brand X in a lot of cases, but it better perform as well or better than my brand. I refuse to spend $500 on PS, PSP does everything I need to for photography, it's a bargain. I buy any gasoline(at a given octane)that's cheaper than any other gasoline. I've tried no less than 8 different brands of headset for work and ended up going with the big brand because, well, it works. I want a product that works, I have never been disappointed by Canon, I have by Tamron, Sigma, Sony, Panasonic.

I really don't know what full frame has to do with the dufus discussion but I see APS-c and FF living peacefully side by side. Full frame definitely has a lot of advantages, but APS-c holds it's own quite nicely. I will continue to shoot with a FF and APS-c side by side, the APS-c will hold my longer lenses and the wide angles will reside on the FF.

There is a level of sillyness to APS-C ... by having to duplicate lensing for the Full Frame or vice-versa. I am utterly surprised that with your level of analytical evaluation, you would not see that. Cost-wise, for everyone, it would be a boon to simplify the selection and not have to support

TWO!!!

The artifically created one in 2004 (APS-C) and the real one (Full Frame) from the beginning of 35mm-film!


But, obviously, my thinking must be flawed ... :rolleyes:

I suspect that once the SONY Full Frame establishes itself ... this may be the correction needed to bring these two methods back together. Ahh, but there is money to be made ...

I haven't duplicated any lenses. I don't have a wide angle lens beyond my 17mm which is a true 17mm on the 5D and has the field of view of a 28mm lens on the APS-c body. And on the other end I have a 100-400mm which has the FOV of a 640mm lens on the APS-c. Plenty of range to go around for each camera, I use them as a pair. Shoot long with the APS-c and wide with the FF. It works out perfectly for me.

Perhaps the most frustating aspect is that you go out and you buy a high quality 14mm f/2.8 lens (easily $1200+) and put it on the newest APS-C camera you can find ... and you have just made it a 21mm or 22mm. That is just wrong. :eek: :rolleyes: :p LOL ... sorry.

It just grates on my wide-side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TenD

Sony took what Minolta already had in development and marketed it. Sony benefited greatly from Minolta. I can't agree that Sony is doing anything to heavily push the market. Many of the "innovations" you see now are nothing but response to a general public that has lit the photography market on fire. Everyone is responding to public demands, demands no one ever thought meant anything to photography.

---

we will have to agree to disagree. competition breeds innovation, no matter what industry. sony is a BIG player with big pockets. they came to play and te big 2 needed to respond. that in itself put a rocket up Canikon's collective asses imo.

Quote:

---

IS: this is relatively new technology and something that became first available on a consumer grade lens and migrated elsewhere. Indispensable? No. Does the public think its cool? YES, are they told constantly that they can take so much better photos because of it? YES. Should we make more of it? YES it will sell more lenses. Is it because of Sony? I think maybe it's because in body IS has made this readily available to every lens, therefore we need more lenses with it.

---

not quite sure what you are saying here. the facts are these. IS/VR is useful. indispensable ? hardly. before sony hit the market with in-body IS there were limited choices in IS lens' for consumers. that has radically changed. there is now a comprehensive IS lens market. imo this is a direct response to in-body IS. ie: take away the primary competitive advantage of the competition. again, a good thing for everyone.

Quote:

---

LV- totally a response to a non photographic public cry for a DSLR to be like their point and shoot. Everyone is trying to catch up to this. Thought it was silly on a P&S still think so. Hate seeing people compose at arms length, this takes away from proper technique and results in many bad photos. Useful for Macro work.

---

well, i think you;re a little too old school here. LV is brilliant for macro. just briliant. its also useful, (not right now cos its too slow), at geting more versatility out of your equipment. its about having that option. i dont use it to compose at arms length but i also really like shooting at different angles and perspectives. LV makes that much easier. and if people DO want to shoot at arms length, so be it. give them the option. thats not a bad thing at all. how could it be ?

Quote:

---

Hi Res screens? I really don't see any use here at all. What really can you see in your little 3" HiRes screen? Same thing you could see in your 1.5" low res screen, exposure(histogram), basic composition. The photo still needs to be uploaded to a computer to really see what's there. Again totally driven by general public P&S technology. This is how I want to compose, edit, view, show, print from, etc. etc. and everyone knows bigger is better...

---

sorry, this is just plain incorrect. hi res screens are BRILLIANT for everything from colour rendition to detail to checking for focus to just making it a better experience. it is INCOMPARABLE to 1.5inch screens and very far removed from even a 3inch non-hi res screen. this is not debatable. i consider the d300's screen to be invaluable compared to my already very good d80 2.5inch screen. i would go so far as to say that i would not buy another camera body without it.

Quote:

---

Body Lifecycles? The shutter was always made to be replaced. It's a component that has to move with precision and speed. With the advent of "free" film people tend to indiscriminately fire away and throw away(95%)the bad ones. With film it was impossible to to this, it was just too expensive. The increases in shutter life for all manufacturers was a direct response to the machine gun tactic the DSLR has produced. Sony benefited from being late into the market, no one could predict a consumer body less than a month old with 5000 actuations on it...crazy, that's why pro level bodies were made that way. Nothing but sloppy and poor technique...

---

again, you're thinking of things from another era. times change. cars have cupholders and seat warmers. thats life, thats technology. sloppy technique is sloppy technique. thats all it is. people choose what techniques to use, the camera body doesnt force that on anyone.

Quote:

---

Lens upgrades? This market has exploded, people are clamoring for new equipment. Nikon had some holes in their lens lineup, Canon was pretty set except for UWA, and Sony had a clean slate. I am personally very pleased with the selection of lenses I have available to me from Canon. In the last 10 years I can't think of a single time I said I wish Canon would come out with a -- lens. But still they have and I don't believe for a minute Sony had a thing to do with it.

---

again, we have to agree to disagree. i think sony pushed the impotus on manufacturers to innvoate more and give consumers a broader range. you are being far too self-centred in your assesment. canon did not have a complete range at all. the new 18-55IS kit lens is excellent compared to the shitbox previous kit lens and they also brought in the 55-250IS which is another great innovation and gives people more choice. in time that will also drive prices down...another GREAT thing. look at what you can get now for the same dollars as before. competition drives prices more than anything else.

Quote:

---

The market has exploded:

---

true and sony can take part of that credit. they have big marketing budgets and sell photography well. sony is a household name more so than canon or nikon so they get involved and things get shaken up and our medium of expression gets taken to a wider market. that drives more people to photography, opens the market up more and more. drives people into dslr from P&S which then drives the need to reduce prices, improve performance and pack more into them.

Quote:

---

there are more people out there spending vast amounts of money on camera equipment they have no idea of how to use(push this button and fire away). No idea that the lens they put in front of the "expensive" body will make much more difference than the body itself. No idea what makes a good lens, what an f/stop means, what lens speed is, etc. But we all do have one thing in common, we want good photos and will buy more things to get them. Hence more lenses being introduced. Sony is just part of this whole picture, they are in the center of the same maelstrom.

---

so what ? i could care less if thats the case. as long as i know what i'm doing, who cares how lazy or incompetant others are ? thats like saying whats the point of having a car with 400hp, traction control, 4wd etc etc etc. 95% of the people dont use it but its still THERE. thats not a bad thing in the slightest.

the fact is lens' and bodies are getting MUCH better. better optically, much better IS technology, much better AF, even allowing for focus changes in body like the d300, (no need to service a lens for small backfous issues just adjust in cam). thats a result of not only innovation and demand but also demand in the presence of alternatives.

Quote:

---

Noink's sensor performance was completely tied to Sony...Sony made their sensors. They were completely tied to Sony's technology. Canon has been making their own CMOS sensors for a long time, Sony has finally caught up. All of the manufacturers have been pushing the envelope, finding the edge. All of the manufacturers have advanced digital photography at a staggering pace.

---

the D3 was a breakthru not just for nikon but for photography as a whole. just like the d300 just like the d700 and just like the a900 will, (if it is FF with SS). not just becasue of their performance but again, because of the competition it brings. it forces everyone to lift.

Quote:

---

Many of the "innovations" aren't necessary for good photography, and I really can't view them as advancements. They are at the very most convenience items aimed at this huge untrained market.

---

what isnt for the good of photography ? :confused: sorry this makes no sense. unless they DEGRADE the perfomance of something important that NO innovation is bad innovation. it may not be useful to YOU but any advance that doesnt comprimse the photographic integrity of the equipment is good advance imo. i think its quite selfish to suggest that what isnt important to you just isnt important period. what gives you the right to determine what is and isn;t useful ? what is and isn;t relevant ? what is and isnt "good" photography ?

again, you are looking at this with blinkers on thinking back "in the day". the day has changed. welcome to the new world. :)