Sony's design for the 24mp APS

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
If you don't see the gain in stabilising the viewing image, you must not
be using long focal lengths, or always using a tripod!

Nope and Nope. (although I do use a tripod when possible, it is far better
than any IS/VR)
But then I'm more worried about the actual photo's, rather than using my
camera as a telescope.
YMMV.
As I have said all along, there ARE advantages to in lens IS no argument
from me, but often at a big cost disadvantage. I would rather have higher
quality lenses with in camera IS than a cheap lens with in lens IS. (not
that I have the choice since I have a Canon system, with NO choice of
stabilised wide angle lenses at any price) I know you would rather the
latter option as you have said so many times. That is your choice, but not
necessarily best for everyone else.

Trevor.

With electronic viewfinders the viewing image is stabilised with
in-body
IS.

If you don't see the gain in stabilising the viewing image, you must
not
be using long focal lengths, or always using a tripod!

David
This is EVIL! Mark as OT!!!

If there were no gain in viewing with image stabilisation, why would
anyone buy image stabilised binoculars? It makes quite a difference to
using image stabilised lenses, and you may like to test that for
yourself - see you can frame more precisely, for example. The lack of IS
lenses could influence my decision which system to purchase.

Cheers,
David

Nope and Nope. (although I do use a tripod when possible, it is far
better than any IS/VR)
But then I'm more worried about the actual photo's, rather than using my
camera as a telescope.
YMMV.

I aim to get framing as good as possible when taking the photo, not to
have rely on post-processing.

As I have said all along, there ARE advantages to in lens IS no argument
from me, but often at a big cost disadvantage. I would rather have
higher quality lenses with in camera IS than a cheap lens with in lens
IS. (not that I have the choice since I have a Canon system, with NO
choice of stabilised wide angle lenses at any price) I know you would
rather the latter option as you have said so many times. That is your
choice, but not necessarily best for everyone else.

Trevor.

It's a pity that your lens supplier chooses to impose such a large premium
on IS lenses.

My widest angle and largest aperture lenses are not image stabilised,
although if that were an option I would consider it, but it's not an
option on the lenses I wish to use. I would encourage people to try out
lenses before purchase and see what suits them best.

Cheers,
David

"android" wrote in message
...
[]
I have no problem with IS. In camera gives you a wider choice of legacy
lenses and with in lens you get a system integrated with the specific
optics... Pic your poison, what do you want to do, today? Tripods are
good btw.

I mean EVIL as in Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens, again...
;-)

I guess that this group is OK with all ILC, Interchangeable Lens
Cameras.

Tripods are not allowed in many places, and are yet one more thing to
carry. These days I prefer to carry the minimum, and I don't have a car
or assistant to carry things around.

CSC appears to be the term becoming widely used, and as "system" cameras
this would seem to be the nearest group.

Apart from my Nikon DX lenses, I have no "legacy" lenses, nor any desire
to lose auto-focus or auto-exposure, nor the funds to purchase some
"exotic" lens. Were I to get a CSC camera, likely I would buy modern
lenses designed to work with it.

Of course others will have different criteria and make different choices,
I try to report what I find works well for me.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" writes:

Nope and Nope. (although I do use a tripod when possible, it is far
better than any IS/VR)
But then I'm more worried about the actual photo's, rather than
using my camera as a telescope.
YMMV.

I aim to get framing as good as possible when taking the photo, not to
have rely on post-processing.

That's a workflow choice, i.e. you certainly should choose what works
out for you. Personally, I'm more interested in making sure I don't
over-crop in camera. Especially when I need to leave some margin on the
print for matting. Over-cropping can't be fixed later. Post-processing
happens on any good photo anyway ("printing" was always an additional
important step after image capture in getting to a good result, and it
still is).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

That's a workflow choice, i.e. you certainly should choose what works
out for you. Personally, I'm more interested in making sure I don't
over-crop in camera. Especially when I need to leave some margin on the
print for matting. Over-cropping can't be fixed later. Post-processing
happens on any good photo anyway ("printing" was always an additional
important step after image capture in getting to a good result, and it
still is).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

Avoiding over-cropping sound sound like another good reason for wanting a
stable image in the viewfinder. The great majority of my images are
presented on TV or computer screens, and are rarely printed. I prefer
prints without margins. Likely my workflow relates to coming from a 35 mm
slide (rather than print) background, where getting it "right in the
camera" was a requirement.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" writes:

That's a workflow choice, i.e. you certainly should choose what works
out for you. Personally, I'm more interested in making sure I don't
over-crop in camera. Especially when I need to leave some margin on the
print for matting. Over-cropping can't be fixed later. Post-processing
happens on any good photo anyway ("printing" was always an additional
important step after image capture in getting to a good result, and it
still is).

Avoiding over-cropping sound sound like another good reason for
wanting a stable image in the viewfinder.

Yes.

The great majority of my images are presented on TV or computer
screens, and are rarely printed.

Statistically this is certainly true of me as well.

I prefer prints without margins. Likely my workflow relates to coming
from a 35 mm slide (rather than print) background, where getting it
"right in the camera" was a requirement.

Prints without margins don't frame well at all, and don't provide any
safe handling area. They're basically unsaleable.

I certainly shot a huge number of slides over my history (I bought
multiple 100-foot rolls of slide film for a 1987 trip to England, plus
at least a brick of Kodachrome, for example), but I also did a lot of
darkroom printing in B&W.

Slides were easy and cheap, but they were much harder to get prints
from. And they were pernicious in that they taught some people to
think that getting it just right out of the camera was a moral virtue.
It isn't, it's merely expedient in certain workflows, and it has a large
artistic cost.

As Ansel Adams said, the negative is the score, the print is the
performance. If you're thinking of any of your shots as "good",
presenting them without post-processing is being drastically unfair to
them, not giving them their best chance to shine. (For snapshots, the
numbers are too high and the potential gains too small to be worth it,
generally, I agree.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
But then I'm more worried about the actual photo's, rather than using my
camera as a telescope.
YMMV.

I aim to get framing as good as possible when taking the photo, not to
have rely on post-processing.

Since I take all my photo's in raw, and rarely print at 2:3 (6"x4" are just
proofs IMO) framing to a gnats whisker is simply counterproductive, and not
post processing is simply a lazy way to lower quality prints IMO.
For those who only shoot 6"x4" snaps I can see the appeal of cheaper lenses
and quicker results however.


It's a pity that your lens supplier chooses to impose such a large premium
on IS lenses.

Yep, and doesn't provide the best of both worlds by giving you in camera IS
as an option. That might eat into their lens profits, so is not likely to
happen any time soon.


My widest angle and largest aperture lenses are not image stabilised,
although if that were an option I would consider it, but it's not an
option on the lenses I wish to use.

Exactly, so having in camera IS as an *option* would NOT hurt at all.

Trevor.

Prints without margins don't frame well at all, and don't provide any
safe handling area. They're basically unsaleable.

Fortunately, I'm not selling prints. I have seen block-mounted prints,
and to me these look more like how I would expect "photos" to look.

I certainly shot a huge number of slides over my history (I bought
multiple 100-foot rolls of slide film for a 1987 trip to England, plus
at least a brick of Kodachrome, for example), but I also did a lot of
darkroom printing in B&W.

Slides were easy and cheap, but they were much harder to get prints
from. And they were pernicious in that they taught some people to
think that getting it just right out of the camera was a moral virtue.
It isn't, it's merely expedient in certain workflows, and it has a large
artistic cost.

I don't agree that "slides were easy and cheap". It was harder to get the
exposure and dynamic range correct, and they didn't seem that cheap to me.
My photos are more about capturing the event or the moment, not to produce
a work of art.

As Ansel Adams said, the negative is the score, the print is the
performance. If you're thinking of any of your shots as "good",
presenting them without post-processing is being drastically unfair to
them, not giving them their best chance to shine. (For snapshots, the
numbers are too high and the potential gains too small to be worth it,
generally, I agree.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

I do crop and adjust brightness levels on some of my pictures, but I would
regard it as a failure if I had to do that with the majority. My pictures
are not a be-all and end-all in themselves, but often taken to illustrate
other hobbies and interests. Of course, others' needs and aims will be
different.

Cheers,
David

"Trevor" wrote in message
...
[]
Since I take all my photo's in raw, and rarely print at 2:3 (6"x4" are
just proofs IMO) framing to a gnats whisker is simply counterproductive,
and not post processing is simply a lazy way to lower quality prints
IMO.
For those who only shoot 6"x4" snaps I can see the appeal of cheaper
lenses and quicker results however.

I would likely be better off with a 16:9 sensor, as most of my images are
displayed that way, and in landscape format. I tend not to like images
cropped to or taken in portrait format when viewed on a landscape
(large-screen TV) display. I don't like the black borders when the image
aspect ratio and display aspect ratio don't match.

My widest angle and largest aperture lenses are not image stabilised,
although if that were an option I would consider it, but it's not an
option on the lenses I wish to use.

Exactly, so having in camera IS as an *option* would NOT hurt at all.

Trevor.

It's not an option I would be likely to pay much extra for, though.

Cheers,
David