Sony's Alpha..I saw it, nice "try" better luck next time...

Kevin Agard wrote:

This whole conversation, or at least significant portions of it amazes
me. First of all, when comparing the A100 to the D200 you are comparing
a $1K to a $2K camera. Apples and oranges.

Then of course, we have the inevitable "brand zealots" who will never be
convinced that any other brand is better then "theirs."

As far as I can tell, based on everything I have read, both during the
lead up to the release and from those who now have an A100 in hand, but
never having handled one personally, is that the A100 is basically an
updated and re-branded KM 5D. OK, the 5D was ALWAYS and "consumer" grade
camera. It was designed as such and never meant to be a "pro" camera. By
design it was a mass market product. Again, comparison to a D200 is
apples and oranges.

I have two 7Ds. I could have bought a 5D when I bought the second 7D and
saved some $ but I didn't like the 5D. I didn't like the "heft and
feel" or the size. That was my opinion then, and the 10MP capabilities
of the A100 has done nothing to change my mind. YMMV.

That being said, I might very well buy an A100 for my son as a starter
DSLR (once the price drops a bit) because I have a bunch of lenses and
accessories that he could use with it and that would save me/him a ton
of cash.

Another reason would be to encourage Sony to further develop the line
and perhaps come out with what a 9D would/should have been. While I like
the 7Ds, that would be a camera I buy in heartbeat. But the possibility
of a 9D like camera aside, as previously stated I have a ton of $ in
Minolta cameras and accessories and anything that means the continued
availability of compatible components and accessories for the equipment
I already have an investment in is a good thing for me and those in the
same situation.

This my camera is better than your camera nonsense is just plain
juvenile, IMNSHO. It borders on the same madness that has half the world
trying to kill the other half because they do not pray to same
invisible man, or in exactly the same way.

The bottom line is that "best," "better" or [insert term of choice here]
are PURELY SUBJECTIVE! If you like a particular camera/make better than
the one I like, bully for you. Use it. In fact, it may well be "better"
for YOU. That does not mean it's better for me.

Why is it that whenever somebody here expresses an opinion about a
particular camera/brand it seems to always devolve into a brand ****ing
contest???

Because various objects become religious icons to some people who are
otherwise devoid of focus in their lives. This is why the State of
Connecticut bought a few million dollars worth of Macs a decade or so back
specifically to be used for teaching MS-DOS. Reason goes out the window.

KMA

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

The roof mirror prisms are maybe 10 per cent less efficient than glass
prisms.

Probably about right. Which is to say, the difference in brightness is
unnoticeable for all practical purposes.


The 7D still uses a semi-clear screen and a glass prism, but at least you
could (once) get a proper matt focusing screen fitted. The 5D/A100
porroprism

Not "porroprism." The Porro prism is a real prism, used in pairs (often
called "porroprism") in the erecting systems of most binoculars and
telescopes, and if I'm not mistaken a similar mirror-based system was also
used for the viewfinder of the old Olympus F half-frame SLR. But such
systems are not at all the same as the roof-mirror system used in some
full-frame 35 and digital SLRs.


would make such a screen too dark for easy viewing with today's
low-aperture budget lenses.

My 5D manually focuses quite well, even in fairly low light, at reasonable
focal lengths. The focusing screen appears similar to the Acute Matte
screens that Minolta used in 35s since the old XD-11, and that's 30+ years
ago. That always was quite good even without the usual focusing aids.

Key here is "at reasonable focal lengths." With the 18-70mm kit lens at the
short end, manual focusing is sort of iffy. But then it would be with an
18mm lens on a 35, too.



Manual focusing is a total no-go with all cameras using these bright
screens - including the new Nikon D2Xs, Canon 30D, etc.

That would be true if the viewing screen really was clear -- as it was in
some old 35s such as the Zeiss Contaflex, in which no focusing at all could
be done without the central focusing aids. But they're not *that* clear.
(However, I'm only going by my Maxxum 5D and Nikon D70s, and have no
experience whatever with anything as expensive as the D2x.)


It just can not be relied on as the dioptre correction will change the
apparent correct focus setting.

You're correct of course that changing the diopter setting does change the
apparent focus distance as seen in the viewfinder. (I must admit I never
even thought of that!) I suspect that would be true with any screen of the
Acute Matte type. I assume that as long as the diopter setting is made to
bring the viewfinder markings into best focus, which is the normal thing to
do anyway, then manual focusing on the screen is good enough for any
practical purposes. But this is something worth looking into by experiment.

Neil

Neil Harrington wrote:


Not "porroprism." The Porro prism is a real prism, used in pairs (often
called "porroprism") in the erecting systems of most binoculars and
telescopes, and if I'm not mistaken a similar mirror-based system was also
used for the viewfinder of the old Olympus F half-frame SLR. But such
systems are not at all the same as the roof-mirror system used in some
full-frame 35 and digital SLRs.

As far as I know, the term was first used in photography by Mamiya to
describe their mirror pentaprism unit for the C220/330. The Olympus Pen
F used an erecting and laterally correcting mirror arrangement. The
Wrayflex used an 'erecting prism' which left the image reversed left to
right.


would make such a screen too dark for easy viewing with today's
low-aperture budget lenses.


My 5D manually focuses quite well, even in fairly low light, at reasonable
focal lengths. The focusing screen appears similar to the Acute Matte
screens that Minolta used in 35s since the old XD-11, and that's 30+ years
ago. That always was quite good even without the usual focusing aids.

The screen is several generations down the line; I remember some dismay
at the change occurred between the XM (true groundglass) and XE-1 (a
very nice conventional but bright screen) and the XD-7; then more with
the X-700. While you may think you can manually focus, it's highly
dependent on both the lens in use and the dioptre correction. The main
problem is that the focus index marks are not in the same plane as the
screen surface, and this varies from camera to camera, with between zero
and three shims being used in the 5D to collimate.


That would be true if the viewing screen really was clear -- as it was in
some old 35s such as the Zeiss Contaflex, in which no focusing at all could
be done without the central focusing aids. But they're not *that* clear.
(However, I'm only going by my Maxxum 5D and Nikon D70s, and have no
experience whatever with anything as expensive as the D2x.)

I'm referring to the new D2XS. They have just brightened the screen ....
that is, made it less interceptive, and thus less useful for judging
depth of field, or for manual focus.



It just can not be relied on as the dioptre correction will change the
apparent correct focus setting.


You're correct of course that changing the diopter setting does change the
apparent focus distance as seen in the viewfinder. (I must admit I never
even thought of that!) I suspect that would be true with any screen of the
Acute Matte type. I assume that as long as the diopter setting is made to
bring the viewfinder markings into best focus, which is the normal thing to
do anyway, then manual focusing on the screen is good enough for any
practical purposes. But this is something worth looking into by experiment.


See above. On some bodies the viewfinder markings will be very close to
correct. On others, the shimming added will make a significant difference.

When the Acute Matte screens were first devised, they were only issued
with central focus aids. The bright field therefore just filled in the
surrounding picture. You couldn't focus on this so reliably, but there
was a ring of true matt groundglass surrounding the microprism/split
annulus. If you ordered a Type L, or a G plain screen, you didn't get
Acute Matte. That's what I had in my cameras - no peculiar directional
flaring of the image... pure groundglass!

The problem now is that something even brighter than Acute Matte - Super
Spherical Acute Matte - is being used over the entire screen and there
is no central focus aid. Very different from the XD-7 era where you
still had a workable focusing area in the screen centre.

If you have an f1.4 and a 7D/5D, try setting up a nice close still life
at a foot or so, and view it at f2.8 (for example). Study the depth of
field. Now shoot the pic, and study the image on the screen. Compare
this to the view through the lens. You will be amazed - if not dismayed.
The difference is extreme and I feel this is one of the reasons why so
many users have been disappointed by apparent sharpness in final images
- they have been viewing a finder image which MUCH more depth of field.

David

J. Clarke wrote:


Because various objects become religious icons to some people who are
otherwise devoid of focus in their lives. This is why the State of
Connecticut bought a few million dollars worth of Macs a decade or so back
specifically to be used for teaching MS-DOS. Reason goes out the window.



Indeed, any State which was teaching MS-DOS in the era when you could
buy Macs had chucked reason out of the window - fully agree!

Like our local enterprise board, which 'trains' businesses to lay out
their own brochures... in Microsoft Publisher. Provides local designers
with nice previsualisations so they can charge the poor suckers all over
again to repeat the exercise using a real program. And, of course,
photographers who can reshoot the images to a resolution suitable for
printing!

David

Neil Harrington wrote:
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

The roof mirror prisms are maybe 10 per cent less efficient than glass
prisms.


Probably about right. Which is to say, the difference in brightness is
unnoticeable for all practical purposes.

It is very noticeable. Look through a Maxxum 9. Look through a maxxum
5 (with the same lens). It is shockingly noticeable and makes critical
focus difficult in low light.

And low light photography (eg: late evening/pre-sunset) is low enough
light that using the Maxxum 5 is difficult where using the Maxxum 9 is not.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

RichA wrote:
But really, it's reasonable at the price point.


--I got a chance to try it out. I was 1/2 impressed, 1/2 depressed.
What's bad:
-Build quality. It is so far below the E-1 or the Nikon D200 it isn't
funny. In fact, I had the D200 next to it and the differences are
enough to make you cry.

I dropped some film off for processing today and lo and behold, they had
an A100 in the display case. So I asked to look at it. It too small
for my hands, but the "heft" of it was unexpectedly pleasant. It had
that substantial feeling that suggests a robust piece of equipment. For
US$900 it is a lot of camera, no doubt about it. You can compare it
against cameras at near twice the price if you like, but I guess
rational comparisons are not your forte.

What really counts of course is the image. So far the reviews have been
less than stellar at the higher speeds. OTOH, who shoots often at ISO
800 and up? I hope Sony improve in these areas, of course.

Now, if they can come out with a Maxxum 7 or 9 class machine then we
will have something to talk about.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

David Kilpatrick wrote:

No no no... the AF is somewhere else!



I retracted that 7 minutes after posting it ... about 1.75 hours ago.


I'm a serial post reader - threads make a hell of a mess in Thunderbird
for some reason. Sorry!

David

I'm in thunderbird and it presents threads nicely enough ...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Otherwise, a penta-mirror is slightly dimmer in the viewfinder.


Not necessarily true, though reportedly it was so with the very early
roof-mirror cameras.

My Maxxum 5 has a roof mirror and my 600si has a solid glass pentaprism.
With identical or similar lenses there is no noticeable difference in
viewfinder brightness.

My SO has a Maxxum 5. I have a Maxxum 9 and 7D. The later are both
noticeably brighter, esp. in low light conditions (with the same lens)
making early morning/late evening photography difficult with the 5.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:


Not "porroprism." The Porro prism is a real prism, used in pairs (often
called "porroprism") in the erecting systems of most binoculars and
telescopes, and if I'm not mistaken a similar mirror-based system was
also used for the viewfinder of the old Olympus F half-frame SLR. But
such systems are not at all the same as the roof-mirror system used in
some full-frame 35 and digital SLRs.

As far as I know, the term was first used in photography by Mamiya to
describe their mirror pentaprism unit for the C220/330. The Olympus Pen F
used an erecting and laterally correcting mirror arrangement.

Right, but if I recall correctly the mirrors it used were arranged so as to
work like a pair of Porro prisms and was called a "porroprism" system.
However, it's many years since I looked at those diagrams and I may well be
mistaken.


The Wrayflex used an 'erecting prism' which left the image reversed left
to right.

Wrayflex is a new one on me.




would make such a screen too dark for easy viewing with today's
low-aperture budget lenses.


My 5D manually focuses quite well, even in fairly low light, at
reasonable focal lengths. The focusing screen appears similar to the
Acute Matte screens that Minolta used in 35s since the old XD-11, and
that's 30+ years ago. That always was quite good even without the usual
focusing aids.

The screen is several generations down the line; I remember some dismay at
the change occurred between the XM (true groundglass) and XE-1 (a very
nice conventional but bright screen)

The XE-1 (with that designation) was never sold in the U.S. as far as I
know, but I think it's the same camera as was sold here as the XE-7. That
was my very first Minolta SLR! Loved that camera and to this day I'm a
little sorry I sold it. Yes, that had a regular groundglass and Fresnel
screen.


and the XD-7;

Sold here as the XD-11. That was the model that introduced Minolta's Acute
Matte screen. That was perhaps my next Minolta SLR, though I did buy an XE-5
somewhere in there.


then more with the X-700. While you may think you can manually focus, it's
highly dependent on both the lens in use and the dioptre correction. The
main problem is that the focus index marks are not in the same plane as
the screen surface, and this varies from camera to camera, with between
zero and three shims being used in the 5D to collimate.

Ah. That's interesting, and I see what you're saying.




That would be true if the viewing screen really was clear -- as it was in
some old 35s such as the Zeiss Contaflex, in which no focusing at all
could be done without the central focusing aids. But they're not *that*
clear. (However, I'm only going by my Maxxum 5D and Nikon D70s, and have
no experience whatever with anything as expensive as the D2x.)

I'm referring to the new D2XS. They have just brightened the screen ....
that is, made it less interceptive, and thus less useful for judging depth
of field, or for manual focus.

Okay.





It just can not be relied on as the dioptre correction will change the
apparent correct focus setting.


You're correct of course that changing the diopter setting does change
the apparent focus distance as seen in the viewfinder. (I must admit I
never even thought of that!) I suspect that would be true with any screen
of the Acute Matte type. I assume that as long as the diopter setting is
made to bring the viewfinder markings into best focus, which is the
normal thing to do anyway, then manual focusing on the screen is good
enough for any practical purposes. But this is something worth looking
into by experiment.


See above. On some bodies the viewfinder markings will be very close to
correct. On others, the shimming added will make a significant difference.

When the Acute Matte screens were first devised, they were only issued
with central focus aids. The bright field therefore just filled in the
surrounding picture. You couldn't focus on this so reliably, but there was
a ring of true matt groundglass surrounding the microprism/split annulus.
If you ordered a Type L, or a G plain screen, you didn't get Acute Matte.
That's what I had in my cameras - no peculiar directional flaring of the
image... pure groundglass!

The problem now is that something even brighter than Acute Matte - Super
Spherical Acute Matte - is being used over the entire screen and there is
no central focus aid. Very different from the XD-7 era where you still had
a workable focusing area in the screen centre.

Ah. Very interesting. My recollection is that the Acute Matte screen gave
the *impression* of being usable for focus over the entire screen -- but
admittedly I never used it for that. My recollection is that the screen had
the usual split-image rangefinder in the center surrounded by the usual
microprism collar, and those were all I ever used for focusing. The true
groundglass ring you mention, I don't think I ever noticed.



If you have an f1.4 and a 7D/5D, try setting up a nice close still life at
a foot or so, and view it at f2.8 (for example). Study the depth of field.
Now shoot the pic, and study the image on the screen. Compare this to the
view through the lens. You will be amazed - if not dismayed.

I don't have an f/1.4 but I do have a couple of f/1.7s. I will indeed try
what you suggest. It sounds like an interesting experiment.


The difference is extreme and I feel this is one of the reasons why so
many users have been disappointed by apparent sharpness in final images -
they have been viewing a finder image which MUCH more depth of field.

Well, apart from that I think there's the difficulty of accurately assessing
depth of field in the viewfinder, *any* viewfinder. This is why I've always
thought checking DOF with the preview button is misleading, if not a
complete waste of time. It's always going to look greater in the viewfinder.
Especially for people who make large prints, since DOF necessarily shrinks
as final enlargement goes up. I'm sure there is *some* print size with DOF
that corresponds to that shown in the viewfinder, but my guess is it's a
pretty small print.

Neil

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

David Kilpatrick wrote:

What bothers me is that Auto WB - or preset WBs - must use up the
entire two highest bits of a 12-bit raw file, just to be possible.
These bits already account for three-quarters of the possible
histogram length



White balance should not affect the RAW file at all (other than
perhaps in the settings recording, but not the actual image data).


Ideally, using a non-native WB should cause the exposure (or
sensitivity) to be cut slightly, just the same as the Hi200 mode of the
A100 or Hi250 mode of the Dynax 5D.

This would ensure the best chance of a clean white point.

But the penalty would be increased shadow noise, and of course, that's
where auto WB/tungsten light/high ISO really hurts noise performance.

I'm working with Apical (the DRO people) on some ideas for altering this
status quo and getting better tungsten low light high ISO performance.

I still don't see why the WB setting would affect the MS 2 bits in the
raw files per your claim above. The raw files record, simply, the R,G
and B levels of each sensor without any other consideration. The RAW
also contains other tag data, but the image data is, well, raw.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.