Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Interesting Comment from President of Sony Electronics

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: oh FFS enough already
strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2012 - 3:18 PM

How does moving the video button get altered by a firmware update. Have you handled a NEX6??????? The OMD is better designed so easier to learn. If the button is in a hard to reach position it is in a hard to reach position.

The problem is you struggle to understand complex answers and go for yes/no answers where a more considered answer is best. And you do have a "I like the Sony I have bought complex and so they are the best. Any other product (Sony or not) is inferior"

I said in camera IS was not as effective for long lenses for a variety of reason one of the key ones being it did not stabilise the image to the AF sensor on SLRs and SLT designs. Also for SLR cameras it did not stabilise the viewfinder image. By olympus taking the AF reference/calculation from the sensor and also the viewfinder image they overcame much of this. You really struggled to grasp that.

I pointed out that for the cameras at the time the in-camera sensor based IS systems did not offer a good solution for movies, and it is interesting to note that when sony had the chance to design a new lens mount for photography and video need they went for in-lens IS. I believe (and it looks that Sony also does) that it is easier to make in-lens IS work for Video. Panasonic also made the same choice. The early cameras where Sony introduced the in-camera IS they had to limit the operation time due to heating and battery discharge issues. In short it has proven to be difficult to do. That clever Olympus have made it work well does not make it the best solution engineering solution. It is possible that there are conditions where one is better than the other.

I also explained the AF differences and approaches and heck I even described the mixed contrast and phase AF system that Sony have now produced before they even made any. Let me tell you again, there are elements of the phase AF system that cause AF errors still in the SLT system. That the SLT you have now focuses better may be a lot about how poor your previous camera was.

As for resolution I told you why I thought a 16mp crop sensor camera was fine and why a 36mp full frame camera is fine. I gave you the reasons why before the D800 came out. What is more I have explained to you conditions under which I think having resolution of about 10x the amount we have now will be an advantage (if semiconductor technology improves enough to support it). And I also explained why it would not always deliver more detailed prints but would enable better correction of low cost optics. But you just cannot grasp the complex bits.

you even argued that diffraction did not occur..... Till Nikon pointed out to you it did.

I think the NEX cameras are the best in their range, if only they would make them better handling products and expand the lens range. I think they are better than the equivalent Nikon and Canon offerings. But they are not as good as the m4/3 cameras. I would pick a Panasonic or Olympus over them. Still got a problem???

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Nov 2012 - 3:18 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2012 - 3:27 PM


Quote: I did consider going M4/3 but they don't have a decent selection of long lenses (especially primes)and they don't (yet) have decent tracking focus

Now that is a valid viewpoint. You are fine to hold it. It does not mean you hate m4/3 Does NEX have long lenses in its range?

My counter point would be that if you want longer lenses you want a bigger body to balance the lens and also to give a stable handling platform. and then I would want the stabilised viewfinder and because of the rapid changing light situations I find when hand holding for birds in flight for example I would prefer to have an optical viewfinder with in-lens IS. So I would end up with a Canon or a Nikon, or a Pentax with a Sigma lens.

the mirror less cameras to me look to have advantages of portability and I would have thought the shorter focal lengths would be more important. Mind you the m4/3 do go up to 300mm when I last looked so that's not that bad and plenty of their users are managing wildlife. That would be @ 400mm equivalent on NEX so its not a bad range of focal lengths.

Tracking focusing I can understand and that is the weakness of the current generation m4/3 cameras. But then the SLT cameras also lag, not as badly, there over some classic SLR cameras. And how long till they have another big processing and SW speed update, or a new sensor with mixed phase and contrast AF detection?

Last Modified By strawman at 9 Nov 2012 - 3:28 PM
StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014713 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2012 - 5:31 PM

John, you have very valid points. The advantages of M4/3 are weight and size, including an ever growing stable of excellent lens choices. I've been using the Olympus OM-D with 2 lenses; the Olympus kit 14-42mm, and Panasonic 100-300mm, since the 1st of May, and I don't have a craving, so to speak, for any more kit so far. I will want the new Olympus 60mm macro later on, but right now I'm out 4 to 5 days a week with my camera, and enjoying it as much as I ever have in the past, or more, because of the ease of use, and portability of the kit. I take a small sling bag, and everything, including my lunch fits in it, and the weight is hardly noticeable. The effective focal length I have is 28-600mm, with the best stabilisation system in the business built right into the camera. Let's face it, any longer focal length for walkabout on other systems gets into some crippling weights and sizes, not to mention much more expense. What I'm using has no need for accessories such as TCs either, and for the first time in years, I have no qualms about leaving the tripod at home. It's a pleasure to take the kit and go for a 3 or 4 hour walk, and know my back won't be suffering that evening.Grin

I should also mention here that there is a great selection of fast primes available now for excellent prices in the M4/3 range.

Last Modified By StrayCat at 9 Nov 2012 - 5:32 PM
strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2012 - 6:10 PM

It sounds like you have found a good camera for you and that is the important bit, the omd bunch sound a happy bunch
Grin

lemmy
lemmy  71835 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Nov 2012 - 7:36 PM


Quote: It's a pleasure to take the kit and go for a 3 or 4 hour walk, and know my back won't be suffering that evening.

Exactly why I sold my DSLR stuff for M43, more cycling than walking for me but same difference.....no back ache.

Steppenwolf
10 Nov 2012 - 10:01 AM


Quote: How does moving the video button get altered by a firmware update. Have you handled a NEX6??????? The OMD is better designed so easier to learn. If the button is in a hard to reach position it is in a hard to reach position.

The problem is you struggle to understand complex answers and go for yes/no answers where a more considered answer is best. And you do have a "I like the Sony I have bought complex and so they are the best. Any other product (Sony or not) is inferior"

I said in camera IS was not as effective for long lenses for a variety of reason one of the key ones being it did not stabilise the image to the AF sensor on SLRs and SLT designs. Also for SLR cameras it did not stabilise the viewfinder image. By olympus taking the AF reference/calculation from the sensor and also the viewfinder image they overcame much of this. You really struggled to grasp that.

I pointed out that for the cameras at the time the in-camera sensor based IS systems did not offer a good solution for movies, and it is interesting to note that when sony had the chance to design a new lens mount for photography and video need they went for in-lens IS. I believe (and it looks that Sony also does) that it is easier to make in-lens IS work for Video. Panasonic also made the same choice. The early cameras where Sony introduced the in-camera IS they had to limit the operation time due to heating and battery discharge issues. In short it has proven to be difficult to do. That clever Olympus have made it work well does not make it the best solution engineering solution. It is possible that there are conditions where one is better than the other.

I also explained the AF differences and approaches and heck I even described the mixed contrast and phase AF system that Sony have now produced before they even made any. Let me tell you again, there are elements of the phase AF system that cause AF errors still in the SLT system. That the SLT you have now focuses better may be a lot about how poor your previous camera was.

As for resolution I told you why I thought a 16mp crop sensor camera was fine and why a 36mp full frame camera is fine. I gave you the reasons why before the D800 came out. What is more I have explained to you conditions under which I think having resolution of about 10x the amount we have now will be an advantage (if semiconductor technology improves enough to support it). And I also explained why it would not always deliver more detailed prints but would enable better correction of low cost optics. But you just cannot grasp the complex bits.

you even argued that diffraction did not occur..... Till Nikon pointed out to you it did.



This is a bit of travesty even for you strawman. Let's address the points for a final time:

1. In-camera IS: I don't accept your point that the stabilisation of the AF point is relevant. Firstly, if you can't hold the camera steady enough for the subject to be in the AF point you're asking a lot of the IS and secondly you can lock focus by a half-press of the button. This simply isn't a problem. You get too bogged down in nit-picking theory. I've asked you several times to produce the evidence that in-camera IS is inferior to in-lens IS and you've never produced any. On the A77 I've found it works very well, both in stills and video mode. It's not only Olympus who have got it working - Sony/Minolta had it before Oly did.

As for it not being a "good solution" for movies - says who? It's a pretty good solution if it means you can take a 20 year-old Minolta 300mm f2.8 and shoot image stabilised video through it.

2. SLT focus: As I've said before I had decided to give up on DSLRs because of focus inaccuracy - that's why I was considering M4/3. When using long focal lengths at wide aperture I've found both the DSLRs I have owned to be unreliable. It was this article by David Kilpatrick that decided me to give the SLTs a try (and the fact that the A77 has micro tune):SLT focus

As DK says the SLTs don't seem to be plagued by the DSLR's BF/FF for whatever reason - I suspect it's the fact that it doesn't have the moving mirror. However, the theory is unimportant - the experience seems to be that the SLTs don't suffer from this problem and the forums sem to back this up.

3. Megapixels: You have consistently stated that 12Mp is the "sweet spot" for APS-C. I think your position is that a) you don't need any more than this and b) the ultimate quality is diffraction-limited anyway. Both these statements are dubious. Firstly more Mp seems to give greater resolution empirically and secondly it gives you more cropping ability which many people, even on this forum have pointed out. As for diffraction, find me the post where I said it doesn't exist - I have studied physics at university. My contention is simply that you massively over-egged your claims. Various people who write in AP seem to think that the optimum level is way beyond 12Mp for APS-C. You've yet again got bogged down in theory when it's the empirical evidence that counts.

4. SLT lag: I guess you're referring to the EVF. It's not a problem on the latest EVF - very fast refresh and very fast frame rates.

5. M4/3 long lens: 300mm (400mm in APS-C terms) is not particularly long when you're shooting wildlife strawman. 500mm is nice, but 600mm is often better. I use a 300mm f2.8 with matching 2X TC a lot of the time. M4/3 has no long primes and no TCs (TCs on zooms are not often very successful in my experience).


ANyway, this is all old ground and I'm afraid I find your pronouncements on virtually everything (both photographic and car related) fairly dubious at best - and usually nonsensical. I think we just have to agree to differ. You think Sony stuff is flawed, if that's the correct word. I use it and I disagree. The A77 is by far the best camera I've ever had.

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
10 Nov 2012 - 4:40 PM

Lol you just do not understand what I have written. My comments on diffraction are based on the maths and I showed you work of others in a similar nature and after I gave you some values nikon published a guide on using the D800 where the numbers lined up. So just for the record are you saying nikon got it wrong as well as me and others. I did optics as part of my degree did you?

I give you the maths and facts in the hope you may understand.

Also re cars I have contributed to the design and development of vehicles on the road now (and some at concept stage). Some of which went on to win awards for drivability and others car of the year how about you? You may want to pick up the copy of autocar that picked their idea of the drivers car of the year. now I have not worked on that one but I have to aplaud the application of technology to give a result without covering the vehicle in bells and whistles you may remember I picked it for certain qualities and you called it old fashioned just because it had rear wheel drive and an engine at the front I just call it clever and smart

Re number of pixels can you not include the other parts I mentioned as to why 12mp for many photographers is a good point? It may help you understand and prevent you making a fool of yourself. please try to read and understand before you fly off on a rant.

lemmy
lemmy  71835 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Nov 2012 - 5:36 PM


Quote: please try to read and understand before you fly off on a rant

You are dealing with a convert. They don't need to understand, only they know the truth.

Steppenwolf
11 Nov 2012 - 2:11 PM


Quote: Lol you just do not understand what I have written. My comments on diffraction are based on the maths and I showed you work of others in a similar nature and after I gave you some values nikon published a guide on using the D800 where the numbers lined up. So just for the record are you saying nikon got it wrong as well as me and others. I give you the maths and facts in the hope you may understand.



I understand what you write perfectly well SM - it's not complicated. I have no argument about the effects of diffraction (or the figures that you linked from Luminous Landscape) but you shouldn't use these figures to try to substantiate your views about what the maximum MP count of an APS-C camera should be. Your argument was that 12Mp was the "sweet spot" and that Sony's 24Mp APS-C sensor was counterproductive. This "pronouncement" is not supported by various (well qualified) contributors to AP, who I've quoted in the past and is not even supported by the LL article you linked. For example the quoted diffraction limit for resolution of an APS-C sensor is 12Mp at f11. But at f2.8 it's over 100 Mp. So it seems slightly arbitrary that you've selected 12Mp as the sweet spot because of diffraction. There are also various articles that support the view that the resolution of a sensor continues to improve well beyond the theoretical diffraction limited pixel pitch. The fact is that the performance of a sensor is dependent on a lot of factors and there isn't any mathematical equation that you can come up with that calculates where the optimum configuration is.

Theory only gets you so far, SM. You need to examine the empirical evidence. I guess in studying optical physics you didn't learn much about scientific method.



Quote:
Also re cars I have contributed to the design and development of vehicles on the road now (and some at concept stage). Some of which went on to win awards for drivability and others car of the year how about you? You may want to pick up the copy of autocar that picked their idea of the drivers car of the year. now I have not worked on that one but I have to aplaud the application of technology to give a result without covering the vehicle in bells and whistles you may remember I picked it for certain qualities and you called it old fashioned just because it had rear wheel drive and an engine at the front I just call it clever and smart


Funnily enough I saw that the GT86 had been voted DCOTY the other day and we were having a bit of a laugh about it. There is some warped logic in it of course. A modern state of the art car with dual clutch auto, 4WD, computer-controlled suspension and differentials and stability control is so "planted" on the road that you have to drive at insane speeds to break adhesion. So, for those who are about 60 years old and think driving pleasure is about drifting round corners while controlling the car on the throttle and messing about with manual gear changes, I guess the GT86 must be nirvana. But basically it's just an outdated configuration with skinny tyres and an engine with a torque curve that only delivers its power (using the word power in the loosest sense possible) at very high revs. It may be Drivers' Car of the Year, but the year is about 1976. Like I said, some people like retro.

Last Modified By Steppenwolf at 11 Nov 2012 - 2:12 PM
Steppenwolf
11 Nov 2012 - 2:30 PM


Quote:
You are dealing with a convert. They don't need to understand, only they know the truth.

As you seem to support "John", I assume you agree with pronouncements like:

1. EVFs are inferior to OVFs
2. M4/3 is "better" than NEX
3. In-lens IS is better than in-camera IS
4. In-camera IS doesn't stabilise the AF points in SLTs (Factually incorrect as the IS only kicks in during exposure)
5. SLTs are a bad design solution
6. SLTs don't give more accurate focus than equivalent DSLRs
7. SLTs are no good for tracking
8. 12MP is the sweet spot for APS-C sensors
9. 24Mp APS-C is counterproductive because of diffraction limits
10. Larger sensor cameras have a greater DOF

There are probably more but these are just the top 10 things that "John" has "pronounced on from on high" over the last year. Some are basically subjective and his statements indicate bias. Some are selectively sourced from reviews and are not generally agreed with by people who actually use the camera in question, and some are just utter nonsense.

User_Removed
11 Nov 2012 - 3:08 PM

Pete. (Steppenwolf)

I see you don't have any images in your PF. Why did you join EPZ? (Curiosity is 'killing the cat here Wink)

Diffraction. Do you REALLY understand a) what it is and b) it's impact on an image? (ANY image)

This will help... LENS DIFFRACTION & PHOTOGRAPHY

HTH's..

Smile

lemmy
lemmy  71835 forum posts United Kingdom
11 Nov 2012 - 4:45 PM


Quote: As you seem to support "John", I assume you agree with pronouncements like:

You can assume what you like - it tells you nothing about my opinions.

You seem fixated with Sony cameras. Nobody said they were no good, they said they were not in all cases, the 'best'.

But, if you read your own posts, for you to speak of someone else 'pronouncing from on high' is rchly humourous.

Anyway, I assume that you are a teenager and I surmise that you are a troll.

Rule No 1. Please Do No Feed The Troll. I'm out a here.

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
11 Nov 2012 - 6:02 PM


Quote: I understand what you write perfectly well SM - it's not complicated

No you do not because you have not communicated all the reasons for my comment. Once you have communicated all the reasons you may begin to understand. Let me give you a basic issue of where you are failing to comprehend what is written and distorting what is written in order for you to have an argument and pronounce from on high.

You say the
Quote: SLTs don't seem to be plagued by the DSLR's BF/FF for whatever reason

I say
Quote: Let me tell you again, there are elements of the phase AF system that cause AF errors still in the SLT system.

What is the difference? I am pointing out your claim is unrealistic and if you do a google search on SLT focusing problems, or back focus. Here is just one example from an intelligent Sony user and note how many write in to thank him for helping solve their camera problems. The other killer fact is that Sony put in AF micro adjust on the A77. Why do you think they did that? I am not saying that other phase detect AF systems do not suffer from similar problems, but I put this in to balance the comments as your incorrect facts may mislead people. SLT does not resolve front/backfocus, there is enough evidence out there. There are A200 owners who suddenly have this problem with their new A55. Are they lying? Or do they just lack your faith?


Quote: So, for those who are about 60 years old and think driving pleasure is about drifting round corners while controlling the car

Actually if you thought about it and knew a bit more you would understand the irony of your comments. Think about it again and you may realise you have shot yourself in the foot there.

Steppenwolf
12 Nov 2012 - 9:42 AM


Quote:
You say the SLTs don't seem to be plagued by the DSLR's BF/FF for whatever reason I say Let me tell you again, there are elements of the phase AF system that cause AF errors still in the SLT system. What is the difference? I am pointing out your claim is unrealistic and if you do a google search on SLT focusing problems, or back focus. Here is just one example from an intelligent Sony user and note how many write in to thank him for helping solve their camera problems. The other killer fact is that Sony put in AF micro adjust on the A77. Why do you think they did that?

You're conflating two different effects here, SM. There's the classic FF/BF problem which results from the AF sensor being misplaced/misaligned, which causes all lenses to focus either to the front or back of the focus subject, and there's the focus problem that's related to specific lenses, where a lens focuses incorrectly despite the camera being correctly set up. The micro adjust feature is provided to correct the latter. That's why they provide it on the A77.

The problem that your link adresses is the one where the camera has been incorrectly assembled (in this case the AF sensor was tilted I gather). This can obviously happen to any camera which has a separate AF sensor - that's not in dispute. But the fact is that there's less to go wrong in the SLT focus mechanism - as DK has explained in that link. He merely observed that the SLTs seem to be less susceptible to this issue than the previous DSLRs - he doesn't claim to be able to fully explain why. My guess would be that the fact that the SLTs don't have moving parts in the AF system (i.e. the reflex mirror) - but that is a guess. Accurate AF relies on the light path between the AF sensor and the image sensor being accurate to small fractions of a millimetre and having any moving part here could cause problems.


Quote:
Actually if you thought about it and knew a bit more you would understand the irony of your comments. Think about it again and you may realise you have shot yourself in the foot there.

More condescension from on high. If you had a little more self-knowledge you might be able to understand why cars that are derived from old "classics" appeal to you. The MX-5 was inspired by the Lotus Elan and the GT86 is an attempt to evoke the spirit of the old '86 Corolla GT (although it's stretching things a bit to call that a classic). The fact that the GT86 has been voted DCOTY by Autocar tells you more about the age of the people on the panel that voted than it does about the merits of the car. It's called nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, I love old cars - I bought a "Big Healey" several years ago partly as an investment and partly because it's just a piece of automotive art. The attention it attracts is amazing - people gather to admire it and take photographs wherever I park it. However, as a car it's completely useless. The gearbox is lousy, the brakes are virtually non-existent, the acceleration is minimal and the roadholding even worse. When it comes to driving modern is best and it's pretty ridiculous for car manufacturers to make cars that drive like an old Corolla.

mikehit
mikehit  56329 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
12 Nov 2012 - 11:11 AM


Quote: He merely observed that the SLTs seem to be less susceptible to this issue than the previous DSLRs

I seem to recall your earlier pronouncements that SLTs did not have BF/FF issues, so you do seem to be modifying your POV.


Quote: tells you more about the age of the people on the panel that voted than it does about the merits of the car. It's called nostalgia.

Or it may just be that it really is the car of the year...



Quote: When it comes to driving modern is best and it's pretty ridiculous for car manufacturers to make cars that drive like an old Corolla.

That seems to be at the core of your posts on cameras and cars: new is best. SLTs are new and inspired and groundbreaking so must be better than the 'old technology' SLR.

Last Modified By mikehit at 12 Nov 2012 - 11:14 AM

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: oh FFS enough already