Re: Sony A7/A7R: almost the perfect cameras if...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Oct 17, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:19:08 PM UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > ... they came with in-body IS. An inbult flash would also be highly welcome (as
    >
    > fill-in). I guess in an effort to make the bodies so small there was no space
    >
    > left for in-body IS or a flash.
    >
    >
    >
    > The A7R then has no phase-AF. Not exactly suitable for sports photography. And
    >
    > not suitable for fashion photography either, because they left out the AA
    >
    > filter. Here I guess Sony must have thought that most lenses are so unsharp
    >
    > that they limit the effective resolution on the A7R to perhaps less than 20MP.
    >
    >
    >
    > Otherwise it's a huge step forward for Sony. Sony is completing the transition
    >
    > to mirror-less cameras (which Nikon and Canon still have to go through). The
    >
    > design of the A7 and A7R is future-proof. All that Sony needs to do now is to
    >
    > deliver a better implementation (in-body IS, phase AF, inbuilt flash) and more
    >
    > lenses.
    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
    >
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site


    No in-body I.S. with 36mp is insane unless people only ever shoot in bright sun or with a tripod.
    RichA, Oct 17, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 17/10/2013 07:27, RichA wrote:
    []
    > No in-body I.S. with 36mp is insane unless people only ever shoot in bright sun or with a tripod.


    Stabilisation belongs in the lens, not the body (unless you have a bunch
    of older non-IS lenses).

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 17, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Nick Fotis Guest

    On 17/10/2013 09:27, RichA wrote:
    >
    > No in-body I.S. with 36mp is insane unless people only ever shoot in bright sun or with a tripod.


    tell that to Nikon with their D800...

    N.F.
    Nick Fotis, Oct 17, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:06:24 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <l3o28i$6e0$>, d
    >says...
    >> Stabilisation belongs in the lens, not the body (unless you have a bunch
    >> of older non-IS lenses).

    >
    >It obviously belongs into the body, otherwise you have to replicate the
    >mechanism in each and every lens.


    With the Nikon camera bodies that require AF-S lenses, the feature is
    in the lenses. However, not all AF-S lenses have this built in.
    There's little need for VR (image stabilization) in the shorter
    lenses. Some AF-S lenses come with or without VR or VC or whatever
    the lens maker calls their stabilization function.

    Some people keep the VR off on all the time with their long lens, if
    they have a lens with VR, because they always use it on a tripod.

    I've seen arguments both ways for the need to turn off VR when
    shooting with a tripod.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Oct 17, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 17/10/2013 18:06, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <l3o28i$6e0$>, d
    > says...
    >> Stabilisation belongs in the lens, not the body (unless you have a bunch
    >> of older non-IS lenses).

    >
    > It obviously belongs into the body, otherwise you have to replicate the
    > mechanism in each and every lens.


    For rotation correction, yes, in-body.

    For pitch and yaw, in-lens as the stabilisation can then be tuned to
    each lens characteristic and focal length, it stabilises the image in
    the viewfinder and on the focus sensors, and if the IS stops working
    you've only lost it on one lens, not all of them. You're not asking the
    in-body stabilisation to make excessively large shifts of the sensor (as
    is required for long focal length lenses).
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 18, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Stabilisation belongs in the lens, not the body (unless you have a bunch
    > > of older non-IS lenses).

    >
    > It obviously belongs into the body, otherwise you have to replicate the
    > mechanism in each and every lens.


    it's not replicated.

    the stabilizer in each lens is tuned precisely for that specific lens.

    the stabilizer in a body must make compromises to work over a wide
    range, and is likely tuned for the common lenses.

    this is particularly important with long lenses, where a sensor would
    need to move quite a bit, while a stabilizer in a lens can be at the
    optimum point where very little motion is needed, making it more
    effective.

    you also get viewfinder stabilization with in-lens, which helps the
    photographer in keeping the desired composition as well as keeping the
    camera's autofocus and exposure points on the same part of the subject.
    nospam, Oct 18, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > it stabilises the image in
    > > the viewfinder and on the focus sensors,

    >
    > In-body IS also stabilises the image in the viewfinder and focus sensor, since
    > the viewfinder and LCD are fed by the sensor and the focus sensor is the main
    > sensor (in the E-M1 and other mirrorless cameras).


    only on mirrorless can it do that, but subject to the limitations of
    the stabilizer. a long telephoto needs more movement than a wide angle
    lens.

    on an slr, it cannot stabilize the image at all.
    nospam, Oct 18, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 18/10/2013 20:38, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <l3qpge$d26$>, David Taylor says...
    >> For rotation correction, yes, in-body.
    >>
    >> For pitch and yaw, in-lens as the stabilisation can then be tuned to
    >> each lens characteristic and focal length,

    >
    > The Olympus E-M1 has a 5 axis image stabilisation, which includes rotation,
    > pitch, jaw etc.
    >
    >> it stabilises the image in
    >> the viewfinder and on the focus sensors,

    >
    > In-body IS also stabilises the image in the viewfinder and focus sensor, since
    > the viewfinder and LCD are fed by the sensor and the focus sensor is the main
    > sensor (in the E-M1 and other mirrorless cameras).


    Only in a camera lacking an optical viewfinder is the image stabilised,
    and the optical finder is why many people prefer a DSLR.

    The E-M1's in-body stabilisation will be limited compared to what can be
    achieved with in-lens, except for rotation, of course.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 19, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 19/10/2013 09:01, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <l3taoi$6d0$>, David Taylor says...
    >> The E-M1's in-body stabilisation will be limited compared to what can be
    >> achieved with in-lens, except for rotation, of course.

    >
    > Please explain what you mean because the E-M1 IS is five axis.


    It's already been mentioned. The movement range of in-body
    stabilisation will be less than the image movement range which can be
    achieved by long focal length lenses. Only the rotation is best done in
    body - no lenses offer that.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 19, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 19/10/2013 16:47, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <l3thn5$47h$>, David Taylor says...
    >> The movement range of in-body
    >> stabilisation will be less than the image movement range which can be
    >> achieved by long focal length lenses.

    >
    > Without knowing how the IS is implemented in the E-M1, you can't make such a
    > statement.


    Correct. Add the word "likely" after "will".
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 19, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > The movement range of in-body
    > > stabilisation will be less than the image movement range which can be
    > > achieved by long focal length lenses.

    >
    > Without knowing how the IS is implemented in the E-M1, you can't make such a
    > statement.


    it's basic physics.

    the longer the lens, the more movement the sensor must have to
    stabilize the image and the less effective it gets.

    there is a point at which it will be at it's physical limit of motion
    and can't stabilize anything longer, and long lenses is where
    stabilization is needed the most.

    with the stabilizer in the lens itself, it can be at the proper point
    in the optical path where very little movement is needed. in other
    words, it will always be more effective.
    nospam, Oct 19, 2013
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    411
    Mark B.
    Apr 1, 2007
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    142
    RichA
    Oct 13, 2013
  3. RichA

    ERROR: A7/A7R are not the same!

    RichA, Oct 12, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    144
    Nick Fotis
    Oct 16, 2013
  4. Nick Fotis

    Re: Sony A7/A7R: almost the perfect cameras if...

    Nick Fotis, Oct 17, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    137
    Nick Fotis
    Oct 18, 2013
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    75
    RichA
    Feb 14, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page