New Sony Alpha A200 announced - DPReview

Discussion in 'Sony' started by Tony Polson, Jan 8, 2008.

  1. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest

    Tony Polson, Jan 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tony Polson

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jan 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tony Polson

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Far be it from me to defend anything that's Sony-branded, but it's also
    too bad about your continuing lack of clue.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 9, 2008
    #3
  4. That follows shortly with the Alpha 200 Ultra, which has an articulated
    rear screen and live view. Other details are not yet known but I suspect
    some of the R-1 technology may be in there to allow almst full time live
    view for those who want it.

    David


    --
    Icon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB
    Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange
    St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL
    VAT Reg No GB458101463
    Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com
    www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk -
    www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk
    Tel +44 1573 226032
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jan 9, 2008
    #4
  5. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    No, I will not replace my R1!

    You will have to prise it out of my cold, dead hands.
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 10, 2008
    #5
  6. I've never thought it worth while getting a new computer unless it was
    at least four times faster than the old one. Similarly I don't think
    it's worth replacing a digital camera with one which hasn't got at
    least twice twice the linear resolution of the old one (plus other
    technology to match, such as lenses).

    So I'm not replacing my R1 with anything that has less than
    40MP. That's a medium format standard of resolution, but it's clear
    that a digital camera will not have to be of Hasselblad size to do
    that, even though it might be a bit bigger than one of today's
    DSLRs. So that's going to require a whole new set of higher standard
    lenses.

    Not the right time for me to invest in glass, I think. Which is why I
    got an R1 instead of a DSLR to pass the time while waiting :)
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 12, 2008
    #6
  7. Tony Polson

    gpaleo Guest


    Things such as wide dynamic range, wider color gamut, absense of image
    noise, high ISO capability, extremely quick and acurate autofocusing,
    extremely quick response times, etc...etc... leave you stone cold, eh?? Or
    do you print meter-sized prints, to be viewed up close??
     
    gpaleo, Jan 12, 2008
    #7
  8. Some of those are irrelevant to the kinds of photography I'm
    interested in. The R1 is already so much faster than my own reaction
    time for catching acrobatic sports moments that I wouldn't get any
    benefit from anything faster. I already have far more dynamic range
    than the best photographic printers can handle, and I suspect the same
    is true of colour. As for response, I suspect it's a bit faster than
    my old SLR which had to flip up the mirror before firing the shutter,
    and sufficiently much faster than me that I probably couldn't notice
    any improvement. I would appreciate faster and more accurate focus in
    dim conditions. But I expect those kinds of things to come along with
    the general technology updates of five or so years hence anyway. The
    critical thing is the resolution.
    Why do so many in this newsgroup sneer at preferences they don't
    share? Medium format resolution has had a long respectable following
    for many decades, and only the short sighted need close scrutiny of
    metre sized prints to appreciate its qualities.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 13, 2008
    #8
  9. Tony Polson

    acl Guest

    In fact if you look at gamut plots, cameras have a much bigger gamut
    than srgb or adobe rgb, and in fact than most colour spaces (but "how
    big a colour space" can get complicated and I'm neither an expert nor
    interested enough). To cut a long story short, if you plan to display
    on a screen or print, you already have a bigger gamut than you can
    use.

    And of the other points, DR, low noise and high ISO are the same
    point... And speed of AF may or may not be interesting to someone.

    So I mostly agree with Chris here.
    I have to say, of all the cameras I've used, the D200 feels by far the
    "snappiest", eg much faster than my old minolta xd7. And faster than
    all the EVF cameras I have used, in operation and reaction. But it may
    well be slower in reacting to a final press of the shutter release
    once you're focused somewhere (it should be, no mirror must be flipped
    up!). I don't know.
    True. And anyway, I am short sighted, and don't see why I shouldn't be
    able to look at metre-sized prints from 3cm and see details :)
     
    acl, Jan 13, 2008
    #9
  10. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    Eh? The R1 is *painfully slow* when it comes to capturing shots of
    moving objects.

    If you have found some way to speed it up, do share it, please!
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 13, 2008
    #10
  11. Use manual focus. There's no focus delay and it snaps instantly
    you press the shutter. Very fast.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 14, 2008
    #11
  12. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    But manual focusing isn't fast with the R1, unless of course you are
    pre-focusing on a certain distance from the camera and pressing the
    shutter release when your subject reaches that distance. And you can
    do that with almost any camera, so that doesn't make the R1 fast.
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 14, 2008
    #12
  13. If the subject is moving rapidly towards or away, yes. Otherwise you
    simply set the distance and keep shooting. And unless you're shooting
    with a long focal length in dim conditions or trying to catch a flying
    insect you've got some DoF to play with.
    But it does that faster than some DSLRs operating in their fastest
    manual mode, which I think one could reasonably call fast :)

    The important point is that it makes it fast enough to nail athletic
    action exactly on the spot, or to catch rapid moving street ephemera
    when shooting from the hip, which is all the speed that's required.

    It's clear that some R1 owners who are troubled by the notorious R1
    autofocus lag don't know that you can escape that lag with manual, and
    it's clear that some reviewers of the R1 didn't know that either.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 15, 2008
    #13
  14. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    What you are describing here is not manual focusing, but manual
    pre-focusing. Which isn't focusing at all at the time you take the
    shot, but doing it beforehand and hoping for the best.

    Since you can do this with almost any camera, I don't think it is a
    selling point for the R1. The R1 has painfully slow autofocus, and
    manual focusing, while aided by the 4X magnification, is also slow and
    not always accurate because the focusing ring controls a focusing
    motor rather than being mechanically connected to the focusing group
    of lens elements, making fine adjustments problematic.

    Pre-focusing means you don't attempt to focus the lens at all at the
    time you take the shot. You have already chosen your focusing
    distance in a separate operation. If you get it right, it works well
    enough, but only with moving subjects that conveniently stay the same
    distance from the camera between the time you pre-focused and the time
    you take the shot. I really cannot think of many moving subjects that
    I have shot that fall into that category.

    I think it is highly misleading to claim that the R1 is fast in manual
    focusing mode when you aren't actually focusing it at all, having
    previously chosen a focusing distance. If you were being honest, you
    would admit that, rather than trying to pretend that you were using
    the R1's manual focus mode when you were not.

    In conclusion, the R1 is slow to autofocus and slow to focus manually.
    You can only take a shot quickly if you don't focus at all, and rely
    instead on pre-focusing and optimistically hoping that a moving
    subject stays at the same distance from the camera.
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 16, 2008
    #14
  15. I'm pointing out that contrary to what some seem to imagine it is in
    fact possible to take fast action shots with the R1 because unlike
    many other cameras which use the same focussing technology, it allows
    you go to full manual shutter and focus operation.

    You may not regard being able to detach shutter operation from
    autofocus to get instant shutter firing as a selling point, but since
    lots of cameras don't have that feature, and the R1 does, I do regard
    it as a selling point, just as I regard having full manual control of
    exposure a selling point.
    This may be a question of experience and perception. Since the Sony R1
    lets me take action photographs with exactly the same methods as I
    used for decades with a variety of film cameras, I don't regard it as
    at all crippled in this respect. Many P&S cameras are seriously
    crippled in this respect, because they simply don't allow the
    photographer to escape in any way from autofocus shutter delay.

    You seem to regard autofocus as an essential feature. I regard it as a
    convenience, so I'm not worried that there are circumstances where it
    doesn't work well provided I can go back to the old manual methods
    which do work. The prefocus you're describing with such distaste is
    the method that every sports photographer had to use in the film
    photography days before autofocus was invented. You may not like it,
    but it's far from being a awkward and crippled a mode of operation as
    you seem to be implying. Like some other kinds of manual operation,
    you need experience to use it properly. You sound as though you may
    not have had that experience, in which case, like someone who has
    never used manual exposure, you may well find that it's nearly
    impossible to use.
    If I'm using a mode of manual operation in which shutter operation is
    detached from focussing and I'm both of them manually in exactly the
    same way as every photographer did in the old fully manual days before
    autofocus was invented I regard that as manual operation. To define
    "manual" in such a way as to exclude what lots of photographers did in
    the old days of completely manual photography seems rather eccentric.
    I agree. It's a feature of the kind of technology it uses for
    focussing. It's no slower than the many other cameras which use that
    technology, and unlike many of them, it allows youo to escape from the
    annoying shutter lag of autofocus by going to manual. Like fully
    manual exposure, that's a useful feature. It's clear that some R1
    owners and reviewers didn't realise you could do that. Having read
    those reviews I also was convinced it couldn't do that when I bought
    it. I was delighted to discover that extra degree of manual control
    which enabled me to take otherwise impossible action shots by using
    the same manual methods I'd used with manual focus film cameras.

    What's more, used in that mode it's actually a little faster than some
    DSLRs used in the same way, because of the mirror lag, which can make
    it a little easier to catch those very fast moments. It's like the
    difference in shutter operation speed between an SLR and a rangefinder
    camera in the old pre-auto film days.

    According to you what lots of photographers did back in the old fully
    manual camera days before any auto aids had been invented wasn't
    really manual operation at all!
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 16, 2008
    #15
  16. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    Don't be presumptuous. You have absolutely no idea what I think. I
    was merely commenting on your misleading postings, claiming that
    manual focusing with the R1 is quick, when it isn't.

    You claim to be focusing manually, but you are doing no focusing at
    all at the point of taking the shot. The truth is that you are
    pre-focusing, which can be done wither manually or automatically.


    I have no distaste whatsoever for pre-focusing, as it's a technique
    that I use frequently - probably several times every day, and I have
    done so for 35 years.

    My distaste is for your misleading comments, presenting pre-focusing
    as manual focusing when the two are very different. With
    pre-focusing, at the point of taking the shot you are doing no
    focusing at all, which is why the R1, like hundreds of other cameras,
    appears quick when operated that way.


    I have focused and exposed manually for 35 years, and I still do. Most
    of my fellow professionals use manual focus - certainly a lot more
    than amateurs do.

    It is precisely because of my knowledge and long experience of
    photography that I am pointing out the basic dishonesty of your
    claims, which as with so many postings from amateurs on Usenet
    newsgroups, are made only in an attempt to justify your personal
    choice of equipment. Unfortunately, they are at variance with the
    facts and are simply untrue.

    Try telling the truth for a change and you won't hear any criticism.
    But continue to try to mislead people on here (as many have done
    before you) and you will never hear the end of it. Either that, or
    people will simply add you to their kill file and you will be
    preaching to a vacuum.
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 16, 2008
    #16
  17. Tony Polson wrote:
    []
    I found nothing "untruthful" or "misleading" about Chris's comments.
    Perhaps his English and your English are not of precisely the same
    variant?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 16, 2008
    #17
  18. The separation of the operation of focussing from shutter release to
    put both under separate manual control, is just as properly described
    as a manual mode of operation as is the separation of aperture from
    shutter speed in fully manual exposure control. One of the points of
    such separation is that you no longer necessarily have to do them at
    the same time.
    Why do you say "appears quick"? There's no illusion involved. It
    actually *is* quick, a little quicker in fact than some DSLRs in the
    same mode of operation.
    I don't have any reason to want to justify my choice of the R1 because
    I didn't choose it. I bought it because someone offered me a good
    second hand snap deal when I was looking for another camera. All I
    needed to know was that I'd probably be able to sell it on without
    loss if I didn't like it. I hadn't even heard of the camera before
    walking into the shop. Nothing to justify.
    I haven't seen any facts in dispute between us at all. All I've seen
    disagreement about is whether it should be called manual focussing
    if you don't do it at the same time as taking the shot.
    Remind me of any claim I've made about the facts of the operation of
    the R1 which have been false. I think you will find that the only
    dispute has been about what to call various kinds of operation, not
    how they actually work.

    The mode of operation I referred to as "manual" is selected by moving
    a switch on the camera body to a position marked "manual", so I don't
    think it's seriously misleading to call it "manual".
    Are you threatening to bore me off the newsgroup if I continue to
    disagree with you?
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 17, 2008
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.