lusny wrote:gstark wrote:lusny wrote:gstark wrote:Why are you wanting to buy a Sony?
I used minolta camera from film slr and I like minolta camera's color.
You having used a Minolta film camera is a creditable reason.
But I'm confused. Minolta do not make a DSLR. The colour that you get from a DSLR will be largely dependant upon the PP you apply, as well as the colour space that you use. There are many and varied ways that you can get whatever colour outcomes that you desire, from any digital camera. It has not a lot to do with the brand, ut more to do with the shooter.
Minolta made d5, d7 and I used d7 with canon 5d 2yrs ago.
Yes, correct, and as you say .... 2 years ago. A lot happens in the digital world in two years.
Honestly, photoshop makes best color
Which is precisely my point. You still need to get things right in the camera though, and there are a number of settings - on any camera - that you can use that will give you a better starting point. I never use any of the default settings, for instance, and it takes me a few weeks before I finally settle of a set of default in-camera settings that I am happy with.
A couple of weeks ago, we were out testing with Nikon's latest and greatest: a D700 with a 45 f/2.8 PC and a D90 with the 18-105VR. Both very nice cameras, and each of them had very different sets of colours in the images coming straight from the camera, with the D90, the cheaper of the two, having what seemed to be (to us) the better, more saturated colours in the images as we were seeing them.
But we didn't think that was an accident: we felt that was specifically by design. Consider the market that each of the cameras is targeted towards, and what the expectations of a typical user (whatever that term might mean) might be. A person buying a D90 would be more likely to be oriented towards snapshots, perhaps an advanced PHD user stepping up, but one not truly understanding nor recognising the part that good PP plays in the image making processes. So, in the D90, the default image rendering processes would be more tending towards a finished product, perhaps even in raw.
By way of contrast, somebody buying the D700 would probably be more inclined towards wanting a less heavily processed imaged, and would be wanting more control over the finished product themselves. Thus the stored image would contain less in the way of applied (within the camera) processing artifacts, and would permit the photographer to apply his or her own processing with less interference from unknown engineers somewhere in Tokyo.
I liked Minolta's color and user interface. Sony dslr color is a bit different with minolta. However, interface is same and most of features are similar or same.
Ok, fair enough.
I have Carl Zeiss 16-80 and Carl Zeiss 135.8 now(body is sony a350). These are really great quality lenses and better than Canon L lens to me. One of my friend have Canon 1ds(not mk2, mk3) and he agreed with my opinion.
OK. I'm not going to argue that; Zeiss glass is good, but without knowing what was shot, and what the settings in place were, that's a very difficult call to make. All lenses perform differently with different settings applied (aperture, focal length in place, focus errors) and I certainly would not be prepared to make such a statement. it may well be the case that what you observed is correct.
Or it may be that another person, using the same equipment, but very highly skilled, may be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Minolta made steadyshot and its really nice. Minolta and sony put steadyshot in the body.
If steadyshot is just marketing speak, why canon put is on their lens(its expensive than non-is lens) and why nikon put vr and vr2 on their lens?
If you have canon is lens or nikon vr lens, you cant say steadyshot is marketing speak.
But you have pointed out an important difference. Sony/Minolta have put it in the body; Nikon and Canon have it in the lens.
Different lenses behave differently (otherwise we'd all be using just the one lens, right?) and with different optical characteristics for different lenses, I am quite prepared to accept the assertion that this technology is better implemented in the lens platform, rather than in the body platform.
The technology is really quite amazing, and I have been able to hand-hold shots using shutter speeds that I would have previously thought untenable.
So, the technology is good, but I believe it should be in the lens, rather than the body, where I think its focus becomes more of a marketing issue than a real feature.
I bet you know minolta made AF system world 1st. Minolta(include sony) AF speed is faster than same level cameras(i.e a300, a350 > canon 450d, nikon d90 and minolta d7 > canon 40d)
There's a number of factors that affect focusing speed. The class of the lens also plays a part here, and for instance, the new Nikon 50 is expected to focus far more quickly than the superceded lens. That said, I have seen differences in focusing speed that are imposed by the focus mechanism implemented in the body (compare a D70 with a D300 with the 80-400VR mounted for a good example) and further, the number, spread and type of focus points within the focus engine also olays a big part.
In fact, this is something of a disadvantage in the D700 when compared with the D300, for instance, because the focus engine occupies a smaller part of the imaging area in the D700. This means that in the D300 I can use more (a greater proportion) of the image area as my focus target area than I can in the D700, and as a result, I can focus more closely to the edge in the cheaper Nikon DX bodies.
In some senses, this might make the D300 a more responsive camera than the D700 - under some circumstances it may seem to focus faster. It really doesn't, but it presents differently.
So ... the numbers that are quoted in the specs need to be taken with a grain of salt. They have certain meanings, but they are always contextual. The real test, as always, has to be how it feels in your hands. That, always, will be the bottom line.
Let's compare liveview. What about Canon 450d's liveview? 450d's liveview is useless cuz about 2~3sec shutter lag but a300 and a350 is not. Can take picture like compact digital camera.
I'm not too sure that that's a compliment.
The only camera that I've seen satisfactory liveview on so far is the D90, and that's in its video
mode.
I do see liveview being useful in a studio situation, and I see a theoretical use for it in the field, but that requires attention to be paid to the setup that the user implements. That's not something that one can do in a ten minute eval session in a store, but requires one to spend several hours with the camera and manual, in order to get it set up correctly.
When one has made that time investment, then I think that in all implementations it would be satisfactory. I'm not convinced that, with any of the available candidates, you will have had the opportunity to make that investment, but I'm happy for you to tell me that I'm wrong on that point.
1st of all, I already calibrated my monitor(I have spyder3 elite calibrator.).
And that is how you viewed the images from the D200? Using what tools, and in what colour space?
With what camera settings applied before the images were made? wb? colour
modes?
In what colour space were the images made? Was that the same color space that you viewed them under?
I think that colour rendition is probably one of the last things I look at when judging what the images that come from a camera look like. There are just way too many variables, way too many changes that I can impose to make this a concern. I'll say more on this shortly ...
I was think to buy between 5d mk2, a900 and d700(yes, this body is awesome body.)
And they would be the bodies to be comparing, but you should be comparing these three bodies, not other, irrelevant ones. The D200 is not a D700, and the 350D is not (I anticipate) a 5D II.
And yes, the D700 is an awesome body, but my expectation is that the 5D II will also be awesome.
Do you have a need to shoot in low light situations, without auxiliary lighting? How do you see the A900 handling that? How is its high ISO performance? We know that the D700 handles this very comfortably, and the 5D II should also be in a similar ballpark. I do not believe that the A900 is even on the same planet in this regard, but that may not be an issue for your shooting needs.
One of reason for I hate Canon is not so good user interface. Canon interface is messy and hard to me(Minolta was best to me).
And that is exactly my point about getting into a store and handling each of the candidates.
I will not argue that the 350D is an ugly UI. Canon's ergonomics, to me, leave much to be desired, but some people feel they prefer them. Canon are getting better in this regard, and I think it would be a big mistake to say that the 5D II's UI is ugly based upon your use of a (now) four year old 350D. I was surprised at the differences in the UI when comparing the D300 with D700, especially considering that the D700 is based upon the D300's body.
Bottom line here is that each body needs to be, and must be, judged on its own merits. You need to also consider the availability of the glass - that's the system that you're going to be using - but I think it would be tough, and bad judgment, to not consider the 5D II based upon the design of the 350D.
but if change each picture's color by photoshop everytime, its not so good mind, I guess.
That suggests to me poor technique - or poor understanding - of the camera's settings on the part of the shooter. Please do not take offense at that observation; that is not my intent.
Frequently, you will see me ask a shooter about whether they have, as an example, used auto white balance in a shooting situation. A camera's wb, when in auto wb
mode, will be subject to a number of variables, many of which are going to be dictated by the very subject matter being photographed. Let's take a situation of bright sunlight, middle of the day: to your right, you have a green field, and to your left, you have an expanse of white sand. You take two photos, one of each of these scenes. In determining the appropriate wb setting for each of those images, your camera will adjudge the colour of the light that it "sees" coming in through the lens. In the one case, this will largely be of a greenish hue, and in the other, whitish.
With no other data upon which to make a determination, your camera's engine attempts to assess the correct wb, and probably gets both of the wrong. The problem is, that it needs to assess the colour of the light shining on each of those subjects. Has that - the colour of the light illuminating the subjects - changed ? No, it has not. Has that - the colour of the light illuminating the subjects - been correctly assessed? Hardly likely.
The problem here is that the camera cannot deal with the incorrect data it has been fed. GIGO.
When we take this scenario back to your PP, in front of your computer, you now have found that for each image, you need to look at, consider, and then apply totally different adjustments for each and every image. That is a lot of work.
That is a painful lot of work.
That is a lot of painful work.
Now, if you can bring everything back to a common baseline, then you have a standard set of parameters from where you begin. If you've done your homework correctly, then those standard parameters will be, already, far closer to what you want your finished image to look like straight from the camera than what might otherwise be the case.
Thus there is less of a need for you to have to change every image in photoshop.
And thus I say that you need to largely discard this part of looking at how the images come from the camera, in a default state. You need to take some time to make those out of camera images look the way that you want them to look, by putting into place a set of parameters that suits how you want the camera to work for you.
And I contend that you will be able to do that with any camera, regardless of the make.
Honestly, I really cant understand why most of people in the world thinks Canon or Nikon is best camera body in the world.
I have used Nikon, Canon, and Olympus and several other brands) for around 30+ years now. From my experiences, some camera bodies seem better able to survive lots of abuse than others. Suffice to say that I have a number of Nikon bodies with dents and scratches and all manner of other signs of a life beyond a coddled studio environment. I have had other bodies that have suffered less abuse, but required trips to the workshop for adjustments and repairs.
I fixed my location in my profile but I'll double check now.
Thank you. it's fine now, and I appreciate your cooperation.
Thanks for nice conversation with you.
My pleasure; that's why we're here. Please understand that I have nothing to gain by you buying Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus ... whatever. Our only goal is to try to help you, in some way, make the best purchase decision ... for you. The advice that you get here will not be tainted with the potential that, at the end of the buying process, the person advising you will get a greater commission from selling you X over Y.
Having used Minolta in the past is a partially valid reason to go with the Sony, but if you do not have a big investment in Minolta glass, then the validity of that reason may be compromised.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:24 pm
btw, I have question about second hand store in or near Brisbane.
]
