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

.... 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

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

In article , lid
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.
--

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

In article , says...
I wonder, will this camera fit people with large palms like me?
Looking at the comparison with the Canon 6D, which is supposedly small
(I own the original 5D), it still seems too small.

Well, if you attach to it a 70-200 lens weighing 1.5kg, the whole setup becomes
a bit unbalanced. The A7/A7R are cameras for shorter focal lengths.
--

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

On 2013.10.17 13:42 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:06:24 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , lid
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.

It comes down to the design of the firmware for the VR/IS (whatever it's
called). Early iterations 'hunted' in their hysteresis band when on a
tripod thereby inducing (very slight) blur.

Then VR/IS firmware appeared in some lenses that would detect stability
and thence stop driving the function even if the VR/IS was on.

As always: know your equipment.

--
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
-Ambrose Bierce

On 2013.10.17 10:13 , Nick Fotis wrote:
I wonder, will this camera fit people with large palms like me?
Looking at the comparison with the Canon 6D, which is supposedly small
(I own the original 5D), it still seems too small.

I played with a NEX-5R some weeks ago, and it was problematic for me
(and using the 18-200 zoom lens 'borrowed' from a VG10 made things more
difficult, as the package was very front-loaded - plus, the small flash
couldn't clear the lens barrel at wideangle shots)

I would look for an upcoming "9" version which in keeping with the
flagship of the line typically is larger. (I have the a900).


--
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
-Ambrose Bierce

On 17/10/2013 18:06, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , lid
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

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.

In article , 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).
--

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

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.