Photographers! Digital Rebel XTi VS Sony A100

[AMDZen]

Canon > Sony.

Nuff said.

Unelss you have a lot of MS Duo's laying around, much more expensive then SD

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Canon > Sony.

Nuff said.

Unelss you have a lot of MS Duo's laying around, much more expensive then SD

[sarcasm]Sure, because the Alpha uses MS only.[/sarcasm] :roll:

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Canon > Sony.

Nuff said.

Unelss you have a lot of MS Duo's laying around, much more expensive then SD

[sarcasm]Sure, because the Alpha uses MS only.[/sarcasm] :roll:

LOL, I was just about to post that.

 

[ThePresence]

JMWarren, have you had any exchanges of the XTi due to underexposure issues?
I want to know if this problem is as widespread as it some people are making it out to be.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Zenmervolt

Those Minolta/Tamron lenses are without a dout step behind Nikon and Canon glass. Ever compare a Sony 18-200 to a Nikon 18-200, forget about VR, if you removed it the price would be the same, the Nikon is way better optically. Even the "Famous Minolta 28-75 2.8" merely comes close to the Nikon 28-70 AFS or Canon 24-70L, and thats assuming you get a good sample.

*yawn* Photos from your tests?

Originally posted by: JMWarren
My experience with the A100 didn't show any more resolution than the other it's other 10mp siblings with the same sensor, only heavy handed sharpening that gave the illusion of more resolution.

Someone with as much "experience" as you claim to have should know that RAW files have no sharpening applied. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Which means you were comparing JPGS, which invalidates your finding.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
As for the rebadged lenses, they should be identical in performance, they are the same optical formula. They are NOT the same in build quality. If you examine them side by side its pretty clear that the Sony's aren't as good as the original.

Firstly, I've yet to see a camera company, including Canon and Nikon, that wasn't moving to plastics in their consumer lenses. Secondly, I've never seen or heard of anyone having problems with their new lenses from a build-quality standpoint.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
I dunno what to tell you about our 3 DOA cameras, one wouldn't power on, one wouldn't auto focus and the last one would lock the mirror up and require a power down to reset it.

I didn't even metion Sony repairs...It may be different in the US, but up here in Canada, Sony is by far the most expensive manufacturer for repairs (25-75% more). They do turn them around nice and fast though.

One clearly biased man's experience that doesn't match the overall community of actual users.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
I do agree with you on OM, 4/3rds is too small a sensor, it's a shame though, they make some very good lenses.

I don't want to further derail ThePresence's thread any further so I'll conclude by saying you can't really go wrong with a DSLR at this point....

Finally some things that we agree on.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
In camera Image Stabilization is not as good as in lens stabilization. The longer the focal length the greater the image moves off center and thus the more correction is needed. The CCD antishake can only compensate for so much while a purpose built IS/VR unit is matched to the focal length of the lens. If you plan to use longer lenses be prepared that the IS effect on the A100 isn't going to be as effective as the VR or IS would be.

Real-world testing shows no difference between in-body IS and in-lens IS. I've tested managed sharp shots at 1/13 second with a 300mm lens (450mm equivalent FOV to full frame) with in-body stabilization. That's a 5-stop improvement over what I'm "supposed" to be able to shoot at and a 4 stop improvement over what personal experience with film tells me I can shoot at. I sincerely doubt that in-lens IS would be any better.

"Your own tests" are strangely different from every single published comparison of the two IS technologies.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
As for the Zeiss lenses, everything I've seen seems to indicate that their no better than their counterparts from Nikon or Canon but certainly a nice option.

Really? That's not what you said before. See below.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
I've also shot the Contax and Blad systems as well as used some Zeiss glass on Canon's 1Ds Mark II. On the Mark II they blow the Canon glass outta the water

Make up your mind. You can't even get your own story straight. I don't know who's buying cameras from you, but there's no way in hell that anyone could convince me to do so. I get the feeling that you read a lot of marketing material but take very few pictures.

ZV

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
JMWarren, have you had any exchanges of the XTi due to underexposure issues?
I want to know if this problem is as widespread as it some people are making it out to be.

Yeah, We've had a couple. I generally recommend that we send them to Canon for adjustment as then you know that everything is 100%. If we gave an exchange the you could get the same issue again. With any common problem I always suspect there are more out there that we never see because the users just don't notice.

I fully test my gear when I buy it. You'd be surprised just how many cameras are out of calibration, espically the auto focus. I don't know how many cameras I've seen where the auto focus is off by a few mm.

Also, when buying a lenses make sure you take a good look through it, even if its new. Canon still seems to send us lenses with a shaving of plastic inside or a bubble in the periphery of the coating on an internal element every once in a while. My store inspects everything before it's sold but I can't say the same for others.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: JMWarren

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Just FYI

In camera Image Stabilization is not as good as in lens stabilization. The longer the focal length the greater the image moves off center and thus the more correction is needed. The CCD antishake can only compensate for so much while a purpose built IS/VR unit is matched to the focal length of the lens. If you plan to use longer lenses be prepared that the IS effect on the A100 isn't going to be as effective as the VR or IS would be.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that you can't see incamera IS working which is a huge draw back IMHO.

FUD. While in-lens stabilization is alleged to be better by Canon and Nikon, I've not read any definitive test which proves the superiority, and even if there is one, it's hardly a massive gap. Plus, every single lens you use with Sony and Pentax is stabilized, not just the uber-expensive IS/VR lenses that C/N force you to buy. Can that difference be overstated? NO.

Besides, the next Sony and Pentax DSLR bodies will have better in-body IS, and the next ones even better still, etc. That $2000 IS lens will always have the same level of technology. What do you keep longer, a lens or a body?

FUD? It's the laws of physics!

In my informal tests (both cameras set on a shaker table) the A100 and Pentax AntiShake started to loose effectiveness compared to VR/IS between 200mm-300mm. For the average consumer this isn't an issue but a pro who's shooting longer glass will find it limiting.

As for the future, once a camera can capture ISO 12800 with little noise IS will play a lesser roll. I wouldn't be surprised though to see Nikon and Canon implementing both on CCD and in Lense stabilization.

With regard to the improved auto focus its performance is still below that of Nikon and Canon in both accuracy and speed.

The new 40 segment meter is an improvment, but Nikon's Color Matrix Meter is still the best on the market.

I find it funny that you mentioned the new image processor. Zemmervolt has already admitted that the A100 has a sub par JPG engine. That doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW though.

As for a larger sensor than the 5D I'm not sure where you read that but the 5D has a sensor size of 35.8 x 23.9 mm while the A100 is 23.6 x 15.8 mm. As for more resolution that is not only a function of the sensor, but the image processor as well. If you sharpen the 5D images you'll find that the 5D has better extinction resolution. You can't compare the two camera's at default settings as the Sony applies far more sharpening, too much in my opinion. None of this really matters though if you shoot RAW.

As for the Zeiss lenses, everything I've seen seems to indicate that their no better than their counterparts from Nikon or Canon but certainly a nice option.

I'm really not down on Sony Cameras, I wanted to love the A100 (and the R1) when it was first announced (Sony pays great commissions and has larger profit margins than the other guys), but after shooting with it I just wasn't that impressed.

I'm hopeful that they can really wow me with their next model, but knowing their history it seems kind of doubtful. Hopefully the Minolta guys will be a help.

No one in this forum is a pro, last I checked. The OP certainly isn't so your observations are moot by your very admission.

ISO 12800? LOL! Only Canon can reasonably capture ISO 3200 and that with appreciable loss of sharpening from the noise reduction algorithms. And you talk about the laws of physics earlier...

You do realize that there was a Konica-Minolta Maxxum 5D, right? The sensor size on that is 23.5mm x 15.7mm -- same as the Alpha. Yes, I meant sensor resolution, not size. Since you were comparing the two (A100 and Maxxum 5D), I am not sure how you misinterpreted my reference on the sensor size as the Canon 5D. Admit it -- you're blithe statement that the A100 was a rehash of the KM 5D was blatantly wrong.

Nevertheless, here are some figures from DPReview on extinction resolution:

Canon 5D H: 2500 V: 2500
Sony A100 H: 2900 V: 2800
Nikon D200 H: 2250 V: 2200
Canon 30D H: 2100 V: 2100
Nikon D2X H: 2800 V: 2500
Canon 1Ds MkII H: 3000 V: 3100 (!)

I've never seen nor couldn't find any comparison of resolution using RAW. If you have one to cite to back up your comments, I'd be more than happy to see it.

As for Sony lens quality, they are reintroducing Minolta's G lenses, which are easily just as good as anything from Canon or Nikon.

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: JMWarren

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Just FYI

In camera Image Stabilization is not as good as in lens stabilization. The longer the focal length the greater the image moves off center and thus the more correction is needed. The CCD antishake can only compensate for so much while a purpose built IS/VR unit is matched to the focal length of the lens. If you plan to use longer lenses be prepared that the IS effect on the A100 isn't going to be as effective as the VR or IS would be.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that you can't see incamera IS working which is a huge draw back IMHO.

FUD. While in-lens stabilization is alleged to be better by Canon and Nikon, I've not read any definitive test which proves the superiority, and even if there is one, it's hardly a massive gap. Plus, every single lens you use with Sony and Pentax is stabilized, not just the uber-expensive IS/VR lenses that C/N force you to buy. Can that difference be overstated? NO.

Besides, the next Sony and Pentax DSLR bodies will have better in-body IS, and the next ones even better still, etc. That $2000 IS lens will always have the same level of technology. What do you keep longer, a lens or a body?

FUD? It's the laws of physics!

In my informal tests (both cameras set on a shaker table) the A100 and Pentax AntiShake started to loose effectiveness compared to VR/IS between 200mm-300mm. For the average consumer this isn't an issue but a pro who's shooting longer glass will find it limiting.

As for the future, once a camera can capture ISO 12800 with little noise IS will play a lesser roll. I wouldn't be surprised though to see Nikon and Canon implementing both on CCD and in Lense stabilization.

With regard to the improved auto focus its performance is still below that of Nikon and Canon in both accuracy and speed.

The new 40 segment meter is an improvment, but Nikon's Color Matrix Meter is still the best on the market.

I find it funny that you mentioned the new image processor. Zemmervolt has already admitted that the A100 has a sub par JPG engine. That doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW though.

As for a larger sensor than the 5D I'm not sure where you read that but the 5D has a sensor size of 35.8 x 23.9 mm while the A100 is 23.6 x 15.8 mm. As for more resolution that is not only a function of the sensor, but the image processor as well. If you sharpen the 5D images you'll find that the 5D has better extinction resolution. You can't compare the two camera's at default settings as the Sony applies far more sharpening, too much in my opinion. None of this really matters though if you shoot RAW.

As for the Zeiss lenses, everything I've seen seems to indicate that their no better than their counterparts from Nikon or Canon but certainly a nice option.

I'm really not down on Sony Cameras, I wanted to love the A100 (and the R1) when it was first announced (Sony pays great commissions and has larger profit margins than the other guys), but after shooting with it I just wasn't that impressed.

I'm hopeful that they can really wow me with their next model, but knowing their history it seems kind of doubtful. Hopefully the Minolta guys will be a help.

No one in this forum is a pro, last I checked. The OP certainly isn't so your observations are moot by your very admission.

ISO 12800? LOL! Only Canon can reasonably capture ISO 3200 and that with appreciable loss of sharpening from the noise reduction algorithms. And you talk about the laws of physics earlier...

You do realize that there was a Konica-Minolta Maxxum 5D, right? The sensor size on that is 23.5mm x 15.7mm -- same as the Alpha. Yes, I meant sensor resolution, not size. Since you were comparing the two (A100 and Maxxum 5D), I am not sure how you misinterpreted my reference on the sensor size as the Canon 5D. Admit it -- you're blithe statement that the A100 was a rehash of the KM 5D was blatantly wrong.

Nevertheless, here are some figures from DPReview on extinction resolution:

Canon 5D H: 2500 V: 2500
Sony A100 H: 2900 V: 2800
Nikon D200 H: 2250 V: 2200
Canon 30D H: 2100 V: 2100
Nikon D2X H: 2800 V: 2500
Canon 1Ds MkII H: 3000 V: 3100 (!)

I've never seen nor couldn't find any comparison of resolution using RAW. If you have one to cite to back up your comments, I'd be more than happy to see it.

As for Sony lens quality, they are reintroducing Minolta's G lenses, which are easily just as good as anything from Canon or Nikon.

Those figures factor in default camera settings (Which would get applied to the RAW file upon conversion). A fair test is near impossible. The best you could do would be to use Adobe Camera RAW as a processor to level the field as much as possible. I get the feeling that this might bias the test against Sony though as I'm not sure how competent ACR is in processing Sony RAW file, I know ACR is alot better for dynamic range than Sony's processor but who knows for resolution.

Just look at the sharpness difference in the images...thats where the resolution difference comes from. My guess would be that since the sensors are so similar, if the bayer filters are similar then without the software in the way the resolution is near identical.

High ISO will be a reality one day. Film of 50 years ago was grainy even at 100ISO.

 

[JMWarren]

Zemmervolt,

With regard to comparing JPG's to examine resolution. I was comparing RAW files both with camera default sharpening and 0 sharpening, processed through Nikon and Sony's own software. At default the Sony had more sharpening and thus more resolution. At 0 sharpening I couldn't tell the difference between the two.

When it comes to the Zeiss lenses I was first speaking about the F-Mount Zeiss lenses that were recently released. They are superb glass and slightly better than the Nikon or Canon counterparts. The Sony/Zeiss lenses (16-80,85,135) don't seem to be any better than the Nikon or Canon counterparts, that said they are good glass.

I said before that I didn't want to derail this thread further so here's where I stop debating.

OP, I'm still willing to answer any questions!