Hell, I didn't know it was in auto, it had taken me long enough just to find the idiotic placement of the on-off switch!!
Minolta ergonomics ftw.
Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely with you. But we all saw the anarchy in New Orleans, it needed the National Guard to begin to restore law and order.
If I was surrounded by that kind of people & culture, I'd be reaching for my guns too.
Yes - I think you should buy a 52" Bravia to get a better view of them.
That's the thing, I don't have huge hands but just found the 400D's grip too small. Maybe it wasn't purely the size of the camera at fault, maybe it was the grip itself was just too thin and insubstantial. Or maybe it was the shape of the grip itself (all Alphas/Minoltas have a lovely gouge in the grip just right for wrapping your fingers around). I can grip my A100 all day, but I knew from the moment I held the 400D that it would get uncomfortable. It's just a matter of taste.
Of course, the D40 is even worse for me. I tried my sister's and hated it. Rediculously small, and as soon as I half pressed the shutter, the flash shot up. Nor were there any buttons or direct access to anything on it, everything had to be done through menus. But then again, I tend to think the Minolta 7D had around the right amount of direct controls (although I've never owned or handled one), and some people find it complete overkill.
As regards kit lenses, yes it's all down to the photographer as to what creates a good image. I quite like my 18-70 though, and would never choose Canon's kit lens over it.
Indeed, but how many steps do you need to do to change the flash type? Or focus mode? Or colour profiles, sharpness, etc? Thing is, you can change all your shooting options with that dial using the same process - turn, select, enter, done. I find it totally intuitive, so I'm a little surprised people can find it such an issue.
Pretty easy when you know what sequence the controls on the dial come in.
Besides, one of the shortfalls of the A100 is a lack of ISO display in the viewfinder, so you have to move and look at the LCD when changing ISO anyway. Would be nice to see that fixed in future Alphas, if it's not already. Not that I need to change ISO that much, admittedly, given that I don't constantly walk in and out of dimly lit rooms. And besides, if the shutter speed begins to drag a bit then I don't need to increase ISO, the image stabilisation takes care of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the A100 is a perfect camera - there's no such thing. But to make statements claiming that any current entry level DSLR is "a clunky piece of junk" is at best ignorant, and at worst, inflammatory. It's something that can be seen everywhere in reference to cameras from Pentax, Olympus, Minolta/Sony etc - people saying "this camera does things differently from my Canikon, it's crap" when what they mean is simply "this camera does things differently". It's a bit like me saying "the 400D is a primitive piece of sh*t" because it doesn't have image stabilisation, DRO, wireless flash, etc. It's true that it doesn't have those things, but that doesn't make it a primitive piece of sh*t, because it excels in other areas instead - notably AF speed/accuracy and a full system of accessories compared to the A100. It depends on what you want from a camera and how you like to use it.
After all we could sit here all day and pass off sweeping generalisations as fact, when what actually matters is using whatever equipment you choose or can afford in order to take the best images you can.
Last edited by STROBE, .
Fixed it for you.
Ergonomics are of course a matter of taste. I tried the 400D and couldn't stand it. Far too small, like it was designed for girls' hands - felt like I was about to drop it, even with the crappy kit lens attached. And the interface was really, really annoying. Even changing the simplest thing required so many button presses. With the A100 you just turn the shoulder dials - turn, choose, enter, done. But again, it's all a matter of preference. However I do believe that if there's one thing Minolta had right, it's ergonomics.
And they used to use pinhole cameras and the Kodak Brownie - shall we go back to them too?
And finally if the A100 feels like cheap plastic to you, rest assured it has a full metal chassis underneath the skin. I should know, I bounced mine off a concrete car park floor which resulted in a twisted lens and indentations of the concrete grit in one of the shoulder dials - it took a hell of a bash. Still works perfectly.
I don't think topic titles should be edited by a third party to correct them. In some case they serve as a tribute to the illiteracy or compulsiveness of the topic author.
I think they pretty much all do, tbh.
As in, the shutter sync speed? It's the maximum shutter speed you can use with flash, simple as that. Afaik it equates to the actual physical speed the shutter moves at. So if your flash sync speed is 1/125, then when you're not using flash and have a shutter speed of 1/150 or less, the shutter is never actually fully open during the exposure (one shutter curtain starts to close before the other is fully open).
With flash photography, the exposure is determined by the burst of flash light, not your shutter speed (the burst of light being many many times shorter in duration than what any shutter can achieve). Obviously, if the time which your shutter is open is too short, and at no point is the image wholly projected onto the sensor/film, then you'll "see" the shutter in the image at the point when the flash goes off.
Faster sync speeds therefore require physically faster, lighter, more fragile, less reliable shutters.
With flash photography, the exposure is determined by the burst of flash light, not your shutter speed (the burst of light being many many times shorter in duration than what any shutter can achieve). Obviously, if the time which your shutter is open is too short, and at no point is the image wholly projected onto the sensor/film, then you'll "see" the shutter in the image at the point when the flash goes off.
Faster sync speeds therefore require physically faster, lighter, more fragile, less reliable shutters.
Now that will be worth watching.
I watched bits of hijack last night, it was pretty good, made funnier by seeing Matt Lucas being unable to contain himself laughing as what he was asking the guy to do.
Sony bought out the Minolta system when Konica Minolta bailed out a couple of years ago. They also got Minolta staff - engineers, designers, and it's also rumoured they use the same lens plants. It kinda shows - Minolta 5D users find the A100 incredibly familiar, and the evidence of the similar design ethos between them is well documented. If you look at all the improvements and technologies Minolta has developed and brought to photography over the years, it's a great thing that the heritage and A-mount continues but with the better backing and extra resources from Sony.
I already did thanks, nearly a year and a half ago with the A100.
13,000 exposures later and I still prefer it to any camera in it's class. Wouldn't mind an A700 though. Of course my comment about Canikons being a waste of money was somewhat blase (dunno how to get the accent on the e). Canikon systems equally have plenty advantages over the Minolta/Sony system (AF speed being one of them, and the Sony A100 has well documented issues with flash exposure). Their lenses are fine too, although being a Sony/Minolta user I have to point out that the traditional Minolta G lenses tend to be simply the best you can get, period. Fast, incredible image quality, and built like a tank to the extent that they need their own transport system. Unfortunately, you can actually probably buy a real tank for less than the top end Sony/Minolta glass. Owning those kind of hand crafted lenses really is something to aspire to for those of us not called harjun.
But back in the real, sensible world, it's just that the choice of in-body IS vs not-in-body IS is such a no-brainer to me, that I can't see why anyone would choose a Canikon unless they've already got lenses, flashes etc that work with the system (or need compatibility with borrowed/hired lenses / colleagues / family etc), or for professional reasons (i.e. no other manufacturer offers whatever specialised lens or accessory is needed).
That's pretty much bullshit, tbh. I'd never, ever buy a camera body without inbody stabilisation. It's a bit like having aircon in a car. Once you've had it, you just can't go without it.
Or put it this way - in-body routinely provides me with a couple of stops slower shutter speed that I can safely get with it turned off. And the killer fact is that every lens is stabilised. Including cheap primes off ebay.
Naturally it's not much use for, say, a studio photographer. And a sports photog with a long fast lens is probably better off using a monopod than any kind of stabilisation. But for everyday photography (walkaround, candids, family, etc) then having every lens stabilised in-body is just unbeatable imho.
They do indeed. It's also the reason I consider any Canon or Nikon to be a waste of money.
The Alpha bodies are good value, although the Sony lenses tend to be expensive. However the only thing that makes it more expensive is not the Sony name - the A100 is essentially a Minolta 5D MkII, and comes with all the Minolta ergonomics and advantages that characterised Minotas digital SLRs.
Yes, if you have Minolta A-mount lenses, they will work on the Sony. Best of all, Minolta lenses can be had cheap on ebay, although the 2nd hand prices are steadily going up as Sony increases their market share and the proportion of A-mount users increases.
Well, I might be a little biased, as I have a Sony A100 and frankly wouldn't choose any other "entry level" DSLR. I use the term "entry level" loosely as all of these low-end DSLRs are capable of highly professional results in the right hands. The A100 resolves more detail at low ISO than any other camera in it's class (and most of those costing twice as much, too). This leads to fantastic image quality at low ISO, and it also has in-body image stabilisation, incredible battery life, brilliant ergonomics and intuitive controls (I've had to look at the manual about twice in over a year), wireless flash capability out of the box, and renders some very nice colours imho.
Whatever the differences between Sony and Olympus' cleaning systems (I have embarassingly little knowledge of the whole Olympus camera system despite being a keen photographer), the Sony's certainly works. I've noticed a couple of spots on an image before, then next time I've switched the camera off and on again, and they're gone. Only once have I had to resort to using the rocket blower to dislodge some dust.
Also note that if you're comparing the Sony at dpreview to their other reviews, be aware that there are several glaring omissions and inaccurate statements in the A100 review, which have steadily remained uncorrected despite repeated complaints about them from the Minolta/Sony community.
Personally I find the dpreview analysis useful for comparing absolute image quality, but more and more irrelevant as I've become more experienced/involved with photography. Imo it's far more important how a camera feels, responds and performs in real life, on real assignments or in real situations, rather than test shots of charts and bottles.Although of course, most of this thread is redundant now anyway since harjun decided to ignore the cries of "an SLR isn't what you're looking for" and get one regardless. Who'd have thought, huh?
Last edited by STROBE, .
You still don't sound like you have a clue what you're talking about, and are just trying to justify more expensive kit without actually knowing how to benefit from it, although at least you've now admitted it.
For the record, most macro lenses (at least those with true close-focus capability) don't zoom.
And they start at £300-400. The depth of field is so small with 1:1 ~ 1:2 reproduction that you need a tiny aperture to render anything more than a fraction of the image in focus, which therefore requires massively more light to avoid slower shutter speeds and the motion blur. But of course, you know all that because you understand photography enough to benefit from an SLR.So what's your brother going to do, shove a flashgun in their mouth too?
(EDIT) XCNuse, you're taking a very complicated approach to sensor sizes and focal length multipliers.
lol
Only "10x" (whatever that means) or more is a sensible zoom range? Why do you want an SLR when you clearly haven't the faintest clue about lenses?
If "10x" or more is the only sensible range, what does that make prime (i.e. fixed focal length, i.e. no zoom) lenses? Unsensible?
You don't need an SLR, you need a high-end super-zoom point and shoot that looks like a mini SLR.
But if you did want a system with interchangeable lenses, I think I know of a lens just right for you.
Officially in the UK, it's a 1 year warranty. It's 2 years in the rest of Europe.
However my last DFP developed an intermittent fault relating to supplying power to the ffb motor just after it was one year old. Logitech just replaced the entire thing at their expense, which is great service. Whatever flaws there may be with their products, Logitech's support and service appears to be unmatched.
Same here - I use a DFP (so only 2 pedals) and keep auto clutch turned on, but I also have a wheel button mapped to the clutch for use during starts, pitstops, and recovering from spins (to kick the back end of the car around if I'm pointing the wrong way).
I think it's not ok at all; they're too big and too unnecessary. You can say whatever you need to say in your sig with just text, and we already have a graphical avatar which allows just the right amount of customisation/sprucing up of each post, imo.
Not necessarily aimed at you personally, but I've fixed it for you.
Well it's not the most difficult concept in the world. You earn or save money, and do without until you can pay for it, same as you would for any other non-essential luxury product.
I'd be staggered if they did. Given the intergalatic mileage that police cars clock up, and the fact that the Omega hasn't been produced since 2003 (leaving any current cars in use at nearly five years old), the cost of maintaining them would be prohibitive. And 5 out of 52 forces is hardly "many".
There's a set of lights on my way to work that everyone seems so slow to react to. Unfortunately when I go that way in the mornings, I've only driven 500m from my flat so the engine is still stone cold and I don't want to cane it just to beat the dozy bastards who don't even let the handbrake off until the green light has shown for a second or two.
Yep, that's correct. You can't look behind with your head when you're strapped into a racing seat with a full racing harness.
Not at all. It's quite entertaining.
Or it could be that the 3.0 V6 Omega was for a few years the regular car of choice for traffic police in the UK, although they've all long since gone from police fleets.
In a real car on the track, you're strapped in with a racing harness. You can't twist your shoulders around like you can in your road car. The current view limitations reflect that accurately, imho.
There was a problem in the earlier test patches which prevented certain controllers from using the necessary view controls, but since that was resolved I think the 90° limit with variable angle option and the more limited "look back" options are an excellent refinement to the view system.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG