robert_paul1

<blockquote>

<p>Well if no HDTV offer true life images none of the compact pocket cameras (not EVIL cameras) off true life images. Besides, the purpose of the screen on the cameras is not to produce a true life image. It only has to offer a image good enough to check framing, depth of field and exposure. Most people want a true life picture in the file the camera creates. The little LCD on the back only has to be good enough for it get the job done. Compact pocket cameras are really hot sellers so most people apparently believe it is good enough. Same goes for all the people buying HDTV and Blue Ray disks. Additionally digital images from m4/3 and APS-C sensors are good enough to make prints 11X14" or larger that are indistinguishable from film which also sold very well prior to the first digital cameras. Most people rarely make a print bigger than 8X10”. While you may not feel the LXCDs on the camera are good enough, it is obvious the most people do based on the sales of live view cameras, LCD TVs, and high definition TV.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is the advantage of an OVF. It gives you a real lifelike image. You can see the slight nuances that an EVF cannot. Maybe you like the over-saturated colors that you see on the TV screen, but I enjoy seeing life as it is, and once I take a picture, make adjustments in PhotoShop.</p>

<p>Richard, fifty years ago, people predicted that in the year 2000, we'd all be 'driving' around in our personal air car. The TV makers including Sony have displays that show 16,000,000 different colors, and contrast levels have gone way up, and Sanyo has talked of TVs that have resolution levels of 4000p and 6000p. Yet, none of these companies have ever said their image is as real as life.</p>

<p>I keep reading on different forums of how people want an EVIL camera, but every week I go into Ritz and ask how the m4/3 cameras are moving, and keep hearing that they don't move that well.</p>

<p>This is a case of people wanting the latest technologies, but when it comes time to lay their money down on the counter, or after they try the cameras, decide to pass on the purchase.</p>

<p>Richard, neither you nor Steven addressed the issue of the VF. I have not seen any indication that any technology will produce a true life-like image using an EVF. Look at all the HDTVs on the market, none of them offer a true lifelike image.</p>

<p>As for a more upscale EVIL camera, why hasn't the competition produced or shown any prototype of them? Surely, Olympus would be looking to the future, but they aren't positioning their m4/3s as cameras that will lead to higher end cameras. Plus, the price of the current m4/3 are already higher than a comparable APS-C DSLR.</p>

<p>Steven, your point about the Canon EFS lenses is a non-issue for most Canon DSLR users, as they aren't the type that would move up to a professional model like the 5D or 1D. The 5D and 1D are not mainstream cameras. However, Sony's cameras like the A330, A200, et al, are mainstream cameras, and someone who starts out with a Sony EVIL camera, who then looks to move up, won't be able to take their lenses along for the ride.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"This does leave things somewhat ambiguous. Presumably, the EVIL cameras will fill the lower end bodies eventually, and traditional SLR's will fill the higher end. But eventually we will have an electronic viewfinder worthy of professional use/rivalling the highest quality optical viewfinder. Then I suspect there will be a strange cross-over, but I don't think that will be for quite sometime yet."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Richard, your statement just backed-up what I was saying. The EVIL camera's lenses won't fit the A-mount bodies, because they are designed for a smaller lens flange to sensor distance. So, someone who starts out with the EVIL camera, and buys several lenses, and then wants to move up to the A-mount won't be able to use their lenses on the A-mount DSLRs. It is a DEAD-END, with no mobility to move into a DSLR. At best, they might serve as a back-up for someone with an Alpha, but they will be disappointed by the adapter needed to use their present A-mount lenses.<br>

As for the viewfinder, none of the reviews and posts I've seen say that the image is like that of a traditional OVF. And, I have yet to see any indication that they will match what you see in an actual OVF. They will always be like watching a TV picture.<br>

Finally, if EVIL cameras are so great, why hasn't the 4/3, or micro 4/3 system taken a larger piece of the photo business. These cameras will always be a niche market IMO.</p>

<p>Andrew, you might want to take a closer look at the 'camera'. Notice that there is no lever for the aperture lug found on the Alpha lenses, so how will it activate A-mount lenses? The mock-ups don't show it having any electronic contact points in the body, so Sony doesn't want to give away the number of contacts it will have. Nor, do you see any hint of a screw drive in the body.<br>

The only thing that shows that it is an 'Alpha' is the alpha emblem on the front. However, most reports of the camera indicates that camera will have a new lens mount design. However, Sony has said that there will be an adapter to allow use of A-mount lenses on the camera. It is an Alpha in name only.<br>

On the other hand, there is no indications that you'll be able to use lenses specifically designed for the EVIL camera, on your Alpha DSLR. This means that the camera would not be a camera designed for people who moved from a P&S to it, then want to move up to a DSLR Alpha. The camera is a dead-end for Sony, as i doesn't allow for upward mobility.</p>

<p>The problem is caused by the fact that the Beercan is a first generation AF lens, and the fuzzy logic burned into the ROM chip isn't as advanced as later versions. The fuzzy logic causes the lens to move in larger steps than in later lenses, and therefore has to move back and forth more than later lenses. Also, the gearing used in the first generation A-mount lenses has a slower ratio that in later lenses.<br mce_bogus="1"></p>

<p>Dustin, you can still stack images of the beach/ocean to get long exposures.</p>

<p>Dustin, you really should have started a separate thread. You're comparing long exposure technique between a film camera and a digital camera. If you want better long exposure results with your A100, try freezing the camera body. The problem is that with a digital sensor you get heat build-up, so freezing the body allows longer exposure time before you get the problem you mentioned. Or, you can surround the body with frozen gel-packs.<br>

Not sure why you're taking pictures with exposures longer than 30 seconds, but a couple of possibility comes to mind- star trails or astrophotography. If it's astrophotography, you're better off using a photo stacking software, rather than one long exposure.</p>

<p>"But he is Cannon the camera is Canon, my name is not Smyth."<br>

The JOKE is better when you say it, and not read it. However, some people have no sense of humor, and must take everything literally.</p>

<p>Richard, I don't know how you figure that the lens is '14mm' on the short end, when used on a FF camera. Multiplying 11mm by 1.5X means that the lens is about 15-16mm on the short end.</p>

<p>I agree with the rest of the responses. Are you unhappy with Sony? Does Nikon offer something that Sony doesn't? Is there a 'professional' reason for you to switch?<br>

The A700 is a very capable camera, and while Sony doesn't yet have a direct replacement for it, the A550 not withstanding, I expect them to offer an update before the year is out.</p>

<p>I knew eating all those greasy fries and burger was good for something. :)</p>

<p>The 'D' lens have nothing to do with the focusing problem, so don't worry about that part. The problem lies in the fact that the maximum aperture of your lens will make the camera have a harder time finding proper focus, more so when you're using the lens at the 300mm position. The AF system of the Minolta can be used up to f/8 lenses, like the 500mm mirror lens, but it will take longer, especially if you don't have a lot of contrast in the area that you're trying to focus on.</p>

<p>Back to the 'D' designation. The 'D' lenses have a chip that tells the flash what 'D'istance your subject is at, so that if they're standing in front of a reflective surface like a mirror, the extra reflected light will not cause the flash to cut power off, and make your main subject come out under-exposed.</p>

<p>A little oil goes a long way. Unless you have very dry skin, it shouldn't be a problem. As to getting into the tiny spaces, don't worry, I had no problems getting the oil in the tiny gaps of my big beercan.</p>

<p>I know this will sound gross and weird, but I found that nose oil works well. I'm talking about the oil that appears on the side of your nose. I rub the side of my nose with my finger, then rub the rubber, the white disappears. Afterwards, I wipe off the oil with a microfiber cloth. Don't use the oil if your face is sweaty as your sweat will be slightly acid.<br>

I'm not joking, try it on a small spot.</p>

<p>Be advised that the production of the A700 ended several months ago and that availability of new bodies are getting hard to find. There has been much discussion as to whether Sony will come out with a true successor to the A700, or if Sony will abandon the advanced APS-C user market.<br>

I, for one, think that Sony will show something at PMA that will be the true replacement for the A700.<br>

So, if you do decide to buy the A700, do it quick, or if you do get one, be prepared to have buyer's remorse should the A7XX be that much better than the A700.</p>

<p>Did you change the battery? The fact that both the film advance and mirror locked-up, might indicate the battery died in mid-shooting.</p>

<p>You didn't say whether the demo lenses were for MC/MD or AF lenses. Once you know that, the lens mount, I believe, are interchangeable, although the cheap ones wee plastic, but they should fit.</p>

<p>Tony, if anything is a 'pain in the you-know-what', it is the old fashion hotshoe. You have to screw it down, which takes time, and often the knob is hard to grab. Then when you remove it, sometimes it's hard to unscrew, as I tightened it too much. The Minolta/Sony hotshoe is much quicker, push it in and it's locked. Push a button and pull it off. Very easy and fast.</p>

<p>parv., yes, the Ritz is the one at Ala Moana Center. Ritz used to have seven stores in the islands, but is now down to one. I understand it was the top performing store in the district, which included parts of the mainland, under the old Ritz. The store caters to locals and a large tourist market. They could do better if they had more merchandise, of all kinds, on hand. The store people keep having to direct customers to other camera stores.</p>

<p>I went into a Ritz Camera, and as I previously noted, they had quite a bit of Sony Alpha gear. It wasn't until I overheard a customer saying to a clerk "too bad you're not carrying Canon anymore", that I noticed that their shelves were nearly bare of Canon.<br>

Apparently, Canon and Ritz have parted ways. Whether this is due to credit problems, or Canon not offering Ritz a good deal, I'm not sure. However, with Canon out of the stores, Ritz will have to depend on Sony to pick up some of the slack.</p>

<p>The small local camera stores here in Hawaii don't carry Sony. Best Buy carries the entry level stuff, and Ritz goes up to the A850. I understand that the NEW Ritz is carrying a lot of Sony gear. Guess Sony and David worked out a deal. I thing only Pentax is harder to find in the islands.</p>

<p>I don't think that the photo business was the main part of KonicaMinolta (or Minolta) for several years leading up to KM selling off the Photo Imaging Division. However, that is what Minolta/KM is best known for. And they don't need an 'excuse' to sponsor anything. What do you expect them to do, roll over and die?<br>

KonicaMinolta is a business, and they are going to do what any other business is going to do in order to generate name recognition.<br>

And since you asked... No, I haven't seen a camera company sponsor a bowl game, and even with KonicaMinolta sponsoring the Gator Bowl, I still haven't seen a camera company sponsor a bowl game.</p>

<p>Minolta made a Alpha/Maxxum/Dynax 9000 (depending inwhich part of the world you lived in). Sony makes an Alpha 900. However there never was a Minolta/Sony Alpha 9000.</p>

<p>Of the three 14mm rectilinear lenses Oleksandr mentioned, only the Tamron is still being made. I have a Sigma 14mm f/2.8, and I love it.</p>