Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I hear this time after time after time. It's utter BS. One reason that Nikon/Canon have so many lenses is that basically that have 2 versions of each lens. 1 IS/VR and 1 non-IS/VR.There is another main issue I see with Sony - their lens lineup.
Leica was never in the real pro business nor have their products been mainstream, albeit their lens design was always superior to others, so while transitioning into the digital age their "old" designs still can hold up somehow. But even there we see big improvements lately - M lenses, S lenses.That approach worked for Leica for decades. Granted, their lenses are not autofocus and have zero electronics.
+1 !!!BTW, Nikon does NOT have 2 versions of each lens, VR & non-VR.
I wonder why people always insist on the D700 (or its successor) needing to be a lesser camera, less professional, less features than the D3s (or its successor) or in any other way less (or even pro-sumer instead of a pro-body, even though NPS clearly has it in the Pro category).
Personally I prefer the small form factor of the D700 over the D3. I do want the same functionality (I could do without the flash, especially if it makes for a sturdier body). Actually if the D700 would have been more expensive than the D3 I would still have favored it over the D3. If there will be a D700 replacement I will buy it but if there isn't I am still perfectly happy with the D700.
Yes, of course, my original statement was hyperbole. But it is true to an extent.BTW, Nikon does NOT have 2 versions of each lens, VR & non-VR.
I am a bit confused...have had all of the above camera and lens combinations listed above and loved the limited list of Sony lenses.So :wtf: why does not somebody design an adapter so that these lenses with in-body stabilising can be used on cameras with MFDB backs ...even develop new lenses for those who have big bucks to spare with in-body stabilising for MFDB rigs.
please point me in the right direction.
hope this is not too :OT:
The Zeiss ZA lenses for the Sony DSLRs are not stabilized, the Camera body has the stabilization ... so all lenses, even legacy Minolta optics are, in effect, stabilized."I selected to zero in on Sony because ... all lenses are in-body stabilized including my ZA16-35, ZA24/2, ZA24-70, S50/1.4, ZA85/1.4 and ZA135/1.8 NONE of which are available from Canon or Nikon. I always found this lack of stabilization kind of odd since these fast aperture primes are designed for low light work. This anti-shake technology will become more apparent as the meg count jumps beyond 30 meg and camera movement becomes more critical ..."
So :wtf: why does not somebody design an adapter so that these lenses with in-body stabilising can be used on cameras with MFDB backs (starting with an adapter for my Contax 645 would be great) or even develop new lenses for those who have big bucks to spare with in-body stabilising for MFDB rigs. Surely this is a marketing no-brainer even though it may be a technical nightmare given the many whiners (including myself) who are concerned about how to hand hold MFDBs with large sensors that show up camera shake more than smaller sensor cameras?
If I am fortunate I am making a dumb mistake by saying this since what I suggest has already been done long ago in which case please point me in the right direction.
hope this is not too :OT: