Canon + Nikon bias in outdoor photographer

[Ukwildlifeo]

Im a regular buyer of Outdoor photographer magazine (most relevant and interesting magazine to me) but I was a bit dissapointed with the review of the new Nikon 105mm VR macro lens. Im not saying that its a bad lens but it was put forward as revolutionary, to quote the article: "'handholding macro shots has only ever been a pipe dream'" - the reviewer seems oblivious that Sony, Pentax and Olympus dslr users have had IS on all their lenses, including macros for years!

I just find it sad that this sort of misleading infomation makes newcomers think there are only two options, and worse feeds those idiots that seem to think you arn't a 'proper photographer' with out a Canon or Nikon

[eeyore]

I dont subscribe to the idea that you have to use the big two to be a "propper photographer" but at the same time although you are corrrect about some manufacturers including antishake in their bodies - body based antishake doesnt hold a candle to lens based IS or VR

and on the dominance of the big two - that'll be because thats what the pros largely use - with the exception of Mr Rouses breif flirtation with pentax 645 before he went digital I cant think of any wildlife pro who uses anything else (now I mean - I know heather angel used to use the olympus OM system back in the day)

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I dont subscribe to the idea that you have to use the big two to be a "propper photographer" but at the same time although you are corrrect about some manufacturers including antishake in their bodies - body based antishake doesnt hold a candle to lens based IS or VR

and on the dominance of the big two - that'll be because thats what the pros largely use - with the exception of Mr Rouses breif flirtation with pentax 645 before he went digital I cant think of any wildlife pro who uses anything else (now I mean - I know heather angel used to use the olympus OM system back in the day)

On the body IS vs in camera IS the only pro either way I can find is an article by Nikon. Do you have a link to someting else please. I know a few people who have shot hand held macros with body IS systems, even if they are inferior.

I agree when it come to pro level then its canon or nikon, mainly because there arnt any pro level by any of the other brands - but at entry level and semi pro the options are not so limited

[eeyore]

I dont i'm afraid - i'm going on personal experience and annecdotal evidence from pro and semi pro freinds - the logic is that a) there is more room for servos etc in a lens that there is in a body housing and b) that the sort of shake you get with a long lens is not the same as that expeinced with a macro ( the former tends to be physical lens movement due to bulk and weight , while the latter is the normal hand tremors but magnified) therefore the len based systems can be tailored to the specific problem while body based AS has to be jack of all , master of none.

I agree however with the stupidity of saying that until now hand held macro has been a pipe dream as i have only ever taken hand held macro shots and I'm using a canon 20D and tamron 90 with no IS or AS - basically its down to good stance, steady hands , and keeping the shutter speed up - likewise with steve (fourwings) dragonfly work - most of those are hand held with a 30D and sigma 150mm - again no IS/AS

by way of illustration of my point these were taken with the 90mm and 20D hand held

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

On the body IS vs in camera IS the only pro either way I can find is an article by Nikon. Do you have a link to someting else please. I know a few people who have shot hand held macros with body IS systems, even if they are inferior.

I agree when it come to pro level then its canon or nikon, mainly because there arnt any pro level by any of the other brands - but at entry level and semi pro the options are not so limited

ISTRC seeing a test report (German site?) that showed that
in-body IS was at least as good as lens IS. I've said before on this site that lens manufacturers usually go to great pains to ensure that all lens elements in a lens are firmly fixed and aligned on the same optical axis - and that to then start 'jiggling' one around to gain IS must inevitably result in optical compromises. It also seems to me that because of the lower inertia of a slip of silicon, compared to a lump of glass, the mechanics involved would be lighter, be less prone to wear and the servos draw less current in an in-body IS system.

Not sure what you mean by "its canon or nikon, mainly because there arnt any pro level by any of the other brands" - the performances of the Olympus 'pro' and 'top pro' lenses are rarely equaled, let alone surpassed. Have a look at some independent reviews.

Jim

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

ISTRC seeing a test report (German site?) that showed that
in-body IS was at least as good as lens IS. I've said before on this site that lens manufacturers usually go to great pains to ensure that all lens elements in a lens are firmly fixed and aligned on the same optical axis - and that to then start 'jiggling' one around to gain IS must inevitably result in optical compromises. It also seems to me that because of the lower inertia of a slip of silicon, compared to a lump of glass, the mechanics involved would be lighter, be less prone to wear and the servos draw less current in an in-body IS system.

Interesting stuff Jim I'll have a look

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

Not sure what you mean by "its canon or nikon, mainly because there arnt any pro level by any of the other brands" - the performances of the Olympus 'pro' and 'top pro' lenses are rarely equaled, let alone surpassed. Have a look at some independent reviews.

Jim

What I meant is there is no pentax or olympus equivalent of the Nikon D3 or Canon Mark III etc, so those that want top spec camera bodies at least have to go canon or Nikon, not that you need to get one of these cameras to be a pro. Those Zuiko lenses Ive heard and read are hard to beat.

[Elean0r]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

What I meant is there is no pentax or olympus equivalent of the Nikon D3 or Canon Mark III etc, so those that want top spec camera bodies at least have to go canon or Nikon, not that you need to get one of these cameras to be a pro. Those Zuiko lenses Ive heard and read are hard to beat.

Maybe not in the same "league" but there's nothing wrong with the Olympus E3, and it's fully weatherproofed too.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Elean0r

Maybe not in the same "league" but there's nothing wrong with the Olympus E3, and it's fully weatherproofed too.

One of the reasons I chose one - that and the fact that most of my photography is outside on day trips or trecking. It's out of the question for me to hump a camera like a Nikon D3 or Canon Mk III and lenses to cover the FF equiv. weather protected range 14mm to 560mm plus macro, around the Scottish Hills with all my camping gear! I guess if most of my photography was in static locations, not far from a car, my decision might have been different.

Jim

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by Elean0r

Maybe not in the same "league" but there's nothing wrong with the Olympus E3, and it's fully weatherproofed too.

Yea, this was kind of the point I was making in my intial post - basically Canon and Nikon arn't the only choice and arn't always the best, at least when dealing with cameras of comparable level/price. Oly and pentax Dslr are weather proof with many weatherproof lenses, how many Nikons and canon are truely weatherproof?

[ron1863]

The following is a couple of quotes from a professional photography site "Luminous Landscapes" re anti-vibration. From a personal viewpoint I prefer it in-body as all lenses benefit:

"Whether due to patent restrictions, or just engineering decisions, Sony has adopted an in-body vibration reduction system rather than one built into individual lenses. From what I have read and my own empirical evidence, it appears to be every bit as competent as the IS and VR systems that Canon and Nikon build into some of their lenses.

And therein lies one of the benefits of the Sony approach. Being in the body rather than the lens means that every lens enjoys the benefits of vibration reduction, not just specially designed ones. While moderate focal length and wide angle lenses don't require stabilization as much as do long lenses, they definitely can benefit from it, and the two stop gain that it provides is most welcome, especially when using specialty optics that wouldn't normally have stabilization.

There is a downside though to in-body shake reduction, and that is that its effect isn't visible in the viewfinder. I don't see this as a deal breaker, but some folks might. Of course it does nothing to change the look of the eventual picture taken, though it does add a comfort level when shooting to be able to see that shake is being reduced.

Sony does provide a real-time gauge in the viewfinder that shows how much shake reduction is going to be applied, which is helpful.

One area where the latest Canon and Nikon IS and VR lens systems have a small edge is that they sense when the camera is tripod mounted and turn themselves down or off. The A900 doesn't do this, and so with the camera firmly tripod mounted if you don't turn stabilization off you're in fact going to get blurry images as the system tries in vain to compensate for vibration that isn't there. I find that I usually remember to turn anti-shake off, but if I do I invariably then forget to turn it back on when switching back to hand holding."



"What is less common is that the camera features in-body image stabilization through sensor vibration, the first time that this has been accomplished on a full-frame camera. I have found this to be very much to my liking, especially with medium to wide angle lenses which heretofore have not been able to experience the benefits of stabilization. While less needed than with long lenses, it simply provides the ability to hand hold at lower speeds and in lower light situations, and therefore is most welcome.

"The ability to have stabilization with all lenses, even those from third party lens makers, is also appreciated. The newly acquired Sigma 50-500mm is looking to be quite an excellent lens, and frankly, if I wasn't using it on a camera body with stabilization I likely wouldn't have considered purchasing it. I have the Canon 400mm f/5.6, which is an exceptional lens, but one which I rarely use because it lacks IS. With this in mind a lens such as the 50-500mm would not have appealed, but even after just a few days of use, as this article is being finalized, I am finding myself hand holding the lens at 400-500mm at speeds as low as 1/125 sec, and getting very fine results.

The bottom line on this long-winded discussion is that I am finding the Sony's in-body stabilization to be very much to my liking, and something that makes me hesitate every time I go to pick up another camera which doesn't have it."