Alphatracks

Sony quietly announced a new dSLR model Sunday, January 6. The new Alpha A200 dSLR is positioned as a replacement for the now discontinued A100 dSLR. The Alpha 200 will anchor the Alpha line as Sony’s starter SLR model, providing a low cost point of entry for those unable or unwilling to spend the cash needed to acquire an A700.

Sony will ship the A200, a new low cost dSLR, in February.

Photo: Sony Corp, used with permission

The new 10mp dSLR offers a number of improvements over the A100. Sony says the new camera is faster, lighter and easier to use. Two of the obvious enhancements include a larger 2.7 inch LCD screen and the availability of a vertical battery grip. Sony also claims the new camera offers reduced image noise and uses the same auto-focus system as the Alpha A700, which is said to be 1.7 times as fast as the A100.

The new dSLR includes the usual Sony/Minolta touches; Super Steady Shot, Sony’s DRO image optimizer, BIONZ processing engine and the anti-dust vibration system on the CCD sensor. Naturally the A200 accepts all of the A-mount lenses available for the A100 and A700. Sony and Minolta flash units compatible with the A100 will also work on the A200.

Those disappointed that the A700 did not carry on the legacy of the Maxxum 7D controls, will not find anything to cheer about on the A200, either. Sony reduced the control knobs to one and adopted a menu control to replace the missing dial.

The Sony press release doesn’t mention a PC Sync port (say it isn’t so!), so, like the A100, it is possible that the A200 will lack the ability to work with studio flash unless you use a hot shoe adapter. There is also no mention of tethered shooting, so you may need the more fully capable A700 if you want to shoot tethered to your computer. I hope I’m wrong about this and Sony just failed to mention it in the press release. But I’m not holding my breath.

I haven’t seen a picture of the new grip for the A200, but Sony identifies it as the VG-B30AM ergonomic vertical grip, so it is not the same grip used on the A700. Like the A700’s grip, however, the VG-B30AM will provide space for two InfoLITHIUM® batteries.

Now the real interesting part: the price. Sony says the A200 equipped with the DT 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 3.9x zoom lens will list for about $700 and will be available in February. They don’t quote a body only price, but as a benchmark, you saved about $100 when you purchased the A100 without the kit lens.

The A200 should provide Sony with traction in an area where they dearly need it — the low-end, starter SLR market. Priced at roughly half the price of the A700, the new camera should go a long way toward building Sony’s market share and greatly expand the ranks of A-mount shooters.

Technorati Tags

Sony A200
Alpha A200
dSLR
photography
Camera
Alphatracks

Share This

Hi! If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. You can also sign up to receive e-Mail updates from the homepage at http://alphatracks.com Thanks for visiting!

Modern dSLRs are technological wonders. They are crammed with components, sensors, LCDs and advanced circuitry. They do everything but talk — and a few are working on that.

Despite all this technical wizardry, the average dSLR is fairly dumb. It can’t think. It knows nothing about art, composition or lighting effects. It doesn’t care if you are photographing a beautiful sunset or the local garbage dump. It doesn’t see the difference and wouldn’t care if it did.

Yet, far too many dSLR owners allow this non-thinking, non-appreciative hunk of electronics to rule over their photographic endeavors. “The camera knows best,” is their motto and the more automatic controlled features their cameras have the better the like it.

True photographers know better. They can appreciate the wonderful features camera designers have incorporated into their hardware, but they remain the master of the thing. They aren’t afraid to use manual modes, and more importantly, they know when they should. They are smarter than their camera and their work shows it.

Under perfect conditions — bright, overcast day with no shadows and lots of reflected diffuse light — any camera can capture wonderful images. The problem is those perfect conditions don’t come along very often and they don’t exist indoors. Or in a shady forest. Or at night. Or…well you get the idea. Most of the time, you and your camera have to work together to get the best images. You have to be a team –and in any team there has to be a leader. You have to step up, overrule your camera and force it to capture the images you want.

The more I use my digital cameras, the more I find myself reverting to some sort of manual control. That doesn’t mean I never shoot in a fully automatic mode — it’s just that more and more often I find that my knowledge and experience lets me make better decisions than my camera. Sometimes I’m wrong and the camera actually knows best. Much of the time, however, my images show a marked improvement when I take control.

How do you develop this knowledge? It can start gradually, by occasionally experimenting with manual settings. If you always shoot fully automatic, in the program mode, try a few of these suggestions next time you are shooting.

Turn off auto focus.

Auto focus is useful and can be a lifesaver many situations. However, if you always let your dSLR select the focus you may be missing out on some great images. You might prefer part of your subject be out of focus. Its an artistic decision and your camera can’t make that decision for you. In addition, no matter how fast camera makers make their AF systems, pre-focusing will always be faster. So try using manual focus when it is appropriate.

Switch out of the program mode

I am finding less and less use for the program mode when I shoot. Since I understand what type of image I am trying to capture and the camera can’t read my mind — I find I am far better at selecting the best combination of aperture and shutter speed to get what I want. Camera makers have gone to great lengths to add program modes like sports, night, portraiture and the like. The idea is you can set your camera to the appropriate mode and forget about it. Sometimes this works, but I find I get better results when I determine the optimal settings. lately, I have been shooting almost exclusively in aperture priority. I set the F-Stop and the camera selects an appropriate shutter speed. Occasionally I will use shutter priority — especially if the light is shifty and I want to make sure I don’t fall below a certain speed. Sometimes I will use full manual — when I want to ignore the camera’s meter in order to get exactly the shot I have in mind.

Of course you don’t have to use any single mode for an entire shoot — many times I will find myself shifting between all four modes during a busy session. The thing is, you have to learn which modes work best for which situations. So next time you are out, switch out of program mode for at least part of the time. Once you learn how to make decisions your dSLR could never make on it’s own, you may find the program setting will become your least used mode.

Play around with exposure compensation

Most dSLRs offer some form of exposure adjustment, which will allow you to override the actual meter reading by a set number of stops. Much of the time, the default setting will be very close, but if you are attempting a special effect or the light is tricky, exposure compensation can be your best friend. Learn how to use it to your advantage.

Experiment with contrast

If your camera offers contrast adjustment, learn how this can improve your images in varying lighting conditions. If you are shooting outdoors at noon on a bright, cloudless day, normal contrast may make your images appear awful. See if toning down the contrast will soften the shadows and eliminate hot spots. If the light is weak and dull, can you improve the image by cranking in some additional contrast?

Vary your flash settings

It’s true. camera makers have created some wonderfully intelligent flash units. Even the built in flashes can produce stunning results under the right conditions. But there are plenty of times when the flash should be overruled. Start with flash compensation. Try more or less compensation to see how the light changes. Experiment with different shutter speeds to see how that affects the background. If you have a separate flash unit, get a cord and try shooting with the flash off the camera. Experiment, You’ll get some duds, but you will also get some wonderful images. And you will never allow your camera to dictate how your flash should be used in the future.

I urge you to try all of these techniques when you get the chance. You might not use every one every time, but make it a point to try at least one of these each time you head out with your dSLR. If you do, and you ware willing to learn from your successes and your failures, you will quickly se your photographic IQ surpassing your cameras. When you are smarter than your camera, you will be well on the way to capturing some outstanding images.

Technorati Tags:

photography
camera settings
camera
improve your photos
photo tips
Tom Bonner
Alphatrtacks

Share This

Has anyone ever tried to prevent you from taking photographs in a public place? I’ve read about other photographers who have been harassed while they were capturing images even though they had every right to do so. For the last thirty years, I could say that no one had ever interfered with my photographic endeavors. After last week, that is no longer the case.

I had been asked to photograph a corporate Christmas event in Charlotte, NC. That went off without a hitch. It was a fun, festive event, but I was tired and hungry by the end of the day. I wanted to go home, eat something an relax before I started post processing my RAW images.

As I walked across the courtyard to reach my truck, I just couldn’t resist hauling out the camera to shoot the Christmas lights. The place was wonderfully decorated, and even as tired as I felt, I noticed a number of interesting photo opportunities.

Assault on freedom — the first guard

After about ten minutes, however, a uniformed security woman appeared.

“Sir, you cannot take pictures in this area.”

I was rather surprised — the property owners had gone to great expense to decorate the area with thousands of lights, a 80 foot artificial tree and dozens of lighted topiary plants that looked like dancing bears. Yet they didn’t want to allow photographs of the scene? So much for the “joy of the season” thing.

I wasn’t completely sure that they actually had the right to prevent me from taking photos in a public courtyard where the public is invited to visit shops and a food establishments. Still, I was on their premises, so I meekly packed up my camera and left.

About a 150 feet away, however, I found myself standing on a sidewalk. A public sidewalk, paid in part by taxpayer dollars. Out came the camera again. It was not as convenient as shooting from inside the courtyard, but I was able to capture some nice holiday light images.

“Sir, you cannot take pictures in this area.”

Security guards: two — Freedom: Zero

A different security guard, standing within the courtyard, started yelling at me.

I ignored her.

“SIR YOU CANNOT TAKE PICTURES HERE!”

Sigh. I don’t know which bothered me more; the fact this woman was haranguing me or that a security guard working in the United States of America actually thought she had the right to prevent me from taking photos of a lighted building while standing on a public sidewalk.

I am not a lawyer, but I have been taught through the years that in the USA, a photographer has the right to photograph nearly anything while in a public place. The only exceptions are certain military and nuclear facilities. Otherwise, no one has the right to prevent you from photographing while in public.

The problem is that the security guards I ran into probably never read any of this material. They had obviously been instructed that photographs were not allowed, and were zealously attempting to carry out their duties, failing to realize that they had no right to prevent me from photographing anything I could see while standing on that sidewalk. In fact, strictly speaking, they were breaking the law.

There rather large gray area when it comes to a photographer’s legal rights. Most photo books I have read on the subject insist that (in the USA) a photographer has the right to photograph in any public place. Some even claim that if someone invites the general public into a place — such as a shopping mall — they can’t prevent a photographer from taking photos in that place.

Gray areas allow private guards to violate photographer’s rights

I’m not altogether sure about that. This is were the law gets rather gray — most concerts and theaters have restrictions against photography. I suppose you could make the argument that these events are not “public” since only those who buy a ticket or receive a pass from the owner can attend.

Still, the law is rather clear about photographs in true public places such as streets and sidewalks. Under federal law, no one has the right to prevent you from taking pictures in these areas.

States, counties and cities probably have the right to pass ordinances preventing street photography, but very few have done so. Unless there is a specific ordinance of this nature, no security guard has any legal right to keep you from using your camera while in a public area. But it appears that many guards and property owners are unaware of this fact.

The anti-photo law that made photography legal in New York

Ironically, the clearest rule about photography in public came about when the City of New York attempted to prevent photos from being taken in the NY Subway system. Citing security, the city was set to enforce a strict law that would have required a permit to photograph anywhere in the subway.

Fortunately, there was great hue and cry and the city quickly backed down. In doing so, they made it abundantly clear that all photography or cinematography was permissible in the subway, provided the camera user does not interfere with those using the subway. Thus, because NYC attempted to block photography, then reversed themselves and made it clear it is legal, everyone, including security and police officers now know that a photographer has the legal right to use his camera in the subway. There is no gray area any longer, the city has gone on record that it is legal.

Despite this victory, I am becoming quite concerned about photographer’s rights in the US. Unless photographers speak up and challenge those attempting to make photography a crime, it might become accepted fact that many places are off limits to cameras. The freedom to use your camera in public will be greatly curtailed — creating a great void in the photographic record of US life.

Thomas Hawk’s DIgital Connection blog has a series of lively posts on photographer’s legal rights (or lack of them).

An older post, archived on BoingBoing, describes a freelance photographer’s encounter with security guards in San Francis’s MUNI public transit back in 2005.

Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law has prepared a guide entitled Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography

Has this happened to you?

Has this happened to you? Have you ever encountered a security guard, police officer, property owner or anyone else who attempted to prevent you from taking pictures when you had a perfect legal right to do so?

Technorati Tags

photography
photographer’s rights
public photography
security guards
Alphatracks
Tom Bonner

Share This

There is intense interest in the yet unnamed and unannounced full frame Sony Alpha (possibly to be called the A900?) among Alphatracks readers. I recently received another e-mail suggesting further ideas regarding the full frame sensor with in-camera image stabilization problem. Or non-problem, depending on which theory you wish to follow.

This time around, Marek Kaszycki weighs in with his analysis of the situation.

Past posts in this series:

• http://alphatracks.com/archives/81
• http://alphatracks.com/archives/82
• http://alphatracks.com/archives/83

Technorati tags

Sony Alpha
dSLR
photography
full frame sensor
antishake
super steady shot

Share This

Is your Minolta SRT model looking a little rough? What about your old reliable XD-11? Does it still look pristine? Maybe your XG-7 could use a little refurbishing. If you got an old, but well loved Minolta SLR, you can make into something very special. With a little elbow grease and a replacement leather kit from CameraLeather, you can turn your run-of-the-mill SLR into a one-of-a-kind show camera.

While CameraLeather won’t necessarily make your camera take better photos, it will definitely increase your pride in ownership. I’ve always found that when I value a special instrument, I tend to work harder at getting a result that matches the quality of the tool. So in the end, these kits might just improve the caliber of your photos after all.

Make your classic Minolta a real standout. CameraLeather offers a wide variety of colors and textures as these SRT models demonstrate.

Photo: CameraLeather, used with permission

CameraLeather, as the name implies, offers a line of leather kits that any handy DIYer can use to resurface the grip area on their classic SLR. DSLRs, with their molded, composite bodies probably don’t lend themselves to leather covering. The older metal bodied cameras, on the other hand, are the perfect target for one of these leather kits. Since CameraLeather offers a wide range of colors and styles, you an customize your aging SRT or XD-11 to look better than new. Best of all. the kits are inexpensive, ranging in price from to $10.50 for synthetic materials to $44 for the exotic kid skins. Most of the pre-cut covering kits for 35mm SLRs are less then $20.00. The biggest investment required in the time you invest to remove the old overing and apply the new one.

CameraLeather offers an incredible array of coverings.

Photo: CameraLeather, used with permission

To my mind, these leather coverings evoke an earlier era, when wealthy people would tote beautifully crafted classics with them on far flung-travels. I could imagine seeing one of these aboard the Orient Express or on a trip up the Nile in one of Agatha Christie’s novels. These cameras wouldn’t look out of place in a stateroom on the Titanic, either.

Too British for you? How about a fellow named Gatsby slinging one of these over his shoulder, bound for a day of yacht racing off Newport, Rhode Island. I would think a leather endowed XD-11 would be just his thing.

Ok, enough romanticizing. These leather covered cameras are uber-cool, but are they practical? I don’t want to lock my camera up in a display case — my cameras are for taking photos. How well will these coverings hold up?

That is one of many questions I had for Morgan Sparks of CameraLeather. Following are my questions and the answers provided by Sparks::

How difficult is it to recover Minolta SRT and X series SLRs?

How well does the leather stand up in use? Can someone use the camera regularly without damage from sweaty palms or oily skin?

Has anyone tried your fabric on lens barrels? After long use, some of the rubber grips on my Rokker lenses have stretched or come off completely. It might be interesting to buy a matching fabric sheet and cut it to fit the lens, making the lens and camera match. Impractical? What do you think?

Hmm. This seems like a very interesting project. There are a couple of hitches, however. First, it’s been years since I actually shot film. I still have some of my old SLRs and it might be fun to take one out and play with it now and then, but the film train has pretty much left the station. And she ain’t ever coming back.

Secondly, I am at a loss to think of which of my old SLRs I would want to cover. My old SRTs are pretty well used. They have been dropped, nicked, exposed to all manner of hard use — one has even been run over by an errant race car.

Other metal bodied Minolta SLRs, like this XD11 are also good candidates for the leather treatment..

Photo: CameraLeather, used with permission

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not careless about my equipment, but sometimes getting the shot is more important than keeping the camera in pristine condition. So these scars are a badge of honor as far as I’m concerned. But I’m afraid an immaculate leather covering would clash with the scared metal housing. I would have to distress the leather to make it match — that doesn’t seem like a very good idea.

I do have a mint Minolta SR-7 and I’m sure a leather covering would look great on it. CamaeraLeather doesn’t offer a kit expressly for the SR-7, but it is so close in appearance to the later SRT series that I think I could adapt a SRT kit. If not, CameraLeather sells uncut sheets of the adhesive backed leather so I could go that route and custom make my covering.

But as I said, the SR-7 is in mint, nearly unused condition. It probably isn’t greatly valuable today, but I would guess in the coming years it might be worth something. But it I remove the original hard covering and replace it with leather, the camera probably will not have any real value to a collector. Sigh.

Maybe I could look around for an old XD-11 on ebay. It would lend itself well to the refined look of leather and Minolta made enough of them that they wouldn’t be as much of a collector’s item as the older SR model.

Leather is precut for every supported camera model.

Photo: CameraLeather, used with permission

I wonder what it would be like to shoot film again? I’m going to have to think about that. I would never return to film in place of digital for my professional work…but it might be fun to haul around a leather bound film SLR for family events and the like.

While I’m studying on the problem, if you have a suitable candidate for a leather treatment, check out the CameraLeather website.

If you do try your hand at recovering an old Minolta SLR, send in some photos so I can share with other Alphatracks readers. Who knows, maybe we can spark a revival of classic Minolta SLRs.

Technorati Tags:

Minolta SLR
film camera
photography
camera mod
Tom Bonner
Alphatracks

Share This

Alphatracks has always been aimed at Sony and Minolta SLR users. Not that there is anything wrong with non-SLR gear, There have been numerous great non-SLR cameras sold under the Sony/Minolta brands. You have to draw the line somewhere, however, and since I have primarily used SLRs, I like to stick to what I know.

I’ve noticed that many readers are somewhat unclear as to which cameras are actually SLRs. Some appear to think it means any camera that uses interchangeable lenses. (Which is not the case.) Others mistakenly apply the term to so-called “bridge” or pro-summer cameras. These cameras typically rely on an electronic view finder (EVF) , which disqualifies them as a dSLR. So what exactly makes a camera SLR?

Shouldn’t that be a MLR?

It’s the instant return mirror (and supporting system) that puts the reflex into a SLR.

Most people know that SLR stands for “single lens reflex,” which in itself is fairly confusing. After all, nearly 100 percent of the SLRs ever produced are designed with an interchangeable lens mount. Shouldn’t these cameras be called Multiple Lens Reflex cameras?

To understand just why we refer to these cameras as single lens units we need to examine a bit of camera history, The early cameras, such as those used by Matthew Bradey during the American Civil War, recorded a single image at a time. The photographer looked through the lens, focused, composed and then inserted the film plate behind the lens to make an image. While the entire process was crude by today’s standards, the photographer enjoyed great control, since he looked directly through the actual imaging lens to compose the shot.

While this was satisfactory for still life, portraits and landscapes, this process did not lend itself to rapid photography. These early cameras could only record one image at a time. Which is why you have never seen a motor-driven view camera.

Realizing the need to offer sequences of exposures, camera makers begin to experiment with various roll-film designs, With a roll of film in the camera, the photographer could fire off continuous images without reloading. While this improved throughput dramatically, it caused another problem. The roll of film had to pass closely behind the camera’s optics, which meant that the photographer could no longer look through the camera lens to design the shot.

Rangefinder cameras appear to keep things in focus

There was no problem with the lower-end consumer roll-film cameras, because these generally used an inexpensive “fixed-focus” lens. Better quality optics require the lens to be focused, however, and as we’ve seen, the photographer couldn’t look through the lens with a roll-film camera. One of the first solutions to this problem was the Rangefinder — a type of camera that offered a distance measuring scale in the viewfinder. By determining the range from the viewfinder, the photographer could then adjust the focus to match — usually with very good results.

Twin Lens Reflex cameras offer another solution

Twin lens reflex used upper lens to focus, lower lens actually took the photo.

While the rangefinder type cameras worked well, the camera industry is always evolving. A second method of allowing the photographer to focus and compose appeared in the “Twin-Lens Reflex” cameras. These cameras used two identical lenses, arranged one on top of the other in the manner of an over-and-under shotgun. The film winds past the lower lens, while the photographer can focus through the upper lens. Since most of the twin-lens cameras were fairly bulky, designers added a mirror and ground glass to the top of the camera, hence the term “reflex.

Now the user could hold the camera at waist level and look down at the ground glass which previewed the image via the mirror behind the upper lens. As the user adjusted the focus on the upper lens, a gear mechanism moved the lower “taking lens” to match.

While both rangefinders and twin-lens cameras offered a credible way to focus and preview a shot, neither allowed the photographer to look directly through the imaging lens. This made exact composition difficult in certain situations.

SLRs take cameras another step forward.

Cut-away view shows the light path through a typical SLR. Light enters through the lens, hitting the lower mirror, where it is reflected upwards. It then strikes the top of the prism, where it is reflected again to strike the front of the prism. It is reflected yet a third time to pass through the viewfinder.

In their quest to allow users to see through the actual “taking” lens, camera makers turned to the periscope — a simple device using two mirrors placed at opposite angles to bend the light path. Periscopes are easy to understand — any kid can construct one from a couple of mirrors and some scrap wood. In a camera, the lower mirror is placed at a 45 degree angle directly behind the lens. Light striking the mirror is projected upwards to a ground glass. A pentaprism, which contains two additional mirrors, is located behind the viewfinder. The prism is used to flip the image so it can be viewed “right-side up”

There is just one hitch. If you’ve been paying attention, you no-doubt realized that the lower mirror blocks the light path to the film (or digital sensor as the case may be.) Now the photographer can look though the lens, but the image can’t be projected on to the film plane.

So the camera designers had to add another wrinkle. They had to move that mirror. Just long enough to make an exposure, since when the mirror moved, the photographer couldn’t see anything through the lens. So they designed the “instant-return” mirror.

At the instant of exposure, the mirror flies upward, the shutter opens, closes and the mirror snaps back down. It is a incredible feat, when you consider that instant return mirrors have to flip up and back in a heartbeat, over and over for the life of the camera.

Once the instant return mirror was perfected, photographers could once again design their images by looking through the lens. Unlike the twin lens reflex, this new breed of camera needed only one lens to focus and shoot with. So they became known as… you guessed it…. Single-Lens Reflex cameras.

Digital SLRs work exactly the same way — the same reflex system of mirrors and prism is used in front of a a digital sensor instead of film.

For further reading:

Wikipedia SLR page>

How Stuff Works - Single Lens Reflex

Images on this page published under the GNU Free Documentation License.

SLR Cutaway derived from image provided by:
Juhanson

Rolleiflex Twin Lens Reflex provided by
Jean-Jacques MILAN/Photographie - 40

Technorati Tags:
single lens reflex
DSLR
digital camera
photography
Alphatracks
Tom Bonner

Share This

Sony’s first dSLR. the Alpha A100, was a great effort, but it did fall short in a few areas. From the e-mail and comments i get at Alphatracks, the biggest complaint about the A100 is that it didn’t offer a vertical grip option.

As I’ve pointed out before, this wasn’t Sony’s oversight. The A100 was based to a large degree on the very successful Konica-Minolta Maxxum 5D. For some unexplained reason, Minolta and friends crippled the 5D by not designing it to use a vertical grip. The 5D’s big sibling, the Maxxum 7D, did offer an optional battery grip, but the 5D was a different design and couldn’t use the 7D grip.

New grip adds 3.5 inches and a pound of weight to the A700

When Sony built the A100 on the chassis of the 5D, there was no provision for a grip. Sony would have had to heavily massage the 5D components to add grip connections and controls, making the camera more expense and most likely delaying the launch. So Sony wisely brought the A100 to market without an accessory battery grip.

Aftermarket vertical grips for the A100 selling briskly

This hasn’t stopped some aftermarket accessory makers from developing grip fro the A100. We’ve discussed the DeCain and Ownuser accessory grips on these pages in the past.

• Aftermarket Vertical Grips for the Sony Alpha and Minolta dSLRs
• The Sony A100 vertical grip saga continues
• Vertical grip options for the Sony A100 and Minolta 5D

Many photographers have had good experience with the aftermarket units, but since there are no internal contacts to allow a grip to communicate withe the camera, users have to put up with external cables to get the job done While it’s mice to have an aftermarket alternative, it’s obvious that a factory designed grip with internal connections would be a preferable solution..

When the Sony started to design the Alpha A700 dSLR, they started from scratch. Sony went to a lot of effort to make sure the Alpha A700 corrected any weaknesses inherent in the A100. One of the first things they did was add internal connections for a battery grip. The grip, known as the VG-C70AM is due to start shipping this month.

The two biggest demands for a vertical grip center around better handling when shooting in a vertical mode and the addition of extra battery power. Sony nailed both of these objectives with the VG-C70AM grip.

Vertical grip enhances the Alpha A700’s ability to shoot in the portrait orientation.

Everything the horizontal grip can do, the vertical grip can do as well

The new A700 vertical grip looks like someone took an A700, cut the standard grip off and glued it to a battery container. Every control and button that appears on the camera’s built-in grip is mirrored on the accessory grip — in virtually the same location. Anything you can do with the standard grip you can accomplish with the accessory grip as well. Since the A700 automatically rotates the menus on the camera’s big LCD screen, this results in an excellent vertical image making machine.

Two batteries are better than one

As far as extra power goes, the grip has provision for two NP-FM500H batteries, which Sony claims will produce twice the battery life. (Well, duh!) . You have to remove the camera’s standard battery to attach the grip, so you only have two batteries available — but that is still a major improvement.

Two batteries power the removable grip.

The question of weight naturally arises. The VG-C70AM weighs in at 10.1 ounces without batteries. Add two NP-FM500H power cells at 2.75 ounces each and the whole works is still slightly under 1 pound. The grip also adds about 3.5 inches (87.2mm) to the height of the A700 — a nice bonus if you have large hands.

Like he A700 itself, the VG-C70AM battery grip is constructed with an internal Magnesium-Alloy. Sony also says the unit has rubber gaskets to seal out dust and moisture.

Vertical grip should be forward compatible

Now there is good news and bad news. The bad news is that the VG-C70AM cannot be retrofitted to the A100, The A100 and A700 have completely different camera bodies and as we’ve already discussed, there are no internal provisions for a grip on the Alpha 100. So if you were hoping to bolt one of these bad boys to your A100, you’ll have to be content with on of the aftermarket solutions.

Ah, but there is a very good chance that the VG-C70AM will be fully compatible with Sony’s next dSLR; the famous Sony Alpha flagship. Based on the mockups shown last March, the A700 and the flagship share a common body. Thus the flagship (which many observers are calling the A900, although Sony hasn’t confirmed the name) will most likely be able to use the VG-C70AM. It makes sense, as it will save tooling and design costs if Sony can create a single grip for both models.

Rear side of the grip shows the thoughtful control layout.

Of course the standard disclaimers apply. Sony has only revealed a mockup of the flagship, so there is no guarantee that the A700 grip will be compatible. Don’t base your buying decisions on the mockup, as things could very well change. If I was a betting man, however, I would give you pretty good odds that the VG-C70AM will fit the flagship when it appears..

Sony Alpha
Vertical Grip
Alpha A700
VG-C70AM
digital SLR
photography
Tom Bonner
Alphatracks

Share This

This will be the final post on the Sony Alpha full-frame sensor / anti-shake quandary. The first in the series outlined the full frame with anti-shake problem, while the second consisted principally of remarks by Bert Pasquale, a well-respected optical engineer.

Since several readers are sill somewhat confused, I have created some illustrations to help explain the situation.

Figure one shows the relative sizes of various sensors, They are drawn to the exact size, but since monitors and screen resolutions vary, the sizes may not be correct on your screen. The size of each sensor in relation to each other, however, is accurate.

Figure 1: Sensor sizes compared

The red rectangle represents a “full-frame” 24×36mm sensor. The green rectangle is a 17×2mm APSC sensor. The blue rectangle is 90% of a full frame.

Figure 2 shows the APS-C sensor overlaid on a circle that represents the minimum coverage of a 35mm full-frame lens. As you can see, there is plenty of “wasted coverage” as only the area inside the green rectangle will be captured. It is obvious that the sensor can move freely in any direction and still be covered by the lens.

Figure 2: Coverage of a APS-C sensor by a full-frame lens

Figure 3 is a full frame sensor contained inside the exact same coverage circle. There is no established size for the coverage area, as lenses will vary slightly. The designers only have to create a lens that will offer adequate coverage and sharpness of the 24×36mm film area, and still fit within the lens mount. Of course, the greater the lens coverage, the larger and heavier it will need to be. It will probably be more costly as well, so typically lens designers try to keep near the minimum dimension.

As Mr. Pasquale mentioned, the circle of coverage doesn’t immediately fall off to nothing. Rather, the edge of the circle gradually starts to provide lens light and become less sharp.The fall-off increases slowly until the image eventually fades away.

As you can see from Figure 3, there is little room for the sensor to move without clipping at least one of the corners. Again this will vary from lens to lens, as well as with different focal lengths of a zoom lens.

Figure 3: Coverage of a full-frame sensor by a full-frame lens

Figure 4 is an arbitrary 90% sensor. You can see that such a sensor is much larger than the APS-C size, yet still has room to float inside the coverage area. I chose this because several people “in the know” have suggested they believe this will be Sony’s answer to the problem. However, some other authorities have suggested that Sony may opt for a 1.25 crop sensor.

Figure 4: Coverage of a 1.1 crop sensor by a full-frame lens

On the other hand, Mr. Pasquale has suggested that the sensor may not actually move sufficiently enough to require a “crop” lens of any sort. That would be ideal, but until Sony announces the sensor, we really won’t know.

The final figure is one suggested by Alphatracks readers Warren Massey and LEdgars. In their comments, they suggest Sony could simply build an oversize sensor. As you can see by the rectangular outline in figure 5, such a sensor can move some distance in any direction without clipping. The idea is that the big sensor can move around and the camera can crop to a 24X36mm dimension at exposure. it’s a novel idea — but I not sure we will see it in the near future.

Figure 5: Coverage of a oversize sensor by a full-frame lens

First off, it would be expensive. As sensors increase in physical size, the manufacturing yield is less because typically there are more rejects. Even more significant however, is that an oversize sensor would most likely be confined to the Sony flagship. A full-frame sensor would be attractive to many other dSLR makers and in the past, Sony’s sensor division has profited by selling sensors to a wide range of camera makers. Would Nikon have any interest in an oversize sensor? It’s rather doubtful. Nikon uses a lens based image stabilization method, so there wouldn’t be a need for an oversize sensor.

So if Sony does produce an oversize sensor, their principal customer would be Sony — and for the time being only for the top-of-the -line, limited-production flagship. Would that justify designing and manufacturing an oversize sensor? Or would Sony prefer to invest their resources in a sensor they could sell by the truckload to other camera makers as well as their own dSLR division?

Time will tell, but I’m guessing Sony has a plan up their sleeves. It should be quite interesting!

Sony Alpha
dSLR
photography
full frame
camera

Share This

Last week, I posted about the alleged difficulty of using a full-frame sensor with the Sony/Minolta anti-shake system. See the post: Can Sony build a true full frame dSLR? I made critical error in my post, when I suggested that the sensor had room to move up and down but not side to side. This is incorrect. The typical 35mm image circle only needs to cover the full-frame sensor from corner to corner, so there would be no room to move the sensor in either direction.

So I was mistaken, but sometimes mistakes can be a positive thing. My error encouraged Bert Pasquale, an optical engineer (and Sony/Minolta SLR user) to write me with his assessment of the full-frame, anti-shake situation. In addition to pointing out my little misconception, he has several innovative ideas on how Sony could deal with the problem.

I asked Mr. Pasquale for permission to reprint his comments and he readily agreed. His remarks follow:

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Bert. This is exciting stuff! In camera, computer controlled gain? Falloff curve corrections. Sensor based warning that the stability could cause vignetting! Wonder how much of this Sony has considered — and more importantly how much they will actually implement in the Alpha flagship camera. Stick around. it looks like things are going to get really interesting. It looks like its a great time to be a Sony A-mount user!

Share This

Can Sony really make a full-frame dSLR? Not will Sony…but CAN Sony really do it?

Some months back, I wrote that I expected the so-called “flagship” Sony Alpha (possibly named the A900?) to carry a full-frame sensor. I still believe that to be true, however I’m hedging my bets a little. It will be “almost” full-frame or “close” to full-frame. It may not be the actual size of a 35mm negative, however, which is the definition of a full-frame dSLR to most photographers.

It isn’t that Sony lacks the technology to build an actual full-frame sensor. Sony has the ability to build just about any sensor they could wish.

Super Steady Shot doesn’t play well with a full frame sensor

The problem is the Super Steady Shot (anti-shake) system. Not that there is anything wrong with SSS itself, the in-body image stabilization is one of the Sony Alpha dSLR’s major advantages. However, one of the Alpha’s other major advantages is that it can use the extensive line of Minolta A-mount autofocus lenses. And thereby hangs a tale.

Twenty-some years ago, when Minolta engineers were designing the original A mount glass, there were no digital SLRs and no anti-shake systems. Thus, there was no reason to design a lens to cover anything other than the standard 35mm film image.

Thus the AF A mount lenses were designed to project a circle that would encompass a 24 X 36mm area at the camera’s film plane. There was no need to cover a larger film plane, because no Minolta SLR offered a larger negative size.

Maxxum 7D and Antishake: no worries

When Konica Minolta engineers developed the Maxxum 7D, they designed an in-body anti-shake system. The system works by moving the camera’s sensor in relation to camera movement. In essence, if there is camera vibration, the sensor stays in one place, despite the lens and body movement. The same system is used in the Maxxum 5D, the Sony Alpha A100 and the Alpha A700. All of these dSLRs use a 17 X 23mm APS-C sensor.

See the problem? If Sony develops a 24 X 36mm full frame sensor, any lens will need to cover an area larger than 36mm — at least when SSS is turned on. If vibration occurs in an up and down motion, there is room for the sensor to move in relation. If, however, the sensor moves to the left or right, it could move outside of the area covered by the lens. Update: I was in error about room for up and down motion. See these remarks by an optical engineer to understand why the image would be clipped in any direction the sensor moves.

This isn’t an issue with the current Sony/Minolta dSLRs, since the smaller APS-C sensor has plenty of room to move in any direction without moving outside of the lens coverage. When you move up to a full frame sensor, however, there isn’t nearly as much breathing room.

Lens coverage varies

Of course lenses vary. Some of the existing Sony/Minolta lenses may offer enough coverage to allow the SSS system to move — but others would probably exhibit some vignetting if the sensor moves too far to the left or right. Who wants to drop a ton of cash on a professional dSLR when many (most?) of the available lenses might display some vignetting?

How will Sony handle the full frame design?

Sony can tackle this problem in a number of ways. The first could be to drop SSS for the flagship model. That makes little sense, since Sony would then have to develop a line of image stabilized lenses. If they are going to develop an entirely new lens line, they might as well design larger coverage lenses and retain the in-body image stabilization.

Neither of these options are very credible, however. As I said, one of the Sony Alpha’s major selling points is that you can use those millions of Minolta A-mount lenses. Start redesigning the lenses and there is far less reason to choose the Alpha over the competition.

The rumor sites are suggesting that Sony could eliminate any vignetting problem by reducing the sensor size. The sensor could still be much larger than the current 1.5 crop sensor, but not exactly the size of a 35mm film negative. The figure bandied about is 1.1 crop. That would indicate a sensor of something like 21.6 X 32.4mm.

I want my super wide angle lens back!

Loosing 3mm on the width and 2.5mm on the height doesn’t seem like a lot — but it will affect the camera’s ability to display the widest angle of view with current lenses. One of the biggest problems with the APS-C sensor is that most of the original A-mount wide angle lenses aren’t very wide any longer. Cropping a 35mm lens to APS-C size yields something equivalent to the “standard” 50mm lens on a full frame camera. A 24mm lens is now closer to a 35mm. Even a 16mm fisheye is will only show what you would see with a 24mm lens on a full frame camera.

So one of the prime reasons for choosing a full frame camera is to make all those Minolta wide angles truly wide again. A 1.1 crop would be much better than a 1.5 crop in this regard — but is it enough? That 16mm would now be equivalent to 17.6. A 35mm would look like a 38.5 lens.

Those differences seem fairly insignificant, but there are times when you need the widest angle of view you can get. I hate to give up even a millimeter when I am working with an extreme wide angle.

There is one other option that Sony could adopt. Create a full frame 24mm X 36mm sensor and allow the camera to use the full sensor only when SSS is turned off. Turning on the image stabilization would automatically turn off the outer ten percent of the sensor. This would give the best of both worlds. When SSS is engaged, the sensor size is reduced so there is no chance of movement causing vignetting. Turn the image stabilization off and you get the entire full frame area and the ability to shoot at your lenses widest field of view.

Taking a page from Nikon’s book?

This isn’t as far fetched as it seems. Until recently, Nikon didn’t have any full frame cameras in it’s line up, and they sold a ton of APS-C type lenses to go with their 1.5 crop dSLRs. With their all new full-frame D3, Nikon users who owned a bag full of 1.5 crop lenses faced a big problem. “Big N” sidestepped the issue of the APS-C lenses not covering the FF sensor with a switch that reduces the sensor to APS-C size when shooting with a 1.5 crop lens.

Sony could do the exact same thing with their offering, simply reducing the sensor to 90% when SSS is turned on. Of course to be truly useful, there would need to be some way of indicating the crop area in the view finder. This would probably be in the form of engraved lines on the ground-glass to show the crop area.

Would this be worth it? I’m not sure it would be worth the trouble and cost — but it would sure be slick.

If you were on the Sony design team, how would you handle this issue?

Share This