Shutter speeds, ISO levels, & shake reduction (S.R.)

[BenjaminXYZ]

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"

But, I've noticed that with lenses for Minolta mount, they're sometimes sharper than the same lenses for other mounts (probably because of the AF design with the motor in the body, differences in lens mounts with different distances to the sensor, etc.).

For example, a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 AF lens often gets complaints for being a soft lens on a Canon DSLR at wider apertures, especially on the wider end of the lens. But, it looks relatively sharp wide open on a KM DSLR body. I was surprised when I saw how much difference there is looking at images from users of both.

Hmmm, it certainly sound buffering to me! :-):-)

I know that the CCD of the K.M. dSLR camerasare larger inphysical dimensions, than the CANON's APS-C 1.6 crop factor CMOS image sensors.

Usually, lenses tend to perform better on the smaller image sensors, that's why I usually noticed that light fall off,purple fringing, and C.A.(s)areusually considerably lesswith the Canon's 1.6 crop factor dSLR cameras; with the same lenses involved.

Perhaps, the CCD and mount design of the K.M. dSLR cameraswere designed in such a way, that the lenses being fitted on tothem are closer to the CCD. There is always a considerable amount of advantage when the lensescan belocated closer to the image sensor, and there is also a significantamount of advantage when the light rays can be made tofall as perpendicularly as possible; on to the image sensor. (Usually this can only be achieved when the lens is madecloser to the image sensor, orwhen the manufacturer canmake the image sensor smaller in dimension)

:|