Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: laughingbear on August 24, 2010, 07:37:07 am
-
Exciting and breakthrough new technologies on the horizon make me feel that little bit more confident to have invested my humble bucks into a Sony alpha system. The A55 being a very tempting proposal to join my bag in deed!
Does anyone know about crop factor? How would the 70-400G translate on this latest alpha 55?
Thanks Michael for yet another interesting preview, and I fully agree, the head-in-the-sand phenomenon is nothing that will help anyone counteracting recession at all, no Harvard MBA required for that insight. ;o) Your video example of the barrel rider triggered jaw dropping!
Best
Georg
-
Thanks Georg,
The crop factor is 1.5X (APS-C), so as just about everyone else (some are 1.6X).
Michael
-
Thanks!
;D 600mm with probably very acceptable ISO 1600 at a whopping 10fps.... this alone is a reason for me to jump on the train.
Makes me forget about casino capitalism and recession for a while, this is good news!
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4914840/ontario_niagara.jpg)
Always look on the bright side of life.... <whistling> :D
-
Thanks Georg,
The crop factor is 1.5X (APS-C), so as just about everyone else (some are 1.6X).
Michael
A bit not sure and may be video is really out of my depth a lot.
But given the issue you take about the 25p, is this camera video mode should be mentioned more? The reason I ask is that in the dpreview site, it did mention that the camera is capable of 1080p-25p (under MP4 though) or 1080i-50fps (in the other mode) which I guess is actually 25p behind the scene. Understand that depends upon NTSC or PAL. But should this be mentioned in the review, especially after you talked so much about the other Sony cam.
Just wonder.
-
Read my Sony VG10 review, published a few days ago. It explains what Sony is doing with frame rates.
Michael
-
Does the EVF display histogram ? I know it displays gazillion of data on aperture battery etc. but I haven't seen it mentioned.
-
Yes it does.
-
What excites me about this product is the thought that since there is no moving mirror in such a product, a Full-frame version of such a product is just a hop and a step away.
I would guess that all they need to do is to stick a Full-frame sensor in such a body and have a "translucent" mirror, shutter and the sensor-stabilization mechanism that is full-frame sized. The rest of the mechanicals can be shared with the APS-C product and of course if they make it a more pro oriented body, then they might have to beef up the capabilities of the underlying electronics and a few other knick-knacks. Of course other than the translucent mirror, the rest of the mechanicals can be borrowed from existing FF models, even though I would hope that they would have improved/updated the AF-module's performance to the level found in the existing higher-end 2010 models.
They already have a decent number of FF lenses, along with more on the way. Should provide a solid counterpoint to the folks who are using a Canon 5DII to shoot video.
-
Interesting specs indeed. There seem to be clear advantages for many usage patterns.
You've got to love Sony's approach to innovation and the speed at which they are able to roll out new innovative models. They are way faster than both Canon and Nikon in how they are able to put available technological building block together to release new models.
Now it remains to be seen whether the pellicular mirror really causes no dust issues for landscape shooters changing lenses in the field on a regular basis. I do not believe that these shooters are the target audience for this camera, but it could be usable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting move from Sony..
However I think we'll have to accept that that the pros of using a fixed mirror bring drawbacks as well as advantages.
Personally I've never got along with EVF's so I'll be sticking to the good old OVF's.
And before somebody tells me I won't have a choice years down the road..I'll have to point out you won't have a choice but to view these images and viewfinders with your analogue eyes ;-) (lol)
Really depends on what you want or need. Don't need fast FPS, and video is a minor sideshow to me. I know it's important to some though.
It's a shame makers don't put more effort into better optical finders the other 2 Sony DSLR models have a rather unimpressive 0.80x magnification.
-
You've got to love Sony's approach to innovation and the speed at which they are able to roll out new innovative models. They are way faster than both Canon and Nikon in how they are able to put available technological building block together to release new models.
I've pointed this out elsewhere: many of the biggest and boldest innovations are coming from the new entrants, Ricoh, Sigma, Panasonic et al., while Canon and Nikon churn out generation after generation of identical products with slight incremental improvements. There is room for a nimble newcomer with enough capital and access to good sensors to carve a niche for themselves, and seems that Sony is the most aggressive by trying to enter most segments in the camera market.
As for Sony's cameras, it's inconceivable how clueless they seem to be when it comes to the incomplete and inconsistent feature sets of their latest cameras (mainly talking about NEXs and the motion and still cameras Michael just previewed, haven't really looked at their flagship DSLRs). I suspect in the motion camera case it's mostly about protecting their higher-margin (semi) pro product line, but not sure what it could be with NEX and A55. I understand Sony's camera division is essentially former Minolta who have a long pedigree, so it can't be inexperience or not knowing what the market needs.
Perhaps the cameras are just not designed for LL photographers, but for the masses who wouldn't know aperture from a RAW. If that's the case there is hope in the future for those who are looking for what Michael Johnston of TOP calls the Decisive Moment Digital (DMD) camera. Some of us have already found it in MFT cameras.
-
Indeed, these are cool new cameras, and I too am impressed with Sony's moxie and inventiveness.
Any doubts about Sony's commitment to dslrs should be hereby dispelled...assuming of course all
that passion and techno-mastery spills over to their full-frame ambitions.
I'm hoping they announce an a900 refresh or nextgen ff camera at Photokina.
C'mon Sony, I'm ready to spend some of my shrinking recessionary $$...if you get it right!
-
There are still some doubts in my mind. This convergence might be celebrated by some/many..but for primary stills shooters (ala myself) it's indeed somewhat worrying that there are compromises involved here and that Sony are indeed ok about sacrificing IQ (loss of light due to the mirror not moving) in order to achieve a viewfinder for video shooters (and phase detect AF, which is also compromised too for video)
The danger of convergence is that you have products that might appeal to a broad market but may not satisfy the specific needs of photographers or even video shooters. A jack of all and master of none. That's what I'd be concerned about.
As for Sony and FF who can say what is going on..not very much at the moment anyway!
I've no problems with products like this as choice is great for everyone..but if this is the direction Sony hammer out long term and drop traditional DSLR's then I'd have to say I'd run a million miles away from the system.
-
Hi Michael,
Would you mind clarifying, or elaborating a bit on the AF tracking performance of the A55?
You wrote, “ According to Sony it can track a moving subject at between 30-40 MPH while shooting 16MP stills at 10 FPS. When shooting 1080P video it can continuously track a moving subject at up to 50 MPH. I'm not usually given to hyperbole in these reviews, but this is a stunning capability, and has to be experienced oneself to be really appreciated the breakthrough that it represents!”
Did you reach the same conclusion after using the camera, or is this Sony hyperbole?
and
“ The A55 has a newly developed 15-point AF system with three cross type sensors. This is a nice step up from previous Alpha AF systems but in my brief testing doesn't appear to be quite up to the continuous phase detection autofocus system discussed elsewhere in this report. “
Are you referring here to the issue of phase detection only working with the lens wide open, or is it lacking in other areas?
I ask because in the dpreview review, they talked about being disappointed in the AF tracking performance, saying it was almost always slightly behind the action.
It would be a great dual purpose (or single purpose) camera for many people if the AF tracking was as good as Sony says it is. It sounds like it would at least be equivalent to the D3s for stills. Perhaps expecting it to match a camera like the EX1 with its smaller sensors it too much, but it would be very interesting if it could do this. (I mention those two because I use them and know you also have them).
Thanks very much,
Bill
-
I stand by what I wrote. But, three days with three different cameras simply isn't enough to be to definitive.
I expect to receive an A55 for longer term testing and use within a week or so, and then expect to be able to write more as I have time to test particular features.
But regardless of the nuances of performance, the A55 is a stunning achievement.
Michael
-
Thanks very much for replying. You did find the AF tracking to be good - and I correct? I hope you will be able to share more with us after you have had more time with the camera. I really appreciate your taking the time to test and share your opinions on video cameras. When I jumped into this strange new world a year or so ago, I ended up buying the EX1R, based largely of your use of the camera. You use the camera in the way most of us do, and I have always found, when you are talking about a camera I own, that I see things the same way.
Bill
-
Now it remains to be seen whether the pellicular mirror really causes no dust issues for landscape shooters changing lenses in the field on a regular basis. I do not believe that these shooters are the target audience for this camera, but it could be usable.
Cheers,
Bernard
It appears the concept of the mirror is to overcome focusing issues with live video, and in reading about the camera on their website, it appears strongly targeted to video shooters that are using 5dmk2 and 7d cameras. It seems to talk more about the video advantages than anything.
But as a landscape shooter I'm not finding much that appeals to what I do. Nice price point, but focusing is something I would prefer to do manually via live view most of the time, and giving up 1/3 to 2/3rds stop of light ... tough say, but not sure I would like that either, since many of my exposure times are in the 1/15th to 1 second range as it is.
I can't imagine the mirror not building up a least a micro coating of dust over a long period of time, but maybe they've solved that with some technology. Time will tell. But it sounds like sensor dust/spots might be non-existent, since with this mirror design the sensor might be completely sealed.
So while the appeal to landscape purists (by purists I simply mean those that shoot only landscape) may be somewhat limited, overall it looks like the camera has a lot of appeal to many types of photographers.
-
With danger of being a little bit destructive seeing all this enthusiasm:
I still am waiting for a FF EVIL without any mirror thingy.
Or maybe even a MF EVIL?
Why?
No mirrorbox (be it pellicular or traditional reflex) means
- smaller lenses, less bulk
- possibility for better lens designs (symmetric), especially in wide angle and
- faster lenses.
Means: M9 with a usable EV.
That would be the definitive coolest setup as far as I can overview.
And that for MF would be truely revolutionary.
Wouldn't it?
-
Michael, you said you had a chance to use the A560.
Did the two-second self timer (or the focus check live view) have mirror lockup at all? I figure it would be the first thing you check... ;)
-
Michael, thanks for the as usual interesting and informative report!
With regards to someone's post about possible compromises in still IQ for the sake of video performance with regards to the mirror:
- I think part of the point of the fixed mirror is to be able to do 10 fps in a camera under $1000. That is a feature for stills technically.
- Someone has already noticed in the DPR samples fairly clear ghosting caused by reflections within the fixed mirror. Definitely an IQ problem, the degree to which it matters will be clearer with more samples and more use. The examples showing it most obviously are around lights in night shots and near specular reflections in daylight. Many of the specular cases could be considered pixel-peeper problems, but one of the street light examples is obvious even when viewed at only 20%.
With regards to the AF performance:
- The DPR review was not happy with the AF performance. They felt it had trouble tracking in burst stills mode. I wonder about two possible differences between Michael's experience and theirs. First off, DPR could be shooting differently and seeing a different problem - e.g. maybe they are trying to track a subject moving both towards them and across the field where they could simply be failing to keep the AF sensor on the subject. Or, perhaps the difference is between video and stills. In video, with the aperture forced wide open there really is continuous AF tracking. In stills it seems the camera must stop AF during exposure because when the aperture is stopped down for the exposure the AF system won't work.
Anyway, glad to see something interesting and innovative in the market. Probably not the camera for my particular uses though.
Ken
-
There are still some doubts in my mind. This convergence might be celebrated by some/many..but for primary stills shooters (ala myself) it's indeed somewhat worrying that there are compromises involved here and that Sony are indeed ok about sacrificing IQ (loss of light due to the mirror not moving) in order to achieve a viewfinder for video shooters (and phase detect AF, which is also compromised too for video)
The danger of convergence is that you have products that might appeal to a broad market but may not satisfy the specific needs of photographers or even video shooters. A jack of all and master of none. That's what I'd be concerned about.
While these are legitimate concerns from an academic perspective, it's highly questionable whether they are so from a practical one. Concerns about the mirror cutting light or introducing distortion will most likely have already been made moot by technological advances in sensors and software. I'm sure there is an impact on IQ, but whether that is something that can be seen on screen or even on print compared to traditional approaches is doubtful.
For example, when was the last time you thought "Dammit, if I could only get third of a stop more light I could get this shot! Better call it a day and go home to sulk."? :P
Michael, you said you had a chance to use the A560.
Did the two-second self timer (or the focus check live view) have mirror lockup at all? I figure it would be the first thing you check... ;)
If you read the article carefully you'll see there's no MLU needed or even possible with the setup. Or did I miss the joke?
You did find the AF tracking to be good - and I correct?
That's also found in the article: "while my camera work is a bit jerky (you try following a rider moving at about 30 MPH on an irregular course, using a long lens), the focus tracking is extremely good."
-
The A560 is one of the 2 traditional DSLR models hence the posters question about MLU (I'm also curious to see if this is present)
As for the compromises granted to some 30% loss of light might be no big deal..it's still a point worth making.
Other issues as well are in particular the problems of shooting at a high FPS and tracking a moving subject, not the easiest thing to do with an EVF.
-
If you read the article carefully you'll see there's no MLU needed or even possible with the setup. Or did I miss the joke?
I was asking about the a560, which is not the same as the a33/55. :) I understand there's no MLU necessary for the a33/55.
-
It appears the concept of the mirror is to overcome focusing issues with live video ... But as a landscape shooter I'm not finding much that appeals to what I do. Nice price point, but focusing is something I would prefer to do manually via live view most of the time, and giving up 1/3 to 2/3rds stop of light ... tough say, but not sure I would like that either ...
The main A55/33 virtues compared to mirrorless EVF cameras like the G1H or G2 do seem to be for high frame rates, both 7fps or 10fps stills and 30fps video, and perhaps faster focus for action photography. But then for that action photography, the 1/2 stop speed loss (reportedly 30% of light goes to the AF sensors, more than I had guessed) is going to cause a lot of complaints, whether justified or not. After all, that is about the size-based ISO speed difference between 4/3 and "APS-C" formats, and a great many people declare it to be a major disadvantage of 4/3 format! And at least when the lower speed (with lenses of equal minimum f-stop) is due to using a smaller format, it comes with the use of shorter focal lengths and smaller effective aperture diameters, and so can offer some size and weight advantage as compensation.
Maybe the next step will be Sony putting that new 16MP sensor in a new, higher spec. NEX body. But that new sensor in the latest Sony releases does seem to leave recent models like the NEX 5 and NEX VG10 camcorder looking a bit outdated already!
-
Michael, thanks for the as usual interesting and informative report!
With regards to the AF performance:
- The DPR review was not happy with the AF performance. They felt it had trouble tracking in burst stills mode. I wonder about two possible differences between Michael's experience and theirs. First off, DPR could be shooting differently and seeing a different problem - e.g. maybe they are trying to track a subject moving both towards them and across the field where they could simply be failing to keep the AF sensor on the subject. Or, perhaps the difference is between video and stills. In video, with the aperture forced wide open there really is continuous AF tracking. In stills it seems the camera must stop AF during exposure because when the aperture is stopped down for the exposure the AF system won't work.
Anyway, glad to see something interesting and innovative in the market. Probably not the camera for my particular uses though.
Ken
That may be the explanation for this discrepancy. I found several videos which all seem to show impressive focus following,
Sony promotional video of moving subjects,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Yu9FJMEpg&feature=related
Video of quick AF changes as camera moves from subject to subject,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9nLcv6hLsQ&feature=related
Skate boarders,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKed3N4OZIY&feature=related
Toy speed boat with 70-300,
http://www.vimeo.com/14412907
Another short video (stock lens)?,
http://www.vimeo.com/14412969
Sony UK intro video for the Axx series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwLICLPUoY
Video AF-speed comparison between Canon 550D and Sony a55:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHPaVD0pHpQ
so between Michael’s report and these videos, it looks like the AF tracking works pretty well to me. I have been looking for a dual capability camera like this for my daughter to use at her children’s soccer games (keeps me from standing there in the hot sun during the summer), and for a friend in France to use to shoot a unique dog sport (Campagne) he competes in. I have sent small pocket camera that rate well in tests, but none work well, and he is not up on things photographic, so the camera has to be foolproof. He send the card from the camera to me and I process the images and video from it. I just had to find an image a breed magazine could could use on a composite cover, and none of the action shots were salvageable.
I know absolutely nothing about Sony lenses. The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 looks like a good choice for sports, assuming its AF is quick enough. Anyone know about shorter focal length lenses? I assume a zoom would be best for them to use.
-
Another review on the A55: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA55/AA55A.HTM
It's probably not the camera for me - don't shoot much video or high-speed work. However, when one shows up locally I'll probably give check it out and see how it feels to hand.
Mike.
-
I know absolutely nothing about Sony lenses. The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 looks like a good choice for sports, assuming its AF is quick enough. Anyone know about shorter focal length lenses? I assume a zoom would be best for them to use.
I think their 16-105 (APS-C) or 16-80 (APS-C) might be wide enough (and light enough) for most purposes. Sure there are pro-grade lenses like the Full-frame Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 or the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 or their "G" lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8 or the 70-400 f/4-5.6 etc but those may be overkill for the purpose.
I think even an all-purpose lens like the Sigma 18-250 HSM (with Optical IS for the Sony Alpha mount) might get the job done pretty well.
-
Hi Michael,
Saw your a55 update today and it seems like good news. However, one item of note.
The item about the Zeiss Cine lenses is not entirely right. The Zeiss Cine lenses are coming for standard A-Mount, not the E-Mount. (http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewAllE/637148653BE4DFC7C1257797002ECAA3)
Of course, they can be used on E-Mount with the A to E adapter that Sony sells, but they are primarily being made for the traditional Minolta/Sony A-Mount.
Figured you would like to know.
-
Thanks. I've already deleted it.
I have been working on a NEX-5 update as well and simply pasted it into the wrong write-up.
Michael
-
I don't think you need to have deleted it, as since these lenses are the standard A-mount they will be of use to all Sony/Minolta users AND E-Mount users too. a33/55/560/580 users (and assumedly any future Sony video DSLRs) can use these new Zeiss cine lenses just as much as the NEX users can with the E to A mount adapter.
-
Thanks Michel. That seems to limit the a55 as a dual purpose camera. Do you know when they will send you a GH2 to test?
Bill
-
I've asked, and I'm waiting.
Michael
-
I wonder what kind of camera Nikon D3S with a pellicular mirror and faster processor would be ....
Should be a killer - shouldn't it?
Just dreaming and fantasizing ...
-
Concerns about the mirror cutting light or introducing distortion will most likely have already been made moot by technological advances in sensors and software.
They haven't. Deflecting light out of the image forming bundle of light will reduce sensitivity. Light that doesn't contribute is lost for exposure. The only way to compensate is to amplify the remaining signal, which increases noise. Whether that noise level (= loss of dynamic range) is acceptable or not is something that different people will judge differently.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
There is an alternative, increase exposure 1/3 - 1/2 stop.
I don't think the light lost to the mirror causes reduction of image quality per se. What is lost is essentially sensivity.
In my view the SLT concept is very interesting. It makes an electronic viewfinder more practical. In my view it's also an advantage that we don't have moving parts, so alignment between sensor, mirror and AF may be more consistent.
A possible evolution of the concept may be a combination of phase detection type of AF fine tuned by an (optional) contrast sensing AF.
Best regards
Erik
They haven't. Deflecting light out of the image forming bundle of light will reduce sensitivity. Light that doesn't contribute is lost for exposure. The only way to compensate is to amplify the remaining signal, which increases noise. Whether that noise level (= loss of dynamic range) is acceptable or not is something that different people will judge differently.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
There is an alternative, increase exposure 1/3 - 1/2 stop.
I don't think the light lost to the mirror causes reduction of image quality per se. What is lost is essentially sensivity.
Hi Erik,
Indeed, but they somehow need to get to an ISO sensitivity that is somewhat comparable with the standards, and other cameras. Therefore they still need to compensate the overall sensitivity. According to some comparisons on other websites (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=36486899), the performance of a Nikon 700 at ISO 1600, produces similar noise as the Sony alpha 55 at ISO 400. I have not conducted the comparison myself, but Iliah Borg is a knowledgeable guy who would be able to spot shortcomings in the testing methodology.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I won't argue with Iliah Borg. But I'd suggest the comparing a full frame sensor with an APS-C sensor is like comparing apples and oranges. Also, the Nikon sensor is like sensivity champ.
I'm more like tripod user, so increasing exposure is normally fine for me. What I argue that the concept will not loose dynamic range compared to DSLR if the image is correctly exposed to the right.
The way I see it, some light is lost for AF-sensor making it possible to electronic view finder with phase detection AF. I would prefer to be able to remove the translucent mirror from the optical path when using Live View for focusing but it seems it will not be possible on the forthcoming more advanced model.
An EVF can show histogram before the shoot, pinpoint auto focus with all lenses using live view and also a virtual horizon. All this things would be important to me. Especially, I have a 400/4.5 lens which I use sometimes with a 2X extender. Focusing that is trial and error, mostly error. So I really need live view.
Finally, I presume that the idea that Sony came up with translucent has much to do with cost. I guess that the moving mirrors in DSLRs and also the high quality penta prisms needed for a great viewfinder are quite expensive in manufacture.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Indeed, but they somehow need to get to an ISO sensitivity that is somewhat comparable with the standards, and other cameras. Therefore they still need to compensate the overall sensitivity. According to some comparisons on other websites (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=36486899), the performance of a Nikon 700 at ISO 1600, produces similar noise as the Sony alpha 55 at ISO 400. I have not conducted the comparison myself, but Iliah Borg is a knowledgeable guy who would be able to spot shortcomings in the testing methodology.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am a studio portrait photographer and I am really interested in the A55´s facedetection, does the evf work in the studio with the camera on manual. The exposure is of course to dark for the ambient light in the studio but perfect for my Elinchrome flashes, so does the evf add gain to make it useable like on the Panasonic G2 I know it doesn´t work on the Sony 550 liveview ? I hope Michael can try this out !?
-
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I don't think it has. Anyways, does this technology mean that rapid fire shooting can be done silently? For wedding, event, wildlife, and even sporting photography, this would be a huge advantage over my current SLR for these "quiet" situations.
Thanks
Eli
-
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I don't think it has. Anyways, does this technology mean that rapid fire shooting can be done silently? For wedding, event, wildlife, and even sporting photography, this would be a huge advantage over my current SLR for these "quiet" situations.
Thanks
Eli
It is not silent, but it is certainly significantly quieter since there is no flapping mirror. The camera still has a mechanical focal plane shutter.
-
I have a possibly paranoid concern about this type of camera. The image in the viewfinder or on the rear LCD is produced by a secondary sensor located where the pentaprism would normally be, not by the main sensor used to capture the photograph. That's one of the reasons this type of camera needs a mirror. It seems that if there is even the slightest misalignment of the secondary sensor or the mirror, the image in the viewfinder could be in focus while the captured photograph would be slightly out of focus. This is the same thing that can happen in a traditional SLR if the focusing screen or mirror is slightly misaligned. In contrast, most cameras with live view use the same sensor to display the live view and to capture the photograph, so if the live view is in focus the photo will be in focus. I guess in practice the Sony approach probably works fine, but you're counting on them to align everything in the camera perfectly at the factory.
-
Hi,
No, main sensor is used for Live View, the mirror is only used for AF. The AF system needs to be precisely aligned with the sensor. On the Alpha 55/33 this is much easier to achieve because there is only one non-moving mirror, while on a traditional DSLR there are two mirrors, both moving theta project the light to the AF-sensor.
The three digit Alphas having the Quick Live View may have the problem you describe.
I'm not in possession of either Alpha 33 or Alpha 55, so my response is based on info on the web and not own experience.
Best regards
Erik
I have a possibly paranoid concern about this type of camera. The image in the viewfinder or on the rear LCD is produced by a secondary sensor located where the pentaprism would normally be, not by the main sensor used to capture the photograph. That's one of the reasons this type of camera needs a mirror. It seems that if there is even the slightest misalignment of the secondary sensor or the mirror, the image in the viewfinder could be in focus while the captured photograph would be slightly out of focus. This is the same thing that can happen in a traditional SLR if the focusing screen or mirror is slightly misaligned. In contrast, most cameras with live view use the same sensor to display the live view and to capture the photograph, so if the live view is in focus the photo will be in focus. I guess in practice the Sony approach probably works fine, but you're counting on them to align everything in the camera perfectly at the factory.
-
"No, main sensor is used for Live View, the mirror is only used for AF."
OK, I clearly misunderstood the design of the camera.