Just curious but what would consider to be new and exciting and what need have you of it?
OK I'm a miserable sod at the best of times but I've given up on all features, fixings and fittings on digital cameras and simply meter by guesswork (occasionally confirming by histogram) and use A/F or prefocus as the situation requires. I really do find myself so underwhelmed by the latest gadgetry which often simply detracts from thinking about the picture, instead we are urged to experience multiple orgasms over the techno bodges of the latest miracle box. If that floats a few boats then fine but please let's stop imposing this sort of thought control on those who just want to do good photography.
Rant over.
Speaking for myself, I'm always interested in photographic technological improvements that are affordable, come in lightweight packages that are easily portable, and which can result in better quality images under certain circumstances, if not all circumstances.
For example, an MFDB is clearly able to produce better quality images (than a DSLR) in certain circumstances, but it's not lightweight and certainly not affordable, so that's a big negative for me.
I think it's a pity that Nikon have not gone down the path of sensor anti-shake for image stabilisation. They have a couple of very fine lenses I'm interested in, which unfortunately don't have VR, the 14-24/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8. I already use a D700 with the 14-24 and I'd really like to get another lens for the camera, but it needs to be a good lens with some sort of image stabilisation.
IS and VR have been around for a long time and were a great technological advance when they first appeared. If there's some difficulty in designing a lens with IS or VR which does not compromise image quality, or which does not significantly increase the weight or size of the lens, then the anti-shake sensor with pellical mirror is one solution, if LiveView is also desired.
I have a number of legacy Minolta autofocus lenses which would presumably work with the Sony A55, but there would have to be some other compelling reason to buy this camera.
The video feature is of course the obvious compelling reason since I don't yet have a DSLR with video capability.
The articulated, live-view, autofocus screen is another compelling reason. I can imagine situations where that would be useful, but an even more compelling reason to buy this camera could be its in-camera 'merge to HDR facility' combined with its unusually high frame rate of 10fps.
As we all know, the larger sensor provides for better tonality, lower noise and higher dynamic range (all else being equal). When the subject is still, that high frame rate of the A55 in conjunction with its image stabilisation, should allow for hand-held shots to be successfully merged.
Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion about the usefulness of this merge to HDR feature. I get the impression the maximum range is +/- 2/3rds of a stop and that the result is availble only in jpeg format from the camera.
I notice also that the standard exposure-autobracketing range (where one actually can save the individual RAW exposures) is only 3 exposures with an interval of 1/3 or 2/3rds of a stop.
If one wishes to do HDR, a difference of just 1 1/3rd stops between the highest and lowest exposures does not seem adequate to me.
Can anyone confirm that the early Minolta lenses designed for the first autofocus Minolta SLRs will be fully functional on the A55, including Sigma and Tamron lenses designed to work with those early Minolta cameras?
