Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: EvoM on August 24, 2010, 04:39:20 am
-
Just read Micheal's review of the new Sony A55 et all and sounds pretty amazing...especially for the price!
Even here in Australia, we should still get it pretty cheap and although I have lots of Canon gear this might be worth considering.
Love the "in body" stabilization" and now decent low light performance which did worry me on earlier reviews.
Also, watching the auto focus tracking video (girl on horse), I also noted the lack of skewing or jello cam that might have been an issue on my 5Dm2 on fast panning. Maybe Micheal can comment on this too even though it's early days. I doubt the pellical mirror is a factor but...?
I still have my old Canon RT with pellical mirror and although it lost 2/3rd's of a stop, it was great not having the eyepiece go black when shooting!
Looks great and it might as Micheal says kickstart the rest..."to get off their butts and start offering something new and exciting"!!!
Evo :)
-
I still have my old Canon RT with pellical mirror and although it lost 2/3rd's of a stop, it was great not having the eyepiece go black when shooting!
And these ones should lose far less than 2/3 stop [Edit: it is 1/2 stop, so not so good as I imagined] since the diverted light is only for the AF sensors, not for an optical VF.
But the EVF does stop working at high frame rates higher than 3fps, so the "no VF blackout" dream is not fully realized, yet ...
To me, this is the most interesting thing that Sony has tried so far with interchangeable lens digital cameras: a "third way" or "middle way" between SLRs with optical viewfinders and mirrorless systems like m4/3, NX and NEX.
-
to get off their butts and start offering something new and exciting"!!!
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.
-
What?
-
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?
-
I see a growing divergence of two different philosophies within photography here and I suppose it's not unfair to label them old School and new school. Old school relied on the the camera being just a tool, a means to an end whilst the new school considers the camera as being the purpose of the whole exercise in the first place. These are the extremes of the the scale and most of us will fall somewhere between the two stools, but further discussion upon this will be going way off topic so it's probably best left to another thread.
-
I see a growing divergence of two different philosophies within photography here and I suppose it's not unfair to label them old School and new school. Old school relied on the the camera being just a tool, a means to an end whilst the new school considers the camera as being the purpose of the whole exercise in the first place. These are the extremes of the the scale and most of us will fall somewhere between the two stools, but further discussion upon this will be going way off topic so it's probably best left to another thread.
Well, I am disappointed. I was looking forward to a vigorous debate :) .
-
:D
Sounds good to me but a bit busy at the moment.
-
Ray, all AF Minolta lenses work on all Sony A-mount cameras, and the new A33 and A55 are no different. Luckily, Sony still hasn't gone the route of removing the in-body focusing motor, so there is still 100% Minolta AF lens compliance, and they are all stabilized by the SSS system.
-
Hope I'm not hacking. I was thinking on getting a second body mainly for non-pro, fun and "whatever" photography.On the plus side, I would be getting a much needed backup body. The A55 AF video, small size and price is very tempting. I'm torn between this camera and the 60D. Looking at those novelty features inside the 60D makes me to cheer up and ache with anticipation because it's only a preview on what's coming inside my 5DMk3.
Eduardo
-
uaiomex
Might also be worth looking at Pentax if you are thinking of a body outside of Canon. I switched out of the big C last year and will never go back. In the studio I use a Mamiya so a dslr is very much a second camera for events and website stuff (when there is any business to be had that is) and the now dated K10 knocks spots off the 30D for colour, ease of use and file quality. By file quality I mean that I have to spend a lot less time faffing about in PS to get the image I want. Will be expanding and up-grading with the make as and when I can justify doing so, that maybe sometime yet though as photography as a business has died the death of thousand dead things over here.
-
Ray, all AF Minolta lenses work on all Sony A-mount cameras, and the new A33 and A55 are no different. Luckily, Sony still hasn't gone the route of removing the in-body focusing motor, so there is still 100% Minolta AF lens compliance, and they are all stabilized by the SSS system.
Thanks. I suspected that was the case. From memory, I have a Sigma 24/2.8, a Tamron 70-300, a Tamron SP90/2.8, a Minolta 50/F2, a Minolta 35-105 and a Sigma 400/5.6, that are all Minolta fit with autofocus capability.
It's very tempting to get the Sony A55 because I have these lenses already. I was interested in the A900 for the same reason, but was put off because of its rather poor high-ISO performance and its lack of LiveView.
What concerns me is that possibly none of these lenses is any better than, and perhaps not even as good as, the equivalent Canon lenses I use (or could use) with my 50D. For example, the Sigma 24mm got a fine review from Photodo years ago. It's one of the better quality Sigma lenses, but it still might not be any better than my EF-S 17-55/2.8 at 24mm, except perhaps in the corners. The Tamron SP90mm may be worse than my Canon 90/2.8 TS-E, except it has autofocussing. The combination of Tamron 70-300 + Sigma 400/5.6, may be no better nor more useful than the Canon 100-400 IS (but certainly heavier), and the Minolta 35-105 may have no advantage over my Canon 24-105/F4.
Okay! The A55 has a full-HD video feature. That could be useful. Difficult decision, considering it's very likely I'll be getting a 5D2 (or its successor) eventually.
-
FWIW, the A900 high ISO isn't nearly as bad as you might think, if you use LR3. Much of the high ISO criticism was because of LR2's particularly rough handling of Sony files, but the new process version helps a lot. Despite no live view, the A850 is still an outrageous deal, IMO.
-
It's very tempting to get the Sony A55 because I have these lenses already. I was interested in the A900 for the same reason, but was put off because of its rather poor high-ISO performance and its lack of LiveView.
...
Okay! The A55 has a full-HD video feature. That could be useful. Difficult decision, considering it's very likely I'll be getting a 5D2 (or its successor) eventually.
My reading of recent announcements and rumors is that Sony is now, at last, fully committed to main-sensor LiveView and video in its DSLR's, and has developed a second generation 35mm format sensor even if Thom Hogan is right about Sony Semiconductor getingf cold feet about developing any more such sensors after that. So you might so well to wait and see what the successor (if any) of the A900/A850 offers. There are signs that those two models are being run out of stock, so a new model might be announced soon, to go with the recently-announced Sony 35mm format lenses.
-
My reading of recent announcements and rumors is that Sony is now, at last, fully committed to main-sensor LiveView and video in its DSLR's, and has developed a second generation 35mm format sensor even if Thom Hogan is right about Sony Semiconductor getingf cold feet about developing any more such sensors after that. So you might so well to wait and see what the successor (if any) of the A900/A850 offers. There are signs that those two models are being run out of stock, so a new model might be announced soon, to go with the recently-announced Sony 35mm format lenses.
Good point! But another problem is the impracticality of carrying around lenses for different systems. I do most of my photography during trips and adventurous trekking holidays. On my last trip I carried a D700 with 14-24 and a 50D with 17-55. I'm currently experiencing a lot of trouble trying to stitch hand-held shots from the Nikkor 14-24, taken of fairly close subjects such as church interiors. I now believe a Canon TSE 17mm would have been more useful. The prospect of the next upgrade to the current 5D2 plus a new TSE 17mm might seem a better alternative at this stage. I guess I'll wait and see. No hurry, unless I decide to go trekking in Nepal this October. :)
-
How big of a deal do people think the "ghosting" issue is. Apparently the A55 ghosts a the whole image about 8 pixels down, but it's only about 8 stops under exposed from the real exposure. DPReview has a lot of examples. Not a huge deal it appears, but all specular highlights have another set of highlights that are smaller, but still super bright under the originally highlights.
Eli
-
I don't see any ghosting in their ISO 1600 raw or the several other shots that I inspected. Do you have an example of this ghosting?
-
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.
Well put. I agree.
-
I don't see any ghosting in their ISO 1600 raw or the several other shots that I inspected. Do you have an example of this ghosting?
If you look at the sample image http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/489316/dsc01184?inalbum=sony-slt-a55-review-samples (http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/489316/dsc01184?inalbum=sony-slt-a55-review-samples) with the bridge and the lit building, the lower sets of lights on the bridge show the problem. There's a bit of discussion about it on DPreview, for what it's worth. Doesn't seem to be THAT big a deal, but is clearly visible in some cases of specular highlights.
-
That same shot doesn't show ghosting on the lights by the water lower right; or on the clock. Ghosting that is confined to the center of a shot is most likely a reflection from the front element onto the lens filter. It isnt likely they have the same quality of coatings that is in the lens's glass.
Assigning something like that to the pellicle is pure speculation without some reasoning of how it could work. With the mirror at an angle to the sensor any sensor reflection would be blacked out on the bottom of the camera. If it was reflecting back out to the lens, same thing, it won't end up on the sensor.
Maybe the AF sensor is reflecting back, again that would go straight to the bottom of the box at an angle or out through the lens if it was caught on the pellicle.
Maybe is just mist on the bridge from car tires splashing.
-
Here is a shot taken years ago with no pellicle. Ghosting is from water in the air.
(http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee47/FineArt_photo/Architecture/DSC03574.jpg)
-
Hi,
I had two of the 400/5.6 Sigma lenses (the original one and the APO), both were awful. I bought an 300/4 APO later and finally a 400/4.5 lens. Regarding the 400/5.6 Sigmas the latest with Macro designation is said to be OK but the others that I had were not. Certainly nothing I'd put in front of a 16 MP digital sensor.
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik,
How did you guess that was taken with a Sigma? ;)
20mm 1.4 or whatever fstop it is.