About to Buy -- What do you think ?

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,250Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony provides so much more!
In reply to Limburger, Apr 15, 2013

Says who? It's *great* for sports!

Says DPR...

Why would they say, and where did they say, that the A57 is bad for shooting sports... it makes no sense. It does 12 fps cropped and 10 fps full res. It allows you to capture what you would miss with the competition.

Read reviews, the 60D does video well.

It does not do 1080 60p, which is what you need for smooth full HD video. Plus the AF is not good at on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AneTV9gxt6U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK4mJ7v1I6A

vs the A57:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-eNpHYkMU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4BvT9UwAE

There is literally no comparison what-so-ever. The 60D does not do video very well.

High bursts for hdr and the camera does 3 frames, so Sony is missing a point here.

My point is that it can construct a combined image from multiple shots that are as close in time as possible. 1/10th of a second apart.

  • Live view always available with no compromises

Nice for macro but I never use it.

I never use the VF, ever.

And you point out EVF is so great, what's the point of not using it while having it?

My point is that it is great to see what the sensor sees. Whether you do that through EVF or the screen, this applies. I'm used to having everything available on the screen as what you have available from the VF. Live view = VF view on the Sony, 100% of the time.

  • Excellent low light abilities

Up to ISO 6400, not that special.

The point was that the Sony is no worse at low light, despite Nikon owners thinking they have the upper hand based on a false reputation. Yes, it is possible to cherry pick a dxo rating but then when you actually compare you see that the differences aren't worth bragging over.

A lot of bla bla about noise and DR between the two, but what about the midtones?

No problem.

  • In camera stabilization

This may be in some cases nice to have.

  • Focus peaking

The only truly nice feature this camera has over the 60D!

The *only*? I'd expect the 10/12 fps burst rate to get some respect at least?

Read the reviews on burst and AF. So yes, the only.

You don't care to only get 4 fps then. Ok, that's fine then. But others might like it. I pointed out the things you can do with it.

I had an EVF once and I never looked through it again.

Why? Religious affiliation?

Again read the reviews, DPR is pretty bold in this case.

The jpegs from this camera are as least as good as the competition's. The DPR tests prove this.

No I don't admit it's an attractive package because I don't think as a system it is.

That's because you're religiously tied to what you're making excuses for in an effort to do damage control for what's bothering. What's bothering you is that the Sony is better.

But I won't trade that for my Canon 70-200 L.

You think you can't equate that on an Alpha?

Not yet.

You're wrong.
Minolta 70-210 f4
Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G

I got a semi pro camera and if you buy a really expensive Canon they will not even give you a pop up flash,what are they thinking ?

The A99 full frame top of the line Sony, does non have a popup flash either, which indeed is just dumb. I do find that more and more I use less flash. At f2.8 17-50 I use 10fps burst for a couple of seconds. Out of the 20 shots, there is bound to come out a few sharp ones. That's another advantage of having a high burst rate. I'm sure most Nikoners will dismiss and invalidate all of this. But when need to light things up, and a quick and dirty popup might have saved the night, you have to slap on a big honking flash which sucks at times. I don't have the A99, I have the A57, and I have an external flash. I use it rarely because it's a PITA. I prefer the fast-lens high-burst solution where possible.

There is a reason for that lack of pop up flashes on pro camera's. It's not good enough.

But if that's all you have available, it can save the shot. Something vs nothing. You don't *have* to use it. But given that every camera under the sun has it, is reason enough that the A99 and some others leave it out. It's a stupid decision to leave it out, period.

It would eat the battery

Nonsense. Batteries last pretty long these days, and batteries are a dime a dozen.

,has a low GN and it's close to the lens and therefor for pro use fairly useless.

It's something at least.

Just try to understand that the camera you like may not be of any interest to somebody else.

Keep in mind that a new comer should consider the oodles and oodles of features the Sonys come with.

The point is that it should work for you.

That I can respect.

Nobody said Sony is bad or anything

Most people here were trying to leave the impression that compared to other cameras, the Sony is bad.

there is much more to photography than just a body, that is the point the other imo are trying to make.

You were the only one here, that is at least talking normally. Others quickly resort to insults like how am somehow a piece of crep because I have batteries in my gallery. I disagree with some of your reasoning though. I get this constant sense of denial around here.

 123Mike's gear list:123Mike's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS A3000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow