About to Buy -- What do you think ?

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Limburger
Senior MemberPosts: 3,701Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony provides so much more!
In reply to 123Mike, Apr 15, 2013

123Mike wrote:

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.

Last page of their review at the bottom end "not so good for...."

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

AF for video I never brought up, and 24p gives a much more relaxing look 60p and up is nice if you want to slo mo.

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

DRP...

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.

1/10 ok?

  • 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.

Like I said i don't like EVF's i got a 100% 1.0 mag. OVF and that's what I want.

  • 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.

Are the midtones worse or equally good?

  • 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.

Where is 4fps comming from? A 60D does 5.3 till 16 max. and buffer needs to be cleared.

And 10 or 12 doens't mean much if your keeperrate isn't there. Again referring to review.

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

Why? Religious affiliation?

Leave religion out of this please. Facts please, I don't like EVF's can you accept and respect that?

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.

What are they trying to point out with their critique about the jpegs in your opinion?

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.

Keep religion out of this, just make a point. Sony is a consumer brand and has for advanced and pro shooter to this point not that much to offer. I hope they will in the future just as I hope Pentax will kick some ass too again.

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

Nice but not a Sony

Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G

Optically no match for the competition and expensive too.

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.

Throw in built quality of the body?

It would eat the battery

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

My flash eats the battery.

,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.

And focus on the wrong things, the focus is the system (imo lenses) not the body.

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.

That is a way of interpertation, nobody said a bad thing about Sony. If you throw in features as in cam processing it's very likely that people are going to point out that is not the main reason for buying a body or brand.

There are many very experienced photographers here (Craig, Hank and Bjorn absolutely know what they are talking about). And if you wish you get all the support from them as well.

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.

It's not denial it's called a difference in opinion and you need to learn to deal with that not turning everything into an arguement.

The fact somebody disagrees isn't an insult or a personal attack, it can be anything, experience, ignorance, fanboyism. But whatever you think, be suttle with comment since the whole world can read this.

I am sure if you're be a bit more "politcal" and less adamant you get the respect you deserve and will make your point even clearer!

You are happy with your camera and that means only one thing: you made the right decision for you.

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100
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