Isn't that a happy little spring chicken...
Too expensive. Going for A6000 instead.
ABSURD ! I mean, what's WRONG with these guys? One could compete, just about, with this, using a plain old Minolta 50/1.7 for like $50. Either through A 2 E adapter, or choosing an A-mount A99 instead.Sony's out to lunch with the E-mount prices. It's just plain weird.
Almost none of us will use any of this, because it'll be WAY too expensive. This further signals the death of the A-mount for consumers.
When the price drops to $1,250 I'm buying !
The Sony A57 beats the lot of these.
phazelag: The lack of focus in continuous burst is a deal breaker, and they give it lower scores on image quality and still give it a gold award. Canon and nikon are selling to the old guard. Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus can move to the top if they educate the consumers better.
I'm amazed how long a battery on my A57 lasts. It's like all day long on one single battery, and I don't even turn it off.Plus I bought a backup battery for $10 delivered to the door. Works about 75% as good. Batteries are a non issue. Change battery, big deal.
steelhead3: catches up to the silver sony 77 and gets a gold award?
It's always obvious that almost every reviewer that reviews many brands, are also Canon and or Nikon biased. Look at Fro for instance. This excuse for never even testing a Sony is that "Sony won't send me any demo equipment to test". I think Fro is worried that he would upset Canon and Nikon because he is getting goodies from them.It might be the same deal with DPR.Yes, Canon is catching up, but it's getting more praise than the A77 did. Good think many people aren't falling for it.70D is a nice effort but it's got one major thing lacking: next generation IQ. It isn't there.
123Mike: I think the example is fake because there details in the "improved" version that do not exist in the "original".
I disagree. I think the information is simply not there. Not in this highly exaggerated example.Oh, and trust me, I'm not puzzled, and I don't believe in magic.
I think the example is fake because there details in the "improved" version that do not exist in the "original".
Left overs, messy eater, low light lens test.
The first Alpha without an Alpha mount. I think even Sony engineers must be confused.Plus, no flip out screen, contrast focus (that sucks), no AF video, 60i video only (ie. 30p).
The A57 is looking better and better all the time.Will Sony EVER succeed the A57 or what???? Seriously, we're moving BACKWARDS here !First the downgrade called the A58, and now... this? What *IS* this???
vapentaxuser: I think what Sony did here is great. You get an APS-C camera at a very affordable price. Granted, there are some compromises made...but still it's a wonderful idea to have a camera like this whose price tag is not completely out of reach for a person who wants to get into photography as a hobby but is on a tighter budget.
A58 isn't much, and it'll give a flip out screen, pdaf, and A mount.A3000 = trash.
cdaf, fixed screen, E mount, 60i, ...
I'll keep my SLT A57 thank you very much. Seriously... what the crap is this??????
Why is this news? Of course, every processing program is going to add support for the various formats. All they have to do is download the specs and add it to their code. this is all just advertising,
123Mike: "it’s usable enough that I felt more comfortable shooting in live view mode than I normally do - a first for a digital SLR of any make."
The Sony SLTs have had this for like 2.5 years already.Even the older Sonys had full live-view, since the A300.
Ok, this Canon is a nice product. The lack of a flip out screen really sucks though. The Sony have a very hand pull out screen, much handier than flipping it on the left side.Also, many of the Sonys do 60p video. All with full time continuous AF tracking of course.
Nice Canon camera, but people accustomed to the Sonys it's just a been-there-done-that thing.
You're wrong RedFox88, because the Sony does reflect light to a different path than to the sensor. That prism takes a portion of the incoming light and reflect it towards the pdaf sensors.No amount of distortions or excuses is going to change the fact that the Sony SLTs are SLR.
And am I implying that the reviewer is not up to date? If he or she is making claims that are incorrect, then it's pretty clear that that reviewer is not up to date.
That's right. People keep parroting back how the SLT are not SLRs, which is flat out false. A Sony SLT *IS* an SLR. Period.
"it’s usable enough that I felt more comfortable shooting in live view mode than I normally do - a first for a digital SLR of any make."
Joe Ogiba: 1080i ? Really ? Poor Fuji, they still don't get it.
Although I agree that 60p would be much better, like what some of the Sonys deliver, amongst others. But if 60i is the best that's possible, then it at least does provide a temporal resolution of 60 fps. When playing back through any flat panel tv, that tv has a built in bob-deinterlacer that converts it to 60p. You'd experience fluid motions. Not perfect, because the fancy de-interlacing process lost details especially for vertical motions, but it *is* smooth and quite sharp.To avoid people from getting frustrated dealing with 60i on computers though, I hope it offers 30p as well.
No flippy screen. 30p video only. AF video still way below what the Sony SLTs have offered for years now.