2012 Sony A57 ($150 used on ebay with kit lens) overspecs Sony A68 ($650 at release)?

[Almazar80]

The A57 has better specs than the A68? Hmm, I did not know that the A57 has the same (or nearly the same) AF and metering system as the A77II. And I was not aware that the A57 had a nice, crisp, OLED viewfinder. Nor was I aware that the A57 had a microphone input jack.

Touch display will come. To expect 1/250 flash sync speed and 1/8000 shutter speed may be a bit much on a lower end camera. It's possible, but few manufacturers offer those shutter speeds on their lower end offerings.

 

[Almazar80]

As I said earlier in this thread, the five month gap is curious. It leaves Sony time to release other A-mount cameras (such as the A99 replacement and perhaps even an A77II replacement) before the A68 ships. The A77II will be almost two years old when the A68 comes out. I realize that this may be wishful thinking, but there is at least some reason to believe that something else (A-mount camera wise) is going to be announced in the future.

 

[tqlla]

As I said earlier in this thread, the five month gap is curious. It leaves Sony time to release other A-mount cameras (such as the A99 replacement and perhaps even an A77II replacement) before the A68 ships. The A77II will be almost two years old when the A68 comes out. I realize that this may be wishful thinking, but there is at least some reason to believe that something else (A-mount camera wise) is going to be announced in the future.

It leaves us time to make suggestions before it hits the shelves.

My suggestions would be Metal mount and Wifi.

 

[Almazar80]

Or they could come out with the A99 successor that you really want.

 

[tbcass]

Touch display will come. To expect 1/250 flash sync speed and 1/8000 shutter speed may be a bit much on a lower end camera. It's possible, but few manufacturers offer those shutter speeds on their lower end offerings.

Am I the only one who thinks that a 3" touch screen would be hard to use for those of us with larger fingers? If I had such a camera I would need to turn the feature off to prevent accidentally touching the wrong thing.

 

[RC Photography]

The A57 has better specs than the A68? Hmm, I did not know that the A57 has the same (or nearly the same) AF and metering system as the A77II. And I was not aware that the A57 had a nice, crisp, OLED viewfinder. Nor was I aware that the A57 had a microphone input jack.

Touch display will come. To expect 1/250 flash sync speed and 1/8000 shutter speed may be a bit much on a lower end camera. It's possible, but few manufacturers offer those shutter speeds on their lower end offerings.

That is funny, I didn't know the the A68 had a 3 inch 920,000 dot LCD, or could shoot at 10-12 frames per second. I didn't know the A68 can film 1080/60p video.

 

[leonche64]

Touch display will come. To expect 1/250 flash sync speed and 1/8000 shutter speed may be a bit much on a lower end camera. It's possible, but few manufacturers offer those shutter speeds on their lower end offerings.

Am I the only one who thinks that a 3" touch screen would be hard to use for those of us with larger fingers? If I had such a camera I would need to turn the feature off to prevent accidentally touching the wrong thing.

 

[Douglas F Watt]

Prove it.

We are talking specifically about RAW performance, not JPG. I tested an a77 and my understanding is the a77ii sensor is about the same. Please show me some proof on a site with lab tests that I'm wrong if you have it, I do HOPE that I'm wrong in case I ever can't find another a57.

But I'd still use the much cheaper used a57 with a smaller RAW file size unless the high ISO performance of a77ii was much better.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...pha-57-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-77___953_798_734

DXO is well recognized as the best objective benchmark for sensor RAW performance. In addition the A77ii has a more even noise pattern than the A57 or A77 with less color blotching that responds to noise reduction much better. So no, the A77ii sensor is is not about the same.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.

So you've made your point that for ISO performance the a77ii would do the job, but then I don't want 24 megapixel images.

So if the a77 in my test had worse color casting and the a77ii is the slight improvement that the DXO score shows then it may be the same as the a57, or best case scenario, better, but probably not noticeable. So the a57 sensor is nearly as good noise wise as the a77ii. Not a convincing reason to spend so much more money IMO. Especially since we have the need for at least 5 of these camera bodies in use at one time.

I'd rather spend the money on another used a99. First one we bought in june only had 10k shutter count for $1350. And no autofocus adjustment needed for all of our non-minolta lenses.

Two major misconceptions:

1) little difference between sensors in A77 and A77ii. See Tom's comments, and he is right esp. about the noise being more luminescence based and less blotchy chroma noise. I have owned both sensors and the difference is really worth 1 full stop in IQ if not more. I used to cringe above ISO 1600 and now I can shoot 6400 in RAW with decent if not great results.

2) no MFA needed for Sony vs. Minolta lenses. Not remotely true, as the need for MFA has nothing to do with whose glass it is, but with the intrinsic problems of off sensor PDAF modules vs. OSPDAF. I've yet to find more than about 15% of lenses that can't benefit from MFA (spot on IOW), while several, such as the very fine Sony 70-400 G2 need MFA of 7 to 8.

--
Sony A77m2-RX1-RX100III
Sony 16-50 2.8, 70-400 f4-5.6 G2, 100 f2.8 Macro
Minolta 600 f4, 300 2.8, 70-210 f4, 28-135 f4-4.5
DFW

 

[IanML]

... Sony seems more interested in sales than in keeping the alpha system truly alive with new R&D.

They have to be. To finance R&D, they need sales.

 

[brian14478]

I had and have an a65 and a58....shot with a friends a57 and preferred the A58 honestly over the a57. An A65 would be a decent leap in Iq. The evf/ovf and resolution increase is rather large.

Here are some A58 and A65 images. Best of luck-Brian

 

[sybersitizen]

The A57 has better specs than the A68? Hmm, I did not know that the A57 has the same (or nearly the same) AF and metering system as the A77II. And I was not aware that the A57 had a nice, crisp, OLED viewfinder. Nor was I aware that the A57 had a microphone input jack.

Well, now you can be aware of something: The A57 has a mic jack.

 

[tbcass]

I'd rather spend the mon Sony seems more interested in sales than in keeping the alpha system truly alive with new R&D.

Every profit making company in the world is primarily interested in sales or else they wouldn't stay in business. As for R&D Sony seems to put more emphasis on that that marketing. It seems you have things backwards.

 

[Mr Spocko]

The A57 has better specs than the A68? Hmm, I did not know that the A57 has the same (or nearly the same) AF and metering system as the A77II. And I was not aware that the A57 had a nice, crisp, OLED viewfinder. Nor was I aware that the A57 had a microphone input jack.

Touch display will come. To expect 1/250 flash sync speed and 1/8000 shutter speed may be a bit much on a lower end camera. It's possible, but few manufacturers offer those shutter speeds on their lower end offerings.

Helps if you actually used the camera A57 has a microphone input

A57 was popular because it had a big buffer and fast FPS rate, good rear LCD and it wasn't stripped to the bone (has IR sensor and wired remote) There were some compromises no question VF isn't as good as the A77 but it's usable and quite large it hit in places where it mattered most.

A58 was a huge let down to many and the A68 doesn't add much bar lesser important areas 79 AF points is great but you think it's going to have a 20 shot buffer? Top LCD is nice but you expect buyers car about this or would rather have a decent VF and back LCD? It's scary Sony can't outdo a camera made 3.5 years ago with one today that should really concern people

 

[Mr Spocko]

Prove it.

We are talking specifically about RAW performance, not JPG. I tested an a77 and my understanding is the a77ii sensor is about the same. Please show me some proof on a site with lab tests that I'm wrong if you have it, I do HOPE that I'm wrong in case I ever can't find another a57.

But I'd still use the much cheaper used a57 with a smaller RAW file size unless the high ISO performance of a77ii was much better.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...pha-57-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-77___953_798_734

DXO is well recognized as the best objective benchmark for sensor RAW performance. In addition the A77ii has a more even noise pattern than the A57 or A77 with less color blotching that responds to noise reduction much better. So no, the A77ii sensor is is not about the same.

 

[AmyHoover]

Prove it.

We are talking specifically about RAW performance, not JPG. I tested an a77 and my understanding is the a77ii sensor is about the same. Please show me some proof on a site with lab tests that I'm wrong if you have it, I do HOPE that I'm wrong in case I ever can't find another a57.

But I'd still use the much cheaper used a57 with a smaller RAW file size unless the high ISO performance of a77ii was much better.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...pha-57-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-77___953_798_734

DXO is well recognized as the best objective benchmark for sensor RAW performance. In addition the A77ii has a more even noise pattern than the A57 or A77 with less color blotching that responds to noise reduction much better. So no, the A77ii sensor is is not about the same.

 

[sybersitizen]

... I love the alpha system because it allows users to see what they are getting as they are getting it-even with manual flash. It demystifies flash if you will, and allows for optimal exposure in any setting without having to guess if the meter system is correct- or even bother learning the meter system if you don't want to.

How does your A-mount system have an edge there? You still have to shoot a frame and look at the result to see the effects of flash, don't you... just as you would with any other system?

 

[tqlla]

... I love the alpha system because it allows users to see what they are getting as they are getting it-even with manual flash. It demystifies flash if you will, and allows for optimal exposure in any setting without having to guess if the meter system is correct- or even bother learning the meter system if you don't want to.

How does your A-mount system have an edge there? You still have to shoot a frame and look at the result to see the effects of flash, don't you... just as you would with any other system?

Turning the flash on, shows the expected exposure. This helps in situations where the flash is needed to get a proper exposure.

Example, if your settings are for -2ev you will see a dark image on the EVF. If you turn on the flash, it will show you a properly exposed image in the EVF.

 

[Mr Spocko]

Which means, IMO, the main practical difference for most users between a57 and a77ii is EVF (can see much more clearly what is in focus) and better autofocus itself. The a57 EVF vs. a99 EVF, a57 is like a toy. Still, you can get amazing pictures with the right lenses and flash power.

A57 EVF is a bit "milky" not as contrasty as the A77 and II but it's usable. It does however have a good rear LCD and the buffer is large for a camera in that class. Those 2 areas are something the A68 can't compete on and in 2015 there should no reason to be using a poor 2.7" EVF with lower res and that can't be articulated like the A57's can. There are plenty of reasons to want the A77II more extensive settings, video, handling, buffer and features but the A57 hit a level where it was "good value" and offered most of the important stuff and a fast fps.

A58 and it seems the A68 can't match that they are too cut down and lacking shoving 79 AF points in there and a top LCD won't change anything if the fps is slow and the buffer small

Even the a99 lacks behind rivals in ISO performance (Though those rivals are now much more expensive). I love the alpha system because it allows users to see what they are getting as they are getting it-even with manual flash. It demystifies flash if you will, and allows for optimal exposure in any setting without having to guess if the meter system is correct- or even bother learning the meter system if you don't want to.

Which means IMO only the ISO performance of the alpha system holds it back from being single-handedly the best SLR system out there (unless you hate EVFs). If the a99ii could keep up with 5d3 in noise it would be a real game changer. Why would you want to use anything else? Is it just me or did Sony underestimate the the alpha system? Why not pull a Nikon 4d and put a 16 megapixel full frame sensor with OUTSTANDING ISO performance in a alpha body? Make a a99iiS or something? So many versions of the a7 why not a few more of the a99?

Sony could pull the mirror out and AF off the sensor seems they can do this for the E mount bodies and that would bring back the half stop loss making them more competitive. APS-C alpha is usable up to 3200 just about 6400 pushing it a bit it's not the end of the world. A99 was always too pricey for what was on offer it could have made a good entry FF body. A99II might chase lots of pixels but not everyone wants that. Sony really need 2 FF bodies

 

[leonche64]

A58 and it seems the A68 can't match that they are too cut down and lacking shoving 79 AF points in there and a top LCD won't change anything if the fps is slow and the buffer small

Where did you get the information on the buffer rate? You have repeated this several times now.

 

[sybersitizen]

... I love the alpha system because it allows users to see what they are getting as they are getting it-even with manual flash. It demystifies flash if you will, and allows for optimal exposure in any setting without having to guess if the meter system is correct- or even bother learning the meter system if you don't want to.

How does your A-mount system have an edge there? You still have to shoot a frame and look at the result to see the effects of flash, don't you... just as you would with any other system?

Turning the flash on, shows the expected exposure.

The camera only shows the expected ambient exposure (if Live View > Setting Effect is turned ON). If Live View > Setting Effect is turned OFF, it shows a 'perfectly exposed' view of the scene just so you can see it better although that might be completely different from the final result. Finally, neither display tells us anything about the end result of the flash exposure, which could be considerably different from both of them.

This helps in situations where the flash is needed to get a proper exposure.

It doesn't help judge the effects of the flash exposure at all. You need to take a shot and review it to see that.

Example, if your settings are for -2ev you will see a dark image on the EVF. If you turn on the flash, it will show you a properly exposed image in the EVF.

Think about what you're saying. If Live View > Setting Effect is OFF, the image you see while composing will be one thing, and if Live View > Setting Effect is ON, the image you see while composing could be another thing... but the final result with the effects of flash included could be something completely different from either of those. The camera cannot preview that for you.