Reading mode: Light Dark

Yet another set of thoughts on the A550.

Go to last post
realgeek said:
Whatever, Barry. That's what the "etc." was for. Without debating them, your additions just make my point: it's not an enthusiast camera. So why treat it like one? Because it's such a good entry-level camera that it can compete with enthusiast-level cameras.
Click to expand...
Sure they might make good entry models, but not at £550+, sorry but I expect more, more all round as it is, some questionable design choices too.

If it were selling for £350 it might get a look, but not from me..it just does not feel very good, that's subjective of course, but I was surprised just how cheap it felt.
 
realgeek said:
It's not a crippled enthusiast camera; it's an entry level camera on steroids -- and the best Live View camera money can buy.
Click to expand...
In some of these threads, people have been bringing up the various video game consoles, so let me make an analogy along those lines.

Last generation, Nintendo decided it did not want to compete in a technology race with Sony and Microsoft. So this generation, it came up with the Wii. It's barely more than a Gamecube, but made accessible for the masses with the new controller. Hardcore gamers laughed. Microsoft and Sony heaved a sigh of relief to be rid of a serious competitor who had decided to simply make a toy. There was almost NO ONE defending Nintendo's decisions.

So what happened? Nintendo laughed it's way to the bank. It has the best-selling console of all time and has been making billions upon billions of pure profit while Microsoft has only recently started making a profit and Sony continues to lose billions. The hardcore are right: they could never be satisfied with just a Wii. In many respects, the Wii is laughable. It can't compare technologically to the Xbox 360 or the PS3. But it provides a unique experience of its own that many people value. Nintendo expanded the market at made tons doing it. Microsoft and Sony got caught up in an arms race that ended up being foolish and costly.

So what's my point? Sony is trying to do something different with its entry level cameras. It's trying to expand the market. It concludes that the entry-level market would be better served by Live View and simplicity. If they are right, they could at least serve a neglected niche and perhaps even become dominant. If they are wrong ... like all businesses, they suffer.

But this really that shouldn't bother anyone as long as they ALSO follow up with enthusiast cameras, true successors to the 700, 850, and 900 models. (Except, of course, those who want enthusiast-level cameras for $500. But at that point, who's the one being unreasonable?)
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Sure they might make good entry models, but not at £550+, sorry but I expect more, more all round as it is, some questionable design choices too.
Click to expand...
Tell me there aren't plenty of soccer moms who would pay for a camera like the A550 if they understood its advantages to them! Not to mention others, like me, who simply want the best Live View camera available. And for those who won't pay so much, they can buy the A330. Or wait for the price of the A550 to drop.
Member said:
If it were selling for £350 it might get a look, but not from me..it just does not feel very good, that's subjective of course, but I was surprised just how cheap it felt.
Click to expand...
Very subjective, because I don't think it feels cheap at all. It feels slightly different from, but on the same level as, the A300. Not as good as the A700, perhaps. But plenty fine for an entry-level camera ... even one on steriods.
 
realgeek said:
realgeek said:
It's not a crippled enthusiast camera; it's an entry level camera on steroids -- and the best Live View camera money can buy.
Click to expand...
In some of these threads, people have been bringing up the various video game consoles, so let me make an analogy along those lines.

Last generation, Nintendo decided it did not want to compete in a technology race with Sony and Microsoft. So this generation, it came up with the Wii. It's barely more than a Gamecube, but made accessible for the masses with the new controller. Hardcore gamers laughed. Microsoft and Sony heaved a sigh of relief to be rid of a serious competitor who had decided to simply make a toy. There was almost NO ONE defending Nintendo's decisions.

So what happened? Nintendo laughed it's way to the bank. It has the best-selling console of all time and has been making billions upon billions of pure profit while Microsoft has only recently started making a profit and Sony continues to lose billions. The hardcore are right: they could never be satisfied with just a Wii. In many respects, the Wii is laughable. It can't compare technologically to the Xbox 360 or the PS3. But it provides a unique experience of its own that many people value. Nintendo expanded the market at made tons doing it. Microsoft and Sony got caught up in an arms race that ended up being foolish and costly.

So what's my point? Sony is trying to do something different with its entry level cameras. It's trying to expand the market. It concludes that the entry-level market would be better served by Live View and simplicity. If they are right, they could at least serve a neglected niche and perhaps even become dominant. If they are wrong ... like all businesses, they suffer.

But this really that shouldn't bother anyone as long as they ALSO follow up with enthusiast cameras, true successors to the 700, 850, and 900 models. (Except, of course, those who want enthusiast-level cameras for $500. But at that point, who's the one being unreasonable?)
Click to expand...
I have a Nintendo wii ;-)

Problem here is consoles are not cameras, yes the wiii is unique, that is it selling point. Sony are not unique with their cameras, they simply copy other things (and badly in many cases too)

They fiddle with mostly good designs, make them worse, and cut out features..

LV to you might be unique, but to others it is not. The wii is a sales hit..Sony DSLR's are not..thus the comparison only highlights how a company such as Sony, which once "owned" the home console market, could lose it, by not paying attention to user needs.

And they have exactly the same problem with Alpha DSLR's, they are not paying attention to users needs.
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Problem here is consoles are not cameras, yes the wiii is unique, that is it selling point. Sony are not unique with their cameras, they simply copy other things (and badly in many cases too)
Click to expand...
Really? What other DSLR has usable Live View?
Member said:
LV to you might be unique, but to others it is not.
Click to expand...
It is unique to everyone. It's just not valuable to everyone.
Member said:
The wii is a sales hit..Sony DSLR's are not..thus the comparison only highlights how a company such as Sony, which once "owned" the home console market, could lose it, by not paying attention to user needs.

And they have exactly the same problem with Alpha DSLR's, they are not paying attention to users needs.
Click to expand...
They paid a lot of attention to me. Not as much as I'd like, but a lot.
 
stan_pustylnik said:
For me sample images are main review. Images produced by A550 look NICE, even breathtaking!
Click to expand...
Many of them are quite nice - just like many other bodies out there. And the image quality rating in the review confirmed that the camera is capable of good captures - just that the JPEG's are overprocessed at the default settings- but the raw files are on par with the competition.
stan_pustylnik said:
Canon and Nikon are dominating camara sales through Amazon, who owns Dpreview.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the majority of the banner advertising i see in DPR is sony. The internet is very flexible in being able to deliver content based on a variety of criteria. You may see canon and nikon, i only see cybershot and alpha (usually alternating between the top banner and the side banner but almost always sony). Your suggestion has no foundation. Perhaps they should ban equipment ads on DPR and only advertise shampoo and conditioners.
stan_pustylnik said:
I see more Canon banners on this website as well. I bet most of dpreview stuffers own Canon/Nikon cameras. I don't blame them - both are good systems. But Cano-Nikonians should be disqualified from reviewing process of other brands...
Click to expand...
Simon did address this alreay - he doesn't own any equipment simply because if he did, he would never use it - he has too many other cameras that require his attention. Again your suggestion has no foundation.
stan_pustylnik said:
--

I came back to basics to make photos that will be interesting to check after many years.
http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
 
realgeek said:
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Problem here is consoles are not cameras, yes the wiii is unique, that is it selling point. Sony are not unique with their cameras, they simply copy other things (and badly in many cases too)
Click to expand...
Really? What other DSLR has usable Live View?
Click to expand...
Depends what you want to use it for...no? For landscape photography they all work. For studio work, they all work. For the soccer mom with her DSLR on the sidelines following their child - the Sony is better. But is soccer mom holding a relatively large lense a foot in front of her body without any type of support. Or what about the hockey mom trying to follow her child in a poorly lit arena (you can't deny that using liveview handheld in a poor lighting condition with variable aperature zooms will be difficult and will significantly reduce the effectiveness of any stabilization system).

Shooting with a digicam held in front of you vs a DSLR are two different things.

Don't get me wrong, I like the sony implementation, I am glad they have done this in some way despite the fact I don't shoot sony. I just think sony is over saturating the market with entry level bodies. Their marketing people are hoping that if you throw enough bodies out there you are bound to get more market share. Perhaps they are right or perhaps not. Time will tell.
realgeek said:
realgeek said:
LV to you might be unique, but to others it is not.
Click to expand...
It is unique to everyone. It's just not valuable to everyone.
realgeek said:
The wii is a sales hit..Sony DSLR's are not..thus the comparison only highlights how a company such as Sony, which once "owned" the home console market, could lose it, by not paying attention to user needs.

And they have exactly the same problem with Alpha DSLR's, they are not paying attention to users needs.
Click to expand...
They paid a lot of attention to me. Not as much as I'd like, but a lot.
Click to expand...
 
ShawnCo said:
realgeek said:
Really? What other DSLR has usable Live View?
Click to expand...
Depends what you want to use it for...no? For landscape photography they all work. For studio work, they all work. For the soccer mom with her DSLR on the sidelines following their child - the Sony is better. But is soccer mom holding a relatively large lense a foot in front of her body without any type of support. Or what about the hockey mom trying to follow her child in a poorly lit arena (you can't deny that using liveview handheld in a poor lighting condition with variable aperature zooms will be difficult and will significantly reduce the effectiveness of any stabilization system).

Shooting with a digicam held in front of you vs a DSLR are two different things.
Click to expand...
I don't see the problem you are suggesting. Sony's Live View is still better than any other Live View. It may not be better than the viewfinder, but that's not my point. Besides, for some people -- including myself -- it is better than the viewfinder for reasons that trump stability.

Live View actually works better in poorly lit arenas than brightly lit ones, because the LCD is easier to see. Autofocus will be a problem for both Live View and viewfinder in poorly lit areas.
 
I think you are missing my point. I am agreeing that in some circumstances the Sony liveview implentation clearly has benefits. Where we disagree is that in other circumstances it is no better than other liveview implementations.

Not to stir the pot but the D3000 review is just up - I recommend you don't read it.
realgeek said:
I don't see the problem you are suggesting. Sony's Live View is still better than any other Live View. It may not be better than the viewfinder, but that's not my point. Besides, for some people -- including myself -- it is better than the viewfinder for reasons that trump stability.

Live View actually works better in poorly lit arenas than brightly lit ones, because the LCD is easier to see. Autofocus will be a problem for both Live View and viewfinder in poorly lit areas.
Click to expand...
 
ShawnCo said:
I think you are missing my point. I am agreeing that in some circumstances the Sony liveview implentation clearly has benefits. Where we disagree is that in other circumstances it is no better than other liveview implementations.
Click to expand...
I can agree that sometimes other implementations can work just as well. For example, landscapes. (I take issue with the studio comment. When using a tripod with a still or relatively still subject, perhaps; but not handheld or with children.) But I do not see any instance when another implementation is actually better than Sony's.
ShawnCo said:
Not to stir the pot but the D3000 review is just up - I recommend you don't read it.
Click to expand...
LOL. I'm bracing myself. Actually, I don't think I'll be too angry because it's such an inexpensive camera that I can understand the different ratings. The D5000 is cheaper than the A500/A550, but still more-or-less in the same range or target audience. So THAT review got me upset!
 
realgeek said:
ShawnCo said:
I think you are missing my point. I am agreeing that in some circumstances the Sony liveview implentation clearly has benefits. Where we disagree is that in other circumstances it is no better than other liveview implementations.
Click to expand...
I can agree that sometimes other implementations can work just as well. For example, landscapes. (I take issue with the studio comment. When using a tripod with a still or relatively still subject, perhaps; but not handheld or with children.) But I do not see any instance when another implementation is actually better than Sony's.
Click to expand...
Not that this story about cameras specifically but I thought i would share this.

I was in a local camera store the other day and a customer walks up to the sales rep and say "I want to by the Sony Alpha". Sales guy say "sure, which one" customer says "it doesn't matter, I heard the ad on the radio that said sony has the only liveview system that actually works. I want a camera that works". There is a radio ad in Canada running where sony uses those exact words "the only camera with a liveview system that actually works". (sorry, they may have said DSLR instead of camera now that I think about it) The salesman chuckled a little and proceeded to show the customer an Alpha but then the customer asked why he chuckled and he showed him some other brand of cameras liveview operation (i don't know what brand specifically) and the customer asked "So is sony lying in their ads? Isn't that wrong or illegal".

This story is more about marketing than the cameras themselves. Sony's ad got the customer into the store. But that is where the problem started. I don't know if the customer bought the alpha or not, I didn't really care. The customer obviously did very little research otherwise they would have had a model in mind they wanted so the customer is probably an extreme example of ignorant. But their reaction to the advertising when they spoke to the rep was what I found interesting.
realgeek said:
realgeek said:
Not to stir the pot but the D3000 review is just up - I recommend you don't read it.
Click to expand...
LOL. I'm bracing myself. Actually, I don't think I'll be too angry because it's such an inexpensive camera that I can understand the different ratings. The D5000 is cheaper than the A500/A550, but still more-or-less in the same range or target audience. So THAT review got me upset!
Click to expand...
 
What's wrong with that if realgeek or soccor moms wants to buy it and Barry F. doesn't?
Barry Fitzgerald said:
gfrensen said:
But it has features that other (Sony) cameras in this class has not:
2 types of LV
Click to expand...
I'll take sensor based, no thanks for fast AF LV
Member said:
Face detection
Click to expand...
p&s feature
Member said:
Smile detection
Click to expand...
p&s feature
Member said:
HDR
Click to expand...
Mildly interesting, but jpeg only
Member said:
DRO
Click to expand...
Hardly unique nor standout
Member said:
7 FPS (and 5 FPS in auto mode)
Click to expand...
Nice, but I don't need FPS
Member said:
Good High ISO
Click to expand...
What doesn't have good high ISO at this level?
Member said:
Tiltable screen
Click to expand...
Nice but not essential
Member said:
The powerswitch is something you get used to. The material is different, but not bad and it makes the camera standout when on display with other brands, you like it or not, that is personal.
Click to expand...
I have had the chance to hold one, albeit for only a few mins, I have to say, the build is not a patch on the A100 or Km5d..it felt cheap, don't like the plastics, other makers do a better job here. The top plate controls are poorly position for OVF shooting..it's a tarted up LV camera..which is great if you like that.
Member said:
Did you look in the OVF? It is not that bad, it is about the same as the Canon/nikon cameras in this class, it is very well done considering the LV mode! Sony did listen to us about this part, you can't denie it dear Barry.
Click to expand...
Lol and you expected an A380 VF to fly for this price? Sure the VF is ok (let's not mention no ISO in it at all) but I would happily take a pentaprism
Member said:
Well that is right! It is missing most that YOU look for. But then you look in a Sony camera for features that are not there and make them important for you! ;)
And yes I did think Sony would put MLU in this camera...
Click to expand...
Well if I were the only one in the world
Member said:
look at the features you missed I wrote some down in this post...
Click to expand...
None of those are important (to me), MLU is..and others.
Member said:
Hmm, how can I take a company serious that don't put an in body SSS when others do? Or that don't give a suncap with their lenses?
Click to expand...
The lack of SSS does not seem to hurt Canon or Nikon does it? It's not enough to say SSS saves the day, this is old hat. So is sensor based LV old news.
Member said:
A plastic A700 that would be bashed for not having LV, tilting LCD, video, decent body, 100% OVF etc. No barry you only look at the downsides....
Click to expand...
YVMW...

A5xx does not deliver IMO.
Click to expand...
 
It's the only digital SLR camera with LiveView that behaves like a point and shoot. They're not lying, but they are probably being boastful - like most marketing types are. If they want a digital SLR with an LV system that works like their point and shoot, Sony is the only option. Sure, main sensor live view "works" in the sense that you can turn it on, but for using it for the types of photography that these users want to do, it's a non-starter. It will not work for many of their scenarios.

Saying camera's a bit too broad (m4/3rds, for instance, are cameras but not DSLRs) but you can totally see what they were going with this.

--
http://www.dvincentphotography.com
http://www.kefkafloyd.com
 
I do see where they were going...I am just regurgitating an event I witnessed. Apparently the customer didn't see where they were going and felt a little mislead. Sometimes the marketing guys (and I am one) do stretch things a little...that is all I was saying. Well that and also that stretching things a little too far can be detrimental at times.
Dan Vincent said:
It's the only digital SLR camera with LiveView that behaves like a point and shoot. They're not lying, but they are probably being boastful - like most marketing types are. If they want a digital SLR with an LV system that works like their point and shoot, Sony is the only option. Sure, main sensor live view "works" in the sense that you can turn it on, but for using it for the types of photography that these users want to do, it's a non-starter. It will not work for many of their scenarios.

Saying camera's a bit too broad (m4/3rds, for instance, are cameras but not DSLRs) but you can totally see what they were going with this.

--
http://www.dvincentphotography.com
http://www.kefkafloyd.com
Click to expand...
 
al. said:
What's wrong with that if realgeek or soccor moms wants to buy it and Barry F. doesn't?
Click to expand...
Might be good if they made a model that could appeal to both types of user?

Not that hard to do really.
 
Yes, Sony ought to make more affordable SLRs for enthusiasts, I agree.
Barry Fitzgerald said:
al. said:
What's wrong with that if realgeek or soccor moms wants to buy it and Barry F. doesn't?
Click to expand...
Might be good if they made a model that could appeal to both types of user?

Not that hard to do really.
Click to expand...
 
realgeek said:
realgeek said:
And with Sony cameras, P mode never chooses an aperture larger than f2.0. So I have to shift when I want to use f1.4. BUT Sony A550 can't P shift, so I can't use P mode, have to use A mode.
Click to expand...
My point is that A mode does just about everything you need. To carry two cameras because you want f1.4 in program shift instead of A mode is, well, silly.
Click to expand...
Well, A700 is much better than A550, not only for the program shift.

I use a lot A700 because of the focus assist light also. A550 cannot focus in low light , A700 can focus no matter how low is the light.

I tried to take some shots with A550 without flash in a low light environment, but it couldn't focus at all. I had to use A700 instead.
 
ShawnCo said:
I do see where they were going...I am just regurgitating an event I witnessed. Apparently the customer didn't see where they were going and felt a little mislead. Sometimes the marketing guys (and I am one) do stretch things a little...that is all I was saying. Well that and also that stretching things a little too far can be detrimental at times.
Dan Vincent said:
It's the only digital SLR camera with LiveView that behaves like a point and shoot. They're not lying, but they are probably being boastful - like most marketing types are. If they want a digital SLR with an LV system that works like their point and shoot, Sony is the only option. Sure, main sensor live view "works" in the sense that you can turn it on, but for using it for the types of photography that these users want to do, it's a non-starter. It will not work for many of their scenarios.

Saying camera's a bit too broad (m4/3rds, for instance, are cameras but not DSLRs) but you can totally see what they were going with this.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So let me tell you what I think happened next. The customer went home with a Nikon D5000, having been shown that Live View "works". Then he starts trying to use it in real life and realizes that it stinks. He either concludes that the sales agent lied to him, or that there is no such thing as usable Live View because this camera, which the sales agent says "works", doesn't work.

Either way, he would have been happier with a Sony alpha. But he won't get the chance because of the bias against Sony. Or, should I say, bias for Canikon.

And don't get me wrong: I had the same bias myself. I had a Nikon D40x before I traded up to a Sony A300 for one reason and one reason only -- the truly usable Live View!
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
al. said:
What's wrong with that if realgeek or soccor moms wants to buy it and Barry F. doesn't?
Click to expand...
Might be good if they made a model that could appeal to both types of user?

Not that hard to do really.
Click to expand...
I wish they would do it, too. But apparently Sony does think it's hard, or not profitabl to do.

As I've said a dozen times before, rather than moan about what could and should be, I live in the real world. I choose from the options ACTUALLY available to me. And the A550 is the best camera in the world for me AT ANY PRICE ... at least for now.
 
handrian said:
realgeek said:
My point is that A mode does just about everything you need. To carry two cameras because you want f1.4 in program shift instead of A mode is, well, silly.
Click to expand...
Well, A700 is much better than A550, not only for the program shift.

I use a lot A700 because of the focus assist light also. A550 cannot focus in low light , A700 can focus no matter how low is the light.

I tried to take some shots with A550 without flash in a low light environment, but it couldn't focus at all. I had to use A700 instead.
Click to expand...
Well THAT is a good reason to carry the A700 around! I was just saying Program Shift is not a good reason.

What I'd really ask you is this: why are you carrying around the A550, too, when the A700 takes care of most of your shooting needs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top