vaughanbb
Leading Member
Yes, a 500 or a 550 will certainly be in my hands in the near future, just waiting for a cashback offer....or a drop in price after christmas
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are A5xx cameras really "poorly featured"
- Thread starter Danel
- Start date
C
cgarrard
Guest
If I were answering this question, then I'd say it'd be a little bit of both. Jpeg quality and ommission of features added to the recommended rating. Add features that are arleady available and improve Jpegs a tad more, and bang, highly recommended.
But that's just me.
Carl
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com
Danel
Veteran Member
This is just IMHO and not any more valid than anyone else's but here it is:
The answer is "no" these are not poorly featured cameras. If you are new to DSLRs or coming from one of the A2xx or A3xx cameras you will, I think, like these cameras a lot. The notion that these cameras are not a great upgrade from Sony's A2xx or A3xx cameras is incorrect in my opinion. Many of the missing features such as mlu, dof preview, two control wheels, af assist light, etc, are not on the A2xx or A3xx cameras now. The A5xx cameras will give an upgrader faster fps, slightly quicker autofocus, two live view modes, an improved fold out lcd, far superior high ISO performance, a fun HDR mode, and better DRO options. That's not a complete list, but I would think the items on that list would count as a pretty good upgrade in most people's books. Point and shoot upgraders should feel right at home with the fast live view auto focus of these cameras. They will find that everything works faster and the IQ will be greatly improved over a P&S camera. P&S upgraders will, for the most part, love these cameras.
These cameras only seem poorly featured to people who have previously owned or extensively used cameras that have the features these cameras are missing. For example, if you currently own an A700 these cameras may be missing features that you have become used to having. So to you, these cameras are poorly featured. For people who were somehow imagining that these cameras were replacements for the A700, you will feel the cameras are poorly featured. The standout features on these cameras, the things that they do better than any other sub $1000 camera, may simply not be high priority features for an A700 user.
When it comes to comparing these cameras to the sub $1000 competition one will quickly see that most of the cameras at this price point make compromises. Possibly the most full-featured camera at this price point is the D90. It has many of the features A700 and other more advanced users want that are missing from the A5xx cameras. If you exclude the D90, I think the A5xx cameras stack up pretty well versus the rest of the competition. They may be missing something another camera has but they also have things that are better than, or missing from the competition, including the D90. In short, they are better in some ways and worse in others. How well you think they are featured depends on what you do with photography.
Should Sony have included mlu, dof preview, program shift, an AF assist light, and more customization options? I think the answer is an unequivocal "YES". The fact that they didn't does not make these cameras suck. They are still excellent pieces of photographic technology. What these exclusions do is make the appeal of the cameras much more narrow than it needed to be. In other words, Sony will sell fewer of these cameras than they might have.
The answer is "no" these are not poorly featured cameras. If you are new to DSLRs or coming from one of the A2xx or A3xx cameras you will, I think, like these cameras a lot. The notion that these cameras are not a great upgrade from Sony's A2xx or A3xx cameras is incorrect in my opinion. Many of the missing features such as mlu, dof preview, two control wheels, af assist light, etc, are not on the A2xx or A3xx cameras now. The A5xx cameras will give an upgrader faster fps, slightly quicker autofocus, two live view modes, an improved fold out lcd, far superior high ISO performance, a fun HDR mode, and better DRO options. That's not a complete list, but I would think the items on that list would count as a pretty good upgrade in most people's books. Point and shoot upgraders should feel right at home with the fast live view auto focus of these cameras. They will find that everything works faster and the IQ will be greatly improved over a P&S camera. P&S upgraders will, for the most part, love these cameras.
These cameras only seem poorly featured to people who have previously owned or extensively used cameras that have the features these cameras are missing. For example, if you currently own an A700 these cameras may be missing features that you have become used to having. So to you, these cameras are poorly featured. For people who were somehow imagining that these cameras were replacements for the A700, you will feel the cameras are poorly featured. The standout features on these cameras, the things that they do better than any other sub $1000 camera, may simply not be high priority features for an A700 user.
When it comes to comparing these cameras to the sub $1000 competition one will quickly see that most of the cameras at this price point make compromises. Possibly the most full-featured camera at this price point is the D90. It has many of the features A700 and other more advanced users want that are missing from the A5xx cameras. If you exclude the D90, I think the A5xx cameras stack up pretty well versus the rest of the competition. They may be missing something another camera has but they also have things that are better than, or missing from the competition, including the D90. In short, they are better in some ways and worse in others. How well you think they are featured depends on what you do with photography.
Should Sony have included mlu, dof preview, program shift, an AF assist light, and more customization options? I think the answer is an unequivocal "YES". The fact that they didn't does not make these cameras suck. They are still excellent pieces of photographic technology. What these exclusions do is make the appeal of the cameras much more narrow than it needed to be. In other words, Sony will sell fewer of these cameras than they might have.
fjbyrne
Veteran Member
winedarksea
Veteran Member
Well-stated, Rick. It would have been really easy to make these truly great cameras. On top of that, DK (PhotoClubAlpha) says that they are within a hair of being video-capable.
I suspect that Sony did not want to take the thunder from the soon-to-come A7xx.
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4
KALEL33
Veteran Member
I think that many people could do without stabilization in most of their photography. I keep track of the shutter speeds because I shoot moving subjects. If the shutter speed is so low to need SSS then the photo is ruined because of motion blur. I go by the 1/focal length suggestion to make sure my photos are sharp, whether with or without stabilization.
Since you probably shoot stationary objects, I would think that stabilized bodies are very important to you, but there are many people that don't shoot stationary scenes much.
Phixel
Veteran Member
And I would also add that Sony needs to include the very elegant Quick Navigation GUI in their APS-C cameras, like they had in the a700. No excuse for not putting it in. Maybe Sony feels APS-C cameras are unworthy of this excellent feature they reserve for only their full frame cameras now.
-Phil
Phixel
Veteran Member
I still find it hard to believe Sony spent all the research and development time and money on the excellent a700 body only to make a "one hit wonder" and then toss the whole thing in the trash bin! How smart is that? With decisions like that, little wonder why Sony market share is single digit in the US!
-Phil
KALEL33
Veteran Member
Remember the Sony Aibo, Chevy EV-1, Microsoft Web TV, and Apple Newton just to name a few that companies spent countless dollars on and gave up on the product. I'm not saying Sony is doing that with the A700, but just putting it into perspective.
JimmyMelbourne
Veteran Member
I reckon the A560 or whatever next year's incarnation will be called will have all of these plus video.
Thats why I am waiting
Thats why I am waiting
Is the A550 poorly featured? Not because its lacking depth of field preview and MLU. Not even because its OvF isn't great.
Look at the target market - well heeled (upscale, if you will) upgraders from bridge cams and point and shoots.
Key words there are upscale and well heeled. This is Sony's target market with everything it sells. They don't make the very best TV's, or MP3 players, or AV receivers, or anything else. There are always people who make better.
No, by charging more and including flashy "high end" features, they provide a cachet that appeals to diletentes. If they make faster and more accurate AF, who in this category would notice?
To them, its an esoteric feature. You can't really do a side by side comparison and measure the results in a way that marketing can tout.
Trust me, Sony laughs at the dinosaurs on DP Review and I say that knowing full well I'm one of them.
So all you yuppies shell out the big bucks for the A550 and the two kit lenses. AFter a while you'll notice your pictures are no better than the bridge cam you've been using. Your pics will never be much better because there are a few fact you are ignorant of:
Lighting conditions are more important than anything else. Why else do you suppose Gil takes great bird pics with less than optimal equipment? I'll tell you why, he's willing and able to be there when the light is right. Not that he doesn't have skill, he does, but go back to 1992, "Its the lighting, stupid!"
Photoshop - Ansel Adams made great pictures. Half in the camera and half in the darkroom. If you think you can get super great photos right out of the camera, you're going to need 7 fps. Shoot enough shots and you might get lucky once in a while. But thats all it will ever be, luck. Every Canon shooter for Sports Illustrated knows this.
Print your photos and make people stand back a couple of feet to view them. That's how it was meant to be done. Not pixel peeping on a monitor. Although if you want an absolute validation for resolution, etc. be my guest. Just realize its a tiny part of the equation.
Nikon, Oly, Canon and Pentax still make cameras for photographers. Sony stopped making them when they ran out of Minolta designes (A700). Now they make cameras for their marketing department.
I'm just glad I have last top of the line Minolta camera, the A700.
Look at the target market - well heeled (upscale, if you will) upgraders from bridge cams and point and shoots.
Key words there are upscale and well heeled. This is Sony's target market with everything it sells. They don't make the very best TV's, or MP3 players, or AV receivers, or anything else. There are always people who make better.
No, by charging more and including flashy "high end" features, they provide a cachet that appeals to diletentes. If they make faster and more accurate AF, who in this category would notice?
To them, its an esoteric feature. You can't really do a side by side comparison and measure the results in a way that marketing can tout.
Trust me, Sony laughs at the dinosaurs on DP Review and I say that knowing full well I'm one of them.
So all you yuppies shell out the big bucks for the A550 and the two kit lenses. AFter a while you'll notice your pictures are no better than the bridge cam you've been using. Your pics will never be much better because there are a few fact you are ignorant of:
Lighting conditions are more important than anything else. Why else do you suppose Gil takes great bird pics with less than optimal equipment? I'll tell you why, he's willing and able to be there when the light is right. Not that he doesn't have skill, he does, but go back to 1992, "Its the lighting, stupid!"
Photoshop - Ansel Adams made great pictures. Half in the camera and half in the darkroom. If you think you can get super great photos right out of the camera, you're going to need 7 fps. Shoot enough shots and you might get lucky once in a while. But thats all it will ever be, luck. Every Canon shooter for Sports Illustrated knows this.
Print your photos and make people stand back a couple of feet to view them. That's how it was meant to be done. Not pixel peeping on a monitor. Although if you want an absolute validation for resolution, etc. be my guest. Just realize its a tiny part of the equation.
Nikon, Oly, Canon and Pentax still make cameras for photographers. Sony stopped making them when they ran out of Minolta designes (A700). Now they make cameras for their marketing department.
I'm just glad I have last top of the line Minolta camera, the A700.
Phixel
Veteran Member
Knowclue
Forum Enthusiast
Ok lets put this in perspective, I shoot A350 can get A700 or A550 , my main photgraphy is Wildlife 70 - 400 not BIF. I like birds standing still ( not so difficult). The A700 cost a little more than the A550 here, would I get better Jpegs on A700 compared to A350 or would A550 improve my poor photgraphy skills, which are very poor.
KALEL33
Veteran Member
Equipment doesn't improve your photography skillls, learning and practicing are the only things. Buying a more expensive camera with little to no skill will not show up in the print.
KEITH-C
Veteran Member
Perhaps you are well named ? No camera, in itself, is going to improve your photographic skills , only you can do that.
A better ,well specified camera may allow better technical reproduction of images but the best time to upgrade is when your present camera starts to limit the application of your learned skills.
An A350 with a good lens is capable of giving you good pictures for the kind of shooting which you describe - its main limitation is that it is noisy at high ISOs when compared with the best competitors. If low light tripod shots show signs of blurring then perhaps the omission of MLU is starting to take its toll ?
There used to be big differences in cameras with regard to correct exposure & focusing but the A350 is quite capable in those areas. What a good camera will not do is make up for poor compositional skills, failure to understand the importance of shooting in the right light & recognising a good subject in the first place.
You can improve your skills by patient practice & learning from your own mistakes & also by studying the work of acknowledged experts & also by accepting that sometimes good luck is involved in capturing a masterpiece !!
--
Keith-C
No camera, in itself, is going to improve your photographic skills , only you can do that.A better ,well specified camera may allow better technical reproduction of images but the best time to upgrade is when your present camera starts to limit the application of your learned skills.
An A350 with a good lens is capable of giving you good pictures for the kind of shooting which you describe - its main limitation is that it is noisy at high ISOs when compared with the best competitors. If low light tripod shots show signs of blurring then perhaps the omission of MLU is starting to take its toll ?
There used to be big differences in cameras with regard to correct exposure & focusing but the A350 is quite capable in those areas. What a good camera will not do is make up for poor compositional skills, failure to understand the importance of shooting in the right light & recognising a good subject in the first place.
You can improve your skills by patient practice & learning from your own mistakes & also by studying the work of acknowledged experts & also by accepting that sometimes good luck is involved in capturing a masterpiece !!
--
Keith-C
LOL. Simon says something and DPR fanboys (several of them) jump in and agree without thinking. Some of them with just one word "agree" like robots. Agree with what? That A5xx are incredibly well-featured compared to any competitor? If so, what have you been whining about for the past 3 months? As for DOF preview, quick navi, MLU, these features were already missing in A2xx and A3xx. It's not as if A5xx took these features away. Upper models (and an old crappy $1000 A100 that was in fact KM 5D in Sony body) have these features, but A5xx is an upgrade to lower models. Only Program shift is missing, yes, compared to A200 and A300/A350, but this feature was already taken off 6 months ago in A230, A330, and A380. Why? Maybe because without dual wheel, Program shift is not that useful. Add two wheels (i.e add a thumb wheel), then program shift is elegant and quicker than changing dial to A or S. Otherwise, it's nothing special.
Having said all this, though, I am a bit disappointed with smeary/soft jpegs. That's the only con that I want Sony to fix. Even after all these years of criticism, Sony still hasn’t fixed this weakness. Also, they need to look into the issue of resolution with A550. A 14 MP sensor should perform a bit better in capturing detail than A550.
Danel
Veteran Member
I think you are painting with way too wide a brush. There are many photographers who buy sub $1000 cameras who know plenty about photography. By the way, the AF in the A5xx cameras is highly competitive with the competition both in speed and accuracy. I haven't seen Sony having the problems with auto focus on any of their cameras that Canon has.
More pompous, arrogant B.S. This assumption some people have that anyone who buys an A5xx camera, or any entry level DSLR, is somehow brain dead is disgusting, and elitist beyond words.
Oh yes Yoda, educate all us poor fools.
What mathematical brilliance. Einstein should bow before you.
I'm glad you like your Minolta A700.
LOL. Several A700 posters have pompous and arrogant attitude towards lower models. They want their own forum dedicated only to A700/A850/A950 where they are not "harrased by entry level crowd" (i.e. exact quote). Even more funny, they are arrogant and pompous, but they cry when they are looked down upon by some A850/A900 owners. For example, I remember the reaction when an A900 owner had a thread asking for a new forum only for FF models (and didn't include A700 to it).
But just if someone owns a higher model doesn't mean they have any talent. We saw far better photos posted by zackiedawg and vaughanbb with A550 and A330 than most other posters here.
winedarksea
Veteran Member
There is nothing to indicate that Sony has tossed it in the trash bin, Phil. A new camera will be with us shortly, then another and another.
Yes, undoubtedly, the A900 was released at an inopportune time in history, just as the world economy was crashing. The camera has apparently exceeded Sony's expectations in sales, but its release wasn't all about sales. It was just as much about making a statement, a shot across Canikon's bows--a statement it truly succeeded in making, a statement very important for Sony's goal, ie, to lbe the leader in ths dslr marketplace. Thus, the A900 was I suspect conceived by Sony from the beginning as a loss leader. In any case it has done more to gian the respect of leading photographers and commentators than anything else Sony has done, including our wonderful A700.
Needless to say I disagrree with you about the need for Sony to pursue FF. Sony cannot challenge Canikon, even in the APSc market, without a solid beachhead in FF.
Now I am no apologist for Sony, and I cannot excuse their failure to include many basic features in the A500 & A550. They are still wonderful cameras, but they could so easily have been the great cameras that Sony needed to put on the table. Why did they do this? maybe it is true, that Sony wanted to avoid hurting the sales of the soon-to-be-released A700, maybe the A850 too. If so--and is there any more plausible reason?--then that certainly was a blunder of the highest order. Oh maybe not the highest order--it is a bluncder Sony can easily extract itself from, maybe even with the A5xx cameras, because it just may be possible to include some or all of these features through a new version of the firmware.
But the introduction of solid new cameras with strong improvements & dramatic new technology--and that is what Mr. Katsumoto seemed to be pointing to--would make us forget the current situation in a flash. Let's hope we see them do it.
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4
winedarksea
Veteran Member
Well, yeah. Both the 12-mp of the A500 and the 14-mp of the A550 are brand-new, and were touted as great improvements. Maybe they are in some way, but DXO for example rates them well below the A700 sensor, to say nothing of the same A700 sensor in the D90 and the D5000. What's up with that?
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum