Did Sony steal Olympus's idea and rush it out to the market before Olympus?

The light that doesn't make it to the sensor is not "lost" - it is used for the AF system

It will be similar to shooting with a 1/2 stop less light, so for the same aperture/shutter speed you will need to use a slightly higer ISO than you would with a normal SLR. eg ISO 150 instead of ISO 100.

Whether this has much real world effect we will have to wait and see ...

Nick

Raist - I too find the D3100 interesting but wondering if there's more to come from Nikon...kind of a last word release right before the show.

What about the D3100 do you find appealing...the video or something else?

Thanks,

Dan



PS - I'm thinking it might be a great light weight back up to the D3...definitely for walks and trails! And not much money! which is why I think they have something else coming in the higher $ markets.

Hi Raist,

Raist3d said:

wedding photography believe it or not

Click to expand...

After having done a wedding with an analog, MF SLR and a 1930s rangefinder, I'd be surprised if any DSLR is not capable of wedding photography. Cameras are all extremely good these days, so it's 99.999% up to the photographer now. As we can see from the many ruined wedding news snippets

Member said:

Of course, I want to handle in person.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. The A55 looks great but frankly, the dimensions seem all wrong to me. It's like the biggest DSLR you can get, but then with the top and the side shaven off: it's extremely thick. That, for me, would be the main argument against the camera: it solves the size issue only in a very, very limited way. It does give a lot more in some areas than the competitors, so it may be worth it, but this is a point to keep in mind when deciding.

It's like the good old days: do we carry a good SLR, or do we go the full monty and get out the Hasselblad ?

Member said:

Looks like we are starting to hit diminishing returns at least for some photography markets and the low end can do it. After all I shot my first wedding and very successfully at that- with the e-420.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I wasn't comfortable with my E-420, but I'm quite sure that I'd be happy to use my E-P1 if I'd get a good and fast 25 or longer. For €500, you can do much more than most people think nowadays.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be

nick_webster said:

It will be similar to shooting with a 1/2 stop less light, so for the same aperture/shutter speed you will need to use a slightly higer ISO than you would with a normal SLR. eg ISO 150 instead of ISO 100.

Whether this has much real world effect we will have to wait and see ...

Click to expand...

An ISO increase (signal amplification) relative to other systems is bad. The real world effect is higher ISO and thus more noise.

Having said that, it is a trade-off for an innovative design. The advantages of the design may outweigh the disadvantages of higher noise. Those of us using 4/3 instead of APS are already familiar with a similar trade-off -- reduced sensor size relative to other systems.

It is good that Sony are trying this approach, even if it is ultimately not a "game changing" innovation.

Ehrik said:

Take a look here:





See the double and triple image below the lamps? Internal reflection in the half mirror.

I hope Oly have some other solution.

More info:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=36120458

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=36125668&refresh=731
--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

Click to expand...

if you got to zoom 200% to see it then I'm guessing it's not really a problem for the vast majority of would be users
--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo ?

nick_webster said:

Can be done by rasing the mirror as stated in the review. To be honest I can't see that the sensor should be any harder to clean than any other once the mirror has been raised, and since the mirror normally doesn't move I don't think there should be much dust getting on the sensor in the first place

Click to expand...

Right. If the mirror can be raised, which I did not know, than it's a non issue. However, unless the mirror forms a kind of a sealing for the sensor it will indeed become dusty one day, especially if it is used by a person who changes lenses often or uses a zoom.

nick_webster said:

Not sure I'd be happy cleaning the mirror as nobody yet knows how durable that coating is ...

Click to expand...

Also right. While the mirror of a traditional DSLR is not affecting the image, in this camera it is a critical point if damaged.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.

Yin Yang said:

this up. It's the first thing I thought when I read how this new camera works. What happens to the 30% of light lost? Is this as if you have some filter stuck in front of the sensor? (which means you have to rise ISO or open up you lens to compare with others camera and get the same shutter speed?)

I read the review and didn't see it (but maybe I missed an explaination). Can someone explain about it?

Click to expand...

The camera has a semi-transparent mirror which lets through 70% of the light and reflects 30% to the AF sensors. The "lost" 30% light is used for AF only, not for the image.

Here is a more detailed description:

http://dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page2.asp

--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.

To be honest I don't think I could tell the difference between 2 shots at 1/2 stop different ISO without really looking hard, and I tend to think that if you're looking that closely at the pixels you're missing the point of the photo That's what I meant by whether there will be much effect seen in the "real world".

On the other hand it means that unlike any other SLR, including Canon and Nikon's top end stuff, the camera can alter focus while taking a shot. In theory this will mean that even sports shooters can reap the benefits as it will be easier to track moving targets. It seems that Sony's algorithms/processing power aren't yet up to doing this but in time it will happen. There is also the side benefit that these cameras should be more durable without the need to have a mirror flappiing round multiple times a second

It's hard to say at this point how well the sensor will perform at higher ISOs until 3rd party software can interpret the RAWs and we can see how well it will do without Sony's excessive noise reduction.

As I said on another thread if this had a 4/3s or m4/3s mount I would have it on pre-order now. As it is I can't afford a 3rd set of lenses ( I've got a Nikon system as well ) so I'm hoping Oly can get close to the A-55 with its next release - if it ever arrives ...

Nick

See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page2.asp , second picture down on the left in the "In Detail" section.

I'm not sure about sealing but I think that since the mirror doesn't move then even if it isn't sealed then much less dust will get behind it onto the sensor, compared with a normal SLR. Also not sure if there is any sensor cleaning system as implemented on other Sony cameras.

As to the semi transparent coating for the mirror, you have to hope that since Sony say they have been developing it for 5 years then they've got it right

Nick

Yin Yang said:

this up. It's the first thing I thought when I read how this new camera works. What happens to the 30% of light lost? Is this as if you have some filter stuck in front of the sensor? (which means you have to rise ISO or open up you lens to compare with others camera and get the same shutter speed?)

I read the review and didn't see it (but maybe I missed an explaination). Can someone explain about it?

Click to expand...

firstly, even conventional SLRs lose light to the AF system

light comes through the lens, goes through the mirror (if you take the lens off your SLR you will see a pattern on it where the half mirror parts are) then reflects off the sub mirror, goes through a lens on the base of the mirrorbox, and into a triple beamsplitter. That costs the average system half of its light through the half mirror, and a further 30% through the prisms and the sub mirror.

this system has a semi-translucent mirror assembly, 30% of the light goes straight to the AF sensor, but that is less than what the conventional system delivers at the same point. Also, only 70% of the light gets to the sensor, which is a 30% deficit on conventional systems, which means you can take a 1/3 of the potential ISO performance away from the sensor before you even begin taking frames

Assuming the mirror moves for sensor cleaning, which means it still has a mirrorbox, there is no benefit from this system excepting 2 roles. That of constant AF during movie mode, and fast frame rate.

positive

• constant AF during movie mode
• fast frame rate
• whatever benefits are realised with an EVF vs an OVF

deficit

• cost, having both a mirror/mirrorbox and an EVF
• parts count, production cost
• complexity, having both mechanical and electronic componentry
• reduced light performance by e/v, and ISO
• delivers less light to the AF sensor
• all images must pass through a diagonal plate of glass, optical aberration
• whatever problems are realised with an EVF vs an OVF

if i tried to sell you a camera that subtracted 30% of its light performance, had all the problems of a mirror system while adding the problems endured with an EVF system, had an imaging system must pass through a diagonal plate of glass with resulting optical aberrations, cost more than it should and was less reliable than it could be,

...............would you still be interested?

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

I was looking at the physical dimensions and honestly the A55 strikes me more as a very small DSLR than as an "evil" camera.

Its just about the same physical size and weight as the Oly E420 body:
E420: 128 x 91 x 73 mm (5.0 x 3.6 x 2.9 in) 445 g (15.7 oz)
A55: 124 x 92 x 85 mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 3.3 in) 441g (0.97lb)
Nikon D40: 126 x 94 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 500g (1.1lb)

Actually the E420 body is slightly smaller and lighter (measured/weighed without lens).

If Oly produces something that builds on their small camera expertise, leverages the sensor and extends the jpg processing advantage shown in the E-PL1 then I think they can kick Sony's butt head-to-head.

What I see instead with regard to the A55 is an evolution of the DSLR with new wrinkles. Faster shooting, better high ISO and the addition of video.

So no, I don't think Sony stole anything. If anything they're late to the game but have produced what appears to be a very nicely polished camera and its entirely up to Oly in whether they respond or tuck their head into the sand and simply hope.

stimmer said:

I have no idea what the E5 will bring, but the new Sony offering has me thinking it is something similar.

Just wondering if Sony got wind and decided to rush this out before Olympus?

Click to expand...

--
Aroundomaha
http://www.aroundomaha.com/
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com/EP1

Just read stellar recommendations and reviews for the A55. Made my E-520 feel very out-of-date.

Olympus, show us something, please.
--
Roberthd12

Isn't a huge pro you're not mentioning getting full speed PDAF from a live-view mode? From what I read of the review the view can be thru the EVF or from back of screen, which articulates. So barring a bit of probably video delay to get the image on the screen, you're talking m4:3rds with PDAF, in a way, without heating the main sensor and without the additional mirror slap delay of other LV-with-PDAF modes.

(No, this isn't going to be as compact as the PEN designs, but it is going to be on par with the E-330 LVA, but with current-generation sensor, AF points, etc.)

That to me is the real draw of the concept. Although I concur if they could make the transparent mirror electrically-adustable to get back the light lost when taking the shot (or conversely, increase the light to the PDAF sensor) without incurring additional triggering delay, it would be an even better idea. Let's hope some of the 43rds rumors in that vein hold true!!
--
budding (translation: currently incompetent) underwater photographer wannabe
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rtrski

Don't worry about it. Seriously.

The E520 is still a stellar camera, as are the E3 and E30, etc. There are worthwhile features in the A55 but unless you really need higher ISO and higher shooting speeds I wouldn't sweat it just yet.

Keep in mind that this is something new and therefor will get a lot of press, accolades and spotlight. Sort out the camera for what it is. If there's something there that will truly benefit you and the price is worth it, then buy it.

Other than that just let the DPR forums thrash about and the commotion will wear off.

roberthd12 said:

Just read stellar recommendations and reviews for the A55. Made my E-520 feel very out-of-date.

Olympus, show us something, please.
--
Roberthd12

Click to expand...

--
Aroundomaha
http://www.aroundomaha.com/
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com/EP1

Well i'm willing to bet the a55 isn't anything that was just cooked up during the past few weeks or even months or just when micro 4/3's was released. . . it's probably been in the makings for a long while when you think about what it takes from developing to rolling out

Refining electronics, making them smaller or digitizing them has always been sony(and panny's) forte. . . .and it shows. I think canikon were already scared as soon as sony purchased minolta lol

Oly's issue in my eyes is that sometimes they've been a bit too little and too late. The new smaller entry level sony's could have been something similar that oly could to continue the e6xx series. . . and well the a55 could have been that camera that they could have released to renew a new found faith and value in the 4/3 lens line-up - the evf's and sensors are already here. . . .just further proves many people's thought that oly has pretty much given up on 4/3 or dare I say the enthusiast market as a whole since panny's micro offerings really do put oly's to shame.

--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

illy said:

Ehrik said:

Take a look here:





See the double and triple image below the lamps? Internal reflection in the half mirror.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

if you got to zoom 200% to see it

Click to expand...

This was not 200%, it's 100% in the main crop and only 20% (that's a small image, 0.7 Mp) in the corner crop, still clearly visible.

The images on the News forum were at 200% to make it clearer what detail I was talking about, and to see the consistent ~11 pixel displacement, but it was still visible at smaller sizes:

Member said:

then I'm guessing it's not really a problem for the vast majority of would be users

Click to expand...

Depends on what you shoot and how picky you are about IQ.
--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

Oly do raise that, but they fail their patent application about some times ago ( about a year or so ) that would mean that the Patent Office see that technical mean already raised by somebody else ( patent pending or already granted ). It might be Sony, or it might be somebody else. But its not Oly's ....

Once technology go to a certain level. People of like mind are likely to come up with advance in similar fashion . In fact , simultaneous invention of same is not a rare occurrence in the history of technology.

So before crying fault, might be its time to consider what Olympus had come to be. Whatever what matters is Sony had come around and actually implement the concept and in a real product where we are not seeing any from Oly yet ... It might be due to the fact that they see the way M4/3 work for them ( sensor based Liveview via LCD ) That might explain also why as far as M4/3 goes, we are not seeing a real EVIL from the Mfr ( which is what the M4/3 initially promised as a form factor )

Did Sony Ruch the camera out of the door. No one know, well until we get some field experience from actual A33/A55 usage, but so far out of all the info from various site it does not seem so. In fact it seems to be a fully capable product that open up that form factor

--

• Franka -

i can't understand why it only happens in part of the image, the hand rail showing the most noticeable ghosting, i wonder in the lens if affecting this also?
--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo ?

illy said:

i can't understand why it only happens in part of the image, the hand rail showing the most noticeable ghosting, i wonder in the lens if affecting this also?

Click to expand...

It happens only in certain angles. Both the light and the camera must be in the "right" angle to cause problem. I shoot a lot of images on mirror and that's the same there, some times you get the ghost you don't want to, not just the mirrored image. The solution for me is to change the angle, but that's not always possible if you use a camera with a semi transparent window in between the subject and the image.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.

accurate. I am looking for weddings at 3 things:

• good fast and accurate AF, including lower light. Word from Dough Brown and other previews is the camera does great here
• that the EVF doesn't go useless in lower light
• that the image quality in general is there.

That only 70% of the light goes in is irrelevant if the sensor is dealing with it and the high ISO suggests it can.

Right now I want to see the RAW shots, the JPEGS I am seeing as samples don't look that sharp.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'