And, it's a known fact that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. I can see the holes when I stand on my deck and look at it on a clear night.
And, another known fact is that if you sail your ship too far out into the ocean, you will fall off the edge of the world.
Looking at those resolution charts, the line pairs (contrast) look cleaner and sharper on the A580 results than the A55, that's not to say the A55 is bad, just the A580 looks slightly better.
As someone else mentioned Walt (like others including myself) are unhappy about Sony's apparent intent to abandon DSLRs altogether. I personally think the SLTs are pretty neat cameras and had a hard time choosing between a NEX-5 & A33.
Actually, DXO rates the A55 as excellent for IQ at high ISO, even though the camera has to be doing something internally to compensate for the light loss at any given ISO. OTOH, tests of the SLTs show less resolution, less ability to record fine detail, than DSLRs with similarly spec'd sensors. Pop Photos test comes to mind - they have the A33 behind the A550 and the 12MP Panny G2; the 16MP a55 comes in with the same score as the a550. They then say:
In DPR resolution test, A55 scored same as 550D -- that has 2 MP more (18 MP vs 16 MP). Here is another site where A55 scored more than A580 for resolution
Much faster focusing, there's no comparison. In fact the A55 focusing speed in low light is especially outstanding.
I own the A55. I have been using SLR's for over 40 years. I disagree with all your points other than ghosting in shooting bright lights. No loss of contrast, focus or detail at all. Since you don't own an A55 and I do who do you think has more credibility? I even figured out hot to eliminate ghosting of bright lights at night. Simply reducing exposure a bit so the lights are not over exposed so much.
I couldn't see any real difference at any iso between those two. You would get that much difference using the same camera at different times.
You are correct. With my A55 the battery life is shorter than an OVF DSLR and the EVF gets grainy at low light although I can still see more in low light than I can with my A100. The EVF also exhibits tearing when panning rapidly although this is more of an annoyance than anything else. When tracking a bird for example the bird is clear. Only the background is effected. The last point hast to do with the flash. I don't know if this is due to the EVF or what but there is about a 1/4 sec shutter lag when using the built in flash and a very brief blackout after while the flash recharges.
Through some experience with the A55 I have found that if a little negative EV exposure is applied so the bright lights are not so over exposed ghosts can be eliminated.
Walt isn't thinking this through. When the photo is taken the continuous AF stops momentarily while the photo is taken. He seems to lie awake at night trying to conger up every possible fault he can with the SLT design.
Walt's reasons for continually making these false claims and his objectives are irrelevant. He is doing a disservice to those trying to make a camera choice. Just as much a disservice as those who try to claim the A55 has no faults. I've used SLR type cameras for over 40 years. He doesn't own the camera. I do. When I say Walt is wrong who are you going to believe?
At the same time IR has photo comparisons between the A55 and the A580 which use the same sensor. Resolution tests are identical. There is no significant difference throughout the entire iso range between the cameras. That seems to shoot the theory down completely. IR's tests disagree with POP photo. The differences POP gets must be due to something other than SLT design and are impossible to compare due to differences in lenses, jpg processing etc from brand to brand.
Using the comparator on IR's web site I can't see any difference.
I own the A55. The A55's ability to auto focus in dim light is outstanding.
... it claims to be you-biased ( ubiased [sic]) instead of unbiased
A580 is visibly better from ISO 3200 and up. Look at mannequin image at higher ISOs.
How ? Because one test makes the camera look better than another, so it must be right ?
Unless it's IR that's wrong.
Since the release of the SLT, Walt has been insane when it comes to every posts related to SLT. I think he is going through a mental brake down. I never thought the SLT could affect an individual that way.
Why are they banned?Since DSLRs are now banned from Kuwait, you can now argue that your camera is a DSLT, and not a DSLR.
Walt points about contrast loss is pure BS. I own the a33 and the a700. a33 IQ is better than a700. a33 high iso better than a700. If Walt is right, he can show me his pictures with an a33 or a55 and prove me wrong.
