A55 views please? It feels SO responsive! And great EVF!

Ignore Walt.

He does nothing but slam the Alpha 55 and throw mud at it, despite the fact that it is a much faster camera, with bigger and brighter VF, quicker and more accurate AF, less shutter lag (including EVF lag vs. mirror flip lag), no sharpness-robbing mirror slap, better high-ISO images, more resolution, more dynamic range, much better overall IQ, more features, and in just about every way superior to his beloved Alpha 700 (except for build quality).

Listening to people like him you would think that videographers would be hopelessly unable to track action in their EVFs the past two decades. . .

charliewallace1 said:

I'm also tempted by the A55, but I've heard that the phase-detect AF during video recording only works when the lens is wide-open. Can one of you A55 owners please confirm?

If this is true, what would happen in really bright conditions, like the beach?

Here is the source:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/307

this commenter also says the bit rate for 1080 recording is low at 17Mbit. And there is no manual control during video recording.

Please say it's wrong!

Click to expand...

Mostly true, but so what? The video still beats anything else you can find for anywhere near the price. Next year you can expect a camera that does more (and costs more) if you don't mind waiting.

The camera will stop fast lenses down to f/3.5, and use slower lenses at their maximum aperture. The beach? I assume the camera will switch to lowest ISO and highest shutter speed as needed. Want total control over aperture? Switch to manual focus and you get it.

BTW, that 'low 17Mbit' thing has no practical meaning IMO. The video looks fine and I really don't want it gobbling up more memory.

There is so much you can do with this camera it's just morbid to dwell on what you can't do.

WaltKnapp said:

antoineb said:

other times as slight lowering of IQ via contrast or focus differences. Depends on the characteristics of the scene lighting but it's there at some level.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

WaltKnapp said:

Walt

Click to expand...

You have been asked countless times to prove your above BS theory. It cannot be that difficult, there is an active thread with identical a55 & a580 images comparison in which, again, you were asked to find the (BS) contrast and IQ differences.

Until you prove it, your BS theory is not good in anyone's book.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/evangelos_k/

WaltKnapp said:

Matters to people who are after the very top IQ in real life shooting. Those that spend more than a week or two and spend their money on their cameras.

Click to expand...

That obviously wouldn't include you.

The 55 just WIPES THE FLOOR with the A700 in IQ, more resolution, less noise, better DR, better faster and more accurate AF (really important for IQ to have your image in focus!), no sharpness-robbing mirror slap. All of those are real-life IQ issues more important than the minor occasional ghosts from the A55.

Anyone who struts around pretending he cares about "the very top IQ in real life shooting" and then slams the 55 while shooting a 700 is just full of (fill in the blank).

MCromer said:

MCromer said:

Matters to people who are after the very top IQ in real life shooting. Those that spend more than a week or two and spend their money on their cameras.

Click to expand...

That obviously wouldn't include you.

The 55 just WIPES THE FLOOR with the A700 in IQ, more resolution, less noise, better DR, better faster and more accurate AF (really important for IQ to have your image in focus!), no sharpness-robbing mirror slap. All of those are real-life IQ issues more important than the minor

Anyone who struts around pretending he cares about "the very top IQ in real life shooting" and then slams the 55 while shooting a 700 is just full of (fill in the blank).

Click to expand...

What's the flash sync speed of the A55 compared to the A700?
How does the body construction and ergonomics compare?
Waiting for new 7 & 9 series cameras.

Cheers,
--

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

MCromer said:

MCromer said:

Matters to people who are after the very top IQ in real life shooting. Those that spend more than a week or two and spend their money on their cameras.

Click to expand...

That obviously wouldn't include you.

The 55 just WIPES THE FLOOR with the A700 in IQ, more resolution, less noise, better DR, better faster and more accurate AF (really important for IQ to have your image in focus!), no sharpness-robbing mirror slap. All of those are real-life IQ issues more important than the minor occasional ghosts from the A55.

Anyone who struts around pretending he cares about "the very top IQ in real life shooting" and then slams the 55 while shooting a 700 is just full of (fill in the blank).

Click to expand...

The A-55 should be better, its younger, but try and take it into the studio? ;-)
“I prefer my Sony A-7xx, to be made out of wood” ;-)

..........

WaltKnapp said:

While the a580 has nothing to do with this problem, The a580 being a OVF has, for the viewfinder image a near infinitely short delay as it's working at the speed of light and needs no image taken by the sensor.

Walt

Click to expand...

Wait,

A55 AF delay is 0.22s (the same as for the A580). The shutter delay is 0.103s. The total A55 delay would be 0.323s. For A580 add little time mirror flip. The A55 does not have a mirror to move up/down and will be little faster, however it has the same shutter as A508 to be opened and closed .
The speed of light is 300,000 km/sec
Leo

this camera draws either rave glowing reviews or less the good reviews?
I would love to get my hands on one
BUT where in Colorado do I find one to at least make my own judgement
I Have just sold all my nikon gear and have cash in hand

you guys have been great filing l me in on the a55 thanks, I am looking for a camera before christmas
thanks again

there appears to be viewfinder lag on when the shutter is pushed...much better than what I have on the G1 Panasonic...but still annoyingly long.

I recently went shopping with a friend for the D7000...and after finding the a33 and reading a bit....I convinced him to dump his Nikon gear, and buy it instead...as I think he will be happier with it due to the video AF and tracking superiority of the Sony system.

As far as results at hi ISO....I have Canon 7D bodies...and I think the output in resolution and noise issues seem very close between the two cameras at 3200 ISO..and the Sony may have an edge at some ISOs.

Two negatives on the camera....one the buffer hang up on high speed shooting, and two, the viewfinder lag. Finder is a bit smaller than my 5D finder, but probably at least the equal to the 7D and D7000 in size and brightness...just that lag issue.

For someone shooting serious sports professionally...no. The buffer hang up will kill them... For an average person who very rarely wants to shoot at high FPS.....a heck of a good compromise.

For the money....a lot of performance and quality at 1/2 the price....and better in some areas than either the Canon or Nikon offerings.... I have a feeling that it is a 12 bit per color capture device, not 14 bit as are the Canon and Nikon...and that may show up in extreme contrast shooting situations...but again for the average person this is not a major concern.

As to the EVF vs. OVF battle....EVF will win in the long run...and this camera is close to making that happen. Less moving parts, more durability cheaper manufacturing, and as they continue to improve...and as was mentioned in low light shooting....gain up is useful to see what you are aiming at... Instant replay at the eyepiece is also a plus if you want to shoot until you have captured the look you want...while a traditional SLR requires you to take the camera down and view the images on the exterior screen and then bring it back up to your eye to take another shot if you need to....lots of pluses on this design.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Walt would you please post some of your photos taken in the dark in the middle of the swamp.

..........

Richard Katris said:

For the money....a lot of performance and quality at 1/2 the price....and better in some areas than either the Canon or Nikon offerings.... I have a feeling that it is a 12 bit per color capture device, not 14 bit as are the Canon and Nikon...and that may show up in extreme contrast shooting situations...but again for the average person this is not a major concern.

--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Click to expand...

It is a 12 bit. My camera is 12 bit and when I use 14 bit camera the difference is obvious, however the 14 bit camera is usually is the next level camera and it may have nothing to do with 12 bits vs 14 bits. Luminous Landscapes site have shown test photos where you can see the difference between 12 and 14 bits images. It is many applied to small details in low light. The testing person said that he could never see the difference in the prints and never was able to identify a 12 bit image vs 14 bit image.
Leo

WaltKnapp said:

antoineb said:

• the viewfinder (EVF) is MUCH better than the OVF of the D7000. At the end of the day, APS-C DSLRs have cramped viewfinders. But at least on the Sony it has gain so it remains bright.

Click to expand...

For night shooting the EVF ruins night vision.

Click to expand...

Try one at night before spreading this kind of lies. I have an a33 and I have taken a lot of night shots and it did not disturb my night vision. Did you ever try an a33 or a55 at night? I guess not. So your point is equal to blowing air.

WaltKnapp said:

WaltKnapp said:

• any weak points? As far as I can tell the IQ gets lower from about ISO 400 (possible due to the pellicle mirror)

Click to expand...

It is the nature of the Sony SLT mirror to always have offset internal reflections reflected into the sensor as the mirror is not of the thinness of a pellicule mirror and is angled. This can show up sometimes as ghosts, other times as slight lowering of IQ via contrast or focus differences. Depends on the characteristics of the scene lighting but it's there at some level.

Click to expand...

Show us the pictures you have taken with an a33 or a55 that have ghost issues or contrast loss as you claim since the SLT came out. Stop spreading fake statement about a camera you haven't shot with.

WaltKnapp said:

Also the mirror looses about a half stop of light that does not get to the sensor vs a clear optical path behind the lens.

The image in the EVF or LCD always contains a significant delay, it's not realtime and that can matter a lot in any shooting of moving subjects. The image in the view has to be taken by the sensor and processed before it can arrive to be seen. That's way slower than the speed of light arrival on a OVF. The lower the light the more the problem as the exposure has to be longer.

Walt

Click to expand...

Once again your comments are irrelevant as you have never shot with a SLT.

--

When your current system does not satisfy you, it is better to switch than to cry and whine on the forums.

WaltKnapp said:

Glenn said:

WaltKnapp said:

For night shooting the EVF ruins night vision.

Click to expand...

That might be but at least you can compose in almost darkness! these APS-C viewfinders need modeling lights and such long before the filmones ever did and the EVF fixes that

Click to expand...

In that level of darkness the EVF wipes out your night vision and that does not fully recover for 20-30 min. Come bumble out in the swamps with me (with the cottonmouths and other fun things) with your night vision gone. I prefer to keep mine, thank you.

Click to expand...

Yes you prefer the OVF and that's fine with everyone. But do not spread lies and talk about SLT and night vision as you have never tried one at night in the swamp.

WaltKnapp said:

You'd be surprised how dim a light can be used with the a700. And of course it's AF has it's own light supply. But I compose and shoot closeups and macro with the a700 in nighttime woods and swamps so dark you cannot see your hand in front of your face.

Click to expand...

How fantastic! We are all impress with your night swamp shooting. I guess only an advance amateur that shoot at a higher level than a pro can do that kind of shooting and only the a700 can. My friends that do this kind of photography use Nikon D3S. Better for that kind of work than the a700. But you know if the a700 can do it belive me tha SLT can and do not worry they won't destroy you night vision. Don't be scared. SLT won't hurt you.

WaltKnapp said:

WaltKnapp said:

WaltKnapp said:

It is the nature of the Sony SLT mirror to always have offset internal reflections reflected into the sensor as the mirror is not of the thinness of a pellicule mirror and is angled. This can show up sometimes as ghosts, other times as slight lowering of IQ via contrast or focus differences. Depends on the characteristics of the scene lighting but it's there at some level.

Click to expand...

Thats a theory alright but it's so small that it's not even mattering to traditionally hostile (to Sony) reviewers. I'd say this point doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Matters to people who are after the very top IQ in real life shooting. Those that spend more than a week or two and spend their money on their cameras.

And is a result of laws of physics that say what happens at a refractive index boundary. If it's no so then lenses could not form a image as light would go right through their curved surfaces with no change in direction. And I've noticed that lenses do work as do mirrors following those laws.

Click to expand...

Law of physics wants proof from you about that BS theory that you keep repeating over and over. Show us your pictures with the SLT that back up your statements. If you are worrying about top IQ, you'd be shooting with MF and primes only.

WaltKnapp said:

WaltKnapp said:

WaltKnapp said:

Also the mirror looses about a half stop of light that does not get to the sensor vs a clear optical path behind the lens.

Click to expand...

With and SLR there are periods where there is NO light getting to the VF at all and again this isn't really showing up in pictures

Click to expand...

That has zero to do with the subject at hand. Obviously you have no answer, no magic light recovery so are just trying smoke and mirrors to confuse the subject.

No light getting to the VF equals no light for a shot.

Click to expand...

Walt you never with an answer to all the people that have ask you to show physical proofs of all your BS theory about SLT. Show us the proofs.

WaltKnapp said:

WaltKnapp said:

WaltKnapp said:

The image in the EVF or LCD always contains a significant delay, it's not realtime and that can matter a lot in any shooting of moving subjects. The image in the view has to be taken by the sensor and processed before it can arrive to be seen. That's way slower than the speed of light arrival on a OVF. The lower the light the more the problem as the exposure has to be longer.

Click to expand...

Yup.. but again you can see the subject in almost darkness. even if the delay is a little jarring if your used to an OVF in about 5 minutes you forget there is even a delay at all.

Click to expand...

The movement of your subject and not getting the framing you are shooting for will most certainly remind you of the EVF delay if you forget.

You can forget it only if you shoot nothing but still life.

Walt

Click to expand...

Some people on this board have shot a lot of BIF or sport with SLT and they succeed. What do you have to say about that? May be they have better technique than an advance amateur that shoot at a higher level than a pro ?
--

When your current system does not satisfy you, it is better to switch than to cry and whine on the forums.

Thanks for that, Jim. It's hard to know how it will respond. One person posted a response to a question about the EVF, and she wrote that it does break up in that kind of situation. My question was prompted by a review of my a850 LCD after taking a shot: it showed what appeared to be a blown section of the image; when I opened the RAW with ACR there was no such problem - obviously it was the 850's problem, and I can only chalk it up to the limits of an 8-bit display. Given the price points of the axx models (AND the report of distortion in this kind of situation), I've got to figure Sony hasn't yet done anything about it --- but hopefully they're aware of the issue and will score a breakthrough in their more advanced bodies.

BTW, I was using LV on my a550 (just sold it) and I appreciate the MF feature, but once again it's got to show me at least what an OVF would.

--
Rich

http://philosurfer.zenfolio.com/

mzd said:

WaltKnapp said:

antoineb said:

• the viewfinder (EVF) is MUCH better than the OVF of the D7000. At the end of the day, APS-C DSLRs have cramped viewfinders. But at least on the Sony it has gain so it remains bright.

Click to expand...

For night shooting the EVF ruins night vision.

Click to expand...

Try one at night before spreading this kind of lies. I have an a33 and I have taken a lot of night shots and it did not disturb my night vision. Did you ever try an a33 or a55 at night? I guess not. So your point is equal to blowing air.

mzd said:

mzd said:

• any weak points? As far as I can tell the IQ gets lower from about ISO 400 (possible due to the pellicle mirror)

Click to expand...

It is the nature of the Sony SLT mirror to always have offset internal reflections reflected into the sensor as the mirror is not of the thinness of a pellicule mirror and is angled. This can show up sometimes as ghosts, other times as slight lowering of IQ via contrast or focus differences. Depends on the characteristics of the scene lighting but it's there at some level.

Click to expand...

Show us the pictures you have taken with an a33 or a55 that have ghost issues or contrast loss as you claim since the SLT came out. Stop spreading fake statement about a camera you haven't shot with.

mzd said:

Also the mirror looses about a half stop of light that does not get to the sensor vs a clear optical path behind the lens.

The image in the EVF or LCD always contains a significant delay, it's not realtime and that can matter a lot in any shooting of moving subjects. The image in the view has to be taken by the sensor and processed before it can arrive to be seen. That's way slower than the speed of light arrival on a OVF. The lower the light the more the problem as the exposure has to be longer.

Walt

Click to expand...

Once again your comments are irrelevant as you have never shot with a SLT.

--

When your current system does not satisfy you, it is better to switch than to cry and whine on the forums.

Click to expand...

You do not understand fool! It is all about SCIENCE. The physics laws dictate it, it has to be there, although you do not see it (now we have some magic coming in also). Advance amateurs shooting in a higher than a pro level do not need to test things, just read about them (Heck, from what I see, Mr W does not even seriously look at SLT images, otherwise he would not be seeing any lack of contrast, and if he has.. WHY does not post ONE example?)

"Blinded by Science" in all its literal meaning...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/evangelos_k/

I've run tests around the house, and outdoors, at night, with my two advanced compacts and the D7000.

If I leave the AF assist light on the D7000 it can keep up with the two advanced compacts - bit slower at AF, but similar league. But of course this light on the D7000 is VERY strong.

If I turn the AF assist light off then the D7000 stops focusing at all when light level drops a bit below "enough for reading". In contrast both compacts focus just fine.

If I go to anywhere with low light levels and subject too far for AF-assist light to be in range (or turn it off), then the D7000 will require manual focusing. In the meantime the compacts will STILL FOCUS.

Oh, and Ken Rockwell noticed that it also CANNOT METER IN VERY LOW LIGHT - unlike all earlier Nikons.

and in the meantime, on STATIC SUBJECTS, the D7000 is slower to focus than my advanced compacts, especially in low light.

Like I said there are many potential good explanations for this:

• the compact's AF has only tiny lens elements to move. Tiny means light. Also they're often made of plastic not glass, so even lighter

• the compact has a fixed lens. It means the AF program can be fine-tuned and optimised for that very lens. In contrast the AF system of the D700 (or any DSLR of course) needs to be able to cope with various lenses, and therefore cannot be optimised for any single one of them. I'm not talking about AF fine tune, but about how fast focus is reached. The fact that Panasonic can have advanced compacts locking AF a tad faster than their GF1, says it all.

• the DSRL's AF sensor, due to the obsolete concept, gets only a tiny part of the total light. When light level drops it finds itself struggling long before the AF sensor = main sensor struggles on an advanced compact (or mirrorless). That's also why the AF illuminator has got to be so strong that it's light a headlamp

"One of the biggest stand-out features of the Nikon D7000 is its fantastic autofocus system.

Whatever Nikon has done under the hood has made it the best, fastest, most precise and most accurate focus system of any Nikon.

This becomes more apparent as you've shot more cameras for longer; it's a subtle thing, but something I very much notice.

It feels about the same or better than my professional Nikon D3, and worlds faster in actual use than my Nikon D300.

The Nikon D7000's AF is incredible at how well it does everything so well: I have an old beater Nikon 28-70/2.8 AFS that was given to me by a professional newspaper shooter who was going to throw it away, since it was so worn. Its AF system was half-dead: on my other cameras, it hunts back and forth before settling down, if at all. On my D7000, its AF is now instant and solid. Whoa! The D7000 is so good it rejuvenated my old 28-70, which unlike the one pictured in my review, is so worn that it's missing its rubber zoom ring!

I shoot it in its default AF-A and AUTO AREA modes. AF-A means the D7000 automatically selects AF-S (single, or still) or AF-C (continuous tracking) AF modes. AUTO AREA select means that the D7000 figures out which AF points to use on its own, uncannily usually correctly identifying a subject's eyes and focusing on them.

If the subject's still, the D7000 locks focus. If the subject's moving, the D7000 tracks it. Even better, in AUTO AREA mode, the D7000 is smart enough to track a subject as it moves about the viewfinder, dragging its highlighted AF point with it. Bravo!"

The worst dslr has better AF than a PS, has shorter black out time, more fps, etc.

Personally, I think you are useing a PS shut down, where the entire frame is constantly in focus.

Anyway, I sincerely think you would be much happier with a PS.

Richard Katris said:

As far as results at hi ISO....I have Canon 7D bodies...and I think the output in resolution and noise issues seem very close between the two cameras at 3200 ISO..and the Sony may have an edge at some ISOs.

Click to expand...

I shoot with a 7D and used my friend's A55 on Tuesday. Results at ISO 3200 are very comparable, I believe -- and I don't like my GH1 much above ISO 800 -- nor the Panasonic jpegs.

My A55 will arrive next week. GH1 will leave shortly after. The 7D is not leaving ;-)

--
Phil
Canon 7D, 40D, S90; Panasonic GH1, ZS3, ZS7
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler

I don't understand this debate about speed of light vs electrons. Electricity also travels at the speed of light. The computer or other device you're using routinely transmits tons of data between a keyboard and a display and so on at a very high pace.