Reading mode: Light Dark

Is The Sony A55 Better Then It's Competion???

Go to last post
Nikon and Canon have a solid name reputation and brand recognition behind them. This does not, however, always translate into products which are better quality - and certainly not a better value, as one pays for the name - than the competition. I have taken 2 NYC "walking tour" photography classes. I am the only Sony in a sea of Canons and Nikons. Interestingly enough, I usually know and understand my camera better then anyone else in the class knows their's, which also leads me to believe that some "buy the name" without really knowing what's behind it.
 
Miles Johnson said:
The "bottom-of-cam" articulation of the swivel screen on my A55, while better than previous Sony models, is an ABSURDITY. This is one area where Sony got it all wrong, and both Canon and Nikon got it right (so did Pentax and countless others, including SONY in most of their camcorders for the past 20 years. Go figure...) Using "creative angles" which I have been doing for decades in photo and video is, at best, awkward with my A55.
Click to expand...
I sincerely don't agree. There are many discussions about the best position for the screen hinge in cameras, but I quite like the possibilities with my a55 (it's also one of the advantages respect to the a580). The only limit I see can be for eventual auto portraits, but I don't use them often.

Ciao
 
I'll caveat this by saying I am new to the DSLR/SLT world, however I just went through the agonizing decision of Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs Pentax, etc. After over a month of research I chose the A55. What I learned is all of these companies make great cameras, but, at least to me, it seems like there is a world of tradeoffs and a whole lot of brand loyalty going on, so it made it really hard to pick a camera. Being a newbie, I had to go by features, options and specs, and at least to me, Sony A55 on paper beats the competition at its price point. I was able to get the A55 w/ 18-250 lens for hundreds less than a Nikon D3100 w/18-200 lens and a Canon 60D with it's kit lens. Going back to brand for a second, when I told my wife who has no camera knowledge, I was leaning towards Sony, she was immediately turned off to us not buying a Canon or Nikon, this is how well these brands are know to even people outside of the photography community. But after she started looking more closely at the features, options, specs and what not, she began to see what I saw, we can get a really great camera for hundreds less than a stripped down D3100 and Canon with a kit lens. Simply put, the Sony, just seemed to be the best value out of the others we were considering so we pulled the trigger a couple of days ago. Yes it's not a Canon or Nikon, but I think we will be very happy with our purchase.
 
I just went over dpreview's Updated Samples Gallery of the new Nikon DS5100, just posted. Most of these pictures were taken right in my own neighborhood, around Capital Hill in Seattle and I am very familier with all of these photo sites as I see them every day. In fact I've taken pictures myself from many of these same sites. I've used my own Oly 8080 wideangle, my Fuji F10, my Leica R6.2, and my old Hasselblad. All of these cameras seem to have done a much better job then this new DS5100. I'm talking clarity, sharpness, and detail here.

(the reason I'm not posting this on the Nikon Forum because I fear I would be starting a flaming war, and my son-in-law would be at the forefront.)
 
RobBass said:
I'll caveat this by saying I am new to the DSLR/SLT world, however I just went through the agonizing decision of Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs Pentax, etc. After over a month of research I chose the A55. What I learned is all of these companies make great cameras, but, at least to me, it seems like there is a world of tradeoffs and a whole lot of brand loyalty going on, so it made it really hard to pick a camera. Being a newbie, I had to go by features, options and specs, and at least to me, Sony A55 on paper beats the competition at its price point. I was able to get the A55 w/ 18-250 lens for hundreds less than a Nikon D3100 w/18-200 lens and a Canon 60D with it's kit lens. Going back to brand for a second, when I told my wife who has no camera knowledge, I was leaning towards Sony, she was immediately turned off to us not buying a Canon or Nikon, this is how well these brands are know to even people outside of the photography community. But after she started looking more closely at the features, options, specs and what not, she began to see what I saw, we can get a really great camera for hundreds less than a stripped down D3100 and Canon with a kit lens. Simply put, the Sony, just seemed to be the best value out of the others we were considering so we pulled the trigger a couple of days ago. Yes it's not a Canon or Nikon, but I think we will be very happy with our purchase.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on your wise purchase, the only thing that the Sony brand lacks is snob appeal!
--
Upgrade your vision before you upgrade your camera! f6.3 and be there - Karl
 
If you cannot see the differences of pictures from a 1.5x Crop sensor and tiny sensor of Oly 8080, F10, then maybe you should stick with those tiny DC with small sensor with tremendous DoF (disclaimer: I love my F30). Pictures from SLR tend to be soft to preserve data for post-pocessing. Countless time, people were boosting their XS or D40 can take better pictures than D3 or 5D for the same principal. The default sharpness and color of low-end SLR are tuned for P&S users.

I am amazed how many people in this thread didn't see the IQ advantage of D5100 over the A55. I llike the A55 a lot but mainly for the SLT design allow phrase detection AF in movie mode and liveview but I have concern about the color balance of its LCD and pictures tend to be too contrasty for my taste. I saw a few posts talk about the popularity of Nikon/Canon due to brand recognition but don't forget Minolta was right up there with Nikon/Canon in SLR world not too long ago. I look forward to see what Sony Minolta can offer on its A77.
 
Yes, I remember the old "from the minds of minolta" commercials. Maybe Sony should have negotiated to use "Sony-Minolta" in the branding. Olympus was also right up there - remember the commercials with Cheryl Tiegs (ok, maybe most of you don't!) - but now they seem less popular than Sony.
 
All are good enough for me. And I believe good enough for any.
But there are some feature differences, so find out what you need or want.
And they are in different mounts, some people prefer a spesific mount...
hard to guess why? ;)
 
Class leading features, access to Zeiss AF lenses, superb IQ. What else could you ask for!?
 
JPG said:
I just read the preview of the new Nikon DS 5100, which was quite impressive, and thought, could this be my next camera should I decide to buy a SLR?

Then I checked out the comparison photos at the end of the preview, and I wasn't nearly as impressed.

From my observation from the comparison photos of the Nikon DS 5100 with the Sony STL A55, Canon 600D and the Panasonic G2; the Sony A55 comes out ahead with the sharpest, most detailed and natural color of the other three. The Canon 600D comes in at a close second place while the new Nikon DS 5100 comes in at an undisputeable third. The Panasonic G2 comes in at a distant and obvious fourth and last place.
The Sony is about $100 less then the new Nikon DS5100.

The whole purpose of buying a new camera is to purchase the one that takes the sharpest, most natural and detailed photographs as one can get for the money he's willing to spend.
Are your observations of this Nikon preview simular to my own ????
Click to expand...
Not really. I like the IQ of the D5100 slightly better at higher ISO. Check out the samples over on Imaging Resource. http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM Look at the detail in the fabric and in the thread samples hanging on the wall at ISO 3200 and 6400 in the still life's on the bottom. The D5100 is slightly better to my eyes.

However, if you want sharp, colorful, detailed photos, either camera will do those things just fine. If you want the most features and bang for your buck, then the A55 is clearly the better choice. I shoot Nikon (D7000) and Sony (A55) and I do feel that the A55 is an incredible camera for the money. Image quality differences, especially at lower ISO where most photos are shot, are down to personal preference really. At higher ISOs such as 3200 and 6400, the 16mp sensor does perform slightly better in the D7000, D5100, and A580. The differences are tiny, but they are there. All just IMHO, of course.
 
That actually wasn't my point. I am trying o say we see a lot of Canon and Nikon because their early effort in the DSLR market and they deserve the shelf space. As far as SLR goes, we owe a lot to technology and idea from Minota Maxxum. And Sony is popular is the #1 sensor manufacturer with little problem of brand recognition as a Consumer Electronic brand name. The real issue is Sony-Minolta was late to the DSLR game, and honestly it is still slightly behind Nikon/Canon at the moment (see the D5100 vs A55 samples) but the gap is closing very quickly with A33/A55/A580. The DSLT design has the advantage of bringing practical HD video and very good PQ together in one body, and that's exactly I am after.
 
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