Is Ken Rockwell's review credible?

Started Sep 28, 2012 | Discussions thread
Flat view
Jethro777 Regular Member • Posts: 116
Is Ken Rockwell's review credible?

My brother, a die-hard Nikon and Canon fan swears by his reviews. Is it credible?

"Monday Morning Wake-Up Call"

While all the whizzy features impress gadget hounds, the fundamental picture-taking ability of the Sony A55 is flawed in several very important ways. I wouldn't buy one of these things.

Among the big deficiencies for serious photographers, any one of which is a deal-breaker, are:

1.) On-screen junk. I was never able to get the exposure data numbers off of my image so I could compose. Instead of being below the image as on a real SLR, the EVF of this Sony always has some data written on top of your image as you're trying to compose.

2.) Sony is several years behind Nikon and Canon when it comes to basic settings. There is no way to set any green-magenta color trim on any setting except the manual-white-card setting. Worse, one cannot set warm/cool shift on the Auto White Balance setting, which is how I get great images out of my Nikons, and even my Canon point-and-shoots, but something that this Sony can't do. Because of this design defect, all the pictures I took with the A55 were too blue for my taste. Oops!

3.) I never could find how to shift the exposure program. Even Canon's first EOS 620 of 1987 had a shiftable program. Canon is a camera built for photographers, while Sony is better at making electronic baubles.

4.) The Sony A55 puts all sorts of junk files and folders all over the SD card. Not only does this make it a pain to have to hunt and peck for the only folder we need that has our images, half of my computers didn't recognize the card in my various card readers! I had to stick the SD card in my MacBook Pro, and use the MacBook Pro to copy the files to a USB stick, and then copy from the USB stick to my Power Mac. In the A55's defense, the A55 connects to all my computers just fine via USB and pops up as an external drive, which is something the Nikon D7000 can't do. Still, I'd rather the cards were legible!

5.) The images just don't look as good as I get from Canon and Nikon. The "look" of a digital camera, just like the look of a woman or the look of a film, is a very subtle and personal thing. In the case of Canon and Nikon, they've worked decades to fine-tune their image processing algorithms, transfer functions and color matrices to get images that simply look better, to me, than I get from this Sony. Sony makes the sensors for Nikon, but sensors are only a small part of a much larger equation in camera design.

The images from this Sony do have better color than what I get from the LEICA M9, but that's not saying much. Image quality depends more on these subtle factors that aren't familiar to anyone other than camera designers than all the marketing fluff in the world. Nikon and Canon have thrown more resources to this problem for more decades than Sony has. Sony has been a world leader in professional video and electronic imaging since the 1960s, but not in still photography.

-- hide signature --

Since I intend to invest in the A65, I guess my question is, are the concerns general, or was this true of the A55's he was reviewing?

 Jethro777's gear list:Jethro777's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX20V Sony SLT-A65
Nikon D7000 Sony SLT-A55
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow