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

[Corkcampbell]

used both on my earlier cameras, including an A700, but now am using them on an A33. Haven't really tried them with the video yet - only short tests.

Very happy with the DSTs. I bought the A33 because it arrived first, and the larger buffer didn't mean anything for my kind of shooting. Additionally, the GPS wasn't available where I was. Thought the plastic bodies would be a turnoff - all my other cameras are metal - but found that I really, really enjoy the lightness and portability, especially with the two lenses mentioned above.

 

[Danel]

I'm the current owner of a Nikon D7000. A camera whose AF performance has been heralded as breaking new ground.

Yeah, I have both the D7000 and the A55.

But as I found out, this is NOT the case. I'm talking about phase-detection, not about live-view where the D7000 is pathetic of course. And I'm not even going to start with video where it attempts to have constant AF but tracks very poorly, and makes noise that gets picked up by the (mono) mike...

I would agree concerning the live view contrast detect auto focus, and the auto focus with video. As far as the regular phase-detection auto focus with the D7000, it is very fast indeed. At least the equal of the A55 in single shot if not better. I have not tried to compare them in high speed continuous mode with tracking.

So as I'm still within the 10 day return window, I went to a store and tried an A55. Wow!

It is an impressive little camera no doubt.

• the AF is MUCH MUCH faster than the D7000. No comparison.

With the type of focus you would be able to check in a store I have to disagree with you. The difference in focus speed for single shot is negligible (close enough that it would be hard to measure the difference with casual usage).

• as an added bonus it remains fast in lower light (where the D7000 gets slower), and in live view.

True, the live view contrast detect auto focus of the D7000 gets slower in low light. The phase detect auto focus for the D7000 is actually much better than the A55 in low light unless you raise the flash on the A55. You see, the D7000 has a built in auto focus assist light. The D7000 focuses much better than you are giving it credit for.

• 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.

Now I'm thinking you are smoking something. The OVF on the D7000 is a big bright 100% coverage pentaprism viewfinder. Better than the one on the A700. While the EVF on the A55 is fine, it is not "MUCH better" than the OVF on the D7000.

So questions:

• any weak points? As far as I can tell the IQ gets lower from about ISO 400 (possible due to the pellicle mirror)
• are there good portrait primes such as an 85mm 1.4?

thanks!

I personally like the IQ of the D7000 over the A55 at higher ISO settings. At low ISO the difference is down to personal preference. If you are looking for high quality portrait lenses you won't be disappointed with what Sony has to offer.

While I like to see someone with some enthusiasm towards a camera, I think you went over the top with some of your statements above. The D7000 is a terrific camera and does not get blown away by the A55. The A55 is not "MUCH better" as you suggest. They both have their strengths and weaknesses which is why I like having them both.

 

[Gavin 11]

OT, I wanted to thank you Condor for the frequent use of the term "Luddite" I'd heard the term before but never really knew what it meant exactly. Thanks to you, I looked it up and now have a new word for my vocabulary. I think it's a good word and will come in handy on a lot of occasions. ;-)
--
Just for fun!

Jim

In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general, oh and are against general dumming down of cameras, untill the penny drops and someone gets their finger out and sorts it out! ;-)
“I prefer my Sony A-7xx, to be made out of wood” ;-)

 

[Corkcampbell]

no text

 

[Gavin 11]

I'm the current owner of a Nikon D7000. A camera whose AF performance has been heralded as breaking new ground.

Yeah, I have both the D7000 and the A55.

But as I found out, this is NOT the case. I'm talking about phase-detection, not about live-view where the D7000 is pathetic of course. And I'm not even going to start with video where it attempts to have constant AF but tracks very poorly, and makes noise that gets picked up by the (mono) mike...

I would agree concerning the live view contrast detect auto focus, and the auto focus with video. As far as the regular phase-detection auto focus with the D7000, it is very fast indeed. At least the equal of the A55 in single shot if not better. I have not tried to compare them in high speed continuous mode with tracking.

So as I'm still within the 10 day return window, I went to a store and tried an A55. Wow!

It is an impressive little camera no doubt.

• the AF is MUCH MUCH faster than the D7000. No comparison.

With the type of focus you would be able to check in a store I have to disagree with you. The difference in focus speed for single shot is negligible (close enough that it would be hard to measure the difference with casual usage).

• as an added bonus it remains fast in lower light (where the D7000 gets slower), and in live view.

True, the live view contrast detect auto focus of the D7000 gets slower in low light. The phase detect auto focus for the D7000 is actually much better than the A55 in low light unless you raise the flash on the A55. You see, the D7000 has a built in auto focus assist light. The D7000 focuses much better than you are giving it credit for.

• 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.

Now I'm thinking you are smoking something. The OVF on the D7000 is a big bright 100% coverage pentaprism viewfinder. Better than the one on the A700. While the EVF on the A55 is fine, it is not "MUCH better" than the OVF on the D7000.

So questions:

• any weak points? As far as I can tell the IQ gets lower from about ISO 400 (possible due to the pellicle mirror)
• are there good portrait primes such as an 85mm 1.4?

thanks!

I personally like the IQ of the D7000 over the A55 at higher ISO settings. At low ISO the difference is down to personal preference. If you are looking for high quality portrait lenses you won't be disappointed with what Sony has to offer.

While I like to see someone with some enthusiasm towards a camera, I think you went over the top with some of your statements above. The D7000 is a terrific camera and does not get blown away by the A55. The A55 is not "MUCH better" as you suggest. They both have their strengths and weaknesses which is why I like having them both.

Thank you for that assessment , I just could not get my head around the poor AF on the D7000!

“I prefer my Sony A-7xx, to be made out of wood” ;-)

 

[William9]

Minolta has a 85mm f1.4 G you'd want to consider. Also, the Minolta 100mm f2 and the Minolta 100mm f2.8 macro are supposed to be very, very sharp. You can read resolution tests on these and comparable Canon, Nikon, etc. lenses at photodo.com. Also, read the user reviews for lenses in this range at dyxum.com.

William
--

'Let the beauty of what you love be what you do. Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment. Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment is intuition.' -- Rumi

 

[antoineb]

And the FZ-18 remains capable of quite good IQ, for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/3333638762/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/2516447983/

I actually also use a TZ10 pocketable superzoom with manual controls when I really want to be light (hiking, business travel, commuting etc).

I get many shots with both that I wouldn't be able to get w a D7000 because I wouldn't take it with me, or it would be too conspicuous and so on. I get funny shots like I walk on the street at night, do a 2sec exposure and it creates amusing patterns. Try that, walking in the street w your DSLR to your eye!;-)

 

[antoineb]

Both show 100% of the frame. But clearly the "frame" on the D7000 is much smaller.

DPreview have this nice OVF comparison chart where they show the ACTUAL size.

The other test is just to look into one: APS-C cameras just have cramped tiny viewfinders, in absolute terms and also when compared to full-frame cameras. My old film SLR of back then (25 years?) has a MUCH better viewfinder than the D7000, much bigger and brighter.

The Sony has the same SIZE viewfinder, but electronics allow it to become brighter on demand, if needed.

Thanks for all your views though. I can still return my purchase so am not too bothered yet.

 

[dr jim]

Rich, I just wanted to comment on your remarks, specifically about sunrise work.

I too enjoy shooting sunrises and recently took my NEX 5 out for a go, and it was fabulous. Granted it has no OV, but along with the OV on the A55, comes live view. My experience with shooting sunrise is that there is such huge dynamic range, that when looking through an OV, you can never be absolutely sure what is going to happen to your shadows and/or highlights until you make the exposure. Your eyes can accommodate so much more DR than your sensor. A lot of chimping can be required to get what you want. With live view (whether it is the LV viewfinder of lcd display) it's WYSIWYG. You are seeing in real time, what the sensor is going to give you. You can stand back, and evaluate your composition and exposure, and make changes before ever making the exposure. In the shot below, I could see on the lcd that I had way too much DR and so switched to HDR mode. I think landscape shooters are going to love this technology, once they use it in the field. Just my 2 cents



--
Just for fun!

Jim

 

[Condor99]

I see, but it's not ideal is it?

I don't really know, I don't think I have even used the flash on the a55. I only do telephoto shots with it. I use my a330 for wide angle shots and so I have only used the flash on the a330.

--
Tom Seiler
My portfolio:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/MyPortfolio
Sony a330 Copper > Sony 18-55
Sony a55 > Tamron 200-500
Sony 75-300

 

[BrianHH]

Ant,

I'm very impressed with my new A55 - stills are amazing & heres a sample of a quick video http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=36997423 -

Brian

 

[Gavin 11]

I see, but it's not ideal is it?

I don't really know, I don't think I have even used the flash on the a55. I only do telephoto shots with it. I use my a330 for wide angle shots and so I have only used the flash on the a330.

--
Tom Seiler
My portfolio:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/MyPortfolio
Sony a330 Copper > Sony 18-55
Sony a55 > Tamron 200-500
Sony 75-300

Fair enough, buy the way I like your telephoto stuff, all very nice.

I noticed some were taken on Canon DSLR's do you still use them or have you jumped ship ?
“I prefer my Sony A-7xx, to be made out of wood” ;-)

 

[dr jim]

OK, it's back to Wikipedia for me. I was with you until the penny dropped and someone had to move their finger. LOL I'm guessing that's some sort of British colloquialism that I'm missing. BTW, I hope you didn't take my last comment as being critical of you or anyone for that matter. I find you to be eminently reasonable. There is a big difference between being cautious and evaluating new tech before accepting it, and carte blanche rejection of anything new. I just like the word.
--
Just for fun!

Jim

 

[Glenn]

So far the only real negative after you know about missing wheels and iluminators and stuff is the lack of support for studio flash set ups. I think this was an omission that may in the end get fixed and i'm not sure if the use of Sony's safe sync type adaptor solves it or not... But I didn't see anyone else mention it as it could be a deal breaker
--
http://www.fotosource.com/downloads/flyer/eye_cancer_en_CA.pdf

 

[Gavin 11]

OK, it's back to Wikipedia for me. I was with you until the penny dropped and someone had to move their finger. LOL I'm guessing that's some sort of British colloquialism that I'm missing. BTW, I hope you didn't take my last comment as being critical of you or anyone for that matter. I find you to be eminently reasonable. There is a big difference between being cautious and evaluating new tech before accepting it, and carte blanche rejection of anything new. I just like the word.
--
Just for fun!

Jim

Hi Jim, sorry the first part was from Wikipedia, I just added a bit at the end, I was just being a bit of a cheeky bugger(as we say over here), regarding some of Sony's design decisions of late. All much better now, as for the A-55 its doing very well and I am glad for Sony, just need get some metal and glass into that A-7xx ;-)

“I prefer my Sony A-7xx, to be made out of wood” ;-)

 

[dr jim]

Ha ha. "cheeky bugger", now I do know that one.
--
Just for fun!

Jim

 

[KingDon]

Both show 100% of the frame. But clearly the "frame" on the D7000 is much smaller.

DPreview have this nice OVF comparison chart where they show the ACTUAL size.

what's the link to DPR page where thy show A55 EVF size?

 

[PC Wheeler]

My first digital camera of note (Oly C-2100UZ, "Uzi") had an EVF and I enjoyed it -- sort of an ultrazoom forerunner of the Panasonic FZ-18 (had one of those in 2007) etc. Newer EVFs are better and the A55 is the best I've used (including the very good EVF in my GH1). My "main camera" is a Canon 7D, which has a 100% OVF, one of the best in a crop DSLR, and I found no disadvantages to the A55 EVF. OTOH -- my wife really dislikes using an EVF.

Last Tues I used a friend's new A55 and it seems to be an outstanding camera; fast, accurate focus with very acceptable results at ISO 3200 and shutter speeds as low as 1/8 sec. No grip problems with his Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens mounted -- which is about the same weight as the Sony 18-250 lens.

My A55 will arrive next Wed, as will my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens (interior and low light use) and my Sony 18-250 (for outdoor and travel shooting). My wife doesn't mind: She'll get to use the 7D while we're traveling (but I'll let her carry that heavy package - one lens weighs as much as the A55 and two lenses - since she's younger and stronger!).

Since I'm not much into videography, I'll sell the GH1 -- excellent for video but not so good at low light, high ISO as the 7D and A55.

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

 

[PerL]

I'm the current owner of a Nikon D7000. A camera whose AF performance has been heralded as breaking new ground.

But as I found out, this is NOT the case. I'm talking about phase-detection, not about live-view where the D7000 is pathetic of course. And I'm not even going to start with video where it attempts to have constant AF but tracks very poorly, and makes noise that gets picked up by the (mono) mike...

So as I'm still within the 10 day return window, I went to a store and tried an A55. Wow!

• the AF is MUCH MUCH faster than the D7000. No comparison.

Have you tried shooting sports/action with lenses intended for such use? Lika a 70-200 2.8 on both systems? Have you compared hit rate and tracking ability?

• as an added bonus it remains fast in lower light (where the D7000 gets slower), and in live view.
• the viewfinder (EVF) is MUCH better than the OVF of the D7000.

Have you tried to move the camera while shooting series? Do you prefer a TV-look to a crisp viewfinder? Do you prefer a viewfinder with limited DR and color casts depending on WB? Do you like noise in EVF and slow update in low light?

So questions:

• any weak points? As far as I can tell the IQ gets lower from about ISO 400 (possible due to the pellicle mirror)
• are there good portrait primes such as an 85mm 1.4?

thanks!

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

 

[charliewallace1]

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!