08-31-2010, 09:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2010, 09:11 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1282763806' post='2165']
Where's the difference between video and still here ? If anything it should be even better for stills.
[/quote]
In normal 3fps mode it is ok. But the AF tracking system is not very good, it seems to lack any predictive quality so it is slow for AF tracking.
Its 6fps and 10fps modes are crappy. You lose the live view, and instead get a slideshow what has been. Also, you have to shoot with lenses wide open (smallest allowed f-value is f3.5). And on top of that, the exposure will be totally automatic (well it has to be, when you don't have any control over aperture).
Quite a lot of problems still, in its implementation.
The IQ is quite good, in RAW the performance seems to match that of a Canon EOS 50D or Nikon D300.
One problem though (that Canon avoided with the 1 N RT): the thick mirror reflects light, which causes ghosts of light image areas just under those areas. A bit like ghost lights caused by "protective filters" at night (but those are mirrored through the optic axis).
While the IDEA behind AF in video in a DSLR seems nice, it does not really work (in my opinion). In camcorders that is fine, if you are making homevideos. But with a DSLR the DOF is small. And the Sony's need the aperture to be open in order to shoot with AF (f3.5 or bigger). So as viewer you keep on seeing the camera AF, not very attractive. Camcorders have much bigger DOF.
And besides that, there are not many SSM lenses in the Sony line-up.
To me, it seems the A33/55 seem to be a (nice) idea, but an idea that has not been thought through enough.
Where's the difference between video and still here ? If anything it should be even better for stills.
[/quote]
In normal 3fps mode it is ok. But the AF tracking system is not very good, it seems to lack any predictive quality so it is slow for AF tracking.
Its 6fps and 10fps modes are crappy. You lose the live view, and instead get a slideshow what has been. Also, you have to shoot with lenses wide open (smallest allowed f-value is f3.5). And on top of that, the exposure will be totally automatic (well it has to be, when you don't have any control over aperture).
Quite a lot of problems still, in its implementation.
The IQ is quite good, in RAW the performance seems to match that of a Canon EOS 50D or Nikon D300.
One problem though (that Canon avoided with the 1 N RT): the thick mirror reflects light, which causes ghosts of light image areas just under those areas. A bit like ghost lights caused by "protective filters" at night (but those are mirrored through the optic axis).
While the IDEA behind AF in video in a DSLR seems nice, it does not really work (in my opinion). In camcorders that is fine, if you are making homevideos. But with a DSLR the DOF is small. And the Sony's need the aperture to be open in order to shoot with AF (f3.5 or bigger). So as viewer you keep on seeing the camera AF, not very attractive. Camcorders have much bigger DOF.
And besides that, there are not many SSM lenses in the Sony line-up.
To me, it seems the A33/55 seem to be a (nice) idea, but an idea that has not been thought through enough.