Opticallimits

Full Version: Sony Alpha SLT-A33 review
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Guest

[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1300109753' post='6752']

Some of these pics clearly show ghosting.

[/quote]



You don't even know what SLTA33/A55 ghosting looks like, which is in exact pixel numbers in exact direction. That says a lot about your credibility on the topic.

Guest

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300106325' post='6746']

It is a bullshit test, Don't attack me for pointing that out.

[/quote]



That's a bullshit test, and you, who has never touched the camera, has valid opinions? Mot reviewers, including cameralab, dcresourcse, photoclubalpha, and even photozone reported no problem with AF. So there.



The AF performance matched that of 7D in side-by-side test, exact quote from IR.
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1300110772' post='6754']

That's a bullshit test, and you, who has never touched the camera, has valid opinions? Mot reviewers, including cameralab, dcresourcse, photoclubalpha, and even photozone reported no problem with AF. So there.



The AF performance matched that of 7D in side-by-side test, exact quote from IR.

[/quote]

I know that quote well. You have posted that nonsense how many times now?



Now, do what I did and analyze what they claimed.



Was it a taxing AF test? Car at that (they say from "perhaps" 21 meters distance to "perhaps" 5 meters distance) distance, with that low speed (about 50 km/h), lens at 150mm. Top lens used (70-200mm f2.8 G).



Is that taxing the AF system to see how it performs? Not really.



Are the crops impressive? Not really.

Crop 1: NOT in focus.

Crop 2: not really sharp.

Crop 3: not really sharp.

Crop 4: Totally OOF

Crop 5: Sharp.

Crop 6: not really sharp.

Crop 7: Sharp.

Crop 8: not really in focus.

Crop 9: Not in focus.



Does the claim that crop 4 is "camera shaken" make any sense at all? No, of course not. It is one of 9 shots within one second. Other shots would be shaken too. Stupid claim.



And what about the 7D "comparable performance"? It appears never to have taken place: no 7D lens mentioned, no 7D crops posted, nothing what so ever.



Does it matter, that 7D stuff? No, not really, the A55v crops are bad enough all on their own, it does not matter if there might be other cameras doing just as bad or not.



Cameralab, dcresource do not test the AF on AF tracking performance. Photozone's review gives no detail about IF, and if, HOW Af tracking performance was tested, so it is strange to right now put them forward as source.

photoclubalpha, no idea whether they have tested the AF tracking capability.



So what remains right now is a puzzling IR "test" that poses more questions than answers. It was not a particularly taxing AF track test, and the results are not great. Dpreview mentions that they have found the AF tracking performance lacking.



Just for you, I will do the following test:

I will find a stretch or road around here with speed control, to be sure the cars are driving around 50 km/h. I will measure around 20 meters distance, and start shooting in continuous mode, for the same duration (about 1 second, with my 70-200mm f4 L USM at 150mm setting.

With my camera that should result in about 3 images. I will focus on the car's bonnet emblem too. Then I will 100% crop the results and compare them to the IR results concerning sharpness. Then we will have something to actually compare the IR crops against.

Guest

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300113620' post='6757']



Are the crops impressive? Not really.

Crop 1: NOT in focus.

Crop 2: not really sharp.

Crop 3: not really sharp.

Crop 4: Totally OOF

Crop 5: Sharp.

Crop 6: not really sharp.

Crop 7: Sharp.

Crop 8: not really in focus.

Crop 9: Not in focus.

[/quote]



It's irrelevant whether you think crops are in focus or not. They claim that they did side-by-side test with 7D, and the performance was comparable. That means if these crops are bad (in your opinion of course), so were 7Ds in this case. They have no reason to lie, but you do have a history of moaning about SLT and Sony in general, not only here but also on DPR forum. You were even posting silly claims about yet to be released A77. You don't own SLTA55/A33. You did zero tests. Most reviews are positive about AF tracking, dcresource, photoclubaplpha, cameralab, and the performance was comparable to 7D according to IR in side-by-side test. On what basis you were whining in your earlier post about sports rating awarded by photozone? Unlike photozone and IR, you have done zero tests. Karl used the camera for 5 months. You, who have never touched the camera, proclaimed it can't be used at night and rating is flawed. Hilarious. Zero credibility.

Guest

people who use A55 seem to have no problem with AF tracking, that you said is a problem (even though you haven't even touched the camera)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphotorob/page3/







http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/5004645627_f8a877a839_b.jpg



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/5004649195_55eb9957bf_b.jpg



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/5005264236_73e2232f20_b.jpg
So... you are not at all worried that they LIE about "camera shake" making one image totally out of focus?

And you are not worried at all that they claim they shot it side by side with a 7D with unnamed lens, and found the results "to be comparable" yet do not produce the comparison?



Ok. Your standards are clearly lower than mine.



What we do know is that IR was the only review "outlet" which was allowed by Sony to do a review of the camera and publish it on the day of release. That might hint at a reason you seem to need for them to "lie".



You will have to wait with my car at 20 meters at 50 km/h / 150mm focal length /1 second burst results, as here it is heavily overcast today with rainy patches at times. Sorry for that.
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1300116894' post='6761']

people who use A55 seem to have no problem with AF tracking, that you said is a problem (even though you haven't even touched the camera)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphotorob/page3/







http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/5004645627_f8a877a839_b.jpg



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/5004649195_55eb9957bf_b.jpg



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/5005264236_73e2232f20_b.jpg

[/quote]



And what are these images supposed to show?
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1300014352' post='6710']

The world may have different problems right now but as a diversion ... here's our A33 review.



[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/dslr_reviews/593_sonyslta33"]http://www.photozone.../593_sonyslta33[/url]

This time we took the camera up to the icy arctics and down into hot australia (plus a little muddy Germany in between). ;-)

[/quote]



Would it be possible that we can have a discussion here that doesn't escalate, please ?

If not I will take appropriate actions. This used to be a civilized forum and I will not accept a further decrease in style here.
Klaus, the subject of tracking subjects approaching the camera has been discussed to death, especially in the context of CD-AF vs. PD-AF. Unfortunately no review site has bothered to test this, at least not with recent cameras. The last test I'm aware of that attempted something like this is from several years ago:



http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/25521-magazine-review-k20d-supersonic-drive-motor-auto-focus-c-performance-vs-8-competitors-good-info.html



A more recent test (in Japanese) that compared the K-5, D300s and EOS-7D can be found here:



http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/special/20091225_339741.html



I think it would be extremely interesting to conduct a test that compares SLR, SLT and mirrorless cameras to see the significance of CD-AF vs. PD-AF and that of the non-flipping mirror (which in principle at least should be an advantage). Any chance you'd consider doing such a comparison between the A33, a DSLR and one of those Panasonic mirrorless cameras that are claimed to be "faster than DSLR's"?
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1300125839' post='6768']

Klaus, the subject of tracking subjects approaching the camera has been discussed to death, especially in the context of CD-AF vs. PD-AF. Unfortunately no review site has bothered to test this, at least not with recent cameras. The last test I'm aware of that attempted something like this is from several years ago:



http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/25521-magazine-review-k20d-supersonic-drive-motor-auto-focus-c-performance-vs-8-competitors-good-info.html



A more recent test (in Japanese) that compared the K-5, D300s and EOS-7D can be found here:



http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/special/20091225_339741.html



I think it would be extremely interesting to conduct a test that compares SLR, SLT and mirrorless cameras to see the significance of CD-AF vs. PD-AF and that of the non-flipping mirror (which in principle at least should be an advantage). Any chance you'd consider doing such a comparison between the A33, a DSLR and one of those Panasonic mirrorless cameras that are claimed to be "faster than DSLR's"?

[/quote]

We were talking PD-AF exclusively here, and its predictive tracking capabilities (which relies on the AF cumputer, not the PD sensor itself). According to dpreview, the tracking capabilities do not match the sports capabilities of the high frame rate possible.



A Grman magazine tested the AF tracking performance a few years or so ago, it was an interesting read. Tested were the Canon 40D, 1D mk III, Nikon D80, D300, D3, Sony A700, Pentax K20 (I think) and Olympus E3.



I am not aware of if they have repeated the test again with more recent cameras. It was the only systematic and quite scientific AF tracking/FPS test I have seen/read.



I think it was ColorFoto, but it might have been Foto Magazin.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8