[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304889039' post='8142']
the IR review is just writing bullshit on that point. We have been over that before, and the dismal results shown in thier A55v crops show that.
[/quote]
Perhaps your biased "opinion" (as we debated this last time) is BS. You have admitted to never even touched A55, but you were complaining about A33 review on this site (photozone) for sports rating.
Note A550 was already pretty similarto A700 for AF speed. A55/A580 are both faster as can be seen in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmSkWTpdE6M
05-08-2011, 09:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2011, 09:36 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1304889329' post='8143']
Perhaps your biased "opinion" (as we debated this last time) is BS. You have admitted to never even touched A55, but you were complaining about A33 review on this site (photozone) for sports rating.
Note A550 was already pretty similarto A700 for AF speed. A55/A580 are both faster as can be seen in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmSkWTpdE6M
[/quote]
It may well be that the A55 is faster than an A700 in AF speed, that os not what you were referring to, you referred to the bullshit IR "test" which in too many ways is juts nonsense. And that was not about AF speed, but about AF tracking. Two very different things.
I showed that even my Canon EOS 450D, with slower (f4 vs f2.8) lens, did a better job tracking similar subjects at the by that so called "test from IR" described circumstances (which then let to the conclusion that even the described circumstances were incorrect).
So, not only did that IR test show very bad results for that A55v in their crops (1 out of 9 images actually in focus), they did not show any 7D results, they did not say which lens was used on the 7D, they did not say the A55v did equally well (they merely said "we feel" that it was comparable", but they also were not even able to correctly state the test parameters.
And my EOS 450D did a significantly better job of tracking with an f4 lens. In lower light conditions.
And my complains about teh posts rating of the A33 are valid and I explained why it should not get that high a rating too.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304890422' post='8147']
I showed that even my Canon EOS 450D, with slower (f4 vs f2.8) lens, did a better job tracking similar subjects at the by that so called "test from IR" described circumstances (which then let to the conclusion that even the described circumstances were incorrect).
[/quote]
IR did side-by-side test. You admitted to have never even touched A55. Add to that your previous long history of biased posts, I will take IR (and photoze sports rating) over your "test."
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1304890569' post='8149']
IR did side-by-side test. You admitted to have never even touched A55. Add to that your previous long history of biased posts, I will take IR (and photoze sports rating) over your "test."
[/quote]
You are biased, you are acting like a sony fan boy on more than one forum with the same factual nonsense.
You discard whatever opinion which is not positive enough for your camera.
While it is painfully obvious something is fishy about that fake IR "test", because the crops shown only show ONE image in focus, and yet we are to believe it is comparable to a 7D with unknown lens, and the described test distances are NOT the ones they actually used, and that they say they did a comparison, but no comparison is published, because IR types a strange ("we feel") line which fits what you want to believe, the IR test is a good source.
Yet, when DPreview reports that the AF tracking is not upto the task, you dismiss it. Without any arguments.
So, we have an IR "test" which is in so many ways doubtful, but positive, and we have a DPR review which is not that poitive on that particular point, and you dismiss it without having any valid point to dismiss it.
And then, I shoot with my EOS 450D according to the IR "test" data, and I get way better results. And that of course gets dismissed by you too, without any real arguments, just flaming and name calling.
Sad stuff.
Have a nice day, biased boy.
[quote name='outofrangefinder' timestamp='1304881912' post='8134']
Thank you all for the interesting discussion. My problem is now solved, in a way I didn't expect myself. My local camera shop carried an A580 for the first time and I had a chance to try it out. Seems that Sony has tweaked the AF algorithm. With the A580, the AF doesn't hunt nearly as much as with the A700, the 70-400 now feels almost like a new lens. It's not as fast as the Canon solution, but fast enough for my purposes and I got what I wanted without changing system at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, the A580 has other shortcomings like the missing second control wheel, no program shift (oh man), the small viewfinder and the fact that you can't turn off NR in JPEG mode (it has only two settings: "Auto" and "weak" - so it loses details from ISO 400 upwards in comparison to the A700). In RAW mode, the picture quality is flawless and the live view option does come in handy sometimes. Plus, it might be one of the last Alphas with an optical viewfinder. I wish they had dropped the A580s electronics in a A700 class body and added micro AF calibration. Anyway, the A580 seems to be underrated a bit, because everyone paid much more attention to the SLT bodies.
[/quote]
Sorry, ourofrangefinder, for that silly spat with "oneguy". It does not concern you, nor your quest.
I am happy to hear that the A580 makes your 70-400mm lens focus fast enough for your bird stuff, this saves you from having to switch platforms.
Of course, I have no idea about the resale value of Sony lenses, but I guess getting the A580 probably was saving you quite a bit of money compared to a 60D/7D and lenses.
Will you show some of the BIF results sometime?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304891180' post='8150']
You are biased, you are acting like a sony fan boy on more than one forum with the same factual nonsense.
You discard whatever opinion which is not positive enough for your camera.
[/quote]
Your entire history on this board speaks for itself. You admit that you never even touched the camera, but miraculously, you "tested" it and found your canon better. IR did side-by-side test and found the AF tracking comparable to 7D. That's a fact.
Have a nice day.
Would you both please stop it. This is not going to lead any further than last time.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1304922270' post='8167']
Would you both please stop it. This is not going to lead any further than last time.
[/quote]
Fine. This time the thread had "Canon" in it. Unfortunately that poster has a history of posting in various unrelated threads to tell us why these camera/lenses are bad and his "canon" is better. That's what happened last time when the topic was photozone review of A33 (a camera he admits he hasn't even touched, but he is eager to tell us why the review and ratings are wrong).
Time to split this board into sub boards by brand name?
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1304923511' post='8168']
Time to split this board into sub boards by brand name?
[/quote]
No. Only time to moderate if required. And I won't hesitate to do so.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
|
