[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282913367' post='2250']A huge issue. I have seen the effects at normal print sizes, and especially with low light photography with light sources or bright highlights the ghosting issue is VERY real and problematic.[/quote]
Then surely you'll have no problem linking to a picture from the A33/A55 that demonstrates that ghosting is a "huge issue"? None of the pictures posted at dpreview.com discussions about the subject are convincing enough to even have this categorized as a "minor issue".
> No, 3fps. its 6fps and 10fps modes are nearly unusable due to their implementation. And the AF system is too slow to really track subjects.
Both the 10fps and the 6fps modes are very usable, and the AF tracks moving subjects very nicely:
http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/2010/08/mirror-mirror-on-wall-whos-camera-is.html
If your benchmark for 10fps usefulness is what $4000 pro DSLR’s offer, then I agree that the $750 Sony is at a disadvantage. Regardless, the 3.7fps limit of the 550D seems pathetic by comparison.
> Real AF in movie mode is silly on DSLRs, for they have shallow DOF. It may work for home video small sensor camcorders. Not in DSLR video. And the aperture needs to be open for this! brr.
The intended target market would get far worse results without AF or with slow-and-constantly-hunting CD-AF. With the Sony movies would actually be in focus, and this is a very real advantage.
> yes, but a viewfinder of worse quality. I know which I would prefer (not the EVF from the A55). So, the 100% is nice, the quality is not.
If the EVF is anything like the EVF's on the higher-end MFT cameras, then I believe quality would be more than satisfactory for most people. Furthermore, unlike insignificant differences in viewfinder quality, the added benefits (100% coverage and magnified MF) can actually make a difference in the results, not only in the user experience while shooting.
> yes. And the 550D has fast AF in OVF
The Sony has fast AF regardless of whether you use the viewfinder or the LCD. The Canon limits you to use the viewfinder to get fast AF.
> No. Silly P&S feature. If I want a DSLR for panoramas, I do want control over the process. Nice for P&S vacation shots, yes.
Nothing silly about sweep panorama. It's an extremely useful feature when traveling light, without a tripod, or without time to shoot panoramas "properly". You get much wider angle of view than you would with cameras lacking this feature (given the same constraints). The Sony of course supports shooting panoramas the traditional way too. As for vacation shots, for many people (again, remember the target market) these shots represent their bulk of landscape photography, so sweep panorama mode very relevant to them.
> Can't put the camera down on a surface.
Wrong. You can do it, down to 90 degrees.
> Can't put the camera on a tripod.
Wrong again, you can do it, down to 90 degrees (or even more if your QR plate is not very large).
> Can't support the lens/camera in a normal way with the LCD out.
Do you actually shoot at eye-level with the screen sticking out from the side? I've never seen anyone do it, so I’d assume it only affects a small number of people.
> Stupid position also with self portraits.
I don't care about self-portraits, but although the bottom-hinge is less useful for self-portraits shots using a tripod, it's better for those done handheld or using a short unipod, as the subject (you) is looking slightly below the camera. It looks more natural than looking to the side.
> It is crazy to want to hold the camera on the left! You hold a camera on the right to operate the camera, and UNDER the lens to support the lens and camera and operate the lens.
Wrong again. Choosing to hold the camera under the lens or under the body depends on its size. With long/heavy lenses you don't have a choice. With shorter lenses you can actually hold under the camera and with the heels of your palms to its left for a significantly more stable hold. Now here comes the other part that you've missed - when you hold the camera at waist-level it's very difficult to put your left hand under the camera, let alone under the lens (unless you have a third hand coming out of your knee). This is where holding it from the lower left side becomes so convenient. It's very difficult and awkward to do it with a side-hinge design. Don't take my word for it. Just try to hold both types of cameras (at waist-level) and you'll see that I'm right.
> Yes, it makes it better for HOME VIDEO where one does not have any idea about how awful that focus searching is on the screen.
But for that group, DSLR video with its shallow DOF is not a good choice in the first place.
Of course we're talking about home video. This camera isn't designed for professional cinematography with a dedicated focus-puller on the payroll ;-)
And you probably didn't bother looking at the sample movies from the various review sites, because they clearly demonstrate that unlike the constant-hunting affair with CD-AF, the Sony PD-AF keeps subjects focused most of the time. This is much better than what other DSLR's offer, and the image quality is better than small-sensor cameras, far better in low-light. The shallow DOF is another advantage, as long as focus is maintained on the subject, and with the Sony is typically is.
Then surely you'll have no problem linking to a picture from the A33/A55 that demonstrates that ghosting is a "huge issue"? None of the pictures posted at dpreview.com discussions about the subject are convincing enough to even have this categorized as a "minor issue".
> No, 3fps. its 6fps and 10fps modes are nearly unusable due to their implementation. And the AF system is too slow to really track subjects.
Both the 10fps and the 6fps modes are very usable, and the AF tracks moving subjects very nicely:
http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/2010/08/mirror-mirror-on-wall-whos-camera-is.html
If your benchmark for 10fps usefulness is what $4000 pro DSLR’s offer, then I agree that the $750 Sony is at a disadvantage. Regardless, the 3.7fps limit of the 550D seems pathetic by comparison.
> Real AF in movie mode is silly on DSLRs, for they have shallow DOF. It may work for home video small sensor camcorders. Not in DSLR video. And the aperture needs to be open for this! brr.
The intended target market would get far worse results without AF or with slow-and-constantly-hunting CD-AF. With the Sony movies would actually be in focus, and this is a very real advantage.
> yes, but a viewfinder of worse quality. I know which I would prefer (not the EVF from the A55). So, the 100% is nice, the quality is not.
If the EVF is anything like the EVF's on the higher-end MFT cameras, then I believe quality would be more than satisfactory for most people. Furthermore, unlike insignificant differences in viewfinder quality, the added benefits (100% coverage and magnified MF) can actually make a difference in the results, not only in the user experience while shooting.
> yes. And the 550D has fast AF in OVF
The Sony has fast AF regardless of whether you use the viewfinder or the LCD. The Canon limits you to use the viewfinder to get fast AF.
> No. Silly P&S feature. If I want a DSLR for panoramas, I do want control over the process. Nice for P&S vacation shots, yes.
Nothing silly about sweep panorama. It's an extremely useful feature when traveling light, without a tripod, or without time to shoot panoramas "properly". You get much wider angle of view than you would with cameras lacking this feature (given the same constraints). The Sony of course supports shooting panoramas the traditional way too. As for vacation shots, for many people (again, remember the target market) these shots represent their bulk of landscape photography, so sweep panorama mode very relevant to them.
> Can't put the camera down on a surface.
Wrong. You can do it, down to 90 degrees.
> Can't put the camera on a tripod.
Wrong again, you can do it, down to 90 degrees (or even more if your QR plate is not very large).
> Can't support the lens/camera in a normal way with the LCD out.
Do you actually shoot at eye-level with the screen sticking out from the side? I've never seen anyone do it, so I’d assume it only affects a small number of people.
> Stupid position also with self portraits.
I don't care about self-portraits, but although the bottom-hinge is less useful for self-portraits shots using a tripod, it's better for those done handheld or using a short unipod, as the subject (you) is looking slightly below the camera. It looks more natural than looking to the side.
> It is crazy to want to hold the camera on the left! You hold a camera on the right to operate the camera, and UNDER the lens to support the lens and camera and operate the lens.
Wrong again. Choosing to hold the camera under the lens or under the body depends on its size. With long/heavy lenses you don't have a choice. With shorter lenses you can actually hold under the camera and with the heels of your palms to its left for a significantly more stable hold. Now here comes the other part that you've missed - when you hold the camera at waist-level it's very difficult to put your left hand under the camera, let alone under the lens (unless you have a third hand coming out of your knee). This is where holding it from the lower left side becomes so convenient. It's very difficult and awkward to do it with a side-hinge design. Don't take my word for it. Just try to hold both types of cameras (at waist-level) and you'll see that I'm right.
> Yes, it makes it better for HOME VIDEO where one does not have any idea about how awful that focus searching is on the screen.
But for that group, DSLR video with its shallow DOF is not a good choice in the first place.
Of course we're talking about home video. This camera isn't designed for professional cinematography with a dedicated focus-puller on the payroll ;-)
And you probably didn't bother looking at the sample movies from the various review sites, because they clearly demonstrate that unlike the constant-hunting affair with CD-AF, the Sony PD-AF keeps subjects focused most of the time. This is much better than what other DSLR's offer, and the image quality is better than small-sensor cameras, far better in low-light. The shallow DOF is another advantage, as long as focus is maintained on the subject, and with the Sony is typically is.
' />[/quote]
' />
' />
' /> The main problem however, is not solved. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='