•  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fast and wide options for the A55
#21
[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/...ra-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.
#22
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1282946917' post='2263']

1. I just made a search. Zuiko lenses on Sony bodies will need an adapter with glass. Bye bye Zuiko. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />[/quote]



Fair enough, but the fact that you considered the 18/3.5 to begin with means that it's an acceptable focal-length/aperture combination, isn't it?



Quote:2. I don't get it. Why are you comparing lenses which are so different?



Very simple. If (1) you consider the 18/3.5 as offering acceptable focal-length/aperture combination, and (2) your original requested focal-length range was "17-25mm", then a 24/3.5 should be acceptable too, let alone a faster 24/2.8.



In addition, the Sony has several advantages over the Oly:



1. AF. The unique AF system is probably the best reason to get the A55. Do you want to give it all up when using a short lens?

2. AE in all PASM modes, and with multi-segment metering (I doubt non-dedicated lenses are supported with anything other than CW metering).

3. Shallower DOF. The DOF provided by 24/2.8 wide-open is slightly shallower than an 18mm lens would provide at f/1.7 (good luck finding such a lens!)

4. AS is more effective as the camera knows the lens focal-length. In fact, I doubt AS won't degrade the results if the camera doesn't know the focal-length. At least in some Olympus and Pentax cameras you can enter it manually, but I don't think it's possible in any Sony camera.

5. Correct aperture value is recorded in the EXIF

6. No need to attach cumbersome adapters

7. Costs around $200-$250 (vs. the currently insane price of the Olympus - 4 or 5 times more).



Oh, and if you're into 18/3.5, how about one that's [url="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1272/cat/83"]"sharp wide open at 18mm"[/url], supports AF/AS/AE fully on the Sony and weighs only 210 gram? It's priced very nicely too :-)
#23
Hi



If you don't want to spend a lot of money and keep it lightweight. I would suggest the good old Tamron 17-50 2,8 without VC. It is my walk around lens on my K10 and KX. It is v. sharp at every aperture and the macro function gives you good results, much better then some of the Sigma macros I had and certainly the best zoom I `ve ever used. An another idea would be the Tamron 28-70 2,8 with an equally good reputation, but I ve never used it myself.



Kind Regards
#24
[quote name='Bjoern' timestamp='1283074551' post='2295']

Hi



If you don't want to spend a lot of money and keep it lightweight. I would suggest the good old Tamron 17-50 2,8 without VC. It is my walk around lens on my K10 and KX. It is v. sharp at every aperture and the macro function gives you good results, much better then some of the Sigma macros I had and certainly the best zoom I `ve ever used. An another idea would be the Tamron 28-70 2,8 with an equally good reputation, but I ve never used it myself.



Kind Regards

[/quote]



The two samples I tried in Canon trim were indeed sharp but had slow and noisy AF, especially when light levels were low. How was yours?
#25
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1283049458' post='2289']

Fair enough, but the fact that you considered the 18/3.5 to begin with means that it's an acceptable focal-length/aperture combination, isn't it?[/quote]



Yes, but second to the 21/2.



[quote name='boren' timestamp='1283049458' post='2289']

Very simple. If (1) you consider the 18/3.5 as offering acceptable focal-length/aperture combination, and (2) your original requested focal-length range was "17-25mm", then a 24/3.5 should be acceptable too, let alone a faster 24/2.8.



In addition, the Sony has several advantages over the Oly:



1. AF. The unique AF system is probably the best reason to get the A55. Do you want to give it all up when using a short lens?

2. AE in all PASM modes, and with multi-segment metering (I doubt non-dedicated lenses are supported with anything other than CW metering).

3. Shallower DOF. The DOF provided by 24/2.8 wide-open is slightly shallower than an 18mm lens would provide at f/1.7 (good luck finding such a lens!)

4. AS is more effective as the camera knows the lens focal-length. In fact, I doubt AS won't degrade the results if the camera doesn't know the focal-length. At least in some Olympus and Pentax cameras you can enter it manually, but I don't think it's possible in any Sony camera.

5. Correct aperture value is recorded in the EXIF

6. No need to attach cumbersome adapters

7. Costs around $200-$250 (vs. the currently insane price of the Olympus - 4 or 5 times more).



Oh, and if you're into 18/3.5, how about one that's [url="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1272/cat/83"]"sharp wide open at 18mm"[/url], supports AF/AS/AE fully on the Sony and weighs only 210 gram? It's priced very nicely too :-)[/quote]



Size and weight are key factors for me. If I don't have that, I have a full set of Canon lenses to match. I really wish Canon would make a similar product. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />



And as I wrote, if they won't I'll probably start with A33 + this kit or 35/1.8 to start with. All goes well and Canon still wouldn't make one <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' /> I'll buy the more expensive lenses.
#26
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1283083187' post='2300']

Size and weight are key factors for me.

...

I'll probably start with A33 + this kit or 35/1.8 to start with.

[/quote]



Both the 18-55 kit lens and the 24/2.8 are light and small, and unlike the 35/1.8 they actually provide the focal length/s that match your specified requirements. The 35/1.8 is equivalent to 52mm on FF, which IMHO is neither fish nor flesh - too short for portraiture, too long for street and landscape photography. I'd get the kit lens. Dpreview wrote that it challenges for the crown of best all-round kit lens (judging by their studio tests), so it's probably a sure bet for the extra $100 that it costs over the price of the camera.
#27
Yep,

the AF of the Tamron 17-50 is a little bit noisy and at 17mm you have a 50% chance of the AF finding the right target especially in low light. The other focal length are ok. But I think it is still a good compromise for the money.



How about the new Sigma 17-50 2,8? Seems to get good reviews.



Or if you are just after a nice little walkaround camera I would suggest the Sigma DP-1 or -2.

I have the DP1, which gives stunning images. Reminds me on my old Minox 35GT days. You have them always with you and the one focal length forces you to think more before you shot. Colour is very good up to iso 400 and BW is still very good at 1600. An another benefit is that you are not starting a new camera system, which is always an expensive thing to do.



Regards
#28
Oren, the 18-55 has the FL I want but not the aperture. The 35/1.8 is the exact opposite. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />



Bjoren, I think I'll wait a few more months for more tests, user reviews and pictures and then decide. I have no wish to be an early adopter. I vividly recall my horror when I read the first reviews on the AF problems in the 1D3 which I intended to buy back then.
#29
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1282947066' post='2264']

However, I know myself and I do not like the P&S shape and size. That's one of the main reasons which held me off the PEN.

[/quote]



You started this thread off by saying that you need a second body... why do you need a second body? If the body that you have is not adequate, then why not get a better (bigger) one? Unless it's the portability that you're after... in that case why are you dismissing the most portable options?



Not sure which you want <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



GTW
#30
I am after:

1. A smaller and lighter body than my 7D.

2. AS.

3. Small DSLR form factor (and not P&S form factor).

4. Good AF in video.

5. Good high ISO quality.

6. Built in EVF.



I have already decided to start with 35/1.8 and 60/2 and gave money to my friend who will make his pilgrimage to B&H next month. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' /> The main problem however, is not solved. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)