SLT a55

[bfitzgerald]

I suppose different folks have different needs and their gaps might be filled with Sony's offerings. I'm not sure we can get much insight looking back over previous film bodies aside from a few goofy moments from Minolta..and eventually a level of design and handling that I felt was very close to what I like.
To me at least the xi range were good but not a patch on later ones for handling and body design (too many buttons tucked away)
35mm film equalised the image quality now with digital the door is open for various formats and sensor sizes.

NEX has potential but the mount is too big for the body size, the design is not as good as it should be..lenses only the 16mm makes it a genuinely compact camera, no built in flash is at odds with the target market. I find the SLT's uninteresting and not very competitive price wise. I'd say only the A580 is anything near to what I'm looking for but even there they didn't go far enough putting stuff back. The root problem for Sony to me is they have over simplified things and I no longer find them appealing because of that.

A lot of small things that add up to bigger issues stop me from having any interest in their offerings. This is a shame because with more effort they could be far more attractive. If out of their entire camera range I can't find something that suits my needs that alone is fairly worrying. I wonder if they'll get the message that some people don't want simple and cut down we actually value those small touches that add up to a more satisfying experience. Moving to another maker has been a real eye opener..those bits I didn't have that are useful I now have, it's a far more rewarding experience for the end user. I look at Sony's cameras and consider them crude and basic in many ways.

[mike2008]

I suppose different folks have different needs and their gaps might be filled with Sony's offerings.

Really, what an incredible breakthrough. I was convinced reading your posts that we all needed iso in the OVF or the cameras are simply unusable, to name but one of your many obsessions.

NEX has potential but the mount is too big for the body size, the design is not as good as it should be.

So now you are an expert on optical design? How many cameras have you produced Barry? What is the basis for this sweeping statement? Are you really qualified and experienced enough in electroptical engineering to make this comment, or simply just another forum loud mouth who has convinced himself that he's a world expert on all things photographic?

The root problem for Sony to me is they have over simplified things and I no longer find them appealing because of that.

No longer, that implies there was a time when you did find them appealing, something I find rather hard to believe.

A lot of small things that add up to bigger issues stop me from having any interest in their offerings. This is a shame because with more effort they could be far more attractive. If out of their entire camera range I can't find something that suits my needs that alone is fairly worrying. I wonder if they'll get the message that some people don't want simple and cut down we actually value those small touches that add up to a more satisfying experience. Moving to another maker has been a real eye opener..those bits I didn't have that are useful I now have, it's a far more rewarding experience for the end user. I look at Sony's cameras and consider them crude and basic in many ways.

How many times a day do you need to say the same thing? Doesn't mindlessly repeating yourself ever get boring?

[bfitzgerald]

Mike I know you get bored as the die hard fans have purged any kind of criticism from the forums of DPR, but you should know me well enough by now. My views are my own if you disagree then I have absolutely no problem with that. Yes NEX is too big mount wise I believe it has big potential but it's nowhere near what it could be. And yes I find their offerings too basic and crude. If you're trying to change my mind I wish you the best (but you know you won't!) If you want to make a point then feel free to do so.

As a user I have specific needs and requirements maybe you are not so fussy which is great. That does not change the fact I feel the points raised are perfectly valid.

[mike2008]

Mike I know you get bored as the die hard fans have purged any kind of criticism from the forums of DPR, but you should know me well enough by now. My views are my own if you disagree then I have absolutely no problem with that. Yes NEX is too big mount wise I believe it has big potential but it's nowhere near what it could be. And yes I find their offerings too basic and crude. If you're trying to change my mind I wish you the best (but you know you won't!) If you want to make a point then feel free to do so.

As a user I have specific needs and requirements maybe you are not so fussy which is great. That does not change the fact I feel the points raised are perfectly valid.

I'm sure you feel they are valid. I'm simply asking what is the physical basis for your statement that the NEX mount is ill-designed? This is a specific technical point, and you are not responding.

[Birma]

Thank you to Tom B for an interesting review of his experience with the A55 - an on-topic post!

[bfitzgerald]

I'm sure you feel they are valid. I'm simply asking what is the physical basis for your statement that the NEX mount is ill-designed? This is a specific technical point, and you are not responding.

Well fairly easy really it's big and it could and should be smaller!

EMount-nolens.jpg

(101.2 KiB) Downloaded 1393 times

Place the lens contacts on the actual mount itself and it would very easy to make that smaller by some margin.
What's the point in having a very compact body with a mount that big and lenses that are far too large for the body (bar the pancake design)?

Ever used a rangefinder body? The lenses are far far smaller.

[mike2008]

I'm sorry barry but your thinking is childishly primitive at best.

The first question is what were they trying to do? Make the smallest possible mount or a mount with the greatest possible flexibility going into the future? When I see the e-mount I see a system that is (a) designed for FF sensors and (b) can accommodate lenses with a large image circle to minimise vignetting. You always assume that the sony optical designers are just stupid, and that there is a trivially easy way to radically improve the design... What arrogance! It was the same story with the A55; all these armchair experts who think they know soemthing about optics because they change a lens and press a shutter button all pontificating on how flawed the SLT design is, and then when it's actually tested, oh, we were wrong. What a surprise. There is no shortage of people liek you who know f all about optics telling people who have spent their whole career designing optical systems how bad they have done, based on the fact 'it looks too big'.

Sorry, but the sheer arrogance of ignorant people like yourself really ticks me off.

[bfitzgerald]

I'd love to chat more but my Kodachrome 64 slides have just arrived so my attention must now divert to more pressing matters

[alphaomega]

Barry Fitzgerald, I really think you should re-appraise your approach to blogging here. You have made the points about MLU, P-shift etc. so many times that we can all repeat them in sleep. Your approach to whatever Sony do is one sided. Sony came into this market by taking over a faltering Konica Minolta and after some mistakes they have done what every marketing book teaches, namely if you cannot beat the market leaders at their own game, create a new game where you are stronger than them. That is what Sony have done and they are now selling as many cameras in these groups as ever. You may not like it and we congratulated you when you seemed to have switched to Pentax. We are all happy if you feel the Pentax offering will enhance your photographic ability and pleasure. Please stop always criticising Sony for whatever they do and turn your focus on to what Pentax can do for you. I for one have chosen to purchase another DSLR (A580) as I think that Sony are moving solely to SLT in APS-C, but if they gain market share and good reviews it is hard to fault them. Clearly they are moving away from BF so it is only right that BF moves away from Sony, but please do it with a bit more grace. You have provided a lot of interesting comments, but please watch out that you do not become too one sided. If your opinion relates only to what you value is is of limited interest to the rest of the world. We are all different.

[bfitzgerald]

So what's your point? A forum is only for complacent users who only wish to hear "good things"?
I'm curious as to why we even bother to have a forum if you're complaining people express views in it.

Ever heard of the "exposure triangle"? Obviously some of the Alpha camera designers have not. So no it's not hard to fault them

[mike2008]

So what's your point? A forum is only for complacent users who only wish to hear "good things"?
I'm curious as to why we even bother to have a forum if you're complaining people express views in it.

Ever heard of the "exposure triangle"? Obviously some of the Alpha camera designers have not. So no it's not hard to fault them

Such a narrow viewpoint you have. You genuinely think the few crumbs of knowledge you have make you smarter than everyone else...

I stop here, I could write many things but it is pointless, you appear to have infinite energy for repeating the same sad story about how great minolta is and how sony are so incompetent that they don't know exposure or how to design a mount. Please, go off and make some cameras, I'm sure they will be just great.

[Dusty]

Hey Mike, lighten up, and learn how to debate without ad hominem attacks.

Bary raises good point, which you disagree with. Yes, he does tend to repeat himself, but if he didn't you or someone else would attempt to pick a fight with him in a post about something he said on another topic, not the current one.

I don't always agree with Barry. In fact, I'm not sure how any of you guys ever produced a decent image before the camera set your ISO and told you in the viewfinder what it was, focused for you and wiped you nose when it was running!

I like a lot of the modern features, don't get me wrong, but the only real gamechanger is that today I have immediate confirmation of the picture I took and don't have to pay for film and developing. I took good photos with an Argus C3 and Wesson handheld light meter when I started out, and remember having to calculate distance and f-stop to use with the flash bulbs. (Still have it all, my Dad bought it when serving in Korea).

The point is, and Barry's made it very clear, there ARE features missing from what should be leading modern cameras. Firmware development alone would solve most of the complaints many have against Sony's cameras, and there are many, many, people who don't want to turn on camera just to look into the viewfinder.

I'll probably end up with a 580, but I wonder why Sony didn't have the foresight to deck it out with the articulated LCD of the 55, nor offer the GPS that's in it? If it truly is Sony's last APS-C OVF model, I may also follow Barry in a brand switch, or maybe I'll stick it out and go FF, most of my old lenses were FF film models.

Another thought, when I got into SLRs you could buy a decent body and do anything the pros could. Now the dumbed down models don't let you expand without upgrading to a better body. Is that a good thing for an aspiring photographer? I don't think so. So, Sony is either killing off future users by trapping them in dumbed-down bodies, of forcing them to overbuy to begin with, by only allowing certain features in the highest end cameras. Maybe this needs to be in another topic, but it reinforces Barry's points.

Dusty

[edrice]

Yes, he does tend to repeat himself...

Dusty, you are a master of understatement. That's like saying hurricanes tend to be breezy.

The point is, and Barry's made it very clear, there ARE features missing from what should be leading modern cameras. Firmware development alone would solve most of the complaints many have against Sony's cameras, and there are many, many, people who don't want to turn on camera just to look into the viewfinder.

Whatever features are missing a number of us have made it very clear they aren't much missed and apparently have today what is now a leading modern camera. And I'll probably never get over the first time I had to turn on the camera just to shoot with it, much less remove the lens cap to look through the viewfinder. Now I have to turn it on to see something? Oh, woe is me.

Another thought, when I got into SLRs you could buy a decent body and do anything the pros could. Now the dumbed down models don't let you expand without upgrading to a better body. Is that a good thing for an aspiring photographer? I don't think so. So, Sony is either killing off future users by trapping them in dumbed-down bodies, of forcing them to overbuy to begin with, by only allowing certain features in the highest end cameras. Maybe this needs to be in another topic, but it reinforces Barry's points.

Not as much as he thinks it does. If anything has dumbed down photography, it's been onboard light meters, autofocus, program modes, ad infinitum, not to mention today's digicams that permit any button pusher to take more good photos by accident than most pros did on purpose in the good old days. And I don't just wax nostalgic about old ways. I used to use medium and large format but still occasionally revert to an Argus 40 amongst other antiques of yesteryear just for fun. I'm not sure I'd castigate Sony for going where other camera makers are headed but getting there first. In the long term it's just so much hand-wringing and the true old-timers see that. Ansel Adams used a Polaroid and I'm betting he'd have loved the A55 if he'd been around.

Ed

[Greg Beetham]

Whatever features are missing a number of us have made it very clear they aren't much missed and apparently have today what is now a leading modern camera. And I'll probably never get over the first time I had to turn on the camera just to shoot with it, much less remove the lens cap to look through the viewfinder. Now I have to turn it on to see something? Oh, woe is me.

Yes and waste power just to do what an OVF can do ALL the time for free.

Not as much as he thinks it does. If anything has dumbed down photography, it's been onboard light meters, autofocus, program modes, ad infinitum, not to mention today's digicams that permit any button pusher to take more good photos by accident than most pros did on purpose in the good old days. And I don't just wax nostalgic about old ways. I used to use medium and large format but still occasionally revert to an Argus 40 amongst other antiques of yesteryear just for fun. I'm not sure I'd castigate Sony for going where other camera makers are headed but getting there first. In the long term it's just so much hand-wringing and the true old-timers see that. Ansel Adams used a Polaroid and I'm betting he'd have loved the A55 if he'd been around.

Ed

Ha ha loved that part.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Most button pushers don't take good photos they take pretty lousy ones actually. Not all but most.
Nothing at all to do with "tech" you can't make that take good shots for you. That's why I attended a portrait shoot today if people could take their own good shots they would..they can't so they hire somebody that can. Does not matter how good the tech gets you'll be in the same situation as before no super intelligent auto mode takes great shots, it might help a bit for some users but it does not make decent shots. (if folks took a bit of care and thought they might get better shots)

Yes we all know what counts but then we're looking to be moving forward and not backwards some minor bits are actually pretty handy to have, on their own few are actual deal breakers..added up their loss can be more than a tad annoying. I'm kinda puzzled why NEX users get DMF yet the DSLR ones do not.

And you'd really be complaining if you can set the ISO with your eye to the VF and actually get a full time display of it too. Pretty handy really..so I'm the only one who wants that then?