Sony alpha A55

[Allam2009]

The sensor is also new (the prototype has a 18Megapixels sensor)

SAR got that bit wrong...

I never imagined that that really matters (SAR publishing right or wrong data...)

Shame as people will look at this site as expectations based on information from a ”relaible contact”. Looking forward to the real thing very soon

[WaltKnapp]

But having said that, if for some reason it's not possible or practical (depends on design / cost constraints, i guess) to put in a large, bright (pentaprism) OVF in a midrange body, i'd just as soon have it be a big and bright EVF. I have a Panasonic G1 with a stellar large and bright EVF and find it to be perfectly acceptable (and better than the tiny OVFs in the entry level Olympus 4/3 bodies), although certainly not as good as a large, bright OVF.

Actually the assumption that it's not possible or practical is wrong. Even the LV could be in there with a large, bright pentaprism OVF if Sony is half as good at technology as people want to claim.

You want facts, Sony gave no consideration to the quality of the OVF when they brought in their LV. (at the same time Nikon was promising their customers they would not compromise OVF for LV)

But Sony will listen to the market. If it is obvious that the market wants a big OVF, they will provide such a model. That is why they want to test the waters with the A33/A55 first. Believe it or not, i also think that if you (someone, anyone) wanted to start a mass petition to Sony demanding an A750 with a big OVF, they would definitely take that into consideration. You can count me in, that's for sure.

You are way too late on that, the design cycle on the a77 is way past now in that regard. Should have started telling Sony that a few year's back when they made the decision on the viewfinder. It's not made at the end when you are setting up production lines and having selected people try the camera. By now you would be trying to reverse Sony with the next model in 3-4 years.

Walt

[Dr. Harout]

If you agree that there will be both APS-C and FF, then I guess you should agree that there will be both EVF and OVF (depends on the model and level).

[Greg Beetham]

For myself, when dealing with Sony's deliverances and the assessment of such, I much prefer the approach of 'what they actually did' rather than what they could do if they tried. So if they give us an LV camera with a so so OVF, as far as I'm concerned that's what they are capable of, even if it's theoretically possible too do much better.
I liked Nikon's response, when asked if they were going too offer an LV as good as the Sony camera, they said if it's going too impose a 25% penalty on the OVF we aren't interested....good one Nikon.
Greg

[WaltKnapp]

I think I remember reading that the focus encoder in (D) lenses is active all the time regardless of whether you are using flash or not, so I'm thinking of some feedback loop interference in the focus system of non (D) lenses....conjecture only.
Greg

Yes Minolta used the D encoder to check regular focus, not just flash.

With light bouncing around in different ways in digital, and AF being in the bottom line a light sensor system, I think there is a connection. Though what effect it has I do not know.

It could just as easily be that when digital came in the AF sensors were redesigned at the same time.

Walt

[WaltKnapp]

For myself, when dealing with Sony's deliverances and the assessment of such, I much prefer the approach of 'what they actually did' rather than what they could do if they tried. So if they give us an LV camera with a so so OVF, as far as I'm concerned that's what they are capable of, even if it's theoretically possible too do much better.
I liked Nikon's response, when asked if they were going too offer an LV as good as the Sony camera, they said if it's going too impose a 25% penalty on the OVF we aren't interested....good one Nikon.
Greg

I do get a little grumpy with people praising to high heaven some simple redo of technology as showing that Sony are techno logic marvels. Particularly when real improvements are possible if they are that good. They show their consumer cam roots every time they choose the lower compromise.

I do agree, we are stuck with what they do, good or bad.

That comment, btw, is why Nikon is my choice if Sony blows up, they understand customers and high quality photo gear for photography. Too bad they have always been the high priced choice.

Walt

[Greg Beetham]

Techno logic marvels...ha ha, yeah they show touches of greatness here and there, and then spoil it with some dimwit (and avoidable) snafu.
Greg

[mike2008]

in this hand-wringing discussion about how sony is abandoning OVF's, aren't we forgetting that sony have one of the brightest and largest ovf's offered by any dslr in the A900 ?

I really think some people here just see everything negatively, no matter what sony do.

[bfitzgerald]

Do remind me of the cost on the FF bodies.
The OVF is one area Sony have skimped on with these new ones (deliberate to push the EVF models?)

I see the other topic on DPR is now "crippled P mode" ala lacking Program shift.
It all comes down to what you want, myself I don't use P mode a lot so P shift missing isn't a deal breaker. But to some it will surely annoy them. At this stage Sony should be well aware of things like this (and a user set Auto ISO limit, and other stuff in camera raw development, filters, distortion correction, CA removal etc etc) and just nail it down once and for all. They leave themselves wide open to criticism.

It's good to see Sony have addressed some points so credit on that (well let's be brutal removing them was a mistake) They just need to get out of this "keep it simple not much customisation" mindset. Cameras are mass market products, but the ability for a user to customise a camera to their needs is a huge advantage to some buyers. It's this aspect that Sony are very weak on across the range.

[Dusty]

Do remind me of the cost on the FF bodies.

Sony - a850, $2000, a900, $2700 FF 24 MP
Nikon - D3x - $7400, (same sensor as Sony, no SSS)
Canon - 5D Mk II, $2500, 1Ds Mk III, $6100 21MP, but also HD video, no SSS

Sony is the cheapest FF camera on the market.

...snip...
At this stage Sony should be well aware of things like this (and a user set Auto ISO limit, and other stuff in camera raw development, filters, distortion correction, CA removal etc etc) and just nail it down once and for all. They leave themselves wide open to criticism.

So now, Barry, you're dogging them out because they don't have a full version of Lightroom embedded in the firmware? Who does? A user set Auto ISO limit, I'll give you would be a good thing, but the other is a bit much for being in the body. Do your film bodies have anything comparable?

It's good to see Sony have addressed some points so credit on that (well let's be brutal removing them was a mistake) They just need to get out of this "keep it simple not much customisation" mindset. Cameras are mass market products, but the ability for a user to customise a camera to their needs is a huge advantage to some buyers. It's this aspect that Sony are very weak on across the range.

This last point I'll also agree with you on, but come on, Barry, let's be reasonable.

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

My point about viewfinders is that many makers are doing a terrible job entry to mid point. I'm not talking about FF bodies as they are far more expensive. But I think Sony could have put a bit more effort in here cmon 0.80x does not even match the el cheapo ones nor the old Km5d way back from 2005. Not much to ask really..
Leaving that aside..on it's own not a deal breaker, just a bit of a let down.

Be reasonable? What in asking for some decent custom functions?
Have a look:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/page11.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page12.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page10.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page11.asp

And an Auto ISO limit does not even make it over to Sony! Ok I'll be frank I don't need half that stuff but cmon here let's get a bit tuned into things..Sony's cameras are basic and lack customisation, we're still stuck on the old 0.7 +/- bracketing yet they bother to put a DR mode for jpegs in. Hmm what to say? P shift still missing yet present on my £11 Dynax 5..strange isn't it?

As for the filters and lens distortions etc, no I don't need them either..but a bit of fun right? And maybe useful to correct some CA in jpegs, time saver?

Even the cheap not well liked D3000 let's you develop a jpeg from a raw in camera. Ok lacking a lot of other ways but hey why not? Sony have nothing at all no development, no filters or corrections. D5000 has distortion control and older cheaper body. Olympus have had filter effects (and very deep customisation) for ages. So does Pentax as well.
This stuff is fairly low down the "want list" but Sony are not even trying here. Sure sweep panorama and multi low light shot , DR bits all great..but nothing customisation wise.

Who's taking bets on the ISO being visible in the VF on the A560/580? I hope they manage a full time one. Am I picky? Well maybe I am, because where I'm standing Sony only managed to put MLU, DOF preview and a lens release lock back and not a lot else, that's right "back" after they took them out of previous bodies. They've corrected the major blunders that should never have happened. but not enough of the other stuff that does matter to varying degrees. I think that's perfectly reasonable to point this lot out..Sony are out of touch and dated, and fixated on "simple"

[KevinBarrett]

...not a deal breaker, just a bit of a let down.

I think that's the nicest thing you've said about Sony in a good long while, Barry.

[WaltKnapp]

The sensor is also new (the prototype has a 18Megapixels sensor)

SAR got that bit wrong...

I never imagined that that really matters (SAR publishing right or wrong data...)

The idea that the 7 series would be a 18MP has been around for some time, I think at least before last spring if I remember right. Development of that was given as an excuse for how long Sony was taking, when it appears now that redesigning the a700 body to the a77 is more likely the cause for the delay we have seen.

SAR does try to give some idea of the reliability of their sources, however. It does matter to them. And their high reliability rated information has been pretty good, though not 100%. Certainly was with the NEX and a33/55. No reason to expect their rating system is any worse on their current predictions.

Walt

[WaltKnapp]

If you agree that there will be both APS-C and FF, then I guess you should agree that there will be both EVF and OVF (depends on the model and level).

There is no requirement for those to be connected. One pair is possible without the other being true.

Walt

[WaltKnapp]

This last point I'll also agree with you on, but come on, Barry, let's be reasonable.

Dusty

Yep, only Canon, Nikon, and even Pentax can make cameras suitable across a wide range of photographers and photography. It's entirely unreasonable to expect that of Sony too

Walt