Photoclubalpha

What do members think, does the A58 take better pictures I.E sharper, higher definition and better colours than the A57, There are mixed reviews on both, some reviews say the 58 picture quality is not as good as the older 57 and some say the other way round. Also some are now saying the Jpeg quality from the A58 is improved over previous models.

I would be very surprised if the sensors made more difference than technique or glass.

Birma wrote:I would be very surprised if the sensors made more difference than technique or glass.

I haven't used either so can't really comment but my gut says that you'd need to do some serious pixel peeping to see significant differences. More likely to be preferences in handling and functions. Barry certainly had comments with the A58.

I'm hoping to borrow my mates A77Mk2 for a few hours to compare with the Mk1 as allegedly the Mk2 has better noise control. I don't expect it to be like the "WOW" difference I got when comparing the A77 with the A99, now that's like comparing AM and FM radio (do you agree Birma?).

Mike

Well Mike, I've read a lot on the web that tells me there is no difference, and I can't explain the difference I see scientifically, but I think AM and FM is a good analogy for my pictures anyway.

Andy,

If I shoot similar images on A77 and A99, the A99 ones definitely have less noise and can tolerate more processing than the A77 equivalent.
I frequently use 640 and 800 when trying to catch the dog bounding about. On the A77 images I can only apply a little sharpening in LR, say 25-30 but need a good dose of NR perhaps up to 30 to reduce the speckling. At the same ISO on the A99, I can double the sharpening and halve the NR to achieve a similar noise level.

I love my A99, even considered a second body from the good selection of secondhand ones now appearing but I managed to restrain myself #GASattackrepulsed
A99 plus 70-400G is a great pairing.

Hi Mike - I'm rarely off ISO 100, but comparing with the Nex 6 APS-C sensor I agree that the A99 RAWs give more DR and are generally 'nicer' to develop from. A bit like the difference in processing between jpg and raw. I am also very found of the A99 + 70-400 combo

Another A99? Mmm. I am sort of waiting to see what the A7R mk II, A9, A99 mk II rumours come to. I'm not big on AF for my typical pictures so the A7-esque bodies may be ok for me. I would sorely miss the flippy-flappy rear screen on the A99 - the A7 types only flapping .

(Off to Skye on Sunday for a week. Just checked the forecast and now packed the straps hang things on the tripod to weight it down - it is going to be blowy!)

classiccameras wrote:What do members think, does the A58 take better pictures I.E sharper, higher definition and better colours than the A57, There are mixed reviews on both, some reviews say the 58 picture quality is not as good as the older 57 and some say the other way round. Also some are now saying the Jpeg quality from the A58 is improved over previous models.

Some feel the jpegs are a bit better it's not something I'd lose sleep over myself
IQ wise if i can't tell the difference between 16mp and 24mp most of the time I doubt you could 16 to 20mp

A58 is OK if you need a low cost body it didn't do a lot for me when I tried one it takes photos though the biggest beef bar the cut down build is the buffer who wants to go from a 22 shot raw buffer to just 6. One of the reasons the A57 was liked was the big buffer the other is it's not paired down to the bone (ie IR Remotes work with it) and it has a level gauge

It's a real shame sony didn't have the sense to offer an A57II, I'd still buy a s/h A57 over a new A58 no problem

Cheers Barry, I knew you had some history with these and could help.
Given the choice I'd be a 57 man too.

Mike

Thanks Barry, I have had the A37 from new and a used low mileage A57, for a couple of years. The 57 is without doubt a great camera and has many attributes other cameras in the same price range don't have. However, just my observations but the A37 seems to give pretty impressive Jpegs. I learnt from an article I read that the 37 sensor/processor is the same as the NEX-5N where as the 57 isn't and it was more for the entry level point and shoot people who were more likely to leave everything on auto which will be Jpegs, so the Jpegs had to be good, well that's what the article said. Probably a little truth in that but not all.

I've not used the early SLT models so can't compare, look you'll get passable jpegs out of it just raw is the way to go esp low light depends what you are doing serious stuff raw no question, party shots or something like that I'd sometimes use jpegs maybe if I can't be bothered to work the raw files. Though some dump the raw for non important shots and convert themselves that's another option or use lossy DNG cuts the files down massively yet offers raw adjustments.

I've moved most workflow to lossy DNG now to save space and never had a printing problem
One model I never understood the A65 it was quite a bit cheaper than the A77 at launch but still commands high s/h prices I don't see the point either get an A57 or A77 which doesn't cost much more anyway.

There are annoying things on the A57 I can't understand why Sony won't let you adjust the Auto ISO limits but 3200 is perfectly usable on the A57, least it has a good buffer controls are fine I don't regret getting one at all I shot both bodies side by side A57 and 77

Although I have been going on about possible change to other brands, I have to say that the A57 will stay in my drawer, its a star in the Sony entry level line up and stands out against other brands of similar price and spec. The A57 was more probably a production mistake in as much as they put for more features in it than one would expect from that level of camera and they had to cut back on costs with the later 58. the A 57 is a one off and worth hanging on to, however, like most cameras it needs good glass to get the most out of the sensor and now Sony have moved up to 20 and 24 mp, its even more important. Many reviewers said at launch the 57 was not that far away from the 65 price and recommended people considered the 65 rather than the 57. Never saw the point in buying the 65. Sony did not get their model spacing right and its still cockeyed.

Never had an A57. Stuck with my A580 until I purchased an A58 for video because of AF during recording. (Not offered on A580). Problem was that the A58 could only video on lowest F stop (i.o. fully open). Another daft Sony move (one of too many). Then used that A58 for stills with my Tamron 18-270. Don't need a big buffer so happy with what that 20Mp sensor can produce. Actually most photography is now done using my RX100. Miss 24mm so looking to get a MK III at £400 or thereabouts. It will happen and I am patient. Also prefer my NEX-6 to the A58 due to weight and volume.

Never use the SLT Alpha cameras for video, they are strictly for stills, I have a nice enthusiasts level Sony cam corder for movies, but hardly use it, still prefer stills, however I can see the advantage in a DSLR that can do both.

Video is "not bad" on the SLT models but the fixed F3.5 for AF is odd (can't use faster apertures with quicker lenses which doesn't make sense to me) I have done a few bits of video the A57 being better than the A77, on-board mics are superior than the Canikon's I've used which have no depth to the sound. Saying that I'm not sure how they stack up for serious video users, the A77 II might be a better option. I dabble but it's not much more than that. I'd suggest a trip to Dave Dugdale on youtube he is quite informative and has done lots of tests he also seems like a genuine nice guy and isn't annoying in an in yer face Jared Polin way