Sony alpha A55

[pakodominguez]

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

Problem is people (like you...) discuss the future using rumors as facts -and it is not because SAR have some "good" information that SAR publish "facts". IMHO, all this exercise of rhetoric is a waste of time.

Sony monitor forums, of curse, but marketing department and "selected users surveys" are determinant.

For the rest, A77 or A7xx, we'll know better by Photokina/PND-NYC shows.

[Greg Beetham]

There is one aspect of the in camera lens correction features that I'm not keen on, and that is; will it give the camera manufacturers more incentive over time too become ever more lax with lens making in order too cut costs? they can just 'improve' the shoddy lens performance 'in camera' and not have to give as much value for money as they otherwise would have. I tend too be suspicious of camera manufacturers motives in everything they do...
Greg

ps. Pako, Sony recently sent me a request to do a comprehensive survey, but seeing as how they are so ignorant on the Macro Ringflash and the Macro controller issue I decided to ignore them, just like they ignore any request for information on the topic...so far I've wasted 4 years, at least, of my macro life waiting for them to fix it, meanwhile they can bash out dumbed down body after dumbed down body as easy as pie.

[pakodominguez]

ps. Pako, Sony recently sent me a request to do a comprehensive survey, but seeing as how they are so ignorant on the Macro Ringflash and the Macro controller issue I decided to ignore them, just like they ignore any request for information on the topic...so far I've wasted 4 years, at least, of my macro life waiting for them to fix it, meanwhile they can bash out dumbed down body after dumbed down body as easy as pie.

Greg,
I don't think Sony is "ignorant" about macro flashes. I think they did their numbers and just realized that there is no market for that kind of equipment -at least not now: market share is still small and we are talking about expensive specialized accessories that not that many people buy. I love doing macro, specially flowers, but I will never invest on macro-only flashes. I prefer using my regular flashes wired or wireless and it work "as good" as I imagine macro flashes will do. Last time I used the little F20AM with a TTL cord and everything went fine.

Regards

[bakubo]

There is one aspect of the in camera lens correction features that I'm not keen on, and that is; will it give the camera manufacturers more incentive over time too become ever more lax with lens making in order too cut costs? they can just 'improve' the shoddy lens performance 'in camera' and not have to give as much value for money as they otherwise would have. I tend too be suspicious of camera manufacturers motives in everything they do...

They might do that, but they might also just choose different trade-offs when designing a lens. For example, worry a bit less about distortion or vignetting since correction with software is fairly easy, but consider size, weight, sharpness, CA, price, etc. to be more important.

[Greg Beetham]

Well Pako I think it's pretty ignorant if they have done the research about the potential sales etc. of specialized macro equipment that they deliberately altered and then don't respond in any way whatsoever to inform me and others after repeatedly contacting them about their intentions, all they needed to do was give some indication one way or another, not a huge ask. Besides if they had done research based on their reduced system it's even more likely they would come up with very limited sales projections, not many (except the Doc maybe) would be willing to spend large on a 1/2 system.
And take a look at the alternative they have in place of the missing ringflash head, an LED ringlight and battery box that is half the price of the entire twinflash set....what possible reason was there too introduce such an expensive replacement for the missing ringflash? AND it doesn't work anywhere near as good as the ringflash either. So the marketing research on expensive macro gear has produced some very strange results...over there on planet Sony.
Yes I agree you can do macro flash on many things with handheld flashes, on things that are stationary yes, but almost impossible too juggle things into position on critters that will disappear at any second.
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

They might do that, but they might also just choose different trade-offs when designing a lens. For example, worry a bit less about distortion or vignetting since correction with software is fairly easy, but consider size, weight, sharpness, CA, price, etc. to be more important.

You could mount an argument on that that makes sense Henry, I agree, but I prefer to remain suspicious just the same.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

I would add to this I don't feel lens corrections are essential nor should they not allow the user choice...or even to cover up ropey optics. I've just seen it added to some bodies and it's not a bad idea at all. I'm not a fan of the "Robin Hood" forced lens corrections of Panasonic which is designed to hide massive distortion.
Certainly on the customisation part I'm sticking to my guns on this one, esp an Auto ISO level set is extremely useful, and I'm amazed P shift and AEL spot toggle (very useful) have been left out. Very simple firmware tweaking.
On the macro flash keep complaining Greg as it might work in a few years time

[Greg Beetham]

Yeah maybe Barry, maybe, one would think that if they had any intention of either fixing the problem or giving some indication about their intentions they would have done it by now.
Maybe I/we are just not in your league as far as getting on their case goes, the constant grating on their nerves about the missing features might have finally begun too pay off, they've begrudingly re-installed a couple of the missing ones, so we probably should award you a commendation or something. A mention in dispatches at the very least, for bravery under fire.
Greg

[mike2008]

barry made a lot of noise on dpr, but his reputation as consistent whinger mean that his complaints aren't really listened to. He'd denigrate anything sony did. It's the same story for Walt. Much more effective is when the community as a whole comes together to push hard for something; this was the case for MLU. While they were at it they clearly decided to include the whole retro package.

As you can see it doesn't stop the whingers from whingeing. Which is why their voice is ignored.

[Greg Beetham]

Well I guess I'm a whinger too, but it's a legitimate complaint, and I think you have to keep bringing up periodically, even if Sony never notices, or pretends not to notice, and newbs, experienced or not, might not be aware of the situation either. You have to try though, or Sony will just think it's all gone away and they'll sweep it under the carpet...probably already have.
Greg

[KevinBarrett]

Barry, so long as you don't mind being called a "whinger," I'll let this continue since it seems to be tongue-in-cheek, though it's my duty as a moderator to discourage these guys from getting too personal. Boys, stop your whinging.

[pakodominguez]

Certainly on the customisation part I'm sticking to my guns on this one, esp an Auto ISO level set is extremely useful, and I'm amazed P shift and AEL spot toggle (very useful) have been left out. Very simple firmware tweaking.
On the macro flash keep complaining Greg as it might work in a few years time

Barry,
I'm pretty ignorant in other system's features, but, there is someone offering the Auto ISO mode? Sony doesn't allow you to set Auto ISO in Manual mode, and I don't understand why... but I don't know if any other maker does allow this function.

About the macro Flashes, the day Sony came out with a new ringflash or similar (not the ringlights Greg is complaining about) it will be a sign thins are going REALLY good for Sony, market share I mean, not because people complaining. Macro is a "niche market" and it is hard to satisfy everybody. Example: show me your Minolta Maxxum bellows...

[David Kilpatrick]

Pentax offers an ISO auto in manual mode - TvAv

David

[bfitzgerald]

Barry,
I'm pretty ignorant in other system's features, but, there is someone offering the Auto ISO mode? Sony doesn't allow you to set Auto ISO in Manual mode, and I don't understand why... but I don't know if any other maker does allow this function.

The Auto ISO in manual is a common complaint from Canon users.
I'm talking about being able to limit the Auto ISO either top (most important) or bottom (less important)
So for example I think these bodies are set to ISO 100-1600 in Auto ISO you have no choice to change that. The advantage of a user setting is that say a low light shooting situation I can set the top ISO to something like 3200 or even 6400 if I am happy enough with that and just fire away. I have missed shots and used excessively high ISO settings because I have not had a chance to change the ISO quickly enough myself (or I forgot). And the 5d is fairly easy to do that but tops out at ISO 800 for auto ISO, and the A200 a ridiculous ISO 400 max for Auto ISO.

That also raises the constant ISO in the viewfinder which I think would be useful to have (no idea if this is on these bodies)

It's just an example of making life easier and allowing the user to set things up how they like.

As for Mike I have no problems being called a whinger, a lot of folks did not support the calls for MLU, some did but many DPR posters actively campaigned against those who did make it an issue. And Walt was entirely right to highlight the lens release lock one as well. I'm not against Sony just scratching my head wondering why they meed to be told this stuff!

I think the points raised are very valid and I'm curious as to why Mike thinks user choice is a bad thing. Maybe he does not use AEL spot toggle, DMF, or wants more custom settings, or a proper macro ring flash..some do.

[Greg Beetham]

It's probably just the mindset of anything 'Auto' being included in [M] Mode, but I wouldn't be pedantic about it, as long as you could have user selectable ISO's as well. The KM5D and the A100 were both permanently welded in ISO100 when you went too [M] Mode, no changes allowed at all. You could set any ISO you liked but it was still ISO100 regardless, I checked with a flash meter that remained at the ISO100 setting and varied the camera ISO from ISO100 through to ISO800, the flash meter read the same exposure throughout.
Greg
ps. Pako I never did get a set of Bellows, I made do with tubes and a 2X extender, and some +filters, I never got 'THAT' keen on very high mag macro, I'm more into telephoto macro shooting of smallish critters like frogs and lizards, maybe tiny marsupials, and moths butterflies etc. not microscopic subjects so much. Thing is, the ringflash is near indispensable for much of that, I have a ringflash for my X-700's but there is no chance of putting it on my Digitals.