Got my A55! My first Impressions.... + MORE sample shots

[Ian C]

I agree with the above

Personally, I much prefer the EVF to the OVF, but I hardly use either anyway, I am always composing shots with live view, that covers so many more angles that aren't possible though the EVF/OVF (Plus my eye hurts after all that squinting! )

[peterottaway]

With the A33 and A55 we are talking about cameras that are only slightly larger than the KM A2 apart from the size of the EVF housing and the rear LCD display. I can't comment yet on the quality of the EVF yet as my A33 only turned up this afternoon and I am still charging the battery. I had ordered a body only A55 but as has been discovered they are not easy to find and no-one could give me an accurate delivery date.

My initial reaction was I wonder if there is going to be a VG offered in the future for the smaller SLT cameras as even with smallish hands I can only just use my traditional grip on the camera.( I hope that Gustav is correct and that the A77 is A700 sized. ) But the A33 is not designed to be a replacement for the for the A700 let alone the A850/900 cameras, and those who are criticizing them for not being so are missing the point.

This camera was bought as being the first camera on offer that will give me the features/price/size of a high end P & S with the performance of a decent DSLR. It won't give me the VF of the A850 and it certainly isn't the camera for someone using a lot of flash units in the studio but I didn't buy it for that. And I am not presuming to tell anyone else as to whether they should buy it or not.

[bakubo]

This camera was bought as being the first camera on offer that will give me the features/price/size of a high end P & S with the performance of a decent DSLR.

That is mostly the way I see it (NEX is even more of what you say) and why I may get an A55/A33 as a second body. I don't see that it could possibly replace a DSLR for me. Someday with much, much better tech it might though.

[alphaomega]

I wonder if Ian C (or any other owner of A33/55/560/580) would like to comment on the included IDC3.2 (I think). Have you noticed any improvements - and most importantly for me - any sign of the ability to remove Chromatic Aberration (CA)? I am really at at loss to understand how Sony can continue to omit such an important function bearing in mind that their own lenses (such as the CZ 16-80) exhibits this tendency. I have also noticed that the Sony 18-250 is quite good in this department as well.

[pakodominguez]

I wonder if Ian C (or any other owner of A33/55/560/580) would like to comment on the included IDC3.2 (I think). Have you noticed any improvements - and most importantly for me - any sign of the ability to remove Chromatic Aberration (CA)? I am really at at loss to understand how Sony can continue to omit such an important function bearing in mind that their own lenses (such as the CZ 16-80) exhibits this tendency. I have also noticed that the Sony 18-250 is quite good in this department as well.

I think Sony needs to improve IDC not just for correcting CA, but speed, accuracy and workflow. It is a shame we have to use third party software in order to handle properly Sony RAW files...

[springm]

I think Sony needs to improve IDC not just for correcting CA, but speed, accuracy and workflow. It is a shame we have to use third party software in order to handle properly Sony RAW files...

No, Pako: They should improve the camera. I see Sony as a hardware provider. Let the software engineers do what they do best, but give them the best possible raw material - without playing a "new camera, new raw format" game. There's already dng for that. Even the best IDC will not be able to correct what hardware can do wrong. And of course there are those who use a different platform than what IDC is available for.

Markus

[alphaomega]

springm wrote

No, Pako: They should improve the camera. I see Sony as a hardware provider. Let the software engineers do what they do best, but give them the best possible raw material - without playing a "new camera, new raw format" game.

Actually CA is mostly a lens issue and not confined to Sony. Sigma, Tamron CZ etc. are also in the CA "creation" game. Not everyone wants to spend big money on Adobe CS (now) 5 to get ACR and other expensive converters. Adobe Elements 9 does still suffer from no CA removal in its RAW converter. The least Sony could do is to incorporate a decent CA converter in IDC. I was astounded when they released the A900 and CA removal was still missing. I am now both baffled and bemused. What is the point of developing cameras with 12, 14, 16 and probably more Mp in the A77 and not providing for something as simple as removing CA that can be found in just about every image taken?

[Ian C]

I wonder if Ian C (or any other owner of A33/55/560/580) would like to comment on the included IDC3.2 (I think). Have you noticed any improvements - and most importantly for me - any sign of the ability to remove Chromatic Aberration (CA)? I am really at at loss to understand how Sony can continue to omit such an important function bearing in mind that their own lenses (such as the CZ 16-80) exhibits this tendency. I have also noticed that the Sony 18-250 is quite good in this department as well.

I have IDC 3.2 on my Mac here, but sadly the CD that came with the camera, only supported Windows for IDC! which is odd, but I have it anyway and I cant remember how! Must have updated it online.

Can't see any controls for CA, unless someone else can...

Totally in agreement about the more MP causing more CA, I have noticed a lot more CA on my lenses with the A55 than the A300.

[catalytic]

Personally, I don't see the point of manufacturers' bundled software. It is almost always inferior in every way to 3rd party software. From ingestion, cataloging and keywording to workflow and asset management, from RAW conversion quality, speed and stability to correction and adjustment capabilities, from printing and uploading to online galleries to version control, sets and collections, backup management, from plug-ins and integration with external editors to non-destructive editing and batch edits, colour management and profiling... I don't see any mfr software that even comes remotely close.

Mfr software is a bit like the useless 16 MB SD cards that mfrs throw in with P&S cameras so that people who don't have their own software or memory cards can use the camera without driving back to the store to buy it before they can start using their camera.

I know some will object to the notion of having to spend extra money to purchase 3rd party software*, but I assure you the benefits are worth it -- not only in terms of functionality and photographic capabilities, but in terms of workflow efficiency and organization. The time you save will more than offset the cost if your time is valuable to you. Certainly, this is true if you are a professional running a business, but even if this is just a hobby... Isn't time one of those things you never have enough of?

But come to think of it, you don't even need to spend that much (or even anything at all) if you don't want to. There are plenty of free or cheap software that can do the job: Picasa, IrfanView, RawTherapee, and the GIMP are free, while Picture Window Pro, PSP, and PSE don't cost that much for what you get.

* - I am a huge fan of Lightroom 3. It literally changed my photographic life.

[pakodominguez]

I think Sony needs to improve IDC not just for correcting CA, but speed, accuracy and workflow. It is a shame we have to use third party software in order to handle properly Sony RAW files...

No, Pako: They should improve the camera. I see Sony as a hardware provider.

Markus,

That was the case 20 or more years ago. Today's hardware doesn't worth that much without the proper software. Apparently, the A700 sensor were somehow "better" than the D300 sensor, but Nikon got better high ISO results than Sony...

Sony needs to improve firmware and specially desktop software. They won't give up and change from ARW to DNG because Adobe is a rival. I can understand that. But I want Sony to provide a software that allows me to get the best from an ARW file, and that is not the case with IDC.

Regards

[pakodominguez]

Personally, I don't see the point of manufacturers' bundled software. It is almost always inferior in every way to 3rd party software.

I got the best results from a MRW when using Dimage Master -it is not fast, no DAM and ergonomics are not the best, but image quality is way better than what you can get from Photoshop or Lightroom.

[Simmondsphotography]

Totally in agreement about the more MP causing more CA, I have noticed a lot more CA on my lenses with the A55 than the A300.

Can I suggest that this comment is related to the size of sensor? ie the larger density of pixels may be responsible for increased CA. I think that very few A900 users at 24.8mpx would consider that CA is a problem, because it is a much larger sensor and consequently pixel density is relatively low. It used to be the case that Increased pixel density also increased "noise", but the latest sensor technology/processing engines from Sony have largely alleviated that problem. CA is as much a lens problem as sensor IMHO. Interchangeable lens digital cameras will always be a compromise, gaining some advantages and losing others.

The dissipation of electrical heat in today's lightweight cameras is also a big challenge for designers. Excess heat can also be the cause of noisy images and probably other problems. Most pro's will suffer the higher weights of metal bodied camera bodies to get adequate dust/damp sealing
and reliability. Sony take note!

[Ian C]

Nice bit of info there thanks

I have taken a another shot today with the 18-55 kit lens, and I am amazed by the sharpness of it especially for a cheap lens.
I don't know if its me (likely!) but I am struggling to get as much detail from the RAW files as I am the jpegs straight from cam!

30mm @ f8 no sharpening applied


100% crop of the alpacas in the field... ha ha, these things are really strange! Like miniature fluffy Camels!

[Mark K]

I got out for an hour with sunshine just before sunset. First, direct into-the-sun shots produce a stack of overall flare and some much bigger patches than my 16-80mm has done on its own in the past; second, you can't see this happening clearly and you can not see any detail at all in bright sky, sunburst through clouds, sunset etc - the viewfinder just shows plain grey when over-loaded by a light source. So no sparkle off water, no ability to compose some type of shots.

Okay, this is exactly what I expected from the A55 EVF. The over-the-top comments I have read about how wonderful it is were, as usual, nonsense. I checked out the Panasonic GH-1 EVF a few months ago and saw that there had not been all that much progress from my Minolta D7i EVF. Maybe a bit better, but not all that much. I suspect the A55 is in the same ballpark. EVFs have a very, very long way to go.

Yes... and can't agree more. I believe the future is for EVF but for this moment....OVF is still better for my aged eyes

[pakodominguez]

Nice bit of info there thanks

I have taken a another shot today with the 18-55 kit lens, and I am amazed by the sharpness of it especially for a cheap lens.

i bought the NEX-5 + 16mm kit lens because I knew I'll been using my Minolta MD or A-mount lenses, but I'm considering buying the 18-55 kit lens also...