Sony alpha A55

[WaltKnapp]

sar rumours should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

there does seem to be a little superficiality from some here who perhaps didn0t actually read the sar entry: it does actually say

"One of my sources told me that Sony also has a A7xx with optical viewfinder. He doesn’t know if that model will be released."

we will see soon enough. my money is on a photokina announcement of the a7xx. what would be the point of an nda at the august sony press briefing otherwise...

Or the SAR entry just above that:
"The Sony A700 successor will be a translucent model. The current prototype name is A77 (we don’t know if that will be the final name of the camera). The sensor is also new (the prototype has a 18Megapixels sensor)."

That is a quite clear and specific statement. I did not make up what they said so clearly. I'm only interested at this point in seeing the reaction to that. What does it mean to you personally folks?

One can also look at the survey just below that stuff, where the clear majority want the a7xx to be an OVF. People saying that the market is slanted toward EVF seem to be quite wrong. But people don't get to decide, Sony does.

Walt

[WaltKnapp]

At wide angle the 7D would often focus to infinity even for objects which were only 2 or 4 or 6 meters away. I recall that when I got the 7D in early 2005 and found the wide angle AF problem I put a battery in my Minolta 707si or Minolta 7 to see if I was just dreaming that wide angle AF used to be better. I didn't shoot any film, but I did see that after focusing the lens distance scale showed that it had focused at basically the right distance rather than showing infinity as the 7D often did. I didn't really test, just tried it a few times with an FSLR and enough to see that something weird was going on with the 7D. I still don't understand why this problem popped up with digital.

I think the key word is digital. We like to think a digital sensor is just a different kind of film, but it's not really and quite a few things need to be redeveloped.

Like in film we had TTL OTF exposure control in both ambient and flash. Which went away with digital as it's reflectivity could not run that. Ever since we have had a compromise preflash system. It's about time that got fixed. I don't know how but if these companies are going to brag about being so good it's about time we quit giving them a free ride on these things and hold their nose to the R&D grindstone to get on with bringing digital back up instead of the fluff they seem to be occupied with.

Walt

[Greg Beetham]

The bottom line will decide what Sony will do eventually, if the SLT's with the EVF's and the 'reflection' mirror sell better than the DSLR models with OVF's then that is where they will go I'd say.
It's difficult too decide that if the new DSLR models had no video whatever, would they sell none, or some, or quite a few. How many people are there who would like a well featured dedicated 7 class still camera with an OVF, would be willing to buy one that has compromises too various features or missing features, because of the included video. I get the impression that many people, (including me) wouldn't be rushing too buy either of them.
Greg

[catalytic]

And they might want an indication of just how big the demand is for video in a DSLR [...] before they commit to a similar direction (or not) in the 7 level cameras. It remains too be seen if you can transpose the demand for video in a 5 level camera over into the 7 level segment....that could be chancy.
Greg

I think the level of interest and demand in the Canon 5DMkII, 7D, and Panasonic GH1 indicate that 1080p dSLR video is in demand amongst lots of pro content creators. Similarly, most joe consumer family types like the idea of having video capability as they capture their kids take their first steps, blowing out the candles at their 6th birthday party, etc.

[bakubo]

At wide angle the 7D would often focus to infinity even for objects which were only 2 or 4 or 6 meters away. I recall that when I got the 7D in early 2005 and found the wide angle AF problem I put a battery in my Minolta 707si or Minolta 7 to see if I was just dreaming that wide angle AF used to be better. I didn't shoot any film, but I did see that after focusing the lens distance scale showed that it had focused at basically the right distance rather than showing infinity as the 7D often did. I didn't really test, just tried it a few times with an FSLR and enough to see that something weird was going on with the 7D. I still don't understand why this problem popped up with digital.

I think the key word is digital. We like to think a digital sensor is just a different kind of film, but it's not really and quite a few things need to be redeveloped.

Like in film we had TTL OTF exposure control in both ambient and flash. Which went away with digital as it's reflectivity could not run that. Ever since we have had a compromise preflash system. It's about time that got fixed.

Yes, I am familiar with the change for flash, but what does digital have to do with the AF system?

[Greg Beetham]

Yes I heard people complaing about that before Henry, the wide angle focus accuracy issue, I haven't particularly noticed any great problems with my KM5D wanting too focus past the subject/object and on-too infinity, but then I don't use a lot of really wide angles outdoors either. The only thing I can think of offhand is related too the obvious difference between film cameras and sensor cameras and the reflectivity of the sensor vs the reflectivity of film. Why that would matter to the focus sensor is anybody's guess, unless an unforseen bug/conflict became evident in the newish (at the time) ADI system when it was applied to the digital sensor and it's different internal reflectivity vs film.
Light does pass through the 7D and 5D's mirror also, but I don't know to what extent % wise, and I disremember exactly what sensor it was that was under the mirror.
Greg

[bakubo]

Yes I heard people complaing about that before Henry, the wide angle focus accuracy issue, I haven't particularly noticed any great problems with my KM5D wanting too focus past the subject/object and on-too infinity, but then I don't use a lot of really wide angles outdoors either.

Among others, David has often mentioned this issue too. In particular, I recall a post he made right after he got the 16-80mm when he was in a pub and photographed a young woman sitting at a table at wide angle. He was disappointed that the AF was off which made the photo unusable. It is a common problem, even in good light. With newer lenses which can focus past infinity it is pretty common for it to focus there.

The only thing I can think of offhand is related too the obvious difference between film cameras and sensor cameras and the reflectivity of the sensor vs the reflectivity of film. Why that would matter to the focus sensor is anybody's guess, unless an unforseen bug/conflict became evident in the newish (at the time) ADI system when it was applied to the digital sensor and it's different internal reflectivity vs film.
Light does pass through the 7D and 5D's mirror also, but I don't know to what extent % wise, and I disremember exactly what sensor it was that was under the mirror.

For the preflash thing the reflectivity of film vs. a digital sensor is relevant. For AF, which makes no use of the film or sensor surface, I can not see anything that would make this relevant. Can someone explain how the change from film to a digital sensor would affect the AF system?

[Greg Beetham]

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

[bfitzgerald]

Out of the 2 I have the A200 is far more prone to missing AF at wide angle leaving you with an OOF shot. 5d does not seem to be much of a problem though it can happen once in a while. We had a discussion about this before and I'm convinced the A200 and similar models are much more susceptible to this behaviour when used without an AF assist on a flashgun..if you do that it helps significantly. Also locking onto the background and not the subject at times maybe the AF coverage is bigger something has changed.
So for me the KM5d is slower but more accurate for AF even low light (it misses at times but not as much)..I've had more problems with the A200 than I would like AF wise..fast yes..accuracy I've been a bit disappointed with it.

Sony and OVF's for the future is questionable because they have put very little effort into OVF's entry and mid level. If €900 buys a 0.80x mag pentamirror then sorry that just does not cut the mustard at all. And note no OVF only no fast AF LV models either..
I'd liked to have seen a pentaprism mid range body with a good VF (D90 style) but sadly it didn't and won't happen.

[mike2008]

Sony and OVF's for the future is questionable because they have put very little effort into OVF's entry and mid level. If €900 buys a 0.80x mag pentamirror then sorry that just does not cut the mustard at all. And note no OVF only no fast AF LV models either..
I'd liked to have seen a pentaprism mid range body with a good VF (D90 style) but sadly it didn't and won't happen.

Several factual errors in this post. I will try to correct them.

There was instead a significant improvement going from the A350 to the A550 (I know, I owned both of them), in numbers

A350
Pentamirror
• Magnification approx. x0.74
• 95% coverage

A550
• Magnification approx. 0.80x *
• 95% frame coverage

And the A550 has exactly the same OVF dimensions as the best-selling camera in this segment.


The A560 will cost less than 900 euro, probably a lot less safter a couple of months.

I would prefer to see a bigger OVF with more eye-relief, but the fact is there has been an improvement from the A350 to A5xx, and that this OVF is at the same level as the competition.

The fact that there is no D90/60D equivalent is real shame for sony users, but I would not bet money that we will never see one. It's clear that sony are experimenting, first with the low end, and I believe we will see very soon what they're doing at the middle.

Just some advice, you always put a negative spin on your comments, there's really no need. We all know the situation. Try to keep to the facts rather than stating your opinions as if they are facts (e.g. there's been no improvent in OVF from sony, D90 type won't happen)...

[bfitzgerald]

Mike you seem to be having a problem grasping what I am saying here.
The A350 VF was frankly awful the smallest APS-C OVF to ever appear (as far as I am aware)
Beating that does not count for a can of beans it sucks simple as that tiny little thing.
The entire point here is that Fast AF Live view = poor OVF. Now 0.80x is better of course I wont' debate that. But considering the entry budget cheapo DSLR on A mount has a 0.83x VF what exactly are we celebrating here?
0.80x is just super budget VF and it's only barely acceptable at that..when you start paying mid level prices such a VF is frankly shameful.

Now the difference between a not very good 0.83x VF (and I have 2 of them and I've never really been happy I can get along just about) and a 0.80x isn't a lot but ever hear the phrase "pay more get more" ? I have and I think it's clear that Sony will not stick with OVF's in the mid term because they are compromising them with fast AF live view (a feature I frankly don't really care about)

If you want to talk about facts they are crystal clear...even a one time £260 DSLR (A200) has a slightly better VF than a supposedly €800/900 one. That's kinda worrying don't you think? And I see the "sticking out LCD" on the back has not been addressed either. Sony are not even trying to meet the needs of OVF users. We should be looking at a 0.87-0.90x VF at this price

[Allam2009]

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

SAR got that bit wrong...

[pakodominguez]

If you want to talk about facts they are crystal clear...even a one time £260 DSLR (A200) has a slightly better VF than a supposedly €800/900 one.

I have no time for looking for data, but I'm sure that the A200's introductory price WAS NOT £260 (that is about €400?).
In other hand I do agree that a great view finder is always desirable but most of the time you have to pay extra price for it. And even if I'm far from been rich, €800 is not "expensive' for a digital camera, I paid €1400 for my brand new Dimage 7Hi...

Regards

[pakodominguez]

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...)

[catalytic]

The entire point here is that Fast AF Live view = poor OVF. Now 0.80x is better of course I wont' debate that. But considering the entry budget cheapo DSLR on A mount has a 0.83x VF what exactly are we celebrating here?
0.80x is just super budget VF and it's only barely acceptable at that..when you start paying mid level prices such a VF is frankly shameful.

Now the difference between a not very good 0.83x VF (and I have 2 of them and I've never really been happy I can get along just about) and a 0.80x isn't a lot but ever hear the phrase "pay more get more" ? I have and I think it's clear that Sony will not stick with OVF's in the mid term because they are compromising them with fast AF live view (a feature I frankly don't really care about)

If you want to talk about facts they are crystal clear...even a one time £260 DSLR (A200) has a slightly better VF than a supposedly €800/900 one. That's kinda worrying don't you think? And I see the "sticking out LCD" on the back has not been addressed either. Sony are not even trying to meet the needs of OVF users. We should be looking at a 0.87-0.90x VF at this price

I would also prefer a larger OVF -- i'll take as big as i can get too. I used to shoot Olympus 4/3 a lot before, which had even smaller VF's except for their top models, and didn't think it was a big deal until i started using full-frame regularly. Now i can't go back.

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.

Would i pay more or sacrifice other features to have a large, bright OVF in a midrange body? Yes, absolutely i would, and so would you, Walt, and others. But you know that your average consumer really doesn't care about OVF vs EVF, pentaprism vs pentamirror, or VF magnification/size and coverage, and would rather have umpteen cool features that the camera mfr's are more than happy to hype up with marketing, so why would one expect Sony to prioritize something that they feel is only of interest to the small minority that is the hardcore / pro photographer customer base?

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.