A77

[peterottaway]

High FPS can have important spin-offs though in that it demands high end AF improvements, a wide data pipe, improved shutter lag plus better and more powerful processor performance to make much sense. These improvements can be of benefit to the more general photographic community.

But only if you are not being charged more for it !

[redsim74]

High fps in the latest cameras also allows for the sweep panorama, twilight mode, etc. Like them or not, they are bullet point features that set Sony apart from the competition.

[Greg Beetham]

Yep I agree if you 'want' more fps, constant main sensor LV/EVF, wider data pipe, more processing power, higher res screen for preview etc. that's fine, just be prepared to carry around lots of fully charged batteries and maybe two cameras so you can alternate between the two when one overheats. Some sports go on for a long time so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Greg

[Dusty]

I'm pretty much with Barry on this one. While higher FPS brings a few bonuses to overall camera features, most of them are unneeded for a majority of shooters.

Action shooters will soon be getting there results from Ultra HD video, not stills shots. While std HD is only 2MP, some of the higher things in the works are 4 and 8 MP per frame video.

While most shooters want the highest quality on their shots, action shooters are more concerned with getting the shot. While you want it to be as good as possible, most action shots are being printed in newspapers, on newsprint so there's an inherit lack of available quality right there. The better ones may get into Sports Illustrated or similar magazine, and be printed at larger resolutions, but VERY few ever make it to full page.

I hope we can soon get some UHD video so we can stop this madness about how many FPS we really need in a still camera.

Dusty

[pakodominguez]

I'm pretty much with Barry on this one. While higher FPS brings a few bonuses to overall camera features, most of them are unneeded for a majority of shooters.

Faster FPS are not targeted to sport/action shooters, but Sweep Panorama and twilight shooters.

And let me tell you one thing, once you got sweep panorama on your camera, it is one of the funniest thing you can do, easy to become an addict

[bfitzgerald]

I'm not convinced sweep panorama is high up the "must have" list for a higher level APS-C DSLR. Not knocking it now I like the HDR in camera from some of the Sony's as well, but again it's a nice enough cherry not an essential feature.

[pakodominguez]

I'm not convinced sweep panorama is high up the "must have" list for a higher level APS-C DSLR. Not knocking it now I like the HDR in camera from some of the Sony's as well, but again it's a nice enough cherry not an essential feature.

Since we are talking A77 (translucent mirror) cameras, the fact that they developed a sensor that can "shot" that fast and solving the constraint of the mirror's mechanism, Sweep panorama, HDR and any other "fun functionality" they can provide is IMHO welcome.

It is not "essential" as you said. it's just fun and "higher level APS-C DSRL" owners deserve having some fun with their equipment. Same idea buying a Lensbaby, a Pinhole bodycap or playing with in-camera saturation and contrast settings.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever buy a SLT camera, I need OVF for work, and for the rest, I have the NEX-5. I don't think I'll buy a APS-C DSRL either, I expect the next Alpha FF will be in the A850 prices and that is what I'll target.

Regards

[ctyankee]

I've played with sweep panorama on the A33 while I had it and my NEX-5 and am very underwhelmed. Maybe it works best in bright light with fast shutter speeds, but I'm seeing 2000px high images that look poor at 100% compared to 'straight' shots at 3000 px high. I'm not sure I could print them any wider than a full res shot - the advantages are the FOV and maybe scrolling them on a HDTV. It's very fun, but until I see better results and learn when & how to get better results, it's little more than a gimmick. (The fact that you can't control settings makes it more challenging).

[bfitzgerald]

I'd wager a lot of panoramic shooters will shoot raw and stitch it at home on the pc using their choice of software. Interestingly this raises another puzzling move by Sony wandering to HDR. They go to the trouble of putting an in camera HDR feature there, but they make life harder for raw HDR shooters by limiting the bracketing to a measly 0.7 on many models.

Features such as sweep panorama shots have a lot more in common with p&s users than enthusiasts. I'm all for making life easy, but Sony's sweep panorama seems a bit crippled or rather limited. Again it raises some questions about "locked settings" Serious they need to get a handle around the fact they are not making cybershots..and that not everyone is a p&s user. Many buyers go for DSLR's/SLT's or whatever you call them to get more control, not less.

[Simmondsphotography]

I'd "settle" for 5 FPS per second if a camera had a good optical viewfinder.

In that case, it will be an A7XX, not an A77, right?

I am with you on this one Pako! As a nature photographer I use mostly longer zoom lenses. I am also in the minority here as I also prefer the heavier DSLR to balance the lens.....I even use a vertical grip to add more bulk and enjoy increased battery time on my A900. If I need an even "longer" reach for a smaller or more distant subject, then the lens goes on to the A700!

I can only assume that Sony intend to develop the A900 and A700, hopefully with OVF's as they have announced their intentions to introduce a quality 500mm lens and the excellent 70/400G is a fairly recent introduction. Neither of these lenses would sit very usefully on either a NEX 3/5 or A35/55 IMHO. As DK mentioned in his excellent hands-on review of the NEX5...longer lenses (above 80mm I think) were difficult as it was nigh impossible to "find" the target subject in the EVF. A 500mm lens on such a camera is just not do-able I would suggest. Sony will know that and must continue to support a camera platform to take the longer lenses IMHO.

There are rather more users of longer lenses than some people here imagine! On a recent trip to Botswana, I was amazed at the number of Sony wielding photographers who were also using longer lenses...easily matching the number of Nikon users. I also understand that in some Eastern European countries, Sony is the DSLR market leader with a strong Pro user group for sports and photojournalism.

[alphaomega]

Welcome back Barry. You can go on and on with your criticism of whatever Sony do, but increasingly they will disregard you and your ilk. Just look at Sonyalpharumors 21 October listing

Most sold system cameras in Japan: Three Sony cameras into the top 10!

Sony now have three cameras in top 10 in Japan for September.
NEX5 at third
A55 at sixth
NEX3 at eight
These are placings they have never achieved before. You can go on and on arguing against NEX and SLT models and what Sony are doing, but they are doing better now than just being Minolta with a Sony label on. They are on a roll and the buyers have voted with their wallets. Having said that I am not for joining the "bandwagon" and will probably buy an A580 when the price is right i.e. £500 body only.

[peterottaway]

Barry is not old enough to be a member of either the Old And The Bold or the Rugged And The Buggered (unlike myself) but those holding out for decent OVF do have a point - a good pentaprism is still better than the best EVF on the market. But the EVF on such cameras as the A33 / A55 is a decent, workable compromise which are good enough all-ready for the vast majority of buyers for these cameras. And as cameras become even more an electronic device that takes pictures, that is where the future is. And I would rather get used to them now rather than have no choice in 5 years time.

I must admit that I do find the OVF on my A850 not only more satisfying but better for more controlled or reflective photography. It is also easier for me to use with grab shots and sports shooting as I find for the first several minutes with the EVF on rapidly moving subjects gives me the feeling of motion sickness. However for those who have grown up with EVF or who aren't switching between camera types this is probably not an issue.

[tom power 53]

No doubt the A850 VF is great - can't put that on a $700 camera though.

[peterottaway]

No doubt the A850 VF is great - can't put that on a $700 camera though.

I don't expect it to be as good as the A850, but once I have my eye tuned in to the EVF it is basically as usable as the OVF in my Nikon D90. Which when you consider that the D90 came out at a similar price to the new D7000 isn't a bad effort.

But for the A77 to win acceptance with its intended audience and higher price point it will need to be more than a little bit better.

[KevinBarrett]

I'd say that the a33 and a55 are probably about as good as an SLT can be expected to be within the next few years. Consider the additional functionality that an "a77" would need to offer over the a55 to justify its place in the price brackets. The a55 already bests the old a700 in FPS, resolution, ISO, and every other feature that matters to the consumers that want fast AF in video. I'm talking about faster sync and shutter speeds--would the photographer who would pay twice the price of the a55 to get them be satisfied with something interrupting the optical path of their lenses, stealing light and introducing aberrations?