a55 and ASTRONOMY

[edrice]

Our daughter was amazed to see the quality of shots taken with the A55. She said this about the EVF - 'It is like looking at someone's very bad home video'. She thought most of her shots would be very poor, in fact they are colourful and stunningly sharp. The camera simply fails to communicate that through the EVF.

David

I think your daughter is on to something. I've only had it less than a day, but already test shots are gorgeous.

Regarding the EVF, I was hesitant about that at first but took the plunge. Before my Minolta 5D was even invented I had a Lumix with EVF and did get accustomed to it and that was after having shot with X-700 for two decades. That EVF was not ideal but I figured that EVFs had to be more advanced now and that is the case. When I first put it up to my eye, I had this *ugh* feeling, but it was inside and outside proved to be better. In fact in some instances out in the daylight I almost forgot it was an EVF.

My only concern at this point is shooting with a polarizer. I have shot digicams, Canon G9 and S95, with polarizers and it's easy to do. Yesterday, I got a grayish looking sky in the A55 viewfinder and it was hard to assess the effectiveness of the polarizer. Yesterday's sky wasn't the best blue sky for such a test so the jury is still out, but I did look at the polarized and non-polarized results and at this point I can see where there will be a learning curve to understand what you're seeing in the viewfinder in less than ideal conditions. This is a skill not attainable by diehard OVFers. But this is certainly not insurmountable and after a time I'm sure it will be second nature. The results this camera produces are certainly worth it and my A350 seems like an ape next to it. I haven't been able to produce any ghosting as of yet. The noiselessier higher ISOs is fabulous.

Ed

ISO 1600, night mode (probably should have been twilight mode, but don't even really know the real difference yet)

[David Kilpatrick]

Oh no - you have reminded of something I must do (I am completing my report for the BJP on the camera right now). The angled translucent (sic) mirror polarises light - all semisilvered mirrors do so. I think they have been careful and clever with the angle of the mirror, as 45 degrees is about the worst angle possible and the camera has less of a steep angle.

But that mirror is going to interact in some way with polarisers. Either it will actually create a visible polarising effect itself, which is very likely, or it will show unexpected darkening or perhaps even cancellation/emphasis of polariser effects.

Time to withdraw to the studio with a polariser and some lights. I also have to do a star test (point source). And just now I got an M42 adaptor firmly stuck on the A55, I had to use a cork faced wooden clamp to get hold of it and remove it (with considerable difficulty, no damage to the camera, but you realise how flimsy the body is when you need to exert a little force and really grip the camera).

I took delivery of a wonderful original series, pre-SMC, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm f/4 macro lens today. It is mint, and perfect in every way, from around 1970. I am amazed at the sheer engineering quality of the lens, it feels like nothing made today (in fact it feels better than most Leica lenses of the same date do now). Also, the optical quality on a brief check over seems to be equally amazing. Was trying out lens/bellows/camera combinations. Have thrown away the offending adaptor, it also jammed on the A700 but was fine on the A900 so I kept it.

David

[Lonnie Utah]

Have thrown away the offending adaptor, it also jammed on the A700 but was fine on the A900 so I kept it.

Maybe it only stuck on APS-C cameras?

[David Kilpatrick]

The issue was with the machining of the mount - the size of the flange. It was not connected with the internal bayonet. This adaptor has a rim at the edge of the flange, like a lip facing backwards (most have this facing forwards). This binds over the edge of the 700 and now the 55 flange, fitting tight. It does not bind on the A900.

David

[edrice]

Yesterday when I was experimenting with the polarizer (under less than ideal conditions), there were times when I spun it I could vaguely see differences and twisting it one way the sky would seem grayish with vague clouds and twisting back the other, I would get a glowy, cyan, detailless sky and it was confusing as to which effect was polarized light. On the computer I can see one is definitely polarized and the other is not, but at this point I haven't connected which is which due to time contraints.

But today, with bluer sky I gave it another shot and just aiming at the sky and nothing else, twisting one way you can see changes taking place in steps (but not always) and you can see it get bluer, but it seems like the camera compensates to maintain the original look. Then you twist back the other way and it compensates again and it always seems like you end up where you started no matter which way you go. So I tried aiming it at a pinetree with sky in the background. I could tell when the pinetree is polarized because it would go a warm yellowish-green vs going the other way which produces the darker cooler green. But either way it seems the sky stayed the same as the camera kept compensating for the difference.

I'll be very interested to see what you come up with. This is kind of a big deal for me for all the landscape stuff I'm prone to.

Ed

[edrice]

After getting a moment to think about it, I would imagine it's just the camera compensating for the filter effect by changing exposure as the sky gets darker or lighter when twisting the filter and this result is showing up in the EVF whereas you wouldn't see any such thing in a nonresponsive OVF.

Now I have to think of a hopefully simple way around this to emulate an OVF with polarizer. Any thoughts? Maybe twisting the filter with AE lock. I'll try it tomorrow.

Ed

[edrice]

After getting a moment to think about it, I would imagine it's just the camera compensating for the filter effect by changing exposure as the sky gets darker or lighter when twisting the filter and this result is showing up in the EVF whereas you wouldn't see any such thing in a nonresponsive OVF.

Now I have to think of a hopefully simple way around this to emulate an OVF with polarizer. Any thoughts? Maybe twisting the filter with AE lock. I'll try it tomorrow.

Ed

It's now tomorrow and my theory is confirmed. With the AE lock button pressed, twisting the polarizer shows the changes taking place in the EVF. Then releasing the AE lock shows it snapping back but by then the polarizer is set, so I am relieved. This I can live with.

Funny I never saw this type of effect with any of the polarized digicams I've used, at least not to this degree, and I guess that's what threw me off at first.

Ed

[Dr. Harout]

... With the AE lock button pressed, twisting the polarizer shows the changes taking place in the EVF. Then releasing the AE lock shows it snapping back but by then the polarizer is set, so I am relieved. This I can live with.

Funny I never saw this type of effect with any of the polarized digicams I've used, at least not to this degree, and I guess that's what threw me off at first.

Ed

I was trying to find that myself. thanks Ed.

[bfitzgerald]

I'll have to nip into Jessops and take a look at this EVF to see what the story is. Though I'm pretty sure it's similar to the G1 EVF but we'll see.

[bakubo]

Our daughter was amazed to see the quality of shots taken with the A55. She said this about the EVF - 'It is like looking at someone's very bad home video'. She thought most of her shots would be very poor, in fact they are colourful and stunningly sharp. The camera simply fails to communicate that through the EVF.

Okay, this is exactly the sort of stuff I expected when the DSLT bodies with an EVF were announced. I just didn't think the hype about the EVF being many orders of magnitude better than the Panasonic GH-1 EVF was true and I was right. Someday EVF tech may get there, but it still has a very long way to go. The A77, if it even appears, I bet, will still not have an EVF that is anywhere close to a good OVF.

[Lonnie Utah]

Our daughter was amazed to see the quality of shots taken with the A55. She said this about the EVF - 'It is like looking at someone's very bad home video'. She thought most of her shots would be very poor, in fact they are colourful and stunningly sharp. The camera simply fails to communicate that through the EVF.

Okay, this is exactly the sort of stuff I expected when the DSLT bodies with an EVF were announced. I just didn't think the hype about the EVF being many orders of magnitude better than the Panasonic GH-1 EVF was true and I was right. Someday EVF tech may get there, but it still has a very long way to go. The A77, if it even appears, I bet, will still not have an EVF that is anywhere close to a good OVF.

Philosophical question. Do we really need a viewfinder electronic or optical to show us exactly what we are going to come up with as a final product? It wasn't that way for film, it's certainly not that way for digital. There has always been some ambiguity in what we see at the moment we press the shutter and what we get as our final product. So does the fact that an EVF isn't the same REALLY matter? If I can compose my subject and get it framed the way I want, what more do I NEED?

[OneGuyKs]

Our daughter was amazed to see the quality of shots taken with the A55. She said this about the EVF - 'It is like looking at someone's very bad home video'. She thought most of her shots would be very poor, in fact they are colourful and stunningly sharp. The camera simply fails to communicate that through the EVF.

Okay, this is exactly the sort of stuff I expected when the DSLT bodies with an EVF were announced. I just didn't think the hype about the EVF being many orders of magnitude better than the Panasonic GH-1 EVF was true and I was right. Someday EVF tech may get there, but it still has a very long way to go. The A77, if it even appears, I bet, will still not have an EVF that is anywhere close to a good OVF.

Yeah, picking and choosing. DPR review claims the EVF on A55 is better than Sony APSC DSLRs. So it's personal taste

[bakubo]

Philosophical question. Do we really need a viewfinder electronic or optical to show us exactly what we are going to come up with as a final product? It wasn't that way for film, it's certainly not that way for digital. There has always been some ambiguity in what we see at the moment we press the shutter and what we get as our final product. So does the fact that an EVF isn't the same REALLY matter? If I can compose my subject and get it framed the way I want, what more do I NEED?

Actually, the WYSIWYG aspect of an EVF is exactly the argument many EVF proponents make as the reason it is so good. I have repeatedly said than an EVF is not WYSIWYG though, but that does not go down well with some people. An OVF is not either, but at least you can usually see the scene better in several situations.

If the rumors are true Sony is dropping the OVF and will only have EVF models, at least for APS-C and probably longer term for FF too.

[edrice]

I can't tell you the number of times I've looked at a result on an LCD thinking that's going to be a great shot only to download it and it wasn't all that hot. The OVF also has a tendancy to lie about how good a shot is going to be and there's nothing inherently more accurate about what you're looking at in the viewfinder in regards to the final image outcome. The EVF has the opposite effect and there is something refreshing about this reversal. Like David's daughter, I'm finding it better to have lower expectations and get nice surprises. It's a matter of training yourself to use what you're looking through and after a while it's second nature and you forget all about it. I am not so much a proponent of the EVF but I'm not afraid I've lost something either. It's funny, for years I was standoffish about auto-focus when it first came out. There was a hue and cry back then too. Now look where we are.

Ed

[bfitzgerald]

I don't think the point raised about AF is very comparable to EVF's. I've yet to try this one but I pretty much know I won't like it I never have with any EVF (even better quality ones)

And forget about WYSIWYG in low light because it has to gain up so you can see..well kind of. Hence the EVF problems it's not a one fix wonder some fans suggest it is. It might be more appealing to "some" because yes there are some advantages..trouble is it brings it's own set of problems too.

I've never had a problem using an OVF with film nor digital. Some folks are never happy, we get to see shots instantly on the back LCD..and you have sensor live view where you get to see the shot before you take it. Ripping out the OVF will be a catastrophic disaster for some.

I'd go so far as to say the vibes coming out of Sony and EVF's made my mount switch an extremely easy choice. I much prefer an OVF and will buy one in preference to an EVF every day of the week. We've got it pretty good now anyway..I wonder if it's driven by hand holding (won't be popular but I'll say it anyway) and video in the VF. I don't rate either much myself