Image quality of A33

[David Kilpatrick]

That is a very serious read (lengthy). The author is mistaken on a number of key technical points. For example, ultra fast lenses don't actually increase viewfinder brightness or focusing accuracy; generally, viewfinders on all modern DSLRs show very little improvement in brightness with anything faster than f/2.8 and you can't judge depth of field accurately with any of them (as live view showed me a long time ago - three years and more since I published this:
http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/21/ ... iewfinder/
which was also used as a feature in the British Journal in an amended form. The key was the rig for taking accurate photographs through the camera finder, so the reader can better understand what I was observing. I can confirm that no camera I have used since is any different except LV-only camers. The A55 does show true depth of field (sadly, in such a way it's almost useless).

He also has some very muddled approaches to equipment. When Leica created a full-frame 18 megapixel camera, they effectively made their multiple choice of lenses redundant. You can, with an 18 megapixel M9, simply own a 24mm f/1.4 and not have to pay for, lug around, mess with changing a 28mm and a 35mm fast lens; the sensor and its quality allow for cropping, just as film used to. The old Leica hand approach was to own one 21mm which only got used when needed (and when you do need a really wide lens, you tend to need the widest you can find); one 28mm or 35mm depending on your choice of body; one 50mm; and one 90mm. Some people worked without the 50mm. I always liked the Minolta CLE lens set - 28mm, 40mm, 90mm.

So, I tend to doubt that someone who still juggles three ultraspeed Leica lenses 24-28-35 when shooting a wedding is really working with his feet on the ground and his head fully engaged. Obviously he makes some good comments about the A900 and A850, many very telling advantages. But he fails to address the issues which concern real wedding photographers (and despite his example and his track record, I think he's essentially a socially engaged wedding photographer not a commercial hunter - his market comes from his background).

These issues include exposure accuracy, the relationship of the histogram to headroom in raw, the performance of WB settings, filenaming and data folder structures, card interface speed and very critically the quality of the card slot (Canon's slots are notorious for a slightly sloppy fit for CF cards which even enables wrong way round insertion and bent pins). As for flash, anyone mixing monolights (studio strobes) with battery cameratop systems has already left behind issues of hot shoes; radio triggers work extremely well using the PC socket of the A900. But the real answer is that if you do buy a full Sony HVL-F58AM system - three or even four guns with external battery backs or whatever you need - it's not as complex as he suggests and the results match any other.

What has any of this got to do with the A33?

Here's what: I've just spent a week working with the A55 only, instead of the A900. While I am sure I have many excellent pictures and few technical issues, I doubt I will do this again. I had far too many lost pictures even walking round with the camera all ready and switched on. An A900 successor probably won't have LV or EVF or transmirror or anything like it - or if it does, it will never get the same kind of write up. The image quality of the A55 seems excellent (the A33 is no doubt similar) but in so many conditions important details of the subjects simply could not be seen at all in the finder, and neither EVF nor rear screen gave any true idea of the tones, colours, contrast or final quality of the shots taken.

The EVF system 'left me in the dark' all too often - literally, a black viewfinder for 3 seconds or so when I was trying to catch a candid or moving wildlife, or action. It seems that my wearing specs was part of the problem, the eye sensors which turn the finder on were fooled by my sunspecs and I had to sort of jab the camera at my face to trigger the EVF.

So whatever becomes of the A900/850 end of the Alpha system, unless it develops on the basis of its superb optical finder (which I suspect influenced this writer more than he says - he says little on that subject) it won't find further champions in wedding, PR, commercial, portrait, sports etc. I would also say that the A33/A55 will be a dead end purchase for many users. Like me, they will buy a body because it does certain things really well - notably video, but also a few special things like bench macro work, motion sequence effects, sweep pans, GPS embedded records of country walks etc. After some use, they'll decide never to buy another EVF 'SLT'. If GPS was built in to a future A7XX body or A9XX, I'd never use the A55 again except for special applications and I might well feel the NEX-5 does those well enough.

David

[alphaomega]

David Kilpatrick wrote

The EVF system 'left me in the dark' all too often - literally, a black viewfinder for 3 seconds or so when I was trying to catch a candid or moving wildlife, or action. It seems that my wearing specs was part of the problem, the eye sensors which turn the finder on were fooled by my sunspecs and I had to sort of jab the camera at my face to trigger the EVF.

This and the rest just confirmed my decision to go and purchase an A580 this coming week and claim back VAT portion from Sony. I do not actually need this camera just now as I have A700/A350 and A550 (all nearly new) but I fear that Sony will not release another decent APS-C DSLR with OVF. I just want to cover my back and not have to change all my lenses as well at another camera system. Maybe premature but I just have that feeling that Sony will switch to SLT and EVF.

[Greg Beetham]

I got the impression he was noting the absence of lenses in the Sony range that he used from either Nikon or Canon, whether he used them all every time I'm not sure.
I still say an oem radio trigger/adaptor would be a better system than the current one, it wouldn't be difficult too include a receiver in the flashes as well then the user could chose which system to use if there is any doubt/problems about/with the communication between the camera and flash/s. The current system is fine in an enclosed room at shortish range but could be unreliable out in the open at larger distances and placement.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

Greg, that applies to all the systems available in TTL or auto mode. The Sony system is not significantly more difficult to trigger in manual mode using radio slaves of any kind - or to mix with other systems at random. Only the Quantum system at present offers true wireless TTL, and it's expensive and big and actually has no higher an actual GN than Sony's 58.

The Sony kit in auto-multi-TTL mode will work over about a 10 metre range indoors. When else would you really need a TTL setup? If I'm working beyond that range, I use individually set thyristor-auto or manual flash heads, or mains flash.

David

[Greg Beetham]

There is always the vexing question of the i-shoe if your camera doesn't happen to have a PC socket, yeah yeah I know he and we are talking about the A900 for the moment, but I'm thinking of a more universal solution across the model range.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

I've been using studio flash and other odd flash units, and my wireless Skyport system, since the i-shoe appeared. These days the adaptors only cost about $6-10 and and small, fit and work perfectly. Really they should supply each camera with one. The stupid $120 bit of nonsense which Sony makes is flashlight robbery, as it does not even perform the function of activating live view gain for the A350-A55 etc models which require this for studio flash operation.

David

[picman]

Here's what: I've just spent a week working with the A55 only, instead of the A900. While I am sure I have many excellent pictures and few technical issues, I doubt I will do this again. I had far too many lost pictures even walking round with the camera all ready and switched on. An A900 successor probably won't have LV or EVF or transmirror or anything like it - or if it does, it will never get the same kind of write up. The image quality of the A55 seems excellent (the A33 is no doubt similar) but in so many conditions important details of the subjects simply could not be seen at all in the finder, and neither EVF nor rear screen gave any true idea of the tones, colours, contrast or final quality of the shots taken.

The EVF system 'left me in the dark' all too often - literally, a black viewfinder for 3 seconds or so when I was trying to catch a candid or moving wildlife, or action. It seems that my wearing specs was part of the problem, the eye sensors which turn the finder on were fooled by my sunspecs and I had to sort of jab the camera at my face to trigger the EVF.

So whatever becomes of the A900/850 end of the Alpha system, unless it develops on the basis of its superb optical finder (which I suspect influenced this writer more than he says - he says little on that subject) it won't find further champions in wedding, PR, commercial, portrait, sports etc. I would also say that the A33/A55 will be a dead end purchase for many users. Like me, they will buy a body because it does certain things really well - notably video, but also a few special things like bench macro work, motion sequence effects, sweep pans, GPS embedded records of country walks etc. After some use, they'll decide never to buy another EVF 'SLT'. If GPS was built in to a future A7XX body or A9XX, I'd never use the A55 again except for special applications and I might well feel the NEX-5 does those well enough.

David

Well said David, I could not agree with you more!

[bfitzgerald]

Bit shocked by all this I actually expected DK to like the EVF.

[David Kilpatrick]

And having said that, I've processed a couple of dozen final 'keepers' so far, and the image quality on average is amazing. It's the best quality I have ever had from any Alpha, including the A900. In fact the best shots with the CZ 16-80 on the A55 can be bumped to 25 megapixels using ACR, and come out looking better than A900 native size shots.

The A580 should in theory do better. So, I think my next step is to order a 580 body and consider carefully whether we sell the A550 and A700. Shirley spent a week using the A550. I know she did not like the finder one bit but the image quality once again is a step ahead of the A700.

Just to clarify, the A55 despite the SLT thing is capable of resolving sand grains where the NEX-5 doesn't. I have done some side by side shots with both cameras, and if the NEX quality is adequate, the A55 quality will amaze - at least with the 16-80mm fitted.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Sounds like they did something with the AA filter then, to counter some of the aberrations from the inclined plane in front of the sensor. If that's the case it's no wonder they were reluctant to have it movable. I wonder what's up with the NEX? it should be able to defeat a camera that has an optical disadvantage.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

The optical disadvantage is not evenly spread across the frame, and it's not significantly greater than - as an example - the blank UV/clear filter permanently inserted into the rear of many very high grade teles, or the 500mm f/8 RF. Or the permanent cover glass of the Sigma models, or indeed the AA filter assembly itself.

One benefit of the A55 is that during a week's shooting, admitted with not many lens changes, not a single spot of dust appeared on the sensor (and that was after a couple of weeks at home base). The NEX on the other hand picked up a pile of dust spots during a trip to windy, desert-dusty Fuerteventura and it's not fun cleaning up the images. The A55 acquired none - not one..

I can see some effects of the mirror glass in very bright details with sharp outlines appearing towards the bottom of landscape format frames - a trace of double of ghost imaging which can not be clearly seen, but gives the detail a certain look. But the mirror has only spoiled a few shots directly into bright light sources.

David

[Greg Beetham]

That is definitely a benifit of having the OOF inclined plane, no dust directly on the sensor from external sources, I knew the NEX was going too be a victim of dust with the shutter always open and the sensor exposed, and there's not a lot one can do about that, does the shutter close when the NEX is turned off?
The thing I wondered about with the shutter performing double duty on the A33-A55, how long it was going to be before some minute particles were deposited on the sensor from the shutter, that would mean disturbing the 'mirror' to clean the sensor at some point, something I would not look forward to.
Greg

[Mark K]

David
Thanks for the reply. I need another week or so with A33 or A55 at hand to prove it....well in fact I was amazed by the fast AF A33 has..as compared to my Nex5. The five hour experience may limit so many things to judge this camera and the image quality from it is still hardly comparable to those from my A850. Because of this, I cannot stop thinking, should I get one? A580 obviously lacks features found in D7000, such as build quality, faster AF and AF in video shooting.

[David Kilpatrick]

Take a look at this:

and its full size URL image with caption
http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/130384495
the Alpha 55 raw files have extremely 'pliable' tones all the way from shadow to seriously overexposed highlight. They remind me of the KM A2 files which also had more highlight recoverability than any DSLR of the time.

The sunlit ground area has been pulled back by two full EVs in ACR using a graduated filter and shows really good quality and detail, as well as colour.

Richard (son) has been testing the Nikon D7000 and his view is that the camera really doesn't need high ISO settings. Digital boosting is so effective with low ISO images it seems better than 'gain' applied in the camera. This sensor is very interesting.

David

[pakodominguez]

Here is an interesting evaluation of A900 with CZ v. CAN/NIK FF http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00V98v
This chap is supposed to be close to Sony and he is very positive on A900/CZ v. the market leaders. He also says

Sony is a late bloomer, and strong rumors indicate mind boggling innovations are on the horizon … notably a 35 meg camera with a top shutter speed of 1/12,000th and a true flash sync speed of 1/1000th.

Does he know something and does that include SLT and top class video in a professional type FF model with 35Mp sensor and 10+ images per second to beat anything Canon and Nikon can come up with. Interesting times. I will watch from the sidelines and saviour my A700/A350/A550 and soon to be got A580.

What does "close to Sony" mean?
I trust it's not another one of those "have some free FF bodies and a bag of lenses and say nice things about us" marketing spin type folks.
I think weddings can be very demanding and it's not very likely photographers will embrace EVF models for this type of work..

It is not because you, Barry, will never get a freebie from Sony that professional photographers that got it (the free camera) will lie about gear quality.

People like Bryan Smith, Matthew Jordan Smith or Me Ra Koh (the ones I had the chance to met) didn't change to Sony just because the free camera, but because they know they get the high quality that they need for their everyday work.

In any case, the article on Photo.net is not new and it got old quite quickly...