Sony A55: 16 MP, HD Video and 10 FPS w/AF, Built in IS, GPS, Swivel Screen

check this out !


http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=eKwLICLPUoY


.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #10778706
Whoa,. with those specs, at that Price, is the the Giant ( Canon Nikon ) killer for sure.
16MP, full HD video, 10FPS, and internal IS for $750.00! Nice!

I'm still not sure how this will effect the final product.. ?


This is some weird stuff.. read the info on DPReview.

Now they need to get some fast USM type AF motors in their lenses.. and maybe with some firmware, or next model, they will get eh predictive AF needed for a 10FPS camera to work on par with some of the other bodies,

But still to get this level of performance from a $750.00 camera, leaving us having to compare the AF with the $4.5K 1D MkIV... I mean wow.

Sony actually has quite a few lenses with SSM, their equivalent of Canon's USM or Nikon's SWM. They've got the important zooms like Zeiss 16-25 and 24-70 f/2.8 with SSM, and the telephotos like the 70-200 f/2.8 and 70-400 f/4-5.6 also with SSM. They've got a good lineup of Zeiss primes too, but most of them use screw-driven AF. The big thing to note is that all of these lenses will be stabilized courtesy of the in-camera sensor based IS.

One interesting lens that Sony has is their 135mm f/3.8 STF (smooth trans-focus). It supposedly has some of the best bokeh of any lens ever made, and is supposedly even better than the Canon 85L.

Their weak area seems to be supertele lenses...their only choice for a long tele is the Minolta 600mm f/4 APO G, which is an older and hard to find lens.

Anyone notice the Viewfinder specs? 1.1x 100% coverage! That's on 1.5x crop, so it's going to be noticeably bigger than the 7D. One benefit of EVF is cheaper big viewfinders. I would like to experience it myself, though, for sure.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #10777908
They certainly get an "A" for effort.

My thought exactly. It has a lot of nice, headline type features, but it seems to fall short of expectations in use (according to the DPReview article). I think the biggest thing that will push Canon and Nikon is the full-time phase detection AF during movie recording; that feature alone is going to go a long way to making SLRs a true go-to device for home movies and the like.

Damn, for $750 it really makes things interesting. Is it legit to think that a firmware upgrade could provide live view in 10fps burst mode?

You also have to wonder what Sony could offer today at a $1000 or $1500 price point?

I had a lot to get done at work today. Not turning out so well. Thanks Sony!

996gt2 wrote in post #10778849
Their weak area seems to be supertele lenses...their only choice for a long tele is the Minolta 600mm f/4 APO G, which is an older and hard to find lens.

There are plenty of Sigma superteles in Sony mount.

bjyoder wrote in post #10779367
My thought exactly. It has a lot of nice, headline type features, but it seems to fall short of expectations in use (according to the DPReview article). I think the biggest thing that will push Canon and Nikon is the full-time phase detection AF during movie recording; that feature alone is going to go a long way to making SLRs a true go-to device for home movies and the like.

Actually, DPReview didn't give it a gold award because of the features alone. Rather, it seems like this camera really does work well in actual use, provided that you aren't expecting it to have the same level of performance as a 1D Mark 4 or Nikon D3. Compare the A55 to a Digital Rebel or lower-end Nikon, and I think you'll see that the Sony definitely has the advantage.


From the DPreview article:

tkbslc wrote in post #10779481
There are plenty of Sigma superteles in Sony mount.

That's true, didn't think of that earlier. And the built-in IS would really be a big benefit with superteles.

So I guess the Sony alpha system does have a pretty complete set of lenses. Granted, not the 60+ lenses in the EOS system, but what they have is definitely pretty good. And they do have that big advantage of having all of their lenses image-stabilized by default.

996gt2 wrote in post #10779519
Actually, DPReview didn't give it a gold award because of the features alone. Rather, it seems like this camera really does work well in actual use, provided that you aren't expecting it to have the same level of performance as a 1D Mark 4 or Nikon D3. Compare the A55 to a Digital Rebel or lower-end Nikon, and I think you'll see that the Sony definitely has the advantage.

I'm not trying to doubt that it will be a capable camera, but I have a feeling there are going to be many who try and tout the 10fps and full-time AF to make an argument for the "SRT" Sonys to be superior. The AF doesn't seem as good as the competition, and the 10fps - which is ostensibly for action - has serious drawbacks if you actually do want to shoot action.

This camera will more than likely make Canon and Nikon take a look and consider something similar, especially since Sony seems to be doing better and better with their sensors. This is good, and will drive the market toward better cameras. I just think overall it's a lot of "Look at me!" when the performance doesn't quite seem to match up.

This is the part that worries me about the EVF. Basically the EVF goes black when the camera is processing because the EVF and LCD are powered by the same video feed. It doesn't appear that it can keep the viewfinder updating in real time while taking the pictures in rapid succession so it would be near impossible to track the subject in the viewfinder.

from the dpreview review (http://www.dpreview.co​m …ws/sonyslta55/p​age8.asp):

Er1kksen wrote in post #10777565
...and which these cameras are probably pretty evenly matched against. The 500D and D90 aren't fantastic sports shooters either; any camera you buy in this price bracket is going to have performance issues for action situations and it's up to the photographer to develop the skills to work around them so that they're not an issue. Heck, I've shot sports (track and baseball) with the notoriously slow Pentax K20D, and people for decades before us have been shooting sports with all-manual film cameras, etc.

Seriously, don't bring up film. That's just a cop-out argument. AF viewfinders and lenses don't compare.

Are the 500D/D90 fantastic? No, but they don't have serious problems just getting a fast-moving object in focus.

You're missing the point. Every camerq can get confused. The issue is the A55 simply stinks at tracking anything moving, despite having all the advantages of a pellicle mirror. And what about that "recovery time"?

toxic wrote in post #10779787
You're missing the point. Every camerq can get confused. The issue is the A55 simply stinks at tracking anything moving, despite having all the advantages of a pellicle mirror. And what about that "recovery time"?

Based on what? Your extensive testing? Because according to the people who already have these new cameras in their hands, tracking (10fps mode or not) ain't all that bad.

http://klubkm.pl …p?p=1068690&pos​tcount=173
http://klubkm.pl …p?p=1068672&pos​tcount=167

Yes, I'd like to know how we drew the conclusion that AF "not as good as the 1D MkIV" is somehow translated to mean "Stinks" and " a lot worse than the 500D and D90"

It seems to me that when reviewing a $750.00 camera to be in a position to be comparing it to the 1D MkIV AF system at all is in fact a huge pat on the Sony's back.

I did not read that at all in the hands on review.

Agreed, this camera is in competition with the Nikon D5000 and Canon 550D. I think you could also make the claim that those cameras suck at tracking compared to the 1Dmkv and 7D.

tkbslc wrote in post #10780200
Agreed, this camera is in competition with the Nikon D5000 and Canon 550D. I think you could also make the claim that those cameras suck at tracking compared to the 1Dmkv and 7D.

Imaging Resource's full A55 review actually states that the AF is "comparable" to the 7D:

"We shot side by side with the Sony A55 and a Canon 7D, and felt that the A55's AF performance here was pretty similar to that of the much more expensive Canon."