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

Zoiks, well that is an eye opener for sure.

toxic wrote in post #10779787
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.

It's a cop-out to point out that every tool has its limitations and it's up to the user to learn to use them competently? Give me a break. Do you expect your camera to do everything for you automatically? You have to work with it. The hands-on report over at imaging resource noted that while the AF/burst is strange to work with at first, once you get used to it it's highly useful. If the examples shown in the youtube video linked to above are at all indicative of the A55's performance then I'd have to say your statements are completely off-base and stand on absolutely nothing.

I'm not sure where you're finding "serious problems" focusing on fast-moving objects, at least as far as being worse than a 550D/D90. Perhaps taking choice phrases out of context from a specific early report and reshaping them in your mind until they say what you want them to say?

Missing the point? That was my point. Except that it doesn't stink at tracking anything that moves. In fact a number of reviewers thus far have been impressed with its tracking ability (for a sub-$1k camera). Recovery time is a pain, yes, but that's a buffer issue and not too hard for them to improve in future models. Most sports shooters I know shoot in jpeg and rarely squeeze off a burst of more than a second at any given time (timing is, after all, more important than any framerate), so it wouldn't be an issue for their use anyhow.

Are you really going to try to declare a camera worthless just due to a few minor (and exaggerated) details that are rarely going to pose an issue in day-to-day shooting? Is slow recovery from shooting 20 RAW frames at 10fps so terrible when you consider that no other camera anywhere near its price point gives you the capability to do anything even close to that?

It's a solid product with some extra juice provided by new technology that's still got a couple of things that need sorting. Try pulling your head out of your a** and appreciating things for what they are. There are a lot of fantastic products on the market today from every camera brand, and these new cameras are among them.

I think no matter how we slice it, this camera is a significant development - particularly at these price points.

Am I going to sell my EOS body and lenses tomorrow, of course not. But this is a fascinating option in the marketplace now.

I wonder how much the A55 + the 24/F2 will be going for....that could be close to what I paid for the 7D alone.

Slick design and implemtation on sony, but it still falls a tad short in some areas

Canon falling farther and farther behind

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #10780732
Canon falling farther and farther behind

That I have a hard time agreeing with. How and who are they behind?

little minor things like
build in gps
more focus points compared to rebel/xxD series
sensor is
HDR in camera
panorama sweep
wi-fi in camera (nikon)
no 4/3 camera system
Articulated screen
better color gamut on nikon

Er1kksen wrote in post #10780355
It's a cop-out to point out that every tool has its limitations and it's up to the user to learn to use them competently? Give me a break. Do you expect your camera to do everything for you automatically?

The issue is these shouldn't be limitations...aside from the EVF delay in continuous mode, which I realized is the tradeoff with an EVF reading from the sensor.

Why should 10fps be restricted to AE? IR says the aperture must be "locked" to "[remove] the delay required to set and reset the aperture to allow focusing between shots." Why is the aperture an issue? Every SLR lens has to move its aperture blades continuously. Do Sony lenses really not stop down and open up fast enough?

DPR also says the 10 fps AE mode doesn't choose the best shutter speeds for action since it sticks to 1/FL. It would have been acceptable if it chose faster shutter speeds, but it apparently doesn't.

Sure. Then again, I quoted DPR, so their testing comes into question.

"Choice phrases"? I quoted entire paragraphs for context and linked to the page. You can read it yourself if you're so inclined.

When did I "declare it worthless"?

toxic wrote in post #10776332
Looks good on paper as an action camera...but Sony completely failed at taking advantage of the pellicle mirror.

To be fair, DPR didn't make it clear that the 20 second recovery only happened with a full buffer. At the same time, completely locking up the camera and blacking out the EVF and LCD just because the user pressed the "display" button while the camera is writing data is, frankly, a stupid idea, and I'm not convinced it's a limitation that can't be easily worked around. Just pop up an error message instead of freezing the camera.

996gt2 wrote in post #10780326
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."

You can word things how you wish. A Yugo and a Porsche are similar because they are both cars.

Seriously, the a33/55 has just 3 cross type AF sensors and the 7D has all cross types along with 2 CPU's for over all greater camera performance.

In some ways, as the market leader, its not canons job to push into new makets, like the EVIL cameras, why should canon spend $ to break open a new market when you can let the others do it then storm in later when the markets more mature.

RobDickinson wrote in post #10781618
In some ways, as the market leader, its not canons job to push into new makets, like the EVIL cameras, why should canon spend $ to break open a new market when you can let the others do it then storm in later when the markets more mature.

Because when you break into a market, nobody has "one" yet. But if you get in with a mature market, many buyers already have "one" and hence fewer potential buyers. Sort of like kodak's late efforts into digital cameras. They didn't see digital cameras taking over film as quickly as it did and they were poorly positioned to be a significant player. All they mainly do now is make some image sensors for MF digital backs - a very low volume item. Kodak P&S cameras are junky and make super user friendly and not advanced at all.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #10780181
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.

I think there's a flaw in the reasoning on all sides of that argument. The only reason the 1D series is even mentioned is because of the continuous fps specs being the same. Many hoped that these cameras were going to be mini-1D's, and that got the ball rolling on the comparisons, but, like has been said, the thing is $750! There is no comparison.

Canon shld adopt the in-camera HDR function.

Oh gods no.

Give us 9 shot bracketing is all.

dithiolium wrote in post #10781839
Canon shld adopt the in-camera HDR function.

sooner or later they will, they will call it huge inovation