Camera Labs

Hey all.
As you may know, I've been outspoken on the dSLT cameras, if I had of known when I bought into sony that they were going to EVF's only a few years later I would have gone Nikon or Canon.
I also know that there are a lot of disappointed sony users out there who feel let down that we won't have a choice weather we want an EVF or not.
I also know that there are a lot of people who don't seem to care or are more than happy with the EVF's.

So I'm hoping a poll will show sony (I know they read a lot of he forums) that we want a choice!

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots

Well I'd agree that I personally prefer optical viewfinders as they stand today compared to EVFs of today, and I'd prefer to have a choice between the two.

However, there are already rumors of Sony possibly reconsidering the move and considering optical finders again in the future (boy I hope so).

And as for the poll, I can't say for sure if I would stick to Sony or not. It's all dependent on how the EVFs of the future perform in all vital respects for my photography, to determine if I could shoot with one. I can easily say that as EVFs stand at this very moment, they do not suffice. But I don't know what future developments might hold and how the specific issues about EVFs are addressed in future models. Higher resolution, some way to solve the tearing/slideshow issues for action and tracking, ability to flip the mirror up for long exposure shooting, and battery & overheating issues 100% solved - figure those things out, and an EVF might be in my future. Otherwise, I stick with OVFs, and if Sony doesn't make any of those in the future, it might indeed force me to look elsewhere - a disappointment considering my long and happy history with Sony, who still makes clearly the best DSLRs on the market for my needs and style. It would all be about compromise - I'd have to deal with the Sony EVFs issues mentioned above, or have to move to another brand of DSLR which currently make no DSLRs that can do what the Sonys do...and likely never will.

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 200-500mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony NEX5N / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / Pentax K adapter / Konica K/AR adapter / bunches o' Konica & Pentax lenses!

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

Kind of a strange question.
Wonder how many people left Canikon when whey did away with film and went digital, or stopped buying TV's when they went LCD and Plasma.

I can't say anything bad about an SLT, unless you think that shooting 7 - 10 frames per second is a bad thing.

The EVF is in it's early stages of development, with the Fuji x100 using a hybrid design and Leica saying that they are going to offer it on their models as well.

The Mirroless cameras outsell the older technology types in Japan right now, and there's no reason to see that not changing in other parts of the world as well.
________________
Mirrorless Market Share (January to May 2011):
Olympus volume share is 37.95% of the whole mirrorless camera. Right behind you find Sony (32.02%) and than Panasonic (30.03%). The year 2010 ended with following shares Panasonic (38.7%), Sony (32.2%), Olympus (29.1%).

Personally I wouldn't worry too much about the EVF. It could be improved significantly within a relatively short time frame . The worst thing of Sony's translucent technology (at least I think it is) is the 'translucent' mirror which sacrifices image quality for sheer speed. When I say 'sacrifices IQ' I mean the ghosting.

I'll stick with Sony but I'd rather see them integrate AF, metering, etc into the sensor. It can be done, it's just a matter of time (I hope!)...

_________________
Sony α77V/VG-C77AM/α350/18-70/70-400 G SSM/NEX-5/18-55 OSS/Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW/CompuTrekker AW/Nova 140 AW/Street & Field gear/Toploader Pro 75 AW. And a huge wishlist...

My photos on Flickr...

I'm looking at this from the other direction: if the SLT provides a tangible advantage over SLR then I might even consider moving back to Sony.

We just have to take the EVF vs OVF as given. The EVF issues I'm sure can be resolved in time so I'm not particularly worried about that. That then leaves them to provide the benefit in AF tracking over SLRs to seal the deal.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Cameras with mirrors already shoot 7-10 frames a second, and with a much better buffer than the dSLT's.
The 7D - 8 frames, the a550/a580 7 frames, pro bodies shoot at 8 to 10 frames.

The thing that people seem to not understand with these dSLT's is you lose light.
Yes its only a little bit, but what pro would want a body that can shoot 10 frames a second, but you lose a 3rd of a stop?
I shoot winter sports, I use ƒ2.8's because I need all the light I can get, I don't want to be shooting at ƒ3.2 or lower to keep my quick shutter speeds.

I just want Sony to give us a choice within Sony.
At the moment the choice we have is SLT or canon or nikon. Not a smart one at all.

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots

To me the light loss isn't significant, and for most people it wont be significant. Only perhaps if you're right on the limit all the time might it tip you over. You'd get more variation as you move through the sensor generations. I'd just up the ISO a touch and be done with it. The potential ghosting is a bigger issue than that, but one that can be managed in normal use. Beyond a point the shooting rate isn't that important either and I'm a little concerned that might be Sony's next marketing trick.

What I'm really interested in is if the continuous availability of phase AF could lead to more accurate continuous tracking of a moving subject during burst shooting, compared to the SLR method where you don't get AF data while the mirror is up. All else being equal, that should give a benefit. We just need Sony to make some more advanced AF units.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Here’s what the PRO’s think ...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page18.asp
(Gold Award)

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/12/20 ... r-sony-a55
(Camera of the year)

I believe our own Gordon give the A33 high marks as well.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_ ... dict.shtml

Popo

Sony while they've improved in the last few years noise wise, they're still miles behind at the higher ISO's.

While I can shoot at 800, 1600 & 3200, I can't get any prints at 6400 & 12800 worth keeping. Shooting a lot at night even stepping up a 3rd of a stop I get a touch more noise. I'm not going to add a full stop of ISO.


I'm a huge fan of Sony, up until now, but sadly for me, I can't stand where they're going

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots

It's been a while since I pixel peeped across sensors but that sort of ISO range does sound competitive to me. Maybe the latest Nikon/Pentax are a fraction better but there's not a lot in it. If you can't adjust ISO in less than full stops, there's always the option of underexposing slightly and restoring it in post.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

you people can't aqsually find a super advantage in the high FPS of the Sony cameras. I mean,yes pro bodies shoot 8-11 FPS,but so does superzoom compacts. And Sony cameras have somewhat modest AF systems,you need a good AF system to track motion subjects,not just motor drive. I for one,find a great disadvantage in their dark(er) viewfinders. Sure,Sony Live View is amazing but...it shouldn't restrict the use of viewfinder in it's favour. (not that focusing on a LCD would be the best thing in the world)

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

First, Sony is not remotely behind in high ISO compared to any other manufacturer - in fact they currently make the market's best APS-C sensor for high ISO performance, and in the A580 they are essentially equals at the top with the K5 and D7000 which share the same sensor. Combine the fact that Sony is the only one allowing multistacking high ISO shooting, and they're actually miles AHEAD at the highest ISO levels. I shoot a lot of high ISO, and I shoot at ISO6400 regularly with both my A550 and NEX5 and use it for prints comfortably - I've not seen another APS-C camera deliver significantly better ISO6400 results and the A580's sensor is even better than mine.



There is a huge difference in the usefulness of a fast frame rate between DSLRs and compacts. First off, I can shoot 7 FPS on my A550 for several dozen frames before the buffer fills and it slows down - on a superzoom with 10fps, you can shoot exactly 10 frames for 1 second, then sit waiting while the buffer clears before takng another shot. I can shoot at 5 FPS with full exposure and focus tracking for 35-45 frames on a moving target, which you cannot do with a superzoom. As for good AF systems - 'good' is not measured by how many focus points you have or how many cross-type points you have, but on how accurate and effective the system is in achieving reliable focus and tracking. I have extensive experience with Sony's A5xx series AF systems in shooting moving targets and relying on the speed and accuracy of the AF system, as well as it's ability to track focus...and I can tell you it is not modest, but actually extremely good. I can focus on moving targets with near-100% accuracy, the focus speed is as fast and reliable as any other APS-C camera I've shot next to, and I can track a moving target with the AF system at closing speeds of 20+ MPH with a 420mm lens.

You may find a disadvantage of the 'dark' viewfinders (of which they are the same as other APS-C entry bodies), but others do not. I have never struggled with entry-level mirror viewfinders, even wearing corrective glasses - some folks need the big pentaprisms to see well, some don't. I simply don't - I can see, focus, and expose perfectly with smaller viewfinders. Sony live view is indeed amazing, and it doesn't really restrict the viewfinder any more than any other APS-C entry-level camera from Nikon or Canon which have the same viewfinder size. I for one will take the smaller viewfinder every single time in order to get Sony's live view system - it is specifically what make Sony's DSLRs so vastly preferred and superior for me to any other. When shooting birds, wildlife, or action, I use only the viewfinder on my A550, and I can focus as fast, as accurately, and track as well as any other APS-C camera on the market...arguably better in fact, as I've found occasional issues with accuracy of the AF systems on some other brands of DSLR - whereas I've not heard of a Sony DSLR having AF accuracy issues.

The problem with sweeping statements is that they are never true. If YOU specifically have issues with the viewfinder size, or don't like the live view compromises, or have experienced problems tracking moving targets with a Sony focus system, those are your experiences, not everyone's. While I know what I can do with my Sony camera, I also know that others may not have the same experiences or opinions. I hope that some part of my ability has to do with a modicum of skill or experience, but much credit still goes to the camera's systems for being able to keep up.

As an example of how much experience, skill, technique, etc go into the process - I've shot many times with friends who use other systems...some of which have those enormous 51-point focus grids with 15 cross points and predictive servo tracking etc...and I'll stand beside them with my 11 focus points and 1 cross center point using AF-C. My every technical measure, their focus system is 'superior' to mine, yet a bird flies towards us, and I've got my lens up, achieve focus, begin firing at 5fps, and track the bird in easily, while my friend can't seem to get one clear shot. Not because my camera's better or his is worse, but because despite all of the impressive stats about his focus system, he still needs to achieve the initial focus to begin tracking, and either struggles with it, or the lens hampers him, or he doesn't know the proper camera settings, or he just doesn't have the skill and practice.

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 200-500mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony NEX5N / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / Pentax K adapter / Konica K/AR adapter / bunches o' Konica & Pentax lenses!

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

- first,you're right about the FPS being much better compared to a compact's FPS...but that was not the point. The Sony has 11 AF points...which is somewhat low amount of AF points for good tracking. It's one of the things Sony lacks,they could have implemented a more advanced AF system. I mean,I had to recompose simple party shots because of the AF points limitation. (you know,when there's a lot of people & you're trying to achieve a good shot,composition & everything & don't afford to move around that much)
-2nd,it's a bit subjective here,the fact with the viewfinder. Well of course you're used to it,the A550 is the camera you're using frequently. Like when I switched for one evening to a 450D & that viewfinder seemed darker than mine & also smaller. So it's about experience. I personally would love a full frame viewfinder. The brighter the viewfinder,the better it is for your sight.
-3rd,your friend might not be used with the camera then,beucause it's hard to miss with the 51 AF system of the D300. I mean,when I tested it it felt like it could do anything. (p.s. depends on the lens he was using too)
So having that large array of AF points is by far the advantage a fast & accurate camera needs.
And I'm talking for a maximum aplication potential,there's a reason why all wildlife photographers for example,are using Nikons & 1D Mark 4s. I never said you couldn't track with a Sony,but it's limited compared to the other cameras out there & in more difficult scenarios,those differences will pop up.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

That's the ironic thing though - I AM a wildlife and bird photographer. I know all of the technical measurements should be better - more focus points = better focus reliability. But in practice it doesn't always bear out that way because there are other variables. As you mention, the lens can matter. So can the photographer, and his ability to pan with a moving target, and keep that target within the focus grid area while engaging tracking focus. Then there are the particulars of the focus system itself - whether it just is or isn't as accurate, or requires constant micro adjustments for every lens change, or tends to front focus at a certain focal, etc. I find the higher end Nikons a bit more fussy in this regard - needing to be controlled by a right proper photographer who knows to fine tune it with the lens being used and watch the focus accuracy for any stray or need to micro adjust. I find the Sony AF systems on the other hand to be simply RIGHT or WRONG. If wrong, which I've occasionally seen people post about, they sent it in or swapped it, and once adjusted was reliable. When right, they stay right, and are as accurate and reliable as any camera could possibly be - no adjustments needed, no fine tuning with different lenses, no focus errors, no slowdowns. It is this accuracy and extremely fast acquiring of the subject that helps make it a breeze for tracking a moving subject - once found, the focus can adjust with the movement fairly effortlessly, as long as you keep it in the grid while panning.

One particular favorite of mine is birds in flight, which I could not shoot with any real reliability on my past 3 cameras - I'd get some shots, but it was more hit-or-miss, and I'd often have to go through 10 throwaways to get 1 good shot. With the A550, I rattle off birds in flight effortlessly, and the hit rate is fantastic - 80%, maybe more. It always lands focus on the moving target at first attempt, and tracks it through the focus points and for closing/parting speed. I can rattle off at 5fps and land 15-20 shots of a bird's flight past me, then pick the best position and exposure of the bunch. It's not just that I'm well practiced at it - the camera is genuinely reliable and good at it. I've swapped cameras with my friend, and did well on his camera too, because I know what I'm doing, but the surprise was that he did better on my camera and was rather surprised that he was able to grab initial focus faster than with his. Again, my lens is better than his, and that certainly helps. But basing it purely on the numbers and specs, his camera should have smashed mine to bits. The numbers are one thing, reality is entirely another. Out in the real world, all the focus points, megapixels, fps, etc don't amount to as much as the photographer and the lens.

Maybe your particular type of photography requires more focus points...but not as much for wildlife as you might think. I suppose a very unskilled photographer might see some benefit trying to shoot a flying bird by having many more focus points...but even that doesn't seem to bear out - go to almost any thread about birds in flight, and you see that many beginners struggle to learn this type of shooting, even with some seriously nice, capable cameras. Since I shoot this type of photography very often, if my camera couldn't autofocus well enough or track well enough, I'd get another...believe me. But the Sonys are much more reliable and capable than the number of focus points would lead you to believe.

BTW - I don't disagree with your comment that Sony could make an enthusiast body with a more advanced focus system...if Sony took their current excellent, reliable focus system and improved it with more focus points or faster reactions, that would be excellent, and I'd be interested in it for sure. Even the best of today can be improved tomorrow!

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 200-500mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony NEX5N / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / Pentax K adapter / Konica K/AR adapter / bunches o' Konica & Pentax lenses!

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

I have to admit I've been annoyed with Sony from time to time. However, I'm really happy with the lenses that I have now. So the problem with switching to another brand is making the choice between using adapter mounts or trading in all of your gear. At this time, I wouldn't want to do either option.

Hopefully, Sony will remember those people who actually like photography and want to see improvements in photographic quality, not just gadgetry. :roll:

_________________
Sony A37, Minolta 70-210 F4, Minolta 50 F1.7, Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4, Zenitar 16mm Fisheye 2.8, Sony 35mm 1.8, Tamron 18-200 and Sony 18-55 kit lens