[DaveBSC]

Is any one else interested in Sony's latest Alpha series creation? I've been looking to make the jump from P&S to SLR for a long time, but I've always been put off by one thing or another. The Canon Rebels are plasticky, and it seems like Canon intentionally designs them to be uncomfortable to handle so you move up to a 60D or 7D as fast as possible. The Nikons have very dated features, and I've never felt that Nikon's jpeg processing was up to snuff. I do like Nikkor lenses, though. The Olympus/Panasonic 4/3 format also doesn't do it for me. The Olympus PENs finally have decent image quality from a 4/3 image sensor, but the Micro 4/3 lenses that they use natively are all basically crap, and there's lot's of post processing that has to happen to clean up their images. It also seems silly to hang a big lens like the 12-60mm Zuiko off the front end of a PEN.
 
I've never liked any Sony Alpha SLR to date - poor IQ, mediocre lenses most of which are rebadged Minoltas among other issues - but the new SLT-A55 seems to be ticking all of the boxes for me. I much prefer live view to using a view finder, and thanks to the very clever implementation of a pellicle mirror system, the Sony can focus and shoot using live view basically just like a P&S. The new 16MP sensor seems like quite an improvement, at least below ISO 1600 it seems very competitive with a T2i. Sucky (and WAY overpriced!) Sony lenses are still an issue, but the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX is a really impressive zoom that seems to be able to at least compete with the better Canons and Nikkors without costing an arm and a leg. 
 
So, I will finally be making the jump with the Sony, and probably a combo of the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-50, and Sigma 50-200 which is all the range I'm likely to need. A nice bonus is that the Sigma 17-50 is so sharp at the center that there's really no need for a prime lens.
 

 

[jpelg]

I happen to like Sony's IQ, in general. Although, even the A850/900 models do not have the same jpeg engine as my venerable K/M 7D. I love having IS built into the camera body.
 
The lower-end Sony DSLR's, as well as their standard lens line, feel extremely cheap in build quality. But they do have a decent rep as far as producting nice images. The Zeiss line are nice, but still not quite the build quality I expect at those prices. They're huge & heavy too, so they are best suited for the larger full-frame models.
 
Keep us informed about your purchase, and what you think after using it a bit!

 

[revolink24]

I know it may be petty, but for that money I want at least these two things in a DSLR: Weather seals and a top LCD display.
 
When a Pentax K-7 can be had for $860, I'm not really seeing it.
 
I know it's not a DSLR. But at that price, why not? The compact market has the G11 and u4/3 competitors for cheaper, the DSLR market has the K-7. 
 
There's probably a market there, I just don't get it.

 

[DaveBSC]

Even the Zeiss lenses I don't think are as good as they should be. I looked at the Zeiss 16-80mm for use as a walk around, but it's barely any sharper than the cheaper Sony 16-105, and the build quality isn't great. No AF either, it has to be done by the camera which means it's slow and noisy.
 
The Zeiss 24-70mm I guess is a lot better, but it's just too big and heavy for a little camera like the SLT-A55, and the range doesn't really make sense for the crop format. It's also $1,000 more than the Sigma.
 
Fortunately the Tokina 11-16 is a tried and true ultra wide, and the new Sigma 17-50mm is looking extremely promising (other than corner softness when wide open where it pales a bit to the Canon 17-55). It's at least a match for the Nikkor 17-55 though, and it beats the Tamron and everybody else. Both it and the 50-200 have HSM as well, so no SAM to deal with, or worse, nothing like on the Zeiss.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

I know it may be petty, but for that money I want at least these two things in a DSLR: Weather seals and a top LCD display.

Eh. if I wanted that kind of stuff I'd get a 60D. I've never seen a Pentax that can hold its own against a Canon, especially in low light. I'm interested in small size and weight which the Sony has, without the terrible AF performance of the PENs. No need for adapter mounts and limited functionality either, the Sony takes any standard mount Sony, Minolta, or 3rd party lens. In the rare instances where I want to use the viewfinder, the EVF I'm sure will be fine. Yes a 100% coverage pentaprism would be lovely, but I'm not willing to pay for that considering how little I would use it. Full time phase detect AF in live view with no wait for the mirror to move is a much more important feature.
 
Then there's the movie mode. From what I've seen, the SLT-A55 is the first SLR that could realistically replace a camcorder. Sure plenty of other SLRs can shoot in high def, but nobody wants to watch a movie that's constantly half out of focus while the contrast AF is hunting around.
 
Finally, you've got 10 FPS burst mode. No other APS-C camera does that. I don't know how often I would actually use it, but it's there if you need it. The Rebel T2i is still the stronger camera in absolute IQ terms, but when shooting movies, the Sony just walks all over it, and everybody else as well. Just take a look at this:
 

 

 

[dmk1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBSC /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I've never felt that Nikon's jpeg processing was up to snuff.

You're kidding, right?

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

You're kidding, right?

Vs Canon? Not a bit. Considering at this level Nikon still has to wade into battle with the D90, the Rebel T2i just kills it in JPEG output.

 

[dmk1]

You're seriously comparing a (2008) 12MP camera with an (2010) 18MP camera?

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

You're seriously comparing a (2008) 12MP camera with an (2010) 18MP camera?

What else would you have me do? It's not my fault that Nikon hasn't made a new model since then. The D300S is $1500, that's twice as much as the Canon and Sony, it still has only 12MP and if you ask me, the Rebel still produces better JPEGs.

 

[dmk1]

You realise that the D90 is still the superior camera in more ways than one? The D5000 would be a better (but still fundamentally flawed) match. Plus, in my opinion using jpeg on a DSLR is a waste (unless you're a professional in a hurry), RAW has so much more potential.
 
Anyway, I disagree with pretty much everything you said about the Sony system, but I believe the A55 would be a fine choice for someone upgrading from a P&S, especially since you say you'll be mostly using the LCD.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

but I believe the A55 would be a fine choice for someone upgrading from a P&S, especially since you say you'll be mostly using the LCD.

That's the idea. For professional work I'd be using a full-frame, probably a 5D MkII. What I want to be able to do is continue to shoot at arms length as I do now with my P&S, without having to wait ages for contrast AF to take its time focusing and then showing me the results. I want a minimum 3" screen with a minimum 900K+ dot res for occasions when I want to ensure that my manual focus is correct, and I want a small, lightweight camera that I can fit in a bag with one or two extra lenses. For what I'm looking for, the SLT-A55 seems to fit the bill just about perfectly. The 10 FPS burst, in camera panorama, HDR, and multi-shot high ISO modes are a nice bonus.
 
I also plan to at least dabble with shooting movie clips, and there's no substitute for full time phase AF in movie mode. I'm not saying the SLT-A55 is for everyone, but it seems to be for me.

 

[Edwood]

Unless the Sony allows manual control over the video gain, it will be useless for low light video, like the NEX-5. 
 
I have the NEX-5 and it has piss poor low light video capabilities, because Sony's dumb firmware jacks up the video gain to ridiculous levels adding an insane amount of noise, in even moderately low level of lighting, I'm not even talking about night time shots either.
 
At least the SLT-A55 has improved autofocusing, as the NEX-5's autofocusing in video mode is terrible.  It more often than not focuses on the background off to the side, rather than an obvious subject in the foreground.  It's mind boggling sometimes, like they did it on purpose.
 
Perhaps to sell more NEX-VG10's. 
 
-Ed
 
Quote:

 
 
Then there's the movie mode. From what I've seen, the SLT-A55 is the first SLR that could realistically replace a camcorder. Sure plenty of other SLRs can shoot in high def, but nobody wants to watch a movie that's constantly half out of focus while the contrast AF is hunting around.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

That's the idea. For professional work I'd be using a full-frame, probably a 5D MkII. What I want to be able to do is continue to shoot at arms length as I do now with my P&S, without having to wait ages for contrast AF to take its time focusing and then showing me the results. I want a minimum 3" screen with a minimum 900K+ dot res for occasions when I want to ensure that my manual focus is correct, and I want a small, lightweight camera that I can fit in a bag with one or two extra lenses. For what I'm looking for, the SLT-A55 seems to fit the bill just about perfectly. The 10 FPS burst, in camera panorama, HDR, and multi-shot high ISO modes are a nice bonus.
 
I also plan to at least dabble with shooting movie clips, and there's no substitute for full time phase AF in movie mode. I'm not saying the SLT-A55 is for everyone, but it seems to be for me.

If the SLT-A55's manual focusing system is like the NEX-5's it will be excellent.  The shining Gem in the pile of crap that is the NEX's firmware, the manual focus system is fantastic.  The 920K LCD really makes it easy to see what you're focusing on.  You can set a mode where it autofocuses, keep the shutter release pressed halfway, then turn the focusing ring, and it automatically zooms in 7x (you can hit a button to go to 14x too) where you can tweak the focus. 
 
With lens adapter, you can use other lenses where you'll have no autofocus, but you can manually trigger the 7x/14x zoom in manual focus assist as well.
 
-Ed

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Unless the Sony allows manual control over the video gain, it will be useless for low light video, like the NEX-5. 

That's something I'll have to test out, thanks. One of the big advantages of SLRs over small sensor camcorders is their clean low light video abilities, so if the SLT-A55 can't do that, it might have to go back. Fortunately in every other respect at least, the SLT cameras are quite different (and much better) than the NEX series. At this point, I just don't see any real reason to buy a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. Yes they are small and that's neat, but they are also DEEPLY flawed in many areas, AF being a big one. The Olympus E-PL1 can take stunningly good pictures with the full 4/3 lens adapter and Olympus' 50mm F1.4 prime on it (better than any of the fullsize E system SLRs, embarrassingly), but use it as intended with a micro 4/3 lens, and its performance is pretty similar to a Canon G11. Except the G11 doesn't need 20 minutes to focus, and is likely to actually capture the shot you intended rather than miss it.
 
The reflex mirror definitely isn't going anywhere, but the pellicle mirror as implemented in the SLT is actually improving the experience for the user in some areas, with the only real sacrifice being a TTL optical viewfinder. There is no performance advantage to mirrorless direct view at all. The only pay off is the small size, and there are too many sacrifices required.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

That's something I'll have to test out, thanks. One of the big advantages of SLRs over small sensor camcorders is their clean low light video abilities, so if the SLT-A55 can't do that, it might have to go back. Fortunately in every other respect at least, the SLT cameras are quite different (and much better) than the NEX series. At this point, I just don't see any real reason to buy a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. Yes they are small and that's neat, but they are also DEEPLY flawed in many areas, AF being a big one. The Olympus E-PL1 can take stunningly good pictures with the full 4/3 lens adapter and Olympus' 50mm F1.4 prime on it (better than any of the fullsize E system SLRs, embarrassingly), but use it as intended with a micro 4/3 lens, and its performance is pretty similar to a Canon G11. Except the G11 doesn't need 20 minutes to focus, and is likely to actually capture the shot you intended rather than miss it.
 
The reflex mirror definitely isn't going anywhere, but the pellicle mirror as implemented in the SLT is actually improving the experience for the user in some areas, with the only real sacrifice being a TTL optical viewfinder. There is no performance advantage to mirrorless direct view at all. The only pay off is the small size, and there are too many sacrifices required.

Yeah, it's quite ironic.  The NEX-5 hardware is more than capable of amazing low light Video performance, but those capabilities are completely crippled by the firmware.  Likely on purpose.
Even the audio is bad.  It boosts gain way too much and has too much hissing. 
 
BUT.  The NEX-5 is amazingly small.  It is my go to digicam for on the go, because it's so small and lightweight, I can take it with me wherever I go.  And it's excellent manual focusing assist system gives me piece of mind for the ability to tweak the focus of shots to make sure they're in focus.  The NEX-5 is much smaller than Micro 4/3 systems even.  So there are obvious sacrifices for it's small size.  It's a pity that most of those sacrifices are not necessary.
 
-Ed