[Urkeldaedalus]

As others have said, I think the A850 might be actually be the least gimmicky DSLR ever made. I love that camera, but it's sensor is just too noisy to justify the cost.

As far as their low end, I guess Sony can afford to throw a bunch of models out there and see what sticks. I prefer the Apple/Leica mentality of keeping things simple personally; but to each their own...

The A850 is actually what I wish Pentax would do with their full frame strategy. Give us an affordable option that is all about image quality and the advantages of full frame. The main two things that have killed it is lack of video and (comparatively) poor high ISO performance. These are the two things consumers seem to care the most about for whatever reason.

[pxpaulx]

It's some kind of marketing idiocy.

DSLR with VERY OLD idea of translucent mirror and EVF, and with strange video modes - do you really want such camera?
No details at ISO over 400, worse colours and contrast = no IQ.

OMG OGL, you are Yana36 over on dpreview, from the New Design DSLR A55 thread over there in the pentax DSLR section:

"It's some kind of marketing idiocy.

DSLR with VERY OLD idea of translucent mirror and EVF, and with strange video modes - do you really want such camera?
No details at ISO over 400, worse colours and contrast = no IQ. "

I thought I'd read that somewhere else today, haha.

Glad I can know at least one person to really not listen over there as well.

[er1kksen]

OMG OGL, you are Yana36 over on dpreview, from the New Design DSLR A55 thread over there in the pentax DSLR section:

"It's some kind of marketing idiocy.

DSLR with VERY OLD idea of translucent mirror and EVF, and with strange video modes - do you really want such camera?
No details at ISO over 400, worse colours and contrast = no IQ. "

I thought I'd read that somewhere else today, haha.

Glad I can know at least one person to really not listen over there as well.

I noticed that too.

Urkeldaedalus: You're right that they seem to be dropping the ball in meeting the needs of their higher-end customers. The A700 is pretty old by now. Fortunately they've been showing mockups for a replacement and word is that they'll have something to announce in september. Maybe they'll even show some new developments in the FF lineup; that would be excellent.

I've always felt that the A900's low-light "deficiencies" were a bit exaggerated. Sure, it's not as clean as the 5D ii, but it's still well ahead of any APS-C camera on the market and there were posters who demonstrated that with the right processing you could produce output from the A900 just as clean with at least as much detail as from a D700 under the same conditions (careful combination of NR and downsampling). Not terribly convenient, but I still feel like when Sony products are just a little behind, the masses of the internet are more likely to jump in and declare that "they suck!" as opposed to declaring something from another brand "almost as good" as the competitor that trumps it. I've seen similar attitudes displayed towards Pentax and 4/3 at times as well, but Sony just seems to be the one people love to hate. They are a giant tech company who likes to screw customers through proprietary formats and etc., so that may have something to do with it. I prefer to think of Sony's SLR division as Minolta's legacy passed on to a new crowd who are still figuring things out (hence the mess). It may be a Sony on the outside but I can still sense the Minolta DNA.

[Urkeldaedalus]

I've always felt that the A900's low-light "deficiencies" were a bit exaggerated. Sure, it's not as clean as the 5D ii, but it's still well ahead of any APS-C camera on the market and there were posters who demonstrated that with the right processing you could produce output from the A900 just as clean with at least as much detail as from a D700 under the same conditions (careful combination of NR and downsampling). Not terribly convenient, but I still feel like when Sony products are just a little behind, the masses of the internet are more likely to jump in and declare that "they suck!" as opposed to declaring something from another brand "almost as good" as the competitor that trumps it. I've seen similar attitudes displayed towards Pentax and 4/3 at times as well, but Sony just seems to be the one people love to hate. They are a giant tech company who likes to screw customers through proprietary formats and etc., so that may have something to do with it. I prefer to think of Sony's SLR division as Minolta's legacy passed on to a new crowd who are still figuring things out (hence the mess). It may be a Sony on the outside but I can still sense the Minolta DNA.

I think the general enmity toward Sony comes due to two main factors:

1. They are the only company that can realistically challenge Nikon and Canon for market share at this point. Thus people bag on them because they feel threatened.

2. Photographers are traditionalists, and Sony doesn't have an old camera maker name. They're associated with Zeiss and Minolta, sure, but the cameras have the Sony label.

Personally I hope they continue to do well, if only because I think a three horse race is better for Pentax's survival than Canon and Nikon swallowing up the whole market.

[ogl]

view of EVF of A55



compare with Canon 550D

[ogl]

OMG OGL, you are Yana36 over on dpreview, from the New Design DSLR A55 thread over there in the pentax DSLR section:

"It's some kind of marketing idiocy.

DSLR with VERY OLD idea of translucent mirror and EVF, and with strange video modes - do you really want such camera?
No details at ISO over 400, worse colours and contrast = no IQ. "

I thought I'd read that somewhere else today, haha.

Glad I can know at least one person to really not listen over there as well.

Copy-pasted...I use also another member's opinions...

[jct us101]

The Canon viewfinder is obviously overexposing the scene. I actually like the Sony one more in that photo.

[Boris]

I am sorry, but without knowing how precisely these viewfinder images were obtained I could only opine that the job wasn't done very well. Both viewfinders look very bad, almost unusable for any practical purpose. One is too dark, the other is too soft with very bad rendering of the extreme corners of the image...

[er1kksen]

Through-the-viewfinder shots from a compact camera? Really? Ignoring differences in the shooting camera's exposure, focus, and rendering limitations? Ignoring as well the human eye's ability to focus, adjust exposure, and interpret results? I happen to know that the 550D's viewfinder looks quite a bit better than that. I'd be quite surprised if the A55's wasn't as well.

As others have said, I think the A850 might be actually be the least gimmicky DSLR ever made. I love that camera, but it's sensor is just too noisy to justify the cost.

Well, Dxomark gives the sensor pretty good combined points anyhow:

Nikon D3X 88 points
Nikon D3 81 points
Nikon D700 80 points
Canon 5D Mk. II 79 points
Sony A850 79 points

DxOMark - Sensor rankings

[pxpaulx]

Copy-pasted...I use also another member's opinions...

I don't even understand what this means. That is you? You are copying another person's opinion without reference? Either way, not cool to pretend you're different people with similar opinions to lend validity to your theories.

[Art Vandelay II]

Copy-pasted...I use also another member's opinions...

What do images like that prove? Nothing. Neither show you how much "tunnel effect" each camera has; which is usually the worst aspect of cheap OVF's.

As I said in another thread it seems as though reviewers are being won over by EVF's. These two quotes are from the Imaging Resource and Luminous Landscape:

The most telling point was how hard I found it going back to an "ordinary" SLR after just a day of shooting with the A55. I've long been an avowed EVF-hater, but the viewfinder display on the Sony A55 is good enough that I found myself sorely missing it when I returned to shooting with a conventional sub-frame SLR with a typically small optical viewfinder.

What I expect to be one of the more controversial features of the A55 is its electronic rather than optical viewfinder. After using the similarly endowed Panasonic GH1 with success for the past year or so I have to say that I don't regard the move away from optical viewfinders as that big a deal anymore. The EVF found in the A55 is in fact preferable to any of the reduced frame optical viewfinders that I've used

I couldn't agree more with the LL quote; give me a large EVF over a tiny cropped sensor pentamirror any day of the week.

[pxpaulx]

I couldn't agree more with the LL quote; give me a large EVF over a tiny cropped sensor pentamirror any day of the week.

EVFs will only get better with time. I have to agree with the above statement; I have the Olympus VF-2 for use with the e-pl1. At first it wasn't even on my radar. After I looked through it I was wide-eyed, and bought one within the week.

[jogiba]

Sony unveils new translucent mirror Alpha cameras



[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgjn9fvcqfM[/YT]

[RolloR]

I watched the A55 on TV, that "Sony Style" show with that guy named Oli as the host.

They demo'd the A55's video. The auto-focus kicks ass and it works really well with the articulating LCD.

Does it also mean that I can see through the EVF while video-ing?

Although rolling shutter was apparent in the demo video LOL.

It kinda sucks that it does not have manual exposure video!