Sony, and especially Translucent Mirror

Southdowns

Southdowns

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,820
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Background:

- I am new (6 months) to proper photography.

- I have a Sony A200, plus three lenses, a flash and some other accessories that would be no good for anything but a Sony.

- I have no desire to turn pro, ever!

- I haven't found APS-C to be limiting, and while full frame would be nice, I doubt I'll ever have the skills to make full use of it, and probably can't afford one anyway.

- I have no emotional attachment to any make or any technology having not grown up with film (well, I did, but in instamatic cameras!).

- Spending out will be an occasional thing!

- I now want better low light performance (the A200 is appalling above ISO200), as well as mirror lock up or equivalent, because these are the two things other than skill that are limiting what I can do.

Question:

I'm seriously considering upgrading my A200, it having served it's purpose of demonstrating that I enjoy proper photography, and can obtain results I like using a DSLR, that I wouldn't be able to get using a compact.

The "safe" route appears to be to go with Canon or Nikon, but I have several reasons to consider Sony, and specifically the A65:

- My existing lenses and flash will be compatible. This is important not because they're great lenses, but because I'll be able to afford a better body than I would if I had to buy lenses as well.

- I like the benefits of the translucent mirror technology; superior live view, better burst shot rates, no need for mirror lock up etc.

- The fact that SLT tech uses an EVF appears to me to be an advantage, not a problem; much bigger and brighter view finder than any APS-C OVF can offer, live preview of the effect of camera settings like exposure, WB etc, ability to gain up to see more in low light, etc.

- The claimed loss of light to the sensor in fact, by all accounts, has zero perceivable effect on the results. I read that all it really does is make an ISO 120 sensor setting behave like ISO 100; I think I can live with that.

- While the range of lenses available for Sony doesn't match Canon or Nikon, it's still not at all bad for a hobbyist, and most third party manufacturers have Sony versions.

- In body IS seems like a good idea to me, but I'm not sure on this point

- I like my Sony's interface etc.

But, the decision is not made, so I'd like to know what I might have missed. Bottom line I guess is, why are Sony's so much less popular than Canons or Nikons? Am I being stupid considering a less mainstream make, and where will I come unstuck if I go with Sony?

If I do go Sony, I'll probably not be able to switch away from it for a very long time, so it is important to get this right :)

Cheers,

Mark
 
daugirdas said:
It sounds like you should pick up a cheap old Canon 5D, and enjoy great ISO performance well past 800 with a huge real viewfinder.
Click to expand...
To me that's a VERY expensive option.

He asks for a replacement to his Sony APC-S and you tell him to get a full frame of another make (and render his lenses useless and also having to buy expensive FF lenses?

IMHO check both the A65 (more mps, better viewfinder) and the A57 (less mps but better low light performance). Do you do a lot of low light work?
 
daugirdas said:
It sounds like you should pick up a cheap old Canon 5D, and enjoy great ISO performance well past 800 with a huge real viewfinder.
Click to expand...

OK, it's an option, but it's not SO cheap given that I'd have to replace my lenses and flash, and I'm not sure what I'd gain (that being my question really).

As I see it, full frame gained, and great high ISO performance (though it'd have to be twice as good to match the A65 in the real world, because the A65 is twice the resolution). But warranty, resolution, GPS, high burst rate, in viewfinder settings preview, video (not critical, but nice), live view etc lost.
 
iced_jacob said:
To me that's a VERY expensive option.

He asks for a replacement to his Sony APC-S and you tell him to get a full frame of another make (and render his lenses useless and also having to buy expensive FF lenses?

IMHO check both the A65 (more mps, better viewfinder) and the A57 (less mps but better low light performance). Do you do a lot of low light work?
Click to expand...

Cheers. I don't do a lot of low light stuff, but for example couldn't even get shots of my daughter having an indoor horse riding lesson the other day, even at f1.8! I pushed the ISO to 1600 to get a fast enough shutter, and the results were awful!

I have no problem going for a different brand, but it will cost more even if I can sell my lenses. The question is; will I really gain anything if I do?

I'll take a look at the A57 too; thanks.
 
Southdowns said:
Bottom line I guess is, why are Sony's so much less popular than Canons or Nikons?
Click to expand...
because they have only been doing interchangeable lens cameras for a few years rather than 60. Canon & Nikon already had huge userbases.

Am I being stupid considering a less mainstream make, and where will I come unstuck if I go with Sony?
Click to expand...
imo, no.
atm pretty much only if you want a fairly esoteric lens e.g. (relatively) inexpensive tilt/shift, MPE-65 equivalent etc. & basically things that have more relevance for a pro.
However, if you could some more info on what you think that you would be shooting ...?


Do you have a flash?
Do you shoot RAW or jpeg?
 
Last edited:
Find a second hand sony A580. Lowlight performance is pretty good. Dynamic range is excellent. Same sensor as Nikon D7000.
 
Southdowns said:
Cheers. I don't do a lot of low light stuff, but for example couldn't even get shots of my daughter having an indoor horse riding lesson the other day, even at f1.8! I pushed the ISO to 1600 to get a fast enough shutter, and the results were awful!

I have no problem going for a different brand, but it will cost more even if I can sell my lenses. The question is; will I really gain anything if I do?

I'll take a look at the A57 too; thanks.
Click to expand...

ISO1600 should be fine on both the 65 and the 57 (slightly better on the 57). ISO3200 the 57 is much better.

Yep switching is always expensive and Sony has some advantages I like (In body stabilisation means I can shoot at 1/8 s with my 50mm ;) ). To get a better low-light performance you really need to look into Nikons d7000 which is quite more expensive. Also note that replacing any cheap minolta lenses you have with their Nikon equivalents can be quite expensive..
 
When we are talking of low light performance, just how much better is the D7000 compared to the Sony models though? I mean, Sony compacts have always been pretty excellent at low light, and thats just the compact camera's.. Is it THAT much of a big deal??
 
Cheers Scott. It's difficult to tell you what I shoot, but the things I'd be disappointed to be seriously limited with are landscape, portraits, general family shots, and also the slightly creative stuff I've been doing for my 52 challenge. I'm NOT interested in sports photography, although I enjoyed shooting at the London Marathon, and of course shooting kids often requires all the things sports photography does other than perhaps a very long lens! Wildlife would be opportunist only; I'd not go out of my way to do it.

Sorry, that's not much use really is it!
 
Dom7 said:
When we are talking of low light performance, just how much better is the D7000 compared to the Sony models though? I mean, Sony compacts have always been pretty excellent at low light, and thats just the compact camera's.. Is it THAT much of a big deal??
Click to expand...

They share the sensor with a57, but you lose about 1/3 to 1/2 stop of light due to the translucent mirror so 3200 on the sony is like 4000-4800 on the Nikon. Not a huge deal if you don't often go above 3200 I would say. On the other hand you could find a used a580 which uses the same sensor without the translucent mirror. But if someone rarely goes above 1600 the sensor on both the 57 and 65 can do well
 
Dom7 said:
When we are talking of low light performance, just how much better is the D7000 compared to the Sony models though? I mean, Sony compacts have always been pretty excellent at low light, and thats just the compact camera's.. Is it THAT much of a big deal??
Click to expand...
1/2 a stop max for equivalent sensors.
 
Hi Mark

I do not have one but from what I've seen online the a57 seems to give great high iso performance. Personally, I'd go check one out in the shops if I were you.

I have had Canon 5D and 5D2 models though and, IMHO, the 5D (classic) is not stunning at high iso at all; 5D2 is though ! but that is another price bracket.

I'm currently holding out for a Sony FF for high iso work but if the (rumoured) a99 turns out to be crushingly expensive or just useless I will get an a57 in a heartbeat.

Good luck with your choices.

Gary
 
I don't think its a massive problem then really? Certainly not as big a problem as some would suggest..
 
Dom7 said:
I don't think its a massive problem then really? Certainly not as big a problem as some would suggest..
Click to expand...

No it's not but Canikon fanboys always try to find a way to exclude sony from any discussion :)

TBH if you are not planning to go pro (and I mean serious pro cause I do some work with my sonys - shooting gigs in small, badly lit places) you should be fine with any brand out there and a post 2010 model (high iso performance has improved a lot since the a200 was out)
 
Compared to the A200, the A65 or A57 would be a big imrpovement in ISO performance despite the 1/2 stop difference in light.

However, don't be fooled into thinking any APS-C camera at ISO1600/3200 hasn't already lost a heap of detail.

Regarding the exact nature of the lost light, go and look on dpreview, here's the D3200/A57/D7000/A65 JPEG engines at ISO3200
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...&x=-0.31400571661902804&y=0.33712881884626755

and RAW
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...&x=-0.31400571661902804&y=0.33712881884626755

You can see that the Sony JPEG engine hangs on to a lot of detail at ISO3200, but you can see in RAW, there is more noise.. however with PP you are going to get better then JPEG performance, so that studio comparison tool should put things into perspective..

And for more static stuff, the Sony's MFNR (Multi-frame noise reduction) makes a massive difference, probably 1.5 - 2 stops difference at least.

Everyone has different needs and preferences, the SLT does allow for some non-traditional features to occur that suit some people (like me)
- Histogram in the viewfinder (and just about any info you want, or have it clean)
- Focus peaking for manual focus or focus checking is a godsend
- Large FF size viewfinder on an APS-C camera
- Very high fps
- Liveview is identical to the viewfinder, same AF performance, and it's eminently more usable then any liveview I've had before
- In body proper HDR and Panorama's
- Excellent AF in video, with additional creative effects (like b/w) that can be applied live to the image.

In terms of pure DSLR stuff, it's fast and response AF, and all seems to work well, the other stuff is 'fun' and I certainly use it quite a bit, but you have to determine if that appeals to you.
 
iced_jacob said:
No it's not but Canikon fanboys always try to find a way to exclude sony from any discussion :)
Click to expand...

I guess that's my problem; I see that happening (which tends to push me toward anything BUT a Canikon because I'm a belligerent old sod!), but at the same time don't want to miss a trick if they have a point!

The ISO ability I think is the least of my concerns, as I'm happy that I can judge the real world acceptability of a given sensor for myself. It's anything that I may have overlooked that worries me! It's more money than I've ever spent on any hobby before, at least in one go, so I want to get it right!
 
Would these Sony's be able to handle weddings in terms of IQ/performance?
 
Dom7 said:
I don't think its a massive problem then really? Certainly not as big a problem as some would suggest..
Click to expand...
not imo.
& the non-moving mirror may give you better results at some low shutter speeds than bodies where the effect of the mirror moving can introduce blur.
 
Southdowns said:
I guess that's my problem; I see that happening (which tends to push me toward anything BUT a Canikon because I'm a belligerent old sod!), but at the same time don't want to miss a trick if they have a point!

The ISO ability I think is the least of my concerns, as I'm happy that I can judge the real world acceptability of a given sensor for myself. It's anything that I may have overlooked that worries me! It's more money than I've ever spent on any hobby before, at least in one go, so I want to get it right!
Click to expand...

What's your budget and what lenses do you currently have?
 
Oh and by the way, isn't 57 a lower number than 65, and a LOT lower than 7000? surely that means the Nikon wins ;)
 
iced_jacob said:
What's your budget and what lenses do you currently have?
Click to expand...

Budget is in the order of £600, and the lenses I have are the 18-55 Sony kit lens (I have the 18 to 70 too, but we won't mention that one!), Sigma 70-300, and the Sony 50mm f1.8, which I love as if it were my child!

Not brilliant lenses, but they give me the versatility I need at this stage in my photography. Whatever body I have, I'll want to upgrade my lenses eventually, but that's a separate issue as I can't do it now.
 
Last edited:
heidfirst said:
not imo.
& the non-moving mirror may give you better results at some low shutter speeds than bodies where the effect of the mirror moving can introduce blur.
Click to expand...

That's why I want mirror lock up if not SLT, because I just can't get sharp macro shots at the moment no matter what I try :(
 
Phil-t, thanks for that, I'll take a look at those sites later. The rest of your post sums up a lot of what I've been thinking.
 
Southdowns said:
Budget is in the order of £600, and the lenses I have are the 18-55 Sony kit lens (I have the 18 to 70 too, but we won't mention that one!), Sigma 70-300, and the Sony 50mm f1.8, which I love as if it were my child!

Not brilliant lenses, but they give me the versatility I need at this stage in my photography. Whatever body I have, I'll want to upgrade my lenses eventually, but that's a separate issue as I can't do it now.
Click to expand...

A switch to a better body than the 57/65 would cost you quite a lot more given the lens swap needed as well so to me it's a no brainer...
 
As someone mentioned earlier, do you shoot in RAW?

If not, and you are looking for better low light performance, get a copy of Lightroom and shoot RAW. The A200 should be fine at ISO 400, and acceptable at 800 with care.

NB: The same advice goes if you switch camera - use RAW and process in LR, or even using a 3rd party noise reduction package - you'll get much better results than just using JPeg.

Regarding a new camera - I'd go for the A65 over the A57 based on the better EVF, but it's really a mater of personal preference.

Get into a shop and try them both out, if you can.
 
You do not need Mirror Lockup for macro. If you are ever near Gosport you are more than welcome to pop in and have a play with some Canons. I'll even throw in a free macro lesson.
 
Last edited:
Southdowns said:
Oh and by the way, isn't 57 a lower number than 65, and a LOT lower than 7000? surely that means the Nikon wins ;)
Click to expand...

That's true, but they're all better than that D4 people seem to lust after. :)
 
Cheers guys.

Yes, I do shoot in Raw, and do use LR, but although obviously it improves things, it's still not up to scratch with the A200. I may be being a little hard on it, and may not fully understand how to use the NR properly in LR, but I'd say ISO100 is no problem, 200 is fine after NR, 400 is always noticeable even after NR, and 800 plus is pointless.

I've got some nice shots at ISO3200, but only when noise adds to the feel of the shot!

Don't forget also that the A200 is only 10.2MP, so I can lose a lot and make noise look even worse if I decide to crop.
 
Dave Stone said:
You do not need Mirror Lockup for macro. If you are ever near Gosport you are more than welcome to pop in and have a play with some Canons. I'll even throw in a free macro lesson.
Click to expand...

That's very kind of you Dave; I'll probably take you up on that! If it's OK with you I'll PM you when I have an opportunity to get to Gosport?

I've always ended up with soft macro shots (more accurately, close ups; i.e. close to the minimum focusing distance of the lens), even with a small aperture and when I KNOW the focus is spot on, and have always put that down to shake. I have the camera on a tripod with IS off AND use a cable release or the self timer. Maybe it's my eyes!!!!
 
No problem Mark. Drop me a line when you're free and we will sort something out. Can have a play in the studio as well if you like.
 
Thanks Dave :)

Studio's scare me; I think I'd feel like an impostor, worried about looking stupid playing with the big boy's toys!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Im pretty much in the same boat, looking to possibly upgrade and I am really happy with sony. A friend has the 65slt and as the keen amature thats the one that I want..... I dont have money to burn and it will probably take me months of very hard saving, but for me the a65 is next on my list..... good luck in your search.
 
Just be wary that (with the greatest of respect) the two lenses you have are not particularly impressive, and a sensor with a higher megapixel count will expose any flaws the lens shows e.g. fringing. The argument about being locked into a lens system isn't really valid with just those two, as if you sold them, you could easily buy another brand's equivalent for the same money 2nd hand.

That said, the Sony system is generally a good system to start with due to the in body stabilisation and the low price of the bodies. I had an a200 to start with and got some great results. However, it struggled at ISO 400 and above, so I feel your pain! I moved to Canon after the a200 (and a100) and the bodies worked much better for me, particularly the semi-pro ones e.g. 30D, 40D. I bought a Sony a450 a couple of years later to see what it was like, and the it was way better than the a200 for high ISO work. But I couldn't get on with the fiddly controls and so sold it and bought a Canon EOS 60D as a backup which was much better all round.

I haven't tried an SLT yet, but I have the EVF on my nex-5n and I'm going off it rapidly...I manual focus everything but struggle compared to a normal viewfinder. My Canon EOS 5D is much easier to use in that respect. The SLT models do have their advantages though - generally they will do more frames per second (if you're into sport) and of course there's no mirror flapping about to cause camera shake. Also, you can see the exact the white balance in the viewfinder when you are taking a shot, and you can zoom in for critical focus. But it's still not as good an experience as an OVF in my opinion, and I often get eye strain using it for some reason.

With regards live view, the rumours are that the upcoming Canon EOS 650D will have proper liveview AF...so perhaps the bigger brands are catching up with Sony in that respect. We should find out next month :)

My advice? Don't feel locked in to a system with two lenses. Get down to Currys in Commercial Road and try out a Nikon D5100, Canon 600D, Canon 60D, Pentax k-30, Sony a57 and Sony a65 and see how they feel.
 
Dom7 said:
I don't think its a massive problem then really? Certainly not as big a problem as some would suggest..
Click to expand...

not at all. In fact in the UK sony are making ground the big boys. The Sony NEX series have overtakne Nikon in the UK and over the last few years Sony have seen the market share increase quite a lot.

Canon and Nikon are losing sales of interchangeable lens cameras to rival firms racing to compete with a growing armoury of compact system models.

NEWS UPDATE: NIKON AND CANON LOSE 15% SHARE IN UK

Though Canon and Nikon still dominate the market, in Japan their combined share slumped 11% to 60.4% in 2010, according to a report published by Pen News Weekly, quoting statistics supplied by market research firm GfK.

Sony stormed into third place with a 15.2% share, according to the figures.

Meanwhile, in the UK, AP understands that Sony overtook Nikon in volume sales of interchangeable lens models for December 2010 - notching up 25% compared to Nikon’s 20%.

A GfK spokesman confirmed the Sony market share figure to Amateur Photographer when asked to comment on our findings.

Though the ‘big two’ have yet to show their hand in the increasingly competitive compact system camera arena, Nikon has hinted at plans to launch a mirrorless model.

Last year Nikon President Makoto Kimura was quoted as saying that a 'new concept' model is likely to boast enhanced video functionality.

'It could be any time this fiscal year or the following year, as new models are starting to sell,' he told a news agency.

This suggested Nikon may be ready to announce a compact system camera before the end of March.

In Japan, Canon led the way in 2010 with a 31.5% share, while Nikon held a 28.9% slice of the interchangeable lens camera market.
Click to expand...

Considering Sony's entry into the DSLR scene was only in 2006 when the acquired Minolta I think they are doing OK when compared to cannikon who have both been around since the time of Jesus in comparison.
 
heidfirst said:
because they have only been doing interchangeable lens cameras for a few years rather than 60. Canon & Nikon already had huge userbases.
Click to expand...

Funny, last time I looked Minolta had been in the business for roughly the same time as Canon and Nikon, made several series of highly successful manual focus SLR's and brought the first successful and practical AF SLR (Dynax 7000) to market in 1985 and held the 3rd biggest userbase in the 90's, way before they sold their camera division to Sony in 2006 who expanded on their early DSLR efforts with the same design teams. Just because their not as big as Nikon or Canon, don't automatically dismiss cameras from Sony or for that matter Pentax, Olympus etc either.
 
s162216 said:
Funny, last time I looked Minolta had been in the business for roughly the same time as Canon and Nikon, made several series of highly successful manual focus SLR's and brought the first successful and practical AF SLR (Dynax 7000) to market in 1985 and held the 3rd biggest userbase in the 90's, way before they sold their camera division to Sony in 2006 who expanded on their early DSLR efforts with the same design teams. Just because their not as big as Nikon or Canon, don't automatically dismiss cameras from Sony or for that matter Pentax, Olympus etc either.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was saying they should be dismissed; he was answering my question about why they are less popular than Canikon.

I would like to take a look at other less mainstream makes too, though if I'm not careful I'll never make a decision!
 
@manualfocus-g, thanks for that. You're right of course that the lenses don't need to be an issue, and that they're nothing special, though I do love the 50mm, which held its own very well against Canon and Nikon equivelants in a test in one of the photo mags recently.

The flash might be more of an issue, but maybe not.

I think I'll follow your suggestion and head off down to Currys. I hate buying from them, but they are handy for having a look :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
With regards live view, the rumours are that the upcoming Canon EOS 650D will have proper liveview AF...so perhaps the bigger brands are catching up with Sony in that respect. We should find out next month :)
Click to expand...

my D3100 does live view AF, it's not as good as OVF AF, because i read it's compact camera's contrast detect rather than SLR's phase detect.

have a look at D5100, it's an awesome camera with great sensor, has brilliant high ISO performance.
ISO performance chart here:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_sports
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top