Sony, and especially Translucent Mirror

Southdowns, Been reading up on the upcoming A99.. I am pretty sure that when this is released (August/September) that the previous Sony models might well drop in price!

Worth keeping in mind..
 
As I said, looks like August/September time..
 
Dom7 said:
Southdowns, Been reading up on the upcoming A99.. I am pretty sure that when this is released (August/September) that the previous Sony models might well drop in price!

Worth keeping in mind..
Click to expand...

well i don't think advanced amateur APS-C models (like 57/65) will be affected that much by the release of a 3k worth FF model.

Not that much that I would wait if i wanted a camera now ;)
 
I think that all Sony models will drop slightly when something else is released, that's how it always was in the Television side of the company. Was also the case with our compacts too, I guess we shall wait and see :)
 
Well, IF I go with Sony, which is not decided for sure yet, it looks like either the 57 or 65, BUT Sony are really messing with my brain here!

The 57 looks to have the better sensor by a fair margin, but the 65 has the better EVF and has GPS. GPS may arguably be unnecessary, but I love having my photo's geotagged, and it's a bit of a pain doing it using the iPhone app I have.

I'm going to find somewhere where I can compare these two, and other makes, to see if the EVF difference really is significant, and if it's not will probably go with the 57 and forget GPS, reluctantly.

That is unless another make grabs my attention. The problem with that is that I can't find any compelling reason to go with Canon or Nikon (haven't looked at others yet), so don't see a reason to go to the hassle of selling and replacing my lenses/flash. There's no particular reason NOT to go with something other than Sony, but no clear reason why I should either.
 
Southdowns said:
Well, IF I go with Sony, which is not decided for sure yet, it looks like either the 57 or 65, BUT Sony are really messing with my brain here!

The 57 looks to have the better sensor by a fair margin, but the 65 has the better EVF and has GPS. GPS may arguably be unnecessary, but I love having my photo's geotagged, and it's a bit of a pain doing it using the iPhone app I have.
Click to expand...
The only difference is the 16 vs 24MP pixel size allows for better high ISO performance, if you downsize high ISO RAW A65 images to 16MP, the difference is very small.. Quantum efficiency looks very close for both, and they share the same generation of Bionz processor.. It's been discussed and debated on DPReview, but the comparisons when re-sized do seem to show very little difference.

For example, here is a cutting room floor from my last wedding (A77, main tog for a family wedding).. Click for larger image.. ISO5000, 1/60th f/5.6, (imgur resizes, so I had to add a 100% crop)

100%:


I'm going to find somewhere where I can compare these two, and other makes, to see if the EVF difference really is significant, and if it's not will probably go with the 57 and forget GPS, reluctantly.
Click to expand...
The OLED EVF is really nice and large, the A57 is just a little smaller, but the main difference is that the A57 uses field sequential rendering, meaning if you pan around, you can see the 'rainbow' effect that creates, it's not massive, but just be aware.

That is unless another make grabs my attention. The problem with that is that I can't find any compelling reason to go with Canon or Nikon (haven't looked at others yet), so don't see a reason to go to the hassle of selling and replacing my lenses/flash. There's no particular reason NOT to go with something other than Sony, but no clear reason why I should either.
Click to expand...
I had a D5100, and fully intended to go to a D7000, but ended up with the A77.. The main reason was 'as a camera', all of them are roughly comparable, they all take excellent photo's, but it was the extra SLT 'fun' that drew me to Sony, and I've not regretted it, and understand everyone has different needs.

Personally, I'd take the A65 over the A57 anyday, low ISO 24MP images are superb, and the EVF is an absolute Joy to use..


manualfocus-g said:
I manual focus everything but struggle compared to a normal viewfinder. My Canon EOS 5D is much easier to use in that respect.
Click to expand...
I agree that compared to a good FF viewfinder, the A65/A77 doesn't quite look as good, even if they are almost the same size.. What really stands out for MF is the focus peaking on the SLT's, that's is a revelation to me and definitely elevates an APS-C camera to being a really good MF experience (IMO)..
 
Last edited:
Southdowns said:
Well, IF I go with Sony, which is not decided for sure yet, it looks like either the 57 or 65, BUT Sony are really messing with my brain here!

The 57 looks to have the better sensor by a fair margin, but the 65 has the better EVF and has GPS. GPS may arguably be unnecessary, but I love having my photo's geotagged, and it's a bit of a pain doing it using the iPhone app I have.

I'm going to find somewhere where I can compare these two, and other makes, to see if the EVF difference really is significant, and if it's not will probably go with the 57 and forget GPS, reluctantly.

That is unless another make grabs my attention. The problem with that is that I can't find any compelling reason to go with Canon or Nikon (haven't looked at others yet), so don't see a reason to go to the hassle of selling and replacing my lenses/flash. There's no particular reason NOT to go with something other than Sony, but no clear reason why I should either.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I've did a few of the workshops at the Sony World Photography awards last month and had extended (3 hour-ish) trials of the a57, a77 and Nex7. I didn't try the a65, but based on the a77 (same sensor and VF) I'd make the following comments about the a57 v a65.

The OLED EVF of the a65/77 is undoubtedly better than the a57, BUT the difference isn't all that great. With both cameras in your hand, you'd see the difference, but I had an hours break between the a57 and a77 and to be honest I didn't even notice it. In practical use, they're pretty much equal IMO.

I wouldn't say either sensor is better than the other, but they are different. The 16mp is better above ISO 1250-ish, but the 24mp is better below. In good light, the 24mp is just stunning (and hugely crop-able), but I found it just too noisy by 1600. The a57 is clearly cleaner at 1600 and I'd say that 3200 is usable at a push. Sure you can downsize the 24mp to get nearer to the 16mp performance, but for me the difference is still noticeable.

It really depends what your "use case" is. If you shoot mainly in good light at low-ish ISO's you really cant beat the a65/77. If you often need to crank the ISO above 1250-ish, then the a57 is the better choice IMO.
 
Fantastic, thanks guys. High ISO isn't an absolute priority, though obviously if I could have the best of both worlds, I would!

I tried re-sizing dpreview's ISO 6400 sample shot for the 65 down to 16MP, and comparing it with the same shot from the 57, and to be honest there WAS a difference side by side, but if you'd shown me either I'd not have been able to tell you which camera it came from. The difference was minimal, even at this high ISO.

Also, applying NR to either shot in LR, even without resizing, gave close to perfect results , so I think it's a bit of a no-brainer!

Separately, I have just found that LR4 will geotag photo's from a gpx track, say from an iPhone. Much easier than doing it outside LR then bringing them in, or dragging the photo's onto the map in LR, so arguably the need for in camera GPS is reduced to almost zero. It'd still be nice though, and the 65 is beginning to look like the better camera anyway :)
 
And just to make sure we don't lose you on the Nikon side a few comments after I have played with a friend's d5100.

- Results identical to my a580 (i.e. same as the a57 minus the 1/3-1/2 stop of light)
- less external controls (can be annoying when you are used to having some things available)
- no focus motor (so the cheapest 50mm f1.8 you can find would cost twice the sony one)
- no in body IS (as I have already said stabilised primes on Sony bodys are brilliant to me :) )
 
iced_jacob said:
- no focus motor (so the cheapest 50mm f1.8 you can find would cost twice the sony one)
Click to expand...
Not quite true .
The AF 50/1.8 (£110) would work but be MF only & it's ~£170 for the AF-S 50/1.8 v £130 for the 50/1.8 DT).

Personally at current prices (& for my needs) I would buy an A65 over an A57 but A57 prices should drop if you can wait.
 
wuyanxu said:
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
Click to expand...

Sorry, just to clarify, most SLRs will do liveview AF, but it's generally very slow! The Sony SLTs are much quicker as they use the normal focusing mechanism and the SLRs use a 2nd mirror to perform liveview AF. With the SLRs, this generally results in smaller viewfinders.

With regards the in body stabilisation...it's useful to a point with shorter lenses, but doesn't stop blur created by things moving, so shooting at 1/8 second generally doesn't work for me ;) It's more useful (IMO) for mid length lenses. My experience with longer lenses is a 1 stop shutter speed improvement, but again this only applies to slow moving objects in the main as birds move quickly and need fast shutter speeds :) It's a useful feature, but by no means a deal breaker IMO.
 
Just to put some more info on the A57/A65 High ISO noise stuff, the difference if you resize the A65 to 16MP really is quite small, it's still obviously slightly better on the A57, but it's good to see what it equates to in side by side terms!

These are (I believe Straight ACR conversions with zero noise reduction)..

ISO1600->ISO3200->IS12800 All images @ 16MP
ok2b5.jpg



And since downsizing can introduce artefacts, here's a similar set with the A57 upsampled..
WCGRP.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi Phil

Can you just confirm that the church pew shot is taken at iso 5000 ? This is a remarkably clean image considering and I'd be extremely pleased to find out how you post processed this.

Regard

Gary
 
gary43 said:
Hi Phil-t

Can you just confirm that the church pew shot is taken at iso 5000 ? This is a remarkably clean image considering and I'd be extremely pleased to find out how you post processed this.

Regard

Gary
Click to expand...
 
gary43 said:
Hi Phil

Can you just confirm that the church pew shot is taken at iso 5000 ? This is a remarkably clean image considering and I'd be extremely pleased to find out how you post processed this.

Regard

Gary
Click to expand...

It was definitely ISO5000, I would hazard a guess and say the camera was in Auto ISO so could be MFNR, it's almost OOC, just contrast/clarity tweaked..

I've uploaded the originals, straight out of the camera, here.. (You can download the originals, I just kindly ask not to re-host any shots with people in :) )


http://photos.thetolsons.co.uk/p1011332932
 
Last edited:
with regards to ISO performance would I be correct in thinking that the 65 and the 77 have the same capabilities or is one better than the other ?
 
Dear Phil-t

Thanks for your comments above. I'm normally a bit reluctant to use my a77 above iso 1600 but will definitely experiment more with MFNR after looking at your images. If only it would work in RAW mode !

Very impressed !

Thanks again for posting and getting back.

Gary
 
wildman said:
with regards to ISO performance would I be correct in thinking that the 65 and the 77 have the same capabilities or is one better than the other ?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, The A77 has more freedom over auto ISO ranges, but apart from that, they both are identical in their performance, both having MFNR, both have the same sensor and processor and a maximum ISO 16000.
 
Last edited:
iirc the A77 has a true ISO 50 setting & the A65 doesn't.
For landscape use that could be useful.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Iso 50 on the a77 is an extended setting as far as I am aware i.e. ISO 100 overexposed and pulled back a stop.
Click to expand...

That was what DPReview stated, however, people have noticed through their own tests and more importantly DxO measurements, that Dynamic range, Colour depth, etc, all increase below ISO100, which wouldn't tie in with it being extended.. ?? Or if it is extended, you certainly get a benefit in DR and Colour Depth, so I think it's a worthwhile addition.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/SLT-Alpha-77#tabs-2

Oddly, I keep forgetting about ISO50, to be fair, all my events I've done haven't had the weather/light to really use it anyway, but now we have some good light/weather, I'll certainly be giving it more use
 
Last edited:
Just for the record, I can't afford an a77 no matter how good it is. Even second hand they're out of my budget :(
 
Southdowns said:
Just for the record, I can't afford an a77 no matter how good it is. Even second hand they're out of my budget :(
Click to expand...

Good point!

However, the A65 is identical in terms of ISO100-16000 performance, resolution etc, it has the same sensor, viewfinder, processor, etc :) so general ISO IQ is valid looking at either camera, or discussing EVF's etc..

:)
 
Oh no problem discussing it even if it wasn't relevant (and I see it is, apart from ISO50), just pointing out that it's not on my list :)

I've found all the answers here VERY useful. TBH I expected to get a slamming for not rolling over and going Canikon, so it's very refreshing to get truly helpful replies :)
 
Southdowns said:
TBH I expected to get a slamming for not rolling over and going Canikon, so it's very refreshing to get truly helpful replies :)
Click to expand...


It's funny when people see your pictures and say: "Nice. what camera do you have?" Then you drop the S*** word and they go crazy (apparently the photography tutors at London's top arts universities tell their students that it's photography is a Canon or Nothing thing :cuckoo:
 
Proves art tutors' ignorance as Nikons are just sonys with different clothes on!
 
Soda Farl said:
What complete and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is pushing it a bit! On the other hand, any two cameras that share the same sensor (so some of the Sony/Nikon ranges), leave only secondary things to set them appart. Ergonomics, features, build quality etc are all important, but arguably the camera is just a holder for the sensor, just like they used to be holders for film.
 
Oops. Had a play with an A65 in Jessops today, and loved it, especially that VF! Anyway, I might have accidentally ordered one!

Still, it's done now, so no use crying over spilled milk (or melted credit cards) eh? ;)

(BTW, not bought from Jessops; the bloke clearly had no idea what he was talking about, and they were £130 more expensive than Park Cameras. Yep, I could have got it cheaper still, but was heading into dodgy web site ground then!).
 
Last edited:
Well I have a A580 and an A700 both of which I like a lot. Ihave been thinking of selling the A580 and upgrading to an A65 orA77 but wasn't sure about the EVF. My wife has just gone for an A57 from her A330 and I have to say its a great camera. The EVF is really good and some of the creative fiters are great fun. Jessops were doing a good online deal so we went for it. I Don't think you would be dissapointed with either the A57 or A65.
 
Cheers Morph. I've had the A65 for a couple of weeks now, and love it big time! The VF is wonderful; I'm sure there are things that it doesn't do quite as well as an optical one, but they're more than outweighed by the focus peaking/zooming, level gauge, info, low light brightness, settings preview, and size.

To be honest, I can't really fault it! If forced to find fault, I'd say the buffer does fill quickly if shooting on raw, but with a decent card it clears pretty fast, and the GPS could do with being more sensitive so it worked in more areas; unlike my iPhone, you have to be truly outdoors.

Oh, and while it works in manual slave mode, my flash needs a firmware update (promised by Nissin but not available yet), to work TTL wirelessly.
 
Sony are far more innovative than Canon and therefore are ahead of the game in many ways. I have had Canon, Nikon and Sony and would not move away from Sony. IMHO
 
Chobber said:
Sony are far more innovative than Canon and therefore are ahead of the game in many ways. I have had Canon, Nikon and Sony and would not move away from Sony. IMHO
Click to expand...

Which ways? I've tried Sony, Canon and Pentax and much prefer the Canon models. EVFs give me a headache for a start, but the Steady Shot is a good feature.
 
Well I didn't want this to deteriorate into a soncanikon bun fight, but there is no doubt that Sony are pushing the boundaries, and offer a lot for your money. You don't have to like any of it, but it's undeniable that they are not as tied by tradition as others are.

To be honest, now that the EVF is so good in the alpha 57, 65 and 77s, I see no benefit to a flipping mirror (pun intended!) at all, and see it as a relic that other manufacturers can't drop because there'd be an outcry from their traditional customer base.

To answer manualfocus-g's question: very fast burst modes, continuous auto focus with video, acurate auto focus in live view, focus zooming and peaking in the viewfinder, review of shots in the viewfinder (very handy for spotting that someone had their eyes shut, or for viewing in bright sunlight), the ability to actually see things through the viewfinder in dark conditions, no mirror shake at all, settings preview in the viewfinder, in body IS, a much brighter and larger viewfinder than any traditional crop sensor DSLR, etc. I don't even notice the viewfinder is electronic now, until I need one of the features only it can offer.

As I say, you can argue against any or all those things, or decide you don't need or want them, but the fact is that only Sony's have most of them, so if they ARE valuable to you, then Sony does have a lead.

I kind of started this thread expecting that someone would give me a good factual reason why Canikon sell so many more DSLR's than others, but there were none, and Sony offer an awful lot that makes photography more enjoyable for me.

Heck, it's even cheaper to hire lenses for the things!
 
Last edited:
This thread certainly shouldn't turn into a bun fight, I am just interested in the features you Sony shooters are enjoying :)

I haven't tried the A65 or A77 as it doesn't offer me the things I need (compatibility with old lenses other than M42 and a full frame sensor, the A99 will certainly resolve the latter however). I am a little unique in this sense I guess! :D

I did own a Nex-5n with the EVF though, and really hated the viewfinder, and I strongly suspect I'm not the only one with this view on EVFs :( Image preview and review is handy to a point, but the headaches and eye strain turned me off big style.

You're right though, it's great that Sony are trying something different and creating a bit of competition. I will be genuinely interested to see if some of the technology is aped by Canon and Nikon in their DSLRs over the next 5 years or not. Canon have taken a different approach to video AF already.
 
You can get a nikon adapter for alpha mount so you can use old nikon lenses. I only know as I went mad and bought one. Never used it. There's also one for Minolta MD manual lenses. Leica R to full frame sony: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Adapter-Leica-R-lens-Sony-Alpha-DSLR-A900-A800-/330497330329

In the last few years the number of adapters and doodads has mushroomed for sony so I don't think it difficult as it used to be even 2 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top