why not a sony alpha33

[G-Dubs]

Just been out to het a new DSLR. set out to buy the canon EOS 550d but then got interrested in the Nilon D3100. Just as I think i've made my mind up along comes the Sony Alpha 33.

I have to be honest in liking the sony, but think i'm suffering from label snobery.

it seems head and shoulders above the other 2

What am I missing???

 

[Von Luck]

What's the A33 like build-wise? All the other Sony DSLRs that I've handled have felt cheap and nasty compared to their Canon/Nikon equivalents.

 

[lee7]

I use an alpha 350 & really can't fault it, I used canon 350D before I bought the Sony & don't regret switching over at all, I can honestly say the build quality of the canon felt no better but I do find that canon's controls / menu's are much easier to use. I'd say spend your money on what ever feels the most comfortable to you.

 

[G-Dubs]

What's the A33 like build-wise? All the other Sony DSLRs that I've handled have felt cheap and nasty compared to their Canon/Nikon equivalents.

Build quality feels fine, in fact the sony makes use of some rather nice textured rugger on the right hand side to give better grip.

I use an alpha 350 & really can't fault it, I used canon 350D before I bought the Sony & don't regret switching over at all, I can honestly say the build quality of the canon felt no better but I do find that canon's controls / menu's are much easier to use. I'd say spend your money on what ever feels the most comfortable to you.

The thing I think I liked most about the sony was the true live view. I have to admit my impression of the nikon and the canon was that you had to compose the shot with live view and then sort of exit it before taking the shot. That said I didn't have things very well explained to me.

 

[bigredshark]

It's got the odd translucent mirror, so it gets better video AF and shoots very fast for an entry level body. However, the fact the mirror is fixed means you're always going to be loosing light compared to a DSLR (which this isn't, technically it's a DSLT apparently) somewhere, there's always a percentage being lost to either function, either to the sensor or the AF. For me, in an entry level body which is never going to handle high ISO brilliantly or have top line AF, that's a good enough reason not to touch it.

Other reasons include, nasty stories about the sensor overheating, lack of lens choice compared to the big brands, lack of second hand glass compared to the big brands. It's got an electronic viewfinder (yep, the viewfinder is just a tiny LCD, it's not optical - again, that's enough reason to say no for me in an SLR equivalent).

 

[G-Dubs]

cheers bigred.

i'm a bit of a noob, can you explain the concerns re why the translucent mirror and small lcd are a problem? is it just they deviate from the purist ideal or is there actually a problem with this approach?

 

[mcc49]

Its pretty hard to explain without drawings or diagram but basically traditional DSLR like the 500D you mention has a optical viewfinder because it has a pentamirror/prism inside it to redirect the light from the lens into the viewfinder.

The new Sony approach called SLT doesnt have this pentaprism and instead has a translucent mirror in front of the sensor so the viewfinder is actually a mini LCD, the advantage of this is that theres no mirror lifting up and down during shutter release so it is capable of very high continuous shot rate. Downside is that it loses light as part of the light coming into the mirror is rediverted to the focusing array and the rest to the sensor.

Like bigredshark says, it has been reported that the sensor overheats when in movie mode especially with steadyshot enabled.

 

[Ixon]

It's got an electronic viewfinder (yep, the viewfinder is just a tiny LCD, it's not optical - again, that's enough reason to say no for me in an SLR equivalent).

Being an owner of a G1 which also has an EVF, the advantages out weigh the disavantages.

First up you get a massive 100% fov viewfinder, my G1 is around the same size as a 1D viewfinder, you just don't get that on any DSLR around the same price or even the D300s or 7D.

EVF being 1.44 million pixels & at refresh rate around 60hz you get a nice clear flicker free image outdoors & in good light.

EVF also has all the info in front of your eye including histogram

The only downsides to current EVF's is that in poor light like indoor lighting, the EVF becomes grainy as they automatically up the gain, but the upside to this is you can see what your shooting in near darkness, something you would find difficult a optical viewfinder.

EVF technology is getting better with every release, the current SONY A33 & 55 EVF is better than my G1's also can be said about the G2 & GH2 were they managed to lessen the blackout when continous shooting.

I've been using an EVF now for 2 years & actually wouldn't go back to using a optical viewfinder.

The EVF viewfinders are the future for big sensor camera's, Sony were the first to bring this to the DSLR market, others will follow at some point ie Canon, Nikon & Pentax it's only a matter of time till you say goodbye to optical viewfinders and mirrors.

And eventually when the tech there you wonder how you managed with just an optical viewfinder.

 

[bigredshark]

Being an owner of a G1 which also has an EVF, the advantages out weigh the disavantages.

For you maybe, for me it's not instant enough, its not acceptably sharp for manual focus lenses and it's yet another thing to sap battery power. Wouldn't touch it myself. Each to their own but it would actively get in my way.

 

[sorn21]

I can see the uses of an EVF, but isn't it a massive battery drain?

I love the fact that my camera nearly always has plent battery!
Takes a good week or so to drain them completely, gripped btw.

 

[bigredshark]

cheers bigred.

i'm a bit of a noob, can you explain the concerns re why the translucent mirror and small lcd are a problem? is it just they deviate from the purist ideal or is there actually a problem with this approach?

The viewfinder you might be OK living with, it's difficult for me to say as I haven't extensively used an entry level DSLR for years and something with less than 100% coverage and a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism might be worse than a good EVF. For me, it's a show stopper on it's own but I'm coming from using pro level bodies so your opinion may vary.

The mirror is less of a choice thing, it has some advantages but it is sub optimal. In a DSLR the light through the lens is either sent 100% to the AF and viewfinder or the mirror pops up and 100% goes to the sensor. The Sony has a fixed mirror and x% goes to the AF and y% goes to the sensor all the time.

The most obvious issue that raises is in low light the sensor never receives as much light as it could on a DSLR, you will have to shoot at a high ISO, slower shutter speed or wider aperture for the same results....

The less obvious side is that the AF system also never gets as much light as a DSLR could, so in low light there's a question mark over it, in addition to which it's not a top notch AF system in the first place with plenty of moans about it's struggling to track motion properly (it's not surprising really, Nikon and Canon have spent a lot of time and money developing the top end AF systems which filters down - The D3100 has AF on a par with or maybe better than the D2xs).

Basically, the A33 isn't an SLR and doesn't compare well with real ones when it comes down to the things they do well. It is a good alternative to a bridge camera and that's probably what it's best treated as.

 

[Demon]

Assuming it's similar to the A55, the review over on dpreview seems to make it out to be a pretty credible camera, noise levels etc seem very good,

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/

It seems to do well in most comparitive tests, with good noise levels, etc. The only focus criticism is on tracking AF, but even that seems more software related, and obviously if tracking AF is required, I'd look elsewhere.

Its obviously not perfect, but if dpreview put it you against all its rivals and it comes out well, with a gold award for the A55, I'd consider it a worthy camera to shortlist.

To say its can't be compared to a DSLR seems a little misinformed? If it was pap, dpreview's tests would show that was the case? It may look/handle like a bridge camera, but it performs well enough in its class?

 

[ChazHurst]

I considered an SLT before I purchased a new body. As a Sony user with a small collection of lenses I'm kind of tied to the system...

I was looking at the a55, impressed with it's feature list. I found the EVF a bit rubbish, and it was too small for my big flappy hands... Also even though they added the EVF they decided to put a smaller battery in it , so the battery life sucks.

In the end I bought the a580. The standard AF is still pretty amazing (but MF only in video mode), and it has all the same features. It only loses out on the frame rate. But you gain that 1/3 stop of light you would lose on the SLT range. You also get an optical VF which works better for my using external flash in low light environments. I'm chuffed with it!

There are other issues with the translucent mirror as well. It sometimes diffracts light onto the sensor in a strange way. On night shots with bright lights in sometimes you get "ghosts" of those lights in different areas of the image. It only occurs under specific lighting conditions and only with some lenses, so it's a bit of weird one. (read more here)

So unless your dead set on AF in video mode, the a560 is the SLR equivalent of the a33. Same sensor, probably more functional in more situations, or the a580, which has a better sensor.

 

[Von Luck]

For you maybe, for me it's not instant enough, its not acceptably sharp for manual focus lenses and it's yet another thing to sap battery power. Wouldn't touch it myself. Each to their own but it would actively get in my way.

I'd have to agree with that, the EVFs I've tried, including the G1, have seemed to introduce lag, had odd colour balance and seemed grainy. I'd much rather have an optical viewfinder.

 

[ashatron]

Ive heard the SLT's arent great for video as they overheat to do their Image stabilization, meaning IIRC you film for about 6 mins then have to wait 5 minutes for the system to cool down.

ive also heard that the translucent mirror system draws light away form the sensor...which can only be a bad idea, the less light it gets the longer shutter / higher iso your images will have to be for a 0 exposure image.

Research these subjects and be sure to let me know if thats all BS, but ive read it on forums so just letting you know

 

[D.P.]

A more pertinent question is why?

Or more specifically, why would one not purchase a Nikon or Canon (presuming they way a full SLR, otherwise m4/3rds is a different discussion).

People seem to be swayed by minor functionality differences without seeing the biggest picture of the system they are buying into. Furthermore, in the next years it is very likely that at least one of Sony/Pentax/Sigma/Fuji will quite the regular SLR market. Olympus have already abandoned their regular 4/3 SLRs. Sony's big push has failed to explode into the market place, Pentax is still sleeping.

 

[Namistai]

For me, whilst all the technical discussion is valid (and for me personally points towards a DSLR being the best option), one thing that has only been briefly touched on above is the choice of lenses, the availability of second hand lenses, and for that matter all manners of other tools and accessories. No other brand can compare to Canon or Nikon in these areas, which means for anyone serious about their photography who wants to get a selection of lenses for different purposes would generally (and I am generalising here) be better off with a Nikon or a Canon. If one was to buy a DSLR to be used for snapshots (i.e. not with any true creative spirit behind the photography), then this argument probably doesn't stack up.

So imo, the OP should consider what he wants to achieve with the camera. Is it to get into photography as a serious hobby (or more)? Or is it really just to have a high quality camera to take your normal photos with? Thinking about this could help to lead you down a path

Just my tuppence worth

 

[Ksanti]

Regarding the lost light argument:

1) The A33 has Handheld Twilight thanks to it's translucent mirror allowing three very quick shots to more than compensate for the 1/3 stop less light through noise reduction, at least on still-ish objects
2) The A33 has inbuilt image stabilisation, making a longer exposure more practical when handheld, helping out with keeping noise down, at least compared to the Nikon and Canon equivalents without in-body stabilisation.

Of course there are problems with the AF in low light; but for action photography the continuous AF and fps are more important than the focus accuracy - at least in bright light.

 

[bigredshark]

Regarding the lost light argument:

1) The A33 has Handheld Twilight thanks to it's translucent mirror allowing three very quick shots to more than compensate for the 1/3 stop less light through noise reduction, at least on still-ish objects
2) The A33 has inbuilt image stabilisation, making a longer exposure more practical when handheld, helping out with keeping noise down, at least compared to the Nikon and Canon equivalents without in-body stabilisation.

Of course there are problems with the AF in low light; but for action photography the continuous AF and fps are more important than the focus accuracy - at least in bright light.

Except by trying to do continuous AF during burst shooting it can't run the EVF properly at the same time so good luck trying to track a moving subject while using that high FPS rate....

That's the main problem with this approach, it has plenty of attempts to mitigate the problems caused by the use of the translucent mirror but the translucent mirror hasn't actually given any major benefits, the headline high frame rate isn't particularly usable and there's little else to speak of...

 

[bigredshark]

So imo, the OP should consider what he wants to achieve with the camera. Is it to get into photography as a serious hobby (or more)? Or is it really just to have a high quality camera to take your normal photos with? Thinking about this could help to lead you down a path

Just my tuppence worth

Absolutely, if it came down to the camera alone then the Pentax K7 and the like would sell an awful lot better (being well specified, very functional and good value cameras). *

And if you don't have it in mind to take photography seriously enough that you need to worry about lens choice then you're likely better with the various EVIL options around today - close in image quality, more compact and cheaper...

* Not to say the pentax doesn't have good lenses actually, the 17-70 f/4 has a few lessons Nikon and Canon could absorb at the £450 price point...there's just not the same choice and good luck finding a second hand one...