Continuous AF during bursts (for certain action shots a continuous VF isn't as important as frame rate), fps, continuous phase detection af during video, in camera HDR, handheld twighlight/panorama etc. brighter, larger and more accurate viewfinder image with more information available.
why not a sony alpha33
- Thread starter G-Dubs
- Start date
Continuous AF during bursts (for certain action shots a continuous VF isn't as important as frame rate), fps, continuous phase detection af during video, in camera HDR, handheld twighlight/panorama etc. brighter, larger and more accurate viewfinder image with more information available.
Man of Honour
Well I think the first is completely null because of the viewfinder issue, if you need to AF a subject constantly during burst shooting, it's moving plenty, which means you'll need to track it....but you can't because continuous AF and updating the EVF in a timely fashion don't play together...
Continuous phase detection AF is a maybe, for me I don't get it but maybe consumers will like it, decent video isn't shot with AF anyway and the sensor gets too hot to film anything very long which is a consumer issue. I'd prefer improved contrast detection AF, which is coming soon anyway.
Handheld panorama / twilight - if you like, it's a bit of a toy in my view. I'd rather do my image editing myself rather than the camera trying to automate it.
The viewfinder would be great if it had those characteristics and wasn't an EVF. You can feel the lag, you always will be able to with an EVF.
It's cheap for the feature set is it's saving grace. If you desperately need one of those features at a low price and can accept the limitations that result then go for it but because of the limitations and so many of those features being fairly niche it's impossible to recommend to most people (before you get to the lack of glass and general issues with a minor brand).
Soldato
i personally see the "shortage" of lenses as being a bit ridiculous of an argument for anyone other than professionals.
Really, how many lenses do people own? Sony have a comparable lens at every market point except the ridiculous, which Joe Average would never consider. Primes, zooms, tele's the basics are covered, and if you punt for G glass, its as good as the high end Canon/Nikon glass.
For used the market is increasing every day, and if you are on a tight used budget then there are the whole history of Konica-Minolta AF A-mount lenses to choose from as well. The only things average Joe loses is the ability to hire, thats it (in terms of lenses).
fwiw i bought Sony, and have since bought 3 lenses and sold my kit lens. I wouldnt have any more (or different) lenses had i bought Canon or Nikon, as those three cost me £1300.
Get Sony if you want Sony, understand the limitations and benefits of the new mirror system and see if it fits for you. The technology is here to stayand is being incorporated into their higher-end bodies. Nikon/Canon may be known for their photographic experience, but Sony are known for their electronic and so quite capable of leading the market in that area...
I would only switch to Nikon for their ISO levels, and i felt the Canon felt no better than my Sony for build - the equivalent Nikon was slightly better. The lost light is a bit of a peeve, but its not a deal breaker - the 1/3rd loss is easily recoverable in post.
Really, how many lenses do people own? Sony have a comparable lens at every market point except the ridiculous, which Joe Average would never consider. Primes, zooms, tele's the basics are covered, and if you punt for G glass, its as good as the high end Canon/Nikon glass.
For used the market is increasing every day, and if you are on a tight used budget then there are the whole history of Konica-Minolta AF A-mount lenses to choose from as well. The only things average Joe loses is the ability to hire, thats it (in terms of lenses).
fwiw i bought Sony, and have since bought 3 lenses and sold my kit lens. I wouldnt have any more (or different) lenses had i bought Canon or Nikon, as those three cost me £1300.
Get Sony if you want Sony, understand the limitations and benefits of the new mirror system and see if it fits for you. The technology is here to stayand is being incorporated into their higher-end bodies. Nikon/Canon may be known for their photographic experience, but Sony are known for their electronic and so quite capable of leading the market in that area...
I would only switch to Nikon for their ISO levels, and i felt the Canon felt no better than my Sony for build - the equivalent Nikon was slightly better. The lost light is a bit of a peeve, but its not a deal breaker - the 1/3rd loss is easily recoverable in post.
Last edited:
Except any kind of image stabilization is useless 95% of the time. IS is not some kind of magic and does absolutely nothing for you if your subject is moving.
The light lost from the mirror is always light lost, regardless of what other gizmos you add on top. 1/3rd of a stop of additional light can be astronomically expensive to add to a lens. It is not like the sensors have particularly good high ISO ability as it is.
Associate
And photography is all about capturing light. People spend hundreds of pounds extra to get fast lenses to get that extra stop or so of light. To use an unnecessary technique which loses light without any other particularly brilliant upsides just doesn't seem logical to me. If the upsides outweighed the downsides, fair enough. IMO they don't.
I see this as over-engineering for the sake of it - or probably for marketing. I'm sure Sony genuinely believe that this could be the next big thing. Personally, I highly doubt it. I think it's the type of mistake that a new player in the photography world could easily make, trying to be too clever and missing the point of photography - which is light.
I see this as over-engineering for the sake of it - or probably for marketing. I'm sure Sony genuinely believe that this could be the next big thing. Personally, I highly doubt it. I think it's the type of mistake that a new player in the photography world could easily make, trying to be too clever and missing the point of photography - which is light.
Maybe for panorama, but you'll struggle to shoot 3 images quick enough or steadily enough handheld to average image NR them, and if you had a tripod you'd just use a longer exposure anyway.
Many thanks for your feedback on the subject. i've certainly found out more than I thought I was going to. My dilema essentially lies in the "live view" mode offered by canon and nikon in that I want to be able to see on the lcd what i'm taking a picture of "live" and then simply take the picture. the sony appears to be able to show me the effect of the various changes in appature whereas the others do not. In fact the canon requires me, if i've understood this correctly, to actually exit live view, make adjustments and then re enter live view to see what effect it's had and then finally exit again before taking the shot. I'm not looking to take professional grade photographs, in fact apart from a few "arty" shots and holiday snaps I mainly want the camera to photograph PC components for use in build logs and reviews. The sony has a flip out lcd which, with the camera tripod mounted I am able to angle towards my position to make taking the shot easier.
Associate
Canon live view is definitely more powerful than you realise.
It requires either manual focus or to lose the image on the screen for half a second whilst you auto focus (mirror needs to be down for AF to work). I assume this is the same for any other DSLR with live view. Everything else can be changed with live view activated, and the effect is shown on screen. There is no need to leave live view to change settings, and no need to leave live view to take the picture. It's not like using a compact with a screen on the back, that's for sure - but again, this is the same for any DSLR with live view.
I'm not really sure why you would want to use live view anyway. There are so many advantages to using the optical viewfinder. The only time I really use live view is to effectively use mirror lock up when on a tripod, to reduce camera shake. Occasionally it's helpful to compose an image at an awkward angle where it is difficult to get your eye to the viewfinder (e.g. camera inverted on a tripod, to take a low angle landscape shot). Otherwise, you can see so much clearer through the viewfinder, + you support the camera better when it's against your face meaning a greater chance of having a steady camera for the shot.
It requires either manual focus or to lose the image on the screen for half a second whilst you auto focus (mirror needs to be down for AF to work). I assume this is the same for any other DSLR with live view. Everything else can be changed with live view activated, and the effect is shown on screen. There is no need to leave live view to change settings, and no need to leave live view to take the picture. It's not like using a compact with a screen on the back, that's for sure - but again, this is the same for any DSLR with live view.
I'm not really sure why you would want to use live view anyway. There are so many advantages to using the optical viewfinder. The only time I really use live view is to effectively use mirror lock up when on a tripod, to reduce camera shake. Occasionally it's helpful to compose an image at an awkward angle where it is difficult to get your eye to the viewfinder (e.g. camera inverted on a tripod, to take a low angle landscape shot). Otherwise, you can see so much clearer through the viewfinder, + you support the camera better when it's against your face meaning a greater chance of having a steady camera for the shot.
thanks again for all the feed back guys. i'm off into lincoln to see if i can get my hands on some and have another look.
quick question. does AF work with the viewfinder in any of the options that have been discussed?
quick question. does AF work with the viewfinder in any of the options that have been discussed?