sony a77

[skieur]

I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology

Yes. Nothing wrong with the Polaroid camera or twin lens reflex cameras either, but I don't see anyone using them.

skieur

 

[skieur]

The veiwfinder, the noise, very slow writting to card, after shooting 12 shots it took 13 seconds to write to the card these ar the problem

Viewfinder - the advantage outweight the disadvantge of it over the OVF. whats the problem?
Writing to card- Get a fast card then
12 shots will take 13 seconds to write- Completely wrong
Noise- a77 noise level is as good as the Canon 7D. Are you saying all the canon suck?

How about the advantages?
face register- camera will remember the face of your subject and focus on them right away even in a crowded area
Dual Control Wheel- much easier to control the settings when doing manual mode
Live view- Sony LV is unmatch
Weather Sealed- Shoot in the rain
Extremely fast video autofocus
Extremely fast AF
In-body IS- Never to worry about not having IS lens
Panorama
Multi Frame Noise Reduction
Better Image quality than "all" Aps-c of Canon

Have you used one ? it had a fast card fitted,

How many times do you have to be told gsgary that your speed issue is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, considering that NO OTHER CAMERA can shoot at even 8 frames per second at 24 megapixels.????

skieur

 

[ConradM]

Can we just ban all the brandname elitists? Discussions might god forbid, be constructive without them.

Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products.

The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do.

Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.

 

[skieur]

The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.

Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative

As in you would notice 1/3 of a stop less light....sure.....

skieur

 

[skieur]

I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology

The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.

Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative

That seems to be a non-issue at least at the lower end. The a33 has higher IQ than any camera below $700.

Non issue at the high end too. I have shot in a mine..almost in the dark. 1/3 of an fstop is not even noticeable.

skieur

 

[Crollo]

Can we just ban all the brandname elitists? Discussions might god forbid, be constructive without them.

Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products.

The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do.

Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.

Wasn't really aiming anything in there at you, you're a rational reasonable person. It's just the people that will defend a brand with their life, resorting to low jabs and blows at other brands in order to make the one they love look better.

 

[unpopular]

I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology

Yes. Nothing wrong with the Polaroid camera or twin lens reflex cameras either, but I don't see anyone using them.

skieur

Polaroids had a very specific quality which excluded them for general use, they are still used in art photography and to some extent in large format studio for proofing purposes.

Twin Lens Reflex cameras had parallax problems and interchangeable lenses are somewhat more costly and problematic to manufacture.

TLRs are very reliable, and have very bright viewfinders. But for most people the problems outweigh the advantages.

 

[skieur]

Can we just ban all the brandname elitists? Discussions might god forbid, be constructive without them.

Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products.

The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do.

Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.

Wasn't really aiming anything in there at you, you're a rational reasonable person. It's just the people that will defend a brand with their life, resorting to low jabs and blows at other brands in order to make the one they love look better.

And then there are others who will attack any brand but one of the big 2, resorting to insulting the poster when nothing else works.

skieur

 

[skieur]

I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology

Yes. Nothing wrong with the Polaroid camera or twin lens reflex cameras either, but I don't see anyone using them.

skieur

Polaroids had a very specific quality which excluded them for general use, they are still used in art photography and to some extent in large format studio for proofing purposes.

Twin Lens Reflex cameras had parallax problems and interchangeable lenses are somewhat more costly and problematic to manufacture.

TLRs are very reliable, and have very bright viewfinders. But for most people the problems outweigh the advantages.

And the mirror is what is "wrong with normal slr technology", as even the camera manufacturers will agree.

skieur

 

[kassad]

How many times do you have to be told gsgary that your speed issue is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, considering that NO OTHER CAMERA can shoot at even 8 frames per second at 24 megapixels.????

skieur

It's not irrelevant. What good is 24 megapixels if your missing shots waiting for the buffer to clear? Heck I would rather have the a700 5 fps than buffer issues.

If you have an a77, how many shots can you take at 8 fps before you fill the buffer? How long does the buffer take to clear?

 

[Crollo]

Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products.

The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do.

Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.

Wasn't really aiming anything in there at you, you're a rational reasonable person. It's just the people that will defend a brand with their life, resorting to low jabs and blows at other brands in order to make the one they love look better.

And then there are others who will attack any brand but one of the big 2, resorting to insulting the poster when nothing else works.

skieur

Yes but they're still elitists though... Not really in a class of their own.

 

[ConradM]

Ok, I'm confused about the FPS buffer talk. I literally just took 43 pictures in continuous mode. For the first 15 or so, they fired off at the normal rate of 7fps but after that it started shooting in bursts of 3. But it never had to stop and write to the card or anything.

 

[unpopular]

And the mirror is what is "wrong with normal slr technology", as even the camera manufacturers will agree.
skieur

You know, maybe. But I think at the moment the technology is not quite ready. Perhaps when imaging sensors incorporate avalanche diodes (and they will), the same old issues that prevented effective Pellicle SLRs exist today - I'll admit to a much lesser degree, but still nonetheless present.

 

[unpopular]

You know, there is also emerging technologies including variable transmission mirrors which are affected by voltage input. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to switch the transmission based on the amount of light with more transmission in low light settings, and then drop it down to a lower reflection level when the shutter is pressed - permitting just enough light to see what's going on.

You could even make it such that if the drive mode is in single exposure the mirror would turn completely transmissive.

 

[mjhoward]

The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.

Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative

That seems to be a non-issue at least at the lower end. The a33 has higher IQ than any camera below $700.

Non issue at the high end too. I have shot in a mine..almost in the dark. 1/3 of an fstop is not even noticeable.

skieur

You have become a belligerent fool. The loss is 1/2 ev for starters, not 1/3 ev. The reason you don't notice it is because sony increases the gain of the sensor to compensate for this loss. This is why the images from it are so farking noisy... also something you can't seem to acknowledge. Another down side to the translucent mirror is that it is another piece of glass between the subject and the sensor. This introduces two issues... the first is a slight degradation in sharpness. This is a slight degradation, similar to having a quality UV filter on your lens. You may not notice the difference without pixel peeping. The other downfall is shooting conditions which allow for 'ghosting' or multiple reflections.

These are just problems with having the mirror there. This doesnt address any of the other problems with the body. And sure, full time Phase Detect AF is nice for a video camera... but we arn't videographers here. If I or anyone here wanted a video camera they would probably pick a more suitable product such as... a VIDEO camera... not a DSLR.