What we are posting now will definitely start a BIG discussion! Than according to DxOmark lab results the [shoplink 3028]Sony A580[/shoplink] easily outperforms the translucent [shoplink 3617]A55[/shoplink] brother! Color dept, Dynamic range and ISO performance are better on the classic DSLR Sony camera! De facto the A580 is as good as the Nikon D7000. It looks like you loose a bit of image quality when using a camera with translucent mirror. Let’s face it, difference is barely noticeable in real world pictures but Sony has to work to close the gap between the two technologies. Maybe that’s the reason why Sony has taken all that time to develop the A77 and A99 cameras. I am sure at the end we will say that it was worth to wait…at least I hope so 🙂
Direct shop links (Click on shop name to visit the product page and check price and availability):
Sony A580 at: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE, AmazonFR, AmazonUK, eBay
Sony A55 at: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE, AmazonFR, AmazonUK, eBay
60 Responses
I think the main facts are:
A580 is as good as Nikon D7000 ( at half the price…).
A55 is a little bit less in low light (as expected) because the translucent mirror ( but still a quite good camera).But has advantages in video (you need to compromise, as usual).
Even A55 is much better than Canon 60D 🙂
“A580 is as good as Nikon D7000 ( at half the price…).”
That statement would only be true if a camera is only made of a sensor.
+1
Drop an A580 and a D7000 onto a concrete floor and you’ll understand why one cost twice as much. Not to mention the pentamirror view finder in the A580 is crap (like all pentamirrors).
You obviously haven’t seen the video where 2 entry level PLASTIC DSLR’s were abused until.. well.. the abuser gave up. Cameras were still working fine.
Let me guess, as a child you broke all of yours toys in matter of days? Learn how to take care of your cameras.
@Raccoon So if the plastic DSLRs are that tough imagine for the reinforced ones.
@jack Don’t be ridiculous. There’s a very good reason why we have sturdy weather-sealed cameras.
@both The initial argument was about the A580 being as good as D7000 for half the price. Well, it is not.
i expected the a580 to score a bit lower, but apparently it’s as good as the d7000…sensor wise at least, now i hope there is no more debate that nikon uses Sony sensors…mr tom hogan should not try to count pixels again… 🙂
ROTFL. *pets Tom*
Sony’s sensor (in Sony, Pentax, Nikon DSLR) will make an end of Canon era.
Yes, right now Canon seems rather far behind.
very good test!
This just confirms Sony needs to produce both an SLR and an SLT as a700 replacements. Three most important things for me are the best possible low light/high ISO capabilities, 100% OVF and quality build with magnesium ally body and weather sealing. Let’s not forget a new AF system as well, and one last thing it doesn’t need to be 24mp. 16 to 18 would be just fine with me.
I see the same! Sony should just in the upper price ranges, where the semi-professional and professional photographers are at home, let the buyer decide what he wants. I, for my part, in any case prefer the optical viewfinder to these all unnecessary gadgets. Should they build it in the amateur DSLRs to allow customers, who have come from the compact cameras, to have it easier. As a semi-professional photographer, I do not need all this nonsense. Low noise and excellent image qualityas well as many adjustments in a rugged housing are entirely sufficient. I also think that 7 fps is just ok for me as a sports photographer. More is not bad, but so you just have to delete more pictures after an event to get the realy good ones 🙂
Well, the picture quality problem with SLTs can be solved very simply: Make the mirror move. It was in original patent of the SLT cameras, though Sony seems to refuse using this option (as we know the A77 will have static mirror).
How do we know that?
SLT Patent. It was posted very long ago on SAR, even before we knew that semi-transparent mirror camera will be called SLT.
So if we look at http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-for-APS-C-camera-2010-who-takes-the-lead/SNR-K5-D7000-and-A580-at-the-top, can we infer that the translucent mirror does send 1/3 of the light to the AF sensors and 2/3 to the imaging sensor?
Wasn’t it a known fact long before today? Guys at Polish Sony forum were the first who tested both A580 and A55 calculating the exact share of light between AF and sensor. It’s 1/3=AF+2/3=Sensor relation as you told.
According to DXO, a difference of five points in overall DXOMark sensor score represents one third of a stop in sensitivity. The difference here is more than one third of a stop, almost two thirds of a stop with the K5.
Note that the cameras using Sony’s 16-mpx. sensor get great dynamic range: the K5 gets the best score ever, for any digital large-sensor camera, including digital backs, medium-format cameras, and FF cameras.
And note that the A55 is as far ahead of the A700 as it is behind the A580.
But let’s not forget that 14bits makes a difference for DR (for the first time measurable thanks to the incredibly low read noise) in the case of the K5 and so does the smoothing (RAW NR).
You can’t compare it to K5 directly. Nor even to D7000. These use different de-noising algorithms and have totally different processors. You can’t compare them just like that. A55 vs A580 comparison is by far more reliable as both these cameras share majority of parts, not only sensor.
Why do people care about DXO scores? Can anyone honestly say there is a DSLR currently on the market that produces unacceptable IQ? The only thing I care about in cameras these days is build quality, external controls, flash sync speed, and view finder quality. Image quality is pretty far down my list. Every camera I’ve used the last 2 years has been so good IQ is simply not a concern anymore.
not to be pedantic or anything, but quality matters, if you plan to print out photos like i do, or plan to spend as little time possible on editing, but yea i get your point considering how cameras were in the past and people still took great shots, even a entry level DSLR has good image quality, but it’s remarkable how good this 16mp sensor really is, and for 900$ i wouldn’t mind to get a better camera which can help me get better shots straight out of the camera.
Better dynamic range!!!
And the ability to maintain dynamic range as your raise up off the base ISO!
Well, in that case we should get back to CCDs and stop using these crappy CMOS sensors.
I mean, NASA uses CCDs and no one needs more low light than Astro-photographers. PhaseOne also uses CCDs for their backings.
CMOS just made a comeback because their sensors are cheaper.
Because it’s easier to build good high-ISO quality sensor. Not because they are so much cheaper. Remember that there was (and partially: still is) a period when CCD sensors were used in cheapest DSLRs while CMOS was in almost every single one more expensive.
actually…better almost everything compared to any other sony APSC camera to date 🙂
Sony A900 overall score 79pts
the thing is that this new sensor is amazing at ISO 100(which actually is ISO 75) both Portrait(Color depth)and Landscape(Dynamic range)are judged at ISO 100, that is why the a580 scores so high. The a900 actually is better(not by much) over ISO 200, and up to ISO3200.
I have no idea why someone will find these results surprising. A55 has a 1/3 stop light loss so obviously it will perform a bit lower in all the departments given the same sensor – nothing new here. Also D7000 and K5 use the same sensor as A580 so the results should be about the same for all three.
really not a surprise for anyone who has a little technology understanding.
I never belived the story: “nikon tweaked the sensor…”
Compare the d3x to the a900 — definitely tweaked.
Well, Sony doesn’t waste it’s time as you see.
BTW: Is the history version where Sony cooperated with DxO Labs to create new denoising algorithms still true? I heard it around A550 release, something about things like Sony owning part of DxO or having some deal with them… this would explain nicely why in such a short period they catch up with Nikon.
It’s the only exception (D5000 and D90 apply NR to RAW).
I sure hope if an a99 does surface there is at least an option for a FF body with a prism as well. SLT is not really in my interests right now.
is it only me or…..MY consequence of this (and similar) test would be to think about kicking SLT technology….
and i am not euphoric about an A77 or A99 to come – everyone who knows about currently available technology has to admit that within the next (at least) 5 years evf will in no way reach the quality of an optical view finder of (semi-)professional size….
“and i am not euphoric about an A77 or A99 to come – everyone who knows about currently available technology has to admit that within the next (at least) 5 years evf will in no way reach the quality of an optical view finder of (semi-)professional size….”
5 years is an eternity in the history of DSLR’s
Being it’s only 20 years old now.
🙂
While I don’t like the light loss in A55, the EVF itself is not a huge problem for me. A55’s EVF is already better in many respects compared to the OVF’s in A500, A550, etc (I am saying that based on trying them out side-by-side). The only major criticism about the EVF’s in A55 or Panasonic GH1/GH2 etc is the dynamic range issue which mostly comes up in very high contrast scenes. A lot could happen in 5 years – even using current technology I think it is possible to make better EVF’s for higher-end models. A55 and A33 are close to being entry-level and I think a higher-end model with a higher price point would be able to use a more expensive and bette EVF.
maybe in 5 years – but what about now???
as somebody said in earlier discussions here: the fact that entry level slrs feature very poorly designed ovf is no reason to replace it with an evf just as bad….evf will for the coming years not be able to adequately replace the viewfinder of a camera like the d7000 or even the a850…..
IMHO:
this whole slt technology is big bullshit – trying to turn good still image cameras into a hybrid of video and still image shooter which is not capable of doing even one of the two tasks really well…
sony had the right idea in offering a video-camcorder using the nex lens mount system – thus amateur and semi-pro film enthusiasts can profit from the optical characteristics of the huge lens diameter – but slrs as they are will never be good in shooting video….
Haven’t people been compromising since the beginning of time?
Anyways, superzooms sell because they exchange optical quality for convenience, compacts sell because they give up low light performance for portability.
Sony wants to make something that sells, so compromising still image quality to give better video quality is understandable. After all, the difference will be almost invisible to a casual user downsizing images for the web or posting to YouTube and Facebook.
“De facto the A580 is as good as the Nikon D7000. ”
This is a good sign. Hopefully Sony can build some wicked Nikon-like bodies to match that great sensor (a7xwhatevx).
I hope if they build A77 only Sony solve couple items
1. Get rid of the mirror when not needed – move it out of the way. May be good to leave it for video & continuous
2. Somehow stick a superb OVF in the grand scheme of things or hybrid or make some out of this world uber fast FullHD EVF (like 2x the resolution of A55; which is quite nice to start with).
I am not totally opposed to the semi-transparent mirror because this can make AF and metering stand out by a lot form the competition. Sony just need to figure some small detail.
The difference between the same sensor in a Nikon, Sony or Pentax body usually comes down to 12 vs. 14 bit, the quality of the supporting electronics around the sensor, processing, and the filter pack on top of the sensor.
FWIW, Sony has traditionally used a less transparent CFA than most other companies, so they are usually slightly behind other makes with the same sensor in regards to lowlight, but they generally have the best color resolution. It is a trade off that is rarely mentioned in reviews. That being said, this is all a bit academic, and it probably requires top level file processing routines to even notice a difference in practice between these cameras in regards to most IQ categories.
CFA thingie: show proof please. (really, I’ve heard this claim lots, never seen any evidence. thanks.)(
There’s a good hint in the DXO measurements already. See the colour sensitivity tab or more in detail:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Sony/Alpha-580
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D7000
Now check the colour response tabs for both. The same is true for the D3X vs A900.
well, there’s nothing new I guess.
Reason why I picked Sony was partially colors. In general it’s like:
Nikon -> Noise
Sony -> Colors
Finally, some sense! 🙂
And I see that more of us agree that OVF is a much better solution for FF and high-end APS-C, at least for now. I agree with what has been said before. Give the buyer the choice to decide for himself what better suits his needs, keep the traditional DSLR as well as the new SLT camera lines for now and get the most out of each!!
It is my opinion that the a580 is nowhere near the D7000 in terms of overall specs..it plays in a lower league no mather how you try to look at it.
The Nikon D300s is a very good camera, very good picture quality from base to very high ISO, better than the 7D…and I would say better autofocus. These cameras have 100% OVFs.
I would just love to see an Alpha out to compete with them…and the Nikon is to be replaced soon with a higher mp sensor.
I respect everyone’s opinion but I tend on this one to agree more with Vlad, Eric, Skydiver, Josef, c preece(I don’t need 24 mp either, 18 is more than enough, it is difficult sometimes to work my a850’s raws into the final output).
As a fact, I also believe that Sony has made a trade…better color rendition instead of low noise.
I think we’re going to get 24 mpx, and, if the sensor gets scores like the 16-mpx, nobody will complain. Many people can use the extra megapixils.
I guess I prefer to see A700-level cameras of both sorts offered by Sony, more for political reasons than anything else. (Last January/February I begged Sony to introduce both.) But at this point we don’t have a clue as to what advantages the A77 will have over any possible A7xx. I have a feeling that the advantages will be dramatic. If not, there definitely should be an A7xx.
Yep, agreed. It’d be nice to have two version only for the reason of different uses. The SLT would be sports/paparazzi-type of camera, while A7xx would be more for a studio/portrait photography.
I had a good laugh thinking of Josef and John’s comments…sorry guys…I’m laughing at my own idea:)
If Sony’s going to move at the same speed with a900/850’s replacements as they have untill now with the a700’s succesor, the OVF is safe for the next 5 years, who knows…maybe more :))
DxOmark is untrusted source
looks to me to equal the third of a stop loss predicted from the very beginning. Interesting but hardly controversial.
Ok, so most of the people here want an a7xx with a big ovf, but I think you’re forgeting that one of sony’s trademarks is still the fast pd af in live view. You can’t have that with a big pentaprism ovf, it has to be pentamirror (which sucks for a7xx class), hence the reason why a900 was released without live view altough competittion already had it in their ff models.
I think that was the major reason for introducing slt, not fast video af or fast fps.
That said, I really hope they can fix it, both the light loss problem, the evf, AND the huge chromatic abberation problem about which nobody but Kurt Munger seems to be talking about.
not bad ..Sony is getting better and better.
I see one thing…live view is not likely to be used with action photography…I hardly use it in real life, to check composition, for framing, sometimes focusing…on the a850 I sometimes use the preview to adjust wb, exposure and to check framing…but on earlier models that didn’t have such functions I used to take a picture, review it on the lcd ant take another one with modified settings if needed.
So it is more important to be able to compose naturaly and with great ease while loking through the OVF, and on my a850 it is lovely to do so…it’s bright, you get a great magnification, so you have no problem with seeing what is in front of your lens very close to the real thing even in low light conditions.
So far I cannot say the same about EVF…so I wouldn’t sacrifice what I have for faster autofocus in live view…If some of you are into sports photography you might need that increased burst rate and faster autofcus…but this has nothing to do with live view.
I agree that it would be a samart move to have an SLT for action photography and not so much for movie. Live view has turned into a musthave, but it is questionable if it needs to be very, very fast depending on what type of work we do.
One important thing will be how accurate the focus and metering will be with continuous shooting.
> Let’s face it, difference is barely noticeable in real world pictures but Sony has to work to close the gap between the two technologies.
The gap is the penalty you pay for photographing the world through a 1/2 stop neutral density filter at all times. The way to get rid of it is to make the autofocus sensor more sensitive so that the mirror can be made more transparent.
Peter
I guess this is why it toke so long to develop the A77. They redesigned the semitransparent mirror. So I have been told.