[shoplink 3032]
[/shoplink]
And here we are again with the SLT versus DSLR discussion 😉
Techradar (Click here) had a talk with MR. Paul Genge from Sony UK. Paul once again confirmed that. “We made a clear statement during IFA, our president made a statement that we were going to be looking at full-frame as the next introduction for SLT“.
As you know Sony discontinued the production of the A580, A850 and A900 cameras and doesn’t list those cameras in their Sonystores anymore. Asked about this Paul said: “We have no SLRs in our line-up today, and our intention is to develop the SLT technology and make that a real stand-out in the market.”
I guess this puts an end on all DSLR hopes. SLT is the future! But if you ask me , the only real long term future is NEX and other future FF mirrorless systems. I think that will be the future of Sony!
—-
Here are the search links to the last three DSLR cameras with optical viewfinder (you may will not find them anymore):
Sony A900 [shopcountry 3032].
Sony A850 [shopcountry 3028].
Sony A580 [shopcountry 5509].
291 Responses
I’m not sure that this is the way to go…
I can’t understand what the fuss is about…
Good on Sony for taking photography into a different direction. Some would say it is to a new level and some would say otherwise.
If SLT is a temporary solution until technology allows for a better implementation, what is so wrong with that?
Cameras are relatively cheap when compared to the glass and you should be spending more on glass then your camera.
Sure we have some cavemans still complaining that OVF is better then EVF. Whatever floats their boat I say.
Film vs Digital
Type writer vs Word Processor
CRTs vs LCDs
CDs vs Tapes
Mobile vs Telephones
If the camera industry started off with EVF and suddenly Sony decided to implement an OVF… I am pretty sure we will be seeing the same rubbish here.
I say this to all the haters, don’t go being all negative on new technology. Embrace it and learn.
One day, Sony might even rid themselves of the SLT and implement some new focusing system.
I completely agree with you! Well said.
The Problem is – it is a new technology. Not a bad one (I own the A900 and SLT77 and I like them both). I do use the SLT77 for usual use, and for shootings the A900 (depth-of-field, etc).
But:
– real professionals are conservative about new technologys
– Sony does not have a Pro-Support-System
– there are some sort of problems with slt and studio-strobe-use
– slt-light loss – compare slt77 and nex7…
So if they wanna go for marketshare, they should fix some problems here and there
+1 Dirk, well said
It is a problem only if you make it a problem.
“Professionals are conversative about new technology” – can’t fully agree with you on this, there are pros out there that embrace technology and utilize it aid in their craft.
Pro support, I agree, but we are deviating from the camera.
Lets turn the table around and see this from a different angle.
Range Finders = blocks the framing of subjects and distorts details, they should fix this.
Single Reflex Mirror, causes vibrations when used, when mirror is locked up you can’t see anything through the OVF, they should fix this.
OVF, tiny as hell, can’t preview under extreme lighting conditions, cannot determine how the exposure is set… they should fix this.
real professional are conservative about new technology
when canon announce the NEW IS II lineup, it was sold out in almost every online website… i guess it was the NOOB who brought them all. pity the PRO.
Sony does not have a pro support system.
if u have not notice, every company need to start from ground up, and obviously, sony has been targeting NEW user into DSLR…errr into APS-C or bigger format (FF) then compact sensor. not trying to “brain wash nikon or canon to jump over” to build strong foundation of new users, and let them grow to PRO and well, either jump or stay, till sony see a lot of potential PRO user, the support eventually will come. see that they are serious with weather seals lenses now?
STUDIO use. if u cant overcome it, u are an IDIOT,… if u can, u are a real PRO.
lost light, its not like they put a whole ND2 in front of the camera. even they did, im not affected. my photo relies on my composition, not my light lost.
I don’t think the problem lies with backward-looking photographers. Sony has discontinued its two full frame cameras and offered no replacement. Mr. Grange reiterated that there are no OVFs currently in Sony’s camera line-up, that Sony is focusing on developing SLT technology. The mission to create something ground- breaking may be admirable but, for the present, it leaves in the lurch photographers who have invested heavily in Minolta/Sony and who use full frame sensors. Why continue to make purchases of several thousand dollars on lenses and accessories if said purchases aren’t going to be supported by a camera body on which to place them?
first dslr a600 then a950, then dslt only.
…if you make a rumor then make another rumor to claim the exact opposite, then you will be guaranteed to be correct in 1 rumor!
well, tahts why its called rumors…even if its SR100 level rumors, its still a rumors.
If you want official news then don’t read rumours, wait for the official announcement.
“But if you ask me , the only real long term future is NEX and other future FF mirrorless systems. I think that will be the future of Sony!”
Not just the future of Sony but of any interchangeable lens or camera (in case of Sony) systems! 🙂
+1
this is a new era begin! 😀 the new era of SLT and mirrorless change era DSLR with OVF
True. But not all have happy endings.
Mini disk vs Mp3.
Memory Stick vs SD
Betamax vs VCR
Not really the same thing as OVF vs EVF. Those wars were about variations of the same generation of technology.
Betamax was very successful, used by the industry for almost two decades.
It was minidisk vs digital cassette, remember those?
memory stick was hardly a failure and betamax was in use in the video broadcasting industry into well into the 2000’s. The products may not have been the ‘winner’ but they were as technically as good if not superior to the competition.
True about Minidisc making tape obsolete and a lot of people forget that Philips at that time introduced DCC, which lost against Minidisc too.
It started as Minidisc vs DCC, which the former won.
The analogy between mini disk and mp3 seems strange, since one is a physical medium and the other not, and the betamax vs VCR perhaps should have been betamax vs vhs.
Betamax was actually superior and continued to be used in studios, while VHS was the home video standard for years. In the case of mirrorless, I would have to say that if you can get rid of the mirror, why not?
I am waiting for the mirrorless APS-C A-mount camera, followed by the full frame A-mount mirrorless. It’s only a matter of time.
The mirrorless APS-C A-mount camera already exist, buy a NEX camera and a LA-EA1 adapter, but there is no in-body anti-shake.
psp vs err gameboy?
blue ray vs (forgot the name) super DVD?
btw its not MD vs MP3, i think it was “artac3?” vs mp3… i cant remember all the mumbo jumbo names…
I think it’s not so clear cut.
It’s more like:
PDA vs iPhone
Old Fujitsu-like tablets vs iPad
etc.
In your examples, the advantages of switching to the newer system is super obvious.
ie. LCD is 1000x thinner than crt. or CDs are less cumbersome, is more durable and stores much more than tape.
In the OVF vs EVF issue however, isn’t as clear cut. It’s about the maturity of the technology.
Then you have the issue that Sony always skirts around and never addresses directly, the 1/3 loss of light.
Being able to preview your photos inside an EVF made the decision for me.
Being able to accurately manual focus through the EVF with zoom made the decision for me.
Being able to adjust the controls without taking my eye off the evf made the decision for me.
@wth
Unfortunately the a77 EVF doesn’t have the same contrast, colours or dynamic range as the sensor. So it’s useless for “previewing”. Besides, on a camera with a good meter, you don’t need that.
Manual focusing, fair enough, but I don’t really get why anyone bothers manually focusing any more. Good autofocus is faster and more accurate. And if the lens lineup was better, you wouldn’t need old MF lenses.
And adjusting the controls – with a well designed camera, you can do this without an EVF.
This is the point.. the “benefits” of EVF are things we could do anyway, or are compromises
Phase detect autofocus is not more accurate than magnified live view. Quicker, yes.
Depends what you’re focusing on
Good luck tracking something moving with magnified live view.
And if you’re shooting a stationary subjects, you can do that with liveview on the LCD screen. You dont’ need an EVF for that.
See what I mean.. the EVF is redundant and unnecessary.
David your EYE and consequently the visual feedback you get from an OVF has COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DYNAMIC RANGE then the sensor.
Your argument is utterly pointless. Of course the dynamic range in the EVF is limited- i.e. just like the sensors, hell that might even be more accurate.
And your argument against EVF isn’t at all an argument against EVF but VF entirely. If everything can be done on the back screen, why use a VF at all? Your points of how everything can be done in live view don’t take into account the technology used for the VF- that has no relevance to your argument. The response is simple- people use the VF for the added stability (shooting posture) and for when difficult lighting situations pose a need for an enclosed view (but I thought this would be obvious for a photographer).
Very weak arguments, David.
@Solo
My eye has a different dynamic range, yes, but that’s what the metering sytstem is for. I can see the scene with my own eyes and interpret the camera metering.
By making me look at an EVF, you’re adding an incorrect interpretation of the scene. It adds an extra, unncesasary, stage of guesswork into the equation. If the shadows in the EVF look clipped, I then have to guess whether they’re clipped in the actual exposure, or it’s just the crappy EVF’s fault. The whole point of EVF is that it should preview the image taken. If it shows different colours and dynamic range to the actual image captured by the sensor, what’s the point? The viewfinder is for composition. The metering system is for determining exposure. And by using my eye and my understanding of the camera and the scene, I can determine the correct exposure myself. I don’t need a false colour, clipped shadows “preview” getting in the way of that.
And I never argued against a viewfinder. We were talking about autofocus, and I said that manual focus capability of an EVF is a very weak argument. That is because (A) very few people manually focus; and (B) because autofocus is better in almost every way. Carl said that magnified live view is more accurate, and I refuted that. It is more accurate if you are stationary, and the subject is too, and you have plenty of time to fine focus. For the common types of manual focus work (such as macro), you would likely be using a tripod anyway, making the EVF pointless since you can use liveview.
For the 99% of photos that you take with autofocus and NOT on a tripod, an EVF is pointless. The “preview” isn’t accurate, the dynamic range is wrong, there is clipping, lag, noise, the digital level isn’t even accurate. Fail, fail, fail.
@David,
Therefore the preview screen at the back of the camera is useless? The dynamic range of the preview screen is no where close to the sensor as well…
So you are saying that there is “guess work” with the EVF, however the OVF can’t even display the actual changes when you change ISO settings. Isn’t there actually more guess work required with an OVF.
Fair enough the OVF can see all the highlights, but what is the point if you are going to get a totally different picture from the sensor?
are you working for Sony?
no, I don’t work for Sony.
I actually don’t like the Company that much.
I however, like the technology and the new direction they are going with it.
A lot of people don’t like the SLT and whole new range of tech that Sony have brought in. However notice how the haters don’t ever acknowledges the benefits.
There are many people out there using the new cameras, they arn’t replacing their DSLRs or climbing up a mountain to shout praise. They are simply using the new technology for their purpose.
Looking at the A77, it’s a pretty good camera. It takes better photos than my previous camera and I can use it in a wide range of photography.
That’s the point. You see you say that now (LCDs vs CRT for example), but at the time CRTs were considered to be much higher resolution, more natural colour reproduction, much higher contrast for real blacks and they were much more established technology. It took less than 5 years for flat screens to completely replace CRTs once they hit the consumer market. They won out on convenience and price to decades honed CRT technology. Photographers, graphic designers, film makers, gamers all bemoaned LCD tech and favored CRT – where can you even buy CRT any more? OVFs are limited in capability, expensive to manufacture and will be superseded by EVF. Simple.
Agreed. I wonder if people do actually think that Nikon and Canon will never produce EVF- they eventually will, and unlike Sony who’s getting their practice runs right now, it will probably be a very poor example.
🙂
“I wonder if people do actually think that Nikon and Canon will never produce EVF”
Now, there is a good question for a poll!
/E
That’s all well and good. I don’t doubt that EVFs will be better in 5 years. Maybe in another 5 years the Sony lineup will be actually ready.
There’s no prize for being an early adopter as a consumer. Sony aren’t going to reward you for being with them from day one.
If the EVF thing takes off and Sony are at the forefront of an amazing new technology, people can switch back. I love my a850, and I am selling it with great sadness. The d800 is a great camera, and I will enjoy using it and not worrying about new lenses, the future of the A mount etc etc.
Please keep in mind that this were consumer electronics, for print e.g. thats a whole other story as the requirements are way higher, it took them noticeably longer to provide solutions that would suit the requirements.
If you work with a product what matters for you at the end of the day is that you get you’re job done the best way possible and that you can rely on you’re equipment.
I understand the EVF benefits for a consumer oriented market but for a product line aiming at professional clients Sony should offer both.
If you seriously want to tell me that the EVF of the A77 is better than the OVF of the A900 then i’m pretty sure you didn’t compare both of them.
It may be that, one day far away in the future, an EVF will be able to compete or even be better than an OVF, but for now it’s just rubbish in my opinion.
I dow own both cameras and I enjoy some of the features of the A77 like the tilting display and some of the information it adds, but seriously, all that is fine in liveview but there definitely is no need for EVF.
It surely is a good thing for those entry level cameras, those people will be happy with “huge” view in that EVF.
But for a serious (professional) photographer? Using it in bright sunlight is terrible, using it in low light is terrible (for anything that you can’t do with liveview), the lag is ridiculous, using it in a studio is terrible.
I’m pretty sure that you do not make a living with photography. Like most of the people who post here and tell that they are awaiting a FF SLT. But how how many of you are going to buy it? I’m sure, that this is the wrong direction for sony when it comes to establishing itself as a real photographic brand.
It is okay to use SLT for all that entry level toy cameras, which is probably more of a profit then a serious FF line. but they don’t need Zeiss for that and they surely do not need a 13.000 $ 500mm f/4 for those people.
I would probably even buy a new A99 to serve as a backup and for some stills and landscape/architecture stuff and as a backup to my a900 sice my current lens lineup is quite an investment but i will surely buy a d800 as well and build a nikon lens lineup as well, since sony has definitely not furture for me (which is relly sad since the Zeiss lenses and usability of my a900 is so much better then anything i used from CaNikon).
I use the A77 in a studio and have no idea what you are on about.
I’m about weak noisy EVF when shooting in a rather dark environment (especially but not only low key shots without fill lights but strip lights as main lightsource, dark background etc), the lag when shooting people in movement, the ridiculous way to go through the menu to disable steadyshot (even though that is a issue of the A77 and not of SLT TEchnology in general, as well well as the whole button layout is, especially the display button).
Looking through that weak monitor called EVF is not the same feeling, it makes me look to a noisy image on a bad screen with crappy quality instead of seeing the natural subject (like in the truly superior viewfinder in the a900) which makes me feel the final shot i have in my mind.
I shoot in a dark environment just fine. With the EVF I can SEE to compose, with the OVF I couldn’t.
“[I’m not looking at a photo, I’m looking at a noisy, terrible image]”
You probably think nobody can get a good photo from a point and shoot. People can make good images with them, and deal with a noisy, terrible live view.
In any light bright enough to use an OVF without problems the EVF is neither laggy nor noisy. The EVF does get laggy & noisy in low enough light, but that is at light levels where even the A900’s superb OVF has run out of enough light to do anything beyond frame, but the EVF still allows you to focus accurately in that light.
The only real weaknesses of EVF’s right now are in very bright daylight (where they will never be as bright as a good OVF) and for tracking fast action (where the lag becomes an issue).
And quite frankly, the current 2.4MP EVF simply destroys any APS-C OVF, there’s nothing resembling a contest. It takes the best FF OVF’s to beat that EVF in any appreciable way and the EVF has room to improve where OVF’s are about as good as they’ll ever get (there’s been zero improvements in OVF quality since 1998’s Maxxum 9)
@JustAnyone,
You clearly don’t own a A77. If you think the menu system is bad, you must have started from a different camera ecosystem.
I find the Canon and Nikon Button system a mess, however that is just me and my lack of use of those two camera brands.
since I’m not able to answer the reply, i do answer here again.
I don’t know how dark your environment is that you were not able to compose before (which rather sounds strange to me) but the point that I’m talking about is the models facial expression for example. i do have at least strip lights that do offer a lightsource and through the crystal clear and bright viewfinder of the a900 i can see her expression very good, but when shooting a full body shot with some low key strip lights as only light source all i see in the a77s viewfinder is noise! of course i can compose, but i can compose with a900 as well (that’s what you got a modeling light for).
And even without that, there is the lag! and that is a unacceptable as well.
Btw, I did never assume that there is the same EVF in the A99 and the A77! Never! All I said, is that the technology is weak and buggy, and just not suitable for a professional camera at the moment!
IT MAY BE ONE DAY, but it DEFINITELY IS NOT AT THE MOMENT!!!
And innovation just for innovations sake is nothing you can rely your business on (at least not as a photographer, I don’t know if you can as Sony)!
You said:
“But an oversized EVF in a possible A99 wouldn’t make me any happier at all as well.
This rumor was about Fullframe cameras with EVF, so i was comparing the current top OVF with the current top EVF from Sony.”
You ARE comparing the A900 OVF to current EVF.
the point is that i said “oversized”
of course i compare it it to current evf, what else should i compare it to? but i diod not say the same!
we don’t have any a99 evf yet, so all i can say is that the current technology is weak and not usable in a ff camera the way it is… and i doubt that i will be improved the way that it is usable in the next 2 or 3 generations!
btw it’S funny that you always pick out some little things instead of admitting the weaknesses of the system…
the a77 is still anice piece of camera for some sorts of stuff, but it is no professional camera that fits professional needs, neither an a99 will be as long as it is slt! of course i hope that i’m wrong and that sony will be able to bring that super high resolution evf without any noise and super dynamic range, but i’m pretty sure that won’t happen!
It is in response to YOU picking out “some little things” about the EVF instead of admitting the strengths, so back at you. 😉
Haha, i admitted some nice features, but i do seriously not see any strength;) all those features work well in liveview, no need to put them in a viewfinder!
go for that overlay thing nikon already had in a d70 and i think (correct me if i’m wrong) in the 5d m3 and you’re good…
seeing the right exposure for example is not neccesarily a good thing for example (i wouldn’t call it a weakness though so don’t get me wrong)
that levelling thing is somewhat nice but it doesn’t work very presicise, so don’t know anything goo besides focus peaking.
and the focus peaking is not very precise (especially when using it with the 135, 85 or even the 50 wide open as well).
Well considering the huge distance between the EVF in the a55 vs a77 in what, 9 months? Why don’t you hold back your whining until you use the a99. The EVF in a77 is superior in every way to the a700 OVF.
Why on earth would you compare the EVF of A77 with the OVF of A900?!
You should be comparing it with any APS-C SLR OVF!
If there is a FF SLT, the EVF for that has to be larger than the one in the A77.
I’m not about the size of the EVF but about the whole technology.
That’s why I said it’s step a up for APS-C especially compared to the size.
But an oversized EVF in a possible A99 wouldn’t make me any happier at all as well.
This rumor was about Fullframe cameras with EVF, so i was comparing the current top OVF with the current top EVF from Sony.
Why would you assume that the A77 EVF would be used in the A99? That’s just odd considering the A77 improved upon the A55.
I’d say that much is pure speculation. I’m sure it’ll be higher in resolution, but if they could make the EVF with a larger size why wouldn’t they include it in the A77 and NEX-7? Neither are cheap cameras, so not putting the best EVF they can in them for cost reasons doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
Because it doesn’t exist yet. Just like the A77 version didn’t exist for the A55.
Well obviously, but the process of OLED panel fabrication is a fairly well known quantity. Short of Sony throwing money at Epson, the current state of the art for very high resolution OLEDs improves at a predictable rate, so if the A99 has a significantly better display than the A77, yet doesn’t cost greatly more, within the space of a year or so, then that would suggest Sony didn’t use as good a display in the A77 as they could have.
People also assume we see what the A77 EVF is capable of. I don’t think so. The current quality is largely restricted by power consumption and read out of the sensor. The DR is limited by a high blackpoint to reduce power consumption. Low light shows more noise because the sensor is only read out partially to provide a live view feed. A newer sensor can improve DR, noise and lag of that very same EVF.
Are you sure about that Spoon, or is that speculation? How do you know it is a limit of the sensor feed rather then a limit of the display itself, or simply software limitations? I’m not trying to challenge you, it makes sense- however you can’t simply make those statements as fact.
I am positive about the clipping of blacks as messing with jpeg contrast and creative settings can already open up shadows. More black means less consumption and as it its the EVF (plus hugger read out resolution as it ourselves the LCD) already uses more energy than the LCD. I am also sure about the read out as most LV systems are heavily subsampling during LV to get a fast framerate with relatively little power consumption and possibly the most important part, no overheating. That’s why it’s more noisy than the final picture. A more efficient sensor will allow for a higher read out resolution, ceteris paribus. And thus more photons, less noise and/or less lag (shorter exposure for faster framerate).
You lost me as soon as you assumed both an APS-C and a FF camera could be reasonable compared. I had the a300 now I own the a700 both APS-C’s. If I only compare the view finders the a300 black tunnel can’t compete with the a77 EVF
i did own the a300 and the a700 as well, and you can’t compare it to fullframe, that is for sure!
BUT SINCE THERE IS NO FF EVF YET, there is nothing you can compare it to!
and of yourse there is a difference between a FF and APS-C OVF, but the difference won’t be that big in a FF model. It’s the same crappy monitor, probably in a new generation, but there isn’t that huge prism difference. maybe it’s a BIT less noisy than the curren EVF but that is noth the point!
You have NO idea what the next EVF is going to be like.
but you have?
comparing the evf of the a55 (which i only tested at photokina) and the one of a77, it definitely is a step forward, but just a step.
a huuuuuuuge jump would be needed, and taht is very unlikely to happen.
making an evf compüarable to an superior ovf would require a resolution of at least 10 mp and an dynamic range increase of at least 4-6 ev besides the neccesary noise improvement… do that with the next sensor and evf and i will never raise my voise again!
Hey you made the a77 a900 comparison in your original post not me. thats what my response was based on.
See you lost it when you said that EVF is for amateurs. In fact it is amateurs and gearheads that are obsessed with OVF over EVF.
Professionals are interested in the photograph, not the equipment. The viewfinder is a framing device and nothing more. You shouldn’t be even be worrying about the viewfinder. Improving dynamic range is more important.
In the film era I used cameras without reflex viewing often and I used prism finders on medium format that made the A900 viewfinder look like a Nikon D40. Digital capture means the viewfinder is less important than it has ever been.
People who talk about the EVF of an A99 being a ‘deal-breaker’ are not photographers, they are poseurs.
OK, fine!
But when will this FF SLT camera be for sale?
Cheers,
Sept. or Oct. … I am not sure which year though 😉
Year? Century! 😀
Should maybe add another 8-9 months for the first firmware update to make it work.
“The force of marketing is greater than the force of technology”.
I think the SLT’S are awesome and perform great, but most people don’t like change, even when it is an improvement. Hope you know what you are doing Sony!
I don’t think that it’s simply because people don’t like change. To some, SLTs are just too big of a step backwards in too many areas. Higher image noise, lower battery life, and responsiveness issues with the EVF are some examples.
If SLTs kept all the advantages of DSLRs while providing additional improvements, people would be more willing to accept them. I’m all for change that makes the camera work better for me, but that doesn’t seem to be the case with SLTs.
I think it really is more about change than anything else. That’s why people slammed the Micro 4:3 system on release (that and it wasn’t released by a Canon or a Nikon first) but now you have Canon practically verifying everything Micro 4:3 with little speeches about why smaller sensors are just so cool, while Nikon took “small sensors are awesome” to their own level.
The 1/3 stop greater noise is a piffle and people complaining about it, with the extraordinary amount of software support available today (along with the fact that the vast majority of photographers rarely print at sizes large enough that 1/3 stop of noise will ever make a difference in the quality of their output, especially with today’s available pixel counts), are simply complaining to hear themselves complain. Battery life is a generational issue, one that gets better each time as efficiency gets nailed down (hell, sometimes firmware helps, just ask Canon 7D users… it isn’t just Sony), and the responsiveness of the VF is another piddly gripe that gets fixed generationally. How about the fact that said viewfinder offers a more accurate view of your actual image than any optical VF ever will? I just don’t see where the gripes are and viewfinders are only going to get better.
SLT acknowledges that global shutter and sensor based AF, while the future, are still far enough away for large sensors that a transitional product with otherwise professional capability needs to be available. The video quality is there. The speed and responsiveness of the camera are there. What remains is opening up the GUI for more capability and customization, refining color processing and flash control, allowing for more open market support. Among other things, obviously, but my point is that the foundation is solid and only getting better. And it’s not like this approach isn’t used by every manufacturer.
Sony’s innovation cycle, their willingness to play a very high risk/reward (within reason, in my opinion) has allowed them to go from questionable entry to power player in a span of time that should have Nikon and Canon paying their engineers overtime to avoid. Which is great. If anything both Canon and Nikon users should thank Sony for pulling out certain stops and thinking out of the box. Canon and Nikon had become complacent, comfortable, lazy creatures who’d forgotten how to implement and impress. Now they have an excellent reason to go about being GOOD again. They’ve bored me to tears for the past 3 years and I know from working with my customers everyday I’m not alone.
Good for Sony for moving the market, albeit in their own way. Like Canon or Nikon NEVER PERFECT but suitably excellent for all manner of people.
/rant
+1
Glad we still have real photographers in here.
That’s the most reasoned and intelligent post I’ve seen here for a long time.
Very well spoken. I completely agree.
Touché’
The 1/3 or 1/2 stop light loss isn’t “a piffle” – just look at the price difference between 1.8 and 1.4 lenses of the same focal length.
The price difference between 1.8 and 1.4 isn’t just because of the 0.4-change. The quality of the 1.4 is better, giving sharper images.
And build quality…
The price difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is due to the fact that the brighter the lens happens to be, the harder it is to correct for critical sharpness corner to corner, the better the coatings have to be, the better the build quality of the lens needs to be, and far, far less variation between lenses produced will be allowed. All of that equals a more expensive lens to produce.
And my argument was that 1/3 stop of NOISE was a piffle. And it is.
1/2 stop of light, however, is another matter… though it’s not as huge as people make it out to be. The difference in price is simply that 1.4 lenses typically get professional grade (or at least BETTER) components than those that are 1.8 (using 50mm as a main example). It’s kind of like buying a car, wanting floormats, while finding out you can’t get said mats without the powersteering package. You get what they give you. Companies could make a cheaply built f/1.4 lens.
They just don’t want to.
Did you even bother reading out posts….
@Tore – often not true, at least for prime lenses. Faster lenses are often prone to more flare, distortion and CA. I’ve owned enough lenses over the past 50 years to know that a slower cheaper lens from the same manufacturer is often sharper and will give better overall IQ. A simple case in point Nikon’s 50mm 1.8 lenses vs their 50mm 1.4 lenses vs their 50mm 1.2 lenses – the price goes up but the IQ goes the other way. In the days when they also had a 50mm f/2.0, it had fantastic edge to edge sharpness.
Compare the $1,700 Nikon 85mm 1.4g to the $500 85mm 1.8g from f/1.8 up to f/4.0 the 1.8 lens beats the 1.4 in terms of resolution and sharpness. Of course it doesn’t have 1.4 and the faster lens has slightly better bokeh. The 1.8G also beats their older, highly regarded, 1.4D hands down.
There are a few notable exceptions I know – but these are rare. What you say may be true for zoom lenses – but there the quality of the components, use of aspherical elements, better coatings, and precision build probably has more to the faster lenses being sharper than the aperture per se.
@ Spoon – you are right about build quality. Though at one time manufactures made all their lenses to the same high quality this is no longer true.
Many comments on forums do sound like people not liking change though. Many of them have clearly not used SLT and merely repeat the same old pre-conceived arguments without having had more than 5 minutes playing with one in a shop. That’s assuming that they have even done that!
Plenty of people have bought into SLT and plenty more will. Sony suggested that A55 sales were strong and that’s what matters not the views of a few vocal forum users.
One thing i have to admit is, that i thought i would be worse before i started to use it. but still, it’s not comparable to good evf, at least not in the FF market.
i mean ovf not evf of course
You’re probably right in that some comments come from people who don’t want to change. However, I’m sure that there are many others who would happily accept changes that make things better without sacrificing too much.
Different people are willing to accept different drawbacks with a new approach to get some advantages. However, for some people, the drawbacks are in the places we care most about, and the advantages are rather irrelevant to what they like to do. There’s a line that we draw about how many drawbacks we’re willing to accept, and we all draw that line differently.
For example, a sports shooter would have to deal with the EVF’s refresh rates in low light, and wouldn’t get any real time glimpse of the subject between frames in continuous mode. At really high ISOs, not losing 30% of the light could make a significant difference in the lattitude you have to make adjustments to the image. People going on long shooting trips would have to charge up a lot more batteries, and could be forced to make a battery swap in harsh conditions (the battery compartment isn’t weather sealed once you open it). Even if Sony made bigger batteries, there’s no getting around the fact that an equivalent OVF camera will probably have more than twice the battery life of an EVF camera.
On the other hand, studio/macro shooters would probably love SLTs. We’re all different, and to some of us, the benefits of a new approach don’t justify the drawbacks,
Like many of you, I’m happy that Sony is taking this approach. Being different will give them more attention, and will help improve their sales. That in turn will hopefully push Canon and Nikon to make their cameras better. I believe that SLTs represent the right direction for Sony – but after trying an a55 and an a65, I don’t think it’ll fit my needs. I wish them luck, though, and I really hope this approach works for Sony.
I would agree with Dyna here, it is mostly about the change. “Higher image noise” is a beyond ridiculous statement, I dare anyone to show me a noticeable difference in image quality when the mirror is removed and I am not talking about charts and pixel peeping. Lower battery life is an issue for me too, but is inherent to the new technologies used. Also, I find it surprising when people say “issues” with the EVFs. Why we never speak about the issues with OVFs? I don’t find OVFs to better, but rather different, and I would dare to say that most of photography usages would benefit from an EVF (unless we are talking FF OVFs, in which case my claim is just less valid).
If you aren’t trying to edit images, there probably wouldn’t be an issue at low to medium ISOs. however, people have showed samples at higher ISOs, and I can see the difference 1/3 stops of light can make. When making adjustments like boosting contrast, I think the difference will really show up.
Again, it’s not about new technology – it’s about better technology. For me, the advantages of an EVF are nice, but I already get that through the rear screen. Replicating the back LCD in the viewfinder seems like a useless duplication. While problems with the EVF like power consumption and lag will be minimized with future iterations, OVFs inherently don’t suffer from those problems. I’d rather have a simple product that works, rather than a really advanced one with plenty of technology to minimize problems, but in the end doesn’t work as well.
I suspect SLT sales are strong because it’s a novelty, and plenty of people don’t want to change from how they use bridge and compact cameras. SLT cameras are as close as you can get to a large sensored bridge camera.
Also, about the m4/3 system – that was a success. However, we should still remember Olympus’s 4/3 system, which wasn’t a success when they tried to compete head-on with Canon and Nikon. New ideas aren’t always better ideas.
Finally, dyna is right in that EVF technology will improve. When a zero power consumption, zero lag, infinite resolution EVF is made that costs much less than an OVF, I’ll reevaluate my position. However, with current technology, I’d still prefer to use an OVF. Again, if I need any EVF features, like magnified focusing and exposure preview (for JPGs), I can easily use the rear LCD. Except for usage during video, I don’t see what I’m gaining by having an extra copy of the rear screen in the viewfinder.
20 years from now, you guys could very well see me getting an EVF camera, if I think it’s good enough. But with the current iteration of EVFs (and I have tried them), I’m not satisfied. Maybe they’re ok for a $200 P&S, but for $700 or more, I expect better.
+1
Change is good, as long as it serves good without any compromise.
Almost every change in history involved compromises too.
Four Thirds didn’t really compete with Canon and Nikon, that was the problem. The sensors and viewfinders were always worse, the lenses were more expensive and too slow, and the supposed size advantage didn’t really eventuate.
You think wrong about OVF having infinite resolution. It is also limited by matte glass: the better focusing capability of focusing screen, the worse resolution is. I guess the evf with twice more pixels per same area than sony currently provides with NEX-7 (a77, etc) ones will be enough to match ovf.
It might just be me, but all the arguments on SLT remind me about all the arguments people had about HD video capability, and even before that about liveview and folding panels.
I’m not saying this to say that SLTs are the ultimate way to go, but the way some people behave about the SLT/DSLR debate, it feels pedantic sometimes.
Don’t worry though, you naysayers can make me eat my words when everyone goes SLT and suddenly it’s cool to pay extra for the mirror box–kind of like how people are returning to records because they miss the sound of vinyl playing.
I guess it’s the same reason why some old people refuse to use a mobile phone.
+1
I don’t think it’s about change it just people consider STLs a double edged sword – I think EVFs will eventually improve to the point where most people stop caring but we’re probably 1-2 generations away from that. I personally hated the EVF on the A33/55 but I could live with the one on the A77.
The other issue is the light loss, Sony needs to work on a way to introduce a flip up mode capable of 3-5fps and let the photographer decide how best to use it in flipping mode or constantly locked down.
Can anyony tell advantages of SLT comparing with mirrorless NEX?
Phase detect auto focus for a start.
When they figure out on-sensor phase detect AF, the SLT mirror will be no more.
and neither will the flappy one!
+1
DEATH TO FLAPPY!
This just made my day.
I.B.I.S is a huge advantage to SLT
None on NEX
Phase-Detect AF
Handling with large lenses (the large body is a heck of a lot better with most zooms or larger primes, the NEX does better with compact primes)
Weather sealing, external controls (room for more), flip/twist LCD, SSS.
Frankly if you can live with the larger size, you get a heck of a lot more capable camera. Personally I went with both, a NEX for light carry, a DSLR for serious shooting (I’m still running an A700 right now, replacing an A33 SLT, I’ll make my choice as to the A700’s replacement when the A99 is announced as I’m undecided as to A77 vs A99 at the moment).
I hope that mirrorless is NOT the future.
NEX cameras are uncomfortably small and lack PDAF.
Denur, mirrorless cameras dont HAVE to be small, just imagine an a900 minus the big ass mirror 😉
Or the pentax k-01 mirror-less. It’s not a small mirror less, but indeed a k5 without mirror and ovf.
PDAF is another ugly piece of technology. The sooner they will get rid of it, the better.
Admin-you can remove the 580 link to sonystyle.ca as its not available in Canada and never has been.
If sony know how to beat 5d mkIII and nikon D800 with slt a99 . then the dslr life will no more exist 🙂
i don’t think so!
even in the very very very unrealistic case that it 1000% as good, there are too many people that invested so much in canikon glass, that they would not just switch to sony (beside the lack of service for professionals, the overall company’s arbitrariness and the lack of lenses available for the a mount, especially for wildlife and sport photographers)
Yup.
It occurred to me that we spend too much time wishing and wanting. If ONLY there was a good 50mm. We need a new 35. Oh, why don’t the primes all have SSM. Why are none of the lenses weather sealed?
Then I thought that actually all of those things exist if you switch to a proper system. Weather sealed lenses. Silent, fast autofocus. 3rd party accessories. Pro support. More mid-range affordable lenses. Easier lens rentals. etc etc etc
Name one brand which has all their prime lenses with piezoelectric motors and weather sealing?
Dumb!
So there you go, those people saying they were going to jump ship can now do so, or will they…?
have to agree here. as an a77 user, me and my friends were shooting at night around new york city in the evening. one of my friends has a d90. we took group pictures lots of times, i shoot with the a77 and since he wanted to be in the shot, he handed me the d90 to take a pic. what a HUGE difference. the EVF of the a77 was more detailed and bright and when i switched to the d90, all of a sudden i thought everything went dark and you don’t know what result you would have. of course you can tune it up, look at the exposure meter, the aperture etc. so you assume by the numbers on the d90 that you are getting a well exposed shot, but still turns out, the result was underexposed. yes you can set it up but time is important, no time to adjust settings unless you set it to auto which gives terrible results.
with the a77 on the other hand, you see what you get. a few adjustments with exposure, aperture and shutter speed, and when your eyes tell you by looking at that EVF that your image looks good, take the shot. no need to look at the numbers of A/S/Exposure. just click that shutter, what you see is what you get. i’m amazed.
and to tell you, most of us in the group with DSLRs, Canikon mostly, i’m the only one with a Sony, whenever they took pictures with my camera (of course i wanted to be in the group pic too), they never thought it was EVF. they thought it was just the same as their canikon’s OVF, only brighter. one even asked, why my a77’s viewfinder is brighter than his Canon 60D, i told them, coz it’s a sony. 😉
Cool story bro. 😉
I handed my A77 to my D7000 using friend, he did not know it was an EVF until I pointed it out!
This is the dumbest thing I keep reading on the internet.
I read this sentence in several review – “I didn’t realise it wasn’t an OVF”
Utter nonsense. I’ve used an a77 and no way would any non-blind person mistake it for an OVF.
Most of my friends couldn’t tell they were looking through an EVF after I turned off all the display overlay.
Try shooting with EVF in bright sunlight. It sucks in these conditions.
I have and have had no problems. You sure you were not overexposed? I use both EVF and OVF and find no problems with either. Sometimes I prefer the OVF and sometimes I actually prefer the EVF. You were using the EVF and not the lcd, correct? I am not trying to be smart just asking.
I don’t think Denis is aware of exposure simulation.
No. It’s because your eyes adapt to the bright outside but the EVF isn’t bright enough in comparison.
Same with dim light. In dark conditions I turn off the rear LCD so as not to ruin my night vision. But the EVF ruins your night vision.
what camera are you using?
Just curious Denis and be honest. Do you even own an a77?
i do own one and must admit that he is absolutely right!
using it in really bright sunlight is a joke!
Actually he is just repeating what he has read. 😉
if you dislike the EVF, why did you buy one?
The EVF and SLT are the two main points of this camera.
I believe you already know the answer to that. 😉
I haven’t had a problem shooting in bright conditions.
I noticed however the A77 performs very well under bright conditions.
I wonder if we will see a prototype on Mar 13.
Wait for it ………..
waiting for Walt….
🙂 🙂 🙂
+100000000000! 😀
I don’t like change simply because change involves waiting FOREVER for new lenses. When will an ultra-wide angle NEX ever come out? If there is a new full-frame NEX or mirrorless system, here’s to waiting another 3-5 years for a decent set of new lens choices.
It’s all about the image quality
If the SLT is equal or better in IQ than everything else in the same size and price range I’m all for it,big time.
Both, Nikon and Canon should be releasing new cameras soon in the same price range as the a77 and we then will see, whatt Technology makes better pictures, I’m hopeful that Sony wins out.
and I don’t care if its a little slower at first or maybe different, I can change, and each generation of the non DSRL camera will get better.
The old system of springs and mirrors slapping up and down will come to an end, just as the turntable did and that fine with me
Again it’s all about the end result and the better system will get my money, even if its costs three times as much, its that important to me.
My only real concern with ditching pentaprisms on any and all professional grade bodies is that it renders the camera entirely dependent on an electrical system that is much more prone to errors and malfunctions. If anything goes wrong with the viewing system during a shoot it’s not only going kill the gig but may cost the photog future clients/business. This would likely result in pros ditching SLT-exclusive manufacturers. While I am hopeful with regards to Sony’s offerings in the coming year it will be a make-or-break for me. Many of Sony’s moves seem to be pandering more to a consumer base than a professional one. This is a bad strategy and one that ignores the fact that one of the primary reasons Canon and Nikon are more popular with both pros and consumers (other than a longer role in the game) is because the latter demographic is heavily influenced by the former; consumers are influenced heavily by what they see the pros predominantly using. Until Sony can secure a pro base of real renown it will always lag behind and never be able to make the same impact in the enthusiast and pro market. Pound for pound, mile for mile, Canon and Nikon are more reliable and that will continue to influence photojournalists, sports shooters, and commercial pros which will, in turn, influence consumer confidence.
While I mostly agree with the second part of your post, the “malfunction” issue you are pointing is completely unwarranted. Even cameras with OVFs run on electronics, Live view has been here for many years and EVFs for severa also. Never heard of a single problem, which would suggest the more logical assumptions that the technology is actually very reliable.
I know one photographer who had to serviced her A77 twice. Maybe because just unlucky.
You only hear the horror stories for a product, people don’t tend to boast in forums and to their friends about how reliable a product is, but you can be damn sure you’ll hear from people who are having problems.
Don’t get me wrong, I genuinely enjoy my Sony gear and I do get pretty consistent results overall. I’m just stating a fact about any mechanism that becomes increasingly complex in its design. The more moving parts, the more bells and whistles, the more likely these elements are to break down, especially with heavy use. Since I occasionally do work that requires me to torture the gear I want to have the utmost confidence that the majority of the parts can handle what I throw at them. In my experience the fewer electronic and computerized frills the better – it’s just less s**t to have to worry about getting glitchy. I’m a workhorse, I want a camera option that mirrors this.
You do realise that Sony SLT has reduced complexity? There is no mechanical mirror so therefore Sony will be MORE reliable than Canon and Nikon. 😉
Again, you’re missing the point. A pentaprism is infinitely more reliable. In my not inconsiderable experience I have noticed that more complex electronic components with more elaborate circuitry are less reliable; they simply develop more glitches. I started shooting well over twenty years ago and the bodies then were far more reliably consistent than the ones now. Most of the internal components of digitals wear out faster and are far more costly to replace. That’s just a fact.
You missed the point. The more complicated a system the more you increase the odds and incidences of various issues. That’s just a fact. Parallel: I drive old Volvos, have for years; they don’t spend anywhere near as much time in shops being serviced as cars of the last 10 years or so that have been engineered to be pretty much totally dependent on computerized systems. I can fix just about anything that goes wrong with my car as well, can’t do that with the new stuff. Same can be said of film cameras: much easier to take apart and reassemble. Try doing that with a DSLR or DSLT. Good luck.
Hate to break it to you but on average modern cars are significantly more reliable than your Volvo’s. Most modern cars last longer without any service than classic cars lasted with regular service. It’s a pretty common occurance to see a 100k mile car that’s had a couple oil changes and no other service these days and is still running. No classic Volvo (or anything else) could do that.
The fact you can fix it yourself doesn’t change the fact that it needs significantly more regular service than a modern car (which you can fix, you just need the right tools, OBDII readers are available for reasonable money). I like fix-it-yourself as well (I drive a 2000 Ford Ranger, which is essentially a circa 1982 design with a circa 1993 engine) but I’m also aware that my Ranger is less reliable than modern designs, even if it is more likely to last longer with regular service (just like your Volvo).
Sorry killer, but you are very, very wrong. I rarely have to service my ’87 740. The thing still has plenty of power. I have driven it all over the country heavily loaded many times with only one or two minor issues. It has well over 200 k on it and it will easily still go another 300+. By comparison I hear about and see how pretty much everyone I know who has a car made in the last ten years spends far more $$$ than I do in annual repairs and basic servicing – it isn’t even a contest. I don’t know where you’re getting your info but it isn’t reliable. I’ve owned Fords, Toyotas, Chevys, and Mercedes but for most of the last 20 years I’ve had three 80’s era Volvos (40 series) and they have endured where the others failed. The things are very simple and very reliable. Of course, that ended when Ford (and now China) acquired them.
In my experience a certain percentage of complex electronic devices fail early on in life. Those that don’t go on to function well for years until finally they fail massively and cannot be, or are just not worth, repairing.
Well made mechanical devices rarely fail early on, may require periodic maintenance and sometimes replacement of parts, but if that is done can have a very long lifetime.
I have a Nikon F2A bought new about 40 years ago. It has been heavily used ever since then, dragged all over the world in often appalling conditions and been dropped, bashed, abused – you name it. It still goes on and on. The only thing I have ever had to change was the rubber foam that cushions the mirror and the rubber that seals the removable finder. Same for an even older Nikkomat FTn. The lenses that were purchased with those cameras have never needed servicing and work as well as when they were new. And I can still use those lenses (at least the ones that had an AI conversion) on a modern DSLR.
I very much doubt that there is any modern DSLR or lenses that would give a lifetime of reliable service in similar conditions like that.
Apart from the laginess of the whole camera, the delay in the viewfinder, the fact that neither the camera nor viewfinder turn on quick enough.
I mean jesus christ, it’s a £1000 camera and the control dials and menus lag. It’s pathetic!
A pentaprism is not an electronic device. It has no circuitry. It will not suffer nearly as much from condensation and particulate issues. And unless you do something very destructive to the camera it will not need to be replaced.
I’m not arguing an opinion here, these are scientific facts.
The EVF will be brighter in low light and that’s an obvious advantage but in decent light the pentaprism is still superior and can take more abuse. A pentaprism will also last pretty much forever, an EVF definitely will not.
You’re all certainly welcome to your opinions but I would respect them if they were buoyed more by actual data and evidence rathe than merely an impulse to argue. The facts do not support your POV, it’s not my mental invention it’s just how it is.
“A pentaprism will also last pretty much forever, an EVF definitely will not.”
Where is your actual data and evidence to support that ‘fact’?
In any event, it’s a rather academic point – even if true, the lifespan of most cameras these days will be determined not by the life of the viewfinder but by the upgrade cycle of the manufacturer. In other words, the useful life of the camera is likely to expire long before the viewfinder.
What?!? Are you for real? A pentaprism is a solid piece of precision polished glass. The one Sony made for the a900 was among the best ever in it’s class. An EVF is circuits and synthetics; way more potential for failure than a solid piece of glass and the accompanying mirror that moves on relatively simple mechanics. Film camera bodies made twenty years ago or more are still outperforming pretty much any digital today in terms of lifespan and durability. How long have you been shooting and with what? I know several pros, young and old, who are among the best in their respective fields who echo my sentiments.
“What?!? Are you for real? A pentaprism is a solid piece of precision polished glass. The one Sony made for the a900 was among the best ever in it’s class. An EVF is circuits and synthetics; way more potential for failure than a solid piece of glass and the accompanying mirror that moves on relatively simple mechanics. Film camera bodies made twenty years ago or more are still outperforming pretty much any digital today in terms of lifespan and durability. How long have you been shooting and with what? I know several pros, young and old, who are among the best in their respective fields who echo my sentiments.”
I never claimed you were wrong. But you were accusing others of making statements without hard and fast supporting evidence. You say that an EVF has the POTENTIAL for failure, yet above you said that the pentaprism will DEFINITELY outlast an EVF. All I asked for was the proof – all you have given us is your reason, which is something completely different.
And you’ve pretty much answered my second point – which is that film cameras are indeed much more durable than their digital counterparts. All of my SLRs are going strong, which is more than can be said than some of the DSLRs that I have owned. Which confirms my point, on which you seem to agree – the digital camera body is likely to be replaced long before the EVF gives out, which makes your pentaprism v EVF lifespan a red herring.
If this was true, then film would be best.
Pros don’t bring only 1 camera to a gig…
Film is best. I get better results than most shooters with fancy dslrs
Depends on the application. I definitely prefer film with regards to grain vs. noise and banding (the latter being something I absolutely loathe). There is a richness and depth to film that I like as well. But digital has generally superior commercial applications and the creative possibilities are seemingly limitless.
That’s because most dSLR users don’t take it off auto. It’s nothing to do with the technology.
I’m not most DSLR users. And I almost never use auto. I shoot almost exclusively in M, occasionally in S and A. You have a gross tendency to assume quite a lot. YOu should probably stop doing that, you might learn something.
Depends on the gig. Sometimes there’s no way you can bring more than one camera.
And in many ways film is still the best, it’s just getting harder to keep in the arsenal, especially with the instant gratification obsession fueled by digital. Very few clients these days have the patience required to wait for film to be developed, those who do will specifically ask for it.
I think what’s getting lost in translation here is that what I would like to see Sony include in its arsenal is a pure workhorse, something that has as few bells and whistles as possible and utilizes a top-grade sensor with a basic viewing system. No frills, just a stripped down beast that can handle real abuse and still produce excellent IQ. I feel that in the frenzy to create cameras that pack dazzling features something essential is being sacrificed in much the same way that the megapixel war has gotten carried away with itself.
+1
Oh brother…
Let’s dispel this myth.
Consumers don’t hunt down pros to see what camera they have, they don’t have a clue what make or model a pro uses.
What consumers do see if the heavy bias in camera magazines towards Nikon and Canon. They go into a shop and get shown Canon and Nikon by biased shop staff. They see Canon and Nikon advertising on television.
Their purchase has NOTHING to do with what pros use.
Dear lord, amen.
Hell, half the time when I sell a camera to a customer I often have to explain why I don’t personally use it and then justify why I happen to use the gear I do. If I’m not careful, they’ll question their purchase… and it’s always the ones that pay way too much to what you and I have to say in forums like these 🙂
poor bastards.
People see Canon and Nikon everywhere. Canon sponsors the NFL, hence white lenses everywhere (that and they sell at ridiculously low prices to news agency photographer pools). But what about the US Open for tennis? All Olympus all the time… Sony’s the official HD camcorder system for MLB and the NFL…
Marketing sells. If Samsung could market the NX system out of a paper bag without sounding like arrogant @#$@#ers they’d be doing ever so much better than they are but people will still pick Sony over Samsung (in cameras, panel is an entirely different world) simply because they have that invisible faith.
We have to break the bad shopping habits that marketing creates within the consumer on a daily basis. We could be lazy and sell everyone what Ashton Kutcher tells them to buy but, fortunately, we have souls.
There’s partial truth in this – but only partial. Canon and Nikon still make generally superior product with a wider range of options in both bodies and lenses. This may change in time, we’ll see. They also have far more accessories being made by them as well as others. Try getting a water housing for a Sony body; it will cost you more.
That wasn’t the point, you said that consumers purchase based on what pros use. They do NOT.
You clearly don’t get out in the world enough. I’m out shooting ALL THE TIME. Almost everyone assumes I shoot with Canon or Nikon and most of their questions revolve around that assumption. I spend more time than I would like to having to explain the situation and choice. What is clearly conveyed in the exchange is that most people regard Canon and Nikon as superior (partly because they simply are) because that’s what they see in the hands of most professionals. And I can’t fault them and I don’t disagree. Sony is catching up but C & N are still ultimately superior. Why do you have such a problem with this obvious fact?
I get the feeling you hang out on message boards just to argue points that don’t have enough merit. Sony just needs more time. We’ll see what that proves.
change is surely something that can (and sometimes should) occur, but you have to offer something for the meantime while ist is not perfect.
i don’t know any pro that abandoned his film stuff for the first generation of dslrs!
Carry a manual exposure film body as a backup.
I want a FF mirrorless!
Me too.
Any word on the one big surprise our admin rumored about learning soon?
Of course soon to Sony is 18 months 😉
I’m hoping that Sony will allow or talk Zeiss into putting the A-mount on its manual lens like thay do for Canon and Nikon. I was a working photographer before Minolta pioneered AF back in 1985 and I still shoot that way now and then and I would love to get that sweet 100mm macro lens on my a850 and later on my a9x.
You’ve gotta think the Nex cameras are way more profitable for Sony. They probably don’t cost much more than a compact to make.
I wouldn’t mind SLT if the hi-iso performance would be better. With the a580 Sony seemed to do better finally and then TADA! let’s sacrifice that for the translucent mirror thing.
If hi-iso stays crappy like that, then my next FF acquisition will be a 5dii and I’ll start building my second system.
A full frame SLT is a big mistake. Sony should have put their money into developing a FF mirrorless Alpha by now. It’s looking like a long, dry spell for Alpha pros, most of whom won’t go near an SLT.
Mirror less isn’t ready for Alpha lenses and the AF sucks.
Sure it is, and no it doesn’t.
Please, make it good Sony! Not equal to the D800 and 5Dmk3, but better. I invested big bugs in Minolta and Zeiss lenses over the years. Please don’t make me switch. Let us all be proud at our Sony stuff.
No future Sony SLR/OVF?
Canon and NIKON can sleep safe and sound tonight. It’s exactly the news they were hoping for.
They certainly do not want Sony playing in their pro market sand box.
I think you underestimate Sony. I doubt Nikon and Canon will make your mistake.
You think Canon and NIKON are upset that Sony is not making both styles?
They seriously don’t want Sony making OVF.
You actually believe that Canon and Nikon aren’t concerned about Sony? It is a good job that you aren’t on their management team…
Not in the FF pro market. Those guys are hardcore OVF shooters. They are the hardest people to convince to move to EVF SLT.
These guys have several thousands and more invested in lenses and SLR/OVF that they love.
They arent going to eBay all their trusted glass and OVF bodies just to have EVF and PDAF. Too costly.
Besides, a new Canon 1Dx will still have great AF and will likely be the new industry leader in low light anyway.
The Pro market is DEEPLY dedicated to OVF today. It’s a mistake for Sony to allow Canon and NIKON sell to OVF pros with no challange.
Sony needs to compete using both designs.
Ah, so now you’ve fallen back and played the “pro” card, funny how the proi card is always played when talking about Sony….
Even in the pro market, Canon and Nikon will be concerned, they know that the end of a flappy mirror is coming and the OVF with it, it is only a matter of time.
Anybody thinking that Canon and Nikon isn’t watching very closely what Sony are up to with SLT and EVF is very naive.
I do not think you understand. Sony does not care about current Pro users as they found with the A700/A900, very few will switch. The target market is the P&S crowd. Sony is growing from the ground up and, frankly, what they have done in a few years is remarkable.
The SLT’s and Nex systems have outsold the A700/A900/A850 and are logical step up from a P&S as they are simple to use and offer great features in an ILS. The A77 and Nex7 are for the advanced user offering more control and advanced features. The A99 and, hopefully, Nex9 will offer fullframe. Converting Pro’s from other systems is NOT the target.
These are really cutting edge products that will only get better.
+1 very well said !
..and increased market share figures over the last years compared to canon/nikon clearly confirm Sonys success (money wise) with that choice of target customer.
I don´t think that the process is only about stepping up from P&S. I am not a professional, just an enthusiast, but I have stepped down from the SLR to the NEX-7 as I prefere its lower size and weight. These qualities are difficult to achieve with the classic design (be it DSLR or DSLT).
Looking forward to the FF SLT.
Something people who are complaining aren’t really taking into consideration:
Sony has kept the Alpha mount with the introduction of SLT. Think about that for a moment. All of the other makers out there, whenever they introduce a new technology, they also bring in a new mount, effectively splintering their user base.
People can bitch and moan about all the failings of SLT. That’s fine, but have some perspective. The SLT introduces something into the optical path: true. So does a teleconverter. So does a filter.
Eventually, Sony will switch to an APS-C and FF sensor with no SLT in the middle. Most likely, an on-sensor phase detect layer.
However, until then, SLT is the way to go for Sony, if they want full time PD-AF. It’s a good system.
that’s good to me. One of the reason I switch from Canon to Sony is because I believe in the SLT technology. It allow phase detection AF all the time, and remove the mechanical part, which theoretically and potentially allows faster frame rate and more accurate AF tracking. This should be good for sport photographer. It also allows better AF in video mode. I see good potential in it, and I am glad that Sony focus on it.
I like my A77 and it has some great features, but I LOVE my A900 viewfinder. I think they should offer both. I’m not sure putting all the SLT eggs in one basket is the way to go here.
+1
+1 absolutely. FF pros will leave OVF for a while.
Will not leave OVF for many years
Which is what they said about every piece of new technology.
I shoot with an a900. Last week I did a test shoot with the a77. While I appreciate its veritable night vision, the overall contrast and lack of details in the shadows specifically made looking through the viewfinder am unpleasant experience. I shoot RAW and rely on the camera’s spot meter and histogram to tell me what the picture will look like. To that end and in contradiction of what others have said on this forum, the EVF is a much less accurate depiction of what’s been actually captured.
Clearly there are advantages to an EVF, but I don’t see the harm in acknowledging that the ones available today need improvement. When the image quality of EVFs will match that of OVFs like the a900 nobody knows, so for some of us it’s an expensive waiting and guessing game. And who wants that when it comes to their livelihood? Sony’s stated commitment to following the DSLT path exclusively in the near future, its failure to provide a full frame replacement, coupled with the pull of Canon and Nikon’s recent offerings ought to have those of us who shoot professionally doing some deep thinking.
Just want pro’s want. They are all lined up for an EVF FF Pro Camera.
Can’t wait, when to pre-order? What lens would be best.
Battery type?
Hope its splash proof I do a lot of waterfall photography.
hudla
Sony should of pushed the A99 up to be released with the mark 3 and D800. Having NO FF on the market IMO is a mistake. Canon and Nikon are looking pretty good. I feel like sony is not committed to the pro market. I wash they would come out and say “Hey we want to just do NEX consumer cameras”
Now this site is always full of trolling A holes who love to jump down people’s throat as soon as they challenge anything sony, but I’d like a couple of your thoughts: Do you feel sony wants the pro market, and if sony doesn’t really commette to FF Pro’s who makes a better camera? Canon or Nikon?
Sony have been in this game for what? Six years? In that time you really expect them to compete with Canon and Nikon in the pro market?
i think they did a very good job with the a900 and they did a good job with the a77 competing with the 7d as well (even though it came too late and i do have some concerns with slt and with aps-c technology in general)…
if they would just continue it and have a clear strategy that people can rely on…
Do you have access to Nikon or Canon’s strategy? You can speculate about the direction they are going in, but do you know for a fact?
at least they do have a rather reliable circle of products and “innovations”. of course you can never know for sure, but apparently, they will never abandon all fullframe models without offering anything else! In fact they do always offer something that makes you produce quality images (i’m not a big fan of both though, and it really hurts to consider buying a Nikon camera since i know what i did love on Sony, but in the end, a camera and the whole system is just an (expensive) tool, nothing more) Come on, you can’t tell me that this is a serious approach that Sony currently does?
if you belive in that strategy…
A simple “no” would have sufficed. The fact is that you have no idea what direction Sony, Canon or Nikon will take.
+1 The A900 came out at the same time as 5D Mark 2. A900 was great camera.
even though i think canon’s 5d m3 is bad joke (but that is just my opinion), i can totally understand you…
sony leaves us pros with a ridiculous attitude about us, that is so sad and doen’t match some of the company’s decisions.
To JustAnyone,
You are banging your head against a wall trying to argue with SonyA77. I agree with you, in short, Sony is losing the pro market and thus ending what was a great beginning. Any pro that looks though a EVF and says it works for them never really knew what they were doing in the first place. Sony needs to hear our wallets closing all over the world. I am thankful for people like SonyA77 though. Without them we would not have anyone to sell our Zeiss glass to.
mark said “Any pro that looks though a EVF and says it works for them never really knew what they were doing in the first place.”
Surely you jest. Working tog for 35 years…
http://www.ctphotographx.com/
I’ve used every system you can think of… Contax, Leica, CaNikon… But settled on Minolta for various reasons. And even though my first EVF came in the form of a defective NEX-7, I’ll be looking forward to my replacement soon. In fact, I just examined an a65 a few hours ago. The EVF is quite useful for many Pro things that a Pro couldn’t otherwise do any other way.
It’s funny how people assume that what they want from a camera is what everyone wants. They also assume that they are in the majority. It’s a very odd attitude you have.
Can I get a link to you web site? I’d love to check out your work. I try to follow as many Sony pros as I can find.
Garreth
Really? What are these things that a Pro will never be able to do without a EVF? Also, sounds like you haven’t built your portfolio with a EVF so let’s talk in a couple months when your right eye is tired of it being bombarded with electric noise. Work with your non defective nex7 for awhile then look through the a900 OFV and tell us how much better it is, from your pro opinion. You are too good of a photographer to put up with that sh*t.
mark asked “What are these things that a Pro will never be able to do without a EVF? ”
The ability to preview the DOF, Bokeh, Exposure, Color… BEFORE the shot, rather than after… That is an evolutionary leap. Doesn’t mean OVF is bad, or that my 900’s won’t always be with me… But EVF has some advantages… and drawbacks.
I’m pleased to know that EVF is here to stay.
So it’s a bit like being able to quickly take a polariod shot for preview on an old Hasselblad ;-). Sorry I can live without EVF.
D800 or 5DMkIII here I come. Too bad the CZ lenses were nice
Nikon
Oh well. I bought an A580 last year to use with my Sony 70-400. Good combination. I’m actually a Nikon user but Nikon’s 80-400 is inferior to the Sony 70-400 in many ways. I tried an A77 last year but the EVF is not up to the capability of an OVF for very fast moving subjects. I was hoping for an A600, a faster A580. That would be great. Unfortunately, it sounds like that is not going to happen. The silver lining is that I’ll save some money since Sony will no longer maker a DSLR with OVF.
Im not sure mirrorless will be soon-to-be future, unless someone will make some AF breakthrough. For now, its near useless for tracking moving subjects (which is where dSLRs excel, or rather say, their AF does). dSLT are somewhat similar but so far not that good, but thats due Sony AF, not dSLT design itself.
Nothing against dSLT and EVFs, but that technology needs bit of maturing until it will be fully usable in some flagship camera. Which is not now. Sony should stick with dSLR at least for one more generation.
The problem is Sony never had good tracking and AF on DSLR or NEX.
So NEX is really the only appealing product right now.
I own A700 and A300, KM5D before but now think fo selling all alpha stuff and buying Canon 7D for DSLR and tracking + 300f4 lens while using NEX-7 for all else.
Kinda understand that. When you compare A900 to 1DMK3, then its quite clear who has better AF.. (not even mentioning 1DMK4 or D3s).
dSLT in theory can have perfect AF, but for now its just a theory..
Alright so those who hate EVF will have a few months to sell off your gears and invest in Canikon now….
I hope so, cheap lenses!
Sony is an electronic compagny, making TV, entertainment console like Vita and Ps3, all this gear can be linked. The next move is to do the same with camera. A wifi camera, so you can send your photo directly to your TV or computer, without any cable, or control the camera from your computer. A tactile lcd that can control all the camera, and not only the focus or use as a shutter. And why not a store ? So you can add new effect as easily as i do on my phone, or change the ui.
I’m expecting full flash synchronization at all shutter speeds with all electronic shutter on chip.
There is no reason this cannot be accomplished. We should all be insisting upon it for the top a99.
If Sony wishes to push the technology advancements (like Minolta), then we as customer base should always push back twice as hard with what we actually want and expect from the so called advancements.
Final deal breaker for me, to leave A-Mount after twenty years, that will be if a99 top pro camera doesn’t have tethered remote shooting for both stills and video. I can’t believe we live in 2012 and are forced to touch the camera in order to shoot video. How can one person set up a two camera shoot that way? Sony… if you want the Pros, then give us the tools to do our job the way WE want.
Pro are very conservative, they want button, knobs and dial, they want to feel the camera. Even if inboard bluetooth/wifi is nowday possible so you can comfortabily setup the camera with your smartphone/tablet/dedicated gear while you arrange the light and see the result on the tablet screen, it’s not like physicaly interact with you camera, peering through the OVF and telling you assistant to move the light to the right, err…no to the left 😉
Anyone remember a movie called groundhog day?
Just picked up my NEX-7 with lens
Perfect toming since i have a studio shoot tomorrow
That way i can compare my canon d7 and the nex-7
In nimerus tests the nex-7 has beten the canon so i am exited
If anyone adks whst tests in europe an particular sweden they have done that woth both cameras
I am a happy camper Wohooooooo
$1999 SLT FF! pawnage to canikon!
Can we all assembly at once now, and get ready to “huge spam’ on Paul genge FB (Sony) everyday asking for a77 firmware for high ISO par with 5n and some other good stuff 😀 lol…
Hello All,
I’m defiantly on the cliff and bit pissed @ Sony. Is there someway that we can have all these great ideas lead to a discussion with people who make the changes at Sony? I have the Sony850 and 3 Zeiss Lens and I shoot weddings, and yet, I do have problems with the low light situations, and I’m stuck, because part of me wants to go back to Nikon, but I have spent a lot of cash on the glass, and so, I wish that Sony would just come out and let us all know what the deal is! Or maybe Zeiss can also be upfront and tell us, a,will there be any new lens coming out, b or is there an adapter that one can use on the nikon to be able to use the Zeiss AF glass
Your thoughts…
They should just release a version of all the ZA lenses with F mounts. These would sell well.
1. The EVF is the single best innovation since years. I had two A850s. I never used them again, after I got my NEX 7.
2. Sony should have supported FF more. I ordered a 5DMKIII and sold all my Sony/Zeiss gear. And I am sure there is a massive move away from Sony.
3. The Sony lens line up is annoying. Even for the NEX there is only one quality lens.
4. Alpha is dead. A FF NEX will make a real impact though.
“dead”?… “Alpha”?…
I guess that’s why they have new lenses announced for Alpha?
Where is the official announcement you’re refering to?
Yup. Look on dpreview for sale forums. I reckon about 1/3 of the posts are selling Sony gear. And you know that Sony is nowhere near 1/3 of the market. People are bailing out now.
That one third selling Sony are selling NEX’s and accessories (BTW, it’s not 1/3, maybe 1/6, I read Nikon more than anyting). There has been a bunch of people claiming they are fed up with Sony, and off to the market, but I’ve yet to see any quality lens’s hit the market. Nothing is being sold lens wise…KEH, EBAY, Dyxum, even LensRentals has very few used Sony’s. Not sure what everyones on about, but they’re lying.
I agree. Check eBay for the SAL 70400G and you will only find NEW ones for sale. No used lenses!!!. I will probably list mine when Sony “officially” announces the replacement.
Same with the SAL 1680Z… I’m going to list mine but only because I bought the SAL 2470Z… Again, just sold my NEX-5 system but only because I am buying NEX-7.
My A55 system is for sale because I upgraded to A77.
Just because people see things for sale on eBay doesn’t mean they are dumping Sony… Just upgrading!!!… My used Sony gear sales fund new Sony purchases!!!…
My a580, a850, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 16-35CZ, two grips, three flashes and 50/1.7 are on ebay right now…
Just returned from Antarctica ,I was on a cruise with other photographers in and out of inflatable boats getting wet a lot.
The a900 and a77 worked perfectly,no problems with bright light and ice with the EVF,in fact checking exposure using EVF was easier than trying to use rear lcd on a900.
The a77 and a900 survived water and icy conditions perfectly unlike Canon 5DMk2 wheir three ceased to function due to poor water resistance
Do you have some sample shots we can look at? I switched from the MKII for its general unreliability in comparison to the A850 and A900
The 5d2 was terribly built
Clunky, plastic, slow. The top LCD would crack and leak fluid if it got too cold. Or the camera would just stop working altogether.
Same with the 7D. In cold weather, even a brand new battery would fail and start reporting 0% battery life to the camera, making the camera unusable.
> “But if you ask me , the only real long term future is NEX and other future FF mirrorless systems. I think that will be the future of Sony!”
You’re right – if they don’t make an OVF successor to the A900, A-mount cameras will be of virtually no interest to professional photographers. SLT cameras may sell to consumers and some enthusiasts – but who wants to invest a lot in expensive lenses for such a system?
Sony could recoup some of their investment in lens development by making the ZA lenses available in Nikon and Canon mounts. They would sell well in those mounts.
OTOH – With the NEX-7 that system got interesting, though it is a different kind of camera suited to different sorts of photography. For that type of camera Sony now have real competition from Fuji, but neither Nikon nor Canon offer anything comparable.
@ Andrea: Is this he great news you prommissed us?
No!
Ok, let’s have it! 🙂
….. And so ends Sony’s adventure into the world of pro level still cameras…..
So what defines a pro level still camera? I know pros that use compacts – and other non-SLR cameras, so it can’t be SLR. I know pros that use the A700 and other manufacturers’ APS-C models. So it can’t be full-frame. I know pros that use SLT and other cameras with non-OVF viewfinders (some with no viewfinder at all) so it can’t be an OVF. I know pros that use non weather-sealed cameras, so it can’t be weather-sealing. In short, your comment is no more than Walt Knappesque FUD.
Granted that this doesn’t apply to many of the models referred to above, but most pros that I know are more interested in a reliable camera that will stand up to heavy and rugged use – that issue has sod all to do with the type of viewfinder on the camera.
+1 there appear to be some weird idea here that:
a) pros only use dSLRs.
b) pros are the only ones who know what they are talking about.
c) “I” shoot using my camera “this” way therefore everybody else does too.
You come across as falling into the third trap yourself.
A pro is somebody that gets paid for their work, it is nothing more than that. Pros will use the A99 just like any other tool to make money.
Hope Sony manages to get PDAF on sensor and global shutter soon on large sensored cameras. That, and the EVF improving program should be enough for the Alpha NEX series to be considered as the next generation of cameras to replace dSLR and dSLT.
And maybe for the dSLR-form-factor lovers, they can bring a mirrorless with a similar sized grip and body (including all those buttons and dials) but with less mechanical parts that can increase considerably the life time of the camera. Add everything we could see in the future (better buffer, more fps, better heat handling, better batteries, better sensor) and we got a camera with a lot of things to like and high performance (without forgetting about weathersealing and better AF speed). Keep the minimum 18mm of registration distance seen on E-mount cameras (so you can mount almost everything and 3rd parties can get some money by making compatible adapters with AF/aperture/IS enabled functions) and with all those specs, they own the market as long as they make top quality products and offer professional-like support service.
I think it is a wise decision for Sony to focus on the SLT technology – also on the professional arena. First of all I doubt that many (real) professional photographers using Sony will actually jump ship. Of course there will be photographers that will not be able to produce and sell as many pictures using SLT/EVF technology, or they find it to be a too big a degradation compared to using the OVF, and for those it will be a good reason the re-invest in CaNikon equipment.
I don’t know the percentage of professional photographers using Sony, but I doubt it is more than e.g. 2%.
So let’s say half of these users choose to abandon Sony, then Sony will only have 1% left. But on the other hand, if just 5% of the professional CaNikon photographers can see an opportunity in the radical different technology, it would be a huge step forward for Sony.
I really doubt that many professional CaNikon photographers will switch to Sony OVF systems, just because Sony made some marginal better/cheaper cameras-houses. If you have invested 20-30000 USD in CaNikon equipment, you don’t switch brand, just because Sony releases a new OVF-based camera that is 20% quicker/more dynamic range/better ISO performance. They know that soon afterwards CaNikon will release an even better camera anyway. So, IMHO, only a radical different technological approach (with the future opportunities it might bring) will get professional photographs to reconsider their brand.
Not too surprising. Now where is MCP aka C.Garrard to end this line. 😉
Blubbering in a padded room…
LOL! I’d be embarrassed to be that guy- those reviews he writes are total amateur Amazon user reviews at their best- oh and add pictures- done.
But we know you are the same person as SonyA77- at least you both sound the same defending Sony like you do. Clones!
end of line.
color transparencies can be inserted in place of the mirror. will cool effects. Sony makes cameras for children. There is no use of such property the mirror, except poorer quality images.
Typical CaNikon fan-boy.
How so you think the nex mount would be ready for FF? It would be more than costly and laborious, rather impossible, to construct lenses for it, because of 18mm.
But in One thing I agree, the Future for Sony IS nex and Not the A-Mount.
How do you think the nex mount would be ready for FF? It would be more than costly and laborious, rather impossible, to construct lenses for it, because of 18mm.
But in One thing I agree, the Future for Sony IS nex and Not the A-Mount.
Actually they should probably make a different mount for full frame NEX
I have had it with Sony fudging around with customers. I will buy a900 today and forget that Sony is even making cameras for another 3-4 years. Along with Maxxum film bodies, I should be able to make enough money to buy a D4 with tilt/shift lenses. I know Sony will make a FF brick with TMT and 30MP sensor, but I will have grandkids by then. Besides, it will be loaded with crap that complicates field use.
After a900 release I was hoping for more improved products for field use, instead Sony made a move to TMT and forgot that A900 was a milestone camera that could compete for the top slot with some minor improvements like integral V grip, faster shutter, and higher FPS. Now it is all about high ISO and GPS. Sorry Sony, but I am not investing in your new imaging technology anymore. Your TVs are nice though.
Sony is all about high ISO? Er, no… If there’s one thing Sony can’t be accused of, that is chasing high ISO…
I guess you should go back to manual cameras, I mean you wouldn’t want it to be “loaded with crap” like metering and autofocus…
I focus manually. ALso AF and metering are features that are universal, so not a not a good example on your part. As to high ISO, most complaints about their cameras are about high iso noise, and they are trying to fix that by expanding iso range
How do you think the e mount would be ready for FF? It would be more than costly and laborious, rather impossible, to construct lenses for it, because of 18mm.
But in one thing I agree, the future for Sony IS Nex and not the A-Mount.
If you like EVFs then, in the long run, mirrorless is a much better solution than DSLT. So, if you like Sony cameras, invest in E mount not A mount.
DSLT will give you faster auto focus – but once on-sensor PDAF is cracked, there is no real advantage to DSLT.
There is nothing to invest in, that’s the problem.
E mount lenses might be a better long-term investment than A-mount lenses – though the choice of E mount lenses one would want to invest in is rather limited.
Well, I changed to Sony from Canon,
one fact is that I use NEX as my everyday camera…
and I bought an A77 for my freelance event jobs, when I was working, I can use the NEX to Alpha mount to achieve a dual body setup.
After a month of using, I can tell you that EVF did have some advantages…
that is when using liveview, I can do track focus, and I can change all the settings of the camera without leaving the viewfinder.
Also tracking focus was much more accurate since tracking in an EVF, I actually had a tracker indicator at the object…
Not to mention video focus tracking…
so for me, the advantage of an EVF is at its ability to track focus, which is more user friendly than traditional OVFs, this already overrides all it’s compromises…
@Andrea,
“Never say never”
Paul Genge picked his words very carefully. He did not say Sony will never produce a new OVF or that they don’t have plans to produce new SLR. He said that they are focusing on SLT currently, FF will be next introduction for SLT, and there is no SLR in their line-up, *today*.
Sony is smart; if Sony earns enough profit from SLTs alone, then probably SLRs will not be made again. However, if Sony believes it is more profitable or otherwise more advantageous to offer both SLRs *and* SLTs, then they will produce both SLRs and SLTs. Right now, they are simply focusing on SLTs, but that may not always be the case. It just depends on the market response to their SLT strategy.
How can they profit from DSLR if they are not making any?
If Sony do plan to make another OVF camera they should let us know. Otherwise, by the time it comes out, all those who prefer an OVF will have long abandoned Sony and won’t be lured back.
As an amateur “prosumer”, whatever that means, I think Sony are on the right track. Considering the fact they have only been in the market for a relatively short time, they are in fact, re-defining it. Admittedly, Canon came out with a “pellicle mirror” camera (SLT) in 1965, but they only made 1000 models for the PRO market. Now Sony has picked up the SLT mantle and is running with it. With the SLT/EVF/A-mount and the NEX/EVF/E-mount they are creating a niche market. That can’t be a bad strategy!!!…
I think the a9x FF SLT is the next logical step.
As far as the professional photographers are concerned, a camera is just a tool. They are not into “tech” stuff.
I remember 20 years ago buying my 1st digital P&S and telling Pro photog friends of mine that they should switch to digital… They laughed and said it was just a toy. Film is the only way to go… My guess is that more than 90% of professionals use digital now.
One day the flapping mirror and OVF will disapear and people will miss them like they do film… Same people who grew up using a darkroom and pad and pen are now using computers and photoshop.
It’s just the way things are…
I for one am glad we keep breaking new ground and I look forward to the real professionals embracing this new technology and showing people like me what is truly possible!!!…
Why do OVF-lovers + Canikoners + Canikoners-wanna-be still read SAR?
Glory, glory EVF!!
Fear
GOOD NEWS ! 😉 🙂
I just want to see FF NEX. I don’t care about SLT.
won’t happen … sorry.
I wonder if the slt mirror can be used in the same way as a AA filter or low pass filter – given that the extra resolution will need less of a filter to eliminate the jaggies….
Finally, a77 price goes below USD1000 in Jpn…
Hi all!
I see there are some discussions about MF and AF… I use the NEX system with an aray of MF lenses in various mounts.. And also NEX lenses.
Last night I wanted to take some photos of my friends in a dimly lit restaurant at ISO 6400 with the 18-200 lens mounted on me new NEX-7.. I would´t focus. It hunted forever, even with AF light on… NO WAY… I could´t find focus..
I switched to a Leica M3 with Tri-X and a 1,4 lens… Focused in 0,5 sec and got my photo…
We haven´t seen the end of AF technology in mirror less cameras yet, because of now, they can´t compete with your own eye…
It really makes me think of my future as a Sony shooter. Should I go on with that brand or change for another one? As a portrait and wedding photographer, i’m quite scared about the battery life and heat problem with those mirrorless cameras. I can’t igine letting my camera on during 12 hours long and buying dozens of batteries and long guarranties.
What do you guys thin of that? Are FF mirrorless cameras good for wedding photographers?
I spoke to a video dealer who said 4K tvs will be out in the fall – about when the new ff slts are meant to be revealed. Will Sony take advantage of the new tv format to sell tv/camera combos by making the A99 capable of shooting 4k video???????
The future is with 4K video and no AA filter or low pass filter, so video and stills will both greatly improve. When will we have these features Paul? Will it be in the Fall, when 4K tvs come out?
My hope for the new camera with current existing technologies is an E-mount full frame camera body with anti-shake 40MP sensor, then a LA-EA3 adapter with translucent mirror for Alpha lenses.
1. For E-mount users wanting high ISO, they can use the E-mount lens to take full frame photo, there will be no mirror between the lens and the sensors, may be the OSS lenses can cooperate with the in-body anti-shake to achieve even higher antishake effect.
2. For Alpha-mount users wanting high ISO, they can use the LA-EA1 adapter, there will be no mirror between the lens and the sensors.
3. For Alpha-mount users wanting super fast Auto-focus, they can use the LA-EA3 adapter with xx cross-type phase detection sensors, but there will be a translucent mirror between the lens and the sensor that can cause some light loss. May be the OS Sigma lenses can cooperate with the in-body anti-shake to achieve even higher antishake effect.
In the future, I hope the sensor can rotate, shift and tilt itself like old field cameras.
It seems the dSLR vs dSLT debate will rage on for a long time to come. I switched to dSLT with a Sony A55 back in September of 2011. It was a bit of a learning curve with quite a few things working differently. But with patience and a will to learn new ways of doing things I am now so happy I will be purchasing my next dSLT, the A77 before the end of this year!
I do photography as a full-time profession and the advantages of SLT, once you get the hang of it, outweighs the disadvantages. I love my A55 and as soon as I have my A77 I will be dropping my dSLR (back body) permanently.
For those who argue that the SLT cannot be used in studio, there is a very simple workaround. Simply pop-up the built-in flash and set it to Wireless, then stick something opaque over it. This works perfectly for those situations where you really need the EVF gain. I am pretty sure Sony will sooner of later catch onto this and update the firmware for a manual override. But till then, it doesn’t bug me in the least when doing studio shoots.