Sony Canada hints at Alpha A500 series of DSLRs
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 25th 2009 7:16AM
posted May 25th 2009 7:16AM
[Via PhotoRumors and Dyxum]
posted May 25th 2009 7:16AM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I don't understand why you'd want a dslr that can shoot video.
To shoot video.
Very good point, and in fact I never understood the mentality of those people who buy this product. C'mon, if you want to buy a DSLR, you get yourself either a proper Canon EOS or a Nikon. Both of these are established maker of those high-end digital cameras and have got a very reliable track record as well as global customer support.
You can get a Canon EOS body and use it for a good 5 years with no big problem, I doubt you can with this series. I got myself a proper EOS for taking proper photographs and a HDD HD HandyCam for shooting video.
I actually agree, I'd rather get a HD camera than use my camera. While it'd be great for a A series to have video, I think I'll stick to my A200
@b
You do realize that Sony have been making SLR's for ages (well Minolta, until Sony took them over)
I bet you anything you can get many many years out of these, considering some of the engineers followed the switchover...
The sony dslr camera I use is three years old, still I'm sure I'll keep it and use it for the next three years as well. I also got a soon 15 year old film-camera that use the same lenses my sony camera uses (It's a minolta), and it still works as good as it did when I bought it. Minolta produced cameras while you probably weren't born yet. They also made autofocus SLRs before you could buy a proper one from any other manufactor.
If you buy a Nikon, the chance is very high you will have a camera that uses the same sensor or a derivate of a sensor used in one of the DSLRs offered by Sony. Like the 12 megapixel sensor in the d300 and the 12 megapixel sensor in the Sony a700 and the 24 megapixel sensor from the d3x and the 24 megapixel sensor of the Sony a900.
Sony is a big player in the professional video market. There video cameras range camcorders to up to the half-million dollar CineAlta F35/Panavision Genesis used in lot of big budget movies.
I think the big issue is that dSLR video is filled with compromise. Even the 5DII is locked in at 30p, has jello effect and aliasing issues, and has almost no manual controls. The first dSLR to really do video good is the Panasonic GH1 (a company that knows how to do video); it has full manual controls, 24p//30p/60p options (the PAL version does 25p/30p/50p), and has full tracking AF in video.
Hopefully, when Sony releases a video capable dSLR they don't release another compromised effort like Nikon, Canon, and Pentax, and produce a camera more like the GH1. At least needs manual controls.
@ b
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I use both Nikon and Sony cameras professionally on a daily basis, and both systems are equally reliable. So get off your high Canikon horse and realize the reality, which is that the Sony Alpha range of cameras is equally as capable as competitors, and even MORE competitive when you take price into consideration.
People said the exact same thing about live view, shrugging it off as a lame consumer driven feature. Now there's hardly a DSLR made without it, and even pros find it a very useful feature. Just accept change, it doesn't detract any from the photographs the camera can take.
I'd love to have HD video on my DSLR, means one less camera to carry around, not to mention better quality (lenses, DOF, low light, possibly compression) than that of a cheap consumer HD camcorder.
Do yourself a favour and get what Canon has to offer. Sony Alpha is dead right now, they have a very limited selection of lenses that are currently on production compared to Canon. Canon also has the broadest range of pro lenses labeled "L" for luxury, and they are weather sealed for continuous stress-free operation, while obtaining high image quality than competing brands. My uncle who is a wedding and sports photographer uses a Canon and he loves the image quality and reliability Canon has to offer.
I have a 5D Mark II and I love its 1080p recording capabilities.
Have you ever held a Sony for longer than 30 seconds? Have you ever taken a single picture with an autofocus Carl Zeiss prime? Because it sure doesn't sound like you have.
@iKurt5D
Sony have a wide range of lens, comparable to Cannon and Nikon's range. What you probably don't realize is that not only can Sony's use the full range of Minolta lens as well. Also there is support from third parties like Tamron and Sigma. Sony also has the 'G' (Gold) range of lens which are fantastic and the glass is very high quality. When I was looking looking for new SLR I went for the camera that was in the best of class for what I wanted and the Sony (a200) beat both Cannon and Nikon. I'm not a Cannikon hater or anything as they both make great camera, just don't knock Sony until you have properly tried them
Yeah it's also too bad the Canon weather sealing doesn't work too well; if you want good weather sealing, there's Olympus and Pentax, and Nikon if you spend the $$. Anecdotally, Sony has good weather sealing, even though they don't advertise it - see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml and all the 5dII failures due to weather - Canon just has terrible build quality compared to everyone else. This is very true of the Rebel cameras; they just feel like plastic toys, where everyone else's low end cameras feel quite sturdy.
I tend to get the impression that the DSLR market is starting to get confused about what it is for. I can quite see the attraction of putting video recording facilities into the entry-level DSLRs in order to attract customers who currently use a compact camera. However, when you start moving into the higher-end of the market the only people likely to spending that sort of money are those people who take photography seriously and the likelihood that they want take somewhat mediocre video is low (if they are serious about photography then I find it likely that they would also take video seriously, if they are interested in it). Simply adding video because others have done so is just plain dumb - you are being driven by Marketing rather than by the demands of your customers. Frankly, Sony has other areas more important to address for normal still photographs than adding video, for example their ISO performance relative to Canon and Nikon.
Personally, I recently bought a Nikon D90 and I couldn't care less about the video recording function.