Sony's really hitting two sweet spots this morning with its new (or,
newly confirmed) full-frame A850 (pictured) and mid-range A550 and A500 DSLR additions to the Alpha family. The rumors were basically
dead on, with the A850 offering a slight reduction to the A900's skillset while keeping on the exact same 24.6 megapixel sensor -- and nabbing a $1,000 or so price cut in the process (it's now landing at around $2,000). The A550 and A500, meanwhile, fill in any perceived gaps in the Alpha line with 14.2 and 12.3 megapixel sensors, respectively. They also both score tilt-out LCDs akin to the poorly-received A380, with the A550 sporting a much higher resolution screen than its sibling. Still, even with the other minor tweaks present, we're not sure how reasonable the $200 price difference between the two cameras is: the A550 goes for $950 ($1050 with a kit lens), while the A500 hits at $750 ($850 with a kit). The glaring omission in all of these cameras, of course, is video recording -- something that Sony's various competition is sporting in a majority of these pricepoints. A head scratcher, to be sure.
Read - Sony Alpha A550 and A500
Read - Sony Alpha A850
Read - Sony Alpha A550 hands-on preview
posted Aug 27th 2009 10:03AM
The first thing I thought about was, what are the video capabilities. :(
I'd buy a sony because of its konica minolta roots, but its memory stick format just blows.
It's just a memory stick man, it's not like of a huge difference compared to an SDHC cards..
Not to mention that their cameras also take SD, or CF in the higher end models.
Two things: 1 - older Konica Minolta G-series cameras used Memory Sticks in addition to SD cards, and 2 - all of the new cameras use CF or SD in addition to MS cards. Memory is memory, so aside from being generally more expensive than SD cards, I don't see how the Memory Stick format 'blows'.
People whining about the inclusion of Memory Stick when another slot that accepts a more widely used is also present on a device strikes me as being negative just to be negative. Customers moving up from existing Sony cameras appreciate the fact that they don't have to necessarily buy a new card to use these cameras. Sony would be idiots to force their loyal customers to buy into (for them at least) a new memory format just to own the newest stuff. They even included a MS to CF adapter with every A100 DSLR (which was clearly based on an existing KM design) to encourage current Sony P&S owners into buying the new Alpha.
And about video capture on a DSLR, I've used many different models with this capability and with the exception of the Pana GH1, they have all had some usability issues--slow AF speeds, or no video AF to speak of, jerky manual zoom (generally the fault of the kit lens), and poor sound among others. Don't get me wrong, the image quality is excellent if shot in HD resolutions and proper frame rates. I don't see the benefit of offering 1080p capture if you have to do it at 20fps. Fix crap like this and I may look for video capture as a standard feature in a DSLR. Until then I'll use a video camcorder to take video and a still camera to take stills.
Ah, i do see that it supports SDx cards... The links were not working, and I'm busy today. =P
But memory stick still blows, it used to be commonly much more expensive for whatever capacity, and I hold a grudge against the memory card format.
low ranked?
I do admit not seeing the SD compatibility (engadget had no working links when i posted)
wow, ppl must love memory stick.
And why defend lack of features?
=/ tough crowd today.
Is that "grudge" doing you any good ?
Since basically the only thing to evaluate one card format versus another is price, then by that measure memory stick blows. Same capacity/higher price. Why pay more for exactly the same function. At least that's why I'm assuming OP said it blows.
@xValentine: Actually since 16GB memory stick $55 or 16GB SDHC(Class 6) $30, yeah, the grudge still applies. What else do I need to say. Unless you own some Mem-stick only devices, I see no point in supporting it. Me? I avoid it like the plague.
I own a A200 and sony is really pissing me off. First off I want them to put CF cards back!!! second were the hell is the video capabilities? I mean sure the a200 was good for its time but gees with the a230 and now these new cameras sony should have done a lot more :(
second
I guess Sony purposely handicapped the A230, 330, 380 by removing the AEL button to make the A5xx series more worth it.
The A2xx-A3xx are entry-level DSLR cameras aimed at people who want to move up from point-and-shoots. They are not catered toward the enthusiast or professional, thus the interface (including buttons) is simpler with fewer bells/whistles to attract people who might be anxious about the difficulty of using a DSLR for the first time. The AEL button is not hugely useful for beginners and has been removed.
Wow..that A850 is beefy for a $2000 dslr
I was thinking the same thing. And no video capablilities? Especially when your main competitors are doing it. How relevant are their upgrades and additional features, if Their competitors have something similar and more?
I don't see Canon or Nikon with a $2000 full frame 35mm DSLR. With or without video capabilities.
@Vic
I think you misunderstood me, a full-frame DSLR for $2000 is awesome.
Now if only Sony could make their lenses a little more cheaper..
minolta lens ftw! i have 3 of those myself. Also sigma ex lens are a great alternative if you want new cheaper lens than the ones sony offer. I agree with you, sony lens don't offer IS (because it's built-in to camera obviously :P) and are still just as expensive if not more than the nikon/canon ones =(.
Very Nice.
Now we need a Nikon response.
Very good times to be a photog.
Has anyone heard about weather sealing in any of these new bodies like the A700?
I read on Imaging Resource that the A850 does have similar weather sealing to the A700 (the reviewer noted the lack of comparable sealing in the 5D Mk II).
I really don't understand why people always get upset when a mid - high end DSLR doesn't have video capabilities. It is a still camera. If you want to shoot video go buy a $300 point and shoot. These are probably the same people that but a $2000 DSLR and shoot in auto all the time.
x2
will a dslr have superior video features to a camcorder? If so, then I'd like the feature. If not, then no.
I must be alone in thinking that dSLRs don't need video. They're cameras, not camcorders.
@Alowisney,
Here's a brief break down....
There's an intensely populated group of up and coming indie filmmakers utilizing the video features on DSLRs because the APC-C size or full frame size sensor renders a more natural (i.e. limited DOF, and higher DR) image than that of a traditional video camera.
The fact you can also change lenses is an incredible added bonus.
If want to do that with a traditional video camera, you have to pay a whole lot more, and even then, the image quality pales because of the inferior sized sensors used in traditional video cameras.
Typical consumers may not realize this, but there a lot of Pros and enthusiasts who do.
Pay a visit to Cinema 5D, or just check out the plethora of 5DmkII videos on Vimeo.
The D90 also has quite a following, as will the D300s.
Panasonic's GH1 has been doing great as well, especially since the whole system was optimized for video from the start.
Point is, with a fully manual DSLR in video mode like that of the 5DmkII (which I happen to own and use) a lot of professional photo and video work can be accomplished that can't be done with video cameras costing 3 or 4 times as much. That is a fact.
Go to any major video BB forum and take a peek at all the activity among professionals and enthusiasts surrounding the 5DmkII, D90, and GH1, you'll see. It's a revolution.
Even RED digital cinema changed their strategy to accomodate these developments with hybrid DSLRs by optimizing their gear to do the same. The only company dragging their heels right now is Sony. And they're doing it simply to protect their video division, which is failing. Sony's planned obsolescence strategy might work when they want to sell more PS3's, but it won't work here.
No Video Features in a DSLR = Sony's self destruction through segment preservation.
You know they can do it, but they've deliberately left it out to protect their video segment.
Too bad that didn't stop Canon.
Sucks to be you Sony.
I'm not so sure. I'm sure there are many canon/nikon users out there who don't need video on their SLR. I certainly don't. I do portraits, weddings, landscapes, architecture. I don't give a toss about video, and would rather have a cheaper camera without extraneous video. However, the con/prosumer market has stagnated - can't put in a larger screen, can't increase the pixel-count, so it's time to add other crap.
I'm in the market for a new camera just now - looking at a 5d mkII, but if the soon-to-be-released 7d had more photog-friendly features (low noise at high ISO, ISO 25 for landscapes, better AF), that'd be my boy. We'll see.
This sort of sentiment reminds me of the tempest in a teacup about LiveView, which Sony said they wouldn't do until they could do it properly (it's absence from the A700 was the stimulus for the "outcry"). I believe that Sony has said that they won't implement video until it can be perfected, and if their LV implementation is any indication, they'll introduce something better than exists in competitors' models. On the other hand, while I could see some marginal uses for video, I won't be buying a $2000 DSLR for video capabilities, and I would suggest that if you are, you need to re-evaluate your purchasing decision. I don't complain that my car doesn't have a truck bed -- that combination brought us the El Camino, for God's sake!
Video on DSLR's are great. Not everyone wants to buy an HD camcorder. If they do, they might interested in Flip Mino HD's and the like. But that limits the creativity the photographer likes to have. Switching lenses comes naturally to a photographer.
Yes, I don't use it that often. When I do, it is quite fun. Plus the IQ is quite good.
Sony is shooting themselves in the foot.
How often do you guys take video with your DSLR? All I saw was complaints on how it doesn't have video. I can really care less about video on an SLR and would prefer to leave that option out if it was going to compromise the camera's performance. I my cameras to take PHOTOS and I use my CAMCORDERS to take VIDEO.
I use my CAMCORDER for PICTURES. How pathetic is that? I could care less, of course; the pictures really suck!
Sony sells sensors to Nikon, if only they matched nikon's processing (maybe they will?)
A full frame with a street of hopefully less than $2k is not bad.
These are SLR cameras folks, not video machines.
You buy an SLR to take nice pictures, you buy a video camera to take nice videos.
The more features you cram into something, the more it deviates away from it's original purpose.
And now, folks, you can buy a DSLR (not from Sony) that will do both! The future is here.
Anyone see support for Eye-Fi or does Sony still shut off power to its memory cards after read and write?
Wow, Sony's bury bots are out in full force.
Anyone who's expressed even the slightest discontent with Sony deliberately leaving out video features gets the negative push.