Sony a55 SLT

[fstaples]

<p>I placed an order with Sony last week for the new Sony a55 SLT. I was wondering if anyone out there has any insight as to what to expect from this latest Sony camera? Any experience with this camera? Sony says mine should be shipped by 10 Oct 2010. I'm enjoying my a350 and a900 but really looking forward to the speed of the a55. Thanks</p>

[andylynn]

<p>That's not in stores yet, so actual experience with it will be very hard to find. You're going to be an "early adopter", so make sure to write about it here.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>It's delayed I hear but the A33 is in stock I read. They are almost the same so you might check for that instead...</p>

[magister_wakinshaw]

<p>This link should be useful:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Well you have already placed the order so does it really matter what any of us think? :)</p>

<p>But yes be sure to let us know what your experiences are. We are all interested.</p>

[fstaples]

<p>Of course it matters what others think or I wouldn't have asked the question. That's what forums are for and you have to be willing to accept the negative responses along with the positive. And, you never know, someone might actually have tips or techniques that prove helpful. I will post my opinion of the a55 once I receive it.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Frank,</p>

<p>As has been mentioned, the A55 isn't out just yet, at least not for us ordinary folks. But there's lot to read, if you are inclined. M Wakinshaw already linked to the rather positive review here in dpreview so I won't link to that again. I would recommend that you also take a look at the two articles by Michael Reichmann on the A55, over at Luminous Landscape:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony-a55-preview.shtml">Sony A55 Preview Field Report</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a55-further.shtml">Sony A55 - A Further Evaluation</a></p>

<p>Reichmann is very positive, over all. For a dissenting view, check out Carl Garrard's review at AlphaMountWorld:</p>

<p>http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a33-slt-review-alphamountworld</p>

<p>Actually Carl's review is of the A33, but since the A33 is very nearly identical to the A55, I think you'll find it pertinent. Most of Carl's positive opinions would apply equally well to both models, and the same goes for his complaints.</p>

<p>I'd read everything with a big grain of salt, but this info might be useful to you. I myself was very excited when I first heard about it. My feeling now is,</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Looks like a tremendously innovative camera and if I could afford it I'd like to have one just for that reason</li>

<li>Pretty clearly NOT aimed at the pro market, even at pros like me who are willing to take a risk and use lower-priced bodies.</li>

<li>I'm personally concerned about the size. I have large hands.</li>

</ol>

<p>But I do look forward to holding one if I get a chance. Hope the local Sony Style store has one in stock in a month.</p>

<p>And I do hope that you post your own impressions here after it arrives and you've had a chance to play with it. I hope you love it!</p>

<p>Will</p>

[fstaples]

<p>Will, thanks. Took your advice and read the reviews by Carl and Michael. I'm still happy with my decision to order the a55 and actually, that's all that matters isn't it? Anyway, I'm a Sony fan and some folks aren't and never will be. Here's what I posted as a reply to Carl's review;<br>

This is for Carl. Let me start by saying I have ordered one of the new Sony a55's (to be shipped October 10) and currently own a Minolta 7D, a Sony a350 and a Sony a900. I've read your review of the 55 and all the forum questions and answers that go with it and I want to thank you for your time and honesty. After reading your review, I went to Luminous Landscape and read the review by Michael Reichmann. Obviously, the two of you are on opposite ends of the grading scale. I will go with Michael's positive review due mostly to the fact that his review is based on hands on experience. I seem to remember that when the 900 was first being introduced, before anyone actually had one to test in their hands, there was also a lot of negative comments made based strictly on reading technical data. The Sony 900 has proven to be a full frame masterpiece of the camera. I suspect the Sony 55 will be the forerunner of camera technology of the future. Yes, I'm sure there's room for improvement as there always is on the first models of new technology. Also, I'm sure it's difficult for diehard Nikon and Cannon owners to admit that maybe, just maybe, Sony is on to something. Once I get the a55 and run it through the rugged tests that only a true non-expert amateur can, I'll post a review here. Camera reviews are like beauty pageants, the winner changes with each new judge.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Frank,</p>

<p>I suspect you will be happy with your A55. And I have no stock in Carl's opinion, but just to clarify what he wrote (not to defend, just clarify). His review was a review of the A33, NOT the A55. And he DID have hands-on experience. He posts quite a few photos. </p>

<p>Everybody has a perspective. Carl's writing as a photographer who seems a little unhappy with Sony's recent strategy, unhappy perhaps that Sony hasn't updated the A700. He's looking for a pro or "advanced enthusiast" model in the lineup and the A55, in his opinion, isn't it. I think that's not an unreasonable perspective. If Pentax had released the K-r and was not releasing the K-5, too, an awful lot of Pentax users would scream bloody murder, no matter how cool the lower-priced camera might be. And I think Carl's points about the ways in which the A55 tries to do a lot of thinking for you sound quite valid—and I didn't hear them being made in the other more generally positive reviews.</p>

<p>But I can take a review in stride. My favorite movie review is James Bowman. He hates almost EVERYTHING! But his reviews are always thoughtful and intelligent. I read them, enjoy them, learn from them—and then I go and see the movies and have a good time. I feel that way about Carl's reivew. Would not stop me from loving the A55.</p>

<p>Will </p>

[fstaples]

<p>Will,<br>

You have the perfect perspective on this whole review thing. I probably took Carl's review as a "let's bash Sony" instead of merely a review by a professional not happy with the Sony marketing strategy. Regardless of Carl's review or anyone else's, the bottomline is whether or not I'm happy with the camera's performance and I'm sure I will be. There will no doubt be improvements to the a55 in the next couple of years and once again I'll upgrade (remember, I STILL keep a Minolta 7D on hand). Thanks for your input and putting up with "one of the masses". If there ever was such a thing as a beginner, I'm it! Thanks again.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Frank, thanks for your note. </p>

<p>As for me and reviews: Yes, I have a perspective on them. I've been writing them myself on and off for over twenty years—software reviews (for Macworld and many other mags), book reviews, and the occasional hardware review. I know that a review is a nearly impossible thing to write. I always cut reviewers a lot of slack. I take what they have to say and process it myself. I never think the reviewer owes it to me to write the review that I personally WANT.</p>

<p>Let me say again, I feel confident you will love the A55. And if you get a chance I'm sure many of us here would be eager to hear what you think of it after you've had a chance to work with it a bit. Good luck and have fun shooting (at 10fps)!</p>

<p>Will</p>

[mark_k3]

<p>Frank<br>

Thanks for the response to Carl's review. Although I have been reading Carl's reviews for some time, I have only become a member of his site very recently when he started to bash Sony. Although strictly I am not a Sony fan, I have kept my trust and I have been waiting patiently. I understand the huge effort required to develop a professional body like D300/K7, and I am against pushing product too quickly like what we all see from the flooding of entry level models from Sony.<br>

My initial response to A55 was very positive. So far I have not laid my hands on it. I learned later that there will be no spot meter button, something special from Minolta ages. I will try A55 before making any further purchase. I am expecting reviews from you very soon.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Frank, I believe you will absolutely LOVE your A55. I have a Sony R1, and soon after I bought it, I had a list of things I wished the R1 had. I LOVE my R1, but I was thinking it would have been a MUCH better camera, if it had interchangable lenses (it's a point & shoot on steroids with an amazing Zeiss lens, but it can't go wider than 24mm - equiv.). I believe I made a list of all the things I wished Sony would make in a new version of the camera, and believe it or not, I think Sony listened. I even wonder if they took my list and used it when making their feature list for the A55. It's uncanny how similar to the A55 my list of dream features really is. For example, I said it would be better to have a huge raw buffer, rather than just a two frame raw buffer. Sony delivered. I asked for image stabilization. Sony delivered. I asked for a larger, higher resolution viewfinder. Sony delivered. I asked for a larger articulating screen with better resolution, which could bend down further, because while the one on my R1 can bend back some, it can't bend back much, so I have to shoot upside down sometimes. Sony delivered. I asked for a higher shooting speed (frame rate). Sony delivered. I asked for more megapixels. Sony delivered.<br>

Frankly Frank, I can't imagine a camera better than the new Sony A55 could EVER be made for under $1,000. In fact, I think Sony should make a larger one with a full-frame sensor, like the sensor they have in the A900 and A850. It would be cool if they could make the screen come out the side on the full-frame model, so a vertical battery grip could be used with that camera. I'll be quite happy to pay $2,000 for such a camera, especially if it shoots 10 frames per second like the A55. That way I'll have one camera with a 1.5 crop factor and one with full-frame capability. Sony needs to update their full-frame camera selection with a camera that has more than one spot focus point anyway! Imagine if they do it with a camera with a fold-out screen, 10 fps, and full-time auto-focus while shooting full 1080 video? Wow! It would trounce ALL other full-frame cameras!<br>

All that said, I read that some Sigma lenses do not work properly with the new Sony A55. I hope their 8-16 works. I plan to get myself one, when I get the A55.<br>

Does anyone have any experience with a Sigma 8-16 on a Sony A33?<br>

This is the lens I am referring to: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689633-REG/Sigma_203205_8_16mm_F4_5_5_6_DC_HSM.html</p>

[fstaples]

<p>Scott, Thanks for the review before ever receiving the camera! I agree 100% and that's why I have ordered the camera. I hope Carl doesn't think I was criticizing his review - that wasn't my point at all. After reading the reviews, the technical data and talking personally with a Sony tech on the phone, I decided I would give the a55 a try. I certainly haven't been disappointed with the a900. Of course, cameras are like computers - todays latest design is obsolete in a few months. But, that's OK because if the a5xx series improves on the a55, I'll be ready. I'm all for innovative advancements. I'll post a review here once I get the camera. Sorry, but I do not have any experience with the Sigma 8-16. I have a few Sigma lenses and so far they all work on the a900. Thanks again.</p>

[timb196]

<p>It seems to me based on reading the user forums seperate from the reviews, that people who have purchased the a33 or overseas that have the a55 seem to be pretty happy. The obvious reference points are the EVF and the speed of the thing(s). I haven't done a statistical survey but it does seem that the majority are pleased with their purchase. Some of the input questions that are garned as a result of a forum user saying I got one are focused around the the two things mentined above and the size of the camera (in general). There seems to a be tidal wave of what seems to be the "technology discussion" as I call it which tends to focus on the DLSR versus DLST technologies.<br>

It's a camera and like all cameras, it is not perfect. Use it, enjoy! Hell I had my SRT202 out the other day, and for certain things in the photographic karma, it was the star of the day.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Frank the A33 is very cool. I just played with one tonight at the Sony Style store. I'm going to wait until the A55 is available, but I will definitely get one. Now I have to figure out if I want to get the big, heavy Sigma lens that costs $100 less than the Sony lens (I'm talking about the 18-250). The Sony lens doesn't have VR/IS/OS (shake reduction), and that's something I'd like to have in a lens with an easily accessible switch right on the lens, since the camera doesn't have an easily accessible switch. I want the ability to turn it off at a moment's notice, when I zoom out to 18mm, so there is no vibration causing my image to be slightly soft, which is something I believe happens with the image stabilization turned on, though with digital image stabilization that may not be a problem. I did read a review of the Sigma lens that says the lens's stabilization works better than that of the camera though (approximately 4 stops for the lens or 3 stops for the camera).<br>

-<br>

Here is my impression of the Sony A33 - it is small . . . very small . . . smaller than my Nikon D5000 was. The battery is tiny, so I can understand why it only shoots about 300 to 400 photos on a charge. I'd suggest getting a spare right at the time of ordering, so you never run out of power when you need it most.<br>

-<br>

The screen, while big, does not seem as robust as the screen on my Nikon D5000. I was indoors, so I didn't have a chance to get a good idea how good the screen is. The viewfinder kicked ass! It was bright and very big. I was comparing it side-by-side with a Canon Rebel XT my friend was carrying, and it blows away the optical viewfinder of the Canon.<br>

-<br>

The focusing (in live view mode - well, all the time, because it is basically always in live-view mode) is very very fast (maybe not as fast as a Nikon D300 or a Canon 7D, but still it is about as fast as normal operation on my Nikon D5000. The Nikon D5000 has serious issues focusing in live view mode, and it was super slow at focusing. The Sony A33 is not like that at all. It focuses in live view mode as fast as when looking through the viewfinder with the live-view screen closed.<br>

-<br>

I didn't have a chance to try the video function, because I was shooting with no memory card, and video doesn't work without a memory card. I did try shooting at 7 fps though, and the camera shot quickly and showed a picture between each shot, unlike what the Nikon D5000 does in live-view mode. Unfortunately though, there is some lag, and the images are static images, so following fast action that requires significant panning will be very difficult with the Sony A33 (and probably the same with the A55).<br>

-<br>

The Sony camera, while very light and small, is unfortunately also somewhat chintzy - the feel of it. I would be afraid to rely on this camera in the field (always worrying it would end up getting broken). Therefore, it just does not seem like a camera for a professional photographer. The features make up for that though, and for its price, I can't imagine a better camera!<br>

-<br>

I just wish Sony had beefed up this amazing machine a little and added $100 to the price. That would have made it feel more robust and reliable. Hopefully Sony understands this and will produce an even better quality version of the A55 (maybe an A65?) with a 3.5 inch screen, a couple of extra features (such as an external switch for disabling the shake-reduction), a larger battery (maybe the same battery as the A900?), dual memory card slots (for two SD or two Memory Sticks), a 50% bigger shooting buffer (approx. 30 RAW shots), weather sealing equivalent to what the mid-range Nikon and Canon cameras have, and an even bigger, higher resolution viewfinder. With all that, they could ask $1,000 for it and get the extra money, I'm sure! Maybe they could make the screen a touch screen, so people could use it like an iPhone, downloading editing programs, etc. Imagine if they added wireless N and bluetooth to it also?!?<br>

-<br>

Why not? Apple put all that into a $200 iPod touch, so for $250 extra Sony could surely add all that stuff. Imagine what a crazy, amazing camera THAT would be?!? I'd like to see a program made available that would let me program this camera to do interval timer shooting, like my Nikon D5000 could do. An enhanced self-timer function like the one on the Nikon D5000 would be nice too. That thing could be set up to shoot 2,3,4 or even up to 9 shots at 2, 5, 10, or 20 second intervals in self-timer mode. I had mine set up to shoot 3 photos, so I didn't have to go back and press the button again to get another shot (just in case someone was blinking on the first one).<br>

-<br>

The ability to make the camera do all sorts of stuff with programs created by third parties would be something Sony could pioneer with this camera. It is already a pioneering camera. Why not take it even further with the next generation? I predict this camera to be a HUGE success story for Sony . . . primarily for its spectacular feature set at its low price point. It's an AMAZING value, from my first impression. Of course, I need to get out there and shoot it for a few days. Then I'll let you have my full review (with photos and 1:1 crops!).</p>

[scottelly]

<p>After a while, I had some more thoughts about the size of the A33. One issue I have with this new camera is the way it is dwarfed by lenses that are not particularly large. Usually a kit lens like the Sony 18-55 looks a little small, but when mounted on this camera it is just the right size. That means when it is replaced with that amazing 18-250, the lens makes the camera seem a little small. I can't even imagine mounting a Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 on it. When compared side-by-side with an A900 which actually did have that big Zeiss lens on it, the A33 with the Sony 18-250 seemed quite small - almost like some diminutive girl's camera! Frankly, I didn't like that.<br>

-<br>

I'm used to a small camera, since for the past few months I was shooting with my Nikon D5000, which only had the kit lens (18-55 VR). There is little difference between the two cameras, but for some reason the Sony seemed smaller. Maybe it is just the flimsy feel of the A33 that struck me and made it seem smaller than it really is. I checked at B&H photo's web site though, and it looks like the A33 and A55 are about 20% lighter than the Nikon D5000, and frankly that's just TOO small and light for my liking. I felt the Nikon D5000 was maybe even a little too small. I really hope Sony produces a larger version of the A55 (maybe 700 grams with battery and memory cards in place), with a slightly improved feature set, like I described, with a much larger, longer-lasting battery pack. It would be really cool to be able to use one of these cameras as a companion to the A900 (with the same battery as the A900). I don't like the idea of having to change batteries more than memory cards. My experience has been the opposite of this in the past. I guess I could just use 4 GB memory cards and change the batteries and memory cards at the same time? They are behind the same compartment door on the bottom of the camera! (another thing I don't like about this camera). I really am used to a like the idea of a separate door for the memory cards. I'm not sure why though. Maybe I'll get used to this design, as it is just like the very efficient designs of the typical point-&-shoot cameras out there.<br>

-<br>

One more improvement that could be made would be to give the camera a larger, faster recycling time for its flash. 4 seconds sure is slow compared to cameras which have a 3 second recycle time. I'd like to see a more powerful flash with a 2.5 second recycle time, which could be manually controlled to output just 1/64 power, so it could recycle as fast as the camera can shoot at 10 fps. It would be even cooler if it could be used at that speed with more than one power level choice (1/32 power and 1/64 power). What would be even cooler is if the camera could charge a capacitor up to full power, and release a small amount each time the camera and flash fires together, until the power is all gone, so if the flash is set on 1/8 power, the camera can shoot at 10 fps for 8 shots (maybe 9 or 10, because of the time it would have to recharge during the .8 seconds it would take to fire that many times) before the capacitor is emptied.<br>

-<br>

I find that using a flash on manual settings like this is a great way to get the shots that would otherwise be missed in a party setting or while shooting macro scenes of bugs on flowers. The battery it uses is a 7.2 volt battery, just like the one in the A900 is, except it is about half the size. Why? It seems like Sony has made this camera for the occasional shooter, rather than the advanced amateur who might go out for a day of shooting.<br>

-<br>

Well, at least I know I can get extra batteries and put some in my pocket along with my extra memory cards! And at B&H there is a generic battery available for the A33/A55 already, at only $20 each - yay for after-market battery makers!</p>

[gerrit_du_toit1]

<p>I have a A55. And I have to say so far its doing well. I do have one issue with it. I cant use it in studio with a radio trigger. The Viewfinder is just way to dark. If you put a sony speed light on it, it goes bright, compensating for the fact that you have a flash on the camera. But it does not see the trigger. So you cant shoot with it. For now I have bypassed this by triggering with the speed light. But for me this is not ideal. As even if it is minimal it does add uncontrolled light into the set.<br>

I hope the is a solution for this issue, because in all other departments it seems to perform very very well. The small body is not exactly my favorite thing about the camera, but like every body change its something you get use to. Such a pity there is not going to be a battery grip for it. That would have made it even better.<br>

For now though I love shooting with it. Slowly getting use to it.</p>

[aussieclarrie]

<p>I shoot surfing and bought a Sony A55 to supplement the 2 A700 bodies and also to experiment with the video capabilities. I found the image quality was excellent which I expected seeing as I use Minolta G series lenses. The short comings I found with the A55 are;<br>

1. The eye piece viewfinder is useless for fast action photography. It is impossible to frame fast moving subjects correctly. This is especially the case with 300 or 600 mm lenses.<br>

2. The battery life is way too limited. I also fail to see why battery types are not standardised so I can use any battery in any Sony DSLR. Seems a waste.<br>

3. The video record button is in an extremely difficult position to access.<br>

4. The smaller body is not as comfortable or easy to hold with a long lens attached while on a tripod.<br>

5. The limited ISO options really limits your creativity. I am used to what the A700 provides<br>

6. I have yet to find a Sony memory stick or SD card that can compare to the CF Extreme Pro cards I use in the A700. The write speeds of 30MB/s are way too slow compared to the 90 MB/s in the Extreme Pro CF card.<br>

7. I think having two assignable control dials on the A700 was a fantastic feature. I could live with one control dial on the A55 as long as it's function was assignable.<br>

I know these complaints are somewhat specific to my use of a camera but if you are aiming to use a camera for a similar function then I would wait for the A750, if it ever comes out.<br>

Finally, the camera is actually excellent in many ways. My daughter with smaller hands loves it. It just isn't suitable for what I use a camera for.<br>

The video function is useful and does an OK job but only with wider angle lenses. Anything longer than 200 mm and the shape of the unit makes smooth panning and tilting difficult. I use a Sony HDR FX1000 and comparing the 2 for video makes me realise how much better the HDR unit is both in video quality and ease of use. Throw anything from 10 mm to 100 mm lens on and the A55 is fine. </p>