Never mind. I had never heard of the A33 but just looked it up on B&H
and see that it actually is a DSLR with a live view sensor but it also
incorporates a phase detection AF system via a fixed, semi-silvered
mirror. Interesting approach. I wonder how much light the mirror
siphons off.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/17/2011 4:35 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> It's not clear whether you performed one of the most important tests on
> the Sony which is to see how fast and accurately it can focus in low
> light. The behavior of the Sony says clearly that it is using an
> interline sensor (ala P&S and live view cameras) vs a full frame sensor
> as typically found in DSLRs. (full frame in this context does not refer
> to the sensor size). That live view sensor gives you marvelous feedback
> on focus and exposure but has a big drawback in that it depends on
> contrast measurement on the image sensor vs. phase detection in a
> separate autofocus sensor. Phase detection has historically been much
> faster and more accurate than contrast detection.
>
> That said, from what I read it appears that Panasonic has figured out
> how to do contrast detect autofocus with speed and accuracy approaching
> (but not yet equaling) that of phase detection systems. It also appears
> that Olympus has not yet done so. I have no idea where Sony's
> technology is on contrast detection focusing. It might be great but I
> think you'd better give it a good working over in low light before you buy.
>
> The Minolta A1 is a superlative camera. One of it's greatest features
> is that it uses a P&S type interline sensor and gives that same sort of
> instant feedback on focus and exposure. But one of its worst features
> is that it uses a P&S type interline sensor and is totally unable to
> focus in low light conditions. Notice I did not say focuses slowly... I
> said it's unable to focus. The only thing that saved it in certain
> conditions is that, due to its very great depth of field, one could use
> hyperfocal methods, pre-focus the lens and then tape it in place. The
> A1 is at least 6 year old technology. The Sony should be far superior.
> I hope it is.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 4/17/2011 1:01 PM, Willie Wonka wrote:
>> First the disclaimer:
>>
>> I honestly dont see any rational reason why the viewfinder should
>> exist. I came to this conclusion during film days after acquiring
>> Yashika D TLR which had a ground glass that you can stare at with
>> both eyes from whatever distance you like.
>>
>> Back on topic. The rest of the family forced me to go to the mall
>> and we stopped at Best Buy where I made initial evaluation of several
>> cameras.
>>
>> There were 8 cameras on display:3 Canons, 4 Nikons and 1 Sony. I
>> couldnt turn one of the Nikons on. First thing I did was to put them
>> all in manual. Second, was to evaluate how easy the controls were
>> placed and how the cameras feel in my hands. Third was to see which
>> one has the feature I value most in a camera-seeing how the exposure
>> affects the picture in real time.
>>
>> In all accounts, the Sony A33 won hands down. What a little jewel.
>> The way it handles, it looks and feels is a light years ahead. I
>> also found that the Nikons are better in ergonomics looks and feels
>> than the Canons. The 60D is ok I guess, but the Rebels feel like
>> disposables. The low end Nikons, such as, the 3000 feel kinda like
>> the Canon 60D, but the more expensive models feel well...more
>> expensive...:)
>>
>> When it comes to what you call "Live View", I have no idea why it is
>> implemented into the Nikons...and in the Canons it is kinda like an
>> afterthought. No wander why some even in the pro circles are still
>> talking about "chimping", they havent caught up with the technology
>> yet.
>>
>> If you rely on the viewfinder, the A33's viewfinder wont convince you
>> to switch, as you see that it is an electronic viewfinder. Barely,
>> but you see it. I could draw an analogy with when you watch
>> something on a really good quality HD TV. You know that it is not
>> like being at the scene, but see amazing detail. If it were me, I
>> would eliminate it. You should see that fantastic articulating LCD.
>>
>> Wifey asked me why I put the camera in M. So I showed her what the
>> most important feature is to me: I pointed the camera towards a
>> darkish desk and let it fill the lower third of the frame. Above it
>> were bright showcases and at the top one could see the bright walls
>> of the store. I adjusted the camera exposure to expose correctly the
>> walls and showcases, which caused the lower third of the screen
>> showing the desk to become black. Then I started adjusting the speed
>> and showed her how the exposure changes in real time. I stopped
>> right before the lights in the showcases were blown out and that gave
>> me enough detail in the lower third, as I was able to see the desk
>> features. I also explained to her that in some pictures you want to
>> use the low and high key techniques in order to achieve the desired
>> effect and this gives you a chance to see the amount of
>> over/underexposure you apply in real time as if you were looking at
>> the final print.
>>
>> I was able to "chimp" after taking the picture with the most
>> expensive of the Nikons. I liked what I saw, but the LCD isnt up to
>> par with the one found in the Sony. The LCDs that the Canons use are
>> just plain horrid. They are three times the size of the one on my
>> A200, but you can really see the level of detail, thats how horrible
>> they are.
>>
>> It appears that their engineers got the hint and attempted to
>> implement the kinda of live view as found in the Sony, but one can
>> adjust it to +/- 2fstops only. It is really slow as it takes about a
>> second to refresh the screen. If you overexpose, the screen looses
>> contrast to the point that you barely recognise the outlines of the
>> subjects. In the opposite direction, they become muddy and fuzzy. I
>> dont think anyone in the Canon camp is using it or has no idea that
>> it even exist. The playback images were bad too, they look like very
>> noisy images.
>>
>> Turning any of the dials on the Nikons resulted in no changes on the
>> LCD, with the exception of an indicator how much the image has been
>> under/over exposed, but you dont have an idea what the final image
>> looks like until after you take the picture and "chimp".
>>
>> So this is it, this is the test. Everything else could be determined
>> from the reviews online. It also showed me, that my initial gut
>> feeling was right, the A33/55 are prolly the best for me. Last step,
>> before I make the final decision would be to do the same to the GH2.
>>
>> You know what I am looking for and if you have any suggestions about
>> other cameras, let me know. I would like to make a purchase within
>> couple of months.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Boris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|