Sony A500, A550 DSLRs Treated To New Sensors
The rest of Sony’s DSLR refresh—the more expensive part—is here, and it’s slight. Their midrange A5×0 get new, low-light-happy Exmor sensors and automatic HDR shooting. The full-frame a850 (née a900) gets almost nothing, except a $US2000 price tag.
The a500 and a550, only differentiated by their 14.2MP and 12.3MP sensors and the 550’s slightly faster shooting speed (seven shots per second), inherit some of the same sensor and noise reduction technology as those Exmor-equipped point-and-shoots that David Pogue liked so much, meaning that they’re probably pretty good at shooting in low light, though that claim that you can snap pictures at ISO 12800 “without sacrificing fine detail” is a little touch to swallow. Both cameras also get an easy HDR mode, which handles processing in-camera.
And no, even though they clearly should, neither shoots video.
The a850, as suspected, is more or less a carbon copy of Sony’s old a900 full-frame DSLR. That’s the same 24.6MP sensor, what looks like the exact same body. The only noticeable difference is that the a850 will run just under $US2000, in November, for just the body, making it a decently cheap option for someone looking for a full-frame DSLR. The a500 and a550 will ship for a decidedly less exciting $US750 and $US950, body-only, in October. [Sony]
Comments (AU Comments | US Comments)
@andyo:
AF is still a technique to enhance the PHOTOGRAPHIC experience. Video shooting has nothing to do with it and frankly, I could do without the convergence.
A used D300 is getting dangerously close to the pricing of a brand new D90. I think I know which one I'll be going for in a couple of months.
Sandeep Murali
hang on there, i don't think the a500/a550 have the Exmor-R sensor, just the Exmor. Not the same low light loving sensor in the little one. They just say it is good at low light because it's obligatory.
hansning
@andyo: i was wondering the same thing. is that "exmor" sensor better cuz of noise reduction software or some voodoo on the sensor level?
@lilaliendog: For the same reason it should probably have the ability to make phone calls too!
Problem is most dSLRs do video horribly. The City D90/D5000, and likely D300s is jello-city, and the Canon T1i has no manual controls and shoots 1080p in a useless 20fps and is only slightly better in CMOS rolling-shutter effect.
Even the well-regarded 5DII has horrid aliasing issues, and has only recently gotten actual manual controls via firmware update, and is still locked in at 30fps.
Not surprisingly, the only company that got video right on a 'dslr' is Panasonic with the GH-1. Panasonic has a reputation with their video cameras, as does Sony.
Sony has already stated that they will add video to their dSLRs when it done right, this means rolling-shutter artificats that is no worse then their excellent EX-1 camera.
Scaramanga
@aaronhenson: That's right, I did. As one who would definitely love to use one of these pro-grade cameras, I'd like, from time to time, get some of the functions that a much lower end camera has for my own purposes.
Kaiser-Machead
@bung: I agree. I know some people want it, but I have no use or need for video on my DSLR. I have video cameras for that purpose.
@lilaliendog: Duh, mom, cuz every1 else iz doing it!!1!!!!1one!!!!!eleven!1 LULz!
I've been waiting to upgrade from my A700 to a FF body. But after reading the specs of the A850, I'd rather spend the extra $700 for the A900 to get the 100% viewfinder and the 5 fps.
And I won't really miss the lack of video functionality.
I like the sound of the easy HDR mode, but then Photomatix isn't that hard to use. I don't think I'll be trading my A200 in just yet.
@lilaliendog: More features = more better
My $220 Canon SD1200 Digital Elph can shoot pretty decent video. While this is definitely a lower end consumer device, it's nice to get similar ricketa-racketa, but a higher quality version of such in beefier cameras.
Just the same, if the prices are not raised considerably, and they don't impede upon the core functionality of the device, I don't see the problem, other than being concerned about our heightened expectations.
Kaiser-Machead
Of course high-efficiency technology is welcome, but I'm worried that more often than not, manufacturers who tout "low noise" or "high-sensitivity" often refer to the horrible noise reduction that their in-camera jpegs are butchered with.
Show me RAWs and show me a knowledgeable person who can see them with DCRAW.
andyo
@lilaliendog: You realize similar complaints were made when autofocus cameras/lenses came out, right? For better or worse, new features are new features.
Me, I don't really mind one way or the other.
andyo
@lilaliendog: Because at this price, comparable cameras can.
@lilaliendog: edit: it's as if dedicated picture cameras no longer have a place for some reason even if not having video support would reduce the cost of the device.
lilaliendog
why 'should' they shoot video? I would love an explanation for that one.
lilaliendog