FlyPenFly wrote:
woah thing is huge compared to the a55.
yeah, that seems to be the main "improvement" too. the a55 is probably the smallest current "slr" though. grip looks better and the only dimension that is actually different is length (most of the bulk increase is filling in space below the flash). doesn't look like they've improved button placement much. not a particularly interesting update.
A.Y. wrote:
a57 and 5N's newer sensor output 60p video and the a55's older chip output 30p so they don't use the same generation sensor.
i'm pretty sure that is a processing difference, not any difference in the actual sensor silicon, and the sensor is the same as the one in the d7000 and k5 (subject to differences in the toppings producers want on top and how they need/want secondary processing done).
Looks like the camera the A65 should have been. I was never entirely sold on the A65 having the 24MP sensor.
Some interesting improvements, particularly the dual-eyepoint EVF (Standard mode is the same ~1MP display as the A55, Maximum Magnification uses the full 1.44MP of the EVF at a cost of eyepoint, ideal for non-glasses wearers). There's also a new interpolation capability which is used for digital zoom and a 'portrait' mode which crops landscape portrait shots to portrait orientation with the eyes located at a rule of thirds intersection and then interpolates back up to 16MP. Which is very cool for the consumer (non-sucky portraits at a mild resolution loss without too much difficulty). And it gets the new ghostless mirror and a real battery.
sebboh wrote:
I'm pretty sure that is a processing difference, not any difference in the actual sensor silicon, and the sensor is the same as the one in the d7000 and k5 (subject to differences in the toppings producers want on top and how they need/want secondary processing done).
It's likely both a processing difference and a stepping revision on the sensor (ie the output stages were altered, but the actual photosites were not). It's pretty clear that while the basic sensor design of the 16MP sensor has not changed, Sony did alter other aspects of the design when the 5N was released, with the C3 having an intermediate revision of the updates.
Based on the DPReview RAW samples, the A57 looks closer in performance to the 5N than the A55. Better saturation and better SNR, but not really less noise. It looks like Sony's managed to reduce the light-loss in the mirror (I suspect Sony's figured out that the AF system can give up a little more light to improve SNR and therefore reduced the reflectivity of the mirror)
sebboh wrote:
yeah, that seems to be the main "improvement" too. the a55 is probably the smallest current "slr" though. grip looks better and the only dimension that is actually different is length (most of the bulk increase is filling in space below the flash). doesn't look like they've improved button placement much. not a particularly interesting update.
mawz wrote:
It's likely both a processing difference and a stepping revision on the sensor (ie the output stages were altered, but the actual photosites were not). It's pretty clear that while the basic sensor design of the 16MP sensor has not changed, Sony did alter other aspects of the design when the 5N was released, with the C3 having an intermediate revision of the updates.
Based on the DPReview RAW samples, the A57 looks closer in performance to the 5N than the A55. Better saturation and better SNR, but not really less noise. It looks like Sony's managed to reduce the light-loss in the mirror (I suspect Sony's figured out that the AF system can give up a little more light to improve SNR and therefore reduced the reflectivity of the mirror)...Show more →
There is no evidence to suggest that 5N sensor had any improvements over the "first-gen" 16MP sensors. If anything DxoMark will tell you that 5N performs slightly worse compared to D7000, K5 and A580 which all had the first-gen sensor (and C3 lags behind even more):
Of course A57 might have improved IQ over A55 and it could be due to a combination of factors including better circuitry, lower loss in the mirror etc. But at the end of the day I doubt that the IQ improvements will be significant enough to consider it a serious upgrade. The major attractions have to be higher grade body, better video and possibly faster operation due to more processing power.
curious80 wrote:
There is no evidence to suggest that 5N sensor had any improvements over the "first-gen" 16MP sensors.
2012 A57 and 2011 5N's sensor output is 60 2MP progressive frames per second (120MP per second output) , while the 2010 A55 and D7000's sensors can only manage 30 fps (60MP per second). Doubling the sensor output is no evidence of any improvements made to the sensors That's like claiming the 3.4GHz i7 processor is not an improvement over the 1.7GHz i7 processor!
A.Y. wrote:
2012 A57 and 2011 5N's sensor output is 60 2MP progressive frames per second (120MP per second output) , while the 2010 A55 and D7000's sensors can only manage 30 fps (60MP per second). Doubling the sensor output is no evidence of any improvements
If you read the context, you will find out that my post was about image quality improvements (such as SNR / DR etc). The higher video output rate is of course there which is why I listed improved video as one of the attractions of A57 over A55.
A.Y. wrote:
2012 A57 and 2011 5N's sensor output is 60 2MP progressive frames per second (120MP per second output) , while the 2010 A55 and D7000's sensors can only manage 30 fps (60MP per second). Doubling the sensor output is no evidence of any improvements made to the sensors That's like claiming the 3.4GHz i7 processor is not an improvement over the 1.7GHz i7 processor!
that is evidence of processing pipeline improvement not sensor improvement.
A55 is problem to hold with bigger lens..
That's like claiming the 3.4GHz i7 processor is not an improvement over the 1.7GHz i7 processor!