FlyPenFly wrote:
There certainly seem to be image quality and actual physical chip differences between the 5N and C3 sensors.
Its probable that Sony has different revisions and grades of the 16mpx sensor.
Dunno, but C3 seems almost same as 5N except that it starts at ISO 200. Bit worse performance is probably cause its really small which means it cant have that good electronics as 5N and heat/signal interference is probably harder to suppress.
I think sensor is same everywhere, it just depends on electronics. D7000 or K-5 sensors are not different, difference is made by electronics around and FW.
But the A35 remains and should be replaced in a few weeks by the A37 in roughly the same form factor. So those who want small retain their options.
Except there's a rumor going around that the A37 will only support SAM/SSM lenses and not screw drive, which would be incredibly moronic on Sony's part. They really should maintain at least one small SLR in their lineup with the capabilities of the A55. It's a great camera.
The C3 is slightly larger, but Mescalamba has a point. Supporting electronics affect output, and the 5N could just have slightly better parts inside to support the sensor. Who knows?
Apparently, NEX-5N is somewhat shorter in sensor part, but C3 is thinner overall (thats maybe reason why shielding and cooling might not be perfect). And its cheaper, maybe kinda "intentionally crippled", like Canon did in past with they dSLRs.
Although there might be some revisions of chip, or simply improved/perfected manufacturing of chips, just for now, pretty much all Sony 16 mpix APS-C performs around the same (except tweaks from various manufacturers to increase DR or reduced SNR at cost of less than perfect CFA/colors - Nikon/Pentax).
alwang wrote:
Except there's a rumor going around that the A37 will only support SAM/SSM lenses and not screw drive, which would be incredibly moronic on Sony's part. They really should maintain at least one small SLR in their lineup with the capabilities of the A55. It's a great camera.
grrrrr, sony does like to imitate nikon practices, so this wouldn't surprise me much.
alwang wrote:
Except there's a rumor going around that the A37 will only support SAM/SSM lenses and not screw drive, which would be incredibly moronic on Sony's part. They really should maintain at least one small SLR in their lineup with the capabilities of the A55. It's a great camera.
I don't think that's a horrible idea at all. A person buying an a37 is not even going to know what a screw drive lens is. And either way, the SAM lenses available from Sony blow the doors off the old Minolta lenses.
MinO 50/1.7 or Sony 50/1.8.....Sony for sure
MinO Beercan or Sony 55-200SAM....Sony wins (smaller, almost as bright, less CA)
MinO 35/1.4 ($1000) or Sony 35/1.8 ($200) Sony for sure, better optics and cheaper
Really, any lens worth getting from Sony comes in SAM or SSM anyways, so what's the big deal? Are you really going to be using a Minolta 200 f/2.8 HS screw drive lens on your A37?? NO.
And back to the topic of the A57, I think it's gonna be a great camera. I already think the A65 is a great deal for what you get.
If you canon and nikon guys would step away from your pixel peeing ISO noise comparisons, you will realize that Sony is the most technologically advanced DSLR maker and keeps on making huge steps every time they release new lenses, sensors and camera bodies.
You're forgetting the two best lenses on Sony the 85 1.4 and 135 1.8. The 50 1.4 is also a staple that is screw. Either way this is the low end so I doubt people who would buy those lenses would buy a low end model.
spada wrote:
I don't think that's a horrible idea at all. A person buying an a37 is not even going to know what a screw drive lens is. And either way, the SAM lenses available from Sony blow the doors off the old Minolta lenses.
MinO 50/1.7 or Sony 50/1.8.....Sony for sure
MinO Beercan or Sony 55-200SAM....Sony wins (smaller, almost as bright, less CA)
MinO 35/1.4 ($1000) or Sony 35/1.8 ($200) Sony for sure, better optics and cheaper
....
50 1.7 and beercan are hardly the best of Minolta lenses and their Sony equivalent that you have mentioned are equally non-exceptional. The whole f2 series including Minolta 100 f2, 35 f2 and 28 f2 is excellent and has no replacement in Sony. The Minolta 35mm f1.4 is a 1.4 lens and sony is a 1.8 lens so comparison doesn't really hold (other than the fact that 35mm 1.4 is an FF lens). Plus a large number of Sony branded lenses are screw drive including lenses like 20 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 50 macro, 100 macro, ZA 85mm, ZA 135mm, and many more. Basically if you take away the screw-drive Sony and Minolta lenses, the remaining lens lineup doesn't have much left in it
spada wrote:
I don't think that's a horrible idea at all. A person buying an a37 is not even going to know what a screw drive lens is.
NO!
FlyPenFly wrote:
Either way this is the low end so I doubt people who would buy those lenses would buy a low end model.
also no. this is the reason i no longer have any nikon cameras. i wanted a small body to use with my good but older lenses. but they wanted artificial product separation to push people towards they're obnoxiously large camera bodies, so they didn't put screw drives on their small bodies and didn't allow them to meter manual focus lenses.
i like small cameras and nice glass. the ZA 85/1.4, ZA 135/1.8, 35/2, 28/2, 100/2, 50/1.4, and minolta 85/1.4 all kinda interest me. the only SSM or SAM lenses that interest me are the 35/1.8 and ZA 24/2. i have no interest in the larger aps-c cameras (except their evfs). i'm fine now with my a55 and i don't even use autofocus, but i'm sure there are at least a few other people like me who do want autofocus.
edit: for anyone curious the lenses i currently use on the a55 are not particularly small: canon FL 55/1.2, rokkor 58/1.2, rokinon 85/1.4, and leica R 350/4.8. handling is decent, most of my issues are with button and dial placement not grip size.
FlyPenFly wrote:
You're forgetting the two best lenses on Sony the 85 1.4 and 135 1.8. The 50 1.4 is also a staple that is screw. Either way this is the low end so I doubt people who would buy those lenses would buy a low end model.
And they both handle horribly on the current A33/35/55 so I doubt they'll be of serious interest to new Sony users. The new A57 is the main midline model anyways and it will handle quite nicely with the ZA primes.
alwang wrote:
Except there's a rumor going around that the A37 will only support SAM/SSM lenses and not screw drive, which would be incredibly moronic on Sony's part. They really should maintain at least one small SLR in their lineup with the capabilities of the A55. It's a great camera.
Why would it be moronic? Almost all of Sony's low-end lenses are SAM now. The 18-250, 28/2.8 and 75-300 are the only remaining cheap screwdrive lenses and of those only the 18-250 is really interesting to new users, the 28's slow and best replaced by the DT 30/2.8 SAM Macro which is cheaper and better and the 75-300's a complete dog. After that the cheapest screwdrive lens is the 16-105 at around $500USD MSRP and the 50/2.8 Macro at around $400USD.
Sony's actually in better shape than Nikon was at the D40 intro when only 2 of their low-end lenses were AF-S (the 18-55 and 55-200). And remember that unlike the D40, the SLT's are quite nice for manual focusing.
Sony's actually in better shape than Nikon was at the D40 intro when only 2 of their low-end lenses were AF-S (the 18-55 and 55-200). And remember that unlike the D40, the SLT's are quite nice for manual focusing.
sebboh wrote:
also no. this is the reason i no longer have any nikon cameras. i wanted a small body to use with my good but older lenses. but they wanted artificial product separation to push people towards they're obnoxiously large camera bodies, so they didn't put screw drives on their small bodies and didn't allow them to meter manual focus lenses.
Actually it's about cost. Removing the AF motor significantly drives down cost due to less parts in the body and lens (Micromotor AF is actually mechanically very simple). And no low-end Nikon AF SLR has metered with manual focus lenses, the F401 was the first low-end AF Nikon and it was also the first Nikon to require a CPU lens to meter. Again it's a cost reduction strategy (The AI tab requires multiple moving parts and a wear item in the sensing resistor). Nikon's actually brought AI metering downmarket recently with the D7000, which is the first midlevel model since the F70 to support it (the F80 eliminated AI metering in the midrange back in 1998).
I also miss the small but good bodies. But screwdrive AF has been obsolete since the mid-90's. I like the backwards compatibility but the average consumer isn't going to buy more than the kit lens and maybe the kit tele or a cheap fast prime. All of which are SAM in the current Sony line (and AF-S in the current Nikon line).
The consumer bodies simply aren't designed with the serious shooter in mind. We're a microscopic fraction of that market, unlike the higher end of the market where the serious shooter becomes a design factor.
it's about both. there are lots of cheap non-nikon cameras with screw drives and metering for any lens. it's obviously a cost benefit analysis, and i understood their choice. that doesn't make it piss me off any less or any more likely to buy one of their cameras.
mawz wrote:
Nikon's actually brought AI metering downmarket recently with the D7000, which is the first midlevel model since the F70 to support it (the F80 eliminated AI metering in the midrange back in 1998).
i was kinda tempted when i saw that, but figured the a55 was cheaper and would be better for manual focus.
mawz wrote:
The consumer bodies simply aren't designed with the serious shooter in mind. We're a microscopic fraction of that market, unlike the higher end of the market where the serious shooter becomes a design factor.
indeed, they also seem so surprised that some "serious" shooters are interested in the latest mirrorless wonders.
mawz wrote:
The consumer bodies simply aren't designed with the serious shooter in mind. We're a microscopic fraction of that market, unlike the higher end of the market where the serious shooter becomes a design factor.
......
That's a very simplistic assessment - a lot of"serious" DSLR shooters start with an entry-level DSLR body and then progress upwards. I started with a canon rebel years ago and by the time I upgraded from rebel to a 20D, I was already using a good collection of mid-level primes and zooms with my rebel including 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4, 100mm f2, Tamron 17-50 2.8 etc. It is completely incorrect to assume that all users buying entry-level bodies will never use something other than cheap entry-level glass. There will be many who will want to upgrade to better glass and will find that they have to upgrade their body to be able to use many of the other lenses, which is a shame specially considering that Sony already has a relatively sparse set of mid-level lens offerings.
curious80 wrote:
That's a very simplistic assessment - a lot of"serious" DSLR shooters start with an entry-level DSLR body and then progress upwards. I started with a canon rebel years ago and by the time I upgraded from rebel to a 20D, I was already using a good collection of mid-level primes and zooms with my rebel including 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4, 100mm f2, Tamron 17-50 2.8 etc. It is completely incorrect to assume that all users buying entry-level bodies will never use something other than cheap entry-level glass. There will be many who will want to upgrade to better glass and will find that they have to upgrade their body to be able to use many of the other lenses, which is a shame specially considering that Sony already has a relatively sparse set of mid-level lens offerings....Show more →
I'm actually aware of that fact (started off with the cheap bodies myself, Nikon EM, then an F65 and I've owned a bevy of cheap DSLR's including the Pentax DS, K100D and K-x, and the Nikon D40 and D50 as well as the Sony A33. I like smaller bodies so I keep getting drawn back to the cheap but little bodies, at least until I went NEX). The thing is the number of users who ever upgrade are a tiny fraction of total sales. My experience with shooters I've known moving up is that they either start a step up (5-series Nikon or Sony, whatever the latest Rebel is at the time) with the intention of being at least a little serious or start downmarket, add a cheap lens or two and then upgrade body+lens. Doing anything else is rare although it does occur. Both of these strategies work very well with Nikon's (and possibly Sony's now) choice to eliminate screwdrive AF in their low-end models. Nikon's decision to eliminate it in the D5x00 series is much less defensible, those buyers are far more likely to be interested in screwdrive lenses than your average A3x or D3x00 buyer since they already bought a more serious camera.
Note Pentax is different since they normally only have 2 bodies in their line and they don't pick up the low-end consumer sales anyways. A Pentax shooter, even with their cheapest body, is far more likely to be an enthusiast than your typical Nikon D3100 or Canon Rebel XS or Sony A35 buyer.
mawz wrote:
I'm actually aware of that fact (started off with the cheap bodies myself, Nikon EM, then an F65 and I've owned a bevy of cheap DSLR's including the Pentax DS, K100D and K-x, and the Nikon D40 and D50 as well as the Sony A33. I like smaller bodies so I keep getting drawn back to the cheap but little bodies, at least until I went NEX). The thing is the number of users who ever upgrade are a tiny fraction of total sales. My experience with shooters I've known moving up is that they either start a step up (5-series Nikon or Sony, whatever the latest Rebel is at the time) with the intention of being at least a little serious or start downmarket, add a cheap lens or two and then upgrade body+lens. Doing anything else is rare although it does occur. Both of these strategies work very well with Nikon's (and possibly Sony's now) choice to eliminate screwdrive AF in their low-end models. Nikon's decision to eliminate it in the D5x00 series is much less defensible, those buyers are far more likely to be interested in screwdrive lenses than your average A3x or D3x00 buyer since they already bought a more serious camera.
Note Pentax is different since they normally only have 2 bodies in their line and they don't pick up the low-end consumer sales anyways. A Pentax shooter, even with their cheapest body, is far more likely to be an enthusiast than your typical Nikon D3100 or Canon Rebel XS or Sony A35 buyer. ...Show more →
hmm, i've been moving in the opposite direction: D1x to olympus e520 to NEX-3 (the a55 is just around for birding really).
