The future of alpha line?

e_dawg wrote: mawz, it's good to see another fellow Olympus user or at least someone with a good understanding of the equipment and system. It's quite rare in this world dominated by Canikon. Have i seen you around one of the Olympus fora, by chance?

I've delurked a bit at a couple since I've been shooting some 4/3rds stuff for a while (G1 since Jan 09, also shot with an E-30 for a while, but replaced that with a K-x for better low-light performance). I don't really spend much time on the 4/3rds fora.

I'm rather system agnostic, I've shot with just about everything and like most of the systems aside from Canon (I don't like Canon kit, and it doesn't like me much either). My overall preference is Minolta/Sony by a small amount, with Pentax running a close second (and distant first for consumer kit).

Edited by mawz - 29 May 2010 at 15:44

Not really a need to redesign the lenses so much as implement a second set of good AF algorithms which only Panasonic has achieved at this point (Oly had to redesign their lenses because they can't get the AF algorithms right. Of course the issues with the E-3's AF in particular indicate this isn't unique to CDAF for them).

Phase-detect systems work in a completely different way than contrast detect systems. The phase detect system makes a single, swift adjustment based on a mathematical comparison of focus and in focus. Contrast detect, on the other hand, steps the focus group many times in short bursts to constantly check and recheck focus. Expecting, say, the ZA 85 with its extension based focus to work quickly in a CD AF situation is a fool's errand. As they say, ya cannae beat the laws of physics. The two types of focus systems work on entirely different principles and have different technical limitations and strengths, and something that isn't optimized for CD AF will struggle.

The E-mount optics are designed with this in mind; hence why the kit lens doesn't use cheap front-element rotating focus, for example. This is true of Panasonic's lenses too, by the way. They all have very light focus trains and motors designed for CD AF. You can have great AF algorithms but if the lens' focus ability is at a handicap, the performance will never be up to that of an optic specifically designed with CD AF in mind.

Edited by kefkafloyd - 21 May 2010 at 22:39

frodeni wrote: mawz wrote: Sony has the worst of the fold-out live view implementations as it's useless in portrait mode unlike the Oly (and Pansonic G1/GH1) implementations and the most limited selection of Live View capable models. All current Canon, Pentax, Panasonic and Olympus models have live view, all but one current Nikon does. Sony is the only make that have a working live view. I use one almost daily, and simply could not do with poorer tracking than my A330. That pretty much excludes all current CDAF models. The fold out screen is way quicker to use than the tilt and swivel used by some other brands. It is not that great for portrait orientation, but I actually use it quite a lot for that as well. For portrait orientation it will kill the competition any day. If you want working live view, there is only one make. It is pretty obvious that CDAF will need quite some time to catch up with PDAF. This means that α will be alive and well for some time to come. Frode

Pansonic's LV implementation on the G1/GH1 focuses as fast or faster than Sony's with equivalent lenses and the flip/twist LCD allows much more flexible shooting than the Sony which is optimized for waistlevel landscape-oriented shooting only. I've used both, flip/twist is just as fast and more flexible.

Sony's primary implementation of LV is however useless for the primary use of live view in serious photography, confirmation of critical focus with macro or other tripod work (Landscape/architecture/studio). The move to main-sensor LV in the A450/500/550 is a step up but Sony retains the most awkward implementation of main sensor LV (which is an achievement given how awkward Pentax's is).

foot wrote: here's something to think about don't try and upsell ppl, just sell how many camera bodies does sony have , $1,000 ?? by necessity, each sucks wind out of the others for example, the A500 vs A550. Slightly different price. slightly different features. So some buy the A500, some the A550. It's expensive and inefficient for the market/distribution channels to support both, when they are splitting the same buyers If a store wants to carry 2 sony bodies, which 2? So more inventory, more training sales ppl the difference between them, more confused and uncertain customers This strategy worked in the past for some products, such as soda, candy, cereal so this forced the brands to compete over "shelf space" I go to the stores today and see lots of "Hershey" and not much Nestle some places only sell pepsi products, some only coke products look at pentax/oly/Panasonic - just a few key bodies

If the sales were all in stores I might agree with you but with more and more sales being online and the way people research and shop online I think it is a great plus to have many price points and the larger selection to choose from

here's something to think about

don't try and upsell ppl, just sell

how many camera bodies does sony have , $1,000 ??
by necessity, each sucks wind out of the others

for example, the A500 vs A550. Slightly different price.
slightly different features. So some buy the A500, some
the A550. It's expensive and inefficient for the market/distribution channels to support both, when they are splitting the same
buyers

If a store wants to carry 2 sony bodies, which 2?
So more inventory, more training sales ppl the difference
between them, more confused and uncertain customers

This strategy worked in the past for some products, such
as soda, candy, cereal

so this forced the brands to compete over "shelf space"
I go to the stores today and see lots of "Hershey" and not
much Nestle

some places only sell pepsi products, some only coke products

look at pentax/oly/Panasonic - just a few key bodies

Really, the quality of CDAF varies widely. It's really horrible on most DSLRs, but some of the compacts do an OK job. Panasonic's implementation is fairly snappy, and that snappiness has reportedly carried over to their m4/3 models, which are not bad in the AF department. Even my ancient Pany FZ5 can about keep up with a slow-ish zoom on my a500.

There is no technical reason for CDAF to suck on DSLRs, it is more due to a lack of will to improve it rather than an inability to do so.

Really nice thoughts about this awesome camera, And Yes the A330 is a really pretty camera . I saw one in the store yesterday. I think they realise that most entry level buyers may be easily swayed by a pretty camera, since they don't know enough to think about how it will be used in practice.