Sony SLT A55 Revolutionary Autofocus Technology

[ilysasha]

cool ;P

[StereoThrilla]

garbage

[Sn0wFreak]

i didnt think it could manual focus witch video

[oceanistoosmall]

@Sn0wFreak it can

[lhlee888]

No camcorder used in cinema is autofocus mate...

[henke9100]

@lhlee888

That's because it hasn't been reliable, but if it starts to become, it might as well be used.

[lhlee888]

@henke9100

I can bet you 100% that it will still not be used in the next 50 years

[andres527]

lumix fz100 can do this too!

[FTWandstuff]

Holy shit—What is your F-stop value—that defocus effect is massive!

[ciprianlazar]

@FTWandstuff Isn't it? :)) That whole focus effect of switching view from a close object to one in the background, is completely lost ...

[Terskov]

Sony SLT A55 VL or CANON 550D (600D) ??? What is better?

[vikoobass]

@Terskov Canon is better, cuz it has full manual video mode, you can choose the shutter speed, aparture, picture style, frame rates 25/50 and 30/60 (nice slowmo stuff), and the canon records progressive instead of sony's interlace

[MatheusMK3]

@vikoobass Sony HX100 have the the interlaced option for both 1080p60 and 1080p30... Shutter speed and aperture not (I would love if it had)

[picklecatcus]

YOUR WRONG, the A55 is not the only camera that can do this.. the Sony A33 (I own one) can to, seeing as it's the same camera without GPS and 7fps instead of 10.

ALso the Nikon D3100 can as well (I own that one to)

The both full continuos autofocus

[FTWandstuff]

@picklecatcus well of course the A33 can, but i wasnt aware of the D3100. how new is that camera? It must be fairly new since the A55 hasnt been out very long.

[Jebusjoose]

@picklecatcus

Oh and the A33 has a lower resolution of 14.2

[CoolColJ]

Freaky effect

[mYOzZyKaT]

I also have the a55 and its great..

but its not completely true that no other DSLR can rack zoom or focus..

In fact I saw the Panasonic GH2 do the exact same thing this weekend and it does it well and in fact better than the a55. The GH2 has a touch screen on which you can point out the place you want the camera to focus at. Pretty clever stuff. Further more it has the ability to rack zoom via the touch screen. So you can zoom in and out without touching zoom ring. Pretty good actually

[a1mint]

@mYOzZyKaT But is the Panasonic contrast focus based? The Nikon is, and it hunts back and forth and needs samples of slightly out focus settings before deciding what's in focus. The results are terrible.

How does the GH2 do in this respect?

Also the GH2 is *expensive* and you don't get the auto focus unless you buy *very* *VERY* expensive lenses.

The Sony can use older Minolta lenses, such as the beercans and the secret handshake one.

[mYOzZyKaT]

@a1mint Are you kidding me with this?... you can not be serious...

Just the fact that you claim that the contrast based auto focus system on the GH2 only works with very very expensive lenses disqualifies you from making any sense at all.

In fact the micro 4/3 lenses from Panasonic, Olympus and other makers seems actually rather cheap compared to lenses from Sony. Trust me a have some Sony lenses.

I dont say the GH2 focus better than the a55. I say it rack focuses better with the touch screen.

[a1mint]

@mYOzZyKaT If you have a point to make, make it. But none of this self entitled arrogant disqualifying crap please.

I thought that in order to get the continuous auto focus feature with the GH2, that the lens would have to support it, and that those (few) lenses are really expensive.

I'm not seeing the lens selection or low prices for 4/3 lenses at all on places like ebay...

[mYOzZyKaT]

@a1mint Fist of all the contrast based auto focus system in the GH2 has absolutely nothing to do with the lens. Nothing at all. Its done in the camera body. The lens only reacts to instructions from the camera body. The micro 4/3 lenses are not so many in number as of yet but theres a reasonably good selection and they are in fact cheaper then most Sony lenses.

[a1mint]

@mYOzZyKaT I've read that in order to get the continuous auto focus action during video recording, that you need to use a lens with a specific feature on it, and that those lenses are very expensive.

As for Sony lenses, the Sony alphas are compatible with Minolta AF lenses.

A 50mm 1.7 prime can be had for under $100.

The 28-138 Minolta is as good at it gets apparently.

Then there are the Minolta "beercan" lenses.

From what I can tell, the Panasonic lenses are brutally expensive.

[mYOzZyKaT]

@a1mint So a ten year old second hand Minolta lens is your argument?...comparing a new lens to something you can get used second hand??..LOL..

yes you can get the old Minolta lenses because Sony bought Minolta and Sony equipment today is basically updated Minolta stuff. I have a Minolta 70-210 f/4 beercan which I got cheap.. but thats a 25 year old design and it shows.

You can get a Panasonic Lumix 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 G Vario Aspherical MEGA OIS Lens for 188$ of ebay so stop crying..

[a1mint]

@mYOzZyKaT

The beercan isn't bad. Low CA at full zoom. It's better than similar Tamrons and Sigmas.

But Sony has contributed a great deal as well. Their 55-200 lens is *very* sharp, it's a bit of a "sleeper lens". It feels "kitty" but it's hard to beat. Not a full frame one though, but light.

There are a number of Minolta lenses that are considered *very* good that cost less than new similar ones, and still outdoes them.

The Pany crops more.

[mYOzZyKaT]

@a1mint And if you want to talk expensive lets try a Sony SAL-85F14Z 85mm f1.4 at 1.500$ or a Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 at 1.600... we could go on all day like that. So micro 4/3 lenses might seem like much but in reality they are kind of cheap...

[a1mint]

@mYOzZyKaT Yes that's expensive. Lens wise the Panasonic has a *long* way to go, you can not win that argument.

[mYOzZyKaT]

@a1mint are you insane?

[a1mint]

@mYOzZyKaT huh? I don't know, are YOU insane? Weird.