A55/A33 vs micro 4/3

[jsparks]

Is there anyone on this forum that has an a55 or a33 and has also used micro 4/3? I'm becoming more interested in getting an a55 as a replacement for a G1.

I'm mostly a Sony user with a A900, but sometimes it's just too big and heavy to want to carry. I got the G1 to fill this need, but sometimes need AF tracking that works, better high ISO and a fast AF lens longer than 20mm.

I think the A55 would give me this. It would also give me access to all my lenses for the A900 at the expense of a bit heavier camera and larger lenses. I'd probably sell the G1, but keep my E-PL1 with the 20mm for when ever the A55 is too big.

I know about the screen tilt differences, but I don't like the one on the G1 and rarely use it as I find the camera hard to hold with the screen out and most of my photos end up tilted whenever I try to use it. The Sony version looks like it would actually work better for me, but still probably won't use it much.

Any thoughts about this. How much better is the high ISO on the A55 compared to m4/3? Any handling or IQ differences that stand out (other than the screen tilt)?

Thanks,
John

 

[jonoslack]

Is there anyone on this forum that has an a55 or a33 and has also used micro 4/3? I'm becoming more interested in getting an a55 as a replacement for a G1.

I'm mostly a Sony user with a A900, but sometimes it's just too big and heavy to want to carry. I got the G1 to fill this need, but sometimes need AF tracking that works, better high ISO and a fast AF lens longer than 20mm.

I think the A55 would give me this. It would also give me access to all my lenses for the A900 at the expense of a bit heavier camera and larger lenses. I'd probably sell the G1, but keep my E-PL1 with the 20mm for when ever the A55 is too big.

I know about the screen tilt differences, but I don't like the one on the G1 and rarely use it as I find the camera hard to hold with the screen out and most of my photos end up tilted whenever I try to use it. The Sony version looks like it would actually work better for me, but still probably won't use it much.

Any thoughts about this. How much better is the high ISO on the A55 compared to m4/3? Any handling or IQ differences that stand out (other than the screen tilt)?

Thanks,
John

HI John
Of course the best thing is to have a try. The high ISO on the A55 is unquestionably better, and the focusing is snappy - the whole thing seems very responsive.

I also use an A900, and have done the rounds of m4/3 (splendid, but somehow it didn't press my button). The A55 works fine with the Sony lenses - is lovely to use and has great image quality . . . but not a match for the A900!

 

[Paratom]

I think if you want something smaller the A55 wouldnt be that compact if you use it with full frame lenses.

I am trying to decide if A55 could be an alternative for m4/3 for me.
Not sure yet.

Some comments:
m4/3 lenses much smaller than A55-lenses.
focus of the Pana-lenses much quieter than A55.
AF-difference...Icant say yet-first impression both systems feel fast. I woul assume the edge for the Sony.
IQ- I have no final conclusion yet. I am sure the larger sensor has advantages, on the other side some comparison shots I did with the Zeiss16-80 + A55 vs Pana 14-54 on EP2 the images from m4/3 did pretty well. (might bemore a question which lenses one uses.

I am not so sure yet if I shall like the A55 idea or not - the camer body is small but the lenses are still relativly big. so how much do you really gain?

 

[jsparks]

I guess I really need to find one to play with. I have an old Sony A100 that is much closer to the size of the G1 than the A900. I'd probably mostly use it with the Zeiss 16-80 or one of my smaller prime lenses like the 28/2 or 50/1.4 or maybe a new Sony 35/1.8. The G1 is big enough that I either sling it over a shoulder or throw it in a bag anyway. For that use, I don't think the A55 would be all that different.

One feature I really like on my Oly E-PL1 is the blinking highlights in the EVF or even the blinking highlights in the G1 in the review after each shot. I find this much more useful than the small histogram. Does the A55 have anything like this, or is it like the A900 and only shows blinking highlights in the tiny view with the histograms?

 

[ptomsu]

In terms of size the M43 cameras and lenses are the clear winners.

In terms of high ISO performance the A55 should be the clear winner.

In terms of overall IQ this is a tricky question and very subjective. I could not say which IQ I really prefer end of the day if I compare the results from my EP2 and NEX5. And I assume the A55 will be pretty close to the NEX5 in that area.

For me the A55 seems to be a really revolutionary DSLR which is a bit smaller than other small DSLRs, but not as much - I was actually shocked about its size after all the hype in different forums how small this thing really is.

Hard decision .....

 

[Paratom]

I guess I really need to find one to play with. I have an old Sony A100 that is much closer to the size of the G1 than the A900. I'd probably mostly use it with the Zeiss 16-80 or one of my smaller prime lenses like the 28/2 or 50/1.4 or maybe a new Sony 35/1.8. The G1 is big enough that I either sling it over a shoulder or throw it in a bag anyway. For that use, I don't think the A55 would be all that different.
....

I agree that you should handle one. Being playing a little bit more with my wifes gh1 and the A55 lately and I have to say besides the way the display folds out I overall prefer the handling from the A55. Size wise its bigger but also for my taste fits better in my hands.
The 16-80 seems a very usefull range and its a little faster than the 14-45 lens (even though I am not sure if the corners of my 16-80 images are acceptable).
Jpeg color of the A55 seems better as well as DR.

 

[meilicke]

Yes, go a shop and handle one.

I was sold on the A33 until I handled one in the shop. Too big! I had gotten spoiled by my LX3, and now the nex-5 is doing fine in my hands.

But, I still pine for a "real" SLR. Why did I ever sell my Canon d20?

 

[retow]

About 2 weeks ago I went to a Sony store, ready to pull my CC for a55 and Zeiss 16-80mm. But size and weight of the combo made me reconsider my decision. Am now waiting to try the GH2. Lens size/weight and lens line up wise, mft has the edge.
Am not too excited about Sony's lens offerings, they are either cheap and so so performers on the one hand, or excellent, but big and heavy on the other hand (Zeiss ). Sony caught up big time on the sensor side, but lens wise, they are not there yet for the mid market/prosumer segment.

 

[vicfei]

About 2 weeks ago I went to a Sony store, ready to pull my CC for a55 and Zeiss 16-80mm. But size and weight of the combo made me reconsider my decision. Am now waiting to try the GH2. Lens size/weight and lens line up wise, mft has the edge.
Am not too excited about Sony's lens offerings, they are either cheap and so so performers on the one hand, or excellent, but big and heavy on the other hand (Zeiss ). Sony caught up big time on the sensor side, but lens wise, they are not there yet for the mid market/prosumer segment.

I am in the same place that you are in vis a vis the A55 v. the GH2. I also agree about your observations regarding Sony lens offerings - they need to develop higher quality lenses for their SLT line that have similar premium quality as their FF lenses, but lighter weight to fit more like a glove on the SLTs. I also have my concerns re: the Zeiss 16-80 because of soft corners that are very prominent upon examination. It will be very interesting to see the IQ of the GH2.

Vic

 

[ptomsu]

Tried the A55 some 2 weeks ago and size as well as the EVF made me stay away from it.

Currently also waiting to try the GH2 and see if EVF comes close (or is even better) than the EVF for the EP2.

Or even better, if Olympus would release an EP3 anytime soon with same sensor as GH2 - then my decision would be almost sure!

 

[Paratom]

I believe besides the camera itself lens options are important too.