View Full Version : Sony Alpha DSLR-SLT-A55 A33 vs T3i T2i


Psychosis Media
09-23-2011, 03:39 PM
was wondering if anyone had thoughts about this comparo

Sonys are about $20 cheaper, and fires off ten 16-megapixel images per second in the A55, with the translucent mirror and full frame...has some excellent advantages. But for the video you cant controll apature and such, i plan to use vintage lens so im not sure it this would even effect this...

Cannon has advantage of having lots of lens adv. and manual controll during video. It also uses raw files.
cannon feels cheap esp the lens. There are other differences but i cant think of em right now.

Any one have any opionins?

chilipie
09-23-2011, 03:44 PM
No manual exposure control for video would completely rule the Sony out for me (even if you're using manual lenses - you still need to control ISO and shutter speed).

Psychosis Media
09-23-2011, 03:58 PM
yeah thats the real downer
" For consumers, this is likely a relatively small price to pay for sharply focused video, however, given that manually pulling focus during video capture is a difficult art to learn. If focus point selection is set to local, the Sony A55 and A33 even allow the active focus point to be changed during video capture, and it's also possible to adjust exposure compensation during recording. Also available in Movie mode are the autoexposure lock function to prevent variations in scene brightness, and white balance, creative style, AF area and metering mode functions. However, if autofocus is used, lens aperture must be controlled automatically by the camera, regardless of AF servo mode. When using manual focus, the SLT-series cameras allow manual control of aperture before video capture commences. In all cases, shutter speed and ISO sensitivity of videos is controlled automatically."

CamVader
09-23-2011, 04:17 PM
First of all the Sony is not full frame and the 16MP are for stills only just so you're comparing apples to apples. Secondly, unless someone owns all the cameras in a comparison, they're just repeating what they've read or heard, aside from what they picked up on the spec sheet.

Psychosis Media
09-23-2011, 04:22 PM
First of all the Sony is not full frame and the 16MP are for stills only just so you're comparing apples to apples. Secondly, unless someone owns all the cameras in a comparison, they're just repeating what they've read or heard, aside from what they picked up on the spec sheet.

ah! i assumed the vid was fullframe....didnt think it was only for the stills.

CamVader
09-23-2011, 04:45 PM
ah! i assumed the vid was fullframe....didnt think it was only for the stills.

Even a full frame doesn't use that many MP's for movies for future reference. The general consensus around these parts seems to be the Gh1 or GH2 is the best value.

chilipie
09-23-2011, 04:52 PM
ah! i assumed the vid was fullframe....didnt think it was only for the stills.

Full frame refers to the size of the sensor rather than resolution. The Canon 5D shoots stills at 21 MP and video at 1080p, but both are full frame.