Sony A33 is different from Sony A55, which is better than Pentax KX? Talk about these three characteristics and their advantages and disadvantages.

A33 and A55 are indeed Sony's new products, which can be regarded as a major technological innovation of Sony, and may even expand the new field of digital SLR from now on. But upstairs is definitely not incomparable. The two products are biased towards different technical fields. Only an ignorant person will judge a quasi-professional camera with such superficial things as pixels and liquid crystals. If only high pixels and good LCD are required, I think the DC parameters of most cards listed this year can be regarded as NB.

Talk about the differences between several products in detail.

Let's start with A55 and A33:

There is little difference between the two machines, one is160,000 pixels, the other is140,000 pixels, the other is 10 continuous shooting, the other is 7 continuous shooting, one has GPS (not available in the mainland version) and the other has no GPS. So I put them all together and used A33 (because the price is similar to K-x).

Compared with K-x, this single-shot A33 is closer to NEX5, and all of them are taken electronically. The difference is that A33 has an additional reflector. Different from SLR, this kind of mirror is transparent, and only reflects 30% of the light for phase focusing (NEX5 uses contrast focusing like ordinary small DC, which is slow), and the remaining 70% of the light is directly directed to CMOS for shooting and electronic framing. This transparent mirror is the most basic and essential feature of A33, which solves most of the problems existing in SLR and single electricity:

1, 30% reflected light is used for independent phase focusing, which solves the problem of slow single-electric contrast.

2. The light is divided into two parts for independent use, which solves the autofocus problem when shooting video with a general SLR.

3. The reflector no longer bounces, reducing the vibration of the SLR (this problem is actually not a problem for people who are used to using SLR, since the film age)

4. Without the reflector, continuous shooting can move faster.

5. The electronic viewfinder is more intuitive and the field of vision is more complete. Generally, the FOV of optical viewfinder of SLR is about 95%, and that of electronic viewfinder is 100%. You can directly see the shooting effect in electronic framing (documentary video is the same as DC real-time framing)

6. The five-prism/five-mirror framing system is cancelled, and the camera is smaller.

Say that finish advantages, began to say disadvantages:

First of all, I want to mention seven hidden injuries of foreign users on A33 and A55:

1, the autofocus system can't focus on fast moving objects, which is a natural defect of Sony's focusing technology. This problem greatly affects the practical value of high-speed continuous shooting.

2. Turn on anti-shake and shoot a 9-minute video to warn of overheating. Video shooting and video autofocus, which A55 and A33 are proud of, are seriously dragged down by this problem. PS: No anti-shake, 30-minute warning.

3. After 3.RAW continuous shooting, the time for writing cards in cache is slow. PS: That is, use a faster memory card.

4, high-speed continuous shooting autofocus can't change the aperture, can't live view. This should be regarded as an obvious injury, because this problem was announced by Sony itself.

5. The domestic version a55 has no GPS function. For users who do not use GPS or A33, this item can be ignored.

6. The focus of video shooting is noisy.

7. The maximum bit rate of HD video shooting is only 17Mbit/s? 17Mbit/s, which can be done by ordinary small DC in the market.

In addition, there are other netizens' supplements on DP:

1, the flash is a big problem for Sony A55, because you can't control the shutter speed manually, and most of the time you have to leave it to fate.

2. User dasbin: Sony claims that the exposure loss is only 1/3 at most, but don't you find that 30% is a very impressive figure? Although it is impossible to quantify the exposure, the sensor with the same sensitivity loses 30% performance just to save manufacturing cost with transparent mirror. Do you think it's worth it? (August 24, 20 10, 1 pm, 19 pm)

3. User mpgxsvcd: It feels very strange. Why is Sony still using 1080i interlaced video? The first thing I did after recording the video was to share it on YOUTUBE. No one's computer should use interlaced resolution, right? Besides, who still uses interlaced TV sets these days?

The following are my personal doubts about the reflectors of A55 and A33, but I have never used them. I just make some inferences based on a little experience, theoretical basis and existing data:

Sony announced that this mirror will reflect 30% of the light for focusing and 70% for shooting. Some people will say that this large proportion of light loss will affect the image quality. I don't entirely agree with this. Less incident light is not directly related to image quality, but under certain conditions, it will lead to image quality degradation by affecting fuselage parameters. For example, under the same conditions, the aperture and shutter are limited. For normal exposure, you must increase ISO by 30% to get enough exposure. As we all know, the higher the ISO, the more noise, and increasing the ISO also increases the noise. It may be possible to reduce the shutter speed, but reducing the shutter speed in low light will lead to hand shock and increase the aperture. Excessive aperture will affect the sharpness of most lenses. Therefore, my ideal solution is to adjust these three parameters by 10% respectively. . . However, sacrifice and compromise are inevitable. Although A33 and A55 have good noise control ability, from the test photos of DP, the noise removal after ISO400 is still obvious, and the details are beginning to be lost. In fact, the seemingly clean picture under high sense has no details, and there is no noise reduction gear, so it can only be forced to reduce noise. Sony's overbearing setting is probably aware of this problem and uses forced noise reduction to hide people's eyes and ears.

The second problem is battery life. The number of real shots is around 200. Maybe A55 will be a little higher, but it's about the same. The big power consumer is actually 144 EVF, which consumes more power than LCD. Battery life is one of the biggest problems for me. I was so tired when I went to CJ that I was accompanied by a female companion. A simple shot took 480 pictures, and a friend of D90 took more than 800 pictures. If you turn on the flash, the battery life of A33 will be worse.

The third point, electronic framing, not to mention, although there are advantages of what you see is what you get, there is also a delay gap with reality. It's easy to miss some wonderful fleeting shots when snapping, which is better than optical framing.

Fourth, for any camera, it is difficult to focus in low light, but some good cameras are difficult to use, and some low-end cameras will become more troublesome, which is inevitable. I doubt the weak light focusing of A33. After all, it only uses 30% light to focus. Although some people say that it is not bad in low-light focusing, I am still skeptical and noncommittal.

I won't elaborate on other miscellaneous issues.

It's not that I want to fight against single electricity. I appreciate Sony's innovation very much. It's just that single electricity is still at the primary level, and the technology is not perfect. If I were you, I wouldn't want to be that mouse. However, I am very optimistic about the digital process of cameras in the future, and single electricity is only the beginning.

Let's start with K-x and k-R.

The biggest improvement of Kx compared with Kr is as follows:

1, focusing on the red dot prompt (it's just a reminder for many times, and it doesn't matter if you get used to the K-x red dot)

2, focus auxiliary light, K-x actually does not have this thing, but it can be replaced by stroboscopic. Some people can use the mini flashlight on the key chain instead, but I personally feel that there are few opportunities to use it, because focusing on K-x in low light is not bad. However, K-r adopts a new generation of focusing system and auxiliary lights, and its focusing performance should be better than K-X.

3. You can choose to use rechargeable lithium batteries or AA batteries, and K-x can only use AA. Personally, I think AA is enough. Even if there are multiple choices, I still choose AA. After all, AA batteries have advantages in other functions except that they are slightly heavier (in fact, there is little difference). The battery life (4 5th batteries randomly sent can shoot 1 0,900, and Ailepu can also use 1 0,000 or so) and the cost (8 Ailepu rechargeable batteries are equivalent to two lithium batteries) are more than 200 yuan per lithium battery. If the battery fails, Ailepu can spend 10 yuan, and the lithium battery will cost more than 200 yuan), which is convenient (it is convenient to find many temporary substitutes when the battery is not enough). Of course, some people think that using lithium batteries looks professional and harmonious (in fact, Ailepu is very beautiful and can ls, especially the 8-color limited edition).

At that time, K-x stood out with its excellent high-sensitivity technology, which even left many mid-range SLR behind. K-r inherited this advantage. From the official proof, it is more powerful than K-X, for reference only. You can understand the official certificate. But I believe that at least it will not be worse than K-X.

In addition, K-r is a little bigger than K-x, and K-x is a little bigger. Both of them have many colors to choose from, which are suitable for bright color LS.

The price of K-r has not been decided. It is reported that it is 6000 sets, much higher than K-x, and the cost performance is greatly reduced (relative to K-x), reaching the level of entry-level high-end machines. LZ thinks for himself.

As for elimination, I don't think it exists. Digital products are updated quickly, but it doesn't mean that old products must be eliminated to produce new products. Otherwise, people who play SLR will be really entangled. New products are released 1-2 times a year. Do they buy 1-2 new machines every year? 450D is still being purchased, and 5D2 is still being used after the release of 5D. LX5 is out. Why did LX3 sell well two years ago?

Upstairs replied, who said that you must buy the latest one? Who said anything about having to buy KX? I just let LZ think for himself. After all, the price difference between the new machine and the old machine is much lower.

In addition, if the size of the photosensitive element is the same, must it be compared with LCD? The quality of the same photosensitive original is also very different. DXO has the classification of photosensitive elements and detailed test results analysis. Similarly, CMOS of APS-C has different qualities and characteristics.

Did I compare it wrong? At least I introduced the differences between A33 and A55, SLR and micro-single, and introduced their working principles and possible problems. Can't this difference explain the difference between KX and A33? Compared with KR, didn't you say you should go public first? A more than 3000, a more than 6000, a difference of 3000 yuan, don't compare the cost performance of the power grid? Don't you look at the price when you buy things? Then why don't you recommend the 5D2 hassell card? 144 why should I play them all? As long as everyone understands, didn't you just call 1.44 million? Why not type 1.44 million pixels? Only a part of the messy copy, and I also explained the source, is better than you have no information at all, just check a little knowledge of parameters and come and fiddle around, okay?