Template talk:Konica Minolta/Sony DSLR cameras

Inconsistency - A100 and A200

A200 is really just slightly improved A100, however in the table A100 is placed as Midrange and A200 as Entry-level. "This model [A200] appears to be very similar to the A100 apart from higher sensitivity, faster AF, a slightly larger LCD, a new Fn button and other subtle control changes."[1] --RedAndr (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the DSLR-A200 was not an improved version of the DSLR-A100, but a much lower range model. For a quick overview on missing features in the DSLR-A200: [2]

The DSLR-A100 was an improved version of the DG-5D, both mid-range models, whereas the DSLR-A200 was clearly a low entry class model. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --RedAndr (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alpha 33, Alpha 55

Note: please, do not simply undo changes from me. Edit the template properly (check all headers, rows and columns). Sergey Shandar (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Several questions.

Why are they in this table? I think, they should not be here

"A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses a mechanical mirror system and pentaprism to direct light from the lens to an optical viewfinder on the back of the camera."

These cameras do NOT have optical viewfinder. They've got a mirror but is used only for AF system. And it has a special name Single-lens translucent camera.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• See Single-lens translucent camera to know why it's a DSLR. Yes, it doesn't have the OVF, but removing OVF doesn't remove it from DSLRs - it's still Digital camera, with Single Lens, and Reflex mirror. Yes, the definition on wiki and in many books isn't really up to date. Viewfinder is still there, only made if a bit different fashon. Ps. move the concerns to SLT talk page if something. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

However, the purpose of SLT technology is completely different. The SLT does not to provide possibility to see optically through the lens. DSLR allows this and it is the main purpose and difference compare to range-finder or EVF cameras. And even EVF is not related to SLT technology. From DSLR:

A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses a mechanical mirror system and pentaprism to direct light from the lens to an optical viewfinder on the back of the camera.

DSLRs are often preferred by professional still photographers because they allow an accurate preview of framing close to the moment of exposure, and because DSLRs allow the user to choose from a variety of interchangeable lenses. Most DSLRs also have a function that allows accurate preview of depth of field.

To be constructive, I propose a template Sony DSLR & SLT, where DSLR and SLT cameras will be in two different tables. Otherwise we confuse users of Wikipedia who are looking and compare DSLR cameras and it also looks like advertisement from Sony.

Sergey Shandar (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"The SLT does not to provide possibility to see optically through the lens" Not yet but it's obviously possible. Please, read a bit about SLT technology basics. The mirror reflects the light up - just like in the Canon Pellix so it can be used for the identical purpose - TTL metering + OVF. The fact that Sony decided to overcome Pellix disadvantages doesn't mean it's not possible to use this technology for OVF DSLR.

"And even EVF is not related to SLT technology" - it wasn't - see the past tense. Things change, technology gives new opportunity, so the world needs to re-adjust some of terms a little bit. The basic principle and operations of DSLR is saved in SLT camera, so the SLTs are just a type of DSLR without an optical viewfinder. Not an entirely new kind of camera, like an ILCs were. The Canon Pellix was much more a deviation from DSLR than the SLTs are - it had no "mechanical mirror system" - instead just a thin foil half-mirror which couldn't move, yet noone told it's not an SLR. It was just a Pellicle Mirror SLR. Similar thing here - no optical viewfinder doesn't mean it's not an DSLR - hell, even SONY calls it an DSLR (what I pointed here) - it still does have an viewfinder and a matte screen, and a mirror, and a light sensitive material, even there's a DoF preview you pointed out in your definition.

The Pellix semitransparent fixed mirror splits the light rays from the lens into about two-thirds hitting the film, while the rest is reflected to the viewfinder. Canon Pellix--Sergey Shandar (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Otherwise we confuse users of Wikipedia who are looking and compare DSLR cameras and it also looks like advertisement from Sony." - And why is that confusing??? A55 and A33 should be compared to DSLR cameras and they are compared to DSLR cameras - whatever you like it or not (see: dPreview A55 review you linked to - out there it's compared to other DSLRs all way long). Also: since when having A55 in table is an "advertisement from Sony"??? So you suggest we stop adding new products from Sony to Wikipedia? Duh...

There are a LOT of cameras that should be compared with DSLRs and their manufactures say that the cameras are comparable to DSLR etc. I do not say that they are better or worse, I'm saying they are just different. Add them to wikipedia but you added to the DSLR table, you did not change the name of this table, you did not highlight that they are different. So it is confusion for users.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop reverting table to display your point of view. Thank you, SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it because the table contains several bugs. Fix it first.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are they higher than Alpha-580?

I thought A33/A55 are cheaper cameras than Alpha-580.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• More features. That's the major reason. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• So, if P&S camera has more features (such as video, editing etc) than it is also more professional then some of DSLR? EVF instead of optical can be a huge minus for some photographers. Please, provide reliable sources, why they are higher. Sergey Shandar (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The very dark viewfinder while using DoF preview is also a huge minus for some (namely:Macro) photographers while using it on A580 unlike it's on A55. So it's not an argument at all. But either way: The price-point might be a reliable indicator, so looking from this perspective - double-digit Alphas should be below A560/A580. Ok, let it be. Fixed. SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree the A580 should be higher than the A55

Why were the A33/A35 Midrange and NOT Entry Level?

The A33/A35 occupy an entry level price point and are designed to provide a more affordable option to the A55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiseargote (talk • contribs) 09:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have updated the table accordingly.
• I have also merged the A33 and A35 into the same line as the A35 is the direct replacement for the A33.

Alpha 560, A580

Are they really a new branch and not successors of A500 and A550?--Sergey Shandar (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"the A580 will be available from October 2010, while and the A560 will arrive in the first quarter of 2011." http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082419sonya580a560.asp

• dPreview as a source? OMG. Anyway: Even they don't even write that it's a successor of A550/A500. Nor does Sony. In fact - Sony still offers all: A500,A550,A580,A580. So from what I see: The A560&580 are OVF versions of A33/A55. Not A550/500 successors. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• What's wrong with dpreview? Except "OMG". Most of the manufactures could still offer predecessors and successors for a while. For example: [[3] offers D3000 and D3100, D3 and D3s. In ambiguous cases it would be good to use common sense and price (MSRP). Sergey Shandar (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • dPreview has lots of mistakes made in it's history towards Sony cameras, lenses, and stuff. It's last source you should point out as a source of anything regarding Sony. # The common sense is that's A560 and A580 is A55 and A33 alternatives with OVF. They have identical features other than video AF and viewfinder. A550 and A550 are lower-grade cameras without a video and several features (DoF preview, 3D photos, ISO 100 to name just basics). Can you point out any Sony source where they state that it's A550/A500 successor? If so than sure, table should go this way. Otherwise it's a no-go, cause so far I haven't found any such (though lots of people share Your opinion on the net. Yet -> it's still just an opinion, not a source). 78.8.7.191 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, we should remove all tables and leave only list of cameras. No mid-range/entry-level/pro levels, no successors because they all just opinions.Sergey Shandar (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Since KM cameras are going to be included in this timeline, the title should reflect both Tejastheory (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks for your work making these templates more consistent. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Labels

I have removed the labels per WP:V since they are uncited. Cburnett (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is your citation from official Sony press release.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0709/07090601sonydslra700.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013004sonyalpha300350.asp

"Enthusiast" and "mainstream" is the wording used. For the sake of consistency with other DSLR templates, the synonyms "prosumer" and "consumer/entry-level" are used instead. Tejastheory (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V says you, as the restoring editor, must put the citations in the page. You have failed to do so. Cburnett (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got the time at the moment to add in citations. Just about every KM/Sony press release announcing the camera declares who the target market is, so if any other editor has the time they can add these references using the <ref>link here</ref>. If no one else gets around to it, I'll go ahead and do it myself in a few hours. Tejastheory (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything for the α200. Cburnett (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the A100, A450, A500 and A550 to represent a Mid-Range camera in order to be consistent with charts from other manufacturers since these are cameras that cost around $750 to $1000 at launch, the entry level cameras, by contrast, started at a lower price point. I have also changed the A700 to prosumer using the same logic.

Linking

There is a comprehensive Sony_α page for which this page IMHO ought to be the higher level context / parent, as it also covers compatible pre-SONY equipment.

Positioning the 5D

The table suggests 5D was positioned as entry-level. The fact that there were no lower end APS-C DSLR bodies available under it, does not mean it genuinely targeted or represented entry-level in the same way current A230 does. Just like when 7D or RD-175 were the only cameras available, did not make them by default entry level.

Whenever using the numbering schema in its camera names, Minolta (and now Sony) have followed a fairly consistent pattern. The number of 0's and letter prefixes/suffixes (i, xi, si, D, α) changed across generations, but the mnemonic meaning of the series stayed consistent: 2/3 series were entry level, 5 was budget enthusiast/amateur, 7 was advanced amateur/semipro/pro backup, and 9 was high end/luxury/pro. With the exception of the 2 series sometimes used alongside the 3 series as the bare-bones entry-level, Minolta tended to introduce even-numbered "half-generations" in-between the odd-numbered cameras that represented more of a quantum leap vs previous odd-numbered generation. While the odd-numbered cameras pushed the technology envelope, even-numbered generations focused on user experience and feedback.

RD-175

Minolta introduced RD-175 in 1995 - it was unique in that it used 3CCD's resulting in great per-pixel sharpness and tonality/color fidelity. Although it had a 2x crop factor, it was based on 500si camera bodies and as such used Minolta interchangeable lenses and flashes. It seems fair to include it for completeness. Minolta also later made available a Vectis (Minolta's APS body & lens system) based RD-3000.