In the current issue.

 

That's less than an Olympus!

 

...and exactly the same as the Sony Alpha a850

 

It's an outrage!!!

 

Does this mean they've tested the AF, and found it's as lacking as the naysayers say it is? Or has the bar been lifted?

Or is this just a ruse to get me to brave the snow next Tuesday and get myself down to the local shop?

 

It's a head-to-head with the Sony A850 so Live View and Video have been ignored (!?). No adverse comments on AF except it's scored only 7/10 for both. Sony gets an increased point for 1 EV better dynamic range and also for better metering.

It's worth reading if only because it's hard to reconcile the images with come of the comments.

 

Haven't got my AP (On sub) yet. There's all of 1 cm snow here in Acton.

 

Well, I've bought this week's copy of the AP, and I've now read the review.

I really do find it amazing that the, to me, huge difference between the noise at higher ISOs doesn't get reflected in the scoring.

OK, it's more than obvious from both the noise charts and the rugby examples, and probably might not be that visible on 6" x 4" prints, but perhaps the slightly higher pixel count on the Sony 850 is compensation?

 

I can understand the one per cent, but it beats me where they got the other eighty from..!!

 

For anyne who does need to record video, photojounalists for example Sony's lack thereof makes it a non-starter.
Dave

 

I too was surprised at this review. It seemed to me that in every important area the 5D mk2 beat the Sony and yet...

Also, as you point out, Malcolm, the noise issue was strangely, not made as significant as, IMHO, it should have been.

It might just be me but I have been a bit surprised by quite a few of the conclusions in AP tests in the last couple of years.

Willie

 

It's a difficult one. I'm sure we all get used to how our DSLRs handle different scenarios, and learn to make adjustments to the exposure compensation, for example. My early shots with my 5D were definitely not very encouraging. (I've just checked!) Gradually I got to know how the metering reacted, and knew more intuitively when to apply compensation. And my images started looking much better. Whether magazine reviewers are able to get to know any model well enough to get the best out of it, I don't know.

I noted veiled references to some problems with over exposure and reds burning out or losing detail. Easily fixed, I would guess, by lowering the exposure slightly. BUT, I doubt if one can fix that amount of noise, except by losing fine detail.

 

Out of interest, who did the test?

 

Angela Nicholson

 

Thanks Malcolm

 

...or....oooor....the Sony is not as bad as some wanted it to be.

 

As an enthusiastic owner of a 5D and a 5D MkII, I too am surprised by many of the conclusions reached in this latest head-to-head test report. Is it possible for one of the moderators to give Angela the right to reply, since her report has certainly raised some dust in Canonville?
..................................
Rupert

 

Nothing to do with us, we just Moderate the Forum

 

Judging by previous postings on the board, I think Angela's quite capable of defending her corner, without requiring permission from a moderator!

I take it that you don't own or have experience of using the Sony body. That's my problem too, and why earlier I suggested that it must be very difficult for reviewers to get to know how to get the best out of any enthusiast's camera.

 

If Angela wants to reply she will, just as she has in the past.