1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

A57 vs G2 initial impressions

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by battleaxe, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. battleaxe

    battleaxe Mu-43 Top Veteran

    So, purchased a SLT-A57 today and been playing and comparing it with my G2. Here are a few of my initial impressions.

    Right of the bat I noticed I prefer something about the EVF of the G2 to what the A57 offers, though that may change. Similar could be said for jpeg color output, though I haven't fully examined RAW the raw files, nor really messed around with the color settings.

    Other things I have noticed is the G2 in low light will choose a lower ISO, but in return a slower shutter speed. The A57 on the other hand will choose a higher ISO(twice) but of course a faster shutter speed. Result for the most part is the same, though the improvements in DR are noticeable all around. So far sharpness seems to be the same with the kit lens.

    As for AF tracking is better from initial test, but in some situations the AF huts a little on the A57, while the G2 is virtually silent there. Is this due to difference between PDAF vs CDAF?

    One thing I do really miss is knowing when I'm at the wrong shutter speed. It's a great feature as it allows me to know if the shot will be overexpose or to underexpose. I don't see such feature with the A57, but I could be wrong. I also miss the ability to choose focusing points by touching it, but that's less of an issue.
  2. battleaxe

    battleaxe Mu-43 Top Veteran

    One this that has me amazed is the lens selection and how cheap some decent lenses can be had. I have always been a fan of Minolta lenses, and use a 58mm f1.4 on my G2(a little on the GF3 due to the smaller camera body and no evf). So, it's great to know I can get a 50mm f1.7 Minolta AF lens is good shape for $60 or even less. The only thing I partially keep missing from the G2 is the smaller size, & really miss the touch screen. Really not sure why Sony hasn't implemented that yet, but the interface is miles ahead of the NEX cameras I have played with.

    Other little nuances I am not too fond of is the kit lens is a bit noisy when it comes to AF, vs the Panny 14-42mm. In poorer lighting situations it also tends to hunt a bit more than it should(but that could be due to lens and no camera).
    I also don't prefer how the camera in auto ISO chooses a higher ISO than need be. Like in a lower light shot the A57 will choose ISO 3200, while the G2(w/14-42mm) will use ISO 640, and GF3(w/14-42mm) will choose ISO 800. All three sample shots looks fairly sharp and clean handheld. I wish I could limit ISO to 1600 at night on the A57, but that doesn't seem to be an option(though auto ISO limit is 3200). In terms of high ISO part, it really is a mark improvement over the older m4/3 12mp sensors. Not saying the older 12mp cameras are bad in at in low light, in fact they are very good, more so with a faster lens, but the A57, and from what I have seen the 16mp m4/3 are much more improved.

    Which, then brings me back to the point I wish it was a smaller camera, or that m4/3 offered focus/object tracking as good as a SLT, or DSLR. So far it can't, so I guess two system cameras for two different needs would have to do for now. Really like the quality I get out all three cameras, but one of them may have to go to recoup the cost of the new toy, and hopefully stop more GAS from occurring. Was pretty much GAS free for 2 years, until I realized I'm not happy with phone shots(GF3) and I need something faster for birds(A57). Thank you for reading.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. jimr.pdx

    jimr.pdx Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 5, 2010
    near Longview ~1hr from PDX
    Jim R
    In my Alpha A200 days I really liked their 100-200mm f/4.5 which is still a bargain if one hunts for it. Many of the original metal-body AF lenses have jumped up in price, but other than min. focus distance that tele was small and sharp.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.