Steve Huff reviews the Nikon D3100 and says he prefers the Sony A33/55 :)
Steve Huff is a very known camera reviewer. He is not a Sony freak and doesn’t get paid by anyone to write reviews. He just posted a long Nikon D3100 review. If you click on that link to read the review scroll down until you reach the very end of the page. He ends the conclusion with: “(The Nikon D3100) just did not blow me away. I prefer the Sony A33 and A55” 
Reminder: The A55 is in Stock at Amazon US
Some other news:
Gary wrote his initial A55 impressions at dpreview. Fotopolis tested the A580. Neutralday tested the Sony A290. Some 85mm 2.8 image samples have been posted here and here at Sonyuserforum.de.
Via Steve Huff
Chris
3 years ago |sony is good at entry level cameras.. but they are still behind on the more pro side : /
Emopunk
3 years ago |Amen. Let’s hope reviewers keep this impressions even when comparing future high-end models
mike
3 years ago |i prefer to listen to people who know how to use a camera over Steve Huff
Brett
3 years ago |Being as the A55 is $200 or 30% more than the 3100, I would hope it was a better camera. It’s almost an insult to Sony, one of those backhanded compliments.
Edgars
3 years ago |I also prefer Sony A55 over any of Nikon camera, because I didn’t have Nikkor lenses.
Still amazed by pictures taken using Sony 85mm f/2.8. Bokeh is really perfect.
acolyte
3 years ago |The Sony A55 did not blow me away. I still prefer A700. =p
Steve Huff prueba la Nikon D3100 y dice que prefiere la Sony A33/55 | Noticias Sony Alpha
3 years ago |[...] Sonyalpharumors Esta entrada fue publicada en Artículos, Camaras, Noticias, Sony Alpha y etiquetada comparativa [...]
Rob
3 years ago |I still get good results from my a700, and also love my a850. We should note that there are many positive reviews for the current high end alpha cameras Emo – check Shutterbug and Photocrati for a couple of great reviews.
Chris
3 years ago |thats true.. but the autofocus system for example is still pretty bad compared to nikon.
doesnt matter if you dont shoot sports or fast moving supjects. but even the smaller boddies like the new nikon d700 have af points pretty much all over the viewfinder.
Chris
3 years ago |i meant d7000
stupid names ; )
Rob
3 years ago |Competent reviewers would disagree with you Chris. Also, reviewers at popular photography, looking at the image quality of the a850 and a900, rate those cameras among the best there is. Each camera has its own strength, and I have to say that my preference is to have great value in a full frame that produces the best images available in a DSLR. If you want to spend 3x the money for a slightly faster autofocus then that’s up to you. I guess you must have – right? Do you own a D3X? Or, are you talking about a D3S – with only 12 megapixels. I prefer the perspective offered by the guys on Luminous Landscape and others who feel the high end Sonys offer everything that’s needed in a high end camera. If it’s not the greatest at sports, then that doesn’t make it a crappy camera – it’s just not what it’s made for. A D3S only has 12 megapixels – is it a crappy camera? In your terminology, it’s pretty bad compared to a Sony. Are autofocus points the only thing that makes a good camera? If so then that’s a very superficial way to judge a camera. If autofocus speed, continuous autofocus during video and 10 fps while focusing between frames are more important, then the A55 should be the best camera using that criteria.
cny3123
3 years ago |I understand what Chris was saying about the Autofocus. It isn’t about so much faster AF, it is about having more reliable AF. In the dark the A850 I have makes me want to cry sometimes, coming from Nikon where focus was always a non issue. The problem mostly lies in the fact that the Nikon had so many AF cross points, where the Sony has one in the center. You can say, use wide AF or whatever else, but honestly that is not reliable I find as the camera can sometimes focus where you don’t want it too.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t hate my camera, rather, I love it when there is light out, but when it starts to get dark and I want to take images that are not on a tripod, it makes me a bit unhappy sometimes. The image quality is very good, especially for the money, no one is arguing that.
Sky_walker
3 years ago |No wonder he likes SLT over D3100. D3100 is for Nikon what A390 was for Sony – old generation camera with minor changes. There isn’t much to excite in D3100. Only thing that comes in mind is AF during video…. which is useless to anything that requires any kind of precision. MF works 100 times better and in most cases – faster. Duh….
emopunk
3 years ago |I agree with those of you arguing that cameras have to be compared in price range. I expect a camera which costs more to be better than one which costs less, to say the least. They should mention price difference between D3100 and A33, in the review. Do they?
pmac
3 years ago |I completely agree that it only makes sense to compare camera in the same price range, however, since the price difference between the D3100 and A33 kits is $100 (and thats only because Nikon is offering a rebate already, the actual differences in MAP is only $50) the D3100 and A33 are in the same price range.
On the other hand people seem happy to compare the $750 A55 AF unit to the $1200 D7000 unit which makes zero sense. Compared to the real Nikon competition, the D90 and D5000 the AF in the new Sony’s rock.
I’m not saying the A33/55 are perfect by any stretch and I have no intention of buying one to replace my A700 (bring on the A77), however, I think they offer an unbeatable performance to price ratio at the moment. If Sony can maintain this momentum with the NEX and A mount lines then their goal of going head to head with Canon and Nikon is very close.
(though that is a big if)