Sony SLT-A99 Released

http://www.dpreview.co​m …amera-with-dual-AF-system

Looks to be pretty nice... $2800 is a pretty good price on top of it

Also a bunch of new stuff..new speedlite, new macro light as well, and apparently they're developing a CZ Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 SSM..which sounds mighty interesting to me

I'm not impressed with the Sony Alpha lens lineup. Im also not a fan of the SLT system. In a situation that I would be getting paid to shoot I would not take a SLT-A99 over a 5D3 or even my 5D2. The light and potential IQ loss through that transparent mirror annoys the crap out of me. Also the light loss through the system will bump up ISO in dark situations (which I like to shoot) and when you're maxing out ISO with a f/1.4 lens you cant afford to lose more light. Thats just me. Sony has tempted me before but would never switch over.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14979824
I'm not impressed with the Sony Alpha lens lineup. Im also not a fan of the SLT system. In a situation that I would be getting paid to shoot I would not take a SLT-A99 over a 5D3 or even my 5D2. The light and potential IQ loss through that transparent mirror annoys the crap out of me. Also the light loss through the system will bump up ISO in dark situations (which I like to shoot) and when you're maxing out ISO with a f/1.4 lens you cant afford to lose more light. Thats just me. Sony has tempted me before but would never switch over.

your not impressed with auto focusing zeiss lens!!!

Fricks wrote in post #14979830
your not impressed with auto focusing zeiss lens!!!

Not impressed enough to switch to a clunkier system. Just doesn't do it for me. Zeiss lenses are way more expensive than Canon/Nikon counterparts and the quality is not THAT much better. While its nice to say Zeiss on the side of the lens...

I'd say its less for working professionals and more for hobbyists and that

Also its a good indicator of what the rumored D600 is packing...

Problem is that, just like the A900, it is a little behind the Canon and Nikon counterparts spec wise. Sony is the underdog, so they really need to provide a reason to switch. 19 AF points, 24MP, 6fps and an EVF is not really any incentive.

I thought part of the reason for the EVF, pellicle mirror was crazy framerates. Like the lower end A57 has up to 12 fps. Also, the VF is not even that big as it is the same size as 5D. It's EVF, make it HUGE. Give us something to get excited about, Sony. This is DOA like the A900 and A850. Nobody looking for a FF camera is going to pick the underdog if it is worse or same spec for only a couple hundred cheaper.

$2800 seems steep. Explain to me why anyone would buy this over the D800 or the 5D3? C&N have a huge eco-system of glass, flashes, accessories etc. I fail to see what one would gain by going with Sony, especially considering that price is in the same ballpark. Similar cost, fewer lens options, fewer accessories, etc. Can someone enlighten me? Am I missing something?

tkbslc wrote in post #14979986
Problem is that, just like the A900, it is a little behind the Canon and Nikon counterparts spec wise. Sony is the underdog, so they really need to provide a reason to switch. 19 AF points, 24MP, 6fps and an EVF is not really any incentive.

I thought part of the reason for the EVF, pellicle mirror was crazy framerates. Like the lower end A57 has up to 12 fps. Also, the VF is not even that big as it is the same size as 5D. It's EVF, make it HUGE. Give us something to get excited about, Sony. This is DOA like the A900 and A850. Nobody looking for a FF camera is going to pick the underdog if it is worse or same spec for only a couple hundred cheaper.

My point exactly. If you have $3k to drop on a body, then you probably want some serious glass to go along with it. I really can't figure out who Sony thinks will buy this.

intence01 wrote in post #14979992
$2800 seems steep. Explain to me why anyone would buy this over the D800 or the 5D3? C&N have a huge eco-system of glass, flashes, accessories etc. I fail to see what one would gain by going with Sony, especially considering that price is in the same ballpark. Similar cost, fewer lens options, fewer accessories, etc. Can someone enlighten me? Am I missing something?

Yeah, that's kinda what I said. Especially when the specs aren't that great.

Is this the best of the three big camera's (D800, mk III and a99)? Yes, I would say so. The thing is: Sony simply doesn't have enough glass to offer. That's where they need to improve. Sony puts out great products, but without good lenses, not really worth it imo

If you want zeiss lens w AF, this is the only choice. Otherwise, pick c or n.

TijmenDal wrote in post #14980034
Is this the best of the three big camera's (D800, mk III and a99)? Yes, I would say so. The thing is: Sony simply doesn't have enough glass to offer. That's where they need to improve. Sony puts out great products, but without good lenses, not really worth it imo

Not trying to troll, but how is it the best? 6fps? 19 AF points? Limited glass? What does this offer me that I can't get with D800 (higher resolution/MP) or 5D3? 5D3 has similar resolution, more AF points, the same fps. Is there a killer feature i'm missing besides AF on Zeiss lenses? Why would anyone buy this over 5D3 / D800?

intence01 wrote in post #14980060
Not trying to troll, but how is it the best? 6fps? 19 AF points? Limited glass? What does this offer me that I can't get with D800 (higher resolution/MP) or 5D3? 5D3 has similar resolution, more AF points, the same fps. Is there a killer feature i'm missing besides AF on Zeiss lenses? Why would anyone buy this over 5D3 / D800?

Continuous AF in video. That's the only thing I can think of.

Okay, looking at the specs, looks like the A99 has lots of stuff that makes it perfect for video (60fps HD, etc.), flip out screen, etc.

Still don't see it as a real competitor for stills.

jwcdds wrote in post #14980098
Continuous AF in video. That's the only thing I can think of.

I'd be perfectly content if they removed video functionality altogether from my SLR ... but that's me