Sony SLT-A99 Released

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?

A99 has an all new dual PD AF system. I quote their official annoucement:

The new α99 digital camera features a unique dual AF system, a world’s first for digital cameras. This camera’s main focusing system – a 19-point AF system with 11 cross sensors - is complemented by a 102-point focal plane phase-detection AF sensor overlaying the main image sensor.

There hasn't been any comparative test on this new AF system yet, so we can't prejudge anything, but to me it sounds promising. Hack, it better be - the whole purpose of putting this pellicle mirror diverting 30% of the light is to create this dual AF system!

Don't forget that Sony builds sensor for Nikon D800 and OMD-EM5. I think the performance on the sensor could potentially be quite surprising.

Having said that, I am not impressed by the spread of the 102 AF points at the moment though, they still seems too centered. Kind of pointless having so many points in such a small space. From Dpreview:
http://4.static.img-dpreview.com …reens/AF-Range.jpg?v=1574

Sony's primary expertise is electronics and you can certainly tell that the electronic technology in this camera is quite impressive and audacious. This is definitely a breadth of fresh air compared to the ultra conservative Canon.

I agree that the Sony system, especially lens, is not competitive enough for serious photographers just yet. But there will be some early adopters will adopt this system (particularly if it outperforms in some specific area). If Sony is serious into this DSLR business, it will eventually put in more R&D resources into lenses / or acquire a lens maker. Zeiss is not adding enough new lenses into the system at the moment, perhaps because it realizes the currently limited market for the alpha mount.

Canon and Nikon have built their system for decades and it will take Sony years to catch up. But you can't fault them for trying. I personally think they are doing a great job pushing the technological envelope. This will certainly up the ante for Canon and Nikon and I like what I see here. My point is - don't be so quick to put down Sony yet.

tkbslc wrote in post #14979986
I thought part of the reason for the EVF, pellicle mirror was crazy framerates. Like the lower end A57 has up to 12 fps.

That was the first thought I had when I saw the announcement this morning and all the gadget blogs were calling it a "pro" camera. I thought for sure it was going to have some high FPS, but 6, seriously? I guess they aren't marketing it as an action camera, but still, the supposed advantage of no swinging mirror is faster FPS no?

Why should someone, at roughly the same price point, go to a system with no OVF, limited and expensive lens options, confusing looking controls, no immediately apparent advantages specs wise to a photographer, that is unproven in durability, after purchase support, and future product growth, instead of buying a Canon or Nikon? Just to be different? For the tilting screen? to save just half a pound? Seems like quite a gamble to me.

The lower FPS is a little befuddling, although I suspect that's a data throughput issue, moving along RAW files of that size.

The major upper hand that this style of camera has over the Canon/Nikon SLRs is its ability to use fast and accurate PD autofocus without having to slap up an SLR mirror, necessitating the EVF since you've traded one mirror for another. That translates into good, usable AF for video use, which all of the other SLRs suck at. Even the T4i, which was adapted specifically to have better AF in video/live view is only marginally better than the older models, which are all but unusable in this respect.

So it seems to me Sony should be pimping the hell out of a full frame model like this for amateur / semi-pro video work, seeing as how popular SLRs for video has become since the introduction of the 5DmkII. And I'm just... not seeing it. Especially with such a teeny tiny EVF, as pointed out previously. I don't see it appealing to people that shoot stills, if you're going that route a Canon or Nikon system will be wayyy more mature in terms of options. For the people interested in using it to shoot video, I think they would be more optimistic, but so far it looks like missed opportunity. Like Sony didn't realize the strengths of the system they developed, and didn't develop them to gain the interest of the right audience.

those faulting the lens lineup, what is missing? I can't find much other really long exotic super tele that few of us would buy anyway.

tkbslc wrote in post #14980990
those faulting the lens lineup, what is missing? I can't find much other really long exotic super tele that few of us would buy anyway.

Just my opinion, sure they have most of the blanks filled in, but they are all priced in the same crazy-ville ball park as all of Canon's latest series II lenses. Also, there is no previous generation of quality used glass to fall back onto when buying on a budget like with Canon and Nikon, and unlike Canon and Nikon, there is a much smaller group of buyers to sell your lenses to if you decide to switch lenses/systems. Ohh, and they do have a 500mm, for $13,000, with no in lens IS, and it weighs more than the Canon!!! It actually makes the Canon 500mm IS II, much less a used original 500mm IS, look like a bargain.

So again, for still photography, why pay the same as an equivelant Canon or Nikon system, both of which are proven, popular, and stable, to buy this camera? Many technology blogs are heralding this camera as some end to Canon and Nikon's prosumer market dominance, and while it certainly looks like a fine camera, I just don't get all the hype.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14981037
Just my opinion, sure they have most of the blanks filled in, but they are all priced in the same crazy-ville ball park as all of Canon's latest series II lenses. Also, there is no previous generation of quality used glass to fall back onto when buying on a budget like with Canon and Nikon, and unlike Canon and Nikon, there is a much smaller group of buyers to sell your lenses to if you decide to switch lenses/systems. Ohh, and they do have a 500mm, for $13,000, with no in lens IS, and it weighs more than the Canon!!! It actually makes the Canon 500mm IS II, much less a used original 500mm IS, look like a bargain.

So again, for still photography, why pay the same as an equivelant Canon or Nikon system, both of which are proven, popular, and stable, to buy this camera? Many technology blogs are heralding this camera as some end to Canon and Nikon's prosumer market dominance, and while it certainly looks like a fine camera, I just don't get all the hype.

Ouch, so much BS in one post. So where do I start tu put you right...

First of all Sony A-mount can use the whole legacy of MInolta glass and there are many formidable lenses out there. No IS in lens? Dude, Sony has IS in body so it can turn ANY non IS lens into a stabilized lens. If you put some old Canon and Nikon non IS glass on the respective body, it will still be an unstabilized system. Sure, some lenses are crazy priced, but this is simply the case with a lot of lenses and it will be the continuing trend. Does Sony have holes in the lens lineup? Sure, it does, especialy for tele lenses. I would say that the short end is quite ok.

On top of it Sony sensor tech is way ahead of Canon. I guess we will see the DXo mark results coming out soon and then you can compare what the difference will be and how much overhead the A99 sensor will have in e.g. dynamic range.

Hummm. Its now very hard for anyone to beat Nikon's D800 and now Canon's 5D MKIII is not along!!!

arj wrote in post #14981192
Ouch, so much BS in one post. So where do I start tu put you right...

First of all Sony A-mount can use the whole legacy of MInolta glass and there are many formidable lenses out there. No IS in lens? Dude, Sony has IS in body so it can turn ANY non IS lens into a stabilized lens. If you put some old Canon and Nikon non IS glass on the respective body, it will still be an unstabilized system. Sure, some lenses are crazy priced, but this is simply the case with a lot of lenses and it will be the continuing trend. Does Sony have holes in the lens lineup? Sure, it does, especialy for tele lenses. I would say that the short end is quite ok.

On top of it Sony sensor tech is way ahead of Canon. I guess we will see the DXo mark results coming out soon and then you can compare what the difference will be and how much overhead the A99 sensor will have in e.g. dynamic range.

I don't care about "lab results" or tests, of any brand, in any situation, I want a camera that actually takes pictures well in the moment at hand. I don't care what a camera can theoretically deliver in controlled conditions, I want it to be able to adapt to uncontrolled conditions. The ability of digital camera's to deliver results that should be satifactorily excellent to any capable photography, IMO, occured in around 2008. Sure cameras may keep getting better, but if you can't make killer shots with say a 1D MKIII, or 5D MK II, then no amount of "dynamic range," or higher MP count, is going to make you a better photographer. Plus, new bodies are out every year, and at any given time one particular brand could be called "way ahead" of its competition. I have been shooting long enough to see this cycle happen over and over and over. I just keep shooting, and upgrade when I need to, as I own a whole system, not just a body.

Yes it has in body IS, so does my E-M5, which is fine for wide to normal lenses, even moderate telephoto, but a seven and a half pound, foot and a half long, thirteen thousand you ess dollar lens, should have proper in lens stabalization. Fair point on the Minolta lenses though.

I never said this looks like a terrible camera. Still, no one has told me why any still photographer shooting Canon or Nikon should have their kit on the FS sites today to jump ship to Sony.

Sony, such full of fail on this one.

A77 = 10+ FPS @ 24MP

A99? = Go eat it, donkey!

I guess that FF SLT mirror is harder to keep locked in place, thus killing the FPS...

At least they put a tilt screen on a FF camera, even though it is a lousy implementation of a tilt screen. 60D style owns them all.

Sad, because Sony is capable of going head to head with Nikon and Canon, yet they just make the dumbest decisions again and again...

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14981037
Just my opinion, sure they have most of the blanks filled in, but they are all priced in the same crazy-ville ball park as all of Canon's latest series II lenses. Also, there is no previous generation of quality used glass to fall back onto when buying on a budget like with Canon and Nikon.

Actually, Sony retained the Minolta mount when it bought their camera division. Alpha supports Minolta Maxxum lenses which go back a year or two prior to Canon EF. THere is loads of used glass out there dating back to the 80s. Also used Sigma lenses from the 90s typically work on Alpha, unlike on EOS where they Error 99 when you change aperture.

Sony Zeiss are spendy, yes, but so are Canon L. And anything older than about 2006 is going to say Minolta on it, so thats what you'd need to compare with when comparing to older L lens options.

I do agree Canon and Nikon have superior lens lineups but Sony is a close third behind them.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14981318
I never said this looks like a terrible camera. Still, no one has told me why any still photographer shooting Canon or Nikon should have their kit on the FS sites today to jump ship to Sony.

I don't think anyone will. That's why Sony needed to make a KILLER game changing camera and they pulled another A900. Way too conservative.

tkbslc wrote in post #14981482
I do agree Canon and Nikon have superior lens lineups but Sony is a close third behind them.

I don't think that way.
As far as Price, electronics and body comes, Sony is a Pioneer and asset for consumer. On many fronts they are the First.

What they miss is their poor memory concept that is slow, can't handle rapid transfer and probably the reason behind slower frame rate in burst mode of A99 that has FF larger file image size compare to cropped A55 / A77.

Nevertheless I personally use both Canon as a life long devotee and fan, and Sony (Enjoying having few of Alpha DSLRs in my bag for time when needed). And recently I am thinking very seriously about D800E.

Sony A77 w/ 24mp can shoot 10frame per second. I don't think Sony A99's slow speed is due to electronic problem.

liupublic wrote in post #14981609
Sony A77 w/ 24mp can shoot 10frame per second. I don't think Sony A99's slow speed is due to electronic problem.

Well, it doesn't seem that it would be mechanical, since their mechanics are pretty much the same. Also this is comparing an APS-C camera to a full frame, I have to imagine there's more color data you have to work with there, not a straight comparison just because the resolution is the same. 14-bit RAW vs 12-bit RAW, perhaps? I have no idea what the A77 uses.

Yes and add that to slow interface between camera and memory that though not sure I think it is at class 4 range as opposed to most SD using bodies willing to write easily at class 10 protocol(I am not expert in this so if inaccuracy, please correct me).
Sony needs to admit their memory line, has a defective gene from their Betamax video line and needs a universal more readily available upgrade to go with every other good stuff they make.

The burst rate probably does have to do with the processor as it will do 10fps in crop apc mode.