Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony a99 -- ! This site -- ?  (Read 7613 times)
tkarlmann
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« on: October 04, 2012, 12:51:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this site has decided to perhaps slight the new Sony a99 in favor of some Sony fixed lens camera -- based on the Photokina report?  Then, just today there was an a99 photo with a notably terse statement indicating an upcoming review that seemed to say: "Ok, well, I guess we'll have to review the a99, sigh."

Anyone else get this notion or is it just me? Huh
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2012, 01:01:39 PM »
ReplyReply

You need to have a (better) look at the "what's New" section Wink Wink
Logged
kirktuck
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2012, 09:34:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I am very anxious to read Michael's review of the Sony a99 and suspect that he'll be a fan. He's a long time Sony a900 user and recently has done really good work with his Sony Nex7 camera in San Miguel de Allende. In fact, his series of reviews of the Nex 7 were instrumental in my move away from micro four thirds to the Nex world for my art cameras.

I've been using the a77 and a57 cameras for a while and find the EVFs very addicting and more efficient for professional work than traditional EVFs. If the sensor is everything it's cracked up to be (and Michael will be the more trustworthy source of information about that) I am sure the a99 will change some minds about what a pro camera can be, going forward.

The "What's New" page is typically understated. If you want fireworks you can always head over to DPreview and dive into the Sony SLT forum, it's always a wild ride.....  I think I'll learn about this camera (the a99) here with the grown-ups..   :-)
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2012, 12:24:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Michael is recovering after major surgery. It's nice to hear that he now can use serious weight DSLR stuff.

Michael has for a longer time used a Sony Alpha 900 kit. I'm much interested in his findings. I think you misinterpret his wording.

On the other hand, now that Nikon has the truly excellent D800E, the Sony Alpha 99 may have little to offer. Sony could of course make a 36MP camera, too, but I have the impression that they favored video over high resolution. Much interested in Michaels conclusions.

Best regards
Erik




I think this site has decided to perhaps slight the new Sony a99 in favor of some Sony fixed lens camera -- based on the Photokina report?  Then, just today there was an a99 photo with a notably terse statement indicating an upcoming review that seemed to say: "Ok, well, I guess we'll have to review the a99, sigh."

Anyone else get this notion or is it just me? Huh
Logged

maxgruzen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2012, 01:30:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this site has decided to perhaps slight the new Sony a99 in favor of some Sony fixed lens camera -- based on the Photokina report?  Then, just today there was an a99 photo with a notably terse statement indicating an upcoming review that seemed to say: "Ok, well, I guess we'll have to review the a99, sigh."

Anyone else get this notion or is it just me? Huh

It's just you.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2012, 02:27:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this site has decided to perhaps slight...

If "this site" ever decides to slight anything or anyone, then it should be certain fanboys.

It used to be that reviewers get accused of favoritism of certain brands, but now the new "thing" seems to be accusing of favoritism within the same brand. What!?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2012, 02:48:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think this site has decided to perhaps slight the new Sony a99 in favor of some Sony fixed lens camera, ...
Anyone else get this notion or is it just me?

What other notions are you getting?
Logged

kirktuck
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2012, 06:50:41 PM »
ReplyReply

So now the preliminary review is up and it's pretty much what I thought it might be------great IQ. Some will like the EVF and some won't. I guess each of us need to try it out and make up our own minds. MR makes a good argument against but I think people that grew up with EVFs will probably see it differently. Bottom line seems to be that the camera is capable of making really good images.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2012, 07:14:43 PM »
ReplyReply

+1

I'd say I would like a better EVF. In a couple years we will get there. But, is the mirror really needed at all?

Erik


So now the preliminary review is up and it's pretty much what I thought it might be------great IQ. Some will like the EVF and some won't. I guess each of us need to try it out and make up our own minds. MR makes a good argument against but I think people that grew up with EVFs will probably see it differently. Bottom line seems to be that the camera is capable of making really good images.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2012, 02:41:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Nick Devlin's comment regarding the EVF sums up the situation very well. I'll elaborate on his views. Why would people who spend a lot of time and money trying to get the perfect shot, which is sharp and clear, spend a good proportion of their time looking at a degraded representation of the scenes they are trying to capture, through the EVF on their camera?

Why would anyone who is interested in image quality want to spend time watching interesting programs on a TV that is small and of poor quality?

Only if there's no alternative, I'd say.

Quote
My view is that there is nothing inherently good about EVFs. They are at best a necessary evil, chosen for the form-factor advantages they bring and the cameras they make possible. Sony clearly does not share this view, since they built this camera around an EVF simply for the sake of doing so. It offers no notable advantage of any sort, most notably not in price. I can see no reason to chose an EVF in any context where it does not significantly reduce the size, weight or price of the camera, or substantially enhance its usability. The case is simply not made out beyond, "It's cool new technology".

To me, the experience of viewing the natural world through an EVF is like crashing at a cheap motel, closing the blinds, and turning on the small, fuzzy old cathode-ray tube TV on the dresser. It's a shame, because this is otherwise a cracker of a camera, really nice to hold and behold. Nick
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2012, 03:43:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like a very nice camera, but if Sony wants to sell it in today's market, it would need to be priced at least $1,000 lower that the announced $2800 list price. As Ray says, only if there is no alternative. But with D800,5DIII,D600,6D, discounted D700 and 5DII, even Sony's own RX1, and to some degree Sigma Merill DP2M, there are plenty of alternatives.

If Sony won't reduce the selling price, A99 will met similar fate to Sigma SD1. Sell a few units, and disappear from the sight. What would be a pity.
Now, once Hasselblad puts their label and some red lipstick on it, they may sell more units that Sony (even if they price it higher than Sony, since they would target it at a different clientele).

 
 
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 03:52:47 AM by LesPalenik » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2012, 04:18:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like a very nice camera, but if Sony wants to sell it in today's market, it would need to be priced at least $1,000 lower that the announced $2800 list price. As Ray says, only if there is no alternative. But with D800,5DIII,D600,6D, discounted D700 and 5DII, even Sony's own RX1, and to some degree Sigma Merill DP2M, there are plenty of alternatives.

If Sony won't reduce the selling price, A99 will met similar fate to Sigma SD1. Sell a few units, and disappear from the sight. What would be a pity.
Now, once Hasselblad puts their label and some red lipstick on it, they may sell more units that Sony (even if they price it higher than Sony, since they would target it at a different clientele).

I'm not sure, Les, that small reductions in price are the answer. I think anyone would be ill advised to buy a camera body on the basis it was a few dollars cheaper than another brand. One should always consider the lenses one already owns and the lenses that one would like, that are available for the new camera. Always bear in mind that a camera without a lens is a totally useless piece of equipment.
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2012, 05:06:08 AM »
ReplyReply

That's exactly my point. With the $2,800 price tag, Sony won't get any Nikon or Canon converts.
Now, if they offered a FF camera with a reasonably good kit lens, or a 35 / 50mm prime under $2,000, that might get attention of some Canikon users. And more and more photographers with their existing lens collections are open to add a lens adapter ring, and use their lenses with an "alternative system".
A good example is Sony NEX-7 platform. If you peruse the Alternative Forum on FredMiranda.com, it seems that many people bought NEX-7 just as a universal platform for trying out all kinds of lenses. BTW, most of these guys were eagerly awaiting a FF NEX-9.
 

 
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2012, 07:07:05 AM »
ReplyReply

That's exactly my point. With the $2,800 price tag, Sony won't get any Nikon or Canon converts.
Now, if they offered a FF camera with a reasonably good kit lens, or a 35 / 50mm prime under $2,000, that might get attention of some Canikon users. And more and more photographers with their existing lens collections are open to add a lens adapter ring, and use their lenses with an "alternative system".
A good example is Sony NEX-7 platform. If you peruse the Alternative Forum on FredMiranda.com, it seems that many people bought NEX-7 just as a universal platform for trying out all kinds of lenses. BTW, most of these guys were eagerly awaiting a FF NEX-9.
 

Well, they certainly won't get any Nikon converts. Who would opt for a Sony 24mp sensor when they can get, or already have, a Nikon 36mp camera?

I doubt also that they will get any Canon converts because those who would be open to switching formats for the sake of a better sensor have already done so, switching to Nikon.

This camera is for existing owners of Sony equipment who wish to upgrade, or for newcomers who are thinking of buying a full-frame camera for the first time.

As regards using other lenses with an adapter, Les, isn't there always a trade-off with regard to full functionality of the foreign lens, such as lack of autofocussing, or a lack of full EXIF information in the RAW converter?
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2012, 07:39:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

I have never used a lens converter, but from what I've read, many people with "alternative systems" do own them and use them regularly.
Even some Canon guys who own Nikon lenses.
 
Les
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2012, 08:05:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

I have never used a lens converter, but from what I've read, many people with "alternative systems" do own them and use them regularly.
Even some Canon guys who own Nikon lenses.
 
Les


Les, I'm one such guy. I bought the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 to use with my Canon 5D via the best adapter which was available at the time. There were too many oddities so I eventually grabbed a D700 to use with it. One completely unexpected oddity was my 5D would not completely switch off when the lens was attached. I either had to remove the lens or remove the battery after finishing using the camera for a while. If I didn't, the battery would go flat within a couple of days.
Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2012, 10:42:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Nick Devlin's comment regarding the EVF sums up the situation very well. I'll elaborate on his views. Why would people who spend a lot of time and money trying to get the perfect shot, which is sharp and clear, spend a good proportion of their time looking at a degraded representation of the scenes they are trying to capture, through the EVF on their camera?

Why would anyone who is interested in image quality want to spend time watching interesting programs on a TV that is small and of poor quality?

Only if there's no alternative, I'd say.

EVF haters....
Nick comments made me laugh!

I never had the EVF on an SLT camera, impeding me of taking the photo I wanted.
Even in an OVF the scene is somewhat degraded from reality, whatever is an Hassy or an A900 OVF.
But a part from that fact, the images that I take, they will look different from reality anyway and, what I see on the OVF, is nothing like what I have in my mind while taking the photo, which is the closer representation of the final result.

So, EVF or OVF.... use what you like, but don't dismiss what does not suit you.
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2012, 10:52:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Les, I'm one such guy. I bought the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 to use with my Canon 5D via the best adapter which was available at the time. There were too many oddities so I eventually grabbed a D700 to use with it. One completely unexpected oddity was my 5D would not completely switch off when the lens was attached. I either had to remove the lens or remove the battery after finishing using the camera for a while. If I didn't, the battery would go flat within a couple of days.

A recent DSLR is never completely shutted Off unless you remove the battery.

Old EOS 300D (Rebel) was really shutted Off, but when you turned On it took 2 or 3 seconds to load the firmware.

That's why more recent DSLR are not completely Off, but the consumption is extremely low as you shut Off the Power switch.

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2012, 12:34:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I think Nick Devlin's comment regarding the EVF sums up the situation very well. I'll elaborate on his views. Why would people who spend a lot of time and money trying to get the perfect shot, which is sharp and clear, spend a good proportion of their time looking at a degraded representation of the scenes they are trying to capture, through the EVF on their camera?

Why would anyone who is interested in image quality want to spend time watching interesting programs on a TV that is small and of poor quality?

Only if there's no alternative, I'd say.


1) Because the EVF tells you instantly, without chimping, if your exposure is correct.
2) Because the EVF completely removes sharpness-destroying mirror slap (especially in conjunction with electronic first curtain shutter)
3) Video.  Nuff said.
4) Because the EVF allows information overlays like focus peaking, electronic level, grid lines, and anything else
5) Because the EVF (given correct camera settings) lets you know where exposure values lie on the sensor.
6) Because the EVF allows 10-12FPS cameras for $1000 instead of $6000+

And, bonus question:

Do you never use the LCD to compose on a tripod?  Really?
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2012, 05:55:55 PM »
ReplyReply

EVF haters....

Nick comments made me laugh!

I never had the EVF on an SLT camera, impeding me of taking the photo I wanted.

Even in an OVF the scene is somewhat degraded from reality, whatever is an Hassy or an A900 OVF. But a part from that fact, the images that I take, they will look different from reality anyway and, what I see on the OVF, is nothing like what I have in my mind while taking the photo, which is the closer representation of the final result.

So, EVF or OVF.... use what you like, but don't dismiss what does not suit you.

Yeah, I am kind of an EVF hater. But it's not about the idea of the EVF but rather the present-day state of the technology.  Perhaps in 3 or 5 years the EVF experience will match or better the OVF. I'd embrace that.  But there is a long way to go for that. Refresh rates have to rise, resolution has to rise, DR has to rise.  Long way to go to my eye. Today, they are a worthwhile compromise for smaller cameras. 

I also quite agree that a high degree of pre-visualization of the finished image should take place in the minds eye.  But does what takes place in the VF not play a part in that?

Hey, if you like EVFs, you'll love the A99. 

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad