SAR reader Maxime Siegler tested the Sony A99 Image quality with and without the semitransparent mirror. yes, he removed the mirror fromx his camera 🙂
This exposure of “mirror, ISO 100, 6s, f/1.4” was matched to that of “mirrorless, ISO 100, 6s, f/1.4” by using the exposure slider (+0.5) in ACR >>> mirror match, ISO 100, 6s, f/1.4, +0.5
mirror, ISO 100, 6s, f/1.4
mirrorless, ISO 100, 6s, f/1.4
This exposure of “mirror, ISO 6400, 1/13s, f/1.4” was matched to that of “mirrorless, ISO 6400, 1/13s, f/1.4” by using the exposure slider (+0.5) in ACR >>> mirror match, ISO 6400, 1/3s, f/1.4, +0.5
mirror, ISO 6400, 1/13s, f/1.4
mirrorless, ISO 6400, 1/13s, f/1.4
His conclusions are that the “mirrorless” shots have:
* cleaner high ISO files, i.e., the noise pattern remains relatively smooth at ISO 6400 by ca. 1/2 stop (maybe slightly more).
* slightly more refined details.
This isn’t a suprise for none of us. We already knew there is some (negligible?) loss with the mirror. If Sony keeps developing the SLT tech I hope they will offer a mirror lockup feature on future cameras. Not impossible
A similar test made with the A55 SLT camera has been made years ago by Thesybersite.
0 Responses
Give the market a mirror free A99 mk II and no AA filter. And if they could have the Hand held twilight function inplanted into the raw files with the possebillity to use aperture so it dont make everything automatic
“If Sony keeps developing the SLT tech I hope they will offer a mirror lockup feature on future cameras” – they should have done it already with A55, the first SLT camera.
+1
They could have offered a few modes, like:
1) Traditional DSLR, where mirror flips out of the way when taking a picture.
2) DSLT mode, with mirror always down
3) Mirrorless mode, where mirror is always up and camera reverts to CDAF autofocus.
I just hope they do it in A77II.
Seem to be more detail potential in the mirrorless image.
Though I’d prefer to see the RAW images myself.
Hopefully the A77II will have a more efficient mirror.
Cool test. With or without the mirror, it seems that the sensor has been programmed to send a certain amount of gain to the sensor for compensation. Thus the noise levels are the same (or so it seems on my phone ) however the mirrorless image is between 1/3 to 1/2 a stop brighter due to the gain.
It would be helpful to compare a mirrored ISO 6400 shot to a mirrorless ISO 5000 shot. If the histogram is about the same out of the camera than the noise can be more accurately compared.
Similar results have be obtained by comparing the nex 7 with the a77.
The difference between them was 1/3 stop and I believe that result more acurately reflects the mirrrs effect.
Different sensors, pixel densities and sensor sizes – that’s comparing apples to oranges.
They use the same sensor
Think you meant a99. A77 does not use the same sensor.
Are you talking about the NEX-7 or the A7? A7 and A77 clearly does not use rhe same sensor.
Oops..I meant the nex 7 and a77
They have the same sensor.
Sony names can be confusing.
Unfortunately can’t argue with you there. Too many launches lately 😛
Originally it read, “a7 and a77.”
Editing
As expected, noise and detail differences are so minor, that they aren’t even worth mentioning.
That compromise is perhaps “not worth mentioning” if Sony do not put the A99 on top of their pyramid charts along with their other “gadgets”.
These problems go a long way back. Consider the Sony A100 and the Nikon D300- same sensor. The difference in performance (may be “minor”) is reflected in their sales and longevity.
There ought to be a fundamental rethink from Sony if they really want to compete with the bigger players in terms of camera performance and sales.
They should think beyond being just satisfied with sensor sales alone.
My 2 cents……….
The D300 didn’t have the A100 sensor, it had the A700 one and the A700 version 4 firmware came pretty close to D300 performance.
The problem with Sony cameras has never been performance, it has been marketing and a perceived lack of lenses due to buyers not knowing that Sony is Minolta A-mount.
Sony never appeared in the shops alongside CaNikon where I live. Sony has never supported retail outlets in the way that CaNikon does either. Sony have only now started to focus on stills imaging because the rest of their business is failing and they are desperate to find something that generates revenue, they have never given a stuff about it in the past.
I always say it, put a Nikon badge on the A77 and it will sell by the boat load, this is a BRAND problem, not a technology problem.
Quite possible (it is a brand problem) but that does not have to be reinforced with “gadgets” descriptors.
If you were correct Pentax would be king. They consistently have the best high ISO performance compared to the same sensors in Nikon and Sony cameras. Yet they are last in DSLR sales.
I disagree. It is not the difference in performance that is reflected in their sales, but rather marketing (as pointed out by AlphaGuy) and the overall system. It’s certainly not the SLT mirror that is preventing Sony from selling more, because it simply isn’t a problem at all.
A whole lot of misinformation and fallacies.
The D300 shared the sensor with the A700 and the sales were a reflection mostly of brand name, shelf space and systems, rather than how their performance compared.
And it’s not been as clear cut as some people make it out to be. The D300S and A500 were pretty comparable in terms of image quality, despite a huge difference in price. The A580 was also comparable to the D7000.
Good news if the rumours about a more efficient slt mirror are true. If the a77ii has the new mirror and is 32mp, I’m less worried about the added noise. Personally I could live without mirror flip up, especially if it means losing af… Anyone know how the a99 responds in afd mode without the mirror?
A99 is pure MF without mirror.
Mirror flip-up is suppose to work just when taking a photo – not during live view. Focusing speed will be unaffected, however it will have a longer delay between pressing a shutter release and actually taking photo.
Wjich adds vibration, which I could definitely live without…
The A99’s shutter adds vibration as well.
I believe “more efficient slt mirror” is a dead end. How much more effective can it be to allow AF to work? 50%? then it’s still only a 1/4th of a stop advantage for the camera, negligible difference. The only real gain would be to go full mirrorless also with A-mount, what I think is reasonable even though there’s an E-mount, as A-mount is more suited for faster, bigger lenses. The only real reason why this didn’t happen yet is that current hybrid AF is still not as fast and accurate as PDAF in really low light situations. As soon as there is sufficient advancement in OSPDAF systems, the SLT will be gone and I will gladly buy full mirrorless A-mount camera, but not one with “improved SLT”, as there’s really not much to improve.
I think the mirrorless E mount is going to kill the Minolta A mount when the new full frame E mount cameras come out with ultra fast AF and over 10fps in September at Photokina.
Not gonna happen. Not with the lens line-up that’s planned for FE mount. It’s tiny. Nothing even remotely close to the A-mount. If people would care about bodies alone – they could just buy RX1. It’s better than any FE camera out there.
The E mount works with any DSLR lens out there .
No it does not. You need adapters. And majority of photographers are not interested in that for many reasons.
Not least the af performance hit and the fact that the a-mount adaptor turns your e-mount body into a crippled slt with no ibis.
I guess I am the only person on the planet that uses a full frame E mount camera with Pentax, Nikon along with Sony A and FE mount lenses without any problems and after using cameras in manual mode for a zillion years it has become second nature.
If the Sony SLT camera is what you like then get it but I am an E mount guy along with the m4/3rds GH series. I have the GH4 on pre-order that also works with all of my lenses.
If I was a Minolta user instead of a Pentax user from back in the film days I might also be in the SLT camp but that is not the case.
Whatever floats your boat I guess.
Cheap MF adapters are one thing. Expensive A mount adapters with no stabilization, slower AF (compared to dedicated A mount cameras) are not acceptable options to a lot of people including me.
If E mount cameras had some el cheapo adapters with full AF and IBIS there would be far less opposition from A mount users to switch to E mount.
However as things stand spending $399 to add 2 additional point of failures between your lens and your body isn’t to everyones liking, nor is flawed ergonomics of such a combo.
I never purchased a A -E mount adapter, I use the one that came with my VG900 and it works great with my A mount 35mm F1.4 Samyang lens. I guess some people grew up in the AF automatic everything age and don’t have any experience with anything manual.
You are correct. I never used film cameras when I grew up and I bought a film camera just for kicks a few years ago.
I had a Samyang 85mm f1.4 lens and loved it to bits but I used to get OOF shots all the time. Finally bought a Minolta 85mm f1.4 and its output was noticeably inferior to the Samyang.
My point is all these technological aids are there to help us. Sure we can walk anywhere we want but I still take a bus or car.
So stuff like AF, IBIS, Live view etc are all aids to help us take photos and I like using them. If you like MF lenses good for you. We are all different but I am sure you will agree with me that people using MF lenses today are miniscule compared to the total number of camera users.
I bet most people who purchased the A7r was to use it with manual focus lenses . Believe it or not there are people who know how to take stills and videos without AF and IS. The only AF lens with IS I use on my VG900 is the 28-70 FE OSS lens.
You have zero evidence to back up your statement that most A7r people use MF lenses but neither do I have any proof to the contrary so I will agree to disagree on that point.
However you are completely deviating from your original point which I disputed and that is E mount will kill A mount NOW.
All 9 of my Sony Alpha lenses have AF and IBIS. No E mount camera will allow me to use IBIS and if I can get AF and IBIS with an A mount camera why would I give it up and use an E mount camera ?
Most of my lenses are Pentax mount lenses that I use on my Pentax DSLRs with IBIS along with the VG900 with adapters. I just think DSLRs with mirror box is not the future and that includes the Minolta/Sony A mount cameras . Since you have 9 A mount lenses that looks like the reason why you get all bent out of shape over E mount news. I have the new 4K GH4 on pre-order and that is another mirrorless that I like using with my Pentax mount lenses along with my m4/3rd lenses like the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 .
Show me a link showing that most A7r users don’t use MF lenses.
I have clearly stated that neither of us have any proof that A7 users use either MF lenses or AF lenses.
And NO I do NOT get bent out of shape on E mount news. I was only referring to YOUR statement that the new E mount cameras were going to KILL the A mount this year itself.
So you see that is a big difference between what you are arguing about and what your initial statement that I disagreed with said.
I firmly believe that the A mount will not be there in the future BUT that future isn’t very near. Till Sony finds some other solution than these expensive adapters I find no reason to shift to E mount.
That said I have no qualms about Sony launching the E mount. Why would I ? They are earning money from it and more money for Sony means even A mount users can benefit.
I have never paid more than $20 for an adapter and I prefer mirrorless cameras so I could use any lens. If you like what you have then what is the problem ?
That almost made sense. First call the lens line up for the FE mount tiny to highlight the flaws of the system, then mention the RX1 as a better choice, with just a single FL and zero choice. Right.
Better was never so selective.
When they get a fully functioning A-E mount adapter with faster C-AF and better tracking, I do not see the financial sense in keeping two such diverse camera ranges. I can’t see them doing what Olympus did to their FT mount in the long term nothing else makes financial sense, assuming any camera company has such a talent.
People seem to forget that a good portion of noise in EVF cameras comes from heat generated due to live view. Considering that the A7 noticably lags behind the D600 the LV heat is probably a lot more damaging than the minor light loss from SLT. I don’t care about either though…
as soon as there is a newer replacement for my current A99 and I afford buying it I will try dissassembling the old camera and doing DIY sensor cooling system based on peltier device 😉 actually, I’m curious whether someone already did that, this seems so obvious. not really useful because of bulk, weight etc, but the results might be interesting 🙂
It would be wise to first test how much live view actually affects noise. For example by taking a relatively dark high ISO shot right after turning on the camera, keep the LV running for about 15 minutes and then take the exact same shot.
I remember Dpreview doing a similar test for the old R1 (first larger Exmor CMOS and fulltime LV) and they found surprisingly little difference back then.
For long exposure night shots, cooling systems can pay off no doubt (when dark current and thermal noise will become an increasingly large factor to account for), as they do for other cameras too.
Peltier ? lol, good luck!
I wondered for a long time whether it’s possible to take photos with A99 with the mirror in “cleaning” mode, but never tried this myself being afraid this could make some damage to the camera. Is this the way these photos were taken or any special arrangements are needed? I believe this is quite useful to be able to take photos with mirror raised, I often use manual focus anyway, esp. with 135STF lens.
He didn’t raise a mirror. He just pulled it out of the camera. If you’ll try to raise a mirror – it’ll stick out making it impossible to use any lens. (If Sony would add flip-up mode to any future SLT it’d need to have it’s mirror raised like A900 mirror was instead of simply flipped up like it currently does).
Taking the mirror out takes seconds, I’ve had my A77 mirror out a few times and it isn’t as scary as people make it out to be.
When I upgraded to FF, the price of the A99 and the tiny bit of light lost on each shot was the reason I didn’t consider the A99 more seriously. I realize the A99 was really a competitor to the 5DIII and D800, but even if it had been priced closer to the 6D and D600 I am not sure I wanted to lose 1/3 – 1/2 stop of light. It may be trivial to some, but light is a big part of why I elected to go FF.
You really missed out then. I’ve owned the A99 for over a year now. The over exagerated stories light loss aren’t an issue in real world conditions.
His reasoning is fair enough. The man just loves high ISO. What can you do
Giving away nearly a full stop to the Nikon D610 with the same sensor is a bit of a faux pas for a FF camera where one of its most claimed advantages is supposedly high ISO performance.
For a high ISO shooter this is a major disadvantage often folk shooting at the extremes need every bit of advantage they can get. For me high ISO is all but irrelevant base ISO DR, resolution ,shadow detail etc are all far more important to me.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5f20zi6gqp5b0kk/a99vsd7100.jpg
The A99 barely matches the APS D7100 , though not important to us for many this is deal breaker
Looking at the same low light scene shot with the A99 and D600 at ISO 6400 using the same Sigma lens (taking transmission differences out of the equation) and same physical exposures, I do see a difference, but none to lose sleep over.
D600 scene:
http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/50674266/6456d6be22df4d98a32a38d192647ff8
A99 scene:
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/50674266/ed7c41d449944dd58ae2573384e98404
D600 100% crop:
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/50674266/8fe7757f967a45c39c691da9180f83dd
A99 100% crop:
http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/50674266/0f029e059d82482983dd2a8305f9f721
I specifically use Focus Numerique { my French is decent
enough to read through their site lol } raw test files as they have the most consistent lighting and exposure settings of any of the test sites.
As I say it is Low ISO and video that matter to me high ISO is a tiny, tiny part of my shooting, I can’t remember the last time I shot over 800ISO.
I do not frequent DPreview anymore, one to many abusive fans defending their brand to the death ,to make it worthwhile.
There are many ways to interfere with JPEG files before posting to make them a viable way to critically compare output from one camera to another. I want RAW files with consistent lighting & exposure ,taken in controlled circumstances, presented as straight RAW’s .
I
am not suggesting that the poster of those images is guilty of anything but controlled RAW files are what I use. The DXO data which shows very consistent DR and colour depth between the D600/D610 and A99 as you would expect with the same basic sensor shows a significant difference at high ISO. Of nearly a full stop .
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99___915_831
I have no dog in the race owning neither the A99 nor the D610/D600 , for my needs the D880E and A7r are what live in my bag. I am with Barry , more MP please lol
Try Imaging resource, (the comparison images above were copied from there) You will find the differences in actual images is very minor, and not even close to the amount you are claiming. And since you don’t own either camera and never used either camera your not speaking from experience just regurgitating third hand information to support a lame argument.
That is the point there are differences in exposure with imaging resources though certainly no worse than DPreview was ,this rules them out for comparison. Perhaps all the various professional review sites that commented on the poorer high ISO of the A99 were just being mean to Sony. Downloading controlled RAW files is by far the easiest , fairest and most unbiased way to judge the real image quality of an image.
Ignoring controlled lighting and consistent exposures to satisfy a fanboy agenda is the worst most biased way to judge actual image quality. I use both Nikon cameras with Sony sensors and the A7r { and the RX10 for that matter} I have no interest in brand bashing .
Facts never go down well with fans , the bottom line is that the A99 high ISO was weaker than its rival { by how much is debatable } , it cost far more, it has poor C-AF and tracking , it uses an EVF { which personally I like} which alienated many potential users including existing Sony users.
FN used to be more consistent than IR and especially Dpreview but I have seen exposures with over a stop between them in visual brightness while physical exposures were equal and ISO calibration (not to be confused with the ISO measurements done by DXO, which are a completely different measure to normalize output and which do NOT reflect relative differences of visual brightness at a given physical exposure) within a third of a stop, which also hints at inconsistent lightning. The shots I posted were taken at the same time, converted with Adobe defaults, except matching contrast curves.
If it was actually a full stop you would have a point, but it’s not. It’s a fraction of that and all but indistinguishable in actual shots. And no oil problems.
ISO 3200 & ISO 6400, D610 – A99
If you download the actual RAW files which are provided {though even here they do not have the same exposure settings } hence the need for more controlled lighting and exposure . Which is why I use Focus Numerique for all comparison shots their tests may not be perfect but their RAW files are equally lit and share the exact same exposure.
There are no shortage of Sony cameras with issues , the vast majority of D600 had no oil issues, which is of course no help to those who did ,as with all internet dramas exaggeration is the order of the day look at the nonsense about light leaks with the A7r.
It is the combination of fact, there is a difference in the results, exageration and fanboy trolling from other brands that lead to the perception of the A99
Add in the dislike of EVF’s by many FF users and its price which was £600+ more than the D600, with a far smaller potential market which has contracted since SLT came along .The poorer C- AF and tracking performance compared to like priced cameras from Canon or Nikon also did not help the cause of the A99 even with some Sony fans.
In the end, you have no idea how bad the actual sales of the a99 have been compared to Sony’s own expectations, so it is all assumptions. And I think the a99 has rather good perception, at least from people who actually use it.
The difference in noise is certainly nowhere near one stop and while you put forward “all the various professional review sites that commented on the poorer high ISO” (no idea which you are talking about), there are plenty of user who laughed at the ‘issue’ or completely disregarded it. There is simply not a single type of output, where a D600 image would be usable and one from the a99 won’t be. Numbers from DXO are all nice and fun, but in the end it comes down to actually displaying the image.
As to comparing the D600 to the a99, let’s not start this again, it has been done plenty of times and cherry-picking the advantages of the D600 is not serious.
The A99 sold more units in its first month than the A900 did throughout its lifetime.
Idk, never seen the numbers. But I haven’t seen many a99 users who were disappointed in their purchase. Seems to me, the perception of the a99 is much more affected by people disparaging it on the net and whining about non-issues, such as the SLT.
My recommendation for the naysayers is to rent an A99 for a day before trying to disparaging it.
Any actual links not plucked from your backside. All the numbers available to us be it Sony’s DSLR decline in Japan to , sales position on Amazon sites around the world and even straight from Sony show a noted and ongoing decline in Sony’s share of the DSLR market.
This actual real info is posted even here on this site
I actually know this from a conversation with a Sony District Sales Representative. We used to work at the same marketing company years ago.
The A-Mount has a small, but very profitable share of the DSLR segment.
The numbers are always misleading, because they only measure unit sales. They do not take into account the volume of sales, or margin (how profitable each sale is). You need to look at the big picture.
So both an A99, and a A58 each only represent one sale.
The numbers are also always misleading because they do not measure lens sales.
So an A99 with a 2470mm ($4799.99 with a 40% margin), still only represents one sale.
The numbers are also always misleading because they do not measure accessory sales.
So an A99 with a 2470mm, HVL-F60M, and battery grip ($5299.99 with a 50% margin) still only represents one sale.
Sony isn’t loosing sleep over conceding the low end of the DSLR market to Nikon or Canon. The cameras in that segment are high volume, no margin (less than 5% margin = unprofitable). Canon, and Nikon make their real money on lens, accessory, and warranty/service plan sales.
Sony despises the low end, which is the reason there is no replacement for the A37. I doubt the A58 will be replaced. The A65 will likely become Sony’s base model.
Sony isn’t stupid, they’re very much like Apple Computers, and they’re just not willing to join Canon’s or Nikon’s race to the DSLR bottom. Sony’s DSLR sales come from more expensive better featured cameras with margins between 20% to 40% (A65, A77, and A99).
Its pretty sad to see camera companies peddling $399.99 junk DSLRs in a pathetic attempt to stay profitable.
My recommendation is “always buy fast glass”. Your best return on investment is going to come from quality lenses. All of these cameras systems have plenty of advantages, and dis-advantages. Sony’s major advantage is its FF AF Zeiss Lenses. Its primary reason I choose the A-Mount when I bought my first Full Frame DSLR in 2009.
Tests run by Roger Cicala hint at most D600’s being affected, some just more than others. At least at the time tested.
I have processed hundreds of raw files in Adobe camera raw and Photoshop from both cameras, my niece owns the D610 I own the A99. My experience using and processing files from both cameras shows little difference. Both cameras record great raw images, I prefer the A99 to the D610 for numerous reasons. I shoot using several manual focus lenses, it’s almost impossible to focus quickly using the D610 as compared to the A99. The electronic viewfinder is far superior for manual focusing, low light composition, and macro work. These are the types of photography I frequently do. The A99 auto focusing system is faster and more accurate than the D610, my niece concurs with me on this. Her shutter maxes out a 1/4000. Which is a problem shooting with fast lenses on a bright day unless you want to use a neutral density filter which is a PITA when you’re out in the weather.
My niece’s D610 has had no oil issues (only a few months old) and she is very happy with it. She has used my A99 and loves it , but being a student on a limited budget the D610 was her logical choice at the time of purchase. However now that the A99 is being discounted she is having second thoughts. The A99 is an all around better camera than the D600/610; much more rugged, better built body and many more usable features. So I draw my conclusions from using both cameras, yours is drawn based on second and third hand opinion. Which is typical of a fanboy, come back and give me a opinion after you have used these cameras and stop being a troll. Peace
I didn’t miss out. I bought a Canon 6D and Sigma 35 and enjoyed it. Actually, part of the reason I also didn’t go with the A99 is that Sigma was delaying their 35 Art in Amount and I had no clue when they would release it. I’ve enjoyed the 35 Art much longer on my Canon 6D so I would have missed out with the A99. Fwiw, I just bought a Sony A7.
If most people thought like you did, Canon would be downright last in sales as their APS-C cameras are outmatches by Sony and Nikon sensors. However there are many other variables that make a camera.
My friend used an A99 for a while and while he hated the EVF, he never complained of the light loss issue and he loved the articulating screen. Wished his 5D MK3 had it.
I don’t care what most people do so I am not sure what point you’re making; I care what works for me. But the articulating screen is what I wanted the most to go with a full frame camera. I’ve found articulation enough on the Sony A7, so I’ve just switched to it.
The 5d3 high ISO / noise performance is about 1/3 of a stop better so ISO 1600 on a99 has the noise levels of ISO 2000 on the 5d3. However by around 6400 and difference is negligible.
A99 has nicer ISO 50 to 320 (dynamic range is much better, color rendition and saturation).
If you predominantly shoot from ISO 1250 to 3200, canon will give you a slight advantage in IQ.
I am an available light shooter, so I do hit some ISOs that in the range you specify, but I also paid about $1400 for my Canon 6D after selling the kit lens a year ago. Like I noted below, I really wanted the Sigma 35 Art and it wasn’t yet out for the A99. But the price of the A99 certainly played into my thinking. I also didn’t buy the 5DIII or D800.
Isn’t the A7 using the A99 sensor, so you could’ve compared those two?
The mirrorless VG900 has the same sensor as the A99.
And the rx1.
True, but it’s a fixed lens camera and there is no Zeiss/Sony 35mm F2.0 lens with the same specs.
Neither the VG900 nor the RX1 use on sensor PDAF, which can also affect noise differences.
Do you own a Sony camera?
Canon doesn’t always have better ISO performance – you’re about 4 years behind the times. Try to keep up.
They actually do lol
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99___915_836_831
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___916_917_836
One example or even a few doesn’t qualify for “always”.
Oh God, the idiocy around here is absolutely astounding sometimes.
With PDAF on the sensor why bother with a mirror at all? If the hype about the AF of the A6000 turns out to be somewhat true, than the need for a mirror is gone. (Ok, at least when you’re fine with the EVF.)
The problem is focussing A-mount lenses – I assume none of them were designed for on-sensor PDAF or Hybrid AF. Whether Sony can solve this, I don’t know.
AFAIK, the current Sony OSPDAF designs still rely on CDAF too and none of the A mount glass works well with CDAF (slow, stuttery) for not being designed to work with CDAF (which usually requires other motors, gearing and communication chips between bodies and lenses).
On-sensor PDAF and reflex PDAF are completely different beasts. As far as I know, the A6000’s hybrid AF still only applies to E-mount lenses and is not compatible with A-mount lenses – for that, you still need the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4 adapter with its SLT module.
The primary limitations are that the calibration data for dedicated PDAF is completely different for OSPDAF, and there’s the question of whether or not OSPDAF can accommodate screw-driven, SSM and SAM focusing motors efficiently.
The best effort so far has been in the A99’s AF-D mode, which bakes calibration data into the camera firmware (Albeit only for first-party lenses). Even then, there are limitations – the OSPDAF sensors cannot be used to acquire a subject; they are only used for tracking and confirmation.
I think the A79/A77 Mk II will be the camera to look out for in terms of what the future holds.
The biggest issue with SLT, IMHO, is the limitation on light that reaches the PDAF sensors. On SLT bodies, the PDAF module only sees 33% of light coming in from the lens. On traditional SLR designs with semi-slivered mirrors, you get up to 60-70%. A hybrid approach like AF-D or, if they can manage it, a fully mirrorless option are the best ways forward for Sony, short of reverting back to classic SLR.
Hopefully Canon doesn’t have this attitude: It’s usually the beginning of the end.
are you a fucking retard? You’re probably the most unimaginative troll there is.
Same 18mp sensors since 4 yrs, canon pl growup and innovate, and whaeva an asshole of a troll
yeah i think shooting at a lower iso to match brightness with the mirror in place would be better test..
The mirrorless file looks cleaner- yes it does. But, it also looks a bit underexposed. Maybe it’s just me. If you look in the top right the dark corner is more pronounced in the mirror picture. Anyway, I couldn’t make a conclusion either way with that pic.
Don’t know man, just don’t know about a-mount cameras anymore. I stick with it because it gives me access to lenses like the legendary 135mm 1.8 that I’ll be buried with. It also gives me access to the old screw drive cheap as dirt minolta lenses. Problem is, those older lenses are loosing their luster as faster and smaller lenses from mirrorless are coming out. But I still like the unique qualities of minolta and zeiss- don’t need to explain that one.
Next two alpha cameras makes the difference no doubt. If I likey I stick in alpha camp. If not, sadly to say- I think I might have to go canon for full frame stuff. I’m getting tired of the uncertainty.
the mirror picture is underexposed to show the difference in exposure form having and not having the mirror i think… but right there with you. the next FF A-mount camera will be the deciding factor if i stay with A-mount or if i jump ship…
What’s with all this uncertainty in the A99? I think it’s a fine camera. Doubtful any of you (or me) could produce a better photo with the ‘obviously superiour Canikons’.
The only complaint I have are the AF points being a bit too much in center, but it’s no big deal to me.
You are spot on the A99 is a wonderfully featured camera and though a Nikon FF shooter { along with my A7R} .I must admit to being interested in the A99 as though the downsides of EVF’s are well documented [ and repeated ad infinitum lol} I for one appreciate the multiple advantages they have especially as a keen video shooter.
The appeal of FF video shooting was tempting , but on the downside the poor high ISO for a FF camera and less than stellar C-AF and tracking in a not inexpensive camera put me off. I know that the impact of SLT is often exaggerated . However between it and whatever Sony does with its image pipe.The impact on the high ISO was unfortunately both real and significant enough to discourage those of us not in the Sony fold. Especially when it was priced here in the UK at £2500 at launch.
its not that I’m uncertain of the ability of the A99. its that Sony has not made the life of Amount very clear and im ready to upgrade from my 2 A900s and don’t want to upgrade into a system that may or may not have long term support. if Sony releases a mediocre new Amount lineup then I wont be able to justify the upgrade and will instead upgrade to another system.
That’s a fair point, i suppose. Though as a non-pro shooter, I feel that sony offers me all the optics I could possibly want so all I really want are updates to a few oldies-but-goodies released from way back in A900 launch times.
I think that currently sony is pouring a lot of money into FE R&D as the mount is, any way you look at it, lacking glass toys whereas with the introduction of the ZA 50 for A mount, the system is quite competent (only really lacking a number of medium tier optics).
I doubt A is going anywhere anytime soon, but it indeed would be nice if sony built buyer confidence by releasing some f4 zooms or something along those lines.
I’d shoot Canikon but Sony ergonomics are far superiour. Obviously a subjective statement.
I can guess that the A99 isn’t to everyone’s liking but its still a Sep 2012 launch so its more recent than say a D800 or 5d Mk 3 which are still very much around.
Yes it is getting a bit tiring….I’m hangin in there for a while longer to see what they do with the next A mount FF. IMO they might as well get rid of the slt in the A mount and just go mirrorless all the way, I really don’t care, I just want great 36mp files, 1/250 th flash synch and the possibility to shoot remotely from a tablet with all the important controls accessible from the remote, super clean iso up to 1600…vid or not, a sep cam for that would be just fine for me. Also thinking of picking up a Canon to run parallel with my Sony.
Looking at Canon stuff at the moment is like looking at an old person you have known for many years, you somehow know you will be attending their funeral sometime soon!
Totally agreed!!!!!
You might be surprised if you look at their cheapest FF DSLR the Canon 6D.Though at low ISO it lacks in DR compared to Sony FF sensors { A99/D610 etc } from 800 up it has better DR with better SNR than either the A99 or D610
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99___915_836_831
So if high ISO is more important to you than low the Canon does very well
The mirrorless looks over exposed to me. It is obvious that the software in the A99 expects the mirror to be in place, and it does not know how to compensate for no mirror in the camera.
It doesn’t matter, as TTL metering is done on-sensor, so whether you have a mirror in place, or a 1.2 ND filter, it makes no difference.
The problem is that you are comparing mirror to mirrorless file, where both files are taken at the same exposure settings. What you’re supposed to be comparing is mirrormatch file to mirrorless.
Yet the core of the problem is not what you are looking at, its that original tester, should have used auto-exposure of mirrorless, to match the mirror version, or tuned it manually, which doesn’t look like he did.
It does not matter. The mirrorless shot will always be cleaner than the mirror shot at the same setting. That was the point I wanted to make. If you shoot in ideal conditions with the mirror camera, the mirrorless version in ideal conditions will look even better.
You do not think Sony has done all these tests before you, and has adapted the anti-aliasing filter accordingly?
You does all but never shooting in “ideal condition” that’s the point (everybody can check that on dPr). So why pretending that now. No offense but it’s been a longtime you play with controversy about your pseudo technical posts in dPr forums. Mostly just to point attention to you, but about technical interest, nothing imho.
Another MichelJ nonsense post.
Who are you talking about?
Anyway, there is a non-sense of removing the wheels of a car, claiming it will make less noise? It’s all about what you does by removing the mirror: vaste of time!
Or another Moimoi nonsense answer?
Is this the Anti-barry?
Good grief you’re a doof. Haha….!
Somebody sure seems threatened by Sony’s tech strides as it steps over the corpse of Canon’s innovation.
Always? Lets see how stupid you look in a few months.
Canon 5D is a solid camera, but then again so is the Canon AE-1.
You’re too silly to understand. Whatever… 😉
Go play in traffic.
I’m just kidding guys! I love Sony cameras. I’m a Sony fanboi, not a Canon nut. Canon cameras are ancient and tech dinosaurs.
LOL. I see what you did there 🙂
Currently ospdaf does not work with all but a few special sony lenses.
In two seperate confersations with sony I was first told sony will continue to produce slt as long as necessarry to support older sony and minolta lenses.
In a more recent higher level conversation I was told future sony high speed focusing will work on most lenses including 3rd party lenses.
This leads me to believe that when mirrorless gets good enough and compatable enough slt will then be discontinued.
I am sure future cameras will all be mirroress but not sure how soon.
There is no question for Sony to withdraw the A-mount since it’s the core of them customers base, they had said that many times.
When I first purchased my a77 I found that panoramas would produce final files lower in resolution than stitching in photoshop.
I spoke to a low level sony rep yesterday and was told that all cameras currently being sold by Sony and all newer ones produce full high resolution panoramas.
Since none of the sony cameras I currently own produce full resolution panaramas I ask if anyone out there has any experince with this issue.
This is particullarly important to me because I now spend a lot of time stitching in photoshop to compensate for the lack of this ability in my cameras.
You’re not alone, and yes it is annoying.
They’re much lower resolution than stitching in Photoshop.
Apparently I was missinformed..I just spoke to another tech rep and apperently no sony canera…or any other camera either….will take a full res poo anorama…the only current way to do that is by stitching on the computer
Hi, What you have to do is finding good prime lenses, because the A77-sensor is the most demanding APS-C to date (with the D7100). Take a look on the SAL 35mm f 1.8.
My car’s windows are rated at 70% transparency, just like the translucent mirror.
Do I have any problems driving when it’s dark outside? Absolutely not.
Would you like to take all youre photos through the window? All the time!
Here is my rationale. I chose the same aperture and exposure time for both mirror and mirrorless camera so that the photon count entering the camera was kept constant The ISO setting was also kept identical so that the sensor performs the same signal amplications. Please see below:
For the mirror camera: Io = Is + Ir + Il
For the mirrorless camera: Io = Is’ + Il’
Io = input photon count before reaching the mirror
Is = photon count hitting the sensor (with mirror)
Is’ = photon count hitting the sensor (mirrorless)
Ir = photon count reflected by the translucent mirror
Il = photon count not hitting the sensor (loss) ~ Il’ (should be roughly the same for both mirror and mirrorless camera).
Io must be identical for both mirror and mirrorless cameras as I kept the same parameters (aperture, shutter speed).
So basically, Is’ = Is + Ir => Ir = Is’ – Is = number of stop loss due to the translucent mirror.
My finding is that the loss of light is ca. 1/2, and maybe slightly more. Significant enough IMHO.
Cheers,
Max
Here is my rationale: it’s me or I’m the only one to feel that everything has been carefully calculated by Sony R&D already, and there are no grounds for removing the translucent mirror, since it’s risky and it brings dust into the darkroom more (it means a lot of time to remove it thereafter, so what’s the benefit).
Please Maxime Siegler (woman known as a name of “Moimoi” on dPr), stop all this technical mumbo jumbo that you strictly never knew. And please revise everything you never understood.
Sony has already removed the SLT design > see A7/A7R. Mirrorless is the future whether you like it or not.
It takes no time at all to remove the mirror, about 20s.
As for the dust, your reasoning is erroneous as the A7/A7R and NEX cameras are all mirrorless.
Physics dictates that the translucent mirror takes away ca. 1/2 stop of light that does not hit the sensor. To counterbalance this loss, you will need a longer exposure time (assuming the ISO setting is identical for mirror and mirrorless cameras).
If you think it is a waste of time, then don’t post, but I believe I already explained this to you on another forum.
— Moimoi wrote: “Sony has already removed the SLT design > see A7/A7R. Mirrorless is the future whether you like it or not.”
Here the first missing point since A7 is 26MP and A7r is 36MP.
Does the A7 have the same AA filter than the A99? You really don’t know. And that proves to everybody that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
— Moimoi wrote: “It takes no time at all to remove the mirror, about 20s”.
What is your goal since the manufacturer has no plans to remove it? Again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
— Moimoi wrote: “As for the dust, your reasoning is erroneous as the A7/A7R and NEX cameras are all mirrorless”.
Do you still think that real mirrorless have no dust entering inside the darkroom? What is your point here, a total nonsense. If I have the chance to have a translucent as a physical dust barriere, it’s not for lock up it, I wouldn’t never ever remove the mirror, period!
— Moimoi wrote: “Physics dictates (…), (….)*,
Please Moimoi, after enormities you wrote, are you physicist?
— Moimoi wrote: the translucent mirror takes away ca. 1/2 stop of light that does not hit the sensor. To counterbalance this loss, you will need a longer exposure time (assuming the ISO setting is identical for mirror and mirrorless cameras).
No offense, but your answer are like you don’t have experience in photography (as well as physics).
As many tried to explain to you, this problem is mostly inexistant and imperceptible in practice and as you know certainly, its less than half a stop, probably near than a third. If you have bad lit, you probably you probably do not want to take photos since nothing is beautifull, all is flat, dull, unsharp and so on… But when you have enough ambiant light to get nice shots 1/3 dosen’t count, same thing when you add light to the subject from your own choice (I will stop here for the practice because we have many things to explain, and explaining sometimes it’s a never end story for some…)
— Moimoi wrote: “If you think it is a waste of time, then don’t post”,
Other readers should appreciate that you want to monopolize the expression of truth…. 😉
— Moimoi wrote: ” but I believe I already explained this to you on another forum”.
Except only talking about yourself (“I”, “me”, “myself” etc) It’s me or you probably never explained anything to someone here (since it seems, and according to the above, it’s too much for you and you don’t understand what you’re talking about, imho), ? And you don’t know me, btw.
Ooops my typo: A7 is “24MP”…
“vaste of time”, you writing style betrayed you…
To “Moimoi” aka “Maxime Siegler”…:
It’s nice to know that you prefer making personnal attacks, than finding relevant arguments (as SCSI does). Btw, it’s a fact that not everybody in the world speak a perfect english, but at the same time, show how much you are elitist, if not xenophobic. What an irony by someone who comes from Cap Verde, where the average income in your country is as low as about US$300.- per month. And what a courage to use a ‘guest name’ for it.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53300657
Don’t bother MichelJ, your consistent writing style and English spelling mistakes are so obvious.