Here are more A99 rumors from a “Chinese” source. It’s not one of my top trusted sources but that source has been right in the past too. Some of the info you read have been already posted on SAR last week. This is the original “Chinese oracle” text:
1. The A99 has special look on the front side, and the back side looks like the [shoplink 8461]A77[/shoplink].
2. The A99 has an improved and huge Translucent Mirror.
3. Auto Focus Module built-in af point everywhere, you will **NOT** see 102 points, cuz many points are hidden
4. there is no built-in flash
5. All a77’s shortcomings have improved, such as response time and focus precision, high-ISO noise reduction which can be improved via firmware
6. there are pair of slots, not CF nor XQD
7. a99’s new grip will like the [shoplink 13240 ebay]pentax’s grip (here on eBay)[/shoplink]. It uses the electronic connector, i think that is for the water prove and you can put 3 battery in it, for a longer video recording time.
One more info: The new firmware of [shoplink 8461]a77[/shoplink] will release out after A99 announcement , will be out this year, is expected in October.
via Sonysdf.com.
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
123 Responses
Not sure if I understood what the new firmware for A77 is about. I hope it will be released for A65 as well…In addition – what can the A99 grip do besides longer battery life? XLR inputs???
I have often thought that the best way to cater for both stills and video DSLR users would be to simply make the camera’s data bus available to the grip.
That way, stills photographers dont have to pay for video-only hardware features, and video users get all the extended outputs and dedicated hardware they need. The old 8 and 16 bit home computers did something similar with their ‘expansion bus’ feature (which was generally just an electrically protected version of the system data bus).
As the A77 has in built lens corrections, it is likely that the new firmware will add support for the 18-135 and 55-300the lenses. I hope we get more but I am not holding my breath
I hope this time they really fix the Flash OverExposure issue with the a77 firmware …
+999999999999999
surprised nobody complaints about this issue
They are maybe too busy comparing noisy pictures from different camera …
i’ve tried reducing flash compenstion to -2 BUT I STILL GET OVER EXPOSED PICTURES WTF
What ISO is the camera set too? At high ISO levels or too close a distance the image will be over-exposed. The camera can not lower the flash power low enough. This is normal behavior. Some people do have intermittent strange behavior which is not related to this normal over-exposure but I do not think the exact cause has been determined. This over-exposure sometimes happens to me, if you are trying to take natural light images then decide to switch to flash, the ISO number just ends up too high. When you set the camera to use flash double check that the ISO number is not too high, usually below ISO 800 is OK.
see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=41614973
Please, Please, Please… I use a900 and a77 every weekend, using the same setting on both camera I NEVER HAVE THAT ERRATICALLY OVEROXPOSED IMAGES with the a900. Even when I used the a700.
We already know that, what can cause Overexposed images when too close or using too high ISO. I have been reporting the issue since December 2011. I have read everything about that issue, mostly from people who don’t even own an a77 or using an a77 as their day to day Job.
WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR WORKAROUNDS, WE NEED THE ISSUE TO BE FIXED.
STOP PLAYING THE OSTRICH …
That is half the problem… Sony flashes only go down to 1/32 power where as most professional flashes go down to 1/256 power for when you need just a flick of light (85% of the time). As for overexposure.. your shooting TTL. thats your problem. If you shoot a bride out in the evening will it overexpose? How about a groom with a sheet backdrop? TTl can only aim to get the entire frame middle grey unless your using spot metering. Are you using spot metering and metering off a persons face with slight expsoure compensation? If not… Thats half the problem. The other half is that sonys flashes, though well designed have aweful firmware.. Cryptic menus and cannot go to low enough power.
Here is how I shoot. ALWAYS manual on the flash. And to gradiate how much flash is hitting your subject, that is to micro calibrate I move the flashe head all over. Getting over exposure by a bit? Change my angle, feather it back, block part of it with my hand. Whatever. The LCD screens are good enough now a days that you can chimp them perfectly for exposure, especially with blinkies.
That is one of my two complaints about a77
1) you can only turn on blinkies in the histogram view of the shot. This leaves the picture a little thumbnail that you cant actually review. Blinkies should be an on or off setting for all picture review. Hell let me use that little question mark button to just turn em on or off THAT WOULD BE EPIC.
2) allow the camera to auto switch to jpeg for those special features that are jpeg only like auto HDR. Instead of this tedious aweful having to dig into menu, swtich to jpeg, dig into menu, switch back to raw. Most people who are buying a camera of this calibre are shooting raw.. Jpegs are useless.
I agree with you about using the flash in Manual. My a77 flash mode is always in manual mode, but it really slows my ability to get quick and candid shots at a wedding. That’s why I always carry a 2nd camera where I can rely on.
Agree +100 about point 1 and point 2.
Also let’s add that WE WANT AN OPTION TO DISABLE THE VIDEO RECORD BUTTON, OR THE CAMERA CAN RECORD ONLY IF I HOLD THE “RECORD BUTTON” THEN PRESS THE “SHUTTER BUTTON”.
Nope. I used ADI flash. Didn’t work. I had no issues with my previous a300. It’s really very frustrating and most of my pictures either comes out under exposed over.
Get a Metz 50 or 58 Mk II and your a77 flash problems will magically disappear. I dumped my 5 month old Sony 58 flash after losing many shots on my a77 due to totally messed up flash shots, especially bounce pictures.
“I have often thought that the best way to cater for both stills and video DSLR users would be to simply make the camera’s data bus available to the grip.”
I like that. Could also be good for compact cameras such as NEX where it’s a problem just to find space for professional grade connectors.
Video support in live-view supporting cameras is mostly just software functionality and does *not* raise the price of the camera at all. In fact producing two line of the same camera, one with video functionality removed and one with it would cost a lot more money.
The only exception for the above is SONY’s reliance on SLT for video AF focusing on the DSLR style cameras.
Don’t forget that P&S cameras many years ago first came out with video recording. That functionality did not raise the prices of P&S in any way.
I think his point was that certain hardware features could be included in a “video-grip”, and just make sure all future cameras have a full databus connection to whatever grip they choose to buy (if they need one). Examples of hardware features could be xlr-inputs, SDI video out, timecode sync interface, and perhaps even buttons that make sense for video (audio levels etc)
Photonut’s point remains the same: there would be no savings, and this arrangement might actually cost more.
Dulaney, not talking about software, but hardware. I absolutely agree that whatever can be done in software is the same, regardless. Adding various other hardware connectors WILL cost additional if done on the same body, and may not be very desirable for all those that don’t need them.
So to summarize – same firmware. Firmware would detect if videogrip is connected (if needed),and utilize additional connectors/buttons. Everything else is the same.
Video grip – can be purchased at an additional cost for those that need these features. Everyone else can avoid, and “save” money.
deleted
Are you seeing the issue with the built-in flash or an attached flash? Which lens? What is the setting you are using? I have a Minolta 3600 HS flash and I don’t really see any issues with it other than when I have it angled too aggressively upward, the bounce isn’t bright enough. So I change the angle and it is fine. What flash setting are you using? I am curious and worried now that I am doing it all wrong,
There is no information about video features? Will it has OLPF? What about HDMI output? Video autofocus?(I think it will have best autofocus with 102AF points) RAW video? Built in intervalometer? questions questions questions…
Hi!
Does anybody know something about the lens options for A99? I don’t know too much about sony mounts. Will it be a mount? Because this will be a FF camera, what lenses can be used with it?
Thanks!
Sony A-mount lenses – you can also remount Zeiss ZF.2 and some other lenses using stuff from Leitax. In general converted lenses need to be chipped to be stabilized.
Zeiss lenses? Good, but maybe too expensive. What about sony lenses all a-mount lenses would be good for this cam?
Sony has a license arrangement for a number of Sony Zeiss models (which interestingly are the only auto-focus Zeiss lenses in the world).
I own the 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 and it is superbly sharp (though the build quality is on the cheaper side… but I knew that before buying it). Apparently the 24-70mm f2.8 and 85mm f1.4 Sony Zeiss are also fantastic in terms of sharpness and contrast (and both have excellent build quality… though neither is weather sealed).
Additionally, you can use all Minolta AF lenses with the Sony Alpha as well. I use the 50mm f1.4 and it’s one of my fave lenses.
I’ve dropped the 85mm f/1.4 twice, once denting the hood, and it still shoots like magic. Not sure how they could improve it build-wise.
Actually SONY ZA lenses are not the only autofocus Zeiss lenses in the world. Zeiss itself also released the Contax N series of cameras and lenses that had autofocus as well. The Contax N digital was the first full frame digital SLR. It was quickly discontinued due to poor sales and performance of the Phillips supplied sensor.
Ziess Contax N autofocus lenses can be converted to work on Canon DSLRs with preservation of autofocus and wide-open metering.
The N Digital did not perform badly by the standards of its day, despite what the internet might tell you. There are plenty of photos on Flickr and the like taken with it.
It failed because Kyocera wasn’t making money off their camera division and decided to cut it loose, rather than invest the resources required to make it successful in the face of an increasingly Canon and Nikon dominated market.
@csaba.
All a-mount lenses currently work with all Sony Alpha cameras (and certainly including the A99). APS-C lenses work on full frame (albeit via an in-camera crop) and all FF lenses work with APS-C (they will x1.5 on the focal length of course). All A-mount cameras also have a built in lens moter, so there are no issues with some lenses only being manual focus on beginner cameras. Thats one of the big selling points for beginners to the range: all a-mount lenses work the same on all a-mount cameras.
Other advantage of a-mount is that all lenses are stabilized(because its actually in all a-mount cameras via a sensor shift).
Thanks!
Nitpick. But while all Sony/Minolta A-mount lenses (with AF chip) can be stabilized, the stabilization only works during image exposure and even on SLT models, the view finder image is never stabilized. This is a big problem when shooting with long lenses where the large magnification factor makes a shaky viewfinder very problematic for putting the AF point on target and composing the final image. Also in-body stabilization works best for shorter focal lenses and is beaten significantly by a stop or two by in-lens (optical) stabilization when using long telephotos.
SONY should accept that a mix of both in-body and in-lens stabilization is a good thing as it gives choice to its customers. Lenses such as fast primes, wide angles and short primes can be effectively stabilized by the in-body stabilization and customers can still choose long telephoto lenses and zooms with in-lens stabilization if they wish and turn off in-body stabilization.
Photonut- don’t know what to say but you might be holding your camera wrong. Sure, its harder to hold telephoto steady than a wide, but if you are honestly having trouble locking AF due to camera shake (oh how did they do it before IS?) then you might want to adjust your camera holding posture. If you are using such a heavy lens that posture isn’t enough, then you should probably invest in a monopod and/or gym membership.
I have used the IBIS to capture perfectly sharp images with my 135 ZA at 1.8, at 1/3 of a second. That is much quicker than the quoted 3-stop gain, much due to my ability to hold a camera still. . . just saying. This is one of the main advantages of the sony system, and a stupid one to give up just for someone who needs a stable view.
Csaba, there is a growing series of Sony Zeiss lenses with AF (16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 24 f2, 85 f1.4, 135 f1.8) and more coming, the next apparently being either an f1.2 or an f1.4 50. Sony also has several series of FF lenses, including a G series. The G series, very nearly the equal of the Zeiss lenses in quality, include: 35 f1.4, 3oo f2.8 (in the process of being discontinued & replaced), 500 f4, 70-200 f2.8 (soon to be updated), 70-300 f4.5-5.6, 70-400 f4.5-5.6 (a highly acclaimed lens). Other FF Alpha lenses include: 50 f2.8 macro, 100 f2.8 macro, 16 f2.8, 20 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 85 f2.8 SAM, 50 f1.4, 24-105 f3.5-4.5, 28-75 f2.8 an excellent moderately priced lens), and 75-300 f.5-5.6. In addition, there are two very special lenses, the 135 f2.8 STF, with the creamiest bokeh of all, and the 500 f8 reflex, which has been discontinued but is probably still available new in some places.
There are also numerous third-party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and others, and millions of Minolta legacy lenses.
Thanks.
best site for A-mount lens info:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp
Reading all the praises of in lens antishake normally makes me smile.
Why ?
Because i have seen so many Canon shooters not using their IS…..why ? They tells that they find their IS-photos not as sharp as non-IS photos. Funny….seems related to too slow function meaning they press the button before the lens have done its work.
If this is the correct text, I must say, it is a bit worrying in this part: “high-ISO noise reduction which can be improved via firmware”
‘cant be improved’ which means that it will not be very competitive, at time of release, against other professional cameras? (D800, 5D3)
One thing to remember is that Bionz is a generation or so behind Expeed and Digic, but firmware alone is not necessarily an ISO patching solution (where in other digi cam history has ISO been improved by firmware? maybe jpegs but not RAW)
who said bionz is a generation behind digic? Are those canikon Bionz equivalent can do 12fps with 24mp?
They can. The reason why you don’t see SLR’s doing more than 4-6fps normally and only the high end ones (which also happen to use the same Expeed and Digic processors) is mechanical features of their mirror and shutter curtain speeds, not processor power. Nikon D4 uses the same Expeed as D800 (as 5D2 used the same Digic as 1D MK4) but their FPS had nothing to do with their processors.
Bionz is a generation or so behind in ISO and image processing algorithm (ISO performance, sharpness, dynamic range, colour accuracy – all of these are affected by the imaging processor)
Speed is something else, don’t twist my words.
So, noise cancellation (and in Nkons case, detail cancellation) is the masurement that determines DSP generation?
If could of course have been implementation date of: MFNR, DRO, HDR, In-camera pano, Bitrate in Video, or focuspeaking, but what do you know , it was noise cancellation!! Good to know.
/E
Not so sure about that, t4i jpegs are comparable to the A57 in almost all those areas. In fact, they are worse in some.
I a not arguing jpegs, just raw files.
Imaging resource has a great jpeg comparison section, worth a look for anyone shooting jpeg mostly.
You said the Bionz processor is one generation behind. All the parameters you mentioned are affected by the Bionz processor in jpegs, not so much RAW. And in RAW, the colour separation of every current Sony sensor beats any Canon or Nikon sensor, DR beats all Canon sensors, pattern noise (including banding) an order of a magnitude lower, overall noise per unit area similar or better than Canon, etc.
I agree with that, but the high ISO delivery could be better in Bionz. This is where Bionz lacks the most. In DPReviews examples (RAW), what you see is what I get from my housemate’s 60D vs my 5n at ISO 800 and above. This, obviously, contradicts the assumption that the 5n will deliver slightly better high ISO performance according to DXO alone and shows that in RAW processing, Canon’s high ISO processing is better even on its previous generation Digic vs Sony’s current Bionz.
You’re looking at a non normalized comparison in terms of visual and physical exposures and interpretations from one RAW converter. That’s where DXOmark comes into play, since they keep everything as constant as possible, not fooled by indicated sensitives and different baseline (even Adobe says their “zero” settings are different from camera to camera) converter profiles either.
it is possible to improve high ISO performance through firmware and most likely has been done in the past in this manner on every camera. It just happened before the public got their hands on it.
I meant post-release. The “oracle’s” tone, as mentioned here, appears to speak of a finalised product because his wording is not only in the present tense, but also because he appears to have seen a ultimately close to final version of the camera. The ISO improvement sentence is the only one that speaks of the future, compared to the more ‘solid’ sounding specs at present (and September is too close in the future that present is almost applicable to then)
I still ask the same question, which camera has received an improvement in ISO performance on firmware alone, and in raw? (after release)
The A77 for jpegs (slightly less artifacting in general, less smearing in the red channel), the A700 for both.
Thank you. Thanks for the clarification.
the A700, with the firmware 4.0 (if im not mistaken) improved the high ISO noise in Raw
The A700 definitely. It was a completely different camera after v4.
Note: For those about to say ‘but raw is uncompressed so you can’t improve anything on that’, that is not true. As Robert Cicala pointed out, most (except Fuji’s own X trans RAW output) RAW files are 95% the same, with 5% tweaking by every manufacturer. If you doubt my words, compare the size of RAW files by your NEX 7/5n from different photographs and you will see that all of them are uniformly 24mb (+/- some kb) which means that Sony is already compressing some of the RAW data (and processing as well)
For those, like my, who have or had a 5D2, try the same and shoot different photos. See that the files are larger from photographs with more detail (often as well those with lower ISOs) so even though Canon also uses some compression for RAW as well (shoot a dark room and where ‘ultimate black’ is, that area will be compressed to save space) it is not as aggressive as Sony’s own RAW compression/processing.
All of the above does not mean that Sony’s RAW processing is crap…it isn’t, but I do wonder what if it was lesser. I am assuming now that they keep the 24mb threshold to assure at least 1.5seconds in the 10fps shooting mode in RAW (try it, the speed lowers after the first 12 frames) and keep the marketing department happy. I also assume it is also a way of reassuring battery life (less data to write in some cases)
In case I get bashed as a Sony-beater, I have the 7, 5n, zeiss 24, 50 oss, voigt 35, 15 and sigma 19 and they have replaced my Canon gear because I know they deliver. That being said, I wonder what happens if the RAW was less processed and the video would be less compressed.
Does any vendor use lossy compression of raw?
Almost all camera makers use lossy compression in one way/mode or the other. The Sony version is a “smart” one and visually pretty much equal to lossless. There’s been written quite a bit about this over the years.
The biggest alterations are at the highest ISO’s where RAW NR kicks in.
“One thing to remember is that Bionz is a generation or so behind Expeed and Digic”
Patrick, please elaborate on what you mean by that.
One of the most apparent discussions here not too long ago was whether the Nikon D3200 had the same sensor as NEX 7/a77. If one sustains that they are the same sensor, then why the photos by the Nikon and NEX 7 are different when it comes to high ISO and colour reproduction?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/20
Select the NEX 7 from one of the drop down menus and select any ISO you want, they are mildly different. The ISO 1600 and 3200 show that Nikon has a better processing engine (less noise) Make sure you see the dark areas and the shadow areas.
How would you explain this?:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/798%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/795%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/734%7C0/(brand3)/Sony
I see nothing there to suggest that Bionz is a limiting factor on the latest models when compared to the competition, especially Canon. Of course ISO is much better on the 5D, but that’s a full frame sensor. Compare an A57 to say a Nikon D7000, and I see nothing in terms of sensor performance, or lack of, that can’t be attributed to the translucent mirror.
To show your ignorance and how the truth is in the pudding, from DXO Mark:
“All sensor scores reflect only the RAW sensor performance of a camera body. All measurements are performed on the RAW image file BEFORE demosaicing or other processing prior to final image delivery. DxOMark does not address such other important criteria as image signal processing, mechanical robustness, ease of use, flexibility, optics quality, value for money, etc. While RAW sensor performance is critically important, it is not the only factor that should be taken into consideration when choosing a digital camera.”
It does not have in mind the imaging processor (which gives the final imaging result) so what you see is only the sensor output performance. Based on that, again, the older sensors are helped by their imaging processors to produce a better final result. Sony is the shit in sensor technology, but not imaging processor, yet.
One last comparison, to show that indeed imaging processors are very important and that Bionz is lagging slightly their more mature counterparts.
Again, go to the same page in dpreview above, this time try and see Canon 60D and Sony NEX 5n as well as 7 and the already selected Nikon D3200. Select the ISO of your liking.
Now see this:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/801|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/737|0/%28brand2%29/Sony/%28appareil3%29/663|0/%28brand3%29/Canon
The 60D has a minor disadvantage when it comes to ISO, according to DXO sensor rating, but the image quality of their RAW output vs the other cameras in DPReview’s example is good (better high ISO than NEX 7 and 5n) and it is an older sensor, with an older imaging processor.
This would be a better comparison:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/801%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/734%7C0/(brand2)/Sony
If you take the translucent mirror into consideration, that’s actually a pretty disappointing result for Nikon.
If you have to find something to blame for supposed Sony inferiority, it certainly isn’t Bionz.
**Edit** If I look at dpreview and compare a D3200 to an NEX-7, thereby removing the mirror from the equation, I see the NEX-7 as a camera that offers better detail and sharpness at both low and high ISO – this is with both JPEG and RAW.
This was my main point. DXO doesnt include Bionz/Expeed/Digic in their measurements. Therefore, with a better sensor (say the 5n vs 60D according to DXO) the 60D in the samples at DPReview in RAW images seems to have a slightly cleaner high ISO.
Again, see a comparison of D3200, NEX 7, NEx 5n and 60D at ISO 800, 1600 and 3200 and the Nikon and Canon have a slightly better rendering. The lower ISOs are the sensors at their best (as Spoon points out that RAW processing by the body kicks in at the higher ISOs) so there, Sony can win easily. No contest. My argument, above, was started by the comment of ‘improved ISO with firmware’ and I was contesting that firmware alone cannot do much for its RAW processing output.
Spoon corrected my comment by mentioning the a700 updates which improved RAW and JPEG results (therefore showing that an old processor can have improved calculations later in its life)
What my argument still contests, however, is that Expeed and Digic still have a better calculation methodology (if we can put it that way) compared to Bionz as they keep their older sensors performing competitively against the newer and better Sony sensors (held back by the Bionz processing engine) notably at high ISOs.
Patrick, just compare the D3200 and NEX-7 on dpreview. Try both RAW and JPEG and low and high ISO. They are identically sized sensors, so you don’t have to worry about downsampling etc.
You can keep claiming Bionz is inferior, but that is a comparison of the latest APS-C cameras from Sony and Nikon, and I see nothing to back up your claims.
I also compared the A580 to the D7000, which use the same sensor. The diffences are negligable, and that’s when viewed at 100%.
The longest argument here, it looks like. It took almost all my coffee to read it.
I had a look. I would say that D3200 is better at 1600 and 3200 than 7. The image looks ‘cleaner’ and the sharpness attributed to the NEX 7 is relative to the amount of luma noise allowed by the NEX 7 (where the Nikon prefers to have a smoother image albeit with apparent less detail)
This is subjective, at best, but I see both points.
I think the discussion Patrick has also relates to 5n and 60D, where the 60D is, again, subjectively better than 5n. I often look at the centre cross and then the hair part above it (in DPR, these are the focused parts) and yes, the blacks are better in Canon and the gray area is not as green as Sony 5n. They are really, really close to each other. I think the comparison is almost fair, because Sony has the newer camera against the older Canon camera (this should be the same as EOS M, I imagine) so I think I imagine what Patrick speaks about ‘a generation behind’. 5n is a year newer than 60D right? but they are both so close to each other I would have wanted to see 5n to be ‘clearly better’ than 60D. It is also true, DXO also says that 5n should be 1/3 stop better than 60D, but in the photographs it isn’t.
The comparison of NEX 7 against D3200 is more fair and shows that Sony and Nikon are close to each other in the final image. This can be taken with another perspective. One of a Nikon lowest bodies can compete with one of Sony flagship cameras. This is something to think about.
“One of a Nikon lowest bodies can compete with one of Sony flagship cameras. This is something to think about.”
That’s not really that remarkable. Canon’s own 600D competes with the 7D. The Nikon D400 will probably get the same sensor as the D3200. If it was simply down to image quality alone, everyone would buy the cheapest camera with a particular sensor.
I sense too much fanboy aura in you, my son.
Actually, re reading the discussion above, you almost sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcHWeAzoXd4
That is a great show.
They compete, Hendrick, because they have the same sensor. It is a simple matter. And a part of the collaboration between Sony & Nikon. And, btw, there is a lot of the condescending boor in you, Hendrick.
@Hendrick
“One of a Nikon lowest bodies can compete with one of Sony flagship cameras. This is something to think about.”
Read it and weep:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml
“I shook up (actually pissed-off is more like it) a lot of people late last year when I compared the image quality possible from a $500 15 Megapixel Canon G10 with a $40,000 Phase One P45+ 39 Megapixel back on a Hasselblad H2. My little test showed that on a selection of 13X19″ prints a panel of industry pros couldn’t differentiate between the two more than roughly 50% of the time. What the hell was that about?”
Excellent read
Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of a lot of blowhards.
😉
I stand corrected.
Blowhard still BLOW.
LMFAO
I don’t understand the point you are both trying to make before this post. What is competing what? D3200 and NEX 7? or both of these vs 60D? of course they compete. No one said anything like they did not.
Reichmann’s article is another point completely. I never said anything that would compete with the logic of what he explains. What is the point of the quote? That all cameras can produce professional results? of course they can! who said they could not?!
This is the pinnacle of fanboys. An argument about the age and maturity of imaging processors becomes kidnaped by fanboys and turned into a quality and value issue and used a not related article to the argument to their defense. I think the last post is rather kidnaping the article because Reichman says he uses Sony and that a900 is a good deal compared to the competition. Twisting words for your own argument is something far right wing people do.
Blindness in their jealousy and protectiveness.
Hardly a shocker if you realize that an entry level t2i had identical image quality compared to the flagship APS-C camera (7D)aswell.
Back in the film days, most of us could use the same type of film too. That didn’t make our cameras, their market positions and respective prices anywhere near equal though.
That’s because Dpreview doesn’t equalize output size, physical and visual exposures and DXOmark does.
Besides that, DXO looks at RAW which has little to do with the Bionz processor.
Patrick, by the length and amount of your posts, it seems that you have a lot of time to waste.
Go back to work, try to do something useful.
I really hope that Sony is still working on the A77’s firmware. ’cause I recently updated my old Dynax 7D to the A77 and high ISO-noise reduction hasn’t improved over the last 8 years – although I was aware of that by reading a lot of tests.
What I need after 2 weeks of testing: Either RAW needs to integrate lens correction and DRO+, or the JPEG-engine needs to be set on a far less aggressive level and noise reduction needs to be optional disabled at all. The average JPG file size in my testings at 24 MP was ~4-5 MB, which is what I got on my 7D but with 6 MP. When I save a RAW as high quality JPEG it’s about ~12-15 MB large. The current quality of x-fine JPEG is unacceptable and with ISO >800 it’s unusable.
So I could use RAW instead but lens correction, DRO+ and HDR are nice features which I hardly want to miss. And I understand the point, that RAW is everything before editing. So I would use JPEG in a lot of cases but not with the existing quality settings. And Sony should have a bigger interest in selling larger SD-cards then having small sized JPEGs in a quality that doesn’t reflect the top-notch 24-MP-sensor.
But Nikon is doing the same! My girl friend’s D80 produces JPEGs that are in general half the size of my old 7D, although I had only half of the pixels. This sucks.
Welcome to the Sony a77
Everything you said has been said a hundred times before on this site.
.jpg’s = SUCK but RAW is good so use RAW and purchase Lightroom!
Noise could be better although some posters think it to be fine
It’s still a cool camera 😉
I do have Lightroom but no proper lens profiles. And if I only can use RAW, I can only use half the features I paid for. Reducing the JPEG compression should be a no-brainer for Sony and if it’s already discussed here a hundred times, Sony should hurry up to listen to their customers feedback.
Hopefully for a77 shooters (I shoot a850) Sony will release new firmware that improves the camera to the extent firmware can. But most improvements likely will require HW changes so maybe the a99 will make you happier. Camera’s now are both hardware and software and unlike a bug found in Windows or Photoshop where a patch can be issues often you just need to wait for the next camera.
I’m really found of the old saying “never buy version 1.0 of any product”.
The a77 like the a55 and the other SLT are version 1.0 of a new type of camera, a camera that has a great deal of promise. I see the a99 to be version 2.0 and after it’s out maybe we will need a version 2.1 before it’s really ready. ….
Me, I’m planning on the 2013 camera 😉
You are comparing the output from a 6mp sensor to a 24mp one.
to say nothing of a CCD sensor and a CMOS sensor
i shoot JPEGS regularly from ISO1600-3200 but I don’t find them unusable. maybe i am just not printing big enough to fit a bill board i guess.
Andrea,
is there any news about NEX-7 firmware? No big shortcomings but some polish of the UI would be great (I am dreaming of RX100 like UI)
Any info about the Video specs? 120 Fps in HD/FullHD in short bursts would be the reason for me to buy it…
Depends on how much they want to push the dedicated video camera line. The NEX video cameras offer the high speed full HD modes, may or not be possible in the A99, depends on how much processor and buffer it has. I think, and this could be a faulty memory, the NEX 700 does 9 seconds of video at 1080p240 written to buffer. The Alpha cameras can do 1080p60 with direct to card writing, or a 12 24MP still shots to the buffer. The still frame is about 13x the size of the HD frame so that would imply, with similar compression, 156 frames of video in the buffer or about 1 second of 1080p120. If video uses a lot more compression then the current processor and buffer might be able to handle a few seconds. To get to a useful amount of time at 1080p120 they would have to either bump the buffer size a lot or increase the card write speeds a lot.
thats excatly my problem 🙂
the fs 700 does 240fps and im really tempted by it.
i own a77 and nex 5n (for my hexacopter).
what i miss is super slow mo. so eif the a99 has it… that would be a huge step infront of canon and nikon. and im 100% shure that it is possible and they should do it!
i used to have a handycam from sony where i could record 4 secs @ 100fps. that was allready great….but the image quality sucked….
so please sony… DOIT!,,, be a step infront of everybody!
Is Sony going to sell a $2800 camera that can do as well or better than their $7000 video camera? Not likely. Of course the FS700 has 4K, XLR, 422 color etc. How much of the $7000 price is due to what feature I have no clue. I really expect the A99 camera to be limited to 1080p60 but 1080p120 would not be out of the question.
Would be nice to hear if Video-AF works in manual mode!!! And yes, please more Video specs…
+1
Concerning point n.5 I guess, if the source has any reliability, that he means that we can fine tune the amount of noise reduction via menu settings. I also guess it’s too early to be pessimistic about noise performances of this camera.
I think, since he’s comparing it to the A77, that he means that the iso performance of the A77 can be (and by implication will be) improved through firmware.
Physically, the grip seems to be able to hold only two batteries. Would that be correct to assume then that the third battery will remain in the camera? Is it possible to clarify how does it attach to the camera?
Yes, that is what SAR said. But nothing about how it would attach.
I know that everyone is just rumor and conjecture at this point, but I’m curious. Can anyone guess — based on Sony’s history — if the rumored price point for the A99 (at $2500 to $2699) will include a kick-ass lens like the 16-50mm? Or will a full-frame lens have to be separate? (Which would affect my buying decision.)
I don’t think the A900 ever came with a “kit” lens, certainly not in the UK. If the A99 does, it won’t be the 16-50mm, as that is APS-C only.
sony’s FF kit lens is the 28-75/2.8
No mention of the hotshoe?
4. there is no built-in flash <–the Taiwan original website also revealed: the hit shoe will still the same
E 16-50 gonna announced is not G, the G lens will shown next year, and more than 50mm at tel-
Those rumor are come from “Sony DSLR Family”.
Please to indicate the source, Thanks.
source “Sony DSLR Family”: http://www.sonysdf.com/alpha/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=71633
[2012/08/13]
1)27 Aug London Sony will announce a99 paired with 50ZA
2) Sided with 300mm G II (new version)
3) 50/1.4 SAM will be postponed，give way to 50ZA to get more sales.
4) 70-400GII will be postponed.
5) there will be a lots of new accessory
6) All NEX announcement will announce half month after this announcement.
[2012/08/12]
1) a99 exterior will be surprising, especially front, side and back are similar with a77
2) a99 translucent piece will be using new material. different comparing to a77. size is huge,fully occupied the place.
3)focus point are filled the whole screen, but the screen doesn’t shows 100 focus point, most of them are hidden.
4)flash hot shoe remain unchanged, there is no build in flash.
5)all weaknesses in a77 are improved, for example like response time,focusing accuracy, High iso performance etc, all are software based.
6)Dual Card, not CF, nor XQD
[2012/08/10]
1) there is no “G” for 16-50 E mount
2) E mount G will be announce next year, focal length will be more than 50mm
3)a99 will have new vertical grip like pentax，there will be nothing slot into camera battery compartment liek previous battery grip.and will accept 3 battery for better recording time in video recording.
4)50 ZA will be plannar, but improved version for better bokeh quality
I believe I have heard that there will be an announcement on the 28th, with maybe two more announcement dates to follow in 2012.
#1 – this is why I’d never really consider it. I don’t want to menu dive to toggle stabilisation, switch between cwa, matrix, spot, or accidentally press video. Suggestions that they’re putting a lock on the PASM says they’re listening and learning to ergonomics feedback, but doing a straight copy of the a77 back does not.
I don’t believe that even this questionable rumor says or suggests that the A99 back will be a “straight copy” of the A77.
i hope sony isnt dumb to avoid a built in flash in the a99
nothing dumb about it. Most high-end camera bodies have no built-in flash, and for every person saying “you need a built in flash!” there’s an equal amount that say “built in flash is for toy/consumer cameras, what self-respecting photog would use that horrid little strobe just to make pictures look like point and shoot???”
SONY, make a77 High ISO noise king…make us happy! 🙂
Interesting that there is a possible firmware upgrade to the A77!!! I wonder if they are going to use any lessons learnt from developing the A99?
Si
Si, Sony used lessons from the development of the A900 in v4 firmware for the A700. I expect more of the same.
There have been quite a few rumours lately about an a77 firmware update. Does anyone know if this will also include a65?
There is a 2nd part of the rumor about E-mount & A-mount classes
E16-50 F2.8 OSS
E35/1.8
E11-18 F3.5-4.5
A50/1.4 SAM
A50/1.2 ZA Planar SSM
A70-400 GII
no pancakes
I’d be happy if the E16-50 F2.8 OSS is true. I have the SAL1650F2.8 and it is a clear and sharp. The only drawback is the distortion and it’s a DT lens
a77 – tethered shooting pleaaaaaase! Don’t ‘forget’ it again…
I like the mention of an improved Transluscent Mirror. Where is the improvement? Is it with the transmission of light? Why huge? Is this just to cover the larger sensor size? I am a little confused about the improvement in noise by firmware. Does that mean it is capable of being improved via firmware? I am expecting great high iso performance and do not want to wait for such performance via firmware. However, I was always expecting an improvement in noise with higher iso’s in my 850 that never materialized. Maybe it never could but the 99 will somehow allow for it.
My guess is that, since they have increased and inproved the number of the Af sensors, there is a smaller requirement of light that have to reach the AF sensor to work reliably. Therefore they used a mirror that let more light pass through directed to the Imaging sensor and divert less light to the AF sensors.
Just a guess.
People keep saying a77 jpegs suck. I couldn’t say if they do because I don’t shoot jpegs. Why the F shoot jpeg. Learn to edit RAW photos and you will never go back. Jpeg to me is like shooting in auto mode. You computer has way more processing power than the camera. If you are looking for quality stop shooting jpegs!.
Yes an update! More likely this is true, yahoo! I use JPEG for everyday shooting but for specific subjects like landscapes or flowers I use RAW. RAW is always better for flexibility and correction. JPEG is quite good for me, and I don’t have time to edit every photos I shoot. It just depends on the person whether he/she likes it or not.
I shoot nothing but raw, Steve, but a lot of pro sports photographers & photojournalists shoot in jpeg, or at least raw plus jpeg, because they have no time for post-processing–they have to uplosd their pictures within seconds, or minutes at least.
Therefore it really is important to have the best jpeg engine possible, especially since it appears Sony will soon have a camera that is otherwise very attractive to pros in this segment of the market.
Nothing wrong with A77 JPGs. You claim the computer has more processing power, but it can’t do auto DRO like the camera can, not to mention quite a few of the other features.
I’d also like you to show me evidence of two images, with the one taken on “auto” to be inferior to the one taken on some other mode. That’s what you’re implying by saying it’s comparable to shooting jpgs.
Short of cranking the aperture wide open for an artsy look, I get plenty of performance on P and no loss of image quality.
What I’ve been nerdishly wondering about ever since the first A99 specs surfaced is the AF point layout. 102, with 40 ~user-selectable. How on earth do they arrange an *even* number of AF points? I think we all agree there has to be ONE central point, so to get a symmetrical layout of *any* shape (rectangular, diamond, staircase, whatever) there has to be an *odd* number of points in total (check it out if you don’t believe me).
The only way I can see this spec working out is if they are counting as 2 points a central point with a smaller precision point inside it, which would add the 1 more point needed to get an even number. On the other hand if it’s a 51-point layout with large/small zones at every point then that would double to 102. But that seems an awful lot like Sigma marketing the original 4.6MP Foveon sensor as having 14MP, which is not something I’d expect from Sony. Alternately, it may have dual high- and low-light points, which might make for a legitimate claim.
Any ideas?
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-07-23
The way I understand it -these AF points are a mix of PDAFs(AF module) and CDAFs(on-sensor). It is possible to overlap each other.
I’ve never understood this “it cannot be 100”
Try a 7 lines of AF sensors:
Line# #AF sensors
1 13
2 14
3 15
4 16
5 15
6 14
7 13
And add the sensors up 🙂
Or try 11 lines with 12 sensors in the middle line, that’ll give you 102, which I think have been mentioned.
No mystery here.
Your middle lines have an even number of sensors. That doesn’t jive with having a central focus point.
Alternatively, as noted, if each focal point has 2 sensors, then your total number / 2 should also be odd. 100 doesn’t fit this criterion either.
Still a mystery…
I think it make sense to offload video processing (codec/mini-XLR connectors/HD-SDI output etc) to the vertical grip, such that customers taking still pictures only don’t need to pay extra money for features that they never use.
Another version of vertical grip for strobist can be produced with functions like the phottix Odin (high speed sync, remote power control etc) together with 2.4G receivers with iISO hotshoe (+optical slave?) for backward compatibility. The new Sony flash should be on par with (if not better than) Canon’s EX-600 in terms of functions, power and control!
Sony please also develop advanced tethering functions like time-lapse/sound/motion triggers – IOshutter can do all these for most cameras in the market but NOT Sony!
I think a99′s new grip will like the Dynex grip mix with Canon WFT-E5 Wireless File Transmitter . You can put 3 battery in it and you can transfer of images to Pc/Etc and Linked to you phone for remote shutter triggering.
Any word on the A77 firmware?
Also interested in this given how accurate the source was on the a99.