I still have no reliable info about when exactly Sony will announce the A99 successor. All I got are info via anonymous sources. Take them with a grain of salt:
Source 1: “New pro A-mount camera is coming in 2015. This should be the A99 replacement.”
Source 2: “I went to the Sony presentation in Toronto, ON on the 26th and actually had a chance to speak to multiple persons who work at Sony Canada, specifically in the imaging division. They informed me that a full frame camera that almost mirror’s the A77II capabilities only using a full frame sensor will be filling the product line between the A77II, and the A99 replacement. I didn’t get much more out of them than that. ”
Source 3: “AF system has been redesigned and main priorities were AF + PDAF, raw file compression algorithm, S-Log implementation and data backend throughput rather than resolution.”
———
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
——–
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!
173 Responses
This is dangerous post if all the infos are not very reliable. Many people here crave A99 follow up . I really hope they get something well worth the wait at decent price.
“no reliable info about the A99 successor” -_-“
I’m sure there wasn’t “reliable’ info about the a99 eight months before 2012 photokina either…
Actually…
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-the-next-slt-camera-is-the-a55-successor/
(Accurately stating the A99 announcement as well, 8 months in advance of the announcement)
If you look through 2011-2012 SAR.. you find lots and lots of buzz about the A99. Some of it turned out to be true (whether by lucky guess or actual knowledge), and some of it turned out to be false (not 36mp.. no A950 dSLR model, no A97 option).
Point is.. there was constant ongoing chatter about the A99 being developed, with a general feeling that it was coming in mid-late 2012. Compared to now, where we have virtual silence, with the occasional whisper that they are at least working on something.
I’m still hopeful we will actually see an A99ii this year…. but I wouldn’t be shocked if it gets delayed even further.
Yes. Just like how we can say “some” of the current rumors about the a99ii can be true. Also, late 2011 – first half 2012 was before the “hype” of e-mount. And all they mostly had to talk about were a-mount. If Sony wasn’t planning to release a new FF a-mount camera then they would of created the updated 2.8 lenses (24-70, 16-35) as a native e-mount with a bigger body than their f/4 counterparts for the upcoming e-mount FF, most likely a7Rii.
The announcement of the two updated Zeiss 2.8 lenses is more than enough to hint us with a new a-mount FF…unless you’re one of those who expects way too much LOL can’t argue with that 😉
I don’t believe any of those sources….
If any of this is true at all, it sounds great to me! I’d love an A-mount camera with a new 24 MP sensor with both wider dynamic range and higher ISO sensitivity into the 100s, true 14-bit RAW for single shot mode, amazingly accurate and fast 4D AF with blistering continuous speed / burst rate (8-10 FPS / 12-16 FPS) to match, and a buffer that allows you to shoot continuous to the end of your memory card. Improved battery life is always a plus too. If Sony can deliver, I’ll gladly buy two of these.
Again this confirms the death of the APS-C Sony Amount system, only FF for the future Amount camera’s ?? it’s insane don’t you think, wild live shooters will have to move to other brands I suppose.
They should make the A99 mk II with E-Mount. And then develop a better LA-EA4. Maybe a 36 MP sensor. Best High iso available. And make the camera for stills only. Skip the video function. Two memory cards, RAW HDR in the camera, and the best battery life possible.
A-mount glass is simply too heavy and too large on E-mount bodies, and feels totally unbalanced. If Sony made an E-mount body the size of an A-mount body, then it would be even larger than a native A-mount body when you add in the adapter.
So this makes zero sense. As a full-time sports / commercial photographer, I have no time to fiddle with adapters, and I think a lot of other pros feel the same way.
Quick question… what do you shoot with for sports? I am shooting a lot of basketball and I’m wondering if I should switch to E Mount from A mount. Thanks.
NO WAY! Stay with A-mount all the way! Just about every E-mount lens is slower than the A-mount equivalent and the AF tracking still doesn’t come close, continuous burst rate is slower, less battery life, etc.
I use A99, A77II and A900 with the following glass:
Sony 300mm F2.8 G SSM II
Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM II
Zeiss 135mm F1.8 ZA
Zeiss 85mm F1.4 ZA
Zeiss 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM
Zeiss 24mm F2 ZA SSM
Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM
Zeiss 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM
Sony 100mm F2.8 Macro
Sony 20mm F2.8
Sony 16mm F2.8 Fisheye
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art
I just pre-ordered the new Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II and am looking forward to upgrading to Sony’s new pro A-mount camera this fall.
I shoot a mixture of sports & advertising. I used to shoot music. Sounds like our line of work is very similar.
WOW! You have a great collection of lenses! haha thats pretty crazy.
I have 2 x A99, 2 x A900 and a mix of lenses from Zeiss and Minolta G glass. Im covered on all focal lengths until 200mm… I want the 500mm! lol
Ive heard the 135mm Zeiss is one of the best lenses ever made! I also want to get the new 24-70 and 16-35mm lenses too. Yes it does sound like we work in similar fields! Im based in London though. haha
Yes, the Zeiss 135/1.8 is insanely sharp. Amazing, epic lens, and I don’t use it near enough!
My favorite lens it the system is probably the 300/2.8 G SSM II followed by the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 and Zeiss 85/1.4. The 70-200/2.8 G SSM II is pretty great too!
Sure the 300 F2.8 is a nice lens 🙂
But I hope the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sport will be be available in A-mount.
Good luck tracking with an E-Mount camera. DSLR tracking capability is the strongest in it’s Center AF Point. As of today, so far, mirrorless tracking AF performs on par with or worse than DSLR AF points that are offset far to the side.
The choice is simple. If you are shooting sports or wildlife, DSLR will give you a better AF keeper rate. I’d even go as far as to tell you to switch to Canon 7DII or Nikon D7200, as per dpreview of A77II(debatable, I know)
If you were to shoot portraits or landscape, then precision of Mirrorless AF is much better in a DSLR due to AF being on sensor rather than a separate module, that has to be calibrated.
Stan, that Dpreview review is pretty useless — he had all the AF modes set completely wrong with what he was shooting. When used correctly, A77II delivers an 80-90% hit rate.
Not denying it, that’s why I said ‘debatable’. Nikon/Canon are not an option for me, as I love EVF and occasional proper AF tracking in video whenever needed. The point I was trying to make is that mirrorless is not as good for sports as a DSLR.
Mount a sturdy adapter on the body and be done with it..no issue there. A stronger E-mount would have to be part of the design. I would think that body/grip design could take care of the ergonomic issues. I doubt that this would be a modified A7 series body.
After Sony manager was saying A-mount R&D cost barely break-even, I cannot believe A-mount is still alive and there is still another A-mount full frame coming up. I say this even I am an A99 owner and absolutely love shooting it. The GPS is a great feature as well
I want to kiss Source 3.
Yep. Source 3 also sounds more credible than others. I hope he is right 🙂
Whatever comes out, I’ll probably be picking it up. I just hope it’s not as shock-prone as the current A7r. And, if the sensor could shift for better resolution, sign me up.
Agree, any A-mount FF with better ISO & AF than A99,
I will get one immediately.
what was wrong with the ISO and AF on the A99 that stopped you doing photography? just curious.
I’m sure photography was possible, but the ISO and AF especially were not exactly class leading.
No offence, sure A99 was a nice camera.
But IMHO, the DXO High ISO score of 1555 is a little bit too low for a full frame camera at current standard.
The recent APSC camera D5500 have the same SNR as A99.
http://cutieplus.jp/bbs/data/attachment/forum/201505/08/002407tra89v89jaaa9mv9.jpg
But this says nothing about REAL resolution, color depth, etc. My A99 still blows the A77II out of the water in terms of IQ, even at ISO 100.
Sorry for commenting on the wrong thread. I mislead anyone reading my comment. I’m looking at the A7r successor, but only because I need as shallow a flange as possible for use with wide-angle LF lenses.
“You know nothing Lukas Snow” 😀
It’s clear now that Sony is heading for FF only camera’s, sorry Sony but my wallet is to empty for such camera’s and more specifically those lens prices..
Chrisy, where do you get that idea? Why should sony stop making the best selling mirrorless camera system in the world, namely the E-mount APS cameras? Look at B&H, look at Amazone, you will see that Sony APS cameras are way in front compared to the FF mirrorless cameras, they sell.
You will see, new APS cameras will come in the near future…
I am talking about the Amount APS-C, not the Emount low budget camera’s !!! think about it, there’s only one camera now in the Amount APS-C and it’s the A77II, when this one get’s old, no APS-C anymore ?? only FF Amount’s ?
Is it just me or does Source 3 sound like he’s talking about an E-mount camera?
Maybe he got A-mount and Alpha Mount mixed up 😉
We still don’t know more than we did yesterday n anything can still happen. Don’t be shocked if there is no new 50mp sensor in either a7rii or a99ii.
I doubt they will kill APS-C though. A77II was recently released… the A99 needs a replacement.
Sounds all good to me.
Given how bleak things look with the A-mount, I bet the A99II is a mild refresh (better AF, XAVC codec) like the A77II. Maybe they FINALLY use the 36mp sensor to breathe a little life into the system. That still won’t make it a compelling choice compared to the D810.
SLOG isn’t happening, that rumor is bunk. XAVC yes, since its being implemented across the range. I doubt they change raw compression too – pixel peepers make up a small part of the customer base.
I really think admin should change the name of the site to http://www.sonyalpharemorse.com
Do you honestly want a 36 MP A-mount body? I’d rather have a 24 MP sensor with a native ISO range of 100-25,600, expandable from 50-102,000, with 10 FPS continuous and 12-16 FPS burst. As a working, full time professional, I strongly feel speed and sensitivity is more important than resolution for most jobs.
Yes, I totally agree with you.
Better ISO , faster frame rate is better than ultra high resolution.
I don’t want a 36mp body, but Sony has to offer something over a mild refresh that’ll probably start at about $3000 like the A99. Why would anyone bother with the same basic camera that has a “II” in the name? See the A77II and its pedestrian refresh.
I switched to Nikon and the D750 to get everything Sony chooses not to address with its A mount. They could make waves with class leading ISO and noise performance, and 4k video, but that’ll never happen with the SLT (always gonna be worse than Nikon) and how they try to segment the video features.
The A77ii is far more than a pedestrian refresh… A refresh doesn’t need to include a resolution increase or a revolutionary jump in technology.
The AF system in the A77ii is a MAJOR upgrade over the A77. Stabilized viewfinder, deeper buffer, wifi, better jpg processing, some ISO improvement…. Put it all together, it’s a good upgrade. I’d be happy with a similar upgrade on the A99: Massive AF upgrade, 1/2 stop ISO improvement, wifi, better processing, deeper buffer. Put that all together, it would make the A99ii a compelling camera depending on price point (such camera should be priced along the same lines as the D750).
Im very confused about all the abuse that the A99 is getting. I have 2 and I would buy another. I shoot professionally for Nike, adidas and Warner Bros and I’ve never had a problem with it. ISO has worked well for me, AF has been great. Its reaching the end of its days in terms of lifespan but the ability in the camera has done me very well. I am curious to know what is so wrong with the ISO and AF that many of you feel it needs a drastic improvement?
I agree, I think the ISO performance is fine, and so is the AF. i do wish they’d have AF points outside the center third of the frame, though.
I agree 100000%… I would love more focus points.
That is coming in the new A-mount bodies, if the A77II and all the lens updates are any indicator.
Remember, there is a big difference between people actualy using their cameras and people writing about using their cameras…. You bewlong in group one obvious!
Compare the ISO performance to the D7200 or the A6000…
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Sony-A6000-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99___1020_942_831#tabs-2
You quickly see that the A99 is no better than these newer APS-C cameras. In fact, the A99 is a bit worse, particularly at high ISO.
Compared to the Nikon D750/610/810 and Sony A7s/A7r, the ISO performance is particularly behind.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99___975_917_831
In terms of AF…. even more obviously… All the AF points are crunched up very close to the center of the frame. You can’t compose by rule of thirds, unless you focus+recompose. In effect, it’s a single point AF camera, with a very large center point. The tracking abilities of the AF system are mediocre at best, particularly since it can’t track outside of the very center of the frame. And with the A77ii focusing down to -2EV, and the D750 focusing down to -3 EV, the A99 lags behind in this regard as well. Not to mention, the Nikons can focus at F8, making teleconverters even more useful.
So yes, the ISO and AF issues are painfully obvious.
It lags behind much newer cameras? Go figure…
lol…. Yes… not surprising at all. But that’s why a camera makers needs to update regularly!
When the A99 was released… it was already lagging behind in some respects.. Now add 3 years of evolution, and that lag has grown.
Not to say that the A99 has become a “bad camera.” It’s just as capable as it was 2 1/2 years ago. BUT.. For the same price or cheaper, there are now much better options.
My a99 and 135CZ doesn’t seem to lag behind any competitors
Don’t waste your time with this idiot, he’s nothing but a troll.
Lol I know right?
The lens doesn’t, certainly not optically, but I can’t see how anybody can deny the A99 is lagging behind the competition.
Sony needs to introduce a successor, whether that’s in the form of an A99II or A9.
Adam, here you go looking at numbers on a screen again. Nobody cares about that. We’re full time working professional photographers. We only care about end results.
That’s nice. I’m an enthusiast and semi-professional (not my main line of work, but it does generate some side income).
Regardless… You can’t have it both ways. You can’t ask, “what’s wrong with the ISO?” And then when shown the black and white evidence, just bury your head in the sand and say, “nobody care about the evidence!”
Can’t ask for the evidence, and then ignore the evidence!
Now a big part of the reason I did switch, was because of professional work I was doing — shooting a weekend event, I was very very disappointed in my ISO 12,800 shots out of the A99. The D750 gives me noticeably better shots at that ISO. That’s not numbers on the screen — Those are REAL photos.
But we can go back and forth all day with, “well…. I’m a pro… and I prefer ___. Oh Yeah!! Well, I’m a pro, and I prefer ___!!!!! Oh, you’re both wrong, I’m a pro and _______ is much better!!!” Go to a Nikon forum, and see how many pros would NEVER consider a Sony camera because they swear the RAW compression affects their images. So instead of these purely subjective opinions, we can look at REAL EVIDENCE.
You can’t ASK for the evidence, and then just say, “Hey!! Stop looking at the evidence!! Nobody cares about that!”
I can tell you are not a professional. A99’s max native ISO is 6400, the 12,800 and up is only there for emergencies. It’s not designed to be shot with extensively in that range.
Lol. I can tell you have no clue. You can set the ISO limits on the a99 up to 25,600. It is customizable. The default setting is up to 6400. It can be increased.
But there you go… So you’re admitting that ISO above 6400 isn’t “good enough” for professional work on the a99? Wow, sounds like you are agreeing that competing cameras are better at high ISO!!
Which is it, the a99 is just as good for real world shooting?? Or the a99 is only just as good below ISO 6400??
(My ISO 12800 needs were shooting an indoor talent show, with no flash, and not even spotlights. Just some horrible tungsten lighting in a big convention room).
Again, the NATIVE range of the sensor in A99 is 100-6400. Look it up yourself! That’s why it defaults the limit to 6400.
Then you’re answering your own question of what drastically needs improvement!!!
Great… for your commercial work, you’re able to stick below ISO 1600. For other professional work, higher ISO is necessary. Or are you denying that any professional ever goes above ISO 1600 for any reason?
Adam, better high ISO performance is always welcomed. Nobody here ever claimed A99 has the best high ISO performance ever, only that you shooting with it at 12,800 and expecting great results is laughable because you are using it beyond what it was intended to do.
If I needed crazy high ISO performance, I wouldn’t be shooting A99.
Huh? I can get great results on other cameras at 12,800. But you suggested that the high ISO performance on the A99 was no worse than other cameras??? Which is it???
I pointed out the higher ISO performance of other cameras, and your reply was:
“Adam, here you go looking at numbers on a screen again. Nobody cares about that.”
So you said that “nobody cares” about higher ISO performance, and now you’re saying that “better high ISO performance is always welcomed.”
You’re going in circles… one minute, you say that nobody cares about higher ISO performance. Then you say that higher ISO performance is always welcomed.
Hmmmmmm….. Maybe you should think before you post.
Nowhere did I say nobody cares about high ISO performance. I was referring to making judgments about performance of cameras based soley on numbers and stats. Don’t ever misquote me again.
A99 performs excellent in the range it was designed to shoot and bashing it because it doesn’t deliver what you need at ISO 12,800 is like bashing an old Hasselblad digital medium format because it looks like garbage north of ISO 400.
If I needed north of ISO 6400, I wouldn’t be shooting A99. Simple as that.
I didn’t misquote you. Caught in your circles and you lash out?
Here is what I said:
“Compared to the Nikon D750/610/810 and Sony A7s/A7r, the ISO performance is particularly behind.” (and then I cited the DXO charts)
Your reply was: (EXACT WORDS)
“Adam, here you go looking at numbers on a screen again. Nobody cares about that. We’re full time working professional photographers. We only care about end results.”
So which is it?? Is the ISO performance of the A99 behind or not? Does the A99 give worse high ISO end results or not?? Does it matter or not?? One second you suggest that the ISO results of the A99 are no worse than the competition, then you admit that the A99 suffers above ISO 6400, then you question the competence of anybody who shoots over ISO 1600, then you say better ISO performance is “always” welcomed. I haven’t misquoted you. You’ve been caught in your own web.
Again, I was referring to making judgments based on DXO stats, and it’s true. I don’t care about stats and numbers, nor poorly exposed snap shots of kids at performances. Please don’t torture us with photos from little league sports games next.
A99 was never designed to perform well above ISO 6400, but this does not reduce IQ delivered within the native range of its sensor to garbage. Even my ancient A900 delivers excellent image quality from ISO 100-1600.
Greater high ISO performance is always welcome, but I’m not going to bash A99 for its performance at ISO 12,800 because it wasn’t designed as a high ISO camera. Look at A7S if you want that in a Sony.
I’m happy you found a camera that better meets your needs in the Nikon camp. What more do you want anyone to say?
lol……. So in you’re trying to re-write the history of this thread.. You are now saying, nobody cares about the DXO stats — Though you now admit that the DXO stats actually accurately reflect the real world high ISO deficiencies of the A99. You’re trying to suggest that the A99 was being unfairly “bashed” — though I never bashed it. Someone asked about it’s deficiencies, so I accurately pointed out the deficiencies compared to the competition. And now you have admitted that every statement I made about the deficiencies were indeed accurate.
Meanwhile, you decide you need to criticize the skills of others as photographers, to make you feel better about yourself.
But let me ask, if you think my shot was poorly exposed… And if my skills are so bad, and you’re such a fantastic photographer, how would you have gotten the shot properly exposed on the A99, without use of a flash?? Let’s not forget your own ground rules.. You claimed shouldn’t go above ISO 6400. So tell me, how would you have gotten better exposure on the shot?? (The whole reason the shot is poorly exposed, it because of the drawbacks of the A99).
Adam, not Sony nor anyone on this thread ever claimed Sony A99 is designed to shoot in the dark, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to convince us of here.
You didn’t buy the right tool for the type of photos you want to take, and that’s an unfortunate mistake, which it sounds you have resolved by investing in another system, and that’s great!
We are merely adamantly defending the results of our work with the A99 camera which myself and another photographer on here have shot major commercial assignments with. For the most part the camera has met our needs well the past 2 1/2 years, and it is still a highly capable camera for a variety of work.
This being said, I feel most A99 users are ready for an upgrade as many advances have been made in the past three years, and the good news is that we won’t have to wait much longer.
Move on.
“You didn’t buy the right tool for the type of photos you want to take,”
So the A99 isn’t the right tool. Hmmm. But it’s the Sony “flagship”.. it is the best A-mount has to offer. We aren’t talking about me trying to use it as to screw driver. Not talking about me trying to use it to perform brain surgery. Talking about using it to take some fairly low light photographs. So if it isn’t the “right tool” for some pretty basic photographs, then that takes us back to the very basics: It has deficiencies compared to other cameras on the market.
I said at the very beginning of this discussion, it’s not a bad camera… And it’s just as capable as it was 2 1/2 years ago. But that it lags the competition in ISO and AF performance. You went on and on… Saying if I had a problem with the ISO performance, it was only because I was a bad photographer… claiming that “nobody cares” about the ISO performance reflected in the DXO charts. Now you’ve come full circle… Now, the A99 simply isn’t the right tool for flash-less indoor photography. Well, I dare say — if it can’t handle as something as basic as indoor flash-less photography, then it absolutely does need ISO performance upgraded.
This was my statement that you took such major issue with:
“You quickly see that the A99 is no better than these newer APS-C cameras. In fact, the A99 is a bit worse, particularly at high ISO.
Compared to the Nikon D750/610/810 and Sony A7s/A7r, the ISO performance is particularly behind.”
Now, apparently you agree completely with my statements.
Of course….. Let me ask you this…. If ISO performance on the A99 is about equivalent to APS-C cameras costing under $1,000… And if the AF system is inferior to the A77ii, also costing under $1,000…. (not to mention slower burst rate, worse buffer, etc), then tell me how the A99 is still a good value at $2000?
Indeed, $2k for the A99 today is an increasingly tough sale, unless you already have a lot of FF A-mount glass and really need to update your FF camera (a900 went kaput or something). Even then, I’d almost suggest getting an A7II and adapting. I have an A99 and love it, but I bought it like a year-and-a-half ago, and it was still a decent camera for the price at the time (I got a good package deal w/ grip and flash). Sony had a brief deal recently where they sold it for $1600; that seems like a more reasonable price for it right now.
Looks like they even ended the “free grip”.. but even that, after going through the trouble of selling it, even without valuing your time, you are only going to recoup about $100 for it. So $1900 or so for the A99, when the D750 is only $2000, when the A7 is only $1,000, when the A7r is also $1900, when the A77ii is only $900, when the D610 is $1500… It’s pretty clear that $2000 is not a supply/demand set price, but appears to be an artificial price created by Sony, in order to prevent it from competing with the A7ii. (They want to steer buyers with a $1500 budget to the A7ii instead of the A99). Used real selling prices are now around $1300 for the A99, which to me, suggests a market price of $1500-$1700 for new units. (Priced close to the A7ii makes a lot of sense — both use a similar 24mp sensor.. so for the same price, either the more robust body of a dSLT, or the newer technology and features of the A7ii).
http://picklepie.smugmug.com/Catalyst-2014/i-wLqLND8/0/X3/catalyst-465-X3.jpg
Here is an example, well demonstrating the limitations of the A99 at high ISO. Yes, I was shooting with a 2.8 lens. I couldn’t have used any slower of a shutter speed since I was shooting action. I had to resort to the ISO of 12800. And you can see how poor it is.
In contrast, look at the D750 shot, at ISO 14000+
http://picklepie.smugmug.com/photos/i-kPWcQPX/1/X3/i-kPWcQPX-X3.jpg
One was in better lighting than the other… and can you please provide us with the exif of the photos? It would surly back up your proof here 🙂
I believe you can see the exif if you go to the links…
Lighting was indeed slightly better in the second shot. Motion was faster, and I stopped down more…
Meaning, I was able to shoot at a faster shutter speed AND stopped down, because I was able to get ISO 14,000+ with good results… Where on the A99, even shooting at 2.8 and keeping the shutter speed as low as feasible, 12,800 still couldn’t give me much of a result.
But you are making the point — Yes, the light in the first picture was horrible. Which is why a professional sometimes needs higher ISO! We can’t all shoot 100% of the time in a controlled studio with controlled lighting and never going above ISO 400.
All I see is color noise in underexposed gray areas.
Shooting at ISO14000 on A99 and overexposing by say 1/3 of a stop, would have cleaned up alot of the color noise.
lol… But according to DW, I should never have gone above 6400 to get the shot!
I do agree that over-exposing may have cleaned it up a bit. Still, the noise in the OOF areas led to some bad artifacts.
Here is another example from the same session. With less motion, I slowed down the shutter speed a bit and exposed a bit brighter. It definitely came out better, but I still wouldn’t print it any bigger than 5X7.
http://picklepie.smugmug.com/Catalyst-2014/i-cFC3QSX/0/X3/catalyst-365-X3.jpg
In contrast… I printed some of the Nikon dance shots as big as 12X16, and they came out flawlessly at that size.
I learned that ‘overexpose at high ISO’ part on my A65 a while back. Its close to impossible to shoot at above ISO1600 on that camera, but I was able to go up to 3200 regularly and once in a while to 6400, and was still able to clean it up enough in post, for images to be usable. Black noise was still a bit too much though, and prevented large size printing. Images would look ‘dirty’ due to that noise, and you can’t really clean that up without losing resolution/sharpness.
There is no doubt that Nikon would have come out better. And that it did come out better. And we all know why it does. Whether some people choose to compare gear to competition before buying, or just turn a blind eye, and buy their favorite, doesn’t change any facts.
We are all attracted to different strengths and weaknesses of different products. For some, the benefit of EVF can out weigh some ISO differences. Perfectly fair to reach such a conclusion. But it’s simply silly to sit back and deny the weaknesses of your preferred brand. I’ll happily admit weaknesses of any camera I own or have owned (the D750 live view is slow as molasses… stabilized primes is indeed a nice advantage of A-mount, and I still feel like the Nikon lens mount is in the wrong direction!)
Yes, I completely agree re: Exposing to the right. I found on the A99, that trick worked best in the ISO 10,000 ball park. Once you were moving over 12,800 though, you were seriously degrading the image in most cases. DXO graphs confirm a huge drop off in the A99 IQ right around the 12,800 mark. Pretty competitive with other brands up to 3200… then slowly starting to trail… and then a huge drop off at 12800.
That’s the kind of thing I’m looking at/dealing with using my A99.
Why were you at the talent show, hoping for beginners luck?
Showing me DXOmark.com proves nothing. Show me real life commercial evidence that you cannot use the A99 as a photographer. What do you shoot that demands such a vast improvement in ISO and AF ability? Go ahead… ill wait.
What do you shoot that demands the A99? Why not shoot the A900? Why not shoot the A100? Why not go dust off a Minolta Maxxum?
Give me real life commercial evidence that you cannot use a Maxxum 7 as a photographer. Go ahead… I’ll wait.
Not to say that the A99 has become a “bad camera.” It’s just as capable as it was 2 1/2 years ago. BUT.. For the same price or cheaper, there are now much better options.
Show me real life commercial evidence that you can’t use a Minolta Maxxum 7 as a photographer? Go ahead… I’ll wait.
I use all of the recent A, E, and RX models but A99 has been my workhorse for important projects. Namely portraiture. However, the center stacked AF points are a real limitation. Especially compared to A99 closest (in terms of IQ/sensor performance) cousin A7II. I have to use DMF quite a bit because I need to focus away from the center on things like eyes when shooting shoulder portraits or head when shooting anything larger. It works, AF is fast enough for me, but now that I have the taste of the A77II and A7II greater coverage and advanced tracking features I really miss them whenever I pick up A99.
If I would have had that camera from the start, i’d aggree with you. But as someone looking to upgrade from A-Mount APSC to A-Mount FF, i dont see much reason for paying extra for it, given that A77II has better AF and is very close in ISO performance. Add on top of that better High ISO performance of competitors by 1 full stop, and it doesnt even look OK anymore, given the price.
If A99II brings ISO performance, that is 1/3 stop worse than its competitors, due to SLT, i’d consider buying one once again.
I have one and I like it a lot but the AF is garbage compared to other cameras in its class. There is only AF coverage in about 1/9th of the frame because Sony cheaped out and recycled an APS-C AF part rather than develop a full frame AF system. Sony priced the a99 lower than the 5d3 but I would have preferred a higher price if the AF was competitive with the 5d3 AF.
Beyond the coverage, the AF sensitivity is not great and the “side points” (which are all really center points) are less sensitive and accurate in moderate light so I find I often have to stick to the center point in this situation.
I agree that ISO sensitivity is fine – not stellar for full frame but not a poor performer by any degree for its generation.
The real question is when??
The A99 does NOT need more resolution. Despite the attention now going to the 5Ds, I maintain that 36 and 50+ mp cameras are niche products. The D750 is a great success, largely because 24mp is a fantastic compromise between responsiveness, file size, and resolution.
The 3 biggest needs for A-mount full frame are:
1 — Completely re-designed AF system. The “AF-D” never really added anything to the focus capabilities. At this point, most of the full frame dSLRs on the market have much more advanced AF systems.
2– While the resolution is fine, the low light performance needs a significant upgrade. In theory, the SLT mirror hampers low light performance by about a half stop — Yet the A99 is more like a full stop+ behind the Nikon full frame dSLRs as well as the A7r. (But a half stop behind the A7.. suggesting that the A7 and A99 share an “older” design, while the Nikons and A7r use a “newer” design). Right now, the low light performance of the A99 is barely above good APS-C cameras… Defeating a big part of the reason to go full frame.
3– Lenses. Sigh. Unfortunately I doubt Sony will ever address this… they are putting all their energy into FE lenses for the foreseeable future. But as the lens selection for A-mount remains static, CaNikon and even Sony FE are introducing exciting new lenses for their systems. (The Nikon 300/4 re-defines high quality telephoto by doing it in such a small lens… the Canon 11-24 blows open doors of wide angle photography.. and even the FE 35/1.4 is a massive upgrade over the Sony A 35/1.4. And you can get great 70-200/4 lenses for Canon/Nikon and Sony E, but not Sony A).
#3 will never be addressed by Sony, I’m afraid. But when will they address #1 and #2? The longer they wait, the more customers they lose to Canon, Nikon, or migrating over to FE (which might be what Sony wants).
“…or migrating over to FE” – I think that’s exactly what they’re trying to do.
Agreed.. I’m sure they are crunching the numbers. And they make a nice little profit by selling an entirely new system to a A-mount shooter. (That A-mount shooter who already owned all the lenses he would need.. suddenly buying a whole new camera body + all new lenses)….
But of shooters leaving A-mount, they aren’t all migrating to E-mount. I have to think a big number are also migrating to Canon and Nikon, as they become disenchanted with Sony’s lack of commitment to A-mount. So does the extra profit from the “migration” outweigh the lost customers? Like I said, I’m sure they are number crunching it.
Yeah, some will move to FE, but probably just as many are bolting to Canikon. Not everyone cares about the smallest/lightest system possible, and might still want that DSLR form factor, especially if they work with a lot of larger, telephoto lenses (and for that matter, they’ll now have more options for such lenses over at Canikon).
I made the switch 6 months ago. When there was no A99ii at Photokina and no truly new A-mount lenses, I became concerned for the future and was offered a very good price on my used A99 kit. I was torn.. but decided it was a good opportunity to try something new.
I very strongly considered the D750 and the A7. I went back and forth between both, looking at the pricing, the lens selection, the ergonomics. Ultimately, I was won over by the fuller lens selection, including telephotos, of Nikon over the A7 (and over the A99). I was “rewarded” with the new Nikon 300/4 which will be perfect for my upcoming Alaska trip.
I have no idea what I should do.
On one hand I like the E/FE, with small slow native primes, like 35/2.8 for FF or a Sigma DN for APSC. This makes it light and portable for traveling and family/friends type of photography. However on the other hand, I can’t see myself completely switching over to it due to the lack of a proper body, poor tracking AF, and lack of fast zoom lenses. Keeping 2 systems is prohibitively expensive and LA-EA4 sucks in a multitude of ways.
Keep A-Mount and get A6000 with 16-50pzd and call it a day? Totally confused…
That’s an option. I’ve seen people do that… but then they gradually start using the A6000 more and the A-mount less. On the other hand, on the Nikon boards, I see a surprising number of people going in both directions with the A7 — switching from traditional to the A7, but then also switching back to traditional, after trying the A7.
My thoughts: For APS-C shooting, the A6000 brings a significant size advantage + a really responsive camera, with very good AF, all at a reasonable price. If you’re not a long telephoto shooter, the A6000 is a great replacement for a traditional APS-C camera. Yes, you don’t get a 2.8 zoom, but that’s the main sacrifice.
For full frame shooting, it really depends on the type of shooter you are. The size advantages aren’t that huge of the A7 system. The lenses are quite expensive, erasing any cost savings of a cheaper body. And the lens selection is much much smaller than a traditional system — especially compared to a traditional CaNikon system. If you are a studio and/or landscape shooter, the A7 cameras can make a lot of sense. If you shoot action, wildlife, then the A7 is still very lacking. The A99 is better, but unfortunately trails the CaNikon options for that type of shooting.
Personally, I’m a jack of all trades. I shoot 95% for my own pleasure… which includes my kids playing baseball, includes local wildlife, as well as wildlife on upcoming Alaska cruise. It includes portraits of kids, family and friends, as well as some professional portraits. It includes some landscapes for fun. Includes off camera flash, on camera flash, and flashless. To do this type of mix, I do find a CaNikon dSLR mostly preferable (and if Sony updates the A99 I could add it to this list), mostly due to the better AF systems, better low light performance (than A99), and most importantly — the big selection of lenses, so you can always find the right lens, for the right job.
I’m a stills+video shooter, with an occasional use of long telephoto. I currently use the Tamron 70-300, but it is a bit slow at the long end as well as not so good when fast AF is needed, so the plan is to upgrade to 70-200/2.8 by Sony/Tamron/Sigma. But what I can’t especially sacrifice completely is my SAL1650/2.8(24-70/2.8 if I upgrade to FF).
I shoot action once in a while, and also use AF in video, when situation dictates. In video, A-Mount AF has been a stellar performer so far, however overall video quality was lacking. For stills and video of performances, I’m usually at a static distance from the stage, so AF isn’t that big of a deal, but low light ISO is a huuuuge problem.
On the other hand when i’m shooting competition videos, or stills, fast AF with good AF-C is a must, with ISO not being that big of a problem.
Edit: I also shoot 95% for fun. Volunteering for various events I also consider fun. But I might be getting more professional work with Video.
Im not much a video shooter, so harder for me to comment. From my limited video perspective, my issue with AF on A-mount video is that most of the lenses aren’t silent, plus you can only use auto-exposure for video. E-mount seems to be the better option for extensive video use if you want AF.
My issue with the 70-200/2.8 lenses is the size. Even when I shoot events professionally, I prefer not to be held down by a lens so cumbersome. For CaNikon and FE, a nice option is the 70-200/4. A really really nice compromise of size and IQ. I always did find the Tamron 70-300 a bit soft, especially on the long end. On A-mount, I started using the Minolta 200/2.8 over the Tamron 70-300. Lose the convenience of a zoom, but the IQ is stellar. To this day, the Minolta 200/2.8 is the favorite lens I have ever owned.
The size issue hasn’t affected me as much just yet, as almost every time i’m at an event, i’ve got a fat & heavy video tripod as a support, regardless of whether it’s stills or video. But yeah, whenever I go mobile, after a few hours I wish that Tamron was lighter, even though it’s not a heavy lens.
if that’s the case then Sony would of made the updated 2.8 CZ lenses native for e-mount….
Here’s a scenario: (Sony’s not dumb to do this)
-Sony announces two updated 2.8 Zeiss lenses for a-mount!
* Now I can use it with future e-mount bodies through an adapter…why the heck do I have to use an adapter to use with a +$2k lens!?!? Why don’t you just create it native for e-mount with just a larger lens than the f/4 counterparts…
That’s an excellent question. Hopefully, in the coming months, we see real answers.
Please, speak for yourself. I want all the resolution I can get for my clients because they need loose crops available for tighter cropping for various formats including super wide web banners, verticals, and large print. It’s much more efficient at the capture level to give their designers one selection that can be repurposed for many publication requirements.
If a99 replacement isn’t at least 36mp, then I’ll be forced to reconsider my camera partner. So tired of using the toy Emount cameras just to keep up with competition resolution. It’s insulting that Sony give my competitors their best sensor in three different pro grade cameras, yet they force their own loyalists to adapt wobbly mounts to achieve less than the same. I’m not the only disenfranchised working pro who feels this way.
You’ve already got your low mp cameras. Let me have my high mp please, in the best pro body that Sony can make. CaNikon does it for their pros.
Adam Brown, reciting the same old trolling talking points. What else is new?
Again, I completely disagree. Try shooting in T8 crop mode on A99 and come back and tell me AF-D doesn’t work. AF-D almost never misses, the only problem is the sensors were all in the middle of the frame. AF-D with 98% sensor coverage would be amazing.
Why would I crop?? Then I’d just shoot with the a77ii!!!
In real world shooting, I found tracking with af-d to be very slow and unreliable. Regular af-c mode was far better. And I’m not alone in this opinion.
I’m not arguing throwing away resolution sucks. I’m only talking about AF-D and how well the depth tracking works. When shooting in T8, the the AF sensor covers more than 2/3 of the compositional frame and I consistently get a 90-95% hit rate with A99.
AF-D just means using both a dedicated PDAF sensor combined with on-sensor PDAF. I hope Sony continues this with their full frame A-mount cameras, but widens the coverage of the dedicated sensor as they did with A77II and then expands the coverage of on-sensor PDAF to cover 98% of the frame as they did with A6000.
They can change the name to 4D AF, or call it whatever they want, but having dual-AF sensors works great, and something I hope Sony continues!
It’s a wonderful theory. Using on-sensor PD to assist the dedicated PD module. But in my experience (and I know you read the forums… my experience seems to be shared with the majority), it actually provides worse tracking.
If I had to guess… the extra processing required to reconcile the 2 AF modules is actually slowing down the tracking capability, thus leaving AF-C as faster and more reliable.
It got to the point where I completely stopped using AF-D and used AF-C for tracking 100% of the time.
Sorry, but my experience has been quite the opposite. But again, when shooting sports on A99, I use it as designed: T8 mode (RAW), 8 FPS burst in AF-D.
Having to shoot crop for sports is my only gripe with the camera, and why I’m greatly looking forward to the next generation of A-mount.
Again, if you ever shot T8 in AF-D with A99 and a 70-200 G2, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.
I need to question you there…… Why would you ever shoot sports in crop mode, instead of just using a crop camera that is specifically designed for it?!?!?! If you are going to use full frame, then shoot full frame!
To me, those crop modes are certainly not intended for advanced photographers… They are for amateurs who can’t be bothered with post-processing cropping.
You can question my “ability” all your want — Fact is, when switching between AF-C and AF-D mode, and doing everything else the same, the camera tracked better with AF-C, I got far more keepers with AF-C.
You think that I somehow have the ability to use AF-C but I don’t have the “ability” to properly use AF-D?
Because it’s the highest frame rate available on A99 and provides the best AF coverage, and A77II wasn’t available then.
Again, I’m not arguing the idiocy of Sony’s decision to implement this way, but it is how the A99 is designed for best speed/AF performance.
I think at the time they released it, the price to implement 10 FPS at full res would have made the camera cost prohibitive to release.
I’ve spoken with Sony directly about my frustration with the way they implemented 8 FPS & 10 FPS as crop modes, and I don’t think this will be the case in the new A-mount cameras.
We’re getting on a whole other subject here, but my point is: AF-D works amazingly well in the zone where the sensor coverage exists.
The A77 was available at 12 fps.. Even the A55 at 10 fps.
Darn silly to shoot with the A99 in crop mode. Waste resolution, can just as easily crop in post.
Oh… and it’s not the highest rate available on the A99. You could have shot T10 in jpg!
And I have to question your competency as a photographer if you truly need 8 fps over 6 fps. I’ve gotten every sports shot I’ve ever needed at 6 fps. I have used faster Sony APS-C dSLT cameras, and the higher frame rates were fun, but never gave me any shots I couldn’t get at 6 fps.
I can also tell you, that I got far more keepers in AF-C mode than AF-D mode. You can “question my competency” all you want…. I guess I have some weird type of incompetence that gave me an extremely high keeper rate in AF-C mode, and a mediocre keeper rate in AF-D mode. And I guess my incompetence is shared with the many many other people who have reached the same conclusion.
Again, it’s not just the frame rate but the AF coverage, but I’ll gladly take every extra frame I can get shooting sports.
However, you never tried the T8 mode, so this conversation is meaningless.
??? Dang, really need to question your competence. You realize t8 mode does not increase the af coverage… It simply crops off the part of the frame without af coverage. You’re saying you didn’t have the competence to keep your subject under the af points unless the camera cropped the frame for you?
And when did I say I never tried t8? I tried every setting and mode on the a99 at least once. Tried t8, discovered it was pointless since I can just crop in post, and as an extra 2 fps didn’t really affect me.
OMFG Adam, I said COMPOSITIONAL FRAME. Can you even read?
Because you are shooting cropped, the AF array covers a greater portion of the frame you are composing in and the viewfinder matches the crop of that frame. You would know this if you ever truly shot in that mode.
Duh… That’s what I said — It crops the frame. So again, I question your competence… You can’t compose a shot with the knowledge that the AF points are only in the center of the frame? Sounds like you have very poor composition skills.
Question it as much as you want.
“To me, those crop modes are certainly not intended for advanced photographers…”- I enjoy your rants, but I think this one is certainly off the mark. You might want to qualify what you mean by “advanced” here since you appear to be speaking on behalf of others- or are in the know.
Adam, I have a suggestion; go over the the Nikon board and preach to the choir about how great your all plastic, three year old sensor, cheap shuttered relic from the past is. No one here is buying your BS. I’m sure there are plenty of Nikon fanboys there who would love to hear this.
Still works splendidly fine, better than my A7ii. If the plastic does what it is supposed to do and affordable, I’m in. Nevertheless , I will try the new Batis, since it seems to provide good contrast against back light (albeit being expensive).
The A99 absolutely does need more resolution. 36 – 50 mp would suffice.
Sadly, I think you’re right. Currently, I’m still in with my ZA’s and my old workhorse A900. The new ZA 16-35 & 24-70 are very much appealing but I’m still looking at the other guys solely on the premise of commitment. The D810 or the 5D IV is where my focus is placed.
Rumor 2 may be talking about the a88. It says it’s between the a77ii and the a99 replacement.
these rumors started in 2014 and are not progressing. at the momennt the discussion is only staying alive by uncertainty and high hopes.
Would buy if this is also a 4k power-house. It *could* be with the extra size for power, cooling etc. If no decent 4K, why bother with this rather than an A7-series???
Because the A7-series can’t even match the autofocus on a Minolta 5d.
Obviously never used one….
I rented one for a full week to see if it could do what I needed. The verdict? I’d take my old Minolta any time for action shooting. Everything else was great, but the AF made it unsuitable for my uses.
A7II has improved AF. Works well for many people.
What percentage of the Sony target audience do you represent?
The same target audience that purchases all the ZA primes and G zooms. They made those for top pro use. They should make a camera for us as well.
And let’s not deny the free trickle down marketing principle that CaNikon enjoys. Enthusiasts purchase CaNikon because pros use CaNikon. Sony would benefit on many levels from having a flagship model.
Not denying that there is a market for high resolution. Nor am I questioning your need for it. And IF Sony ever goes with multiple full frame cameras, then one option should be a high MP beast for shooters like you.
But if Sony sticks to just a single full frame model — an “all purpose” shooter, than there is no reason to go with higher MP. In a perfect world, there would be a 12 fps 16mp model + 24mp/7 fps model + 50mp/4 fps model, giving shooters the ability to pick the camera best matching their needs.
Mate, you should be renting Medium Format for those jobs.
Thanks for your unqualified suggestion about how to run my business. My CaNikon competitors don’t need to rent anything, and thus keep costs down for their clients. Mind telling me why I should add a rental onto my invoice when my competition doesn’t have to?
The goal is to keep my existing lens collection and high performance AF and EVF. Not to rent a foreign system that forces me to learn yet another menu system and carry another set of chargers, batteries, lenses…
A88 between the A77 and A99? Nah.
Could be A89… Although I’d prefer A69 as A65 replacement 🙂
Sony can keep waiting to bring out a new flagship A-Mount camera all they want because I will not buy another Sony product until they do. I have not bought 1 Sony product since they started this all efforts on E-mount BS. I’m sure there are many more with this mentality. Its principle people. Sony could easily come out with another mount and put all efforts into it and not E-Mount because they figured out the E-mount being small has too many limitations for lens design as well. A 2 year (Worthy) refresh of 1 Aps-c and 1 Full-Frame A-Mount is all they would need to do to keep loyal A-Mount users happy. Principle…
Someone mentioned ‘principle’. That’s how I feel on the A-mount issue. What finances, tech and development led you to the E-mount system? The A-mount system, and therefore A-mount users. I’m not against innovative developments. It’s actually what turns me on to Sony.
However, the principle of it is stay true to your main supporters. (‘Dance with the one that brought you’, as they say.)
I know Sony is a business, and that E-mount is likely the future. I just wish they would throw A-mount users a bone; some kind of price break on converting to E-mount. But that’s not the case. In order to stay with the brand that I have supported for years, it seems that I will likely have to change camera systems.
… And if I have to change camera systems, why not change to a system that I can count on to not change mounts?
All of this is mainly frustration. Sony is going to do what it is going to do. It just feels that I will either stay on board and eat the cost, or go to another system and eat the cost.
The A77 didn’t come close to A99 in image quality nor AF performance. Furthermore, I didn’t say T8 was the fastest, I said it was the fastest mode available for shooting RAW.
T10 looks like garbage and was a mistake even being included, IMHO.
Wouldn’t it be possible that AF-D works better in T8 mode because there’s more CPU time available due to cropping (less information to evaluate)?
Mario, that is highly probable. The speed difference is night-and-day all around in that mode. If you can live with a roughly 10 MP image, you’ll certainly get larger hit rate in that mode.
Right now I’m certainly using A77II as my main sports body, but I look forward to seeing what Sony does with their next A-mount full frame bodies.
Im sure you could upscale the files with PhotoZoom Pro or something if resolution is needed.
True, but let’s just hope Sony doesn’t ever do this again with a full frame body. I want full resolution burst just like their APS-C offering.
I can’t speak to the a77, but the a57 works better than the a99 in crop mode. There’s no need to use the extra speed mode, it’s just faster and has higher resolution. If I shot sports, the A99 wouldn’t be my camera of choice.
sony imaging dept’s primary focus is business and camera is second. photography pros and enthusiasts make up a very small portion of its business and are not their priorities. altho that is short sighted, as high end camera using pros provide free marketing for their camera business and sony should try to keep them happy instead of frustrated
Well, there are just a few realy good pros out there who could promote a brand. To keep those pros for your brand you have to do a lot more then give them a good camera, they need the right service too, and the service is expanxive and hard to justify when there are so few pros. And there you have it the chicken and the egg problem….
And then, there are pros using Sony E0mount cameras too, and their number is slowly growing…
Sony is in video, what Canon or Nikon are for still images. Photography is second fiddle to this. From this perspective, SLT and mirrorless focus makes sense for Sony, as it gives Sony another FF video camera and lens option as well.
I would like faster and wider AF + cleaner files at higher ISO’s.
Me too!
I’m wainting for the A99II with these improvements and
with the new video CODEC (4K is too much?).
I’ll buy A7RII too (already bought the LAEA4)
“Source 2: “… that almost mirror’s the A77II
capabilities only using a full frame sensor will be filling the product
line between the A77II, and the A99 replacement. …””
Wait, wait, wait … He’s talking about 3 cameras than? A A77II, a A77II with FF and the A99 successor. On the other hand, what else would you want but a A77 with FF sensor?
I have done quite the opposite. Since launching the A7 all my electronics are now Sony. “It’s principle people”. I support were Sony is heading so I buy their products……dropping A Mount and full stream ahead with FE mount…..”Principal”
a99s or bust…
I’ve had the original a99 since it was released and was heavily advertised by Sony as the next step in hybrid camera video capabilities, especially in AF (for Glidecam situations), and hdmi out (for the new-at-the time Ninja 2). Obviously I was disappointed that Sony had lied either to us or just as likely to themselves about its video prowess. The AF was worse than useless, only available at high F stops and bizzarley, only in automatic mode (so no shutter control etc.) And the line skipping necessitated from going from a 24mp sensor to a 1080p image made medium and long shots muddy in even the best situations.
Therefore, just for my purposes, I would only buy another A mount if Sony released something along the lines of a dedicated a99 “s”-style camera–one with an a7s-style small megapixel-count 4k sensor and with AF that competes with Canon’s latest strides (and works in manual mode for Pete’s sake!), and 5 axis image stabilization. An a99-sized body would be big enough to dissipate the heat from internal 4k recording.
That may be asking too much but I know if Sony bit the bullet and stopped intentionally crippling its mid range cameras, droves of dissatisfied Canon/Nikon/Panasonic videographers would flock to a low light 4k monster that doesn’t require an external recorder 3x larger than the camera its self.
Oh, and a fully-articulated flip out touch screen for those awkward angles.
yes, the video from A99 are really very soft & lack of detail.
A77ii is much better but still not as good as RX10 with full pixel readout.
Of couse A7s is the best at high ISO
Oh, and maybe give up on the translucent mirror once and for all–not worth the light loss.
Fast video AF is not worth the 1/3 stop light loss?
It’s a distinct marketing advantage over all other competitors.
How about a compromise… Provide a mechanism which allows mirror to swing up out of the way when fast AF is not required.
If it remove the SLT, how do you suggest the AF work?
Use slooow CDAF? or move backware to use OVF with mirror flipping?
Any which way they can.
OSPDAF with Z-axis AF, new A-mount lens can be designed like Bellow lenses with very few moving elements.
I suppose they could use mirror flipping in stills mode only, keeping the semi-transparent mirror stationary in video mode. Or maybe the rumored new semi-transparent mirror that Sony has developed will make it’s debut (which supposedly uses 1/3 less light for focus). Or maybe both. Or neither. Time will tell.
Three years for a refresh is good too….
Source 2 is speaking about my dream camera .. FF A-mount .. fast fps .. fast AF for sports and birds.
I would give him a french kiss if it was true :*
Can we throw in a new 500mm lens that doesn’t cost $13k? (Birder here)
True .. Sony 500mm F4 is more expensive than Canon’s by $4000 !
You can get the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 for $5000 (I hate Sigma lenses but it is the only affordable lens IMO)
Watch this list from B&H
Personally I prefer the 400mm f/2.8 .. It will be a 560mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter with minor loss of IQ
But that 400 is 70-400 right – not fixed?
The only available 400mm lens in Sony’s lens line is the 70-400mm f/4-5.6 .. I was talking about a 400mm f/2.8 which is fixed focal length ( not available by Sony or any other manufacturer for Sony A-mount )
It is a wish to have a 400mm 2.8
ahhh – now I understand! yes – that would be nice
I’d love to see A99II with 24MP 10FPS Improved AF system and RAW compression algorithm.
How about A99RII with 36MP@8FPS and 15.4MP@15FPS (cropped) ?
They’ve got enough space in that thing to go all out. I’d like to see 36MP@10FPS. You should be able to shoot in RAW much like the 7DII- all day long without filling the buffer. Throw the 5 axis in it and I want twice as many cross type sensors as the A77II. Slap some internal 4k and now you’ve got that lust factor going on.
A few more days before my A77II should arrive. Can’t wait until the A99II can sit on my shelf next to it. Of course, they get front and center. E mount stuff kinda sits in the back..you know…way back there.
The value in Sony for me has been the A mount; both zeiss glass and Minolta legacy lenses. Sony carried that tradition by making cameras that were both reliable and undercut the competition- later taking risks with SLT that no one else was willing to do. You didn’t know exactly what you’d get- but you sure as helll knew it would be interesting.
I plan on sticking A mount for now and filling out the wider end of my lens line up with Sygma. That way I can switch the mount out on them for Nikon or Canon if Sony shiiitcans the A mount. I like that idea better than locking myself into FE with their lenses. No thanks, I’ll pass on that man- well, maybe I’ll give into that 28mm F2 but that’s it!
I’d like to see that but I just don’t buy there being a big enough market for 2 ff a-mount cameras
How one can reconcile all these super-excited rumors with the recently seen here in this forum an official Sony camera roadmap, which clearly had no A-mount camera after A77II?
Neither in 2015 nor later. Just some lame A lens upgrades and an A77II firmware upgrade.
SLT mirror can’t swing out, it’s too big (because it needs to accomodate for the moving sensor)
How many photos have you had ruined due to the 1/3 mirror ?
I have taken thousands of photos and many photos had to be deleted due to screw ups by the photographer. Not one shot was lost because I lost 1/3 of a stop due to the mirror.
A) You have ZERO sales figures to back up your statements on sales figures of A mount cameras
B) The A mount if a more or less true lens line up. The E mount line is more of a joke. Slow f4 zooms and a few overpriced prime lenses. So Sony can very well afford to launch one FF camera replacement.
The last dry, tasteless, dirty bone Sony throwed to the A-mount users (and in some extent to the E-mount users and their small lens lineup) is the LA-EA4 adapter. With that being said, IMO the only reason Sony revamped some of the A-lens was to birdcall some E-users in the need for more lens options while E-mount lineup ain’t complete. And for us A-users, all we get is a bitter stare to nowhere and a resignation feeling telling us to buy a A7R/S/II with the damn bayonet adapter.