Ok guys, I finally start to have a tiny bit more reliable info about the next A-mount cameras coming in Spring. I just have been told by one source (and confirmed via another one) the next Sony A77 successor is definitely coming and it will have on sensor PDAF. The big question they could not answer yet is if this means that the A79 (or whatever the name will be) comes with or without semitransparent mirror.
As you know Sony already patented such a camera (United States Patent Application 20130113982). I have been also told that Sony managers try to avoid answering any question about the future of the SLT tech. Let’s see if the A79 will be the first camera without that mirror in between…
P.S.: Save $300 on the VG-C77AM Vertical Grip with Sony A77 Digital SLR Purchase at Amazon US (Click here).
—
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!
0 Responses
I’m selling a lot of my Sony gear this weekend for some Zeiss alpha stuff. Looks like I better add my A77 while I still can. No mirror sounds like a 99.999999% possibility. Better images and maybe even clean ISO up to 1600 (really clean!). Sony, you have my attention.
No mirror = no fast AF.
On-sensor PDAF is ages from being ready.
I totally agree. PDAF on sensor is not even “great” on a mirrorless body with “optimised” lenses…let alone on a classical Alpha body.
Designing an SLT-mirror that could be raised is Sony’s best option.
My understanding is that you can use any of the SLT with the mirror completely flipped up. You have no AF obviously, but everything else works. With all these SLT haters on here I’m suprised no one has done it. You know, came on here pushing the virtues of walking around with their manual A77/99 plugging away with the mirror up.
Absence of mirror does not mean slow autofocus.
Fujifilm X-E2: wide focus 0,15, full zoom 0,175 [http://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-x-e2-review-23442]
Depends what you mean by slow. To me mirrorless is too s-l-o-w. You may not need fast AF so good for you, but I do.
I don’t like the tone of your post. Comparison of AF-S between SLT and CSC / no mirror cameras are clear.
(1) Data from [www.ephotozine.com]:
SLT-A37 + kit lens 18-55/3.5-5.6 wide 0.15 / full zoom 0.15 sec.
SLT-A57 + kit lens 0.10 / 0.15
SLT-A58 + kit lens 0.125 / 0.125
SLT-A65 + kit lens 0.10 / 0.15
SLT-A77 + 16-50/2.8 SSM 0.10 / 0.15
SLT-A99 + 100/2.8 Macro 0.15
(2) Data from [www.digimanie.cz/csc-fotoaparaty/Sony/clanky/]:
*SLT-A33 + kit lens 0.25 / 0.3 [SDHC Sandisk Ultra II Class 4 (up to 10 MB/s), SDHC SanDisk Extreme III Class 10 (up to 30 MB/s), Memory Stick Sandisk Ultra II (up to 30 MB/s) and SDXC Kingston Class 10 (up to 60 MB/s)]
*SLT-A35 + kit lens 0.30 – 0.35 / 0.45 [4GB SDHC SanDisk Extreme (up to 30 MB/s)]
*SLT-A58 + kit lens 0.15 / 0.20 – 0.25 [SDHC SanDisk Extreme (up to 41 MB/s) and Extreme Pro (up to 73 MB/s)]
*SLT-A65 + kit lens 0.30 – 0.50 / 0.30 [Memory Stick PRO HG-Duo karta (up to 30 MB/s)]
*SLT-A77 + 16-50/2.8 SSM 0.15 / 0.15 [Memory Stick PRO-HG Duo HX Sony 8 GB and 16GB SDHC Transcend UHS-I (up to 45 MB/s)]
*SLT-A99 + 16-50/2.8 SSM 0.10 – 0.25 / 0.10 – 0.35 [SDHC Transcend UHS-I (up to 45 MB/s)]
*SLT-A99 + 70-400/4.0-5.6 SSM G wide 0.10 – 0.65 / full zoom 0.15 – 2.30 [SDHC Transcend UHS-I (up to 45 MB/s)]
(3) For comparison from [www.digimanie.cz]:
Canon EOS 60D + EF 35mm f/1,4L 0.2s [SDHC SanDisk Extreme (up to 30 MB/s)]
Nikon D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3,5-4,6G VR wide 0.3 / full zoom 0.3 [SDHC Transcend UHS-I (up to 45 MB/s)]
(4) And now some CSC and compact cameras by [www.ephotozine.com]:
APS-C Fujifilm X-E2 wide 0.15 / full zoom 0.175
m4/3 Olympus OM-D E-M1 + 12-50/3.5-6.3 wide 0.15 / full zoom 0.15
m4/3 Olympus E-P5 + kit lens 0.15 / 0.175
Nikon 1 V2 0.175 / 0.175
compact Fujifilm X10 0.15 / 0.20
Sony RX10 0.1 / 0.1 (!)
As you can see, the technology of fast AF-S without mirror exists. And it also controls by Sony.
By the way, have you noticed digital noise in SLT?
Full frame A99 has big trouble at ISO 6400. With 16-50/2.8 SSM. Weakness.
A65 has a usable ISO 800.
And A77 is very noisy from ISO 400. With 16-50/2.8 SSM!!! This kit is the most expensive noise generator in the world.
Why? Because of mirror…? Hey, guy, wait a minute! Film you using multiexposition mode! I have a super fast AF on my SLT, I will not keep you… Or not. I have plenty of time and I like to use Photoshop.
I am a fan of Sony, I need fast autofocus and look forward to a new camera. SLT, or not. It is a matter of Sony.
Mirrorless AF isn’t slow by any means. Its just as fast as most DSLRs and has less problems when comparing to misaligned PDAF issues that crop up from time to time on conventional DSLRs.
However, that being said, mirrorless cameras are much slower when tracking subjects, when comparing to DSLRs.
Personally I don’t care for tracking subjects. I don’t shoot sports, so if A79 will have a DSLT design with flippable mirror or will be completely mirrorless, that just might make me switch from my A65 to A79.
Otherwise, i’ll wait for OSPDAF mirrorless A-Mount camera.
Stan, it may not be slow in absolute terms, but as of today, painfully slow in comparison to AF with mirror.
Well done, Ian. I will also add that while I appreciate the need for fast AF speed for some photographic use cases, I don’t understand why speed in absolute terms has become a be-all-end-all, especially at the expense of accuracy and precision.
SLT does improve accuracy compared to SLR due to a less complex light path but doesn’t address other sources of inaccuracy, such as the need to focus with the lens wide-open (exacerbates any focus-shift and field-curvature related issues – since these are aperture specific, this cannot be fixed with AF micro adjustments) as well as the need for PD sensors to have a slivered aperture of their own, reducing their accuracy with fast lenses (PD sensors rarely “see” larger than F2.8, more often somewhere around the F5.6-F7.1 range).
CDAF presents a trade-off to photogs – guaranteed accuracy with no worrying about focus shift, field curvature, or having to do tedious AF micro adjustments. On-sensor PDAF does improve lock-on time but, as many correctly note, does not bring speed up to par with traditional PDAF.
But, PDAF is not always accurate enough or precise enough. Lloyd Chambers, for those who subscribe to his site (I highly recommend it), has an excellent accounting of the foibles of a D3X with a Nikkor 35/1.4G whereupon he declares:
“Anyone who claims their Nikon 35/1.4G is focusing accurately either has their eyes closed, or has a magical lens and camera (always possible, since tolerances can coincide in a good way). Still, few users actually check their equipment with rigor, and so claims of accurate focus are invariably suspect.”
His entire section of focusing accuracy case studies (subscribe to his “Making Sharp Images” section if you are interested in details) is well worth the read, taking both Canon and Nikon to task over their supposed “superior” PDAF systems.
One thing I like about Sony’s approach since the NEX-7 is that with the LA-EA2 and LA-EA4 adapters, you get to choose CDAF vs. SLT+PDAF as your needs dictate and you can thus have the best of both worlds (or technically, 2 out of 3 worlds, since there are some advantages to SLR as opposed to SLT). Given this, I am hopeful that the A79 does retain a mirror simply to give photogs the flexibility that ILCE shooters currently enjoy.
One day, maybe. But today, it does. Especially in low light, CDAF may not focus at all.
For me it sounds like they’re porting A99 on-sensor PDAF onto A77-level.
Only a good news.
I can’t see how does it say that it won’t have an SLT. If I were you – I would wait for some rumor on whatever it will have an SLT or not – cause this one doesn’t say ANYTHING in that regard.
That’s my guess too. Definitely a good reason to keep my 16-50.
I hope the upcoming A77 succesor will come with detachable/ flip-lock SLT so you can use either the SLT or no (mirror-less)… If yes, I’ll upgrade mine 😀
This rumor adds almost nothing to my understanding of the upcoming a79 (or whatever).
Like any company, Sony likes to keep its secrets safe until it’s ready to leak them for marketing purposes to excite us fanboys. One consistency in all the rumors is a tendency to shower us with more leaks on e-mounts than a-mounts. I once interpreted this as a death knell but it could just be Sony’s uncertain about the a-mount’s future direction.
It’s pretty clear from rumors Sony wants to merge SLTs into mirrorless. However, the a7/a7R demonstrate Sony’s leadership in image processing is sustained but it also confirms mirrorless performance is no real threat to high-end Canikon DLRS yet. Previous rumors on the a79 leads me to believe Sony had originally plotted great changes but scaled them back to an obvious refresh to 36mp while retaining SLT.
So the NEX roadmap is pretty clear. Just upgrade, tweak, rename, pump out some more lenses. SLT is tougher because Sony is obviously trying to re-engineer a mirrorless solution but it’s a taller order tech-wise than anything they did with NEXs including upscaling to FF. Also, Sony’s broad mix of changes has to be straining engineering resources so how much are they going to devote to relatively low priority a-mounts?
Personally, I don’t really care about mirrorless or SLT. I just want it to work. My only issue with mirrors is the minor added issue of keeping them clean. What I don’t want – and the NEX fans need to understand – is not everyone wants a small NEX body. In fact, I find them uncomfortable, have no good sense of balance, and are harder to handle than traditional DSLRs. There’s a smaller is always better mindset that I don’t agree with at all.
Craig, re:size, I agree with you that small size shouldn’t be an absolute goal but I also think “right size” is largely an arbitrary decision and is dictated more by familiarity rather than true ergonomics. If you’re a photojournalist who shot for a decade with an F5, the value of having a camera that feels familiar will outweigh the value of a camera that gives you less back pain.
But all that said, I don’t find the ILCE-A7 to feel as small as it is. In my admittedly average hands, the A7 feels larger than my CLE and XD-11 and doesn’t feel that far off from my Maxxum 9000, despite the fact that the latter is much bigger when looking at the numbers.
Certainly, once you add the grip and the LA-EA4, the size and weight of the A7 is approaching traditional DSLR ranges. It may not be enough for you but to your point that Sony needs to understand that size isn’t everything, it seems to me that Sony does understand this to an extent with their prosumer and pro-level equipment, at least.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to get my hands on an a7R in my town just NEXs. Adding an adapter and vertical grip to an a7R might give me the ergonomics I seek. I’m hoping Sony comes out with a more traditional FF DSLR body that’s cheaper than adding all those expensive options. Plus, I’d expect it to be by design more ergonomic than a bunch of add-ons though a new review posted here of the vertical grip looks encouraging.
If not, I’ll have to decide if the a7R’s lack of IBIS is a killer. Sure, Sony would love to soak me for a bunch of expensive G, Zeiss FE glass but that option makes little sense in my case as I’d still want to share lenses with my a65. Unfortunately, while my a65 is only good up to ISO 800 most of the benefits of the a7Rs excellent ISO is offset by no IBIS according to reviews I’ve read.
Yeah before you do anything crazy Google SLT-A95, because it will be released shortly.
Didn’t Sony Alpha Rumors just debunk that?
Correct me if I’m having trouble keep all the rumors straight here but I think we’re back to Sony definitely putting out a couple of FE lenses, refreshing its NEX line-up, probably putting out an e-mount lens or two, and on the a-mount front coming out with an a77 replacement. All of this is expected to be released by the Spring.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Sony doesn’t have any new FF a-mount body coming out earlier than October for the Christmas season. It wouldn’t even surprise me if Sony’s choking on FF a-mount mirrorless IBIS/AF and will put it off until 2015 when the rumored 50mp sensor might be ready. If they choke on the 50mp yields I’m not sure what their back-up plan is. The allegedly out of manufacture a99 doesn’t have that kind of legs.
Is it 32mp as rumoured. If it is I’ll buy it.
Wow! This escalated quickly.
To summarize…
AlphaGuy cannot come to grips with a mirrorless future, already bemoaning the inadequacies of a camera that does not yet exist
Barry really really really wants a 36MP APS-C camera (but don’t we all?)
And nobody can guess what the SLT “was really for”
MY GUESS? I won’t say it was aliens… But it was aliens
SLT was to allow the use of live view with PDAF. All of us remember that when buying A33’s, A35’s and A55’s.
Side effect was PDAF during video.
+1…Classic!
Dude. Pixels in RX10 are much better per area than in any aps-c cameras.
If you could make sensor with same pixels as in RX10, but aps-c sized, you get 64 nice megapixels…
They should admit that SLT tech was a one-way street and therefore a failure. I am glad that they finally get rid of it.
How exactly is SLT a failure?
SLT has always been a stop-gap solution, full mirrorless is inevitable
I repeat, how has it been a failure exactly?
I actually have to agree with AlphaGuy (I’ll probably go to he!! for it).
The SLT IS PROBABLY THE BEST THING SONY EVER DID FOR THE DSLR.
I can rapidly compose images on the fly, even when completely tired. Its going to get better with new releases. The new mirror only loses 1/4 to 1/3 stop of light, but their new sensors are much more light sensitive and optimized for SLT.
I used the A7r for a week, and I was so happy to have my SLT camera in my hands by weeks end. I actually pulled out the ancient Nikon D300 by mid week. I might complain about the A99 / SAL70200G2 price – but they really perform well together. I will not be buying into mirror-less for now.
The SLT gives the A77/A99 a much faster AF system. An SLT (A99) teamed up with a SSM II (SAL70200G2) lens is an incredible experience.
It is not. That’s the same type of discussion as seen on Fuji rumors where people explained how a swivel screen is a gimmick and is going to fall apart, collect dirt and look unprofessional.
Same Dudes who bi!ch about SLT are the same Dudes who bi!ched about mirror-less, and probably b!tched about the jump to digital.
They are too stup!d to understand what it SLT actually brings to modern photography, because they don’t own one or are too stup!d to use one.
Its called innovation look it up – its in the dictionary between idi@t, and imbeci!e.
Well said BRWAT!
Firstly, hands up I have never used an SLT and thus cannot comment honestly on its efficacy. However there do seem to be legitimate downsides to the last {first} gen of SLT. Firstly and most obvious was the reduced high ISO :
D600 VS a99 same sensor
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99___915_831
The talk was that the SLT should only lose a third of a stop, what else influenced the actual difference between the A99 and D600/D610 with same base sensor? Secondly while you do get the advantages of an EVF , which as an mFT and now Sony FE shooter I do appreciate despite my continued preference in many situations for my DSLR’s. There is negligible reduction in size or weight. The reduction in Sony’s share of the DSLR mark I am sure has a number of reasons , I am pretty sure that even if the absolute performance of an SLT is not that different, the perception on the wider market may be a very different matter.
Anyone who claims innovation is between idi0t and imb3cile in the dictionary is probably one of either himself 😉
You guys are so funny. Everyone making claims that the cameras are failures, that the swivel screen is “unprofessional,” do you guys own the cameras? Do you make your living with it?
The Sony A99 is a professional-grade camera. Could I, like all of you half-wits on here, find things wrong with it? Sure I could, but thats just not in my nature. The screen has been INCREDIBLY useful, today for example while photographing olympic gold medalist Sonya Richards-Ross and a multi-million dollar ground-breaking ceremony. That finicky SLT-tech some how managed to lock on lightning fast to my subjects, the Light-stealing mirror gave me images that my clients actually accepted (thank god!)
Get a grip people. Whether SLT is a stop gap, or cameras are a stop-gap for mind cameras that upload your visions in 3D to a global hive-mind, etc, is f**king irrelevant. They are tools, that work, RIGHT NOW, and are getting me published and shooting with clients that other photographers do not have (and its nothing to do with the brand of camera…)
Just frustrates me how ignorant and blind some posters on here are. I could make a living with a canon rebel if I needed to, why are you guys so NEEDY?!
http://www.frankwithersphoto.com
Mar-Anus zip-it
I just can’t agree with this. I don’t see the limitations of SLT indicating in any way that it needed to be considered a stop gap. Without an actual statement from Sony’s engineers stating this I don’t buy it.
SLT was developed to provide AF during video. Sadly, there isn’t a single SLT from Sony that has top-notch video quality because the firmware lacks. By the time they fix that, SLT is already abandoned again. That leaves us with a large group of photographers, who don’t need video but still have to live with the drawbacks of SLT, i.e. worse low-light capabilities than without mirror.
So you are saying that a third-half stop of light means SLT is a failure. Yeah ok.
A half-stop light loss IS a failure if there is no actual benefit. If people would buy Sony cameras for their awesome video quality, then ok. But they messed that up. Look at A99 video – blurry. People still use Canon for that. What exactly do I need the mirror for then? I am not sure if EVF was ever a reason to introduce SLT – it was a necessity in my opinion. Sony should have skipped SLT and introduced SLT when PDAF was ready for it.
He talked heavily on video with a brief mention on light loss in photography…. Excuse me if I didn’t read it properly…
Mike if you don’t understand what the mirror is for then there is little point asking you why you think SLT is a failure.
And again
Same Dudes who bi!ch about SLT are the same Dudes who bi!ched about mirror-less, and probably b!tched about the jump to digital.
They are too stup!d to understand what it SLT actually brings to modern photography, because they don’t own one or are too stup!d to use one.
Its called innovation look it up – its in the dictionary between idi@t, and imbeci!e.
MIKE please go back to Canon or Nikon
AlphaGuy, then tell us what it is for. I already mentioned EVF and PDAF during video. Don’t say AF, because that can also be achieved without the SLT mirror.
“Don’t say AF, because that can also be achieved without the SLT mirror.”
Your lack of knowledge and understanding of why a mirror is so important to AF is showing. May I suggest that you Google what the mirror is for?
+ 1
Mike, you are right in one thing, when the e-mount mirrorless AF tracking performance is equal to the SLT design, then, yes, there is no longer the need for the mirror.
But until then, less than half a stop of light lost is nothing if you appreciate the AF speed.
And the AF speed on a77 & a99 is top notch, even if the AF sensors could be a bit more apart for greater coverage.
Video? The SLT is there to provide PDAF (for both video and photography) until on-sensor technology gets there. So, photographers are certainly benefitting.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
-1 One of the sales points of SLT was full time auto focus while shooting video. With SLT, you can look at the EVF while shooting video, instead of the LCD. I’ve thought a lot about the video issue with the A99, and the best I can surmise is that the softness is due to line skipping. Whether they did this because the processor isn’t up to the task of taking 24mp and turning it into 1080p, or if they did it to save battery, I couldn’t really say.
I haven’t used the A77, but in the A99, there isn’t a way to flip the mirror up, with lenses on. the mirror extends beyond the front of the box. This makes me doubtful that they’ll build a camera that has that ability.
Vlad and all who gave +1 obviously aren’t aware of the fact that PDAF is perfectly possible without any SLT mirror. Any DSLR is the prove. That leaves PDAF during video as the one benefit, and that is what I initially claimed.
@Mike You didn’t follow the suggestion to google anything and it shows.
@99Problems I don’t see what you are disagreeing with or how your comment relates to mine.
+6
actually SLT was not for video (you can shoot video without a mirror, like Canon does)
SLT was for the EVF since you cannot have EVF with a normal mirror. It was more like an experiment and a push for a new tech. Not really done well the first time…maybe they will improve it now. Sony’s main weakness is autofocus. If they can fix autofocus to be precise and fast they would dominate over Nikon for sure…not sure about Canon 🙂
That’s absolutely wrong. The EVF works off of the sensor aka Live View in traditional DSLRs. The mirror is there to transmit light to the Phase Detect sensor. Also, the EVF is there because there was no traditional mirror or pentaprism.
When the a55 was first announced, Sony touted two big things. Fast continuous autofocus when recording video and when shooting stills in burst mode. I don’t see why people are saying SLT was made solely for video.
SLT was not for the EVF. The mirror directs light to the AF sensor, not to the EVF. The EVF shows the live view feed from the main image sensor, and any mirrorless camera can do that. The reason for the SLT mirror is to provide PDAF during live view (including video), instead of having to rely on CDAF like an ordinary DSLR.
It isn’t for AF when shooting video. It enables AF with continuous live view and the EVF, which allows continuous AF when shooting video OR stills. I would like an extra half stop of light ( or rather less gain) but the continuous WYSIWYG EVF/LCD experience is what sets the alpha cameras apart and I certainly miss it now when I shoot with canon cameras.
I couldn’t agree more. As a former medium format film guy I have to say that the evf/live view is the best piece of tech in years. I have no issue with the slt given the trade off in focus speed. You can be 100% certain that when on sensor pdaf equals the slr/slt focus systems for accuracy and speed the mirror will go the way of the dinosaur. I am looking forward to it. SLT was not a failure, it was brilliant.
It’s not just some light lost. When the a77 first came there were tests done with and without the SLT mirror (it was manually removed). The difference was that the mirror introduced a slight blur to the images.
I have never heard of any such claim in any forum, technical site or review regarding the A77 and blur from the mirror.
Post a link.
It was a slight loss of resolution and slight CA. Demonstrated on an A55 with and without mirror. If you aren’t aware of that test, AlphaGuy, then you aren’t properly informed and should do your homework before posting here. Go and find the link yourself, Google is your friend.
Unfortunately for you Mike, the camera in question is the a77 (maybe you should read more carefully?), which has an improved mirror (Google is your friend) and “I have never heard of any such claim in any forum, technical site or review regarding the A77 and blur from the mirror”.
Just another victim of reading difficulties.
A77 does not equate A55. Different generation of mirrors.
If I recall correctly, David Kilpatrik quantified the blur to the same as having a skylight filter mounted. Or any other filter for that matter.
Mike, I see that others have already corrected you so I shall not add to it. Having to constantly correct you is tiresome, so I shall leave you to it.
” SLT was developed to provide AF during video.”
Popular internet myth. Video isn’t even mentioned in the original patents before SLT was introduced. Both the patents and marketing mentioned fast LV and easier to achieve high fps before anything else.
Thanks for opening my eyes mike! Had no idea that my 2 A99s were actually failures as cameras! I can’t wrap my mind around how I’ve managed to shoot over 150 weddings and 30 commercial shoots with them if they are so bad at making images… so weird!!
I bet my shots would be so much better on a Dslr!
http://www.frankwithersphoto.com
🙂
I have used Sony SLT cameras for three years. Most of the complaints about these cameras are non issues as far as I am concerned. People rave about the 70D being able to do AF during video. Big deal we have doing that for years with SLT. And on the still side, if you cannot get great shots out of an SLT camera it is operator error. I have really enjoyed my a77 even when shooting stage events. All I had to do is stay below iso 3200 and I am good to go. Photographic skills have a lot more to do with the IQ anyway. For example I shot a high school basketball game with this week with an EM1 and an Nex6 at iso 1600, Auto WB, 1/320 at 3.2. Their AF speeds are very different but in the end the shots were equally sharp due to adjustments in shooting technique related to each cameras respective AF. Why do so many people keep crying for a specific ideal camera anyway. And who owns only one camera? I enjoy m43, C and FF.
+1 , I love my SLT a99 . Wouldn’t trade it for any other FF out there . 1/3 loss or whatever is barely noticeable . No camera will ever be perfect , but who cares EVF rocks. By The Way I came over from Nikon .
Yes, the nice things with the mirroless and adapters is, I should also m43, C, FF (not mirrorless, but still with adapter), and am using Pana, Leica, Oly, Minolta, Sony, Canon, Nikkor, Pentax, Zeiss. Doh, camera is the first one that will get replaced in the digital age. I love it, the lenses in particular, and not having to look at the price of film, and not having to frame any slides…
Well said!!! It’s about the photographer’s skills. IMHO 60/40. By the way, I own 2 A77 and I’m very happy camper.
Sure, there are down sides, and it can be improved with a couple of years of engineering, but in many ways it was a good compromise. Claiming it’s a failure is not a fair comment. I personally really like my A77.
The issue is not if slt is a failure..it was inovative in its time…the issue is can we do better mow with mirrorless.
If we can do better now than we are ready to move on.
The answer is still “no”.
Yep. An it will be for years to come. Full size PDAF always will have an advantage over tiny PDAF pixels. It’s like comparing 1″ sensor with Full Frame and arguing that 1″ can be better. No – it can’t. You cannot cheat physics.
But, with tiny on-sensor AF points, you can have a lot of them. A99 already has 102. Are you sure lots of small AF sensors won’t beat a few bigger ones?
Have you used an a99? The 102 points is more marketing BS than a very useful feature. They can assist a little if you are tracking. They do nothing if you do not want to use continuous / servo AF. There are really only 19 AF points and they are clustered in about 1/9 of the frame – it is very limiting.
Even when tracking, they only help a little. They certainly cannot keep up with my toddler (I’ve tested the tracking ability on him running around a room).
See: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/10/03/want-to-use-the-102-af-points-on-the-sony-a99-well-you-better-own-one-of-these-6-lenses/
Yes, I know about the A99. I just questioned the ‘always’ in your post. The on-sensor tech is not yet fully developed, but when it is, it may be different – without any disagreement with the laws of physics.
Only rightnow we’re not limited by a level of development, or number of sensors, but physics. See Nikona 1 or m4/3 – first one got great OSPDAF thanks to the huge depth of field tiny sensor has. Second one got great CDAF thanks to: lerge depth of field, lens design that utilizes advantage of having small sensor (les movement in lens) and a huge computing power of it’s CPU. Meanwhile OSPDAF of Full Frame body, or even APS-C with bright lenses is a completly different beast where physics becomes an enormous obstacle – and right now the only one we have. Yes, you can push it, but the results are quickly dimishing.
Christopher, have YOU ever used the A99? Since the firmware update learnt last year? It added 11 more lenses (https://blog.sony.com/2013/02/dualaflensfirmware/) and since then Sony released the SAL50F14Z and SAL70200F28G2 that also support AF-D. Of course, it still doesn’t support all compatible lenses, but with the exception of the speciality lens SAL135F28 STF, AF-D is now supported for basically every better Sony/Sony-Zeiss lens. And AF-D with supported lenses is really fast and on A99, also the range limiter is very well implemented and of great value when autofocus speed and accuracy are of great importance.
Still, the focus area is still quite small due to the APS-C SLT focus module of the A77 ported to the FF A99, but for a A77 successor which will still be no issue. The A77 is still one of the fastest if not THE fastest APS-C camera based on frame rate, only outperformed by the most recent and far more expensive and lower resolution FF pro cameras D4 and 1D X. And the thing in which those camera are still clearly superior is tracking AF – and this is exactly where AF-D shines.
So, yes, a A77 successor with added AF-D will be an incredibly well-suited APS-C sports camera … at least of Sony fixes the duration of screen blackouts in continuous shooting and increases the buffer size.
Lensall
IMPOSSIBLE is just another word for IGNORRANT.
I do not for a second think you are ignorant so perhaps not claiming things are impossible or against the laws of physics could be stated in a less absolute manner that would better reflect your knowledge.
Every invention or innovation ever made has been plagued by people claiming its impossible.
I am not even addressing the facts..just the semantics that I find annoying.
Mirror-based PDAF is different operationally from sensor-based PDAF so comparing one to the other in an absolute sense by invoking the laws of physics ignores the point.
Mirror-based PDAF is used for both tracking and locking focus. Sensor-based PDAF is used for tracking while CDAF is used for locking focus. By tracking, I’m talking both about subject tracking in AF-C as well as determining whether a subject is coming in or out of focus in AF-S. Without sensor-based PDAF, a CDAF sensor must rack in and out of focus (phase detection doesn’t completely avoid hunting, though, it just reduces it).
So sensor-based PDAF, while it will be limited compared to mirror-based PDAF, does not need to fulfill the same function. All sensor-based PDAF needs to do is to tell the camera whether a subject is coming in or out of focus. Mirror-based PDAF must do that in addition to confirming whether a subject is in focus. And the laws of physics state that the entire sensor will be superior to PDAF sensors alone in terms of confirming focus.
TL;DR version: the laws of physics will state that mirror-based PDAF will get you more shots, on-sensor PDAF + CDAF will give you more shots in focus. Both sides of the coin are desirable depending on shooting circumstances. Best approach is what Sony is doing with mirrorless and giving the photographer a choice – use on-sensor PDAF + CDAF when accuracy is desired and use an LA-EA2/LA-EA4 when speed is desired.
+1
Completely agree with Barry, if AF performance can be improved over existing SLT cameras than it would be nice to have less gain, however if the AF performance deteriorates than it is not time for Sony to move on.
I hope they keep the great grip and the great swivel hinge.
+1E6 on the svivel hinge.
Have we seen it since the a77?
The A99, but that’s it.
That leaves the a57 and a58, which are mid/entry level bodies. I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to have a swivel hinge, to be fair. Must have swivel, an improved and af micro-adjustment as a minimum for me. Ideally faster af too.
I’m less worried about noise since upgrading to dxo 9 – the new nose reduction algorithm is great
Nose reduction algorithm – sounds handy for some faces 🙂
No, I can also not really understand the obsession with “noise free RAW images” … as if noise would be the only criteria to judge the quality of a photo.
The omission on A7 worries me for the future of that hinge.
Sony! Please Keeeeeeep!
Something that won’t be missed is the captchas in this site…
No mirror would be a disaster for me. If they ditch SLT then the A77 will be the last Sony body I buy new, I’d rather buy used SLTs and get the AF performance I need.
What are you talking about? There is no reason why SLT provides better AF than a flip mirror. After all, the best sports cameras are still DSLRs, as are the best low-light cameras. SLT is a compromise, that doesn’t make anybody really happy.
I didn’t say anything about SLT vs. SLR. This blog post is talking about REMOVING the mirror.
Mike, Sony is not going back to SLR cameras. The question is will Sony move the alpha a-mount line to a mirrorless body (such as the a7) or a next generation of SLT designs.
STOP TROLLING. No one is getting sucked into your slr ovf crap. To make a blanket statement that no one is happy with SLT is just ignorant. Feel free to have an opinion but remember your opinion is not everyone’s opinion and just because someone doesn’t agree with your opinion doesn’t make them wrong.
+1
Uh Mike… Do you actually own a camera yourself… or are you just playing with daddy’s computer?
Wanna see my A99 or the shots of my daughter I’ve taken with it? Don’t confuse me with some CaNikon fanboy. I am merely expressing my opinion on SLT technology, and even though I own one myself due to lack of alternative, I’d rather have usable ISO on something like an A950 and go straight to mirrorless when the technology is ready for it.
A950…. Mike you make me believe the others are right about you
+1
I’d love to see an a950
Or an a900R (with a 36MP sensor)
Now that’d be a “stop gap” that’d sell…
Portrait photographer,
Sony has made it clear that they have moved on beyond SLR cameras with an OVF. I’m not sure how much more life is left in them. I expect that within 10 years dSLR cameras with OVFs will be a niche product at best.
For the present, it would be nice if Hasselblad would get its act together and release a non-diamond encrusted a99 or a79 variant with a mirror and OVF – an actual variant that is worthwhile to photographers. This would be a useful addition to the a mount line.
Mike just released an SR5 Rumors about A950
Well, write us a review of A950 mike,..
There is no technical reason that on-sensor PDAF is slower than mirror PDAF. There is no technical reason on-sensor PDAF supports fewer lenses than mirror PDAF. These are historic design artifacts created by the path of technological development, but are not in any way inherent in chip making technology available today.
I am of course talking about “today”, tomorrow we could have flying cars and personal rocket ships.
The evidence of the fact that many manufacturers are trying and has yet to achieve class leading performance suggests that this is not correct. Ultimately it will be true, and I can’t wait, but I think expecting the 2014 on-sensor stuff to match what has been done off sensor for years is probably unrealistic. At the end of the day the previous solutions have used dedicated sensors for this stuff. Combining it onto the image sensor, while maintaining field leading image quality is not trivial. After all, the off sensor tech has hardly been sitting around unchanged. That too has been undergoing improvements over recent years.
No, PDAF is initially limited to pure AF only array and far less efficient. In fact, on sensor PDAF is just as silly as SLT. The future is for software detection. Why don’t we see these at japanese cameras? Well, see how long did it take to make first FF mirrorless, although it was DAMN obvious they will be successful. Instead, we saw tons of crap like μ43 and xtrans sh1t. They are blind japanese from japan headqs who don’t make obvious things and they are beating everywhere nowdays for this reason, getting lost at all markets.
True that, the Japanese lost the camera market.
Good stuff you’re inhaling.
Sure, they cannot lose it once they are the only player there. But, take a look at more competitive ones 😉
Emacs, you have been talking about that software for more about one year. What about actually doing something?
Doesn’t it need the SLT. Won’t the Auto-Focus system will suffer without it?
Yup, good luck tracking without a mirror.
That or Sony has developed some workaround/new tech that solves this problem. Can’t assume anything at this point, though it seems unlikely to have BOTH on sensor PDAF and a mirror…
I wouldn’t worry about it just buy f/2.8 or faster lenses. Sony is also the leader in sensor tech (which is why both Nikon, and Pentax use Sony sensors), and the new sensors will more than make up for it. If there is a light problem I always pull out a G-Series or Zeiss solution.
A99 does, no reason a A7X could not. Based on the A7 and the fact Sony stuck a SLT focus module in the LA-EA4 I would think that the on-sensor PDF is not yet up to the standard needed to replace the normal SLR focus module. That does not mean Sony could not release an A-mount without mirror but if they do I expect it to be of the extra-high pixel sensor completive photography type and not a sports body, or a very low-end body like the A3000 but in A-mount.
+ 1
Maybe, but don’t forget about the size / thermal constraints of the a7/a7r. The a7r could not even have the Pdaf that the a7 does so these cameras may not be the best indicator due to the miniaturization issues that will not affect the a79. It’s like comparing a tablet to a desktop computer.
That is the best analogy I’ve heard to date.
ospdaf missing in a7r is due to the fact that the aa filter is not there. it has nothing to do with size.
Pretty happy with mine and keeping it until the a77 replacement’s replacement comes out. Losing a click on the aperture dial because of the SLT worries everyone on the internet but almost nobody in actual use. Video bitrate – if its ever a problem – is fixed by buying a second hand GH2 on fleabay (works very well with Sony Alpha APS-C lenses).
Up to now I have been a NEX user, exclusively. Over the past year I’ve found that I want improved AF accuracy and speed that the Alpha line/A Mount has but I’ve been holding off on a purchase until the next round of A mounts are released.
I feel this is pretty obvious but if the sensor has the PDAF, there is no need for a mirror.
Everyone saying they are done with Sony because the AF performance will be bad… lets just wait and see if Sony has found a way around it. Every problem is an opportunity…
I’m really hoping they have cracked the on sensor PDAF puzzle and achieved performance at the level of SLTs.
I think it’s unlikely to match SLT performance, but on-sensor phase detect would be fantastic for many applications. I’m really hoping for a hybrid, with a lock-up capable mirror, with all the benefits of both systems.
Not with the vast majority of A-mount lenses they won’t.
Most of the people complaining here don’t own one. The A77/A99 are an exceptional pair of cameras. Remember unlike other platforms Sony A-Mount SLT is the only platform that has a library of fast autofocusing Zeiss lenses.
Sorry the comment is meant for Vulcan Cafe
Admin
Will this be another 24mp sensor or higher mp?
Rumours in Sept indicate that it might be 32mp.
What happened to the rumor that the new SLT will transmit 20% more light?7YT
If this camera has both pdaf and slt then it would still focus with the miror fliped up?
In all honesty, I believe it will have the mirror along with the PDAF on sensor. It will be a hybrid system just like the A99. It makes perfect evolutionary sense. On sensor Pdaf is not able to match performance of dedicated AF systems yet else we would have seen it on the A7.
I think the Pdaf module is on the mirror in the a99.
The A99 uses a conventional PDAF along with the 102 on sensor PDAF points, I would assume that the A77 replacement will have something similar.
I feel that the SLT will disappear at some stage, but the most recent cameras on sensor PDAF is not yet up to conventional SLT/SLR cameras. However Sony has surprised the market before. Perhaps using moving of the sensor, along with lens movement may speed up focusing
I wonder if the new LA-EA4 SLT transmits more light than it’s predecessor. I would imagine it is sony’s latest SLT mirror generation and if an SLT mirror is in cameras of 2014 it will be the same one.
I wonder if anyone would actually be able to TELL in the end-result.
NOPE. Cannot believe people still bitch about the 33% loss of light.
Sony describes it as the same AF as on the a-65. So it probably a re packaging of a-65 parts.
Focus module is A65 but the mirror has to be different. Probably the A99 mirror.
First a rumor on a 10% improved SLT mirror, then still a question mark whether or not the mirror is there.
I’m sure it is more than 10% if it is mounted beside the camera 🙂
I just need a tiny bit more info. and the A77 gets dumped. MORE RUMORS PLEASE!!!!
On sensor PDAF and CDAF has the technical capacity to match and outperform the external phase detect sensors. Imagine the possibilities – a camera which can recognize individual football players on the field, track and shoot at 10+ fps and 36mpix. Perhaps not possible until now, but who will bet that it won’t be very soon?
As for me, I’d like a dual OVF/EVF system – put the mirror back and add an acutator to remove the EVF LCD from the viewfinder path.
By now Sony should have some real world data about how their new OSPDAF arrays behave as found in the Olympus E-M1.
However, given the rather strong drop in high ISO performance coming from the arrays, I wonder if there is really a point in removing the TLM… expect for not having to worry about misaligned AF modules.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140116_1-Sony-A7R-shutter-vibration.html
I’m glad you posted this Vladimir. The digital age has created many new ghosts in the machine.
I’m noticing another ghost with inconsistent aperture performance. For extreme shot to shot consistency, we need a stop down mode that allows user to shoot live DOF without taxing the aperture spring on every exposure. Otherwise the adapted lens show a clear advantage on EVF, keeping viewfinder bright on a fixed closed aperture, reducing vibrations too.
All concerns should be easily addressed if manufacturers would get their head out of sand.
Nice post, only you missed the topic. That’s irrevelant to A-mount cameras as they’re much bigger (so compensate for vibrations by far better) and use EFSC as a standard. Post that under one of 125 news about A7 we had on SAR.
I’m glad to see some A-mount news for the A-mount crybabies. I hope this means less crying in future E-mount posts(at least from A-mount people). 😛
My bet — It’s like the A99. Continues to keep SLT mirror and AF module, but has OSPDAF to “assist” in AF-D mode.
The fact that it has on-sensor PDAF is no indication that they will remove the mirror, I don’t understand why anybody would make that conclusion. The A99 already has on-sensor PDAF. The most recent example, Sony a7 vs. a7R, also indicates that the OSPDAF technology is not very mature and doesn’t make much difference. Given the design of A-mount lenses, I very much doubt they could achieve reasonable autofocus with OSPDAF only. I’d give it a couple more years.
posted in parallel with Adam – totally agree
+1
Better light transmission through the mirror (delecting less light is the rumor) with in sensor PDAF (hopefully faster than current Sony cameras) would be conincedental developments that would make for an improved A77 replacement. And if they reduce the crop in video mode, allow AF on video with at f3.5 or less, that would be even better. This may be a camera to really look forward to (the A79, that is).
I would love something like the autofocus from the cannon 70d, and no translucent mirror for low light improvement.
The Canon 70D technology is the best on-sensor autofocus currently available (for DSLRs) but even that is not a full replacement for mirror-based PDAF. It’s still possible that the new A79 might have a special mode with the mirror flipped up, which could be interesting. But what they have shown so far with OSPDAF is not very convincing.
Why would they release a mirrorless camera in A-Mount?
They could release it as an E-Mount and support A-Mount via a simple and cheap adapter.
An adapter is not optimal, of course, but there is no reason to force users to use heavier and bulkier lenses than necessary.
Think about it. Why don’t they toss the E-Mount. Mirror-less cameras haven’t caught on. Maybe they should convert mirror-less cameras to A-mount. Sony earns more from A-mount lens sales. Maybe that’s the back-up plan. Cheap mirror-less A-Mounts.
The real reason is Alpha users wouldn’t buy it.
Totally confused! Or a big a BiG joker! No confused!
Ask a stup!d question, and you’ll get a stup!d response!!!
There are many things that the alt did prove advantageous over a conventional slr. But they do not outweigh the crippling limitations. Ive owned the a77 since october 19th 2011, and as much as i love it. I never use it anymore.
anything over iso 800 is noisy, and the reds are way over saturated. The mirror sucks up way too much light.
the mirror creates a ripple effect on the images. Case and point: once coupled with the 85 1.4, the Bokeh is rippled and distorted. The camera also likes to back focus extremely especially at night.
The fact that theres a mirror in front of the sensor means that you will be loosing too much light and being angled only makes its effects worse. I’d take on sensor pdaf over a mirror or any day. I now use my a7 for nightlife mainly because if focuses more accurately and can be used without flash. The focus speeds between the two are so minor they go unnoticed.
I was frustrated with the a77 and a99 color saturation until I started setting the saturation at -2 or -3 with creative styles and then add color in post when shooting people. I have not seen what you describe about the bokeh being degraded with the a77 or a99 with the CZ 85 1.4. In fact the bokeh is just plain beautiful. I love doing bridal or regular portraits with that lens.
Well it is easy to prove whether the mirror distorts bokeh (which does sound like an odd claim because one would think it would distort everything or nothing).
Someone with an e-mount camera, 85mm lens and the Sony SLT adapter can prove it one way or another.
Or, even more direct: take out the SLT and see if the issue goes away.
Frankly, I have not noticed any of that on my A77!
maybe i bought a lemon, but at iso1600, unless you’re shooting in daylight, you’re going to have a very noisy adventure. Some of my favourite shots are stupid noisy thanks to having a mirror slowing down an already noisy apse sensor. Call me crazy, but a fixed mirror between my lens and sensor has to have its repercussions. I can’t stand shooting it at night. I did weddings with it and at dusk, the pictures where too noisy and hard to handle in RAW. If you’re happy with the a77, glad to hear. I’m just stating that the a77 and my 300 were utter noise machines. the a7 was a godsend. and now my a77 collects dust. Ive covered more nightlife events then i can remember with the a77, and all it did was back focus on about 10% of my shots. It could of been helped by using the 16-50 at f4-f5.6, but then my flash would be stronger, and the “blinding” complaints would rise up again. The reasons i don’t sell my a77 are its high megapixel count, gps and flawless performance in daylight situations. Living in canada, we don’t get much sun for about half the year, so the a7 is my workhorse for the next few months.
+1
Reds oversaturated means you’re judging ooc jpegs. The “ripple effect”, ooc jpegs. And then link that to the SLT mirror. No and no. Nothing to do with it. All the jpeg engine.
I’ve shot A77 ISO 1600 shots in RAW that can be giant wallhangers. Sure, an underexposed one would be more troublesome that regard.
Well, A77 sensor got it’s own troubles – regardless if you had SLT or not (like on NEX7)
Agree. I do a lot of available light shots and always try to keep my NEX-7 below ISO 1600, which is sometimes tricky since some of the fast E-mount lenses do not have OSS. An A77 successor will hopefully have newer sensor technology that reduces the problem (and/or the need for post processing) a bit. For JPEG shooters, the newer Boinz processor seems to be very helpful since the noise suppression works now far better in applying it only to areas that need it…
So you don’t own either an A77 or A99, and all of your above comments are based out of ignorance or conjecture?
You use a NEX so you definitely not a semi-pro or pro.
Your another E-mount fanboy, and you just annoyed the entire forum.
@BRWAT: I don’t know why it matters to you or the credidability of anything I said in this discussion, but no: I own several Sony cameras:
– A99 with some of the glass that supports AF-D like SAL2470F28Z, SAL85F14Z, SAL100M28 an also some Sigma lenses (50F14, 12-24). I wished AF-D would work with those Sigmas – it really works fast and great in my experience. This whole combo is great, but fill a very heavy bag that’s just too much for many occasions.
– I also own and frequently use my NEX-7 with SEL24F18Z, SEL50F18 and recently switched from using my SAL1680Z via the LA-EA2 to the SEL1670F4Z as it is much more compact and provides OSS. Had some other Sony SLRs including the pretty great for what it was A580 in low-light before and most likely for the tasks I use the NEX7 for, a NEX6 or or now A7 would be better noise-wise – but neither of them where available at the time I bought the NEX7 and I really like the tri-nav controlls of the NEX7. And the compact size/descrete combo even helped at some wedding shoots to get some nice additional pictures to the ones I got with my A99. Some future time, an A7 or A8 or A9 might have been able to do the job of both, but for now, the choice of native FE lenses is still too limited so the NEX7 remains my light weight carry around alternative to the full bag.
– I’m no way a “NEX fanboy”. I really like Sony cameras in general for providing tilt-able screens (which brought me to my first Alpha – a A350) and EVF. My needs are fairly well addressed by the Sony line up … but I see that there’s still a big need for Sony for other products for some other users.
– I follow SAR very frequently and forum posts sometimes add valuable information, but most of the time it just sucks because people call authors fanboys or put their anger with life into postings how Sony sucks and some line of products will die. And (of course) the forum is very hard to read /respond to messages in a meaningful way. So I don’t participate and don’t pollute the site with such long postings. Probably the world would be better if you also shut up sometimes instead of picking on people which obviously you don’t know or know there context.
@BRWAT, there is a difference between Mike and mike!
Sorry, I didn’t know.
I regularly use ISO3200 on my NEX 7 without any problems
http://www.flickr.com/photos/92049314@N08/11722203113/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/92049314@N08/11563592363/
“ooc jpegs”
Ah, that would explain why I don’t see any of what the OP said about the A77. It never occurred to me that the OP might be shooting jpeg!
RAW RAW RAW
I didn’t think anyone did that anymore. I mean shoot JPEG. This is 2014 right.
I’m sure Sony realises that it has to bring topcameras in A- mount to survive in this segment. That means BETTER than the competition! They have to inovate more to get better cameras.
But they can. Like they did with Nex7, RX1 and A7.
Again I’ m sure they do realise this! Exiting times!
Why is everyone assuming that PDAF will be no good. It is really good on the A7. Not much of a jump to have a next generation version on the A99 replacement…. SLT gone no big deal.
“It is really good on the A7”
Erm, no it isn’t!
I push the button, It focuses crisply, I take the photo, it’s sharp. Not sure what else you want??
If you take pictures of static objects then any camera will suit you just fine.
Well I can’t speak on the A7r. But the A7 tracks fine. Is it a sports camera?? Of course not…But then again it is not pretending to be…
Why does everyone assume that onsensor PDAF means no SLT mirror?
Of course the a77 will have that, and of course it will be there to provide support for the same AF modes as on the a99.
If they put the AF sensors there, they have a lot of firmware code that can be reused. That’s the way High End features gets trickled down the food chain.
That, together with the new generation CPU (aka Bionz X) will provide for Hi speed shooting as expected, combined with more advanced AF modes. All that combined with RX video modes.
so true. ondpaf is expected, with or without slt. i dn’t think they are ready to ditch slt.
Amazing, none of you can focus a camera. You understand, I hope, no serious video people use auto focus.
Amazing that you haven’t noticed that we are talking about a STILLS camera.
Two sentences. I hope you are able to understand they refer to different things.
I could care less about auto focus, my nice glass, mainly, won’t do it anyway.
To a large segment of dslr/ dslt buyers autofocus is very important for whether shooting stills professionally or not. Action, sports, event, wedding and photojournalists rely on AF for getting their shots.
For shooting video with a camera op, a grip and an AC for pulling /racking focus than AF performance is meaningless.
Another static object shooter that hasn’t the first clue about the needs of AF users.
They would, if it worked well (in certain circumstances). That’s like the old photographers hanging on to manula focusing. When AF for video is “good enough” it will get used more. Still, there is someting to be said for controlling focus to what you want it to be.
This, on all accounts.
Non planned (faster) action video shots can already be much easier with AF. Not everyone stages or can stage every second of those and/or can/wants to bring along a big manual focusing rig.
SLT vs DSLR tech (at current stage of development)
First of all, I know some of those are debatable. I don’t use SLT cameras yet myself. I omitted pros/cons not directly linked to the SLT tech.
PROS
WYSIWYG
Good AF in video
More frames per second shooting stills
Good AF using liveview
Viewfinder can be used for video
Ability to brighten up dimly lit scene in EVF
CONS
TTL flash delay
Poor battery life
Less dynamic range in viewfinder
Long start up time
Longer viewfinder blackout at exposure (shooting stills)
No coninuos movement in burst mode, but slideshow of stills
Worse tracking AF than competitors (which is strange!)
Noisy EVF in dim light
Did I miss anything?
Yes, and one more thing: all of the above would probably be the same if a-mount went mirrorless. They are not going mirrorless yet. Current OSPDAF is not up to the task. I don’t belive they have anything else hidden up their sleeves either. But what do I know. I hope I’m wrong.
The 3 main disadvantages are:
– Lower signal-to-noise ratio with SLT vs SLR
– Poorer AF performance
– Poor battery life due to always on LCD/EVF
—–
– “Ability to brighten up dimly lit scene in EVF: – careful, I hope you are brightening it by adjusting your shutter/aperture/ISO settings and not by boosting your EVF / LCD brightness (otherwise you will be underexposing your images – check the live histogram for accuracy)
– Not sure if flash delay can be blamed on the SLT
– Less dynamic range – well, since the SLT mirror is like a 1/2 ND filter you get greater dynamic range when shooting at low ISO / very bright scenes (and conversely more noise at higher ISO because of the increased sensor gain)
– Viewfinder blackout – SLR cameras also black out when an exposure is taken since the mirror flips up so that’s a wash
– Noisy EVF in dim light – It is boosting the gain so you can see something / preview your shot whereas with a dslr you would just see darkness so really this is a feature not a bug
“poorer AF”
Not sure how that specifically relates to SLT. If you’re thinking about the amount of light allowed to the PDAF module, think again. Because classic DSLR’s only uses a small semi silvered section of the main mirror to pass some of the light via a tiny secondary mirror to the PDAF module. Similar amounts in the visible spectrum, less in the invisible spectrum as the SLT coatings are specifically designed to be selective there, in favor of the PDAF module. That’s also why the A55 focuses better than the A580 using the same PDAF module.
On top of that, the SLT design allows for depth, contrast and colour information from the main sensor while exposing the dedicated PDAF module simultaneously, which a classic SLR cannot.
….. and I forgot the most obvious one: light to the PDAF module during main sensor exposure (and when a classic DSLR is flipping mirrors), means less reliant on predictive algorithms.
true. still Sony do not outperform canikon, which in my eyes is the biggest failure of them all. (all the head to head comparisons that I’ve found Sätt the same thing – Sony is behind.)
It’s hard to outperform over decades of experience in the most complex area, but Sony has made big improvements with the SLT’s in AF speed and accuracy. I doubt that would have happened to this extend without SLT. When the A77 was introduced it could focus faster in low to very low light than the competing 7D (similar in good light) and had faster AF lock than the D7000 in general. It’s the tracking/servo AF where Sony still needs to improve speed and accuracy quite a bit compared to the latest CaNikon semi pro and pro cameras.
About being out performed. It would be really nice if some of the testers could start doing repetitive AF performance tests.
The static pictures are getting so boring.
If captcha worked fine there will be the stars here: ***
I meant the evf shows less dynamic range than an ovf. an evf still can not show the amount if shadow and highlight detail that an ovf can.
evf gets grainy and laggy in low light, where an ovf due to better dynamic range (see above) could still show detail.
getting laggy noisy but visible evf image in very low light situations, where an ovf could not help you at all, is still a benefit. better to have a bad image than to see nothing. pros and cons.
ttl flash delay is there with all slt cameras. my guess: it takes longer to measure and calculate flash power between pre flash and exposure using image sensor rather than dedicated light meter in mirror box. (they need to fix this in upcoming models. I don’t think it’s a firmware thing, it’s hardware. there is no light meter in there)
viewfinder blackout is still longer with slt than with flipping mirror. I didn’t say it’s not there using flipping mirror.
to me great liveview is the main advantage (but Canon is catching up!). evf is a split decision – Sony need to improve. and the ttl flash thing is annoying !
What I’d like to see is push button AF just like Video cam’s so you can use both and not get a change in performance. It’s either AF or no AF.
My A77 requirements:
1) Faster AF
2) Faster Buffer
3) Deeper grip
4) More recessed flip screen
5) Hemi, because all cool things have them
No, no. Keep the grip the same. Hemi is good.
Pardon me, what’s HEMI ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemi_engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyrcP5utXt4
Plus it would be good to make the back dial be able to pull focus in manual focus, with focus peaking on or off.
Sony’s PDAF technology so far seems to “eat” about half stop of the light. Even more, then the SLT mirror.
So, that’s what is going to happen in the new camera:
– sony will suggest slightly more transparent mirror (20% instead of 30% light loss)
and
– on-matrix PDAF, which eats up half a stop.
So, the camera will have more noise (less sensitivity) by about 3/4 stop then the SLR (like Nikon) with the similar sized matrix.
But, will have slightly better follow-up autofocus capabilities, as the on-matrix sensors are being wider spread over the matrix.
So, overall I would consider this attempt as almost definite failure: instead of the better sensitivity we get less sensitivity. With virtually same or even worsen autofocus (the more transparency in the translucent mirror means worsening of the autofocus capabilities/quality).
Folks FYI: Dyxum just posted the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART in the review section. Nothing there yet, but it’s coming. Who’s going to be the first to review it!!!!
Bottomline is that Sony needs to come out with a camera that competes at the pro and enthusiast level. Fast and accurate AF, Focus points across the entire sensor/screen, huge buffer, killer low light performance & 15+ FPS @ full resolution and great battery life.
+1
Sony should just come out with a 3 Sensor Digital cam and be done with the talk about imagine Quality.
Hi you pro and contras
the ? is:
with mechanics inside
or
no more mechanics inside
I think 😉 that the future design will be without mech inside to spare production and fixing costs – sony is a capitalist unit – so this will be the future of the design –
they do not care for you biut for your money – they will bring some aaah features but remember: you pull the trigger and shoot your pic – discussion about this or that is loosing time – better write to sony and zeiss and sigma and tamron and manfrotto and and … that you want this and that – to post your wishes here is like sending your x-mas wish to the pope instead to the man in a comunist colored suit
wish you a good light
I don’t understand, if Sony gets rid of the mirror/SLT than what makes it different from the E mount? Why would they then make two separate lense lines? That would be kind of unintuitive, counterproductive and unnecessary in my opinion. They say they are committed to the A mount and I believe them, i just don’t understand the strategy. I am invested in the A mount and love everything about it. Originally I feel the E mount was their entry level consumer line but with the A7 series I feel this is changing. I hate the fact I have to double my lenses for both mounts if I want an A7.
There is no way the mirror is going away this generation. They (Sony) just supposedly spent a big wad of cash on a new translucent mirror that is 33% better than the last one.
I suspect we’ll see both SLT, and Mirror-less cameras released for the A-Mount this year.
Holy cow! What a waste! When will they learn the truth? A-mount is history. They should stop it and relocate all resources to focus only on E-mount. E-mount and mirrorless is the future!
Yup, just like the electric car is the automobile of the future. Or people will eventually settle on Mars. Maybe I’ll even get even get a real light sabre one day..
But unfortunately most of us have to live in the here and now, in a little known place called reality, which is the A-mount.
So, unless you have a flux capacitor on hand you’ll be sadly disappointed for the next hundred years.
No Henry the A-Mount is Sony’s flagship model, and E-Mounts are for soccer moms, or people upgrading from an iPhone or point and shoot. You know, the low end.
The A-Mount is a professional grade system which will transition to mirror-less when the tech is finally mature enough for real alpha enthusiasts, semi-pro, and pros. Approximately two years from now.
Then they’ll be no real use for the e-mount, because the Alpha will still be the better system and mirror-less sales will probably still be complete sh!t.
I’m Wrong it’ll actually make great bookends
A7r, which is E-mount, blows aways every A-mount flagship cameras into invisible dust.
Things are now changed. A-mount will be for amature.
You better check Sony’s release schedule cause the A88 or A88r are coming. And the A7r will become an irrelevant squeakier toy.
Plus the updated A99 is coming with a new generation sensor.
You know (A79/A88/A99r) they were held back in order to give the A7, and A7r a running start.
Well the new A-Mounts are coming, and all of them will be substantially better than the A7.
Because mirror-less isn’t catching on.
You’re kidding, right? A7R has contrast AF. It doesn’t blow anything into the dust, it just blows.
Matthias blies
Mirrorless has some advantages:
– more compact bodies and lenses due to missing mirror/SLT box
– shorter flange distance making it possible to adapt all kinds of lenses
– EVF
You can build an EVF in A-mount cameras (it’s there already) but the other two things won’t be possible. Sony would be stupid to ditch the SLT mirror as it’s the superior tech compared to a DSLR in terms of autofocussing. The light loss is almost negligible in my opinion.
It’s possible but ponitless to make a DLSR/SLT camera a mirrorless. The mount and the whole system isn’t made for it. E-Mount is.
The reduced flange distance means A7 lenses will be longer in order to compensate, and increased vignetting. Which is why the Zeiss 55/1.8 is so long. Also none of the smaller lenses are stabilized so the ISO advantage is lost while losing them.
You know Sony’s sensor have increased light sensitivity by 2.7x. The SLT now only loses less than a 1/4 stop of light. Have you actually used an A99?
Careful buddy the A7 & A7r have the highest quality and image size of any Sony camera…..Currently shitting on the A99…
The A7 does not shit on the a99. Those cameras are nothing but a small dinkleberry on the ass of my a900.
Gav probably can’t afford a A99 to cr@p on cause he spent his money on a squeakier toy (A7 or A7r). He’s probably isn’t an A-Mount user.
Gav is a t@@l
Wow you know you have touched a nerve when people stop arguing the point and resort to name calling…. Grow up guys….
Yes Image quality of both A7 cameras is a good jump over the A99…Newer processors etc…There is no arguing that… it is just progress.
As for a toy? What nonsense it is a very well made camera. I had a loooong look at the A99 before going for the A7 (please believe me when I say I am not an A mount hater) as I shoot a lot out on locations that are difficult to get to with a lot of gear. The A7 kit is half the weight and size of any other pro level camera. It produces great images…These are all things undeniable, so please just get over it…
As for cost?!? You can pick up the A99 at a very similar price to the A7r now as it is an outdated model.
Hit the gym, and buy a bigger rucksack. I’ve dragged a A-Mount (A850) through multiple tours of duty, with exceptional results. I don’t recall whining about the camera weight. The A7r isn’t up to my expectations to flimsy. It’s a Squeakier toy.
Sh!tting on a A7 camera, and user
Wow your my hero….obviously I am nothing more than an unfit sloth compared to you….As for an argument, that’s the best you can come up with?!? Take heavier camera gear that has less image quality…Oh yes because real men don’t use smaller cameras…classic
“Denial is more than a river in Egypt.” Its good to hear your making progress, and like the rest of us hopefully preparing to buy a real camera (A-Mount) soon (FF 36+ MP). Then you can leave the squeakier toy at home for the children to play with.
Dude I don’t get you?!?
As mentioned I am not A mount hater….I hope Sony bring out a kick ass pro A mount camera very soon…. I will be first in line when they do…
But as mentioned waaaay back… To dismiss the A7 and A7r as toys is just plain nonsense. They currently have the best image quality of any Sony camera end of story… No if, buts or maybes…You can rant and rave all you like…It won’t change that fact…As for build quality you keep going on about ‘flimsy’?!? How is a full magnesium body ever going to be flimsy?? You are simply being obtuse…Maybe you have glimpsed the future and it scares you. So hold on to that A850 as loooong as you can.
Actually I have a squeakier toy on order with the new Zeiss 24-70mm lens. I see the benefit in all three platforms (A-Mount DT, A-Mount FF, EF Mount) I actually use the A99/A77 these days. I sold off the A850/A700 last year.
I meant E-Mount Full Frame “FE”
Ten out of ten soccer moms approve of your comment. Zero professional photographers do.
E-mount is not the holy grail. Wide angle is not fantastic. E-mount was for always considered apsc, this is why wide angle is so kind of a miss with this cam. They could design a lens where the glass is not so close to the sensor, but you can never put a 10mm wide angle lens on it. I would not consider a small cam after going SLR style gear. There is a purpose for small gear, but it’s not for me. As for the mirror. Getting rid of it not the real answer. Going with a Two sensor design would be the way to go. No loss of light because the other sensor would catch it. Plus the main Sensor could be Black and White, while the other could be color. Get rid of the filter on one ( the black and white ) for sharp imagine and have the filter of the other to remove artifacts. Plus higher color fidelity.
A-mount is invented mainly for amature. Pro will choose e-mount since Sony’s flagship model is based on E-mount (i.ie A7r) from now on.
All the reports on wide angle problems on e-mount(APS-C and FF) come from lenses that are for rangefinder and not made for digital sensors. Zeiss and Sony can do better and they will show it. Maybe a ultra wide angle can’t be as compact as on a rangefinder but with some more optical effort it will be possible on FF e-mount.
And if a 10mm ultra wide angle is the only downside of a FF E-mount camera I think still 99% of the users would will be able to live with it.
Hey Kevin,
You are simply wrong. The distance between sensor and the lens mount has nothing to do with the quality of wide angel lenses. E is not a holy gral but no show stopper. Sure sharp angels at the edges of the sensor is an challenge but can be solved or you simply put in som distance in the design!
Look at Leica M system and it’s wides and you understand. You will soon see FE 15 mm etc zooms/primes with electronic compensation and other tricks just like Leitz is showing.
You will be proven wrong witin this year!
Lol, try your wide angle Leica or whatever on an A mount camera ans see how it works. Hm?
There is no single WA SLR lens that behaves differently adapted to E-mount compared to usage on their native mounts.
Yep the whole A7 soft edge panic is a myth….Wow wide angle lenses for a completely different type of camera don’t work perfectly… It also happens on every camera. Try turning off the lens compensation off on the 5d mark 3. Every camera manufacture cooks the images internally to ‘fix’ images even on the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 (which has very dark vignette without correction)…
I think all Sony A-mount in the future will be Hybrid ( SLT and Mirrorless ), if you use it like a Mirrorless you maybe push up the semitransparent-glass and when you want Fast AF you can pull the glass down. I think this is possible !
T-E-T-H-E-R-I-N-G for goodness sake already.
http://developer.sony.com/develop/cameras/
Won’t this be standard from now on?
Write your own tethering app.
Sony, just implement a simple mirror flip-up mode and you’ll see your camera sales soar.
Not sure the A-mount flange distance makes any sense to go mirror less. The lens mount will always have to be further away from a FF sensor due to the optics. So what would the point be as the body won’t be anymore compact…..
since when A-mount need to be compact?
Agree with Gav, IF it goes mirrorless, there is no differentiator to e-mount , so why keep both.
better to have one fast action line, and one mirrorless.
A-mount cannot be as compact as E-mount but they can be much more compact than current bodies. The A7 is about the same size as the old film bodies, they had mirror boxes, so the A-mount could be very similar in size. This will be more likely as the electronics continue to shrink.
The Minolta AF 9000 or wasn’t much larger than the A7 is today. Sony’s designers just seem to like making awkwardly sized cameras lately. I hope the next A-Mounts are smaller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_9000
Electronic “shrinkage” is largely due to decreased die size which can decrease the size and number of PCBs needed for camera electronics. However, I think there are other factors that contribute more to the current size of A-mount cameras.
Even with the A7, compared to something like the RX1, it is important to compare size based on where the focal plane is. It is set much further back on the RX1, because the RX1 lacks an articulating screen. Comparing the RX1 to an A7+FE35/2.8 by aligning the focal plane, you can see why the FE lens had to be reduced to F2.8 to maintain the compact size. Had the RX1’s lens been made into an interchangeable mount, it would be comparable in size to the Zeiss 24/1.8 or the FE55/1.8
With A-mount, you have a similar problem for bodies with articulating screens – about half an inch behind the focal plane to accommodate it. This could, perhaps, be reduced but you would need advances in mechanical construction to maintain the same level of durability in a smaller size.
Plus the SLT design requires space below the sensor for the PDAF module. This is due not to the size of the electronics but in order to make room for the pellicle mirror. In fact, if the desired result is a larger PDAF module (in order to have more focus points spread over a larger portion of the imaging space), this would require an increase in size.
That said, I’m sure Sony could decrease the size, but the SLT technology does work against them to some extent (the articulating screen is not strictly a requirement with SLT, but it is – IMHO – a necessary value-add to help justify EVF vs. OVF).
Would a 33% reduction in size be reasonable? Aircraft aluminum 7071 or carbon fiber could be used to provide the necessary increase in strength, and durability.
Well, “reasonable” is a loaded term. Reasonable in what sense? Technically? Absolutely. You don’t need to resort to exotic materials, even. While I never crunched the numbers, side-by-side, my old NEX-7 + LA-EA2 was about a third less camera compared to an A65 and the only significant feature it gave up was SSS.
And therein lies the rub – very few folks in the market for an SLR saw the combo I describe above as an option. Even among the more knowledgeable folks here, a lot of them don’t consider ILCE + LA-EAx to be a real A-mount camera.
Now I’m not saying that ILCE + adapter is the only way to get a smaller body, I’m just throwing that out there as an example of what design decisions you have to make to get that smaller body. If the trade-offs of the smaller design are seen as compromises by your target audience, you’re essentially screwed.
Consider, for example, the original point about electronics. Moore’s law is a known quantity at this point, or so I would have thought. Despite the fact that Moore’s law tells us that the A99’s single processor in 2012 would be roughly 3x-4x faster than the A900’s dual processors in 2008, there were a lot of folks that saw the A99’s single processor as a downgrade.
The “more is more” mentality, particularly in places like the US, is a very tough to overcome (one of the big reasons why the mirrorless market is so small here).
Dear Sony.
HERE WHAT I WANT FOR MY NEXT A77 mark II :
1. Hybrid af slt+sensor for ultimate fast and accurate tracking to fully accomodate your newest 15 fps mode, or at least 12 from 15 pic r dead on focus. AND SPREAD THE AF POINT WIDE!!
2. Big Buffer for at least 50 RAW files for your HIGH FPS MODE, i mean RAW!!!! and i prefer 12 fps RAW than 15 fps JPG a’la A99
3. give me mirror lock up so i can use your BIONZ-X high iso at night, i dont care if i have to manual focus for that.
4. tethered, nfc, WIFI and more manual control for remote apps
5. I LIKE THE A77 NAME Dont upgrade it to a79 just use the mark II just like your RX100
6. an open API for 3rd party firmware update would be nice addition, since you are VERY LACK of this firmware business
7. Make f2 for highest aperture point for your autofocus video, cant used your f3.5 anymore
8. XAVC CODEC Please,.. you already give it to your $399 HDR-AS100V, why cant we have em on $1000+ cam?
9. Make it sub 1400 Body Only or sub 2000 with 16-50 SSM II (internal focus)
10. PLEASE ADVERTISED ON SONYALPHARUMORS.COM , im seeing lots of canon and nikon add in this page
This rumor makes sense if you think about it. Its obvious there is a super secret a mount camera we haven’t been told about yet. Its the a900 back from the dead with an evf/ovf, no mirror and ISO to make your eyes bleed.
I bet its an A88, and the replacement for the A850. The original was launched a year and a half after the A900.
Its now a year and a half since the launch of the A99.
Maybe its the one in this Sony presentation (link at bottom).
Maybe its a FF 36 MP
Maybe it’ll be between $1499.99, and $1799.99USD
Maybe I heard a little bird chirping about or saw the product skew already for a large north american electronics retail chain already, or heard it from a Sony rep.
and maybe I’d be feeling stup!d about now if I had doubted Sony’s support for the A-Mount and bought a squeakier toy (A7 or A7r)
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/one-a-mount-camera-that-will-replace-both-a77-and-a99/
Could I be any more obvious.
Have a good night
I just received a tip that the SLT-A95 will be released this year. Yes it is another FF SLT.
The website is probably providing false information. Go figure.
SLT VS WITHOUT SLT
A99 photographing a year and well aligned with photos first Nikon D600 or Canon 5D mark III. Differences may seek a sycophant to the 100% sample photos 6000×4000 pixels.
This talk about a dead loss of light or SLT are embarrassing and speaks only people who avoid shooting A99. Or could not even recall RAW.
ISO 8000 from DxO Optic, denoise prime is excellent. photographing sports stuff and great satisfaction. It is not a camera but in his hands and head first time!!!!
Bugger all who criticize SLT for imperceptible things in practice. LOL.
I had to respond to many nonsensical posts that relate to technology SLT.
bay
Most of the critics do not own a A99, or have ever used one. I really believe their true calling in life is to generate useless comments on this forum, based on information that is generally outdated or irrelevant.
Most are E-Mounters / NEX types or Canon Nikon users dishing-out some Alpha hate. This Anti-SLT garbage will likely continue until the first real reviews are in for the third Gen SLTs.
So its really a waiting game. The A79, A88, and A95 will be arriving shortly, and allot of those critics will be silenced.
The info might be wrong. Go figure.
One last item before I go to bed
The SLT–A95 will be launching shortly. The first description is Chinese and is attached below.
http://product.pconline.com.cn/dc/sony/522446_detail.html
I think SONY with the A-Mount ALPHA cameras has to Balance
AF SPEED / Operational SPEED … SAF and CAF
Low Light AF … -3EV AF
High ISO Performance … IQ
imho, Sony has showed there Top IQ in the A7r … NO SLT , NO PDAF sensor to take down the DXO High ISO numbers even a small bit.
NOW, Sony needs to Show SPEED in a A-Mount. Sony needs to weight to SPEED and Operational Performance.
and imho the “TOP” of the food chain A-Mount PRO Sony needs two processors , a TOP/Right Exposure Compensation wheel (have all the ALPHA start having some consistency, as the name change suggests)… have any new APPS run on all the new ALPHAS … have major ACC all run on ALL ALPHAs … On the TOP PRO camera have Built IN Radio Flash Control, and a new Radio Flash that has a FAST Response and does not Overheat. and a NEW 24-70mm Zeiss all Metal Zoom (with metal zoom and focus ring , internal zoom and focus) Optimized for 36mp PLUS.
That to me is a PRO ALPHA Camera.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SonyAlphaTalk/
+1
PDAF IS A SCAM
It only works with prorietary new sony lense with built in sensors.
It should be rplaced with contrast detect.
When siny pulls the plug and goes mirrorless your entire lens collection wil be trash.
That doesn’t make it a scam. And Sony isn’t obliged to support any lenses they don’t want to.
PS: are you the real barry? I think he has an actual account now…