philip_pj wrote:
That David Kilpatrick's (...)
Sad really, but as the 'review' is free, it is worth the cost of reading.
I managed reading one third before closing the window thinking I might get back later, or not. Time is of value for me. Reading your post above confirms my initial impression and now I know I don't "have to" get back to the review. Thank you.
I would say not anything free is worth the cost of reading.
Jonas B wrote:
I managed reading one third before closing the window thinking I might get back later, or not. Time is of value for me. Reading your post above confirms my initial impression and now I know I don't "have to" get back to the review. Thank you.
I would say not anything free is worth the cost of reading.
I still think it's worth reading it -- just skip the less interesting parts about the AF and shutter lag. There are still some valuable impressions in there about real-world use of the camera (very high rate of usable shots), the quality of the files compared to the A900 and D600 and some more things like that.
I also found the review worth reading, even if DK's priorities or preferences aren't necessarily my own. I think he makes an interesting point that the advantages of SLT are as much about consistent metering as they are about AF- which i would agree with. Keep in mind, the whole point of his blog is to cover topics that might be more subjective, or Sony/Minolta-centric,or tangential than what he might write for his BJP reviews. I find it often interesting, but i guess its not everybody's cup of tea.
The reasons I left the Sony A system almost a year ago are expressed quite well in D. Kilpatrick's review. With the supposedly upcoming NEX-like Sony FF mirrorless, it would seem like that system is on life support and the a99 may very well be the last high end camera of it's kind, sort of ironic given the a900 was also the last of it's kind in many ways. If Sony was in a financially better situation, this may not have been the future but I don't believe Sony fully "got" who the main users of the FF A system were (a few users here notwithstanding). Sony certainly was not able to prove they were in it for the long term for the majority of their higher end users through their actions. Very slow lens introductions, discontinuing their one FF camera without a replacement immediately available - nor clear communication to that user base as to what was coming - and, of course, abandoning traditional technology (OVF) that many of these users highly valued are all to blame. The system will probably die out gracefully over the next few years as Sony consolidates everything into an NEX like future. Economically, that would seem to make the most sense for Sony as these cameras are much cheaper to make - and thus have a higher profit margin - and they have also proven to be extremely popular in the marketplace (but I would argue not as popular with the vast majority of higher end users who are more traditional as a group AND who require some of the advantages that a traditional DSLR bring, at least at this time).
I played a bit with an A99 in the Sony store today, and have to admit that I wasn't particularly impressed. The build quality didn't feel that great compared to my really solid D800, and the focusing and review functionality wasn't overwhelmingly good. The framerate was quite high though The viewfinder seems about the same as the NEX-6, i.e. the best I have seen so far, but it was configured too bright somehow, I am not sure what the problem was there. The exposed shots seemed fine. The NEX-6 next to it was perfect. I tried the focus peaking as well, and as-configured, it was useless. It was triggering on everything within about a 4-5m range of depth. That needs some serious re-configuring if it is to have a hope. I am surprised it isn't configured better out of the box. In fact, that was an issue all around with this camera, the standard settings just didn't seem optimal. I presume this is one of those cameras, like the E-M5, which needs about 2 hours with the manual going once through every setting, before it becomes really useful.
I've been thinking about the A99 because of MF abilities such as peaking and magnification in the viewfinder. Think about being able to use the Rokkor 58/1.2 easily nailing focus every time. That would be something. But I'm on the fence. I'm in the process of selling a lot of gear. My ZFs are on the way out, and I just sold my D700. I'm doing a serious downsizing as I mostly use my Nex, Fuji or phone. The A99 is also a lot more than the D600 and 6D, but of course, it has some features the other don't.
If you want to buy an A99, definitely download the manual and figure out how to do the things you want to do, and then go in the store and make sure it works as you expect. My 10 minutes of playing around unearthed some potential difficulties which I would want to make sure are curable by settings tuning before seriously considering this camera.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of the more serious Sony Alpha lenses are outrageously expensive. The 500/4 is 13000 Euro! The 300/2.8 is 7700 Euro! Just nuts. I wonder if they sold any? Maybe none? My theory is that only Sony employees and Sony sponsored photographers have them It would be cheaper to buy a Nikon 500/4 + D800 than the Sony lens
Absolutely, I will. Re lenses, I haven't considered any of those. I have the Minolta 35/2 which is really good. And the Minolta 100/2 is awesome. I also like the Sony 50/1.4 quite a lot. Sometimes it really shines, reminds me of some Leica shots I've seen. But I feel I'm a bit done with large, heavy cameras and lenses. At least for now. Look at the RX1. Zeiss is coming with AF lenses for Nex and Fuji. Maybe a FF Nex sometime. I think it's pretty clear where things are going.
The a900 was up there with the best cameras I have ever used...and that Minolta 100/2 is one of the best lenses I have ever used. It really is sort of sad though that we Sony full frame users had to go hunting down really old, classic Minolta glass as Sony offered no comparable modern lens.
Hopefully, Sony will use some Olympus AF technology as that still seems to be an area of weakness in their NEX and RX1 line.
carstenw wrote:
...The build quality didn't feel that great compared to my really solid D800, and the focusing and review functionality wasn't overwhelmingly good...
I agree with the rest of your post, but not these points. I thought the build was a bit better than the D800 and about equal to the D700. It trades the begging-to-break pop-up flash for a begging-to-break articulating screen, which is mostly a wash. It also has a more substantial grip than either.
Secondly, the D800 has a processor which is significantly underpowered for 36MP. We all know it has to line-skip/interpolate for LV, making focus acquisition impossible except close subjects with a long-ish lens. However, I believe even image review uses some kind of interpolation as I found even focus confirmation difficult (again, except close subjects with a long-ish lens). Neither is true of the A99; acquisition and review are both superior to the D800 and review is better even than the D700.
As you mentioned, focus peaking is too broad at its default setting. However, it is fantastic turned down. I manual focused full-body fashion shots with the135/[email protected] with nearly a 100% hit rate. I can't get close to that with the D700's OVF, even with the DK-17M
I don't use AF (it's for wimps :P ), so I can't comment on that.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I agree with the rest of your post, but not these points. I thought the build was a bit better than the D800 and about equal to the D700. It trades the begging-to-break pop-up flash for a begging-to-break articulating screen, which is mostly a wash. It also has a more substantial grip than either.
As I mentioned in my original post, it is possible that the focusing bit is improvable with menu tweaking. I am surprised that it was so unusable out of the box though. On the build quality issue, however, I stand by what I said, although I have a feeling that we are talking about different things. Yes, flip screen and flash are respective weak points. What I was addressing was that the A99 felt flimsy in my hands. I would have to spend more time with it to detail why, but the impression was instant. After having played with an A900 for some time, I found this quite disappointing. The D800 sits in my hands, solid like a rock. It may have had something to do with the choice of materials.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The a900 was up there with the best cameras I have ever used...and that Minolta 100/2 is one of the best lenses I have ever used. It really is sort of sad though that we Sony full frame users had to go hunting down really old, classic Minolta glass as Sony offered no comparable modern lens.
Nothing's "wrong" with it but it's hardly a replacement for the Minolta 100/2 due to focal length and, just as important for many, size and weight. The Minolta 100/2 is an amazingly small lens given it's performance.
Minolta 100/2: 480g, 75.5mm long
ZA 135/1.8: 1050g!, 115mm long
carstenw wrote:
As I mentioned in my original post, it is possible that the focusing bit is improvable with menu tweaking. I am surprised that it was so unusable out of the box though. On the build quality issue, however, I stand by what I said, although I have a feeling that we are talking about different things. Yes, flip screen and flash are respective weak points. What I was addressing was that the A99 felt flimsy in my hands. I would have to spend more time with it to detail why, but the impression was instant. After having played with an A900 for some time, I found this quite disappointing. The D800 sits in my hands, solid like a rock. It may have had something to do with the choice of materials....Show more →
Though the image quality was very nice (that is, when I got it to focus accurately), I was actually disappointed by the build quality of the D800E I had. When I gripped it over an extended period, the plastic memory card door would squeak just a little (something that bothers me in a 3K+ body). The battery door also seemed flimsy and to belong to a much cheaper line of camera. I actually felt like it was perhaps built just a little less robust than the a900 and nowhere near the build quality of a Pentax K-5 (which has a surprisingly solid build). It did feel light which I suppose is the upside to those plastic parts. I'm sure I could have gotten use to it if the Live View and AF issues had not turned out to be such huge problems for me in actual use.
Shooting in a dark environment with strobe and attempting to rely on Live View was a huge challenge. Unlike Sony and a few other manufactures, the Live View preview always reflects the actual set exposure (Unless I missed something?). For me, this meant that when I shot at 1/250 @ F11 in a dark Museum under modeling lights with strobe as my main exposure, my LV was useless ! Between that and the line skipping which caused frustration with focus even in good light, I felt like the camera was a road block to getting the shot. I had read about the line skipping before but it was worse in use than I anticipated (at least for me). My AF was also all over the place, even after calibration - and with multiple new lenses at that. If the Live View issues are ever fixed (I'm guessing my AF issues were unique to my sample), either through firmware or an "S" model, I will probably give it another try.
The a99 is a trade-off regarding build 'strength', let's call it. It has a solid metal body with lightish battery and card doors. I find it a good compromise, as weight is a very important use factor. It cannot fairly be called flimsy, except by comparison to a Fuji GW690 maybe.
Peaking is best used for determining DOF or on occasions gauging the focus plane with fast lenses, for high contrast focus 'targets'. Magnification via EVF has no peer in camera land as far as I am concerned, and can/do demonstrate it, for manual focus lenses.
'how impressed I was with the A900, but this time it feels like Sony's heart isn't really in it any more.'
I agree, Sony are now thinking with their heads not their hearts, and the hangover Minolta days are now in the past for their full frame efforts. The a900 now feels like a basic solid box, and a market failure to boot, many users downgrading it for lacking modern niceties such as video and an LCD. I am glad so many still like them, mine will be for sale very soon.
The a99 is like a scalpel at work, fast and so accurate - very results oriented. I have not mentioned the great metering and WB before, these are much better also. My rather unkind a900 remarks come from years of guesswork as a manual focus user, for both focusing and metering with alt lenses. The irony is that it took an SOA highly electronic camera to realise the best manual focus experience for these crucial aspects of imaging.
I do think DK, MR et al are trying hard to ignore the benefits of EVF, so I see them as unhelpful Luddites. Criticism pours forth from their keyboards rather than advice or explanation or usage preferences. They seem not to realise that many/most of their readers: (i) have never used a DSLR/SLR OVF, the market being dominated by APS-C and smaller formats, many using EVFs; and (ii) are fully aware how to live with and get the best from EVFs. You get the sense of a sermon from the mount approach, issued from on high.
'the focusing and review functionality wasn't overwhelmingly good.'
Using a manual focus lens? Did you find the button for magnification, carsten, or even use it in the EVF? Use review in the EVF? It's the extra magnification right in front of the viewing eye that the EVF affords that makes it so much more effective than any parallel viewing using the (albeit excellent) LCD.
Agree the camera needs time and understanding to set up for personal usage, it is the most highly customisable camera I have ever used. Like all good interfaces, it provides a number of ways to achieve the same goal, to cater for all user categories from curious shop tyre kickers through to to hard core users. Like the best art forms, modern cameras demand input and knowledge from their customers.
You are probably right, I stated my position a bit strongly. I was looking forward to trying the A99 after being such a fan of the A900, and was dismayed by the choices made by Sony. I understand that the A99 is probably the best platform for manual focus lenses at the moment, when using a viewfinder. I wasn't able to try a manual focus lens, this was in the Sony store.
Philip, you may be right when you say that Sony's heads are working now, rather than their hearts, but that statement does cut both ways, as appears to be the situation here. The A900 was somehow a labour of love, a very pure, very focused camera, meant only for photography enthusiasts. The A99 is probably a better camera in almost every measurable way, but the passion that so clearly went into the A900 is much less in evidence here, and I feel that it has become a pro's tool, very good at many things, but somehow with less soul. If all someone wants is a scalpel, then the A99 could be the tool. However, if someone is looking for an Uncle Henry knife, then look elsewhere.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Nothing's "wrong" with it but it's hardly a replacement for the Minolta 100/2 due to focal length and, just as important for many, size and weight. The Minolta 100/2 is an amazingly small lens given it's performance.
Minolta 100/2: 480g, 75.5mm long
ZA 135/1.8: 1050g!, 115mm long
Nikon doesn't offer a 100mm f/2 lens, Canon's version is ~25 yrs. old. I suspect CaNikon found most people are happy with 85 and 135mm. If there was a great demand for this focal length, I think you'd see some modern examples. I'll also bet if Sony did reconstitute the 100/2, the screw drive would be replaced with a SSM motor, adding weight .
I can appreciate pining for an old product. I don't think it's accurate to describe Sony shooters as " It really is sort of sad though that we Sony full frame users had to go hunting down really old, classic Minolta glass as Sony offered no comparable modern lens.", when no one offers a comparable modern version of this lens. In fact, Sony has 2 fine portrait offerings with the ZA's 85/1.4 and 135/1.8.
grahamb3 wrote:
Nikon doesn't offer a 100mm f/2 lens, Canon's version is ~25 yrs. old. I suspect CaNikon found most people are happy with 85 and 135mm. If there was a great demand for this focal length, I think you'd see some modern examples. I'll also bet if Sony did reconstitute the 100/2, the screw drive would be replaced with a SSM motor, adding weight .
I can appreciate pining for an old product. I don't think it's accurate to describe Sony shooters as " It really is sort of sad though that we Sony full frame users had to go hunting down really old, classic Minolta glass as Sony offered no comparable modern lens.", when no one offers a comparable modern version of this lens. In fact, Sony has 2 fine portrait offerings with the ZA's 85/1.4 and 135/1.8.
The situation with the lack of available Sony A primes has been well documented by many here and elsewhere, particularly at the wide end. Before the long overdo ZA 24/2 finally arrived, there was very little available with regard to high performing, modern wide primes - and by wide I mean less than 50mm! 35/2? nope...all Sony offered was the very old, highly specialized 35 1.4... Sony 28/2 or 28/1.4?...nope...modern 20 or 21? nope. If Canon and/or Nikon are the companies to use for comparison, Sony still looks pretty pathetic at the wide end, even now, five years after the a900 introduction.
Both of the ZA medium focal length lenses you mention are wonderful but very heavy and expensive. The wide ZA zooms suffer the same fate with regard to weight, size and price, particularly in recent years where their prices have become ridiculous. The plastic fantastic 85 2.8, while very sharp, is quite lacking as compared to the older Minolta 100/2 with regard to color reproduction imo and experience. Anyway, hopefully Sony will step up their lens offerings when they finally decide where they are heading and settle on a future direction but the loss of lens producing capacity due to plant closing's is not a good omen.
Getting ready to jump back into FF DSLRs after trying out smaller systems. I've been only considering Nikon and then Canon. Just today, I thought about checking out A99. I have yet to handle one, but the specs do look really nice for what I'm looking for.
The main thing being tilt LCD. Why is this not implemented by Nikon and Canon for FF models? Are they thinking pros or advanced shooters don't need it? It's one of the biggest things I liked going to the OM-D from my D700. Never thought it would be as useful as it was. I'm perfectly fine with EVF as I got used to it with my OM-D and my current XE1.
It'll be tough for me to fund a A99 and lens, but figure having the tilt LCD will be worth it. I'll have to keep reading up on the A99 and find a place to handle one compared to 5D MKIII.
The viewfinder seems about the same as the NEX-6, i.e. the best I have seen so far, but it was configured too bright somehow, I am not sure what the problem was there. The exposed shots seemed fine. The NEX-6 next to it was perfect. I tried the focus peaking as well, and as-configured, it was useless. It was triggering on everything within about a 4-5m range of depth. That needs some serious re-configuring if it is to have a hope. I am surprised it isn't configured better out of the box. In fact, that was an issue all around with this camera, the standard settings just didn't seem optimal. I presume this is one of those cameras, like the E-M5, which needs about 2 hours with the manual going once through every setting, before it becomes really useful.