This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012Sony A99
p.28 #1Sony A99
freaklikeme wrote:
Nice, Vario. Is the OS on the Sigma better than Steady Shot on the a99?
I have not really tried the OS in the lens yet, just the body. I intend to really see which is better.
Nice, Vario. Is the OS on the Sigma better than Steady Shot on the a99?
I have not really tried the OS in the lens yet, just the body. I intend to really see which is better.
Apr 21, 2013 at 04:05 PM
p.28 #2Sony A99
FLM, exactly how I felt re the a900, it is too good to rubbish it much at all and served me very well for years. The files of the new one are very nice and the camera is liberating in other ways too - it feels good in the hand, the small weight loss helps, focus aids, dual slots etc.
While I want to get the a900 'semi-dissing' out of the way, the real strength of the a900 was as a kind of 'medium format lite' camera for its time, long before 24Mp NEX, the rise of Fuji/Olympus in smaller formats, and so on. It was clearly intended for great low ISO work with fine colour and tonality.
DxO sensor metrics make it clear that Sony have tried to counter SLT-centred losses by giving the a99 a largely undisclosed great low ISO performance - exactly the strength of the a900. But you also get good mid ISO, with much more appealing noise integration, if there can be such a thing, opinions will no doubt vary.
There were interminable discussions about what ISO was best on the a900, because users disliked the noise characteristics, and the main debate was that either ISO 200 or 320 was best. I found 200 and especially 160 much cleaner but will use 50 and 100 whenever doing that kind of work (tripod) on the a99, conditions permitting.
I (and others no doubt) would be interested in anything you can offer on the 'mirrorless a99' experience - I rate personal opinions higher than many here, as there is nothing like looking at good RAWs. thanks very much!
While I want to get the a900 'semi-dissing' out of the way, the real strength of the a900 was as a kind of 'medium format lite' camera for its time, long before 24Mp NEX, the rise of Fuji/Olympus in smaller formats, and so on. It was clearly intended for great low ISO work with fine colour and tonality.
DxO sensor metrics make it clear that Sony have tried to counter SLT-centred losses by giving the a99 a largely undisclosed great low ISO performance - exactly the strength of the a900. But you also get good mid ISO, with much more appealing noise integration, if there can be such a thing, opinions will no doubt vary.
There were interminable discussions about what ISO was best on the a900, because users disliked the noise characteristics, and the main debate was that either ISO 200 or 320 was best. I found 200 and especially 160 much cleaner but will use 50 and 100 whenever doing that kind of work (tripod) on the a99, conditions permitting.
I (and others no doubt) would be interested in anything you can offer on the 'mirrorless a99' experience - I rate personal opinions higher than many here, as there is nothing like looking at good RAWs. thanks very much!
Apr 21, 2013 at 04:11 PM
p.28 #3Sony A99
xbarcelo wrote:
Would you say that the difference is in the bokeh? Is there a perceived difference in the plane of focus?
That's tough to tell, given that my angle between the shots changed too much. I was mostly trying to see if there was any difference in color, so the most technical I got was metering light and color on the strawberry before the shots to make sure it didn't change. I didn't concentrate much on framing. If I get time, I'll do a more thorough comparison, but that's a fairly low priority. Unless the camera starts exhibiting some really strange behavior, the mirror is likely out to stay.
Would you say that the difference is in the bokeh? Is there a perceived difference in the plane of focus?
That's tough to tell, given that my angle between the shots changed too much. I was mostly trying to see if there was any difference in color, so the most technical I got was metering light and color on the strawberry before the shots to make sure it didn't change. I didn't concentrate much on framing. If I get time, I'll do a more thorough comparison, but that's a fairly low priority. Unless the camera starts exhibiting some really strange behavior, the mirror is likely out to stay.
Apr 21, 2013 at 04:31 PM
p.28 #4Sony A99
freaklikeme wrote:
That's tough to tell, given that my angle between the shots changed too much. I was mostly trying to see if there was any difference in color, so the most technical I got was metering light and color on the strawberry before the shots to make sure it didn't change. I didn't concentrate much on framing. If I get time, I'll do a more thorough comparison, but that's a fairly low priority. Unless the camera starts exhibiting some really strange behavior, the mirror is likely out to stay.
So, it's an easy matter to remove and then replace the mirror? I'm curious to hear- and see- your further impressions of image quality with the mirror removed.
xbarcelo wrote
Would you say that the difference is in the bokeh? Is there a perceived difference in the plane of focus?So, it's an easy matter to remove and then replace the mirror? I'm curious to hear- and see- your further impressions of image quality with the mirror removed.
Apr 21, 2013 at 05:15 PM
p.28 #5Sony A99
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's tough to tell, given that my angle between the shots changed too much. I was mostly trying to see if there was any difference in color, so the most technical I got was metering light and color on the strawberry before the shots to make sure it didn't change. I didn't concentrate much on framing. If I get time, I'll do a more thorough comparison, but that's a fairly low priority. Unless the camera starts exhibiting some really strange behavior, the mirror is likely out to stay.So, it's an easy matter to remove and then replace the mirror? I'm curious to hear- and see- your further impressions of image quality with the mirror removed.
if it's anything like my a55 it's easy to remove and replace, but pretty much impossible to do without moving the camera on the tripod. this makes direct on off comparisons difficult.
freaklikeme wrote
xbarcelo wrote
Would you say that the difference is in the bokeh? Is there a perceived difference in the plane of focus?if it's anything like my a55 it's easy to remove and replace, but pretty much impossible to do without moving the camera on the tripod. this makes direct on off comparisons difficult.
Apr 21, 2013 at 05:19 PM
p.28 #6Sony A99
sebboh wrote:
That's tough to tell, given that my angle between the shots changed too much. I was mostly trying to see if there was any difference in color, so the most technical I got was metering light and color on the strawberry before the shots to make sure it didn't change. I didn't concentrate much on framing. If I get time, I'll do a more thorough comparison, but that's a fairly low priority. Unless the camera starts exhibiting some really strange behavior, the mirror is likely out to stay.So, it's an easy matter to remove and then replace the mirror? I'm curious to hear- and see- your further impressions of image quality with the mirror removed.if it's anything like my a55 it's easy to remove and replace, but pretty much impossible to do without moving the camera on the tripod. this makes direct on off comparisons difficult.
Seems like that should be easy to overcome with a quick release tripod plate that stays on the bottom of the camera.
Tariq Gibran wrote
freaklikeme wrote
xbarcelo wrote
Would you say that the difference is in the bokeh? Is there a perceived difference in the plane of focus?Seems like that should be easy to overcome with a quick release tripod plate that stays on the bottom of the camera.
Apr 21, 2013 at 05:29 PM
p.28 #7Sony A99
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's tough to tell, given that my angle between the shots changed too much. I was mostly trying to see if there was any difference in color, so the most technical I got was metering light and color on the strawberry before the shots to make sure it didn't change. I didn't concentrate much on framing. If I get time, I'll do a more thorough comparison, but that's a fairly low priority. Unless the camera starts exhibiting some really strange behavior, the mirror is likely out to stay.So, it's an easy matter to remove and then replace the mirror? I'm curious to hear- and see- your further impressions of image quality with the mirror removed.if it's anything like my a55 it's easy to remove and replace, but pretty much impossible to do without moving the camera on the tripod. this makes direct on off comparisons difficult. Seems like that should be easy to overcome with a quick release tripod plate that stays on the bottom of the camera.
i had that on mine, but still couldn't match framing and focus enough that they don't overpower any iq differences other than amount of light.
sebboh wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
freaklikeme wrote
xbarcelo wrote
Would you say that the difference is in the bokeh? Is there a perceived difference in the plane of focus?i had that on mine, but still couldn't match framing and focus enough that they don't overpower any iq differences other than amount of light.
Apr 21, 2013 at 05:32 PM
p.28 #8Sony A99
So, you didn't see much of a difference with and without mirror then?
I thought I noticed a tiny bit of extra contrast and color saturation in the mirrorless version above but with the cameras in a slightly different position (and possibly the focus), I might just be seeing the results of that plus placebo effect.
I thought I noticed a tiny bit of extra contrast and color saturation in the mirrorless version above but with the cameras in a slightly different position (and possibly the focus), I might just be seeing the results of that plus placebo effect.
Apr 21, 2013 at 05:36 PM
p.28 #9Sony A99
Tariq Gibran wrote:
So, you didn't see much of a difference with and without mirror then?
I thought I noticed a tiny bit of extra contrast and color saturation in the mirrorless version above but with the cameras in a slightly different position (and possibly the focus), I might just be seeing the results of that plus placebo effect.
focus is clearly different in brad's sample and i think it was in mine as well. i posted two unlabeled crops a while back and i believe most of the guesses were wrong about which was which, but not many guessed.
i believe the differences really won't be visible except in extreme circumstances (maybe shooting into the sun?).
So, you didn't see much of a difference with and without mirror then?
I thought I noticed a tiny bit of extra contrast and color saturation in the mirrorless version above but with the cameras in a slightly different position (and possibly the focus), I might just be seeing the results of that plus placebo effect.
focus is clearly different in brad's sample and i think it was in mine as well. i posted two unlabeled crops a while back and i believe most of the guesses were wrong about which was which, but not many guessed.
i believe the differences really won't be visible except in extreme circumstances (maybe shooting into the sun?).
Apr 21, 2013 at 05:57 PM
p.28 #10Sony A99
Tariq, it's just the rubber gasket around the mirror that holds it in the frame. Flip the mirror up, gently push the rubber away from the lip of the frame with a plastic pry tool, and apply slight forward pressure and angle it out. It's just slightly more difficult than replacing a focusing screen in a camera that allows for such user-replacements.
The mirror itself looks like an ND filter, so I was surprised that it didn't seem to impact the exposure. My guess is there are scenarios where the mirror might make a difference (like Derek suggests, shooting into the sun, also heavily mixed scenarios like clubs and theaters, and shooting at angles through glass) and someday I might get ambitious enough to test that out, though it will take some time to replicate those environments in a manner that will make the tests equal. For now, I'm just going to enjoy the camera.
The mirror itself looks like an ND filter, so I was surprised that it didn't seem to impact the exposure. My guess is there are scenarios where the mirror might make a difference (like Derek suggests, shooting into the sun, also heavily mixed scenarios like clubs and theaters, and shooting at angles through glass) and someday I might get ambitious enough to test that out, though it will take some time to replicate those environments in a manner that will make the tests equal. For now, I'm just going to enjoy the camera.
Apr 21, 2013 at 09:29 PM
p.28 #11Sony A99
Good, FLM. It (SLT) is pretty high tech even though most think of it as a sheet of plastic.
Apr 22, 2013 at 01:35 AM
p.28 #13Sony A99
freaklikeme wrote:
Tariq, it's just the rubber gasket around the mirror that holds it in the frame. Flip the mirror up, gently push the rubber away from the lip of the frame with a plastic pry tool, and apply slight forward pressure and angle it out. It's just slightly more difficult than replacing a focusing screen in a camera that allows for such user-replacements.
The mirror itself looks like an ND filter, so I was surprised that it didn't seem to impact the exposure. My guess is there are scenarios where the mirror might make a difference (like Derek suggests, shooting into...Show more →
Thanks, that's very helpful.
I imagine if I ever bought this camera, I would take the mirror out for peace of mind (particularly if it's easily removable in a non destructive way) since, when any issues arose (extreme ca, reflections, flare, sensor bloom looking problems) I would always be wondering if the mirror played a role. I would also be thinking (real or not) that I'm not getting the ultimate out of my lenses.
Tariq, it's just the rubber gasket around the mirror that holds it in the frame. Flip the mirror up, gently push the rubber away from the lip of the frame with a plastic pry tool, and apply slight forward pressure and angle it out. It's just slightly more difficult than replacing a focusing screen in a camera that allows for such user-replacements.
The mirror itself looks like an ND filter, so I was surprised that it didn't seem to impact the exposure. My guess is there are scenarios where the mirror might make a difference (like Derek suggests, shooting into...Show more →
Thanks, that's very helpful.
I imagine if I ever bought this camera, I would take the mirror out for peace of mind (particularly if it's easily removable in a non destructive way) since, when any issues arose (extreme ca, reflections, flare, sensor bloom looking problems) I would always be wondering if the mirror played a role. I would also be thinking (real or not) that I'm not getting the ultimate out of my lenses.
Apr 22, 2013 at 05:57 AM
p.28 #14Sony A99
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks, that's very helpful.
I imagine if I ever bought this camera, I would take the mirror out for peace of mind (particularly if it's easily removable in a non destructive way) since, when any issues arose (extreme ca, reflections, flare, sensor bloom looking problems) I would always be wondering if the mirror played a role. I would also be thinking (real or not) that I'm not getting the ultimate out of my lenses.
Admittedly that is the reason mine has stayed out. I removed my mirror when I first got the camera thinking that it would help with adapting lenses that had protruding aperture levers, however money got tight and I currently only use the camera with adapted 645m lenses which would cause no issues. For me its nice because I can ignore all the cheap super wide minolta AF mount lenses I see around and the camera is really nice as a stop down MF camera. I sometimes consider putting it back in just for the smile shutter functionality which is disabled without the mirror but like you mentioned I'd feel that I might be missing something in my lenses due to the extra optical component so it stays out.
Coming most recently from a pair of nex7s (they were sold after acquiring the A99) the worst feature of the camera is that it looks like a big and mean camera so I miss out on some of the stealth.
Anyway mine has developed a bad habit that I thought I'd ask about, sometimes the camera will lock up and not accept any input except the shutter (I notice it when I can't go into image review), I think it might be related to the james lao adapter chip or maybe not using instant image review. The problem goes away if I take a picture but it is disconcerting. If anyone has noticed a similar problem then I might try to mention it as a firmware bug (especially if it happens with native lenses), still I consider the camera to be the best photographic tool I've used.
Thanks, that's very helpful.
I imagine if I ever bought this camera, I would take the mirror out for peace of mind (particularly if it's easily removable in a non destructive way) since, when any issues arose (extreme ca, reflections, flare, sensor bloom looking problems) I would always be wondering if the mirror played a role. I would also be thinking (real or not) that I'm not getting the ultimate out of my lenses.
Admittedly that is the reason mine has stayed out. I removed my mirror when I first got the camera thinking that it would help with adapting lenses that had protruding aperture levers, however money got tight and I currently only use the camera with adapted 645m lenses which would cause no issues. For me its nice because I can ignore all the cheap super wide minolta AF mount lenses I see around and the camera is really nice as a stop down MF camera. I sometimes consider putting it back in just for the smile shutter functionality which is disabled without the mirror but like you mentioned I'd feel that I might be missing something in my lenses due to the extra optical component so it stays out.
Coming most recently from a pair of nex7s (they were sold after acquiring the A99) the worst feature of the camera is that it looks like a big and mean camera so I miss out on some of the stealth.
Anyway mine has developed a bad habit that I thought I'd ask about, sometimes the camera will lock up and not accept any input except the shutter (I notice it when I can't go into image review), I think it might be related to the james lao adapter chip or maybe not using instant image review. The problem goes away if I take a picture but it is disconcerting. If anyone has noticed a similar problem then I might try to mention it as a firmware bug (especially if it happens with native lenses), still I consider the camera to be the best photographic tool I've used.
Apr 22, 2013 at 06:15 AM
p.28 #15Sony A99
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The mirror itself looks like an ND filter, so I was surprised that it didn't seem to impact the exposure. My guess is there are scenarios where the mirror might make a difference (like Derek suggests, shooting into the sun, also heavily mixed scenarios like clubs and theaters, and shooting at angles through glass) and someday I might get ambitious enough to test that out, though it will take some time to replicate those environments in a manner that will make the tests equal. For now, I'm just going to enjoy the camera.Thanks, that's very helpful.
I imagine if I ever bought this camera, I would take the mirror out for peace of mind (particularly if it's easily removable in a non destructive way) since, when any issues arose (extreme ca, reflections, flare, sensor bloom looking problems) I would always be wondering if the mirror played a role. I would also be thinking (real or not) that I'm not getting the ultimate out of my lenses.
I already took mine out. Unfortunately, I had to send it back to the shop again (after a torturous two-month wait) for infinity calibration of my two converted lenses. They should be back this week. After that, I can do some test shots to see how much the mirror would affect IQ. The nice thing about the RRS L-bracket is that it actually has the centered line on the bracket, so exact framing is possible between takes.
freaklikeme wrote
Tariq, it's just the rubber gasket around the mirror that holds it in the frame. Flip the mirror up, gently push the rubber away from the lip of the frame with a plastic pry tool, and apply slight forward pressure and angle it out. It's just slightly more difficult than replacing a focusing screen in a camera that allows for such user-replacements.The mirror itself looks like an ND filter, so I was surprised that it didn't seem to impact the exposure. My guess is there are scenarios where the mirror might make a difference (like Derek suggests, shooting into the sun, also heavily mixed scenarios like clubs and theaters, and shooting at angles through glass) and someday I might get ambitious enough to test that out, though it will take some time to replicate those environments in a manner that will make the tests equal. For now, I'm just going to enjoy the camera.
I imagine if I ever bought this camera, I would take the mirror out for peace of mind (particularly if it's easily removable in a non destructive way) since, when any issues arose (extreme ca, reflections, flare, sensor bloom looking problems) I would always be wondering if the mirror played a role. I would also be thinking (real or not) that I'm not getting the ultimate out of my lenses.
I already took mine out
. Unfortunately, I had to send it back to the shop again (after a torturous two-month wait) for infinity calibration of my two converted lenses. They should be back this week. After that, I can do some test shots to see how much the mirror would affect IQ. The nice thing about the RRS L-bracket is that it actually has the centered line on the bracket, so exact framing is possible between takes.Apr 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM
p.28 #16Sony A99
SoulNibbler wrote:
Anyway mine has developed a bad habit that I thought I'd ask about, sometimes the camera will lock up and not accept any input except the shutter (I notice it when I can't go into image review), I think it might be related to the james lao adapter chip or maybe not using instant image review. The problem goes away if I take a picture but it is disconcerting.
There are several lock-up bugs reported on Dyxum. Sometimes, you have to remove the battery to get it back to work. When was the first incident for you? I have James Lao chip so we will see if mine has the same problem.
Anyway mine has developed a bad habit that I thought I'd ask about, sometimes the camera will lock up and not accept any input except the shutter (I notice it when I can't go into image review), I think it might be related to the james lao adapter chip or maybe not using instant image review. The problem goes away if I take a picture but it is disconcerting.
There are several lock-up bugs reported on Dyxum. Sometimes, you have to remove the battery to get it back to work. When was the first incident for you? I have James Lao chip so we will see if mine has the same problem.
Apr 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM
p.28 #17Sony A99
Good question on first incident, it may have actually been after I did the first firmware update. I'm not sure if lock up is the right term though, I still can take a picture I just can't adjust anything until I take the next picture. I'll have to start keeping a log, it happens rarely for me but it might be connected to auto-iso. I'll start logging and get back after a few more occurrences.
Apr 23, 2013 at 04:02 AM
p.28 #18Sony A99
Mine does some odd thing where it needs to fire the shutter on shut down, I prefer to think of it as character, hah. Some more images:
Apr 26, 2013 at 07:00 AM
p.28 #19Sony A99
hiepphotog wrote:
There are several lock-up bugs reported on Dyxum. Sometimes, you have to remove the battery to get it back to work. When was the first incident for you? I have James Lao chip so we will see if mine has the same problem.
Al of my R's are chipped with James Laos, and I haven't had any lockup problems. I actually had more problems with the a900, particularly with the teles, where the screw drive would run continuously after I pressed the shutter release. I'd have to unmount and remount the lens to get it to stop. So far, knock wood, no such issues with the a99.
SoulNibbler wrote
Anyway mine has developed a bad habit that I thought I'd ask about, sometimes the camera will lock up and not accept any input except the shutter (I notice it when I can't go into image review), I think it might be related to the james lao adapter chip or maybe not using instant image review. The problem goes away if I take a picture but it is disconcerting.Al of my R's are chipped with James Laos, and I haven't had any lockup problems. I actually had more problems with the a900, particularly with the teles, where the screw drive would run continuously after I pressed the shutter release. I'd have to unmount and remount the lens to get it to stop. So far, knock wood, no such issues with the a99.
Apr 27, 2013 at 01:50 PM
p.28 #20Sony A99
I have two chipped lenses, Rokker 58 f1.2 and Leica Cron 35 f2.0, that I have been using for my A99. So far, I am very happy with both of them.
Apr 27, 2013 at 02:09 PM