Jon Guilbault wrote:
Strange it's limited to 6 fps. Sony has had processors capable of handling 24MP at 10 fps for more than a year. I know it has 14-bit RAW, but that shouldn't be halving the frame rates.
Frame rate isn't just a function of processing speed. How fast you read a sensor also affects read noise, the faster the worse the read noise (for a given read architecture). The available semi-conductor processing and architectures practical for FF sensors are also different from those for APS-C sized sensors and below. So it is very possible they are operating at a reduced frame rate to provide better IQ within the limitations of what they can do on a FF sensor. That is of course all speculation on my part, just pointing out processing speed is only part of the picture!
zstan wrote:
i think this one's native ISO100 and expendable to iso 50 freaklikeme wrote:
Aren't all of Sony's new sensors native 200? I'm assuming you'll be able to expand low and high.
I think the last time I checked from DPR, its base ISO is 200.
D800 and NEX-7, NEX-5n all have base iso at 100.
Maybe the 6 fps have to do with the fluid liveview that A99 allegedly has while shooting a burst, unlike the A77, which takes more frames per second, but whose liveview is cut and suffers from the slideshow effect. I don't really know, just guessing…
zhangyue wrote:
I think the last time I checked, its base ISO is 200.
D800 and NEX-7, NEX-5n all have base iso at 100.
If I'm reading this right from Sonystyle.com, it's 100.
ISO : Still images: Auto (ISO 100-6400, selectable lower limit and upper limit), ISO 100-25600; Movies: ISO 100-6400 equivalent; Auto (ISO 100-3200 equivalent)
I'd forgotten what a pain it is to separate the wheat from the chaff in pre-release.
That was fun. Should make the AF users very happy.
When I was watching him play with the screen, all I could think was, "The grip should rotate 35 degrees or so in either direction." It would make it a lot easier to balance the camera if you want to use the rear screen to waist-level shoot or if you have to go over your head in a crowd, and it would keep the shutter release in a comfortable place.
Remember that shutter spec also matters for fps, it's a heck of a lot cheaper to buy a 10fps shutter than only needs to cross ~18mm than a 10fps shutter that needs to cross 24mm (vertical travel for APS-C and 135 formats respectively.
"The A99 uses the same high-resolution OLED display as the A77, NEX-7 and NEX-6."
from the Dpreview.
I thought this a99 was to include a newer EVF, larger and better than anything Sony had previously used, particularly since it was going to replace the huge OVF of the a900. The rumor at one point was also that this would have a much higher frame rate that would have this competing against the very fast, high end pro Nikon's and Canons. Anyway, certainly not what I expected (though I was never going to buy a fixed mirror/evf based camera anyway) which was for this to be the super fast, 24MP FF Sony and for the slower, 36MP FF to come out in the spring.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
"The A99 uses the same high-resolution OLED display as the A77, NEX-7 and NEX-6."
from the Dpreview.
I thought this a99 was to include a newer EVF, larger and better than anything Sony had previously used, particularly since it was going to replace the huge OVF of the a900. The rumor at one point was also that this would have a much higher frame rate that would have this competing against the very fast, high end pro Nikon's and Canons. Anyway, certainly not what I expected (though I was never going to buy a fixed mirror/evf based camera anyway) which was for this to be the super fast, 24MP FF Sony and for the slower, 36MP FF to come out in the spring....Show more →
The panel is the same, which doesn't necessarily mean the viewfinder is of similar quality. Sony's major issues with the 2.4MP OLED EVF have been in viewfinder optics and in the LV feed processing (the latter is the root of the shadow blocking issue). I suspect both have been addressed with the A99, leading to a higher-quality display. I'll know for sure tomorrow as I should be getting a chance to handle the new products thanks to a friend at the local Sony Store.
I'm actually happy that the A99 is not the FPS monster cam that was widely expected, it is a lot closer to what I actually want in a body, I've little use for 10+fps, but a solid 6fps camera with good tripod-oriented features works for me. This announcement actually has made me seriously evaluate where I'm going with my FF kit (I'd been strongly considering going with a D600 as my next body, I own a mix of F and A mount lenses and film bodies right now along with my NEX-7 and ZA24).
mawz wrote:
The panel is the same, which doesn't necessarily mean the viewfinder is of similar quality. Sony's major issues with the 2.4MP OLED EVF have been in viewfinder optics and in the LV feed processing (the latter is the root of the shadow blocking issue). I suspect both have been addressed with the A99, leading to a higher-quality display. I'll know for sure tomorrow as I should be getting a chance to handle the new products thanks to a friend at the local Sony Store.
I'm actually happy that the A99 is not the FPS monster cam that was widely expected, it is a lot closer to what I actually want in a body, I've little use for 10+fps, but a solid 6fps camera with good tripod-oriented features works for me. This announcement actually has made me seriously evaluate where I'm going with my FF kit (I'd been strongly considering going with a D600 as my next body, I own a mix of F and A mount lenses and film bodies right now along with my NEX-7 and ZA24)....Show more →
I look forward to hearing your opinion of the a99 finder.
10fps never mattered to me either. That the a99 has the spec and performance it does, I now wonder exactly what we will see as far as body/ spec when Sony comes out with their 36MP body. I sort of expected it would be something very close to what we are seeing with the a99.
I'm actually happy that the A99 is not the FPS monster cam that was widely expected, it is a lot closer to what I actually want in a body, I've little use for 10+fps, but a solid 6fps camera with good tripod-oriented features works for me
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. There is simply zero tangible benefit to having less FPS available in H mode rather than more.
Conversely, there is a heck of a lot of benefit for having 10+FPS vs 6. If you're shooting high FPS, there's probably a good reason for it, and having more possible choices for a keeper over less makes all the sense in the world.
Even with things like high ISO NR or bracketing modes, having a faster shutter is always better (unless, obviously, the parameters of the photo(s) preclude taking advantage of fast fps).
------------
As for the A99, looks interesting, and at least now A shooters have a new FF they can buy if they want one.
The whole EVF / SLT and on-chip PDAF is just a bit suspect, though. I think Sony's throwing a marketing spin on this "depth detect AF" or whatever they call it. I have to really question why they feel the need to have two PDAF systems operating all the time. I'd love to be wrong and this turns into a tracking beast!
I just have to wonder whether a great OVF ala the A900 combined with the great rear LCD/AF performance when needed ala on-chip PDAF, while also gaining that ~0.5EV back from not having the SLT would have been a better solution. Maybe their research tells them the EVF will still sell well (I didn't mind it, besides the high contrast), and TBH the half stop or so isn't really that incredibly important.
Could be well Sony would lose face over regressing from the march of the SLT, and corps don't like that very much.
As a long-time Canon 1 series user, all I can say is it was a struggle, mostly due to the 'slideshow effect' of the EVF once into a sequence. I could imagine this might still be a problem at 10 fps, but as alluded to above, maybe isn't at 6 fps if indeed the A99 has fluid live view during sequence shooting. Anyway, I constantly felt I was fighting the camera to shoot when I wanted it to.
But I think what's holding Sony back the most against the high end competition is lenses. Not that the lenses aren't good, rather, the selection is too limited to attract the niche users who might regularly shoot at 10 fps. While I understand they're re-releasing the 300 2.8, and there is a 500 available (at an even more incredible than Canon pricing of $13K), they would need a faster than f/5.6 400mm lens, either a prime or a 200-400 type zoom, to attract action shooters. While the 70-400 was decent, I didn't think it was above average and not really competitive with a Canikon 400 prime.
It will be interesting to see how the A99 stacks up against the 5DIII, especially at the sensor level in terms of noise/banding/dynamic range. Based on Sony's recent sensor successes, my guess is it should do very well.
rscheffler wrote:
But I think what's holding Sony back the most against the high end competition is lenses.
Agreed, and their plan is all over the place. They were on the road to having a great event shooter's kit. The 24-70 easily keeps up with the like offerings from the big two to the point where, if you prefer the draw and the colors, it would be a clear choice. The 16-35 is solid, if you like shooting that wide. The 135 is fantastic. 85 looked good (personally, I think it's a little too sterile for portraits, but it makes a decent hockey lens if you're on the glass). But if you wanted any fast primes below 85, or anything above 135, you had to step out of the ZA line and look at the Minolta holdovers or the Maxxum lenses themselves. And they're good lenses but with significantly different draws. If you're an event shooter churning through hundreds of shots, consistency in the output is a real time saver.
Then Sony gets a 24/2 in the ZA line. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I didn't see anyone begging for a kind of fast 24. The coming 50/1.4 feels like too little, too late. They should go back to Zeiss and beg for a fast 35, a 50/1.2, and 70-200/2.8. That, to me, would make them competitive in one of the largest professional markets that still purchases their own gear, and it's where they're closest to being competitive. It's also the line of best-fit for their cameras. I'm not sure how easy a sell it would be to get a sports/wildlife shooter talked into the EVF, but I have the feeling it's a losing battle at this point. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think concentrating on teles and super teles is going to get them much beyond gear-head cred.
rscheffler, how did you sign up to that workshop? sony used to offer them on their website but i haven't seen one available for a long time.
sony's lens map is all over the place. they need to get their stuff together. its too bad that the minolta lenses get no respect and people only find the system only a reasonable choice because of the zeiss lenses (if you are considering native lenses that is)
cputeq wrote:
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. There is simply zero tangible benefit to having less FPS available in H mode rather than more.
Actually, lower fps means you can clock the sensor slower and thus generate less heat (and noise).
As for the A99, looks interesting, and at least now A shooters have a new FF they can buy if they want one.
The whole EVF / SLT and on-chip PDAF is just a bit suspect, though. I think Sony's throwing a marketing spin on this "depth detect AF" or whatever they call it. I have to really question why they feel the need to have two PDAF systems operating all the time. I'd love to be wrong and this turns into a tracking beast!
Got a chance to try an A99 with prerelease firmware. Short answer is that it is indeed a tracking beast, and it's got some rather nice additional features via depth detection, including a focus limiter that is in-camera (and stupidly fast to configure/adjust).
I just have to wonder whether a great OVF ala the A900 combined with the great rear LCD/AF performance when needed ala on-chip PDAF, while also gaining that ~0.5EV back from not having the SLT would have been a better solution. Maybe their research tells them the EVF will still sell well (I didn't mind it, besides the high contrast), and TBH the half stop or so isn't really that incredibly important.
Could be well Sony would lose face over regressing from the march of the SLT, and corps don't like that very much.
The feature adds on the A99 from the EVF are significant, plenty of stuff it couldn't do in OVF mode (including PDAF with face detection/tracking, and object detection/tracking even in MF mode). LV on DSLR's continues to be a hack in comparison with how seamless it is on Sony's SLT and NEX cameras. Aside from that 0.5EV, there's no gain from having an OVF for Sony, and they'd lose their major product differentiation.
As a note, Sony may be using the same OLED panel for the EVF as on the A77/A65/NEX-7, but the processing chain driving it seems greatly improved. I was shooting the A99 in a relatively dim store and saw no shadow blocking and a much faster LV feed with no slowdowns, even with a T4.5 lens mounted at ISO 50 and 1/4 second exposure.
