This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012Sony A99
p.9 #1Sony A99
At D800 prices it deserves to be overlooked, unless you really really need it now. The body is nice and the video/AF/dual cards/weight/bulk/ergo/ISO are all good, but stills image quality is what I want, and that is just too much $$ unless the thing delivers by punching above its weight.
They apparently held off the larger sensor due to issues to do with 60p video - not good enough, guys. I think they need to figure out what market they are targeting here - it is not people like me, it seems. I want to see direct low ISO comparisons with the D800 and A900, until then a Wait button is well in order. Where/when is the stills-oriented 36Mp model, smart Sony guys?
They apparently held off the larger sensor due to issues to do with 60p video - not good enough, guys. I think they need to figure out what market they are targeting here - it is not people like me, it seems. I want to see direct low ISO comparisons with the D800 and A900, until then a Wait button is well in order. Where/when is the stills-oriented 36Mp model, smart Sony guys?
Sep 25, 2012 at 07:55 PM
p.9 #2Sony A99
What you get over the D600:
Contrast Detect AF accuracy
Fully Articulated Screen (I can't have a camera without at least a tilt any more)
In Body Image Stabilization (Wish my NEX had this)
Latest EVF (It's like having Live View on constantly which is great for magnification and focus accuracy)
Focus Peaking (Crucial for very fast manual focus when using fast manual glass)
Probably better Grip (The A77 grip is Amazing)
Zeiss AF Glass (Including the forthcoming Zeiss SSM 50mm F1.4 early 2013)
Preset AF zones (not an action shooter so I don't really care)
Probably better Video (I don't care)
Dual Slot recording (Critical when you're on a high stakes shoot and need backups!!)
Built in GPS (If you travel a lot, this is pretty handy)
What you Lose to the D600:
Probably about .5T stops on every lens you use
Some size
Not as comprehensive set of lenses, flashes, and aftermarket
You can't use the great set of ZF.2 glass with auto-aperture
Optical Viewfinder
IMO, probably worth the extra $700 for the A99 if you don't have a big collection of Nikon AF-S lenses already.
Edited on Sep 25, 2012 at 09:06 PM · View previous versions
Contrast Detect AF accuracy
Fully Articulated Screen (I can't have a camera without at least a tilt any more)
In Body Image Stabilization (Wish my NEX had this)
Latest EVF (It's like having Live View on constantly which is great for magnification and focus accuracy)
Focus Peaking (Crucial for very fast manual focus when using fast manual glass)
Probably better Grip (The A77 grip is Amazing)
Zeiss AF Glass (Including the forthcoming Zeiss SSM 50mm F1.4 early 2013)
Preset AF zones (not an action shooter so I don't really care)
Probably better Video (I don't care)
Dual Slot recording (Critical when you're on a high stakes shoot and need backups!!)
Built in GPS (If you travel a lot, this is pretty handy)
What you Lose to the D600:
Probably about .5T stops on every lens you use
Some size
Not as comprehensive set of lenses, flashes, and aftermarket
You can't use the great set of ZF.2 glass with auto-aperture
Optical Viewfinder
IMO, probably worth the extra $700 for the A99 if you don't have a big collection of Nikon AF-S lenses already.
Edited on Sep 25, 2012 at 09:06 PM · View previous versions
Sep 25, 2012 at 08:29 PM
p.9 #3Sony A99
Nice list, Jae. You also lose optical viewfinder to D600. 
Not a big deal for some, but a big deal for others.
Not a big deal for some, but a big deal for others.Sep 25, 2012 at 09:03 PM
p.9 #4Sony A99
Totally right, I added that in.
These new Full Frame bodies are awfully tempting but I honestly can't think of a lens I would use with them besides maybe the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 or Nikon 24mm F1.4 that would make it worth it for the cost and size.
I think my photographic dollars are just going to the new Olympus 60mm F2.8 macro and the upcoming UWA Zeiss prime for NEX. I've found that shooting with two small mirrorless bodies with excellent primes loaded on them is far more flexible than shooting with one big full frame body.
These new Full Frame bodies are awfully tempting but I honestly can't think of a lens I would use with them besides maybe the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 or Nikon 24mm F1.4 that would make it worth it for the cost and size.
I think my photographic dollars are just going to the new Olympus 60mm F2.8 macro and the upcoming UWA Zeiss prime for NEX. I've found that shooting with two small mirrorless bodies with excellent primes loaded on them is far more flexible than shooting with one big full frame body.
Sep 25, 2012 at 09:07 PM
p.9 #5Sony A99
Yeah, I'm interested to see the NEX 7 replacement & the next round of emount ZA's.
I would love the A99, but I don't think DSLR's are worth more than $100 per MP. So the price would have to head south.
I am pretty jazzed about Sony's offering, though. Much more excited about it than the direction Canon is heading.
ps. I'd love to see 5D2 and/or 5D3 added to your list, and the differences... Something to work on for tomorrow. The things that come to mind immediately are:
5D2 has interchangeable screen
5D2 loses focus points (with center being only one I use)
5D2 has one card slot
5D2 can use FoCal for MA testing
5D2 can run Magic Lantern for added functionality
5D2 more versatile for alt use
I would love the A99, but I don't think DSLR's are worth more than $100 per MP.
So the price would have to head south. I am pretty jazzed about Sony's offering, though. Much more excited about it than the direction Canon is heading.
ps. I'd love to see 5D2 and/or 5D3 added to your list, and the differences... Something to work on for tomorrow. The things that come to mind immediately are:
5D2 has interchangeable screen
5D2 loses focus points (with center being only one I use)
5D2 has one card slot
5D2 can use FoCal for MA testing
5D2 can run Magic Lantern for added functionality
5D2 more versatile for alt use
Sep 25, 2012 at 09:17 PM
p.9 #6Sony A99
philip_pj wrote:
At D800 prices it deserves to be overlooked, unless you really really need it now. The body is nice and the video/AF/dual cards/weight/bulk/ergo/ISO are all good, but stills image quality is what I want, and that is just too much $$ unless the thing delivers by punching above its weight.
They apparently held off the larger sensor due to issues to do with 60p video - not good enough, guys. I think they need to figure out what market they are targeting here - it is not people like me, it seems. I want to see direct low ISO comparisons with...Show more →
+1 I don't see the a99 doing to well given the existence of the D800 and D600 at it's current price. Sony will be forced to drop the price much closer to 2K to get these to start really moving I suspect. At it's price, I think the still market now expects 36MP OR very high FPS, both missing from the a99. It also does not seem like a logical upgrade path for the a900 user, most of whom did not care about high ISO or video to begin with but rather pure still image quality.
At D800 prices it deserves to be overlooked, unless you really really need it now. The body is nice and the video/AF/dual cards/weight/bulk/ergo/ISO are all good, but stills image quality is what I want, and that is just too much $$ unless the thing delivers by punching above its weight.
They apparently held off the larger sensor due to issues to do with 60p video - not good enough, guys. I think they need to figure out what market they are targeting here - it is not people like me, it seems. I want to see direct low ISO comparisons with...Show more →
+1 I don't see the a99 doing to well given the existence of the D800 and D600 at it's current price. Sony will be forced to drop the price much closer to 2K to get these to start really moving I suspect. At it's price, I think the still market now expects 36MP OR very high FPS, both missing from the a99. It also does not seem like a logical upgrade path for the a900 user, most of whom did not care about high ISO or video to begin with but rather pure still image quality.
Sep 25, 2012 at 09:34 PM
p.9 #7Sony A99
I think what A900/700 users care about is having live view, Minolta ergonomics, and Alpha mount compatibility.
Sony made a choice here though forgoing the minolta flash mount, that'll piss off a lot of people at dyxum but heavy video users will be very happy.
I think the way a Sony Product Director would see it is that they need to leverage their extensive video expertise to supplant Canon's dominance in DSLR video, the only growth market outside of mirrorless. They're not going to beat Nikon or Canon being Minolta II.
Sony made a choice here though forgoing the minolta flash mount, that'll piss off a lot of people at dyxum but heavy video users will be very happy.
I think the way a Sony Product Director would see it is that they need to leverage their extensive video expertise to supplant Canon's dominance in DSLR video, the only growth market outside of mirrorless. They're not going to beat Nikon or Canon being Minolta II.
Sep 25, 2012 at 09:43 PM
p.9 #8Sony A99
I think you're probably right...but in many ways it was a marketing blunder to do that after first sending a completely different marketing message with the A900. It sort of shows Sony being all over the place, without focus and direction - something not so reassuring to this particular customer base (more traditional overall). Sort of like what would happen if Leica replaced the M9 with something akin to the Sony NEX-7.
Keep in mind, the A900 was the highest resolution DSLR, along with the twice as expensive D3X, for quite some time. With the ZA Zeiss lenses to leverage that resolution and deliver on IQ, the combo made a lot of sense to higher end users (very advanced amateurs, pro, semi pro). Replacing that camera with a hybrid video camera offering no increase in resolution (even thought the competition has) but with a translucent mirror between those Zeiss lenses and the sensor was obviously not going to be received positively by most of this customer base. I guess in the end, Sony was willing to loose them in order to go after a different market altogether.
Keep in mind, the A900 was the highest resolution DSLR, along with the twice as expensive D3X, for quite some time. With the ZA Zeiss lenses to leverage that resolution and deliver on IQ, the combo made a lot of sense to higher end users (very advanced amateurs, pro, semi pro). Replacing that camera with a hybrid video camera offering no increase in resolution (even thought the competition has) but with a translucent mirror between those Zeiss lenses and the sensor was obviously not going to be received positively by most of this customer base. I guess in the end, Sony was willing to loose them in order to go after a different market altogether.
Sep 25, 2012 at 10:08 PM
p.9 #9Sony A99
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think you're probably right...but in many ways it was a marketing blunder to do that after first sending a completely different marketing message with the A900. It sort of shows Sony being all over the place, without focus and direction - something not so reassuring to this particular customer base (more traditional overall). Sort of like what would happen if Leica replaced the M9 with something akin to the Sony NEX-7.
Keep in mind, the A900 was the highest resolution DSLR, along with the twice as expensive D3X, for quite some time. With the ZA Zeiss lenses to leverage...Show more →
yeah, i think sony realized that aggressive pricing and conservative designs weren't enough to get high-end conservative photographers and decided they were better of giving conservative photographers the finger and targeting new more fluid markets. from a business perspective i think this is a good idea, not sure they have nailed it in execution though (i don't really know what videographers look for either). for me personally the a99 looks very attractive, but over priced compared to the competition – it has a lot of crap i don't care about too. i'd much rather it was a d600 with the sony evf with a price to match. i like the looks better than most dslrs though, kinda reminds me of a slimmed down R8/9. given the choice between the a99 and the rx1 (which sony has in fact given) i'd choose the rx1 hands down.
I think you're probably right...but in many ways it was a marketing blunder to do that after first sending a completely different marketing message with the A900. It sort of shows Sony being all over the place, without focus and direction - something not so reassuring to this particular customer base (more traditional overall). Sort of like what would happen if Leica replaced the M9 with something akin to the Sony NEX-7.
Keep in mind, the A900 was the highest resolution DSLR, along with the twice as expensive D3X, for quite some time. With the ZA Zeiss lenses to leverage...Show more →
yeah, i think sony realized that aggressive pricing and conservative designs weren't enough to get high-end conservative photographers and decided they were better of giving conservative photographers the finger and targeting new more fluid markets. from a business perspective i think this is a good idea, not sure they have nailed it in execution though (i don't really know what videographers look for either). for me personally the a99 looks very attractive, but over priced compared to the competition – it has a lot of crap i don't care about too. i'd much rather it was a d600 with the sony evf with a price to match. i like the looks better than most dslrs though, kinda reminds me of a slimmed down R8/9. given the choice between the a99 and the rx1 (which sony has in fact given) i'd choose the rx1 hands down.
Sep 25, 2012 at 10:19 PM
p.9 #10Sony A99
I bet there was a lot of internal politics and management rearrangements between the A900 development and A99.
The lack of live view really hurt Sony especially when you consider how much they've been on the forefront of LiveView technologies. It's just way too useful to not have for landscape and product photographers.
For wedding/event photographers, they pretty much have to use Canon or Nikon because of service requirements and interoperability between shooters. Also add in third party accessory support for big lighting systems and I don't think Sony saw an opportunity there.
So I think when they saw how fast MFT was taking off especially with the video people and how much demand there was for a full frame big sensor video solution, even one as half baked as the Canon 5D Mk2, they saw their best chance to stake a foothold and leverage their product portfolio.
The super advanced Zeiss loving amateur market is pretty limited or Fuji like niche. Sony can't survive in that market for their main product line.
Anyways, on topic, the AF range limiter actually sound damn useful. Especially if you're shooting in a touristy spot with a lot of foot traffic. its kind of like a focus limiter switch from macro lenses but at any range set and with any lens. I'm sure with wildlife photographers, this will probably be useful as hell too.
From Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a99/sony-a99A.HTM
Don't even get me started on the AF Range control. What a wonderful use of digital technology, allowing you to pre-define a focus limit area using a simple onscreen graphical scale. If you want to make the camera stay focused on the players in the field while ignoring the spectators walking in front of you, just press the AF Range button and use the front and rear dials to define an area. Simple.
The lack of live view really hurt Sony especially when you consider how much they've been on the forefront of LiveView technologies. It's just way too useful to not have for landscape and product photographers.
For wedding/event photographers, they pretty much have to use Canon or Nikon because of service requirements and interoperability between shooters. Also add in third party accessory support for big lighting systems and I don't think Sony saw an opportunity there.
So I think when they saw how fast MFT was taking off especially with the video people and how much demand there was for a full frame big sensor video solution, even one as half baked as the Canon 5D Mk2, they saw their best chance to stake a foothold and leverage their product portfolio.
The super advanced Zeiss loving amateur market is pretty limited or Fuji like niche. Sony can't survive in that market for their main product line.
Anyways, on topic, the AF range limiter actually sound damn useful. Especially if you're shooting in a touristy spot with a lot of foot traffic. its kind of like a focus limiter switch from macro lenses but at any range set and with any lens. I'm sure with wildlife photographers, this will probably be useful as hell too.
From Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a99/sony-a99A.HTM
Don't even get me started on the AF Range control. What a wonderful use of digital technology, allowing you to pre-define a focus limit area using a simple onscreen graphical scale. If you want to make the camera stay focused on the players in the field while ignoring the spectators walking in front of you, just press the AF Range button and use the front and rear dials to define an area. Simple.
Sep 25, 2012 at 10:26 PM
p.9 #11Sony A99
I'd say the a99 was bound to be underwhelming on these boards, particularly in light of all the other announcements. It's nothing revolutionary, or even anything really unexpected. It's an upgrade for the faithful (or their reason to switch), but it's not going to win many converts.
Sep 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM
p.9 #12Sony A99
It seems they wanted to press the advantages they think they have, and add some AF/video work. The real sales successes they have had so far are NEX and the RX100 I think. Simple, small, innovative high utility cameras.
Agree on the LV, peaking, and dual cards, and as mawz says, it is very nice body to handle, a sound design all round. We just got an A77 as the second cam, cost not much over $1000, it has most everything the A99 has less the fancier AF and a few bits, even 24Mp (NEX7 sensor), IBIS etc, just not FF.
They haven't even announced the 36Mp camera, in a bid to pump the A99 for a spell. OK, that's business but it's a risk to people who were both easy to please and already onside. If the sensor is only D600 standard or SLT'd down a notch or two, it's not a good look.
Agree on the LV, peaking, and dual cards, and as mawz says, it is very nice body to handle, a sound design all round. We just got an A77 as the second cam, cost not much over $1000, it has most everything the A99 has less the fancier AF and a few bits, even 24Mp (NEX7 sensor), IBIS etc, just not FF.
They haven't even announced the 36Mp camera, in a bid to pump the A99 for a spell. OK, that's business but it's a risk to people who were both easy to please and already onside. If the sensor is only D600 standard or SLT'd down a notch or two, it's not a good look.
Sep 26, 2012 at 02:15 AM
p.9 #13Sony A99
D600 sensor is different to A99. Same gen but quite different.
Sep 26, 2012 at 02:19 AM
p.9 #14Sony A99
I've used the NEX-7 and NEX-C3 for real video production.
Their biggest problem is they overheat and shut down. Initially at the 23 or so minute mark but then after that they also shut down much faster until a long cool down is done. This is pretty much unacceptable for any real project.
A big trip was almost wasted until I just used my iPhone and a cheap $100 video recorder from best buy.
Their biggest problem is they overheat and shut down. Initially at the 23 or so minute mark but then after that they also shut down much faster until a long cool down is done. This is pretty much unacceptable for any real project.
A big trip was almost wasted until I just used my iPhone and a cheap $100 video recorder from best buy.
Sep 26, 2012 at 05:35 AM
p.9 #15Sony A99
I'm personally waiting for some tests, but as a video first shooter that does low-cost TV commercials, events and stuff for the web, I'm looking very seriously at the A99 to shoot video and give me a camera to grow and work on my stills skills. There are a number of features that aren't available - not yet anyway - on the lower Alpha's. I have a Nex5n, but the overheating makes it unreliable for video and people writing checks expect something larger than the Nex when shooting photos.
After shooting 60p with the FS100 I'm not buying another camera that can't. And the thought of adding IBIS with legacy glass to the mix is intriguing. I've gone back and forth between the A99, VG900 and the D800, but the A99 seems to be more suited to my shooting and a few of the features along with the IBIS - for me - is a bigger deal than 24mp vs 36mp and even trumps a more convenient camcorder form factor. I think.
The A99 definitely ticks more boxes on the video side compared to the D800 and 5d3 with the articulating LCD, peaking, 60p, IBIS and that silent adjustment knob on the front along with what looks like better control of in-cam audio. That's enough for me to cough up the extra $700 over the 6D/D600. Don't care about video AF (I reserve the right to change my mind pending tests of the AF range function
), though some might and the A99 should easily outperform any CaNikon DSLR.
Sony is clearly looking to be *THE* hybrid camera and the A99 is at the top of that hill IMHO, but not beating the 5d3 and D800 to market when many were itching to upgrade from the long in the tooth 5d2 and others is going to sink this camera. Great camera, one year too late.
After shooting 60p with the FS100 I'm not buying another camera that can't. And the thought of adding IBIS with legacy glass to the mix is intriguing. I've gone back and forth between the A99, VG900 and the D800, but the A99 seems to be more suited to my shooting and a few of the features along with the IBIS - for me - is a bigger deal than 24mp vs 36mp and even trumps a more convenient camcorder form factor. I think.
The A99 definitely ticks more boxes on the video side compared to the D800 and 5d3 with the articulating LCD, peaking, 60p, IBIS and that silent adjustment knob on the front along with what looks like better control of in-cam audio. That's enough for me to cough up the extra $700 over the 6D/D600. Don't care about video AF (I reserve the right to change my mind pending tests of the AF range function
), though some might and the A99 should easily outperform any CaNikon DSLR.Sony is clearly looking to be *THE* hybrid camera and the A99 is at the top of that hill IMHO, but not beating the 5d3 and D800 to market when many were itching to upgrade from the long in the tooth 5d2 and others is going to sink this camera. Great camera, one year too late.
Sep 26, 2012 at 07:24 AM
p.9 #16Sony A99
As far as Sony's vision... I think they've taken a smart position. They have 4 cameras which will be relevant to quite a few people in the prosumer-ish market.
- RX100
- NEX (plural)
- RX1
- A99
Looking at that lineup, it's not inconceivable that someone would own 2 or 3, maybe even all of em (and all for about the price of the Lunar!). I don't know about the rest of you but these 4 cameras have probably accounted for most of my bandwidth use lately.
Considering the price point of the 5D3, I don't think the A99 pricing is out of line, however I'll concede that it probably won't sell like hotcakes. If they drop it several hundred that will be just the push I need to move away from Canon. Pending performance of the A99 of course. In the mean time I'll probably be picking up an RX100, and I already own a 5N. I guess I am Sony's target market!
On a separate note, do we know how this EVF will do in the dark, or very low light? I'm mostly asking about noise.
- RX100
- NEX (plural)
- RX1
- A99
Looking at that lineup, it's not inconceivable that someone would own 2 or 3, maybe even all of em (and all for about the price of the Lunar!
). I don't know about the rest of you but these 4 cameras have probably accounted for most of my bandwidth use lately.Considering the price point of the 5D3, I don't think the A99 pricing is out of line, however I'll concede that it probably won't sell like hotcakes. If they drop it several hundred that will be just the push I need to move away from Canon. Pending performance of the A99 of course. In the mean time I'll probably be picking up an RX100, and I already own a 5N. I guess I am Sony's target market!
On a separate note, do we know how this EVF will do in the dark, or very low light? I'm mostly asking about noise.
Sep 26, 2012 at 08:13 AM
p.9 #17Sony A99
FlyPenFly wrote:
I've used the NEX-7 and NEX-C3 for real video production.
Their biggest problem is they overheat and shut down. Initially at the 23 or so minute mark but then after that they also shut down much faster until a long cool down is done. This is pretty much unacceptable for any real project.
A big trip was almost wasted until I just used my iPhone and a cheap $100 video recorder from best buy.
Right now, you can buy 3 5N's for the price of a 7. You could just switch them out and stick the unused ones in a dry cooler.
I've used the NEX-7 and NEX-C3 for real video production.
Their biggest problem is they overheat and shut down. Initially at the 23 or so minute mark but then after that they also shut down much faster until a long cool down is done. This is pretty much unacceptable for any real project.
A big trip was almost wasted until I just used my iPhone and a cheap $100 video recorder from best buy.
Right now, you can buy 3 5N's for the price of a 7. You could just switch them out and stick the unused ones in a dry cooler.
Sep 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM
p.9 #18Sony A99
FlyPenFly wrote:
I've used the NEX-7 and NEX-C3 for real video production.
Their biggest problem is they overheat and shut down. Initially at the 23 or so minute mark but then after that they also shut down much faster until a long cool down is done. This is pretty much unacceptable for any real project.
I think that depends on your "real" project. For event video shooting, and maybe videojournalism, you probably need to be able to do long takes. For most other filmmaking, you'd almost never run across a 23-minute-long single take. As far as I know, the Canon DSLRs are a little better with respect to overheating, but you're still talking about the same general range: about 30 min max. The Panasonic MFT cams might be better, I don't know.
I've used the NEX-7 and NEX-C3 for real video production.
Their biggest problem is they overheat and shut down. Initially at the 23 or so minute mark but then after that they also shut down much faster until a long cool down is done. This is pretty much unacceptable for any real project.
I think that depends on your "real" project. For event video shooting, and maybe videojournalism, you probably need to be able to do long takes. For most other filmmaking, you'd almost never run across a 23-minute-long single take. As far as I know, the Canon DSLRs are a little better with respect to overheating, but you're still talking about the same general range: about 30 min max. The Panasonic MFT cams might be better, I don't know.
Sep 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM
p.9 #19Sony A99
It was for video interviews of teachers talking about their classrooms, etc. Company spent many thousands flying me out and putting me in a nice hotel, arranging these interviews with paid participants, etc. Big fail on me for using my NEX cameras for that. The C3 seemed to go a bit longer probably because it was recording at 720p. I picked up a real video camera shortly after.
Sep 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM
p.9 #20Sony A99
philip_pj wrote:
At D800 prices it deserves to be overlooked, unless you really really need it now. The body is nice and the video/AF/dual cards/weight/bulk/ergo/ISO are all good, but stills image quality is what I want, and that is just too much $$ unless the thing delivers by punching above its weight.
They apparently held off the larger sensor due to issues to do with 60p video - not good enough, guys. I think they need to figure out what market they are targeting here - it is not people like me, it seems. I want to see direct low ISO comparisons with...Show more →
I dunno, if you don't need the megapixels the A99 is a heck of a lot better value than the D800 for the same price IMHO. I'd rather have 24MP in critical focus than 36MP that isn't guaranteed to be in critical focus. Nikon's buggy AF unit and poor LV implementation combined with a fixed focus screen that isn't particularly suited to manual focus make the D800 a questionable buy for me while the A99's EVF, peaking and LV with flip/twist LCD are IMHO much better suited to more deliberative tripod shooting. Sure you can get that extra resolution out of the D800 if you are working off a tripod but the A99 is going to let you get the shot quicker and with a more positive confirmation of critical focus. Handheld or on a monopod you won't even see the difference.
The A99 also offers the best FF option for video (it's actually more capable than the NEX-VG900, although there should be a higher-end FF camcorder coming next year) where the D800 is not a video shooter's camera (Nikon is pretty much dead last of the three big makers in terms of video) and can be a sport shooters camera which the D800 isn't exactly.
And the 36MP stills body? Expected early next year.
Frankly the A99 is more a 5D3 killer than a D800 killer. But I see the D800 as a much more limited camera, a high-MP monster at the cost of everything else rather than a generalist camera like the 5D3, A99 or D600 (and the D600? Too crippled for the cost. It's a $1500 camera for $2100, Nikon should have gimped the fps, not the shutter).
At D800 prices it deserves to be overlooked, unless you really really need it now. The body is nice and the video/AF/dual cards/weight/bulk/ergo/ISO are all good, but stills image quality is what I want, and that is just too much $$ unless the thing delivers by punching above its weight.
They apparently held off the larger sensor due to issues to do with 60p video - not good enough, guys. I think they need to figure out what market they are targeting here - it is not people like me, it seems. I want to see direct low ISO comparisons with...Show more →
I dunno, if you don't need the megapixels the A99 is a heck of a lot better value than the D800 for the same price IMHO. I'd rather have 24MP in critical focus than 36MP that isn't guaranteed to be in critical focus. Nikon's buggy AF unit and poor LV implementation combined with a fixed focus screen that isn't particularly suited to manual focus make the D800 a questionable buy for me while the A99's EVF, peaking and LV with flip/twist LCD are IMHO much better suited to more deliberative tripod shooting. Sure you can get that extra resolution out of the D800 if you are working off a tripod but the A99 is going to let you get the shot quicker and with a more positive confirmation of critical focus. Handheld or on a monopod you won't even see the difference.
The A99 also offers the best FF option for video (it's actually more capable than the NEX-VG900, although there should be a higher-end FF camcorder coming next year) where the D800 is not a video shooter's camera (Nikon is pretty much dead last of the three big makers in terms of video) and can be a sport shooters camera which the D800 isn't exactly.
And the 36MP stills body? Expected early next year.
Frankly the A99 is more a 5D3 killer than a D800 killer. But I see the D800 as a much more limited camera, a high-MP monster at the cost of everything else rather than a generalist camera like the 5D3, A99 or D600 (and the D600? Too crippled for the cost. It's a $1500 camera for $2100, Nikon should have gimped the fps, not the shutter).
Sep 26, 2012 at 09:01 PM