Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: A99 II  (Read 14070 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17086
Re: A99 II
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2016, 11:07:07 AM »

a99 II - 42MP @12fps - $3199
5D m4 - 30MP @7fps - $3499
1Dx m2 - 20MP @14fps - $5999
D5 - 20.8MP @ 13fps - $6496


That set of figures proves nothing beyond it being an academic and sterile comparison of numbers. It doesn't even pretend to bring the lens range into the calculation.

Within the same company there are different camera models/priorities designed to suit different users; you can't make a general assumption of value based just on a numbers game: when perceived value changes from user to user, it's an exercise in futility. "All things to all men" has never worked.

For myself, I have never used the burst shooting method, other than once with a film Nikon, because it's just not my way, and for me, quite pointless: I want to see what I am actually likely to be getting, and a tripod and careful framing does it for me every time. However, I actually hate carting a tripod now that I'm retired, and wouldn't do much of anything anymore if there was no alternative to that. But, losing one helpful factor doesn't mean I want to go blind and rely on the camera making the moment for me rather than my own mind still doing that part of it.

Of course, one could instantly retort that doing fast action is helped a great deal by those high rates; that simply proves what I wrote earlier: you can't hope for any machine to cater to all tastes, so comparison based on numbers mean little.

Rob C

Gandalf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
Re: A99 II
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2016, 11:37:29 AM »

No - all the best Sony lenses, and all the high-end Sony-developed lenses, are E-mount.
...

IMO Sony is letting A-mount die a slow death ...

Thanks, that's not what I wanted to hear but what I needed to know. I've used the original A7 and while a fine piece of technology, it didn't do it for me. I assumed the second generation was more of the same. I guess I should give it a look.
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: A99 II
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2016, 11:58:23 AM »


That set of figures proves nothing beyond it being an academic and sterile comparison of numbers. It doesn't even pretend to bring the lens range into the calculation.

Within the same company there are different camera models/priorities designed to suit different users; you can't make a general assumption of value based just on a numbers game: when perceived value changes from user to user, it's an exercise in futility. "All things to all men" has never worked.

For myself, I have never used the burst shooting method, other than once with a film Nikon, because it's just not my way, and for me, quite pointless: I want to see what I am actually likely to be getting, and a tripod and careful framing does it for me every time. However, I actually hate carting a tripod now that I'm retired, and wouldn't do much of anything anymore if there was no alternative to that. But, losing one helpful factor doesn't mean I want to go blind and rely on the camera making the moment for me rather than my own mind still doing that part of it.

Of course, one could instantly retort that doing fast action is helped a great deal by those high rates; that simply proves what I wrote earlier: you can't hope for any machine to cater to all tastes, so comparison based on numbers mean little.

Rob C

Yes it does. It proves that Sony can do 42MP at 12fps and at around half the price of Nikon or Canon which can only do half the resolution. Come on, it's fairly significant.  ::)
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2147
Re: A99 II
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2016, 12:13:03 PM »

Yes it does. It proves that Sony can do 42MP at 12fps and at around half the price of Nikon or Canon which can only do half the resolution. Come on, it's fairly significant.  ::)

Actually, it's a pretty useless statistic.

What's more relevant than how many fps it can hit is what percentage of shots it can land on target, what light level it can track accurately at, what sort of subject speed, contrast and motion pattern it can track, how it handles confusing backdrops and intervening objects, which lenses it can track accurately with, etc.

Give me 3fps with 100% reliable tracking and good lens selection over 12fps spray-and-pray any day.
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: A99 II
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2016, 12:50:15 PM »

Actually, it's a pretty useless statistic.

What's more relevant than how many fps it can hit is what percentage of shots it can land on target, what light level it can track accurately at, what sort of subject speed, contrast and motion pattern it can track, how it handles confusing backdrops and intervening objects, which lenses it can track accurately with, etc.

Give me 3fps with 100% reliable tracking and good lens selection over 12fps spray-and-pray any day.

Well I agree in some senses, I only personally need one or two frames a second for what I do. Lets just wait and see but the instances of its use I have seen, 12fps and every 42MP shot perfectly sharp is jaw dropping.

BUT - 42MP @ 12fps? COME ON, I know it's popular to bash Sony, but credit where credit is due please, that is an insane amount of computational power and image detail being flicked around at a rate where others can not dream of at this point. This is a landmark achievement which deserves all the credit it gets.
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: A99 II
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2016, 12:57:50 PM »

Give me 3fps with 100% reliable tracking and good lens selection over 12fps spray-and-pray any day.

What would you need 3fps for? An honest question.

I can certainly understand and appreciate Rob's point (1fpc: 1 frame-per-click), but 3fps "bursts"? Had exactly that with original 5D, and it was next to useless.

When you're shooting anything candid, capturing just the right pose/gesture/etc. is way more important than having all eyelashes in focus; when all I had was 3fps, I'd just try to time the shot (and then not "spray-and-pray", but just "pray").

Besides... Many still talk about AF in recent Sony cameras as if it was something inferior. Well, it's very, very far from that -- it is amazingly good. Granted, a D5 will still have an edge in a warehouse lit with candles, where some guys in black uniforms are playing basketball, but apart from that?..
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2147
Re: A99 II
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2016, 01:11:18 PM »

Well I agree in some senses, I only personally need one or two frames a second for what I do. Lets just wait and see but the instances of its use I have seen, 12fps and every 42MP shot perfectly sharp is jaw dropping.

BUT - 42MP @ 12fps? COME ON, I know it's popular to bash Sony, but credit where credit is due please, that is an insane amount of computational power and image detail being flicked around at a rate where others can not dream of at this point. This is a landmark achievement which deserves all the credit it gets.

So, they built a huge amount of bandwidth into this thing. That's not actually very useful by itself and has almost no bearing on how well it will function as a camera. For action photography, accuracy and tracking speed are far more important than fps. Not to mention that Sony has hardly any A-mount lenses worthy of 42MP (although Sigma has a few more).

But it's a big step towards eventual 8k video, while the same bandwidth would be needed to achieve a respectable 7fps in a future 72MP model. Make no mistake - this is a test platform for future mirrorless-system technologies, not something intended to breathe new life into the A-mount system.
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: A99 II
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2016, 01:33:31 PM »

this is a test platform for future mirrorless-system technologies, not something intended to breathe new life into the A-mount system.

I can agree with you on that. It also sends a rocket up the a-hole of the industries giants who are asleep at the wheel resting on the argument that a dSLR is better. They've made a dslr that in many ways crushes their competition, at half the price, because they can. Next they will launch a 72MP a9 mirrorless that will make the a99II look underwhelming.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 01:39:01 PM by Bo_Dez »
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: A99 II
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2016, 02:11:14 PM »

Give me 3fps with 100% reliable tracking and good lens selection over 12fps spray-and-pray any day.
There's fanboys and bashboys, neither are really worthwhile to listen to  ;)

And for more useful comparisons, I prefer an honest man over a guy who beats his wife any day  >:(

For the interested, here's two pictures of the camera, taken Wednesday at Photokina:





The camera handled pretty good, tracked well in series of moving subjects (they had some moving martial arts shows ongoing to test) and AF seemed accurate and responsive. 12 FPS is a lot of frames. Buffer filled up after 24 shots uncompressed raw, 58 with compressed raw and never slowed shooting jpg. There was no way to put your own card in, so can't show any pics taken with the camera. I guess the firmware is still not final so they don't want to release pre-production files in the open. 


« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 02:16:49 PM by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
Re: A99 II
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2016, 03:18:34 PM »

They've made a dslr
dSLT, not dSLR - no need to bundle fixed mirror/evf camera into flipping mirror/ovf crowd
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
Re: A99 II
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2016, 03:24:19 PM »

So, they built a huge amount of bandwidth into this thing. That's not actually very useful by itself
it actually is : this bandwidth is based on faster single full frame readout which also means faster partial frame readout = faster electronic rolling shutter (full frame readout) / more FPS refresh speed for EVF (partial frame readout - you don't need to read every line for EVF) / faster CDAF (more sampling per second useful if lens focusing mechanism supports a lot CDAF commands per second) / etc, etc
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10682
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: A99 II
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2016, 04:07:04 PM »

I don't think that the comparison with the D5/1DxII is very relevant, but Sony simply obliterates Canon and Nikon in the 5D/D750 segment.

Nikon must still play their card, but the 5D mkIV looks like it is nearly 2 generations behind days after its announcement. If I were a lead engineer in Canon's team I would seriously consider retirement and golf as my next focus.

Now it is true that Sony's product planning and marketing is poor since the alpha platform isn't appealing as a long term strategic choice, but who needs a strategy when the product you have today destroys competition to such an extend?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 06:47:55 PM by BernardLanguillier »
Logged
A few images online here!

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
Re: A99 II
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2016, 10:02:33 PM »

I don't think that the comparison with the D5/1DxII is very relevant, but Sony simply obliterates Canon and Nikon in the 5D/D750 segment.

D750 is a totally different segment, at least price-wise... D8xx is in the price range of 5DIV and A99II
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10682
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: A99 II
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2016, 10:57:14 PM »

D750 is a totally different segment, at least price-wise... D8xx is in the price range of 5DIV and A99II

In terms of capabilitiex the 5DIII and D750 were equivalent. The D760 will be Nikon's answer to the 5DmkIV while the D900 will be positionned closer to the 5Ds.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4346
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: A99 II
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2016, 10:02:05 AM »

It is good that they updated their top A mount camera. As for those saying that Sony has no A mount quality lenses, they should have investigated further... the marriage between Sony and Zeiss, and Sony G lenses, dates from well before the E mount appearance... The A mount has a full complement of top quality lenses. You can see here the list of SAL lenses in Sony Portugal site:

http://www.sony.pt/electronics/produtos-camara-lentes-amoviveis/t/camara-lentes

For the E mount, they have been catching up with lenses that already existed for the A mount.

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
Re: A99 II
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2016, 10:30:39 AM »

In terms of capabilitiex the 5DIII and D750 were equivalent.

manufacturer sell/people buy cameras not only on capabilities but on retail price as well... there is no attempt from Canon to push 5DIV vs D6**/D7** from that standpoint, otherwise they 'd not be pricing it clearly above D750... you may certainly continue to wish differently, but people actually buying 5D* cameras are not considering to buy @ D750 level - as they have money for D8** ... people with budget only for 6D will consider alternatives like D750/D6** from Nikon


Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
Re: A99 II
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2016, 10:35:47 AM »

The D760 will be Nikon's answer to the 5DmkIV
only if they put 36mp Sony sensor (whatever modification) and D5/D500 AF in that body and as a result will not be pricing it @ current D750 level... or what do you think is going to happen ? 36mp with current D750 level AF or 24mp with D5/500 AF ?
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2147
Re: A99 II
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2016, 10:42:14 AM »

It is good that they updated their top A mount camera. As for those saying that Sony has no A mount quality lenses, they should have investigated further... the marriage between Sony and Zeiss, and Sony G lenses, dates from well before the E mount appearance... The A mount has a full complement of top quality lenses. You can see here the list of SAL lenses in Sony Portugal site:

http://www.sony.pt/electronics/produtos-camara-lentes-amoviveis/t/camara-lentes

For the E mount, they have been catching up with lenses that already existed for the A mount.

The Sony G lenses don't match their Canon and Nikon equivalents in performance. The GM lenses surpass all of them.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4346
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: A99 II
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2016, 11:24:37 AM »

The Sony G lenses don't match their Canon and Nikon equivalents in performance. The GM lenses surpass all of them.

A mount or E mount? I am not familiar with A mount lenses, never used the system. But it seems that A mount lenses with the designation ZA (with Zeiss collaboration) are rather good; like with E mount ZA lenses. For example, many rave about the SAL 135 f1.8 lens, and cry for a SEL version:)

The SEL G lenses are, by all accounts, very good too, e.g. the 90 macro.

I have used Canon EOS for 20 years, with some nice L glass (I assume the equivalent to Sony G status); some of those had "normal" optical quality, attaining L status due to better construction and faster aperture.

As with any system, making sweeping statements is not judicious, one can select both very good, and not so good lenses.

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: A99 II
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2016, 11:42:21 AM »

The Sony G lenses don't match their Canon and Nikon equivalents in performance.
Some do and some don't, and then there's some CZ ones, some are better then Nikon/Canon some are not.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up