Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: A99 II  (Read 9920 times)

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1804
Re: A99 II
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2016, 05:25:38 PM »

Some do and some don't, and then there's some CZ ones, some are better then Nikon/Canon some are not.

I'm mainly referring to the 16-35/24-70/70-200, which are the staple of probably the majority of pro users (especially potential A99 users - no-one's going to be shooting sports with it using the barely-existent Sony long telephotos). The 24-70 and 70-200 don't stand up to the Canon or Nikon equivalents. The 16-35 does, but falls short of the Canon 11-24 or Nikon 14-24.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
Re: A99 II
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2016, 06:10:29 PM »

Hi!,

My comment isn't about what else Sony makes, it is about their business model.  They are not a camera company, that's all.  If it becomes more profitable to make toasters, they will drop cameras and make toasters.  The A-mount languished for well over five years.  I pretty much figured it was dead.  Nice that I'm wrong, but I'll wager the a99 ii is a collosal flop in sales, even if it is a killer camera.  Most folk have "moved on" is my impression. 

Rand

Sorry for biting but I do tire of reading this view on forums. So often comments such as this or references to computer games are made and I struggle to understand what I see as brand snobbery.

As for dropping things, they're there to make money and if toasters are the future don't you think Canon will be heading that way too? They dropped their FD customers quick enough didn't they?
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1286
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: A99 II
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2016, 02:37:08 AM »

I'm mainly referring to the 16-35/24-70/70-200, which are the staple of probably the majority of pro users (especially potential A99 users - no-one's going to be shooting sports with it using the barely-existent Sony long telephotos). The 24-70 and 70-200 don't stand up to the Canon or Nikon equivalents. The 16-35 does, but falls short of the Canon 11-24 or Nikon 14-24.
So you agree  ;)
Also if you can pick out the lens used in a blind test of a set of well processed/printed examples you will probably find that the differences are not all that significant to begin with.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 955
Re: A99 II
« Reply #43 on: September 25, 2016, 10:14:04 AM »

Sorry for biting but I do tire of reading this view on forums. So often comments such as this or references to computer games are made and I struggle to understand what I see as brand snobbery.

As for dropping things, they're there to make money and if toasters are the future don't you think Canon will be heading that way too? They dropped their FD customers quick enough didn't they?

Hi,

Not brand snobbery, far from it.  Brand "burned."

Canon FD is not a proper comparison, IMO.  FD lasted 21 years and produced over 130 lenses in its era.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 955
Re: A99 II
« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2016, 07:32:42 PM »

Just occurred to me that this might be a good place to share that I have three mint Sony flash units that will fit a900/850 or other cameras w/ the original shoe mount (or a99 w/ Sony's adapter module).  I also have an A-Mount 100mm 2.8 macro. And I have a wired, Sony remote release.

I'll sell everything cheap if anyone is interested.  The flashes are the 58, 43 and the little 20. 

Any half-way reasonable offer considered.  These are the last bits of my defunct A-mount system.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: A99 II
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2016, 06:02:39 AM »

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

Sure, there are third-party lenses - Zeiss and Sigma provide a good mix of lenses - but that doesn't translate to ongoing long-term support for the mount. For one, there's no up-to-date A-mount answer to the 16-35/24-70/70-200 trio that forms the core of many photographers' arsenals - the existing Sony A-mount lenses are no match for the E-mount GM series (16-35 pending), the Canon set (the 16-35 III being recently announced, and the superb 11-24 also exists as an alternate wide-angle option) or even the relatively weaker Nikon lineup. And there's no sign of an update on the horizon either.

IMO Sony is letting A-mount die a slow death while all the work goes into bring E-mount AF performance up to par, with the eventual aim of abandoning mirrored designs altogether. The first-generation A7 bodies were little more than digital backs. The second generation are much better, at least matching entry-level SLR performance. The A9 will probably be suitable for general photography/event/wedding use - I'd imagine something like 5D3, D750 or D810-level AF performance - and I'd imagine they're probably aiming for a sports/action-capable version (likely with 8k video) in time for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. They're still releasing a few A-mount bodies here and there, to allow current users to keep using their lenses for a decent amount of time until their eventual obsolescence, but they appear to be putting minimal work into high-end A-mount lenses. And these A-mount bodies appear to be mostly a mix of off-the-shelf components also used by other cameras, as well as dual-use technologies that would equally benefit mirrorless designs - there's very little that's new that appears geared towards SLR and wouldn't also benefit future E-mount designs.


I don't disagree the lens front has been quiet and does need beefing up. But releasing a 3k camera isn't a sign of a company dumping the mount. Reality is you can put A mount lenses on both A and E mount bodies. E mount lenses are expensive and work only on that mount. Those who held off selling their A mount gear are coming out smiling now. I would never invest in E mount because there are so many bargain A mount lenses around it would cost a fortune to buy into that mount.

Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1804
Re: A99 II
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2016, 08:08:15 AM »


I don't disagree the lens front has been quiet and does need beefing up. But releasing a 3k camera isn't a sign of a company dumping the mount. Reality is you can put A mount lenses on both A and E mount bodies. E mount lenses are expensive and work only on that mount. Those who held off selling their A mount gear are coming out smiling now. I would never invest in E mount because there are so many bargain A mount lenses around it would cost a fortune to buy into that mount.

I'd rather not lose the 1/3-1/2 stop of light and suffer slight loss of contrast from the mirror.

A-mount lenses used on E-mount don't perform nearly as well as native E-mount lenses.

Sony could easily have stuck with A-mount when developing their mirrorless system. But doing so would have meant they couldn't take advantage of the huge number of third-party lenses out there to build their system and steal users from Canon and Nikon, while the existing A-mount lenses were going to have to be redeveloped anyway, to take advantage of their next generation of high-resolution sensors. Moving to a shallower mount was a smart move (although it would probably have been good to retain the greater diameter of the larger mount). And Sony has barely released a high-end A-mount lens since full-frame E-mount started to take off - clearly, they see where the future lies.

Not that there's anything stopping them from launching a Sigma-style A- to E-mount conversion program for lenses in the future, or releasing mirrorless bodies in two different versions - one E-mount and one A-mount.
Logged

Bernard ODonovan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: A99 II
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2016, 12:40:58 PM »

Sony have confirmed they are targeting existing A lens owners only with this Camera. They do not see it as a lead into the A lens system.

If the picture quality is better than or equal to the Sony A7R II, then I can see it appealing to anyone who may not need a large set of lenses, but know they can get a Sony or 3rd party lens to match that sensor quality and their needs.

We will have to see how it tests, but if it does well they may be in for a shock and start picking up new A mount users.

EV -4 AF is on the central focus point. Not the whole AF sensor set. The hybrib patch is quite small. It may be less appealing to sports photographers in that sense, but the rest of the sensor spread could be attractive to portrait photographers and others with off centre focus needs.

The video specs may be good but their will be better cameras from Sony and others to suit video.

Sony have also admitted their user interface is rubbish in the eyes of their users. They have colour coded the menus to help. Again will have to see how the reviews go but I feel they will still pick up some new A mount users if this camera performs...

The latest 85 E mount top draw lens has that very sharp look and the bokeh may be a bit busy for some. It may well suit some to go the A mount route if they can find the lens they want to match...

There is little room in the camera to develop a larger hybrid AF zone in future models. I suspect Sony have issued this camera to maximise all potential sales in a shrinking market and not for any development reasons. They commented that the body is normally a low margin leading to higher margin lens sales. They have tipped this on its head by not expecting any new lens sales and making a good margin on the body. Read it could have been cheaper but they cannot afford to do that with this series now.

It is also great PR and I am really pleased for anyone with a stash of A mount lenses, subject to the camera performing of course...


« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 01:08:02 PM by Bernard ODonovan »
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 416
Re: A99 II
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2016, 05:40:48 PM »

Sony have confirmed they are targeting existing A lens owners only with this Camera. They do not see it as a lead into the A lens system.

is Nikon D5 a lead into F lens system or is 1DxII a lead into EF lens system ? do we have mass migration nowadays for D5 or 1DxII from anywhere (any systems whatsoever) ?
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 416
Re: A99 II
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2016, 05:44:27 PM »

A-mount lenses used on E-mount don't perform nearly as well as native E-mount lenses.

my experience with Tamron 90/2.8 (the version before the recent one) + LA-EA3 on A7R2 was very positive, even w/o eye AF ...
Logged

Bernard ODonovan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: A99 II
« Reply #50 on: September 28, 2016, 06:24:59 PM »

is Nikon D5 a lead into F lens system or is 1DxII a lead into EF lens system ? do we have mass migration nowadays for D5 or 1DxII from anywhere (any systems whatsoever) ?

Canon and Nikon have established pro sports users and lens systems that keep them happy. I get the impression they are well matched and there is no mass migration just now...

People that used those systems for other types of photography in the past may well have already moved to other systems. As choice increases so will the erosion of users that may prefer other systems that better suit their needs...
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 416
Re: A99 II
« Reply #51 on: September 28, 2016, 06:43:37 PM »

just now...
and never will be actually for that generation... they are to keep existing base - so is A99 - to keep existing (very small of course) base.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
Re: A99 II
« Reply #52 on: September 29, 2016, 08:54:02 AM »

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.

And which one of those cameras can nail shot 100% at 3fps in the conditions you specified?
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
Re: A99 II
« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2016, 09:01:16 AM »

They dropped their FD customers quick enough didn't they?

Yep...and it hurt my investment in FD gear.
Logged

jhemp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
  • Glad to be alive and a photographer
    • Jay Hemphill Photography
Re: A99 II
« Reply #54 on: October 15, 2016, 07:52:12 PM »

I used the Sony A99 for a few years and really liked it.  But eventually the writing was on the wall and I made the jump over to the A7 series cameras.  I like to shoot primes and there is only one good prime I can think of for the A99II and thats the Sony/Zeiss 135mm 1.8.  I could already see optical issues with the Sony/zeiss 85,50, and 24mm lenses. I adapted all of those lenses over for use on my A7RII only to eventually sell them for better native equivalents.  I kept the 135mm f1.8 because it was still performing wonderfully on the 42mp sensor.  The second versions of the 16-35 and 24-70 might be good zooms but don't really interest me.  Maybe they will begin to update  the lens line for the A99II, but I doubt it.  Now Sigma says no more A mount, and the 35,50, and 85mm lenses couldve been cool on the A99II.

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2006
Re: A99 II
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2016, 03:53:31 AM »

Hooray, I can finally upgrade my A900! For reasons I can't fully rationalize I never felt the love for the A7 series, though I fully admit to its technical superiority in most every way. However, the problems with Sony and the A-mount cams remain - no real pro support, limited lens selection. With the FE you can use Canon glass seamlessly, but to me those are more like a DSLR version of a digital back.


That is why the A7RII is a iphone before it is a camera. I love the sensor and the quality and many things about it. But if I dont want to miss a shot I grab the mechanical first, then electronics stuffed 5D. If you want fleeting moment instant response with no glitches, you are not grabbing the electronics first device. You'll want to grab a fast slapping camera. I have both systems, and the coverage of the Sony to what I do at least is over 50% and I justify the buy. But for anything that will not happen again and you want to catch it, you might get stuck with the Sony. It has some glitches, and some focus hunting, and night focus is not good. So far I DO love the A7RII, but I trust my 5D which comes along and does get to play.

Sorry if this was not so welcome...Back to A99 programming :-)
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

jhemp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
  • Glad to be alive and a photographer
    • Jay Hemphill Photography
Re: A99 II
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2017, 12:48:51 AM »

Well I spent the first day with the Sony a99ii and the 16-35II, 24-70II,  Sigma Art 35 1.4 and the Sony.Zeiss 135 1.8.  The sigma 35 and 135mm lenses are mine that I shoot adapted to the A7 series cameras.   BTW I'm just testing out the A99ii for the week.
Was not impressed with the 16-35 or 24-70, meh,  especially the 16-35.  Thank gawd I have the Sigma 35 and the Zeiss 135 to use on this camera!!!
Honestly the camera feels nice and I really want to love it.  I love the dual card slots, super fast autofocus, frames rates and build quality but I HATE the lens selection.  If Sigma was going to make all their ART series lenses in Sony A-mount I'd buy this camera tomorrow, but that ain't gonna happen.
Anyways, I'll shoot the camera a bunch the rest of the week on some jobs and some personal stuff but after day one I'm feeling much better about the capabilities of the A7 series cameras.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10585
    • Echophoto
Re: A99 II
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2017, 03:34:06 AM »

Hi,

Thanks for sharing. You are sort of reinforcing my view on Sony lenses.

Best regards
Erik


Well I spent the first day with the Sony a99ii and the 16-35II, 24-70II,  Sigma Art 35 1.4 and the Sony.Zeiss 135 1.8.  The sigma 35 and 135mm lenses are mine that I shoot adapted to the A7 series cameras.   BTW I'm just testing out the A99ii for the week.
Was not impressed with the 16-35 or 24-70, meh,  especially the 16-35.  Thank gawd I have the Sigma 35 and the Zeiss 135 to use on this camera!!!
Honestly the camera feels nice and I really want to love it.  I love the dual card slots, super fast autofocus, frames rates and build quality but I HATE the lens selection.  If Sigma was going to make all their ART series lenses in Sony A-mount I'd buy this camera tomorrow, but that ain't gonna happen.
Anyways, I'll shoot the camera a bunch the rest of the week on some jobs and some personal stuff but after day one I'm feeling much better about the capabilities of the A7 series cameras.

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1286
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: A99 II
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2017, 08:34:56 AM »

Was not impressed with the 16-35 or 24-70, meh,  especially the 16-35. 
Would be interested what you were missing that explains the meh. Sharpness, micro contrast, colour, rendering, AF speed, ..... ?
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

jhemp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
  • Glad to be alive and a photographer
    • Jay Hemphill Photography
Re: A99 II
« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2017, 05:14:26 PM »

The 16-35 is soft at the edges of the frame, even at f8 at all focal lengths, and more so on the right side of the frame.  It is probably decentered a bit.    My FE mount 16-35 F4 on my A7RII gives much better image quality with sharpness in the edges and corners. 
The 24-70 is better and sharpens up nicely by F8 across most of the frame.  But it seems to really struggle at 70mm, even by f8 it's only sharp in the center.   There is nothing about the lens that wows me or stands out, thats why I said it's kinda meh.
Both of these zooms provide fast autofocus and the images from the lenses have nice contrast and color.
When you compare these lenses to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 art prime, or any of the nicer primes for the A7 series cameras, like the Zeiss Loxia, and Batis lenses it becomes really hard to get exited about what these zooms produce.  I think if I got this camera I'd have to check out the Tamron 15-30mm zoom that is supposed to be awesome. (Cant believe I'd ever consider a Tamron lens, LOL!) But there are no other wide angle options for this camera and I do a lot of landscape work so it's of great importance to me.
BTW the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8 lens is still a rock star.  Super fast autofocus, even though it uses the older autofocus drive system and it's freaking sharp even wide open at 1.8. 
The autofocus in general is the best I have ever used.  Snappy and accurate.  I'll be shooting some Collegiate spring football stuff on Friday and plan to really use the autofocus then.  But yesterday I had my 10 year old son run straight at me full speed and the auto focus nailed 10 of the twelve frames in perfect focus.  The other two shots would still be usable but the focus was a little behind the face.  Keep in mind this was with the 135mm lens at f2 so super shallow depth of field. 

A possible setup might be the Tamron 15-30 zoom for Landscape/Architecture, Sigma 35 and 50mm art lenses, the Sony Zeiss 85mm f 1.4 and finally the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8.  This system could work for my uses. 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up