Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on September 19, 2016, 09:45:31 am
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/5855300360/sony-announces-alpha-99-mark-ii
Wow! Killer specs if I have ever seen some... it combines in one body the resolution and speed of the best bodies from Canon/Nikon. If only Sony had the range of super tele lenses and if they had done that in FE mount...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some more information
http://www.cameraegg.org/sony-a99ii-officially-announced/
-
Great news, means I probably did the right thing not selling off my A-mount lenses and second hand A99's will become affordable (so time to think about an upgrade to my A850)
"The premature announcements of the A-mount death have been greatly exaggerated"
-
"Sony has announced....to mark the tenth anniversary of the Alpha series. "
THAT's what they were waiting for. Good to know ???
-
"Sony has announced....to mark the tenth anniversary of the Alpha series. "
THAT's what they were waiting for. Good to know ???
My thoughts exactly... is "anyone" shooting A-mount, who doesn't have to for some odd reason? Another reminder that Sony is a consumer electronics company, not a camera company. Hey, maybe in another 10 years they will get rid of the plastic fixed mirror that robs 1/3rd stop!
Rand
-
I spend a few months fixing Canon photocopiers. They weren't very good. Is that relevant? Is it relevant what other stuff Sony make?
-
I spend a few months fixing Canon photocopiers. They weren't very good. Is that relevant? Is it relevant what other stuff Sony make?
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
-
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
Are you sure about that?
http://www.digicamhistory.com
http://www.digicamhistory.com/1980_1983.html
Back in about 2000-2001, when these digital camera sites where in their infancy, an unpopular member made a statement that brought a lot of criticism. The mans name was Rodger Carter. Canikon fanfoys used to give him hell. I was following a thread, in the Nikon Forum, on Phil Askeys site "DPreview" when Rodger stated that in 10 years time, Sony would be a force to be reckoned with . Many called for a lynching and others laughed out-loud. You know what, Its been about 16 years and I don't find his prediction to be that far off base.
davidbogdan
-
Not all that interesting, given the limited lens selection.
I get the feeling that this is largely a bridging product, designed to keep existing A-mount users in an up-to-date body while they continue to develop and refine E-mount into a fully action-capable system capable of completely supplanting the SLR mechanism. It's a bit of a test bed for new technologies (processors, improved on-sensor PDAF, etc.) which would also be useful in future E-mount designs, while utilising many off-the-shelf components from existing cameras and not featuring a lot of SLR-specific developments that wouldn't also be useful in a full-sized mirrorless camera. In other words, a solid product that will keep current users happy and let them get a few more years of use out of their A-mount gear, but nothing that would compel someone to switch from Canon/Nikon/E-mount to A-mount.
-
They are not a camera company, that's all.
You say that as if it's a bad thing ;)
Any "camera" company that's not a software company will be relegated to a niche status in not-so-far future. And Nikon is probably leading the pack there.
-
You say that as if it's a bad thing ;)
Any "camera" company that's not a software company will be relegated to a niche status in not-so-far future. And Nikon is probably leading the pack there.
Software is easy to outsource. Hardware design and manufacturing is the expensive part.
Sony's biggest strength (other than its size) is the fact that it is an electronics company. A digital camera is, first and foremost, a complex piece of electronics (imaging sensor, support sensors plus attached computers) with a few pieces of glass in front of it. It has much more in common with a digital photocopier or scanner, or any number of pieces of laboratory equipment, than with a film camera. The only real commonalities between film and digital cameras are in the lenses, casing, pentaprisms, etc. - the 'dumb' parts of the machine that just sit there and don't talk much to the rest of the system. Not that these aren't important, but they're the easiest parts to outsource, since they require far less integration into the rest of the electronic, firmware and software setup than, say, a sensor or a CPU.
Sure, Sony has a weakness in optics. But they outsourced this to Zeiss, who, being an optics company, could develop and produce superb lenses, and, not being an electronics or camera company in its own right, had everything to gain and nothing to lose by partnering with Sony to sell more lenses. They also benefited greatly from Metabones, who allowed them to take advantage of everyone else's lens lineups, and helped them along by supplying Metabones adapters with their cameras. And, of course, a takeover of Nikon would add greatly to their capacity to develop and manufacture top-tier lenses in their own right - provided, of course, they can manufacture the bodies to take advantage of them. Which is where they appear to be heading in leaps and bounds at the moment, with respect to mirrorless cameras.
-
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.
-
Meets my needs, which is the reason I spend money on cameras. Ordered one this morning. Very much looking forward to using it.
-
I posted in another thread as well, but honest question: does Sony have lenses to support this body?
-
I posted in another thread as well, but honest question: does Sony have lenses to support this body?
why 'd you bother about this ? A-mount lenses are still made by Sigma and Tamron, including their new releases...
-
I posted in another thread as well, but honest question: does Sony have lenses to support this body?
Honest question: lenses of what specs do you need to record the data you want?
-
I posted in another thread as well, but honest question: does Sony have lenses to support this body?
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.
-
a99 II - 42MP @12fps - $3199
5D m4 - 30MP @7fps - $3499
1Dx m2 - 20MP @14fps - $5999
D5 - 20.8MP @ 13fps - $6496
-
Hi,
That is not so, some lenses are made by Sony, some by Konica Minolta and some by Tamron / Sigma.
The ZA-lenses are deigned and made by Sony, AFAIK.
Ultimate, it doesn't matter who makes the lens as far as it performs.
Best regards
Erik
why 'd you bother about this ? A-mount lenses are still made by Sigma and Tamron, including their new releases...
-
That is not so
what is my text was "not so" ?
"...A-mount lenses are still made by Sigma and Tamron, including their new releases..." ->
did I say that A-mount lenses are not still being made by other vendors, Sony itself including ?
but Sigma & Tamron are important because they release (that is not only patent, etc - but you actually can buy them) __NEW__ lenses in A-mount (for example Sigma 50/1.4 Art) when they clearly see 40-50mp sensors being put in cameras... while Sony lenses for A-mount that you can actually buy are older designs (but I don't mean to say that 135/1.8 for example is bad though), some of them are still screw-driven and some "micro USM" types /while this is not optics, still a negative point/
-
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
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-Köln-092016/i-PG75vHv/0/O/PEG_A6000_1_8802_20160921.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-Köln-092016/i-PG75vHv/A)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-Köln-092016/i-wf72ctM/0/O/PEG_A6000_1_8823_20160921.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-Köln-092016/i-wf72ctM/A)
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.
-
They've made a dslr
dSLT, not dSLR - no need to bundle fixed mirror/evf camera into flipping mirror/ovf crowd
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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) ?
-
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 ...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
They dropped their FD customers quick enough didn't they?
Yep...and it hurt my investment in FD gear.
-
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.
-
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 :-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, ..... ?
-
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.
-
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.
Put them side-by-side against their E-mount equivalents (for the 24-70 and 70-200 anyway) and the difference is striking. The current A-mount lenses just aren't up to scratch for a 42MP sensor.
-
I agree, except for the Sony/Zeiss 85 and 135mm primes. It really is a shame because the a99ii is a very responsive and fun camera to use. I've been shooting it for a three days now and this afternoon I took my A7Rii setup out for some work and I kept thinking "Damn this thing is sluggish"
I'm hoping Sony will release an A9 camera that shares the same kind of responsive handling and shooting of the a99ii but uses the better FE mount lenses.
-
I agree, except for the Sony/Zeiss 85 and 135mm primes. It really is a shame because the a99ii is a very responsive and fun camera to use. I've been shooting it for a three days now and this afternoon I took my A7Rii setup out for some work and I kept thinking "Damn this thing is sluggish"
I'm hoping Sony will release an A9 camera that shares the same kind of responsive handling and shooting of the a99ii but uses the better FE mount lenses.
According to SonyAlphaRumors, the A9 will be a standard-resolution, high-fps, high-performance AF body. I'm guessing this means 24-30MP - like a competitor to the 5D4. It's an SR5 rumour, so likely to be fairly accurate. But I'd expect there to be an A9r high-resolution version as well, once the 70-80MP sensor is ready.
-
Thanks for the explanation jhemp. I also have the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8 and agree it's a hell of a lens, even on the old A850
I never bought into the 16-35 and 24-70 for my A850 and make do with the older Minolta 17-35 and 28-70, adding a little local contrast/clarity in post these lenses are sharp enough for the 24 MP sensor, but I'm afraid they will also fall through at 42 MP. I'll see that whenever I get an A99ii, but for the time being my A850 will have to do.
-
Sone has said that the a99ii is for existing a-mount owners. I ignored that, and bought into the system. I wanted the sensor with a responsive body. I have put together a kit not too far from what you are talking about. The sigma 35, Zeiss 135, minolta 200mm, Tamron 15-30, sony 24-70 and 70-400 gen1, and a cheap sony 50. This is for weddings, portraits, real estate, and boating. So far so good. I bought everything used, so the total $$was not too outrageous. So far so good. This is my first Sony (stills) camera.
Chris
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.
-
The AF is nice, but I'm waiting for either a Sony A9r (60-80MP with better AF and functionality than the A7) or a Canon 5Ds2 (with better DR than the 5Ds2, probably also in the 60-80MP range). The A-mount lens lineup just doesn't cut it. As Sony pretty much said themselves, the A99II is for existing users, to extend the useful life of their gear, rather than to attract new users to the system.