The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Fun with the A99!
- Thread starter petetsai
- Start date
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have been using my A99 for several weeks and 2,260 exposures. I also have a well-used A900. I like them both, but I'm finding I reach for the A99 more often.
It's lighter, though not much lighter when you stick the Zeiss 24-70 on the front. But it is WAY quieter and smoother in operation.
I really like the EVF. I like seeing the shot I've just taken without taking my eye from the finder. I like the way I can shoot in very poor light and see the subject clearly. I like the focussing coming off the sensor.
This week I have been in the Canadian Rockies with my MF gear (see Fun with MF images!) and brought the A99 as backup. On several occasions I've shot scenes with both cameras and I look forward to comparing the images when I get home.
I've become addicted to EVF.
Bill
It's lighter, though not much lighter when you stick the Zeiss 24-70 on the front. But it is WAY quieter and smoother in operation.
I really like the EVF. I like seeing the shot I've just taken without taking my eye from the finder. I like the way I can shoot in very poor light and see the subject clearly. I like the focussing coming off the sensor.
This week I have been in the Canadian Rockies with my MF gear (see Fun with MF images!) and brought the A99 as backup. On several occasions I've shot scenes with both cameras and I look forward to comparing the images when I get home.
I've become addicted to EVF.
Bill
I expect to eat a lot of a99 pudding, Bill.
The 24-70/2.8 is such a big chunk that using any lighter DSLR behind it will not do much for overall avoirdupois. But more normal lenses, say in the 300g to 500g range, you really do notice the diff, and the smaller body works better also. It's hard to tell apart from the a77 in size.
I don't like upsetting the OVF holdouts - we all have our preferences and reasons for them - but MR was really grasping at straws with the complaints about the power consumption and lag from LCD to EVF. If those are the strongest arguments you can muster, I'd say you are simply someone with a given VF preference that overrides the better image making option.
To deal with these two arguments, batteries are cheap, most a900 users have some anyway and the a99 is so fast you get very decent life, and you can turn of LV (due to the great EVF); if you turn off the LCD the EVF comes on smartly.
Just quickly for the non-users, these are just some advantages (some for manual lens operation):
Accurate focusing in any light conditions using EVF magnification and peaking (adjust for colour and strength); can do the following entirely with EVF: focus, exposure from histo, check dof at shooting aperture with good illumination and using peaking effects, shoot at shooting aperture (less vibration/noise), adjust WB, creative style, use BW, use five graphic display options, adjust colour balance and intensity of the EVF, see review image, review histo/blinkies, magnify and/or navigate review, set any menu item, set any setting, and the direct sensor feed. All settings get instant feedback in the EVF.
You don't need the LCD, I use it entirely EVF most of the time.
The a99 also has first curtain shutter (setable), meaning you have taken the shot before you hear the shutter, and it has no mirror noise. 200k shutter too. More DR (1-2 stops), and lower noise (1.5-2 stops). Recent tests indicate very minimal noise burden compared with either RX1 or D600 (which smears detail too much in my view) - same sensor.
It is simply incomparable to the a900 for efficiency and effectiveness. I bought one for the dual card slots, cheap and small SD cards, lighter weight, smaller body, LCD/LV, magnification, no MLU, better DR, better noise, more usable mid range ISO and more customisability...and I now find myself saying the EVF is the heart and best feature of the camera. The ability to do *everything* in it is very addictive.
Last comment: as a 95% manual lens user, the EVF enables the capacity to use the great manual focus lenses fully to a viable option for many more users. It's that good.
Finally, it may slip by MR and co, but most young photographers are growing up with EVF cameras...imagine what they will think of this one?
The 24-70/2.8 is such a big chunk that using any lighter DSLR behind it will not do much for overall avoirdupois. But more normal lenses, say in the 300g to 500g range, you really do notice the diff, and the smaller body works better also. It's hard to tell apart from the a77 in size.
I don't like upsetting the OVF holdouts - we all have our preferences and reasons for them - but MR was really grasping at straws with the complaints about the power consumption and lag from LCD to EVF. If those are the strongest arguments you can muster, I'd say you are simply someone with a given VF preference that overrides the better image making option.
To deal with these two arguments, batteries are cheap, most a900 users have some anyway and the a99 is so fast you get very decent life, and you can turn of LV (due to the great EVF); if you turn off the LCD the EVF comes on smartly.
Just quickly for the non-users, these are just some advantages (some for manual lens operation):
Accurate focusing in any light conditions using EVF magnification and peaking (adjust for colour and strength); can do the following entirely with EVF: focus, exposure from histo, check dof at shooting aperture with good illumination and using peaking effects, shoot at shooting aperture (less vibration/noise), adjust WB, creative style, use BW, use five graphic display options, adjust colour balance and intensity of the EVF, see review image, review histo/blinkies, magnify and/or navigate review, set any menu item, set any setting, and the direct sensor feed. All settings get instant feedback in the EVF.
You don't need the LCD, I use it entirely EVF most of the time.
The a99 also has first curtain shutter (setable), meaning you have taken the shot before you hear the shutter, and it has no mirror noise. 200k shutter too. More DR (1-2 stops), and lower noise (1.5-2 stops). Recent tests indicate very minimal noise burden compared with either RX1 or D600 (which smears detail too much in my view) - same sensor.
It is simply incomparable to the a900 for efficiency and effectiveness. I bought one for the dual card slots, cheap and small SD cards, lighter weight, smaller body, LCD/LV, magnification, no MLU, better DR, better noise, more usable mid range ISO and more customisability...and I now find myself saying the EVF is the heart and best feature of the camera. The ability to do *everything* in it is very addictive.
Last comment: as a 95% manual lens user, the EVF enables the capacity to use the great manual focus lenses fully to a viable option for many more users. It's that good.
Finally, it may slip by MR and co, but most young photographers are growing up with EVF cameras...imagine what they will think of this one?
MikalWGrass
New member
Carlos, what were you selling, and which 50 did you get?
wentbackward
Member
Last edited:
Even though I really do not want another 35mm DSLR and hoped to lean down my Sony kit (or add nothing to it), I've had an A99 in my B&H cart for over a week now. I am just extremely leery of being an early adopter ... again.
I really appreciate the points and counter points on this thread. I like that each person offers their opinions based on their specific criteria no matter which side of the coin, or how definitive or exaggerated in terms of real life use they may seem.
I'll be up-front about the applications ... I have zero use for any 35mm DSLR for anything other than weddings ... which I will continue doing if my knee replacement surgery is successful this January.
Not interested in manual focus at all ... I use 35mm DSLRs for the AF, not in spite of it. Not the least bit interested in using other lenses ... been there done that. Too slow :thumbdown: For manual focus I prefer a rangefinder anyway.
Frankly, I tried an A77 over a weekend, and returned it on the following Monday. I didn't need two weeks to see if it was my cup of tea as someone here suggested ... but I do agree that any new technology requires getting used to, and questions asked to clear-up any misgivings. So, I remain open to stuff like EVF.
Some questions for A99 users, any insights much appreciated: (I already know the A900 inside out, so no help really required there).
The "steep learning curve" comment concerns me. Not because I can't learn that curve, but because it indicates complexity to achieve something. This is not desirable for shooting weddings ... where the actual stuff happens so fast that you can go brain dead trying to remember some complex procedure to set the camera for the prevailing conditions while the events are unfolding before your very eyes.
Can someone explain the viewfinder (EVF) experience to me? I do NOT want a review in the viewfinder after taking a shot ... I hardly ever chimp the LCD either ... that is a formula for missing the "real" shot.
What is the Lag improvement or elimination that was mentioned? I do not experience lag with the A900, so I don't grasp the comparison.
Frankly, I have the A900 down pat for AF, and shoot moving subjects all the time. Granted, I don't use CF, preferring single focus and timing the shot. I think many poor moving shots are attributable to low shutter speeds as opposed to bad AF. Also, how good is the off-center AF on the A99?
How accurate is the Auto WB on the A99? ... I'm forced to shoot in horrible mixed low lighting, including the newer energy saving lights ... the A900 is deficient in this area IMO. I set manual WB when there is time ... which is almost never. My assistant's old Canon is better at Auto WB. The only camera I have that is lightening fast for setting custom WB is the Hasselblad H.
The key question is how much better is the A99 low light performance? This is the only real reason to replace one of my A900s. Low light without a bunch of complex jumping through hoops to get to the needed settings. The pics shown so far are not very convincing. Nice shots mind you ... good photographers here ... but I'm not seeing any earth shattering high ISO stuff ... I mean LOW light and contrasty scenes, not Times Square with 20,000 watts of light. Frankly, night time shots with higher levels of ambient light can be done with the A900 at 3200 if only to get the shutter speed up.
Thanks in advance for any help that can be offered. The A99 is still in the cart, but I'm not shot in the behind to have one ... it is just a business decision, and doesn't particularly excite me ... so I don't have the "want's and gimme's" for some new toy that's over-riding the "real world needs" logic.
-Marc
I really appreciate the points and counter points on this thread. I like that each person offers their opinions based on their specific criteria no matter which side of the coin, or how definitive or exaggerated in terms of real life use they may seem.
I'll be up-front about the applications ... I have zero use for any 35mm DSLR for anything other than weddings ... which I will continue doing if my knee replacement surgery is successful this January.
Not interested in manual focus at all ... I use 35mm DSLRs for the AF, not in spite of it. Not the least bit interested in using other lenses ... been there done that. Too slow :thumbdown: For manual focus I prefer a rangefinder anyway.
Frankly, I tried an A77 over a weekend, and returned it on the following Monday. I didn't need two weeks to see if it was my cup of tea as someone here suggested ... but I do agree that any new technology requires getting used to, and questions asked to clear-up any misgivings. So, I remain open to stuff like EVF.
Some questions for A99 users, any insights much appreciated: (I already know the A900 inside out, so no help really required there).
The "steep learning curve" comment concerns me. Not because I can't learn that curve, but because it indicates complexity to achieve something. This is not desirable for shooting weddings ... where the actual stuff happens so fast that you can go brain dead trying to remember some complex procedure to set the camera for the prevailing conditions while the events are unfolding before your very eyes.
Can someone explain the viewfinder (EVF) experience to me? I do NOT want a review in the viewfinder after taking a shot ... I hardly ever chimp the LCD either ... that is a formula for missing the "real" shot.
What is the Lag improvement or elimination that was mentioned? I do not experience lag with the A900, so I don't grasp the comparison.
Frankly, I have the A900 down pat for AF, and shoot moving subjects all the time. Granted, I don't use CF, preferring single focus and timing the shot. I think many poor moving shots are attributable to low shutter speeds as opposed to bad AF. Also, how good is the off-center AF on the A99?
How accurate is the Auto WB on the A99? ... I'm forced to shoot in horrible mixed low lighting, including the newer energy saving lights ... the A900 is deficient in this area IMO. I set manual WB when there is time ... which is almost never. My assistant's old Canon is better at Auto WB. The only camera I have that is lightening fast for setting custom WB is the Hasselblad H.
The key question is how much better is the A99 low light performance? This is the only real reason to replace one of my A900s. Low light without a bunch of complex jumping through hoops to get to the needed settings. The pics shown so far are not very convincing. Nice shots mind you ... good photographers here ... but I'm not seeing any earth shattering high ISO stuff ... I mean LOW light and contrasty scenes, not Times Square with 20,000 watts of light. Frankly, night time shots with higher levels of ambient light can be done with the A900 at 3200 if only to get the shutter speed up.
Thanks in advance for any help that can be offered. The A99 is still in the cart, but I'm not shot in the behind to have one ... it is just a business decision, and doesn't particularly excite me ... so I don't have the "want's and gimme's" for some new toy that's over-riding the "real world needs" logic.
-Marc
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
Marc, as a one-month veteran of the a99, I'll try and answer your questions.
In my opinion there is no steep learning curve at all for a900 users. A few different movements to master, but twenty minutes should do it.
The EVF (and the rear LCD) can be set to no image review, or a 2 second, 5 second review and so on. I like 2 seconds except when I'm shooting action when I turn it off. Like you, I don't want to miss that decisive moment! It can also show all shooting info, a histogram, a leveler or absolutely nothing but the scene.
I don't understand the lag issue either. For all intents and purposes it's the same as the a900.
Can't comment on AWB in mixed light - it's fine in daylight and compact fluorescent, but I tend to set manually anyway.It's a very quick process with the joystick. (I can always correct RAW later.)
Low light performance alone is a good reason to go a99. It is at least one, and I'm beginning to think, two full stops better than the a900. But - my definition may be different from yours. I've been shooting trains in motion at ISO 1600 with essentially noise free results. At 3200 there is acceptable noise - to me. Your standards may differ.
I'm keeping my a900 but it's likely to be as a backup rather than primary camera. In fact, I'm using the a99 as backup for my MFDB!
Good luck with your decision-making process!
Bill
In my opinion there is no steep learning curve at all for a900 users. A few different movements to master, but twenty minutes should do it.
The EVF (and the rear LCD) can be set to no image review, or a 2 second, 5 second review and so on. I like 2 seconds except when I'm shooting action when I turn it off. Like you, I don't want to miss that decisive moment! It can also show all shooting info, a histogram, a leveler or absolutely nothing but the scene.
I don't understand the lag issue either. For all intents and purposes it's the same as the a900.
Can't comment on AWB in mixed light - it's fine in daylight and compact fluorescent, but I tend to set manually anyway.It's a very quick process with the joystick. (I can always correct RAW later.)
Low light performance alone is a good reason to go a99. It is at least one, and I'm beginning to think, two full stops better than the a900. But - my definition may be different from yours. I've been shooting trains in motion at ISO 1600 with essentially noise free results. At 3200 there is acceptable noise - to me. Your standards may differ.
I'm keeping my a900 but it's likely to be as a backup rather than primary camera. In fact, I'm using the a99 as backup for my MFDB!
Good luck with your decision-making process!
Bill
wentbackward
Member
ok, I've re-linked my Flickr picture above.
Marc, the comments about lag refer to old issues, either that EVFs were laggy in low light but more likely, before a firmware upgrade the A77 used to have a slight delay when you put it to your eye and the EVF kicked in. On the a99 this is not noticeable (to me at least). In fact due to the electronic front-curtain shutter the thing seems to take the picture before you've thunk it. I'd say the A99 is quicker than my Nikon D700, but I was never able to compare them side-by-side. I generally use mine for kids/events and the A/F experience is really excellent, you can defer to the A/F in many situations whereas the Nikon was almost always on point and I scrolled the point around. Mainly this is because of P&S style face recognition.
I don't think there's much of a learning curve, although I did RTFM to understand the A/F options better.
Regarding white-balance, it seems pretty good in many scenarios. I think the Sony setup is much less likely to blow the red-channel and overall the colours are much more accurate (one reason I switched from Nikon). I hit one issue recently where there was some unknown and god-awful fluorescent/tungsten mix at a persons house. I couldn't get it right in camera, everything went very magenta. I actually went back to AWB and de-saturated in post. I don't think any camera could handle that awful light.
Another reason for the A99 would be the ability to crop later. I used to crop 12MP images down to between 3 and 6 for reasonable prints. Cropping the A99 images is ridiculous. When you've got kids running around, give them more room and crop. It saves a lot of grey hairs.
fwiw, I turn off the auto-preview as it distracts me too much from the next shot. I also turn off the setting that shows all the effects in the EVF.
- Paul
Marc, the comments about lag refer to old issues, either that EVFs were laggy in low light but more likely, before a firmware upgrade the A77 used to have a slight delay when you put it to your eye and the EVF kicked in. On the a99 this is not noticeable (to me at least). In fact due to the electronic front-curtain shutter the thing seems to take the picture before you've thunk it. I'd say the A99 is quicker than my Nikon D700, but I was never able to compare them side-by-side. I generally use mine for kids/events and the A/F experience is really excellent, you can defer to the A/F in many situations whereas the Nikon was almost always on point and I scrolled the point around. Mainly this is because of P&S style face recognition.
I don't think there's much of a learning curve, although I did RTFM to understand the A/F options better.
Regarding white-balance, it seems pretty good in many scenarios. I think the Sony setup is much less likely to blow the red-channel and overall the colours are much more accurate (one reason I switched from Nikon). I hit one issue recently where there was some unknown and god-awful fluorescent/tungsten mix at a persons house. I couldn't get it right in camera, everything went very magenta. I actually went back to AWB and de-saturated in post. I don't think any camera could handle that awful light.
Another reason for the A99 would be the ability to crop later. I used to crop 12MP images down to between 3 and 6 for reasonable prints. Cropping the A99 images is ridiculous. When you've got kids running around, give them more room and crop. It saves a lot of grey hairs.
fwiw, I turn off the auto-preview as it distracts me too much from the next shot. I also turn off the setting that shows all the effects in the EVF.
- Paul
This sounds like an ideal test situation for what I'm after. Maybe not as bad for WB as what I run into, but if the ambient is low and people are involved, it'll be a good demo of skin tones and tonal separation.
Would love to see some shots in the ISO 2000 to 2500 area, which seems to be the ambient median for most reception situations The Sony 50/1.4 isn't their most stellar lens, but with Steady Shot in camera it can usually beat the Canikon versions. I do seriously wish they'd make a Zeiss 35/1.4 for these cameras! That is what is really needed for event situations.
Thanks, and good luck with your shoot!
-Marc
That IS the question, isn't it?
The reason I highlighted the low ISO performance question is because that is where I am currently deficient after switching from Nikon D700/D3/D3X to two A900s to get to the Zeiss optics. None of my wedding cameras except the Leica Mono do a very good job with really low ambient. The D700/D3 were good, but didn't have the resolution needed for cropping ... and the D3X had the resolution but wasn't great at high ISO, and the processing time for those files made it a no go for me.
However, I think I'd need about two ISO stops improvement and a bit better WB to make the A99 worth the cost difference after selling one of my A900s.
The issue isn't whether the clients will see it (I never let them see anything sub-standard even if they wouldn't recognize it) ... it is the time it takes to fix stuff in post to maintain a consistent quality across a body of work in a wedding presentation.
The other unknown as part of the decision process is the build quality and durability. I honestly think Sony over-built the A900 to make their mark in 35mm DSLRs. Frankly, with the exception of war photography, not much puts the kind of demand on a camera like years of relentless weddings. Neither one of my A900s have faltered ... which I could never say for even my pro body Canons and Nikons. Lucky maybe.
Thanks, appreciate your thoughts.
-Marc
Thanks for the info Bill.
Can you shut off the EVF review of a shot in the viewfinder separate from the LCD? I do chimp the LCD once in a while ... mostly when first entering a room ... but there isn't time for that during most of the wedding shoot.
I can say that even though I don't chimp very often, and didn't use Live View on the Canons and Nikons I used previously all that much ... the articulated LCD could change that for over-head shots I currently do in a hit-or miss, "Hail-Mary" manner : -)
The reason for the WB question is that while I shoot RAW and can correct in post, it isn't the same as getting it right, or close to right in camera ... overly warm shots suddenly go underexposed when corrected ... being brighter, red-yellow can trick the eye as far as tonal separation is concerned. This is where most of these camera are deficient. I've found that it is sometimes actually better to error on the blue side which is counter intuitive.
The noise at higher ISOs can be okay depending on the type of noise ... its structure and all that. I'd be interesting to see the difference ... not for pixel peeping reasons which is a waste of time, but more for controllability in post. Nothing worse than globs of noise on a beautiful Bride's face. How LR noise control and Nik Define 2 handles the A99 noise structure will be important.
-Marc
Yeah Paul, The reason I swapped out of Nikon was the color issues compared to the A900, which in decent light gets it right almost all the time ... very good mid-range tonal separation right out of the camera to the point that post time was cut almost in half compared to the Nikons.
Good to know about your AF experiences! Squirmy, kinetic kids are a really good test of a camera's AF abilities. When you say that you "can defer to the A99's AF as opposed to scrolling the Nikon D700's AF points", what do you mean? Face recognition is new to me ... how does that work?
Thanks,
-Marc
wentbackward
Member
Marc, if you've ever picked up one of those point and shoots that puts a little box around the faces, the A99 can do that, however unlike a p&s they only guide the A/F's decision and it still relies on the high speed A/F points for fast focusing. Due to the sensor being live all the time, the Sony has a combo of normal A/F and smart things like face recognition. Almost always when shooting kids and people I switch back to fully auto A/F and let the A99 do it's thing focusing on faces. No other DSLR or Mirrorless camera can do this only the new Sony's with the translucent mirror.
Edit: In AF-D mode (with a compatible lens) once locked on a face it automatically tracks the face when you recompose (off the central 19 A/F points onto the secondary 102 A/F points). I've done this with groups up to 10, but not yet in a room full of people all over the place.
Edit: In AF-D mode (with a compatible lens) once locked on a face it automatically tracks the face when you recompose (off the central 19 A/F points onto the secondary 102 A/F points). I've done this with groups up to 10, but not yet in a room full of people all over the place.
If I had to shoot weddings with Sony I'd for sure have an a99. The DR gains alone will be able to salvage things you wouldn't consider with the a900. Also for anyone looking to buy Sony Style store has a sale for Black Friday, its $2799 for the a99 and you get a free 32" flat panel sony TV! Ends today I think.