Hi all, I am considering selling my A900 and getting the A99, and would like to have some input from those of you who have already done so. Here's my situation.
I mainly use my M9 and use the A900 when I need a zoom, tele, or to use my Leitax'd R-glass. When going on scenic trips I would travel with the M9 with two M-lenses, the A900 w/CZ 24-70, and perhaps a tele.
I like the A900 a lot, but there are some real negatives for me:- heavy, especially with the 24-70 mounted; manual focusing the R-glass even with the matte screen is still hit or miss with my eye-sight. On the other hand, the in-camera stabilization is a plus for me, and I like its files (although not as much as the M9 files).
My rationale to get the A99 are focus peaking help for my R-glass (I've tried it on the Nex-7 and it helps me), and lighter weight. I prefer the Sony over the new Leica M because of the in-camera stabilization. Although I am on the wait list for the M.
So my questions are 1) is it noticeably lighter? Can one feel a difference with the 24-70 mounted, and 2) is low ISO performance as good as, and preferably better than, the A900? Is there anything else I should consider?
Thanks in advance,
Alan
I mainly use my M9 and use the A900 when I need a zoom, tele, or to use my Leitax'd R-glass. When going on scenic trips I would travel with the M9 with two M-lenses, the A900 w/CZ 24-70, and perhaps a tele.
I like the A900 a lot, but there are some real negatives for me:- heavy, especially with the 24-70 mounted; manual focusing the R-glass even with the matte screen is still hit or miss with my eye-sight. On the other hand, the in-camera stabilization is a plus for me, and I like its files (although not as much as the M9 files).
My rationale to get the A99 are focus peaking help for my R-glass (I've tried it on the Nex-7 and it helps me), and lighter weight. I prefer the Sony over the new Leica M because of the in-camera stabilization. Although I am on the wait list for the M.
So my questions are 1) is it noticeably lighter? Can one feel a difference with the 24-70 mounted, and 2) is low ISO performance as good as, and preferably better than, the A900? Is there anything else I should consider?
Thanks in advance,
Alan