Sony A99 full frame SLT previewed

[An Exception]

If they produced this camera in a body like the minolta shown above, with the dual phase detection AF (if it performs good) and 'in-camera' image stabilization, I would happily sell up my Nikon gear, and buy one of these along with the 35 & 85 1.4.

Having image stabilisation on such lenses would be epic!

 

[D.P.]

They didn't 'choose' to go EVF. There is no viable way of doing an optical viewfinder with SLT tech.

From everything I'm told by Sony reps and the like they are fully aware they are never going to take on Canon and Nikon at their own game, hence their decision to go SLT. They want to become the '3rd player', that is all.

Originally they wanted to be the #1 or # 2 player and by now their plan was to have 30% of the market, that idea failed. Maybe they have a new plan of being 3rd place with 10% market?

 

[D.P.]

They didn't 'choose' to go EVF. There is no viable way of doing an optical viewfinder with SLT tech.

From everything I'm told by Sony reps and the like they are fully aware they are never going to take on Canon and Nikon at their own game, hence their decision to go SLT. They want to become the '3rd player', that is all.

As Rojin says. Then dump the horrible SLT idea except for their video range and make high quality optical viewfinders like their a900.

There seems to be nothing but disadvantaged of the SLT technology in this a99. You suck out light from the sensor nd make users suffer an EVf to offer 6fps in
The flag ship modal, cf. 10-12 in canikon land with traditional mirrors. Both canon and Nikon used translucent technology decades ago, this isn't some fancy new tech of the future?


As for cost who would purposefully choose this over a 5d3 or d800? Another recheck of the sonylens prices and idealism how much cheaper Nikon is!

Disappointing really because at least with the a900 it was 90% of a d3x for 40% of the price.

 

[Columbo]

It's looks because everything else about it is bog standard and nobody expects it to outperform any other flagships in pretty much any regard other than video. Looks were the only thing we weren't fairly sure about before the announcement. As for the grip, and the height argument, this actually doesn't really give you any extra size to have to hold on to, just a much bigger piece of kit on your bag, that is awkward to use in portrait as your hand is about a foot over from the viewfinder. If it was just about being 'big', then they could have put the portrait shutter at the top of the grip, or the right of the camera in landscape. Instead they've got a weird, pointless indent that means both landscape and portrait grips are just as small as any other camera, but with a needless amount of camera to go with that.

You of course are speaking from the full experience of using one over a extended period and are able to compare that to using using a Nikon over an extended period of time as well......

Oh hang on....thats actually me.

 

[Columbo]

As Rojin says. Then dump the horrible SLT idea except for their video range and make high quality optical viewfinders like their a900.

There seems to be nothing but disadvantaged of the SLT technology in this a99. You suck out light from the sensor nd make users suffer an EVf to offer 6fps in

The EVF is very marmite but I wouldn't give mine away now. You either love it or hate it.
Its only a disadvantage to the point where you fail to consider what advantages it has to offer and refuse to recognise them.

Now I'm used to it an OVF seems ancient to me and positively outdated. The ability to stick a live histogram, spirit level and change menu options without it never leaving my eye was something that I particularly fancied and find it extremely useful.

Much like full phase detect AF while in Live View, if I want low shot I don't have to stick my face in the mud to do it or simply guess.

However its not for everyone but having the choice is exactly the point and why Sony is trying to do something different.

Or maybe you'd rather them just copy Canon & Nikon and release traditional SLR's with zero difference from their competitors and in which case you'd still buy Nikon anyway.

What is however obvious is that given how much the D800 / 5DMKiii are now retailing for the A99 is simply too expensive to be a viable option.

 

[Ksanti]

You of course are speaking from the full experience of using one over a extended period and are able to compare that to using using a Nikon over an extended period of time as well......

Oh hang on....thats actually me.

You've used an unreleased Sony camera for an extended period of time? How impressive. -_-

I was talking about the a99, which is too tall to stick a grip on, particuarly one that doesn't actually end up giving you any more camera to hold onto, but does end up taking a load of space in the bag. I'd be very surprised if the landscape grip section is taller than the 5D or D800 equivalent when gripped, and the portrait bit definitely isn't. I already find using a gripped 5D slightly awkward in terms of using the viewfinder in portrait orientation, and a gripped a99 will be taller still.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was talking to someone on another forum who has handled one,and they say the autofocus is extremely quick. It will be interesting to see how this does against the D600 as they probably share a similar base sensor,and the D600 is limited to 5.5FPS,uses a D7000 derived AF system and is around £2000.