ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Not familiar with the a900's sensor...what Nikon did it share with? (model? year?).

Admittedly, my a350 was the worst camera on the market for shadow/low light noise...So, I totally agree that Sony had some issues with the older cameras and noise at anything over ISO 400.

But my move to the a55 solved that issue (pretty much as good as the D7000, I understand from tests and reviews I've read/compared). And I'm very happy with the a77. I understand the a99 is even better.

I think Sony got enough shit about (raw) NOISE at the beginning, that they actually reacted well in the last few releases. Their firmware is now pretty Excellent. I think they are moving in the right direction, and I share your concerns about Camera support. For example...WTF is the 36mpix sensor!? F#@king Sony marketing!

Good dependable electronic product though, and great bang for the buck. My Sony has banged away in cold weather when all the others were having battery or LCD issues and running for the warm Van! And now they have good glass too! Hard to beat...all around.

A900 high iso was shit. BUT, Nikon never had a 25 m.p. camera during that time. Sony during that time had the highest mp camera until Nikon surpassed it with the 36 mp camera. If I recall, Nikon's highest mp during that year was the D700 and D series camera that were 12 to 16 mp cameras.

Legacys 7 wrote:
A900 high iso was shit. BUT, Nikon never had a 25 m.p. camera during that time. Sony during that time had the highest mp camera until Nikon surpassed it with the 36 mp camera. If I recall, Nikon's highest mp during that year was the D700 and D series camera that were 12 to 16 mp cameras.

Never heard of the Nikon D3x?

The biggest thing that puts me off the Sony SLT bodies is that they are still 12-bit. I've been using 14-bit since 2007, and I don't want to go back (my last 12-bit body was a Canon 5D original). 14-bit RAW really makes a difference to some of my work.

I'm currently using a D800E. Yes, it's a Sony sensor, but compared with the A99 it has higher resolution, higher bit-depth, reduced AA, and utterly extraordinary dynamic range. Pity Sony hasn't released a body with anything like this sensor.


ETA: I would really love to get a Sony body so I could use that awesome 135mm f/1.8. The Nikon 135mm just doesn't do it for me - coming from the Canon 135/2L, the Nikkor is a serious let-down.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
Never heard of the Nikon D3x?

The biggest thing that puts me off the Sony SLT bodies is that they are still 12-bit. I've been using 14-bit since 2007, and I don't want to go back (my last 12-bit body was a Canon 5D original). 14-bit RAW really makes a difference to some of my work.

I'm currently using a D800E. Yes, it's a Sony sensor, but compared with the A99 it has higher resolution, higher bit-depth, reduced AA, and utterly extraordinary dynamic range. Pity Sony hasn't released a body with anything like this sensor.


ETA: I would really love to get a Sony body so I could use that awesome 135mm f/1.8. The Nikon 135mm just doesn't do it for me - coming from the Canon 135/2L, the Nikkor is a serious let-down.

D3X came out in 2009. A900 came out during 2008, which backs up my point. A99 does shoot in 14 bit. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a99/  When I'm shooting with my A99, my results are excellent and people looking at them have no complaints. So to me it's not a pity at all that it's not the 36 mp sensor. Especially seeing that I still own a Minolta 7D 6 mp camera that also gives me excellent results. And the A99 also gives you extraordinary dynamic range. That's one of the trademarks coming from this camera, and it shows.

Sony chose the 24 mp newer sensor over the 36 mp because they wanted to a dual auto focus sensor instead. It's the first camera to do this.

"The 19-point AF system with 11 cross sensors is complemented by a multi-point focal plane phase-detection AF sensor with 102 AF points that overlays the image sensor. Taking advantage of Translucent Mirror Technology that simultaneously directs light to the image sensor and AF sensor at all times."

More than likely they will apply this technology in the 36 mp, but newer sensor. From what I've been reading, Sony will get rid of the mirror period and just have the evf.

Images by MR wrote:
Thanks for the info.   Dumping my nikon gear & heading to the sony store in the morning....

Oh, it don't matter. Either way you're shooting Sony! LOL!

Even when Sony finally owns -all- of Nikon, it will still keep the "Nikon Name".
On an overpriced line of point-and-shoots.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I'm currently using a D800E. Yes, it's a Sony sensor, but compared with the A99 it has higher resolution, higher bit-depth, reduced AA, and utterly extraordinary dynamic range. Pity Sony hasn't released a body with anything like this sensor.

I was hoping for it at the Consumer Electronics Show a couple weeks ago, but I should have known it's too soon after the a99's release.  I'm betting in the Fall, at the very soonest...and probably next Christmas. But, it will come with some new genius features, I'm sure.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Images by MR wrote:
Thanks for the info.   Dumping my nikon gear & heading to the sony store in the morning....

Oh, it don't matter. Either way you're shooting Sony! LOL!


I was hoping for it at the Consumer Electronics Show a couple weeks ago, but I should have known it's too soon after the a99's release.  I'm betting in the Fall, at the very soonest...and probably next Christmas. But, it will come with some new genius features, I'm sure.

A99 also has 14 bit depth.

Legacys 7 wrote:
A99 also has 14 bit depth.

Yup!

DPReview wrote:
Sony has gone to great lengths to stress the work that has gone into improving the camera's image quality. The latest 24MP sensor has been designed so that more of each photosite is light-sensitive. The electronics in front of this light sensitive region have been slimmed-down to increase the angle from which each site can receive light. These changes, combined with a design that provides a short and high-capacity path between the sensor output and the image processor, and the addition of 14-bit Raw output, should mean improved still image quality.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

I was hoping for a Sony with the 36mpix sensor...but, too soon.

But, I'm happy with the a77 (24mpix) and I'm hearing good about the a99!

My only point for mentioning the 14 bit is because the person that replied to my post is wrong about the bit depth coming from this camera.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
The biggest thing that puts me off the Sony SLT bodies is that they are still 12-bit. I've been using 14-bit since 2007, and I don't want to go back (my last 12-bit body was a Canon 5D original). 14-bit RAW really makes a difference to some of my work.

Frozen, as mentioned the a99 does 14bit RAW...but you do peak my interest. Where are you noticing that difference so much?

Being an a77 shooter I believe I'm still limited to 12bit RAW, but I don't see anything lacking with it's resulting JPEG images (which I use 98% of the time).

ETA: I would really love to get a Sony body so I could use that awesome 135mm f/1.8. The Nikon 135mm just doesn't do it for me - coming from the Canon 135/2L, the Nikkor is a serious let-down.

And you should check out the Sony 16-50/f2.8 for a SUPER sweet wide-zoom for Sony's APS-C cameras! I LOVE this thang! Does everything but Wildlife photos for me...seemingly as good as my primes. There has to be something similar (glass) for the full frame a99!

Silver Thunderbird wrote:
I killed a couple of hours today at a nearby botanical garden, shooting exclusively with the manual Sony 135mm 2.8 [T4.5] STF lens. Focus peaking helps so much, plus the zoom magnifier, that I found myself being more calculating with my shots.

I can't wait to try that!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
And you should check out the Sony 16-50/f2.8 for a SUPER sweet wide-zoom for Sony's APS-C cameras! I LOVE this thang! Does everything but Wildlife photos for me...seemingly as good as my primes. There has to be something similar (glass) for the full frame a99!

There is Sony 24-70mm F/2.8 SSM Carl Zeiss

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Frozen, as mentioned the a99 does 14bit RAW...but you do peak my interest. Where are you noticing that difference so much?

Being an a77 shooter I believe I'm still limited to 12bit RAW, but I don't see anything lacking with it's resulting JPEG images (which I use 98% of the time).


And you should check out the Sony 16-50/f2.8 for a SUPER sweet wide-zoom for Sony's APS-C cameras! I LOVE this thang! Does everything but Wildlife photos for me...seemingly as good as my primes. There has to be something similar (glass) for the full frame a99!

Strange - I was comparing the A99 with the D800E and another body using DxOMark a few days ago, and was surprised to see the A99 listed as 12 bit. Just checked, and it's STILL listed as 12-bit: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera … T-Alpha-99 - maybe someone should let them know?

I enjoy shooting silhouette work, and sometimes I do additional processing where I take a comparatively narrow band of tones and expand them to fill the full range. Doing that with 12-bit RAW files can push the image into banding; 14-bit files gives me more latitude. It's not a problem you'll see if you aren't doing selective processing on the RAW files.

Hmm. Might have to take a closer look at the A99. Would mean buying into yet another lens system, though...

Legacys 7 wrote:

D3X came out in 2009. A900 came out during 2008, which backs up my point.

But you said originally:

A900 high iso was shit. BUT, Nikon never had a 25 m.p. camera during that time. Sony during that time had the highest mp camera until Nikon surpassed it with the 36 mp camera. If I recall, Nikon's highest mp during that year was the D700 and D series camera that were 12 to 16 mp cameras.

The D3x came out well before the D800, as you pointed out. So Sony wasn't the only one with a 24Mpixel body up to the release of the D800.

I was shooting Canon at the time, so I wasn't following Sony and Nikon all that closely. I did notice, though, that both offered 24Mpixel while Canon was still 21 (and has only reached 22, even now)

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:

But you said originally:

The D3x came out well before the D800, as you pointed out. So Sony wasn't the only one with a 24Mpixel body up to the release of the D800.

I was shooting Canon at the time, so I wasn't following Sony and Nikon all that closely. I did notice, though, that both offered 24Mpixel while Canon was still 21 (and has only reached 22, even now)

During that time, Sony had the highest megapixel camera. The D3X didn't come out until a year later. That makes two points in my point. One as I'd already pointed out, D3x didn't come out with the similar Sony sensor until a year later, which didn't surpass the A900 as the highest megapixel. It just equaled the amount. It was surpassed by the D800.

You pointed out that you weren't following them that closely. That also confirms my 14 bit slt point. You can find that on their website.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:

Strange - I was comparing the A99 with the D800E and another body using DxOMark a few days ago, and was surprised to see the A99 listed as 12 bit. Just checked, and it's STILL listed as 12-bit: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera … T-Alpha-99 - maybe someone should let them know?

I enjoy shooting silhouette work, and sometimes I do additional processing where I take a comparatively narrow band of tones and expand them to fill the full range. Doing that with 12-bit RAW files can push the image into banding; 14-bit files gives me more latitude. It's not a problem you'll see if you aren't doing selective processing on the RAW files.

Hmm. Might have to take a closer look at the A99. Would mean buying into yet another lens system, though...

14 bit on their website and dpreview's website.

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores … 1644885999

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a99

Sony SLT-A99 key specifications:

24MP full-frame CMOS Sensor with on-chip phase detection AF
Fixed-mirror design SLT
2.4M dot OLED electronic viewfinder
14-bit Raw output
ISO 100-25,600
Up to 6 frame-per-second continuous shooting with AF
ISO-compatible flash hotshoe with 'multi interface' expansion connector
Pull-out three-hinge tilt/swivel 1.23m dot RGBW LCD screen
Top panel LCD
Microphone and headphone sockets
Built-in GPS
AF Micro Adjust

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I enjoy shooting silhouette work, and sometimes I do additional processing where I take a comparatively narrow band of tones and expand them to fill the full range. Doing that with 12-bit RAW files can push the image into banding; 14-bit files gives me more latitude. It's not a problem you'll see if you aren't doing selective processing on the RAW files.

Hmm. Might have to take a closer look at the A99. Would mean buying into yet another lens system, though...

Ahhh, I understand. That could also happen when pushing the blue sky on landscape work, I believe. I'll have to look into this some more.

And, as far as Sony and another lens system, remember we get excellent bang-for-the-buck with old Minolta glass/speedlites. Just sayin...although it sounds like you'd need Zeiss or good G glass at your level of shooting.

As someone mentioned above: Sony 24-70mm F/2.8 SSM Carl Zeiss, or perhaps the Minolta G 28-70mm F/2.8 Lens

Robb Mann wrote:
The A900 was an amazing camera at its price point, for the same price as a D3X you could get an A900 with 24-70&70-200 f2.8 zeiss lenses, with cash left over.

This is my point too. Sony has amazing bang-for-the-buck! You get sooo much for your dollar, especially when you count the reliability factor. I don't know what the charts and graphs say, but I have had ZERO maintenance issues with Sony electronics in many years of shooting (a350, a55, and now a77).

The a350 did suck for low-light noise (shadows of anything over 400!) as did most cameras in 2008, but still created good images in normal light settings.  (Raw and Jpeg, both). So if you usually shot at ISO 100 or even 200...no major issues. I don't think I've ever shot at over ASA/ISO 800 in my life...but I know some people do.

I'm sure the a900 was probably the same over ISO 400 (as were most cameras in 2008). Not sure about the a850. But Sony has addressed this issue more recently (like 3years ago!) and I find the a55 to be Excellent, and same for a77...especially with good glass! The a99 is reviewing even better.

Robb Mann wrote:
Umm, im not sure why it matters, but my surfing shows an early September 2008 release for the A900, with a Oct 2008 announcement and January 2009 shipping for the D3X.

The A900 was an amazing camera at its price point, for the same price as a D3X you could get an A900 with 24-70&70-200 f2.8 zeiss lenses, with cash left over.

Despite this, sales for the A900 were so below expectations that an even cheaper A850 came out not soon after. The D3X outsold the A850/A900 combined according to amazon. Last time i looked (about a year ago) the D3X was ranked (40th?) in the top 100 interchangeable camera category, neither Sony body made the top 100. However, Amazon sales charts are not conclusive, but just sample. Nikon never made a D700x, however. (No, the D800 and D600 are not a D700X).

The topic came up due to Frost mentioning the Sony sensor in the Nikon. Artist asked which camera during that year had the same sensor. My reply was, there never was one during that year. It was during the following year.

Addressing your point. You're right. The sales were bad compared to Nikon and I'll even state they were low compared to the Canon 5dII. And in the low iso department, Sony beat it out. The problem, imo is, Sony didn't do what they were supposed to do and made the assumption that good enough is enough. Not when you're going up against two established companies that both have a large market and reputation for making good products. When you're not applying the innovations that they're (Sony) applying now, people will not buy.

Sony had a lowered priced (A900) camera, but lacked the bells and whistles that the similar priced cameras had, as well as the higher priced camera have.

I like Sony. But that like started during the Minolta years. Sony reminds me of General Motors. They want to compete on a global market, but they only give you just enough. And what gets me is, like GM, Sony has the muscle and innovation to do it.

I like my A99. Actually, I love it. But it's the lack of glass and support that I dislike. It's like a disjointed family. I'm blessed to have a place near me that rent Sony glass and cameras. But it's one of the few places that do, compared to renting Nikon and Canon global.

Regarding amazon. Yeah, you have to questioned their sell stats. I'd purchased a part that I need for my car last night. It shows that it's the last on for my car. I'd purchased the part, but out of curiosity, I'd decided to see if that REALLY was the only one. Nope! they have more. It's a marketing stunt to get you to buy because they know people will need it.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
And...at the time the a900 was out...what other (if any)...cameras had good low-light noise control. I believe they all pretty much sucked at ISO 800-1600 or above in 2008...didn't they?

Based on my a350...Sony probably did suck the worst for noise at high ISO in 2008, but that's changed 180deg in the last few years.

No. Nikon shined even back then. Canon's high iso was better than Sony back then.

James Ogilvie wrote:
My A99 is serving me very well. I've never owned anything quite this sophisticated before.  I don't mean sophistication with regard to complexity - it just has so many useful features that it is easy to make the camera your own, from a shooting style perspective.

Little things like focus peaking, being able to set AUTO ISO *and* exposure compensation in manual mode, the silent control dial, other highly customizable buttons, the way the triple battery system works with the grip - I could go on.

I am absolutely convinced that in 2014 we will see the SLT mirror go away.  Sony seems ready to make that happen with on-sensor phase detect points.  But even knowing this, the 99 was a no brainer for me.

My A900 sits patiently by to be backup, if ever needed. 

Just got the AF Zeiss 24 f/2.0 SSM.  Looking forward to the 50, and I'll have the quadruple Zeiss prime range covered.  Most amazing lenses ever.

Happy.

Indeed the A99 is a beast. I love every bit of this camera. I never owned the A900. Played with it briefly, but that's it.

I too said the same regarding the SLT. I see evf with no mirror on all of the future Sony cameras. I also predict that Sony's coming out with a medium affordable format camera.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
And...at the time the a900 was out...what other (if any)...cameras had good low-light noise control. I believe they all pretty much sucked at ISO 800-1600 or above in 2008...didn't they?

Based on my a350...Sony probably did suck the worst for noise at high ISO in 2008, but that's changed 180deg in the last few years.

at the time, both Canon and Nikon had FF cameras that were way better in high ISO situations. Today we are happy with 6400. back then everyone expected to be able to shoot 1600 and a bit of noise reduction. sucking? no.

Also I think you have to rethink your thinking about the a350.   I'm pretty sure what has happened in 5 years is that you have improved as a photographer and dont make the same mistakes that lead to excessive noise.  There was nothing wrong with that sensor. I was using the a200 at the time with a 10MP sensor. My friends using the 350 used to pity me because they had better dynamic range.  For an entry level camera it was no worse than a stop off the best entry level at the time.  it was the a900 that everyone thought should be better.  At 3000$ for sure.  3-4 stops off the leader of the pack was unacceptable.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

law school was last school year. This past term I passed the bar. As soon as I get a job I become a weekend shooter and no longer a professional.   and speaking of bars...that beer looks perfect for tonight

lol :-) checking back on this, congrats on you passing the bar :-) I'm currently on break from law school >.< was hitting my head against the wall and I needed a break!

Yeah I wouldn't have posted the Rooster in the critique form! Haha! btw it got attacked by a possum last week (survived!) eek! Those were my friends rooster / hen'

---------------------

James Ogilvie wrote:
My A99 is serving me very well. I've never owned anything quite this sophisticated before.  I don't mean sophistication with regard to complexity - it just has so many useful features that it is easy to make the camera your own, from a shooting style perspective.

Little things like focus peaking, being able to set AUTO ISO *and* exposure compensation in manual mode, the silent control dial, other highly customizable buttons, the way the triple battery system works with the grip - I could go on.

I am absolutely convinced that in 2014 we will see the SLT mirror go away.  Sony seems ready to make that happen with on-sensor phase detect points.  But even knowing this, the 99 was a no brainer for me.

My A900 sits patiently by to be backup, if ever needed. 

Just got the AF Zeiss 24 f/2.0 SSM.  Looking forward to the 50, and I'll have the quadruple Zeiss prime range covered.  Most amazing lenses ever.

Happy.

-----------------------------------------

Agree +1 this a99 definitely uses a different richer paint to create a picture . from my canon, Have a quick shoot coming up Thursday, I should post up non-technical noise tomorrow. James Ogilvie your photos are awesome!

if the other companies have to rip off something from sony its these two things

1.) evf
2.) swivel portrait flash head /w led (HVL-F60M) . I wish my 600ex did that, seriously that would be awesome. (the led on that flash head are super bright!

Armando D Photography wrote:

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
law school was last school year. This past term I passed the bar. As soon as I get a job I become a weekend shooter and no longer a professional.   and speaking of bars...that beer looks perfect for tonight

lol :-) checking back on this, congrats on you passing the bar :-) I'm currently on break from law school >.< was hitting my head against the wall and I needed a break!

Yeah I wouldn't have posted the Rooster in the critique form! Haha! btw it got attacked by a possum last week (survived!) eek! Those were my friends rooster / hen'

---------------------


-----------------------------------------

Agree +1 this a99 definitely uses a different richer paint to create a picture . from my canon, Have a quick shoot coming up Thursday, I should post up non-technical noise tomorrow. James Ogilvie your photos are awesome!

if the other companies have to rip off something from sony its these two things

1.) evf
2.) swivel portrait flash head /w led (HVL-F60M) . I wish my 600ex did that, seriously that would be awesome. (the led on that flash head are super bright!

Evf was out before Sony. Sony is one of the first to use it in their professional cameras. Speaking of Sony, they're going mirror less now. No more mirrors in their cameras.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
And...at the time the a900 was out...what other (if any)...cameras had good low-light noise control. I believe they all pretty much sucked at ISO 800-1600 or above in 2008...didn't they?

Based on my a350...Sony probably did suck the worst for noise at high ISO in 2008, but that's changed 180deg in the last few years.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
at the time, both Canon and Nikon had FF cameras that were way better in high ISO situations. Today we are happy with 6400. back then everyone expected to be able to shoot 1600 and a bit of noise reduction. sucking? no.

Also I think you have to rethink your thinking about the a350.   I'm pretty sure what has happened in 5 years is that you have improved as a photographer and dont make the same mistakes that lead to excessive noise.

You are probably right, except I think I DO still blow it (often) with stupid technique!

Like trying to shoot a "moving" model with that a350 at 1/[email protected] with "kit glass", handheld at twilight, at ISO200 or worse ISO400, with a single speedlite! Sure...the meter may say it's all okay, and the camera's LCD "looks good"...but...it ain't! That's just pushing it too far!

For me (and my twilight methods), that a350 was garbage at ISO400+...but in contrast my a55 is fantastic! And I never even shoot above ISO1600. The a77 seems just as good!

I can't even imagine how good the a99 (full frame with the newest firmware) must be! I think I'll go check the a99 noise tests at DPreview...and dream about it.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
For me (and my twilight methods), that a350 was garbage at ISO400 ...but in contrast my a55 is fantastic! And I never even shoot above ISO1600. The a77 seems just as good!

I can't even imagine how good the a99 (full frame with the newest firmware) must be! I think I'll go check the a99 noise tests at DPreview...and dream about it.

I had the A850 and ISO400 was good, 800 was on the edge and everything above was .

The A77 did definitely make it better and ISO1,600 o big deal.

The A99 is a completely different animal. Noise is not a big deal. Here a link to my blog entry of last Friday at the ice hockey game all pictures are shot at ISO 2000 f2.8 1/800s
http://www.klausbinder.com/wpress/2013/ … ockey/1030

Stephen J Moss wrote:
As they say in NYIP "It's not the violin, it's the violinist."

Actually, the violin accounts for a good portion of the credit.

I shot pics of a symphony conductor/violinist... and while in the studio, he spied a violin I had bought as a prop from a garage sale...

He gave it a go, and then frowned really big at me. He couldn't play it. Nobody could. It was pretty and shiny, but it was pure crap.

Leo Edwards Photography wrote:
Sony A99 in the desert

http://blog.leoedwardsphotography.com

Hey, Leo-----please spam some other forum---MM has rules against spamming this one!

realistgva wrote:
I had the A850 and ISO400 was good, 800 was on the edge and everything above was .

The A77 did definitely make it better and ISO1600 o big deal.

The A99 is a completely different animal. Noise is not a big deal. Here a link to my blog entry of last Friday at the ice hockey game all pictures are shot at ISO 2000 f2.8 1/800s
http://www.klausbinder.com/wpress/2013/ … ockey/1030

Nice!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Nice!

Thanks

Here a picture more model related my daughter with 2 friends in our yard for an improvised session. There is actually 2inch of snow on the lawn and a dreadful / great gray sky.
This was shot with the A99 and the amazing Zeiss 135mm at f1.8 ISO 50 1/160 of a second

https://plus.google.com/photos/10494504 … KPox62v3wE