Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

Havoc, A99 looks awesome - enjoy the week!

and...


In case anybody missed it, Popular Photography named the A7r Camera of the Year.

2013 Camera of the Year: Sony a7R
Sony takes home the gold with a total game changer


http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/11/2013-camera-year-sony-a7r


Why it Won: Brings full-frame quality into lighter, smaller bodies; Best imaging of any ILC camera; Introduces a whole new system for advanced users; Strong, weather-sealed body with great fit and finish; Connectivity includes Wi-Fi and NFC; Almost universal adaptability to other systems’ lenses

The camera actually outperformed our expectations, given the relatively small size of its body—smaller in volume than the Leica M, with considerably more electronics inside. Given the cramped interior quarters, there’s not much of a heat sink for a 36.4MP full-frame sensor, and heat buildup is a major cause of digital noise, which can also rob resolution. But the 7R proved competitive on all our test criteria with the Nikon D800, the highest-resolution digital camera available short of going to a (far pricier) medium-format camera.

Impressive as the 7R’s imaging power is, it’s all the more impressive for the package it comes in. This camera was clearly designed for pros and serious amateurs, with its tough, weather-sealed body, logical and ergonomic controls, superb electronic viewfinder (who needs a pentaprism?), and built-in connectivity. And the 7R came out of the bag as part of a full system, including five lenses and more to arrive soon (see the test report for details). There’s a vertical battery grip, the HVL-F60M electronic flash/video light that allows for wireless radio TTL, stereo mics for video, and more. We’re confident that Sony will thoroughly build out the system

I may be the only person who thinks the A7/7r is overrated.

Yes, it's Nikon D600/D800 image quality, in a smaller package, at a reasonable price for a fullframe camera.

BUT:

There are virtually no native lenses for the system. That may change over time. But if the system stays compact, then lenses will be filled with compromises. I expect a few good primes, but I doubt you will be seeing constant 2.8 zooms. And if you do, they will be so bulky that it will outweigh the small size advantage of the A7/7R.

Of course --- Sony marketing tries to turn the weakness into a strength. With adapters, you can use almost any lens ever made!!! Yes... with slow/non-existent autofocus. To pay thousands of dollars for the nostalgia of manual focus? No thanks. Now, there is a $350 adapter that would let you use A-mount lenses with the A7/7r. Of course, for that price, you can practically buy an APS-C dSLR! And a bulky adapter... which contains a translucent mirror, which hampers ISO performance. And A-mount lenses aren't stabilized (as A-mount bodies are internally stabilized), meaning you lose stabilization.
So if you actually want to use a full lens system, WITH full autofocus -- You need to buy an expensive adapter, add bulk to the body, basically turning it into an unstabilized A-mount camera.

The camera may be somewhat revolutionary for being the first true ILC mirrorless full-frame camera. And this really could be the wave of the future as there is further lens development. But as of today, 2013, this seems like just a novelty.

 

[Hockeyman]

I'm playing with the Sony A99 this week! So much fun. Never had my hands on such an advanced camera before, lol.

I am extremely jealous

 

[Hockeyman]

I may be the only person who thinks the A7/7r is overrated.

Yes, it's Nikon D600/D800 image quality, in a smaller package, at a reasonable price for a fullframe camera.

BUT:

There are virtually no native lenses for the system. That may change over time. But if the system stays compact, then lenses will be filled with compromises. I expect a few good primes, but I doubt you will be seeing constant 2.8 zooms. And if you do, they will be so bulky that it will outweigh the small size advantage of the A7/7R.

Of course --- Sony marketing tries to turn the weakness into a strength. With adapters, you can use almost any lens ever made!!! Yes... with slow/non-existent autofocus. To pay thousands of dollars for the nostalgia of manual focus? No thanks. Now, there is a $350 adapter that would let you use A-mount lenses with the A7/7r. Of course, for that price, you can practically buy an APS-C dSLR! And a bulky adapter... which contains a translucent mirror, which hampers ISO performance. And A-mount lenses aren't stabilized (as A-mount bodies are internally stabilized), meaning you lose stabilization.
So if you actually want to use a full lens system, WITH full autofocus -- You need to buy an expensive adapter, add bulk to the body, basically turning it into an unstabilized A-mount camera.

The camera may be somewhat revolutionary for being the first true ILC mirrorless full-frame camera. And this really could be the wave of the future as there is further lens development. But as of today, 2013, this seems like just a novelty.

Here is my situation. I have the A55 and want something more. I have 3 scenarios right now that im kicking around and wont decide until Feb-March next year so I have time. I have no idea which way im going to go but from a financial stand point id save some money right out the gate with the A7 and adapter and that is that way I am leaning right now for a few reasons. Obviously the cost to jump in is a factor and would be easier for to me wine and dine my wife with, $3,000 she would shoot me Even If I got the A99 I would get the kit lens and most likely wouldn't be able to get much more right off the bat, probably would end up getting one lens a year on average so with that being said, I could do the same with the A7 and by the time Im ready to buy a new lens later next year or 2015 there should be more of selection (I would hope some aftermarket ones by then). So im really at a crossroad right now as to what im going to do.


1. Sony A99 - $2,600 body only
$3,200 with lens

2. A7 - $2,000 with lens
- $300 adapter

3. Rumored full body camera supposedly early next year?

 

[havoc315]

Here is my situation. I have the A55 and want something more. I have 3 scenarios right now that im kicking around and wont decide until Feb-March next year so I have time. I have no idea which way im going to go but from a financial stand point id save some money right out the gate with the A7 and adapter and that is that way I am leaning right now for a few reasons. Obviously the cost to jump in is a factor and would be easier for to me wine and dine my wife with, $3,000 she would shoot me Even If I got the A99 I would get the kit lens and most likely wouldn't be able to get much more right off the bat, probably would end up getting one lens a year on average so with that being said, I could do the same with the A7 and by the time Im ready to buy a new lens later next year or 2015 there should be more of selection (I would hope some aftermarket ones by then). So im really at a crossroad right now as to what im going to do.


1. Sony A99 - $2,600 body only
$3,200 with lens

2. A7 - $2,000 with lens
- $300 adapter

3. Rumored full body camera supposedly early next year?

I'm in the same situation. Wife suggested I can invest in a nice new camera in March....
That's why I rented the Sony A99 to try this week.

First off though, what lenses do you currently have that will fit the A99? I decided if I spend that much on a camera body, I can't justify any additional money for lenses for a while.
So I'm testing the A99 this week with the lenses I already own --- It is MARVELOUS with the Minolta 50mm/2.8 macro. I know you love wide shooting which could be an issue, but right now I'm shooting the A99 with the Minolta 50 macro, the Sony 85/2.8, a Minolta 135/2.8, a Minolta 35-105, and Tamron 70-300. So while I'd like a walk-around standard zoom, and something wider... I feel like I *could* switch to the A99 with my current lenses.

The problem with the A7+ adapter route-- $2300, and you don't even keep image stabilization.

Meanwhile, I suspect that by early next year, the A99 will be marked below $2300. Regardless, there is a good chance I'd look to the used market, where the A99 body is now selling for $1800-$2000.

So a used/good condition A99 for around $1900, or a new A7+adapter for $2300.

The A99 is indeed huge and bulky, but it makes taking manual control a joy. And I really don't want to give up image stabilization.

 

[Hockeyman]

I'm in the same situation. Wife suggested I can invest in a nice new camera in March....
That's why I rented the Sony A99 to try this week.

First off though, what lenses do you currently have that will fit the A99? I decided if I spend that much on a camera body, I can't justify any additional money for lenses for a while.
So I'm testing the A99 this week with the lenses I already own --- It is MARVELOUS with the Minolta 50mm/2.8 macro. I know you love wide shooting which could be an issue, but right now I'm shooting the A99 with the Minolta 50 macro, the Sony 85/2.8, a Minolta 135/2.8, a Minolta 35-105, and Tamron 70-300. So while I'd like a walk-around standard zoom, and something wider... I feel like I *could* switch to the A99 with my current lenses.

The problem with the A7+ adapter route-- $2300, and you don't even keep image stabilization.

Meanwhile, I suspect that by early next year, the A99 will be marked below $2300. Regardless, there is a good chance I'd look to the used market, where the A99 body is now selling for $1800-$2000.

So a used/good condition A99 for around $1900, or a new A7+adapter for $2300.

The A99 is indeed huge and bulky, but it makes taking manual control a joy. And I really don't want to give up image stabilization.

Last year my wife told me if I waited another year I could get any camera I wanted (little did she know how much these cameras run lol). Yesterday I playfully remaindered her about that bargain she made with me and wouldn't you know she didn't recall that conversation at all. She is ok with me getting a new camera but is under the assumption the camera I want is about half the cost that it really is

These are currently what I have
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR
Rokinon 8mm Ultra Wide Angle f/3.5 Fisheye Lens
Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0 DI LD
Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens

These lenses will fit but of course will be cropped until I got a FF lens. How does the A99 handle the crop lenses?

How bad is shooting without image stabilization? I only know what it is to shoot with it so im curious to see what it would be like to shoot without.

Also with the A7 and adapter for $2,300 Ill at least have the kit FF lens. My Tamron 17-50 is on my camera about 85% of the time so the kit is something I would get use out of. Now its just about the stabilization. Id def head down to the Sony store with my lenses and take it for test spin before i buy

 

[havoc315]

Last year my wife told me if I waited another year I could get any camera I wanted (little did she know how much these cameras run lol). Yesterday I playfully remaindered her about that bargain she made with me and wouldn't you know she didn't recall that conversation at all. She is ok with me getting a new camera but is under the assumption the camera I want is about half the cost that it really is

These are currently what I have
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR
Rokinon 8mm Ultra Wide Angle f/3.5 Fisheye Lens
Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0 DI LD
Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens

These lenses will fit but of course will be cropped until I got a FF lens. How does the A99 handle the crop lenses?

How bad is shooting without image stabilization? I only know what it is to shoot with it so im curious to see what it would be like to shoot without.

Also with the A7 and adapter for $2,300 Ill at least have the kit FF lens. My Tamron 17-50 is on my camera about 85% of the time so the kit is something I would get use out of. Now its just about the stabilization. Id def head down to the Sony store with my lenses and take it for test spin before i buy

That's why I rented before buying. Figured the holiday was a good test period.

Image stabilization is a huge advantage when shooting a still subject in low light. In theory, it's about a 2-stop advantage. So with a 50mm lens, you can shoot at about 1/12 and still get sharp images. Without IBIS, you would need to shoot 1/50 at the same ISO.

To me, the main reason to go full frame is low light advantage. So you'd gain with the sensor, but lose low light ability by losing IBIS.

That said, I'm not blown away by the high ISO advantage of the A99. But it's not nearly as much cleaner as I hoped. I'm only seeing about a 1-stop advantage over the A55. ISO 6400 is rather degraded and requires significant noise reduction. Not only that, on auto ISO, the camera always wants to use ISO 6400.

Right now, I'm leaning towards waiting to see what the A79 brings to the table. Debating whether I really need to spend so much on FF.

And I haven't tried my crop lenses. I think your Tamron 70-300 may be full frame.
And if you did go with the A99, there are some nice affordable Minoltas you can stick up on.

I'll post some shots over the weekend.

 

[fractal]

 

[HPS3]

Mike, havoc is correct about the A99. Don't buy it if you want high iso capability. The A7 will be the same once you add the translucenr mirror adapter. You also don't want to use the crop mode , you lose the iso advantage and the photos drop down to around 10 mp. The reviews of the 28-70 e mount are pretty rough amd the cost of the primes are high for slower speeds. You'd be better off jumping ship to Canon/Nikon for a FF because they are getting cheaper with good cheaper primes. Your lenses aren't keeping you with Sony if you want FF. Also remember if you like shooting wide that FF edges are usually softer than APSC. You're using the sweet spot of the lens on crop sensors.

Just some thoughts Mike. I would listen to Havoc because he gives great advice.

Havoc, what's your whole take on FF vs Crop? Having shot with both, it's not night and day like I would have thought.

 

[fractal]

 

[HPS3]

Fractal, great shots! Great shooting with the Nex 7.

 

[havoc315]

Mike, havoc is correct about the A99. Don't buy it if you want high iso capability. The A7 will be the same once you add the translucenr mirror adapter. You also don't want to use the crop mode , you lose the iso advantage and the photos drop down to around 10 mp. The reviews of the 28-70 e mount are pretty rough amd the cost of the primes are high for slower speeds. You'd be better off jumping ship to Canon/Nikon for a FF because they are getting cheaper with good cheaper primes. Your lenses aren't keeping you with Sony if you want FF. Also remember if you like shooting wide that FF edges are usually softer than APSC. You're using the sweet spot of the lens on crop sensors.

Just some thoughts Mike. I would listen to Havoc because he gives great advice.

Havoc, what's your whole take on FF vs Crop? Having shot with both, it's not night and day like I would have thought.

I'm conflicted. Need to shoot a bit more.

Mike-- I agree that your lenses don't need to keep you loyal to Sony IF you opt to go full frame.

The reason to stay with Sony would be if you love the EVF and live view. If not, I'd seriously consider the Canon 6d.

But not sure if full frame is really so important at all. I definitely like the ergonomics of the a99. Makes manual control so easy. But can basically get that in the a77 (or next years A79).

In terms of ISO advantage compared to the a55. I'd say it's less than a 2 stop advantage.
ISO 1600 is where you see a big difference -- noisy on the a55, very clean on the a99.

The other thing I didn't fully prepare for -- the shallower depth of field makes focusing much more challenging. Didn't appreciate how much more I need to stop down for some shots.

Mike-- if I were you, I'd seriously consider taking your budget, evaluating the new top Sony aps-c and take the remainder of your budget and upgrade glass. I think upgraded class would give you bigger benefits than an upgraded body.
And even within a budget, there are some amazing Minolta primes out there (the 50 and 100 macros really stand out as great lenses).

I'll post some full frame shots shortly. Unfortunately, didn't get to do much outdoors. Mostly been doing portraits.

By the way, for portraits... I've changed the way I bounce light.

 

[havoc315]

A few examples from the A99. Wish I had it a month ago when it was warmer and had autumn colors. But should give you an idea of the image quality.


a99raw-93.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(shot with the Minolta 35-105)


a99raw-122.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(ISO 6400 and cropped, shot with the Sony 85/2.8)


a99raw-25-Edit.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(ISO 640, shot with Minolta 50mm Macro)


a99raw-6.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(Example of the amazing narrow DoF)


a99raw-117.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(Another ISO 6400 example, but no cropping)

 

[HPS3]

Havoc, that first shot is really nice. Are your lenses AF? It's much harder to nail focus at 1.8 in FF. I haven't had much time to get out and shoot the 6D. I can say it's pretty impressive at higher iso. I shot a few photos of my daughters around the house at 10000/12800 and they look as good as my Nex 6 at 3200.

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, that first shot is really nice. Are your lenses AF? It's much harder to nail focus at 1.8 in FF. I haven't had much time to get out and shoot the 6D. I can say it's pretty impressive at higher iso. I shot a few photos of my daughters around the house at 10000/12800 and they look as good as my Nex 6 at 3200.

All AF. And even at f 2.8, DOF is just so narrow. Realized for couple portraits, really need to stop down.

I'm about to upload some ISO 12800 I took last night. The jpeg looks ok at medium sizes.

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, that first shot is really nice. Are your lenses AF? It's much harder to nail focus at 1.8 in FF. I haven't had much time to get out and shoot the 6D. I can say it's pretty impressive at higher iso. I shot a few photos of my daughters around the house at 10000/12800 and they look as good as my Nex 6 at 3200.

Ok, a couple ISO 10000 and 12800, basically SOOC JPEG. Will work on RAWs later. (I do love shooting jpeg and RAW to 2 different cards).


a99jpeg-50-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


a99jpeg-4.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Definitely usable in small print sizes. But if you pixel peep, they look horrible.

Of course, with the A55, can't even get a decent small print at ISO 12800.

I also tested out the cropped 10fps mode. Just briefly. Unfortunately, seems all the birds have already migrated around here. But I actually enjoyed the cropped 10 fps mode. I used to shoot with the A100... so it's the same resolution as my old camera. (10mp). It is slightly better noise performance than a typical APS-C. And it lets you get the extra crop at times you need it.

 

[havoc315]

A few more examples from the A99, higher ISO examples, RAW that I processed myself.

ISO 4000 looks really good. Much better than any Sony APS-C:


a99raw-20.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

SOOC jpeg was above, here is processed myself, ISO 10000:

a99raw-50.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And here is another 128000 example. Again, ok for smaller or even medium sized. Looks bad if you pixel peep.


a99raw-5.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

So here is using the Sony 16-50 on the A99, in auto-crop mode:
(ISO was still 4000, so the 10mp on a cropped part of the sensor still results in fairly low noise)


a99raw-6.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And an example of shooting outside from a distance with the Tamron 70-300:


a99raw-61.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

One nice thing about the A99 is more advanced bracketing options, really opening up better HDR possibilities:


oflhdr2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Fractal, great shots! Great shooting with the Nex 7.

Thanks!

 

[havoc315]

a99jpeg-124.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Definitely get less reach on your lenses with the A99... but such high resolution gives you lots of freedom to crop. And it does have a great focus system.