Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 27, 2012, 7:16 AM   #1
Member
 
bella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Default A99 vs Canon or Nikon equivilent

Righteo, im back again to question re: the A99

I need to upgrade, and the photogs I know all shoot Canon or Nikon, so I dont know what Im comparing too
Im not really a reading the specs person, i get a bit confused with all the garb, but I know what I shoot.
What I would LOVE to know, is what does the A99 compare too????
(friends blab on about the great focusing of their new cameras in comparison to the crap focus on their old, but to be honest, I have never had a focussing issue, unless it was user error)

Im needing to upgrade my camera really soon, and am wondering if I jump ship to a Nikon D800 or D4....or the canon Mkiii. Im not keen on doing this as I have alot invested in Sony glass. But the SLT technology is scaring me, as its unknown to me

Has anyone done any comparisons between the brands????
Any thoughts would be appreciated
bella is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 27, 2012, 8:08 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The truth is there is you're not going to have a 1-for-1 comparison. In all honesty when you're looking at professional grade cameras if you don't understand all the nuances then you're really not needing a professional grade camera. If you want to have a flagship model, buy the A99 - you'll save a lot of money. I'm not saying this to be mean - but the concept of a "what professional flagship DSLR should I buy" really doesn't make a lot of sense.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2012, 8:20 AM   #3
Member
 
bella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Default

im not a buy it cos its cool, i want to know what makes it better. Having owned an A900 that i loved, and needing a new camera and no equivilent to purchase, i want to know what is better. I shoot among seasoned pros who argue over whether the D4 or the D800 is better, same thing with canon, as im the only sony shooter. As far as focussing issues an iso, from sony i have never had a prob, my colleagues rave about the improvement on their new models.
Im trying to suss out if i move on from sony as I am not sure on the new SLT

Excuse errors in post, im on phone
bella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2012, 8:27 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Bella - first off, the A99 isn't out en-masse so most comparisons to D4, 1dX, d800, 5dIII are purely academic. We don't have any good concrete tests on how RAW output compares, how jpeg output compares. As for focus, there are all different aspects to that. I don't recall that you shoot sports/wildlife in a professional capacity so focus tracking shouldn't be a factor. In all honesty, if the A900 satisfies your needs then you're wasting your energy considering a brand switch. if you want to consider yourself a professional, then you need to consider this as a BUSINESS purchase. Your current equipment meets your needs. Switching systems will cost a significant amount of money. There's simply no good reason to make that switch unless the real-world reviews of the A99 over the next 4 months say it's a lemon. Otherwise, the right business decision is to stay within Sony. Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2012, 8:42 AM   #5
Member
 
bella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Default

Ok, i said i loved my A900...and I did, til it went for a swim and is unfixable, and couldnt be replaced as Sony had no full frame at the time.
Im currently back to my backup A550, which is ok, but not my 900.
I shoot with 2 cameras at times, so my super old a100 has had to step back up, not entirely ideal for commercial jobs.
As far as business wise goes, i need to step back up to the game with something that at a minimum can compare to what I had, and if im to spend the cash, i would rather spend correctly.
Currently my gear no longer meets my needs

Im not trying to make it complicated, i want to know if SLT is as good as SLR or is it better. Its new technology to me and im trying to understand if its good for me
bella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2012, 9:28 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bella View Post
Im not trying to make it complicated, i want to know if SLT is as good as SLR or is it better. Its new technology to me and im trying to understand if its good for me
In some respects, the electronic viewfinder is better, but in some respects it's not as good.

The "Translucent" mirror allows the Phase Detect AF system to operate continuously, while in conventional dSLRs, the AF system is interrupted each time you take a shot, and it must reacquire the subject afterward.

The electronic viewfinder also can compensate for low ambient light.

But the 1024x768 resolution of the eye-level viewfinder isn't as good as what you'd see with an optical viewfinder. If you're accustomed to seeing fine detail in an optical viewfinder, you won't get that with an SLT. (See my Comparison of Eye-level Viewfinders II. )

Also, some people have experienced some glitches with how the electronic viewfinder works in certain situations.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Sep 27, 2012 at 10:57 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2012, 4:39 PM   #7
Member
 
bella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Default

So the electronic view finder has its ups and downs, most of the reading I have done...people have taken a bit to get used to it, but would never go back.
I like the idea of the AF system, i shoot rugby on weekends so could come in handy. Im not shooting kids anymore, so not to worried about it for that.

So basically its the electronic viewfinder and the AF system that are different, thats not too scary then.
Thanks for that TCav
bella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2012, 6:42 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

It sound to me like you should get your feet wet with an A65, replacing one of your other backups, just to get used to it. The A65 and A77 use the same 1024x768 EVF as the A99, while the lower model numbers use an 800x600 EVF. Your A100 is getting long in the tooth, so putting it out to pasture wouldn't be a bad idea.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2012, 11:01 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bella View Post
... Has anyone done any comparisons between the brands????
Any thoughts would be appreciated
IMO get another A900 before they run out !

I shoot with the A900: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pe...d-vampire.html
and the D800: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pe...y-warning.html

1. The viewfinder of the A900 is so bright it put all other viewfinders (Canon or Nikon) to shame!

2. The Zeiss 24-70 is shorter and has better industrial design than the longish Nikkor 24-70 (plus the Sony has the IS built-into the body)

3. The D800 does have more mega-pixels, but do you need it? As it requires more CPU time to download and some Photoshop plug-ins not to work unless you re-size the image to smaller resolution... (Topaz for one)

4. Like TCAV said, the A99 EVF comes with both + and -. and I like EVF because of the real time histogram and WYSIWYG when shooting in Manual capability, but I wouldn't pay extra for it (especially when the A900 has such a superb viewfinder!)
__________________
photos (ϕοτοσ), light
graphos (γραϕος), painting

Last edited by NHL; Sep 27, 2012 at 11:39 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2012, 1:06 AM   #10
Member
 
bella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Default

I would LOVE to get my hands on an A900, but unfortunately theres no more to be found in NZ, I had a friend have hers stolen, and they managed to hunt down a new one, but Im pretty sure it was mentioned that it was the last in NZ

TCav, I would prefer full frame rather than cropped sensor, thats more why Im wanting to find out if I will jump ship or not. I dont really see the point in buying an A77 etc when I could just get another A550.
I just won 6 awards shooting on the A550, so would get that again if I went for another crop sensor

As far as the megapixels go, Im not concerned about how high the likes of the D800 etc go, I do shoot for billboards, but in all honesty, I had great shots on billboards 15 years ago using a 5megapixel (seems so far fetched now!!!!)

Thanks for the info NHL!!!! great pics! would love to get my hands one to process for you, looks like a fab shoot
bella is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:36 AM.