Today's announcement: what are you planning to get?

[Dusty]

The D600 was announced. $2099, 24mp:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/

Yes. If it had an Alpha mount, I'd be getting one now.

Pluses - Price, OVF, Pop up flash, unbroken flash system, more focus points

Minuses - no IBIS, no Mirco focus adjust, no GPS

Same or close enough 5.5 vs 6 FPS

Yeah, it's the camera Sony should have put out last year as the 950.

Dusty

[peterottaway]

Being a dual Minolta/Sony and Nikon user - do I qualify as a Rat ? I have been looking at the D600 for a sometime in the future purchase and the thing that bugs me most about the design are the wi-fi and GPS dongles. It is impossible to describe here how much I really hate dongles ( even though both wi-fi and GPS are features I can live without ) I suspect these will give owners no end of grief.

[Dusty]

I don't like dongles, either, and depending on the cost may not buy one. However I have done a lot of travel (I was single then) and wished I had GPS info on my photos.

Of course, back then it was film and there was no GPS!

Dusty

[johnstra]

I cannot really understand why anyone would want to switch systems. I cannot contemplate replacing my body and all my lenses - I would need to win the lottery first. If you perceive the A99 does not give you much advantage over your A850 or 900 then keep the A900 and save all that money. Personally I would argue that the A99 is better than the D600 anyway, but it's just a matter of taste. You are not going to get better pictures by swapping that's for sure. I have got used to the viewfinder on the A77 and now prefer it to an optical finder by the way, or at least I recognise that its strengths outweigh its weaknesses.
My view is that Sony are producing much more interesting cameras than their competitors and that optical viewfinders in SLRs are set to last for only a couple more years at most. By the way, 14 bit analogue to digital conversion gives no advantage except possibly in the few cameras with an extremely wide dynamic range and even then I doubt that the accuracy of the ADC can be good enough.

[KevinBarrett]

I think we need to remember that the flash system should be fully compatible with the existing wireless specs, therefore buying a new controller flash like the HVL-F60AM will not remove all the value of older guns, they will become part of the remote system.

apparently the new flash with adapter will be backwards compatible, but I haven't see yet an adapter that make previous Sony flashes compatible with the new Sony hotshoe :-/

Here are those hot shoe adapters: http://www.flickr.com/groups/sonycamera ... 527723914/





$25 apiece, too.

[bakubo]

My view is that Sony are producing much more interesting cameras than their competitors and that optical viewfinders in SLRs are set to last for only a couple more years at most.

I remember seeing that same prediction from someone a couple of years ago. I don't make predictions, but we shall see how it goes because it may happen.

By the way, 14 bit analogue to digital conversion gives no advantage except possibly in the few cameras with an extremely wide dynamic range and even then I doubt that the accuracy of the ADC can be good enough.

My Canon 60D had 14 bits and I never noticed any advantage, but the raw files were much bigger. I posted the following on dpreview awhile back comparing raw files for 4 of my cameras. I had assumed that the E-M5 used lossy compression for the raw files since they were so much smaller than the G3, but one guy who made several replies looked at the dcraw source code and said that the E-M5 uses lossless compression, but the G3 uses lossy compression. The reason the E-M5 files were smaller than the G3 files is because the E-M5 uses very good lossless compression and the G3 uses very poor lossy compression.

One of the things I am very happy about is the smaller E-M5 raw files compared to my G3 raw files:

E-M5: 4608x3456 pixels, 16.1mp, embedded jpeg 3200x2400, ~14mb file size
G3: 4592x3448 pixels, 15.8mp, embedded jpeg 1920x1440, ~19mb file size

The file sizes of both vary a bit depending on the image detail and ISO since the amount of compression varies depending on those things, but most of my E-M5 files are around 14mb and most of my G3 files are about 19mb. Yes, memory cards are cheap and hard disk storage is cheap, but I have about 500mb of 50k digital OOC original photos since 2001 so I am glad that I get slightly more resolution in an E-M5 file and that it is about 73% of the size of the G3 files.

For comparison, here are 2 of my DSLRs from the last 4 years:

Canon 60D: 5184x3456 pixels, 18mp, embedded jpeg 5184x3456, ~21-32mb file size (lots of variation)
Sony A700: 4288x2856, 12.25mp, embedded jpeg 1616x1080, ~12.5mb file size

[Dusty]

I cannot really understand why anyone would want to switch systems. I cannot contemplate replacing my body and all my lenses - I would need to win the lottery first. If you perceive the A99 does not give you much advantage over your A850 or 900 then keep the A900 and save all that money. Personally I would argue that the A99 is better than the D600 anyway, but it's just a matter of taste. You are not going to get better pictures by swapping that's for sure. I have got used to the viewfinder on the A77 and now prefer it to an optical finder by the way, or at least I recognise that its strengths outweigh its weaknesses.
My view is that Sony are producing much more interesting cameras than their competitors and that optical viewfinders in SLRs are set to last for only a couple more years at most. By the way, 14 bit analogue to digital conversion gives no advantage except possibly in the few cameras with an extremely wide dynamic range and even then I doubt that the accuracy of the ADC can be good enough.

I call it "Breaking Forward". By that I mean a company comes out with a product that is no longer backward compatible with it's former products, or few of them.

Minolta did it with the Alpha mount - could only use old lenses with glass-added adapters, no way to mount them in manual mode. IIRC, the flash units still interchanged. Then they broke that with the iISO shoe.

Sony broke the flash system again when they took over from Minolta, and now again with the new/old ISO shoe. They also broke things (IMHO) with the EVF and no OVF option.

I can almost forgive Minolta on the Alpha mount, but I was so heavily invested in the old SR/MD mount that I didn't go Alpha until I went digital.

Pentax, on the other hand, only modified it's K mount, so I could use my old K-1000 lens. Same with Nikon, although low end bodies don't have screw focus, so there is a bit of Breaking Forward there, if you buy new screw drive lenses and low end bodies.

Nikon understands the concept of 'camera system', in a way Sony doesn't. If I sell off my Alphas and buy Nikon, I can be sure that next years better model will use the same old stuff that I have. If I stick with Alpha and 'upgrade' to the A99, I can't be sure, based upon their past performance, that they won't throw me a curve next year on the next model.

Sure, the new flash works with the old ones wirelessly, but I have 5 flashes and 3 bodies, that means if I get an A99, I'll have to at least spend an extra $100 to get the iISO to new ISO adapters, an added expense. And who'll guarantee that something else isn't broken, of will break with the next model?

Sony has again proved one thing - they are a technology and consumer electronics company, NOT a camera company.

Dusty

[artington]

I call it "Breaking Forward". By that I mean a company comes out with a product that is no longer backward compatible with it's former products, or few of them.

Minolta did it with the Alpha mount - could only use old lenses with glass-added adapters, no way to mount them in manual mode. IIRC, the flash units still interchanged. Then they broke that with the iISO shoe.

Sony broke the flash system again when they took over from Minolta, and now again with the new/old ISO shoe. They also broke things (IMHO) with the EVF and no OVF option.

I can almost forgive Minolta on the Alpha mount, but I was so heavily invested in the old SR/MD mount that I didn't go Alpha until I went digital.

Pentax, on the other hand, only modified it's K mount, so I could use my old K-1000 lens. Same with Nikon, although low end bodies don't have screw focus, so there is a bit of Breaking Forward there, if you buy new screw drive lenses and low end bodies.

Nikon understands the concept of 'camera system', in a way Sony doesn't. If I sell off my Alphas and buy Nikon, I can be sure that next years better model will use the same old stuff that I have. If I stick with Alpha and 'upgrade' to the A99, I can't be sure, based upon their past performance, that they won't throw me a curve next year on the next model.

Sure, the new flash works with the old ones wirelessly, but I have 5 flashes and 3 bodies, that means if I get an A99, I'll have to at least spend an extra $100 to get the iISO to new ISO adapters, an added expense. And who'll guarantee that something else isn't broken, of will break with the next model?

Sony has again proved one thing - they are a technology and consumer electronics company, NOT a camera company.

Dusty

Good post, Dusty, and on the mark, I think. Backwards and forwards compatibilty is critical for serious camera systems because of the investment involved in glass, strobes, etc. Fortunately, good glass tends to hold value (and sometimes appreciates) which may be a mitigating factor but having to undergo system change is tedious and time-consuming and once done is rarely reversed.

[bfitzgerald]

Sony will dump stuff as and when they see fit. That is quite clear from their path in recent years.
How much of a problem this flash hot shoe change is, no idea really. It might not scare lots of folks, but the fact remains only the A99 has the new hot shoe..every other body on sale does not.

IMO at this stage it was really a waste of time dumping the inverted hot shoe (if they did it in 2006 it might have stuck ok)

My thoughts are quite mixed on this years announcements. A99 as expected but quite pricey at £2500 odd it does not seem to be grabbing people's attention much even Sony users let alone slightly tempt Canikon ones. This is no game changer, not even close.
Nikon's D600 has the most potential but has a too high £2000 odd price tag, that needs to come down a lot and quite quickly. They lost a chance to shake up the market.
Canon seem to have lost their way they've done a triple misfire first the 6d just seems to be behind the Nikon and not that much cheaper. It's getting a hammering from Canon users, it's not enough and the price is too high for what is on offer.

They even screwed up the G15 by taking the swivel LCD off, and the S110 looks like yesterday's premium compact with a few unimportant tweaks. Sad thing is the D600 will steal the show v everyone else priced too high or not. Canon's must be reeling at how badly the misread the market.

Overall the promise of affordable FF did not arrive from all 3 makers, so in that respect a big let down (esp UK buyers)
I said a few years back that the time was now to move mount if you want consistency or an OVF, and with folks like Walt and Dusty appreciate the investment you might have, but things are not going to get any better for your specific needs.

Truth is whilst I cast an eye on Sony's announcements and releases, I just don't find their stuff that interesting overall. Some might. A99 will drift into the darkness and won't make any difference in the marketplace, it's ok for what it is..but it's too expensive, and brings nothing new to the table. Onto Dusty well Pentax do have compatibility that is excellent even with old MF Lenses, the problem is their AF selection on the s/h market is frankly terrible compared to a near abundance of Minolta lenses. K5II should be decent if they fix the AF, it's not hugely expensive..but long term I think Pentax might fade away..slowly.

[cosmonaut1959]

My a850 has already been to service once, new pentaprism, so I pre ordered the a99 and grip. I have way to much invested in Sony to quit now.

[David Kilpatrick]

Here's my view right now. The actual view THROUGH the A99 is identical to the A77, and the image size is also identical. None of the features of the A99 matters to me except, perhaps, the control of audio levels in video.

When I want a certain type of bokeh associated with full frame, I tend to need this for portraiture/fashion (of which I do almost none at all) and for this I have no doubt that the A900 optical finder is a superior system. It enables true realtime view of very tiny and subtle changes in expression which are simply invisible with the EVF.

Where the EVF scores is in low light, in graphic compositions (the simplified view helps concentrate the eye on the overall composition and not fine detail), and in specific cases where a preview of exact exposure and colour effect is useful. What I find is that I do not use image review at all on the A77, and would not do on the A99 - it slows the system down and interrupts operation. So I have to 'play' an image if I want to check it. In contrast, I do use image review on the A900 and I always just glance at the screen, and can see straight off it all is well; it does not slow down or break into my flow.

Between the two, I have two matched 24 megapixel cameras with very different qualities, each suited to different uses.

That's where I plan to stay.

David

[alphaomega]

Interesting discussion relating to Sony's latest releases. At first I wanted to purchase the new E 16-50 pancake zoom, but then I discovered that I could save £200.00 by buying the NEX-6/ E16-50 kit. How save when in fact I was shelving out another £500? Well, the NEX-6 body is listed here at over £700 and now I am getting it for £500 and I have placed a pre order with Wex.
Quite simply, when I saw the NEX-7 I was hoping for a NEX-6 variant with the NEX-5 sensor so the decision was simple. Basically I see the 16-50 pancake with my NEX-5N or NEX-6 as pocket able and the NEX-6 with my 55-210 zoom as a "fast" combination because of the dual focusing system That is really if for me - except I may purchase the 10-18 E W/A zoom if it is any good. In the meantime I will manage with what I have (will get) as keepers.
NEX6 & 5N with 16mm pancake & W/A converter, 18-55mm, 16-50mm and 55-210 zooms.
Alpha 550 and 580 with Sony 16-80, 18-250 and Tamron 10-24, 18-270 and 70-300 motorized zooms.
I also have the LA-EA2 converter so that the Alpha lenses can be used on NEX.
That's it. No migration to other systems as far as I am concerned. Sony are leading the way in innovation and others are migrating to Sony sensors.

[artington]

Here's my view right now. The actual view THROUGH the A99 is identical to the A77, and the image size is also identical. None of the features of the A99 matters to me except, perhaps, the control of audio levels in video.

When I want a certain type of bokeh associated with full frame, I tend to need this for portraiture/fashion (of which I do almost none at all) and for this I have no doubt that the A900 optical finder is a superior system. It enables true realtime view of very tiny and subtle changes in expression which are simply invisible with the EVF.

Where the EVF scores is in low light, in graphic compositions (the simplified view helps concentrate the eye on the overall composition and not fine detail), and in specific cases where a preview of exact exposure and colour effect is useful. What I find is that I do not use image review at all on the A77, and would not do on the A99 - it slows the system down and interrupts operation. So I have to 'play' an image if I want to check it. In contrast, I do use image review on the A900 and I always just glance at the screen, and can see straight off it all is well; it does not slow down or break into my flow.

Between the two, I have two matched 24 megapixel cameras with very different qualities, each suited to different uses.

That's where I plan to stay.

David

David

I have done nothing on the Sony SLR front since the a900 and I sold my a700 some time ago. I have been tempted by the a77 but wanted to see what the a99 would deliver. We still await IQ/Noise performance, but like you I now wonder whether it has that much to offer over an a900/a77 combine for someone like me who has no interest in video capability. Since I own a NEX-7 too, getting an a77 might seem to be a bit frivolous but I would love to have a 24-70 equivalent f2.8 lens and it seems that by the time I have bought the apparently excellent 16-50/2.8G plus the LE-EA2 adapter I might just as well spend the extra few hundred and get the a77 kit instead. Particularly as the rumoured 16-50/2.8 E mount has failed to materialise. Havng been severely doused recently in Scotland, I am also tempted by the weather-proofing of this combination and GPS would be great, too. However, like the NEX-7, noise does appear to be a real issue for the a77, at least above ISO 800. Have you found this to be a problem in the real world? BTW I only ever shoot in raw so the "poor" jpg engine is not relevant for me.

Martin

[David Kilpatrick]

The A77 files are Alamy-OK (a decent standard) at 1600 if reduced to 24 MB (9 megapixels). Anything higher, no go. The NEX-5n which I use a lot is OK to 3200, clean at 1600, and the A580 is also very clean at 1600.

However the real point of the A77 is ISO 50 and careful shooting. It is, after all, the equivalent of a very small 5 x 4 camera.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

I would buy the WEX deal if the NEX-6 had GPS. I do not need Wifi (I have an EyeFi X2 Pro card and it's a waste of time - literally...). Nor do I want a Sony Entertainment account (Apple is bad enough!), or a touch screen, or any downloadable apps. Pity really, I'd like the lens and the finder.

David