I am new to the a77 (We all are!) As a former a900 user I am struggling with the Sensor (I may want my old 900 back!) I was however dissatified with the Canon 7D (Mushy)and D7000 (NEEDS A WINDSCREEN WIPER FOR THE GREASE!) I had previously.
Currently lack of finance precludes me from just buying another body to test but I would like to hear from others what they think about the a900 Vs the a77 (I know FF (Hateful term!) Vs Crop)I will be predominately be using mine for Landscapes and staying around F8/9 to mimimise diffraction, can the a77 stack up? Finding difficulty in getting eye popping sharpness (16-50 SSM and 70-400 SSM)and I'd like to hear it's just me! Currently (Landscape) Photography is my business and I fear the a77 is going to break me! I just can't get the Sharpness I'm looking for, it's not as bad as my Canon 7D was but...
I may try to sell the a77 kit if it does not meet my needs and the a580/a900 is better image quality wise, I know there is a war going on at the moment about the 16/24 Mp APSC Sensors, so I will try to keep it between 24Mp APSC and FF. I Will be printing up to A2 on my Epson 3880 and thats where my point lies, will I see the difference in print between the two? I note that David Kilpatrick has some misgivings about selling to agencies with the a77, currently that will not be a factor but may be in the future.
I love the EVF despite the fact that it "detaches" you from the scene but on the other hand it sees what the Camera see and I love that because I get to play around with the white balance in the viewfinder and actually see what it's doing! So it's not a veiled OVF Vs EVF question either, simply about the image quality or percieved image quality, and any tips or tricks to get the utmost from the incredible a77...
Not posting any pics, as none I think I have so far with the Camera are worthy of anything but ridicule to be honest!

I've had a difficult day today, because I decided to do comparative tests (not for publication) of the Mamiya ZD 22 megapixel back, the Alpha 900, the Alpha 77, and the NEX-5 using various lenses. I also compared, on the A77, the 16-50mm SSM, the 16-80mm CZ, the Sigma 8-16mm (set to 16mm) and KM 17-35mm (set to 17mm), and also the NEX-5 with 16mm pancake.

I've recently had the 24mm f/2 CZ on test and lined that up on the A900 against the 16-80mm CZ on A77.

Here's the bad bit. I don't like the medium format solution despite having built a neat outfit last week through s/h finds; sensor dust is a surprising problem, and not easy to tackle. The actual image quality for 22 megapixels of 2006 date Dalsa sensor is limited to being superb at ISO 50. But the lenses, even the cheap old manual 1980s 35mm f/3.5 which I know is terribly soft at the corners wide open, simply blow away all the 'smaller format' results except the 24mm f/2 CZ on A900.

I happen to like angles around that - 20-28mm range, 24mm median. That's why I like the NEX-5/16mm combo. On APS-C, there really is not anything which comes close to being good wide open. The best is probably the Sigma 8-16mm used at 16mm (f/5.6 maximum) which has good geometry, low CA, good illumination. Second best, using the 17-35mm KM lens for the crop - since it has almost zero distortion, and this distortion is a pure barrel, it's easy to get an architecturally correct view which closely matches the CZ 24mm f/2 but at f/2.8 softness does affect the corners on 24 megapixel APS-C. However, there is no vignetting to speak of and the corners are at least a full f-stop brighter than the 16-50mm f/2.8 - and that lens is far softer wide open in the corners, and has such extreme moustache-form distortion that by the time this is fully corrected using a profile it's a 16.5mm verses a 17mm. The 16-50mm also has strong CA which is entirely absent in the 17-35mm and the Sigma.

The CZ 16-80mm is surprisingly good by comparison but again has complex distortion (not quite as much), strong vignetting, and some nasty aberrations which are not tidied up until f/8 (the 17-35mm cleans up by f/5.6, the 16-50mm never cleans up totally and will always have a sudden death to the extreme corners, plus CA which requires correction - fortunately, the correction can be 100% successful).

Against all these options, the NEX-5 with 16mm stacks up surprisingly well. It is lower in contrast, but the softness to the corners is not as extreme as the 16-50mm (wide open, it beats the 16-50mm at 16mm and f/2.8) and the distortion is a couple of orders less, being both simple pincushion (does not lose diagonal view angle when corrected using a profile) and minimal. During my tests, I felt the NEX was not doing very well at first, but discovered I had left the Adobe Camera Raw output set to 25.1 megapixels... I was viewing a LARGER image from the NEX than the A77. So I processed both to 17.4 megapixels (NEX enlarged, A77 reduced) and I have to say despite the high contrast and detail of the centre of the A77 shots, the NEX won.

Finally, I have the problem of the 24mm field of view on A900 assuming I can not really afford a 24mm f/2. I already know the Minolta 24mm f/2.8 is not a solution. The 17-35mm works quite well even at f/3.2 maximum aperture, with strong aberrations to the edges and some CA retained even when stopping down, when set to 24mm. It's about equivalent to the CZ 16-80mm used at 16mm on the A77, even down to the pattern of softness and CA and the need to stop down to f/8 or f/11 to clean up, but distortion is much less and again it's a simple slight barrelling. The 24mm f/2 in contrast is pin sharp wide open, has no visible distortion or CA, and at f/2.8 or f/3.2 or f/3.5 (etc) is stunningly useful on both the A77 and A900. But... it's a big, expensive, fixed focal length lens.

This is why I'm having so much trouble. If I am only going to get the best results by using a prime lens for full frame, and every possible answer in APS-C is compromised in some way (except the NEX but that only looks good because all the other equivalents are so awful), and I have already had to abandon travel shoots with the A900 because of restrictions on hand baggage weight (5 kilos, 11 lbs, for too many UK carriers) - what to do?

The obvious answer seems to be to look again at the 16-35mm f/2.8 CZ. I know that on full frame this was no better than the 17-35mm I own, because it has strong moustache-type distortion and vignetting/blur to the corners, at 16mm. Revisiting my test shots made in 2008 on the A900 and 16-35mm, I would never consider risking one of these lenses.

Then again, I tested my old favourite on the A900, the 24-85mm f/3.5 RS Minolta, and that was pretty much as good as anything gets at 24mm once at f/5.6. However, I had already tested the new 28-75mm SAM lens. This is so much better. 28mm not 24mm, f/2.8 not f/3.5, but apart from a sudden death in the extreme corners wide open, almost as good as the medium format Mamiya prime 80mm wide open (and that is close to perfect).

So I'm basically stuck - I want a 16mm f/something for APS-C DSLR, whether achieved as part of a zoom range or as a prime lens, which matches the 24mm f/2 Zeiss for full frame.

I want all of the stuff the A77 offers when used at ISO 50 to 100 - but I want a truly excellent lens to go with it. I have other focal lengths and maybe the Sigma 8-16mm is the best option I currently have.

David

If the SEL 16/2.8 gives you what you want on APS-C then how about the 24Mp sensor in the Nex 7? Perhaps that doesn't give you the AF options you want?

I had a NEX-7 ordered but of course that is not an option now - none available for a long time. It may be the answer I'm looking for.

Just to explain, I can see with the way other things are heading that I may need to look for photographic commission work in future (something I have not done for 20 years). I was hoping the A77 would be a suitable tool, but for the kind of work I specialise in (corporate, industrial, architectural, editorial) and that I could dispose of my A900 and some lenses, and abandon the investigation of medium format digital.

But I don't think I can. If the 900 kit goes, I need to have MF digital. And if I go down that route, I can't stay with the low-cost s/h sourced kit I am experimenting with. I'll need to go for 40 to 60 megapixels and much more reliable, new generation kit for which come of the lenses are £4000+.

David

David, if you had to abandon the A900 because of the weight problem, why the MF diversion, a fit of desperation? The MF kit is/was always going to be even heavier than the A900 kit surely. I think going on what you said you might have to hope the NEX7 is a solution, it would keep the travel weight down a bit as long as you don’t have to lug the A-mount adaptor and too many spare batteries. There is the Sigma 12-24 but I think you had a look at that one before and found it wanting, also there is a 10-20 Sigma but I doubt you would be happy with that one either. Sigma have apparently announced a 10-20 f3.5 but no live ones out in the wild that I know of, it will probably be big and heavy at constant f3.5 anyway. The Tokina 12-24 for APS-C gets a reasonably good wrap at dpr but available only in Canon and Nikon mounts, then there is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for APS-C which is acclaimed by most everyone, AND they make it in A-mount now apparently even though the Tokina specifications only list Canon and Nikon. http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-b.html and http://www.tokinalensreview.com/tokina1116review That guy wouldn’t be biased…would he?
So that lens might be worth investigating for use on the A77, I'd have doubts it would be available in E-mount in the near future (bypassing the need for the adaptor).
Greg

I've got both the 12-24mm Sigma and the 10-20mm f/4-5.6, and I have tested the f/3.5 and also the new Tamron - none of these matches the 8-16mm in quality. I've also tested the Tokina 11-16mm and they no longer make it in Alpha mount, it's worst at 16mm, best at 11mm.

For commercial work, weight and bulk are no issue at all, quality and competitive tendering are both vital - I don't think I would win many contracts based on using NEX. My local competitors, should I try for this, are using 40 megapixel MF (even the local camera shop/wedding guy uses Hasselblad digital). The investment involved is huge and the returns are not.

The answer may arrive next year in the form of a 36 megapixel full frame A99 which will make full use of the exceptional quality of lenses like the 24mm f/2.

I have spent a great deal of money which I can't afford on multiple options, and some of this needs to be sold. The problem is that I can not work out what to sell without losing something I find valuable. I want it all in one camera! At the moment, I need four different 'systems' to have it.

David

Ah the commercial angle, I have really no idea about that area as to what would be required or acceptable myself, I'll leave that one to you, but I think it would be a dog eat dog area to get into, especially these days.
Greg

Ps. That’s odd with the availability of the Tokina 11-16 in A-mount, first Tokina abandon A-mount, then they decide to make that lens in A-mount, then they don’t again. Maybe Sony going DSLT (and E-mount also) was a bridge too far for them to cope with....

Problem is David if you try the A99 what lens are you going to use on it? You would have a similar problem that you have with the A900 in that only the expensive and limited use CZ 24 would possibly work ok for what you want.
Going new MF digital is questionable when you need to justify the outlay, one would have to earn LOTS of money with the equipment to re-coup that, one would think.
Greg

Thanks for the answers and discussion David/Greg. My thought is fed and the new plan emerges, luckily for me I do not need 40Mp but see the need for you David, err good luck with that, 24 will do me, I wonder what I'll do next???... He He

The solution to the 16mm problem on APSC may be the 14mm f/2.8 Samyang, but that's MF only. Still, even after crop to 16mm it has a very good chance to deliver better res than any other alternatives on 24Mp sensor.
The crop leaves you about 18Mp, but since the distortion is pure barrel for that crop, you get even less hit in the centre.

Sorry lonewolf16X9, I didn’t have much to contribute to your situation except for some inane banter.
David what about hiring a camera like the Phase One for any professional shoots? Or buying the body and finder and hire the back and appropriate lens when needed? http://www.cnet.com.au/phase-one-645df-339303972.htm
Greg

Hi Jules, getting back to your OP, I'm interested in your views as someone who does professionally something that I just play at. When you say "lack of sharpness" with the A77, is this a focus issue, or something to do with the sensor / processing? Have you been able to make use of the A77 MF Assist feature?

Firstly I'll not bash the a77 but I met up with a guy today and swapped my a77 kit for a brand new a850 with a 50mm F1.4 Lens.
First test shot I took I was instantly happy! Dunno why but the pop colour and depth were just what I was wanting/missing, right out of the Camera, I will not say I couldn't get the same with an a77 because I'm sure it can be done by people with better PP Skills than mine!
The lack of sharpness also comes with me, I'm sure. I genuinely feel it's harder to handhold a 24Mp APSC Sensor Camera as opposed to a 35mm Size and achieve sharpness, on a Tripod the a77 should win hands down with it's electronic first curtain etc, yet I wasn't seeing that, unlike Magnar, now he's far more likely to be right than me but I was instantly happy with the a850 output! Every Landscape shot I've taken on a Tripod using Manual Focus and Peaking (Which is brilliant by the way!) I was just not wowed, so I must be doing something wrong? Sharpness on studio subjects near to are biting with plenty of detail yet Sharpness in the far regions of a Landscape frame that should be in focus because I used my DOF Calculator and focused carefully just aren't? Also the actual makeup of the pixels on screen bothered me too, very gritty with a lot of colour noise even at low ISO, Clears up ok but you shouldn't have to, I'm sure as File convertors get their programming aoround it they'll get better. Anyway it's academic now but there is already a lot about the a77 I will miss, that viewfinder despite what the luddites say is a marvel, the peaking, seeing what you will get in the viewfinder is wonderful too! The focusing and the sheer speed, it feels as if it's alive.
Now my problem is I'm skint and have no wideangle for Landscaping work but I'm not flogging my 70-400 to get one either, it'll just have to wait and I'll just stitch with the 50mm until some cash comes my way, I hate being skint and would like all the toys! As a side note anyone know of a decent wide Prime or Zoom that would be fairly cheap to get hold of, I used to own the 16-35mm Zeiss but thats just not on the cards and it's too heavy anyway (i was never that convinced by it though), cheap is the order of the day, I've really dug myself in a hole with the lens front to be honest because I've no idea when I'll be able to do anything about it in the near term at all
For very different reasons to David I too am STUCK!
Reality has bit though and I'd like both, and can see the advantages/pitfalls of both, however I will not be in any kind of position to buy a 35mm Frame SLT for many a long year and by that time SLT Will no doubt be buried too but an APSC/NEX/SLR Can be on the cards sometime, AND THE A850 WILL STILL PRODUCE LOVELY A2'S.
I can't do a direct comparison as I have never owned both at once.
Hope my rambling makes some kind of sense...

I can only suggest trying to find a 17-35mm D for landscape work. They are no worse than the 16-35mm CZ for things like corner softness, distortion pattern etc and before getting my Sigma 12-24mm, the 17-35mm was mainly what I used. The Sigma is going on eBay - it is excellent at 12mm-18mm, but edges (more so the left side than the right, which seems always to be the case with this lens) need stopping down to f/11 at 18-24mm range. The reason this is going is that the 8-16mm works so well on the A77, there is a new Sigma 12-24mm coming which will have HSM and be based on the 8-16mm revised design - so I intend to get that once it appears.

Ref the medium format thing - we already have a Phase One 65 megapixel system in Richard's studio, which is 250 miles away near Birmingham/Leicester. He is better placed to handle commercial work because of the industry nearby, and he has a Cambo monorail system currently being used with a Nikon D7000 stuck on the back (waiting for the P1 back adaptor now). Richard has not managed to get any commercial work yet as he reckons he is still learning, but he is a Certified Phase One/C1 Pro Operator and the studio and camera are hired to other photographers with his assistance and the associated Mac/C1 Pro. The rather good single-shot image of the Ricoh GXR with its lenses and modules used in Ricoh's current UK advertising is an example of his work, from 'not being a pro photographer' two or three years ago (beyond everyday camera use) he's learned a huge amount about lighting, studio techniques and how to make successful product shots.

I will probably re-sell the Mamiya 645 ZD back system but send him the 120mm Macro and 35mm which would be quite handy extra lenses. The ZD, like the Hasselblad P1 20P I was using until last week, has no AA filter. I'm kicking myself in one way - the Hasselblad lens is one order better than any Mamiya lens, and Adobe Camera Raw allows the files to be exported at 37.5 megapixels; the ZD may start with a larger file size, but ACR will only rescale to 28.5 megapixels. The frustrating thing about the Alpha 900 and A77 is that they are stuck at the maximum size for ACR, their size is the 'biggest' on the menu when I know the 900 would produce fine 36-megapixel equivalent output direct from deBayering.

David

But why is it so important, if you can always use explicit export to TIFF at any size and then continue with those TIFFs only?