Sony Alpha A99 Field Test Report

[Andy B]

Hope you enjoy your new A57, Barry. I haven't put my A57 through its full paces yet as I'm recovering from recent back surgery. However, I believe that my CZ 16-80 focuses a bit faster and more accurately on the A57 than it did on my A700. I prefer the A57's smaller size compared to the A700, although the user interface is not as good. I like the tilt/swivel screen very much but wish it was hinged on the side instead of the bottom. The lack of a second control dial does not bother me at all, but I do wish the useless ? button could be reprogrammed. The Picture Effects control button is a waste for me as I'll seldom if ever use them, and the White Balance control button is easy to hit accidentally with your thumb. While I do wish I could set the Auto ISO range manually, I seldom use Auto ISO. What I miss the most from my A700 is the metering mode switch--another example of "what Sony giveth, Sony often taketh way." I also miss the A700's C button, which I had programmed for flash exposure compensation. Battery life is not as good with the EVF, but I have yet to need to insert a fresh battery during a day's shooting. Of course, what I also miss at times is my A700's vertical grip and RRS L-plate, neither of which is available on the A57. Finally, I have not experienced any of the flash overexposure issues with my F43 and F58 flashes that some have reported with the A65 and A77 models.

[Dr. Harout]

Congrats Barry and let this one serve you well. BTW, what is the firmware, AFAIK there was a new firmware for the a57.

[Andy B]

Improvements after firmware Ver.1.03 upgrade as listed by Sony:

Expanded the number of automatic compensation compliant lenses:
SAL30M28, SAL50F14, SAL2470Z, SAL2875, SAL70400G, SAL70200G, SAL35F14G, SAL1635Z.

Benefits provided by previous upgrade program (Ver1.02)
Improved performance of AF in Continuous Advance Priority AE Mode (both Tele-zoom 12fps and 10fps) under some specific conditions.

I have not upgraded yet from Ver.1.02 because the only thing that affects me is automatic compensation for the Sony 50/1.4 lens.

[bfitzgerald]

Firmware said 1.01 so I updated it to the latest 1.03.
I assume that includes the previous update no issues so far.

[pakodominguez]

I have to put aside the Sony gripes and pick up on the better things ie it can actually focus properly.

Finally!

[bakubo]

Greg I've had some serious abuse from Pentax and Nikon users as I don't have a habit of keeping a low profile. I think they are serious issues with both makers, and esp with their service arrangements and competence. I've been called all names under the sun, a fool for not being able to operate a camera, I've read stuff about it's the users fault, AF settings, lens problems, focus shift, send my lenses to Tamron (even the Nikon ones!) One Pentax user even said it was "my fault" for not researching the K-r enough and discovering the FF problems with that model. Of course not up to Pentax to provide a fix for what was clearly a flawed AF module.

God forbid you don't find any problems with your A57 because if you post about it on the forums there are always a few Sony users also who will give you "some serious abuse" and will call you "all names under the sun."

Keep us posted as you get familiar with it. I still have quite a few A-mount lenses so sometimes I think I should get another Sony body, probably not top end, so I can still use them. Although, I still have the A700 that I haven't used in quite awhile.

[jeep1]

I find the A99 rather disappointing, and the trouble is that I know Sony could have and should have done better. Quite like the look, nearly as good as my Minolta 9xi, but looks don't count for much. I really like my Nex 5n and 7, to the extent that I could not be bothered with an A57, A65 or A77 or any of the preceding SLT DSLR's, why would I want inferior image quality to that than the mirror less NEX's can provide? I feel very much the same about the A99, my A900 at the ISO ranges I use gives me excellent still images and for me the A99 offers nothing superior. Now if the A99 had been mirror less, anti aliasing filter free and 36MP that might have been a different story.

[agorabasta]

Back when I got me an a55, I immediately noticed that it focused faster and more reliably than my both a700 did in most cases (using the central spot). Even if the focus was slightly off, it was always off systematically rather than randomly, as it was often with a700.

But then I noticed that a55 could not lock focus on fine regular patterns like fabric or wicker, and sometimes it couldn't lock on the printed text if that was too small and regular. It actually means that its AF was using lower spatial frequencies to lock, while a700 AF could lock to much higher freq's which also caused some errors due to noise.

I never bought any newer SLT's, so I really can't say if a57/77/65 AF is any different. And I would really like to know that myself.

[peterottaway]

I find the A99 rather disappointing, and the trouble is that I know Sony could have and should have done better. Quite like the look, nearly as good as my Minolta 9xi, but looks don't count for much. I really like my Nex 5n and 7, to the extent that I could not be bothered with an A57, A65 or A77 or any of the preceding SLT DSLR's, why would I want inferior image quality to that than the mirror less NEX's can provide? I feel very much the same about the A99, my A900 at the ISO ranges I use gives me excellent still images and for me the A99 offers nothing superior. Now if the A99 had been mirror less, anti aliasing filter free and 36MP that might have been a different story.

Test results for your claims please.

[bfitzgerald]

A lot of AF systems have problems with strong repeating patterns and I've seen that across makers for years. However I note a very significant difference in actual performance across makers, not just AF speed (which can vary across lenses) accuracy is one area..and a big one for me is how they do in low light.

I noted with both Pentax and Nikon both makers tend to really not give up even in low light. In some ways good, but in other ways not so good. If there isn't enough contrast there I'd rather it just flashes the AF confirm and I can find another target with better contrast. Rather than hunting (for a while) then missing. D7k hunted quite a lot more and slowed down notably v the D90 for some strange reason. The Nikon's I have used rarely if ever said they could not confirm AF even on subjects that are not realistic for getting a lock (bar obvious ones such as a white wall)

Onto the SLT range, I'm not sure the 24mp CMOS in these models is as refined or as good in high ISO as some would like. Maybe the next round of updates will address that. Saying that not everyone does low light work, but I can see that Sony might lose some sales to low light shooters who want a more beefy body such as the A77

So far the AF seems fine on the A57, I can't post on DPR anyway in "that forum" and I'm not about to ask to either!

[MarcoC]

Firmware said 1.01 so I updated it to the latest 1.03.
I assume that includes the previous update no issues so far.

Congrats Barry - I have been enjoying my a57 although I can't bring myself to let my 2 a700s go. The a57 AF is indeed very good indeed and images processed from raw in LR pretty nice. I think the 16MP sensor in the a57 is good though IMHO it's high ISO performance is a little exaggerated by some users and it can bite you even at mid ISO if you under-expose shadow areas. But overall the a57 is nice - just a shame about the lack of a second control dial (esp when shooting in M mode)

[bfitzgerald]

I think the 16mp sensor got people worked up a bit with all these samples of major underexposure and pulling images up and it working quite well. How useful that is for everyday shooting is open for debate. I've used quite a few variations of the 12mp CMOS the A700 is one of the earlier ones so it's hard to know how they stack up side by side. I think the 16mp one is a bit better for higher ISO at 3200 and above, though probably not as much as some folks say (least v the not that old 12mp CMOS) DR again that's a hard one to work out too. Also some makers are overstating the ISO ratings more than others (OM-D is off by a stop which is way more than most) so I'd be cautious about DxO ratings on sensors (for some reason they give the 24mp CMOS a better rating on the SLT models v the 16mp for high ISO, which is odd real world doesn't support that)

I'll post a few thoughts later on I have noticed the mult segment metering is good, but in low light tends to be a bit under, that might explain some issues with noise in low light. It's hard to say with the sensor v the D7000, the mirror will suck a bit of light..on the other hand the sensor might be updated a bit (it might not!) they look quite close to my eyes. Yes dual dials would be nice, as would Auto ISO in M mode, I can see a few areas where things could be improved but nothing major sticks out so far

[bakubo]

Also some makers are overstating the ISO ratings more than others (OM-D is off by a stop which is way more than most) so I'd be cautious about DxO ratings on sensors (for some reason they give the 24mp CMOS a better rating on the SLT models v the 16mp for high ISO, which is odd real world doesn't support that)

These are interesting articles for people who want to understand this stuff better:

RAW is not Raw

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... t-raw.html

Why ISO Isn't ISO

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... t-iso.html

Sense and Sensitivity

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/424180 ... ensitivity

Sensitivity (ISO) in digital imaging seems to be the subject of quite a lot of confusion - it's becoming common to hear talk of manufacturers 'cheating with ISO.' So we thought it made sense look at why sensitivity appears hard to pin down, why we use the definition we do and how it's actually not as complicated as it can sometimes seem.

[bfitzgerald]

Hard to say unless you have the cameras side by side what the story is ISO wise. I bet most are over stating the ISO values though
Back to the A99 field report

Just for fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-EYWr40 ... ture=g-u-u

[bakubo]

Hard to say unless you have the cameras side by side what the story is ISO wise. I bet most are over stating the ISO values though

Read the articles and you will understand what is happening and why. It is not a matter of cheating or overstating.