classiccameras wrote:Since I have been a member of this site which is not that long, it seems a high proportion of the threads are complaints about the Sony A mount cameras rather than praise. It would be interesting to see other forums with other brands and how many complaints say Nikon or Canon get from their owners.
There isn't a perfect camera, just some are more perfect than others.
In other forums, people only complains. Or you have guys that think that been sarcastic or cynic make them smarter than the rest. Like here.
What happens with the A99 is that there were a lot of expectations about this camera -for different reasons: Video guys thought it will raise the bar really high (they were unhappy with the lack of innovation on the 5DIII) and it didn't. EVF have an edge over the APS cameras of any brand, specially the entry level models. But can not compete (yet) with the OVF of the A900. Noise control is finally in the same league as Canon or Nikon -but not really better. Image quality at 100 to 400 ISO is not really better than the A900. The new AF system doesn't seams faster or more accurate either, and reviewers (that usually are not sport or nature photographers, so better to take their recommendations with a grain of salt) still say that it is not a camera for sports or action photography...
Then, some people expect a cheap FF camera and it is a 2800$ body only -the A900 was 3000$ when introduced in 2008, experts in economics can do the numbers taking in account inflation, global crisis and other factors, and tell us how cheaper the A99 is in comparison with the A900.
So: what it is? an A900 replacement or "just" a FF A77? Most people think it is just and overpriced FF A77. I think that, unless Sony fixes the video IQ and someone proofs the AF really works better, the A99 is not a replacement for the A900.