Reasons for buying a NEX-VG900 instead of an A99

[David Kilpatrick]

First of all, you get a thumping big battery capable of 3 hrs 15 minutes filming. You get entirely mirrorless operation with both E and A mount lenses, plus 24 megapixel RAW, 10 megapixel APS-C RAW, and an even smaller mini-RAW - and JPEGs. You get an Alpha 99 shutter speed to 1/8000th, and on the top, a superb 5:1 surround sound microphone (you can still add flash or other mics as it has the same shoe as the 99).

Thrown in with the camera, which shoots at 6fps just like the A99, you get a much better eyepiece implementation of the EVF and a better position of articulated screen. You also get a new LA-EA3 adaptor in with the price, and a NEX mount on the body, so you can use a truly vast array of lenses including the impossible ones - such as Leica M glass on full frame via an M-to-NEX adaptor.

It's then got all kinds of movie enhancements which could make movie clip shooting attractive, but loses almost nothing for stills. You get all the picture looks and stuff, focus peaking, etc but with dedicated buttons and clever controls for light. ISO is called gain for movies. You also get functional still-from-movie capture to 2.9 megapixels and some kind of OS though I think this only works for movies (downside). And only one card slot.

But you get expensive software (64-bit Vegas, not Mac useful sadly) and all this comes in for only $491 more than the A99 - more or less the cost of the mic and the lens adaptor. And who would think you were shooting 24 megapixel hi-res stills?

The biggest draw, I reckon, will be that all kind of glass which just can't be fitted to a full frame A-mount body can be used with this body via the NEX mount. It genuinely is a fully featured still camera to exactly the same degree that the 99 is an HD video camera.

Downside: video cameras banned from many places where still cameras are not.

David

[pakodominguez]

I did seriously thought about it -not because I was planning to but an A99 (or VG900) but just looking at the specs and it make sense... but not really for me: ergonomics don't help for the kind of work I do.

I thought about skipping this generation of FF (I sold my A850 and bought a brand new A900 last year, thinking that this is the only OVF we'll see in a while in the Alpha line) but now I'm thinking on getting an A99, probably during this winter...

[Greg Beetham]

One con would be there is no image stabilization with A-mount lenses on the VG-900, and another would be a reservation of how a FF sensor hiding behind an E-mount using A-mount lenses via an adaptor is going to pan out in all cases, it might be ok or it might have corner shading with some lenses perhaps, time will tell, they might assume that a little judicious cropping will be done by the user if the problem arises in still shooting, it shouldn’t be an issue shooting video (it’s supposed to BE a video cam…right?) with the crop area that’s in use for that.
But as usual it’s not what they decide to ‘tell’ us, it’s more about what they ‘don’t’ tell us…you more or less have to ‘suck it and see’ to find out what they ‘forgot’ to say.
Greg
Ps despite my not liking EVF’s (artificial rubbish…right? but if BF can live with one anyone can) I have developed a grudging respect for the A99 so far, I think it’s a much better camera than the A77, (silly Sony making it 24Mp) the only thing about FF is, it makes all your current lenses potential junk, but then, just think of all the fun upgrading them all…weee.

[David Kilpatrick]

My issue with the A99 format isn't that it makes my lenses potential junk, it just leaves me without one specific type of lens - a genuinely good all-round travel zoom. The A77 has a phenomenal choice out there, not least the 16-105mm and the CZ16-80mm, several 18-135, 18-200, 18-250 or 18-270mm Sony or independent choices.

The A99 has nothing. Sigma and Tamron have both discontinued their 28-200/300mm ranges because they though full frame users would never want such a lens. Sony does not have a 28-XXX and Minolta never made one past 105mm, whether with 24 at the short end or 28mm. That's why I'm using an old 28-135mm Minolta AF on the my A900 right now.

Nikon and Canon both have 28-135mm, 28-200mm or 28-300mm, plus 24-120mm or 24-105mm options. They have travel-friendly zooms for full frame.

David

[agorabasta]

Only two real problems:

1. There's no adapter to allow AF screw-drive lenses. LA-EA2 is no FF, LA-EA3 has no AF motor.
2. Good OSS is only present in very few lenses - the old SEL18200 and now in that SELP-18200 PZ, and it's no FF lens. Third-party OS choices can't really AF fast enough or even at all.

[Greg Beetham]

Yes that’s a point alright no good-very good equivalent super zoom for Sony FF like the CZ16-80 is for APS-C. Actually I never really considered FF from the travel aspect, even in any brand the kit is going to be a lump to carry around and it could turn out to be a case of diminishing returns as well if one attempts to ‘trim’ the load by making concessions with lens quality.
I reckon a FF camera and good lenses would certainly enable the possibility of taking some fine landscapes/scenes but I’d have reservations about how worthwhile those super zooms would be, outside of some candid type opportunities. Something as good optically as the 16-80 and retaining the same transmission for FF would be an expensive piece of kit I think and if it wasn’t expensive it would most likely turn out to be not very good.
Speaking 24-105’s the KM one was ok on APS-C but no good on FF as you well know, the Canon 24-105/4L is apparently not too bad. But even then a 24-105 lens is short of being equivalent to a DT16-80.
I had a look at a review of the Nikon 24-120/4 G ED VR http://www.lenstip.com/283.11-Lens_revi ... mmary.html and it doesn’t get top marks on FF either, the Nikon 28-300/3.5-5.6G ED VR has some user reviews here http://www.lenstip.com/935-Nikon_Nikkor ... tions.html ,it looks like a bit of a weapon.
Greg
Ps Junk was probably not a good word to use but my 100-300apod, 28-75 and 17-35 despite being bought new and not heavily used are still basically KM film lenses and might not perform as well as one might want on a FF digital, it’s difficult to say without actually trying them but I don’t think I’ll go on a $3000 FF adventure just to find out, that much money is a bit outside my camera budget anyway, a lot outside actually.

[Dr. Harout]

When changing my arsenal in film to digital I jumped from the Nikon ship.
One of the main points favoring for Sony was the in-body stabilization. Actually I was more prone to Pentax, but the a100 got launched earlier, so here I am.
And now this? Favouring VG-900 over a99... no way. I may like NEX cameras, even thinking (sometimes) to get a NEX-6... but that's just the GAS.
As for the a99, I guess that will be my first FF digital.
I know that a few months later Sony will launch a new model with either 36 or even 40-something-up-to-50 MP camera, but that will definitely will have noise in higher ISOs, so better stay for a time with FF 24 MP.
On a second thought, David's comment/post makes me think that he's up to something, at least preparing himself, as well as gathering some info and reactions for a near future article or something on the a99.

[David Kilpatrick]

Truth is I'm working on an article as one of a team of three writers for a 50 best products of 2012 guide, and the NEX-VG900 specs had to be investigated. I'm very impressed that it shoots raw, that's all. I do not plan to buy one.

And Shirley is switching to Nikon because we can get a very good price - effectively trade so if we want to re-sell it later, there would be little or no less unless the street price absolutely crashes. If Sony had any promise of something better than the A580, we'd buy that instead.

Three years ago I had Canon and Nikon outfits as well as Sony because I need these to be able to test lenses, no-one can supply them in Sony fit! But then Sony started making cameras so fast, and so many, and with two or three different systems in effect - and not making any test equipment available to me, even for third party magazine articles. So I ended up selling all the other kit and ended up with just Sony.

I don't make enough - not by any means - to be able to acquire a stable of different brands, if I did I would have Olympus, Samsung, Pentax and anything else necessary.

And I certainly have no spare funds for a VG900

David

[Greg Beetham]

David this might sound crazy but if I was going travelling with a FF I think I’d seriously consider taking just a 50mm lens for the serious stuff and have some small handycam for the rest, there are lots of good small cameras around now to choose from.
I reckon an interesting experiment would be to go out locally and just take the A900 with a 50mm on it and see if there are any serious obstacles to getting good compositions of various things, scenery and buildings, zooming with feet, experimenting with height above ground viewpoint, the amount of foreground vs. sky etc. taking into account that one can easily do landscape or portrait orientation panos (even if it’s only two or three frames) to encompass a greater field of view, something we couldn’t do back in the film days…except overlaying some photos in the album which never seemed to work very well.
There is one thing that a 50 can’t do of course (I reluctantly admit) and that’s bring the vanishing point much closer than the horizon, that’s something only a wide angle can do so maybe a good wide should be in the bag as well for those one or two dramatic perspective shots
Greg

[pakodominguez]

David this might sound crazy but if I was going travelling with a FF I think I’d seriously consider taking just a 50mm lens for the serious stuff and have some small handycam for the rest, there are lots of good small cameras around now to choose from.

If you want to travel FF with just one lens, the new RX1 is your best option -and it is petite!
if Sony comes with an X0.5 (or so) and a X2 lenses, this will be one of the best FF travel camera option.

I reckon an interesting experiment would be to go out locally and just take the A900 with a 50mm on it and see if there are any serious obstacles to getting good compositions of various things...

I believe there is a member of this community that did something similar, traveling to China with a Olympus XA, or a Rollei 35 or similar camera (fixed 35mm f2.8 lens) and he was extremely happy with the results.

Traveling FF, I'll take the KM 17-35; I'll buy back the Sony 28-75 and for tele shots, I'll probably take the Minolta 100 f2.8 Macro or the 35-200 Xi -in a trip to Peru 3 years ago (he, there is an article on Photo World!) I took the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, that I didn't use that much, was heavy, too big and intimidating...

[Wes Gibbon]

There is one thing that a 50 can’t do of course (I reluctantly admit) and that’s bring the vanishing point much closer than the horizon, that’s something only a wide angle can do so maybe a good wide should be in the bag as well for those one or two dramatic perspective shots
Greg

I have both Minolta 28mm f2.0 and 35mm f2.0. There seem to be a few 28mm around, but the 35mm is quite rare (I bought mine on Ebay from Japan). I find them both give excellent results with the A900 sensor, though the 28mm has a little colour fringing at the edges, which ACR can remove.

[bfitzgerald]

Well if Shirley wants a nice Metz flash I've a lovely mint 58-AF2 for Nikon
I'm not much into travel lenses so can't really comment. I see the missing FF longer zoom on A mount though. It's not entirely impossible Tamron or Sigma might come up with something, but I suspect they have other priorities.

[David Kilpatrick]

We got the D600 and lens today. Not a 100% verdict so far; poor close up compared to Sigma 18-250mm, no significant high ISO benefit over A580. Heavy, large.

The one single plus factor is the OVF. It's 200% better than the A580. Focus - awful. Major AF calibration needed. Not been able to do this yet. It's way out. AF - 11 or 39 point is useless. 90% of the time it focuses on something you don't want. So the AF system has to be fixed to single central point.

I'm thinking, from initial reactions, that the Pentax K5 IIs with 18-270mm would have been a better choice.

Also, my A900 images are proving impeccable. I can hardly believe the quality of the old 28-135mm. I have been photogaphing ash trees. I can identify ash leaves from 500 metres with this lens.

David

[bfitzgerald]

I was for a very brief moment tempted (a bit) to try a D600. But then I saw it used the same AF system as the D7000's I had. I spend the best part of 10 months trying to get a Nikon body with decent AF, 5 bodies later and I completely gave up. It looks like out of the box Nikon "think" this is acceptable..ie if you have AF fine tune you must use it. I find that rather ridiculous being honest. Even trips to service did not resolve the problems.

My view of Nikon's AF is very poor it's by far the worst I've ever used in any phase detect AF system. Maybe the real pro bodies are good, for the consumer line they're basically pretty awful (IMO) and miss dead easy shots..I even had problems stopping right down and the AF Missing!

Maybe the K5II is ok they've changed the AF sensor completely, this signal the previous model has issues just like the K-r did in low kelvin light. But I would be cautious with Pentax as they have had problems in the past, mirror slap/SR issues, AF problems..and never bothered to resolve these. Pentax still rank as the worst customer service experience I ever had with any company.

[David Kilpatrick]

We have never had any real AF problems with the previous Nikons - D80, D5000, D7000, D3, D3S. I didn't find the D700 very accurate and I found the multi-point system produced far too many errors - but the same goes for Canon, and also for Sony when set to use wide area focus.

The D600 has needed calibration on the 28-300mm, but more or less for specific conditions - close-ups at the long end. I'm very surprised by the cheap Sigma EX DG HSM 17-35mm 2004 model lens I've bought. It has one failing, which is rather low contrast and a tendency to flare into the light, but it's not bad at all for sharpness on full frame and it is strikingly good for geometry, excellent straight lines at 17mm.

We've now set the D600 to centre focus point only, and there are no issues - I don't count calibration as an issue, as my A900 and A77 both need similar levels of calibration for various lenses.

Here's one aspect I like on the D600, ISO - first of all, all ISOs up to 6400 are completely useful even for Alamy stock, given my normal ACR processing. Auto settings like 2000, 3200, 4000, 5000 simply don't matter; I've had worse results of ISO 200 on older cameras. Secondly, not only is the Auto ISO intelligent (set the range, and set the slowest shutter speed before adjustments kicks in) the switch between Auto and manually set ISO a separate function (uses the other control wheel). This means that you can have any fixed ISO set, such as 400 for general everyday work, and instantly move from this to Auto and back.

David