I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby peterottaway » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:07 pm

None of the local dealers have any stock and Sony Australia could give no estimate when any more would arrive for starters. But I had mostly made up my mind not to buy anyway. Pretty much all my A lenses are older Minolta lenses and I could see no point in the future buying A mount and E mount lenses.Hopefully Sony will update the EA3 and EA4 adapters.

An A88 with a 24 MP BSI etc perhaps,if Sigma and Tamron provide support, then my Nikon D750 would be my last Nikon. Especially since the A99 Mark 1 was pretty much the same price as the D750 and I do have a Nikon G to E adapter for the four f 1.8 primes. Which with the 24-85 / 3.5 - 4.5 AF-S zoom is it for Nikon these days.The D750 was a refurbished unit going for the same price as the D610 getting on for some 12 months ago and I have no complaints for what it is.

I suspect that either an A88 or more likely an A7 Mark 3 would suit me more than the D750. Here's hoping that like the A77 battery grip that the A7 Mark 2 grip also carries over.

I don't like the A6xxx body shape,it's just not for me. So I actually bought an A68 at under USD 600 as a place keeper until things become more obvious the way things are going to be. I do have the Sony 70 - 400 which should keep me going comfortably for those things the A7r II doesn't suit.

And as most of the local stores run a 12 Days of Christmas sale with discounts for different brands each day, I picked up a Sigma 24 - 35 lens in Canon mount for AUD 966 - I just couldn't say no. So things didn't turn out as expensive as they could have been.

classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby classiccameras » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:24 pm

I must admit Peter, I'm beginning to fall out of love with my A6000, Its not good to hold with big heavy lenses via an adaptor, the E mount lenses in APS-C suck for price and performance and range unless you buy Zeiss and even there you chance your luck, and it doesn't have IBIS so you have to be very very steady with a long lens and no way can I afford the A6500.

I much prefer DSLR/SLT bodies or even the Olympus OM/EM cameras both have IBIS. The parting of the ways is approaching with the A6000, I switched a few years ago from a Canon 60D system to the Sony SLT A/57/37 ( nice cameras, but ) and a few Minolta and Sony lenses thinking the grass was greener on the other side, it isn't, I dumped a Canon system that has massive choice along with a huge second hand market and a large 3rd party lens market.

I'm tempted to return to sanity, my sanity that is, where I have no worries on choice, performance, cost, and a very well integrated system, Nikon is the same. If I was to return to a CSC, it would be Olympus as the OM-D EM- system is well integrated with good choice on lenses including Panasonic lenses and very affordable.

peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby peterottaway » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:47 am

I remarked when Fuji released the X-T1 then that was the type of camera design that I would prefer. But lets be honest even the new X-T2 which is slightly larger does not cope well with larger and heavier lenses like the 100-400 zoom.For me. But as I like dials, the Fuji shape is much more functional for everything apart from such things as BIF etc.

The A68 has been criticized as its EVF is only half the resolution of the higher end cameras and the LCD is really only useful to display your menu choices. But when you are outside and using lenses such as the Sigma 50-150, Sony 70-300 or 70-400 then I find it as workable as much more expensive cameras. If you are doing advertising or high end weddings and the like then most people would probably want something more sophisticated and heavy duty. But then again Bert Hardy for Picture Post in the 1950's took a Kodak Box Brownie on a summer holiday assignment to prove what can be done with even the most low tech equipment which the A68 is not.

With the A68 I can use my oldest screw drive A mount lenses which is completely different from the Nikon 3 and 5 families. Nikon want you to pay twice as much for the D7200, Sony is over the top for the pricing of its high end lenses. But some of the new Canon and Nikon lenses have gone up in price as well.

The Sony situation just becomes more noticeable because Sigma in particular hasn't released some of their offerings in Sony form for the last few years. Tamron has been somewhat better but has delayed the release of its A mount offerings. APS dedicated lenses are mostly need only at the wide end.

And when you look at the prices that Nikon, Fuji and Olympus want for their latest APS cameras ? You can get an A7 II and still have more than petty cash left over and I would think the performance of an A7 III would be quite a bit better looking at the A99 II bits and pieces.

I would pay the price that Sony is charging for the new A6500 if the camera had a "pro" form and if Sigma was to offer lenses such as the 18-35 and 50-100 in E mount form. You can adapt but it is not quite the same and you never know how well they will perform in the future. At the moment I am happy paying less for most of the capability.

classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby classiccameras » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:43 am

Peter you make a convincing argument for your own needs, and if you are doing pro work or making money from your hobby and such like then costs can be justified, for me as a casual amateur/enthusiast cost is a big issue, along with the systems available for your money.

For arguments sake, I could build a really comprehensive Canon system just on second hand gear and a lot cheaper as well, and like wise from Olympus although the camera would have to be the EM-10 because of cost.

When you get companies like Sigma and Tamron not exactly falling over themselves to produce E mount lenses, I suspect they are biding their time to see where the systems are going, and as it has been said on this forum, is the E mount A6xxxx cameras on a road to no where, and I have seen that comment on other photo sites as well.

I certainly won't be investing any more into the A6xxxx system. Fuji, great cameras, lovely sensor, fab lenses but very expensive by comparison and as far as I know, no 3rd part lenses.

peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby peterottaway » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:56 am

With the Fuji or M43 systems the fact that there are few if any offerings from the high end third party lens manufacturers isn't that important. There is enough decent offerings to put together a first class kit whether that be primes. zooms or a combination of both. just go with what suits you.

My A mount kit which I fully admit that I mostly no longer need, was accumulated over nearly 30 years. But I am cautious and have retained it as a just in case - there are times where you are in a situation of some risk of theft or damage. The kit consists of my A850 and now the A68 both of which produce good results at lower EI / ISO rates. I own four Minolta FF lenses and three Sony FF lenses including the 70-400 zoom plus the Tokina 11-16, CZ 16-80 and Sony 16-50. They where added as money was available.

For the first couple of years all I had was a Minolta 8000i with the 35-105 zoom. The rest was my older Minolta manual focus system plus a Yashica branded Contax RTS and 3 lenses two of whic were acquired second hand.

With my current E mount system neither the A7r ( having it converted to IR in the new year ) or A7r II were bought until some months after they became available. All my lenses which consists of Sony 16-35 /4, 24-70 / 4, 70-200 / 4 and 90 macro plus Canon 100, 135 and the plain vanilla 70 - 200 / 4 plus the Sigma 24-35 were purchased at sales. I rarely mention the Canon lenses as I a not one of the DPR Canon ! Canon ! Canon ! Oi ! Oi ! Oi ! mob. They are decent lenses that were available and I wanted at the time, and it so happens that Metabones and then Sigma produced decent Canon adapters rather than Nikon adapters.

I would like to replace the 24-70 in the future if Sony or anyone else produce a decent 24-105 lens although I gather the newish Canon STM is not a bad lens for the price. I may add a couple of Batis or Loxia primes or the like in the future but that will depend on other circumstances.

classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby classiccameras » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:05 am

I like your DP Canon! Canon! Canon! There's worse biased than that, Amateur Photographer magazine seem to think if its not Canon, Nikon or Pentax its an also-ran, I like 'Imaging Resource' for their reviews. Yes, the Canon STM range of lenses are good performers and reasonably priced, I had an STM 18-55 kit lens on my old 550D and it gave outstanding IQ, although I suspect that was equally down to the camera, not just the glass. Even the Fuji and Olympus basic glass is pretty good, Olympus high end glass is superb but out of my price range, I still have my old Oly E-510 (my first digital bought in 08 ) with a Zuiko 14-54 F/2,8 zoom, stunning IQ and at only 10-mp, Hmm makes you wonder at times about pixels. I have plenty of mix and match A mount lenses from Minolta and Sony I use on my A6000 via a Sony adaptor but it becomes a poorly balanced top heavy system and no IBIS, so its going to be a completely new system in the new year just one mount, no effing about with adaptors any more and build a budget system round that mount, its either going to be Olympus or Canon purely because of whats available on both markets new and used, not sure what the Aussie used market is like for Canon, Nikon etc, but its huge here in the UK. I guess we all have our different priorities and build systems that perform to our expectations hopefully at the right price, Have a great Christmas and Happy New Year

peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby peterottaway » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:26 am

I'm not really sure you can describe such a thing as an Australian market given that Australia has a population of 22 million spread over an area of the lower 48 of the USA.

The local market apart from what local camera stores, is really Australia, NZ, Singapore, Hong Kong, China,Taiwan,Korea and Japan through the internet. As you can see I am not a believer in the concept of ONE China.

Happy camera hunting.

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3533
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:49 pm

We'll know this year I suspect if there is going to be an A77III I think it's due for an update. However looking at how Sony are going they will probably bump up the cost significantly. There are a few potential areas to look at dual card slots, 4K video I can't see too many other things they will add unless they can come up with a sensor that has a notable advantage (ie a stop better in low light)

The only model I have seen in a camera shop A mount is the A68 but little else as far as lenses/bodies go non existent. Argos a major UK retailer seems to have entirely dumped the few A mount cameras they used to keep in stock. Though you can get some E mount ones at over a £1000 for an A6300 I doubt they sell that many. Sony's retail presence seems small at best even compared to 3/4 years ago. I didn't have a chance to use the A68 no battery in the shop camera if the LCD is the same as the A58 and it looks identical then it's a fairly low grade affair workable but dated. Really the camera needs to be bashed out cheaply to get any interest. It is unusual to have MFA on a budget model and the high end AF. Bit of a shame they didn't put a bigger buffer in there it might have had more impact

CHOLLY
Oligarch
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:21 pm

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby CHOLLY » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:03 pm

Sony marketing is HORRIBLE.

It is closing down Sony stores here in the States. And it doesn't have serious contracts or agreements with the Big Box Retailers like COSTCO or SAMS to move its products at volume. GO FIGURE. :roll:

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3533
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: I Didn't Buy An A99 Mark 2

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:27 am

They do have some retail presence hence the camera shop I walked into but it's pretty small. For the Sony stores/centres I think they all shut but can't confirm that. They used to be around can't seem to find any at the moment.

Onto the A99II I noted that the ISO is about a stop off the rated ISO at least according to DxO though the A99 I was too so they say


Return to “Alpha A-mount System”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron