# Who is using a Sony A77 and or A99?



## vipgraphx

Just wondering who is shooting with a sony A77 or A99. I tested out an A77 yesterday at the camera shop with the 2.8 kit lens and I was really impressed. But, its hard to tell what the cameras can really do just messing around at the shop and not in real world use. 

So I ask this question in hopes that I can here pros and cons and what you shoot. I like to shoot HDR sometimes I need to do handheld where the A77 seems it would be nice because of the speed, even the A99 is quick. I had a gripped D700 that was shooting 8FPS and I could do handheld shots in the night 3 exposures.  With HDR I will shoot Landscapes/CityScapes, Scenery, Interior and almost anything in between.

I also like to take portraits of the kids..not so much into sports because when I had the D700 and 70-200 2.8 VII I seem to miss a lot of the actual games because I was behind the lens and we would never really print any of the photos so I stopped doing that and started recording with our canon HD camera. I would like to do some off camera flash/strobing.

I have been using the A7 for a few weeks and although it is a very nice camera I am not sure if this is the best camera for me at this time. I am up in the air. I really love all the features and image quality is great. I am just disappointed in the 
battery life and lenses available. Yes I know I can use other brands with adapters but then that take away many if not most of the features in the camera that makes it such a joy to shoot. Plus sony lenses seem to be pricey for what they are IMO.

I know the A77 is an older camera but, does not mean its outdated just yet. The A99 I only held and did not use but seems like it would be best of both worlds of the A7 and A99. I understand that the what also makes the A7 so popular is the size however I am torn, because it is so light and petite that it feels like it will break very easy or if I have to be extra careful. I like the bulkiness of the A77 and A99 while holding them I remembered why I wanted to get out of the huge FF cameras..heavy camerasthere is a tradeoff for the weight and its the rigidness..

anyways I can go on and on but I wanted to see if anyone here would like to chime in with your personal hands on experience.

Thanks! 

Cheers


----------



## Stevepwns

I shoot with an A77, I like it a lot.  Does everything I want it to. Ive never owned any other bramd so I cant comment on comparing it to anything else.  Sony lenses are a little expensive, I use the Sony 2.8 16-50, have no complaints.  Third party lenses will save you a lot of money though, Sigma and Tamron have produced some outstanding lenses that take the place of the big price of Sony.


----------



## vipgraphx

Yeah I hear that sigma is making very good glass. 

How is the noise in low light? From my readings, I find a lot of info how the A77 does not do a good job in this department especially after iso 800. 

Its hard to believe that gibberish because many people said that the kit lens that comes with the A7 is soft and not sharp, but I have pictures to prove different..I try to do as much testing as I can when and like to hear what actual people who 
use A77 or A99 than those that just ramble about it when they have not even shot with one of them or even. 

That 2.8 16-50 lens is very nice, thats the lens I tested it with at the shop and I must say that it felt like a tank on that A77 and a constant aperture, I don't really see this as a kit lens.

Have you noticed that the A77 is a half to whole stop slower because of the translucent mirror? There was a review that show pictures with out a lens on the camera taking pictures of a background. One was with the mirror down in front of the sensor and the other was locked up exposing the sensor. The one with the mirror was down produced a darker image. In that video it said that it made that 2.8 lens more like a 3.8 lens on that camera. Any thoughts on that?


----------



## Kolia

Changing to a different Sony body won't help for lens availability. It might not rain lenses, but hey are still out there. Personally, I don't see this as a problem.

Third party lenses are also available. Sigma, Tamron.  You will find a lens that works for you.  

I shoot with a a65, internally the twin of the a77. Noise is present at higher ISO. But it's not a problem IMO. Worst case, fix it in post.

I wouldn't want to experience the down grade to a APS-C sensor tho. 

Battery life isn't really a problem either. I can't imagine anybody expecting to spend a day out on a single battery. You need a backup anyway.  Carry one or two extra. Or get the vertical grip. 

Anyway  the a77 is a good camera. I would stick with the a7.


----------



## skieur

I like my A77.  It is quieter and with less vibration that a regular DSLR.  HD Video is quite smooth with good sound.  Dynamic range control, multi-shot HDR, Multi-shot noise reduction and panorama are all in camera, along with tone, colour and various picture and scene modes including selective colour.  Built in flash and external flash may take a little getting used to, since your camera ISO has to be set at its lowest 50 for photos such as opening presents for example.

The viewfinder is what you see is what you get in real time, so you need to pay attention to more than just composition and framing when you are using it.  The setting display in the viewfinder is also a great way to make a last check before pressing the shutter.

12 frames per second is great for action shooting and you can adjust for less.

As far as noise is concerned, I have found that all cameras show some amount of image deterioration at ISO 1600 and there is not a great deal of difference between them.


----------



## Nervine

I love my A77 and glad i upgraded to it from the A55. 

I also don't have a problem battery wise although I recently bought a second one to be safe, especially as I will be in Fiji shortly and plan on full day adventures and I also want to be prepared this year if I can get some event photog jobs 

As for noise I haven't really tested it due to shooting mostly macro and on days out. On the next new moon I am planning to go test some astrophotography (weather permitting)

Personally I love the 16-50 2.8 and so glad I decided to jump and get it, I do feel the zoo ring is a little tight so may need to get it looked at but marries perfect with A77.

I haven't used an A99 or A7 so can't comment on either however my next upgrade in a year or two will be that or the next FF Alpha. 

The A77 I have had for 6 months now and haven't played with too many of the in camera modes and the few instances I did HDR it was done manually and on a tripod.


----------



## DiskoJoe

I would go a99 over a77. A77 is good but the sensor is a bit of overkill for what the processor can actually handle. A99 is on point. Great ISO capabilities. A7 is nice cause you can get the adaptors to run any type of lense on it.


----------



## vipgraphx

Yeah, No doubt in my mind that the A99 would be the top choice between the A77 or A99, I think the A99 is closer to what the A7 is just bigger with more lens choice. 

The A77 at the price is a great camera, great features.

I just did some HDR work last night of Tucson City Lights and I was pretty impressed with the results. But I also did some HDR work in the day and was not so happy, but I learned that I did not have my Esposure wheel at 0 so the camera did something funky.

-3,-1, +1..there was not enough DR and made the images a bit noisy and grainy in the dark areas&#8230;BOy that sucks because I spent a good while shooting, but now I know it was not the IQ just the lack of correct EXP.


----------



## remylebeau

I owned the a77 before upgrading to the a99. They are almost identical in terms of features, design and functions. But after shooting the a99 for the past year the image quality difference is really apparent above 800 ISO. I knew it'd be better but how much better was really a pleasant surprise for me. It's not just the noise control it's how well tonal and dynamic range is maintained at higher ISO. You'll also notice a difference/improvement in the image quality you get from the EVF. I know it's the same EVF but because the image is coming from a larger sensor on the a99, I almost never see the static/noise I did with the a77 when shooting in low light.


----------



## Menthol

I bought a77 last year.  Was upgrading from a450 so am obviously over the moon.

One guy I follow on YouTube is called Rodney.  He made a video that looks at the a77 and  a99. Won't repeat all he said 





In short the difference between the two does not justify the price difference.

Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum


----------



## vipgraphx

Just saw that video.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## KooKoo102

Just to give you a heads up, the successor to the A77 is soon to be announced. Might want to hold off some.. Or reep the benefit of decreased a77 price 


I'm at work, so did not read all of the thread, might want to check http://www.sonyalpharumors.com for some good sony alpha info.
Read up on the successor, if I remember it's supposed to be mirror less a-mount.

I had an A77, and loved everything about it... Except low light performance. Just upgraded to the nikon D610 and here is what I see... 

I miss peaking M focus ( u have that in A7) nothing like that on D610.

Auto focus system on A77 is actually really good. Live view or EVF.

I got really used to the controls... Once you learn them well, easy cam to use.

Decent dynamic range, good color, happy with the images at LOW ISO ( 400 or less ) I'm picky lol

The A77 served me well, if I could have the D610 sensor in it, I would NEVER need another camera. Honestly. I really like how the A77 functions.

Oh yea, one other little thing... The buffer is not that great. But, never really sit there and shoot off more then 12 shots in a row... At least I don't.

I can upload some shots I got with the A77 if you would like?


----------



## KooKoo102

Just took a look on the site, not so around the corner... Announcement is some time around April, release is in June.


----------



## vipgraphx

Yeah upload some shots.

I keep debating what camera to stay with. I have been using the D610 and I am right at home with it since I have always shot nikon. But the A7 has so many features that I can really take advantage of and saw many of those same features in the A77 and A99. 

The A7 is really great BUT, the lens options, this is a problem. Having to buy adapters to use other lenses is good but it will get expensive AND you lose many of the features that draws someone like me into the A7. 

FF lenses are expensive and I keep telling my self that but at the same time Sony seems to be a lot more expensive for the same lens. Not to mention battery life, man I wish they could have figured out to have a longer lasting battery. By the time you buy the grip and extra battery and charger you just spend another $500 on top of the camera and still won't have the equal amount of photos you can  take like a D610.

Anywho&#8230;..upload some pictures if you can.


----------



## KooKoo102

The turbine one, was a 3 shot/ 3 ev shift processed in photomatix

Everything processed in LR5


----------



## remylebeau

Menthol said:


> I bought a77 last year.  Was upgrading from a450 so am obviously over the moon.
> 
> One guy I follow on YouTube is called Rodney.  He made a video that looks at the a77 and  a99. Won't repeat all he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short the difference between the two does not justify the price difference.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum



That`s a matter of opinion not fact. Judging value is a subjective analysis when it comes to deciding what is or isn't worth it. I spent twice what I did on my a99 than my a77, but I've been able to do work I simply can not do with a77. In my case the difference between the two is a matter of reaching a result or not, and I absolutely think the difference is worth for my upgrade.


----------



## bribrius

remylebeau said:


> Menthol said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bought a77 last year. Was upgrading from a450 so am obviously over the moon.
> 
> One guy I follow on YouTube is called Rodney. He made a video that looks at the a77 and a99. Won't repeat all he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short the difference between the two does not justify the price difference.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That`s a matter of opinion not fact. Judging value is a subjective analysis when it comes to deciding what is or isn't worth it. I spent twice what I did on my a99 than my a77, but* I've been able to do work I simply can not do with a77*. In my case the difference between the two is a matter of reaching a result or not, and I absolutely think the difference is worth for my upgrade.
Click to expand...


If you don't mind me asking, what work could you do with the 99 that you couldn't do with the 77?


----------



## remylebeau

bribrius said:


> remylebeau said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Menthol said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bought a77 last year. Was upgrading from a450 so am obviously over the moon.
> 
> One guy I follow on YouTube is called Rodney. He made a video that looks at the a77 and a99. Won't repeat all he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short the difference between the two does not justify the price difference.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That`s a matter of opinion not fact. Judging value is a subjective analysis when it comes to deciding what is or isn't worth it. I spent twice what I did on my a99 than my a77, but* I've been able to do work I simply can not do with a77*. In my case the difference between the two is a matter of reaching a result or not, and I absolutely think the difference is worth for my upgrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't mind me asking, what work could you do with the 99 that you couldn't do with the 77?
Click to expand...


Shoot video at 6400ISO in a club. Shoot a ballet performance with 1/800th of second to catch the action, while using 3200 ISO to gather enough light. Shoot in dim churches that don't allow flash at 3200 ISO and same for receptions. All else being equal in terms of shutter speed, lenses, technique etc. In those stated situations the a77 would not come close to the image quality I got with the a99. It's not a matter of noise, ACR noise reduction is very good at what it does. It's a matter of maintaining detail, skin tones and accurate color. My experience with the a77 showed those things were not something I'd present my clients with shot above 1600 ISO.

I also tethering 90% of the time when I'm in my studio shooting portraits or products. It's not a necessity but for me it's more than a luxury, especially where product photography is concerned. I have food stylists and art directors who my clients bring, and we all work off a properly calibrated monitor while building shots. I can certainly get away with using the back of an LCD but I'm not trying to get away with anything, I'm trying to make the workflow as efficient as possible for everyone involved. So tethering is a big thing for me. I really wish the a77 had tethering like it's predecessor the a700, if that were the case this would also be a none issue.

The camera's both perform incredibly well below 800 ISO, while the a99 is still better I'd gladly use the a77 when less than 800 ISO is called for.

So as I previously stated, "worth it" is a matter of opinion not fact and it's entirely subjective. For me unlike the above video the upgrade is absolutely worth it.


----------



## jfrabat

OK, let me start by saying that I work for Sony.  Having said that, I have paid for my own cameras, so I got what I felt was the best product.  I own a Sony SLT-A77V, and I use the 16-80 Zeiss lens as an everyday lens.  I also own a 70-300 G lens and a Minolta 50mm 1.7.  I also have a bunch of accesories (I have 3 Sony speelights, Kenko Macro Tubes, ND and CP filters, Flash Modifiers, etc.).

As for the A77, I love the camera.  It basically does everything I need out of it, and allows me for some very nice shots, some of which I am attaching for your reference (I tried to look for varied subjects so you can use as a reference):




Now, as far as the pros and cons, this is my own 2 cents:

*PROS*:
Speed
Accessibility to functions (botton layout)
Battery life (as oppossed to what you mentioned on the A7, a battery in the A77 lasts quite a bit)
Lens options (apart from Sony, you have all the Tamrons, Simas, Minoltas, etc.)
For your offcamera speedlighting the wireless option has worked really nicely for me; just make sure to point the flash's IR port towards the camera and then "bend" the head to point in the right direction
Resolution (I feel 24MP is not a huge file size, yet still is large enough to crop and get a good large size print)
You can use either MS or SD card, but they both use the same slot
Sealed body (not afraid of the rain anymore!  Mind you, I do have a rain coat for the camera, as when it rains here in Panama, it POURS!  And my lenses are not sealed...)
micro AF adjustment (I never thought I'd need this, but my Minolta Lens's AF was WAAAAY off; I could fix this through this function!)
Steady Shot Inside means all the lenses you attach will have stabilization
No mirror shake because of the SLT technology
Face detection for known faces are nice for taking picture of your kids events (it will focus on YOUR kids face, not the others!)
GPS
Video with autofocus (don0t use that much video, but when I do, it works just as good as a video camera)

*THINGS THAT ARE NICE BUT I NEVER USE*
In camera effects (including in-camera HDR) - I prefer the real deal
Smile Shutter

*CONS*:
Grain at ISO higher than 1600 (I very rarely go above this, and, if I can, I avoid going over 800)
This is kind of related to the above, but shooting with poor light at anything other than still life (where you can put the camera on the tripod and use slow speed) is very tough
Only one slot (no recording to 2 media at once for safety (the A99 does this, though)
Only Sony's own flash mount will work (I know there are adapters, though, for regular flash mounts)
Cannot use the timer with the bracketing, and bracketing is limited to 3 shots
No tethering.

As for the A99, it brings a lot of the good of the A77, improves a bit on some points, and leaves some other as things to be desired. I know because I borrowed one for about 2 weeks and got to play A LOT with it.

Specifically, I find the A99 is AMAZING for shooting in poor light conditions, even a VERY high ISO.  You can look at a post I did a while back when I got my hands in the sample A99, I remember I took a picture of a painting in my house with almost NO light at FULL ISO, and you could still see the brush strokes in the JPG.  Of course, you pay for this with slower (note, NOT slow, just slower than the A77) FPS.  Another plus of the A99 is that the hot shoe is now a standard one, not the Minolta one; but, again, the trade in is that there is no in-camera flash, which means you need a flashgun to trigger another remotely.  The A99 also includes A TON of things for video shooting, but I do more photo than video, so that is not a biggie for me.  Focusing is really great in the A99, especially with the compatible lenses for 100+ focussing points.

For me, the additional price was just not worth getting the A99 (plus, my Zeiss lens and flash guns would not fir the A99 - Or rather, not directly, as both can be used, but are not ideal).

Anyway, I hope this helps you!

Felipe


----------



## jfrabat

By the way, here is the shot of the A99 with almost no light (all the lights in the house were off; the only light was the light coming from a street lamp through a small window) at the HIGHEST ISO setting:



Keep in mind the A99 goes higher than the A77 in ISO...  You can also see some comparissons between the A99 ISO performance vs the Canon 5D MKIII, Nikon D600 and Nikon D800 (as well as the A900 and A77) here (not my images).  

Felipe


----------



## vipgraphx

Great info thanks!


----------



## bigal1000

I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100 Too much noise for me after iso 800 and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.


----------



## jfrabat

bigal1000 said:


> I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100   Too much noise for me after iso 800 it's bad fast and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.



In my opinion, past 1600 is not usable, but I think 1600 is still usable, and 800 is OK.  It's a matter of opinion, though.  However, if you plan to shoot in low light / high ISO, as I mentioned, the A99 is the way to go...


----------



## ConradM

Just ordered an A77 + lens with the free grip bundle. I'm so freaking excited!! :hail:


----------



## vipgraphx

Looks like the a77 has dropped out of the race for me. Great info folks  thanks again!


----------



## cosmonaut

The a99 is a much better camera than the a77 as far as image quality. The a77 really isn't good at high iso and the a99 is a couple of good stops better. I have the a77 but it is mostly for the crop factor and wildlife shooting when I need the extra reach. The files of the a99 are smoother and less pixelated when pixel peeping in post. The a99 has a lot more dynamic range which is the achilles heal of most APS-C sensors. If you shot in a lot of difficult lighting situations the a99 will handle it better. Given a choice the a99 hands down would take it. Don't let anybody kid you full frame is where to be if your serious.


----------



## BGeise

cosmonaut said:


> The a99 is a much better camera than the a77 as far as image quality. The a77 really isn't good at high iso and the a99 is a couple of good stops better. I have the a77 but it is mostly for the crop factor and wildlife shooting when I need the extra reach. The files of the a99 are smoother and less pixelated when pixel peeping in post. The a99 has a lot more dynamic range which is the achilles heal of most APS-C sensors. If you shot in a lot of difficult lighting situations the a99 will handle it better. Given a choice the a99 hands down would take it. Don't let anybody kid you full frame is where to be if your serious.



Its also 2 grand more for not a lot of difference. The a77 has much more bang for the buck


----------



## bigal1000

BGeise said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The a99 is a much better camera than the a77 as far as image quality. The a77 really isn't good at high iso and the a99 is a couple of good stops better. I have the a77 but it is mostly for the crop factor and wildlife shooting when I need the extra reach. The files of the a99 are smoother and less pixelated when pixel peeping in post. The a99 has a lot more dynamic range which is the achilles heal of most APS-C sensors. If you shot in a lot of difficult lighting situations the a99 will handle it better. Given a choice the a99 hands down would take it. Don't let anybody kid you full frame is where to be if your serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its also 2 grand more for not a lot of difference. The a77 has much more bang for the buck
Click to expand...


Are you kidding not a lot of difference do you own a an A99 and A77 to back up that comment !


----------



## ConradM

bigal1000 said:


> I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100 Too much noise for me after iso 800 and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.





jfrabat said:


> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100   Too much noise for me after iso 800 it's bad fast and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, past 1600 is not usable, but I think 1600 is still usable, and 800 is OK.  It's a matter of opinion, though.  However, if you plan to shoot in low light / high ISO, as I mentioned, the A99 is the way to go...
Click to expand...


These comments are surprising to me. Mind you, I'm coming from an a33 but I've found I can go up to 2000 ISO on the a77 without much noise. 2000 ISO on the a77 is = to about 800 ISO on my a33.


----------



## BGeise

bigal1000 said:


> Are you kidding not a lot of difference do you own a an A99 and A77 to back up that comment !



The average user isn't going to pay two grand more for a body that they will most likely not see a difference between. I am not saying the A99 isn't better than the A77 just that the A77 has a much bigger market for the price point its at. Plus we shouldn't be comparing apples to oranges. You should be comparing it with other full frames.


----------



## vipgraphx

A99 has taken a price drop to $2299 at best but and amazon


----------



## jfrabat

cosmonaut said:


> The a99 is a much better camera than the a77 as far as image quality. The a77 really isn't good at high iso and the a99 is a couple of good stops better. I have the a77 but it is mostly for the crop factor and wildlife shooting when I need the extra reach. The files of the a99 are smoother and less pixelated when pixel peeping in post. The a99 has a lot more dynamic range which is the achilles heal of most APS-C sensors. If you shot in a lot of difficult lighting situations the a99 will handle it better. Given a choice the a99 hands down would take it. Don't let anybody kid you full frame is where to be if your serious.



The A99 is WAAAAAYYYY better than the A77 if you are serious about shooting in poor lighting conditions.  No questions asked.  And this from a Sony employee who paid full price for his A77 and who got to play around with the A99...  The A99 does have SOME drawbacks compared to the A77 (no on-board flash is a biggie for me; I use it to trigger off camera flashes.  But then again, with the A99, you can get away with A LOT before you actually need a flash!).



BGeise said:


> Its also 2 grand more for not a lot of difference. The a77 has much more bang for the buck



It's ONE grand for A LOT of difference.  Not to say that the A77 is not a great camera, because IT IS.  But there is no question that the A99 is a hole different ballgame!



ConradM said:


> These comments are surprising to me. Mind you, I'm coming from an a33 but I've found I can go up to 2000 ISO on the a77 without much noise. 2000 ISO on the a77 is = to about 800 ISO on my a33.



I have not played around with the A33, but it depends on what's acceptable to you.  But there is no question that I can see the noise at ISO 1600 with the A77 (while with the A99 I struggle to find it at MUUUUUUCH higher ISO's).


----------



## Menthol

remylebeau said:


> Shoot video at 6400ISO in a club. Shoot a ballet performance with 1/800th of second to catch the action, while using 3200 ISO to gather enough light. Shoot in dim churches that don't allow flash at 3200 ISO and same for receptions. All else being equal in terms of shutter speed, lenses, technique etc. In those stated situations the a77 would not come close to the image quality I got with the a99. It's not a matter of noise, ACR noise reduction is very good at what it does. It's a matter of maintaining detail, skin tones and accurate color. My experience with the a77 showed those things were not something I'd present my clients with shot above 1600 ISO.
> 
> I also tethering 90% of the time when I'm in my studio shooting portraits or products. It's not a necessity but for me it's more than a luxury, especially where product photography is concerned. I have food stylists and art directors who my clients bring, and we all work off a properly calibrated monitor while building shots. I can certainly get away with using the back of an LCD but I'm not trying to get away with anything, I'm trying to make the workflow as efficient as possible for everyone involved. So tethering is a big thing for me. I really wish the a77 had tethering like it's predecessor the a700, if that were the case this would also be a none issue.
> 
> The camera's both perform incredibly well below 800 ISO, while the a99 is still better I'd gladly use the a77 when less than 800 ISO is called for.
> 
> So as I previously stated, "worth it" is a matter of opinion not fact and it's entirely subjective. For me unlike the above video the upgrade is absolutely worth it.



Guess at the end of the day it all depends on user needs. I don't take pictures in clubs but if I ever need to do so then my 50mm 1.4 would be a weapon of choice.

An extra grand for a99 wouldn't be advisable for a semi pro or enthusiast especially if they don't have G lenses to maximise quality. An a77 with good glass fitted is just as good if not better than an a99 with cheap glass.

Just my opinion.  Not scientific test conducted.

Ps. Noise reduction software is getting better all the time. Most client that I have seen will not magnify image 1:1 to check noise levels but obviously I am not an advocate for shoddy work. 


Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

I'm surprised Sony as a company is still in business.  Don't hate me look at the company's performance past few years (on everything not just DSLR's)


----------



## Menthol

2WheelPhoto said:


> I'm surprised Sony as a company is still in business.  Don't hate me look at the company's performance past few years (on everything not just DSLR's)



I refuse to be drawn into discussing other devices other than cameras and accessories. 

As far as I am concerned sony can stop making all those things as long as if they continue to make cameras as sony or minolta ... what ever.

Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Menthol said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised Sony as a company is still in business.  Don't hate me look at the company's performance past few years (on everything not just DSLR's)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into discussing other devices other than cameras and accessories.
> 
> As far as I am concerned sony can stop making all those things as long as if they continue to make cameras as sony or minolta ... what ever.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum
Click to expand...


Yeah my point is lackluster sales across the board from Sony....among all their devices.  Sorry didn;t mean to go off-topic


----------



## ConradM

2WheelPhoto said:


> I'm surprised Sony as a company is still in business.  Don't hate me look at the company's performance past few years (on everything not just DSLR's)



They recently sold or downsized different departments to focus on imaging.


----------



## Fox_Racing_Guy

2WheelPhoto said:


> I'm surprised Sony as a company is still in business.  Don't hate me look at the company's performance past few years (on everything not just DSLR's)



Nikon's is even worse :lmao: 





And who would Nikon purchase image sensors from? Toshiba,, good luck with that.


----------



## jfrabat

Menthol said:


> Guess at the end of the day it all depends on user needs. I don't take pictures in clubs but if I ever need to do so then my 50mm 1.4 would be a weapon of choice.
> 
> An extra grand for a99 wouldn't be advisable for a semi pro or enthusiast especially if they don't have G lenses to maximise quality. An a77 with good glass fitted is just as good if not better than an a99 with cheap glass.
> 
> Just my opinion. Not scientific test conducted.
> 
> Ps. Noise reduction software is getting better all the time. Most client that I have seen will not magnify image 1:1 to check noise levels but obviously I am not an advocate for shoddy work.



I did the test when I got my hands on the A99...  The A99 with the A380 kit lens (a very cheap Sony lens, 18-55mm) still had less noise in poor light than my A77 with a Zeiss lens (1.8 85mm IIRC; lens was also borrowed)...  I was trying to prove to myself that the A77 was as good as the A99, but I had to find other ways to justify that the A77 is still the camera for me (and there ARE things, like, for example, I would have to change my lenses, as 2 of them are for crop cameras; also, I would have to change my flash units, which are for the old mount - and I have 3 of them; and finally, the A99 cannot trigger external flashes without using an additional flash, as it has no pop-up flash, so I would probably need an additional flash).  But as for quality, there is just no comparison in poor lighting conditions.

In halfway decent lighting, though, the A77 is more than capable of holding its own against anything out there...  Is it worth it to spend the extra money?  My answer is "it depends"; it depends on your style of shooting and how much noise you find acceptable, and how much work you are willing to put into post (because you DO make a good point about noise reduction software)...  And yes, the 1.4/f will help, but in a concert, unless you are in the first row, 50mm is probably going to be too short of a lens.

To me, the extra grand (more if you consider I must change 2 of my lenses as well) was not worth it either, so I stuck with the A77.  But it is a matter of personal taste and preferences.  But the quality was not the only issue but also the glass and the flashes for me...  If it were only a quality issue, I would have probably gone with the A99!




ConradM said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised Sony as a company is still in business.  Don't hate me look at the company's performance past few years (on everything not just DSLR's)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They recently sold or downsized different departments to focus on imaging.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Vaio was sold off to reduce cost, and TV business is being restructured.  I think the company will turn around, but in general, NONE of the electronic companies are doing so hot right now...


----------



## GarP

vipgraphx said:


> Just wondering who is shooting with a sony A77 or A99. I tested out an A77 yesterday at the camera shop with the 2.8 kit lens and I was really impressed. But, its hard to tell what the cameras can really do just messing around at the shop and not in real world use.
> 
> So I ask this question in hopes that I can here pros and cons and what you shoot. I like to shoot HDR sometimes I need to do handheld where the A77 seems it would be nice because of the speed, even the A99 is quick. I had a gripped D700 that was shooting 8FPS and I could do handheld shots in the night 3 exposures. With HDR I will shoot Landscapes/CityScapes, Scenery, Interior and almost anything in between.
> 
> I also like to take portraits of the kids..not so much into sports because when I had the D700 and 70-200 2.8 VII I seem to miss a lot of the actual games because I was behind the lens and we would never really print any of the photos so I stopped doing that and started recording with our canon HD camera. I would like to do some off camera flash/strobing.
> 
> I have been using the A7 for a few weeks and although it is a very nice camera I am not sure if this is the best camera for me at this time. I am up in the air. I really love all the features and image quality is great. I am just disappointed in the
> battery life and lenses available. Yes I know I can use other brands with adapters but then that take away many if not most of the features in the camera that makes it such a joy to shoot. Plus sony lenses seem to be pricey for what they are IMO.
> 
> I know the A77 is an older camera but, does not mean its outdated just yet. The A99 I only held and did not use but seems like it would be best of both worlds of the A7 and A99. I understand that the what also makes the A7 so popular is the size however I am torn, because it is so light and petite that it feels like it will break very easy or if I have to be extra careful. I like the bulkiness of the A77 and A99 while holding them I remembered why I wanted to get out of the huge FF cameras..heavy cameras&#8230;there is a tradeoff for the weight and its the rigidness..
> 
> anyways I can go on and on but I wanted to see if anyone here would like to chime in with your personal hands on experience.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers



Howdy
I bought an A37 2 years ago & sold it at a profit! Then bought the A77. 12 Months later I bought an A99; they're both great camera's.
Here's an astro shot from the A37:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/garphoto/12379255263/in/set-72157641242899133
A77 (some cloud around):- https://www.flickr.com/photos/garphoto/13488079163/in/set-72157641242899133
A77 again:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/garphoto/13712229643/in/set-72157641242899133
And A99:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/garphoto/13712217555/in/set-72157641242899133
And a nice one from my A99:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/garphoto/14082036619/in/set-72157641242899133

Here's a TimeLapse I did with my A99 & eMotimo TB3:- [video=vimeo;103622360]https://vimeo.com/103622360[/video]
Cheers
           Gary


----------

