FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

A77ii or A99?

Page  <1234 6>
Author
Fred_S View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 12 January 2017
Country: Netherlands
Location: Noord Holland
Status: Offline
Posts: 5915
Post Options Post Options   Quote Fred_S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2018 at 20:53
Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

In that case, go for the a99. You don't risk anything with it .

+1 , you won't regret it. It will perfectly meet your needs. I have used it extensively from 2014 untill I just moved to the M2 version rececently, including old lenses and even for (indoor) sports!
 



Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9799
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2018 at 21:45
According to DXOMark the A99 has better dynamic range at every ISO setting then the A77. The A99 also has better dynamic range then the A77m2 according to DXOMark at most ISO settings.

Looking at your intended use, the AF system of the A77m2 doesn't have any benefits, the extra dynamic range of the A99 does. Like most others I vote for the A99.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
luke View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 April 2013
Status: Offline
Posts: 890
Post Options Post Options   Quote luke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2018 at 22:19
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:


The FE 12-24mm F4 G OSS is a pretty good argument for that system. I've been wondering why there aren't more FE wides. Those seem like they would be the best reason to own one of those cameras.


What system? The a6000 has a nice E10-18 mm f/4 with OSS, the FE12-24G has none.

With many old Minolta lenses I would also go for the a99....
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2580
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2018 at 22:26
Originally posted by luke luke wrote:

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:


The FE 12-24mm F4 G OSS is a pretty good argument for that system. I've been wondering why there aren't more FE wides. Those seem like they would be the best reason to own one of those cameras.


What system? The a6000 has a nice E10-18 mm f/4 with OSS, the FE12-24G has none.

With many old Minolta lenses I would also go for the a99....

The FE system: the A7/A9 cameras and FE lenses.
Sony A7II A6000 A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11 MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
angora View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2014
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 3452
Post Options Post Options   Quote angora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2018 at 23:16
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

According to DXOMark the A99 has better dynamic range at every ISO setting then the A77. The A99 also has better dynamic range then the A77m2 according to DXOMark at most ISO settings.

Looking at your intended use, the AF system of the A77m2 doesn't have any benefits, the extra dynamic range of the A99 does. Like most others I vote for the A99.

TY, Addy! (of course it has).

it's worse. when Sony launched its flagship, the A99, on september 12, 2012, it had the highest dynamic range of all professional cameras. (!). i.e. 14.
Fred recently experienced some difficulties under bad light conditions with the A99II. very much unlike his numerous past experiences with the A99.
(which you could have read in his Avakas gorge post in the Open views. he also posted a link there to an article he found).

in short- A99 has a dynamic range of 14.
A99II has a dynamic range of -only!- 13.4 !

?
(not too happy about that either, A99II is on my wishlist as well).

Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14208
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2018 at 23:49
Originally posted by angora angora wrote:

in short- A99 has a dynamic range of 14.
A99II has a dynamic range of -only!- 13.4 !

According to DxOMark numbers ... but not according to this.

It seems more likely to me that DxOMark got it wrong.
 



Back to Top
angora View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2014
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 3452
Post Options Post Options   Quote angora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 00:08
TY! :-) and sure!
ideally we'd like to keep the ISO settings low?
wish A99 would perform better at high ISO.
most of my pics are @ ISO 100.


https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a99-ii/sony-a99-iiA5.HTM
(scroll down, down, .... and you'll find a graph. Fred found it actually).

quote...
< Here, we compare the Sony A99 II's dynamic range to its predecessor's, the A99 as well as to the Nikon D810's, the current full-frame dynamic range champion.

As you can see from the above graph (click for a larger image), the A99 II's dynamic range (orange) isn't quite as high as the A99's (yellow) at the lowest ISOs. The A99 II's dynamic range at its ISO 100 setting is 13.35 EV, while the A99 managed 13.95 EV at its lower base ISO of 50, and even at ISO 100, the A99 bests the A99 II by 0.3 EV. . But look what happens above the ISO 400 setting -- the A99 II overtakes the A99, and offers about an EV advantage at most ISOs above 800, and almost two stops at the top shared ISO setting of 25,600. >
etcetera.

actually I don't care about all the little numbers and figures. (as long as the camera performs well? ;-)).
but what Fred said startled me!

Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 705
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 07:43
I get a bit lost with the numbers but, looking at that graph is is obvious that Sony have traded off a little bit of low ISO performance to radically improve high ISO. I'm not really sure how much that matters to me? I suspect that the low ISO performance of both the A99 and A99ii is significantly better than I experience with the A77/A58 - which I find very acceptable (not knowing any better?) - so the boost at the high ISO end, which I find not so good on the A77 would seem advantageous. All in all it seems that the camera for me should be the A99ii - if only I could afford one :(


Back to Top
angora View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2014
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 3452
Post Options Post Options   Quote angora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 10:16
<I get a bit lost...>
+ 1

what it boils down to is that A99 outperforms A99II under tricky light conditions at your ideal ISO settings!
the graph only confirms what Fred & I couldn't wrap our heads around. this:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/avakas-gorge-cyprus_topic133256.html


in general numbers, slight differences, mean little to me, because -for me- it's hard to tell what they mean in terms of use. I'd rather hear about people's experiences? (and heard Fred! :-S).


I find it very important that a camera can cope with higher ISOs, but unless you are a concert photographer or someone photographing dark caves or low light parties handheld, you'd prefer the DR of the A99! over A99II. (bummer!).
because, ideally, in terms of image quality, you'd like to keep your ISO as low as possible? (!!!).
but A99 can do a lot at just 100 ISO.
DR is so important!
(and it helps a lot when you adjust the EV to avoid having to light up a pic in PostWork. because that's when noise will show up).
are you a twilight photographer, rather than to benefit from great light, prefer using higher ISOs, unable to lower the shutter speed?

I can show you many a indoor pic, shot with A99, and they are fine! great. handheld, whereas normal people would use a tripod. use a tripod and you can set your ISO as low as you'd like it to be.
besides, when using an UWA, you won't have to stop down a lot.

pls note that neither of these cameras has flash on board (to trigger other flashes with. as you'd never want to use a flash like that to light up a scene?).


about UWAs?
I can highly recommand the Sony CZ 16-35/2.8 SSM.
it's the kind of zoom almost every interior photographer uses.
a fabulous lens.
but can also assure you that 24mm -on a FF- is pretty wide too. ;-)
(just take a look at BobJ's pics of his travels! he often uses the Minolta 24mm).
you could also use your feet? ;-)
12-24mm looks really nice too (mikey2000 has shown great shots!).
but I don't have one. do have a Sigma 10-20 for APS-C, IMHO beyond compare. Venus 15mm on the wishlist only (for 'macro').
the wider the angle, the more distortion. unless you're so lucky to own a tilt-shift lens of course? tilt it and everthing will go haywire? luckily PS does have a lens correction filter.
use an ultra-ultra wide lens and everthing will be far, far away. at 1st glance.

what I'm trying to say is: try to figure out what you need your UWA for? when you have to shoot in small spaces, indeed you could use an UWA. and if you like extremely distorted pics, or lots of width, too.
I could show you 2 pics however, 1 @ 16mm and 1 @ 28, of the same church interior and as odd as it may sound, I dare you to spot the differences. ;-)

if you were me, you'd go through the city threads (Themed views) and through the lens database, and compare? many fine samples of UWA there!


Back to Top
Paul07 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2006
Country: Belgium
Status: Offline
Posts: 2132
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 11:01
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

The FE system: the A7/A9 cameras and FE lenses.


Does not make sense since budget is limited and goal is to use older a-mount glass.
If the a99 is just within budget, any A7 solution with additional FE-glass will be out of budget...
α7RIII 24-70G 70-200G 85/1.8 Samyang 35/2.8 ~~~ α6300 16-70/4 ~~~ Nex-5N 16-50 18-200 ~~~ RX10 IV ~~~ α100 50/1.4 24-105 ~~~ HX60V
Back to Top
Paul07 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2006
Country: Belgium
Status: Offline
Posts: 2132
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 11:38
Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:

I get a bit lost with the numbers

I suspect that the low ISO performance of both the A99 and A99ii is significantly better than I experience with the A77/A58.

All in all it seems that the camera for me should be the A99ii - if only I could afford one :(


Don't worry about numbers too much I would say .

Yes, a full frame will typically have much better high iso performance, better dynamic range and wider color range. At least, that is my personal experience having worked side by side with a700 and a900, a6000 and a7-II, and now a6300 and a7R-II.

Already with an a99 instead of a99ii, you will surely notice the difference vs. your current a77.
Buy it a decent 2nd hand price and you can always sell it again significant without if your experience would turn out to be different than mine (which I doubt will happen ).
α7RIII 24-70G 70-200G 85/1.8 Samyang 35/2.8 ~~~ α6300 16-70/4 ~~~ Nex-5N 16-50 18-200 ~~~ RX10 IV ~~~ α100 50/1.4 24-105 ~~~ HX60V
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2580
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 11:50
Sony only uses 13-bits in a compressed format and only for some single shots. Most shooting modes are 12-bit. These charts don't reflect camera performance in those 12-bit modes.

I don't see that the lowest ISO single shot dynamic range is that important. You can extend dynamic range arbitrarily with multiple exposures with any camera. It seems like few A99 and A77 owners have ever even used the max dynamic range ISO 50 13-bit capture.

Keeping parameters (focal length, relative aperture, ISO, etc.) constant between APS-C and full frame results in very different images. Maybe I am odd in that I care mostly about how the images I am capturing look and do not care to replicate exposure parameters.

Full-frame can capture more light from full-frame lenses used wide-open. Full-frame doesn't capture any more light for the
same image. The A99 is less efficient than the current APS-C cameras. The APS-C cameras have less noise and greater dynamic range for all the images they can capture. My focal reducer for E-mount also allows me to more effectively use full-frame lenses on APS-C.

I see a practical, limited use case for the A99 to capture images I can't with the A68. I don't own any of the full-frame Carl Zeiss lenses that would be the real upgrade. I also don't own any FE lenses.



Edited by QuietOC - 04 October 2018 at 13:48
Sony A7II A6000 A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11 MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
angora View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2014
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 3452
Post Options Post Options   Quote angora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 13:09
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I care mostly about how the images I am capturing look

precisely!

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

The A99 is less efficient than the current APS-C cameras. The APS-C cameras have less noise and greater dynamic range for all the images they can capture.

I see a practical, limited use case for the A99 to capture images I can't with the A68.

makes me very happy for you!

(who needs a flagship anyway. or a FF for that matter )



Back to Top
Paul07 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2006
Country: Belgium
Status: Offline
Posts: 2132
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 13:59
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Sony only uses 13-bits in a compressed format and only for some single shots. Most shooting modes are 12-bit. These charts don't reflect camera performance in those 12-bit modes.

I don't see that the lowest ISO single shot dynamic range is that important. You can extend dynamic range arbitrarily with multiple exposures with any camera. It seems like few A99 and A77 owners have ever even used the max dynamic range ISO 50 13-bit capture.

Keeping parameters (focal length, relative aperture, ISO, etc.) constant between APS-C and full frame results in very different images. Maybe I am odd in that I care mostly about how the images I am capturing look and do not care to replicate exposure parameters.

Full-frame can capture more light from full-frame lenses used wide-open. Full-frame doesn't capture any more light for the
same image. The A99 is less efficient than the current APS-C cameras. The APS-C cameras have less noise and greater dynamic range for all the images they can capture. My focal reducer for E-mount also allows me to more effectively use full-frame lenses on APS-C.

I see a practical, limited use case for the A99 to capture images I can't with the A68. I don't own any of the full-frame Carl Zeiss lenses that would be the real upgrade. I also don't own any FE lenses.



I don't care too much about bits, but rather about getting nice pictures, and I want to get there as efficiently as possible.

What is the point in using multiple shots to get the desired dynamic range and not have burned out images when it can be done with a single shot ?

I don't care about replication of parameters either, but if I take a shot, I know which camera I prefer to take it with. For some, I may prefer aps-c, but that is rarely the case. The main advantage of aps-c for me is smaller size/lower weight.

Re. A99 vs an aps-c body with the same age, just check the IQ results DPR testing is showing: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-slt-a99-ii/8 (I used the test page for the a99ii, pulled the a99 and a77ii next to it...)
A smaller sensor is never a plus when it comes to IQ in my opinion, at least not when comparing same generation bodies. If the opposite would be true, most if not all of us would only use our smartphone and sell these expensive larger sensor camera's, starting with medium format and ending with compact camera's.

Of course, an aps-c will capture the same image (frame) as a FF if you want it to. Only the output will not be same, with differences increasing as conditions become more demanding (and this apart from differences in AF technology etc. obviously).

That does not make FF the better choice for all situations and everyone of course. But for someone who has not used a FF before and is wondering about potential of FF use of his Minolta glass, I can only repeat: give it a try. No harm done if it proves not to be your thing...

And by the way, I don't have anything against aps-c for that matter. I have both FF & aps-c, like them both, was also pleased with a 1" RX10-III before, and fully understand why you appreciate your a68 and a6000 so much.


Edited by Paul07 - 04 October 2018 at 14:06
α7RIII 24-70G 70-200G 85/1.8 Samyang 35/2.8 ~~~ α6300 16-70/4 ~~~ Nex-5N 16-50 18-200 ~~~ RX10 IV ~~~ α100 50/1.4 24-105 ~~~ HX60V
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.