sony please develop a cheap full-frame a-mount camera!!

I currently own an A77 and owned the A99 for a couple months before I sold it.  The A99 autofocus is not better than A77, and the low-light performance is not nearly in the same league as the Canon/Nikon full-frame competitors.  What annoyed me the most is the autofocus points all cramped in the middle.  One of the biggest strength of the SLT is autofocus in video mode, and if the autofocus points are all cramped in the middle it just severely limites the use of that function.

I personally really wish for a cheap full-frame camera, without the silent control wheel, AF range limiter, top-side LCD, and just a single slot SD and no need for weather-seal, and no need for the dual-phase detect on-sensor gimmick.  I actually suspect that the on-sensor phase detect pixels is making the image quality worse than it could've been, just look at the nex F3/5N vs. the 5R/6 low-light scores.

Do any of you want the same cheaper FF a-mount option?

Agreed, then again that's the case for the D600, 6D, and A99, though worst with the A99/6D.

I actually really like the concept of the silent control wheel, though I did like having AF options there on my A850.

I'd rather keep the weather sealing and AF range limiter options... Those are both quite useful features, even for a semi-pro.

I won't comment as to the on-sensor phase detection process as I know nothing of the mechanics/physics/ any of it.

If there was one with a good enough AF point spread and tracking system, I'd be more likely to stay with sony. As it is, I'm likely to switch to a nikon setup by year's end.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

this is precisely why I was thinking of jumping ship to nikon/canon.

Canon with the old 5D, yeah high ISO is crap but so is the A99, the 5D only costs 500 bucks used, A99 is 3k+, this is the WTF moment we've all been waiting for.

Nikon D600, 2K or 2.2K with a nice lens... if I wasn't so invested in sony stuff, I would jump ship... I'm sitting on about 8 different FF lens for the amount... contemplating about dumping all of them for cheap... just bought an A37 with 18-135 for 520 too... uggg so mad now.

I too am finding myself tempted to jump ship. I am not as heavily invested as a lot of you. A nex and an a37 (sold the nex actually already) and no expensive lenses yet. Just the 35 and 85 cheap primes and a beercan. So that in itself is making question it before I DO get more invested. And I can't help but notice that all of sonys recent upper level cameras have had quite a few lumps, sour grapes whatever you want to call it. Granted I've only played with an a65 in store and haven't touched the 77 or 99, there seems to be consistency with the issues spoken about such as the poor high iso. Which is important to me because I photograph my kids sports indoors a lot. I love the evf but I want  the oled version but I dont want to sacrifice the high iso to get it in the 65 or 77. The 99 in my very humble opinion is just too expensive--in relation to the competition. Also is out of my budget currently even if I felt it was priced competitively.

So my choice is down to sticking it out hoping sony doesn't abandon the a mount (though I wouldn't be out a small fortune like a lot of folks). Or taking a bath on what I have bought so far and just snap up a d600 and use the kit lens or some cheap legacy lens for a while to save up. My other tempting route is a pentax as I love focus peaking and that way would keep me from having to buy a nex to play with that feature again :). But of course no full frame option there.

Im just starting to think the compedition is moving past sony in this market while the engineers are hunkered over their workbench in the E mount labs.  The a37 and 57 are wonderful very class leading cameras but I just don't see a competitive "next step" in the system.

Any thoughts? Anyone agree?

I apologize for typos. My iPad plus the text entry box argue sometimes and delete and or combine words. I think it's invented a few new ones too

Count me in ! 

Sony can cut off all whistles and bells to make it cheaper, just have to leave AF micro adjustment in next camera. Sony SLT-s without adjustable AF are bricks by design.

I would buy a budget FF from Sony pronto! Bring it on!

Cheap to me is a $999.00 full frame DSLR or lower. I think there are plenty of ways to cut costs to do this realistically yet no maker has yet. If they did, that would set the DSLR world on fire (long as the basic enthusiast needs were met in a camera design).

Carl

--
Writer/Editor:
http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com
http://www.alphamountworld.com

I agree totally with the sentiments of the OP. Sony need a less expensive FF to compete with the likes of the Nikon D600 & otherused FF DSLRs or they are going to seriously lose momentum in sales. Currently I am bemused by complaints in the USA that the A99 is too expensive , try looking at the price in the UK & other parts of Europe !

I can admit that the A99 has some nice features but I personally wouldn`t use most of them including Video although I readily admit that they are essential for some users. I am lucky in some respects because I have an A900 which I am still quite hapy with but if I was considering getting into FF for the first time right now I would choose Nikon or possibly a used Canon FF. THE Nikon D600 represents much better value for money & the D800 has superior IQ.

I would be happy with a stripped out A99 without all the bells & whistles provided it had live view , in-body IS , micro adjustment & improved low light capability. Video , HDR etc could go !

A smaller ,lighter body with an EVF would be OK. In fact a FF NEX style body which could take Minolta/Sony screw drive lenses & other legacy lenses via an adapter would be my ideal.

Nope. Never been interested in 35mm FF SLRs, and likely never will---give me a free $2.8k, and I'll happily spend it on two A77s. Raise it to $3.5k and I'll add a RX100 into the mix. Take it all the way to $8k and I might get a 35mm FF camera, only it won't be a Sony, and it won't be an SLR. Likely won't even shoot color, either.

Though I find it strangely funny how most of you claim to desire a camera "without all the bells & whistles", then proceed to list all the bells & whistles you can't live without. Ones that, I must add, were seldom seen in cameras of only 5 years ago, nevermind the actual bare-bones cameras of the Spotmatic era.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/draek
http://500px.com/draek

that's always funny isn't it.  we all want our own special model. kind of like a car with options.  and then we make up a price-point that's within our budget!

[n/t]

+1

All these menu options and settings...
I have been dreaming of digital Minolta 600si for a while

On behalf of Sony, Sony Japan, Sony USA, Sony EU, Sony UAE, and Sony Lich eine stein. I speak for none of them.

So your post makes a lot of sense.

I dont get the point, it seems you want a FF point and shoot?  Can we oblige and put a wee flash in the top corner?  How about powering from the bottom with a wind up thing like happened on real cameras to load the film, no need for a battery.

And while we are at it, we could put a small compartment to take a vegetarian snack inside the camera.

As far as memory cards go we think retro.  Those big square memory cards like in the past.

No need to process your own shots, send them to us, and in about 2 weeks we will use a process crossed that uses old technology to make you 5x7 shots out of your CF card, limited to 12 per card, or for 3 times the price 24 shots!!!

The above is all in jest, except for the part where it says I don't work for Sony.  Quite the opposite, I have about a 10k investment in camera gear and I should hold shares.

Did you know Panny makes microwave ovens.  Now that's a market.

The good old days.  Point, shoot and wait.

I have 3 films on my dresser I'm afraid to develop.  My last day at work.  See me driving a Fire Truck.  Very entertaining.  Bah.

--
John D. Conley nemo me impune lacessit
I love satire and prose.  Too bad I cannot write anything worthwhile.

Not one word of that made any sense and I don't think it can be attributed to any kind of language barrier between the US and Canada.
What brought up a ff point and shoot? Because someone doesn't want a single (overpriced) upgrade option then their wants are automatically cause for ridicule from you?
You do this very often on here from what I've noticed and it gets difficult to not say something. You are the most condescending poster I've seen here (and trust me, that's saying a lot) and your posts are often so meaningless and filled with rambling gibberish to the point of not even being representative of the English language.
Also the a99 IS a point and shoot. Turn the dial to P turn on auto ISO, aim, fire.
Bottom line is that the a99 is an over priced camera--in relation to its competition. So in my opinion users have a legitimate gripe about not having a clear upgrade path outside of waiting on used prices of a99 to come down considerably.
Finally: I get that you are I guess well liked around these forums and that some people find posts like you wrote here funny. I don't, I think you're bitter and arrogant and look to me like someone that tries desperately hard to be witty and clever, however as your above post shows, just sounds juvenile.

I've been wanting to upgrade to the ff sensors since the start of the new year and after testing both the a99 and the 5diii, I'll be moving over to canon and buying their ff model.

I'll still keep my a55 and the few lenses I have but this jump is made easier by me not having a huge lens collection in sony and the fact that what I need in terms of indoor sport shooting the a99 just couldn't deliver in noise control at higher than iso6400 and lack of buffer size and the time it took to clear that buffer before taking the next series of rapid fire shots.

I really wanted to like the a99 but it just didn't work out.  I love the evf and all the benefits of it, including the focus peaking.  Love the articulated screen and ease of use of the live view.

My hope is that the next generation of sony ff will improve even more unless canon is able to incorporate these extra features in their line.  Would really like an articulating screen on the canon!

But for me, I'm actually excited to have both systems.  I feel like I'm living in the best of both worlds.  Sure I won't be buying any more sony lenses in the near future but I have a decent coverage for what I would use the sony for.

In the end, I think it's about compromises and figuring out what tool to use for what situation.  Now that I'll eventually have both systems, I'll have one extra option in my tool belt!

Ah the humourless.

The OP opened a floodgate.  I was not the only poster to go over the falls.

The comment about the a99 being overpriced?  Well so are many cameras when viewed from the entry level job positions.  I have a son with a PHd, and he works at almost minimum wage.  Can't afford a nice camera.

I can.

But the a99 is about the same price as the a77 was when it was introduced.

If the top of the line camera sold for 1/2 the price, would it be junk?  That has been the bane of many products.  A snap on tool set of wrenches with a dozen nicely polished open/closed end wrenches in a roll, sells for about 500 to 600 dollars.  It costs about 8 dollars to make and ship to North America.  I worked setting up an inventory system for a company that bought in Taiwan and shipped to Canada from the same factory the same wrenches.  Priced at $60 they sold very few.  They put them on sale for $250 and couldn't keep them in stock.  What does this say.

I would far rather see the OP post some photos.  Dogs are great.  I have started lots of those posts in the past.  At times this forum gets handwringing down to an art, for no real reason.

And I apologize if I sound bitter.  I am decrepit and would like to not sound bitter.  And I do come from the British humour 'school'. I know that is not commonly played in some countries.

Give me something to cheer about.

All the over priced, doesn't work, it's broke, fix my firmware, make more lenses, bring back OVF, foot stompin' crying thing makes one just want to lose their lunch.

I guess I should have taken the American Humo(u)r class at the Univ of Cinci instead of taking Fire Investigation Courses, I could have used that in my retirement.

Once I get my website operational, perhaps you could read my bio and understand why I might come across they way I do.  Spending the rest of one's life on pain patches and heavy doses of narcs is not a good way to fill the time.

Right now I'm trying to get up the 'nerve/gumption' to take the dog out in the -10C 80 kmh winds and stagger about.

And I find myself funny, in my own way.  To me that counts.  I take it all back.

I'll post only good stuff for the rest of the day, using silence as the golden medium.

Thanks for your insights, and have fun before you retire, the golden years are a joke.

--
John D. Conley nemo me impune lacessit
I live the attic of the USA. shhh BOO

This thread alone contains several knocks against the Sony A99's low-light, high ISO performance, like "the low-light performance is not nearly in the same league as the Canon/Nikon full-frame competitors" and "Canon with the old 5D, yeah high ISO is crap but so is the A99", and there are others in the same vein, in other threads in this forum.

•

First, what is this fetish with high ISOs?

Sometimes it seems to me that a lot of the folks in this forum are like a guy who has won a date with one of the most beautiful women in the world, and he's not happy because her eyes aren't quite as blue as one of the other most beautiful women in the world. Some people just don't know how to be happy.

You need light to take photos, and the more the better. This is why professional, real photographers become lighting experts at least as much as they are scene composition experts. They know how to find the light, work with the light, modify the light, add to the light with more light. Light well used at ISO 400 is just about always going to produce a better photo than light used passively at ISO 3600. Complaining about the A99's high ISO performance compared to, say, the D600's or the 6D's is like complaining about how one model of car gets better mileage when going 110 mph than another model. Okay, you call tell me that you're routinely chased for hundreds of miles across Nevada and Arizona and this sort of thing is really important to you. Right.

•

And second, to say that the high ISO performance of the A99 is "crap" or "isn't nearly in the same league" as the competing Nikon and Canon cameras is just, well, silly. What is this, a contest to see who looks like he has the highest standards?

Yes, there's a small penalty for the SLT mirror and the A99's numbers aren't quite as high as the D600's. But the high ISO performance of the A99 is still amazing. I do not think I'm saying this just because I'm an old guy who remembers being excited when he learned about 400 ASA film. Once upon a time, 400 was fast, but now I frequently dare to shoot at 1600 and higher, and I did a recent outdoor sunlight wedding where I got to ISO 3200 quite a bit. Yes, some of the photos were noisy especially when viewed on the computer, but the prints come out great. Blows me away. And the A99 does an even better job than the A77.

If you lose sleep over DxO's numbers (especially without actually understanding them and their limits), well, I'll pray for you. Really, get out more. Take a couple photos.

•

I am intimately familiar with the pain of not being able to afford something! But I think a lot of this wingeing about the A99 is basically "sour grapes."

I have already done this switching thing once (from Pentax to Sony) and while I'm reasonably happy with my Sony kit and certainly not switching back to Pentax, I do often wonder if I didn't just change one set of annoyances for another. I too think about switching to Canon or Nikon, on a fairly regular basis. But I don't because every time I actually investigate I discover that the grass isn't in fact greener on the other side of the fence. And it's much crowded over there.

Will

Thanks Will, good comments.

I too am blown away by the high ISO in the a99.

My a77 is languishing.  I tried giving it and some kit to my daughter in law and she gave it back 2 weeks later, said it was "Way too complicated."

Reminds me of a short story,  My wife and I owned a computer business and after a consultation, put a small cash register in a fitness club.  The staff were mad because all the court fees and child care monies had to be posted on the doors, with copies of the slips.

A revolt happened because you couldn't steal any more.  The signed a petition that the cash register was way TOO complicated.  It had other than the number buttons, SIX choices, for money.  Court Fees, Child Care, Juice, Pro Shop etc.

A meeting was demanded to get rid of it.

They were all university Grads.  Every one.

I took a photo of a Cash Register at a very large department store.  All the staff were probably high school drop outs.  300 buttons.  300.  And you learned it or out the door.  I blew up the shot, the owner flew in, listened to them, to me, and told them there's the door.  Use it, or LEAVE.

When viewed one way or another, adding a flash, adding this and that to the camera to 'Make' them buy it, would result in a camera 20" cubed.  LOL,  ok it was a minor exaggeration.

I appreciate the thought you put into your post.  Thanks.

--
John D. Conley nemo me impune lacessit

Well in the UK I paid £999 for my A77 when it first came out and that for me and for many is a lot of money to spend on a hobby.

"Cheap" is therefore quite a bit less than that and I can't see it happening soon.  It would be a FF D-slr for A57 prices.

However just why are people begging for cheap FF D-slrs?

FF is really a legacy format from film days.  There really is no reason why it has to be seen as "the" format.  Even the 3:2 ratio isn't necessarily the right one with 4:3 and these days 16:9 common and equally valid alternatives.

Add to the fact if you want to do wildlife or sports photography you will need long lenses that cost the price of a decent specced small family car just what is the fascination with FF?

I contend that as sensor technology improves the reason for going full frame gets less and less.  Just look at the results from 1 inch senors at the moment.

Nikon and Canon have a vested interest in herding you towards full frame due to a huge catalogue of FF lenses.  However the logic of smaller sensors seems pretty compelling to me and for people who never knew what 35mm film photography was all about I am sure the question will be "Why do I have buy huge full frame cameras with large bulky lenses?"

While its blindingly obvious FF sensors are less noisy at high ISO and no doubt someone will say depth of field control, I don't buy either as such compelling reasons.  There is plenty of d.o.f control on aps-c and noise control is already very good on aps-c sensors and will only get better.

To me FF is a market-led thing rather than technology led thing.

Olympus had the right idea when they abandoned full frame and invented 4/3. Start form the ground up.  Unfortunately their ideas were ahead of what sensor technology could deliver at the time but I am increasingly of the opinion that what they envisaged and what is possible are two things converging rapidly.

Given the inherent cost of full frame in not only sensor production but lens cost (and size and weight) if photography followed trends in other technology fields towards miniaturization, FF cameras and lenses ought to be considered as much of a dinosaur as old 5x4 plate cameras eventually.