Congrats Eric for your successful trip. You added some more fine images in this article since your last post at Sony forum. I enjoy each and every one of them. Well done!
the problem is that the hands don't look like 13 years child.
Many wining photos were taken with Nikon cameras. Only one winer with NEX5.
Thanks for all the voting! I went to the same spot many times since, and never found eagle flying close to me again, this capture is more memorable to me now.
Is P&S camera allowed? After all, it's same as typical EVIL but with fixed lens.
Timmbits: Very nice update! Glad to see there isn't just RX100 that has a larger than usual sensor in this category... yet, still, I wish there was some 1" competition to Sony.
Sigma is great until you run out power on your 3rd battery before mid day.
Bobby72: I am always looking for the best. I really don't care what the brand is. I am a perfectionist and always looking tot get the best quality in everything I buy. This year I went from Nikon to Sony only because I did a good evaluation. I wanted to see if there is a better option. And yess there was. I became a sharper image, more dynamic image and much more emotion in the photos as well. It was very clear Sony does a better job in this. I use my Samsung PS64D8000 withe the Audioquest Diamond hdmi. With the best screan in real colours in 2011 I can see all the parts in the pictures. Sony is a lot more colourful and more dynamic. Wenn I go back to my Nikon photos they look thin and less colourful. Wenn I go back to my Sony A99 I can feel the exitment. I smile and say yess this is what I want and need. There is a lot more what makes Sony superior to Canon and Nikon. I have more control with the EVF before I make the photo. I would never go back to standard DSLR.
marike6, beside the main sensor, there is image processor at work to determine the colour. Sony (and Minolta before) always have a rich, film-like colour. In simple words, Sony's image is made of pure colour pixels, Nikon's file is more like B&W image with colour overlay.
jonikon: With the recent price drop announcements* for the Nikon D800 body to $2799.95, and the Nikon D600 24-85 VR kit now reduced by $700, to only $1999.95, it is obvious to any reasonable person that the Sony a99 is WAY overpriced at $2800 for the body only. A thousand dollars to high!
How DPR ignored these huge price discrepancies in their value rating for the a99 is anyone's guess, but unless Sony substantially reduces the exorbitant price on the a99, they will not be able to sell very many of them, DPR gold award notwithstanding.
For people already have good A-mount FF lenses, $700 is a drop in a bucket if you have to switch system. Who will do that? Even if I force myself accept dreadful Nikon colour (worse than Sony and Canon) I would have to wait for oil/dust problem settle down first. M friend's D7000 still can't make half of his lenses proper AF, after 2 years now.
jdc562: I have been using the Sony A99 intensively for about 6 weeks now, doing critical tests during the first 4 weeks, when I could return it in exchange for a Canon 5DmkIII or Nikon D800--which I planned to do if the A99 didn't meet my expectations. I do a lot of wildlife photography, mostly flying birds. I found that I prefer the electronic viewfinder (EVF) over optical ones. Sony's EVF is as sharp as optical versions (it's not some grainy screen), plus it gives me a live preview of the image, including exposure, contrast, etc., spelling the end of mistaken settings for exposure compensation. The "peaking" function in the EVF highlights the parts of the live view image that are in best focus--great for manual focus, including focus stacking. I get many more than 400 images per battery charge--easily covering a day's worth of shooting. The Sony Zeiss and Sony G lenses are excellent (see the independent tests). The A99 has done very well. So, I'm not switching to the Canon or Nikon.
My own experience matches what you described. I also have Canon 7D for wildlife shooting, in my experience, the A99 and Sony 70-400G combo yield more keeper rate than Canon 7D, and that's quite a accomplishment for a full frame body which is not really designed as "sports machine".
Dianoda: Does the D600 RAW output have less sharpening applied to it compared to the rest? D800/A99/5D3 @ ISO100 are all noticeably sharper at the pixel level compared to the D600 at the same ISO...
Most likely that's due to different focus areas.
The review is pretty much as I expected. 84% is a fair final mark, Gold or Silver I could care less since I already bought it. The only thing DPR missed on A99's key feature/benefit is the AF-range which to my opinion is truly "must-have" feature for any long tele lens, regardless whether or not the lens has it's own focus limiter switch.
chrisfromalaska: Really Canon? Announcing a firmware update 5 months before its out. Hopefully that doesn't take resources away from your next camera with the 4-year-old 18mp sensor or 5d4 development with another 22mp sensor.
Nice try to keep me away from the A99, not going to happen.
In real life A99 is on pair with D600 in terms of noise. There are numeric RAW/jpeg samples posted. You should check the fact first.
Ulfric M Douglas: Surely Conclusion - consshould include ;"SLT-A57 is a larger, more bulbous camera than its predecessor, the SLT-A55"That's the first thing that struck me seeing one of these in the shop, and what a waste of opportunity not to keep the smaller size and pack in the better features.
there is A37 available, which use the same sensor, same EVF, but smaller size (much just like A55), all for $200 cheaper with kit lens.
Digital Suicide: SLT-A57 - 78% - GoldRX100 - 78% - Silver
Not whining, just point out what I think the reason behind, in response to Digital Suicide (what a name BTW).
A57 is priced well within the mainstream DSLR, RX100 is priced above every other pocket compact. Think Consumer Report, think DPR.
BMWX5: Where are the real sample photos for Sony A99?
I suspect A99 will give similar result.