Jintana: If I want to buy an FX or Full frame DSLR. I will make sure it is made in Japan. I've worked in Japan for few years and fully understand their quality culture. That's why you won't see this oil spots on Canon albeit the 6D is so so and 5DM3 is overpriced. Just check where your D750 or D600 is made? I guess for Nikon, only their bosses are Japanese but those folks making and checking their cameras had been sub-contracted to the 3rd world somewhere. Good luck!
Most Nikon cameras are made in Thailand.http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/99999999/NEWS060101/399999816It all came to surface when the floods hit in 2011
Blorf: I'm planning to upgrade soon and I've been considering the A77 which has a similar pixel count on a smaller sensor. If it has the same number of pixels on a smaller sensor shouldn't the image come out sharper? I've never seen pixel density addressed in a review and I'd like to know how it affects image quality.
There is a good article on that in this month's Digital Photo Pro. "A large pixel density isn't a bad thing. It is almost always a good thing, actually, because there is a direct correlation between sensor resolution and outputting to print resolution. Also, the more pixels, the better the detail in the image regardless of the sensor area. Which translates to better acutance for sharper edges and also to more color information thanks to the complex relationship between red, green and blue pixels." There are many factors that go into the final IQ and todays sensor are more efficient in gathering light than those from years ago.
(unknown member): I've been excited for this camera since the first rumors began. I've been on Nikon my whole life and have a pile of Carl Zeiss glass - but am on the verge of jumping ship to run Zeiss on the a99. Video I can care less about (really wish the pro models would come without video - but that's just me). I fell in love with the IQ of the a900 - but never switched over as my D700 was new.
Nikon annoyed me with the choices of D800 jammed with MP or the D4 jammed with high cost. I am also underwhelmed by the D600 so far.
But what I really want to see is landscape and portrait shots with the a99 - that where the rubber hits the pavement. You can blow all the smoke and BS you want about features up someone's butt - but in the end, I want the highest quality image bang for the buck. If I can't see the difference between a 35mm Zeiss shot on my D700 VS the a99 - I'll stay put. RAW vs RAW is what will make me decide - not fanboys trying to convince their brand is better without real facts.
I wished that the pro models would come without video as well. I am really not using it. Sony put all the money in a pro model without video. Are you hearing me?
Peiasdf: So $2800 is right. Still too expensive. $2000~$2400 is much better
I think it is very competitively priced compared to the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D Mark III.
Great review that covers all the additions. Very good real world examples. I will be upgrading to Lr4.
Great addition. Well done. Works with my Sony S Tablet..
Nikki's response was well done. You have to look at her intend to convey that there is work, resources, hardware and effort behind being a photographer. She has expenses just like everybody else and is doing a job like everybody else. Kudos to her for staying on the subject and letting bridezilla know the facts.