Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Oct 10, 2012 at 23:24 GMT
Buy on GearShop$2,298.007 deals

Just Posted: Full-size, real world samples from the Sony A99. We've been shooting with Sony's latest full-frame flagship camera down in San Francisco and Monterey, California as part of a Sony press trip - our first opportunity to get hold of a production-standard camera. We've put together a samples gallery taken in a variety of lighting conditions and at a range of apertures and featuring multiple subjects.

Sony Alpha SLT-A99 preview samples - published 10th October 2012

There are 28 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

242
I own it
117
I want it
15
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony SLT-A99

Comments

Total comments: 159
12
Metafinsolutions
By Metafinsolutions (Oct 31, 2012)

High Temperature Grease is a type of solid lubricant used in bearings and moving parts of machinery usually operates under extreme pressure and temperature. Ordinary greases tend to break down and collapse under extreme temperature and pressure zones. Hence the selection of High Temperature Grease is essential for bearings in steel mills and gas fired ovens etc.

for more info visit us @http://www.metafinsolutions.in/high-temperature-grease.html

1 upvote
headlesspiderman
By headlesspiderman (Oct 14, 2012)

Wow with the price coming in close to a Nikon D800 who would buy this camera? Especially if you were basing it on the sample quality of the images. I had real hopes that somebody was going to put out a reasonable full-frame camera for 1,500-2,000 guess better luck next year.

1 upvote
klw10
By klw10 (Feb 28, 2013)

These are not the greatest of imgaes. Some of them are not even in focus. Do you base your opinions of this camera on these.

0 upvotes
JPBoden
By JPBoden (Oct 12, 2012)

that´s no image quality.Looks so early 2006.
This is the real deal nowadays:

http://www.imagebam.com/image/ad74fc214865919

0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 13, 2012)

real deal = green skin?

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 13, 2012)

In the photo linked, what do the woman and child in the FG have for faces? It surely cannot be human skin. Too lizard-like.

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 16, 2012)

Excellent sharpness and resolution, but the colors are so butt-ugly...

If Foveon got this improved they might become the new APS-C sensor king. ;-)

1 upvote
Fraxinus excelsior
By Fraxinus excelsior (Oct 12, 2012)

The sample images are a joke. look at the f stop chosen for landscape. any proper photographer would choose f11. the images are shaky and maybe also misfocussed. shame on dpreview for posting lousy images like this. they are of no use because of the photographers non existent skills.

2 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Oct 13, 2012)

f11 on a 24mp sensor would be diffraction limited.

0 upvotes
Fraxinus excelsior
By Fraxinus excelsior (Oct 15, 2012)

Well I frequently use f/13 on my Sony a900 FF 24,6 MP camera and the photos comes out sharper than at f/5,6 ;-)

At least f/8 should be used for landscape.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 12, 2012)

there are a few RAW files available from a Chinese web site.
This is ISO 3200 processed in LR 4.2 with default settings:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4096871/134.jpg

and the same photo, but with a bit of added contrast and luminance noise removd by -18 and then exported to 12 megapixels.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4096871/134-2.jpg

1 upvote
stan_pustylnik
By stan_pustylnik (Oct 12, 2012)

Current low iso samples posted by dpreview tester - prove opposite to what Tom just told. in 2 low iso landscape samples I see low contrast, mushy uneven detail across the frame taken with 2 compatible lenses - Sony 70-200 f/2.8 and CZ 70-400mm.

DpReview, as world wide review resource, is credible source of camera related info. If they posted these samples - these are what they got. Otherwise they should correct mistake.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Oct 12, 2012)

Ofcourse these are what they got, no one is denying that. But that doesn't mean the camera isn't capable of more.

It's pretty clear there are inconsistencies, especially on the right hand of the frame. Concluding this must be an issue with the A99 in general, is a bit simplistic. I can think of a couple of reasons why they turned out the way they did, but at this point it's (including some of my own thoughts earlier in this thread) are all assumptions.

A proper review should tell us what the camera is capable of and possibly reveal what went wrong here.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (Oct 12, 2012)

Comment on some of the samples:

Pure logic tells me that the A99 is capable of much better than some of the poor samples. My RX100 pocket cam takes photos far better than that. My old Olympus C4000 did much better than that 9 years ago. The only way the A99 could take that poor of a photo is through dirty glass, there is grease smeared on the lens, mirror or sensor , the lens is bad or there was haze and smog in the air coupled with the fact that the sun was low in the sky (making the haze look even worse). Under those conditions I wouldn't have even bothered taking the photo.

I've never used an A99 nor plan to buy one (too expensive) but there is no way a properly performing camera could be the cause of such poor results.

0 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Oct 12, 2012)

There is definitely some user errors, and dpreview needs to be very careful while releasing such poor samples. Could it be an AF issue? Is the AA filter different based on the fact the camera is driven for videos rather than still photography? What I can say is that I have NOT been impressed by any samples from that camera.

2 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Oct 12, 2012)

Please DPR, get rid of the comment function at the news.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (Oct 12, 2012)

Just don't read the comment.

1 upvote
moimoi
By moimoi (Oct 12, 2012)

To Lea5, what for?

I think some comments can be fairly instructive. I left some feedback because I had some concerned with some samples, but dpreview has not commented on it yet (or at least they have not provided me a reasonable answer about some of the samples that are more questionable).

3 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Oct 12, 2012)

These are the kind of quality samples DP should be taking. RAW + JPEG samples at http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=12497 in Chinese. If you still think these samples are bad due to the camera, you are just a hater and lost your credibility as a honest forum member.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Oct 13, 2012)

BMWx5, a poor choice of a car. Now, now, be honest about it!

1 upvote
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (Oct 12, 2012)

DPReview... This is NOT a lens problem. Three different lenses all showing blurry on the right side. Someone fingered up the SLT mirror. Check your camera. It has be sabotaged. Look at the landscapes taken with a99.

70-400G The entire right side of image is blurred. Center very sharp. Left sharp enough.

16-35 ZA Entire right side of image blurred crazy. Sharp center and left.

ZA 24-70 Wild field curvature on right side. Front grass on right is sharp. Center sharp. Trees at top rear peak sharp. But trees at top right blurred. They should be sharp, being centered between rear trees and forground grass. Image left side is sharp within focus plane.

You're not looking at your samples close enough. Something is wrong here. These misrepresent the camera. Check the SLT mirror and chip for finger smudges. Someone dabbed the mirror or chip with grease. Some previous tester passed along a sabotaged camera to you.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Oct 13, 2012)

sabotaged? really? lol

2 upvotes
Sylvain Larive
By Sylvain Larive (Oct 15, 2012)

The JCANSSS, the Joint Canon and Nikon Secret Saboteur Society is behind it!!

May be right about the mirror but Sabotage just made me smile...

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Oct 11, 2012)

To dpreview, please explain the mushiness in the landscape samples. One is shot with the 16-35 and another with the 70-400, and none of those shots are sharp. Very weird.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Oct 11, 2012)

You mean DSC00099? That is odd, almost like the diorama mode was accidentally engaged. the middle is reasonably sharp, but the borders are terrible, no way to explain that at F5.0 unless the lens is broken...

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Oct 11, 2012)

On the press trip, a rotating stock of lenses was provided. We can't speak for sample quality, but obviously when we get a review unit, we'll test with lenses of a known quality.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
moimoi
By moimoi (Oct 12, 2012)

The samples I am concerned with are: DSC00099 and DSC00105. Both lenses you are using cost about $2k each, and the a99 body is $2.8k. So basically for about $5k, the a99-$2k lens combo generates (sometime) some mushy photographs. I don't get this at all. Something is really wrong about those two samples. Is there a major flaw when the focus point is set the infinity?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Oct 13, 2012)

Nice hat, but he's got a grease bag under the brim.

0 upvotes
fhu
By fhu (Oct 11, 2012)

I love the SLT technology! Some creases need to ironed out, but so far so good.

1 upvote
moimoi
By moimoi (Oct 11, 2012)

Well check the landscapes photos...something is really fuc^%$d up there.

0 upvotes
afterswish1
By afterswish1 (Oct 11, 2012)

These samples look excellent to me, I think Sony are on to a winner here even if they are not the established pro's choice.

2 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Oct 11, 2012)

Somehow small RX100 has better JPEG engine in terms of details than this FF prof cam
Funny how industry works, Samsung last mobiles with tiny 1/3.2 sensors have better low ISO IQ than it's compacts, companys do a wonderful job when try to compensate hardware limitations in mass products but when hardware is fine and the product is rare they just put en avarage JPEG, question of priority :)

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Oct 11, 2012)

While it's near imppossible to compare these 2 formats based on available samples due to inherent DOF differences to begin with, I do agree that the RX100 seems to have changed the usual Sony sharpening approach. From the rather large sharpening radius resulting in halo's and other artifacts, which in turns gives the impression of movement or softness to small surface textures, to a much smaller radius more in line with default Lightroom settings. But it indeed looks like the A99 refers back to the old approach still.... oddly enough.

1 upvote
Simon97
By Simon97 (Oct 11, 2012)

The JPEGs are soft to avoid moire. You can have have no AA filter and sharp JPEG processing if you can tolerate moire in some patterns. Spatially separated color sensing is the limitation of the Bayer color array.

You might think Foveon is the answer. While it can work good at low ISOs, color accuracy is horrid at high ISOs.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (Oct 11, 2012)

correct High ISO but so so so bad low ISO ... !?

0 upvotes
Riezer
By Riezer (Oct 11, 2012)

Horrible IQ at higher ISO's, mediocre at low ISO's. What's wrong with Sony lately? They should abandon SLT technology...

1 upvote
tbcass
By tbcass (Oct 12, 2012)

Lets be logical here. A cheap P&S can take better photos than some of those bad samples. Do you really think they are representative of the camera or, as is more likely, there is something else wrong? Dirty lens? Grease of the sensor? Photo taken through a dirty window? Hazy skies and poor lighting? It's pure common sense. I have 2 SLTs, A55 and 65, and both produce photos 10 times better so being an SLT is not the problem.

1 upvote
Riezer
By Riezer (Oct 12, 2012)

I've been looking at sample images of the a99 and the review of the a77. Maybe I shouldn't have said horrible IQ, but compared to ALL other manufacurers Sony is doing bad in IQ. The noise is worse in every ISO level, exponentionally worse in higher ISO's.

ISO 1600 is virtually unusable for A-77 and not for: Pentax K-5, Oly E-M5, Nikon D7000, Canon 7D, Fuji X-PRO1, etc.

Since then I looked into NEX series and NEX7 is also bad in IQ, worse than anyone else except A-77. SO it itsn't just SLT, it's all SONY camera's and SLT ones are worst.

I don't understand why. The other manufacturers use Sony sensors in their models. Sony is doing worse with the same sensors. For example check the noise in the NEX 5N vs K-5, X-PRO1 and D-7000. You just can't print larger than A4 size with the NEX 5N at higher than ISO 800. Fuji is the clear winner here, btw.

I usually buy Sony products, but there's no way I'll buy their camera's anytime soon. Sony fans please open up your eyes.

2 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Oct 11, 2012)

Most of the bad comments are just haters of Sony or could not afford to buy it so they'll say anything to discredit this camera. A99 is very capable profressional camera. Just look at other samples and reviews from professionals, A99 is a beast!

9 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Oct 11, 2012)

i'm actually a hater of blurry mushy landscape photos myself .. not withstanding the camera .. some of those shots are horrid. three different lenses .. all looking like it was shot through smeared vaseline.

I'd be asking dpreview about the lenses and settings,etc moreso than worrying about correct comments.

5 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Oct 11, 2012)

Haters will be haters, I only have one issue with this camera and it's "BIG" EVF,EVF,EVF,EVF why EVF? and that is why i'm not getting it.
The pictures were what I would expect to see and the haters can hate if they like but I think Sony is getting better all the time, they need better direction, why would you put an EVF on this kind of camera?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Joes Raw Talk
By Joes Raw Talk (Oct 11, 2012)

I would tend to agree with you in as far as the cost is greater than some very capable full frame models that have an ovf and have as good or better output.

0 upvotes
Nectar D Or
By Nectar D Or (Oct 12, 2012)

You don't need to be a Sony hater to be disappointed by these samples.

You do need to be a fanboy to be impressed.

0 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Oct 12, 2012)

Yep, some things (like technological progress) are just beyond some folks.

If you do not know the revolutionary implications of EVF, try reading more and gaining some knowledge. Else go stick your eye into one, whether the Sonys or the m4/3.

EVFs are the future and enable the previewing of the exact picture before pressing the shutter button. Its as important as LiveView, but in the viewfinder. Digital imaging without EVF and Liveview merely shortens the time to seeing your work AFTER pressing the shutter button. If you do not understand the implications for professionals...

Don't know what focus peaking is? Learn how to use Google.

Try understanding EVF's low-light boosting ability too - its like having a pair of night vision goggles.

Or just try growing up. The Canons and Nikons not using EVFs get away with it because there are ignorant users like you to milk. EVFs will become even more incredible over time but they are already there.

& I'm a long-time Canon user btw.

1 upvote
MarkSA
By MarkSA (Nov 11, 2012)

Yeah, EVF is just wonderful... image smear, grainy, incorrect colour rendition, just to name a few.

It is cr*p technology, designed for point and shoot or video cameras and has NO place in a pro-level DSLR.

I suggest you use your eyes and look through an A900 viewfinder before writing more of this "new technology is always better" nonsense. I am specifically not buying an A99 because of its bloody awful viewfinder!

0 upvotes
jsis
By jsis (Oct 11, 2012)

According to most people here, we know that Nikon and Canon are going to produce better photos.... so don't bother.

hah.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Oct 11, 2012)

Good but not good enough.

Not when you consider the fact that they are making rx100, rx1, fs100, fs700, etc etc ....

I would still pick a d800E over this Sony. Even six years ago they had a higher edge compared to now.

You would expect a 200% tech over their own pocket rx100....but I don't see that here. Under 200% only. Not good enough.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Oct 11, 2012)

I think the problem with dpreview samples is they're neither scientific nor artistic. Too spontaneous and random with touch of reviewer's ego.

They should take pictures more logically, at the same spot / the same way as much as possible with different cameras. Then we can compare them.

Then just shoot pictures as beautiful as possible utilizing the camera's maximum ability. The we know the strength of the camera.

Is this still harsh comment?

7 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Oct 11, 2012)

I totally agree. It's pretty hard to judge much from random snapshots.

2 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Oct 11, 2012)

I've also downloaded and processed a few raws in LR 4.2 that were way, way sharper than these, so I'd chalk it up to a strangely detail-mushing jpeg engine. Though according to a recent Luminous Landscape review, the A99 files definitely need good sharpening, as they seem to be using a medium strength AA filter.

0 upvotes
meshal
By meshal (Oct 11, 2012)

pretty good high iso performance to be honest. specially the 6400 one.

3 upvotes
Nordstjernen
By Nordstjernen (Oct 11, 2012)

I am impressed with the conclutions some are able to draw from these samples. I have seen raw files that confirm the A99 as a strong perfomer, but these are not impressive. I think something is wrong here, but it is hard to tell exactly what without knowing the camera, camera settings other than exposure and ISO, file format/quality for the posted samples, or if the photographer just has screwed it up.

4 upvotes
Joes Raw Talk
By Joes Raw Talk (Oct 11, 2012)

The easiest thing in the world to be is a critic. I love how judgements proclaiming screw ups and poor photography are continuously being assigned to sample gallery images. Maybe if DPR users paid a fee to subscribe to DPR site they could hire Art Wolfe or Rick Sammon to shoot samples.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Oct 11, 2012)

Most of the bad comments are just haters of Sony. They could not even brought themselves to tell the truth.

8 upvotes
The_Wicker_Man
By The_Wicker_Man (Oct 11, 2012)

Nonsense - I am a Sony (though not exclusively) shooter and will welcome a new Sony FF to my line up. But you don't need to be tied into or against any system to realise that the IQ on some of those samples is pure cr@p. The one that seems to stand out is the golf course shot. DPR owe us an explanation as to what went wrong there.

3 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Oct 11, 2012)

Something with the lens on that golf course shot. Seems to be fair at the edges, gets very blurry as you move in to the center and is sharp at the center. The lens seems to have a complex field curvature issue at that focal length would be my guess.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 11, 2012)

The present breed of DSLRs are competing on image sensor and also AF sensor.
Will Dpreview do consumers a big big favour by including controlled focus tracking tests?
The test would need something that will move at a constant speed everytime. (A reason to convince your boss that there's a need for a Segway in the office)

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Oct 11, 2012)

Awful detail.

0 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (Oct 11, 2012)

Awful detail? Did you look at the portrait shot? This is proof that the camera can deliver good detail.

It is not the camera's fault if the lens is obviously decentered (e.g. picture 99).

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Oct 11, 2012)

At present the best image quality for me have the Fuji cameras -
well, the AF leaves something to be desired, but the picture quality is awesome - I will not buy the new Sony, Canon or Nikon. . . and I do not need FF

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Oct 11, 2012)

That is Ok you already did buy a Sony, Fuji is about 50% Sony ;)

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
stan_pustylnik
By stan_pustylnik (Oct 11, 2012)

1 from 2
1- tester, testing procedures were faulty - camera is great
2- tester, testing procedures were fine - camera is bad

Test photos from A99 are not impressive. Color is bleach, contrast is low, detail is smeary at Actual Size, landscape photos - simply shame from CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 , 70-200mm f/2.8, and CZ 70-400mm.

These tests show lower IQ than images I get with Sony A850 + 20 years old Minolta Maxxum lenses.

3 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (Oct 11, 2012)

Well, probably you are using the 20 year old Minolta AF 200 F2.8 G APO.

No wonder this prime gives you better results than the zooms used on the A99, even if they are CZ.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
stan_pustylnik
By stan_pustylnik (Oct 11, 2012)

Mick232, wide lens I use is Minolta Maxxum 20mm f/2.8 it doesn't even have modern coating that is good for use with digital sensors. My current longest lens is Tamron 70-300mm USD that is tack sharp compare to samples here.
Again, I'm not blaming A99, or lenses - but suspect faulty handling by testing photographer (could be dirt on lens surface on shot N ...99, on shot made with 70-400 - wind gust could be blamed) but fact is that these 2 shots are pure weak in IQ.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 11, 2012)

The CZ 24-70 2.8 may be the best normal zoom ever made. Look at the image of the carousel horse if you want to see detail. I keep reading negatives about the photos, without mention of the ones that look quite good like a couple of the portraits, the horse, the liquor bottles, etc.

The portrait made with with the CZ 135 1.8 Sonar looks beautifully detailed with excellent bokeh. There are a lot of mentions of the golf course image without pointing out the better images as if somehow going totally negative completely supports whatever agenda people may have.

Lastly, keep in mind DPRs approach to Sample Images has always been to show "real world" OOC images. It's likely that these have no capture sharpening at all.

Personally I never use OOC JPEGs to evaluate a camera. It's always best to wait for raws.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Oct 11, 2012)

I have to agree stan and that is why I will keep my A900 thanks, marike6 I will agree with you, people like to point out the bad and not the good but that is what you get from Haters

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Oct 11, 2012)

It is indeed disappointing. I was one who actually was never impressed with the a99, and I have not seen any outstanding photos taken with the a99 yet. Thus far, the D600 is much more impressive, price and features are much concerned with still photography, which is my main target. The a99 might become handy for video, but it is clearly beyond the scope of what I am aiming at when it comes to digital cameras. I think the a900 will be my last Sony camera. By the way, I get much better colors and better crispness with my a900 at base ISO.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Oct 13, 2012)

I have to agree with you moimoi but I think Sony will be releasing a camera in the future that will suit your and my needs and this one is a video orientated persons cup of tea.
For now the a900 is all I need for in studio work.
The a57 I play with now and then is more of a playful thing, I don't take the SLT cameras too serious.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MarkSA
By MarkSA (Nov 11, 2012)

100% agree with you, moimoi. Unless Sony RADICALLY improve their EVF technology or go back to an OVF like the A900, my A900 will be the last Sony DSLR that I buy.

Sony have definitely screwed up big time with the A99 - haven't attracted any new pro users with it and are loosing the faithful Minolta pros too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Oct 11, 2012)

This set of photo just confirms what I have thought from the earlier samples I have seen. Just not on par with the IQ of the most recent FF cameras from Canikon. It looks like the a900 will be my last Sony camera.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
mlam3d
By mlam3d (Oct 11, 2012)

I don't understand why people still tie sensor size to price. The value add to this camera, i.e. on-sensor AF, the video silent dial, AF range are all make it way over than 6D and D600. Which is same to Canon 7D>T4i>T3i>T2i (All 18MP sensor). And D3X should also be just $3000 back at the day in compare to A900...All I can say is, this camera just not for you.
For the quality of the sample or the photographer....what to say, I wouldn't complain when it's in a group test like this. The sample here already better than those in Engaget...If you want to see high quality samples, go to a real photographer site like Luminous Landscape or Steve huff...why complain in a technical site...I just don't get it....

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (Oct 11, 2012)

I find that the photos that Dpreview take for samples are sometimes not professional enough (different reviews have quality that varies). I could only guess that sometimes they are taken by staff on dpreview with less photographic experience to taking photos of professional quality and who do not know how to compensate for different lighting conditions and I see blown highlight photos outdoors, overexposed, and other issues at times which could be avoided. It would be best to show the camera's best ability with only knowledgeable staff taking photos, so we won't be disappointed and get a better idea of camera ability. Any comment, Dpreview on who you decide on staff to take photos, and their skill level, or is it sometimes random?

5 upvotes
Joes Raw Talk
By Joes Raw Talk (Oct 11, 2012)

It could be that the a99 will be a full-frame choice DSLR only for those well invested in the best of Sony lenses. I say this because Canon and Nikon are going to be superior in most ways in head to head comparisons, and the cost is less.

I think I would go for the RX1 before this because the IQ it produces is likely better, similar to what the Nex 7 does over the a77,65. Speaking of which, Of all the top Sony cameras, considering image quality and versatility, I still like the Nex 7 best and look forward to the follow up.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Oct 11, 2012)

I am not a SonySLT user, but this camera appeals to me far more then the D600 and especially the 6D.
Lets see what happens on price

2 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 11, 2012)

I am a Nikon D800 user and find A99 very tempting. I think EVF is superior to an OVF because you can actually see what the camera sees. Looking through an OVF gives you an idea how to frame, nothing else.

Swivel LCD screen with fast AF - I can forgive a little IQ loss for that. Besides the IQ seems a lot higher than Canon 5D3 for instance.

RX1 will have a higher IQ but they are different tools.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
MarkSA
By MarkSA (Nov 11, 2012)

This "see what the camera sees" is just pure ignorance. The image that an EVF shows you is dog ugly, compared with what the camera really sees. It can't reproduce realistic colours at the best of times, not to mention that you can't see the detail of the image due to the grain of the EVF image, so what is this "see what the camera sees" nonsense??

As for the A99 appealing to Sony users with an investment in exising lenses, I have an A900 with a full set of CZ zoom and prime lenses and after waiting for 5 years for this camera it leaves me completely disinterested! The NEX-VG900 for video, very interested. The A99, no thank you very much.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
aardvark7
By aardvark7 (Oct 11, 2012)

For heaven's sake do samples need such comments?

It would seem that opinons of them vary from being fabulous to downright awful, yet all the while 'my' opinion of samples should not have the remotest effect on 'your' decision to buy (and vice versa).

I get the distinct impression it is more about a combination of 'fanboys' and ego: praising or castigating the camera simply because of the manufacturer, and being derogatory of the pictures because 'I'm a fabulous and knowledgeable photographer who would do so much better...' !!!

I don't know about the 'voting thumbs', I think DPR should bin the comments section!

14 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 11, 2012)

I'd find some of the comments quite hurtful if I had put up these photos. I guess social ineptitude and rare photographic talent must be on the same chromosome?

7 upvotes
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (Oct 11, 2012)

You think its bad here; you should read some of the trash from the snot-nosed kids on some of the 'rumor' websites.

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Oct 11, 2012)

Welcome to Dpreview forums. These forums are for "forever self absorbed adolescents" who need platforms to channel their destructive tendencies who might otherwise become mass murderers. So...keep them humored please for the society's sake. At least they-supposedly-use cameras at the moment.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
tesch
By tesch (Oct 11, 2012)

Thanks for the smile!

0 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Oct 11, 2012)

If you guys think this is bad, look at comments on news websites, especially on controversial articles. People recklessly bash political parties, each other, say that killing everyone on the other side is best solution, and make other crazy statements.
At least we're only talking about cameras here.

0 upvotes
Paulo Ferreira
By Paulo Ferreira (Oct 11, 2012)

Who took these samples? Awful, poor light, focusing, framing auto ISO? auto everything? That landscape taken from above with the 16-35 is shameful! You could not have found worse subjects, colours, settings... or maybe I'm wrong and you will still surprise me. Literally shown in a "bad light"

2 upvotes
Geedorama
By Geedorama (Oct 11, 2012)

Looks like an attempt at tilt shift miniature..does the a99 have an inbuilt T/S filter?

1 upvote
rrccad
By rrccad (Oct 11, 2012)

@geedorama ... i'm not the only one that thought that .. it certainly looked like that to me as well.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 11, 2012)

Of course it has a filter!
That is why Amadou called the picture "Miniature mode".

Still, I think Paulo does not talk about pic 224.

1 upvote
Lyle Aldridge
By Lyle Aldridge (Oct 11, 2012)

Are you referring to the "miniature mode" image of the highway interchange? I think that's the intended effect of that mode, though it's one I find hard to imagine wanting myself. The same lens was used for the golf course shot. In that one, it looks to me like the camera was moving during the exposure. Not even the center of the frame seems truly sharp.

So, I won't be rushing out to buy that 16-35 lens, but this series makes the camera itself look pretty impressive to me. Very good dynamic range, in particular, which that golf course shot displays nicely.

IMO, poor technique by the photographer is somewhat desirable in this context - gives a fair indication of what my own shots will look like. Great technique and talent can make any hardware look good.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 11, 2012)

Apparently expressing oneself tactfully seems to be lost art.

3 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Oct 11, 2012)

The point is no one would have expected this cheesy art filter image as a sample of the Sony's highest end camera. This is not P&S.

1 upvote
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Oct 14, 2012)

All cameras are just point and shoot cameras in the hand of an amateur.

0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Oct 11, 2012)

The samples are quite good, apart from the landscape ones, off-course. The high ISO shots are quite nice as well, this camera keeps good dynamic range, detail, color, even at ISO3200, and I suspect that above as well.

D700 user here/enjoy what you allready own.

6 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Oct 14, 2012)

You are about the only person on here that make sense and is not smoking grass when reading reviews, I applaud you.

0 upvotes
Paul_B Midlands UK
By Paul_B Midlands UK (Oct 11, 2012)

Great ... another write off new model camera from my list. Seems pretty much all new kit is slated by the expert forum contributers. I'll stick with my NEX5N for now. I loved the sound of the RX1 but its critique seems harsh and for that money I expect a really quality deal. I'm thinking to hell with these latest gen things get myself a K-5 mark 2 with top glass, I mean it just works!

0 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Oct 11, 2012)

Get one! they are awesome cameras.

0 upvotes
Shelly Glaser
By Shelly Glaser (Oct 11, 2012)

The so called translucent mirror Sony camera line seems to combine the disadvantages of "mirrorless" cameras - no through the lens optical viewfinder - even the best EVF exhibit limited resolution, image lag and brightness issues in daylight, particularly when compared to full frame SLRs, with those of conventional SLR camera - bulk and weight and limited selection of lenses.

By the way, the term "translucent" is inappropriate here - it means "permitting light to pass through but diffusing it so that persons, objects, etc., on the opposite side are not clearly visible" (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translucent?s=t ). the correct term is semi-reflective mirror or beamsplitter.

2 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Oct 11, 2012)

Optical VF is prehistoric crap and definitely is not an advantage.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Oct 11, 2012)

ISO12800 sample looks pretty good (DSC00060) but I suspect that's because it was shot in good light. I took a picture at ISO6400 from the day I tested the A99 in my country and looked just fine, but it was in daylight too.

Seems like Sony engine struggles in low light. Look at the background (out of focus area) ISO 3200 sample (DSC00121). Highlight Details are quite good in low light but everything that is out of focus is quite noisy. Even in reduced size from the Original picture, the noise pattern is quite visible. So far, it's OK for having a mirror in front, but I know many are expecting more for the asked price. I'm expecting more.

Oh and the DSC00272 sample, it looks like the focus is set on second row of bottles, not first. For a moment I was worried of the poor handling of noise at ISO3200, but then realized it was focused on second row instead of the dark areas (first row of bottles).

0 upvotes
Colin Dutton
By Colin Dutton (Oct 11, 2012)

That 16-35mm has got to be a duff sample. The landscape 0099 is simply terrible. The centre is kind of blotchy sharp but the rest is a complete mash. Notice the trees on the right strangely get a little sharper again just before the border.

3 upvotes
Mir_ro
By Mir_ro (Oct 11, 2012)

ISO 3200 not OK. Look at the wall in image DSC00121, on the rigt, , awfull color blotches.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Oct 11, 2012)

Astonishing. I just found about a dozen hands-on previews of the A99. But dpreview, on of the biggest camera websites, has just a few images without any comments.

0 upvotes
Dapple 101
By Dapple 101 (Oct 11, 2012)

Er...

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-slt-a99/

2 upvotes
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (Oct 11, 2012)

Three lenses all defocusing on the right. I think someone licked the SLT mirror. I can't see DPReview having three lenses all with decentering issues. This is a camera issue. I'd bet that SLT mirror got touched somehow.

70-400G The entire right side of image is blurred. Center very sharp. Left sharp enough.

16-35 ZA Entire right side of image blurred crazy. Sharp center and left.

ZA 24-70 Wild field curvature on right side. Front grass on right is sharp. Center sharp. Trees at top rear peak sharp. But trees at top right blurred. They should be sharp, being centered between rear trees and forground grass. Image left side is sharp within focus plane.

Come on DPReview... you're not looking at your samples close enough. Something is wrong here. If you want us to look at them 100%... then you should too. Something is amiss with the landscapes on three different lenses.

14 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Oct 11, 2012)

Quite true. Something is wrong with these samples. Quite astonishing results. Maybe the result of too much phone camera use.

3 upvotes
ForeignerOnEarth
By ForeignerOnEarth (Oct 11, 2012)

You are right.

2 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Oct 11, 2012)

What are you talking about? Defocusing/decentering/smudged SLT? Are you implying that any manufacturer would allow the publishing of sample shots taken with faulty equipment?

More like you totally mistook shallow DOF with lens fault! This is full frame after all.

They look fine to me. & I'm not even a Sony user!

0 upvotes
Colin Dutton
By Colin Dutton (Oct 11, 2012)

They look fine?? Are you viewing at 100%? The landscapes are shockingly bad. It's nothing to do with DOF.

2 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Oct 11, 2012)

You're looking at JPEGs taken perhaps with questionable technique and subject choices, true enough.

But to say they are shockingly bad and/or having major lens failure or defocusing on one side (what?) etc. is ludicrous. That's only because some of the subject matters were taken from the side.

No need to get your knickers into a twist ... wait for the RAW files I say ...

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Oct 11, 2012)

It's strange. I didn't notice it at first but it seems like Colin is right.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 11, 2012)

Sony's JPG engine isn't very good. It would've been interesting to see RAW files also, as they are supported by Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom 4.2. Way much better than Sony's JPG's.

1 upvote
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Oct 11, 2012)

All OOC High ISO JPG samples at http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/ I think they are excellent but it is taken by RX1 which has the same sensor as A99

0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 11, 2012)

Those are downsampled, but they are nice for sure.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 11, 2012)

The model images like the first must have been a real hardship for Mr. Diallo.

It's nice to see DPR pull out the good glass like the CZ 24-70, 16-35, and 135 1.8 lenses? It would have been nice to see some top tier lenses on the Nikon D600 Sample Gallery as well. But it's of no consequence as I actually prefer the images from the Nikon based on what I've seen so far.

But they are superb cameras for sure.

Nice job. Thanks.

1 upvote
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Oct 11, 2012)

I would use same good lens for different cameras as the Zeiss Planar 50 mm f/2.
We have this lens with Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax mount.

0 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Oct 11, 2012)

Same old SLT technology, a Van Gogh machine needing a modern set of brushes at high ISOs. The AWB is extreme off too. Oh please, don't blame DPR staff, only if DPR gives gold for specs.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
krmuir
By krmuir (Oct 11, 2012)

Another predictably negative response from yourself

1 upvote
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (Oct 11, 2012)

WOW, so many bad photos!
ISO 3200 very good noise performance!

0 upvotes
ForeignerOnEarth
By ForeignerOnEarth (Oct 11, 2012)

... and do you see the disturbing noise reduction?

0 upvotes
intruder61
By intruder61 (Oct 11, 2012)

say hello to Steve Huff while you're there.

0 upvotes
forsakenbliss
By forsakenbliss (Oct 11, 2012)

Is it me or my computer?
Lately the image samples are not so good in terms of IQ, composition, object selected...compare to past years.

5 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 11, 2012)

I've heard that kind of comment so many times, usually about newspaper print :)

0 upvotes
GreenmanToo
By GreenmanToo (Oct 11, 2012)

I think QC was easier when everything ran in-house from London. It also introduces a problem for comparison between standardised shots from differing light intensity levels. West coast USA has alarmingly high contrast intensity compared to London.

1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Oct 11, 2012)

Is this a SONY event? The blond model is the same one from here: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/10/10/first-impressions-using-the-sony-a99-and-hvl-f60m-flash-for-studio-photography/

2 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Oct 11, 2012)

Yep, obviously Sony still has big marketing and PR bucks to be able to fly, wine and dine all the photo hacks of the world. I did not think such budgets existed any more. ... The consequence of course is that you get images of the same f...g subjects/models from the same gear at the same time on all outlets, with each writer doing his/her own best to be seen as having access to some form of exclusivity. The only thing all these "previews" really show is that there has been a big Sony joly in SF earlier in the week.... Hope all you guys had fun!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ounkeo
By ounkeo (Oct 11, 2012)

@jacques
Considering Sony's imaging and camera division are the only ones making any serious money, it's not that surprising they are allowed to dig into the company coffers for expensive events. The perks when your department/division does well while every other one is struggling.

1 upvote
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Oct 11, 2012)

Perfectly true! But this Sony launch is starting to feel a little too rich: we had all the organised pseudo-leaks and grouped announcements (+ "sneaky previews") on the way up to Photokina. Then a rehash at Photokina (with more "previews" of the same products). Then, two weeks later, the current outpouring from the SF joly (yet more "previews" of same products), that will build up to a wave of full reviews. This is really a big campaign, and will go on till Xmas as that is when RX1 will hit the shelves and needs to make a first splash. The products all look great though, but I am kind of saturating.... ;-)

0 upvotes
Total comments: 159
12