Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 review

If you don't know how to take a picture with a camera like NEX then you are just not that good, don't give me nonsense reason as it is like a toy. Just admit your incompetence.

Fuji knows how make viewfinders? Funny then that Fuji is using the OLED viewfinder made by Sony in X-E1

Yes, and the Sony-made X-E1's EVF is superior to the crappy (limited with zoom lenses) hybrid viewfinder in XPro1. What good is the OVF part if it works with only a few prime lenses? That's why Fuji is dumping the POS viewfinder now. It's inferior.

Funny that DPReview rated A99's viewfinder identical to 5D Mark III and D800 viewfinders (both superior OVF than Fuji ever made) in the conclusion.

Overall, A99 is rated higher than both D800 and 5D Mark III -- all three cameras rated higher with better image quality and faster AF than any camera Fuji ever made.

Zinedi: why this anger vs. Sony cameras? who are you to make such a judgmental call? Take a hot bath and chill out!
Have you even tried a NEX camera with manual focus lenses (Voigt, Leica)?
Fuji may have understood your wishes but I don't think that you're entitled in any way to consider your wishes as a generality amongst photographers.

@gordocooper: Who is in anger? Read your own words. Sure, my opinion is only mine. You speak for yourself - it's allowed I hope.

Until Canon or Nikon can produce a FF camera with AF in video as good as for stills, articulating rear screen , the A99 is the best IMO. Sony also has focus peaking - this on its own is enough reason to choose Sony over Canon or Nikon.

Canlikon is for sure popular because people trust these brands, but they don't make the best cameras anymore. I think Sony lead the way now.

Some people just don't like Sony. That is their problem. The cameras are excellent..

Oh yes, and it's not a movable part anymore, prone to wear and tear, and it is the key to offering video capability worthy of the name, and above all, the images produced are just as outstanding as with a similar camera with old fashioned flip-mirror. When putting prints side by side, no one will be able to determine which one is taken with which camera :-)

DSLR stands for digital Single Lens Reflex right? So where does it tells if the "Reflex" has to be fully or partially reflective or if it has to move or not? Semi transparent mirror is still a mirror...

zinedi,
get you fact straight. I have caught your nonsense at least three times by now in one day.

"Pentax was the first manufacturer to show an early prototype 35 mm behind-the-lens metering SLR camera, which was named the Pentax Spotmatic. The camera was shown at the 1960 Photokina show."

"Another clever design appeared in 1965, the Canon Pellix employing a pellicle mirror that is semi-transparent, placing the meter cell on an arm swinging into the lightpass behind the mirror for meter reading."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera)

I knew that putting the A99 among its peers which are Dslr would have attracted at least one dictionary mosquito.
Technically it is a SLT, especially because Sony marketing department, decided this acronim may help to enanche the perception of their product.
The camera operate like a Dslr, at least for what the operator has to do in order to make it take pictures.
It replaces a Dslr (a900) and if i do not like it and want to buy a Canikon, I can only replace it with a Dslr.
For simplicity of the comparison I was making, i called it an Dslr

Flipscreen has nothing to do with viewfinder - flipscreen is a substitute for angle-viewfinder, but viewfinder is the thing you look through with camera supported against your forehead.

If you truly trying to be correct, then please give me a camera from the 1960 with an EVF that can function exact the same as the A99's. Otherwise please stop being incorrect.

D800 has crappy video quality. Ugly moire. It's not better than A99. 5D Mark III is better, but if video is important, something like FS100, which is about the same price, blows the crap out of D800 and even 5D Mark III. D800 is a joke for video

Sony and Nikon share many of the same Sony sensors. Why do you think the colors are dramatically different?

As far as IQ, Sony has some good lenses, but Nikon and Canon have a much larger selection of high quality lenses at all different price points.

marike6 - How many of Canon and Nikon lenses are really of high quality? Not crappy ones like Canon 24-105/4...

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.

It is very easy to see the difference. You do not need an education at the university to see the difference. I do consulting in sound and vision at high level. For me it is even very easy to see it. When I would like the 800 or 5D.3 I would have bought one of them.

I think you are definitely what is known as an "outlier" there, my friend. That's a specialist need for a special camera !

Sony's A900 works perfect at those temperatures. Michael Reichman use it in the antarctis many times and it was among all cameras the only one that never failed. Nikon d3x and canon mk3 failed at those temperatures. Read Reichman's reports about that on Luminous landscape site.

Those temperatures are very common during scandinavian winters, Nothing extreme about that at all.

Where did I say this camera has no reason to be??? It is just another disadvantage of the EVF...it may well be it stops working earlier. And the battery-hunger adds a lot to the...don't use it when it is really cold. I know well that I am an "outlier" :-) in this respect...but I am sure there are others as well ...and this is hy I metioned it. Nothing wrong with the camera just not when it gets very cold, panning, or when you don't have a chance to charge the batteries....like trekking in the rain forest for a couple of weeks....Surely it does the job in most situations.

Hi Barry, you are very funny. In fact I spent some time yesterday with a couple teams of working photographers and all were interested in seeing the a99. When I showed them the EVF features they were, to a person, impressed. I may be an anomaly. I don't think many real professionals actually frequent DPReview because of all the contentious behavior here. And self-righteous hobbyists who have no clue what professionals use or how they really choose their gear. There will always be some drivers who love the clutch and the gear shift lever. The other 90% will understand that automatic transition makes driving easier.

Why would you categorize what I said as "a famous EVF speech?" I am a working professional and it was my real and accurate observation of my use of this camera in a real, three day job. For a real client. Why all the bile over an equipment choice? Do you own stock in Nikon or Canon?

And by the way, they seem to be flying off the shelves at my local Sony dealer. But Austin's always been ahead of the curve on the adoption of new technologies.

So, what do we have here. On the one hand we have Kirk Tuck, a working pro who is independent and buys his own gear, shoots to earn a living in the real world and also has one of the most visited photo blogs around.
On the other hand we have Barry - resident DPR anti Sony troll who , it seems, must have had Sony steal his lunch or upset his mum at some stage because he crops up at every Sony launch having a whinge....
Who has the most credibility here? Mmmm.... Let me think....

Hi Kirk - without embarrassing you, I must say it is great to have a real life pro here , whose portraiture in particular I admire considerably. Real pros like you are outnumbered massively by armchair gear heads. I dare say you shoot more frames in a week than Barry Fitzgerald does in a year... It is also worth noting that I know you are not "branded " to any one camera maker. You used to shoot Canon FF did'nt you?
Anyway, welcome. Sorry in advance for the resident gear heads and branded fanboys.

Me think's it's Barry's bubble that needs to burst, for his sake. To him we might be nuts but when he stands alone, who really is the outsider?

Kirk likes to pretend he knows what goes on in the pro market, but is in complete denial about what working photographers want and need. If they wanted an SLT camera that bad you'll find the A99 hit the top sellers list quickly.

Of course it won't sell that well nice camera and all because Kirk represents not real working photographers but a small minority of people who feel they have to sell EVF's to everyone else. Meanwhile in the real world everyone is busy buying tons of FF Canikon bodies with optical finders.

Why? Because that is what they want not hobbyists but people who earn a living taking photos and not writing blogs trying to sell SLT cameras.

Barry Fitzgerald, died 14 January 1961.

Hey, better the Sony guys get stuck with Barry the Troll than us Nikon guys :^)

Kirk may be right about cameras, but I'm not so sure he's right about 90% of people driving automatic cars. Unless we're confusing America with the world. What's that you're saying? Oh, America is the world. Sorry, my mistake then.

Just ignore Barry Fitzgerald. He's a very conservative retro grouch who isn't good with change. He probably still watches a tube television and listens to a phonograph. His generation will soon pass. The next generation will not be so close-minded about EVF's. And pretty soon, Canon and Nikon will move to EVF's as well in many of their cameras, and soon it will be they who are selling "tons of FF Canikon bodies with electronic finders."

You can make as many personal remarks as you wish, nothing changes most FF users want an OVF camera, yet Sony make an EVF one.

It is very obvious what the target market wants. And all the fanboy talk in the world won't be able to force feed buyers something they don't want. Until Sony work out SLT isn't going to grab people unless they price it as a budget offering (A99 is really a £1300 budget FF model) it's dead in the water really.

Of course if I'm wrong and it sell so well I'll eat my words. It's not even for sale on Amazon UK right now that's how much excitement it has generated.

What's funny is the personal attacks I see on Barry here yet he actually uses the A57, and, he's a paid professional photographer as well. Guys if you are going to insult, at least leverage educated ones... :).

OTOH it's safe to remember that our experiences in the world are vastly subjective and it's easy to think the rest of the world operates as you see it. I think both Kirk and Barry have good points and the truth is probably closer to being a sum of those polarized views.

Personal attacks on people should not be allowed on these forums and is one of the MAIN driving forces behind some members never posting here. There is simply no reason to personally attack someone when discussing camera equipment, especially when someone has not personally attacked others (and no, getting your feelings hurt about an opinion of gear does NOT qualify as a personal attack).

I myself have the A57, and have used the A99 (albeit briefly)- and there always will be pros/cons to evf/s and ovfs.

The one that raises the temperature of debate where EVF's are concerned is Barry Fitzgerald. After all, he wasted no time to denigrate the opinion of Kirk Tuck. He could have let it be, but no.

Barry feels that he should opine every time an EVF is discussed. He clearly feels that everyone should have the benefit of reading his point of view, time after time after time after time...

The simple fact is that there are people who like EVF's. It does'nt matter how often he wants lurk on these forums looking to wade in with his opinion that "no-one wants them" , he should just accept that some people do. If he disagrees then, fine, he should get on with it.

But he should just butt out and leave the rest of us to it.

It's very, very boring reading him wade in predictably into any EVF debate when most of us already using A77/A99 simply want to exchange experiences, without the yapping dog that always seems to be in the yard, making the same noise over and over again...

The only thing that matters is how this model sells and if it's a huge hit then we can assume the SLT concept is working well.

If it does not do well then we have to look again at what Sony have put forward here. It's less about OVF v EVF (be in no doubt though that most FF shooters will prefer an OVF that is beyond any debate) but Sony's position in the market.

Granted the UK price is quite poor at £2300 odd, but the idea of SLT will never really gain much acceptance until Sony promote it with the main advantage it can offer. "It's cheaper"
That is the only way it's going to work for them. And they show no signs of being willing to take that value based path.

Odd, our old Irish friend's posts always receive 1 Like. I wonder if he clicks the button himself...

It's like the sound of a dripping tap. It adds nothing to your life of value whatsoever, sometimes you blank it out, and other times one becomes aware of its inevitable, predictable, monotonous sound....you know what it is going to sound like, you can predict it coming and when it finally arrives you wish it had'nt and you know that pretty soon its going to happen again.

DPR forums need a plumber.

But not as boring as the usual Sony fans blasting out the same tired stuff we've heard for years. Personally I have no brand loyalty but I'm not dumb enough to ignore what goes on in the market either.

People are not going to pay £2300 for this with a D600 at £1350 and no matter if you utterly adore EVF's that alone is a striking price difference. Wouldn't matter if this was an OVF model Sony are not competitive.

Barry Fitzgerald is talking absolute nonsense. It is gibberish.

He says " be in no doubt that most FF shooters will prefer an OVF that is beyond debate "... Nonsense.

The FIRST pro level DSLR FF camera ever offered to the market is the Sony A99. It was launched just weeks ago. There is therefore ZERO data to make that assertion.

Anecdotaly, we can see that there ARE pros converting to the A99 - because we have some here on DPR. But we don't know how many. It is too soon.

Anecdotaly, we also know that an EVF certainly does not bother the legions of videographers who spend a fortune bolting a huge EVF to their DSLR rig. We also know that pro video cams have an EVF.

So we simply cannot extrapolate any substantial information to support Barry Fitzgeralds thesis. There are insufficient data points.

Just ignore him. He has nothing to say of any interest.

Have a :)

Just sayin...

Barry - First you say its the EVF ( for you, its always the EVF, it's a pavlovian reaction with you now ) and now its the price.

The D600 UK list price at launch was over £1900. Nikon have heavily discounted it to shift boxes. Perhaps Sony may too, come the new year. Who knows? You don't for sure, so your words are meaningless and pointless.

No doubt Nikon reducing prices so heavily will be seen by you as marketing genius , while if Sony do the same you will see it as desperation.

Strange, your obsession. Strange. I can imagine trawling the internet venting your passion over passionate subjects like music or art, but popping up on Sony camera forums to complain about the electronic viewfinder on a mass produced consumer electronics item is a bit weird. If you don't like the Sony, don't buy one.

Now I happen to dislike the shape of the on/off button on my tumble dryer. Now where is the forum where I can post my dislike several times a day to anyone who will listen?

Test shots are test shots WB was unimportant for that focus test it's not "art" nor portrayed as such.
Price and EVF are factors that will be important to a lot of buyers.
Yes the D600 was £2000 odd at launch which was entirely unappealing (esp with the D800 being so close to it at the time price wse)

Things move quite quickly in this market and the FF area is heating up a lot. Both Canon and Sony need to respond to Nikon's heavy price cuts. Their strategy is very obvious, to pull as many FF users in as possible it will probably work too.

Hey as a guy mention the WB first in a post as a tool to bashing one of the functionality of EVF and people who takes the advantage of it as newbie, the least you can do is not set your WB like a newbie in any kind of test shoot. I mean especially test shoots. you get all the time you want and need to set it up or do multiple ones if necessary to eliminate any possible variation that is going to show on the output. it is the very basic under standing for a test shoot and by the way if it was taken with a EVF. you will at least know the WB is gonna be way off because only a blind guy can ignore such a big BW off on setting when looking at the live view of a EVF.

Instead of wasting all our time and calling people a newbie..learn to read exif it was not shot on an EVF camera. Why you waste your time discussing this 90% of people shoot raw and AWB so hey what WB argument?
Open your browswer and think wow I want a FF body

Hover over the buy button on a D600 and then try not to press it.
You've just made the most important step to understanding how the commercial camera market works. Pay less sell more = more users = more profit.

I hereby request, that
- as well Barry
- as all others who have not been able to behave in this thread
get excluded from this Website.

Sony got into this market and is actually being innovative instead of offering what everyone else offers already. I, for one think the advantages of EVF outweigh the disadvantages. The advantages for me:
1) Seeing what the camera is actually CAPTURING
2) DoF preview (Grainy but better than OVF)
3) Plethora of information available without having to take eye away from the viewfinder.

For now, Sony is the Only OEM offering an EVF in an interchangeable "SLR". That alone gives them an advantage for folks that are interested in having this option. Time will tell if the company is successful. I hope they are and applaud them for going against the grain and not just releasing same-o, same-o that all the other guys offer.

Yikes. Now I'm not even a real professional photographer (according to someone I've never met). I'm late getting back to the thread, I was busy photographing a former U.S. president with my Sony SLT camera in exchange for money...

Just to add to Amadou's point - the viewfinder for the LX5 (assuming we're talking about the DMW-LVF-1), is about as far from the A99 as there could be. It's essentially a compact camera EVF.

For instance, the LVF-1 is a 202,000 dot /equivalent/ field sequential LCD. This means it shows red, then green, then blue, in sequence. This makes it 320 x 210 pixels, effectively.

The Sony EVF is a 2.4m dot OLED. This is showing all three colours at the same time to give 1024 x 768 pixels.

That's a world of difference.

Definitely 2.

If I want to look at life around me, I put the camera down and look.

If I want to take a picture of something, I want to be able to quickly and efficiently get that picture as accurately as reasonable. And the EVF is more helpful in achieving that goal that the OVF. I not only know the exposure and white balance will be pretty close to target, but I can use peaking to check my focus and I can use the histogram to see any clipping BEFORE I take the picture.

The things I enjoy seeing from my camera are the pictures from it when I get home. Not trying to look at the world though the viewfinder when I'm out in that world.

I like looking at the scene with my eyes.

When I choose to take a picture, I want the camera to let me know how IT sees the scene. The EVF let's you have a much better idea of how the image looks BEFORE you take the picture, rather than chimping AFTER the moment has passed...

You need to time to adjust your style, but you end up using your eyes more. You don't need to spend so much time peering through the camera because you learn to know instinctively how the camera "sees" the image from the EVF. You get more keepers in my experience. It does take some getting used to though...

A sincere Thanks to all of you for your useful and helpful feedback: thanks to Amadou, to R. Butler, to cplunk, and to Daft.

You motivated me, to try to get hold of an A99 to gain my own experience with its viewfinder.

OVFs are more pleasant to use.

But EVFs have better functionality for manual focus, judging exposure, and accurate framing (if your OVF is less than full coverage). I was convinced to go with EVF after trying one in the camera shop (m43). I was looking for better manual focus. EVFs win by a lot there.

The A99 finder has higher resolution than the external LCD on the A99 or any of the displays on the Nikon or Canon models, so there is little advantage to using a LCD hood viewer on that camera or the A77 or A65 or NEX7. The primary use of the LCD for me is for picture review and tripod shooting. The OLED finders also have better contrast than the LCDs and less delay. I have never noticed any lag or tearing on my A77. An external HDMI HD screen would have higher resolution and may have some advantages to offset the greater size and weight.

As far as low light noise goes, yes it does have more noise, but in most cases you would probably not have enough light to focus a OVF by the time the light gets low enough for the noise to cause issues. I have also been able to frame and focus in situations where I could not even see with my eyes, let a lone have seen with a OVF. Granted I use the autofocus with the assist lamp, but I was able to frame the image.

@Wally626
The EVF resolution may be higher but a magnified view of an LCD that you get with a 2.5 X Zacuto finder (as a run & gun videographer using a 5D might use) is MUCH larger which makes it much easier to focus with while recording. To check focus of course you can magnify both an EVF or LCD.

For the record, I've used the NEX-7 OLED EVF and it's more than useable and I have no problems major problems with it. I prefer an OVF, but that doesn't mean working with an EVF camera is something I can't make work.

The viewfinder in the A77 is the same as the A99 I believe. It is totally different than any of the external LEDs, much higher resolution and much brighter.
I've never seen any "tearing" or "lag" panning.
The A77 EVF does get noisy in low light, but let's categorize that and state that it's dark when that happens, not inside sports, not sunset, dark, no streetlights around, can't see the buttons on the camera. Maybe tonight I'm try and compare views out in the darkness between my A77 and my old Maxxum 7, I'm assuming that I probably won't see a thing though the OVF at the point the EVF get noisy.
If you are manual focusing, use focus peaking, it really is the EVF "killer app". (I keep reading reviewers mention the level, and while I've used it for some wide angle shots, I'd never consider it a selling point, focus peaking, on the other hand, convinced me EVF was the better choice).

I'm a Nikon user, and I don't like EVF.. I've tried A77 and OM-D EVF but I'm not impressed.. Maybe I'm an old school hahaha..
But, focus peaking is a different thing.. I really enjoy focus peaking to focus manually on my NEX.. And I wish my Nikon has it so I can use for my video work..

There is no "tearing" on OLED EVF. More crap from marike6. Will this guy ever stop?

I don't understand the noise in low light on EVF comments. This happens, but only when you can't see ANYTHING with an OVF! We are talking extremely low light.

In other words, an EVF is usable, with noise, in extremely low light, and an OVF is USELESS, and people are complaining about the EVF!

Unbelievable. You can't make it up...

The review makes it a point of saying that the A99 clears the buffer twice as fast as the 5D3 and D600 so clearly the Boinz processor is quite capable of processing the data. The point is all three cameras get about 6 fps, but I was thinking the top-of-the-line Sony would likely get more. A D4 or 1DX do something like 11 fps flipping the mirror.

marike6. get educated. The image processor (such as Boinz) is just one of the factor. The sensor itself has to be able to handle 10 fps in ful resolution. A77 sensor is capable of that, but obviously A99 sensor isn't.

I find the Sony A77 and A99 very ergonomically designed, certainly easier to use then the equivalent Canikons.

Sigh, the march of technology rubbished by somebody's Dad. 'Ee Arkright, this new fangled technology is for boys. There are billions of computer users who are not blind from LCD screens. Some LCD screens don't reach 4ms refresh (250Hz) and only PC gamers 'need' this, yet miillions of sucessful photo's are taken with this technology. My photography is so much better with digital technology, and to be honest is is much cheaper than film. I spent '00s of not '000s on film, D&P etc, and could cheerfully buy a new camera every 5-years and digital would still have a lower TCO.

Thousands of photographers every year get poked in the eye by their EVF.
Some even are attacked and stabbed to death - in their sleep.
The Mayans prophezised the world will end on Dec. 21th because the EFV will destroy the world.
That's how harmfull EVF are.
/irony off

"EVF is harmful for human health"

try to frame the sun in a photo with an OVF

or pass a all day shooting surf with a tele with the sun reflecting in the water

it wont take long for you to have irreversal eye damege

Yes, electronic bad, natural good, we got it.

That's why staring at the Sun is highly recommended by ophthalmologists.

I've got an SLR that is much more than 20 years old, and sure, it still works. I've also got a 4 year old DSLR that still works, but I never use anymore, and can't sell for a much, because even with it's working OVF the technology for it's sensor is dated and newer ones are just much more better.

I doubt that EVF is harmful to the health, but having read some of the replies to this (some of which are unnecessarily rude) I do feel that some people are of the opinion that because it is digital it is better. That may not always be the case. Look at all the people who have gone digital in everything they do, constantly on their iPads, smartphones etc. I am not denying that the internet is a useful tool, it is very useful, but we have gone overboard with making everything smaller and digital. It isnt always better.

Agree. I really enjoy looking at someone's hairy knuckles.

I'm not sure what samples you saw, they actually look great. The Zeiss 24-70 is one of the best standard zooms available and DPR made good use of it.

And please explain what a "wrong ISO" is? They used whatever ISO they needed to get a shutter speed fast enough for handholding or purposely used an extremely high ISO to demonstrate how the A99 does at such extreme ISO settings.

It is not the gold award, it got 3 points less then the D600 and with all the problems that it has and if you compare what is comparable, D600 is a toy camera compared to Sony's technology. It seems to me, and I said it and repeat it, that the notation was only given for the one stop better noise ratio of D600. Despite that, D600 is a cripple compared to A99 when it comes to features and comfort and diversity of use.

Good point @Shamael. If you are after a lot of mediocre features then the Sony is it.

If you`re after best quality, meaningful features and top glass - then look at Canon and Nikon. The D 600 plays in a different league than the Sony P&S.

F.E:
EFV is a total nono. Slow, refresh ist tiring and the colors are off. Not a feature, a problem.
You seem to mix up markeneering with engineering.

@Shamael

D600 crippled? lol. I wish all my cameras were crippled like that.

@chlamchowder

You can't sell a camera today--ANY CAMERA--D800, D600, A99, etc.) without EVF. If it's not in the viewfinder, then it's on the back screen. No EVF, no sale. Cameras are not even designed without EVFS anymore.

However, many cameras--the vast, vast majority--are sold without OVF.

You're sort of proving OP's point with your argument about the back screen of cameras in live view having an EVF. Of course they do. All cameras today do. They are unsellable without one.

EDIT: It occurs to me that if you buy a high-end camera with OVF, and EVF on the back screen, one way of looking at it (not the only way) is that you are buying an inferior implementation of EVF technology.

The other way of looking at it is you have the best of both worlds.
Imagine phase detect off the sensor live view, and a nice big 100% OVF.
Choice is good
The market is not ready for EVF's esp not full frame cameras a good 80% of folks will dismiss it just on that. Sony need to "make a product for the target market" and not try to force something on people they don't want

If DPR ran a poll I bet a good majority would out of choice prefer an OVF for this type of camera

It's just a fact that the majority of enthusiasts and professional photographers prefer the clear, bright view of an OVF. Not sure why anyone would wish for the demise of a proper pentaprism OVF, but if you are a photographer who prefers an EVF, the are tons of cameras available to you.

The view camera and the SLR have remained virtually unchanged for decades because they are tried and true designs that work extremely well. Such is the case with the OVF and digital has done nothing to change that.

It doesn't have to do with my preference on EVF or OVF. I shoot film with an old Russian hag and I'm plenty happy with its 60% OVF coverage.

The debate is like the one between RF and SLR. The RFs dominated the (then) small camera market for almost 50 years until the SLR came and changed the game. See now where RFs stand. A niche product with diminishing sales. That's what the fate of the prism SLR will be. The A99 marks the beginning of this because it proposes the unto now unthinkable. And the others are sure to follow.

--EDIT
Funny, we're calling m4/3 and others mirrorless, but 35mm film started life in mirrorless cameras, the rangefinders. In fact the mirror was a not so elegant way (albeit a very successful one) of giving tele lenses a chance for survival. So back to where it started!

The debate between RFs and SLRs also can't be compared to the current OVF/EVF debate. SLRs offered through the lens preview and focusing, free from parallax error. Such an option was completely absent for rangefinder cameras.

Finally, if the massive jump in functionality isn't there yet and you're giving, how is it going to get mass adoption? Digital photography introduced a huge speed and convenience benefit right off the bat by removing the time consuming film development process.

@bobbarber: It's true that modern cameras all support some form of live view (preview off the sensor), but it's also true that DSLRs retain OVFs because OVFs continue to do a spectacular job. You're not getting an inferior implementation of EVF technology - you're getting a choice between an electronic preview and an optical preview.

And the vast majority of cameras sold don't have OVFs because good OVFs aren't practical/possible on those cameras. Basically, EVF/LV is better than no VF at all.

I agree with all of your points, with a few caveats:
I like OVFs not because of the nice view, but because they don't get in the way. I like how the camera gets back to you almost instantly after a shot, with no hesitation or talkback. Even when shooting continuously, it's not hard to track a moving subject. Power consumption is also low, so I don't think twice about looking through the camera to try framing.

The main reason I'm not too fond of EVFs unless there's no other way to get a VF is because I can get those manual focus aid with the rear screen. If I need the camera to handhold me with regards to exposure, I can also get that with the rear screen. I'm not losing anything by having a camera with an OVF and rear screen. On the other hand, I'm losing the action tracking potential of an OVF with a live view only (rear screen/EVF) camera.

"The market is not ready for EVF's"
I'd say - EVFs are not ready for serious market. When there is 6000x4000pix/250Hz EVF I will test it whether it doesn't harm eye health by flickering artificial light. What is made today is for photographic purposes harmful garbage. Why EVF is not at least like full HD TV/200Hz? And even then - natural analogue light is light for which nature has made our eye for - not for flickering led light. Optical is always better, more durable than electronical. And don't speak of backside LCD screen - it's not EVF.

Eventually every camera sells for (sometimes much) less than the launch price. That will happen with the A99 too.

I feel pity for the ones who bought the first Sigma SD1s ...if anyone.

I've read that the light loss in the translucent mirror is equivalent to 1/3EV. If this is true I would not say it is negligible...

A 1/3 stop EV light loss (which is what Sony claims) 'sounds' bad, but is not a practical concern because of the very good noise performance of modern sensors. If camera A exhibits noise characteristic of ISO 5000 and camera B exhibits noise characteristic of ISO 6400, you'd be hard pressed to make a buying decision based on that difference with sensors of the type we see on DSLRs today.

More than just strange, and more like an early Christmas present to Sony and their fans! Maybe the DPR staff does not care, but at some level they must know these kind of overreaching scores, awards and and recommendations for a camera with some major shortcomings (such as entry level APS-C- like AF performance in a $2800 FF camera body), only hurts their credibility as camera reviewers. I know it has with me.

I'm with falconeyes. But aside from the light loss of SLT, without critical advantages like class leading IQ and AF tracking, I just don't see how the A99 beats out other FF cameras in DPRs estimation. Seems like those two critical elements should be weighted higher than other bells and whistles that don't effect the overall image the camera produces.

marike6 , boy, DPR has used all these cameras and concluded A99 is just as god -- if not better. You are just a Nikon fanboy.

Can you rent Sony lenses, anywhere near as much as Canon/Nikon?

I think that would be a big deal for many pros.

I easily look through A99's EVF all day long.

Is that the source of your, err, cacophonic visions?
:)

I shoot an a77 professionally all the time. The lens rental is admittedly an issue, since you cant stop by your local shop and get one for a day. Lensrentals has a full lineup of Sony lenses available though, everything from the 300mm f/2.8 G to the the Zeiss 24-70mm.

I can't believe people complain about the EVF in a pro camera. Tell that to pro videographers everywhere...

of course! technology that keep improving is worse than technology that stop improving...

This is an excellent point that I had not really considered until your post! Sony is enjoying extremely high profit margins with their SLT cameras, but their cameras low resale values makes upgrading to a new camera with an improved EVF even more costly for Sony SLT owners. I think I'll stick with my Nikon DSLRs with their optical viewfinders that are not obsolete and worthless in a few years.

And don't forget:
What will you do with a blind camera if your EVF fails ?
At least with an OVF you limit an other risk of failures. I know mirrors problems can occur...but my 30 years old OM-10 and my 50 years old M3 mirrors tell me they are all fine. I won't bet on an EVF in 5 years...

It is interesting that Ovf are considered the same and equal to each other. I would never accept the OVF found in the d800 and d600 after owning an a900.

OVF will not always be state of the art, in fact it is no longer state of the art. You are right, it is as good as it can get as far as OVFs go. But that doesn't mean that when it comes to viewfinders, OVF is still as good as it gets when compared to EVFs and anything else down the road.

The difference is that there are little to no improvements being done to OVF, so it has stopped growing. Since it has stopped growing, there is little chance that a better OVF will come out to trump your existing OVF.

EVFs, however, are still in their infancy and have a lot more room to grow due to their flexibility and potential. Yes, as newer and better EVFs come out some people will become envious when a better EVF is out than what they own. But that is a fact with any technology. Their current camera isn't unusable as soon as a new EVF comes out, its just that a new desire or lust has been created to want something better, something newer. Much like improved sensors, better AF, faster lenses.

starwolfy - You will still have an ability to shoot with the best Live View ever made, without any AF speed loss. It is more possible that mirror flipping mechanism will fail on a traditional SLR. In that case You'll have "dead" camera. But You''ll be able to look in Your OVF(without shooting) :)))

I don't see how an EVF will get worse just because newer EVFs are released. If an EVF is good now it will always be good.

It's the same with any camera spec, eg. the Canon 5D II didn't suddenly start taking worse pictures after the 5D III was released.

Nice logic, but I don't think it will apply much going forward. Granted, use an earlier EVF camera like an A33 ( or even A57) and you can imagine wishing the EVF was better.
But from the A77\A99 onwards it is less of an issue. I would say that 80% of the time users of these cameras forget they are looking at an EVF. You really get used to it.

So improvements in the EVF from here onwards will see diminishing returns unless you are an outlier shooting a lot of sports for example, where there are still improvements to be made in the EVF.

@rrizw
I think you nailed it pretty well with your ironic statement.
I just want to add: What do win with an alltime decent OFV, if pretty much every other part of your cam is electronic and therefore superseded by future models?

Each has it's own advantage, an EVF is very good for most uses, though I get dizzy when I pan with the NEX7, and I don't know if it's just me, but my eyes get very tired.
The biggest advantage of EVF IMHO is the ability to "see in the dark"

OVF = Omits Video Function

What you're saying is that optical view finders can't get any better than they already are, while electronic view finders can keep improving. Since the A99's electronic view finder is already superior in many ways to optical view finders, future improvements will increase the advantages over the optical view finders. How is this a negative?

You know what they say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

A 100% Pentaprism OVF like you find in a 5D3, 1DX, D4, D800, A900, et al don't need improving as they are already perfect and will be for years to come.

This is the dumbest post, ever, but that is marike6 for you. He is a genius around here.

" A top level pentaprism OVF will always be the state-of-the-art, while in one or two years time, the A99 EVF will be old technology, superseded by new models. So perhaps one of the negatives of adopting an evolving technology like EVF is an increased need to upgrade. "

In a few years Sony will release a better sensor, making Sony sensor in D600 "old technology". Does that mean one of the negative of D600 is that it is using a digital sensor (made by Sony) instead of film?

It doesn't even make sense. All digital cameras become old and are replaced with newer better camera with better electronics (including the sensor, the most important part in a camera). What are you going to do with the OVF if the rest of the camera (such as sensor) is old technology? Wouldn't that be a reason to update D600?

The original comment should be awarded the dumbest comment of 2012.

"You know what they say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". "

If it can't support focus peaking, it's broken. Sony fixed it.

I bought the A900 because its huge viewfinder would help me with manual focusing.

But the A99's focus magnifier and focus peaking, all available with my eye to the camera's viewfinder, makes manual focusing much more reliable, not to mention faster, than with the A900's OVF, outstanding though it be.

Sounds like a good argument for why other manufacturers will embrace EVF; planned obsolescence. Anyway, I don’t think the EVF is the only thing still evolving with digital photography. By the time EVF becomes good enough to not be an issue, there will still be something evolving to entice us.

Bacterial or fungal colonies on the VF eyecup perhaps. Swab it with solution of carbolic acid. Antbiotic or anti-fungal ointment for the eyes. Anything pressed to the eyes for a whole day will disturb vision and jab or poke the eye if jarred. An atriculated live view LCD is a valuable alternative and works without removing one's glasses.

Not just Zeiss branded, they're made with the same or better quality than the manual Zeiss that are available for everyone else. Glass, coatings, quality = all Zeiss. With the addition of Autofocus. Each one is examined for quality and receives a certificate to denote such.

Lens tests and MTF charts show that the Sony Zeiss lenses, especially the primes, are of no equal by any Canikon lens in the same category.
Also remember that Sony's lenses are engineered by the same engineers who used to do the job for Minolta and retain the color, detail, and feel of the older Minolta lenses.

Slow inaccurate AF? Have you used any of the modern Sony's? They're anything but slow or inaccurate. AF tests of the A77 show it to be faster to obtain focus than even the 1DX and D4.
"Garish color output"? Guess that means you hate accurate color and probably enjoy the yellowed greens and muted, muddy reds of Nikons or the overly blue cast of Canons?
"Less than good lenses"? Say that to all the Sony lenses which rate higher in tests and MTFs than their counterparts.

Thanks for the laugh though.

A Minolta Company still exists, and it would behoove the public not to confuse it with Sony. Use of the Cybershot name allows the RX100 to rank as the best of the P&S class, rather than as a wimpy alternative to an entry DSLR.

People are also apt to be suspicious of reincarnated brand names.