Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 samples gallery

real deal = green skin?

Oct 13, 2012permalink

Francis Carver

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.

Oct 13, 2012permalink

Michael_13

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. ;-)

Oct 16, 2012permalink

Fraxinus excelsior

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

f11 on a 24mp sensor would be diffraction limited.

Oct 13, 2012permalink

Fraxinus excelsior

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.

Oct 15, 2012*permalink

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

Oct 12, 2012permalink

stan_pustylnik

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

TrojMacReady

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.

Oct 12, 2012*permalink

tbcass

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

Lea5

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

Oct 12, 2012permalink

Just don't read the comment.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

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).

Oct 12, 2012permalink

BMWX5

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.

Oct 12, 2012*permalink

OneGuy

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

Oct 13, 2012permalink

Clyde Thomas

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.

Oct 12, 2012*permalink

sabotaged? really? lol

Oct 13, 2012permalink

Sylvain Larive

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...

Oct 15, 2012*permalink

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

Richard Murdey

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...

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Amadou Diallo

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

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?

Oct 12, 2012*permalink

OneGuy

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

Oct 13, 2012permalink

fhu

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

afterswish1

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

ARTASHES

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 :)

Oct 11, 2012permalink

TrojMacReady

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Simon97

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

le_alain

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Riezer

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

tbcass

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

Riezer

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

Princess Leia

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!

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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?

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

Joes Raw Talk

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Nectar D Or

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

Preternatural Stuff

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.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

MarkSA

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!

Nov 11, 2012permalink

jsis

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

hah.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

Tape5

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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?

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Clint Dunn

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

meshal

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Nordstjernen

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Joes Raw Talk

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

Princess Leia

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

The_Wicker_Man

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Simon97

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

qwertyasdf

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)

Oct 11, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Awful detail.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

mick232

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).

Oct 11, 2012permalink

rusticus

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

stan_pustylnik

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

mick232

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

stan_pustylnik

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

marike6

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

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

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

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.

Oct 13, 2012*permalink

MarkSA

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.

Nov 11, 2012*permalink

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

mlam3d

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....

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

Adrian Van

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?

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Joes Raw Talk

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

harold1968

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

MarkSA

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.

Nov 11, 2012*permalink

aardvark7

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!

Oct 11, 2012permalink

wetsleet

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?

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Dan Ortego

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

oselimg

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.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

tesch

Thanks for the smile!

Oct 11, 2012permalink

chlamchowder

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Paulo Ferreira

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"

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Geedorama

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Michael_13

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Lyle Aldridge

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

marike6

Apparently expressing oneself tactfully seems to be lost art.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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

Oct 14, 2012permalink

nicolaiecostel

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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

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

Oct 14, 2012permalink

Paul_B Midlands UK

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!

Oct 11, 2012permalink

zos xavius

Get one! they are awesome cameras.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Shelly Glaser

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Emacs23

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Rooru S

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).

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Colin Dutton

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Mir_ro

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

gl2k

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Dapple 101

Er...

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Clyde Thomas

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.

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

kadardr

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

ForeignerOnEarth

You are right.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Preternatural Stuff

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!

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Colin Dutton

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Preternatural Stuff

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 ...

Oct 11, 2012permalink

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

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

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.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Princess Leia

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

Oct 11, 2012permalink