sony please develop a cheap full-frame a-mount camera!!

Started Jan 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
clockwork247 Regular Member • Posts: 404
Re: some folks don't know how to be happy

Alan_S wrote:

William Porter wrote:

This thread alone contains several knocks against the Sony A99's low-light, high ISO performance, like "the low-light performance is not nearly in the same league as the Canon/Nikon full-frame competitors" and "Canon with the old 5D, yeah high ISO is crap but so is the A99", and there are others in the same vein, in other threads in this forum.

First, what is this fetish with high ISOs?

Sometimes it seems to me that a lot of the folks in this forum are like a guy who has won a date with one of the most beautiful women in the world, and he's not happy because her eyes aren't quite as blue as one of the other most beautiful women in the world. Some people just don't know how to be happy.

You need light to take photos, and the more the better. This is why professional, real photographers become lighting experts at least as much as they are scene composition experts. They know how to find the light, work with the light, modify the light, add to the light with more light. Light well used at ISO 400 is just about always going to produce a better photo than light used passively at ISO 3600. Complaining about the A99's high ISO performance compared to, say, the D600's or the 6D's is like complaining about how one model of car gets better mileage when going 110 mph than another model. Okay, you call tell me that you're routinely chased for hundreds of miles across Nevada and Arizona and this sort of thing is really important to you. Right.

And second, to say that the high ISO performance of the A99 is "crap" or "isn't nearly in the same league" as the competing Nikon and Canon cameras is just, well, silly. What is this, a contest to see who looks like he has the highest standards?

Yes, there's a small penalty for the SLT mirror and the A99's numbers aren't quite as high as the D600's. But the high ISO performance of the A99 is still amazing. I do not think I'm saying this just because I'm an old guy who remembers being excited when he learned about 400 ASA film. Once upon a time, 400 was fast, but now I frequently dare to shoot at 1600 and higher, and I did a recent outdoor sunlight wedding where I got to ISO 3200 quite a bit. Yes, some of the photos were noisy especially when viewed on the computer, but the prints come out great. Blows me away. And the A99 does an even better job than the A77.

If you lose sleep over DxO's numbers (especially without actually understanding them and their limits), well, I'll pray for you. Really, get out more. Take a couple photos.

I am intimately familiar with the pain of not being able to afford something! But I think a lot of this wingeing about the A99 is basically "sour grapes."

I have already done this switching thing once (from Pentax to Sony) and while I'm reasonably happy with my Sony kit and certainly not switching back to Pentax, I do often wonder if I didn't just change one set of annoyances for another. I too think about switching to Canon or Nikon, on a fairly regular basis. But I don't because every time I actually investigate I discover that the grass isn't in fact greener on the other side of the fence. And it's much crowded over there.


Well said, Will. When I read holyfan & clockwork's comments (which you quoted above) I very nearly responded to those ignorant statements (the a99 is what, the 5th best ever DxO scoring camera that they're calling sub-league, "overpriced," and "crap"? -- Yep, lots of research obviously went into those conclusions). But I held back, as I would have resorted to calling them ignorant statements, and that wouldn't be very nice. You were very polite and articulate; thanks for the post.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Thank you for bringing this up. the A99 is 5th, because they tested the 5D III and it scored lower... sorry but the rating is lower for the canon is because it scores lower in "color depth" and "dynamic range", i'm sure I'm a noob, but for the most part I can't tell if something has better color depth or dynamic range, but i'm sure is able to tell if something is shot in ISO 3200 VS ISO 6400, and look, the canon still beat out the sony A99 by about 1/2 a stop (1500 VS 2300). And it's sister, the 6D is also cheaper than the A99.

At the same time, people might point at me and say "you're so noob, look at me, I'm pro, I observe the light and work it, I don't need no high ISO, all I ever need is ISO 100", and I can tell you "good for you", if I'm pro I'll go to Canon/Nikon, ain't using no Sony, that's for sure. I'm sitting here, a noob, who likes to take photos, that's all, if people rank skill from 1 to 10, i'm probably a minus 20, I need all the help I can get, high ISO doesn't hurt.

All i'm saying is, if the A99 is 1500 USD, it'd be an awesome camera, in every way it's better than the A850 which can be bought for 1000 USD, I would be dumb to buy the A850 for 1000 VS the A99 for 1500, but fact of the matter is, it's a 3000 USD camera who gets out perform by cameras under 2000 and perform similarly to cameras of the 1000 USD range, and only slightly better than 500 USD cameras. I don't know at what point and time that Sony would think that this camera will sell well.

 clockwork247's gear list:clockwork247's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Nikon D70s Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow