A200 update to A77II or A99 or wait A99II?

[AndrewWong]

Hi all,

I am now using A200 to take photos. Mainly on Landscape and Bird photograph. I love my A200, but I found some problems on it:

1. ISO limit on 800 and once I want to take indoor photos or birds in the forest i almost cannot take photos. I want a usable photo at ISO6400(For forest birding, ISO1600-3200 i think is enough for indoors).

2. A200 can only have good AF at bright conditions. When at indoors I even cannot AF with my 35 f1.8 prime.

3. I want weather sealing.

I do studied many review on A99 and A77II and both of them are good. But I want you to give me some suggestions.

I love the peaking function in EVF, but will it function well at low night condition?

My lens now:

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (can use 16mm at FF, but distortion need to be correct at LR)

Sony 35 f1.8

Tamron 150-600

2 Kits (18-70, 75-300)

My ratio for IQ to price is 6:4

If E-mount, do the LA-EA 4 can afford my Tammy?

 

[lim yau tong]

A99 is preferred. A99 can definitely do the job that you intended.

 

[tqlla]

Personally, I would choose the A99. Especially at the current sale price. Adorama has the best deal if you want the grip. But if you would rather have cash, than the free grip/batteries.... Buydig has a great price on an open box A99

Adorama the A99 brand new, with a free grip and 2x extra batteries for $1998
http://www.adorama.com/ISOSLTA99V.html

BuyDig has an open box A99 for $1600 after coupon code CLOSEOUT20
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=SNSLTA99VOB

The other problem is that you will need new lenses. I would suggest:
1) Minolta 28-105mm RS lens to replace your Kit lenses (usually$100-$120)
2) Tamron/Minolta 17-35mm F2.8-4.0 to replace your Tokina (usually $200-$300)
3) Any Minolta 50mm F1.7 to replace your 35mm lens (usually $40-$70)

 

[tqlla]

There is a Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4.0 on ebay. Current prices is $200. It ends tonight and will probably go for pretty cheap. I would suggest picking up that lens to replace your Tokina

 

[garykohs]

Having just taken some football pictures with my A99 after using my A77-2 for sports and wildlife since getting it in June, my recommendation is the A77-2.

The A99 has some serious limitations IMO compared to the A77-2 for shooting sports and wildlife.

1. AF - lock on is slower, tracking isn't nearly as good, and the AF points don't come close to covering the frame.
2. EVF - the lag is noticeably longer when shooting bursts, annoyingly so
3. FPS - 6 frames per second just doesn't get it done, IMO
4. Buffer - the buffer in the A99 is pathetic; the A77-2 is outstanding

There's no doubt about the fact that the A99 is better at ISO 6400. But the A77-2 is definitely usable at 6400 and I don't think the difference is worth living with the A99's limitations. Of course we all hope that an A99-2 is coming fairly soon.

 

[AlphaTikal]

Go with the A77M2. No need for fullframe. The difference is not much, but the price is. The A99 have an APS-C mode, which acts like such a body. The EVF gives still 100% view and the resolution would be 10.5mp then.

Hi all,

I am now using A200 to take photos. Mainly on Landscape and Bird photograph. I love my A200, but I found some problems on it:

I started with a A290, then gone to A65 for 2 years or longer and now ended up at A77M2.

1. ISO limit on 800 and once I want to take indoor photos or birds in the forest i almost cannot take photos. I want a usable photo at ISO6400(For forest birding, ISO1600-3200 i think is enough for indoors).

With A77M2 you have this capability. The difference is just amazing.

2. A200 can only have good AF at bright conditions. When at indoors I even cannot AF with my 35 f1.8 prime.

The A77M2 can do this too. The AF is very good and one of the best in the APS-C world.

3. I want weather sealing.

It have.

My lens now:

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (can use 16mm at FF, but distortion need to be correct at LR)

Then you will not win much with fullframe.

Sony 35 f1.8

APS-C only too.

Tamron 150-600

This is a huge lens. I recommend for shots where you don't need the 600mm a smaller and lighter Tamron 70-300mm with USD. It have the advantage of size and fast and silent autofocus. Good for birds I think. Edit: Just ignore my recommendation for the Tamron lens. Didn't know the new 150-600 have USD too.

My ratio for IQ to price is 6:4

What about other attributes like autofocus and portability?

If E-mount, do the LA-EA 4 can afford my Tammy?

Why E-mount? It have worse autofocus than A-mount cameras. Ok, the A6000 seems to make a good job, but with an adapter it gets worse. I don't recommend this, when there is an excellent A77M2 out.

--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 

[AlphaTikal]

The A77M2 can do it almost in same quality. Also his lenses are mostly for crop sensor and with crop sensor he have more reach with longer focal lenses like the 150-600mm. For the high iso shots, the difference between fullframe and crop is not that great and the A77M2 have a newer sensor. So the difference is less than you think.

 

[AlphaTikal]

Personally, I would choose the A99. Especially at the current sale price.

I would not. It is very expensive and the difference in image quality to the new A77M2 is not that great. His lenses are mostly for crop sensor, so if he is ending up buying new lenses, then it will be very expensive. And for what? Also with crop sensor he have more reach for birds.

 

[mick232]

Having just taken some football pictures with my A99 after using my A77-2 for sports and wildlife since getting it in June, my recommendation is the A77-2.

The A99 has some serious limitations IMO compared to the A77-2 for shooting sports and wildlife.

1. AF - lock on is slower, tracking isn't nearly as good, and the AF points don't come close to covering the frame.
2. EVF - the lag is noticeably longer when shooting bursts, annoyingly so
3. FPS - 6 frames per second just doesn't get it done, IMO
4. Buffer - the buffer in the A99 is pathetic; the A77-2 is outstanding

There's no doubt about the fact that the A99 is better at ISO 6400. But the A77-2 is definitely usable at 6400 and I don't think the difference is worth living with the A99's limitations. Of course we all hope that an A99-2 is coming fairly soon.

 

[lhkjacky]

I want a usable photo at ISO6400

It depends how you define usable.

Normal situation, A77 II will be good enough.

However, if you need big print, large crop, better dynamic range at high ISO,
FF is the only way to go.

Personally, I would not suggest use A99 for bird.
A77 II 's AF is much better.

IMHO, if you need a new camera now, get the A77 II.

IF you can wait, wait for the A99 II,
but no one knows when will it come out, next year or may be never..
SAR said it may come at 2015 jan, but I never trust a rumor site.

 

[AlphaTikal]

Yes. It is just a rumor and you don't know what is new in this camera then. You don't know when it will come out ever and if the waiting is worth. In the meanwhile you could do wonderful photos. And nobody knows the price. Compare what you have today, not what you could have tomorrow.

 

[Tin sck]

Both A99 and A77II are capable cameras.

A99 has better high ISO performance, wider dynamic range and as a full frame offers higher control in depth of field.

A77II has much better object tracking and continuous shooting speed.

I am sure you know your own needs the best and can select the right camera.

 

[Yemble]

One other thing about the A77ii is that the in camera JPEG engine seems to be a vast improvement over previous Sony SLT and DSLR cameras. I am seriously thinking about switching from RAW, which I used exclusively on my A77, to JPEG on my A77ii.

 

[Calico Jack]

Ahoy!

I don't use SLT (my choice) but I wonder what's drawing you to it in lieu of either the A850/A900 which doesn't have any incompatibility issues and are also dual format.

I know times move on, but going from the lowest model entry-level DSLR (apart from the A100, but that was a single release and not a batch type from A200 - A580) to the gizmo's and gadgets of the SLT system, what's your reasoning by not not staying with DSLR?

It's just a question, so SLT owners, please don't think I'm bashing the SLT because I'm not, it's a simple question to the OP in order to try and understand the reasoning behind the decision.

 

[tbcass]

I used to own an A100. Since the A200 is basically a cheapened A100 and I now own an A77ii. I can assure you that the 77ii is well beyond the A200 in every possible way. Much better high iso. Far more advanced Auto Focus. Much better build quality.

I would advise you to sell the a200 and your 18-70/75-300 lens combo because they are not very good lenses (It's the same setup I had with the A100).

If you get an A77ii the 18-135 is a good reasonably priced kit lens as is the Sony 55-300. The Tamron 70-300 is a step up and not too expensive. If you can swing it get the 16-50 f2.8 with the camera.

The LA-EA4 adapter will not focus as good as the A77ii or even the A99.

Your Sony 35 is an APS-C lens and won't work well with the A99.

I get usable results up to iso 6400 with my A77ii.

 

[tbcass]

3) Any Minolta 50mm F1.7 to replace your 35mm lens (usually $40-$70)

I used to own the Minolta 50mm f1.7 and feel that would be a mistake because it's IQ is a definite step down compared to the 35. I sold my 50 with my A65 because it's quality just wasn't up to the 24mp sensor. Of course if he buys an A99 the 35 will be restricted to 12mp crop mode but it still will outperform the 50 at 24mp.

 

[tbcass]

The topic was "landscape and birds" not "sports and wildlife".

Well Birds qualifies as wildlife and the AF requirements are even more demanding than most sports so I believe the comparison was justified.

 

[tqlla]

3) Any Minolta 50mm F1.7 to replace your 35mm lens (usually $40-$70)

I used to own the Minolta 50mm f1.7 and feel that would be a mistake because it's IQ is a definite step down compared to the 35. I sold my 50 with my A65 because it's quality just wasn't up to the 24mp sensor. Of course if he buys an A99 the 35 will be restricted to 12mp crop mode but it still will outperform the 50 at 24mp.

 

[tbcass]

You might have had a bad copy. I have several 50mm F1.7s and they are all very good. I use them in place of my Sony 50mm 1.4 without worries about IQ loss.

Maybe you were lucky because several other people on these forums agree with me. I'm not saying it's bad but it can't compare with the 35 f1.8. Why do you have several copies of the same lens?

 

[AndrewWong]

Actually I have one big questions what to ask. Is the image quality really have so much difference for FF vs APS-C? Many people telling me FF colour is better than APS-C.

For A77II owner, can you show me some ISO6400 photos? I want real world sample for indoors and birds. If that is nice maybe I will go A77II. The Two Kits I almost do not use them.

For next lens upgrade will be 24-70 F2.8 ZA (which is saving money now).

One thing need to be added is that I will not dump my A200. It will become my backup camera or eagle shooting camera (low iso, nice colour).