Was thinking of selling/swapping my a99 II for a7R II

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Steve Cohan Senior Member • Posts: 1,829
Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.
1

In fact, I would not replace them with anything newer. Maybe you're operating in the margins with the ones that you have. To truly appreciate the 99II, put some equivalent glass on. Try any of the Zeiss lenses or anything from the Sigma art line. Until you see what those lenses do, you're not doing the body justice. I am in the school of a modest body with excellent lenses rather than a great body with mediocre lenses. I love the Minolta 80-200G f/2.8 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 and would use nothing else in place of them. Pick up a Sony/Zeiss 28-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and you'll see how the 99II really performs

-- hide signature --

I'm not a pixel peeper. I just shoot images. Resolution is the most overrated facet of photography.

 Steve Cohan's gear list:Steve Cohan's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony Alpha a99 Sony a99 II Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO +16 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Steve Cohan wrote:
I'm not a pixel peeper. I just shoot images. Resolution is the most overrated facet of photography.

True. I use a Tamron 45mm f1.8 which, according to tests, is on a par with the Sigma ART 35mm f1.4. The ability to resolve individual threads in fabric with the Tamron/A99ii combo is remarkable.

-- hide signature --

Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +10 more
Douglas F Watt Veteran Member • Posts: 3,784
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Steve Cohan wrote:

In fact, I would not replace them with anything newer. Maybe you're operating in the margins with the ones that you have. To truly appreciate the 99II, put some equivalent glass on. Try any of the Zeiss lenses or anything from the Sigma art line. Until you see what those lenses do, you're not doing the body justice. I am in the school of a modest body with excellent lenses rather than a great body with mediocre lenses. I love the Minolta 80-200G f/2.8 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 and would use nothing else in place of them. Pick up a Sony/Zeiss 28-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and you'll see how the 99II really performs

Don't forget about the Sigma Art 24-105 f4. It's a better walk around lens IMHO than even the Zeiss 24-70 - not as fast, but the extra reach has proven invaluable and it's just a bit lighter, plus it's actually a bit sharper than the CZ at 24, where I did a lot of shooting.  AF works great on that lens, and I don't miss the hybrid AF at all. It's a pity that only the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 24-105 are available from the amazing Sigma Art series. I'd buy the whole series.

With the Sony 70-400 G2 and the Sigma Art 24-105 I had a decent coverage from 24-400 with just those two lenses on a recent amazing two weeks in Italy.

Pictures were consistently superb from both lenses.

-- hide signature --

Sony A99ii-A77ii-RX10III-RX100V
Sigma: 8-16 f4.5-5.6, 500 4.5 EX DG APO.
Sigma Art: 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 24-105 f4.
Tamron: 70-200 f2.8 USD
Sony Zeiss Alpha: 24 f2, 85 1.4, 135 1.8, 24-70 2.8 SSMII
Sony: 16-50 f2.8, 100 f2.8M, 70-400 f4-5.6 G2
Minolta: 70-210 f4 ('Beercan').
DFW

 Douglas F Watt's gear list:Douglas F Watt's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony RX10 III Sony RX100 V Sony a77 II Sony a99 II +16 more
Marco Cinnirella
Marco Cinnirella Veteran Member • Posts: 7,546
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Douglas F Watt wrote:

Steve Cohan wrote:

In fact, I would not replace them with anything newer. Maybe you're operating in the margins with the ones that you have. To truly appreciate the 99II, put some equivalent glass on. Try any of the Zeiss lenses or anything from the Sigma art line. Until you see what those lenses do, you're not doing the body justice. I am in the school of a modest body with excellent lenses rather than a great body with mediocre lenses. I love the Minolta 80-200G f/2.8 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 and would use nothing else in place of them. Pick up a Sony/Zeiss 28-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and you'll see how the 99II really performs

Don't forget about the Sigma Art 24-105 f4. It's a better walk around lens IMHO than even the Zeiss 24-70 - not as fast, but the extra reach has proven invaluable and it's just a bit lighter, plus it's actually a bit sharper than the CZ at 24, where I did a lot of shooting. AF works great on that lens, and I don't miss the hybrid AF at all. It's a pity that only the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 24-105 are available from the amazing Sigma Art series. I'd buy the whole series.

With the Sony 70-400 G2 and the Sigma Art 24-105 I had a decent coverage from 24-400 with just those two lenses on a recent amazing two weeks in Italy.

Pictures were consistently superb from both lenses.

I don't disagree with you about the quality of those lenses Douglas, but I'm not sure I would want to lug around a 70-400 on vacation unless wildlife shooting was a serious part of it - it's a pretty large and heavy lens for travel.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcoc/
"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." Ansel Adams.

 Marco Cinnirella's gear list:Marco Cinnirella's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a99 II Sony Alpha a99 Fujifilm X-H1
OP Mike - Contributing Member • Posts: 844
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Using the 28-105 Minolta lens last weekend, I actually like that range for a walk-around lens...so, B&H had a Sigma/Sony model in stock...should be here Friday.

I can't use anything longer than about 35mm on the short end and need some sort of zoom.

My normal use camera for Drag Racing, motorcycle racing outings is a 5D IV Canon with an old 35-350 L lens.  I wish Nikon and Sony had a similar lens, as its range is about perfect.

Yes, I know (and actually do have) that Canon and Nikon have their 28-300 lenses.  But detail wise...they don't stand up to the old Canon 35-350 L lens.

I'll give the new Sigma a workout this weekend (if I get it as promised !).

Mike

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

I'll second that vote for the Sigma 24-105 ART lens!!! For low light I bypass f2.8 completely. I use a Tamron 45mm f1.8, another great lens even sharper than the Sigma.

-- hide signature --

Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +10 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

I don't disagree with you about the quality of those lenses Douglas, but I'm not sure I would want to lug around a 70-400 on vacation unless wildlife shooting was a serious part of it - it's a pretty large and heavy lens for travel.

I agree and instead use an RX10iv for long telephoto use. I have a small sling bag that holds both cameras, extra batteries, a flash, my RX100 and chargers. Since I use long telephotos exclusively in decent light the much better high iso of the A99ii doesn't come into play. Also the faster lens on the RX10iv compared to a lens like the 70-400 helps compensate and the extra 200mm and eliminates the resolution advantage of the 99ii. As a bonus the RX10iv autofocus tracking is better than the A99ii.

-- hide signature --

Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +10 more
Marco Cinnirella
Marco Cinnirella Veteran Member • Posts: 7,546
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

tbcass wrote:

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

I don't disagree with you about the quality of those lenses Douglas, but I'm not sure I would want to lug around a 70-400 on vacation unless wildlife shooting was a serious part of it - it's a pretty large and heavy lens for travel.

I agree and instead use an RX10iv for long telephoto use. I have a small sling bag that holds both cameras, extra batteries, a flash, my RX100 and chargers. Since I use long telephotos exclusively in decent light the much better high iso of the A99ii doesn't come into play. Also the faster lens on the RX10iv compared to a lens like the 70-400 helps compensate and the extra 200mm and eliminates the resolution advantage of the 99ii. As a bonus the RX10iv autofocus tracking is better than the A99ii.

The RX10iv is a very capable performer but as an a99ii owner I can’t help being a bit disappointed that it out-performs the a99ii at AF tracking

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcoc/
"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." Ansel Adams.

 Marco Cinnirella's gear list:Marco Cinnirella's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a99 II Sony Alpha a99 Fujifilm X-H1
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

The RX10iv is a very capable performer but as an a99ii owner I can’t help being a bit disappointed that it out-performs the a99ii at AF tracking.

It shouldn't be surprising since the 10iv uses the same processing and algorithms as the A9. The A99ii is an older design. The 10iv is amazing the way it sticks like glue once you lock on a target.

-- hide signature --

Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +10 more
Mark K
Mark K Veteran Member • Posts: 6,363
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

tbcass wrote:

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

I don't disagree with you about the quality of those lenses Douglas, but I'm not sure I would want to lug around a 70-400 on vacation unless wildlife shooting was a serious part of it - it's a pretty large and heavy lens for travel.

I agree and instead use an RX10iv for long telephoto use. I have a small sling bag that holds both cameras, extra batteries, a flash, my RX100 and chargers. Since I use long telephotos exclusively in decent light the much better high iso of the A99ii doesn't come into play. Also the faster lens on the RX10iv compared to a lens like the 70-400 helps compensate and the extra 200mm and eliminates the resolution advantage of the 99ii. As a bonus the RX10iv autofocus tracking is better than the A99ii.

The RX10iv is a very capable performer but as an a99ii owner I can’t help being a bit disappointed that it out-performs the a99ii at AF tracking

The AF performance of A7III is better than tht of A7rIII

-- hide signature --

Mark K

 Mark K's gear list:Mark K's gear list
Nikon D800 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony a6000 Sony a7R II Nikon D500 +69 more
Douglas F Watt Veteran Member • Posts: 3,784
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

Douglas F Watt wrote:

Steve Cohan wrote:

In fact, I would not replace them with anything newer. Maybe you're operating in the margins with the ones that you have. To truly appreciate the 99II, put some equivalent glass on. Try any of the Zeiss lenses or anything from the Sigma art line. Until you see what those lenses do, you're not doing the body justice. I am in the school of a modest body with excellent lenses rather than a great body with mediocre lenses. I love the Minolta 80-200G f/2.8 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 and would use nothing else in place of them. Pick up a Sony/Zeiss 28-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and you'll see how the 99II really performs

Don't forget about the Sigma Art 24-105 f4. It's a better walk around lens IMHO than even the Zeiss 24-70 - not as fast, but the extra reach has proven invaluable and it's just a bit lighter, plus it's actually a bit sharper than the CZ at 24, where I did a lot of shooting. AF works great on that lens, and I don't miss the hybrid AF at all. It's a pity that only the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 24-105 are available from the amazing Sigma Art series. I'd buy the whole series.

With the Sony 70-400 G2 and the Sigma Art 24-105 I had a decent coverage from 24-400 with just those two lenses on a recent amazing two weeks in Italy.

Pictures were consistently superb from both lenses.

I don't disagree with you about the quality of those lenses Douglas, but I'm not sure I would want to lug around a 70-400 on vacation unless wildlife shooting was a serious part of it - it's a pretty large and heavy lens for travel.

For sure.  The 70-400 only got taken to a few locations.  Mostly it was the Sigma 24-105.

-- hide signature --

Sony A99ii-A77ii-RX10III-RX100V
Sigma: 8-16 f4.5-5.6, 500 4.5 EX DG APO.
Sigma Art: 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 24-105 f4.
Tamron: 70-200 f2.8 USD
Sony Zeiss Alpha: 24 f2, 85 1.4, 135 1.8, 24-70 2.8 SSMII
Sony: 16-50 f2.8, 100 f2.8M, 70-400 f4-5.6 G2
Minolta: 70-210 f4 ('Beercan').
DFW

 Douglas F Watt's gear list:Douglas F Watt's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony RX10 III Sony RX100 V Sony a77 II Sony a99 II +16 more
Douglas F Watt Veteran Member • Posts: 3,784
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

tbcass wrote:

I'll second that vote for the Sigma 24-105 ART lens!!! For low light I bypass f2.8 completely. I use a Tamron 45mm f1.8, another great lens even sharper than the Sigma.

Probably about the same as the Sigma 50 1.4, but lighter and less expensive.  Both are very fine choices.  I just wish we could get the Sigma Art 12-24 or the 20mm prime.  24mm just isn't wide enough for a lot of shots of scenery and architecture.

-- hide signature --

Sony A99ii-A77ii-RX10III-RX100V
Sigma: 8-16 f4.5-5.6, 500 4.5 EX DG APO.
Sigma Art: 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 24-105 f4.
Tamron: 70-200 f2.8 USD
Sony Zeiss Alpha: 24 f2, 85 1.4, 135 1.8, 24-70 2.8 SSMII
Sony: 16-50 f2.8, 100 f2.8M, 70-400 f4-5.6 G2
Minolta: 70-210 f4 ('Beercan').
DFW

 Douglas F Watt's gear list:Douglas F Watt's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony RX10 III Sony RX100 V Sony a77 II Sony a99 II +16 more
OP Mike - Contributing Member • Posts: 844
Wow, wasn't expecting this

I received the Sigma (24-105, art) lens early. Wasn't supposed to be to me till Friday..!

Part of the lens purchase deal was the Sigma "Dock" tool.

Not sure I'll need it. Sitting here at my computer, I snapped a quick shot at an old poster on the wall, above the door. The small writing is clearer/sharper than any I can offhand remember. I'm sure I've seen as detailed (I use this poster a lot..!) with other cameras/lenses, but this is MUCH nicer than the Minolta, which isn't really THAT bad..!

While I shouldn't be spending this kinda money (newly retired), I'm glad I did.

Mike

P.s. - I'll know better this weekend.  I'll compare picture detail if I can find similar zoom distances to look at.

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Douglas F Watt wrote:

tbcass wrote:

I'll second that vote for the Sigma 24-105 ART lens!!! For low light I bypass f2.8 completely. I use a Tamron 45mm f1.8, another great lens even sharper than the Sigma.

Probably about the same as the Sigma 50 1.4, but lighter and less expensive. Both are very fine choices. I just wish we could get the Sigma Art 12-24 or the 20mm prime. 24mm just isn't wide enough for a lot of shots of scenery and architecture.

While wider than 24mm might be nice to have I've never felt that it wasn't wide enough. Admittedly I've never shot with anything wider. I considered the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 but quite frankly I don't think I would use it enough to justify the cost.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083964-REG/tamron_sp_15_30mm_f_2_8_di.html

-- hide signature --

Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +10 more
Anders_Nilsson Regular Member • Posts: 481
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Douglas F Watt wrote:

Steve Cohan wrote:

In fact, I would not replace them with anything newer. Maybe you're operating in the margins with the ones that you have. To truly appreciate the 99II, put some equivalent glass on. Try any of the Zeiss lenses or anything from the Sigma art line. Until you see what those lenses do, you're not doing the body justice. I am in the school of a modest body with excellent lenses rather than a great body with mediocre lenses. I love the Minolta 80-200G f/2.8 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 and would use nothing else in place of them. Pick up a Sony/Zeiss 28-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and you'll see how the 99II really performs

Don't forget about the Sigma Art 24-105 f4. It's a better walk around lens IMHO than even the Zeiss 24-70 - not as fast, but the extra reach has proven invaluable and it's just a bit lighter, plus it's actually a bit sharper than the CZ at 24, where I did a lot of shooting. AF works great on that lens, and I don't miss the hybrid AF at all. It's a pity that only the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 24-105 are available from the amazing Sigma Art series. I'd buy the whole series.

With the Sony 70-400 G2 and the Sigma Art 24-105 I had a decent coverage from 24-400 with just those two lenses on a recent amazing two weeks in Italy.

Pictures were consistently superb from both lenses.

Mike seems to be very happy with his 24-105, claiming it's major step up from the Minolta 28-105. I have the Minolta 24-105 which can give very good results in the right circumstances. Kurt Munger didn't seem all that overwhelmed with the CZ vs the Minolta 24-105 though he acknowledged the CZ is a superior lens.

Don't need 2.8 but would like a better lens to match my DT1650 on my a77ii. Will the Sigma 24-105 match the CZ24-70 over the whole range or is it only at 24mm? I do most of my shooting in the 24-35 range but I will not buy a 24-35 zoom since I want a general purpose zoom.

Does the CZ have that "extra" like the 16-50 has? In my view the 1650 outdoes the Minolta even on the a99i in crop mode.

 Anders_Nilsson's gear list:Anders_Nilsson's gear list
Casio Exilim EX-10 Casio Exilim EX-100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Sony Alpha a99 Sony Alpha NEX-6 +16 more
Marco Cinnirella
Marco Cinnirella Veteran Member • Posts: 7,546
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Anders_Nilsson wrote:

Douglas F Watt wrote:

Steve Cohan wrote:

In fact, I would not replace them with anything newer. Maybe you're operating in the margins with the ones that you have. To truly appreciate the 99II, put some equivalent glass on. Try any of the Zeiss lenses or anything from the Sigma art line. Until you see what those lenses do, you're not doing the body justice. I am in the school of a modest body with excellent lenses rather than a great body with mediocre lenses. I love the Minolta 80-200G f/2.8 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 and would use nothing else in place of them. Pick up a Sony/Zeiss 28-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and you'll see how the 99II really performs

Don't forget about the Sigma Art 24-105 f4. It's a better walk around lens IMHO than even the Zeiss 24-70 - not as fast, but the extra reach has proven invaluable and it's just a bit lighter, plus it's actually a bit sharper than the CZ at 24, where I did a lot of shooting. AF works great on that lens, and I don't miss the hybrid AF at all. It's a pity that only the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 24-105 are available from the amazing Sigma Art series. I'd buy the whole series.

With the Sony 70-400 G2 and the Sigma Art 24-105 I had a decent coverage from 24-400 with just those two lenses on a recent amazing two weeks in Italy.

Pictures were consistently superb from both lenses.

Mike seems to be very happy with his 24-105, claiming it's major step up from the Minolta 28-105. I have the Minolta 24-105 which can give very good results in the right circumstances. Kurt Munger didn't seem all that overwhelmed with the CZ vs the Minolta 24-105 though he acknowledged the CZ is a superior lens.

Don't need 2.8 but would like a better lens to match my DT1650 on my a77ii. Will the Sigma 24-105 match the CZ24-70 over the whole range or is it only at 24mm? I do most of my shooting in the 24-35 range but I will not buy a 24-35 zoom since I want a general purpose zoom.

Does the CZ have that "extra" like the 16-50 has? In my view the 1650 outdoes the Minolta even on the a99i in crop mode.

There seems to be sample variation in copies of the Sony CZ 24-70 2.8 lens - not all that unusual for fast zooms. Douglas perhaps didn't get a copy that was as strong at the 24 end as some copies. In contrast, my copy is very sharp through the focal length range, even wide open. It's noticeably sharper than my Tamron 24-70, but I do notice some AF oddities from time to time when using the extended hybrid AF points that go right into the corners on the a99ii. I have owned the Sony 16-50 f2.8 lens. It had a contrast and 3D rendering to it that was very Zeiss like. However my 24-70 Sony absolutely smokes that lens at the wide end - it is far, far better at 24 than the 16-50 was at 16, with much less complex distortion as well. My feeling is that overall the 24-70 is a better lens than the 16-50, as it should be given the price. I imagine Kurt probably got a mediocre copy of the 24-70. I tend to favour Dyxum.com for alpha-mount lens reviews because at least you can look at the average ratings across a sample of user reviews, and that should help to balance out sample variation if there are a reasonable number of reviews.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcoc/
"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." Ansel Adams.

 Marco Cinnirella's gear list:Marco Cinnirella's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a99 II Sony Alpha a99 Fujifilm X-H1
OpticsEngineer Veteran Member • Posts: 6,461
DPR review comment a99 II for a7R II
1

From the conclusions tab on the dpreview of the A99II

"To this reviewer, the a99 II ends up feeling like a more usable a7R II. For me, the a7R II represented a ton of processing power made frustrating by simple usability issues. The a99 II removes what frustrated me about the a7R II and has allowed me truly appreciate that wonderful sensor. This is the camera that makes giving SLT and the Alpha mount worth another look."

In another section of the review, if I remember correctly, there was the comment that the A99II was what the A7RII should have been.

I have both and pretty much agree with the reviewers sentiments.

 OpticsEngineer's gear list:OpticsEngineer's gear list
Olympus XZ-2 iHS Fujifilm XF1 Canon PowerShot G7 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Sony SLT-A65 +23 more
Lensmate
Lensmate Veteran Member • Posts: 3,403
Re: DPR review comment a99 II for a7R II

OpticsEngineer wrote:

From the conclusions tab on the dpreview of the A99II

"To this reviewer, the a99 II ends up feeling like a more usable a7R II. For me, the a7R II represented a ton of processing power made frustrating by simple usability issues. The a99 II removes what frustrated me about the a7R II and has allowed me truly appreciate that wonderful sensor. This is the camera that makes giving SLT and the Alpha mount worth another look."

In another section of the review, if I remember correctly, there was the comment that the A99II was what the A7RII should have been.

I have both and pretty much agree with the reviewers sentiments.

I believe the OP made a title error....should have read - "Was thinking of selling/swapping my 'spouse' for a7R II ...

-Martin P

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosauraus_rex/

RandyPD Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.
1

tbcass wrote:

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

The RX10iv is a very capable performer but as an a99ii owner I can’t help being a bit disappointed that it out-performs the a99ii at AF tracking.

It shouldn't be surprising since the 10iv uses the same processing and algorithms as the A9. The A99ii is an older design. The 10iv is amazing the way it sticks like glue once you lock on a target.

Don't you think also that because the 10IV has a small sensor with deeper DOF it has an inherent advantage over the A99II and its FF sensor?

Marco Cinnirella
Marco Cinnirella Veteran Member • Posts: 7,546
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

RandyPD wrote:

tbcass wrote:

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

The RX10iv is a very capable performer but as an a99ii owner I can’t help being a bit disappointed that it out-performs the a99ii at AF tracking.

It shouldn't be surprising since the 10iv uses the same processing and algorithms as the A9. The A99ii is an older design. The 10iv is amazing the way it sticks like glue once you lock on a target.

Don't you think also that because the 10IV has a small sensor with deeper DOF it has an inherent advantage over the A99II and its FF sensor?

No idea tbh?

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcoc/
"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." Ansel Adams.

 Marco Cinnirella's gear list:Marco Cinnirella's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a99 II Sony Alpha a99 Fujifilm X-H1
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads