Any news on an A99ii?

Messages
509
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering if anyone had seen any info around the possibility of an A99ii with the improvements of the A77ii included

I've got an A77 but I'm starting to feel that the AF and high ISO performance aren't quite up to what I need. At the moment the A77ii would sort the former and the A99 the latter, but if an A99ii (or whatever they will call it) will hopefully be the perfect camera for me.

Otherwise I'd have to think about switching systems (I'm not too heavily invested in A-Mount lenses, I'm just very used to the EVF etc now) but not sure if I could get the same spec/price from Canon/Nikon??
 
Im not sure why you couldnt get a decent FF from Canikon, Sonys FF SLT is not a cheap camera and at launch was incredibly expensive.
 
Im not sure why you couldnt get a decent FF from Canikon, Sonys FF SLT is not a cheap camera and at launch was incredibly expensive.

I'm open to any suggestions for Canon/Nikon models that would be around the same price point, I've just got no experience with either brand so no idea which models would fit the bill for me, and I do think I'd miss the EVF unless the performance of the camera was a big enough leap to justify it.
 
Canon/Nikon don't do evfs in a dslr do they? No in body IS either. Well antiquated ;)

I have the a77ii it's pretty damn good. I was also waiting for a possible a99ii that was ff and with decent fps but I reckon the a77ii is good enough and it being crop might be an advantage for any wildlife or motorsport.

The Sony outlet often have them for about 750 quid. For the amount of camera you get its a good price.

Worth looking at the other FF e mount Sony cameras too if you've not got much A mount. No in body IS though.

Its just what you like and prefer. Never a bad idea to go into an actual shop and pick up each model you might want.
 
Worth looking at the other FF e mount Sony cameras too if you've not got much A mount. No in body IS though.

A7 II has 5-axis IBIS.

I never thought that the A99 was cheap at launch but then again I didn't that it was overpriced at launch compared to the likes of the 5D MkIII (5D MkIII is still £2290). Currently a 6D body is £1249 & an A99 body is £1349 - I know which I would rather have & it isn't a 6D ....


I imagine that an A99 II is going to come in at or around £2000 at launch again.
 
I suspect we'll see it this year if the rumour site is anything to go by. Price wise it will be stupid which led me to bite the bullet and buy an A99 recently which can be had for a grand in mint used condition even with a 12 month warranty if you can find one in a used section of a camera website.

I just couldn't go back to an old tech OVF now. Canon and Nikon will eventually follow suit when the techs better.
 
Canon 5D3, nikon D810, 750 are All excellent and available now.

Canon/Nikon don't do evfs in a dslr do they? No in body IS either. Well antiquated ;)

Real viewfinder is about the biggest advantage there can be over fuzzy low res low refresh rate artificial peeping hole. Antiquated maybe, but that is hardly a defence for a new inferior system. There are plenty of IS lenses and they work better than inbody tech. A lot of the time you don't even need it.
 
Evf is fine in the a77 onwards, just needs a decent eyecup.... from a old Minolta

I like the exposure preview and white balance, punch in focus etc

its not like crop or ff viewfinder is that amazing anyways, Leica and rb67 have been my fav analogue ones.
 
I have got back in to A mount in a big way and love the Sony full frame cameras. If your after a cheap upgrade the A99 is going to drop in price once the A99 ii is out. The A99 has a significant real world ISO performance improvement over A77ii

If you where looking at swapping platforms the only logical step would be Nikon if your after full frame and good iso performance. But I would stick with Sony.
 
Thanks guys I might wait another few months and hope for some more news, and then either bite the bullet and get a 99ii or at least cash in on some extra savings on the original 99.

I think the ISO performance is what I'd rather have if i had to choose between faster/better AF and ISO so the 99 would be a decent choice, and I do love my Sony cameras so as long as they do one that suits my needs I'll prob stick with them :)
 
As soon as Nikon do make a DSLR with tilt screen AND EVF I would have little reason (bar some lovely Minolta glass) to stay with Sony. It will happen i'm sure its just when. Canon are just too far behind now in their sensor technology for me to even consider them.
 
Evf is fine in the a77 onwards, just needs a decent eyecup.... from a old Minolta

I like the exposure preview and white balance, punch in focus etc

its not like crop or ff viewfinder is that amazing anyways, Leica and rb67 have been my fav analogue ones.

Can you put a minolta eye cup on the A77/A99? If so can you show me any threads or pics? Sounds a great idea!
 
Yeah it blocks the eye sensor tho, you can do seagull holder and hood man Nikon, but we found that needs to be shapped like a s to be comfortable, the side against the nose folded forward otherwise its not that great and has eye too far from evf kinda
 
Canon 5D3, nikon D810, 750 are All excellent and available now.

Real viewfinder is about the biggest advantage there can be over fuzzy low res low refresh rate artificial peeping hole. Antiquated maybe, but that is hardly a defence for a new inferior system. There are plenty of IS lenses and they work better than inbody tech. A lot of the time you don't even need it.

When reading your posts I do often wonder what planet you're on. One on which sweeping generalisations are the norm maybe? :D

EVF's do undoubtedly, if you have an open mind, have some advantages and when comparing EVF to OVF it's best to do so with an open mind and think about the advantages and disadvantages of both systems for you. I'd find it very difficult to go back to a supposedly superior OVF now and doubly so if it's on a Canon DSLR :D
 
When reading your posts I do often wonder what planet you're on. One on which sweeping generalisations are the norm maybe? :D

EVF's do undoubtedly, if you have an open mind, have some advantages and when comparing EVF to OVF it's best to do so with an open mind and think about the advantages and disadvantages of both systems for you. I'd find it very difficult to go back to a supposedly superior OVF now and doubly so if it's on a Canon DSLR :D
I couldn't agree more, and could link you to 20+ Sony threads where this guy has stepped in to tell us how much better his camera is:)
 
theres similar style ones for magnifiers, but need to find one that fits on the Sony sized rails

I had intended to use a mag for better Manaus focus and get that a55 step back viewfinder which is more comfortable
 
Agree with woof woof and Brazo technology has got the point where EVF actually offer many advantages these days. My little A7 is quickly becoming my most used camera.
 
Hmm don't really want a magnifier just a softer rubber cup!
 
Real viewfinder is about the biggest advantage there can be over fuzzy low res low refresh rate artificial peeping hole. Antiquated maybe, but that is hardly a defence for a new inferior system. There are plenty of IS lenses and they work better than inbody tech. A lot of the time you don't even need it.

LOL.

"fuzzy low res low refresh rate artificial peeping hole." I'd level other criticisms at the current generation EVFs but not these ones. I'm personally not inclined to go back to a flappy mirror vibration inducing mirror and no exposure preview.

As for "plenty of IS lenses". Still not many primes and WA zooms sadly. Nice thing about IBIS is that the old lenses are stabilised too.

I wouldn't claim that all is perfect with the DSLT - it's a good compromise -- but then all the design solutions out there are a compomise of some sort.
 
LOL.

"fuzzy low res low refresh rate artificial peeping hole." I'd level other criticisms at the current generation EVFs but not these ones. I'm personally not inclined to go back to a flappy mirror vibration inducing mirror and no exposure preview.

As for "plenty of IS lenses". Still not many primes and WA zooms sadly. Nice thing about IBIS is that the old lenses are stabilised too.

I wouldn't claim that all is perfect with the DSLT - it's a good compromise -- but then all the design solutions out there are a compomise of some sort.

Having seen one in the field a week ago I firmly stand behind "fuzzy" or rather "pixelated" claim. You can barely make out contours and dominant colours in the scene.

Mirror vibrations only really affect exposures in the range of 2s to about 1/40s. There is nothing stopping you from using mirror lockup or engaging live view. This is what is expected in fact.

Stabilised WA zooms - Canon and Nikon 16-35 IS/VR; Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS, 24-105mm IS, etc. At some point you really have to start using tripod if you are serious about high res printing.
 
Having seen one in the field a week ago I firmly stand behind "fuzzy" or rather "pixelated" claim. You can barely make out contours and dominant colours in the scene.

Details of camera and shooting conditions might help to understand your problem, and I specifically mean your problem, but all in all I don't think that any help or evidence will change your mind and I suspect that the last old dust, fungus and dead bug filled OVF on earth will have to be pried from your dying hand.

All IMVHO of course... My old Panasonic G1 is superior to my now sold 5D in some situations. It's good in good light and better than an OVF in fairly low light and it's only in very low light that it disappoints, in fact it's unusable in very low light. My newer cameras EVF's are actually better than my G1's and better than my old 5D's OVF. My A7 is for me pretty good and I just don't miss my 5D's OVF and indeed I'd even settle for the EVF in my GX7.

EVF lag could be an issue with some very fast moving subjects, I suppose, but other than that the disadvantages must be few and far between and for me the advantages of EVF's outweigh the disadvantages. YM obviously varies :D
 
Pixelated is all relative. I say this because it depends on your own sight. For many people the current generation of high end EVF are already at the point where the pixels become unnoticeable. But even if your one of the lucky 10% of the population with 6/5 vision the viewfinder should still be perfectly usable. My eyesight is not quite that good but still a fair bit better then average and EVF are fine for me. As for fuzzy it may be as simple as the viewfinder was out of focus for you. They have plenty diopta adjustment so you may find the person you borrowed it off was short or long sighted. Lag I would agree can be a issue but only when your shooting in the faster bust modes. For example the A77 goes in to almost a slide show shooting at 12fps. But you can't really complain as none of its competitors get close to shooting these speeds. I would agree that currently the EVF does not outperform OVF in every aspect and they both have there plusses and negatives. But EVF are clearly only going to get better and OVF have stagnated for years.
 
At some point you really have to start using tripod if you are serious about high res printing.

That's a rather DSLR-centric perspective.

Tripods have their uses. They're not always appropriate or practical. And they're not always necessary either.

(Not every camera has a mirror or a focal plane shutter.)
 
But EVF are clearly only going to get better and OVF have stagnated for years.

In the long run EVFs can only get as good as OVFs. That is very telling.

That's a rather DSLR-centric perspective.

Tripods have their uses. They're not always appropriate or practical. And they're not always necessary either.

(Not every camera has a mirror or a focal plane shutter.)

Oh wow! That's a rather limited perspective I am afraid. One will be missing out on a lot of amazing work if they limit themselves to 1/20s or faster shutter speeds and unstable reference point. You'll be fine if you shoot weddings or ducks in the park, but else will truly suffer irrespective what system you use.
 
In the long run EVFs can only get as good as OVFs. That is very telling.

OVFs are not always that good - eg. <100% or not that bright. They are not all the same.

No live histograms, composition grids, or exposure preview.

It's one compromise or another compromise. You take your pick.

Oh wow! That's a rather limited perspective I am afraid. One will be missing out on a lot of amazing work if they limit themselves to 1/20s or faster shutter speeds and unstable reference point. You'll be fine if you shoot weddings or ducks in the park, but else will truly suffer irrespective what system you use.

What limit?

You don't always need a tripod to achieve a pixel sharp edge to edge image. You may choose to use a tripod you may choose not to use a tripod depending on circumstances. Only dogma says that things can only be done one way all the time.

A traditional DSLR as a different working envelope from say a mirorrless CSC or a high end compact such as a Sony RX1.
 
OVFs are not always that good - eg. <100% or not that bright. They are not all the same.

No live histograms, composition grids, or exposure preview.

It's one compromise or another compromise. You take your pick.

I much prefer seeing my subject nice and crisp. At this price level OVFs are 100%, big and bright. Also, if you look at 5D mk3 and Fuji Xpro1 - they both have digital overlays (I use grid for example) that do not interfere as badly with the view. Granted they have less information in current iterration, but it is certainly possible in the future. I don't think I want many of those just because they can be made. I can easily work out what camera is going to do just looking at the scene, and make adjustments on the fly. RAW file can easily handle 1/3rd stop adjustments if needed :)

What limit?

You don't always need a tripod to achieve a pixel sharp edge to edge image. You may choose to use a tripod you may choose not to use a tripod depending on circumstances. Only dogma says that things can only be done one way all the time.

A traditional DSLR as a different working envelope from say a mirorrless CSC or a high end compact such as a Sony RX1.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear... I thought this was photography forum where people know about practical photography too. Back to the 101 basics then. Many landscapes with movement look s*** until exposure is sufficiently long. I guess multiple exposures and creative photography or even fancy portraiture options go way beyond here. Maybe one day...
 
I much prefer

Your choice.

Some make a different choice.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear... I thought this was photography forum where people know about practical photography too. Back to the 101 basics then. Many landscapes with movement look s*** until exposure is sufficiently long. I guess multiple exposures and creative photography or even fancy portraiture options go way beyond here. Maybe one day...

I'm not sure what the actual point is though (recall that you're replying to a paragraph that contains: "You may choose to use a tripod you may choose not to use a tripod depending on circumstances")

The highlighted sentence made me smile for some reason. So I highlighted it.
 
I think a evf might be worse with grad filters for lining up... I wouldn't say mine is fuzzy, the a55 was low res and abit laggy at times, a77 is better all round.
a6000 is rather gray and unremarkable.

Fuzziness could be dioptre related, I find it way easier to tell focus vs 600d 400d
 
I think a evf might be worse with grad filters for lining up

Certainly with the A77 it's harder than an A700. IME it takes more concentrated careful work to get even a hard edged grad positioned using an EVF or LCD when compared with an OVF.

OTH I find using a high density ND easier to deal with when using EVF or LCD than a black OVF - particularly if using a polariser as well.

Not everybody uses their camera for the same subjects or in the same circumstances. We treat a DSLR or DSLT as a jack of all trades. Different features may be unused by one owner and crirtical to another. One of the discrete and often overlooked advantages the A99 and A77 have is that you can use them using the rear LCD articulated and still have full AF performance. You can hold the camera well away or above your body and still deal with mnoving subjects.
 
In the long run EVFs can only get as good as OVFs. That is very telling.

What makes you say that? Can a OVF be used when visible light levels fall below the eyes usable level? Can a OVF give you exposure preview? Can a OVF give you black and white preview? Can a OVF give you IR preview? Can a OVF give you UV previews? These are just to name a few clear examples that DVF can offer over OVF.

There are also many technical advantages of DVF allowing them to be used in much smaller single lens packages. They allow much smaller zoom and ore versatile able viewfinders systems to be used. They allow much easier brightness control. They allow much faster frame rates to be used practically used. They can display any extra information you require. There are so many advantages to them.

OVF are actually so limited that these days true OVF are rare. Most cameras that use OVF actually use a hybrid system of OVF combined with a DVF of some description. As technology gets cheaper true full DVF will become more common as there are so many inherent advantages with them.

Though I actually know where your coming from. I do like OVF and still love film and enjoy using them. I would love to see more new film cameras being made but know very well why this is not so these days. Moving forward practically speaking both are dated technologies that are loosing popularity because of there many limitations compared to digital.
 
What makes you say that? Can a OVF be used when visible light levels fall below the eyes usable level? Can a OVF give you exposure preview? Can a OVF give you black and white preview? Can a OVF give you IR preview? Can a OVF give you UV previews? These are just to name a few clear examples that DVF can offer over OVF.

There are also many technical advantages of DVF allowing them to be used in much smaller single lens packages. They allow much smaller zoom and ore versatile able viewfinders systems to be used. They allow much easier brightness control. They allow much faster frame rates to be used practically used. They can display any extra information you require. There are so many advantages to them.

OVF are actually so limited that these days true OVF are rare. Most cameras that use OVF actually use a hybrid system of OVF combined with a DVF of some description. As technology gets cheaper true full DVF will become more common as there are so many inherent advantages with them.

Though I actually know where your coming from. I do like OVF and still love film and enjoy using them. I would love to see more new film cameras being made but know very well why this is not so these days. Moving forward practically speaking both are dated technologies that are loosing popularity because of there many limitations compared to digital.
Don't waste your time feeding the trolls
 
I've been keeping an eye on A99 prices but they just aren't budging. As weird as it sounds I would love one as a second body to my D750, the Zeiss 135mm 1.8 is an itch I just cannot scratch, had one last summer on an A7 and it was just breathtaking, so the a99 with one of those welded to it would be my dream.

With a7 prices dropping like a stone I was hoping for movement in the a99, particularly as it's promoted very agressively in other territories with some great offers (having said that, the usual grey importers are no cheaper than UK prices).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top