A99 - Any early feedback?

[jeffrypittman]

<p>Anyone have a chance to start shooting with the A99? If so, any feedback from photo.net users? I ordered one but haven't yet received it. Love to hear your early impressions. Thanks!</p>

[mike_pallas]

<p>According to one review the viewfinder is an EVF and not as good as the optical viewfinder of the A900 or A850 or indeed the competition. This wont affect image quality though and so it's down to the user what they think of this development. It looks a nice piece of kit but I like simplicity and not complexity so I'll be sticking with my 30 year old film SLR for the time being. </p>

[james_f6]

<p>I have little to no issues with the EVF, and in most cases you cannot even tell that it is an EVF. That is how good the image is. This is the case for the A65, A77 and now A99.<br>

I saw a A99 at camera store and it looks really good, just that I cannot afford it.<br>

FYI, EVF is as clear as optical in most cases, maybe a little less in low light, but in most cases it will give you a clearer indication of how your image will look even before you take the picture.<br>

I have seen many people comment about the EVF, but have failed to even see what it looks like. And many that are negative, simply don't want to give up their optical view finder, and in many cases have no intention of ever being a sony user anyways.<br>

I have yet to have anyone look through the EVF on my A65, and say anything other than" WOW, it looks so real." That's because it is amazing. Walk outside into daylight, look through an optical viewfinder. Now... welcome to the world of what you would see through the Sony EVF, because one really can tell little difference..</p>

 

[jeffrypittman]

<p>Thanks James. I am holding on to my A900 in case I don't like the EVF but I hope it is a winner since Sony seems committed to EVF and the A850 and A900 might well be the last of their Optical Viewfinders. The A900 has one of the best viewfinders ever made!</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>The list of benefits for EVF is too long to type.<br /><br />The list of benefits for OVF is:<br>

1. I see the same thing my eye saw before I put the camera up to take the picture.<br /><br />If your idea of an enjoyable afternoon is walking around seeing the world through the lens instead of with the naked eye, then perhaps the OVF is for you. <br /><br />If, however, the reason you took the camera with you is to take PHOTOS, then the EVF will be the better tool. <br /><br />No offense intended, Jeff. And that's not saying a good OVF is MUCH better than a bad OVF, or that an EVF doesn't take some getting used to. I'm just saying the EVF provides a much more useful FUNCTIONAL interface than the OVF, with very little downside for the purpose it's intended for. <br /><br />So many people wax nostalgically about the OVF as if they literally walk around all day looking at the world through their camera. They also make PAINFUL leaps of logic to claim the EVF isn't for pros. One tool (who wrote a "pro" review) even claimed the OVF is preferable because you can frame a shot with the camera off, which helps get a shot when your battery is nearly dead. REALLY??? Please.<br /><br />Granted, I'll be picking up my A850 tomorrow. But only because I got my A77 for cheap, and the A99 doesn't add $2000 in value for me. The combination of A77 for sports and normal use, the A850 for portraits (and everything else FF), and the A55 for travel is a good combo for me. No one camera could do it all.<br /><br />Whether or not the A850 will displace my MFDB remains to be seen. Stay tuned. :-)</p>

[james_f6]

<p>Bottom line, why the EVF wins IMHO, is because the image you see in the EVF will match closely the image you are going to take.<br>

Optical viewfinders give little to no information how the image your taking will turn out.<br>

You don't know how many times I was out and about taking what I thought looked like a great image on my A700, pressing the button then going back and seeing a disappointing image, just could not get the lighting right.<br>

My disappointment is much less now, because if I am looking through my A65 EVF and the lighting is bad, I don't press the button, don't get disappointed.<br>

Anyway don't get hung up about EVF and OVF, it makes little to no difference, when for one, you are hard pressed to realize you are even looking into an EVF and not thinking its optical. And two, the Sony A99 is built like a tank, fit the hand with remarkable comfort superb image image quality, and best video in class IMHO.<br>

look here, just posted<br>

<a href="http://www.digitalrev.com/article/sony-a99-hands-on-review/NTA4Mjk2NTk_A">http://www.digitalrev.com/article/sony-a99-hands-on-review/NTA4Mjk2NTk_A</a><br>

The worse thing they could find to pick on was the design of the body. OMG they need to get a life and maybe stick to their god Canon 5D mk III. </p>

[Member69643]

<p>I'll be the voice of dissent, and subsequently be drowned by the yays. :)</p>

<p>I had the a65 for a few weeks and the EVF was nothing but a source of dismay. It's slow to wake up, for one, so you miss shots. I also had several images which appeared properly exposed, on the EVF, but were horribly dark when shot. And no, I didn't have the EVF set to not show current exposure. I don't know why this happened but it happened often enough that I sent the a65 back and bought an EOS 5Dmkii, which are currently on sale for well under $2K.</p>

<p>The EVF may be fine for some folks but saying it's equal to an optical viewfinder is absurd. That's like saying TV is equivalent to watching a live stage play. Most cameras nowadays have live view, so use that if you want to see the image as exposed. At least when you have both an optical viewfinder and live view you can choose which one fits for your shooting style.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>Sounds like you had a defective camera...which makes your data point a bit of a "no test".<br /><br /><br />But your play analogy is a good one. As an immersive experience, the play is arguably preferable, I'll agree with you there. And once you leave the show, it's over. <br /> <br />In my use, the capture isn't the experience...it's the resulting image. To each their own.<br>

However, using live view (in C/N incarnation) has its own issues...namely losing PDAF and having to hold the camera at arm's length. Both are deal breakers for me. I actually prefer to review photos in the EVF in bright light, when the rear display is washed out.<br /> <br />But you're generally correct...rear screen live view does provide many of the benefits of EVF while retaining OVF.</p>

<p>Oops, we're off topic. Time to go pick up my A850. :-)</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2336756">Gregory King</a> , Nov 05, 2012; 07:32 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Patrick,<br>

Sounds like you had a defective camera...which makes your data point a bit of a "no test".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree, but I sent Sony two images taken milliseconds apart of the same subject, with one being two stops underexposed. They said it was due to single shot bracketing. I'm not so sure I buy that. :) So yes, defective.</p>

<p>And I agree completely that the EVF is a great review tool outdoors in bright light. I kept one of the two EVF cameras I've recently bought, just for that reason, and to shoot with some older legacy glass. </p>

<p>My gut feeling is that Sony has adopted the EVF and STL mirrors as a way to stand out, to be different enough to be heard over the roar of Canon and Nikon. Their investment in Olympus is very interesting too.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Curious problem. </p>

<p>Very good analysis. Yeah, pretty much doing ANYTHING different is better than trying to compete head-to-head. Being the same would definitely not have won them market share.</p>

<p>Wow, this A850 OVF is nice. Too bad I can't use focus peaking to dial in my lenses, though. ;-)</p>

[jeffrypittman]

I've had just a little time with the A99 but so far I am loving it. The features are incredible and I quickly adapted to the

EVF.