Instead of canons or nikons,can i go for a sony?

[unpopular]

My crop body camera has 100% viewfinder coverage. BTW, isn't the A77 that you mentioned in your original post about 100% "accurate" (coverage) ALSO a crop body camera?

And really, is 95% accuracy THAT much of a problem?

If you are shooting macro, then it certainly is THAT much of a problem.

skieur

ehh. I've shot plenty of macro at greater than 1:1, significantly so on the a350. Because I use bellows extension, this early live view isn't terribly useful.

Never felt it was a big deal.

 

[cosmonaut]

Well I agree that if possible to get your hands on an a99 and try it. The EVF is a very personal option that some like and some don't. If you will use any manual focus lenses focus peaking will really help you. I have the Nikon version of the new Sony 50mm and its manual focus. I also have a D800 and I do wish it had an articulating screen. You will hear a lot of trash talk when it comes to the Sony line here at this site but I have used both the a77 and NEX 7 and the only issue I had with the EVF is the picture review in the finder can be annoying if shooting for extended time like during a portrait session, but that can be turned off. It is certainly not for everyone. If you want a good OVF the a850 is the best I have ever looked thru.

 

[mjhoward]

You don't read specs much, eh? 100% accurate means in photographic terms 100% of what you see in the viewfinder is what you get in your final image as opposed to less than that in crop body cameras.

skieur

My crop body camera has 100% viewfinder coverage. BTW, isn't the A77 that you mentioned in your original post about 100% "accurate" (coverage) ALSO a crop body camera?

Your crop body camera has 95% magnification/coverage which does not cut it against 100%.

skieur

D7000 from Nikon

"Viewfinder Frame Coverage 100% Approx."

 

[lordshakti]

Well o well. Thanks a lot eveyone for providing these helpful and speedy answers,seems like SONY has got some loyal owners

I must tell you all that i have a strange craving for full frame sensor and hv explored the successor of a77 called a99..
This new thing has boggled my mind again as now i am confused between the two,a99 being too much expensive,is..do u think worth the money?

I have never gone fr any kind of dslr so dunno how much difference does it make..

A99 is on the slower side too..so..
Should i settle up with a77?

 

[lordshakti]

Instead of canons or nikons,can i go for a sony?

No you may not, young man!

Just a plain statement for suchha serious question?
Ny logics reasons?

 

[unpopular]

If you want a good OVF the a850 is the best I have ever looked thru.

My a700 has a viewfinder almost as good as my Contax RX did, and certainly brighter, if not smaller. DOF preview is more than sufficient indoors at small apertures.

Sony did have some very good viewfinders, probably inherited from Minolta. It's unfortunate that this isn't looking like it will be an option from Sony any longer. As beneficial as EVF might be, you just can't get any more responsive than an OVF. Physics doesn't permit it.

 

[skieur]

My crop body camera has 100% viewfinder coverage. BTW, isn't the A77 that you mentioned in your original post about 100% "accurate" (coverage) ALSO a crop body camera?

Your crop body camera has 95% magnification/coverage which does not cut it against 100%.

skieur

D7000 from Nikon

"Viewfinder Frame Coverage 100% Approx."

Yes, 95% is 100% approximate. That is rather a unique spin.

When I said 100%, I did NOT mean approximate. 100% PERIOD.

skieur

 

[lordshakti]

Can someone address the questions i have asked

 

[unpopular]

Yes. You can use a Sony. The EVF has drawbacks and benefits. If you do a lot of macro, it shouldn't be a problem, since many macro photographers don't use the OVF anyway. If you're using a bellows lens, you may run into some trouble due to dimming - but I doubt it, from my experience the OVF is very difficult to use at long extensions factors, more so than live view, refraction becomes a larger issue.

Sony has not really ever made a "professional" body. Their market was never intended to compete with the D4 or 1D. Sony is very capable of producing a camera in this range, and there is a rumor saying that it will. But that hasn't been Sony's target market as of yet. This doesn't mean that Sony's current cameras are incapable, any more than Nikon and Canon's "prosumer" and "consumer" models aren't: they are what they are. Very frequently lower end bodies have better specifications on paper that appeal to everyone else who doesn't necessarily need the features which the D4 or 1D offer. These cameras naturally have advantages, but not necessarily for all shooters.

But yes. There is nothing inherently inferior about Sony's technology. You have pretty much all the lenses that you'd need, none of which are terribly bad from what I can tell. You also have Minolta a-lenses, and a good number of Sony lenses are just Minolta lenses with Sony's name on them. Having loads of old moldy lenses to choose from is fun if you're a collector, but is hardly a real advantage.

 

[dxqcanada]

Can someone address the questions i have asked

Do you mean your question of A77 (APS-C) vs A99 (full frame) ... is full frame worth the additional cost ?