Who is using a Sony A77 and or A99?

[remylebeau]

I bought a77 last year. Was upgrading from a450 so am obviously over the moon.

One guy I follow on YouTube is called Rodney. He made a video that looks at the a77 and a99. Won't repeat all he said


In short the difference between the two does not justify the price difference.

Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum

That`s a matter of opinion not fact. Judging value is a subjective analysis when it comes to deciding what is or isn't worth it. I spent twice what I did on my a99 than my a77, but I've been able to do work I simply can not do with a77. In my case the difference between the two is a matter of reaching a result or not, and I absolutely think the difference is worth for my upgrade.

 

[bribrius]

I bought a77 last year. Was upgrading from a450 so am obviously over the moon.

One guy I follow on YouTube is called Rodney. He made a video that looks at the a77 and a99. Won't repeat all he said


In short the difference between the two does not justify the price difference.

Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum

That`s a matter of opinion not fact. Judging value is a subjective analysis when it comes to deciding what is or isn't worth it. I spent twice what I did on my a99 than my a77, but I've been able to do work I simply can not do with a77. In my case the difference between the two is a matter of reaching a result or not, and I absolutely think the difference is worth for my upgrade.

If you don't mind me asking, what work could you do with the 99 that you couldn't do with the 77?

 

[remylebeau]

I bought a77 last year. Was upgrading from a450 so am obviously over the moon.

One guy I follow on YouTube is called Rodney. He made a video that looks at the a77 and a99. Won't repeat all he said


In short the difference between the two does not justify the price difference.

Sent from my Galaxy SII using PhotoForum

That`s a matter of opinion not fact. Judging value is a subjective analysis when it comes to deciding what is or isn't worth it. I spent twice what I did on my a99 than my a77, but I've been able to do work I simply can not do with a77. In my case the difference between the two is a matter of reaching a result or not, and I absolutely think the difference is worth for my upgrade.

If you don't mind me asking, what work could you do with the 99 that you couldn't do with the 77?

Shoot video at 6400ISO in a club. Shoot a ballet performance with 1/800th of second to catch the action, while using 3200 ISO to gather enough light. Shoot in dim churches that don't allow flash at 3200 ISO and same for receptions. All else being equal in terms of shutter speed, lenses, technique etc. In those stated situations the a77 would not come close to the image quality I got with the a99. It's not a matter of noise, ACR noise reduction is very good at what it does. It's a matter of maintaining detail, skin tones and accurate color. My experience with the a77 showed those things were not something I'd present my clients with shot above 1600 ISO.

I also tethering 90% of the time when I'm in my studio shooting portraits or products. It's not a necessity but for me it's more than a luxury, especially where product photography is concerned. I have food stylists and art directors who my clients bring, and we all work off a properly calibrated monitor while building shots. I can certainly get away with using the back of an LCD but I'm not trying to get away with anything, I'm trying to make the workflow as efficient as possible for everyone involved. So tethering is a big thing for me. I really wish the a77 had tethering like it's predecessor the a700, if that were the case this would also be a none issue.

The camera's both perform incredibly well below 800 ISO, while the a99 is still better I'd gladly use the a77 when less than 800 ISO is called for.

So as I previously stated, "worth it" is a matter of opinion not fact and it's entirely subjective. For me unlike the above video the upgrade is absolutely worth it.

 

[jfrabat]

OK, let me start by saying that I work for Sony. Having said that, I have paid for my own cameras, so I got what I felt was the best product. I own a Sony SLT-A77V, and I use the 16-80 Zeiss lens as an everyday lens. I also own a 70-300 G lens and a Minolta 50mm 1.7. I also have a bunch of accesories (I have 3 Sony speelights, Kenko Macro Tubes, ND and CP filters, Flash Modifiers, etc.).

As for the A77, I love the camera. It basically does everything I need out of it, and allows me for some very nice shots, some of which I am attaching for your reference (I tried to look for varied subjects so you can use as a reference):



Now, as far as the pros and cons, this is my own 2 cents:

PROS:
Speed
Accessibility to functions (botton layout)
Battery life (as oppossed to what you mentioned on the A7, a battery in the A77 lasts quite a bit)
Lens options (apart from Sony, you have all the Tamrons, Simas, Minoltas, etc.)
For your offcamera speedlighting the wireless option has worked really nicely for me; just make sure to point the flash's IR port towards the camera and then "bend" the head to point in the right direction
Resolution (I feel 24MP is not a huge file size, yet still is large enough to crop and get a good large size print)
You can use either MS or SD card, but they both use the same slot
Sealed body (not afraid of the rain anymore! Mind you, I do have a rain coat for the camera, as when it rains here in Panama, it POURS! And my lenses are not sealed...)
micro AF adjustment (I never thought I'd need this, but my Minolta Lens's AF was WAAAAY off; I could fix this through this function!)
Steady Shot Inside means all the lenses you attach will have stabilization
No mirror shake because of the SLT technology
Face detection for known faces are nice for taking picture of your kids events (it will focus on YOUR kids face, not the others!)
GPS
Video with autofocus (don0t use that much video, but when I do, it works just as good as a video camera)

THINGS THAT ARE NICE BUT I NEVER USE
In camera effects (including in-camera HDR) - I prefer the real deal
Smile Shutter

CONS:
Grain at ISO higher than 1600 (I very rarely go above this, and, if I can, I avoid going over 800)
This is kind of related to the above, but shooting with poor light at anything other than still life (where you can put the camera on the tripod and use slow speed) is very tough
Only one slot (no recording to 2 media at once for safety (the A99 does this, though)
Only Sony's own flash mount will work (I know there are adapters, though, for regular flash mounts)
Cannot use the timer with the bracketing, and bracketing is limited to 3 shots
No tethering.

As for the A99, it brings a lot of the good of the A77, improves a bit on some points, and leaves some other as things to be desired. I know because I borrowed one for about 2 weeks and got to play A LOT with it.

Specifically, I find the A99 is AMAZING for shooting in poor light conditions, even a VERY high ISO. You can look at a post I did a while back when I got my hands in the sample A99, I remember I took a picture of a painting in my house with almost NO light at FULL ISO, and you could still see the brush strokes in the JPG. Of course, you pay for this with slower (note, NOT slow, just slower than the A77) FPS. Another plus of the A99 is that the hot shoe is now a standard one, not the Minolta one; but, again, the trade in is that there is no in-camera flash, which means you need a flashgun to trigger another remotely. The A99 also includes A TON of things for video shooting, but I do more photo than video, so that is not a biggie for me. Focusing is really great in the A99, especially with the compatible lenses for 100+ focussing points.

For me, the additional price was just not worth getting the A99 (plus, my Zeiss lens and flash guns would not fir the A99 - Or rather, not directly, as both can be used, but are not ideal).

Anyway, I hope this helps you!

Felipe

 

[jfrabat]

By the way, here is the shot of the A99 with almost no light (all the lights in the house were off; the only light was the light coming from a street lamp through a small window) at the HIGHEST ISO setting:



Keep in mind the A99 goes higher than the A77 in ISO... You can also see some comparissons between the A99 ISO performance vs the Canon 5D MKIII, Nikon D600 and Nikon D800 (as well as the A900 and A77) here (not my images).

Felipe

 

[vipgraphx]

Great info thanks!

 

[bigal1000]

I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100 Too much noise for me after iso 800 and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.

 

[jfrabat]

I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100 Too much noise for me after iso 800 it's bad fast and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.

In my opinion, past 1600 is not usable, but I think 1600 is still usable, and 800 is OK. It's a matter of opinion, though. However, if you plan to shoot in low light / high ISO, as I mentioned, the A99 is the way to go...

 

[ConradM]

Just ordered an A77 + lens with the free grip bundle. I'm so freaking excited!! :hail:

 

[vipgraphx]

Looks like the a77 has dropped out of the race for me. Great info folks thanks again!

 

[cosmonaut]

The a99 is a much better camera than the a77 as far as image quality. The a77 really isn't good at high iso and the a99 is a couple of good stops better. I have the a77 but it is mostly for the crop factor and wildlife shooting when I need the extra reach. The files of the a99 are smoother and less pixelated when pixel peeping in post. The a99 has a lot more dynamic range which is the achilles heal of most APS-C sensors. If you shot in a lot of difficult lighting situations the a99 will handle it better. Given a choice the a99 hands down would take it. Don't let anybody kid you full frame is where to be if your serious.

 

[BGeise]

The a99 is a much better camera than the a77 as far as image quality. The a77 really isn't good at high iso and the a99 is a couple of good stops better. I have the a77 but it is mostly for the crop factor and wildlife shooting when I need the extra reach. The files of the a99 are smoother and less pixelated when pixel peeping in post. The a99 has a lot more dynamic range which is the achilles heal of most APS-C sensors. If you shot in a lot of difficult lighting situations the a99 will handle it better. Given a choice the a99 hands down would take it. Don't let anybody kid you full frame is where to be if your serious.

Its also 2 grand more for not a lot of difference. The a77 has much more bang for the buck

 

[bigal1000]

The a99 is a much better camera than the a77 as far as image quality. The a77 really isn't good at high iso and the a99 is a couple of good stops better. I have the a77 but it is mostly for the crop factor and wildlife shooting when I need the extra reach. The files of the a99 are smoother and less pixelated when pixel peeping in post. The a99 has a lot more dynamic range which is the achilles heal of most APS-C sensors. If you shot in a lot of difficult lighting situations the a99 will handle it better. Given a choice the a99 hands down would take it. Don't let anybody kid you full frame is where to be if your serious.

Its also 2 grand more for not a lot of difference. The a77 has much more bang for the buck

Are you kidding not a lot of difference do you own a an A99 and A77 to back up that comment !

 

[ConradM]

I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100 Too much noise for me after iso 800 and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.

I had one (A77) for a short time I have to say I sent it back to B@H in exchange for a Nikon D7100 Too much noise for me after iso 800 it's bad fast and I did not care for the rear LCD very low quality and noisy that's only my opinion though.

In my opinion, past 1600 is not usable, but I think 1600 is still usable, and 800 is OK. It's a matter of opinion, though. However, if you plan to shoot in low light / high ISO, as I mentioned, the A99 is the way to go...

These comments are surprising to me. Mind you, I'm coming from an a33 but I've found I can go up to 2000 ISO on the a77 without much noise. 2000 ISO on the a77 is = to about 800 ISO on my a33.

 

[BGeise]

Are you kidding not a lot of difference do you own a an A99 and A77 to back up that comment !

The average user isn't going to pay two grand more for a body that they will most likely not see a difference between. I am not saying the A99 isn't better than the A77 just that the A77 has a much bigger market for the price point its at. Plus we shouldn't be comparing apples to oranges. You should be comparing it with other full frames.