Sony a99 specs

On 2012.08.31 23:59 , Rich wrote:
Bruce wrote in
:

Rich wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in
:
From two sources.

Apparently will be announced on Sept. 12 / Available in late Oct.

Highlights:
FF 24.3 Mpix
14 bit ADC (finally!)
10 fps (for those who like that sort of thing)
ISO 100 - 25600, 50 with lower DR

Lightest FF body is intriguing.


Sony fanbois should enjoy their brief moment of satisfaction as it
will probably be very brief indeed.

Nikon's D600, using the same Sony sensor, will effectively replace the
D7000 in the Nikon range with a full frame camera. The key to the
Sony A99's success, or likely lack of it, will be the image quality
and the price.

Two things, I don't know how reliable the Sony's are, according to some,
not very.

In about 15 years of a lot of Minolta/Sony gear I have had one failure
(a flash) which Minolta repaired, no charge, out-of-warranty.

To be sure I only own a few pieces of Sony kit (a900, 135 f/1.8 and 58AM
flash). But these are used a lot, taken all over the place - often
carried in an unpadded backpack - and have not given a hint of a problem.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:09:57 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.31 19:35 , wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:38:27 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.30 20:42 , wrote:

I'm curious, what glass do you own?

All FF

--- snip ---

I used to have the Sigma 28-300 but gave it to my nephew (part time pro!) and
then I got the 28-300 Nikkor VR for a walk-around lens. It's not too bad with
the correction in ACR... but it isn't anything near to 300mm at close range...
more like 170mm at 20'.

As a general guide avoid zoom ratios greater than 3:1. (For 'walkabout'
lenses, greater is fine until you find that subject that you'd like to
spend some time on and the good lenses are back home).

That comment doesn't seem to apply to my Nikon 16-85 AKA
"AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.3x)"
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...g_vr/index.htm

--- snip ---
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012.09.01 19:20 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:09:57 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.31 19:35 , wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:38:27 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.30 20:42 , wrote:

I'm curious, what glass do you own?

All FF

--- snip ---

I used to have the Sigma 28-300 but gave it to my nephew (part time pro!) and
then I got the 28-300 Nikkor VR for a walk-around lens. It's not too bad with
the correction in ACR... but it isn't anything near to 300mm at close range...
more like 170mm at 20'.

As a general guide avoid zoom ratios greater than 3:1. (For 'walkabout'
lenses, greater is fine until you find that subject that you'd like to
spend some time on and the good lenses are back home).

That comment doesn't seem to apply to my Nikon 16-85 AKA
"AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.3x)"

It applies all over.

If zoom optics have improved to the point where a 5:1 lens is very good,
then 3:1 is so much better.

You just can't win at this. (I don't mean "you").

More importantly, however, is that really good 1:2.5 - 1:3 lenses come
in constant aperture designs at f/2.8 (or so).

And lastly of course, the DX is a cropped lens. Ugh.

Sorry, more lastly, the comment _never_ applies to lenses you have
forked over money for (esp. at the gouging prices in NZ if adobe are any
indication. Do Nikon rob you too?)

(Standby. Wait a moment. Wait a moment. Wait a moment...)

Excuse me, the vermicelli needs to go in...

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.09.01 19:47 , wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:13:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.31 19:39 , wrote:

What is a Reflex lens? Is it like the mirror (telescope style) lens that I think
Nikon used to make?

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolt...mm_Reflex_lens

Notably the later Minolta/Sony designs are AF. Usually such lenses are MF.

And it's only $700? Could be fun... except for the fixed aperture maybe.

I need to use my 1300mm f11 mirror lens more!

I know half a dozen (probably more) people who purchased reflex lenses.
After the initial blush of new love wears off the lens tends to be
used less often and eventually is not put in the bag much, and
eventually is (with hopes) offered for sale. (On that note you could
probably find a good used one).

That said, with several cameras doing remarkably well at high ISO
settings, the reflex camera should have more of a lease on life.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:13:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.31 19:39 , wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:42:01 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:00:23 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.30 06:15 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Snip

I'm curious, what glass do you own?

17-35 Cosina
50 f1.4 Minolta
35-70 Macro Minolta
70-200 f4 Sigma
28-200 f4 Tokina (superseded the about two that came with the back)

And I am after a 500mm AF f8 Reflex Minolta, having passed up a manual focus
600mm some years ago.

What is a Reflex lens? Is it like the mirror (telescope style) lens that I think
Nikon used to make?

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolt...mm_Reflex_lens

Notably the later Minolta/Sony designs are AF. Usually such lenses are MF.

And it's only $700? Could be fun... except for the fixed aperture maybe.

I need to use my 1300mm f11 mirror lens more!

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:44:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.09.01 19:20 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:09:57 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.31 19:35 , wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:38:27 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.30 20:42 , wrote:

I'm curious, what glass do you own?

All FF

--- snip ---

I used to have the Sigma 28-300 but gave it to my nephew (part time pro!) and
then I got the 28-300 Nikkor VR for a walk-around lens. It's not too bad with
the correction in ACR... but it isn't anything near to 300mm at close range...
more like 170mm at 20'.

As a general guide avoid zoom ratios greater than 3:1. (For 'walkabout'
lenses, greater is fine until you find that subject that you'd like to
spend some time on and the good lenses are back home).

That comment doesn't seem to apply to my Nikon 16-85 AKA
"AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.3x)"

It applies all over.

If zoom optics have improved to the point where a 5:1 lens is very good,
then 3:1 is so much better.

You just can't win at this. (I don't mean "you").

More importantly, however, is that really good 1:2.5 - 1:3 lenses come
in constant aperture designs at f/2.8 (or so).

And lastly of course, the DX is a cropped lens. Ugh.

Sorry, more lastly, the comment _never_ applies to lenses you have
forked over money for (esp. at the gouging prices in NZ if adobe are any
indication. Do Nikon rob you too?)

Nikon don't seem to rob us here in New Zealand.

I've forked over even more good money for the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm
f/2.8G ED VR which lens has a very good reputation. Nevertheless I am
not nearly as happy with the results of this lens as I am with 16-85.
Comparitively it lacks both sharpness and contrast. I've had it
checked over by the local Nikon repair centre and they say it is
performing to spec. On my limited experience the 16-85 is an
exceptional lens.

(Standby. Wait a moment. Wait a moment. Wait a moment...)

Excuse me, the vermicelli needs to go in...

That's alright then. It's when it has to come out that is more
important.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

wrote in message
...
And I am after a 500mm AF f8 Reflex Minolta, having passed up a manual
focus
600mm some years ago.

What is a Reflex lens? Is it like the mirror (telescope style) lens that
I think
Nikon used to make?

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolt...mm_Reflex_lens

Notably the later Minolta/Sony designs are AF. Usually such lenses are MF.

And it's only $700? Could be fun... except for the fixed aperture maybe.

As with all mirror lenses, and they are usually slow enough that you don't
want less anyway. (many come with rear mount ND filters if necessary)
But I wouldn't spend $700 on a mirror lens myself. Try borrowing one first
and then use the money for something else :-)

Catadioptics do make good telescopes though, Questar and Celestron being
good examples.

Trevor.

"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 2012.09.01 19:20 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:09:57 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
As a general guide avoid zoom ratios greater than 3:1. (For 'walkabout'
lenses, greater is fine until you find that subject that you'd like to
spend some time on and the good lenses are back home).

That comment doesn't seem to apply to my Nikon 16-85 AKA
"AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.3x)"

It applies all over.

If zoom optics have improved to the point where a 5:1 lens is very good,
then 3:1 is so much better.


But that doesn't work unless you fork out for the new 3:1 lens. And
sometimes it doesn't work even then: I'm still waiting for the new Canon
24-70/2.8 L II. Canon's claimed MTF charts make it look like there's finally
a zoom that's acceptable for replacing my primes.

But it's not out yet. Aaaaaaarg.

This summer I went travelling with nieces and nephews. Three lenses is a lot
of lenses, and no one wants to wait while you change lenses. I'd have been
much happier with just the 24-70/2.8 L II. But it's not out yet. Aaaaaaarg.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 2012.09.01 21:25 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:44:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.09.01 19:20 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:09:57 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.31 19:35 , wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:38:27 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.08.30 20:42 , wrote:

I'm curious, what glass do you own?

All FF

--- snip ---

I used to have the Sigma 28-300 but gave it to my nephew (part time pro!) and
then I got the 28-300 Nikkor VR for a walk-around lens. It's not too bad with
the correction in ACR... but it isn't anything near to 300mm at close range...
more like 170mm at 20'.

As a general guide avoid zoom ratios greater than 3:1. (For 'walkabout'
lenses, greater is fine until you find that subject that you'd like to
spend some time on and the good lenses are back home).

That comment doesn't seem to apply to my Nikon 16-85 AKA
"AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.3x)"

It applies all over.

If zoom optics have improved to the point where a 5:1 lens is very good,
then 3:1 is so much better.

You just can't win at this. (I don't mean "you").

More importantly, however, is that really good 1:2.5 - 1:3 lenses come
in constant aperture designs at f/2.8 (or so).

And lastly of course, the DX is a cropped lens. Ugh.

Sorry, more lastly, the comment _never_ applies to lenses you have
forked over money for (esp. at the gouging prices in NZ if adobe are any
indication. Do Nikon rob you too?)

Nikon don't seem to rob us here in New Zealand.

I've forked over even more good money for the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm
f/2.8G ED VR which lens has a very good reputation. Nevertheless I am

I can't believe you're not getting exceptional shots with that lens.

not nearly as happy with the results of this lens as I am with 16-85.
Comparitively it lacks both sharpness and contrast. I've had it
checked over by the local Nikon repair centre and they say it is
performing to spec. On my limited experience the 16-85 is an
exceptional lens.

I don't disbelieve you, I don't believe it would out class the 70-200.

Did you do a side by side test? Say both at 80mm, 2 stops down on the
same target? (Tripod, VR off).


(Standby. Wait a moment. Wait a moment. Wait a moment...)

Excuse me, the vermicelli needs to go in...

That's alright then. It's when it has to come out that is more
important.

I confess I overcooked it a tad. Vermicelli is al dente one second and
cooked through 2 seconds later...

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.09.01 23:39 , David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 2012.09.01 19:20 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:09:57 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
As a general guide avoid zoom ratios greater than 3:1. (For 'walkabout'
lenses, greater is fine until you find that subject that you'd like to
spend some time on and the good lenses are back home).

That comment doesn't seem to apply to my Nikon 16-85 AKA
"AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.3x)"

It applies all over.

If zoom optics have improved to the point where a 5:1 lens is very good,
then 3:1 is so much better.


But that doesn't work unless you fork out for the new 3:1 lens. And
sometimes it doesn't work even then: I'm still waiting for the new Canon
24-70/2.8 L II. Canon's claimed MTF charts make it look like there's
finally a zoom that's acceptable for replacing my primes.

Consider me 0,0,250 with envy.

Which (if it actually goes that far) proves my point above.


But it's not out yet. Aaaaaaarg.

This summer I went travelling with nieces and nephews. Three lenses is a
lot of lenses, and no one wants to wait while you change lenses. I'd
have been much happier with just the 24-70/2.8 L II. But it's not out
yet. Aaaaaaarg.

There is nothing more detrimental to one's photography than going around
with people who don't care about it.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.