OT - I've Seen The Future .. and It's A Sony!

While visiting my local brick & mortar for some inkjet paper, I saw they had the Sony a99, so I took a look at it.

In a word, WOW! How do I love thee? let me count the ways (or at least as far as I could get in a 3 minute inspection) ...

1. The EVF viewfinder is magnificent. Even with my glasses on, I had no trouble seeing the entire image, including a really bright data line at the bottom.

2. 2.4 (approx.) megapixel EVF viewfinder screen!

3. Both a left/right AND elevation/declination tilt indicator visible both in the viewfinder and on the LCD screen.

4. 1.25 (approx.) megapixel LCD screen.

5. Better ergonomics (IMO) for manual control of both shutter speed and aperture than on the Canon xD and xxD bodies.

6. Built-in GPS.

7. In-body image stabilization for all lenses.

I'm tellin' ya, boys and girls, that is one heckuva full-frame landscape camera body. Sony may be a late arrival to the serious DSLR game, but it's obvious ... they came to play!

Now, if they would just find a way to produce quality lenses, including some perspective control models, at more competitive prices ...

If I were starting out now and could invest in any system it would likely be Sony. I feel like they're doing things that push Canon and Nikon to innovate. Haven't had an opportunity to check out the a99 except on the internet but it does indeed appear to be a remarkable camera. And those Zeiss lenses...

Yes, Bret, "and those Zeiss lenses ..."

Maybe YOU can afford them (since you're a pro), but I sure can't, and short of winning a lottery, don't expect to be able to in this lifetime.

But here's a thought on alternatives. A Zeiss 24-70/2.8 costs about 60% more than a Sigma 24-70/2.8, but is the Zeiss really 60% better? Is it even 30% better? Of course, the lens is everything, but without a body, there's nothing a lens can do (except look pretty). Would a Sigma perform better on a 24MP Sony than it would on a 36MP Nikon? Would the Sigma perform "well enough?"

We photographers make a big deal about the best lenses, but IMO, when it comes to enabling us to spend less time on the actual mechanics of making the photograph and spending more time evaluating the scene itself, there is no advantage to be gained between the best lenses and the worst ones. All of the time saving comes about via camera body improvements.

I've been shooting Sony since 2010 when I picked up an a900, 95% of the photos I've shared here are from that camera. It lacks some of the nicer extras of the 5D MKII and D700 but delivers amazing landscapes with stellar dynamic range; most of my images are single processed RAWS, not blends.

I started with the Zeiss 16-35 and also have the Zeiss 24-70 and G 70-200. Sigma makes great lenses as long as you get a good copy and I've used some on Sonys. My other bodies are the A55 and NEX-7. The NEX-7 delivers amazing results of almost the same and sometimes better quality than my a900 (both are 24mp bodies). While I may pick up an a99 body in the future I'm going to wait on what I think is a more reasonable price for what it offers over the a900.

I agree with Bret that they are the most innovating camera company and I love my Sony stuff, but I worry about their commitment to FF cameras for landscape photographes sometimes. I bought the NEX-7 because of it's size and quality for lighter backpacking, having a camera with me more often, replace my a55 for time-lapses and the ability to take it with me on a run or mountain bike ride.

In regards to EVF I have a few opinions.
The Good:
Huge improvement from the a55 to NEX-7!
Ability to easily review images in bright light
Able to display all sorts of useful info like histogram or level
Large and bright
Makes camera smaller
You can mostly see the dynamic range the camera sees
Can gain up for seeing in low-light

The bad:
Still not as sharp as OVF
Noisy in shadow areas or lower light
You can't see the full dynamic range of the scene as the eye would, can make composing annoying on occasion
AND the biggest downside, you can't see to compose for night scenes! While I can see the stars and rocks by starlight with my eyes for composition the EVF just can't. So I use the level and shoot, then review the image and adjust...annoying.

Hmmmmmm.

I have been shooting Sony ever since the Minolta switch over. I have the a900 and a couple of Sony lenses. The 16-35 which I love and the 70-200 which is just a work horse and really delivers the goods. I get amazing results with my gear. As a matter of fact I made believers out of the local camera store Nikon people to the point they all started buying Sony gear as gifts for family and themselves. If you walk into the local camera store and ask then if a Sony can produce good images they will take you to my web site and say "look for your self". I would love to put my hands on a a99 but am still wondering about night shooting as it constitutes about 10-15% of my shooting. As a landscape shooter none of my Canon or Nikon friends will say that Sony cannot make the grade. As a matter of fact it usually comes down to who has the best composition etc. I do get teased a lot about being one of the few Sony guys in the area but hey someone has to do it.

Howard: I can't even come close to affording the Zeiss lenses. You know, it's funny, most pro's I know (including myself) tend to not be using the latest and greatest gear. Why? We can't afford it. Money that we would rather spend on gear is being spent on marketing, advertising, paying liability insurance, permit fees, etc. Sure, some of the biggest names in the industry are fortunate enough to shoot with the best of the best new stuff, but not most of us. There's a reason I'm still using an 8 year old Gitzo and a 4 year old 5DII.

My apologies, Bret, for making such an unwarranted assumption about you. The situation you described is obvious enough that it ought to have occurred to me in the first place.

I took a long hard look at the Sony lineup when I decided to start over. I decided against it partially because I am old school and still like to look through the viewfinder -- I'd never owned a camera that even had live view. I also was a little worried about the relative lack of lens choices, and also because you never know when Sony might drop DSLRs like betamax. But its difficult to argue with the quality of the images from their sensors -- so I went parallel and got a Nikon with the same sensor I wouldn't steer anyone away from the Sony though, it makes nice images and it comes down to personal preference. Actually its strange, but I think I'd recommend both Nikon and Sony before Canon for someone starting over -- I never thought that would be the case after 10 years shooting Canons.

No worries, Howard. I wasn't offended in the least. To be honest, for the longest time I wrongly assumed that pro's were always using the sweet new gear and then I got to know a few and realized that just ain't the way it is.