Jump to content

Close
Photo

Sooooo, wattabout the A99?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#1
XXX

Posted 11 November 2012 - 11:54 PM

XXX

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
I've seen this

with some great shots in it, but nobody seems to care much about the A99 - or am I just not checking the right forums?

#2
endlessthoughtsmedia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:12 AM

endlessthoughtsmedia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
Well its not that nobody cares, I was one of the ones ready to sell all our Canon Gear, but Sony didn't really make that amazing of a product. Its a good camera from what I have seen but since I have yet yo have any real hands on time with them I cant say for sure.

#3
Andrew Reid

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:12 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,048 posts
It's disappointing. Moire, aliasing, limited lens options, sensor isn't exactly much different to the competition in terms of image quality... So... What is the point?

#4
XXX

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:34 AM

XXX

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
Well, in body IS paired with fast primes is a combination many doc-style shooters can use, isn´t it?
And considering image quality - I just haven't seen enough from the A99 to make final judgements - have you guys?
Moire still seems to plague most cameras...
The A99 won´t sell like hot cake at the current entry price, but this should change soon, when units start collecting on the shelves;)
If low light and dynamic range proof to be on par with the D800 and 5DIII, the IS alone could be a selling point for me...
The sensor crop function is also nice, the articulating screen too and the pricey XLR option is, well, pricey but unique and at least by looks, more elegantly solved than using a Beachtek/Juicelink adapter.

#5
HurtinMinorKey

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:29 PM

HurtinMinorKey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 767 posts
  • LocationCambridge MA, USA
Once the BMC gets off the ground, cameras that don't offer RAW will be dead in the water with the indie guys. One could argue that RAW is more important to small budget productions than it is to big budget productions because it can compensate for bad lighting.

#6
Germy1979

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:53 PM

Germy1979

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts

Once the BMC gets off the ground, cameras that don't offer RAW will be dead in the water with the indie guys. One could argue that RAW is more important to small budget productions than it is to big budget productions because it can compensate for bad lighting.


Gotta agree with this..

Adorama has the deal with the Switronix kit for $3095. A crucial SSD for $200. Rock & Roll. There's probably a dozen arguments here somebody could make for the A99, but for me if your concern is video, just stretch a little further and be done with it. No moire, no aliasing, no 8 bit limit, no same old codec, etc.

#7
Zach

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:41 AM

Zach

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 302 posts
The moire/aliasing on this camera is really the biggest bummer for me. It looks really bad. Still love the full frame look and the form of a DSLR. The A99 looks so solid and rugged, and the new audio jacks for the Sonys look like a great solution (though maybe not for $800.) I agree with andrews points on the camera.

The video you posted does look quite incredible.

#8
Julian

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:06 PM

Julian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • LocationNetherlands
I like the image Stabilisation, the flip screen and the EVF. You get a pretty complete package with this. I have a sample with final firmware avaiable for some time with a Carl Zeiss 24-70mm, I'll try to shoot something soon.

#9
galenb

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:35 PM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon
I've noticed that most large sensor, high mega pixel cameras have issues with moire. My theory is that when you have an image that large coming from the sensor, its not practical to down-sample by way of averaging. Esspecially if they are using a slow CPU to save money. I think most of them have to line skip (basically cutting the data in half so that it's a more manageable size) and then they can avarage pixels. Some of these cameras don't even do that last step and just give us the aliased image. So I think this is one of those things that will put photographers and videographers at odds. Photographers want more megapixels but this will almost always cause aliasing for videographers until CPUs are fast enough to avarage pixels down from 20-24 megapixels.

#10
Andrew Reid

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:16 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,048 posts
Why should a sensor which is physically larger need to downscale differently? The mega-pixel count I can understand being an influence, but the GH2 managed it perfectly from as high as 18MP.

The CPU isn't responsible in most cases for down-sampling from the full megapixel count, as it is done on the sensor side.

#11
galenb

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:07 AM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon
Yes, the physical sensor size doesn't have anything to do with this. Just the megapixel count. Well, really it's all about the size of the raw image coming off the sensor. The only time I mentioned large sensors was at the start when I said that, "most large sensor, high mega pixel cameras have issues with moire." If you take the raw image from the sensor at say, 16 MP (I thought the GH2 was 16 MP btw?), in order the downsample it by way of averaging, you need to either have a hardware chip that does the averaging or do it in software. Either way, this is a CPU/chip task. The sensor only acquires the image and sends it along to the image processor. Maybe you are thinking of how, when line skipping they can choose to read every other line from the sensor to reduce the data throughput? Anyway, if they are line skipping, chances are high that they don't have enough horsepower to average pixels and that's all I'm talking about. The higher the megapixel count, the larger the image, the more processor intensive it is the downsample, and the higher the data throughput will be. All of this culminates to make a bad situation for turning the images into frames of video.

#12
Andrew Reid

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:11 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,048 posts
GH2 sensor is 18MP total to support multiple aspect ratios.

#13
galenb

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:23 AM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

GH2 sensor is 18MP total to support multiple aspect ratios.

Okay, I see what you are talking about.

Not that it matters (I didn't even know this myself until I looked it up) but, according to this image:

Posted Image

It looks like the full sensor might be 18MP but the different aspects only use a reduced area of it so in 16:9 it's only 13.9MP.

#14
Andrew Reid

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:53 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,048 posts
Maybe that 13.9MP count in 16:9 was what gave the GH2 a cleaner image when downscaled. Maybe 16MP is a trickier number. Certainly 18MP+ seems to be tricky because yet to see a high MP camera with good video aside from the 5D3 and that is only moire free because it is so soft!

#15
Andrew Reid

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:55 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,048 posts
A99 and VG-900 by the way are dogs for aliasing and moire. Worse than the old NEX 5N and 7, yet far more expensive. There's zero reason to suffer such bad image quality when you can get a full frame D800 or 5D3 for similar money - I know these aren't perfect either but the image is FAR better.

You will see the VG-900 (same sensor as A99) in my shootout vs the Blackmagic and GH3 it is a total embarrassment and I feel bad for all the Sony people on this one because it showed such promise and it was pretty brave to put a full frame sensor in a video camera. This coming from a big fan of the RX100, NEX 5N and NEX 7 which all shoot better video and have better ergonomics than the VG series. The menus and buttons are just horrible on the VG series and can only assume image quality is either compromise because the sensor is designed predominantly for stills or crippled to protect the FS100.

#16
galenb

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:47 AM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon
Did they ever mention how many MP the VG-900 sensor is?

#17
Julian

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:41 AM

Julian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Did they ever mention how many MP the VG-900 sensor is?

It's exactly the same sensor as in the A99 and RX1, 24MP.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users