Sony A77 or A99

[Timothy Powell]

I currently own an A700, but it's on its way out. I have a good range of lenses for it so I am considering going for the A77 so that there are no compatibility issues.

However, I would love to upgrade to a full frame.

1. Could anyone tell me what the advantage of the full frame is? (All other specs seem to be identical other than sensor size)

2. How do I know if any of my current lenses are compatible with a full frame? If I could use at least some of them it would ease the blow of paying more for the camera itself.

Any advice would be gratefully received

 

[snerkler]

One of the main advantages of full frame is better high ISO/noise performance. Without getting into all the technicalities, full frame gives you about 1 stop shallower depth of field for the same aperture. Crop sensors give you more reach for a specific focal length as a 300mm lens gives you the effective focal length of 450mm so crop bodies can be of more benefit where reach is needed such as wildlife.

I don't know why Sony has neglected the A-mount range, and specifically the full frame A-mount but there's nothing to suggest that this will change. That being said both the A99 and A77 are cracking cameras, just a shame they haven't updated the A99 as it's quite old now. If you decide to go down the A77 route Id strongly recommend the A77-II over the A77. I owned both and the A77-II is a significantly better camera IMO.

As for lenses, if they are marked DT then they are only compatible with APS-C, if they don't say DT then they should be compatible with both.

 

[PeterTheJet]

Hi Tim
One thing to consider is the vievfinder, all new Sonys have an electronic VF and your a700 has a lovely optical VF, I have an a77II and an a700, love them both but some people hate the EVF, I wear glasses and find I need a hat with a brim in bright sunlight, DT lens marking is only for Sony lenses, good info on a mount lenses can be found here http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic24857.html
Pete

 

[ukaskew]

The a99 is pretty difficult to find now and hasn't really fallen in price. I loved it but the a77ii is the better camera these days, really nice to use and fantastic AF capabilities.

 

[Timothy Powell]

One of the main advantages of full frame is better high ISO/noise performance. Without getting into all the technicalities, full frame gives you about 1 stop shallower depth of field for the same aperture. Crop sensors give you more reach for a specific focal length as a 300mm lens gives you the effective focal length of 450mm so crop bodies can be of more benefit where reach is needed such as wildlife.

I don't know why Sony has neglected the A-mount range, and specifically the full frame A-mount but there's nothing to suggest that this will change. That being said both the A99 and A77 are cracking cameras, just a shame they haven't updated the A99 as it's quite old now. If you decide to go down the A77 route Id strongly recommend the A77-II over the A77. I owned both and the A77-II is a significantly better camera IMO.

As for lenses, if they are marked DT then they are only compatible with APS-C, if they don't say DT then they should be compatible with both.

Thanks for the input. It's good to hear from someone who has used both. I tried both briefly in a shop and the A77ii seemed to have sharper detail when zoomed in on the image, which I thought was one of the strong points of a full frame.

If the money for new lenses wasn't an issue I would probably go for the a nikon or canon full frame. Something like the d610. would that be comparable to the A99?

I shoot mainly wide angle landscape so the crop factor isn't of particular benefit, but does it make a difference for Macro shots. That is an area I have dabbled in and would like to try my hand at a bit more.

Thanks again @snerkler

 

[Timothy Powell]

Hi Tim
One thing to consider is the vievfinder, all new Sonys have an electronic VF and your a700 has a lovely optical VF, I have an a77II and an a700, love them both but some people hate the EVF, I wear glasses and find I need a hat with a brim in bright sunlight, DT lens marking is only for Sony lenses, good info on a mount lenses can be found here http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic24857.html
Pete

Thank you for your reply.
I had a try if them both and the evf will take a bit of getting used to, but the chance to use my current lenses will be hard to ignore. The A99 and the A77ii were almost identical and both have the evf. As I said in a previous reply I would go for something like the Nikon d610 or Canon 6d but for the lenses.

Someone suggested a second hand A900 aa it's full frame with an optical viewfinder. Have you any experience with that model?

I had a look at the website you suggested and found it very useful. Though it mentions an incompatibility issue with the A77ii and sigma lenses, including the 24-70mm f2.8 which is my go to lens on a day to day basis.

I have a bit of thinking to do.

Thanks again @PeterTheJet

 

[Timothy Powell]

The a99 is pretty difficult to find now and hasn't really fallen in price. I loved it but the a77ii is the better camera these days, really nice to use and fantastic AF capabilities.

Thanks. I am in Japan at the moment and can get hold of the A99 quite easily, but I agree with the price issue and the A77ii certainly seemed to be a brilliant camera. And nearly half the price.

I will have to consult the boss but that gives me something to work with.

Thanks again @ukaskew

 

[snerkler]

Hi Tim
DT lens marking is only for Sony lenses,

It is only Sony who use this marking, but as I stated earlier it's to denote those Sony lenses that are for APS-C bodies only. Sony's full frame lenses do no have the DT marking, but of course FF lenses can be used on APS-C.

 

[snerkler]

Thanks for the input. It's good to hear from someone who has used both. I tried both briefly in a shop and the A77ii seemed to have sharper detail when zoomed in on the image, which I thought was one of the strong points of a full frame.

If the money for new lenses wasn't an issue I would probably go for the a nikon or canon full frame. Something like the d610. would that be comparable to the A99?

I shoot mainly wide angle landscape so the crop factor isn't of particular benefit, but does it make a difference for Macro shots. That is an area I have dabbled in and would like to try my hand at a bit more.

Thanks again @snerkler

Sharper detail isn't really anything to do with sensor size per se, more down to resolution (plus various other factors). Often it's difficult to tell FF from APS-C in terms of IQ. I can't say I noticed any difference in IQ between the A77 and A77-II barring at higher ISO where the A77-II has slightly less noise and therefore retains more detail.

I moved from the A77-II to the Nikon D750 which kind of succeeded the D610 and tbh was the best move I've made, it's a phenomenal camera to use. That being said if Sony had continued to develop A-mount and brought out a successor to the A99 I probably would have stayed with Sony. The uncertainty of A-mount was a bit worrying for me.

APS-C does make macro easier IMO due to the larger DOF, plus the EVF of the A77s have focus peaking which is REALLY handy for macro, I do miss that.

 

[PeterTheJet]

Thank you for your reply.
I had a try if them both and the evf will take a bit of getting used to, but the chance to use my current lenses will be hard to ignore. The A99 and the A77ii were almost identical and both have the evf. As I said in a previous reply I would go for something like the Nikon d610 or Canon 6d but for the lenses

Hi Tim
What lenses do you have? they may be easy to sell to fund your Canikon purchase, (I will probably get barred from Dyxum for saying that)
As for the EVF as mentioned focus peaking and magnification are great, you can get loads of info and camera settings in the VF, I like the histogram pre shot and loads of other things, but it seems to be a Marmite thing,

Someone suggested a second hand A900 aa it's full frame with an optical viewfinder. Have you any experience with that model?

Just having a go with other peoples at meets, the VF is better than the a700, but no live view and many other things, real nice camera but so is my Minolta 7,

I had a look at the website you suggested and found it very useful. Though it mentions an incompatibility issue with the A77ii and sigma lenses, including the 24-70mm f2.8 which is my go to lens on a day to day basis.

I have an old push pull Sigma 75-200 that did not work on my a700 but works on my a77II, Sigma is an odd beast on Sony,
Looks like I am just down the river from you, PM me when you get back if you want to try your lenses on an a77II and have a chat.
Pete

 

[ancient_mariner]

FWIW I've migrated from Sony to Nikon (D610) and it's a very mixed blessing. After a modern EVF, the D610 viewfinder is unimpressive and glare in bright sunlight is just as much of a problem obscuring the image as it ever was with EVF, while in low light the EVF is very much better and peaking a real bonus. Focussing can be a bit hit-and-miss, made worse by the shallow DoF, and spot metering seems to be more like narrow centre-weighted than a real spot. Camera handling is sometimes surprisingly crude, menus sometimes obscure or more complex than they need be, build quality poor in places (gritty feeling lens mount, poor mount design that makes it hard to mount cleanly - used Nikkors often have heavy wear on the corners of the mount flange, little rubber doors that squidge open on the handgrip) lenses sometimes of lower image quality than their minolta equivalents while being more expensive if you're buying used (bear that in mind if you flog your stuff) and the resulting raw files need a different approach to processing.

The good side, and the reason I have persisted, is that the FF images have better control over DoF, there is a greater clarity and fringing around objects is lower in post, plus noise is very much reduced at high ISO levels (3200 is about the same as 400 on my crop sensor). Getting >1000 images from a battery charge is nice too.

If I could have found an affordable FF equivalent of my a58 then IMO it would be a much better camera than the D610.

 

[snerkler]

FWIW I've migrated from Sony to Nikon (D610) and it's a very mixed blessing. After a modern EVF, the D610 viewfinder is unimpressive and glare in bright sunlight is just as much of a problem obscuring the image as it ever was with EVF, while in low light the EVF is very much better and peaking a real bonus. Focussing can be a bit hit-and-miss, made worse by the shallow DoF, and spot metering seems to be more like narrow centre-weighted than a real spot. Camera handling is sometimes surprisingly crude, menus sometimes obscure or more complex than they need be, build quality poor in places (gritty feeling lens mount, poor mount design that makes it hard to mount cleanly - used Nikkors often have heavy wear on the corners of the mount flange, little rubber doors that squidge open on the handgrip) lenses sometimes of lower image quality than their minolta equivalents while being more expensive if you're buying used (bear that in mind if you flog your stuff) and the resulting raw files need a different approach to processing.

The good side, and the reason I have persisted, is that the FF images have better control over DoF, there is a greater clarity and fringing around objects is lower in post, plus noise is very much reduced at high ISO levels (3200 is about the same as 400 on my crop sensor). Getting >1000 images from a battery charge is nice too.

If I could have found an affordable FF equivalent of my a58 then IMO it would be a much better camera than the D610.

I'm surprised at some of your comments re the Nikon. I much prefer the OVF to the EVF, although would love peaking. Just looking through optics is so much nicer than looking at a small monitor imo. I have used a D610 and AF was very reliable, and now how the D750 which has the most reliable and accurate AF I've ever used. Build quality I find slightly better than the A77's. The grip on the D610 isn't as nice as the A77 though, although they've rectified this with the D750 and the ergonomics are now great imo.

But as always our experiences are different and it's always useful to hear the good and bad

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm surprised at some of your comments re the Nikon. I much prefer the OVF to the EVF, although would love peaking. Just looking through optics is so much nicer than looking at a small monitor imo. I have used a D610 and AF was very reliable, and now how the D750 which has the most reliable and accurate AF I've ever used. Build quality I find slightly better than the A77's. The grip on the D610 isn't as nice as the A77 though, although they've rectified this with the D750 and the ergonomics are now great imo.

But as always our experiences are different and it's always useful to hear the good and bad

The EVF is, for me, a wonderful thing that lets me see what the cameras sees. OTOH scenery often looks nicer through an OVF, but that can result in disappointment later on. I have been back and used the Sony since getting the Nikon, and while the finder doesn't have quite the same clarity and naturalness of the Nikon, it doesn't feel cramped or poor. Going from a memory 2 years distant, I have a feeling that the a700 OVF is rather better than the Nikon D610's in terms of brightness and clarity (Minolta always did make some of the best OVFs).

But in the end, I think the images it produces are potentially better than those from the a58, and that's why I'll keep using it, even though my failure rate is much higher now.

 

[Brazo]

I too find evf better than ovf. I realise it's a largely personal thing but I feel ovf is very old technology now and the 'wysiwyg' evf beats any ovf by a massive margin. Not even same ball park. Your mileage may vary of course and that's ok but all the evf haters bemuse me.

Luddites

Anyway back to the question in hand. It's a bit chalk and cheese. The A77 mk2 has a fantastic af module and wins hands down in that area. For everything else the ff goodness, better iq, dr, lower noise, better clarity etc win through. I have a bunch of the A mount Zeiss lenses and telling me to mount them on a sub frame camera is....... well sub par!

 

[snerkler]

I too find evf better than ovf. I realise it's a largely personal thing but I feel ovf is very old technology now and the 'wysiwyg' evf beats any ovf by a massive margin. Not even same ball park. Your mileage may vary of course and that's ok but all the evf haters bemuse me.

Luddites

I don't hate EVFs, bought plenty of cameras with them and actually started out with EVF. Just prefer the user experience of OVF now

OP what lenses do you have? The reason I ask is that if you only have DT lenses but want to go FF you're going to have to swap all your lenses so now would be a good time to swap systems if that's something you feel you might want to do. I was in exactly this situation just over a year ago, and due to the A99 being behind the current market then let alone now, plus the lack of commitment and uncertainty over Sony A-mount I took the opportunity to change systems as I knew that once I'd started buying FF lenses I would be locked into a system.

Of course if you are wanting to go down the FF route and have Sony FF lenses already then it makes sense to stick with Sony. Whilst behind the market the A99 is still a cracking camera. Arguably the weakest point is the noise handling, but as you say you mainly shoot landscape this won't be an issue as you'll be shooting at low ISO most of the time I'd have thought.

 

[Timothy Powell]

I too find evf better than ovf. I realise it's a largely personal thing but I feel ovf is very old technology now and the 'wysiwyg' evf beats any ovf by a massive margin. Not even same ball park. Your mileage may vary of course and that's ok but all the evf haters bemuse me.

Luddites

Anyway back to the question in hand. It's a bit chalk and cheese. The A77 mk2 has a fantastic af module and wins hands down in that area. For everything else the ff goodness, better iq, dr, lower noise, better clarity etc win through. I have a bunch of the A mount Zeiss lenses and telling me to mount them on a sub frame camera is....... well sub par!

Thanks for your input.

I tend to shoot landscape in manual focus, but that is largely due to the AF onyou camera not being brilliant and not working at all anymore on a couple of my older lenses. So that isn't too much of a buying point for me.

The benefits of a full frame seem to be clear though.

FWIW I've migrated from Sony to Nikon (D610) and it's a very mixed blessing. After a modern EVF, the D610 viewfinder is unimpressive and glare in bright sunlight is just as much of a problem obscuring the image as it ever was with EVF, while in low light the EVF is very much better and peaking a real bonus. Focussing can be a bit hit-and-miss, made worse by the shallow DoF, and spot metering seems to be more like narrow centre-weighted than a real spot. Camera handling is sometimes surprisingly crude, menus sometimes obscure or more complex than they need be, build quality poor in places (gritty feeling lens mount, poor mount design that makes it hard to mount cleanly - used Nikkors often have heavy wear on the corners of the mount flange, little rubber doors that squidge open on the handgrip) lenses sometimes of lower image quality than their minolta equivalents while being more expensive if you're buying used (bear that in mind if you flog your stuff) and the resulting raw files need a different approach to processing.

The good side, and the reason I have persisted, is that the FF images have better control over DoF, there is a greater clarity and fringing around objects is lower in post, plus noise is very much reduced at high ISO levels (3200 is about the same as 400 on my crop sensor). Getting >1000 images from a battery charge is nice too.

If I could have found an affordable FF equivalent of my a58 then IMO it would be a much better camera than the D610.

I am glad to hear it's not all amazing on the Canon/Nikon front. I will feel a bit less like I am missing out by sticking with Sony.

Hi Tim
What lenses do you have? they may be easy to sell to fund your Canikon purchase, (I will probably get barred from Dyxum for saying that)
As for the EVF as mentioned focus peaking and magnification are great, you can get loads of info and camera settings in the VF, I like the histogram pre shot and loads of other things, but it seems to be a Marmite thing,



Just having a go with other peoples at meets, the VF is better than the a700, but no live view and many other things, real nice camera but so is my Minolta 7,



I have an old push pull Sigma 75-200 that did not work on my a700 but works on my a77II, Sigma is an odd beast on Sony,
Looks like I am just down the river from you, PM me when you get back if you want to try your lenses on an a77II and have a chat.
Pete

It would be great to meet up @PeterTheJet . It's always good to see these things firsthand and a chance to pick your brains more would be welcome. Where abouts do you live?

 

[Timothy Powell]

Hi Tim
What lenses do you have? they may be easy to sell to fund your Canikon purchase, (I will probably get barred from Dyxum for saying that)
As for the EVF as mentioned focus peaking and magnification are great, you can get loads of info and camera settings in the VF, I like the histogram pre shot and loads of other things, but it seems to be a Marmite thing,



Just having a go with other peoples at meets, the VF is better than the a700, but no live view and many other things, real nice camera but so is my Minolta 7,



I have an old push pull Sigma 75-200 that did not work on my a700 but works on my a77II, Sigma is an odd beast on Sony,
Looks like I am just down the river from you, PM me when you get back if you want to try your lenses on an a77II and have a chat.
Pete

I don't hate EVFs, bought plenty of cameras with them and actually started out with EVF. Just prefer the user experience of OVF now

OP what lenses do you have? The reason I ask is that if you only have DT lenses but want to go FF you're going to have to swap all your lenses so now would be a good time to swap systems if that's something you feel you might want to do. I was in exactly this situation just over a year ago, and due to the A99 being behind the current market then let alone now, plus the lack of commitment and uncertainty over Sony A-mount I took the opportunity to change systems as I knew that once I'd started buying FF lenses I would be locked into a system.

Of course if you are wanting to go down the FF route and have Sony FF lenses already then it makes sense to stick with Sony. Whilst behind the market the A99 is still a cracking camera. Arguably the weakest point is the noise handling, but as you say you mainly shoot landscape this won't be an issue as you'll be shooting at low ISO most of the time I'd have thought.

I have:
- Sony DT 11-18mm f4.
- Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro (I think it's FF compatible but can't find anything definitive on that)
- Sony 50mm f1.4 (not sure of the exact details as it's back home)
- Ditto for my Sigma 104 mm f2.8
- Tamron 70-300mm f4.5 (not sure if FF compatible but it was cheap so thinking maybe not.)
- sigma 50-500 mm f5. (currently on loan to my son)
- Baby lens. (I think that's what's its called)

even if only 1 of these works on the FF system that would be an advantage to sticking with Sony. Lenses aren't cheap after all. I mainly use the 11-18mm and the 24-70mm though I have used all the others at some point.

 

[Timothy Powell]

FWIW I've migrated from Sony to Nikon (D610) and it's a very mixed blessing. After a modern EVF, the D610 viewfinder is unimpressive and glare in bright sunlight is just as much of a problem obscuring the image as it ever was with EVF, while in low light the EVF is very much better and peaking a real bonus. Focussing can be a bit hit-and-miss, made worse by the shallow DoF, and spot metering seems to be more like narrow centre-weighted than a real spot. Camera handling is sometimes surprisingly crude, menus sometimes obscure or more complex than they need be, build quality poor in places (gritty feeling lens mount, poor mount design that makes it hard to mount cleanly - used Nikkors often have heavy wear on the corners of the mount flange, little rubber doors that squidge open on the handgrip) lenses sometimes of lower image quality than their minolta equivalents while being more expensive if you're buying used (bear that in mind if you flog your stuff) and the resulting raw files need a different approach to processing.

The good side, and the reason I have persisted, is that the FF images have better control over DoF, there is a greater clarity and fringing around objects is lower in post, plus noise is very much reduced at high ISO levels (3200 is about the same as 400 on my crop sensor). Getting >1000 images from a battery charge is nice too.

If I could have found an affordable FF equivalent of my a58 then IMO it would be a much better camera than the D610.

The EVF is, for me, a wonderful thing that lets me see what the cameras sees. OTOH scenery often looks nicer through an OVF, but that can result in disappointment later on. I have been back and used the Sony since getting the Nikon, and while the finder doesn't have quite the same clarity and naturalness of the Nikon, it doesn't feel cramped or poor. Going from a memory 2 years distant, I have a feeling that the a700 OVF is rather better than the Nikon D610's in terms of brightness and clarity (Minolta always did make some of the best OVFs).

But in the end, I think the images it produces are potentially better than those from the a58, and that's why I'll keep using it, even though my failure rate is much higher now.

I too find evf better than ovf. I realise it's a largely personal thing but I feel ovf is very old technology now and the 'wysiwyg' evf beats any ovf by a massive margin. Not even same ball park. Your mileage may vary of course and that's ok but all the evf haters bemuse me.

Luddites

Anyway back to the question in hand. It's a bit chalk and cheese. The A77 mk2 has a fantastic af module and wins hands down in that area. For everything else the ff goodness, better iq, dr, lower noise, better clarity etc win through. I have a bunch of the A mount Zeiss lenses and telling me to mount them on a sub frame camera is....... well sub par!

Good to hear the positives of the EVF.
My son is trying to encourage me away from SLT, but he is on the autistic spectrum and as such his argument is he doesn't "like the shutter noise". It's good to hear a more constructive view about that

 

[PeterTheJet]

I live in South Shields, could meet you half way or you could drag your favorite lenses to the coast.
Pete

 

[Timothy Powell]

The coast sounds good. Could meet up around Marsden Rock to take some shots at the same time.

 

[PeterTheJet]

- Sony DT 11-18mm f4. APS-C
- Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro (I think it's FF compatible but can't find anything definitive on that) - FF
- Sony 50mm f1.4 (not sure of the exact details as it's back home) - FF
- Ditto for my Sigma 104 mm f2.8 -?
- Tamron 70-300mm f4.5 (not sure if FF compatible but it was cheap so thinking maybe not.) -FF
- sigma 50-500 mm f5. (currently on loan to my son) -FF nice lens but a big beast
- Baby lens. (I think that's what's its called) -35-70 f4 baby beercan, nice portrait lens, FF
Pete

 

[PeterTheJet]

Sounds good to me, if you change systems canI have first dibbs on the Sigma 50-500?
Pete

 

[PeterTheJet]

- Ditto for my Sigma 104 mm f2.8 -?

105 2.8 macro? -FF very nice lens

 

[Timothy Powell]

Sounds good to me, if you change systems canI have first dibbs on the Sigma 50-500?
Pete

My older son is a plane spotter so he has it on permanent loan. But he is thinking of changing to a Canon 1dx or Nikon D5s (more money than sense) so it may be up for grabs in the near future

 

[snerkler]

I have:
- Sony DT 11-18mm f4.
- Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro (I think it's FF compatible but can't find anything definitive on that)
- Sony 50mm f1.4 (not sure of the exact details as it's back home)
- Ditto for my Sigma 104 mm f2.8
- Tamron 70-300mm f4.5 (not sure if FF compatible but it was cheap so thinking maybe not.)
- sigma 50-500 mm f5. (currently on loan to my son)
- Baby lens. (I think that's what's its called)

even if only 1 of these works on the FF system that would be an advantage to sticking with Sony. Lenses aren't cheap after all. I mainly use the 11-18mm and the 24-70mm though I have used all the others at some point.

All but one is FF (I assume you mean sigma 105mm )so if you do go the FF way then definitely stick with Sony otherwise it'd get very expensive. TBH I don't think you'll be disappointed whatever you choose, A77, A77-II or A99. All very capable cameras indeed. The Sony EVF's are probably the best I've used, and the flip screens are by far the best I've used. I'm assuming they're patented otherwise I don't know why anyone else hasn't stolen their idea.

A99 photo pool
A77 I&II and A65 photo pool

 

[Timothy Powell]

All but one is FF (I assume you mean sigma 105mm )so if you do go the FF way then definitely stick with Sony otherwise it'd get very expensive. TBH I don't think you'll be disappointed whatever you choose, A77, A77-II or A99. All very capable cameras indeed. The Sony EVF's are probably the best I've used, and the flip screens are by far the best I've used. I'm assuming they're patented otherwise I don't know why anyone else hasn't stolen their idea.

A99 photo pool
A77 I&II and A65 photo pool

They did both seem like good cameras and they both had good points.

It probably is a 105mm but it's in Britain so I just guessed

With that many lenses that I can carry over then it definitely makes sense to
stick with Sony. Thank you for your advice

 

[Timothy Powell]

- Sony DT 11-18mm f4. APS-C
- Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro (I think it's FF compatible but can't find anything definitive on that) - FF
- Sony 50mm f1.4 (not sure of the exact details as it's back home) - FF
- Ditto for my Sigma 104 mm f2.8 -?
- Tamron 70-300mm f4.5 (not sure if FF compatible but it was cheap so thinking maybe not.) -FF
- sigma 50-500 mm f5. (currently on loan to my son) -FF nice lens but a big beast
- Baby lens. (I think that's what's its called) -35-70 f4 baby beercan, nice portrait lens, FF
Pete

Thank you for your help. With that many FF lenses it's definitely tempting to upgrade to FF and to stick with Sony

 

[PeterTheJet]

There go's my new bigma, maybe I should start talking you out of staying with Sony
Do you use the 11-18 much? the 24-70 on FF will give you a similar field of view to 16mm on APSC
The Tamron 70-300 is weakest lens in your lineup, the later USD version is better but if you do not use that range much keep the old one.
The fabled a99II will be out soon if it ever sees daylight it will bring the price of new and used a99s down.
If your a700 is just old and not dead you are in no rush, if the control wheels are acting up there is a fix for that,
So keep thinking about it.
Pete

 

[Timothy Powell]

There go's my new bigma, maybe I should start talking you out of staying with Sony
Do you use the 11-18 much? the 24-70 on FF will give you a similar field of view to 16mm on APSC
The Tamron 70-300 is weakest lens in your lineup, the later USD version is better but if you do not use that range much keep the old one.
The fabled a99II will be out soon if it ever sees daylight it will bring the price of new and used a99s down.
If your a700 is just old and not dead you are in no rush, if the control wheels are acting up there is a fix for that,
So keep thinking about it.
Pete

Sorry I got your hopes up

I use the 11-18mm a lot. It's my go to lens for landscapes. If I don't have to replace it straight away that would be brilliant.

I don't use the 70-300mm lens much and know it's not the best. It is a budget lens and I bought it to have some zoom capabilities. I rarely use it though so wouldn't be in a hurry to upgrade it.

My son told me that the A99ii is rumoured to be on its way so I will hold on as long as I can. However my A700 has several issues:

1. dust getting into the sensor even when I haven't changed the lens, though it can just be cleaned it is a bit annoying.
2. The mirror mechanism was loose, which was fixed by the camera repair shop I use for sensor cleaning. He said it was because I had touched it, which I definitely hadn't so I think it may happen again.
3. I started getting odd white pixels in my shots on the TV lakes meet recently which the repair chap said is the sensor breaking up. It could be a slow process and the white pixels aren't a major issue yet, but once it goes properly it won't be worth replacing the sensor.

As I said, I will keep on using the A700 as long as I can but ai think it will need replacing. In the meantime maybe I will win the lottery

 

[snerkler]

A99ii's been rumoured for about the last three years so I wouldn't hold your breath. Was 'allegedly' going to be released last summer, then this spring and at the moment no sign in the near future. Would be great if they did though as I'd expect it to have some pretty cool tech.

 

[Timothy Powell]

I know it's been a long wait so far with no end in sight. If my current camera gives out then I may just buy the A99 as is. If the new one is out then all the better.

 

[snerkler]

I know it's been a long wait so far with no end in sight. If my current camera gives out then I may just buy the A99 as is. If the new one is out then all the better.

Had a quick look at the cost of the A99, still very high isn't it, especially comparing it to newer better competition. Unusual for Sony to overprice

 

[Timothy Powell]

Had a quick look at the cost of the A99, still very high isn't it, especially comparing it to newer better competition. Unusual for Sony to overprice

Had a quick look at the cost of the A99, still very high isn't it, especially comparing it to newer better competition. Unusual for Sony to overprice

It does seem a bit expensive compared to the competition. If I didn't have a set of Sony lenses already I would go for Nikon or Canon. I had a go of a D750 and D810 today and they are both lovely cameras.

I could get the A99 slightly cheaper here in Japan, but with the pound so weak at the moment it wouldn't be much of a saving

 

[Brazo]

Sony A99 is and was always overpriced. It does have some very good points and I love mine but I know it's weak areas too. As soon as Nikon upgrade to an evf camera I'll swap

 

[Timothy Powell]

Sony A99 is and was always overpriced. It does have some very good points and I love mine but I know it's weak areas too. As soon as Nikon upgrade to an evf camera I'll swap

Out of curiosity what are is its weak areas?

 

[pingu666]

noise, af coverage, video, cant remmber if it does have a popup flash or not, no wifi but has gps. the main issue is that its 3 years old design and canikon and now pentax have advanced in that time, and its not normally priced to reflect where most would put its value :/.

the a77ii is really good and equal to the other cameras in its class, great chassis design (a99 is slightly scaled up and same design more or less), and the 1650sal 2.8 is a great lens too which is a bundle option.

 

[Brazo]

Out of curiosity what are is its weak areas?

Noise although it has the same sensor as the Nikon d600 it has a translucent mirror in front of it which robs it if some light. That said if you want to manual focus you can remove this mirror and get better noise performance than say a canon 5d mk3 so it's all relative!

Af isn't the quickest and the cluster of points is very tight.

Other than that it's great! 3 stops more dynamic range than a 5d mk3 so it's not all bad!

 

[snerkler]

Noise. It's probably on par/slightly worse than some of the modern crop bodies at 6400 ISO, at 12800 is significantly worse than some modern crop bodies.

6400 ISO
12800 ISO

And as also mentioned the AF spread, see bottom of this page for a comparison with the 5D3
http://northrup.photo/gear-basics/camera-body-features/autofocusing/

There are extra points but these are only available with a handful of lenses, and I'm not sure that you can actually select them, I think they are just used for tracking purposes. I'm sure someone else can confirm or deny this

 

[Timothy Powell]

noise, af coverage, video, cant remmber if it does have a popup flash or not, no wifi but has gps. the main issue is that its 3 years old design and canikon and now pentax have advanced in that time, and its not normally priced to reflect where most would put its value :/.

the a77ii is really good and equal to the other cameras in its class, great chassis design (a99 is slightly scaled up and same design more or less), and the 1650sal 2.8 is a great lens too which is a bundle option.

Noise although it has the same sensor as the Nikon d600 it has a translucent mirror in front of it which robs it if some light. That said if you want to manual focus you can remove this mirror and get better noise performance than say a canon 5d mk3 so it's all relative!

Af isn't the quickest and the cluster of points is very tight.

Other than that it's great! 3 stops more dynamic range than a 5d mk3 so it's not all bad!

Noise. It's probably on par/slightly worse than some of the modern crop bodies at 6400 ISO, at 12800 is significantly worse than some modern crop bodies.

6400 ISO
12800 ISO

And as also mentioned the AF spread, see bottom of this page for a comparison with the 5D3
http://northrup.photo/gear-basics/camera-body-features/autofocusing/

There are extra points but these are only available with a handful of lenses, and I'm not sure that you can actually select them, I think they are just used for tracking purposes. I'm sure someone else can confirm or deny this

Noise is one of the reasons I wanted to upgrade to a full frame so it's a bit disappointing to hear that's it's weakness.

If it's overpriced for its level then it's successor (if it ever arrives) will be expensive I am guessing But still not as expensive as changing all my lenses

 

[pingu666]

hmm would of thought it should have abit of a advantage over the crop sensors still, guess the wildcard is the d500