rizer Loc: Long Island, NY

i am considering purchasing the SONY Alpha 99 full frame camera. Looking for opinions about this camera vs. other full frame cameras such as the Nikon D600 and the Canon EOS 6D. Thanks.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Several years ago I bought a Sony A230 entry level DSLR. I had problems right from the beginning with spotty images. I was forever cleaning lenses and blowing out the inside of the camera with a hurricane hand pump (not bottled air). Then I developed a problem (camera was two years old) where I would get an error message every time I changed lenses. I decided that I would switch to Nikon. Now, this is only one person's experience and I do not wish to impugn the entire line of cameras based on my experience. But, that is my experience with Sony.

perfectagain

I don't doubt ebrunner's experience. BUT I have had three Sony DSLRS, the first, an Alpha 100, and currently a 589 and a 900 (which is full frame and the last without an electronic viewfinder). I have taken them all over the world and exposed tens of thousands of frames and never had a problem with any of them. I am not anti-Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Olympus. In fact I collect and use film cameras and have each of those brands which I use regularly. I choose Sony because the image stabilization is built into the camera body, not the lens. So any lens is automatically image stabilized and, therefore I don't have to spend additional money to buy "VR" or whatever other brands call their image stabilized lenses. That also means that I can buy very high quality used Minolta Maxxum lenses at a fraction of the price of a new lens. That is a major factor for me. (Manufacturers other than Canon and Nikon put image stabilization in the body, but I don't know what the availability and usability of their early lenses are on their DSLRs.)

Look, you can argue until h..l freezes about this brand or that, but laying aside any one example, every major manufacturer makes a good camera and good lenses. (Look at the conversation above about "Nikon is a piece of crap." I will not get into those arguments.) What I describe is simply my experience and my reasons.

perfectagain

Sorry -- that should be a At 580, not 589. Incidentally, other than the full frame Sony, my Sony's were all bought used from very reputable sellers. And I bought the A900 from Sony very highly discounted because it was being replaced by the electronic viewfinder versions. Frankly, I don't see the advantage of the electronic viewfinder when I can see directly exactly what the lens sees by using the traditional finder as has been done by thousands of professionals for at least 60 years. And, like everything else, the electronic viewfinder draws power. When I have the camera (and I always have two back-up batteries with me) for eight to ten hours while traveling, I want the battery to last as long as possible. Again, this is only my opinion and experience, with no dis-respect to any other brand or person.

perfectagain

Sorry -- that should be a At 580, not 589. Incidentally, other than the full frame Sony, my Sony's were all bought used from very reputable sellers. And I bought the A900 from Sony very highly discounted because it was being replaced by the electronic viewfinder versions. Frankly, I don't see the advantage of the electronic viewfinder when I can see directly exactly what the lens sees by using the traditional finder as has been done by thousands of professionals for at least 60 years. And, like everything else, the electronic viewfinder draws power. When I have the camera (and I always have two back-up batteries with me) for eight to ten hours while traveling, I want the battery to last as long as possible. Again, this is only my opinion and experience, with no dis-respect to any other brand or person.

perfectagain

Sorry -- that should be a At 580, not 589. Incidentally, other than the full frame Sony, my Sony's were all bought used from very reputable sellers. And I bought the A900 from Sony very highly discounted because it was being replaced by the electronic viewfinder versions. Frankly, I don't see the advantage of the electronic viewfinder when I can see directly exactly what the lens sees by using the traditional finder as has been done by thousands of professionals for at least 60 years. And, like everything else, the electronic viewfinder draws power. When I have the camera (and I always have two back-up batteries with me) for eight to ten hours while traveling, I want the battery to last as long as possible. Again, this is only my opinion and experience, with no dis-respect to any other brand or person.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Very true, perfectagain.

Anyone who uses an interchangeable lens camera will have issues with dust; the severity depends on the environment and how careful/how bad conditions are when you change. The error message on changing lenses was probably down to dirty contacts. In any case, every manufacturer will have the odd camera that develops a fault in a comparatively short time. I've had/have several Sony cameras and have yet to experience any problem.

I have an a99, it's the best camera I've ever owned, I think it's wonderful but therin lies the problem inherent in your question, we all like the camera we own otherwise we wouldn't have bought it. I have no experience with the other two you mention so I have no comment, critical or otherwise to make. The D600/6D owners here are going to tell a similar story.

I see you are new to the Forum but are you new to photography?
What gear if any do you currently own?
What are your photography intersts?

lovitlots Loc: Tottenham, Ontario, Canada

I've always been a Pentax man since I started photography and when I bought my first digital camera point and shoot it was a Pentax. The only reason I switched to Sony when I bought my first DSLR was because up here the distributor changed and I was told they didn't have the best costumer support that Pentax gave and I didn't have a lot of glass for the camera either. So I switched to Sony and bought the a57. I did have a problem with the screen but it seems it was something very isolated to my camera as no one I told about or who actually saw the problem, including Sony seemed familiar with it. Anyway I brought to Sony and I had no issues getting it fixed. I still used the camera while we waited for the part to come in and when the part was in they repaired it in 15 min and I was on my way. I just bought the a77 a month ago and now have two Sony's. Both are working well and the pictures I'm making with them are good... at least in my eyes and since I'm my biggest customer, that's a good thing. What you buy has to make you happy so if the camera looks like it'll do that then buy and shoot.

rizer Loc: Long Island, NY

Thank you all for your input! I can already tell UHH will be a wonderful forum! I am new to the photography world, shooting for about 6 months. But like everything I do, I have jumped in fully with total passion!! I am loving it, and would love to learn from all of you! I am currently shooting with the SONY NEX 6, which uses the APS-C sensor (not full frame). It doesn't make sense to me to invest in another APS-C camera (ie: Nikon 7100). I am on the fence as to whether I should make the significant investment into the full frame (ie: SONY Alpha 99). I happen to love the EVF and stabilization aspects of SONY (have it with the NEX 6).

lovitlots Loc: Tottenham, Ontario, Canada

If you're shooting the nex then you might look at the new ar7. I believe you can use your e lens on this body making the two systems compatible and the ar is full frame and about 30 mpixels on top. This should help with amount of glass you'll buy down the road.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Not to dissuade you from buying more gear :D but why do you feel the need to "move up to" full frame? I ask only because it's a not-insignificant expenditure and can involved more weight (with larger lenses), and you can make excellent images with the DX format (well, cropped - I'm a Nikon user so that's their term).

If you are wanting shallower depth of field or wider wide angle lenses, then perhaps full frame is the way to go (though I'm not sure Sony's lens line includes faster and super-wide lenses) but I have sold photos taken with a DX camera (D200) as well as FX (D600) over the years.

I certainly understand the notion - I am one of the legion of sufferers of "NAS" - Nikon Acquisition Syndrome - and find myself wanting all kinds of lenses and gadgets to add to my kit. Still, it might be worthwhile for you to give yourself some time to better understand the craft of photography and hone your artistic eye before throwing out today's toolset for the next shiny thing. Because, after all, the camera is merely a tool you use to reproduce the image in your mind's eye so others can view it.

mohandivakaran Loc: Trivandrum, India

Hello,
You are already familiar to Sony Technology. Then go for it. The image stabilisation on the body is excellant.I was shooting hand held upto 0.4sec ,night scenes with sharp results.
The EVF does drain the battery. Then the GRIP can hold 2 batteries giving you a 3 battery advantage. You are looking toward photo trips without the need of Tripods also.
Best regards

rizer Loc: Long Island, NY

f8lee, your point is not lost on me. I understand the best equipment in the hands of the inexperienced (me) doesn't compensate for a great photo. That being said, my thinking is to cover the range of possibilities with a compact camera, the NEX 6, (ie: for travel, etc), and a more serious camera (full frame) to get the most as i develop my skills. The point that resonates with me is whether it makes sense for me to jump into that league at this point.

alsh Loc: Dorr, MI

I recently purchased the A77, little brother to the A99. THis after years using the A100, not realizing there were better cameras! I could export all of my Minolta Maxxum lenses to Sony which made my cheap side happy.
There are so many functions that it will take years to learn, but Sony has been good to me.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

If you can afford FF, I'm not the one to advise against it. The only reason APS-C came into being in the first place was that FF Sensors were simply too difficult and too expensive to manufacture. There are those here who will tell you that you don't need FF, that APS-C even M4/3rds is all you need but the fact is that a good "big one" always beats a good "little one". Whether of not you need the extra IQ of the FF Sensor or need the ability to print bigger or the latitude to crop is not something I can answer for.

FF cameras do come with baggage in the form of extra weight and there's no getting away from the fact that they are considerably more expensive than the smaller sensored cameras. We still pay a big premium for FF but the new Sony A7/A7r are offering the best value yet in FF sensors which will certainly affect pricing going forward.

Seeing as you have no big investment in glass, I'm tempted to push you towards the Sony A7/A7r rather than the A99 because mirrorless cameras are the future and although the A99 has the advantage of superior AF and IBIS (in body stabilisation), unless a big part of what you are likely to do involves action and/or BIF (Birds in Flight) you may not gain much benefit. If occasional action/BIF is required, you can use the Sony LA-EA4 to add PDAF to the A7/A7r, not quite up to that of the A99 but very usable.