The A99mk2 will not be released before June 2016

[ToeCutter]

I do not believe Sony  will spend resources on A-mount, why should they, it's dead pure and simple, if not in 2016 then in 2020.

I'm still mystified by those posting with almost absolute certainty that the A-mount is dead?

 

Just a few weeks ago we received word from reliable sources that a Sony "mystery" camera (likely the A99II) is beginning to appear in retail databases. By no means complete confirmation, but supports the timeframe from previous rumors on release dates and the sensors are similar is resolution to the A7RII.

 

Second, even polls here on SAR show more folks waiting for the A99II than those awaiting the the A7III?

 

Lastly, Hasselblad just released a new medium format camera using a Sony sensor, similar to the approach used by Hasselblad with their HV (essentially a re-badged A99).

 

Sorry folks, I have thousands invested in A-mount glass and truth be told, I have virtually zero interest in these tiny mirrorless A7 bodies with their woefully inadequate batteries and slow, Leica-priced E-mount lenses. And to suggest a $400 adapter will solve all my issues is disingenuous. I've tried them with my A6300 and the results were less than impressive.

 

We'll simply have to agree to agree (considering you've already ordered your Pentax, which I feel is an excellent choice to replace a Sony SLT).

 

As I mentioned earlier, if Sony doesn't formally announce a viable A99 successor, I've already started researching which DSLR will replace it.

 

@Sony: Is this what you want every A-Mount owner talking about for the next few years?

 

All you E-mount fans should be paying very close attention as to how this plays out. All of us A-mount users assumed Sony was committed to Alpha when they acquired Minolta. You could easily be wearing our shoes when Sony decides that cameras should be even smaller, EVF's aren't worth R&D costs, drones are the future of photography or how the consumer market for 4K action cams is far more lucrative than real, professional DSLR cameras.

 

I understand this sounds silly, it's meant too. But a $6000 Sony mirrorless body would demonstrate just how schizoid Sony has become when it comes to product mgmt.

[ToeCutter]

Well, per my earlier suggestion/comment, Sony finally has come clean on the degree of damage the Kumamoto earthquakes caused to both sensor and now it appears even lens production. The hotly anticipated 70-200mm GM lens has been delayed again, along with a few teleconvertors. We've heard so much hype about this lens, but considering it's extended delay and insane price ($3200+ USD), Sony is pushing Alpha mirrorless glass into Leica price ranges.

 

Perhaps the leaked A7III pricing insinuating a $6000 price for the top model, and now $3000+ for a lens with a pretty typical focal length will bring some folks to their senses regarding how wonderfully Sony's camera strategy is playing out.

 

The leaked Sony deck showing 2016 as a "transition" year struck me with a thought I hadn't yet considered. In that deck, Sony intends to focus on "value-added" imaging products. This equates to premium, high margin product in laymen's terms. As cynical as it might sound, it might appear to some that Sony could be deliberately making A-mount obsolete simply to force users into an entirely new product line to skim more margin through both body and lens sales.

 

I've scratched my head more than once as to why the Sony E-mount lens family are mostly prime lens? There are very few *quality* zoom lens available? Prime lenses are great and work exceptionally well, but a quality zoom can cover the focal lengths of several primes. Where are all the E-mount zooms?

 

On Sony's site, there are only 2 E-mount zooms sporting f/2.8 apertures. Switch your search filter to A-mount and you'll find more than 5, even more if you're willing to go to f/4. Some are lower-end, while others are pro-level. Nonetheless, there are more choices.

 

If Sony is prepping to launch a 3rd gen A7 and even an A9, where are the zoom lenses to use with these phenomenal cameras? Are we expected to snag a handful of primes to lug around to use these tiny new A7/A9 bodies with?

 

I can't deny the quality of some of the A7 sample pics I've seen, but they've almost always been snapped with a prime lens. What's the deal with Sony's lens selection considering the Sony NEX/E-Mount has been around for almost 5 years now? And with A-mount 's imminent demise, why is the A-mount selection of lenses still so much broader than the E-mounts?

 

In all honesty, this is what has me hanging firmly to the fence with regards to moving completely to E-mount: Where's the phenomenal glass for these phenomenal cameras?

 

(Please don't reply with a single word about adapters. I want native lens mounted to my state of the art mirrorless full-frame Alpha.)

[Golem]

 

.....................

(Please don't reply with a single word about adapters. I want native lens mounted to my state of the art mirrorless full-frame Alpha.)

 

ADAPTERS !

 

Bwahhh hawww ....haw haw bwahhhh bwhaw !

[Golem]

I feel abandoned by Zeiss concerning my wonderful

Contarex SLR kit. Surely it could have been kept up

to date and blessed with some fast zoom lenses .... 

But NO ! Instead of serving the Zeiss faithful, Zeiss

goes ass-kissing over in Sonyville. Shameful. What

is to become of my world-class super-fine system ?

[danmleephoto]

As I have said before - A7 xyz is NOT good for pro work, yes image quality is great but the missing f2.8 pro glass for 2/3 years and NO dual memory card slot stops me taking it seriously. 

 

I keep going back to my A99 with the the super Tamron SP 15-30mm f2.8, Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 and Sony GII SSM 70-400mm f4, you just don't get glass like it on E-Mount. Sure a decent 85mm is there now and a 24-70mm too (massively over priced) but still waiting for the 70-200mm f2.8.

 

Throw in battery life and the button layout on the A7 it just doesn't cut it for me. Its great for casual work but not for pro unless you're in a studio.

 

If Sony ditch the A-Mount they push me back to Nikon.

[Golem]

As I have said before - A7 xyz is NOT good for ..........

    

Obviously you should not employ gear that

is plainly not suited to your needs. Likewise

a recreational user would be foolish to haul  

gear seen on NFL sidelines to Pop Warner

or school games. Acoarst, a few will do it ...

 

Some peeps make some money with less

than battle-ready photo gear, just as some

Uber drivers use a Prius as a taxi cab :-)  

[danmleephoto]

Obviously you should not employ gear that

is plainly not suited to your needs. Likewise

a recreational user would be foolish to haul  

gear seen on NFL sidelines to Pop Warner

or school games. Acoarst, a few will do it ...

 

Some peeps make some money with less

than battle-ready photo gear, just as some

Uber drivers use a Prius as a taxi cab :-)  

My point being, if any pro is being paid for their work, dual SD card slots are needed as a minimum, period. 

[duncanfoxphoto]

My point being, if any pro is being paid for their work, dual SD card slots are needed as a minimum, period. 

 

While I agree that redundancy is a huge plus, and the possibility of equipment failure over a period of time an absolute certainty, the reliability of solid state memory chips in this day and age is absolutely stellar. You're much more likely to have shutter failure or a drop of some kind which has no effect on an SD card at all, which is also why having a second body and more than one lens is a necessity. In a new a9, I would expect it to have dual card slots, whether it be SD, XQD or UFS, but it would be more helpful for me if the write speed wasn't bottlenecked by a USB 2.0 bus.

 

Currently, you can buy an SD card for your a7 series camera that has a rated write speed of 250mb/s. Holy balls! I say that in the best way possible. However, the current a7 and a6 lineup (along with all the predecessors that use SD) are using a USB 2.0 bus, so you're stuck at below 35mb/s of real, actual usable write speed. Considering that if you bought the fastest card you could get, you would only be using 14% of the rated write speed of that card, which could be 7.14x faster given a USB 3.0 bus. If Sony decides to even go with a single XQD, those things are currently rated at 400mb/s write speed, which is 11.43x the increase in speed. If the rumors about the RX100mV are true, and Sony decides to use UFS instead, you're looking at a rated write speed of 530mb/s, or 15.14x faster than the current generation. XQD and UFS are both very new technologies that are probably going to get much faster, but the biggest gain is just going to be changing up the bus.

 

If you take into account the current a7r ii sensor resolution (42mpix) uncompressed (80mb), it takes a little over 2 seconds to write a single image from the buffer to the card. If you double the amount of card slots with the current technology, it's not going to reduce the time it takes to write, it's going to double it. Imagine having to wait just over 4.5 seconds every single shutter click for the buffer to clear! This is assuming that you shoot redundant, as you should. Changing the bus to USB 3.0 would make the same file write in 0.32 seconds, switching to XQD would be 0.20 seconds, and UFS would be 0.15 seconds. That's much more significant than, "I have a backup copy in case this very reliable memory chip actually fails".

 

In conclusion, I would absolutely welcome a dual slot, but unless there's a bus upgrade, it wouldn't be worth it.

[danmleephoto]

Problem is I have been caught out by the A7II and A7RII SD card slots passing out on my mid event / wedding / gig. I cant over look it, I would assume if they had dual slots the bus would be upgraded to deal with it but - we only have one slot so will never know. 

 

The speeds / buffer / bus bandwidth do all need to be looked at, if Sony pull the stops out with the A9 / A99II whatever then I will happily bin / reserve the A7 series for studio work or casual shooting. 

[delewin]

It is said "All will come to those who wait."

 

My problem is: "I do not think I will live long enough."

[detlef]

As a non pro; i don't like this DSLR bodys. And i see no reason for two mounts. There is only one a mount lens looking interesting for me, the Zeiss Apo 135/2. I hope they bring it as a new Batis. I don't need large tele lens (but i'm sure there come some for e mount). Takes just a little time. IP68, stronger batterie and dual sd slot can be integrated to the A7 Series. AF gets stronger and stronger each iteration. A7 IBIS and sensor are leading, no Nikon, no Canon body is better in this case.

 

So what can a mount else? Why do we need it any longer? f0.95, f1.2 and f1.4 lenses for e mount are already there, light is also no reason for a mount.

 

This is just a personal view

[wedge]

So what can a mount else? Why do we need it any longer? f0.95, f1.2 and f1.4 lenses for e mount are already there, light is also no reason for a mount.

 

100% full time PDAF.  Mirrorless can never do this, and neither can SLR.  SLT is the only tech capable of that.

[detlef]

100% full time PDAF. Mirrorless can never do this, and neither can SLR. SLT is the only tech capable of that.

First why can't a mirrorless have 100% phase detection and secondly sure that's the end of auto focus evolution?

[wedge]

First why can't a mirrorless have 100% phase detection and secondly sure that's the end of auto focus evolution?

 

Mirrorless can't focus while the shutter is closed.  SLR can't focus while the mirror is up.  

SLT can focus 110% of the time, all the time.  

These realities can never change, no matter how much evolution goes into focusing technology.

[detlef]

People's was often meaning they have seen the end of evolution. We can speak again in 10, 20 or 50 years.

[duncanfoxphoto]

People's was often meaning they have seen the end of evolution. We can speak again in 10, 20 or 50 years.

Next is a light multiplying apparatus, making ISO irrelevant!

[molan]

Now when the A99M2 is here and we know what Sony did, we can stop speculation. They did put A7RII technology into an A-mount body with some AF improvements - called hybrid AF, using both the PDAF of SLT 's and the on sensor AF from A7RII into the mix.

 

Will it safe A-mount over time no, only the marked can do that, but A-mount will exists for some time yet.

[delewin]

Hi Molan,

 

I agree with you. The new A99m2 will put a "new lease of life" into the A Mount lens system users, but ultimately it will be the market that dictates whether the A mount survives.

 

The A99m2 is really for the existing A mount user market.

 

If the Sony A mount division wants the A mount to survive it must continue to build new bodies that keep pace with its FE mount sisters.

 

When Sony releases a fully functional "all bells and whistles" A9 FE mount camera, the pressure will be back on the A mount division to keep up.

 

If they don't, then the market for A mount glass will evaporate over time.

[Sator]

It's often said that the a99II is a DSLT version of the a7RII. Others have expressed hope that Sony can put the a99II autofocus system into the a9. 

 

The fact is the only thing that the a99II and a7RII have in common is the 42MP BSI sensor. The Nikon D810 and a7R may share the same Sony sensor but nobody would ever say that the D810 is little more than a7R with a Nikon badge and a mirror.

 

Yes, the a99II has focal plane PDAF points (on the same focal plane as the imaging sensor) like the a7RII, but so too did the a99 Mark I. That means that the a99 Mark I already had a hybrid phase detection autofocus system combining on- and off-focal plane PDAF. All of this before the a7 series ever even existed. In addition, the a99II has the new LSI chip that is not a part of the a7RII.

 

As for the idea that Sony could put the a99II autofocus into the a9—of course they can do that, if they put a SLT mirror into the a9! But then the a9 would be a DSLT rather than a mirrorless model. People seem to be under the delusion that the mirrorless on a DSLR is something of an inessential fashion accessory, akin to a vanity mirror on a car, something that merely flaps around doing nothing particularly functional. The more crucial thing is that the mirror feeds a whole extra off-focal plane PDAF sensor that acts like a turbo booster to the autofocus system. Mirrorless cameras are getting faster, but then Sony can take anything you do to make mirrorless go faster, and then add that extra turbo boost to it to make the autofocus go even faster. That means that mirrorless cameras will always be left limping one step behind, because they have had that extra off-focal plane PDAF turbo booster amputated just to make them smaller.

 

The problem for Sony was that the a99 Mk I flopped. It was their own fault. The a99 Mk I had an equivalent resolution sensor to that of the Canon 5DIII, but despite having a fixed SLT mirror it could only achieve the same frame rate as the 5DIII. Wasn't the point of eliminating the moving mirror to make it go faster? Then Canon's autofocus tracking algorithms were superior. Next, the AF point spread across the viewfinder on the 5DIII was much better. The a99 Mk I was a prematurely released beta product and it fell flat on its face. You see 5DIIIs everywhere but seldom do you ever see a a99 Mk I. It is hardly surprising that Sony retreated while licking its wounds.

 

Sony have their backs to the wall with the a99II. They cannot afford another flop from releasing a beta product like they did last time around. They have to release a mature and meticulously designed product. There is no room for casual experimentation. So far everything looks like Sony is on track to delivering a product that will turn the tables on the Canon 5DIV. With both the 5DIII and the a99 on four year development cycles, this time their successors clash it looks like Sony will have the superior product. The lack of new A mount lens offerings is just supply and demand. If demand returns, then so will the supply. As an aside, I also do hope that Sigma does offer their upcoming 85mm f/1.4 Art lens in A mount. 

 

Furthermore, it seems that nobody has thought of the fact that if a 42MP SLT model can manage 12 fps, a 15.4MP a99S model might be able to achieve a frame rate of 24-30 fps, while costing the same as the a99II. An a99S would be a D5 and 1DX MkII killer like no other. If Sony gets their DSLT designs together so that they offer coherent and technologically mature products, then these will represent far greater imminent threats to the Canikon hegemony than any of Sony's mirrorless offerings, especially given that neither Canon nor Nikon are known to have DSLT patents. Canikon have been caught out napping by lulling themselves into thinking DSLT designs represents not the slightest of challenges to them, and have allowed themselves to be excessively distracted by the mirrorless hoopla. 

 

Oh BTW, I have already fully paid for my pre-order on the a99II.  

[Sator]

BTW I should also mention another point about A vs E mount. 

 

The problem with the E mount is that the flange distance is ultra short. That means that the angle of incidence of light in the corners becomes rather steep. If you look at a sensor under a microscope it looks like a city with lots of high rise buildings. If the angle of light incidence becomes steeps, those "buildings" start to cast shadows. Modern sensors differ from film in that it cannot tolerate a steep angle of light incidence. To overcome this, what Sony engineers have to do is to design the lens so that it is more telecentric. The more telecentric the better. However, this comes at a cost, because it makes the lens really big. So much so that it negates any gains made from making the body smaller. The lens also balances poorly against the body producing a bazooka on a matchbox effect. 

 

The next thing is that the greater the maximum aperture (and the wider the angle of view) of the lens, the steeper the angle of corner light becomes, and the more telecentric the lens has to be to compensate. This is why a lot of the E mount lenses are unusually slow for 135 format lenses. When the maximum aperture is made ultra wide, then suddenly the lens size blows out, and it ends up elephantine eg 55mm f/1.8 is quite reasonably sized but the 50mm f/1.4 is huge. This is why you aren't going to get a f/1.8 version of a 135mm lens for the E mount. If you want ultra wide apertures, then it makes more sense to design them for the A mount. I for one would love a Sony-Zeiss 100mm f/1.4 to rival the Nikon 105mm f/1.4, but once again you aren't going to get this on E mount as it would end up ridiculously large. A mount, however, would be an optimal platform for which to design such a lens.

 

That means that A mount is the ultra wide aperture master of the Sony universe. 

[delewin]

Hi Sator,

I agree with everything you have posted in the last 2 posts.

 

But, I am left with the memory of the Sony Betamax Vs JVC VHS video tape war. The Sony Betamax was technically a better system, but JVC’s VHS won the war with better marketing and allowing 3^rd party manufactures to use the VHS in their products.

 

A mount is technically a better system for all the reasons you have stated, but E mount bodies have one very significant advantage over A mount bodies. The simple fact that they can accept 3^rd party lenses via an adaptor.

 

This single advantage overcomes the disadvantages you have stated.

 

This time Sony has learnt from its previous mistakes. 3^rd party adaptor manufactures have been very busy designing adaptors to suit virtually all lenses. (With varying degrees of success.) This promotes the “easy” switching from Canon and other brands to Sony E mount bodies. Currently, Sony appears to be leading in features available in their E mount bodies. Also 3^rd party lens makers are also seeing profits available in manufacturing lenses for the E mount system.

 

Over time Sony would expect that the user would start to buy native E mount lenses to take advantage of additional features, etc.

 

Sony is using the E mount system to “steal” photographers and videographers from other brands.

 

As the success of Sony E mount grows, the pressure to produce a more feature rich product that is better balanced to the new range of GM lenses will be produced. This forum has “dubbed” it the A9.

 

What we are seeing is Sony’s push to position itself at the premium end of the photography market. Virtually all of its products are really jam packed with features and use the latest sensor technology.

 

Where Sony was lagging in was their processing of the data from the sensor, etc. With the advent of the LSI chip and increased buffer size it goes part way to achieving it. The logical move will be to further enhance the processing power and buffer size / storage technology to allow full frame raw capture continuously (no limit) at 24 / 30/ 60 / 120 / 240 / etc. frames per second. In parallel also develop new sensor technology that expands the usable ISO range significantly beyond our current limits.

 

They do not want to run with the rest; they want to lead the rest.

 

(I will also be buying the A99m2 when it comes to Australia in late January 2017 because I have a large (for me) investment in good quality A mount glass.)

[Sator]

There is an argument to be made that the 35mm format mirrorless and DSLT lines are inadequately differentiated products lines, and that this means that Sony is competing against itself. However, unlike the VHS vs Betamax format war, Sony owns both of the competing lines. In fact, the only other major company known to hold a DSLT patent is Ricoh, with a variable translucency SLT mirror that increases in translucency to reduce the light loss when capturing the image. Sony should take full advantage of the fact they are technologically ahead of chief rivals while they can. Pellicle mirror designs were originally invented in the film era by Canon, and if the a99II is successful Canon will be snapping at Sony's heels with a digital Pellix model. 

 

Personally, I think the way to achieve product differentiation is for Sony to focus on keeping both body and lenses compact in the mirrorless line, and to focus on speed and solid build quality in the A mount line. The problem with a mirrorless A9 is that if you add professional grade weather sealing, dual card slots, and larger capacity battery, all this will make the body almost as large a DSLT anyway. Once you add in the fact that the telecentric mirrorless lenses are mostly larger, then all pretence to size advantage vanishes.

 

You might plausibly argue that the point of mirrorless isn't to get a more compact system at all, but to take advantage of the better image quality conferred by the short flange distance, especially since the optical engineer is no longer required to account for the mirror box in the optical pathway. Unfortunately, while the short flange distance does improve image quality a bit, even that advantage can be overcome if DSLR lenses are designed with sufficient care. That is why it appears the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR is looking like it is going to be a better lens than the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM E mount lens:

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/

 

Even more remarkable is that Nikon achieved this without having to resort to using a single aspherical element—which makes the bokeh harsher, something that is important in portraiture. Sony broke with convention in 70-200mm designs by putting three aspherical elements in their rival GM version for E mount, and despite this, plus the theoretical advantage conferred by the shorter flange distance, they still they got beaten by Nikon. Ouch!

 

As for this business of adapting lenses, I think this is a temporary fad. You can actually adapt Nikon lenses to Canon EOS mounts, but nobody does it. The Canon EOS mount has a flange distance of 44mm, whereas the Sony/Minolta A mount has a flange distance of 44.5mm. That means that you can, in principle, mount M42 mount, M39 mount, Nikon F mount, Leica R mount, Pentax K mount, or medium format SLR lenses using an adapter to the Sony A mount.

 

The other thing that people don't realise is that lenses have to have their optics redesigned to be telecentric (to vary degrees depending on maximum aperture and focal length) to perform adequately on a mirrorless mount. There is also a specific rear element that increases the rear exit pupil distance on a mirrorless lens. It isn't enough to just adjust the flange distance. Unless the lens is specifically designed for a mirrorless mount, you get degradation of performance, as was demonstrated by Lens Rental with bench testing:

 

https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

 

It is likely that you would get less degradation in performance if you adopted lenses from one DSLR mount to another DSLR mount. In some cases the difference between DSLR mounts is just microns, meaning that there is less optical design mismatch when adapting DSLR lenses from one DSLR mount to another. You'd probably be far better off adapting vintage lenses to your a99II than to your a7RII. Abandon ye your mirrorless and get thyself an a99II so you can adapt non-native lenses!!!

 

The bigger danger to Sony is that the E mount may just end up a spectacular platform for helping Canon and Nikon sell lenses for use with a Sony mirrorless body, because native E mount lenses are generally more expensive. The advantage to Sony with the A mount is that people tend to buy native Sony lenses, meaning that there is more financial incentive to investing in A mount lens development.

 

New technologies tend to go through a bubbly peak of irrational enthusiasm before people sober to the fact that things are less black-and-white, and that the reality is more about nuanced shades of grey. This harsh fact is slowly beginning to hit home with the E mount as the novelty factor wears thin. 

[delewin]

I am a solid A mount user and will not switch to E mount.

 

I know I will be very happy with the A99m2 when I eventually pick one up in 2017.

[molan]

Personally I'll be getting a A99II, I can't say I won't get an E mount eventually, I would have gone for a A7RII by now if Sony had not announced the A99M2 earlyere this year.

 

I do disagree with this statesmen though "As for the idea that Sony could put the a99II autofocus into the a9—of course they can do that, if they put a SLT mirror into the a9!", the shot flang distance doesn't allow a mirror of appropriate size to be mounted into an A9 body.

 

The A9 body size could be dSLT size but the flang distance is what matters as far at SLT go's.

[Sator]

Where does the information about the flange distance on the A9 come from? It's not on Sony.com!

 

Read carefully. Nobody ever even remotely suggested that the A9 will be a DSLT—or not a DSLT. All that was said was that a higher end mirrorless E mount camera will not be able to achieve as high a frame rate as the a99II because mirrorless cameras have had their AF speed boosting off-focal plane phase detection autofocus sensor amputated.

 

BTW there is also a rumour (although not on SAR) that Sony will release a more high-end A mount flagship camera. It is said that it will probably have a higher-resolution sensor but no higher than 60MP resolution.