Sony a99 II camera tested at DxOMark

sony-a99-ii-camera-tested-at-dxomark
sony-a99-ii-camera-tested-at-dxomark1
sony-a99-ii-camera-tested-at-dxomark2
DxOMark published their test results for the Sony a99 II SLT camera ($3,198), here is their conclusion (Nikon D800, D810 and Pentax K-1 scored better):

The Sony SLT A99 II gives landscape, architectural, advertising or magazine photographers desiring plenty of pixels for large-scale or high-quality prints another camera to consider. Although its $3198 price tag puts it squarely in the professional or very serious enthusiast category, it’s no more expensive than the 42Mp, $3198 Sony A7R II, and actually cheaper than the 50Mp, $3699 Canon 5DS. The switch to a 42Mp BSI sensor delivers some excellent image quality, with great results both at base ISO and towards the middle of the sensitivity range. Although better color depth and dynamic range image quality at base ISO is available on the Sony A7R II, photographers after a larger DSLR style body might prefer the A99 II’s design and handling over the mirrorless A7R II, and its overall image quality isn’t far behind. What’s more, the A99 II’s fast 12fps burst shooting with autofocus tracking puts it on par with high-end professional sports cameras, and its BSI sensor technology ensures good low-light performance despite its massive 42Mp resolution. The SLT fixed translucent mirror and resulting EVF might be a drawback for some photographers used to an optical viewfinder, but this brings other advantages for some subjects and in some situations.

The Sony SLT A99 II gives landscape, architectural, advertising or magazine photographers desiring plenty of pixels for large-scale or high-quality prints another camera to consider. Although its $3198 price tag puts it squarely in the professional or very serious enthusiast category, it’s no more expensive than the 42Mp, $3198 Sony A7R II, and actually cheaper than the 50Mp, $3699 Canon 5DS. The switch to a 42Mp BSI sensor delivers some excellent image quality, with great results both at base ISO and towards the middle of the sensitivity range. Although better color depth and dynamic range image quality at base ISO is available on the Sony A7R II, photographers after a larger DSLR style body might prefer the A99 II’s design and handling over the mirrorless A7R II, and its overall image quality isn’t far behind. What’s more, the A99 II’s fast 12fps burst shooting with autofocus tracking puts it on par with high-end professional sports cameras, and its BSI sensor technology ensures good low-light performance despite its massive 42Mp resolution. The SLT fixed translucent mirror and resulting EVF might be a drawback for some photographers used to an optical viewfinder, but this brings other advantages for some subjects and in some situations.

With such additional features as a hybrid autofocus system, a 5-axis sensor shift image stabilization, a BIONZ X image processor, as well as internal UHD 4K-video and HD capture at 120fps for slow motion effects, the Sony SLT A99 II offers good all-round specifications. Add to that its 42Mp resolution with exceptional image quality and you get an awful lot of camera for your mone,y making the Sony SLT A99 II a serious contender for high-resolution shooting.

This entry was posted in Sony and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • JoeJohnBear

    Dxo mark Sony shills much?

    • sperdynamite

      *eyeroll*

      Let me guess, you use the phrase “liberal media” in conversation a lot?

      • JoeJohnBear

        Lol, no, I’m liberal myself. I find it interesting that DXO mark is a sensor test company but cherry picks features outside of their purview. For example, they cite the camera’s FPS but not its buffer or write (clear buffer) speed for sports, dynamic range but not availability of TS lenses for architecture.

        • El Aura

          They want to liven up the presentation of their measured data with a little bit of camera context. If they are shills, they are shills for their own brand. And which company isn’t trying to do that in their communications materials. They might accidentally talk up one camera or brand but that is so random and largely an unplanned side-effect of them trying to make their ‘report’ more interesting.

          • JoeJohnBear

            Well, they are consistently biased towards Sony irrespective of real usage by sports and architect professional shooters. DXO likes to stir the pot for web traffic purposes like Ken Rockwell does.

          • El Aura

            If you refer to DxO’s remarks on non-sensor related aspects on cameras, you might be the only one in the world who is detecting any bias because you are the only one in the world who is actually reading that part.

            If you refer to Sony sensors getting better scores, that is because non-Sony sensor, to be precise, Canon sensors are behind in base ISO read noise performance. If one party is consistently better, reporting that isn’t bias. Though you wouldn’t be the first one to attribute any unwelcome result to malfeasance. Even if doing so basically disqualifies for any serious debate.

          • Les

            He’s not the only one. The DxO test reads like “sponsored content.”

            Maybe their technical analysis is relevant (in my opinion it’s mostly splitting hairs). Everything else they wrote is a sales pitch pretending to be a review.

            I can’t stand fake reviews, no matter what product it’s pitching. You can tell it was written by marketeers rather than photographers because the first thing it talks about is market targeting (“landscape, architectural, advertising or magazine…”). That’s something that is central to the world view of a hawker, but irrelevant to photographers.

          • El Aura

            They read like bad journalism that mainly copies the press releases or the spec sheets. But they do so for all brands. They are equal-opportunity shills. But you are falling into the same trap as so many people by attributing something to malice where incompetence completely suffices as an explanation, ie, you are violating Hanlon’s razor.

          • JoeJohnBear

            Do you always skip reading the actual content of a blog post? The OP directly quotes the DXO Mark non-sensor remarks, so criticizing me for being “the only one in the world” to read the article pretty much disqualifies you from “serious debate.”

          • El Aura

            The OP quoting the DxOmark non-sensor remarks still doesn’t change that essentially nobody is reading them or at best skims over them only taking in the specs.

          • JoeJohnBear

            You speak for everyone. Argumetum ad populum. Also, nobody, really? By definition, what you’re saying is invalid.

          • El Aura

            Assuming otherwise would be insulting the intelligence of the potential readers. But you are saying that is what I should do?

          • JoeJohnBear

            To disprove the generalization “nobody,” you only need one exception. Myself, author = two exceptions. Also, laughable straw man (putting words in mouth), ad hominum and sweeping generalizations. Keep the logical fallacies coming, bro.

          • El Aura

            Well, let’s rephrase that, essentially nobody reads it as a review. People know what is a review and what is filler text.

          • JoeJohnBear

            Still argumentum ad populum. You’re generalizing on behalf of an invisible and hypothetical mob.

    • Zos Xavius

      No

  • Spy Black

    If the EVF in this camera is like the one in the A6300, you’re pretty well covered as far as EVFs go.

    • Esstee

      From what I can tell, it’s identical to the a7r II

  • TinusVerdino

    Same sensor, lower score than A7r II. Stupid mirror

    • also the price…

      • TinusVerdino

        Same price as the a7r II but no shiny new lenses. It’s a development/testing platform for new mirrorless tech, not a serious system. A mount is still on it’s way out.

        • JoeJohnBear

          Yeah, better lenses are needed to ever reinvest into a mount as a photographer. I’m wondering why there isn’t an emount version of this…wonder what size that would be.

          • TinusVerdino

            There is a obstinate semi transparent mirror blocking the spot where the e-mount wants to be. When on sensor AF can match the dedicated PDAF in the A-mount camera’s the mount will be history. No reason to keep it on then.

          • FuryPhotog

            Yup. Right after my pigs take flight, e-mount will take over. For now that obstinate semi-transparent mirror makes all the difference.

          • Jeffry De Meyer

            Would be nice if that semi transparent mirror were to act like a normal slr mirror

          • FuryPhotog

            This is something that requires an open mind. Those of us who have shot with SLT and DSLR for many years prefer SLT. The biggest hurdle for some (but not for me) was to get used to an electronic viewfinder. If you simply cannot stomach EVF then an SLT is not for you. I don’t just like it but find it advantageous, but that’s another topic.

            SLT has a number of advantages over DSLR centered on the fact that the mirror does not have to move out of the light path between shots. Thus you have full time continuous AF and live view between shots and when using video.

            The “price” to be paid is a nominal loss of light to the sensor which has had zero real world impact on my photography (primarily sports).

            However, since we all love our numbers, it should be noted that the new a99II’s overall DXO sensor score (92) bested that of the two best and most expensive Nikon and Canon DSLRs out there. Both the 1DX and the D5 garnered 88s.

          • Esstee

            NB, the a99 II will only best them until the competition moves to new sensors. ie, Canon may or may not measure-up, but something tells me Nikon will make a point of surpassing it – not sure about Pentax

    • FuryPhotog

      Do you shoot photographs with a camera or a sensor score? I would challenge you to visually distinguish in a side-by-side comparison between photographs taken on the a7rII and the a99II given the relative proximity of their scores. Trust me, You couldn’t. But what you get on the a99II, and you don’t have on the a7rII, are things which make a meaningful difference in one’s photography, particularly if, like me, you shoot things that move in less than optimal conditions, e.g., fast and accurate AF, 12 FPS, etc., 54 continuous RAW shots before you hit the buffer (insane to think about). The a7rII may have a higher DXO score, but it is no match for this camera in real world conditions. Smart mirror.

      I also think you have it in reverse. The a7s have been a test bed for this camera. The best of what the a7 series has to offer was incorporated in the a99II including, among other things, the same 42MP back-illuminated CMOS sensor, OSPDAF (combined with a separate PDAF in a hybrid focusing system), 5 axis stabilization and in-body 4K video recording.
      The long rumored Sony “a9” has never appeared. Likely the a9 concept went on the shelf because Sony has yet to figure out how to deliver something approaching the a99II’s AF performance without a mirror. No one had done it yet, but Sony will lead the way if it is possible. Until then, in the real world, mirrorless is still a big step behind.

      • Max

        Well this thread is on an article about the sensor score that just got published . Not the camera as a whole. Just saying

        • FuryPhotog

          True, but I was reacting to the two comments which was comparative to the 7arII.

          Sensor scores have their place, but taken out of context they don’t mean very much and can be overemphasized and misleading. That was essentially my point.

      • TinusVerdino

        You are funny FurryPhotog

        • FuryPhotog

          That’s me: Mr. Funny.

    • sickheadache

      Yep..that weak mirror design…Sony..please redesign that mirror. Today.

    • El Aura

      The semi-transparent mirror only affects the sports score. That is the only light-limited score.

      The mirror might introduce some additional artefacts besides the light loss in terms of flare or very slight double images. However those should not affect the SNR and saturation capacity measurements (the basis for the dynamic range value) on a pixel basis.

      • Esstee

        The mirror affects all aspects of image quality in terms of sensor performance(safe resolution of course).

        • El Aura

          Really, a neutral density filter affects image quality at base ISO (with of course an exposure chosen to just saturate the sensor in the highlights)? You have to explain me how that works.

  • Max

    Maybe I’m blind but I can’t see a graph for sports/iso test. I thought maybe they tuned the signal process so that the results are better at higher iso settings, like with the d5, because this is a responsive high fps camera after all.

    • Esstee

      It’s in the averages.
      That said, I don’t particular like DxO’s average scores. I think their completely misleading if anything.

  • Max

    D4 and D4s? Although those are low mpx…

  • harvey

    as someone whose primary subject material is the landscape, it looks like the old A99 is good enough unless I want big prints and even then, an 810/K1 might be a lot better.

  • Ethan

    A99 2 shoots what… 10 fps??

    I would like to see a d810 or equivalent camera do that for same price.

    The camera itself is a really good upgrade.

  • Back to top