# DXOMark: Sony A99 II sensor is worse than the A7R II, D800E, D810, K-1



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

The new horsepower-spec overloaded A99 II -- which I thought had the A7R II sensor in it -- apparently laid an egg in sensor testing:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/12/01/dxomark/#.WEBTt5J_3-8

Question 1: If it has the A7R II sensor in it and a year's newer internals to process the data, shouldn't we be getting the same (or slightly better high ISO) results as the A7R II?

Question 2: How the hell did PB get this data? *It's not public yet*.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

Now publicly available:
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-II-sensor-review-New-super-resolution-contender

Oof. I can't explain that one at all short of (speculating):


Perhaps the A7R II sensor _isn't_ in the A99 II


Would Sony's famous fine print compression / 'not 14-bit' shenanigans have affected a sensor score? The A99 II manual implies that the camera dabbles with compression to hit its 12 fps target. Maybe they accidentially switched to 12 fps mode (for whatever reason) and spiked the punch?

- A


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 1, 2016)

What surprises me the most is the drop in ISO performance vs the A7RII. Good high ISO performance is very important in an action oriented camera. 

To me, this is yet another example of Sony's impossible-to-understand approach, almost on par with the (otherwise) heavily weather sealed FE 35 f1.4 lens, which they forgot to outfit with a rear rubber gasket around the lens mount. 

To me, the best reason to stay clear of Sony is their random and poorly planned product devolopment.


----------



## rs (Dec 1, 2016)

It's an SLT. That semi translucent mirror prevents a sizeable proportion of the light from being collected by the sensor.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

rs said:


> It's an SLT. That semi translucent mirror prevents a sizeable proportion of the light from being collected by the sensor.



Yep. I forgot about the T in SLT. Thanks for reminding me!

Assuming DXO's method is 100% reproducible from only one copy of a camera [comically long coughing fit] and that the A7R II sensor _is indeed_ in the A99 II with no other improvements in hardware/processing of high ISO files, it would tell us that the translucent mirror is gobbling up... what, 2/3 of a stop? Yowza.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Assuming DXO's method is 100% reproducible from only one copy of a camera [comically long coughing fit] and that the A7R II sensor _is indeed_ in the A99 II with no other improvements in hardware/processing of high ISO files, it would tell us that the translucent mirror is gobbling up... what, 2/3 of a stop? Yowza.



Sony said it's about 1/2 a stop. I guess uber-innovative Sony can't quite match the 1/3-stop loss of Canon's Pellix from 1965.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming DXO's method is 100% reproducible from only one copy of a camera [comically long coughing fit] and that the A7R II sensor _is indeed_ in the A99 II with no other improvements in hardware/processing of high ISO files, it would tell us that the translucent mirror is gobbling up... what, 2/3 of a stop? Yowza.
> ...



But hey, it grabs 12 fps... if you don't mind compressed RAW files.

And it's got a jillion AF points for 12 fps... that are locked after the first exposure on f/4 lenses.

I hate Sony fine print. I really do.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Canon beat that in 1984 – the F-1 High Speed had a pellicle mirror and shot 14 fps.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon beat that in 1984 – the F-1 High Speed had a pellicle mirror and shot 14 fps.



At that frame rate, I'm half surprised that the film didn't come in a tommy gun like film dispensary.

Is that monstrous bottom a film feed, power motor, more battery, etc?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon beat that in 1984 – the F-1 High Speed had a pellicle mirror and shot 14 fps.
> ...



That's the battery pack on the bottom – 24 V of power.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1/html/canonf1nhighspeed.htm


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

Now you're going to stay people used to start fires in the woods with flint and tinder. I have this sweet doodad that I just press a button to make fire when camping, so flint and tinder clearly never existed.

Also, what is film?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Now you're going to stay people used to start fires in the woods with flint and tinder. I have this sweet doodad that I just press a button to make fire when camping, so flint and tinder clearly never existed.



Clearly both flynt and tinder are still around.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 1, 2016)

And I was under the impression that this camera was going to slay the Canon sports models. 

Stupid Sony. Not listening to their customers...going backwards...crippling a potentially perfect camera. Sounds to me like they will be bust in 2 years.


----------



## Frodo (Dec 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Clearly both flynt and tinder are still around.



!!

FWIW, the Canon F1 also had a 250 frame film back.
Must be showing my age but I owned the original F1 for a time. Nice camera, but the sensor was identical to much lighter cameras.
I assume that the difference between the 99 II and the A7RII is the pellicle mirror.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 1, 2016)

Frodo said:


> I assume that the difference [in DXO metrics] between the 99 II and the A7RII is the pellicle mirror.



The mirror, the readout electronics (almost certainly hotter), etc.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 1, 2016)

rs said:


> It's an SLT. That semi translucent mirror prevents a sizeable proportion of the light from being collected by the sensor.



That makes sence. When that is the case, enabling the 12bit raw at high fps, on top of the loss of light due to the translucent mirror, that DXO mark score would probably be noticeably worse...


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 1, 2016)

It's still a big improvement on the old A99, it's just the fixed mirror holding back ISO performance by half a stop, which everyone always knew was the case.

The design still opens up opportunities that no other camera can match, it'll be very interesting to see how the end product turns out.


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming DXO's method is 100% reproducible from only one copy of a camera [comically long coughing fit] and that the A7R II sensor _is indeed_ in the A99 II with no other improvements in hardware/processing of high ISO files, it would tell us that the translucent mirror is gobbling up... what, 2/3 of a stop? Yowza.
> ...


I had (actually have but needs servicing) the EOS RT and I was under the impression that it lost 2/3s of a stop at film level.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 2, 2016)

IIRC correctly is is about 1/3 stop at the sensor and 2/3 at the viewfinder?


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> IIRC correctly is is about 1/3 stop at the sensor and 2/3 at the viewfinder



From the booklet I still have: (reflection:transparency = 35 / 65) 

So practically 1/3 of the light goes to viewfinder and 2/3 of the light goes to flim. These numbers are NOT stops.

This translates differently than the numbers. For example 1/2 of the light means 1 stop loss (of course!) not 1/2.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 2, 2016)

SLT. Worst of both worlds. Mirror, light loss (in reality more like 2/3 of a stop) and big fat camera. 

They should have just stopped that entire A-mount and SLT stuff and focused on A7 lineup and a really great A9 plus some decent E-mount lenses for A6500 line. 

Stupid, Sony!


----------



## ritholtz (Dec 2, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> SLT. Worst of both worlds. Mirror, light loss (in reality more like 2/3 of a stop) and big fat camera.
> 
> They should have just stpooed that entire A-mount and SLT stuff and focused on A7 lineup and a relly great A9 plus some decent E-mount lenses for A6500 line.
> 
> Stupid, Sony!


Looks like similar to 5D4.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 2, 2016)

While others are waiting for best/better mirrorless cameras, I'll cont. with my crappy a7s and FE35f1.4


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 2, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> SLT. Worst of both worlds. Mirror, light loss (in reality more like 2/3 of a stop) and big fat camera.
> 
> They should have just stopped that entire A-mount and SLT stuff and focused on A7 lineup and a really great A9 plus some decent E-mount lenses for A6500 line.
> 
> Stupid, Sony!



some people like autofocus performance that can't yet be provided from the image sensor.

Stupid photographers.



Dylan777 said:


> While others are waiting for best/better mirrorless cameras, I'll cont. with my crappy a7s and FE35f1.4



Nice!


----------



## Jopa (Dec 29, 2016)

I had the original A99, sold it when moved to the A7 platform. It was a decent camera, but I wasn't quite happy with the lens selection. All 3rd parties like Sigma usually start lens production for Sony at least a year after the same models become available for Canon and Nikon. The best Zeiss branded Sony portrait primes still use screw driven motors (85 and 135), and the new 50mm SSM was $1500 retail. The 135 f/1.8 is a quite unique lens though, probably the best of the whole lens lineup (to me).
Out of curiosity I looked at the DxO "best primes" page for the A99 II, and the Sony "big whites" also seem to be very outdated: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-300mm-F28-G-II-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-II-versus-Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1133_1120_400_1009. They don't offer any modern and reasonably priced high end telephoto optics for a capable (on paper, but not sure about the fine print  ) system. Assuming the target audience for this camera are sports / wild life photographers, what lenses are they supposed to use? I can only think about the new Sigma 500 f/4 to the rescue...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 29, 2016)

Sony 300 big white - I'd feel sick if I saw the specs side by side as in the link and was interested in shooting wildlife. It probably gives decent results in practice, which leads to my advice to myself - stay away from comparisons once you've spent your money. 

Jack


----------



## Jopa (Dec 30, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Sony 300 big white - I'd feel sick if I saw the specs side by side as in the link and was interested in shooting wildlife. It probably gives decent results in practice, which leads to my advice to myself - stay away from comparisons once you've spent your money.
> 
> Jack



Indeed. But for the same price ($7500) you can get the excellent Canon version + a 7dmk2


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 30, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Sony 300 big white - I'd feel sick if I saw the specs side by side as in the link and was interested in shooting wildlife. It probably gives decent results in practice, which leads to my advice to myself - stay away from comparisons once you've spent your money.
> ...



That's a bargain. Sony's 500mm sells for 13,000 USD (well, it's listed for that, I dont know if it actually sells).


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 30, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



In germany it sells for 15,000€ in most shops..but good luck finding a shop that actually has it (as in "ready to ship")


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 30, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Sony 300 big white - I'd feel sick if I saw the specs side by side as in the link and was interested in shooting wildlife. It probably gives decent results in practice, which leads to my advice to myself - stay away from comparisons once you've spent your money.
> 
> Jack



Cause it is so good? or so bad?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2016)

Frodo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly both flynt and tinder are still around.
> ...



Actually no. The F1 did indeed have a 250 frame bulk back, but the 1984 High Speed F1 is based on the New F-1 and that had the FN-100 100 frame bulk back. I only know this because I recently sold one.


----------

