Sony SLT-A77 II Review

You forgot to mention that the buffer is huge compared go the D7000. That said Brownie is an anti Sony Troll so replying to him is a waste of time. He's one of many on my ignore list.

I am actually not anti-anything. I think there are many things to like about the a77 mkII - but not sure there are enough to justify the purchase, since I already have a D7000. And yes, a huge buffer actually is a big deal for me - the D7000 was crippled with such a small one. Thanks for the info tb.

@K E Hoffman: Classic denial syndrome. Just what I was expecting.

You have square hands? How odd...how do you hold a glass?

@ KE Hoffman thumbs up! I think it's just generalized squaresville you have detected, daddyo. lol

I don't get this comment about the grip on this camera. I can grip this camera without any problem and it feels very secure in my hands. I haven't even put the strap on yet, and only use it with a large zoom, Tamron 150-600 lens.

I would recommend the Sony 70-400G over the Sigma 150-600 any day of the week. Sigma lenses tend to have focusing issues and that can only be at its worst at 600mm where you are most likely to use the lens. The sony 70400G lenses are uncharacteristically sharp at the long end. It has less reach but in the end it is the quality you will enjoy.

One alternative to buy the version 1 of the lens, you may still find a few available. The difference between #1 and #2 is the lens coating which really is small considering the cost difference. The lens is fantastic and just because there is a version 2 out, does not mean version 1 is any less.

Ditto what he just said. The move from A77 to A772 was a bigger improvement than the name would infer. Its a great camera and if you did into the DPR review and some of the discussions you will see DPR testers are ranking AF Tracking this way
Nikon FF (750/810) $2200-3000+
Samsung APS Mirrorless NX1 $1200 (Kit $2700!)
Sony APS DSLT A77M2!! $900 (Kit $1500)
Canon APS DSLR 7DMKII $1700
Canon FF DSLR 5d MKIII $2400
Its a heck of value, even more so if you already have some lenses. But the new Focus system will be best with the 16-50mm F2.8 Zoom or any of the recent SSM GII Zooms.

I made the exact same move (A57 to A77II). I am a big fan of the A57, it's an excellent performer that's well balanced model between your typical entry level and something more advanced, and I would have bought it again if I had to do it all over. The A77II is definitely a more advanced camera that, as long as you're comfortable familiarizing yourself with the many different modes and options, you'll appreciate the upgrade and find it worthwhile. It's easily the best value on the market for DSLRs right now, fighting in a weight class cameras that are almost double in price. Mirrorless like the A6000 are impressive but can get expensive fast when you're talking E-mount native lens solutions, particularly versus comparable A-mount lenses. I suggest you go to DPR's Sony SLR/SLT A-mount Talk forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1037 and post your question there (and what other gear accompanies your A57) for a more detailed analysis.

Salutems; Dream on. I used to own an A100, same sensor as the A200. I now own an A77 and A77ii both of which have much better high iso performance than the A200. I would say 2-3 stops better so you can fool yourself into thinking that your A200 has less noise but but in no way shape or manor is that true.

So you blame the bad shots on the lens? Stop making excuses and learn to take good photos.

@tesch, more here on lens issues:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a77ii?comment=1528765681

There doesn't seem to be any argument on this point, they were upfront about this issue from the beginning, so either you haven't read through all the comments or just decided to argue something nobody else is.

You want our opinion, but if our opinion doesn't match yours, then we're automatically biased.

Seems to me like you can't win.

You're completely wrong about any apparent 'bias'. You're completely wrong about 'incentives' from Amazon - we have complete editorial independence.

Nonsensical rationale? We're trying to approach this from both sides: whether or you are or aren't an A-mount owner. Does that make our argument nonsensical? Of course not. In fact, even if you have thousands invested in glass for a particular mount, it's a specious argument to say you can't sell all that and switch, if the other system has significant advantages for your work.

And that's our job - to point out where there are advantages, and where there are disadvantages.

If you don't like our opinion, please move on. If you have solid evidence that any of our assessment is factually, objectively wrong, then please let us know.

Else you're just spewing opinion charading as fact.

@rishi I don't agree with the harsh tone.. especially towards you and Dan who are very professional even under direct attack. But I do think there is a point about a built in Bias showing when "Doesn't support other makers lenses" is even listed as a concern. You come from the idea that its a switch move vs a first buy move etc. When I moved from my A700 to A77 I did a full brand evaluation, partly because I was an EVF skeptic. I would have sold and moved if I could get a better system for me, even if it cost me. Its like news networks one only labels some guests as "liberal" and another only labels guests as "conservative" because they assume the others are just "normal" like them. Canon Con: "can't use some of the great Zeiss optics released by Sony or lenses like the Great STF." Never ever going to see that in a review of a Canon but its as true as saying Sony can't use Canon both are facts.. but using them selectively adds some bias that is real if not intentional.

K E Hoffman: Thanks. Btw, where do we list 'Doesn't support other makers lenses' as a concern?

I think my overall point is that it's the appearance of bias, not actual bias. The case you mention: just due to different reviewers writing different reviews, and editorial oversight not able to completely, perfectly control for everything all the time.

Btw, you don't have to convince me of the speciousness of the 'can't switch' argument. I myself have switched a number of times, and use different cameras for different purposes (Sony cameras, btw, are amongst ones I personally use). So I also try to approach reviews/opinions with the mindset of 'is this a system you should consider investing in, despite owning another system?'

Which is especially why you'll see me pushing for comparisons across systems/brands, not just internal comparisons. As a scientist, I want to know how my system stacks up against another, whether to consider switching, or confirm I'm shooting w/ the right system.

Also, I don't even understand the OP, or pixelpushing, or any harsh tone from any reader regarding this review, when you consider our line, from "The Final Word":

"Sports and wildlife shooters torn between the a77 II and DSLRs from other manufacturers should consider this: You'd have to spend A LOT more money to get a DSLR with a burst rate as fast as the a77 II's."

In fact, re-reading the last few paragraphs of this review, I can't imagine how we could be more unbiased. We frame the camera as a great choice, but try to make our readers aware that there are other options out there, all the while making it apparent that if X, Y, and Z are really important to you, that the a77 II is in fact a great choice.

Any more gushing and we'd just be biased for Sony, wouldn't we? And then even mentioned a different Sony camera as an alternative... the claims of bias are simply all over the place and, ironically, are themselves what's biased.

How am I being harsh? I just called into question the fact that the A77ii has finally been reviewed well into its production cycle, yet both Canon's and Samsung's offerings received their reviews when their respective cameras were new to the market...right-out-of-the-gate, so to speak. Why is this the case?

Subjectivity is what I love about photography, so differences of opinion are wonderful things, but I think one must concede that there is some reason why the A77ii review was so long in coming and the other APS-C reviews, even for the K3, appeared lightening quick. I am biased toward offerings from Sony, Nikon, and Olympus; I admit that, I just wish the reviewers here would just come right out and share theirs up front.

How refreshing it would be to read, "I shoot Canon; I love Canon, but I understand that not everyone does, so let's talk about the A77ii"?

I would also note that although the Conclusion of the review was overall very positive, both the 7Dii and NX-1 were named, specifically, as alternatives; yet in both of these cameras' conclusions they appear to have been judged by their own merits: No alternatives were named. It just feels like these two cameras are being pushed,

We've stated the reasons for the delay in comments and forums multiple times. I suppose you missed it. Perhaps we should've stated it in the review, thought it felt a bit weird to do so, admittedly.

What we have a problem with is this: because you didn't read the posts where we explained the reasoning, you immediately jumped to assumptions of brand bias on our part, because that's just the favorite thing biased readers jump to, & it's just so easy (and fun, apparently) to start off conversations with accusations of bias.

Rather than start the conversation with a genuine, honest question or concern.

It's sad, ultimately.

Not everyone has the time to search myriad posts for their answers.

I enjoy DP's full reviews, and I hope you understand why this matters. If I didn't respect your opinion or rely upon you in some way in making a final purchasing decision,it would be no big deal. Many people are of this same mind.

Not having consideration of these users is sad really,

Bias exists, everywhere. I just wish people would be up-front about it. My reason for using the word is stated in one of my replies: Why are specific alternatives named for one product and more or less compared to another product, while other products are judged, apparently, on their own merits?

Why did the 7Dii get the pass on "other choices" and the A77ii not?

Ah but on the conclusions page of the 7D2, we point out that subject tracking AF doesn't live up to Nikons, that low ISO DR doesn't live up to competition, etc. At that point, we hadn't reviewed the a77 II, so were not comfortable making comparisons to it. One valid complaint would be to say we should've mentioned the Sony a6000 as a competitor, and you'd be right on that.

But to say we didn't talk about other choices in the 7D Mark II review is disingenuous at best. Trust me I know we did, b/c we had a ton of backlash over such comparisons from brand loyalists.

Whether or not we have a specific paragraph devoted to this in the last section 'Final Word' of the review is something we leave up to the lead reviewer. We don't want to tie our editorial staff's hands behind their backs.

All we ask is that you don't then take differences between reviews up to the lead reviewer as indications of DPR bias. Any small discrepancies such as those you point out are very difficult to control for.

Well to clarify they score cameras against one another on the basis of comparison between other cameras in the same category. So an 83% scored 70D isn't "1% less" compared to the 84% scored 7DmkII because that's not how DPR calculates score (they're considered different categories of beast).

The only reasons I sought out the comparison in the first place is because the 70D is similarly priced to an A77II (certainly more so than the 7DmkII), and because I've also shot Canon for many years (and still own/shoot Canon gear).

Having shot both Canon and Sony extensively, I speak with confidence of my knowledge on the two platforms, and the pros/cons of each. Like most smart people who use the tools of their trade, I make decisions based strictly on whatever works best for my particular style and skills. Branding has little bearing on that. If any particular brand wanted to sit on their laurels and stop innovating, I could choose to live with it and ride on reputation alone. Or not.

A-mount has as uncertain a future DSLR format in general. Sony just released 2 new advanced zooms with updated focusing for FF .. where there is no FF A-mount that can really take advantage of that.. IE There are more cameras coming. Since 2006 "a-mount has been uncertain." Minolta Abandonment Syndrome lead people to assume Sony would just dump the mount. Now that Sony is a leader in mirrorless "Sibling Comparison Disorder" has people worried even though Sony continues to release about 30% of its lenses for A-mount each year. On Wallstreet Canon's massive failure in Mirrorless and Nikon's tiny sensor version has many wondering if one or both are heading the way of IBM in computers and BLackberry in Phones.. So look at a-mount and if you like buy.. there are 100+ lens options in stock at B&H for the mount more than anyone will ever need.

So True I to Remember when AutoFocus was introduced and the "Pros" dissed it . it was a gimmick right ?

@K E Hoffman
First of all: this is really not important. I was giving an example why some people might not have enough confidence in A-mount to recommend it to others. The uncertain future is my reason, but DPR staff can have different ones (I suggest reading the "conclusions" of the review).

Second: correct me if I'm wrong.
The latest original lens design for A-mount (not a "II") was Sony CZ 50/1.4 in early 2013. In fact it was released at the same day as the latest all-new body: the A58.

I know people were talking about the end of A-mount for a long time, but it was always something like "it will never get the popularity of Canon and Nikon" (and it didn't).
But this time it is about the manufacturer itself. It looks like Sony stopped developing this system. It doesn't mean they will stop manufacturing lenses, but clearly at this point it is mostly for people who are fine with the current lineup, as new things might never come.

@sirok: Yup, that's exactly how we feel when we talk about subject tracking (X-Y plane), only to be told by users of systems with poor subjec tracking that we should just manually select our AF point, or that a test that stresses a system by both having the subject and background move is somehow in invalid proxy for real-world subject tracking.

Ironically, we never hear such an argument from users of Nikon FF cameras that, just incidentally of course, happen to have industry-leading subject tracking... :)

@K E Hoffman;

You DO know what you are talking about for "I find noise easier to manage than blown highlights".

A while ago, one told me "Walking is easier than Talking". I believed that now.

While it's true that the a77 II has more DR than the 7D2, there's something odd about SLT that makes it kind of hard to make use of this extra DR. We didn't talk about it in the review b/c it'd just get too long-winded, but I'll try to address it here.

The extra half-stop light cost isn't compensated for by the camera's meter trying to give the camera an extra half-stop of light. Instead, the Raw-->Jpeg mapping is just changed. In other words, relative to another camera, there's just more Jpeg brightening happening.

Since the camera's histogram/clipping preview is based on the Jpeg, this means the camera overestimates the overall brightness of the image, & therefore pushed everything on the histogram further to the right, relative to the Raw, compared to other cameras. This means that the Jpeg/histogram is even a worse indicator of the Raw file than traditional cameras, so it's even harder to ETTR.

So, to get the advantages of that extra DR, you'll have to remember to overexpose...

@Rishi, that's interesting. Thanks for sharing that insight.

Sure. Another way to state it is this: there's even more highlight headroom in your Raw than you might expect from your JPEG, b/c the Raw was underexposed to begin with, due to the light loss of the mirror.

Now if manufacturers offered histograms based off of Raw... you could still ETTR effectively. As it is, though, the Jpeg is an even worse indicator than usual for Raw highlight headroom, for the aforementioned reasons.