New A99 vs 5D ISO test (and note on the previous D600 comparison). A99 in Stock in US at Sonystore.
If you click on the image on top you will see the full ISO comparison between the A99 and 5DmarkIII posted by DSLRmagazine (translation here). But before to go into the details of this comparison I want to go back to the ISO test made by Focus Numerique (translation here) where they compared the results with the Nikon D600. First, my french is very bad and google translation doesn’t really help you that much. I made mistake and said these were RAW converted files while they were not. These are original JPG images (but you can download the RAW files too). One of our readers noticed that the Sony JPG files are actually having a size of 8MB only compared to the 15-16MB of the Nikon D800 (Example: ISO 1600 -> A99 vs D600).
This means that Sony JPEG Fine setting compresses twice more than the Nikon! Of course a Nikon or Canon will always look better when you compare apple with oranges 
We really have to see a real RAW comparison to get a more accurate idea about the A99 performance!
Back to the comparison made by DSLRmagazine. These are once again JPEG comparisons and as we now know Sony applies a stronger compression for their JPEG files. In short…dear reviewers…show us some real RAW comparison!
—
UPDATE: Sonystore US has the A99 in Stock right now. Check out Alphacameradeals to see the full link list!
—
Sony A99 in Stock status check: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Jessops, Wex UK, Wex Germany, eBay Europe, Sonystore DE-UK-FR-IT-ES-NL-SE-FI-CH and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Adl
7 months ago |In context of RAW: Lightroom 4.2 brought support for the A99, but can someone explain me, why there are so less lenses supported for lens-correction – for example: no 24-70 CZ?
Maximus
7 months ago |You can download a lot of more lens profiles with the lens profile downloader:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5492
Steve
7 months ago |Yes you can find more lenses, but nothing like the support for Nikon and Canon optics
Frank
7 months ago |I would have thought the answer was obvious.
Spoon
7 months ago |It’s a bit funny how all these camera makers call it the setting with the lowest jpeg noise reduction “NR Off”. I know that what consumers asked for, but none of these settings really represents “off”. Some makers apply more smoothing than others still, some use a crude demosaicing with “off” and all in all, it’s still a sauce to taste from the manufacturer. Different tastes at that and to be honest, I’d rather shoot RAW in a good converter than using what Sony calls “off”. YMMV.
nmnm
7 months ago |sony falls apart at iso 800. terrible fail sony. terrible purchase for those who have or will buy it. just terrible for a flagship model.
Vlad
7 months ago |Lol.
nobody
7 months ago |Who cares about JPEGs, give me RAWs to play with them…
giomaniac
7 months ago |Agreed!
Aisha
7 months ago |Look at Sony´s smeary-blotchy-terrible noise >800…what a shame
for an 3000$ Model…!!! If Canon have these horrible results all here will laughing about, but so all hope for better RAW-results. No firmware can change this. Sonys SLT´s have always the same problems with high iso´s.
Tack
7 months ago |++1
admin
7 months ago |As I wrote before. Be aware Sony’s file are less the size of the Nikon and Canon files! Le’ts wait for a real RAW comparison!
Frank
7 months ago |Of course firmware can change it. Jpeg output is done by the FIRMWARE.
Dan
7 months ago |That’s what we said about the A77 and 1 year later we are still waiting for better firmware to sort out the Jpeg engine… I wouldn’t hold your breath!
FK
7 months ago |I’m sorry to say so but the Canon JPEG results look much better then that of the Sony.
(The A99 is noisier and the WB is pretty off)
However we can hope to see better Raw results as JPEG has never been a strength of Sony.
However as I would be a lot more interested to see how the Video of the Nex-6 looks as I was pretty disappointed by the Nex-7 compared to the a580 i currently use for Video. (Otherwise I would have replaced the 580 instantly)
John
7 months ago |Sorry to disappoint but the NEX-6 video is way worst than the NEx-7. I’m returning it and getting the NEX7 again..
Hendrick
7 months ago |You are the master of the obvious, Sir. “Canon jpegs look better than Sony jpegs”. If you are a reader of this site (regular or not) you would have come across plenty of agreement that Sony’s jpegs are the market’s worst. No surprise.
Like many above, we need the RAW file comparison.
harry t
6 months ago |Photographers that shoot jpeg’s and judge their >2k camera by that feature can NOT be taken seriously, sorry.
Kevin
7 months ago |Who cares about noise? I shoot portrait not sport, and I usually do add some more noise into my photos.
Kevin
7 months ago |Why the A99 photos look little bit off WB, it has more yellow than usual
St.
7 months ago |Both M III and D600 (or D800) beat A99! Sorry to say it but that’s what my eyes see.
Well, Sony has some other advantages of course, but until they don’t learn what is important in one camera and what is not, Sony will not be match to the “big brothers”.
I have several Sony cameras and I love how A99 looks, and the features it has, but there are many things that bother me enough to not spending $2800 for it.
May be the next Alpha…?
tjf
7 months ago |SLT had to be:
- cheaper
- faster
and nothing of that photo as the camera obscura
Baki
7 months ago |a99 continues to disappoint
John Thomas
7 months ago |Blow me, Troll.
SeanCookWeddings.com
7 months ago |Sony’s lowest compression is called “XtraFine” and Canon’s is called “Fine”. This review is comparing a medium compression JPG with a low compression JPG.
IHUR
7 months ago |Sadly, 5DMK3 is way superior. D600 was already confirmed to be also superior.
A99 price-tag has to be lowered down.
Vlad
7 months ago |Haha, people, how do you even come up with stuff like that? “Confirmed”?
Ken S.
7 months ago |+1. I’m thinking for reconsidering my plan for DSLR.
iJake
7 months ago |Wow, and I was seriously considering selling my α77 and all my APS-C lenses for the α99. I’m not liking what I see so far with the high ISO/noise results. Maybe if they lower the price of the α99 I might be still interested but looking at this comparison…I wish I had the money for a 5DmIII and canon gear.
Jules
7 months ago |Hi, go to imaging ressource camera comparometer(http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM) and compare at 1600 to 3200 IS0 Sony A99 vs Nikon 600 and 800 and the result of the A99 is equal or better than NIKON???
What’s tests are really good……….?????
Poke
7 months ago |Like I said these images are the worst I have seen. The link that you provided was one where the 99 looks stellar. Every bit as good as the 600 or 5d3. I can’t understand how they can differ so significantly.
Nico
7 months ago |Just confirms my purchase of the 5DMkIII…my sony gear is for sale on Dyxum.
neia
7 months ago |give me 80% discount..
Stray
7 months ago |Compare the a99 to the nikon d4. up to iso 1600 it appears the a99 has the advantage, 1600-6400 they even out, 25600 the nikon d4 seems to have a slight advantage.
Poke
7 months ago |Well I was excited how the images looked when compared to the 600. But now I am not that excited how it compares to the 5dm3. There appears to be a 2 stop advantage with the 5dm3. I am not sure what the RR off stands for and why it is on for the canon and off for sony on the bird head shot. The colors look different to me but I do not know which is more accurate. It would be nice to see a raw comparison and also how the in camera NR would improve such noise. This in my opinion has been the worst images I have seen out of the 99. All other previous shots looked much better than these. I cannot understand how the mk3 did relatively poorly on the DXO mark. I will have to try the 99 in some poor lighting conditions hopefully this weekend.
jkl
7 months ago |I bought the a99 and paid for 2nd day air, I have had it for 6 hours now. I am very pleased. who wants to buy my a77 plus grip ???
Andy
7 months ago |Well, these tests are just crashing the A99 at high ISO, I really hope there is a difference when we get some RAW tests…
I was so hoping i can by the RX1 instead of the new 5D MK3 , 2 stops difference it’s just to much..
Beaur
7 months ago |I have both and I can tell you that the a99 is better than my 5dmk3. Its sharper, better in low light and has much better IQ. Raw is also much better with the sony.
Show some confidence people the a99 is alot better than anything nikon and canon have.
Alan
7 months ago |+1
if u free please show the raw file best comparison out~ same focus point, aperture and so on to make result near to perfect. * no comparison can be perfect
Poke
7 months ago |B, I hope you are lot BSing here. I find it hard to believe that you would buy both, but if you did more power to you. I bought the 99 and waiting impatiently for it. I hope you are on the up and up with the whole 99 better than the mk3 comment. That is a very bold statement. I was just hoping for on par with the mk3.
Beaur
7 months ago |No BS, you’ll be happy. I bought the 5d3 to mess with video and shot stills with my a850. Im now getting rid of the 5dmk3 because I like the a99 a lot better. It may be a stop darker but the pictures just look better. Im a sucker for detail and the sony takes the cake.
anthony
7 months ago |youll love it i think. i didnt like the d800 at all especially for nat light stuff, but my mate loves it ( important for him cause he bought it )
i think EVF is the future and ther will be a time when anikon will have to use it as its just so intuitive
im still getting to grips/used to it but i see so many advantages with it. I also noticed my EVF exposure is pretty spot on to my raw file. this is fantastic as on my old a700 id always have to see the result on LCD at bac to be darker by a stop tben my raw would be ok ect
Poke
7 months ago |You just made my day. I hopefully will be using it this weekend in a gym setting and cannot wait to see its high iso performance and improved focusing over the 850.
Brad
7 months ago |Heavier jpeg compression ratios on the Sony cannot fairly be compared to jpegs of with less compression. What’s more, if any of you haven’t taken the time…learn why you should care far more about RAW, and not much at all about “in camera” jpeg compression. If you care about the potential of your artwork, you owe it to yourself to do so, and you’ll be glad you did.
Serious shooters use RAW, or RAW + JPEG settings…and then edit anything important or worth keeping from the RAW files. In-camera jpegs only help with rush deliveries or less important work. Canon & Nikon shooters prefer RAW, too, because it’s a step worth taking…period…regardless of manufacturer…don’t be fooled. If you tend to tweak settings before showing your work, then it’s totally foolish to shoot jpegs. The amount of control you gain shooting RAW over jpeg cannot be overstated.
If Sony had a jpeg engine that yielded better results in-camera than CaNikon, I’d still shoot in RAW. Do I wish Sony’s jpegs were better? Sure. But, I’m thankful they aren’t great, because I’m a better editor for it. Some folks avoid learning RAW editing out of laziness or impatience. Now that I can fly in ACR, I’ll NEVER go back, no way, no how.
I just hate that the early comparisons were posted using unmatched ratios. What other baked in settings aren’t matched? When you compare apples to oranges, nothing is learned, people make financial decisions based on misinformation, and the trolls get fed.
…
Beaur, since you have the 5D3 and A99, could you post a comparison starting everything from RAW, taking care to convert both sets with the same engine and quality settings?
I got my A99 yesterday, and love it so far.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |+1,000,000
I really cannot see why anyone would shoot jpegs. Why is it faster? To import into ACR 7.2 takes 5 seconds, straight into CS6, another 30 seconds of editing and BAM – I can have any format I need.
The amount of detail recovered from A99 RAW shadows is incredible. Many times better than my A77. People making any kind of judgements from these amateurish jpeg comparisons are making a huge mistake. If you have to rely on test comparisons then at least wait for DxoMark!!
suredude
7 months ago |The A99 is obviously lacking behind on noise performance compared to the other big boys; D600/800/4 and Canon 5DmarkIII
Steve
7 months ago |I had wondered why Sony called this full-frame a99
No room for growth……………
Maybe Sony knew that SLT was a dead-end and called it a99
Where does the SLT go from here?
The EVF is the future. I can’t say to know that about the SLT
Poke
7 months ago |A1? It’s just a number and as far as numbers go I heard they are infinite.
Frank
7 months ago |Be a bit of a bugger to stick on the camera though…
Beaur
7 months ago |SMH AT THIS NUB
anthony
7 months ago |to all the uninformed out there goign nuts over jpegs i have a a99 and played with a d800 and they re pratically identical with raws at iso 3200/6400 and both pull back nicely with noise software and both print out supurb. you cant go wrong with either camera.
imho i like the sony much more after playing with friends d800 and am loving my choice and i think the a99 is da bomb. pick your poison and go out have some fun take images and stop whinging as a99/5d IIId800,d600 in th hands of somehow who knows what they are doing is gunna take supurb images
Brad
7 months ago |Right on, Anthony. I’ve owned a 5D2, and loved it, but sold it. I missed the FF, but got stellar results with my A57 and Nex5n in the meantime. I’m even happier now with my A99…keeping the 57, though. Gonna be selling my Nex5n and the e-mount Zeiss 24 1.8.
Robert
7 months ago |I have the Sony a99, and have had it for a few days now. Let me just say that the RAW performance in LightRoom is WAAAAYYYYYYYY better than this comparison. I love this camera and it surprises me every day with the situations it can handle. So chill out everyone…this isn’t an “Epic Fail” by Sony. Everyone knows that Sony has heavy NR on JPEGS even when it’s “Off” The RAW’s are phenomenal.
Cliff
7 months ago |Why do SLT and pellicle mirror fans get so upset when they see high ISO test results?
You have a pellicle mirror and phase detect AF. Everything comes at a cost. The universe is a giant trade of. If you want phase detect AF using a pellicle mirror, than stop complaining when you see that your pix have 3 or 6 more db of gain for every ISO setting compared to no mirror or flipping mirror SLR cameras.
If you want a pellicle mirror, you must pay a price for it.
Damn.
Frank
7 months ago |SLT fans don’t, you are reading comments from the clueless.
Dude
7 months ago |Sony doesn’t use pellicle mirror. Canon and Nikon did, back in the date, but Sony has different tech.
Just to move your imagination: Pellicle mirror is like plastic foil. Sony’s transculent mirror is like plexiglass. Both can be thin, but both are very different both: in physical properties, and the way you use them.
Gordon
7 months ago |Anyone know what a99 firmware version was installed on the a99 they tested against the 5DMK3? (preproduction or production model). What is this fixation with high iso? It seems that so many Nikon and Canon shooters are so proud of their cameras iso ratings but never consider that not one of their prime lens faster than f2.8 are stabilized. Could someone explain the influence having IBIS has on iso settings in low light situations when using fast primes.
chlamchowder
7 months ago |Because high ISO settings are used for shooting fast moving subjects, where tricks like lens/sensor stabilization, bracing the camera, stacking frames, and tripod usage do absolutely nothing.
WTH
7 months ago |The Canon seems to have more vibrancy in their pictures, the A99 seems to be a little off with its White Balance too…
WTF!
Wayne Summers
7 months ago |These test don’t prove anything. This debate reminds of x-box vs ps3 debate. I think the nikon canon and sony are all great but the sony has a few extras that I like better. There are pro’s that would take better pics with a point and shoot camera than most of these people bashing the sony even if they had a 10,000 body and a 3,000 lens.
Bosse
7 months ago |This comparison from DSLRmagazine can’t view a fair picture of the image quality of the Sony A99!
The result here are worse than that of my Sony SLT A55!
It could not just be true!
I don’t believe on this result!
MrBig
7 months ago |The Focus Numerique RAW files between the A99 and D600 are way off. The A99 files are over 1/2 underexposed in contrast to the D600.
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |I’m glad somebody else noticed. If you combine the underexposure with the 0.5 stop SLT mirror disadvantage, then the A99 hasn’t got a chance.
Dirk
7 months ago |Although I don’t care about this HI debates, it’s funny that many so called “reviewers” are removing almost every exif info.
This comparison this article refers to seems indeed to compare apples with pears – if not faked at all. Saying this, because pictures at ISO1600 out of my PaS RX100 are looking fairly better than these ones…
If the pictures are made on RAW&Jpeg mode, than the Jpeg quality is only fine.
In a jpeg only mode extra fine can be selected.
This was already at a900 times the same, and I found a huge difference in Jpeg quality between those two settings.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |As an engineer these uncontrolled and unscientific tests are just annoying and meaningless.
Even worse than that they are actually damaging to Sony because some idiots might make a buy/not buy decision based on this rubbish.
Troll food – that’s all these so-called ‘news stories’ are.
JB
7 months ago |Exactly correct.
Very poor review here.
And while having better JPEG performance would be nice I so rarely shoot in that mode that it really is of no concern to me.
rick
7 months ago |These tests with crappy jpeg’s, along with the others that compare different camera’s using low end lenses on one camera and top notch glass on others all do the same thing – cook the results to favor one camera, and IMHO favor a site supporter or some desire to show one camera is better at any cost, even if the test is phony. So you have “tests” that make the competition look bad – like the recent “comparison” of the EM5 and GH3 with two different lenses despite having them side-by-side.
How hard is it to get a $400 Zeiss ZF.1 50mm lens (or a $200 Zeiss C/Y 50/1.7, or a $400 Leica R 50mm) and a few decent adapters to use the same great lens across all tests? If I had access to a constant stream of new cameras that’s exactly what I would do along with actually focusing on the same thing in each test – an area which Dpreview and Imaging Resource seem to struggle.
None of this has made me regret dumping my 5d2 and not upgrading to the overpriced 5d3 in favor of the A99. Sony just needs to ship my camera.
Twaddler Belafonte
7 months ago |How can you even claim to not have regrets when you’ve not even got your a99 in your hands to wangle with yet?
Hans
7 months ago |@ Andrea
why don’t you delete this whole useless article and all it’s obsolete comments?
a65user
7 months ago |And this is the reasons why I think the jpeg engine on the A65/77 and now a99 needs to be improved. I can not understand why my pocketeable cybershot produces .jpg files that can match the size of my 24MP alpha sensor. Also, I can not understand why an A65 has only a “fine” setting, while the A77 has a “x-fine” setting, but new 24MP nikons have jpeg setting that produces files much larger (less compressed) files than the Sony’s, including the A65, while costing hundreds of dollars less.
Sony needs a decent jpeg engine. Fast. 1.07 ?
tjf
7 months ago |Sony should give up the jpg, so as not to discourage customers.
Taylor
7 months ago |So I looked at the raws of the Nikon and Sony. Very similar. This JPEG comparison proves absolutely nothing. Anyone who shoots only JPEG and comments on here based on that has zero credibility. The RAW files tell the real story.
Buzz
7 months ago |It is very sad. Canon shoot sony down.
Andy
7 months ago |I done tests comparing noise on Sony 5N VS 5d Mark 2
It was loosing a bit in resolution but the noise was on par in RAW
So I don’t believe the A99 is so much worse…
giuseppe lugheri
7 months ago |leggo tutte le recensioni e tutte le prove della A99.
sono veramente perplesso. dalle stelle alle stalle.
alcuni entusiasti e altri fortemente critici.
scatti a 6400iso meravigliosi e scatti a 800iso inqualificabili.
la mia perplessità maggiore è perchè sony insiste con lo specchio traslucido?
serve per la messa a fuoco. le nex mi sembra che riescano ugualmente a mettere a fuoco. la nex 6 ha addirittura il dual focus con rilevamento di fase.
qual’è il motivo per cui sony insiste con lo specchio traslucido ?
qualcuno me lo può spiegare ?
speriamo di vedere presto i risultati di un firmware finale.
Stephen
7 months ago |DXOMARK releases the sensor analysis result of Canon’s flagship 1DX.
It’s almost the same as Nikon D3S. DXOMAKR gotta be kidding.
http://photorumors.com/2012/10/31/canon-eos-1dx-gets-dxomarked-almost-as-good-as-the-nikon-d3s/
gabrielefx
7 months ago |il corpo macchina non serve a niente, la fotografia é creatività. I marchi x,y,z sono tutti uguali. Un tizio mi ha detto guardando il monitor della mia A55… la Nikon fa fotografie più belle.
Avevo montato uno Zeiss 85mm F1.4. Il soggetto era mio nipote. Ho scattato col flash esterno ad F5.6, iso 100. Il raw era impressionante nei dettagli. Con questo voglio dire che il corpo macchina ha una funzione di secondo piano, eccetto che non si facciano foto sportive o si scatti a raffica. L’investimento va fatto sulle ottiche.
The reflex body is useless. photography is creativity. X,y,z brands are all equal. A man told me, watching my A55 display: Nikon photos are better. I mounted a Zeiss 85mm. The subject was my nephew. I used an external Sony flash, aperture at 5.6, iso 100. The raw file was impressive in detail. I want to say that the reflex’s body has less importance than the lens and all post production that we add. Technical reviews and comparisons are useless and will not help our creativity.
Regards.
Don
7 months ago |I often visit your site, just want to let u know i received my a99 today and i live in USA.
Si
7 months ago |The link below takes you to an image taken on a Sony A99 with a 16-35mm F2.8 ZA. The only processing done is exporting if from RAW to a JPEG, no other posting was done. The camera was set to auto ISO and this image was taken at ISO 4000.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slawrencephotography/8151259617/
I got my A99 today and if performs like this I am going to be a very happy chappy.
Si
Josh
7 months ago |DR looks very good, WB did a nice job, color is great. But, the pic is NOISY! I’m not a pixel peeper, but it’s pretty clear in the small image. Click on it to enlarge and the noise just leaps out. I know it’s ISO 4000 but most shots I’ve seen from a 5DMIII up to 6400 do a lot better with noise. Tough trade off because there is a lot to like about the image you linked. For those not using higher ISO, will probably be minimal issue though.
didah
7 months ago |i nore have the a99, the 5dIII or the d600….. but what i do have is the a77 and the canon 600d. so i can compare the little smaller sony (in terms of buildnumbers) to the very much smaller canon. pricewise(more than double the price of the canon) and buildwise the sony is the much more pro camera, no doubt. buil picture-quality wise? especially the iso preformance? i havent made any real tests yet, but just from comparing previous shots (different lenses, different lightning situations,…)the sony seems to come straight from 1998… i have many shots form the canon with iso 3200-6400 which ARE A LOT CLEANER than 640 isos from the sony. i will do a real test with the same lens in near future to be 100% sure, but today it seems to me that the half priced canon entry level toy dslr smokes the “pro” sony