The new Sony A9 - What are your thoughts

It is weird some of the design / spec decisions the manufacturers choose at times. :confused: I would rather have had two cards the same on the D500, but at least they went UHS-II on the SD slot in addition to the XQD. The A9 should have had dual XQD, or at least dual SD UHS-II.

As keeps on getting said though, that will probably be for the A9II. ;) :LOL:
 
redhed17 said:
But on a camera over £4k, they are penny pinching!:thinking:
Click to expand...

I guess it's a business decision to balance features versus cost and actual difference it makes. I've been the first to suggest that the A9 might not be the second coming like some bloggers are saying. Is Usb2 instead of 3 really a major nightmare for people?
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
I guess it's a business decision to balance features versus cost and actual difference it makes. I've been the first to suggest that the A9 might not be the second coming like some bloggers are saying. Is Usb2 instead of 3 really a major nightmare for people?
Click to expand...

No but it's a weird decision when the camera is such high tech everywhere else. Plus USB-C could mean charging with a battery, which can you imagine would solve the battery problem if you are on the side of the pitch for the afternoon.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I guess it's a business decision to balance features versus cost and actual difference it makes. I've been the first to suggest that the A9 might not be the second coming like some bloggers are saying. Is Usb2 instead of 3 really a major nightmare for people?
Click to expand...
There will be times when a Pro may have to use the camera connected to a computer to transfer images, and then it could have a large impact. It would be interesting to know how much they save.

I have had to use the USB connection on my D500 because the XQD card readers are so expensive and I have higher priorities. I'm thankful is it a USB 3 slot though when trying to transfer up to 32Gb at once. :) Glad my livelihood doesn't depend on it. ;)
 
StewartR said:
Thom Hogan's take on the A9 is as balanced and reasonable as you'd expect
Click to expand...

Not sure if you can answer, but how's the market looking in terms of branching out to Sony gear rentals? Presumably still incredibly niche compared to CaNikon, but I wonder if the sheer cost of glass makes it more of a renters market.
 
Ashburner said:
I think it looks an awesome machine, but it's certain Pro use only at the RRP!
Click to expand...
In some cases enthusiasts have more money! More enthusiasts probably buy Leica than professionals who are making cost based decisions.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
I guess it's a business decision to balance features versus cost and actual difference it makes. I've been the first to suggest that the A9 might not be the second coming like some bloggers are saying. Is Usb2 instead of 3 really a major nightmare for people?
Click to expand...
Not so much USB 2 vs USB 3; but USB-C should be becoming the standard. For one thing the ports are more reliable / rugged for those who do want to use that port, it also helps people standardise on cabling.

OTOH, it's probably a case of choosing a chip which does Ethernet plus USB2.0 fits the design and cost expectations better than having a separate Ethernet chip and USB-C chip. It's not just a simple USB2 vs USB3 it's about what functions are available on a single (off the shelf) chip or fit into a single FPGA.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
Interesting maths on this video from The Camera Store;

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/thecamerastoretv-says-hell-yeah-dslr-are-dead/

Assuming someone machine guns at 20 fps, it takes 11 seconds to fill the buffer (200 imaages), the camera then takes 2 minutes to write those images off to the SD card. granted, 200 shots in 11 seconds is stupid so I'd expect a lot of people wouldn't hit that but it shows that even with the fastest internal BUS and SD cards, you're still going to be looking at the flashing red light for 2 minutes!
Click to expand...
That's for Sony's compressed raw files, and the compression is not lossless. To get full raw files you have to record uncompressed raw, which brings the buffer down to ~ 115 images/5.5 sec... it will still take the same time for the buffer to clear.
IMO, 20fps is just too much most of the time. But TBF, the amount of time where 20fps would be beneficial generally lasts less than a second or two (usually a lot less).

I honestly don't see pros making the switch... not until the lens lineup can compete fully among other things.
 
Apparently it takes 35seconds to clear the buffer. That's quite a long time. To be fair, the Canon isn't that much better.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Apparently it takes 35seconds to clear the buffer. That's quite a long time. To be fair, the Canon isn't that much better.
Click to expand...
I saw one review that said if you shoot at about 1.5 sec bursts w/ 3 sec in between the buffer would never fill... IMO, that's pretty usable.

The other issue I expect to see is distortion with the electronic shutter... the times where 20fps is helpful is when the action is *very* fast. W/o the electronic shutter enabled the performance goes waaay down.
 
And none of the top end camera manufacturers have yet managed to make a top end exchangeable lens camera which you can make phone calls with! Ridiculous penny pinching!
 
chris malcolm said:
And none of the top end camera manufacturers have yet managed to make a top end exchangeable lens camera which you can make phone calls with! Ridiculous penny pinching!
Click to expand...

One thing that surprised me recently at a family do was that although there was a lot of picture taking going on no one except me had a camera of any type. Everyone was taking selfies and pictures with smart phones and loading them onto social media in seconds... and you could see who was viewing them and making comments in seconds too.

Thom Hogan has said that the camera makers need to get their act together in this respect and I'm sure he's right as many many people today want to take a picture and share it immediately and have a problem understanding why I need to go home, load the pictures onto my pc and process the raws. I might as well have been talking Swahili.
 
woof woof said:
Thom Hogan has said that the camera makers need to get their act together in this respect and I'm sure he's right as many many people today want to take a picture and share it immediately and have a problem understanding why I need to go home, load the pictures onto my pc and process the raws. I might as well have been talking Swahili.
Click to expand...
Samsung tried but no one was interested (in their cameras).
 
woof woof said:
One thing that surprised me recently at a family do was that although there was a lot of picture taking going on no one except me had a camera of any type. Everyone was taking selfies and pictures with smart phones and loading them onto social media in seconds... and you could see who was viewing them and making comments in seconds too.

Thom Hogan has said that the camera makers need to get their act together in this respect and I'm sure he's right as many many people today want to take a picture and share it immediately and have a problem understanding why I need to go home, load the pictures onto my pc and process the raws. I might as well have been talking Swahili.
Click to expand...
i guess i am old fashioned but it gets me that people want their social media friends view on things, rather than interact with the family around them! i think that's just odd
 
woof woof said:
One thing that surprised me recently at a family do was that although there was a lot of picture taking going on no one except me had a camera of any type. Everyone was taking selfies and pictures with smart phones and loading them onto social media in seconds... and you could see who was viewing them and making comments in seconds too.

Thom Hogan has said that the camera makers need to get their act together in this respect and I'm sure he's right as many many people today want to take a picture and share it immediately and have a problem understanding why I need to go home, load the pictures onto my pc and process the raws. I might as well have been talking Swahili.
Click to expand...
Transfer pic from camera to phone using Wifi and upload to social media. I do this regularly.
 
niko said:
i guess i am old fashioned but it gets me that people want their social media friends view on things, rather than interact with the family around them! i think that's just odd
Click to expand...
It's how the young do it and once us older ones die off who will want a camera which is disconnected from the world.

PS.
It's not really a matter of not interacting with who they're with as they do this too... it's really more a case of including people who aren't there.
 
Last edited:
T_J_G said:
Yup, but takes about 30 seconds extra?
Click to expand...
It might not matter to you but when you and everyone else who doesn't care dies all that will be left are people who'd rather spend that 30 seconds doing something more interesting and they'd rather use a device that lets them and at the mo that device is a smart phone not a camera.

At first I didn't really understand why Thon Hogan was banging on so much about this but now I get it and I think that the camera companies need to get their fingers out and improve operation and connectability otherwise I don't see how they can pull in the smartphone / on line generation.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It's how the young do it and once us older ones die off who will want a camera which is disconnected from the world.

PS.
It's not really a matter of not interacting with who they're with as they do this too... it's really more a case of including people who aren't there.
Click to expand...
i guess so, but the amount of times you see people welded to their phones/tablets and not interacting amazes me. i cant wait to turn the bloody thing off:D i like being connected to the real world and disconnected digitally not vice versa
 
woof woof said:
It might not matter to you but when you and everyone else who doesn't care dies all that will be left are people who'd rather spend that 30 seconds doing something more interesting and they'd rather use a device that lets them and at the mo that device is a smart phone not a camera.
Click to expand...
The thing is as well ... the smart phone probably takes as good photos as the focus free 35mm cameras that these people likely had before they had their smart phones!

In a different field ... I've had similar arguments with audiophiles who bemoan the quality of Spotify and iTunes downloads - but what they forget is that for 99% of people who listen to music; a iPhone via headphones, or iPhone connected to a £100 speaker dock playing lossy compressed music is better than they ever had before.
 
woof woof said:
It might not matter to you but when you and everyone else who doesn't care dies all that will be left are people who'd rather spend that 30 seconds doing something more interesting and they'd rather use a device that lets them and at the mo that device is a smart phone not a camera.

At first I didn't really understand why Thon Hogan was banging on so much about this but now I get it and I think that the camera companies need to get their fingers out and improve operation and connectability otherwise I don't see how they can pull in the smartphone / on line generation.
Click to expand...

Oh how depressing!

Things change, things come and go. Maybe one day cameras will be obsolete.
 
T_J_G said:
Things change, things come and go. Maybe one day cameras will be obsolete.
Click to expand...
No, but its turning back into the more specialised, more niche product it was until the explosion of digital in the early 2000s.
 
T_J_G said:
Oh how depressing!

Things change, things come and go. Maybe one day cameras will be obsolete.
Click to expand...

All my working life I worked with tech but these days I just can't be bothered and at the mo I'm not on any social media but the fact is that for many people social media and interacting with people not in the room is now an integral part of their lives and if cameras can't easily slip into this lifestyle or are clunky when they can it'll just put people off and they'll stick with their ever better smartphone and it's very good screen.

Maybe the likes of the Canon 5D, Nikon D700 and Sony A9 will one day be museum pieces and maybe it'll happen soon and I'm sad about that as since I stopped working (at the still young age of 49, I'm now 56) I just can't be bothered to learn new techy stuff like smartphones and Friendface.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
All my working life I worked with tech but these days I just can't be bothered and at the mo I'm not on any social media but the fact is that for many people social media and interacting with people not in the room is now an integral part of their lives and if cameras can't easily slip into this lifestyle or are clunky when they can it'll just put people off and they'll stick with their ever better smartphone and it's very good screen.

Maybe the likes of the Canon 5D, Nikon D700 and Sony A9 will one day be museum pieces and maybe it'll happen soon and I'm sad about that as since I stopped working (at the still young age of 49, I'm now 56) I just can't be bothered to learn new techy stuff like smartphones and Friendface.
Click to expand...

To be fair that's your issue. And how often are you on this forum? Do you consider this social media?

Afterall, it's the photo that counts and not what it's taken on.
 
Eloise said:
The thing is as well ... the smart phone probably takes as good photos as the focus free 35mm cameras that these people likely had before they had their smart phones!

In a different field ... I've had similar arguments with audiophiles who bemoan the quality of Spotify and iTunes downloads - but what they forget is that for 99% of people who listen to music; a iPhone via headphones, or iPhone connected to a £100 speaker dock playing lossy compressed music is better than they ever had before.
Click to expand...

I was actually quite shocked at the quality of the pictures I was seeing on large screen smartphones. OK the quality may not be all that impressive when we pixel peep at 100% on our computers but most people are I assume looking at pictures on smartphones and tablets these days.
 
T_J_G said:
To be fair that's your issue. And how often are you on this forum? Do you consider this social media?

Afterall, it's the photo that counts and not what it's taken on.
Click to expand...
Issue? I'm just posting a view.. I don't have an "issue." I try to look on this forum most days but I don't consider this social media or anything like it and I don't use this forum like I see others using social media.

My point was that we're a tiny and probably shrinking minority buying products in a declining market. Ask the average smartphone / social media user if they regularly post on specialist photography forums like this and I'd guess they'd mostly not bother likewise if the regular posters here are asked I'd guess many would say that they rarely post on social media.
 
woof woof said:
I was actually quite shocked at the quality of the pictures I was seeing on large screen smartphones. OK the quality may not be all that impressive when we pixel peep at 100% on our computers but most people are I assume looking at pictures on smartphones and tablets these days.
Click to expand...

But you need to consider what your camera can do that your smartphone cannot.
 
sk66 said:
The other issue I expect to see is distortion with the electronic shutter... the times where 20fps is helpful is when the action is *very* fast. W/o the electronic shutter enabled the performance goes waaay down.
Click to expand...

I'm patiently waiting for these tests. It's not a true global shutter so in my mind 1/32000 is never going to actually be 1/32000 in terms of freezing action. If I remember correctly the Fuji electronic shutter is nearer 1/100 in reality to capture the whole frame, so even if you're shooting at 1/16,000 or whatever it's very easy to see distortion introduced, even with static subjects when shooting with long lenses and unsteady hands. Presumably based on the samples given so far the Sony implementation is significantly better, but how much?

It's absolutely fundamental to the entire point of this camera, so I'm surprised it's not being discussed more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top