The new Sony A9 - What are your thoughts

addicknchips said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the point was though (and its the point I was making to) that for what 99% of people want the smart phone can do as good a job and more (in other areas) than most cameras can do. Smartphones are the modern box brownie of the camera world - something that everyone can have and use!

I will repeat my comment from above ... I don't think (ILC) cameras will ever die out ... but I think they are returning to a level we saw in the late 80s and 90s when it was only enthusiasts who had them for more specialist reasons.

This graph (from a few years ago) shows what I mean...
graph.jpg

I'm not sure what the split between compact and SLR cameras would have been in the 90s ... but it shows how sales are tending to return to a level more consistent with history after a boom in the 00s
 
woof woof said:
That's another sweeping generalisation chalked up on a forum full of them and other BS.
Click to expand...


Ken Rockwell for one.
Steve Huffnpuff who gushed over Leica for years before suddenly deciding Sony were the best ever.

A pair of self promoters talking gibberish for their own gain and web clicks. Not like here at all.
 
Technology and internals from Sony
External Body and firmware from Fuji
GUI and Pro Support from Canon/Nikon
= Perfect Camera :D
 
Fuguru said:
Technology and internals from Sony
External Body and firmware from Fuji
GUI and Pro Support from Canon/Nikon
= Perfect Camera :D
Click to expand...

Please not Nikon, we'd be stuck with CDAF and no way to change aperture in liveview! :p:D
 
I've been getting an increasing amount of movie stills work so I might get one of these. On paper it's what I want. Unless something drastically changes, I can't see me having DSLRs beyond the next 5 years or so.
 
For pure image quality, dynamic range, microcontrast and ISO the A7RII is better, if you need speed then go for the A9.
 
Another interesting tidbit, if you record lossless raw, the frame rate is capped at 12FPS. Still plenty for most things (too much for others) and the buffer will last longer, but this puts it more in line with the other top cameras.

Of course, you probably almost never *need* lossless raw files...
 
sk66 said:
Another interesting tidbit, if you record lossless raw, the frame rate is capped at 12FPS. Still plenty for most things (too much for others) and the buffer will last longer, but this puts it more in line with the other top cameras.

Of course, you probably almost never *need* lossless raw files...
Click to expand...

Lossy raws is something that's created much internet panic but I have the original A7 and I've never noticed a problem and no one who has seen my pictures has ever mentioned lossy raw artifacts. I've followed this issue on some of the less rabid review and blogger sites and I've convinced myself it's a complete non issue for me and maybe for most people an issue that will only be seen rarely in specific circumstances and when pixel peeping. There was a piece on this on Luminous Landscape some time ago but unfortunately that's a subscription site now.
 
sk66 said:
Another interesting tidbit, if you record lossless raw, the frame rate is capped at 12FPS. Still plenty for most things (too much for others) and the buffer will last longer, but this puts it more in line with the other top cameras.

Of course, you probably almost never *need* lossless raw files...
Click to expand...
Where did you hear that from? I heard you can shoot at 20fps on uncompressed raw but it's 12 bit not 14bit
 
woof woof said:
Lossy raws is something that's created much internet panic but I have the original A7 and I've never noticed a problem and no one who has seen my pictures has ever mentioned lossy raw artifacts. I've followed this issue on some of the less rabid review and blogger sites and I've convinced myself it's a complete non issue for me and maybe for most people an issue that will only be seen rarely in specific circumstances and when pixel peeping. There was a piece on this on Luminous Landscape some time ago but unfortunately that's a subscription site now.
Click to expand...

There is only a noticeable difference between Sony compressed and uncompressed RAW files when pushing the files dynamic range to its upper limits, which quite rightly you say most people wouldn't have a issue with, but if professionals are paying the best part of £4500 plus more for lenses, you'd want to use the best possible settings no matter how debatable the whole compressed vs uncompressed issue is. I always shot uncompressed RAW with my A7RII because I didn't want any loss of quality no matter how little it might have been.
So if it is true and the frame rate is reduced to 12fps when using uncompressed RAW is a key element for professionals to consider. It sounds like Sony cost issue, for them to have changed the body heavily and incorporated Sony xQD card slots would have meant higher production costs and less profits.

The Sony A9 should have been marketed as 12fps not 20fps in that case!
I suspect its a typo?
 
Gordon Laing from CameraLabs posted a very long review of the A9 autofocus system. At the end he writes:

The bottom line? The AF performance was tremendous, the burst speed impressive and the blackout-free viewfinder while slightly odd at first, quickly proved addictive. Here’s my experience.
I was also impressed by the speed at which the A9 locked-onto a subject and stuck with it. I shot over 8000 frames with the camera (on a single battery charge too, see photo below) and barely noticed it struggling at any point. But again this is the level of performance the camera needs if it’s going to compete with pro Canon and Nikon bodies.


Oh dear.....

For professional shooters who need a camera that remains fully responsive and accessible at all times, even after shooting a hundred RAW images in a burst, this could be a deal-breaker.
 
Last edited:
But is this another example of internet panic over something that will rarely if ever be a real world issue or is it really a real world issue?
 
woof woof said:
But is this another example of internet panic over something that will rarely if ever be a real world issue or is it really a real world issue?
Click to expand...
Perhaps but its annoying to have a camera freeze or become unresponsive during a shoot.
I had my Sony A7RII act funny a few times during a wedding I shot with it last October, not what you'd expect when your using £2-3k piece of equipment.
Sony are pitching the Sony A9 against the Canon and Nikon Pro bodies, it needs to be as reliable as those at the very least.
The weather sealing and durability are also questionable for a £4500 professional body.

I am looking forward to the technology Sony keeps producing and I know it will benefit consumers in the long-run, I would be very surprised if the next Fuji Pro body doesn't complete with the A9 in terms of AF speed, buffer etc.
 
Last edited:
In a thread I posted yesterday, I asked about the Olympus Om1 Mk 2. A sports pro (cars, aviation mainly) had to change kit due to being almost wiped out by a car coming on to the wrong side of the road. He switched out his Canon in a weekend, taking the lot on a long drive down to Brixham to Mifsuds. Olympus ambassadors buy their own kit which he did and it arrived 2 days later. I don't know if Sony have ambassadors and whether they have to pay or not. Anyway, he did a price comparison of what the kit would cost him if he switched now. Sony £42k, Canon £36k and Olympus £13k. Now I am interested in running a CSC along size my FF Canon as a way of eventually getting rid of size and weight - I also have a shoulder issue. In terms of fast moving subjects, I shoot basketball as a volunteer for the club nearest to me (BBL) and BIF none of which go around a predictable track. I have seen one set of red kites taken with the Olympus and, having had a go at this myself earlier this month, know how difficult that is. I had thought that when choosing a system, I would go for the Sony or the Fuji but, here's another thing: the Olympus just feels right in my hand. I think what strikes me often, when I am stressing over an element of an image and my wife peers over my shoulder and says "nobody cares about that", she is quite right!
 
Last edited:
Fuguru said:
Perhaps but its annoying to have a camera freeze or become responsive during a shoot.
I had my Sony A7RII act funny a few times during a wedding I shot with it last October, not what you'd expect when your using a £2-3k piece of equipment.
Sony are pitching the Sony A9 against the Canon and Nikon Pro bodies, it needs to be as reliable as those at the very least.
The weathering a robustness is also questionable for a £4500 professional body.

I am looking forward to the technology Sony keeps producing and I know it will benefit consumers in the long-run, I would be very surprised if the Fuji Pro body doesn't complete with the A9 in terms of AF speed, buffer etc.
Click to expand...

My A7 has never frozen or done anything funny but that could be because I don't push it particularly hard. If you experienced freezing or unresponsiveness didn't you try to pin down what was happening, when and why?

I think we're going a bit too far here writing the camera off as another unrealisable overhyped fragile piece of Sony tech with poor weather protection, I've taken my lowly A7 out in weather I could hardly stand up in but it's still working so lets wait and see what reputable reviewers and users say before we start running around like headless chickens.
 
Chipper said:
In a thread I posted yesterday, I asked about the Olympus Om1 Mk 2. A sports pro (cars, aviation mainly) had to change kit due to being almost wiped out by a car coming on to the wrong side of the road. He switched out his Canon in a weekend, taking the lot on a long drive down to Brixham to Mifsuds. Olympus ambassadors buy their own kit which he did and it arrived 2 days later. I don't know if Sony have ambassadors and whether they have to pay or not. Anyway, he did a price comparison of what the kit would cost him if he switched now. Sony £42k, Canon £36k and Olympus £13k. Now I am interested in running a CSC along size my FF Canon as a way of eventually getting rid of size and weight - I also have a shoulder issue. In terms of fast moving subjects, I shoot basketball as a volunteer for the club nearest to me (BBL) and BIF none of which go around a predictable track. I have seen one set of red kites taken with the Olympus and, having had a go at this myself earlier this month, know how difficult that is. I had thought that when choosing a system, I would go for the Sony or the Fuji but, here's another thing: the Olympus just feels right in my hand. I think what strikes me often, when I am stressing over an element of an image and my wife peers over my shoulder and says "nobody cares about that", she is quite right!
Click to expand...
I agree, I did consider a M4/3 system initially but settled on the Fuji, its the lenses where the bulk of the weight is..... you can only really save big weight but going down in sensor sizes.
 
woof woof said:
My A7 has never frozen or done anything funny but that could be because I don't push it particularly hard. If you experienced freezing or unresponsiveness didn't you try to pin down what was happening, when and why?

I think we're going a bit too far here writing the camera off as another unrealisable overhyped fragile piece of Sony tech with poor weather protection, I've taken my lowly A7 out in weather I could hardly stand up in but it's still working so lets wait and see what reputable reviewers and users say before we start running around like headless chickens.
Click to expand...

My Sony A7 never froze either, its a great camera and I still think its the best smallest FF mirrorless setup up with the 55 1.8 and 35mm 1.8 :D
The A7RII issue I experienced didn't happen often enough to pin down but it wasn't a lockup, it was like the lens froze and wouldn't AF, ever since I decided I wouldn't be shooting professionally yet, I decided to move away from Sony.
Nobody is writing the Sony A9 off but you have to be objective, its pitched as the rival to Canon and Nikon's offerings, surely it needs to equal or better them.

Oh and for a split micro second I did consider getting the Sony A9.... but then realized it was my inner GAS :D lol
 
Fuguru said:
Gordon Laing from CameraLabs posted a very long review of the A9 autofocus system. At the end he writes:

The bottom line? The AF performance was tremendous, the burst speed impressive and the blackout-free viewfinder while slightly odd at first, quickly proved addictive. Here’s my experience.
I was also impressed by the speed at which the A9 locked-onto a subject and stuck with it. I shot over 8000 frames with the camera (on a single battery charge too, see photo below) and barely noticed it struggling at any point. But again this is the level of performance the camera needs if it’s going to compete with pro Canon and Nikon bodies.


Oh dear.....

For professional shooters who need a camera that remains fully responsive and accessible at all times, even after shooting a hundred RAW images in a burst, this could be a deal-breaker.
Click to expand...
What's a deal breaker?your quote only says good things about the af and speed?
 
jonneymendoza said:
What's a deal breaker?your quote only says good things about the af and speed?
Click to expand...
That's right, mostly its all good news. Read the full review by clicking on the link. :)
Sony a9, 24-70mm f2.8 and 85mm 1.4 GM mmmmm :D
 
jonneymendoza said:
But I assumed that he said the camera freezes given the comments hear after you posted that? Lol
Click to expand...

Yeah he did, lol ... but come'on, this is Sony... they will solve the freezing issue in the A9II or III :D lol
There is zero competition in the FF mirrorless segment, a real cash cow for Sony.
 
Fuguru said:
Yeah he did, lol ... but come'on, this is Sony... they will solve the freezing issue in the A9II or III :D lol
There is zero competition in the FF mirrorless segment, a real cash cow for Sony.
Click to expand...
Damm where did he say that on the article. Still reading it lmao jesus it's long.

Did you know. The 5d4 freezes too but they fixed it with firmware updates.

When it came out they was little issues.

I hope the freezing is not a large issue
 
jonneymendoza said:
Damm where did he say that on the article. Still reading it lmao jesus it's long.

Did you know. The 5d4 freezes too but they fixed it with firmware updates.

When it came out they was little issues.

I hope the freezing is not a large issue
Click to expand...
I don't think it sounds too serious..... he says....

While the camera was emptying its buffer, I could continue to fire smaller bursts and view the most recently-written images, but some menus and functions are inaccessible during the process which can prove frustrating. In contrast, if you shoot with an EOS 1Dx Mark II with C.Fast or a Nikon D5 with XQD, you’ll be clearing even full buffers in a second or two.
Click to expand...
 
niko said:
that doesn't say its frozen at all, from what I am reading. just that sony dont allow access to certain menus while the buffer is clearing
Click to expand...
Sorry my fault, I was referring to my Sony A7RII freezing issue.
I wonder what menu's elements are not available??
 
Fuguru said:
Sorry my fault, I was referring to my Sony A7RII freezing issue.
I wonder what menu's elements are not available??
Click to expand...
i guess sony have made the decision to "software" lock out menus while the buffer clears, id guess it could cause issues if they allowed access, or maybe not enough ram/cpu power to do both
 
I m not a sports photographer but don't they normally shoot in jpg. Didn't think they would have the time to edit their shots before sending them to print/web use?
 
Last edited:
architectfadi said:
I m not a sports photographer but don't they normally shoot in jpg. Didn't think they would have the time to edit their shots before sending them to print/web use?
Click to expand...
I don't know that I would say "normally." But anyone who is shooting for wire will likely be shooting jpegs... there are many times where you don't really need more than 8bit files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top