The new Sony A9 - What are your thoughts

woof woof said:
John, you have specific needs and you have trouble seeing past them. That's putting it kindly. The rest of your comments about toys and prices and no lenses are just nonsense so... I'm out :D
Click to expand...

He is correct in terms of long zooms and primes for sports and wildlife (intended use), the rest are pretty well covered though.
 
woof woof said:
John, you have specific needs and you have trouble seeing past them. That's putting it kindly. The rest of your comments about toys and prices and no lenses are just nonsense so... I'm out :D
Click to expand...

The same applies to you. You like mirrorless cameras because they suit you and you seem to have trouble seeing past the fact that mirrorless cameras have their limitations including the A9.
 
Not sure if this has already been mentioned. Just been on dpreview comparing the A9 with the A7/A7ii reference image at base iso. Very surprised to see the A9 image look noticeably softer. Obviously the A9 is superior in all other respects, I just wondered if anyone else had noticed this and could comment why this could be?
 
rodd1000 said:
Not sure if this has already been mentioned. Just been on dpreview comparing the A9 with the A7/A7ii reference image at base iso. Very surprised to see the A9 image look noticeably softer. Obviously the A9 is superior in all other respects, I just wondered if anyone else had noticed this and could comment why this could be?
Click to expand...

It's probably down to the lens used or they have messed up the studio testing for a second time. Too many variables sometimes.
DPR messed up the original Sony A9 studio testing causing softness in the studio image, around 20% worse apparently.

Have a look at the photos in full size on Ken's review, they look sharp but it's all subjective.
I found the Fuji lenses to be extremely sharp.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/a9.htm
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
It's probably down to the lens used or they have messed up the studio testing for a second time. Too many variables sometimes.
DPR messed up the original Sony A9 studio testing causing softness in the studio image, around 20% worse apparently.

Have a look at the photos in full size on Ken's review, they look sharp but it's all subjective.
I found the Fuji lenses to be extremely sharp.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/a9.htm
Click to expand...

Weird if it's happened a second time especially after the bad press they would've gotten the 1st time round.
 
twist said:
Weird if it's happened a second time especially after the bad press they would've gotten the 1st time round.
Click to expand...

Who knows, looking at online sample shots using Eye-AF they look sharp to me.
 
rodd1000 said:
Not sure if this has already been mentioned. Just been on dpreview comparing the A9 with the A7/A7ii reference image at base iso. Very surprised to see the A9 image look noticeably softer. Obviously the A9 is superior in all other respects, I just wondered if anyone else had noticed this and could comment why this could be?
Click to expand...
Not seen the images, but I can't remember whether the A9 has an AA filter or not?

Riz_Guru said:
It's probably down to the lens used or they have messed up the studio testing for a second time. Too many variables sometimes.
DPR messed up the original Sony A9 studio testing causing softness in the studio image, around 20% worse apparently.

Have a look at the photos in full size on Ken's review, they look sharp but it's all subjective.
I found the Fuji lenses to be extremely sharp.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/a9.htm
Click to expand...
The rendering of Ken's images are plain awful. No top of that he's way oversharpened them imo.
 
woof woof said:
I can't remember where I read this but recently I did read that in consideration of the eye / brain / muscle / finger times which is a lot longer than 13ms EVF lag is now a non issue.
Click to expand...
Mmm, how is an EVF now a non issue! :thinking: If there is a lag of 13ms from seeing to reacting, that is on top of the delayed video stream of the EVF. You are still reacting the same way to what is seen in the viewfinder on either system. And in low light that lag may be longer.

I went to a local music festival last week, and the backdrop of the stage was a video screen, sometimes showing the artist, sometimes showing the audience. In some of the pics I took of the artist and them as the backdrop you could see how out of sync they were. You would hope a camera would not be delayed as much, ;) but there will always be a delay. It can never be as fast as the speed of light of an OVF.
 
woof woof said:
John, you have specific needs and you have trouble seeing past them. That's putting it kindly. The rest of your comments about toys and prices and no lenses are just nonsense so... I'm out :D
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't quite understand you post. I use lenses from 16 to 800 mm and, as far as I can see, the Sony FF Mirrorless system only covers a small part of that range - perhaps there are some lenses that I have missed?

Regarding my "Specific" needs? Yes I do use long lenses much/most of the time but then I don't know an amateur photographer that doesn't have a lens that goes to 250mm or more - do Sony make these for the A7/9 series? I may have missed them as I am not familiar with the various Sony mount systems. The two professional landscape photographers that I class as friends (one retired) swear by their 200 and 300mm lenses, do Sony make a 200mm + lens that fits the A7/9? I believe that there is a pretty good 70-200 for them but it is a lot more expensive than the Canon equivalent and, from what I read, not as good.

If I am wrong then please let me know! I rather like the idea of the Sony A7/9 series, but from what I have managed to find out, the system is far too limiting for many photographers - especially me. Am I missing something?
 
johnf3f said:
Sorry I don't quite understand you post. I use lenses from 16 to 800 mm and, as far as I can see, the Sony FF Mirrorless system only covers a small part of that range - perhaps there are some lenses that I have missed?

Regarding my "Specific" needs? Yes I do use long lenses much/most of the time but then I don't know an amateur photographer that doesn't have a lens that goes to 250mm or more - do Sony make these for the A7/9 series? I may have missed them as I am not familiar with the various Sony mount systems. The two professional landscape photographers that I class as friends (one retired) swear by their 200 and 300mm lenses, do Sony make a 200mm + lens that fits the A7/9? I believe that there is a pretty good 70-200 for them but it is a lot more expensive than the Canon equivalent and, from what I read, not as good.

If I am wrong then please let me know! I rather like the idea of the Sony A7/9 series, but from what I have managed to find out, the system is far too limiting for many photographers - especially me. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure a new g master zoom lens was announced alongside the a9. Think it's at 400mm at the long end.

There's been a 70-300mm out for a while also.
 
Last edited:
johnf3f said:
Sorry I don't quite understand you post. I use lenses from 16 to 800 mm and, as far as I can see, the Sony FF Mirrorless system only covers a small part of that range - perhaps there are some lenses that I have missed?

Regarding my "Specific" needs? Yes I do use long lenses much/most of the time but then I don't know an amateur photographer that doesn't have a lens that goes to 250mm or more - do Sony make these for the A7/9 series? I may have missed them as I am not familiar with the various Sony mount systems. The two professional landscape photographers that I class as friends (one retired) swear by their 200 and 300mm lenses, do Sony make a 200mm + lens that fits the A7/9? I believe that there is a pretty good 70-200 for them but it is a lot more expensive than the Canon equivalent and, from what I read, not as good.

If I am wrong then please let me know! I rather like the idea of the Sony A7/9 series, but from what I have managed to find out, the system is far too limiting for many photographers - especially me. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

No. At the moment it's not for everyone... Sony do the thing where they release cameras prematurely... the lenses eventually catch up. It's a shame but that's why consumers have the choice to buy whatever brand suits their requirements.
 
addicknchips said:
Pretty sure a new g master zoom lens was announced alongside the a9. Think it's at 400mm at the long end.

There's been a 70-300mm out for a while also.
Click to expand...

How much is that 70-300 fe? I'm guessing it's the tamron design?
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Ithanks,is this all canon dlsr's or those released in last couple of years?
Click to expand...

Various ones over the years. Once I had moved to the 1D4 I picked up a few Film Canons (33V, EOS 5, 50E and EOS 3) and was rather pleasantly surprised at how good their AF is! Of course they are not as quick/adaptable and responsive as my (current) 1DX and 7D2 but they were pretty quick (especially the EOS 3) and all the Canons that I have owned have focused very accurately on all the Canon lenses that I own/have owned + a Sigma and Tamron or two.

It is all down to one's personal needs. These days for the bulk of photographers pretty much any, current, AF system will do just fine. It is only when your subjects need to be acquired instantly or they move quickly/erratically that things get critical. It is really down to what you want to shoot.
 
woof woof said:
On prices, you do realise that an A9 and whatever Sony lens you buy will be cheaper than the Canikon alternative?

Complaining about Sony prices seems to be a continuing theme on forums and I don't understand why people think that although Sony and the competition are about the same price or sometimes in the case of the A9 the Sony is cheaper than the competition the Sony kit should be £850 or maybe even the price of a mid range DVD player. It's a mindset I don't understand as are the references to computers and/or toys.

I have a technical background but I also have an artistic side and before I picked up a camera I was drawing and painting so maybe my ability to deal with tech and my ability to visualise made it easy for me to transition to EVF's. Having said that I'm also extremely picky but I still find EVF's more than good enough and indeed even the relatively poor ones are preferable to some of the optical systems I've used... compact cameras, RF's, SLR's and DSLR's... I'd take the evf equipped cameras I have now over them all. Big. Bright. 100% coverage. Lovely! :D

John. I don't think these cameras are for you so maybe you should just forget them and come back in a few years time, probably when Canon or Nikon, if they're still in business, have one and if they do I think you might like it especially if it looks and feels like a DSLR.
Click to expand...

I simply don't know where you are reading the prices of Sony gear. I generally use WEX as a guide and they quote the Sony A9 as £4499.00 - hardly two Corn Flake tops vs £3349 for the way OVERPRICED 5D4! Especially for a camera that has such a limited lens range? The Canon 24-70 F2.8 lenses are not too far apart on price but the 70-200 lenses? Canon is £600 cheaper and better.. There is no equivalent to the Canon 16-35 F4 and their F2.8 version is more expensive than the hideously expensive Canon version. Even if the ageing Sony 500 F4 would fit would we want to spend £10,200 on a 20year old lens? Or their mediocre 300 F2.8 at around £6K? To be fair these old Sony lenses don't have stabilisers = bonus!

So yes I do complain about Sony prices. Canon/Nikon are asking idiotic amounts of money for their gear, but Sony want even more! Again if I am wrong (more than likely!) then please correct/educate me. I want to like this system but everything I have tried, so far, makes e think it is very limited (almost useless to me) at best.
 
addicknchips said:
Pretty sure a new g master zoom lens was announced alongside the a9. Think it's at 400mm at the long end.

There's been a 70-300mm out for a while also.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I didn't know about those. We live and learn.
If you are right about the 400 then that is starting to make the system more useful!
 
johnf3f said:
I simply don't know where you are reading the prices of Sony gear. I generally use WEX as a guide and they quote the Sony A9 as £4499.00 - hardly two Corn Flake tops vs £3349 for the way OVERPRICED 5D4! Especially for a camera that has such a limited lens range? The Canon 24-70 F2.8 lenses are not too far apart on price but the 70-200 lenses? Canon is £600 cheaper and better.. There is no equivalent to the Canon 16-35 F4 and their F2.8 version is more expensive than the hideously expensive Canon version. Even if the ageing Sony 500 F4 would fit would we want to spend £10,200 on a 20year old lens? Or their mediocre 300 F2.8 at around £6K? To be fair these old Sony lenses don't have stabilisers = bonus!

So yes I do complain about Sony prices. Canon/Nikon are asking idiotic amounts of money for their gear, but Sony want even more! Again if I am wrong (more than likely!) then please correct/educate me. I want to like this system but everything I have tried, so far, makes e think it is very limited (almost useless to me) at best.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your reading but there is a very good Sony 16-35 F4 lens which most people say is on the same level as the Canon 16-35 f4 L lens, its a little dearer £200 roughly but its also newer.

Similarly the new Sony 16-35 f2.8 which seems to have great initial reviews is out soon and is £300 dearer than the MK3 of the Canon 16-35 f2.8, again little in it.

As for zooms there isn't a huge price difference between the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8 (£1800 v £2200) and I'm not sure where you get the idea the Sony is rubbish, its got some rave reviews which is hardly surprising as a lot of the Sony A mount fast zooms are excellent.

Compared to 2 years ago there's not a lot that you can't cover off on the Sony system now but there are gaps, mainly with some telephoto primes and also to an extent "cheaper" lenses, something like the Nikon "G" primes.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Not sure what your reading but there is a very good Sony 16-35 F4 lens which most people say is on the same level as the Canon 16-35 f4 L lens, its a little dearer £200 roughly but its also newer.

Similarly the new Sony 16-35 f2.8 which seems to have great initial reviews is out soon and is £300 dearer than the MK3 of the Canon 16-35 f2.8, again little in it.

As for zooms there isn't a huge price difference between the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8 (£1800 v £2200) and I'm not sure where you get the idea the Sony is rubbish, its got some rave reviews which is hardly surprising as a lot of the Sony A mount fast zooms are excellent.

Compared to 2 years ago there's not a lot that you can't cover off on the Sony system now but there are gaps, mainly with some telephoto primes and also to an extent "cheaper" lenses, something like the Nikon "G" primes.
Click to expand...

The prices I looked at were from WEX - not always the very cheapest but used as a guide by almost every camera shop that I have visited.
I don't know where you get "I'm not sure where you get the idea the Sony is rubbish" I neither suggested nor implied that. The more reliable reviews that I have read seem to rank the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L Mk2 as the best of it's spec on the market - the Sony as pretty good and (price checked whilst making the post) the Canon was about £600 cheaper - not to be sneezed at.

I agree the Sony system is far more adaptable than it was a couple of years ago but it still has a long way to go before it would satisfy the majority of the photographers that I know. This system is, for now, of no use to me but my needs are a little different to most and I fully accept that I (and those like me) am a more limited market though we do spend an awful lot of money which Canon/Nikon are more than happy to help relieve us of! Currently I know of no photographers who use any Sony as their primary camera (not sure if any even own a Sony). The only 2 people I know who used to shoot Sony changed system due to the lack of lenses. Remember though that I am only talking about 60 + people here - but I thought that one of them might use one of the Sony systems in some form?

They make some great cameras and some great lenses but not a viable system for the majority of the people I know. This may well change but they need to introduce a lot of new lenses first.
 
Last edited:
johnf3f said:
The prices I looked at were from WEX - not always the very cheapest but used as a guide by almost every camera shop that I have visited.
I don't know where you get "I'm not sure where you get the idea the Sony is rubbish" I neither suggested nor implied that. The more reliable reviews that I have read seem to rank the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L Mk2 as the best of it's spec on the market - the Sony as pretty good and (price checked whilst making the post) the Canon was about £600 cheaper - not to be sneezed at.

I agree the Sony system is far more adaptable than it was a couple of years ago but it still has a long way to go before it would satisfy the majority of the photographers that I know. This system is, for now, of no use to me but my needs are a little different to most and I fully accept that I (and those like me) am a more limited market though we do spend an awful lot of money which Canon/Nikon are more than happy to help relieve us of! Currently I know of no photographers who use any Sony as their primary camera (not sure if any even own a Sony). The only 2 people I know who used to shoot Sony changed system due to the lack of lenses. Remember though that I am only talking about 60 + people here - but I thought that one of them might use one of the Sony systems in some form?

They make some great cameras and some great lenses but not a viable system for the majority of the people I know. This may well change but they need to introduce a lot of new lenses first.
Click to expand...

I think your right that it isn't for everyone, personally I think that (A9 aside) the system is best suited for landscape photography, small size and weight, a sensor that outresolves almost anything else available (42mp) and for landscape I can't see any lenses that are really missing now along with the "slower" paced nature of landscape meaning that adapting and manual focus is usually a perfectly adequate option.
 
johnf3f said:
They make some great cameras and some great lenses but not a viable system for the majority of the people I know. This may well change but they need to introduce a lot of new lenses first.
Click to expand...

Well, in my little circle of those who have cameras there's only one Canikon, the rest are all mirrorless :D

If you think the Sony isn't for serious use you should check out the various reviews and articles at luminous Landscape and look at some of the pictures and prints they've made.

I've never been happier :D
 
woof woof said:
Well, in my little circle of those who have cameras there's only one Canikon, the rest are all mirrorless :D

If you think the Sony isn't for serious use you should check out the various reviews and articles at luminous Landscape and look at some of the pictures and prints they've made.

I've never been happier :D
Click to expand...
I am soon to join your happiness :D lol
 
chrism_scotland said:
Not sure what your reading but there is a very good Sony 16-35 F4 lens which most people say is on the same level as the Canon 16-35 f4 L lens, its a little dearer £200 roughly but its also newer.

Similarly the new Sony 16-35 f2.8 which seems to have great initial reviews is out soon and is £300 dearer than the MK3 of the Canon 16-35 f2.8, again little in it.

As for zooms there isn't a huge price difference between the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8 (£1800 v £2200) and I'm not sure where you get the idea the Sony is rubbish, its got some rave reviews which is hardly surprising as a lot of the Sony A mount fast zooms are excellent.

Compared to 2 years ago there's not a lot that you can't cover off on the Sony system now but there are gaps, mainly with some telephoto primes and also to an extent "cheaper" lenses, something like the Nikon "G" primes.
Click to expand...

The 70200g was on sale at the the time. It's usually 2500 and a quick check this morning confirms. The Canon is 1800. 700 quid / 33% difference.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Well, in my little circle of those who have cameras there's only one Canikon, the rest are all mirrorless :D

If you think the Sony isn't for serious use you should check out the various reviews and articles at luminous Landscape and look at some of the pictures and prints they've made.

I've never been happier :D
Click to expand...

"not a viable system for the majority of the people I know."

Didn't they mean that in their circle of photographers, who all appear to be shooting fast moving nature at 600-800mm, the Sony offerings aren't viable seeing as Sony don't currently offer any native lenses over 300mm? If that's the case then they're correct and I can see why they wouldn't consider moving from CaNikon.
 
jonneymendoza said:
How come sales of lenses below 200mm are more than sales of these super Tele primes?

I've heard super Tele primes are a niche market for sports and wildlife shooters
Click to expand...
They are, I don't know what the big fuss is about... Sony's full-frame FE system is relatively new... 4 years approx. I believe, they have had to design, build and market brand new FE lenses from scratch which I they have done considerably well.
The big 400mm will be out this summer and the rest before the Olympics.... its only a matter of time before there will no more disadvantages vs. DSLR's :D
 
jonneymendoza said:
How come sales of lenses below 200mm are more than sales of these super Tele primes?

I've heard super Tele primes are a niche market for sports and wildlife shooters
Click to expand...

200mm+ is not a super tele prime. If the lenses weren't selling then why are they being produced and why are manufacturers making dedicated cameras, can you provide the sales data to back up your claim?

And you 'betting' most dont shoot over 200mm is a ridiculous statement tbh.
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
They are, I don't know what the big fuss is about... Sony's full-frame FE system is relatively new... 4 years approx. I believe, they have had to design, build and market brand new FE lenses from scratch which I they have done considerably well.
The big 400mm will be out this summer and the rest before the Olympics.... its only a matter of time before there will no more disadvantages vs. DSLR's :D
Click to expand...

And Sonyroo is officially back.
 
twist said:
200mm is not a super tele prime. If the lenses weren't selling then why are they being produced and why are manufacturers making dedicated cameras, can you provide the sales data to back up your claim?

And you 'betting' most dont shoot over 200mm is a ridiculous statement tbh.
Click to expand...
It's a niche market.dont see canon 400mm flying off the shelf!
 
jonneymendoza said:
I bet most don't shoot beyond 200mm?
Click to expand...

The poster has already said that they spend most of their time shooting at 6-800mm so I'm not sure where 200mm comes from? As per the other posts, the Sony system isn't relevant to that photographer because shooting at 200/300mm max would be a waste of their time. Surely that's just a fact so there's no need to get protective over Sony.

In the same way, I can't really see you using an 800 super-tele in the studio (although I'm sure you'd buy one if it had a Sony badge on it [emoji6]) but that doesn't mean the lens is irrelevant for others.
 
I think the main thing to take away is that the Sony full-frame system doesn't meet the needs for people who need longer lenses than 400mm at present :D no big deal as these will be coming in good time.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Yes it is a niche market but it's a pretty valid reason to not buy a system that currently covers up to 300mm.
Click to expand...
Of course. If you are part of that niche. Don't get Sony. All I'm saying is majority don't shoot big Tele lenses. They don't fly off the shelf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top