The new Sony A9 - What are your thoughts

twist said:
How are 2 slots going to prevent a card from dying vs a single slot? If the card dies it dies. I know the answer but I'm waiting for you to specify the info you haven't provided.
Click to expand...
U copy backup on the other slot. How can you copy backup on another camera lol. Ray knows his s*** and does pro wedding work
 
jonneymendoza said:
U copy backup on the other slot. How can you copy backup on another camera lol. Ray knows his s*** and does pro wedding work
Click to expand...

No s*** genius I already said that before you woke up and chipped in. I've been using 2 slots with different functions for years.
 
stevelmx5 said:
My point is that you don't have to have dual slots to be a 'pro', you have to charge people to deliver photographs. I've delivered colour slides from a Mamiya M645 which suggests I'm a 'pro', not the fact I can manage a card failure, that's just planning ahead.

However, companies like Sony perpetuate the idea that if you want to be a 'pro', their crippled FF mirrorless bodies simply won't do and you have to drop £4.5k on the A9 instead.

As an alternative viewpoint, shouldn't a pro camera be weather sealed? Surely if your non-weathersealed camera gets wet and dies on the side of the football pitch, or shooting a wedding in an unexpected rainstorm, dual card slots aren't going to make the slightest difference?
Click to expand...
Mate talk to the canikon fanboys. They preach on dual card slots and have laughed off Sony about not having it.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Mate talk to the canikon fanboys. They preach on dual card slots and have laughed off Sony about not having it.
Click to expand...

I'm preaching to you :0) You were the one that started this by saying that if someone wants to shoot 'pro', they need an A9. The reason you gave was dual slots.

Back to weather-sealing, what are you going to do if you need to shoot pro in the rain?
 
stevelmx5 said:
I'm preaching to you :0) You were the one that started this by saying that if someone wants to shoot 'pro', they need an A9. The reason you gave was dual slots.

Back to weather-sealing, what are you going to do if you need to shoot pro in the rain?
Click to expand...

Use his Tesco bag that he sharpied pro onto.
 
chrism_scotland said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is definitely no doubt that for most landscapers the Sony A 7R 2 etc cameras and lenses are some of the best going. They are, yet, to be useful for the bulk of photographers - well at least the ones that I know. For now the system just has too many gaps for my liking.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I'm preaching to you :0) You were the one that started this by saying that if someone wants to shoot 'pro', they need an A9. The reason you gave was dual slots.

Back to weather-sealing, what are you going to do if you need to shoot pro in the rain?
Click to expand...

I've never had a weather seaed body. I've taken pictures in all weathers, heat, cold, rain, sleet and snow, sea spray, the lot. I've taken pictures on Saltburn beach in wind I could hardly stand up in, in the hills in snow with ice on my camera, stood in a river in Kazakhstan and in the heat and humidity of Thailand. Maybe I've been exceptionally lucky but with only common sense I've never had a camera die on me and personally I think that for many people the issue is overrated.
 
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...

Sorry was there anywhere on this or any other forum that I suggested or implied that "Sony isn't for serious use"? If so please advise me where and when. My problem with the Sony Mirrorless FF cameras is that they are of limited use/adaptability - serious or otherwise.

Perhaps I am not wording my posts very well? Quite possible, but you do seem to misinterpret what I am saying quite often. Agree or disagree with me by all means (we are here to learn - well I am) but please do not state that I am claiming things that I haven't posted.
 
woof woof said:
I've never had a weather seaed body. I've taken pictures in all weathers, heat, cold, rain, sleet and snow, sea spray, the lot. I've taken pictures on Saltburn beach in wind I could hardly stand up in, in the hills in snow with ice on my camera, stood in a river in Kazakhstan and in the heat and humidity of Thailand. Maybe I've been exceptionally lucky but with only common sense I've never had a camera die on me and personally I think that for many people the issue is overrated.
Click to expand...

I'd agree but was making a point about the focus put on the dual card slots yet the 'pro' option from Sony isn't event weather sealed.
 
johnf3f said:
Sorry was there anywhere on this or any other forum that I suggested or implied that "Sony isn't for serious use"? If so please advise me where and when. My problem with the Sony Mirrorless FF cameras is that they are of limited use/adaptability - serious or otherwise.

Perhaps I am not wording my posts very well? Quite possible, but you do seem to misinterpret what I am saying quite often. Agree or disagree with me by all means (we are here to learn - well I am) but please do not state that I am claiming things that I haven't posted.
Click to expand...
I think your saying Sony don't offer the super Tele lenses
 
johnf3f said:
Sorry was there anywhere on this or any other forum that I suggested or implied that "Sony isn't for serious use"? If so please advise me where and when. My problem with the Sony Mirrorless FF cameras is that they are of limited use/adaptability - serious or otherwise.

Perhaps I am not wording my posts very well? Quite possible, but you do seem to misinterpret what I am saying quite often. Agree or disagree with me by all means (we are here to learn - well I am) but please do not state that I am claiming things that I haven't posted.
Click to expand...

So unlike him. :angelic:
 
stevelmx5 said:
It's almost as if being the first to 'prove' a fault (at 200% zoom when photographing a rolling advertising board going by the quick look through I've just done) is just a way to get views...
Click to expand...

You should watch it, there's pretty severe banding all over the subjects.
 
stevelmx5 said:
It's almost as if being the first to 'prove' a fault (at 200% zoom when photographing a rolling advertising board going by the quick look through I've just done) is just a way to get views...
Click to expand...

Well, you can't say he is lying. The guy did experience it, the problem is that his 2% of shots out of like 1% if that, of all bodies out there will blow up like it is on all A9.
 
Gaz J said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not at all and if you'd read my posts, and I know you can't read them all, you'd see me recognising the needs of others and posting about them many times.

I only use a fraction of the abilities of my cameras as I'm a aperture or manual mode kind of guy who sticks to changing the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. That's about it for me. I never use eye detect, tracking or any of the other bells and whistles and lens wise I stick mostly to primes in the 24 to 135mm range or zooms in the 24-70mm sort of range. I tend not to use any of the advanced functions really but I recognise that they're useful to others and I think it's a shame that others can't see past their own narrow wants and needs and insist on calling cameras that don't meet their narrow view toys, useless etc.
 
johnf3f said:
Sorry was there anywhere on this or any other forum that I suggested or implied that "Sony isn't for serious use"? If so please advise me where and when. My problem with the Sony Mirrorless FF cameras is that they are of limited use/adaptability - serious or otherwise.

Perhaps I am not wording my posts very well? Quite possible, but you do seem to misinterpret what I am saying quite often. Agree or disagree with me by all means (we are here to learn - well I am) but please do not state that I am claiming things that I haven't posted.
Click to expand...

I think you've been pretty clear here John and I suggest you go back and read your own posts. As to me misinterpreting you quite often, sorry to burst your bubble but I don't remember replying to your posts in other threads, maybe I did, maybe I've forgotten, but my comprehension skills are rather good and I don't think I've misinterprited you I do however now comprehend that I'm wasting my time here as we're just going round in circles.
 
Last edited:
Faldrax said:
The 500 f/4 was released in 2012, and was a new design at the time

You may be getting confused with the 500 f/8 reflex, which was a rebadged copy of the Minolta 500 f/8 reflex, which came out ~1989.
Click to expand...

No confusion with the reflex lens - I haven't used one since I was 17 and it was a 300mm.

The only time I have had a, chance to use one of these was when a fellow TOG was trying one out at a local wildlife reserve. He was a Sony user at the time and told me that it was a re branded Minolta with some updates - so I just took his word for it! After all he was looking to spend silly money on it so I assumed he had done some research - I can't be certain as this was a while back - pre November 2013 when I sold my 600 F4. Perhaps he was getting confused with their 600mm F4?

Either way it didn't stack well compared to my, cheaper, Canon 600 F4 L IS - now an 18 year old design. I may well be wrong about the old design comment (this was what I was told) but an ageing 5 yr old design is even more concerning. Either way after giving the Sony 300 F2.8 and 500 F4 a good go out in the field he is now happy - he switched to Nikon. The Sony lenses were just too expensive and with mediocre AF (could have been the camera?) just not in the running.
 
jonneymendoza said:
I think your saying Sony don't offer the super Tele lenses
Click to expand...

In part yes. They also don't offer an FF mirrorless that is robust enough to use them, dubious about their TSE/PC lens range etc. There are lots of things that they do not do that matter naught to some people but are critical to others - hence a limited system.

I wouldn't suggest that the Sony system is not good/very good but it is very limited for many users - just something to be aware of before purchasing or suggesting that others do. Just my 2p!
 
twist said:
You should watch it, there's pretty severe banding all over the subjects.
Click to expand...

That guy does my head in! He's already answered his own question in the video about why he didn't see any evidence of banding on the CaNikon shots, probably because they don't have an electronic shutter but he shot all of the images on the Sony with one.

It's also not the most conclusive of videos seeing as he couldn't even remember if there were any stadium lights on (if they were, it wouldn't be the first time that an electronic shutter has fallen foul of LED/sodium lighting). Also, as per his decision to not count them as failed shots, the advertising boards are showing banding due to the refresh rate of them and I'm guessing that those where the players showed faint banding were caused by the players standing close enough, or the 'right' angle, from the advertising boards.
 
Last edited:
johnf3f said:
In part yes. They also don't offer an FF mirrorless that is robust enough to use them, dubious about their TSE/PC lens range etc. There are lots of things that they do not do that matter naught to some people but are critical to others - hence a limited system.

I wouldn't suggest that the Sony system is not good/very good but it is very limited for many users - just something to be aware of before purchasing or suggesting that others do. Just my 2p!
Click to expand...
it iis quite robust.

Dont let the size fool you. It can take rain!
 
stevelmx5 said:
That guy does my head in! He's already answered his own question in the video about why he didn't see any evidence of banding on the CaNikon shots, probably because the don't have an electronic shutter but he shot all of the images on the Sony with one.

It's also not the most conclusive videos seeing as he couldn't even remember if there were any stadium lights on (if they were, it wouldn't be the first time that an electronic shutter has fallen foul of LED/sodium lighting). Also, as per his decision to not count them as failed shots, the advertising boards are showing banding due to the refresh rate of them and I'm guessing that those where the players showed faint banding were caused by the players standing close enough, or the 'right' angle, from the advertising boards.
Click to expand...
i think my 5d4 shows banding in similar LED ad Boards. let me check some of my old football pics later on my 5d3
 
woof woof said:
I think you've been pretty clear here John and I suggest you go back and read your own posts. As to me misinterpreting you quite often, sorry to burst your bubble but I don't remember replying to your posts in other threads, maybe I did, maybe I've forgotten, but my comprehension skills are rather good and I don't think I've misinterprited you I do however now comprehend that I'm wasting my time here as we're just going round in circles.
Click to expand...

Err where did I suggest that you misinterpreted my post on other threads? My comment was "Sorry was there anywhere on this or any other forum that I suggested or implied that "Sony isn't for serious use"? If so please advise me where and when." Where is the implication that you misconstrued/misinterpreted my posts on other forums? I don't see how clearly suggesting that I have never suggested that Sony is not for serious use here, or anywhere else, is confusing you? Again perhaps my wording is not the very best but it looks pretty clear to me and others here don't seem to have a problem.

Perhaps my course is not the straightest (I do change my opinions/views as I learn experience more) but circles?!? If you cast nasturtiums on my posts isn't it appropriate and polite to rely?
 
In the past people, myself included, pretty much ruled Sony out for difficult moving stuff. Wildlife, aviation and sports. Poor AF and lack of reach with native lenses. (Although arguably with the a7r2 you have more reach with shorter focal lengths than certain dslrs with mo get ones)

They were always considered landscape weapons and a lot of people had a 2 brand set up. Dslr for moving, Sony a7 for still - low weight and stunning iq.

Now, the a7rii started making inroads AF wise and wedding photographers and portrait photographers were using them to great effect. The hints were that a mirror less system can actually provide more accurate af.

With the a9 it appears so Sony have made an action camera to better 1dxii and d5. Now we have great af, fast frame rate but still a lack of reach. Expect sports photographers who work within 200mm to love this camera. @johnf3f it will be the niche you are in, wildlife/birds along with other specific long lens work that will still rightly stick with dslr. I'd suggest that if Sony sigma or zeiss produce some decent Long lenses that a Sony alpha would be good for you, the lack of weight over a dslr is great and if the lens isn't mounted to the tripod then there is no strain on the camera lens mount.

I miss my canons at times but for every frustration my a7ii's cause me all is forgiven when I look at the images at 100%.
 
jonneymendoza said:
it iis quite robust.

Dont let the size fool you. It can take rain!
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking of rain I was thinking of lifting and handling big lenses - say 3 kilos +.

I don't worry about my cameras in the rain I worry about me!
 
Craig_85 said:
In the past people, myself included, pretty much ruled Sony out for difficult moving stuff. Wildlife, aviation and sports. Poor AF and lack of reach with native lenses. (Although arguably with the a7r2 you have more reach with shorter focal lengths than certain dslrs with mo get ones)

They were always considered landscape weapons and a lot of people had a 2 brand set up. Dslr for moving, Sony a7 for still - low weight and stunning iq.

Now, the a7rii started making inroads AF wise and wedding photographers and portrait photographers were using them to great effect. The hints were that a mirror less system can actually provide more accurate af.

With the a9 it appears so Sony have made an action camera to better 1dxii and d5. Now we have great af, fast frame rate but still a lack of reach. Expect sports photographers who work within 200mm to love this camera. @johnf3f it will be the niche you are in, wildlife/birds along with other specific long lens work that will still rightly stick with dslr. I'd suggest that if Sony sigma or zeiss produce some decent Long lenses that a Sony alpha would be good for you, the lack of weight over a dslr is great and if the lens isn't mounted to the tripod then there is no strain on the camera lens mount.

I miss my canons at times but for every frustration my a7ii's cause me all is forgiven when I look at the images at 100%.
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts and experiences. I think the Sony A7 series are great (Best?) for some uses but not for others. However it is always better to hear from someone who uses a system and appreciates it's strengths and weakneses.

Thanks for your informative post.
 
johnf3f said:
I wasn't thinking of rain I was thinking of lifting and handling big lenses - say 3 kilos +.

I don't worry about my cameras in the rain I worry about me!
Click to expand...
You can fit a battery grip if you really want same size as a dslr to hold your large lenses
 
jonneymendoza said:
You can fit a battery grip if you really want same size as a dslr to hold your large lenses
Click to expand...

Correct, you have to remember that both the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX have build in battery grips.
With the Sony A9 it gives the users options to go small or large.
The A7/A9 series paired with the Zeiss 35mm f2.8 or 55mm 1.8 is a very small combination in both size and weight that is imo better than the Nikon and Canon rivals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top