Sony a 9

[Steve Axford]

Sounds interesting and almost like it's designed to go with the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I got this lens recently and, while it is clearly a superb quality lens, it is still a little slow to focus on the A7R2 when compared with the canikon equivs. I would expect this will no longer be an issue with the A9.

A comment on the lack of Sony lenses. While canikon clearly have a lead with the range of lenses available, I would say that I now have 5 E-mount lenses and they are all superb lenses. They are
Zeiss loxia 21mm - This is the best wide angle lens I have ever used. It is tiny and fully manual, but that isn't much of a problem with this lens. Not cheap, but worth every penny.
Sony-Zeiss 50mm f1.4. I still have the Canon 50mm f1.2 which is a takes beautiful pictures, but the Sony-Zeiss lens takes even better pictures and it is much sharper. It is one of those lenses that you just wish you could use for everything. Again, not a cheap lens, nor is it small.
Sony 90mm G-OS f2.8 macro. Better than the Canon 100mm II macro - need I say more.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8. I haven't used this lens a lot yet and Have have never owned a Canon equiv, so I can't compare. But, it does take superb pictures.
Sony 24-240mm. This is used mainly for video, but is a great general purpose lens also. Canikon have no equivalent

While I would like a greater range of lenses, they are slowly arriving and the ones that Sony do release are really very, very good lenses. Those first 3 lenses I have listed are better than the anything that Canon produces (imo). The 70-200mm may be better, but I have nothing to compare it to. The 24-240 is unique.

[swifty]

The A9 has some pretty impressive figures and certainly can extend the shooting envelope, even beyond some of Canikon's flagships.
Let's not try and define what pro or non-pro means.
Pros and amateurs alike will find ways to exploit the new found shooting capabilities.
I, for one would love silent shooting in a FF Nikon body.

However there are a lot of fine print limitations to the headline specs that's still to be tested. But regardless of whether it matches or bests Canikon's top sports cameras, the Sony marketing has already done its job and have already got a lot of people excited.
Some of the test results may also be moot as a 'good enough' performance bar may already have been reached for many photographers in many shooting scenarios. But then again, that performance may have been reached even b4 the A9?
At peak level, I suspect the Canikon flagships might still be better.

I don't think you're likely to see a lot of Sony's in the photographer's pit at major sporting events but that's moreso because of a host of other factors (like lenses) other than camera capabilities. But I'd bet a few angencies or independent Canon pros might add an A9 and metabones adapters for times when the extra shooting envelope of the A9 comes in handy.

[MissionMan]

I also believe that Sony said they would only start producing pro telephoto lenses when they had pro bodies to go with them, so I wouldn't expect it to be long before we see some long lenses from sony.

[swifty]

Steve: I think comments about lack of Sony lenses refer to exotic telephotos since the marketing for this camera is aimed for that genre of photography. Of course there's nothing stopping you using it for other types of photography but you gotta wonder how soon the A9r and A9s's gonna make their appearance.

MM: I'm sure it's in the works and I'm sure Canikon already know something about it too, as they would've known about the development of the A9. But I read somewhere that lenses take something like 4 years to develop (can't recall if it was for a normal or exotic lens), and the manufacturing of exotics lenses take something like a full year. So its gonna take some time to flesh out the big teles.

[Steve Axford]

Steve: I think comments about lack of Sony lenses refer to exotic telephotos since the marketing for this camera is aimed for that genre of photography. Of course there's nothing stopping you using it for other types of photography but you gotta wonder how soon the A9r and A9s's gonna make their appearance.

I agree that super telephoto is the obvious hole in the Sony range, but there are other gaps too. It will be interesting to see which gaps get filled first. I like the high end lenses, which is clearly where Sony are aiming. The collaboration with Zeiss is a good one in this respect, as Zeiss make superb lenses, though no super tele's.

As for the camera itself, it is hard to fault, going by the reviews. I guess it will take a while for sports photographers to start changing. It will be interesting to see the camera line ups at future big sporting events.

Update - I hadn't realised that Sony also announced a 100-400mm G lens. That should fill the telephoto gap for most sports shooters.

[swifty]

Update - I hadn't realised that Sony also announced a 100-400mm G lens. That should fill the telephoto gap for most sports shooters.

Its a good start, and I agree with their strategy in that they should appeal to a broader audience before addressing highly specialised niches.
At this point, at the long end they are 2 stops behind the competition so whilst the cameras are now competitive, it'll still take some time for the lens line up to catch up.
But they'll get there, as they will filling out more specialised lenses in the sub-200mm space.

[arthurking83]

......
Sony 24-240mm. This is used mainly for video, but is a great general purpose lens also. Canikon have no equivalent

While I would like a greater range of lenses, they are slowly arriving and the ones that Sony do release are really very, very good lenses. Those first 3 lenses I have listed are better than the anything that Canon produces (imo). The 70-200mm may be better, but I have nothing to compare it to. The 24-240 is unique.

Nikon have their 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 and I'm pretty sure that Canon have one too .. possibly a DO(Diffractive Optics) type, if memory serves me correctly

- - - Updated - - -

... At this point, at the long end they are 2 stops behind the competition so whilst the cameras are now competitive, it'll still take some time for the lens line up to catch up.

I still can't see why they'd place themselves in such a predicament. They already have both a 300/2.8 and 500/4 for the A-mount, I can't imagine why it'd have been so hard to tweak both of them to natively fit the FE mount and at least have those two staples behind them ... for now!

... But they'll get there, as they will filling out more specialised lenses in the sub-200mm space.

Which is a bit of a shame for the A9.
The specs scream out 'sports shooter's dream' and announcing both a 300/2.8 and 500/4 and an modern highly capable 1.4xTC all in FE mount would have done the A9 as 'an ecosystem' more justice.

Think back to when Nikon announced their first Fx camera, and it wasn't just the D3 that was announced, both the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses also came to market at roughly the same time, and created this 'ecosystem' for the brand.
So Nikon shooter(back then) all had to have this 'Holy Trinity' of lenses (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, all at f/2.8) to complement the camera.
It's all about the marketing, and history records how successful it all was for Nikon back then.

[arthurking83]

Sorry missed this reply:

Let's go back to the basics. Its a 24MP full frame camera with IBIS that shoots at 20fps with no mirror blackout and 693 AF points for A$2K cheaper than a D5 and with full frame coverage of the AF points and eye detection.

I'm sorry, if Nikon released a D5S with this spec people would be doing their nut about how incredible that is. Like it or not, that is pretty damn impressive and if that isn't pro, what the hell is? on top of that, knowing Sony it will also be a damn good sensor.

with respect to the D5s comment .. maybe, maybe not(not me anyhow!) .. but you're right, in that others probably would be(going GaGa over it).

BUT!
it should be noted that the 20fps on the A9 is only available when electronic shutter is used.
Switch to mechanical shutter(which all DSLRs use for their max frame rate specs!!) and the A9 slows to 10fps .. still not an inconsiderable spec in itself.
So like Thom Hogan says .. the records being set here by Sony are not the cameras specs(20fps has been a reality for a while now) .. but it's in the caveats thrown in by Sony to temper those sky high specs for the A9!

eg. when electronic shutter is used(to achieve this 20fps spec), the camera also reverts back to 60Hz EVF mode .. not the super duper 120Hz mode.
so while it may not produce the blackout that a SLR is required too, I think the delay rate will probably be off putting for fast paced action.
I'm fairly sure that the viewfinder blackout time for those super high end CaNikons are in the order of about 40ms(which is short enough to be considered insignificant!)

Also note that in electronic shutter mode, dynamic range from the sensor is almost sure to be compromised.(see DPR's comparison data on the A7rII in e-shutter mode).

** side note that one of the off putting aspects of the old D70s was it's electronic shutter. It used a hybrid electro-mechanical shutter system, which allowed a 1/500s flash sync speed, but really bright highlights were always compromised due to the electronic gaiting of the sensor. For this reason, I'm always suspicious of electronic shutters, especially where you are 'forced' to use them(D70s had no option other than what it used)

Also, as yet no info(that I can find) on whether the A9 sensor is limited to the lower 12bit capture mode when using e-shutter, or if they've designed it to allow 14 bit mode.

So, for those times when 20fps are a necessity, it's almost a dead certainty that there's going to be too many gotchas that go with it.
All I'm trying to get across here is not to just read the stated specs, and immediately assume that it's game over for the established players.

[Steve Axford]

Hi Arthur. You are right, both Canon and Nikon have a 28-300 now. I can't comment on the relative value, as I don't use the lens (Catherine does), but it seems to be good with limitations.
As for the 100-400. The f4.5-5.6 may not be a disadvantage if the A9 focusing is as good as it seems to be. It is listed as being compatible with both the 1.4 and the 2.0 converter. This would give you 800mm at f11, which provided the focusing works well, should be fine

[swifty]

I still can't see why they'd place themselves in such a predicament. They already have both a 300/2.8 and 500/4 for the A-mount, I can't imagine why it'd have been so hard to tweak both of them to natively fit the FE mount and at least have those two staples behind them ... for now!


Which is a bit of a shame for the A9.
The specs scream out 'sports shooter's dream' and announcing both a 300/2.8 and 500/4 and an modern highly capable 1.4xTC all in FE mount would have done the A9 as 'an ecosystem' more justice.

Think back to when Nikon announced their first Fx camera, and it wasn't just the D3 that was announced, both the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses also came to market at roughly the same time, and created this 'ecosystem' for the brand.
So Nikon shooter(back then) all had to have this 'Holy Trinity' of lenses (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, all at f/2.8) to complement the camera.
It's all about the marketing, and history records how successful it all was for Nikon back then.

I get the feeling the AF might be the issue. Modifying A-mount telephotos (even if they were optically good) might not work well with their current AF implementation. The thing is you can use these lens via adapter anyway so if there aren't performance gains with an FE mount version, why bother.
Future exotic teles will be GM versions taking full advantage of their new AF protocols.

Its true the D3/D300 combo were announced alongside very good pro zooms but they were really continuing a legacy that already existed. Sony are going into uncharted territory and a new market for them so I think it is wise for them to appeal to a broader audience before competing in the niche halo product segment.
If they brought out an exotic, which should it be. 300, 400, 500? Then ppl would start complaining about lack of pro support etc.

I don't think it's an easy market to tackle and I don't know whether the halo effects of these flagship products have enough impact on their bread and butter product sales, especially in a declining market.
But it would be interesting seeing Sony's product release in the coming few years leading up to their home Olympics in 2020. One exotic per year would do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Arthur. You are right, both Canon and Nikon have a 28-300 now. I can't comment on the relative value, as I don't use the lens (Catherine does), but it seems to be good with limitations.
As for the 100-400. The f4.5-5.6 may not be a disadvantage if the A9 focusing is as good as it seems to be. It is listed as being compatible with both the 1.4 and the 2.0 converter. This would give you 800mm at f11, which provided the focusing works well, should be fine

It's not just the focusing. If you're giving up 2 stops in lens aperture, one could make a very good argument for an Olympus EM1 Mk II with their Pro series lenses.

[Steve Axford]

If you have good focusing, I can't see why f4-5.6 would be such an impediment. Where would you use f2.8 for a 400mm? I don't do sports, but I do take wildlife and f2.8 gives you too little dof.

[I @ M]

Where would you use f2.8 for a 400mm?

Sorry Steve, but that is THE most laughable post I have read for the last decade.

400mm and F/2.8 is not a shallow depth of field hindrance in any any shape form or manner, it is a way to control depth of field and present a photo that the creator envisages. Not just sport and wildtamelife photographers want such lenses.

[swifty]

If you have good focusing, I can't see why f4-5.6 would be such an impediment. Where would you use f2.8 for a 400mm? I don't do sports, but I do take wildlife and f2.8 gives you too little dof.

Have a look here: https://www.flickr.com/groups/97933621@N00/pool/

Lance: perhaps you can chime in. I've never used a 400/2.8 but from my understanding, at this sort of FL you're always battling adequate shutter speeds and so the faster the better generally speaking but DOF is a lesser issue since if you can get close enough such that DOF becomes a big issue, then a shorter lens might suffice??

[Steve Axford]

Well, as a wildlife photographer I would never use the lens at it's maximum aperture. It just doesn't have the dof required. Do you two actually do wildlife photography?

[I @ M]

Well, as a wildlife photographer I would never use the lens at it's maximum aperture.

From that reply alone I can only assume that you are deliberately ignoring creativity and the potential of the equipment at your disposal --- Do Sony actually make a 400mm F/2.8?

It just doesn't have the dof required.

Please explain your definition of "required" dof, photographers who actually photograph across differing genre sometimes have radically differing depth of field requirements.

Do you two actually do wildlife photography?

Not predominantly but one of my favourite wild life images I have taken ( other people seem to like it as well ) just happens to be taken at 200mm and F/2.8.

[Steve Axford]

200mm and f2.8? 400mm and f5.6 should be perfect for you.

[swifty]

Well, as a wildlife photographer I would never use the lens at it's maximum aperture. It just doesn't have the dof required. Do you two actually do wildlife photography?

Not sure if the question is directed at me. But no, I don't do wildlife photography.
But if I did, having f2.8 would certainly help. Again it's about extending the shooting envelope, the same way the A9 has done with some of its specs.
I don't always have to shoot at f2.8 but I would be able to. I can also use all the apertures between f2.8 an d f5.6 and also f5.6 and beyond. And whether at f5.6 or other, the f2.8 400mm's gonna be out performing the f5.6 max zoom so whatever way you like to cut it, that zoom is gonna be behind an f2.8 400mm prime, up to 2 stops or more.

[I @ M]

200mm and f2.8? 400mm and f5.6 should be perfect for you.

Please tell me that you aren't serious.

Please consult a very handy section on this website if by chance the technical terminology associated with cameras and lenses has you confused. 200mm @F/2.8 is NOTHING like 400mm @ F/5.6.

[ricktas]

200mm and f2.8? 400mm and f5.6 should be perfect for you.

400mm f5.6 @ 50 metres to subject:

Subject distance 50 m
Depth of field
Near limit 48.4 m
Far limit 51.7 m
Total 3.34 m
In front of subject 1.61 m (48%)
Behind subject 1.72 m (52%)
Hyperfocal distance 1489 m
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

200mm f2.8 @ 50 metres to subject:

Subject distance 50 m
Depth of field
Near limit 46.9 m
Far limit 53.6 m
Total 6.72 m
In front of subject 3.14 m (47%)
Behind subject 3.59 m (53%)
Hyperfocal distance 744.5 m
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

Lots of variance there that could well produce something the photographer wants, rather than what they would get if they didn't have an f2.8 lens.

[Steve Axford]

Really? What is it like? In terms of dof?