Sony a 9

[MissionMan]

I think the key thing with this is we have never seen a mirrorless of this scale. It's the first venture of a mirrorless camera into the true pro level market. It could fail dismally, it could be what some photographers are looking for. There are some disillusioned Canikon users that this may allow to switch. The AF may also be a critical part. One of the dpreview reviewers who had some hands on testing has previously said that he disliked Sony's but this camera has blown him away.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/49...ing-experience

The one thing is that switching is not a cheap experience, and I think someone who have to be pretty unhappy to switch. There was another article done on the costs which gives an indication that it's an expensive exercise. It doesn't take into account that some users may be on the verge of shifting to full frame and may not mind losing their investment but I think its realistic to say its not something that will result in a mass shift.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/57...ony-from-canon

[arthurking83]

I think the key thing with this is we have never seen a mirrorless of this scale. It's the first venture of a mirrorless camera into the true pro level market. .....

That's not entirely accurate in many ways.

1. define pro market? Pro sports shooters market? If this is the defining genre, while the camera itself could be counted in this segment, without lenses to suit that market segment it's not in the running.
2. if the definition of pro market is wedding/portrait/landscape/macro type shooting, where lenses exist, then this camera body in itself doesn't really offer any advantage over an A7 of some model type.

So the A7 in essence is the first venture of a mirrorless into the "pro market", and even then the Fuji X1-Pro achieved that prior to the A7 too.

If the defining characteristic of 'pro market' is determined by high speed frame advance, then Nikon 1 series and Olympus OMD-EM1 ii both achieve 20fps and 18fps respectively.
It should be remembered that the definition of pro market doesn't equate to a 135 format sensor in any way. A professional photographer will shoot with a camera(format size) appropriate for the job, keeping in mind the performance specs as well.

About the only pro market where the A9 could effectively compete against the likes of Nikon/Canon could be in the wildlife arena, or the type of fast paced sports where a very fast tele lens isn't a requirement with the caveat that light is plentiful. With the new 100-400 lens, it can make sense to use the A9 and the slow aperture 100-400 lens for birding, car racing and such situations. And then in this market, the competition isn't restricted to just the CaNikon D5/1D series bodies, many shooters use 7D's and D500's and OMD-EM1's and even the teeny little Nikon1 V3.
The effect is, the one key market where this camera actually makes lots of sense(at the moment due to lens restrictions) is populated with many far cheaper options.

There is a line in the review(1st link) that kinda really doesn't make much sense:

For a professional wedding and event photographer who isn't spending hours in inclement weather, I'd say the Sony a9 is worth a look if you're used to Dx-series cameras from Nikon, and 1D-series models from Canon. With the a9, you'll save a ton of weight, have a higher frame rate (again, only relevant if you need it), and likely have an easier time following the action than with even the best DSLRs.

I can't really imagine any wedding photographer shooting above about 6-8fps. If they're really green I could understand the need for more(speed) .. but really the biggest issue will be what that reviewer described earlier in the review .. how many images will end up on the storage media, both in camera and then on the processing machine. High frame rates = massively increased numbers of images.
And as for saving a 'ton of weight' .. how many bodies do wedding photographers take on a job? Lens weight is where the problem is, and a full frame mirrorless isn't really going to help much in terms of lens weight carried.
Most wedding photographers I've seen and talked too, all prefer the body with the vertical grip .. whether built in or added on, so compare a D5/1D weight to an A9 + grip and two batteries, and your close to 1Kg of camera body(to keep it to the same physical ergonomic specs to a 1D/D5. D5 with battery = about 1400g(1.4kg). Saving 400g.
Most of the lenses vary in weight, and recent Sony lenses seem to weigh in more than the equivalent CaNikon types!
eg. Sony's 85/1.4 = 886g, Nikon's 85/1.4 = 595g.
Take out the 400g body weight saving of the A9+ grip and add back in the 250g weight saving of the respective 85/1.4 lens, and the big heavy Nikon D5 + 85/1.4 lens weighs a whopping 150g more.
Add into the mix the fact that you'll probably need 6x the number of A9 batteries for a given number of shots compared to a D5/1D .. so the 'ton of weight saving' in terms of bodies carried is nullified by the sheer weight of all those extra batteries needed

The fact that the A9 is a new step up in camera ability isn't in question. The new stacked sensor appears to have immense ability(proper reviews pending tho) .. which is really what the camera is all about.
But (I think) the marketing hyperbole currently doing the rounds doesn't equate in any logical sense to an intended market segment, without the appropriate ancillary gear to complement it and use those advantages.

[MissionMan]

That's not entirely accurate in many ways.

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.

[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.

[MissionMan]

for you mirrorless fanatics..............................
Sony A9 rant
Everytime Sony brings out a new camera there mission statement is the same. Look out Canon and Nikon your going to lose so many pro users because of this new camera. I just pi$$ myself laughing at all the BS give it a month and like all the other Sony cameras you just don't here from them. For me to change over to Sony a couple of things need to happen and they must ask what the Sony a9 don't have that makes real pros don't switch! For me it's sooo simple. Weather sealing, damage resistants and battery life! The Sony cameras are world renowned for weather damage, god if the camera even looks at water you get error code E:91:0 or something even dropping the things they smash into a million tiny pieces. I have thrown my canon over 20m and it's survived. And I have dropped a Nikon off the roof of a car and it just bounced down the road.
And for pros to switch lol..
Pros are heavily invested in their gear and workflow. It's not that easy to switch. They need to relearn the old habits crafted so painfully for so many years. Other thing is, many people just hate Sony user experience and not much choice in affordable & quality glass. They need to build a 600,400,300mm at f2.8 and just maybe I will think about the switch all the non Sony glass you can get on the body's just don't work at 100 percent.
This is ridiculous. This camera (a9) doesn't have A SINGLE CROSS-TYPE phase-detection point; nor a double cross-type; nor a very sensitive one (lower than 0EV). Also it doesn't have an infra-red IR sensitive metering, to distinguish a sports ball from a human head; or a player from a volleyball court net. So it's pretty much POINTLESS. Sony creates these ridiculous "press events" with a single girl running on a straight line, stating the "tracking AF" is great on all of its cameras. I thinks it's atrocious to compare it to a Canon 1D-X or Nikon D5, when the A9 can't even compare to an EOS T6i double cross-type, high precision AF point; nor its IF+RGB metering. Brilliant marketing from Sony, fooling every internet noob with NUMBERS. I'm just getting angry now.

People should really temper their enthusiasm for product hype over product reality before making great claims!(not referring to anyone here, but more generally in the net as a whole .. read some of the hyperbole and it hysterical).
Firstly! many claim that battery life is DSLR like. No way, nothing like it, never will be until they make the battery much bigger(and hence heavier) and body larger to suit.
Seen many claims that battery will last 600 exposures. Yeah right, that's one spec, and for a pro, 600 is only just pushing it .. so take many batteries just to be sure. Luckily they also introduced a multiple battery charger that suits this camera .. I reckon as a pro that accessory is a must have.
Read the actual specs and for a pro the expected battery life is barely consumer oriented compact comparable!! .. nothing like a DSLR. Battery life for a pro is one of the paramount specs they need to be mindful of.
With a DSLR, in general you don't need to worry about battery, you generally get between 800-1000 from most DSLRs at this level.
Hidden in the specs that I've yet not seen is that the A9 claims 600 exposures, but this is only if using the LCD screen, ie. not using the EVF!!
Apart from the odd hard to get image where the LCD is useful, what pro worth their reputation shoots with the LCD full time?
They all use the EVF, as the EVF is the drawcard for this type of camera, and Sony's spec says about 480 exposures when using the EVF!!!

480 exposures is not even comparable to a heavily used second hand Nikon D3300!!

In terms of professional tool, Sony really needed to work on that single factor.
On a shoot(any type, wedding, portrait, studio .. whatever) if you're always concerned about battery life and always keeping an eye on the battery indicator, you're not keeping you mind focused(pun intended) on the event at hand.
Having to change out 3 batteries in the time even a lowly consumer level DSLR won't need any change .. not really comparable to the 3000-ish exposures you'd get out of a single digit CaNikon.




Nah! I'm pretty sure they're all shrinking. DSLR shrinking faster than mirrorless, so the percentage factor for each company/body type changes continuously. You're reading that Sony's market share has increased .. not the same thing as their sales figures are higher than before. Just that by comparison to other manufacturers, they're not as dramatically low.

If you read Thoms blog he gives some decent reasoning as to what may have happened with the Sony/#2 posi.(marketing/promotional deals .. and currency of their latest products). Nikon's are all mainly older compared to Sony's.
If you carefully read the specific fine print, the marketing blurb about this specified that the position change was in terms of dollars .. ie. specifically not in units!
If it were measured in unit volume, they'd not have needed this fine print detail. Apparently what Sony does a lot is that they sell the A7's in kit form(as most folks buying won't/don't have a native lens) and then the kit sale is at an elevated price.
At that elevated price point, the Sony is registered as a full frame camera, but the $ value is still registered as the kit(because they don't separate the prices of the individual body and lens in the kit) ... this leads to 'greater value' products(where Nikon sell mainly D610s, D750s and D810s rather than in kit form). And Nikon's (US) promotional push was in Nov/Dec(for Christmas), whereas Sony's promotion deal season was in Jan/Feb.

As for the pros switching, Fuji has gained a fair amount of market share already in wedding photography where long lens like the 400 f/2.8 aren't required. How many pros need long lens? Wedding ohotographers? No. Portrait? No Studio? No. Landscape? no. It's only Wildlife and sports that require it.

This is true, but then again many of those types of photography could easily be done with any non 20fps camera body, and more specifically a higher res(say 42Mp) camera such as the A7Rii!
The photographer type that those specs are marketed towards seems to be more so those sports/wildlife types .. where they have no real competition in lens lineup, and would take many years of hard graft to catch up as well.
And then, as they don't have the history of those same lens types as per CaNikon do .. most of the lenses they do create at that end of the spectrum will all be super massively expensive by way of comparison too!
They should easily be able to get a 300/2.8 and 500/4 to market as they did buy into the brand that once was Minolta, and they have some background with respect to those lens types.
But they'd also need a 200/2, 200-400/4 and a trio of super capable teleconverters to suit all those lenses.

BUTT(a deliberate double butt here!) what would really be the point of that kind of exercise, other than to simply try and unseat the two established players in a small(but elite market segment) in some way?
When the lenses get that big, the advantage of that small body is diminished massively and the of the small compact lightweight body is redundant. In fact the ergonomics of cameras mounted onto on long lenses, are more favourable towards the larger camera bodies anyhow.
In terms of strength and durability, I can't imagine that the a9 will have the weatherproofing capability that a single digit CaNikon body will.

In reality this camera would appeal to D810/5DMkIV upgrade path types ... rather than the D1/1DX types.
And in this situation, the 20fps would basically be a redundant specification. The price is massively beyond both the CaNikon products (and astronomically beyond the Pentax K1) by comparison.

I think a few buyers will get into it early on, but only for the cache factor(ie. braggin rights, gear heads with more $'s than ȼ's .. etc).
As a long term product without the backup of the required accessories(ie. full lens list, GPS, etc) I can't see it as a commercial success(yet).[/QUOTE]

Hence why I can't see it as a Canikon killing product in any way.

Yeah, it has cache and bragging rights power .. but in reality little else.

Sorry missed this reply:



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.

That was just the first page and a half. I didn't go further, do I need to go on and find the rest? Heaps of "it'll never work" posts, heaps of speculation about why it won't work. Complaints about battery life (when the measures for battery life are actually conservative so batteries should last over a 1000), etc. In short, finding every conceivable reason to defend your precious DSLR's.

But bring up bad things about Nikon and we're just wishing their demise.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.