Sony a 9

[I @ M]

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

Well, as a wildlife photographer I would never use the lens at it's maximum aperture. It just doesn't have the dof required.

You seem to have answered your own question ---- going by your summary it is worthless.

[Steve Axford]

I suppose I had best point out the the correct comparison would be between 200mm at f2.8 and 50m, with 400mm f5.6 at 100m.

[ricktas]

I suppose I had best point out the the correct comparison would be between 200mm at f2.8 and 50m, with 400mm f5.6 at 100m.

So you want a wildlife photographer to move 50 metres, and possible spook their subject?

[I @ M]

I suppose I had best point out the the correct comparison would be between 200mm at f2.8 and 50m, with 400mm f5.6 at 100m.

Nah, don't buy it, we started talking about tele lenses at max aperture and how you said that they weren't satisfactory for an"acceptable" dof.

Focal length, aperture equivalence were never part of the discussion till you introduced it -----

[Steve Axford]

This is pointless. You guys just want an argument and you don't even do wildlife photography.

[I @ M]

This is pointless.

Beginning to agree with you. Seems that you have very singular needs / wants for this camera that simply don't tie in with general market place norms.

You guys just want an argument and you don't even do wildlife photography.

So sorry that you decided that we were purely argumentative rather than carrying on a discussion about photographic gear.
Particular apologies if it seems to you that the discussion strayed from purely wildlife photography to any other genre that might suit this camera.

Reading through this thread and then going to learn a little about the new camera simply tells me that it is yet another underdone, overpriced body that is likely to have an orphaned lens line sooner or later. I simply fail to see what it does any better than a multitude of reasonably priced alternatives that actually have some form of lens support behind them.

[ricktas]

This is pointless. You guys just want an argument and you don't even do wildlife photography.

And here was me thinking you had decided it was all pointless over 12 months ago

For info, I don't want an argument, I just want clarity of facts related to the lens being discussed. I tried to present some of those when I compared the two lens lengths, apertures, depth of field etc, but obviously that was pointless

[Steve Axford]

Rick, I pointed out to you that the correct comparison would be 50m and 100m. The only response you could come up with was "So you want a wildlife photographer to move 50 metres, and possible spook their subject?". That was just trying to be clever.
If you want to compare 2 different lens lengths, then you would compare them with the same sized subject in the frame. So a 200mm at 50m would give you he same sized subject as a 400mm at 100m. Would it not? Of course, 10m or 20m would be a better comparison (or for bird photography, 2 or 4 metres).
Anyway, you are right, this is pointless. So you may as well remove me.

[ricktas]

Rick, I pointed out to you that the correct comparison would be 50m and 100m. The only response you could come up with was "So you want a wildlife photographer to move 50 metres, and possible spook their subject?". That was just trying to be clever.
If you want to compare 2 different lens lengths, then you would compare them with the same sized subject in the frame. So a 200mm at 50m would give you he same sized subject as a 400mm at 100m. Would it not? Of course, 10m or 20m would be a better comparison (or for bird photography, 2 or 4 metres).
Anyway, you are right, this is pointless. So you may as well remove me.

I was not trying to be clever, but be factual. Your original comparison made no mention of varying distance to subject, so I wanted to clarify that. I did so using a DOF comparison. Then after my post, you added the addition distance variance.

I merely pointed out that if you are shooting some wildlife and said wildlife is 50 metres from you, that whether you choose the 200 @ f2.8 or the 400 @ f5,6 (the settings you said) the resultant DOF etc is different and thus the resultant photo will be different.

So whichever one you choose (with distance to subject being the same) is going to affect the resultant image. I was not posting for your benefit, I was doing so to clarify your original comparison, for anyone else reading the thread (beginners perhaps?), who from your post, may have assumed that 200mm @ f2.8 and 400mm and f5.6 would produce the same result. Field of view and subject size may be the same, but other factors (DOF included) will mean the image will not be the same.

Unfortunately you seem to think factual additions to a thread are not warranted and simply someone trying to be clever.

[Steve Axford]

Most wildlife (and sports, I presume) photographers like to fill the frame with the subject. If you shoot with a 200mm lens, then you need to get close enough to fill the frame - say 50m (but 2m would be more likely with small birds). If you shoot at 400mm then you only need to get to within 100m to fill the frame (or 4m with small birds).
If, on the other hand, you shoot landscape, then you are probably looking to change the frame size. But, we are not talking landscape.

[Steve Axford]

I just did some calculation on dof (using the online calculators). It would seem I was wrong (I thought I'd best point that out before someone else did). Well, wrong in the calculation, but not in the general conclusion. Just to put things straight.

If the subject magnification is the same, then, a particular fstop will give the same dof irrespective of the length of the lens. This does get a bit fluffy for wide angle lenses, but it is pretty exact for telephoto.

For example, with a person in a frame of height 2.4m, the dof will be about 1.5m at f8, or 1.1m at f5.6, or 2.3m at f12. It strikes me that most sports photographers would want most of their shots in this sort of range. F2.8 would give just 0.6m, which would mean that even the subjects arms would be soft. Sure, you would get the occasional arty shot, but I doubt many professional sports photographers could sell many of them.

For small birds or animals it is even worse. For a frame size of 120mm high and f8 the dof will be just 1cm (coc 0.01mm). That means that major parts of the bird will be soft unless you are very lucky.

[swifty]

Come on now. DOF is not that hard a subject that you need to be a wildlife expert to be allowed in the discussion. You're certainly happy to talk about sports photography but do you shoot sports?

And no, I don't just want to argue but I take issue with your blanket suggestion that 400mm at f2.8 is not useful.

Lets look at your example. 120mm high frame size indicate you're 2m from your subject from the sensor plane. Are you really able to get that close to a bird or whatever you're photographing where the front of your lens is even closer than 2m. Since both the Nikon and Canon version's closest focusing distance is around 2.6-2.7m so no, that's not possible.

How close can you really get realistically. I guess it depends on what you're photographing but give us some realistic figures. 5m?

Granted 400mm @f2.8, your DOF is always going to be shallow so depending on your subject distance, subject size and subject orientation, you can sometimes use f2.8 and where required or where you have ample/adequate light and therefore the luxury to pick and choose your exposure settings without limitations then great, do so.

The conversation started with whether the long end of the new Sony lens is adequate. It may or may not be depending on what you're shooting. I only pointed out that the competition has 2 extra stops of shooting envelope. Whether that is useful depends on the shooting scenario doesn't it.

[Steve Axford]

Come on now. DOF is not that hard a subject that you need to be a wildlife expert to be allowed in the discussion. You're certainly happy to talk about sports photography but do you shoot sports?

And no, I don't just want to argue but I take issue with your blanket suggestion that 400mm at f2.8 is not useful.

Lets look at your example. 120mm high frame size indicate you're 2m from your subject from the sensor plane. Are you really able to get that close to a bird or whatever you're photographing where the front of your lens is even closer than 2m. Since both the Nikon and Canon version's closest focusing distance is around 2.6-2.7m so no, that's not possible.

How close can you really get realistically. I guess it depends on what you're photographing but give us some realistic figures. 5m?

Granted 400mm @f2.8, your DOF is always going to be shallow so depending on your subject distance, subject size and subject orientation, you can sometimes use f2.8 and where required or where you have ample/adequate light and therefore the luxury to pick and choose your exposure settings without limitations then great, do so.

The conversation started with whether the long end of the new Sony lens is adequate. It may or may not be depending on what you're shooting. I only pointed out that the competition has 2 extra stops of shooting envelope. Whether that is useful depends on the shooting scenario doesn't it.

I didn't say 400 2.8 wasn't useful, just that the main use in the past was focusing capacity.

A 120mm frame height is entirely possible, check the specs on the canon, Nikon or Sony. And yes, as a bird photographer you have to get that close. Or at least you do if you want that special photo.

As for the general usefulness of f2.8 lenses. They certainly have value, but, provided that autofocus works well, f5.6 will cover most of the requirements for sport and wildlife. Not all, just most. I haven't tried the a9 with the 100-400, so I am just speculating. It will be interesting to see if many sports photographers make the change. I would expect a few to try it initially and it will depend on how they find it as to wether others jump in the future (perhaps when the 2.8 comes out).
Another thing that may make the A9 very attractive is the video. Not much use to amateurs, but pros may find that quite compelling. It s very good on the Sony and leaves the others well behind. All the nature film makers I know use Sony cameras.

[swifty]

That's not exactly what you said previously, at least from my reading but since you've clarified your points, lets get back on topic.

Maybe for another discussion but you'll have to explain to me how you get that 120mm frame height natively cos I did check the current Nikon and Canon 400/2.8 lenses and they're both around 2.6 to 2.7m min focusing distance which translates to around 160mm frame height unless there're such a thing as reverse focus breathing.

Incidentally the new 100-400 Sony has a higher max reproduction ratio at 1:2.85 so that's one advantage over the big teles. So if you can get close enough, you could better fill your frame with the Sony.

[Steve Axford]

My mistake. I didn't look at the 400 primes, probably as I have never used them. What I looked at were the 300 primes plus converters, 70-200s with or without converters and the Sony 100-400. All of these can do at least a 0.2x magnification. In some cases it is 0.5x. Now this isn't all that useful for you average sports photographer, but can be really handy for insects and snakes, not to mention fairy wrens and the like. It is possible that I try to fill the frame with my subject and others don't, but aside from that I can't see the big advantage of f2.8, aside from what it usually brings in focussing and lens quality. I guess it can make a difference if you can't get close enough ( they won't let you stand close enough to the action), but usually that just means a longer lens.

[MissionMan]

No professional (or very few) sports photographer will use a 100-400. The 400 f2.8 is a bread and butter lens for sports photography

[Steve Axford]

And your reasons?

[arthurking83]

I didn't say 400 2.8 wasn't useful, just that the main use in the past was focusing capacity.

....

I may be wrong here, as I'm not into sports or wildlife myself either, but my understanding of the whole value of the 400/2.8 was:

1/. IQ first and foremost. These lenses generally tend to be the best performers in terms of absolute sharpness, and sharpness across the entire frame(for CaNikon who are well known for those lens types).
1b/. shutter speed.
Shutter speed could be more important, but when you think about it logically, IQ would be more important for the sole purpose of allowing the flexibility to crop the image to a 100% pixel zoom level and still achieve a clear and detailed image.

2/. brighter view through the viewfinder.
Faster aperture doesn't HAVE to be use all the time, but the beneficial aside from having a faster aperture is a brighter view(if the appropriate focusing matte is used too tho!)
For a camera with EVF only, this is probably more important than on a DSLR. The DSLRs focusing matte needs to be of an appropriate type for the faster aperture lens to make a difference(consumer level cameras all tend to use f/5.6 level focusing mattes!!).
But for an EVF, the faster the aperture, the less grainy the view of it in dim light.
** One of my pet hates about EVFs in low light. I suppose it allows you to 'see something', but IMO, I prefer to see 'the nothing' that a SLR displays !! .. when it comes to viewing an ISO limited LCD!

3/. more stable/able focusing in low light(as Steve already said)

So while DOF may be an issue for wildlife, there's no point in having good DOF if you need to shoot at over extended ISO levels and risk detail loss of the very details you're trying to capture!

as an example, an f/2.8 lens allows the use of ISO25600 for a given shutter speed with a decent exposure level. At f/5.6 you're not shooting at ISO104K!
Obviously you want the DOF, but are you willing to risk the IQ degradation at ISO104K?

You could compromise at shoot at ISO52K and f/4 .. bit more DOF, one more step up in IQ degradation rather than two steps for each setting!

This is the concept behind the 400/2.8 lens .. especially as a professional photographer. It makes no difference if you're a sports shooter or wildlife specialist or whatever .. the pro(which is where this A9 is aimed towards!! .. and the whole point of this discussion!) NEEDS options.
An aperture limited lens only allows limitations.
Of course, as a professional photographer, she will have both lens types(if that's her need!). She may need the 400/2.8 for some events, but for other occasions she may deem that the 400/5.6 is more than enough, and space/weight limitations are the priority instead.
Again, it comes down to the choices offered. CaNikon do, Sony(for now) don't. This is why I reckon the 300/2.8 would have been a better lens for Sony to have brought to market rather than the 100-400 lens.

Remember what the thread is discussing here!
It's one thing to discuss the merits or otherwise or a particular lens/type, but this thread is discussing the Sony A9, it's expected capability, intended market and how it all ties into a tool ecosystem for that intended market.

It's logical to assume here that people will buy this camera when it's out. Who these people are will vary. The reasons why they want it will also be appropriately variable too. Some will want to shoot birds for their pleasure, others will want it for more business like purposes. That 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 may very well turn out to sell in equal numbers and at the same rate!
But one thing that will almost certainly be expected once all the hype has settled is that those CaNikon using pros with 400/2.8 mounted at many professional events most likely wont figure in those A9 sales numbers.

[MissionMan]

I may be wrong here, as I'm not into sports or wildlife myself either, but my understanding of the whole value of the 400/2.8 was:

1/. IQ first and foremost. These lenses generally tend to be the best performers in terms of absolute sharpness, and sharpness across the entire frame(for CaNikon who are well known for those lens types).
1b/. shutter speed.
Shutter speed could be more important, but when you think about it logically, IQ would be more important for the sole purpose of allowing the flexibility to crop the image to a 100% pixel zoom level and still achieve a clear and detailed image.

2/. brighter view through the viewfinder.
Faster aperture doesn't HAVE to be use all the time, but the beneficial aside from having a faster aperture is a brighter view(if the appropriate focusing matte is used too tho!)
For a camera with EVF only, this is probably more important than on a DSLR. The DSLRs focusing matte needs to be of an appropriate type for the faster aperture lens to make a difference(consumer level cameras all tend to use f/5.6 level focusing mattes!!).
But for an EVF, the faster the aperture, the less grainy the view of it in dim light.
** One of my pet hates about EVFs in low light. I suppose it allows you to 'see something', but IMO, I prefer to see 'the nothing' that a SLR displays !! .. when it comes to viewing an ISO limited LCD!

3/. more stable/able focusing in low light(as Steve already said)

So while DOF may be an issue for wildlife, there's no point in having good DOF if you need to shoot at over extended ISO levels and risk detail loss of the very details you're trying to capture!

as an example, an f/2.8 lens allows the use of ISO25600 for a given shutter speed with a decent exposure level. At f/5.6 you're not shooting at ISO104K!
Obviously you want the DOF, but are you willing to risk the IQ degradation at ISO104K?

You could compromise at shoot at ISO52K and f/4 .. bit more DOF, one more step up in IQ degradation rather than two steps for each setting!

This is the concept behind the 400/2.8 lens .. especially as a professional photographer. It makes no difference if you're a sports shooter or wildlife specialist or whatever .. the pro(which is where this A9 is aimed towards!! .. and the whole point of this discussion!) NEEDS options.
An aperture limited lens only allows limitations.
Of course, as a professional photographer, she will have both lens types(if that's her need!). She may need the 400/2.8 for some events, but for other occasions she may deem that the 400/5.6 is more than enough, and space/weight limitations are the priority instead.
Again, it comes down to the choices offered. CaNikon do, Sony(for now) don't. This is why I reckon the 300/2.8 would have been a better lens for Sony to have brought to market rather than the 100-400 lens.

Remember what the thread is discussing here!
It's one thing to discuss the merits or otherwise or a particular lens/type, but this thread is discussing the Sony A9, it's expected capability, intended market and how it all ties into a tool ecosystem for that intended market.

It's logical to assume here that people will buy this camera when it's out. Who these people are will vary. The reasons why they want it will also be appropriately variable too. Some will want to shoot birds for their pleasure, others will want it for more business like purposes. That 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 may very well turn out to sell in equal numbers and at the same rate!
But one thing that will almost certainly be expected once all the hype has settled is that those CaNikon using pros with 400/2.8 mounted at many professional events most likely wont figure in those A9 sales numbers.

which is exactly why I think we'll see a 300 and 400 f2.8 in the next 6 months

[Steve Axford]

I may be wrong here, as I'm not into sports or wildlife myself either, but my understanding of the whole value of the 400/2.8 was:

1/. IQ first and foremost. These lenses generally tend to be the best performers in terms of absolute sharpness, and sharpness across the entire frame(for CaNikon who are well known for those lens types).
1b/. shutter speed.
Shutter speed could be more important, but when you think about it logically, IQ would be more important for the sole purpose of allowing the flexibility to crop the image to a 100% pixel zoom level and still achieve a clear and detailed image.

2/. brighter view through the viewfinder.
Faster aperture doesn't HAVE to be use all the time, but the beneficial aside from having a faster aperture is a brighter view(if the appropriate focusing matte is used too tho!)
For a camera with EVF only, this is probably more important than on a DSLR. The DSLRs focusing matte needs to be of an appropriate type for the faster aperture lens to make a difference(consumer level cameras all tend to use f/5.6 level focusing mattes!!).
But for an EVF, the faster the aperture, the less grainy the view of it in dim light.
** One of my pet hates about EVFs in low light. I suppose it allows you to 'see something', but IMO, I prefer to see 'the nothing' that a SLR displays !! .. when it comes to viewing an ISO limited LCD!

3/. more stable/able focusing in low light(as Steve already said)

So while DOF may be an issue for wildlife, there's no point in having good DOF if you need to shoot at over extended ISO levels and risk detail loss of the very details you're trying to capture!

as an example, an f/2.8 lens allows the use of ISO25600 for a given shutter speed with a decent exposure level. At f/5.6 you're not shooting at ISO104K!
Obviously you want the DOF, but are you willing to risk the IQ degradation at ISO104K?

You could compromise at shoot at ISO52K and f/4 .. bit more DOF, one more step up in IQ degradation rather than two steps for each setting!

This is the concept behind the 400/2.8 lens .. especially as a professional photographer. It makes no difference if you're a sports shooter or wildlife specialist or whatever .. the pro(which is where this A9 is aimed towards!! .. and the whole point of this discussion!) NEEDS options.
An aperture limited lens only allows limitations.
Of course, as a professional photographer, she will have both lens types(if that's her need!). She may need the 400/2.8 for some events, but for other occasions she may deem that the 400/5.6 is more than enough, and space/weight limitations are the priority instead.
Again, it comes down to the choices offered. CaNikon do, Sony(for now) don't. This is why I reckon the 300/2.8 would have been a better lens for Sony to have brought to market rather than the 100-400 lens.

Remember what the thread is discussing here!
It's one thing to discuss the merits or otherwise or a particular lens/type, but this thread is discussing the Sony A9, it's expected capability, intended market and how it all ties into a tool ecosystem for that intended market.

It's logical to assume here that people will buy this camera when it's out. Who these people are will vary. The reasons why they want it will also be appropriately variable too. Some will want to shoot birds for their pleasure, others will want it for more business like purposes. That 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 may very well turn out to sell in equal numbers and at the same rate!
But one thing that will almost certainly be expected once all the hype has settled is that those CaNikon using pros with 400/2.8 mounted at many professional events most likely wont figure in those A9 sales numbers.

1. My experience with the Sony lenses is that IQ is not an issue. As I don't have the lens I can't be sure, but I expect that the intent is that it will have very good IQ.
1b. Shutter speed. Also depends on ISO, so if the Sony has better noise reduction, then ...

2. I don't think your pet hates are relevant. Most reviewers (and myself) think that being able to see a good image is far more important than having a great image that you can't see. I have got used to the EVF and I find it to more more than adequate, particularly in low light where it is demonstratively better than optical.

3. I don't know how good the A9 focussing is yet, but it is claimed to be superiory to the DSLRs. If that proves to be correct, then that is where the Sony will gain new fans, in this case sports photographers.

I agree that there are going to be cases where the light is terrible and you need f2.8, but most sporting events aren't like that.

As for the general question of whether sports photographers will see the A9 as being something that they need. Time will tell, but I suspect that some will change. The focusing will be the key and if the focusing is as good as it seems to be, that will be enough to persuade some photographers.
I don't know how many pro sports shooters also take video, but if they do it becomes a no brainer. If you have ever shot video on a DSLR you will know that trying to follow a sports person with a screen is almost impossible. But with an EVF it is realistic. Add the other video features and you really do have a winner.

I do suspect that sports photographers are like the rest of us in that they don't want to change unless there is a compelling reason, but given what Sony are doing, I think they will start to change. Maybe it will wait until Sony release a long f2.8, but maybe it will be sooner. We should pick a big sporting event next year and survey the photographers.