Sony a 9

[Jorge Arguello]

Hi,

The Sony a 9 will be here soon (May 2017).

https://youtu.be/HF2GOmsOr40

Some camera specification in this link.
https://youtu.be/6Q-nzcf8Pkw

[bitsnpieces]

I just saw it not long ago - super awesome. Just wish I had the money for one. :(

Just a quick list of specs:

Full frame
24MP
4K/30fps
20fps RAW with autofocus
~240 RAW/~360 JPEG buffer
2 memory card slots
Bigger battery (approx. twice the battery life of current models)
~93% screen coverage for autofocus (can't remember how many points)
Touchscreen + joystick
Australian price is probably close to the $6000 mark (this is just my guess)
5 axis IBIS

It's a huge improvement over previous models, but they have marketed it towards sport photographers. Nevertheless, I'm sure many other type of photographers can benefit from this also.

[MissionMan]

I just saw it not long ago - super awesome. Just wish I had the money for one. :(

Just a quick list of specs:

Full frame
24MP
4K/30fps
20fps RAW with autofocus
~240 RAW/~360 JPEG buffer
2 memory card slots
Bigger battery (approx. twice the battery life of current models)
~93% screen coverage for autofocus (can't remember how many points)
Touchscreen + joystick
Australian price is probably close to the $6000 mark (this is just my guess)
5 axis IBIS

It's a huge improvement over previous models, but they have marketed it towards sport photographers. Nevertheless, I'm sure many other type of photographers can benefit from this also.

I think this will cause a little bit of concern for Nikon and Canon. They don't have any long lenses but if they put a couple out, Canikon may be very scared.

[arthurking83]

....
~93% screen coverage for autofocus (can't remember how many points)
....

I think close to 6 million! :p (actually more like 600-700!!) :eek:

[Jorge Arguello]

I AM ... wondering what lens sports photographers wants.
The 100-400mm lens is not bad.
http://www.photoreview.com.au/news/sony-announces-a9-camera-and-100-400mm-lens

[Hamster]

Australian price is probably close to the $6000 mark (this is just my guess)


Gizmodo had it as $7k in Aus.

[mikew09]

This raises a lot of interest for me also. Have been a Canon fanatic for the past 5 yrs and cant say I am unhappy with my current kit, however, the Sony gear seems to be going ahead in leaps an bounds and I am not on my own here when I mention that at the end of the day, a 5D3 with 70-200 2.8 bolted on can get a tad arm weary :-). But albeit, very impressive, at the price suggested I am far from selling up my much loved Canon kit to move to Sony. I just keep remembering to put my blackrapid in my bag and use a tripod on static shoots :-)

[paulheath]

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.

[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.

last time I checked mirrorless was still growing and DSLR was still declining and Sony knocked Nikon for the number two slot, even if it was only for a couple of months. That's the big impact and I think Canikon have every reason to be worried. This, if it actually works has the potential to take a lot of business. Even traditionally pro DSLR people have been impressed with the specs thus far.

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.

[bitsnpieces]

I know I haven't listed every feature of the Sony a9, but I'm sure it has weather sealing / resistance.

Yes, it may not be like other competitors, but Jason Lanier is an example of how rough he treats his Sony a7 cameras, and they still shoot just fine. Though yes, there are those who may be unlucky and don't get the same rugged quality Jason somehow gets.
I used to have an a65, that has no weather sealing or anything, but I've used it in light rain, just very light rain, no problems.

Also, yes, it may not have 'cross points', it may not be world #1 for autofocus, but it's very close. And it does focus down to -3ev. Again, not DSLR, but for a mirrorless, for Sony, that's still something.
Here's a video comparing the a9 to a DSLR - it doesn't say it but according to Sony Alpha Rumors, it's the Canon 1DXII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcIpuo_mJl8

And as mentioned, battery life is improved. Yes, no DSLR, but the a9 is a step in the right direction nonetheless.

[arthurking83]

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.



last time I checked mirrorless was still growing and DSLR was still declining and Sony knocked Nikon for the number two slot, even if it was only for a couple of months. ....

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.[/QUOTE]

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).

[Boo53]

Interesting. But I'm afraid, whilst I did have a little spanish, haven't used it for 10 years and certainly couldn't keep up with that chap :(

On waterproofness, I don't know how Canikons go but I can't really fault my A7's.

Have shot with both the A7II and A7r in heavy rain and had no problems. Even when one of Ken Duncan's minions dropped the A7r in a rock pool at Terrigal it kept working after I'd dried the card slot out with a hair drier. (no issue with the sense at all)

When it got dropped in the river at Katherine it kept working as well, and its been dropped from the roof rack of the Landcruiser on more than one occasion.

Horses for courses of course, but never entrants and mid level professionals seem to be attracted to the brand, at least

[MissionMan]

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 (tel: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]

I think the enthusiasm is valid, and this despite having no interest in Sony. I think this is the first range of mirrorless designed to compete with the high end DSLR market and I think it's a valid entry into the market. If Nikon produced this tomorrow, I think they would happy. I don't know if the AF is up to speed, I don't think anyone does, but if it's remotely close to the D5, then Canikon have a valid reason to be worried because you have a camera that shoots at 20fps with autofocus tracking and no mirror blackout. That's ground breaking no matter what way you swing it.

That said, I also think the dual sensor technology is a great innovation from Sony. We could well see this move into Nikon, Fuji etc so I think it's good for the entire market.

I think the battery concern with mirrorless is overblown to be honest. I have the XT2 which is supposed to run around the 300 frame mark with high performance mode. In reality it runs around the 450-600 mark. I've never used low performance. Did a model shoot with my battery grip (3 batteries in it - the battery grip was more for balance when I was using heavier glass), took 650 photos through the day and the first battery had only just (like 15 minutes early) gone flat when I finished up for the day. The reason is I no long chimp. I can see what the photo looks like, I can see the DOF through the EVF and I can see if the focus is there. If I'm shooting B&W I can see it in B&W. Now, if you take a photo, check it, take a photo, check it, then I have no doubt the battery life is worse, but I think mirrorless negates the requirement, and I think the way people test battery life probably doesn't consider these factors.

On the lens front, I would say the concern is no so much switchers, it's the new entries to the market. If I had a 400 f/2.8, I'd probably find it fairly hard to switch, and that's why we have seen minimal switches between Nikon and Canon to date, but if I was new to the market, I'd be hard pressed not to consider Sony as a viable option, because whilst I don't need the A9 now, I know that's what is available. The switchers are primarily entry full frame, some pro glass. In the past, that's one of the stopping points that mirrorless has had. Where do you grow to when you are a sports shooter starting out. Now, a sports shooter starting out would need to consider the A9, not because they need one now, but because that is their growth path and that has a roll on impact to the entry level of the market, just like the cancellation of the DL was a mistake for Nikon because it opens the door for Nikon users to buy X100's from Fuji would could result them moving to the system long term.

[agb]

I wonder if Sony will provide this stacked CMOS
sensor to Nikon as they have in the past or keep it to themselves?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.markgaler.com/sonys-stacked-cmos-sensors-the-dawn-of-a-fully-electronic-age

[cupic]

As stated above @ 7K plus all those G lens price would suit only pro or ppl with deep pockets

[arthurking83]

As stated above @ 7K plus all those G lens price would suit only pro or ppl with deep pockets

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.
Thom Hogans recent article about this new 'record breaking' announcement from Sony is quite amusing too.
Record breaking, not for the cameras ability ... but for the number of footnotes Sony had to include for each of those newly announced tech specs! :D

[Jorge Arguello]

Hi,

For me is pointless to guess if other photographers are going to switch to a new camera, it doesn't matter how good the camera is. I have seen some youtube videos of photographers switching to Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Canon, Olympus, etc. They are professional photographers. I liked the explanation that MissionMan (Athol), from this site, shared.

This new Sony a9 camera is amazing, more in its tiny size.

Even it is amazing, it is not the camera for me. The first reason I have to say why it is not for me, is the price. I can list other reasons, but my mind set is to "no" so other reasons might not be objective.

But you are right, it is fun trying to do predictions on what others buyers are going to buy, specially related to camera gear. "Never says never..." because once we try a9 in our hands, we might say... "I love it, and I will get one for me". Anyway, in 6 months, or 1 year, new exiting camera will be out there waking up again predictions.

[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/4934566891/sony-a9-shooting-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/5769746764/the-cost-of-switching-to-sony-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 :p

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.

[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 :confused013

- - - 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 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Indexes:New_To_Photography_Book) 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?

[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 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?145811-Three-to-end-with&p=1351318&viewfull=1#post1351318) over 12 months ago :confused013

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 :D

[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. :confused013

[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.

[arthurking83]

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 ...

(all other settings to be static) It's a 99.9% sure thing that a lens set to wide open isn't going to produce as good IQ as a lens stopped down one or two clicks! ;)



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.
Fair enough .. it was just a side note and an opinion, but the argument still holds that due to the way viewfinders work, with an EVF image brightness depends more so on maximum aperture set, than do SLRs(in std configurations).
I'm not a fan of std configs, and I prefer a faster(f/2.8 brightness) screen matte. So my fast lenses show bright images. But when I mount slower lenses(eg. f/5.6 or slower) the hit to image brightness is both magnified, and subsequently more obvious.
My pet hate(ie. opinion) was more so for the purpose of highlighting the fact that at f/5.6, the EVF needs to boost it's ISO level to compensate for the two stops of light loss through the aperture(compared to f/2.8). That means grain(my opinion centred around the graininess in these situations).


... 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.

This is what may cause a gradual evolution of change in the industry(of CaNikon don't step up to the mark). Japan already has 8K capable broadcasting ability(not used much, but a glimpse into the future).
CaNikon are both stuck in the dark ages of HD video recording. Looking into the immediate future, 4K is becoming old hat already(just as it's starting to take off! :D) and CaNikon(more so Nikon than Canon) are dragging their feet.

I reckon what will happen in pro terms in many situatons.
They'll stick with tried and tested CaNikon gear for stills, and have access to an A9 plus (say) a 100-400 for video if needed .. or something to similar effect.

ps. clarification of 4K becoming 'old hat' ... while Canon and Nikon both do 4K video, they still stuck in the lower quality modes, and low frame rates. 4K and 60fps should be the minimum feature/ability nowadays. I don't know the Canon's specs, but Nikon's D5 is stuck at 4K and 30fps(and probably a lowly bit rate at that too!).
D5's biggest issue is the recording limit tho.

If the A9 gains a foothold, it'll almost certainly be due to their video capability more than anything else.

Sony 400/2.8 is unlikely in the next 6 months, as they have nothing to base it on .. so it'll be a start from scratch endeavour.
300/2.8 would be a different mater tho. Like Swifty said, focusing mechanism would be their main engineering challenge, and big lens elements need high torque, this also implies high power usage. The A9 is already going to be battery limited due to the EVF, so to multiply this effect with a lens that strains the power system even more is their main challenge.
The question is, if the their 300/2.8 A-mount has the optics base to allow easy transference of an acceptable focusing mechanism for the A9.

400/2.8 if we see one within 2 years will be a miracle (if they haven't started the process yet). 300/2.8 if easily adaptable, in 6 months shouldn't be hard.
Next Olympics(2020) is where we will definitely see how serious Sony is about this A9 market segment .. and how long CaNikon have to up their respective antes to minimise any impact the A9 has on their turf.

Other things to note about the A9 too:
Traditionally, Nikon have a preference to use Sony sensors, so they're more than likely to be in a position soon to use a similar/same sensor .. for example in a D5s. It's the Sensor that's allowing those elevated performance abilities.
So there's no reason to eliminate the possibility of a 20fps capable D5s, with the same video features too in a year or so.
In a sense, Nikon almost has a bit of an advantage over Canon here using this historical perspective as a guide.
Canon need to start from scratch to achieve the same impact. New sensor, and all the other engineering distractions that the top end product entails.

[Steve Axford]

One of the best things about an EVF is that you can use it as night vision goggles. I can see in a dark forest at night with an EVF. I can't see anything with an optical viewfinder and precious little with my naked eyes. You really should try that, it's quite an eye opener.

I don't really disagree with most of what you say. None of us have a crystal ball, so we all watch with interest. As for the Nikon (sony) sensors, I think that Sony have taken the line that Nikon will pay a premium for the new sensors if they let Nikon have them at all. That could prove to be very difficult for Nikon if Sony want to take their market share. Time will tell and I suspect that Nikon will find a way to survive irrespective of whether Sony let them have their sensors or not. Anyway, the new sensor is designed to be an EVF sensor, so Nikon would have to change to mirrorless anyway, or keep the mirror just for the opticl viewfinder. I really do think that the A9 will be another nail in the DSLR coffin. They have been great cameras, but what's the point if the focusing is better done on sensor?

[swifty]

A few observations from looking up a lot of 400/2.8 images. It seems night sports are where the 400's are being used wide open mainly. DOF appears to be adequate but I have no idea how much they're cropping in. I guess sitting on the sidelines, you're position limited so you crop as required and the distance to where the action is may vary considerably.
But in day events, there appears to be more stopping down which of course makes sense as adequate shutter speeds are maintained even at lowish ISO settings.
For wildlife, it appears most are stopping down a stop or so from max for the smaller creatures, not sure whether for DOF or the increase in acuity but probably both. But I'm seeing many paired with TC's too so maybe 400's a bit short for birding and other small creatures?
Didn't seem to see many big game types of wildlife photography but I'd imagine shooting around dusk or dawn when the big predators hunt might see shutter speed limitations so perhaps f2.8 becomes more handy. But maybe 400 isn't quite right for big game either?

But I did read elsewhere the 400/f2.8, along with 70-200/f2.8 and 200-400/f4 are crucial pro sport lenses. So if Sony are serious about pro sports, maybe the 400/2.8 or 200-400/f4 are the tele's being worked on.

But to add a comment regarding the sensor scenario. If it is in relation to the interview with the Sony Imaging manager, then you have to understand that's exactly what it means. Sony imaging will keep sensors they develop (and pay for) for themselves. Nikon and others aren't buying from Sony imaging but from Sony semiconductor.
It is also not so clear cut which sensor patents are Sony semiconductor, which are Sony imaging, which are Nikon's, which are licenced from other third parties etc.

Either way, the A9 has a heck of a fast sensor. It appears to have some similarities to the E-M1 Mk II sensor which is also a Sony and also very fast too.
The sensor readout speed gains bodes very well for mirrorless bodies of the future.

[Steve Axford]

Interesting! This is what I would expect and leaves things open as to the uptake of the A9 for sports. I would guess that in the future the A9 will play a big part, but until then we wait and see, though perhaps some will jump sooner than others.

[MissionMan]

A few observations from looking up a lot of 400/2.8 images. It seems night sports are where the 400's are being used wide open mainly. DOF appears to be adequate but I have no idea how much they're cropping in. I guess sitting on the sidelines, you're position limited so you crop as required and the distance to where the action is may vary considerably.
But in day events, there appears to be more stopping down which of course makes sense as adequate shutter speeds are maintained even at lowish ISO settings.
For wildlife, it appears most are stopping down a stop or so from max for the smaller creatures, not sure whether for DOF or the increase in acuity but probably both. But I'm seeing many paired with TC's too so maybe 400's a bit short for birding and other small creatures?
Didn't seem to see many big game types of wildlife photography but I'd imagine shooting around dusk or dawn when the big predators hunt might see shutter speed limitations so perhaps f2.8 becomes more handy. But maybe 400 isn't quite right for big game either?

But I did read elsewhere the 400/f2.8, along with 70-200/f2.8 and 200-400/f4 are crucial pro sport lenses. So if Sony are serious about pro sports, maybe the 400/2.8 or 200-400/f4 are the tele's being worked on.

But to add a comment regarding the sensor scenario. If it is in relation to the interview with the Sony Imaging manager, then you have to understand that's exactly what it means. Sony imaging will keep sensors they develop (and pay for) for themselves. Nikon and others aren't buying from Sony imaging but from Sony semiconductor.
It is also not so clear cut which sensor patents are Sony semiconductor, which are Sony imaging, which are Nikon's, which are licenced from other third parties etc.

Either way, the A9 has a heck of a fast sensor. It appears to have some similarities to the E-M1 Mk II sensor which is also a Sony and also very fast too.
The sensor readout speed gains bodes very well for mirrorless bodies of the future.

The stopping down is probably also to do with playing within the lenses peak sharpness. At f5.6 the f2.8 would be tack sharp.

[Steve Axford]

I really doubt that, MM. A good 2.8 will be easily sharp enough at 2.8.

[MissionMan]

I really doubt that, MM. A good 2.8 will be easily sharp enough at 2.8.

Sharp enough but still not at it's sharpest. Sharpest is normally 2-4 stop lower than maximum. I.e. if you don't have to use it at f/2.8, don't because f/5.6 will be sharper

[Steve Axford]

If I buy a 400/f2.9 for $15,000 I would expect that I would never have to stop it down for sharpness. For dof yes, but not for sharpness. I have top quality lenses that are supposedly sharper at f4 or f5.6, but I can't tell the difference, even with pixel peeping.

[swifty]

The stopping down is probably also to do with playing within the lenses peak sharpness. At f5.6 the f2.8 would be tack sharp.

Yes, I would expect that but my experience with the best lenses I've got to try are that they peak much closer to wide open.
Sorry folks for continuing to deviate a bit OT but this is quite interesting. I haven't had the privilege of experiencing using one of these exotics but a quick google search reveals some pretty interesting behaviour.
Eg. According to Nassim's figures: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8e-vr/
Nikon's latest version equal peaks at f4 and f5.6. So unless you needed the extra DOF, there would be no reason to stop down past one stop.
No wonder you see so many shots at f4.
With TC 1.4 and TC 2 it's peaking around 1 stop down too whilst with the TC1.7 it peaks 2 stops down.

Whats very interesting is the Nikon 800/5,6 peaks wide open!!! What the... probably something to do with TC's and f8 focusing I'm guessing.

- - - Updated - - -


I have top quality lenses that are supposedly sharper at f4 or f5.6, but I can't tell the difference, even with pixel peeping.
You need an A9r with 100MP ;)

[Steve Axford]

That would be nice, but would make dof even more challenging. I did read something recently where a reviewer tested the peak sharpness of a variety of good lenses and found that the peak was usually f4 to f5.6. I did read that the sharpness degrades after f8 for my 21mm loxia. I can't see it, so I will sometimes use f16 with that lens. I think that measured sharpness is interesting but you need to test if it makes a noticeable difference. Often, it doesn't.

[MissionMan]

That would be nice, but would make dof even more challenging. I did read something recently where a reviewer tested the peak sharpness of a variety of good lenses and found that the peak was usually f4 to f5.6. I did read that the sharpness degrades after f8 for my 21mm loxia. I can't see it, so I will sometimes use f16 with that lens. I think that measured sharpness is interesting but you need to test if it makes a noticeable difference. Often, it doesn't.

I think the degradation levels are normally dependent on the lens quality. Sharpness wide open and degradation on a $200 lens vs a $2000 vs a $15000 lens will be vastly different, largely because the sharpness wide open on each of those will be different. The cheap lens will obviously increase substantially whilst the expensive lens is pretty sharp to start with. The lens sharpness doesn't normally degrade much beyond wide open at f/11 so the difference would be barely noriceable on a good lens.

[Steve Axford]

Most labs report that sharpness declines as you reach high fstops. Most say that f16 is too high with an A7R2 and you will get noticable degredation due to diffraction effects. They tell you f11 is the highest you should go (if you want perfect sharpness). I have tested this and I cannot tell the difference up to f16. F18, however is too far, though I use up to f22 for 4k video. You really don't want to believe all the test results without verifying it yourself.

[arthurking83]

Most labs report that sharpness declines as you reach high fstops. Most say that f16 is too high with an A7R2 and you will get noticable degradation due to diffraction effects. They tell you f11 is the highest you should go (if you want perfect sharpness). I have tested this and I cannot tell the difference up to f16. .....

On the whole, most of those types of testing results ... ie. that I've seen and verified with my own equipment .. seem to be accurate.

as an example: TDP - Canon 400 f/2.8 image quality comparison at f/4 vs f/11 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=741&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5)

The above link should(hopefully) take you to the The Digital Picture website to compare the differences in IQ at f/4(about max IQ) and f/11(where IQ is visibly degraded) for the Canon 400/2.8 IS II lens.
Hove the mouse over the image to show the same resolution chart at f/11, then mouse off to show the same image at f/4.
At f/11 there is very visible IQ degradation, and it really starts to manifest at f/8!!(where you'd expect maximum detail rendering)
Camera used is the 5Dsr, so the issue of diffraction limitation is at the top end of the spectrum.

For the vast majority of the lenses I have, I've read the test results, and pretty much experience the same results.

What's more important tho is what is the desired result you're after. More DOF in a single shot(I'm not overly keen on focus stacking) or maximum detail rendering for an isolated area of the subject.

But on this topic, the single most important element in the entire equation is reproduction ratio(or viewing size).
The reproduction ratio you intend to view the image with determines how much IQ loss you can bear to see.
If you view the image zoomed in at 100% pixel level, then diffraction effects are more noticeable, then say if you view the image as a whole, where the pixel zoom level is going to be more like 20%.

To see the difference of how this works, use Cntrl - in your browser to zoom that webpage out(to say 25% .. Cntrl - three times) and the effect of diffraction, whilst still there, doesn't look as bad as it did at 100% view.

video, even at 4K is pretty low res stuff(at these sensor sizes), and the issue of diffraction limitation is all about resolution.
So while 4K is renown for being 'hi resolution' .. this is a relative term, and only with respect to past video specification.

[Steve Axford]

What a cool site. Pity it doesn't do Sony gear.
I would suggest that you have used the wrong camera. If you change the input to Canon 1DS MkIII (instead of the Canon 5Ds R), then I can't see any change. Canon do not sell the 5Ds R as a wildlife or sports camera and the 400/f2.8 II isn't designed for that camera.
Unfortunately that site doesn't have any Sony lenses or cameras, so we can't see what they would get for those. All I can say is that I have tested my Sony 90mm G OSS macro lens and the Zeiss 21mm loxia, and I can see only the slightest of differences. But, both lenses are the best I have ever used in their class.

Of course 4k video is low res compared to an 8k still frame. That was my point when I said I could use a higher fstop..

[Lance B]

last time I checked mirrorless was still growing and DSLR was still declining and Sony knocked Nikon for the number two slot, even if it was only for a couple of months. That's the big impact and I think Canikon have every reason to be worried. This, if it actually works has the potential to take a lot of business. Even traditionally pro DSLR people have been impressed with the specs thus far.

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.

Actually, mirrorless has flatlined for the last 3 years:

http://promuser.com/markets/dslr-vs-mirrorless-csc-sales-and-market-share-report

Nikon and Canon need not be concerned.

- - - Updated - - -


Sharp enough but still not at it's sharpest. Sharpest is normally 2-4 stop lower than maximum. I.e. if you don't have to use it at f/2.8, don't because f/5.6 will be sharper

Actually, no. My 400 f2.8E FL VR is super sharp wide open and peak sharpness is at f4, 1 stop down. I regularly shoot at f4 and will shoot wider if necessary. In fact, it is just as sharp at f2.8 as it is at f5.6:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-400mm-f-2-8e-fl-ed-vr-lens-review-26266

Over at Lenscore, the Nikon 400 f2.8E FL VR is the sharpest of all the super teles and the 6th sharpest of any of the lenses tested and 2nd of any lens for overall score. :D

http://www.lenscore.org/

f3.2:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/160928341/original.jpg

[arthurking83]

.....
I would suggest that you have used the wrong camera. If you change the input to Canon 1DS MkIII (instead of the Canon 5Ds R), then I can't see any change. Canon do not sell the 5Ds R as a wildlife or sports camera .....

Yep! totally got that, but the reason I used the higher res camera was to highlight the issue.
That's why I made the comment with regards to display purposes, ie. output size and acceptable level of IQ loss and then the point to 'zoom out'(which is akin to using a lower res sensor by way of comparison)

The effect is there; it's simply a matter of how acceptable is one aspect of performance balanced against other sets of performance targets.
ie. as you said earlier for your situation .. do you forgo ultimate sharpness over DOF ... or as in some situations I've had to deal with, chromatic aberration manifests badly on the Nikon 105VR Micro lens at approx f/5.6 - f/8 .. close to the ideal sharpness aperture too :confused:

I doubt very much that diffraction limitation is going to be an issue on the A9 tho. It is a 'low res' sensor by way of comparison to a few higher res sensors for the same format nowadays.

[Steve Axford]

Diffraction can always be an issue, it just depends on what fstop it starts to be noticeable. My macros lenses go to f24 and that is almost always a problem, though on some occasions it may be worth it. Of course, some lenses only go to f16 and then it is rarely a problem (cept for the MPE 60mm where f16 is really f64 at 5x magnification)
.

[MissionMan]

Actually, mirrorless has flatlined for the last 3 years:

http://promuser.com/markets/dslr-vs-mirrorless-csc-sales-and-market-share-report

Nikon and Canon need not be concerned.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually, no. My 400 f2.8E FL VR is super sharp wide open and peak sharpness is at f4, 1 stop down. I regularly shoot at f4 and will shoot wider if necessary. In fact, it is just as sharp at f2.8 as it is at f5.6:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-400mm-f-2-8e-fl-ed-vr-lens-review-26266

Over at Lenscore, the Nikon 400 f2.8E FL VR is the sharpest of all the super teles and the 6th sharpest of any of the lenses tested and 2nd of any lens for overall score. :D

http://www.lenscore.org/

f3.2:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/160928341/original.jpg

mirrorless has flatlined whilst their share of the market is increasing steadily. I'd say they have every reason to be concerned. They saying it will surpass 30% by the end of this year. I don't think the switchers market is that big, id say it's more entrants to the market and that's not just cameras then, it's glass as well. Even Thom Hogan who is a massive Nikon fanboy has expressed concern in this space. The challenge as you know is when people pick a system, it's incredibly difficult to get them off unless there is something missing and not that many people need or can afford a 400 f2.8. The more likely scenario is a 100-400 which most mirrorless systems have.

[Steve Axford]

I've had to deal with, chromatic aberration manifests badly on the Nikon 105VR Micro lens at approx f/5.6 - f/8 .. close to the ideal sharpness aperture too :confused:



That surprises me. Mind you, I would very rarely use my macro lens at f5.6 to f8 so I would never notice if it was less than perfect at those apertures. I would assume that the design is focused on high fstops, since it is a macro lens. Also, does this vary with the distance from the subject, ie magnification? I find it curious to see the Lenscore site rating the Nikon macro as being better than the Sony on colour and similar on chromatic aberration though less on resolution. Perhaps this highlights that you cannot just compare lenses with a standard formula. You need to take the use into account and macros generally have a very specific uses.

[arthurking83]

On a side note to the topic of the thread:

That surprises me. Mind you, I would very rarely use my macro lens at f5.6 to f8 so I would never notice if it was less than perfect at those apertures. I would assume that the design is focused on high fstops, since it is a macro lens. Also, does this vary with the distance from the subject, ie magnification? ...

As far as I've noticed, no difference with respect to magnification nor focused distance ... it's just plain annoying across the range(when it rears it ugly head).

here's a quote from Photozone on CA issues with the 105VR.


"Chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) range from 1 to almost 1.5 pixels on the image borders, slowly increasing by stopping down."

CA on their graphed chart increases as aperture is stopped down. So, like you said, being a macro lens, you'd think that it's most commonly used aperture would be macro-ish values .. f/11, or f/16(despite any diffraction effects), but CA gets worse as you stop down!

Most lens designs(if not all that I've ever seen in tests!) have a reducing CA level as aperture is closed up .. but this one works the other way around.
Strange thing about the lens tho, is that it's still a great lens. works well and all that(focus a little iffy-slow) but it renders beautifully, and while I have plans to replace it as my macro lens of choice, I still intend to keep it too.

On a more topical level:
I can't ever recall a 400/2.8 lens test where CA could be an issue in any real world sense, but CA can be a common issue with 100-400 type lenses from all manufacturers(if the photographer is pedantic about image quality).
Sure CA can be processed out more easily with software nowadays, but that's not really the 'same thing' as getting it right in camera is it? :p
In fact as I recall, Sony have a no so raw raw file, that is always preprocessed in some way by the camera, even takign into account the use of thirdparty software to process those images. Some thirdparty raw converters(eg. RawTherapee and other DCRaw based software) do ignore the Sony in camera raw processing routines tho, so you get to see the real quality ability of the lens when those types of raw converters are used!
(as I remember too tho, Olympus and Panasonic also have a similarly processed raw file going into most 'popular' raw converters .. so the issue is not unique to Sony.

[Lance B]

mirrorless has flatlined whilst their share of the market is increasing steadily. I'd say they have every reason to be concerned. They saying it will surpass 30% by the end of this year. I don't think the switchers market is that big, id say it's more entrants to the market and that's not just cameras then, it's glass as well. Even Thom Hogan who is a massive Nikon fanboy has expressed concern in this space. The challenge as you know is when people pick a system, it's incredibly difficult to get them off unless there is something missing and not that many people need or can afford a 400 f2.8. The more likely scenario is a 100-400 which most mirrorless systems have.

Flatline shows that they are not really making any inroads yet and the A9 will not change that, especially at that price point. The real problem with a DSLR is that it has come of age, matured and *most* people do not need to upgrade and hence why their sales are falling, not really so much because people are opting out of a DSLR and switching to mirrorless. Each iteration of a DSLR is usually a small leap in technology and features rather than a large leap because it is a system that has matured. The problem that the mirrorless advocates keeping missing is that mirrorless has not matured to a point of the next gen mirrorless is "just another small technology and feature upgrade" like most new iterations of DSLR's are. Mirrorless has a much larger jump in maturity to mean that most people will consider it as an alternative to a DSLR and that time has not come yet. Not only that, but the big two, Canon and Nikon still hold the huge majority of pro shooters, regardless of a few hand selected sales figures that Sony have snowed people into thinking they have garnered. Having this huge pro user base will be huge nut to crack for Sony, or anyone else for that matter, and it won't be happening any time soon. Not only that, there are some rumours of some very big technology advancements from Nikon. Regardless of what the mirrorless armchair experts like to think, you can bet your bottom dollar that Canon and Nikon have been working on mirrorless and have not entered the market because I am sure they believe, as I and many others believe, that mirrorless has not matured enough to a point of it being worthy of their respective badges. The biggest issue is that camera phones have all but killed off the P&S market and this is what has hurt *all* of the camera makers.

[MissionMan]

Flatline shows that they are not really making any inroads yet and the A9 will not change that, especially at that price point. The real problem with a DSLR is that it has come of age, matured and *most* people do not need to upgrade and hence why their sales are falling, not really so much because people are opting out of a DSLR and switching to mirrorless. Each iteration of a DSLR is usually a small leap in technology and features rather than a large leap because it is a system that has matured. The problem that the mirrorless advocates keeping missing is that mirrorless has not matured to a point of the next gen mirrorless is "just another small technology and feature upgrade" like most new iterations of DSLR's are. Mirrorless has a much larger jump in maturity to mean that most people will consider it as an alternative to a DSLR and that time has not come yet. Not only that, but the big two, Canon and Nikon still hold the huge majority of pro shooters, regardless of a few hand selected sales figures that Sony have snowed people into thinking they have garnered. Having this huge pro user base will be huge nut to crack for Sony, or anyone else for that matter, and it won't be happening any time soon. Not only that, there are some rumours of some very big technology advancements from Nikon. Regardless of what the mirrorless armchair experts like to think, you can bet your bottom dollar that Canon and Nikon have been working on mirrorless and have not entered the market because I am sure they believe, as I and many others believe, that mirrorless has not matured enough to a point of it being worthy of their respective badges. The biggest issue is that camera phones have all but killed off the P&S market and this is what has hurt *all* of the camera makers.

I'd say you are kidding yourselves if you don't think they've made any inroads. Maybe with people you know but on my side (if for people shooting 400 f/2.8's, I don't think they will for a while), but at the entry and mid tier levels, I would say they are already doing a substantial amount of damage, at least big enough for Canikon to take notice. Most of the Fuji users I know came from Canikon full frame.

[Steve Axford]

Lance, I think you state the problem with DSLRs quite well. They have matured and there are only small advances now possible, unless of course your rumour proves to be correct. Mirrorless technology (which just means non-DSLR, so everything else), hasn't got the constraints of using a mirror to split some of the functions to a difficult place. Ie focussing as a separate function to the sensor, where it logically belongs. Add to this the problem that the competition control the sensor manufacture, and Nikon do seem to have a problem. Hard to know what the future will bring, but I doubt it will be smooth sailing for Nikon.

[Lance B]

I'd say you are kidding yourselves if you don't think they've made any inroads. Maybe with people you know but on my side (if for people shooting 400 f/2.8's, I don't think they will for a while), but at the entry and mid tier levels, I would say they are already doing a substantial amount of damage, at least big enough for Canikon to take notice. Most of the Fuji users I know came from Canikon full frame.

LOL. I'm not the one kidding myself. The only one kidding themselves is anyone who thinks Canon and Nikon haven't or aren't looking seriously at mirrorless and haven't been developing it. As I said, when it is mature enough or good enough that Canon and Nikon think it worthy to put their name on one, they will introduce bodies that will put them in a strong position once again. Fuji, Sony Olympus et all are just minor players. Look, I completely understand your desire for mirrorless to be taken seriously by the "big boys" and by the pros, but it hasn't happened yet. Keep dreaming, one day they will get there and Canon and Nikon will have cameras that will lead the way once again. :D

The other thing you have to remember is that there was no way any manufacturer was going to touch Canon and Nikon with another DSLR, especially a FF DSLR. So, what do they have to do? They have to use a completely different approach to try to chip away at their unassailable market dominance. And what was their only way of doing that? By trying a different approach and that was mirrorless. It doesn't make it better, just a different approach. In fact, I really don't see why it can't cohabitate with OVF as they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Mirrorless has a more benefit with smaller sensored cameras and their tiny OVF compared to say a FF OVF. There are benefits with the tiny VF of the smaller sensored cameras, not so much with FF.

- - - Updated - - -


Lance, I think you state the problem with DSLRs quite well. They have matured and there are only small advances now possible, unless of course your rumour proves to be correct. Mirrorless technology (which just means non-DSLR, so everything else), hasn't got the constraints of using a mirror to split some of the functions to a difficult place. Ie focussing as a separate function to the sensor, where it logically belongs. Add to this the problem that the competition control the sensor manufacture, and Nikon do seem to have a problem. Hard to know what the future will bring, but I doubt it will be smooth sailing for Nikon.

Nikon does not have an issue with sensor supply. Sony manufacture sensors for anyone that gives them a design. Nikon has designed a number of sensors that Sony has manufactured for them.

[Steve Axford]

Really. Then Nikon are sitting pretty. Sony will have to make their sensors when requested and Nikon will move into mirrorless when they are good and ready.
Fortunately, reality will inevitably take over so we will just have to wait to see what will be.

[Lance B]

Really. Then Nikon are sitting pretty. Sony will have to make their sensors when requested and Nikon will move into mirrorless when they are good and ready.
Fortunately, reality will inevitably take over so we will just have to wait to see what will be.

Exactly right, Steve. Anything we say here is pure speculation and I really wonder why there are some so hell bent on predicting the demise of Nikon or Canon or both.

[Steve Axford]

I doubt that there will be any deaths in the near future, but perhaps some movements up and down. I do think that the A9 has made it clear that DSLRs no longer have a lead in any respect except maturity, and that will vanish with time. When will Canikon move? Tough call.

[bitsnpieces]

Well, there's a lot to discuss, pros and cons, various aspects of things

Here's a nice article of someone who uses the a9 professionally, and, nothing's perfect, but I reckon the a9 lives up to its expectations

https://alphauniverse.com/stories/sony-a9-goes-to-the-races/

Battery, weather resistance, autofocus, speed, etc

[MissionMan]

You were saying?

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/11/ep-175-reasons-im-leaving-nikon/

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/08/dear-nikon-advice-one-dedicated-users/

Even the Nikon guy is saying Nikon what the hell are you doing?

[arthurking83]

.....

Even the Nikon guy is saying Nikon what the hell are you doing?


How about, is there any chance, maybe, that we could see some f/1.2 autofocus primes? Canon users tease us all the time about it and it’s really embarrassing.

Hmmmm....

When the reasons for wanting a faster aperture lens become about how you look to Canon fanbois over the internet!!! ... I think you can safely assume the author is seeking attention for the benefits of furthering their business causes.

What's actually interesting about all this rubbish mirrorless vs DSLR chatter is that individually, Nikon (with their D3xxx series) and Canon(with the Rebel/1300D model) each respectively sell more of those singular models, than the mirrorless manufacturers sell of their entire product lines.

:confused:

Also! While I have to say I used to enjoy reading Nikon Guys stuff a few years ago, nowadays not so much .. but on his comments re: the f/1.2 lenses possibility I think he doesn't really understand some of the tech aspects of lenses to claim this ...


There’s this idea out there now that the F-Mount can’t support f/1.2, which is nonsense, seeing as you have manual f/1.2s out in the market right now

There's a reason that Nikon's f/1.2 lenses are manual only .. there's no room for unimportant stuff like the contact block! :lol:
Just a stupid little meaningless side issue they have to deal with.

As has already been said, I'm pretty sure that Nikon know the numbers, they generally know what customers want, and even tho they're losing sales, just like everyone else is(maybe more so) .. they still sell enough of what they currently do to warrant continuation of that lineup.
It's an impossible concept to think they have no idea that camera sales are dropping, and the latest I've read is that this slow down has actually slowed down itself, so the bottom of the trend may have passed or coming up soon.
Given that, I'm sure they'll be planning a mirrorless version of their most popular model(which is the D3xxx range)
Again, and strangely enough .. why is it that this model range(and the Canon 1300/Rebel) are still cheaper cameras to buy than most, if not all, mirrorless cameras at that same market level?
If these mirrorless cameras are supposed to be cheaper to make due to their simpler design, why hasn't it transpired that they are also ACTUALLY cheaper to buy?

I think the main point here is that the manufacturers would seem to have a pretty good grasp on the issue(s) involving camera sales. Just because the non Canikon(and Pentax) manufacturers have all turned to mirrorless that this means the everyone else HAS too as well.

Nikon knows this. A good EVF is obviously much more expensive than an OK OVF system to build.
A classic example of this is from Canon. Their 1300D sells for more than $200 less which includes a lens for the DSLR, than their cheapest mirrorless camera(body only) sells for. And that's the mirrorless model that doesn't include a viewfinder.
People want cheap. And to get a cheap camera with a decent viewfinder you need a DSLR!

note that this the the general breadth of the market .. to most of us enthusiast we only tend to see things from our enthusiast mindset(just like Nikon Guy's comments re the f/1.2 Nikon lens idea).
Yes Nikon could make an f/1.2 AF lens with contact blocks. It's going to be ridiculously expensive even by Nikon's insane pricing standards .. it'll need a complex relay system(apparently). It'll vignette badly, and corner performance may be questionable.
The main point here is that while it's possible, it's almost certainly not viable, and Nikon were famous for making possible, but not commercially viable lenses for most of their history.
Take Nikon Guy's comments about that topic with a grain of salt .. and consumerist view to a manufacturer's complex problem.
Maybe it's time he became Canon Guy, if he doesn't want to be embarrassed that Canon shooters have f/1.2 lenses and he doesn't!
Never mind that the 1/2 to 1/3 extra aperture doesn't really give you much of an observable difference .. but as long as you don't have to feel embarrassed any longer due to the people that use another brand are taunting you about your lack of options! :rolleyes:

I'm thinking that it's time to lay this silly topic to rest. You have your preferred option of gear, be happy with it.
Nikon sell more than enough of their products to maintain their market share. It'll probably drop a little every now and then, and at other times it'll probably increase again(as it has done in the past).
When the time is right for Nikon(what about Canon!!!???) they'll do a mirrorless camera as their main selling product, and the world will change ... we'll probably see an end to global warming, and solve the issues currently going on in Asia and the Middle East.

I mean .. seriously! .. just enjoy what you now have, and be glad you don't have to suffer Nikon's incompetence any longer.

As a dedicated Nikon user myself, and mind you not one to defend them either!! .. I have gripes with Nikon. And to my mind they're far more serious gripes:

1/. customer service. The saying is, the customer is always right. I'm convinced that they're losing more customers due to this one single issue than the internet is leading you to believe. (they nearly lost me too!)
2/. software(post processing)!. they used to have a good software environment. Having changed it all from very usable and mature to the equivalent of finger painting in pre school .. they either need to commit to it, or open it up to all and sundry so that the user has more control.
3/. products are generally fine. But their firmware updates regime, and software implementations in their hardware also sucks. As with image software above, either commit to it, or outsource it to more competent parties. As for firmware, a more open environment would be nice for the true geek to have access too.

Lets get this thread back on topic now ....

[Lance B]

You were saying?

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/11/ep-175-reasons-im-leaving-nikon/

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/08/dear-nikon-advice-one-dedicated-users/

Even the Nikon guy is saying Nikon what the hell are you doing?

Your wish for the demise of Nikon is noted. But it ain't happening. Move on.

- - - Updated - - -


Hmmmm....

When the reasons for wanting a faster aperture lens become about how you look to Canon fanbois over the internet!!! ... I think you can safely assume the author is seeking attention for the benefits of furthering their business causes.

What's actually interesting about all this rubbish mirrorless vs DSLR chatter is that individually, Nikon (with their D3xxx series) and Canon(with the Rebel/1300D model) each respectively sell more of those singular models, than the mirrorless manufacturers sell of their entire product lines.

:confused:

Also! While I have to say I used to enjoy reading Nikon Guys stuff a few years ago, nowadays not so much .. but on his comments re: the f/1.2 lenses possibility I think he doesn't really understand some of the tech aspects of lenses to claim this ...



There's a reason that Nikon's f/1.2 lenses are manual only .. there's no room for unimportant stuff like the contact block! :lol:
Just a stupid little meaningless side issue they have to deal with.

As has already been said, I'm pretty sure that Nikon know the numbers, they generally know what customers want, and even tho they're losing sales, just like everyone else is(maybe more so) .. they still sell enough of what they currently do to warrant continuation of that lineup.
It's an impossible concept to think they have no idea that camera sales are dropping, and the latest I've read is that this slow down has actually slowed down itself, so the bottom of the trend may have passed or coming up soon.
Given that, I'm sure they'll be planning a mirrorless version of their most popular model(which is the D3xxx range)
Again, and strangely enough .. why is it that this model range(and the Canon 1300/Rebel) are still cheaper cameras to buy than most, if not all, mirrorless cameras at that same market level?
If these mirrorless cameras are supposed to be cheaper to make due to their simpler design, why hasn't it transpired that they are also ACTUALLY cheaper to buy?

I think the main point here is that the manufacturers would seem to have a pretty good grasp on the issue(s) involving camera sales. Just because the non Canikon(and Pentax) manufacturers have all turned to mirrorless that this means the everyone else HAS too as well.

Nikon knows this. A good EVF is obviously much more expensive than an OK OVF system to build.
A classic example of this is from Canon. Their 1300D sells for more than $200 less which includes a lens for the DSLR, than their cheapest mirrorless camera(body only) sells for. And that's the mirrorless model that doesn't include a viewfinder.
People want cheap. And to get a cheap camera with a decent viewfinder you need a DSLR!

note that this the the general breadth of the market .. to most of us enthusiast we only tend to see things from our enthusiast mindset(just like Nikon Guy's comments re the f/1.2 Nikon lens idea).
Yes Nikon could make an f/1.2 AF lens with contact blocks. It's going to be ridiculously expensive even by Nikon's insane pricing standards .. it'll need a complex relay system(apparently). It'll vignette badly, and corner performance may be questionable.
The main point here is that while it's possible, it's almost certainly not viable, and Nikon were famous for making possible, but not commercially viable lenses for most of their history.
Take Nikon Guy's comments about that topic with a grain of salt .. and consumerist view to a manufacturer's complex problem.
Maybe it's time he became Canon Guy, if he doesn't want to be embarrassed that Canon shooters have f/1.2 lenses and he doesn't!
Never mind that the 1/2 to 1/3 extra aperture doesn't really give you much of an observable difference .. but as long as you don't have to feel embarrassed any longer due to the people that use another brand are taunting you about your lack of options! :rolleyes:

I'm thinking that it's time to lay this silly topic to rest. You have your preferred option of gear, be happy with it.
Nikon sell more than enough of their products to maintain their market share. It'll probably drop a little every now and then, and at other times it'll probably increase again(as it has done in the past).
When the time is right for Nikon(what about Canon!!!???) they'll do a mirrorless camera as their main selling product, and the world will change ... we'll probably see an end to global warming, and solve the issues currently going on in Asia and the Middle East.

I mean .. seriously! .. just enjoy what you now have, and be glad you don't have to suffer Nikon's incompetence any longer.

As a dedicated Nikon user myself, and mind you not one to defend them either!! .. I have gripes with Nikon. And to my mind they're far more serious gripes:

1/. customer service. The saying is, the customer is always right. I'm convinced that they're losing more customers due to this one single issue than the internet is leading you to believe. (they nearly lost me too!)
2/. software(post processing)!. they used to have a good software environment. Having changed it all from very usable and mature to the equivalent of finger painting in pre school .. they either need to commit to it, or open it up to all and sundry so that the user has more control.
3/. products are generally fine. But their firmware updates regime, and software implementations in their hardware also sucks. As with image software above, either commit to it, or outsource it to more competent parties. As for firmware, a more open environment would be nice for the true geek to have access too.

Lets get this thread back on topic now ....

Well said. I can't disagree on any of what you have said.

I am not interested in f1.2 primes either. f1.4 is more than enough, thank you.

Matt Granger used to be good, but I think he is trying to get hits on his site like Thom Hogan etc.

As you say, Nikon do know the numbers and you can bet your bottom dollar that Nikon are working on EVF and will introduce it when they see it mature enough for Nikon to believe it good enough to slap a Nikon badge on it. But it is *not* the cure all that the mirrorless fanboys make it out to be, it is just another way of accomplishing an image. The very fact that their is so much *heated* debate and the fact that DSLR's still outsell mirrorless by a huge margin just proves that OVF users are not going away any time soon. So, the mirrorless fanboys and extremists need to just chill out and accept that there are people that like OVF's over EVF's at their present state of play. These two systems can and should happily co-exist, it is not a case of one must win out over the other - that is just a silly desire and quite childish.

[MissionMan]

Hmmmm....

When the reasons for wanting a faster aperture lens become about how you look to Canon fanbois over the internet!!! ... I think you can safely assume the author is seeking attention for the benefits of furthering their business causes.

What's actually interesting about all this rubbish mirrorless vs DSLR chatter is that individually, Nikon (with their D3xxx series) and Canon(with the Rebel/1300D model) each respectively sell more of those singular models, than the mirrorless manufacturers sell of their entire product lines.

:confused:

Also! While I have to say I used to enjoy reading Nikon Guys stuff a few years ago, nowadays not so much .. but on his comments re: the f/1.2 lenses possibility I think he doesn't really understand some of the tech aspects of lenses to claim this ...



There's a reason that Nikon's f/1.2 lenses are manual only .. there's no room for unimportant stuff like the contact block! :lol:
Just a stupid little meaningless side issue they have to deal with.

As has already been said, I'm pretty sure that Nikon know the numbers, they generally know what customers want, and even tho they're losing sales, just like everyone else is(maybe more so) .. they still sell enough of what they currently do to warrant continuation of that lineup.
It's an impossible concept to think they have no idea that camera sales are dropping, and the latest I've read is that this slow down has actually slowed down itself, so the bottom of the trend may have passed or coming up soon.
Given that, I'm sure they'll be planning a mirrorless version of their most popular model(which is the D3xxx range)
Again, and strangely enough .. why is it that this model range(and the Canon 1300/Rebel) are still cheaper cameras to buy than most, if not all, mirrorless cameras at that same market level?
If these mirrorless cameras are supposed to be cheaper to make due to their simpler design, why hasn't it transpired that they are also ACTUALLY cheaper to buy?

I think the main point here is that the manufacturers would seem to have a pretty good grasp on the issue(s) involving camera sales. Just because the non Canikon(and Pentax) manufacturers have all turned to mirrorless that this means the everyone else HAS too as well.

Nikon knows this. A good EVF is obviously much more expensive than an OK OVF system to build.
A classic example of this is from Canon. Their 1300D sells for more than $200 less which includes a lens for the DSLR, than their cheapest mirrorless camera(body only) sells for. And that's the mirrorless model that doesn't include a viewfinder.
People want cheap. And to get a cheap camera with a decent viewfinder you need a DSLR!

note that this the the general breadth of the market .. to most of us enthusiast we only tend to see things from our enthusiast mindset(just like Nikon Guy's comments re the f/1.2 Nikon lens idea).
Yes Nikon could make an f/1.2 AF lens with contact blocks. It's going to be ridiculously expensive even by Nikon's insane pricing standards .. it'll need a complex relay system(apparently). It'll vignette badly, and corner performance may be questionable.
The main point here is that while it's possible, it's almost certainly not viable, and Nikon were famous for making possible, but not commercially viable lenses for most of their history.
Take Nikon Guy's comments about that topic with a grain of salt .. and consumerist view to a manufacturer's complex problem.
Maybe it's time he became Canon Guy, if he doesn't want to be embarrassed that Canon shooters have f/1.2 lenses and he doesn't!
Never mind that the 1/2 to 1/3 extra aperture doesn't really give you much of an observable difference .. but as long as you don't have to feel embarrassed any longer due to the people that use another brand are taunting you about your lack of options! :rolleyes:

I'm thinking that it's time to lay this silly topic to rest. You have your preferred option of gear, be happy with it.
Nikon sell more than enough of their products to maintain their market share. It'll probably drop a little every now and then, and at other times it'll probably increase again(as it has done in the past).
When the time is right for Nikon(what about Canon!!!???) they'll do a mirrorless camera as their main selling product, and the world will change ... we'll probably see an end to global warming, and solve the issues currently going on in Asia and the Middle East.

I mean .. seriously! .. just enjoy what you now have, and be glad you don't have to suffer Nikon's incompetence any longer.

As a dedicated Nikon user myself, and mind you not one to defend them either!! .. I have gripes with Nikon. And to my mind they're far more serious gripes:

1/. customer service. The saying is, the customer is always right. I'm convinced that they're losing more customers due to this one single issue than the internet is leading you to believe. (they nearly lost me too!)
2/. software(post processing)!. they used to have a good software environment. Having changed it all from very usable and mature to the equivalent of finger painting in pre school .. they either need to commit to it, or open it up to all and sundry so that the user has more control.
3/. products are generally fine. But their firmware updates regime, and software implementations in their hardware also sucks. As with image software above, either commit to it, or outsource it to more competent parties. As for firmware, a more open environment would be nice for the true geek to have access too.

Lets get this thread back on topic now ....

Nikon listen? You're kidding right?

How long did we wait for a D700 replacement, something we are still waiting for? They gave us every conceivable item except the D700. How long did we wait for a D300 replacement which only finally arrived now?

All this time we got a whole heap of crap no one asked for. All the photo journalists have knocked Nikon for exactly that...NOT LISTENING!

Nikon is extremely arrogant. They have this Applelike logic that they will dictate what happens. Both the articles I mentioned are exactly about that. Nikon not listening.

If they are working on mirrorless, their marketing department should be fired. If they aren't, their market research people should be fired.



Your wish for the demise of Nikon is noted. But it ain't happening. Move on.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't wish for their demise. I love Nikon gear. What I wish is that they would get off their &$#&i@^&$ asses, starting listening to customers and fix the problems they have before their demise. Unfortunately, I think their senior management needs a serious revamp to make that happen.

[arthurking83]

The thread is about Sony's A9 .. we should take any Nikon bashing comments into a new thread .. and I'm up for a bit of Nikon bashing to be honest :p

[MissionMan]

The thread is about Sony's A9 .. we should take any Nikon bashing comments into a new thread .. and I'm up for a bit of Nikon bashing to be honest :p

Let's not forget that the Nikon bashing started because people on this thread were saying the A9 couldn't live up to Nikon and Canon along with a substantial amount of bashing of a camera that no one here has actually even put their hands on.

Don't bring a DSLR to a mirrorless fight :p

[arthurking83]

Let's not forget that the Nikon bashing started because people on this thread were saying the A9 couldn't live up to Nikon and Canon along with a substantial amount of bashing of a camera that no one here has actually even put their hands on.

....

I didn't read any A9 bashing, in a real sense of the term.
Suspicion, maybe, but not so much bashing.
As I've said before, many folks made a lot of noise about that 20 frames/sec spec, but haven't read the caveats on what you have to sacrifice to achieve that frame rate!
In real terms, it's frame rate at it's best settings(ie. 120Hz viewfinder refresh rate and mechanical shutter) are only 10fps or so .. only just DSLR territory.

It's amazing buffer sounds almost too good to be true .. and it is .. if you don't mind waiting two minutes for the backed up data on the secondary memory card to finally clear .. and you can't do anything at all with the camera.
That guy at the Kentucky Derby(that David linked too) needed 6 camera bodies, where the D5 and 1Dx guys probably only needed 3! :p

like they (really)say ... don't bring a mirrorless camera to a DSLR showdown! :lol2:

[bitsnpieces]

That 6v3 argument is a little weak don't you think?

The others only had 3 because that's all they could afford, that's all :p
Where that guy forked out a little extra and got double what they got, thus more pictures, more angles, more quality photos. Even if the others spent equivalent money as the a9 guy did, they're still 2 down :p

[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 (tel: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.

[MissionMan]

I didn't read any A9 bashing, in a real sense of the term.
That guy at the Kentucky Derby(that David linked too) needed 6 camera bodies, where the D5 and 1Dx guys probably only needed 3! :p

like they (really)say ... don't bring a mirrorless camera to a DSLR showdown! :lol2:

Nope. Apparently they needed 50! Yes, 50. So it's a 50vs 6 argument.

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/06/heres-one-photographers-camera-kit-kentucky-derby/

[arthurking83]

....
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.

I think there's a big difference about claiming that "Nikon is backward, or on a path of self destruction if they don't change because they don't listen to customers" and "Sony's marketing hype numbers" as bashing.
The Nikon comments are personal, due to personal motivation .. nothing to do with overly hyped up numbers that their products claim to produce. When Nikon says the D5 can do 12fps, it doesn't mean .. maybe on every third Sunday after a new full moon, after the pink elephant has flown the coop!
Sony claim 20fps, but with major caveats!
People see 20fps and immediately assume 1DX/D5 killer. Fact is Olympus did 18fps years ago, and hasn't dented D5/1DX numbers. Nikon themselves do 60fps with the Nikon1(again with many limitations) .. and 20fps with barely any.

I think there's confusion between commentary centred around company bashing, because they don't make a product specific to one persons needs .... and commentary centred around highly suspicious marketing mumbo jumbo for a particular product!

As I've said before, I have a personal gripe against Nikon for stuffing me about with my D800(poor craftsmanship) .. and Nikon's all round lack of customer care. I have no problem with well thought out Nikon bashing.
But negative comments on Nikon re their product decisions is is misguided.
A fairly well known fact is that they still sell more DSLR products(over 3.2million/yr) than the combined efforts of ALL mirrorless manufacturers .. and there are too many comments that they need to change this! :confused013
if you were selling 3million units compared to most of your competitors 1/2 million units .. why would you change(yet!!).
In the background that manufacturer would be working on a product to combat potential sale threats(as Lance said, Nikon are almost certain to be working on a mirrorless product of some type), but when you're sales are still miles ahead of the majority .. why would you risk following them to the lowest level and handing over the major share of current sales to your major competitor!

That, to me seems like Nikon bashing! Denigration of their current policy based on personal needs, rather than current company performance.
The claim that Nikon doesn't listen to customers with respect to product types is hilarious. I agree they don't listen too or care about customers with product issues(due to bad workmanship, and other defects) .. but when the market still wants nearly 3 times as many DLSRs compared to mirrorless body types, and Nikon predominantly still makes DSLR type bodies .. how is that 'not listening' to customers?
Just because one or two individuals want or need a larger format mirrorless camera and Nikon don't make them one .. is that considered not listening to their customers?
Are you willing to pay close to a million dollars for a camera body just so that Nikon would make you and a couple of other people a specific camera to suit (respective)yourselves. Camera development isn't cheap!



Nope. Apparently they needed 50! Yes, 50. So it's a 50vs 6 argument.

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/06/heres-one-photographers-camera-kit-kentucky-derby/

What a massive over exaggeration! Talk about over hyping themselves.
I only counted 46 bodies. :p
In saying that, there does appear to be two of those KeyMission 360 devices sitting on the table too .. never seen them in real life, so can't say for sure .. but 46 real cameras and 2 instamatics ...

So it begs the question: if 46-50 camera bodies are the norm for such an event, then what were the other 40-44 camera bodies used by that 6 x A9 photographer guy? My bet is that he stuck with the tried and tested D5! :D

[MissionMan]

I think there's a big difference about claiming that "Nikon is backward, or on a path of self destruction if they don't change because they don't listen to customers" and "Sony's marketing hype numbers" as bashing.
The Nikon comments are personal, due to personal motivation .. nothing to do with overly hyped up numbers that their products claim to produce. When Nikon says the D5 can do 12fps, it doesn't mean .. maybe on every third Sunday after a new full moon, after the pink elephant has flown the coop!
Sony claim 20fps, but with major caveats!
People see 20fps and immediately assume 1DX/D5 killer. Fact is Olympus did 18fps years ago, and hasn't dented D5/1DX numbers. Nikon themselves do 60fps with the Nikon1(again with many limitations) .. and 20fps with barely any.

I think there's confusion between commentary centred around company bashing, because they don't make a product specific to one persons needs .... and commentary centred around highly suspicious marketing mumbo jumbo for a particular product!

As I've said before, I have a personal gripe against Nikon for stuffing me about with my D800(poor craftsmanship) .. and Nikon's all round lack of customer care. I have no problem with well thought out Nikon bashing.
But negative comments on Nikon re their product decisions is is misguided.
A fairly well known fact is that they still sell more DSLR products(over 3.2million/yr) than the combined efforts of ALL mirrorless manufacturers .. and there are too many comments that they need to change this! :confused013
if you were selling 3million units compared to most of your competitors 1/2 million units .. why would you change(yet!!).
In the background that manufacturer would be working on a product to combat potential sale threats(as Lance said, Nikon are almost certain to be working on a mirrorless product of some type), but when you're sales are still miles ahead of the majority .. why would you risk following them to the lowest level and handing over the major share of current sales to your major competitor!

That, to me seems like Nikon bashing! Denigration of their current policy based on personal needs, rather than current company performance.
The claim that Nikon doesn't listen to customers with respect to product types is hilarious. I agree they don't listen too or care about customers with product issues(due to bad workmanship, and other defects) .. but when the market still wants nearly 3 times as many DLSRs compared to mirrorless body types, and Nikon predominantly still makes DSLR type bodies .. how is that 'not listening' to customers?
Just because one or two individuals want or need a larger format mirrorless camera and Nikon don't make them one .. is that considered not listening to their customers?
Are you willing to pay close to a million dollars for a camera body just so that Nikon would make you and a couple of other people a specific camera to suit (respective)yourselves. Camera development isn't cheap!




What a massive over exaggeration! Talk about over hyping themselves.
I only counted 46 bodies. :p
In saying that, there does appear to be two of those KeyMission 360 devices sitting on the table too .. never seen them in real life, so can't say for sure .. but 46 real cameras and 2 instamatics ...

So it begs the question: if 46-50 camera bodies are the norm for such an event, then what were the other 40-44 camera bodies used by that 6 x A9 photographer guy? My bet is that he stuck with the tried and tested D5! :D

So the Nikon comments are due to personal motivation...they have no backing, because I'm the only person saying except, oh yeah, except maybe Thom Hogan, a long time Nikon advocate, and the Nikon Guy, and almost every other camera journalist on the planet. So, apparently we are all doing it because of personal motivation, except that personal motivation seems strange consistent amongst a large group of people.

On the numbers front, 1 in 3 cameras sold is now mirrorless and the number is increasing. That's not personal motivation, that's reality. If I had lost 30% of my market and that number was growing, I would have woken up about it a long time ago. Nikon haven't. They won't even admit there is a problem. Their solution to the mirrorless problem? produce a better DSLR. That's NOT listening. If the market wants a SUV, and you give them a minivan because you think you know best, that's not the answer, and that's certainly not listening.

[swifty]

On the numbers front, 1 in 3 cameras sold is now mirrorless and the number is increasing. That's not personal motivation, that's reality. If I had lost 30% of my market and that number was growing, I would have woken up about it a long time ago. Nikon haven't. They won't even admit there is a problem. Their solution to the mirrorless problem? produce a better DSLR. That's NOT listening. If the market wants a SUV, and you give them a minivan because you think you know best, that's not the answer, and that's certainly not listening.

Actually, their solution to mirrorless isn't to produce a better DSLR. Producing better DSLRs are for the 2/3 of the market that want better DSLRs to upgrade to. Whilst that proportion may be falling, not providing a continuity for F-mount users would be instant suicide. Nikon built their brand on the legacy of their mount.
Don't confuse that with their mirrorless solution which they've read poorly thus far with the Nikon 1. I agree they need to address mirrorless because there's a large number of photographers that want them but it's a separate issue. Ask Sony alpha users how they feel about Sony. Nikon shouldn't make the same mistake with the F-mount.

[Lance B]

Actually, their solution to mirrorless isn't to produce a better DSLR. Producing better DSLRs are for the 2/3 of the market that want better DSLRs to upgrade to. Whilst that proportion may be falling, not providing a continuity for F-mount users would be instant suicide. Nikon built their brand on the legacy of their mount.
Don't confuse that with their mirrorless solution which they've read poorly thus far with the Nikon 1. I agree they need to address mirrorless because there's a large number of photographers that want them but it's a separate issue. Ask Sony alpha users how they feel about Sony. Nikon shouldn't make the same mistake with the F-mount.

Very well put.

[MissionMan]

Very well put.

That isn't a solution to the 30%, that's a solution to the 70% which is steadily declining. You know who else did that? Kodak ring a bell? How about Nokia? And maybe blackberry? They have 5+ cameras to focus on the 70% and 0 cameras to focus on the biggest growth area. And by the time they release a camera it will be 7 generations behind everyone else who had a head start.

But hey, lets see what happens in 5 years...my guess is mirrorless will be 50%+ of the sales by then.

[Lance B]

So the Nikon comments are due to personal motivation...they have no backing, because I'm the only person saying except, oh yeah, except maybe Thom Hogan, a long time Nikon advocate, and the Nikon Guy, and almost every other camera journalist on the planet. So, apparently we are all doing it because of personal motivation, except that personal motivation seems strange consistent amongst a large group of people.

On the numbers front, 1 in 3 cameras sold is now mirrorless and the number is increasing. That's not personal motivation, that's reality. If I had lost 30% of my market and that number was growing, I would have woken up about it a long time ago. Nikon haven't. They won't even admit there is a problem. Their solution to the mirrorless problem? produce a better DSLR. That's NOT listening. If the market wants a SUV, and you give them a minivan because you think you know best, that's not the answer, and that's certainly not listening.

No, mirrorless has flatlined, it isn't increasing in sales.

http://promuser.com/markets/dslr-vs-mirrorless-csc-sales-and-market-share-report

Thom Hogan and The Camera Guy are looking for hits on their sites so, lets's not get carried away with their hype. The other thing is people tend to panic when they see falling sales, the Chicken Little effect, "The sky is falling" and things must change or we're all going to die. Being critical is the easiest thing to do and it's not as simple as thinking that going mirrorless will fix everything and sales will return to Nikon. Also, most critics keep making the same assumption that Nikon *isn't* working on mirrorless when they really have no idea what Nikon are doing behind the scenes. As I keep saying, mirrorless probably isn't mature to the point of Nikon *wanting* to put their badge on it at this moment. You keep saying, "Nikon won't even admit there is a problem", how do you know that? You have no idea what Nikon is working on yet you seem to know all the ins and outs of what Nikon is working on. You also seem to have some really good marketing information that Nikon doesn't with all their millions they spend on this research. Maybe they should just employ you and Thom Hogan? The thing to remember is, it is one thing to believe what is the right thing to do and another to have the technology that is at a level that you think it good enough for your product. The same can be said for Canon who have a history of good marketing decisions, yet no mirrorless FF camera. Mirrorless isn't the panacea for all ills that are confronting the camera business, including Canon. I'll say it *again*, part of the problem is camera phones at the lower end of the market and people are not buying P&S's and possibly even low end DSLR's. The market is shifting, photography isn't what it used to be, most younger people do not seem to be so concerned about great photography, rather getting the shot and putting it on Facebook and Twitter etc and they do this with their camera phones. These are the things killing the traditional camera business. Also, the fact that DSLR users no longer upgrade every few years because there is no real need to, DSLR's are at a point where they are mature enough that there is no enticement to upgrade, the cameras are better than most people require already. This cannot be said of mirrorless where there can be gains made as the product is not mature and upgrades *are* beneficial, therefore people see an advantage to upgrade from a previous generation of mirrorless. This is probably why mirrorless has had a constant yet ungrowing level of sales. The same thing has happened to computer sales, we used to require upgrades every few years at most as technology was rapidly growing and you needed to upgrade frequently to keep on top of it, to make sure the new programs available could be used. Now they have matured to the point where they last many, many years and many people only upgrade when they fail rather than a technology upgrade requirement. This is a similar reason why DSLR sales have been falling and why mirrorless is in it's "honeymoon" stage.

You seem to be very excited about your mirrorless camera and you seem to think that everyone else needs to be as well, but I'm sorry, it just doesn't excite me at it's present stage of technology. That may change, but at the moment it isn't for me and it is obvious that many also feel this way as mirrorless hasn't taken the sales that many of the doomsayers have predicted. It is also that you want mirrorless to be taken seriously and many have taken it seriously, but it isn't the be-all-and-end-all that you want us to believe. Another part of the equation is that Canon and Nikon basically own the FF pro/semi pro/enthusiast DSLR market and also used to own the mid level and low end DSLR market and no amount of work by Sony etc was going to break that stranglehold. So, what does Sony etc do? They *invent* another way to attack this duopoly and mirrorless was the weapon, however, the low end of the market has changed (see above paragraph). Will the FF pro/semi pro/enthusiast market change? That remains to be seen, but don't make the mistake that you know better than Nikon and/or Canon as far as marketing is concerned and also don't think that Nikon aren't working on mirrorless, because you can bet your last $ they are, it's just that mirrorless may not be where Nikon want it to be at this stage of technology. It would seem that it isn't for Canon either.

I think Arthur has also hit the nail on the head very well in his above posts.

[swifty]

That isn't a solution to the 30%, that's a solution to the 70% which is steadily declining. You know who else did that? Kodak ring a bell? How about Nokia? And maybe blackberry? They have 5+ cameras to focus on the 70% and 0 cameras to focus on the biggest growth area. And by the time they release a camera it will be 7 generations behind everyone else who had a head start.

But hey, lets see what happens in 5 years...my guess is mirrorless will be 50%+ of the sales by then.

Even if it's 50:50, Nikon still needs to cater to the 50% don't they.
Mirrorless vs DSLR isn't really digital vs film or what happened in the smartphone industry.
I'm afraid you're giving mirrorless a bit too much credit and mirrorless is not a disruptive change in tech. It's a different way of doing the same thing that slowly over time catches up to the original way then eventually may surpass it.
Nikon won't be starting from scratch as they do have some tech know how. Nikon 1's weren't technologically inferior. Nikon just bet wrong on the sensor size.
But when they relaunch their mirrorless solution they better get it right. And it's not an easy task either considering F-mount. Sony could go all in because of their DSLT market share. Again Nikon can't abandon their F-mount users. They either provide a very good transition path in F-mount or run two separate lines. Whatever it is, count on them supporting their DSLR users.

[Steve Axford]

I agree, Swifty. Nikon do have a problem in how to convert their users to mirrorless. They could retain their current mount and just make the cameras mirrorless, which would be fine for telephoto, but loses quite a bit for wide angle. Or they could change mounts - very risky, unless you can make a much better mirrorless than Sony. That is dubious since Sony control the chip design and manufacturer. I suspect they are holding off as long as they can because there is no clear path for them to take and they hope one may appear if they wait. Of course waiting will upset some customers, but the alternative is to jump - probably into the fire.

As to whether miirrorless and DSLR can coexist? I can't see this happening as development costs are too high to maintain 2 separate development streams. The winner will soon swamp the loser, just as CMOS quickly dominated CCD.

Of course Canon also have similar problems to Nikon, but Canon are much bigger and they do not rely on Sony chips. (Who does make their chips?)

[Jorge Arguello]

The market is changing, and it will be all the time.
Why other brands does not do what Sony did with a9? (or a99, remember?)
Well, maybe they don't want to follow... they still want to lead.

A9 is a new camera with nice features. Those who like it, need it, can afford it, might get it without asking permission ( from camera brand, forum, etc). If you switch or just acquired it, I doubt that saying: "Are you listening ...." will make change a company direction.

Camera gear is fantastic this days, and good photography can be achieved with good light, skills, gear... (gear in 3rd place?, Am i wrong?).

Interesting comments, thank you all for sharing your thoughts in this forum were I am sure many, like me, found it quite interesting.

[swifty]

I agree, Swifty. Nikon do have a problem in how to convert their users to mirrorless. They could retain their current mount and just make the cameras mirrorless, which would be fine for telephoto, but loses quite a bit for wide angle. Or they could change mounts - very risky, unless you can make a much better mirrorless than Sony. That is dubious since Sony control the chip design and manufacturer. I suspect they are holding off as long as they can because there is no clear path for them to take and they hope one may appear if they wait. Of course waiting will upset some customers, but the alternative is to jump - probably into the fire.
How they do it is the billion dollar question for Nikon. Although I have my opinions on what they should do, I'm just another armchair commentator.
But Sony Imaging and Sony Semiconductor are not the same thing though but I guess it might not be unreasonable to expect some favouritism from Sony Semi towards Sony Imaging.
So the sensor design thing is pretty complex. For example, Aptina were the patent holders for OSPDAF, which Nikon had licenced for their Nikon 1's. Now Aptina has been bought by Sony Semi IIRC but as far as I'm aware, OSPDAF is something that Sony semi are happy to licence to their customers. Olympus has a Sony sensor with OSPDAF for example but they previously had a Panasonic built sensor also with OSPDAF. How they differ I don't know. Are they the same IP and who owns them, I also have no idea.
But who's gonna pay off the billion dollar investment Sony Semi made for the new fab lines? I think Sony Semi's gonna be happy to work with a lot of people and Nikon is (or at least was) their biggest large-sensor customer. I doubt the relationship between Sony Semi and Nikon will suddenly change.
But sure, you won't see Sony Imaging IP's in other people's sensors. But which ones are they?



As to whether miirrorless and DSLR can coexist? I can't see this happening as development costs are too high to maintain 2 separate development streams. The winner will soon swamp the loser, just as CMOS quickly dominated CCD.

I think you're right, there will likely be a clear winner (either manufacturer side or consumer side or both) that will make the decision for everyone long term. But in the mean time, I can't see them not doing both side by side until performance reach parity.



Of course Canon also have similar problems to Nikon, but Canon are much bigger and they do not rely on Sony chips. (Who does make their chips?)
Canon are indeed doing both side by side. Maybe they are also working on mirrorless for EF mount and will start introducing it when performance reaches parity with their DSLRs whilst EF-M serves as their 'small camera system' option?
Canon are more vertically intergrated and both design and fab their own sensors. But as I understand it, fab requires very large investments hence Canon are still sticking to a relative old fab process that they invested in years ago (can't recall the numbers but it was a few hundred nm) whereas Sony has a relatively new fab as well as acquiring other fab lines such as the Toshiba one. I don't have the figures off the top of my head and it'll take some time to find the resource but it was somewhere in the high 10's. Good for large image sensors but still nowhere near state of the art. I think the CPU's are going down to 14nm processes.

[I @ M]

I'm sure that this is becoming a rerun of a thread that was started about 3 years ago.

The main crux of that thread was that DSLRs would be toppled from the market place and be made extinct by mirrorless cameras within about 3 years ------- :nod:

[Lance B]

I'm sure that this is becoming a rerun of a thread that was started about 3 years ago.

The main crux of that thread was that DSLRs would be toppled from the market place and be made extinct by mirrorless cameras within about 3 years ------- :nod:

LOL. Yes, funny that. :nod:

- - - Updated - - -


I agree, Swifty. Nikon do have a problem in how to convert their users to mirrorless. They could retain their current mount and just make the cameras mirrorless, which would be fine for telephoto, but loses quite a bit for wide angle. Or they could change mounts - very risky, unless you can make a much better mirrorless than Sony. That is dubious since Sony control the chip design and manufacturer. I suspect they are holding off as long as they can because there is no clear path for them to take and they hope one may appear if they wait. Of course waiting will upset some customers, but the alternative is to jump - probably into the fire.

As to whether miirrorless and DSLR can coexist? I can't see this happening as development costs are too high to maintain 2 separate development streams. The winner will soon swamp the loser, just as CMOS quickly dominated CCD.

Of course Canon also have similar problems to Nikon, but Canon are much bigger and they do not rely on Sony chips. (Who does make their chips?)

Nikon will have to use their F mount as there is no real advantage in using a different mount. Yes, you can make the camera thinner by about 20mm, but a Nikon mirrorless using the F mount will only be thicker by this 20mm at the lens mount, the rest of the camera can be of similar thickness and size to a current FF mirrorless. However, you still need a hand grip and it will still be the same size grip depending on how you want that part of the ergonomics to work. When you compare camera and lens together, you really do not save anything using FF mirrorless:

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

https://fstoplounge.com/2015/03/is-the-full-frame-mirrorless-system-really-smaller-and-lighter/

So, Nikon can easily have mirrorless and DSLR's co-exist in their system as can Canon. Now, the thing to take into account here is, if Nikon and Canon release successful FF mirrorless cameras, where does that leave Sony? Do not forget that Canon and Nikon already have the pro/semi pro/enthusiast legacy users, the lenses, the flash systems, the whole shebang. It may all of a sudden turns into a question, "Will Sony survive?"

[Steve Axford]

Wow! Was that intended to be a rational argument, Lance? I was just appreciating an informative discussion with Swifty, when ... how would you describe what you wrote?

I wasn't involved in any discussion 3 years ago, though I vaguely remember one that rarely involved any rational discussion. As for the claim that mirrorless has no size advantages - I agree for telephoto, but for wide angle I don't. I have a 21mm Zeiss Loxia and it is tiny, and it is the best wide angle lens I have ever owned. I understand that Zeiss do make a DSLR equivalent, the Milvus 21mm. That is a great lens - but it isn't as good as the Loxia (by most reports) and it is more expensive, weighs more than twice as much and takes bigger, more expensive filters.

[Lance B]

Wow! Was that intended to be a rational argument, Lance? I was just appreciating an informative discussion with Swifty, when ... how would you describe what you wrote?

I wasn't involved in any discussion 3 years ago, though I vaguely remember one that rarely involved any rational discussion. As for the claim that mirrorless has no size advantages - I agree for telephoto, but for wide angle I don't. I have a 21mm Zeiss Loxia and it is tiny, and it is the best wide angle lens I have ever owned. I understand that Zeiss do make a DSLR equivalent, the Milvus 21mm. That is a great lens - but it isn't as good as the Loxia (by most reports) and it is more expensive, weighs more than twice as much and takes bigger, more expensive filters.

What was irrational about it? You said that Nikon may have a problem of how to convert to mirrorless but they don't as they will use the current F Mount and I just pointed out why and why it works, why mirrorless is *not* a way to smaller cameras - one of it's supposed selling points - particularly in FF. It's a completely rational argument as is the conclusion.

Did you look at the links?

As for the 21mm Zeiss Loxia, is it really that small? The Nikon 20mm f1.8 is lighter yet not all that much bigger but it is an f1.8 compared to an f2.8. Nikon 20mm f1.8 = 82mm x 80.5mm and 355gms - Zeiss 21mm f2.8 = 62mm x 72mm and 394gms. So far, I have not seen any real evidence that lenses are any smaller on mirrorless whether wide angle or telephoto. Yes, you will get some in either camp that may be a little bigger and some a little smaller as it all depends on the max aperture and what IQ quality they are going for.

[Steve Axford]

Are you suggesting that the flange focal distance of 46.5mm on the Nikon F-mount vs 26mm on the Sony E-mount makes no difference to wide angle lens size?

[Lance B]

Are you suggesting that the flange focal distance of 46.5mm on the Nikon F-mount vs 26mm on the Sony E-mount makes no difference to wide angle lens size?

Not as much as people think. Canon have a pancake 40mm f2.8 lens that is tiny, although not really wide angle, but my point is that the idea that mirrorless cameras make the whole mirrorless package smaller is just a fallacy. The differences are minimal at best as shown by the link, and my example, and even when you consider that some mirrorless lenses may be smaller, but generally not by much even if they are, does that then become the whole decision making process by which the purchaser decides on a complete system? Or do they decide what has the most lenses available, the most cameras, the most flashes, the most comprehensive overall *system*?

As for your post #111, I was not specifically having a go at you in my post #110, Steve. I was merely pointing out that some have made some absurd predictions about Nikon's future with regards to their lack of mirrorless so far. Any camera manufacturer is at the mercy of new technology shifts and camera use trends and it is those that do not have much market penetration (Sony) are just as vulnerable as those that may not follow some new technology at first (Canon and Nikon).

[Steve Axford]

Your links are just fanboy FUD, but lets leave that.

I agree that you would not choose a system based on some size advantages alone, but thereare others too. My experience in high end IT, taught me that electronics is always preferable to mechanical (all things being equal). The electronics will drop in price as most of the cost is development. The mechanical will get more expensive as as requirements get more demanding. DSLRs have had a focusing advantage in the past, but not anymore, so there is no major technical reason for a manufacturer to stay with DSLRs (unless, or course, you personally hate EVFs). The reason Nikon and Canon stay with DSLRs seems to be twofold. First, DSLRs are mature technology and they have an extensive range of good quality gear and second, they don't have the mirrorless technology to compete effectively (yet?).

Back to the size advantages - when do you think we might see high quality 12mm lens for Sony E-mount? It should be a lot smaller and a lot cheaper than equiv DSLR lenses. Zeiss??

[swifty]

My experience in high end IT, taught me that electronics is always preferable to mechanical (all things being equal). The electronics will drop in price as most of the cost is development. The mechanical will get more expensive as as requirements get more demanding. DSLRs have had a focusing advantage in the past, but not anymore, so there is no major technical reason for a manufacturer to stay with DSLRs (unless, or course, you personally hate EVFs). The reason Nikon and Canon stay with DSLRs seems to be twofold. First, DSLRs are mature technology and they have an extensive range of good quality gear and second, they don't have the mirrorless technology to compete effectively (yet?).

I agree re: mechanical vs electronic over the long term. I think the cost of building the mirrorbox should be about as efficient as it can get for Canon and Nikon. Whereas the cost of electronics follows a predictable curve downwards. The only current issue is we're in a phase where lots of gains are still being made in electronics and hence lots of R&D dollars are being pumped in to fuel these gains. So at least currently I doubt we'll see the cost advantages but as mirrorless matures, I think it is inevitable. Which is why I think manufacturers will eventually transition to this. But I think it is important to keep in mind not all the R&D are being done by OEMs. Third parties such as Epson have developed very advanced off the shelf EVFs that any manufacturer can buy, as an example. So when the time comes, Nikon or Canon or whoever could leverage off some state of the art off the shelf parts that third parties have developed and adapt it to their own cameras without a lot of the intermediate R&D. I'd include off the shelf Sony Semiconductor sensors in this group too.
Its a question of when and how to best make some of the transitions. Do it early and you bear a lot of the R&D cost and risk. Do it too late and you risk ceding market share. In addition, you need to do it in a way that allows a transition path for your existing large user base.



Back to the size advantages - when do you think we might see high quality 12mm lens for Sony E-mount? It should be a lot smaller and a lot cheaper than equiv DSLR lenses. Zeiss??
I'm not very familiar with optics design but it should be noted, mirrorless should allow manufacturers to build lens optics into the mount. You'd just need a snoot-like rear lens cap and some physical mechanism to prevent that lens from mounting onto a regular DSLR (similar to how EF-S lenses are prevented from mounting onto FF Canon DSLRs). You'd still have to get by the throat diameter at the mount so there are some design restrictions of course.

[Lance B]

Your links are just fanboy FUD, but lets leave that.

I agree that you would not choose a system based on some size advantages alone, but thereare others too. My experience in high end IT, taught me that electronics is always preferable to mechanical (all things being equal). The electronics will drop in price as most of the cost is development. The mechanical will get more expensive as as requirements get more demanding. DSLRs have had a focusing advantage in the past, but not anymore, so there is no major technical reason for a manufacturer to stay with DSLRs (unless, or course, you personally hate EVFs). The reason Nikon and Canon stay with DSLRs seems to be twofold. First, DSLRs are mature technology and they have an extensive range of good quality gear and second, they don't have the mirrorless technology to compete effectively (yet?).

Back to the size advantages - when do you think we might see high quality 12mm lens for Sony E-mount? It should be a lot smaller and a lot cheaper than equiv DSLR lenses. Zeiss??

I do not know when there would be a 12mm E Mount for Sony.

However, the links were not to show "Fanboy FUD", but a direct size comparison in the photos, you can see for yourself.

[Steve Axford]

I say fanboy FUD partly as a stir (you seem to like emotional arguments :) ), and partly because the articles you quote say nothing about the physics and the first one starts with showing a Sony camera next to a skull. Clearly it has an agenda which has nothing to do with rational evaluation. I have a Sony/Zeiss 50mm F1.4. It is much heavier than the Canon F1.2. Does that prove the physics wrong? Of course not. It is also a much better lens, and it isn't wide angle.
I gave you one real world comparison comparing two Zeiss lenses, one designed for DSLR and the other for E-mount. Both being very similar in quality and function but are dramatically different in size. Perhaps Zeiss made a design breakthrough that enabled them to suddenly make small lenses or perhaps the advantages of only having a 26mm gap are real, at least for wide angle.

- - - Updated - - -


I agree re: mechanical vs electronic over the long term. I think the cost of building the mirrorbox should be about as efficient as it can get for Canon and Nikon. Whereas the cost of electronics follows a predictable curve downwards. The only current issue is we're in a phase where lots of gains are still being made in electronics and hence lots of R&D dollars are being pumped in to fuel these gains. So at least currently I doubt we'll see the cost advantages but as mirrorless matures, I think it is inevitable. Which is why I think manufacturers will eventually transition to this. But I think it is important to keep in mind not all the R&D are being done by OEMs. Third parties such as Epson have developed very advanced off the shelf EVFs that any manufacturer can buy, as an example. So when the time comes, Nikon or Canon or whoever could leverage off some state of the art off the shelf parts that third parties have developed and adapt it to their own cameras without a lot of the intermediate R&D. I'd include off the shelf Sony Semiconductor sensors in this group too.
Its a question of when and how to best make some of the transitions. Do it early and you bear a lot of the R&D cost and risk. Do it too late and you risk ceding market share. In addition, you need to do it in a way that allows a transition path for your existing large user base.


I'm not very familiar with optics design but it should be noted, mirrorless should allow manufacturers to build lens optics into the mount. You'd just need a snoot-like rear lens cap and some physical mechanism to prevent that lens from mounting onto a regular DSLR (similar to how EF-S lenses are prevented from mounting onto FF Canon DSLRs). You'd still have to get by the throat diameter at the mount so there are some design restrictions of course.

That all seems reasonable to me. I think we have to wait to see how things will pan out. In the meantime, Nikon clearly have a problem. How will they address it? My bet is that they will be conservative and not spend too much money or take too many risks, but I'm like the rest of us - I don't have a crystal ball.

[swifty]

Clarification to my post #108.
It appears Canon have updated to a smaller process fab.
Thom Hogan: "The old large process fab versus the new smaller process fab made a big difference in things like dynamic range performance recently. Basically any of the dual-pixel Canon sensors are made on the smaller process fab and perform better than most of the ones made on the older larger process fab"
Sorry for the misinformation.

[bitsnpieces]

Thought I'll add, for anyone concerned that Sony doesn't have enough lenses, adapted lenses for Canon seems to work very well on the a9 now

https://youtu.be/plMA52AkFh8

[arthurking83]

....In the meantime, Nikon clearly have a problem. How will they address it? My bet is that they will be conservative and not spend too much money or take too many risks, but I'm like the rest of us - I don't have a crystal ball.

(pseudo)Crystal ball gazing is fun.
I agree, and it has been commented many times across various other online sources.
Their problem is management, rather than products tho.
The product deficiencies are simple, in that the products are now quite old, whereas many products from mirrorless manufacturers are newer.
Nikon's only truly new product at the moment is the D5!!
D810 is D800 re incarnated with the addition of an electronic front curtain, sensor tweak and firmware. That's a 2012 model camera!
D750 is old, D610 is older, Df is older again .. etc, etc.

Customers simply want the new stuff, and Sony give them new stuff almost on a daily schedule! :p .. so their sales will inevitably be on the up. At what point do the Sony customers feel that the day they buy their current camera, the new model that comes the next month has a feature that they 'needed'!!
(and just to be sure I don't upset the Sony users applecart .. that is said tongue firmly in cheek!)

But since the original A7 in 2014, Sony have released 8 x A7 + the A9 now, ie. iterated every couple of months .. whereas Nikon have had the same model lineup in that FF market(D610, D750, D810 .. with the Df being even older).
So within this next 12 months, Nikon are due to release at least 3 new models, and if they produce a successor to the Df 4 new models.
This is the market where Nikon will be banking on making their profit(they've said so themselves). How well these models are received, only time will tell, and the only true indication of Nikon has a problem, will be in about 3years time if none of these new releases have any impact.

It should also be remembered that Nikon started out making 'mirrorless' cameras, and the DSLR came about as an answer to the limitations of that S series rangefinder. So Nikon don't have problems related to products, and could easily adapt either way.
I don't think getting rid of the Fmount is a truly viable option for them, unless they went with the old S-mount from a million years ago(unlikely)
Back then(in the 50's -60's) they did have Fmount to Smount options so that Fmount lens users could mount the lens to an S series camera. Many lenses were hybrid Smount converted to Fmount designs in the early years.
So in that sense they have experience with both a camera/lens mount paradigm shift, and the experience to do so.

And on the topic of short flange distance issues, back in the film days it made a bit more of a difference to the design of the lenses, so for sure 'mirrorless' camera lenses back in the day were smaller.
But until we get curved sensor designs(who knows when or if that will happen!!) those short flange distance lenses will have a much greater issue with corner shading due to the nature of the direction of the corner photosites on the sensor.
Sony is known to process their raw images with a vignetting routine, which has been referred too many times over the net.
You only see this if you use obscure thirdparty software, where Sony hasn't consulted with the company on how the raw file is manipulated in camera.

So yes .. mirrorless cameras can have smaller wideangle lenses for a given format size .. but in reality only back in the film days. But then again, NO!! .. they generally don't, due to the alignment issues for those corner pixels on the sensor.
Given curved sensors in the future .. this may change for future lens designs.


.....
As for the 21mm Zeiss Loxia, is it really that small? The Nikon 20mm f1.8 is lighter yet not all that much bigger but it is an f1.8 compared to an f2.8. Nikon 20mm f1.8 = 82mm x 80.5mm and 355gms - Zeiss 21mm f2.8 = 62mm x 72mm and 394gms. So far, I have not seen any real evidence that lenses are any smaller on mirrorless whether wide angle or telephoto.....

Take the old(but still current) Nikon 20/2.8 AF-D lens as an example: 69 x 42.5 mm and 270g. Nikon micro motors are known to weigh in at between 50-100g, so with a built in focus motor we'll say 370g.
Granted that this is an old lens, and almost certainly not going to be as sharp as the Zeiss, but I can't understand why the Zeiss is such a (comparatively) lengthy lens at 72mm, when the old Nikon can do with 42mm.
That's a substantial difference, and the major reason must surely be corner shading issues.
As the lens gets too close to the sensor/film plane, the light hitting the corners is reduced.

If you have a magnifying glass, you can easily see this effect by moving the magnifying glass to and fro .. the light circle gets smaller as you move the magnifying glass closet to an imaging surface. Use an overhead light globe and point the mag/glass so that the globe light makes a circle on your desk. Move the mag-glass towards the light/away from desk and the light circle gets larger. Move it closer to the desk and it gets smaller(and focuses more sharply).
You can't deny physics it properties.
For film, due to the nature of the way film captures light, and that there is no orientation of film grain, not a problem, so lenses could be teeny tiny.
But until curved sensors come to market, this will always be a major problem for digital.
Note too tho, that the major problem with curved sensors is that while it all works fine and dandy for wideangle corner shading, the opposite effects occurs as focal lengths get longer. So it's not just a simple matter to deal with.
Curve the sensors for wide angle, and you have a wide angle format camera .. it won't work well for longer focal lenths(where the light rays come in paralell) .. so the corner shading effect then hits the longer focal lengths instead!

So the problem isn't simply solved with a curved sensors .. it just moves the issue .. the answer is really a morphing sensors. One that can curve at the edges for wideangle .. and then straighten up for longer focal lensths. What's the chances of that happeing any time soon.

I think you're going to see larger UWA lenses for mirrorless than you imagined.
I doubt that any new 12mm UWA lens for mirrorless will be all that much smaller than the equivalent 12mm for a longer backfocus DSLR design(for any given aperture range).

Have a look at what the Voightlander 12mm f/5.6 lens does in terms of mad vignetting on a Sony A7!! ;)
And it should be noted that with a maximum f/5.6 aperture that lens should in effect produce no vignetting at all!

I think the appropriate euphemism here is: Swings and Roundabouts!

[Steve Axford]

Some do, David, some don't. Generally speaking the newer lenses work ok, but older ones may not autofocus. I use several lenses with adaptors, but I think it is better to use native lenses where possible. The Canon lenses that I use frequently are the TS/E 24mm and the MP-E 65mm. Both are very specialised lenses that are not available from anyone but Canon. Both lenses are manual focus, not that that matters, and the Metabones converter doesn't add much weight or inconvenience to either lens (they are both quite big and heavy to start with). I have successfully used the Metabones with the Canon 50mm f1.2, the Canon 100mm macro and the Canon 14mm f2.8, but it doesn't work with the 135mm f2.0 or the old 300mm f2.8. One point to note is that a 42MP sensor does require very sharp lenses. A lens like the Canon 50mm f1.2L takes beautiful pictures, but is a little soft on A7R2.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe Nikon do have a management problem, Arthur, I have no idea. I can see that they have some technical problems over the next few years and management problems could certainly exacerbate those.
I hadn't really thought about the lens size thing with edge pixel illumination. Maybe size is a bit of a non-issue. Admittedly the Loxia 21mm is my only solid example, but maybe Zeiss hit on a really good design for that lens - it happens at times. I certainly can't see curved sensors appearing soon.

[arthurking83]

..... I can see that they have some technical problems over the next few years and management problems could certainly exacerbate those.
.....

Like Lance said about any possible future (serious)mirrorless cameras and the possibility of continued use of the Fmount .. the technical side isn't a problem, but a conundrum.
Fmount is now very old, I doubt that Nikon could have foreseen the future of photography and that some folks desperately needed an f/1.2 lens so as to not feel embarrassed next to their Canon shooting counterparts!

Do they 'Canon' themselves and produce a new mount that is incompatible with the legacy mount and start all over again .. it's the same thing as their current 'leakage philosophy' .. for those than need a mirrorless, let them go to other manufacturers.
If they make a new short flange mirrorless, that require current customers to change their lenses at the same time .. there will be the same issue as currently for Sony .. limited lens range.
Adapters are a possibility, but do current customers accept that stop gap as a viable future .. and issue of wholesale changes of vast and expensive lenses continues into the future.

If they were to adopt an EVF future, I'd prefer to see a hybrid OVF/EVF .. and OVF with an optional EVF overlay .. that way(for me at least) there's the option to turn the EVF off(or occasionally use it if the need arises).

mechanics evolution doesn't neccesarily need to be expensive, and mirror mechanisms have come a long way(granted that it's been a long road) .. but electromechanical options exist(which is what they basically are now anyhow).

So I think; not so much a technical problem as a technical choice(for management).
And (as already said) the fact that they still outsell all mirrorless models combined, for now, there's no reason to change, which gives them time to assess the situation.

[Steve Axford]

Arthur, why did Sony opt for the new mount? If there was no advantage, why upset some of your users by making your current lenses obsolete? Perhaps the flange distance isn't an advantage for many lenses, but you can always increase the distance - but you can't reduce it. Perhaps there are other reasons?

I can't see hybrid EVF/OVF happening. That would be the worst of both worlds, at least as far as cost goes. One of the major issues with mirrorless has been focusing. Sony already seems to have caught up in this area and we would expect them move ahead over the next few years. Mechanical evolution is expensive and it is slow, at least compared with electronics. It is quite possible to see a camera with no moving parts in the future (?lens) which would be a lot cheaper than current cameras. Control of it could be totally remote, which, if done well, would be great. Perhaps removable lenses would be a thing of the past and the chip would be built into the lens. Is this the way mobile phones work? This won't happen quickly as many photo buffs are oldies, and oldies tend to be very conservative (vote for Trump and Brexit, watch FOX news and buy expensive cameras ;) ).

I think current sales are only an indication of future sales, not a promise. Nikon are unlikely to just collapse, but they could loose market share over the next few years. There is little indication that they will manage to hold their position, but have done very well in the last few years and a dip shouldn't be fatal. It all depends on how their management manage. You seem to have little faith in this.

[swifty]

Unless it's curve on command, curved sensors will be the domain of fixed lens cameras.
The corner deficiencies have largely been mitigated by BSI and microlens design.
But fixed lens premium cameras like the Leica Q and Sony RX series would benefit from matched lens/curved sensor designs.

[Lance B]

I say fanboy FUD partly as a stir (you seem to like emotional arguments :) ),



Well, FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt", which I see nothing of in that article, just size comparisons and they seem perfectly logical to me. As for "emotional arguments", I think I am more level headed and my arguments quite reasonable compared to those those Chicken Little's here (not you), Thom Hogan's linked article, the Camera Guys linked article, that are all running around yelling "The sky is falling" because Nikon hasn't introduced mirrorless yet.


and partly because the articles you quote say nothing about the physics and the first one starts with showing a Sony camera next to a skull. Clearly it has an agenda which has nothing to do with rational evaluation.

Doesn't seem that way to me at all. It seems quite a level headed article showing photo comparisons that are indisputable. Whether their is an agenda is irrelevant if the facts are correct, which the photo comparisons look factual.



I have a Sony/Zeiss 50mm F1.4. It is much heavier than the Canon F1.2. Does that prove the physics wrong? Of course not. It is also a much better lens, and it isn't wide angle.
I gave you one real world comparison comparing two Zeiss lenses, one designed for DSLR and the other for E-mount. Both being very similar in quality and function but are dramatically different in size. Perhaps Zeiss made a design breakthrough that enabled them to suddenly make small lenses or perhaps the advantages of only having a 26mm gap are real, at least for wide angle.

I also gave you a comparison of the Nikon and the Zeiss. The sizes aren't much different yet the Nikon is over a stop faster, f1.8 vs f2.8.

- - - Updated - - -

[Cage]

An interesting read, but I must say that I was somewhat disappointed to see the thread degenerate into a finger pointing, I said, You said, bun fight. :(

I'm sure there is a specialised niche, somewhere, for the Sony a9 in the Pro market, but as Uncle Arthur pointed out, the battery usage will deter a lot of potential users, as will the suggested RRP of $US6,999.00 or $AU9,443.05.

I can't see that niche being in the sports or wildlife genres with the FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens at $US3,999.00 or $AU5,395.45, and a maximum aperture of f5.6 at the long end. If, like most long lens, it's 'sweet spot' is a 'f' stop or two higher, then for capturing fast moving action in less than ideal light you are going to be pushing up the ISO and/or dropping the shutter speed, not the best of scenarios.

There has to be a good reason why most of the Pro shooters at sporting events use those big, white, 500mm f2.8 things.

Me, I'm stuck with Nikon. I didn't like the ISO performance on the D800 @ISO800 or higher, so moved it on, and am using a D7200 until the D810 goes into run-out mode, when I will pounce on one.

And lads, play nicely with one another when airing your differing opinions. :D

[Steve Axford]

You may have noticed that I tend not to post articles that appear to have agendas. If we drop all the FUD articles (yes I'm aware of the supposed meaning, and those articles fitted the description) we are just left with our own arguments. Lets stick to that.

I know you have compared a Nikon lens with the Zeiss, but the nikon lens is an autofocus only, superfast lens possibly designed for street photography or similar. The Zeiss is a very high quality manual lens which is probably designed more for landscape. Anyway, the Loxia is too new to have any good data and I can find nothing that mukes much sense comparing the Loxia and the Milvus, so I'm quite happy to drop it.

That probably leaves us with comparing the Sony A9 with say the Nikon D5. But isn't the thread about the A9?

Is that playing nice enough, Cage? By the way, how much does the D5 cost?
p.s. I'd check your pricing for the Sony gear. It is much to high.

[swifty]

Re: lens mount. Aren't all mounts a compromise? The F-mount certainly is. But one thing that seems clear is that the engineers are incredible in their ability to design around less than ideal circumstances.
My personal suspicion is the Sony E-mount wasn't designed for FF and the change of mount was initially intended for a smaller APS-C mirrorless system. But the Sony engineers made it work for FF, very well actually. But doesn't mean the mount isn't compromised for FF sensors and depending on the lens focal length, it still might have some advantages vs longer flange back distances.
If you look at all mirrorless systems and the initial sensor size that it was intended for, the throat diameter are all a fair bit larger than sensor diagonal, including E-mount for APS-C.
But it would seem there are some leeway for sensor size as Sony demonstrates.
A number that has been thrown around is that Nikon 1's CX mount can accommodate sensors up to 1.7X crop, so almost APS-C or APS-C if you count Sigma's old definition for their own cameras.
It can work but doesn't make it ideal. I'm sure if Nikon went this way, they would face more design challenges compared to Canon with their designed for APS-C EF-M mount but I have a lot of faith in the engineers.

[fillum]

I read that Elon Musk is looking for a way to harness the energy put into this...umm..."debate" and use it to generate electricity. Claims it could power the planet for decades....



:D

[Steve Axford]

Nah, it will never reach the fervour and genuine hatred produced by the film vs digital debate.

[ricktas]

I read that Elon Musk is looking for a way to harness the energy put into this...umm..."debate" and use it to generate electricity. Claims it could power the planet for decades....

:D

Electricity from bull ....! great idea:lol:

[Lance B]

Electricity from bull ....! great idea:lol:

Not as silly as it sounds: :D

http://bigthink.com/design-for-good/this-is-how-you-turn-cow-fart-gas-into-energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html

[Steve Axford]

I though the thread was trending back to a good discussion. It would seem that some don't want to see things go that way.

[arthurking83]

Arthur, why did Sony opt for the new mount? If there was no advantage, why upset some of your users by making your current lenses obsolete? Perhaps the flange distance isn't an advantage for many lenses, but you can always increase the distance - but you can't reduce it. Perhaps there are other reasons?....

Sony's FE mount(sticking to 135 format for a moment) wouldn't have been too difficult a question for Sony to ponder.
They bought into the Alpha mount when they acquired Minolta, who's flagging fortunes were well known.
Sony's plan was to aggressively market the Alpha mount using their brand recognition to increase market share(at a time when the market was increasing strongly year on year).
But contra to Sony's marketing plan, this situation didn't eventuate, so they had to rethink strategy . enter the E mount, and eventually the FE mount.
So for Sony to 'change' their mount system was in effect a bit of a 'no brainer' .. stuck at what appeared to be a dead end in Alpha mount terms .. and try a new (E/FE mount) track.

Hindsight shows us that this was successful for them.

Diametrically opposed situation for Nikon. They have vast numbers invested in terms of the Fmount .. now!.
Back in the 50's those numbers were obviously a lot different. If I'm not mistaken, I think I've seen that camera sales in those days number a few 10's of thousands .. as opposed to 3 million today.
Was easy for Nikon to introduce the change from Smount to Fmount, as the numbers were low, and the 'upgrade path' over a longer term for the end user.
For Nikon to 'abandon' or change their path now, is a massive gamble for them. They depend on the likes of myself (and Lance) to update every 3 or so years.
For them to change to a new (hypothetical) 'Mx-mount' .. displaces me as a sure bet upgrader.
(ps, I'm using the term Mx as a tongue in cheek possible term for any change to a new mount system if they did so for mirrorless .. Fx(135 format), Dx for APS-C, and Cx for the 1" Nikon 1 system .. Mx is just a follow on for that terminology)

A major portion of Nikon's entire income is Fmount dependent. For Sony it was a miniscule amount.

So with any change from the Fmount to a new mount system becoming a critical corporate gamble, it would seem likely, or more probable that they maintain a 'conservative' approach into the future, taking into account the stagnant nature of the camera market at the moment.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they now have to be conservative with any new camera model.
Cost's alone will determine any possible hybrid viewfinder camera. I'm sure the tech exists to make such a beast possible for the currently embarrassed and EVF hungry Hogan's and Nikon Guy's of this world.
A hybrid system would have the benefit of being more of an incremental change to what they currently do. A full mirrorless EVF only model is a full development change. Development needs to be paid back .. unit prices therefore increase .. consumers get angry!
Nikon doesn't have the luxury of a massive parent to accept any losses for the moment.
I have a theory that Sony's initial incarnation of the A7 triplets were all a loss making process(they have prior form for this .. and with good reason to do so again).
A few years back, Sony's sensor department made large profits, and was a part of the 'devices' department within Sony.
They split it up, and now the very profitable Sony Semiconductor Services(sensor manufacturing) is it's own department. And the devices department is now on it's own and without the profitable sensor division to hide their true profitability(or otherwise).
At about the same time, the A7II generation made it's way into the world, and the prices for GenII nearly doubled by comparison to the original. coincidence? Or was the development and/or manufacture of the GenII cameras really that much higher than the originals?

it seems that for Sony to gamble isn't an issue .. but for much smaller Nikon it's sure to be.
I think there are enough Nikon faithfuls out there for them to be 'conservative' with the iterations of the models that will be updated in the next 12 months.
I don't think Nikon management have full control of their faculties tho. The D7500 seems to be the wrong camera, at the most ludicrous price point. More of a backward step from the D7200 at a higher price! Too close in price to the D500, which is an order of magnitude better in almost all respects.
To me, the only issue at Nikon is the direction management is taking the company .. from being a customer oriented company, to one that is solely there to make short term profits without though to the future.

It's not usually remembered, but Nikon's one and only real 'paradigm shift' was in the late 70s, early 80's with the change from non Ai lenses to Ai lenses.
They built their name on a system of multiple interchangeability and flexibility, so to change from the numerous and historic NAi system lenses to this new Ai system was (in modern terms) like a switch from DSLR to a new mount mirrorless system.
While the mount type was the same, the NAi lenses could not be mounted to any new Ai only cameras, and Ai cameras was what they were about to embark on as a new path.
So ...
To keep customers happy (ie. focus here is on customer satisfaction!!) they had implemented a NAi to Ai conversion process for any lens that could be adapted. I can't recall now which lenses could and couldn't be adapted 'accurately' but they offered the customers of the old days, a way to continue forward with Nikon from that point onwards.
IIRC(and this is reading about the history, not first hand experience!!) the conversion service cost about $20-ish or so. The equivalent of a tank of petrol for the average large car of the day. So in todays terms .. about $100 or so.

Since about 2012(ie. D800 days) Nikon's stance on problems caused of their own making is, by default, blamed on the customer. This has continued unabated for the past 5 years.
Nikon is losing sales due to some badly managed manufacturing AND stupidly managed customer relations.
Add to this the option to try a new format type(ie. mirrorless) and you have Nikon's sales woes. Still strong enough to make them a profit, but unless management fix the real problem(or customer relations and manufacturing dunces not doing their jobs properly!!) .. whatever camera type or model they make is less of an issue.

With all of that in mind, I can't see Nikon's current and future issues as anything other than management orientated and unrelated to hardware designs/types.

ps. swifty. the issue of corner shading on ultra wide angle lenses on short back focus camera designs isn't about sensor lighting or backlighting as such. The major issue is the oblique angle that the corner light rays are coming onto the sensor plane.
The micro lenses are optimised to look directly up(ie. at 90° to the sensor plane), but the light comes in at very oblique angles from the corner of the lens.
I don't know if BSI tech odes or doesn't help .. haven't really looked into the A7II series to see how improved that Voightlander 12mm is on a Series II A7 is.
Gives me something else to read up on now I guess :D

[Steve Axford]

Fascinating, Arthur. I'm tending to the view that the E-mount is probably more versatile, but it relies on other innovations to reduce the corner light dropoff issues. Maybe those innovations will happen, maybe they won't, I guess it's not critical either way as the E-mount is certainly no worse than the FE or F mount. Your history lesson was most informative as I really know very little about 20th century photography. I only got into photography in this century and only digital. I do however understand computer technology quite well and I think there are other features of mirrorless that are more important. I keep going back to the mirror assembly itself as that is mechanical and mechanical is anathema to electronics. To keep it must introduce significant other problems, like:
Focus accuracy. If you measure your focus at a separate place from the sensor, then you will get it slightly wrong - which creates the need for calibration. This gets worse as resolution gets better.
Focus speed and sophistication. As more electronics are built into the chip, there will be an inevitable improvement of focusing speed and sophistication. It will be very hard for mirror based focusing to keep up as this type of focusing will not be used for anything else (economies of scale).
Video tracking problems. If you have ever tried to track a subject on a screen rather than through a viewfinder, you will understand that it can be a show stopper. You need an EVF for this. I know that most people here do not care about video, but video must add market share to Sony and other mirrorless vendors and it is important for a lot of film makers, including me.
Mechanical is very slow to develop and improve where electronics is fast and reduces in cost rapidly once the development is done.

I suppose you could keep the mirror just for the viewfinder and not do the focusing though that produces it's own set of problems (how do you focus when looking through the OVF?), so you do need both. I can't see that as being sustainable in the medium term, let alone the long term.

But, the rate of change of the camera market isn't all that quick, so Nikon and Canon have time to decide how to address the issues. And, as has been pointed out, they do currently have a good lead in lens range, which is worth a lot. Sony's strategy seems to be to try to take the high ground and let the sales flow down.

[Lance B]

I though the thread was trending back to a good discussion. It would seem that some don't want to see things go that way.

Wow, lighten up man. Sheesh.

[swifty]

Arthur: offset microlens was how Leica dealt with oblique angle WA lens issue. And it has been speculated BSI (which moves electronics away from the surface to behind) has also improved the capture ability of oblique rays. Possibly the photodiode wall depths are reduced as a result? But both colour shift and vignetting are said to have improved. But I'm not familiar with actual output of a BSI vs non-BSI sensors. I believe A7rII uses (the first?) FF BSI design.

[arthurking83]

True to form .. Sony has come to the party!!

New 12-24/4 and 16-35/2.8 lenses announced recently.

12-24 is of interest to me for this thread, more so than the 16-35/2.8


Are you suggesting that the flange focal distance of 46.5mm on the Nikon F-mount vs 26mm on the Sony E-mount makes no difference to wide angle lens size?

Sigma's new 12-24/4 is bigger, but not that much bigger considering the historical advantage that short back flange cameras used to have compared to their SLR contemporaries.
But Sony has saved masses of weight compared to what Sigma's lens weighs in at! less than half(1000g vs 500g!)
For Sony this makes sense, as it makes less sense to have lenses that are massively heavy mounted to bodies that are so light weight .. reduces the advantage.
So my guess is that Sony engineered a bit weight saving into their 12-24/4.
Sigma on the other hand, they have to contend with other manufacturers resistance to the product, so could in effect be forced to engineer an amount of extra quality in their optics and focusing systems rather than seek weight savings measures.

And I'm going to guesstimate that the Sony(like many Olympus and Panasonic lens/camera relationships) will greatly depend on software to produce it's best too.

On a side note: Sony's 16-35/2.8 is for all intents and purposes as big,(or should that be .. as small as) Canon's 16-35/2.8.
Sony is only 6mm shorter in length(122 vs 128mm), but the same diameter. (at 89mm each).
There is a bit of an advantage in the Sony version compared to the Canon when it comes to weight(80 odd grams)

.. but again I think this is simply due to priorities of design brief. It's either going to be the best optics or the best size weight you can achieve.
The reason I say that tho is because the Canon lens is a teeny bit larger and a teeny bit heavier, that's true only for the series III version of this lens type.
The Canon series II version is both smaller and lighter than the Sony lens.
For series III, Canon obviously intended to prioritise image quality beyond saving weight, or smaller size .. for Sony(in this first version of such a lens), obviously they also engineered weight an size as part of the same priority as IQ.
(the obvious pertinent question then follows .. will any weight saving affect durability :confused013)

So the argument that the shorter backfocus distance offers an advantage is probably true, but only to a certain degree!
Reality bites, compromises need to be made, and products just seem to get bigger and heavier!

And as I suspected to see .. DPR also has a preview of the A9's ISO invariance when the electronic shutter is used .. and as expected it's not looking particularly good in terms of dynamic range!
So that 20fps is a reality, but for simple subject shooting. Add a bit of complex high dynamic lighting situations .. or miss an exposure unwittingly and well you'd have been better off just using mechanical shutter .. oops! that means 10fps.
Add to that the fact that in Continuous drive mode, the camera only shoots in 12 bit mode, down from 14 bit mode which is only available in single drive mode :confused:
You won't get that in a fully professional camera body .. if you choose 14 bit raw mode, you get the same frame rate performance .. not some restricted anomaly!

I think the famous saying appropriate to this topic is something along the lines of .... "there's no such thing as a free lunch"

A7rII also seems to have cleaner high ISO chroma noise performance compared to the A9 too!

[Steve Axford]

True to form .. Sony has come to the party!!

New 12-24/4 and 16-35/2.8 lenses announced recently.

12-24 is of interest to me for this thread, more so than the 16-35/2.8



Sigma's new 12-24/4 is bigger, but not that much bigger considering the historical advantage that short back flange cameras used to have compared to their SLR contemporaries.
But Sony has saved masses of weight compared to what Sigma's lens weighs in at! less than half(1000g vs 500g!)
For Sony this makes sense, as it makes less sense to have lenses that are massively heavy mounted to bodies that are so light weight .. reduces the advantage.
So my guess is that Sony engineered a bit weight saving into their 12-24/4.
Sigma on the other hand, they have to contend with other manufacturers resistance to the product, so could in effect be forced to engineer an amount of extra quality in their optics and focusing systems rather than seek weight savings measures.

And I'm going to guesstimate that the Sony(like many Olympus and Panasonic lens/camera relationships) will greatly depend on software to produce it's best too.

On a side note: Sony's 16-35/2.8 is for all intents and purposes as big,(or should that be .. as small as) Canon's 16-35/2.8.
Sony is only 6mm shorter in length(122 vs 128mm), but the same diameter. (at 89mm each).
There is a bit of an advantage in the Sony version compared to the Canon when it comes to weight(80 odd grams)

.. but again I think this is simply due to priorities of design brief. It's either going to be the best optics or the best size weight you can achieve.
The reason I say that tho is because the Canon lens is a teeny bit larger and a teeny bit heavier, that's true only for the series III version of this lens type.
The Canon series II version is both smaller and lighter than the Sony lens.
For series III, Canon obviously intended to prioritise image quality beyond saving weight, or smaller size .. for Sony(in this first version of such a lens), obviously they also engineered weight an size as part of the same priority as IQ.
(the obvious pertinent question then follows .. will any weight saving affect durability :confused013)

So the argument that the shorter backfocus distance offers an advantage is probably true, but only to a certain degree!
Reality bites, compromises need to be made, and products just seem to get bigger and heavier!

It sounds like a really good lens to me. I am sure that all of these lenses must balance quality vs weight, but I suspect that the target would be to make a lens with better IQ than the DSLR lenses and to be smaller and lighter. In that objective they have an advantage in flange distance and chip design. You assume the Sigma lens will be better just because it is heavier. I doubt that, but I'm sure there'll be plenty of reviews over the next weeks and months.

[arthurking83]

.... You assume the Sigma lens will be better just because it is heavier. I doubt that, but I'm sure there'll be plenty of reviews over the next weeks and months.

Not really better because it is heavier!

Sony have the advantage in that they're designing a lens for their own system, and it's well known that they use the camera's internal software to enhance the optical performance of their lenses .. ie. things like distortion and vignetting tweaks that can't be unedited out of the image if you use mainstream software. Olympus and Panasonic do the same thing.

Sigma don't have this luxury! The need to make their lenses vignette less so by actually designing that ability into the lens, no favours from Nikon and Canon on that front for them ... so invariably the lens will have to be much larger. Larger = heavier!
Same with distortion. Sony have the luxury to compromise on raw distortion performance, use the in camera software to process that distortion out and concentrate on designing the lens smaller and maintain a high level of IQ at the corners.


The 16-35/2.8 comparison is a more pertinent indicator on the topic of lens backfocus distance .. as we do have direct like for like comparisons to work with.
And looking at the equivalent Canon lens's physical specifications, there's nothing in it .. even weight is not worthy of a mention as a difference.
That 80 gram difference is almost certainly due to the Sony's unique focusing mechanism(they have an interesting linear electronic contraption that does away with large heavy ultrasonic ring motors).

What is surprising about the 12-24(more so than the 16-35) Sony lenses is the price. That's a very good price on a new lens design with those optical specs. It's very close to the Sigma, and Sigma have three brands of cameras to market it towards(ie. higher potential volumes!)

[Steve Axford]

If you could correct any optical imperfection of a lens with software, we would all be using mobile phones. The optical performance of a Sony lens may have small imperfections corrected with software, but nothing major can be "corrected: without introducing other problems. Good luck to them if they can do it, but I suspect that mount features and chip design have far more to do with it than software. It would be interesting to see how these lenses perform across the range of A7 models.

I find the 12-24mm a little tempting because of it's weight. The whole idea of a zoom (for me) is convenience and heavy lenses are not convenient. If the 12-24mm looks like being a sufficiently high quality lens, I may be tempted to get one. The 16-35 will be a great lens, I have little doubt of that, but it is expensive and I have the Zeiss Loxia 21mm and it won't be as good as that.

As for the dynamic range of the A9. Interesting, and I would guess that DPR are right in assuming that it is a trade off for speed. Can't say it would worry me much as the ISO invariance kicks in at ISO 640. The A9 strikes me as a specialist camera that is released for bragging rights and to catch a few sports photographers so Sony appear on those Olympic games pics of lined up photographers. The chip design is very interesting though and it points towards future advancements where speed isn't so important. As has been pointed out, few of us would ever want to use 20 fps. I suspect that it won't be all that long before Sony releases a high res camera using an A9 type chip together with a good telephoto prime. Maybe I'll get one then, but probably not. Good telephoto primes cost as much as a small car. However, I could use a camera that can track a moving subject in very dim light, say a platypus at dawn in a forest. Impossible at present, but in a few years?