Bryan Stephens
Workshop Member
According to the rumor, the price point wont even be close to the top end Nikon or Canon camera price poiints which are just shy of $7,000. The A9 is rumored to be around $3,000.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
A9: coming soon to you ...
- Thread starter Knorp
- Start date
Bryan Stephens
Workshop Member
Geez. Imagine how I feel with all the money in former Nikon and now Canon gear for my sports photography which is just a hobby to me. I only wish I could get paid.
Quentin_Bargate
Well-known member
To the contrary, its the only valid point of comparison, but it actually favours digital.
Let me explain.
I'm pro digital, but born out of a pre-digital age. My first "serious" digital camera was a Fuji S1, featuring a mighty 3.4mp sensor with jpeg only output, no RAW. Since then, I have owned or used more digital cameras than you can shake a stick at, as well film cameras from Zenith, Nikon, Bronica, Rollei, Mamiya, Canon and Contax, LF cameras up to 8x10'', scanned film using flatbeds, a Howtel drum scanner (think its still out in the barn somewhere....) Imacon and Nikon CCD scanners, I conclude we have never had it so good! We are spoilt for choice, the old limitations blown away. I do not miss the hassle and limitations of the darkroom, or the cost of film or of labs developing Vevia, Provia or whatever.
It's largely all gone. And good riddance.
So while I would like the major players like Sony to inject more soul in to their products, by making them more appealing to discerning photographers, i.e. like the great contributors to these forums, frankly if they just carry on as they are, that will do. There are quirky guys around - Sigma with their DP series of foveon based cameras for example, or Leica with its retro appeal. I use the former and appreciate and may use the latter.
That's not the point, really.
The complaints are that Sony (and others) surrender to consumerism by releasing marginal updates every year, not like the "old days" when a camera model wouldn't be replaced for several years.
Consumerism for "serious" cameras in now a factor, simply because there are a lot more consumers for these products. The camera buyer is a "victim" of their camera's own success.
The complaints are that Sony (and others) surrender to consumerism by releasing marginal updates every year, not like the "old days" when a camera model wouldn't be replaced for several years.
Consumerism for "serious" cameras in now a factor, simply because there are a lot more consumers for these products. The camera buyer is a "victim" of their camera's own success.
Bryan Stephens
Workshop Member
Well if the rumors are indeed true, then this release is hardly what I would consider a marginal update over their current line of cameras, as it at least appears as though they are combining the efforts on their recent additions into one camera, and increasing the mp count as well.
biglouis
Well-known member
The strange thing is that I owned and used a Leica M8 for over four years and sold it for half of what I paid for.
Since I sold that camera about two years ago I have acquired two Sigmas, a Ricoh, a RX1, an A7 and and A7r.
Maybe there is lesson in there somewhere.
LouisB
Since I sold that camera about two years ago I have acquired two Sigmas, a Ricoh, a RX1, an A7 and and A7r.
Maybe there is lesson in there somewhere.
LouisB
4season
Well-known member
What is "soul"?
To me, the A7 is a bit like a Honda automobile: You expect it to simply work without fuss right down to the smallest detail. Nothing in it's operation is different simply for the sake of being different. No one is going to write a cringe-inducing essay on "The Tao of A7"; it's just a picture-taking tool.
As for new models, Sony will survive just fine if I don't buy every incremental upgrade they offer.
V
Vivek
Guest
Bottom feeders would rejoice!
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I doubt that Sony will make a camera which is comparable to the D4s. That's a special camera particularly suited for sports and action photographers. The relevant comparison would be the D810, which costs around $3,000.
If frequent upgrades have any merit at all, the A9 should sail large circles around the Canons. The 5D III and the 1Dx are antiques compared to any Sony, being around three years old. Oh, the horror :shocked: :facesmack:
If photographers are willing to pay more for an old A900 than for an almost new A7, does that mean that the A900 is a better camera or that photographers are stupid?
Edit:
I found the answer to the question myself. Even the ancient (more than 6 years old) Canon 5D II sells for more than the Sony A7. Photographers must indeed be stupid and unable to understand that salvation is available from Sony already. Sony should sell these cameras on a subscription basis. "Deposit $20,000 with Sony and receive a brand new Sony A-Something each year for ten years and the 11th camera for free. New user interface guaranteed with each new model!"
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
:ROTFL:
Tim
Active member
I can't answer if they are stupud, I am, but I suspect they want the flappy mirror/OVF or the AF speed of the A900.If photographers are willing to pay more for an old A900 than for an almost new A7, does that mean that the A900 is a better camera or that photographers are stupid?
Me, I'm happy with mirrorless and I never understood why some mirrorless were so expensive. Surely that flappy mirror thing and all its sundry parts must be expensive to make, so it makes sense (to me) that the A7 is worth less (not worthless). But then I rejoice in that, as my funds are limited.
I see the A9 as part of the A series family. Now if the A9 has NO IBS, then there will be all sorts of too-ing and fro-ing with those who end up with both.
V
Vivek
Guest
Neither! Totally confused! :ROTFL:If photographers are willing to pay more for an old A900 than for an almost new A7, does that mean that the A900 is a better camera or that photographers are stupid?
You considered buying the A7 (a "walkman" according to you in another post) while declaring the A900 as the best ever from Sony all the while buying the dino cam D810. :ROTFL:
mjm6
Member
K64 lasted only 35 years I believe. There is no Kodachrome film that made it from the beginning to the end, so this isn't really a fair comparison.
I loved K64... really liked K200 for it's grain, and K25 was very nice indeed. K64 was fantastic in 12 format, and I never got a chance to shoot any 4x5 with it, but the samples I've seen are fantastic.
I'm looking forward to the new camera to finish out my kit for a good long time I hope.
---Michael
I loved K64... really liked K200 for it's grain, and K25 was very nice indeed. K64 was fantastic in 12 format, and I never got a chance to shoot any 4x5 with it, but the samples I've seen are fantastic.
I'm looking forward to the new camera to finish out my kit for a good long time I hope.
---Michael
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Kodachrome was introduced in 1935 and discontinued in 2009. Processing stopped in 2010. Yes, there was extensive product development, but there has been full compatibility all the way. A 2009 roll could still be used in a 1935 camera. The 135 film was introduced by Kodak in 1934 and is still in production.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Yes, my Nikkor lenses won't fit on the A900, and even DSLR cameras have developed. As good as the A900 is, the D810 is a vastly better camera. Ironically, I find the last years' development within the field of DSLR cameras at least as innovative as that for the mirrorless competitors, and often following a more useful path.
The Walkman would be for my OM Zuiko lenses. Full frame mirrorless cameras are great for ancient lenses.
V
Vivek
Guest
The good old days.. rank amateur stuff will be golden nowadays in some quarters..
(Notice the real photographic water!
)
V
Vivek
Guest
Leitax offer mounts and even service to remount your OM lenses for Nikon F. I am sure they will be much better on your D810 than the ancient Nikkors you have.
mjm6
Member
Not correct. Kodachrome went through several changes in process along the way, from the original, to K-11, K-12, and finally K-14 at the end. The films were not cross compatible in the developing process.
The fact that you can put them all in a 35mm camera is comparable to the fact that I can still purchase memory cards for digital cameras that I purchased in the early 2000's.
I just looked it up, because I wasn't sure how long CF cards have been made... SanDisk introduced the first CF cards in 1994, so we are at 20 years and counting.
Do you think that the image quality of these new cameras has not improved in the past few product cycles? If not, then don't purchase a new one. If you feel they have improved, then you can buy a new one to take advantage of the improvements if you'd like.
This improvement is happening so much faster with digital than it did with film (in a long term perspective). I fail to see why anyone would bemoan the improvements, as there is always the opt-out option.
Go back to film for a while. It'll make you appreciate what these newfangled digital cameras are capable of delivering. These cameras are not really any different than computers anymore, and they are always going to have rapid product cycles compared to the mechanical cameras of the past.
Doesn't mean I don't like the old cameras, but I believe the modern ones make a better photographic tool for many purposes.
---Michael
