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!
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
So, I did a comparison. A9 against E-M1 II. Apples and oranges? Nope, they both take photos, and for those who don't need very high ISO and/or very shallow DOF, it's an interesting comparison.
Sony vs. Olympus:
- Bigger sensor, full frame vs. m4/3
- Probably better viewfinder, but the Olympus one is very good, also for bursts
- Access to some extremely good, but also extremely large and heavy lenses
Olympus vs. Sony:
- Full weather sealing, body and lenses, vs. dust and splash proof
- Fully articulated LCD vs. tiltable
- 60 fps (18 with AF-C) vs. 20
- Hi-res mode vs. no hi-res mode
- Dual IS vs. IBIS only
- Access to several long telephoto lenses up to 800mm eqv.
- Very small and lightweight high quality lenses
- USB-3 vs. USB-2
- Less than half the price
The A9 is what many Sony users have been waiting for, but apart from the excellent viewfinder, it has all been done before, although not with a full frame camera. The question then is: Why is the Sony 125% more expensive if the main difference versus the Olympus is a larger sensor and a better viewfinder? For the $2,500 price difference, one can almost buy an A7R II.
Just for the sake of clarity:
I went from a D810, a camera with one of the best sensors on the market, to the GX8 last year, and there no - zero - difference in the sales of my photos, no difference in acceptance rate with stock agencies and none who see my commercial photos notice any difference. Apart from the ergonomics that are not to my taste, the E-M1 II is a better camera than my GX8.
I don't get it. What am I missing?
Edit: And please don't take this as "he's only grumpy because he can't afford it or whatever". What makes me react somewhat negatively is the "game changer", "best thing since sliced bread", "the second coming" kind of thing. I'm sure it's a very good camera, but it isn't a game changer. Apart from the new sensor (Would that make a difference in my photos?) and the better viewfinder, both of which are evolutions rather than revolutions, it's known technology adapted to a full frame mirrorless camera. The more I read about it, particularly when I see all the "The revolutionary new sports and action cam from Sony" headlines, the more I'm left with the impression that this is 50% PR and marketing and 50% good camera. Congratulations to Sony users for another good camera. I'm sure it works fine.
Sony vs. Olympus:
- Bigger sensor, full frame vs. m4/3
- Probably better viewfinder, but the Olympus one is very good, also for bursts
- Access to some extremely good, but also extremely large and heavy lenses
Olympus vs. Sony:
- Full weather sealing, body and lenses, vs. dust and splash proof
- Fully articulated LCD vs. tiltable
- 60 fps (18 with AF-C) vs. 20
- Hi-res mode vs. no hi-res mode
- Dual IS vs. IBIS only
- Access to several long telephoto lenses up to 800mm eqv.
- Very small and lightweight high quality lenses
- USB-3 vs. USB-2
- Less than half the price
The A9 is what many Sony users have been waiting for, but apart from the excellent viewfinder, it has all been done before, although not with a full frame camera. The question then is: Why is the Sony 125% more expensive if the main difference versus the Olympus is a larger sensor and a better viewfinder? For the $2,500 price difference, one can almost buy an A7R II.
Just for the sake of clarity:
I went from a D810, a camera with one of the best sensors on the market, to the GX8 last year, and there no - zero - difference in the sales of my photos, no difference in acceptance rate with stock agencies and none who see my commercial photos notice any difference. Apart from the ergonomics that are not to my taste, the E-M1 II is a better camera than my GX8.
I don't get it. What am I missing?
Edit: And please don't take this as "he's only grumpy because he can't afford it or whatever". What makes me react somewhat negatively is the "game changer", "best thing since sliced bread", "the second coming" kind of thing. I'm sure it's a very good camera, but it isn't a game changer. Apart from the new sensor (Would that make a difference in my photos?) and the better viewfinder, both of which are evolutions rather than revolutions, it's known technology adapted to a full frame mirrorless camera. The more I read about it, particularly when I see all the "The revolutionary new sports and action cam from Sony" headlines, the more I'm left with the impression that this is 50% PR and marketing and 50% good camera. Congratulations to Sony users for another good camera. I'm sure it works fine.
Last edited:
Bugleone
Well-known member
Excellent analysis!....however there is an important difference that you did not mention;
.....There are several m4/3 cameras but Sony is the only game in town for FF so there is effectively no direct competition, apart from Leica SL(?)......By the way, the A9 launch must be good news for Leica as it will help forge an opening in the market for them, if they want it!
The price for A9 can only be justified on the back of the A7 success, as it's image is of a 'Super' & 'more powerful' A7.
Photography has always been noted for being expensive but all of these high end cameras are massively overpriced when one looks at their value for money......The A9 is apparently going to be over £4000 here in the UK where camera pricing is already an outrage compared to the USA & other regions.
Leaving aside 'pro' use, all high end models including EM1 offer very poor return on capital for incidental users as, even today, one can get vastly more for ones money when spending the same amounts in other pursuits.......Take a look at what you can get for £4000 in sports or arts equippement generally........musical insruments are 'expensive' but you can get into very serious musical exploits for a lot less than four thousand smackers! An aquaintance has small workshop with lathe and milling machine and there was considerable change from four grand! Another friend is a metal detectorist and very keen in exploring Saxon sites and medieval farmyards his finds are with several museums but his two detectors cost a fraction of 4 grand! Then there are the amateur astronomers....4 grand builds a very nice telescope. One of my near nieghbours has a wife who is a very keen machine embroidery maker and I would be very surprised if her clever sewing machine is anywhere near 4 grand.
.....There are several m4/3 cameras but Sony is the only game in town for FF so there is effectively no direct competition, apart from Leica SL(?)......By the way, the A9 launch must be good news for Leica as it will help forge an opening in the market for them, if they want it!
The price for A9 can only be justified on the back of the A7 success, as it's image is of a 'Super' & 'more powerful' A7.
Photography has always been noted for being expensive but all of these high end cameras are massively overpriced when one looks at their value for money......The A9 is apparently going to be over £4000 here in the UK where camera pricing is already an outrage compared to the USA & other regions.
Leaving aside 'pro' use, all high end models including EM1 offer very poor return on capital for incidental users as, even today, one can get vastly more for ones money when spending the same amounts in other pursuits.......Take a look at what you can get for £4000 in sports or arts equippement generally........musical insruments are 'expensive' but you can get into very serious musical exploits for a lot less than four thousand smackers! An aquaintance has small workshop with lathe and milling machine and there was considerable change from four grand! Another friend is a metal detectorist and very keen in exploring Saxon sites and medieval farmyards his finds are with several museums but his two detectors cost a fraction of 4 grand! Then there are the amateur astronomers....4 grand builds a very nice telescope. One of my near nieghbours has a wife who is a very keen machine embroidery maker and I would be very surprised if her clever sewing machine is anywhere near 4 grand.
Michiel Schierbeek
Well-known member
Can someone explain what stacked stand for? Backlighted?
- world’s first full-frame stacked CMOS sensor, 24.2 MP resolution
V
Vivek
Guest
Michiel, the link in post #18 has illustrative diagrams. The sensors in A7r II and RX1R ii have back illuminated CMOS sensors (practically more sensitivity). The A 9' s sensor, in addition, has built in, integrated circuitary read the data which makes them faster in addition to being more sensitive.
This sensor is THE most advanced sensor in the FF segment thus far.
I would love to have one of these cams to upgrade from my A 7 based dedicated UV cam.
This sensor is THE most advanced sensor in the FF segment thus far.
I would love to have one of these cams to upgrade from my A 7 based dedicated UV cam.
V
Vivek
Guest
You will never get it.
Why not go to Nikon V1 instead of G85? Lot cheaper and presumably will make no difference.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
For me it would still be an apples to oranges comparison between the Full Frame camera and a Micro 4/3 camera in the same way that Full Frame 35mm doesn't compare with Full Frame Digital Medium Format. If the Olympus works better for you and has the lenses that you want then it's probably the better choice for you. Maybe I missed it but I have to ask this -- do you feel that Canon 1D and Nikon D5 are overpriced as well?
The reason this camera is revolutionary is because of all of the advancements present for a mirrorless Full Frame camera that can truly do everything a D5 or 1D body can do. It has a lower 16-24 megapixel resolution. A stacked sensor that has extremely quick readout speed. Is able to be used with fully electronic shutter with extremely low distortion. Has the most relevant dataports (Ethernet, flash sync, USB, etc.) This camera has nearly 700 Phase Detect Autofocus points that covers 93% of the frame. That's pretty revolutionary and the fact that Sony, as a company, actively listens and responds to customer feedback is revolutionary in a sense of how and what they spend R&D funds on to develop.
The A9 has to be compared to the D5 and the 1D and instead of looking at it as being $2500 more than a Micro 4/3 body you should look at it as being $1500-2000 less than Canon and Nikon offerings. That's really what we are talking about here as the ultimate Mirrorless Action/Event/Photojournalist/Sports camera. The Nikon D810 compares more with the A7RII. The Olympus compares more with the A6500. Also Sony bodies do have dual stabilization as well if a lens with OSS is used with a camera that has IBIS. One can also access a wealth of other lenses from other systems with the use of adapters of get equivalent focal
lengths. Native equivalents are available with some of the G Master zooms when combined with teleconverters.
Oh and yes more lenses are desired and they will come in time.
Great specs, but not sure I would utilize them all. I mean, what more can a camera do? Price is way too high, imo. If Sony really wanted this market with little to no competition, then a lower price would seem imperative. I'll wait this one out for now, maybe for a fully weather sealed version or when prices inevitably come down.
pegelli
Well-known member
Jorgen, first you partly answer your question in the beginning of your post (and I would replace "need" by "want" and remove the word "very")
Secondly, another aspect of answering your question is asking the following question: "since when is buying a camera based on pure logic and comparing specifications". I think personal preferences and equipment you already own are a big factor as well.
But I will probably wait a long time before getting an A9, A few weeks ago bought a "base" A7 for less then 1/3 of the introductory price, that camera will (hopefully) serve me for enough time before the A9 comes into that same (price) territory.
MikalWGrass
New member
JD Photo, it is kind of funny that Sony prides itself on its sensors, but no weather sealing to protect the sensor from possible water contamination. Sony will see how many people will buy this camera, and if the sales are good, they will add weather sealing as an a la carte item for another $750.00 US.
pegelli
Well-known member
Where did you get this from?
So my conclusion is that if the lens has IS you get the same as the OlympusSpec sheet said:
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I mentioned the same in my post and that's been true since the second generation A7 bodies.
V
Vivek
Guest
Did he say that he was grumpy?
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Another hands-on usability report.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/hands-newly-announced-sony-a9-my-five-favorite-features-173683
...and a critical report.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/sony-a9-sports-camera-without-sports-lenses-173640
https://fstoppers.com/originals/hands-newly-announced-sony-a9-my-five-favorite-features-173683
...and a critical report.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/sony-a9-sports-camera-without-sports-lenses-173640
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Not just another review - this one telly a lot of important background information ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQnj4Pt8F6k
Puts the A9 very nicely into context with Nikon and Canon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQnj4Pt8F6k
Puts the A9 very nicely into context with Nikon and Canon!
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Lucky you! :thumbs:
iiiNelson
Well-known member
There's a video that Tony Northrop put on YouTube where he's interviewing Mark Weir about the design philosophy and purpose of the A9 as well. Essentially Sony still recommends the A7sII for video and A7RII for those that need extreme detail and a lot of megapixels. When I return home I can add it here.
V