V
Vivek
Guest
I clicked on the link posted by K-H and I find Jorgen spinning the same in that FM thread as well.
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!
Where would we be today without alternative facts...:ROTFL: :facesmack:I clicked on the link posted by K-H and I find Jorgen spinning the same in that FM thread as well.
Yes, it seems to be obvious to everyone but Jorgen that he does not like Sony.:salute:Where would we be today without alternative facts...:ROTFL: :facesmack:
For a long while, digital cameras were largely broken up into discreet components, sometimes made by different companies; the sensor, analog-to-digital converter, data buffer, processor, and other bits and bobs like the CFA which can also be customized by the client company.Can someone explain what stacked stand for? Backlighted?
- world’s first full-frame stacked CMOS sensor, 24.2 MP resolution
Yup! Good points!The weight savings with the above combo would be phenomenal, not to mention having to carry different memory cards and readers, batteries and chargers, sensor sticks for cleaning etc.
Thanks, interesting read.Heres an article highlighting and detailing the similarities and the differences with Olympus and Sony dual IS.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/b.marf...onys-5-axis-stabilization-work/?marfeeltn=amp
I gather you're correct and inputting focal length for lenses that don't communicate data will make the IS more accurate.Thanks, interesting read.
What I conclude from this one it's not so much the lens IS that determines 5 or 3 axis stabilization, but that it has to fall back to 3 axis for lenses that do not report the focal distance to the camera, because for correcting the pitch/yaw axis you need this information.
Yup! Good points!
FWIW, the price difference between the Canon and the Nikon and the Sony cams in Europe is marginal while it is substantial in the US.
Sony have to drop the EU prices.
It doesn't come down to having a cutting edge body, and it doesn't come down to apples to apples. It comes down to having a system that works. The D810 is meaningless for sports photography. I tried, thinking that the crop mode would be useful, but it wasn't really. 15 megapixels and all the action happening in a small part of the viewfinder. This is one of the reasons why many sports shooters use the D5/D500 combination. The two bodies have the same resolution and the same AF system. The D500 isn't as good in low light, but gives 50% more reach. The fact that it's a crop sensor is an advantage in this case. I've been shooting sports with one or two APS bodies and one full frame body for years. It's my preferred solution. I've even seen a sports photographer with a Canon 1D III and a cheap Digital Rebel for backup and extra reach. That works too, but there are more limitations.D500 is a cropped sensor. It's a great camera but not one that applies in an apples to apples comparison.
You'd need two D5's for that comparison and that raises the price of entry by $4500 or the cost of a A9 body... or it is reasonable to assume one D5 and a D810 might see some life together. I assume many will add the A9 alongside the A7RII. These potential options that are inline with each other puts it right about the same price with logical Sony combos.
Besides this, everyone knows that Nikon has more options. They've been around for a lot longer so what are we debating? It comes down to if you want a cutting edge body and can you live with the lens options. If not, move on. You have your answer. If so then preorder or save for a purchase.
The A6500 may possibly be a cropped option for some but again instandby that cropped sensor doesn't apply in an apples to apples comparison. It's just isn't the same look.It doesn't come down to having a cutting edge body, and it doesn't come down to apples to apples. It comes down to having a system that works. The D810 is meaningless for sports photography. I tried, thinking that the crop mode would be useful, but it wasn't really. 15 megapixels and all the action happening in a small part of the viewfinder. This is one of the reasons why many sports shooters use the D5/D500 combination. The two bodies have the same resolution and the same AF system. The D500 isn't as good in low light, but gives 50% more reach. The fact that it's a crop sensor is an advantage in this case. I've been shooting sports with one or two APS bodies and one full frame body for years. It's my preferred solution. I've even seen a sports photographer with a Canon 1D III and a cheap Digital Rebel for backup and extra reach. That works too, but there are more limitations.
Sony doesn't offer a crop sensor body that is suitable for this, so two A9 bodies would be the answer. It's more expensive and less flexible, but that is what you get.
Photographers with a big budget, but you don't find many of those on a national level in most countries, mostly have the best of everything. They shoot with two or three or four D5 and an 800mm for extra reach. They, or their employers, could certainly afford a number of A9 bodies, but they would require that 800mm lens as well. Sony doesn't offer that.
What Olympus and Sony did five or more years ago is still totally irrelevant. The fact as per 21 April 2017 is that Sony has launched a new camera. Every single sample photo on their website and most on their presentation videos are sports photos. One must assume then that sports shooters is their main target group. What I don't get is why serious sports shooters would ditch their Canon and Nikon cameras and buy into a system where the longest lens is 400mm at a maximum aperture of 5.6. This is not even critisism of the camera, but of Sony's marketing which I suspect tries to convince well heeled amateurs that this is the new state of the art sports shooter system. The top Canon and Nikon models have always been popular among this particular group, and those cameras probably wouldn't be renewed at the current rate without them.The Olympus 12-40 and 40-150 pro lenses were released in fall of 2013 and 2014 in USA. The 300/4 was released early last year. That's the point. The system with absolutely no changes in sensor size took 5-9 years to come out with "pro lenses." That is the relevant point because they introduced a "pro system" without immediate availability of "pro lenses" all the same as Sony.
The full frame Sony's were released in fall of 2013 and that's what we are talking about. Lenses that provide full frame coverage. Yes the NEX cameras were released in 2010 but those cameras and lenses don't apply because they wouldn't work for a pro or full frame camera.
Despite having the same sized mount, you have to look at this as two completely different lines of cameras. The full frame cameras and the cropped system cameras. Whether or not it makes sense to invest in A-Mount glass depends on your needs. If you need it then you need it and it definitely works with the cameras today.
Yeah... I don't care what other people are doing really. I wouldn't expect everyone to switch if heavily invested into a Canon/Nikon system if they're happy. If they aren't or if this camera fills a niche they don't currently feel 100% comfortable with then I can see some dipping their feet in the water.What Olympus and Sony did five or more years ago is still totally irrelevant. The fact as per 21 April 2017 is that Sony has launched a new camera. Every single sample photo on their website and most on their presentation videos are sports photos. One must assume then that sports shooters is their main target group. What I don't get is why serious sports shooters would ditch their Canon and Nikon cameras and buy into a system where the longest lens is 400mm at a maximum aperture of 5.6. This is not even critisism of the camera, but of Sony's marketing which I suspect tries to convince well heeled amateurs that this is the new state of the art sports shooter system. The top Canon and Nikon models have always been popular among this particular group, and those cameras probably wouldn't be renewed at the current rate without them.
As soon as this camera is released, we'll see countless youtube videos with computer engineers (Why are they always computer engineers? Is that the 21st century equivalent of the Leica dentist?) holding down the shutter release on their newly arrived A9 for 15 minutes to show that it can shoot 20fps like forever. Nothing wrong with that either of course. I bought my 5,000 click D2Xs from such a guy, 90% under the original price
So Sony will sell the cameras they need and make profit. They've already made a statement, and will make a new one when the 400mm f/1.4 is released. But until then, I doubt that many sports shooters will dump their Canikon gear and go for Sony. Read their comments at assorted forums. Some of them will buy it for indoor sports, and if the quality holds up, they're ready for the next step when it happens.
Sony A9 - announcement live stream - Page 4 - EOSHD - EOSHD Forum
I agree and this is telling/relevant review to firsthand accounts of using the A9 for actual action based work.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!
Hey, Vivek, completely forgot that option. So the second A9 body in my case could be set on APS-C mode and give me longer reach - at the expense of some loss in pixels, but can live with that. Some of my best images are from the humble Canon 40D with only 10MPx on the sensor, way back in 2007!In the 21st century cameras offered by Sony, switching to APS-C makes the action happen in the whole of the view finder.
Forget the mirror slap and dumb OVFs.
Also, there is a revolutionary no black out view finder unlike the dslrs.