Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Since when was medium format confined to studio and controlled lighting, and even if they were, why would this technology change that?
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!
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
iiiNelson
Well-known member
If I have to spell it all out for you then you should probably do more reading and then think about what I was saying.
Most use MF in controlled lighting environments and studios due to size and bulk. There also the noise limitation of old CCD sensors and this technology can truly make MF cameras more usuable in a wider range of applications.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
To start with, Sony CMOS medium format sensors have been available for a couple of years already.
Secondly, even with film, medium format cameras have been used outdoor in all kinds of lighting since the beginning of medium format. Remember the Rolleiflex? Hasselblad 500? Fuji's Texas Leica? Mamiya 7?
Thirdly, there are two lightweight medium format mirrorless cameras already on the market, both with Sony sensors, and they are apparently already popular.
Will this sensor technology be an improvement for medium format cameras? Obviously. It offers faster readout and probably even less noise, DR etc. at high ISO. Will it revolutionise medium format photography? Hardly. It's evolution, a natural development. It happens with all kinds of technology.
My GH3 from 2012 had silent shutter, with some limitations. It is after all 5 years ago. All my current Panasonic cameras, including the tiny GM5, have it of course. I'm sure the silent shutter of the A9 is better. It should be. It's newer and much more expensive. Fine for golf tournaments and whatnot. That's evolution too. But rolling shutter is hardly a problem in churches and temples, so I never thought about it as a problem. Now I understand how wrong I was.
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
The Sony roadmap for sensors basically convinced me of that. Skipping the first gen GFX.
V
Vivek
Guest
V
Vivek
Guest
If it works without flaws, you are one lucky guy indeed!I have a big studio...
Matt
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/59271-leica-service.html
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Yes, I understand that there has been some sensor development this year as any other year. Again, it's natural. Sony spends a lot of money on R&D.
I was one of those who many years ago pointed out that mirrorless cameras were problematic for some kinds of sports photography due to sensor lag, blackouts and the slide show instead of live view. I based my views on experience and testing with several mirrorless cameras, including the A7 which used motor sports photos as a part of the marketing. I still have the brochure somewhere. Sony and an assortment of Sony users claimed at that time that there was no problem. The problem has since been documented by several photographers and reviewers. Now, when Sony has solved it, it's suddenly a revolution and game changer, while the old claims are forgotten. There are good reasons why I'm skeptical to marketing claims by Sony. Before I believe anything, I want to see it tried by photographers who are not paid by Sony, the same way I would from any other camera make.
Most camera makers play this game to a certain extent, but Sony has a certain way with big words.
Edit:... and the A7's noisy shutter wasn't a problem, or so I was told. Now of course, the silent shutter is a game changer, except again that I've been using silent shutters for 5 years. Without 10 bits. That has worried me a lot.
Show Performance
Member
Let's steer the conversation back to full frame...
I had a chance to play with the a9 at the launch in NYC and found it to be a remarkable camera. The one caveat being that I have not been able to view any files yet, but from a technology and operational perspective it ticks almost all my boxes.
The good
1. More physical controls
2. Incredibly responsive handling
3. 24mp is a sweet spot for my personal needs
4. Improved battery
5. AF has reached a new level of performance, unseen previously on mirrorless. I haven't used the 1DX or D5 so I can't compare but I also can't imagine needing much else in terms of speed, accuracy and tracking capability.
6. Improved bright, large EVF with very natural color - better than SL
The unknown
1. Is there an AA filter? Sony has been silent, my guess is yes but I want the answer to be no.
2. Weather sealing. I've used my a7RII uncovered in the steady cold Iceland rain with zero ill effects and I understand the a9 improves on the sealing so not really concerned, but it would be nice if Sony would convey the camera's weather sealing capability with more clarity.
The a9 is so much more than a sports camera, it is a low limits camera. The camera is the closest thing to a frictionless shooting experience in the digital world. Abundant physical knobs, dials and buttons provide quick access to the key controls that effect the direct shooting experience while the stacked sensor and Bionz processor bring speed and responsiveness to the image processing. This is what many of us have been waiting for, that marriage of traditional control with the performance of a high speed image processing engine in a smaller mirrorless FF body. This is not a sports camera, it is an everything camera.
While the 20fps with no blackout is impressive, I think it is the AF tracking that is going to have the most impact on composition and capture. Today I regularly use lock-on flexible point to track my subjects, even in low light scenarios and while it works well (maybe 70% success), I know the system limitations and work around them. With the a9, my short time with the camera tells me that Sony has dramatically improved the system and I'm now closer to 90+% effectiveness using AF tracking. Most impressive is the tracking of subjects moving towards the camera - this was a weak point in the previous system. It's amusing to me that Sony succumbed to demands for the addition of a joystick when the AF tracking makes it nearly obsolete.
The only question for many will be the price. $4500 is a lot of bananas. Let's remember though, that the a7RII was not a cheap camera either and you could argue that it was the model that propelled Sony popularity and success during this last product cycle. Still, I would love to see the AF speed, battery and physical controls soon make their way to a more affordable lower end model - a7III.
Chad
I had a chance to play with the a9 at the launch in NYC and found it to be a remarkable camera. The one caveat being that I have not been able to view any files yet, but from a technology and operational perspective it ticks almost all my boxes.
The good
1. More physical controls
2. Incredibly responsive handling
3. 24mp is a sweet spot for my personal needs
4. Improved battery
5. AF has reached a new level of performance, unseen previously on mirrorless. I haven't used the 1DX or D5 so I can't compare but I also can't imagine needing much else in terms of speed, accuracy and tracking capability.
6. Improved bright, large EVF with very natural color - better than SL
The unknown
1. Is there an AA filter? Sony has been silent, my guess is yes but I want the answer to be no.
2. Weather sealing. I've used my a7RII uncovered in the steady cold Iceland rain with zero ill effects and I understand the a9 improves on the sealing so not really concerned, but it would be nice if Sony would convey the camera's weather sealing capability with more clarity.
The a9 is so much more than a sports camera, it is a low limits camera. The camera is the closest thing to a frictionless shooting experience in the digital world. Abundant physical knobs, dials and buttons provide quick access to the key controls that effect the direct shooting experience while the stacked sensor and Bionz processor bring speed and responsiveness to the image processing. This is what many of us have been waiting for, that marriage of traditional control with the performance of a high speed image processing engine in a smaller mirrorless FF body. This is not a sports camera, it is an everything camera.
While the 20fps with no blackout is impressive, I think it is the AF tracking that is going to have the most impact on composition and capture. Today I regularly use lock-on flexible point to track my subjects, even in low light scenarios and while it works well (maybe 70% success), I know the system limitations and work around them. With the a9, my short time with the camera tells me that Sony has dramatically improved the system and I'm now closer to 90+% effectiveness using AF tracking. Most impressive is the tracking of subjects moving towards the camera - this was a weak point in the previous system. It's amusing to me that Sony succumbed to demands for the addition of a joystick when the AF tracking makes it nearly obsolete.
The only question for many will be the price. $4500 is a lot of bananas. Let's remember though, that the a7RII was not a cheap camera either and you could argue that it was the model that propelled Sony popularity and success during this last product cycle. Still, I would love to see the AF speed, battery and physical controls soon make their way to a more affordable lower end model - a7III.
Chad
Last edited:
iiiNelson
Well-known member
You keep proving my point even when trying to be a contrarian.
Film cameras cant be used in all the same lighting conditions and many have constraints tied to them be it the ability to not be able to swap lenses like the "Texas Leica", the ability to not having longer focal lengths available like the mamiya 7 where the longest rangefinder coupled lens is a 150mm (~75mm equivalent), and limited shutter speeds available like the Hasselblad 500 or Rolleiflex (1/500 max for leaf shutters).
Yes, Sony Medium Format CMOS is available but they aren't as advanced in capability as the 35mm ones. They are based upon them hence why MF users should be very excited. Being able to have on-sensor PDAF alone is a huge deal alone and I fully expect that to become a reality. Not having to focus and recompose is going to be a big deal and will diminish (and maybe advance it for Hasselblad) advantages like Hasselblad True Focus for their competitors. Being able to potentially shoot full frame medium format 4K or 8k video is a huge deal. Not needing to further develop dual shutter cameras because of a electronic shutter that minimizes artifacts (be it distortion, banding, etc.) is a huge deal. The potential to have just a medium format camera for everything from portraits to action shooting is a huge deal.
I take it you haven't tried any of the current Sony sensored medium format cameras. I've tried a few. They're great and provided a huge step in modernizing MF for the masses but there are limitation to them. Not just the ISO performance but in the actual ability to use the cameras in all conditions. The advancements in sensor technology in the development of the A9 should translate to a revolutionary capability in MF systems - particularly with mirrorless medium format cameras like the next version of the GFX and X1D. The advancements will help further and advance these cameras. You can deny it if you want but then you'd be short sighted in how Sony's camera developments actually seem to benefit the entire market.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I think the disconnect is that you discount that some people find workaround for shortcomings of the camera to where they aren't problems for how they shoot. I don't know a camera in existence where this isn't true. That just goes into being a photographer and knowing your gear through use.
If Sony brochures featured shots taken with the A7 by photographers (paid or not) using the gear then it's not false advertising. The gear was used, the shot was taken, the camera is capable, and it doesn't mean it's the best tool but you can't say that it's misleading... it's marketing. Some of that is just common sense. You should be skeptical of any company without firsthand or trusted experience.
I still stand by that none of the shutters have been a problem for me but with the original A7R (it is the one that didn't have EFCS) I could always raise the shutter speed to compensate for the possibility of "shutter shock." Yet another reason that I like faster lenses to be used with this system.
V
Vivek
Guest
Chad, thanks! How does it compare with the A7S when it comes to low light performance?
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I believe that Sony has mentioned that this camera won't quite have the dynamic range of the A7RII nor the lowlight performance of the A7SII.
According to Tony Nortrup's Twitter feed the AF and tracking works better than the A7 series in lower lighting conditions as well.
stephengilbert
Active member
I think that the point of trolling is to elicit responses.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
True.
I also believe the point of forums is to discuss ideas and topics without or to dispel erroneous information for the larger community of users (current or potential).
I will have to leave it up to the moderators/site owners to decide if any infraction to the terms of service was committed or if action is necessary to prevent trolling by certain members.
V
Vivek
Guest
I need more pixels than my a7s can offer for certain applications. It isn't for sports. I don't care what sony wants to sell a camera for.
AF and tracking is far better in the II series compared to the first.
AF and tracking is far better in the II series compared to the first.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Agreed and I'd like to see what the generation 3 A7's offer before I buy the A9. It may make more sense to stick with the A7 than the A9 for what I do although I have no doubt that the A9 can do it all. To be honest though a hypothetical 16+ megapixel A7SIII would be able to fill my lowlight photography and "do all" video roles to complement my a7RIId
Last edited:
Show Performance
Member
Hi Vivek and Tre!
I know about as much as you do until I see the files on my machine but based on what Mark Weir shared with me and what I saw on the back of the LCD, the high ISO performance will be greater than the a7RII but less than the a7S. I was shooting at 16,000 ISO at a dark scene and it looked really impressive on the back of the camera. AF was also snappy but I wouldn't call the situation a low light torture test.
No idea on dynamic range. I'm hoping for more, not less. The original RX1 is still the dynamic range king of all the Sony's I believe - per DXO tests at least.
There is something special about those original a7S files but the same is true for the original RX1 files at 24mp so I hope Sony delivers when it comes to the final product.
V
Vivek
Guest
Look forward to your results, Chad.
If it is atleast 2 stops better than the A7, that would do for me.
If it is atleast 2 stops better than the A7, that would do for me.