mystik610 wrote in post #18375063
In case anyone is interested to know how the a7rII stacks up against the a9 at high ISO, I did a quick and dirty test and they're basically the same. It's good and bad IMO. On one end, the a7rII does really well at high ISO...on the other end, at half the resolution, you'd expect the a9 to be 1 stop better than the a7rII and neck and neck with the a7s.
A couple other takeaways as I did this....Sony did us a huge favor by allowing the lenses to focus wide open in low light as this was easier to do than when I did it last week. Technically on the 85GM it isn't focusing wide open....it looks like it focuses at F2. This only works when live view display is set to off, so it was also nice that they added the ability to map the live view toggle to the custom buttons and menu.
a9 focuses much better in low light than the a9. a7rII sort of struggled even focusing wide open. Also a9 wakes up and focuses basically immediately....a7rII is slow to wake-up. This has always bothered me and I have missed shots because of this.
Oh and eye AF works much better on the a9, as it can find the eye even when your subjects face takes up a small part of the frame.
a7rIIIMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/VDi6f4 a7rII 12800
by Carlo Alcala
, on Flickr
a9IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/VoGNJ7 a9 12800
by Carlo Alcala
, on Flickr
A part of me is thinking with the sensor being optimized for speed, the fast readout has something to do with the not as great high ISO performance. Also from the results that I see the mid range of ISO (1600-6400) seems to be the sweet spot with lower ISO not as great as the a7rII and high ISO not as great as the a7s. That does make sense if true since the a9 used in sports and action sequences with faster shutter speeds would often not be at the lower ISO range and might not be at the 12,800 range. If the FPS was dialed back to say 15 or so max, one wonders if ISO performance could be improved, but we're talking hypotheticals right now.
I finally had a chance to get my hands on the a9 and its close to an ideal camera for me as there is out there. I've mentioned before how the dual card slots is big for me. I'm sitting here typing on my iPad mini with files ingested from my 6500. Have 2,700 images imported but because it's importing the raw and jpeg, it's taking up 100GB of my 128GB iPad mini. With a dual card camera the single jpeg import would take up 20-25GB most likely. Question is do I need to keep 2,700 images at once? Of course not. But for archiving, for photo book printing, etc it makes it easier than having to sit there and selectively pick each image on he back of the camera having to wirelessly import.
Like Carlos mentioned, the wakes, shot to shot, etc is super impressive. My 6500 is slow to start and I've missed shots as well. same goes for battery life. Another thing I noticed if the lack of screen dimming when shooting video. Try taking a 6500 and shooting video on the beach. You're literally shooting blind if you're using the screen, it dims so much that you can hardly see what you're shooting. The record button being moved if a great small change. I don't shoot a ton of video, so the lack of s-log and PP don't bother me as much, but what I do is take a lot of short clips of my kids (10-30 seconds) and having the record button easy to press with my thumb is a fantastic move.
And the AF just hits. Eye AF is tremendous. The 24MP gives me enough latitude in the files while maintaining enough DR and smaller size as opposed to the 42. If I was primarily a landscape or studio shooter then I think of trading an a7rII for the a9. But the a9 is so much more than a sports/action camera. It's a well rounded camera that exceeds at almost every situation that I personally would use it for. Of course I would've liked it if it was priced at say $3,500 and it probably would've sold more at that price. But from what I can tell, they're not having any issues finding buyers at $4,500 which is good and bad at the same time. It gives them more money to pump into R&D but it gives seems to raise the ceiling into what consumers are willing to pay. What people do with their disposable income is a personal choice, but if the ceiling keeps on getting raised and people are willing to pay $4,500 for the a9, whose to say they won't pay $5,500 for an a9r? And suddenly the hobbyist or enthusiast might find themselves squeezed out of the picture. No one needs to be an early adopter, but I would hate it if enthusiasts aren't able to financially afford a camera until its well into or at the end of the product cycle. I know plenty of people who are just now being able to afford the original a7r, maybe in 10 years they'll be able to get an a9r.