Sony A9 Announced

Chet wrote in post #18346269
The lack of any long wide lenses are the killer, this is what he was getting at. They are touting it as a flagship sports camera with none of the lenses to back it up. Sony doesn't have any big 300F2.8, 400mmF2.8, 500F4, 600F4 to compete with Canon or Nikon sports lenses. As a landscape body/stills body it's a hell of a camera.

it's obvious that sony is going after low hanging fruit first, I mean, who wouldnt?

sell many many 100-400's or sell a few 400 f2.8's? that's likely the decision sony was faced with, so they picked the 100-400. They're already churning out 4-5 lenses a year (not including zeiss stuff), who else produces at this pace?

Charlie wrote in post #18346286
it's obvious that sony is going after low hanging fruit first, I mean, who wouldnt?

sell many many 100-400's or sell a few 400 f2.8's? that's likely the decision sony was faced with, so they picked the 100-400. They're already churning out 4-5 lenses a year (not including zeiss stuff), who else produces at this pace?

exactly, long lenses are coming.. go after high volume items first.. I would buy 100-400, I would never waste money on 400.

http://www.sonyalpharu​mors.com …-lenses-are-in-the-works/

if that statement is true... just use Canon lens for now

I guess I'm talking working sports pro's. Can't shoot pro, maybe street or amateur . You won't be invited to the big dance with a Sony FE 100/400 variable 4.5 to 5.6 lens.

OK, so Sony lacks a number of key FL & speed lenses to be a truly serious substitute...but where does the tactic fall apart with converted shooters of Nikon or Canon dSLRs, what is wrong with the assumption that the brand converts can use their Nikon/Canon lenses that they (or their new agencies) already own with the A9 to get fast black-out-free shooting, until Sony comes out with their own equivalents?

Chet wrote in post #18346244
This fella feels duped.

Sony A9 - Not so hot on second look?

oh this guy... lol

he seems like a genuinely nice fella.. and I watch some of his videos, sometimes..

but this guy made about a dozen videos on the 5d4 , first it was great then it wasn't , then he returned it, then he bought it again, its doable, no its not , returned .. again..

and its starting out this way with the a9 now.. first video, great camera,,, second look,, maybe not so great..

Wilt wrote in post #18346386
OK, so Sony lacks a number of key FL & speed lenses to be a truly serious substitute...but where does the tactic fall apart with converted shooters of Nikon or Canon dSLRs, what is wrong with the assumption that the brand converts can use their Nikon/Canon lenses that they (or their new agencies) already own with the A9 to get fast black-out-free shooting, until Sony comes out with their own equivalents?

sony has been the most adapter friendly system I've ever seen.

have you ever focused a Canon Lens on a sony body?

anyhow, brian smith has the list of how lenses perform

200 f2 fast and accurate
300 f2.8 ii fast and accurate
400 f2.8 ii fast and accurate
400 DOii fast and accurate
400 5.6 fast and accurate
500 f4 ii good and accurate
600 f4 ii good and accurate
800 5.6 fast and accurate

not only is sony the only FF system, they give you extremely good adaptability. still having some canon lenses until I can budget for sony versions, the 24-70ii and 135L are fast and accurate. It's very uncommon for sony as a company, to allow such flexibility, and basically invite canon users with open arms. Like it? then stay. Dont like it? well, it's a shame, you're free to go.

The way you worded your response sounds as if I was attacking the idea, rather than asking if anyone could state, "What is wrong with the idea is...(list)"

The a9 also sounds like a good wedding camera as well with a manageable 24mp sensor so the files aren't too massive, silent shutter, dual card slots. And you can figure one or two occasions where high speed FPS would be useful such as the bouquet toss, first kiss, etc. of course the 20 FPS wouldn't be used often but still useable.

For wedding shooters a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 85 1.4, and 35 1.4 all exist.

A 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 are great sports lenses but not high volume sellers since they'd cost $5,000-8,000 each. Those who complain that Sony doesn't have long glass most likely wouldn't buy it anyway. Personally it doesn't bother me that they don't have a 300 2.8 since I'd never buy it, I wouldn't spend $6,000 on a 5lb lens.

TMaG82 wrote in post #18346495
The a9 also sounds like a good wedding camera as well with a manageable 24mp sensor so the files aren't too massive, silent shutter, dual card slots. And you can figure one or two occasions where high speed FPS would be useful such as the bouquet toss, first kiss, etc. of course the 20 FPS wouldn't be used often but still useable.

For wedding shooters a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 85 1.4, and 35 1.4 all exist.

A 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 are great sports lenses but not high volume sellers since they'd cost $5,000-8,000 each. Those who complain that Sony doesn't have long glass most likely wouldn't buy it anyway. Personally it doesn't bother me that they don't have a 300 2.8 since I'd never buy it, I wouldn't spend $6,000 on a 5lb lens.

400 f/2.8L IS II is $10k. If Sony's is $8000 it would be 20% off..

The 300 f/2.8L IS II is $6.1k for the record...

As for money, I actually think they make quite a lot on making 1 of those superteles, possibly as much or more as selling several more affordable lenses. Theres likely a sweet spot in there (maybe around the 70-200 f/2.8 level of pricing) but yeah

TMaG82 wrote in post #18346495
The a9 also sounds like a good wedding camera as well with a manageable 24mp sensor so the files aren't too massive, silent shutter, dual card slots. And you can figure one or two occasions where high speed FPS would be useful such as the bouquet toss, first kiss, etc. of course the 20 FPS wouldn't be used often but still useable.

For wedding shooters a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 85 1.4, and 35 1.4 all exist.

A 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 are great sports lenses but not high volume sellers since they'd cost $5,000-8,000 each. Those who complain that Sony doesn't have long glass most likely wouldn't buy it anyway. Personally it doesn't bother me that they don't have a 300 2.8 since I'd never buy it, I wouldn't spend $6,000 on a 5lb lens.

I think you nailed it where many who complain about the big fast lenses would never purchase these lenses if they were available. They are just looking at something to complain about on the Sony system.

I use my Sony system for travel photography. Best damn system out there today when you compare the cameras, image quality and line up of great compact lenses. Today, not the best sports system...but what I see is Sony is moving fast...let's see where they are with lenses next year this time. I heard this lack of lenses before...now we have great Batis and GM lenses...many rated highest in their class.

Hogloff wrote in post #18346568
I think you nailed it where many who complain about the big fast lenses would never purchase these lenses if they were available. They are just looking at something to complain about on the Sony system.

I have a Canon 400 f/2.8, am I allowed to complain. I love my Canon and my Sony. I still want a 300 or 400 f/2.8 to go with my a6500 and future A9. Until then I'll deal with my joint partnership with Canon / Sony. It works great in single shot, so-so in continuous focus mode. I'm still a happy camper, I just want more..... Isn't that what drives the market for better tech?

I'm not a business/marketing/bot​tom line thinker but it seems to me that there are a lot of serious amateur hobbyist like me compared
to high end sports shooters? And we hobbyist love the 100-400 as a first offering.
We came back last month from Florida and between Poof and I we had over 24K files.....that's shooting 5-6 hours daily for two weeks in
opportune spots for holding down the shutter.
The vast majority of my shots were via 400DOii or 100-400ii so to my way of thinking it's a no brainer to bring out this zoom. My question
is how well this zoom with do with the FE 1.4TCiii, especially compared to the gold standard EOS 100-400ii with TC.

On the next offerings I hope Sony gives a 500/4 for the truly sports minded BUT a 400/4 for us hobbyist wildlife shooters. The a9's sensor
(based on my experience with a99ii and a7rii sensor) will have nary a problem with F4 and my joints would surely appreciate the difference
between that and a 400/2.8.

Question is, how well do Sony A mount 500mm f4, 300mm f2.8, and Canon 400mm f2.8 work with A9.

Sony did say 10fps with A mount lenses.

Hogloff wrote in post #18346568
I think you nailed it where many who complain about the big fast lenses would never purchase these lenses if they were available. They are just looking at something to complain about on the Sony system.

I use my Sony system for travel photography. Best damn system out there today when you compare the cameras, image quality and line up of great compact lenses. Today, not the best sports system...but what I see is Sony is moving fast...let's see where they are with lenses next year this time. I heard this lack of lenses before...now we have great Batis and GM lenses...many rated highest in their class.

They're marketing the system for sports...so sports photographers are more than justifyied in asking for the lenses they currently use. If Sony DIDN'T market the lens for SPORTS, then sure, everyone is whiner. But Sony DID market the camera as a SPORTS camera, so asking for sports lenses is entirely fair game.