Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

It's quite amusing to read these kind of threads, so much opinion and so little knowledge and experience (in comparison)

When people care more about the market then actual products, well that's when it get's hilarious!

Carry on!

idkdc wrote in post #18336278
Canon will let Sony iterate and work the kinks out just like Apple has allowed Samsung their moment in the stagelight.

... and for good reasons:

http://www.economist.c​om …gs-symbiotic-relationship

As of Q4 2016, Samsung had gained the same market share as Apple.
Talk about "allowing their moment in the stagelight".

idkdc wrote in post #18336408
The 5DIV sells just fine no matter what you think of it.

Interesting. Can you post a link to the sales figures ?

Wilt wrote in post #18336439
Look I don't know the whole Sony arsenal, and two guys on this thread talk about the 55mm f/1.8 and how good it is and not software-corrected. And so it was mentioned in my post. sheesh

That's your problem, Wilt. But we are here to help

https://www.amazon.com …-2&pf_rd_t=SubnavFlyout​#2

Yeah, I know that Samsung makes many components for Apple products. High profit flagship market share is up for Apple, down for Samsung. Samsung came out with the phablet first, Apple waited and released theirs when they felt it was right.

idkdc wrote in post #18336465
C300II, 1DXII, 35LII, 5DIV, 100-400mm f/3.5-f/6.3L IS II, 11-24mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/2.8L III have all been solid releases.

I say most of them have been catch-up releases.
My praise goes especially to Sigma, who made Canon move their big a$$ and update archaic lenses after decades.

I like Sigma for their "pressure," sure. 11-24, 17 tse, 24 tse, 200-400 still have no equivalents. 16-35's outperform every other manufacturer's, 35LII likewise. Solid releases and updates. Lot to get excited about if you're a customer.

idkdc wrote in post #18336530
Read/write is different on the UHSII and I cards. Dual XQD or dual UHSII would have been better, at least for target users using 1DXII and D5's.

Yes, I was also disappointed by the different card interfaces (as I was for the 1Dx2).

However, the slower UHS-I interface is able to write at a speed of about 4 fps (or 8 fps iwith SDR104).
And if you think about it, what really matters is the size of the in-camera RAM buffer, as the buffer is flushed to SD in background.

Wilt wrote in post #18336568
"mirrorless companies have that correct info embedded in the lens, lens communicates with the body and passes that info to the camera and its attached to the output file."

So what is it, in the lens or in the firmware???

My educated guess is that the lens just provides the lens ID, and the in-camera firmware has the associated correction parameters that need to be written to the output file.
It would be more expensive to have the lens send all the parameters, and probably not even possible, as different sensors may require different parameters (the best example is APS-C vs FF).

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18336627
When I first saw the announcement for the A9, the thing that made all of the headlines was "20 FPS". So I thought that finally there was a camera with really good image quality that was going to be fast enough for what I want to do. Then when I read more I learn that it won't even work that way with RAW files, and even worse, it seems like it may not be that fast when AF tracking with adapted lenses.

I understand that 20 FPS mode works with compressed RAW files and AF tracking works with Sony lenses.
Would you expect Sony to test and certify AF-tracking with adapted Canon lenses ?
I am sure Metabones can't wait to get the new camera and convince their adapter to do the same.

idkdc wrote in post #18336635
https://www.amazon.com …-2&pf_rd_t=SubnavFlyout​#2

http://dictionary.camb​ridge.org …ary/english/sal​es-figures

That's what I got. Can you show me sales figures? Where are the Canon doom sales figures that you have?

idkdc wrote in post #18336642
11-24, 17 tse, 24 tse, 200-400 still have no equivalents.

Not really:
- 11-24: Sigma 12-24, the first version released about 15 years ago.
- 200-400: Nikon 200-400. The first version was released about 35 years ago (newest version still has no embedded TC, but is $4000 cheaper than Canon's, so you can buy several TC's, cameras and lenses with the extra money).
- 24 TSE: Nikon 24 PC-E.
- 17 TSE: Nikon has a 19mm equivalent since 2016. But fair enough, it's 2mm longer.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18336658
Not really:
- 11-24: Sigma 12-24, the first version released about 15 years ago.
- 200-400: Nikon 200-400. The first version was released about 35 years ago (newest version still has no embedded TC, but is $4000 cheaper than Canon's, so you can buy several TC's, cameras and lenses with the extra money).
- 24 TSE: Nikon 24 PC-E.
- 17 TSE: Nikon has a 19mm equivalent since 2016. But fair enough, it's 2mm longer.

- 24 pce doesn't have independent tilt and shift axes without disassembly.
- Sigma 12-24 isn't 11mm, and it's third party focus.
- The point of the built in tele is not cost or that you can unscrew and add a tele.

Remember, the original point of discussion was that Canon lacks "exciting" products or "innovation."