Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

idkdc wrote in post #18336662
- 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."

Yes, but 1 extra mm is not exactly innovation, and the built-in TC is innovation as good as the Swiss Army Shovel:
http://smg.photobucket​.com …eseinventions00​9.jpg.html

CheshireCat wrote in post #18336667
Yes, but 1 extra mm is not exactly innovation,

Neither is an SLT or EVF while we're at this.

and the built-in TC is innovation as good as the Swiss Army Shovel:
http://smg.photobucket​.com …eseinventions00​9.jpg.html

It's optically optimized specifically to the lens, saves time, and prevents ingress of dust and moisture vs. an additional TC. Pretty useful to me. If you haven't used it, don't pass a false analogy on it.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18336649
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.

SONY A mount, via LA-EA3 lens adapter, 10 FPS.

Not sure Metabones would be able to do better, but I'd love them to try.

Butts wrote in post #18336683
SONY A mount, via LA-EA3 lens adapter, 10 FPS.

Not sure Metabones would be able to do better, but I'd love them to try.

they already can because they update firmware every other month, and offer a native mode, where LA-EA3 does not. THe problem with metabones is that they cant quite get the native mode down (but sigma has). It's possible to get the sigma 500 f4 to do 20fps with tracking, since that adapter shoots as a fully native mode. The question is how well will the tracking be?

CheshireCat wrote in post #18336623
Considering that the only good 50mm prime from Canon is the 50L for $1300, I'd say that $1000 is a fair price for it.

Or perhaps you want to buy a SEL50F18F for $250, which is not amazing but still a good lens.

Or you could just buy a crappy Canon 50/1.8 STM and use it on the A9 along with all your current Canon lenses.

Ah, thank you, a civil reply to my unfamiliarity with the Sony lineup, the fact that a $250 'normal' does exist, in addition to the $1000 one.
Does the SEL50F18F rely upon software to correct it, and is that software 'built in' to independent RAW convertors which one might choose to use with the images?

Charlie wrote in post #18336760
they already can because they update firmware every other month, and offer a native mode, where LA-EA3 does not. THe problem with metabones is that they cant quite get the native mode down (but sigma has). It's possible to get the sigma 500 f4 to do 20fps with tracking, since that adapter shoots as a fully native mode. The question is how well will the tracking be?

Charlie, isn't LA-EA3 a SONY adapter used for SONY A mount?? I'm confused.....if Metabones can do it surely SONY themselves should be able to do it?? Or is it the LA-EA4??

I guess the underlying question about RAW at 20 fps is "What is the underlying block to breaking the 10-12 fps barrier for any manufacturer?"

The camera has to convert RAW to JPG anyway, merely to embed a preview imag within the RAW data, so internal RAW conversion inherently limits the camera speed (as one speed limiting component). Both 'shooting RAW' and 'shooting JPG" have that same overhead factor.

The camera has to write the JPG/RAW file to a memory card, and it gets there via the memory buffer. So it seems that the I/O data output chip to the buffer memory might be the inherent limiter, as 20 fps might simply overwhelm the I/O into the buffer whereas 10-12fps can be accommodated. Even if the output from the buffer was a bottleneck (which we all know it to be), one would think the buffer simply accumulates until it is full; so the input would seem to be the limiter to prevent the camera from recording faster than 10-12fps RAW.

The 1DX is 18MP into CF memory and about 4 years older than the A9
The A9 is 24MP into fast SD memory using (presumably) faster I/O to the SD memory cards that previously

yet it would seem that both the 1DX and the A9 are limited by the same I/O bottlenect, going into the buffer.

So, Tom, how large is the typical RAW file in the 1DX, and what is the typical JPG file size in the 1DX? If the A9 has a 1:2 capability of fps based upon file type being stored, the ratio of JPG:RAW file size might reveal the write speed into the buffer as probable cause. Perhaps a semiconductor company (not a camera company) has to develop faster data I/O for anyone to break the 12 fps barrier which exists. We know high speed cameras do exist, so customized circuitry can achieve incredible speeds, but probably an off-the-shelf I/O chip with the necessary speed does not exist, for lack of sufficient demand to support economical production volumes of the chip.

Sony is a semiconductor company and they have broken the 12fps barrier...they can run at 20fps. Don't get what you are saying here.

Hogloff wrote in post #18336779
Sony is a semiconductor company and they have broken the 12fps barrier...they can run at 20fps. Don't get what you are saying here.

yap... does anyone?

Wilt wrote in post #18336772
I guess the underlying question about RAW at 20 fps is "What is the underlying block to breaking the 10-12 fps barrier for any manufacturer?"

The camera has to convert RAW to JPG anyway, merely to embed a preview imag within the RAW data, so internal RAW conversion inherently limits the camera speed (as one speed limiting component). Both 'shooting RAW' and 'shooting JPG" have that same overhead factor.

The camera has to write the JPG/RAW file to a memory card, and it gets there via the memory buffer. So it seems that the I/O data output chip to the buffer memory might be the inherent limiter, as 20 fps might simply overwhelm the I/O into the buffer whereas 10-12fps can be accommodated. Even if the output from the buffer was a bottleneck (which we all know it to be), one would think the buffer simply accumulates until it is full; so the input would seem to be the limiter to prevent the camera from recording faster than 10-12fps RAW.

The 1DX is 18MP into CF memory and about 4 years older than the A9
The A9 is 24MP into fast SD memory using (presumably) faster I/O to the SD memory cards that previously

yet it would seem that both the 1DX and the A9 are limited by the same I/O bottlenect, going into the buffer.

So, Tom, how large is the typical RAW file in the 1DX, and what is the typical JPG file size in the 1DX? If the A9 has a 1:2 capability of fps based upon file type being stored, the ratio of JPG:RAW file size might reveal the write speed into the buffer as probable cause. Perhaps a semiconductor company (not a camera company) has to develop faster data I/O for anyone to break the 12 fps barrier which exists. We know high speed cameras do exist, so customized circuitry can achieve incredible speeds, but probably an off-the-shelf I/O chip with the necessary speed does not exist, for lack of sufficient demand to support economical production volumes of the chip.

The a9 can shoot at 20fps in raw. It’s able to do this by using a fully electronic shutter mode. The big bottleneck to shooting faster than 12fps with a DSLR is how quickly you’re able to flip the mirror. So the mirror itself is the bottleneck.

The 10fps limit when using adapted lenses is due to the fact that the camera is unable to use the fully electronic shutter with adapted lenses. Not sure what the reason for that is.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18336649
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.

But I think the question becomes, "Why can Sony not offer 20fps RAW recoding with its own line of lenses (even if it must be a GM lens), and then state something like, 'Lenses from other manufacturers may be limited to 10-12 fps RAW recording'?", and utilize that as a marketing reason why folks should think twice about buying aftermarket brands!

CheshireCat wrote in post #18336652
http://dictionary.camb​ridge.org …ary/english/sal​es-figures

Reminds me about a few decades ago, a harddisk manufacturer was found to be shipping bricks in boxes, in an effort to inflate claims about shipment volumes!
I don't recall whether or not shipment volume inflation was reflected in monthly Revenue claims of the company (which was later backed out to genuine numbers for SEC filing of quarterly or annual statements)

Wilt wrote in post #18336790
But I think the question becomes, "Why can Sony not offer 20fps RAW recoding with its own line of lenses (even if it must be a GM lens), and then state something like, 'Lenses from other manufacturers may be limited to 10-12 fps RAW recording'?", and utilize that as a marketing reason why folks should think twice about buying aftermarket brands!

Wilt, its 20FPS with compressed RAW (lossy - 11bit), and 10-12 RAW (lossless - 14bit) using NATIVE SONY Lenses in both scenarios. OR 20FPS JPG.
10FPS is achievable by using third party lens adapters, but I can't see whether its Compressed or not or just JPG.

Canon can do 16 fps 11bit in live view DPAF, so I'm sure we can get more fps from newer models if we wanted.

idkdc wrote in post #18336796
Canon can do 16 fps 11bit in live view DPAF, so I'm sure we can get more fps from newer models if we wanted.

if you're cool not using the viewfinder then sure.