Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

idkdc wrote in post #18340494
The Fuji GFX 50S should by definition have better IQ than the A7R. Don't get too carried away. The problem with the XT2 is if you don't like the XTrans sensor in post-processing (I don't) and that it's a smaller sensor than the A7R II. I'm not sure how the A7R mk I compares with the XT2 though.

Well the GFX with it's huge lenses is bigger than a DSLR outfit...no way I'd take it traveling.

The A7R delivers much better and more malleable images compared to the XT2. I tried out the XT2 for a week...did not like the images I got out of it.

In general, APS does not match up with a full frame sensor when you make large prints. I tried and the APS just runs out if steam. They are fine if you print small or just display onto a screen which the majority of APS shooters do.

I do a lot of serious landscape work and truthfully I have never met a single photographer shooting a Fuji system...lots of Nikon 810 and Canon 5dsr and some Sony cameras, but no Fuji or Olympus cameras.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18340491
To the former, I didn't ask how the A7 matched up to the 24mp Fuji.

To the latter, I apologize if I offended you somehow. It wasn't my intent. I'll just say it's my natural inclination to push back when encountering the hard sell. From reading through this thread it seems as though some are overstating some attributes and understating some negatives. I've already written that I am a little gun shy with regards to Sony generally and the article from
petapixel raised some serious questions for me. Carry on.
https://petapixel.com …mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

Next time, walk into B&H and ask to try to the XT2. Do not ask for the salesman's advice on "what should I buy." He gets a comission so of course he's going to steer you into the more expensive item. Also, their salespeople aren't the razor's edge on this sort of information. I personally think I would like the quality of the A7rII sensor more, but you should try holding both cameras in your hand and seeing which one you like.

Eye focus seems to work even better on the a9 than on the a7rII. I know its hyperbole, but that feature has been a game changer for me as a portrait photographer....it's completely changed the way I shoot. The improved latency of eye focus on the a9 has my attention for weddings and events




Tony Northrup eye focus test:

https://twitter.com …arumors.com%2Fp​age%2F2%2F

mystik610 wrote in post #18340499
While there are a lot of articles out there that oversell the positives, that article pretty much cherry picks specific instances (i.e. he picks the largest 85mm lens as a point of reference when discussing size when the smaller batis 85, and now FE85 exist) to spin a certain narrative.

I give little credence to any articles this early in the release. I typically rent a system and use it the way I photograph and make my own decisions.

You get a lot of people that just sit on the net and cherry pick their agendas without ever having touched the camera themselves. I have a good set of fellow photographers that I trust if I need to get reliable information.

Hogloff wrote in post #18340500
Well the GFX with it's huge lenses is bigger than a DSLR outfit...no way I'd take it traveling.

The A7R delivers much better and more malleable images compared to the XT2. I tried out the XT2 for a week...did not like the images I got out of it.

In general, APS does not match up with a full frame sensor when you make large prints. I tried and the APS just runs out if steam. They are fine if you print small or just display onto a screen which the majority of APS shooters do.

I do a lot of serious landscape work and truthfully I have never met a single photographer shooting a Fuji system...lots of Nikon 810 and Canon 5dsr and some Sony cameras, but no Fuji or Olympus cameras.

You were talking strictly IQ, so that's what I was commenting on.

I agree, I'm not a fan of the Xtrans with Adobe raw converter.

Yeah, I'm just talking strictly the Fujifilm medium format. I just would caution on going that far, at least talking purely image quality. I think the A7RII, D810 or 5DsR kit makes a lot of sense for landscape too...but the GFX 50S is smaller than the DSLR's, and some landscape photographers use view cameras. Landscape does not always equal travel.

mystik610 wrote in post #18340499
While there are a lot of articles out there that oversell the positives, that article pretty much cherry picks specific instances (i.e. he picks the largest 85mm lens as a point of reference when discussing size when the smaller batis 85, and now FE85 exist) to spin a certain narrative.

Yeah I picked up on that, and stated so in my post #545. But, the take away for me (nevertheless) was that the size and weight differentials are a red herring. The one exception being when coupling the smallest of lenses to the A7/A9.

The very title of this thread kind of loads the dialog, doesn't it? Doomed? Get real.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18340524
Yeah I picked up on that, and stated so in my post #545. But, the take away for me (nevertheless) was that the size and weight differentials are a red herring. The one exception being when coupling the smallest of lenses to the A7/A9.

The very title of this thread kind of loads the dialog, doesn't it? Doomed? Get real.

The problem with the article is that it glazes over the very many compact that exist for the Sony system and goes straight for the jugular with camera-size.com screen shots of the 85GM....which was a lens that was designed for professional use and without size in mind at all.

There are plenty of compact lenses available....many of them with very high optical quality (i.e. Zeiss Batis/Loxia lenses)

mystik610 wrote in post #18340554
The problem with the article is that it glazes over the very many compact that exist for the Sony system and goes straight for the jugular with camera-size.com screen shots of the 85GM....which was a lens that was designed for professional use and without size in mind at all.

There are plenty of compact lenses available....many of them with very high optical quality (i.e. Zeiss Batis/Loxia lenses)

And there are a few small dslr lenses. 24mm f/2.8 IS, Nikon 20mm f/2.8. 85mm 1.8, etc. Size of mirrorless are not inherently smaller, just by design choice of form and function. Equivalent aperture, focal length and sensor size means not as much difference.

idkdc wrote in post #18340557
And there are a few small dslr lenses. 24mm f/2.8 IS, Nikon 20mm f/2.8. 85mm 1.8, etc. Size of mirrorless are not inherently smaller, just by design choice of form and function. Equivalent aperture, focal length and sensor size means not as much difference.

I wouldn't say mirrorless lenses are inherently smaller but the design space for mirrorless is larger which gives designers the option of making smaller lenses than would be possible on a DSLR.

idkdc wrote in post #18340557
And there are a few small dslr lenses. 24mm f/2.8 IS, Nikon 20mm f/2.8. 85mm 1.8, etc. Size of mirrorless are not inherently smaller, just by design choice of form and function. Equivalent aperture, focal length and sensor size means not as much difference.

Don't know what you shoot and how long you carry your camera around your neck or wrist, but I noticed a huge difference between my DSLR travel kit and my mirrorless travel kit. The small Sony lenses ( 28, 35 and 55 ) along with the compact Zeiss Loxia and Batis lenses all produce excellent image quality and are very light and compact. Combine this with a lighter camera and it's much easier to lug an outfit for an entire day ( 14 hours ) for 4 weeks while traveling.

Speaking from experience, trying to do the same with an equivalent quality DSLR outfit would not be very enjoyable...most likely leaving the camera in the room when I'd get too tired carrying it.

idkdc wrote in post #18340557
And there are a few small dslr lenses. 24mm f/2.8 IS, Nikon 20mm f/2.8. 85mm 1.8, etc. Size of mirrorless are not inherently smaller, just by design choice of form and function. Equivalent aperture, focal length and sensor size means not as much difference.

Yes but those smaller DSLR lenses do not hold up optically to the smaller mirrorless lenses....so its not an apples to apples comparison (in terms of price and performance). If you compare purely on the basis of size, you're pitting the worst DSLR offerings against some of the best lenses optically at a given focal length regardless of lens mount.

The appeal of the a7 system is as minimal in size as you can get before you start compromising in terms of quality. This is why landscape shooters love the system....you can pack a lot of gear and still travel light without sacrificing quality. APS-C systems like Fuji are definitely smaller, but there is undeniably a compromise in terms of quality (the materiality of that compromise will of course vary from person to person).

No right or wrong way to approach it...its a matter of preference and choice.

mystik610 wrote in post #18340568
Yes but those smaller DSLR lenses do not hold up optically to the smaller mirrorless lenses....so its not an apples to apples comparison (in terms of price and performance). If you compare purely on the basis of size, you're pitting the worst DSLR offerings against some of the best lenses optically at a given focal length regardless of lens mount.

The appeal of the a7 system is as minimal in size as you can get before you start compromising in terms of quality. This is why landscape shooters love the system....you can pack a lot of gear and still travel light without sacrificing quality. APS-C systems like Fuji are definitely smaller, but there is undeniably a compromise in terms of quality (the materiality of that compromise will of course vary from person to person).

No right or wrong way to approach it...its a matter of preference and choice.

24mm f2.8 is is just as sharp as the 28 f2. You sacrifice optically based on lens design and price, not necessarily mirrorless vs dslr.

idkdc wrote in post #18340570
24mm f2.8 is is just as sharp as the 28 f2. You sacrifice optically based on lens design and price, not necessarily mirrorless vs dslr.

The 28F2 is a budget lens and not really the best point of reference if we're talking optical quality at a given size. The Batis 25 F2 or Loxia 21 is the more appropriate point of comparison...and yes I realize both of those lenses are much more expensive, but they deliver very high optical quality in a diminutive size, which isn't possible on a DSLR. There are no compact, yet high optical quality DSLR lenses.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18340524
Yeah I picked up on that, and stated so in my post #545. But, the take away for me (nevertheless) was that the size and weight differentials are a red herring. The one exception being when coupling the smallest of lenses to the A7/A9.

FL is FL. You will never see a small 400mm telephoto optical lens. However, it must be remembered that DSLR must use retrofocus designs for wides, and that basically turns them into [reverse] telephotos. Check the size of the Voigtlander 15mm v1 (M-mount) for a nice example, and compare to any 15mm for DSLR (Zeiss ZE 15/2.8 is particularly fun).
Also, as already discussed, the shorter flange distance allows for shorter overall body+lens size OR more correcting elements (potentially better lenses for the same size).

Seems to have worked fine

mystik610 wrote in post #18340575
The 28F2 is a budget lens and not really the best point of reference if we're talking optical quality at a given size. The Batis 25 F2 or Loxia 21 is the more appropriate point of comparison...and yes I realize both of those lenses are much more expensive, but they deliver very high optical quality in a diminutive size, which isn't possible on a DSLR. There are no compact, yet high optical quality DSLR lenses.

It is a good point of comparison because the equivalent exists on DSLR - cheap and sharp-ish. I would say that there isn't a compact yet expensive high quality DSLR lens because of design objective and target market, not because it isn't possible. Strip the IS from the 24mm f/2.8 IS and 35mm f/2 IS, add metal casing or weather sealing, add 19+ autofocus points, add a joystick in a 6D; it's very doable if Canon wanted (they might not). On the other hand, Sony doesn't have cheap and sharp lenses like the 40mm pancake, the 24mm pancake and the super sharp 18-55 IS and 10-18 (or M equivalent 22mm f/2, 11-22mm, 35 macro with light built in) lenses. I would say that this isn't because Sony isn't capable, just that it has focused on another target market.

Look at it this way: Canon has chosen cheap, sharp STM lenses, and f/2 lenses with IS; Nikon has chosen medium-priced f/1.8 lenses to pursue; Sony has chosen expensive Batis lenses to pursue and the 28mm f/2 is their one cheap bang for buck lens.