Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

That is 1 yr away. I just hope by then whatever Canon releases is better than current mirrorless offerings.

bobbyz wrote in post #18593170
That is 1 yr away. I just hope by then whatever Canon releases is better than current mirrorless offerings.

It REALLY took Canon a long time !!!!! They lost a lot of the customer base already. Personally I am 50% Canon and 50% Fuji. Fuji's next release may make me go all in Fuji.

If canon goes with a new mount not only will you need to wait for them to come out with new lenses but also for third party manufacturers to come out with new lenses. Basically the same issue that everyone was complaining about with sony 5 years ago. Except now sony and fuji already have a well rounded lens lineup.

I think there will be an EF adapter. Considering that Canon would make the adapter for Canon lenses, and they already make teleconverters that perform pretty much as native, I doubt there will be any issues with the vast majority of existing lenses.

Sony relies exclusively on other manufacturers to make adapters, right? Third party lenses, with 4th party adapters isn't exactly an easy task compared to a canon only solution.

scorpio_e wrote in post #18593579
It REALLY took Canon a long time !!!!! They lost a lot of the customer base already. Personally I am 50% Canon and 50% Fuji. Fuji's next release may make me go all in Fuji.

Agree and if it is Q1 2019 like mentioned, they will loose lot more folks by then. Everyone I know who doesn't have A7RIIIs is getting A7III. I think it wil hurt Fuji also, as their XH-1 is bit pricy for what it is. For me, after using GFX, I haven't picked my 5dmk3/85L. Need to sell them. Trying to dump 300mm f2.8 IS but so hard. Guess no one shoots sports now a days. For my other things, XT1 is good enough.

bobbyz wrote in post #18593649
Agree and if it is Q1 2019 like mentioned, they will loose lot more folks by then. Everyone I know who doesn't have A7RIIIs is getting A7III. I think it wil hurt Fuji also, as their XH-1 is bit pricy for what it is. For me, after using GFX, I haven't picked my 5dmk3/85L. Need to sell them. Trying to dump 300mm f2.8 IS but so hard. Guess no one shoots sports now a days. For my other things, XT1 is good enough.

Didn't take me long at all to offload the 200. Price it right and it'll sell. Unfortunately I've seen the V1's selling for 2200-2600 lately.

Talley wrote in post #18593762
Didn't take me long at all to offload the 200. Price it right and it'll sell. Unfortunately I've seen the V1's selling for 2200-2600 lately.

Agree. Maybe I get a steelsring adapter and use 300mm f2.8 IS as my 232mm f2 (almost) on the GFX.

Please post results is you try this!

bobbyz wrote in post #18594131
Agree. Maybe I get a steelsring adapter and use 300mm f2.8 IS as my 232mm f2 (almost) on the GFX.

The guy who got my 200/2 got it to use on the GFX.

Unfortunately it didn't have voltage to provide autofocus. I would suspect the same for any of the big whites.

Back to the OP's original question.
Doomed as a company=I doubt it, too diversified.
Doomed to photographers? Maybe some.
It was doomed to me because of aging and my weight bearing capacity.
I loved and enjoyed the 1DXii + 500ISii until my back started hurting.

I did have both the high end sports bodies at the same time. For ME I found I could
shoot the same genre with less weight and more fps. I emphasize for what I shoot because
I know the a9 is not going to take a hit from a linebacker like the 1DXii can----but I don't plan
on taking a hit from a linebacker. Non-stop monsoon rain? I'm sure the Canon would win again
and when it starts raining that hard I go home.

The a9 didn't do it alone though. It was my happenstance discovery that the FE100-400GM could take
a 2.0TC like nobody's business. There is no way I can wield and freehold an 800mm since I can't even with
the 500 anymore.

So this is my review of the a9+100-400GM+2.0TC in one shot.

Sony ILCE-9
FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter
ƒ/11.0 800.0 mm 1/2000 500

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/22zS​5HP

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18619211
It was doomed to me because of aging and my weight bearing capacity.
I loved and enjoyed the 1DXii + 500ISii until my back started hurting.

...The a9 didn't do it alone though. It was my happenstance discovery that the FE100-400GM could take
a 2.0TC like nobody's business. There is no way I can wield and freehold an 800mm since I can't even with
the 500 anymore.

So this is my review of the a9+100-400GM+2.0TC in one shot.

Certainly when physical limitations are imposed on us, every pound counts.

Yet in comparing A9 + 100-400 + 2x teleconvertor vs. 1DXII + 100-400 + 2x teleconvertor , what we find is that virtually all of the weight loss is due to the body (24 oz vs. 54 oz)
and the Sony 100-400mm lens is one ounce MORE ( 49 oz vs. 48 oz) , and if you compare the Sony 2X TC vs. the Kenko 2X TC, again, the Sony is 3/4 ounce more (7.3 oz vs. 6.5 oz).

Simply by switching from 1DXII to 5DIV would have resulted in only 4.3 oz difference for the body (rather than 30.3 oz difference), so the Sony advantage in the body is diminished,
and only 2.3 ounces separates the Canon full solution vs. the Sony full solution (body, lens, teleconvertor).

Wilt wrote in post #18619388
Certainly when physical limitations are imposed on us, every pound counts.

Yet in comparing A9 + 100-400 + 2x teleconvertor vs. 1DXII + 100-400 + 2x teleconvertor , what we find is that virtually of the weight loss is due to the body (24 oz vs. 54 oz)
and the Sony 100-400mm lens is one ounce MORE ( 49 oz vs. 48 oz) , and if you compare the Sony 2X TC vs. the Kenko 2X TC, again, the Sony is 3/4 ounce more (7.3 oz vs. 6.5 oz).

Simply by switching from 1DXII to 5DIV would have resulted in only 4.3 oz difference for the body (rather than 30.3 oz difference), so the Sony advantage in the body is diminished,
and only 2.3 ounces separates the Canon full solution vs. the Sony full solution (body, lens, teleconvertor).

but can the 1dxii or 5div even do F11 focus?

5Div doesnt come close to 20fps, so the default would be 1Dxii.

pretty sure you've got wrong specs.

Sony 100-400 is 200g less than canon's version and shorter

Sony's 2x is 209g vs Canon's 325g

so that's 300g savings, + the body savings, which is easily another full frame lens in weight. Of course it's all moot if the canon cant focus @ f11, and even more moot if only 7fps.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18619211
Back to the OP's original question.
Doomed as a company=I doubt it, too diversified.
Doomed to photographers? Maybe some.
It was doomed to me because of aging and my weight bearing capacity.
I loved and enjoyed the 1DXii + 500ISii until my back started hurting.

I did have both the high end sports bodies at the same time. For ME I found I could
shoot the same genre with less weight and more fps. I emphasize for what I shoot because
I know the a9 is not going to take a hit from a linebacker like the 1DXii can----but I don't plan
on taking a hit from a linebacker. Non-stop monsoon rain? I'm sure the Canon would win again
and when it starts raining that hard I go home.

The a9 didn't do it alone though. It was my happenstance discovery that the FE100-400GM could take
a 2.0TC like nobody's business. There is no way I can wield and freehold an 800mm since I can't even with
the 500 anymore.

So this is my review of the a9+100-400GM+2.0TC in one shot.

Sony ILCE-9
FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter
ƒ/11.0 800.0 mm 1/2000 500

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/22zS​5HP My review of the FE100-400GM + 2.0TC in one image by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr

Nice review. 20FPS, continuous AF, at f11. Quite the capability.

Charlie wrote in post #18619456
but can the 1dxii or 5div even do F11 focus?

5Div doesnt come close to 20fps, so the default would be 1Dxii.

You raise different parameters (than weight), the primary one brought up by MedicineMan4040 in post 1300, which is what I was replying to.

Charlie wrote in post #18619456
pretty sure you've got wrong specs.

Sony 100-400 is 200g less than canon's version and shorter

It depends (once again). Canon 100-400mm vs. Sony FE 100-400mm vs. Canon 100-400mm II:
48.7 oz vs. 51.8 oz vs. 56 oz

Charlie wrote in post #18619456
Sony's 2x is 209g vs Canon's 325g

OTOH, if one uses Kenko TC (which many Canon users opt for in lieu of the unnecessarily expensive Canon TC, it is mere 184g.
And if you compare the Canon 2X-II which many Canon owners already own (rather than the newer Canon 2X-III version) the Canon is 265g.
So again, differences are 'It depends'

Wilt wrote in post #18619491
OTOH, if one uses Kenko TC (which many Canon users opt for in lieu of the unnecessarily expensive Canon TC, it is mere 184g.
And if you compare the Canon 2X-II which many Canon owners already own (rather than the newer Canon 2X-III version) the Canon is 265g.
So again, differences are 'It depends'

naw it doesnt, unless you can suddenly AF at F11.

even if the canon's could AF, you're talking about about at least a 400g savings in weight at minimum.