Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

rantercsr wrote in post #18385014
I wonder when a bit of a plateau will be hit..?
seems like with sony's mirrorless , there seems to be a lot happening relatively quickly ..
I mean for those of you who have been with the sony full frame from the beginning about 2013 , or even the E mount
a7 and a7r to what we have now.. AF that many laughed at if you said it was for pro work ,,, to Now with the A9 whos AF has caught the attention of many ,, sure it comes at a price ,, but the tech is there for mirrorless ..

I mean they cant possibly keep up this rate of progress for much longer , right?
I guess only time will tell

compared to the traditional dslr's where people wait 4 years for the next version , and then you only really get it because you want the latest and greatest , but not because things have Improved so drastically that it becomes a must have ..

Being the new kid on the block, sony kind of needs it.

I'de love for sony to get global shutter at some point, and for that to work as well as mechanical shutter. Will that mean an unlimited lifespan? No more shutter rating right?

rantercsr wrote in post #18385014
I wonder when a bit of a plateau will be hit..?
seems like with sony's mirrorless , there seems to be a lot happening relatively quickly ..
I mean for those of you who have been with the sony full frame from the beginning about 2013 , or even the E mount
a7 and a7r to what we have now.. AF that many laughed at if you said it was for pro work ,,, to Now with the A9 whos AF has caught the attention of many ,, sure it comes at a price ,, but the tech is there for mirrorless ..

I mean they cant possibly keep up this rate of progress for much longer , right?
I guess only time will tell

compared to the traditional dslr's where people wait 4 years for the next version , and then you only really get it because you want the latest and greatest , but not because things have Improved so drastically that it becomes a must have ..

DSLR's are basically at that point now...the capabilities of DSLR cameras go far beyond the needs and skills of most photographers these days. This is why the DSLR offerings these days are simply incremental improvements over their predecessors.

Mirrorless cameras have seemingly progressed so far in the span of the past 4 years because from a performance stand-point, they were so behind DSLR's and they had a lot of ground to cover. The a7rII was the first FF camera that is a compelling alternative to FF DSLR's, but it involved compromises in terms of responsiveness, AF tracking. The a9 is the first camera that I consider a true alternative to DSLR's as it involves no serious compromises vs a DSLR, while offering some noteworthy upsides. At the end of the day though, 20fps aside, the a9 is really a series of incremental improvements over the a7rII. Depending on what you shoot, those incremental benefits can mean a lot, but it really is an evolution of the a7rII vs something truly revolutionary.

Going forward, I'm not sure how much better things can really get when it comes to real world shooting. More resolution? I often feel 42mp is excessive as is. More DR? The jump from 11 stops of DR to 13+ stops was significant, but there are diminishing returns beyond that IMO as pushing he DR too much leads to unnatural looking files. Better high ISO performance is always welcome, but high high ISO shots usually involve low contrast light and I haven't felt the want for more the way I did say 4 years ago. More FPS? 20fps is useful, but often excessive....4 more fps and you're basically matching the frame rate of cinema and when 8k video becomes the norm, you might as well start shooting that instead.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18385005
For a7R II portrait shooters the only camera GAS they should have is for the a7R III (or maybe an a9R). a9 is just the latest shiny thing that serves as an unnecessary distraction for some shooters.

a9 makes great sense for journalist, wedding, action shooters...outside of those areas it doesn't make sense to me.

from what I have seen, this has become my logic also...I am not going to do anything for a second body until I see what comes out later this year in the A7III or A7R3. I am very happy with the A7R2 right now, I love it...more so than any other camera I have ever owned...right now I want to build up my native lens kit...still on the hunt for a FE35...

David Arbogast wrote in post #18385005
For a7R II portrait shooters the only camera GAS they should have is for the a7R III (or maybe an a9R). a9 is just the latest shiny thing that serves as an unnecessary distraction for some shooters.

a9 makes great sense for journalist, wedding, action shooters...outside of those areas it doesn't make sense to me.

The a7rII still remains king for those subjects that don't require the best AF situations like landscape and posed portraits or studio. Where you can take the time to precisely focus and take advantage of all the DR and resolution.

For those situations where the action is quick moving like David said for journalism, wedding work, and action including kids, the a9 will be a slightly better option because of the faster AF, the better use of Eye AF, and the overall quicker operation. The end result has a higher emphasis on capturing the moment rather than ultimate sharpness or the highest amount of DR.

The next iteration of the a7r or a9r could be a good combination of both, but for my needs I don't need the extra MP, the most DR, or higher file size. I have doubts on whether I would ever upgrade to that model, as I have a feeling it'll have at least 60, if not 80 MP and expose all flaws in technique.

rantercsr wrote in post #18385014
I wonder when a bit of a plateau will be hit..?
seems like with sony's mirrorless , there seems to be a lot happening relatively quickly ..
I mean for those of you who have been with the sony full frame from the beginning about 2013 , or even the E mount
a7 and a7r to what we have now.. AF that many laughed at if you said it was for pro work ,,, to Now with the A9 whos AF has caught the attention of many ,, sure it comes at a price ,, but the tech is there for mirrorless ..

I mean they cant possibly keep up this rate of progress for much longer , right?
I guess only time will tell

compared to the traditional dslr's where people wait 4 years for the next version , and then you only really get it because you want the latest and greatest , but not because things have Improved so drastically that it becomes a must have ..

Eventually we'll hit the law of diminishing returns where the advancements will slow down. There can only be so much and eventually you'll hit the limitations of what the human eye can detect. Eventually you might begin to see things looking too much like HDR ish.

TMaG82 wrote in post #18385056
For those situations where the action is quick moving like David said for journalism, wedding work, and action including kids, the a9 will be a slightly better option because of the faster AF, the better use of Eye AF, and the overall quicker operation. The end result has a higher emphasis on capturing the moment rather than ultimate sharpness or the highest amount of DR.

It's slightly better on numerous fronts = significantly better comprehensively...and overall that means its less likely to miss key shots.

I still think its overkill though. Assuming the a7III inherits a lot from the a9, that would probably be the better fit for me....but we don't know when that will drop and I've been waiting for a faster FF sony body for a while now. It's more than I wanted to spend, but I'm over it lol.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18384808
Awesome shots of your young man, and also a statement that the a6000 is still an awesome camera. I've still got mine.

Thank you! Yes I'm still liking the a6000 camera to document my son growing up. Eventually, I'm going to pass on the camera to him. Just have to get a cheaper lens than the FE55 for him to use.

Anyone know how to clean up moire?

mystik610 wrote in post #18385130
Anyone know how to clean up moire?

I got an okay, but not great, result from using the moire reduction function of the adjustment brush in Camera RAW. I'm a novice when it comes to PS, so I'm guessing there are better techniques.

Totally pro work Jarvis. good to see you and the a9 are a happy couple.

digital_AM wrote in post #18385092
Thank you! Yes I'm still liking the a6000 camera to document my son growing up. Eventually, I'm going to pass on the camera to him. Just have to get a cheaper lens than the FE55 for him to use.

For a young man in his position maybe the 16-50 kit? I've got on on a NEX-5 a few feet away from me as I type.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18385005
For a7R II portrait shooters the only camera GAS they should have is for the a7R III (or maybe an a9R). a9 is just the latest shiny thing that serves as an unnecessary distraction for some shooters.

a9 makes great sense for journalist, wedding, action shooters...outside of those areas it doesn't make sense to me.

My justification for the a9 is that it is the closest lightweight to the 1DXii specwise. So far it is surpassing it. When I look at the Florida trip pics from two months ago I see that the vast majority of my keepers were at 400 or 400 with 1.4TC, so the hoopla about not enough long lenses will be moot when the 100-400 gets here, for me. I also think amateur hobbyist like me far outnumber the high paid NFL/Olympic shooters who want 400/2.8, 500, and 600mm.
So for me the hobbyist having the a7rii + a9 in the bag and shooting a variety of subjects (still smaller/lighter than a 1DXii) makes sense.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18385163
My justification for the a9 is that it is the closest lightweight to the 1DXii specwise. So far it is surpassing it. When I look at the Florida trip pics from two months ago I see that the vast majority of my keepers were at 400 or 400 with 1.4TC, so the hoopla about not enough long lenses will be moot when the 100-400 gets here, for me. I also think amateur hobbyist like me far outnumber the high paid NFL/Olympic shooters who want 400/2.8, 500, and 600mm.
So for me the hobbyist having the a7rii + a9 in the bag and shooting a variety of subjects (still smaller/lighter than a 1DXii) makes sense.

You are a seriously passionate wildlife (action) shooter...it's all the justification you need for an a9.

mystik610 wrote in post #18385074
It's slightly better on numerous fronts = significantly better comprehensively...and overall that means its less likely to miss key shots.

I still think its overkill though. Assuming the a7III inherits a lot from the a9, that would probably be the better fit for me....but we don't know when that will drop and I've been waiting for a faster FF sony body for a while now. It's more than I wanted to spend, but I'm over it lol.

It remains to be seen how much of the a9 finds its way into the a7III. Too much and the a9 users might feel slighted. Too little and people might not see the rationale to upgrade.

The a9 is definitely more than I wanted to spend, but I figure if it'll last me a few years, it'll be worth it to not swap bodies so often by GAS.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18385163
My justification for the a9 is that it is the closest lightweight to the 1DXii specwise. So far it is surpassing it. When I look at the Florida trip pics from two months ago I see that the vast majority of my keepers were at 400 or 400 with 1.4TC, so the hoopla about not enough long lenses will be moot when the 100-400 gets here, for me. I also think amateur hobbyist like me far outnumber the high paid NFL/Olympic shooters who want 400/2.8, 500, and 600mm.
So for me the hobbyist having the a7rii + a9 in the bag and shooting a variety of subjects (still smaller/lighter than a 1DXii) makes sense.

that's an awesome kit, if my kids were old enough, I'de love to have something similar, except make that A7rii x 2 + A9....

hoping the 100-400 works out for you as you're leading the way for many of us that cant spend that money for whatever reason

I'll definitely be watching your results, might even get me back to looking at flickr again