Video: review of the Sony A9 by a PJ and sports photographer

Some very interesting statements:

1. Adapted lenses work really well, even with AF

2. One battery can shoot two entire football games while using a super telephoto

3. The EVF is good enough to judge exposure very accurately

4. Dials for AF and drive mode on the top plate are a very welcome feature, especially for sports

5. Sony seems to be listening to its customers

6. It's basically ready for the Olympic Games, thanks in part to features such as the Ethernet port

7. It's a better remote camera than any other camera in that sensor class

8. The A9 represents where cameras are going (obviously - however, I think they're going to change more than he thinks...)

I primarily shoot wildlife and my brief experience with my a9 and Canon 500/f4 II and 100-400/f4.5-5.6 II, confirms everything that Patrick says. Here's my review that I posted in the Sony Forum a couple of weeks ago:

Together, Metabones, Sony & Canon Hit Grand Slam

Even high-end Nikon and Canon DSLRs rely on predictive focusing to track subjects in continuous shooting mode. Focusing only occurs when the shutter is closed and the mirror down. The Sony A9 doesn't have a mirror or shutter, and with on-sensor processing, the AF detectors remain continuously active. The A9 also processes AF and AE data 60 times/second - three times the maximum shooting rate. The A9 will execute face (and eye) tracking, running flat out, and in video mode too. I'm not sure if any Nikon DSLR has AF in video mode.

For normal use, the new NP-FZ100 batter is rated for 480 exposures. This balloons dramatically when used with high-speed shooting. 480 finger presses quickly accumulates thousands of frames. Time is a factor too. My A7Rii is good for about 300 images or 3 hours, whichever is less, because I shut it off when just walking.

...

 

For normal use, the new NP-FZ100 batter is rated for 480 exposures. This balloons dramatically when used with high-speed shooting. 480 finger presses quickly accumulates thousands of frames. Time is a factor too. My A7Rii is good for about 300 images or 3 hours, whichever is less, because I shut it off when just walking.

Thanks for explaining that. I was wondering why I was getting thousands per charge and not just hundreds, with my a9. Also, I've set the camera to only shut down after 5-minutes of non-use. Shooting birds in flight, I can't afford for the camera to go to sleep and take a second to wake up. Despite that, I'll shoot for three-hours, 1,000+ shots and still have more than 55% of the battery left.

I've ordered the grip, mainly for the place to put my little finger when handling large, Canon, super-telephoto primes; however, the extra battery will give me plenty of insurance for long days of shooting. I hope that the extra leverage will reduce the strain on my hands and wrists. (The body shape isn't really designed for hand holding large, heavy lenses).

The A9 is a break-through camera in many respects. The continuous speed is fast, but other cameras are faster, and run silently, but not with a full frame sensor, nor the extreme ISO capability. The fact that the A9 can do so many things simultaneously is perhaps the most important factor.

Little noted is that the A9 shoots 6K video, then downsamples to 4K or 2K (HD). A firmware change would probably enable 6K recording, in ample time for the Olympic trials (their purported original goal in 2016). Why is that important? Downsampling! I shoot a lot of video, and in my experience you get much better results downsampling than shooting in native resolution. I shoot 1080p and downsample to 720p, mainly for file size suitable for electronic delivery. There is much less stair casing and fewer framing artifacts this way. 4K TV sets are a hit this year, and 6K to 4K downsampling may be a valuable tool. 100 MB/s is at the bottom end for broadcast quality 4K. I suspect it is or soon will be possible to record at 200 MB/s externally.

The A7Rii was the first camera I owned that allowed use of an external, USB battery in shooting mode. A 20K mAH battery, the size of a cell phone, will run that camera for over 10 hours with three dots out of four still lighted. The internal battery still provides some of the power, but lasts the 6-8 hours.

Add-on grips double the available power and are ergonomic. I don't like to use them on a tripod, since the connection is a little wobbly. Long lenses use a tripod foot, so that's not necessarily an issue. When you use a long lens, you support it at the CG with your left hand, not the shooting hand. However a larger grip would be nice for bringing the camera and lens up to your eye, a one-handed operation.

Canon's really missed the boat in developing a serious mirrorless body. They'll catch up, I bet, but it'll probably be five-years or so.

Canon and Nikon could certainly make a professional-quality, mirrorless camera, but it's not in their interest to do so. They would have to produce a line of lenses 90 mm or so and shorter dedicated to that camera. Existing long lenses with AFS could be used with full compatibility. There is little to be gained by completely replacing those lenses with new designs.

The dilemma is this. every pro mirrorless sold would be one less DSLR out the door, and their industry is based on the DSLR. It will take a new generation of executives to look 5 years down the road rather than the next quartet (like in the US). If they started today, they would still be 2 or 3 years behind Sony, which may be too much for brand loyalty to overcome. In my 60 years in photography, I've seen many companies "too big to fail," fail - Graflex, Contax, Rolleiflex to name a few. (Others, like vinyl records, persist in a near-vegetative state.)

...

 

Add-on grips double the available power and are ergonomic. I don't like to use them on a tripod, since the connection is a little wobbly. Long lenses use a tripod foot, so that's not necessarily an issue. When you use a long lens, you support it at the CG with your left hand, not the shooting hand. However a larger grip would be nice for bringing the camera and lens up to your eye, a one-handed operation.

True, but everyone that I know that shoots hand held, uses the right hand to guide the and fine tune the lens aim. The a9's small body requires significantly more right hand grip pressure than my Canon's. My hands are medium sized for a male. I think that those with large hands will have even worse problems. Those with small hands may find the a9's body size an advantage. I have no doubt that my hands and wrists hurt more after two-hours of hand holding my a9 vs. my Canons.

Over the years, I developed my arms and shoulders to manage hand holding super-telephoto lenses. One-handing the rig to my eye is not in the cards for me. Maybe a 24-105mm, which I occasionally one-hand.

Ergonomics are important, but it's hard to build a package that works equally well in all uses. Because of lens physics, there's not much advantage in weight and size of lenses designed specifically for full-frame mirrorless vs. full-frame DSLR lenses. If Sony would build a crop-sensor body equivalent to the a9, with a dedicated 600/f4, to take advantage of the smaller sensor with a much smaller lens, I'd be all over it. Unfortunately, that market is pretty small.

Canon and Nikon could certainly make a professional-quality, mirrorless camera, but it's not in their interest to do so. They would have to produce a line of lenses 90 mm or so and shorter dedicated to that camera. Existing long lenses with AFS could be used with full compatibility. There is little to be gained by completely replacing those lenses with new designs.

 

...

Silent shutter, 20-fps, 693-AF points, etc. will motivate Canon and Nikon, IF Sony starts making a dent in their professional market at the Olympics and other sporting events. If Sony starts producing FE lenses in focal lengths needed by sports photographers, then there'll be added pressure. That fact that the EF lenses already work with the a9, with almost all functionality, using the Metabones MkV adapter is the beginning of the pressure to act.

Until the professional market is saturated with mirrorless, I doubt that Canon or Nikon will build much in the way of dedicated lenses, but I'll bet that they make proprietary adapters for their lens/body combinations. I'll bet that we start seeing movement by 2019.

My largest Sony lens is a 70-200 f/4, not a heavyweight by most measures. My drill is to carry it on a sling strap, raise it with my right hand until I can get my left hand under the foot. My left arm does the heavy work, and the right, as you say, the fine tuning. Sports and wildlife photographers I've seen in action use a tripod (and cantilever head) or monopod whenever possible.

The new Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is their first E-mount entry in the long lens field. I suspect they will stick with smaller apertures in long lenses to keep the weight and cost in check. Do you really need f/2.8 when ISO 25,600 is nearly noise-free?

I admit that I'm taking a hard look at the A9. The A7Rii is absolutely great for landscapes and closeups, but on the slow side (comparable to a flagship Nikon) with a small battery. I have a 24 MP A7ii as a backup, but rarely use it. The autofocus is not as good as the A7Rii, and it doesn't have a silent shutter option (far from silent). As I see it, the A9 would take center stage.

The A9 has been criticized for having only 12.5 stops dynamic range, compared to 13.2 for the A7Rii, Nikon D810, and a few others. That's not exactly a deal-beaker. Even 24 MP v 42 MP is only off by a resolution factor of 1.3. That's the difference between a 20" print (300 dpi, no resampling) an 26". I may never use 20 fps except to feel the power, but face recognition and eye focus is essential for concerts (classical), children and events.

Until the professional market is saturated with mirrorless

For those of you who have never worked with marketing guys, being first is everything. Being second is expensive, really expensive, and success is not guaranteed. You have to cut prices and hustle deliveries. Your development, manpower and marketing expenses are hard to recover with sales. If you don't make your nut in two years or less, changes will be made on behalf of the stockholders.

Sometimes striving for a place in the sun is not only unsuccessful, but laughable. Does anyone remember Hasselblad's $6000 point-and-shoot? Leica gets by with the S2 only because they're "Leica."

My largest Sony lens is a 70-200 f/4, not a heavyweight by most measures. My drill is to carry it on a sling strap, raise it with my right hand until I can get my left hand under the foot. My left arm does the heavy work, and the right, as you say, the fine tuning. Sports and wildlife photographers I've seen in action use a tripod (and cantilever head) or monopod whenever possible.

 

The new Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is their first E-mount entry in the long lens field. I suspect they will stick with smaller apertures in long lenses to keep the weight and cost in check. Do you really need f/2.8 when ISO 25,600 is nearly noise-free?

 

I admit that I'm taking a hard look at the A9. The A7Rii is absolutely great for landscapes and closeups, but on the slow side (comparable to a flagship Nikon) with a small battery. I have a 24 MP A7ii as a backup, but rarely use it. The autofocus is not as good as the A7Rii, and it doesn't have a silent shutter option (far from silent). As I see it, the A9 would take center stage.

 

The A9 has been criticized for having only 12.5 stops dynamic range, compared to 13.2 for the A7Rii, Nikon D810, and a few others. That's not exactly a deal-beaker. Even 24 MP v 42 MP is only off by a resolution factor of 1.3. That's the difference between a 20" print (300 dpi, no resampling) an 26". I may never use 20 fps except to feel the power, but face recognition and eye focus is essential for concerts (classical), children and events.

I carry a 500/f4 on one body and a 100-400/f4.5-5.6 on another body. The big one hangs off my right shoulder and the little guy is around my neck. I lift both with both hands. I shoot hand held to avoid the set up time of tripod and it's limiting tracking range. (I own a 70-200/f4, which is light as a feather in comparison, so I understand how you might use it much differently).

I find that my 5D MkIV and 5DS-R both have superior files to the a9, mainly due to significantly higher resolution. The a9 probably exceeds the 5DS-R in dynamic range, but in good light, the a9's lower resolution is limiting for cropped feathers and fur. The 5D MkIV certainly matches the a9 in real world dynamic range and is superior in resolution. These are not just numbers on a chart, but what I see when working with the files. I just got back from France, having left the a9 at home and using mainly the 5D MkIV and the 5DS-R for well lit shots that might be saleable.

When Sony produces a full-frame body with higher resolution and most of the a9's AF capability, I'll be buying, either as my primary or secondary body, depending on AF functionality. For birds-in-flight, AF trumps everything else, dynamic range is second and resolution is third, in my personal hierarchy.

I'm quite happy with 10-fps out of my a9. Later, after I buy my Sony 100-400mm, I'll try 20-fps, but it's only available with JPEG or a lossy RAW file. I'll try it and keep it available for special occasions, but mainly stick to 10-fps and the uncompressed RAW file.

I learned from B&H that the A9 does not have an anti-aliasing filter. This gives it a 50% boost compared to the A7ii, which is already pretty good (comparable to a Leica M9, 18 MP). I'd rather have a camera I will use regularly, than one which only sits in reserve. If there's an A9R, I may consider selling the A7Rii. Rumors have it at 60-70 MP, probably early in December. Maybe, but those who are talking, don't know, and those who know aren't talking. The $500 rebate is almost too good to pass up. Either sales are slow or there's a new camera on the horizon. Meanwhile, I have (and propose to maintain) two bodies which take the same lenses. Life is good.

I find myself using a three shot, +/- 2 stop bracket for landscapes. That gives me a 16 stop dynamic range, and pulls detail out of unusual places, from deep shadow to overcast skies.

Some random thoughts, bouncing off the above discussion:

As far as resolution goes, you need 100Mpx to double the resolution of the A9. But, try telling that to some photographers and they'll swear that 36Mpx is significantly more than 24Mpx. So you have to play that game if you're a manufacturer.

The Leica S2 is a superior camera to the 36Mpx Nikons at base ISO, unless of course you use Zeiss Otus lenses with them, in which case you're not saving much money.

I don't know about Sony's modern cameras, but DRO is not quite what we really need. DRO brings up the shadows but what I want is to prevent highlights from clipping (if they are there in the RAW file). The DRO curve is the opposite of what it should be.

Competition is good, and photographers will love having more than two choices for sports and action. Nobody needs permission to step outside the false binary. Nikon and Canon will always be there, just like Microsoft will always be there. But just like digital replaced 35mm, CSCs will replace DSLRs.

Integrated cameras like the RX10 will be able to replace system cameras like the A9 for assignments like the Olympic Games. In fact the RX10 IV probably can right now.

RFs like the M will be made long after everyone stops making DSLRs. I think we might see a new 35mm SLR in the next few years.

DRO is best described as "selective gain." It does bring out shadow detail, but not at the expense of highlight tolerance. It also tends to produce rather flat results, which itself is a consequence of a wide, dynamic range of capture.

I was thinking of the Leica Q, a high quality but fixed lens camera. The S is another type of beast, for the niche, high-end market of medium format. Otus lenses are compatible with a Leica SL (FX), but not the S.

DRO is best described as "selective gain." It does bring out shadow detail, but not at the expense of highlight tolerance. It also tends to produce rather flat results, which itself is a consequence of a wide, dynamic range of capture.

.

Simply raise Contrast in RAW conversion. All the data is there in the file, for us to adjust to our preferences.

For the first time, I find myself applying negative Saturation in RAW conversion. Greens, in particular seem too prominent. Also, the RAW files seem noisy out of the camera, but they clean up very nicely, with little loss of feather and fur detail.

I learned from B&H that the A9 does not have an anti-aliasing filter. This gives it a 50% boost compared to the A7ii, which is already pretty good (comparable to a Leica M9, 18 MP). I'd rather have a camera I will use regularly, than one which only sits in reserve. If there's an A9R, I may consider selling the A7Rii. Rumors have it at 60-70 MP, probably early in December. Maybe, but those who are talking, don't know, and those who know aren't talking.

....

Now that would be a great second body.

I spoke with one of Sony's regional marketing reps and a friend spoke to another. Both said that they only know something's happening when the start getting calls the morning of the press release. If they are to be believed, they get no warning. However, we know that Sony does send out preview samples to select professional users.