Sony A9 and Leica SL, in the light of their imminent successors

The Leica SL will probably be updated this year. The Sony A9 may be as well, although it's a bit soon, given that it was introduced in 2017. On the other hand, the Tokyo Olympic games are twelve months away, and photographers would like some time to get used to a new camera.

 

On the other hand, the A9 is so good that it trounces every other camera. So much so, that no matter what Canon and Nikon do to their flagship DSLRs, they will never match the A9 in certain areas. Sony could not update the A9 for another year and it would still beat every camera out there, save for maybe the E-M1 X. But I digress.

 

In light of their successors, I wonder if these cameras will see a price reduction. If so, they could be seen as excellent purchases for the budget-conscious professional or enthusiast who wants a high-end camera, but doesn't mind being a generation or two behind.

 

If you could easily afford the A9II or the SL2, what price reduction would tempt you to buy them instead of their successors? And here's a related question: Two A9/SL bodies, or one A9II/SL2 body? ;-)

The Sony A9 is currently discounted nearly $1000, putting it in the same price range as the new A7Riv. This may reflect a strategy to keep Nikon and Canon at a disadvantage, but could also herald a new mode on the wayl. The A9 sensor is special, with an image extraction speed 10x that of any competitor, hence no rolling shutter in the silent mode.

 

24 MP is fine, but a 5.8 MP EVF would be better than 4.8 MP. The only complaints I have are the non-locking exposure compensation dial, 8-bit video, and lack of picture profiles essential for grading and matching video sequences.

Didn’t Sony have quite the pace going a little while ago? I’m surprised the A9 is holding up for so long, I’m shooting mine now for 27 month. And as much as I hate the ergonomics, repair support and built quality, it still gets the picture while the Nikon Z7 fails (even that I like the image and ergonomics so much better). Anyways, had a chats this week, discounts on the A9 is clearing out the channels and we’ll see a Mark II in the fall. It pains me to say, but I’ll get 2 as the Nikon is not ready for prime time shooting silent at High iso in challenging, low light. otherwise, it’s my fav camera these days and I preordered the 85mm last week.

On the other hand, the Tokyo Olympic games are twelve months away, and photographers would like some time to get used to a new camera.

A new camera/lens just because it's an Olympic year. Is that still a thing?

 

The handful of privileged professionals shooting from the press box are hardly going to make Canikonsony rich. And anyone left shooting from the public stands is deluded if they think they're going to get a saleable shot to offset the price of new gear.

 

And are the athletes going to be moving so much faster next year that they'll challenge the frame-rate, ISO, AF or lens apertures of current equipment? I don't think so.

 

Maybe a new A9 model might get clearer snapshots off your TV screen?

The handful of privileged professionals shooting from the press box are hardly going to make Canikonsony rich. And anyone left shooting from the public stands is deluded if they think they're going to get a saleable shot to offset the price of new gear.

Sony will probably seek to appeal to professional photographers at the games. In turn, enthusiasts will want what the pros use. What's changed?

 

High frame rates, taken in short bursts, maximize the chance that one of the shots will have just the right composition, consequently the ability to get a "money" shot of the event. At shutter speeds faster than 1/120 second, an A9 will not only capture 20 fps, but have a seamless, flicker-free display. If Sony moves to 8K video (likely), each frame will be 22 MP at up to 60 fps.

 

Thanks to completely silent shutters, Sony has taken over situations where that is desirable. SLRs have been effectively banned from golf tournaments, Congressional hearings and pressers in the Oval Room. I doubt that anyone cares about a little extra noise at football games, but pros will use equipment that meets the most stringent requirements, especially if their gear is provided by an agency. Pros (or agencies) will select equipment that maximizes their competitiveness in the marketplace.

 

The athletes don't count. They do what they do as best as they can, but to the photography pool, they're just chopped liver.

And are the athletes going to be moving so much faster next year that they'll challenge the frame-rate, ISO, AF or lens apertures of current equipment? I don't think so.

I don't think so, either.

 

High frame rates, taken in short bursts, maximize the chance that one of the shots will have just the right composition, consequently the ability to get a "money" shot of the event.

I agree. It's not essential but it's a nice luxury to have. It could mean the difference between a useful image and a useless one. E.g. someone blinking. I also agree about silent shutters. I'm surprised that certain organizations haven't banned physical shutters sooner. Good to see it happen, though.

If you could easily afford the A9II or the SL2, what price reduction would tempt you to buy them instead of their successors?

Huh? This is tough to think through! - I mean I'd have an A9, if(!) I could afford it + glass. "Surplus wealth" > A9 + 50mm & portrait lens = "Go!", in my mind.

No comment on the SL2. That camera demands the ability to afford it's native zooms, which would mean buying two new ones, every 10 years. Out of my personal reach. For that reason I don't even know what the camera does how well or badly.

Generally speaking:

Obsolete workhorse bodies are absolutely fine, in my book. No I don't mean M8 & 9 at the side line, I mean stuff that does "the job" well enough. There is nothing wrong about an old SLR to take stopped down product shots or compliant portraits and such in enough light. I bought that kind of camera used at 20-25% former retail price.

Two A9/SL bodies, or one A9II/SL2 body? ;-)

I don't see hope that Sony will drop their price for the A9 to 50% A9 II. To feel comfortable, I need 1.5 bodies within a system (or other means, to kind off back up something). I am fine with a "somewhat usable" backup; M8 behind Monochrom for example. Thats why I quoted 1.5 instead of two. I can imagine A9s going along with something A7 or a new MILC with an SLR in the same system. I like shooting 2 cameras with different lenses mounted.

I think the purchase of A9 I vs II should be based upon something different than a fistfull of peanuts body price rebate. How much is glass compared to that? The long prime and some zooms are easily 24K€/$...

In doubt: Buy mixed! Any previous generation seems good enough to be used in a pinch, but many next models offer nice extra features.

I also agree about silent shutters. I'm surprised that certain organizations haven't banned physical shutters sooner. Good to see it happen, though.

I disagree!

Yes, it would sometimes be nice to have them. But: How and where did camera shutter noise ever annoy whom or damage what? - I'd rather hear no aviation or lawn mowers, motor scythes and leaf blowers...

This is tough to think through!

Indeed. IF I could easily afford an A9II or SL2, why would I worry about the price reduction of their predecessors? Save some money on using them as backups? Aren't price conscious and Leica mutually exclusive terms?

I don't see hope that Sony will drop their price for the A9 to 50% A9 II.

Maybe by the time the A9 Mk3 comes around?

 

While the performance characteristics of the A9 are impressive (burst speed, buffer depth, no rolling shutter, black-out free EVF) I am in no desperate need for any of them and hence for me the A9 competes directly with the A7III; one can almost get two of the latter for the price of the former. Given the (current) uniqueness of the A9 - if one does need the features, then does the price of admission matter? Basing a decision whether to purchase an A9 at whatever price reduction vs an A9II of which nothing is currently known on their cost differential is a rather futile exercise. If the A9 suffices for your needs by the time the A9II is available, then take whatever price reduction is offered as icing on the cake. If you need whatever the A9II has to offer over the A9, then why even consider the A9 at any price?

Yes, it would sometimes be nice to have them {silent shutters). But: How and where did camera shutter noise ever annoy whom or damage what? - I'd rather hear no aviation or lawn mowers, motor scythes and leaf blowers...

Shutter noise is very distracting in an otherwise quiet environment, like plays and classical concerts. Nor will you hear shutter noise in Congressional hearings. In the spate of recent hearings, every photographer was carrying a Sony (and prominent Alpha camera strap). You aren't even allowed to walk above the underground concert hall in Munich.

 

All Sony alpha cameras, model II and up, have a silent shutter option. Buy the A9 if you need the speed and external controls, and are happy with 24 MP.

 

Several towns in the Chicago area have banned leaf blowers and lawn mowers at certain time. In Highland Park, IL, at all times. I have had several recording sessions interrupted by lawn care activity.

 

I leave the shutter "noisy" when it really doesn't matter, for landscapes and such. I deliberately leave it noisy when shooting portraits or group photos. The sound relieves tension for the customer(s) so they can relax for a moment. It also nearly eliminates any rolling shutter effects (all focal plane shutters exhibit rolling shutter, but with a scan time of 1/250 second or less, the maximum flash sync speed).

Sony will probably seek to appeal to professional photographers at the games. In turn, enthusiasts will want what the pros use. What's changed?

What's changed is; it's no longer 1938 when Zeiss could name a lens 'Olympia Sonnar' in honour of said games, and sell lenses off the back of it.

 

I would really question whether there are gullible enthusiasts with A9 Mk ii type money to spare these days, and in sufficient numbers to make a detectable blip in Sony's sales chart. Any such enthusiasts are probably much more likely to be influenced by the equipment used by winner of 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year', than by the ever-diminishing pool of pro sports shooters that manage to make a living from stills shots.

 

Any amateur that follows such a niche scene, and is then prepared to spend several thousand dollars on the strength of it for almost zero return - well, such people obviously spawned the phrase 'more money than sense', and in Spades!

What's changed is; it's no longer 1938 when Zeiss could name a lens 'Olympia Sonnar' in honour of said games, and sell lenses off the back of it.

The last Olympic games prior to WWII were in 1936. None were held again until 1948. If Zeiss renamed a lens in its honor in 1938, nobody noticed, nobody cared.

 

Is it important what sports photographers use? I suspect that football photographers get more exposure than the wildlife photography winner, whoever that was. For years, "experts" on Photo.net proudly declared no self-respecting sports photographer would ever choose Sony, as if that were the only criteria by which to judge a camera. At first it wasn't fast enough, then there weren't enough lenses, then not enough long lenses. I would expect a few red faces by now.

 

Sony won't need to name a camera to reflect the Olympics. It will suffice to make it the most desirable camera for pros to use. No DSLR can touch the current A9 for focusing accuracy, speed and tracking. That alone is enough to attract wedding photographers, who I suspect outnumber sports and news photographers 300 to 1.

IF I could easily afford an A9II or SL2, why would I worry about the price reduction of their predecessors? Save some money on using them as backups?

Indeed. And a pre-owned backup is, at least to me, more appealing than a "new" outdated one. Somebody will feel hard pressed enough, to sell at a reasonable price,to somehow get their hands on the later and greater model.

Shutter noise is very distracting in an otherwise quiet environment, like plays and classical concerts.

Agreed; I semi ruined one moment at highschool.

I have no clue what is going on in the American congress. I know politics getting done via microphones and loudspeakers and assume shutter noise should be either bearable or at least compensated by the participants' salaries...