Absolutely awesome

[David Bo]

Pure awesomeness.

At the time of this writing everybidy is raving about the a9, so I had the chance to compare both at an event.

My experience with the a9 isn't very positive regarding AF acquisition compared to the a99II.

I compared the new "fantastic" a9 to the a99II with their native 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. The a9 hunted and hunted and hunted. It never found focus. The a99II nailed focus immediately. It was on the same subject and on the same place on the subject I placed the focus point. The test was inside a well lit big room. The subject was another 70-200 Sony lens and the focus point placed in the high contrast area between the black focus ring and the white body.

On some other subjects the a9 found focus and fast. Just as fast as the a99II but nevertheless the a9 disappointed me and my expectations, especially because of all the rave reviews and articles mentioning it as the new "game changer".

That test sealed the deal for me. A99II is a far better camera and ergonomically much, much better. The weight difference of the a9 and a99II with their native 70-200 lenses are not something you notice. Only the worse ergonomics of the a9.

Best regards

David

 

[araudan]

Pure awesomeness.

At the time of this writing everybidy is raving about the a9, so I had the chance to compare both at an event.

My experience with the a9 isn't very positive regarding AF acquisition compared to the a99II.

I compared the new "fantastic" a9 to the a99II with their native 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. The a9 hunted and hunted and hunted. It never found focus. The a99II nailed focus immediately. It was on the same subject and on the same place on the subject I placed the focus point. The test was inside a well lit big room. The subject was another 70-200 Sony lens and the focus point placed in the high contrast area between the black focus ring and the white body.

On some other subjects the a9 found focus and fast. Just as fast as the a99II but nevertheless the a9 disappointed me and my expectations, especially because of all the rave reviews and articles mentioning it as the new "game changer".

That test sealed the deal for me. A99II is a far better camera and ergonomically much, much better. The weight difference of the a9 and a99II with their native 70-200 lenses are not something you notice. Only the worse ergonomics of the a9.

Best regards

David

This is interesting. I've not used the A7/9 series cameras or the a99II. Weather permitting I'll get a chance to test the A9 next week. I'll have to compare it with the a77II for ergonomics. I don't have a UHS-II card to get the benefit of the A9's speed either. If nothing else it should be fun.

 

[lehill]

I had a similar experience comparing dedicated PDAF vs on-sensor focusing. At that time, it was an SLT A77ii vs mirrorless A6000 focusing on a backlit subject in someone's living room (daytime, closed window drapes). The A6000 couldn't achieve focus, the A77ii focused swiftly and surely. I don't know how to tell if the camera was using OSPDAF or contrast-detect.

I didn't put much credence in these results. Surely, I thought, Sony's on-sensor focusing has improved a lot since the A6000 came out in 2014. Apparently, there is still a ways to go.

But I still look forward to the day when we can get rid of mirrors of all sorts.

 

[David Bo]

I had a similar experience comparing dedicated PDAF vs on-sensor focusing. At that time, it was an SLT A77ii vs mirrorless A6000 focusing on a backlit subject in someone's living room (daytime, closed window drapes). The A6000 couldn't achieve focus, the A77ii focused swiftly and surely. I don't know how to tell if the camera was using OSPDAF or contrast-detect.

I didn't put much credence in these results. Surely, I thought, Sony's on-sensor focusing has improved a lot since the A6000 came out in 2014. Apparently, there is still a ways to go.

But I still look forward to the day when we can get rid of mirrors of all sorts.

 

[David Bo]

Pure awesomeness.

At the time of this writing everybidy is raving about the a9, so I had the chance to compare both at an event.

My experience with the a9 isn't very positive regarding AF acquisition compared to the a99II.

I compared the new "fantastic" a9 to the a99II with their native 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. The a9 hunted and hunted and hunted. It never found focus. The a99II nailed focus immediately. It was on the same subject and on the same place on the subject I placed the focus point. The test was inside a well lit big room. The subject was another 70-200 Sony lens and the focus point placed in the high contrast area between the black focus ring and the white body.

On some other subjects the a9 found focus and fast. Just as fast as the a99II but nevertheless the a9 disappointed me and my expectations, especially because of all the rave reviews and articles mentioning it as the new "game changer".

That test sealed the deal for me. A99II is a far better camera and ergonomically much, much better. The weight difference of the a9 and a99II with their native 70-200 lenses are not something you notice. Only the worse ergonomics of the a9.

Best regards

David

This is interesting. I've not used the A7/9 series cameras or the a99II. Weather permitting I'll get a chance to test the A9 next week. I'll have to compare it with the a77II for ergonomics. I don't have a UHS-II card to get the benefit of the A9's speed either. If nothing else it should be fun.

--
Dan

I think you will be dissapointed about the a9 ergonomics. The buttons is hard to reach and the control wheel on the back is hard to turn. I also hate the locks on the mode dials on top of the camera and the dedicated exposure comp dial. Really find it's a waste to put such a wheel on the camera. Mind you I onve owned the Dynax 7D and it had a similar top dial and exposure comp dial as the a9.

 

[Trevor_S]

. And he postulated the a9 was great. But it's hard to judge his photos when you only see them on a screen.

Being able to take "great photos' is expected of any camera like this, hell I have seen some "great photos" taken with mobile cameras. The UI, lens availability and user experience is the only thing that really differ.

The A6XXX series for example offers something the A mounts can't ...size. I can put my A6000 and 16mm lens in a coat pocket and it's light, I cannot do this with my A99 and tiniest of lenses I own, the Minolta 50/1.8 A combo of A9 w/ 70-200 2/8 and the size advantage disappears, so we're then left with what advantage does it offer ? it's new and not better (eg AF speed) ... is it's only point of difference and the reason it sells. I have no idea why that's a thing but for many it is, witness the sales

Having come from a Nikon dSLR (my Nikon kit was all stolen), I have no idea why anyone but those with lenses already buy them, having a slapping mirror and no live view makes it useless before you even start. So sensibly you'd not even consider them. Sure... you can take "great photos" ... and we're back to where we started

My point ? logic has nothing to do with camera purchases Hell you see it here with reviewers. Some reviewers here of a Canikon dSLR saying it's a great camera, whatttttt.. a slapping mirror and no live view, do you still use morse code as well ?

 

[David Bo]

. And he postulated the a9 was great. But it's hard to judge his photos when you only see them on a screen.

Being able to take "great photos' is expected of any camera like this, hell I have seen some "great photos" taken with mobile cameras. The UI, lens availability and user experience is the only thing that really differ.

The A6XXX series for example offers something the A mounts can't ...size. I can put my A6000 and 16mm lens in a coat pocket and it's light, I cannot do this with my A99 and tiniest of lenses I own, the Minolta 50/1.8 A combo of A9 w/ 70-200 2/8 and the size advantage disappears, so we're then left with what advantage does it offer ? it's new and not better (eg AF speed) ... is it's only point of difference and the reason it sells. I have no idea why that's a thing but for many it is, witness the sales

Having come from a Nikon dSLR (my Nikon kit was all stolen), I have no idea why anyone but those with lenses already buy them, having a slapping mirror and no live view makes it useless before you even start. So sensibly you'd not even consider them. Sure... you can take "great photos" ... and we're back to where we started

My point ? logic has nothing to do with camera purchases Hell you see it here with reviewers. Some reviewers here of a Canikon dSLR saying it's a great camera, whatttttt.. a slapping mirror and no live view, do you still use morse code as well ?

I think you are right. Some just buy it because it's a new system and that alone make the a-mount obsolete in their perspectives. But I think many Sony users that bought into e-mount did it because Sony was a bit slow to upgrade the a99 after the a7r. They simply wanted more resolution than 24 MP. They were also "fooled" by the smaller lenses but forgot that an 2.8 lens would be bigger and just as big as in a-mount. Even reviewers and the sgi ambassador said this, until I pointed it out. Sony is also here part of the equation because we miss f/4 lenses in a-mount.

Many also changed to e-mount from Canon because of the sensor in the a7r and that they could "use" their lenses although with limitations.

But I really hope Sony start to push the a-mount. We are many that won't give up on it especially since e-mount isn't ergonomically comparable to a-mount cameras and because of the AF system.

Btw. It's really annoying to have a GM lens on then a7x and a9 because of the non-existent room for your fingers between the bidy and the lens.

I really don't get Sony?!

 

[paulnelson88]

Pure awesomeness.

At the time of this writing everybidy is raving about the a9, so I had the chance to compare both at an event.

My experience with the a9 isn't very positive regarding AF acquisition compared to the a99II.

I compared the new "fantastic" a9 to the a99II with their native 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. The a9 hunted and hunted and hunted. It never found focus. The a99II nailed focus immediately. It was on the same subject and on the same place on the subject I placed the focus point. The test was inside a well lit big room. The subject was another 70-200 Sony lens and the focus point placed in the high contrast area between the black focus ring and the white body.

On some other subjects the a9 found focus and fast. Just as fast as the a99II but nevertheless the a9 disappointed me and my expectations, especially because of all the rave reviews and articles mentioning it as the new "game changer".

That test sealed the deal for me. A99II is a far better camera and ergonomically much, much better. The weight difference of the a9 and a99II with their native 70-200 lenses are not something you notice. Only the worse ergonomics of the a9.

Best regards

David

I shoot sports with both cameras and love them both but the A9 it's a beast and never misses especially in low-light. The pinky grip and the regular size grip make a world of difference I found the button layout on the a 992 frustrating for me

 

[tbcass]

I have read a lot of in the field reports that the A9 AF isn't that good in less than ideal lighting conditions.

 

[tbcass]

The A6XXX series for example offers something the A mounts can't ...size. I can put my A6000 and 16mm lens in a coat pocket and it's light, I cannot do this with my A99 and tiniest of lenses I own, the Minolta 50/1.8 A combo of A9 w/ 70-200 2/8 and the size advantage disappears, so we're then left with what advantage does it offer ? it's new and not better (eg AF speed) ... is it's only point of difference and the reason it sells. I have no idea why that's a thing but for many it is, witness the sales

This argument goes on for ever. What you call size advantage I call disadvantage. I prefer larger cameras for the ergonomics and handling. My point is small size is either an advantage or disadvantage depending on your personal preferences and circumstances so let's stop calling small size, or large size for that matter, an advantage because it depends on a lot of variables.

As a side note when I want smaller size for carrying around and being inconspicuous only a small camera like the RX100 series or similar foots the bill. None of the E Mount cameras are small enough so for me it's either tiny, RX100, or large, RX10iii, A77ii and A99ii. Nothing in between, E Mount or 4/3, appeals to me.

 

[David Bo]

Pure awesomeness.

At the time of this writing everybidy is raving about the a9, so I had the chance to compare both at an event.

My experience with the a9 isn't very positive regarding AF acquisition compared to the a99II.

I compared the new "fantastic" a9 to the a99II with their native 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. The a9 hunted and hunted and hunted. It never found focus. The a99II nailed focus immediately. It was on the same subject and on the same place on the subject I placed the focus point. The test was inside a well lit big room. The subject was another 70-200 Sony lens and the focus point placed in the high contrast area between the black focus ring and the white body.

On some other subjects the a9 found focus and fast. Just as fast as the a99II but nevertheless the a9 disappointed me and my expectations, especially because of all the rave reviews and articles mentioning it as the new "game changer".

That test sealed the deal for me. A99II is a far better camera and ergonomically much, much better. The weight difference of the a9 and a99II with their native 70-200 lenses are not something you notice. Only the worse ergonomics of the a9.

Best regards

David

I shoot sports with both cameras and love them both but the A9 it's a beast and never misses especially in low-light. The pinky grip and the regular size grip make a world of difference I found the button layout on the a 992 frustrating for me

--
https://paulnelson.smugmug.com/

Funny. I have also photographed a lot of sport (Pro track cycling) but I strongly dissagree about the a9 ergonomics and the a99M2 button layout. For me the a9 is a useless peace of crap and the a99M2 like a glove that fits my hand perfect.

It's quite weird I have the opposite a9 AF experience than you, because the a9 just hunted, and hunted and hunted. The a99II grabbed focus immediately.

I didn't try tracking subjects but if the a9 can't even grab focus with a 70-200 f/2.8 G master lens on a subject with ok contrast in a well lit indoor environment it's simply not good enough.

 

[David Bo]

The A6XXX series for example offers something the A mounts can't ...size. I can put my A6000 and 16mm lens in a coat pocket and it's light, I cannot do this with my A99 and tiniest of lenses I own, the Minolta 50/1.8 A combo of A9 w/ 70-200 2/8 and the size advantage disappears, so we're then left with what advantage does it offer ? it's new and not better (eg AF speed) ... is it's only point of difference and the reason it sells. I have no idea why that's a thing but for many it is, witness the sales

This argument goes on for ever. What you call size advantage I call disadvantage. I prefer larger cameras for the ergonomics and handling. My point is small size is either an advantage or disadvantage depending on your personal preferences and circumstances so let's stop calling small size, or large size for that matter, an advantage because it depends on a lot of variables.

As a side note when I want smaller size for carrying around and being inconspicuous only a small camera like the RX100 series or similar foots the bill. None of the E Mount cameras are small enough so for me it's either tiny, RX100, or large, RX10iii, A77ii and A99ii. Nothing in between, E Mount or 4/3, appeals to me.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

I agree with you completely Tom.

I shoot a lot of raw even on my Samsung galaxy S7 phone and convert in LR mobile. Love it and I always have the camera with me.

When it gets serious I live to use a large camera with great ergonomics and not a a7x olympis or fuji with crippled ergonomics. IMHO.

 

[lehill]

I shoot sports with both cameras and love them both but the A9 it's a beast and never misses especially in low-light. The pinky grip and the regular size grip make a world of difference I found the button layout on the a 992 frustrating for me

I don't understand this disparity of AF experiences. Paul, you have feet implanted in both worlds (DSLR/SLT/Mirrorless). What's up?

 

[barrym1966]

Strangely on the a99ii in extreme low light when it begins hunting for focus, I have found pressing the eye af button gets an instant lock. Not sure why this is

 

[paulnelson88]

I shoot sports with both cameras and love them both but the A9 it's a beast and never misses especially in low-light. The pinky grip and the regular size grip make a world of difference I found the button layout on the a 992 frustrating for me

I don't understand this disparity of AF experiences. Paul, you have feet implanted in both worlds (DSLR/SLT/Mirrorless). What's up?

 

[David Bo]

I shoot sports with both cameras and love them both but the A9 it's a beast and never misses especially in low-light. The pinky grip and the regular size grip make a world of difference I found the button layout on the a 992 frustrating for me

I don't understand this disparity of AF experiences. Paul, you have feet implanted in both worlds (DSLR/SLT/Mirrorless). What's up?

 

[MediaArchivist]

I have found that AF-C with face detection and object tracking tends to nail focus in dark environs where the a99 struggled. There are a lot of permutations of focus modes and aides, it pays to experiment!

 

[thoth22]

Odd review as you spend most of it criticising a camera you don't own instead of offering all the positives of the camera you own. It is a tad childish.

 

[barrym1966]

I have found that AF-C with face detection and object tracking tends to nail focus in dark environs where the a99 struggled. There are a lot of permutations of focus modes and aides, it pays to experiment!

 

[RE Alpha]

Pure awesomeness.

At the time of this writing everybidy is raving about the a9, so I had the chance to compare both at an event.

My experience with the a9 isn't very positive regarding AF acquisition compared to the a99II.

I compared the new "fantastic" a9 to the a99II with their native 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. The a9 hunted and hunted and hunted. It never found focus. The a99II nailed focus immediately. It was on the same subject and on the same place on the subject I placed the focus point. The test was inside a well lit big room. The subject was another 70-200 Sony lens and the focus point placed in the high contrast area between the black focus ring and the white body.

On some other subjects the a9 found focus and fast. Just as fast as the a99II but nevertheless the a9 disappointed me and my expectations, especially because of all the rave reviews and articles mentioning it as the new "game changer".

That test sealed the deal for me. A99II is a far better camera and ergonomically much, much better. The weight difference of the a9 and a99II with their native 70-200 lenses are not something you notice. Only the worse ergonomics of the a9.

Best regards

David

I shoot sports with both cameras and love them both but the A9 it's a beast and never misses especially in low-light. The pinky grip and the regular size grip make a world of difference I found the button layout on the a 992 frustrating for me