Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,171
Re: Smalls
2

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +17 more
OP sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 15,836
Re: Smalls
11

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

Your mentioning of noise and FPS in the context of this photo really drives home how little you understand the true value of photography. No sane person looks at this photograph and things "man I wish this had better IQ"

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,171
Re: Smalls
4

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

Your mentioning of noise and FPS in the context of this photo really drives home how little you understand the true value of photography. No sane person looks at this photograph and things "man I wish this had better IQ"

No, that is not the point. What I mean is that modern digital cameras can do everything old film cameras can do but only do much better. Do you suggest any PJs today should use old film cameras instead? What I said the above photo no reason cannot be done by modern digital cameras even at the same artistic level. Please elaborate if you actually think so. There are lots more such great moment photos taken by modern cameras these days that we see at daily basis as modern digital cameras not only could capture such moments in much higher rate, but also technically superior (sharpness, details and noise level etc).

Return to OP, why an A9 owner will cripple a top flagship camera with adapted lenses in compromise? This is similar you are trying to challenge those sport PJs at the sideline of sport venues why they use expensive 1Dx II, D5 and A9 if a T7i, D7500 and A6300 also can capture many moments?

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +17 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,303
Re: Smalls

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Magnar W wrote:

This video is his opinion.

If I should decide for myself, I would have used a camera body with newest firmware, and tested it with native mount lenses.

Even for a professional, money is a factor, but so is risking jobs with more or less well functioning adapted lenses ...

Sony fan delusions aside where exactly do you think that the legions of pro shooters using Canon are risking jobs .

Video, low light, and to some degree now even AF

I am not sure that a 1DX II shooter is over concerned with video ,

Seriously? The video is actually excellent. Minus a few things like no IBIS

if video is critical to what you do there are better options than DSLR's/ mirrorless FF cameras .

There are BUT more and more people are now hybrid shooting. The days of just video and stills aren't long for this world.

the claims of some Sony fans the differences at high ISO are insignificant .

Meh. Pull those Canon files or shoot with the same shutter speed. Everything adds up.

In fairness there are a LOT more models out there .is this discussion ONlY high end sports cameras

RAW low light 6400 ISO

The "features" in most advanced mirrorless cameras such as eye AF are just conveniences to make something easier not do something impossible

YES. That is exactly all ANYTHING ever is. AF, FPS, digital vs film, and on and on and on. At some point the ease to accomplish something translates into dollars. It means you can drop consistent results and charge for them.

If you cannot take in focus shots of your subjects whatever they may be you will have a very short career as a pro photographer . The fact that doing something is easier does not really matter in the hands of the skilled .

It absolutely does. Use your logic. The sidelines of the Olympics would be full of old film cameras and decades old lenses.

Instead they are lined with mostly the newest and highest end equipment. It helps that Canon is passing it out......

Canon have had for example an 85mm F/1.2 lens since 1976

And it shows ......lens designs have come a long way in 40 years. Generally speaking

people have been using fast shallow DOF lenses for decades.

They have BUT it is now easier than ever. Look through any decent portfolio of wedding photography from today VS the products of twenty years ago.

Easier and more common do not make them unique quite the opposite in fact

Too many here confuse something being easier with competence

Some confuse possibility with ability.

Please,

Quick example. One of the iconic shots from the last summer Olympics was a pan of Usain Bolt during a 10 sec race. No less than three shooters got some.variation of that shot at night and with several other usable stuff. Try to find anything like that from the days of film,manual focus, rough light meters, non TTL flash,

You might want to read up on how that shot was taken

https://observer.com/2016/08/9-hilarious-olympic-memes-of-smiling-usain-bolt-the-worlds-fastest-man/

Sorry. There were two

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/rio-2016-one-usain-bolt-moment-two-iconic-photos-1471382179

What exactly do you think I missed?

The photographer in my link does not do anything that was particularly dependent on current state of the art tech in fact he himself humbly says it is more about right time right place .

Isn't that what a lot of people say? I don't know if he is being "humble " or the reality that what he did wasn't that complicated. Part of that is technology. The camera did the metering , achieved focus, white balance, and the OSS MAY have been helping the pan. They also had other cameras set up to be fired remotely.

The technology helped. Not really my would a single shooter not even risk a shot like that BUT the tools may have held them back from even attempting it.

Your link is behind a firewall for me so I don't know what they said.

I said three. It was two photographers had ALMOST identical images.

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much .

They are also better in composition, timing, and the not because some of it is pure technology and some is that The technology . Some things that a photrapher did manually and still could is given over to the camera. The operator is then freed up to make other decisions.

Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

Nope. That is an excellent shot. Photography isn't all X's and Os. Not only that photography is moments frozen in time.

What I am saying is that the level of iconic shots both in technical and artistic terms is FAR higher from the last 20-30 years than it was from the time that preceeded it.

It didn't happen overnight and I wouldn't pin it on a single technology (but AF and digital would be up there). Now the expectation is to have stunning photography that is least technically ok beamed around the world and for sale in seconds. It is somewhat taken for granted AND some of the "instant gratification" has had bad side effects. Example PJ

All th ose little "conveniences" add up

oly brand obsessed fans like these kind of threads inevitably attract

Is it not fair to discuss the differences in technology?

{ which I appreciate as it allows me to expand my ignore list } . Think that some "feature " their brand has make it indispensable with other makes of cameras falling by the way side.

BUT isn't this a chicken and egg scenario? 4/3 has some of the smallest kits, best IBIS, some of the smallest long lenses. So someone who actually values those things can choose 4/3 and talk about how "indespensible " those features are. AND they have a point. They just miss that not everyone values the same features

My It is frankly idiotic , every forum has its over obsessed fans, but man there is a plague of them in this forum.

Welcome. You must be new here. I have seen you participate in the 4)3 forums so you know there isn't a shortage of zealots

Yes they run a close second mainly older Olympus users for some reason I don't know

There are some wonderful helpful talented photographers in this forum and as I say I am glad that every thread like this helps identify those who contribute nothing other than Yay!! Sony.

There will literally be hundreds of pro Canon and Nikon shooters to every one pro Sony shooter, take a look at the high end photographic awards and tell me how hard it is for these Canon/Nikon guys to make superb images . A Sony pro shooter spotted at a sporting event still makes headline news in the forums as like man bites dog they are a whole lot rarer than a dog bites man scenario. Take a look at any serious sporting event you will see a horde of Canon shooters, do you really think they can't get the job done

Do you think photojournalist and professional sports photographers are the only "professionals" out there.

No but I would be happy to wager that whatever field of pro photography you care to select , that there will be vastly more Canon users to any other brand .

I wouldn't argue that. In the 90s Canon absolutely dominated the market when they went to the EOS system. Nikon had been the larger force before that and they dragged their feet because they didn't want to isolate their base. You aren't going to overcome almost three decades of dominance in five or six years.

For your "Olympic scenario" that isn't even on the horizon because despite putting out a decent body Sony don't have the lenses. They probably couldn't fill a few racks of the Canon room with EVERY single 400 2.8 lens they have made to date

To be clear. I do not eat drink and breathe Sony. I think they do some things better than others and will gladly discuss areas where they need improvement

The great thing about professional photography is it is super simple. "How do I make money?" That's the only question. And when you ask that question there are areas where Sony FE excels and other areas where other manufacturers Excel. Simple. For all the ways Sony is gonna fall short on the sidelines of a Superbowl there are other ways that a Canon or Nikon DSLR is going to fall short in wedding/video/ portraiture.

I have done literally hundreds of wedding shoots with everything from MF film through to high end DSLR's . Thankfully it was only a nice side earner to my real work and I do not do them any more . Though one exception later this year I have agreed to do my nieces wedding and will probably be my first with Sony gear so we will see.

"Professional wedding photography"........that's a discussion on it's own.

Well good luck on your shoot.

If you shot for decades and are still around the industry you have witnessed a serious transformation. It has gone from a bank of presets with a handful of rough "who, what, where's" to a dynamic industry where there are some fairly high demands out there. The good shooters are also delivering on this over and over again .this isn't a "just Sony" thing or something like that but just about technology. TTL, AF, better metering tools, better FPS, niche stuff like soft or silent shutters. Pretty impressive stuff.

I am in Scotland and a lot of weddings were held in old castles and the like with very poor lighting , when I got my hands on D3s when it came out its high ISO performance was a revolution . I am not arguing against technology per se just the suggestion that cameras like the 1Dx II are some how not up to the job

Agreed. If somebody prefers a 1dxii and it ticks all their boxes then go for it. Then again if a different model ticks your boxes then go for it.

because they lack some feature/gimmick .

My biggest point. Everything is a "gimmick" unless you use it. The AF of the 1dxii could be considered a "gimmick". Then again if somebody actually needs it then so be it.

I admit that for personal use I have no great need for eye AF or C-AF or in fact any AF. My interests lie mainly in landscape and macro

Ah...........so do we have a case of "it doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter"?

You probably think focus stacking is a good feature. Plenty of others could use you definitions.

I am not trying to define ANYONE's needs.

Also BTW I am pro stacking. I really like options despite it not being one of my highest priorities

sti I think I will give up because somehow I seem to have offended you . Wasn't my intention. Although I have a good foundation on my road to hell

You have absoloutly not offended me at all , we are just expressing our opinions they just differ

Cool. Then we are on the same page. I am more than happy to discuss differences of opinion politely

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 22,994
Re: Smalls
8

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

Your mentioning of noise and FPS in the context of this photo really drives home how little you understand the true value of photography. No sane person looks at this photograph and things "man I wish this had better IQ"

I wouldn't even worry about the tech aspect here as not even that is in question.  It was photographed using a Rolleiflex medium format camera loaded with the latest Kodak Ektachrome of the time.  I've seen dye transfer prints from it, as well as drum scans in 24" square format that were simply stunning.  One of the most iconic sports photographs in history.  The emotion is palpable.

Too much time is spent oogling over per pixel sharpness at 200% and comparing noise and CA, etc, etc.  That nonsense becomes mind numbing.

Glad this shot was brought up....brings back memories of seeing the dye transfer.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 +17 more
Paul Barnard
Paul Barnard Veteran Member • Posts: 3,269
Re: Smalls
2

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

Your mentioning of noise and FPS in the context of this photo really drives home how little you understand the true value of photography. No sane person looks at this photograph and things "man I wish this had better IQ"

No, that is not the point. What I mean is that modern digital cameras can do everything old film cameras can do but only do much better. Do you suggest any PJs today should use old film cameras instead? What I said the above photo no reason cannot be done by modern digital cameras even at the same artistic level. Please elaborate if you actually think so. There are lots more such great moment photos taken by modern cameras these days that we see at daily basis as modern digital cameras not only could capture such moments in much higher rate, but also technically superior (sharpness, details and noise level etc).

Return to OP, why an A9 owner will cripple a top flagship camera with adapted lenses in compromise? This is similar you are trying to challenge those sport PJs at the sideline of sport venues why they use expensive 1Dx II, D5 and A9 if a T7i, D7500 and A6300 also can capture many moments?

I think the point is that this amazing image was captured despite the technological limitations.  That was as a result of great technical skill combined with the ability to see and capture the image.   For sure the sign of a great photographer.

It's imposible to know but could the image have been better if the photographer captured a 20fps burst and was able to chose a more perfect moment?  Would higher ISO lower noise have meant that an image a few moments earlier capturing the actual punch would have eclipsed this image?   Again impossible to know but what we have with current,  and more so with future,  technology is greater opportunities to capture iconic images.

The above image is an example of one stellar image from an event.   Technology opens the possibility for there to be more images of this quality.  It also opens the arena for those who have the 'eye' but not the technical skill. That being a good or bad things is an entirely different discussion.

 Paul Barnard's gear list:Paul Barnard's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Sony 1.4x Teleconverter (2016) +5 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,871
Re: Smalls
5

The Davinator wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

Your mentioning of noise and FPS in the context of this photo really drives home how little you understand the true value of photography. No sane person looks at this photograph and things "man I wish this had better IQ"

I wouldn't even worry about the tech aspect here as not even that is in question. It was photographed using a Rolleiflex medium format camera loaded with the latest Kodak Ektachrome of the time. I've seen dye transfer prints from it, as well as drum scans in 24" square format that were simply stunning. One of the most iconic sports photographs in history. The emotion is palpable.

Too much time is spent oogling over per pixel sharpness at 200% and comparing noise and CA, etc, etc. That nonsense becomes mind numbing.

Glad this shot was brought up....brings back memories of seeing the dye transfer.

Agreed sometimes people get caught up in tech rather than images, I am not saying that I do not also fall down that rabbit hole as we are currently on a gear review site If people printed more large images they would be surprised to see just how little the nitty gritty exposed by zooming into images at 100% is in the end irrelevant . Would anyone walk up to say Vermeer's, Girl with a Pearl Earring with a microscope and complain about the fidelity of the paint. Photography is literally about the bigger picture

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,871
Re: Smalls
6

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo?

whoosh I mean exactly the opposite you can take wonderful images with any camera . The fact that it may require a bit more effort with one compared to the other is neither here nor there . Away from the tech obsessed world of gear forums { and we all fall into that trap here , myself included } . It is all about the full image if you saw this image in a gallery show about the greatest sporting images would you honestly look at it and think about noise and the like ?

Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,871
Re: Smalls

golfhov wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Magnar W wrote:

This video is his opinion.

If I should decide for myself, I would have used a camera body with newest firmware, and tested it with native mount lenses.

Even for a professional, money is a factor, but so is risking jobs with more or less well functioning adapted lenses ...

Sony fan delusions aside where exactly do you think that the legions of pro shooters using Canon are risking jobs .

Video, low light, and to some degree now even AF

I am not sure that a 1DX II shooter is over concerned with video ,

Seriously? The video is actually excellent. Minus a few things like no IBIS

if video is critical to what you do there are better options than DSLR's/ mirrorless FF cameras .

There are BUT more and more people are now hybrid shooting. The days of just video and stills aren't long for this world.

the claims of some Sony fans the differences at high ISO are insignificant .

Meh. Pull those Canon files or shoot with the same shutter speed. Everything adds up.

In fairness there are a LOT more models out there .is this discussion ONlY high end sports cameras

RAW low light 6400 ISO

The "features" in most advanced mirrorless cameras such as eye AF are just conveniences to make something easier not do something impossible

YES. That is exactly all ANYTHING ever is. AF, FPS, digital vs film, and on and on and on. At some point the ease to accomplish something translates into dollars. It means you can drop consistent results and charge for them.

If you cannot take in focus shots of your subjects whatever they may be you will have a very short career as a pro photographer . The fact that doing something is easier does not really matter in the hands of the skilled .

It absolutely does. Use your logic. The sidelines of the Olympics would be full of old film cameras and decades old lenses.

Instead they are lined with mostly the newest and highest end equipment. It helps that Canon is passing it out......

Canon have had for example an 85mm F/1.2 lens since 1976

And it shows ......lens designs have come a long way in 40 years. Generally speaking

people have been using fast shallow DOF lenses for decades.

They have BUT it is now easier than ever. Look through any decent portfolio of wedding photography from today VS the products of twenty years ago.

Easier and more common do not make them unique quite the opposite in fact

Too many here confuse something being easier with competence

Some confuse possibility with ability.

Please,

Quick example. One of the iconic shots from the last summer Olympics was a pan of Usain Bolt during a 10 sec race. No less than three shooters got some.variation of that shot at night and with several other usable stuff. Try to find anything like that from the days of film,manual focus, rough light meters, non TTL flash,

You might want to read up on how that shot was taken

https://observer.com/2016/08/9-hilarious-olympic-memes-of-smiling-usain-bolt-the-worlds-fastest-man/

Sorry. There were two

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/rio-2016-one-usain-bolt-moment-two-iconic-photos-1471382179

What exactly do you think I missed?

The photographer in my link does not do anything that was particularly dependent on current state of the art tech in fact he himself humbly says it is more about right time right place .

Isn't that what a lot of people say? I don't know if he is being "humble " or the reality that what he did wasn't that complicated. Part of that is technology. The camera did the metering , achieved focus, white balance, and the OSS MAY have been helping the pan. They also had other cameras set up to be fired remotely.

The technology helped. Not really my would a single shooter not even risk a shot like that BUT the tools may have held them back from even attempting it.

Your link is behind a firewall for me so I don't know what they said.

I said three. It was two photographers had ALMOST identical images.

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much .

They are also better in composition, timing, and the not because some of it is pure technology and some is that The technology . Some things that a photrapher did manually and still could is given over to the camera. The operator is then freed up to make other decisions.

Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

Nope. That is an excellent shot. Photography isn't all X's and Os. Not only that photography is moments frozen in time.

What I am saying is that the level of iconic shots both in technical and artistic terms is FAR higher from the last 20-30 years than it was from the time that preceeded it.

It didn't happen overnight and I wouldn't pin it on a single technology (but AF and digital would be up there). Now the expectation is to have stunning photography that is least technically ok beamed around the world and for sale in seconds. It is somewhat taken for granted AND some of the "instant gratification" has had bad side effects. Example PJ

All th ose little "conveniences" add up

oly brand obsessed fans like these kind of threads inevitably attract

Is it not fair to discuss the differences in technology?

{ which I appreciate as it allows me to expand my ignore list } . Think that some "feature " their brand has make it indispensable with other makes of cameras falling by the way side.

BUT isn't this a chicken and egg scenario? 4/3 has some of the smallest kits, best IBIS, some of the smallest long lenses. So someone who actually values those things can choose 4/3 and talk about how "indespensible " those features are. AND they have a point. They just miss that not everyone values the same features

My It is frankly idiotic , every forum has its over obsessed fans, but man there is a plague of them in this forum.

Welcome. You must be new here. I have seen you participate in the 4)3 forums so you know there isn't a shortage of zealots

Yes they run a close second mainly older Olympus users for some reason I don't know

There are some wonderful helpful talented photographers in this forum and as I say I am glad that every thread like this helps identify those who contribute nothing other than Yay!! Sony.

There will literally be hundreds of pro Canon and Nikon shooters to every one pro Sony shooter, take a look at the high end photographic awards and tell me how hard it is for these Canon/Nikon guys to make superb images . A Sony pro shooter spotted at a sporting event still makes headline news in the forums as like man bites dog they are a whole lot rarer than a dog bites man scenario. Take a look at any serious sporting event you will see a horde of Canon shooters, do you really think they can't get the job done

Do you think photojournalist and professional sports photographers are the only "professionals" out there.

No but I would be happy to wager that whatever field of pro photography you care to select , that there will be vastly more Canon users to any other brand .

I wouldn't argue that. In the 90s Canon absolutely dominated the market when they went to the EOS system. Nikon had been the larger force before that and they dragged their feet because they didn't want to isolate their base. You aren't going to overcome almost three decades of dominance in five or six years.

For your "Olympic scenario" that isn't even on the horizon because despite putting out a decent body Sony don't have the lenses. They probably couldn't fill a few racks of the Canon room with EVERY single 400 2.8 lens they have made to date

To be clear. I do not eat drink and breathe Sony. I think they do some things better than others and will gladly discuss areas where they need improvement

The great thing about professional photography is it is super simple. "How do I make money?" That's the only question. And when you ask that question there are areas where Sony FE excels and other areas where other manufacturers Excel. Simple. For all the ways Sony is gonna fall short on the sidelines of a Superbowl there are other ways that a Canon or Nikon DSLR is going to fall short in wedding/video/ portraiture.

I have done literally hundreds of wedding shoots with everything from MF film through to high end DSLR's . Thankfully it was only a nice side earner to my real work and I do not do them any more . Though one exception later this year I have agreed to do my nieces wedding and will probably be my first with Sony gear so we will see.

"Professional wedding photography"........that's a discussion on it's own.

Well good luck on your shoot.

If you shot for decades and are still around the industry you have witnessed a serious transformation. It has gone from a bank of presets with a handful of rough "who, what, where's" to a dynamic industry where there are some fairly high demands out there. The good shooters are also delivering on this over and over again .this isn't a "just Sony" thing or something like that but just about technology. TTL, AF, better metering tools, better FPS, niche stuff like soft or silent shutters. Pretty impressive stuff.

I am in Scotland and a lot of weddings were held in old castles and the like with very poor lighting , when I got my hands on D3s when it came out its high ISO performance was a revolution . I am not arguing against technology per se just the suggestion that cameras like the 1Dx II are some how not up to the job

Agreed. If somebody prefers a 1dxii and it ticks all their boxes then go for it. Then again if a different model ticks your boxes then go for it.

because they lack some feature/gimmick .

My biggest point. Everything is a "gimmick" unless you use it. The AF of the 1dxii could be considered a "gimmick". Then again if somebody actually needs it then so be it.

I admit that for personal use I have no great need for eye AF or C-AF or in fact any AF. My interests lie mainly in landscape and macro

Ah...........so do we have a case of "it doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter"?

that is why I said feature/gimmick as people have different opinions on the subject , one man's meat and so on:-)

You probably think focus stacking is a good feature. Plenty of others could use you definitions.

Yes that is a feature

I am not trying to define ANYONE's needs.

Need is also a matter of opinion , I do not need any automated focus stacking feature for shooting landscapes or macro , I can do it myself it just requires a little more effort .

Also BTW I am pro stacking. I really like options despite it not being one of my highest priorities

sti I think I will give up because somehow I seem to have offended you . Wasn't my intention. Although I have a good foundation on my road to hell

You have absoloutly not offended me at all , we are just expressing our opinions they just differ

Cool. Then we are on the same page. I am more than happy to discuss differences of opinion politely

I don't think I was impolite to you in my responses , though I freely admit I can be a PITA and if I came across that way to you it was not meant

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,171
Re: Smalls
2

James Stirling wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo?

whoosh I mean exactly the opposite you can take wonderful images with any camera . The fact that it may require a bit more effort with one compared to the other is neither here nor there . Away from the tech obsessed world of gear forums { and we all fall into that trap here , myself included } . It is all about the full image if you saw this image in a gallery show about the greatest sporting images would you honestly look at it and think about noise and the like ?

Such argument we have heard thousand times - it's the person behinds VF not camera. Sure, but this is only one side of story, another side of story is the same person with a more capable camera simply will have much higher chance to capture the moments. You cannot separate two things. I am sure Neil used the best equipments then rather used even older cameras such as 30's gear. The same now those PJs use the current best capable cameras/lenses. Not sure what you are trying to argue about?

Return to OP, Canon lenses on A9 will work but with significant compromises. For the best chance to capture the moments to leverage the most potential of A9, native FE lenses are really needed.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +17 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,303
Why BOlt matters
1

James Stirling wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo?

whoosh I mean exactly the opposite you can take wonderful images with any camera .

Yes and no. As has been laid out COUNTLESS times with challenges and examples.

The fact that it may require a bit more effort with one compared to the other is neither here nor there .

No it actually is. That was my point in the Usain Bolt example. It is a modern shot where they used metering, OSS(probably), AF, modern high ISO ability to get a shot that "technically" could have been done decades ago(and I am sure there are some) BUT few people would bother attempting. This isn't even accounting for TWO seperate photographers had the fall to do it(yes it was "only" a qualifier) and they had remote cameras that used technology to capture other angles.

Away from the tech obsessed world of gear forums { and we all fall into that trap here , myself included } .

I don't know that it is "obsession" to discuss differences. Although if somebody thinks that tech is the ONLY thing that matters then clearly they are misguided. If you think test charts are the ONLY factor you probably need a head examination . Then again pretending it DOESN'T matter isn't really accurate either

It is all about the full image if you saw this image in a gallery show about the greatest sporting images would you honestly look at it and think about noise and the like ?

Nope. Not at all. In fact depending on the elements of the scene I may even PREFER the less detailed image. But.....probably not. Don't forget it is easier to remove detail than it is to add it. BUT you seem to be missing that modern FPS, AF, metering, stabilization, and plenty of other features allow shooters to put their efforts into other pursuits. They have more freedom than ever to pay attention to the elements and capture moments than they did in the past. You see it over and over again.

Here is a less sports scenario and more something under the umbrella of this conversation. A shot of your kid in the fall playing with falling leaves . Manual focus and film and shallow dof you just don't have a high probability of getting that shot. You have to get your kid to stay in roughly the same plane and hope that you can get your timing right and that your focus will be spot on in the images you take. You will also be putting a lot of effort into simply getting the basic elements right that you may miss smaller things like your angles or what not.

Now move up to AF and digital. Well now the AF MAY help your cause because depending on the system you will try and leave the af to the camera making decisions and trying not to get tricked by movement or the leaves. Over riding when needed. As far as getting the moment right not only can you fire bursts BUT you can now review them and be sure you captured exactly what was in your mind.

Now add continuous eye af and the camera will actively hunt the subject. Any attention to AF becomes almost secondary and you are now free to work faster and more effectively. Maybe you use some.of the other modern "features" like the tilty screen or silent shooting to be less obtrusive. More connected with your subject. Get high or low angles without a ladder or pray and spray. Without rolling around on the ground. Or f it. Roll on the ground. Sometimes it's fun.

Could you get your shot with lesser tech. ABSOLUTELY but the less barriers to achieving it the easier it is for the common person AND the better the results from skilled users because it frees them. They can use less resources based on just getting the shot and more resources about HOW they get the shot.

And in fairness we could do this about any feature. Perhaps stacking wasn't the best example because it is used on still(or mostly) objects so doing it manually isn't usually the end of the world.ost of the other things we have been discussing have been far more dynamic and workflow matters. For stills

Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,710
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
4

What was rather entertaining about the 11-month old video was listening to this Floridian boast that he’s a professional photographer then disparage YouTubers like they’re a despicable breed; meanwhile I’ve seen lots of Sony shooters, from Jason Lanier to Jason Vong and others shoot EF glass on Sony bodies for years, long before the updates and they never experienced all the problems seen in the video. And to top it all off, the following day, to watch Nikon shooter Jared Polin not only take dozens of perfectly focused pictures one right after the other with the 135 GM, and not only sharp (blown up several hundred percent and viewed on a 55” TV) but arguably nicer images overall than the ‘pro’. πŸ˜‚

-- hide signature --
vett93
vett93 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,834
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
4

jonpais wrote:

What was rather entertaining about the 11-month old video was listening to this Floridian boast that he’s a professional photographer then disparage YouTubers like they’re a despicable breed; meanwhile I’ve seen lots of Sony shooters, from Jason Lanier to Jason Vong and others shoot EF glass on Sony bodies for years, long before the updates and they never experienced all the problems seen in the video. And to top it all off, the following day, to watch Nikon shooter Jared Polin not only take dozens of perfectly focused pictures one right after the other with the 135 GM, and not only sharp (blown up several hundred percent and viewed on a 55” TV) but arguably nicer images overall than the ‘pro’. πŸ˜‚

The last time I tracked a BIF using Canon lens and Sony camera was the Canon 100-400L2 with a Canon 1.4X TC and Sony A7RII combo. I did not have problems with the combo:

-- hide signature --

"Keep calm and take photos"
Photography enthusiast, from 12mm to 500mm

 vett93's gear list:vett93's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a6500 Apple iPhone 11 Pro
jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,710
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
1

Maybe because you were shooting in ‘landscape’ orientation. 😝

-- hide signature --
vett93
vett93 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,834
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
2

jonpais wrote:

Maybe because you were shooting in ‘landscape’ orientation. 😝

Very good point!! lol...

-- hide signature --

"Keep calm and take photos"
Photography enthusiast, from 12mm to 500mm

 vett93's gear list:vett93's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a6500 Apple iPhone 11 Pro
OP sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 15,836
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
3

jonpais wrote:

What was rather entertaining about the 11-month old video was listening to this Floridian boast that he’s a professional photographer then disparage YouTubers like they’re a despicable breed; meanwhile I’ve seen lots of Sony shooters, from Jason Lanier to Jason Vong and others shoot EF glass on Sony bodies for years, long before the updates and they never experienced all the problems seen in the video. And to top it all off, the following day, to watch Nikon shooter Jared Polin not only take dozens of perfectly focused pictures one right after the other with the 135 GM, and not only sharp (blown up several hundred percent and viewed on a 55” TV) but arguably nicer images overall than the ‘pro’. πŸ˜‚

Just because they didn't report the issues doesn't mean they didn't have them.Β  I have been shooting EF glass on Sony bodies since 2016 and have experienced some of the issues he did. Maybe I just haven't pleased the Sony FE gods with enough praise.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
vett93
vett93 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,834
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
2

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

What was rather entertaining about the 11-month old video was listening to this Floridian boast that he’s a professional photographer then disparage YouTubers like they’re a despicable breed; meanwhile I’ve seen lots of Sony shooters, from Jason Lanier to Jason Vong and others shoot EF glass on Sony bodies for years, long before the updates and they never experienced all the problems seen in the video. And to top it all off, the following day, to watch Nikon shooter Jared Polin not only take dozens of perfectly focused pictures one right after the other with the 135 GM, and not only sharp (blown up several hundred percent and viewed on a 55” TV) but arguably nicer images overall than the ‘pro’. πŸ˜‚

Just because they didn't report the issues doesn't mean they didn't have them. I have been shooting EF glass on Sony bodies since 2016 and have experienced some of the issues he did. Maybe I just haven't pleased the Sony FE gods with enough praise.

If you have indeed used EF glass on Sony bodies, you would have known that this guy was out of line. Some part of his presentation might be true with the firmware he used, but most of the stuff in that video was laughable.

-- hide signature --

"Keep calm and take photos"
Photography enthusiast, from 12mm to 500mm

 vett93's gear list:vett93's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a6500 Apple iPhone 11 Pro
TheOwl360 Regular Member • Posts: 272
Re: Smalls
7

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

You missed the point PW.

 TheOwl360's gear list:TheOwl360's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Sony a7R III Sony a9 II Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 +14 more
OP sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 15,836
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
1

vett93 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

What was rather entertaining about the 11-month old video was listening to this Floridian boast that he’s a professional photographer then disparage YouTubers like they’re a despicable breed; meanwhile I’ve seen lots of Sony shooters, from Jason Lanier to Jason Vong and others shoot EF glass on Sony bodies for years, long before the updates and they never experienced all the problems seen in the video. And to top it all off, the following day, to watch Nikon shooter Jared Polin not only take dozens of perfectly focused pictures one right after the other with the 135 GM, and not only sharp (blown up several hundred percent and viewed on a 55” TV) but arguably nicer images overall than the ‘pro’. πŸ˜‚

Just because they didn't report the issues doesn't mean they didn't have them. I have been shooting EF glass on Sony bodies since 2016 and have experienced some of the issues he did. Maybe I just haven't pleased the Sony FE gods with enough praise.

If you have indeed used EF glass on Sony bodies, you would have known that this guy was out of line. Some part of his presentation might be true with the firmware he used, but most of the stuff in that video was laughable.

I haven't used the A9, but the notion that I would lie about the gear I've used to win an internet argument is nuts.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
vett93
vett93 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,834
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
1

sportyaccordy wrote:

vett93 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

What was rather entertaining about the 11-month old video was listening to this Floridian boast that he’s a professional photographer then disparage YouTubers like they’re a despicable breed; meanwhile I’ve seen lots of Sony shooters, from Jason Lanier to Jason Vong and others shoot EF glass on Sony bodies for years, long before the updates and they never experienced all the problems seen in the video. And to top it all off, the following day, to watch Nikon shooter Jared Polin not only take dozens of perfectly focused pictures one right after the other with the 135 GM, and not only sharp (blown up several hundred percent and viewed on a 55” TV) but arguably nicer images overall than the ‘pro’. πŸ˜‚

Just because they didn't report the issues doesn't mean they didn't have them. I have been shooting EF glass on Sony bodies since 2016 and have experienced some of the issues he did. Maybe I just haven't pleased the Sony FE gods with enough praise.

If you have indeed used EF glass on Sony bodies, you would have known that this guy was out of line. Some part of his presentation might be true with the firmware he used, but most of the stuff in that video was laughable.

I haven't used the A9, but the notion that I would lie about the gear I've used to win an internet argument is nuts.

There is nothing to do with lying or not.

-- hide signature --

"Keep calm and take photos"
Photography enthusiast, from 12mm to 500mm

 vett93's gear list:vett93's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a6500 Apple iPhone 11 Pro
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads