T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 3273, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tgchan: I cringe so hard when I see someone is holding a camera that way...

Meh, give it a break. The lens is light, and there is IBIS to steady the shot.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

mandm: Shooting for 50 years, I'm now a retired pro using a Nikon Df & D750, if I were starting today, I would likely go with Sony full frame and this lens is just one more reason why and Sony will have more lenses to come.

@A-Sign - Compared to the Sony, the Nikon is not as ultra-wide, it's much larger, and it's much heavier (969g vs 565g). The Nikon is 404g heavier. That's about the weight of a can of beer. So it's like taking the Sony lens, and strapping on a can of beer to it. Basically, it's just a lot more weight to carry around. Plus, with the Sony lens on a Sony IBIS body, it's stabilized so you'll get steadier shots. The Nikon has a faster aperture, but that's not helpful if you are stopping down.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

eazizisaid: Brace for Canon's fanboys : 11mm is worth the 1000$ more !

Not to mention the Canon lens is more than twice as heavy. 1180g vs 565g. A Sony A7RII (625g) with a Sony 12-24/4 (565g) weighs as much as the Canon 11-24/4 all by itself. Combined weight of the Sony body and lens is 1190g. Canon 11-24/4 is 1180g.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.449,624.662,ha,t

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

Thunder123: Real world use and not a bunch of hate from Sony Haters who never picked up a Sony Cam

I shot the A9 for two hours taking in the match and post-match celebrations, and it wasn’t until after 75 minutes play that I remembered that the A9 has an electronic viewfinder. That’s how much things have progressed. No black-outs, no issues with focus, in fact I think the focus is quicker and more reliable than any other camera I’ve used. The images were stunning, using the 100-400mm lens, with quite a bit more detail in the shadow areas than normal, and no missed shots other than when I was conserving battery power as I was switching off and on. The camera is so new, we had no accurate idea of how many shots I could take. In fact, I took over 1500 images and that used up only 48% battery power which is bang on, and I was viewing a lot of them back in the viewfinder so see how the equipment was handling the job.

https://blog.calphoto.co.uk/2017/06/09/is-the-sony-a9-camera-fit-for-sports/

A-Sign, time to take your medication, man. You're the narrow-minded one. Your desperate attempts at constantly demeaning the A9 are getting old, and failing. Why not just let market forces take their course? That was my opinion back in the early 1990s when Nikon and Minolta users were constantly bashing Canon's new EOS system. Now I see it happening with Sony. Geez, just let everything take it's course. Frankly, just like I felt about the EOS system, I see tremendous promise, innovation, and advancement with Sony's system.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

Thunder123: Real world use and not a bunch of hate from Sony Haters who never picked up a Sony Cam

I shot the A9 for two hours taking in the match and post-match celebrations, and it wasn’t until after 75 minutes play that I remembered that the A9 has an electronic viewfinder. That’s how much things have progressed. No black-outs, no issues with focus, in fact I think the focus is quicker and more reliable than any other camera I’ve used. The images were stunning, using the 100-400mm lens, with quite a bit more detail in the shadow areas than normal, and no missed shots other than when I was conserving battery power as I was switching off and on. The camera is so new, we had no accurate idea of how many shots I could take. In fact, I took over 1500 images and that used up only 48% battery power which is bang on, and I was viewing a lot of them back in the viewfinder so see how the equipment was handling the job.

https://blog.calphoto.co.uk/2017/06/09/is-the-sony-a9-camera-fit-for-sports/

@A-Sign - Your argument holds no water because there have been people who always thought they didn't need or want something--- until it was offered! More speed, more AF points, more image stabilizing capacity, higher ISO, etc...all of these things are things that pros thought they didn't need--- until it was offered! Photographers upgrade-- and even switch systems-- for the slightest edge in performance that they can get. It's why some photographers have switched from Canon to Nikon, and vice versa. They are always looking for the slightest edge in performance. If a D4 is good enough, then why do people upgrade!?! Why is anyone upgrading to a D5 that does 12fps, at the hefty price of $6500? The Canon 1D MKIV was also 10fps. If that was good enough, then why is anyone buying a 1DX and 1DX II that does 14fps, for $6000? Your argument holds no water. People always want the higher performance spec once it is offered.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Thunder123: Real world use and not a bunch of hate from Sony Haters who never picked up a Sony Cam

I shot the A9 for two hours taking in the match and post-match celebrations, and it wasn’t until after 75 minutes play that I remembered that the A9 has an electronic viewfinder. That’s how much things have progressed. No black-outs, no issues with focus, in fact I think the focus is quicker and more reliable than any other camera I’ve used. The images were stunning, using the 100-400mm lens, with quite a bit more detail in the shadow areas than normal, and no missed shots other than when I was conserving battery power as I was switching off and on. The camera is so new, we had no accurate idea of how many shots I could take. In fact, I took over 1500 images and that used up only 48% battery power which is bang on, and I was viewing a lot of them back in the viewfinder so see how the equipment was handling the job.

https://blog.calphoto.co.uk/2017/06/09/is-the-sony-a9-camera-fit-for-sports/

@A-Sign - "Haha :) A runner that isn't very fast with 12 fps continuous?"

Sorry, pal, but the joke's on you, because the D5 maxes out at 12fps continuous! The D5 can't handle anything faster than 12fps continuous. So maybe you should be laughing at the D5! Hahaha! D4S maxes out at 11fps. D4 is even slower at 10fps.

Here's A9's continuous tracking of bird in flight, even against a busy background (not just clear sky):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C05pYg0p9xQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efg42hO9Gms

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Still below 10fps???
It just waste the capabilities of our high cost Canon tele prime lenses. Forget it.

@Ebrahim Saadawi - You clearly not familiar with the A9's new sensor. The Sony A9's new stacked BSI sensor basically eliminates rolling shutter. Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv7ZVSnEtmA

Jump to 6:30 in the video where they try to induce any rolling shutter effects.

Electronic shutter is the future of cameras. The A9's new sensor technology makes that a reality. As Rishi has said (earlier in these comments down below), "The mechanical shutter is on its way out, just FYI."

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

Thunder123: Real world use and not a bunch of hate from Sony Haters who never picked up a Sony Cam

I shot the A9 for two hours taking in the match and post-match celebrations, and it wasn’t until after 75 minutes play that I remembered that the A9 has an electronic viewfinder. That’s how much things have progressed. No black-outs, no issues with focus, in fact I think the focus is quicker and more reliable than any other camera I’ve used. The images were stunning, using the 100-400mm lens, with quite a bit more detail in the shadow areas than normal, and no missed shots other than when I was conserving battery power as I was switching off and on. The camera is so new, we had no accurate idea of how many shots I could take. In fact, I took over 1500 images and that used up only 48% battery power which is bang on, and I was viewing a lot of them back in the viewfinder so see how the equipment was handling the job.

https://blog.calphoto.co.uk/2017/06/09/is-the-sony-a9-camera-fit-for-sports/

A-Sign - I guess that means that you're going to totally ignore any review here at dpreview from now on, since dpreview is basically an Amazon site.

You're just out of touch with how the world works these days. With the decline of magazines, camera stores have filled the void of providing a place for camera reviews. It's perfectly valid.

I strongly recommend you watch Max Yuryev's real-world comparison of the Sony A9 and Nikon D5. It's not associated with a "camera shop".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4

There's no brand bias. It's a two-person review. Paul Nelson, the other reviewer, is a Nikon sports shooter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4

The reality is that you don't care about independent reviews. You're going to ignore them anyways, because your extreme bias against the A9 won't allow you to even consider them. Thankfully, there are plenty of independent reviewers who aren't like you.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

Thunder123: Real world use and not a bunch of hate from Sony Haters who never picked up a Sony Cam

I shot the A9 for two hours taking in the match and post-match celebrations, and it wasn’t until after 75 minutes play that I remembered that the A9 has an electronic viewfinder. That’s how much things have progressed. No black-outs, no issues with focus, in fact I think the focus is quicker and more reliable than any other camera I’ve used. The images were stunning, using the 100-400mm lens, with quite a bit more detail in the shadow areas than normal, and no missed shots other than when I was conserving battery power as I was switching off and on. The camera is so new, we had no accurate idea of how many shots I could take. In fact, I took over 1500 images and that used up only 48% battery power which is bang on, and I was viewing a lot of them back in the viewfinder so see how the equipment was handling the job.

https://blog.calphoto.co.uk/2017/06/09/is-the-sony-a9-camera-fit-for-sports/

@A-Sign - You're really out of touch. In today's world, there is a close integration of information/reviews and "camera shops". There are many popular Youtube camera review channels that are from camera stores. Look at TheCameraStoreTV: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV

...which is a Canadian camera store. Look at DigitalRevTV:
https://tv.digitalrev.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom
...which is a Hong Kong camera store.

Look at B&H:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/search/site/reviews
...which is a US camera store.

In fact, dpreview.com is owned by one of the world's largest camera stores: Amazon! You're basically at an Amazon "camera shop" right now!

So it's completely idiotic to say that a review associated with a camera store site is not valid. It's perfectly valid, because that's how things are done these days. Camera shops have integrated product reviews and articles on camera equipment into their overall existence. It's the world of digital media.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Still below 10fps???
It just waste the capabilities of our high cost Canon tele prime lenses. Forget it.

@Edmond Leung - But ultimately, it's really going to be about the future generation of photographers. Canon went from zero marketshare with EOS to dominating in the SLR market. And it didn't all come from getting Nikon users to switch. A lot of it came from grabbing the new generation of photogs who loved technology. Canon was at the forefront of new camera/lens technology back then. Older people just like Edmond Leung laughed at Canon and dismissed their chances back then. The older generation was really stuck on Nikon. But young people like me (at the time) switched from Nikon to Canon because we loved the newer technology that Canon offered. Today, I see many parallels with Sony today and Canon back then. Sony will grab a big chunk of the next generation of young photographers who aren't so set in their ways, aren't so close-minded, and aren't so stuck on the Canon and Nikon brand. Younger people always embrace change better than older people. That's how Canon rose to dominance.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 05:19 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Still below 10fps???
It just waste the capabilities of our high cost Canon tele prime lenses. Forget it.

@Edmond Leung - People have switched between Canon and Nikon for far less reasons. Whole agencies have switched.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/27607417

In the past, switching systems meant dumping all your existing gear because of system incompatibility. In spite of the cost, people have done it. Just google "switch to Canon" or "switch to Nikon". However, with Sony, the transition is made much easier and more economical because it doesn't require that you dump all your lenses. If you are a Canon user, you can adapt your lenses. This is a huge benefit, and one that has never been an option before. Plus, Canon and Nikon bodies are basically the same price. No cost advantage. That's not the case with Sony, because the A9 is $1500 to $2000 less expensive, while offering advancements such as IBIS, silent electronic shutter, zero blackout, etc. So if you look at the financials of "switching" (I'd actually call it transitioning), it's never been easier and more cost effective.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 05:10 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Still below 10fps???
It just waste the capabilities of our high cost Canon tele prime lenses. Forget it.

10fps is still plenty for a lot of Canon shooters. Canon 1D MKIV does 10fps. 7D MKII does 10fps. Do you ever hear the users of these cameras crying, "I'm wasting the capabilities of my high costs Canon tele prime lenses because I am only shooting 10fps"?!?! Hahaha. 1D X does only slightly better, with 12fps. Nikon barely does any better. D4S does 11fps, D5 does 12fps. I don't think the users of any of these cameras thinks that the capabilities of their tele primes are being "wasted" with these cameras.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 02:34 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: Neither the Sony A9 falls short with Canon lenses attached nor Canon Lenses fall short when attached to a Sony A9. Rather, some "unpolished" adapters fall short to make Sony A9 and Canon lenses work together...

@scokill - As for telephotos, Sony already has an excellent 300/2.8 and 500/4 for their A-mount system. So they are certainly familiar with making excellent telephoto primes.

https://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163782.0;attach=551093;image

http://briansmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Sony_500_4_011.jpg

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: Neither the Sony A9 falls short with Canon lenses attached nor Canon Lenses fall short when attached to a Sony A9. Rather, some "unpolished" adapters fall short to make Sony A9 and Canon lenses work together...

@scokill -- "If you don't have any Sony lenses and all Canon then there is no advantage at all...period."

First of all, it's unlikely that someone is going to buy an A9, but *no* Sony lenses. As for adapting Canon lenses, advantages include IBIS and silent shooting. Also, think of it this way: a 1DX II that shoots 14fps is $6000. A Canon 5D IV shoots 7fps is $3300. A Sony A9 with adapted Canon lenses shoots 10fps and is $4500. For those who find 7fps less than needed, but 14fps is more than needed, a 10fps A9 (with adapted lenses) is the perfect middle ground-- in price too! Then if you use Sony lenses, that 10fps becomes 20fps. On top of that, you get IBIS, which neither Canons offer. Think of how much it would cost to re-buy every non-IS Canon lens as a new IS lens (if Canon offered them). It would add up to a lot. Nikon's new 24-70/2.8 VR is $2400! And it got a lot bigger than the non-VR version. It's a massive lens.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#567.327,567.479,ha,t

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

webber15: So...it's just 5fps then (I refuse to recognize an electronic shutter for stills).

@webber15 - You're definitely an outlier in this day and age. But given your dislike of electronic/digital, why shoot digital at all? Why are you even here?
Why not just shoot film, and ignore all this news surrounding digital cameras? Then you'd get the "thrill" of hearing the film advance with every shutter click.

I personally love where tech is taking us. I do a lot of street and travel photography, and I hate the sound of a shutter. I don't find the need to advertise to the world that I'm taking a photo, which the sound of a shutter typically does. My next camera will definitely have a silent electronic shutter. That's high on my wish list.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: Neither the Sony A9 falls short with Canon lenses attached nor Canon Lenses fall short when attached to a Sony A9. Rather, some "unpolished" adapters fall short to make Sony A9 and Canon lenses work together...

@scokill - No, you're not getting the point. You're only downgrading with off-system lenses. What you gain is the ability to hold onto any existing lenses that you may want to keep. What's the advantage? Keeping your existing lenses, adding IBIS, gaining silent shooting, having an EVF that gives real-time exposure preview in a bright viewfinder that allows you to see even in the dark, etc.

If you want the full capacity of the A9, Sony has 22 FE lenses, and more on the way.

Think of it this way: imagine having a camera that gives you access to every lens on the Canon system *and* every lens in the Sony system! That's huge. And *every* Canon lens becomes an IS lens! That's also huge!

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

oldfashioned: good thing. but then again this is for what? to use a canon 400mm 2.8? that's a 10K USD beast , not gonna spend that kind of money to use it "adapted" at 10% of its potential LOL. just put a 55-210 and have fun, after all it's not like the A9 was about to shoot "sports" for reals, no? it's family "sports", and kids right? so....

@oldfashioned - I strongly recommend you watch Max Yuryev's real-world comparison of the Sony A9 and Nikon D5. The title says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4&t=61s

Massive AF point coverage, with better low light sensitivity than the D5, not to mention the blazing fast speed. Wait until Sony comes out with their 400mm. Then these comparison videos will be done again, and again the results will be similar. On top of that, the A9 massively undercuts the price of the D5 by $2K.

Just watch the video. They aren't living in a parallel universe. They're shooting in the real world, and they aren't bringing any brand bias to the review. Paul Nelson, the other reviewer in the video, is a Nikon shooter.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 23:44 UTC
In reply to:

oldfashioned: good thing. but then again this is for what? to use a canon 400mm 2.8? that's a 10K USD beast , not gonna spend that kind of money to use it "adapted" at 10% of its potential LOL. just put a 55-210 and have fun, after all it's not like the A9 was about to shoot "sports" for reals, no? it's family "sports", and kids right? so....

@George1958 - True, a lot of people won't switch. But these Sony cameras are cameras for the new generation. People have the false impression that camera sales go exclusively to people who already have gear. That's certainly not the case. Canon went from zero market share when they introduced the EOS system back in 1987 to becoming the biggest SLR brand in the world, catching and surpassing Nikon. At the time, Nikon owned the pro market. EOS had zero of the pro market. Today, Canon holds the majority. They didn't get there by getting half of all Nikon users to switch! No, Canon tapped into the new generation of photographers. Most Nikon users just stuck with Nikon. Due to the cost of switching, only a minority of users are gained through switching.

But the beauty of the Sony system is that it doesn't require an all-out switch, since lenses can be adapted. I have a ton of Canon lenses I can now use on Sony bodies. That's why I still have both Canon and Sony.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 23:36 UTC
In reply to:

oldfashioned: good thing. but then again this is for what? to use a canon 400mm 2.8? that's a 10K USD beast , not gonna spend that kind of money to use it "adapted" at 10% of its potential LOL. just put a 55-210 and have fun, after all it's not like the A9 was about to shoot "sports" for reals, no? it's family "sports", and kids right? so....

@riknash - Keep in mind, 10fps is nothing to sneeze at. A $6500 D5 only does 12fps continuous. It'll certainly get you by until long glass arrives. But also keep in mind that not all sports photography is done with long glass. Sideline basketball photography is generally done with 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Same with volleyball, boxing, etc.

https://petapixel.com/2015/06/02/chris-farina-a-top-boxing-photographer-shares-the-tricks-of-his-trade/

http://photoblog.statesman.com/tag/harry-cabluck

https://previews.123rf.com/images/iariturk/iariturk1101/iariturk110100045/8652870-ISTANBUL-JANUARY-20-Professional-photographer-shots-the-game-at-THY-Euroleage-Top-16-Basketball-Cham-Stock-Photo.jpg

The notion that you can't do any sports photography without long glass is a bit absurd and overblown. But having said that, the A9 certainly needs long glass. A 400mm is expected to arrive later this year.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/whats-next-sony-135mm-fe-400mm-fe-rx-camera/

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: Neither the Sony A9 falls short with Canon lenses attached nor Canon Lenses fall short when attached to a Sony A9. Rather, some "unpolished" adapters fall short to make Sony A9 and Canon lenses work together...

@scokill - "Someone who makes a living would want the absolute best performance or why switch?"

That's the beauty and genius of the Sony system: you don't have to do a full switch! In the past, you had to do a full switch because of total system incompatibility. But with Sony, you can add an A9 body, and still use Canon lenses. Why would you want to add an A9? Because you want a secondary FF body that can shoot 10fps with your Canon lenses, and don't want to spend $6000 for another 1DX II. And you want IBIS because Canon doesn't make a stabilized 24-70/2.8L. And you want to shoot with zero blackout. And have situations where you want to shoot completely silently. And an A9 adds very little size and weight. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want to add an A9. Like I said, it does not require a full-on switch. When budget permits, you steadily add native Sony lenses. It makes for an easier transition. It's a huge advantage that has never really existed before.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 22:40 UTC
Total: 3273, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »