Sony a9: Studio analysis confirms limited dynamic range, solid high ISO

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-9

This is an excellent lowlight high ISO camera, for stills, shot in raw, better than the A7SII.

Jul 5, 2017permalink

Azimuth46

I made some shots with an A9, mainly at home. Lots, lots of noise in the shadows even at 100 ISO. Especially with blue, dark blue and dark colours. When you push to recover them it becomes very visible... :( :( :(

Jun 7, 2017permalink

ratboy2008

The headline is somewhat misleading. Less dynamic range than the A7RII maybe. Comparable to Canon 1D Mark II and the Nikon D5. In other words, top notch performance.

Jun 3, 2017*permalink

Jylppy

Sony A9 is well behind Canon 1D X Mk II, but I understand some folks have double-standards for favorite brands...

Btw. Canon is now ahead of Nikon in dynamic range with 1 D X mk II. But I guess now dynamic range does not matter anymore, right?

Jun 5, 2017*permalink

ratboy2008

Ha Ha I stand corrected ! The 1D X Mk II is the best of the bunch for the first part of the ISO range then drops below the A9 for the rest of it.

Jun 6, 2017permalink

osv

@jylppy- "Sony A9 is well behind Canon 1D X Mk II"

link?

because the bill claff tool appears to show equal pdr at base iso, then less than half a stop difference for much of the curve up to iso636, after which the a9 dominates.

it does seem that some folks do have double-standards for favorite brands...

Jun 7, 2017*permalink

Jylppy

@osv. It's in the DPR article. And have a look the sample photos.

"well-behind" is my trollish emphasis added on differences one needs to laboratory test setup to verify. But that seems to be inline with the terminology used here to express one's unwavering fanboyness towards a commercial corporation. ;-)

Jun 7, 2017permalink

HFLM

@OSV depends on whether you use mechanical or electronic shutter. The high fps modes don't use mechanical shutter and the performance is slightly lower, such that the performance of the 1dxii and A9 beyond iso600 is practically identical (in terms of margin of error). Using the mechanical shutter the A9 has a minor but clearly measurable advantage. The thing I find more bothersome is the stronger read noise at lower isos. Noise creeps in pretty early when pushing files, especially if one is used to the A7rii.

Jun 7, 2017permalink

osv

pushing via iso gain in the shot, or pushing exposure later in post? because dpr says that the canon isn't all that impressive:

"As you may have inferred from the Exposure Latitude tests, the EOS-1D X II isn't entirely ISO invariant - the camera is adding enough downstream read noise such that you can't use a lower-than-normal ISO and selectively brighten the image later - to protect highlight information - without some noise cost."

@jylppy- there is a new player in town ;-) the Canon 1D X Mk II costs $6k, it's just another canon ripoff.

Jun 7, 2017permalink

HFLM

Yes, but a bit better than the A9 according to the DR comparison in Dpreviews link above. It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, however.

Jun 7, 2017permalink

osv

the other way to compare that is with this tool:

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm

i can't see much advantage either way from iso700 or so on? they are both ugly.

Jun 7, 2017*permalink

Checat

I was struggling a bit with decision if I need A9, but I have this camera for a few days and I'm really impressed. I moved to Sony system more then 18 months ago so I'm already changed workflow for “Sony way” and everything on this camera works so much better, smoother, more pleasing. A bit like old film + range finder feeling when nothing was “in between” me and subject. After customization process (Sony menus... ;) ) everything just works and delivers great results.

But all this buzz around switching from other systems... I don't get it. If someone is pro hardcore user of Nikon dslr system for more then 10 years I really can't imagine why he should change systems. Its not like moving from D4s to D5. Better af and iso performance. It is different workflow and camera is not way better to justify so big change.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

sharkcookie

Thanks for your detailed and in depth reviews. I really appreciate the immense amount of work you put into this and the expertise from everyone at DPR. It's a wonderful resource for my purchasing decisions.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

Rishi Sanyal

Thank you. We receive so many negative comments and accusations that the positive remarks are rare, but very much appreciated, gems.

Feb 3, 2018permalink

Phototaker41

Sony Alpha a9 is excelent in taking pictures at low light with high ISO. My question is with this camera the wedding photos in church and in reception at night wihout using flash turn out to be good?

Jun 1, 2017permalink

if you ask forums like this, you'll get more confused. the best option is to loan an A9 and test it yourself. I know it's hard sometimes but 4500 is a costly investment. a test phase is warranted. I do buy and sell camera, Sony cameras doesn't hold good re-sale value. So buying it to try it is not a good idea.

Jun 1, 2017*permalink

Phototaker41:

Yes, it's a good low light higher ISO camera. And the mechanical shutter is very quiet.

Live music in clubs, weddings in dark spaces, all good places to use this camera.

However, as Vignes says, try before purchasing. The ideally means try it in a situation you'd use it in.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

ewelch

Sony, we would buy a whole system for our studio, if you were to come out with a macro lens in the 150-200 range.

May 31, 2017permalink

Full Stop

What is going on here???
Is this really a 24 MPix sensor?
Low-ISO RAWs have much lower resolution than all 24MPix cams, including APS-C.
Compare to D750, A7II , 80D, D7200.
Even the SONY a6000 (!) has higher resolution.
Look at the banknote or the horizontal lines near "30".
Where are all the fine lines in the engraved b/w picture?
And no, there cannot be a strong AA filter, because there is
a lot of moire.
The A9 is much closer to 20-21 MPix cams like D5, D500, 5D MkII or 6D.
Is the sensor a "brother" of the D5-sensor scaled up to 24 MPix?
Or is it strong NR on RAWs with a digital low-pass filter (for a good DxO result)?

May 31, 2017permalink

Cameracist

Probably a combination of low-pass filter and processing. Resolution is on par with Canikon so no need to worry. No one is getting that for landscape/studio.

May 31, 2017permalink

All the other Sony cameras were shot with the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 which is a better lens than the 85/1.8.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

tmorterlaing

'No one is getting that for landscape/studio.' although actually, its a great all rounder. If you wanted to shoot in a studio or dabble in landscape work, then you'd be fine. 24MP is more than some older DSLRs had for 'professional landscape work' and the newer sensor is sharp as anything else when actually viewed in real life.

Stop pixel peeping and start taking the photos you wanna take. This camera is good, and has good image quality - period. (I dont work for Sony either XD)

Jun 11, 2017permalink

User9362470513

Not an entirely fair comparison, but open the studio scene with the Sony A9 against the Sigma DP2 Quattro and look at the etching next to the Beatles figures on the left - it's like the A9 has vaseline over the lense! That (and the yellow tube at the top left) is always my first go-to bit of the scene.

Of course the Sigma is at the opposite end of the spectrum to the A9 in terms of speed and AF - the Sigma is a pocketable medium format camera not designed for speed - but the A9 is at the other end of the spectrum in terms of sharpness and fine detail, and surprisingly so for a $4,500 camera. Everything looks soft to me, much softer than the equivalent Nikons and Canons.

May 31, 2017permalink

With Foveon sensors you don't need to sharpen the files, like those from Bayer matrix sensors. Try sharpen the A9 file, and detail will look crisp and clear. This doesn't have anything with the price of the camera to do, just different sensor technologies.

The Sigma/Foveon sensor has other image quality issues, like not that great high ISO performance.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

KW Phua

So, after A9 people start to realise that different cameras for different purposes.
That is why you do not see A7 used for pro level sport. May be A9 can do the job. Let see.

May 31, 2017permalink

So it's going to get silver award and probably get gold award in 6 months time when Sony comes up with A9II?

May 31, 2017permalink

For a Canon user you spend a lot of time commenting on Sony products. Thinking of switching?

Just so you know, the A7rII is almost two years old and no replacement is rumoured or on the horizon. Sony don't in fact replace their cameras every six months or every year or anything like, although I realise it may seem like a cascade of products to a Canon user, accustomed to the glacial pace of their iterations.

May 31, 2017permalink

it's a joke, you guys are getting so tensed for what?
BTW, i used to own a550. I now own (haven't updated the list, anyway not interested with the list thing anymore), a6000, D500, 5DMk4, Xpro2, GX8. I'm not brand specific like some of you'll. I'm an enthusiast and like to try different brands taking shots, discovering the differences between each make. That's my enjoyment. I know how to choose my cameras.

Jun 1, 2017*permalink

SidePod

looks like 12+ ev DR was important only as long as only Canon was lacking it ...

May 31, 2017permalink

The difference is Canon weren't trading DR for speed. There was no trade off of any kind, just lower DR because of poor analogue to digital conversion.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

I made some real life test photos with the A9 to see how far I can push the shadows at ISO100 and the conclusion is:
- A7rII is for sure better, but the A9 is still completely ok for (my non professional) needs of landscape photography. IMHO the difference between the 2 cameras one wouldn`t see even at A2 print size.
- the sharpening what I can apply in LR without amplifying the shadow noise is quite limited in comparison with the A7rII, but still enough to produce good Q images.

Sony stated, that the sensor is optimized for speed, but I think they made a good compromise and the camera can be used as an all-arounder without a problem.

ps.: the camera can track my chaotically running kids in all directions and EVERYWHERE in the frame without an issue at 10/15 fps. Just show me an other camera which can do it. :)

May 31, 2017permalink

Henrikw

How can anyone justify buying a $4500 camera for non-professional work?!?

May 31, 2017permalink

@Henrik,

That describes nearly 100% of people on DPR.

I guarantee it will be a top camera of the year for demanding and unique flower photography.

May 31, 2017permalink

@Henrikw: for me photography is "just" a hobby, but that doesn`t mean, that i do not want the best. I had to sell quite some stuff what I collected during the last 3-4 years to be able to finance the A9...

You think Leica`s are only used by pros? :)

May 31, 2017permalink

@DPPMetro: don`t forget the cats :)))

May 31, 2017permalink

RE; How can anyone justify buying a $4500 camera for non-professional work?!?

A. this may come as a shock to you, but... there are people who spend far more than that on such things as; audio, RC hobbies, sport hunting /fishing, etc. etc. etc...

May 31, 2017*permalink

MikeFairbanks

It's also perspective. My family grosses about 100k a year, so my $1300 Canon 6D (body) is a fairly big chunk of change. Someone making half a million a year? Well, there's your Sony.

My father never eats a meal at home. Eats out twice a day at sit-down restaurants. Probably spends thousands a month on food. That's what he likes and can afford it.

To each his own.

May 31, 2017permalink

Regarding Henrikw question, not trying to offend anyone here, but I think it's a very sensible question and begs for a thread in the forums.

How can anyone buy professional level cameras and just use for everyday, ordinary subjects is beyond me.

Walking down the neighborhood with a pro camera, taking shots of trees, walls and average passing by people (in other words, mundane stuff), does that makes one feel good about his photography goals?

This is not a "you're only allowed to buy pro cameras if you're a pro" statement.

It's more like: "you can buy whatever your wallet affords, but have your skills earned it too? "

Before upgrading, I believe everyone should ask themselves "Is the stuff I'm shooting really worthy of better gear?"

Of course, you can be an amateur and shoot really amazing stuff. There're amateurs out there trying to rival Nat Geo.

But as an ex pro, it's kinda sad when I see D810, 5ds and above, being used as snapshot cameras.

May 31, 2017*permalink

caplanner

This isn't just an issue with photography. Look at all of the expensive golf equipment that appeals to amateur golfers. I know many many amateur bicycle racers that shave their legs because the pros do....

May 31, 2017permalink

@caplanner: exactly my thoughts. I'll add to the list: personally I have zero skills as a musician, despite having tried to learn piano and failing miserably, and loving the sound it produces.

Imagine a guy like me buying a giant, super expensive, classic piano and leaving it in the living room for everyone to see, while having zero piano skills... it makes no sense at all.

Money should not be the ultimate entry price for the club.

In the end, people should always upgrade according to their skill level (never their wallet alone).

May 31, 2017permalink

Q. Imagine a guy like me buying a giant, super expensive, classic piano and leaving it in the living room for everyone to see, while having zero piano skills... it makes no sense at all.

A. Correction, it makes no sense to you personally, but I can see where plenty of people would own a piano if not only for the pleasure of owning something they love. To which I'd add is a well known human characteristics.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

Ok, never mind my piano example, it leads to too many loose ends. A nice piano can fit the role of piece of decoration, etc.

Perhaps what makes my POV conflicting with what most here would believe, is that once I was a pro. Again, not trying to offend anyone, but I know I've put the extra mile in learning my craft.

I (as well as lots of pros everywhere) have made efforts in the field most amateurs barely dream of (just saying. Offending is not my goal)

My career was essentially built on a lowly D700 (used up to 2015), and needless to say, we all know what forums have to say about 10 year old gear.

While my D700 was taming demanding clients, amateurs shoot vacations with D810, 5ds R, D5...

It's difficult to find common ground because we're talking totally different levels of commitments to the craft.

All I'm saying is, if an enthusiast is going to own professional gear, at least make sure to look like he/she deserves it, by producing great photography with it.

Jun 1, 2017*permalink

Henrikw

I just happen to see a camera as a work tool. If I shoot casually - ie kids, holiday snaps - I am happy using my Samsung S7 or nex6000. If I buy a £4500 camera (+lenses) I want to put it to full/frequent use, using all my skills, it would have to be a workhorse and eventually pay itself back. Other cameras will do the casual stuff for a fraction of the price. But then again - if you are loaded - as many golfers are (to refer back to earlier examples), why not:)

Jun 1, 2017permalink

MikeFairbanks

One could make the same argument about a sports car. Why own one if you don't need (or can't handle) its capabilities?

Because it's freaking cool.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

@MikeFairbanks , this is turning into a proper thread. Pretty sure the sports car example would show up at some point.

I get what you mean, and a sports car is freaking cool indeed. But let's remember for all the power it packs, is not literally a "professional" racing car.

It's a "consumer" car with "professional" specs, but it's still not a professional racing car meant for racing on competitive tracks.

OTOH, imagine if you can buy the *exact* same Ferrari you see on F-1 tracks. The very same car, 100% unchanged.

Than you see someone with tons of cash using this car to go to the mall, to the grocery, to the dentist, to work... at blazing fast 40 km/h.

A proper F-1 car on mundane duties, quite honestly, I don't think this makes the driver any cooler.

And quite sure the car would cringe at night, when no one is seeing, if it could cringe.

Some things are meant for specific uses. Pro gear on mundane duties looks just wrong.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

Q. All I'm saying is, if an enthusiast is going to own professional gear, at least make sure to look like he/she deserves it, by producing great photography with it.

A. I think I understanding what you're trying to say here. Though I'd remind you that in such cases, people will earn the right to own a product by paying for it. One example of this is where people will purchase sports cars that are well above their capacity to drive(power and handling), if not only for the pride of ownership and relative experiences that comes with it.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

Come on guys, this is getting ridiculous. And this is all, because I wrote "non professional needs"? :) Wow.

@Esstee: I 100% agree to you arguments. It is about love, it is about enjoying what you do. And if this has a price, than so be it. Carpe diem!

Jun 1, 2017permalink

Henrikw

not ridiculous - interesting to hear different opinions on this topic. Nobody is angry or rude.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

I had the :) there, and I meant, that my comment generated a totally off-topic discussion. But never mind, and feel free to continue the discussion.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

tmorterlaing

I want to jump in here.
People want to buy the best camera that they can afford, regardless of if theyre pro or not. The fact that theyre even on this website means theyre probably already better than the 'flick to auto' crowd.
It's *not* fair to say "you can buy whatever your wallet affords, but have your skills earned it too? "
Because that suggests you have to somehow earn the right to have an expensive camera. It *also* insinuates that being professional actually means youre good - this is a common issue I see. Professionals are often actually pretty bad/mediocre, theyre just consistently 'not awful', and some amateurs dont do it professionally because they are hobbiest - but still excellent photogs.

So, sure, maybe if you literally dont know how to use the camera or understand what fstop/iso is, then fine, you probably shouldnt start at 4.5k. But then, tell me -that if you *do* know these things, and *do* have the $, why cant you buy a Sony A9?

Jun 11, 2017permalink

I know people buying 1Dxs and Fuji GFX for personal stuff. Just work hard and smart and you can buy any gear you want.

Jul 3, 2017*permalink

boni bonev

Nikon D500 has much better NOISE/DETAIL ratio... It is clear visible from this test. Also better DR

May 31, 2017permalink

tmorterlaing

Uhhhh does it? Pretty sure its similar at low ISO and then A9 beats the hell out of it at higher iso: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D500,Sony%20ILCE-9

Jun 11, 2017permalink

Juck

Has a professional field-sports photographer tried this out yet and posted a review? I don't care about DR as much as I do about tracking and (especially) the uncompressed RAW buffer filling quickly and emptying slowly.

May 31, 2017*permalink

Maybe a silly question from me: if you don`t care about DR, then why is uncompressed RAW buffer performance important for you?

May 31, 2017permalink

Juck:

The buffer is fast to empty and big.

That's shooting raw, uncompressed.

May 31, 2017permalink

Juck

@janist74 I didn't say I don't care about DR,,, I said I didn't care about it as much as the tracking and RAW buffer flush. I shoot field sports in bright sunshine 95% of the time,, I never had a problem with the DR on my 1d II, III & IV bodies,, can't imagine the A9 is any worse.

May 31, 2017*permalink

dash2k8

I myself don't care about DR on the newest cameras anymore because for my purposes, anything over 12 stops is good enough. I almost never take pictures in extreme situations (landscape?) so the DR in any new camera will most certainly be enough. Honestly, is there any studio photographer here who has ever needed more DR than what their current cameras offer? Obviously in this age "more is better" but for me it's already enough.

May 31, 2017permalink

What cameras are you speaking about that get over 12 stops? The A9 has has under 10.5 stops at base ISO, drops to 8 stops at ISO 2000.

May 31, 2017permalink

The Pentax K-5 from 2009 had 14.1 stops of DR. It is still near the top of the APSc and is only now being somewhat bettered.

Also, there is never "too much DR".

The Nikon D810 (via ISO 64) and Pentax K-1 (via Pixel Shift) are returning insanely high DR figures, with the latter approaching MF levels.

May 31, 2017permalink

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D810A,Pentax%20K-1

The D810A peaks at 10.6, the K-1 at 11.4, the D810 at 11.6. These are high numbers, but not over 12.

Or did you mean dxomark dynamic range?

May 31, 2017permalink

thx1138

He means the DxO DR figures.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

Aaron801

Hopefully, I'm not stating the obvious, but it seems to me that just because you spend a whole lot of $$ on a camera, it doesn't necessarily make it an all around great performer. You can dump a lot of $$ on something that's much more specialized and I think that this camera is an example of that. Even though it costs a lot, I wouldn't expect it to have the very best IQ as it's designed for action and not ultimate IQ. One has to decide how important the speed part of it is... because if that's the overriding concern and you have the cash, then it's going to be worth it to you, prefect IQ or not.

May 31, 2017*permalink

joger

Excellent summary - in other words "horses for courses"

You have to look at the A9 as an action & sports camera and compare it to other cameras of this breed.

The A7RM2 is still one of the best cameras with respect to sheer image quality. Good to know but utterly unimportant for those that need desperately AF performance and fps speed.

Looks like we hit the current technological barrier - and once again it proofs that only once you control the chip manufacturing you're able to excel - look at the custom chips the big firm from Cupertino is doing right now - they may not have the best performance in sheer numbers but in the application they excel in efficiency and perceived application quality.

Sharp images due to a better AF tracking are better than images with a better S/N performance but unsharp results ;-)

May 31, 2017*permalink

But then you have to accept the fact that at this level Canon outperforms the Sony for dynamic range (who would have thought we'd be saying that).

May 31, 2017permalink

The Davinator

Hmmm...D5 looks sharper, and has better high iso noise.

May 31, 2017permalink

I saw that too. 1dx MkII looks sharper as well. Reviewer says:

"Although at first glance the a9 appears slightly softer than the Nikon D5 and the Canon EOS-1D X II, it appears to be showing a similar amount of detail as well as color aliasing. The smallest lines of text in particular look very similar among the three. "

I wouldn't call the difference slight. To my eye, it's huge.

In Jpeg:
"At base ISO, clever sharpening means the text sharpens up nicely compared to the Raw, without any strange artifacts, and actually appears to show more detail than the D5 in some areas. "

Implying Nikon( and Canon) are sharpening their raws, but sony isn't?

May 31, 2017permalink

dash2k8

I think a better test is to see how much sharpening can be achieved in post.

May 31, 2017permalink

Would be subject dependent, no?

May 31, 2017permalink

TN Args

No - not if you mean optimal sharpening before halos.

May 31, 2017permalink

But doesn't the interplay between amount, radius, threshold effect the halo and dependent on subject? Or did you mean a regular sharpen filter, not USM?

May 31, 2017permalink

This could be down to differences in the AA filter as well. AA blurring is not necessarily a bad thing as it prevents unwanted aliasing.

May 31, 2017permalink

technotic

Sony sharpens Canon RAWs.

May 31, 2017permalink

Haha, I remember when there was an urban legend floating around accusing Canon of sharpening the raws in a 30D.

May 31, 2017permalink

stadlereric

I searched Flickr for some good action shots taken with the A9 and there aren't many yet. Most of the pictures are of people or flowers. They look great don't get me wrong but why buy a $4500 camera for that? They'd look just as good or better with my A7rII. The photos ive seen taken with the 100mm GM STF lens are beautiful though.

May 30, 2017permalink

jbs1photography

Mark Galer has posted a lot of good kite surfing photos.

May 31, 2017permalink

Dr Blackjack

It's still spanking new!!

May 31, 2017permalink

new boyz

I thought I am the only one who sees that.. hahahaha

May 31, 2017permalink

Huh, no free lunch.
Who Knew?

May 30, 2017permalink

TN Args

Who didn't? Check the price.

May 31, 2017permalink

cgarrard

Has the A9 overheated or given you any warning icons?

May 30, 2017permalink

Richard Butler

Not yet, but we've been primarily studio-based so far. It's something we'll test and look for as we get out-and-about more with the camera.

May 30, 2017permalink

cgarrard

Good to know. I wonder how it goes with rapid fire shooting or video. :)

May 31, 2017permalink

steelhead3

All this talk about sharpness compared to whatever seems to rest with an AA filter or not. A little sharpness needs to be added to see sharpness differences.

May 30, 2017permalink

Anyblunder

Apparently there are reports saying the camera overheats in 30 minutes when shot outdoors in normal sunny conditions. If this proves to be the case a lot of sport photographers will be in trouble if they go for the A9.

May 30, 2017permalink

jbs1photography

the report was that the overheating warning indicator came on while shooting photos, not that it overheated. The photographer was able to continue to shoot without any problem. Don't believe the "translation" Sony haters make to a story.

May 31, 2017permalink

TN Args

What seems to actually happen is that a warning appears. That is not the same as the camera shutting down, which seems to be so rare that it would need verification. And even if it shuts down, one has to ask if the camera has actually become too hot to continue running, or is the overheating detection mechanism overly sensitive and shutting the camera down unnecessarily. So, if the warning is coming on unnecessarily, just ignore it -- which some have done and it continues to run perfectly. In fact, if there is a shut-down mechanism, then ignore warnings and wait for shut down.

So far, because it seems to be more about sunlight and not about hot weather, it is most likely all about the detector and not actual camera heat.

May 31, 2017permalink

NicoPPC

No camera should overheats in normal condition where humans beings live.. also in sun at 35°C... and in the cold at 0°C.

Even only showing the overheat warning is really bad for a camera at that price, which is advertise as sport/outdoor/rugged camera.

Regards

May 31, 2017permalink

underxposed59

look ^^^

May 31, 2017permalink

There is reason for the alarm, you don't ignore or bypass it in the setting. why develop the alarm just to ignore/bypass. Sorry i don't buy this thing as lets ignore the alarm or bypass it or remove it via firmware update etc. I believe there is consequences if you ignore the alarm otherwise they wouldn't have put it in.

May 31, 2017*permalink

NicoPPC

@Vignes. Ignoring alarms.. remembering the 2008 finace cris, Fukushima nuclear chaos, upcoming climate change catastrophe..

yeah, it sound greats, do not fix, remove the alarm!

May 31, 2017permalink

you should study the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. the shift engineers ignored the safety related alarms, bypassed the safety systems alarm generated during their testing and guess what happened after that.

Jun 2, 2017*permalink

Anyblunder

It seems that Sony can correct it in a firmware update, so that should solve the problem.

Jun 22, 2017permalink

adhemar

Stating that the A9 range is limited is extremely misleading. It has for all intent and purpose the same dynamic range as its competitors:
https://fstoppers.com/gear/sony-a9-dynamic-range-tested-compared-canon-1d-x-mark-ii-and-nikon-d5-178249
It is only limited with respect to the A7.

May 30, 2017permalink

(and also limited with respect to most other FF cameras that are not specifically targeted for high ISO shooting).

Why is that correct statement "extremely misleading"? Why is it any different than an article like this: https://www.dpreview.com/news/9402203921/nikon-d5-shows-drop-in-dynamic-range

You're the one inserting the "with respect to its competitors" addition onto the headline. The headline doesn't have it.

The headline just doesn't match up to how you want to read it.

May 30, 2017*permalink

tinternaut

Does this mean great DR and best in class high ISO performance are currently mutually exclusive?

May 30, 2017permalink

Richard Butler

Not so far as we know. As we understand it, the camera's speed reduces the DR at low ISO and its dual gain design helps it pull ahead at higher ISO. One isn't causing the other.

May 30, 2017permalink

SmilerGrogan

That seems weird—how could taking pictures at a higher rate affect anything? Or are you saying that Sony engineers have to reduce the dynamic range to make the files smaller so they can be shoved through the pipes quicker?

May 31, 2017permalink

weixing

Hi,
Hmm... Not sure what is the reason, but it seem that the camera that known to have this limitation are all mirrorless camera, such as Samsung NX1, and even the slow shooting speed Canon M5 had this limitation.

Have a nice day.

May 31, 2017*permalink

geekyrocketguy

@SmilerGrogan All else equal, read noise scales inversely with the amount of time that an ADC spends reading each pixel. If you run ADCs really quickly, you end up with worse noise.

Interestingly, many ADCs can be run at user-adjustable rates. To my knowledge, no camera manufacturer has yet implemented switchable high-speed-high-noise and low-speed-low-noise modes.

May 31, 2017permalink

SmilerGrogan

That would be really something if camera makers added a ADC speed-control knob on the back....

May 31, 2017permalink

geekyrocketguy

It would be as simple has coupling the ADC readout rate to your burst mode. If you're in single shot mode, then the camera reads the image slower and gives maximum dynamic range. If you select burst mode, then you get a higher frame rate but a stop or two less DR.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

The massive amount of coverage this camera gets is not proportional to the results it offers. Worst IQ of any current full frame camera regardless of price.

May 30, 2017*permalink

Mirrorless development is always exciting, and Sony is good at timing their product releases ;)

May 30, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

No one needs 14 stops of DR. It's like saying every image made 5 years or more ago is unacceptable. People complain about modern sensors producing "flat" images, that's what happens when you squeeze 13-14 stops of DR into 8 stop displays and print.

May 30, 2017permalink

@OlyPent With good lenses, the original 2005 Canon 5D with its humble 12mp still creates beautiful pictures, better than many new cameras. I don't care how many stops of DR it has, the files look darn GOOD.

May 30, 2017permalink

They give new Sony cams especially flagships countless articles. From every possible angle. Unlike say Pentax K1. First FF Pentax ever...why bother...right....

May 30, 2017permalink

PeteQuad

Did you respond to the correct post?

May 30, 2017permalink

If you refer to Jorginho, I guess yes, he responds to the correct post.

May 30, 2017permalink

@Jorgino, Dpreview knows the statistics of how many readers read what type of articles and what brands get the most clicks and they try to maximise their readership and profits. After all you are not paying anything to them.

May 30, 2017permalink

MyReality

@OlyPent - Exactly. But many people do not understand this simple idea, because it is always initially about want and not need until SOME people think and back off. Not one understands this better than people still shooting film

May 31, 2017permalink

So since it is free and I pay nothing I can not criticise a rather imbalanced attention for some brands over some others. Well, if so, a disclaimer would be in order. If not, and I don't see one, i expect a fair amount of attention. I understand a cam lik A7RII and A9 get a lot of articels and I do find them informative. They are pretty well written too. It is just that these cams are not the only eyecatchers out there. K1 for sure, for sure was worht a lot of attention. It is no just another 36 MP FF cam. It is a Pentax first, it has HiRes mode etcetc. Rishi commented with a number of questionmarks when someone compared A9 to Em1.2 and pointed to sensorsize. I agree fully. However Gh4, a truly breakthrough cam in many ways, after months of postponing was pitted against....the A7s...Right: a FF cam. Now they saw it fit to compare a m43 cam. It is impossible to let such a flagship cam shine when you do that or give it the limelight it, like A9, deserves.

May 31, 2017permalink

panther fan

You realise the review said it's still 1 stop better than the D5? And the D5 sells like hot cakes.

May 31, 2017permalink

caplanner

@jorginho the K1 was announced on February 17, 2016 and the on February 7, 2014 (according to my simple google search so maybe it was more recent). I didn't read articles about a camera I don't own - are you saying they didn't get a number of articles on this site? A search of this site returns 3 videos and 22 reviews / news articles regarding the K1. The A9 search returns 8 videos and 37 reviews / news articles.

May 31, 2017permalink

caplanner...it got attention but not anywhere near what we see on A7RII or indeed A9. Not close.

May 31, 2017permalink

@Jorginho I guess for you its not really about the K1 isn't it. Its about the GH4 and GH5 and how you feel dpreview neglected them.

Some camera's receive extra attention. A7R II (at its launch) and A9 now are very exciting cameras to a lot of folks and of course I find it very natural that dpreview tries to get much coverage for them.

I don't see you complaining about A7r, A7, A7 II, A7S, A7S II A6500 A6300 e.t.c. If somehow you sense a Sony favoritism then why didn't dpreview focus more on them as well?

May 31, 2017*permalink

Junzinc; you should focus on what I say. You can come up with anything I did not say. that is fine. You can also answer those question yourself btw.
I said "Sony flagships". And compared them to other flagships. So stick to the point.

May 31, 2017permalink

@Jorginho - It is very easy to see that from your posts.

Sony A7R was a flagship when it came out and dpreview exposed a lot of it's problems. I don't see much Sony A99II articles as well which is a current flagship model, and it did not get an overly positive review as well. How about that being on your point? The remaining 2 flagships, The A7RII is an amazing camera which really caught everyone's attention when it came out, just like the A9 is doing now. Dpreview would be foolish not to report on them.

Anyway enough said, feel free to keep crying of not getting enough attention

May 31, 2017permalink

Junzinc: no. As you can read here on a recent post...https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59605197

I don't know who said A9 and A7RII should not get attention, may be it was you yourself needing that claim to make some point. The crying part made me laugh, people just can't keep to subjects and need to go for the person. But you get used to that.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

I apologize about the "crying" part, but I am glad I made you laugh, you seemed very upset about the many A9 articles. (jk)

You keep posting in a lot of A9 articles about how dpreview does a lot of articles on the A9, you keep counts on the articles / reviews on the A7RII :-)
Now you are implying it is okay, since you said above "I don't know who said A9 and A7RII should not get attention," Yes, they are getting a lot of attention and hence the articles.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

Lightright

Just give Sony the credit it deserves for having a pioneering spirit to boldly initiate and advance the mirrorless technology into its unknown territory of sports photography.

Jun 4, 2017permalink

WookieLala

This article (sorry in French) tests the A9 high ISO sensitivity vs D5 and 1dxii:
www.focus-numerique.com/news/le-sony-a9-devance-la-concurrence-dans-les-hautes-sensibilites-20203.html

The second part of the test is interesting, with the same optic used (Sigma 35/1.4 ART) and normalized resolution output (40x60cm, 180dpi, approx. 12mpix) for all three cameras. In this test D5 was ahead until ISO 12800. At ISO 12800 D5 is ahead in details but Sony takes over in color accuracy. Then A9 is ahead on everything past ISO 12800, as the article notes A9 is helped by the smidge extra sensor resolution. Canon is slightly behind at all ISO values.

As the article notes the A9 advantage is visible but nonetheless subtle. D5 is still a solid performer.

May 30, 2017permalink

Both the Canon and the Nikon are better higher ISO bodies than the Sony A9.

Above ISO 30K, the Sony A9 suffers from cyan and magenta blotching in deep shadows (and deep shadows are a very normal thing when shooting higher ISO).

These blotches cannot be removed with NR reduction software.

The Nikon D5 doesn't experience this blotching problem until above ISO 80. The Canon 1DXII is bit behind the Nikon, but ahead of the A9.

The A9 has the higher ISO performance of the Nikon Df, or the Leica SL (the Leica must have later firmware running).

I more than suspect this blotching is caused by heat, perhaps an A9II, using the same sensor, can fix this issue with better heat dispersion.

May 30, 2017permalink

@HowaboutRAW
And where can we see the side-by-side Sony, Nikon, Leica and Canon images that you made to form this assessment?

Jun 1, 2017permalink

RubberDials:

Aint sharing my raws.

Jun 1, 2017permalink

No point is sharing your 'verdict' then. Did I tell you that I can run faster than Usain Bolt?

Jun 1, 2017permalink

RubberD:

Sure there’s a point. And that is yet again Sony has deep shadow cyan and magenta blotching issues at ISOs lower than expected. By the way even the A7SII this issue above ISO 25K.

I guess it’s expected with the A9, the D750 shows similar issues starting at about ISO 20K.

As for not sharing raws, you can read my comment and decide whether it’s worth pursuing.

You may not like that I’ve tried all these cameras in challenging lighting, but that’s immaterial to my conclusions about the higher ISO capacities of these cameras.

Your Usain Bolt snottiness says far more about you that about my higher ISO shooting with this gear. It’s also a false equivalence, since my claims are easy enough to check, if you have the gear, or can try it. While I'm quite sure you can't sprint like him, no matter how much you try. He's also not gear. Whereas these camera bodies are.

Jun 2, 2017*permalink

I'm not actually claiming to be able to run faster than Usain Bolt - i'm just showing how without evidence any claim is essentially pointless.

You told me in another post that you don't have a camera of any kind, so I assume you took all these raws that you have in a camera store - perhaps the challenging lighting conditions you speak of.

Are we to suppose that raw photos you took under these conditions, presumably on several different days and perhaps even different stores (The Leica SL is quite a specialised camera) are somehow comparable?

Jun 2, 2017permalink

RubberD:

"You told me in another post that you don't have a camera of any kind, so I assume you took all these raws that you have in a camera store".

Not exactly what I wrote. I'm not surprised you'd mischaracterize my comment.

Nope, don't own a D5, 1DXII, A7SII, Leica SL, Sony A9, Sony A7RII.

"Are we to suppose that raw photos you took under these conditions, presumably on several different days and perhaps even different stores (The Leica SL is quite a specialised camera) are somehow comparable?"

You don't have to believe me, but I'm not changing my conclusions. Don't fall into the Leica is specialized thinking or into the trap of thinking I've only tried this gear once, or in different conditions.

The Bolt point, I know you can't sprint faster. You can't know that I've not tried the A9, D5, 1DX, 6D, D750, SL, M10, A7SII, etc. You don't have to believe me. But you can't know.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

I meant the Leica is hard to get your hands on. I've only seen it once.

I don't disbelieve that you have taken raw photos with these cameras. Why would you lie? I'm only questioning the validity of presenting findings on them that we can't examine.

I'm sorry to say it but we can't just take your word for it.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

RubberD:

And I'm not insisting you take my word for it.

Posted my observation, after a few hundred raws shot with an A9.

Jun 2, 2017*permalink

FLruckas

Rubber....

Spend some time at the BH camera counters.....

And you'll find out where....

Somebody...

Gets to take....

A few hundred RAW images with an A9....

It only takes...

A couple of minutes....

You might even get to meet....

The infamous...

howabout....

Guy....

:-)

Jun 2, 2017permalink

FLruckas:

Still being creapy stalky I see.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

FLruckas

Rubber....

You need to ask him....

Under what circumstances did he shoot the A9 raws....

And exactly what the snaps are of.....

Seems very queer...

That someone who's always asking for raws....

Supposedly shoots hundreds of them himself with an A9.....

And won't share a single one with us....

:-)

Jun 2, 2017*permalink

FLruckas:

Not sharing my raws.

And I'm quite certain of my process.

Still had to stalk me here.

Jun 2, 2017permalink

The others do have a valid point. Your claims are useless without actual raw file/evidence to back it up.

Jul 3, 2017permalink

Under The Sun,

Since you've inserted yourself in here, months after this thread started:

You don't have to believe my claims, but I'm going to make them, and stand by them.

And now, July 3rd 2017, I've tried the new G Master FE mount 100-400mm from Sony. It wasn't real special, bad colour. Unlike the excellent 24-70mm f/2.8 constant G Master. (Indeed, I hope for Sony's sake the 100-400mm was just a bad early example.)

Jul 4, 2017permalink

As far as I know the comments is considered a public discussion area and anyone can join in so I did because I was very interested in your results. I actually see your posts often in discussions here and think you offer a lot of insightful commentary (even if I don't agree with you all the time) but why make a public statement if you do not care to back it up. It just makes you look dishonest.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

@Under The Sun
Howaboutraw is a troll. He may be an accidental troll, but the end result is the same. Look at his latest contribution; the 100-400 'isn't real special' and has 'bad colour'. Two criticisms that add nothing to our understanding of the lens.

What the heck is bad colour? Think about it for a minute and you realise it's just about the most nonsensical thing you could write about a lens, next to saying the lens has 'bad attitude.'

I'm certainly not against home-brew testing, and I wouldn't disregard a poster's comments just because they didn't have access to an optical bench or scientific equipment, but if you are testing using 'experience' and non-scientific or controlled comparisons, you need to be less polemical with your conclusions.

If Howaboutraw said I tried the lens in B&H or Bestbuy and I didn't like x or y I wouldn't have a problem, it's his trying to present this anecdotal experience as scientific testing.

Jul 4, 2017*permalink

RubberDials:

And still the example of the G Master 100-400mm that I tried had bad colour, it was a disappointment.

"it's his trying to present this anecdotal experience as scientific testing."

You know much about the "science" of colour?

The following says you don't:

"What the heck is bad colour? Think about it for a minute and you realise it's just about the most nonsensical thing you could write about a lens, next to saying the lens has 'bad attitude."

Jul 4, 2017permalink

Under The Sun:

"As far as I know the comments is considered a public discussion area and anyone can join in so I did because I was very interested in your results. I actually see your posts often in discussions here and think you offer a lot of insightful commentary (even if I don't agree with you all the time) but why make a public statement if you do not care to back it up. It just makes you look dishonest."

I find it hard to believe that you read my comments with any regularity, if you did so, you'd know that I don't share raws.

I stand by my comment that both the D5 and the 1DXII are better higher ISO bodies than the Sony A9 (and the Sony A9 is very good for higher ISOs.)

Jul 4, 2017permalink

No I don't know what 'bad colour' is - I don't think there is any shame in admitting that.

What is it?

Jul 4, 2017permalink

RubberDials:

Colour, or light in a B+W, image that looks lifeless.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

What a farce. 'Light in a B + W image' - do you mean tone?

You don't know anything about lens testing, which won't surprise anyone. 'Lifelessness', 'bad colour' are not lens testing metrics. Try CONTRAST.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

RubberDials,

It has nothing to do with tone, and can't be added in post.

It is not simply "micro-contrast" when the subject is lenses. If it were I'd have used that term.

It's clear you don't know much about optically better lenses.

Farsical be your misdirections.

Jul 4, 2017*permalink

HowaboutRAW I wrote "I actually see your posts often in discussions here often" does not necessarily mean I know everything about you. I do not actively seek your postings, I just happen to read what I encounter on the boards.

Jul 5, 2017permalink

'Farcical be your misdirections.'

You do Yoda impressions as well?

Jul 5, 2017permalink

UTS,

Still not sharing raws, just like I've said, posted, at least 100 times, at DPR.

Jul 5, 2017permalink

caravan

The A9 appears the superior product in nearly all respects.

Go Sony.

May 30, 2017permalink

...from specs.

In real life, however, it appears to be inferior for IQ, ability to regulate temperature in actual shooting conditions, buffer, battery life, lens selection, and time will tell about other aspects.

May 30, 2017*permalink

caravan:

Kind of a slow mechanical frame rate, slower than the Nikon D750, the Leica SL, and of course the pro Canikon bodies.

Very fast to clear buffer, so that's better than the Leica SL.

I more than suspect the card door will be easy to smash off. (Not something I advocate trying--it's just misplaced, and doesn't look astoundingly durable. So unlike the pro Canikon bodies.)

Very nice EVF, the Leica SL's is still better.

May 30, 2017permalink

stadlereric

And it costs less!

May 30, 2017permalink

stadlereric:

Less than what? Not the D750, and not the 5DIV.

May 31, 2017permalink

Dr Blackjack

1DXii and d5

May 31, 2017permalink

sbu

You are exactly the kind of end user the A9 really is aimed for - the fanboy!

May 31, 2017permalink

@beatboxa
Sadly time has rendered your well liked post wrong in every respect - except 'lens selection', if we take that to mean 'absence of long teles'. If you meant anything else that's wrong as well.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

@RubberDials

You're saying that the A9 has better IQ, lower operating temperature in rugged scenarios, deeper & quicker buffer clearing, and longer battery life than a Nikon D5 & Canon 1Dx-ii?

If that's what you're saying, you're wrong in every respect. If you meant anything else, that's wrong as well.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

*Sigh* I wasn't insulting you beatboxa. You haven't understood the last line of my post - it's if you meant the absence of lenses other than long teles is wrong - not everything you say is wrong.

I was pointing out that you made your comment before the camera was tested, two months ago and now you comment is dated. The things you posted about have all been disproved.

The A9 does have better IQ than the D5/1DxII https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-a9-sensor-review-Game-changer
'Lower operating temperature in rugged scenarios.' - you didn't say this in your first comment. I don't know what you're referring to.
The A9 buffer is the largest on the market - you were referring to the claim that it took two minutes to clear - it takes 35 seconds to clear fully.
The battery life of the A9 is the same with a grip - the electronic shutter uses less power than a mechanical shutter.

Jul 4, 2017*permalink

RubberDials,

The image quality of any digital camera depends on the lens used, and also of course the gain (ISO) setting of the sensor.

First, DXO sensor scores are a joke, and are to be ignored basically.

Second, real world testing says the D5 and 1DXII are both better higher ISO bodies than the A9.

There's much to like about the A9, though not its mechanical shutter frame rate.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

*Sigh* who said you were insulting me? But your response shows that you don't know the meanings of the words 'superior' and 'inferior.'

DxOMark scores are not the best way to compare IQ. Look at the actual reviews (and also banding issues)--you can try here at DPReview for example. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a9-full-review/5
The D5 looks better at high ISOs, where this camera is designed to shoot.

If the A9 has superior ability to regulate temperature, then it would have a lower operating temperature. Does it?

Let's say it takes 35 seconds to clear the buffer fully. How long does the D5 or 1Dx-ii take? More than 35 seconds or less?

Can you also explain how the 'same battery life with the additional grip' in the A9 is somehow *superior* to the D5 or 1Dx-ii?

"Superior" means 'better'; and "inferior" means 'worse'--neither means 'the same.' That's why you're wrong in every respect.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

I have a dream

That's crazy...
Latest Sony and Nikon have reduced DR (D5 < D4) while Canon, who was always weaker on DR, has improved a lot lately...

May 30, 2017*permalink

new boyz

Sony/Nikon figured out that people don't care(Canon is still #1). Also reduced Sony/Nikon is about the level of improved Canon, DR wise.

May 30, 2017permalink

Why is that crazy? That's normal for pro cameras.

The 'latest' Sony & Nikon have better DR at high ISO--which these cameras are designed for. High shutter speed action = low light = high ISO.

The reduced DR is only at lower ISOs (like for landscapes), which these cameras aren't designed for.

Nikon makes a different pro camera for low ISO DR & IQ: The D810. The D810 is not designed for high speed action shooting at high ISO.
Sonys equivalent would be the A7 series.
Canon's equivalent (5DSR) lags far behind these for now in DR.

May 30, 2017permalink

@beatboxa, The DR hit is meaningless. Most people quack on about DR and then have no idea what they might do with it, often citing 6 stop pushes of a crap file.
I have no real love or hate for any camera but there are no images in the world that could only have been made with a file that has 13-14 stops of DR.
The real fact is that DR is a new metric to fuss over and has never made a cat or food photo better.

May 30, 2017permalink

Not really. Depends on what you're shooting. I use the DR of my camera all the time--especially in cameras at this level.

DR performance is very important when the scene has high DR--like landscapes that include a bright sky and dark shadow regions. Anyone who shoots raw with these types of scenes can appreciate this.

I'm sure it doesn't make your cat of food photos better. But some people have more challenging shots they take--and this would be why they buy full frame cameras that cost several thousand $$.

This is billed as a pro sports shooter, not a camera for the masses taking Instagram pictures of cats and food.

May 30, 2017*permalink

As others have noted, the DR "limitations" of cameras over 5 years old did not prevent the taking of epic photographs.
Highlight and shadow correction can be done with startling effect by even the most modest of cameras.
I have used only high end FF cameras since the first Canon 1Ds and at no time ever was DR a limiting factor in the production of images for my clients. Ever.

Suggesting it is a make or break issue is BS considering we are talking about lab differences and ignoring the equalizing factors of the field and artistic representation.

I also take issue with the idea that in a sports image someone may say "Well, that is a nice image of Usain Bolt but I think we need to see the detail in the weave of his black shorts a bit better." Really?
Get over to Imaging Resource where they have a superb comparison tool that gives a much closer approximation of real life results and you will see how little the DR debate matters.

May 31, 2017*permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9402203921/nikon-d5-shows-drop-in-dynamic-range

Who suggested it is a make-it or break-it issue?

Even years old APS-C cameras like the Nikon D7000 have similar base ISO DR. Cameras that have better base ISO do offer benefits for certain scene types, and DR can be a limit to these. It's naive to think that images you've taken 'for your clients' have the max DR that anyone ever needed ever.

The "suggestion" is just your emotional response or interpretation, not anything to do with the statement.

Here's the statement that you take issue with:
"Sony a9: Studio analysis confirms limited dynamic range, solid high ISO"

Where's the suggestion that it is a make it or break it issue?

Did you fume as well at DPReview's similar Nikon D5 analysis, entitled:
"Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR"
...which says nothing about its high ISO performance?

May 31, 2017*permalink

I've noticed that I have to use that additional DR on my Sony camera all the time because it chronically underexposes to preserve all the highlights. I've noticed Nikon, Canon and even Samsung get the exposure right (sometimes highlights are meant to be blown) so I don't need to use the slider or push any shadows.

May 31, 2017permalink

@Zdman: this sounds like an issue of exposure compensation if you don't need the highlight information. Use the EC to tell the camera use a higher ISO or exposure (or alter the meter), and you won't need to use the sliders.

DR is important when you need to compress both the highlights & shadows--for example, taking a picture that has the sun, sky, and dark shadows in it.

If a scene has lower DR than your camera's range, it's more about picking the right exposure & ISO rather than sliders. :)

May 31, 2017permalink

It isn't a make or break situation despite the heavy breathing over DR.
Focusing on DR to the extent that is popular implies that it is.

Either it is or it isn't. If it isn't, why are we subjected to thousands of posts implying that it is?

May 31, 2017permalink

Steve Sanacore

Photomonkey - DR is very important in my work. it can reduce the need for multiple exposures to cover extreme dynamic range in architectural shots and landscapes. Sure we lived with limited DR at first, but as it gets better, our work flow is easier and with less issues. Shooting multiple frames and layering in post can also be problematic when you have movement in the frame. Getting it all in one exposure is much better. If you have full control of lighting, like a studio, then I agree it's not as relevant.

Jun 7, 2017permalink

@Beatboxa. I wish it were that simple. Its only a problem in shots with higher than normal DR. So some shots expose fine and playing with exposure compensation overexposes them. Few people notice the average underexposure because they're probably letting whatever software they use do an intial adjustment. If you pay attention though you'll see that the sliders are pushed up a stop for 90% of the shots.

Jun 7, 2017permalink

@Zdman: Then it's working correctly.

Jun 7, 2017permalink

Yeah I suppose its just the other camera aren't and tend to look cleaner noise wise (1 stop of pushing is still noticable). So in a world without competition I wouldn't have noticed but when literally all the others I've tried expose 1 stop different (Nikon, Canon and Samsung) you have to start thinking Sony is being a little conservative.

Jun 8, 2017permalink

Fujica

The first cracks in the marketing campaign are starting to show up.

Next people find out that the 20fps is only possible with a very limited set of lenses. Then they'll find out you can't shoot in continuous high and use flash with this camera.

May 30, 2017*permalink

jbs1photography

can you name all of the flashes that fire 20 times per second?

May 31, 2017permalink

Alphaville

What flash is capable of 20fps?

May 31, 2017permalink

Fujica

Many flashes are capable of doing 11 to 14fps.

With this camera you will be limited to maximum of 5.
Which can be a pain if you are a professional.

May 31, 2017*permalink

Steve Sanacore

FYI - Profoto Pro-10 will shoot up to 50 flashes per second. But I don't think you can shoot with flash with the electronic shutter on the Sony A9. I believe you are limited to the mechanical shutter for flash at 5 FPS max. Profoto does have a dedicated Air remote for Sony, but not sure if that will circumvent the issue.

Jun 7, 2017permalink

Snikt228

Something has to be wrong with the A9 studio image? My plain old A7 from 2013 is showing a lot more detail, RAW ISO 100. The A9 image looks soft all over in comparison.

Edit-- Noticed the A9 image is with the FE 85 1.8 and the A7 image is with the FE 55 1.8. Shouldn't this be consistent? Across brands sure but at least with Sony FE should all be with the same lens?

May 30, 2017*permalink

Toselli

The lenses usually are stopped down, so there is no real difference in resolution. In my opinion the A7 has a more "consumer" setting on how the raw is produced, with a little of added sharpening. That's something I also noted using the A7. In my opinion if you sharpen a little the A9 you get the same amount of detail.

May 30, 2017permalink

That's correct. The good old A7 still delivers amazing IQ basically against any new FF camera.

Regarding sharpness, yes, it is possible to add more sharpness to the A9 to get the same amount of detail as the A7 but again, you can do the same with the A7.

May 30, 2017permalink

Chris Gibbs

Variables are inevitable in these tests, they're merely a starting point for ones own research.

May 30, 2017permalink

The lenses have to exist first for them to be able to test them.

The studio scene's standard is 85mm (or equivalent), unless the lenses didn't exist at the time of testing...which is what happened in this case.

Sony's 85mm F/1.8 E-mount didn't exist in 2013 when the A7 was tested. The 85mm F/1.8 was released just a few months ago. Sony is still building out its lens portfolio.

May 30, 2017*permalink

Dr Blackjack

Why aren't they using the 85mm GM

May 31, 2017permalink

Chris Gibbs

The respective companies normal (50/55) would be preferable for all these tests, they're a companies litmus test in my view, if a camera outfit cannot make a decent normal, good luck with their complicated lens designs.

May 31, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr134_0=sony_a9&attr134_1=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr134_2=nikon_d5&attr134_3=pentax_k1&attr136_0=1&attr136_1=1&attr136_2=1&attr136_3=1&attr176_0=efc&attr176_1=off&attr176_3=off&normalization=full&widget=497&x=-0.03063683304647162&y=0.011305241521068984

Not sure, but I believe the issue with some normal lenses is that in practice, they are typically more prone to corner issues (eg. vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion, etc.) than longer telephoto lenses.

Using longer lenses decreases the effect of this variable for common lenses.

Nothing will be perfect. For example, they're normalizing brightness & settings, not exposure--so if a lens has a lower T-stop, that sensor will get less light and need to be brightened more by ISO or software.

But the point is that it's generally a good indicator of a sensor's rendition and performance. Generally. :)

May 31, 2017permalink

Chris Gibbs

Telephoto lenses are pretty easy to design, just look at any astronomical optic, dirt cheap (comparatively) and will render millions of point sources across the frame, contrast that to your affordable, wide/wide zoom. Normals are probably the wider-end cut-off for stellar affordable designs, the Sony FE 1.8/55 normal is stunning across the frame, even wide-open, that lens sold the Sony FE glass to me. Anyone, it seems, can turn out a stellar 85 these days, but Sony didn't have an FE 85 for quite a while, they still have no proper prime telephotos.

May 31, 2017permalink

Toselli

@ZeBebito: In my opinion the A7 file is not sharper, but sharpened, so you get artifacts and "dry colors" sooner than A9, roughly when you get the same amount of effect.
@Dr Blackjack: stopped down to f/8 there are not a lot of differences...
@Chris Gibbs: they started using normal (50-55 mm lenses) when all cameras were apsc, and "equivalent" 85mm when full frames started to come out. In a perfect world they would use 60-50 mm macros for APSC, and 100-105 mm ones for full frame, but anyway the difference when you stop down is negligible...

May 31, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

Am I blind or is there a focusing error? The lowly D750 is much sharper.

May 30, 2017permalink

Azimuth46

I wouldn't define Nikon D750 as lowly. It's probably the best FF 24MP camera in DR. AND resolution is absolutely there.

May 30, 2017permalink

ggc

Another too specialized camera like the D5.

Nice comparison Sony A9, Canon Eos 5 Mark IV, Nikon D5 and Pentax K1:

May 30, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr134_0=sony_a9&attr134_1=nikon_d810&attr134_2=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr134_3=pentax_k1&attr136_0=1&attr136_1=1&attr136_2=1&attr136_3=1&attr176_0=efc&attr176_1=off&attr176_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=497&x=0.34803462537590474&y=-0.07912061159839803

The dual gain test, with a start at ISO 800, tells us that for the A9 it is wise to shoot at low ISO in bright light (about ISO 100 to 200), and when more gain is needed, jump directly to ISO 800. For those who care about the 1/3 of a stop from ISO 640, just add 1/3 stop of exposure manually or compensate if using auto exposure.

May 30, 2017*permalink

turvyT

As far as DR is concerned, K1 seems to be the clear winner.

May 30, 2017permalink

left eye

@turvyT
when resolution is matched there's not much difference,

The K-1 has some slight extra DR advantage when pushed to a +6 stop extreme, though the Fuji lenses are no doubt superior (not only to Pentax),
so please Pentax provide us with your own 'made in Japan' lenses again!

Until then, the Fuji GFX + Fuji lenses, are at present and taking everything into account - including the vibration-free Fuji shutter, with EFCS, a significant grade ahead of the rest.

May 30, 2017*permalink

@ turvyT: Photographers looking at the Sony A9 will not even consider the Pentax K1. If they need DR, Sony A7rII would be a much better choise.

May 30, 2017*permalink

turvyT

@Magnar: I'm perfectly aware of the differences between those cameras but this article talks about DR, not speed etc, and so did my comment. I knew someone was going to come up with something like that. It's funny how many people hates that Pentax could excel at something.

May 30, 2017permalink

I don't hate Pentax, never did. They are ok cameras, and they use great sensors. I even had a Pentax slr camera system years ago. ;-)

May 30, 2017permalink

cbphoto123

Pentax 67 and 67 II were my workhorses for several years. Great cameras. Still have the 67 II along with a couple lenses.

May 31, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr134_0=sony_a9&attr134_1=sony_a7rii&attr134_2=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr134_3=hasselblad_x1d&attr136_0=1&attr136_1=1&attr136_2=1&attr136_3=1&attr176_0=efc&attr176_1=off&normalization=full&widget=497&x=0.13528399311531833&y=0.5310037684138404

The Sonys are the cameras Pentax can't and won't make. I use Pentax and they are largely irrelevant now and Sony, if not Nikon, is in my future, mostly due to the fact that I can get wideangles for Sony, AF that actually works, and IBIS. Plus with adapters I can buy into the Canon lens mounts and access greater numbers of lenses.

May 31, 2017permalink

mpgxsvcd

Rishi is my hero. Great job as always finding out the truth about these cameras. The A9 has some limitations but speed isn't one of them.

May 30, 2017permalink

photenth

Unless you attach a lens that is not on the official 20FPS lens list.

May 30, 2017permalink

underxposed59

all the macro users will be dissapointed

May 31, 2017permalink

princecody

🤔

May 30, 2017*permalink

left eye

or this selection of cameras...

May 30, 2017permalink

left eye

...to another area, less soft darkness & more lively detail...

May 30, 2017permalink

The tradeoffs seem very reasonable for the ones who prioritize that speed and focusing. Basically, this is not a toy for hobbyists, though no doubt a large number of spec-sheet photographers on DPR will buy it so they can take challenging flower photos with it and then will complain.

May 30, 2017permalink

jonny1976

i tried it in a shop and apart the af and speed the res look like a toy starting from the limited grip and very small body whit big lens. compared to a 1dx and d5 looks like a toys.
sony will sell this maybe in some years a t 2000 euro.
5300 euro in europe...ahahaha

May 30, 2017permalink

panther fan

Seems high ISO and base ISO DR are incompatible. The D5 made the same trade off but did push it even further.

May 30, 2017permalink

CallumG

"A large number of spec-sheet photographers on DPR will buy it so they can take challenging flower photos with it and then will complain". That's amazing. I can picture it so clearly...

May 30, 2017permalink

Fujica

The studio scene appears to be very soft... and it also showed in some of the previous samples.

May 30, 2017permalink

Rishi Sanyal

"Seems high ISO and base ISO DR are incompatible. The D5 made the same trade off but did push it even further."

That's incorrect, as evidenced by the Nikon D500, D7200, Sony a6300/6500, and many other cameras.

Our guess is the tradeoff is one made for sheer speed of sensor read-out. But it's just a guess that also makes us wonder whether or not you could slow the read-out speed arbitrarily in single drive modes. Someone in PST would be better suited to answer this.

May 30, 2017permalink

@DPPMetro, I think you mean cat photos.

May 30, 2017permalink

Everlast66

@Photomonkey
Exactly what I was going to say - it's cat photos - who the hell takes flower photos.

May 31, 2017permalink

SmilerGrogan

What is PST?

May 31, 2017permalink

princecody

Ken Rockwell Your thoughts 🤔

May 30, 2017permalink

Bambi24

ken shoots jpeg like most sports shooters and 99.99% of people taking pictures, he couldn't care less about these things

at a sporting event your pic gets sent over wireless instantly to whatever site or paper you write for, you don't get to tinker with the pics

there's a ton of flaws with the a9, the fact it overheats making it unreliable, the fact it has a lot of issues under fluorescent, the fact it has no long glass, the only lens this camera has is a slow 5.6 400mm

it's an april fool's joke of a sports camera that no one is going to buy

BUT dynamic range is the last thing sports shooters care about, no one cares

May 30, 2017*permalink

Eugene_sphoto

Plenty of people already have while you're right on some points which make it a questionable choice for a sports photographer -- glass being probably the biggest one.
I did buy A9 and not going to since none of its new functions (I like the improved body and more functional buttons) deliver anything to what I do.

May 30, 2017permalink

PNad

curious about the "lot of issues under fluorescent"

May 30, 2017permalink

WesPerry

"A lot of issues under fluorescent"? I shot my a9 under three types of fluorescent lifts at all available shutter speeds (up to 1/8000 when I ran out of light), and couldn't produce banding. Also tried with some incredibly bad PWM LED strip lights and somehow had no banding either. Where did you find that nonsense?

May 30, 2017permalink

Rishi Sanyal

We haven't found a single issue with the a9's fully electronic shutter under any fluorescent lighting we've tested. It barely even has issues under solid-state LED flickering lighting. We'll publish an investigation shortly.

We estimate its fully electronic second curtain speed to be 1/84s, not so far off the 1/300s for mechanical shutters. So we don't expect banding to be much of an issue in the real world, save for in some images at the highest shutter speeds under flickering LED lights.

As I've said, we haven't found any issues under fluorescent lighting thus far (granted, though, there are different types of fluorescent lighting, which may interact differently with the e-shutter on the a9).

May 30, 2017permalink