Sony a9 firmware update 1.10 'improves image quality and overall stability'

oh so dxomark gave it 92 and its the very best than a7r2? hmmm. well that doesnt look right.

There's a rumoured update that will fix it

@Miki Does Nikon also have the star-eater?

@Wye Yes.

@grapejam I do belive that 2018 will be the year when sigma will jump into the mirrorless bandwagon. In fact, sigma CEO already said they're working on some lenses.

Tamron designs are being used in the batis line, so they might be fine for a longer while.

In the other hand, tokina is already working on lenses and has launched a 20mm (manual focus) although they said that AF lenses will come next.

@osv "so the problem here is that you foolishly went with nikon

Considering that the most important thing to me is dynamic range, it was hardly "foolish" of me to go with Nikon. In fact I almost written off the A7III when I heard the rumour that it was going to have the A9 sensor, which had 1.5 stops less DR at base ISO than my D750. 0.5 stop less I can tolerate, but 1.5 stop? Definitely not. I could careless about super high ISO performance since I hardly ever shoot past iso 6400.

Also, 3rd party lenses for Canon still are not working well with Sony cameras at all, by the time it'll work well, Nikon mirrorless will have come out and I'll most likely continue to stay with Nikon.

@grapejam - "Considering that the most important thing to me is dynamic range, it was hardly "foolish" of me to go with Nikon..."

you didn't gain anything by going with a primitive nikon body, in fact the d850 loses out to both sony cameras at iso640 and up:

Camera: MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV
Nikon D850: 11.63 4115 10.36
Sony a7RM2: 11.42 5857 10.87
Sony a9: 10.47 6612 11.05

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2,Sony%20ILCE-9

@osv, considering that over 90@ of my shots are at iso 100, yeah, no.

I'm talking 3rd party tamron and sigma lenses for canon. Ice veen watching photorectv and none of the tamron and sigma lenses for canon work welll when adapted to the a7rii.

@osv, im using the d750 which has better dr than the d850 past iso 64, much better dr than both the a7rii and the a9 up until iso 600, and at higher its practically the same as the a7rii.

Im not interested in the d850 because practically it doesnt have what I need so you can stop bringing it up now. Im actually more interested in the d760.

Also like Ive said, the reason why I went with the d750 rather than a used a7rii was because of the lack of (well functioning) 3rd party lenses from tamron and sigma. The price of sony lenses is just hilarious. The a9 is out of my budget and I dont shoot sport anyway.

@grapejam - most of the a9 cameras being sold are not being used for sports, people are buying it because of the outstanding af capability, silent shutter, etc.

the d750 is a dinosaur from 2014, and it recently got it's third recall from nikon... your idea of what makes up a good camera these days is warped thinking.

buying a camera body from nikon is a q.c. roll of the dice... one look at what happened with the d600, and how nikon failed to support it, should have made that clear.

@OSV Like I've said, the A9 is out of my budget. Also I got the D750 for 1500$, which I think, is a very good deal, isn't it?

Oh, and the recall issue is way overblown, the extreme vast majority of people don't have any trouble with the D750. Mine also isn't affected. Put over 7200 clicks through it in less than 2 months, dropped my backpack from 3 feets several from 40km/h bike crash, regularly shoot at over 1/2000 to 1/4000 in broad daylight, zero issue so far.

Also another thing that I don't like about mirrorless is that when you change lens, the sensor is completely exposed and where I live it's extremely dusty and windy.

i've seen a lot of great d750 photos... ian stuart forsyth has posted a bunch of 'em over the years.

i think that it was a remarkable camera, which is probably why you were able to get $1500 for it.

i'm just pointing out that all the tech is with sony ff these days... yes we all want a9 af capability with 3rd-party lenses, because it's better than what most of the canikon dslr bodies have with 3rd-party lenses, so there are a lot of sony people waiting to see what the a7ii replacement will bring... you get that level of radical tech improvement with sony, it's not happening with canikon.

@osv I'm not sure if it was sarcasm but well, let's just think that it wasn't.

I must admit that sometimes I'm jealous of things like IBIS and the ability to use the viewfinder and use focus peaking while shooting video, also good AF during liveview. But because of the inferior low ISO dynamic range and most importantly, the lack of good affordable native lenses, especially from Tamron and Sigma, Sony currently to me is not an option. IBIS and shooting through the viewfinder are great, but the former can be substituted with stabilized lens and the latter is none critical for me as I hardly ever shoot video.

And TBH, after getting sensor dust while using my friend's A7II while changing lens in the street, I'd prefer DSLR because the sensor actually has a mirror to protect it. Like I've said, the place where I live is extremely dusty and windy, being forced to go inside every time you have to change lens is pretty lame.

@grapejam - "because of the inferior low ISO dynamic range"

given that you sold the d750, which makes it irrelevant to the conversation, it appears that we finally we agree that nikon has inferior low iso dynamic range... glad that got straightened out.

"the lack of good affordable native lenses, especially from Tamron and Sigma"

i've already posted proof in one of these threads, of how well the tamron 150-600 works on the a9, so i can only infer from your comment there that you are having a reading comprehension problem.

"the place where I live is extremely dusty and windy"

mirrors don't keep blowing dust off of a sensor.

these are the conditions that i sometimes shoot in, and yes, i've changed lenses in that as well, it can be done:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60167716

@osv No, I said I got the D750 for 1500$. And I said that sony cameras had inferior low ISO dynamic range to my D750, dunno how you got the opposite.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2,Sony%20ILCE-9

The D750 has much better dynamic range than both the A7RII and the A9 up to ISO 600, which is the vast majority of my shoots. And at higher ISO it's practically the same as the A7RII and only slightly inferior to the A9. So I'm quite optimistic that the D760's sensor will at least match the A9's high ISO performance while crapping on it at low ISO.

@osv And like I've said, I'm not buying the A9, it's out of my budget, the A7III, we'll see. Also that'll cost me another 500$ for an adapter and still doesn't give me native performance, at least as of now. And high chance that the D760 will get the same AF system, if not better, (the D750's AF system is better than the D810) as the D850, so well, again the D760 will AF better.

And cleaning dust of mirror is way easier and less dangerous than with sensor, dust on the mirror is also way easier to get off than on the sensor and I've not found any occasion that I couldn't get dust off my mirror with a blower and a hard shake, and I change lens in the street a lot .And because the sensor is still protected by the mirror so dust doesn't alway get inside the sensor.

Oh and also, the place where I live, the street is always almost as dusty as the place in your link, and far more narrow so there's not much place to get away from the dust.

@grapejam - "I'm not buying the A9"

you want to buy a d760, that doesn't even exist...

"that'll cost me another 500$ for an adapter"

adapters are not $500, that's nonsense.

"still doesn't give me native performance"

it'll give you eyeaf, which you can't even get with a canon body... it's BETTER than the native performance that canikon has.

"again the D760 will AF better"

the d850 is supposed to have the d5 af system in it, but it has worse af than the d5 does... you are jumping to a lot of conclusions, nikon doesn't even have a d760.

@grapejam - "So I'm quite optimistic that the D760's sensor will at least match the A9's high ISO performance while crapping on it at low ISO."

not logical, because the more expensive d850 has a flat iso curve in the bill claff diagram, which indicates that it's not using the aptina dual-stage sensor gain that the d5, a7rii, a9, etc. are all using.

so why would nikon pay for that tech in a much cheaper d760, if they won't use it in the d850? assuming that they will ever make a d760...

"the place where I live, the street is always almost as dusty as the place in your link,"

no, it's not, lol

i'll try once again to set the record straight wrt nikon: "The most consistent problem with Nikon cameras is an issue with Nikon D750 and Nikon D810. These cameras have a tendency to spit some oil spots onto the sensor. It’s easily wet-cleaned, but it required cleaning several times before it stopped altogether."
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/guide-to-cleaning-your-camera-sensor/

@osv "you want to buy a d760, that doesn't even exist..."

So doesn't the A7III. And like I've said, the A9's out of my budget and I will not take 1.5 stop hit in DR at low ISO.

"it'll give you eyeaf, which you can't even get with a canon body... it's BETTER than the native performance that canikon has."

I don't shoot portraits so I don't care about Eye AF, I shoot landscape and streetlife.

"adapters are not $500, that's nonsense."

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1158850-REG/metabones_mb_ef_e_bt4_canon_ef_to_e_mount.html

400$ in the US and 500$ where I live.

The verdict on the D850's AF system is still in debate, some say that because Matt didn't have the grip and thus didn't have the extra processing power (also without grip, it's only 7 FPS, so less mirror down time, less for the AF system to work with) . Both Thom Hogan and Steve Perry say that there's not much difference between the D5 and the D850.

@grapejam - "So doesn't the A7III."

but the superior af tech on the a9 DOES exist, and we expect that sony will continue to use it on future models, just like their previous history suggests.

"I will not take 1.5 stop hit in DR at low ISO"

that's 100% idle speculation, for a camera that doesn't exist... the d750 is the ONLY camera that nikon ever made, that had such exceptional low d.r.

"400$ in the US and 500$ where I live."

my mc-11 adapter cost $150 brand new, how much is that where you live? nowhere near $500 ;-)

"The verdict on the D850's AF system is still in debate"

not from what i've seen... the a9 af has never been in debate.

@osv "not logical, because the more expensive d850 has a flat iso curve in the bill claff diagram, which indicates that it's not using the aptina dual-stage sensor gain that the d5, a7rii, a9, etc. are all using."

And I don't care if the D760's sensor is using dual gain technology or not. The 3 years old D750's sensor is not much inferior to the A9 at higher ISO while still crapping on it at low ISO. It also matches the A7RII at high ISO. So seeing as the D850 also improve on the high ISO performance over the D810 while being better at low ISO, I'm optimistic that the D760's high ISO performance will also get improved to at least match the A9, seeing as it's already not much inferior to the A9.

@osv "so why would nikon pay for that tech in a much cheaper d760, if they won't use it in the d850? assuming that they will ever make a d760..."

Well, look at this:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-9

Well, seeing as Nikon had no problem putting a sensor that is better than the D810 (also the D850) past ISO 64, I find it hard to believe that they won't do the same for the D760. Hell, they can just use the same sensor technology on the D850 and remove 20 megapixels from it and it'll crap on the A9 at all ISO.

And no, I don't care if the A9's "dual gain technology" will make it better past ISO 51200 because I'll never shoot that high.

"no, it's not, lol"

Yes it is, come to Saigon and go out on the street at 6PM on a dry day. On a not dry day, you'll get rain and I'm not sure if exposed sensor like that.

@osv "my mc-11 adapter cost $150 brand new, how much is that where you live? nowhere near $500 ;-)"

Yeah, the mc-11 adapter, which is a sigma adapter, that doesn't work well with adapted sigma lens on A7RII. Check PhotorecTV review on the Sigma 135mm F1.8 art.

"that's 100% idle speculation, for a camera that doesn't exist... the d750 is the ONLY camera that nikon ever made, that had such exceptional low d.r."

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D600,Nikon%20D610,Nikon%20D750

As you can, both the D600 and D610 perform very similarly to the D750, but the D750 was newer technology so it's slightly better. So yeah, saying that "the d750 is the ONLY camera that nikon ever made, that had such exceptional low d.r", is wrong.

"not from what i've seen... the a9 af has never been in debate."

Oh, so you already know that the A7III will have the same AF performance as the A9?

@grapejam - "The 3 years old D750's sensor is not much inferior to the A9 at higher ISO while still crapping on it at low ISO."

you are confused... the a9 is a 20fps sports camera, it performs that well despite having hundreds of pdaf focusing points on the sensor, which the d750/d850 do not... nikon doesn't have anything close to it, at all, sony has *all* the tech.

i did a bunch of digging, that iso400 jump in the d850 data is indeed dual-stage gain, but nikon didn't make it: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4197513

so they may indeed use that tech on their next ff camera, but i've seen no indication that there will be an d760, if anything it'll be a ff mirrorless, see the dpr article... nikon is not going to bring out a high mp ff mirrorless to compete with the d850, it'll be a cheaper low-rez ff camera.

i'm sure that saigon does get plenty hot and dusty, but it also gets 71" of rain a year... that desert gets less than 4" of rain a year! it's awful.

@grapejam - "you already know that the A7III will have the same AF performance as the A9?"

that's the part where you don't know anything about sony, at all... every mirrorless body that sony has made has used tech improvements from previous models, no one thinks that they are going to bring out weaker af in their next ff body, although i suppose anything is possible.

"both the D600 and D610 perform very similarly to the D750,"

those sensors are no better than the 36mp a7r, which has higher resolution, it's a better sensor, so you are wrong... the d750 was a fluke, as i told you earlier:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D600,Nikon%20D610,Sony%20ILCE-7R

"Check PhotorecTV review"

don't tell me to dig up an old link... the mc-11 is getting constantly updated.

you have a lot to learn about sony.

@osv "ou are confused... the a9 is a 20fps sports camera, it performs that well despite having hundreds of pdaf focusing points on the sensor, which the d750/d850 do not... nikon doesn't have anything close to it, at all, sony has *all* the tech."

And I don't care, what matters to me is the result.

"those sensors are no better than the 36mp a7r, which has higher resolution, it's a better sensor, so you are wrong... the d750 was a fluke"

Yeah considering that the D600 (the D610 used the same sensor), came out in 2012, the A7R came out in 2014, I'll be disappointed if there wasn't any technological advancement from Sony or Nikon.

"don't tell me to dig up an old link... the mc-11 is getting constantly updated."

Oh, 1 month old review is "old"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbc7P9NQh14

And I'm still waiting to see if the the A7III's AF system will perform as well as the A9. Cause sure as hell the A99II's (yes I know it's a DSLT) AF system wasn't an improvement over the A7RII. I

@grapejam - " what matters to me is the result."

the result is exactly what i'm talking about... higher tech = better results, especially in demanding shooting conditions.

"the A7R came out in 2014"

no, i got my a7r in 2013.

" 1 month old review is "old"?"

he clearly stated: "i love the mc-11 adapter, with my 50 and 70-200 it works very well"... so when he doesn't like it with *one* lens, you claim that it doesn't work with ANY lenses... that's trolling on your part, and fully ignorant, but congrats for proving how well the mc-11 works for other lenses... i suspect that sigma will come out with an update to tweak the 135 lens.

"Cause sure as hell the A99II"

oh knock it off, lol, you don't own ANY sony gear, you have no clue how any of it works.

@osv "the result is exactly what i'm talking about... higher tech = better results, especially in demanding shooting conditions."

Yeah, and a bunch of techs that are hardly relevant to me while sacrificing an aspect that is extremely relevant to me.

Also, the mc-11 might work well with the sigma 50 and 70-200, it also doesn't work well with the Tamron 70-200 G2, which is a lens that I'm most interested in, and I'm not sure if sigma will fix that.

"oh knock it off, lol, you don't own ANY sony gear, you have no clue how any of it works."

Oh and you've owned the A99II? I've read and watched several reviews from reputable sources like DPreview and Tony Northrup and the conclusion seems to be that the AF system is quite a bit....unreliable, but apparently it works well when you let the system decide for you, if you're OK with that, good for you.

@osv so tell me why I should care about eye AF when I don't shoot portrait, and while IBIS and better video autofocus would be nice for video, I hardly ever shoot videos and I have VR lenses to substitute and learned to do a decent job with manual focus. So tell me why should I sacrifice a the most important thing for 90% of my photography, for things that are not important to me? I don't buy camera to show off the cool techs that the camera have, I buy camera to shoot what I want.

@grapejam - "Yeah, and a bunch of techs that are hardly relevant to me"

my preferences are entirely different, i shoot far more demanding content at times, so i want the tech... so now it's an argument about personal preferences, rather than the camera itself, which is completely pointless, what we want is a waste of bandwidth.

"it also doesn't work well with the Tamron 70-200 G2"

there you go again, posting misleading "facts"... i've seen good comments about how that lens works on the a7rii, and i'll also point out that two people in the comment section of your video liked the way that the sigma 135 worked on the mc-11, they didn't have any problem with it.

"you've owned the A99II"

if you have questions about af on that camera, i'd suggest posting 'em on the dpr ff a-mount forum... see how long you last out there ;-)

"there you go again, posting misleading "facts"... i've seen good comments about how that lens works on the a7rii, and i'll also point out that two people in the comment section of your video liked the way that the sigma 135 worked on the mc-11, they didn't have any problem with it."

The Tamron 70-200 G2 works well on the A7RII with the MC - 11 adapto?, Toby doesn't seem to think so. Or are you telling me to buy both the metabones and the MC -11?

@grapejam - "so tell me why I should care about eye AF when I don't shoot portrait,"

there you go again with personal preferences, rather than evaluating the gear on it's merits alone.

"while IBIS and better video autofocus would be nice for video"

now you can't see any benefit to ibis for shooting stills... oh geez, that's clearly some weird and uneducated personal preference, not relevant to the tech at all... as is claiming that you "learned to do a decent job with manual focus"... mf with an evf is far superior to doing it with an ovf, it's not even arguable.

you just don't know anything about sony mirrorless, so you don't understand why it's better.

"The Tamron 70-200 G2 works well on the A7RII with the MC - 11 adaptor?"

that lens is only a few months old, so that's a good question, i'd like to know as well, because it has good p.q. for the money.

@osv "now you can't see any benefit to ibis for shooting stills... oh geez, that's clearly some weird and uneducated personal preference, not relevant to the tech at all... as is claiming that you "learned to do a decent job with manual focus"... mf with an evf is far superior to doing it with an ovf, it's not even arguable."

My need for stabilisation for stills is covered VR by lenses and since I shoot landscape with zooms, they tend to have VR, and also my technique is good enough to not have the tilt while pressing the shutter button, thanks.

@osv "there you go again with personal preferences, rather than evaluating the gear on it's merits alone."

I consider low ISO DR to be a pretty huge merit. And while the A9 is objectively a better camera than the D750, it doesn't fit my need.

Also another thing: I like to take long consecutive shots and then average them out into my long exposure style shots, first because I don't like filters and second doing that give me cleaner result. Sony cameras, in continous shooting, the files get turned into 12 bits files. That's a big disadvantage. And also doing that gives me dozens to hundreds of files per image and for some reason there's no lossless compressed files in the camera so the storage space required will be ridiculous.

@grapejam - "I consider low ISO DR to be a pretty huge merit."

it can be, but you seem to be confused about the importance of mp count, even tho you claim to be shooting landscapes... i guess that's going to happen with people who don't have experience with high mp cameras.

"for some reason there's no lossless compressed files in the camera so the storage space required will be ridiculous."

wrong.

" I like to take long consecutive shots"

nobody does that for street shooting, i think that you are trying to create strawman arguments... you won't notice 12-bit, either, that's already been proven to be a non-factor.

@grapejam - "My need for stabilisation for stills is covered VR by lenses"

nikon vr isn't all that some people think that it is: "Turning VR on doesn't help the D810; in fact, it makes matters worse, particularly at higher shutter speeds, where parasitic interactions between Nikon's VR system and the mirror/shutter actuation downright ruin image quality."
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/9

"I shoot landscape with zooms"

you are posting a lot of drama about the importance of p.q., but using zooms to shoot landscapes isn't generally the best way to get the highest p.q.

@osv "it can be, but you seem to be confused about the importance of mp count, even tho you claim to be shooting landscapes... i guess that's going to happen with people who don't have experience with high mp cameras."

My photos are for webs use and I don't print large so high MP might be good for personal pixel peeping, but not for practical use.

"wrong"

Please show me that the A7RII and the A9 have 14 bits lossless compressed format.

"nobody does that for street shooting, i think that you are trying to create strawman arguments... you won't notice 12-bit, either, that's already been proven to be a non-factor."

I do that for both landscape and street (cityscape) shooting for long exposure style effect, it's not a strawman argument at all. Also 12 bit files limit your DR to only 12 stops, so yes, it's a factor.

@osv "nikon vr isn't all that some people think that it is: "Turning VR on doesn't help the D810; y.""

VR, as in stabilization, and seeing as I'm quite interested in 3rd party lenses, Tamron VR technology (VC) is excellent, especially for videos as VC don't jerk around like Nikon VR.

"you are posting a lot of drama about the importance of p.q., but using zooms to shoot landscapes isn't generally the best way to get the highest p.q."

There's quite a difference between "sharpness" and "detail", higher MP count and sharper lenses might make sharper pictures and might give more detail for what was exposed for, but sensor DR performance give details in the hidden shadow and highlight. And seeing as my photos are for webs use I don't need 100% view pixel peeping sharpness, but that detail in the shadows and highlight that will affect what people see in my photos for webs.

Also, having multiple primes lenses is out of my budget.

@grapejam - "Please show me that the A7RII and the A9 have 14 bits lossless compressed format."

that's not relevant to the claim you made about file size, and it will have no effect on the pq... this is again where you don't know sony.

"so high MP might be good for personal pixel peeping, but not for practical use."

that's wrong, and you'd know it if you ever actually used a high mp camera.

"Also 12 bit files limit your DR to only 12 stops, so yes, it's a factor"

no, it's not a factor at all, especially for web use... i would suggest that you spend some time on the dpr science forum.

@grapejam - "nd seeing as my photos are for webs use I don't need 100% view pixel peeping sharpness"

if you believe that, then you've got no basis for claiming that you'll gain something with d750 d.r. at base iso... especially when it comes to stacking images.

again... visit the science forum.

@osv "no, it's not a factor at all, especially for web use... i would suggest that you spend some time on the dpr science forum."

Considering that I can clearly see chroma noise, banding because of poor DR without zooming in at 100%, yeah, DR is more important than MP for web use.

Also lossless compressed keep all the information with lower file size, so less storage, less expense.

"no, it's not a factor at all, especially for web use... i would suggest that you spend some time on the dpr science forum."

Yes it is a factor, see above. Look at pushed 6DII, 5DIII files,which had a 12 stops of DR at base ISO and tell me that you don't see chroma noise and banding without zooming in at 100%.

"f you believe that, then you've got no basis for claiming that you'll gain something with d750 d.r. at base iso... especially when it comes to stacking images."

The primary reason is that I don't like using filters because of added expenses, being noiseless thanks to images averaging is a plus.

@grapejam - "Considering that I can clearly see chroma noise, banding because of poor DR without zooming in at 100%, yeah, DR is more important than MP for web use."

you gain NOTHING with web photos, for d750 vs. the high mp cameras we are discussing.

"Look at pushed 6DII, 5DIII files,"

don't bring junk camera sensors into this conversation, it's not relevant... your entire rant has been on base iso, now you are suddenly talking about pushing the files... it's nonsense.

your theories are not right, and i'm tired of trying to explain it to you.

"you gain NOTHING with web photos, for d750 vs. the high mp cameras we are discussing."

Considering that I can clearly see the difference between pushed shadow of the 6D and 5DIII vs the D750 without zooming in at 100%, yeah there's something to gain. And why're you so obsessed about mp and change the topics to that? I could careless about mp and sharpness when pixel peeping at 100%, what I care about is how my photos look overall. And I don't need more MP to bog down my PC which already have enough trouble averaging 24mp files.

"don't bring junk camera sensors"

But those sensors have 12 stops of DR, the same amount of DR that sony files will give me in continous shooting because the files get downgraded to 12 bits.

@grapejam - "Considering that I can clearly see the difference between pushed shadow of the 6D and 5DIII "

we aren't talking about junk canon sensors, it's not relevant.

"But those sensors have 12 stops of DR, the same amount of DR that sony files will give me in continous shooting because the files get downgraded to 12 bits."

no, that's not how it works, at all... like i said before, you should take this up on the science forum, i'm not going to explain it.

As are and do you prog ;)

@osv As it happens, I'm not wrong, I'm right, but that's not the point under discussion.

The (missed) point is that it would be UNFAIR to call the Sony EVF slow and laggy, in the same way it is UNFAIR to Call Canons DR 'Low'.

osv, Just think for a moment about what you are trying to convince yourself of.

It's against the laws of physics.

You are trying to convince yourself that light traveling a distance from subject to sensor in time t1, read from sensor in time t2, image processed in time t3 and written to the EVF in time t4, somehow takes less time than t1 alone.

In other words, I said that time t1 + t2 + t3 + t4 (EVF) Is greater (has more lag) than time t1 (OVF). This is a scientific fact, yet you keep insisting I'm wrong?

Do you have a fact allergy?

@Wye, I think they are all very valid points.

Sure there are scenarios that benefit from more DR, and landscapes, with little/no control over light, is probably the most common one.

But I think the professional landscape market in very tiny and I don't see cameras like the A9 as being designed/targeted for landscape, they are designed more for events, journalism, fashion, etc and in those scenarios, many other factors are much more important than a bit of extra DR, and many of these areas are where Canon excels, especially in the range of lenses supporting those scenarios.

And as noted above, I didn't actually say the Sony EVF was bad, I know it's very good. It was an analogy about sufficiency. EVFs have progressed to the point where they are sufficiently good enough to get the job done (and have added benefits). But likewise, Canons DR has been sufficiently good enough to get the job done in markets where it dominates. That didn't change just because Sony built a great sensor.

@najinsky - "It's against the laws of physics."

no, the weak canon d.r. is MEASURED DATA, the nonsense that you are spouting off is completely unproven, you can't give any measurements to back up what you say, which makes you wrong, lol

not sure why simple logic escapes you... you foolishly tried to lump all evf displays together "any EVF is technically slow and laggy", which is nonsense.

@osv can you put my mind at rest on something. Are you being paid to write like this, or is it really how you think?

@najinsky - every post you make here is weaker than the one before it.

glad to see that what we are saying is finally sinking in with you.

@osv

I'm afraid the only thing that is sinking in is how thoroughly unpleasant you are being, and that there is no point attempting a technical discussion with someone who won't/can't comprehend basic math/science.

Out.

@najinsky - you are trolling sony with illogical garbage posts, like "any EVF is technically slow and laggy"

you know nothing about sony, or evf for that matter.

I don't see what is there to argue about. Yes Najinsky, by definition an OVF doesn't have a lag while you're viewing the scene, unlike an EVF where there's technically some delay (completely negligible in most modern cameras). However, when you press the shutter release, a DSLR needs to lift the mirror, so this in itself create a delay (which in most modern DSLRs is negligible too).

In both cases, when you're looking at modern cameras, OVF and EVF delays are a non-issue. It mostly boils down to personal preferences, i.e. does one prefer the "natural" look of OVFs, or the many extra features available with EVFs.

Najinsky,
My experience on working & transferring images back & forth my Ipad pro are maybe limited compared to yours. But I just wish to share my thoughts with you.
Usually I work my images (JPEGs. I never shoot Raw) using the SD card adapter. They land willy nilly. I work them with apps, therefore they are reduced from 10Mb to about 450Kb or 1Mb depending on the apps. They are good enough to cover the Ipad screen, if lucky, but they look great on the Iphone screen. In conclusion, I'll NEVER use any Iphone/pad apps for serious work. I'd rather, and still use, those I've bought for my PC.
Be brave.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking...It's weird that there seem to be so few actual postings. What else could it be? Alien abduction?

Slow news month, that's all.

i thought it possible due to amazons reputation ... we lived in a world where anything seems possible

It's actually an asset and a benefit to professionals that the tools and products they invest in are continually improved upon by the manufacturer even after the product is released and bought. It's like Tesla and their cars. Tesla sends out over-the-air firmware updates that improve the performance of their cars! That's awesome. Sometimes, these updates are a result of user feedback. Sometimes, it's a result of continued R&D. Sometimes, it's it fix a flaw that slipped through the cracks because today's products are so enormously complex that not everything can be caught by the time a product is released. But the point is that it's an asset and a benefit that a product you already own is still being improved upon, and you are receiving those improvements without having to buy a new product.

When an update addresses "stability issues" that gives me zero confidence. The last thing it should have is "stability issues". Let alone "improves image quality" - wth?

How can the improvement of IQ be seen as a bad thing? It doesn't mean that IQ wasn't excellent to begin with, only that it's now even better.

@IR1234
name a product that is born just perfect. Especially now that everything is turning into a computer, and coding is a huge part of it. Software is more prone to flaws called bugs, but they are easier to address than hardware issues. Hence "stability improvements". Welcome to the modern world of technology.

@armandino - "Welcome to the modern world of technology."

That is absolutely correct. I bet Boeing and Airbus even release firmware updates on their systems that run in their airliners that are already in service!

I see pros and cons for both 'sides' of this discussion.

Firmware updates that fix issues can be viewed as a good thing.

It can protect the maker against an expensive recall should a serious fault be discovered (that firmware can fix).

It protects the customer from the inconvenience of that recall.

But there is an expectation that for high end cameras, durability and reliability have been very thoroughly tested. Just because updates are possible, doesn't mean you should treat your customers as beta testers.

Likewise updates to improve performance and/or add features have a similar duality.

Getting a 'free' update that improves the camera is great for customers, creates goodwill and keeps the camera fresher and still on the radar longer into its product cycle.

But both Sony and Panasonic have now dipped a toe into the uncharted waters of selling a product today based partly on features it will get tomorrow. And that's (possibly) a whole new can of worms.

As the President of IBM once said "There is no such thing as a completely de-bugged programme".

Sorry, but you guys might suffer from koolaid poisoning, but a product that already had issues at football matches to start with, and now has "improved stability" and "improved image" does not make me want to run out and invest in it. Far from it.

Everything about the A9 says "untested". For $4500?

I have to take tens of thousands of images, and I'm going to put money in something that apparently is so unstable - that it needs a fix!!??

@IR1234 - What "issues at football matches"? The fact that sideline LED lights projecting light onto players might show up as lines in the final image? That's a very rare and difficult issue to not only foresee, but to even reproduce, as conditions need to be just right. That's not really the fault of Sony. You're just being hysterical and blowing things out of proportion. The reality is that unforeseen issues do arise. Take, for example, aircraft. They are some of the most stringently tested products in the world. They take many years and billions of dollars to develop. The Airbus A350 cost $13 billion to develop and took 15 years, and was VERY rigorously tested. And yet Airbus issued the following firmware for it:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/24/a350_patch_mmel_fuel_tank_explosion_risk/

To expect complex products to be totally flawless from day one of introduction is not always realistic. That's why people say, "Don't buy a product soon after it's released! Wait a while!"

Yeah, the football thing. You can't say it was a rare occurence, its a known thing. It shows that the camera was not extensively tested in the wild, which both Canon and Nikon do.

And its not hysterical - hysterical is using an example of the A380 against a $4500 camera. Wondering why a $4500 camera has stability problems is not hysterical.

@IR1234 - Go do a google search and tell us how common an occurrence "that football thing" really is. It's not. Even Jared Polin, who found the issue, concluded that it's not a big deal! Furthermore, please cite occurrences where people have been complaining about any A9 "stability problems". I think you're just latching onto the wording and blowing it way out of proportion because you have an agenda. You seem to ignore the fact that Canon and Nikon bodies have had their own (bigger!) issues. The 5D had a mirror that would detach:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Canon-Service-Notices
There were also the issue with the 1DX and 1D C, requiring a recall:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-lubrication-issue-with-some-eos-1dx-and-1d-c-dslrs-22238
With Nikon, they've had their issues too:
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/01/nikon-recalls-d750-shutter-issue/
Maybe Canon/Nikon don't extensively test their cameras in the wild?!?! Hahah!

I wasn't 100% sure at first, thanks Pancho for clarifying your intended humour :-)

i think some need here their sense of humor module recalibrated

It doesn't say they are sharing the cards between the camera and phone. Actually, it isn't very clear at all under what scenarios the bug surfaces, though losing images certainly counts as a serious one.

Miki... by your comment, I can tell you don't do any action, wildlife, air shows, etc. and are more into shooting people where eye af may be useful. It's good for what you may do, but is completely useless for what I do. One size does not fit all. Again, for portraits and weddings... pretty much useless for grabbing fast action in a close setting.

Armandino... you obviously didn't read my two comments re glass. I was talking about Sony LONG GLASS, not an 85mm or short glass. They don't have any E Mount long glass and the A mount glass is resiculously overpriced. A 500mm F4 is 13k vs 9k for a Canon or 6k for a Sigma.

@dgumshu - you asked for "reasonably priced long glass" that works on sony, for shooting action... this is the 1st-gen tamron 150-600 on the a9, before this latest update, cropped hard and shot wide open(f/6.3), at 600mm: http://www.codectest.com/2017/sony-a9-action-sequences-surfing-at-the-hurley-pro-2017-tamron-150-600

yes, eyeaf won't help much there... this is continuous focusing at 10fps, it's extremely difficult subject matter, because of the bad lighting and movement from the white water... for a $729 lens, tho, i'm not complaining.

i would suggest that if you have canon long glass, try renting an a9+adapter, see how you like it.

Osv... thanks for posting that. I have several long Canon primes and zooms and also have the Sigma 150-600. Third party glass and adapters is the only way to go at this point with an A9... with an adapter. I had that Tammron several years ago, but sold it off. I'm still reading reviews of the A9 performance with adapters and was aware that 10fps would be the max.

the biggest problems i saw with it was that it was slightly losing focus in the middle shot of the first two sequences, and the last sequence was slightly soft on all three of the shots... the more that i could fill the frame with the subject, the better it worked, so in this case, 600mm wasn't enough reach for much of what i was shooting.

the problem with the canon super telephotos is that they are all circa 2012 and older, we have no way of knowing if they can stand up to continuous focusing at 20fps... sony has divided their fe-mount lenses into either being 15fps-capable or 20fps-capable, and they are all circa late 2013 and newer.

Sony: What the? Adapted Canon lenses can do eye-af as well??

Next day:

Sony withdraw firmware 1.1 due to critical bugs that could brick you A9.