Sony A9 Reaction
The new Sony A9 has created a lot of excitement, but I find myself a little disappointed. I’m also wondering if Sony hasn’t just made a whopping miscalculation. I could very well be wrong, but I’m just being honest about my thoughts at this stage.
Like many, I have been eager to see what Sony would produce, because they have been making such incredible inroads into the (seemingly impenetrable) Full-Frame market, since the advent of the FE mount. Having established a very strong position with the original A7 and A7R and then the Mk II generation, the idea of Sony stepping into the high-end professional sector certainly had my brain cells buzzing. The recent Sony A99 Mk II DSLR suggested we might see something even more highly specified coming for the FE mount. And they have and they haven’t delivered. Let me explain why.
The new stacked sensor is unquestionably a huge milestone for high frame rates. At 20 fps and a blisteringly high data transfer speed, the camera is nothing short of remarkable. Assuming the AF system can really exploit the full 20fps, this isn’t a small step up. It is a giant leap, especially when combined with Sony’s new ultra-fast SD cards, the lack of viewfinder blackout and the vast number of AF points. However, I still think Sony has got this camera wrong.
Priced at an official retail price of $4500, it is somewhere between the likes of the Sony A7R II/ Canon 5D IV and high end pro models like the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX Mk II. With 24MP, it is clearly in the sweet spot for general purpose photography, but if you do not need the frame rate, the A7R II (or forthcoming A7 III) would appear a much more sensible proposition (as would a range of competitors’ cameras). If you are casually into sports photography, it is unlikely you’re going to plonk down $4000+ on the new Sony A9, which seems to leave sports, wildlife, journalistic photographers (and other pros) as the target market. So what might they think about the A9? Well, here are what I see as the problems:
They’ve shoved a boat load of cutting edge technology inside the A9, but they forgot about the rest of the camera. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I am quite amazed by the route Sony has chosen to take. Yes, Sony has increased the size of the battery and added a joystick (which are both very welcome), but aside from that, the new A9 is quite clearly based on the $1600 A7 II chassis. It would be like Canon releasing a souped up EOS 6D with whiz bang internals and looking to charge $4500 for it.
The A7 II is fairly well made for a consumer/prosumer camera, but not remotely in the same category as a D5 or 1DX II. In fact, it isn’t even close to the 5D IV, or D810. The overall feeling in the hand and access to most buttons on the Sony A9 is going to be an evolution of the A7 II. It is far from a new chassis designed to suit the needs of sports, photojournalist and wildlife photographers. Many people felt the Sony A7R II was a great camera in many ways, but were unconvinced by the camera chassis itself at the given price point. The Sony A9 is considerably more expensive, yet brings only very limited changes to build and chassis design.
In my view, Sony should have designed a larger body that sat somewhere between the current A7 II body and something like the Canon 5D IV. Not only would this have provided them a blank canvas for truly professional weather sealing and solidity, but larger controls that would suit people sitting out on the cold with gloves on. This could then have been sustained as their high end line with a clear separation from the A7 bodies. Had it cost them another $500 to provide a body that has the same operability as high end Canon and Nikon bodies in tough conditions, I doubt any prospective purchaser would have cared. As it is, the A9 is neither fish nor fowl. It lacks the weather sealing, robustness and user interface most of its target audience are likely to need, yet is vastly more expensive than cameras with a comparable chassis. It doesn’t matter how good the frame rate is if you don’t feel comfortable with the camera when connected to larger lenses in the rain, dust and cold. Sony states that the camera is “well-sealed, around most buttons and dials.” I don’t know about you, but that does not fill me with confidence. It sounds similar to the A7/R II, which isn’t a bad thing at $2000, but at $4500?
Very similar to the A7 II. Note the joystick (good) but the same weeny dial
The Sony A9 & Large Lenses
Have you noticed how FE lens releases have been getting larger and larger? The likes of the Sony 85mm f1.8 is fairly compact, but the f2.8 GM zooms and the 85mm f1.4 GM are all pretty large, as is the new 100mm f2.8 STM. These fast pro lenses need a bigger handle. The A7II is perfect with the 35mm f2.8 Sonnar, 55mm Sonnar and lenses up to the size of the 85mm f1.8 Batis. Go any larger than this and the body does not feel optimal (which is not to say it is unworkable). Adding a vertical grip helps, of course, but is is no substitute for a meatier body and bigger fatter controls. As everything gets bigger and heavier, diminutive and light controls are no longer appropriate. You need controls that are less twee and a bit more ‘solid’.
What’s also interesting about the release of the Sony A9 is that it frames the forthcoming A7 III. It would seem fair to expect the Sony A7 III to incorporate similar or lesser perks (such as the larger battery, joystick etc) and not take it up a level. I suspect I was not the only one who expected the A7 III chassis to be a mild evolution of the current one and that the A9 would take it up a whole level.
When a person buys a 1DX or D4/5 type of camera, or even a 5D III/IV, they know they’re buying something really solid and meant for hard professional life. This also translates into excellent resale value, even many years later and after the technology is no longer current. I suspect that buyers of the A9 will experience absolutely crippling depreciating. This would not matter to full-time professionals, but like I have said, I am not sure this camera will appeal to those people. It strikes me as perhaps perfect for well-heeled amateurs and semi-professionals who don’t need a really solid workhorse, but who will enjoy the 20fps. Unfortunately, they’re the ones who are most likely to be concerned by the inevitably vertical depreciation.
Sony A9 Conclusion
I applaud Sony’s incredible technological innovation, but this was an opportunity to bundle a new level of mirrorless performance into the first truly professional grade body. They haven’t done that, which strikes me as a real shame. In my view, this basic body and dial set up should have belonged to the new Sony A7 III, perhaps with a slightly increased price. The Sony A9 should have been on an altogether different level and it strikes me as a big opportunity missed. I just don’t see it making the splash it could have!
So who else might this camera appeal to? Wedding photographers are a big market and this camera hits some of the right points for them, but there is one open question: high ISO performance. The new stacked CMOS sensor with integral memory gives great speed, but I have read on Brian Smith’s website that high ISO is expected to fall somewhere between the A7 II and A7R II. This would mean that it is still a darned good high ISO camera, but wedding photographers rarely need 20fps making the Sony A9 something of a high priced luxury. If the new A7 III has a 24MP BSI sensor, dual SD slots and solidly upgraded AF, it is likely to be just as good a wedding camera as the new A9. In the end, as was the case with the Leica SL, I am not sure who this camera is for, or if that target market isn’t better served by alternatives. Time will tell.
You’ll have to wait 6 months until the A9Rii….the camera of your dreams!
Are you still shooting the 645z?
Haha, noooo, I don’t need the speed the A9 has to offer, but given a few more years the lens stable may be more impressive in the area of fast long primes. Right now it is ‘zilch’. I am very happy with the A7 series and would consider a used A7R II when the A7R III comes out, before anything else:)
Yes, I am still shooting the 645Z. I have not used mine recently, because I have been engrossed in domestic servitude!
I think Sony A9 camera will not be as popular or successful in the market like A7 series because it is aimed at pro sports photographers. It is hard to convince Canon/Nikon users to switch because they already have many lenses especially fast super telephoto lenses. Young and affluent photographers will be the main target for Sony I think.
From Sony A9 announcement there are two takeaways:
1. The future is on mirrorless design
2. Big advantage for company who make their own image sensor
That’s why I think Canon & Sony will survive. Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and the rest mass market camera producers will be in trouble. Leica is in a better, healthy position because Leica caters to a very specific photographer and luxury market.
Off course the A9 not perfect yet, especially the design, ergonomic and weather resistant, but I can see it is improved from A7 series (joystick, touchscreen, extra button and dial). Sony camera is usually designed by engineers rather than photographers. That’s why Sony RX1 II is terrible in sales. On the other hand, Leica Q is a huge success.
I think if Sony makes Sony A9R, with 50+MP it will be more exciting for a wider audience (landscape, commercial). Rumor says 70MP full frame sensor is in the making.
I think I agree with you. Using an a7rII most of the time, I find it a bit too small. Not bad looking, but small and not rock-solid. I don’t dare to take it out in a shower, ever. I would have liked their new flagship to give me that, and more. Such as a totally redesigned menu system for instance.
No camera is perfect, but with so many people commenting you wonder why they didn’t get a tiny bit closer. Same for all other brands though.
The camera seems to be a marvel of speed and soldity, with many sensible and welcome ergonomic upgrades. I, personally, am not interested in 20 frames a second, since I never even use continuous shooting, but I’m sure for others it will be a revolution. The improved speed in processing, though, is very welcome, and it should offer almost instantaneous operation and reviewing. I’m also happy that they have now introduced more sensible direct controls, including a touchscreen (which is not being talked about) which will make its operation much more fluent.
As to its size, I am very happy that it remains as small as the previous A7II models – if it were larger I would not even consider either this or an A9r version. However, I do see the point of the comments about it being too small and fiddly for sports and nature photographers with big lenses. These comment strike me as very pertinent. One of the reviewers online when handling the camera with the new 100-400 zoom pointed out that his fingers around the grip felt squashed up against the side of the lens. That does not sound good for handling, and if true sounds like a mistake by Sony that may prove costly. The reviewer suggested that the body should have been made wider, to accommodate thicker fingers and wider lenses. Using gloves would only make this worse, obviously.
As for your comments on the cameras robustness and durability compared to the more tested Canon and Nikon DSLRs, well, I’m not so sure. As was pointed out in one of the longer interviews with the American Sony representative, there are now so few moving parts in the camera now that almost everything, including a seemingly effective electronic shutter, is solid state, that it should be much, much more reliable. There are almost no moving parts to break. Obviously, the solid state electronics needs to be protected from moisture or anything else that can screw it up, but if that can be done, then decent reliability is almost guaranteed.
Since there is so much excellent and inovative technology in this little beast, I await the transfer of some of it into the A9r and the Rx1rIII with curiosity.
Good points. The issue of ‘finger impact’ in the region of the grip and mount is very real and I notice it even using the 85mm Batis, so I can imagine it is much worse with fat lenses like the 100-400.
The lack of a conventional shutter is very clever and I understand the reduced number of moving parts, but I feel that the Sony rep may be a bit optimistic. The lower grade weather sealing will be a serious issue for many serious outdoor users (£4500 is a lot of camera to lose to a bit of rain in the wrong place). As for physical robustness, the A7 II isn’t close to the 5D or D810 in areas such as dials and buttons and these things get hammered by many pros who need workhorse cameras. Shutters tend to fail due to use and they’re both relatively inexpensive for pros to replace every 200K frames or so. It is very good to see Sony expanding their pro support in the US and Canada, because this lends back up support (and therefore confidence) to those working with a fleet of cameras and using them hard.
I agree with the technology being remarkable. I also suspect it will make a phenomenal used buy a couple of years from now!
There will not be the forthcoming A7 III. A9 is the A7III.
I’m not so sure. I think the A9 chassis is what we might expect from the A7III, but the price is so much higher for the A9. Without a new A7III, buyers would leap from 24MP APS-C A6500 to the 42MP $3100 A7R II. I feel retaining a 24-30MP FF model in the middle important, but we shall see!
So the shortfall on the a9 in your opinion is that it needs to be bigger to in the chassis to handle as well as a sales Canon or Nikon?
Wake up to yourself bloke. Size isn’t everything. If that’s your argument for click bait go back to the stone age
Colin, no, your first (unclear) statement bears no relation to anything I have said at any point in this article, or any other. Try re-reading the article properly, absorbing what I said, thinking it through and trying again.
Unfortunately for those hurling irritated ill-thought out comments in my direction, I tend to think things through with surprising thoroughness. This is why I feel no need whatsoever to run with the pack and will continue to say it as I see it. Unfortunately, you can rarely boil complex things down into single sentences, so if you still want to argue your outrage, I fear you are going to have to be more specific.
Tom, you don’t need to reply to this sort of thing.
It’s unfortunate that this way of communicating a difference of opinion – the tedious curse of the internet – has found its way to your blog.
I think uncivilised behaviour should be met with a dismissive silence. Don’t give it oxygen.
In any case, I judge the value of what you say on its merits, according to my lights, not on how well you defend it.
I too am disappointed with the A9. I just don’t see the point.
The A7 body style couldn’t be further from whats required for large lens sports usage.
Spend a few hours with a Nikon D5 and a 400 or 500mm lens and you quickly see why it has those big rubberised grips. An A7 or now A9 with a big heavy lens would be a nightmare to handle for a few hours, your hands will be crippled.
I can’t imagine Sony is going to sell any to sports shooters let alone take market from Nikon or Canon in that space, no way.
It just looks like a waste of time and resources on their part.
I think the issue was mentioned in another comment. Sony’s cameras are designed by engineers, and they put their focus on innovation, not usability. My fingers also get crushed with some of my lenses on the a7rII. The menu system of the a9 does not solve all the (or is it: any) issues, and there are still to many arbitrary limitations, like for instance customizable aspect ratios.
I was feeling bugged by this release and couldn’t put my finger on it, but find you have largely articulated it for me.
I am looking right now at my a7rii, and Sony seems to have fixed almost everything I don’t like about it and the a7ii I had before it.
So I agree with Maggy when she says this a9 is the new a7iii. The problem is that the new a9 isn’t the new a9!
They seem to have listened to their existing user base in many respects.
The obvious items include the battery life and touch screen (if it allows for touch focus?).
Less commented upon so far is the replacement of the AF/MF switch/button assembly thingy- whose configuration I found incomprehensible in that I could never fully utilise both its states in a back button focus setup. Was it just me?
Probably not given the a9’s separate AF On and AEL buttons that have replaced it.
Yet listening to an existing user base may be part of the problem with the design of this camera, since existing users are not predominantly sports/wildlife pros.
Sony don’t seem to have performance specified their brief by talking with pros using the Canikon heavy hitter beast boxes.
In IT, design is informed by the discovery of what are called ‘Use Cases’. Essentially a description of the scenarios in which the product will be used. These are then ranked in order of frequency of occurrence, so that design effort is prioritised to the more common rather than infrequent Use Cases.
A perfunctory look at pro photographer Use Cases would uncover the priority to cater for a number of the objections you raise, such as sealing and glove use. The implications for just those two considerations would have taken the chasis to home base – and could have been discovered by paying attention to the sidelines of a televised football match.
It lends credence to the often heard notion, as Enche points out, that the cameras are designed by engineers, and I’d add market reasearch consultants who lack the empathy to fully understand the problem from a target customer segment’s perspective.
Exacerbating this, Sony seems to have drunk its own kool aid with regard to the initial marketing driven imperative of differentiating on size. I think it became apparent quickly, and certainly after release of GM lenses, that provided size didn’t approach that of dslrs, small size should not trump ergonomics. Yet this design criterion seems to persist and has influenced the a9.
They seem to have given Canikon some breathing space to get their mirrorless response together. It will be interesting to see if they take the opportunity to release a truly competitive camera that causes those holding their breath to sigh and reassuringly pat their existing clutch of lenses, or grimace forlornly and jump ship to Sony regardless. They better not panic and release a half baked dud, now that they have an extra year – or Nikon at least will be toast.
What a great business studies case in the ‘creative destruction’ of complacent established conservative players who unwisely associate their interests with the status quo, and an example of how consumers benefit from competitive markets.
Good riddance to the steam punk-like anachronistic hybridisation of flapping mirrors and 21st Century tech that is the modern dslr.
Tom
Finally a true review of the A9 you are spot on with everything you mentioned
Like yourself I was hoping for a completely new body design with a built in grip and something that could handle the G Master zooms correctly.
I
Shoot winter sports mostly FIS Freestyle and most of the events are at night under poor lighting conditions and most importantly very cold so wearing gloves is a must. Shooting an A7/A9 series body not happening. I bet you will not see many A9’s at next years Winter Olympics
In hindsight I wish the Sony A99ll would have had this new 24mp sensor new EVF and faster SD slot like the A9 this would have been an interesting camera with a complete set of fast A mount glass
Sony’s flagship camera the A9 is being hyped as being aimed at action, sports and wildlife photographers, so its a seriously flawed camera, due to the omission of full weathersealing. The D5, 1DXll are fully sealed against the elements, even the flagship cameras from Pentax & Olympus, along with the GFX are.
Were are the native fast telephoto FE mount lenses? There are none, only a couple of very expensive A mount lenses, which have to be used with an adaptor which I suspect will reduce the frame rate and focusing accuracy. Sure you can use Canon fast teles with an adaptor, but the same will apply as per A mount lenses.
Were is the S-log for video? Surely this should have been included.
Were is pixel shift which is offered by both Pentax & Olympus? Okay its may not be required for an action camera but it should have been included in your flagship camera.
I can’t see this camera appealing to many photographers other than the football mums etc. I can’t imagine Canon & Nikon users switching to Sony due to the A9.
The A9 should have been called the A7lll and priced appropriately.
I agree with you.
As someone with extensive Sony and Nikon systems, I was hoping the A9 was the camera to make me unify everything on Sony.
I keep a Nikon D5/D4s/D500 and F2.8 zoom triad and some longer lenses + speed lights for sports and event shooting, something I’m doing more of recently.
My D5 + D500 is my favorite combo for this with the 24-70 F2.8 on the D5 and the new 70-200 F2.8 E on the D500. Both will shoot for a whole 8 hour sporting event shooting high speed bursts (but never spray and pray).
The Nikon gear is robust to say the least and it is reliable.
I wish it had an EVF instead of the OVF, but apart from that I really like it.
I’ve never loved Sony but I stick with it because it’s the only FF mirrorless offering available (except the Leica SL and I owned Leica once and will never go back).
I took two A7r II bodies to Tibet for most of January and there were times I wish I’d brought the Nikons instead 🙁
The A7r II is impossible to use with even the thinnest of gloves on.
I had an A7r II die after 2 hours shooting Mount Everest in -25C + wind chill.
This was even with a special arctic parka for the camera and chemical hand warmers inside.
Naked it wouldn’t have lasted 10 minutes in those conditions.
I think the D5 would handle that all night without issue.
On the streets of Lhasa at 5am, the cold was an issue for the A7r II again.
Battery life suffered and there was the glove thing again.
I also suffered from the buffer chugging and the camera locking up on more than one occasion, just by shooting uncompressed RAW in single shots in quick succession.
I hoped the A9 would solve a lot of these problems but for me, it is close in some areas but fails epically in others.
12 FPS + 12-bit uncompressed RAWS.
5 FPS with mechanical shutter, which severely limits pro flash use.
25 contrast detect AF points (compared to 169 for A6500).
AF tracking issues (Tony Northrup)
Rolling shutter distortion (Tony Northrup and Jordan from Camera Store TV)
Banding @ high ISO (Max Yuryev)
Two different card speeds that strangle the throughput in 2 of the 3 patterns.
2 minutes + to clear the buffer and unfreeze the UI (Tony Northrup).
Still no lossless RAW, seriously Sony?
and finally, weather sealing most likely comparable to the A7r II.
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Sony+a7R+II+Teardown/45597
I also agree, the A9 is just the next generation of A7 and should have been priced accordingly.
A pro DSLR killer, I don’t think so.
I’m not buying it.
Not for $3500 and certainly not for the $6000 to get new grip, batteries and fast cards for it.
There are also no long lenses to speak of.
There is no equivalent to the excellent 300mm F4 VR for Nikon, which with the 1.4x TC on the D500 gives a 630mm F5.6 stabilized lens, little larger than a beer can.
If they are serious, they need to address ALL the points that make up a pro system.
They haven’t even got a pro body yet.
I’m just seeing this article now, but I have been thinking the same thing about the a9 since it was announced. Now that reports of banding and over-heating have surfaced, we may be proven right.
I will add some of my original thoughts:
-The a9 can not do 20fps with the mechanical shutter. 20fps is with the electronic shutter. To me this isn’t a
real 20fps – it’s a parlor trick. Therefore, with 5fps (mechanical), this is no more than an a7 II update.
-Since it is no more than an a7 II update, the cost should be about $2000
*So we both arrived at the same conclusion, we just argued it from a different angle*
The size is something I’m torn on. While sports and wildlife photographers require a more robust body, why would they buy a Sony body anyway? The only draw I would see is a smaller/lighter body (which is one of the reasons I switched to mirrorless). However, a bigger body would definately dissipate heat better – solving one of their problems.
The banding issue is there (I assume) because of the 20fps e-shutter. Whenever I used the e-shutter on my old a7r II, I would get banding under certain lights.
Yes, I think the a9 is over-priced. I also think the Olympus EM-1 II is overpriced, and so is the Panasonic GH5. Sure they are all great improvements over their last generation, but these cost hikes are pretty absurd.
Have they all made huge mistakes? We’ll see…
Hi Rick, yes indeed. I think Sony is banking on lots of A9 sales based on excitement at the specs and well-heeled consumers, rather than professionals. Even then, once the novelty of 20 fps falls away and people realise that very few of them need such a frame rate…. then let’s see. At a lower frame rate, as you say, it is nothing more than an A7 III with a few sensor related handicaps due to the high speed tuning of that sensor…. for £4,500. As you say, the lack of a pro sports lens line up is crucial here and Sony has a long way to go. The A9 is also going to make the A7 III a much more delicate proposition from a price and specs point of view. I’m going to be very interested to see what happens here.
FWIW, I am hearing that Oly E-M1 II sales (and M43 in general) are pretty strong. That may be because the M43 ecosystem is arguably ‘sealed’ and less influenced by what happens outside than inside it. Great camera, for sure, with a fair range of long lenses that suit amateur sports and wildlife shooters on a budget that’s a fraction of Canikon pro kit. This makes M43 unique and defines a very specific consumer niche. With the A9, Sony directly takes on Canikon in their heartland and they have nowhere near the lens line up to make this even remotely credible. Who would care about the frame rate or tiny cost saving on the bodies if the lenses aren’t there to do the basic job? Right, I’m going to go and read your switching article now 🙂
P.S. it will also be interesting if Fujifilm does buy Nikon, or go into some kind of agreement with them.
Yes I hear the E-M1 II is doing well, but I wouldn’t pay that much for a M43 camera. I had a PEN-F, with the Pan/Leica 42.5/1.2, and that sensor is just to small.
I am also interested to see what happens with Fuji and Nikon.
Reading your response, and other articles, it’s funny how much we agree on things (Leica SL, Sony, Fuji).
Maybe it’s because we are both Military-men turned Photographers?
It would be fun to shoot together and swap stories some day.
Anyway, keep on writing what I would write, and I’ll keep agreeing 😉
Rick
Funnily enough we agree again. While I can live with APS-C for portrait work in depth of field terms, M43 is just too small for that application (for me). Lenses like the 42.5 f1.2 still really struggle to provide subject isolation when the background isn’t far away and its not a cheap lens. I liked my Panny GM-1 and it did well with my aerial work in Afghanistan, but I sold it recently, as part of my purge!
We do seem to agree on a lot and suspect the military ‘upbringing’ drums objectivity in pretty hard!
It’s not a parlor trick.
I succumbed, bought a pair of A9’s and shot them side-by-side with Batis 25 and Batis 85 at San Francisco Carnaval the other weekend in preference to my D5 / D4s that I would normally use for events.
Because I shot them with electronic shutter only, there is no indication of traditional “shutter count” and so if I was of a mind to, I could have returned both bodies after the banding and overheating rumors surfaced.
The fact is, after reviewing 14,000 images over 2 days with Photo Mechanic 5 and editing this down to my top 100, there was no banding in any of my shots.
After shooting the A9 for two days solid – 8+ hours each day, I decided to sell my Nikon system and stick with Sony. My D5 sold this morning.
The EyeAF with the A9 is a game changer. It will track in real-time anywhere across the frame.
I didn’t use the 20 FPS, because I didn’t need it, but just like my D5, I shot it in medium speed in small controlled bursts.
The results were nothing short of amazing.
Yes, there are issues compared to a workhorse like a D5, but it is still half the weight and more accurate.
Those two things alone were enough to convince me.
Do I think it is a true pro body?
No, it’s just another Sony, but it is THE best Sony by leaps and bounds.
You need to factor this into the mix.
There are a list of ergonomic issues that make it a PITA, but the biggest issue I had was no overflow pattern for the second card.
If you fill slot 1, it just stops and you have to tell it to use slot 2.
Yes, you can program a button to help or put this in the Fn menu, but WTF Sony?
At the end of the day, I really like the A9.
It everything the A7r II was, with more speed and more accuracy.
I do agree that it’s not worth $4500 but neither is a Leica Q, so go figure…
Thank you very much Colin. This is encouraging – especially from a D5/D4s user.
The D5 was sold within days, along with my D500 most of the lenses.
The D4s is next and then I’m done with mirrors for life 🙂
FWIW, I also own a Fuji GFX.
It’s a landscape, architecture and portrait camera.
I shot and event with it, but the AF is too sluggish for me (after a D5 and A9, it would be).
Still, it is better than the A7r II that I compared it against, which is why I opened up a line into another system.
I’m not a pro, but a “well heeled” amateur (who occasionally gets a paid gig) and the AF is on par (or better) than anything I’ve used (a7rii, em1, em5ii, x-t2, d500, d750). Combine this with great IQ at higher isos , AWESOME battery life, along with everything else and I’m loving it. Is it worth 4500, I’m not sure, I guess it depends on what you are looking for and can afford. It was to me. I wanted a full frame camera with af abilities like the (xt2 and/or d500) and this is the cheapest (and smallest) choice, IMO. I will confess I haven’t tried canon since the 6d, so maybe the mark IV is there, but I’ve grown to really like the mirrorless choices and what they offer. I sold my a7rii and xt2 (with it’s lenses) and I’m quite satisfied. I will grab a cheap a6300 or a7s as a second body when the money is right.
Certainly valid points. There is no other FF camera available that does what the a9 does for less. It’s just doesn’t make the best financial sense for what I need. Right now the Fuji GFX is what I’m going for. I’m going to make a quick call when B&H opens, and will most likely pull the trigger today.
I also have my eye on the a7III rumors. If the rumored specs are true anyone that buys the a7III should personally thank every a9 customer for driving down the unit cost of the tech that trickles to the a7 line.
I’ll be watching but, after my a7rII experience, I’m quite leery of Sony cameras.
Yeah if you want the GFX, then the A9 is kinda the opposite. Most of my shooting is lowlight and fast paced, so the GFX would never be considered. I will add, don’t judge the a9, by your experience with the a7rii (or any other a7 body), totally different beasts. Just af and battery life alone make it a league above (not even getting into speed)…IQ would go to the A7rii (especially at low iso’s). I’ve seen the rumors of the A7iii and no way everything I heard makes it (or it’s a 3K + body then).
Please push Sony to not only innovate but too stop reducing the performance of their existing cameras: https://www.change.org/p/sony-remove-the-star-eater-on-sony-a7s-r-mk-i-ii-and-a9-cameras