Bad news for the SL.

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55499334

 

 

In fact the A7R II sensor does only limited work better with wide angle M lenses compared to the A7R. The issue is not the sensor itself, it is the sensor stack: the A7 (and likely A9) sensor stack is optimized for the FE lenses. Sony uses a much thicker sensor class compared to the Leica M digital cameras. The thicker sensor glass leads to some vignetting in the corners of the frame with some wide and ultra-wide lenses which can be corrected in post processing. Kolarivision offers a modification of A7-based cameras to use thinner sensor glass which seems to help a lot with the Leica M/Sony sensor hybrid (I have no personal experience with the latter since I am fine removing some little color shift in the corners in PP). It is very unlikely that Sony will release a new sensor stack which would be better for M lenses since Sony pushes now for their own FE lens line which the stack is optimized for. 

 

Important to know which M lenses workl well with Sony's sensor stack and which don't. Very important for users like me which use M lenses both for M (film) cameras and with Sony digital. Rule of thumb: stay away from wide ASPH M lenses which are mostly really bad from my own experience on Sony A7 cameras. The predecessor M versions (non ASPH) on the other hand work great (the 35/2 Summicron is a good example here). 

[IkarusJohn]

I don't think Leica, or the SL, is defined in anyway by what Sony does.

 

The A7 cameras are evf based, and so is the A9. More competition in this market sector is a good thing. No Leica camera will ever compete on price with any Sony - Leica looks for its advantage elsewhere, and that is a very good thing for us.

[caissa]

Not sure if this is a useful contribution, but here is a link comparing the size of 5 cameras (including the SL) with approx 80-300mm (equiv) lenses attached:

 

http://camerasize.com/compact/#692.444,679.620,713.581,639.495,655.607,ha,t

 

(Helps to view on a larger monitor).

 

MFT, APS-C, 35mm x 3

 

One thing to note is that I think the SL is the only one with a non-extending lens(?).

 

If you hover over the cameras you can see the weights of the setups. In my view Leica is in a league of their own when it comes to design of control interfaces, but size and weight are on the high side.

 

"equiv" means that the comparison does not compare equal things - 2 cams are not FF.

And on the FF cams, would you as an owner choose these lenses and say they are equal in quality and features ? Well I would never.

Here we have the fastest SL lens (AF) and compare it with any other slow lens. And at the same time somebody tells us that AF of the other cams is much faster. Thank you.

Most lenses are changing their length, but are here only showed in the shortest setup (wouldn't the longest setup be more typical for their use ?), and so on .....

A lot of BS. I read so many comparisons, I cannot stop noting all these discrepancies - I noted so often that what I see when holding camera and lens is completely different from what the comparison told me. I was so often glad I had tried it before buying it.

These comparisons are for making money (publishing and getting hits). Not for helping you to get the best product for your needs.

 

I would expect that many others have made similar experiences ... ?????

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Not sure if this is a useful contribution, but here is a link comparing the size of 5 cameras (including the SL) with approx 80-300mm (equiv) lenses attached:

 

http://camerasize.com/compact/#692.444,679.620,713.581,639.495,655.607,ha,t

 

(Helps to view on a larger monitor).

 

MFT, APS-C, 35mm x 3

 

One thing to note is that I think the SL is the only one with a non-extending lens(?).

 

If you hover over the cameras you can see the weights of the setups. In my view Leica is in a league of their own when it comes to design of control interfaces, but size and weight are on the high side.

I own all of those lenses, besides the Canon. The Olympus doesn't extend and is the closest in IQ but on a much smaller sensor. The Fuji and Sony aren't close in IQ to the Leica. Apples and Oranges comparison, I;m afraid.

 

Gordon

[105012]

I own all of those lenses, besides the Canon. The Olympus doesn't extend and is the closest in IQ but on a much smaller sensor. The Fuji and Sony aren't close in IQ to the Leica. Apples and Oranges comparison, I;m afraid.

 

Gordon

 

Hi Gordon!

 

Yes, agreed. I have a particularly sweet copy of the Fuji, keeps surprising me when put up against Leica APO lens, but I reckon it is just a lucky sample. I just thought it was kinda interesting to see the differences (and similarities) across these 5 different cameras, like I said, probably not that useful to the conversation and I shall say no more 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Hi Gordon!

 

Yes, agreed. I have a particularly sweet copy of the Fuji, keeps surprising me when put up against Leica APO lens, but I reckon it is just a lucky sample. I just thought it was kinda interesting to see the differences (and similarities) across these 5 different cameras, like I said, probably not that useful to the conversation and I shall say no more 

 

All comparisons are both useful and useless depending on what you're comparing. When I take out my Olympus 40-150 it isn't because it's the ultimate. It's because in comparison to the Leica it's a compact lens. When I'm working I'm thinking of other considerations like usability, handling and menus. Honestly, it's only rarely that image quality is a concern. 90% of the time any of these cameras/lenses are good enough to impress.

 

I have had two copies of the 55-200. The first was a dog. The current one is very decent. But my Fuji 50-140 is truly excellent. A hair behind the Olympus which is as sharp as the Leica. But the Leica draws better than any of them by a fair margin.

Gordon

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the impression that for many Sony users the A9 is not interesting at all. It is too expensive and many prefer a higher resolving sensor to a faster camera.

So I currently cannot see that the A9 is really a new step for Sony - many regarded the a7R II to be just as professional as the new A9. They chose the a7R II because of the resolution. And if the camera is not so interesting even for Sony users, why should it suddenly be so much more interesting for CaNikon users ?

It will be interesting to see if it really is a big success for Sony.

 

And I would really like to see a list of the AF speeds attained with each lens. As said before, in my experience the speeds are different for different lenses. So the general number of 20 frame/s leaves me a bit clueless.

Many use "foreign" lenses on their Sonys. So what AF speed can be expected with Sigma, Tamron or Canon lenses ?

 

And there are the Techart users. Any improvement to be expected there ?

 

Finally thinking as a CaNikon (not SL) user who is shooting sports (with D5 or D1X II): I usually have 3k to 4k shots in my internal battery. The A9 has 500. So I need to add at least two more batteries in a handgrip. So the weight is about equal. The price also increases.

The selection of sports optics is small for Sony (native lenses), so I probably need to add EOS or Sigma glass. What is then left of the advanced AF features (not just speed) ? Where is my weight advantage ? What is the real speed of "bursts" ?

[Martin B]

I have the impression that for many Sony users the A9 is not interesting at all. It is too expensive and many prefer a higher resolving sensor to a faster camera.

So I currently cannot see that the A9 is really a new step for Sony - many regarded the a7R II to be just as professional as the new A9. They chose the a7R II because of the resolution. And if the camera is not so interesting even for Sony users, why should it suddenly be so much more interesting for CaNikon users ?

It will be interesting to see if it really is a big success for Sony.

 

And I would really like to see a list of the AF speeds attained with each lens. As said before, in my experience the speeds are different for different lenses. So the general number of 20 frame/s leaves me a bit clueless.

Many use "foreign" lenses on their Sonys. So what AF speed can be expected with Sigma, Tamron or Canon lenses ?

 

And there are the Techart users. Any improvement to be expected there ?

 

Finally thinking as a CaNikon (not SL) user who is shooting sports (with D5 or D1X II): I usually have 3k to 4k shots in my internal battery. The A9 has 500. So I need to add at least two more batteries in a handgrip. So the weight is about equal. The price also increases.

The selection of sports optics is small for Sony (native lenses), so I probably need to add EOS or Sigma glass. What is then left of the advanced AF features (not just speed) ? Where is my weight advantage ? What is the real speed of "bursts" ?

 

I partially agree with you here - I am using the A7R currently as my main digital camera, and I have no need or intention to upgrade to the A9 since this camera is made for applications which I don't need like sports and event shooting for example. But I differ with you in the predictions if the A9 will be successful or not - I believe it will be a success as the A7 series has been before. The same argumentation was going on 4 years ago when the A7 series was first released - the Canikon camp instantly predicted a failure of the series due to lack of lenses, still remaining bulk of lenses, low battery power, bad weather sealing etc etc - and what happened? It turned out to be a big success for Sony which continued especially with the A7R II later. Talking of batteries, I read that the A9 has an increased battery capacity which lasts for more than 2000-2500 photos (and certainly more than 500 photos). This should be more than sufficient to cover an event just with one battery. I am convinced that Sony will soon release some additional FE tele lenses, too - the 100-400 FE just came out. How well the AF works with third party lenses attached via adapters on the A9 remains to be seen - but I expect it even better than with the A7R II which is already pretty good. 

 

IMO the A9 sets a new bar and leaves Canikon quite a bit in the dust behind if it comes to sensor performance, AF (with FE lenses which we know so far), and fps. Not that I need this kind of camera, but I really have to give credit to Sony that they raised again the bar here and show innovation - something which is not seen much in recent years by Canon and Nikon IMO. The A9 is clearly a disruption of the established market - CanonRumors yesterday even advertised pre-orders for the A9 (!), and this Sony camera is allover heavily discussed in Canon and Nikon specific forums. Tele lenses will remain the same size and weight - but the future is set for smaller and more powerful cameras. 

[caissa]

I do not doubt that the future will bring many better products from many (almost any) suppliers.

And I did not doubt anything - please learn reading what is written.

I am interested to see how successful it will be.

I am not interested in doubting its success, as I have no intention to make any predictions.

 

Still I doubt that the A9 offers any real advantage for a sports photographer used to D5 or D1X.

Despite that Sony succeeded in making many people write a lot of enthusiastic (not well thought out) stuff, the camera offers nothing better, besides the EVF with its preview possibilities. It has simply the same problems as the SL (not enough native lenses for the "sports" photographers). But Sony certainly has the resources to change that in a short time.

 

Learn reading (check B&H): In the specs at any supplier is written that the battery lasts for 480 shots. And with the vertical grip two more batteries can be added. This is a boring discussion, if it is necessary to repeat the stuff that anybody could easily check for himself.

[Martin B]

I do not doubt that the future will bring many better products from many (almost any) suppliers.

And I did not doubt anything - please learn reading what is written.

I am interested to see how successful it will be.

I am not interested in doubting its success, as I have no intention to make any predictions.

 

Still I doubt that the A9 offers any real advantage for a sports photographer used to D5 or D1X.

Despite that Sony succeeded in making many people write a lot of enthusiastic (not well thought out) stuff, the camera offers nothing better, besides the EVF with its preview possibilities. It has simply the same problems as the SL (not enough native lenses for the "sports" photographers). But Sony certainly has the resources to change that in a short time.

 

Learn reading (check B&H): In the specs at any supplier is written that the battery lasts for 480 shots. And with the vertical grip two more batteries can be added. This is a boring discussion, if it is necessary to repeat the stuff that anybody could easily check for himself.

 

There is no need to come across as attacking and insulting - you can have your opinion, and I have mine. Regarding batteries, this discussion is so old as the A7 series is meanwhile - if you would ever use this kind of camera (which you obviously haven't), you would see that the battery thing is not the main issue here. Dpreview claims that the A9 battery capacity is doubled from the previous battery model used in the A7 series which is already about 500 shots as conservative number. 

 

But as you put it in bold, it seems you depend (interpret this wording as you wish ) on a competitive camera product. 

[Jeff S]

IBIS is potentially a key distinguishing feature compared to DSLR counterparts.

 

Jeff

[LD_50]

The A9 doesn't need to displace the A7RII. It is yet another offering from Sony with a similar form factor and ergonomics that can utilize the same lenses. You have a speed focused camera (A9), video focused A7SII, and resolution focused (A7RII).

 

This strategy makes a lot of sense to me.

[caissa]

The main question for me is not the strategy - I am not interested in that.

The main question is how fast is each lens on the A9. Before switching, I would like to see a proof that the normal lenses can reach the 20 frames/s.

So besides speculation, has anybody any measurement how fast a native AF lens is on the A9 ?

Or even more, how fast an adapted lens is on the A9 (e.g. one of the "sports teles", the native 100-400 is only a consumer tele).

The old camera (a7...) offers 5 frames/s. The new up to 20 frames/s. I think it is really an important question which of the existing lenses are up to this claimed performance. The adapted lenses often do not even reach the 5 frames of the a7... cameras.

 

From the A99 it is known that only very few lenses reach the maximum. Why do you avoid this natural question for the A9 ? Speed is the "specialty" of this camera. But we know hardly any details about it. Or if you do, please add the facts here.

[pop]

The main question for me is not the strategy - I am not interested in that.

The main question is how fast is each lens on the A9. Before switching, I would like to see a proof that the normal lenses can reach the 20 frames/s.

So besides speculation, has anybody any measurement how fast a native AF lens is on the A9 ?

Or even more, how fast an adapted lens is on the A9 (e.g. one of the "sports teles", the native 100-400 is only a consumer tele).

The old camera (a7...) offers 5 frames/s. The new up to 20 frames/s. I think it is really an important question which of the existing lenses are up to this claimed performance. The adapted lenses often do not even reach the 5 frames of the a7... cameras.

 

From the A99 it is known that only very few lenses reach the maximum. Why do you avoid this natural question for the A9 ? Speed is the "specialty" of this camera. But we know hardly any details about it. Or if you do, please add the facts here.

How, exactly, can a lens influence the rate at which the camera can take frames?

[tom0511]

How, exactly, can a lens influence the rate at which the camera can take frames?

 

AF performance of the lens

[FlashGordonPhotography]

"35mm cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Rollei.

 

"Autofocus cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Leica.

 

"Digital cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Kodak.

 

"Mirrorless cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Canon.

 

etc, etc, etc............

 

I remember when I started shooting with A7's. A lot of wedding photographers bemoned the lack of lenses, speed, battery life and EVF. In less than three years all of those points are covered. Not only did Sony bring out lenses, they brought out STUNNING lenses. Now we've got wireless TTL systems, steady cams, adaptors and third party gear coming out our ears.

 

The A9 is the shot across the bow of Canon. It simply says, "We are Sony and we are coming for your crown". Lenses will follow, just like they did for the A7R2. A pro services system will appear. Sony will start turning up at events by sponsoring photographers. It's not if but "when" and when is soon. The A9 isn't the end od the sports DSLR. It's the beginning of the end of the sports DSLR.

 

And let's be clear. Everyone is talking about shooting sports. But sports shooters are an insignificant part of the industry in terms of a percentage of working photographers. The only reason Canikon care is because they're highly visible. But if you're a journalist, wedding photographer, conflict photographer, events photographer etc. this camera already has a full range of lenses.

 

Canon did the same thing in the 80's with EF. People bitched and moaned. In a few years Canon was number one. And yet they don't seem capable of seeing that the same thing is happening but that they are now the hunted instead of the hunter.

 

The camera industry just doesn't learn. It's history is littered with the corpses of companies who saw a disruptive technology coming and ignored it. And ex-photographers who didn't see the beginning of the end and all of a sudden found themselves 5 steps behind every one else and suddenly out of work.

 

It might not be time to jump ship but if I were a Canikon shooter I'd be looking for a life jacket about now.

 

Sony is going to sell a bucket load of these things.....

 

Gordon

[LD_50]

When shooting at high fps I would not assume you need a reevaluation of AF between every frame. In other words, the higher the fps the less subject motion you'll get between frames and the less demand on the lens to keep up.

 

The assertion it's not about strategy ignores your previous post regarding A7RII owners not being interested along with Canon and Nikon owners. The A9 is exactly about realizing a strategy to offer a camera and lens set that works well for a variety of photographic pursuits. This is similar to Leica in that I can shoot my M lenses on a rangefinder or the SL.

[Martin B]

"35mm cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Rollei.

 

"Autofocus cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Leica.

 

"Digital cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Kodak.

 

"Mirrorless cameras are toys and will never dominate the market" - Some dude at Canon.

 

etc, etc, etc............

 

I remember when I started shooting with A7's. A lot of wedding photographers bemoned the lack of lenses, speed, battery life and EVF. In less than three years all of those points are covered. Not only did Sony bring out lenses, they brought out STUNNING lenses. Now we've got wireless TTL systems, steady cams, adaptors and third party gear coming out our ears.

 

The A9 is the shot across the bow of Canon. It simply says, "We are Sony and we are coming for your crown". Lenses will follow, just like they did for the A7R2. A pro services system will appear. Sony will start turning up at events by sponsoring photographers. It's not if but "when" and when is soon. The A9 isn't the end od the sports DSLR. It's the beginning of the end of the sports DSLR.

 

And let's be clear. Everyone is talking about shooting sports. But sports shooters are an insignificant part of the industry in terms of a percentage of working photographers. The only reason Canikon care is because they're highly visible. But if you're a journalist, wedding photographer, conflict photographer, events photographer etc. this camera already has a full range of lenses.

 

Canon did the same thing in the 80's with EF. People bitched and moaned. In a few years Canon was number one. And yet they don't seem capable of seeing that the same thing is happening but that they are now the hunted instead of the hunter.

 

The camera industry just doesn't learn. It's history is littered with the corpses of companies who saw a disruptive technology coming and ignored it. And ex-photographers who didn't see the beginning of the end and all of a sudden found themselves 5 steps behind every one else and suddenly out of work.

 

It might not be time to jump ship but if I were a Canikon shooter I'd be looking for a life jacket about now.

 

Sony is going to sell a bucket load of these things.....

 

Gordon

 

+1. The same people here bitching about the A9 series would say the opposite if Canon or Nikon made it. I see similar discussions in other forums, and the way these Canon (and maybe also Nikon) fanboys react on the release of the A9 says everything. It is simply fear. 

[tom0511]

whats the benefit of putting a smallish body on large lenses?

whats the benefit of a small body if it gets more difficult to reach buttons?

by the way I dont own neither Canon or Nikon any more.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

The lenses need to shrink as well. Catchword: portability.