http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-a9.aspx
- A
- A
BeenThere said:Logical result of the trend toward smaller and lighter mirrorless cameras.
I agree. I am not on the smaller/lighter bandwagon. The current Canon 5 series size fits my hands well. Just noting the trend.Mt Spokane Photography said:Sony's heritage has always been about making electronics smaller. It has worked for them in the past, and their success caused companies to follow after them.
They have also had some big failures in gauging the market, like the beta recorder that was my first VCR. I still have two or three of them lying around.
The market for users who can comfortably hold a small camera is a large one, but at a high price point, it gets much smaller, and tends more toward those with large high end lenses, which I see as a problem.
Khalai said:Small mirrorless camera is good for the general population as a step-up from phone photography. But A9 should've been beefier anyway, perhaps even with integrated grip. If you put any f/2.8 GM zoom or f/1.4 prime such as 35 or 85, the whole system gets very front heavy. Not to mention lenses like 70-200 or 100-400. It's like trying to use Canon big white with 200D body...
Khalai said:Small mirrorless camera is good for the general population as a step-up from phone photography. But A9 should've been beefier anyway, perhaps even with integrated grip. If you put any f/2.8 GM zoom or f/1.4 prime such as 35 or 85, the whole system gets very front heavy. Not to mention lenses like 70-200 or 100-400. It's like trying to use Canon big white with 200D body...
9VIII said:Khalai said:Small mirrorless camera is good for the general population as a step-up from phone photography. But A9 should've been beefier anyway, perhaps even with integrated grip. If you put any f/2.8 GM zoom or f/1.4 prime such as 35 or 85, the whole system gets very front heavy. Not to mention lenses like 70-200 or 100-400. It's like trying to use Canon big white with 200D body...
That's exactly what I've been doing for the last five years.
The 1100D isn't quite an SL but it's very close. I had the 5D2 for about a year and I hated using that body on the 400f5.6.
Total weight savings is important, and the only reason people "think" it's "unbalanced" is they've been taught to say it is.
Hold the lens by the tripod foot and effectively use your hand as a gimbal, you gain nothing by adding weight to the back.
daniela said:Hi Guys!
I had the A9 in my hands for two days at an Sony powered photographic outdoor portrait workshop. It is an nice body, with different handling. It is superfast and shows an amazing image quality. Also, we were working with the Alpha 7R Mk II, that is an amazing body for stills or portrait too. For my small hands those bodies are a lot easier to handle
As I post in an Canon fanboys ;D forum, I will comment some shortcomings: First, the AF and the shooting speed of the A9 suffers when you attach an adapter for the 500mm Sony lens. On the second day, I mounted my Canon 500mm 4.0 II on an adapter from an workshop participant. Also slow and the AF hunted a lot.
Second, mounting the lens on an tripod is not easy, as my lens grip is to small. I was told to use an longer third party grip to get the body and the lens in balance. Some 2-3 inches in front seems to be missing.
And also, it appears to be dangerous to hold the body on the grip when the Sony body is attached. It is more shaking than on my Canon 5D body. It looks too filigree.
And at last, the service is incredible. You have to own more than two highend bodies and more than three highend lenses to get an faster service : Some participants claimed an 8-10 weeks long repair time on Alpha 7 bodies.
Summed up, the Sony bodies offer an incredible quality at sharpness, details and colours. But do not offer longer and "pricy" primes for birding and no "prime" service.