[JohnBee]

So it shows the last picture taken instead of nothing? How is that considered live view or "non-black out", seems awfully misleading marketing ploy.

You Tube

You Tube

[Kunzite]

It looks smoother on that video than when I looked through the viewfinder.
It's effectively a Live View with reduced frame rate; I'd call it a real improvement. Over existing EVFs.

[seagas]

Sony #a9 20fps, no blackout - YouTube

Not to be picky but that is not the EVF view where the entire image fill your view.

[JohnBee]

It looks smoother on that video than when I looked through the viewfinder.

Is it possible that the camera was shooting slower than 20fps?

---------- Post added 06-19-17 at 02:54 PM ----------

Not to be picky but that is not the EVF view where the entire image fill your view.

I'm not entirely sure on this, but I think the Sony a9 EVF has a faster refresh rate than with the rear LCD screen. To which I'd add, I'm thinking the results would be at least equal if not better.
With that said and from what I've heard and read, it would appear that the no blackout shutter with the a9 is akin to tracking subjects in live-view with a video camera.

-

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 06-19-2017 at 10:32 AM.

[Kunzite]

It was set to max speed - and I doubt it was too dark for 1/20s.
Note that your video doesn't have any panning, and the subject/girl appears minuscule in the frame. 20fps is enough to convey a sense of motion... the absolute minimum is IIRC slightly more than 10fps. But it won't look smooth in all situations

[JohnBee]

It was set to max speed - and I doubt it was too dark for 1/20s

Based on what I've read, it would appear that the the camera will drop down to a slower fps is certain conditions aren't met, and so I'd question if it was shooting at the full 20fps in spite of being set to maximum.

Note that your video doesn't have any panning, and the subject/girl appears minuscule in the frame.

Here are a few snipets of continuous shooting with both panning and low light in effect:

1. Sony A9 Hands On Overview - YouTube - 1m45s
3. Sony A9 Hands On Overview - YouTube - 2m42s

-

[Kunzite]

"If certain conditions aren't met"? Are you saying that you'd get the 20fps blackout free shooting only if certain conditions are met?
How brittle is this feature, really?

[JohnBee]

"If certain conditions aren't met"? Are you saying that you'd get the 20fps blackout free shooting only if certain conditions are met?
How brittle is this feature, really?

It looks smoother on that video than when I looked through the viewfinder.

I don't think the a9 will introduce blackouts on slower fps, though perhaps more specifically, what would look like slowed playback(fps) as the stills are inserted into the live stream - though that's entirely speculative on my part as I've never actually tried the unit.

PS. I've seen a few tough reviewers/critiques of the a9 who appear in agreement that the a9's no blackout feature is top notch in cases where it's needed.

[Kunzite]

Well, I tried it (albeit briefly). YMMV - as I said, it would make people who already love EVFs love this one more, but it won't convince people for which EVFs don't work well.

By the way, I'm definitely not in the "movies must be 24fps" camp

[JohnBee]

Again: which game?
We have better AF; we definitely have better image quality at high ISO and low light situations. We had a mirrorless K-mount. Did they change any "game"?
OTOH, the K-1 attracted as many new users as Pentaxians.

Someone poster this on the a9 Facebook page, reminded me of this particular topic;

The difference is in the numbers. 6 from 224 frames. 6. That's six out-of-focus frames. From 224. A Toddler, racing around, running at me, doing all sorts of random things. That's the game changer. Forget for a moment 20 frames a second. Forget ISO numbers and Dynamic range e.t.c. Just these pure numbers on a randomly moving target. 6 from 224.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonya9/?fref=nf

[Kunzite]

At its price, it better have a high hit rate - especially on a toddler. Compare it with Canon/Nikon monster cameras in identical conditions, then we'll talk if it is a game changer (and remember the question: which game is that?)
Unfortunately, I can't see that facebook post, I'd have to join some group.

[D1N0]

I doubt many people are going to buy the a9 to shoot their toddler gallivanting around. What if it chews on it .

[seagas]

I'm sure there will be people who would buy it for that reason alone, people with more money than photographic skill in some cases. IMO most of us here use Pentax gear because of the very good bang for the buck, they offer, even at their starter cameras features that the others don't offer till further up the model line. I have been using Pentax cameras since 1980 and I have no desire to look else where when the Pentax offers everything I need for a lower price than CANIKON. Even though now I could easily afford the A9, I have no desire to own one. I'm not a professional photographer, but simple a person who enjoys taking photos of family and friends and something to use to express my creative side when the mood strikes.

For all of those who wish Pentax did this or did that, honestly ask yourself, why are you here, why do you own Pentax, how much would you willing pay extra for those features if Pentax offered them? Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch, you want faster AF or high FPS or better video, there is a cost. If you're not happy with your Pentax gear and their features, why don't you go buy what would make you happy. As to cost, there is a huge used camera market out there to buy what you want from if you can not afford new.

Most of us here are quite happy with our Pentax gear, if you are so enamored with C, N or A, go buy them and join those forums and preach to that choir and leave us, who enjoy our Pentaxes, to talk about them.

[normhead]

These guys think they are some kind of rebels preaching Sony on a Pentax forum. When in fact they are the opposite of rebels.

In truth, everyone who owns a Pentax has already rebelled against the status quo and gone for value over glitz. So here they are, rebelling against the rebels. Completely unaware that Nikon and Canon's superior FPS and AF systems go back 20 years. These things are definitely not of concern to Pentaxians.

There have been expensive high frame rate auto-focus cameras before. Somehow these folks are not comprehending that, we all passed on those in the past, and that the A( is just the latest in a string of action cameras that everyone on this site chose not to buy.

The endless parade of info designed to convince thus that the A9 is something different is just pathetic. It's just another in a long line of specialty cameras that will be of little interest to the general public because of their price and feature set. They show pictures of toddlers that a K-3 could capture to try and make them seen like they would have more public appeal/ If I post a picture of myself driving my grand-daughter to the store in an armoured personnel carrier, does that make it a desirable family vehicle?

Sony A9: is there still a future for DSLRs, and Pentax mirrorless suggestion

The logical answer is, a camera like the Sony A9 simply because of the cost will never be a main stream camera and just for that reason will never be a threat to DSLRs, many of which are cheaper than even bridge cameras.

I find it amazing that after 34 pages, folks are still flogging g this dead horse. It's so simple. Can a $5000 CAD camera take the place of an $600 DSLR?. It is so obvious, no it can't. Straight economics, nothing to do with how the camera performs. Yet so many go on and on about features that don't change the basic fact, it's too expensive to be mainstream. Now they go on and on about this feature or that feature, about how this perform or that performs, all ignoring that one simple fact.

Unless you have at least $10,00 to plunk down on Sony gear, this camera is irrelevant. Same as a 1Dx or D5. The thread would be dead if people who don't have that kind of money lying around would just admit the obvious and waited until they have the money before they let their imaginations run wild over what they might like about it. If you can't afford it, it can't do anything for you. There are very few on this forum who can drop that kind of money on an action camera. Especially since you're still going to want your K-1 for what it does. that the A9 doesn't do. Regardless of how much folks drool over it, it's irrelevant, both to us and them.

Folks are here sharing their daydreams as far as I can tell. They see a video, they start daydreaming. They share their dreams. Which are essentially dreams of a world without Pentax cameras.

Here they are dreaming of the day when it's all about Sony in a world without Pentax type shooters, with a bunch of Pentax shooters. It defies logic.

It's just odd how many people show up on the Pentax forum pimping other brands. It's as if they think Pentax users are some kind of cave dwellers and all they have to do is point out what's good about other systems and we'll think they are some kind of experts. It's mystifying why they would think that , but what other explanation is there?

[BrianR]

I'm sure there will be people who would buy it for that reason alone, people with more money than photographic skill in some cases.

Most definitely. People with gobs of money won't care what it costs if they can rattle off technically decent photos of their toddlers. At the end of the day, they may even pay someone to sort through hundreds of GB worth of nearly identical toddler photos to find the selects - possibly creating a new business opportunity for the masochistic photographer or re-toucher?