[Kunzite]

Wouldn't this simply mean that the statement has yet to be defined?
ie, the a9 is a gamechanger in the sense that it has unprecedented AF tracking and no blackouts between shots type reasoning.

Wouldn't that simply mean the statement makes absolutely no sense, and it's just a propaganda catchphrase? If you can't even say ("define") what game it's changing...
And no, marketing-presenting a feature doesn't cut it.

The mirror blackout and the EVF blackout are very different IMO, the latter appearing much worse.
And the A9 doesn't eliminate the blackout, but replaces it with the last image taken. Fast blinking vs. the jerky movement of a silent-era film...

[JohnBee]

Unprecedented means not done before and probably only refers to the initial digital camera from Kodak.

I never really thought about it personally, though after looking I found the following advancements that would likely qualify the term(as not being done before).

• World's First full-frame stacked CMOS sensor, 24.2 MP2 resolution
• Blackout-Free Continuous Shooting at up to 20fps for up to 241 RAW/ 362 JPEG images
• Silent, Vibration-free shooting at speeds up to 1/32,000 sec
• 693 point focal plane phase detection AF points with 60 AF/AE tracking calculations per second
• Ethernet port

With that said, there's probably more in terms of the circuitry side of things(front end SLI etc), though it does however demonstrate how the use of such terms can vary based on context.

---------- Post added 06-17-17 at 05:21 PM ----------

Wouldn't that simply mean the statement makes absolutely no sense...

Actually, I believe the entire premise of an open statement such as this would imply that a question follows. ie,

Marketing; it's a game changer
Consumer; in what sense?
And so-on and so-forth...

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... the "game changer" nonsense marketing claim doesn't respond to any question, and doesn't generate any meaningful exchange of ideas. Not until you're abandoning it and start discussing more to the point.
The "so-on and so-forth" might be kettle logic built to support said nonsense marketing claim.

[JohnBee]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... the "game changer" nonsense marketing claim doesn't respond to any question, and doesn't generate any meaningful exchange of ideas..

I think it's important to account for latitude when it comes marketing strategies as these may not work equally with everyone.
Though for the most part I'm thinking these types of approaches(marketing) imply that a static statement be backed with supporting details.

With that said, here's a page that I think outlines this particular strategy; Which Sony a9 Feature Will Make Pros Switch?

Sony’s recently announced full-frame flagship a9 is a game changer for mirrorless systems. Designed to compete directly against the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 DSLRs, Sony has seemingly solved some of the major complaints of the a7 series and mirrorless systems in general.

Following this, we find the article highlighting the conditions that would justify why this particular camera is being called a game changer.

• 20fps
• shooting without blackout
• 1/32,000s exposure
• Silent Shutter
• 693 Phase Detection Auto-focus Points
• Battery Life
• Weather Sealing
• Tilt Screen

With that being said, I'd also add that several of these features appear specific to either; Sony's own camera line-up and/or mirrorless technology altogether. And so, I guess it's up to the consumer to decide which features will qualify the term.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 06-18-2017 at 08:37 PM.

[Rondec]

I guess I will just leave it that if Nikon released a camera with twice the buffer next week and 32 fps I wouldn't consider a game changer, even if it significantly upped the ante on what a sports camera can do. We've seen electronic shutters for awhile -- the KP can do 1/24000 second with one.

Anyway, regardless of whether it changes a game and if so, which one, I still don't really desire this camera. A K-1 is a better fit for me or if it wasn't there, a D810 and that's fine.

[JohnBee]

I guess I will just leave it that if Nikon released a camera with twice the buffer next week and 32 fps I wouldn't consider a game changer, even if it significantly upped the ante on what a sports camera can do.

That makes good sense, though on the flip-side, I'm thinking it could likely prove to be a game changer for others however - or perhaps even Nikon

ie, while I'm really not sure where the FPS quota extends to in the sports arena, I'm thinking raising the bar in fps could provide manufacturers with several generations of performance improvements.

[ffking]

To me a (mirrorless) game changer would be one that Kunzite (or I for that matter) would consider buying

[totsmuyco]

I would say that a game changer for Pentax would be, better AF and better image quality at high ISO and low light situations. Probably video for those who are asking for it. Maybe if they'll come up with a k-mount mirrorless camera, that might also swing some people to Pentax. I really don't like mirrorless cameras bit I guess that's the future.

[Kunzite]

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.

[normhead]

ie, while I'm really not sure where the FPS quota extends to in the sports arena, I'm thinking raising the bar in fps could provide manufacturers with several generations of performance improvements.

You really haven't defined what the optimum is for FPS. If you can get everything you desire from 15 FPS, then a camera locked in at 20 FPS would be a disadvantage. For those of us happy with 8 FPS, 20 FPS is crazy stupid. 20 FPS is really only an advantage if people decide it's what they want. It could easily fall into the category of tech failures, where people 10 years from now are saying "What ever happened to those 20 FPS cameras Sony used to make? " Your assumption that 20 FPS will become a "thing" is premature. If memory serves me well, this is just the first 20 FPS FF camera, I'm almost certain i've seen bridge cameras that could do 22. They have become so popular I can't even remember which ones they were and don't know anyone who ever owned them.

[photoptimist]

To me, 20 fps is a gamechanger in the same way that pixelshift is. For a subset of photographers and photographic scenarios, both advancements make a major difference that, in turn, becomes a selling point for A9s and K-1s respectively. But in the larger marketplace, neither advancement upends the competitive landscape.

Personally, it I had to choose between 20 fps (as well as the other features of the A9) versus pixelshift (as well as the other features of the K-1), I would (and did) pick the K-1.

[bigdavephoto]

I am not going to say that 20 FPS is a game changer but I can see an advantage for it in sports photography.


The best example I can point to is a set of photos that was, I think, 9 photographs of the Stan Fox accident during the 1995 Indianapolis 500. During that accident, a photographer captured Stan Fox's car as it was hit, broke apart, and with the front of the car gone, flying through the air. In one of the photos, Stan Fox's legs are touching the rear wing of another car. In the accident investigation after the race, those photos were vital in figuring out why the car broke in two.


That was 9 photographs, but what if the photographers had cameras that could take 15 or 20 FPS. There would have been a lot more detail for the investigation after the accident.


Being that the A9 is touted as a sports camera, I still will take that with a grain of salt until Sony produces 800mm to 1200mm glass for the A9.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Having shot the K20D and previous models, I'm left wondering how much of the DR advantage is experienced by users. ie, when the K-5 came out, a few community members participated in what we called black-out tests, in where we shot either near, or completely blacked-out images, and then lifted them(eV) in post. Needless to say the results were nothing short of impressive.

What wasn't posted however was how these tests compared on older Pentax units such as the K20D and K200D. Of which, I was genuinely surprised to see just how these now older sensors compared. And perhaps more significantly, how the lowly K200D, which was obviously nowhere near the same performance bracket stacked-up against it's now much higher specs successors. And while these older sensors were not without their flaws(banding, color degradation, signal noise etc), it remains that this would not often get in the way of matching the newer sensors in final print quality.

This brings me to my point, we only view these differences when a person uses an exposure with very little light collected such as a black frame, it however is another scenario when the images that use the full saturation of the sensor. As I said the first 2 stops recorded in a raw file contains 75% of the light data. Most cameras have enough DR to expose for a scene in direct light and still able to lift deep shadows as its only 5 stops lower light level than the exposure needed for direct sun light. The K20d was bad for banding that further degraded the image more than recorded by sites but as I showed it was still able to lift the shadows 5 stop with no banding and very little noise in those lifted shadows. When you start getting into lifting shadows more than 8 stops flare and ghosting severely limit the recordable DR.

10 stops of DR is required if you are exposing a scene that contains an area that is illuminated in direct sunlight and a room that is illuminated by candle light and you want that room to show the same brightness as the outside light. I would think this is a n extreme case for DR needed in most landscape shots.

If I have a scene that required 10 stops ( (yet alone 15)of DR I would look at bracketing 2-3 exposures into one final image, If we are lifting the shadows by 10 stops those shadows that are lifted would contain the same level of noise as a image taken at iso 102,400. Seeing as how many find iso 6400 a cutoff points with the K1, the noise found when the shadows are lifted by 15 stops would find them outright ugly

[normhead]

You have a couple of technical errors there Ian
Bright sunlight to dark shadow can be as much as 20,000:1 Far more than 5 stops.
At least in 8 bit files, the dark black end of the scale is only a value of 0-15. As it increases to 14 bit raw, your values can be 0-1024. If you are talking about where the vast majority of the graduations, the shadow has much less than the high end of the scale. I'm not really sure what you mean by 75% of the information is in the dark end of the scale. If the image is 75% dark, then 75% of the information is in the dark end of the scale. Maybe you can phrase this better.

The images that are most demanding are images with the sun in the frame.


Another couple of stops of DR would have helped me out here. Which is why smart folks don't go to 6400 for high contrast images. 100 ISO all the way.

[seagas]

Wouldn't that simply mean the statement makes absolutely no sense, and it's just a propaganda catchphrase? If you can't even say ("define") what game it's changing...
And no, marketing-presenting a feature doesn't cut it.

The mirror blackout and the EVF blackout are very different IMO, the latter appearing much worse.
And the A9 doesn't eliminate the blackout, but replaces it with the last image taken. Fast blinking vs. the jerky movement of a silent-era film...

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.