[rawr]

the same could be achieved with much lesser camera's;

A very useful image. An oldie but a goodie

The explanatory text is useful for those who haven't seen the diagram before:

Each colored box represents a certain number of megapixels. The numbers along the top and left side are print dimensions in inches at 300ppi (pixels per inch). Most books and magazines require 300ppi for photo quality. For example, the chart shows that you can make a 5" x 7" photo quality print from a 3 megapixel camera.

inches @ 300ppi (numbers inside colored boxes are megapixels)

from:
Design215 Megapixels Comparison and Maximum Print Size Charts

[JohnBee]

The explanatory text is useful for those who haven't seen the diagram before:

Thanks for the heads-up.
I added the info under the diagram also.

[Jeff Lopez]

"The loss in IQ due to facebook's compression scheme is mind blogging"
John Bee

Very true, I read it was around a 65% hit to IQ..
No wonder I get hear from my casual clients why my pics are better that theirs, usually Rebels and Iphones..I just say its a secret lol..I also noticed that most dslr pics on FB are not uploaded, they are cross posted

[normhead]

The photo is a near perfectly exposed low key image. There are no blown highlights there. And the only shadows with no detail is a small portion of the background and a small portion of the hair and that info may have been removed in post. That being said, you can tell it is not done with a modern FF camera. Your image is a very good image IMHO. I like the punch that those old Pentax cameras have.

My god, do I actually have to take a copy of this images and circle and label the blown highlights and detail-less shadows for you? Well you've finally convinced me, no good can come of this A9 worshipping discussion. The question "How is this possible" The answer is put it in your editor, and crank the contrast up until you've blown the highlights and buried the shadows in blackness." It used to be one of my favourite techniques in black and white film photography. It's not about whether or not you like this image, it's about do you need an A9 to do it.

But the camera will take fine pictures I'm sure. A little better than my K-3 images maybe, sometimes but not always.

The big thing for me from Winder's posted video, was the full frame focusing. That's impressive. I'm not convinced that 20 FPS is necessary, more than 15 or even 8. Unless of course the competition is not for "best picture" but is for "how many frames did I throw away to get this picture" which in my mind is a totally useless category. For those of us debating if we need the 8 fps of a K-3 or the 4.5 of a K-1, it certainly seems outrageous to think others think they need 20.

8 FPS is an image every .125 seconds. 20 FPS is one every .05 seconds. The difference is .75 seconds. Really, how much happens in .075 seconds? In the one image the guy with the D5 and the guy with the A9 ended up with the same shot, but the A9 guy had more throw aways. My question is "would I have the image showing with my K-1? For that particular image my answer is "probably." I wouldn't have started my shutter as soon. I owl have known what I was looking for, but a person moving that speed, my K-1 can handle that and probably do a better job on the high ISO images. But I'm guessing. In the real world, a tog could have gotten that same shot, shooting 1 frame, not 40.

I only watched the outdoor section. The photography was just too specialized to hold my interest long. I got through 19 minutes. I feel like I deserve a medal.

All the useful information was in the "look how I can frame right to the edge of the frame" part. The rest was pretty meaningless. I needed a 1 minute video. The rest was irrelevant.

But who knows, maybe 20 years from now 20 fps will be the norm, Useless as it is for 99% of my shooting, it would be nice to have it available for the other 1%.

My guess is my need for an A9 is for probably 1% of my shooting. What would you guys have as your percentage?

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-06-2017 at 11:50 AM.

[JohnBee]

My god, do I actually have to take a copy of this images and circle and label the blown highlights and detail-less shadows for you?

Or look at the histogram

ie, the only blowout I was able to find in the scene was on the sock in direct sunlight, to which I'd add is easily corrected with highlight recovery, and well within the limits of a high contrast scene exposure(for example). As for the shadow clipping, I don't see why this this could be anything other than a personal preferences and shooting style. - which clearly isn't a factor in such cases from what I can see.

.

[normhead]

Or look at the histogram

ie, the only blowout I was able to find in the scene was on the sock in direct sunlight, to which I'd add is easily corrected with highlight recovery, and well within the limits of a high contrast scene exposure(for example). As for the shadow clipping, I don't see why this this could be anything other than a personal preferences and shooting style. - which clearly isn't a factor in such cases from what I can see.

.

So, you speculate that it's not blown out, based on the histogram ( note, histograms can be quite deceptive)
That its correctable. ( Prove it.)
As for the shadow detail, all experienced photographers have seen shadow clipping that was not reversible. There is not a single clue that this isn't one of those.

I don't see why this this could be anything other than a personal preferences and shooting style. - which clearly isn't a factor in such cases from what I can see.

And I don't see any reason why it couldn't be blown highlights and loss of shadow detail caused by using too high an ISO along with high contrast lighting. It could have been done intentionally, but there's no information one way or the other to say it was, except that you think the world of the camera and can't believe it could be technically similar to every other camera ever made.

[biz-engineer]

The video D5 vs A9. Do we have to do stupid things to take uninteresting photos in order to make use of the 20 FPS and not look like a fool having spent $4.5K for a 24x36 format camera that's going to be worth $0 in 5 years anyway? The A9 is the kind of camera such that if you buy it, you must also by the flight ticket and accommodation for the next Olympics to not feel like you wasted your money. Don't Sony offer a bundle A9+Gmaster lenses+All inclusive olympics for $20000?

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-06-2017 at 01:00 PM.

[surfar]

But who knows, maybe 20 years from now 20 fps will be the norm, Useless as it is for 99% of my shooting, it would be nice to have it available for the other 1%.
My guess is my need for an A9 is for probably 1% of my shooting. What would you guys have as your percentage?

Well, my view of how id use this camera is the reverse of yours, but not those %....maybe 80/20.The only obstacle is the price,$$$onys quickly go down due to new models superceding them, so i'll wait{like I didn't with the K1}.

The Texan TB,shoots an A7 but not with native glass.More than likely i'd do the same.The Techart Pro adapter makes many of my lenses compatible but not exactly sure if the same 20fps is possible???

I'd buy the A9 today if the price was reasonable(2-3KU$)....until then its YouTube!

[normhead]

Well, my view of how id use this camera is the reverse of yours, but not those %....maybe 80/20.The only obstacle is the price,$$$onys quickly go down due to new models superceding them, so i'll wait{like I didn't with the K1}.

The Texan TB,shoots an A7 but not with native glass.More than likely i'd do the same.The Techart Pro adapter makes many of my lenses compatible but not exactly sure if the same 20fps is possible???

I'd buy the A9 today if the price was reasonable(2-3KU$)....until then its YouTube!

With a percentage like that, I too would be giving this camera a serious look. But like you, price would be an obstacle.

[surfar]

FIRMWARE 1.01 has been issued, it fixes the overheating warning that was coming on too early.

[Jeff Lopez]

FIRMWARE 1.01 has been issued, it fixes the overheating warning that was coming on too early.

It was pulled out

[surfar]

Bugs will get fixed as time goes by....same as all the other manufacturers...

[Jeff Lopez]

It is not coming too early, most reports are consistent that when they saw the overheating icon, it was indeed very hot at the bottom just around a small spot where the lens is mounted..
I dont have a A9, but I did have several Sony devices (Vaios, PS3,PS4, Xperias) and these always had overheating issues, to the point to being useless. You would be surprised the number of Sony toys overheating (even Pro cams), searching on Google, and the (1) standard Sony statement would be a useless firmware, after that they would usually say its the user lack of understanding their devices, and a $150 charge for an after warranty fix..I know this by experience, I got 3 boxes for the damn ps3..

[JohnBee]

So, you speculate that it's not blown out, based on the histogram...

I used ACR's highlight clip warning indicator

And I don't see any reason why it couldn't be blown highlights and loss of shadow detail caused by using too high an ISO...

According to the Author, the image was shot in RAW and at ISO100. Therefore, and with respect to the DR characteristics of the camera, the exposure curve would most definitely be due to processing.

PS, I checked the RAW files from the a9 to compare with those of the K-3 for example, and found no distinguishable differences in shadow or highlight characteristics between them. And so I'm thinking the a9 sensor will do just fine as a general photography type tool. ie, I perused the a9 albums on Flickr and found numerous professional images of all genres.

[Jeff Lopez]

Of course Surfar, like everything electronic..thats to be expected.
Im not against the A9, I think its a wonderful piece of technology.