# Industry News: Sony officially announces the α9 II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 3, 2019)

> *From Sony:*
> The second generation of speed, the Sony Alpha a9 II takes the impressive feature-set of its predecessor and adds enhanced connectivity, a refined body design, and even quicker performance. Utilizing the proven 24.2MP full-frame Exmor RS BSI stacked CMOS sensor and an updated BIONZ X processor, the a9 II sports especially quick and responsive capabilities. Up to 20 fps shooting is possible with a silent electronic shutter or up to 10 fps with a mechanical shutter is supported, along with a wide sensitivity range that reaches up to an expanded ISO 204800. The sensor’s design also incorporates a 693-point phase-detection autofocus system, which offers intelligent subject tracking and Real-time Eye AF to ensure critical focus on moving subjects. The BIONZ X also performs up to 60 AF/AE functions per second to go along with the 20 fps shooting for reliable results in quickly changing situations. In addition to stills, UHD 4K video recording is supported at up to 30...



Continue reading...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 3, 2019)

With video. This appears to be real.









Sony Introduces Alpha 9 II Adding Enhanced Connectivity and Workflow for Professional Sports Photographers and Photojournalists


New Alpha 9 II Combines Alpha 9’s Unrivalled Speed with New Functionality to Meet Professional Needs




presscentre.sony.eu





Same sensor, same 20 fps electronic shutter; mechanical shutter now 10 fps

- A


----------



## Mark3794 (Oct 3, 2019)

Sony is really slowing down the innovation... price of success?


----------



## armd (Oct 3, 2019)

Had they accomplished this with a 40+ mp sensor it would have been an industry slayer. Must be dual sensor construction or data processing limitations.


----------



## MadisonMike (Oct 3, 2019)

Sony guys are losing their minds, they expected so much more. Sony hit the brakes on this one. Not the big upgrade that people expected. More like an A9 1.5


----------



## Kit. (Oct 3, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> Sony is really slowing down the innovation... price of success?


The A9II changes are more about trying to _catch up_.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 3, 2019)

This update will drive the Sony fanboys bonkers but I'd say it's pretty much on point. Fix the issues with the A9 and leave alone what is working fine. I don't see this convincing many pro sports photgraphers to drop their DSLR's, but, on the other hand there no longer seem to be any glaring reasons why they couldn't. More evidence of a 24 MP 1DX Mark II in my opinion. If Sony thought sports shooters wanted more MP's they could easily have given it to them.

More evidence IMO of a split between what pro sports photographers want/ need and the nature and wildlife market.


----------



## PGSanta (Oct 3, 2019)

The A9 is still ahead of the pack in function. Sony didn’t need to press forward to be ahead of the game. For Sony pros, I hope they improved the weather sealing and ergos a good deal.


----------



## ethanz (Oct 3, 2019)

What did they actually update besides the body and the processor? It sounds as if it is the same sensor and specs as before...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 3, 2019)

ethanz said:


> What did they actually update besides the body and the processor? It sounds as if it is the same sensor and specs as before...


Nothing. they feel they didnt need to.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 3, 2019)

ethanz said:


> What did they actually update besides the body and the processor? It sounds as if it is the same sensor and specs as before...


This time it's not about "specs", but about actual needs. Weather sealing, gigabit Ethernet, remote control...


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 3, 2019)

I'd like to welcome Sony fans to what we in the trade call "mature technology" and "mature market". Sorry, but growth curves always turn into sigmoids eventually.

Also, I'd like to dedicate this thread to the people who proclaimed loudly that the 1DX3 *must* have at least 30 Mpix lest it be eaten alive by the a9II and the D6 (the latter of which, by the way, is also rumored to get the 24 Mpix treatment).


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 3, 2019)

I have been saying for a while Sony is becoming more conservative. It seems that when Sony makes a good camera they just make a "MK II" with incremental updates and refinements to the body and processor not in the sensor. fs7 ii, fs 5 ii, a7r iii, and this. maybe some of those a6xxxs but i dont follow those cameras. WIth this camera it seems like the a9 needed an update to be marketed towards sports pros for the Olympic. This release gets a bit fat MEH from me.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 3, 2019)

Kit. said:


> This time it's not about "specs", but about actual needs. Weather sealing, gigabit Ethernet, remote control...



I predict that after the initial shock dissipates, at least some fraction of Sony fanboys suddenly lose their interest in plain tech spec numbers in favor of more qualitative attributes such as ruggedness, ergonomics, and quality-of-life features, and furthermore will claim that that's what they have always thought anyway.


----------



## ethanz (Oct 3, 2019)

I'll leave this here for for some fun reading: https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/son...ographers-and-photojournalists/#disqus_thread 

It is fun to see the goal post go back and forth between brands and what actually matters in a camera.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 3, 2019)

Sony must reckon the 1DXIII isn’t going to be much of an upgrade.
I’m surprised. Maybe there are hitting limits of what they can do and don’t see much else out there to worry them. 
I wouldn’t be buying one anyway but it’s not pointing to a very exciting future. Sony may have reduced spending on development


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 3, 2019)

Interesting that they didn't try to bump up the 10 FPS mechanical shutter. I guess Sony is going all in on electronic shutter for sports.

Edit: the original A9 only did 5FPS mechanical shutter. I didn't realize it was that slow. So I guess 10 FPS is a significant upgrade.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 3, 2019)

I have never seen anything like it in the Sony Forums. They were just about all expecting a new 36Mpx sensor plus new features and now feel totally let down. Not a single post in favour on page after page. It seems just the same innards in a new body without even a boost to the evf. And the price of the old A9 is presumed not to be likely to drop (Sony has the habit of not discontinuing older models but selling hem at a discount to the latest).


----------



## bellorusso (Oct 3, 2019)

Sony is slowing down or it's just a trick? Anyways, Canon will need to be faster than a ray of light to catch up. C'mon, Canon, do something besides ridiculous amount of EOS Rebel 90000s and G5 Mark 349s.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 3, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Sony is slowing down or it's just a trick?


Sony is trying to catch up with Canon where it actually matters for Olympics.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 3, 2019)

Heh, DPR editorial:


> The a9 II is the camera Sony had to make - but they didn't make it for you
> 
> The a9 II is a camera that the average DPReview reader will probably neither need nor buy. And Sony knows it. But that's fine. Here's why.



I'm pretty sure that no matter what, a $4500 pro-oriented camera is not something the average DPReview reader will either need or buy.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 3, 2019)

ethanz said:


> I'll leave this here for for some fun reading: https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/son...ographers-and-photojournalists/#disqus_thread
> 
> It is fun to see the goal post go back and forth between brands and what actually matters in a camera.


It’s like a parallel universe. Replace Sony with Canon and it would like a thread from here. There seems to be confusion on what a Fanboy is. They are either a defender of Sony no matter what or someone who criticizes Sony. You can be called a fanboy for either.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 3, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> Sony is really slowing down the innovation... price of success?


Diminishing returns. Also funny sports oriented camera with only SD slots and no Cfexpress slot or no way to stop it from locking out while clearing buffer.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 3, 2019)

They have fixed the few weaknesses of an otherwise great camera, so it's a decent update.
But the most eagerly awaited Sony camera right now is the A7s III


----------



## flip314 (Oct 3, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Heh, DPR editorial:
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that no matter what, a $4500 pro-oriented camera is not something the average DPReview reader will either need or buy.



And yet the readers will have a LOT to say about the camera, even though they never had any intention of buying it...


----------



## Pape (Oct 3, 2019)

Lot of sony big whites on Doha track and field games . Good place to give them chanse,not most rainy place


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 3, 2019)

Same EVF, same sensor, same LCD resolution that's not fully touch screen LCD, no 4K60 and incremental upgrades for $4500.

Sony definitely slowing down and behind the competitors in some area. After A7RIV and A9II, I'll temper my expectation regarding A7SIII as well.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 3, 2019)

I am surprised at how their flag-ship ML just kinda landed in a way that no one wanted it to? Very interesting to see how the sales will be for this model. I definitely don't see too many people upgrading to this from an a9.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 3, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Same EVF, same sensor, same LCD resolution that's not fully touch screen LCD, no 4K60 and incremental upgrades for $4500.
> 
> Sony definitely slowing down and behind the competitors in some area. After A7RIV and A9II, I'll temper my expectation regarding A7SIII as well.


None of those things would have made it a better sports camera which is exactly what it's designed to be. I have no intention of buying one but I appreciate that Sony, like Canon/Nikon, is maturing as a brand and is beginning to show some appreciation for the needs of pro photographers. Competition is always good for consumers and I'm looking forward to some really outstanding photos from the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 3, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> None of those things would have made it a better sports camera which is exactly what it's designed to be.


I'd be delighted to use 240fps full res (however many dots they nowadays have) EVF for anything, especially sports.


----------



## peters (Oct 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I have never seen anything like it in the Sony Forums. They were just about all expecting a new 36Mpx sensor plus new features and now feel totally let down. Not a single post in favour on page after page. It seems just the same innards in a new body without even a boost to the evf. And the price of the old A9 is presumed not to be likely to drop (Sony has the habit of not discontinuing older models but selling hem at a discount to the latest).


Haha, jeah, I am surprised as well  
And their blabla-forum-bullshit just sounds like none of them could ever buy a camera like that


----------



## SteveC (Oct 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I have never seen anything like it in the Sony Forums. They were just about all expecting a new 36Mpx sensor plus new features and now feel totally let down. Not a single post in favour on page after page. It seems just the same innards in a new body without even a boost to the evf. And the price of the old A9 is presumed not to be likely to drop (Sony has the habit of not discontinuing older models but selling hem at a discount to the latest).



Good, perhaps they can troll themselves.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 3, 2019)

Interesting that Sony can still only achieve 10fps with a mechanical shutter even with no mirror, Nikon and Canon have bested that with a mirror and full AF tracking functionality for years.

For sure the MILC camera form factor holds some interesting advantages for some users, which I have complimented them on before on many occasions, but it does illustrate how rock solid the high end DSLR’s are for what they are designed to do. If I slow my 1DX MkII’s down to 10fps and prioritize AF accuracy it feels like it is working in slow motion and the AF keeper rate is extremely high.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 3, 2019)

Apparently Sony said they couldn't create the processing power at this time to deliver more megapixels. That's fine. 24mp is honestly fine more most sports shooting unless you're really looking for extreme crops. This isn't a very big improvement, but the mechanical shutter moving to 10fps is a very big change. If you're a strobe shooter, you no longer have to swap back and forth to use your strobes and severely handicap your camera when you're not using them or switch back to E-shutter...but then you might still run into LED light problems and have to switch back. In all honesty, this is the change that needed to happen at the launch of the A9, not with the A9II.


----------



## MadScotsman (Oct 3, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Good, perhaps they can troll themselves.



Not likely.

They can’t help themselves. It’s compulsive. I follow a lot of disparate forums, local photography, senior portraits, Canon specific tips, tricks, gear talk, etc.

Anyone that posts a pic they are particularly proud of and tags it as “EOS R/RP” or even “Taken with my Nikon Z6/Z7” will set off a chorus of squawking that sounds like those seagulls from Finding Dory. “Can you return it? You have to buy a Sony. What a mistake. Why did you do that. Your picture sucks because it wasn’t taken with a Sony” etc etc etc ad nauseum.

The single most obnoxious user culture I’ve ever seen. With the possible exception of Harley Davidson.


----------



## ethanz (Oct 3, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> If I slow my 1DX MkII’s down to 10fps and prioritize AF accuracy it feels like it is working in slow motion and the AF keeper rate is extremely high.



Do you mean that if you set your 1dx2 max FPS rate to 10 instead of 14, the AF seems to be better?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 3, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting that Sony can still only achieve 10fps with a mechanical shutter even with no mirror, Nikon and Canon have bested that with a mirror and full AF tracking functionality for years.
> 
> For sure the MILC camera form factor holds some interesting advantages for some users, which I have complimented them on before on many occasions, but it does illustrate how rock solid the high end DSLR’s are for what they are designed to do. If I slow my 1DX MkII’s down to 10fps and prioritize AF accuracy it feels like it is working in slow motion and the AF keeper rate is extremely high.


True. I was even more surprised to discover the the original A9 could only do 5 FPS with a mechanical shutter. Now I'm curious to see just how good the electronic/rolling shutter really is. That stacked chip is supposed to read out pretty fast but there still has to be some artifacts when shooting moving subjects or with electronic flashs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 3, 2019)

Well it is difficult to quantify and depends on how you phrase it really.
If at 10fps I get 9 sharp keepers is that better or worse than 14 FPS with 12 keepers? The percentage of keepers is higher but the actual choice of sharp frames is fewer.
To me running the 1DX MKII at 10fps seems pedestrian, like riding a race horse reined in at a canter.
What I do like about the frame rate/.speed of the thing regardless of where it is set is the minimal viewfinder blackout.


ethanz said:


> Do you mean that if you set your 1dx2 max FPS rate to 10 instead of 14, the AF seems to be better?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 3, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> I'd be delighted to use 240fps full res (however many dots they nowadays have) EVF for anything, especially sports.


That does sound nice but if pushing around all those pixels increases the time lag in the viewfinder it's going to be harder to track moving subjects. I think that viewfinder is spec'd for minimal lag. For other kinds of subjects I love a viewfinder like you're describing.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 3, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> It’s like a parallel universe. Replace Sony with Canon and it would like a thread from here. There seems to be confusion on what a Fanboy is. They are either a defender of Sony no matter what or someone who criticizes Sony. You can be called a fanboy for either.


It's funny how some comments from that thread resemble typical arguments from this forum:



> Erik M Durnall
> The YouTube sales people and fanboy world are completely disconnected from the reality of the professional world. People think that making a YouTube video or writing a post on a fanboy rumor site about their erotic camera fantasies means that some executive at a massive global corporation is going to see it and think "oh boy we better make that". It's so pathetic. People are entitled to their fantasies but crying and throwing a tantrum is beneath juvenile.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 3, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> The A9 is still ahead of the pack in function. Sony didn’t need to press forward to be ahead of the game. For Sony pros, I hope they improved the weather sealing and ergos a good deal.


The drain plug comes with some pipe tape. No leaks anymore. Note: Remove the drain plug before attaching to a tripod.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 3, 2019)

flip314 said:


> And yet the readers will have a LOT to say about the camera, even though they never had any intention of buying it...


That's called vicarious living. Spec sheets can be printed for next to nothing.


----------



## 12Broncos (Oct 3, 2019)

Disappointed maybe, but you can't argue they surprised us with their announcement. Maybe Canon will surprise us.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 3, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> Not likely.
> 
> They can’t help themselves. It’s compulsive. I follow a lot of disparate forums, local photography, senior portraits, Canon specific tips, tricks, gear talk, etc.
> 
> ...


I hear you, I almost feel sorry for them... almost...

I drive a classic car and follow loads of different forums and sites, and there is this insane cult of people that INSISTS that every car MUST be exact down to ridiculous detail the way it left the factory, otherwise “You shouldn’t be allowed to own it, you have completely destroyed it” etc.Why can’t they just keep their car that way and let other people do whatever they like...?


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Oct 3, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> Sony is really slowing down the innovation... price of success?



Agreed
Minimal update


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 3, 2019)

Drcampbellicu said:


> Agreed
> Minimal update


What about insect eye AF? Wasn’t that included? Surely a must have feature for IIF - insects in flight. .


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Surely a must have feature for IIF - insects in flight. .



How about IFF? The camera should automatically tell fellow Sony shooters from the uncivilized masses shooting with inferior cameras!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 3, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> ...More evidence of a 24 MP 1DX Mark II in my opinion. If Sony thought sports shooters wanted more MP's they could easily have given it to them.
> 
> More evidence IMO of a split between what pro sports photographers want/ need and the nature and wildlife market.



I disagree. I still expect and hope that the 1Dx III has at least 30 mp. Having shot with the 1D, 5D and R and experienced no downsides with the higher resolution sensors, I would be shocked if Canon opts for fewer mps. I don't know about other sports photographers, but I certainly would like more resolution. In fact, it can be at least as important in sports shooting as in birding. Many sports photographers, myself included, rely on either single focus point or an expanded single point in order to get the player you need to be in focus to actually be in focus. That means cropping. Sports are messy and messy also means cropping. Sometimes radical cropping. Add to that the fact you can be just as distance limited shooting sports as you can with birds, which also means cropping. 

The vast majority of sports photographers don't have access to $8,000 lenses. People's opinions on this get skewed because they watch NFL, NBA and Olympics and think that's how most sports photographers shoot.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I disagree. I still expect and hope that the 1Dx III has at least 30 mp. Having shot with the 1D, 5D and R and experienced no downsides with the higher resolution sensors, I would be shocked if Canon opts for fewer mps.



If I had to bet, I'd put my money on 28±2 MP. Going over 30 would certainly give Canon some major bragging rights though, if they can make it work, performance-wise. The 90D/M6II's major jump in throughput did take me by surprise (my prediction was something like 28MP/8fps based on past trends) so perhaps I'm being too conservative. After all, the *M6II throughput rivals that of the 9II! *And that's with a mechanical shutter rather than electronic.



> Many sports photographers, myself included, rely on either single focus point or an expanded single point in order to get the player you need to be in focus to actually be in focus.



You should just switch to a Sony or Nikon body, they can automatically figure out which player you want to shoot and start tracking them


----------



## sdz (Oct 4, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> Sony is really slowing down the innovation... price of success?


Moving the margin is costly and difficult.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 4, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I disagree. I still expect and hope that the 1Dx III has at least 30 mp. Having shot with the 1D, 5D and R and experienced no downsides with the higher resolution sensors, I would be shocked if Canon opts for fewer mps. I don't know about other sports photographers, but I certainly would like more resolution. In fact, it can be at least as important in sports shooting as in birding. Many sports photographers, myself included, rely on either single focus point or an expanded single point in order to get the player you need to be in focus to actually be in focus. That means cropping. Sports are messy and messy also means cropping. Sometimes radical cropping. Add to that the fact you can be just as distance limited shooting sports as you can with birds, which also means cropping.
> 
> The vast majority of sports photographers don't have access to $8,000 lenses. People's opinions on this get skewed because they watch NFL, NBA and Olympics and think that's how most sports photographers shoot.


I'm not advocating one way or the other I'm just making a calculated guess. I don't think you get 6K full frame with a 30 MP sensor but that rumor may turn out to be false. I agree that the 30 MP sensor in the 5D mark IV takes a crop much better than the 1DX for making high quality prints (nature and wildlife) but I'm not sure how much that matters to the sport's shooters Canon cares about. Pushing work straight to the web as quickly as possible seems to be the priority. Of course, if you are a sport's shooter I'll defer to your opinion on that.

I use my big Canon EF gear primarily for nature and wildlife and I'm resigned to the fact that Canon couldn't care less about what I want. That's probably a sound business decision on their part.

My general rule is I need to be able to get a decent resolution vertical crop out of the height of a horizontal frame (if that makes sense). If I can work out a horizontal crop that's a bonus but I can't really count on it since I prefer the verticals. If I were more talented I might be able to shoot action vertically (single point focus) but in my experience that's pretty tough to do without your subject running out of the frame at the worst possible time. I agree that sometime that crop is a challenge with the 1DX mark II. 24MP's would be better. 30 would be perfect but I don't think we're going to get that.

I would be happy to be wrong but I don't think I am. Personally, I don't expect to buy any more Canon DSLR's. They are great tools and I'm happy with the results they've help me achieve but the market and my interests seem to be going in other directions.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 4, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> ...My general rule is I need to be able to get a decent resolution vertical crop out of the height of a horizontal frame (if that makes sense)...



This actually reminds me of another reason for more resolution. Almost everything I shoot ends up on the web, with a fair amount also ending up in print. For web images, horizontal is almost a mandate, and if it is going to be on a banner, if has to be a narrow horizontal. At the same time, if you need to use the same image in a publication, it might need to be cropped vertically. All of this means shooting loose and cropping later. 

I guess one question is whether Canon values video shooters over stills shooters for the 1D line. My assumption has always been that they still consider the 1D to be primarily a stills camera and video takes a backseat. I could be wrong.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> The A9 is still ahead of the pack in function. Sony didn’t need to press forward to be ahead of the game. For Sony pros, I hope they improved the weather sealing and ergos a good deal.



They specifically mentioned improved waterproofing on the battery door cover! Which has been problematic in the past.


----------



## Tremotino (Oct 4, 2019)

Who is now *******?? It may be Sony this time. 
Less Megapixels than a eos M6 mark II less mechanical speed than an eos mark II wtf?! 
sony fanboys bust be exploding


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 4, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> That does sound nice but if pushing around all those pixels increases the time lag in the viewfinder it's going to be harder to track moving subjects. I think that viewfinder is spec'd for minimal lag. For other kinds of subjects I love a viewfinder like you're describing.


Surely you understood that the point was a better EVF *does *make the camera a better sports camera, and it obviously implies lesser lag.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2019)

Thom Hogan, who is a pro sports photographer and writes sensible, informative articles has written a positive response http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews...ber-2019-newsv/sony-a9-mark-ii-announced.html in contrast to 15 pages from angry Sony addicts on Fredmiranda. But, there is a real reason for the difference in opinion. He has written in the past how it is crucial for him to send off small files quickly, and this is different from most Sony A9 users. They tend to be bird and nature photographers who love the AF of the A9 but are frustrated by its low resolution and were led by the rumour sites to expect a 36 Mpx sensor.

It is amusing to read their comments castigating Sony and thinking of moving to Canon - it's the mirrorless mirroring the mirrored!


----------



## Joules (Oct 4, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> That does sound nice but if pushing around all those pixels increases the time lag in the viewfinder it's going to be harder to track moving subjects. I think that viewfinder is spec'd for minimal lag. For other kinds of subjects I love a viewfinder like you're describing.


I think you use lag to describe the time it takes between something happing in reality and it being displayed on the display.

Assuming there is no initial delay for starting the imaging pipeline and display, this depends only on how long it takes to process and display a single frame.

In that case, higher frame rates are the way to reduce lag, not increase it.

The faster you can process the image, the faster you can display it, given an appropriate display. And that reduces lag. At 60 Hz for example, each image is displayed for 16.7 ms and the processing time can not be higher than that. At 120 Hz, each image is displayed only 8.3 ms, but processing must be twice as fast to allow such a frame rate.

Reducing lag and perceived blur this way does make tracking objects considerably easier though. I use a gaming display with a 144 Hz refresh rate on my computer and it is a night and day difference between that and 60 Hz.

The EOS R viewfinder has a resolution of only 1.280 x 960 pixels. It only does 120Hz 720p video, (1280 x 720 pixels) but I'm wondering: do we know the refresh rate of the R? I had assumed 60 Hz because that's what the LV display is, but the viewfinder spec isn't mentioned on Canon's site I believe.

In any case the M6 II does 120 Hz 1080p (1920 x 1080 pixels) video so it should have the processing power to drive a high res, high refresh viewfinder. A future high res R may give us just that.


----------



## BillB (Oct 4, 2019)

12Broncos said:


> Disappointed maybe, but you can't argue they surprised us with their announcement. Maybe Canon will surprise us.


Maybe the surprise was they didn't surprise us.


----------



## rjbray01 (Oct 4, 2019)

MadisonMike said:


> Sony guys are losing their minds, they expected so much more. Sony hit the brakes on this one. Not the big upgrade that people expected. More like an A9 1.5



Sony are *******

******* I tell you


----------



## rjbray01 (Oct 4, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> Not likely.
> 
> They can’t help themselves. It’s compulsive. I follow a lot of disparate forums, local photography, senior portraits, Canon specific tips, tricks, gear talk, etc.
> 
> ...


What you say is of course completely true and I for one get very angry sometimes when I see some of the vile comments posted

I can simultaneously see how easy it is on a a forum such as this to think "that's a load of nonsense" and then write a response which feels like you are proving your superior intellect and will impress everyone - when all it does is show what an awful personality you have

Its a trap I can fall into easily - particularly with work-,related emails 

I have a horrible side to my personality of which I am terribly ashamed and do a lot to suppress - but sometimes it escapes

On the plus side this forum is also stacked with some really fantastic people who have taught me so much and pointed out things I would never have realized - all with an air of decency and helpfulness

Overall I love Canon Rumors and I think Craig (is that the right name?) does a great job of not being over-censorious - which I appreciate personally - if people shoot their mouths off then most of us can see the problem is at their end and not that of the intended recipient !


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 4, 2019)

Joules said:


> I think you use lag to describe the time it takes between something happing in reality and it being displayed on the display.
> 
> Assuming there is no initial delay for starting the imaging pipeline and display, this depends only on how long it takes to process and display a single frame.
> 
> ...



Isn't the the resolution you named the resolution of the back-screen?
The R's viewfinder has a resolution of approximately 3,9 MP.


----------



## amorse (Oct 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Thom Hogan, who is a pro sports photographer and writes sensible, informative articles has written a positive response http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews...ber-2019-newsv/sony-a9-mark-ii-announced.html in contrast to 15 pages from angry Sony addicts on Fredmiranda. But, there is a real reason for the difference in opinion. He has written in the past how it is crucial for him to send off small files quickly, and this is different from most Sony A9 users. They tend to be bird and nature photographers who love the AF of the A9 but are frustrated by its low resolution and were led by the rumour sites to expect a 36 Mpx sensor.
> 
> It is amusing to read their comments castigating Sony and thinking of moving to Canon - it's the mirrorless mirroring the mirrored!


That makes a lot of sense. I have no horse in this race, but it seemed to me that the a9ii was what Sony needed (though it is not a product I'd be in the market for so take all this with a grain of salt). Sony has been constantly lambasted for poor ergonomics and their weather sealing, so targeting both of those things seems like the right choice. Maybe Sony has come to the conclusion that if they want to see a mass transition to the a9 from other flagship bodies, they need to cater to the needs of larger businesses who buy a lot of cameras (i.e. connectivity/reliability improvements) and that means focusing on utility-type upgrades and less flashy or newsworthy upgrades. 

I mean, at the end of the day sports cars are incredible machines that create a ton of desire, but mini vans get a lot of tasks done without hassle. Maybe Sony thinks they need a bit more utility and a little less flash, and this is the result of that decision.


----------



## criscokkat (Oct 4, 2019)

It'll be funny if after all this gnashing of teeth if the next top of the line sports camera war is a 24mp A9II and Nikon d6 vs a 28-30 mp Canon. Canon just showed a major breakthrough in sensor readout speed with their new aps-c cameras. If they apply that tech to a larger but less dense sensor there's no reason they shouldn't be able to hit the metrics those cameras have and still be an extra 20-30% more MP for the occasional crop. I think that's important because Sony has had a history of releasing new cameras on a rather random schedule. I suspect that the A9 II is an attempt to try to capture as many pro's as possible while the iron is hot, before professional Nikon and Canon sports mirrorless cameras come out. To do this, they had to change things outside the sensor more than in. Rather than wait until next year when they have new sensors, they did it this year. The olympics are next year and now that their lens selection is fully fleshed out they want to win as many pro converts as possible. 

I suspect we'll see an a9III before fall of 2021 with a newer, larger sensor. Canon's mirrorless sports camera will probably use the same sensor as the 1dxiii, so they will most likely need that extra mp to be in the same range.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 4, 2019)

ahsanford said:


> With video. This appears to be real.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What Sony fail to mention is that its actually only 12 FPS in uncompressed RAW, 20 Compressed RAW is misleading, The 1DXII is actually faster. I dont like this misleading advertising as everywhere you read it says 20FPS RAW, not entirely true.

1DXii 14FPS RAW and 16FPS RAW Mirror lockout
A9 and A9II - 12FPS RAW (20 Compressed RAW) or 10FPS RAW with shutter.

Who the heck spends that much money to shoot at 20FPS compressed RAW file and lose dynamic range and other factors, I want the full RAW file all the time! I'd never shoot with anything less. The older Canon 1Dxii is still faster!


----------



## Joules (Oct 4, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Isn't the the resolution you named the resolution of the back-screen?
> The R's viewfinder has a resolution of approximately 3,9 MP.


Canon likes to state their resolution in dots, instead of pixels. Each Pixel is made out of 3 dots. Quote from Canon on the R viewfinder resolution:

"3.69 Million dots (1280x960)"

The first figure is meaningless to me. When I think about resolution, I think about pixels, which can display each color. Not individually colored dots.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 4, 2019)

Joules said:


> I think you use lag to describe the time it takes between something happing in reality and it being displayed on the display.
> 
> Assuming there is no initial delay for starting the imaging pipeline and display, this depends only on how long it takes to process and display a single frame.
> 
> ...


I don't think the refresh rate of the EVF and the sample rate of the sensor are the same thing or even directly related. My TV redraws the screen at 120 HZ but most of the time it's just redrawing the same image several times in a row as there aren't 120 images per second of content. 24 FPS movies are shown at the cinema at 72 or 96 HZ by drawing the same image 3 or 4 times. Gaming is different because you are instructing the computer to generate content at a higher rate. A camera can't really do that. Or it won't just because you use a display with a higher refresh rate. The higher refresh rate of 120 or 240 HZ EVF is simply to avoid flicker and more closely approximate the experience of an optical viewfinder.

The real time lag is caused by the camera having to read the entire sensor, demosaic the image, process it , down-sample and then present it to the viewfinder in a form it can display. A measurable amount of time will have passed while it's accomplishing this. Anything that adds to that process increases the time lag between when an event is actually happening and when it gets displayed in the viewfinder. Greater lag makes it more difficult to track moving targets. In my experience that is the biggest problem with EVFs.

As a demonstration of this. Put your camera on a tripod with the rear panel display on. Step back a little bit and then do a couple of quick pans. You will notice that the image on the rear display noticeably lags behind where the lens is currently pointed. With your eye up to the EVF this same things happens but since you are looking through the EFV and can't see what is happening in real time it is harder to perceive. Admittedly the lag is vastly improved over a few years ago but if you are trying to capture the right moment in an action sequence it can be a big deal if you are used to an OVF that functions at the speed of light.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Oct 4, 2019)

I was expecting to see a new and more ergonomic form factor. it could improve the handling once a 600 mm is attached and better heat dissipation allow them to crank up the FPS


----------



## mpmark (Oct 4, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Sony is slowing down or it's just a trick? Anyways, Canon will need to be faster than a ray of light to catch up. C'mon, Canon, do something besides ridiculous amount of EOS Rebel 90000s and G5 Mark 349s.



what exactly do they need to catch up with? The 1dxii actaully shoots faster then the new a9, its marketing, look up the "compressed raw crap". It only shoots up to 12fps uncompressed raw, 3 year old 1dxii shoots up to 16 uncompressed raw.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 4, 2019)

mpmark said:


> what exactly do they need to catch up with? The 1dxii actaully shoots faster then the new a9, its marketing, look up the "compressed raw crap". It only shoots up to 12fps uncompressed raw, 3 year old 1dxii shoots up to 16 uncompressed raw.


It also has a mechanical shutter and full AF tracking at 14fps, and 4K 60p, the Sony can’t manage either.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 5, 2019)

The A9II is certainly a disappointment to wildlife/bird photographers who crave more MPs and were hoping for 30+ while still maintaining 20FPS (or more). But Sony is dead set on the sports/photojournalist market (just read the press release from the A9 and A9II). The changes in the A9II seems like an obvious list of features Sony would have gotten from pros already shooting their system and polling pros still shooting CaNikon. 

Sony usually throws giant press events for even a single lens release or their dinky APS-C bodies. They didn't do a single thing other than their press release and some phone calls to the YouTube guys/gals for the A9II. Sony knows this isn't a typical type of Mark II release. They probably shouldn't have used the II moniker but in the end it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

I was one waiting for a higher MP A9II....I had a standing preorder in with my dealer before even seeing the real specs. That preorder is cancelled for now but I haven't totally written off the A9II.

There are a couple things buried in the press that the A9II improved upon other than the ergo, weather sealing, better card slots and other connectivity items.....those relate to Sony updating the processor in the camera. The new processor is claimed to improve AF tracking (yet to be seen if it is significant) but more importantly it is claimed to decrease the EVF lag and most importantly (to me having used the A9 for over a year now) they can now use the full EVF resolution in the 120Hz refresh mode. The EVF picture in the A9 at 120Hz is pretty lame but 60Hz mode is too difficult to follow fast moving objects. Being able to use the full 3M dot EVF in the fast mode will be a big difference. Many people are upset the A9II didn't get the 5M dot EVF from the A7RIV but it seems that there would be no way to make use of that resolution when at 120Hz and feeding 20FPS shooting through the EVF.

It is because of these EVF changes in addition to the ergonomic changes (which I've tried now with the A7RIV and have put the cameras at an equal ergo level to the Z7 I used) that keep me slightly interested in an A9II.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 5, 2019)

mpmark said:


> what exactly do they need to catch up with? The 1dxii actaully shoots faster then the new a9, its marketing, look up the "compressed raw crap". It only shoots up to 12fps uncompressed raw, 3 year old 1dxii shoots up to 16 uncompressed raw.



True, but who shoots these types of bodies (whether for sports or wildlife) at ISO 100-200 anyways. Extreme level testing by Jim Kasson shows no compromise to the IQ of the Sony compressed RAW above ISO 200.

What they need to catch up on is an AF system. I've owned and used both cameras (A9 and 1DXII) for years and anyone claiming the 1DXII system is competitive with the A9 is too far entrenched in the Canon fanboy cult that they can't extricate themselves and likely never will.

The A9II is a hard sell to me at $6K CDN....spending $7.5K CDN on a 1 series DSLR in 2020 is a virtually impossible sale. I'm much more interested in a Canon 1DX MILC but I think we will all have to be very patient....maybe Winter Olympics in China??

If Canon release a 1DX MILC competitive with what the A9 is and the 600 f/4 DO RF, I will be back in Canon land faster than you can blink an eye....until then I will soldier on with my kaleidoscope of gear brands....


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> It also has a mechanical shutter and full AF tracking at 14fps, and 4K 60p, the Sony can’t manage either.


After shooting 20FPS e-shutter, blackout free for the past 1.5 years alongside my 1DX2, D500, D850, I can't imagine why anyone would care what a mechanical shutter can do unless you do use flash for your work. Granted every other MILC out there is garbage for e-shutter work so certainly when considering an EOS R or Z7 or A7RIV it should be an important factor but the A9 is different.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 5, 2019)

I don't have much experience with electronic shutters for stills. Information on electronic shutter speeds for stills isn't easy to come by but this topic interested me so I've done a bit of research. Electroniic shutter speeds are the time it takes the electronic (rolling) shutter to read the entire sensor. These numbers aren't perfect but so far they are the best I could do.

Canon R --- 80 ms
Canon M6 Mark II --- 46 ms
FujiFilm X-T3 --- 20 ms
Sony A9 --- 6 ms

Smaller numbers would seem to be better.
80 ms is approximately 1/12th of a second.
6 ms is approximately 1/150th of a second.

Canon appears to be making progress on this but they probably have some work to do before they can make a mirrorless that can compete with the IDX's using an electronic shutter. I'm not sure what the upper limit for mechanical shutter would be without a mirror. It's possible that Canon could do a 20 FPS mechanical shutter sans/mirror but presumably you would have to blackout the image while the shutter is closed.

edit: Hard to put a number on the 1DX Mark II because all of the tests are for 4K video. 4K video tests put the 1DX Mark II at about 15 ms which sounds about right. Rolling shutter for video in the 1DX Mark II is much better than any other Canon DSLR/Hybrid that I've worked with any very similar to the X-T3.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 5, 2019)

I, for one, wish Sony would once and for all make that perfect camera. Why? Because Sony fans don't come here to gloat, but to discharge their envy and disappointment. If Sony did make a camera that large numbers of working professionals and other actual photographers (not smartphone dreamers who just think about photography) decided to buy, then Sony fans would have no more reason to troll around. 

Keep trying, Sony!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 5, 2019)

mpmark said:


> What Sony fail to mention is that its actually only 12 FPS in uncompressed RAW, 20 Compressed RAW is misleading, The 1DXII is actually faster. I dont like this misleading advertising as everywhere you read it says 20FPS RAW, not entirely true.
> 
> 1DXii 14FPS RAW and 16FPS RAW Mirror lockout
> A9 and A9II - 12FPS RAW (20 Compressed RAW) or 10FPS RAW with shutter.
> ...


at 20 fps my IDX Mark II does 8 bit jpg's. Actually I guess that's 24 to 60 FPS and it's cropped to 4K. Sounds like somebody is getting their talking points from DPR's comment section. My understanding is that the electronic shutter in these cameras works pretty well and Canon is going to have to work pretty hard to catch up. Assuming they don't go with mechanical shutters or somehow manage to leap ahead with a global shutter.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2019)

arbitrage said:


> True, but who shoots these types of bodies (whether for sports or wildlife) at ISO 100-200 anyways. Extreme level testing by Jim Kasson shows no compromise to the IQ of the Sony compressed RAW above ISO 200.
> 
> What they need to catch up on is an AF system. I've owned and used both cameras (A9 and 1DXII) for years and anyone claiming the 1DXII system is competitive with the A9 is too far entrenched in the Canon fanboy cult that they can't extricate themselves and likely never will.
> 
> ...


How are you finding the A7RIV for AF?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting that Sony can still only achieve 10fps with a mechanical shutter even with no mirror, Nikon and Canon have bested that with a mirror and full AF tracking functionality for years.


I doubt that’s all they *can* achieve, but they seem to want to feature electronic shutters. I’d wager they’re using the same purchased Nidec shutter in this as they used in A7Riii, not a new Sony design.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 5, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I don't have much experience with electronic shutters for stills. Information on electronic shutter speeds for stills isn't easy to come by but this topic interested me so I've done a bit of research. Electroniic shutter speeds are the time it takes the electronic (rolling) shutter to read the entire sensor. These numbers aren't perfect but so far they are the best I could do.
> 
> Canon R --- 80 ms
> Canon M6 Mark II --- 46 ms
> ...



This subject also interests me. I assume you've also come across Jim Kasson's blog where he tests cameras' e-shutter readout speeds? Because of its e-shutter performance (and because it's less of an investment than an a9), I have contemplated getting an X-T3, though ideally, I would love to purchase a Canon system with an e-shutter speed fast enough for normal, non-action use without artifacts. Shooting stills on movie sets (where being silent is mandatory) without needing a blimp, that's the dream for me.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 5, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I don't have much experience with electronic shutters for stills. Information on electronic shutter speeds for stills isn't easy to come by but this topic interested me so I've done a bit of research. Electroniic shutter speeds are the time it takes the electronic (rolling) shutter to read the entire sensor. These numbers aren't perfect but so far they are the best I could do.
> 
> Canon R --- 80 ms
> ...
> 80 ms is approximately 1/12th of a second.


It's not what is seen in its EVF, whose panning lag I could not distinguish from the panning lag of A9's EVF.

By the way, A9's IBIS goes haywire with slow or moderate panning, both horizontally and vertically. Hopefully they fixed that in A9II, otherwise for most sports its IBIS needs to be turned off.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 6, 2019)

As a bonafide sony hater I have to say well done on this camera. They seem to be learning that there is more to a camera than a self pleasuring spec sheet. Still a long way to go but maybe they are finally heading in te right direction.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 6, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It's not what is seen in its EVF, whose panning lag I could not distinguish from the panning lag of A9's EVF.
> 
> By the way, A9's IBIS goes haywire with slow or moderate panning, both horizontally and vertically. Hopefully they fixed that in A9II, otherwise for most sports its IBIS needs to be turned off.


hang on a minute... that's a serious limitation then


----------



## vscd (Oct 6, 2019)

No need for Sony news on a canon rumors site. Only my humble opinion


----------



## Traveler (Oct 6, 2019)

What if Sony just locked some of its features (like FPS) and it’s going to release them with a future FW update (possibly after canon releases their sports camera). 
1) they don’t put too much stress on their competitors so they won’t develop anything too crazy
2) they can refresh their sales without releasing a new gear (which they’ve done before).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2019)

vscd said:


> No need for Sony news on a canon rumors site. Only my humble opinion


You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on a matter like this. However, it was started by the site owner and there have been five pages of discussion, suggesting there is some interest here in what Sony does and how it might impinge on our decisions on Canon and other gear.


----------



## BillB (Oct 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on a matter like this. However, it was started by the site owner and there have been five pages of discussion, suggesting there is some interest here in what Sony does and how it might impinge on our decisions on Canon and other gear.


Besides, there does not seem to be all that much else to talk about at the moment.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 6, 2019)

Traveler said:


> What if Sony just locked some of its features (like FPS) and it’s going to release them with a future FW update (possibly after canon releases their sports camera).


"What if Sony intentionally releases an inferior products to give up the market to the competitors."


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> How are you finding the A7RIV for AF?



I have only held it at the camera store so far. I wasn't going to order one as I was betting on the 36MP A9II rumour and that would have been enough pixels for me. I have now ordered an A7RIV and will have it in my hands next week. I'm not sure if I will end up keeping it or not. Depends on the AF, how disturbing the EVF blackout and lag is for tracking BIF (the Z7 was too distracting and A7RIV should be similar) and how the noise is as ISO climbs and I crop the files. I do want more than 24MPs for some of my shooting but often 24 is enough despite some level of cropping. What I don't need are final images of 40-60MP....I use these high MP cameras to crop and end up wi th 20-30 ideally.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 6, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It's not what is seen in its EVF, whose panning lag I could not distinguish from the panning lag of A9's EVF.
> 
> By the way, A9's IBIS goes haywire with slow or moderate panning, both horizontally and vertically. Hopefully they fixed that in A9II, otherwise for most sports its IBIS needs to be turned off.



I've never once turned off IBIS or OSS even for shooting tiny violet-green swallows in flight. You are the first I've ever seen mention this. Defective lens or IBIS unit maybe in the one you used?


----------



## Kit. (Oct 6, 2019)

arbitrage said:


> I've never once turned off IBIS or OSS even for shooting tiny violet-green swallows in flight. You are the first I've ever seen mention this. Defective lens or IBIS unit maybe in the one you used?


Zeiss 85/1.8 (no lens IS). I asked the Sony salesperson, they said that it's expected and IBIS should be turned off for such panning.

Maybe when you are using a lens with IS, the A9 silently turns IBIS off, and that's why you have not experienced it?

And really, how can the IBIS unit be such "defective" that it only shows on slow panning, with the EVF image jumping back and forth and the camera noticeably vibrating in hands, but when you don't pan it works nice?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2019)

As far as new releases go the one camera I am thinking of that might make me change it all up system wise is the Fujifilm GFX 100. Talk about disrupting, it has destroyed so many previous medium format issues that it is now, seemingly, a usable daily camera and it would appear a better fit for the style of photography I enjoy the most. 

I know storage and file size are often mentioned when talking about new cameras with more MP, for context the GFX 100 16 bit RAW files are over 200MB each.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 6, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> Sony is really slowing down the innovation... price of success?


I think photographers slow down their thinking price


Kit. said:


> "What if Sony intentionally releases an inferior products to give up the market to the competitors."


Sony doesn't need to. Canon already took over 20% of their full frame market share in Japan's marketplace the last half of last year alone.

Now that Nikon and Canon are leaping beyond a hurdle that Sony never had too, because Sony didn't have the plethora to evolve, it will become a different playing field as half a dozen companies release bodies and lenses with similar features.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 6, 2019)

mpmark said:


> What Sony fail to mention is that its actually only 12 FPS in uncompressed RAW, 20 Compressed RAW is misleading, The 1DXII is actually faster. I dont like this misleading advertising as everywhere you read it says 20FPS RAW, not entirely true.
> 
> 1DXii 14FPS RAW and 16FPS RAW Mirror lockout
> A9 and A9II - 12FPS RAW (20 Compressed RAW) or 10FPS RAW with shutter.
> ...



The Canon, and in some ways the NIkon too, are still better cameras than the Sony A9, and probably the A9 ii as well. There's still a lot of Canon pros enjoying their 1DX mk ii bodies and waiting for Canon's future releases.


----------



## Neutral (Oct 6, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> As far as new releases go the one camera I am thinking of that might make me change it all up system wise is the Fujifilm GFX 100. Talk about disrupting, it has destroyed so many previous medium format issues that it is now, seemingly, a usable daily camera and it would appear a better fit for the style of photography I enjoy the most.
> 
> I know storage and file size are often mentioned when talking about new cameras with more MP, for context the GFX 100 16 bit RAW files are over 200MB each.



GFX100 is a very good system upgrade from FF system. I was waiting such kind of camera for a long time (they did exactly what I wanted - many different things) and I also was considering a7rIV but decided to go with gfx100. After Sony announced a7rIV and seeing sensor tests results I decided to keep a9 and a7rIII, as well as my old 1DXmII and added GFX100 to my gear set.
So far no disappointments - focusing very quick, manual focus is much so more convinient and more precise then anything I tried before, face and eye AF works fine, image quality is excellent, per pixel SNR and DR is better that for the same pixel size of a7r4.
IBIS is very good, video quality is also very good, weight is less than 1DXm2.
Very easy and convinient to use.
Unless there are some new disruptive upgrades in FF sensors technology soon, in coming years GFX100 will be superior to any FF cameras.
My old 6 years laptop handles GFX100 RAW files quickly and easily when using C1 ver.12 , some problems with PS6, as when sending image from C1 to PS layer size is huge - around 300-400mb and PS PSD max file size is only 2Gb, that limits number of layers which is possible to have for intermediate edit work.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2019)

Neutral said:


> GFX100 is a very good system upgrade from FF system. I was waiting such kind of camera for a long time (they did exactly what I wanted - many different things) and I also was considering a7rIV but decided to go with gfx100. After Sony announced a7rIV and seeing sensor tests results I decided to keep a9 and a7rIII, as well as my old 1DXmII and added GFX100 to my gear set.
> So far no disappointments - focusing very quick, manual focus is much so more convinient and more precise then anything I tried before, face and eye AF works fine, image quality is excellent, per pixel SNR and DR is better that for the same pixel size of a7r4.
> IBIS is very good, video quality is also very good, weight is less than 1DXm2.
> Very easy and convinient to use.
> ...


Many thanks for that, very nice to hear some hands on feedback, it is all disappointingly positive so my next couple of years purchasing plans might be rethought! 100MP and an extra 2 stops of DR sound pretty future proof to me, the fact that I get a weight saving over the 1DX MkII as well is a bonus! 

As for your PS file size, why not save as a TIFF or PSB instead of the capped PSD?


----------



## Neutral (Oct 6, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Many thanks for that, very nice to hear some hands on feedback, it is all disappointingly positive so my next couple of years purchasing plans might be rethought! 100MP and an extra 2 stops of DR sound pretty future proof to me, the fact that I get a weight saving over the 1DX MkII as well is a bonus!
> 
> As for your PS file size, why not save as a TIFF or PSB instead of the capped PSD?



So far Capture One does not support PSB when sending files for editing to PS, only PSD and TIFF, and I prefer native PSD, and keeping file size below 2Gb by merging layers when needed while editing. Whatever possible I am trying to do in C1 before sending to PS, C1 supporst up to 16 ayers, a lot of things that had to be done in PS before now could be done in C1.
In general C1 and PS are perfectly integrated now, no difference compared to LR+PS workflow.
I stopped using LR almost half a year ago and all is so much faster and easier now with C1.
One good thing is that C1 fully supports GFX100 film profiles, one which is selected in camera also used by C1 though there is a small caveat - C1 shows profile as auto instead of profile name wich is actually used, it is already reported by some other gfx user as bug to C1 support. In my first portrait photosession with GFX100 I had practically nothing to adjust in C1 - everyting was perfect just out of the camera.
JPEG files are excellent as well and could be easily transferred to the phone.
Some RAW editing and convertiong to JPEG also could be done in camera.
There are some other very handy features in the camera that make it pleasure to use.
‐-----
Some addition - DXO PhotoLab is planning to add support for GFX100 next month, will be interesting to to how that will further improve image quality, especially result of PrimeNR use for high ISO images.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2019)

Coming from a film background I am very curious to see the film styles implementations, I shot with Portra, Velvia and PrOvid for years and it seems they have very good simulations.

We all need to freshen up every now and again, a change of scene, direction, gear, whatever. Maybe this is mine...

Thanks again for the feedback.



Neutral said:


> So far Capture One does not support PSB when sending files for editing to PS, only PSD and TIFF, and I prefer native PSD, and keeping file size below 2Gb by merging layers when needed while editing. Whatever possible I am trying to do in C1 before sending to PS, C1 supporst up to 16 ayers, a lot of things that had to be done in PS before now could be done in C1.
> In general C1 and PS are perfectly integrated now, no difference compared to LR+PS workflow.
> I stopped using LR almost half a year ago and all is so much faster and easier now with C1.
> One good thing is that C1 fully supports GFX100 film profiles, one which is selected in camera also used by C1 so that it is small caveat- C1 shows profile as auto instead of profile name wich is actually used, it is already reported by some other gfx user as bug to C1 support. In my first portrait photosession with GFX100 I had practically nothing to adjust in C1 - everyting was perfect just out of the camera.
> ...


----------



## albron00 (Oct 7, 2019)

It is already fifth page of discussion about how sony's funboys are going to be disappointed...
I'd rather raised the question about Canon's handicapped line of mirrorless cameras.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 7, 2019)

albron00 said:


> It is already fifth page of discussion about how sony's funboys are going to be disappointed...
> I'd rather raised the question about Canon's handicapped line of mirrorless cameras.


Indeed. Why could not Canon make M6II as ergonomically good as 90D?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2019)

albron00 said:


> It is already fifth page of discussion about how sony's funboys are going to be disappointed...
> I'd rather raised the question about Canon's handicapped line of mirrorless cameras.



Given your previous posts, we know where you are coming from.



albron00 said:


> Already moved to Sony.





albron00 said:


> I use to have a lot of great moments with Canon: 500D, two 7Ds, 5Dm3, 760D..
> Now I'm happy A7m3 user...
> Sorry Canon.


----------



## PerKr (Oct 8, 2019)

Sony did not slow down. This really is how R&D works. Incremental upgrades with the occasional jump in performance as new tech is available. This time around they did not have a new trick up their sleeve but needed to improve on what they did have.

Since the A9 was launched it puzzled me how they could put a 5fps mechanical shutter in that kind of body. And the limitations to their headline feature, the 20fps no-blackout shooting, when not using very specific lenses. Not having AF with all lenses at that speed is one thing, not having the feature at all even stopped down in MF mode is another.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> This subject also interests me. I assume you've also come across Jim Kasson's blog where he tests cameras' e-shutter readout speeds? Because of its e-shutter performance (and because it's less of an investment than an a9), I have contemplated getting an X-T3, though ideally, I would love to purchase a Canon system with an e-shutter speed fast enough for normal, non-action use without artifacts. Shooting stills on movie sets (where being silent is mandatory) without needing a blimp, that's the dream for me.


Yes. Some of the data I quoted came from Kasson's blog. I have an X-T3 but typically use the mechanical shutter for stills. When I have some time I'll do some e-shutter testing on my own. I'd always assumed I wouldn't be happy with the results but I think I'll find out for myself.

Video rolling shutter performance in the XT-3 is quite good. If you can live with the smaller sensor it's a great camera. Whenever I pick up the 1DX2 after using the Fuji for a few days I'm confronted again with how loud the mirror/shutter mechanism is. I won't miss that.

Edit: I know some folks around here aren't going to want to hear it but I find very little difference in IQ between the X-T3 and the 1DX Mark II. The colors and rendering are very different and the 1DX2 is still a little better at high ISO but they are fairly equivalent IMO. The 5D Mark IV still has a significant IQ advantage as you'd expect.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 12, 2019)

Interesting. 1dx II Performs better than 5D IV at high ISO levels Over 5400 approx. 5D IV has a significant IQ advantage ? Very interesting. I am keen to understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Personally I am convinced that 1Dx II high iso performance is virtually untouchable. Seriously. I love my 5D IVs but 1dx II high iso files are great. Unless we are talking completely different products here. Let’s discuss.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 12, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Interesting. 1dx II Performs better than 5D IV at high ISO levels Over 5400 approx. 5D IV has a significant IQ advantage ? Very interesting. I am keen to understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Personally I am convinced that 1Dx II high iso performance is virtually untouchable. Seriously. I love my 5D IVs but 1dx II high iso files are great. Unless we are talking completely different products here. Let’s discuss.


I feel that vs my R, I would rather have the 20 mp and high iso of the 1dx2 sensor, than the 30mp and high iso of the R.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2019)

I shoot the 1Dx II, 5DIV and now the R side by side. I seldom go over 6400 but after processing thousands of images I can’t tell any difference.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 12, 2019)

I think my first point was that I didn't feel that the full frame 1DX Mark II had a significant IQ advantage over the smaller sensor in the X-T3 for general purpose photography but that the larger frame sensor of the 1DX2 performed better at higher ISO's. The second point which I may have muddled is that the IQ of the 5d Mark IV is generally better than the X-T3 in most circumstances. I still like and use the X-T3 but you need to appreciate it's limitations if you currently use a full frame camera. I'd expect the same would be true if you were adding a Canon M but I don't own an M so I can't really say.

I was referring strictly to how the images present themselves when editing rather than the operation of the cameras. The three cameras are completely different animals as far as operation goes.

I guess what I'm saying is that modern APS-C sensors seem to be more or less equivalent to previous generation full frame sensors of equivalent or lesser pixels. I'd say the X-T3 is also equivalent to the previous gen. 5D's I've used. I wasn't really commenting on the 5D4 vs the 1DX2 but the 50% increase in pixels in the 5D4 would seem to offset any other advantage the 1DX2 might have as far as IQ goes.

I think the 1DX2 has superior low light AF relative to the 5D4 so I'd generally go with that in any situation that was going to require high ISO's. The 5D4 has a much better live view implementation so I'd typically go with that for low ISO max quality images. Generally speaking I don't really have a preference as they are both excellent so I'd typically chose one over the other based on something other than IQ. I don't own an R so I can't comment on that.

edit: Important point. The discussion was regarding electronic shutter which is why I referenced the X-T3. The only camera I own with a modern e-shutter. The M6 Mark II also looks promising for e-shutter. This is the Industry News section. I generally don't talk about other brands of cameras I might own on Canon Rumors. Not trying to start a brand vs brand thing.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I shoot the 1Dx II, 5DIV and now the R side by side. I seldom go over 6400 but after processing thousands of images I can’t tell any difference.


Here is an interesting tool that may suggest that there is a tangible difference in noise characteristics at ISO 6400 for cameras that we discussed. 



Image comparison: Digital Photography Review


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Here is an interesting tool that may suggest that there is a tangible difference in noise characteristics at ISO 6400 for cameras that we discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Image comparison: Digital Photography Review


I think any differences seen at that level between the three Canon’s is down to rendering differences and is easily nullified by best processing rather than standard processing.

The numbers suggest there is essentially no difference between the three



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 12, 2019)

Yes. DPR's processing isn't really reflective of how my images look when processed. That being said, I'd be happy with any of those. It's interesting to see the magenta cast showing up in the 5D4/R sensor. I don't see that as a rule.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 12, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Here is an interesting tool that may suggest that there is a tangible difference in noise characteristics at ISO 6400 for cameras that we discussed.



Appears to be the resolution difference, mostly. Select the "Comp" option for an apples-to-apples comparison and the difference in noise quality all but disappears.


----------

