Anyone used an A9 with Canon 500 or 600 lenses yet?

Neilyb wrote:.... If you need more than 200 RAWs in a burst something is amiss ...

I don't need 200 Raws in a burst to get the shot but I neither need 20 f/sec if 14-16 f/sec of Canikon cannot get it right .

Wolfgang

Exactly

WJaekel wrote:
Wolfgang

Sony has been providing professional support for its video cameras for years.

It's the same ball game.

WJaekel wrote:A bit too much hype and pushing of the A9 as a "game changer" on the preliminary reviews in my taste. Though there are some interesting innovative features such as the silent shooting, no mirror black out etc,  I think they have a long way to go to compete with Nikon and Canon for serious pros:

I.e:

- no long glass yet and AF options limited and inconsistent  with Canon glass, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TSCjUlQsjE
- Praised frame rate of 20 f/sec drops to 12 f/sec with uncompressed raws
- Buffer clearance lasts 2-3 minutes which puts the high frame rate in perspective
- Weather sealing and resistance at least questionable compared to the D5/1DX II
- Ergonomics - i.e. hand grip not suitable for larger hands without additional grip
- Sony still lacks a serious pro service net compared to CPS or NPS - very important for pros....etc.....

Wolfgang

I am not a pro but quite passionate about my photography. Not a fanboy either, but an early adopter I must confess. I did sell my 1DX-II and bought the A9.

I agree with most of what you say. However Sony does have a pro service available now from what I am told, have not signed up for it yet, never did during all my years with Canon  - again, since I am not a pro.

I am a small guy and for my hands it is perfectly adequate. In fact it was a pleasure to use it with largish lenses too.

And long glass from Sony is coming. As for third party long glass, see my next post.

Regarding the buffer, here is something I posted on another forum a few weeks ago when I first got the camera, you may not need 20fps but if you do, here are some numbers:

RAW images: 230 to 240
Jpg images: 440-460

Time to clear buffer (depends upon the card):

RAW: 30 seconds with Lexar 2000X UHS-II card, 68 seconds with Sandisk 95Mb/s UHS-1 Extreme Pro card.

Jpg: 65 seconds regardless of speed of card

Dual mode:

Both RAW: 75 seconds, slot 2 card does not matter
Slot 1 RAW, slot 2 jpg: 44 seconds with Lexar 2000X i slot 1 - slot 2 card does not matter.

I did not test jpg in both slots.

I bolded the 30 seconds part because I do not know of any camera which first has a buffer of 230 RAW files (each around 24MB) and then clears it in 30 seconds. Essentially if you keep the camera at the 'medium' speed (10fps), you can continue shooting in RAW without stopping at all. May or may not matter to your style of shooting.

Pradeep

I just returned two days ago from a long trip to Namibia. Had committed myself to Sony when the A9 was announced and sold my 1DX-II.

I took with me the Sony 70-200 2.8GM and the Canon 100-400 L MkII. Both mounted on separate A9 bodies, the latter via the Metabones V adapter with latest firmware.

The Sony lens has an amazing look especially in soft light. It is a tad soft at 2.8 (perfectly acceptable though). I find  the images from this more interesting than I remember from my Canon version in the past. The AF is superb, esp for BIF and frantic action. I love the high frame rate of the camera as it allows capture of a single frame where two birds are fighting for the same piece of fish in the churning waves.

The down side of the A9 AF is that the center portion is much larger than on Canon, so if you enable AF via center point it could be on the bird or on the branch in front, it is too big. There are ?12 smaller AF points within the center block but you cannot pick any of them. This is a major issue since if you have an animal hiding in the bush and want its eye, it may focus instead on the foliage around its face.

With the Canon 100-400L, the AF is better than acceptable, it is miles ahead of what it used to be with my A7R2. Leaving it on the center point, it actually uses any of the 12 points to focus (cannot pick one). I used it extensively on this tour and was very happy with it. It does hunt a bit in low-light or poor contrast areas. Having said that, I got great shots of Genets running about in the tree under a floodlight at ISO6400 (it was pitch dark otherwise).

The great thing about Sony's manual focus is that the focus magnifier is really good. So when shooting the sand dunes in a very strong wind, even on a tripod the only way to get accurate focus at 400mm (with the Canon lens) was to go manual.

Will the A9 perform as well as the native body with third party lenses? Absolutely not, would be foolish to expect that. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at how well it did. 

For me it is a no-brainer at this point. The Sony 100-400 is probably going to be shipped later this month or the next. It is said to be lighter than the Canon and if the IQ holds up will be a great lens.

As far as the superteles go, I gave up on those a while ago, sold my 600MkII two years ago, will never go there again. Too much weight, besides I don't need super close-ups of birds. As I said, I am not a pro.

Anybody sitting on the fence about the A9 should think strongly about it. At least that is my humble opinion.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:I just returned two days ago from a long trip to Namibia. Had committed myself to Sony when the A9 was announced and sold my 1DX-II.

I took with me the Sony 70-200 2.8GM and the Canon 100-400 L MkII. Both mounted on separate A9 bodies, the latter via the Metabones V adapter with latest firmware.

The Sony lens has an amazing look especially in soft light. It is a tad soft at 2.8 (perfectly acceptable though). I find  the images from this more interesting than I remember from my Canon version in the past. The AF is superb, esp for BIF and frantic action. I love the high frame rate of the camera as it allows capture of a single frame where two birds are fighting for the same piece of fish in the churning waves.

The down side of the A9 AF is that the center portion is much larger than on Canon, so if you enable AF via center point it could be on the bird or on the branch in front, it is too big. There are ?12 smaller AF points within the center block but you cannot pick any of them. This is a major issue since if you have an animal hiding in the bush and want its eye, it may focus instead on the foliage around its face.

With the Canon 100-400L, the AF is better than acceptable, it is miles ahead of what it used to be with my A7R2. Leaving it on the center point, it actually uses any of the 12 points to focus (cannot pick one). I used it extensively on this tour and was very happy with it. It does hunt a bit in low-light or poor contrast areas. Having said that, I got great shots of Genets running about in the tree under a floodlight at ISO6400 (it was pitch dark otherwise).

The great thing about Sony's manual focus is that the focus magnifier is really good. So when shooting the sand dunes in a very strong wind, even on a tripod the only way to get accurate focus at 400mm (with the Canon lens) was to go manual.

Will the A9 perform as well as the native body with third party lenses? Absolutely not, would be foolish to expect that. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at how well it did. 

For me it is a no-brainer at this point. The Sony 100-400 is probably going to be shipped later this month or the next. It is said to be lighter than the Canon and if the IQ holds up will be a great lens.

As far as the superteles go, I gave up on those a while ago, sold my 600MkII two years ago, will never go there again. Too much weight, besides I don't need super close-ups of birds. As I said, I am not a pro.

Anybody sitting on the fence about the A9 should think strongly about it. At least that is my humble opinion.

Pradeep

Doesn't a press of the joystick center you on your AF points?

Mike in O wrote:

Doesn't a press of the joystick center you on your AF points?

The Center AF 'point' is really a large rectangular area which has 12 smaller squares within it. 

Mike, I may be missing something horrendously simple, but you first have to program the joystick to do that (enable 'Focus Standard'). However, even when it does shift the AF point to the center, the problem is that the center 'box' if you will is very large and there is no 'spot' within it that you can set the focus on, unlike with Canon cameras, esp the 1 series. Pressing the joystick simply takes you to the large central rectangle.

If you use a third party (eg Canon) lens or an A-mount lens and enable PDAF, then there are twelve small AF squares within the larger Center rectangle which become active, but you again cannot specify which one you want the camera to use as default. The AF system will then use any of those which really is the same thing.

Not able to post illustrations but I hope this is clear now.

Pradeep

Not owning the camera, my assumption was that it was like my A mount and the center was spot focusing. I think (another assumption) that you can control size of the focus points? It sounds in your description that it always is in flexible point with expansion, is that correct.

Mike in O wrote:Not owning the camera, my assumption was that it was like my A mount and the center was spot focusing.  I think (another assumption) that you can control size of the focus points?  It sounds in your description that it always is in flexible point with expansion, is that correct.

Actually, the camera offers a choice - wide (entire sensor), zone (limited area), center point (as above), flexible center point (where you can move it with the wheel or joystick) and expansible center point. Easy to assign a custom key to switch between modes.

Pradeep

To continue on what Pradeep said, in flexible spot you have a choice of several spot sizes including a pretty small one. Also, it must be said that on both Canon and Nikon, the actual size of the AF sensor is significantly larger than the actual little square indicator in the camera's viewfinder.

E.J. Peiker wrote:To continue on what Pradeep said, in flexible spot you have a choice of several spot sizes including a pretty small one.  Also, it must be said that on both Canon and Nikon, the actual size of the AF sensor is significantly larger than the actual little square indicator in the camera's viewfinder.

Hmmm.... that is interesting EJ. Didn't realize that the actual AF sensor on the Canon was larger than the spot would indicate. I've generally been able to focus precisely on the eye of an animal instead of say the nose in front or the forehead using the smallest spot in the center. Anyway, the Canon did allow me to use a 'single point' of the AF array. 

Will have to go back to the Sony and check because when I used the 'flexible spot', all it did was allow the large center rectangle to be moved around the sensor with the joystick or the large control wheel. It did not change the size of the area under AF. 

Pradeep

Primus wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:To continue on what Pradeep said, in flexible spot you have a choice of several spot sizes including a pretty small one.  Also, it must be said that on both Canon and Nikon, the actual size of the AF sensor is significantly larger than the actual little square indicator in the camera's viewfinder.

Hmmm.... that is interesting EJ. Didn't realize that the actual AF sensor on the Canon was larger than the spot would indicate. I've generally been able to focus precisely on the eye of an animal instead of say the nose in front or the forehead using the smallest spot in the center. Anyway, the Canon did allow me to use a 'single point' of the AF array. 

Will have to go back to the Sony and check because when I used the 'flexible spot', all it did was allow the large center rectangle to be moved around the sensor with the joystick or the large control wheel. It did not change the size of the area under AF. 

Pradeep

Turn on eye focus on the Sony and assign it to an easy to reach button - you simply can't get more precise eye based focus in any camera on the market.  I am probably one iteration (and some native Sony big lenses) away from ditching Nikon completely even for Wildlife and bird photography.  An a9 Mk II with a native Sony 500 f/4 plus the recently introduced 100-400 and I'd likely never shoot with Nikon or Canon again.

^
EJ, far as I know, Eye-AF does not work with animals. I did assign it to a custom button initially but then took it off since it was not going to be useful to me in Africa. Confess I did not try it, but when you are struggling to get a good shot of the pangolin hiding in the bush would rather rely on a bit of luck and good ol' center focus. Don't know that my 1DX2 would have nailed it but may have had a better chance of doing so I believe.

I agree completely with the near future. It is looking very good with the Sony A9, things are only going to get better. Check out Roger Cicala's MTF charts on the new 12-24 from Sony. At this time I believe they've got the wide end covered very well. Can't wait for the 100-400.

Pradeep

Pradeep,

I do not have an A9 but on my other Sony E-mount cameras (A7R, A5100, A6500) I can change the size of the movable spot AF square from large to medium to small.

Matthew, yes, I see that the only time you can see a smaller square within the center rectangle is when you enable 'expansible flexible spot' option. However, even there, the focus may fall on the surrounding smaller squares (just tested it). You do see a medium size square within the large rectangle but that is surrounded by still smaller squares which is perhaps what the 'expansible' refers to. Cannot pick any of those to be the default, nor can you pick the 'medium' size sq in the middle.

I just re-read the manuals for the A9 and downloaded the one for A6500, both do not say how the smallest AF point can be selected at will.

On my Canon body (have only the 7D2 left now), the central AF point is selectable and movable. It IS much smaller than the rectangle on Sony. On my 1DX you could select 'single-point spot AF' (even smaller than the single point AF) which is not possible on the 7D2 and certainly not on the Sony.

Pradeep

As I said it is possible I am missing something very simple, but cannot find it in the manual.

Primus wrote:^
EJ, far as I know, Eye-AF does not work with animals. I did assign it to a custom button initially but then took it off since it was not going to be useful to me in Africa. Confess I did not try it, but when you are struggling to get a good shot of the pangolin hiding in the bush would rather rely on a bit of luck and good ol' center focus. Don't know that my 1DX2 would have nailed it but may have had a better chance of doing so I believe.

I agree completely with the near future. It is looking very good with the Sony A9, things are only going to get  better. Check out Roger Cicala's MTF charts on the new 12-24 from Sony. At this time I believe they've got the wide end covered very well. Can't wait for the 100-400.

Pradeep

It works fine with ducks on water - admitedly there are no distractions for the AF system to go after in that scenario.
Yes, I am impressed with the independent tests of the 12-24 so far.  I'm looking forward to the same tests on the 16-35 f/2.8 which is a more likely lens for me as it could be used for astro if the performance is there.  I already have the Voigtlander 12mm so the 12-24 is less interesting to me.

Now that my Sony system has been relegated to travel and astro only (P1 for serious landscape, Nikon still for wildlife/birds), I'm thinking of just my a6300 and a7R2 with the Voigtlander 12mm, and the new 16-35/2.8, the 24-70/2.8 and the 100-400 and selling all my small primes and f/4/4.6 zooms (except maybe the 18/2.8 and 25/2 Batis which are killer for astro).  But in the long term I see my wildlife moving to something like an a9 Mk II, FE 500/4 (or better yet an FE600/5.6!!!  ), and the new 100-400 and ditching Nikon completely.

Primus wrote:Matthew, yes, I see that the only time you can see a smaller square within the center rectangle is when you enable 'expansible flexible spot' option. However, even there, the focus may fall on the surrounding smaller squares (just tested it). You do see a medium size square within the large rectangle but that is surrounded by still smaller squares which is perhaps what the 'expansible' refers to. Cannot pick any of those to be the default, nor can you pick the 'medium' size sq in the middle.  

I just re-read the manuals for the A9 and downloaded the one for A6500, both do not say how the smallest AF point can be selected at will.

On my Canon body (have only the 7D2 left now), the central AF point is selectable and movable. It IS much smaller than the rectangle on Sony. On my 1DX you could select 'single-point spot AF'  (even smaller than the single point AF) which is not possible on the 7D2 and certainly not on the Sony.

Pradeep

As I said it is possible I am missing something very simple, but cannot find it in the manual.

OK, must admit a little dyslexia here

Finally figured out what to do. Had never needed it for my A7 series (no action imaging) hence the confusion.

It seems that I can indeed pick a smaller AF area by moving the selector side-ways, but only if in the 'expand AF point' or 'Lock-on AF' mode. Still not able to do it with simply the center point selected and the area under AF is not quite the smallest square.

Whew! Still much better than I thought. 

And I RTFM two times on the plane going over! The illustrations do not show this and the language is not clear either. One has to clearly see the arrows pointing to the side. Anyway, I am so relieved. Now if only I had figured this out during my trip. 

Pradeep

^^

EJ, that's interesting. I should have tried it with the larger mammals in Africa. However, most of the time there were large groups and fast movement, hard to isolate one individual with Eye-AF in that situation.

I just got my 12-24 in the mail a few minutes ago. Amazingly small and lightweight given the range it covers, but of course it is f4. Will try it out this weekend.

The Batis 18 is really great for astro - did used it in Namibia recently, although would have liked a wider lens, the 16-35 2.8 would be nice.

My ultimate wildlife kit would be the A9 (with ability to have spot focus - may need to wait for MkII) with the 70-200 GM 2.8, and the A6500 version of the A9 (crop sensor) with the 100-400. That would give me enough reach. I don't really need the super close-up of the big primes.

OTOH, the A7R3 may come with a fast fps and better AF. Then I could crop into the image. Most of my shots end up with some cropping anyway and I believe cropping the high-res sensor may be just as good as using a crop sensor to begin with.

Pradeep