Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: shadowblade on April 08, 2016, 12:27:08 pm
-
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-bomb-rumor-first-a9-specs-dual-xqd-card-slot-unlimited-raw-burst/ (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-bomb-rumor-first-a9-specs-dual-xqd-card-slot-unlimited-raw-burst/)
SonyAlphaRumors gave it their SR5 credibility score, which isn't often wrong.
I wonder what this implies in terms of the camera's final design. Unlimited RAW burst has to mean at least one, if not more, of the following things:
- Super-fast write speed (doesn't matter how big the buffer is - if the write speed is slower than the shooting speed, then the buffer will eventually fill up and the burst isn't unlimited)
- Low resolution
- Low frame rate
- Extensive image compression
No doubt XQD is fast. But how fast?
If the A9 uses the rumoured 80MP sensor, would it be restricted to 5fps or less, or would it be capable of 10fps or higher? If, on the other hand, the A9 is an action-oriented, 24MP sensor, it could shoot a lot faster. But which one makes sense for Sony to make?
Certainly, the A7r line has been the most successful for Sony. But how much of that is made up of dissatisfied Canon shooters using Metabones adapters to gain access to a better sensor? And how much of that would translate to sales of an A9r, given that those willing to use adapters, almost by definition, don't care too much about AF, at least when image quality remains an overriding concern? High-performance AF systems tend to imply suitability for action photography, which tends to favour high frame rate and, consequently, a lower resolution in order to support the frame rate.
On the flip side, Sony's recent GM lenses are designed for both fast AF and 100MP resolutions, and almost scream for a high-resolution, top-level body to take advantage of both. And a fast-focusing, high-resolution body would be immensely useful for sports and wildlife, where cropping remains an everyday necessity, while pixel binning can allow for smaller files while still taking advantage of every pixel on the sensor. Moreover, while the A9's AF is almost certain to be fast and accurate, will it be a match for the 1Dx2 and D5, or at least come close enough that it doesn't matter which one you choose? If not, then it may be hard for the new body to attract buyers away from the Canon/Nikon action bodies, and the high-resolution option (competing with the 5Ds, 5D4 and D810) makes more sense again.
Or there's the hybrid option - a very fast buffer and hardware/firmware-based mRAW and sRAW conversion, capable of saving 80MP files to XQD at 5fps or 20MP pixel-binned files at 10-15fps. Certainly, such a hybrid would be a long shot, but nothing else would quite say 'F U' to Canon and put Sony in a prime position like a camera that managed to beat both the 1Dx2 and 5Ds at the same time - and we know Sony has been seeking that prime position ever since they made their first foray into digital interchangeable-lens cameras.
Perhaps there will be multiple versions of the A9 - at least an A9r and an A9s, since those who buy higher-end equipment tend to require them for more specialised purposes, rather than a one-tool-fits-all approach (the D810 is probably the closest to that we have at the moment). That would be the sensible thing - 24-36MP and >10fps for the action shooters and 70-80MP for the high-resolution shooters, with similar performance in every other respect (ISO, AF, etc.). Complementary, top-level bodies, focusing on different areas, like the D810/D4s, 5Ds/1Dx and old 5D2/1D3 combos. Cater for all applications, with the only difference between them being the sensor and the firmware, and many people will end up buying one of each.
Any thoughts?
-
Any thoughts?
the "highest" line of cameras from C&N are all speed/low mp bodies... so I think A9 shall have a different body and probably 20-24mp Sony sensor with Exmor RS2 which means
1) ADC on die, many
2) Aptina like capacity switch to reduce noise @ higher gains... may be even they take if further and make it 3 capacitors to have 2 stage vs 2 capacitors 1 stage
4) BSI
4) stacked design with RAM right behind the sensor chip die
may be Sony will use (or license) DFD from Panasonic and make combined PDAF on sensor with DFD to approach PDAF off sensor speed more than 6300/A7RII can...
-
the "highest" line of cameras from C&N are all speed/low mp bodies... so I think A9 shall have a different body and probably 20-24mp Sony sensor with Exmor RS2 which means
1) ADC on die, many
2) Aptina like capacity switch to reduce noise @ higher gains... may be even they take if further and make it 3 capacitors to have 2 stage vs 2 capacitors 1 stage
4) BSI
4) stacked design with RAM right behind the sensor chip die
may be Sony will use (or license) DFD from Panasonic and make combined PDAF on sensor with DFD to approach PDAF off sensor speed more than 6300/A7RII can...
Not really. Above the D750/5D3 level, they seem to diverge into specialty bodies. The 5Ds and 1Dx are badly handicapped when used in each other's roles. So are the D4s and D810. The 'speed' bodies are more expensive (after all, you'll sell gear for as much as a customer is willing to pay, and news/sports publishers are willing to pay a lot) but hardly more capable overall.
It would make little sense for Sony to target the 1Dx2 and D5, when it would take a significant advantage over the competition for Canon and Nikon action shooters to replace all their lenses and other gear to jump ship. Sony knows that its strength is in the sensor - much better to target the D810, 5Ds and 5D4, with a camera that matches or beats the general-purpose pro bodies in AF and beats it in sensor quality (dedicated S and R versions would help in this regard). The action cameras can wait for the next round, once there is a large critical mass of Sony-using pro shooters using E-mount lenses. It would then be much easier to get action shooters to jump ship, with a large number of E-mount lenses out there and Sony by then being a more-or-less equal competitor with Canon and Nikon.
-
The word "bombshell" was used to describe it. 20-24 is not a bombshell.
-
Not really. Above the D750/5D3 level, they seem to diverge into specialty bodies. The 5Ds and 1Dx are badly handicapped when used in each other's roles. So are the D4s and D810.
not really : 1Dx* and D* are the top lines (yes, the price is one of the features that make them the top lines), __below them__ are 5D*/D8** (yes, the price put them below, not to mention bodies), below them the rest... Sony 12mp FF and 42mp FF are the newest sensors... between them the gap, because 24mp is OLD... some people want to bet on 50-60-70-80mp sensor, I 'd rather bet on a new 20-24mp replacement for the one in A7/A7II and Sony /dSLMs in general/ really needs to try to challenge dSLRs in the areas where 1Dx*/D* are used... not /as a top priority/ in the areas where 5D* or D8** are used - because high mp is not an issue for dSLM... fast AF and fast AF in the low light - that is where the challenge is... you might also mention OVF vs EVF, but it is easier to do than to compete vs off sensor PDAF
-
not really : 1Dx* and D* are the top lines (yes, the price is one of the features that make them the top lines), __below them__ are 5D*/D8** (yes, the price put them below, not to mention bodies), below them the rest...
Try replacing one with the other. It doesn't work. The 5Ds does a poor job with fast action, unless you specifically need the ability to crop. The 1Dx is useless if you need the resolution.
You can't call one a less-professional camera than the other on the basis of price, or on the basis of an inbuilt grip (which is just as often a liability as an asset). Each is geared towards a single purpose, unlike the lower lines. The 1Dx/D4 happen to contain a few features which optimise them for action photography (longer shutter life, burst length, etc., since you're shooting so many frames per second), which are unnecessary on a slower camera. The 5Ds/D810 contain other features optimising them for high detail photography (greater DR, better colour accuracy, resolution etc.) which are less necessary on the action body.
-
Try replacing one with the other. It doesn't work. The 5Ds does a poor job with fast action, unless you specifically need the ability to crop. The 1Dx is useless if you need the resolution.
You can't call one a less-professional camera than the other on the basis of price, or on the basis of an inbuilt grip (which is just as often a liability as an asset). Each is geared towards a single purpose, unlike the lower lines. The 1Dx/D4 happen to contain a few features which optimise them for action photography (longer shutter life, burst length, etc., since you're shooting so many frames per second), which are unnecessary on a slower camera. The 5Ds/D810 contain other features optimising them for high detail photography (greater DR, better colour accuracy, resolution etc.) which are less necessary on the action body.
The D810 shoots 6fps in 1.2x crop mode and supposeding with the battery grip gets to 7fps. That is more than fast enough for action if you know how to use it. It certainly isn't the primary focus of the camera and wouldn't be the one you would select for that duty, but it makes the D810, with it's other features, the best general purpose DSLR on the planet...at the moment.
What makes the D4 or D5 a "D" camera is a combination of it's features, speed, image quality and above all, reliability. Drop it and pick it up and it just works.
-
The D810 shoots 6fps in 1.2x crop mode and supposeding with the battery grip gets to 7fps. That is more than fast enough for action if you know how to use it. It certainly isn't the primary focus of the camera and wouldn't be the one you would select for that duty, but it makes the D810, with it's other features, the best general purpose DSLR on the planet...at the moment.
What makes the D4 or D5 a "D" camera is a combination of it's features, speed, image quality and above all, reliability. Drop it and pick it up and it just works.
The heavy build is just as much a liability as an asset, depending on what environment you're using it in. So is the inbuilt grip. The shutter still gives you fewer seconds of continuous shooting than the 5Ds's shutter (owing to the higher frame rate), plus you're more likely to shoot bursts, so it's more a necessity of fast shooting than a feature. The same applies to the 5Ds's unique features - the stronger colour filter, for instance, is just as much a liability as an asset, but is geared towards lower-ISO image quality rather than super-high ISO noise performance.
It's like the distinction between an EOS-1 and an EOS-1v. Both are equally top-of-the-line. But they're built differently, for different purposes.
-
The word "bombshell" was used to describe it. 20-24 is not a bombshell.
Nor is unlimited RAW burst - after all, how many seconds do you need to really keep shooting stills for? And video cameras already do unlimited burst anyway.
The reason I'm suspecting a high-MP sensor before a high-FPS body is commercial rather than technological. Getting action shooters to switch to Sony mirrorless would be a big ask, even if the AF was better than that of the 1Dx2 or D5. Not only are the current-generation Canon and Nikon bodies already more than good for action (would a new body really get you any more shots, if you don't particularly care about resolution?) but there is a huge body of Canon/Nikon supertelephotos currently in circulation which most people would be loathe to prematurely ditch, even if Sony released its own competitively-priced E-mount supertelephotos (which it currently lacks). It just wouldn't make sense to target the 1Dx2/D5 with the first-generation A9 - no matter how good the body is, there's no way it could be commercially successful. Action photographers are tied to their Canon/Nikon bodies by tens of thousands of dollars worth of glass, and resolution/detail-oriented photographers won't want a low-resolution sensor.
Far better to target the D810 (and, by extension, the 5Ds and 5D4). Unlike with action cameras, there is a big premium here on the sensor, which is Sony's strength and Canon's weakness, and the addition of a competitive AF module, dual cards and other pro-oriented features will give them a good shot at winning over those who didn't buy the A7r owing to these issues. In other words, compete for the bulk of the pro crowd - product, fashion, wedding, architecture, landscape and many other photographers - with a compelling product and lens lineup that delivers medium-format image quality while retaining SLR-level AF and usability, building up market share and credibility, and leave Canon/Nikon with the high-speed action niche until the next round, rather than targeting the niche that is already Canon's strong point and not offering anything compelling for the bulk of shooters.
-
Nor is unlimited RAW burst - after all, how many seconds do you need to really keep shooting stills for? And video cameras already do unlimited burst anyway.
The reason I'm suspecting a high-MP sensor before a high-FPS body is commercial rather than technological. Getting action shooters to switch to Sony mirrorless would be a big ask, even if the AF was better than that of the 1Dx2 or D5. Not only are the current-generation Canon and Nikon bodies already more than good for action (would a new body really get you any more shots, if you don't particularly care about resolution?) but there is a huge body of Canon/Nikon supertelephotos currently in circulation which most people would be loathe to prematurely ditch, even if Sony released its own competitively-priced E-mount supertelephotos (which it currently lacks). It just wouldn't make sense to target the 1Dx2/D5 with the first-generation A9 - no matter how good the body is, there's no way it could be commercially successful. Action photographers are tied to their Canon/Nikon bodies by tens of thousands of dollars worth of glass, and resolution/detail-oriented photographers won't want a low-resolution sensor.
Far better to target the D810 (and, by extension, the 5Ds and 5D4). Unlike with action cameras, there is a big premium here on the sensor, which is Sony's strength and Canon's weakness, and the addition of a competitive AF module, dual cards and other pro-oriented features will give them a good shot at winning over those who didn't buy the A7r owing to these issues. In other words, compete for the bulk of the pro crowd - product, fashion, wedding, architecture, landscape and many other photographers - with a compelling product and lens lineup that delivers medium-format image quality while retaining SLR-level AF and usability, building up market share and credibility, and leave Canon/Nikon with the high-speed action niche until the next round, rather than targeting the niche that is already Canon's strong point and not offering anything compelling for the bulk of shooters.
Yes good points. I think the unlimited burst could give hint of 8K video which is 33MP. So it could either be a 33-36MP sensor, or scale down from a higher res sensor, in a way similar to the a7r II.
-
The heavy build is just as much a liability as an asset, depending on what environment you're using it in. So is the inbuilt grip. The shutter still gives you fewer seconds of continuous shooting than the 5Ds's shutter (owing to the higher frame rate), plus you're more likely to shoot bursts, so it's more a necessity of fast shooting than a feature. The same applies to the 5Ds's unique features - the stronger colour filter, for instance, is just as much a liability as an asset, but is geared towards lower-ISO image quality rather than super-high ISO noise performance.
It's like the distinction between an EOS-1 and an EOS-1v. Both are equally top-of-the-line. But they're built differently, for different purposes.
In a bizarre way, you made my point. Yes, with durability and reliability come weight, size and cost. But those are not liabilities, they are trade offs. To say I want a D5 in a D750 body is to not really want a D5. It is in large measure the durability and reliability that one is purchasing, among the other features. One might say I want the features of the D5 in a smaller, lighter body and we can argue on how much can be stuffed into that smaller, lighter body, but when you drop it and it breaks, you understand it is not a D5. Or one might say I want the durability and reliability of the D5 in a smaller body, and that is fine as long as you understand a loss of functionality comes with that.
We now have essentially unlimited RAW burst. The D500 for example can shoot 20s at 10fps in RAW. If you need more than 20s of burst you are either in a shooting circumstance that is infinitesimally small and outside any design criteria or you are just a crappy action photographer. And the small penalty going from 14bit to 12bit would be worth paying if you really, really need more duration. Bottom line is processing capability and pipeline size.
-
Try replacing one with the other. It doesn't work. The 5Ds does a poor job with fast action, unless you specifically need the ability to crop. The 1Dx is useless if you need the resolution.
it is still does not alter the very simple fact : 1DxII and D5 are the 'top' lines, not 5Ds or D810 ...
-
The word "bombshell" was used to describe it. 20-24 is not a bombshell.
why do you think "bombshell" is related to megapixels ? in dSLM world a bombshell is something that can outdo dSLRs... megapixels are not that... AF is... or may be a way better EVF... but I 'd bet on AF and that requires still less MP (bigger sensels - those help with PDAF on sensor sensivity in the low light and less of those for faster readouts)... less MP still help with faster working EVF because even when you do not (or can avoid) readout of every line you still readout every sensel in the line to feed EVF (and CDAF)... and less MP will help to truly unlimited burst @ full resolution too
-
it is still does not alter the very simple fact : 1DxII and D5 are the 'top' lines, not 5Ds or D810 ...
What does top lines mean? They sure are not the top lines for landscape photographers.
-
chez,
What does top lines mean?
With respect to Nikon, single numeral nomenclature.
-
What does top lines mean? They sure are not the top lines for landscape photographers.
so that you can understand easier.... a consumer level D7200 has 24mp and D5 has 20mp
-
it is still does not alter the very simple fact : 1DxII and D5 are the 'top' lines, not 5Ds or D810 ...
Only because you say so. And because of a tendency for fast action photographers to denigrate any non-action or slower-action work as 'amateur'.
Being more expensive doesn't make a camera top-of-the-line. Capability and functionality do. And these cameras are all equally-capable, but in different areas. That's why Canon and Nikon recognise them all on their respective professional support programs. Some capabilities are just more expensive to build in.
-
so that you can understand easier.... a consumer level D7200 has 24mp and D5 has 20mp
One of them is also full-frame, has a full-fledged AF system, has dual cards. That's a huge mismatch in capabilities. The D5 can do almost everything the D7200 can, better than the D7200 itself, the only exception being focal-length limited shooting with supertelephotos.
Anyway, what does any of this have to do with the likely specs of the A9? It would be stupid for Sony to go after the action photographers, with their requirements for fast, long lenses and lag-free EVFs, before even building strong base of support among general photographers who can take advantage of Sony's strengths (sensor) but still need a competitive AF sstem. At the moment, all they have in the bag is non-action shooters, for whom the sensor is everything.
-
In my view there is about 0.1% chance of the a9 not featuring a high res sensor.
Key people in Sony see themselves as being in a different league in terms of sensors design compared to Canon, there is just no way they will stay behind long from a resolution standpoint.
My guess is that Nikon had a strong say in the specs and I would vote for a 72mp resolution.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One of them is also full-frame, has a full-fledged AF system, has dual cards.
the point is that number of MP does not make a camera top model line or on par with a top model line... that's why 1DxII is top model line and 5Ds/r is a level below... just like D5 is top model line and D810 is a level below
-
the point is that number of MP does not make a camera top model line or on par with a top model line... that's why 1DxII is top model line and 5Ds/r is a level below... just like D5 is top model line and D810 is a level below
So I guess from your standpoint...price determines the top model. So if Canon came out with a $10,000 P&S, it will be the king of the hill?
Can you please elaborate your view of what constitutes the top model.
-
the point is that number of MP does not make a camera top model line or on par with a top model line... that's why 1DxII is top model line and 5Ds/r is a level below... just like D5 is top model line and D810 is a level below
I never said anything about megapixel count alone making for a top-tier model. It's the sum total of features.
The D810 and 5Ds have all the features and fulfil the same objectives as the earlier 1Ds3 and D3x, which were undebatably top-tier bodies. They also have the same rock-solid build quality of previous top-tier bodies like the EOS-1 and EOS-1N. That they didn't go with the excessive armour of the EOS-1v and the 1D series is a design feature rather than a flaw that drops them down the food chain, unless you would also say that pre-1v bodies were also not top-of-the-line models. In a sense, the D810 and 5Ds are direct successors of the D3x and 1Ds3, in a way that the 1Dx and D4 are not - neither of the latter two bodies are suited to the same roles that the D3x and 1Ds3 fulfilled, whereas the D810 and 5Ds fit them perfectly. It's as if Nikon and Canon realised that the bulk, inbuilt grip and armour which made the 1D3 and D3/D3s form factor so good for action photographers and photojournalists gave nothing useful to the detail-oriented, tripod-mounted and studio photographers while being 50% heavier and a lot bigger, and changed to a lighter build more suited to the application for the next generation.
Put it this way - if the D810 had sold for $6k and the D4 for $4k, with the features and form being exactly the same, would you still be arguing that the D4 is the top-tier system and not the now-pricier D810? If so, why?
But can we please not get sidetracked on this? What constitutes or does not constitute a top-tier body has nothing to do with the subject at hand - that is, the likely features of the A9.
-
In my view there is about 0.1% chance of the a9 not featuring a high res sensor.
Key people in Sony see themselves as being in a different league in terms of sensors design compared to Canon, there is just no way they will stay behind long from a resolution standpoint.
My guess is that Nikon had a strong say in the specs and I would vote for a 72mp resolution.
Cheers,
Bernard
That would mean either a ridiculously fast card, or slow fps. If it's limited to 5fps or so, what do you think would meaningfully set it apart from the A7r2 (or future A7r3 with the new hi-res sensor) for those who would use such a camera (think D810 and 5Ds audience)?
Why would Nikon have a say on what Sony develops? Sony were going to develop a 36MP sensor back in 2012 anyway. That Nikon also bought it doesn't change much - if they wanted a hi-res sensor, there wasn't (and still isn't) much choice. Nikon sales gave Sony a bit of extra cash; the D800/D810 pretty much established Nikon as the go-to brand for those with high resolution requirements, stealing the show that had been dominated by Canon with the 1Ds, 1Ds2, 1Ds3 and 5D2. Nikon is reliant on Sony, not the other way round.
-
Another very important question would be, why do some think that "bombshell" is referring to a top model (the top model whose definition nobody agrees about)? ;)
What if it meant:
- 8k
- full modularity with the ability to upgrade the sensor/...
- a super high res EVF with see through clothes ability
- raw histogram
- it can self heal after a drop thanks to the usage of liquid metal
- it runs iOS and comes pre-equipped with the ability to apply automatically PS actions based on an automated analysis of image content (image downsizing,...)
- it ships with high performance EOS/F mount adapters
- ...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why would Nikon have a say on what Sony develops? Sony were going to develop a 36MP sensor back in 2012 anyway. That Nikon also bought it doesn't change much - if they wanted a hi-res sensor, there wasn't (and still isn't) much choice. Nikon sales gave Sony a bit of extra cash; the D800/D810 pretty much established Nikon as the go-to brand for those with high resolution requirements, stealing the show that had been dominated by Canon with the 1Ds, 1Ds2, 1Ds3 and 5D2. Nikon is reliant on Sony, not the other way round.
You have never worked extensively with Japanese companies have you?
Nikon has generated for many years the vast majority of Sony DSLRs sensors sales. Sony would most probably not have invested in the DSLR version of the Exmor technology had Nikon not been there to commit a very large volume of sensors.
The industrial truth is that the 2 companies are closely interdependants partners with a very long history, and that matters in Japan.
So my view is that Sony would probably not develop a new high res sensor if it didn't meet Nikon's needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You have never worked extensively with Japanese companies have you?
Nikon has generated for many years the vast majority of Sony DSLRs sales. Sony would most probably not have invested in the DSLR version of the Exmor technology had Nikon not been there to commit a very large volume of sensors.
The industrial truth is that the 2 companies are closely interdependants partners with a very long history, and that matters in Japan.
So my view is that Sony would probably not develop a new high res sensor if it didn't meet Nikon's needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
They developed a 51MP, then a 100MP MF sensor. They developed a 42MP full-frame sensor, so far used only by Sony themselves.
At the same time, Nikon also sources its sensors from companies other than just Sony.
-
Another very important question would be, why do some think that "bombshell" is referring to a top model (the top model whose definition nobody agrees about)? ;)
What if it meant:
- 8k
- full modularity with the ability to upgrade the sensor/...
- a super high res EVF with see through clothes ability
- raw histogram
- it can self heal after a drop thanks to the usage of liquid metal
- it runs iOS and comes pre-equipped with the ability to apply automatically PS actions based on an automated analysis of image content (image downsizing,...)
- it ships with high performance EOS/F mount adapters
- ...
Cheers,
Bernard
Almost by definition, the A9 would be Sony's top model, given that it would clearly be above the A7 line, and they haven't done anything with full-frame A-mount.
Whether it's a top model that competes with the D5/1Dx2 or the D810/5Ds is another question.
-
They developed a 51MP, then a 100MP MF sensor. They developed a 42MP full-frame sensor, so far used only by Sony themselves.
At the same time, Nikon also sources its sensors from companies other than just Sony.
I'll gladly admit I was wrong if the D900 and A9 come with different sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Almost by definition, the A9 would be Sony's top model, given that it would clearly be above the A7 line, and they haven't done anything with full-frame A-mount.
Whether it's a top model that competes with the D5/1Dx2 or the D810/5Ds is another question.
My point being that the axis of speed and resolution may not be the only 2 that could justify a top model positioning.
What if bombshell referred to a redefinition of market segments?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My point being that the axis of speed and resolution may not be the only 2 that could justify a top model positioning.
What if bombshell referred to a redefinition of market segments?
Cheers,
Bernard
There was no mention of a 'bombshell' announcement by Sony. Merely that the new body would have unlimited RAW burst and dual cards. It was the author - not Sony - who considered that news a 'bomb'.
There are only a few market segments anyway, defined by what people shoot. You buy equipment based on what you need it to be able to do; required capabilities are pretty much defined by what you shoot. It would be incredibly stupid to try to redefine 'market segments' by making a new camera that, for instance, had some but not all features for action, some but not all features for studio/landscape work and some features for video without being optimised for it, then expect it to sell in large numbers to some executive-imagined new category of photographers who happened to require a camera with just that mix of capabilities.
-
Another very important question would be, why do some think that "bombshell" is referring to a top model (the top model whose definition nobody agrees about)? ;)
What if it meant:
- 8k
- full modularity with the ability to upgrade the sensor/...
- a super high res EVF with see through clothes ability
- raw histogram
- it can self heal after a drop thanks to the usage of liquid metal
- it runs iOS and comes pre-equipped with the ability to apply automatically PS actions based on an automated analysis of image content (image downsizing,...)
- it ships with high performance EOS/F mount adapters
- ...
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree here in theory. Above the 24MP mark, the need/desire for high MP count declines exponentially with increasing MP count. What is the market size for a 100MP sensored Sony A9? Don't know.
Bombshell to me would be things like:
Real increase in processing power and data pipeline
RAW Histograms
Automatic ETTR Metering
Automated in camera Focus and Exposure stacking computation
Real Shooting Banks (saved menu selectable, starting points)
-
I agree here in theory. Above the 24MP mark, the need/desire for high MP count declines exponentially with increasing MP count. What is the market size for a 100MP sensored Sony A9? Don't know.
Bombshell to me would be things like:
Real increase in processing power and data pipeline
RAW Histograms
Automatic ETTR Metering
Automated in camera Focus and Exposure stacking computation
Real Shooting Banks (saved menu selectable, starting points)
Sony never once mentioned a 'bombshell'. The writer of the article described unlimited RAW burst and dual cards as a bombshell. I think people are putting too much stock in that word, given that it didn't even come from Sony.
I'd welcome as many megapixels as possible. I shoot highly-detailed scenes from a tripod through sharp lenses which outresolve even the 42MP sensor - the more detail, the better. If
they include a pixel binning option, those who prefer smaller files don't lose out either.
No doubt the A9 will have increased processing speed and power, for faster AF and less viewfinder lag, otherwise it may as well be an A7r3. Not sure about the rest, though. RAW histograms and automatic ETTR is essentially a firmware thing. I wish Magic Lantern worked with Sony bodies - their EVF-based composition gives a lot more scope for electronic optimisation than Canon/Nikon's OVF-based composition.
-
I love to guess and it will be a 72MP sensor and it will be in the D900/850 as well.
And the reason why Nikon is not using the new 42MP sensor is, exactly because they are already working on the 72MP sensor with Sony.
That is how companies work in Japan. As it was said. The D800 made all these new cameras possible in the sense Sony had someone who bought a ton of sensors.
Christopher Hauser
ch@chauser.eu
-
the point is that number of MP does not make a camera top model line or on par with a top model line... that's why 1DxII is top model line and 5Ds/r is a level below... just like D5 is top model line and D810 is a level below
No it just means that particular camera is marketed at that particular feature set, mostly sports, PJ where that sort of burst rate is needed with high ISO is needed. Studio pros aren't using these camaeras as much as the 5DS R and D810, cameras which are fast becoming the standard in these sectors of the industry i ie. Peter Lindeberg, Glen Luchford, Terry Richardson, Jeurgen Teller etc etc etc.
also, Canon and Nikon have only been able to create 20ish MP for that sort of camera, with that sort of frame rate and high ISO - don't think for one moment if they couldn't create a higher res with high ISO, something that Sony seems quite capable of, they wouldn't too.
-
My guess is 72MP sensor with 8K motion.
I'm happy to be wrong on this.
-
also, Canon and Nikon have only been able to create 20ish MP for that sort of camera, with that sort of frame rate and high ISO - don't think for one moment if they couldn't create a higher res with high ISO, something that Sony seems quite capable of, they wouldn't too.
I'd say that it's the bandwidth more than the sensor, at least in Nikon's case. Nikon, at least, has access to a great 36MP sensor; Canon's best low-light sensor, up till now, is probably the 20MP 6D sensor (although the 1Dx2 should be much better on this front, given the on-chip ADC).
That said, I agree that, if they were able to make a hi-res body capable of shooting at 10-15fps, they would. Wildlife photographers and those shooting field sports benefit greatly from higher pixel density (so much so that a significant number use crop bodies in addition to full-frame, or shoot with the D810 or 5Ds and sacrifice frame rate), and these are a significant proportion of action photographers. Also, 8k video requires it - at minimum, you'd be shooting 33MP at 25fps, and a camera aimed at producing true 8k video output rather than editing for 4k would probably shoot at an even higher speed and resolution. So, either way, hi-res action bodies are coming.
-
Let me point out that sports and wildlife photographers are the least likely users of mirrorless. EVF lag is the main issue, along with really fast really robust AF with supertelephotos. Actual resolution is less important - a great shot at 6 MP is still a great shot for 99% of sports uses. With wildlife there is some cropping, so more resolution is good, up to a point. A large percentage of wildlife and birds are active at dawn and dusk, so there is some point at which noise is an issue when shooting with shutter speeds upwards of 1/1000 sec.
-
Let me point out that sports and wildlife photographers are the least likely users of mirrorless. EVF lag is the main issue, along with really fast really robust AF with supertelephotos. Actual resolution is less important - a great shot at 6 MP is still a great shot for 99% of sports uses. With wildlife there is some cropping, so more resolution is good, up to a point.
6MP isn't even 4k video. With 8k video, you'll be getting at least 33MP, likely more. If a stills action camera can't capture at least as much detail as a frame grab from a video camera, then there's little point to the stills camera. As for wildlife, there's a reason many wildlife shooters use the D810 or 5Ds instead of a dedicated action body, or use their 7D2 backup body as much as their 1Dx.
We still haven't seen what a full-featured Sony AF system can do. The A7rII and A6300 do very well with Sony lenses (seems about the same as the 5D3 with Canon lenses), but these are miniature cameras with limited processing power and limited battery power.
EVF lag is the big issue, although the larger battery and greater processing power of an A9 should allow it to greatly cut down on the lag issues that plague smaller mirrorless cameras. The other option is to treat it like a video camera when shooting sports - pan and focus like when shooting video, only triggering the actual burst at key moments. Even the slowest EVF lag is faster than human reaction time anyway. It would require a different shooting technique from that which action stills photographers are used to, though.
A large percentage of wildlife and birds are active at dawn and dusk, so there is some point at which noise is an issue when shooting with shutter speeds upwards of 1/1000 sec.
Of course, it's the overall noise level that matters, not whether the image is divided in to 20 million or 80 million pixels. The higher-resolution sensor will give you more spatial detail and the same noise level. The tradeoff is in frame rate, not whole-image noise. If the bottleneck is in the card write speed rather than the capture rate, you can even sacrifice resolution for frame rate through pixel binning, without losing effective sensor area.
-
6MP isn't even 4k video. With 8k video, you'll be getting at least 33MP, likely more. If a stills action camera can't capture at least as much detail as a frame grab from a video camera, then there's little point to the stills camera.
...
If the stills camera is able to better focus its 6MP and better freeze motion by using a 1/1000 s shutter, then I'd suggest that it is still potentially valuable as an action camera.
That said, MP seems to be cheap these days. Manufacturers can offers lots of them in a nice package with low noise, sufficient battery life, reasonable frame rates. So why strive for less?
-h
-
What are the highest sustained read bandwidths of cutting edge memory cards? Say that Sony release an "A9" featuring the on-sensor processing and memory of the RX-100M4. They would still (eventually) have to dump the buffer to memory card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash#CFast
CFast seemed tp allow 600MB/s in 2011. That is:
600*1e6*8/(12e6*10) = 40fps@12MP 10bpp
600*1e6*8/(24e6*14) = 14.3fps@24MP 14bpp
600*1e6*8/(72e6*14) = 4.8fps@72MP 14bpp
There is of course the possibility of using a video codec for 50:1 or more lossy compression. Or using 2 or more memory cards interleaved. Or using a proprietary flash standard (Sony seems to be fond of that). If the camera included, say, 32 GB of built-in memory that could be used for this purpose, I guess that many would be satisfied.
-h
-
If the stills camera is able to better focus its 6MP and better freeze motion by using a 1/1000 s shutter, then I'd suggest that it is still potentially valuable as an action camera.
That said, MP seems to be cheap these days. Manufacturers can offers lots of them in a nice package with low noise, sufficient battery life, reasonable frame rates. So why strive for less?
-h
If the shutter speed's the same, then the amount of motion blur will be the same. Just that the 33MP sensor will show the blur smeared over more pixels. The amount of blurring in the whole image will still be the same, though; the high-resolution sensor will never be worse than the low-resolution one.
There's no reason you can't turn the shutter speed on the 33MP sensor to 1/1000 and get the same motion-freezing capability. The output at that shitter speed wouldn't be ideal for video, but, if you're aiming at capturing stills, there's no technical reason you couldn't do that.
The unlimited RAW burst capability has other implications for video, though. One of the difficulties with video, when shooting in a dark environment, is the ability to shoot at slower shutter speeds. Even after turning up the ISO to the limits of acceptable quality, it mightn't be enough. At 25fps, the slowest possible shutter speed is 1/25. But what if you need 1/10, 1/5 or even slower? With unlimited RAW burst, you can do that by using a buffer - still shoot at 25fps, but store the frames in a buffer, so that the frames can be added together (effectively giving a slower shutter speed) before being saved to storage. The merged frames would overlap - frame 1 might consist of frames 1-5 added together, frame 2 2-6, frame 3 3-7 and so on - but you'd get your 25fps while still being able to shoot at a shutter speed slower than 1/25.
-
If the shutter speed's the same, then the amount of motion blur will be the same.
Of course.
I was merely pointing out that there is more to good images than resolution, and a video camera with more spatial resolution than a stills camera might not be able to surpass that stills camera due to operational limits and/or sensor/electronics/encoding limits.
-h
-
What are the highest sustained read bandwidths of cutting edge memory cards? Say that Sony release an "A9" featuring the on-sensor processing and memory of the RX-100M4. They would still (eventually) have to dump the buffer to memory card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash#CFast
CFast seemed tp allow 600MB/s in 2011. That is:
600*1e6*8/(12e6*10) = 40fps@12MP 10bpp
600*1e6*8/(24e6*14) = 14.3fps@24MP 14bpp
600*1e6*8/(72e6*14) = 4.8fps@72MP 14bpp
There is of course the possibility of using a video codec for 50:1 or more lossy compression. Or using 2 or more memory cards interleaved. Or using a proprietary flash standard (Sony seems to be fond of that). If the camera included, say, 32 GB of built-in memory that could be used for this purpose, I guess that many would be satisfied.
-h
This uses XQD cards. These currently go to 350MBps write speed (read speed is 400MBps, but that's irrelevant for burst speed); the next series is supposed to go to 1000MBps.
An uncompressed, 14-bit RAW file will be 35MB in size at 20MP, 70MB at 40MP and 140MP at 80MP at minimum (assuming the two spare bits in each two-byte block aren't just 'wasted'). This equates to 10fps, 5ps and 2.5fps at 350MBps, or 28fps, 14fps and 7fps at 1000MBps. Most likely, there will be some sort of compression, bringing these speeds up slightly (for lossless compression) or significantly (for lossy compression). Likely, both compression modes will be available - one for quality, another for speed. Perhaps continuous-shooting will only be available with lossy compression, or with pixel binning to give a smaller output resolution; full-sized, losslessly-compressed RAWs would still have a limited burst, although the limit could be extremely large/functionally unlimited if the camera contained a large, fast buffer. But, either way, 8K video will likely require the faster, next-gen series of cards.
-
At some point, this begins to compete mostly with medium format cameras (which have no burst mode to speak of - the Pentax will go 3 fps for 10 frames, and that's by far the best on the MF market)... Of course, the D3x didn't have a meaningful burst mode at full quality (it was 5 fps, but went down to 1.5 when you turned on 14 bit raw!), either, and that's probably the best analog for this highly specialized camera.
Watch Fuji jump in to this space (oddly, as usual) with a camera that is no heavier than the Sony, but uses a 33x44 mm sensor, either the one in the Pentax 645z or more likely a successor...
There will soon be a blurring of the lines between frame sizes - full frame was more meaningful when anything EXCEPT full frame meant that lenses were cropped (and bigger than they really needed to be). While that's still largely true for Canon and Nikon (most DX and EF-S lenses are cheap kit zooms), other companies are making matched lens lineups for a variety of sensor sizes. Fuji has a superb lineup of APS-C lenses, and I fully expect to see them do the same thing at 33x44mm (they will be a little bigger than FF lenses, but they won't be anywhere near as big as 645 lenses). Just as they are competing with 24 MP full frame with the APS-C X-Pro 2 and its great lenses, I expect them to go after the highest end of FF and the lower end of medium format with a 33x44 mm camera (Photokina?)
-
At some point, this begins to compete mostly with medium format cameras (which have no burst mode to speak of - the Pentax will go 3 fps for 10 frames, and that's by far the best on the MF market)... Of course, the D3x didn't have a meaningful burst mode at full quality (it was 5 fps, but went down to 1.5 when you turned on 14 bit raw!), either, and that's probably the best analog for this highly specialized camera.
Watch Fuji jump in to this space (oddly, as usual) with a camera that is no heavier than the Sony, but uses a 33x44 mm sensor, either the one in the Pentax 645z or more likely a successor...
There will soon be a blurring of the lines between frame sizes - full frame was more meaningful when anything EXCEPT full frame meant that lenses were cropped (and bigger than they really needed to be). While that's still largely true for Canon and Nikon (most DX and EF-S lenses are cheap kit zooms), other companies are making matched lens lineups for a variety of sensor sizes. Fuji has a superb lineup of APS-C lenses, and I fully expect to see them do the same thing at 33x44mm (they will be a little bigger than FF lenses, but they won't be anywhere near as big as 645 lenses). Just as they are competing with 24 MP full frame with the APS-C X-Pro 2 and its great lenses, I expect them to go after the highest end of FF and the lower end of medium format with a 33x44 mm camera (Photokina?)
Definitely agree here.
Pro-level cameras tend to lean towards the high-speed action camp (D4s, 1Dx) or the low-speed-but-incredible-detail camp (MF, 5Ds, D3x, 1Ds3), with a few (5D3, D810) closer to the middle ground, but still leaning one way or the other. Sony is unlikely to match the high-speed action cameras this time (chiefly due to EVF speed), so is likely to target the hi-res camp.
Thing is, they could potentially do very, very well at it - even against medium format. Sure, it's a smaller sensor, but that just means the optics need to be more precise, which is easier to do for a smaller lens - Zeiss Otus lenses on full-frame are just as sharp as the best Rodenstock or Schneider lenses on MF. Light collecting area is smaller, but CMOS has better quantum efficiency than CCD, so the total number of photons collected is similar at the same ISO (obviously, the newer CMOS-based MF sensors are better in this regard), giving the same noise performance.
The key would be to increase photon well capacity and decrease minimum ISO to the same as that achievable with MF or lower, in order to collect a similar number of photons, minimising shot noise and maximising DR.