Wasn't $4500 US the original price of the A9? So, if Sony brought the A9II in for that same price that would not be surprising at all.
Rich
I assume it will be $4500 again. We were talking CDN$ as per the post I quoted. The price of the A9 in Canada was $5,999 when new. Currently is $4,999.
Used A9s are an absolute bargain these days and will likely drop further once the A9II is announced. Hard to go wrong with a used A9. I doubt even the D6 or 1DXIII will outperform the current A9 in the AF tracking department.
Wasn't $4500 US the original price of the A9? So, if Sony brought the A9II in for that same price that would not be surprising at all.
Rich
Yup, that’s the reason for me to guess the MSRP of the A9 II. I remembered that it wasn’t that well received in the very beginning. We didn’t realize the full potential of the camera back then.
The BIG question is, who will sell his/her A9 BEFORE the rumor turns into reality? It is pretty much a sure thing, it is due and the timing for the Olympic Games, coming up in 2020 and in Japan out of all places, is about right. Sony is definitely gearing up to make a big splash there.
AGeoJO wrote:
Yup, that’s the reason for me to guess the MSRP of the A9 II. I remembered that it wasn’t that well received in the very beginning. We didn’t realize the full potential of the camera back then.
The BIG question is, who will sell his/her A9 BEFORE the rumor turns into reality? It is pretty much a sure thing, it is due and the timing for the Olympic Games, coming up in 2020 and in Japan out of all places, is about right. Sony is definitely gearing up to make a big splash there.
I prefer to own at least two cameras from a system, especially when travelling. Therefore, I'm more likely to keep my A9 as my 2nd camera instead of selling it. However, currently I still own two Nikon cameras so I haven't needed to own two Sony cameras. A lot will depend on if I decide to consolidate to a single brand again or continue on with a two brand setup.
If I continue on, I still won't sell the A9 until I get the A9II despite more lost value. If I had an A7RIII or IV then I might consider getting rid of the A9 now to maximize resale and just wait it out. But if the October announcement holds true, we still won't see a release till December I'd guess. That is a long time from now to be without the A9!!
The A9 didn't seem to be a big seller at first, none of us really grasped what it was capable of. I had to rely on my rental agency "Mitesh" to finally try one and realize its potential. It also seemed a number of early A9 buyers bought in just for the battery and ergo, dual card etc improvements but as soon as the A7RIII and then A7III came out a lot switched over to those as the special A9 sensor features weren't really important to them.
Well since those threads had not been bumped for 2 or 3 days, and here you are participating in this one, I guess you needed another one. Probably why it is titled "NEW A9II rumor thread".
arbitrage wrote:
It is expensive but if we consider that the A9 was designed to compete with the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DXII then it starts to look like a relative bargain.
D5 was $8,500 (now $7,800 nearing its replacement)
1DXII was $7,999 (now $7,429 nearing replacement), if you are CPS the price was/is $6,800.
Considering the A9 is as good or even better than those two cameras, it is a good deal in comparison.
The specs say 18-parallell fast A/D conversion, the A9 sensor specs says 12-parallel. If that means IMX435 does 18 rows in parallel that is 50% faster than the A9, however the sensor has 22.67% more rows to read. So if we assume the time required for reading a row is the same for both sensors I would guess 1.5/1.2267 = 1.22 so maybe around 22% faster than the A9?
The specs on that sensor is crazy by the way, 8K 60fps in video mode and 50fps stills both at 12bit. However if it ends up in the A9 II it will be severely nerfed just like the one in the A9, so don't expect to see any of that in the A9 but a new Venice camera will probably use it fully.
Who would want or need more than 20 FPS? I don't get that. I would imagine that most a9 users bump it down to 10 FPS most of the time, as I did last weekend trying Geoff's. A card is gonna fill pretty quick even at 20 FPS.
The specs say 18-parallell fast A/D conversion, the A9 sensor specs says 12-parallel. If that means IMX435 does 18 rows in parallel that is 50% faster than the A9, however the sensor has 22.67% more rows to read. So if we assume the time required for reading a row is the same for both sensors I would guess 1.5/1.2267 = 1.22 so maybe around 22% faster than the A9?
The specs on that sensor is crazy by the way, 8K 60fps in video mode and 50fps stills both at 12bit. However if it ends up in the A9 II it will be severely nerfed just like the one in the A9, so don't expect to see any of that in the A9 but a new Venice camera will probably use it fully. ...Show more →
Colin F wrote:
Who would want or need more than 20 FPS? I don't get that. I would imagine that most a9 users bump it down to 10 FPS most of the time, as I did last weekend trying Geoff's. A card is gonna fill pretty quick even at 20 FPS.
I don't need/want more than 20. I mostly shoot mine at 10. I do make use of 20 sometimes like for swallow IF shooting.
What I'd much rather see is an option to choose the exact FPS you want like 6, 8, 14 or 16 etc as you can on most other cameras (DSLRs, Z6/7 etc). I don't like the restriction of 1, 5, 10, 20.
arbitrage wrote:
What I'd much rather see is an option to choose the exact FPS you want like 6, 8, 14 or 16 etc as you can on most other cameras (DSLRs, Z6/7 etc). I don't like the restriction of 1, 5, 10, 20.
Yes indeed! If the a9II doesn't offer a better selection range, that will be disappointing. A user should be able to select whatever number they want beyond 1, but at least 5/10/15/20.
Interesting perspectives and desires. For me, I can live with limited choice of 5/10/20 FPS. My first 'want' is more megapixels. If it's 36 mp with improved AF and tracking, I'm in.
Colin F wrote:
Yes indeed! If the a9II doesn't offer a better selection range, that will be disappointing. A user should be able to select whatever number they want beyond 1, but at least 5/10/15/20.
I don't think we are going to get that option if they are keeping the same type of top left mode dial with the drive modes on it. I guess we could still hope there will be a menu option where you can set what FPS H, M, and L are when you physically switch them on the mode dial.
I don’t use the 20 FPS that often anymore. Going through almost 2K of images from just a very short morning in CR last year to capture fighting territorial hummers made me realize that 48TB of storage will not last forever . And yes, a denser sensor, improved AF with better tracking are the most important criteria for me. Too bad based on the the approximate timing, it won’t be available for a scheduled trip to SA. Oh, well.
rji2goleez wrote:
Interesting perspectives and desires. For me, I can live with limited choice of 5/10/20 FPS. My first 'want' is more megapixels. If it's 36 mp with improved AF and tracking, I'm in.
I can also live with the current setup, would just be nice sometimes to have something between 10 and 20. Like you, my first want is also 36MP or more. But I think 36 will be the highest they will go. Besides the MP increase, I will be looking forward to A7RIV ergonomic changes including larger AF-ON button and taller/deeper/rounder grip, red/white focus points and dual UHS-II slots.
I hope to get my hands on an A7RIV in a local store soon to see how much of an improvement the ergonomic changes have made.
Colin F wrote:
Who would want or need more than 20 FPS? I don't get that. I would imagine that most a9 users bump it down to 10 FPS most of the time, as I did last weekend trying Geoff's. A card is gonna fill pretty quick even at 20 FPS.
I would like the option to shoot up to 100FPS, preferably with a pre shot option. Having the option is better than not having it and I don't have to use it all the time. It would be perfect when I am waiting for something that happens extremely fast, and with pre capture I could capture it even if I am not fast enough to press the shutter in time.
Colin F wrote:
Who would want or need more than 20 FPS? I don't get that. I would imagine that most a9 users bump it down to 10 FPS most of the time, as I did last weekend trying Geoff's. A card is gonna fill pretty quick even at 20 FPS.
Me and I think, lots of sports guys. It's not about the "20", but it is about the 10 in 1/2 second or 5 in 1/4 second. I don't know any sports guys, or really anyone shooting anything moving in an unknown direction with unknown obstacles coming into and out of the frame can accurately pick the exact moment to press the shutter button. So, I'd prefer to have 5 shots from the 1/4 second burst than 2 or 3 if I am shooting at 10 fps or 1 or 2 if shooting at 5fps.
Clearly there are times when I shoot through the play, looking for peak action and peak jubilation after the action and end up with way too many shots, but a quick cull can usually whittle that number down to 1 or 2 images worth keeping.
I'd probably like to see 30fps or so. So, in that 1/2 second burst,I have 15 and not 10 to review and select from or in that 1/4 second burst I have 7 or 8. Usually, a quick review and I can pick the one or two keepers. Often times sports guys will do that on the back of the camera during down times and then rate those images in camera and only ingest the rated images.
I'd much rather see the a9II have a faster time between reviewing images and ready to shoot. The Canon's and Nikons have almost zero lag whereas the a9 can seem like an eternity getting ready to shoot after reviewing images. (See note above about rating images in camera between plays - with the a9 you need to be careful doing this or you can miss action).
As for filling a card, even shooting at 20fps, with a 64gb card and shooting jpeg, I don't fill a card shooting a full day of football, from pre-game activities to post game stuff. Loads of images, but still room on the card. I love the automatic roll over now just in case (wish the review image was the same as the card you are recording to by default) and also wish we had faster card types (loved my cfast in the 1dx2).
