MedicineMan404 wrote:
Ever get the feeling that update won't materialize?
If they hadn't shown that slide at the A6600 event then I would certainly be thinking they weren't going to push FW 6.0. But they did show it and said September (which until the 23rd still meets their original "Summer" claim) so I'm sure it is coming.
I don't know if we will ever find out why it took so long. Still a real mystery to me with only two new features, both of which made it to the other cameras months ago.
Sony has told Petapixel that they are attending PhotoPlus, just delayed in showing up on the website. Book your tickets if you want to handle the A9II before release!!
Would I be wrong in thinking that, if rumors are correct, the a9II would be better at low light shooting vs the a7r iv?
I currently own the Leica Q2, a7r iii and a7r iv. I'm thinking that because I own the 24 GM the Q2 (and the a7r iii) can be sold and I can pick up the a9 ii when it's available providing me with two bodies to carry that can cover every type of shooting.
saxguy wrote:
Would I be wrong in thinking that, if rumors are correct, the a9II would be better at low light shooting vs the a7r iv?
I currently own the Leica Q2, a7r iii and a7r iv. I'm thinking that because I own the 24 GM the Q2 (and the a7r iii) can be sold and I can pick up the a9 ii when it's available providing me with two bodies to carry that can cover every type of shooting.
I would not be confident that the A9II would be better than the A7rIV in low light. It might be, but most of the time historically there has not been much difference once one normalizes for size of output. For example, the A7SII compared to the A7rII (if I recall correctly) was only about 1/2 stop better once normalized for output size and this (A7Sii) was a camera touted as being the best specifically for low light. The A9II might be better, but its strengths are more speed of autofocus, best professional body, but not (probably) dynamic range. High ISO shooting will doubtless be good, but I personally doubt it will be much, if any, better than A7RIV for the same output size.
Sep 16, 2019 at 10:41 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Luvwine wrote:
I would not be confident that the A9II would be better than the A7rIV in low light. It might be, but most of the time historically there has not been much difference once one normalizes for size of output. For example, the A7SII compared to the A7rII (if I recall correctly) was only about 1/2 stop better once normalized for output size and this (A7Sii) was a camera touted as being the best specifically for low light. The A9II might be better, but its strengths are more speed of autofocus, best professional body, but not (probably) dynamic range. High ISO shooting will doubtless be good, but I personally doubt it will be much, if any, better than A7RIV for the same output size....Show more →
Steven, I am pretty confident the A9 II will have better high ISO performance than the A7r IV. There were some choice made with the A7r IV that increased its low ISO performance with some cost at high ISO performance. Bill Claff actually measures high ISO performance with normalized output. This measure pegs the A7r IV at 4744 as the highest output with good performance for the size to which he normalizes it. That is between a third and half a stop less than the A9 which Bill rates at 6612. If the A9 II is at least close to the A9, it should have at least a third of a stop advantage in high ISO. I would be very surprised if the A9 II didn't come at least close to the A9 in high ISO capability.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Steven, I am pretty confident the A9 II will have better high ISO performance than the A7r IV. There were some choice made with the A7r IV that increased its low ISO performance with some cost at high ISO performance. Bill Claff actually measures high ISO performance with normalized output. This measure pegs the A7r IV at 4744 as the highest output with good performance for the size to which he normalizes it. That is between a third and half a stop less than the A9 which Bill rates at 6612. If the A9 II is at least close to the A9, it should have at least a third of a stop advantage in high ISO. I would be very surprised if the A9 II didn't come at least close to the A9 in high ISO capability....Show more →
I guess I'll sell the Q2 and keep the a7r iii to shoot with my iv until I get definitive reports on the high ISO noise issue and DR of the 9ii. Considering my girlfriend is a surfer and a skier, the A9II may still have a place in my bag.
If the A9II has 36mp then I might be calling Fidelity and looking at my 401k. Seriously, my biggest challenge in shooting sports is that sometimes subjects are filling 1/4 the frame and I'm cropping a ton out to get a good edited photo. I'm shooting with an 18mp camera, so double the size would still give me an amazing image to use. So now the question would be, A9 plus adapter, A9II plus Adapter, A7IV plus adapter, or sit on my hands waiting for Canon to catch up. *sigh*
As far as high ISO, I know I saw a pile of tests with the A7RIII vs the A9 and once you look at the images of a comparable size, both cameras produced almost similar images even though the ISO performance of one was technically better than the other.
baltmin wrote:
If they use a newer generation 36mp sensor I expect the A9II to be slightly better than A9 when normalised down to the same mp.
If they use a new generation 30MP sensor as I suspect, then I do think the A9II will be at least a little better than the A9 at high ISO, but they might increase the low ISO performance which wasn't ideal.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Steven, I am pretty confident the A9 II will have better high ISO performance than the A7r IV. There were some choice made with the A7r IV that increased its low ISO performance with some cost at high ISO performance. Bill Claff actually measures high ISO performance with normalized output. This measure pegs the A7r IV at 4744 as the highest output with good performance for the size to which he normalizes it. That is between a third and half a stop less than the A9 which Bill rates at 6612. If the A9 II is at least close to the A9, it should have at least a third of a stop advantage in high ISO. I would be very surprised if the A9 II didn't come at least close to the A9 in high ISO capability....Show more →
I guess time will tell, but a third to a half stop (if that is all it is) is not a huge difference in my book. YMMV, of course and we are debating about a sensor and camera that we still don't know a lot about.
Sep 16, 2019 at 02:54 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Luvwine wrote:
I guess time will tell, but a third to a half stop (if that is all it is) is not a huge difference in my book. YMMV, of course and we are debating about a sensor and camera that we still don't know a lot about.
I would agree that it isn't a huge difference to me either. I have the Nikon Z7 and it doesn't do quite as well at high ISO as the A7r IV, and you can notice the difference between it and the Sony A9 but I wouldn't call it anything like night and day. Further I am sure that people who are better at using noise reduction that me--I don't use it much at all because I almost never like the results--could make a much bigger difference by using it than this difference in native performance. Still I can see why people who shoot almost exclusively in low light would have a preference for the A9 or A9 II.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would agree that it isn't a huge difference to me either. I have the Nikon Z7 and it doesn't do quite as well at high ISO as the A7r IV, and you can notice the difference between it and the Sony A9 but I wouldn't call it anything like night and day. Further I am sure that people who are better at using noise reduction that me--I don't use it much at all because I almost never like the results--could make a much bigger difference by using it than this difference in native performance. Still I can see why people who shoot almost exclusively in low light would have a preference for the A9 or A9 II....Show more →
Give Topaz Denoise AI a try - it's not like any other noise reduction software I've used. It retains, or even enhances, detail and reduces noise. They have a free trial download available.
saxguy wrote:
Give Topaz Denoise AI a try - it's not like any other noise reduction software I've used. It retains, or even enhances, detail and reduces noise.
Haven't tests shown that it's pretty much the same as NIK? (yet NIK being free)
Much newer and completely different algorithms. Look up some reviews - their AI line of products can do amazing things, but they need a lot of processing power on the hardware side to run quickly.
saxguy wrote:
Much newer and completely different algorithms. Look up some reviews - their AI line of products can do amazing things, but they need a lot of processing power on the hardware side to run quickly.
Cool. I have 64GB of Ram on my PC, so should be ok. It says that it works as a Plug-in for PS, but might you know if it works in CS6?
Going back to an earlier part of this thread, I got a chance to play with A7r IV last week and I'm excited about the ergonomic changes. The back AF button is much bigger than on the previous models and has a better feel. I'm hopeful that the A9II has the same change.
fhammond wrote:
Going back to an earlier part of this thread, I got a chance to play with A7r IV last week and I'm excited about the ergonomic changes. The back AF button is much bigger than on the previous models and has a better feel. I'm hopeful that the A9II has the same change.
According to the leaked image it certainly does....(assuming that photo wasn't just a PS job)
Wanted to ask a question and instead of starting a new thread I will just ask here. For those of you that own both the R3 or R4 and A9 do you find the images out of the A9 lacking? I know the resolution difference but have read comments saying that compared to the R3 or R4 and because the A9 has filtering that the pictures are not near as sharp. I have the R3, R4 and A9 and always thought the images from the A9 looked great. Sharp, good contrast and the colors are very pleasing to me. Both RAW and JPG look great. The only downside I have found is the resolution and not being able to crop like I do on my other high MP cameras. Maybe its just me.
