Jemini wrote:
So in around a second and half? Sounds right. A9 power up and AF points shows up in 3 seconds. Sometimes little longer and some times little faster. On the average 3 seconds I'd say.
That's not bad considering how long it will take us to lift the camera and bring to eye.
Much faster. I just did a test relevant to weddings. Camera on my hip. I switch the camera on bring it to my eye and can immediately take the shot _without_ having to wait. FANTASTIC!
Did the same with the A9ii, I had to wait about 2s after the camera was on my eye before I could take the shot.
So the 0.9-1s start-up time I mentioned before is realistic!
Holger wrote:
Much faster. I just did a test relevant to weddings. Camera on my hip. I switch the camera on bring it to my eye and can immediately take the shot _without_ having to wait. FANTASTIC!
Did the same with the A9ii, I had to wait about 2s after the camera was on my eye before I could take the shot.
So the 0.9-1s start-up time I mentioned before is realistic!
Jemini wrote:
So in around a second and half? Sounds right. A9 power up and AF points shows up in 3 seconds. Sometimes little longer and some times little faster. On the average 3 seconds I'd say.
That's not bad considering how long it will take us to lift the camera and bring to eye.
I recorded it and it takes something like 0.5-0.6s until you see the live view feed and AF point then it takes around half a sec longer before you see shutter speed, aperture and iso.
randomguy wrote:
I recorded it and it takes something like 0.5-0.6s until you see the live view feed and AF point then it takes around half a sec longer before you see shutter speed, aperture and iso.
So total 1 second. You are talking about 'power on to ready' time. Right? Is it same for 'Sleep to ready'?
Imagemaster wrote:
Time for one of you Sonyboys to start a new thread: "A1 images showing NOTICEABLY better 'quality' images than previous models."
If you can.
For us it is tools for the job. No better images for sure. But better images in situations where we were limited (where 1/400s flash sync can be used, adjustable flicker reduction in e-shutter is used, the camera is ready faster, -4ev comes in handy, etc.).
Wouldn't make sense at all for average shooters, but when you have a business, you buy what helps you getting the job done easier.
Wow. That's great. So we may not have to set PSST Off.
I noticed the duration is not constant with A9. I will wait for WL/Bird photographer's real world comment..
Jemini wrote:
So total 1 second. You are talking about 'power on to ready' time. Right? Is it same for 'Sleep to ready'?
No I talk about sleep to ready. You can focus and shoot already as soon as the live feed shows, so after around half a second. Might take a bit longer before you can achieve focus and start shooting if you are not in release priority however.
randomguy wrote:
No I talk about sleep to ready. You can focus and shoot already as soon as the live feed shows, so after around half a second. Might take a bit longer before you can achieve focus and start shooting if you are not in release priority however.
Imagemaster wrote:
Time for one of you Sonyboys to start a new thread: "A1 images showing NOTICEABLY better 'quality' images than previous models."
If you can.
I'm certainly not buying this camera for better quality images compared to other cameras I have(had). I'm buying it to get more pixies with A9 like AF and the elimination of a lot of operational annoyances I have.
Imagemaster wrote:
Time for one of you Sonyboys to start a new thread: "A1 images showing NOTICEABLY better 'quality' images than previous models."
If you can.
I'm in because I've been toting the Riv+a9, that this one combines the two. Not expecting
better image quality at all/very pleased with the ones I had; just simplifying my life a bit. Plus
it is a retirement present.
It's also a nice upgrade from the a9...the BBF button if nothing else.
It's also a nice upgrade from the Riv...the FPS choices among others.
Imagemaster wrote:
Time for one of you Sonyboys to start a new thread: "A1 images showing NOTICEABLY better 'quality' images than previous models."
If you can.
I'll pass on starting a thread, but I know that previous upgrades in equipment have made a very noticeable improvement in the images I can get. Of course, that would not apply to everyone. Some people are so good that there is no room for improvement. Not the case for me. I need all the help I can get. I find that the older I get the more help I need. I expect the extra pixels combined with some improvement in AF and noise performance will be a bit more help and will produce noticeable improvement in my images. At least I will notice it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
dclark wrote:
I'll pass on starting a thread, but I know that previous upgrades in equipment have made a very noticeable improvement in the images I can get. Of course, that would not apply to everyone. Some people are so good that there is no room for improvement. Not the case for me. I need all the help I can get. I find that the older I get the more help I need. I expect the extra pixels combined with some improvement in AF and noise performance will be a bit more help and will produce noticeable improvement in my images. At least I will notice it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Agree, and all those other factors contribute to better 'quality' images even when the number of pixels remains the same.
And unless my math is wrong, sensor size remains the same with just more pixels being jammed into that sensor. So unless the newer models have better/more efficient pixels how would you get better 'quality' images just because there are more pixels on the same-size sensor?
It's still worth starting a thread just to expose settings and situations. Probably matters more for lenses but I always consult the xxxxx image threads here before buying things (when they exist). Plus, get your photo in the first post and your win the internet right?
Imagemaster wrote:
Time for one of you Sonyboys to start a new thread: "A1 images showing NOTICEABLY better 'quality' images than previous models."
Imagemaster wrote:
Agree, and all those other factors contribute to better 'quality' images even when the number of pixels remains the same.
And unless my math is wrong, sensor size remains the same with just more pixels being jammed into that sensor. So unless the newer models have better/more efficient pixels how would you get better 'quality' images just because there are more pixels on the same-size sensor?
Your math is right. On a per pixel basis, big pixels have better performance that small pixels. On a per unit area basis (how photographic dynamic range is determined) you come out about the same if the read noise is low. On an information theoretic basis, my preferred approach, it's complicated, but if the read noise is low enough you get more image information out of more pixels. That is why I look at both photographic dynamic range and input referred read noise on Claff's web site. The A1 looks really good on both criteria. I think the input referred read noise chart looks extremely good. A lot better than I expected. Not only is the read noise lower, it's flat above ISO 500, which indicates a lot of noise problems in the A9 related to image noise induced by fast electronics downstream of the sense node have been eliminated.
The question you pose is an excellent one that does not have a simple answer. And although I believe the analysis of the image information is the right way to analyze the question, it is especially complex and can be controversial even among people who specialize in that type of analysis. Regardless, I am convinced the A1 will deliver more image information than the A9 and on a par with the A7R4, along with operational improvements on both. I'm sufficiently convinced that I coughed up the required $6500.
Imagemaster wrote:
Agree, and all those other factors contribute to better 'quality' images even when the number of pixels remains the same.
And unless my math is wrong, sensor size remains the same with just more pixels being jammed into that sensor. So unless the newer models have better/more efficient pixels how would you get better 'quality' images just because there are more pixels on the same-size sensor?
Sometimes, they do. Compare A9/A9ii vs. A1 PDR. Measurable.
But usually a discussion is moot unless people define "better quality images. What is your definition?
danwu wrote:
If you are interested in A1 with swallow. https://m.facebook.com/tooleebee.photo/
Click the “Videos” tab and scroll down a couple of posts.
Enjoy!
Thanks for sharing that. There is also a very good video of bird eye-af. After watching that video I think the A1 looks on par to what the R5 can do. I can't wait for next weekend to shoot this camera!!
