Sony ILCA a9x Mirrorless Apha, Global Shutter, Z Shift User Concept

[SAR_admin]

[delewin]

That is just Brilliant.

 

Very clever Idea.

 

My only concern is the life span of the sensor travel mechanism that has to cope with IBIS as well as travelling in and out to cope with the changing of different type of lens mounts.

 

It truly would be a beauty that should take full advantage of the A mount F2.8 and lower glass.

(Why go to the expense of re-inventing an E mount series of F2.8 zooms when they will be the same weight and size of the existing A mount F2.8 zooms??)

 

This concept in conjunction with significantly more RAM, higher CPU processing capability and faster transfer speeds to the memory cards will be an unstoppable combination capable of converting virtually all Canon and Nikon user over to Sony bodies and then Sony lenses.

 

A touch screen would also be very popular.

 

My other question is simply:

 

When will it be in production so I can buy it? 

[JonathanStewart]

That's a very well-done animation but I see a couple of problems:

 

1.  You lose the benefit of the smaller FE body by having all that empty space. 

2.  Sony already has A-to-FE adapters so why build a camera body just to turn the existing adapters into a thinner adapter? 

[delewin]

Hi Jonathan,

 

My take on this is that it is for the same size body as the existing A99.

 

That size has the following benefits:

1. It is A Mount native, so all focusing options will work with A mount lenses. (Unfortunately this is not the case with the A7R M2 and the LA-EA3 adaptor.)

2.It will allow A mount users to use all the FE mount lenses. (Put more money in Sony and Zeiss's pocket.)

3. Canon and Nikon users can move to a better balanced camera-lens combination. (The A7R M2 is a great camera but when you hang a big fast lens on the front, it is a bit front heavy to say the least.)

4. The extra space allows for needed upgrades in both on board RAM and CPU processing power.

5. It will also remove any heat issue.

 

My concern is maintaining the focal point accuracy if you happen to be switching from A mount to E mount regularly.

 

David

[currymac]

Jonathan, I have never considered the smaller FE body to be a benefit. Indeed, it's one of my biggest gripes. There's not enough room for controls, the bodies are too light when paired with most professional lenses and there's no room for larger batteries or multiple memory cards, all needed by pros. The e-mounts are great street cameras, but that doesn't help me. I love my A-900 because of its size.

[Sator]

You lose the benefit of the smaller FE body by having all that empty space. 

 

 

Yes, this. The Z shift would only be a useful feature on an A mount body to reduce the flange distance. It will by that virtue never appear on the "a9" body. 

[JonathanStewart]

I get how some like the larger body style of A-mount.  Ergonomics (including switching batteries) of E-mount took me a while to get used to, but now I'm fine with it, including with my larger lenses.  For me, size is definitely an issue.  I carry my system on long treks and halving the weight of the body/lens combo is a huge benefit. At the same time, I don't mind using heavier lenses when weight isn't so much an issue. 

 

A camera for native A-mount?  Great.   But why go to all this trouble when there are already cameras and adapters that will work with both A and FE glass?

 

Adapting A to FE was necessary, especially early on when few lenses were available, to get A-mount converts to the system.  You're not going to get many people going the other way, from FE to A.  Just because a technology is possible, doesn't mean it's practical, nor does it mean it would be profitable. 

[Sator]

There are problems with adapters. They do cause measurable degradation in IQ, particularly at shorter focal lengths, as several sources have reported. They are also fiddly. It's easy to forget them only to find you've packed the lens but not the right adapter. Having an extra lump of metal between the lens and body is a makeshift solution only.

 

As for size of bodies, I too would be happy for that to increase, but would suggest that increasing the height and width might be more important than the overall depth (apart from the depth at the hand grip).