Survey Would you buy a Sony A9?

[SAF Admin]

Completely hypothetical question:

Would you spend $3999 for the Sony A9 with the following specs?

• 46 Megapixel Bayer sensor
• 6 fps
• 5 axis stabilization
• 4K internal recording
• Highly weather sealed body

Please vote above and comment below!

[Sinan]

I think 4000 USD is a pretty steep price for ANY camera that has less than 15 lens.

[SAR_admin]

Yeah, I hope it's a bit less!

[dmward]

I know that the video capabilities are firmware based but for me they are totally ignored. I would prefer that manufacturers have one model for video and one model for still photographers that leaves out all the extras and reflects that in a lower price.

[swldstn]

Unless it can replace cameras that are of equal cost I would be reluctant to pay that amount. If its a replacement for cameras like a 5DIII or D810 then I would limit its price to $3000 - $3500. Sony can't get premium price until they offer the complete package which will require lenses that can take advantage of it. If they were to through in a lens adapter at that price maybe. Also the adapter would have to offer equivalent performance for AF as a native A-mount camera,

[motamanx]

A friend of mine has a Nikon 800E.  He shoots concerts at IOS 25000 (I think), and it looks as if he used a 4x5 view camera the pix are so sharp.  I want Sony to achieve that.  Although the specs seem to say that the A7r does, I haven't seen it yet.   I simply am tired of DSLR, but I want the results FF can achieve. So I got a Sony a6000.

Pretty good, but not at elevated ISOs.  Controls sort of fiddly also.  

When can we expect a FF a6000?

[pmrphoto]

While the internal 4K recording would tempt me, I need more than 6 fps for what I do overall in my still photography.  I'm totally sold on Sony but cannot unload my Nikons until I get at least 8 fps and the A6K AF features (4D) out of some future camera based on the FF E-Mount platform.  Everything else is great in the system and I'm very happy.

[albertdros]

I'm more interested in the high ISO performance. I'm very interested in buying a sony A7S but i'm waiting for the new line for it to become cheaper or just buy the new version. 

[3dit0r]

I couldn't in good conscience vote either way without a much more detailed spec list, as a camera at that price needs not only those basic specs, but everything else to be 'right' too?

 

For me the answer would be 'Yes', absolutely, if it had those specs, and was still as small and stylish as the current A7 series (or even better rangefinder styled), had reliable, fast, accurate AF even in low light, electronic first curtain to avoid shutter shake, IBIS, etc, etc...

 

If it has those basic specs, but is lacking in those kinds of areas, or ends up being as big/ugly/heavy as a DSLR, then 'No', as I'm gaining nothing over the A7 series really, yet spending a lot more.

 

Perhaps there should be a 'maybe' vote for those who need to wait and see more detailed specs/mock-ups first.

[TomChatt]

The RAW files from the 7R are already huge and those from a higher pixel sensor would only be larger.  So, if the hypothetical A9 came with a 46 Megapixel sensor that would also mean a new computer too  = an investment too far for me!!

[phoenX]

I'd never pay €4k. But I'd pay 2-3k for any a7 like cam with dslr like af capabilities. If the a9 regardless of its price doesnt meet that I'll dump mirrorless since I am waiting for this since my 5N and A7. And I will never get an SLT as it even focuses worse in low light than the a900 and loses 30% of available light.

So Sony, please succeed in this as I'd be sad not to have to read SAR anymore.

[Ian_Toni]

In my opinion a real fair price could be 3000€ for :

 

• 36 Megapixel Bayer High ISO sensitivity sensor ( over 3700 ISO like A7S )
• 10 fps
• A6000 alike AF System and AF Area ( > 250 focus points on 90% of sensor )
• 5 axis stabilization
• 4K external recording will be enough as we are buying a Digital Camera AND NOT A CAMCORDER !!!!  NO NEED to increase Price for such a secondary feature of a DIGITAL CAMERA
• Highly weather sealed body

+ LA-EA5 with A6000 AF System at 350 €

[palitoschinos]

Still waiting for better glass. Loxia line may be be the main attractive instead of the camera. Would love some XT1 design. I´ve would already jump on Sony is they did some serious layout.

[Alphanatic]

I guess a camera doesn´t matter.

[LeButler]

For $4000 I'd want A6000-quality AF, >8fps, >20 RAW+JPG buffer, IBIS, internal 4K recording, better lowlight than A7/A7R, and a larger battery. All hand delivered by a pretty Sony rep.

 

44.7MP (or slightly higher) would allow an "A9R" to do doubled no-line-skipping Cinema4K recording which would be great.
 

If they make A9 into a series of cameras instead of release an A7S mk2, I'd buy the "A9S" instead if ISO performance approaches A7S but with 16-20MP.

[fhuhman]

Why don't you guys make an a900 Mark 2, that would interest me. I don't do video and don't like the learning curve on your new cameras.

[3dit0r]

Not bothered about file sizes, memory/storage is cheap. In fact I'd be wary of paying this for a pro level cam unless it had true uncompressed, or genuinely lossless RAW files! In fact, I can't believe Sony still haven't fixed this on A7 series.

 

Another bug of mine with all the Sony mirrorless cams is that there's not an option of 0 secs, or none, for MF Assist timeout - the current minimum of 2-secs is an eternity to wait to reframe when view returns to 100%, and hitting the shutter button doesn't work as it AFs again overriding MF? It's simple things like this which Sony haven't addressed which worry me in a camera of such cost.

 

Instead of a new body every year, how about a firmware release every 6-months like Fuji, which (as on the X-T1) actually added amazing features, and fixed problems? Please Sony?

[seelenpfluecker]

4.000 bucks is way off what I could effort. And I guess a bit too much for the camera for being competitive.

Generally I would buy this camera; in fact I am waiting for the final specs and the final price instead of buying the A7II right now.

[addicted2light]

First I'm not interested in any camera that'll cost more than 2.500€, sorry.

 

Second: I shoot almost exclusively landscapes and portraits. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of photographers are not shooting Nascar of Formula 1. Why then it is so darn difficult to find a body with:

- a lot of megapixels

- weather sealed

- (here I'm dreaming) a bottom and left side shaped to mount on an Arca tripod head without requiring adapters

but without all the other costly stuff like insanely high-iso, ultra-fast autofocus and such?

 

And like another poster wrote, I don't care about video, at all! I'd gladly pay less for a camera without features that I'll never use.

[Alphanatic]

Or some sentence from dpreview: "The best camera of tomorrow can't shoot a picture today".

[MOHAX]

yesterday bought SONY A 99, not think about A9...

[petervquenter]

would love to, but at $4000,- for a body it would be beyond budget  -

still, I'd like to find quiet / vibration-free shutter (otherwise, what's the point of a fabulous sensor and image-stabilization),

and hopefully a proper flash system, with solid shoes and non-wobbly connections, and elimination of that bothersome

flash-delay

[krisAK]

$4000? That's insane.

 

Sony's new-product release cycle, and Sony's lack of incremental upgrades to their existing products, means their bodies aren't meant to be long-term professional investments. Eight months after the A9, there'll be an A9.1 that fixes the (insert inevitable first-generation bug here) problem, adds h.265, etc.

 

Resale value of the A9 'classic' will plummet.

 

At that point, I'll take a second look. (By the way, where's the price-drop for the A7S?)

[IronFilm]

I know that the video capabilities are firmware based but for me they are totally ignored. I would prefer that manufacturers have one model for video and one model for still photographers that leaves out all the extras and reflects that in a lower price.

 

 

Sends me crazy this mistaken mythological belief that somehow offering a camera without video features would make it cheaper. 

 

Quite the opposite! It would appeal to a much smaller market, means less units to spread fixed costs over, leading to HIGHER PRICES. 

[Davy793]

I would like to see less noise like the A7S but with the design of the new A7mk2, 6+ fps and in camera stability. $4K is a bit steep but might be worth it if it has these improvements.