Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest Jaf-Photo

Who knows that they will? The A99II shoots 42mp at half the speed of A9 and it still locks up when clearing the buffer.

 

Speed vs resolution is still a factor. In a small camera there's also heat. In reality you'll still have to choose between top resolution and top speed for years to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

While we all want more, there is a cost in physics and price.

The processing power to achieve such performance will arrive but it most likely will cost a ton in energy and heat.

As Sony still seems to suffer from overheating criticism, unless that is addressed, the chance of a high MP, high speed body, with the sort of high bit performance people are talking about is unlikely to be here anytime soon.

But as always, anticipation is more than half the fun. ?

Edited by markophoto
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I was always under the impression that the A9 is designed primarily as a "Sports" high speed AFC - no blackout camera that is aimed at challenging the high end DSLR sports shooters such as the Nikon D5 etc.

The sensor is revolutionary and as such it may be too expensive to make a sensor with more megapixels - is there really a demand for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2018 at 5:13 AM, Iansky said:

I was always under the impression that the A9 is designed primarily as a "Sports" high speed AFC - no blackout camera that is aimed at challenging the high end DSLR sports shooters such as the Nikon D5 etc.

The sensor is revolutionary and as such it may be too expensive to make a sensor with more megapixels - is there really a demand for it?

I don't think the problem is demand. An A9 but with 42MP would be even more useful for sports than the current model.

I think the problem is read speed, which, all else being equal, is linear with MP. If Sony can increase read speed prefer to spend than capability on further reducing the rolling shutter effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is why an A9 with 42MP would definitely make the decision of which camera to use easier. The A7RIII is good enough for a lot of situations but have more flexibility to crop whether in post or in APS-C mode @ 18MP. However the A9 is faster, more silent, etc. I’ve been using A7RIII with A6500 for wildlife but I’m going to get an A9 and use it alongside the A7RIII and keep the A6500 as a backup (or maybe just sell it). I figure I would use the longer lens on the A9 primarily especially if it’s birds in flight, etc. For slower wildlife and especially when further away, I could put the longer lens on the A7RIII. An A9 with 42MP would be incredible and give you “all” options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

It’s a shame Sony didn’t opt to use the XQD cards in the A9. I think speed could be increased over SD-II cards with increased security over SD. If your looking for higher sensor size just go for an A7rII. Just my 2cents 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I've been using this lens extensively without any sharpness issues. At long focal lengths, you'll have to factor in the need for a faster shutter speed (< 1/500-ish at 350mm) and other factors like atmospheric distortion, fog/dust haze, etc. All these factors contribute to a deterioration of image quality at longer focal lengths.
    • That's supposed to be a pretty good APS-C lens. Can you try it on a different camera just for the heck of it? Friend? Camera shop? The lens is noted for sharpness, so if you're having as much trouble as you say, you may want to look into a replacement or repair. 
    • Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community because I’m facing a persistent image quality issue with my Sony 70–350mm f/4.5–6.3 G OSS lens, and I’d like to know if this is normal behavior or if my copy is defective. Problem description: I’ve extensively compared the 70–350mm G OSS with my Sony 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 OSS, using a Sony A6700, under controlled conditions: • Identical lighting and background • Same subject and position (LEGO figure, consistent framing) • Tripod or steady support • Manual focus or AF with center point • Same shutter speed (e.g., 1/200s), similar ISO (ISO 4000–6400), RAW + JPEG • OIS turned on (and also tested with OIS off) My observations: • At 135mm, the 70–350mm G OSS delivers softer, flatter images than the 18–135mm, even when stopped down. • At 350mm, the sharpness drops significantly – the center is soft, and textures (like LEGO tiles or fabric) appear blurred or smudged. • Contrast and micro-detail are noticeably inferior across all focal lengths. • The 18–135mm at 135mm (even cropped) retains better edge sharpness and detail definition. • Both JPEG and RAW files confirm the issue – this is not just JPEG processing or noise reduction. Question to the community: • Have others experienced similar softness with the 70–350mm? • Is it possible I have a decentered or optically misaligned copy? • Is there a known issue with OSS introducing softness at long focal lengths? I wanted to love this lens due to the range and portability, but currently it’s unusable for anything where image quality matters. I’m considering returning or sending it for service. Thanks in advance for any feedback or comparison results you can share.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...