A9 ii announced, nothing to see

[no_connection]

I'm not arguing it's a great move by Sony, just sharing what ppl have told me, ppl that are asked by Sony because they are working in that field. 200 was for world cup (don't quote me on that number tho but I think it was something like that) Olympics probably have a lot more ppl than that.

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

And me and many other colleagues that do both photos and video we are not the target?

If it was it would have log and all those things right? I mean you are not wrong in being grumpy about Sony not releasing such a camera.

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Just out of curiosity how many A9 or 1Dx or D5 do you have and use for?

I have nether, but my friend had a few Canon bodies, 1Dx MkII 400/2.8L 70-200/2.8L. That sort of thing.

I'm just sharing what I know, I will not argue more about it.

[Mokara]

19 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

You were making a good case until this statement. Canon removing 24p from current and probably future cameras is absolutely purposefully crippling them. There is no extra strain on the processor for 24p/25p versus 30p. It's predatory behavior from a company that is trying to push its customers around - not cool.

It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.

24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.

20 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Mokara has been searching for every reason EXCEPT the most obvious one to try and explain why 24p was left out. Must have been licensing and cost cutting! Now it must be a processing issue! 

No. Canon left it out because they want to push the customers that want those features towards their higher priced offerings. It's really that simple. 

I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.

[Mokara]

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Better video autofocus since when? 1Dx II is probably the best video AF on the market still, even better than the C200 including AF at 120 fps. Also the 1Dx II you can upload custom picture styles.

So the A9 II is targeted only to the 200 pro photographers that goes to the Olympics, and out of them only 20 will shoot Sony...…so as soon as the Olympic is over they remove it from the market.....

And me and many other colleagues that do both photos and video we are not the target? I have 2 1 DX II and don't want to carry another video body. 

Just out of curiosity how many A9 or 1Dx or D5 do you have and use for?

 

Most people who buy proper pro cameras such as the a9 or 1D series are not using them to shoot video. They are pros, so if they want to shoot video they will use a pro video camera. Right tool with no compromises for the right job. Hybrids are more important for advanced amateurs and semi-pros. But the a9 is not being made for those folk, it is being made for pro stills shooters.

It is pretty safe to say that the vast majority of pro stills photographers don't give two hoots about video. And that the vast majority of pro videographers don't give two hoots about stills. That said, both cameras are still very capable of shooting video as well, if some is required, they just don't need to be the best tools available for that. The primary purpose of the cameras was and will be stills.

[Andrew Reid]

Hold on, what new technology has Sony brought to the table in the last 5 releases.... Not a lot.

The A7R IV is a hybrid cam if ever I saw one... Very much in both the stills and video camp, that one. The A9 II is clearly aimed at pros and sports, but again there is no reason why it shouldn't do better video. It doesn't even have S-LOG, like the first one. No new sensor. Barely any new features. May as well put a big sticker on it saying "don't buy me"

The A7R IV and A9 II are headline releases, a great chance to show off their new sensor technology and next-gen video specs.

From the A6400 onward, it's as if Sony pressed the pause button.

A6400, A6100, A6600, A7R IV, A9 II all very boring and just 1 out of 5 with a new sensor is not a very good strike rate for Sony's most precious components.

So either they are holding back to cement profit margins and protect the FX9, doing a Canon... Or they are holding back until the new advances are ready.

I don't buy the latter, I think it's the former... otherwise we would have at least had X-T3 sensor in the A6600 and 10bit in the A7R II. It's 4000 euros!

Sony staked their game mainly on specs... And now what reason do we all run out and pay $3000-$4000 for a new camera... The fact it has a different feel to the joystick?!

2 hours ago, Mokara said:

24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.

I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.

You're the one pedalling conspiracies. Never do you seem to get round to supporting the daft theories with any proof, either.

In one sentence you say 24p is left out due to a cheaper stripped down image processor...

In the very next sentence you say you never claimed 24p was left out because of processing.

A contradiction if ever I saw one.

Back the drawing board for you!

[thebrothersthre3]

All the rumors about the A7S3 seem to actually have been for the FX9. There was also rumors about an A6700 that would be similar to the Fuji XT3, but of course we have just seen a whole slew of Sony APSC cameras being released with no A6700. I'd still rather get an A73 than any Canon camera but every new release since the A73 seems like a waste of time besides maybe the A6400.

[gt3rs]

10 hours ago, Mokara said:

Most people who buy proper pro cameras such as the a9 or 1D series are not using them to shoot video. They are pros, so if they want to shoot video they will use a pro video camera. Right tool with no compromises for the right job. Hybrids are more important for advanced amateurs and semi-pros. But the a9 is not being made for those folk, it is being made for pro stills shooters.

It is pretty safe to say that the vast majority of pro stills photographers don't give two hoots about video. And that the vast majority of pro videographers don't give two hoots about stills. That said, both cameras are still very capable of shooting video as well, if some is required, they just don't need to be the best tools available for that. The primary purpose of the cameras was and will be stills.

Based that you are a pro photographer and you work with many of them you are pointing this out, or do you have some market survey?
At every ice hockey match that I cover we are 5 to 10 pro photographers all with 1Dx (ca 40%) or D5 (ca 50%) , more than half produces also videos from interviews at the end of the match to promo video for the club etc. When I cover FIS alpine ski people also do video. Same for Horse races and car races.

The way that you get pay is to get affiliated to a team, event organization or web sites and then you start offering both photo coverage but also video (not for the match or race because are broadcasted) but interviews, trainings, promo of various type, special events etc.... 

When you have 2 top of the line cameras you don't want to invest also in let say C200 that is a big cost but also something more to carry around. Action is also an area that people use DSLR for multiple role. Just watch Free Solo and you see that they use multiple 1Dx for filming in addition to C300....

[MurtlandPhoto]

20 hours ago, Mokara said:

It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.

24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.

I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.

You were saying? 
 

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-add-24p-recording-to-the-canon-eos-90d-canon-eos-rp-canon-eos-m6-mark-ii/

[Snowbro]

After having seen what they have done to the last 3 sony camera releases, I know why they haven't released the a7siii. They won't risk any cannibalization to their cinema cameras now. I don't see this camera ever coming out now tbh, unless internal politics change. 

On 10/8/2019 at 2:15 PM, Mokara said:

Most people who buy proper pro cameras such as the a9 or 1D series are not using them to shoot video.

Wrong, I have seen a huge amount of 1D cameras used by pros for video since 2012. 

[Emanuel]

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/sony-a9-ii-review

[Mokara]

On 10/14/2019 at 12:38 AM, Snowbro said:

After having seen what they have done to the last 3 sony camera releases, I know why they haven't released the a7siii. They won't risk any cannibalization to their cinema cameras now. I don't see this camera ever coming out now tbh, unless internal politics change.  

Wrong. The reason why the a7SIII is delayed is because it has to perform at cutting edge levels or it will not sell. They will use the camera to introduce the next step up in their hybrid video lineup. Until the hardware required for that is ready, it will not be released.

On 10/14/2019 at 12:38 AM, Snowbro said:

Wrong, I have seen a huge amount of 1D cameras used by pros for video since 2012. 

Personally I have only ever seen one 1D in the wild and that was being used for stills. It is not a massively popular camera and it has limited sales. It does not matter how many people you have seen shooting video with them, it does not change the fact that the vast majority of people who buy a9 and 1D cameras do so to shoot professional stills, because they are the best cameras for that purpose. They are NOT the best cameras for shooting video. The fact that BOTH manufacturers put their cutting edge video in other more dedicated cameras with designs that allow higher video performance should prove that they understand that, even if you do not.

[Mako Sports]

24 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Wrong. The reason why the a7SIII is delayed is because it has to perform at cutting edge levels or it will not sell. They will use the camera to introduce the next step up in their hybrid video lineup. Until the hardware required for that is ready, it will not be released.

Personally I have only ever seen one 1D in the wild and that was being used for stills. It is not a massively popular camera and it has limited sales. It does not matter how many people you have seen shooting video with them, it does not change the fact that the vast majority of people who buy a9 and 1D cameras do so to shoot professional stills, because they are the best cameras for that purpose. They are NOT the best cameras for shooting video. The fact that BOTH manufacturers put their cutting edge video in other more dedicated cameras with designs that allow higher video performance should prove that they understand that, even if you do not.

For once I actually agree with Mokora... 

The only company that could ever release a lack luster product that's worse than its predecessor (6Dmkii) is Canon.

I only see 1DX's/D4-D5s at sporting events. A7/5D bodies are far more common for every other genre outside of very high end commercial photography which is usually digital medium format.

For every 1DX shooter there's probably 300-500 5D shooters. 

The pro market is very small regarding sales in comparison to bodies like the Rebel line and Nikon D3000 lineup. 

[Snowbro]

The imaginary a7siii will never be an A cam for anything important. Crash cam at best, but even then, a serious production would use something like the komodo.