Lens Decisions and Coming to Terms With an Unpleasant Fact

[Brownie]

I came to realize last season that I was under-equipped for late night shooting at the track. 2.8 is fine when there's no movement, but freezing action at night results in crazy hi ISOs. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say, so I set about doing some testing. At the very end of the season I took a 35/1.4 and 50/1.7 out. It was a day shoot, so this was just to check composition and framing.

In this particular situation I am standing next to a safety wall about 10-12 feet from the cars. Moving away from the wall with a longer FL results in the lower part of the car being obscured. I can move up or down the wall along its length, and I can move away from the wall a little bit when standing down-track to change the angle with a narrow lens, so the wall isn't in the frame. Cropping has limited success in removing the wall due to angles.

Both the 35 and the 50 did ok. With the 35 I couldn't get close enough to keep the wall out and still get the entire car in the frame, or move away too far, so it was limited to one spot along the wall slightly in front of the cars. The 50 was about the same, but it could fill the frame pretty well on a car in the far lane. Neither one was perfect, one of the reasons hate primes for shooting in these situations.

I seriously considered one of the 35-150/2-2.8's. But it really only gets me a stop at the wide end, the rest of the range puts me right back in 2.5-2.8 territory. With no other fast zooms to look at, primes are the only choice. That in mind I picked up an 85/1.4 over winter.

This past Friday night was a late event. I purposely left my 2.8 zoom lenses at home and took the 35 and 85. I wanted to confirm what I found with the 35 last season as well as try it at night, plus determine if the 85 would be as usable as expected.

The 35 results were consistent. Same limited range to shoot, not really close, not down track. Meh. The 85 is a whole different story. It's long enough to let me move around a bit, but not so long that I can't get closer and keep the wall out. It's a really fun lens to shoot with and will become a go to for those circumstances. As much fun (and as useful) as it is, I am thinking about a 135. I'm going to take my Minolta 28-135 out and test it as a prime during the day to see how well the FL works out before biting on a prime.

During the day I tested some different FLs with the 24-105. I had been looking at 24 and 28 primes as a fast/close solution. I almost bought a 28, thinking that was what I needed, but decided to wait. Good thing I did, it's too narrow to get the length of a car in at that distance. I decided on a 24, which will be delivered today.

Now to the unpleasant fact. In this setting, the A7RIII is a liability. That sucks because I really love the camera, but no amount of love can overcome the issues. I originally bought the RIII as a backup camera, but ended up using it as a second camera, if that makes sense. As a backup it would get me through in a pinch, but as a second it falls short. I realized this the first time I took it out there and have used it primarily in the pits where the shots are more static, or with a shorter lens standing right next to the cars. That works better than down track since they aren't moving as quickly and the camera has more time. Still, the camera can't keep up. It will get the first shot or two, then hesitate while it tries to focus, then hunt, etc. etc. Sometimes it rips off a burst flawlessly, but those instances are far fewer than required. Typically there will be a shot completely missing while the camera thought about it, or two shots OOF, or something else.

The problems are primarily due to the slow write speed, several generations old AF, and the older processor. Even with the slow-ish write speed of the A7 IV I can shoot a 6-7 frame burst and end up with as many usable shots from which to choose.

I've been talking about the A9III for some time, hoping Sony will update it extensively, including a higher resolution sensor. I've come to the conclusion that something in the 40MP range is perfect for this. Now Nikon has released the Z8, with 45MP and a very fast burst rate. At $3900 I have my doubts as to whether Sony will have a reasonable response.

I'll live with the A7RIII for now and keep an eye on Sony's next move. If it turns out to be another $5000 24MP camera, I'll pass. I'd be just as far ahead with another A7 IV at that point.

 

[iamdlewis]

I highly doubt that Sony has anything in the pipeline that is in the 34-49MP range. With the way that the lineup is designed something in the 40MP range doesn't make a lot of sense right now. A 40MP A9iii would eat heavily into the A1 sales unless the price difference was like $1000 in which case the A9iii which would make it a difficult sale over the A1.

I think Nikon's pricing looks great for now because they fell so far behind and probably have razor thin margins on the bodies. Plus I don't know how much Sony is going to compete against Nikon since they sell Nikon their sensors.

 

[Brownie]

I highly doubt that Sony has anything in the pipeline that is in the 34-49MP range. With the way that the lineup is designed something in the 40MP range doesn't make a lot of sense right now. A 40MP A9iii would eat heavily into the A1 sales unless the price difference was like $1000 in which case the A9iii which would make it a difficult sale over the A1.

I think Nikon's pricing looks great for now because they fell so far behind and probably have razor thin margins on the bodies. Plus I don't know how much Sony is going to compete against Nikon since they sell Nikon their sensors.

I think a 35-40-ish MP camera is a perfect fit. Moreover, I don't think Sony is worried at all about A1 sales. I also believe their new (typically) abysmal firmware update for the A1 indicates that at an A1ii is close. They're far more concerned about updating the A1 to the extent it would affect the future A1ii.

A 35-40MP speedy A9II would fit perfectly in the lineup. With Panasonic's S5II doing about the same as the A9 for $2100, and Nikon just releasing something that falls very close to an A1 for about half the price, Sony had better get pretty creative in a hurry.

 

[iamdlewis]

I hope the A1ii is close and available well before the Olympics but that is going to be a pricey camera, I assume once again at the 6500 level. I think the A9iii will be a 33MP with all the AF features of the A7Rv with general improvements and do all that at 20fps. I am sure that there will also be some silly burst mode rate that matches whatever the fastest video shoots at. With the line up they have I just don't see something that fits between the A9 and A1.

I just can't see Sony matching the price points that Nikon is at. I know that will hurt Sony's chances at being the brand of choice for anyone just entering the market.

 

[Brownie]

I hope the A1ii is close and available well before the Olympics but that is going to be a pricey camera, I assume once again at the 6500 level. I think the A9iii will be a 33MP with all the AF features of the A7Rv with general improvements and do all that at 20fps. I am sure that there will also be some silly burst mode rate that matches whatever the fastest video shoots at. With the line up they have I just don't see something that fits between the A9 and A1.

I just can't see Sony matching the price points that Nikon is at. I know that will hurt Sony's chances at being the brand of choice for anyone just entering the market.

I could do 33MP, that was my earliest wish. The price point is another issue. But then, if I add Nikon I need lenses, so $1,000 for a camera is less in the long run.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I hear you with the RIII, and this fact probably plays the main role of why I've always just used Hi drive mode for action and wildlife as I too found that after the first couple of burst shots the focus would be completely off.

 

[Brownie]

I hear you with the RIII, and this fact probably plays the main role of why I've always just used Hi drive mode for action and wildlife as I too found that after the first couple of burst shots the focus would be completely off.

LOL At your new username! I'm going to start a business: Username development, $29.95. I'll get rich!

BTW, that'll be $29.95...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

LOL At your new username! I'm going to start a business: Username development, $29.95. I'll get rich!

BTW, that'll be $29.95...

Well the fact that I've never put a face mask on doesn't make me special anymore, I still needed something controversial, but timeless instead...

Can I just pay you in cuddles..?

 

[AlphaWorld]

The 135 GM is a superb lens - very fast to focus and very sharp results. It’s not f/1.4, but f/1.8 is close. (Has anyone ever made a 135mm f/1.4?).

Another possibility might be a 105mm f/1.4?

- - -

It will be interesting to see which way Sony jumps on the A9iii.

Will they stick to 24Mp and make it super fast? That is a real option - you hear from quite a few of the target market that they don’t want or need more pixels. That’s despite all the people saying “oh, it will have to be 33Mp to keep up with the A7IV”.

Or it could indeed go up in pixel count and not quite as much speed - maybe 33, or 38, or 40. If it went to 42, that would make An interesting choice: A7Riii or A9iii

I think the only thing we can say for sure is that it won’t go to 12Mp!

I guess it also depends on whether an A1II is still 50Mp, or jumps up.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

As I've said before,this is exactly where Sony are failing at the moment. There are no affordable cameras in the range with the latest AF and mid sized sensor, and any rumoured or proposed cameras all seem to be A9 III or A1 II based, which we all know are going to be £4000 upwards.
Canon are a million miles ahead of them here. The R8 is £1600, 24mp FF and has the fastest AF around now, better than the A1 even.
I'm not a Canon fan, but that's a really tempting package in anyones eyes.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I would be very surprised if Sony didn't use the same 50mp sensor in the A1II. Just as I would be extremely surprised if they didn't increase the resolution on the A9III, you think they'd have to go up for sure.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I would be very surprised if Sony didn't use the same 50mp sensor in the A1II. Just as I would be extremely surprised if they didn't increase the resolution on the A9III, you think they'd have to go up for sure.

Curious why you think that the A9 III would have to have more megapixels. Do you have a reason, or is it just wishful thinking?

 

[Brownie]

It will be interesting to see which way Sony jumps on the A9iii.

Will they stick to 24Mp and make it super fast? That is a real option - you hear from quite a few of the target market that they don’t want or need more pixels. That’s despite all the people saying “oh, it will have to be 33Mp to keep up with the A7IV”.

Or it could indeed go up in pixel count and not quite as much speed - maybe 33, or 38, or 40. If it went to 42, that would make An interesting choice: A7Riii or A9iii

Curious why you think that the A9 III would have to have more megapixels. Do you have a reason, or is it just wishful thinking?

They don't need to stick to 24MP to make it super fast, and in fact if they do Nikon will kick their ass.

Z8:

45MP
20FPS Lossless Compressed RAW + jpeg
30FPS jpeg only
60FPS DX Crop
120FPS 11MP jpeg

For $3900, US.

And again, the Panasonic S5II almost matches the A9II for $2100. Is it worth another $2400 for 1FPS?

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Curious why you think that the A9 III would have to have more megapixels. Do you have a reason, or is it just wishful thinking?

If it's well possible to go 30+fps on 40+mp now, then I think not doing that on what is meant to be a super fast camera is going to be a real liability in a company's arsenal. Also, having the L,M,S RAW formats having the capacity to alter the frame rates would be a winner. Imagine a 45mp A9III which shoots at 30fps, then at 20mp M RAW it shoots at 60-70fps. They've just showed they can make the smaller RAW formats utilise the entire sensor so that they actually operate the same as a 26mp or 12mp camera would instead of just a crop from 61mp with the accompanying characteristics of the sensor that size. They also have to be aligning the frame rate in accordance to this very shortly I think.

I also really think we are past the point of storage being a concern. 61mp is definitely overkill but I think almost anyone could appreciate the crop factor of a 40-50mp sensor if it is partnered with the speed they might require, but then also having the option to go even quicker on smaller RAW files, I think that would be a great thing.

For me, the R series is my home I think, but I still love thinking about the possibilities of the camera world though.

 

[iamdlewis]

Imagine a 45mp A9III which shoots at 30fps, then at 20mp M RAW it shoots at 60-70fps.

Change that to 33mp and non-AF supported fps to match that of the video capabilities (60, 120, 240) at the matching mp. Having the A9iii that close to the A1 in mp just isn't going to happen in the current generation development cycle. If the A7Rv was like a 90 or 100mp which would be followed by a release of an A1ii at 75mp I could see a 45mp A9iii but with the A7Rv at 61mp there is not much room to have a 45mp camera.

It seems to me that Sony is going to have the A7R line always be the top mp with the A1 10-15% lower and the A7/A9 be 45-55% of the A7R line and the A7S line is going to be something that makes sense for the current video standard. You then have the pricing with the A1 at the top the A7R/A7S/A9 1500-2000 less as the specialty lines and the A7 at half the A1 price. This would give them room for the previous generation to still be reasonable option with a 1000-1250 price cut. This would also give stability for the consumer in not feeling that a camera 2500 cheaper is as or more capable than the one they just bought.

Honestly though I don't get the A7S any more since they really seem to be pushing the other video lines far more. Also I don't do video currently so I don't know enough about it to really say what makes it better over the A1/A7/A7R/A9.

 

[Brownie]

Well, THIS is awfully interesting:

Meike Mount Adapter ETZ for Sony E Mount Lenses to Nikon Z Cameras

Feature: Maximum diameter and length: Packing size: 72*28*87mmΦ65.2 X 2mmNet weight: 44.2g (0.097lb) Adapter front end: E-Mount camera lensAdapter rear end: Nikon Z-mount cameraAuto Focus：Support Auto aperture：SupportSupport IS image stabilization system EXIF Signal Transmission E to Z mount...

meikeglobal.com

Nikon Z body with Sony E lenses. If this works as advertised, it takes the crappy Nikon lens selection out of the equation.

 

[AlphaWorld]

If it's well possible to go 30+fps on 40+mp now, then I think not doing that on what is meant to be a super fast camera is going to be a real liability in a company's arsenal. Also, having the L,M,S RAW formats having the capacity to alter the frame rates would be a winner. Imagine a 45mp A9III which shoots at 30fps, then at 20mp M RAW it shoots at 60-70fps. They've just showed they can make the smaller RAW formats utilise the entire sensor so that they actually operate the same as a 26mp or 12mp camera would instead of just a crop from 61mp with the accompanying characteristics of the sensor that size. They also have to be aligning the frame rate in accordance to this very shortly I think.

I also really think we are past the point of storage being a concern. 61mp is definitely overkill but I think almost anyone could appreciate the crop factor of a 40-50mp sensor if it is partnered with the speed they might require, but then also having the option to go even quicker on smaller RAW files, I think that would be a great thing.

For me, the R series is my home I think, but I still love thinking about the possibilities of the camera world though.

I think my visualisation is different from yours. I line up the Z9 and Z8 with the A1 - fast high pixel count cameras. I see the A9 as lining up with the Canon R3 (have to qualify that!) - fast lower pixel count cameras.

I can see Sony making a super-fast lower pixel count camera - maybe 60fps or more at 24Mp with full functionality (That is going to require a super-fast focus system, too). Might also be where they introduce a thing some people have been asking for - a running buffer that gets captured as the start of a burst (taking photos “in the past” by capturing a second of images seen before the button was pressed). A low pixel count could mean it can grab the whole frame from the sensor in 1/500 second, or 1/1000, or even less - bye bye even the last trace of rolling shutter. Or maybe it gets a true global shutter? Ideas focussed on speed, anyway.

Maybe Sony might split the A1 to address Z8 / Z9 - maybe an A2 to face the Z8? Not sure how different it could be from the A1, though, and that’s one of the problems of expecting a new A9 to face the Z8.

What I don’t want to see is the next A9 as a cheaper A1, because that feels like it is losing the distinction between the two lines, or blurring it a lot at least.

I wonder if Nikon is making a profit on the Z8, or is selling it at a loss (at least at the start) to gain market share? If they are making a profit, that suggests Sony could do the same with the A1 or an imaginary A2. I am not going to object if Nikon’s move puts pressure on the price of stacked sensor cameras!

Anyway, I like the idea of having two distinct lines of stacked sensor cameras, with one focussed on speed and one on res. I hope it continues.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Change that to 33mp and non-AF supported fps to match that of the video capabilities (60, 120, 240) at the matching mp. Having the A9iii that close to the A1 in mp just isn't going to happen in the current generation development cycle. If the A7Rv was like a 90 or 100mp which would be followed by a release of an A1ii at 75mp I could see a 45mp A9iii but with the A7Rv at 61mp there is not much room to have a 45mp camera.

It seems to me that Sony is going to have the A7R line always be the top mp with the A1 10-15% lower and the A7/A9 be 45-55% of the A7R line and the A7S line is going to be something that makes sense for the current video standard. You then have the pricing with the A1 at the top the A7R/A7S/A9 1500-2000 less as the specialty lines and the A7 at half the A1 price. This would give them room for the previous generation to still be reasonable option with a 1000-1250 price cut. This would also give stability for the consumer in not feeling that a camera 2500 cheaper is as or more capable than the one they just bought.

Honestly though I don't get the A7S any more since they really seem to be pushing the other video lines far more. Also I don't do video currently so I don't know enough about it to really say what makes it better over the A1/A7/A7R/A9.

Very interesting comment and could very well be about right. One thing is for sure though, the A7S line is starting to look a bit redundant, who knows where this all goes though!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I think my visualisation is different from yours. I line up the Z9 and Z8 with the A1 - fast high pixel count cameras. I see the A9 as lining up with the Canon R3 (have to qualify that!) - fast lower pixel count cameras.

I can see Sony making a super-fast lower pixel count camera - maybe 60fps or more at 24Mp with full functionality (That is going to require a super-fast focus system, too). Might also be where they introduce a thing some people have been asking for - a running buffer that gets captured as the start of a burst (taking photos “in the past” by capturing a second of images seen before the button was pressed). A low pixel count could mean it can grab the whole frame from the sensor in 1/500 second, or 1/1000, or even less - bye bye even the last trace of rolling shutter. Or maybe it gets a true global shutter? Ideas focussed on speed, anyway.

Maybe Sony might split the A1 to address Z8 / Z9 - maybe an A2 to face the Z8? Not sure how different it could be from the A1, though, and that’s one of the problems of expecting a new A9 to face the Z8.

What I don’t want to see is the next A9 as a cheaper A1, because that feels like it is losing the distinction between the two lines, or blurring it a lot at least.

I wonder if Nikon is making a profit on the Z8, or is selling it at a loss (at least at the start) to gain market share? If they are making a profit, that suggests Sony could do the same with the A1 or an imaginary A2. I am not going to object if Nikon’s move puts pressure on the price of stacked sensor cameras!

Anyway, I like the idea of having two distinct lines of stacked sensor cameras, with one focussed on speed and one on res. I hope it continues.

This is why I also appreciate reading the veteran photographers ideas as well. I think I have worked out what works for me in the short time I've been doing this, but I've only scraped the surface really and have much to learn about different wants and needs in regards to camera attributes.

I've completely changed the way I have my AF set up because of that joystick button tip you threw out here a few weeks ago. I now use Spot M with AF-C as my walk around default, then I click it in and it's on wide AF-C with human detection. The Spot M is awesome because I simply select the AF point every time with the joystick, then if something which is moving is the thing I want to focus on I just press joystick in then AEL button will quickly change subject target. Gold!

 

[Brownie]

The problem with the A2 theory is that unless Sony's spies were successful in sorting out Nikon's plans, a camera like that could be a couple of years too late. It would make far more sense to have a split A9 series, although it's now been firmly established with the Z8/Z9 and Canon models that high burst rates are no longer dictated by pixel count. 45MP and 20FPS is plenty.

 

[spudhead]

I came to realize last season that I was under-equipped for late night shooting at the track. 2.8 is fine when there's no movement, but freezing action at night results in crazy hi ISOs. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say, so I set about doing some testing. At the very end of the season I took a 35/1.4 and 50/1.7 out. It was a day shoot, so this was just to check composition and framing.

In this particular situation I am standing next to a safety wall about 10-12 feet from the cars. Moving away from the wall with a longer FL results in the lower part of the car being obscured. I can move up or down the wall along its length, and I can move away from the wall a little bit when standing down-track to change the angle with a narrow lens, so the wall isn't in the frame. Cropping has limited success in removing the wall due to angles.

Both the 35 and the 50 did ok. With the 35 I couldn't get close enough to keep the wall out and still get the entire car in the frame, or move away too far, so it was limited to one spot along the wall slightly in front of the cars. The 50 was about the same, but it could fill the frame pretty well on a car in the far lane. Neither one was perfect, one of the reasons hate primes for shooting in these situations.

I seriously considered one of the 35-150/2-2.8's. But it really only gets me a stop at the wide end, the rest of the range puts me right back in 2.5-2.8 territory. With no other fast zooms to look at, primes are the only choice. That in mind I picked up an 85/1.4 over winter.

This past Friday night was a late event. I purposely left my 2.8 zoom lenses at home and took the 35 and 85. I wanted to confirm what I found with the 35 last season as well as try it at night, plus determine if the 85 would be as usable as expected.

The 35 results were consistent. Same limited range to shoot, not really close, not down track. Meh. The 85 is a whole different story. It's long enough to let me move around a bit, but not so long that I can't get closer and keep the wall out. It's a really fun lens to shoot with and will become a go to for those circumstances. As much fun (and as useful) as it is, I am thinking about a 135. I'm going to take my Minolta 28-135 out and test it as a prime during the day to see how well the FL works out before biting on a prime.

During the day I tested some different FLs with the 24-105. I had been looking at 24 and 28 primes as a fast/close solution. I almost bought a 28, thinking that was what I needed, but decided to wait. Good thing I did, it's too narrow to get the length of a car in at that distance. I decided on a 24, which will be delivered today.

Now to the unpleasant fact. In this setting, the A7RIII is a liability. That sucks because I really love the camera, but no amount of love can overcome the issues. I originally bought the RIII as a backup camera, but ended up using it as a second camera, if that makes sense. As a backup it would get me through in a pinch, but as a second it falls short. I realized this the first time I took it out there and have used it primarily in the pits where the shots are more static, or with a shorter lens standing right next to the cars. That works better than down track since they aren't moving as quickly and the camera has more time. Still, the camera can't keep up. It will get the first shot or two, then hesitate while it tries to focus, then hunt, etc. etc. Sometimes it rips off a burst flawlessly, but those instances are far fewer than required. Typically there will be a shot completely missing while the camera thought about it, or two shots OOF, or something else.

The problems are primarily due to the slow write speed, several generations old AF, and the older processor. Even with the slow-ish write speed of the A7 IV I can shoot a 6-7 frame burst and end up with as many usable shots from which to choose.

I've been talking about the A9III for some time, hoping Sony will update it extensively, including a higher resolution sensor. I've come to the conclusion that something in the 40MP range is perfect for this. Now Nikon has released the Z8, with 45MP and a very fast burst rate. At $3900 I have my doubts as to whether Sony will have a reasonable response.

I'll live with the A7RIII for now and keep an eye on Sony's next move. If it turns out to be another $5000 24MP camera, I'll pass. I'd be just as far ahead with another A7 IV at that point.

Tim A question from me I know You are not stood taking pictures of these cars on your own, so what are the other guys using and doing with what body and lenses?

 

[Brownie]

Tim A question from me I know You are not stood taking pictures of these cars on your own, so what are the other guys using and doing with what body and lenses?

Well, let's see, there's Canon, Canon, and Canon. And then a few Canon. Mostly all Canon lenses. A few aftermarket that I believe are adapted, since most of the guys shot Canon DSLRs before. Everything from 24MP to 45MP. Eos R series.

That's for the serious shooters. Other people that show up once in a while for fun could run almost anything, but again Canon prevails, many APS-C.

 

[spudhead]

Well, let's see, there's Canon, Canon, and Canon. And then a few Canon. Mostly all Canon lenses. A few aftermarket that I believe are adapted, since most of the guys shot Canon DSLRs before. Everything from 24MP to 45MP. Eos R series.

That's for the serious shooters. Other people that show up once in a while for fun could run almost anything, but again Canon prevails, many APS-C.

OK so how do their shots compare to what you get, because having seen the recent stuff from you I know you have things under control with very mixed lighting etc?

 

[Brownie]

OK so how do their shots compare to what you get, because having seen the recent stuff from you I know you have things under control with very mixed lighting etc?

Pretty much the same, only real differences are processing preferences. But, none of that matters. This has nothing to do with image quality, low-light performance, lenses, or anything other than a camera that can't keep up with the action. I wouldn't even mind the lower burst rate if it didn't miss, hesitate, and hunt.

 

[spudhead]

Pretty much the same, only real differences are processing preferences. But, none of that matters. This has nothing to do with image quality, low-light performance, lenses, or anything other than a camera that can't keep up with the action. I wouldn't even mind the lower burst rate if it didn't miss, hesitate, and hunt.

So what do you have the focus setup at moment? tell me if this winding you up Tim

 

[iamdlewis]

The problem with the A2 theory is that unless Sony's spies were successful in sorting out Nikon's plans, a camera like that could be a couple of years too late. It would make far more sense to have a split A9 series, although it's now been firmly established with the Z8/Z9 and Canon models that high burst rates are no longer dictated by pixel count. 45MP and 20FPS is plenty.

Even splitting the A9 series what are you splitting it into?
Current A9ii is 24mp and 20fps
Current A1 is 50mp and 30fps

If the A9iii is 33mp and 20fps is there really a possible business justification for having a 40-45mp 20fps A9R?

I think really Sony needs to cut the series base price of the A1 by at least $1000. I don't think Sony is going to get into a full out price war with bodies but I think they need to at least get into a skirmish. I do wonder what a price war with Nikon would look like because for every unit Nikon sells Sony gets a chunk of money as the sensor provider.

 

[Brownie]

If the A9iii is 33mp and 20fps is there really a possible business justification for having a 40-45mp 20fps A9R?

But we don't know that.

I am thinking in terms of a 24MP A9 and a 35-45MP A9, same way Canon has done with their R series. They have everything from 20-45 (I think, haven't done a lot of research) with fast burst rates.

Maybe the whole problem is it's time to abandon the dedicated low-MP speed demon? The A1 and Nikon Z along with whichever R Canon has 45MP are proof of this. It was different when the needed a lower pixel count to get the write speed. It seems those days are behind us?

 

[Brownie]

So what do you have the focus setup at moment? tell me if this winding you up Tim

Not winding me up, but definitely irrelevant.

I've tried every combination of tracking/burst rate/focus point that would make sense for the task.

The A7 IV works perfectly, no problems. shoot a burst and get 99-100% usable.

It boils down to asking the camera to do something beyond its capabilities. That doesn't mean it's a bad camera, I still love the sensor and IQ.

It was perfectly capable for its day. If it were back then I'd be satisfied, but I know that more is possible.

 

[spudhead]

Not winding me up, but definitely irrelevant.

I've tried every combination of tracking/burst rate/focus point that would make sense for the task.

The A7 IV works perfectly, no problems. shoot a burst and get 99-100% usable.

It boils down to asking the camera to do something beyond its capabilities. That doesn't mean it's a bad camera, I still love the sensor and IQ.

It was perfectly capable for its day. If it were back then I'd be satisfied, but I know that more is possible.

I guess you use the a74 then

 

[iamdlewis]

Maybe the whole problem is it's time to abandon the dedicated low-MP speed demon? The A1 and Nikon Z along with whichever R Canon has 45MP are proof of this. It was different when the needed a lower pixel count to get the write speed. It seems those days are behind us?

I think there still is a significant market for a high speed lower mp camera, namely the photo journalist. For news organizations that are buying 10s of thousands of these cameras the price difference between an A9 and A1 is a big deal. For the general consumer I think there is a smaller market for the A9 but still probably large as a couple thousand is still a lot for many.