Jump to content
TopDownDriver

Has Steve Huff "Lost It"?

Recommended Posts

Yes, I know there is excitement over the new a9 camera from Sony.  Seems like a worthy competitor to the Fuji X-T2, however, the price seems extreme at this point at $4,500 or almost 3x the X-T2.

 

So, I am wondering what it is about the camera that makes it worth so much?!?  I mean no one has the camera as of yet for thorough testing and comparison.

 

Here is what Steve responded:

 

"This electronic shutter has no limitations like the Fuji or even older Sony’s. It is what I would use all the time in fact. Also, the Xt2 is not even close to this A9 in any way from IQ, to Speed, to Video to well, anything. Only thing the Fuji has over this is the Fuji look if that is your pref. This camera is like nothing else out there. It truly is."

 

Really?!?

 

I used to go to this site because of the in-depth analysis of cameras, lenses, etc.  Seems Steve has "Gone Over to the Dark Side" and become nothing more than a "fan-boy" for both Sony and Leica.  I really wish this weren't rue as I liked his more conversational tone and analysis based in real-world usage.

 

Oh well, another one bites the dust of useless rhetoric backed up by pure emotion as opposed to professionalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know there is excitement over the new a9 camera from Sony.  Seems like a worthy competitor to the Fuji X-T2, however, the price seems extreme at this point at $4,500 or almost 3x the X-T2.

 

So, I am wondering what it is about the camera that makes it worth so much?!?  I mean no one has the camera as of yet for thorough testing and comparison.

 

Here is what Steve responded:

 

"This electronic shutter has no limitations like the Fuji or even older Sony’s. It is what I would use all the time in fact. Also, the Xt2 is not even close to this A9 in any way from IQ, to Speed, to Video to well, anything. Only thing the Fuji has over this is the Fuji look if that is your pref. This camera is like nothing else out there. It truly is."

 

Really?!?

 

I used to go to this site because of the in-depth analysis of cameras, lenses, etc.  Seems Steve has "Gone Over to the Dark Side" and become nothing more than a "fan-boy" for both Sony and Leica.  I really wish this weren't rue as I liked his more conversational tone and analysis based in real-world usage.

 

Oh well, another one bites the dust of useless rhetoric backed up by pure emotion as opposed to professionalism.

not pure emotion, it's "pandering".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20fps burst with AF checked 60 times per second without any viewfinder blackout is way better than X-T2

 

It has way more phase detect AF points, spread over much more of the image.

 

It has way better battery life despite having way more horsepower under the hood

 

The electronic shutter has no rolling shutter issues

 

It has in-camera 5-axis IS

 

It's full frame

 

Just because another camera comes out that's better than yours doesn't mean your camera gets worse. You can be excited for Sony and for people who will buy, use, and love the camera, all without having to hate your gear, or feel bad about yourself. The a9 is objectively better than the X-T2 in basically every objective way, and yet the X-T2 will probably do just fine taking nearly any photo you could want to take. It's okay. Take deep breaths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The a9 is currently the "ultimate" camera in the world now sans resolution. Exciting times.......I like it already. Not the price tag.

 

With that kind of spec, photojournalists may be turning heads. Let's hope SONY didn't forget their extreme weather sealing and military spec. titanium body as they'll probably see lots of real world snapshots at places with lots of human conflict.

 

Failing that, it'll be the ultimate F1 race track body to go for.....if you can also afford the "up coming" G Master 800mm lenses. :lol: 

 

However, the real difference it will make is when they trickle down their stacked CMOS / on chip processing, 20fps technology to their more affordable cameras...a7iii? :o 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony sensors are great. The cameras as a whole unit are crap.  Period.  Also, I've dealt with Sony service.  It's freakin' horrible;  and I thought Nikon in Melville, NY (Long Island) was bad.  No.  Try Sony.  Oh, and Good Luck.

 

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not knocking the a9.  Far from it.

 

I just think to claim it as the "ultimate camera" before anyone has one in hand to be a bit disingenuous.  I hope that it is a wonder, especially given its price!

 

I am concerned about the "rolling shutter" issues as I have yet to see evidence that it is not present.  It may be lessened, but eliminated is a stretch - though I am willing to be convinced.

As far as AF, let's see some real-world tests before going off.

OIS is still better than the 5-axis system in the Sony.  Even Sony admits this and turns off much of the 5-axis once an OIS lens is attached.

One thing is I don't care FF vs. APS.  It is all in the ISO, AF, etc.  No one looks at my prints and remarks on the size of the sensor.  Can you tell?

Better battery life is always good.  $3,000 good?  Maybe not.

 

My point was not about the a9, but about the superlatives and brand idolatry that has pervaded the industry.  I would like to see some real-world testing and comparison of the camera systems.  I do not care for BS adjectives and support for certain brands regardless.  I have used Sony cams.  Personally, I do not like the handling, though the images are fine.

 

Let's wait before crowning a "King of Cameras".  Ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony sensors are great. The cameras as a whole unit are crap.  Period.  Also, I've dealt with Sony service.  It's freakin' horrible;  and I thought Nikon in Melville, NY (Long Island) was bad.  No.  Try Sony.  Oh, and Good Luck.

 

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

I do not agree that Sony cameras are crap. I've owned the original RX1R and I thought that it was a great camera. The only negative was the lack of an EVF. I do think that Sony's menus are crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not knocking the a9.  Far from it.

 

I just think to claim it as the "ultimate camera" before anyone has one in hand to be a bit disingenuous.  I hope that it is a wonder, especially given its price!

 

I am concerned about the "rolling shutter" issues as I have yet to see evidence that it is not present.  It may be lessened, but eliminated is a stretch - though I am willing to be convinced.

As far as AF, let's see some real-world tests before going off.

OIS is still better than the 5-axis system in the Sony.  Even Sony admits this and turns off much of the 5-axis once an OIS lens is attached.

One thing is I don't care FF vs. APS.  It is all in the ISO, AF, etc.  No one looks at my prints and remarks on the size of the sensor.  Can you tell?

Better battery life is always good.  $3,000 good?  Maybe not.

 

My point was not about the a9, but about the superlatives and brand idolatry that has pervaded the industry.  I would like to see some real-world testing and comparison of the camera systems.  I do not care for BS adjectives and support for certain brands regardless.  I have used Sony cams.  Personally, I do not like the handling, though the images are fine.

 

Let's wait before crowning a "King of Cameras".  Ok?

There are lots of example videos showing the camera being used in the real world, in situations that are a lot more strenuous than I'LL ever use a camera in. I watched one last night of 20fps shooting of a pole vaulter in really low light (ISO 6400) with distractions in the frame, and watched the camera nail every single shot without even flinching. There are samples showing no rolling shutter issues. And yes, OIS CAN BE better than in-body, but all the usual arguments apply: Costs savings on lenses, getting stabilization with every lens you own, including legacy glass from back in the day, and as you said, it can be disabled in favor of in-lens IS. 

You may not care about FF vs APS-C, but many people do, and the benefits are obvious and well documented.

And no, battery life isn't worth $3000, but all the rest of it put together certainly is. It's a brand new sensor tech with completely unbelievable features that aren't close to being touched by any other manufacturer. Unless the camera literally doesn't work, then it's better than even a 1Dx or D5 in every way that counts, other than MAYBE durability and weather sealing, and only those because we don't know yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was about Steve loosing it? Well that actually happend a very long time ago already according to http://huffparanormal.com/ . Stopped reading his stuff after I discovered this..

 

And yes, the A9 is an impressive camera, but does that mean it invalidates the X-T2? I think not..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am encouraged if they have improved the electronic shutter in the a9.  I have no doubt it is a good camera. 

 

I have NEVER seen a cost-savings on lenses as Sony lenses are priced in the extreme.  Canon lenses are cheaper in general (smaller too).  I have also, not until the recent G-series, never been too impressed with the native lens line up.

The Sony menus and handling are horrible, while their tech is great.  If they would just hire a really good photographer to help them with their menus and button layout they could have a real winner.

 

My issue is all the superlatives coming out for a camera no one has in their hands yet.  Let's get it out there and judge by the output.  On paper it looks great.  However, as we all know it matters how it works "in-hand".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mikEm13

I have to laugh when someone compares a full frame $4500 camera to a crop sensor camera priced at $1600 and says its better. Next we can compare the Phase One 100 megapixel camera at $49000 to the 16 megapixel X-E2s at $700. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to laugh when someone compares a full frame $4500 camera to a crop sensor camera priced at $1600 and says its better. Next we can compare the Phase One 100 megapixel camera at $49000 to the 16 megapixel X-E2s at $700. 

What gets me is when people compare a $4500 camera against a $1600 camera and claim that it's NOT better, simply because they're too attached to their $1600 camera, and don't personally use the advantages offered by the more expensive camera. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could easily be wrong.... but I thought that rolling shutter was always possible in a non global shutter application?

 

I'm not knocking the a9, but the basic headline is speed, no?

 

Now speed is great, if you need speed. And for sure many do, and many don't but want it anyway, I get that

 

But the other specs, as great as they are, aren't so 'tomorrow's camera today'

 

The EVF spec? Iirc matches the Leica SL

 

Double card slot? Done by others already

 

Weather sealing? Again not new... and DPR have already said they don't think it LOOKS as well sealed as top line canikons

 

24mp FF sensor, that's pretty much a standard, yes it's double overhead manifold sprocket stacked (or whatever :D) but I think that's what makes the speed and the zero evf black out, it doesn't mean the IQ will be heaps better than other 24mp FF sensors

 

So yes, it's a clearly a great bit of kit, ticking a lot of boxes for the professional sports togs and animal watchers (who'll lose a lot of lens choices if they migrate from canikon) but they'll love it RE the zero black out. It'll appeal to the well healed tech savy enthusiasts too (to be fair in the UK it's £1100 cheaper than an M10 which has like 1/10th of the features and that's on back order)

 

So Sony will sell them.

 

But that doesn't make our Fuji cameras any worse (or better) than they were yesterday which is also true tomorrow!

 

If this new sensor tech does trickle down to APSC and too Fuji, then I'm sure many of us will be pleased, so there's nothing bad about it.

 

But see it for what it is IMHO - a speed demon, but otherwise about as well equiped (give or take) as many other top of the range cameras

 

Re Huff... there's camera brands he likes, there's camera brands that invite him to pre launch events and those that don't, on the one hand he can only review what he has access too, but on the other.... well let's just say gastronomic hyperbole often follows after a free lunch

Edited by adzman808

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Huff may be on track after all. :P

 

Looks very promising. Only issue so far is the write speed. Takes a while to clear buffer but as Kai observed, you can still continue shooting while it writes. Just can't access the menu.

 

I can see great potential for photographers who need this kind of speed. Definitely a game changer.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8swlslWVvo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, does not look like a bad camera at all.

 

Price is a bit high.  I also think it needs a better grip and full weather-sealing.  However, these are minor gripes.

 

My issue is calling it "The best camera EVER" before there is any real critical evaluation of the camera and comparison with the established market leaders.  Personally, would love to try it for a shoot, though there is little chance I would ever buy Sony (due to a dislike of their menus and design philosphy).  However, it does look like a very promising camera at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That new Sony a9 is a pretty amazing camera.

 

But at $6000 Canadian versus $2000 Canadian for XT2, I don't believe it is 3 times as good to justify 3 times the price.

 

For that price ... the camera has to be pretty impressive.  (at the time of release that is).

 

The Nikon D3 was amazing when it was released.  People were so amazed by its low light performance ... Nikon had many converts for a few years.   And it was very expensive, top of the line when it came out.  Today it can be had pretty cheap.  It still is an amazing camera that most people couldn't use to its full potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That new Sony a9 is a pretty amazing camera.

 

But at $6000 Canadian versus $2000 Canadian for XT2, I don't believe it is 3 times as good to justify 3 times the price.

 

For that price ... the camera has to be pretty impressive.  (at the time of release that is).

 

The Nikon D3 was amazing when it was released.  People were so amazed by its low light performance ... Nikon had many converts for a few years.   And it was very expensive, top of the line when it came out.  Today it can be had pretty cheap.  It still is an amazing camera that most people couldn't use to its full potential.

As you go up the ladder in terms of features and expense, your returns diminish while your costs increase. Do you believe a 1Dx is three times as good as a 5Dmk3? Do you believe that a Ferrari is 10 times as good as a Honda Civic? I don't, but they'll sell less of them, to people who absolutely need (or absolutely want) the few improvements that it provides, and the a9 is the same. 

 

The a9 isn't competing against the X-T2, it's competing against the 1Dx, and the D5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know there is excitement over the new a9 camera from Sony.  Seems like a worthy competitor to the Fuji X-T2, however, the price seems extreme at this point at $4,500 or almost 3x the X-T2.

 

So, I am wondering what it is about the camera that makes it worth so much?!?  I mean no one has the camera as of yet for thorough testing and comparison.

 

Here is what Steve responded:

 

"This electronic shutter has no limitations like the Fuji or even older Sony’s. It is what I would use all the time in fact. Also, the Xt2 is not even close to this A9 in any way from IQ, to Speed, to Video to well, anything. Only thing the Fuji has over this is the Fuji look if that is your pref. This camera is like nothing else out there. It truly is."

 

Really?!?

 

I used to go to this site because of the in-depth analysis of cameras, lenses, etc.  Seems Steve has "Gone Over to the Dark Side" and become nothing more than a "fan-boy" for both Sony and Leica.  I really wish this weren't rue as I liked his more conversational tone and analysis based in real-world usage.

 

Oh well, another one bites the dust of useless rhetoric backed up by pure emotion as opposed to professionalism.

 

Before this guy, or anyone else for that matter starts wetting their pants over the Sony, go over and read the hype, and the FINE PRINT.  Or, better yet for a simple synopsis go to the bythom.com website and he'll explain it all there.  Seriously.  Go.  Now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this guy, or anyone else for that matter starts wetting their pants over the Sony, go over and read the hype, and the FINE PRINT.  Or, better yet for a simple synopsis go to the bythom.com website and he'll explain it all there.  Seriously.  Go.  Now.

Is this what you're referring to?

 

"So about those footnotes. Some are ignorable, a few are important. For instance, while the buffer and frame per second calculations are correct for one card slot, the second card slot is not UHS-II. Why camera makers think this is a good thing to have differing slots when they are constantly performing integrity checks on the disk tables on cards, I don’t know. Basically you’re always limited by the slowest card in the camera. So shooting to both cards at the extremes of what the camera is designed to do is likely to have some downgrading effect, probably mostly on buffer. 

Likewise, that 120 fps viewfinder is actually 60 fps if you want the uninterrupted view with the electronic shutter. Not a terrible deal, but bragging about a spec in one place and then disclaiming for a critical use elsewhere takes away some of the excitement. Likewise, the 1/32000 shutter speed is only available in the Manual and Shutter Priority exposure modes (otherwise you’re limited to 1/16000). Note also that at apertures beyond f/11 focus doesn’t track with the electronic shutter, too."

 

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-goes-further-upscale.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what you're referring to?

 

"So about those footnotes. Some are ignorable, a few are important. For instance, while the buffer and frame per second calculations are correct for one card slot, the second card slot is not UHS-II. Why camera makers think this is a good thing to have differing slots when they are constantly performing integrity checks on the disk tables on cards, I don’t know. Basically you’re always limited by the slowest card in the camera. So shooting to both cards at the extremes of what the camera is designed to do is likely to have some downgrading effect, probably mostly on buffer. 

Likewise, that 120 fps viewfinder is actually 60 fps if you want the uninterrupted view with the electronic shutter. Not a terrible deal, but bragging about a spec in one place and then disclaiming for a critical use elsewhere takes away some of the excitement. Likewise, the 1/32000 shutter speed is only available in the Manual and Shutter Priority exposure modes (otherwise you’re limited to 1/16000). Note also that at apertures beyond f/11 focus doesn’t track with the electronic shutter, too."

 

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-goes-further-upscale.html

 

YES.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES.  

I wouldn't say that any of that is even remotely a deal breaker. They're minor niggles that won't come close to affecting 90% of the people who use the camera.

 

And I would trade down to 15fps in my viewfinder if it meant no blackout during burst shooting. Blackout is a dealbreaker. 60fps is not. 

 

1/32000 shutter speed is a fringe case in the first place, so having to use manual or shutter priority to get it isn't meaningful. 

 

The f/11 thing might be a problem, but I don't really understand what they're saying about it. That you can't use f/16 and also track focus? That doesn't seem possible, but I guess I could be wrong. If that's the case, I can see that being an issue, though most sports tracking happens much wider than f/11. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...