Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

It even looks like a real camera! This is in line with how I thought mirrorless cameras would probably evolve and it's only a bit heavier than a Canon 80D!

At least it should quash some of the endless discussions on UHH about how mirrorless cameras can't compete with DSLRs and also how they are so much lighter than DSLRs.

A system based on the A9 will be just and bulky and heavy as a DSLR system.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

All I know is that the A9 price makes my EM1ii look like a bargain.

Quantus5

You still need a mechanical shutter for taking pictures with flash. It will probably be a long time before a technical solution for this issue.

However -- if you don't use flash for taking a shot -- then electronic shutter is the way to go.

This camera is amazing!!

Quantus5

Someone will always still try and find a lame excuse. :-) Although fast autofocus as a reason -- really doesn't cut it anymore. I remember even in 2016, a ton of DLSR fans were saying autofocus with mirrorless cameras would never be as fast as auto focus with DSLRs. And many were saying that mirrorless would never be a good option for sports photography. I always said those issues could be solved by technology, i.e. faster processing and better sensor technology, and that is what Sony has done with the a9.

The Canon native glass excuse will be the main one used in 2017. Although Sony has shored up many of the native glass holes in their line-up, with some unbelievable glass like the Zeiss lenses and the Sony G-Master lenses. For portrait and event photography there pretty much aren't any holes left. The main holes are for sports/wildlife, i.e. a 500mm prime and a 600mm prime, although my prediction is that one of these will be released this year. Next year the native glass excuse won't be viable anymore especially if Tamron and Sigma jump into the fray.

markjay

light weight ?????

Somehow I doubt it.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

Speaking as a landscape and wildlife photographer, I don't see the rational for making a change. I shoot Canon happily, and have a huge investment in glass. It will take a lot more than the new Sony equipment to justify a change.
That being said, if I were a beginner or had fewer Canon mount lenses, Sony is the obvious choice.

mleuck

$5000! Out of my range!

RobbieAB Loc: UK

Sounds nice.

What is the max flash sync speed?

What type of AF points? If they are cross points, that is really spectacular, but as they aren't saying so, we can assume they aren't. How many cross points?

And still inadequate. Taking the figures from the Sony site of 480 - 650 photos on a charge, that's between 4 minutes and 5.5 minutes of full burst rate capture. Except they claim the camera can't actually do continuous burst mode that long. Real usage figures for the battery life are needed before we can meaningfully comment on this.

What I notice is completely missing from your excitement is consideration of storage options. Where is the XQD card slot? CFast? Without very fast storage, their burst rate claims are interesting. If we assume they are to full-buffer, what is the buffer clear time from full? This is one area where the D5 and the 1DxII appear to have a clear and massive edge. Nikon "claim" 200 shots in burst mode for the D5, real testing showed they are limited by card size on XQD cards. What is real testing going to make of the burst performance of this Sony? I suspect it's going to be lacking simply due to the storage options.

A lot will depend on how the camera performs in real use. If it works as well as hyped, it will be an interesting development. However, there are parts of the spec that make me suspect that it's not going to be the effortless walk-over people expect. It will be interesting to see how Canon and Nikon respond, if they feel a need to respond.

markjay

There is no camera that is worth $5,000.

Why should any camera cost 2-4x what a computer costs.
I'm having none of it. It is all a master plan to rip off consumers with more and more "capabilities" that can be provided at lower costs.
The camera companies feel they need a line of 10 0r 20 cameras, and by segmenting features, they can drive up prices.
In the world of technology - which is what a camera has become - there is no justification for such a price.

It is a little like comparing a $10,000 bicycle to a car. Look at the technology and 10,000 parts in a cheap car, and look at that $10,000 Italian bicycle. It is still 2 bike tires, a carbon fiber frame, and some precision gears and breaks. Can there be any rational relationship between that $10,000 bike, and a cheap car that costs $16,000. It is absurd to think that any bike can cost that much when a car can be produced for not much more.

Same with cameras. Its an absurdity to think these prices are justified !

mleuck

Markjay is right on!

BebuLamar

First what something is worth depends whether it can be sold at that price and in this case I think it certainly is worth it.
Why it costs more than a computer? There are cameras that cost $300 and is less than a computer but there are $40,000 PC also.
Prices are always justified if there are buyers willing to pay the price.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Amazing specs. I can't wait for comparisons, which Canon and Nikon are probably dreading.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Killer price, too! $6,500?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Can you explain your rationale for saying a mechanical shutter is only needed for flash photography?

I would have thought the main reasons for a mechanical shutter are dark frame subtraction on longer exposures, and protection of the sensor from dirt and dust when changing lenses.