Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony A9 vs A7III

Go to last post
tarunlohumi

tarunlohumi

Leading Member
Messages
833
Solutions
1
Reaction score
161
Location
San Jose, CA, US
A9 for $2800

A7III for around $1800

Not a pro, but love taking photos of kids & pets running around & birding. So 200-600 is probably going to be my second lens after the Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Low light photography is also important to me as most of my kids and friends kids birthday parties are indoors where low light capability plays an important role. Is there a huge difference between high ISO capability on the two cameras?

What would you do if you were in my situation? (I don't have money to buy both :-))
 
Low light is about the same for both. So I'd get the A7iii and use the money saved on lenses.
 
Last edited:
tarunlohumi said:
al. said:
Low light is about the same for both. So I'd get the A7iii and use the money saved on lenses.
Click to expand...
And what about the difference in AF capabilities of A9 vs A7III? Are they worth the extra $1000?
Click to expand...
The A9 is a speed demon.

The A7III is pretty fast.

If into fast action, burst shooting, or simply wanting the best - go for the A9.

If into more general photography then the A7III should be hard to beat.

What is worth $1000 is a matter of priority. If I really want something (for better or worse reasons) then $1000 is peanuts. If not then it is a small fortune...
 
When I got back into photography a couple of years ago, my thinking was that I going to buy camera gear that I hope to use for a long time. I first bought the Sony A7R3, but while I liked the resolution the ability to track birds-in-flight was a little underwhelming to me. Then during the holiday season Sony knocked a $1000 off the A9 and the temptation was too much for me to pass up on it. From what I hear the Sony A7III is a fine camera and probably would be best for people just getting into photography. However, I was getting to the point where I was getting tired of buying a camera then having buyer's remorse when the camera didn't live up to my expectations. So at the time the A9 was the King when it came to action shots in my opinion. Yeah, I could had saved money going with the A7III, however, I personally didn't want to have buyer's remorse once again. I love my A7R3/A9 combo even though the A7R4/A9II has been introduced, but just like anything that you buy the product only to have replaced by the next model version release. Just as long as Sony doesn't do anything stupid like change the lens mount on their cameras then I should be happy in years to come. Heck, even if they did change the lens mount, Sony and other manufacturers are making for a very nice lens selection that would keep me satisfied.

So in short, it just boils down to what you personally want. Save money while sacrificing a little in features or spending money on the top model and being broke? (Joking about the broke part).
 
Last edited:
I have both. Love the A7III, but found myself lusting after the A9 after fw 5.0 with the realtime tracking and it's electronic shutter.

Overall, for most photographers there's diminishing returns in spending the extra money.

For me, since I shoot weddings with fast primes mostly wide-open, I really take advantage of the extra couple of stops shutter speed. My f1.2 & 1.4 lenses can't really be shot wide-open on a sunny day on the A7III, but on the A9 I can get 1/32000 sec.

The electronic shutter is a game changer with the A9 as well. It is so discreet it really lets you get away with shooting anywhere. We sometimes run into staunch old catholic priests who seem to have it out for photographers. We've even had them say "no photos of any of the ceremony except the entrance and signing." Well, with the A9, they have no clue I'm even taking photos of the entire event.

Finally, the AF... Yes, it is a very significant upgrade. Both are absolutely competent and you'll be able to get the shot with focus where you want it, but the A9 makes it much easier. The tracking on it is ridiculously persistent.
 
tarunlohumi said:
A9 for $2800

A7III for around $1800

Not a pro, but love taking photos of kids & pets running around & birding. So 200-600 is probably going to be my second lens after the Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Low light photography is also important to me as most of my kids and friends kids birthday parties are indoors where low light capability plays an important role. Is there a huge difference between high ISO capability on the two cameras?

What would you do if you were in my situation? (I don't have money to buy both :-))
Click to expand...
At present I have an a9ii on loan, and am shooting it beside my a7Riii and a7iii.

The a9ii is, of course, a slight update to the a9, but in many respects they are similar.

There's no doubt that the a9ii is a beast, and is a bit of a step up from the a7iii. However the only aspects of that that are likely to be make-or-break are the 20fps burst speed, the (almost) artefact-free silent shutter and the absolute best in class AF. Other differences, nice though they are, are just icing IMO.

In light of that, unless you need the burst rate, the silent shutter performance or the AF tracking (the a7iii is already very good, but the a9ii is even better), the price difference is hard to justify. Added to that, if you plan to shoot a lot of video, or shoot in super high contrast conditions, the a7iii may even be a slightly better choice.

All up, if you *know* you need that 20fps speed or the very best level of AF tracking for fast action, then don't even ask the question - just get the a9. But if that you don't have a clear imperative for the special capabilities of the a9, the a7iii is probably a better fit for your budget.

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon
 
Last edited:
XeroJay said:
I have both. Love the A7III, but found myself lusting after the A9 after fw 5.0 with the realtime tracking and it's electronic shutter.

Overall, for most photographers there's diminishing returns in spending the extra money.

For me, since I shoot weddings with fast primes mostly wide-open, I really take advantage of the extra couple of stops shutter speed. My f1.2 & 1.4 lenses can't really be shot wide-open on a sunny day on the A7III, but on the A9 I can get 1/32000 sec.

The electronic shutter is a game changer with the A9 as well. It is so discreet it really lets you get away with shooting anywhere. We sometimes run into staunch old catholic priests who seem to have it out for photographers. We've even had them say "no photos of any of the ceremony except the entrance and signing." Well, with the A9, they have no clue I'm even taking photos of the entire event.

Finally, the AF... Yes, it is a very significant upgrade. Both are absolutely competent and you'll be able to get the shot with focus where you want it, but the A9 makes it much easier. The tracking on it is ridiculously persistent.
Click to expand...
agreed with all the above AND... no actuation count! I've had my a9 over 2 years now and click count is still under 1900! Yet, I easily shoot 1000 on any birding outing. My a9 is in electronic shutter 95% of the time, the only reason I even have around 1900 actuation count is because I've had to use it for photoshoots using strobes. less shutter movements means wear and tear (and I would think holds the value more)

Note: I also own the R4 and previously owned the R3 and R2
 
trainerKEN said:
XeroJay said:
I have both. Love the A7III, but found myself lusting after the A9 after fw 5.0 with the realtime tracking and it's electronic shutter.

Overall, for most photographers there's diminishing returns in spending the extra money.

For me, since I shoot weddings with fast primes mostly wide-open, I really take advantage of the extra couple of stops shutter speed. My f1.2 & 1.4 lenses can't really be shot wide-open on a sunny day on the A7III, but on the A9 I can get 1/32000 sec.

The electronic shutter is a game changer with the A9 as well. It is so discreet it really lets you get away with shooting anywhere. We sometimes run into staunch old catholic priests who seem to have it out for photographers. We've even had them say "no photos of any of the ceremony except the entrance and signing." Well, with the A9, they have no clue I'm even taking photos of the entire event.

Finally, the AF... Yes, it is a very significant upgrade. Both are absolutely competent and you'll be able to get the shot with focus where you want it, but the A9 makes it much easier. The tracking on it is ridiculously persistent.
Click to expand...
agreed with all the above AND... no actuation count! I've had my a9 over 2 years now and click count is still under 1900! Yet, I easily shoot 1000 on any birding outing. My a9 is in electronic shutter 95% of the time, the only reason I even have around 1900 actuation count is because I've had to use it for photoshoots using strobes. less shutter movements means wear and tear (and I would think holds the value more)

Note: I also own the R4 and previously owned the R3 and R2
Click to expand...
This is something to consider. I have 25k or so click count on my a7iii, which is obviously not that old, as I will shoot around a thousand pics a day at indoor sports tournaments. I don’t need the top of the line tracking or 20 fps, but I’m putting a lot of wear and tear on my a7iii. I’m considering an A9 body in the near future for that reason.
 
Mr_Win said:
tarunlohumi said:
al. said:
Low light is about the same for both. So I'd get the A7iii and use the money saved on lenses.
Click to expand...
And what about the difference in AF capabilities of A9 vs A7III? Are they worth the extra $1000?
Click to expand...
A9 is in a different league, smokes the 73 under high intensity scenarios. A total joy for photography, while the 73 is just meh in comparison. The blackout free, highly capable silent shooting makes all the difference.
Click to expand...
No doubt the A9 is the better camera. I had the A7iii for about a year and just recently got the A9. Much better silent shutter and blackout free VF. But I must say, the A7iii is still capable of taking great images.
 
Last edited:
trainerKEN said:
XeroJay said:
I have both. Love the A7III, but found myself lusting after the A9 after fw 5.0 with the realtime tracking and it's electronic shutter.

Overall, for most photographers there's diminishing returns in spending the extra money.

For me, since I shoot weddings with fast primes mostly wide-open, I really take advantage of the extra couple of stops shutter speed. My f1.2 & 1.4 lenses can't really be shot wide-open on a sunny day on the A7III, but on the A9 I can get 1/32000 sec.

The electronic shutter is a game changer with the A9 as well. It is so discreet it really lets you get away with shooting anywhere. We sometimes run into staunch old catholic priests who seem to have it out for photographers. We've even had them say "no photos of any of the ceremony except the entrance and signing." Well, with the A9, they have no clue I'm even taking photos of the entire event.

Finally, the AF... Yes, it is a very significant upgrade. Both are absolutely competent and you'll be able to get the shot with focus where you want it, but the A9 makes it much easier. The tracking on it is ridiculously persistent.
Click to expand...
agreed with all the above AND... no actuation count! I've had my a9 over 2 years now and click count is still under 1900! Yet, I easily shoot 1000 on any birding outing. My a9 is in electronic shutter 95% of the time, the only reason I even have around 1900 actuation count is because I've had to use it for photoshoots using strobes. less shutter movements means wear and tear (and I would think holds the value more)

Note: I also own the R4 and previously owned the R3 and R2
Click to expand...
 
al. said:
trainerKEN said:
XeroJay said:
I have both. Love the A7III, but found myself lusting after the A9 after fw 5.0 with the realtime tracking and it's electronic shutter.

Overall, for most photographers there's diminishing returns in spending the extra money.

For me, since I shoot weddings with fast primes mostly wide-open, I really take advantage of the extra couple of stops shutter speed. My f1.2 & 1.4 lenses can't really be shot wide-open on a sunny day on the A7III, but on the A9 I can get 1/32000 sec.

The electronic shutter is a game changer with the A9 as well. It is so discreet it really lets you get away with shooting anywhere. We sometimes run into staunch old catholic priests who seem to have it out for photographers. We've even had them say "no photos of any of the ceremony except the entrance and signing." Well, with the A9, they have no clue I'm even taking photos of the entire event.

Finally, the AF... Yes, it is a very significant upgrade. Both are absolutely competent and you'll be able to get the shot with focus where you want it, but the A9 makes it much easier. The tracking on it is ridiculously persistent.
Click to expand...
agreed with all the above AND... no actuation count! I've had my a9 over 2 years now and click count is still under 1900! Yet, I easily shoot 1000 on any birding outing. My a9 is in electronic shutter 95% of the time, the only reason I even have around 1900 actuation count is because I've had to use it for photoshoots using strobes. less shutter movements means wear and tear (and I would think holds the value more)

Note: I also own the R4 and previously owned the R3 and R2
Click to expand...
How is the shutter button holding up?
Click to expand...
lol... no issues there. THE ONLY issue I'm kind of having with the a9 is the USB port, when I do firmware updates, the computer sometimes say it doesn't detect any cameras attached. I have to wiggle the cable a little by the port (and yes, I've tried different cables), this DOES worry me a little
 
al. said:
Mr_Win said:
tarunlohumi said:
al. said:
Low light is about the same for both. So I'd get the A7iii and use the money saved on lenses.
Click to expand...
And what about the difference in AF capabilities of A9 vs A7III? Are they worth the extra $1000?
Click to expand...
A9 is in a different league, smokes the 73 under high intensity scenarios. A total joy for photography, while the 73 is just meh in comparison. The blackout free, highly capable silent shooting makes all the difference.
Click to expand...
No doubt the A9 is the better camera. I had the A7iii for about a year and just recently got the A9. Much better silent shutter and blackout free VF. But I must say, the A7iii is still capable of taking great images.
Click to expand...
I've kept the A7iii around for video and travel due to the fact that it's considerably better at video since it offers log profiles....hell, even the A6400 is better for video....... log makes a massive difference once you get the hang of shooting and grading the footage, almost like raw vs jpeg.
 
Thanks for all the thoughts so far. I'm kind of inclined towards the a9 because I think I'll be birding more often than taking landscapes. But I feel even if I take landscapes A9 is a very good camera even though DXOmark rates it at 92 vs 96 for the A7III.

This is some of my work https://500px.com/tarunlohumi

Reviewing my work - I feel it is kind of a mix of landscape & birding & nightscapes...but when I go out birding I want to feel that sheer joy of shooting with a9. Am I over expecting? :-) (I shoot with a D750 at present BTW)
 
tarunlohumi said:
Thanks for all the thoughts so far. I'm kind of inclined towards the a9 because I think I'll be birding more often than taking landscapes. But I feel even if I take landscapes A9 is a very good camera even though DXOmark rates it at 92 vs 96 for the A7III.

This is some of my work https://500px.com/tarunlohumi

Reviewing my work - I feel it is kind of a mix of landscape & birding & nightscapes...but when I go out birding I want to feel that sheer joy of shooting with a9. Am I over expecting? :-) (I shoot with a D750 at present BTW)
Click to expand...
Nice work!
 
Ha - when things are interesting - they become super interesting - A7RIV for $2650 ;-)

Not sure what to do :-)
 
tarunlohumi said:
A9 for $2800

A7III for around $1800

Not a pro, but love taking photos of kids & pets running around & birding. So 200-600 is probably going to be my second lens after the Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Low light photography is also important to me as most of my kids and friends kids birthday parties are indoors where low light capability plays an important role. Is there a huge difference between high ISO capability on the two cameras?

What would you do if you were in my situation? (I don't have money to buy both :-))
Click to expand...
I would probably recommend the A7III over the A9. I love the A9 for its speed, but not all the lenses can take advantage of that speed. If you are looking at Sigma glass you probably won't be getting the most out of the A9. I would have to see some tests with the 24-70 ART and see if it can keep up with the A9.

Do you really want silent shooting? The A9 is king for silent work.

The A7III is going to get you 90% of what you need for a lot less.
 
I have used the a7III since it was released. I just sold it for the a9 late last year because I now shoot 75% of my work in sports. I would say that the a7III is a very capable camera. I would echo the previous commenters in saying that unless you need the high-frame rate, blackout free shutter, and best-in-class AF, then the a7III with a few good lenses would probably be a better investment. The low-light capability is roughly equal. And the video capabilities for the a7III are superior. However, for my use case, I shoot 100% still for paid work.

One point that has not been emphasized enough is that the a9 only has a 5fps mechanical shutter for doing flash/strobe work. The a7III can do 10fps with flash/strobes.

I loved the a7III and found it capable enough for shooting sports, but the a9 is in a different league. But for your use case, I think you may find the a7III to be a better "all-arounder."

Finally, I know you mentioned that the a7r IV is a tempting option. I did pick one up during last month. I really think this is very good for studio and landscape, but for general use, the file sizes are so big and unwieldy. And the low light performance is worse at higher ISO levels. It is an amazing camera, but if I only had one, I would go a7III or a9 before a7r IV.
 
tarunlohumi said:
A9 for $2800

A7III for around $1800

Not a pro, but love taking photos of kids & pets running around & birding. So 200-600 is probably going to be my second lens after the Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Low light photography is also important to me as most of my kids and friends kids birthday parties are indoors where low light capability plays an important role. Is there a huge difference between high ISO capability on the two cameras?

What would you do if you were in my situation? (I don't have money to buy both :-))
Click to expand...
Go with the A9!

The A9 is not just about speed; its also about focus acquisition, which is HUGE.

After all, are were not doing this to CAPTURE moments in time?

The difference in low light capability between the two cameras is negligible.

The advantages the A7III has over the A9 are:
  • better dynamic range, which can come in very handy when post-processing your low light photos and birding shots
  • video profiles
  • micro USB C port
The advantages the A9 has over A7III are:
  • focus capability is reportedly exponentially better in stills and video, including little things like red focus box vs gray focus box
  • silent shutter with minimal banding. It’s worth noting the silent shutter has benefits of reducing shutter shock, increasing life of mechanical shutter, and silence, of course
  • Better EVF and LCD and better focus peaking
  • Weather sealing and build quality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top