Mike Fewster
Forum Pro
Sounds like what you want is more an A7Siii.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A9III rumors... Could it really be?
- Thread starter f1point4andbethere
- Start date
MikeInOr
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,120
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,206
Honestly, I was quite upset when I took my new A7RIV and 24-105 F/4 lens out of the box, inserted the battery then tried to focus. It wouldn't focus or even try to focus. Then I adjusted the view finder diopter for my eyesight at which time I realized that the focusing was so fast and quiet that I couldn't even detect it was occurring like I could on my A77. It is VERY fast, VERY precise, VERY VERY quiet and locks on perfectly!
I too was swayed to worry from all the hype of this focus system vs that focus system. A7(X) vs A9(x). Sony VS Canon. What will the new A9(x) be and will it integrate super fast everything with a higher resolution sensor... etc. Pffft! The A7Riv is so fast, precise and quiet I can't imagine ever needing better. High speed shooting having to write all those huge 61mp RAW files to the memory card HAS to be sluggish do to the pure physics of what all is happening. Pffft! Changing to high speed shooting mode and holding down the shutter release is so fast that it is ridiculous how many sequential shots I get and I have yet to notice ANY lag when clearing the buffer? It is pausing to clear the buffer isn't it? I really can't tell!
I got caught up in all the specification comparisons before purchasing my A7RIV and it REALLY concerned me! Pfft! This camera is so fast, precise and takes such incredible photos even at high ISO that it is simply stunning!
My goal in replacing my A77 was to purchase a body that I could be happy with for the next 10 years. The A7RIV fulfills that wish in every way... AND I have only started to scratch the surface of what it is capable of! The capabilities of the A7RIV are so vast that that I still don't have a good understand of WHAT it is capable of, no less how to use all the advanced features!
Now, owning the A7RIV, I no longer have ANY interest in ANY A9(x), past, present or future! At the same time I am pleased to see Sony is still pushing the envelope of what mirrorless cameras are capable of.
All I can really promise is that the A7Riv was DEFINITELY the right choice for ME!
Last edited:
No, I've come to the conclusion that 24 MP actually represents a "sweet spot".
Somewhere I recently saw a thread comparing the low light performance of the two cameras and my conclusion (somewhat surprisingly) is that there really isn't much in it.
That's how good the current A9 really is.
But I've grown tired of preaching the lower megapixels gospel. People just don't get it because they are bombarded with this megapixels camera marketing hype.
Then the same people complain about their massive file sizes and noisy images ... go figure.
But adding megapixels sells cameras and technically it is far easier than really useful stuff like increasing the dynamic range.
And if you actually look at what is happening to all your nice shots, they inevitably end up online being displayed on (if you are lucky) 4K screens that max out at about 7 MP.
Somewhat ironic, but again people just don't seem to get it.
For years we were convinced by salesmen that the camera with the higher megapixels was automatically the better camera. It simply isn’t true!
Last edited:
Paul Barnard
Senior Member
why would a professional sports photographer want a flippy screen? That seems to be on the wish list of vloggers but few others.
You don’t really understand fast, the A9 is fast, the R4 is not comparatively. You get far more in focus shots. You get a usable electronic shutter vs unusable of the R4
Last edited:
That's incorrect. The A9 is less likely to have banding and rolling shutter but still can suffer from both as well as the stripes from PDAF on the sensor.
It's a very, very narrow window where the A7SIII suffers from rolling shutter and the A9 does not. Both are very good at not exhibiting rolling shutter.
f1point4andbethere
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,078
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,487
If it is coming, I hope that it loses the AA filter. That's the one aspect of the A9 that causes me to use my A7III anytime I need a bit more detail in an image. This is kind of ridiculous, considering that both of these cameras have the exact same 6000x4000 resolution, but that's just how much detail the AA filter destroys on the A9. In fact, I would rather see the same resolution but with no AA filter than an increase in resolution at all in the A9III.
Aside from that, give us all the goods from the A7SIII, and utilize the fast sensor readout for video as well this time, and I'm perfectly happy.
Aside from that, give us all the goods from the A7SIII, and utilize the fast sensor readout for video as well this time, and I'm perfectly happy.
Last edited:
f1point4andbethere
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,078
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,487
The A9 still has regular rolling shutter during video, and the A7SIII has it during silent shutter photography. Why Sony limits these I'll never figure out.
Last edited:
Mike Fewster
Forum Pro
I'm not following your logic. I accept that the A9 is a great camera. However, you note yourself that the low light performance of the smaller number of pixels really isn't much different to that of a larger number of pixels. The old truth about larger numbers of pixels being noisier no longer is of much weight with newer sensors. This being so, you might as well take the advantages that the higher pixel numbers can give. But note, I originally posted here referring to the ability of the new processor to deal with capture rate and buffer clearing with the large files.
I totally agree with you in questioning the point of high end IQ for images that are viewed online. But this isn't "inevitable." Some of us make large prints at fine art quality.
f1point4andbethere
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,078
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,487
Certainly not placebo. I own both cameras. Also, just look at the image comparison tool on this site and you can see how much more detail and sharpness the A7III produces.
Finally, taken right from the A9II review on this site (the A7III didn't exist when the A9 was reviewed):
"...check out the a9 II against Sony's a7 III, which doesn't have an AA filter"
And:
"The Sony a9 II, just like the original a9, turns in good results for a 24MP sensor. It's just fractionally softer at a pixel level than the the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III and Nikon D5, almost certainly due to it having a stronger anti-aliasing filter than those options"
And from the A7III review:
"Raw files are also sharper than the Sony a9, which uses a stronger AA filter in both directions. Elsewhere in the scene, the a7 III exhibits plenty of detail and aliasing to go around."
Uhhh I own both, the S3 has a 1/60 readout for stills, that means it’s often unusable. The A9 is clearly a different level, and pdaf banding is clearly not what I’m talking about since most Sony cameras have it.
Good points. Read the reviews. Read Photons to Photos. The A9 cameras have always had a little less detail and less dynamic range than all the A7 cameras.
I'm sure that a few people including yourself do. I'm also sure that it's far fewer people than say they do.
But to say that you can't do this with 24MP is simply not accurate and normal viewing distances mean that IMHO there's virtually no difference in practice.
Also... smaller photo sites do mean more noise. That's not the camera that's just the physics of light.
Mike Fewster
Forum Pro
No one is saying that large prints cant be done with 24mp. I have A1 size prints shot with the 24megapixels of the RX1 and they look great. They look especially good because that camera has the lens fitted very precisely to the sensor. But I'd still prefer to have done the same shots with the A7Riii I now use.
While it is true that smaller sites mean more noise, it isn't that simple. Other factors come in as well. Compare noise from sensors of 10 years ago at say, 6000 iso with those of today. We have come a long long way in overcoming the noise/site size issue. For the odd shot done at particularly high iso where you might really want to handle noise, just run it through Topaz DeNoise.
AZheaven
Senior Member
And with Topaz Denoise software? You don't have to worry about shooting high ISO anymore. I took a low light 6400 ISO (my max) photo of Egrets in a tree. The Egrets were, well, very fuzzy. Denoise cleaned it right up! I rented the A7RIV and now miss it. I think one can comfortably shoot higher ISO and no longer worry about it.
My only worry is the file size. Compressed RAW doesn't take nearly as long as Uncompressed of course. But the better half and I are working on that.
I completely agree with you guys.
I'll take 61MP over 24MP. Especially for sports and wildlife. Faster than 10fps means little, but those extra pixels and extra reach are priceless.
And don't forget, when the A9II goes faster than 10 fps, or when the A9 goes faster than 5 fps, they drop to 12 bit compressed, lose DR, add a little more rolling shutter, and negatively affect Bokeh. The electronic shutter is still a huge compromise.
Give me the highest DR and 61 MP any day over compromised IQ and low resolution.
Bye, did you see the best camera for landscapes? Also the A7R4.
Last edited:
f1point4andbethere
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,078
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,487
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the rolling shutter and bokeh aspect of this.
Mechanical shutter has less rolling shutter. That is a fact you can easily verify.
And search the forums. An electronic shutter does something weird to background blur and Bokeh. Or maybe it's because of the 12 bit compression. There are many examples out there though.
No matter A7R4 photos with greater resolution and greater DR are always better.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum