What do you think Sony will do to enhance the A9 III?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Wordfool Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: What do you think Sony will do to enhance the A9 III?

Mattitude V1 wrote:

The A9 to A9 II wasn’t a big jump. Do you think the A9 III will be a serious R3 competitor? Canon’s entry level APS-C body the R10 can shoot 12 FPS mechanical and 23 FPS electronic (although in 12-bit RAW) at 24 megapixels.

The R7 can do 30 FPS electronic shutter.

I’m interested in an A9 series camera, but wonder how Sony can navigate this while still keeping it under the A1.

I assume it may get a resolution increase. Maybe to 33 MP, like the A7 IV. But now seemingly all of Canon’s mirrorless lineup can shoot as fast as the A9 series. It’s an interesting spot.

The A93 will probably go up to 30FPS-capable (highest speeds always have caveats), hopefully have a slight resolution bump, probably have a faster-readout sensor (>= A1's speed), and hopefully have slightly better DR/low light performance. I'm sure Sony will add some other minor improvements in other areas, as always.

In other words an iterative update that will enable the A93 to surpass the Canon R3's capabilities in most areas at a lower price. Such is the leap-frog nature of new camera releases.

You seem a bit obsessed with the raw FPS figures and, as many others in this thread have said, FPS cannot really be compared between cameras with stacked vs non-stacked sensors. It's like comparing apples and oranges -- both fruit, both sweet and tasty, but fundamentally different species.

A high-FPS camera in electronic shutter mode is going to be useless to a sports photog, for example, if it doesn't have a stacked sensor (and the highest FPS speeds are usually only available in e-shutter mode). Same with many other types of photography involving fast-moving subjects. Canon only has one camera with a stacked sensor so far (the R3), so that's really the only one that can or should be compared to the likes of the Z9, A9 or A1.

The stacked sensor is usually the primary reason people buy one of these four cameras, not the headline FPS number. Plus, sports and wildlife photographers did just fine for decades with far slower cameras, so 30 FPS is really more of a "nice to have" rather than a "need to have" in the hands of a good photog IMHO.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow