Reading mode: Light Dark

Is money was not an issue

Go to last post
aarif

aarif

Veteran Member
Messages
9,459
Reaction score
1,117
Location
Dubai, AE
what would you buy today.

A9III A1 A7R5 .......

I really think may people will take the A1 over the A9iii because of IQ and resolution.

i know no Distortion and flash sync are beneficial but will you compromise for better IQ and resolution.

I guess everyone have their own dream specs. maybe if it was a 33mp with say half a stop worse noise levels would have been more tempting
 
aarif said:
what would you buy today.

A9III A1 A7R5 .......

I really think may people will take the A1 over the A9iii because of IQ and resolution.

i know no Distortion and flash sync are beneficial but will you compromise for better IQ and resolution.

I guess everyone have their own dream specs. maybe if it was a 33mp with say half a stop worse noise levels would have been more tempting
Click to expand...
Nothing on the body side of things. I’ve hit a dead end here for the time being. Although there’s a couple of lenses I’m eyeing to complete what’s arguably the most important side of any system.

On the body side of things my workhorses remain my pair of A9II’s. I also have an A7Rv which is great, but unusable in silent shutter. So it’s of limited use to me.

When the A1ii is released I might add a used A1 to replace the A7Rv, because the used prices of the A1 will drop.

On the new body side Sony has nothing for me, so I’ll continue my current strategy of buying older bodies used, but state of the art lenses new.

I do wonder if we’ll ever see a new body from Sony with a stacked sensor around 33mp to compete with the Z8/9 price point. Plus the rumoured Canon R5.
 
A9iii, A7Rv, A7CR for sure. Maybe A1 ii instead of A9iii, if it comes out before money is no limit. One can dream.

Now lenses is a much more interesting question, especially for the A7CR. A 100-400 GM ii would be good too.

A
 
aarif said:
what would you buy today.

A9III A1 A7R5 .......

I really think may people will take the A1 over the A9iii because of IQ and resolution.

i know no Distortion and flash sync are beneficial but will you compromise for better IQ and resolution.

I guess everyone have their own dream specs. maybe if it was a 33mp with say half a stop worse noise levels would have been more tempting
Click to expand...
 
There is no single camera for everything. I'd buy A1 as a general camera, A7CR as travel camera and A9 III for live concerts.
 
Last edited:
I'd probably have pretty much the same lenses, some people tend to think the only reason others buy 3rd party is because of price but sometimes it's just about the more unique FL, form factor, features, or size/weight. I might have a 12-24 for some outings but that's about it (can't justify it in addition to a 16/17-xx).

Body wise I'd definitely have an A7CR (for the size) and an A1 (for the e-shutter) instead of an A7R IV, but I hope the lines continue evolving and fast reading sensors eventually come to the A7 lineup. I don't need the A9 III for anything but I do see how it's a game changer for others.

I still think it's odd a lot of smaller format shooters think FF is that much more expensive, on average I paid less per lens on E mount than I did on M4/3, easily enough of a difference to make up for the big price difference (2.5x) on the body... I only started shooting FF when the lenses I wanted were there tho, which only happened within the last 4 years or so.
 
Last edited:
deednets said:
If you browse this forum for 25 minutes, you might get the impression that money never seems to be an issue for a lot of shooters. People talk about second A1s, A9s etc, bodies that could potentially get you a whole camera/lens setup in some other system.
Click to expand...
I own A7C only, but I can rent any Sony A body for 100 euro per weekend. As a occasional/hobbyist concert photographer it is cheaper for me to rent the A9 III than to buy it. I also always get access to the latest models.
 
Last edited:
aarif said:
what would you buy today.

A9III A1 A7R5 .......

I really think may people will take the A1 over the A9iii because of IQ and resolution.

i know no Distortion and flash sync are beneficial but will you compromise for better IQ and resolution.

I guess everyone have their own dream specs. maybe if it was a 33mp with say half a stop worse noise levels would have been more tempting
Click to expand...
IMO the A1 remains far better than either the A9 III or the A7R V as the single camera for someone like me, who wants to take a wide range of photos. For me, I really think that only very rarely would the A9 III's advantages in autofocus, global shutter, and speed over the A1's already excellent autofocus and 1/256 s rolling fully-electronic shutter matter substantially. For me, I really think that only very rarely would the A7R V's advantages in dynamic range and resolution over the A1's already excellent performance in those areas matter substantially. Conversely, compared with the A9 III, I think the A1's base gain (ISO 50 / 100 versus 250) and dynamic range at base gain (per Photons to Photos, 11.36 stops versus 10.00) would matter at times, and every now and then the extra resolution would be nice. Likewise, compared with the A7R V, I think the A1's fast fully-electronic shutter (per Horshack, 1/256 s versus 1/10 s) would matter at times (where true silence is needed), and every now and then the A1's faster bursts and higher flash sync speed would be nice.

Again, that's me: if you're a dedicated sports shooter, or landscape shooter, or videographer, then some other camera (A9 III, A7R V, A7S III, etc.) may well be a better choice for you.

IOW, the A1 remains the top of the line for good reasons.

P.S.

To me, size / weight is not much of a factor among Sony FF bodies, and considering the lens too. If size / weight is much of an issue, then usually I'd leave the ILC at home and bring the RX100 IV (or if I can upgrade that too, either of the pair of RX100 VII and RX100 Va).
 
Last edited:
stillpics said:
A93iii for me, mostly for the capture capability for birding and sports. The A1 and A7RV are great cameras for sure but in need of an upgrade, imho.
Click to expand...
Hehe, the A7RV "needs" an upgrade?

Wouldn't that depend largely on what you shoot?

Deed
 
probably A1. After using an A9 for a while I can’t go back to a non stacked sensor.
 
Yep, I do shoot birds, sports, animals, people, and things that move and don't move at times. I would love the A7R5, almost upgraded my trusty A7R3 for one - I used to own a A7R4, but it lacks the feature set to bring my requirements in, read the feature set on the A93 and consider where Sony may be headed, or could be. Then maybe consider where Nikon ( Oh No! ) where the Z9 and Z8 offerings deliver now before any upcoming camera upgrades ( if any ) , and their cameras are really at least a couple of years old, the new firmware upgrades really boosted their capabilities.

Technology changes, used to be every year and a half now much quicker, YIKES!
 
For my genre is birding only and I don't think the other bodies offer any substantial advantages over the A1

If anything, I'd take the new AF module of the A9III, and its new body style (don't need global shutter)

Looking forward to A1 II with these least enhancements
 
ahaslett said:
A9iii, A7Rv, A7CR for sure. Maybe A1 ii instead of A9iii, if it comes out before money is no limit. One can dream.

Now lenses is a much more interesting question, especially for the A7CR. A 100-400 GM ii would be good too.

A
Click to expand...
+1. If money was not an issue, then all of them 😜
 
2 x A9iii + 1 x A1 + 1 x A7Cii
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lan
If I could only take 1 camera, it would be the A9III, but if I could take 2 cameras, then the A9III and the A1, and if 3 cameras, then also the A7CR.

24MP is enough for me most of the time (but not always) but banding has sometimes been a source of frustration, so to get rid of it once and for all would be one less headache. Precapture is also nice.

For when I need more pixels, the A1 would be quite nice indeed.

A7CR for traveling ultra light and crop a lot, and overall best IQ.
 
Last edited:
aarif said:
what would you buy today.

A9III A1 A7R5 .......

I really think may people will take the A1 over the A9iii because of IQ and resolution.

i know no Distortion and flash sync are beneficial but will you compromise for better IQ and resolution.

I guess everyone have their own dream specs. maybe if it was a 33mp with say half a stop worse noise levels would have been more tempting
Click to expand...
My answer is probably the one you don't want to hear - there is no one perfect camera. Each camera has strengths and weaknesses. And sometimes the answer is not one camera, but two, or more.

I own all three, but I bought each as they came out, so the cost was spread out. I could easily imagine buying the A7RV and A9 III together (especially if money was not an issue!) because they are complementary. The A1 has some of the advantages of both (although not as much as when I was comparing the A1 with the A7R4 and the A9 II that I owned at the time!).

Fact is, no camera can really "do it all" (no matter what the Marketing Department wants you to believe). I prefer to choose which camera I want to use today, rather than which camera I want to use for the next 3 years. Sometime the choice is two cameras :-D

All three can produce high quality images. All the guff about the A9 III "sacrificing image quality" - it's nonsense. Yes, you are limited to a base ISO of 250, but when did you last worry about using ISO 250? Put all three cameras on ISO 250, and they show pretty much the same image quality - there's more difference due to the pixel count. Yes, I'm warier of low light using the A9 III, but it's nowhere near as bad as the naysayers make it out to be.

You don't have to be shooting sport to enjoy the advantages of the A9 III's frame rate - I was shooting a dancer in dappled sunlight, and shot a jump at 60 fps - caught the peak of the jump easily, which was far easier than trying to time my shot and asking her to repeat the jump many times.

I believe the reason the A9 III is 24Mpixel (rather than the 33 you mention) is for several reasons - they hinted in the announcement that it was the highest pixel count they could make at the time. But this camera tempts you into shooting a LOT of frames, and I am grateful that they are smaller than the frames from the A1 and A7RV :-D You get about 4800 lossless compressed frames on a 160GB CFeA card, and I've done that multiple times.

You may well see a 33Mpixel global shutter sensor some time, but I'll be very surprised if it's this year. I'll be somewhat surprised if it's next year, too. Remember how long it took to go from the original A9 to the A9 II to the A1? That's the cost of a new sensor technology - it will take a while for the second and third iterations to appear. But they will definitely appear - I'm sure Sony's sensor research and development team have been working on the next iteration for some time now :-D
 
I’d take the a9iii for the simple reason that I think nailing focus is always more important than resolution, and I don’t shoot good enough landscapes to justify it the other way around.

i do think the iq penalty of the gs sensor is underestimated, but then again, if you finish the image in camera, 24mp is usually plenty. I’d be more concerned with the video topping out at 4k.
 
aarif said:
what would you buy today.

A9III A1 A7R5 .......
Click to expand...
If I had the money? All three, they all have their use cases.

More important would be an assistant to carry it all for me though - obviously they would need to be very fit, and ideally have a spine made of titanium ;)
 
AlephNull said:
aarif said:
what would you buy today.

A9III A1 A7R5 .......

I really think may people will take the A1 over the A9iii because of IQ and resolution.

i know no Distortion and flash sync are beneficial but will you compromise for better IQ and resolution.

I guess everyone have their own dream specs. maybe if it was a 33mp with say half a stop worse noise levels would have been more tempting
Click to expand...
My answer is probably the one you don't want to hear - there is no one perfect camera. Each camera has strengths and weaknesses. And sometimes the answer is not one camera, but two, or more.

I own all three, but I bought each as they came out, so the cost was spread out. I could easily imagine buying the A7RV and A9 III together (especially if money was not an issue!) because they are complementary. The A1 has some of the advantages of both (although not as much as when I was comparing the A1 with the A7R4 and the A9 II that I owned at the time!).

Fact is, no camera can really "do it all" (no matter what the Marketing Department wants you to believe). I prefer to choose which camera I want to use today, rather than which camera I want to use for the next 3 years. Sometime the choice is two cameras :-D

All three can produce high quality images. All the guff about the A9 III "sacrificing image quality" - it's nonsense. Yes, you are limited to a base ISO of 250, but when did you last worry about using ISO 250? Put all three cameras on ISO 250, and they show pretty much the same image quality - there's more difference due to the pixel count. Yes, I'm warier of low light using the A9 III, but it's nowhere near as bad as the naysayers make it out to be.

You don't have to be shooting sport to enjoy the advantages of the A9 III's frame rate - I was shooting a dancer in dappled sunlight, and shot a jump at 60 fps - caught the peak of the jump easily, which was far easier than trying to time my shot and asking her to repeat the jump many times.

I believe the reason the A9 III is 24Mpixel (rather than the 33 you mention) is for several reasons - they hinted in the announcement that it was the highest pixel count they could make at the time. But this camera tempts you into shooting a LOT of frames, and I am grateful that they are smaller than the frames from the A1 and A7RV :-D You get about 4800 lossless compressed frames on a 160GB CFeA card, and I've done that multiple times.

You may well see a 33Mpixel global shutter sensor some time, but I'll be very surprised if it's this year. I'll be somewhat surprised if it's next year, too. Remember how long it took to go from the original A9 to the A9 II to the A1?
Click to expand...
Announcements (availability was right after):

A9 => A9ii = 3 years and 2 months

A9ii => A1 = 7 months

So it took Sony 3 years and 9 months between creating the first FF stacked sensor (A9) and improving it like crazy in the A1 by making it 2x the pixels, 50% extra speed, and way better DR.

The A9iii was announced 7 months ago.

Using the same timeline and improvements, we can expect a camera (maybe A1iii ?) in about 3 years and 2 months with a 50MP GS sensor and 180fps and way better DR.
AlephNull said:
That's the cost of a new sensor technology - it will take a while for the second and third iterations to appear. But they will definitely appear - I'm sure Sony's sensor research and development team have been working on the next iteration for some time now :-D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

f1point4andbethere
Who says the A9III is "like APS-C"?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
953
GaryW
G
M
A9iii and HVL-F60RM2 Vs Godox V1
Replies
8
Views
5K
MattPointZero
M
photofan1986
Focusing problems with the Sony A1
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
7K
Interceptor121
I
D
a1 II vs. a9 III Field Comparison
Replies
16
Views
17K
Foxjet
F
photofan1986
  • User review User review
From A9 to A7Cii? A first impressions review
2
Replies
32
Views
13K
Peak freak
P

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