Sony A9 vs A7III

[XeroJay]

Thanks again for all the feedback. This is why I love to be a part of this forum, so helpful.

I have looked at the above video more than 10 times. Tim makes it look so easy to track those kites with either of these cameras. He does conclude though that the A9 is at least 3X better in terms of focus acquisition and re-acquisition compared to the R4. However he also does mention that if he had only one camera he could go with - it would be the R4. I don't know if that applies to me, as I do not print big (seldom print my pictures for home use), if I ever do. So for all practical purposed I think for any kind of landscape work I can continue to use my D750 while using my A9 for any fast action stuff (the only down side to that is I would have to keep on top of 2 camera systems & have a couple of lenses for the D750)

Thoughts?

PS: Oh and for those of you asking where I'm getting those prices. Mostly from local friends who bought it during the B&H sale, and not grey market ;-)

I'm honestly not sure that the slight difference in DR are worth keeping two systems. The A9 is certainly no slouch in the dynamic range department, and tbh, the differences seem larger in paper than in real world. Not to mention having the option of 20fps electronic HDR.

As for the price; good luck. It's $3500 USD from B&H, and the only way they'll be discounted down to $2800 is if it comes from Sony. That likely won't happen anytime soon, since Canon just released the 1Dx3 at an exorbitant price, and there's no really competition for the A9. I would say you'll be waiting a couple of years... When the A9III is announced.

 

[TheOwl360]

Thanks again for all the feedback. This is why I love to be a part of this forum, so helpful.

I have looked at the above video more than 10 times. Tim makes it look so easy to track those kites with either of these cameras. He does conclude though that the A9 is at least 3X better in terms of focus acquisition and re-acquisition compared to the R4. However he also does mention that if he had only one camera he could go with - it would be the R4. I don't know if that applies to me, as I do not print big (seldom print my pictures for home use), if I ever do. So for all practical purposed I think for any kind of landscape work I can continue to use my D750 while using my A9 for any fast action stuff (the only down side to that is I would have to keep on top of 2 camera systems & have a couple of lenses for the D750)

Thoughts?

PS: Oh and for those of you asking where I'm getting those prices. Mostly from local friends who bought it during the B&H sale, and not grey market ;-)

Even if one prints big---unless one is printing billboard size images the 60 megapixels is probably redundant.

I used to own the D750 and it has excellent low light performance and DR.

 

[Rmcp20]

Not arguing with your choices, but do you find the 200-600 good for taking photos of your friends and family kids, as well as pets?

You will probably scare them.... and 600mm? You have to go far back...

Wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 be better? Also with the 2.8 at 100-200 it can be very usefull for portraits.

 

[Dima I]

Ha - when things are interesting - they become super interesting - A7RIV for $2650 ;-)

Not sure what to do

Once you got comfortable with the idea of the a9 at it's price then you see the A7riv is right there too
I had the A9 and A7rIII at the same time. They have both morphed into the A7riv. The 4 has much better AF coverage than the 3 and the tracking, locking onto the eye, etc is almost as good as the A9 was. I think the only reason the A9 was better was the readout speed of the sensor. But if your not doing pro sports, the A7r4 has much improved AF over the A7r3 and the ability to crop while maintaining detail is a boon for all sorts of shooting.

I'd vote for the A7rIV if your goal is one camera to do it all which it sounds like it is.

The OP said he wants a low light camera.

The A7RIV is the worst low light camera in the Sony full-frame lineup.

What’s more, the RIV reportedly has focusing issues.

Have been using A7RIV for months now - no focusing issues. If some bodies have issues - just repair those ones...

 

[Dima I]

Low light is about the same for both. So I'd get the A7iii and use the money saved on lenses.

And what about the difference in AF capabilities of A9 vs A7III? Are they worth the extra $1000?

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...

I would throw in one thing that is worth $1000 for me - the viewfinder.

I've rented A7III and the viewfinder is just not good enough (at the moment I've compared it to Nikon Z6, which has awesome viewfinder). As the result - A9 has a better viewfinder. Definitely a tiny EVF screen costs couple bucks to produce, unfortunately for marketing reasons - you don't get one in A73. Go for A9 (which will remain top-notch camera for couple more years at least) or wait for A74, which should be a solid thing to consider.

 

[tarunlohumi]

Not arguing with your choices, but do you find the 200-600 good for taking photos of your friends and family kids, as well as pets?

You will probably scare them.... and 600mm? You have to go far back...

Wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 be better? Also with the 2.8 at 100-200 it can be very usefull for portraits.

For sure, considering a 24-70 f4 or f2.8 or 70-200 f4/f2.8 at a later point. 200-600 is for BIF which I would love to do with the A9

 

[williams359]

I have both, the 7iii as back up. For me I needed the silent shutter under artificial lights without banding. That’s why I got the A9 . I also like the focus point being red not grey which I find hard to use on the 7iii

I have come from canon 1DX and 5dmk4 . The Sony’s are good but have not blown me away.

 

[SilvanBromide]

Not arguing with your choices, but do you find the 200-600 good for taking photos of your friends and family kids, as well as pets?

You will probably scare them.... and 600mm? You have to go far back...

Wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 be better? Also with the 2.8 at 100-200 it can be very usefull for portraits.

Nope. Friends, family and pets are most unlikely to be "scared" of a 200-600 lens.

That's because, to take photos of them, you will have to be far enough away that they probably won't even notice you - much less experience fear.

For 'candid' shots that distance is probably a good thing - but it certainly won't be conducive to 'model interaction'. ; )

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 

[rainydiary]

Better wait for A7 IV which are coming soon.

 

[Rmcp20]

Not arguing with your choices, but do you find the 200-600 good for taking photos of your friends and family kids, as well as pets?

You will probably scare them.... and 600mm? You have to go far back...

Wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 be better? Also with the 2.8 at 100-200 it can be very usefull for portraits.

For sure, considering a 24-70 f4 or f2.8 or 70-200 f4/f2.8 at a later point. 200-600 is for BIF which I would love to do with the A9

Ahhhh BIF, ok then it makes sense...

 

[tarunlohumi]

Better wait for A7 IV which are coming soon.

I am pretty sure A7IV is still going to be behind A9 when it comes to AF performance.

It might better A9 in low light performance (might) but i think A9's low light capability is enough for me.

hence, i don't really see a point i waiting

PS: I just got an offer for a A9 with 5K shutter count, for $2400. That might force me to pull the trigger on A9. I think I'm going to be a happy camper with that.

--
My Photostream: https://500px.com/tarunlohumi

 

[XeroJay]

Better wait for A7 IV which are coming soon.

I am pretty sure A7IV is still going to be behind A9 when it comes to AF performance.

It might better A9 in low light performance (might) but i think A9's low light capability is enough for me.

hence, i don't really see a point i waiting

PS: I just got an offer for a A9 with 5K shutter count, for $2400. That might force me to pull the trigger on A9. I think I'm going to be a happy camper with that.

 

[Jingo M]

I agree, for that price premium vs the a7III you should get the a9. You will also have less buyer's remorse knowing you have Sony's best AF system and a much better EVF.

 

[tarunlohumi]

OK guys!! Thank thanks thanks to all of you with your suggestion and comments!

The alpha is home. Got the A9 for $2400 ;-)

Now to buying the 200-600 & sigma 24-70 for this baby!

--
My Photostream: https://500px.com/tarunlohumi

 

[al.]

OK guys!! Thank thanks thanks to all of you with your suggestion and comments!

The alpha is home. Got the A9 for $2400 ;-)

Now to buying the 200-600 & sigma 24-70 for this baby!

Congrats on the A9.

 

[JayJayz]

noice! now you're set for AF performance with everything

my findings (with current firmware) if you decide to use canon lenses;

in good light, the sigma mc-11 AF performs faster than the metabones and hunts less

in low light, the metabones v4/5 in advanced-mode is more accurate than the mc-11

if you haven't got a card - in Australia the sandisk extreme pro 64gb 300 MB/s seems to be the sweet spot for value/performance

Loading…

i.ebayimg.com

 

[liopleurodon]

The a7 III has three big advantages over the a9: the ability to record video in S-LOG or HLG, a stop better dynamic range at base ISO, and a faster MECHANICAL shutter (a9 is 5fps mechanical vs 10fps max for the a7 III).

The a9 is better at everything else. The electronic shutter does have some potential limitations when shot under LED lighting. The killer app here is the real-time tracking AF. The a7 III's autofocus is very very good and its generally intelligent enough to pick your subject and stick to it like glue, but real time tracking AF is in another league. That said I virtually never have an out of focus shot with my a7 III doing people & events.

There's enough money involved here that you should rent both bodies and see for yourself.

 

[XeroJay]

The a7 III has three big advantages over the a9: the ability to record video in S-LOG or HLG, a stop better dynamic range at base ISO, and a faster MECHANICAL shutter (a9 is 5fps mechanical vs 10fps max for the a7 III).

The a9 is better at everything else. The electronic shutter does have some potential limitations when shot under LED lighting. The killer app here is the real-time tracking AF. The a7 III's autofocus is very very good and its generally intelligent enough to pick your subject and stick to it like glue, but real time tracking AF is in another league. That said I virtually never have an out of focus shot with my a7 III doing people & events.

There's enough money involved here that you should rent both bodies and see for yourself.

You're late to the thread; OP bought an A9. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

 

[tarunlohumi]

The a7 III has three big advantages over the a9: the ability to record video in S-LOG or HLG, a stop better dynamic range at base ISO, and a faster MECHANICAL shutter (a9 is 5fps mechanical vs 10fps max for the a7 III).

The a9 is better at everything else. The electronic shutter does have some potential limitations when shot under LED lighting. The killer app here is the real-time tracking AF. The a7 III's autofocus is very very good and its generally intelligent enough to pick your subject and stick to it like glue, but real time tracking AF is in another league. That said I virtually never have an out of focus shot with my a7 III doing people & events.

There's enough money involved here that you should rent both bodies and see for yourself.

Yeah, I already bought the sony A9 & loving it. I almost never venture into video, so the video department in any case is not worth it for me.

Looks like in that you case you would have also suggested the A9 over the A7III so I guess we are on the same page.

Thanks again for taking the time.

 

[DenImage]

Congratulations on your new camera.

I sometimes question my decision to go with the a7iii over the a9, but I rarely shoot fast moving subjects so for me the a9 offers little benefit over the a7iii, and in Australia the a9 cost significantly more so I'm happy to have the extra cash in my pocket

Den