I am wondering if the a9 is worth the extra 1200 or so? I take 70 percent soccer for my high school daughters and 30 percent portrait. I don’t have any lenses but looking at 100-400 with 1.4x and a prime of some sort for portraits.
I don’t mind going for the a9 but just figured I would ask as the a7iii is a newer camera.
I have watched a ton of YouTube videos that day the a9 is the best and the a7iii is “probably ok”. I’m really not sure how to take that. So here I am.
Any a7iii users completely happy with their sports shooting?
I’ll let others give you hands-on comments, but this B&H article does a good job comparing the differences between the a7, a7s, a7r, and a9 series cameras:
I had an A7III since the day it was released and bought an A9 a few months ago.
The A9 has the advantage of no blackout EVF, silent shooting without banding or rolling shutter effect, 20FPS, 1/32000 shutter, extra control wheel on top, real-time tracking AF, and so on and so on...
A beast when it comes to speed and being discrete.
However: something I noticed right away is that the A7III has superior IQ. It has higher dynamic range, better noise performance and it has a weaker AA filter. This means you really get more detail. The DPR studio scene comparison clearly shows this AA filter difference: A9 vs A7III AA filter
Your 70% for soccer spells it out. Get the A9. The 100-400 for soccer is fine for mid day games but early evening and on it will not cut it, especially with high school field lighting and that's with high iso settings to boot. When the light starts to fade there is only one solution, 2.8 fast glass. For example, the local high school (that has newer lighting) barely allows for 1/1000 @f/2.8 ISO 12,500 and that's only in the brightest section of the field (down the center). Towards either sideline the ISO jumps to 16,000. The 100-400 is f/4.5-5.6 so somewhere around 270mm that becomes a 2 stop difference in the wrong direction.
Problem is 2.8 glass in the 400mm range is more than I can spend. Already dropping 6-7k making the switch and I’m just a soccer dad with certain means.
So, with 70% of your shooting being fast moving soccer in varying lighting conditions the obvious choice is the A9. A much superior platform for this use case. Also the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC puts the lens over the fast focus tracking capabilities aperture of the a7rIII, but still good for the A9.
If the portrait use is in studio, or with lighting, then you can always keep your ISO in the ideal range for the A9. This means your A9 portrait results will still be on par with the A7III.
I say A9 all the way. Used prices now are about equal to new A7III prices so that is also not an issue.
I love my A7 III, and AF is quite good, and would yield a lot of in focus images. But it can't touch the A9 in AF. The A9 is just awesome for accuracy and speed, and is noticeably better in that department. For your uses, A9 all the way. The A7 III makes more sense for the generalist, but if you primarily shoot action, get the A9 and don't look back.
If most of your shooting is sports the A9 is the best there is. I transitioned from Canon 1DX and 5D3 to Sony A9 and A7RII. The A9 focus system coupled with Sony native glass is the best there is today. Soccer with the A9 and 100-400 in daylight will be great.
Not sure how well it would perform, but using Sigma's 120-300 f2.8 with the MC-11 would not be cheap, but it would shave close to $8k off the price of the 400mm f2.8 GM.
Jim
spineguy wrote:
Problem is 2.8 glass in the 400mm range is more than I can spend. Already dropping 6-7k making the switch and I’m just a soccer dad with certain means.
Jumping on to this thread - for those of you with the Sony A9, how much of an improvement should I realistically expect with the Sony A9 + the 200-600mm? In comparison to the Sony a7r iii as the reference point. Would it meaningfully improve my keeper rate for say bird in flight photography? Let's say beginner/intermediate level on wildlife photography and advanced amateur for camera use overall on my own ability.
I recently snagged a used Sony A9 at a relatively cheap price (below used prices here) from a reputable camera dealer - deciding if it's worth keeping in addition to my Sony a7R III or if it replaces my Sony A7R III. I find myself gravitating more to wildlife/bird photography recently vs. landscapes or travel photography recently.
Also, given the likelihood of a Sony A9II soon, is the A9 still a good purchase at current used prices - let's say around $2500?
tzhang4284 wrote:
Jumping on to this thread - for those of you with the Sony A9, how much of an improvement should I realistically expect with the Sony A9 + the 200-600mm? In comparison to the Sony a7r iii as the reference point. Would it meaningfully improve my keeper rate for say bird in flight photography? Let's say beginner/intermediate level on wildlife photography and advanced amateur for camera use overall on my own ability.
I recently snagged a used Sony A9 at a relatively cheap price (below used prices here) from a reputable camera dealer - deciding if it's worth keeping in addition to my Sony a7R III or if it replaces my Sony A7R III. I find myself gravitating more to wildlife/bird photography recently vs. landscapes or travel photography recently.
Also, given the likelihood of a Sony A9II soon, is the A9 still a good purchase at current used prices - let's say around $2500?...Show more →
The a9 autofocus especially for tracking is much better than the A7r iii . Night and day. So yes, unless you are doing something wrong with technique or settings, the a9 is going to be better for BIF no doubt. With the 200-600 having a good but not top of the line autofocus system (I find its fine once locked on but not quickest to motor out to the target), the a9 makes a big difference. The A7 iii is pretty darn good with this too, the a7r iii is noticeably less good especially with tracking a fast or twitchy target.
spineguy wrote:
Problem is 2.8 glass in the 400mm range is more than I can spend. Already dropping 6-7k making the switch and I’m just a soccer dad with certain means.
Not sure how to get the reach otherwise.
Welcome to the dilemma of sports photography where reach with speed & fast AF in low light is what we deal with. Bottom line is that fast glass is a must, which immediately puts one into photographical compromises when finances are a factor. Cropping to any great extent under those conditions really takes away from IQ. Best solution is to wait for the action to come to you filling the viewfinder. If you don't have one yet the 70-200 2.8 is a staple in most photogs' gear. Until the light starts to fade, adding a 1.4tc to it gets you f/4 @280mm. Other options include a used 300 2.8 with an adapter or possibly the Sigma mentioned above. In each case know that the A9 will perform but not as well as native glass. It's another compromise but it does partially get you closer.
There is one other option to be aware of but it too has a drawback. You can program an A9 button to put the body into aps-c mode which immediate bumps you the equivalent of a 1.5tc. Downside the raw file generated is now only 11mb 'ish so cropping it further in PP can really put a bite on the IQ but, if you have the frame filled it can work under the right conditions.
so in your opinion, the 100-400 is not an option? I dont see myself shooting under lights as high school soccer is a day sport. But I have a 70-200 with my nikon gear and love the lens, just need reach
so in your opinion, the 100-400 is not an option? I dont see myself shooting under lights as high school soccer is a day sport. But I have a 70-200 with my nikon gear and love the lens, just need reach
