p.2 #1 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
Maxxus46 wrote:
Agreed. Going from 50mpx to 24mpx is startling....
No, no way.
6,000 pixels x 4,000 pixels vs 8,640 x 5,760 pixels
2,640/6,000 = 44% increase
People can barely see a difference when doubling linear resolution (see 2k to 4k video for instance). There is no way that a 44% increase in linear resolution is startling.
The computation and storage requirements though can be noticed.
p.2 #2 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
QuietOC wrote:
No, no way.
6,000 pixels x 4,000 pixels vs 8,640 x 5,760 pixels
2,640/6,000 = 44% increase
People can barely see a difference when doubling linear resolution (see 2k to 4k video for instance). There is no way that a 44% increase in linear resolution is startling.
The computation and storage requirements though can be noticed.
IDK about 'people' but for myself the difference between 24MP and 50MP is big and it often makes the difference between an image I can upload to a stock agency and one that will be rejected. There's also moire in feather detail which has been a problem in my photos with 24MP and has been completely absent with 50 MP. YMMV.
p.2 #3 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
I will most likely never get an A9III, because its strengths are sports, wildlife and birding, which are all types of shooting where you usually need as much reach as you can get.
I would not mind 24mp for general shooting, but that's not what the A9III is for.
I wóuld buy an aps-c crop A9III type of camera with 24mp, even at a high price. I would be willing to sacrifice some ability to "zoom out" that comes with having a large sensor real estate, but I am not willing to give of the ability to "zoom in" by means of cropping, which comes with lower resolution.
An A9III type of A1 successor will likely be unrealistically expensive, and a somewhat affordable crop version will never be made, so I will stick with the A1 for the years to come.
p.2 #4 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
I have mixed feelings on this. When I go back and look at my A9II images it's hard to notice that they had a lot fewer megapixels. While as a rule more is better for the cropping, in practice I always try to get as close as possible anyway, as you risk less issues like atmospheric distortion, intervening objects blocking the view, etc.
I don't agree that cropping is that much of a make-or-break deal for sports; you often aren't even using the longest glass when shooting sports. For small birds, yes, it can matter. On the other hand, when I'm shooting hummingbirds cropping isn't an issue, I can get plenty close enough. The bigger issue there is speed. The same applies for things like birds diving to catch fish, etc. Cropping is less important there than speed and catching the moment.
I think this is definitely much more a niche camera now that we have the A1. The A1 really is an incredible all-around camera. I still think that if they announced an A1II today with with precapture, the upgraded ergonomics and screen and the AI autofocus it would sell like hotcakes. I know I'd order two, no questions asked.
I have an A9III on pre-order but even then I'm still not 100% sold on it. If I have money to burn when they arrive I'll buy one, but honestly what I really want is just the updated A1.
p.2 #5 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
QuietOC wrote:
No, no way.
6,000 pixels x 4,000 pixels vs 8,640 x 5,760 pixels
2,640/6,000 = 44% increase
People can barely see a difference when doubling linear resolution (see 2k to 4k video for instance). There is no way that a 44% increase in linear resolution is startling.
The computation and storage requirements though can be noticed.
I see an enormous difference between 2k an 4k video. In 2k I can easily count the pixels. And that 44% as you say is basically a free teleconverter which you can cash in without risking clipping parts of your subject when shoot subjects so fast that framing is difficult.
p.2 #6 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
The A93 has many fine features that would be of use to my bird photography, but the global sensor is not one of them. Pre-shot, flippy screen, (allegedly) improved AF would all be very useful to me, but the global sensor (with its associated cost and potential IQ compromises) is really not something I want or need. I've never run into rolling shutter issues with the A1's sensor and I don't use flash so don't need the unlimited flash sync capability that a global shutter brings.
Like others here, I'd also find it hard to go back from a 50MP sensor to 24MP. The reason I bought the A1 to replace my A9 in the first place was largely down to the higher resolution that effectively turns my 600mm@50MP into a 900mm@21MP
Give the A1 a RAW pre-shot capability, a slightly faster sensor readout, the AF improvements of the A93 and A7R5, higher DR at higher ISOs, and a flippy screen, and it would be a damn near perfect birding camera IMO. I suspect that's more or less what we'll get when the A1 is updated, too (ie. no global sensor).
p.2 #8 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
I have been shooting with A1 and A9II. Besides occasional client work, I mostly shoot birds/wildlife and my wife mostly shoots landscape. I had been thinking of adding a 3rd camera both as a backup, and also for those occasions when my wife and I both are shooting, or when for whatever reason we may want to avoid changing lenses.I looked at A9III but eventually decided to get an A7RV instead. And I had two main reasons:
(1) As others have pointed out, the extra megapixels is critically helpful for birds/wildlife as we often need larger crops. Yes, A7RV does not have stacked sensor and it also has an order of magnitude slower fps than A9III, and yes, I will have to use mechanical shutter to avoid any rolling shutter issues with my BIF frames, but honestly in many scenarios that I encounter with birds and wildlife, I would still value those extra megapixels more!
(2) Obviously the second reason for me was the price! With the Black Friday deal, I got my A7RV at less than half the price of an A9III.
Now, I would have probably preferred to add a second A1. But again A7RV with the deal was significantly cheaper and also I wanted to have access to its newer features (focus stacking, AI assisted AF, etc.)
ILCE-7RM5FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens840mmf/9.01/3200s1600 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens840mmf/10.01/2000s2500 ISO0.0 EV
p.2 #9 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
jwalker wrote:
I'm getting some fabulous commentary on the A9III versus the A1. Thanks to all who have contributed. So, any idea when the A1MkII might appear?
I think earliest will be this time next year. But that is a total guess.
p.2 #10 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
QuietOC wrote:
No, no way.
6,000 pixels x 4,000 pixels vs 8,640 x 5,760 pixels
2,640/6,000 = 44% increase
People can barely see a difference when doubling linear resolution (see 2k to 4k video for instance). There is no way that a 44% increase in linear resolution is startling.
The computation and storage requirements though can be noticed.
Even this is still not the most accurate way of thinking about it
If the pixel pitch and sensor tech were kept the same (this means the sensor size is increased) and the resolution increased from 6,000 x 4,000 to 8,640 x 5,760, then yes you will get that 44% increase in linear resolution
However, here we are increasing pixels but decreasing the pixel pitch, with an Imperfect lens so the situation is completely different!
The math I did suggests a 30% increase in linear resolution with lens quality equivalent to the center of a good prime (50/1.4GM, and a 14% increase in linear resolution using the resolution on the edge of a good prime, and 22% for the center of a good zoom (70-200Gmii) between the A1 and A9iii
The reason for this is that when the pixel pitch is made smaller, we are sampling from the lens at a higher frequency, and this leads to different results
This is not to say a 30% increase is not significant, it probably is, 30% is the difference between a 18x24 and 24x36” print
You would have to go from a A6700 to A7RV (similar pixel pitch) with lenses that has similar optical characteristics on both sensors to be able to claim a ~50% increase in linear resolution just by dividing pixel widths
p.2 #11 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
arbitrage wrote:
I think earliest will be this time next year. But that is a total guess.
I think there's a small chance they announce it in late January, 3 years after the original A1, but probably more likely longer than that now with the A9III release. One can hope.
p.2 #12 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
The A9 III is a strobist's dream. I hope Sony will make a modern quad XD 85/1.2 lens to support this camera. The current 85mm grinder is limited to 20 fps.
p.2 #13 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
Interesting... I can see a big difference between 2k and 4k, with the pixels become much more apparent to the naked eye. Same for 24 vs 50mpx. That 44% increase is real and does make a difference if your shooting birds with long lenses (even 840mm is often too short and a 2x teleconcerter isn't an option due to light loss, AF degradation etc). So for me, 24mps is not that useful. We all have our opinions and that's fine, that why I stated "for my use"
QuietOC wrote:
No, no way.
6,000 pixels x 4,000 pixels vs 8,640 x 5,760 pixels
2,640/6,000 = 44% increase
People can barely see a difference when doubling linear resolution (see 2k to 4k video for instance). There is no way that a 44% increase in linear resolution is startling.
The computation and storage requirements though can be noticed.
p.2 #14 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
Absolutely
randomguy wrote:
I see an enormous difference between 2k an 4k video. In 2k I can easily count the pixels. And that 44% as you say is basically a free teleconverter which you can cash in without risking clipping parts of your subject when shoot subjects so fast that framing is difficult.
p.2 #15 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
QuietOC wrote:
No, no way.
6,000 pixels x 4,000 pixels vs 8,640 x 5,760 pixels
2,640/6,000 = 44% increase
People can barely see a difference when doubling linear resolution (see 2k to 4k video for instance). There is no way that a 44% increase in linear resolution is startling.
The computation and storage requirements though can be noticed.
Video is different from stills as the shutter speeds typically used in video are of the order of 1/50s or 1/100s, which leads to blurring of the details. Furthermore as the video is changing quickly (provided it's an action video) there is less time for those details to sink in to the viewer. In still photos one can spend quite some time viewing a single photograph and if it is a large print it can be viewed at close distance to see those details. Finally, when people talk about the difference between 50 and 24 MP for still photography, especially in a thread about bird & action photography, they usually take advantage of the higher resolution by shooting from a longer distance or a smaller subject, and cropping to achieve a satisfactory final composition and subject size. So they are not really comparing if you can see the difference between 24 MP and 50 MP images in the final result, but it could be that they're comparing between 2.4 MP and 5 MP. The difference is further amplified by the lack of an optical low-pass filter on the 50 MP model.
But outside of that specific application (bird photography) the difference isn't all that important IMO.
p.2 #16 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
jhapeman wrote:
I think there's a small chance they announce it in late January, 3 years after the original A1, but probably more likely longer than that now with the A9III release. One can hope.
They have to wait long enough to cover the initial interest in the a9iii then release a1 ii, that way they can sell two cameras instead of one.
p.2 #17 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
tschopp wrote:
They have to wait long enough to cover the initial interest in the a9iii then release a1 ii, that way they can sell two cameras instead of one.
Oh I dunno, the two cameras are pretty distinct in terms of target market IMO. The global sensor and "modest" 24MP are the selling points of the A93. The next A1 iteration will likely still be around 50MP and have no global sensor, so although they'll likely be around the same price they'll be pretty distinct cameras -- flagship high-speed sports/PJ body vs flagship general body.
p.2 #18 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
wordfool wrote:
Oh I dunno, the two cameras are pretty distinct in terms of target market IMO. The global sensor and "modest" 24MP are the selling points of the A93. The next A1 iteration will likely still be around 50MP and have no global sensor, so although they'll likely be around the same price they'll be pretty distinct cameras -- flagship high-speed sports/PJ body vs flagship general body.
This is what makes me hold out hope that they will announce the A1II at the end of January with just the "minor" updates in all of the other releases in the last two years (AI focus, flippy screen, and maybe the new body from the A9III). Those alone would get a ton of people to upgrade.
p.2 #19 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
There will be no A1II in near future because many gearheads would not buy one after A9III in quick succession. And Sony wants to sell both, as mentioned by @tschopp already ...
p.2 #20 · Sony A9III - Thoughts from bird and fast action shooters
Agree. An A1 mkii would greatly reduce sales on the A9M3. It wouldn't make sense from a business standpoint. I wouldnt expect an A1 mkii until end of 2024 at the earliest
j4nu wrote:
There will be no A1II in near future because many gearheads would not buy one after A9III in quick succession. And Sony wants to sell both, as mentioned by @tschopp@ already ...
