Magnum PI wrote:
^^^
Coming back with so many photos from a single day would make me sick, and drop out of this passion the same night.
I take quality over quantity any day of the week.
I usually come back with 30 photos, I develop maybe 3, and I call myself lucky if I keep ONE photo.
Granted, things would be different with certain wildlife or sports photography, but 120 FPS makes no sense in my book.
Really depends on what one shoots doesn’t it. To get those few great images of wildlife, one might have to shoot thousands of images. To get that great landscape image, maybe a half dozen. So I can see if one doesn’t shoot fast moving subjects, then coming back with a couple dozen might be a good day out…but the opposite is true if shooting sports or fast moving wildlife.
As far as 120fps, just gives you more chance of getting that split second image…more so than shooting at say 20fps.
Magnum PI wrote:
^^^
Coming back with so many photos from a single day would make me sick, and drop out of this passion the same night.
I take quality over quantity any day of the week.
I usually come back with 30 photos, I develop maybe 3, and I call myself lucky if I keep ONE photo.
Granted, things would be different with certain wildlife or sports photography, but 120 FPS makes no sense in my book.
I believe the idea is to take bursts at 120fps of a fast moving subject, select thé perfect position like wing position of a bird or exact moment of bal contact of a sportsman, and then delete the other 95-99% of the images.
And repeat that same routine on many if not all intended shots.
Is that fun to do? I guess that depends on how passionately you are after that perfect pose.
I would not want 120fps myself though, and would not enjoy working through so many images.
The A9III is simply a very specialized tool.
ChrisMak wrote:
I believe the idea is to take bursts at 120fps of a fast moving subject, select thé perfect position like wing position of a bird or exact moment of bal contact of a sportsman, and then delete the other 95-99% of the images.
And repeat that same routine on many if not all intended shots.
Is that fun to do? I guess that depends on how passionately you are after that perfect pose.
I would not want 120fps myself though, and would not enjoy working through so many images.
That's exactly how I use it. It's so quick to just choose a few keepers and sweep the rest aside. View as a group, protect a few, delete group, move on.
Well, sure picking the best pose of an exciting sequence of 120 FPS set of images and publishing it would be a great use of this fantastic tool. If I had access to such a set I would try to make a stunning GIF animation out of that sequence. Action seen in slow motion, but in sharp detail. .
All my A9III images in this thread were shot at a fixed K value which is how I shoot my A1 also. I stopped using AWB a couple years ago. Didn't like having varying WB even within a burst of shots.
I didn't really test the A9III AWB
Kasper6188 wrote:
Auto WB still sucks A lot of my files have a strange green cast that is hard to get rid of, more than a simple tweak of the temp/tint slider.
Is Nikon better at auto white balance with the Z8 and Z9?
ChrisMak wrote:
Is Nikon better at auto white balance with the Z8 and Z9?
Yup, hands down IMO. I never really found myself trying to get rid of colorcasts with any Nikon. If something wasn't quite right, a simple temp/tint slider adjustment sorted it.
Kasper6188 wrote:
Yup, hands down IMO. I never really found myself trying to get rid of colorcasts with any Nikon. If something wasn't quite right, a simple temp/tint slider adjustment sorted it.
I agree with this, Nikon has the best color neutrality, Sony colors can be very nice, but often just don't really look right, making you fiddle with sliders without really getting anywhere.
Color casts are one of the bigger problems with Sony color rendering.
Your images using the 200-600mm are sweet and yet, a lot of folks have trashed this lens quite a bit lately. I love mine though. You get a lot of bang for the price you paid for.
AGeoJO wrote:
Your images using the 200-600mm are sweet and yet, a lot of folks have trashed this lens quite a bit lately. I love mine though. You get a lot of bang for the price you paid for.
I'm actually considering selling my 600GM simply because the 200-600 G is more than "good enough", IMO.
AGeoJO wrote:
Your images using the 200-600mm are sweet and yet, a lot of folks have trashed this lens quite a bit lately. I love mine though. You get a lot of bang for the price you paid for.
Thanks! I suspect sample variation could be at play here. I tested 3 different copies of the 200-600, the first two were softer at 600mm 6.3 than the one I ended up with. It had a slightly better hitrate during bursts too. All on lens firmware 3. I had initially thought it was the 24mp sensor as I'm used to shooting with the Nikon 45mp sensors but after talking to the guys at the store they were more than willing to let me compare them.
. 
A lot of my files have a strange green cast that is hard to get rid of, more than a simple tweak of the temp/tint slider. 
