cameraman72 wrote:
I had the A9III for a little while, but I ended up going back to the A1. Using it with non-Sony F1.2 or F1.4 lenses during the day was problematic for me because of the maximum shutter speed limitations. I also prefer the cleaner low ISO and cropping ability of the A1. The handling, subject recognition AF and tilt screen were nicer on the A9III. I may get the A1II eventually when the prices go down on the used market for the better AF and tilt screen.
I understand the lower ISO, but the max shutter speed on the A9III is 1/80,000 vs 1/32,000 on the A1 II
I went with the A93 since some of my favorite subjects are butterflies and dragonflies. At 30 fps you are lucky to get a couple of shots in the frame when a dragonfly takes off. Do I miss the megapixels? Much less than I thought. If a subject is too small in the frame, I use Topaz Gigapixel with great results at least for me.
When shooting most birds, I feel that 30 fps is pretty good. If you want to detect interesting changes when a bird launches, 60 fps is so much better. For instance, when a Redwing Blackbird launches from a cattail, it is very interesting to see that even with a flexible launch site, the bird still pushes off with its legs.
I'm learning a lot about critter behavior using the A93 that would be nearly impossible with any other camera. For instance, I was trying to get pictures of a Skipper butterfly launching, and when I looked at the pictures on the computer, a wasp was actually closing in on the feeding Skipper...I didn't know they attacked butterflies. He missed, Skippers are really fast.
I find that I'm rarely using my A7R5 anymore.
Sorry, I didn't really respond to the general side of the question. I have used the A93 for a few landscapes and some close up shots of flowers with, IMO, very good results. I only use my phone for people pictures so cannot respond to that but people are just critters so I guess what is good for wildlife is good for them.
I used a Canon 5D3 for years for everything and was never disappointed with the results when I did my job. The A93 is probably one of the most under-rated cameras around. When I bought a Canon 5DSR, folks were saying that it was only useful on a tripod due to the high megapixels. I used it for everything handheld...really loved that camera!
I have not done a comparison of cropping a A7R5 picture and comparing that to a cropped A93 pictured enlarged with Gigapixel...I should do that under controlled conditions. Then again, maybe I don't want to know !
It could have been my user error, but I was often getting stuck at 1/8000 max shutter speed when using the A9III with fast manual focus lenses like the Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 and Thypoch 50mm F1.4 lenses with the Techart AF adapter in AF-C mode during the day.
mholdef wrote:
I understand the lower ISO, but the max shutter speed on the A9III is 1/80,000 vs 1/32,000 on the A1 II
I am tempted by the idea of pre-capture for candid photos, since I often just miss fleeting expressions as they change. I imagine it would be very helpful for family shots, along with the high shutter speed and silent operation. But I'm not sure I want to put my money down to get an A9III to test it!
rob_ww wrote:
I am tempted by the idea of pre-capture for candid photos, since I often just miss fleeting expressions as they change. I imagine it would be very helpful for family shots, along with the high shutter speed and silent operation. But I'm not sure I want to put my money down to get an A9III to test it!
cameraman72 wrote:
It could have been my user error, but I was often getting stuck at 1/8000 max shutter speed when using the A9III with fast manual focus lenses like the Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 and Thypoch 50mm F1.4 lenses with the Techart AF adapter in AF-C mode during the day.
Those things can happen when using a camera for the first time. But the shutter does go up 10x higher
Personally 20-30 fps is good enough for the sports I shoot and I prefer the bigger, cleaner files with the A1ii vs A9iii
Spec wise this is the difference between the two cameras
A1ii
- Low light AF -4 ev, not -5 like the A9ii
- High-Resolution EVF: Available at 60fps only, when af is NOT active
- EVF 240Hz Mode: EVF resolution reduces significantly to 5MP.
- 4k/30 is line skipped, not over sampled
- 8.5 stop ibis
- 100 base iso
- Auto Subject Detect
- 1/400 flash sync
- 20 fps uncompressed raw (30fps compressed)
A9iii
- -5 ev low light autofocus
- High Resolution EFV: available at 120 and 60hz, with or without AF active
- EVF 240Hz Mode: EVF resolution reduces significantly to 5MP.
- 6K oversampled 4K video up to 60p, uncropped 4K/120p.
- 0ms readout speed
- 250 base iso
- 8 stop ibis
- 1/80k flash sync
- 120 fps uncompressed raw
A1ii vs A9iii
+ 50MP (24)
+ ISO 100 (250),
+ DxO Landscape :14.5EV (13EV)
+ DxO Color Depth 25.9 (24.9)
+ High ISO DR: 9.22 @ iso 800 (9.08)
+ 30fps video: 8k (4k oversampled)
+ 8.5 stop ibis (8.0)
+ Auto Subject Detect (manual select) (But Auto is slower. Always use manual for action)
+ Concurrent video and HEIC image capture (n/a)
+ 2.5Gbps Ethernet (1Gbps)
? Pixel Shift (32 image NR stacking)
x Buffer: 164 cRAW @ 30fps (500+ @ 30fps)
x 20 fps lossless raw w AF (120 fps)
x 30 fps compressed lossy raw w AF (120)
x -4 ev autofocus (-5)
x 1/400 sync (1/80000)
x HiRes = 60hz EVF (120hz)
x AF + LowRes EVF (HiRes)
x 60fps video: line skipped (6k oversampled)
x 120fps video: 10% crop (no crop)
x banding w led light (no banding)
x rolling shutter (no rolling shutter)
rob_ww wrote:
I am tempted by the idea of pre-capture for candid photos, since I often just miss fleeting expressions as they change. I imagine it would be very helpful for family shots, along with the high shutter speed and silent operation. But I'm not sure I want to put my money down to get an A9III to test it!
The way I see it, the biggest difference with the A9iii is the lack of iso 100. This means the camera is less well suited to subjects with the highest maximum dynamic range requirements like landscape photography
Regarding the megapixel difference, in the real world it corresponds to under 1.1x of extra cropping capability for the A1. This is the difference between 70mm and 77mm. It’s not huge. Just frame more tightly with the A9iii and the results will be as good.
Global shutter is a game changer when it comes to not having to care about banding. This unlocks all shutter speeds in all situations, rather than having to use specific shutter speeds to fight banding but may not be suited to the subject at hand.
Global shutter is great for flash photography because we can just set the shutter speed 3 stops higher:
The alternative is to use a 3 stop ND and carry around a 3 stops more powerful strobe to cut through the said ND.
This means a 75ws speedlight with global shutter can potentially do the job of a 600ws strobe (3 stop difference).
Unfortunately only Sony flash units can calculate the required offsets automatically for the flash to work.
120fps is also a big deal in specific situations but It would be nice if the buffer were bigger to support 4-5s of 120fps. As it is it’s more reasonable to use 60fps due to buffer concerns
Not really going to hand off the camera. When taking pics of me, the OR team has been using a phone and sending pics to me to edit.
I take my "good camera" in sometimes... to take pics of others.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity about the OR.
I'd say either camera would do, but the a9III will be more sensitive to exposure errors so far as rescuing it in post. The a1II will be more flexible in that regard.
I just switched from Nikon to Sony and had to decide what bodies to pick up. I do a range of photography from studio and portraits to dance performances and sports. So was really down to either two A1IIs or one of each, knowing for events I'd be shooting two bodies. On the plus side, both have the same bodies, ergonomics, AF etc, and while I was attracted by the Global shutter to avoid LED banding, shoot at higher shutter & sync speeds, having noisier files with the A9III is what held me back, so I went for two A1IIs.
mholdef wrote:
I just switched from Nikon to Sony and had to decide what bodies to pick up. I do a range of photography from studio and portraits to dance performances and sports. So was really down to either two A1IIs or one of each, knowing for events I'd be shooting two bodies. On the plus side, both have the same bodies, ergonomics, AF etc, and while I was attracted by the Global shutter to avoid LED banding, shoot at higher shutter & sync speeds, having noisier files with the A9III is what held me back, so I went for two A1IIs.
The A9iii has very little chroma noise and mostly has luminance noise.
As a result noise reduction software is extra effective because software has always been really good at removing luminance noise, but struggles with chroma noise
After NR has been applied the A9iii files look cleaner at the same iso
aCuria wrote:
The A9iii has very little chroma noise and mostly has luminance noise.
As a result noise reduction software is extra effective because software has always been really good at removing luminance noise, but struggles with chroma noise
After NR has been applied the A9iii files look cleaner at the same iso
One of my buddies is in charge of the Sony Pro service here and we talked about it - I usually shoot at ISO between 3200-6400 during ice hockey games in rinks that have poor lighting. He suggested staying with the A1II for cleaner files
rob_ww wrote:
I am tempted by the idea of pre-capture for candid photos, since I often just miss fleeting expressions as they change. I imagine it would be very helpful for family shots, along with the high shutter speed and silent operation. But I'm not sure I want to put my money down to get an A9III to test it!
Has any A9III owner experienced his as useful?
It's been discussed quite a few times on this forum. Do a bit of searching. Yes, pre capture can be incredibly helpful.
Not sure what Olympus has to do with this discussion. Number of Olympus bodies I've seen on a sports sideline in the last 10 years and shooting portraits at various locations. Zero. Now that it's available on some bodies that a wider audience uses, it's a great feature. And I think most folks call it Pre Capture, not Pro Capture.
mholdef wrote:
One of my buddies is in charge of the Sony Pro service here and we talked about it - I usually shoot at ISO between 3200-6400 during ice hockey games in rinks that have poor lighting. He suggested staying with the A1II for cleaner files
• tripod which did not move between shots
• same lens (35GM)
• iso 6400
• 1/400s
• f/5.6
• processed the same way
• deep crop to centre of frame
• equal Lightroom NR applied to both.
The test shots have equal NR applied, but the A9iii file can be pushed harder (more NR) without skin looking plastic
• tripod which did not move between shots
• same lens (35GM)
• iso 6400
• 1/400s
• f/5.6
• processed the same way
• deep crop to centre of frame
• equal Lightroom NR applied to both.
The test shots have equal NR applied, but the A9iii file can be pushed harder (more NR) without skin looking plastic
Thanks for sharing. I don't doubt you can't process the files to a pleasing result, but there is more noise from the base ISO all the way up compared to the A1II. The A9III is a great camera, there are just shortcomings for my style of shooting.
!
