duncangr wrote:
I wouldn't read much into that. The A9iii image was 1/4000 f9 iso6400 and the A1ii was 1/2500 f5.6 iso4000. I was waiting for the kestrel to fly hence the 1/4000s shutter speed.
Won't be much of a contest with the same lens on, A1ii will win that easily, unless shooting fast action.
The output is actually extremely close.
At iso 250 the dynamic range is practically identical A1ii (10.09), A9iii (10.00). It’s the Z9 (9.31) that’s trailing behind
A1 has <= 10% extra croppabilty with the 70-200GMii (centre of frame) as per my previous post
hiepphotog wrote:
Like many said, DR would be a big advantage for the A1II. However, I went through this process and I picked the A9. For general usability, both would do well. But the A9iii would allow you to capture more spontaneous shots, especially when you pair it with Sony lenses with 2 or more motors (I would recommend those compact G lenses). Flash use is a huge advantage as well, especially with Sony flash.
I'm interested in what you say about the A9III helping you to capture more spontaneous shots than the A1 II (or than, I assume, other A7xxx cameras). Why isn't the A1 II just as quick?
Capturing spontaneous photographs quickly is often important to me. Can you (or anyone else) say more about exactly what features and characteristics of the A9III make it quicker and better at capturing spontaneous photographs?
In asking this question, I am almost exclusively concerned with the quickness of spontaneous, candid shots of people taken without flash.
chiron wrote:
I'm interested in what you say about the A9III helping you to capture more spontaneous shots than the A1 II (or than, I assume, other A7xxx cameras). Why isn't the A1 II just as quick?
Capturing spontaneous photographs quickly is often important to me. Can you (or anyone else) say more about exactly what features and characteristics of the A9III make it quicker and better at capturing spontaneous photographs?
In asking this question, I am almost exclusively concerned with the quickness of spontaneous, candid shots of people taken without flash.
Take my perspective with a grain of salt, since I don’t have much firsthand experience with the A1II. Most of what I know comes from the general consensus online that the A9III has the edge in both subject acquisition and tracking. What I can say from my own use is that the A9III let me capture moments that happened just right after raising the camera to my eye, and it also gave me the freedom to shoot from unconventional angles without relying on the screen or viewfinder, almost like shooting from the hip, but with the option of a shallower depth of field when I wanted it.
I own both and can say that all this mentionend above for capturing the moment also holds for the a1 II. The a9 iii is fun with flash outdoors for getting unusual snaps in daylight with super short shutter speeds.
If you want to capture dragonflies or butterflies launching, 30 fps will not work well at all. I use a minimum of 60 fps for butterflies and always use 120 fps for dragonflies. The take-off speed is so fast you cannot track them if you are at all close. My set-up is the A9iii with 70-200 GM2 with extenders...usually the 2X.
Just like BIF, to get the best chance at wing position, you need lots of frames to choose from.
I hardly use my A7R5 for most things anymore except for scenery, animals and aircraft. I use my phone for people pictures...not a huge interest for me except for a great-grandson.
chiron wrote:
I'm interested in what you say about the A9III helping you to capture more spontaneous shots than the A1 II (or than, I assume, other A7xxx cameras). Why isn't the A1 II just as quick?
Capturing spontaneous photographs quickly is often important to me. Can you (or anyone else) say more about exactly what features and characteristics of the A9III make it quicker and better at capturing spontaneous photographs?
In asking this question, I am almost exclusively concerned with the quickness of spontaneous, candid shots of people taken without flash.
1EV better low light AF
- think of it as the difference in low light AF between a f/4 and f/2.8 zoom with your existing camera
somewhat faster AF
- Hit rate should be slightly better
120fps 14 bit raw (A1ii is 20fps)
- for candids either is fine but for action 30/60 is very nice
- the buffer is small at 120fps, you have to be deliberate when shooting 120
Global shutter
- zero banding, I don’t even have to think about this indoors anymore. Just set ISO AUTO MIN SS and concentrate on capturing the moment
- the SS that eliminates banding may not be the SS you actually want to use, so this has always been a pain in the ass
- zero rolling shutter (more of a thing for animals and video)
No EFCS
- The A1ii “mechanical” is EFCS afaik.
- More of an issue for high shutter speeds, fast lenses and flash. When flash is on you want to use mechanical shutter
Flash Photography
- A9iii lets you overpower the sun with a small speedlight firing at a low power level. You can continuously fire shots
- on the A1 you would have to fire at 1/1 power and wait for the strobe to recycle
- Sony flash TTL is fire and forget. Godox TTL is unreliable so you have to shoot manual mode preferably
- carrying and setting up 2x AD100s in manual mode is becoming more difficult for me (have more kids now)
- no more carrying ND filters
But there’s a big con with the A9iii, base iso is 250.
- Note that A9iii dynamic range at 250 is as good as the A1ii at 250.
- A1ii at 100 is obviously going to be about a stop better than A9iii at 250.
- A9iii ISO CAN be "expanded" lower than 250, but DR is not going to improve under 250. The shutter is a ridiculous 1/80000s so you dont have to expand at high shutter, but I suppose you may want to expand at low shutter (eg flowing water)
I figured I have other cameras I could use when I expect to shoot at iso 100, but I do not have other cameras that can do 120fps and global shutter. This was the deciding factor.
Frankly it’s a very close call between the A1ii and A9iii
When I was looking to add a camera in addition to my A7Cr, I was considering the A1ii and A9iii. I had good reason to go with the A9iii (my kids are involved in sports year around), but I ultimately went with the A1ii.
It came down to glass and megapixels, and the fact that 30fps with pre-capture is more than enough to capture any sport (and my occasional dabbling in wildlife). The ability to crop if needed is much appreciated in many cases, but particularly if you don't have long glass. In my case, I have the 70-200GM and the 200-600G, but find myself using the 70-200 most often because it is so good even with a 50% crop. If I had a 400/2.8, I would have went with the A9iii.
I think Sony has done a great job of making the A1ii highly capable for everything you could throw at it. The A9iii is a specialized tool for wildlife or sports photogs with long glass. Maybe think of it like having a full surgical cart vs just a gamma knife.
I rented both the A9III and the A1MarkII for a week and tried them in everyday situations.
I preferred the A9III for its responsiveness and speed of AF. The features and the body was designed to get the maximum out of the sensor.
So, I purchased the A9III and used it the next day after I received it to document my daughter’s college graduation. This involved both videos and photos. I didn’t have time to customize the body to my liking due to time constraints, I used the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 lens for maximum versatility.
This combination was simply superb! Out of the 400+ photographs and multiple videos, I had one photograph that was very very slightly out of focus. I was really nitpicking. This result was astonishing.
The quality of the pictures were sublime. This camera was the most seamless extension of my vision to capture what I wanted with ease. The experience was simply incredible. No more rolling shutter issues anymore.
I actually will trade my A7RV and my A7RIIIA and get a second A9III body. Because I use my GFX 100SII for landscape and portraits and my GFX100RF for street photography.
I got to admit after using the A9III, I don’t use the other cameras as much. This camera is that good. Sony has made the closet camera to perfection, compared to the cameras that I have used in the last 30 years across all brands.
While the A1 MarkII is an exceptional jack of all trades camera, the A9III got it beat in capturing life’s precious moments flawlessly. I couldn’t go back to a rolling shutter camera after the A9III. I think it’s perfect as a general use camera in addition to its strengths in wildlife and sports photography.
I have most of Sony’s GM lenses to use the 120fps if I needed to. Tamron released a firmware to make the 35-150 2-2.8 shoot at 120fps with the A9III only using single shot AF I think. I updated the firmware and will try to document my bullmastiff running at top speed in my backyard.
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
I actually noticed that the photos straight out of camera were cleaner than other cameras I have.
I was very impressed and surprised.
hiepphotog wrote:
Take my perspective with a grain of salt, since I don’t have much firsthand experience with the A1II. Most of what I know comes from the general consensus online that the A9III has the edge in both subject acquisition and tracking. What I can say from my own use is that the A9III let me capture moments that happened just right after raising the camera to my eye, and it also gave me the freedom to shoot from unconventional angles without relying on the screen or viewfinder, almost like shooting from the hip, but with the option of a shallower depth of field when I wanted it....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
aCuria wrote:
1EV better low light AF
- think of it as the difference in low light AF between a f/4 and f/2.8 zoom with your existing camera
somewhat faster AF
- Hit rate should be slightly better
120fps 14 bit raw (A1ii is 20fps)
- for candids either is fine but for action 30/60 is very nice
- the buffer is small at 120fps, you have to be deliberate when shooting 120
Global shutter
- zero banding, I don’t even have to think about this indoors anymore. Just set ISO AUTO MIN SS and concentrate on capturing the moment
- the SS that eliminates banding may not be the SS you actually want to use, so this has always been a pain in the ass
- zero rolling shutter (more of a thing for animals and video)
No EFCS
- The A1ii “mechanical” is EFCS afaik.
- More of an issue for high shutter speeds, fast lenses and flash. When flash is on you want to use mechanical shutter
Flash Photography
- A9iii lets you overpower the sun with a small speedlight firing at a low power level. You can continuously fire shots
- on the A1 you would have to fire at 1/1 power and wait for the strobe to recycle
- Sony flash TTL is fire and forget. Godox TTL is unreliable so you have to shoot manual mode preferably
- carrying and setting up 2x AD100s in manual mode is becoming more difficult for me (have more kids now)
- no more carrying ND filters
But there’s a big con with the A9iii, base iso is 250.
- Note that A9iii dynamic range at 250 is as good as the A1ii at 250.
- A1ii at 100 is obviously going to be about a stop better than A9iii at 250.
- A9iii ISO CAN be "expanded" lower than 250, but DR is not going to improve under 250. The shutter is a ridiculous 1/80000s so you dont have to expand at high shutter, but I suppose you may want to expand at low shutter (eg flowing water)
I figured I have other cameras I could use when I expect to shoot at iso 100, but I do not have other cameras that can do 120fps and global shutter. This was the deciding factor.
Frankly it’s a very close call between the A1ii and A9iii ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I rented both the A9III and the A1MarkII for a week and tried them in everyday situations.
I preferred the A9III for its responsiveness and speed of AF. The features and the body was designed to get the maximum out of the sensor.
So, I purchased the A9III and used it the next day after I received it to document my daughter’s college graduation. This involved both videos and photos. I didn’t have time to customize the body to my liking due to time constraints, I used the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 lens for maximum versatility.
This combination was simply superb! Out of the 400+ photographs and multiple videos, I had one photograph that was very very slightly out of focus. I was really nitpicking. This result was astonishing.
The quality of the pictures were sublime. This camera was the most seamless extension of my vision to capture what I wanted with ease. The experience was simply incredible. No more rolling shutter issues anymore.
I actually will trade my A7RV and my A7RIIIA and get a second A9III body. Because I use my GFX 100SII for landscape and portraits and my GFX100RF for street photography.
I got to admit after using the A9III, I don’t use the other cameras as much. This camera is that good. Sony has made the closet camera to perfection, compared to the cameras that I have used in the last 30 years across all brands.
While the A1 MarkII is an exceptional jack of all trades camera, the A9III got it beat in capturing life’s precious moments flawlessly. I couldn’t go back to a rolling shutter camera after the A9III. I think it’s perfect as a general use camera in addition to its strengths in wildlife and sports photography.
I have most of Sony’s GM lenses to use the 120fps if I needed to. Tamron released a firmware to make the 35-150 2-2.8 shoot at 120fps with the A9III only using single shot AF I think. I updated the firmware and will try to document my bullmastiff running at top speed in my backyard. ...Show more →
Thank you all for the excellent and very interesting answers. There is a lot to think about there.
My interest in the A9III has primarily to do with how much better than other Sony cameras it would be at capturing quick documentary moments of people just being people in ordinary situations. It sounds like its subject acquisition and autofocus, the speed of actually taking the image, low-light autofocus, and the immunity of the global shutter to image distortion from a slow sensor or from flickering lighting are the key factors in its speed for documentary photography.
I do wish the A9III were smaller. I find the difference in size and weight even between the A1 and the A1 II camera bodies to be significant in handling the camera quickly. This is the key reason that I like the A7Cxx bodies--they make handling the camera very easy and non-attention grabbing, where bigger cameras often require me to do more to keep them with me and to raise them for a shot. It is a subtle thing, but the difference that size makes seems real to me in practice.
I think what I may need to do is to rent an A9III. But it does sound like skilled users find the A9III to be a quicker camera than anything else out there.
I very much like and aspire to David Alan Harvey's line that “I still love that you can take your little camera— you can take an ordinary situation, and make art out of it. I’m still absolutely fascinated by that phenomenon.” To try to make something meaningful out of images of ordinary situations is what I try to do in a lot of my photography.
A9iii for the same reason A9 first released. Modest linear resolution advantage of A1ii infinitely outweighed by temporal granularity capabilities of A9iii. Nothing better right now.
chiron wrote:
To try to make something meaningful out of images of ordinary situations is what I try to do in a lot of my photography.
That, I like that a lot.
I also like, in another way of course, my A1. To me it is important having gear you "like", that make you happy using it. My best images have been taken with gear I have owned and used for a long time. Novelty and fancy have been fun but that seldom helped me.
I think you are on right track. Rent the A9iii and see if it is for you. Sell what you don't need.
Thank you all for the excellent and very interesting answers. There is a lot to think about there.
My interest in the A9III has primarily to do with how much better than other Sony cameras it would be at capturing quick documentary moments of people just being people in ordinary situations. It sounds like its subject acquisition and autofocus, the speed of actually taking the image, low-light autofocus, and the immunity of the global shutter to image distortion from a slow sensor or from flickering lighting are the key factors in its speed for documentary photography.
I do wish the A9III were smaller. I find the difference in size and weight even between the A1 and the A1 II camera bodies to be significant in handling the camera quickly. This is the key reason that I like the A7Cxx bodies--they make handling the camera very easy and non-attention grabbing, where bigger cameras often require me to do more to keep them with me and to raise them for a shot. It is a subtle thing, but the difference that size makes seems real to me in practice.
I think what I may need to do is to rent an A9III. But it does sound like skilled users find the A9III to be a quicker camera than anything else out there.
I very much like and aspire to David Alan Harvey's line that “I still love that you can take your little camera— you can take an ordinary situation, and make art out of it. I’m still absolutely fascinated by that phenomenon.” To try to make something meaningful out of images of ordinary situations is what I try to do in a lot of my photography....Show more →
Yup, it’s unrivaled for documenting life’s precious moments flawlessly. It captures the moment instantly without missing anything. The A9III is my fail safe camera.
I do agree that I did find the camera a little bigger than my usual Sony cameras. But the resulting grip was quite positive and more substantial.
What Sony did with this global shutter sensor camera to make it a really complete device is very clever and really well executed with maximizing its photographic capabilities. This reminds me of the X-H2S/GFX100RF nearly complete designs.
Sony really needs to add the ability to process raw in camera like Fuji though, and allow ProRes internal recording capabilities.
They should really add all the cine features that the X-H2S has, because the global shutter is far superior for video than the stacked sensor on my X-H2S.
I do admit that I was perplexed when they used the old stacked sensor on their “flagship - the A1MarkII’, instead of a higher resolution global sensor. There’s a huge difference in the technologies involved. But one would only understand if you used the A9III first.
I do try to let people who are conflicted between the two models to just get the A9III. There’s no question about the benefits of the global sensor. In addition Sony did a lot of work to make sure the images from the global sensor are very clean, almost analog in appearance. But that’s just me, your experience might differ. The body design and the custom functions were perfect for it. It’s funny that they used the same body for the A1MarkII, especially the drive boost button on a rolling shutter sensor body.
I haven’t tried to push/pull my raws to the extent that some people do with their cameras. I usually don’t under or over expose to more than 3 stops. But I am sure the A9III’s sensor can handle it.
I think people are taking too much about extreme exposure highlight or shadow recovery. Most of don’t mess up that much. But it makes a really good marketing tool to get people interested.
Lifeinpictures wrote:
Yup, it’s unrivaled for documenting life’s precious moments flawlessly. It captures the moment instantly without missing anything. The A9III is my fail safe camera.
I do agree that I did find the camera a little bigger than my usual Sony cameras. But the resulting grip was quite positive and more substantial.
What Sony did with this global shutter sensor camera to make it a really complete device is very clever and really well executed with maximizing its photographic capabilities. This reminds me of the X-H2S/GFX100RF nearly complete designs.
Sony really needs to add the ability to process raw in camera like Fuji though, and allow ProRes internal recording capabilities.
They should really add all the features that cine features that the X-H2S has, because the global shutter is far superior for video than the stacked sensor on my X-H2S.
I do admit that I was perplexed when they used the old stacked sensor on their “flagship - the A1MarkII’, instead of a higher resolution global sensor. There’s a huge difference in the technologies involved. But one would only understand if you used the A9III first.
I do try to let people who are conflicted between the two models to just get the A9III. There’s no question about the benefits of the global sensor. In addition Sony did a lot of work to make sure the images from the global sensor are very clean, almost analog in appearance. But that’s just me, your experience might differ. The body design and the custom functions were perfect for it. It’s funny that they used the same body for the A1MarkII, especially the drive boost button on a rolling shutter sensor body.
I haven’t tried to push/pull my raws to the extent that some people do with their cameras. I usually don’t under or over expose to more than 3 stops. But I am sure the A9III’s sensor can handle it.
I think people are taking too much about extreme exposure highlight or shadow recovery. Most of don’t mess up that much. But it makes a really good marketing tool to get people interested. ...Show more →
Very well put. Personally, I’d love to hear which lenses you chose for your A9III. My GM primes work well most of the time, but I’m still considering a lightweight, travel-friendly kit that can fully leverage the A9III’s AF capabilities.
hiepphotog wrote:
Very well put. Personally, I’d love to hear which lenses you chose for your A9III. My GM primes work well most of the time, but I’m still considering a lightweight, travel-friendly kit that can fully leverage the A9III’s AF capabilities.
The last time I traveled on vacation for a substantial amount of time was to Europe (2022). I carefully choose what I was carrying for maximum portability because I was not only flying but taking eurail between various countries.
That experience really helped me figure out what to carry in future.
Here’s what I took for that trip:
Two Sony bodies (A7RIV, A7RIIIA)
12-24 2.8 GM
24-70 2.8 GM II
35mm 1.4 GM
Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN.
I used the wide zoom in Switzerland on one body and the 24-70 2.8 II GM on another in the first week.
As I started traveling, I ended up using only one body with the 35mm 1.4 GM in Venice, Italy. I left everything else in Switzerland in my hotel.
The 35mm 1.4 GM was simply superb both in day and nighttime photography.
The next time I travelled a year later I took 2 bodies with 24-70 2.8 II GM and 70-200 2.8 II GM on a trip to Kauai, Hawaii.
I used this while doing strenuous hikes up mountains without any issues. I met a Swiss guy who was carrying his 200-600 to get long range landscape photos and it made sense. I had planned to do that too but decided to leave it at home at the last minute.
But now in 2025 my preferred kit would be the A9III with a 35mm 1.4 GM for low light and a Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 for everything else. I will not carry a second Sony body like I did before. I know this is not exactly light weight, but I could always leave the Tamron Zoom in my hotel if I want to travel light.
I recently purchased a Sigma 28-45 1.8 Zoom to pair with my Tamron, if I carry 2 bodies.
I prefer the Sigma/Tamron combo to the Sony 28-70/50-150 set, primarily because I prefer the warmer colors of the Sigma lenses over the more accurate Sony colors.
But my vote for a light weight A9III lens kit would be with the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. This is one of the most impressive lenses I have used. I will probably carry my GFX100RF along too.
One should not underestimate the importance of A9iii for flash use. Using a global shutter allows me to cut my lightweight lighting kit weight by half, over 500 grams, which no other camera can deliver. This makes capturing spontaneous moments under any lighting conditions much easier. Compared to typical ND filter use, you effectively gain about 2–4 extra stops, with more gain at faster shutter speeds.
hiepphotog wrote:
One should not underestimate the importance of A9iii for flash use. Using a global shutter allows me to cut my lightweight lighting kit weight by half, over 500 grams, which no other camera can deliver. This makes capturing spontaneous moments under any lighting conditions much easier. Compared to typical ND filter use, you effectively gain about 2–4 extra stops, with more gain at faster shutter speeds.
What was your old and new lightweight lighting kit?
This is a pain point for me I should fix at some point.
hiepphotog wrote:
Very well put. Personally, I’d love to hear which lenses you chose for your A9III. My GM primes work well most of the time, but I’m still considering a lightweight, travel-friendly kit that can fully leverage the A9III’s AF capabilities.
I have a different answer to this:
16-35G, 24GM, 35GM, 70-200GMii
16-35GMii and 50-150 could be interesting, but did not exist when I bought my lenses.
Primes are for low light, zooms for good light.
If you need 12mm then get the 12-24 and 50-150.
Personally I find having 35mm on the wide zoom to be more helpful than having 12mm over 16mm. Would be nice if Sony made something like Canon's 14-35 though.
Sep 28, 2025 at 09:23 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
hiepphotog wrote:
Very well put. Personally, I’d love to hear which lenses you chose for your A9III. My GM primes work well most of the time, but I’m still considering a lightweight, travel-friendly kit that can fully leverage the A9III’s AF capabilities.
When considering a travel, I think deciding on how much weight to carry, the range of focal lengths desired, and what apertures covered at what focal lengths is crucial. There will almost always have to be tradeoffs. Any thoughts on these three parameters for you and what is most and least important to you?
