a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
p.1 #1a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Now I'm seeing $3500 for a9iii and it's surprising. Tho I cant find the post, I still have a screenshot as a proof.
It was around $4000 just a few months ago but now, it's a lot lower than $4000 which has been proven in F&M.
But I have to ask why cause it's one of Sony's flagship body which cost more than $7000 as new while it's less than 3 years old. As a Sony a9ii user, I am tempting to get a9iii to replace mine cause I really dont need a high res for sports.
Still, I dont understand why a9iii lose values so quickly unlike a1ii. It's one of their best camera and a global shutter is a main reason why a9iii rocks.
So how come?
It was around $4000 just a few months ago but now, it's a lot lower than $4000 which has been proven in F&M.
But I have to ask why cause it's one of Sony's flagship body which cost more than $7000 as new while it's less than 3 years old. As a Sony a9ii user, I am tempting to get a9iii to replace mine cause I really dont need a high res for sports.
Still, I dont understand why a9iii lose values so quickly unlike a1ii. It's one of their best camera and a global shutter is a main reason why a9iii rocks.
So how come?
Aug 22, 2026 at 03:20 PM
p.1 #2a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
It's very niche, not a lot of people need it's specs, and the A1ii suits most people better. I also think a lot of people who rely on their gear for income probably lean towards purchasing new, regardless of price.
I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.
I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.
Aug 22, 2026 at 03:54 PM
p.1 #3a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
I shoot sports and I have one for those occassions where I have two cleints wanting shots of the same player. It is a great camera but filles are not the equal of the a 1 mk 11 . But if someone is going for a 60 th hr or some last pitch of a no hitter I am using the A9 mk 111
Aug 22, 2026 at 03:58 PM
p.1 #4a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
I don't know why either...but I just bought one 
LNIB condition... CRAZY good deal. I have always wanted to try one... and the price finally got low enough to jump in.
LNIB condition... CRAZY good deal. I have always wanted to try one... and the price finally got low enough to jump in.
Aug 22, 2026 at 03:59 PM
p.1 #5a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
It's very niche, not a lot of people need it's specs, and the A1ii suits most people better. I also think a lot of people who rely on their gear for income probably lean towards purchasing new, regardless of price.
I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.
I heard that a9iii is not yet great with flash photography due to how it works with flash or lack supports in detail from Facebook. It's great but setting up the system isn't. I have no clues tho since I dont have a9iii.
It's very niche, not a lot of people need it's specs, and the A1ii suits most people better. I also think a lot of people who rely on their gear for income probably lean towards purchasing new, regardless of price.
I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.
I heard that a9iii is not yet great with flash photography due to how it works with flash or lack supports in detail from Facebook. It's great but setting up the system isn't. I have no clues tho since I dont have a9iii.
Aug 22, 2026 at 04:11 PM
p.1 #6a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Easy. Many options(a1, a1ii, a7riv). And it is low res.
Aug 22, 2026 at 04:25 PM
p.1 #7a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
It's summer. Summer and right before the holidays in the US are big buyers' markets here.
I think the a9III is a tough sell because, if you have a real need for the features and they're more important to you than the downsides over other camera choices, you likely already have one. Or a stable. That drives the resell value down until the people who want to experience those features find the price acceptable.
I think the a9III is a tough sell because, if you have a real need for the features and they're more important to you than the downsides over other camera choices, you likely already have one. Or a stable. That drives the resell value down until the people who want to experience those features find the price acceptable.
Aug 22, 2026 at 04:29 PM
p.1 #8a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
The crazy thing to me is that the A9III was actually the Sony upgrade that did take a huge step forward. Most of the other Sony updates have been minor refreshes. I also think the cameras across the board are so good that there just isn't the drive to upgrade as often. Combine that with rising prices and many creatives losing work and you have a crappy market.
Aug 22, 2026 at 05:12 PM
p.1 #9a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
shadow9d9 wrote:
Easy. Many options(a1, a1ii, a7riv). And it is low res.
Those options cant even replace a9iii other than the resolution.
Easy. Many options(a1, a1ii, a7riv). And it is low res.
Those options cant even replace a9iii other than the resolution.
Aug 22, 2026 at 05:13 PM
p.1 #10a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
It's one of the best, with caveats. Westcott published sync settings for their flashes, but it's not really complete, and IDK if other manufacturers have. Apparently you have to DIY the research with your flash equipment. The people that I know who use it for youth sports photos portraits/media say love it, and make a lot of money using them. Jay Boatwright (smax photo) for example. I think he runs 3 of them, with 50-150s
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.I heard that a9iii is not yet great with flash photography due to how it works with flash or lack supports in detail from Facebook. It's great but setting up the system isn't. I have no clues tho since I dont have a9iii.
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
BigBabyMoses06 wrote
It's very niche, not a lot of people need it's specs, and the A1ii suits most people better. I also think a lot of people who rely on their gear for income probably lean towards purchasing new, regardless of price.I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.
Aug 22, 2026 at 06:24 PM
|
p.1 #11a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
I've really thought about getting one to use with flash and covering some events with tricky digital signage. I'll probably shoot less sports this year but they're obviously great for that. Of course the value of my A1's have tanked as well. I think they're going under $3k which for buyers is amazing for what you get with that camera.
Aug 22, 2026 at 07:16 PM
p.1 #12a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.I heard that a9iii is not yet great with flash photography due to how it works with flash or lack supports in detail from Facebook. It's great but setting up the system isn't. I have no clues tho since I dont have a9iii.
Works great with the supported sony flash units
BigBabyMoses06 wrote
It's very niche, not a lot of people need it's specs, and the A1ii suits most people better. I also think a lot of people who rely on their gear for income probably lean towards purchasing new, regardless of price.I saw it, really wanted to try it out for my flash photography.
Works great with the supported sony flash units
Aug 22, 2026 at 07:18 PM
p.1 #13a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Its obviously a niche camera that isn't that popular-
If its such a steal, snag one and be happy!
If its such a steal, snag one and be happy!
Aug 23, 2026 at 08:33 AM
p.1 #14a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
On the spectrum of raw performance to to ultimate detail, the majority are looking for a balance of both; but then will always opt for more resolution if there’s adequate enough performance... To my thinking, the A93 represents raw performance at the expense of resolution. What does a 1/80,000 shutter speed gain for you? OTOH if you need it, then you pay for it in dollars and accepting lower resolution; and if 24mp is enough for you, then it’s likely worth it. But I suspect that’s a very, very small market of shooters especially given today’s other options. Factor in the A7R6 now offering greater performance with top resolution and at a few hundred dollars more for brand new than a used A93, I think the used prices of the A93 will need to drop even more to be justifiable for its potential target audience. 🤷🏼
Aug 23, 2026 at 09:07 AM
p.1 #15a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Jack Flesher wrote:
On the spectrum of raw performance to to ultimate detail, the majority are looking for a balance of both; but then will always opt for more resolution if there’s adequate enough performance... To my thinking, the A93 represents raw performance at the expense of resolution. What does a 1/80,000 shutter speed gain for you? OTOH if you need it, then you pay for it in dollars and accepting lower resolution; and if 24mp is enough for you, then it’s likely worth it. But I suspect that’s a very, very small market of shooters especially given today’s other options. Factor...Show more →
Wow, that would hurt all a9iii owners who wish to sell it lol.
On the spectrum of raw performance to to ultimate detail, the majority are looking for a balance of both; but then will always opt for more resolution if there’s adequate enough performance... To my thinking, the A93 represents raw performance at the expense of resolution. What does a 1/80,000 shutter speed gain for you? OTOH if you need it, then you pay for it in dollars and accepting lower resolution; and if 24mp is enough for you, then it’s likely worth it. But I suspect that’s a very, very small market of shooters especially given today’s other options. Factor...Show more →
Wow, that would hurt all a9iii owners who wish to sell it lol.
Aug 23, 2026 at 09:32 AM
p.1 #16a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Jack Flesher wrote:
On the spectrum of raw performance to to ultimate detail, the majority are looking for a balance of both; but then will always opt for more resolution if there’s adequate enough performance... To my thinking, the A93 represents raw performance at the expense of resolution. What does a 1/80,000 shutter speed gain for you? OTOH if you need it, then you pay for it in dollars and accepting lower resolution; and if 24mp is enough for you, then it’s likely worth it. But I suspect that’s a very, very small market of shooters especially given today’s other options. Factor...Show more →
They have ALREADY dropped to reasonable prices... and many are considering buying. I just did.
For many non wildlife, and bird shooters... 24mp is enough. To have the absolute state of the art in terms of AF speed and FPS, 3500 is a steal.
The A9III needs to have a higher absolute SS because it's base ISO is 250... The A1II max is 1/32,000 and it's base ISO is 100.
On the spectrum of raw performance to to ultimate detail, the majority are looking for a balance of both; but then will always opt for more resolution if there’s adequate enough performance... To my thinking, the A93 represents raw performance at the expense of resolution. What does a 1/80,000 shutter speed gain for you? OTOH if you need it, then you pay for it in dollars and accepting lower resolution; and if 24mp is enough for you, then it’s likely worth it. But I suspect that’s a very, very small market of shooters especially given today’s other options. Factor...Show more →
They have ALREADY dropped to reasonable prices... and many are considering buying. I just did.
For many non wildlife, and bird shooters... 24mp is enough. To have the absolute state of the art in terms of AF speed and FPS, 3500 is a steal.
The A9III needs to have a higher absolute SS because it's base ISO is 250... The A1II max is 1/32,000 and it's base ISO is 100.
Aug 23, 2026 at 09:32 AM
p.1 #17a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Donzo98 wrote:
They have ALREADY dropped to reasonable prices... and many are considering buying. I just did.
For many non wildlife, and bird shooters... 24mp is enough. To have the absolute state of the art in terms of AF speed and FPS, 3500 is a steal.
The A9III needs to have a higher absolute SS because it's base ISO is 250... The A1II max is 1/32,000 and it's base ISO is 100.
Sunny 16, iso 250 gives us 1/250th at f16 for a full sun exposure. 1/500th at 11, etc to 1/64000th at f1. So yes, allowing for folks that want to shoot in brighter than full sun light with their f1.0 lenses and not use any ND filters, a 1/80,000th shutter capability does make sense for them. But my argument remains that is a relatively small portion of photographers is it not?
Jack Flesher wrote
On the spectrum of raw performance to to ultimate detail, the majority are looking for a balance of both; but then will always opt for more resolution if there’s adequate enough performance... To my thinking, the A93 represents raw performance at the expense of resolution. What does a 1/80,000 shutter speed gain for you? OTOH if you need it, then you pay for it in dollars and accepting lower resolution; and if 24mp is enough for you, then it’s likely worth it. But I suspect that’s a very, very small market of shooters especially given today’s other options. Factor in the A7R6 now offering greater performance with top resolution and at a few hundred dollars more for brand new than a used A93, I think the used prices of the A93 will need to drop even more to be justifiable for its potential target audience. 🤷🏼For many non wildlife, and bird shooters... 24mp is enough. To have the absolute state of the art in terms of AF speed and FPS, 3500 is a steal.
The A9III needs to have a higher absolute SS because it's base ISO is 250... The A1II max is 1/32,000 and it's base ISO is 100.
Sunny 16, iso 250 gives us 1/250th at f16 for a full sun exposure. 1/500th at 11, etc to 1/64000th at f1. So yes, allowing for folks that want to shoot in brighter than full sun light with their f1.0 lenses and not use any ND filters, a 1/80,000th shutter capability does make sense for them. But my argument remains that is a relatively small portion of photographers is it not?
Aug 23, 2026 at 09:44 AM
p.1 #18a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Jack Flesher wrote:
They have ALREADY dropped to reasonable prices... and many are considering buying. I just did.
For many non wildlife, and bird shooters... 24mp is enough. To have the absolute state of the art in terms of AF speed and FPS, 3500 is a steal.
The A9III needs to have a higher absolute SS because it's base ISO is 250... The A1II max is 1/32,000 and it's base ISO is 100.Sunny 16, iso 250 gives us 1/250th at f16 for a full sun exposure. 1/500th at 11, etc to 1/64000th at f1. So yes, allowing for folks that want to shoot in brighter than full sun light with their f1.0 lenses and not use any ND filters, a 1/80,000th shutter capability does make sense for them. But my argument remains that is a relatively small portion of photographers is it not?
Yes… for sure. Def not many who need 1/80,000
I was at 1/32,000 yesterday using my F1.2… and it wasn't even full sun.
Edited on Aug 23, 2026 at 11:11 AM · View previous versions
Donzo98 wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
On the spectrum of raw performance to to ultimate detail, the majority are looking for a balance of both; but then will always opt for more resolution if there’s adequate enough performance... To my thinking, the A93 represents raw performance at the expense of resolution. What does a 1/80,000 shutter speed gain for you? OTOH if you need it, then you pay for it in dollars and accepting lower resolution; and if 24mp is enough for you, then it’s likely worth it. But I suspect that’s a very, very small market of shooters especially given today’s other options. Factor in the A7R6 now offering greater performance with top resolution and at a few hundred dollars more for brand new than a used A93, I think the used prices of the A93 will need to drop even more to be justifiable for its potential target audience. 🤷🏼For many non wildlife, and bird shooters... 24mp is enough. To have the absolute state of the art in terms of AF speed and FPS, 3500 is a steal.
The A9III needs to have a higher absolute SS because it's base ISO is 250... The A1II max is 1/32,000 and it's base ISO is 100.
Yes… for sure. Def not many who need 1/80,000
I was at 1/32,000 yesterday using my F1.2… and it wasn't even full sun.
Edited on Aug 23, 2026 at 11:11 AM · View previous versions
Aug 23, 2026 at 10:44 AM
p.1 #19a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
At these prices, it is almost difficult for me not to spring for a purchase; however, with all the advantages of the A9III, it presents some challenges as well.
I do a lot of nature shooting. When I shoot birds, I find I need to do a lot of cropping, even with long lenses.
The following shot((s) was taken on my A1 II at ISO 640, 600mm (GM 300mm f2.8 with x2), f5.6 and 1/200 second. It was taken just before sunrise, so it was quite dark outside. I used a speed-light with a Better Beamer fresnel lens to light the bird. Amazingly, the A1 II found the bird's eye in near darkness.
The second photo is the crop and as you can see, I had to crop quite a bit, and based upon my past experience with the A9, would expect that the 24mp of the A9III would not be great.
Since most of the light was from the flash, I was able to get by with 1/200 without getting into HSS. As it became lighter, I needed to increase my shutter speed, which put me into power-robbing HSS. This is where the A9III would have been fantastic.
I also use flash for portrait work. My Godox V100 will apparently work fairly seamlessly with the A9III, but I expect to need to experiment with flash timing with my various higher powered strobes. I do not mind going through the various settings in the studio to create a timing spreadsheet. Not needing HSS would also help lighten my gear.
I watched a video interview with a Sony development engineer and he said the A9III had, by far, the best focusing system for action. That is compelling, for me.
I have the A1 II and A7R6, so I do not really need another camera body, but the many advantages of the A9III really have me in a quandary.... given used pricing well under $4,000. Not exactly a "third world country problem", however...
Original
Cropped
Edited on Aug 23, 2026 at 12:04 PM · View previous versions
I do a lot of nature shooting. When I shoot birds, I find I need to do a lot of cropping, even with long lenses.
The following shot((s) was taken on my A1 II at ISO 640, 600mm (GM 300mm f2.8 with x2), f5.6 and 1/200 second. It was taken just before sunrise, so it was quite dark outside. I used a speed-light with a Better Beamer fresnel lens to light the bird. Amazingly, the A1 II found the bird's eye in near darkness.
The second photo is the crop and as you can see, I had to crop quite a bit, and based upon my past experience with the A9, would expect that the 24mp of the A9III would not be great.
Since most of the light was from the flash, I was able to get by with 1/200 without getting into HSS. As it became lighter, I needed to increase my shutter speed, which put me into power-robbing HSS. This is where the A9III would have been fantastic.
I also use flash for portrait work. My Godox V100 will apparently work fairly seamlessly with the A9III, but I expect to need to experiment with flash timing with my various higher powered strobes. I do not mind going through the various settings in the studio to create a timing spreadsheet. Not needing HSS would also help lighten my gear.
I watched a video interview with a Sony development engineer and he said the A9III had, by far, the best focusing system for action. That is compelling, for me.
I have the A1 II and A7R6, so I do not really need another camera body, but the many advantages of the A9III really have me in a quandary.... given used pricing well under $4,000. Not exactly a "third world country problem", however...
Original
Cropped
Edited on Aug 23, 2026 at 12:04 PM · View previous versions
Aug 23, 2026 at 10:54 AM
p.1 #20a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
InFocus2014 wrote:
At these prices, it is almost difficult for me not to spring for a purchase; however, with all the advantages of the A9III, it presents some challenges as well.
I do a lot of nature shooting. When I shoot birds, I find I need to do a lot of cropping, even with long lenses.
The following shot((s) was taken on my A1 II at ISO 640, 600mm (GM 300mm f2.8 with x2), f5.6 and 1/200 second. It was taken just before sunrise, so it was quite dark outside. I used a speed-light with a Better Beamer fresnel lens to light the bird....Show more →
The more we talk... the more likely I'll suck you in
With that said... if I had to crop significantly... def A1II would be my choice.
At these prices, it is almost difficult for me not to spring for a purchase; however, with all the advantages of the A9III, it presents some challenges as well.
I do a lot of nature shooting. When I shoot birds, I find I need to do a lot of cropping, even with long lenses.
The following shot((s) was taken on my A1 II at ISO 640, 600mm (GM 300mm f2.8 with x2), f5.6 and 1/200 second. It was taken just before sunrise, so it was quite dark outside. I used a speed-light with a Better Beamer fresnel lens to light the bird....Show more →
The more we talk... the more likely I'll suck you in
With that said... if I had to crop significantly... def A1II would be my choice.
Aug 23, 2026 at 11:13 AM