a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
p.2 #1a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
My primary uses for my A9iii are shooting sports and events. I also bring it out for a few niche applications. as well. To the OP - RAW files are fine, but if you make a big mistake with underexposing, they are not as malleable as the OG A9.
In the former, if you need 60 or 120FPS, then there is no other choice. But in some sports like cycling which are technically easy to shoot, even an A7iii can do quite well with native glass.
For events, it is very nice to be able to shoot outdoors with a fill flash speedlight at 1/2500-1/4000. I use the Tamron 35-150 as a one lens solution and a Westcott speedlight on the A9iii and it is a super combination that can't really be replicated with any other body on the market.
There are also some really cool niche applications for the A9iii. One is pairing it with the 100GM macro with or without the 1.4TC. Shooting bees in flight handheld suddenly becomes pretty normal and it is easy to do with a surprisingly good hit rate. 60FPS is a real game changer here.
The other niche use I've discovered is shooting really fast, I.e. 1/32000 SS in full daylight. You can turn day into night with a strobe. I suppose you could do it with bulky ND filters and a really powerful strobe, but it is super easy on the A9iii.
In the former, if you need 60 or 120FPS, then there is no other choice. But in some sports like cycling which are technically easy to shoot, even an A7iii can do quite well with native glass.
For events, it is very nice to be able to shoot outdoors with a fill flash speedlight at 1/2500-1/4000. I use the Tamron 35-150 as a one lens solution and a Westcott speedlight on the A9iii and it is a super combination that can't really be replicated with any other body on the market.
There are also some really cool niche applications for the A9iii. One is pairing it with the 100GM macro with or without the 1.4TC. Shooting bees in flight handheld suddenly becomes pretty normal and it is easy to do with a surprisingly good hit rate. 60FPS is a real game changer here.
The other niche use I've discovered is shooting really fast, I.e. 1/32000 SS in full daylight. You can turn day into night with a strobe. I suppose you could do it with bulky ND filters and a really powerful strobe, but it is super easy on the A9iii.
Aug 23, 2026 at 11:45 AM
p.2 #2a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
Aug 23, 2026 at 11:53 AM
p.2 #3a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
In the UK the 9iiii is £5699.00 and a £ is 1.3645 USD. so it is bot quite as attractive.
Aug 23, 2026 at 04:38 PM
p.2 #4a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
I think there are misconceptions regarding how hard it is to strobe with the A9iii and third party flashes. I am using a Westcott speedlight and they just publish the numbers on their website. You can just try some shots at home for the SS you expect to shoot at. Typically towards the faster SS is when flash timing makes a difference. It takes maybe a minute or so to find the sweet spot. Then shoot in manual or shutter priority mode. If you need to dial down the SS, just do it and things usually turn out fine.
In all my use cases, I have now stored the settings for the different shooting applications into the Sony Creator's app. So if I am going to an outdoor event, I just load up the camera profile before heading out.
In all my use cases, I have now stored the settings for the different shooting applications into the Sony Creator's app. So if I am going to an outdoor event, I just load up the camera profile before heading out.
Aug 24, 2026 at 05:58 AM
p.2 #5a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
In case anyone is interested...
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1954339/
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1954339/
Aug 24, 2026 at 11:15 AM
p.2 #6a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
Donzo98 wrote:
In case anyone is interested...
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1954339/
GOD DAMN... I wish I can buy it now...
In case anyone is interested...
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1954339/
GOD DAMN... I wish I can buy it now...
Aug 24, 2026 at 01:15 PM
p.2 #7a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
j4nu wrote:
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.
Aug 26, 2026 at 02:20 AM
p.2 #8a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
aCuria wrote:
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d...Show more →
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...
j4nu wrote
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d...Show more →
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...
Aug 26, 2026 at 03:07 AM
p.2 #9a9iii 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 →
I agree having 1/80,000 shutter speed is mostly irrelevant. The A9iii's major advantages are elsewhere.
With the A1 in low light with fast primes like the 35/1.4, 85/1.4, the camera’s sensor-readout, subject-recognition and AF control loop can become the limiting factor when the subject is relatively close and depth of field thus becomes shallow. Even with a subject that isn’t moving particularly quickly, like a kid, the hit rate can be surprisingly poor. It’s possible to shoot a two-second burst at in AF release priority and come away with most frames OOF.
You can’t see the AF box in Lightroom, but you can in Sony’s desktop software. If you go through a burst frame by frame, you can often see that the AF box in one frame is sitting where the subject’s eye was in the previous frame. It makes the limitation pretty obvious.
I think the limiting factor is related to the A1’s sensor readout speed, not the full-resolution readout of the entire sensor, but the binned readout used to generate the live feed for the EVF and AF system.
Shockingly, the A9 III can get something like a 99% hit rate in the same situation. It’s a night-and-day difference from the A1. I’d be curious to see how the A1 II performs, but I suspect it’ll be identical to the A1 since the sensor and readout are basically the same. The A1II has better AI subject recognition, but that doesn’t seem to be the limiting factor here, the A1 already has no trouble finding the subject’s eye.
Edited on Aug 26, 2026 at 03:36 AM · View previous versions
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 →
I agree having 1/80,000 shutter speed is mostly irrelevant. The A9iii's major advantages are elsewhere.
With the A1 in low light with fast primes like the 35/1.4, 85/1.4, the camera’s sensor-readout, subject-recognition and AF control loop can become the limiting factor when the subject is relatively close and depth of field thus becomes shallow. Even with a subject that isn’t moving particularly quickly, like a kid, the hit rate can be surprisingly poor. It’s possible to shoot a two-second burst at in AF release priority and come away with most frames OOF.
You can’t see the AF box in Lightroom, but you can in Sony’s desktop software. If you go through a burst frame by frame, you can often see that the AF box in one frame is sitting where the subject’s eye was in the previous frame. It makes the limitation pretty obvious.
I think the limiting factor is related to the A1’s sensor readout speed, not the full-resolution readout of the entire sensor, but the binned readout used to generate the live feed for the EVF and AF system.
Shockingly, the A9 III can get something like a 99% hit rate in the same situation. It’s a night-and-day difference from the A1. I’d be curious to see how the A1 II performs, but I suspect it’ll be identical to the A1 since the sensor and readout are basically the same. The A1II has better AI subject recognition, but that doesn’t seem to be the limiting factor here, the A1 already has no trouble finding the subject’s eye.
Edited on Aug 26, 2026 at 03:36 AM · View previous versions
Aug 26, 2026 at 03:10 AM
p.2 #10a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
aCuria wrote:
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d...Show more →
j4nu wrote:
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.
Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.
j4nu wrote:
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.
j4nu wrote
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d...Show more →
j4nu wrote:
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.
Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.
j4nu wrote:
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.
Aug 26, 2026 at 03:25 AM
|
p.2 #11a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
aCuria wrote:
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony...Show more →
Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.
I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.
j4nu wrote
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.j4nu wrote
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony...Show more →
Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
Aug 26, 2026 at 04:03 AM
p.2 #12a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
j4nu wrote:
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really .
I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
I don’t think that definition of “general-purpose” holds up. It effectively means a camera can only be general-purpose if no other camera has an advantage over it in any area, in which case there are no general-purpose cameras.
By the same reasoning, I could argue that the A1II has disadvantages in both resolution and dynamic range compared with the A7RVI, which by your logic would mean the A1II isn’t a completely general-purpose camera either?
Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.
As for the DR, it hasn’t really been an issue for static subjects because, as you can see from my other posts, I use exposure stacking regardless of which camera I’m shooting with.
For moving subjects where ISO 100 is practical but exposure stacking isn’t, like portraits, it gets a bit more complicated. The A9 III does give up some DR, but the much higher flash sync speed can be extremely useful. So in practice, I’m weighing that DR difference against having to lug an AD600 around, and quite often I’d rather leave the AD600 at home.
And on the occasions where bringing the AD600 is acceptable, wouldn’t the A7RVI / A7RV / A7RIV be the better choice anyway? DR is equal or better than A1 and the MP count is higher.
aCuria wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.
j4nu wrote
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.j4nu wrote
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
I don’t think that definition of “general-purpose” holds up. It effectively means a camera can only be general-purpose if no other camera has an advantage over it in any area, in which case there are no general-purpose cameras.
By the same reasoning, I could argue that the A1II has disadvantages in both resolution and dynamic range compared with the A7RVI, which by your logic would mean the A1II isn’t a completely general-purpose camera either?
Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.
As for the DR, it hasn’t really been an issue for static subjects because, as you can see from my other posts, I use exposure stacking regardless of which camera I’m shooting with.
For moving subjects where ISO 100 is practical but exposure stacking isn’t, like portraits, it gets a bit more complicated. The A9 III does give up some DR, but the much higher flash sync speed can be extremely useful. So in practice, I’m weighing that DR difference against having to lug an AD600 around, and quite often I’d rather leave the AD600 at home.
And on the occasions where bringing the AD600 is acceptable, wouldn’t the A7RVI / A7RV / A7RIV be the better choice anyway? DR is equal or better than A1 and the MP count is higher.
Aug 26, 2026 at 05:00 AM
p.2 #13a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
aCuria wrote:
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really .
I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.
Exactly, and in common ("general purpose") shooting scenarios, A9III has more drawbacks than A1II.
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.
j4nu wrote
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.j4nu wrote
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
Exactly, and in common ("general purpose") shooting scenarios, A9III has more drawbacks than A1II.
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
Aug 26, 2026 at 05:29 AM
p.2 #14a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
As a primary A9iii shooter, I'm sad to see the used prices go down so much, but it is what it is.
I just came back from a two week trip in Europe using only the A9iii + 35 GM. It was totally fine as a general purpose travel camera. Of course I'd rather have taken a different camera but this is the only camera I have at the moment.
Besides the size, I never felt limited by the camera. I can definitely see the argument for the A1ii being better for wildlife and anything that requires you to crop in, but if you don't need to, the A9iii is more than enough camera for "normal" photos.
One benefit of using this camera for travel are the smaller file sizes if you're taking hundreds/thousands of photos. I've come to really appreciate being able to quickly import, cull, and process these files.
I just came back from a two week trip in Europe using only the A9iii + 35 GM. It was totally fine as a general purpose travel camera. Of course I'd rather have taken a different camera but this is the only camera I have at the moment.
Besides the size, I never felt limited by the camera. I can definitely see the argument for the A1ii being better for wildlife and anything that requires you to crop in, but if you don't need to, the A9iii is more than enough camera for "normal" photos.
One benefit of using this camera for travel are the smaller file sizes if you're taking hundreds/thousands of photos. I've come to really appreciate being able to quickly import, cull, and process these files.
Aug 26, 2026 at 09:37 AM
p.2 #15a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
j4nu wrote:
It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really .
I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.Exactly, and in common ("general purpose") shooting scenarios, A9III has more drawbacks than A1II.
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
For anyone else reading, let’s get the elephant out of the way first: both the A1II and A9III command a massive premium for capabilities aimed primarily at specialized users. I think they’re poor value for general-purpose photography, especially given their low-ISO DR disadvantage versus the much cheaper A7V. If you’re paying out of pocket, the A7V would be my recommendation. Of course, that calculation changes if, like me and probably many others here, you don’t personally pay for all the gear you get to use, or you get a great deal on the camera.
Two years ago I would have agreed with j4nu, but today for general photography I find myself reaching for the A9iii more often than not. On paper, the A1 and R bodies have more pixels and access to ISO 100, but in practice the A9iii has its own advantages. It focuses more confidently in poor light, has a significantly higher AF hit rate with ultra-shallow DOF, eliminates banding under artificial lighting, and when using a speed light for fill, it recycles almost instantly (vs HSS = 2s+ wait between shots)
So when would the A1 or R-series body be better? Mainly when resolution takes priority over everything else. I don't mean printing 40×60" poster big, the 11 MP 1Ds already produced enough output for that. I mean wall-sized prints. I know someone who produces wall sized prints you see in malls for brands, and for that kind of work he uses primes on medium format or R-series bodies with focus stacking.
The other obvious case is very distant subjects, where every bit of cropping power matters. I measured about 10% more cropping power at base ISO with f/2.8 zooms, which isn't nothing, and that advantage should increase with primes that can better exploit the higher-resolution sensor.
There are also situations where the A9iii's practical advantages simply don't matter. If you have assistants setting up powerful strobes, you can use larger modifiers for softer light, and the A7RVI in particular is said to give you better tonal gradation.
Without assistants, things change. I know I can use 200ws strobes with ND filters, but then I'm dealing with 2s recycle times. That's simply too slow when I'm trying to catch the right pose from a kid. With the A9iii and a speedlight, there is no recycle time.
The thing is, having assistants, making wall-sized prints, and shooting distant wildlife are all fairly specialized use cases. None of them really fit what I would call "general-purpose photography."
If I just want to take some casual shots of the kids, I find myself reaching for the A9iii every time, whether that's in good light with a zoom and speedlight, or in poor light with a fast prime, the A9iii still seems to be the most comfortable choice.
Since the A9 III is already with me in these situations, any random handheld landscapes I come across along the way work just fine with exposure stacking when needed. I find myself stacking exposures (handheld) with the A1 and R bodies anyway, so in practice there is no difference to the shooting experience.
Of course, if you're carrying a tripod, using an R-series body and shooting a good prime stopped down, you're going to capture more detail in a landscape. But at that point, are we still talking about general-purpose photography, or have we moved into specialized landscape photography? And how much does that extra detail actually matter if the end result is only being printed A2 or smaller?
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
I agree, as it was already said here, that it's because A9III is not a completely general purpose camera, contrary to A1 series.It has some drawbacks:
1) resolution
2) DR
3) some caveats when shooting really fast (or just missing contacts) lenses - this was somewhat alleviated by a firmware upgrade, but you have to accept some pixel-level fringing (or just shoot with slower SS by using a ND filter)
4) flash - while it opens up new possibilities, unless you're using supported Sony native flashes, it is quite tedious to get it to work (setting flash timings manually) from what I've read...
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.
j4nu wrote
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.j4nu wrote
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
For anyone else reading, let’s get the elephant out of the way first: both the A1II and A9III command a massive premium for capabilities aimed primarily at specialized users. I think they’re poor value for general-purpose photography, especially given their low-ISO DR disadvantage versus the much cheaper A7V. If you’re paying out of pocket, the A7V would be my recommendation. Of course, that calculation changes if, like me and probably many others here, you don’t personally pay for all the gear you get to use, or you get a great deal on the camera.
Two years ago I would have agreed with j4nu, but today for general photography I find myself reaching for the A9iii more often than not. On paper, the A1 and R bodies have more pixels and access to ISO 100, but in practice the A9iii has its own advantages. It focuses more confidently in poor light, has a significantly higher AF hit rate with ultra-shallow DOF, eliminates banding under artificial lighting, and when using a speed light for fill, it recycles almost instantly (vs HSS = 2s+ wait between shots)
So when would the A1 or R-series body be better? Mainly when resolution takes priority over everything else. I don't mean printing 40×60" poster big, the 11 MP 1Ds already produced enough output for that. I mean wall-sized prints. I know someone who produces wall sized prints you see in malls for brands, and for that kind of work he uses primes on medium format or R-series bodies with focus stacking.
The other obvious case is very distant subjects, where every bit of cropping power matters. I measured about 10% more cropping power at base ISO with f/2.8 zooms, which isn't nothing, and that advantage should increase with primes that can better exploit the higher-resolution sensor.
There are also situations where the A9iii's practical advantages simply don't matter. If you have assistants setting up powerful strobes, you can use larger modifiers for softer light, and the A7RVI in particular is said to give you better tonal gradation.
Without assistants, things change. I know I can use 200ws strobes with ND filters, but then I'm dealing with 2s recycle times. That's simply too slow when I'm trying to catch the right pose from a kid. With the A9iii and a speedlight, there is no recycle time.
The thing is, having assistants, making wall-sized prints, and shooting distant wildlife are all fairly specialized use cases. None of them really fit what I would call "general-purpose photography."
If I just want to take some casual shots of the kids, I find myself reaching for the A9iii every time, whether that's in good light with a zoom and speedlight, or in poor light with a fast prime, the A9iii still seems to be the most comfortable choice.
Since the A9 III is already with me in these situations, any random handheld landscapes I come across along the way work just fine with exposure stacking when needed. I find myself stacking exposures (handheld) with the A1 and R bodies anyway, so in practice there is no difference to the shooting experience.
Of course, if you're carrying a tripod, using an R-series body and shooting a good prime stopped down, you're going to capture more detail in a landscape. But at that point, are we still talking about general-purpose photography, or have we moved into specialized landscape photography? And how much does that extra detail actually matter if the end result is only being printed A2 or smaller?
Aug 27, 2026 at 01:49 AM
p.2 #16a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
aCuria wrote:
At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really .
I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.Exactly, and in common ("general purpose") shooting scenarios, A9III has more drawbacks than A1II.
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.For anyone else reading, let’s get the elephant out of the way first: both the A1II and A9III command a massive premium for capabilities aimed primarily at specialized users. I think they’re poor value for general-purpose photography, especially given their low-ISO DR disadvantage versus the much cheaper A7V. If you’re paying out of pocket, the A7V would be my recommendation. Of course, that calculation changes if, like me and probably many others here, you don’t personally pay for all the gear you get to use, or you get a great deal on the camera.
Two years ago I would have agreed...Show more →
Yes, of course - "general purpose" is a loose term.
I just try to think about it this way:
* how many different use cases can I throw at the camera and have it handle it just fine?
* how many situations are there where it will lag behind other options?
The areas where A9III has its biggest wins are just fewer and less common in my view (extremely high fps, absolutely no led banding, new ways to use flash) than where A1 triumphs (resolution, DR).
You say resolution is a 10% gain, but people here love to buy high-res bodies to make their primes double in focal length . While on the other hand, I doubt most people run their gear with flash attached all the time (or shoot under extreme banding, which A1 cannot handle, or shoot at > 30fps, especially considering the complaints about file sizes, etc.) ...
24 mpx won't allow you to compose in post as easily, nor will DR allow to recover photos to the same extent. Or, a more specific examples for people who like to shoot ultra-fast lenses, you might be affected by pixel fringing or required to carry ND filters.
So, yes - my definition of general purpose assumes some common sense.
But if you always shoot with flash on or against led banners than that is your more fitting "general purpose" I guess...
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
aCuria wrote
I’ve done some comparisons with the A1, and the advantage from the higher-resolution sensor seems very lens-dependent. With zooms shot wide open, I’m seeing roughly 10% more cropping power from the A1.At the same ISO, dynamic range seems comparable to the A1, so I wouldn’t consider dynamic range a drawback.
That said, the A9III’s first base ISO is 250, which I would count as a disadvantage.
Flash work is one of the A9 III’s superpowers. You can actually shoot action with a single speedlight at high frame rates, which is ridiculous. Previously, to sustain that kind of burst shooting with flash, you’d need a bank of strobes set up to fire in rotation (ALT mode) so each unit had time to recycle between shots.
j4nu wrote
Well, I'm sure birders will not agree with your assessment that 24 mpx is roughly equal to 50 mpx.j4nu wrote
And DR is exactly the issue with ISO250. You could be shooting A1II at ISO640 and basically get indistinguishable DR from the best A9III can do...DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
Two years ago I would have agreed...Show more →
Yes, of course - "general purpose" is a loose term.
I just try to think about it this way:
* how many different use cases can I throw at the camera and have it handle it just fine?
* how many situations are there where it will lag behind other options?
The areas where A9III has its biggest wins are just fewer and less common in my view (extremely high fps, absolutely no led banding, new ways to use flash) than where A1 triumphs (resolution, DR).
You say resolution is a 10% gain, but people here love to buy high-res bodies to make their primes double in focal length
. While on the other hand, I doubt most people run their gear with flash attached all the time (or shoot under extreme banding, which A1 cannot handle, or shoot at > 30fps, especially considering the complaints about file sizes, etc.) ...24 mpx won't allow you to compose in post as easily, nor will DR allow to recover photos to the same extent. Or, a more specific examples for people who like to shoot ultra-fast lenses, you might be affected by pixel fringing or required to carry ND filters.
So, yes - my definition of general purpose assumes some common sense.
But if you always shoot with flash on or against led banners than that is your more fitting "general purpose" I guess...
Aug 27, 2026 at 08:04 AM
p.2 #17a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
j4nu wrote:
DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really .
I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.Exactly, and in common ("general purpose") shooting scenarios, A9III has more drawbacks than A1II.
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.For anyone else reading, let’s get the elephant out of the way first: both the A1II and A9III command a massive premium for capabilities aimed primarily at specialized users. I think they’re poor value for general-purpose photography, especially given their low-ISO DR disadvantage versus the much cheaper A7V. If you’re paying out of pocket, the A7V would be my recommendation. Of course, that calculation changes if, like me and probably many others here, you don’t personally pay for all the gear you get to use, or you get a great deal on the camera.
Two years ago I would have agreed with j4nu, but today for general photography I find myself reaching for the A9iii more often than not. On paper, the A1 and R bodies have more pixels and access to ISO 100, but in practice the A9iii has its own advantages. It focuses more confidently in poor light, has a significantly higher AF hit rate with ultra-shallow DOF, eliminates banding under artificial lighting, and when using a speed light for fill, it recycles almost instantly (vs HSS = 2s+ wait between shots)
So when would the A1 or R-series body be better? Mainly when resolution takes priority over everything else. I don't mean printing 40×60" poster big, the 11 MP 1Ds already produced enough output for that. I mean wall-sized prints. I know someone who produces wall sized prints you see in malls for brands, and for that kind of work he uses primes on medium format or R-series bodies with focus stacking.
The other obvious case is very distant subjects, where every bit of cropping power matters. I measured about 10% more cropping power at base ISO with f/2.8 zooms, which isn't nothing, and that advantage should increase with primes that can better exploit the higher-resolution sensor.
There are also situations where the A9iii's practical advantages simply don't matter. If you have assistants setting up powerful strobes, you can use larger modifiers for softer light, and the A7RVI in particular is said to give you better tonal gradation.
Without assistants, things change. I know I can use 200ws strobes with ND filters, but then I'm dealing with 2s recycle times. That's simply too slow when I'm trying to catch the right pose from a kid. With the A9iii and a speedlight, there is no recycle time.
The thing is, having assistants, making wall-sized prints, and shooting distant wildlife are all fairly specialized use cases. None of them really fit what I would call "general-purpose photography."
If I just want to take some casual shots of the kids, I find myself reaching for the A9iii every time, whether that's in good light with a zoom and speedlight, or in poor light with a fast prime, the A9iii still seems to be the most comfortable choice.
Since the A9 III is already with me in these situations, any random handheld landscapes I come across along the way work just fine with exposure stacking when needed. I find myself stacking exposures (handheld) with the A1 and R bodies anyway, so in practice there is no difference to the shooting experience.
Of course, if you're carrying a tripod, using an R-series body and shooting a good prime stopped down, you're going to capture more detail in a landscape. But at that point, are we still talking about general-purpose photography, or have we moved into specialized landscape photography? And how much does that extra detail actually matter if the end result is only being printed A2 or smaller?Yes, of course - "general purpose" is a loose term.
I just try to think about it this way:
* how many different use cases can I throw at the camera and have it handle it just fine?
* how many situations are there where it will lag behind other options?
The areas where A9III has its biggest wins are just fewer and less common in my view (extremely high fps, absolutely no led banding, new ways to use flash) than where A1 triumphs (resolution, DR).
You say resolution is a 10% gain, but people here love to buy high-res bodies to make their primes...Show more →
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The better general-purpose camera is simply the one a photographer reaches for more often in general-purpose situations.
You may have a point here. The idea that 50MP lets you “double the effective focal length” reflects a perception that is simply untrue. This incorrect perception can certainly be affecting resale prices, even if the perception itself is ultimately wrong.
I encourage anyone with more than one camera body to test this for themselves,
* shoot at the wider focal length with the high-MP body, use your most commonly used apertures.
* then see what focal length you need on the lower-MP body for the images to look the same. Try 1.1x, 1.15x, 1.2x the focal length.
* Before comparing, bilinear upsample the images to the same resolution. Use a tripod and low ISO.
If I take the A1, I don't often bother carrying a speedlight. It can't really beat the sun (you need several units), and once you factor in recycle times, spare batteries, and so on, its troublesome. With the A9iii, it's a completely different shooting experience, smallest F28RMA beats the sun, no recycle time, one battery lasts days. A speedlight becomes an invaluable tool, which is why i carry it. This is something you really have to try for yourself to appreciate. It doesn't sound like a big deal until you integrate it into your workflow, then it becomes a massive deal.
High-ISO DR isn't really a problem. The bigger weakness of the A9 III is the missing ISO 100.
For me, DR basically comes down to counting zebras. I have a custom hold button that drops the camera to base ISO. If I hit it and still see zebras, then it's time to exposure stack. If it's a shot where I can't exposure stack, then I know the A7V or A7RVI would be the better camera for that shot. The thing is, I have been keeping track of this and it has not happened very often but YMMV.
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
Your comment is an over-simplification. I was only referring to zooms shot wide open. The value of having 50MP obviously increases if you use primes like the 300GM / 600GM, especially if no TCs are in play.DR at 250, 318, 400, 500 is the same as A1ii.
DR at 800 and above is also basically the same.
There is a blip at 640 because the A1ii is at second base ISO and the A9iii is not.
I specifically avoid shooting ISO 640 on the A9iii, because DR is worse than at ISO 800 which is the A9iii's base ISO.
Most of the Sony cameras have specific ISOs to avoid, this is nothing new.
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
Two years ago I would have agreed with j4nu, but today for general photography I find myself reaching for the A9iii more often than not. On paper, the A1 and R bodies have more pixels and access to ISO 100, but in practice the A9iii has its own advantages. It focuses more confidently in poor light, has a significantly higher AF hit rate with ultra-shallow DOF, eliminates banding under artificial lighting, and when using a speed light for fill, it recycles almost instantly (vs HSS = 2s+ wait between shots)
So when would the A1 or R-series body be better? Mainly when resolution takes priority over everything else. I don't mean printing 40×60" poster big, the 11 MP 1Ds already produced enough output for that. I mean wall-sized prints. I know someone who produces wall sized prints you see in malls for brands, and for that kind of work he uses primes on medium format or R-series bodies with focus stacking.
The other obvious case is very distant subjects, where every bit of cropping power matters. I measured about 10% more cropping power at base ISO with f/2.8 zooms, which isn't nothing, and that advantage should increase with primes that can better exploit the higher-resolution sensor.
There are also situations where the A9iii's practical advantages simply don't matter. If you have assistants setting up powerful strobes, you can use larger modifiers for softer light, and the A7RVI in particular is said to give you better tonal gradation.
Without assistants, things change. I know I can use 200ws strobes with ND filters, but then I'm dealing with 2s recycle times. That's simply too slow when I'm trying to catch the right pose from a kid. With the A9iii and a speedlight, there is no recycle time.
The thing is, having assistants, making wall-sized prints, and shooting distant wildlife are all fairly specialized use cases. None of them really fit what I would call "general-purpose photography."
If I just want to take some casual shots of the kids, I find myself reaching for the A9iii every time, whether that's in good light with a zoom and speedlight, or in poor light with a fast prime, the A9iii still seems to be the most comfortable choice.
Since the A9 III is already with me in these situations, any random handheld landscapes I come across along the way work just fine with exposure stacking when needed. I find myself stacking exposures (handheld) with the A1 and R bodies anyway, so in practice there is no difference to the shooting experience.
Of course, if you're carrying a tripod, using an R-series body and shooting a good prime stopped down, you're going to capture more detail in a landscape. But at that point, are we still talking about general-purpose photography, or have we moved into specialized landscape photography? And how much does that extra detail actually matter if the end result is only being printed A2 or smaller?
I just try to think about it this way:
* how many different use cases can I throw at the camera and have it handle it just fine?
* how many situations are there where it will lag behind other options?
The areas where A9III has its biggest wins are just fewer and less common in my view (extremely high fps, absolutely no led banding, new ways to use flash) than where A1 triumphs (resolution, DR).
You say resolution is a 10% gain, but people here love to buy high-res bodies to make their primes...Show more →
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The better general-purpose camera is simply the one a photographer reaches for more often in general-purpose situations.
You may have a point here. The idea that 50MP lets you “double the effective focal length” reflects a perception that is simply untrue. This incorrect perception can certainly be affecting resale prices, even if the perception itself is ultimately wrong.
I encourage anyone with more than one camera body to test this for themselves,
* shoot at the wider focal length with the high-MP body, use your most commonly used apertures.
* then see what focal length you need on the lower-MP body for the images to look the same. Try 1.1x, 1.15x, 1.2x the focal length.
* Before comparing, bilinear upsample the images to the same resolution. Use a tripod and low ISO.
If I take the A1, I don't often bother carrying a speedlight. It can't really beat the sun (you need several units), and once you factor in recycle times, spare batteries, and so on, its troublesome. With the A9iii, it's a completely different shooting experience, smallest F28RMA beats the sun, no recycle time, one battery lasts days. A speedlight becomes an invaluable tool, which is why i carry it. This is something you really have to try for yourself to appreciate. It doesn't sound like a big deal until you integrate it into your workflow, then it becomes a massive deal.
High-ISO DR isn't really a problem. The bigger weakness of the A9 III is the missing ISO 100.
For me, DR basically comes down to counting zebras. I have a custom hold button that drops the camera to base ISO. If I hit it and still see zebras, then it's time to exposure stack. If it's a shot where I can't exposure stack, then I know the A7V or A7RVI would be the better camera for that shot. The thing is, I have been keeping track of this and it has not happened very often but YMMV.
Aug 28, 2026 at 07:17 AM
p.2 #18a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
I think that a more interesting conversation is what constitutes a good general purpose camera when shooting film.
Regarding 24Mpix digital, I have taken many travel images with the old A9. In 2019 we went to Paris for the Women’s World Cup and one daughter was on a team playing against French Academy teams. When I look at my MPIX top quality 12”x12” album, I really can’t determine if a photo was taken with the A9, or A7Riv. The exception might be two page panoramic crops. If I were to travel with just one camera, the A9 might have been the better general purpose camera, since during some of the youth soccer games I was able to stand on the sidelines, but for other games, they were held in large stadiums with streets blocked off and U.S./French flags lining the stadium and grand ceremonies to mimic the World Cup. Here I was restricted to stands only. Neither camera proved ideal from the stands. So, general purpose has to do with purpose and preference. Today, when I travel, I sometimes print large panoramas and higher resolution cameras are a better fit for my purpose.
Regarding 24Mpix digital, I have taken many travel images with the old A9. In 2019 we went to Paris for the Women’s World Cup and one daughter was on a team playing against French Academy teams. When I look at my MPIX top quality 12”x12” album, I really can’t determine if a photo was taken with the A9, or A7Riv. The exception might be two page panoramic crops. If I were to travel with just one camera, the A9 might have been the better general purpose camera, since during some of the youth soccer games I was able to stand on the sidelines, but for other games, they were held in large stadiums with streets blocked off and U.S./French flags lining the stadium and grand ceremonies to mimic the World Cup. Here I was restricted to stands only. Neither camera proved ideal from the stands. So, general purpose has to do with purpose and preference. Today, when I travel, I sometimes print large panoramas and higher resolution cameras are a better fit for my purpose.
Aug 28, 2026 at 07:55 AM
p.2 #19a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
aCuria wrote:
Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really .
I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.Exactly, and in common ("general purpose") shooting scenarios, A9III has more drawbacks than A1II.
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.For anyone else reading, let’s get the elephant out of the way first: both the A1II and A9III command a massive premium for capabilities aimed primarily at specialized users. I think they’re poor value for general-purpose photography, especially given their low-ISO DR disadvantage versus the much cheaper A7V. If you’re paying out of pocket, the A7V would be my recommendation. Of course, that calculation changes if, like me and probably many others here, you don’t personally pay for all the gear you get to use, or you get a great deal on the camera.
Two years ago I would have agreed with j4nu, but today for general photography I find myself reaching for the A9iii more often than not. On paper, the A1 and R bodies have more pixels and access to ISO 100, but in practice the A9iii has its own advantages. It focuses more confidently in poor light, has a significantly higher AF hit rate with ultra-shallow DOF, eliminates banding under artificial lighting, and when using a speed light for fill, it recycles almost instantly (vs HSS = 2s+ wait between shots)
So when would the A1 or R-series body be better? Mainly when resolution takes priority over everything else. I don't mean printing 40×60" poster big, the 11 MP 1Ds already produced enough output for that. I mean wall-sized prints. I know someone who produces wall sized prints you see in malls for brands, and for that kind of work he uses primes on medium format or R-series bodies with focus stacking.
The other obvious case is very distant subjects, where every bit of cropping power matters. I measured about 10% more cropping power at base ISO with f/2.8 zooms, which isn't nothing, and that advantage should increase with primes that can better exploit the higher-resolution sensor.
There are also situations where the A9iii's practical advantages simply don't matter. If you have assistants setting up powerful strobes, you can use larger modifiers for softer light, and the A7RVI in particular is said to give you better tonal gradation.
Without assistants, things change. I know I can use 200ws strobes with ND filters, but then I'm dealing with 2s recycle times. That's simply too slow when I'm trying to catch the right pose from a kid. With the A9iii and a speedlight, there is no recycle time.
The thing is, having assistants, making wall-sized prints, and shooting distant wildlife are all fairly specialized use cases. None of them really fit what I would call "general-purpose photography."
If I just want to take some casual shots of the kids, I find myself reaching for the A9iii every time, whether that's in good light with a zoom and speedlight, or in poor light with a fast prime, the A9iii still seems to be the most comfortable choice.
Since the A9 III is already with me in these situations, any random handheld landscapes I come across along the way work just fine with exposure stacking when needed. I find myself stacking exposures (handheld) with the A1 and R bodies anyway, so in practice there is no difference to the shooting experience.
Of course, if you're carrying a tripod, using an R-series body and shooting a good prime stopped down, you're going to capture more detail in a landscape. But at that point, are we still talking about general-purpose photography, or have we moved into specialized landscape photography? And how much does that extra detail actually matter if the end result is only being printed A2 or smaller?Yes, of course - "general purpose" is a loose term.
I just try to think about it this way:
* how many different use cases can I throw at the camera and have it handle it just fine?
* how many situations are there where it will lag behind other options?
The areas where A9III has its biggest wins are just fewer and less common in my view (extremely high fps, absolutely no led banding, new ways to use flash) than where A1 triumphs (resolution, DR).
You say resolution is a 10% gain, but people here love to buy high-res bodies to make their primes double in focal length . While on the other hand, I doubt most people run their gear with flash attached all the time (or shoot under extreme banding, which A1 cannot handle, or shoot at > 30fps, especially considering the complaints about file sizes, etc.) ...
24 mpx won't allow you to compose in post as easily, nor will DR allow to recover photos to the same extent. Or, a more specific examples for people who like to shoot ultra-fast lenses, you might be affected by pixel fringing or required to carry ND filters.
So, yes - my definition of general purpose assumes some common sense.
But if you always shoot with flash on or against led banners than that is your more fitting "general purpose" I guess...The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The better general-purpose camera is simply the one a photographer reaches for more often in general-purpose situations.
You may have a point here. The idea that 50MP lets you “double the effective focal length” reflects a perception that is simply untrue. This incorrect perception can certainly be affecting resale prices, even if the perception itself is ultimately wrong.
I encourage anyone with more than one camera body to test this for themselves,
* shoot at the wider focal length with the high-MP body, use your most commonly used apertures.
* then see what...Show more →
I don't doubt that A9III opens up a whole new world of flash photography, I even mentioned it a couple times
.
The thing is, I don't think people normally run with flash attached to their cams all the time. And not just because it changes the size/weight more or less depending on how powerful the flash is, but because flash is more limiting in actual use (from things like max range to people being more sensitive to being flashed in the eyes ).
I don't really understand your point about cropping, are you saying 2x difference in mpx is not noticeable in actual usage and people here are wrong about its usefulness?
Anyways, I'm sure for you (and other people focused on flash photography) A9III is the best "general purpose" body, but my point was that is not really what most people consider the most common usage (where DR and res of A1 are more beneficial)...
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
Ok, great - so you agree with all my points regarding A9III disadvantages and why it is not as general purpose as A1 line.Nothing more I can add to my own arguments really
.I think you misread my point about DR though, which is that the best DR A9III offers is at the level of A1II ISO640...
That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
Two years ago I would have agreed with j4nu, but today for general photography I find myself reaching for the A9iii more often than not. On paper, the A1 and R bodies have more pixels and access to ISO 100, but in practice the A9iii has its own advantages. It focuses more confidently in poor light, has a significantly higher AF hit rate with ultra-shallow DOF, eliminates banding under artificial lighting, and when using a speed light for fill, it recycles almost instantly (vs HSS = 2s+ wait between shots)
So when would the A1 or R-series body be better? Mainly when resolution takes priority over everything else. I don't mean printing 40×60" poster big, the 11 MP 1Ds already produced enough output for that. I mean wall-sized prints. I know someone who produces wall sized prints you see in malls for brands, and for that kind of work he uses primes on medium format or R-series bodies with focus stacking.
The other obvious case is very distant subjects, where every bit of cropping power matters. I measured about 10% more cropping power at base ISO with f/2.8 zooms, which isn't nothing, and that advantage should increase with primes that can better exploit the higher-resolution sensor.
There are also situations where the A9iii's practical advantages simply don't matter. If you have assistants setting up powerful strobes, you can use larger modifiers for softer light, and the A7RVI in particular is said to give you better tonal gradation.
Without assistants, things change. I know I can use 200ws strobes with ND filters, but then I'm dealing with 2s recycle times. That's simply too slow when I'm trying to catch the right pose from a kid. With the A9iii and a speedlight, there is no recycle time.
The thing is, having assistants, making wall-sized prints, and shooting distant wildlife are all fairly specialized use cases. None of them really fit what I would call "general-purpose photography."
If I just want to take some casual shots of the kids, I find myself reaching for the A9iii every time, whether that's in good light with a zoom and speedlight, or in poor light with a fast prime, the A9iii still seems to be the most comfortable choice.
Since the A9 III is already with me in these situations, any random handheld landscapes I come across along the way work just fine with exposure stacking when needed. I find myself stacking exposures (handheld) with the A1 and R bodies anyway, so in practice there is no difference to the shooting experience.
Of course, if you're carrying a tripod, using an R-series body and shooting a good prime stopped down, you're going to capture more detail in a landscape. But at that point, are we still talking about general-purpose photography, or have we moved into specialized landscape photography? And how much does that extra detail actually matter if the end result is only being printed A2 or smaller?
I just try to think about it this way:
* how many different use cases can I throw at the camera and have it handle it just fine?
* how many situations are there where it will lag behind other options?
The areas where A9III has its biggest wins are just fewer and less common in my view (extremely high fps, absolutely no led banding, new ways to use flash) than where A1 triumphs (resolution, DR).
You say resolution is a 10% gain, but people here love to buy high-res bodies to make their primes double in focal length
. While on the other hand, I doubt most people run their gear with flash attached all the time (or shoot under extreme banding, which A1 cannot handle, or shoot at > 30fps, especially considering the complaints about file sizes, etc.) ...24 mpx won't allow you to compose in post as easily, nor will DR allow to recover photos to the same extent. Or, a more specific examples for people who like to shoot ultra-fast lenses, you might be affected by pixel fringing or required to carry ND filters.
So, yes - my definition of general purpose assumes some common sense.
But if you always shoot with flash on or against led banners than that is your more fitting "general purpose" I guess...
You may have a point here. The idea that 50MP lets you “double the effective focal length” reflects a perception that is simply untrue. This incorrect perception can certainly be affecting resale prices, even if the perception itself is ultimately wrong.
I encourage anyone with more than one camera body to test this for themselves,
* shoot at the wider focal length with the high-MP body, use your most commonly used apertures.
* then see what...Show more →
I don't doubt that A9III opens up a whole new world of flash photography, I even mentioned it a couple times
.The thing is, I don't think people normally run with flash attached to their cams all the time. And not just because it changes the size/weight more or less depending on how powerful the flash is, but because flash is more limiting in actual use (from things like max range to people being more sensitive to being flashed in the eyes
).I don't really understand your point about cropping, are you saying 2x difference in mpx is not noticeable in actual usage and people here are wrong about its usefulness?
Anyways, I'm sure for you (and other people focused on flash photography) A9III is the best "general purpose" body, but my point was that is not really what most people consider the most common usage (where DR and res of A1 are more beneficial)...
Aug 28, 2026 at 06:39 PM
p.2 #20a9iii for $3500 is just wow... but why?
j4nu wrote:
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
j4nu wrote
aCuria wrote
Ultimately, whether something counts as a drawback depends on what you’re shooting. Every camera involves trade-offs. What matters is whether those trade-offs are relevant to what you actually shoot and what lenses you shoot with.That is all I'm saying.
A1II doesn't have to be the best in every category to be the best "general purpose" body, but it has to be good enough in all.
A7RVI is a good counter-example, if the readout speed is good enough for typical shooting, I'd say it's a better "general purpose" camera than A1II. But that becomes a more personal criteria, like you shooting everything (doable) with exposure stacking.
Two years ago I would have agreed with j4nu, but today for general photography I find myself reaching for the A9iii more often than not. On paper, the A1 and R bodies have more pixels and access to ISO 100, but in practice the A9iii has its own advantages. It focuses more confidently in poor light, has a significantly higher AF hit rate with ultra-shallow DOF, eliminates banding under artificial lighting, and when using a speed light for fill, it recycles almost instantly (vs HSS = 2s+ wait between shots)
So when would the A1 or R-series body be better? Mainly when resolution takes priority over everything else. I don't mean printing 40×60" poster big, the 11 MP 1Ds already produced enough output for that. I mean wall-sized prints. I know someone who produces wall sized prints you see in malls for brands, and for that kind of work he uses primes on medium format or R-series bodies with focus stacking.
The other obvious case is very distant subjects, where every bit of cropping power matters. I measured about 10% more cropping power at base ISO with f/2.8 zooms, which isn't nothing, and that advantage should increase with primes that can better exploit the higher-resolution sensor.
There are also situations where the A9iii's practical advantages simply don't matter. If you have assistants setting up powerful strobes, you can use larger modifiers for softer light, and the A7RVI in particular is said to give you better tonal gradation.
Without assistants, things change. I know I can use 200ws strobes with ND filters, but then I'm dealing with 2s recycle times. That's simply too slow when I'm trying to catch the right pose from a kid. With the A9iii and a speedlight, there is no recycle time.
The thing is, having assistants, making wall-sized prints, and shooting distant wildlife are all fairly specialized use cases. None of them really fit what I would call "general-purpose photography."
If I just want to take some casual shots of the kids, I find myself reaching for the A9iii every time, whether that's in good light with a zoom and speedlight, or in poor light with a fast prime, the A9iii still seems to be the most comfortable choice.
Since the A9 III is already with me in these situations, any random handheld landscapes I come across along the way work just fine with exposure stacking when needed. I find myself stacking exposures (handheld) with the A1 and R bodies anyway, so in practice there is no difference to the shooting experience.
Of course, if you're carrying a tripod, using an R-series body and shooting a good prime stopped down, you're going to capture more detail in a landscape. But at that point, are we still talking about general-purpose photography, or have we moved into specialized landscape photography? And how much does that extra detail actually matter if the end result is only being printed A2 or smaller?
I just try to think about it this way:
* how many different use cases can I throw at the camera and have it handle it just fine?
* how many situations are there where it will lag behind other options?
The areas where A9III has its biggest wins are just fewer and less common in my view (extremely high fps, absolutely no led banding, new ways to use flash) than where A1 triumphs (resolution, DR).
You say resolution is a 10% gain, but people here love to buy high-res bodies to make their primes double in focal length
. While on the other hand, I doubt most people run their gear with flash attached all the time (or shoot under extreme banding, which A1 cannot handle, or shoot at > 30fps, especially considering the complaints about file sizes, etc.) ...24 mpx won't allow you to compose in post as easily, nor will DR allow to recover photos to the same extent. Or, a more specific examples for people who like to shoot ultra-fast lenses, you might be affected by pixel fringing or required to carry ND filters.
So, yes - my definition of general purpose assumes some common sense.
But if you always shoot with flash on or against led banners than that is your more fitting "general purpose" I guess...
You may have a point here. The idea that 50MP lets you “double the effective focal length” reflects a perception that is simply untrue. This incorrect perception can certainly be affecting resale prices, even if the perception itself is ultimately wrong.
I encourage anyone with more than one camera body to test this for themselves,
* shoot at the wider focal length with the high-MP body, use your most commonly used apertures.
* then see what focal length you need on the lower-MP body for the images to look the same. Try 1.1x, 1.15x, 1.2x the focal length.
* Before comparing, bilinear upsample the images to the same resolution. Use a tripod and low ISO.
If I take the A1, I don't often bother carrying a speedlight. It can't really beat the sun (you need several units), and once you factor in recycle times, spare batteries, and so on, its troublesome. With the A9iii, it's a completely different shooting experience, smallest F28RMA beats the sun, no recycle time, one battery lasts days. A speedlight becomes an invaluable tool, which is why i carry it. This is something you really have to try for yourself to appreciate. It doesn't sound like a big deal until you integrate it into your workflow, then it becomes a massive deal.
High-ISO DR isn't really a problem. The bigger weakness of the A9 III is the missing ISO 100.
For me, DR basically comes down to counting zebras. I have a custom hold button that drops the camera to base ISO. If I hit it and still see zebras, then it's time to exposure stack. If it's a shot where I can't exposure stack, then I know the A7V or A7RVI would be the better camera for that shot. The thing is, I have been keeping track of this and it has not happened very often but YMMV.
.The thing is, I don't think people normally run with flash attached to their cams all the time. And not just because it changes the size/weight more or less depending on how powerful the flash is, but because flash is more limiting in actual use (from things like max range to people being more sensitive to being flashed in the eyes
).I don't really understand your point about cropping, are you saying 2x difference in mpx is...Show more →
Even ignoring the flash use cases, the A9iii’s Eye AF reliability advantage over the A1 / A1ii in shallow DOF situations is enough for me to prefer A9iii when shooting with fast primes.
Aug 30, 2026 at 07:18 AM