lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
One sample captured in the super harsh mid day sun of Mumbai in India. Seems usable to me. Sorry, no birds. I got about 0.5s to frame this one through the opened window of the car I was in. A once in a life time opportunity. Glad the AF was spot on. I realize I probably dialed the WB a bit too cold on this one. Colors (including WB) remain a challenging topic with Sony compared to Nikon and Fuji (and probably compared to Canon also).
Another one during a dance rehearsal in June.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
One sample captured in the super harsh mid day sun of Mumbai in India. Seems usable to me. Sorry, no birds. I got about 0.5s to frame this one through the opened window of the car I was in. A once in a life time opportunity. Glad the AF was spot on. I realized I probably dialed the WB a bit too cold on this one. Colors (including WB) remain a challenging topic with Sony compared to Nikon and Fuji (and probably compared to Canon also).
Another one during a dance rehearsal in June.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
One sample captured in the super harsh mid day sun of Mumbai in India. Seems usable to me. Sorry, no birds. I got about 0.5s to frame this one through the opened window of the car I was in. A once in a life time opportunity. Glad the AF was spot on.
Another one during a dance rehearsal in June.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
One sample captured in the super harsh mid day sun of Mumbai in India. Seems usable to me. Sorry, no birds.
Another one during a dance rehearsal in June.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
One sample captured in the super harsh mid day sun of Mumbai in India. Seems usable to me. Sorry, no birds.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
One sample captured in the super harsh mid day sun of Mumbai in India. Seems usable to me.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
