chiron wrote: aCuria wrote: mholdef wrote: aCuria wrote: mholdef wrote:
I just switched from Nikon to Sony and had to decide what bodies to pick up. I do a range of photography from studio and portraits to dance performances and sports. So was really down to either two A1IIs or one of each, knowing for events I'd be shooting two bodies. On the plus side, both have the same bodies, ergonomics, AF etc, and while I was attracted by the Global shutter to avoid LED banding, shoot at higher shutter & sync speeds, having noisier files with the A9III is what held me back, so I went for two A1IIs.
The A9iii has very little chroma noise and mostly has luminance noise.
As a result noise reduction software is extra effective because software has always been really good at removing luminance noise, but struggles with chroma noise
After NR has been applied the A9iii files look cleaner at the same iso
One of my buddies is in charge of the Sony Pro service here and we talked about it - I usually shoot at ISO between 3200-6400 during ice hockey games in rinks that have poor lighting. He suggested staying with the A1II for cleaner files
• tripod which did not move between shots
• same lens (35GM)
• iso 6400
• 1/400s
• f/5.6
• processed the same way
• deep crop to centre of frame
• equal Lightroom NR applied to both.
The test shots have equal NR applied, but the A9iii file can be pushed harder (more NR) without skin looking plastic
Here is dpreview's take on the image quality loss that occurs with the A9III's global shutter:
DPReview:
“Sony told us the a9 III has dynamic range comparable with previous models, and our measurements show that it is comparable with cameras when operating at ISO 250.“
This is correct afaik
DPReview:
“The a9 III's is noisier than the a9 II at ISO 6400, but if you try brightening the low ISO files there doesn't appear to be an additional (electronic) read noise cost lurking in the shadows.”
Does the lack of electronic read noise mean there’s more headroom to brighten images?
They did not test running Noise removal and comparing the output unfortunately. Ultimately that’s what matters the most.
DPReview:
“What might be of more concern to sports shooters is that the high ISO performance appears to be as much as one stop noisier than its full-frame rivals, especially as you reach its highest ISO settings.”
Have not tested this, my iso range cap is 12,800 usually. Even on the A1 the highest isos are unusable
DPReview:
“There's a noticeable softness to the 'grain' pattern in the a9 III's images too, which we suspect is the result of noise reduction being applied in the Raws.“
High iso NR should be turned off when shooting RAW. I don’t think DPR turned it off.
chiron wrote: aCuria wrote: mholdef wrote: aCuria wrote: mholdef wrote:
I just switched from Nikon to Sony and had to decide what bodies to pick up. I do a range of photography from studio and portraits to dance performances and sports. So was really down to either two A1IIs or one of each, knowing for events I'd be shooting two bodies. On the plus side, both have the same bodies, ergonomics, AF etc, and while I was attracted by the Global shutter to avoid LED banding, shoot at higher shutter & sync speeds, having noisier files with the A9III is what held me back, so I went for two A1IIs.
The A9iii has very little chroma noise and mostly has luminance noise.
As a result noise reduction software is extra effective because software has always been really good at removing luminance noise, but struggles with chroma noise
After NR has been applied the A9iii files look cleaner at the same iso
One of my buddies is in charge of the Sony Pro service here and we talked about it - I usually shoot at ISO between 3200-6400 during ice hockey games in rinks that have poor lighting. He suggested staying with the A1II for cleaner files
• tripod which did not move between shots
• same lens (35GM)
• iso 6400
• 1/400s
• f/5.6
• processed the same way
• deep crop to centre of frame
• equal Lightroom NR applied to both.
The test shots have equal NR applied, but the A9iii file can be pushed harder (more NR) without skin looking plastic
Here is dpreview's take on the image quality loss that occurs with the A9III's global shutter:
DPReview:
“Sony told us the a9 III has dynamic range comparable with previous models, and our measurements show that it is comparable with cameras when operating at ISO 250.“
This is correct afaik
DPReview:
“The a9 III's is noisier than the a9 II at ISO 6400, but if you try brightening the low ISO files there doesn't appear to be an additional (electronic) read noise cost lurking in the shadows.”
They did not test running Noise removal and comparing the output.
Does the lack of electronic read noise mean there’s more headroom to brighten images?
Aug 10, 2025 at 01:54 PM
Previous versions of aCuria's message #16867892 « A9III VS A1II… General shooting »
