My Sony a9iii & 300 2.8 Review / Field Impressions

[Steve]

I've been using the Sony a9iii and 300mm 2.8 in Africa for the past couple of weeks and this video is a first impressions review of both. Most of this video is a field review for the Sony a9iii directed at wildlife and bird photographers. I'll discuss my thoughts on the 120 FPS frame rate, the new ergonomics, the new AF options, how the AF system works, and lots more.

In addition, I'll discuss the 300mm 2.8 and how it worked out for my wildlife and bird photography - and how well it worked with TCs. This one was a surprise - you'll see why in the video

Purchase @ B&H (Affiliate link)

a9iii: https://bhpho.to/4dWFQRG

300 2.8: https://bhpho.to/44YdWR7

Or get it a https://procam.com (Tell them Steve Perry sent ya - I'm not an affiliate or anything, I just like how they do business)

 

[PhD69]

@Steve You just have to produce your configuration guide of the A9III

 

[DavidT]

Great video! Your thoughts match mostly my findings as well. Like I’ve been telling all the people crapping on the camera it’s not an a1 replacement but it sure is a great companion!

I’m curious what RAW format are you using? Also, what card? I’m using Lossless L and find the buffer slightly deeper. Not much but a little bit. I haven’t tried compressed RAW yet but I’ve heard that improves the buffer as well.

One nice thing is the camera stays at 14 Bit even at 120 fps which the a1 to achieve 30 FPS drops to 12 bit. Like you said there is a cost to having the higher MP as well. There still is no free lunch.

 

[arbitrage]

Great review Steve. We are on the same page about everything!!

 

[Howard]

Sweet review Steve, looking very relaxed on the boat

 

[ChrisM]

A superb review on the A9III, really balanced and insightfull, highlighting the good things while not attempting to underplay the downsides.

I do have a question about the Sony 300GM though. What, in your opinion of course, does the 300GM+2xTC combo have over the 200-600G, other than smaller size and lower weight? They seem fairly level regarding resolution, and color/rendering are, at least in part, subjective. The 300GM appears a bit more vivid and warmer, the 200-600G a bit more natural.

I will confess that I was never that positive about the 200-600G in the past, but that was mostly because of blaming it for not being a 600GM. Now that I have had access to the 600GM for some time (and it is quite a step up from the 200-600G) I am better able to appreciate the 200-600G for what it is, although I no longer have it, but have many images made with it.

To me, the 200-600G seems roughly level with the 300GM+2xTC. Any thoughts on this? The cost difference is considerable.

 

[John Woodworth]

Superb video. Best reviews anywhere!

 

[RikWriter]

A superb review on the A9III, really balanced and insightfull, highlighting the good things while not attempting to underplay the downsides.

I do have a question about the Sony 300GM though. What, in your opinion of course, does the 300GM+2xTC combo have over the 200-600G, other than smaller size and lower weight? They seem fairly level regarding resolution, and color/rendering are, at least in part, subjective. The 300GM appears a bit more vivid and warmer, the 200-600G a bit more natural.

I will confess that I was never that positive about the 200-600G in the past, but that was mostly because of blaming it for not being a 600GM. Now that I have had access to the 600GM for some time (and it is quite a step up from the 200-600G) I am better able to appreciate the 200-600G for what it is, although I no longer have it, but have many images made with it.

To me, the 200-600G seems roughly level with the 300GM+2xTC. Any thoughts on this? The cost difference is considerable.

I have both the 300 2.8 that I use frequently with the 2X TC as well as the 200-600, though I plan on getting rid of it soon. The smaller size and lighter weight is nothing to sneeze at. I notice the difference quickly. Also, the 300 2.8 can be a...well, a 300 2.8, as well as a 420 f4 and a 600 f5.6. The 200-600 can be none of those things. Besides that, the 300 even with the 2X focuses faster and more accurately than the 200-600. The 200-600 does have two advantages--price, of course, but also the ability to become an 840 f9, which the 300 can't do.

 

[Steve]

Great video! Your thoughts match mostly my findings as well. Like I’ve been telling all the people crapping on the camera it’s not an a1 replacement but it sure is a great companion!

I’m curious what RAW format are you using? Also, what card? I’m using Lossless L and find the buffer slightly deeper. Not much but a little bit. I haven’t tried compressed RAW yet but I’ve heard that improves the buffer as well.

One nice thing is the camera stays at 14 Bit even at 120 fps which the a1 to achieve 30 FPS drops to 12 bit. Like you said there is a cost to having the higher MP as well. There still is no free lunch.

Thanks - I’m using lossless L as well. These were just quick, appropriate tests though.

 

[arbitrage]

A superb review on the A9III, really balanced and insightfull, highlighting the good things while not attempting to underplay the downsides.

I do have a question about the Sony 300GM though. What, in your opinion of course, does the 300GM+2xTC combo have over the 200-600G, other than smaller size and lower weight? They seem fairly level regarding resolution, and color/rendering are, at least in part, subjective. The 300GM appears a bit more vivid and warmer, the 200-600G a bit more natural.

I will confess that I was never that positive about the 200-600G in the past, but that was mostly because of blaming it for not being a 600GM. Now that I have had access to the 600GM for some time (and it is quite a step up from the 200-600G) I am better able to appreciate the 200-600G for what it is, although I no longer have it, but have many images made with it.

To me, the 200-600G seems roughly level with the 300GM+2xTC. Any thoughts on this? The cost difference is considerable.

Pretty much what Rick replied above. The versatility of having a 2.8 and 4.0 lens. But the biggest difference is AF speed. The 300GM is the fastest focusing lens I've ever used from Sony (probably from any manufacturer) and yes when you add 2xTC that slows it a bit but it is still super fast. The 200-600 AF is a dog in comparison.
IQ is probably the closest thing between them but I still think the 300/2x probably has the edge (although I don't have a 200-600 anymore to really test controlled back to back). But at 420 and 300 the IQ is significantly better especially at distance just like the 600GM excels at distance over the 2-6.

 

[arbitrage]

but also the ability to become an 840 f9, which the 300 can't do.

If you purchase an extension tube you can stack the TCs and get the 840mm f/9. I haven't tried it yet with my friend's lens but will certainly try it once I own my own copy of the 300GM. I've tried it with the 600GM but with that lens I don't even like the 2xTC so stacking was just something to play around with. If any lens could handle the stacked TCs it will be this 300GM seeing how well it does with the 2xTC....although maybe stacked TCs will be its breaking point. I will try to borrow my friends if I see him this weekend and bring my extension tube along.

 

[Jose Raposo]

Nice review Steve, the A9 looks to be a very impressive camera. I'm currently looking at the 300GM as a replacement for my 200-600 so you comments regarding AF speed are helpful. I've been using the 200-600 for a couple of years now and it has served me well but I'm finding it harder and harder to carry it around for an extended periods of time. I shoot a lot of Kestrels and Im always looking for shots of their take-off from their perches, handholding 200-600 for an extended period of time while waiting for the take-off is such a pain I've gone back to using a monopod.

 

[ChrisM]

Pretty much what Rick replied above. The versatility of having a 2.8 and 4.0 lens. But the biggest difference is AF speed. The 300GM is the fastest focusing lens I've ever used from Sony (probably from any manufacturer) and yes when you add 2xTC that slows it a bit but it is still super fast. The 200-600 AF is a dog in comparison.
IQ is probably the closest thing between them but I still think the 300/2x probably has the edge (although I don't have a 200-600 anymore to really test controlled back to back). But at 420 and 300 the IQ is significantly better especially at distance just like the 600GM excels at distance over the 2-6.

Ok, so for action shooting (BIF), and for when you expect to get close enough to be able to fill much of the frame at 420mm. Then you really get the benefits of the 300GM.
The latter is never really the case for me, so while I understand the theoretical benefit of having a 300/2.8 and 420/4 lens, I would routinely be cropping to such an extent that I could have just done with 600mm.

Going from crop sensor to full frame sensor has even made 600mm short most of the time. It is just such a large sensor.
When I used the Canon 7DII, 560mm (400DOIII +1.4TC) was about the right combo, and even then I often would put the 2xTC on.

Edit: I looked through my images with the 200-600G lens, 95% are with the lens at 600mm, I could have just glued it to 600mm.

 

[arbitrage]

Ok, so for action shooting (BIF), and for when you expect to get close enough to be able to fill much of the frame at 420mm. Then you really get the benefits of the 300GM.
The latter is never really the case for me, so while I understand the theoretical benefit of having a 300/2.8 and 420/4 lens, I would routinely be cropping to such an extent that I could have just done with 600mm.

Going from crop sensor to full frame sensor has even made 600mm short most of the time. It is just such a large sensor.
When I used the Canon 7DII, 560mm (400DOIII +1.4TC) was about the right combo, and even then I often would put the 2xTC on.

Edit: I looked through my images with the 200-600G lens, 95% are with the lens at 600mm, I could have just glued it to 600mm.

91% of mine are 600 or higher from the 200-600. And a few more % are just in the 550 and above...probably just accidentally moving the ring.

A 7D2 has pixel density equal to a A1. 20MP at 1.6x crop factor is 51MP. So I don't see what difference a 7D2 would make over an A1? Other than some of the worst AF known to man....LOL

 

[Steve]

A superb review on the A9III, really balanced and insightfull, highlighting the good things while not attempting to underplay the downsides.

I do have a question about the Sony 300GM though. What, in your opinion of course, does the 300GM+2xTC combo have over the 200-600G, other than smaller size and lower weight? They seem fairly level regarding resolution, and color/rendering are, at least in part, subjective. The 300GM appears a bit more vivid and warmer, the 200-600G a bit more natural.

I will confess that I was never that positive about the 200-600G in the past, but that was mostly because of blaming it for not being a 600GM. Now that I have had access to the 600GM for some time (and it is quite a step up from the 200-600G) I am better able to appreciate the 200-600G for what it is, although I no longer have it, but have many images made with it.

To me, the 200-600G seems roughly level with the 300GM+2xTC. Any thoughts on this? The cost difference is considerable.

Thanks Chris
I haven't really compared them side by side so I don't know if there's really a significant difference. I have a feeling the 300 2.8 might have an edge in sharpness, contrast, and rendering, but I can't say for sure. I didn't use it much with the 2X mostly because I have a 600 F/4 sitting there

 

[silx]

Thanks Chris
I haven't really compared them side by side so I don't know if there's really a significant difference. I have a feeling the 300 2.8 might have an edge in sharpness, contrast, and rendering, but I can't say for sure. I didn't use it much with the 2X mostly because I have a 600 F/4 sitting there

This sounds like a comparison asking to be done.. add in the z 600 pf, 400 TC and 180-600 and I might be able to pick which system to switch to

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Steve-
Ha, it sounds like you were reviewing the OM-1 mark 1/300F4 right down to the advantages of weight, frame rate and pre-capture and the issues with low light, buffer size and cropping. (The mark 2 fixed the buffer size and I suspect that Sony will also fix it next camera.)

Would you like to shoot the Sony side by side with the OM-1 Mark2/300f4? If so, I will lend you my rig. (I have a backup so you would get plenty of time.)

Tom

 

[Activert]

Thanks Steve for this Video. Even I am not a Sony shooter , I enjoyed your video a lot. I am glad that all the big well known photography compagnies are making better products that suit different needs. At the end, we the consumers are the big winners. Now we have more choice than ever to get what it is best for us.
i use to have a Nikkor 300 mm f2.8 VR ii and it was my favorite while I was shooting DSLR. it was very sharp lens. I am hoping that Nikon will announce it soon.

 

[Steve]

Steve-
Ha, it sounds like you were reviewing the OM-1 mark 1/300F4 right down to the advantages of weight, frame rate and pre-capture and the issues with low light, buffer size and cropping. (The mark 2 fixed the buffer size and I suspect that Sony will also fix it next camera.)

Would you like to shoot the Sony side by side with the OM-1 Mark2/300f4? If so, I will lend you my rig. (I have a backup so you would get plenty of time.)

Tom

Thanks Tom! At the moment, I really don't have time for anything like that (too many projects), but I may take you up on it in the future

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The OM-1 mark 1 had an about 100 (raw) shot buffer. At 50 f/s (focus between each frame) you had to be circumspect about pre-capture because setting the pre-buffer to 17 shots (1/3 sec) would leave only a little more than 1.5 sec of images after the shutter is fully pressed. At 120 f/s (no focus between each frame) it required even more planning as a 20 f/s pre-buffer left well less than a second of images.

With small birds, this limitation made little difference as the bird was out of the frame virtually instantly. However, with slower birds it is possible to track the bird in flight so pre-capture was often not indicated.

Enter the OM-1 mark 2 which has a 200+ image buffer. The larger buffer has completely changed my methodology of shooting in pre-capture.

Now it is wise to always shoot in pre-capture and always at a shutter speed able to freeze a flying bird's wing, sometimes even when shooting a stationary bird, because one never knows when a bird will take off.

With the OM-1 mark 2, I generally image the bird in pre-capture @ 1/3200 second, 50 f/s, then switch to my normal perched bird settings 17.5 f/s, 1/1000 f/s, still pre-capture to reduce the ISO and get the shot. If the bird takes off at the slow shutter speed and slow frames/second I still often get a good BIF shot with blurred wings.

 

[JoelKlein]

Thanks Steve.
The new Sony gear are pointing in the right direction. I can’t emphasize enough how much I love - because I need - a flippy screen.

The 300/2.8 is on track with the Nikon glass innovations.

I would wait for the technology to advance with deeper buffers, better base ISO and higher pixel resolution.

Those FN option are sick! So useful. Why is Nikon so overlooking in that realm? Its not like its a sophisticated AF code to figure out. They have the options, just place it on a button!
Toggling drive modes, Oh my…

Overall Sony is on a solid path.

Regarding the global shutter, What’s your opinion on that? I would love to have one for Studio use with strobes. But this isn’t a Studio camera.

Thanks

 

[Steve]

Regarding the global shutter, What’s your opinion on that? I would love to have one for Studio use with strobes. But this isn’t a Studio camera.

Thanks

As a wildlife shooter, I think the practical benefits are limited. It's great that there's no rolling shutter effect, but that was a problem we really didn't have with the high-speed stacked sensors anyway. Higher flash sync is again nice, but only of limited application for wildlife shooters (it can help with fill flash, if you're into that kind of thing). Overall, I think the cons outweigh the pros for wildlife work. Even 120FPS is possible with stacked sensors. I mostly purchased it because of the speed and AF gains, no so much because of the stacked sensor but almost in spite of it.

 

[arbitrage]

As a wildlife shooter, I think the practical benefits are limited. It's great that there's no rolling shutter effect, but that was a problem we really didn't have with the high-speed stacked sensors anyway. Higher flash sync is again nice, but only of limited application for wildlife shooters (it can help with fill flash, if you're into that kind of thing). Overall, I think the cons outweigh the pros for wildlife work. Even 120FPS is possible with stacked sensors. I mostly purchased it because of the speed and AF gains, no so much because of the stacked sensor but almost in spite of it.

Totally agree....I found no benefit to the global shutter sensor assuming the 120FPS and precapture features aren't dependent on it. And as you say I don't think they are.

I'm pretty confident the A1II won't be a global shutter and really hope it isn't. Just give me 50MP at 60FPS with pre-capture in an A9III body with the AI chip, customizable Zone modes and everything else the A9III has for QOL that the A1 doesn't and they can have my money even though it will be overpriced compared to the competition.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

My experience says that 50mp @ 50 f/s (focus after every image) with a 200 image RAW buffer would be a game changer. My issue with my current OM-1 m2 is the 20mp sensor. For birds taking off I need to leave room for the bird to fly and move across the image giving me several wing positions. That precludes filling the frame and necessitates cropping. 50mp would fix that.

Someone will get there.

Tom

 

[seh]

Thanks for the succinct and informative review, Steve. It allowed me to quickly get a basic understanding of a camera that has gotten a lot of buzz--and not experience any additional gear envy, especially as none of my humble targets are worth 120 fps.