Sony a9III Poor Sales Performance?

[sh1209]

I find the idea that 24-25 megapixels is not enough is not really true. I like being able to pair a high resolution 46 MP camera with a standard resolution 24 MP camera. There are plenty of times when larger photosites for better low light performance would be better. There are times when 24 MP is all you need even for a large print - and 24 MP upsizes very nicely. And for volume work, smaller files from a 24 MP camera are quite nice. My next camera will be a 24 MP camera - and I've already sold my Z7ii with plans to get a Z6iii to pair with my Z8. Even if I need to crop, the quality of the image from a 24 MP camera supports cropping moderately and still resulting in great images for prints.

The big advantage you have with a 24-25 MP camera is smaller files - which are faster to process, faster to write to a card, and longer to fill a buffer. If you want a fast camera, this is one of the first tradeoffs I'm willing to make.

I agree with everything you’re saying about 24mp and loved both versions of the Z6. I thought the low light performance was incredible with that sensor. Having said that, it was $1700. I have the A1 and for a brief time owned the Z9 and both are great cameras. I never shot either of them at the maximum frame rate and most likely never will. If the A9iii were $4-4500 range it might be tempting to me but I think the price is insane and that’s only my opinion. You’re right in saying larger than 24mp isn’t needed a lot of times but it’s pretty darn nice to have. The A1 is most likely the highest price I will ever pay for a camera during my life and it’s still more capable than 99.9 percent of the photographers out there myself included. I’ve fallen for the trap numerous times over the years by feeling like I always needed the newest model. I’m at a point in my life that I plan on keeping things much longer and becoming more proficient in using them. I think Sony will have to drop the price of tge A9 to sell more, just like they did with the A7RV but that is just my opinion.

 

[DavidT]

SONY A9III Pre-capture

This is exactly why I’m considering this camera. I really think @Steve should buy one!

 

[PhD69]

I agree with everything you’re saying about 24mp and loved both versions of the Z6. I thought the low light performance was incredible with that sensor. Having said that, it was $1700. I have the A1 and for a brief time owned the Z9 and both are great cameras. I never shot either of them at the maximum frame rate and most likely never will. If the A9iii were $4-4500 range it might be tempting to me but I think the price is insane and that’s only my opinion. You’re right in saying larger than 24mp isn’t needed a lot of times but it’s pretty darn nice to have. The A1 is most likely the highest price I will ever pay for a camera during my life and it’s still more capable than 99.9 percent of the photographers out there myself included. I’ve fallen for the trap numerous times over the years by feeling like I always needed the newest model. I’m at a point in my life that I plan on keeping things much longer and becoming more proficient in using them. I think Sony will have to drop the price of tge A9 to sell more, just like they did with the A7RV but that is just my opinion.

That is a very respectable point of view and argument

 

[sh1209]

That is a very respectable point of view and argument

Have you edited any of the files yet? I’m curious how they hold up compared to the A1

 

[RikWriter]

I find the idea that 24-25 megapixels is not enough is not really true. I like being able to pair a high resolution 46 MP camera with a standard resolution 24 MP camera. There are plenty of times when larger photosites for better low light performance would be better. There are times when 24 MP is all you need even for a large print - and 24 MP upsizes very nicely. And for volume work, smaller files from a 24 MP camera are quite nice. My next camera will be a 24 MP camera - and I've already sold my Z7ii with plans to get a Z6iii to pair with my Z8. Even if I need to crop, the quality of the image from a 24 MP camera supports cropping moderately and still resulting in great images for prints.

The big advantage you have with a 24-25 MP camera is smaller files - which are faster to process, faster to write to a card, and longer to fill a buffer. If you want a fast camera, this is one of the first tradeoffs I'm willing to make.

The problem there is, the a9III doesn't perform as well at high ISOs as the a1. Also, I use crop mode a lot in camera and if I didn't, I'd still be cropping on the computer, so a 24 mp camera becomes a 12 mp camera.

 

[sh1209]

The problem there is, the a9III doesn't perform as well at high ISOs as the a1. Also, I use crop mode a lot in camera and if I didn't, I'd still be cropping on the computer, so a 24 mp camera becomes a 12 mp camera.

Exactly

 

[EricBowles]

The problem there is, the a9III doesn't perform as well at high ISOs as the a1. Also, I use crop mode a lot in camera and if I didn't, I'd still be cropping on the computer, so a 24 mp camera becomes a 12 mp camera.

Sure - but that's the tradeoff you make with the new technologies. The ISO difference is a small negative, but the lower pixels and larger photosites help to offset that issue. At lower ISO levels it does not make much difference. I'm not saying there is no difference - just that there are reasonable tradeoffs to get the performance you have with the A9iii. If you value the frame rate, readout, and other aspects of the camera, ISO is a minor issue in comparison and you can still crop.

 

[DavidT]

Sure - but that's the tradeoff you make with the new technologies. The ISO difference is a small negative, but the lower pixels and larger photosites help to offset that issue. At lower ISO levels it does not make much difference. I'm not saying there is no difference - just that there are reasonable tradeoffs to get the performance you have with the A9iii. If you value the frame rate, readout, and other aspects of the camera, ISO is a minor issue in comparison and you can still crop.

Well said.

 

[RikWriter]

Sure - but that's the tradeoff you make with the new technologies. The ISO difference is a small negative, but the lower pixels and larger photosites help to offset that issue. At lower ISO levels it does not make much difference. I'm not saying there is no difference - just that there are reasonable tradeoffs to get the performance you have with the A9iii. If you value the frame rate, readout, and other aspects of the camera, ISO is a minor issue in comparison and you can still crop.

You can still crop but it's a much smaller image.

 

[EricBowles]

You can still crop but it's a much smaller image.

It's exactly the same as a DX crop which still leaves a reasonably large file. Even cropping that further is not a problem. With the A1, you have smaller photosites so it's not as though you can crop it to 24 megapixels and have an equal image. There is a balance somewhere in between, and the difference is less than you would think. We're still waiting for results from PhotonstoPhotos.net to see the exact difference.

 

[Nimi]

Sure - but that's the tradeoff you make with the new technologies. The ISO difference is a small negative, but the lower pixels and larger photosites help to offset that issue. At lower ISO levels it does not make much difference. I'm not saying there is no difference - just that there are reasonable tradeoffs to get the performance you have with the A9iii. If you value the frame rate, readout, and other aspects of the camera, ISO is a minor issue in comparison and you can still crop.

Not exactly. The A9iii's minimum ISO is 250 v. 100 for the ii. So you're not quite making up for the global shutter side effects with low pixel count, and probably have maybe 9.5-10 stops of dynamic range, similar to an MFT camera. And it's a steep downward slope after that. Which might be plenty for stills. There is only one camera on the market with global shutter and great dynamic range, and that's the new Red Raptor.

 

[Nimi]

It's exactly the same as a DX crop which still leaves a reasonably large file. Even cropping that further is not a problem. With the A1, you have smaller photosites so it's not as though you can crop it to 24 megapixels and have an equal image. There is a balance somewhere in between, and the difference is less than you would think. We're still waiting for results from PhotonstoPhotos.net to see the exact difference.

I think that Sony said, and confirmed by Gerald Undone that noise and dynamic range would be similar to the A9ii. Except you lose the highest/cleanest region of ISO 100-250 that's not available with the iii. Per photonstophoto, you go from about 9.6 stops to 9 stops of dynamic range when you crop to a DX.

 

[DavidT]

I could care less about the 250 iso. I can’t remember the last time shooting anything action which is what this camera is all about I was near or at base iso. I’m more interested at how it does from iso 800-6400. I spend the majority of my time in’s the 1000-2000 range. I’ll take shutter speed over low iso any day.

 

[EricBowles]

Not exactly. The A9iii's minimum ISO is 250 v. 100 for the ii. So you're not quite making up for the global shutter side effects with low pixel count, and probably have maybe 9.5-10 stops of dynamic range, similar to an MFT camera. And it's a steep downward slope after that. Which might be plenty for stills. There is only one camera on the market with global shutter and great dynamic range, and that's the new Red Raptor.

Yes - that's why I hesitate to say one is better or worse. You also have the impact of dual gain which Sony typically applies at lower ISO levels to decrease noise, but it potentially comes with a small impact on sharpness which is not being measured in the noise data.

It's all about tradeoffs - and what someone is willing to trade off for the benefits in the A9iii.

 

[Palmor]

It's exactly the same as a DX crop which still leaves a reasonably large file. Even cropping that further is not a problem. With the A1, you have smaller photosites so it's not as though you can crop it to 24 megapixels and have an equal image. There is a balance somewhere in between, and the difference is less than you would think. We're still waiting for results from PhotonstoPhotos.net to see the exact difference.

If I'm understanding what you are saying, that's assuming you can fill the frame with the 24MP camera and you'd have to crop the A1 down to 24MP (which I don't think is a valid comparison).

If you take a photo with a 24MP camera and the 50MP camera and can fill the frame, once you resize them for equal output everything will be essentially the same. The smaller photosites only matter if you are looking at the image at 100%.

 

[DavidT]

Yes - that's why I hesitate to say one is better or worse. You also have the impact of dual gain which Sony typically applies at lower ISO levels to decrease noise, but it potentially comes with a small impact on sharpness which is not being measured in the noise data.

It's all about tradeoffs - and what someone is willing to trade off for the benefits in the A9iii.

Yup. What people are trying to do is make the a9III a do it all camera like the a1. It’s not designed for that. Its design focus is all about speed.

 

[Nimi]

I said it before. I don't remember a recent camera that excites me more than the A9iii. I held it and liked the ergos, reserved it for a shoot with the 300 in April, and hope to love it and get one. Probably not great for video, but that's fine, got dedicated bodies and the Z9s for that.

 

[Woodyg3]

I could care less about the 250 iso. I can remember the last time shooting anything action which is what this camera is all about I was near or at base iso. I’m more interested at how it does from iso 800-6400. I spend the majority of my time in’s the 1000-2000 range. I’ll take shutter speed over low iso any day.

Yep.

 

[RikWriter]

I could care less about the 250 iso. I can’t remember the last time shooting anything action which is what this camera is all about I was near or at base iso. I’m more interested at how it does from iso 800-6400. I spend the majority of my time in’s the 1000-2000 range. I’ll take shutter speed over low iso any day.

From what I've seen of other people's examples, it's not as good at high ISOs as the A1. Can't swear to that because I'm just seeing pics on the internet. I haven't DLed any RAW files.

 

[Nimi]

The definitive tester (for me) is Gerald Undone and he recently did an exhaustive review on the camera. It's geared to video shooting, but things like dynamic range and noise correlate to stills. If you can't sit through it, my interpolation is (a) best camera Sony has made to date, (b) dynamic range is okay. Most relevant for me is that in the past I didn't like the ergos, but this model is clearly better for my hands.

 

[Nimi]

That is the reason for the size....but I don't see why the Z9 has to weigh so much.
The Canon R3 is so much lighter, better ergonomics in every way imaginable (other than the inferior rear screen articulation) and yet still has the bigger size to have better heat dissipation and battery performance. (granted, Canon crippled it with mixed slots but I don't think that was because of the size...just some dumb decision).

The R3 overheats. Passive heat dissipation is proportional to mass, not size.

 

[EricKlees]

Sure - but that's the tradeoff you make with the new technologies. The ISO difference is a small negative, but the lower pixels and larger photosites help to offset that issue. At lower ISO levels it does not make much difference. I'm not saying there is no difference - just that there are reasonable tradeoffs to get the performance you have with the A9iii. If you value the frame rate, readout, and other aspects of the camera, ISO is a minor issue in comparison and you can still crop.

I don't see it that way. I see you need to fill the frame to have the ISO AND the lower MP not matter much. Also the frame rate is better then the awful gimmick of the R3's 195fps raw. The A9II based on videos I have seen doesn't give you a full 1 second of 120 frames but about 105ish and depending on the file compression and file size, takes a minimum 10 seconds and up to 20 seconds to clear the buffer no matter if in Raw or jpg potentially leaving you with missed opportunities waiting for that buffer to clear.

There are a lot of tradeoffs. Not saying it's not a nice step in tech, it's just 1 or 2 iterations from being completely viable for wildlife shooters.

 

[Wrogu]

The R3 overheats. Passive heat dissipation is proportional to mass, not size.

Well, tell it to a radiator. Heat capacity for solids is pretty much the same. However dissipation is governed by mamy factors including the medium you are dissipating the heat in as well as the material which is used as a radiator and its surface arena! Mass is the least important factor given you can move the heat away quick enough.

Furthermore I imagine cooling the sensor is very hard as you would have to introduce a relative large mass to the light system (which has to be light to make stabilization work). Of course CPU and cards heat as well. And those are imho easier to cool down.

In terms of cameras - we have seen few with small fans. Mostly with advanced video features.

 

[Nimi]

Well, tell it to a radiator. Heat capacity for solids is pretty much the same. However dissipation is governed by mamy factors including the medium you are dissipating the heat in as well as the material which is used as a radiator and its surface arena! Mass is the least important factor given you can move the heat away quick enough.

Furthermore I imagine cooling the sensor is very hard as you would have to introduce a relative large mass to the light system (which has to be light to make stabilization work). Of course CPU and cards heat as well. And those are imho easier to cool down.

In terms of cameras - we have seen few with small fans. Mostly with advanced video features.

Radiator is active cooling, we're talking passive. All cinema cameras have active cooling, mostly fans. Even the compact FX30. No hybrids today have active cooling (I consider the R5C a cine camera), and the only 8k one that doesn't overheat is the Z9. It's also the heaviest and as John said above, it's probably on purpose.

Canon recently patented miniaturized built-in radiators for hybrids, so it's coming.

 

[Palmor]

Radiator is active cooling, we're talking passive. All cinema cameras have active cooling, mostly fans. Even the compact FX30. No hybrids today have active cooling (I consider the R5C a cine camera), and the only 8k one that doesn't overheat is the Z9. It's also the heaviest and as John said above, it's probably on purpose.

Canon recently patented miniaturized built-in radiators for hybrids, so it's coming.

The GH6 and S5 II have active cooling (fans) but not 8k, only 6k.