Sony A9iii why so many not keeping?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

sh1209

sh1209

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I have talked to a few people I have befriended over the years that have bought the A9iii and have returned it. Two members on here have returned them. I want to get a body with pre capture and now there will be two available once the A1ii becomes available. I am wondering why a lot of folks aren't keeping the A9iii? Is it merely resolution, or other issues with the global sensor? 24MP can obviously be used for wildlife and I have did it in the past with a few bodies. It looks like with a good deal, I can get at least $1K off the asking price of the A9iii. I would assume any deals on the new A1 will be some time off in the future. If anyone has any insight as to what made you decide not to keep the A9, then please express your opinions/shortcomings to help folks like me make a wise decision on a body that has pre capture, thanks.
 
Member's gallery
The only reason I decided not to keep the A9III was the resolution of the sensor. I decided to keep shooting the A1 and wait for the A1II to get precapture and more than 30FPS.
Well the A1II is here and I got precapture but stuck with 30FPS. I've thought about the A9III again just to get the higher FPS but I'm fairly certain I will just go for the A1II for the resolution.

I've done a lot of my bird photography over the years with FF 18-24MP sensors (1DX, 1DXII, A9, A9II) so I thought the A9III wouldn't bother me too much. But for the things I was shooting during my 3 weeks with the camera I had too many instances where I threw away shots because I didn't have enough pixels on the subject.

Other than the MPs, I liked everything else about the A9III. I had no issues with DR or ISO as I don't use lower ISO values. Precapture combined with 60-120FPS was fun to use.
I may pick one up if I decide to get a 2nd camera in the future.
 
Member's gallery
Not knowing what they shoot, what glass they have or their skill level it’s hard to say.

The a9III is being widely used in the photojournalist/sports field. I have shot some professional and collegiate sports with it and it’s stunning! For wildlife it becomes more of a niche camera. Since I’ve had it this year I’ve captured 3 images that have won competitions. So when deployed properly the MP aren’t a drawback.

When you look at its intended use case it’s second to none. I think the fact is many have gotten used to the a1 and the 50MP sensor. The high MP opens up doors when you can’t get close enough but still have plenty of MP to get a nice shot. It also lends itself to pixel peeping which we are all likely guilty of. When shooting sports for example I’m not a pixel peeper and nor are the pros deploying the camera. When shooting wildlife I’ll admit I tend to be one.

The cameras ergonomics, af, fps, sensor and further customization options just nails it for me. But I shoot a broad range of subjects and conditions the a9III will be one camera in the tool box but not the only one. Pairing one with the a1 especially the a1mk2 will be a powerful combo. Which one I shoot more I’m not sure yet. But I shoot the a9III at 60FPS the majority of the time. The a1 being limited to 30 will likely have me grab for the a9III often but if the new a1 was 40-60 I’d likely sell the a9III but 30 is often not enough anymore for what I do.

For someone who doesn’t even shoot 20fps the a9III would be pointless unless they needed the sensor for lighting, flash sync or the 1/80,000 shutter speed.

So my opinion is the a9III is a niche specialty camera for wildlife photographers but is the best tool for the sports, photo journalist. I know many AP and NYT photographers who gave up their a1’s in exchange for the a9III and shoot it exclusively. Their use case is very different than a wildlife photographer.

Just as I have zero use for a a7r5 because the a1 gives me close to the same MP without any of the negatives of the a7r5.

I suspect most people sell the a9III because either they don’t have long enough glass, skill or desire to change and want to continue to shoot loose and crop.

Just my perspective.
 
Member's gallery
My issue with the A9iii and why I don't recommend it is because I believe the OM-1 mark 2 is a better wildlife camera. When you are at 20 or 24mp you need more reach, so you don't need to crop as much, and the OM Systems glass offerings work out better in the weight/reach equation.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
These two systems aren’t even comparable.
Click to expand...

I don't know... a while back I did a comparison between the m43rds Panasonic G9 with PL50-200mm f2.8-f4 and the original A9 with the Sony 100-400 and other than BiFs the Sony came out a bit short...

And while the A9 III is an unique camera on the market, when it comes to wildlife the OM-1 mk. II is pretty much the only camera that gets even close to it in terms of features and speed.

Sure, if someone is heavily invested in Sony gear and has heavy hitters like 600mm f4 or 300mm f2.8 and TCs, it doesn't make sense to look at the OM-1.

If on the other hand somebody is looking for the best bang for buck in Pre-Capture, an OM-1 II with a 300mm f4 will probably be a better option than an A9 III with a 200-600mm for example...
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
I don't know... a while back I did a comparison between the m43rds Panasonic G9 with PL50-200mm f2.8-f4 and the original A9 with the Sony 100-400 and other than BiFs the Sony came out a bit short...

And while the A9 III is an unique camera on the market, when it comes to wildlife the OM-1 mk. II is pretty much the only camera that gets even close to it in terms of features and speed.

Sure, if someone is heavily invested in Sony gear and has heavy hitters like 600mm f4 or 300mm f2.8 and TCs, it doesn't make sense to look at the OM-1.

If on the other hand somebody is looking for the best bang for buck in Pre-Capture, an OM-1 II with a 300mm f4 will probably be a better option than an A9 III with a 200-600mm for example...
Click to expand...
I really don’t have the desire to debate full frame vs m4/3 but when we are specifically talking about the a9III there is NO camera from anyone that can be debated. The a9III sets a bar that no other brand is even close to matching. Period. There is a lot more than MP to comparing a cameras ability. If the m4/3 was all that you would see it on the side lines of every professional sporting event.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
These two systems aren’t even comparable.
Click to expand...
I still cannot find out if you can do focus bracketing at that high rate because if you can, that would definitely be something that interests me. It really is vague as far as the information about that.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I still cannot find out if you can do focus bracketing at that high rate because if you can, that would definitely be something that interests me. It really is vague as far as the information about that.
Click to expand...
I can try it out for you. Might take me a day or two I’ve got a house full of people already for Thanksgiving.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
I can try it out for you. Might take me a day or two I’ve got a house full of people already for Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is in fact the case, then for someone like me that does a lot of insect photography and stacks I could see that being an extremely beneficial feature
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
If the m4/3 was all that you would see it on the side lines of every professional sporting event.
Click to expand...

If I understood correctly, the OP asked for Pre-Capture for wildlife, not for sporting events...

And in general, sporting events aren't the nec plus ultra of evaluating cameras. Quite the oposite as they have certain requirements that don't matter for the average wildlife shooter.

And yes, I am seeing more and more wildlife enthusiasts moving to m43rds around here in the EU as they are being priced out of the FF market.
 
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
If I understood correctly, the OP asked for Pre-Capture for wildlife, not for sporting events...

And in general, sporting events aren't the nec plus ultra of evaluating cameras. Quite the oposite as they have certain requirements that don't matter for the average wildlife shooter.

And yes, I am seeing more and more wildlife enthusiasts moving to m43rds around here in the EU as they are being priced out of the FF market.
Click to expand...
Well point you are missing is most wildlife photographers you see aren’t making a living doing it and if they miss a shot it’s a bummer but not your job on the line. Olympus had precapture before anyone and size and weight matter to sports photographers. So yes if it was better they would be using it. I also use sports as an example because you can watch on TV and see what people are using, can’t do that with wildlife photography.
If I was to use the areas I shoot as to level set what’s most popular it’s the Sony system. I’d say Sony owns a solid 60% of the wildlife market in TX.
Only time I see OM or Olympus is when going to a photo ranch.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Well point you are missing is most wildlife photographers you see aren’t making a living doing it and if they miss a shot it’s a bummer but not your job on the line. Olympus had precapture before anyone and size and weight matter to sports photographers. So yes if it was better they would be using it. I also use sports as an example because you can watch on TV and see what people are using, can’t do that with wildlife photography.
If I was to use the areas I shoot as to level set what’s most popular it’s the Sony system. I’d say Sony owns a solid 60% of the wildlife market in TX.
Only time I see OM or Olympus is when going to a photo ranch.
Click to expand...
I sort of wish that we were more that way here. I have only ran into one other person in the field in the six years we’ve lived in Missouri that shot Sony. I feel like the odd man out lol. I feel like most people I run into are shooting Cannon R5, or older Nikon cameras. It was a different story in North Carolina, but for whatever reason they don’t seem to be very popular here.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I sort of wish that we were more that way here. I have only ran into one other person in the field in the six years we’ve lived in Missouri that shot Sony. I feel like the odd man out lol. I feel like most people I run into are shooting Cannon R5, or older Nikon cameras. It was a different story in North Carolina, but for whatever reason they don’t seem to be very popular here.
Click to expand...
Canon by far has the next largest segment. Not many Nikon shooters around here anymore. Most of them myself included moved to Sony when the a1 came out. It’s one reason Sony focuses on market share from Canon much more than Nikon.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I have talked to a few people I have befriended over the years that have bought the A9iii and have returned it. Two members on here have returned them. I want to get a body with pre capture and now there will be two available once the A1ii becomes available. I am wondering why a lot of folks aren't keeping the A9iii? Is it merely resolution, or other issues with the global sensor? 24MP can obviously be used for wildlife and I have did it in the past with a few bodies. It looks like with a good deal, I can get at least $1K off the asking price of the A9iii. I would assume any deals on the new A1 will be some time off in the future. If anyone has any insight as to what made you decide not to keep the A9, then please express your opinions/shortcomings to help folks like me make a wise decision on a body that has pre capture, thanks.
Click to expand...
From a small dataset of pros I know around here: those shooting with the 600/400 love the camera and have both the need and the skills to take advantage of it. One or two generalist pros missed the mps, but they have access to an A1. I don't think that other than the R1 there is anything close to the performance of the A9iii.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
From a small dataset of pros I know around here: those shooting with the 600/400 love the camera and have both the need and the skills to take advantage of it. One or two generalist pros missed the mps, but they have access to an A1. I don't think that other than the R1 there is anything close to the performance of the A9iii.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Sony also have a strong lead in the networking ability to get shots off the camera extremely fast? I would think for pro sports and photojournalism that would be even more important than any framerate or autofocus difference. You lose if the get the shots there second.

The PDT-FP1 seems even more important for that work. Think Trumps near miss, the Sony's got that out first most likely due to a better network device.
 
Member's gallery
24MP is the biggest thing.

Keep in mind the A1 II is basically just a 50MP A9 III, and once the A1 II releases you'll likely see a lot less of them changing hands.

I'm looking to buy an A9 III but either as a temporary body, or as a backup. I shot 24MP with the Canon R3 in the day, and compared to the 45MP Canon R5 - it SUCKED.

Cropping is such a valuable tool these days, that I would say high MP is one of, if not the top, features when considering a camera for wildlife imo.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I have talked to a few people I have befriended over the years that have bought the A9iii and have returned it. Two members on here have returned them. I want to get a body with pre capture and now there will be two available once the A1ii becomes available. I am wondering why a lot of folks aren't keeping the A9iii? Is it merely resolution, or other issues with the global sensor? 24MP can obviously be used for wildlife and I have did it in the past with a few bodies. It looks like with a good deal, I can get at least $1K off the asking price of the A9iii. I would assume any deals on the new A1 will be some time off in the future. If anyone has any insight as to what made you decide not to keep the A9, then please express your opinions/shortcomings to help folks like me make a wise decision on a body that has pre capture, thanks.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it's mostly resolution…because us wildlife shooters frequently have to crop.
 
Member's gallery
I just did a search of KEH (3 available used) and B&H (2 available used). That's a pretty low availability, so it does not seem like a lot of people are dumping them. It may be a natural psychological reaction we all have that when we are interested in something, any occurences related to it become far more noticeable (in this case people selling a camera you are interested in). Just a thought.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
I just did a search of KEH (3 available used) and B&H (2 available used). That's a pretty low availability, so it does not seem like a lot of people are dumping them. It may be a natural psychological reaction we all have that when we are interested in something, any occurences related to it become far more noticeable (in this case people selling a camera you are interested in). Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m not sure to be honest, but like I said, I’ve talked to four people directly that have purchased them and return them just in the small circle of people that I talk to. A couple of the retailers I talked to said they had fairly slow sales. I was just curious why it seems like most people That aren’t getting it or have returned it. The main complaint is the resolution. I’m sure other than that, it’s a fantastic camera. There are some pretty good bargains to be had out there on these new now as well. I’ve seen a couple just in the last few days for about $1000 off brand new inbox and I’m one that likes a good discount lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top