The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

A9 is definitely a step better than M3 versions for AF. The M3 bodies provide lot more base ISO dynamic range.

They are intended for different use cases.
 
Most of what I read have compared them directly and say there not a lot in it at all. I was undecided but thought the saving was to huge to ignore and the A9 value dropping massively made me even less keen to buy one.

I'd always been interested in the A9, but as you say the price was a little prohibitive. When the A7III was released I spent a lot of time looking into if it was with a punt, and there were the inevitable comparisons with the A9 as everyone wants something at half the price and the same performance. I mainly search out actual user reports through forums, these were pretty consistent in still having the A9 down as the better performer.
 
DPreview...

One of our criticisms with Sony's a9 was that, upon initiating tracking, the AF points would jump off to another subject most of the way across the frame. Impressively, we encountered this behavior more rarely on the a7 III; when we did, it was usually in social situations where Eye AF was the better option anyway.

We also noticed that burst images from the a7 III were more consistently tack sharp compared to its more expensive sports-oriented sibling. With the a9, images in the middle of 20fps bursts could sometimes float in and out of critical focus, but at 10fps on the a7 III, images throughout the burst were almost universally accurately focused.

 
DPreview...

One of our criticisms with Sony's a9 was that, upon initiating tracking, the AF points would jump off to another subject most of the way across the frame. Impressively, we encountered this behavior more rarely on the a7 III; when we did, it was usually in social situations where Eye AF was the better option anyway.

We also noticed that burst images from the a7 III were more consistently tack sharp compared to its more expensive sports-oriented sibling. With the a9, images in the middle of 20fps bursts could sometimes float in and out of critical focus, but at 10fps on the a7 III, images throughout the burst were almost universally accurately focused.

A lab review, totally opposite to users running both cameras for their job day to day. I know which I prefer, you're different and that's fine.
 
The A9's Dynamic range is also superior in the high ISO ranges.

Basically better for low light

It's not better for low light. Dynamic range is about the same at high ISO.
A9 definitely focusses better in low light but IQ is mostly the same.
 
Last edited:
Something in another thread caught my eye. When talking about kit some people use phrases I don't tend to use a lot and talk about bonding / not bonding with kit, liking or not liking using it etc but when I read these things half of me thinks "fanboy/hater" and half of me wants to scream "Say something that makes sense!"

I can't say I bond with my cameras. I may dislike the handling because the grip feels uncomfortable, I may decide a camera isn't for me because the on / off switch is in a place I don't like, I may decide the image quality isn't good enough or I may like a lens because of the way the pictures look but I can't say that I'd ever bought or not bought for intangible reasons, I think I can always make a solid sensible case either way based on definable things.

So, I just wondered if there are any emotional bonders here or if you're detatched plus and minus point list weighers?
 
Last edited:
And right on cue...

The rumor site reports that the Batis 40mm has the sparkle that gives that emotional element...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/zei...t-gives-that-emotional-element/#disqus_thread

Oh dear... :D

"Quality, lack of compromise and elegance of design. These are the things that characterise the new lens, one which I have found very exciting to use. It also does not fall into the trap of being clinically sharp without having that indefinable character. It manages to be crisp and clean in terms of its images, but they also have the sparkle that gives that emotional element. Sometimes this is referred to as “pixie dust”, the magical extra ingredient that makes great lenses.

Thus the new Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF lens justifies its price tag and it has that extra quality that makes it an Editor’s Choice."

"indefinable character"? Please try... maybe it's just me that thinks this is gibberish.
 
Last edited:
You can believe what you want, I really don't care. It will have zero impact on my opinions on the cameras. I won't ever own an A7III, and you likely won't ever own an A9. That's fine, enjoy.

You seem to be getting quite upset though. I likely will own an A9, if I choose to.
 
Last edited:
First go with the A7III on native glass as hired the 70-200.

Big learning curve over both the Canon and Fuji cameras i have used with a few things i love and a few things i hate.

Really need to get my hands on an A9 for a play as although i love the dynamic range of this one the A/F struggles still with bikes and the slight lag on the EVF in use and turning on is a pain.

Still trying to work out if its worth selling up all the Canon gear for a move over as although i am stopping covering BSB i will still attend a few meetings to take images but love the weight saving the new 400 f2.8 would give over my 300 and 500 primes and pair of 1DX MKII's.

i-kTHm3cB-X2.jpg


i-ZcF8sfR-X2.jpg


i-mTPwSk5-X2.jpg


i-L5zR5q8-X2.jpg

Simply stunning :)
 
You seem to be getting quite upset though. I likely will own an A9, if I choose to.

lol, you're the one upset enough to decry an owner of both cameras experience as being incorrect and go off trawling the internet to post links to backup your opinion, which incidentally isn't based off actually using both cameras...

I only posted to state that I have read the same from many other owners who have also had the same experience as the poster here. Simples, no drama.
 
lol, you're the one upset enough to decry an owner of both cameras experience as being incorrect and go off trawling the internet to post links to backup your opinion, which incidentally isn't based off actually using both cameras...

I only posted to state that I have read the same from many other owners who have also had the same experience as the poster here. Simples, no drama.

You're the one dismissing DPreview by saying the tests they conducted on the AF system are lab tests because you dont like their comments. You have the opinion yet you dont offer any proof and dont own both cameras either.

You have read the difference is night and day, I have read it isnt.
 
The whole A9 vs A7 III debate will always rage on, the A9 is better but for so many different reasons apart from its AF performance.... anybody who thought the A7 III had the identical AF performance like the A9 for £1999 was a little optimistic.

- EVF
- 20 fps
- Deep buffer
- 100% silent shutter (no distortion)
- Drive Mode Dial
- Blackout free EVF
- FTP / RJ45
- 6K -> 4K Recording
- CMOS RS with high response rate

You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)
 
Last edited:
The whole A9 vs A7 III debate will always rage on, the A9 is better but for so many different reasons apart from its AF performance.... anybody who thought the A7 III had the identical AF performance like the A9 for £1999 was a little optimistic.

- EVF
- 20 fps
- Deep buffer
- 100% silent shutter (no distortion)
- Drive Mode Dial
- Blackout free EVF
- FTP / RJ45
- 6K -> 4K Recording
- CMOS RS with high response rate

You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)

There is a lot more than the AF (arguably better or not) that makes it a great camera and if the prices continue to fall Ill probably go for one. You're right, to some its worth the outlay no matter the cost, I think Sony just made it a fairly hard sell when the A7iii is so cheap, but they cannibalised the higher end for very good reason IMO.
 
also: i think once you use the a9, its a simpy stunning camera to use. in all honestly all of the latest camera's and lenses released from many manufacturers are great.

For me it was always a dream that i can finally afford and buy a sports high end camera.

dont forget i nearly bought the 1dx2 instead
 
also: i think once you use the a9, its a simpy stunning camera to use. in all honestly all of the latest camera's and lenses released from many manufacturers are great.

For me it was always a dream that i can finally afford and buy a sports high end camera.

dont forget i nearly bought the 1dx2 instead

Yup, Sonys really come a long way.
 
You're the one dismissing DPreview by saying the tests they conducted on the AF system are lab tests because you dont like their comments. You have the opinion yet you dont offer any proof and dont own both cameras either.

You have read the difference is night and day, I have read it isnt.

Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.
 
You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)

My brain likes to tell me a grey market A9 is £2469 and a UK supplied A7 III is £1999, it's trying to sway me to the A9 ;)
 
The whole A9 vs A7 III debate will always rage on, the A9 is better but for so many different reasons apart from its AF performance.... anybody who thought the A7 III had the identical AF performance like the A9 for £1999 was a little optimistic.

- EVF
- 20 fps
- Deep buffer
- 100% silent shutter (no distortion)
- Drive Mode Dial
- Blackout free EVF
- FTP / RJ45
- 6K -> 4K Recording
- CMOS RS with high response rate

You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)

Fully agree and I compare the A7III against the 5DMKIV in all honesty but would love to have a go with an A9 to actually run it up against my 1DX MKII.

Biggest problem I have is having come up through most of the 1 series bodies that are built like tanks the Sony’s won’t take the knocks off of pit walls or paddock stands and tool trucks and keep working,have even had water running out the end of the 500 f4 hood while waiting for races to re-start.

My hope was to use the A7III with adapted lenses for grid and pit mainly but the difference using the 70-200 G master is massive for grid and people shots but is lacking for the pace of bikes on track even compared to my 7D MKII with the 70-200 MKII.
Most annoying thing was the delay of the EVF switching on when lifting up to take a picture as I never remember the X-T2 having a similar lag when in boost mode.

I’m not a fanboy of any make to be honest but will use what ever makes my job easier but I still can’t find any one camera that can do this although I would say Sony are now very close.

The A9 ticks many boxes now but lacks that dynamic range given by the A7III,build of the brick like 1 series cameras and controls of the Fuji X-T2.

If I could blend them all together and have a universal lens mount across all cameras I might be happy for a while
 
Last edited:
Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.
relax bro. i dont think @twist trying to diss a9 users.

He actually admires the a9 camera but for his needs, the A7mk3 offers more for him then the A9.

It doesnt mean to him the A9 is a s*** overpriced camera, it just means for his needs, the A9 is not for him.

Anyways yea the A9 is superb. i cant compare with the mk3 though, just the Rmk3 which i have
 
Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.

Im not arguing with myself because Im replying to your responses :D. DP are very good at testing cameras and you said they were lab tests when they weren't.
 
relax bro. i dont think @twist trying to diss a9 users.

He actually admires the a9 camera but for his needs, the A7mk3 offers more for him then the A9.

It doesnt mean to him the A9 is a s*** overpriced camera, it just means for his needs, the A9 is not for him.

Anyways yea the A9 is superb. i cant compare with the mk3 though, just the Rmk3 which i have

The A9 is getting nearer the point where for me its possibly worthwhile, the price difference isnt huge so the A9 VFM is better now. But at the same time there are things like DR at base and 10FPS MS that are a7iii benefits. Its a bit tricky as both have pros and cons..... need both :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Well I have never tried an A9 but it does look incredible.

However there are actually things I think I prefer the A73 for (on paper anyway)

I might be in the minority but for some reason I do like the good old mechanical shutter and the fact it does 8fps is great With live view. Also the blackout at 8fps is minimal. Actually don’t think it’s a lot different from a DSLR.

Silent shooting is great, but I choose not too use it all the time. Not because of distortion as from what I have taken nothing is distorted (obviously this is subject dependant).

The 2nd dial looks a bit of an afterthought and half empty. Everything on that dial is easily adjusted at the touch of a button. Would have much preferred a stack design like a DSLR on just one dial.

No doubting the A9 is better and probably would have one instead but I think most users who know what they are doing would be just fine with the A73!
 
Last edited:
relax bro. i dont think @twist trying to diss a9 users.

He actually admires the a9 camera but for his needs, the A7mk3 offers more for him then the A9.

It doesnt mean to him the A9 is a s*** overpriced camera, it just means for his needs, the A9 is not for him.

Anyways yea the A9 is superb. i cant compare with the mk3 though, just the Rmk3 which i have

I'm fine, I'm not the one getting all bent out of shape.
 
You are arguing with yourself, you created a response/lie to argue with.

Still responding... no lies. I backed it up with quotes from a very well known test site which you didn't like and called them lab tests.

Shall we move on?
 
Last edited:
But then if you had used the 24 G master you would of dropped the mic and changed the game ;)

But on a more serious note what was it that made you change your pre order from the sigma to the g master, debating the sigma but no where near the budget for the g master

I admit it's not really the IQ between them because I've never tried neither before so everything I know is read online and with the Sony being so new to market (me having one of the very first one) there are no comparison from users or reviews online. The reason to get it was base on a few TINY things

1 - I believe in native being best, and for this lens (as opposed to the 105/1.4), the intention of use for this lens is candids so it needs to be fast and I believe the GM will be faster, even if by a fraction
2 - I won't ever have the upgrade urge now ever, knowing myself if I didn't get it, I will forever wanting to try it.
3 - Smaller and lighter is a bonus, I don't think weight is a big factor but I like it being shorter so fits into day bag easier.

The price is hard to swallow being doubled of that of the Sigma, it's probably not great value for money compared to that but I think its better than the Canon version and the Canon version cost the similar. This speaks more about what fantastic value the Sigma is.
 
Last edited:
I don’t agree with the AF in low light comments thought. The A73 for me seems to focus in almost pitch black conditions and continues to fire at 8fps where as my D750 just couldn’t keep up.

I’m getting used to the EVF and the small niggles I have with the camera I am working around.
 
I don’t agree with the AF in low light comments thought. The A73 for me seems to focus in almost pitch black conditions and continues to fire at 8fps where as my D750 just couldn’t keep up.

I’m getting used to the EVF and the small niggles I have with the camera I am working around.

I agree the A7III is better than the D750 in low light although it was no slouch either. The A9 is better again but not by much.
 
I agree the A7III is better than the D750 in low light although it was no slouch either. The A9 is better again but not by much.

We need less in post fighting. Can we get back to bitching the Canon R!?
 
The whole A9 vs A7 III debate will always rage on, the A9 is better but for so many different reasons apart from its AF performance.... anybody who thought the A7 III had the identical AF performance like the A9 for £1999 was a little optimistic.

- EVF
- 20 fps
- Deep buffer
- 100% silent shutter (no distortion)
- Drive Mode Dial
- Blackout free EVF
- FTP / RJ45
- 6K -> 4K Recording
- CMOS RS with high response rate

You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)

The video downsample is the exact same AND the A7III has log and picture profiles. It's a far far superior camera for videographers and the main reason I didn't get another A9
 
Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.

I've owned both and can't really distinguish any difference in AF. In fairness shooting weddings isn't gonna be the same thing as sports etc
 
Back
Top