Sony A9III Release NOT Nov 8?

[Clix Pix]

Back in my Nikon days my 300mm f/2.8 was one of my favorite lenses for shooting wildlife, especially with a TC on there..... Now, shooting Sony, I have the 100-400mm and the 200-600mm and tend to use the 100-400mm the most, especially with the 1.4x TC on her. I know I would absolutely love, love, LOVE a Sony 300 f/2.8.....my bank account won't, though! Somebody's going to have to be traded in......ouch, a tough decision!!!

 

[Brownie]

The latest unconfirmed rumor!

First unconfirmed Sony A9III specs: Same A1 body, 33MP and 40fps – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

 

[spudhead]

I guess 33 megapixels would be a decent bump from 24

 

[RogerSmith]

The latest unconfirmed rumor!

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-unconfirmed-sony-a9iii-specs-same-a1-body-33mp-and-40fps/[/U

http://

I guess 33 megapixels would be a decent bump from 24

It makes sense as a bump from 24 without intruding on A1's 50mp, but will be criticized as not competitive with Sony's Z8, FPS and other features not withstanding. Assuming the 40 FPS is for full frame compressed RAW, wondering if the FPS will bump even higher with a lower res APSC mode setting (not something I want, but something I think sports photographers may like)

 

[Brownie]

33MP would probably be a deal killer for me. Since I'm only looking for moderate speed, I'd be more likely to go A1.

 

[RogerSmith]

33MP would probably be a deal killer for me. Since I'm only looking for moderate speed, I'd be more likely to go A1.

As an A1 owner, I was looking at A9III as a second body, but would have preferred the 44mp rumor. At 33mp, I'm a big maybe, especially at what will probably be $4500 or more. I would have sold my RV to fund it.

 

[Brownie]

As an A1 owner, I was looking at A9III as a second body, but would have preferred the 44mp rumor. At 33mp, I'm a big maybe, especially at what will probably be $4500 or more. I would have sold my RV to fund it.

Since speed isn't that big of a need for me for 33MP I could just get another A7 IV and save several thousand. Maybe if it gets closer to the 36-40.

 

[liggy]

33mp? No thanks.

As an A1 owner the only thing that interests me would be an A1 II with the RV subject recognition. 50mp would be fine. I suppose I'd be interested in a more robust aps-c stacked sensor body - a crop mini A1 with the AI subject recognition would be a cool 2nd body.

Otherwise I'm sticking with the A1 and A9II as my 2nd body. My guess is that the difference between 24 and 33mp would be pretty marginal in images.

Maybe 33mp without an AA filter would be an improvement but even then - not enough for me to upgrade.

IMO the A9 II is really more of a Canon R3 competitor - honestly feel that the Z8 is a level above the A9 II at double resolution and with more tele lens options. Not enough to switch systems - I'm still firmly Team Sony but anyone looking at a system that doesn't have legacy glass would have to give the Z8 a pretty good look.

Fun times in the camera business - let's see what the Canon R1 brings to the party - hope it'll be fun!

 

[AlphaWorld]

He points out these are from sources other than his usual, so it's probably someone's fantasy rumour.

The lack of mention of the "AI" AF makes me doubt there's any basis for this. The mention of 12 bit RAW vs 14 bit RAW also sounds like it's coming from someone who doesn't know the right lies to tell - a Sony user would have said lossy compressed vs lossless compressed.

I will see, but I won't be surprised if there's no MP bump at all. I do expect the new AF, higher frame rates, and probably the A7RV rear screen.

The comments on the rumour site are weird.

 

[spudhead]

Can someone explain why a camera needs subject recognition, if you use a camera surely you have an interest in one or my be 2 subjects possibly 3, so can you not see your point of interest yourself in the evf ? at what point do we question what part we play in the results we see in our shots. if you dont know what a bird or car or plane or person looks like maybe an eye test is in order?

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Can someone explain why a camera needs subject recognition, if you use a camera surely you have an interest in one or my be 2 subjects possibly 3, so can you not see your point of interest yourself in the evf ? at what point do we question what part we play in the results we see in our shots. if you dont know what a bird or car or plane or person looks like maybe an eye test is in order?

Never. We never had it before, we don't need it now, and, in fact, case in point yesterday. There was a guy shooting next to me, using bird recognition on his Canon (boo hiss), and he kept losing the subject matter as he was panning because it couldn't keep up. The lady next to him also said that her OM1 tracking kept dropping the subject (something I have read it does with certain backgrounds). I shot single centre, no tracking, and really only missed about 10% of my shots. It's very simply a case of keeping it on the subject. The biggest advantage of these cameras is the actual speed of the AF in grabbing the subject, and keeping locked on to it, but it doesn't need to be a bird/car/plane/errant child system.

As for the 33mp thing, that's not enough for most, but I can see why they wouldn't go higher, it would just be an A1 really. I'm curious to see what actually comes from it all, but not especially fussed about buying one. I'm still actually thinking I might not buy another cam now, recent results on the RIV have been more than acceptable.

 

[Brownie]

He points out these are from sources other than his usual, so it's probably someone's fantasy rumour.

The lack of mention of the "AI" AF makes me doubt there's any basis for this. The mention of 12 bit RAW vs 14 bit RAW also sounds like it's coming from someone who doesn't know the right lies to tell - a Sony user would have said lossy compressed vs lossless compressed.

I will see, but I won't be surprised if there's no MP bump at all. I do expect the new AF, higher frame rates, and probably the A7RV rear screen.

The comments on the rumour site are weird.

The 'lack' of mention of anything is pretty normal The camera is also supposed to be a low light monster, but it doesn't say that either. He only posted the information his source provided and that he's allowed to share.

 

[Brownie]

Can someone explain why a camera needs subject recognition, if you use a camera surely you have an interest in one or my be 2 subjects possibly 3, so can you not see your point of interest yourself in the evf ? at what point do we question what part we play in the results we see in our shots. if you dont know what a bird or car or plane or person looks like maybe an eye test is in order?

Never. We never had it before, we don't need it now, and, in fact, case in point yesterday. There was a guy shooting next to me, using bird recognition on his Canon (boo hiss), and he kept losing the subject matter as he was panning because it couldn't keep up. The lady next to him also said that her OM1 tracking kept dropping the subject (something I have read it does with certain backgrounds). I shot single centre, no tracking, and really only missed about 10% of my shots. It's very simply a case of keeping it on the subject. The biggest advantage of these cameras is the actual speed of the AF in grabbing the subject, and keeping locked on to it, but it doesn't need to be a bird/car/plane/errant child system.

As for the 33mp thing, that's not enough for most, but I can see why they wouldn't go higher, it would just be an A1 really. I'm curious to see what actually comes from it all, but not especially fussed about buying one. I'm still actually thinking I might not buy another cam now, recent results on the RIV have been more than acceptable.

When I think of a need for subject recognition I don't think of a subject out in the open where there's no doubt about. And while I agree there's limited use, I can give you two examples.

Once when shooting an air show with a camera that had almost no subject recognition, every time an airplane flew by the announcer's tower, which was just high enough to obscure very low airplanes coming from my left for a brief second, the camera would drop the airplane as the subject and pick up a person standing on the tower. If the airplane was a jet, there was no chance to reacquire focus as it shot by in front of me. It did this even with person recognition off/tracking on.

At the track, the same thing can happen when shooting the far side and the car passes the christmas tree. I've sorted out a workaround there, I simply don't focus until the car clears the tree. That works, but it also means a lot of missed opportunities as the car launches.

In both cases, airplane/car recognition would improve the number of keepers, but certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker.

Someone who doesn't experience these circumstances wouldn't be thinking in those terms. Personally, I doubt the need for something like train recognition even in the case of interference or obstruction, I mean...come on, right? But then someone who shoots trains a lot could probably give me an example that hasn't occurred to me.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I'd be pretty confident in tracking anything other than the bullet train at full chat...

 

[spudhead]

I'd be pretty confident in tracking anything other than the bullet train at full chat...

Yep I think the old a9 does a good job and I dont use tracking that much anyway

 

[spudhead]

When I think of a need for subject recognition I don't think of a subject out in the open where there's no doubt about. And while I agree there's limited use, I can give you two examples.

Once when shooting an air show with a camera that had almost no subject recognition, every time an airplane flew by the announcer's tower, which was just high enough to obscure very low airplanes coming from my left for a brief second, the camera would drop the airplane as the subject and pick up a person standing on the tower. If the airplane was a jet, there was no chance to reacquire focus as it shot by in front of me. It did this even with person recognition off/tracking on.

At the track, the same thing can happen when shooting the far side and the car passes the christmas tree. I've sorted out a workaround there, I simply don't focus until the car clears the tree. That works, but it also means a lot of missed opportunities as the car launches.

In both cases, airplane/car recognition would improve the number of keepers, but certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker.

Someone who doesn't experience these circumstances wouldn't be thinking in those terms. Personally, I doubt the need for something like train recognition even in the case of interference or obstruction, I mean...come on, right? But then someone who shoots trains a lot could probably give me an example that hasn't occurred to me.

I sort of dont know how to say this Tim but you probably just need a better sensor not subject recognition, until you have tried the stacked sensors you dont understand what a difference it makes even the a well dated version I use, or you could just cut the Christmas tree down oh please dont shout at me

 

[Brownie]

I sort of dont know how to say this Tim but you probably just need a better sensor not subject recognition, until you have tried the stacked sensors you dont understand what a difference it makes even the a well dated version I use, or you could just cut the Christmas tree down oh please dont shout at me

Maybe I can get them to change the Christmas tree to a Chanukah bush...

 

[Brownie]

These things are aimed for the casual photographer who thinks that expensive gear will grant them amazing pictures but then they are too lazy to learn about composition, exposure and such. They read all this AI subject recognition and understand this is the best camera in the world.

Sony or any company could do without it but at the price of losing that casual sales that I guess they probably are the main market.

Do you really believe the pros shooting the Olympics, World Cup, Indy 500, Superbowl, etc. aren't using subject tracking?

 

[iain clyne]

I have to say that I very rarely use tracking for sport but then I'm an old fossil and have been doing sport sense everything was manual and old habits die hard. I still trust myself more than the camera and that now may be the wrong way round.

 

[iamdlewis]

Never. We never had it before, we don't need it now, and, in fact, case in point yesterday. There was a guy shooting next to me, using bird recognition on his Canon (boo hiss), and he kept losing the subject matter as he was panning because it couldn't keep up. The lady next to him also said that her OM1 tracking kept dropping the subject (something I have read it does with certain backgrounds). I shot single centre, no tracking, and really only missed about 10% of my shots. It's very simply a case of keeping it on the subject. The biggest advantage of these cameras is the actual speed of the AF in grabbing the subject, and keeping locked on to it, but it doesn't need to be a bird/car/plane/errant child system.

The "well back in my day" argument against technology is tired. You can use this argument to say we don't need digital cameras or hell even cameras because people could just draw the stuff.

Subject recognition helps with AF even when you are using center focus, you can see this when the AF grabs the eye of a person/bird within the center focus. Subject recognition is a great tool when you learn how well it works with the camera that you have. For example the Face Recognition (which is a form of subject recognition) is great for wedding photographers as they can lock-in the bride's face and she will then be the primary focus for stills or videos. With birds I will use it to simplify compositions in that I can just move the camera and not need to move a small focus point. For BiF the recognition helps me hit about 95% in focus rate, which honestly creates the problem of sorting through all the good images.

If your goal in photography is to capture images that you like then subject recognition can be a valuable tool. If your goal is to enjoy the capturing of images than subject recognition is probably something you find silly but then again an internal light meter probably also viewed as unnecessary.

 

[iamdlewis]

I have to say that I very rarely use tracking for sport but then I'm an old fossil and have been doing sport sense everything was manual and old habits die hard. I still trust myself more than the camera and that now may be the wrong way round.

It may be. The recognition stuff is a tool and it will only work amazingly once you understand it and then understand how it can be used in what you do. Where I believe it is most effective is letting you compose an image in the shortest amount of time. Depending on the sport face recognition may not always be what you want for all situations but there are a lot in which I think it would be awesome.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

The "well back in my day" argument against technology is tired. You can use this argument to say we don't need digital cameras or hell even cameras because people could just draw the stuff.

Subject recognition helps with AF even when you are using center focus, you can see this when the AF grabs the eye of a person/bird within the center focus. Subject recognition is a great tool when you learn how well it works with the camera that you have. For example the Face Recognition (which is a form of subject recognition) is great for wedding photographers as they can lock-in the bride's face and she will then be the primary focus for stills or videos. With birds I will use it to simplify compositions in that I can just move the camera and not need to move a small focus point. For BiF the recognition helps me hit about 95% in focus rate, which honestly creates the problem of sorting through all the good images.

If your goal in photography is to capture images that you like then subject recognition can be a valuable tool. If your goal is to enjoy the capturing of images than subject recognition is probably something you find silly but then again an internal light meter probably also viewed as unnecessary.

I'm not arguing. We don't need it to get great shots, if you are relying on the technology that much there is something wrong. As I did, the new AF systems are fast and stay on the subject, that's great, it's the subject specific stuff that is utterly meaningless. I'll bet the algorithm is the same for every one, they just call it something else.

 

[spudhead]

The "well back in my day" argument against technology is tired. You can use this argument to say we don't need digital cameras or hell even cameras because people could just draw the stuff.

Subject recognition helps with AF even when you are using center focus, you can see this when the AF grabs the eye of a person/bird within the center focus. Subject recognition is a great tool when you learn how well it works with the camera that you have. For example the Face Recognition (which is a form of subject recognition) is great for wedding photographers as they can lock-in the bride's face and she will then be the primary focus for stills or videos. With birds I will use it to simplify compositions in that I can just move the camera and not need to move a small focus point. For BiF the recognition helps me hit about 95% in focus rate, which honestly creates the problem of sorting through all the good images.

If your goal in photography is to capture images that you like then subject recognition can be a valuable tool. If your goal is to enjoy the capturing of images than subject recognition is probably something you find silly but then again an internal light meter probably also viewed as unnecessary.

I guess they add this tech because some need more help than others, I guess use it if you feel you need more help, oh and I am one of those back in my day guys, its a shame belief in tech does not for most add to their image quality

 

[iamdlewis]

I guess they add this tech because some need more help than others, I guess use it if you feel you need more help

They add it because they can, and they want to continue to move forward because if they don't someone else will. There are many people that do rely heavily on these features and I go out with many from time to time. These people tend to get great images by accident but that doesn't matter because for all of them they enjoy going out to photograph far more because of these features than they did before them and that is the most important thing the feature does.

Subject recognition is a tool, like the histogram or light meter or stabilization and like each of those you can use them without thought or you can learn how to get the most out of them.

 

[spudhead]

They add it because they can, and they want to continue to move forward because if they don't someone else will. There are many people that do rely heavily on these features and I go out with many from time to time. These people tend to get great images by accident but that doesn't matter because for all of them they enjoy going out to photograph far more because of these features than they did before them and that is the most important thing the feature does.

Subject recognition is a tool, like the histogram or light meter or stabilization and like each of those you can use them without thought or you can learn how to get the most out of them.

interesting you did not include the full response I posted originally

 

[iamdlewis]

interesting you did not include the full response I posted originally

I left it out because it all pointed to "belief in tech" which is meaningless since you don't need to believe in it, it is actually there regardless of your thought of it, you just need to know how to use it. Not using technology doesn't make one better than people that use it, it just means that you either have no idea that it is there, interesting in learning it, failed at it once and consider it unnecessary or have some superiority complex.

I guess use it if you feel you need more help

Using technology like this doesn't mean people need more help. Saying such a thing is like saying using a microwave to heat soup vs heating it in a pot over a fire means people need help in cooking.

 

[spudhead]

I left it out because it all pointed to "belief in tech" which is meaningless since you don't need to believe in it, it is actually there regardless of your thought of it, you just need to know how to use it. Not using technology doesn't make one better than people that use it, it just means that you either have no idea that it is there, interesting in learning it, failed at it once and consider it unnecessary or have some superiority complex.


Using technology like this doesn't mean people need more help. Saying such a thing is like saying using a microwave to heat soup vs heating it in a pot over a fire means people need help in cooking.

not quite the same but at least, include the full response so it reflect my comments in context!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Can someone explain why a camera needs subject recognition, if you use a camera surely you have an interest in one or my be 2 subjects possibly 3, so can you not see your point of interest yourself in the evf ? at what point do we question what part we play in the results we see in our shots. if you dont know what a bird or car or plane or person looks like maybe an eye test is in order?

Subject recognition lets the camera discriminate between branches and leaves in front of my subject, and the subject itself - old fashioned AF focused on the nearest thing, and that was often the branches and leaves in front. It also help the tracking stay on the subject, because it knows when something is in front of the subject that isn't what you are interested in.

Without it, I have found myself resorting to manual focus (love Full-time DMF in the A7RV), which isn't too bad at focusing on a sleeping animal, but I cannot manually focus on a skittish animal long enough to lock focus on it, and worse, I lose tracking the moment something comes between me and the subject.

You are probably better at this than I am (I only get to use my cameras on weekends, and my eyesight and reflexes have never been great).

Subject recognition is helping me get better photos than I could before. YMMV

 

[spudhead]

Subject recognition lets the camera discriminate between branches and leaves in front of my subject, and the subject itself - old fashioned AF focused on the nearest thing, and that was often the branches and leaves in front. It also help the tracking stay on the subject, because it knows when something is in front of the subject that isn't what you are interested in.

Without it, I have found myself resorting to manual focus (love Full-time DMF in the A7RV), which isn't too bad at focusing on a sleeping animal, but I cannot manually focus on a skittish animal long enough to lock focus on it, and worse, I lose tracking the moment something comes between me and the subject.

You are probably better at this than I am (I only get to use my cameras on weekends, and my eyesight and reflexes have never been great).

Subject recognition is helping me get better photos than I could before. YMMV

I only get my camera out at weekends as well

 

[Brownie]

There's no right or wrong.

On post:

• "I get it right in-camera"
• I process every one of my photos"

Both can turn out excellent results, it's up to the photographer.

On birds and wildlife:

• "I study the subject, plan a silent approach, move slowly in a wide berth, become part of the environment, don't make eye contact, never chase and am very patient. I get very close."
• "I use a 50MP camera, a 600mm lens, and crop the hell out of my photos."

Both can turn out excellent results, it's up to the photographer.

On AF:

• "I never use AF, I use DOF and the skills I've developed over years of practice."
• "I use AF, my camera's AF is top notch, it rarely fails."

Both can turn out excellent results, it's up to the photographer.

On Tracking:

• "I don't use it, I just follow the subject myself."
• "I use it all the time, it's great how the camera can track the subject even when I'm off a bit."

Both can turn out excellent results, it's up to the photographer.

On Subject Recognition:

"I don't need it, I can recognize the subject on my own."
"I love it, it helps when my subject is partially obscured."

Both can turn out excellent results, it's up to the photographer.

I could go on and on. Video, built-in light meters, battery grips, etc. etc. ad-nauseum.

Here's a question: How many people here use every feature in their camera? I would be willing to bet there isn't a single person on the planet who does, not even Mark Galer! So, if there are features you aren't using, does that make you a neanderthal? More experienced than the guy who uses that feature you eschew?

Everyone should shoot in a manner in which they're comfortable.