Sony A9 III The A9 III has poor dynamic range and is not the right camera to shoot birds in flight

[AlphaWorld]

I was at Werribee Zoo photographing lion cubs with the wrong lens (the 300 GM is too long for lion cubs romping nearby) when I saw some wild birds soaring in the distance - snapped a shot, and they looked like raptors - I like raptors. One came closer, and I grabbed a long burst at 30fps.

This is cropped from one of the closest frames. It's not a good shot. I should have had the 2x teleconverter attached. I should have switched to spot exposure metering or turned up exposure compensation. I know (some of!) the things I had wrong, but I hadn't set out to shoot birds against an overcast sky. What I got was a black bird against a near white sky. The entire burst was in sharp focus, despite the bird being quite small in the frame almost the entire time.

Shot on the A9 III with the 300 GM wide open at f/2.8, ISO 250, 1/12800 (lot of light from that overcast sky).

So with those disclaimers, let me explain the bad things I did to the image (after capturing it badly).

I loaded it into Adobe Camera RAW, and boosted the exposure by a whole stop. I cut Whites by 10, Highlights by 40, boosted Blacks by 40, and Shadows by 70 (just eyeballing the results). To exacerbate my crimes, I then cropped it to a square roughly 1500 pixels on a side (from 6000x4000) - this is just over 2megapixels - a savage crop.

No de-noise, no output sharpening.

What you are seeing below is 100% - makes it obvious that the images from the A9 III completely fall apart when you boost the exposure like that, then crop the heck out of the image, right? And of course the A9 III is a terrible camera for birding - that's what several people on DPReview have said (strangely, none of them have used the camera...)

What do you think?

I'm pretty sure this is a black kite - they are native to the area. This image motivates me to visit some of prime birding sites in Werribee (not far from the zoo, in fact). I might even catch some GOOD shots of these birds! Might haul along the A1 + 200-600 as well as the A9 III + 300 + 2x.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Here's a shot from a later burst.

Identical exposure, but the bird had come closer, so this crop is 2000 pixels square - a full 4 megapixels from 24.

I still boosted exposure by a stop and lifted Blacks by 40, Shadows by 70. I didn't touch Highlights or Whites. No de-noise. No output sharpening.

This one I'm actually proud of (but I am determined to do better!)

I really must remember to NOT make a question thread! Apologies for that

 

[iain clyne]

I think you and the A9iii have done a good job on them.

 

[iamdlewis]

You should share the exposure data

 

[Richard A]

And of course the A9 III is a terrible camera for birding - that's what several people on DPReview have said (strangely, none of them have used the camera...)

What do you think?

View attachment 59391

I'm pretty sure this is a black kite - they are native to the area. This image motivates me to visit some of prime birding sites in Werribee (not far from the zoo, in fact). I might even catch some GOOD shots of these birds! Might haul along the A1 + 200-600 as well as the A9 III + 300 + 2x.

Probably NikCanon users! Looks very nice to me. I want to try more BIF photography. We do have some small raptors around here. And somewhere down south I believe a pair of wedge tails. Would like to get out to Monarto Zoo before it cools down too much also.

 

[AlphaWorld]

You should share the exposure data

I did: Shot on the A9 III with the 300 GM wide open at f/2.8, ISO 250, 1/12800 (lot of light from that overcast sky). Shot with matrix metering (so exposed for the overcast sky, not the bird).

 

[iamdlewis]

I did: Shot on the A9 III with the 300 GM wide open at f/2.8, ISO 250, 1/12800 (lot of light from that overcast sky). Shot with matrix metering (so exposed for the overcast sky, not the bird).

Ok but why does any of that make it a bad camera for birds in flight? I would say that the real issue is that you used a 300mm lens to shoot a bird that was at a distance that a 600mm would make far more sense. I have seen many photos of BiF with an A9iii and I haven't seen anything that would suggest it isn't good for BiF.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Ok but why does any of that make it a bad camera for birds in flight? I would say that the real issue is that you used a 300mm lens to shoot a bird that was at a distance that a 600mm would make far more sense. I have seen many photos of BiF with an A9iii and I haven't seen anything that would suggest it isn't good for BiF.

I was (sarcastically) quoting people on other camera forums who are adamant that this camera is only good for a very few purposes. They are determined to reiterate every criticism they have seen and refuse to believe any positive news (I suspect they are telling themselves that the camera is terrible so they don’t feel envy). The most annoying part is the smugness of their tone in putting the camera down. I probably overdid the sarcasm - sorry about that.

The point of my post was that images from this camera do not fall apart when underexposed and cropped heavily. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised with the results.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I probably overdid the sarcasm -

You probably should have used the sarcasm typeface!

It's a terrible camera. Awful. Bad at everything. I know that because... I'll never be able to afford one!

 

[AlphaWorld]

You probably should have used the sarcasm typeface!

It's a terrible camera. Awful. Bad at everything. I know that because... I'll never be able to afford one!

I overexposed a shot a lot in the studio yesterday while using the A9 III (yeah, I know - it's not supposed to be used in a studio - I'll do penance later). Thought I'd see if it was recoverable. Dropped the exposure by 2 stops in Adobe Camera RAW. Recovered all my highlights. So it handles overexposure as well as under.

Yeah, it's an awful camera! I'll be really upset when they put these features in an A1 and an A7R!

Did I get it right this time?