Yep its a crazy new shooting experience - the spooky thing is there are no 'slightly soft' images in these long burst of 24 Megapixel Raw files ...the advantage of having AF tracking enabled (not possible if you want to shoot at 30fps with the A1). For sports where the action is not quite so 'explosive' I would probably shoot in 30fps and shorter 0.5 second bursts. These longer 1 second 2 second burst was just so I could make this presentation.

@@AlphaCreativeSkillsDear Mark, you have surprised me with the fact that 30fps doesn’t allow tracking on A1. Or you are saying that in Hi+ in A1 with tracking it drops from 30fps to some lower value?

It drops to a lower frame rate. You can use Wide, Zone or Spot but not AF Tracking Wide, AF Tracking Zone or AF Tracking Spot. Many reviewers of the A1 didn't know what settings they needed to access 30fps so accused Sony of exaggerating - you can put a stop-watch on the camera, when you have the right settings, and it is exactly 30fps. Many reviewers can't be trusted to pay attention at the briefings or have enough experience with Sony's camera settings. In their defence Sony does not use default settings then enable peak AF or Drive Mode performance, e.g. AF-A instead of AF-C, Balance Emphasis instead of Release etc. etc. For additional support you might be interested in my Sony Alpha support group Patreon.com/markgaler

@@AlphaCreativeSkills Many thanks Mark for the response. Note taken. I was fully aware that af-c, release mode, ss has an impact on fps. Wasn’t sure about tracking . What is perfect though is that object detection still works with hi+ / 30fps. I’m guessing that even with tracking enabled A1 is trying to achieve 30fps but because of additional computing time it will/could be always a bit less, let’s say 27fps. All above proofs even more how amazing A9 III is.

Glad you enjoyed it

I think the deadline to get these cameras into the hands of pro sports photographers was very much influenced by this year's Olympics. Just as the first A7S created a significant difference for Pro videographers, the A9III will have an equally profound impact for Pro sports photographers.

Video, eBook and Camera Setup file on Patreon.com/markgaler

I am sure at the moment they are incredibly expensive to manufacture, but given that cameras with one of these sensors don't need a mechanical shutter, there will come a point in time where the economics make this sensor the first choice for even entry-level cameras. It may take some further development by Sony to increase dynamic range before these global shutter sensors are attractive to the sort of photographers who purchase A7RV cameras.

There is zero buffer issue when shooting at 30fps. You just need to use the pre-capture and 120fps sparingly. How long do you need to hold your finger down on the shutter release to capture someone striking a ball - if you need 120fps without buffer then just shoot movies. How many pro baseball photographers will need to shoot for two seconds to capture someone throwing a ball or striking it with bat? It's more likely there will be just 20 or 30 images in each burst. Some reviewers are really just making up problems that the vast majority of Pro Sports photographers will simply not see as an issue.

Older A9/A9II models did not have CF Express Type A card capability, only UHS II SD cards. CF Express Type A cards will clear the A9III buffer much faster than a buffer could be cleared in any A9/A9III if shooting at the same 20fps, just a fact. Cheers

@@6gwilliams what i meant is that the new A9iii is taking 5-8 seconds to clear the buffer even with CFexpress type A. I consider that a lot in sports

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@FamilyofTech google Canon R3 buffer, its only performing up to the VPG400 standard of writing 400MB/s max (around 10 seconds to clear excluding shooting time), so its buffer clearing times aren't that much better even with CF express type B card. And hitting the buffer is not much an issue with models after a7iii/a7c, still have full camera functions.

@@FamilyofTech You do realise you can continue shooting while the buffer is emptying - no need to wait until it is completely empty before shooting again. This is no different to how things work today on the A9, A1 and I never had an issue with buffering stopping me shooting.

None

@@AlphaCreativeSkills that's pretty impressive!

I wont take images at an event where the event organisers want to own the copyright.

impressive for the time - now that we can remove the shutter and mirror with the use of either stacked or global shutter sensors, I think it would be great to see an APS-C camera that was built for speed.

The A9III can focus reliably in half the amount of light as the A1 and the Subject recognition can also assist in the reliability of the tracking if it still recognises the subject - so yes - better.

Thinking about this level of performance - I am not sure what sports are conducted in under such low levels of ambient light. I still think I would be better served with an A1 for wildlife rather than an A9III.

@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thanks for the answers. On court sports the lighting can be quite lower as subjects move to the far side of the court. But outside sports, the A9 series has been popular with reporters, wedding photographers and event shooters - all of which have no choice but to work under available light in many situations. The only issues I ever really had with my A1, was it's performance in low light. Good to know the A9III is more confident.

Re: Low light - shooting subjects in the shadows (open shade) is not a problem. Most of the sports I cover would be suspended or cancelled because of bad light (dark threatening storm clouds) - thereby reducing the needs for fabulous high ISO performance. I would be happy to use the A9III at ISOs higher than 12,800. I would, however, use my A1 for capturing greyhound racing at night because of its better high ISO performance and also the fact that I don't need 120fps, pre-capture and I can crop more tightly in post (because sometimes 600mm is not long enough for this sport and F4 is not a particularly wide aperture). I have covered the triathlon in low dawn light and not found the higher ISO to be an issue. This camera was not designed for wedding photographers or reporters. Its 120fps and pre-capture capabilities is designed for some, not all, sports photographers that would benefit from 120 fps. I also cover MotoGP and don't need 120fps for this sport. While panning I will have reduced my frame rate to 10 or 20fps. I suspect Baseball photographers will already have their pre-orders for this camera in.

The camera was not designed for the people who are complaining about the IQ of this camera. This is a specialist sports camera designed for pro photographers. As you can see from the image quality captured in this video the IQ is indistinguishable from other full-frame cameras. Zooming in to 100% to look at charts completely misses the point. The sad fact is that reviewers, who seldom photograph the type of subjects cameras were designed for, feel obliged to comment on images they have captured within a block of where they live.

​@@AlphaCreativeSkillsYes, exactly Mark 👍. I just marvel at this technology of sensor it has. I've been waiting since 2013 for a global shutter from any camera brands and before I moved to Sony from Pentax in 2015.

As outlined in my previous response there is no new CAMSET required.

I don't see a difference at these ISO values. At ISO much higher ISO values you will notice a difference but after using Lightroom Denoise I have found images captured at ISO 20,000 perfectly usable.

The A1 would not be able to acquire faster drive modes if the image processing unit of the A1 is not capable of handling the faster frame rates and the sensor can't offload the data faster than 30 fps. Sony could, perhaps, work on a way of increasing frame rates by reducing the amount of data (resolution) the cameras is having to move, e.g. 24 megapixel images instead of 50 megapixel images. The only reason the the A9 and A1 cameras can shoot with frame rates faster than 10fps is because they use a Stacked sensor (not found in the other Alpha cameras) and because this stacked sensor allows the use of an electronic shutter (removing the limitations of using a mechanical shutter). The reason the A9III can shoot with frame rates faster than 30fps is because of its new Global Shutter Sensor and perhaps new image processors that can move the increase in data flows.

How about just pro capture

Pre capture like on om1 and this one possible on A1 firmware ?

We will have to wait to see what the next A1 firmware update delivers.

Expensive compared to what? This is the only full frame camera with a global shutter sensor. I was surprised to see it this cheap compared to the APS-C global shutter sensor movie cameras which are double or four times the price of the A9III.

I operate an Alpha support channel where patrons can download a variety of eBooks (including one for the A9III). I also make available a camera setup file (CAMSET) for the A9III. All this costs US $10.00 if you take out a one-month subscription (you can cancel at any time during the first month). For US $20 you can subscribe to the Premium Plus tier where you can ask me for advice.

It does not focus bracket using its fast Hi+ Drive mode. it's not generally considered as a useful feature for most Pro Sports shooters.

Yes support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/support/ilc/products/ilce9m3/continuousshooting/en/index.php This sort of information is included in my A9III 500-page eBook along with a camera setup file on Patreon.com/markgaler

The dynamic range and high ISO performance is not quite as good as the A9II and A1 ...but not that you would see any difference under normal lighting conditions. I have posted full res JPEGs to my Flickr Pro account and made RAW files and SOOC JPEGs available to my Patrons on Patreon.com/markgaler

I suspect that would have required a major body overhaul rather than just 'tweaking' the A7RV/A1 body design - if that would have prevented the camera being ready for the Olympics this may have ruled out this design decision. Shooting sports with the A9III, I did not find the buffer a limitation. I suspect the vast majority of sports shooters won't either. It would prove to be a limitation if you wanted to record for longer than 2-seconds at 120fps when a decisive moment of a bat striking a ball takes less that 1/4 of one second of shooting (blasting it with 30 frames just to ensure the ball is close to the racket or bat). Many sports shooter will choose to lower the fps to 30 or 60, as many sports simply don't require 120fps because their subject is just not moving fast enough to warrant 120fps.

My guess is that I don't think any other camera manufacturer will be offering a full-frame global shutter in 2024. I think Sony's sensor design may be a year or two ahead of the other manufacturers at this point in time. It took several years before Sony even let Nikon have a stacked sensor. It may be years before they provide them with a global shutter sensor.

Compressed Raw

@@AlphaCreativeSkills thx for the reply

Small birds, such as kingfishers, taking off from branches would be a good instance of where this camera would be useful. In all other instances the A1 or the next version of the A1, with its superior resolution, would be my preferred choice. The ability to crop tightly in post with a 50 or 60 megapixel sensor is a great advantage over 24 megapixel cameras.

@@AlphaCreativeSkills makes sense , thanks Mark