Yeah, the higher base ISO brings the max dynamic range of the a9 III down somewhat. Let's be honest though, ISO 250 is so low that the noise is not a concern even when raising shadows a lot. Yes it's worse than ISO 100, but still. I'd say the advantages of the a9 III are so massive that it's worth taking the small hit at ISO 100-200.
why are you apologizing a hundred times. are you scared of sony fanboys channels or sony?. if it was a canon video you wouldnt apologize as much. you stated the truth, thats what matters.
Several years on, I'm amazed by how well the R3 stands up against the latest top end gear. There may be something to the rumour that the R3 was initially planed to be Canon's flagship and that it's name was changed from R1 fairly late in development. Supposedly due to the competition's latest releases leap frogging it in terms of specs and performance. The A9iii is a fantastic piece of kit, but I don't think it offers enough to jump ship if you are already invested in a competitor's system.
@@1armbiker Isn't that what the R3 is? But, at the same time why are they considered sports? Fast autofocus? I shoot weddings I want that. Superb at high ISO's? I shoot weddings I want that. Built like a tank and best weather sealing? I shoot weddings I want that too lol. I don't believe in flagships I believe in really good cameras or cameras that just aren't for me.
a1 or Z9 would be better. Have the pixels to crop and reframe. Z9 also seamlessly switches between subject tracking, so you don’t have to select exactly what you’re photographing before you can get eye detection.
@@1armbiker i have the canon r6ii that auto switches between subject, but i still pick the specific subject so the camera doesnt have to second guess. i notice its slightly faster. you know what youre photographing before you begin, are you doing humans or animals? thats quiet obvious.
Thanks for the tests. Sport and event photographers don't have time to run noise reduction software, especially shooting for newswires. Many times they are working with jpgs. They have to deal with captions and IPTC data in Photomechanic, news shots are time sensitive, the workflow has to be fast. You have more time for magazines and promos, this is were we have time to use raw. They are also sensitive to image quality, so it does matter with noise and dynamic range in sports. This is why camera companies constantly try to improve iso noise out of the camera.
I'm an event photographer and I would say, the image quality would be enough. For me it tops out at roughly 6400 when it's been used in jpg. But here is the point, those event photographers who shoot for newswires etc. use flashes most of the time, as they have no time to correct the images. So they stay in an ISO area where it doesn't matter at all. Guys like me who do big corporate events etc. where we have someone sitting in a separate room, to get the images ready, or doing it afterwards, we can use highest ISOs as we can let it run thru Adobes AI denoise. And if you have a new and fast graphics card in your computer, this images are done in some minutes. It's all just about your hardware. In the past I always tried to stay at max 6400, but now you can run something like the A1 at ISO25.600 and you get nice results. It's a paradigms change. The A9III might not be as capable over 6400, but to get images that are not fcked up by the horrible led lights they use nowadays, this decline in image quality would be worth it.
@@Benjamin_Jehne Depends on what event your shooting. Some events and newswires are sports, others are theater, concerts or dance. Some events you can't use flash. Other events require thousands of images to be shot by a single person. I have been doing events since the 1980s. I have shot with projectors, projecting through dancers, project images and logos onto a backdrop. I always found a shutter speed that works. Many times my workflow would not allow time to photograph in raw. I rather have more dynamic range not less and have a camera that can shoot landscapes as well as sports in dark buildings.
What about the colour shift? One RUclipsr compared the R3 and the R5. he found that the R5 has much more colour shift to magenta of green than the R3 when using very high ISO or lifting up the shadows a lot. Colour shifts in brightened shadows are much harder to correct. I wonder how the A9 III performs in that regard.
Actually this performs really well to be a first gen thing, I guess that for now it only sells as a compromise for specialized fields, but, as they fine-tune it, it will become the new standard for building even hi res sensors without image quality loss (for example, if they find a way to put the "mini buffer" for each pixel behind the photosite, you should get full iso 100 exposure like a normal full-frame)
Great model for a review! I love the interjection of the objective vs subjective discussion. I know a lot of reviewers in different fields are struggling with the old model of reviewing in a world full of AI and software features etc making it harder to just review something on objective metrics alone. I really love this video as a template for how to get into the nerdy stuff while still making that perspective on subjectivity clear!
Just went to Kenya and Rwanda, 2 - R3 bodies and was so impressed with the low light performance. 24 mp has not been an issue for me, all of my prints have been amazing. I have never tried any Sony products.
Great informative video. I suppose the A9III is about 'getting the fast action shot' rather than having the ultimate image quality however that being said, I was expecting slightly better imaging quality. It will be interesting to see how many sports photographers chooses the A9III over the A1.
My guess? Very few. I don't think the benefits of a global shutter is that much worth it beyond that you won't get weird lines in the background on billboards. The stacked sensor cameras are fast enough.
The difference would pretty much be unnoticeable to the end user, unless your workflow rely on heavy cropping, then the a1 would be leaps better, but it's missing a lot of features as well.
Yes, this was an excellent video. Where is your competition? Where are their videos? The A9III is shipping in Europe NOW. I've pre-ordered the A9III because I really, really need 120fps....NOT. I want pre-shot buffering. I want AI subject recognition along with super fast focusing. I want flash sync at 1/8,000. I would like a review of which hot-shoe flash system gives me the most shooting range at 1/8,000. So, 1/8000 = 125 microseconds. Which flash fits more light in that timespan? At what level of power does t0.5 = 1/8,000? Is the flash brief and bright in general or long and not so bright?
Check out the Flashpoint/Godox Rapid monolights. I haven't done a broad comparison of fast strobes but those are the fastest we've used other than the $30k Profoto.
@@TonyAndChelsea Okay. A month ago, I picked up this: Flashpoint Zoom Li-on III R2 TTL Speedlight Flash for Sony Cameras as they were on sale at Adorama. Hope it comes close to the monolights.
Sony no offend wanted but the colors are totally over saturated looks like Tony using lipstick and the Face is over exposed couse the light is way to close. Have seen way better composed Videos from Tony, this here is definitive not one of his good examples.
@@Blafasel_BlafaselLMAO you're hilarious. Tony is using creative lighting, very popular today, instead of boring old neutral lighting. It's actually more interesting to view and gives the whole video a different vibe.
@@cooloox Never said the lighting is not creative, I said it is bad becouse over saturated und overexposed. There are ways to be creative and good and there are ways were creativity is used as an excuse for people who cant better.
Thank you for doing all this great testing and analysis. ISO sensitivity in a modern digital sensor is more or less meaningless; thank you for discussing that. As far as I understand it, the real dynamic range of a sensor would be the ratio between the maximum light to which the sensor responds linearly and the minimum light that isn't irretrievably corrupted with quantum noise. So, more loosely, the ratio between the bucket capacity and the number of electrons created by noise. For sports and nature photography, I think that most photographers use some kind of "expose to the right" technique in most cases. Generally, photographers are trying to avoid having too many blown-out image pixels, so they use various ways to avoid saturation. I often look at the histogram in the EVF, but there are many other ways to accomplish this. I really like what you said about ND filters and how hard it is often to use them in modern cameras. How about a camera with an "auto-NDF" capability, which would allow a true shutter-priority mode? If the sports action resulted in a few frames that would be blown out, the camera could introduce a degree of filtering to prevent that.
Thanks for your test. But I think the direct APS-C competitor should be the a6700. Similar new sensor and same sensor resolution. Above all, same manufacturer.
I'm bummed by the extra noise, but i do love the adobe ai noise reduction. I'm a wedding shooter and i have it pre ordered. I encounter string lights at weddings all the time, and they always flicker. GS will solve it, and that's worth a bit extra noise i think. I really don't care about the base iso on this camera, i almost never shoot 100 anyway, and when i do, its a flash portrait with my a7rv.
3 месяца назад
At F/3.5 and looking at the edges of the frame, you are pretty much comparing the two 24-70 lenses more than the cameras in terms of details. It's full frame, put 5.6 or even F8 there, diffraction does not start to affect the quality below F8.
Diffraction impacts image quality at every f/stop. If you have an optically perfect lens, it's sharpest wide open, and it gets gradually less sharp as you shut it down due to diffraction.
What's crazy to me is that my 7 year old DJI Phantom 4 Pro has a Global Shutter and can shoot 4K 60p w/ it's 20mp sensor. I use this still for my commercial mapping jobs. It uses a 1" sensor. Why has it taken all the camera companies so long to make this a feature in our professional cameras. I use a A7III, A7SIII, and my daily workhorse is the A7RIV. Anyone know why this has taken so long?
I'm living off concert photography, and for my clients the noise would be a much bigger issue than banding. I use z9 so relatively often i have banding in my photos, and I actually get compliments on how it looks. People even ask me what effect did i use to get those nice lines haha and i just say it's not me it's how my camera sees some lights
Did you factor in the baked-in noise reduction in Raw of EOS R3? It misled a lot of reviews. In contrast Sony has no noise-reduction or sharpening in Raw afaik.
Real world between the A7IV and the A7RV for low light sports (indoor water polo with non-ideal lighting), I found the A7IV to be surprisingly far superior. The nearly 50% larger pixels just came out significantly cleaner than the RV, which resulted in noticeably better final results after post-processing. Your explanation of the base ISO differences is interesting... I'd love the A9III, except I suspect it will have the same issue at roughly the same level. The math says the difference should be almost identical in light gathering between the A7IV and both the A7RV and A9III. I hesitate to put my favorite camera store through another return by trying it.
Thanks, this helps. I'm doing a bit of post cognitive dissonance in watching this! I just ordered an a9iii and I'm excited to see how it performs in real world shooting situations. But also slightly fearful that with ISO 250 I may be making image quality sacrifices (not to mention cost sacrifices) in going for an a9iii? I really hope the a9iii image quality proves OK in practice. I could buy/add an a7Rv later, if a9iii proved limited in stills genres (eg landscape/portraits) when I'd welcome more pixels (eg landscapes). But I'm also keen to eventually see an a1 mkii. That might be my next purchase if it melds an a7Rv with an a9iii? I'm a generalist shooter currently rocking an a7iv to which I later added an FX3. As a long term stills shooter, who doesn't want to be typecast in any one genre, I decided to explore and develop an interest in videography. This was after I got an a7iv, hence plumping for a dedicated videography FX3 body as a second camera to use alongside my a7iv. I feel an a9iii (3rd body) can truly add something special to not only stills but also moving images. Time will tell, because I originally intended buying an a1. That intent/plan for an a1 was 2+ years ago, after selling an a7Riv and an a9. But it never happened. On something of a whim (a bit like my recent a9iii decision), nearly 3 years ago, I back ordered an a7iv on launch because it looked great on paper and was less than half the price of an a1. I thought 33Mp possibly the 'sweet spot' for resolution and liked the many innovative concepts, new to that body, like focus breathing. Yet rolling shutter proved poor (fast pan shots for nature and also video). 6 fps was also a tad limited in fast action sport too. But these were minor concerns. Most things about an a7iv were great which is why I still have/use it today, some 30 months later. I still considered buying an a1, but lack of a 'flippy' screen, no firmware upgrade for focus breathing plus high cost etc held me back. The improved a7Rv was also tempting (high res, improved AF, Flippy screen etc). But, having previously had an a7Riii (my entry to Sony full frame) then an a7Riv (poor AF IMO) and an a9 (wonderful AF with great speed for sports shots) I realised I wanted more than just high MP. The a9iii thus proved tempting for many different reasons. I guess IQ for some genres will be limited, but until I try I won't know. I suspect that in practice it will be good enough in most situations and better than anything else for sports. The improved ergonomics also played a key part in my decision to order too and a reason I didn't buy an a1. But, perhaps it's because I really miss the a9 - a body I most often reached for rather than my a7Riv (poor AF IMO with overly large file sizes that often proved overkill). In practice I found 24Mp just about enough whilst 61Mp was too much for 95% of shots taken.
Whether it's subjective or objective, at $1,500 increase in price. I expect no trade-off. If they increase is like $500, then it's fine. I'm okay with the trade off and wouldn't mind paying a premium for the global shutter. But I'm not a sports photographer and will probably use it for video.
I need a Sony sports camera with 24 Mp and the new AI autofocus features, but without the global shutter and the huge 7000 Eur price tag: - 24 Megapixels normal sensor - Up do date AI autofocus - 14 to 20 fps continuous shooting, fast buffer - 2 card slots, same articulating screen as the A7RV - Price tag in the 4K Euros range Will I ever get that camera? Any time soon?
Funny how people make excuses for Sony and would choose a sub par photo against the Canon. It's always, but you can do this in post... you can correct color in post... But but but. Odd.
You are telling the truth, seems one can't do no wrong and the other can't get anything right. Even if test shows differently there's always a but. Oh well...
I do not remember when I was shooting sport with ISO 100 with my A9 :-P Example from this week: tennis indoor: ISO between 10.000 and 16.000 What was important for me is that in such challenging lighting condition camera still have great AF and good colour. Of course there is a lot of noise that impacts quality/details but well - if there is no light you can do nothing.
My problem with Sony is that currently you have to pay $6000 for a full frame camera that shoot more than 10fps. I would be happy as an amateur to pay $4000 for modern wildlife camera that shoots 15-20 fps.with either a 24 or 30 megapixel censor. Not intrested in old tech of a9ii
Tony - to debunk your comments around 4:00 - simply apply 1 stop less to the Sony to make up for it and compare. I think you'll find the R3 still smacks the A9III in DR. I'm editing this as I watch your video Tony. Regards to noise - I can see clear differences at ISO 1600 and 6400 with the R3 being much cleaner and my eyes aren't great like they used to be when I was younger. At 25600, the comparison is damning - that's at least 1.5 stops difference in noise performance. Sure, you can use NR AI, but even so, the R3 will always look better. Your argument that sports shooters don't care is moot - the R3 was designed primarily for sports...they both compete. The R3 looks sharper, has better DR, and better high ISO performance. Sony's global shutter may be a technological masterpiece in digital imaging, but it has some major drawbacks that imho, means it cannot compete on even ground with a low sensor readout speed of a BSI stacked sensor, at least in terms of IQ. Do i want 120fps? HELL NO. NO thank you. That's a fucking p.i.t.a to sort/cull/rate in PP. Hard pass. Sports shooters probably don't bother with that too much though, so it's less of an issue to them. The R3 can do 195fps, albeit with some caveats (locked exposure/AF and a limit to 50 frames), but in RAW format ( think it was 12 bit raw and not 14 bit raw from memory). I am unsure as to how you can come to the conclusion that the A9II is a better sports camera. Poorer detail and resolution, poor high ISO performance and poorer DR. The Sony camera's advantages are clear - advertising at games will not have any of the weirdness that traditional sensor designs give due to flicker issues. And a much faster flash sync speed (in most cases, not an issue with sports photography). I don't shoot video, so I can't comment on that aspect of either camera's performance.
Thanks. it's It's about $10k for the canon kit. the 300 2.8 is ~$5k w the full 1 year warranty from Canon. I still prefer an R5 over the R3 or a9iii for even less @@paulofthepeak
On your Fuji XH2 vs A9iii comparison, The XH2 show more noise than the XT4 or the XH2s, but see your point, It is suppose the be better than the XH2 but dam close to the XH2s and even the XT4, would like to see how it shows against the Canon R7..
Thanks for another intelligent analysis and review. It's a shame that you felt the need to continually apologize (both explicitly and implied) for the results of your tests. I can't suggest that you ignore the comments, because they're not directed at me, so it's not my place.
Yeah that's all NR, tho as an om1 owner I'd say the a9iii is wayyyyy beyond the om1. When you shoot the om1 without NR turned on, it is a mess at iso 1600+. A9iii can get to at least 3200 before I'd say you get a bit noisy, and 6400 is still much better than on the om1
Thanks Tony for answering our questions from the last video! Great work! I wonder if anyone has measured the sensor lag. Is it genuinely a global shutter or really fast rolling shutter. I mean we are taking Sony's word for it. Still not sure why Sony called this a9iii and not made a separate line. I still think there is a place for an R3 competitor based on a9ii stacked sensor plus latest AI AF so I think Sony missed a trick here by ending the stacked a9 line and moving it to niche global shutter area at much higher price
I tested it with the rapidly flickering light I use for rolling shutter tests and there was never any indication of a band, so I think it's truly a global shutter.
Well I guess it's a tradeoff, not a camera for those who seek the least noise at low ISO or at high ISO, but it's the only one that can produce artifact free images in certain conditions (like strobiing LEDs or other kinds of artificial lighs) which can be much more distracting and impossible to correct in post compared to normal noise. For sure it's the future!
Great comparison, Tony. I would love for you to test the flash synch abilities with Godox lights and triggers. Since Godox is what most of us are using these days, I'm sure a lot of photographers would find benefit to a test like that. Peace, brother! 🍻
@@chriscoveries no, I actually meant HDR youtube videos! The first thing I do when i see a video on this channel is make sure HDR is enabled on my display, hah. I love the HDR videos, they're so rare. I would love Tony's opinions and tips/tricks on the lightroom HDR features though, especially how to share the resulting images in a way that's compatible with social media. the only way to upload an HDR photo to facebook was by using a 16bit PNG
@@chriscoveries No, we meant that the video posted is not HDR, like many other videos on this channel. The difference is night and day if you watch the video on newer iPhones, iPads or MacBooks
I started buying Canon D-SLR's starting with the EOS D60 back when film purists were not even grumbling about digital cameras yet. To say that I was tired of buying Velvia and messing around with slide scanners is an understatement. What a time sink. To my eye as primarily a landscape and portrait shooter I have never found anyone's sensor tech to equal Canon's CMOS magic. At any point in the evolution. I haven't bought a new body since the 5D MkII but I'm looking forward to one of these R bodies. That said, no offense intended to Nikon and Sony's tech! I have really enjoyed the horse race between these big 3 and especially Sony. I have a soft spot for Sony gear starting with a portable cassette player from the 70s and enjoyed quite a few early Sony digicams too. They've done some amazing stuff with their mirrorless tech and grabbing market share. Thanks for another great glimpse deep into the pixels Tony.
Is it just me or is that Zf as a prop so worth it. You can buy 3 Zf for 1 A9mk3. Assuming you have lenses already, you can teach friends and go on a photowalk together.
DR and Noise on the Sony A9iii is actually poor in todays world of sensor technology. The A9iii for wildlife is not a good pick as we often extract details from shadows.
I resent that Sony effectively terminated the α9 series, whose signature was photocentric action cameras at low cost. Sony could have let this new camera, with global shutter, debut a new series, α3, and meanwhile released a conventional refresh of the α9 series.
I don't think I have ever zoomed in to 500% and I know my clients never have. This test would be more interesting and relevant if you showed us at 100%.
I would be happy if they just updated the A9 Mark 2 with a better view finder and back screen, (maybe with the one from A7rV) I would be very happy with that!!! MArk 2 is such a great camera, just the screen and viewfinder is a little dated now! i was considering the A9 M3, but sadly thats not gonna happen!
Sony needs to fix their lineup user friendliness not ramp up the technology necessarily. The body structure is off for me - larger body, larger rear screen, better touch operation, a top info screen, good fast lenses around 300-500 for more reasonable price. I can go on and on. A clear indication of a company lead by tech guys rather than customer oriented leadership 😢
Thank you for the video 😀. AWhy shouldn't it get the sensor from the R1? With this sensor it will be much better than the R6 MKII, and in some cases also better than the R3. The AF just has to be a little bit better than the one from the Z6iii and it will be a winner (better AF and better sensor). If I watch comparison videos between the R6 MKII and the Z6iii then every time , the Z6iii wins. The sooner the R6 MKIII will come, the better it will be for canon. It makes no sense to wait until Sony comes with a Z6iv. It will be a smart and good move from canon.
@@TonyAndChelsea It's with the R3? I found a custom color profile that's great for video, it's like S-Cinetone for Canon, check out Vision Color. I don't really need to shoot Log or Raw.
Sony builds something out of everyone’s reach!! Canon fanboys come up with a comparison of Sony on Sunday vs canon on Sunday!😂😂😂 Harsh truth!! The sooner you shift to sony, lesser u will regret in years to come!! Soon sony will come up technologies way above every other brand!! By then u would have already invested so much on your canon! 😂😂
@@TonyAndChelsea sure but LR does not process Fuji RAWs particularly well - I looked at 18,000 of them last year and the sharpening is often weird/worse than C1 and on top of that, no noise reduction at all by default. On the other hand, sometimes "enhance details" with minimal noise reduction (10% ish), produces clearly superior to C1 at a cost of hard drive space. There is a lot of software between our cameras and these sort of pixel peeping exercises. That said, if you are going to compare sensors of different sizes, it would be more interesting to choose sensors of equal density (i.e. 26mp Fuji or Sony vs. 61mp A7R5). I find it interesting that, with approximately equal photosite sizes, the Sony is still rated to have better dynamic range and ISO performance. I assume that has to be because larger lenses and sensors really do collect more total light, even if the light per unit area is the same.
I love science class with Tony! Seriously though, I am sure these style of videos probably don't do as well as some of your other videos types, or any video with Chelsea in them 😉, but anytime your bored and want to create more "technical" videos I will gladly watch, like and share. Great job on this video!
Used to think Tony was more "unbiased" but last several years it seems pretty evident he is a Sony fan boy and biased towards Sony quite consistently. 😞
If you're a wedding photographer... wait... most wedding photographers use Sony A7III or A7IV... some use A7RIV (or V now I guess). Few use A9 (or A9II). But flagship cameras like the A9III or the A1... that's very niche. So most wedding photographers do not need A9iii nor would it be a good decision regarding the business costs. But more importantly. The pictures you take at a wedding more often than not have ISO much higher than 100. So 400 would probably be a good starting point. Later 6400. If the dynamic range stays the same compared to other cameras at the same ISO level, then the argument isn't valid. Also zooming in vs seeing a picture as it is supposed to look like (not zoomed in) are two different things. What really matters is to capture the right moments. And don't forget, you do not boost the shadows from unusable pictures, but from pictures where you might have underexposed a tiny bit in that section. So I'd say the A9iii not only is suitable for weddings, but probably overkill.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Tony finally got his orange Nikon Zf !
Yeah, the higher base ISO brings the max dynamic range of the a9 III down somewhat. Let's be honest though, ISO 250 is so low that the noise is not a concern even when raising shadows a lot. Yes it's worse than ISO 100, but still. I'd say the advantages of the a9 III are so massive that it's worth taking the small hit at ISO 100-200.
Just like Gerald Undone said it seems that a9iii has less denoising done in camera rather than worse dynamic range
why are you apologizing a hundred times. are you scared of sony fanboys channels or sony?. if it was a canon video you wouldnt apologize as much. you stated the truth, thats what matters.
Several years on, I'm amazed by how well the R3 stands up against the latest top end gear.
There may be something to the rumour that the R3 was initially planed to be Canon's flagship and that it's name was changed from R1 fairly late in development. Supposedly due to the competition's latest releases leap frogging it in terms of specs and performance.
The A9iii is a fantastic piece of kit, but I don't think it offers enough to jump ship if you are already invested in a competitor's system.
That’s what I’ve been saying
You’re right, but the a9iii isn’t a flagship, it’s an expensive specialty sports camera.
@@1armbiker Isn't that what the R3 is? But, at the same time why are they considered sports? Fast autofocus? I shoot weddings I want that. Superb at high ISO's? I shoot weddings I want that. Built like a tank and best weather sealing? I shoot weddings I want that too lol. I don't believe in flagships I believe in really good cameras or cameras that just aren't for me.
I’m more amazed that 3 years later and the A1 is still a king. Hope the R1 comes out soon because I cannot wait to see what the A1ii will bring
Most people can’t afford to switch systems.
I have 2 Canon R3s and the shadow recovery is amazing. It is a video beast, although it is not known for this format.
That’s what I have on the black rapid double way easier to use same bodies
I'll add that it's highlight recovery is very good too. and high iSO performance is the best on the market.
@@davepastern yes just did a video talking about that, as I had to shoot at 10,000 to expose correctly.
6k video from R3 is underrated
@@zegzbrutal I’m a stills guy so can’t comment
Tony this is one of your better reviews. I dig you identifying clearly the objective and subjective points on the camera's image quality.
But I still like a little drinking from my reviewer tho :)
hmmm For wildlife photography, give me the R3 please. Truly a wonderful camera.
totally agree. Noise performance is critical for wildlife shots.
a1 or Z9 would be better. Have the pixels to crop and reframe. Z9 also seamlessly switches between subject tracking, so you don’t have to select exactly what you’re photographing before you can get eye detection.
@@1armbiker I don’t buy R3 because it is 24 mp.
@@1armbiker i have the canon r6ii that auto switches between subject, but i still pick the specific subject so the camera doesnt have to second guess. i notice its slightly faster. you know what youre photographing before you begin, are you doing humans or animals? thats quiet obvious.
24MP is really bad for wildlife, you'd want 50MP if possible.
The RED cinema cameras have global shutter and still yield high dynamic range. Why are we seeing this image quality compromise in the Sony A9iii?
Thanks for the tests. Sport and event photographers don't have time to run noise reduction software, especially shooting for newswires. Many times they are working with jpgs. They have to deal with captions and IPTC data in Photomechanic, news shots are time sensitive, the workflow has to be fast. You have more time for magazines and promos, this is were we have time to use raw. They are also sensitive to image quality, so it does matter with noise and dynamic range in sports. This is why camera companies constantly try to improve iso noise out of the camera.
I'm an event photographer and I would say, the image quality would be enough. For me it tops out at roughly 6400 when it's been used in jpg. But here is the point, those event photographers who shoot for newswires etc. use flashes most of the time, as they have no time to correct the images. So they stay in an ISO area where it doesn't matter at all. Guys like me who do big corporate events etc. where we have someone sitting in a separate room, to get the images ready, or doing it afterwards, we can use highest ISOs as we can let it run thru Adobes AI denoise. And if you have a new and fast graphics card in your computer, this images are done in some minutes. It's all just about your hardware. In the past I always tried to stay at max 6400, but now you can run something like the A1 at ISO25.600 and you get nice results. It's a paradigms change. The A9III might not be as capable over 6400, but to get images that are not fcked up by the horrible led lights they use nowadays, this decline in image quality would be worth it.
@@Benjamin_Jehne Depends on what event your shooting. Some events and newswires are sports, others are theater, concerts or dance. Some events you can't use flash. Other events require thousands of images to be shot by a single person. I have been doing events since the 1980s. I have shot with projectors, projecting through dancers, project images and logos onto a backdrop. I always found a shutter speed that works. Many times my workflow would not allow time to photograph in raw. I rather have more dynamic range not less and have a camera that can shoot landscapes as well as sports in dark buildings.
R3 can go to 50 iso. Also is a lot more comfortable esp when shooting vertical, and has the underrated 'eye control AF.' It works great
What about the colour shift? One RUclipsr compared the R3 and the R5. he found that the R5 has much more colour shift to magenta of green than the R3 when using very high ISO or lifting up the shadows a lot. Colour shifts in brightened shadows are much harder to correct. I wonder how the A9 III performs in that regard.
Actually this performs really well to be a first gen thing, I guess that for now it only sells as a compromise for specialized fields, but, as they fine-tune it, it will become the new standard for building even hi res sensors without image quality loss (for example, if they find a way to put the "mini buffer" for each pixel behind the photosite, you should get full iso 100 exposure like a normal full-frame)
I’m more interested in the ZF you got there…
Great model for a review! I love the interjection of the objective vs subjective discussion. I know a lot of reviewers in different fields are struggling with the old model of reviewing in a world full of AI and software features etc making it harder to just review something on objective metrics alone. I really love this video as a template for how to get into the nerdy stuff while still making that perspective on subjectivity clear!
Just went to Kenya and Rwanda, 2 - R3 bodies and was so impressed with the low light performance. 24 mp has not been an issue for me, all of my prints have been amazing. I have never tried any Sony products.
ISO 125 on the A9III has some amazing shadow recovery, but be careful of clipping the highlights.
Great informative video. I suppose the A9III is about 'getting the fast action shot' rather than having the ultimate image quality however that being said, I was expecting slightly better imaging quality. It will be interesting to see how many sports photographers chooses the A9III over the A1.
If I were a Sony user, I will get the A1. Period.
My guess? Very few. I don't think the benefits of a global shutter is that much worth it beyond that you won't get weird lines in the background on billboards. The stacked sensor cameras are fast enough.
Between A1 and A9III I'll choose nikon Z8 lmao
The difference would pretty much be unnoticeable to the end user, unless your workflow rely on heavy cropping, then the a1 would be leaps better, but it's missing a lot of features as well.
The real question is when will Tony stop teasing us and talk about his new Zf?
Yes, this was an excellent video. Where is your competition? Where are their videos? The A9III is shipping in Europe NOW. I've pre-ordered the A9III because I really, really need 120fps....NOT. I want pre-shot buffering. I want AI subject recognition along with super fast focusing. I want flash sync at 1/8,000. I would like a review of which hot-shoe flash system gives me the most shooting range at 1/8,000. So, 1/8000 = 125 microseconds. Which flash fits more light in that timespan? At what level of power does t0.5 = 1/8,000? Is the flash brief and bright in general or long and not so bright?
Check out the Flashpoint/Godox Rapid monolights. I haven't done a broad comparison of fast strobes but those are the fastest we've used other than the $30k Profoto.
@@TonyAndChelsea Okay. A month ago, I picked up this: Flashpoint Zoom Li-on III R2 TTL Speedlight Flash for Sony Cameras as they were on sale at Adorama. Hope it comes close to the monolights.
Tony damn I like your studio video Quality can you share your settings and lighting or a 2024 studio will also be nice
ok yeah will do
Sony no offend wanted but the colors are totally over saturated looks like Tony using lipstick and the Face is over exposed couse the light is way to close. Have seen way better composed Videos from Tony, this here is definitive not one of his good examples.
@@Blafasel_BlafaselLMAO you're hilarious. Tony is using creative lighting, very popular today, instead of boring old neutral lighting. It's actually more interesting to view and gives the whole video a different vibe.
@@cooloox Never said the lighting is not creative, I said it is bad becouse over saturated und overexposed. There are ways to be creative and good and there are ways were creativity is used as an excuse for people who cant better.
@@coolooxweird purple blotches on face is now "creative lighting" alright I get it!
So, when it comes to concert photography what would you buy if you had to spend your own money to shoot concerts?
Seems closer to the R3 than to the Fuji, so 1/3 of a stop of ISO performance?
Thank you for doing all this great testing and analysis. ISO sensitivity in a modern digital sensor is more or less meaningless; thank you for discussing that. As far as I understand it, the real dynamic range of a sensor would be the ratio between the maximum light to which the sensor responds linearly and the minimum light that isn't irretrievably corrupted with quantum noise. So, more loosely, the ratio between the bucket capacity and the number of electrons created by noise.
For sports and nature photography, I think that most photographers use some kind of "expose to the right" technique in most cases. Generally, photographers are trying to avoid having too many blown-out image pixels, so they use various ways to avoid saturation. I often look at the histogram in the EVF, but there are many other ways to accomplish this.
I really like what you said about ND filters and how hard it is often to use them in modern cameras. How about a camera with an "auto-NDF" capability, which would allow a true shutter-priority mode? If the sports action resulted in a few frames that would be blown out, the camera could introduce a degree of filtering to prevent that.
Thanks for your test. But I think the direct APS-C competitor should be the a6700. Similar new sensor and same sensor resolution. Above all, same manufacturer.
Still waiting for the A1 and A7sMk3 update...🙏🙏🙏
I'm bummed by the extra noise, but i do love the adobe ai noise reduction. I'm a wedding shooter and i have it pre ordered. I encounter string lights at weddings all the time, and they always flicker. GS will solve it, and that's worth a bit extra noise i think. I really don't care about the base iso on this camera, i almost never shoot 100 anyway, and when i do, its a flash portrait with my a7rv.
At F/3.5 and looking at the edges of the frame, you are pretty much comparing the two 24-70 lenses more than the cameras in terms of details. It's full frame, put 5.6 or even F8 there, diffraction does not start to affect the quality below F8.
Diffraction impacts image quality at every f/stop. If you have an optically perfect lens, it's sharpest wide open, and it gets gradually less sharp as you shut it down due to diffraction.
What's crazy to me is that my 7 year old DJI Phantom 4 Pro has a Global Shutter and can shoot 4K 60p w/ it's 20mp sensor. I use this still for my commercial mapping jobs. It uses a 1" sensor. Why has it taken all the camera companies so long to make this a feature in our professional cameras. I use a A7III, A7SIII, and my daily workhorse is the A7RIV. Anyone know why this has taken so long?
Can you please tell me which one is best camera and lens is better for jewellery videography ?
Did I miss the video review of the New Pentax Camera?
Poor Tony, having to caveat every statement because of the knuckleheads in the comments
haha yeah after a decade on RUclips, I hear the commenter's voices after every sentence I speak.
I'm living off concert photography, and for my clients the noise would be a much bigger issue than banding. I use z9 so relatively often i have banding in my photos, and I actually get compliments on how it looks. People even ask me what effect did i use to get those nice lines haha and i just say it's not me it's how my camera sees some lights
That reminds me of the anamorphic lines. Some people love them so much that they buy a filter to get those anamorphic lines while using a normal lens.
Good work here. If money were no option, one of each please. A9III has some wonderful features I may choose to rent in the future.
The base ISO of 250 on the A9III negates any other small advantages that camera has.
The Sony is obviously better
Did you factor in the baked-in noise reduction in Raw of EOS R3? It misled a lot of reviews. In contrast Sony has no noise-reduction or sharpening in Raw afaik.
Real world between the A7IV and the A7RV for low light sports (indoor water polo with non-ideal lighting), I found the A7IV to be surprisingly far superior. The nearly 50% larger pixels just came out significantly cleaner than the RV, which resulted in noticeably better final results after post-processing. Your explanation of the base ISO differences is interesting... I'd love the A9III, except I suspect it will have the same issue at roughly the same level. The math says the difference should be almost identical in light gathering between the A7IV and both the A7RV and A9III.
I hesitate to put my favorite camera store through another return by trying it.
Thanks, this helps. I'm doing a bit of post cognitive dissonance in watching this! I just ordered an a9iii and I'm excited to see how it performs in real world shooting situations. But also slightly fearful that with ISO 250 I may be making image quality sacrifices (not to mention cost sacrifices) in going for an a9iii?
I really hope the a9iii image quality proves OK in practice. I could buy/add an a7Rv later, if a9iii proved limited in stills genres (eg landscape/portraits) when I'd welcome more pixels (eg landscapes). But I'm also keen to eventually see an a1 mkii. That might be my next purchase if it melds an a7Rv with an a9iii?
I'm a generalist shooter currently rocking an a7iv to which I later added an FX3. As a long term stills shooter, who doesn't want to be typecast in any one genre, I decided to explore and develop an interest in videography. This was after I got an a7iv, hence plumping for a dedicated videography FX3 body as a second camera to use alongside my a7iv. I feel an a9iii (3rd body) can truly add something special to not only stills but also moving images.
Time will tell, because I originally intended buying an a1. That intent/plan for an a1 was 2+ years ago, after selling an a7Riv and an a9. But it never happened. On something of a whim (a bit like my recent a9iii decision), nearly 3 years ago, I back ordered an a7iv on launch because it looked great on paper and was less than half the price of an a1. I thought 33Mp possibly the 'sweet spot' for resolution and liked the many innovative concepts, new to that body, like focus breathing. Yet rolling shutter proved poor (fast pan shots for nature and also video). 6 fps was also a tad limited in fast action sport too. But these were minor concerns. Most things about an a7iv were great which is why I still have/use it today, some 30 months later.
I still considered buying an a1, but lack of a 'flippy' screen, no firmware upgrade for focus breathing plus high cost etc held me back. The improved a7Rv was also tempting (high res, improved AF, Flippy screen etc). But, having previously had an a7Riii (my entry to Sony full frame) then an a7Riv (poor AF IMO) and an a9 (wonderful AF with great speed for sports shots) I realised I wanted more than just high MP. The a9iii thus proved tempting for many different reasons. I guess IQ for some genres will be limited, but until I try I won't know. I suspect that in practice it will be good enough in most situations and better than anything else for sports. The improved ergonomics also played a key part in my decision to order too and a reason I didn't buy an a1. But, perhaps it's because I really miss the a9 - a body I most often reached for rather than my a7Riv (poor AF IMO with overly large file sizes that often proved overkill). In practice I found 24Mp just about enough whilst 61Mp was too much for 95% of shots taken.
Great job! All in all it doesn't look like "no compromises" to me... Great camera, but not for me.
About the "specific" reasons for the Sony A9iii, don't forget the flash sync speed, that may open other possibilities
Whether it's subjective or objective, at $1,500 increase in price. I expect no trade-off. If they increase is like $500, then it's fine. I'm okay with the trade off and wouldn't mind paying a premium for the global shutter. But I'm not a sports photographer and will probably use it for video.
I need a Sony sports camera with 24 Mp and the new AI autofocus features, but without the global shutter and the huge 7000 Eur price tag:
- 24 Megapixels normal sensor
- Up do date AI autofocus
- 14 to 20 fps continuous shooting, fast buffer
- 2 card slots, same articulating screen as the A7RV
- Price tag in the 4K Euros range
Will I ever get that camera? Any time soon?
The more important Question is it managable or not?
Thanks for the analysis. You made some great points.
I like how Tony sweet talks a bit in the end just to make sure no A9III lovers gets too upset over the facts😂😂😂
Oui. Je n'ai jamais vu une vidéo aussi subjective. Lorsque l'on aime Sony on est prêt à tout pour défendre l'indefendable. 😅
How can I order an "I Shoot RAW" T-Shirt?
Funny how people make excuses for Sony and would choose a sub par photo against the Canon. It's always, but you can do this in post... you can correct color in post... But but but. Odd.
You are telling the truth, seems one can't do no wrong and the other can't get anything right. Even if test shows differently there's always a but. Oh well...
I do not remember when I was shooting sport with ISO 100 with my A9 :-P
Example from this week: tennis indoor: ISO between 10.000 and 16.000
What was important for me is that in such challenging lighting condition camera still have great AF and good colour. Of course there is a lot of noise that impacts quality/details but well - if there is no light you can do nothing.
Since I can control the lighting and the camera sits on the tripod most of the time it’s ISO100 all the time. The choice is easy then.
My problem with Sony is that currently you have to pay $6000 for a full frame camera that shoot more than 10fps. I would be happy as an amateur to pay $4000 for modern wildlife camera that shoots 15-20 fps.with either a 24 or 30 megapixel censor. Not intrested in old tech of a9ii
Very informative review. Much better than those hyped-up infomercials.
Thanks, Tony.
Tony - to debunk your comments around 4:00 - simply apply 1 stop less to the Sony to make up for it and compare. I think you'll find the R3 still smacks the A9III in DR.
I'm editing this as I watch your video Tony. Regards to noise - I can see clear differences at ISO 1600 and 6400 with the R3 being much cleaner and my eyes aren't great like they used to be when I was younger. At 25600, the comparison is damning - that's at least 1.5 stops difference in noise performance. Sure, you can use NR AI, but even so, the R3 will always look better. Your argument that sports shooters don't care is moot - the R3 was designed primarily for sports...they both compete. The R3 looks sharper, has better DR, and better high ISO performance.
Sony's global shutter may be a technological masterpiece in digital imaging, but it has some major drawbacks that imho, means it cannot compete on even ground with a low sensor readout speed of a BSI stacked sensor, at least in terms of IQ. Do i want 120fps? HELL NO. NO thank you. That's a fucking p.i.t.a to sort/cull/rate in PP. Hard pass. Sports shooters probably don't bother with that too much though, so it's less of an issue to them. The R3 can do 195fps, albeit with some caveats (locked exposure/AF and a limit to 50 frames), but in RAW format ( think it was 12 bit raw and not 14 bit raw from memory).
I am unsure as to how you can come to the conclusion that the A9II is a better sports camera. Poorer detail and resolution, poor high ISO performance and poorer DR.
The Sony camera's advantages are clear - advertising at games will not have any of the weirdness that traditional sensor designs give due to flicker issues. And a much faster flash sync speed (in most cases, not an issue with sports photography). I don't shoot video, so I can't comment on that aspect of either camera's performance.
Whats the price difference between the kits: a9iii w/ 300 2.8 and the R3 w same lens?
Two and a half thousand dollars
$14.5k for the Canon R3 + 100-300mm
$12k for the Sony a9iii + 300mm
Thanks. it's It's about $10k for the canon kit. the 300 2.8 is ~$5k w the full 1 year warranty from Canon. I still prefer an R5 over the R3 or a9iii for even less @@paulofthepeak
Wanna see a video quality comparison between R3, a9iii, and Komodo.
I dont know how you can swing a camera around with the sensor exposed like that. Why not put a lens or body cap on there?
On your Fuji XH2 vs A9iii comparison, The XH2 show more noise than the XT4 or the XH2s, but see your point, It is suppose the be better than the XH2 but dam close to the XH2s and even the XT4, would like to see how it shows against the Canon R7..
Thanks for another intelligent analysis and review. It's a shame that you felt the need to continually apologize (both explicitly and implied) for the results of your tests. I can't suggest that you ignore the comments, because they're not directed at me, so it's not my place.
The problem with Denoise AI on the A9iii and OM-1 is that at higher noise and ISO start looking like plastic,
Yeah that's all NR, tho as an om1 owner I'd say the a9iii is wayyyyy beyond the om1. When you shoot the om1 without NR turned on, it is a mess at iso 1600+. A9iii can get to at least 3200 before I'd say you get a bit noisy, and 6400 is still much better than on the om1
Thanks for this vid, Tony.
Thanks Tony for answering our questions from the last video! Great work! I wonder if anyone has measured the sensor lag. Is it genuinely a global shutter or really fast rolling shutter. I mean we are taking Sony's word for it. Still not sure why Sony called this a9iii and not made a separate line. I still think there is a place for an R3 competitor based on a9ii stacked sensor plus latest AI AF so I think Sony missed a trick here by ending the stacked a9 line and moving it to niche global shutter area at much higher price
I tested it with the rapidly flickering light I use for rolling shutter tests and there was never any indication of a band, so I think it's truly a global shutter.
Very interesting information. Thanks.
Well I guess it's a tradeoff, not a camera for those who seek the least noise at low ISO or at high ISO, but it's the only one that can produce artifact free images in certain conditions (like strobiing LEDs or other kinds of artificial lighs) which can be much more distracting and impossible to correct in post compared to normal noise.
For sure it's the future!
Great comparison, Tony. I would love for you to test the flash synch abilities with Godox lights and triggers. Since Godox is what most of us are using these days, I'm sure a lot of photographers would find benefit to a test like that. Peace, brother! 🍻
Hey, no HDR?
I haven't yet setup our studio cameras to do HDR but since you miss it, I can try to figure it out.
i think he means the new HDR features in lightroom@@TonyAndChelsea !
@@chriscoveries no, I actually meant HDR youtube videos! The first thing I do when i see a video on this channel is make sure HDR is enabled on my display, hah. I love the HDR videos, they're so rare.
I would love Tony's opinions and tips/tricks on the lightroom HDR features though, especially how to share the resulting images in a way that's compatible with social media. the only way to upload an HDR photo to facebook was by using a 16bit PNG
@@chriscoveries No, we meant that the video posted is not HDR, like many other videos on this channel. The difference is night and day if you watch the video on newer iPhones, iPads or MacBooks
Another great video. Thanks Tony
Great analysis, Tony!
I started buying Canon D-SLR's starting with the EOS D60 back when film purists were not even grumbling about digital cameras yet. To say that I was tired of buying Velvia and messing around with slide scanners is an understatement. What a time sink.
To my eye as primarily a landscape and portrait shooter I have never found anyone's sensor tech to equal Canon's CMOS magic. At any point in the evolution. I haven't bought a new body since the 5D MkII but I'm looking forward to one of these R bodies.
That said, no offense intended to Nikon and Sony's tech! I have really enjoyed the horse race between these big 3 and especially Sony. I have a soft spot for Sony gear starting with a portable cassette player from the 70s and enjoyed quite a few early Sony digicams too. They've done some amazing stuff with their mirrorless tech and grabbing market share. Thanks for another great glimpse deep into the pixels Tony.
Is it just me or is that Zf as a prop so worth it. You can buy 3 Zf for 1 A9mk3. Assuming you have lenses already, you can teach friends and go on a photowalk together.
Looks pretty much 1:1 like the APS-C camera in the comparison, at least in the video, with RUclips's compression.
DR and Noise on the Sony A9iii is actually poor in todays world of sensor technology. The A9iii for wildlife is not a good pick as we often extract details from shadows.
I resent that Sony effectively terminated the α9 series, whose signature was photocentric action cameras at low cost. Sony could have let this new camera, with global shutter, debut a new series, α3, and meanwhile released a conventional refresh of the α9 series.
All I care about is getting the right shot.
I'm a simple man. I see Tony wearing a Longhorns hat and I give a like.
I don't think I have ever zoomed in to 500% and I know my clients never have. This test would be more interesting and relevant if you showed us at 100%.
I would be happy if they just updated the A9 Mark 2 with a better view finder and back screen, (maybe with the one from A7rV) I would be very happy with that!!! MArk 2 is such a great camera, just the screen and viewfinder is a little dated now! i was considering the A9 M3, but sadly thats not gonna happen!
This video looks like Markus Pix image quality
I dunno if that's good or bad?
I still shoot film cameras and I love grain effects coming from film and I think the Sony A9iii will be the perfect camera for me.
We're all different. I shot film for 20 years and wouldn't go back to it if you paid me. I can't stand grain (or noise in digital images).
Lmao 😂
Sony needs to fix their lineup user friendliness not ramp up the technology necessarily. The body structure is off for me - larger body, larger rear screen, better touch operation, a top info screen, good fast lenses around 300-500 for more reasonable price. I can go on and on. A clear indication of a company lead by tech guys rather than customer oriented leadership 😢
Which demosiacing algorithm are you using?
Thank you for the video 😀.
AWhy shouldn't it get the sensor from the R1? With this sensor it will be much better than the R6 MKII, and in some cases also better than the R3. The AF just has to be a little bit better than the one from the Z6iii and it will be a winner (better AF and better sensor). If I watch comparison videos between the R6 MKII and the Z6iii then every time , the Z6iii wins. The sooner the R6 MKIII will come, the better it will be for canon. It makes no sense to wait until Sony comes with a Z6iv. It will be a smart and good move from canon.
Such a crispy video and a beautiful color grade on this!
Thank you! No grading was done though. This is SOOC.
@@TonyAndChelsea It's with the R3? I found a custom color profile that's great for video, it's like S-Cinetone for Canon, check out Vision Color. I don't really need to shoot Log or Raw.
Seems a very fair analysis. Thanks
Nit Picking?
Sony should be paying you for letting them know the downfalls of their camera so they fix it a firmware update before its even released.
Thanks for sharing.
DR: Half a stop worse than the best FF rolling shutter sensors, and half a stop better than the best APS-C sensors.
Sony builds something out of everyone’s reach!!
Canon fanboys come up with a comparison of
Sony on Sunday vs canon on Sunday!😂😂😂
Harsh truth!!
The sooner you shift to sony, lesser u will regret in years to come!! Soon sony will come up technologies way above every other brand!! By then u would have already invested so much on your canon! 😂😂
Thanks for the test.
The lighting of this video doesn’t look professional btw
Speed kills, Tony.
Can’t wait for this sensor to become more normalized and roll out to more affordable cameras.
“Don’t worry, asp-c is still noisier”, he said, comparing a 25mp FF camera to a 40mp app-c camera. Sigh.
Yeah, Fujifilm XT4 with 26mp is better comparison for this test.
They were scaled appropriately so we should have seen similar noise levels. SDP.io/density
@@TonyAndChelsea sure but LR does not process Fuji RAWs particularly well - I looked at 18,000 of them last year and the sharpening is often weird/worse than C1 and on top of that, no noise reduction at all by default. On the other hand, sometimes "enhance details" with minimal noise reduction (10% ish), produces clearly superior to C1 at a cost of hard drive space. There is a lot of software between our cameras and these sort of pixel peeping exercises.
That said, if you are going to compare sensors of different sizes, it would be more interesting to choose sensors of equal density (i.e. 26mp Fuji or Sony vs. 61mp A7R5). I find it interesting that, with approximately equal photosite sizes, the Sony is still rated to have better dynamic range and ISO performance. I assume that has to be because larger lenses and sensors really do collect more total light, even if the light per unit area is the same.
So from listening to you, the Sony A9iii isn't worth the hype and was brought out way to soon.
Sony pink/orange tint...
*_i hope your special day will bring you lots of happiness, love and fun💞_*
I love science class with Tony! Seriously though, I am sure these style of videos probably don't do as well as some of your other videos types, or any video with Chelsea in them 😉, but anytime your bored and want to create more "technical" videos I will gladly watch, like and share. Great job on this video!
Am I the only person that's distracted by the garish lighting in Tony's setup? The excessive purple looks ridiculous.
Upgrade, upgrade, upgrade (pay pay pay - brag even more).
Used to think Tony was more "unbiased" but last several years it seems pretty evident he is a Sony fan boy and biased towards Sony quite consistently. 😞
And the r3
If you're a wedding photographer... wait... most wedding photographers use Sony A7III or A7IV... some use A7RIV (or V now I guess). Few use A9 (or A9II). But flagship cameras like the A9III or the A1... that's very niche. So most wedding photographers do not need A9iii nor would it be a good decision regarding the business costs. But more importantly. The pictures you take at a wedding more often than not have ISO much higher than 100. So 400 would probably be a good starting point. Later 6400. If the dynamic range stays the same compared to other cameras at the same ISO level, then the argument isn't valid. Also zooming in vs seeing a picture as it is supposed to look like (not zoomed in) are two different things. What really matters is to capture the right moments. And don't forget, you do not boost the shadows from unusable pictures, but from pictures where you might have underexposed a tiny bit in that section. So I'd say the A9iii not only is suitable for weddings, but probably overkill.
@@mbismbismb Canon R3 is much needed at a wedding ceremony. Stacked sensor silent shutter is fantastic.