How well does the A7RIII complement the A9?

I shoot with an A9 as my main camera. My backup is an a6500 that mainly stays in the bag except when I bring it out for some gimbal video work. I've been contemplating replacing the a6500 with an A7RIII since it came out. But I'm not sure it's worth it. I know I would have a use for the A7RIII in my line of work, but is the bump in image quality worth the price of admission? The largest MP camera I've ever owned is the A9, and I've never owned or shot on a camera without an AA filter.

For those who own both, or have owned / shot on both: Will the boosted IQ, resolution, and lack of an AA filter make me go to the A7RIII in certain situations, or is the A9 good enough that I won't see many real world benefits to the A7RIII? For anyone who doesn't know, I shoot events, weddings, portraits, and am getting more into video.

P.S. Do not recommend the A7III lol. The a6500 is a great "sit in the bag" backup, as the a7III most likely would be. This is specifically about IQ and resolution.

I went from crops to 6D to 5d3 to 5d4 now a7R3

I’ve gone from cheap glass all the way up to 200/2 and shot plenty on 300 2.8 IS II and 400 2.8 IS V1

The bump from 23mp to 30 was very noticeable. The difference between 30mp to 42mp is outstanding

There is much more of a gain going from 24mp to 42mp than from a decent lens to the best lens. No question about it if you have the a9 the R3 is what you need.

Talley wrote in post #18591709
I went from crops to 6D to 5d3 to 5d4 now a7R3

I’ve gone from cheap glass all the way up to 200/2 and shot plenty on 300 2.8 IS II and 400 2.8 IS V1

The bump from 23mp to 30 was very noticeable. The difference between 30mp to 42mp is outstanding

There is much more of a gain going from 24mp to 42mp than from a decent lens to the best lens. No question about it if you have the a9 the R3 is what you need.

Good to hear. Do you think the gain may have been even more for you going from 30mp Canon to 42mp Sony? While Canon is great they don't offer the best IQ.

I noticed a significant jump in IQ going from the 22mp 5d3 to the 24mp a9.

I've seen videos on the IQ difference between the A9 and R3, and while better, I've never seen anything that seems to merit a $2000 price increase over the a6500. In good light I can't tell a difference between the a6500 and a9 files, but I haven't done a serious comparison.

And yet I'm still very intrigued by the R3....

I'm mainly looking to cut the crop factor, and wondering if the IQ boost is worth the $1300 extra over the a7iii and $2000 upgrade over the a6500.

i have both and can tell the difference in the RIII files vs the 9. I only use the 9 for action now, or basically anything the R3 can't handle, which isn't much.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #18592849
i have both and can tell the difference in the RIII files vs the 9. I only use the 9 for action now, or basically anything the R3 can't handle, which isn't much.

How big is the difference? If you could pick only one camera which one would you pick? Also what do you shoot?

The only real benefit the a9 has is 20fps and no blackout.

This was my major decision and went with the R.

Talley wrote in post #18593157
The only real benefit the a9 has is 20fps and no blackout.

This was my major decision and went with the R.

You forgot AF both tracking and basically the entire field of view. Eye AF is also snappier.

Whether top AF is important for you...only you can judge, but to dismiss it as benefit of the A9 is totally wrong.

Jared I'm a little late to your thread, but as you know, I swapped the a9 for an a7rIII. The main reason I did so was because for things like weddings, 42mp is very handy for cropping in post because if you're anything like me, compositions in the field are not always perfect when there's a lot going on and sometimes I have to crop aggressively in post. Also, since I primarily shoot primes, I do like the ability to quickly hit the crop mode button and have usable images with a longer FOV. 35 1.4 can crop to a near 50 1.8 equivalent.....85mm 1.4 can quickly crop to a 135mm f2 near equivalent....135 1.8 can crop to a near 200 f2.8 equivalent

a9 focuses better in low light though and I miss that about the camera. It also works better with adapted glass. I'm actually looking to add the RIII eventually for the AF system.

Outside of the resolution, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the a9 and a7rIII files though. I'm actually in the midst of processing a bunch of a9 and a7rIII files right now, since Travis shot a wedding with me using a9. A9 AA filter is pretty minimal. Processing a9 files next to a7rIII/II files, I can't immediately tell the difference without digging through the EXIF. I only notice the difference if I crop files aggressively.

mystik610 wrote in post #18597500
Jared I'm a little late to your thread, but as you know, I swapped the a9 for an a7rIII. The main reason I did so was because for things like weddings, 42mp is very handy for cropping in post because if you're anything like me, compositions in the field are not always perfect when there's a lot going on and sometimes I have to crop aggressively in post. Also, since I primarily shoot primes, I do like the ability to quickly hit the crop mode button and have usable images with a longer FOV. 35 1.4 can crop to a near 50 1.8 equivalent.....85mm 1.4 can quickly crop to a 135mm f2 near equivalent....135 1.8 can crop to a near 200 f2.8 equivalent

a9 focuses better in low light though and I miss that about the camera. It also works better with adapted glass. I'm actually looking to add the RIII eventually for the AF system.

Outside of the resolution, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the a9 and a7rIII files though. I'm actually in the midst of processing a bunch of a9 and a7rIII files right now, since Travis shot a wedding with me using a9. A9 AA filter is pretty minimal. Processing a9 files next to a7rIII/II files, I can't immediately tell the difference without digging through the EXIF. I only notice the difference if I crop files aggressively.

Thank you for the input. Very helpful. Honestly It gives me a headache thinking about editing a whole wedding with 42MP files haha. I would definitely be keeping the a9 around as my main camera. I think for now I'm just going to ride with what I have, as I really don't use a backup very often, and I think if I went to a two camera setup I would have to force myself to do so.

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18598526
Thank you for the input. Very helpful. Honestly It gives me a headache thinking about editing a whole wedding with 42MP files haha. I would definitely be keeping the a9 around as my main camera. I think for now I'm just going to ride with what I have, as I really don't use a backup very often, and I think if I went to a two camera setup I would have to force myself to do so.

Oh yeah processing large batches 42mp is a pain...particularly since I'm using capture one which is a resource hog. I'm getting computer GAS lol.

Talley wrote in post #18593157
The only real benefit the a9 has is 20fps and no blackout.

This was my major decision and went with the R.

you forgot little to zero rolling shutters and little to no banding

and while 1/32000 shutter speed is overkill... it's still nice to know that you can go faster than 1/8000. I've only shot it over 1/8000 once, and it was just for giggles

this was taken a 1/32000, you can see the details in the tire (no, it wasn't parked, this was during a practice lap)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/26cb​r1H