A7IV or Original A9?

[Biro]

I haven't been watching prices for Sony bodies lately. But Amazon Prime Day caused me to notice that both the A7RIV and the original A9 are going for about $2998 U.S. These prices are also available elsewhere - although Amazon is supposed to give you some extra money back if you use their credit card.

I already have an A7III. I wouldn't mind the improved EVF that's in the other cameras. I also wouldn't mind the latest autofocus algorithms in the A7RIV. But I don't know if I really need 61mp. Perhaps the original A9 would make more sense?

Has anyone worked with both cameras who could give me some honest feedback? Perhaps this is a bad idea and I should just hang onto the A7III.

 

[bdbits]

Is AF important? Do you shoot moving things? You likely want the A9. People who have it say it is the best camera they have ever used in terms of getting keepers.

The A7IV is a resolution monster. I have read good photographers say their lenses do not resolve well on it, and it shows up in images (maybe only at 100% magnification?). It has had some AF problems with a few select lenses - I think the 200-600 - but I believe that has been fixed. All that said, the images sure do look nice, and people who normally shoot RAW say the colors are nice enough to shoot jpegs.

But then the A7III is no slouch either. I do not think any one of them is a 'bad' choice. But it could just be GAS.

 

[JonathanF2]

The one nice thing about the original A9, is that you can shoot it silent without much penalty. No rolling shutter, little to no issues with artificial lighting when using the E-shutter, you have the ability to shoot at insanely high frame rates. If none of those are necessary features, the A7III actually has the slightly more sharper images and better overall image quality. I haven't used the A7Rm4, but if you need 61mp than that's the way to go.

I shoot with the A9 and A7III and I actually prefer the A9 for most my daily shooting. I leave it on silent all the time and even though I prefer the A7III images, the A9 just handles better.

 

[Ad Dieleman]

I have the A7Rm4 for 7 months now and I tried the A9 once during one hour, being allowed to walk around with it on a fair. It was a difficult decision between the two. No regrets about the R4, AF is adequate, finder is wonderful, wonderful high resolution files and all that. But if the A9 had 36 MP resolution, I'd have gone for the A9m2 and if its successor gets that kind of resolution, I'll seriously consider to switch: out-of-this-world AF, no-black-out silent shooting with minimal rolling shutter and fast shutter speeds; I think I'll put up with a somewhat lesser finder for that. But for me 24 MP is just not enough as I like to crop often and substantially. Also using the R4 as an APS-C camera still gets you 26 MP which appears just fine for what I do.

TLDR;
My opinion? if 24 MP is enough for you, get the A9(m2).

 

[tino84]

Has anyone worked with both cameras who could give me some honest feedback? Perhaps this is a bad idea and I should just hang onto the A7III.

It’s simple: a9 is for speed and AF, a7R is for resolution-big MP.

If you don’t need one of those elements, “upgrade” is a bad idea.

Your a7iii is a more than capable camera (I just bought one used two weeks ago, to gain some extra speed and precision for weedings, Over my “old” a7Rii )

 

[serhan]

Resolution vs speed+silent shooting.... If it helps, used 9+ A9 at B&H $2488:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/1333228/sony_ilce_9_b_alpha_a9_mirrorless_digital.html

 

[WNG]

Comes down to what you're missing now from the A7III.....insane speed or insane resolution. What do you shoot? Will the former or latter benefit your genre? Do you have the lenses that will allow you to reach those improvements? This is a personal assessment.
Personally, I shoot more static and resolution-centric images. So, between the two choices, I pick the A7R4. A lot of features help future-proof it for my needs. And in APS-C mode, the 26Mp is getting you an A7III. At the other end, with pixel-shifting, it's the equivalent of 100+ Mp.

Tip: I've been playing around with stitching my 24Mp images to as high as 100Mp equivalent sized files. Usually, it's in the 40-64 Mp range, the FOV yields wider angles, but the resolution is very nice and the files are very large. You can try this for yourself to see if you 'need' the greater resolution. A simple example is to shoot a 2x2 matrix of 35mm shots, and compare it to a single exposure at 24mm.

 

[Ziggy99]

How do lenses go with the resolution monster?
https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

Reasons the R III may suit you better than the R IV...
https://www.talkemount.com/threads/why-you-wouldnt-buy-an-a7r-iv-comments-welcome.19991/

 

[Biro]

How do lenses go with the resolution monster?
https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

Reasons the R III may suit you better than the R IV...
https://www.talkemount.com/threads/why-you-wouldnt-buy-an-a7r-iv-comments-welcome.19991/

Yeah, I've been thinking about this angle. I've decided I really don't need 61mp and I'm unwilling to chase lenses for the A7rIV. So it's either the A9 or wait to see what an eventual A7IV has to offer.

 

[Zenith]

A9 for excellent AF, low light capabilities, high FPS
A7R4 for resolution