Jonesing for another ...

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Camera.
I really would like to get an A7Riiia.
I know, I already have too many cameras as it is.
What's one more?

 

[bdbits]

For no particular reason? Or are you looking for higher resolution?

I love my A7Riii, but if you want to get One Camera To Rule Them All, they say that is the A1. It's probably still cheaper than your wife's quilting machines.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I'm looking for higher resolution to be honest.
The A1 is not for me. I don't want to have to upgrade my computer, again, to handle the files it puts out. I have the A9 to handle the fast moving kids but I really was struggling with the out put of that Blue Angel's shot I took. I think a combo of A7iii, A7Riiia and A9 would just about cover all my needs. They'd get me back to a 'one battery fits all' scene too as I'd let my A7ii go.

 

[BruceRH]

The difference in storage and computing power is not that much from 42mp to 50 or even the 61mb’s of the A7Riv. I personally agree with Bob that you could combine the 3 into the A1. I have the A7Riv and the 61mb files really are not any more taxing than the 42mb files from my sold A7Rii.

 

[WoodWorks]

I swear! One more hit and I'll never touch the stuff again! Ever! I promise!

 

[bdbits]

I'm Bob, and I'm a cameraholic. Altogether now... "Hi, Bob".

AlwaysOnAuto, I have found 42mp to be enough of a bump from 24mp that I seldom crave more detail, which is great because I often like to crop to bring up those details. Of course I have not personally experienced my own images in any more than 42mp, and if I did I might end up like WoodWorks, so I am not going to go there in the immediate future. Honest. Really I'm not. Even if Christmas is coming.

 

[Brownie]

I'm looking for higher resolution to be honest.
The A1 is not for me. I don't want to have to upgrade my computer, again, to handle the files it puts out. I have the A9 to handle the fast moving kids but I really was struggling with the out put of that Blue Angel's shot I took. I think a combo of A7iii, A7Riiia and A9 would just about cover all my needs. They'd get me back to a 'one battery fits all' scene too as I'd let my A7ii go.

I didn't want to say anything, but the problem with that photo had nothing to do with resolution. You're barking up the wrong tree.

This shot was made with a Panasonic FZ70, a bridge camera with a teeny little 16MP 1/2.3 sensor, about the same size as what's in a cellphone. This was shot as a jpeg only, no RAW.

DMC-FZ70    ---    35mm    f/5.5    1/800s    ISO 100

149 by telecast, on Flickr

So, what would have improved your shot? Several things, the biggest being distance. The camera was averaging the light to do it's best, but there was so much bright sky in the shot it stopped down and made the airplanes too dark. Move closer or use a telephoto lens so the airplanes fill more of the frame. This would reduce the amount of sky and the ambient light the camera has to deal with. It will also improve the detail in the photo.

When you're trying to pull detail out of a dark blue airplane against a bright sky you're going to need to take control of the camera. You could spot meter and force the camera to meter on the airplane, ignoring the sky. That could result in a blown out sky but you'd have the detail in the airplane. Another approach would be to average the meter and expose to the right, probably 1/2 or 1 stop. That would bring out the detail but not blow the sky out so much you couldn't pull it back in post. You'd probably end up pulling the airplanes up and the sky back, but it would work.

Your enemy in this shot was too much bright sky, not lack of resolution.

 

[WNG]

I believe his issue was cropping the original photo for a wall print. And the lack of resolution limited his size. No doubt one can take a great detailed photo of planes with less resolution. My first two airshow captures were with a 10Mp APS-C sensor. Fast glass and good AF is far more important than sensor res.

 

[WNG]

I'm looking for higher resolution to be honest.
The A1 is not for me. I don't want to have to upgrade my computer, again, to handle the files it puts out. I have the A9 to handle the fast moving kids but I really was struggling with the out put of that Blue Angel's shot I took. I think a combo of A7iii, A7Riiia and A9 would just about cover all my needs. They'd get me back to a 'one battery fits all' scene too as I'd let my A7ii go.

I don't see the need for the A7III. Why not sell both A7's and just go for the A7R3a? With the A9, the A7's are redundant.

 

[Brownie]

Fast glass and good AF is far more important than sensor res.

This. If you're itching to spend some $ and want to improve shots like the one in question, get some glass. I remember a post you put up not so long ago wondering about a lens, and saying the 24-105 was long enough for your use. This examples proves that to be incorrect. The 100-400 with a 1.4 TC, the 150-600, or the 200-600. Choose your poison.

I don't see the need for the A7III. Why not sell both A7's and just go for the A7R3a? With the A9, the A7's are redundant.

I'd have to disagree with any camera purchase to solve this issue. Every single one of those cameras is perfectly capable of good airshow photos, or for that matter any other photos. You can't lose weight by taking a pill. Get closer. Closer counts. Physically closer is better, a longer lens is next best but you'll still be dealing with atmosphere. And one must realize that no matter what camera/lens combo you have, you'll never overcome getting close and you'll never duplicate being there with a shot from your neighborhood.
Another 16MP teeny sensor shot:

DMC-FZ70    ---    115mm    f/5.6    1/1000s    ISO 100

P1000550 by telecast, on Flickr

 

[bdbits]

You can't lose weight by taking a pill.

Sure you can. Most often, a prescribed pill. But even when I was much younger, certain um "medications" had that effect on people. Of course then they had other problems.

But I digress. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I really appreciate this discussion guys.
I will admit to lack of experience being a factor in the shots I've been trying to have printed big. I haven't had my 90mm lens for very long and I haven't tried panning fast moving objects with my 24-105 either. These were shots of opportunity as we are under the flight path they were using to get back to Los Alamitos air station where they are based for this show.
As far as getting closer, I don't think I'd have been as close as I was at home in my front yard if I'd been standing on the beach during a show. They literally were right overhead as I was shooting straight up into the air. I'm kind of surprised I didn't loose my balance and fall over as I have a slight hill in my yard.
These shots were taken from the same position in my yard almost exactly 24 hours apart (+/-1 minute) according to my file exif data. First with the 90, second with the 105 @105.

ILCE-9    FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS    90mm    f/5.0    1/1250s    ISO 100

ILCE-9    FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS    105mm    f/5.0    1/2000s    ISO 100

 

[Brownie]

I will admit to lack of experience being a factor in the shots I've been trying to have printed big.

As far as getting closer, I don't think I'd have been as close as I was at home in my front yard if I'd been standing on the beach during a show. They literally were right overhead as I was shooting straight up into the air.

I hear people say that all the time. The difference between being there and watching from a distance is substantial. How substantial? I'm sure it depends on the venue, but those I've been to get you much, much closer.

I made this photo at Thunder Over Michigan, held at historic Willow Run Airport. I was on the ground, this was made during a 'photo pass' where the pilot tilts the airplane during the pass so you can get a good angle. If you didn't know better you'd think I was flying next to him when I took the picture. Except for shaving a tiny bit off the left side for composition because it got ahead of my panning, this photo is uncropped. You aren't going to get this from home.

DC-G9    ---    200mm    f/13.0    1/500s    ISO 200

B1_0015 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

Note this was a 50-200mm lens on a M-4/3, so the Sony 100-400 would be the equivalent,.

 

[MWhite]

I have to agree with Brownie that a new camera may not solve your problem, but if you want one, why not? I am not a very skilled air show photographer (You will agree after looking at the Jenny, where I should have used a slower shutter speed to enhance prop blur), but the attached was taken with a Pentax K20D (14.6 MP) and a 55-300 f4~5.8 zoom. Because it is an APS-C camera, the field of view on your (and my) A7III would be equivalent to about 450 mm. I was at the airfield (it is a grass strip) when the pilots flew by.

   ---            

This was taken with a Pentax K5 and the same lens. The Tri-Motor was on approach to the airport, and I was close. This time I got the prop blur right.

   ---            

If you're good with the weight of the Sony FF lenses (100-400, 200-600, etc.) and many people in this forum are, I would get a new lens not a camera. Although I am good with the weight, my back is not - I've concluded that it leads a separate life from me and regularly takes time off from its duties. Although I am also thinking about upgrading from my A7III, were I into airshow photography I would get a longer lens, not a new camera.

I read somewhere that a famous photographer, whose name I forget, recommended to get close and then to get even closer. It has always seemed like good advice to me.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Of course you guys are right. Get closer is the answer, be it physically or with a longer lens. I guess I'm having a hard time determining distances from the yard because there's no frame of reference to as to how high they are flying by. I suspect 1500 to 2000 foot minimum being they are flying over populated areas.
I'll start looking at lenses.

 

[Brownie]

Of course you guys are right. Get closer is the answer, be it physically or with a longer lens. I guess I'm having a hard time determining distances from the yard because there's no frame of reference to as to how high they are flying by. I suspect 1500 to 2000 foot minimum being they are flying over populated areas.
I'll start looking at lenses.

As a rule at air shows they have a 'flight line', which is the closest people can stand. At Willow Run smaller airplanes typically fly about 500' from the line:

DC-G9       400mm    f/10.0    1/200s    ISO 200

P1063156 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

Larger prop airplanes and stunt planes about 1000'

DC-G9       146mm    f/10.0    1/200s    ISO 200

P1063308 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

And demonstration teams about 1500'

DC-G9       236mm    f/5.6    1/2000s    ISO 200

P1063562 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

Again, bear in mind that this was M-4/3, so double the FL shown in the exif to apply it to FF. Based on your Blue Angels photos I'm betting there were much farther than 2000'.

@MWhite: I don't see anything wrong with the Jenny photo, the prop still shows motion. Not every one has to be a perfect circle, sometimes it's preferred. As long as it doesn't look like it's about to fall out of the sky! (Lord knows I've been guilty of that many times!) I kind of prefer the amount shown in the C-47 photo, you can see all three blades individually, but plenty of blur.