As mentioned, the main problem with this camera is image quality. So how inferior is it to conventional CMOS cameras? To test this, I shot in situations such as gyms, night scenes, bird shots, an airport and much more.
There's no doubt that the dynamic range is reduced compared to Sony cameras like the A1, at least by a notch. The reason is that the sensor has less light capacity due to the space taken up by the additional electronics.
It also has a smaller ISO range, both at the top and bottom. Minimum ISO isn't great at 250 and at the high end ISO is limited to 25,600, half that of the A9 II.
In general, there is more noise and less dynamic range at any given ISO setting than the A9 II. At the same time, the resolution is lower than competitors like the Nikon Z9 and Sony's A7R V and A1. So for landscapes, portraits, and other types of photography where dynamic range and resolution are important (and speed isn't), the A9 III isn't the best choice.
That said, you'll have to take a pixel-perfect look to notice a major difference in image quality between competing 24-megapixel cameras up to around ISO 6,400. For the target audience of sports, action and wildlife shooters, this is more than enough.
Beyond that, images are noisier, but still usable up to the maximum ISO of 25,600 with noise reduction (Sony appears to have more aggressive noise reduction for JPEG images at higher ISOs) . I had no trouble extracting good shots in dark scenes at ISO 6,400 or even ISO 12,800. And as mentioned, you have more control with a flash than any other camera on the market – so it's a solid low-light option.
Otherwise, images are typical Sony, with accurate colors and skin tones. 14-bit RAW files are easy to use and allow for pushing and pulling, especially in highlights.
Video
Sony took advantage of the global shutter to make the A9 III its most capable mirrorless camera for video. 4K at up to 60fps is upsampled using the full width of the 6K sensor, while 4K at 120fps can also be shot using the full sensor, but with pixel binning. This mode also supports full 120fps playback, or slower playback modes via the Slow and Fast (S&Q) setting.
4K RAW capture at 60fps is also possible using an external recorder. All of these modes are available with 10-bit S-Log 3 recording to extend dynamic range in difficult lighting conditions.
This is just the beginning of the A9 III's video powers. Autofocus is as fast and accurate in video as it is in photo mode and has all the same AI features. This means you'll be sure to keep even fast-moving subjects in focus, whether they're people, birds, animals or vehicles.
Those who prefer to shoot manually can use Sony's handy Focus Card feature. It features the auto-framing seen on previous Sony models, like the ZV-E1, which allows YouTubers to move around while filming themselves. You also get the digital zoom feature which reduces focus breathing for supported lenses, with some loss of quality.
The distortion of a plane's propeller in the video is a telltale sign of a rolling shutter camera. So naturally we had to test the A9 III in an airport with Sony's A1 stacked sensor. Our discoveries? Although the A1 still produces flexible propellers, they are of course straight on the A9 III. This trivial test has big implications. You can shoot things like pans or a fast-moving train that you would never have tried with a rolling shutter sensor. And since everything is exposed at the same time like a film camera, it's more cinematic.
The A9 III has some competition in video, as RED just released a pair of full-frame global shutter cinema cameras last month.
It has the same excellent video stabilization capabilities as the ZV-E1. Regular optical stabilization is great for handheld shots without much movement, or you can switch to dynamic active mode for walking. This provides levels of smoothness close to that of a gimbal, although there is considerable zoom and loss of sharpness.
Just like with photos, video quality isn't up to par with other full-frame cameras, with more noise in general. I shot in S-Log3 most of the time to maximize dynamic range and was happy with the results. In low light, I was forced to use some noise reduction.
The quality is still better than any APS-C mirrorless or cinema camera. I think the overall benefits of the shutter, especially the elimination of the rolling shutter, will be worth the trade-off in quality for a lot of videographers.
Conclude
Sony launched its first full-frame mirrorless camera, the A7, years before its competitors, and was the first to bring back-illuminated and stacked sensors to market. However, in recent times, competitors (especially Canon) have been catching up and the field has evened out. With the world's first shutter camera, Sony has once again taken a leap forward.
Image quality has held back sensor cameras around the world, but Sony clearly felt the time had finally come. It was a wise calculation: the A9 III is much better than I expected for a first-generation product. It offers blazing speeds and incredible video capabilities, with a relatively low cost in image quality.
Its main rivals are the $4,800 Canon R3, the $6,500 Sony A1, the $5,650 Nikon Z9, and the $3,800 Z8, all stacked sensor cameras. The latter three offer much higher resolution and better image quality, as well as shooting speeds that remain damn fast. However, they all have rolling shutters, as well as flickering and flash sync issues that don't exist on the A9 III.
Whether it's worth risking that kind of money on new and unproven stacked sensor technology depends on the buyer. Action photographers and videographers won't blink at the price if the benefits of the global shutter help them make money. Unless you really need these benefits, Nikon's Z9 and Z8, as well as Sony's A1, are more versatile cameras – and the Z8 is significantly less expensive.