Considering getting A9 to replace A6500 (and use alongside A7RIII)

[2xbass]

Hi folks, my first post here.

I’m just about to pull the trigger on the A9 and was hoping to get some thoughts from others to help me validate my decision or point out anything I might be missing.

I shoot mainly wildlife photography with occasional landscapes and like many wildlife photographers I travel with two cameras. I often go places where it takes a lot of time, money, and effort to get to the location and you really want to ensure you don’t miss possible shots. For example, sometimes there’s a surprise opportunity that’s too close for the 100-400 so you want a shorter lens already mounted on another body. Also, you absolutely want to have backup equipment in case of a failure or accident.

For me, the two camera combination has been a full-frame body and a crop-sensor body for the extra reach. I currently have an A7RIII and A6500.

Especially when I need the reach I often have the 100-400 on the A6500 (with either at least the 1.4x and sometimes the 2.0 tele) and either a 70-200 or 24-105 on the A7RIII. However if I don’t need the reach I will switch the bodies to get the better resolution and the much nicer controls on the A7RIII. Although there are some downsides with that combination like the A7RIII PDAF not working at f11 with the 2x tele, etc.

Especially for birds in flight, I’ve been wanting the A9 for a long time but I was always thinking either to have the A7RIII OR the A9 and that always does seem to be the big decision people need to make if they are choosing one camera. However now instead of thinking A7RIII OR A9 plus the A6500, I’m actually thinking A7RIII + A9.

 

The A9 has a massive discount on sale right now, ending soon, so Sony is really making it attractive although I worry that they might come out with a new model not too far down the road (and the sale makes me worry more about that).

 

The awesome capabilities of the A9 aside, I know I would love having two bodies with similar controls. The things I don’t like about the A6500 include the body being too small to hold well with a long lens, missing the extra controls from the A7RIII, and having to carry a different set of batteries and charger.

 

The thing I would lose is the reach but especially with the A7RIII I have the extra resolution to crop in post. In fact recently I have started to use the APS-C mode in the A7RIII more although where possible I try not to take the shot that way and lose all that resolution immediately (down to 18 MP) but will use it just to check what I see that close and then take the shot in full-frame mode and crop in post with more flexibility in how I crop.

 

If I did this and could live without the A6500 reach it would be logical to sell the A6500 but it is so small I could also see myself just throwing it and extra batteries in my luggage bag (I always travel with only carry-ons) without a lens and just keeping it at my hotel/camp as an extra backup.

 

Thanks for any thoughts on this. I’d especially love to hear from other wildlife or action shooters and anyone using this camera combo.

 

 

 

[LiveShots]

I went from a6500 to a9, even though the sensor is the same MP, the difference in image quality was immediately evident. The silent fast shutter is great for wildlife. At $1000 off its a steal.

[2xbass]

4 hours ago, LiveShots said:

I went from a6500 to a9, even though the sensor is the same MP, the difference in image quality was immediately evident. The silent fast shutter is great for wildlife. At $1000 off its a steal.

Thanks. That’s great to hear. I can see myself using the A9 as the primary shooter especially where silent shutter, focus, and burst speed would be helpful. However if I really feel like I need the reach I can switch the long lens to the A7RIII and crop in post.