Sony A9 Image Quality

Here we compare the 24-megapixel Sony A9 to Canon's top-of-the-line sports DSLR, the 20-megapixel EOS-1 DX Mark II. The higher-resolution Sony A9 does resolve a bit more detail in most areas, however theoretical resolving power is actually pretty close, with the Sony only offering about a 9.6% advantage in linear resolution not including the impact of different AA filters. The Sony image is however much crisper thanks to a more advanced sharpening algorithm that not only brings out more fine detail, but also avoids the unsightly sharpening halos Canon's default processing generates along high-contrast edges. (Canon's Fine Detail Picture Style does a better job rendering fine detail with reduced sharpening halos, however we always compare default processing here.) The Canon's default noise reduction also blurs our tricky red-leaf swatch already here at ISO 100, while the Sony image renders much more of the fine thread-pattern that the Canon likely treats as noise. The Canon produces more accurate colors overall, but the Sony isn't too bad with less green-to-yellow and pink-to-red shifting than we've seen from some past Alpha models, though it still desaturates yellows and light greens more than we'd like to see. Both cameras show some moiré patterns in the red-leaf swatch and elsewhere, though the Sony's is perhaps a bit more pronounced, suggesting it has a weak anti-aliasing filter if it has one at all.

Here's another comparison to a direct competitor with slightly lower resolution, the 20-megapixel Nikon D5 DSLR. Nikon's sharpening is more aggressive than Canon's, so its image has a similar amount of crispness and "bite" to it as the Sony's, but again sharpening halos are much more visible from the Nikon along high-contrast edges. Blurring in our troublesome red-leaf swatch isn't as pronounced as the Canon's was, however the Sony still easily bests the Nikon in this area, resolving more of the fine thread pattern with higher contrast and less blurring. Colors from the Nikon are however more pleasing with more accurate pinks, yellows and greens.

In this comparison we pit the Sony A9 against the 20-megapixel Micro Four Thirds Olympus E-M1 Mark II. Hardly a fair comparison if you just consider the relative sensor sizes alone, however the E-M1 II is capable of 15 fps burst shooting with the mechanical shutter (the A9 tops out at 5 fps) and up to a whopping 60 fps with electronic shutter (versus 20 fps for the A9), and it has fast hybrid AF as well, so it competes with the Sony in terms of performance. Once again, the Sony captures a bit more detail with a slightly crisper image, but its sharpening algorithm does not generate obvious halos along high-contrast edges like the Olympus does. And again, the Sony does a much better job with our challenging red-leaf swatch with the Olympus blurring a lot of the fine detail away while leaving some lighter pixels behind. Like the other contenders, colors are however more pleasing and accurate from the Olympus.

Here we decided to compare the Sony A9 to its closest mirrorless sibling in terms of resolution, the 24-megapixel Sony A7 II, just to see how default image processing at the same resolution has progressed since the A7 II came out in late 2014. As you can see, image quality here at ISO 100 is similar in most areas, however the new Sony A9 does a much better job with fine detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch, resolving many of the individual threads that the A7 II blurs away as if noise. The Sony A9 image also looks slightly crisper, and color has improved as well. It'll be interesting to see how they compare at higher ISOs but there is a definite improvement in the fabrics here at base ISO.

And finally, we decided to compare the A9 to Sony's other sports-oriented full-frame ILC, the 42-megapixel A99 Mark II. It's capable of burst speeds of up to almost 12 fps which is very impressive given the resolution. Here we can see the A99 II easily out-resolves the 24-megapixel A9, capturing noticeably more detail while still producing a very crisp image with few sharpening artifacts, but as expected, noise levels are a little higher from the A99 II. Colors are similar, though again the A9 offers a slight improvement over the A99 II in terms of accuracy.

Here at ISO 1600, the Sony A9 still produces a crisper, more detailed image with fewer sharpening artifacts. However luma noise is a bit higher than the Canon in flatter areas, and the Sony's area-specific noise reduction did produce some artificial-looking artifacts, such as some darker and lighter pixels in the red-leaf swatch which produced a slight "salt and pepper" effect. Canon's more traditional approach to noise reduction did soften the entire image more, but noise appears more natural and consistent.

The comparison to the Nikon D5 is similar to that of the Canon 1DX II, with the Sony generating a crisper, more detailed image with almost no sharpening halos, but with slightly higher noise along with some unwanted noise reduction artifacts.

Unsurprisingly, the full-frame Sony A9 easily bests the Olympus E-M1 II here at ISO 1600, with a much crisper, more detailed image. As the Olympus work hard to keep noise under control it distorts, blurs and smudges fine detail, especially in our red-leaf swatch.

Both of these siblings produce very crisp images with good detail, however noise does appear a little higher from the A9 in flatter areas, and as mentioned previously, the revised area-specific noise reduction retains more fine detail in our red-leaf swatch. However, the A9 leaves behind small areas with well-defined individual thread patterns while blurring other areas that results in a somewhat peppered look compared to the smoother but more blurred rendering from the A7 II.

The 42-megapixel A99 II still handily out-resolves the A9 here at ISO 1600 while still producing a somewhat crisper image as well. As expected, noise is higher from the A99 Mark II, however anti-noise processing does not produce the unwanted noise reduction artifacts seen the A9's red-leaf swatch.

The Sony A9 still manages to produce a crisper, slightly more detailed image than the Canon 1DX II at ISO 3200, however luminance noise is higher and has a less consistent grain patter in flatter areas, making it look less film-like than the Canon's noise grain. Both camera start to struggle to faithfully reproduce the tricky red-leaf fabric, though the Canon does a better job here, with a smoother but less distorted rendering.

It's a similar story here with the Sony producing a crisper, slightly more detailed image while the Nikon produces a smoother, slightly cleaner image with a more film-like grain structure. The Nikon also does a bit better in the red-leaf pattern with much of the apparent detail from the Sony more distorted than from the Nikon.

The Olympus E-M1 II does very well for a Micro Four Thirds camera, but it simply can't compete with a good full-frame sensor in terms of noise, which means its noise reduction processing has to work a lot harder to keep noise in check with fine detail and crispness suffering more as a consequence. Despite the stronger noise reduction, the Olympus also shows slightly higher luminance and chrominance noise than the Sony, and fine detail in our red-leaf swatch is all but gone now.

Here at ISO 3200, the Sony A9 leaves behind a little more luminance noise than the A7 II which is visible in the flatter areas, but the noise "grain" appears a little tighter and more consistent, and fine detail is better in our mosaic crop. The A7 II does a bit better overall with our tricky red-leaf swatch as well as the pink fabric even though the A9 still manages to hold onto at least some of the fine thread pattern in the red-leaf fabric. It's a difficult call as to which one actually produced the better overall image as it depends a lot on personal preference, though we give the edge to the A9 here.

Noise is definitely higher in the A99 II image here at ISO 3200, but it still retains significantly more detail than the A9 while remaining very crisp. Overall, we think the A99 II is still the better performer here as there is a lot more detail to tradeoff against noise, especially if you reduce its image size down to the same resolution.