Thomas Smet
Veteran
A7III Pros:
- better autofocus
- better low-light
- better dynamic range
- lighter body
- larger full-frame sensor(for shallower DOF)
- ok maybe but not everybody uses auto focus. I have failed students that relied on auto focus. Focus is one of those core fundamentals to learning how to shoot with a camera and while auto focus is a nice to have tool not every user puts a lot of stock into auto focus. At least in the high end spectrum of production. No TV show or movie in Hollywood uses auto focus. At least not as the norm.
- maybe but at what point is this no longer relevant. GH5 users already say the GH5s isn't worth it because they find the GH5 to already handle every situation just fine. Not everybody shoots in the dark without the use of lights. Low light is a solid point however and the reason why the GH5s exists.
- Allegedly better dynamic range. Just because Sony prints a spec doesn't mean it is better. Sony tends to have an extremely liberal use of dynamic range. Plus the way to get the most dynamic range is to shoot s-log3 which is crippled by the 8bit codec and the dynamic range eventually hits a ceiling. The dynamic range of the sensor shooting raw stills is very different than the dynamic range shooting to a 8bit video codec. Sony will never tell you if their dynamic range printed spec is for raw stills or for 8bit video. video codecs also affect how much dynamic range is captured and just like the GH5 the Sony cameras need to shoot log in order to get close to what that sensor is capable of. Shoot a baked in profile on the Sony and you are not getting that dynamic range. Like the dingo pointed out the GH5s may be 12 stops but it is also 12 stops at both of the native ISO levels whereas even for raw stills every other DSLR drops dynamic range to around 11 stops. So in theory the A7 III may be less than a stop better at lower ISO levels but a stop worse at higher ISO levels. The GH5s is really the most balanced dynamic range DSLR out there.
- I honestly don't really care about the body weight when talking about a DSLR which is already insanely light for what we get. To me it is such a non issue. Besides sometimes a heavier camera is better to reduce micro jitters caused by wind or cheap tripods. Most m43 users I know of gladly accepted the weight gain through all the GH cameras and rarely ever brought the weight increase as an issue.
- Shallower DOF in terms of what? Lots of factors here and m43 can do a lot with DOF as well. m43 can use a focal reducer which makes it more like a APS-C sensor size in terms of DOF. You are now only one stop away from the same DOF as FF. Shoot f4 comfortably on FF? Well f2.8 is pretty easy to get on m43 even with zoom lenses and can easily match the DOF of FF. This is again such a non issue unless you insist on having razor thin DOF from FF by shooting 50mm f1.2. Optically not the best solution and almost impossible to focus with for serious production work where clients pay you. It honestly only takes a sliver of extra effort to achieve similar DOF on m43. Can't replicate every situation but the importance is much less significant than you think it is. Plus very few Hollywood movies actually use that shallow of DOF. They shoot s35mm (close to APS-C size) and not FF and they tend to stop down their lenses to f4 or f5.6. Extremely easy to match that on m43 and even easier once you add a Speedbooster which essentially makes the GH5 an exact match to s35mm size sensors. On the GH5s using a Speedbooster XL gets you around a 1.2x crop which is half way between APS-C and FF so not a huge difference in terms of DOF.
Change the GH5 in your list to the GH5s and really the only advantage Sony now has is crude IBIS which honestly I wouldn't trust over better solutions.
Last edited: