RIP Sony a7s III

jonpais

jonpais

Well-known member
It doesn’t appear to be getting the attention it deserves, but Sony’s firmware update 2.00 for the FX3, their popular entry-level cinema camera, just rendered the a7s III obsolete. In an effort to better integrate the the FX3 with the rest of their cinema lineup that includes the FX6, FX9 and Sony Venice cameras, new log settings and timecode support have been introduced, owners can at last bid farewell to S-Log2 and users can now load custom LUTs. Of particular interest to us are the new Cine EI/Cine EI Quick modes that more fully exploit the wide dynamic range of S-Log3, though it will doubtless take some time before filmmakers accustomed to shooting under poor lighting conditions and cranking up the ISO learn to appreciate it. Not even Katie Eleneke, the hurried presenter in the Sony video, gives two shits about Cine EI. To learn why Cine EI is such a big deal, check out this article.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. My a7sIII is working just fine - still doing all the things I need it to do. Trying to guess what Sony will do next is .... well, at best, an "educated" guess... if it comes from someone with ties to Sony.
 
If you own one of these, please take it to a recycling center for proper disposition. Some localities have buyback programs where you can receive a gift certificate for getting them off the street. They are melted down and recycled into tools, like hammers and sickles.
 
Imamacuser said:
I still hope they release a Super35 10-bit camera.
Click to expand...

If you want to use S35 lenses with a Sony A series camera shooting XAVC 10-bit in SLOG you can do that up to 50/60p in 4K (up to 120 in HD) in Crop Mode with the A7iv. Been doing so since February. In crop mode it is still down sampled from 4.6K and looks very decent. In crop mode it has less rolling shutter than an FS7, where no one really complained about rolling shutter.

Chris Young
 
From what I've seen over the years the benefit of Cine-EI is mostly that it locks you into a workflow that provides that best quality possible. It doesn't mean that you can't achieve the same result and quality when picking the same settings for ISO, WB etc. manually. It just requires an understanding of the camera's abilities by the camera's operator.
The Sony A7SIII is definitely not dead yet as it also provides a few things the FX3 doesn't, like an EVF for example.
 
bobtronic said:
From what I've seen over the years the benefit of Cine-EI is mostly that it locks you into a workflow that provides that best quality possible. It doesn't mean that you can't achieve the same result and quality when picking the same settings for ISO, WB etc. manually.
Click to expand...
The first statement is correct. EI, which high end cinema cameras like RED and ARRI employ allows you to obtain the very best image quality possible from the sensor. The second statement is debatable: there have been countless articles and videos by experienced DPs explaining exposure strategies that clarify the differences between the two approaches, Alister Chapman among them. RED’s website also explains the advantages of this method. With most DSLR type cameras, as you increase ISO, amplification is applied to the signal, increasing noise and diminishing dynamic range, baking those properties into the footage and lessening flexibility in post. Cine EI maximizes the dynamic range by reallocating fewer or more stops of dynamic range above or below middle gray, preserving as much of the DR as possible. Rather than increasing ISO, as you might do in a dark scene, you would lower it, resulting in a cleaner image and capturing more information in the shadows; on the other hand, increasing ISO redistributes more dynamic range above middle gray, capturing more information in the highlights and providing more insurance against clipping. There are videos online illustrating the difference EI makes. These advantages are not merely theoretical. Traditional consumer cameras do not do this.

“The Sony A7SIII is definitely not dead yet as it also provides a few things the FX3 doesn't, like an EVF for example.”

Advantages FX3

Removable top handle with XLR inputs
Integrated 1/4"-20 mounting threads
Fan for active cooling, longer shooting times, like true cinema cameras have
Multiple tally lights on front and back
Improved button layout, zoom rocker
Cine EI, Cine EI Quick modes
Embedded LUT and EI (exposure) metadata to assist with post-production workflow
Preset LUTs, ability to load as many as 16 user LUTs
Timecode sync
New list-style main menu screen which provides quick access to frequently used items ​
Instant Function (Fn) menu display by swiping up on the screen
New standby movie screen provides an unobstructed view of the subject
AF (autofocus) assist function to smoothly switch between auto and manual focus

Advantage a7s III

EVF

The EVF can only be used when your face is pressed up against the camera, not a situation I’ve ever encountered. My camera is always on a gimbal, tripod or slider. When handholding my Komodo, it is often at waist level.

Winner: FX3
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
The first statement is correct........The second statement is debatable.......There are videos online illustrating the difference EI makes. These advantages are not merely theoretical. Traditional consumer cameras do not do this.
Click to expand...

Nothing debatable. CINE-EI doesn't set exposure for you. It's just a visual exposure tool. John Brawley calls it a tool for ETTR.
 
Tom Roper said:
CINE-EI doesn't set exposure for you.
Click to expand...
Goodness! No one on earth said it did! One school of thought goes that today's sensors aren't that noisy anyhow and that there is no disadvantage to amplifying the signal as long as it doesn't impact dynamic range negatively. Whichever camp one belongs to, there's no denying that having options is a good thing and that having Cine EI integrates the FX3 better into Sony's cinema lineup. Only a bad actor would argue otherwise. As for Brawley, isn't he the one who denies that there's any product placement whatsoever on The Morning Show when throughout 74 ‌Apple TV+‌ episodes studied by the WSJ, 300 iPhones, 120 MacBooks, and 40 pairs of AirPods were shown during certain scenes, equating to over 700 Apple product placements? And that he doesn't like RED's ethics but gladly serves as a brand ambassador for one of the most corrupt corporations in Japan? A company involved in one of the biggest and longest-lived financial scandals in the history of corporate Japan; a workplace where corporate corruption is so ingrained that just five years ago it was ordered to pay a fine in connection with a scandal in the USA in which nearly $600 million was disbursed in the form of kickbacks, including grants, bribes, gifts, and other forms of payoffs - the largest kickback lawsuit for a medical device company in U.S. history?
 
Last edited:
I might be off with some of my Cine-EI assumptions but I still think the A7SIII has enough use cases over the FX3. It's a great light-weight camera for traveling, vlogging that delivers great video footage. It's a video centered hybrid camera where the FX3 clearly is meant as a video only tool. I would say they are different tools.
 
I own an A7siii that I've been very happy with but when I saw the firmware upgrade to the Fx3 I got lustful and just bought one to try out ( have 30 days to return). Mainly I was interested in the Cine EI function so it would be a perfect match for my FX9. I just upgraded the firmware and have been dissappointed to see a few missing functions in Cine EI at least . One is Auto white balance which I've actually used quite a bit on industrial shoots where i just want a quick balance for short shots where i'm not worried about the color changing mid shot and I've found Underwater auto to look great. The other is the clear image zoom which I use often to get closer to things and which I can tailor to the shot instead of needing to go all the way in to S35 where the resolution begins to decay.
I haven't tried to change the function buttons yet but it seems there fewer of them than on A7sii which is kind of a drag . I don't need WB and ISO to be buttons
- Can I change one to be a MF/AF toggle like on the A7?

I like the ease of having the audio adapter on the handle (instead of having to mount an adapter beneath the camera), but quite annoyed that it seems pretty hard to mount a small mic like the Rhodes without a bunch of extra hardware that may get in the way of other accessories like a small monitor and sungun and am concerned that adding a monitor will now be top heavy. Another annoyance is that it doesn't look like the mini connector A3 can be set for mono which is how I would typically want to use it. I don't want to use a full size mic on such a little camera so the shock mount is just a waste of space. Not sure if it will be harder to add accessories to the FX3. I guess I need a different cage also.

The way I've been shooting Log is to shoot at 640 or 12800 and overexpose the image. To monitor I generally leave EVF showing log and the histogram, and have a small 5" with a LUT that is set for 1-2 stops over so I can see a properly exposed image. The histogram + zebras around 90 make it easy to see when my exposure is "in bounds" , but I like the idea of cine EI so I can really get a better image for overexosed SLog.

Has anyone else found that there are things missing on the FX3 that led them to prefer the A7 other than the viewfinder? Or any specific functions on the FX3 that gave it a big advantage. Anyone have overheating problems on the A7siii?

What cage do you guys like? Looks like my small rig half cage for A7Siii won't work, and the small rig for FX3 looks terrible. The Tilta looks good .

Still undecided about whether I keep this.
 
Last edited:
well good news - I can assign the zoom handle to clear image zoom. That's a big plus. Can probably live without Auto white. Its been essential for one client but its unusual and otherwise might not use that much, and I can always leave cine EI if i need it. Now to see if I can rig the camera the way I want.
 
LennyLevy said:
The way I've been shooting Log is to shoot at 640 or 12800 and overexpose the image. To monitor I generally leave EVF showing log and the histogram, and have a small 5" with a LUT that is set for 1-2 stops over so I can see a properly exposed image. The histogram + zebras around 90 make it easy to see when my exposure is "in bounds" , but I like the idea of cine EI so I can really get a better image for overexosed SLog.

Has anyone else found that there are things missing on the FX3 that led them to prefer the A7 other than the viewfinder? Or any specific functions on the FX3 that gave it a big advantage. Anyone have overheating problems on the A7siii?

What cage do you guys like? Looks like my small rig half cage for A7Siii won't work, and the small rig for FX3 looks terrible. The Tilta looks good .

Still undecided about whether I keep this.
Click to expand...


I'm confused how the CineEI on the FX3 is different or better than shooting in Slog3cine on the A7sIII at either base ISO and rating the camera to expose one stop over?
No cage with my a7sIII - prefer just having a Shape baseplate with rods - for when I need it - that allows me to go from shoulder mount (small rig) to tripod to gimbal without having to do any fiddling. No overheating issues either. But then I don't think of these small mirrorless camera's as the right tool for long interviews or for shooting continuously for hours.
 
The results are the same. The main difference is only what you're looking at in the viewfinder or a monitor. On an A7siii when you overexpose the image looks overexposed. You can't just change the ISO of the camera. So unless you have a monitor with LUT designed for overexposure then you can't really see the properly exposed picture. This is a drag if you want to be able to make decisions based on how the picture looks or show it to a client on set. You do have gamma assist to aid in evaluating the image so it doesn't look like Slog, but it still won't compensate for the overexposure.

In the FX3 like FX9 or FS7 in Cine EI the camera outputs an image with a LUT that is already adjusted to the overexposure. So you are seeing what you would get in Post after apply the LUT . Also its possible to embed the LUT so you get the full value of Slog which has more dynamic range than sCinetone. Likewise if you wanted you could apply your own LUT.

If you're shooting an FX9 and an A7siii as a second camera ( common for me ) then you can see matching images on a monitor - That's nice. Of course if you have a monitor that can apply the LUT itself and you have exposure adjusted LUT's, then its less of an issue as you can output Slog from the cameras. I can do that hence I'm pretty up in the air as to whether I'll keep the FX3. But if I'm bringing my camera to someone else's party they rarely have exposure adjusted LUTs.
 
Last edited:
^ Thanks for the thorough explanation Lenny.
I'd never expect a client to look at the small screen on my A7sIII to evaluate anything other than possibly framing (and even then only in a pinch). So, for me, an exposure adjusted LUT with a larger monitor has always been the case ever since I started shooting Slog with my FS7 - as having it for playback was always necessary from the get go.
 
That's true. No LUT in your monitor doesn't make playback very valuable for client . I finally not a monitor with user LUTs this month.
 
x
markfpv said:
I'm confused how the CineEI on the FX3 is different or better than shooting in Slog3cine on the A7sIII at either base ISO and rating the camera to expose one stop over?
No cage with my a7sIII - prefer just having a Shape baseplate with rods - for when I need it - that allows me to go from shoulder mount (small rig) to tripod to gimbal without having to do any fiddling. No overheating issues either. But then I don't think of these small mirrorless camera's as the right tool for long interviews or for shooting continuously for hours.
Click to expand...
Typically, videographers have increased ISO in order to shoot in low light and lowered ISO in bright light. Increasing ISO does not increase the sensitivity of the sensor, it just applies gain to the signal, increasing noise and not doing any favors to the dynamic range, which can fall off a cliff at higher ISOs on certain cameras. Cine EI works differently, some would say counter-intuitively: in low key scenes or in any situation where there is an abundance of important shadow information, you would reduce the EI (giving the sensor more light) and when you need to protect highlights, you increase the EI. The total dynamic range remains unchanged; what happens is that at low EIs, you’re allocating more stops of dynamic range below middle gray, along with less noise, whereas at higher EIs, more dynamic range is allocated above middle gray (along with increased noise). So for example, with my Komodo, which works in a similar fashion, if I’m shooting a moody interior, I might rate the camera at ISO 400, while in a bright scene, I may shoot at ISO 800 or 1600. I will risk stating the obvious: that while some digital cameras that deal with ISO in the traditional way may very well have higher dynamic range and latitude than one with an EI based method, when it comes to cameras that do employ EI, the benefits are significant for those particular cameras. EI allows you to prioritize where the dynamic range is distributed; it does not increase the total dynamic range. As far as monitoring LUTs go, I would not gamble on them for exposure, preferring exposure tools instead.
 
Last edited:
^ Um, yeah.
I've been a working "videographer" for over 30 years now and have been shooting with the Sony FS7 using CineEI since it came out. My point, and to risk stating the obvious... while no where on my a7sIII camera does it say CineEI... it doesn't really have to in order to get the best dynamic range out of the camera.
When shooting Slog3 on that camera (and my other Sony cameras), I'll rate my dual native ISO a7sIII one to 1.5 stops under the 640 / 12800 native, thus ETTR'ing and lowering noise. Again, this camera is very much alive for me.
 
DO NOT rate the ISO lower than 12,800 when using high base slog on the A7siii , You will revert to very noisy gain on the lower base . That;'s my issue with it and one reason to get Cine EI on the FX3 ( in addition to the correct LUT instead of gamma assist if you care). You have to shoot at 12,800 and simply overexpose the image so it will look overexposed in the camera. Rating lower may work at the lower base. I haven't tried it but it does make sense. Otherwise you are of course right that you will get the full dynamic range of Slog3 just fine. It is a monitoring issue only - a convenience.
 
Disclaimer: My experience with it comes from the F55 which may be different.

1.) F55 gives a choice of 2 modes, Cine-EI and Custom
2.) In either mode you can choose any SLog2/3 and sgamut or sgamut3 or sgamut3.cine
3.) In Cine-EI the base ISO is always fixed at 1250
4.) Custom, the gain changes with each ISO setting, therefore you can only mimic EI at 1250.
5.) In Custom 1250 you can change WB to anything, in EI you must choose either 3200/4000/5600

Is the A7SIII operating from only one of the two base ISO when you change ISO setting? Or is each ISO setting a new gain setting. One way to tell, does the A7SIII let you choose to display gain in db? In other words, -3 db, 0 db, +3 db, +6 db, +9 db etc.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top