S1H new price

I think what the AF can do right now is mind-blowing. I was bringing this up in the context of upgrading cameras. Because there are times it fails, then a superior AF system might induce me to upgrade.

The same goes for high-ISO performance. If they could improve that from its terrific current standpoint, I would be interested. (I doubt they can unless there's some new fundamental technology yet to be developed, akin to BSI. It seems like the materials are performing at their limit).

Because the thing is that other specs increases and design changes will not induce me to upgrade. Until clients demand 8K, the A7SIII is giving me all I need from it in the application I use it for. Higher resolution, higher frame rate, internal RAW... none of it would induce me to upgrade.

eND or a better remote control system... two other things that would tempt me.

But I suppose all this discussion is me trying to agree with you that there isn't much reason to upgrade from here besides GAS. If anything, AF seems like the low-hanging fruit to me, even though it's already pretty good.

(There are little annoying things, though. Like if Eye AF is on but I tap on a hand to focus on their hand instead, the camera will snap back to focus on an eye if it's in frame. So, I have to turn off Eye AF altogether. But I can't do that during recording so I have to cut. Multiple layers of annoyance here. And this is a very frequent occurrence.)
 
Any modern camera above $1,500 should have both the PD and the CD for the AF ... and LiDAR, for the high ISO situations, when both PD and CD tend to falter.

In terms of the low light, Canon has that 1080p 2,000,000 ISO monster but there should be a much lower priced model, even if not with the same identical specs. Hypothetically, a 1080p-2.5K medium format unit would be even more awesome.

Of course, a medium format 8K camera should have been out by now too. Fuji's supposedly going to release a "cheap" MF model in another couple of months but it's very unlikely to have 8K.
 
It might be 200 million ISO, but where is the limit of usability? For the A7SIII, I'd say 25600 even though the camera goes to 100k or 400k or whatever. and I certainly don't need an HD camera in any sensor size.

The only thing about medium format is I'm not sure that equivalent f-stop lenses are readily available. So maybe you can get more light gathering area on the sensor but you may have to use a slower lens. And certainly from a business perspective, full-frame hits a sweet spot of affordability because of the massive catalogue of vintage lenses and the huge number of current manufacturers in the space
 
The sensor has pixels measuring 19μm, allowing for 1080/60p video capture in light levels as low as 0.0005 lux at a gain setting of 75 Db, which is equivalent to over ISO 4,000,000.
Click to expand...

https://www.dpreview.com/news/81248...used-to-record-fluorescent-life-in-the-amazon

As to lenses, there's a 45mm 1.4 GFX mount.

https://www.diyphotography.net/irix...rlds-fastest-medium-format-fujifilm-gfx-lens/

But, clearly, as the medium format gets closer to the "not quite affordable but no longer insanely expensive" category, there's going to be more glass available.
 
That may be, but the fastest lenses Fuji themselves make for GFX are an f/1.7 and f/2. Which squares with what I've seen, that MF lenses are usually a stop slower than their FF equivalents. So, you can get a top-shelf AF normal prime with f/1.2 in FF or f/1.7 in MF, somewhat negating your light gain. There are manual focus 3rd party f/0.95 lenses in full-frame.

But one advantage of MF, on a different subject from exposure, is that you can get better optical quality at the same DOF vs full-frame

That dpreview article doesn't really give me the objective basis for comparison that I'd like, although obviously the ME-20H is LESS noisy than any camera I've ever used
 
New rumors on A7IV have it with a 30 MPX stills capability. If so, even at $2,000, it'll need the 10-bit video to sell, although at that price, it'll probably do some line skipping and/or center-cropping. At $2,500, it would have to offer an oversampled high quality 4K and a high bit rate codec and/or H265/HEVC.
 
you mean this "wild rumor"?

About those rumors: I have no idea who sent them and 90% of the times they turn out to be wrong. But, it happened in the past that a couple of those were right. So I will post them today, and we all together can eventually keep track of this. If one of the sources turns out to be right than we will know we can trust it a bit more!

Source 1:
Reviewers just received the A7IV for testing in the field. Release date is more than likely September/October.
30MP sensor is correct.​
Click to expand...

​

I wouldn't put much stock in that. And Sony hasn't done center-cropping for a while, unless you mean for HFR. It seems wholly capable to me that they could produce a FF 30MP camera with 60fps full read-out for $2k, but whether they would bother at the price I do not know

And another equally wild rumor in that round-up says that the A7IV will be delayed until next year due to the current spike in chip prices. I could totally believe that, because they're going to sell A7IVs by the bushel and it doesn't make sense to release it when they can't keep up with demand
 
A7RIV has a 4K (15 MPX) center crop. But it's a very high resolution stills camera. Normally, the battle is waged between the photo and the video sides of a paerticular design. Doing both well takes a lot of processing power and comes with a hefty price tag. Or one could compromise a bit here and a bit there. R6 is more video geared. A7III was/is more balanced. A7IV is also likely to be balanced. But, at $2,500, it's likely to be a solid performer in both. If it's less, however, something would have to give.

I expected it to have 42 MPX and a very high quality oversampled 4K (and no 8K) for $2,500. Those specs should make it a popular offering for the entire product cycle. Then Sony can drop A7RIII into the $2,000 range and A7III under $1,500. We shall see.
 
4K/60p is the make-or-break feature. I don't see it being 10-bit. 8-bit and possibly with a crop...otherwise it hurts a7SIII too much.

Technically, the R6 is an inferior spec camera for video with its IPB offerings, but the sensor and color are so good that its modern image is good enough for most.

Canon has always been proud of their technology achievements which is why they price their cameras higher than others.

There's no reason for the 5D Mark IV (with C-Log and a 4K/30p 1.8x crop) to cost $2600, but the Motion JPEG is considered elite and I feel like that's how Canon thinks.

You pay for features...no money, no features...no extended recording with advanced technology, just a taste (R5).
 
It will be interesting to see if the A7IV is 10bit or 8bit for video. At some point the passage of time makes new standards. A new camera in 2021/22 that is not 10bit is kind of out of step with technology isn't it? Cutting edge with stills but throwback with video? Seems like a mismatch to me. But I agree, that ain't going to give anything away. Although I do not see ant competition between the A7sIII and the A7IV. Most all of the still shooters steer clear of the A7sIII and the video shooters might already own an A7sIII and would pick up an A7IV IF it could be a 10bit compliment. How much more does it cost them to make the camera 10bit vs 8bit? Seems like they only gain customers with 10bit compared to losing customers if it is 8bit.
 
Their full-frame 8-bit 4K/30p a7C is a hot camera.

You'd think they learn but they don't because people buy every single model Sony and Canon release.

In short, they can't make a camera that's too good for video below the a7SIII. Or they can but limit it to 4K/30p.
 
I'm definitely considering getting an A7IV as a C camera (after FS7 and A7SIII) but only if it has 4k60 10-bit. So, they could lose the price difference between the A7IV and A7SIII if they make the A7IV good enough.

That being said, I've been reconsidering the merits of just getting another A7SIII regardless of how the A7IV shakes out, for a few reasons:

1. I'm surprised by how often I use 120fps and it would be annoying to swap my cameras between rigs just to use the 120. That would be like having a single camera anyway.

2. It would be similarly annoying to prioritize one camera in a low-light situation.

3. You never get a better match than by using the same model. Which never mattered as much to me as diversifying/maximizing my capabilities, but it's definitely a nicety.

Plus, by the time the A7IV is available, a used or open box A7SIII may only be $500-1k more. 4K crop would be cool but not as good as just having the correct lens. And I only get asked to take stills about once a year, with low resolution needs as long as I frame correctly.
 
Right now, Sony has (from high to low) in full frame :

A1 for $6,500
A9II for $4,500
A7SIII for $3,500
A7RIV A for $3,000
A7RIIIA for $2,300
A7c for $1,800
A7III for $1,700
A7RII for $1,200
A7II for $900

-----------------------------------

There seems to be a big gap between A1 to A7SIII, as A9II is an action cam. A veteran A7RIIIA is currently filling the gap between A7SIII and A7c/A7III IV but can be dropped below $2000 while castling with A7IV. A7SIII is too popular to drop below $3,000 but A7RIV can be and is likely to be replaced by A7RV, which could challenge Canon R5 as the high end jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-all-too at $4,500. But without the overheating.

A7RII should soon drop down to $1,000 and compete with EOS RP on stills. And beat it.

This is how it's shaping up, with Canon and Sony market-setting and others filling in the gaps. But the market is getting very congested with the 8K models pressing down on everyone else.
 
I think the 8bit camera success shows how folks are more interested in still use compared to video. So it really comes down to where Sony has a divider line for price vs which models get 10bit. We will see where the A7IV falls. I am with you Abe, color are never better than the same model. After that same family brand etc... I am waiting for the convergence stars to align to get a pair of cameras - Main photo camera with a backup/2nd lens attached & two camera video setup with one being gimbal friendly. Panasonic almost got me there but fell short on the lenses turning the wrong direction :) and AF to some extent. If the R3 has the right stuff I could get there with an R6/R3 combo. For Sony, two A7sIII's falls short a little in the photo department. An A7IV with 10bit would remedy that.

Complex I know, but that is what would allow me to justify purchases going forward and not be GAS induced.

BTW, there is a thread on DPReview in the L-Mount section about Panasonic scaling back the S-series. The old 'person talked to a Panasonic rep at a trade show' thing but it was an interesting thread I participated in. Basically folks love the images but are not crazy about the weight of the larger models and the L-Mount lens world is a hangup. Along with the AF concerns. I think Panasonic would have been wise to push for a better EF mount adapter to get more people to buy the bodies. But that is just my opinion after the fact. Sort of like pricing Blu-ray players too high and the format dying.
 
What have you been using for the last few years while you decide on a camera(s) to accomplish your work?
 
I have normal video cameras for certain jobs. GH5 and other little ones as well as 5D MKII & III for stills. Would like to convert the GH5 & 5Ds into two, dual use bodies.
 
Last edited:
As expected, R3 is at the Olympics. As somewhat unexpected, it has a 24 MPX sensor. Top photogs use both R3 and R5 -- the former, presumably for action, the latter for portraits, landscape, etc. So, it looks like an A9 MKII competitor, as suspected, rather than the jack-of-all-trades A1. As suspected.

A9 isn't a big seller for Sony but it is indeed a sports/action camera and it is the right fit for the Olympics.
 
I wonder where all the photos go from the dozens of photographers there.

Everything I personally click on, come across is 99% video.
 
DLD said:
As expected, R3 is at the Olympics. As somewhat unexpected, it has a 24 MPX sensor. Top photogs use both R3 and R5 -- the former, presumably for action, the latter for portraits, landscape, etc. So, it looks like an A9 MKII competitor, as suspected, rather than the jack-of-all-trades A1. As suspected.

A9 isn't a big seller for Sony but it is indeed a sports/action camera and it is the right fit for the Olympics.
Click to expand...

With only 24MP, the R3 is poised to be the greatest stills camera for video ever. Assuming they don't hold it back. Of course, the form factor is all wrong. And it won't have ND or audio, etc, etc... but think of all that processing firepower bearing down on a totally manageable 24MP
 
The jury is still out on the MPX count. Somebody saw some jpg EXIF data that said 24MPX but that could be a setting. Not necessarily the total sensor size.

Yes, the R3 could be a video workhorse if Canon lets it be. I think they have an XLR adapter in the works for it as well. Who knows what it will cost. I think the R1 is reserving the jack of all trades, master of all spot...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top