Sony a7III

Samuel H said:
The a6500 looks like a niche product now, with the a7 III out for not-really-that-much-more-money.
Click to expand...

I would trade in my a6500 for an a7III, but I'm not in the position right now as FF lenses are way out of my budget for now as I shoot photos too. They call the a7III a basic entry FF camera so I think there will be more surprises with Sony FF cameras up ahead.
 
Regarding lenses, the FE 85mm f/1.8 is very nice and not particularly expensive, the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 is cheap and super small and my choice for tourism, and I'm just missing a $600 20mm f/2.0 or f/2.8 or something similar (the new Firin 20mm with AF and the Batis 18mm are nice options, but I guess Sony will expand the line of "good budget primes" that already has a 50mm and a 85mm so I'm waiting right now).
 
Ok. So I have been the owner of a A7III for 8 hours. Same s*%tty "I hate photographers" Sony menu, but saved by a good favourites menu. Reasonable dial lay out. Cracking sensor. It's a tiny camera, not sure I'll ever get used to how small it is. Where have I heard that before...

Anyway, took it out to do a quick dynamic range test:

Cow 2A.jpg

Cow 1A.jpg
 
Sounds great.

Here's my vote for an a7 III first impressions thread. Or you can just keep posting here, instead of letting this one die (I tend to start new ones because it makes it easier to find my own thoughts later on when I'm on google).
 
So is the 1080p really bad soft noisy mushy line skipped mess relative to the 4k just like all non-a7s Sonys?
 
That pretty much has been the case with every 4K mirrorless/DSLR from the last 2-3 years...great 4K, but terrible 1080p.

There are some exceptions, but I've never understood why it's like this with many of these newer cameras.
 
Actually, the 1080 is surprisingly good. I shot a few things today in 1080 with various profiles and frame rates specifically to see if it was useable - I'll post vid in hour or so. Not sure where one posts Sony mirrorless cams though...
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
Actually, the 1080 is surprisingly good. I shot a few things today in 1080 with various profiles and frame rates specifically to see if it was useable - I'll post vid in hour or so. Not sure where one posts Sony mirrorless cams though...
Click to expand...

Problem is "good" and "useable" is meaningless, even decades old cameras created useable images in good lighting when not intercut or juxtaposed with much better quality images. I'd really like to see a direct comparison between 4k24 and 1080p24 at high ISOs and in sharpness. So far the samples I've seen show 1080p that has softness that reminds me of 720p video or an old canon dslr and lots of false and muddy details. Actually side by sides of a7s2 and a7iii 1080p in high detail and at high ISOs (or even low ISO pushed) would be really enlightening since I suspect the a7sii will fare much better but I'd love to be wrong.
 
Agreed, I assumed the HFR would be unusable on the A7III, the fact is, it's actually not bad, certainly fine for web stuff. And no crop! Also, 800ISO on A7III for Slog!
 
800's been the number since the a6300...that was a turning point back then as 1600 or 3200 is just unmanageable at times.
 
ph2003 said:
details a7III vs a7sII
1080p and 120fps looks good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YIMkJbxrGU

higher iso a7sII still better.
Click to expand...

Actually 1080p looks quite a but worse on the a7iii it seems. Basically 120fps is similar on both cameras but without the crop on a7iii but then the a7s2 gets a lot better in 24p but the a7iii does not...

Interesting that the a7iii noise reduction is so much heavier, that's also worrisome... I imagine if the scan mode is different on the a7iii 1080p then low light may take a big hit in 1080p vs 4k. Still haven't seen any low light 1080p tesrs.
 
Well, in that thest, at 1080p 24fps, the a7III seemed clearly softer than the a7SII. But then at 1080p 120fps they were about equal. My guess is that at 60fps they'll be similar as well. And if I'm shooting 1080p it's usually because the shot requires more than 30fps.

Soft 1080p was a big defect on the a6500, I'd say the a7III is doing well enough in this respect. As soon as it's not a side-by-side test (e.g. on your vimeo test on the other thread), I see no issues (whereas the a6500 seemed soft even on non-side-by-side videos).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top