Sony a7III

By the way in which he fixed it, it seems like a dead pixel. I had to do something like that on my T2i many years ago, so, nothing new here. We just got used to having this done BEFORE the camera is shipped, nowadays.
 
Samuel H said:
By the way in which he fixed it, it seems like a dead pixel. I had to do something like that on my T2i many years ago, so, nothing new here. We just got used to having this done BEFORE the camera is shipped, nowadays.
Click to expand...

That's a row of flashing dead pixels. I've had dead pixels on the a7r2 and s2, never a flashing row. And its showing up on other users cameras in the same place. Seems like more than a coincidence.

Chris
 
by seeing the a7III video is improved alot over a7II, moire free, sharp enough 1080p, no crop 120fps, dual slots. (its even better than the a7sII, except for low light)

Sony pack so many thing into the a7III, right now if they didnt pack more into the a7sIII there is no point to throw 3-4k into the a7sIII.
If the a7sIII don't have 10bit + 4k60p internal, everyone will get the III instead the sIII. :D :D
and Sony just screwed them self again :(
 
^ Exactly. The a7 III is just as good as the a7S II in most aspects, and clearly better in some (AF, Mpix for stills, dual slots, new body). It's even just as good for low light if you're taking stills (see dxomark results), or if you're taking video at ISO values that are not completely crazy (I've only shot ISO 51k once; it was great to have it there when I needed it, but really, that's not a good way to shoot anyway).

Buying an a7S II makes absolutely no sense right now, and the III needs to be clearly better in some ways in order to justify the price difference. I think an a7 III with internal 4k 60fps could be called a7S III and would sell somewhat well for $1k more than the a7 III (and by that I specifically mean: I would buy one). But having something else (either internal 10-bit, or slightly improved DR, or both) would actually make it compelling. Hopefully we will hear about it soon...
 
Samuel H said:
^ Exactly. The a7 III is just as good as the a7S II in most aspects, and clearly better in some (AF, Mpix for stills, dual slots, new body). It's even just as good for low light if you're taking stills (see dxomark results), or if you're taking video at ISO values that are not completely crazy (I've only shot ISO 51k once; it was great to have it there when I needed it, but really, that's not a good way to shoot anyway).

Buying an a7S II makes absolutely no sense right now, and the III needs to be clearly better in some ways in order to justify the price difference. I think an a7 III with internal 4k 60fps could be called a7S III and would sell somewhat well for $1k more than the a7 III (and by that I specifically mean: I would buy one). But having something else (either internal 10-bit, or slightly improved DR, or both) would actually make it compelling. Hopefully we will hear about it soon...
Click to expand...

Just saw your video below your comment.

Looks iike you are having a lot of fun with your videos. I like that. Keep it up and I am sure one of these days some key player will come along to take you to the next level. There is no better strategy for success than enjoying what you do.

One small fashion comment, if I may. (I was a fashion photographer for 20 years). You might want to amp your jewelry choices a little bit. More absurd, exagerrated or special. Make them even more a part of your "puppet universe".
 
^ Thanks! That one definitely was a lot of fun to shoot. And yes: the girls had prepared other stuff but forgot to bring it the day of the shoot, so we stole whatever "jewelry" we could find at home and rolled with that XD (luckily they did bring the PUDDIN one, which was important for the story)

Personally I don't think this will ever be more than a hobby for me, but it's true that it's a hobby to which I dedicate many more hours than most people would find reasonable... ^_____^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top