Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out

ahalpert said:
I'm looking at the sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Images are pretty, autofocus seems good, nice features.

Fast-moving subjects on a telephoto zoom are another place where it would be nice to have autofocus instead of adapting my canon 70-200 is ii and losing autofocus...
Click to expand...

My team has several G-Master 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, Sony 24-105 f/4 and Canon IS II 70-200 f/2.8 adapted with Metabones to various Sony Alpha cameras. I also use the 28-135 f/4 Power Zoom lens.

The G-Master 24-70 is really nice optically and mechanically but it's expensive and we end up not using them that much for field documentary and interviews. We use the 70-200 lenses a lot. The Canon 70-200 is superb but you don't have usable AF in video, and for stills AF sort of works but I don't trust it. We use MF 95% of the time no matter what the lens, so it's little consequence. Aside from AF, Metabones works fairly well but over several years of shooting in many locations using several copies, it's not quite as reliable as a native lens.

The 24-105 seems like excessive overlap with the 70-200 but we end up using it a lot. It has stabilization, which helps, and the camera has sufficient low light that f/4 is usually OK.

We are getting several A7SIIIs and hopefully AF will be good enough to try on interviews but we are very cautious, esp. for multi-person interviews. I admit I am "old school" and just don't trust video AF most of the time. I've tried it with the A7RIII and 70-200 2.8 G-Master which should be pretty good, and messed up several shots. Like Philip Bloom said to actually trust video AF in a real-world production situation, it must be *very* good, not just 90% good. However I'm optimistic that with the new cameras it will be more usable.

The 28-135 PZ lens isn't optically equal to the Canon or G-Master lenses, but it's pretty good and very flexible. It essentically transforms a mirrorless camera to a more camcorder-like feel.

For us the biggest issue with the A7SIII is losing Super35 mode in 4k. That was expected, but that is was a nice feature and basically gave two focal lengths for each lens, and at no quality cost. We'll test Sony's Clear Image Zoom but that is basically digital zoom and manipulation. You can't create resolution out of thin air, or else they'd use that technique on the Space Telescope and wouldn't need to build a new one.
 
I gotta say - I'm wondering about the a7iv, which is supposed to come out later this year.

It's GOTTA have 10-bit 4k60p no-crop, right?

So what will it lack? 4k120? All-I codecs? No RAW out?

If it launches for $2000-2500, it might be the better choice for me since it's just a B camera (as long as the rolling shutter isn't horrendous, which it could be).

What do you guys think?
 
A7IV was allegedly to be announced at CP+ last February. But it was also rumored to be not much different than A7III. In other words, no 10-bit.

Of course, now, with everything dancing and singing and moving to the grooving, it's all funky cold Medina.

Let's see what this possible A5/6 brings.
 
Waiting is always safe. I just have feeling not to jump on anything, R5/R6/A7SIII. Someone is going to pop a surprise.
 
If the R6 has 10-bit video, I think the A7IV will have 10-bit video. But who knows - they have to cripple the video somehow. (With the R6 it was no All-I unlike the R5).

I had to look up funky cold medina. Something exciting but fictional?

The A5/6 will be cheap and probably not even have as good autofocus, not to mention how the video specs will be downgraded.

As for someone popping a surprise - there won't be any total surprises. Nikon has an AF system that seems to rival Canon/Sony and maybe they could come out with an R5 equivalent, but what I've heard about their Z6/Z7 updates sounds incremental.

Sony, we expect the FX6 and the A7IV at some point. I'd rather have a mirrorless camera on my Ronin-S, so if the A7IV had "enough" for me, I might overlook the A7SIII.

Canon seems to be mirroring their DSLR lineup in their mirrorless lineup (R5 = 5D, R6 = 6D), so that gives us some sense of where they're going. Maybe they'll have a cool, APS-C body but I want full-frame. They have a C100mk3 (or something) coming out soon, but I think I'd be better served by an A7SIII which is price-competitive with that body even including new lenses.
 
I hope the a7IV does 4k 60fps internally with the new 10-bit all-I codec, and then I'd like to see an aps-c body following suit with those specs too... but I wouldn't hold my breath: maybe it's not the first gen coming out that has all that, but the one after that, more than a year from now. And in any case the a7sIII seems to be using 14-bit ADC in video mode, which cheaper cameras probably won't do for a while, so DR will probably be worse.

Short-term, the cheaper and smaller camera that's supposed to appear in september will probably be 8-bit only.
 
It looks like Canon is desperately catching up on the video portion of the hybrids, having ceded the territory to Sony over the last few years. A5/6 will probably have A7III video quality. A7IV, if/when it comes out, will probably have crappy low bit rate codec but will have killer AF because Sony wants to sell its line of lenses.

PS. "Funky Cold Medina" was a rap song/hit for Tone Loc in 1989.
 
ahalpert said:
As for someone popping a surprise - there won't be any total surprises. Nikon has an AF system that seems to rival Canon/Sony and maybe they could come out with an R5 equivalent, but what I've heard about their Z6/Z7 updates sounds incremental.

Sony, we expect the FX6 and the A7IV at some point. I'd rather have a mirrorless camera on my Ronin-S, so if the A7IV had "enough" for me, I might overlook the A7SIII.

Canon seems to be mirroring their DSLR lineup in their mirrorless lineup (R5 = 5D, R6 = 6D), so that gives us some sense of where they're going. Maybe they'll have a cool, APS-C body but I want full-frame. They have a C100mk3 (or something) coming out soon, but I think I'd be better served by an A7SIII which is price-competitive with that body even including new lenses.
Click to expand...

You left out a big one...
 
Re: current mirrorless camera landscape: some speculative, uninformed, personal thoughts:

I see the a7S III as a natural evolutionary product: it's just Sony getting on with the times, offering specs that match the S1H and surpass it in a couple of spots, and also using their sensor making prowess to get better ADCs and improved DR in video mode.

It's the R5 that looks really odd to me. Almost desperate. Canon thought the mirrorless transition would be slow or even a failure, because people just love mirrors for some reason; but things like eye-AF can't work with a mirror and Sony was starting to grab their money, so they had to come up with their own mirrorless lineup. I think the first generation of RF didn't sell particularly well (I've never seen one in the wild), because they were so late to the party and had to face all the new-lineup struggles that Sony had 6 years ago; so they had to come up with something that gets headlines and brings attention towardsthe RF system, even if it's a half-baked product that jumps all the usual corporate stops designed for protecting more expensive products.

So I expect Sony to keep on with evolutionary releases, protecting their lineup and being conservative, and Canon to be the oddball that desperately tries to grab attention through crazy specs and usability issues.
 
Samuel H said:
... I expect Sony to keep on with evolutionary releases, protecting their lineup and being conservative, and Canon to be the oddball that desperately tries to grab attention through crazy specs and usability issues.
Click to expand...

If the apparent change of direction implied by the A7SIII persists, I don't really see Sony as protecting their lineup, if you mean their upper-end cameras. IMO the A7SIII is a sea change. Before that, Sony's mirrorless direction with respect to protecting their lineup was unclear. Panasonic had shown their cards with the S1H, and their execs clearly said they didn't believe in the "protection" strategy.

It appears Sony has adopted Panasonic's viewpoint, and this is easier for Sony due to having lots of E-mount lenses that span from A6100 to FX9. A major production won't use the A7SIII as an A-camera, so they don't lose those sales. A lower-end production will be thrilled with the A7SIII but they can't afford the FX9, so no lost sales there. When the little productions using the A7SIII grow up, they'll stay with Sony and E-mount.

By contrast Canon with the R5 is either protecting their lineup or else they just messed up technically or maybe just mis-marketed an otherwise good camera with respect to video. This is sad, esp due to Canon basically creating the DSLR video revolution with the 5D Mark II. That camera was so influential that up until recently many web sites used that name: Cinema5D, Planet5D, EOSHD, etc. However I've seen accounts the 5DII thing really wasn't planned but since Canon's photographic and video divisions are organizationally and physically separated (even on separate islands), it just sort of happened. At first some at Canon were thrilled and touted "Reverie" on their web site, but later came to view what they had created as a low-margin "Frankenstein monster" coming back to kill the creator. I still don't think they've resolved that.
 
I think technology moves too fast for companies to worry about protecting, and we are likely 10years behind where we should be in terms of video quality. However, we all know things don't go at the pace we think they will, so for whatever reasons, we are where we are, and for the first time, I really don't have any major complaints. Most cameras are no longer annoyingly bad... you know 17Mbps 8bit bad. And for the most part it feels like it did when the DVX100 came out and people could get a cinema camera that rivaled the higher end of what video was doing.

A7sIII is to me one of the most exciting cameras that has ever come out. In a way, it seems to meet that price to feature ratio in all the good ways, but until we get to try it out, kind of difficult to search for nuanced improvements online for any definitive conclusion.

The Canon's are also quite amazing. A little lop sided, in that they either do pristine 8K raw for a short while, or moderately good 4K for a longer time. I don't know anything else that get's 8K in that size and price, and for what it's worth, the lower quality 4K still looks good. Paired with a second body or a C series camera and the R5 suddenly becomes an impressive video tool for professionals.

But for those gig type shooters that never know where or what they're going to end up shooting, can't see many better options than the A7s3. The improvements in DR is a big win for video shooters. The 4K isn't even proper downsample 4K, so it resolves a bit like perfect HD. SO, that means, all those shooters that wanted 2K and better pixels???? Well, here you go, and yes, we are sorry, it is paired with Sony colour science. ... which TBD, it might be good now.

Now if only the BMPCC6K had a short flange mount. EF was probably the best choice at the time, but I think once you go short flange, EF feels a bit limiting. They aren’t even technically a part if the Cabal, and BM has a weird limiting factor. If BM were Canon, the battery life and EF mount would have been prime points of “cripple hammer” or cabal speak. Will be very interesting to see what BM releases next in this segment. That 12K is a nerdgasm, but the DR is looking a bit low, when the trend is going towards more DR. Still, 12K, if you need it, you definitely aren't going to get it anywhere else in one camera for $10K.

I just spent the evening with the Komodo. interesting camera. Global shutter is hopefully our future. It just feels right.


But still, if we are going to be talking about cameras as if we only get to choose one, and price is an issue, then there is really nothing but the Sony A7s3, assuming the colour science and everything holds up. Which it looks to be. It's definitely not the perfect camera, but it seems to be the perfect camera for now.
 
Last edited:
5D MKII came out when the camera market was mostly competitive, with Sony not yet arriving at the scene (MKII came out in 2008, Sony bought out Minolta Konica in 2006) or barely there. The cartel came into existence early in the 2010's, with its members assuming a checkerboard type of market positioning and each camera either offering or withholding something different from its neighbor. Thus, you see Z6 with 4K external Raw but with line skipping, S1H with the external 6K Raw but without a decent auto focus, A7III with 8-bits only - all using the same Sony sensor.

Likewise, three current releases (and there are four, if one includes Z5) are all quite different - Sony cripples its photo section, though it could have used its quite popular 24 MPX sensor with 6K-to-4K downsampling as on FX-9; Canon has the "overheating" shut downs and Z5 came in under the "video" geared hybrids period.

And, if one believes that there's nothing coincidental with the multi-billion dollar companies each producing a model with a unique - or uniquely crippled - feature set, the key is recognizing that pattern. All companies, including car companies, have anti-cannibalization rules in their own lineups. The photo-video cartel differs with the incompatible lens mounts and the protection across the brand lines, with the former making the latter far more feasible. The strategy works to the detriment of the consumer but also fails the cartel members who were assigned the untenable marketing niches. Olympus is gone, Nikon is likely to follow. And smartphones are offering 8K, 60 MPX sensors and a 10X zoom. Which means that the cartel is on the verge of extinction one way or another.
 
DLD said:
Which means that the cartel is on the verge of extinction one way or another.
Click to expand...

Well, they can't all go extinct, right? Someone's got to serve the pro segment? If the volume goes down, there's room for the prices to go up for that lot, no?

I agree with James - the A7SIII looks like the new "it" camera if you have low priority for stills.

BUT...is Canon/RF a better long-term investment?

RF seems like it was better designed for full-frame. (I mean, e-mount was originally just aps-c.) IBIS is way better, and they can pull off crazy lenses that we haven't seen from Sony, like a 28-70 f/2. You can also speed-boost EF lenses and retain autofocus.

Then there's the resolution offerings - canon has a full-frame camera that records 6k60 no-crop. Sony's FF 6K camera can't currently record 6K and needs to do a slight crop to do 60p. Canon's got 8K RAW in a $3900 body. Can sony do it if they wanted? Can they catch up in the future?

Then you see things like the R300 - DGO for $6300. I'd love to see what the final specs are for that camera.

And it seems that the R5 to an external recorder can roll pretty comfortably. Can the R6 do it too? An R6 with a Ninja V is cheaper than an A7SIII. R6 + R300 could be a killer combo for <$10k. And I already own EF lenses.

I think that right now the A7SIII is the ass-kicker to own. The long-term view is murkier.
 
ahalpert said:
Well, they can't all go extinct, right? Someone's got to serve the pro segment? If the volume goes down, there's room for the prices to go up for that lot, no? ...
Click to expand...
It's looking more and more like a long term duopoly of SonyCan. But it's a fictional duopoly in the sense that the competition is going to be fixed anyway. The only thing will disturb that if a Chinese (or Chinese owned) outsider tries to wedge itself in. I say the market isn't quite exhausted yet and there is money still to be made but it can't be done to the cartel rules.

PS. In the R5 thread, I asserted that an outsider can destroy the cartel with only a couple of new models done to the the latest specs. Then only the high end/pro will remain. But, even there, prices are falling precipitously. The only thing standing in the way of a complete cartel annihilation is the ability of the smaller vendors to provide a comparable auto focus. That's because, the financial arrangements aside, the quality of the Japanese engineering is very high.
 
DLD said:
PS. In the R5 thread, I asserted that an outsider can destroy the cartel with only a couple of new models done to the the latest specs. Then only the high end/pro will remain.
Click to expand...

I dont think it's so easy to wedge yourself into the high-end market because those users want more than just the camera. They want service shops and direct contact with the company. They want to know that you'll still be around in 10 years and that you're not about to release something that will massively undercut their investment. They need trust.

Z cam and kinefinity are having a go of it. Maybe it will be them. The Mavo Edge looks amazing (minus autofocus - right?) But they cant even sell them directly in the US because their internal RAW recording violates RED's patent. So how are they going to service them here?
 
The ultra/ultimate high end in video is owned by ARRI, a very small company by the global standards, because the production volume is so small and because the high end TV/feature production uses mostly manual lenses/focus pullers anyway. It's then also possible that a high end photo will turn to a small number of small companies simply because Sony (who makes the medium format sensors for Hasselblad, Phase One and Fuji anyway) will simply not be bothered with the actual camera manufacturing.

It's also possible that the overlap in the high end technologies is going to be sufficient enough for Sony and Canon to want a "statement" camera, available without a significant investment in the R&D of that camera.

As to the service of pro models - if one looks at the trends in the electronics, the cameras themselves are becoming near disposable. Samsung's and Sony's 50MPX-100MPX camera modules are $20-$35.

The Galaxy S20 Ultra sports the most expensive camera modules so far, with the total cost standing at $89.17, according to the IHS data. The Samsung phone has three primary camera modules, which include the industry’s first 108-megapixel lens, as well as depth vision and secondary modules.

Apple’s iPhone 11 Pro Max, highly touted for its picture quality, features $42.40 worth of camera modules. Like the Galaxy S20 Ultra, the iPhone has three primary camera modules with 12-megapixel lenses, a secondary module and an infrared camera that enables 3D sensing.
Click to expand...

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200607000076
 
James0b57 said:
I think technology moves too fast for companies to worry about protecting, and we are likely 10years behind where we should be in terms of video quality. However, we all know things don't go at the pace we think they will, so for whatever reasons, we are where we are, and for the first time, I really don't have any major complaints.

A7sIII is to me one of the most exciting cameras that has ever come out. In a way, it seems to meet that price to feature ratio in a good way, but we'll have to get to try it out.

The Canon's are also quite amazing. A little lop sided, in that they either do pristine 8K raw for a short while, or moderately good 4K for a longer time. I don't know anything else that get's 8K in that size and price, and for what it's worth, the lower quality 4K still looks good. Paired with a second body or a C series camera and the R5 suddenly becomes an impressive video tool for professionals.

But for those gig type shooter that never know where or what they're going to end up shooting, can see many better options than the A7s3. The improvements in DR is a big win for video shooters. The 4K isn't even proper downsample 4K, so it resolves a bit like perfect HD. SO, that means, all those shooters that wanted 2K and better pixels???? Well, here you go, and yes, woe are sorry, it is paired with Sony colour science. TBD, it might be good now.

Now if only the BMPCC6K had a short flange mount. EF was probably the best choice, but I think once you go short flange, EF feels a bit limiting. Will be very interesting to see what BM releases next in this segment. The 12K is a nerdgasm, but the DR is looking a bit low, when the trend is going towards more DR. Still, 12K, if you need it, you definitely aren't going to get it anywhere else in one camera for $10K.

I just spent the evening with the Komodo. interesting camera. Global shutter is hopefully our future. It just feels right.


But still, if we are going to be talking about cameras as if we only get to choose one, and the price is an issue, then there is really nothing but the Sony A7s3, assuming the colour science and everything holds up. Which it looks to be. It definitely not the perfect camera., but it seems to be the perfect camera for now.
Click to expand...

I sure would like to see A7 SIII "Cinetone looking" compared with FX9 "S-Cinetone" footage side by side. When I shot the FX9, I really was impressed with S-Cinetone. My Canon and Fuji colors are better but not by much. The S-Cinetone looked quite nice to my eye. But in typical Sony fashion, they couldn't
just be straight forward and give the A7 SIII the EXACT SAME COLOR SCIENCE. That was obviously a marketing decision and it's a PITA.
 
Stunning colour science (A7S III Slog3/S-gamut.cine graded to match ARRI Alexa)

A5knGqM.jpg


9pCtGVd.jpg


tR655KA.jpg


jQSuzqi.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top