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

NorBro said:
Were you ever thinking about getting the C500 Mark II but were on the fence too long (maybe fortunately) up to the time when they announced the C300 Mark III?

I am aggravated for people who purchased the former not knowing about the latter even though I had no plans to buy either, lol.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the C500ii but it was not reasonable from an economic aspect. I decided to stay with the EVA1 and wait.
 
Clermond said:
I was thinking about the C500ii but it was not reasonable from an economic aspect. I decided to stay with the EVA1 and wait.
Click to expand...

Smart man.

Re: Sony 12-24 - not that exciting from my perspective. Great for architecture I suppose. I'm not sure 2.8 is that much more useful on a system like this vs the 11-24 f/4 that Canon makes. Plus sigma makes a 14 1.8 if you need speed. The real question is who has the least distortion, and I'm sure my Laowa 12mm (f/2.8) would beat them all. And on a gimbal, I think a 24-70 or 24-105 on FF is just great. Going wider, a 16-35 if you need it. Maybe 12-24 would be somewhat useful for APS-C on gimbal. Really it's for interior design shooters and not that novel, except for the e mount system
 
ahalpert said:
Smart man.
Click to expand...

ha ha.. I was very tempted by the C500ii indeed and thinking back and forth about the return of the investment.

Re: 12-24 - I don't know about the new Sony. I tested the Sigma 12-24 vs the Canon 11-24 recently. The difference between 11 and 12mm was quite noticeable. I didn't expect that it was so much.
 
That new lens weighs almost 3lbs. Combine that with a FF body, battery, monitor and especially if you have an already heavy gimbal like the Ronin S, too heavy IMHO.
Not too heavy to lift and use a bit here and there but to carry and use for hours on a gimbal as I seem to always find myself doing, pass. The Laowa, other than probably lacking AF would be a better lens for gimbal.
Of course, if you are shooting from tripod or shoulder, none of this matters.
 
puredrifting said:
That new lens weighs almost 3lbs. Combine that with a FF body, battery, monitor and especially if you have an already heavy gimbal like the Ronin S, too heavy IMHO.
Not too heavy to lift and use a bit here and there but to carry and use for hours on a gimbal as I seem to always find myself doing, pass. The Laowa, other than probably lacking AF would be a better lens for gimbal.
Of course, if you are shooting from tripod or shoulder, none of this matters.
Click to expand...

where did you get that information? On pre-oder shop it says 1.86 lb / 847 g

Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. // new Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM // Sony 12-24mm f/4.0 G
12-24mm-size-comparison.jpg
 
Still - who really needs a gimbal shot that wide? 24mm is wide enough and I shoot lots of gimbal stuff in the 35-70mm region. If I need to go to 12mm with the Laowa, it's only for a couple shots, usually just wide interiors in tight spaces
 
Clermond said:
where did you get that information? On pre-oder shop it says 1.86 lb / 847 g

Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. // new Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM // Sony 12-24mm f/4.0 G
View attachment 139611
Click to expand...

My bad, I saw 29.877 ounces and my mind extrapolated that to be close to 36 ounces. Except it's 16 ounces to the pound, not 12. Still a hefty little beast for a mirrorless
but you got it right, closer to 2lbs, not 3lbs.
 
ahalpert said:
Still - who really needs a gimbal shot that wide? 24mm is wide enough and I shoot lots of gimbal stuff in the 35-70mm region. If I need to go to 12mm with the Laowa, it's only for a couple shots, usually just wide interiors in tight spaces
Click to expand...

Just depends on what you are shooting. I shot racing boat launches on gimbal a lot and on the Fuji, I was really liking 12mm as the boats are 44' long and usually have about 10-15 people getting them into the surf.
There is a lot going on and I am typically running up and down the length of the boat and around the ends of it as the racers walk it down the beach. Wide looked really cool.
Since the Fuji is S35, converting FOV to FF, that's 18mm on FF. For an environmental framing showing a moving athlete in their environment, really wide can be super handy as long as you keep them from the outer
edge of the frame to avoid the distortion.

That said, I use the XF16mm f/1.4 WR a lot more, which is your 24mm FF FOV.
 
Yes for APS-C it makes more sense to me. Although Fuji makes a 10-24mm for 1/3 the cost. (But almost certainly more distortion, especially since you're not essentially cropping out the edges as you would with the Sony)
 
ahalpert said:
Yes for APS-C it makes more sense to me. Although Fuji makes a 10-24mm for 1/3 the cost. (But almost certainly more distortion, especially since you're not essentially cropping out the edges as you would with the Sony)
Click to expand...

The XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS is very highly regarded, considering its not a super expensive WA. I've rented it, I liked it.
 
It's about to get real. Goodbye, R5, we hardly knew ye? From sonyalpharumors, the latest rumored A7SIII specs:

- records FHD 240fps, 4k120fps 10bit 4:2:2 and 4K120fps raw over HDMI
- Looks pretty similar to a Sony A7rIV.
world’s highest resolution new 9.44 million dot EVF (QXGA resolution)
- new kind of passive (noise free) cooling system
- UHSII card support
- announcement late July

I tell you this - I'd rather have RAW via HDMI and 10-bit 422 internal than the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Interesting rumors but I always found sonyalpharumors to be unreliable, I mean how many times have they shared rumors on the a7s III now? I hope they are right though as I like what I'm seeing.

I wonder what color science the a7s III will have? Also 240 fps is interesting if true. It's one of the main reasons I have an FS5. Wish they could get some of their cinema cameras to 480 bur oh well haha.
 
I find that they're usually pretty reliable about short-term predictions (ie Sony uses them to make controlled leaks in the weeks leading up to a release). But yeah they've put out a lot of A7SIII timing rumors that were completely wrong. This looks to be the real deal - end of July. They have to compete with the R5.

I don't personally have much need above 60p. Maybe the occasional 120p. But hey, options are nice. When I want to go super slow-mo, the sky's the limit.

480fps is a tall order. But I'm sure we'll see it eventually
 
I shoot sports and I’m usually not going over 72. 99% of my slow-mo is 60. And I can hit 180 in-cam(F55). I’m actually thinking about dialing back to 48, maybe lower. I’ve been seeing a lot of stuff lately in that 40-48 range and it “feels” nice. Not too slow, but adds some “gravity” and “weight” to the image and motion. I played around with 36 on a shoot with my VariCam one time and liked it, too.
 
That's interesting re:60/48fps for sports. I guess if you shot at 72 or 80, you could bring it down to 36 or 40 with no penalty?

I shot a music video last year with a lot of 60fps. There was a hair flip in it that I wished was 120fps.

Seen some cool 120fps stuff on C300III and R5 from the realm of sports b-roll.

When I shot stuff for NY marathon, they always shot the start and finish of the race on the fs700 (at the time) in whatever the max burst mode was (240 HD?)

But yeah I have up to I think 180fps on the GH5 and I've touched it like once for some break dancing stuff. Most of the time I'm good with 60. But if the option is free, I'll take it
 
Always remember, don't contribute to slow motion abuse sydrome. If your reel is more than 10% slow motion, you've got a problem.
Seek treatment, it is available.
 
I agree that 120 fps is good for most uses and people, I just do a lot of table top work and don't always have a budget for a phantom. 480 fps is a sweet spot that while 1000 fps is sometimes better, 480 fps can still be slow enough, where 240 seems still to fast with some things like splashes.
 
ahalpert said:
That's interesting re:60/48fps for sports. I guess if you shot at 72 or 80, you could bring it down to 36 or 40 with no penalty?

I shot a music video last year with a lot of 60fps. There was a hair flip in it that I wished was 120fps.

Seen some cool 120fps stuff on C300III and R5 from the realm of sports b-roll.

When I shot stuff for NY marathon, they always shot the start and finish of the race on the fs700 (at the time) in whatever the max burst mode was (240 HD?)

But yeah I have up to I think 180fps on the GH5 and I've touched it like once for some break dancing stuff. Most of the time I'm good with 60. But if the option is free, I'll take it
Click to expand...

Sorry. I may not have explained that one well. I meant trying the lower frame rates for b-roll(someone walking onto the field, someone climbing in their race car, people walking down the sidewalk, etc.), not trying to slow down game action, necessarily. But then again, it just depends on what you’re going for.
 
ReelFilmGeek said:
I agree that 120 fps is good for most uses and people, I just do a lot of table top work and don't always have a budget for a phantom. 480 fps is a sweet spot that while 1000 fps is sometimes better, 480 fps can still be slow enough, where 240 seems still to fast with some things like splashes.
Click to expand...

I’d file this under ‘specialty/special use case’.(you get an exemption ; ) ) I think most of us are referring to more generalized work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top