Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
ahalpert
Major Contributor
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Ok I'm sold on this camera - check out the SOOC in Manny Ortiz's video - https://youtu.be/oEeBIfkRrcg
The greens are still a bit loud, but the skin looks like skin!
I think the problem with the other A7SIII videos is s-log3. But if clients and colorists are used to working with it from other cameras, they can get good results from this as well.
The only thing that irks me is a kind of sharpened "video" look to the footage. Hopefully there's a menu setting to turn that down...
The greens are still a bit loud, but the skin looks like skin!
I think the problem with the other A7SIII videos is s-log3. But if clients and colorists are used to working with it from other cameras, they can get good results from this as well.
The only thing that irks me is a kind of sharpened "video" look to the footage. Hopefully there's a menu setting to turn that down...
Bassman2003
Veteran
Thanks for posting. I think that video has a great image. No doubt. Probably some of the best Sony small camera footage ever. But, but, I think I (and you probably) would enjoy the look more if it was shot with the R5. This footage has the Sony "perma-interlaced" look to me. Yes it looks very vibrant and I applaud the improvement but the hyper presence of the footage always looks like live video to me.
I have been comparing the two paths of ownership and I am leaning towards the Canons. I like how the Sony offers an XLR module but it costs $600! That is the price of a Zoom f6. Two A7SIIIs ($7,000) = R5 + R6 + ninja V. I already own some Canon glass as well.
In the end, both of these cameras are a major leap forward in the space. Applause to both Sony and Canon. I just prefer the look of the Canon cameras even though the Sony is bringing a lot. What is killing the deal for me is the 12 MPX for stills work. The images look great but the Canons are just better choices in this regard.
I have been comparing the two paths of ownership and I am leaning towards the Canons. I like how the Sony offers an XLR module but it costs $600! That is the price of a Zoom f6. Two A7SIIIs ($7,000) = R5 + R6 + ninja V. I already own some Canon glass as well.
In the end, both of these cameras are a major leap forward in the space. Applause to both Sony and Canon. I just prefer the look of the Canon cameras even though the Sony is bringing a lot. What is killing the deal for me is the 12 MPX for stills work. The images look great but the Canons are just better choices in this regard.
joema
Active member
Philip Bloom has stated multiple times it's difficult to evaluate high-quality video material on Youtube. He attributes this to Youtube's poor handling of 10-bit uploads, whereas (according to Bloom) Vimeo handles this better.
Even Vimeo re-encodes it, but at least you can download the original file. Unfortunately the Ortiz A7SIII video is not on Vimeo, but Bloom's "Now I See Part 2" is: https://vimeo.com/441675945
These A7SIII videos on Vimeo can also be downloaded: https://vimeo.com/444869051
Can be streamed but not downloaded, but author offered to send original file to anyone interested: https://vimeo.com/443202399
Gordon Laing has a bunch of short A7SIII and R5 clips of the same scene on Vimeo which can be downloaded: https://vimeo.com/443085060
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Thanks for the links, Joema. I agree about YouTube. But we've been looking at R5 stuff on youtube, so I think we've been making an apples to apples comparison.
But I gotta say - every A7SIII link you posted looks great.
I still think there's some sharpening built in. My fear is that you won't be able to turn it off. Just like Philip bloom said you can't turn off noise reduction (except by just recording RAW out). It would be nice to have those controls (like on the S1H). I'm not a fan of the sharpened look
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't know about perma-interlaced but I agree theres something videoish about this footage. Of course, it's 120p which is its weakest setting. And it's possible they cranked the shutter speed way high.
Everybody has different priorities for buying a camera. If I was JUST after image quality in this price range, I might buy an ursa mini pro g2? Not sure.
I'm going to set aside my personal preferences somewhat to try to make the best business (ie most profitable) move. Here's what I'm thinking:
1. First choice - if they could give me internal unlimited recording on the R6 up to 4K60p, I might get an R6. After all, I was happy with my S1 and just wanted good AF and no-crop 4k60p. It's not the flashiest choice but it would foot the bill and I already own Canon lenses. Total cost of camera + adapter: $2600
2. More likely to happen - sony A7SIII. It might take more work to get pretty skin tones (not sure) and I dont own e-mount lenses, making it a much more expensive investment path. But it's a reliable camera and will probably have a better reputation than the Canons among people who care, plus I own an FS7. But the cost is more than twice the R6, including a midrange- and telephoto-zoom plus batteries: $5800-6000. Or just $4700 if I only buy the midrange-zoom
So, I anticipate buying the A7SIII because I doubt Canon will fix the R6. I think the A7SIII will be good and it has a few definite advantages - dynamic range (probably even after they add c-log 2/3) and 4k60p and 120p quality. Not to mention a reputation for reliability!
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I dont think the A7SIII always has crushed blacks. That manny ortiz video was shot with some contrasty profile. It's also capable of sweet shadow detail
rob norton
Veteran
I don't think there's a better bang for buck combo than the a7s iii/fx9. If your eventual upgrade path will be to replace your fs7 with an fx9 then it's worth thinking about the order of purchasing.
For example, you may get there faster by putting your a7s iii/fs7 money towards the fx9 first then later buying a7s iii. On the other hand the a7s iii could start working instantly if that's what you'd use for the more frequent bread and butter work.
Just a thought/I'm not here.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
My other question is if the C300iii will overtake the FX9 and be the better long-term upgrade path.
But as of right now, I think the FS7 will still be marketable. I haven't sensed an overnight shift in that, so I would like to keep putting it to work.
Meanwhile, i need a FF 4k 10-bit gimbal camera, ideally with good AF. I had my S1 but sold it to get something with good AF and no-crop 4k60p.
So the A7SIII fills a now need. And it gets me FX9 AF and perhaps low-light for when those are useful
I appreciate the input
rob norton
Veteran
I like Eric C's thought on waiting around a year after release (for mid-range cinema cameras) to more accurately evaluate the market.
Maybe you'll like the a7s3 so much you'll get a pair of them, could be an easy line item add on for extra interview angles, especially if there's less risk now when unpersonned (unmanned).
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This makes sense. Especially since, for some odd reason, clients aren't always up to date on the latest camera rumors and shoot-outs.
(Heck, most cameramen aren't as up to date as those on this forum.)I am appreciative of the fact that if I just buy an A7SIII and midrange zoom for now, I would lose little money in absolute terms if I change course and sell them in a year
rob norton
Veteran
This makes sense. Especially since, for some odd reason, clients aren't always up to date on the latest camera rumors and shoot-outs.
I am appreciative of the fact that if I just buy an A7SIII and midrange zoom for now, I would lose little money in absolute terms if I change course and sell them in a year
What zoom are you looking at? I'd go with 24-70 and be done with it.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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. Maybe I could live without it, but later on I would consider the rumored sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or maybe a 70-300 from sony or tamron
I was also toying with perhaps a fast-aperture normal prime. But I think I might be fine with f/2.8. In any case, I could buy a 24-70 for now and make those other decisions later. (But 2 sigma zooms would probably make for greater aesthetic consistency between A/B interview angles, which would be nice)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The only downloadable s-log3 I've seen was the forest shot on gordon Laing's vimeo channel, which was iso 800.
I haven't seen any other downloadable s-log3 footage. Has anyone else?