Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Huh?
NorBro
Major Contributor
It's not on my personal radar but always giving credit where credit is due as I continue to do this through the years.
#1 on photography list. (Swapped places with now #2 R5.)
It is also #1 on the cinema camera list too. (Pocket 4K #2, 6K #3.)
It has both spots, which I have never seen before.
#1 on photography list. (Swapped places with now #2 R5.)
It is also #1 on the cinema camera list too. (Pocket 4K #2, 6K #3.)
It has both spots, which I have never seen before.
G
Guest
Guest
You got it!
Even Deakins with an Alexa doesn't do sunny outdoors in the middle of the day.
Film was not that forgiving though the ages either. So, it has only been recently that film or digital had a fighting chance in harsh light. But I will say, that traditionally, film has done better in hard light than digital. Consider that nothing has beat Alexa's Alev III in a decade for DR, prores or raw. And yet the Braw is better than REDCODE Raw, without even being actual raw. says a lot about what is important.
G
Guest
Guest
You don't think the image quality of the R5 is so good that you buy it. so why should anyone care about your opinion of its colour science?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't 100% follow your logic.
In any case, I would buy the R5 if it worked. Image quality is not the problem. Recording limits are
G
Guest
Guest
Well, there you go. Part of the image quality factor is the usability factor.
Also, I am sure that Canon is so much more sperior in colour at the end of the day because....
because Canon.
If you ask me, the Canon looks a little less saturated. One of the things you mentioned about the Sony was that it looked lackluster.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
How can it be #1 in photography lol. I mean obviously just video people are buying it so that's a little ironic
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Well, there you go. Part of the image quality factor is the usability factor.
Also, I am sure that Canon is so much more sperior in colour at the end of the day because....
because Canon.
Lol. I think the canon advantage is that it's easy. You dont even need a lut necessarily. I mean - also the R5 is only using c-log which is easier to grade than the flatter canon logs. So a lot of the ease and out of the box happiness of the canon are connected to its limitations.
But there's definitely a risk handing off s-log3 to someone in the sense that if they dont handle it well it may reflect poorly on you.
But believe me, I am growing increasingly comfortable with buying an A7SIII. I think it's a powerful tool and should be relatively flexible and easy to work with. We'll see if there are any quirks or problems we're not aware of yet.
But right now I think this will become a classic camera. Like in 10 years things will still get shot on it sometimes and people will say, "oh yeah I forgot how good that old camera looks"
G
Guest
Guest
I would think that 12MP is enough even for most photographers. not pros, but the average hobbyist. Especially since it allows for more DR (meaning better photos in bad harsh light) and can be cleaner in super high iso's. most photos today are viewed in 1080, so there is little advantage to higher dpi.
G
Guest
Guest
You are acting like the A7s3 is the A7s2.
Also, I hope that all digital cameras become "good". That has been the biggest issue the last 15-20 years... digital has sucked. Finally, someone other than Arri or RED is making a camera that prioritizes DR over pixel count. that is huge.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I disagree. Or at least, I dont think being in harsh light was the problem with the A7SIII videos we saw. First of all, a lot of them were not in harsh light. Second, you can still get beautiful colors in harsh light, it's only retaining all the contrast that's the problem. Third, this camera has so much dynamic range that unless you really screw up your exposure, you're not going to clip anyone's skin.
But that trust yourself video....the main character looked like a zombie and it wasn't because of the lighting. It was the grading
I was really hard pressed to find A7SIII launch videos that contained naturalistic skin tones
G
Guest
Guest
Aren't you contradicting yourself there?
Too many people think DR is about exposure, it is about colour fedelity and roll off. At least at this point in history.
You are again contradicting yourself. The Sony colors have been over saturated in the skin tones particularly.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Huh? You mean people say that now about the a7s2? I guess maybe.
I was actually thinking of a webisode I shot several years ago with the 5dmk3 when the sound guy checked the monitor and said "I forgot how good the 5dmk3 looks" and I'm like thanks buddy, nothing to do with the DP
But the thing is - the A7S3 is poised to smoke both those cameras in every way and deliver pro codecs. Alistair Chapman had a blogpost saying the A7SIII didn't devalue the FX9 because the FX9 has superior ergonomics lol
ahalpert
Major Contributor
You guys were the ones saying the shooting conditions were responsible for bad looking video, not me.
Color fidelity is part of the problem with limited dr it's true, but also clipping like the wedding shot you showed
But this guy could have done a better grade and doesn't look over saturated:
View attachment 140053
And this pretty shot takes direct sunlight (albeit not midday):
View attachment 140054
ahalpert
Major Contributor
$3500 is a lot for most hobbyists who are probably chasing MPs. And there's something to that. I'm editing in some historical photos into this video on women in politics right now and it always makes me happy to get one with the big MPs. A lot more flexibility to rearrange and crop it which is good because the aspect ratio is off and/or I need to enlarge a detail
The sony a7r4 has been a really popular camera for the resolution it delivers at that price point. And if DLD gets wind of this thread, he'll tell us how many more MPs we should be getting for our money
I'm not saying I need the MPs for shooting. I dont because I'm not a photographer or a hybrid shooter, and having a 5dmk3 around for stills is good enough for me. I'll buy an A7S3 but I'm not sure hobbyist photographers will
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Again, contradicting yourself.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
How so? I don't shoot the archival photos I edit in. And when I shoot photos for video I can frame it so I don't need to crop and dont need more than 12MP
As for a7r4 - it's cheaper than the A7SIII. And the A7R3 which also has a lot of resolution is still being sold for even less money
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
The A7 fits the bill. Or any Fuji/Canon/etc for hobbyist.
The A7s3 is a low light demon, and is the very best camera for shooting moonlight video.
Additionally, it has insanely good DR and RS for the price range.
You are claiming that it is expensive for hobby photogs, yet you are claiming to be a video pro.
How many contradictions do you want?