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

[NorBro]

damn, the slomo is really nice to have, but man, these aren't blowing me away. Did you light this?

I don't know if anyone's really, truly blown away by the IQ from the a7SIII.

I'd say most people buy it because it's loaded with different features and is a great value for a lot of different work, but at the end of the day the images are the same video-like quality we've been used to for the past 3-4-5 years, IMO.

 

[ahalpert]

I don't know if anyone's really, truly blown away by the IQ from the a7SIII.

I'd say most people buy it because it's loaded with different features and is a great value for a lot of different work, but at the end of the day the images are the same video-like quality we've been used to for the past 3-4-5 years, IMO.

I dont feel that differently towards the A7SIII than I did towards the S1. It just has a couple extra features I wanted.

I don't think that a Panasonic or canon camera would have looked appreciably better here. Maybe BM? Dunno. Tho the R5 has a nice texture and a lot of detail without looking sharp.

But honestly I fully anticipate that my clients will be blown away. Good enough for me

I showed some of the 85 wide-open gimbal shots to my 2nd shooter on the day and he said, "wow. These days wedding films look like cinema." Which offended me a little because I thought I had previously showed him some cinematic stuff. But the point is that you would need a really great AC to pull off some of this focus pulling. And the cameras can handle high contrast low light scenes. Etc

 

[NorBro]

Your clients will definitely be blown away because you capture them nicely and their once-in-a-lifetime glory. But they aren't looking at resolution or colors, and more of what's happening in the frame.

Nonetheless it doesn't take much as most people are blown away by very shallow shots from a 5D Mark II...so any focus groups evaluating cinematic quality are out, lol.

And I don't think a Panasonic or Canon camera would have looked better either...just different...but same video-like quality.

 

[ahalpert]

I agree, NorBro, but I guess my point is that having a FUNCTIONAL camera with ADEQUATE autofocus and SUFFICIENT DR/sensitivity is what enables me to capture what's happening.

Yes, we can argue the finer points of resolution and colors (and keep in mind that this is all shot in HD and not 4K FWIW)...

It's not that an Alexa wouldn't have looked better here (although I wouldn't have nailed the focus or even attempted it, so in a meaningful sense it would have looked worse). It's just that I feel like the discussion becomes somewhat academic.

Or if you look at Brawley's camera tests for The Great. If memory serves me, he settled on a particular camera/lens system but then was mandated by Hulu for some reason to use a different system. And if they had mandated that he use a GH5, he could have still produced a great-looking show.

I guess I'm saying that I enjoy/appreciate IQ comparisons but that feature sets and physical design seem more important to me once sufficient IQ is achieved.

 

[DLD]

Go 2.4, grade in Film Convert and there's your cinematic wedding.

Mind you, John Waters and Conrad Hall also shot on film ... to various outcomes. By design.

 

[Clermond]

OT weren’t you scared of being infected? Weddings are supposed to be events with high infection rates.

 

[DLD]

It was a Schnaps-Bordeaux wedding. There was plenty of disinfectant on hand.

 

[Tom Roper]

OT weren’t you scared of being infected? Weddings are supposed to be events with high infection rates.

The mask doesn't protect the wearer, only those around. Just wear it inside out.

 

[Clermond]

The mask doesn't protect the wearer, only those around. Just wear it inside out.

I didn’t want to open the box of worms.. the mask also protects the wearer but at a lower level. The protection is higher when both wear a mask. There are also medical masks with >95% protection level for the wearer. I wear them all the time on my assignments. 1st of all to protect myself but also to avoid being quarantined by authorities when they track contacts.

But at a (this) wedding I would feel very concerned so I asked the guy who did the video how he did feel. We had a lot of outbreaks with sick people from weddings here even at a time when the general infection rate was still low

 

[Tom Roper]

One thing to keep in mind is that this was a low-light situation (I'm not sure what my ISO was) and that the autofocus performs way better at base ISO with a good exposure.

The light at every evening wedding reception has its complications. There was an led panel for a key and a good array of practicals.

But yeah - I would never have even attempted to shoot like this focusing manually. Maybe if I were in a stationary position and just following them. But my MO on gimbal before for this situation was a 50mm f/2.8 full-frame (or 35mm f/2 on GH5 with 0.71x speedbooster - same thing). The AF does a better job than I did (almost all of the time). And it lets me focus solely on framing.

I could have gotten better results from it, I think, by not coming in so close. I was constrained by the distance between them and the bandstand and it would have been smarter to stay on the sides where I had more room. And for that spin - if I had been focused on her already, I think I could have gotten the shot.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is not the top-performing 85mm for autofocus in E mount. That honor goes to the Sony 85mm f/1.8. I'm not sure how the Sony 85mm f/1.4 compares. But I think that generally lighter, smaller lenses (and with smaller apertures) are faster. My Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has snappier autofocus and it's lighter and less girthy than the 85mm.

The slow-mo isn't to smooth out a bumpy shot, it's just for the vibe. They may use it in real-time, I dunno. It's certainly usable.

It's natural to overanalyze but it shows you care. Frankly, I thought the AF misses were more than compensated for by the subject isolation you got from shallow DOF and attractive bokeh. 85mm is tight for a gimble, but the reward of that portrait length is shot beauty. I think the beauty and uniqueness is a bargain for the price of some oof here and there which never detracted or distracted because the subject isolation was never in doubt. So many first dance shots are less than ideal, even ruined by odd background objects and people. I would rather have shots like this with the occasional oof than sharp clear focus of distracting people and backgrounds when the first dance should be a seminal beauty moment for the couple. And you are right, you might only need to cull 2-4 seconds for the edit of which there was a wealth of in-focus, but I would not even be shy about including some of the soft near focus footage. For the story telling it adds mood and grandeur. Again, 85mm is tight for close gimble work, but the bargain can be a few moments of intimate beauty versus the ordinary dullness of sharp and wide. The royal pain in the arse is you can't use that 85mm for shots of the guests where you need to go wide, have to switch out lenses, of course, made easier by the smaller size of current gatherings.

As for the couple, they have the same nose profiles, eyes and teeth. Difficult as it may be to socialize in covid, you should not marry your sister.

 

[Tom Roper]

We had a lot of outbreaks with sick people from weddings here even at a time when the general infection rate was still low

You should have seen the end of last night's Notre Dame vs Clemson game, where *thousands* poured onto the field at the conclusion engulfing the players, coaches, unbelievable.

 

[C100Scottie]

the camera definitely has features I want for sure. And yes, we do have control over lighting at weddings. I light all receptions. the Samyang 85 has been on my want list mainly for photo, but it's video AF performance
isn't that bad, definitely not on par with the Batis. I'm still waiting to see what the FX6 brings to the table. I shoot a lot outside, so the NDs really have my attention

 

[ahalpert]

OT weren’t you scared of being infected? Weddings are supposed to be events with high infection rates.

If I were in charge, I would probably put a hiatus on weddings until a vaccine. I think every wedding has the potential to be a super spreader event. People are hugging and kissing and probably traveling in. There is a limit to 50 people at weddings in NY and they are mostly or entirely conducted outdoors, which helps (but is also why the season is ending prematurely).

The shooters wear masks and keep social distance, which helps. But the main thing is I'm not in a high-risk category and neither is anyone in my household. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't shoot them. I dont think I will catch covid from one, but it's probably the riskiest type of shooting I do from that perspective. and I have caught the flu as well as colds from weddings in the past.

But I have mouths to feed!

 

[ahalpert]

The light at every evening wedding reception has its complications. There was an led panel for a key and a good array of practicals.

The photographer's LED was not at full power and the practicals were not that bright. This was a dim-to-the-eye scene. My ISO was probably 12800 or higher, even at f/1.4. And also I'm at 1/120 shutter so you lose more than a stop there vs 24fps shooting.

It's natural to overanalyze but it shows you care. Frankly, I thought the AF misses were more than compensated for by the subject isolation you got from shallow DOF and attractive bokeh. 85mm is tight for a gimble, but the reward of that portrait length is shot beauty. I think the beauty and uniqueness is a bargain for the price of some oof here and there which never detracted or distracted because the subject isolation was never in doubt. So many first dance shots are less than ideal, even ruined by odd background objects and people. I would rather have shots like this with the occasional oof than sharp clear focus of distracting people and backgrounds when the first dance should be a seminal beauty moment for the couple. And you are right, you might only need to cull 2-4 seconds for the edit of which there was a wealth of in-focus, but I would not even be shy about including some of the soft near focus footage. For the story telling it adds mood and grandeur. Again, 85mm is tight for close gimble work, but the bargain can be a few moments of intimate beauty versus the ordinary dullness of sharp and wide. The royal pain in the arse is you can't use that 85mm for shots of the guests where you need to go wide, have to switch out lenses, of course, made easier by the smaller size of current gatherings.

This is my thinking exactly. I've had first dance shots where you see someone in the background making a stank face, looking away, or looking at their phone. Bye bye background! Even on the 35mm at f/1.4 you can still read the expressions of people in the background.

I had a 2nd shooter handling wider shots. If I needed usable coverage of the whole dance or didnt have a 2nd shooter, it may have made more sense to shoot on a 24-70. But 99% of this shot is going to end up on the cutting room floor anyway, so it's all about grabbing a few magical moments. If I'm solo shooting, I can also set up a wide master on tripod

 

[ahalpert]

the camera definitely has features I want for sure. And yes, we do have control over lighting at weddings. I light all receptions. the Samyang 85 has been on my want list mainly for photo, but it's video AF performance
isn't that bad, definitely not on par with the Batis. I'm still waiting to see what the FX6 brings to the table. I shoot a lot outside, so the NDs really have my attention

I get by with a variable ND. Not ideal but workable.

Supposedly the sony 85mm f/1.8 has the best autofocus performance of any e mount 85mm. But I like the look of the samyang more. It's a tough call and I think it depends on what your bread and butter is and what your priorities are.

Of course - the corollary is that the sony 85 GM f/1.4 also has worse AF than the 85 1.8.

The samyangs have also had numerous firmware updates that have improved their AF performance and may improve it further. Only their 50mm f/1.4 is a total dud for autofocus as far as I can tell

I don't know if the FX6 AF will be as good as the A7SIII AF. another complication. Maybe it will, maybe it wont. Maybe it will in some ways but not in others. Autofocus is mad complicated and also new to me

 

[Trek of Joy]

It's natural to overanalyze but it shows you care. Frankly, I thought the AF misses were more than compensated for by the subject isolation you got from shallow DOF and attractive bokeh. 85mm is tight for a gimble, but the reward of that portrait length is shot beauty. I think the beauty and uniqueness is a bargain for the price of some oof here and there which never detracted or distracted because the subject isolation was never in doubt. So many first dance shots are less than ideal, even ruined by odd background objects and people. I would rather have shots like this with the occasional oof than sharp clear focus of distracting people and backgrounds when the first dance should be a seminal beauty moment for the couple. And you are right, you might only need to cull 2-4 seconds for the edit of which there was a wealth of in-focus, but I would not even be shy about including some of the soft near focus footage. For the story telling it adds mood and grandeur. Again, 85mm is tight for close gimble work, but the bargain can be a few moments of intimate beauty versus the ordinary dullness of sharp and wide. The royal pain in the arse is you can't use that 85mm for shots of the guests where you need to go wide, have to switch out lenses, of course, made easier by the smaller size of current gatherings.
.

I like using the focus drifting shots as transitions in the edit. I try to shoot that kind of stuff deliberately, IMO it can look better than a dissolve or straight cut. Make lemonade from those lemons. And with a 85mm wide open, you have a great looking closeup shot.

Cheers

Chris

 

[ahalpert]

I finally caved and bought a sony 28-135.

What did it was I saw an edit of an event I shot with a7siii/sigma 24-70/ronin-s with the focus motor driving the zoom ring. There was a long shot in the edit with a zoom in the middle that would have been great if the zoom weren't a bit juddery. Then factor in some balance issues I had with the non-internal zoom. And the addition of OSS on the 28-135 that my 24-70 lacks.

Add all that together and you've got a mean gimbal doc lens, also useful for livestream or interview smooth zooming.

The 28-135 isn't the prettiest lens in the world optically. And you cant crash zoom and it generally doesn't seem as well built and designed as the canon 18-80. But I think it will get the job done and sometimes you have to bite that bullet.

And the prices on the used market are great since it's been sold as a kit lens for some time. Right around what I was willing to pay for it.

Has anyone else been flying that lens on a gimbal? And if so, what controller are you using to trigger the zoom? It seems like there are a few options.

 

[ahalpert]

Here's a little comparison of the color on the a7riii and a7siii. don't judge the lighting too harshly, it was a 1-hour OMB set-up.

a7riii is the medium shot and a7siii is the close-up. cine4 and "Movie" color. sony sonnar 55 1.8 on the a7riii and samyang 85 on the a7siii. mix of daylight LEDs and an overhead fluorescent we couldn't kill









one has to appreciate how the camera keeps the eye in focus. even stopped down to 2.8 on the 85, you only get one eye in sharp focus. and especially with the leaning and the laughing, the camera takes a job off your hands

The images look a little crushed online here but I suppose it's still useful for looking for differences between the two cameras

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for posting Abe. It is tough to judge since DXVUser kills uploaded jpgs. The a7SIII shots look more alive from a skin tone point of view. Both look nice. I do see some green sneaking in on the a7sIII images though.

 

[ahalpert]

If you're seeing green only in the fill side, then it's probably just from the overhead fluorescent. If you see it everywhere then it must be the camera