Sony a7 iii - looks to be a game changer

Way smaller than I remember from my brief time with an original A7.

My teeth are drying out from smiling.

Dave

I don't disagree with any of your points and you opinions are not without value. However, shooting with less expensive equipment doesn't mean you can't get great shots and face it, a lot of people can't afford top notch gear. If everybody could afford it and it was the only way to get a good picture, that's all they would sell. I don't embrace the 16-50's imperfections, I just may be a little less critical of them and willing to work through them. Because I will use a reviled lens on a lowly APS-C camera to shoot because it's convenient doesn't mean I won't love using an expensive G lens on full-frame when the situation permits. As for shooting with a phone, I don't shoot much with my phone because it is fumbly, not because the Pixel's camera isn't rather incredible. (Though I'm getting better at it and don't carry as P&S at all anymore.) As good as my phone is, in dim light or trying to isolate an object with focus, it doesn't hold a candle (low light pun) to an APS-C Alpha with the kit zoom.

 

I am so looking forward to shooting with my A7 III and the 24-105G but no matter how much I love it, it will not fit in my cargo pants pocket, (at least not pants I would wear) and the picture I take will always be better than the one I didn't.

 

I really didn't mean to run on this much...sorry about that. :)

 

 

 

Dave

I don't think we are in much disagreement, just giving different perspectives. I wasn't attacking those who use the kit lens -- I was simply defending those snobs (like myself) who do insist on better glass.

And because of the improvement in smart phones, I'm recommending glass upgrades to more people, to stay ahead of the smart phones.

Yes, you can take excellent photos with a kit lens -- As you demonstrated very very capably! And especially when you're on a budget, there is no urgency to upgrade from a kit lens.

But here is my BUT....

If you are spending $2000 on a full frame camera... or even $600 on a dSLR/mirrorless APS-C body, then in today's photography world, I am assuming you want more potential than you can get from your phone.

And other than being able to change the focal length a little bit, the kit lens isn't going to give you better IQ than you will get from your phone. Yes, you can get excellent images with a mediocre kit lens, you can also get excellent images with a great phone.

I teach many beginner photographers -- My basic starter kit advice to them is: Don't go spend thousands of dollars on gear right away, it won't make you a better photographer. But do start with the following in your kit: The kit lens, a nifty fifty (or another cheap fast aperture prime), a speedlight and a tripod.

Nothing on that list is terribly expensive. But these are the basic tools to develop your skill in photography and get better results.

-The kit lens works just fine for taking daylight shots at F8.

- The kit lens can also work in low light landscapes at F8... when paired with a tripod

- The kit lens can also deliver fair results in less than ideal light, when a flash is *properly* used

- The nifty fifty can do things you just can't well with the kit lens -- Especially play with depth of field. And this is a critical aspect of photography for anyone who wants to do more than just point and click snapshots. So depth of field and low light capability, all while getting sharper images.

So the students who take my advice.. and add a 50/1.8 or 35/1.8, etc.... They are immediately blown away by how it changes their photography. Especially if they were shooting with an older camera that doesn't do high ISO well: Suddenly instead of grainy dark shots taken at F5.6 and ISO 6400, they are getting bright clear images at ISO 800.

And over time, as the photographer progresses..... they get pickier. They are more apt to notice lens softness. They want faster aperture lenses that give more control over depth of field.

Now, take a skilled photographer and hand them a kit lens -- Given the right scene, they can always capture fantastic images. But as the photographer advances, they get pickier and pickier. More and moore demanding.

Some kit lenses are better than others. The Sony 16-50 is particularly bad IQ compared to other kit lenses on the market -- it made a lot of sacrifices to keep it small. Yes, it can produce good images.

But if you want images that are sharper than can be produced with your phone, you probably want a better lens. If you want a lens that can produce good low light results handheld, you probably want a better lens. If you want to play with narrow depth of field, you probably want a better lens. If you want beautiful bokeh, you probably want a better lens.

You couldn't quite do this with a kit lens:

First spring flowers by Adam Brown, on Flickr

We have more in common on the subject than differences. My use of the kit lens is a willing compromise for the sake of something that will fit in my business travel kit or pocket on a walkabout. The first lens I bought after receiving my first NEX camera with the old 18-55 zoom on it was the 50mm f/1.8 (which punches way above its weight) and the surprisingly sharp Sigma 19mm shortly after that.

I also heartily agree that buying the best glass you can afford is sound advice with an understanding that the "afford" part is sometimes a very limiting factor. A person spending $2000 on a full-frame camera is far more likely to be willing and able to expand their lens horizons than the person with the $600 APS-C body and kit lens. Another consideration that I try to remember is to not discourage the person with the $600 bundle and a tight budget. My advice is always to strive to make the best photos you can with the equipment you have and to learn as much about the science behind the art so you can take a camera and lens combo that cost less that your phone and make photos you can be proud of. While most photos won't equal the phone for technical sharpness, understanding things like depth of field and exposure can make a lot of difference in the results. Face it. Most photos you see posted from phones (not, of course, the capable CC photo Forum members) are technically perfect crap selfies and technically perfect crap snapshots.

Knowing that zooming to 50mm and getting as close as possible to minimize depth of field will defocus the background makes the APS-C kit bundle a better photographic tool than a $1000 phone (or a $5000 DSLR and lens in the hands of a well-to-do noob who just wanted the right logo on the neck strap:) ).

The bokeh isn't as deep and creamy as your example, but it is better than you can get with a phone, even with computational defocusing.

If you are truly hooked by photography, making the best photos you can with the equipment you have will eventually lead to better equipment if the knowledge and experience gained confirms that equipment is truly the limitation and "good enough" for you has moved higher up the ladder.

And, yes. There was a lot of me in that last paragraph. ;)

Dave

 

The bokeh isn't as deep and creamy as your example,

Sony 100mm STF -- the cream machine lens. Playing with it for 2 weeks. Definitely not a lens I could ever see myself buying but it is interesting.

Sony 100mm STF -- the cream machine lens. Playing with it for 2 weeks. Definitely not a lens I could ever see myself buying but it is interesting.

That's one of those lenses you wish you had either unlimited budget or a commanding justification for owning one.

Sadly, I have neither. :)

Dave

P.S. I just talked to my 16-50 and it feels a lot better about its bokeh after finding out what you used for that photo.

That's one of those lenses you wish you had either unlimited budget or a commanding justification for owning one.

 

Sadly, I have neither. :)

 

 

Dave

 

P.S. I just talked to my 16-50 and it feels a lot better about its bokeh after finding out what you used for that photo.

lol

Not to spoil my full review, but unless you have a nearly unlimited budget for lenses, not sure many people would want the STF. It's kinda a 1-trick pony for a fairly subtle difference in bokeh (compared to a 85/1.8 for example). In terms of light transmittal, it's a SLOW lens -- 5.6. (But F2.8 bokeh). Meanwhile, the bokeh isn't for everyone's tastes -- You don't get bokeh balls wide open. It's sooooo smooth, that you don't even get bokeh balls and some people like the balls!

Anyway, it's going to be different than my regular reviews. I'll probably mostly do comparison images against the 85/1.8 and the 90/2.8.

I also heartily agree that buying the best glass you can afford is sound advice with an understanding that the "afford" part is sometimes a very limiting factor. A person spending $2000 on a full-frame camera is far more likely to be willing and able to expand their lens horizons than the person with the $600 APS-C body and kit lens. Another consideration that I try to remember is to not discourage the person with the $600 bundle and a tight budget. My advice is always to strive to make the best photos you can with the equipment you have and to learn as much about the science behind the art so you can take a camera and lens combo that cost less that your phone and make photos you can be proud of.

Knowing that zooming to 50mm and getting as close as possible to minimize depth of field will defocus the background makes the APS-C kit bundle a better photographic tool than a $1000 phone (or a $5000 DSLR and lens in the hands of a well-to-do noob who just wanted the right logo on the neck strap:) ).

The bolded part is important. Just got back from a trip with friends. They just bought a new a6000 for the trip. The problem is they refuse to learn anything about photography. We went as a group. Another friend came as well. They actually both upgraded from low end Nikon APS-C DSLRs to Sonys. However, the 2nd friend actually cares about photography. She actually goes on paid photography tours. Her upgrading makes sense (honestly surprised she didn't upgrade a lot earlier as "unlimited funds" nearly describes her). However, that first friend who went to the a6000 makes no sense. Anytime we talk about what settings to use while we're at a location, the first friend just tunes out and makes a comment like "I'll just use your photo since you guys have the good cameras". Just refuses to learn. The a6000 actually is probably not too much newer than the DSLR they replaced so I wouldn't view it really as a "better" camera (smaller maybe, but IQ should be similar). Very annoying. DW doesn't want to share photos for quite some time after the trip (issues with proper credit help her negative attitude as well, although the friend is getting better about giving proper credit lately). Anyways, her attitude is not uncommon. Most people think a more expensive camera = better picture. The same type of people who complain when a photographer doesn't show up with a ton of fancy gear and think they should pay less because they don't see as much gear.

P.S. I just talked to my 16-50 and it feels a lot better about its bokeh after finding out what you used for that photo.

:') Give it a pat on the back from me too. That'll do lens, that'll do.

:') Give it a pat on the back from me too. That'll do lens, that'll do.

Not sure I'm comfortable with the Babe reference regarding my lens....

:)

Dave

Configure, configure, configure....

I don't really have a CD collection or a bookcase per se. I do have a dog, however.

Not looking to win any prizes with this or sell any cameras other than the one I was holding when I took this picture, which I am convincingly sold on.

Cookie asleep on my lap with the camera handheld (awkwardly, since she was on my lap)

1/15s - f/5.6 - ISO 51200 - JPEG with levels adjusted slightly. In-camera noise reduction only.

Blooms in the back yard are pathetic right now. The cactus is sprouting another arm with fresh pointy things. (The white object in the right third was caught in a strand of web that is barely visible.)

1/60s - f/3.5 - ISO320

I have to completely relearn depth of field. The difference is significant. Another awkward Cookie shot with years of skill behind the blind luck that got her eye as the point of focus.

1/13s - f/3.5 - ISO 25600 - JPEG straight out of camera.

Hard to make a full judgement after owning it for 18 hours but so far, so good.

I may actually do a full review highlighting the actual and perceived differences between shooting with the A7 III and the APS-C Alphas. Coming from shooting with the A6x00 cameras for the last 4 years, I don't feel like Forrest Gump running with the leg braces falling away but the A7III is clearly a couple of generations ahead of my A6300. While the little Alphas can easily hold their own as enthusiast-level cameras, I have zero regrets about my move and am looking forward to going out and about this weekend and taking a proper test drive.

Dave

Configure, configure, configure....

 

I have to completely relearn depth of field. The difference is significant. Another awkward Cookie shot with years of skill behind the blind luck that got her eye as the point of focus.

 

I remember when I switched to full frame, it was more of a transition than I expected. My lenses suddenly felt really short. Yes, had to pay more attention to DOF. Also lens quality started becoming more important. (APS-C by only using the center part of the image, you rarely have significant corner issues).

Anyway.... Dave if you're willing, I'm going to send yu a survey of questions.

I'm doing a blog post on interviews with "switchers" --- I have a completed survey from someone who went from shooting Canon professionally to the A7riii. Codex provided answers for an enthusiast who switched from Nikon to the Sony A7iii.

I should be getting someone who went from A-mount (A99) to the A7iii. You can be my APS-C ---> Sony A7iii.

You can be my APS-C ---> Sony A7iii.

Happy to. If only because it may be the only relevant survey I receive in my email among dozens this year. ;)

Dave

...the A7III is clearly a couple of generations ahead of my A6300.

Dave

I got to stop reading the Photo & Camera Discussions.

Bought a zoom from Adam and the Sony 85mm from B&H for my A6300 and now you guys are pushing the A7III? Auwe! (Hawaiian for "what the hey!")

I got to stop reading the Photo & Camera Discussions.

 

Bought a zoom from Adam and the Sony 85mm from B&H for my A6300 and now you guys are pushing the A7III? Auwe! (Hawaiian for "what the hey!")

lol. At least your 85mm is a full frame lens, so if you choose to go full frame some day....

Here is the reality: You are getting great images from your A6300, you love your A6300, there is NO reason to go through the expense up a full frame upgrade right now.

But there is a but...

There is a "squeeze" happening now (a term I borrowed from Thom Hogan)..... the capabilities of phones continue to grow, squeezing out much of the camera market. The camera market has to keep moving upscale to stay ahead of phones. (He recently rhetorically asked, who would buy a 12mp 3x slow aperture point and shoot?

But it already squeezes more than that. I posted a comparison a while ago -- If you stick a kit lens on the A6300 and shoot in auto, your results won't be any better than a phone.

Now, you are already ahead of that curve -- You shoot with superior lenses and you know what you're doing.

But in the future -- full frame will be the new aps-c. 10 years ago, full frame was only for pros. 5 years ago, full frame was for pros and top enthusiasts. Now, full frame is for many enthusiasts, even some "beginners" are going straight to full frame. In another 3-5 years, I expect much of the market will be full frame.

lol. At least your 85mm is a full frame lens, so if you choose to go full frame some day....

 

Here is the reality: You are getting great images from your A6300, you love your A6300, there is NO reason to go through the expense up a full frame upgrade right now.

 

But there is a but...

 

There is a "squeeze" happening now (a term I borrowed from Thom Hogan)..... the capabilities of phones continue to grow, squeezing out much of the camera market. The camera market has to keep moving upscale to stay ahead of phones. (He recently rhetorically asked, who would buy a 12mp 3x slow aperture point and shoot?

But it already squeezes more than that. I posted a comparison a while ago -- If you stick a kit lens on the A6300 and shoot in auto, your results won't be any better than a phone.

 

Now, you are already ahead of that curve -- You shoot with superior lenses and you know what you're doing.

But in the future -- full frame will be the new aps-c. 10 years ago, full frame was only for pros. 5 years ago, full frame was for pros and top enthusiasts. Now, full frame is for many enthusiasts, even some "beginners" are going straight to full frame. In another 3-5 years, I expect much of the market will be full frame.

Maybe if the costs come down appreciably. While I can afford the $2000 camera, I can't see the value of it for me and my photography habits. (Thank goodness!)

Vic

Maybe if the costs come down appreciably. While I can afford the $2000 camera, I can't see the value of it for me and my photography habits. (Thank goodness!)

 

Vic

That sounds oddly familiar.....

:)

Dave

Maybe if the costs come down appreciably. While I can afford the $2000 camera, I can't see the value of it for me and my photography habits. (Thank goodness!)

 

Vic

I have to tell myself this all the time.

Pierce and his 24-105 excitement is NOT helping.

lol.

Here is the reality: You are getting great images from your A6300, you love your A6300, there is NO reason to go through the expense up a full frame upgrade right now.

/quote]

 

Kidding aisde, I love my A6300. It fits my hands and the weight is great. I have not looked into the weight of the A7 III but if the weight is anything like the RX10 III which I have, I'll have second, third and fourth thoughts about "upgrading".

Kidding aisde, I love my A6300. It fits my hands and the weight is great. I have not looked into the weight of the A7 III but if the weight is anything like the RX10 III which I have, I'll have second, third and fourth thoughts about "upgrading".

Tom, since I feel bad about all the money I have cost you, I'll tell you that the A7 III with the 24-105 f/4 G outweighs the RX10 III by 300g and is about the same size. It also doesn't have the RX10's insane zoom range.

Count down your thoughts and rest easy with your awesome A6300!

I'm keeping mine.

Dave

Count down your thoughts and rest easy with your awesome A6300!

I'm keeping mine.

Dave

When the Great Guru speaks, I listen!

Of course all bets are off if you talk about an A6700!

Interviewed a couple people from here...

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/04/19/switching-to-sony/

I bought a used 70-200 f/4 over the weekend. It's light enough to use one handed and fits on camera in my bag (whereas my old D750 + 24-70 f/2.8 was a REALLY tight fit) with room to spare. I'm thrilled with the size of this camera.

DPReview just posted their final segment on the A7 III review.

 

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I needed a new camera right now, I'd be tempted to buy one after reading this.

 

 

 

 

Dave

 

It's 2018's version of the D750 -- A great general purpose camera that has no real peers at it's price point, a camera that can compete with much more expensive cameras. (4 years ago, the D750 was introduced for $2300... it was honestly superior to the A7ii which was still unrefined, it blew away the 6D... and it competed very favorably with the Canon 5Diii... many considered it a 24mp version of the D810... sound familiar? )

It's 2018's version of the D750 -- A great general purpose camera that has no real peers at it's price point, a camera that can compete with much more expensive cameras. (4 years ago, the D750 was introduced for $2300... it was honestly superior to the A7ii which was still unrefined, it blew away the 6D... and it competed very favorably with the Canon 5Diii... many considered it a 24mp version of the D810... sound familiar? )

Sony has come a long way from the original A100. Lots of slings and arrows from brand loyal owners of other brands and a lot of bias from the review sites. "Why would you buy a camera from a TV company?" I was on the receiving end of a lot of smirks and smirky comments from cruisers with the "proper" neck straps, though I will admit that the honest-to-goodness photographers have always been pretty neutral and showed interest in things like the A77's SLT mirror or the A700's in-body stabilization.

Maybe now the comments will be less, "why don't you get a real camera" and more, "I wish I didn't have all this money invested in glass!"

:)

Dave

And so it starts. Third-party normal zoom f/2.8 lens from Tamron.

Not wide enough at the short end for me, but it could be a good kit alternative.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1393332-REG/tamron_a036_28_75mm_f_2_8_di_iii.html

Dave