Sony a7 iii - looks to be a game changer

The reviews are starting to trickle in. I've yet to see any significant negatives and the positives are very, very compelling.

I may not buy an A7 III immediately but it's obvious to me that Sony's disruptive plan to market this level of camera for under $2k is targeting me personally. :)

My A77 and A-mount lenses are getting prepped for sale. My A6x00 cameras and lenses will not be sold as the convenience of having Full and Crop cameras that share lenses (mostly) is of value to me.

It's a great time to be a photographer!.

Dave

The reviews are starting to trickle in. I've yet to see any significant negatives and the positives are very, very compelling.

 

I may not buy an A7 III immediately but it's obvious to me that Sony's disruptive plan to market this level of camera for under $2k is targeting me personally. :)

 

My A77 and A-mount lenses are getting prepped for sale. My A6x00 cameras and lenses will not be sold as the convenience of having Full and Crop cameras that share lenses (mostly) is of value to me.

 

It's a great time to be a photographer!.

 

 

Dave

That’s why I thought of you the moment I heard about this camera. Targeting those who were right at the edge of switching to Sony or full frame.

Really trying to get enthusiast level photographers to move up from aps-c. (The major brands are acting like aps-c is dead for enthusiasts. But Sony may be prepping an a6900/a9000)

Owning both the A6300 and a7r3, I’m getting rid of my aps-c lenses, in favor of lenses I can use on both.

It increases the size of the A6300 kit slightly but avoids duplication.

In your shoes, I might keep 1 of the zooms, but move the primes over to full frame. (Though I haven’t actually touched my A6300 since getting the a7r3. Really just keeping it around as a backup body).

Really trying to get enthusiast level photographers to move up from aps-c. (The major brands are acting like aps-c is dead for enthusiasts. But Sony may be prepping an a6900/a9000)

Yeah, that annoys me. Luckily, Sony hasn't abandoned them yet. Between Fuji and Sony, there are quite a lot of great choices that keep coming out. I wish more manufacturers would join in though. Full frame isn't the end all be all. Big ones like Nikon and Canon. The D500 is great, but other than that, it's like they're just too afraid of stepping on their higher end models' toes. Olympus may be too small now to make any difference.

Most of my friends and family are much better served with APS-C than full frame.

\

In your shoes, I might keep 1 of the zooms, but move the primes over to full frame. (Though I haven’t actually touched my A6300 since getting the a7r3. Really just keeping it around as a backup body).

I asked myself the questions that people like the

And the fun begins...

Dave

I'd agree that the 'III' is a game changer, but I'm on the other side here. As others have mentioned, there seems to be some not-so-subtle pressure to move the enthusiast away from APS-C. Especially given no new native APS-C lenses from Sony (although there are rumors).... However, I really like the trade-off between size and quality that I get with the A6300 and my 10-18, 18-105, and 35mm prime, all with Optical SteadyShot. So far, I can do all I want to do with this package, but I would like some new toys, particularly faster and longer lenses. I'm beginning to feel I might not see this from Sony in native APS-C.

Well, with the A6500 having in body stabilization, do you guys think the lack of APS-C lenses is because Sony figures they can just put lens R&D towards full frame lenses without OSS that can also be used on the A6500 and any successor?

Well, with the A6500 having in body stabilization, do you guys think the lack of APS-C lenses is because Sony figures they can just put lens R&D towards full frame lenses without OSS that can also be used on the A6500 and any successor?

Possibly, but APS-C only lenses should still be part of the overall plan. One of the advantages of APS-C designed lenses is that because they need to cover a much smaller image circle, they can be engineered to a smaller size. One of the reasons that I will retain at least one APS-C body is that size advantage for when I want to travel or just do a daily walkabout with a small body and lens.

Dave

I'd agree that the 'III' is a game changer, but I'm on the other side here. As others have mentioned, there seems to be some not-so-subtle pressure to move the enthusiast away from APS-C. Especially given no new native APS-C lenses from Sony (although there are rumors)

Actually, to be accurate - there IS a new APS-C lens from Sony that just came out - the 18-135mm. I'm actually considering it as a kit lens replacement since I still use the 18-55mm kit, and don't like power zooms and power retracting lenses.

However, I really like the trade-off between size and quality that I get with the A6300 and my 10-18, 18-105, and 35mm prime, all with Optical SteadyShot. So far, I can do all I want to do with this package, but I would like some new toys, particularly faster and longer lenses. I'm beginning to feel I might not see this from Sony in native APS-C.

And some third parties are still coming to the rescue...with Sigma having just released the excellent 16mm F1.4 lens to go alongside their 30mm F1.4 lens, both APS-C lenses for e-mount. I still think more is on the way, both from Sony and from third-party, for APS-C - most likely a next evolution of A6xxx camera will be coming fairly soon - and I think with the FE lens collection finally getting nicely filled out, they can start mixing in some APS-C lenses along with FE lenses, though clearly FE lenses will still dominate. With some of those FE lenses still being reasonably sized, and with there being very little actual size advantage for APS-C lenses once the focal lengths get to 200mm and up, FE lenses can be a wonderful choice on APS-C bodies. My favorite two lenses on my A6300 are the FE70-300mm G and FE100-400mm GM, which is other-worldly-good.

I'm still getting what I need from APS-C so for now, that's where I'll stick - at least as a primary wildlife cam. If a new A6xxx or APS-C flagship comes along within this year, that will probably be my next camera, and if not, then I will look to picking up a full-frame body as a second system - likely sticking more with the high-MP range like the A7RIII so I still have maximum reach equivalence with my long lenses for wildlife, if the A6300 ever goes belly-up or APS-C loses support down the road.

IMHO there is nothing semi-pro about the D750 it is a top level armature camera. D500, D810, D850 are semi-pro, D5=pro.

 

framer

You lost me at the D8xx being "semi pro". A d850 is just as much a "pro" camera as a D5.

Do you guys have any favorite reviewers/bloggers?

I used to like Ken Rockwell as a Nikon newbie, where he had plain language advice and showed his settings and actually reviewed equipment, but for the past several years, he's completely given up. Anything he posts now is just hot garbage (and has been for a few years now).

The Northrups are ok at first, but then I'll hear them say stuff that's a little iffy/out of date, etc. Makes me think they're more of an enthusiast couple than "professional" photographers.

I find Jared Polin the most amusing, but I already shoot RAW for my own reasons, and I don't find his reviews especially helpful. Nothing that stands out anyways. DPReview reviews are too technical and pixel peeping for me. I like real world examples and plain language, like the Ken Rockwell of 10+ years ago.

I asked myself the questions that people like the

: "Do you really need 42MP?" "Do you really need 20 fps?" The answers were Probably Not and No. 24MP suits me just fine. I have a 40x60 print from my 12MP A700 that looks incredible and several 24x36 metal prints from the A6x00s that look like windows. My main concern was AF coverage, AF speed and high-ISO performance and they seem to have nailed that in the A7 III. The "vanilla" A7 no longer seems like the red-headed stepchild of the FF family. The $1,200 difference isn't a real strain, but if I don't have to spend it to get the features I feel I really need/want, all the better. Like you, I will likely dump a lot of the extraneous APS-C lenses but keep the fisheye and 12mm Rokinon just because they are actually ideal for my travel shooting as second body alternatives. The 18-105 is a maybe/maybe not since I would likely pick up the 24-105G lens for the main FF attachment. Primes like the 85 f/1.8 and a 35mm of some sort would trickle into the bag and the 12-24G might get a look somewhere down the road. The toss-up would be a 100-400 for reach or 70-200 f/2.8 for do-it-all zoom. Decisions, decisions. :confused:

 

And the fun begins...

 

Dave

There are a few other differences besides the 42 vs 24mp.... but the small degree of differences is surprising considering the $1200 price difference. They really priced the A7iii very aggressively and/or didn't cheapen it too much.

You can expect slightly less weather sealing. The EVF and LCD will be lower resolution. I'm guessing the processor is slower but may act just as fast as the A7riii since the files are smaller. Apparently no pixel shift -- but I find that feature to mostly be a gimmick anyway.

Probably the biggest difference besides the straight megapixels -- the A7iii will have an AA filter. protects against moire, but the images will be just slightly less sharp beyond the mp difference.

Still, I suspect, especially once you are using decent FF lenses, I suspect you will find your images looking sharper than you got from the A6300. You'll almost certainly enjoy the shooting experience more.. just much better layout of dials and controls.

When using small primes, like the 55/1.8... If you held the A6300 in one hand while holding the A7iii in the other hand, yes... the A7iii will be noticeably bigger. Still, if you aren't comparing side by side, the A7iii doesn't feel big at all. I would never feel it was too big to travel with or carry. (Put the 100-400 on it, I'd feel differently).

(Put the 100-400 on it, I'd feel differently).

I think that, technically, you put both the A7xx and A6x00 on the 100-400 rather than the other way around.

:)

Dave

Yeah, that annoys me. Luckily, Sony hasn't abandoned them yet. Between Fuji and Sony, there are quite a lot of great choices that keep coming out. I wish more manufacturers would join in though. Full frame isn't the end all be all. Big ones like Nikon and Canon. The D500 is great, but other than that, it's like they're just too afraid of stepping on their higher end models' toes. Olympus may be too small now to make any difference.

 

Most of my friends and family are much better served with APS-C than full frame.

In 2003..... I'd tell casual users if they wanted to take some fun casual snap shots, P&S digital cameras were fun. If they wanted great photos, they needed a film dSLR.

By 2008-2009, I'd tell casual users that an aps-c dSLR, even using it on auto, would give them really good images.... and even a stand alone P&S would out perform their little phone. The phone is just for kids to take quick snapshots that will only be shared on low resolution small screens.

By 2012... Your P&S won't do much better than your iphone 4-5. But you'll notice better photos if you step up to an enthusiast P&S like the new Sony RX100, or if you step up to an aps-c dSLR. If you're super serious, you can get an advanced aps-c dSLR, or even some full frames are getting affordable. So really advanced enthusiasts may want the new Nikon D800 or Canon 5Diii, but a great aps-c camera is all that most of us would ever want, definitely much better than a phone.

By 2015... Ummm, forget almost any P&S. Ok, an enthusiast bridge camera like the RX10 can give you a great zoom range. But for casual users, your newest phone can match the quality f almost any P&S. If you're a casual shooter, a phone might be all you need. If you are taking photos in low light, an aps-c dSLR still may be a little better for you. If you're an enthusiast, full frame is getting even more affordable and there you have a clear IQ upgrade.

By 2017-2018... If you're a purely casual user, just shooting auto... that iphone 8 plus is probably better than an aps-c dSLR. Aps-c dSLRs, when paired with good lenses and with good skill/knowledge, can have more potential. But if you just want to point and click and be done, your phone is probably enough for you.

Notice the trend -- the phone gradually swallowed bigger and bigger sensors. For purely casual users (those who will use auto and the kit lens 100% of the time), the phone is probably better than the aps-c camera.

And thus the death of aps-c. For enthusiasts, aps-c can still deliver great results (look at this forum). But for a decade, most aps-c buyers were the casual "auto" shooters. That market is drying up. Those really casual shooters don't need the newest aps-c camera. (Upgrade to the Nikon D3400, why? T get snap bridge so the photos get transferred to the phone?!? why not just take photos with the phone in the first place?!)

So all that's left are the enthusiasts. And with a much smaller market, the camera makers need to push those buyers into more expensive products.

But my advice for "friends and family" now -- If they don't want to dedicate time to learning photography, my advice is, "which phone are you using?"

With excellent APS-C cameras priced well below $1000 and excellent Full-frame starting at $2000, what's the prognosis for Micro 4/3? The tiny sensor never really realized the promise of compact, high quality imaging. Most of the bodies are equal to or larger than the A7 series and while the lenses for the Panasonics and Olympus are excellent, they just aren't that much smaller than the APS-C equivalents. The Nikon 1 series did the same thing by promising compact cameras but none were smaller than the APS-C Sony and Samsung cameras, even with a much smaller 1" sensor.

I sort of see the path ending up with a whole lot of phones being used by a growing group of casual photographers with high-performance APS-C (entry-level is already dying) and FF servicing the enthusiast and up population. I also see 75MP FF cameras nudging medium format into smaller and smaller niche markets.

It's a great time to be a photographer but maybe a bit of a rough road for manufacturers.

Dave

With excellent APS-C cameras priced well below $1000 and excellent Full-frame starting at $2000, what's the prognosis for Micro 4/3? The tiny sensor never really realized the promise of compact, high quality imaging. Most of the bodies are equal to or larger than the A7 series and while the lenses for the Panasonics and Olympus are excellent, they just aren't that much smaller than the APS-C equivalents. The Nikon 1 series did the same thing by promising compact cameras but none were smaller than the APS-C Sony and Samsung cameras, even with a much smaller 1" sensor.

 

I sort of see the path ending up with a whole lot of phones being used by a growing group of casual photographers with high-performance APS-C (entry-level is already dying) and FF servicing the enthusiast and up population. I also see 75MP FF cameras nudging medium format into smaller and smaller niche markets.

 

It's a great time to be a photographer but maybe a bit of a rough road for manufacturers.

 

Dave

Good analysis. Panasonic sees a path forward for m4:3 as being highly video specialized. m4:3 also has the advantage of a highly developed "small" lens lineup. If you are sticking to aps-c or m4:3 sensors (with no intent of ever going full frame), Sony/Nikon/Canon don't offer you great native lenses. They tell you to stick full frame lenses on your cameras if you want great lenses.

At some point, ILCs will start to take a backseat to computational photography, but that's a while away. ILCs, at least for enthusiasts and pros, have at quite a few years left. But even their life is limited.

Things may be looking very different a year from now. Canon and Nikon may make big mirrorless pushes by September, which could really make everything look very different.

I recall debating with Sony A-mount fans 3-4 years ago, I was saying that the switch to mirrorless was going to end up as a fully committed path with numbered days for a-mount. A-mount fans were arguing with me and claiming that the emphasis on e-mount was temporary and that Sony would keep the a-mount as their serious line while mirrorless was only going to be for entry level amateurs.

I know we have several former a-mount owners here.... Things can change, and they can change pretty darn quickly.

At some point, ILCs will start to take a backseat to computational photography, but that's a while away. ILCs, at least for enthusiasts and pros, have at quite a few years left. But even their life is limited.

 

Things may be looking very different a year from now. Canon and Nikon may make big mirrorless pushes by September, which could really make everything look very different.

I certainly hope Canon and Nikon make a big mirrorless push by September. I've just lost faith that they'll do anything this year, and even if they do, it's gonna be something half arsed like the Canon M50.

I agree that computational photography (probably with a good amount of AI involved) is the future, but we've got years and years yet before that happens. I'd say two more generations of bodies before we even get a sniff. I can't wait though. That's my dream. Something small and pocketable (or even wearable), with the abilities of a full frame DSLR and monster lens attached. Much easier to just enjoy a vacation if you don't have to deal with equipment.

I see a slightly different path forward with ILCs introducing more computational photography. They already do in-camera red-eye, distortion, CA and noise correction. Why not add bokeh smoothing, blemish removal, focus stacking and other features as more and more processing power becomes available?

As for the video segment, Sony just announced a CMOS sensor with a global shutter. It's only about 1.5MP for now but imagine a 50MP A9 with a global shutter shooting down-sampled 8K-60p video with zero rolling shutter distortion and the ability to parse any of the 32mp frames into a still image.

I hope the Canon M isn't their idea of a big push. :o

Whatever they do, they are going to be playing catch-up for a while after letting Sony run free in the segment for so long. Lenses would be an issue as they were when the E-mount first appeared. Nikon has a lens mount small enough for a compact mirrorless camera but the camera would have to be fairly thick to maintain the flange distance for the current lens line to be used. Canon's EF mount is 10mm larger and the flange distance is about the same as Nikon's. Canon would likely use the M-mount but both would have to either provide an adapter for their existing lenses or crank out a bunch of re-designed units. Either way, I don't see Sony standing still while they trudge up the steep slope.

Oh, and sensors. :)

We are either going to be hailed as prophets or reviled as idiots, but it sure is fun to fling predictions against the wall!

Dave

Nikon is working hard on global shutter for their upcoming mirrorless. We will see how far they can take it, if they are beating Sony there or not. From a source I consider reliable, Nikon wants to ultimately make their mirrorless electronic shutter only, but they may need to include mechanical shutter on the first generation. (I suspect Sony is ultimately headed in that direction..... A9 is really meant to be used with the electronic shutter but it needs the mechanical for flash use) .

Nikon is working hard on global shutter for their upcoming mirrorless. We will see how far they can take it, if they are beating Sony there or not. From a source I consider reliable, Nikon wants to ultimately make their mirrorless electronic shutter only, but they may need to include mechanical shutter on the first generation. (I suspect Sony is ultimately headed in that direction..... A9 is really meant to be used with the electronic shutter but it needs the mechanical for flash use) .

Is Nikon sourcing their mirrorless sensor elsewhere? Is the timing of Sony's global shutter announcement coincidental? Will an APS-C Global CMOS sensor appear in an A7000 along with Nikon's entry?

Hmmmmm.... ;)

Dave

Is Nikon sourcing their mirrorless sensor elsewhere? Is the timing of Sony's global shutter announcement coincidental? Will an APS-C Global CMOS sensor appear in an A7000 along with Nikon's entry?

 

Hmmmmm.... ;)

 

Dave

Sensor being designed by Nikon to be manufactured by TowerJazz.

Sony wanted to sell Nikon the a7rii/iii 42mp sensor for the D850 but Nikon went and designed their own sensor instead (but it may be produced in a Sony plant)

A7 III a game changer?

All my A-Mount stuff and a few seldom-used E-Mount items just left here in a box.

Time will tell if the game changes but I just threw out the first pitch

Dave

I just sent out some older, seldom-used stuff myself last month...one camera body, two lenses, and a TC...all A-mount. I still have two A-mount lenses and one body...everything else is E now. Money saved up and waiting to see if Sony throws out another APS-C pitch for me to swing at!

Justin,

I am planning out lens additions and have settled firmly on the 24-105 f/4 G but I'm conflicted on a telephoto. I will be using a long lens for grandkid activities like t-ball/baseball and some indoor things. Though I don't have constant access to wildlife, I will be returning to Alaska and enjoy visiting the zoo for an occasional tame photo safari. I am also fond of isolating landscape and architecture elements. Having shot with a 70-200 f/2.8, I'm reluctant to give up the wide aperture but would like more reach (not a fan of converters but could be convinced). There's only $100 between the 70-200 and the 100-400 and I have enough pros and cons for each that I am solidly balanced on the fence. The obvious answer is "both" but I have a marriage to consider. After having the 100-400 G for a while, what is your opinion on one over the other.

Anyone else with opinions or comments? Feel free to chime in.

Thanks in advance.

Dave

Honestly, I have to profess a complete love of the 100-400mm lens. It's simply the finest lens I have ever had, A- or E-mount. The 70-200mm F2.8 is lovely, but I still would choose the 100-400mm over it - the loss of light for me was nothing compared to the additional reach, and the quality of the lens at all focal lengths. Adding TCs to the 70-200mm F2.8 from what I've seen won't quite match the 100-400mm overall in IQ. Of course, you can also use the extenders on the 100-400mm too, which gets you even greater reach - I use the 1.4x often, but didn't bother with the 2x. The 100-400mm is a suprisingly versatile lens too - it's not just all about reach. It's excellent at 100mm, and has excellent close-focus ability at around 3 feet at all focal lengths, is built like a tank, and has a nice slate of controls. On crop bodies it's marvelous for the reach, and on full-frame body, it's edge-to-edge sharpness actually makes it a very good portrait to wildlife lens. And bokeh is beautiful.

Justin,

 

I am planning out lens additions and have settled firmly on the 24-105 f/4 G but I'm conflicted on a telephoto. I will be using a long lens for grandkid activities like t-ball/baseball and some indoor things. Though I don't have constant access to wildlife, I will be returning to Alaska and enjoy visiting the zoo for an occasional tame photo safari. I am also fond of isolating landscape and architecture elements. Having shot with a 70-200 f/2.8, I'm reluctant to give up the wide aperture but would like more reach (not a fan of converters but could be convinced). There's only $100 between the 70-200 and the 100-400 and I have enough pros and cons for each that I am solidly balanced on the fence. The obvious answer is "both" but I have a marriage to consider. After having the 100-400 G for a while, what is your opinion on one over the other.

 

Anyone else with opinions or comments? Feel free to chime in.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Dave

I'd ask yourself if you really need the 2.8. If you're not shooting a lot of indoor sports or indoor events, then I don't think the 2.8 aperture is compelling. When it comes to background separation, portraits, etc... give me the 85/1.8 -- small and relatively cheap.

So big heavy expensive lens..... what's more important, the aperture or the reach. If I didn't really need the 2.8, I'd go with the reach.

If I really did need indoor telephoto, then the 2.8 would be more important to me than the reach.

If you're ever going to switch to full frame, just realize that 200mm is kinda short on full frame.

And you might not want to rule out the 100-300, if you want something lighter and cheaper.