Sony a7 iii - looks to be a game changer

From your reasoning, I cant for the life of me understand why Canon isn't the only camera brand...like Taco Bell in Demolition Man.

Canon has lenses. True. A lot of lenses. I'm sure a real pro needs at least one of each to be successful. :)

I went looking to see what they had that would cover my planned FF kit and they did indeed have most of what I want. They are a little light in stabilized primes and full-frame ultra-wides, however. I Couldn't find a stabilized Lensbaby either.

Sony now has lenses to cover the "pro trinity" and they are in the "big boy" game. They aren't close to number one but in a very short time, comparatively, they have become number three in total ILC and number one in mirrorless ILC, which is currently the only growing market sector. Both Canon and Nikon predicted dominance in mirrorless by 2015 back when the ill-fated Nikon 1 series and Canon M first appeared. They seem to be few years late. I'm sure when a significant Canon or Nikon entry appears, there will be a solid surge from brand-loyalists and it may well overtake Sony's numbers, especially if they go with a legacy mount. Time will tell

I made my Canon/Sony choice back in 2007 and in looking back, I haven't been disappointed in any of the cameras I have owned. Sony seems to be on a good track and currently has what I'm looking for in a system.

3-4 years from now, who knows?

Dave

From your reasoning, I cant for the life of me understand why Canon isn't the only camera brand...like Taco Bell in Demolition Man.

 

Canon has lenses. True. A lot of lenses. I'm sure a real pro needs at least one of each to be successful. :)

 

I went looking to see what they had that would cover my planned FF kit and they did indeed have most of what I want. They are a little light in stabilized primes and full-frame ultra-wides, however. I Couldn't find a stabilized Lensbaby either.

 

Sony now has lenses to cover the "pro trinity" and they are in the "big boy" game. They aren't close to number one but in a very short time, comparatively, they have become number three in total ILC and number one in mirrorless ILC, which is currently the only growing market sector. Both Canon and Nikon predicted dominance in mirrorless by 2015 back when the ill-fated Nikon 1 series and Canon M first appeared. They seem to be few years late. I'm sure when a significant Canon or Nikon entry appears, there will be a solid surge from brand-loyalists and it may well overtake Sony's numbers, especially if they go with a legacy mount. Time will tell

 

I made my Canon/Sony choice back in 2007 and in looking back, I haven't been disappointed in any of the cameras I have owned. Sony seems to be on a good track and currently has what I'm looking for in a system.

 

3-4 years from now, who knows?

 

Dave

Each brand has advantages and disadvantages, which is one reason there is room for so many brands. Beyond that, even if one brand was clearly superior, it wouldn't be enough to make everyone sell all their lenses and switch.

As things stand now, today:

Overall, Nikon makes dSLRs with the best (OVF) autofocus systems and image quality. Their high end cameras are much more rugged than Sony cameras. Their lens lineup is second only to Canon and is quite close.

Canon has the best overall dSLR lens lineup, (If you want stabilized primes and wide angle, look to Tamron lenses for Canon). Ergonomics are partially objective and partially subjective, but it's commonly held that Canon cameras have the best ergonomics and menu systems -- in their dSLRs and even in their mirrorless. Their low end cameras are very user friendly. Their connectivity, selfie screens and touch screens are way ahead of Sony. For any traditional dSLR, they have the best live view systems, quite comparable to Sony's AF system. And Canon has the best SOOC jpegs.

Sony-- basically ties Nikon for best image quality, a growing library of exceptional lenses. Bodies a bit smaller, with some innovative features like eye-AF. The best APS-C and FF ILCs for video.

Panasonic -- best cameras for video enthusiasts.

Olympus -- not quite sure why they are still around, lol.

The mistake is thinking that Canon won't become super competitive in mirrorless. I don't expect their 50% ILC market share to drop substantially, any time soon. Over the last few years, they have visibly progressed towards mirrorless, preparing for an eventual transition -- A mirrorless AF system can already be found in most of Canon's newer dSLRs. They have advanced their aps-c bodies, which are now really becoming great little cameras. They haven't done anything with mirrorless lenses, which is a big reason I suspect they will stick with the EF mount for full frame mirrorless.

But if you just rip the mirrour out of the 5Div and put in a good EVF instead... you immediately have a camera that can compete with the A7iii and A7riii -- the Sony cameras would have some advantages like faster burst rate, eye-AF. The Canon would have some advantages including superior touch screen, better connectivity, more rugged body.

Canon full frame mirrorless will be very competitive with Sony within 12-18 months.

Nikon on the other hand, I can't be as confident that they will "catch up." They haven't publicly displayed any progress towards mirrorless since abandoning the "1" line. Their existing lenses aren't necessarily mirrorless friendly. They haven't demonstrated FF OSPDAF or DPAF which will be necessary for mirrorless.

Nikon could catch up quickly.... Or they might indeed find themselves in a position of "too little, too late."

Touch screen, higher resolution screen and viewfinder, and simply better layout of controls and ergonomics. I don't care for the off-center viewfinder on the A6000/A6300, I find moving the AF point to be really annoying.

As Dave mentioned though, all of that is just personal opinion/preference...it's not anything that proves one camera to be 'better' than the other, only FOR YOU. For me, I hate touch screens *period* full-stop...I prefer the left-mounted viewfinder layout. I also do not find the ergonomics of the Canon better - for me, their grip is too shallow for my fingers - I do better with the deeper, more squared grip on the A6300 which allows me to carry the camera much more securely and get a better grasp of the camera that doesn't require rear-thumb pressure to hold. I dislike the flip-out mounted LCD screen as I can't use it to just tilt up or down, which is how I use an LCD 95% of the time, generally when mounted on a tripod - I have to flip the screen all the way out to the side in order to tilt it. I don't see the M50's EVF to be better than that on the A6300 - both are 2.36M. I rarely move AF points when I shoot - I use flex spot points centrally located for almost all walkaround shooting, and multi-points or zones when shooting action, so AF point movement means near nothing to me. And I vastly prefer the extensive customization available on the Sony A6xxx bodies - Canon only seems to have one or two buttons with customization. Their eye tracking is far from Sony's AF-C compatible version. Functionality-wise, their Auto ISO has only rudimentary control with a max ISO setting - no floor, no minimum shutter speed. And I still find Canon's sensors coming up short on DR and high ISO versus Sony's. Again, all just personal preferences and experiences.

Unlike Sony A-mount lenses, Canon EF lenses adapt PERFECTLY to the Canon M50 and Canon mirrorless cameras. You don't lose any functionality, they still get superb autofocus. So the only downside is having the extra bulk of the adapter.

Interesting argument, but the problem with that is that most tests, most users, and most reviews, as well as my own personal experience, seem to agree that the Canon mirrorless cameras do not have 'superb' autofocus performance to begin with, even with native lenses. Adapting lenses to the performance capabilities of the M50 is not nearly as difficult as adapting them to the performance of the A6300/6500. 425 PDAF points with 11fps burst, versus 99 PDAF points at 7fps burst - and a significantly smaller buffer limiting how many frames it needs to keep up with (10 RAW, which is barely more than 1 second...and less than 1/2 the A6300's buffer, and less than 1/10th of the A6500's buffer)...and aside from the specs, the Canon OSPDAF system has not come close to the Sony AF-C tracking performance yet in stills shooting. Dual-pixel is quite good for video shooters, but still not for action stills shooters.

In terms of technology, go try their dual pixel AF -- In many ways, it's already better than Sony's autofocus system.

I've tried it - on several cameras, and it is in my opinion and for my shooting vastly inferior to Sony's OSPDAF. For continuous autofocus in stills, it can't keep focus on any moving subject that is not moving at a medium or slow speed in a perfectly straight line...any erratic-ness, any fast speeds, and it gives up where the Sony is still tracking effortlessly. In single focus, I don't really see the difference in almost any camera today - half-press, lock, shoot happens in milliseconds no matter which model or body, so I never saw the point in arguing whether camera A focused in .0035ms versus camera B at .0041ms...since no human could detect that difference. Honestly, all digital cameras today from phones to full-frame pro-bodies can focus in AF-S just fine.

For video, their focus transition is much smoother than Sony.

This I can't argue - Canon may well have the best video autofocus and functionality on earth and I wouldn't know, or care, as I don't shoot video. I rate all my cameras on stills performance, and the Canon mirrorless remain significantly behind every current mirrorless competitor in my experience and opinion.

But for action, Sony's AF remains slightly faster.

Personally, I wouldn't call it 'slightly' faster - I'd consider the difference to be massive...as someone who shoots a high amount of AF-C subjects, I found even Canon's DSLRs other than the pro-body DSLRs to be insufficient. Sony's mirrorless bodies are at the very forefront of AF-C performance - others lately have closed the gap with what Sony was pulling off 3 years ago with the A6000 - with Fuji and M4:3 getting competitive, but Canon's mirrorless efforts are still several generations behind.

Clearly, Canon is doing some stuff very very right. So they don't have to beat Sony. They just have to stick close enough, that their users don't have a reason to jump ship.

Of course. This part of the argument I have no disagreement - Canon is well established, and many people are already well entrenched in the system...they don't have to make the very best camera on earth to hold the majority of the market, they only have to make an average camera that does well enough for most. It's the same reason Toyota doesn't have to make the best performing or most exciting cars to keep being a strong seller. I don't think Canon is going anywhere - they'll stay atop the market for some time to come. The counter argument is that Sony doesn't need to be #1 to be successful, market good products, and continue to stay in the APS-C and full-frame mirrorless market...they just need to stay profitable and keep a good following. Getting some people to come over from other brands can help them grow, but at the same time, keeping those already in the system coming back for more, and not losing them to other systems is also a viable strategy. At this point, Sony is strongly established at #3, and as long as they make products that are well reviewed, top-specced, and they turn a profit, they can happily stay there behind Canon and Nikon. I personally dislike when Sony makes statements about trying to 'be #1' at some point in the future - I'd rather they focus on continuing to put out the amazing string of products they have been, and staying profitable.

Salient point Justin. As long as Sony has stuff I want, keeps designing stuff I want/will want and remains profitable, their market position really is only bragging rights. Having a product from a number one market leader is only relevant if you want it, need it or have a use for it. Oxycontin and Preparation H are both market leaders but I've never bought or used either.

Also have to agree that in all the features I consider important based on how I use my cameras, the Sonys are arguably superior by comparison. The market is changing but people still buy what works best for them...or what their brother-in-law or the clerk at Best Buy told them was the best.

Ergonomics are vastly more subjective than objective. Trackballs and split keyboards are touted as "superior" ergonomically but I find them cumbersome and uncomfortable, mostly because I used mice and straight QWERTY keyboards for years before the new options were available. Canon may be regarded as having the "best" ergonomics but my guess is that particular majority opinion is due to the majority of DSLRs being Canon. I occasionally use Canon cameras to take photos for people and even playing with them in a store, I can't find anything quickly and the controls are in all the wrong places...for me. If a camera has the features you want and a way to access them that doesn't involve cryptography or mail-order, all that is needed is some practice. I have to admit that the original NEX menu was maybe one tedious step above cryptography and truly horrible, but they listened and the current menu system and controls on both the A6x00 and A7/A9 cameras are extremely usable. The controls I use 99.5% of the time (on/off switch, aperture dial, zoom ring and shutter button) are very easy to locate and convenient to use. I have to admit with some embarrassment that I still haven't found the pop-up flash button on my A7M3.

I guess I have always just used the equipment I like to use that and works how I want it to work. Whether Minolta, Sony, Canon (P&S), any of my woodworking tools or guns for that matter, if it does the job and doesn't break the bank, it's shiny.

And as a nod to the original subject of this thread, the A7M3 really is a game changer.

And shiny.

IMHO, of course.

Dave

Some good points but....

As Dave mentioned though, all of that is just personal opinion/preference...it's not anything that proves one camera to be 'better' than the other, only FOR YOU. For me, I hate touch screens *period* full-stop...I prefer the left-mounted viewfinder layout.

 

Regardless of whether you personally like touch screens or not.... having the option to use a touch screen is better than not having the option.

Yes, I agree that much of the ergonomics is subjective, some a bit more objective. But if you surveyed most professional reviewers, the consensus would be that the layout and menu system on Canon is better organized. Doesn't make them right, there is a subjective element certainly.

But like movie reviews -- You can have one movie scoring 95% on Rottentomatoes and another movie scoring 10%. You might personally prefer the movie scoring 10%--- that's your subjective perogative.

I also do not find the ergonomics of the Canon better - for me, their grip is too shallow for my fingers - I do better with the deeper, more squared grip on the A6300 which allows me to carry the camera much more securely and get a better grasp of the camera that doesn't require rear-thumb pressure to hold. I dislike the flip-out mounted LCD screen as I can't use it to just tilt up or down, which is how I use an LCD 95% of the time, generally when mounted on a tripod - I have to flip the screen all the way out to the side in order to tilt it. I don't see the M50's EVF to be better than that on the A6300 - both are 2.36M.

[/Quote]

 

Here, I'm primarily comparing to the A6000. The M50 is priced just slightly above the A6000 -- $150 above the A6000 and $250 under the A6300.

 

I rarely move AF points when I shoot - I use flex spot points centrally located for almost all walkaround shooting, and multi-points or zones when shooting action, so AF point movement means near nothing to me.

[/Quote]

 

Careful allowing personal case override objective factors. You might not personally move the AF point much, lots of other shooters do. it's a frustrating experience on the A6xoo bodies. It's easy and simple on the Canon.

 

And I vastly prefer the extensive customization available on the Sony A6xxx bodies - Canon only seems to have one or two buttons with customization. Their eye tracking is far from Sony's AF-C compatible version. [/Quote]

 

Yes, it is very rudimentary eye-AF --- But so is the A6000. The A6000 does not have AF-C eye-AF either.

The M50 is priced closer to the A6000 than the A6300.

 

Functionality-wise, their Auto ISO has only rudimentary control with a max ISO setting - no floor, no minimum shutter speed.

[/Quote]

 

Again, same as the A6000.

 

And I still find Canon's sensors coming up short on DR and high ISO versus Sony's. Again, all just personal preferences and experiences.

[/Quote]

 

The gap has been narrowed. But yes, Sony does have a technically measurable advantage, but it would be invisible to most people, especially to jpeg shooters. For example, according to DXO, the Sony A6000 scores dynamic range of 13.1 and ISO score of 1347. Those are just ahead of the M5 (same sensor as M50), with scores of 12.4 and 1261. In real world shooting, that's not much of a difference at all.

 

Interesting argument, but the problem with that is that most tests, most users, and most reviews, as well as my own personal experience, seem to agree that the Canon mirrorless cameras do not have 'superb' autofocus performance to begin with, even with native lenses. Adapting lenses to the performance capabilities of the M50 is not nearly as difficult as adapting them to the performance of the A6300/6500. 425 PDAF points with 11fps burst, versus 99 PDAF points at 7fps burst - and a significantly smaller buffer limiting how many frames it needs to keep up with

[/Quote]

 

But now you are comparing the $650 M50 to $900 and $1100 cameras.

 

Now in fairness, I haven't tested the M50 in fast action. But in my limited use of it, the autofocus was quite competent for stills, not any worse than the A6000. Yes, the burst rate is a little slower.

 

Personally, I wouldn't call it 'slightly' faster - I'd consider the difference to be massive...as someone who shoots a high amount of AF-C subjects, I found even Canon's DSLRs other than the pro-body DSLRs to be insufficient. Sony's mirrorless bodies are at the very forefront of AF-C performance - others lately have closed the gap with what Sony was pulling off 3 years ago with the A6000 - with Fuji and M4:3 getting competitive, but Canon's mirrorless efforts are still several generations behind.[/Quote]

I think you're underestimating Canon -- dSLR and mirrorless. Again, I didn't test fast action. But to my eye, the AF-C on the M50 was just as fast as the A6000.

Now, my point is not a fanboy argument of which camera is best. I'm a Sony shooter for a reason. I do find the Sony offerings superior. My point is only that Canon has become very very competitive already at the lower aps-c end.

The M50 is priced in between the A6000 and the A6300 -- And that's probably where is falls overall in terms of quality. It probably is slightly inferior t the A6300 overall, and slightly superior to the A6000 overall. But there are still some things that the A6000 does better than the M50. And there are some things the M50 does better than even the A6300 and A6500.

Auto ISO has only rudimentary control with a max ISO setting - no floor, no minimum shutter speed.

 

 

Again, same as the A6000.

Shutter speed restriction appeared on the A6300 but you can set the floor on the A6000.

Just for the record. Not nit-picking. :)

Dave

Face it, Canon could deliver a compressed block of manure and as long as it had a strap with the bright red lines and "EOS" on it, a significant percentage of the community would hang it around their neck. If Sony's flagship APS-C mirrorless only compared favorably to the competition's entry-level unit, had half the battery life, half the buffer, contrast-detect only in severely cropped 4K video and only seven native lenses available six years after the mount was introduced, it wouldn't even be reviewed on most of the top websites.

Canon certainly has the potential and technical expertise to compete seriously in mirrorless and surely will as that is the current trend. They just haven't pulled the curtain aside to show it yet.

Dave

Another change in habits. Small things keep coming to the surface.

When I leave the house for some mundane destination but take the camera in case I see something, I check the battery as usual but if it is over 50%, I just go. No spare and no worries. There was a week or two when I carried a couple of spares but I gave up after not ever needing them. Not even close to needing them. On the last cruise, I never needed to use the spare NP-FW50s either. As a second body, the A6300 didn't get constant use. Very liberating.

If I could have anything in the next APS-C camera, I would want a slightly larger grip with room for the NP-FZ100 battery.

I'm loving the A7M3 and combined with the A6300 in the waist pack with a complimentary lens it's the best travel kit I've ever had.

Dave

Another change in habits. Small things keep coming to the surface.

 

When I leave the house for some mundane destination but take the camera in case I see something, I check the battery as usual but if it is over 50%, I just go. No spare and no worries. There was a week or two when I carried a couple of spares but I gave up after not ever needing them. Not even close to needing them. On the last cruise, I never needed to use the spare NP-FW50s either. As a second body, the A6300 didn't get constant use. Very liberating.

 

If I could have anything in the next APS-C camera, I would want a slightly larger grip with room for the NP-FZ100 battery.

 

I'm loving the A7M3 and combined with the A6300 in the waist pack with a complimentary lens it's the best travel kit I've ever had.

 

Dave

I shot a wedding last weekend.... I'm slowly progressing towards a "real wedding" -- This was pretty close, ceremony and a dinner, but no dancing, etc. Anyway, point being..... about 5 hours of shooting, 1200+ photos, 18% battery remaining at the end. -- About 200-300 were taken with silent shutter in burst shooting, which does use less battery. About 900 were with typical mechanical shutter.

I probably would have been on a 3rd battery with the older cameras.

And another note -- I'm not sure I've taken a single photo with the A6300 since I got the A7riii. Used to take the A6300 when I wanted smaller than my D750... but stick a prime on the A7riii, it's small and light enough for me.

And another note -- I'm not sure I've taken a single photo with the A6300 since I got the A7riii. Used to take the A6300 when I wanted smaller than my D750... but stick a prime on the A7riii, it's small and light enough for me.

As I mentioned above, I still use the A6300 as a complimentary lens second body. With the 24-105 mounted, I'll mount the 12mm Rokinon for a wider view if necessary or even the 8mm fisheye or Lensbaby for some fun. Not a fan of frequent lens changes. I still haven't pulled the trigger on a telephoto but I see the A6300 serving as a tele-extender a fair amount of the time.

I always say that the best camera for any situation is usually two cameras and I have found for me, the full-frame/APS-C combo illustrates this very nicely.

Dave

I occasionally enjoy street photography and the Sony mirrorless really excels at it:

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/06/18/street-photography-sony/

I occasionally enjoy street photography and the Sony mirrorless really excels at it:

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/06/18/street-photography-sony/

Very nice article. I usually avoid cities whenever possible and go out of my way to compose without people. Your shots and description of the process tempt me to give street photography a shot. (Pun intended).

Thanks.

Dave

I occasionally enjoy street photography and the Sony mirrorless really excels at it:

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/06/18/street-photography-sony/

If you want to stay unnoticed, wouldn't a smartphone camera (or a compact) work better than a Sony mirrorless?

I usually avoid cities whenever possible and go out of my way to compose without people.

Even for landscapes and travel photography, I often like to get a person in the scene. A professional photographer said that the person looking at the scene puts themself into the picture wherever the person is, so it adds to their experience of the picture. In addition, people (or man-made objects) help give a sense of scale.

That said, I want the person a certain distance from the camera. I don't want the viewer to think it's a picture of that person.

Even for landscapes and travel photography, I often like to get a person in the scene. A professional photographer said that the person looking at the scene puts themself into the picture wherever the person is, so it adds to their experience of the picture. In addition, people (or man-made objects) help give a sense of scale.

 

That said, I want the person a certain distance from the camera. I don't want the viewer to think it's a picture of that person.

I try to avoid the throngs of brightly colored tourists holding their phones and Go-Pros overhead on sticks.

People for scale are alright.

:)

Dave

If you want to stay unnoticed, wouldn't a smartphone camera (or a compact) work better than a Sony mirrorless?

All depends on the image quality you’re after. Though I do include enthusiast compacts in my list of recommendations.

I no longer care that Sony lacks a native 24mm lens for FE mount, the Zeiss Batis 25mm F/2 is spectacular:

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/06/28/zeiss-batis-25mm-f-2-review/

I no longer care that Sony lacks a native 24mm lens for FE mount, the Zeiss Batis 25mm F/2 is spectacular:

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/06/28/zeiss-batis-25mm-f-2-review/

I am having an eye-opening experience with the 24-105 f/4 G as well. It out-resolves 24MP and strips away yet another excuse for poor images. It makes me work harder to use it well.

It is a great time to be a photographer.

Dave