A7R III a Nikon D850 killer? Here you are Dave...

https://photorumors.com/2017/10/25/sony-a7r-iii-mirrorless-camera-officially-announced/

Just announced.

framer

Still clutching my tiny A6x00 bodies and hoping for the Sony Fairy to tap them with the new tech wand.

The A9 and A7r III are sure eye-openers, though!

Dave

The 2 cameras really are, in many ways, more similar than different. Both should offer exceptional IQ, similar resolution, relatively fast burst rates.

The "big" pros of the Sony: Much smaller and lighter. Eye-AF (killer feature for easy portrait shooting), superior live view, 5 stops IBIS, EVF

The big pros of the Nikon -- More affordable lens options, more telephoto lens options, probably better autofocus for action tracking (unfortunately, the A7riii isn't using the A( Af system), better more refined ergonomics, better battery life, bigger body, lossless raw compression.

I admit I'm tempted to switch to the A7riii. If it had the A9 af and blackout free shutter, I'd probably be sold.

The temptations keep coming for me too - but not quite there yet. If this thing had popped up with 60MP, that might have been the thing that drew me to full frame...that's the magic number for me, because that would allow the camera to be used in APS-C crop mode and deliver 24MP to match the A6300/6500...yet have the full frame sensor advantages and mega-resolution for when that's preferred.

I too await news on what comes next in the APS-C realm - the A6700, or A6500II, or whatever it ends up being called. If it can bring over some more A9 tech, maybe the bigger battery could be wedged into a slightly larger grip but keep all else the same - sensor can be from 24-32MP or so, with all the usual incremental improvements...I'd be much more tempted by that camera for my particular type of shooting.

Love the continued lens development too - not just from Sony but third party too. I remember when it was the most common criticism on Dpreview against e-mount: 'lack of lenses'...which still hangs around in some form even now 'lack of primes', then 'lack of fast primes', then 'lack of long telephoto', then 'lack of APS-C lenses', and so on. Despite hearing that nearly the entire life of the E-mount system, they have grown amazingly fast and well rounded in a short time. Now standing at 25 FE lenses from Sony, 16 APS-C lenses from Sony, 16 third party native AF lenses (55 total E-mount AF lenses)...and throwing in the huge number of manual focus native E-mount lenses: 78 full frame and 42 APS-C. Plus 2 TCs and 4 focal adapters. Not too bad in 7 years...and still growing at 5-10 lenses per year.

Actually, the newest lens that's a big temptation for me is the upcoming Sigma 16mm F1.4 Contemporary. I've longed for a wide fast prime on APS-C for walkaround night scenic, candid, and low light indoor handheld shooting!

I just went through some old MF film photos that were 16 x 20 in size. My D810 is better in every area. Now it's another generation of even better. 10 years I guess I'll just use my photo that will do perfect life size virtual images.

framer

Anyone here on the Regal Jan 7th?

I just went through some old MF film photos that were 16 x 20 in size. My D810 is better in every area. Now it's another generation of even better. In 10 years I guess I'll just use my cell phone camera to make photos that will do perfect life size virtual images.

 

framer

 

Anyone here on the Regal Jan 7th?

I corrected my message. I must have been real tired the night I posted that. Maybe it just old age setting in...

framer

I don't think its a 'killer' but it is a threat. People who (like myself) are invested in the various ecosystems aren't going to change significantly and deal with adapters, etc to use it as a primary body, but for people entering the mid-high market its definitely an attractive option and I think it will take some sales from the 850 or even the D5.

I could definitely see myself renting one if I wanted to go high end but not carry the Nikon.

I had almost bought a D850... then cancelled my order when I realized I was dreading carrying a 1 kg camera.

I’m tempted by the a7riii... just not sure I want to go through the trouble and expense of changing systems.

But if I was a blank slate... I think I’d take the a7riii right now.

I have not watched it yet but the Northrups just did a comparison video on YouTube. Will link later from a real PC if I have a chance.

After almost getting the D850...... I actually have a A7riii pre-ordered... as well as the 24-105. I already have the 70-200/4.

Some of my Nikon gear is listed for sale as we speak (if anybody is interested in some great Nikon glass or flashes, let me know)... once sold, I'll round out my lenses a bit more. (I'd like to add the 12-24, the 55/1.8 and 85/1.8... should cover my needs well).

After almost getting the D850...... I actually have a A7riii pre-ordered... as well as the 24-105. I already have the 70-200/4.

Some of my Nikon gear is listed for sale as we speak (if anybody is interested in some great Nikon glass or flashes, let me know)... once sold, I'll round out my lenses a bit more. (I'd like to add the 12-24, the 55/1.8 and 85/1.8... should cover my needs well).

I'm still firm on waiting for the APS-C model with the new tech. Just...not as firm as I was. Thanks Havoc! :(

Dave

I'm still firm on waiting for the APS-C model with the new tech. Just...not as firm as I was. Thanks Havoc! :(

 

Dave

The A6300 has plenty of the "tech" -- Basically same level as "tech" as the A7rii and A7riii.

I just can't use the A6300 as my full time camera for a few reasons, that should be much better with the A7riii:

1 -- I'm an IQ snob. Being spoiled by full frame for a few years, the A6300 images never seem quite right to me. They are always a tad softer than I would like. At any ISO above 800, they are noisier than I'd like. When pushing raw files, they don't have the dynamic range that I like. See image below. I also love shooting super super wide, and you can't really go wider than effective 15mm on aps-c.

2 -- The A6300 body is too small to be comfortable. I'm a bit afraid I might have a similar complaint about the A7riii but it should be a big improvement. The A6300 controls are just too cramped, the buttons are much too small. There aren't quite enough direct controls. I doubt Sony intends to do a bigger aps-c body...

3-- Not exactly a "tech" issue... and this might get improved in the A6700 -- I HATE moving the focus point on the A6300. Using the control wheel, I accidentally click and I'm suddenly changing the ISO.... I look forward to the thumb-stick and touch screen on the A7riii. While the A6700 could get a thumb stick, the desire to keep the body really small may prevent it. Same with battery life -- will they go with the bigger A7riii battery? Or stick to the smaller battery to keep the weight down?

But really.. the A6300 AF performance is already pretty spectacular. The A9 blackout free VF would be nice for action shooters, birders, etc. But I don't do a whole lot of that. And the 8-11 fps of the A6300 is plenty fast for anything I'm actually shooting.

Anyway... A6300 image.. NYC Marathon, the winning female..

Shalane Flanagan, NYC Marathon by Adam Brown, on Flickr

ISO 1600, F4 on the 70-200/4. A good lens. On full frame, it really should provide better sharpness than you're seeing here. And I'm used to rather noise-free images at ISO 1600.... this has some noticeable grain.

Ok Sony fans..... as I switch to the Sony A7riii.... I'm shopping around for my lenses at the same time I sell my Nikon lenses..

Should I go with the 12-24 or the 16-35 for my wide angle?

For Nikon, I currently have the Irix 11mm AND the 18-35/g. The temptation of the 12-24 is the chance to replace both with a single light lens. The downside of the 12-24 is that it doesn't take filters, and I may miss having 24-35 in the same lens.

Any suggestions?

If you're choosing between only one - I would be more tempted myself by the 12-24mm - but then I really love UWA. The 16-35mm looks like a great standard walkaround with some wide ability, but the 12mm on full frame would be my thing. I think I'd like to have both - but that depends on your budget!

If you're choosing between only one - I would be more tempted myself by the 12-24mm - but then I really love UWA. The 16-35mm looks like a great standard walkaround with some wide ability, but the 12mm on full frame would be my thing. I think I'd like to have both - but that depends on your budget!

If budget wasn’t an issue, I’d get the 16-35/2.8 AND the 12-24/4 and the Voightlander 10mm.

But alas, my funds aren’t unlimited.

I’m leaning towards the 12-24... I do enjoy ultra ultra wide.

If budget wasn’t an issue, I’d get the 16-35/2.8 AND the 12-24/4 and the Voightlander 10mm.

But alas, my funds aren’t unlimited.

 

I’m leaning towards the 12-24... I do enjoy ultra ultra wide.

Have you considered taking a series of 2, 3, or 4 photos and stitching them together in post for that ultra ultra wide angle? Might be a way to have your cake ...

Stitching can work in a pinch when you just need to capture a wide scene - but UWA lenses also have a unique perspective capability due to the incredible close focus and huge DOF ability - one thing I'd miss without a UWA is the ability to stand just inches from something in the foreground to include in the shot while still having the entire landscape scene behind still in focus. A lot of UWA fans really play with that perspective - and even intentionally contorting the vertical lines by tilting up or down to play with the distortion for a unique look.

Have you considered taking a series of 2, 3, or 4 photos and stitching them together in post for that ultra ultra wide angle? Might be a way to have your cake ...

Yes I have... and it's not the same thing.

Couldn't have stitched this:

Dragon erupting by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Yes I have... and it's not the same thing.

 

Couldn't have stitched this:

 

Dragon erupting by Adam Brown, on Flickr

My thought of stitching was on landscape or distant city-scape scenes. Yeah! No way to stitch that scene. After seeing that photo, I'm considering adding an ultra-wide to my bag.

Indeed - that's the coolest part of UWAs. Not only that perspective tilt shown in Adam's photo above, but also the ability to stand astonishingly close to a subject yet still fit that plus all the background and surroundings in frame. An attempt to stitch would fail just because the lens wouldn't be able to focus that close, and certainly wouldn't have the immense depth of field...plus that proximity gives a forced in-your-face rendering that can be very fun.

Even for scenics, such as trying to take a photo of a building in a narrow alley, or a famous facade or statue in a busy tourist spot with thousands of people around...or the interior of an old building - that wide lens lets you stand just inches away and still fit it all in the scene, and often so much closer that you don't have to deal with other people in your shot.

A shot like this, I was standing just 2 feet from the trash cans in the lower right of frame, and just 6 feet from entering this building, yet at 10mm could get the entire building in the frame:

Shots like this would typically require me to stand about 15 feet away from this fountain to frame the big globe behind with a standard 16mm lens - and at Epcot if you stand 15 feet away from something, several hundred people are going to march through your shot. With a 10mm lens, I could set up right on the rim of the fountain, and still get the rim, fountain, and entire Spaceship Earth building, in the shot:

Good for interiors too - hard to fit the entire lobby of this hotel in frame unless you've got a 10mm - stitching a close subject like this would result in errors trying to stitch because of the distortion and perspective angles of a standard lens due to parallax and angle issues:

UWAs are really lots of fun - I don't think I could be without one.

My thought of stitching was on landscape or distant city-scape scenes. Yeah! No way to stitch that scene. After seeing that photo, I'm considering adding an ultra-wide to my bag.

Ultrawide shooting is challenging... but a lot of fun. You need to get super close to your subject or else shots are boring.

The company that made the wave pool at Universal bought this image from me, nearly paid for the lens! :

Volcano Bay - Universal Orlando by Adam Brown, on Flickr

I had to stand IN the water... while the waves look distance, they weren't more than a foot or 2 away from me.

While stitching works for a distant landscape, it would be hard to preserve perfect detail from closer up:

Dueling Sculptures at Philadelphia Museum of Art by Adam Brown, on Flickr

You really can't stitch together interiors:

Disney Dream Atrium by Adam Brown, on Flickr

The close focus ability, massive depth of field-- creates great perspective opportunities with ultrawide:

A Fall Sunset from the ground by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Shots like this would typically require me to stand about 15 feet away from this fountain to frame the big globe behind with a standard 16mm lens - and at Epcot if you stand 15 feet away from something, several hundred people are going to march through your shot. With a 10mm lens, I could set up right on the rim of the fountain, and still get the rim, fountain, and entire Spaceship Earth building, in the shot:

.

It's not just a matter of getting all that into the frame. By getting super close, super ultra wide.. it creates a certain perspective. In this case, It creates an emphasis to the fountain....

Had you stepped back with a more "normal" lens... the fountain would have been de-emphasized and been more compressed into the globe. So you get a very different perspective when using ultrawide.

I do have it on my list to get a full frame older body just to use with my 12mm lens for those kind of shots...

Side note, a friend was just at the expo in NYC and reports are that D850s are far outselling the A7rIII - mostly to people already using Nikon's one or two versions back in the same line)

I do have it on my list to get a full frame older body just to use with my 12mm lens for those kind of shots...

 

Side note, a friend was just at the expo in NYC and reports are that D850s are far outselling the A7rIII - mostly to people already using Nikon's one or two versions back in the same line)

I have some reasons to believe that’s true but there are many factors:

Other than the niche d5, Nikon hadn’t released a full frame camera in over 3 years. The D810 was about 4 years old. In other words, there was a lot of pent up demand. And the D850 is a huge upgrade — In sensor and features.

Compared to Sony — in the last 3 years, they released the a7ii, A7rii, a7sii and a9. The a7rii is only 2 years old. In other words — no pent up demand. A7rii owners weren’t demanding an upgrade yet. On top of that, it’s not a huge upgrade — basically the same sensor. Not really much in new features — mostly a bunch of refinements. Really good refinements but not necessarily enough to get someone who just bought a $3000 camera in the last 12-24 months to run out and upgrade.

The biggest issue will be sustained sales after the first initial rush.

Ultrawide shooting is challengingr

Adam:

Like your photos! Do you HDR? Colors look super!