Sony a7 iii - looks to be a game changer

Nice! AF performance isn't affected because it's not native, does it? I never had buttons on a lens before until Sony, so I never felt the need for it, but they do come in handy once you find a use for them. Did the missing buttons ever affect your decision?

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

If you also have a 12-24 or 16-35.... this could be a very nice compliment without the weight and price premium of the 24-70 GM

Nice! AF performance isn't affected because it's not native, does it? I never had buttons on a lens before until Sony, so I never felt the need for it, but they do come in handy once you find a use for them. Did the missing buttons ever affect your decision?

AF performance *should* equal native — just as with Zeiss Batis lenses.

Sony owns part of Tamron.

Recovery form severe backlighting. Impromptu test shots while waiting for a plane today.

RAW

JPEG

Hangs onto a lot of detail.

Dave

SO....

Does anybody else still flip open the battery door to take the card out?

:o

Dave

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/05/21/best-sony-portrait-kit-under-1000/

Great shots and a great article!

SO....

 

Does anybody else still flip open the battery door to take the card out?

Dave

Yes but am very careful to close the battery door almost immediately - it cost me about $200 to have the door repaired/replaced when I carelessly left the door open and put the A6000 down!

Recovery form severe backlighting. Impromptu test shots while waiting for a plane today.

 

RAW

 

 

JPEG

 

 

Hangs onto a lot of detail.

 

Dave

Nice!

I can't wait until Skylum releases an update to support the A7iii. Stuck with JPEG at the moment so haven't been able to really play with the camera/software combo yet to see how much we can recover using our shooting styles. I'm curious about the noise in low/no light. The D750 was magical in pulling detail out of the dark.

Good news! My 24-105 will be shipped on June 1! Please be sure an adult is available to sign for it.

That's what Amazon told me on Monday the 7th.

On the 11th, the day before my trip, I got an update that it would be delivered on the 21st, the day before we were due home. I changed the shipping method to standard two-day and that made the delivery date the 22nd.

Aboard the ship on Wednesday the 16th I get a delivery alert that it has shipped and will arrive on Thursday the 17th. AAAAAAAK!

A Skype call from ship WiFi confirms that my daughter will go over to the house and hang out until it arrives. Whew!

She sends me an email the next morning at 10:00AM saying it was on the porch when she got there. I checked our Ring doorbell video records and the Amazon courier had walked up and dropped it off about ten minutes before she arrived. Never even rang the doorbell.

Moral of the story? Things work out. Worry less.

And...my order of camera and lens is now complete!

Now I need to go try to be worthy of the new equipment...

Dave

WooHoo!

Good news! My 24-105 will be shipped on June 1! Please be sure an adult is available to sign for it.

 

That's what Amazon told me on Monday the 7th.

 

On the 11th, the day before my trip, I got an update that it would be delivered on the 21st, the day before we were due home. I changed the shipping method to standard two-day and that made the delivery date the 22nd.

 

Aboard the ship on Wednesday the 16th I get a delivery alert that it has shipped and will arrive on Thursday the 17th. AAAAAAAK!

 

A Skype call from ship WiFi confirms that my daughter will go over to the house and hang out until it arrives. Whew!

 

She sends me an email the next morning at 10:00AM saying it was on the porch when she got there. I checked our Ring doorbell video records and the Amazon courier had walked up and dropped it off about ten minutes before she arrived. Never even rang the doorbell.

 

Moral of the story? Things work out. Worry less.

 

And...my order of camera and lens is now complete!

 

 

Now I need to go try to be worthy of the new equipment...

 

 

Dave

I'm supposedly getting the Tamron 28-75/2.8 tomorrow... will have to decide which of these 2 to keep.

I'm supposedly getting the Tamron 28-75/2.8 tomorrow... will have to decide which of these 2 to keep.

If the Tamron had 24mm on the wide end, I would have considered it. It probably would have lost a bit of it's size advantage though.

I haven't had much of a chance to play with the 24-105 yet since, apparently, questions and requests for info stack up when you take vacation days. It is a beast of a lens. Not huge but it feels like you would expect a freakin' expensive optical instrument should feel.

Focusing hunts a little at night in a dark room, though.... ;)

Dave

If the Tamron had 24mm on the wide end, I would have considered it. It probably would have lost a bit of it's size advantage though.

 

I haven't had much of a chance to play with the 24-105 yet since, apparently, questions and requests for info stack up when you take vacation days. It is a beast of a lens. Not huge but it feels like you would expect a freakin' expensive optical instrument should feel.

 

Focusing hunts a little at night in a dark room, though.... ;)

 

Dave

Sony system is very aperture dependent for focus. Any lens with F4 aperture will hunt in a dark room... while 1.4 and 1.8 lenses will zip through the darkness.

For the Tamron, my understanding is that there is really a big difference between 24mm and 28mm for the engineering. 24mm requires a much larger (and therefore more expensive) body... much easier to design a lens starting at 28mm.

So if a 24-70 would have cost 50% more and weighed 50% more... then the 28mm might be a good compromise.

After a week of carrying the A7M3 with the kit lens on the ship and around various venues, I really didn't see a great difference from the A6300. After bolting on the 24-105 however, I became concerned that I was moving too far back up the ladder to a DSLR-a-saurus. I dragged out the 18-105 and replaced the Rokinon 12mm I had been carrying on the A6300 and found my fears were unfounded. While it is a bit bigger (a surprisingly small bit, all things considered) and most of a pound heavier, the difference isn't all that great. Trading a pound for 4x the usable ISO and Eye-of-God focusing is a cheap trade-off for me. Heck, I can go on the diet I have been putting off for...well, ever and lose ten pounds. That makes the A7M3 with the 24-105 a net -9 pounds! Right?

I hope to take the new setup out for some serious shooting over the weekend. Not an easy task while living in the midst of a vast urban sprawl. Maybe a road trip/brewery tour? Hmmm....

Dave

Ok. The A7M3 is changing the game for me and the addition of the 24-105 f/4 is pushing the change into overdrive. So far, I am impressed not only with the optical quality but the AF response, especially Eye-AF, is remarkable.

105mm f/4

105mm f/4 - 100% crop

105mm f/14

105mm f/14 100%

Eye-AF tagged the left eye - 46mm f/4 ISO 2500

So far, the only regret I have is...

Never mind. Couldn't come up with anything.

Wait. I thought of something. In my Picture-A-Week entry, I said that the new equipment now lays all the blame for a bad photo right at my feet. I regret that harsh truth a bit, but I can live with it.

Working on a full evaluation and may process some of the test images in Luminar and Photolemur to see how they compare.

I realize that not everybody can or even wants to own a camera in the A7M3's price range. But if you do, it would be an exercise in bad judgement (IMHO, of course) not to put it at the top of the list of cameras to consider. I have owned and used a wide range of cameras since the first one I picked up and this one seriously impresses me.

Dave

Ok. The A7M3 is changing the game for me I have owned and used a wide range of cameras since the first one I picked up and this one seriously impresses me.

Dave

Why do I get the impression that you have gone over to the dark side?:)

If you didn't post that I could not really use (properly) my lenses for my A6xxx and what the weight was compared to the RX10, I might have joined you!

Why do I get the impression that you have gone over to the dark side?:)

 

 

If you didn't post that I could not really use (properly) my lenses for my A6xxx and what the weight was compared to the RX10, I might have joined you!

Dark side? Maybe a little. But, like the Jedi are learning in the recent movies, I'm finding the use of the Light side vs. Dark side isn't as absolute as I once thought. :)

I actually used the A6300 quite a bit on our recent cruise. Admittedly I didn't have the 24-105 in time for it and may have shifted to the A6300 with the 12mm a bit less often if I had. I'm also pretty sure that when I finally make up my mind on a telephoto, chances are I will follow Justin's lead and use the APS-C camera for the 1.5x boost in magnification.

Even back in the film days, I shot with two bodies that were set up to cover a wide variety of situations. In the current E-mount world, full-frame and APS-C have complimentary features and make for a great two-body team.

As a "photographer" I view both as components of a tool kit. As a bit of a tech geek, the A7M3 definitely raises some goose bumps. I view the A6300 as an excellent example of how far modern mainstream equipment has progressed. but I see the A7M3 more as where the mainstream will be a few years from now. Sony has certainly made a splash with the latest iterations of their full-frame line and the ripples are surely rocking some of the other boats in the pond.

I honestly can't wait to see what the next generation of Sony's APS-C cameras bring to the party.

Dave

Ok. The A7M3 is changing the game for me and the addition of the 24-105 f/4 is pushing the change into overdrive. So far, I am impressed not only with the optical quality but the AF response, especially Eye-AF, is remarkable.

 

 

 

I realize that not everybody can or even wants to own a camera in the A7M3's price range. But if you do, it would be an exercise in bad judgement (IMHO, of course) not to put it at the top of the list of cameras to consider. I have owned and used a wide range of cameras since the first one I picked up and this one seriously impresses me.

 

 

Dave

The camera market is at a reflection point.

Dpreview recently had an article questioning whether sensor size matters: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8898540845/does-sensor-size-still-make-a-difference

Certainly, full frame still has significant advantages. But the gap ranging from phone to aps-c has become rather narrow.

Meanwhile, Sony has only released full frame cameras in the last 18 months -- the $1999 A7iii is actually the cheapest ILC camera Sony has released since 2016, when they released the $1298 A6500. They have't released a sub-$800 ILC since 2014!!!

Nikon has released only 1 camera in the last 12 months -- the $3400 D850.

So where have the $500 to $800 ILC kits gone?

Realistically, an A7iii kit isn't just $2,000 --- Unless you are going bare bones, old MF adapted lenses, etc... a usable A7iii kit is going to run a minimum of about $3500 (body, memory cards, 2 lenses, a flash).

That's a HUGE step up from buyers who are used to buying a full 2-lens camera kit for under $1,000.

But the question moving forward, is how many of those sub-$1,000 shooters are moving to just using their phones anyway?

And in a shrinking market, Sony and Nikon at least have calculated that it's far more profitable just to concentrate on high end. Selling 1 A7riii/D850 with lenses is probably more profitable than selling 5 introductory level kit cameras.

So I do think we will see more entry level and mid level shooters make the jump to full frame, instead of slowly progressing up an aps-c ladder. A Canon shooter can get a brand new 2017 6Dii for just $1600. An A7ii with lens, also for $1600, is still a pretty decent camera.

So we will see more and more full frame options in the $1200-1500 space. (By next year, the A7iii will likely be discounted to $1800 or less).

Canon and Nikon will also get more serious about aps-c mirrorless. I tried out the Canon M50 yesterday -- nice little camera. I'd actually take it over the A6000... and in some ways, it's better than the A6300. But by next year, I think we will have more APS-C $600-$1000 options. But we are never going back to 2011ish, when the brands were flooding the markets with affordable dSLRs. For those without pretty healthy budgets, they will be largely be relegated to used cameras, older models, and sticking to their phones.

I tried out the Canon M50 yesterday -- nice little camera. I'd actually take it over the A6000... and in some ways, it's better than the A6300.

You must mean the touchscreen. Otherwise, not so much. ;)

As I remember, the NEX cameras were bashed soundly for battery life and lack of native lenses when they first came out. I remember, "Only about 300 shots on a battery and only 8 lenses available and of those, only one semi-decent prime?"

It surprises me that Canon, with all of it's market savvy would jump into the mirrorless segment with a camera that is essentially 2-3 years behind the times. I suppose they might be trying to be the Rebels of mirrorless with inexpensive entry-level models riding on the brand history established by their excellent higher-end models. The flaw in that is, as you say, entry-level everything is being beaten to death by ever-more-capable phones. Maybe they will redirect toward the top end of the APS-C market and produce something closer in performance to the A6x00 or GHx series.

They have the tech to put out a killer full-frame camera but will they release a $2000 DSLR-killer when their money is made in the high-end DSLR market? Will they invest in a third lens mount or will they stick with the current one and deliver essentially a DSLR body without a mirror? Unless it performs like the A9, there would be no compelling reason for most pros to switch. Nikon learned a lot with the oversized One series and I think they will likely follow Sony's lead and lean toward compactness. The question regarding lenses is the same as Canon. Do they invest in a new mount or do a "fat" mirrorless? In the previous post I mentioned Sony's ripples in the pond and I will add that the pond is increasingly murky, making it hard to see what's ahead. The only sure thing is that the equipment wars will continue.

As for myself, I'm done fishing in the pond for a while and will turn my attention away from the hard, analytical comparison shopping and towards the fun, relaxing part of camera ownership.

Dave

Just giving Dave and Justin a hardtime! Probably more envious than I thought!

Interesting. I'm just familiar with Nikon, but I can still see Nikon shooters progressing up the ladder. Depends on where they start I guess. This is just based on talking to the people who contacted me about my gear when I was selling it.

If you start at the real low end, say, the 3000 or 5000 series, you can still jump to the 7000 series. If you started at the 7000 series, then you've got the decision on whether to go with the DX D500 or the full frame D750. I can see people staying crop and going to the D500 if they don't want to invest in a whole new set of lenses as they typically only had the budget for DX lenses originally.

Only the guy who finally ended up buying my 70-200 2.8 did so with a crop camera, but that guy had money and you can tell it's just a matter of a short while before he goes full frame.

I don't think it's that big a deal to go with a fat mirrorless. Sonys have increased in size steadily. As long as the overall weight still stays lower and it's still just a bit smaller than a dslr, I think the public will be happy. I certainly don't think the A7iii is small, but to me, it's still quite noticeably smaller than the full frame Nikon it replaced for me. It fits easily in my camera bag now and I can feel the weight difference so I'm pretty thrilled, even though I think it's pretty big (having handled the a6XXX series and knowing how small mirrorless really can get).

You must mean the touchscreen. Otherwise, not so much. ;)

 

As I remember, the NEX cameras were bashed soundly for battery life and lack of native lenses when they first came out. I remember, "Only about 300 shots on a battery and only 8 lenses available and of those, only one semi-decent prime?"

 

It surprises me that Canon, with all of it's market savvy would jump into the mirrorless segment with a camera that is essentially 2-3 years behind the times. I suppose they might be trying to be the Rebels of mirrorless with inexpensive entry-level models riding on the brand history established by their excellent higher-end models. The flaw in that is, as you say, entry-level everything is being beaten to death by ever-more-capable phones. Maybe they will redirect toward the top end of the APS-C market and produce something closer in performance to the A6x00 or GHx series.

 

They have the tech to put out a killer full-frame camera but will they release a $2000 DSLR-killer when their money is made in the high-end DSLR market? Will they invest in a third lens mount or will they stick with the current one and deliver essentially a DSLR body without a mirror? Unless it performs like the A9, there would be no compelling reason for most pros to switch. Nikon learned a lot with the oversized One series and I think they will likely follow Sony's lead and lean toward compactness. The question regarding lenses is the same as Canon. Do they invest in a new mount or do a "fat" mirrorless? In the previous post I mentioned Sony's ripples in the pond and I will add that the pond is increasingly murky, making it hard to see what's ahead. The only sure thing is that the equipment wars will continue.

 

As for myself, I'm done fishing in the pond for a while and will turn my attention away from the hard, analytical comparison shopping and towards the fun, relaxing part of camera ownership.

 

Dave

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.

Now if someone wanted to become a very serious shooter.... the lack of lenses would stop me from recommending Canon. But for someone who just wants 1-2 lenses to cover the basics, it's a nice set-up.

Not sure why Canon has been so slow with EF-M lenses but there is an important footnote: 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.

I suspect they will keep their EF mount for full frame. Essentially telling aps-c users, "we are giving you a few small lenses, or you can adapt serious lenses.... and for full frame, you just use the established EF lens library."

As to why people would switch if it's "just a dSLR without a mirror"........

Tell me, you like your A7iii, but it's about the same size as a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5500... do you like your A7iii more than those cameras? Would a D5500 be just as good as the A7iii if it was full frame?

Benefits of a Canon 5Div-ish without a mirror:

1- All the advantages of EVF:

Ability to use viewfinder for video

Focus peeking, focus magnification in EVF

Exposure simulation in EVF

Chimping images in EVF

2-- All the dual pixel AF advantages.... now available in the viewfinder, not just the LCD:

-- Focus coverage over 80% of the frame

-- Face detect

-- Possibility of ee-detect (the M50 has rudimentary eye detect)

-- Great AF accuracy and precision

3 -- All the benefits of not having a mirror

-- Slight reduction in weight and bulk.

-- Could make creative use of the empty mirror box -- Internal filters, for example

-- Reduced camera shake and camera vibration

-- Silent shooting

-- Possibility of faster burst speeds

4-- Benefit to camera makers and consumers:

-- Removing the mirror ultimately reduces production costs. (after paying off the R&D of developing the new camera) Thereby increasing profits and/or reducing costs for consumers

-- Fewer moving parts means less maintenance costs, fewer repairs, etc

5-- Benefit of keeping the EF mount

-- Overnight, they fly past Sony and everyone else in lens availability

-- The biggest and most value-filled lens lineup

-- Allows all their current users to progress seamlessly into mirrorless

And the last point is critical -- It's only partially about getting people to "switch" -- But it's more about keeping their users and allowing them to "progress." So when the Canon 5Div owner decides it's time to update, they can update seamlessly to a mirrorless Canon without even considering Sony.

Imagine a scenario just 3-4 years in the future:

Sony -- By then, a truly fully developed lens lineup. They are realizing the reduced costs of mirrorless production.

So they are offering a A7rIV for $2800.... It is a remarkable camera, completely silent shutter, electronic shutter is even flash compatible, 10 fps without blackout free viewfinder. Completely vibration free camera. The focus system has been perfected, so dSLRs have zero AF advantages. 600 focus points covering 95% of the frame, etc.

Now, you were a Canon 5Div owner, and it's time to upgrade. Imagine Canon was still ONLY offering serious dSLRs:

the 5DV is a great camera... but it costs $3300, due to the extra complexity of dSLR. It is still limited to focus points bunched in the middle of the frame. Burst rate has been improved to 8 fps.. but the mirror mechanism prevents any faster as a reasonable price. Sure, it has lots of great features in "live view" mode -- but all those great features are useless when using the OVF.

If that's what Canon was offering, that user may be very tempted by the Sony.

But what if the Canon 5DV was mirrorless, had all the same great features as the Sony A7rIV... except the body was slightly bigger, the camera weighed 100 grams more....the rice was cheaper due to the lack of mirror.. I think most Canon users would then stay with Canon without even considering switching.

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.

Opinion piece. All of the above are of no consequence to me and would be trumped by performance and image quality anyway. (My opinion piece :) ).

Tell me, you like your A7iii, but it's about the same size as a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5500...

This is what I mean by a Fat Mirrorless. The flange distance is an immutable fact if legacy lenses are to be used without adaptation. Also, neither of the Canikon bodies shown have stabilization.

Imagine a scenario just 3-4 years in the future... they are offering a A7rIV for $2800.... It is a remarkable camera... But what if the Canon 5DV was mirrorless, had all the same great features as the Sony A7rIV... except the body was slightly bigger, the camera weighed 100 grams more....the rice was cheaper due to the lack of mirror.. I think most Canon users would then stay with Canon without even considering switching.

You are shooting with an A7rM3. Why didn't you wait until one of the other majors produced a competitive mirrorless camera? 3-4 years from now, how many pros and enthusiasts will have already made the choice you did? An increasing number of people already have moved and the truly ground-breaking bodies and pro-grade lenses have only been out for a year or so. What will Sony have to offer 3-4 years from now considering the head start they already have?

I'm not saying that Canikon can't compete in the mirrorless genre, far from it. I'm just saying that I think that whatever their reasoning may have been, they made may have made a very bad judgement call by ignoring Sony's obviously successful whack to the DSLR status quo for so long.

Whatever the three of them come out with over the next few years, the race to the top is isn't a one-horse derby anymore and the fallout is a shiny rain of better equipment for everybody. No matter what you shoot, it's a great time to be a photographer!

I know it is for me...I'm having a ball! :)

Dave

You are shooting with an A7rM3. Why didn't you wait until one of the other majors produced a competitive mirrorless camera? 3-4 years from now, how many pros and enthusiasts will have already made the choice you did? An increasing number of people already have moved and the truly ground-breaking bodies and pro-grade lenses have only been out for a year or so. What will Sony have to offer 3-4 years from now considering the head start they already have?

 

I'm not saying that Canikon can't compete in the mirrorless genre, far from it. I'm just saying that I think that whatever their reasoning may have been, they made may have made a very bad judgement call by ignoring Sony's obviously successful whack to the DSLR status quo for so long.

 

Whatever the three of them come out with over the next few years, the race to the top is isn't a one-horse derby anymore and the fallout is a shiny rain of better equipment for everybody. No matter what you shoot, it's a great time to be a photographer!

 

I know it is for me...I'm having a ball! :)

 

Dave

1-- headstarts can disappear quickly. Apple had a huge head start with the iphone... nobody was able to compete..... for about 2-3 years. Now, Android has more market share than IOS.

But how far is Canon behind Sony, really? If they use the EF mount for mirrorless, then they are AHEAD of Sony in lenses, right from the start.

In terms of technology, go try their dual pixel AF -- In many ways, it's already better than Sony's autofocus system. Their face detect is actually much better implemented than Sony's. For video, their focus transition is much smoother than Sony. But for action, Sony's AF remains slightly faster. Canon is behind in eye-detect AF... but they started to implement it on the M50, but at about the A6000 level.

Overall, the M50 is at a level of about the A6300... Don't underestimate its performance and IQ, it's a snappy little performer.

So that places Canon just a year or two behind Sony. If they use EF mount, then they are already far far ahead of Sony in lenses.

IOW, they have the potential to catch up fast. (Can't necessarily say the same thing about Nikon)

2.. but you're missing the bigger point. It's not about mirrorless or dSLR. In 3-5 years, there will only be mirrorless. Or at least, 90% of the market will be mirrorless. (Just like you can still buy typewriters, record placers and VCRs).

So it's not about Canon (or Nikon) taking a piece of the mirrorless market. It's just about providing continuity for their current users... They own 50% of the ILC market. Sony has under 20%. 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.

If you had $5,000 worth of lenses.... And you had a choice between 2 mirrorless cameras:

Camera A and Camera B. They are nearly identical cameras, similar features, similar performance. Like comparing a Sony A580 with Canon 60D with Nikon D7100.

The only significant difference: Camera A is slightly less bulky than Camera B.

But your $5,000 worth of lenses -- they all are fully compatible with Camera B. You already pretty familiar with the Camera B menu system, etc.

If you switch to Camera A, you would probably sell your lenses at a loss, have to learn a whole new system, the transition would be an annoyance and a financial burden. All just to save a tiny bit of flange-bulk?

That's all Canon has to do -- Stay close enough, so it's not worthwhile for users to switch.

I agree that the competition is *probably* good for everyone. Assuming they all manage to stay in the race.