aldolega

Yea, it's frustrating to see the camera companies have such a blind spot for this part of the market. Seems to me that a small video/cine cam that had the IBIS and AF tech we're seeing in mirrorless, but still with the IQ and codec pluses of a "real" camera, would be a big seller.

I've only shot with an A7SII once, but HD resolution is important to me too, and I was also initially skeptical of the A7III, so hopefully I can help. My benchmark for good HD quality was my GH4, which looked pretty great IMO in both its 200mbps All-I and 100mbps IPB modes. I film stuff with lots of camera & subject motion and detail, so I would use the All-I mode if I was moving the camera a lot, or the IPB if it was a simpler pan or tilt (IPB is sharper at lower motion levels but degrades as motion increases; All-I is less sharp than IPB's max, but stays consistent despite motion). After the GH4 I went to the G85, and the lower 28mbps HD was definitely softer than the GH4's HD, unless it was an almost static shot. One of my only disappointments with that camera though- price, IBIS, and the slight color and ISO improvements over the GH4 outweighed the HD quality dip for me. I was all set to go to the GH5, which by all accounts has pretty stunning HD resolution, when the A7III was announced, at 50mbps in 1080p60, and 100mbps in 1080p120. Bitrate isn't really an absolute measuring tool though: there are plenty of cams that can pack tons of detail into even less, and Sony says its encoding is two-pass vs. everyone else doing one pass, so it seemed totally possible that it could be fine. And bitrate is only part of the equation anyways: how the cameras are reading the sensor in HD mode is the real key here. I wanted FF for photos, and AF for video, and I had been tolerating the G85's HD pretty well, so I went for it, and I'm mostly happy. Its HD is better than the G85 to my eye, but not quite up to the GH4, although the 96p was garbage on the GH4 so having 120 that's at least decent (and not cropped) kinda helps balance things out I guess. I haven't shot with an a6300/6500 but from what I've seen online, their HD is pretty awful, and the A7III HD is definitely better. These two videos from Max Yuryev helped put my mind mostly at ease, hopefully they will play at the relevant bits: So, a little worse than the A7SII, but better than all the other Sonys, especially the a6500. Personally the AF and better rolling shutter alone outweigh that small difference with the A7SII, not to mention all the other improvements, but it's still kind of a personal call to make. Motion cadence, I find it fine, but I shoot mostly at a (gasp!) 30p base, not 24p, so I am probably not the best judge of this. The 24p stretch thing was like 1% I think? Not even noticeable unless you're A/B'ing identical shots back and forth. And I believe one of the firmware updates has fixed it anyways? Oh, and here's a handy tool over at DPReview, for comparing video res between cameras. Doesn't tell you how it performs with motion, of course, but it's something. https://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=sony_a7iii&attr29_1=sony_a7sii&attr29_2=sony_a6500&attr29_3=sony_a7riii&attr72_0=1080&attr72_1=1080&attr72_2=1080&attr72_3=1080&normalization=full&widget=602&x=-0.48927038626609437&y=-0.17768028516588977

Seems to me that a typical mirrorless body has no space for a filter to swing/slide out of the way of the sensor. So you either make the the body much bigger/thicker, or use a fixed filter, which then eats up at least a stop or two of your ISO performance (whatever the minimum power of the eND panel is). Either way you're affecting aspects (size/weight, ISO performance) of the camera that the camera makers consider much more important than a request from niche video-centric users. And who knows if an ND and a physical shutter will both fit behind most modern mirrorless mounts. Sure, FS5 etc have NDs, but they don't have shutters. Global shutters that will work for photography (i.e. truly global, and don't affect sensor performance in DR/ISO) are still years off, so I wouldn't hold your breath about it.

No spreader, the legs are single-tube, photo style construction. They're just the Manfrotto 535 with a Sachtler badge on them (Sachtler and Manfrotto are owned by the same company).

I've been very satisfied with my Ace L head and Sachtler carbon legs (single-tube, can't remember the model right now. Same thing as the Manfrotto 535). Very smooth, easy to balance. I do wish it had one more step of drag, but that's a bit of a nitpick. I've used it with my GH4, G85, and A7III, all with a cage/rods, a small monitor, small mic, vintage full-frame glass, and occasionally a follow focus. So maybe 7-8lbs with one of my bigger teles? Performed well with everything, especially if I have time/space to hang my bag on the legs for some more stability. Keep in mind I have the L, not the M, which has a lower weight capacity (4kg/8.8lbs I believe). The L is rated for 6kg/13.2lbs, and the old rule of thumb I've been told is that for fluid heads you don't want to go much over half the rated weight capacity for best performance. So that makes sense with the weight of my setups. Build is a tiiiiny bit plasticky, compared to the FSBs, but still very sturdy. Definitely a step up from Manfrotto, Benro etc.

CDAF is software-based, nothing to do with the sensor physically.

I agree that the A7III is the reference point for pricing, and probably will be for another 6-9 months, but it's not a perfect camera and comparisons can never be absolute. If the XT3 had IBIS I feel it could and would comfortably sell for almost $2k, even with the A7III and Z6 right there with bigger sensors. The A7SIII being $3k would be a pleasant surprise, at launch the A7S was $3200 and the A7SII was $3400, if I remember correctly. The only way I see the A7SIII being less than $3400-3500 is if they skimp on a feature or two (say, no 10-bit anything, and no new codec. Or if they stay at 12MP). The A7000 costing the same or more than the A7III makes total sense, assuming it's got the high-end specs that outclass the A7III. The 7DII cost the same or a bit more than the 6D, same with the D500 and D610. I expect the A7000 and A7SIII will be pretty similar specswise (new sensors, 4K60 8 bit, possibly 10bit out but I doubt it, probably the same old h264 100mbps codec, third-gen body/battery, nice EVF and screen, new AF from the A6400), with mostly the sensor size differentiating them. $2000-2200 and $3400-3600. I don't see the new HEVC codec making it into the Alpha cameras anytime soon, the broadcast/cinema divisions will demand to have a year or two with it to themselves. I think 10-bit HDMI is the most we can reasonably expect in the next generation.

"My $1500 camera's screen isn't as good as my $6,000 camera's, or even my $3,400 camera's! What gives?"

I went from a GH4 to a G85 and loved pretty much everything about the G85, except the HD bitrate. The build was still nice (the G85 is half metal, half plastic, whereas the G7 is all plastic), IBIS was a game-changer for me, and the lowlight and color were a bit better too. But the 25mbps HD wasn't quite enough to stay sharp during fast action and camera movement, which is a lot of what I shoot. The codec has to default to a softer mode to keep up, and it's noticeably softer to my eye than shots with less motion. The GH4's higher bitrates didn't have to do this as they had enough data to work with to maintain a higher level of detail. But, so long as there isn't a ton of motion in the frame, and you don't try to grade/CC it too much, the 25mbps looks pretty great. Which is how 95% of people will be using it.

This is almost more useful for guessing what the camera will be like than the sensor specs, IMO (assuming these are indeed the codecs in the SIII). The max bitrate is clearly intended to work with U3 SD cards (which do a minimum 30MB/s continuous write, aka 240mbps). So Sony is probably shy to switch to a new media format, or even a more specific SD class/rating. So no new media format, which doesn't necessarily mean the same third-gen body style, but it doesn't rule it out either. They'll have to have dedicated processors that this codec is designed around: I would assume they'll be at a modern level of power/heat performance, which may also point to not needing a bigger body (while also not ruling it out).

These sensors seem more suited to an A9II, or A9R. Mayybe an A7RIV? They need a higher tier of processing power, and thus will come in at a higher price, and thus a different market, than the A7xxxx series. IMO all the A7SIII really needs to be, to be a huge sales success right now, is just an A7III with a 18-20MPish sensor (so APS-C 4K is 1:1 or slightly oversampled), 4K60p, and the better EVF and screen of the A7RIII. That's it. Everything else about the A7III is good enough right now. Release this cam now and every workaday videographer and sub-Hollywood production house buys it, simple as that. 8K, insane framerates, 10bit, the other nuances we wish for here just aren't as important as we think they are, not to the bulk of this camera's market. The market that really cares about these things will have zero problem paying another $1500 for an A9II.

Not if outputting HDMI restricts AF, like it does on my A7III (no face detect when using a monitor). And I believe the GH5 AF is worse with HDMI being used, too.

I hope they continue with both, and don't handicap or pigeonhole one line in favor of the other (like only making ultra-compact bodies for m4/3, or keeping video features out of the FF bodies because they're "for photographers" ). It would be really nice if they made an adapter to use m4/3 lenses on the FF mount, so people can ease into the new system, and to make both systems more appealing. The SL mount is a big enough diameter that I think this could work.

It can be done on a few of the Minoltas, but not all, FYI.

The Lens Turbo II's were fine in terms of resolution/sharpness and color for me... but they went downhill fast when shooting into bright lights or sun, or even just most moderately backlit subjects. Flaring and hazing galore. And the "blue dot" problem, while much better in the second gen models, would still pop up pretty frequently. At first I blamed it on the MDs being old and lacking modern coatings, but the Nikon version had all the same problems with modern Nikon glass. 10bit is nice, but at the time I was on a G85, and my choice was either go GH5 and stay frustrated on the photo side of things, or go A7III and be happy there and stay in roughly the same territory videowise, and be able to actually use 100% of my lenses without hassles.