Sony a7 III discussion

[Mattias Burling]

For me the only real downside to it is price. When the A7 was new I thought a lot of the appeal was the low price compared to a 5D or other Fullframe available at the time. And since then I have raved about the A7 in several reviews since its now easily obtainable for $500.

I didnt care for the A7ii I had (didn't love my A7sii either).

So when looking at this camera which Im sure is marvellous for plenty of occasions and type of shooting I can't help but to start comparing prices.
For less money than the A7iii is currently listed for, body only, I can instead buy:

A brand new Sony A6500 + A7 + 35mm f2.8
A brand new Sony A6500 + a used Canon C100
A used Samsung NX1 plus the two S-zooms + a used A7 + a used BMPCC
And so on.

Again, not hating on the camera. Not saying its not worth it. Just saying. 

Looking at the A7/A7ii/A7iii, GH3/4/5 or even RX100/ii/ii/iv/v the prices are definitely rising with the number of specs introduced.
For professional use I get by just fine with a few generations old. An for enthusiast fun projects I personally think its a bit steep.
But if you are heavily invested in the system, are freelancing or operate under your own business, etc I definitely see the appeal.

Looking forward to seeing the A7siii.
 

[Don Kotlos]

All camera makers have started using premium pricing with higher introductory prices, but that has the effect that prices drop much faster as well. 

It is pretty typical for used high volume cameras to drop ~30% in their first year and ~50% the second year from their original price. 

For example, I can get a GH5/E-M1ii for ~$1500 or an X-pro2 for ~$900. 

Wait a year and the A7III will be a steal. 

[Django]

To be fair, Sony have been listening and their latest gen bodies/batteries are narrowing the gap between consumer/prosumer.

Also instead of cutting off a bunch of features and pricing the cam at 1400/1500. Sony actually gives you a lot of their flagship specs for "only" $2000.

It's a smart strategy. People think they're getting a bargain when they are going to be spending a lot more for the entry-level model than previously.

[Geoff CB]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

A used Samsung NX1 plus the two S-zooms + a used A7 + a used BMPCC

 

Ummmmm have you checked used NX1 prices recently ?

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, Geoff CB said:

Ummmmm have you checked used NX1 prices recently ?

I have bought it three times so I feel that I have a pretty good idea. What people ask isn't necessarily what some of us pay (depending on where you live of course).

My example wasn't estimates, its what I've paid or been offered to buy for. And I didn't even include the primes that always was part of the deals

[Cliff Totten]

I have the strong suspicion that this A7-III image sensor is the exact same one that the Sony CineAlata Venice is using. Sony has stated on record that the Vinice sensor came from the Sony Alpha division.

Sony rarely goes through the trouble to design and manufacture one single sensor for only one single camera. They often re purpose them for other models as well. The only exception to this that I know of is that crazy A7S sensor. I dont think they have ever re used in outside the A7S or ever sold it outside of Sony.

[wolf33d]

The A7III is a lot cleaner at 51 000 ISO than the GH5 is at 6400 ISO ...
Also cleaner than the A7RIII. 
And the surprise is that the FF mode is a lot cleaner than the APSC mode ! 

I would say 51000 ISO is definitely usable on the A7III, and 12800 is perfect, which is insane. 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Django said:

To be fair, Sony have been listening and their latest gen bodies/batteries are narrowing the gap between consumer/prosumer.

Also instead of cutting off a bunch of features and pricing the cam at 1400/1500. Sony actually gives you a lot of their flagship specs for "only" $2000.

It's a smart strategy. People think they're getting a bargain when they are going to be spending a lot more for the entry-level model than previously.

Really? So entry level FF was a lot less than 2000$ before? I dont think so. And is the A7III entry level specs? I dont think so. 

Fact is, this camera is a bargain for what it offers VS anything on the market. Your comment is simply irrelevant. 

[Stathman]

7 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

For me the only real downside to it is price. When the A7 was new I thought a lot of the appeal was the low price compared to a 5D or other Fullframe available at the time. And since then I have raved about the A7 in several reviews since its now easily obtainable for $500.

I didnt care for the A7ii I had (didn't love my A7sii either).

So when looking at this camera which Im sure is marvellous for plenty of occasions and type of shooting I can't help but to start comparing prices.
For less money than the A7iii is currently listed for, body only, I can instead buy:

A brand new Sony A6500 + A7 + 35mm f2.8
A brand new Sony A6500 + a used Canon C100
A used Samsung NX1 plus the two S-zooms + a used A7 + a used BMPCC
And so on.

Again, not hating on the camera. Not saying its not worth it. Just saying. 

Looking at the A7/A7ii/A7iii, GH3/4/5 or even RX100/ii/ii/iv/v the prices are definitely rising with the number of specs introduced.
For professional use I get by just fine with a few generations old. An for enthusiast fun projects I personally think its a bit steep.
But if you are heavily invested in the system, are freelancing or operate under your own business, etc I definitely see the appeal.

Looking forward to seeing the A7siii.
 

I bet you can buy two A7III for the price of one. Plus GM lenses and a lollypop...

Just kidding, but the price of the A7III is not so bad.

Instead, i believe the price in dollars is a bargain for these specs.

Price in euros though... 

[Mattias Burling]

30 minutes ago, Stathman said:

I bet you can buy two A7III for the price of one. Plus GM lenses and a lollypop...

Just kidding, but the price of the A7III is not so bad.

Instead, i believe the price in dollars is a bargain for these specs.

Price in euros though... 

No its not bad. It is market value. Its just that market value has gone up at the rate of specs the last few years.
So the "cheap DSLR revolution" isn't exactly around anymore. This cost about the same as a pro video camera did back when the revolution started.

We started using cheaper cameras and then started asking for more features in them, features from the expensive cameras.
And the companies gave it to us, the prices to

And it sometimes seems like we still think we are using cheap cameras just because they are hybrids or still cameras. 
But in reality plenty of pro video and cinema cameras are cheaper these days.

Just thinking out loud.

[Robert Collins]

3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

No its not bad. It is market value. Its just that market value has gone up at the rate of specs the last few years.
So the "cheap DSLR revolution" isn't exactly around anymore. This cost about the same as a pro video camera did back when the revolution started.

We started using cheaper cameras and then started asking for more features in them, features from the expensive cameras.
And the companies gave it to us, the prices to

And it sometimes seems like we still think we are using cheap cameras just because they are hybrids or still cameras. 
But in reality plenty of pro video and cinema cameras are cheaper these days.

Just thinking out loud.

I am not really sure that is the right way of looking at things. The Sony A7 was launched at US$1700 in October 2013. Today it can be bought from B&H new for US$800. 4 years ago a sub US$1,000 FF new for less than US$1,000 was almost unthinkable. The A7iii is a powerhouse. In most respects it surpasses (imho) the US$3200 Canon 5D MK4 - so you can easily argue it is a bargain.

In fact, in the stills world at least, this makes things fairly tricky for Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji who price their premium models at the same price point but with much smaller sensors. Canon appears to have morphed into a manufacturer of entry level cameras.

[Mattias Burling]

Here for example the Fuji X-H1 leaves money for a brand new premium lens compared to the Sonys body only.

But that's beside my original point. 

[jonpais]

The suggested retail price of Sony’s most popular portrait lens, the 85mm f/1.4, is $1,800; the Nocticron, $1,600. Olympus’s optically superior 45mm f/1.2 sells for $1,200. The Sony 100-400mm runs $2,500 while the Panasonic 50-200mm retails for $1,800. 

[Robert Collins]

47 minutes ago, jonpais said:

The suggested retail price of Sony’s most popular portrait lens, the 85mm f/1.4, is $1,800; the Nocticron, $1,600. The Sony 100-400mm runs $2,500 while the Panasonic 50-200mm retails for $1,800. 

No doubt. But as I have said before 'equivalence' means different things to different people and probably different things to a 'mostly stills shooter' as opposed to a 'mostly video' guy.

To me a Nocticron (42.5/1.2) on M43 is equivalent to an 85 f2.4 on a FF sensor in terms of both DOF and total light on the sensor. I have owned both (and currently own the 85 1.4 for Sony) and can tell you the 85 1.4 absolutely smokes what I was getting for stills with M43 (and the Nocticron was my favorite M43 lens). Pretty much the same applies for the 100-400 FE on FF which is 4.5-5.6 as opposed to 5.6-8.0 equivalent on M43.

[jonpais]

Which is also the reason I’m considering going ff. Not sheer optical quality, but DOF and low light sensitivity, which are more characteristics of sensor size, not the optics. 

[Robert Collins]

5 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Which is also the reason I’m considering going ff. Not sheer optical quality, but DOF and low light sensitivity, which are more characteristics of sensor size, not the optics. 

Conceptually 'video' has always had bigger trade offs for going FF than a smaller sensor. A smaller sensor makes it easier to autofocus in  video - less of a problem with FF. A smaller sensor makes it easier to stabilize than FF.

A year ago I was of the view that FF was the 'sweet spot' for stills and M43 for video. Now I use FF (for both) (Sony). But that is partly out of a desire for one system to do it all. 

Theoretically sensor silicon gets cheaper every year while lens glass does not - so an extra 'equivalent' stop in sensor gets cheaper relative to an extra 'equivalent' glass stop. Stills shooters tend to be sensor size snobs so this argument is pretty much done. Video is different but I still think the tech will tend to converge to FF.

[anonim]

40 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

No doubt. But as I have said before 'equivalence' means different things to different people and probably different things to a 'mostly stills shooter' as opposed to a 'mostly video' guy.

To me a Nocticron (42.5/1.2) on M43 is equivalent to an 85 f2.4 on a FF sensor in terms of both DOF and total light on the sensor. I have owned both (and currently own the 85 1.4 for Sony) and can tell you the 85 1.4 absolutely smokes what I was getting for stills with M43 (and the Nocticron was my favorite M43 lens). Pretty much the same applies for the 100-400 FE on FF which is 4.5-5.6 as opposed to 5.6-8.0 equivalent on M43.

Agree, mostly with example of balanced answer - "different things to a 'mostly stills shooter' as opposed to a 'mostly video' guy".

Because you explain position of view of still shooter, just to note what is video shooter's - capability not to have too shallow DOF at f1.8-2 or even f1. That leads to another remark -

Opinions are highly divided if total light on the sensor in modern m43 sensors is still less in functional sense (because in mathematical it never was). From my experience and careful testing when I decided to use Sony or Panasonic route - total light usability is the same. From mine experience and at least one side of opinions - sensor ratio FF/m43 in modern, higher sensor sensitivity m43 cameras means just difference in DOF. Of course, FF cameras sensor sensitivity progress as m43's - so I limit my comment to the last time and distinction that I've tested - GH5 vs Sony A7sII and A6500.

Just to add about Nocticron - besides more love for more analogue image, I sold it because of its F/T ratio: as I found, its T is near 1.8. Contrary, Voigtlander 42.5 T is arround 1.1 - and I need every drop of light for GH5.

[JurijTurnsek]

14 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Theoretically sensor silicon gets cheaper every year while lens glass does not - so an extra 'equivalent' stop in sensor gets cheaper relative to an extra 'equivalent' glass stop. Stills shooters tend to be sensor size snobs so this argument is pretty much done. Video is different but I still think the tech will tend to converge to FF.

Larger sensors are pricier simply because the manufacturing process produces a certain percent of duds and that is an expensive mistake when the surface area of each FF sensor is so big. The price is coming down only because of increased sales volume and more competition (Sony has been especially aggressive in trying to obtain a larger market share). Also, selling bigger sensors means that you will be able to sell pricier lenses.

[jonpais]

and more televisions. what’s that got to do with the price of tea in China? Oh wait, offering ff mirrorless cameras is a conspiracy to sell more expensive lenses... that argument makes so much sense... why didn’t I think of that?

[Robert Collins]

14 minutes ago, anonim said:

Opinions are highly divided if total light on the sensor in modern m43 sensors is still less in functional sense (because in mathematical it never was). From my experience and careful testing when I decided to use Sony or Panasonic route - total light usability is the same. From mine experience and at least one side of opinions - sensor ratio FF/m43 in modern, higher sensor sensitivity m43 cameras means just difference in DOF. Of course, FF cameras sensor sensitivity progress as m43's - so I limit my comment to the last time and distinction that I've tested - GH5 vs Sony A7sII and A6500.

I wont necessarily disagree with you but I think there is a high chance we are coming from different perspectives. What you say might well hold for 'jpegs' or 'video' but it simply isnt true for RAW.

As an example here is a photo I took (on an A7ii) a couple of years ago - 'raw unprocessed'

And here is the Lightroom processed image - you cant do this with M43 (and this was FF 3 years ago.)

Now, of course, I cant shoot raw video with my FF Sony (or 12/14 bit) but this will eventually come to video (and I would guess at a very reasonable price) and at that point M43 will be at a major disadvantage.

[jonpais]

@Robert Collins How can you presume Sony mirrorless cameras will offer RAW video  and at a reasonable price? Are you a Sony engineer? A stockholder? Why perpetuate falsehoods and wild conjecture?