Sony A7S III

[noone]

So it is a given it is PDAF/CDAF and not CDAF only like 1 and ii?     

[Grumble]

I think the lack of PDAF pretty much killed off most of the market for the A7S II after the A7 III was released. 

When you also look at how much flack Panasonic cameras get for their autofocus performance, I'd be really shocked if the A7S III doesn't have PDAF.

So far though I don't believe there are any rumours one way or another on this factor.

[ntblowz]

28 minutes ago, noone said:

So it is a given it is PDAF/CDAF and not CDAF only like 1 and ii?     

No body knows at this stage, that could be a big bummer if it is still at cdaf

 

12MP means apsc shooting in HD only too, that is quite a big bummer as i sometimes use apsc crop mode too (on eos r just use 4k) for the reach

 

If it have pdaf then it will have missing pixels, but because the resolution is too low (every pixel is needed), it will be harder to mask it unlike the higher pixel model sensor

 

The Canon's dpaf will actually be the perfect solution for low res sensor, as all the dp is image pixel too.

 

12MP means apsc 4k will be upscaled 

[newfoundmass]

11 minutes ago, Grumble said:

I think the lack of PDAF pretty much killed off most of the market for the A7S II after the A7 III was released. 

When you also look at how much flack Panasonic cameras get for their autofocus performance, I'd be really shocked if the A7S III doesn't have PDAF.

So far though I don't believe there are any rumours one way or another on this factor.

I think the A7iii's price had more to do with it than the lack of PDAF. 

[gt3rs]

2 hours ago, MeanRevert said:

 

ZCam can do this now

Not FF (2.4 aspect ratio only) and not with AF.

[wolf33d]

6 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

You can always get a second body of A73 or a73r or a74r

 

No. The whole point for me and for millions of FF mirrorless owner in the world is to have a do it all camera. I hate to carry 2 body with me on 60 miles trek at 3000m in the mountain or on summit attempts. Granted, not millions of shooters are mountaineers, but millions of them are travelers, and hate traveling with 2 cameras if one could do it all. 

So not only I want to carry 1 body, but I want great IBIS. It remains to be seen if the A7SIII IBIS is the same shit as the A7RIV, or excellent like the R5. It remains to be seen if they included Venice color science, and completely changed the body ergonomics and buttons and menus. 

Since I never shoot more than 1 min clips I do not care about the overheating. BUT, if Sony could have a quad bayer that gives me 12mpx video and 48mpx stills, with much better ergonomics / buttons / menus, better color and better IBIS (basically matching the R5 on those aspects) then I would stay with Sony for 2 reasons: I am already in the ecosystem and I would rather have 12mpx video / 48 mpx stills with the obvious advantages it brings (rolling shutter...) than having just 45mpx. 

However, I value MUCH more having great IBIS, great body feeling and pleasure of using the camera than having a quad bayer only. It's not like Canon is much behind in spec like always before.

I remember an article from @Andrew Reid about how important having a camera with a good body and interface is, that it gives you the will to actually go and shoot and that bodies with poor ergonomics do not inspire you. I kind of agreed at the time. It seems you do not take this into account anymore in your R5/A7S III comments Andrew. I understand the frustration you have with overheating and your pro work that requires long recording, but I am sure you have plenty of gear for that job already and I am sure you will very much enjoy shooting a lot with the R5 for creative short videos. 

[Django]

@wolf33d wow never thought I'd see the day were you'd be advocating for Canon! looks like they really are shaking things up when die-hard Sony users are thinking about switching systems!

jokes aside, let's wait & see what A7S3 brings to the table. I don't really trust SAR rumours. they've been wrong so many times.

if Sony does forgive the quad-bayer sensor and comes out with another 12MP camera, it's certainly going to be divisive for hybrid shooters and dare I say will remain a niche camera. That's half the MP of an A7III so I don't see many hybrid Sony users "downgrading" to a 12MP camera for stills in 2020. For video though, I guess that could mean another low-light champ, good DR and super fast readout times = low RS.

I still feel that's not going to be enough to really win the battle, even if they finally include 10-bit.. especially after a 4 year follow-up. 

[JurijTurnsek]

As far as sensor go, there is a simple rule of thumb - the less pixels you have, the higher the readout speed, the lover the RS. Until there are global shutter sensors in these bodies, the compromise is always going to be there.

CPU heat becomes an issue with downscaling i.e. 6K to 4K, but reading 24mp at 120fps is just not going to happen in a fan-less body with usable RS at this moment.

So, as a no compromise video-centric body, there is little choice but to have 12mp if you want to offer very high framerates with no crop and possibly RAW.

Now, the pricing can still make or brake this camera. It shouldn't be priced as an do-it-all hybrid.

[padam]

13 minutes ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Now, the pricing can still make or brake this camera. It shouldn't be priced as an do-it-all hybrid.

The A7SII was 3000$, pretty sure that with the stacked sensor and huge jump up in video specs, it will be more, maybe 3500$ like the A7RIV (and the A7IV will be around 2500$ when it comes out probably next year)

[Django]

21 minutes ago, JurijTurnsek said:

As far as sensor go, there is a simple rule of thumb - the less pixels you have, the higher the readout speed, the lover the RS. Until there are global shutter sensors in these bodies, the compromise is always going to be there.

CPU heat becomes an issue with downscaling i.e. 6K to 4K, but reading 24mp at 120fps is just not going to happen in a fan-less body with usable RS at this moment.

So, as a no compromise video-centric body, there is little choice but to have 12mp if you want to offer very high framerates with no crop and possibly RAW.

I was under the impression the quad-bayer sensor could give you best of both worlds (I.e. 48MP for stills, 12MP for video)?

I will probably still purchase the A7S3 no matter what as I need a B-cam to my FS7 but I still maintain Sony is going to have to knock it out of the ballpark on the video specs front if it is going with 12MP.

[Amazeballs]

Personally for me I hate Sony mirrorless estetics - ergonomics, ancient menus, overall design, using same bodies for almost 10 years, etc. They only improve sensors cos they build them as well. And those sensors are awesome - there is no doubt in that. But I might still go Canon R6 route cos its a ergonomically better camera with awesome IBIS (probably, we need to see some actual tests) and I do like how RF lenses are shaping up. Panasonic is another awesome camera company with their ongoing AF problem, sadly. 

[gethin]

17 hours ago, wolf33d said:

 

No. The whole point for me and for millions of FF mirrorless owner in the world is to have a do it all camera. I hate to carry 2 body with me on 60 miles trek at 3000m in the mountain or on summit attempts. Granted, not millions of shooters are mountaineers, but millions of them are travelers, and hate traveling with 2 cameras if one could do it all. 

I came here after seeing 12mp as rumoured spec.  How have we ended up with the three main FF players segmenting their cameras into

High mp pro stills focussed

(Low mp pro video focussed)

Medium mp jack of all trades for amateurs.

24mp is fine for the vast majority of pro work.  I'd be happy with a videocentric camera that also shot stills, with those tradeoffs: maybe slightly lower dr or higher noise because of the quicker readout. But make sure the bracketing options are amazeballs and offer pixel shift high mp mode: those sort of things you're not seeing because they're tailoring them to soccer mom's. 

[Andrew Reid]

18 hours ago, wolf33d said:

However, I value MUCH more having great IBIS, great body feeling and pleasure of using the camera than having a quad bayer only. It's not like Canon is much behind in spec like always before.

I remember an article from @Andrew Reid about how important having a camera with a good body and interface is, that it gives you the will to actually go and shoot and that bodies with poor ergonomics do not inspire you. I kind of agreed at the time. It seems you do not take this into account anymore in your R5/A7S III comments Andrew. I understand the frustration you have with overheating and your pro work that requires long recording, but I am sure you have plenty of gear for that job already and I am sure you will very much enjoy shooting a lot with the R5 for creative short videos. 

Yes I probably will enjoy it for that but I have to think not just about myself when I write advice and commentary in blog posts - there are a lot of people who need the longer recording times and predictable reliability, like I described for the shooting situations in the recent post.

As for ergonomics I don't feel particularly inspired by the EOS R5 looking at the design, finish or materials, but it does seem to have a decent control layout.

Sony are not too bad now though - the A7R IV was a good step in the right direction and they just need to sort the menus out now.

[bjohn]

3 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

ancient menus, overall design, using same bodies for almost 10 years,

It's funny this is one of the strongest selling points for me for Sony. If I can update/upgrade a camera with almost no learning curve, that's priceless. Yes, it takes longer to figure things out at the beginning, but once you're used to it and know how to customize buttons to reach your most-used settings, long-term stability with no major changes is a huge benefit to people who use their cameras every day.

[noone]

I think Sony menus are great (picked up an RX100 iv and could work it instantly as the menu is effectively the same as the A7s and you can set it up to not even have to go into the menus for most things.

There menus are large because there is a huge amount of stuff to put in them.

As for 12mp, I think that is great for stills.      Just means not so much cropping or big enlargements (without upsizing help). 

[bjohn]

40 minutes ago, noone said:

As for 12mp, I think that is great for stills

I might not go that far, but it's fine if you're not doing extra-large prints. I think you can print billboards with the A7r iv. 😉 I'm still using a NEX-6 (APS-C) which is a 16 mp camera; it has better low-light performance than any of the A6000 series but I do find myself wishing for more resolution at times, especially since I frequently crop in post.

This new camera or cameras from Sony will be deciding factors for me. I currently carry two cameras, one for stills and one (or two) for video, since the NEX-6 video quality is pretty close to rock-bottom bad. It would be nice to be able to bring just one camera, one set of batteries and charger, etc. so I'm hoping whatever Sony's coming up with may fit that bill for me. If not, I'll stick with two cameras, it's not the end of the world.

[padam]

The A7s was the camera I've used to most, mainly because it was a revelation for low light and street photography with the silent mode, no other FF camera could do it. The A7sII looked good, but the cost of upgrade was too much for me to buy it.
But 12MP is not enough for me anymore when there are 24MP cameras that do the same thing.

I also had the 5D Mark 1 that camera is dirt cheap and also 12MP bad dynamic range but it is quite a bit sharper than the A7s and also much nicer colours. No video so the AA filter is almost nonexistent.

I guess they got the colour part sorted out on the A7sIII and silent mode works seamlessly so it has is uses.

But you've got to wonder if they could have just taken a new version of the 24MP A9 series sensor and not limit it for video at all.

That would have been the clear and big upgrade over the big hit, the A7III that people would want, not just a 'facelift'. For BOTH stills and video.

But no.
Instead, they have the A9II the future A7IV and A7SIII, three models instead of one, all with different strengths and drawbacks (and with regular updates).


Sony and Canon both being equally smart in 2020.

[noone]

30 minutes ago, bjohn said:

I might not go that far, but it's fine if you're not doing extra-large prints. I think you can print billboards with the A7r iv. 😉 I'm still using a NEX-6 (APS-C) which is a 16 mp camera; it has better low-light performance than any of the A6000 series but I do find myself wishing for more resolution at times, especially since I frequently crop in post.

This new camera or cameras from Sony will be deciding factors for me. I currently carry two cameras, one for stills and one (or two) for video, since the NEX-6 video quality is pretty close to rock-bottom bad. It would be nice to be able to bring just one camera, one set of batteries and charger, etc. so I'm hoping whatever Sony's coming up with may fit that bill for me. If not, I'll stick with two cameras, it's not the end of the world.

I had a 24mp A7 alongside my (first) A7s for a couple of years and for stills in good light, the A7 was better but i shoot a LOT in low light and I still think there is no better camera generally available for stills in really low light than the A7s.     Yes, there are better ones at ISO 12800 and many about the same at even 25600 but above that, I am yet to be convinced.

Even in good light, the A7s is not shabby for photos either.

That I can just mount a lens like the Canon 17mm TS-E and walk around shooting hand held (and even shifted/tilted) at night is what i was always after and I use the same combination to shoot bands from next to the stage often in low light pub gigs.

You can shoot a billboard with pretty much any camera, even much lower MP ones than an A7s though the more mp, the easier.

 

That the A7s can not track focus to save its life is the biggest draw back for most people for stills I think (not an issue for me) as i use either AFS (where it can focus in almost no light) or MF but I do hope this new camera does have PDAF for better AFC (my A7s CAN sort of  focus track a singer who is seated or barely moving but that is about it).      I do accept that many would THINK 12mp is too low but i would bet that would hardly really be the case and the lack of AF tracking would be a MUCH bigger issue if they do not improve it.

If they do NOT go to PDAF then I hope they can at least get it to the same sort of AF as the RX100 iv (which has quite decent AF but only CDAF).

I do not print large (or often at all really) and i do not crop all that much...I would rather use clearzoom if shooting jpegs instead.

[Coiii]

12mp would be a really dumb move from Sony. It should be at least 20mp like the A7III

[noone]

3 hours ago, Coiii said:

12mp would be a really dumb move from Sony. It should be at least 20mp like the A7III

A7 iii is 24mp.

Honestly, while I know people are SAYING 12mp is not enough for stills, I just do not get why (unless you crop a lot or print large and do not use upsizing software. 

It has greater DR at base ISO than many cameras with larger pixel counts and at higher ISO greater than just about anything, it has still competitive colour depth and excellent high ISO.

It would only be a dumb move for marketing if it is not as good as it should be for video I think (if it is improved in low light for stills, that would sell a lot of them too to low light low life types like me!