Sony A7S III

[Trek of Joy]

2 hours ago, crevice said:

If they are bringing their new color science and it shoots full frame with actual high dynamic range, not bullshit marketing dynamic range, and the footage actually looks like fx9 - this exceeds expectations. It’s crazy to me that all we are hanging on is specs. The footage is what should exceed expectations - isn’t that all that matters? If the a7s3 and R5 shoot amazing looking video that get close to their big cinema brothers - we all win. In fact, with these 2 cameras we are all winning no matter what. It’s amazing the kind of tech we are getting in hybrid bodies.  

Yes, with this we all win, we're totally spoiled by choices. Sony always claims 15 stops, just check the a73 product page. Its certainly going to be right in line with other current FF cameras - that I'm willing to bet on. Improved color, 10-bit and the higher bitrate along with real AF are what interests me most. Though if they add PDAF, it will be interesting to see if there are issues with the low mp sensor shooting into the sun.

Cheers

Chris

[noone]

9 hours ago, Nezza said:

That would assume the only thing that counts in a camera is megapixels which is clearly not the case. There's a reason Apple has stuck with a 12M for so long. It's perfect for the job in hand, posting on social media, looking at on small screens, standard size prints.

For a full frame, interchangeable lens system 12M will limit you if you want to crop or blow up large prints, which I'd assume somebody that wants to drop thousands on a body/lenses is likely to want.

If Sony does go 12M in the A7S3 it's a no from me and I suspect others. Most people are buying these because they are hybrids, not solely video.

But that is the same assumption you made about the pixel count.

What size do you think you can not print from a 12mp FF camera?    What sizes are the vast majority of photos used at?

People have used 6mp cameras to produce billboards.

By FAR the AF of the A7s and A7sii (AFC that is) is what stops them being more a mainstream hybrid camera and yes, I agree most are not going to be buying it as a hybrid if it is 12mp but that is not to say it ISN'T a hybrid or the vast majority would actually be fine with it.

It is a perception, not the reality (though again, I know I am not going to change anyone's mind and I would rather more pixels IF the camera does exactly the same otherwise).

There has been nothing I have been missing with my A7s asa stills camera ...macro, super telephoto, tilt shift, fast portraits, slow lenses at night hand held (first camera I have been comfortable doing that with), sports (manual focus though)

[Video Hummus]

1 hour ago, Trek of Joy said:

spoiled by choices.

Yes, and based on how Sony has been building their A7 line lately I think the more popular camera may be a future A7IV hybrid. My bet is it will have 4K60p with a gimped codec as always but maybe a higher resolution sensor for that target $2K price.

The new A7S will mostly likely be an excellent camera especially if they add latest PDAF but I think the hard decision will be the lack of MP for someone that wants a hybrid camera that does a cut above in video but has some photo capabilities. 14MP might be too low for many.

[Jay60p]

On 7/22/2020 at 12:47 PM, androidlad said:

It's a 1.1x crop from 4240-pixel wide sensor for 1:1 4K UHD readout, this crop is there from 24p all the way up to 120p.

So there is no oversampling for 4K. How could this match the IQ of the X-T3/4 and all the other 24-26 megapixel cameras for 4K video?

My X-T3 is oversampling from 6K to 4K.  Seems to me the 422 or 16 bit raw wouldn't matter much if the lack of oversampling results in a softer

image.  Or is this new 12 megapixel sensor a major new technology?

[androidlad]

1 minute ago, Jay60p said:

So there is no oversampling for 4K. How could this match the IQ of the X-T3/4 and all the other 24-26 megapixel cameras for 4K video?

My X-T3 is oversampling from 6K to 4K.  Seems to me the 422 or 16 bit raw wouldn't matter much if the lack of oversampling results in a softer

image.  Or is this new 12 megapixel sensor a major new technology?

Oversampling minimises moire/aliasing, it does not directly correlate to better DR.

[Jay60p]

20 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Oversampling minimises moire/aliasing, it does not directly correlate to better DR.

Then would you agree that in general a 12MP camera (with more moire/aliasing) usually results in a softer image than the

26MP 6K oversampling cameras for 4K video, DR being equal?

[androidlad]

3 minutes ago, Jay60p said:

Then would you agree that in general a 12MP camera (with more moire/aliasing) usually results in a softer image than the

26MP 6K oversampling cameras for 4K video, DR being equal?

Yes, with Bayer sensors, 1:1 readout is always softer than oversampled readout. Strong OLPF that combats moire can make it even softer.

[Coiii]

S-Cinetone and real 12-13 stops of DR it's a deal for me. I can keep my A7III for stills and trade in my Canon L glass for Sony Gmasters. Please be true.

[Jay60p]

On second thought that 12MB sensor gives some major advantages Sony didn't have before, unlimited recording time with 10 bit in 4K60

and "no overheating". (My X-T3 is limited to 20min at a time.) If you are shooting in 4K to release to 2K the lack of oversampling will make no difference.

Then there is apparently a major improvement in color science. Time will tell.

[Video Hummus]

47 minutes ago, Jay60p said:

If you are shooting in 4K to release to 2K the lack of oversampling will make no difference.

I don’t know about you, but if I was paying 3,500 to 4000 for a camera I would want a great 4K deliverable. As a GH5S owner, having a 1:1 4K readout hasn’t posed a problem for me. Technically, it might no be as detailed and “crispy” as a 6K to 4K oversampled but it’s all going to a 4K IBP deliverable anyway 98% of the time.

[newfoundmass]

I can't say I've ever really felt like 4K from my GH5 didn't look good enough when watching it on my 55 inch 4K television. 

Really most of us aren't watching on TVs that display 4K to its full potential anyway. I don't see a huge advantage to 4K over HD, though I do see an advantage. But it's not huge watching from a normal viewing distance. I think I'd need a much bigger TV to really see a huge difference. 

That's not to say that they shouldn't downscale 8K or 6K to 4K if they can, but I would prefer beefier data rates personally. That has been Sony's biggest weakness, even more than color and poor IBIS. 

[Jay60p]

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

I don’t know about you, but if I was paying 3,500 to 4000 for a camera I would want a great 4K deliverable.

3500? too much. I would say $2000 for a body with that sensor.

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

As a GH5S owner, having a 1:1 4K readout hasn’t posed a problem for me. Technically, it might no be as detailed and “crispy” as a 6K to 4K oversampled but it’s all going to a 4K IBP deliverable anyway 98% of the time.

Ouch! so not only have I pissed off the Sony users but the GH5 users as well!  If the GH5 with zoom lens wasn't $1000 more than the Fuji a year and a half ago that would have been my first choice.

[Jay60p]

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I can't say I've ever really felt like 4K from my GH5 didn't look good enough when watching it on my 55 inch 4K television. 

Really most of us aren't watching on TVs that display 4K to its full potential anyway. I don't see a huge advantage to 4K over HD, though I do see an advantage. But it's not huge watching from a normal viewing distance. I think I'd need a much bigger TV to really see a huge difference.

I was thinking the same, perhaps most Sony owners would never notice the difference between oversampled and 1:1 but

would really appreciate being able to shoot the kid's Jazz Band concert from beginning to end without stopping. 

Still, it shouldn't cost more than the Alpha a7sII at this late date.

[noone]

1 hour ago, Jay60p said:

 

would really appreciate being able to shoot the kid's Jazz Band concert from beginning to end without stopping. 

 

Even if it is only an a7sii with A7iii AF it would be close to PERFECT for me to shoot a jazz concert (both stills and video).

I did stills for the last 7 or so Jazz and blues festivals here (3 day festival at multiple locations now in recess sadly) with just an occasional video though would be happy to do 50/50 now.

I doubt you would ever need to shoot a jazz band concert fully continuously .

[Django]

..so half the MP of an A73, no oversampled 4K, and a slight crop in all shooting modes? all that for $3500?  in a couple regards, it kinda feels like a downgrade. 

10-bit & no overheating sounds nice but it’s not exactly mind-blowing either given those caveats and it sure looks like Sony have been very careful as to not cannibalize the rest of their camera lineup, including the ever so popular A73 and flagship FX9.

[zerocool22]

1 hour ago, noone said:

Even if it is only an a7sii with A7iii AF it would be close to PERFECT for me to shoot a jazz concert (both stills and video).

I did stills for the last 7 or so Jazz and blues festivals here (3 day festival at multiple locations now in recess sadly) with just an occasional video though would be happy to do 50/50 now.

I doubt you would ever need to shoot a jazz band concert fully continuously .

But why would you get it over the a7 iii which is already quite old and a lot cheaper.

[Django]

I’m assuming for the low-light capabilities. That is the one area where this camera should trump the competition.

[sanveer]

40 minutes ago, Django said:

..so half the MP of an A73, no oversampled 4K, and a slight crop in all shooting modes? all that for $3500?  in a couple regards, it kinda feels like a downgrade. 

10-bit & no overheating sounds nice but it’s not exactly mind-blowing either given those caveats and it sure looks like Sony have been very careful as to not cannibalize the rest of their camera lineup, including the ever so popular A73 and flagship FX9.

I suspect the same. Sony is trying to brand this as the king of video shooters, but it may come with a lot of riders. 

[noone]

14 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

But why would you get it over the a7 iii which is already quite old and a lot cheaper.

Better video (if/when I needed it) and especially slightly better high ISO (the A7iii is better for stills image quality than the A7s/A7sii up to 12800 and about the same at 25600 but not a whole lot in it and I would expect this new camera will be better than 1 and 2 versions.

Most shows like that I doubt I would want to shoot in 4k yet anyway (but would like to have it for headliners and favoured acts) and the FF 1080 is very nice still from the A7s (without doing much or any editing and zero grading) but there have been some concerts/festivals I have done that have been very dark (Metal festival in a cow paddock years ago I would have LOVED to have an A7s at). 

I often shoot at ISO 25600 and higher and for me, there is still nothing better than my now aging full HD only A7s (though I keep looking for a cheap 4k recorder for it).

[zerocool22]

30 minutes ago, Django said:

I’m assuming for the low-light capabilities. That is the one area where this camera should trump the competition.

Low light is indeed very good. But not sure if there is a huge market for party/concert videographers. 

I would be fine with a clean 100- 3200. Mostly sit around 800 anyway, any higher the dynamic range begins to fall off fast.

Im gonna invest in more lights this year and 1 hybrid camera (r5, s1h, a7siii waiting on some side by side footage, as I dont have any shoots planned for the time beeing)