Sony A7S III

[Nezza]

13 hours ago, noone said:

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)

I said 12M isn't enough for serious photographers that want to crop and make large prints, I didn't say 'only megapixels matter',  you said that. You ignored all the other benefits of an interchangeable lens system with all the manual control that enables and said just use a smart phone with high megapixels. Your words, not mine.

The vast vast majority of pictures taken will be 12M or less - not sure what your point is though. People that are seriously into photography / video that visit this site and want pro gear are in a minority compared to basically everybody that has a mobile phone and takes pictures and doesn't even know what the megapixel count is. Obvious stuff.  

If you're happy to tight crop and then make a poster print out of a 12M image then go for it. Personally I wouldn't put that on my wall. 20M is the standard for magazine covers these days. Given the current level of tech 12M on a hybrid that costs thousands of dollars isn't competitive, that's the bottom line.

As you say, you'll have a hard time convincing anybody vaguely serious about photography that 12M or less is acceptable but if you're happy to accept that low bar go for it.

[Django]

33 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

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

As an ex-wedding videographer I can assure you there is a market for night-time low light events.

With the new AP deal I could see some news broadcast agents make use of it as well.

Specialised market for sure but then again that is what the S is about!

[noone]

29 minutes ago, Nezza said:

I said 12M isn't enough for serious photographers that want to crop and make large prints, I didn't say 'only megapixels matter',  you said that. You ignored all the other benefits of an interchangeable lens system with all the manual control that enables and said just use a smart phone with high megapixels. Your words, not mine.

As you say, you'll have a hard time convincing anybody vaguely serious about photography that 12M or less is acceptable but if you're happy to accept that low bar go for it.

A) I firstly replied to your "joke" about shooting the same resolution as an I phone...I simply pointed out that there are phones with 48MP NOW (not to mention 108mp ones coming if not already here) so the same logic already applies to 16mp, 20mp, 24mp and even 36mp cameras....you added some uses in a later post but again, the logic still applies.

My phone has a camera but I could not even tell you what it is as I never use it (certainly less than 12mp).

 

B) You said photographers that want to crop and make large prints and I disagreed with that and again, I ask how large a print is large? Plenty of software to resize to pretty much any size you want is available these days.

I DID agree about cropping, not printing.

Personally I want a photography camera to be something I can fully use at night or get a decent wide angle tilt shift and missing those would be a much bigger limit to me than a few MPs. (LOTS of popular cameras would not suite me, that does not mean they are not serious photography cameras).

I had a 24mp FF camera alongside my first A7s and I sold it because I was not using it anywhere near as much as a stills camera (and I needed the money), I also sold my 18mp Canon and 16mp Panasonic as they were not even close to as good a photography camera for my needs ...I just got a 20mp Sony 1 inch sensor camera but did not get it BECAUSE it is 20mp.

I can not speak for anyone but myself (and neither can you).    I consider myself a serious photographer and 12mp is fine for me (I do not need to crop much since I have all the focal lengths I want covered).   To say 12mp is not for serious photographers is as silly as saying you need a 400mm 2.8 (or any other item of gear) to be a serious photographer.   It is just gear.

There probably ISN'T a huge market for what i like to do but that does not make it any less real or "serious".

[Nezza]

16 minutes ago, noone said:

There probably ISN'T a huge market for what i like to do 

Agreed.

[noone]

14 minutes ago, Nezza said:

Agreed.

Mind you, the 20 or so festivals and half a dozen newspapers who have used my photos thought I was a reasonably serious photographer as where the ones silly enough to give me a photo pass to the likes of the Dixie Chicks when they were selling out stadiums and the biggest selling female act in history (to that time) or the people who gave me a photo pass to this  little concert (even though i was only using a low MP camera).

NO ONE has ever asked me how many megapixels I use, not once!

 

[Nezza]

11 minutes ago, noone said:

Mind you, the 20 or so festivals and half a dozen newspapers who have used my photos thought I was a reasonably serious photographer as where the ones silly enough to give me a photo pass to the likes of the Dixie Chicks when they were selling out stadiums and the biggest selling female act in history (to that time) or the people who gave me a photo pass to this  little concert (even though i was only using a low MP camera).

NO ONE has ever asked me how many megapixels I use, not once!

I'm not sure what your point is. Media will accept any quality of footage these days, skype quality or worse. It's about getting the shot, not the quality. 

Slightly different scenario to something a pro may wish to crop and blow up, e.g. wildlife where you don't have time to perfectly compose the shot that needs a tight crop.

If you want to accept lesser quality and options in post that's your choice but in 2020 a camera costing 2+ grand offering iPhone resolution doesn't cut it for most serious photographers.

[noone]

10 minutes ago, Nezza said:

I'm not sure what your point is. Media will accept any quality of footage these days, skype quality or worse. It's about getting the shot, not the quality. 

Slightly different scenario to something a pro may wish to crop and blow up, e.g. wildlife where you don't have time to perfectly compose the shot that needs a tight crop.

If you want to accept lesser quality and options in post that's your choice but in 2020 a camera costing 2+ grand offering iPhone resolution doesn't cut it for most serious photographers.

Tell me ANY photo competition anywhere in the world that wants entries only from cameras with more than 12mp?    There may well be some but all the ones I know of ask for things like a maximum of 2500 pixels on the longest side and that is both for entry and judging (even ones open to "pro" photographers).

I do not equate the pixel count of a camera with image quality and I would much rather my 12mp camera than any micro four thirds one or any APSC one for my uses.    Your choice can be otherwise but that is no more relevant than mine.

How on earth could anyone use anything other than a full frame (or larger sensor) camera for "serious" photography?? ( I do not actually believe that).

Surely a REAL "pro" would have the right lens for the job with them, no?

[gt3rs]

For sport and action I tend to crop a lot and I have a 200-400 1.4x lens so at 560mm it has some reach. I find it already limiting with 20mpx of the 1Dx series..  Going back to 12 is a no go.
The minimum goal that we set is to have a picture that fill 4k screens, TV, projectors so ca. 8 Mpix and with 12 Mpix you don't have too much to crop. You also want to have some margin for reframing especially on things that is a one time shoot only.

Bud good for you that 12 Mpix is plenty, for a lot of people is very limiting.

 

 

[Nezza]

8 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

Bud good for you that 12 Mpix is plenty, for a lot of people is very limiting.

 

 

Exactly. A high end camera released in 2020 with 12M, not cutting it for many. I don't know why you'd accept it at that price point. These are marketed as hybrids - not solely video.

[ade towell]

Being someone who does video with a bit of photography occasionally I don't personally have an issue with the 12 MP but can see that putting many people off.

My main worry would be as with Canon - how are they going to deal with overheating. The A7 has always been about being small with full size sensor and has run into heat issues in the past. Trying to cram so much tech into a smallish body has its problems. But if they can some how manage that with the new colour science and some more of their  AF cine lenses  it could be a great companion to the FX9

[noone]

10 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

For sport and action I tend to crop a lot and I have a 200-400 1.4x lens so at 560mm it has some reach. I find it already limiting with 20mpx of the 1Dx series..  Going back to 12 is a no go.
The minimum goal that we set is to have a picture that fill 4k screens, TV, projectors so ca. 8 Mpix and with 12 Mpix you don't have too much to crop. You also want to have some margin for reframing especially on things that is a one time shoot only.

Bud good for you that 12 Mpix is plenty, for a lot of people is very limiting.

 

 

Agreed, but then how many people (serious photographers or otherwise) need a 200-400?    Just like a 12mp camera, it s for a limited market.    For sports i use an old manual focus 300 2.8 though not so much these days ...I used to use it with a 1.7x auto focus adapter for a National (Australian Greyhound racing) newspaper with a 12mp DSLR and have used it bare and MF  for Australian football shots with the A7s (and A7).

Instead of cropping or using APSC mode or a 1.4x TC with my A7s I would more often just use clearzoom since it is virtually lossless (jpegs and video) without giving up any resolution.

[Video Hummus]

7 hours ago, Jay60p said:

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

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.

I’m not cross in any way. I’m just saying the 1:1 4K from the A7S might be a problem for some that are use to looking at 4K from a 6K oversample (A7III Fuji Xt4...)

[Robert Collins]

45 minutes ago, Nezza said:

Exactly. A high end camera released in 2020 with 12M, not cutting it for many. I don't know why you'd accept it at that price point. These are marketed as hybrids - not solely video.

I dont agree. Sony has a range of 'hybrids' from the A7riv to A9ii to A7iii to A7siii - they all make various compromises from the A7riv that is a photo camera that does a bit of video through to the A7siii which is a video camera that can take photos. Clearly if your passion is 'printing big' you dont go with the A7siii.

At the end of the day the A7siii should and will be judged on how good it is at 'taking video' - IBIS, AF, resolution, frame rates, bit rates, overheating etc....

[Nezza]

4 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

I dont agree. Sony has a range of 'hybrids' from the A7riv to A9ii to A7iii to A7siii - they all make various compromises from the A7riv that is a photo camera that does a bit of video through to the A7siii which is a video camera that can take photos. Clearly if your passion is 'printing big' you dont go with the A7siii.

At the end of the day the A7siii should and will be judged on how good it is at 'taking video' - IBIS, AF, resolution, frame rates, bit rates, overheating etc....

Whilst clearly the S range is the video focused model, all the A7's are marketed as hybrids so should also be judged on stills capability. It is not video only.

In 2020, 12M is a compromise too far for most in a high(er) end camera like this with new tech. Existing competition that's been around a while beats it for stills resolution. To pretend otherwise gives Sony a free pass.

[Trek of Joy]

First images of the camera. Looks like the body is a little fatter, but tough to say with any certainty.

 

[noone]

I actually do get it.

Many people would rather have 20mp or more and only around 6.5 to 7.5 stops of DR at ISO 25600 or 5.5 to 6.5 at ISO 51200 than 12mp and 9 stops at 25600 and over 8 at 51200.    I am just not one of them and those ISOS are actually settings I use a fair bit if needed.

With SOME cameras (A7iii and to a lesser extent the 1DXiii) you get more pixels AND within a stop for both but most others the difference is more even for FF and medium format and for APSC and M43, well those "real photography" cameras fall off a cliff a lot earlier and many can not even get to 25600 or it is last resort only.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

14 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

First images of the camera. Looks like the body is a little fatter, but tough to say with any certainty.

 

But the rest is EXACTLY the A7R IV - they switched positions between C1 and Rec, and...that it is.

[JurijTurnsek]

1 hour ago, Nezza said:

Exactly. A high end camera released in 2020 with 12M, not cutting it for many. I don't know why you'd accept it at that price point. These are marketed as hybrids - not solely video.

You guys are forgetting that iPhone is still being praised for it's photo/video chops and that is 12mp as well (along with most of smartphones still).

On that note, Sony should use the very fast readout mode to offer some kind of very fast HDR mode that all smartphones are capable of (and HEIF of course).

[Video Hummus]

28 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

First images of the camera. Looks like the body is a little fatter, but tough to say with any certainty.

 

I wonder what the two white boxes are blocking. MAybe prototype numbers to avoid being tracked for leaks...

[Nezza]

No 4K 120 Internal, 12M stills, for 4000 euros when you can get a R6 for 2500. I'll pass thanks Sony.