Sony A7S III

[Snowfun]

Agree with @noone

The A7Sx should be what it is - a high quality low light video focused camera. 12mp is fine. What’s the point of making the A7Sx “like” the A7iii - get the A7iii if that’s the better or preferred option. Isn’t this the whole point of the A7 series? Different cameras for different people/uses.

If it produces supreme 4k footage at high iso (internal/external - I don’t mind) then it’ll fill this chap’s niche rather well. 

Personally, I’d like Sony to release a version of the A7Sx to update the UMC-S3CA.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

What’s the point of making the A7Sx “like” the A7iii - get the A7iii if that’s the better or preferred option

Exactly. Same with every manufacturer.

Make your dedicated stills camera, your dedicated video camera and your dedicated hybrid camera and folks can choose depending on their needs, but there is no point in making anything near identical with no purpose.

Panasonic did pretty well with the the S1H = video orientated, S1R = high end stills and S1 = decent hybrid all rounder.

[photographer-at-large]

Missing @androidlad in this discussion...please chime in.

Any chance for open gate 120fps?

[Trek of Joy]

I left the a7s2 behind the moment the a73 arrived because of the jump to 24mp. Not going back to 12mp unless the video is really something special, like @wolf33d, I want to shoot stills and video in the same body, 12mp is jut too far of a step back for me. I hope this rumor is wrong, because a stacked 12mp sensor would be a disappointment for me. I say for me, not you. Not cancelling my R5 order just yet Sony, still not convinced Sony has solved thermal issues that have plagued their bodies in the past as 10-bit 4k120p will need a lot more processing than the current low bitrate video all their bodies spit out.

Chris

4 hours ago, noone said:

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!

If you downsample the Sony 42mp files to 12mp, there's no noise difference at useable high ISO's, I don't count the 100k and above ISO's as useable because there's no detail in the files.

[wolf33d]

On 7/12/2020 at 1:39 AM, Django said:

@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. 

Well my first ever camera was a 450D, and then a 5DII and 5DIII. I did not like what direction Canon took from the 5DIII and I liked what other brands brought on the table the past few years. I have also owned the EM1, the GH3,4,5, multiple Fujis and Sonys. I think Sony deserves props for how they launched the FF mirrorless movement to what it is today. Canon is getting back in the race with a great set of cameras and deserve props for that.  

Cameras are just 2 things for me: a tool so I like to have the best tool for the task so I don't mind changing system if I feel a brand is proposing a tool better suiting my use. Secondly, I love tech and appreciate testing and trying new things thus why I explore many different camera options over the years. 

True, I speak out loud and sometimes my point of views are extreme... 

Anyway I do agree if 12mp only and not quad bayer, they are in trouble. Not nearly enough to counter R5. Sure for specialize work (video only, interview filming,...) it might be a better buy than the R5. But I believe for a majority of people the R5 will be a much better overall hybrid. Let's not forget all the historic Canon advantages I and Sony users had to close our eyes on for years (ergonomics, colors...) rightfully so because other specs were much better. Will we close our eyes on those now that Canon matches/exceed the good stuff (frame rates, no crop FF, 10 bit, flippy screen...)? Absolutely not. 

I hope for Sony the 12mp rumor is a quad bayer 12/48mpx, that they integrated Venice color science, that they upgraded the touch screen and menus and they upgraded the IBIS. If not, I wish them good luck for the next 2 years.

Even for the low end battle, who will buy a A7IV for $2000 when they can get a R6 for $2500 should they both do 4K60p 10 bit, 20-24mpx with the Canon having better IBIS / colors body / ergonomics and being a Canon? The 3 dudes who need 5 hours recording time yet don't use the right Cinema camera tool for the job certainly will. For the rest of us though.... 

 

 

[noone]

6 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

I left the a7s2 behind the moment the a73 arrived because of the jump to 24mp. Not going back to 12mp unless the video is really something special, like @wolf33d, I want to shoot stills and video in the same body, 12mp is jut too far of a step back for me. I hope this rumor is wrong, because a stacked 12mp sensor would be a disappointment for me. I say for me, not you. Not cancelling my R5 order just yet Sony, still not convinced Sony has solved thermal issues that have plagued their bodies in the past as 10-bit 4k120p will need a lot more processing than the current low bitrate video all their bodies spit out.

Chris

If you downsample the Sony 42mp files to 12mp, there's no noise difference at useable high ISO's, I don't count the 100k and above ISO's as useable because there's no detail in the files.

While I agree that there are a few cameras now better at isos like 12.800, those are still few and far between and plenty of other cameras used for photos are behind in noise terms and at 25,600 and up I still do not think there is anything better for dynamic range.

The A7s against the A7iii and A7Riii starts a stop and half behind  those cameras for DR but by ISO 12800 is marginally in front and at ISO 102400 is about a stop ahead of the R and half a stop ahead of the iii (not much admittedly but it is still there) and against OTHER photography cameras IE cameras people never say are not good for stills photography) starts ahead and stays ahead all the way just getting further  and further in front.

The Olympus EM1 ii has some of the best DR for a m43 camera and is a stills camera and it starts just behind the A7s at base and by the time it finishes at 25600, it has the same DR as the A7s does at 102,400.

102,400 is what i often have as my maximum with auto ISO though I would like to have something like 80,000 as max but I am fine with 102,400 or even a bit above if that is needed (at those ISOs, the light is usually low enough that the human eye is not seeing a huge DR anyway so a DR of 8 stops or just under still looks real...something to do with rods and cones in the eye).

Sure there are OTHER reasons for not choosing an A7s for photos (mainly for AF reasons for those who use AFC) and again, i do understand people do not THINK it is enough now but again, other than if you crop a lot or for big enlargement, what is wrong with it?

IF (big IF), the A7siii gets 1) AF right and 2) improved low light still,AND 3) it gets professional level video right without overheating in something like 4k 120, THEN it will be hit for video AND photos....still, I would not be surprised if it only gets 2 out of 3 right. 

[Trek of Joy]

 

3 minutes ago, noone said:

While I agree that there are a few cameras now better at isos like 12.800, those are still few and far between and plenty of other cameras used for photos are behind in noise terms and at 25,600 and up I still do not thin k there is anything better for dynamic range.

The A7s against the A7iii and A7Riii starts a stop and half behind  those cameras for DR but by ISO 12800 is marginally in front and at ISO 102400 is about a stop ahead of the R and half a stop ahead of the iii (not much admittedly but it is still there and against OTHER photography cameras (IE cameras people never say are not good for stills photography) ahead and stays ahead all the way just getting further  and further in front.

The Olympus EM1 ii has some of the best DR for a m43 camera and is a stills camera and it starts just behind the A7s at base and by the time it finishes at 25600, it has the same DR as the A7s does at 102,400.

102,400 is what i often have as my maximum with auto ISO though I would like to have something like 80,000 as max but I am fine with 102,400 or even a bit above if that is needed (at those ISOs, the light is usually low enough that the human eye is not seeing a huge DR anyway so a DR of 8 stops or just under still looks real...something to do with rod and cones in the eye).

Sure there are OTHER reasons for not choosing an A7s for photos (mainly for AF reasons for those who use AFC) and again, i do understand people do not THINK it is enough now but again, other than if you crop a lot or for big enlargement, what is wrong with it?

IF (big IF), the A7siii gets 1) AF right and @) improved low light still,AND 3) it gets professional level video right without overheating in something like 4k 120, THEN it will be hit for stills AND photos....still, I would not be surprised if it only gets 2 out of 3 right. 

Sony's new AF system seems to be a given, if the plastic fantastic a6100 got it, I'm sure the new a7s will too. I don't think there's anything wrong with the a7s for photos, I've traveled with one extensively (though I've always had a r2/3 as well). But I find 12mp limiting because once you do even small things like straighten horizons and adjust crop for framing or a little perspective correction - at least for me - there's just not a lot of pixels to spare. My output isn't strictly for social/web, I shoot stuff that does get printed large on occasion. I shot part of a campaign that covered walls and a train in Toronto's metro as well as busses in London - the smallest file I had was about 4200px wide, they asked if I had a larger version. The a7s is a fine stills camera, but with no real difference compared to downsampling higher mp Sony cameras, its easier for my workflow to shoot with higher mp bodies. Plus when shooting landscapes - which is most of my stuff these days -the additional details just adds more punch to the files, I prefer the look. I've started printing my own stuff in larger numbers through Printique too, I just marvel at the level of detail from the a7r bodies. If I need any more DR - which is rare - I just bracket and combine in post. YMMV.

Cheers

Chris

[noone]

24 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

 

 

Cheers

Chris

Fair enough.

Thanks.

You CAN print at that size from even a 8mp camera though with decent upsizing software though yes, if you do print that large, more MP to start helps.

Not sure that would apply to many people though.

My photos are mainly just for me now and family and friends but have had normal photos (IE not something unique) from the A7s taken at isos like 102400 in newspapers, something I would never have imagined even sending them with any other camera I have used even if they COULD have taken it.    Pre Covid, I have had a lot of bands using my photos and in the last few years, mainly just for the likes of Facebook or website use and for that a 4mp camera would possibly be overkill.     Photos I had on a major label CD years ago where tiny (taken with a 6mp DLR...would have LOVED an A7s back then). 

Even things like most photo contests when asking for entries will usually have a size limit (often something like 2500 pixels on the longest side) so even A7s files have to be downsized to enter and for judging.

Ye, we all have our requirements.

 

[newfoundmass]

12 MP is more than enough for 4x6 prints and web publishing/social media. Not saying it'd be my first choice and I don't think many would be using the A7siii for serious photography, but it's doable for some things. 

[noone]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

12 MP is more than enough for 4x6 prints and web publishing/social media. Not saying it'd be my first choice and I don't think many would be using the A7siii for serious photography, but it's doable for some things. 

A photo quality print at 300dpi at 12mp would be about 9x14 or 11x14 (depends on what site you go to) and at 250dpi and 200dpi and maybe even 150dpi much larger and still be ok

I have an (old) book by a well known photographer saying 10-12mp is good for 24x36 inches but the various sites with how large can you print charts typically say you can print a good quality print from 12mp at around 20x30.    I would not print that large (24x36 or 20x30) without upsizing from it but certainly have more than 4x6 and had larger than that in newspapers (at high isos too).

Again, I get that there is a perception 12mp is not enough for photos and that there ARE some users and uses that would find it not so good a fit but for the vast majority of photos taken is more than enough.

[MrSMW]

12mp is easily enough for printing ‘large’.

What 12mp tends to lack is much post-cropping latitude.

As a working *cough* wedding photographer, 12mp wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if it meant ‘better’ low light capability/quality and the rest of the spec was not compromised.

[Django]

Depends on your shooting style also. I mostly shoot stills with a 35mm 1.4 on FF. I like the convenience of switching to an APS-C crop for more telephoto 50mm reach.

With a 12MP sensor that would mean 8MP cropped images which is really pushing it for pro use.

In comparison R5’s 45MP translates to 30MP APS-C shots.

Thats not to say the 12MP A7S series don’t have their purpose, for dim situations like concerts / nocturnal events, where a flash isn’t desired, they rule. But that remains niche purposes imo.

[Simon Young]

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a7sii-successor-has-16bit-raw-output-and-600mbps-bitrate/

 

Latest rumor: Sony A7sIII has 15 stops dynamic range, 16bit RAW output and 600mbps bitrate, 160 base ISO with S-LOG3

[JurijTurnsek]

SAR went into rabid rumor mode and is not even bothering labeling the level of trust in the received information (even when coming form new sources).

We already have the most important info - low MP count, optimized for high frame-rates, continuous recording and not a R5 copy. That should suffice for any decision making between the two.

[Video Hummus]

Okay, 15 stops dynamic range minus 1 to 1.5 stops for the bullshit factor. So roughly 13.5 to 14 real stops.

16 Bit raw photos or is that RAW video via HDMI?

600Mbps sounds logical considering the 720Mbps max for V90 UHS-II cards.

So basically a FX-9 in a A7 body?

Wheres the catch?

[thebrothersthre3]

The catch is going to be overheating and record limits. 

[Trek of Joy]

11 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

Okay, 15 stops dynamic range minus 1 to 1.5 stops for the bullshit factor. So roughly 13.5 to 14 real stops.

16 Bit raw photos or is that RAW video via HDMI?

600Mbps sounds logical considering the 720Mbps max for V90 UHS-II cards.

So basically a FX-9 in a A7 body?

Wheres the catch?

The catch - until we see the actual leaked spec from Nokishita at least some of that is just complete fantasy. Someone literally quoted the main FX9 bullet points.

That site has completely jumped the shark with its "rumors"

[Paul Cryer]

I'm going to be very interested to see if/when this camera overheats and if they're as open as Canon seem to have been. All the specs being thrown out at the moment, it'll go up in flames after 60s of recording in a normal a7 style body!

[Video Hummus]

Highly likely. Fair warning, don’t go into the comments section unless you really want to live first hand the scene in Star Wars where they fall into the garbage compactor.

Taking a shower now.

Gems like “The slow drip of rumors of the A7SIII is actually pp on canon”.

You’ve been warned.

[Coiii]

The catch it's the crappy color as usual.

I don't want 16bit raw. Just put 10 bit raw, 4K60 and VENICE COLOR / CINETONE! Thats all I need.