Sony A7SIII a7s3 A7 Mark III Official Specs/Pics

[LightShooter]

On 9/2/2020 at 12:54 PM, Trek of Joy said:

No, I'm just getting it from B&H. As it stands I only have one Sony body and two lenses, the 12-24/4 and the 24 GM, I'll need the s3 and I think another Sony lens to get pro support - but I'm probably getting the 35/85 1.8's so that should get me there unless I go Batis 40/85 instead. My order was processed just a few seconds after it went live and this is such a niche camera its not going to be in short supply with almost 2-months of lead time from announcement to ship date. IMO if it had 24mp or so it would be far more appealing to more photo-centric users because of the EVF and AF advancements. But that just means we'll get it faster LOL!

Chris

I dont understand the whole concern about 12MP photos.

2048 pixels is the max res that the large majority of places that people publish their work. As far as the very few times most people with print their work, I have printed size A3 all day long from my Nikon D3 and even A2 (23.5" x 16.5") with simple upRes technology that most print shops have.

Question is are the very few times that people are actually getting prints done above 24", then if so, ok.. Yeah 18MP or 24MP.  But seriously, short of poor composition or not having long enough lenses, where crop is involved, but even then that is going to be rare AND rarer that they need to print that larger than 24".  Don't even get me started on needing more storage space.

For a very large majority, 12MP is more than enough for photos.  So I dont get the argument

[LightShooter]

34 minutes ago, Hangs4Fun said:

For anyone about to start do more external recording, especially external RAW, I compiled a list ProRes Disk Rates, Consumption, and Usage Times.  This time I added a section that has the number of minutes you would get out of 500GB, 1TB, 2TB, 4TB drives for your project estimations.  Also adding in costs soon, so that you can estimate your costs/TB and costs/Minute for the different combinations.  The spreadsheet I have will take in the size of the drive and the cost, and then calculate your costs per minute for each of the different codecs and fps settings.

Link to the Spreadsheet?

Oh, and thank you.

[Hangs4Fun]

1 minute ago, LightShooter said:

Link to the Spreadsheet?

Oh, and thank you.

sure, probably tomorrow, I want to finish adding the costs calculations first

[Robert Collins]

7 hours ago, LightShooter said:

I dont understand the whole concern about 12MP photos.

2048 pixels is the max res that the large majority of places that people publish their work. As far as the very few times most people with print their work, I have printed size A3 all day long from my Nikon D3 and even A2 (23.5" x 16.5") with simple upRes technology that most print shops have.

Question is are the very few times that people are actually getting prints done above 24", then if so, ok.. Yeah 18MP or 24MP.  But seriously, short of poor composition or not having long enough lenses, where crop is involved, but even then that is going to be rare AND rarer that they need to print that larger than 24".  Don't even get me started on needing more storage space.

For a very large majority, 12MP is more than enough for photos.  So I dont get the argument

I agree. And I primarily take photos and have an A7riv with 63MP. Sure those MP are nice to have and come in handy for cropping or shooting birds - but 90% of the time they are not strictly necessary. As for printing - the largest print I have in my house is 210cm x 210cm and that print was created from an 8MP photo!!

[Hangs4Fun]

2 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

I agree. And I primarily take photos and have an A7riv with 63MP. Sure those MP are nice to have and come in handy for cropping or shooting birds - but 90% of the time they are not strictly necessary. As for printing - the largest print I have in my house is 210cm x 210cm and that print was created from an 8MP photo!!

Same here.  I have a Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-2000 printer, a 12 catridge (1,100 mL each) 24" wide printer and will absolutely be printing full 24" prints from my a7SIII as well as posting them.  I too had a D3 back in the wedding photography days and many times printed A3 and A2 size prints (I still have a nervous twitch from weddings, lol).  

Just to prove a point, I will be doing some 3 to 5 shot panorama's in portrait mode and guarantee you I will get beautiful 24" x 48" pano prints.  I have a small color lab, where I have 2 BenQ SW320's that I keep calibrated weekly (with XRite i1 Studio) and I use Color Byte's ImagePrint Blank RIP software to manage print jobs to the PRO-2000 and currently stock 10 different paper types that are all calibrated with my paper supplier and RIP software.  Even ImagePrint Black allows me to upscale. 

Most of the time I print 300dpi, but TBH the sweet spot is 240dpi, with little gained after that.  The most important thing is High Quality image with excellent colors, proper focus and exposure, and high dynamic range helps create realism in the prints.

I print out a lot of my photo's, making calendar's, selling prints for walls, etc.  And have a lot of experience printing 8 to 12 MP camera's.  Unless you are going 36" or greater, or need to crop in, 12MP is more than enough.  Most people don't even print out their work, and when they do, they do like 11x17 or A2, max.  There are a very few number that can actually justify it for printing at least.  So that leaves the other place they consume their work, which is online.  Like LightShooter said, most places don't take above 2,048 pixels (~2MP), so that's no argument.

One place that make a little sense is for cropping.  But again, majority of people who get prints done are usually professionals, who usually frame the shot properly and don't crop much.  Most cropping is just for fun.  The small amount that is actually done at a pro level is wildlife photography and maybe landscape photography and some astro.  Those fields are the most likely ones that can actually justify the extra MP.

I would rather have a 12MP image to print from an old D3 or the new A7SIII any day over a 104MP smart phone camera any day.  I am just making my point here, that MP size isn't everything.  Image Quality is.  And the way that 99% + of photo's are used today, a good quality 12MP image is more than is used AND you use less disk space, the images load faster, they process faster, etc..   I guess I don't get it either, lmao!!

[Stab]

What's going on with the pricing?

It's $3500,- in the US, but € 4200,- in Europe (Netherlands). And 1 dollar is 0.85 Euro.... So the difference is even greater. Usually, items are similary priced in Dollars as in Euro's. 

And, none of the US retailers ship this camera to Europe... And that's also not the case usually. 

So Sony has some weird strats going on here. And we are getting pretty much screwed in our European anusses. 

Anyone knows what's up?

[Kisaha]

1 hour ago, Stab said:

What's going on with the pricing?

It's $3500,- in the US, but € 4200,- in Europe (Netherlands). And 1 dollar is 0.85 Euro.... So the difference is even greater. Usually, items are similary priced in Dollars as in Euro's. 

And, none of the US retailers ship this camera to Europe... And that's also not the case usually. 

So Sony has some weird strats going on here. And we are getting pretty much screwed in our European anusses. 

Anyone knows what's up?

You are 75% wrong.

For years we are talking about the E.U "tax", everything here is a lot more expensive and include tax/VAT, while the U.S prices, maybe they do, maybe do not.

Most things are a lot more expensive in Europe, even European things, like Sennheiser mics, MKH50 par example, one of my favorite microphones ever, is around 1.200$ in U.S, and around 1550euros =1850$, and it is made in Germany.

Canon cameras for years are a lot more expensive in Europe, for many posts I was saying how expensive the C200 was, while relatively modest priced in U.S, in my E.U country was thousands of $ more.

You can order something from U.S, but you have to pay V.A.T/tax and customs. Maybe A7sIII is too new to send copies elsewhere, wait a month or so.

Some things are closer to what you are saying, I am just not sure, that is why I give you the 25%!

[Juank]

No way I will pay almost 5000$ instead of  3000€, I will call my fiend who work for a airlines company... fed up of those prices !!

[Rinad Amir]

6 hours ago, Juank said:

No way I will pay almost 5000$ instead of  3000€, I will call my fiend who work for a airlines company... fed up of those prices !!

Lucky you ,i will have to shell up 4200euro for just body then theres extra two batteries plue A type 160gb card so were looking 5k plus minus and thats not counting Gm glass.

[Trek of Joy]

On 9/4/2020 at 2:38 PM, LightShooter said:

I dont understand the whole concern about 12MP photos.

2048 pixels is the max res that the large majority of places that people publish their work. As far as the very few times most people with print their work, I have printed size A3 all day long from my Nikon D3 and even A2 (23.5" x 16.5") with simple upRes technology that most print shops have.

Question is are the very few times that people are actually getting prints done above 24", then if so, ok.. Yeah 18MP or 24MP.  But seriously, short of poor composition or not having long enough lenses, where crop is involved, but even then that is going to be rare AND rarer that they need to print that larger than 24".  Don't even get me started on needing more storage space.

For a very large majority, 12MP is more than enough for photos.  So I dont get the argument

Your needs aren't everyones. I just sent some stuff to an agency for print/digital work, a cropped image from the a73 that was about 16mp and they asked if I had a larger version. Sometimes I need a heavy vertical/horizontal crop for things like banner or sidebar type ads, so most of the image is thrown away. Even with 24" prints there's a noticeable difference between 42mp files from the a7r2/3 and the 12mp files from a7s2, I shot both extensively and its easy to tell which camera shot which image. This "normal viewing distance" stuff people constantly throw out is bullshit. I've found people constantly get right up against a print and look at the details, for me more is better and it has zero to do with poor composition. Its about getting the end product I want, even if I need to crop. Sometimes I look at a shot and see a second image that's completely different just by cropping a large chunk out. I shot tons of safari stuff and cropping to get details like a tight shot of a face or texture in feathers gives an entirely new perspective, same when I shoot automotive stuff. I do the same thing with landscapes too, lots of times you can just crop the foreground and get a dramatic sky shot without wasting sunrise/sunset light trying to reframe to get different angles. Most of the time I'm chasing a short window of perfect light, I don't waste it reframing and moving around, I just crop. I like the creative freedom more mp gives me. The s3 - for me - is going to be for video and social photos only. I need more mp for my regular work, the a73 is minimum for my stills work. YMMV.

Chris

[Video Hummus]

On 9/4/2020 at 10:33 PM, Robert Collins said:

I agree. And I primarily take photos and have an A7riv with 63MP. Sure those MP are nice to have and come in handy for cropping or shooting birds - but 90% of the time they are not strictly necessary. As for printing - the largest print I have in my house is 210cm x 210cm and that print was created from an 8MP photo!!

impossible!

[Oliver Daniel]

CVP sent me an email to say they are receiving the A7SIII in the next few days! 

[Kisaha]

On 9/8/2020 at 3:56 PM, Trek of Joy said:

Your needs aren't everyones. I just sent some stuff to an agency for print/digital work, a cropped image from the a73 that was about 16mp and they asked if I had a larger version. Sometimes I need a heavy vertical/horizontal crop for things like banner or sidebar type ads, so most of the image is thrown away. Even with 24" prints there's a noticeable difference between 42mp files from the a7r2/3 and the 12mp files from a7s2, I shot both extensively and its easy to tell which camera shot which image. This "normal viewing distance" stuff people constantly throw out is bullshit. I've found people constantly get right up against a print and look at the details, for me more is better and it has zero to do with poor composition. Its about getting the end product I want, even if I need to crop. Sometimes I look at a shot and see a second image that's completely different just by cropping a large chunk out. I shot tons of safari stuff and cropping to get details like a tight shot of a face or texture in feathers gives an entirely new perspective, same when I shoot automotive stuff. I do the same thing with landscapes too, lots of times you can just crop the foreground and get a dramatic sky shot without wasting sunrise/sunset light trying to reframe to get different angles. Most of the time I'm chasing a short window of perfect light, I don't waste it reframing and moving around, I just crop. I like the creative freedom more mp gives me. The s3 - for me - is going to be for video and social photos only. I need more mp for my regular work, the a73 is minimum for my stills work. YMMV.

Chris

100%. No way a 12mgpxl sensor can cover my photographic needs, and I was shooting film (and S8) for years and years before even the Mavica (so I am not "digitally" spoiled).

I have decided that 24mgpxls are ok, and I am trying to decide if the R6 is enough..42mp are too much for my needs though, I am not specializing that much.

Maybe A7iv will be the answear to our prayers, 7Siii brings so many vital improvements to the A ecosystem, but still is not a true 50 - 50 hybrid, is a video orientated one that can take pictures, if 12 is your magic number, then some of you are going to be very happy very soon. I am not!

[Hangs4Fun]

On 9/8/2020 at 8:56 AM, Trek of Joy said:

Your needs aren't everyones. I just sent some stuff to an agency for print/digital work, a cropped image from the a73 that was about 16mp and they asked if I had a larger version. Sometimes I need a heavy vertical/horizontal crop for things like banner or sidebar type ads, so most of the image is thrown away. Even with 24" prints there's a noticeable difference between 42mp files from the a7r2/3 and the 12mp files from a7s2, I shot both extensively and its easy to tell which camera shot which image. This "normal viewing distance" stuff people constantly throw out is bullshit. I've found people constantly get right up against a print and look at the details, for me more is better and it has zero to do with poor composition. Its about getting the end product I want, even if I need to crop. Sometimes I look at a shot and see a second image that's completely different just by cropping a large chunk out. I shot tons of safari stuff and cropping to get details like a tight shot of a face or texture in feathers gives an entirely new perspective, same when I shoot automotive stuff. I do the same thing with landscapes too, lots of times you can just crop the foreground and get a dramatic sky shot without wasting sunrise/sunset light trying to reframe to get different angles. Most of the time I'm chasing a short window of perfect light, I don't waste it reframing and moving around, I just crop. I like the creative freedom more mp gives me. The s3 - for me - is going to be for video and social photos only. I need more mp for my regular work, the a73 is minimum for my stills work. YMMV.

Chris

He said "For a very large majority, 12MP is more than enough for photos. " not "everyones"...

I don't think that is inaccurate, as you are not the large majority.  Many will never even print a photo and the few who do, don't print larger than A2, A3..  I actually own a large scale printer and color lab, and am very familiar with dpi and viewing distance, and many of the photo's I print, have an excess of pixels that have to be interpolated down to the dpi being printed, which is usually 240dpi (sweet spot IMHO) to 300 dpi.  

The pro's I print for, usually don't crop much if at all, as the MP size of the image they send me is equal to that of the camera they shoot on.  

I will go out on a week or two solo wilderness backpacking trip, and shoot astro, wildlife, and landscapes; specifically for my calendar or large scale prints.  And yes, in those cases 12MP is not enough.  Thought to prove a point, I will produce a video showing me using the A7SIII for those 3 types of photography.  For landscape, I am pretty sure my 5 shot pano technique in portrait will yield an image that will be printable larger than I can print in my shop.  I'm hopeful the Milky Way Shots will actually be improved thanks to the low light capabilities of that camera.  But, for wildlife, even with my 100-400GM, I'm pretty sure I will miss the A7RIV at that point, as I do heavily crop, usually for more reach.  Versus landscape is about composition, with good composition and multiple shots together I'm sure it will be print worthy.  And versus astro, getting little noise in low light conditions (and nailing focus of course) are key, so again with a good composition there, I expect a print worthy image as well.  And I also do multi shot pano's for astro.  We'll see though.

But then again, I am mostly going to be using the A7SIII in place of the FX9 I couldn't afford this year, lol.  But I can 100% guarantee, it will also take some really high image quality photo's, and that a large percentage of people would be just fine with 12MP, if they were real with themselves, lol 😉

[LightShooter]

SWEET, my A7S3 came in today. So far, so good, can't properly test it just yet, but hopefully this weekend.  I tried posting using my cell phone, where I had some photos, but it was an epic fail, LOL.  Anyone know how to delete a Topic on the root?  It wouldn't let me.

Any way, will try to get some footage up this weekend.  No promises, was already going to be a busy one.