Sold my Sony a1 but regret it... help me pick a new Sony

[Andrew Reid]

I sold my a1 the other week, to raise some money which I immediately spent on sweeties and trawling Berlin for vintage PC parts.

A fine investment if ever I made one.

The problem is I now have absolutely no Sony cameras, at least no full frame ones. For some reason I refuse to part with my old a6500 as it has a nice wooden grip and feels funky.

The choice now is between 1200-1800 euros on a full frame a7-something.

I don't want to spend another 5 grand.

So I've been eying up an a7 IV and an a9. The a9 for me is the better stills camera - it's way faster - however on the video side it only has the old Sony colour profiles and the lightweight 8bit codec. Actually 8bit I am sort-of-ok with, it is the lack of Picture Profiles that lets it down more. The a9 can be had for around 1500 euros / $ on eBay or £1300 in the UK in good condition.

The a7 IV has a lot of rolling shutter, a rather clunky sounding mechanical shutter and quite a slow sensor in general so 4K/60p has to be a crop.

It does however have a lot else going for it... And the new ergonomics are a big step forward for Sony.

The a7r III is another I'm considering... Ergonomics are sort of half way between the older a7s II and new a7 IV - that is it to say, not bad but buttons feel worse and the grip is smaller.

It has S-LOG 3 and HLG / REC 2020, fine for 4K/24p, the moire isn't that bad, it's great in low light considering the megapixel count, 12,800 very usable, S35 crop mode very sharp... Can't remember if it has clear image zoom in 4K for 2x crop Super 16mm c-mount lenses... Does a7 IV?

Thing is a7r III is a bargain at 1200... So I am very tempted.

Spend extra 500-600 for a7 IV or maybe get neither and go with something else?

[BTM_Pix]

The a7IV comes off pretty well in this video.

Mind you, so does everything he shoots with !

 

 

[DanielVranic]

I bought an A7Cii + 20-70 F4 G purely for travel use, and its since become my main camera for everything.

The jump in AF quality over the A74 is notable.

[Emanuel]

What about the FX30? OK, not FF... : ) Mine is coming from FL to NJ nowadays and IMO it is the best bang for the buck capable of 4K 120fps without overheating... ; ) Well, I'd dare to say, not only to my book LOL ;- )

[eatstoomuchjam]

I don't think I've seen the ZV-E1 mentioned, but I think it falls into that price range (a bit less when used, even!).

Otherwise, the A7 IV is notorious for having really good dynamic range.  Could be worth a look.

[PannySVHS]

I've seen pro documentary work shot with the A7IV. I was amazed to hear from the DP it was the humble Dslm when I asked, if a FX6 was used. Color grading was pro too though. I was very surprised. It really looked high end. Rolling shutter on paper is pretty awful though. That's a lot of sweeties and old computer stuff you must have enjoyed so much! Right on!:) @Andrew Reid

On a side note, youtube and forum wisdom told me S1 and S1H provide a great image. While I am impressed with both, regarding absence of mush, dynamic range and robust codec, I did not fall in love with the color I was able to get out of it. It's perfectly fine but it's not exiting me under natural light conditions. So the different sensor in the A7IV might indeed be worth a look. I also liked the A7SIII when I had to color grade it.

[MrSMW]

Video or stills or both? I’m thinking both based on your own comments Andrew?

A7cii then, but I am very tempted myself with a ZV-E1 for low light stills…

Only 2 things put me off and have stopped me.

Thing 01 is low-light focus is not amazeballs compared with say a Nikon Zf and

Thing 02 is I don’t have any brass.

My vote is pick up a used Nikon Zf and use the excellent Megadap adapter for near native use.

Excellent stills and video, focus, low light, DR, IBIS.

The ONLY reason I sold it was the ergos were not quite good enough for my all day pro use with zooms and bigger lenses.

Otherwise, IMO, it’s the best ‘Sony’ camera within your budget.

I might just pick one up again for next years season. I think I just sold the idea back to myself 😂

[Andrew Reid]

So I went with the A7R III of course 🙂

The reasoning goes like this... It was 1160 euros, and the A7 IV would have been 1750. Quite a big difference.

The A7R III is a 2018 camera, and in those first EOSHD reviews it remember feeling it was a big step up from the already very good A7R II, because Sony had introduced new ergonomics, new battery, new colour science... And now they have done so again 6 years later, and the a7 IV of course has completely new Creative Styles and menus... plus 10bit and S-Cinetone, which you'd think I would consider a must-have. Thing is I don't. The new menus aren't a selling point, they're a bit of a mess. The new colour profiles are pretty decent, but I am more used to maximising what you can get out of the old ones with EOSHD Pro Color. And the A7r III when set up right has some serious mojo... Maybe a bit of a harsher highlight roll off than the A7 iv, and it doesn't grade as well in S-LOG3, but there is a part of me that doesn't care and just wants to shoot.

I tested both side by side for about an hour in the shop, sat down around a table... The a7r III autofocus was as good as I remember it... Can't really see any major improvement on the a7 IV. I tried the Clear Image zoom for Super 16mm c-mount lenses and the Super 35mm mode on the a7r III and again there was no shortcoming, and no clear advantage for the a7 IV. That's quite an important feature for me as I like the look of my c-mount stuff.

When it comes to 10bit and more dynamic range I have the GFX 100 and S1H. When I need really good AF in video mode and stills - the a7r III does the job admirably. My a7r III will be mainly for personal stuff, stills and video - with emphasis actually more on stills whereas the S1H takes up some video duties.

The video mode on the a7r III really is no slouch... I find the image really very nice in 4K full frame and S35. It also has 1080/120fps which is a nice bonus for such an aging model.

The a7r III also has a small edge over the a7 IV in low light, in both video and stills, even thought it has a higher megapixel count (42 vs 33) and is 6 years older... quite surprising.

Ergonomics wise, the a7r III is smaller, slimmer, and has an equally good EVF - you don't notice the higher res panel in the A7 IV very much as the resolution of the live-view feed doesn't quite make use of it.

So I feel good about saving the 500-600, and will one day get back into the modern Sony cameras... but for now the a7r iii does the job perfectly fine. I'd like to get an a1 again one day... When it comes down under 2.5k then I will strike. It's hard to see how they will ever better it, without a complete change in concept and technology.

By the way, I really do prefer the tilt screen on the a7r III over the social media friendly twizzle screens of late. The a7 IV just didn't feel as good to shoot with somehow, when the screen is opened up at the side off axis.

There's also no advantage in RAW quality for stills.

I appreciate the image in video mode is that bit better... A bit more dynamic range in the creative styles, a better codec, and S-Cinetone is nice to have as well.

So a pure videographer's needs may differ and that extra 600 might be worth spending.

Let's see if I regret the decision by this time next week 🙂

[PannySVHS]

I am always fond of what people are able to achieve with older 8bit pro and consumer tech. I am especially fond of seeing what the original Dslr/m artists are able to achieve. I don't want to get into fanboyism, but your Berlin piece with the GH4 is one of my all time favorite vignettes, pacing, color, light, framing...

Btw, great writeup, Andrew!😊

24 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

So I went with the A7R III of course 🙂

[BTM_Pix]

28 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

So I feel good about saving the 500-600

Which, on current form, you will immediately spend on this !

[Andrew Reid]

Does it play Holiday Lemmings?

[FHDcrew]

49 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

So I went with the A7R III of course 🙂

The reasoning goes like this... It was 1160 euros, and the A7 IV would have been 1750. Quite a big difference.

The A7R III is a 2018 camera, and in those first EOSHD reviews it remember feeling it was a big step up from the already very good A7R II, because Sony had introduced new ergonomics, new battery, new colour science... And now they have done so again 6 years later, and the a7 IV of course has completely new Creative Styles and menus... plus 10bit and S-Cinetone, which you'd think I would consider a must-have. Thing is I don't. The new menus aren't a selling point, they're a bit of a mess. The new colour profiles are pretty decent, but I am more used to maximising what you can get out of the old ones with EOSHD Pro Color. And the A7r III when set up right has some serious mojo... Maybe a bit of a harsher highlight roll off than the A7 iv, and it doesn't grade as well in S-LOG3, but there is a part of me that doesn't care and just wants to shoot.

I tested both side by side for about an hour in the shop, sat down around a table... The a7r III autofocus was as good as I remember it... Can't really see any major improvement on the a7 IV. I tried the Clear Image zoom for Super 16mm c-mount lenses and the Super 35mm mode on the a7r III and again there was no shortcoming, and no clear advantage for the a7 IV. That's quite an important feature for me as I like the look of my c-mount stuff.

When it comes to 10bit and more dynamic range I have the GFX 100 and S1H. When I need really good AF in video mode and stills - the a7r III does the job admirably. My a7r III will be mainly for personal stuff, stills and video - with emphasis actually more on stills whereas the S1H takes up some video duties.

The video mode on the a7r III really is no slouch... I find the image really very nice in 4K full frame and S35. It also has 1080/120fps which is a nice bonus for such an aging model.

The a7r III also has a small edge over the a7 IV in low light, in both video and stills, even thought it has a higher megapixel count (42 vs 33) and is 6 years older... quite surprising.

Ergonomics wise, the a7r III is smaller, slimmer, and has an equally good EVF - you don't notice the higher res panel in the A7 IV very much as the resolution of the live-view feed doesn't quite make use of it.

So I feel good about saving the 500-600, and will one day get back into the modern Sony cameras... but for now the a7r iii does the job perfectly fine. I'd like to get an a1 again one day... When it comes down under 2.5k then I will strike. It's hard to see how they will ever better it, without a complete change in concept and technology.

By the way, I really do prefer the tilt screen on the a7r III over the social media friendly twizzle screens of late. The a7 IV just didn't feel as good to shoot with somehow, when the screen is opened up at the side off axis.

There's also no advantage in RAW quality for stills.

I appreciate the image in video mode is that bit better... A bit more dynamic range in the creative styles, a better codec, and S-Cinetone is nice to have as well.

So a pure videographer's needs may differ and that extra 600 might be worth spending.

Let's see if I regret the decision by this time next week 🙂

I filmed recently on a Sony a7iii with modified slog2. Color mode set to ITU709. Graded with. Resolve CST. Nail your white balance and your skin tone is honestly really solid. Sony 8 bit does have legs in 2024. 

[eatstoomuchjam]

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Which, on current form, you will immediately spend on this !

 

The most surprising part?  35 people have viewed that in the last 24 hours.

[IronFilm]

17 hours ago, Emanuel said:

What about the FX30?

That's my thoughts too, as no camera will be perfect on a budget (heck, even with unlimited budgets, cameras are still not perfect!). 

So I'd loosen up on a requirement, such as FF, and get the Sony FX30, the very best S35 camera made by Sony for filming with that won't also require an AC. 

[Andrew Reid]

It's a good value option for many but FX30 doesn't cut it for stills duties...

No EVF, no mechanical shutter, no full frame coverage.

The 4K/120 comes with a huge extra 1.6x crop on top of a 1.5x crop. Aside from less rolling shutter, the overall image isn't better than the A7 IV for video - and that's cheaper used.

Also the Fuji X-H2 is superior for less money too - you get a lot more features overall.

[Andrew Reid]

On 9/18/2024 at 12:58 PM, BTM_Pix said:

The a7IV comes off pretty well in this video.

Mind you, so does everything he shoots with !

 

 

Holy crap did he put some effort into that.

Quite amazing really isn't it?

A bargain a7 iv just popped up for 1400 euros with the kit zoom... A may have to snaffle it up.

Have you noticed that very few people have actually SHOWN the difference between the old and new colour science, or the old 8bit and new 10bit codec in any meaningful way.

Could be an interesting comparison between the a7 iv and a7r iii to do a dive into that on EOSHD.

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Have you noticed that very few people have actually SHOWN the difference between the old and new colour science, or the old 8bit and new 10bit codec in any meaningful way.

A lot of folks seem to poop on Sony for video when comparing it to some others, but in recent years, I think that is not the case anymore? From what I have seen… There used to be that odd green cast thing going on, but not anymore and I think they lost that when jumping to 10bit?

Depending on what/if happens with L Mount over the Winter, ie, any S1 line replacement, I might just go all in on Sony next year…

I don’t need to and very happy with my current set up of L Mount for video and Sony for stills, but having worked with that for a few months now, realise I could improve upon that set up both financially and logistically, by going all in on Sony.

No rush, we’ll see, but no issues with what’s coming out of recent Sony cameras for the last few years.