Downsides of Sony A7 III vs more expensive mirrorless Sonys?

The specification sheets for these cameras are massive and I'm trying to gauge what I'd lose out on by going with the more affordable option – things I've seen so far:

• No blackout-free shooting
  
• Slower shooting speed
  
• Smaller, lower-resolution viewfinder
  
• Less weather-proof
  

Resolution, viewfinder/LCD, and potential AF-speed are the only big ones most are bringing up. Sony isn't terribly "weather-proof/resistant" to begin with so I don't think that's much of a biggie. Unless you specifically need blazing fast AF in tracking or 20fps (A9), "better" video features (A7s), or 42mp (A7r) then the A7III is IMO potentially the best camera they'll have...assuming the IQ of the final production models are up to par.

You could say the fact that it's not yet in production and had real-world testing is a downside. It should be excellent as long as they deliver…

One other thing.. the most obvious, price

That being said, the A9/A7RIII are still valued cameras at their price points, although I could well imagine we will see a price reduction on those two models soon.

I am guessing $3999 for the A9.. and $2999 for the A7RIII.

24 meg sensor verses the fantastic 42 meg sensor?

The A7 III is not 42 meg sensor. its a full frame 24 meg sensor.

My walk around is a6300 with a metabones speed booster attached so I can use my L glass on it. I absolutely love the combo..... Speed booster gives me an additional stop of speed.

For most generalized shooting the A6300 and a6500 have amazing low light performance as well as great color depth. When I switched from Canons it was the first thing I noticed when I opened images in Lightroom.... there is just so much latitude.

That said, the A7 III adds even more dynamic range, plus full frame detail. You really can't go wrong with either. The sensor in the A7 is just a newer generation and performs as much. Do you need it.... heck no. Would it be nice to have..... Heck yes. if money isn't a problem .... go with the A7. Better battery. New generation. Full frame. If you are just a rec. shooter.... the 6500 would do the job just fine. It will produce images as nice as any Canon, and its video will blow the Canons out of the water.

I hope Canon gets its act together again. I've been a loyal Canon shooter for 35 years. They just refuse to innovate.... so I bailed. I hate the Sony menus but love the output of these little cameras.

Croasdail wrote in post #18631443
The A7 III is not 42 meg sensor. its a full frame 24 meg sensor.

But the A7RIII is 42MP, and it is about $1K more expensive than the A7III.

I think it is fair to ask if there is a $1K quality/feature/tech difference.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18631888
But the A7RIII is 42MP, and it is about $1K more expensive than the A7III.

I think it is fair to ask if there is a $1K quality/feature/tech difference.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18631888
But the A7RIII is 42MP, and it is about $1K more expensive than the A7III.

I think it is fair to ask if there is a $1K quality/feature/tech difference.

If you need 42mp...then yes...otherwise no. Simple as that.

Mickeyb105 - if you need to capture noiseless images that you intend on printing on large media - then yes - The RIII sensor is way better than anything in a A6500 or A6300. I think you need to figure out what it is your are going to be shooting, and how you plan on displaying your work first..... then choose the camera that can meet those needs. How did the A7 RIII get included here anyway? The thread is about the A7 III I thought?

What do you shoot currently??

A lot of gear these days is so feature rich that the product of a camera displays the skill of the photographer. Not going to say gear doesn't help since we all know its a collective effort in gear/human to produce great images.

The A7iii is an all round fantastic camera. Is it perfect? nope....no camera is perfect so our pipe dream of a perfect camera just doesn't exist.

We all have different applications for gear. I would rather invest in another Canon 5dmk4 before spending money on a Sony A7Riii.

Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panny, Olympus etc etc all have different render in their images. If you coming from a different non Sony system there are many more factors just comparing A9 and A7Riii.

If you demand 40+MP then you have no alternative but the A7Riii. If you want your typical run of the mill 24MP sensor you have the choice of the A9 or A7iii for the most current Sony line.

If your just wanting a great camera for family documentation, video for uncle Bob's BBQ party I see not reason to spend $$$ on a Sony A9. That money can go towards you know $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Sony lenses

Do you shoot portraits? google (images) Fuji portraits, Sony portraits and canon/nikon portraits. See how the general look you'll achieve with each Camera system.

Is your post processing skills advanced? Each camera system all have different approaches to post editing. You will see exactly what I mean if you coming from a different system like Micro 4/3, Fuji, Canon etc.

My hurdle is not spending money on the A7iii. It's the demand of Pro level Gmaster glass $$ to broaden the focal ranges in the scope of what I do in my photography.

If your not hardcore into sports or super fast requirements in AF I see no point requiring the A9. The A7iii should be able to do almost identical in performance for the average demanding user. Spend your hard earned money on native glass $$.

You are the one that must decided if Sony render is exactly what you love.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18631888
But the A7RIII is 42MP, and it is about $1K more expensive than the A7III.

I think it is fair to ask if there is a $1K quality/feature/tech difference.

Fair? Fairness doesn't come into it.

You are paying for a better EVF and a larger resolution sensor, if you don't need either of those things then you save a lot of money and get a better camera.