Long time Canon user....but this A7R iii looks too good!

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18538762
I see someone who has an ill-informed opinion based on older tech.

no he is just a canon fanboy to the max and in his eyes NOTHING can beat canon at anything. Meanwhile they are using new batteries in this one and getting WAY more shots per charge

Same. Want a D850, looking to completely update/upgrade my current D800e 24-70/70-200 gen 1 lenses next month with any luck...but with Nikon being so far behind on production the A7RIII is looking like it'll be the next camera/system for me. The only thing holding me back is waiting to see what they do with an A7sIII, since I would prefer to go all in on one system for the batteries/lenses/acces​sories instead of using Panasonic for video, and Sony for stills.

And as for batteries: I had an A7 with the "crappy batteries" and averaged 700-800 shots per. I don't know why they get such bad rep...I could do professional work (well, if not for the lens selection at the time) with just one spare battery. I expect the A7RIII to get easily 1000 shots, and again, I'd only need 1 spare.

tdlavigne wrote in post #18539341
And as for batteries: I had an A7 with the "crappy batteries" and averaged 700-800 shots per. I don't know why they get such bad rep...I could do professional work (well, if not for the lens selection at the time) with just one spare battery. I expect the A7RIII to get easily 1000 shots, and again, I'd only need 1 spare.

The people giving crap about the batteries have never shot a Sony camera. They put too much weight into the CIPA ratings, which are not at all indicative of real world use. The older Sony batteries really did have less capacity than a DSLR battery though...I'd say about half. It was never a big deal, as changing batterie takes less than 10 seconds...so its not a big deal.

The new batteries are on par with DSLR's. I can get through a 12 hour wedding on two batteries on the a9/a7rIII. That's about on par with DSLRs.

mystik610 wrote in post #18539343
.... which are not at all indicative of real world use.

Which is the same thing Canon and Nikon users say about there current bodies working well for what they do.

Chet wrote in post #18539358
Which is the same thing Canon and Nikon users say about there current bodies working well for what they do.

Of course.

I'll never comment on what other people are doing, or something I've never used. I'll never use a DSLR again because the micro-focus issues are a big detriment to ME, but that doesn't apply to everyone.

But when it comes to Sony cameras, people who have never used them have all sorts of facts and opinions. i.e. all the commentary about battery life that people have been spewing for years.

That's good to hear. I find that my avg shoot for work is anywhere from 500-1500 shots (half/full day)...so I don't think battery life would be an issue even with the old ones. DSLR batteries are just ridiculously good, maybe that's why Sony haters complain. My Nikons on average last for 2 shoots (again, average of 1k or so per) before I have to change them. I still bring a backup, but can't remember the last time I've even needed to switch it out.

the air of superiority of the mac user. lighten up ladies

I was a PC user from ever since. Now using MAC for last 4 yrs, PCs feel yuck. Personally I think Sony tech is really good, the eye AF is really amazing after you try it. I wish I liked the camera feel more than the Fuji though.

Charlie wrote in post #18538662
Sony offers you an olive branch when switching, unlike other manufactures. The let you try before you buy, with the metabones and mc-11 adapters.

That is, to some extent, where I am right now. I have been using a 5D3 for the last five years and I have 7 Canon lenses, three Canon flashes and some triggers for remote ETTL flash work. So changing systems is daunting, especially for a camera system that might not do some of what I do as well (I shoot a lot of sports).

But the 5D4 doesn't really motivate me to 'upgrade' either.

I'm going to be sliding out of shooting sports in another two years when my second oldest is done with high school. The younger two are not really athletic. At that point, a mirrorless like the A7rIII looks just perfect.

I was thinking of keeping my 5D3 and zooms for sports and flash work (24-70 II, 70-200/2.8 IS II, 100-400 II, 120-300/2.8 Sport) and adding the A7rIII plus the 55/1.8 lens and a metabones adaptor.

Over the next couple years I might sell off my Canon primes and slowly slide into a set for the Sony, and then when I'm done with sports (assuming I really like the Sony performance) get out of Canon altogether.

One gap will be the flash stuff, but I guess I can use the 5D3 for flash work while I learn the Sony and see how I like it.

Can you talk more about the A7rIII and EOS lenses? What features that you like the most with the Sony are not available when using non-Sony lenses?

JeffreyG wrote in post #18539954
That is, to some extent, where I am right now. I have been using a 5D3 for the last five years and I have 7 Canon lenses, three Canon flashes and some triggers for remote ETTL flash work. So changing systems is daunting, especially for a camera system that might not do some of what I do as well (I shoot a lot of sports).

But the 5D4 doesn't really motivate me to 'upgrade' either.

I'm going to be sliding out of shooting sports in another two years when my second oldest is done with high school. The younger two are not really athletic. At that point, a mirrorless like the A7rIII looks just perfect.

I was thinking of keeping my 5D3 and zooms for sports and flash work (24-70 II, 70-200/2.8 IS II, 100-400 II, 120-300/2.8 Sport) and adding the A7rIII plus the 55/1.8 lens and a metabones adaptor.

Over the next couple years I might sell off my Canon primes and slowly slide into a set for the Sony, and then when I'm done with sports (assuming I really like the Sony performance) get out of Canon altogether.

One gap will be the flash stuff, but I guess I can use the 5D3 for flash work while I learn the Sony and see how I like it.

Can you talk more about the A7rIII and EOS lenses? What features that you like the most with the Sony are not available when using non-Sony lenses?

Generally, the longer you go in terms of focal length, the less reliable the AF gets...particularly if you need sports and wildlife caliber AF. I'm using the Canon 24-70II and Sigma 135 1.8 and on the a7rIII, those two lenses behave like they're mounted to a native Canon body. But any longer than that things get sketchy...making small adjustments while tracking is fine....the main issue is finding the subject when the lens is highly defocused, so at times you have to pre-focus the lens when using a super-tele focal length. The a9 fares better than the a7rIII here, because the PDAF system is superior.

The big upside to using EOS lenses on a sony body vs a canon body is microfocus accuracy. The front/back focus issues that plague DSLR's when shooting with a narrow DOF do not exist on the a7 bodies...so where sports AF takes a hit on AF, there is an advantage in terms critical focus accuracy for things like posed portraiture when using EF lenses on a7 bodies. Also, Eye AF with Canon glass is a beautiful thing.

In terms of ETTL lights, Godox/flashpoint lights are relatively inexpensive, and super reliable. They're worth looking into even if you stick with Canon, as the godox system is really comprehensive with strobes, mini strobes, speedlights, micro speedlights that all use the same radio trigger system.

Long time canon user, 12 years, had 20D, 30D, 40D, 5D, 5DII, 5DIII. Lots of lenses, many listed in the signature because I haven't sold them yet.

I've had about 5 days with the a7R III - some positive observations:

- Eye AF is amazing
- AF anywhere is great
- dynamic range is amazing
- battery seems very good
- very good at ISO 12800 (haven't seen the 5DIV)
- good size for me, the a7R III + FE 35f2.8 is a great walk around combo, only a bit bigger than the m5 + 22f2
- live histograms, EVF view is what will be taken
- a lot of pixels!

I haven't got my metabones yet, this is with native glass.

Negatives:
- so much configuration to learn to get it set up
- hard to know what the options actually do, not to mention the combinations
- not as weather sealed
- I'm having to sell of a lot of my Canon glass to fund the switch (very sad...)
- quite a lot of Sony glass is expensive and not as good as Canon - I hope the metabones adapter works as well as the youtube videos show

I'm pretty technical (programming, machine learning, etc) and I find the configuration stuff a lot to take in, but I was happy once I got the touch screen and eye AF to work. There are some good tutorials now on how to set up, but I miss the Canon design.

I'm annoyed at Canon for not giving me more options to stay with them. However, Eye AF is a big deal for me, it makes taking pictures more spontaneous so I'm not having to get people to stop what their doing while I focus on their eye and recompose. I compose and then start shooting.

Charlie wrote in post #18538662
Closest eye is what you want, haven't ever seen a photo where the back eye was desired.

Right on. It'd be weird to want the rear eye in focus. When would that ever happen? Maybe, like, once in every 1,000 shoots? If one does want the rear eye in focus for some kind of extremely unusual circumstance, then just don't use eye focus. For the other 99.999999999% of one's people shooting, eye focus would work perfectly.

Unfortunately, as wonderful as this eye focus seems to be, it is useless for my purposes, because I have no interest in photographing people. They really need this technology to be able to be applied to other objects, besides human eyes.

Why not have it designed so that the photographer can tell it what to track? Like, you take a shot of the thing you want it to track, such as a deer's antler bases, or a tennis ball, and then you submit that as the "object to track", and then the AF system tracks that object until you tell it to do differently. If they can do it with a human eye they can certainly do it with any other subject matter.

I want wildlife and sports to be at the very forefront of Sony's innovations, but it seems like these genres are taking a backseat to people-shooting. I mean, the eye AF and the native lens selections both seem to revolve around portraiture and other types of people photography, like weddings or whatever. Thant really sucks for me.

Charlie wrote in post #18538662
Of course Sony holds back the goods for their native lenses, but they give you a taste of what's offered.

What do you mean? Are there features that one can only use with native lenses, and that won't work with third party lenses fitted via adaptors? What are these things? Exactly what is it that Sony is holding back?

Charlie wrote in post #18538662
The buffer on the A9 is some crazy 240 files or something, and on the A7r3 is 100 files..... that's pretty darn big, and they also have a buffer life bar you can watch refill, which takes about 20 seconds on a completely depleted buffer. I don't know what competing cameras offer, but it seemed very fast.

That is incredible! This speed and buffer capacity seem to be most useful for sports and wildlife photography.

.

Charlie, can you address the following concern I have with Sony sensors? I posted this earlier, but still haven't gotten any specific responses about it. I mean, how can one be completely sure that no kind of processing is being applied to their RAW files in the camera?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18538469
I remember years ago hearing about such and such a camera having such better high ISO performance, and then the truth comes out that it really wasn't a sensor-level improvement at all, but that instead they were just applying some type of noise reduction to the files in the camera. That's right - files that were supposedly RAW files, that were being compared to other manufacturer's RAW files, were actually having some NR processing being done to them by default, in-camera, without the common user even being aware of it. Sheesh!

.

mystik610 wrote in post #18539989
Generally, the longer you go in terms of focal length, the less reliable the AF gets...particularly if you need sports and wildlife caliber AF.

That seems like an agreement that keeping the 5D3 and using that for my sports and other telephoto needs is a good plan.

I have a 50L. I was thinking of selling that and trying the 55/1.8 as a first foray into Sony native lenses. Would you expect the 55/1.8 to perform noticeable better on the A7rIII than the 50L with metabones?

In the short term I'd see myself running two bodies most the the time, with <85mm lenses mounted to the Sony and my long lenses on the 5D3.

The downside of my plan is that I spend some $3500 on another body, and still use the 5D3 for most of my most demanding poor light shooting (sports).

JeffreyG wrote in post #18539954

Charlie wrote in post #18538662
Sony offers you an olive branch when switching, unlike other manufactures. The let you try before you buy, with the metabones and mc-11 adapters.

That is, to some extent, where I am right now. I have been using a 5D3 for the last five years and I have 7 Canon lenses, three Canon flashes and some triggers for remote ETTL flash work. So changing systems is daunting, especially for a camera system that might not do some of what I do as well (I shoot a lot of sports).

But the 5D4 doesn't really motivate me to 'upgrade' either.

I'm going to be sliding out of shooting sports in another two years when my second oldest is done with high school. The younger two are not really athletic. At that point, a mirrorless like the A7rIII looks just perfect.

Imagine shooting your 24-70f2.8 ii / 35Lii / 85L/ 135L with IBIS AND eye focus. Of course Sony holds back the goods for their native lenses, but they give you a taste of what's offered.

I was thinking of keeping my 5D3 and zooms for sports and flash work (24-70 II, 70-200/2.8 IS II, 100-400 II, 120-300/2.8 Sport) and adding the A7rIII plus the 55/1.8 lens and a metabones adaptor.

Over the next couple years I might sell off my Canon primes and slowly slide into a set for the Sony, and then when I'm done with sports (assuming I really like the Sony performance) get out of Canon altogether.

One gap will be the flash stuff, but I guess I can use the 5D3 for flash work while I learn the Sony and see how I like it.

Can you talk more about the A7rIII and EOS lenses? What features that you like the most with the Sony are not available when using non-Sony lenses?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18540105
Right on. It'd be weird to want the rear eye in focus. When would that ever happen? Maybe, like, once in every 1,000 shoots? If one does want the rear eye in focus for some kind of extremely unusual circumstance, then just don't use eye focus. For the other 99.999999999% of one's people shooting, eye focus would work perfectly.

Unfortunately, as wonderful as this eye focus seems to be, it is useless for my purposes, because I have no interest in photographing people. They really need this technology to be able to be applied to other objects, besides human eyes.

Why not have it designed so that the photographer can tell it what to track? Like, you take a shot of the thing you want it to track, such as a deer's antler bases, or a tennis ball, and then you submit that as the "object to track", and then the AF system tracks that object until you tell it to do differently. If they can do it with a human eye they can certainly do it with any other subject matter.

I want wildlife and sports to be at the very forefront of Sony's innovations, but it seems like these genres are taking a backseat to people-shooting. I mean, the eye AF and the native lens selections both seem to revolve around portraiture and other types of people photography, like weddings or whatever. Thant really sucks for me.

What do you mean? Are there features that one can only use with native lenses, and that won't work with third party lenses fitted via adaptors? What are these things? Exactly what is it that Sony is holding back?

That is incredible! This speed and buffer capacity seem to be most useful for sports and wildlife photography.

.

Charlie, can you address the following concern I have with Sony sensors? I posted this earlier, but still haven't gotten any specific responses about it. I mean, how can one be completely sure that no kind of processing is being applied to their RAW files in the camera?

.

I'll try to get in as much as I can to address multiple issues.

Adapting upsides: Wide area, face tracking, eye tracking, point AF tracking, all work like native.

Adapting downsides: Video AF is useless, Tracking is limited to 10 fps on the A9 and only 3 fps on the R3. You can still shoot 20/10 respectively, but only the first frame tracked. I'm sure sony can change this, but they are in the business of selling lenses too . Generic object recognition and a few more AF modes not supported.


Object recognition, currently, only human faces. Sony can distinguish between registered faces as well. What this means that they are likely holding back some tech for animals, currently, it doesnt exist and only generic object recognition exists. With the faster cameras, this seems to work well as it figures out the object rather quickly and simply locks on. It doesnt have the precision of lock on eye focus.

Lenses native vs adapted, not applicable for Tom: I LOVE my native small lenses. They're not 1.2 or even 1.4, those dont come in fast variety unless you go MF. I was primarily a 50L user during canon days, nowadays, I waffle on 35/50. Having a small powerful system is a total delight. I'de suggest staying away with the spending 55 and try out the FE 28/2, FE 35/2.8, FE 50/1.8, and/or FE 85/1.8. Get two of these budget friendly primes, they are all very good, and stupid simple, no restrictions. I think that any Alpha kit should have two of these essentials. I happen to own all four and they're great tools when you want something small. Having a small and light kit is very important for me, as I shoot casual/travel most often. I do have heavier stuff for stage performances, but that doesnt get used nearly as often. I like having a nice camera at fine restaurants, weddings, ect. R3 + FE 35 gives me that. Toss in an $80 godox ttl flash when the lighting is horrific, I can keep that in my pocket if needed, it's very small.

Cooked raws: aside from 12 bit and uncompressed which I posted earlier, not too aware of cooking. I generally go to dxomark for cooked raw performance, their numbers seem to be more truthful. There's also an issue of color fidelity at high isos, which dxomark doesnt address. Sony's seem just as good as anything out there. That BSI sensor of the R3 is very good.

if you dont need the megapixels , go for the a9, if you do and need it for wildlife, might wait for the A9r or equivalent. Jack of all trades R2 or R3, with the R3 having a good amount more features.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18540105
Unfortunately, as wonderful as this eye focus seems to be, it is useless for my purposes, because I have no interest in photographing people. They really need this technology to be able to be applied to other objects, besides human eyes.

Why not have it designed so that the photographer can tell it what to track? Like, you take a shot of the thing you want it to track, such as a deer's antler bases, or a tennis ball, and then you submit that as the "object to track", and then the AF system tracks that object until you tell it to do differently. If they can do it with a human eye they can certainly do it with any other subject matter.

I suspect this is due to battery limitations and not so much technology. Compared to what deep neural networks can do now, training a camera for common objects in wildlife and sport would not be difficult - in 2015 deep networks became better than humans at object recognition in images. However, running the convolutional network every frame and then running autofocus based on its output requires quite a bit of computing power.

There is rapid progress being made on simplifying deep networks after training, and on 'neural processors' to make running networks more efficient on mobile devices (e.g. the iPhone X's FaceID). I think over the next 5 years 'computational photography' will apply to taking the picture and smarter auto exposure, not just fancier post-processing. Maybe on the a7R V?