Sony A7III

Shot my first wedding with it on Friday, camera and lens (50/1.4 CZ) passed with flying colours.

Raymond Lin wrote in post #18624955
Shot my first wedding with it on Friday, camera and lens (50/1.4 CZ) passed with flying colours.

Flying "Sony" colors?

I've been considering the jump to full frame. I have canon cameras and glass which I understand can be adapted to the sony e-mount cameras. From some quick browsing around, it looks as though canon L lenses work just fine when adapted to sony. Originally I'm thinking canon ff cameras, obviously. I never even considered a mirrorless camera tbh. Honestly i like the size and weight of DSLRs. So I've not given mirrorless a fair shake. But after reading through the specs on both the A7III and A7RIII, I'm blown away! Price considered, that's a hell of a lot of camera for the money! Canon can't touch those kinds of specs (over all) until your up around 4-5k. But...I have a few questions from people who've used this camera.

Firstly what is the main difference between A7 and A7R? The 40 some odd MP doesn't impress me. That's just shy of medium format. I'm not printing billboards. Also 10 fps vs 12...meh, 10 is really plenty. If I can't get the shot with a 10 shot burst, and extra 2 frames is just a waste. Hows the auto focus compare? I shoot mostly motorsports any more. Mostly predictable movement. From an amateur standpoint. So, wherever spectators are allowed to be. Maybe I try bif once in awhile. And some other stuff, where AF tracking isn't a big deal. It's worth noting that I only use the viewfinder when I shoot action. Or anything other than long exposure for that matter.

Another thing I'm curious about is high ISO performance. I realize the term "acceptable noise" is subjective. But what would you guys/gals say is the highest acceptable ISO for this camera? Any high ISO samples? Like 24k and better? Didn't notice any in this thread. Maybe I just scrolled past and didn't realize.

Thank you for your help. Seems I need to pay more attention to the mirrorless market.

Even though I already have the camera, I still enjoy watching reviews for it. Interestingly, one review I watched mentioned that you can use 1fps video mode to do time lapses.

Has anyone tried this?

Watch

Dlee13 wrote in post #18625396
Even though I already have the camera, I still enjoy watching reviews for it. Interestingly, one review I watched mentioned that you can use 1fps video mode to do time lapses.

Has anyone tried this?

Watch ijustine’s review of it, it’s SNQ mode.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18625396
Even though I already have the camera, I still enjoy watching reviews for it. Interestingly, one review I watched mentioned that you can use 1fps video mode to do time lapses.

Has anyone tried this?

I havent shot anything serious with it, but it can be limiting in options, and the output is only 1080 ugh. Not that 1080 is bad, but the camera does amazing 4K so why not? I'de like the option of an true intervalometer to stack starscapes, dont like carrying around extra stuff for that.

Cormac wrote in post #18625256
I've been considering the jump to full frame. I have canon cameras and glass which I understand can be adapted to the sony e-mount cameras. From some quick browsing around, it looks as though canon L lenses work just fine when adapted to sony. Originally I'm thinking canon ff cameras, obviously. I never even considered a mirrorless camera tbh. Honestly i like the size and weight of DSLRs. So I've not given mirrorless a fair shake. But after reading through the specs on both the A7III and A7RIII, I'm blown away! Price considered, that's a hell of a lot of camera for the money! Canon can't touch those kinds of specs (over all) until your up around 4-5k. But...I have a few questions from people who've used this camera.

Firstly what is the main difference between A7 and A7R? The 40 some odd MP doesn't impress me. That's just shy of medium format. I'm not printing billboards. Also 10 fps vs 12...meh, 10 is really plenty. If I can't get the shot with a 10 shot burst, and extra 2 frames is just a waste. Hows the auto focus compare? I shoot mostly motorsports any more. Mostly predictable movement. From an amateur standpoint. So, wherever spectators are allowed to be. Maybe I try bif once in awhile. And some other stuff, where AF tracking isn't a big deal. It's worth noting that I only use the viewfinder when I shoot action. Or anything other than long exposure for that matter.

Another thing I'm curious about is high ISO performance. I realize the term "acceptable noise" is subjective. But what would you guys/gals say is the highest acceptable ISO for this camera? Any high ISO samples? Like 24k and better? Didn't notice any in this thread. Maybe I just scrolled past and didn't realize.

Thank you for your help. Seems I need to pay more attention to the mirrorless market.

As someone who has recently added a Sony A7 III to my kit, I think you might need to do a little more research to figure out if Sony is right for you. It’s a very different camera than a DLSR, and takes quite a bit of setup/customization to get it working similar to a Canon body.

First, Canon L lenses (in my experience) do work “fine” for many situations, but they’re generally not quite as fast as on a Canon body. The big exception to that is tracking or shooting action. For slow moving subjects, portraits, landscapes, etc., you’d be perfectly fine adapting, but for motorsports or BIF, forget about it... you’ll want a Sony native lens for that, at least at this point. It seems the best experience is from Sigma lenses on the Sigma MC-11 adapter. Canon lenses on the Metabones V is generally seen as better if you have all Canon glass, but there are a few who have better luck with the MC-11. It’s pretty much a crap shoot as to which lens works better with which adapter, but I don’t think any will give you reliable AF tracking for moving subjects. The Metabones V and my 70-200 vII certainly aren’t up to the task of shooting action on my A7 III. That said, EyeAF works well with all of my Canon glass. You lose a bunch of the focus modes available with native Sony glass with the Metabones when not in “advanced mode”... but that mode is pretty useless in my tests. The MC-11 is supposed to activate these modes and act native with Sigma glass, but I have no experience with that. I can say AF with Sony native lenses is at least on par with the 5D3/7D2, probably better. I’ve only had it for a week, so I’m still testing it out and learning it... but I’ve been impressed with what I’ve seen so far. I’ve only used the 28-70 kit lens and the 70-200 G-master, so I don’t have much experience with E-mount glass.

Don’t get too caught up on the value of the body (I agree Canon will likely not compete anywhere near this price for the same features for quite some time). From what I’ve seen, most people who go the Sony route eventually end up with Sony glass... and you’ll quickly negate any money savings once that happens. The whole “mirrorless is smaller/lighter” argument goes away if you’re going to be using pro level glass as well. All of the Sony GM (G Master) lenses (L equivalents in Sony terms) are all just as big and heavy, and usually more expensive than Canon... sometimes considerably more so. Yes, you can get smaller/lighter if you go for things like f/4 zooms and not-so-fast primes like 1.8’s instead of the usual 1.2 or 1.4 we’re used to with Canon L’s. The Tamron 28-75 is interesting because it makes some compromises in focal length to make a smaller/lighter standard 2.8 zoom lens. It’s also very affordable at ~$800, especially compared to the 24-70 2.8 G-master.

If you’re not primarily a viewfinder shooter, then you’ll not be using one of the BIG advantages of mirrorless IMO. One of the great things about them is the ability to see what you’re going to get in the viewfinder before you shoot the shot, even outdoors in the blazing sun when the rear LCD is useless. It’s also helpful and quicker shooting because instead of chimping, you can review images immediately in the viewfinder to see if you got the shot, then keep shooting without moving the camera.

The high ISO on the A7III is among the best you’re going to get in a FF camera at any price. You can search the web for reviews, examples, and comparisons to what you shoot now. It’s a big step forward from the 5D III it replaced. The sensor is probably the real star of Sony cameras. It doesn’t do quite as well as Canon with skin tones, but it’s very clean, detailed, and produces nice colors overall. I’m very happy with the output from my A7 III.

The main difference in the A7III and A7RIII is the sensor. There are some other differences like the upgraded EVF in the R3, pixel shift photo mode, no AA filter on the R3, slight differences in build quality, but there’s a better AF system (based on the A9) in the A7III. The big decision factor is generally whether you need/want 40+MP or if you can be happy with “only” 24MP. If you shoot and crop a lot, then you might be interested in the R3 because even in APS-C crop mode it still has good resolution (around 18MP I think), whereas the A7III drops to 10MP which is still pretty decent but not stellar.

Cormac wrote in post #18625256
I've been considering the jump to full frame. I have canon cameras and glass which I understand can be adapted to the sony e-mount cameras. From some quick browsing around, it looks as though canon L lenses work just fine when adapted to sony. Originally I'm thinking canon ff cameras, obviously. I never even considered a mirrorless camera tbh. Honestly i like the size and weight of DSLRs. So I've not given mirrorless a fair shake. But after reading through the specs on both the A7III and A7RIII, I'm blown away! Price considered, that's a hell of a lot of camera for the money! Canon can't touch those kinds of specs (over all) until your up around 4-5k. But...I have a few questions from people who've used this camera.

Firstly what is the main difference between A7 and A7R? The 40 some odd MP doesn't impress me. That's just shy of medium format. I'm not printing billboards. Also 10 fps vs 12...meh, 10 is really plenty. If I can't get the shot with a 10 shot burst, and extra 2 frames is just a waste. Hows the auto focus compare? I shoot mostly motorsports any more. Mostly predictable movement. From an amateur standpoint. So, wherever spectators are allowed to be. Maybe I try bif once in awhile. And some other stuff, where AF tracking isn't a big deal. It's worth noting that I only use the viewfinder when I shoot action. Or anything other than long exposure for that matter.

Another thing I'm curious about is high ISO performance. I realize the term "acceptable noise" is subjective. But what would you guys/gals say is the highest acceptable ISO for this camera? Any high ISO samples? Like 24k and better? Didn't notice any in this thread. Maybe I just scrolled past and didn't realize.

Thank you for your help. Seems I need to pay more attention to the mirrorless market.

If you're a dedicated Canon shooter just go out and buy your Sony body with sigma MC-11. Let the experiment begin!!

Be prepared to take a wild ride in potential love/hate relationship and simply adapting to a different system. You'll notice that the Sony render is real to life. Depending on your taste it can be a good thing or a "strange/odd" thing.

I've taken some time to adapt to Sony Raw files and I actually reduce contrast by -10-15 and even reduce clarity to -5. The image can be almost raw looking and not your pillowy pleasing fuji files or your typical looking Canon file. Sony has a "POP!!!!!!!!!" clarity look as if you aggressively hit a canon file with clarity and aggressive unsharp mask in photoshop.

For a long time I was able to use my standalone LR6 for my Canon and Fuji files. I use a 1TB hard drive that I use as my operating system and put my RAW workflow. I had to pay for the Adobe cloud LR classic monthly service to tolerate the sony file as I got tired of using adobe DNG converter to edit raw files in LR 6.

You can see immediately the punchy colours of Sony colour science vs Canon. You can see how drastically different Sony images compare to Canon.

Last night I tried to use my A73 with sigma adapter and Canon 35 f/2 IS with Godox flash. My daughter was positioned extremely strange in the pitch dark room with small night light. Sony A73 could not focus AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!

I grabbed my Canon 5dmk4 with slower glass (16-35 f/2.8mk2) and old 580EXii. The Canon locked of focus EFFORTLESSLY with every single shot in perfect focus. This is the kind of situation even my friend CANNOT shoot with his Sony A9 w/ batis 25 f/2.

Am I complaining???? Absolutely!!! However I own a bunch of gear and I know when and where to use it. The fact that my friend has issues with his $$$ Sony A9 with low light I knew what I was getting into buying The Sony A7iii especially using adapted glass.

I fully rely on red focus assist with speedlight when I am in low light for events. This is where my Canon fully utilizes that technology while Sony with Godox 860iiS truly is useless to me. My brutal test has proven to me personally that adapted glass with my A7iii is just not there were I can rely on my gear to AF.

Before you think.....just go out and buy it !!!! You'll just find an application that will suite your needs. Everyone has a certain application.

Just analyze the Sony thread and you'll find how much different Sony files look with human subjects. Some images can almost look overly gritty or contrasty. I find sometimes it has a hard approach in "look" when you want a more post processed sublte/easy on the eyes "look". However you'll need to figure out how to manipulate RAW files in post. I still find my Fuji and Canon a lot easier to post process human subject to look easy on the eyes and pleasing. Small aperture landscape images with Canon can look painterly or cartoonish while the sony has a crystal clear "Real" look.

It's taken me about a month to get a feel of how much i like and dislike sony. I still feel it's a great tool for me.

Call it strange but I like my fuji crop camera with 56mm over my A7iii with adapted 85Lmk2 f/1.2. I have a love/hate relationship with Fuji too.

Oddly my Canon just does 99.99999999% of my photography with ease except it's just heavier in weight.

Let your personal experience guide you in the Sony world. Be open minded since it's a different world compared to Canon.

I was curious so I just tested my sigma 135 on A7III with both the MC-11 and the MB5 in low light with moderate contrast. MC-11 made the lens hunt quite a bit, I'd say probably a good 15-20 seconds before it acquired focus. MB5, well, took less than a second lol. Of all my lenses, only the 16-35 f/4L IS works better with the MC-11, it locks up on the MB5 (it'll work fine for a few pics then the focusing will just lock up).
As for the AF, pretty far ahead of the 5D3, similar to the 5D4 with added ability to do eye AF. The 5D4 I used almost exclusively in spot focus because it could never focus where I wanted, and the coverage of spot focus within the sensor size is not very optimal even though it has more coverage than the 5D3, however on the A7III it's almost edge to edge coverage and using the wide AF works for me most of the time when I'm not using eye AF. 1 thing about eye AF is when I shoot with strobes I tend to shoot 2 stops under ambient, and that makes eye AF hunt a little more.

Based on responses I'll hold off on mirrorless for now. The value is in the bodies. But the native glass is outrageous. Plus I do still like the feel of a dslr.

Cormac wrote in post #18627121
Based on responses I'll hold off on mirrorless for now. The value is in the bodies. But the native glass is outrageous. Plus I do still like the feel of a dslr.

Looking at your existing glass, I don't understand your statement on Sony native glass. You are not using fast glass so I would think you could easily get into the more "consumer level" Sony mount glass. The Sony 70-200 f4 and 24-105 are wonderful lenses at reasonable prices.

What exactly scares you about Sony glass?

71sbeetle wrote in post #18627084
I was curious so I just tested my sigma 135 on A7III with both the MC-11 and the MB5 in low light with moderate contrast. MC-11 made the lens hunt quite a bit, I'd say probably a good 15-20 seconds before it acquired focus. MB5, well, took less than a second lol. Of all my lenses, only the 16-35 f/4L IS works better with the MC-11, it locks up on the MB5 (it'll work fine for a few pics then the focusing will just lock up).
As for the AF, pretty far ahead of the 5D3, similar to the 5D4 with added ability to do eye AF. The 5D4 I used almost exclusively in spot focus because it could never focus where I wanted, and the coverage of spot focus within the sensor size is not very optimal even though it has more coverage than the 5D3, however on the A7III it's almost edge to edge coverage and using the wide AF works for me most of the time when I'm not using eye AF. 1 thing about eye AF is when I shoot with strobes I tend to shoot 2 stops under ambient, and that makes eye AF hunt a little more.

When live-view is set to on, it focuses stopped down and at the set exposure settings, giving the AF system less light to work with. When shooting with off camera lights and underexposing the ambient you'll want to set live-view to off.

Hogloff wrote in post #18627161
Looking at your existing glass, I don't understand your statement on Sony native glass. You are not using fast glass so I would think you could easily get into the more "consumer level" Sony mount glass. The Sony 70-200 f4 and 24-105 are wonderful lenses at reasonable prices.

What exactly scares you about Sony glass?

The prices of many Sony lenses are quite decent in the USA but here in Australia it's not the same (I understand Cormac isn't in Aus). I looked and there's a $200 difference between the Canon and the Sony in the U.S but here it's a $511 difference here in Australia. Conversion can come into play sometimes but not always.

For example both the Canon 6D Mark II and A7III launcher at $1999 USD. Here in Aus, at launch you could get the Canon for as cheap as $2350 AUD but for the Sony it is more around $2850 AUD. He stores do seem to have a better relationship with Canon though so that may come into it.

Hogloff wrote in post #18627161
Looking at your existing glass, I don't understand your statement on Sony native glass. You are not using fast glass so I would think you could easily get into the more "consumer level" Sony mount glass. The Sony 70-200 f4 and 24-105 are wonderful lenses at reasonable prices.

What exactly scares you about Sony glass?

I plan to upgrade someday. Sony G series is more expensive than canon equvilant L glass.

mystik610 wrote in post #18627165
When live-view is set to on, it focuses stopped down and at the set exposure settings, giving the AF system less light to work with. When shooting with off camera lights and underexposing the ambient you'll want to set live-view to off.

Thanks ! I actually thought about that AFTER my last shoot a couple of days ago but haven't tested it yet, thank you for confirming it does work that way Time to add something else to my custom pages!