I'm not sure that's true. I don't think it's true. For example -
DPR scores the A7III significantly higher than the R for "ergonomics & handling" — that doesn't sound true at all. The R has a much better grip with room even for big lenses, better eye relief, a proper touch screen, a top LCD, a flip-out screen, an innovative control ring on the lenses, etc.
Meanwhile, many prefer a tilting screen and no top LCD, no MFn bar, a switch for on/off - especially around the shutter button, a more naturally placed AF-ON button, a joystick, and extensive customization options. DPR gave the reasons why the ergonomics just don't work for the R.
DPR scores the A7III slightly higher than the R for "viewfinder / screen rating" — despite the R having a much higher res viewfinder and better eye relief for eyeglass wearers. The R has proper touch screen functionality, while the Sony doesn't.
Can't argue with you here. That's a mystery to me.
DPR scores the A7III much higher than the R for "metering & focus accuracy" — despite the R having industry leading low light AF. (Any why they lump metering in with focus accuracy is a mystery.)
The low-light AF is fantastic for the R and it's one of the reasons I'm following the system. But, there's much more to AF than just that. In most use cases, the A7III will at least equal the R and sometimes beat it, outside of the low light focusing.
DPR scores the A7III much higher than the R for "image quality" (raw & jpg) — despite the R having a higher resolution sensor
Resolution ain't everything.
with better color for portraits.
Wait. Hard stop. Please provide your data sources for this because I can provide two blinded tests showing people prefer Sony color science over Nikon and Nikon over Canon for portraits as well as another source saying Sony's cameras render more accurate colors as well.
Apparently those extreme 6-stop pushes are heavily weighted in their judgment of image quality, but Sony's striping problem that damages some pictures doesn't affect Sony's rating at all.
You've conveniently forgotten Canon's issue with shadows.
So, I disagree. I don't think they give a good impression of what the camera does. I think they've misjudged and misrated the camera.
I don't have an opinion on it personally. That said, I don't think they've subjected it to an unusual level of scrutiny compared to other cameras, nor have they been more or less objective about it than other cameras.
As I mentioned elsewhere, their conclusion is inline with Canon's recommendation which is, if you want a Canon FF mirrorless because you have a bunch of other Canon stuff, buy it. Otherwise, don't.
Given that conclusion, how can anyone object to a rating which is,
according to DPR's camera scores & ratings , "very good to excellent"?
See:
The overall scores sit in the following very rough bands:
- 0-40% Totally unacceptable. Run away
- 41-50% Poor to Below average, avoid
- 51- 60% At best average, treat with caution
- 61-70% Average to Good
- 71-80% Very Good to Excellent
- Anything over 80%: Outstanding
I mean, this is a camera that even Canon doesn't think will attract users from outside of the Canon ecosystem. So, how could such a camera be "outstanding" and worthy of any kind of high-level recommendation (ie, silver or gold award)? Here's what they say about that...
- In simple terms, a camera awarded a Silver is well worth considering whereas a Gold-rated one should be at or near the top of your list.
These awards are meant to be hard to achieve. If a new model raises the expected performance level for a class of camera, then that's the one you need to match to get a Gold. In other words, simply doing as well as a camera that got a Gold in the past may not be sufficient.
Canon (and DPR agrees) says that this camera is for Canon users. Inversely, that means that for everyone else, it's not worth considering. So, no silver award based on DPR criteria. Additionally, according to their criteria, it simply didn't live up to what other cameras (the A7III and Z6) offer when the camera is considered in its entirety.
Look, DPR isn't telling people it's a bad camera and not to buy it. They're saying that for non-Canon folks, there are better options and for Canon folks, it's a better option than the 6D Mark II (and that's how Canon priced it, too).
Does anyone here disagree with that? Does anyone think huge groups of people should sell their Nikon DSLR system and snag this? Should huge groups of people sell their Sony gear in favor of this? Should huge groups of people sell their 5D Mark IV or 1DX Mark II and snag the R? I ask because that's who this review is targeting: huge groups of people. DPR gave their caveat stating who they thought might want to consider the R. That should be sufficient for everyone, IMO (for the 90th time - because it's the same group Canon themselves said should buy it).
) 
