A7Riii impressions

I walked into a shop to buy a A7iii on Black Friday and, guess what, the retailer had a special offer on the A7Riii so I succumbed .. now I’ve blown my budget and need to up the lenses I’m getting ....

I got into digital cameras in the early days, with the wonderful Sony Mavica (which took 3.5” diskettes !!) and then bought a variety of models from Minolta and a Canon 40D, but IMHO it was the Canon 5D where digital photography came of age, the images of which still hold up well today. After this I pretty much went to Leica M for digital and film.

I have tried different AF solutions over the years and although enjoyed myself, I have not particularly been blown away. Recently I have tested quite a lot of the latest range:

1. Sony A7 - size was a revelation and photos lovely, but lack of silent shutter and somewhat noisy mechanical one was a downer. At the time not much 3rd party choices
2. Sony A7Rii - really liked but it chomps through batteries and felt like a bit more speed would seal the deal
3. Canon RP - Can’t get on with the DR and lens range limited to exotics
4. Nikon Z6 - lovely build and switchgear but limited lenses, issues with AF and decision to use unusually large mount (somewhat shared by the EOS-R) means lenses are all big
5. Leica SL - most beautiful (in a brutalist manner) and best joystick ever. Super sharp due to thinnest filters. However heavy and expensive, and heavy Panasonic and Leica lenses and limited premium, or SLR converted, Sigma lenses.
6. Panasonic S1. Lots to love. Only FF mirrorless with no AA filter on 24mp (apart from Leica). EVF fantastic. No PDAF so no banding. However uncomfortably heavy, no Premium 1.8 lens strategy. Limited market penetration

The A7Riii is a different league. Its amazing how far Sony has come. It feels beautiful in the hand, very premium build and super-compact. I mean a camera can always go bigger, by attaching a grip, but never smaller. The compact nature also makes it less noticeable when doing street photography, give a nice small lens like the 35mm or 55mm, etc. Shutter has improved over time but could be a bit more damped, at least full electronic shutter is available now.

The lens array, both Sony and third party is dazzling. Loads to explore ..

One just needs to become familiar with the menus and work out the shortcut buttons.

The picture quality is superb. I just get a smile on my face whenever I load up and look on my PC.

Conventional wisdom on lenses should also be taken with a pinch of salt, this is an old plastic fantastic Canon EF 1.8 Mark ii on the Sigma MC-11 at 1.8, just pin sharp:


This is directly out of the camera JPG over WiFi to my phone - raw is even sharper and more dynamic when processed

I feel the colours are devastatingly neutral and natural, rather then the attempt to look more vivid but over saturating, like some other brands. With mucking around you can match any colour scheme.

The “noise” is also wonderfully analogue.

Due to its ability to extract the best out of lenses, I am looking at a different range. I already have the 35mm f1.8 for lightweight walkabout, I will probably get the two Tamron f2.8 zooms and Sony 85 and 185mm for the moment.

I am also tempted to try some old used Canon lenses, now I have the adaptor

Loads of fun and overdrafts await ...

--
"No photograph survives first contact with the subject"

FujLiver said:

I walked into a shop to buy a A7iii on Black Friday and, guess what, the retailer had a special offer on the A7Riii so I succumbed .. now I’ve blown my budget and need to up the lenses I’m getting ....

I got into digital cameras in the early days, with the wonderful Sony Mavica (which took 3.5” diskettes !!) and then bought a variety of models from Minolta and a Canon 40D, but IMHO it was the Canon 5D where digital photography came of age, the images of which still hold up well today. After this I pretty much went to Leica M for digital and film.

I have tried different AF solutions over the years and although enjoyed myself, I have not particularly been blown away. Recently I have tested quite a lot of the latest range:

1. Sony A7 - size was a revelation and photos lovely, but lack of silent shutter and somewhat noisy mechanical one was a downer. At the time not much 3rd party choices
2. Sony A7Rii - really liked but it chomps through batteries and felt like a bit more speed would seal the deal
3. Canon RP - Can’t get on with the DR and lens range limited to exotics
4. Nikon Z6 - lovely build and switchgear but limited lenses, issues with AF and decision to use unusually large mount (somewhat shared by the EOS-R) means lenses are all big
5. Leica SL - most beautiful (in a brutalist manner) and best joystick ever. Super sharp due to thinnest filters. However heavy and expensive, and heavy Panasonic and Leica lenses and limited premium, or SLR converted, Sigma lenses.
6. Panasonic S1. Lots to love. Only FF mirrorless with no AA filter on 24mp (apart from Leica). EVF fantastic. No PDAF so no banding. However uncomfortably heavy, no Premium 1.8 lens strategy. Limited market penetration

The A7Riii is a different league. Its amazing how far Sony has come. It feels beautiful in the hand, very premium build and super-compact. I mean a camera can always go bigger, by attaching a grip, but never smaller. The compact nature also makes it less noticeable when doing street photography, give a nice small lens like the 35mm or 55mm, etc. Shutter has improved over time but could be a bit more damped, at least full electronic shutter is available now.

The lens array, both Sony and third party is dazzling. Loads to explore ..

One just needs to become familiar with the menus and work out the shortcut buttons.

The picture quality is superb. I just get a smile on my face whenever I load up and look on my PC.

Conventional wisdom on lenses should also be taken with a pinch of salt, this is an old plastic fantastic Canon EF 1.8 Mark ii on the Sigma MC-11 at 1.8, just pin sharp:


This is directly out of the camera JPG over WiFi to my phone - raw is even sharper and more dynamic when processed

I feel the colours are devastatingly neutral and natural, rather then the attempt to look more vivid but over saturating, like some other brands. With mucking around you can match any colour scheme.

The “noise” is also wonderfully analogue.

Due to its ability to extract the best out of lenses, I am looking at a different range. I already have the 35mm f1.8 for lightweight walkabout, I will probably get the two Tamron f2.8 zooms and Sony 85 and 185mm for the moment.

I am also tempted to try some old used Canon lenses, now I have the adaptor

Loads of fun and overdrafts await ...

Click to expand...

Just avoid the kit 28-70/3.5-5.6 like the plague. It's soft as a marshmallow from the APS frame on out, even stopped down. The Zeiss 24-70/4 also has a not-sterling reputation. So, I had to bite the bullet and spring for a 24-105/4.

--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jacques Cornell said:

FujLiver said:

I walked into a shop to buy a A7iii on Black Friday and, guess what, the retailer had a special offer on the A7Riii so I succumbed .. now I’ve blown my budget and need to up the lenses I’m getting ....

I got into digital cameras in the early days, with the wonderful Sony Mavica (which took 3.5” diskettes !!) and then bought a variety of models from Minolta and a Canon 40D, but IMHO it was the Canon 5D where digital photography came of age, the images of which still hold up well today. After this I pretty much went to Leica M for digital and film.

I have tried different AF solutions over the years and although enjoyed myself, I have not particularly been blown away. Recently I have tested quite a lot of the latest range:

1. Sony A7 - size was a revelation and photos lovely, but lack of silent shutter and somewhat noisy mechanical one was a downer. At the time not much 3rd party choices
2. Sony A7Rii - really liked but it chomps through batteries and felt like a bit more speed would seal the deal
3. Canon RP - Can’t get on with the DR and lens range limited to exotics
4. Nikon Z6 - lovely build and switchgear but limited lenses, issues with AF and decision to use unusually large mount (somewhat shared by the EOS-R) means lenses are all big
5. Leica SL - most beautiful (in a brutalist manner) and best joystick ever. Super sharp due to thinnest filters. However heavy and expensive, and heavy Panasonic and Leica lenses and limited premium, or SLR converted, Sigma lenses.
6. Panasonic S1. Lots to love. Only FF mirrorless with no AA filter on 24mp (apart from Leica). EVF fantastic. No PDAF so no banding. However uncomfortably heavy, no Premium 1.8 lens strategy. Limited market penetration

The A7Riii is a different league. Its amazing how far Sony has come. It feels beautiful in the hand, very premium build and super-compact. I mean a camera can always go bigger, by attaching a grip, but never smaller. The compact nature also makes it less noticeable when doing street photography, give a nice small lens like the 35mm or 55mm, etc. Shutter has improved over time but could be a bit more damped, at least full electronic shutter is available now.

The lens array, both Sony and third party is dazzling. Loads to explore ..

One just needs to become familiar with the menus and work out the shortcut buttons.

The picture quality is superb. I just get a smile on my face whenever I load up and look on my PC.

Conventional wisdom on lenses should also be taken with a pinch of salt, this is an old plastic fantastic Canon EF 1.8 Mark ii on the Sigma MC-11 at 1.8, just pin sharp:


This is directly out of the camera JPG over WiFi to my phone - raw is even sharper and more dynamic when processed

I feel the colours are devastatingly neutral and natural, rather then the attempt to look more vivid but over saturating, like some other brands. With mucking around you can match any colour scheme.

The “noise” is also wonderfully analogue.

Due to its ability to extract the best out of lenses, I am looking at a different range. I already have the 35mm f1.8 for lightweight walkabout, I will probably get the two Tamron f2.8 zooms and Sony 85 and 185mm for the moment.

I am also tempted to try some old used Canon lenses, now I have the adaptor

Loads of fun and overdrafts await ...

Click to expand...

Just avoid the kit 28-70/3.5-5.6 like the plague. It's soft as a marshmallow from the APS frame on out, even stopped down. The Zeiss 24-70/4 also has a not-sterling reputation. So, I had to bite the bullet and spring for a 24-105/4.

Click to expand...

That lens has a very good reputation but I prefer bright prime lenses.

I do want to get a f2.8 zoom but the Sony is too expensive. I might see how the new Sigma is, or get the Tamron ....

--
"No photograph survives first contact with the subject"

Nice read! I upgraded last week from a Samsung NX500 (APS-C sensor) to an A7rIII and love it. For lenses I'm starting out with Samyang's 18mm f/2.8 and 45mm f/1.8 (pics I just took with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJHHnDZ). Got my eye on the Sony 85mm f/1.8 and Tameron 28-75mm f/2.8. Also considering the Venus Laowa 105mm f/2 (T/3.2) Smooth Trans Focus (STF) Lens (https://www.adorama.com/ve105stfsofe.html) - a very interesting lens.

FujLiver said:

Jacques Cornell said:

FujLiver said:

I walked into a shop to buy a A7iii on Black Friday and, guess what, the retailer had a special offer on the A7Riii so I succumbed .. now I’ve blown my budget and need to up the lenses I’m getting ....

I got into digital cameras in the early days, with the wonderful Sony Mavica (which took 3.5” diskettes !!) and then bought a variety of models from Minolta and a Canon 40D, but IMHO it was the Canon 5D where digital photography came of age, the images of which still hold up well today. After this I pretty much went to Leica M for digital and film.

I have tried different AF solutions over the years and although enjoyed myself, I have not particularly been blown away. Recently I have tested quite a lot of the latest range:

1. Sony A7 - size was a revelation and photos lovely, but lack of silent shutter and somewhat noisy mechanical one was a downer. At the time not much 3rd party choices
2. Sony A7Rii - really liked but it chomps through batteries and felt like a bit more speed would seal the deal
3. Canon RP - Can’t get on with the DR and lens range limited to exotics
4. Nikon Z6 - lovely build and switchgear but limited lenses, issues with AF and decision to use unusually large mount (somewhat shared by the EOS-R) means lenses are all big
5. Leica SL - most beautiful (in a brutalist manner) and best joystick ever. Super sharp due to thinnest filters. However heavy and expensive, and heavy Panasonic and Leica lenses and limited premium, or SLR converted, Sigma lenses.
6. Panasonic S1. Lots to love. Only FF mirrorless with no AA filter on 24mp (apart from Leica). EVF fantastic. No PDAF so no banding. However uncomfortably heavy, no Premium 1.8 lens strategy. Limited market penetration

The A7Riii is a different league. Its amazing how far Sony has come. It feels beautiful in the hand, very premium build and super-compact. I mean a camera can always go bigger, by attaching a grip, but never smaller. The compact nature also makes it less noticeable when doing street photography, give a nice small lens like the 35mm or 55mm, etc. Shutter has improved over time but could be a bit more damped, at least full electronic shutter is available now.

The lens array, both Sony and third party is dazzling. Loads to explore ..

One just needs to become familiar with the menus and work out the shortcut buttons.

The picture quality is superb. I just get a smile on my face whenever I load up and look on my PC.

Conventional wisdom on lenses should also be taken with a pinch of salt, this is an old plastic fantastic Canon EF 1.8 Mark ii on the Sigma MC-11 at 1.8, just pin sharp:


This is directly out of the camera JPG over WiFi to my phone - raw is even sharper and more dynamic when processed

I feel the colours are devastatingly neutral and natural, rather then the attempt to look more vivid but over saturating, like some other brands. With mucking around you can match any colour scheme.

The “noise” is also wonderfully analogue.

Due to its ability to extract the best out of lenses, I am looking at a different range. I already have the 35mm f1.8 for lightweight walkabout, I will probably get the two Tamron f2.8 zooms and Sony 85 and 185mm for the moment.

I am also tempted to try some old used Canon lenses, now I have the adaptor

Loads of fun and overdrafts await ...

Click to expand...

Just avoid the kit 28-70/3.5-5.6 like the plague. It's soft as a marshmallow from the APS frame on out, even stopped down. The Zeiss 24-70/4 also has a not-sterling reputation. So, I had to bite the bullet and spring for a 24-105/4.

Click to expand...

That lens has a very good reputation but I prefer bright prime lenses.

Click to expand...

Me, too. That's my only planned zoom purchase for the near future. I will mainly use my a7R2, a7III and a7RIII with:

• Samyang 18/2.8
• Zeiss Batis 25/2
• Sony 35/1.8
• Sony 85/1.8

I'm getting the 24-105 for grip & grins and group shots (using flash) in my event work and for walk around use. Might have to get a Tamron 70-180/2.8 if it ever arrives and if I find I really need more than 105mm, which, at this point, is questionable, as crop mode makes my 85 a 130 and my 24-105 a 36-150.

FujLiver said:

I do want to get a f2.8 zoom but the Sony is too expensive. I might see how the new Sigma is, or get the Tamron ....

Click to expand...

I see f4 zooms as the natural complements to f1.8/f2.0 primes.

--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Congrats! A7r III is one of the best in market. Resolution/sharpness, DR, high ISO are fantastic. Real-time eye-AF works (that works under AF-C) beautifully.

Get some lenses. Two Tamron f2.8 zoom and 3 new f2.8 prime are very good and very affordable.

"the wonderful Sony Mavica (which took 3.5” diskettes !!"

I still have those 3.5 diskettes somewhere. What a stroll down memory lane!

WarrenPeas said:

"the wonderful Sony Mavica (which took 3.5” diskettes !!"

I still have those 3.5 diskettes somewhere. What a stroll down memory lane!

Click to expand...

so much fun! at 640x480 / VGA / 300k pixels, super high resolution

--
"No photograph survives first contact with the subject"

Side by sides - https://www.dpreview.com/products/c..._a7riii&products=sony_a7riv&sortDir=ascending

PWPhotography said:

Congrats! A7r III is one of the best in market. Resolution/sharpness, DR, high ISO are fantastic. Real-time eye-AF works (that works under AF-C) beautifully.

Get some lenses. Two Tamron f2.8 zoom and 3 new f2.8 prime are very good and very affordable.

Click to expand...

Rather than going a7(x) with f2.8 lenses, I'd go a6xxx with f4 zoom(s) and Sigma f1.4 primes. The latter will get you 2/3 of a stop more light gathering.

In terms of IQ, I just don't see any point in going 35mm format unless you're going to shoot >f2.8 lenses on it or you absolutely must have more than 24MP. Otherwise, you could get equal or better noise/DoF performance even from Micro Four Thirds with f1.4/f1.2 primes.

--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Congrats! A7r III is one of the best in market. Resolution/sharpness, DR, high ISO are fantastic. Real-time eye-AF works (that works under AF-C) beautifully.

Get some lenses. Two Tamron f2.8 zoom and 3 new f2.8 prime are very good and very affordable.

Click to expand...

Rather than going a7(x) with f2.8 lenses, I'd go a6xxx with f4 zoom(s) and Sigma f1.4 primes. The latter will get you 2/3 of a stop more light gathering.

Click to expand...

But F1.4 APS-C lenses are only eq to FF f2.1 in both DOF and total light collection as FF sensor is better than APS-C in 1.5-stop DR and high ISO. There are plenty of F1.8 prime or even faster FF lenses available. F2.8 FF lenses are only one-stop slower in equivalence than f1.4 lenses on APS-C then don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage over APS-C in low light (and DR), so still wins.

Jacques Cornell said:

In terms of IQ, I just don't see any point in going 35mm format unless you're going to shoot >f2.8 lenses on it or you absolutely must have more than 24MP. Otherwise, you could get equal or better noise/DoF performance even from Micro Four Thirds with f1.4/f1.2 primes.

Click to expand...

Why overstate fast aperture that are only for shallow DOF or in low-light hand-held? Otherwise at base ISO a FF sensor has 1.5-stop better DR in landscape type photos where you usually shoot on tripod and slow down, so fast aperture is moot there.

Bear in mind that FF sensor advantage is not just in high ISO but also in base ISO - DR, SNR, MTF-50 resolution/sharpness, color tonality. I personally shoot most my photos at base ISO either hand-held in good light or on tripod in dim light where large sensor matters in every aspect.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

PWPhotography said:

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Congrats! A7r III is one of the best in market. Resolution/sharpness, DR, high ISO are fantastic. Real-time eye-AF works (that works under AF-C) beautifully.

Get some lenses. Two Tamron f2.8 zoom and 3 new f2.8 prime are very good and very affordable.

Click to expand...

Rather than going a7(x) with f2.8 lenses, I'd go a6xxx with f4 zoom(s) and Sigma f1.4 primes. The latter will get you 2/3 of a stop more light gathering.

Click to expand...

But F1.4 APS-C lenses are only eq to FF f2.1 in both DOF and total light collection

Click to expand...

which is significantly better than f2.8 on 35mm format, exactly the point I was making.

PWPhotography said:

as FF sensor is better than APS-C in 1.5-stop DR

Click to expand...

perhaps

PWPhotography said:

and high ISO

Click to expand...

Um, no. See above.

PWPhotography said:

. There are plenty of F1.8 prime or even faster FF lenses available.

Click to expand...

I was talking about f2.8 lenses on 35mm format.

PWPhotography said:

F2.8 FF lenses are only one-stop slower in equivalence than f1.4 lenses on APS-C

Click to expand...

One stop slower is...one stop slower, the point I was originally making.

PWPhotography said:

then don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage over APS-C in low light

Click to expand...

No.

PWPhotography said:

(and DR), so still wins.

Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself and not making any sense at all.

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

In terms of IQ, I just don't see any point in going 35mm format unless you're going to shoot >f2.8 lenses on it or you absolutely must have more than 24MP. Otherwise, you could get equal or better noise/DoF performance even from Micro Four Thirds with f1.4/f1.2 primes.

Click to expand...

Why overstate fast aperture that are only for shallow DOF or in low-light hand-held? Otherwise at base ISO a FF sensor has 1.5-stop better DR in landscape type photos where you usually shoot on tripod and slow down, so fast aperture is moot there.

Bear in mind that FF sensor advantage is not just in high ISO but also in base ISO - DR, SNR, MTF-50 resolution/sharpness, color tonality. I personally shoot most my photos at base ISO either hand-held in good light or on tripod in dim light where large sensor matters in every aspect.

Click to expand...

I get the feeling you didn't really read my post before responding.

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Congrats! A7r III is one of the best in market. Resolution/sharpness, DR, high ISO are fantastic. Real-time eye-AF works (that works under AF-C) beautifully.

Get some lenses. Two Tamron f2.8 zoom and 3 new f2.8 prime are very good and very affordable.

Click to expand...

Rather than going a7(x) with f2.8 lenses, I'd go a6xxx with f4 zoom(s) and Sigma f1.4 primes. The latter will get you 2/3 of a stop more light gathering.

Click to expand...

But F1.4 APS-C lenses are only eq to FF f2.1 in both DOF and total light collection

Click to expand...

which is significantly better than f2.8 on 35mm format, exactly the point I was making.

Click to expand...

Better on what? Not in IQ. Sure it has only one-stop total light comparison in equivalence. But FF sensor is 1.5-stop better in DR and high-ISO. A f2.8 lens such as with FE 35/2.8 ZA that is only average in sharpness, but I don't think those Sigma F1.4 prime on an A6xxx body can deliver in such sharpness at 42mp size or even if we compare at 24mp size.


FE 35/2.8 ZA in full size

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

as FF sensor is better than APS-C in 1.5-stop DR

Click to expand...

perhaps

Click to expand...

Scientifically tested and confirmed, not perhaps.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony ILCE-6400,Sony ILCE-7M3,Sony ILCE-7RM3

Or you can use DPR Exposure Latitude tool to check

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

and high ISO

Click to expand...

Um, no. See above.

Click to expand...

What? Check DPR studio test, again scientifically tested and confirmed,

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...4&x=-0.10837714313131623&y=-1.021434644537382

You see A7 III and A7r III ISO 6400 cleanness/detail is between A6400/A6500 ISO 1600 and 3200, roughly about 1.5 stop advantage as in DR.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

. There are plenty of F1.8 prime or even faster FF lenses available.

Click to expand...

I was talking about f2.8 lenses on 35mm format.

Click to expand...

Yeas I have already explained. Wide open aperture such as F2.8 is not directly related to resolution/sharpness and DR. It's only wide open but don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage in high ISOs and DR. My Loxia 21 is f2.8 wide open but in landscape type photos it delivers such sharpness at f5.6 that none of those Sigma f1.4 APS-C lenses on APS-C sensors can match.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

F2.8 FF lenses are only one-stop slower in equivalence than f1.4 lenses on APS-C

Click to expand...

One stop slower is...one stop slower, the point I was originally making.

Click to expand...

Don't forget equivalence. If you are not familiar, then this DPR article should help you to understand. Otherwise the built-in lens (F2.4-4.0) in Sony RX 10 IV at FF eq 600mm with F4.0 has the same performance as very bulky and expensive FE 600/4.0 GM @F4.0? Two f4.0 has same performance?

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

then don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage over APS-C in low light

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

Scientific test has proved it's right.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

(and DR), so still wins.

Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself and not making any sense at all.

Click to expand...

Please understand equivalence. F1.4 lens on APS-C doesn't have the same performance of F1.4 lens on a FF or even F2.8 lens in DR, MTF-50 sharpness/resolution, SNR, high ISO ... F1.4 doesn't help a smaller sensor if you need to lift shadow many stops and recover highlight for example. Again wide open aperture is not directly related to optical performance and IQ on respective sensor.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

In terms of IQ, I just don't see any point in going 35mm format unless you're going to shoot >f2.8 lenses on it or you absolutely must have more than 24MP. Otherwise, you could get equal or better noise/DoF performance even from Micro Four Thirds with f1.4/f1.2 primes.

Click to expand...

Why overstate fast aperture that are only for shallow DOF or in low-light hand-held? Otherwise at base ISO a FF sensor has 1.5-stop better DR in landscape type photos where you usually shoot on tripod and slow down, so fast aperture is moot there.

Bear in mind that FF sensor advantage is not just in high ISO but also in base ISO - DR, SNR, MTF-50 resolution/sharpness, color tonality. I personally shoot most my photos at base ISO either hand-held in good light or on tripod in dim light where large sensor matters in every aspect.

Click to expand...

I get the feeling you didn't really read my post before responding.

Click to expand...

It seems you are lacking of understanding in equivalence. Bear in mind that sensor size is the decisive factor in the same or close sensor technology. Usually an inferior lens on a FF sensor still generates sharper photos and resolve more details than a superior lens on an AFS-C sensor. Check DXO lens+sensor tests all proved that.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

PWPhotography said:

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Congrats! A7r III is one of the best in market. Resolution/sharpness, DR, high ISO are fantastic. Real-time eye-AF works (that works under AF-C) beautifully.

Get some lenses. Two Tamron f2.8 zoom and 3 new f2.8 prime are very good and very affordable.

Click to expand...

Rather than going a7(x) with f2.8 lenses, I'd go a6xxx with f4 zoom(s) and Sigma f1.4 primes. The latter will get you 2/3 of a stop more light gathering.

Click to expand...

But F1.4 APS-C lenses are only eq to FF f2.1 in both DOF and total light collection

Click to expand...

which is significantly better than f2.8 on 35mm format, exactly the point I was making.

Click to expand...

Better on what?

Click to expand...

Light gathering. I was very specific in my first post. You obviously didn't read it and are simply grinding an axe, hammering on about DR and ignoring my comments on noise and DoF and my clear indication that I was talking about APS and 35mm format sensors with similar pixel counts. I'm not even going to read or respond to the rest of your diatribe below. Bye.

PWPhotography said:

Not in IQ. Sure it has only one-stop total light comparison in equivalence. But FF sensor is 1.5-stop better in DR and high-ISO. A f2.8 lens such as with FE 35/2.8 ZA that is only average in sharpness, but I don't think those Sigma F1.4 prime on an A6xxx body can deliver in such sharpness at 42mp size or even if we compare at 24mp size.

FE 35/2.8 ZA in full size

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

as FF sensor is better than APS-C in 1.5-stop DR

Click to expand...

perhaps

Click to expand...

Scientifically tested and confirmed, not perhaps.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony ILCE-6400,Sony ILCE-7M3,Sony ILCE-7RM3

Or you can use DPR Exposure Latitude tool to check

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

and high ISO

Click to expand...

Um, no. See above.

Click to expand...

What? Check DPR studio test, again scientifically tested and confirmed,

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...4&x=-0.10837714313131623&y=-1.021434644537382

You see A7 III and A7r III ISO 6400 cleanness/detail is between A6400/A6500 ISO 1600 and 3200, roughly about 1.5 stop advantage as in DR.

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

. There are plenty of F1.8 prime or even faster FF lenses available.

Click to expand...

I was talking about f2.8 lenses on 35mm format.

Click to expand...

Yeas I have already explained. Wide open aperture such as F2.8 is not directly related to resolution/sharpness and DR. It's only wide open but don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage in high ISOs and DR. My Loxia 21 is f2.8 wide open but in landscape type photos it delivers such sharpness at f5.6 that none of those Sigma f1.4 APS-C lenses on APS-C sensors can match.

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

F2.8 FF lenses are only one-stop slower in equivalence than f1.4 lenses on APS-C

Click to expand...

One stop slower is...one stop slower, the point I was originally making.

Click to expand...

Don't forget equivalence. If you are not familiar, then this DPR article should help you to understand. Otherwise the built-in lens (F2.4-4.0) in Sony RX 10 IV at FF eq 600mm with F4.0 has the same performance as very bulky and expensive FE 600/4.0 GM @F4.0? Two f4.0 has same performance?

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

then don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage over APS-C in low light

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

Scientific test has proved it's right.

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

(and DR), so still wins.

Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself and not making any sense at all.

Click to expand...

Please understand equivalence. F1.4 lens on APS-C doesn't have the same performance of F1.4 lens on a FF or even F2.8 lens in DR, MTF-50 sharpness/resolution, SNR, high ISO ... F1.4 doesn't help a smaller sensor if you need to lift shadow many stops and recover highlight for example. Again wide open aperture is not directly related to optical performance and IQ on respective sensor.

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

In terms of IQ, I just don't see any point in going 35mm format unless you're going to shoot >f2.8 lenses on it or you absolutely must have more than 24MP. Otherwise, you could get equal or better noise/DoF performance even from Micro Four Thirds with f1.4/f1.2 primes.

Click to expand...

Why overstate fast aperture that are only for shallow DOF or in low-light hand-held? Otherwise at base ISO a FF sensor has 1.5-stop better DR in landscape type photos where you usually shoot on tripod and slow down, so fast aperture is moot there.

Bear in mind that FF sensor advantage is not just in high ISO but also in base ISO - DR, SNR, MTF-50 resolution/sharpness, color tonality. I personally shoot most my photos at base ISO either hand-held in good light or on tripod in dim light where large sensor matters in every aspect.

Click to expand...

I get the feeling you didn't really read my post before responding.

Click to expand...

It seems you are lacking of understanding in equivalence. Bear in mind that sensor size is the decisive factor in the same or close sensor technology. Usually an inferior lens on a FF sensor still generates sharper photos and resolve more details than a superior lens on an AFS-C sensor. Check DXO lens+sensor tests all proved that.

Click to expand...

--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Jacques Cornell said:

PWPhotography said:

Congrats! A7r III is one of the best in market. Resolution/sharpness, DR, high ISO are fantastic. Real-time eye-AF works (that works under AF-C) beautifully.

Get some lenses. Two Tamron f2.8 zoom and 3 new f2.8 prime are very good and very affordable.

Click to expand...

Rather than going a7(x) with f2.8 lenses, I'd go a6xxx with f4 zoom(s) and Sigma f1.4 primes. The latter will get you 2/3 of a stop more light gathering.

Click to expand...

But F1.4 APS-C lenses are only eq to FF f2.1 in both DOF and total light collection

Click to expand...

which is significantly better than f2.8 on 35mm format, exactly the point I was making.

Click to expand...

Better on what?

Click to expand...

Light gathering. I was very specific in my first post. You obviously didn't read it and are simply grinding an axe, hammering on about DR and ignoring my comments on noise and DoF and my clear indication that I was talking about APS and 35mm format sensors with similar pixel counts. I'm not even going to read or respond to the rest of your diatribe below. Bye.

Click to expand...

But I have explained to you that F1.4 although is still F1.4 in exposure but not the same in total light collection that related to sensor size. Please read this DPR article carefully that is what I have tried to explained to you.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

F1.4 APS-C lens is only equivalent to F2.1 FF lens in both DOF and total light collection, not only there is FL but also aperture equivalence. If you compare a f1.4 APS-C to a f1.4 FF lens, you will find the f1.4 FF lens opens bigger than APS-C both at f1.4 wide open. So in this case, F1.4 lenses on an APS-C sensor do have about one-stop total light collection over a F2.8 lens on a FF sensor. But then FF sensor has 1.5-stop high ISO and DR advantage over APS-C sensor that is scientifically tested and confirmed, that effectively overcome the one-stop total light disadvantage and still gains about half stop, simple math.

But then you only shoot the lenses in wide open in low light hand-held? Do you shoot in landscape at base ISO that usually stop down a bit. Then lens wide open aperture is not directly related to DR and MTF-50 resolution/sharpness, SNR, color tonality etc, right? An IQ includes all these factors.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Not in IQ. Sure it has only one-stop total light comparison in equivalence. But FF sensor is 1.5-stop better in DR and high-ISO. A f2.8 lens such as with FE 35/2.8 ZA that is only average in sharpness, but I don't think those Sigma F1.4 prime on an A6xxx body can deliver in such sharpness at 42mp size or even if we compare at 24mp size.

FE 35/2.8 ZA in full size

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

as FF sensor is better than APS-C in 1.5-stop DR

Click to expand...

perhaps

Click to expand...

Scientifically tested and confirmed, not perhaps.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony ILCE-6400,Sony ILCE-7M3,Sony ILCE-7RM3

Or you can use DPR Exposure Latitude tool to check

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

and high ISO

Click to expand...

Um, no. See above.

Click to expand...

What? Check DPR studio test, again scientifically tested and confirmed,

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...4&x=-0.10837714313131623&y=-1.021434644537382

You see A7 III and A7r III ISO 6400 cleanness/detail is between A6400/A6500 ISO 1600 and 3200, roughly about 1.5 stop advantage as in DR.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

. There are plenty of F1.8 prime or even faster FF lenses available.

Click to expand...

I was talking about f2.8 lenses on 35mm format.

Click to expand...

Yeas I have already explained. Wide open aperture such as F2.8 is not directly related to resolution/sharpness and DR. It's only wide open but don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage in high ISOs and DR. My Loxia 21 is f2.8 wide open but in landscape type photos it delivers such sharpness at f5.6 that none of those Sigma f1.4 APS-C lenses on APS-C sensors can match.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

F2.8 FF lenses are only one-stop slower in equivalence than f1.4 lenses on APS-C

Click to expand...

One stop slower is...one stop slower, the point I was originally making.

Click to expand...

Don't forget equivalence. If you are not familiar, then this DPR article should help you to understand. Otherwise the built-in lens (F2.4-4.0) in Sony RX 10 IV at FF eq 600mm with F4.0 has the same performance as very bulky and expensive FE 600/4.0 GM @F4.0? Two f4.0 has same performance?

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

then don't forget FF sensor has 1.5-stop advantage over APS-C in low light

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

Scientific test has proved it's right.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

(and DR), so still wins.

Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself and not making any sense at all.

Click to expand...

Please understand equivalence. F1.4 lens on APS-C doesn't have the same performance of F1.4 lens on a FF or even F2.8 lens in DR, MTF-50 sharpness/resolution, SNR, high ISO ... F1.4 doesn't help a smaller sensor if you need to lift shadow many stops and recover highlight for example. Again wide open aperture is not directly related to optical performance and IQ on respective sensor.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

In terms of IQ, I just don't see any point in going 35mm format unless you're going to shoot >f2.8 lenses on it or you absolutely must have more than 24MP. Otherwise, you could get equal or better noise/DoF performance even from Micro Four Thirds with f1.4/f1.2 primes.

Click to expand...

Why overstate fast aperture that are only for shallow DOF or in low-light hand-held? Otherwise at base ISO a FF sensor has 1.5-stop better DR in landscape type photos where you usually shoot on tripod and slow down, so fast aperture is moot there.

Bear in mind that FF sensor advantage is not just in high ISO but also in base ISO - DR, SNR, MTF-50 resolution/sharpness, color tonality. I personally shoot most my photos at base ISO either hand-held in good light or on tripod in dim light where large sensor matters in every aspect.

Click to expand...

I get the feeling you didn't really read my post before responding.

Click to expand...

It seems you are lacking of understanding in equivalence. Bear in mind that sensor size is the decisive factor in the same or close sensor technology. Usually an inferior lens on a FF sensor still generates sharper photos and resolve more details than a superior lens on an AFS-C sensor. Check DXO lens+sensor tests all proved that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums