A7iii vs A7Riii

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
LenRivers Senior Member • Posts: 1,384
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

Just Another Photog wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Just Another Photog wrote:

There are about 50 threads on this. Do a search for your question

Why do you think I asked the question?

I don't know why you would ask a question that has had more than 50 threads already addressing it. Go to YouTube. There is likely 100 videos on the subject.

My comment was meant to be helpful, your reply was snarky. None of us can make this decision for you. You have to decide on your own. Go look at sample images of the type of photos you take. Read opinions on websites where they specialize in comparing cameras, there are tons to research without asking the same lame question that has been asked too many times.

I shot with an A7 III for a couple of weeks before I recognized I wanted the additional pixels of the A7R III. I traded it back in and did the upgrade.

I've watched customers go into a camera store looking for the best camera available. I've watched them spend $10-$20K, and leave. They typically call me for assistance on how to use the paperweight they bought when they were use to iPhone photography.

You don't need to ask this question, the answers are all over this forum and the internet in general.

You are not following the chain correctly, you just can't hit reply to the last comment since you are replying to the OP. If not I have no idea where you are coming from

Re- read this and take a careful look how you respond to threads cause it makes NO sense !

I never asked a question!!

MattPointZero
MattPointZero Senior Member • Posts: 1,068
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii
3

nebulla wrote:

The truth is that the digital cameras being produced today are incredibly good, and the effective difference between 24 and 51 megapixels is usually, in practice, imperceivable, unless of course you crop or zoom in to where you can only see a small fraction of the full picture.

Respectfully I don't think this is right.

I agree that a 24 mp camera takes perfectly good photos and that resolution doesn't make an average photo great.  But I think a quick online search shows the R produces visibly sharper or more detailed photos that is clear to assess - I think if that detail suits your work, the R is definitely worth the extra money.  If your work doesn't need that detail, the 'softer' (which is how the difference manifests to me when you view comparable images side by side) then spend the extra on a lens!

 MattPointZero's gear list:MattPointZero's gear list
Fujifilm GFX 50S Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GF 110mm F2 Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8
JRP64
JRP64 Contributing Member • Posts: 844
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii
2

Just Another Photog wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Just Another Photog wrote:

There are about 50 threads on this. Do a search for your question

Why do you think I asked the question?

I don't know why you would ask a question that has had more than 50 threads already addressing it. Go to YouTube. There is likely 100 videos on the subject.

My comment was meant to be helpful, your reply was snarky. None of us can make this decision for you. You have to decide on your own. Go look at sample images of the type of photos you take. Read opinions on websites where they specialize in comparing cameras, there are tons to research without asking the same lame question that has been asked too many times.

I shot with an A7 III for a couple of weeks before I recognized I wanted the additional pixels of the A7R III. I traded it back in and did the upgrade.

I've watched customers go into a camera store looking for the best camera available. I've watched them spend $10-$20K, and leave. They typically call me for assistance on how to use the paperweight they bought when they were use to iPhone photography.

You don't need to ask this question, the answers are all over this forum and the internet in general.

You do know that you didn't have to reply to this thread? That's what I normally do when a thread doesn't interest me and something tells me I wouldn't call you for any kind of assistance when I comes to cameras. You kind of remind of the Angry Photographer who is always negative especially people who shoot with Sony Cameras.

 JRP64's gear list:JRP64's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a9 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro +5 more
EarthQuake Senior Member • Posts: 2,857
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii
3

MattPointZero wrote:

nebulla wrote:

The truth is that the digital cameras being produced today are incredibly good, and the effective difference between 24 and 51 megapixels is usually, in practice, imperceivable, unless of course you crop or zoom in to where you can only see a small fraction of the full picture.

Respectfully I don't think this is right.

I agree that a 24 mp camera takes perfectly good photos and that resolution doesn't make an average photo great. But I think a quick online search shows the R produces visibly sharper or more detailed photos that is clear to assess - I think if that detail suits your work, the R is definitely worth the extra money. If your work doesn't need that detail, the 'softer' (which is how the difference manifests to me when you view comparable images side by side) then spend the extra on a lens!

This is technically correct at some level. Due to the way bayer sensors work, you're never really getting per-pixel detail, as each sensor only records one color. So a 24MP sensor does not provide 24 megapixels worth of resolution. 61MP is sort of like a ~15MP Foevon sensor, because you have 4 color sensels for each "pixel" at ~15mp resolution.

That said, this is mostly irrelevant in real world use unless you're cropping heavily, making extremely large prints that you intend to view up close, or have some other specialized requirement. With a sharp lens, and an image where your subject is sharply focused, the 24MP sensor in the A7III provides excellent resolution. Yes, other cameras provide more, but I think the more important question is how much do you actually need. There is certainly a matter of diminishing returns with super high resolution sensors.

It's sort of like buying a sports car that can go 200mph, and then driving it to and from work every day. Yes, the sports car is demonstrably faster than a Honda Civic. But you're not going to be driving it at 200mph down the highway, so you've got "more" for the sake of more, not because it's actually necessary or provides much of a tangible benefit.

Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,751
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii
1

MattPointZero wrote:

nebulla wrote:

The truth is that the digital cameras being produced today are incredibly good, and the effective difference between 24 and 51 megapixels is usually, in practice, imperceivable, unless of course you crop or zoom in to where you can only see a small fraction of the full picture.

Respectfully I don't think this is right.

I agree that a 24 mp camera takes perfectly good photos and that resolution doesn't make an average photo great. But I think a quick online search shows the R produces visibly sharper or more detailed photos that is clear to assess

That depends on how you're assessing it. If you're viewing a well-made 24"x32" print, you're unlikely to see any difference without putting your nose on the paper and possibly also using a loupe. It's kind of silly to assess detail by looking at an image 100% onscreen, because no audience to which you exhibit and sell your work is going to look at it that way.

- I think if that detail suits your work, the R is definitely worth the extra money. If your work doesn't need that detail, the 'softer' (which is how the difference manifests to me when you view comparable images side by side) then spend the extra on a lens!

-- hide signature --

"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's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
MattPointZero
MattPointZero Senior Member • Posts: 1,068
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

I love sony cameras,  and although earlier this year I bought a gfx50s,  I wanted a sony for my carry around and back up camera, so went with the full intention of getting the balanced a7iiii as the fuji would be my high resolution body - however even at normal viewing size, the R body just gave punched, more detailed shots for me, and the a7iii, whilst good, just didn't compare.  I think though, this is because a lot of my comparisons were studio headshots, and I think the eye and face detail really shows the differences in the sensor.  I think if you are shooting full body shots, people in environments or architecture etc (and ignoring crop capability) then the differences are  much less obvious or worth the money.

 MattPointZero's gear list:MattPointZero's gear list
Fujifilm GFX 50S Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GF 110mm F2 Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8
nebulla Senior Member • Posts: 1,486
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MattPointZero wrote:

nebulla wrote:

The truth is that the digital cameras being produced today are incredibly good, and the effective difference between 24 and 51 megapixels is usually, in practice, imperceivable, unless of course you crop or zoom in to where you can only see a small fraction of the full picture.

Respectfully I don't think this is right.

I agree that a 24 mp camera takes perfectly good photos and that resolution doesn't make an average photo great. But I think a quick online search shows the R produces visibly sharper or more detailed photos that is clear to assess

That depends on how you're assessing it. If you're viewing a well-made 24"x32" print, you're unlikely to see any difference without putting your nose on the paper and possibly also using a loupe. It's kind of silly to assess detail by looking at an image 100% onscreen, because no audience to which you exhibit and sell your work is going to look at it that way.

Exactly

- I think if that detail suits your work, the R is definitely worth the extra money. If your work doesn't need that detail, the 'softer' (which is how the difference manifests to me when you view comparable images side by side) then spend the extra on a lens!

 nebulla's gear list:nebulla's gear list
Sony a7 III Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Sony FE 24-105mm F4 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +4 more
SafariBob
SafariBob Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii
1

nebulla wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MattPointZero wrote:

nebulla wrote:

The truth is that the digital cameras being produced today are incredibly good, and the effective difference between 24 and 51 megapixels is usually, in practice, imperceivable, unless of course you crop or zoom in to where you can only see a small fraction of the full picture.

Respectfully I don't think this is right.

I agree that a 24 mp camera takes perfectly good photos and that resolution doesn't make an average photo great. But I think a quick online search shows the R produces visibly sharper or more detailed photos that is clear to assess

That depends on how you're assessing it. If you're viewing a well-made 24"x32" print, you're unlikely to see any difference without putting your nose on the paper and possibly also using a loupe. It's kind of silly to assess detail by looking at an image 100% onscreen, because no audience to which you exhibit and sell your work is going to look at it that way.

Exactly

lol, that’s hilarious. You would obviously see the difference between a 42mpx picture and a 24mpx picture if printed high quality at 24x32, and you saw them next to each other.  Especially given one has aa and the other doesn’t. It would be visible at far smaller prints under optimal circumstances.

you would probably, however not be able to tell if a capture was 42 or 24 in the first place, if you just saw the print on its own. Especially a good print.

that’s what’s so funny with dpreview forums and Sony alpha forums in particular, people patting each other on the back with completely false and misleading statements.

- I think if that detail suits your work, the R is definitely worth the extra money. If your work doesn't need that detail, the 'softer' (which is how the difference manifests to me when you view comparable images side by side) then spend the extra on a lens!

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM
bob13bob Contributing Member • Posts: 954
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

MattPointZero wrote:

nebulla wrote:

The truth is that the digital cameras being produced today are incredibly good, and the effective difference between 24 and 51 megapixels is usually, in practice, imperceivable, unless of course you crop or zoom in to where you can only see a small fraction of the full picture.

Respectfully I don't think this is right.

I agree that a 24 mp camera takes perfectly good photos and that resolution doesn't make an average photo great. But I think a quick online search shows the R produces visibly sharper or more detailed photos that is clear to assess - I think if that detail suits your work, the R is definitely worth the extra money. If your work doesn't need that detail, the 'softer' (which is how the difference manifests to me when you view comparable images side by side) then spend the extra on a lens!

depends on how big your view your images.

for landscape, R is there right camera.  for candids, eg natural light wedding, a73 better.  If the a7r3 focused better than the a73; definitely a better wildlife lens.

at 24" image, you can see the difference.  see northrup's latest megapixels video.

-- hide signature --

my equipment: a7iii. NATIVE: sony 50 1.8. samyang 35 2.8. ADAPTED: sigma mc11 adapter. canon 85mm 1.8. sigma (canon) 12-24 4-5.6. canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is ii.

JeyB
JeyB New Member • Posts: 12
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

hilarious. You would obviously see the difference between a 42mpx picture and a 24mpx picture if printed high quality at 24x32, and you saw them next to each other. Especially given one has aa and the other doesn’t. It would be visible at far smaller prints under optimal circumstances.

Do you have any real evidence that the A7 3 has an AA filter. Where did you read that? Can you quote, please?

From my experience I may suppose it has not AA. Moire is present in a lot of photographs.

Aside that I've never seen the high mpx advantage. Let's be honest, where do we watch our pics? Everybody uses a screen monitor and given the actual resolution limit it is impossible to see a FULL 42 mpx image at 100% magnification on any existing screen. You may see only a PART of an image at 42 mpx resolution (the part that fills your screen only). Where is the point then? When you apply any zooming factor, the image editing program interpolates the data and no longer is full res until you reach 100% magnification.

And lately, how do we share our images? We still need to downsample images to post them in forums or wherever you want. And in the last instance the viewer's monitor bottleneck is again interpolating high mpx.

High mpx is useful if you profesionally work for highly demanding customers, stock photography, big format printing or for the sake of pixel peeping.

Well, just my humble opinion.

Best

 JeyB's gear list:JeyB's gear list
Sony a7 III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC +11 more
SafariBob
SafariBob Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

JeyB wrote:

hilarious. You would obviously see the difference between a 42mpx picture and a 24mpx picture if printed high quality at 24x32, and you saw them next to each other. Especially given one has aa and the other doesn’t. It would be visible at far smaller prints under optimal circumstances.

Do you have any real evidence that the A7 3 has an AA filter. Where did you read that? Can you quote, please?

e.g. https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/a7r-iii/vs/sony/a7-iii/

there was also some discussion and confusion when the camera first came out whether or not it had it. Conclusion was, yes it has it. Reasons may be to avoid weird artifacts from entry level users, make af more reliable, premiumize r series

From my experience I may suppose it has not AA. Moire is present in a lot of photographs.

it is a quite mild filter

Aside that I've never seen the high mpx advantage

i don’t mean to be rude or facetious, but what are you looking for? Go in any side by side comparison and you see it.

. Let's be honest

sure. Happy to have a realistic discussion about it. This has obviously been discussed to death, but it doesn’t prevent misunderstandings from reappearing.

, where do we watch our pics? Everybody uses a screen monitor and given the actual resolution limit it is impossible to see a FULL 42 mpx image at 100% magnification on any existing screen.

that’s not really true. The pixels in a screen have a sub pixel for each color. The camera does not. Hence a 4K display, which is 8mpx is equivalent to a 32mpx photo. Typically, to generate one high quality pixel you need 4, this is why high quality 1080p is supersampled from 4K. This basically implies that a super high quality 4K image needs up to 144mpx.

You may see only a PART of an image at 42 mpx resolution (the part that fills your screen only). Where is the point then?

this is also a point, because you may want to crop or rotate or other transformations.

When you apply any zooming factor, the image editing program interpolates the data and no longer is full res until you reach 100% magnification.

not sure what this means

And lately, how do we share our images? We still need to downsample images to post them in forums or wherever you want. And in the last instance the viewer's monitor bottleneck is again interpolating high mpx.

even in instagram, WhatsApp and whatnot, you can still decern a dslr from an iPhone pic, but likely not 24 from 42 unless heavily cropped.

High mpx is useful if you profesionally work for highly demanding customers, stock photography, big format printing or for the sake of pixel peeping.

its about convenience. Having a photo that outresolves your lenses or your photographic needs gives you flexibility in post, opportunity to print larger and extra detail when you want.

Well, just my humble opinion.

sure. The issue is that people spread this stuff all the time while not really understanding how things work. A 300 dpi 24x36 print stilll requires more multi color pixels than a 24mpx has single color pixels, so you are not saturating the image with resolution.

ostensibly the statements being made are well meant and often “true” but unfortunately misinformed

Best

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM
Just Another Photog Regular Member • Posts: 279
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

JRP64 wrote:

Just Another Photog wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Just Another Photog wrote:

There are about 50 threads on this. Do a search for your question

Why do you think I asked the question?

I don't know why you would ask a question that has had more than 50 threads already addressing it. Go to YouTube. There is likely 100 videos on the subject.

My comment was meant to be helpful, your reply was snarky. None of us can make this decision for you. You have to decide on your own. Go look at sample images of the type of photos you take. Read opinions on websites where they specialize in comparing cameras, there are tons to research without asking the same lame question that has been asked too many times.

I shot with an A7 III for a couple of weeks before I recognized I wanted the additional pixels of the A7R III. I traded it back in and did the upgrade.

I've watched customers go into a camera store looking for the best camera available. I've watched them spend $10-$20K, and leave. They typically call me for assistance on how to use the paperweight they bought when they were use to iPhone photography.

You don't need to ask this question, the answers are all over this forum and the internet in general.

You do know that you didn't have to reply to this thread? That's what I normally do when a thread doesn't interest me and something tells me I wouldn't call you for any kind of assistance when I comes to cameras. You kind of remind of the Angry Photographer who is always negative especially people who shoot with Sony Cameras.

My first reply was sincerely trying to give him a resource he may not know about.

As to your shot.....not an angry photographer at all. Sony shooters are happy Photographers.

 Just Another Photog's gear list:Just Another Photog's gear list
Sony RX1 Olympus C-2000 Zoom Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R III Sony FE 50mm F1.8 +10 more
andrewD2 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,193
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

that’s not really true. The pixels in a screen have a sub pixel for each color. The camera does not. Hence a 4K display, which is 8mpx is equivalent to a 32mpx photo. Typically, to generate one high quality pixel you need 4, this is why high quality 1080p is supersampled from 4K. This basically implies that a super high quality 4K image needs up to 144mpx.

A 4k wide image at 3:2 isn't 8MP.

Then your x4 maths is applied once correctly but for an incorrect reason (subpixels of a display only need one image pixel) and then incorrectly for presumably Bayer vs full RGB per pixel. Your result of '144mpx' value is bizarre.

We know Bayer does a lot better than 1/4 of the pixel count so the factor of 4 is dubious.

The A7III will make superb 4K images, should go without saying. I've got both the 24MP and 42MP sensors.

Cheers, Andrew

SafariBob
SafariBob Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

andrewD2 wrote:

that’s not really true. The pixels in a screen have a sub pixel for each color. The camera does not. Hence a 4K display, which is 8mpx is equivalent to a 32mpx photo. Typically, to generate one high quality pixel you need 4, this is why high quality 1080p is supersampled from 4K. This basically implies that a super high quality 4K image needs up to 144mpx.

A 4k wide image at 3:2 isn't 8MP.

I am talking about a 4K image, not “4K wide”

Then your x4 maths is applied once correctly but for an incorrect reason (subpixels of a display only need one image pixel) and then incorrectly for presumably Bayer vs full RGB per pixel. Your result of '144mpx' value is bizarre.

did you read what I wrote? “Super high quality”

We know Bayer does a lot better than 1/4 of the pixel count so the factor of 4 is dubious.

There is no fixed number for how much you need to oversample to get a great image. The number can be anywhere from 1 to 16 or even outside that range. The point is just that there will be cases where more resolution is valuable.

The A7III will make superb 4K images, should go without saying. I've got both the 24MP and 42MP sensors.

yet it is easy to discern a 42mp and a 24mp call it landscape image at 4K. Got both as well.

Cheers,

I am writing this sober.. Cheers!

Andrew

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM
andrewD2 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,193
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

SafariBob wrote:

andrewD2 wrote:

that’s not really true. The pixels in a screen have a sub pixel for each color. The camera does not. Hence a 4K display, which is 8mpx is equivalent to a 32mpx photo. Typically, to generate one high quality pixel you need 4, this is why high quality 1080p is supersampled from 4K. This basically implies that a super high quality 4K image needs up to 144mpx.

A 4k wide image at 3:2 isn't 8MP.

I am talking about a 4K image, not “4K wide”

The calculation you are making is the required camera resolution. The camera resolution is cropped for a 16:9 screen. You need to take that into account.

Then your x4 maths is applied once correctly but for an incorrect reason (subpixels of a display only need one image pixel) and then incorrectly for presumably Bayer vs full RGB per pixel. Your result of '144mpx' value is bizarre.

did you read what I wrote? “Super high quality”

Still bizarre.

We know Bayer does a lot better than 1/4 of the pixel count so the factor of 4 is dubious.

There is no fixed number for how much you need to oversample to get a great image. The number can be anywhere from 1 to 16 or even outside that range. The point is just that there will be cases where more resolution is valuable.

The A7III will make superb 4K images, should go without saying. I've got both the 24MP and 42MP sensors.

yet it is easy to discern a 42mp and a 24mp call it landscape image at 4K. Got both as well.

Let's do the test.

Cheers,

I am writing this sober.. Cheers!

Andrew

You are not factoring in that the A7RIII pixels are smaller and noiser, the single pixel noise on the 42MP sensor is far higher.

Andrew

andrewD2 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,193
Which is best? Comparison here at 4K.

One from the A7III, one from the A7RIII. Resized to 4K.
Is one "super high quality" and the other resolution limited?
Do we need 144MP before you'll really see a difference? 
Cheers,
Andrew

SafariBob
SafariBob Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

andrewD2 wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

andrewD2 wrote:

that’s not really true. The pixels in a screen have a sub pixel for each color. The camera does not. Hence a 4K display, which is 8mpx is equivalent to a 32mpx photo. Typically, to generate one high quality pixel you need 4, this is why high quality 1080p is supersampled from 4K. This basically implies that a super high quality 4K image needs up to 144mpx.

A 4k wide image at 3:2 isn't 8MP.

I am talking about a 4K image, not “4K wide”

The calculation you are making is the required camera resolution. The camera resolution is cropped for a 16:9 screen. You need to take that into account.

as you say, that’s bizarre. Let’s do the math.

3:2, 4K wide. = 4096 * 4096 * 2/3 = 11.1mpx full colour = 44 camera  mpx.

so in order to fill a 4K display with information at each sub pixel you need 44mpx

16:9, 4K wide = 4096 * 4096 * 9/16 = 9.4mpx full colour= 37.6 mpx camera

Used British spelling if that helps cognition for ya

Then your x4 maths is applied once correctly but for an incorrect reason (subpixels of a display only need one image pixel) and then incorrectly for presumably Bayer vs full RGB per pixel. Your result of '144mpx' value is bizarre.

did you read what I wrote? “Super high quality”

Still bizarre.

see difference between foveon and Bayer. Nothing bizarre. Maybe you love clear image zoom?.

We know Bayer does a lot better than 1/4 of the pixel count so the factor of 4 is dubious.

There is no fixed number for how much you need to oversample to get a great image. The number can be anywhere from 1 to 16 or even outside that range. The point is just that there will be cases where more resolution is valuable.

The A7III will make superb 4K images, should go without saying. I've got both the 24MP and 42MP sensors.

yet it is easy to discern a 42mp and a 24mp call it landscape image at 4K. Got both as well.

Let's do the test.

Cheers,

I am writing this sober.. Cheers!

Andrew

You are not factoring in that the A7RIII pixels are smaller and noiser, the single pixel noise on the 42MP sensor is far higher.

this is well documented that scaled to the same, r series provides more detail, in particular chroma detail.

Andrew

No cheers I see.

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM
SafariBob
SafariBob Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: Which is best? Comparison here at 4K.

andrewD2 wrote:

One from the A7III, one from the A7RIII. Resized to 4K.
Is one "super high quality" and the other resolution limited?
Do we need 144MP before you'll really see a difference?
Cheers,
Andrew

You are a joke. We are talking about colour sub pixels and you show me a monochrome image. The difference is still there but I can’t be bothered any more. Have a good day

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM
andrewD2 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,193
Re: A7iii vs A7Riii

SafariBob wrote:

andrewD2 wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

andrewD2 wrote:

that’s not really true. The pixels in a screen have a sub pixel for each color. The camera does not. Hence a 4K display, which is 8mpx is equivalent to a 32mpx photo. Typically, to generate one high quality pixel you need 4, this is why high quality 1080p is supersampled from 4K. This basically implies that a super high quality 4K image needs up to 144mpx.

A 4k wide image at 3:2 isn't 8MP.

I am talking about a 4K image, not “4K wide”

The calculation you are making is the required camera resolution. The camera resolution is cropped for a 16:9 screen. You need to take that into account.

as you say, that’s bizarre. Let’s do the math.

3:2, 4K wide. = 4096 * 4096 * 2/3 = 11.1mpx full colour = 44 camera mpx.

so in order to fill a 4K display with information at each sub pixel you need 44mpx

This is incorrect. And why you are out by a clear factor of 4.
You need ONE pixel per screen "pixel". That pixel is then displayed as subpixels based on the image single pixel's RGB data. 
You CAN NOT address each subpixel as you suggest with "more than 4K". 
Andrew

andrewD2 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,193
Re: Which is best? Comparison here at 4K.

Since there are no monochrome pixels in a RGGB array the monochrome image has to be constructed from the colour data, it is just fine to compare two Bayer sensors.
At 4K the colour areas were the same, ISO100 maybe slight advantage A7RIII, pretty hard to tell, ISO800 slight advantage A7III.

Don't get angry with me, do the comparison yourself.
Andrew

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads