Sony a7 III Review

You are implying you need this camera to take good pictures? No other camera will do? What exactly are you trying to say? I bet I could find someone who can take a nice picture with a pin hole camera.

You are also bashing anyone who believes in the photographer and not the camera by going to their pictures and judging them?

Lastly, who is fighting the camera? The camera is a tool, read the manual and learn about how it functions. If it works for that person then that is all that matters. It is 100% the photographer and not the camera.

Or are you referring to dumb photographers that do not know about exposure so they NEED fancy gear? Is this the kind of photographer you are?

And for the other poster below you, if you are going to go shoot snow leopards, which implies you would have spent thousands of dollars on a fancy trip, you would be a complete moron to show up with a cell phone to take pictures. But the cheapest DSLR with the cheapest telephoto lens would do it, $300 done!

Listen man I know what you are trying to say. Just remember that people have been shooting with lesser technology for over a 100 years and have got good pictures.

You just came of as claiming that the camera is what matters in taking a good picture. It is the other way around. You claim that photography is about creativity proves that point.

I am all for the fancy gear if you have the money for it, need it, want it or whatever. I am certain the image quality is better when pixel peeped. I know all this, just don't claim you can't take a good picture unless you have it.

Of course, it is the photographer.
Only recently upgraded to 5D4 not expecting much in the ways of picture quality.
I was positively surprised. From a 5D4 RAW it is so much easier to make a beautiful picture with the tools I have than from the equivalent 5D3 shot.
More shadow detail, less grain, overall 'agreeability' of the image.
A better camera allows for better pictures.
A bad photographer cannot be helped.

Most cameras produce after 2012 can produce fine pictures in decent lighting, in rich light condition, you hardly able to distinguish between a cell phone and an APS-C camera's picture.

I totally agree with @GrapeJam, technology advancement does let us focus more on the creative part as opposed to making sure the image is as clean as possible.

I own Sony A57 which only able to produce an acceptable image up to ISO 800. Shadow area in portrait tend to frustrate me. After upgrade this camera, it can easily handle 6400 ISO image without any problem.

The auto min shutter speed feature combine with auto ISO take away the need for me to manually configure them in Aperture mode. Let be honest, there is a FIXED algorithm to do that. We keep repeating that since eon ago, now we are bless with technology, we can focus more on the artistic part of photography.

Recommend that your gear gets some air conditioning (daily).

I have experience from both caribien and Thailand. Need the gear to dry up in between.

Well, I was talking about the GH5 which this video review was shot on. But I saw a video on YouTube using the GH5 called, “Paris by night”, and the GH5 handled the low light great.

@Thomas: You should consider Canon 1D-X.

Heavy to put heavy lenses on it.
Big body for big hands.
No XQD either, CF and CFast.
12 fps and 4K.

XQD at this price point? Still has a buffer that makes Canon and Nikon peers look pretty lame. Small battery? Same life as Canikon competitors. Small body? Add a battery grip with 2x battery capacity.
Let's move on...

@AZheaven
if you are shooting a lot without turning on, off, review etc you get many more shots than what a camera is rated for, because it does not reflect the standard used. I can get more than 6,000 shots on a battery if I am simply shooting, i.e. sports with my A9. The A7 is supposed to be even better.

@AZheaven
of course one of the advantages of the EVF is that you can see your exposure real time, so you can see the histogram real time, you can also engage (I do all the time) zebra for the overexposed areas real time, so no need of chimping...

I hadn't even thought about renting it. Doh. That's a great idea. Thank you.

@wcan...NEVER said that. What I said and have been saying is, "if Nikon and Canon don't come out with a mirrorless full frame camera equal to or exceeding that of the A7iii they will be in trouble". And that comment also stands for price. The A7iii had to throw both Canon and Nikon for a loop in every respect.

That memory card is not uhs-2. Upgrade your memory card and all the faster higher quality settings will enable themselves.

:) Sure, that new Canon Dual Pixel AF is great, but my old 6D doesn't have it and I'm using LiveView for landscapes and macro all the time.

No fine tune necessary! The biggest reason I switched to mirrorless. Couldn't stand the continuing AF accuracy issues with my D7000, D7100 and D750, but there was no mirrorless alternative to match my needs until the A6300 came about. Smooth sailing after, even with adapted DSLR lenses!

@ecka84

Well yeah, any camera can focus on things that don't move. You need very advanced CDAF (Panasonic) or decent OSPDAF (everyone else) to focus on something moving.

I had both F/4 zooms and returned them. The 70-200mm was pretty bad at 200mm. Maybe I should have kept trying until I got "good copies", but I didn't want to waste all the time and effort for something that may never happen.
I am very happy for anyone who does get a good copy, but at the same time I am skeptical from my experience.
I have an old Canon 70-200/4 and it is superb. Some day I may get a metabones adapter for it.

"Steven Ar - Joined on Apr 9, 2018"

just another fake troll account.

The Photo store where I do business has reported to me that in their experience, the problem of uneven copies of lenses was much greater a couple of years ago, and has in their experience been remedied. My way of thinking is that the possibility of a poor copy is always there, no matter whose lenses. It's a real, if annoying, part of getting your kit to be as you want it to be. But if you don't stick with it til you get it right, unfortunately, it is you who are the loser.

Which is the troll?

Chris Niccolls - Joined Apr 28 2018.

OSV - The crybaby who calls everyone else a "Troll".

Well, a Google search shows the truth. It showed OSV is a "known troll" in every forum.
https://www.google.com/search?q=osv+troll+site:www.dpreview.com&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS748US748&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiztp-fuPTaAhVnkuAKHVnbBSoQrQIIMigDMAA&biw=1600&bih=1094
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60984191
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59601666
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59635478
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57105153

When looking at posts where lenses are tested, I am surprised how many bad tests there are, so some might actually return good lenses.

If all the bad copies of lenses were not enough, now there are bad copies of the A7iii.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61090329

Sony says they are aware of this issue:
"I understand that you're having issues with the Eye AF function of your ILCE7M3 camera. We apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you. We want you to know that we appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Please be advised that Sony is aware of this issue, and this has been forwarded to our engineering team in Japan already."

Eye AF is way better than no eye AF with old teck DSLR cameras where the lenses have to be calibrated to get acceptable focus ... for Sony A7III this is probably just a software update.

@Steven Ar

Anyone who calls osv a troll is obviously a troll, but you put a cherry on the top by posting links and writing this: "If all the bad copies of lenses were not enough, now there are bad copies of the A7iii." Obvious troll is obvious.

@RubberDials

It was Sony that said there are bad copies of the A7iii. So you are accusing Sony of trolling Sony. Sony says there is a problem, you can't deny that.

EDIT: Geez! I just got a PM saying "RubberDials is another OSV puppet ID". Another?? I Googled "OSV RubberDials" and it sure a h3ll looks like you are the same or work together. You both respond to comments made to the other and use the same tone.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61032444
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60913170
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58981516

'EDIT: Geez! I just got a PM saying "RubberDials is another OSV puppet ID".'

No you didn't, unless you sent it to yourself from one of your other accounts.

I've reported your post. I doubt it will do any good - I mean - the mastering light account is still active. I've been a member of this site for more than a decade and have posted literally hundreds of thousands of words. Good luck trying to smear me with your crap.

@RubberDials

I hit a nerve. Google busted you. Google is great for digging up the truth and a quick search showed you and OSV are either same or work together. There are dozens and dozens of posts where you respond for each other, and also where both of you pounce on the same person or make the same argument. No denying that. Google is your friend, and Google reveals the truth.
With those Google search results, it as fair and accurate to say one of you is the other's "puppet" or at least you work in tandem.

It might be relative but you need to keep your comparisons within a product. Sure there are specialized sensors with more dynamic range but why should we care if they aren't available in an ILC? I'll wager there are some satellite sensors that are even better. Should we compare the latest ILCs to them?

The question should be how does this sensor compare to others currently available.

Edit:. @pentaust. I see you removed your comments about the sensor. Now you left my post hanging 😀

When a Sony A7 series camera is set up properly, you hardly have to visit the menues again. Real world use is a breeze, no matter hot summer days or freezing cold winter days or nights, when wearing gloves. No matter small or large lenses.

"Problems", like "the interface is useable but not as good as with some other cameras" are silly constructions, only of importance for those sitting in an armchair, figuring out what could be a problem with cameras that they don't own or use themselves. Such nay-sayers claim to be the best photographers around, but they will never show you anything from their work.

@pentaust Please show me a post I made where I haven't acknowledged short comings. Do I have implicit bias like every other human? Certainly, but I try to remain objective and rational. I'm certainly no apologist for Sony or any other brand. For example I prefer an EVF to and OVF but I don't think those who disagree with me are necessarily wrong. Each person has important and less important features that they want.

Regarding the menus I can't say that comparatively Sony's are any better or worse than any other ILCs because I don't have intimate experience with other ILC cameras. That's why I take the opinion of someone who uses multiple systems (brendon1000) with more weight than someone who doesn't (most trolls). I will say that I find the custom buttons, my menu and user defined function menu to make the actual menus moot - once setup I don't need to go to the menus.

Judging from the complaints I've seen on the Sony forum, from users, a pattern of questionable QC is developing for this particular body. And there are numerous... with new complaints about stuck shutters, multiple body returns, eye focus not working, stripes, color issues, pixel blinking and on and on.

I'd much rather buy the A7R lll or A9, not the A7 lll. Too many QC complaints. Unlike these two other bodies, the A7 lll is made in China which may be a contributing factor.

Lol just owning something doesn't mean squat ! My friend bought a 6D Mk II some time back and he hated it and would never recommend it to anyone who asked him. I use the Sony A7 III and find it much better than any of my previous cameras.

The main people having a problem are armchair trolls like you who have never ever used the camera for any real period of time :P

I have had 3 Sony A7 series cameras and I can tell you ergonomics were great, menu system wasn't the best of course but once I fully customized the camera it was never a problem and construction while not the best is still very good. None of my cameras are worse for wear after 100000+ shutter actuations. My 5d mk II has all the rubber parts fallen off after 95k shutters but that is considered a rugged body.

@ pentaust: I can live very well with Sony cameras and lenses, since they do what I want them to do. I have used other brands, and even had to jump ship because of repeated malfunctions and breakdowns with a brand that is judged as top professional. When you earn your money from photography, malfunction and repairs are much more expensive than just paying for repairs and replacements.

I am pragmatic when it comes to camera gear: There is no perfect camera or camera system. You can whine, you can bash a brand (like you do, over and over again), you can praise your brand (like you do), or you can hope for the best - nothing will change the fact that the camera is exactly as it is! If it does the job, well, fine! No need to go elsewhere.

Love and hate? For a camera or a brand? Come on, grow up!

@AZheaven. As you know I prefer my Sony cameras. But I also have a Nikon D750, and despite being one of the cameras recalled, mine has never had any of the problems for which the recalls were issued. Nikon goes overboard on the recalls now, due to the bad publicity they had from the relatively wide spread black spot issue on the D600. Then, the trolls excoriated Nikon. Now the trolls complain because they recall. Go figure.

At the time, I had a D3300. I was looking to upgrade my body. I was interested in the D750 and the 7500. I was heading to a local camera store, well, 2 hours away, to get my hands on a 7200 since the 7500 wasn't out yet and compare the size of both cameras and figure out my options. I called Nikon USA and asked a rep when they were releasing the 7500. They had no idea. The local camera store had no 7200's in stock and they also didn't know about the 7500. Stayed home, ordered a 7200 from B & H and the next day the 7500 was announced. The week prior to all this I was looking at the 750. And that's when the 3rd recall came in. I just wish camera companies were not so secretive!! Now Nikon is doing the same with their mirrorless option.

AZheaven, why waiting? Do you really think Nikon would offer anything similar to Sony A7 III/A7R III feature and price-wise? I highly doubt it. Sony now has glass while Nikon doesn't. Some rumors say Nikon's mirrorless is postponed to 2019. By then A7 IV/A7R IV will be on the horizon and would make Nikon obsolete. I really enjoy my A7 III and have a great faith in Sony now. After D7100 this camera is something from the future. And the most important is that I enjoy it immensely. I couldn't say that about my Nikon which was a nightmare with its front- and back-focusing issues. Oh, and I am among the few who has no problems with Sony's menus. It is like an Android smartphone - you take some time to customize it and then just enjoy the experience.

Canon and Nikon are in a race for last place in mirrorless (FF or otherwise).

All reviews I've seen, the reviewers are using the Sony 24-105 G, Sony 16-35 GM, Sony 85 GM and the Sony 100-400.

My thought was to go mirrorless and have one lens for my needs (landscapes in AZ) the 24-105. I don't need wider, so I can for now eliminate the 16-35. I don't do portraits so the 85mm is eliminated. And if I keep my D7200 and Tamron 100-400 I'm covered for wildlife. Me getting rid of my 3 lenses I use for landscapes, plus the D7200 will save me 3 lbs. And then I don't have to change lenses multiple times in the field either. Which I had to do a couple of weeks ago and almost dropped my kit onto rocks!!

@pentaust, yes, but once again, one camera, one lens for my needs. At least I'm not looking at the 70-200 f2.8!!! My friend has that lens with an A7Rii and it's massive!!

Let me add that I bought a bigger bag to carry all my Nikon DX equipment with me. LOL...yeah...that didn't work out so well!! There was no way I was going to carry all that weight hiking!! It's heavy enough with just the D7200, and both my Sigma lenses!! So I returned the bigger bag (didn't cut the tags, or undo the straps or rearranged the insides, just placed all my things on top and lifted it up) and now rethinking my options.

@ pentaust: D7200 is an aps-c camera! You have to compare cameras with the same sensor size. An the D7200 is bulky. Try make it compact! For travel, volume can be more important than weight.

Also, this Nikon camera has a mirror that causes vibrations, lenses that need to be calibrated for perfect focus, no true depth of focus control, like all those mirror/matte ground glass viewfinders, etc. etc. etc.

@magnar. I was not replying to you. AZheaven is concerned by weight and he is concerned by the weight of his D7200 and lenses. My point is, if a D7200 is already too heavy, a Sony A7iii won't be lighter (only by 24gr) but the full frame lenses of a Sony A7iii will be even heavier. Please Magnar, stop turning words around for the sake of promoting Sony products. The goal is to be honest with situations so that customers select what is good for them.

Now, if you talk about vibrations, mirrorless cameras aren't lacking because shutter has to close first in order to be able to open and close again. For DSLR the shutter is already closed before taking the shot, so there is no additional shutter shock involved like it was the case for the Sony A7. Please stop telling things that are not true. Thanks a lot.

pentaust: Well, try Sony cameras with first electronic shutter activated (default, and what we use most of the time), and then check sharpness. No vibrations. Ultra-sharp! Much sharper than pictures from DSLR cameras.

I use long telephoto lenses quite often, and for wildlife, mirror lock up is never a solution. I also use a telescope, and for moon and planetary photography you get much better results when taking pictures at those glipms with less turbulence. Mirror vibrations would ruin the results, and with an OVF you don't have magnified view to check turbulence.

Try doing eye auto-focus with positive feedback in the EVF with a DSLR...
Also, the focusing screens in many DSLRs do not give a true indicator of depth of field when lens is stopped down I believe because they are optimized for brightness.

Put big lenses on mirrorless, you get a big camera. But if you put small lenses on mirrorless, you get a small camera. The A7III (650g) with Rokinon/Samyang 35/2.8 FE (108g) is smaller and lighter (758g) than a 6D MKII body alone (765g)! And that's with image stabilization, too!

https://camerasize.com/compact/#716,777.667,ha,t

But even without any size or weight difference, you have to consider the higher specs and performance that mirrorless offers over DSLRs. What DSLR gives you 693 AF points covering 93% of a FF viewfinder, face/eye AF, 5-axis IBIS, 10fps, totally silent electronic shutter, etc, for only $2K?

"D7200 weights 674g, Sony A7iii weights 650gr."

Wrong weight!!! D7200 is 765g

https://camerasize.com/compare/#777,611

Plus, you're comparing an APS-C camera to a FF camera! Plus, consider visual size. DSLRs such as D7200 look-- and are-- big. They stick out like a sore thumb. A compact body like A7III is much less obvious, especially when using compact lenses.

I shoot both, though my FF D800 has taken the backseat to the D500.

@AZ Heaven. Your D7200 is a remarkable camera. If your primary work is landscapes, I wonder if you should be considering the A7rII at roughly the same money as the A7III. For landscapes, the extra megapixels do make a difference, and the key components us old guys need, IBIS, and BSI sensor, are there, and work well. I have been shooting one for three years, and love it. The A7III will be a little quicker, better for fast action shots, and better in low light, but the A7rII is quite good in these categories as well. But I would not quickly dispose of my D7200 if I had one. It's a great camera.

Yeah, if landscapes were my game, I'd get an a7riii (if I were looking to switch to Sony). These Sony cameras are neat, but I have a D500 and D850, so it would take a HECK of a lot for me to ever consider switching brands.

Whats the problem pentaust? There are now tons of the small fast lenses which are designed for mirrorless, like for instance Voigtländer 40/1.2 at 400g, Tamron 28-75 2.8 at 550g, Sony 85/1.8 or Batis / Loxia / Laowa / Voigtländer at wide and ultra wide.

It seems that in these comments fields a lot of people don't realize that there is a world out there where you don't need to use big heavy DSLR design zooms and primes.

@AZheaven With both Nikon and Canon rumored to release details of their full frame mirrorless solutions later this year, I think the prudent course of action is to wait and see what develops.

Good job Paul. Maybe we can gin up a Legacy Troll award for you!

Nice try at humor.... Nice try. *golf clap"

Yup.
Trolls who are either confused, dazed, insecure, envious, sour-graping, panicking.
Take your pick.

@GiM_6xR - "as in chess it looks like it is a draw:"

the only "draw" there is inside your brain, with it's inability to comprehend the huge tech advances that sony has made, since the crop-sensor nx1 was released.

it's a totally ignorant comparison.

OSV say: "huge tech advances that sony has made, since the crop-sensor nx1 was released".
In my oppinion, these HUGE advances were for SONY to catch-up with Samsung. It took only 3½ years, but final specs are very close for the NEW a7III versus OLD NX1.
3½ years where everybody who has/had NX1 already enjoyed the performance.
This is not only in my brain.

Hey OSV, let me know when you can show me and everyone else at DPReview the 0.6 EV more HDR a7III has over NX1, or when recording a pfoto or video at 204800 ASA how better the picture is. Forensic analyse could enjoy this, other PROs or just consumers will just ignore these "huge tech advances that sony has made".

@GiM_6x - you are seriously confused.

the a7iii kills the old nx1 by 1-2 stops better pdr:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Samsung%20NX1,Sony%20ILCE-7M3

the ff a7iii has a host of other advantages, not the least of which is much better af, higher quality lenses, etc.

Well, 3½ years later Sony a7III come to match and bypass Samsung NX1.
It should be almost normal, if it was about ½ year and not 3½.

And then. . . different "sites" different graphics same parameter, HDR:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-III-versus-Samsung-NX1___1236_976
Are all of them right, are all wrong, why HDR is so different from one "expert" to other?

I do not contest that a7III is a bit better than the 3½ y. old NX1, but is much-much later.
Still a7III does not surpass all specs of NX1: 10fps vs 15 fps, SAVC S vs H265, video 30p cropped vs UN-cropped.
This is not about a poor camera, is about being so late and even so does offer just a bit of extra specs.

But A7III is still less performant. . . if you have read about NX2 last year, you will know that a7III is behind the top technology. Unfortunately, Samsung do not want to offer this technology to photo-cinema comunity, it is just playing with it to be sure is one of the best and not the last.

GiM_6x: Why would people go for a small sensor NX1 from a brand that officially is out of camera business when they can get a full frame A7III, which is in may respects way better, like low light sensitivity, autofocus, etc.?

Fine that you like your camera, but I would be very, very careful to tell people to buy into this brand if they want to build a camera system.

Sony does push the market forwards primarily with their sensor tech; it is cutting edge. Their sensor division turns out superb products for Sony cameras and for other brands, as well as for smartphones.

With regards to the rest of Sony camera tech, is it really that great? They were not the first to use IBIS; Olympus had it well before them. They've made advancements with their AF but so has every one else in the same time frame.

Their EVF and back LCD tech is nothing to brag about; others do it better. They are lagging in screen touch controls. I do give them credit for the blackout-less EVF and silent shooting on the A9. And many praise their eye-AF.

Note that I am commenting on stills photography. On the video front I do believe Sony has more to offer, as that is where they have much more expertise and history.

Sony is a player in the market and they've done some good things. But people overrate their supposed innovation and impact (with the exception of their sensors).

I believe that Minolta was the first to have IBIS.

I actually considered an NX1 (used at one point) because of its video capabilities. That said, the a7III completely surpasses the NX1 as both a stills camera and video camera. Check out the DPR studio scene at 6400 or higher. The SONY is clearly better for low light work. At 24 fps the video capture is 6K internally downsized to 4K. Just as 4K downsized to 1080 delivers superior video quality than native 1080, the downsized 6K to 4K out of the SONY is spectacular. The video codecs available in the SONY offer better color grading capability. If one wants to shoot for HDR video display, the SONY offers HLG capability. And it's already been established that video focus tracking is about as good as it gets, making it far superior for shooting sports/action events. I can appreciate your love of NX1 but it is now old news.

Possibly, but a better hammer will build the house faster and better. You don't want to use a sledge hammer to hammer nails. The proper tools will help you more than anything. Same with photography. My friends didn't get shots of a Snow Leopard at 1/2 a mile with a cell phone.

There is no "better" camera per se.
A "better" camera is judged such relatively to another, or to a certain norm.

A "better" camera is judged such regarding things called specifications: definition, sensibility, burst speed, sync speed, AF speed and precision etc. And also regarding a few more subjective things (balance, handling, menus...).

It will then allow to get pictures with corresponding better characteristics (more pixels, better colors, more often in focus etc.). It will even sometimes allow different kind of photography genre (sports, strobism...).
It will hence allow the same photographer to make better pictures (regarding given characteristics) than he would have with another camera (not saying these pictures will be "good" per se): that's why some people here just don't (only) use throwable cameras nor smartphones, and are interested in A7III.

Most of you are missing the point. A better camera will not make a poor photographer better than a good photographer with a lesser camera. But chances are, the same photographer will get better pictures with a better camera. So contrasting cameras while also contrasting people at the same time is just plain nonsense.

Thoughts R Us wrote: "Sony cameras have problems with quality and reliability and ergonomics and handling."

After mainly using Sony mirrorless cameras since the A7 for professional work, I don't recognise any of these problems. The coastal climate is hash here, at 63 degrees north. No Sony camera or lens have failed for me. When I spent more than one week at 78 to 80 degrees north, cold and very high humidity all day and night, I saw some Canon D5 die around me, but no Sony cameras did have trouble ...

Ergonomy is just fine - ergonomy is much what you are used with.

Handling is just fine too, even in long, dark and bitingly cold nights when the polar light is coloring the sky green, blue and red. For long exposures, battery life is much better than for DSLR cameras, where you use a lot of power just to keep the darn mirror locked up!

Sounds like you never have used a Sony camera under harsh conditions - or probably never used them. Maximum four to five minutes in a shop, I guess!

Thoughts R Us wrote: "Adapted long lenses don't work as well and feel awful on such a small camera body."

Before digital almost all SLR cameras was about the size of the A7 series camera bodies, and we used long lenses without any problem, since we knew how to hold the combo! No balancing problems with 400 mm lenses here. Or do you really hold the camera with a long and heavy lens with the hand grip? Then everything is way out of balance!

Sony is soon offering a 400 mm f:2.8, so the "long and bright lenses" argument will not be valid anymore.

Adapted lenses? My guess is that even Nikon and Canon will struggle! Especially Nikon.

A last question for you: Why do you have to repeat your Canon bias over and over again in every Sony tread? To feel good yourself? Or are you afraid that people are not able chose the right camera system themselves, helpful as you sound?

@Magnar: First, Canon does not make a "D5" model; Nikon does. Helps to keep your facts straight in your stories, whether they are true or not.

Second, the fact that Sony is coming out with one super tele doesn't change much; they still lag far behind Canon and Nikon in that department. One lens release won't change that.

Third, the fact that people used to use smaller bodies to balance larger lenses doesn't mean we have to settle for that today. Of course it can be done but it is suboptimal. If I want longer lenses I can use a larger body for better balance. Why give up an advantage simply because it did not exist a long time ago?

Lastly, this article is not a "Sony thread." It is a front page feature on DPR and should not be regarded as only for Sony fans to reinforce each other's biases.

@Thoughts R Us,
1st the Canon equivalent is the EOS 1 D X, and that's according to this website.
2nd, The fact that Sony IS releasing a super telephoto lens does matter. It shows they are doing something and listening to their base. Yes, they lag behind Nikon and Canon. But they are trying.

3rd, Things are changing, once again. You use what you use and your happy. Others? Well that's their choice.

Lastly, maybe you are too busy knocking Sony to notice that this thread? It's in response to a Sony camera review...you know, the A7iii, your nemesis. Bias?? Don't use big words you can't begin to grasp.

@ Thoughts R Us: Larger and heavier cameras to balance an already a bit too heavy lens? What good should that do? Just move your left hand that supports the lens a tad more forward, then everything will balance perfect, and you can work much longer handheld since the total combo is lighter.

Strange how you, as a Canon user (5D or D5? LOL!), are reinforcing Canon user's biases by pushing other brands down, then accusing others for doing this when we find our gear just performing fine for our photography. Pathetic.

I've read some reviews that say the A7iii is several generations ahead of pretty much every camera out there.

@Thoughts R Us. Seriously, you REALLY need to check the oxygen level where ever you are. I'm going to speculate that it's extremely low...

Sony's recent lenses also seem to represent some of the best glass available. these days. I know it may be a controversial statement, but some of their recent releases are spectacularly sharp...

@MikeRan..not a controversial statement. I've read many reviews saying Sony lenses, at least the GM and G lenses are sharp wide open. Something that even my pro friends do with their Canon and Nikon lenses. I'm hoping to find out by Xmas.

ThoughtsRus....the lens issue is absurd. I just used a Sigma 150-600 and Canon 100-400 on my a7III with an MC11 adapter. No problems whatsoever. You're entitled to your opinion but when you spew the continuation of myths and half truths, expect to be called on it.

Very good points. Hopefully Sony will expand their professional services to be more in line with Canon and Nikon. I think the lens lineup will fill in.

Thank you for mentioning the very important area of service.

I've long maintained that gear reviews do not do justice to longer term considerations such as reliability and service. It's not the reviewers' fault, but the nature of the work is to use a camera for a short period of time, pack it up, move onto the next one. That in no way mirrors the experience of an actual consumer and it produces flaws in the judgement of many a review.

@jonathan f/2 - well, if you want to look at the bigger picture, you should take into consideration the abysmal q.c. record that nikon has had over the last few years... missed work and down time waiting for repairs is no joke:

1) *three* recalls on d750 shutter assemblies
2) d600 oily/failed shutters replaced: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/25/nikon-d600-dust-problem-solved-owners-get-repair-they-have-been-waiting-for
3) poor q.c. on the d850, resulting in the wrong flange distance: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20171113_1158-NikonD850-FlangeFocalOff-ZeissMilvu18f2_8-at-limit-when-cold.html
4) "The most consistent problem with Nikon cameras is an issue with Nikon D750 and Nikon D810. These cameras have a tendency to spit some oil spots onto the sensor. It's easily wet-cleaned, but it required cleaning several times before it stopped altogether."
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/guide-to-cleaning-your-camera-sensor/

etc.

@osv: hahaha...you really had to stretch yourself on this one. First, the OP doesn't even tell you which Nikons he uses/has used. For all we know it could be a D4/D5 series.

Second, aside from the D600 issue the rest you found is pretty minor obscure stuff. That D850 issue you cite was only found by the one photographer, who tends to be pretty picky, and involved a Zeiss manual focus lens.

I'll take Nikon reliability over Sony any day...esp. since Sony cannot even provide decent weather sealing. And keep in mind that Nikon has a track record of being used by pro's the world over for many years in some of the toughest conditions around and working fine. Sony has no such track record and is entitled to no benefit of the doubt.

Sony cameras also feel cheaper and less well made than Nikons do. The Sony feels second rate.

I downloaded a simple firmware update to my 1st Nikon, a D3300. It wouldn't focus after that. I was using a Sigma 17-50 f2.8. It also didn't focus with the Nikon 70-300. So off it went to Nikon to fix (at no cost). 10 days later the camera came back and all was good. I haven't touched the D7200 with any firmware updates. Once bitten....So Nikon is not perfect either. And there are new issues with Nikon and it's firmware with other cameras.

@AZ: Please do not try to confuse the issue with some false equivalence. No brand is perfect but that doesn't mean that all brands are equal in terms of QC. Overall, Nikon issues are far more minor than Sony ones. It's a big difference between a 3rd party lens not working perfectly on a Nikon, and a Sony having no weather sealing and getting water into the body.

One can try to confuse the issue all you want, but the bottom line is that overall Nikon cameras are better built, as proven by teardowns, and more importantly have a far more impressive overall track record. One way we know that is because many pro's are willing to trust their living to Nikon but not to Sony.

@Thoughts R Us

Sony doesn't claim the camera is weatherproof. The exact phrasing in the A7iii manual is "This camera is designed to be dust and moisture-resistant, but is not waterproof or dust-proof." While not specific I wouldn't read that as being able to use in a downpour.

Given this I wouldn't call Sony's cameras unreliable due to the weathersealing as the seals should be adequate for light use (light rain and dust). If they were claiming weatherproof or waterproof I would agree with you.

If you take your Corolla off-road and it breaks it doesn't mean the car is unreliable. It means you are using it in a manner that it was not intended.

Where is Sony unreliable when the camera is used as intended?

"the bottom line is that overall Nikon cameras are better built,"
Reality and QC issues seems to indicate otherwise.
However, if you say:
"I think that Nikons have better build quality"
no one can take that away from you.

I'm not anti Nikon or Sony. I shoot both, so I'm just pointing out some issues regarding long term use. The weird thing though, unlike DSLRs I think it makes more sense to buy the Sony bodies and then go with third-party glass especially since Tamron and Sigma are going native mount.

Tamron has a 6 year warranty and Sigma has a 4 year warranty both in the USA. Also unlike DSLRs, they are less likely to have calibration issues due to the way MILCs focus on-sensor. I think this is a very viable work-around and I think it makes more sense to invest in a $799 Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 with a 6-year warranty as opposed to a $2198 Sony 24-70mm 2.8 with a 1-year warranty!

Also regarding Nikon. I've been dealing with them for years. I just dropped my Nikon D750 off for the service advisory fix regarding the shutter mechanism. Never heard of the oil issue with the D750, but the shutter ERR issue is real and at least Nikon owned up to it. So it's getting fixed for FREE. No questions, no hassle.

BTW - I've had zero issues with any of my Sony bodies using an NEX-6, A6300, A7, A7II and now the A7III. I honestly think Sony bodies are actually more reliable due to having less mechanical parts and Sony's experience manufacturing mass-production electronic devices.

Saying that, I'm still not convinced by Sony's lens line-up. Take for example their 70-200mm f4 FE vs Nikon's 70-200mm f4 VR. The Nikon is smaller, sharper and even has better stabilization. I tested the Sony 70-200 mm f4 FE on the A7III and was sorely disappointed. DXO Mark even backs the data up showing the Nikon 70-200mm f4 being substantially sharper on the D800 36mp sensor versus A7R 36mp sensor. This is a lens with a 5-year USA warranty, versus the Sony lens with a 1-year warranty and multiple reports of the lenses snapping in half.

I guess the point I'm making with these comments is that there is no free-lunch in either system. I do think mirrorless is the future, but I think it's too early to declare a winner.

the fact that you had to send your nikon in for service proves that it's unreliable, and no, you are wrong, sending camera gear in for service IS a hassle.

having to constantly watch out for nikon oil spots on sensors is simply absurd, and inexcusable.

as for your dxo test, try it again with different bodies, sony glass is much sharper than the old lens designs that nikon has... do a sharpness sort on all prime lenses on dxo, nikon doesn't have squat in the list, it's all sony and 3rd-party lenses, with a couple of canon lenses in there.

@osv - So you're saying my A7III is defective? I use a Commlite Nikon to Sony ENF-E1 PRO adapter and I've compared lenses directly. For example the Nikon 85mm 1.8 G is a tad sharper than the Sony 85mm 1.8 FE and also focuses faster at the expense of having a noisier AF motor compared to the Sony.

I've also tested the entire Nikon 1.8 G prime lens line-up on the Sony bodies and they're are all amazing values for the price. All the Nikon 1.8 G primes are current designs and are more than capable of handling the D850 45.7mp sensor.

Like I said, no oil spots on my D750, none on the D800/E or any of the current bodies. Also the D600 oil spot service advisory from Nikon is an indefinite FREE fix. If the problem repeats itself after 3 attempts, you get a new camera.

Honestly I guess I've been commenting to let my thoughts out as Nikon and Sony shooter. So these observations don't really apply to gearheads or fanb*ys.

@thoughts are us..Really...you need to find a hobby other than knocking those that have an opinion, an opinion that differs from yours, and my opinion was one of FACT. I didn't make it up that my D3300 had issues after the firmware update. So go download some porn and entertain yourself and leave us alone...please...I said please...

How great would it be if Nikon used the E mount in their mirrorless ff camera? I'd love to have native Nikon lenses.

@fjbyrne - Honestly I think Nikon might be better off developing a larger sized mount. My only worry is the time it's taking Nikon to develop a FF mirrorless camera while Sony has a very solid 3rd Gen FF camera series right now.

The A7III is amazing and all the complaints are rather minor to what's included. While I love Nikon glass, Sony is gaining quite a bit of support from 3rd party manufacturers allowing for a large number of options.

@Jonathan F/2 - "the Nikon 85mm 1.8 G is a tad sharper than the Sony 85mm 1.8 FE and also focuses faster"

no, lol, it's NOT sharper, and no, it doesn't focus faster on a junky commlite adapter.

see the fe85/1.8 on this 20fps-capable list, in the link below... nikon doesn't have ANY lenses that have been proven at 20fps:

"Lenses capable of continuously shooting 20 images per second at maximum with AF tracking in AF-C mode"
http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/support/ilc/products/ilce9/continuousshooting/en/index.html?id=spt

you have a lot to learn about sony.

@osv - Umm, I ended keeping the Sony 85mm 1.8 FE and not the Nikon. The Nikon is sharper, even on a dumb adapter, so sorry to burst your bubble. The only reason I sold it was to take advantage of the silent focus and eye AF. Saying that, why would I need 20fps on a lens optimized for portrait photography? I'm taking pictures not making a movie! Lol

@fjbyrne - I do think the E mount is undersized forcing Sony to make FE lenses that unnecessarily project further from the flange mount. If Nikon went with a bigger mount for their mirrorless camera, they'd have have more flexibility in designing their lenses. Though I'd be curious if they'd also create an APS-C line using the same mount?

@Jonathan F/2 - "why would I need 20fps on a lens optimized for portrait photography?"

>sigh<

it's the *continuous af tracking* at 20fps that proves that the sony lens has much faster af than your nikon lens... whether you actually use 20fps or not is irrelevant.

and remember, you started that with the stupid claim that the nikon 85/1.8g "also focuses faster"...

and wrong again, the nikon 85/1.8g is a *total dog*, compared to the fe85/1.8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-85mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-AF-Nikkor-85mm-F18D-on-Nikon-D810__1818_917_752_963

not surprising that the nikon has such weak p.q., given that it's an old design from 2012.

Um, wrong lens dude. Are you even a real photographer or just a paid troll to raise the comment count? Nikon scores higher on DXO and retails cheaper as well.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-85mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D800E__1818_917_823_814

Anyways, like I said I still picked the Sony 85mm 1.8 FE for certain native attributes and silent AF for my Sony bodies. I'm a Sony shooter, but I use other equipment. If you want me to get started...Olympus S-AF is actually far faster than any Sony body in low light, but I'll leave that for another debate!

No one cares about 20fps continuous tracking for a portrait lens. Like no one.

@osv, Nikon did repair my D3300 for free and did fix the issue with AF, which was several years ago. But thankfully I had an extended warranty on it thanks to Costco. Yes, it was a hassle to send it in. That goes without saying. And while I haven't bought into Sony just yet, I've been reading great things about their lenses and how sharp they are (GM lenses in particular) wide open. This is encouraging.

"Yes, it was a hassle to send it in. That goes without saying."

not according to the nikon fanboi Jonathan F/2, who just told us that when he sent his nikon junk in for repair, it was "no hassle" and "indefinite FREE fix", like sending it in doesn't matter at all, lmao

it's classic troll behavior; refuse to admit that there is a problem, then when confronted with the truth, try to minimize the lies that you posted.

now he's telling us that his olympus junk focuses faster than sony... one lie begats another, lol, like how he's pretending to not understand why 20fps focus capability proves that the fe85/1.8 focuses faster at any framerate.

and no Jonathan F/2, you are wrong again about the lenses, the sony is sharper, *look at your own link*:
fe85/1.8: 29M-pix
85/1.8g: 27M-pix

good grief.

@osv - Why do you care so much about specs? Go shoot some photos.

@Thematic. While I do this this camera is phenomenal based on what I've seen and read, I've definitely missed how a camera rated at 700 pictures per charge can get over 1200 pictures? Will you explain this?

@henrydjp - "i've definitely missed"

yes, you definitely have, and that's not the first time either.

maybe you could explain how this guy got 3850 shots out of a d810 that's cipa-rated at 1200 shots, while another guy in the same thread only gets 700-800 shots: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54990289

@osv "yes, you definitely have, and that's not the first time either."

Haha, the usual forum member who feels the need to be rude in order to make themselves feel superior. I didn't ask you the question and we're not talking about a D810, so if you can't answer the question being asked then kindly buzz off. :-)

@HenryDJP - you are trolling with silly noob "questions"

grow up.

@osv. HAHA I'm hardly a noob. I actually own a D810 and a Sony A6300 and have been shooting photos and video for quite a few years. Since when does a general question about battery life become trolling? You're a piece of work. I notice from your posts that you attempt to anger a lot of members on DPR forum news articles. This very article has you arguing with multiple DPR members. It is definitely YOU that you should do some growing up.

@HenryDJP - "I actually own a D810"

you claim to own a d810, but you don't even know that d810 owners don't get the same 1200 shots that the camera is cipa-rated for... duh

try asking your fake "questions" in the dpr beginner forum next time.