This is a normal issue with all DSLRs because of the limitations of using a separate PDAF module. The issue is less apparent with APS sensors because APS sensors are so much smaller, and therefore the PDAF module's AF points are able to cover a larger area of the sensor. It is not because the 6DII uses "an APS-C focus unit". All FF DSLRs have this same issue of focus points limited to the center of the viewfinder:

https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AF-area-comparison-between-Nikon-D610-D750-and-D810-cameras.jpg

Updated the 6D II and D750 comparisons. Thank you.

@lessmirrored,

"and some lenses to go with it".

And therein lies the rub.

Tedolph

I've shot tens of thousands of shots with the A7r2 and A9 and never seen it.

Meanwhile, 99.9% of the photos you'll ever take with the camera won't have them. And that other 0.1%? There are already multiple solutions to repair them, even before the entire initial shipment reaches customers. Must not be as big of a problem as people who don't own the camera make it out to be. ;)

Fuji guys said the same about purple grid but unfortunately they were totally wrong for my style of shooting. Be assured that none of them will cover the money I lost buying into Fuji and selling that stuff again because it did not work for ME. ‘Rare occurrence‘ does not mean a thing unless quantified for your own applications.

@TORN

Good thing Sony's issue isn't anywhere near as complex as Fuji's, then, and can be repaired easily. :)

@Fotoni
although not 10 bit it will record 4K prores 4:2:2 on an external recorder. That is pretty decent

There is a fix for that you know. It's called the aperture dial or ring.

Well, in fairness to Mr. Barnack's 1913 decisions, the first f/2 lenses only appeared care of Taylor, Taylor & Hobson in 1920. Then Schneider's f1.8 Xenon in 1926, and finally the first f/1.4 lens didn't appear until TTH and Zeiss independently invented them in 1927.

@Androole,

Fair enough but still, you wind up paying for a lot of aperture that most of the time you can't use.

As for the rest of you, high ISO is getting so good, you don't need FF for low light conditions. You just need a fast lens.

Actually, you don't need "high" ISO. ISO 3200 with an f/1.7 lens is pretty much good for any low light situation where you can still see.

Modern crop sensor cameras handle ISO 3200 very nicely.

Tedolph

tedolf > Why would you buy an F1.4 lens if you never use an aperture this wide and can't accept the weight penalty? This makes no sense at all.

@Glina,
Excellent question!

Go over to the People Portraits forum and look at all the people who are disappointed with their 85mm f/1.4 lenses when they realize that they can't shoot it wide open and still get the nose and both eyes in focus in a tight head shot.

Didn't make much sense to pay that extra $1k over the f/2.8 version, did it?

Tedolph

Is that some kind of a club of people buying expensive gear they have no clue about? There's a whole lot of photographers who make good use of F1.4 or brighter with excellent results. If you can't use it, don't buy it!

"With lenses faster than f/2, the DOF is too shallow to be useful."

Then you're not using the lens/camera right.

LOL. Someome cant afford a FF camera. Which is ironic now because the prices have dropped so low. You can get a FF kit for cheaper than a micro four thirds kit. DOF too shallow? Shoot at f/8 with a high ISO and youre still getting cleaner images than a m43 camera. Or maybe just stick to your iphone.

Awwww, this is why Ansel Adams used crop cameras... Wait... No... He used format bigger than the whole roll of 35mm film.

btw. Most important factors for DOF are distance and focal length. You can squeeze shallow DOF from m43 if you are close enough and long enough.

Ansel also did a lot of shooting at f/64. Not quite sure what the relevance of any of that to this thread is...

This thread is "random useless "facts"?" ;) At least it could be funny.

@bokeblues,

Oh, and one more thing. Some of us shot with so called "full frame" cameras, and 120 roll film cameras since before you were born. We are well aware of the DOF profiles of these formats, and the DOF advantages of crop sensor formats.

They had those too in the film days, you might want to look that up on the InterWeb!

TEdolph

@Checat:

Good question.

For available light portrait work, I would like to be able to use my lenses wide open, and get a tight head shot with a 90-105 mm full frame FOV equivalent lens and still get the nose, both eyes and at least the close ear in focus. I would like to get a full body shot with a 50mm full frame FOV equivalent lens with the lens wide open. Both at a perspective pleasing distance of about 10' to 15'. So with a so called full frame camera that means about f/4 for the longer lens, and about f/2.8 for the shorter lens.

You can convert that to equivalent focal lengths and maximum apertures for crop sensor cameras.

As you can see, with an 85mm f/1.4 lenses on full frame camera I am paying for maybe two F stops of lens that I don't find usable. With a 50mm lens, anything faster than about f/1.7 gets to be problematic.

Tedolph

@tedolf - "With lenses faster than f/2, the DOF is too shallow to be useful."

DOF is a function of aperture and subject distance. Shorter subject distance decreases DOF, farther subject distance increases DOF for a given aperture. So to say that anything faster than f/2 is "too shallow to be useful" across any subject distance is just nonsense and wrong.

Just use it to make photos, not to go to bath with you. You wouldn't do that with a Leica either.

@Jose Viegas - Yep, good point. No one makes an issue that Leica M's have never been weather sealed, and Leica M's are revered as great photographic tools. It just does to show that not everyone shoots with their cameras in open rain for extended periods of time!

@lawny13 - "Now don’t get me wrong. I just got the a7iii, and I am loving it. But since it is supposed to be the new baseline for FF cameras"

Yes, and I do think that people have to remember that the A7III is Sony's baseline FF camera.

I just find it crazy that people get so wound up about weather sealing. I've owned many cameras throughout my life. I've had the Canon 10D, 20D, 40D 5D, and 60D. And before that, I had a couple Canon film SLRs. Looking back, I now realize that the only one that had any weather sealing was the 60D. It was just never an issue. I shot all of these cameras in terrible conditions. I also have a few mirrorless cameras. My main mirrorless cameras that I use most are the Sony A6000 and Fuji X-E1. Those two cameras aren't weather sealed either. And I've shot with them in bad conditions too. And it was never an issue. Sure, I think weather sealing is a great bonus to have. But I don't think it should be the deal killer that people make it out to be.

Yep, those mirrorless Leica cameras sure have small buttons and are difficult to operate.

Same with that silly mirrorless Hasselblad camera!

tEdolph

Not to mention those toy-like mirrorless GH5s and G9s with their big ergonomic grips and buttons and viewfinders...

It better be, since it's full frame pricing for a 1/4 frame sensor.

@tkbslc

GH5: $1999
GH5S: $2499
A7 III: $1999

The D850 is difficult to operate with small hands, to each their own!

That's not for full frame.

I know, you didn't ask for fullframe.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/wide-angle/ef-35mm-f-2-is-usm

It's not f/2, but Rokinon offers both a 35/1.4 and 35/2.8 AF full frame Sony E:

http://www.rokinon.com/lenses/auto-focus

Techart Pro + any 35/1.8 you can fit on it?

Look at sports shooters or wildife photographers using rain cotes for their high end DSLR cameras. Why on Earth do they bother with that ... :-)

@tlinn: are you sure?
@Magnar: well, yes, but some don't. You cannot be a moving tent in some circumstances - ask them. And I even not mentioned sand... my point, anyway, is that, for now, apples are still apples and pears are still pears. And, as the circumstantial argument can be endless, I will stop here.
P. S.: to be clear - I am, by no means, disconsidering this new A7!

This camera is a benchmark for FF cameras, if you can live with subpar colour reproduction (written in the text) and striping artifacts and subpar weather protection and bad ergonomy when using with heavy and long lenses.
But hey, it is still good neverthless.

oztuert....Bitter much? Did a Sony steal your lunch money? Care to offer a better solution for the price.

@ The Silver Nemesis: Talkning about sand - my guess is that Sony weather sealing is as good at for other cameras when exposed to dust and sand.

And good luck if you get sand in the delicate DSLR mirror box with lots of moving parts!

You don't - if don't want to kill the camera. One grain (or a very thin layer) of sand on the sensor will make your life difficult, mirrorless or dslr. The trick is not to change the lens in a desert (or war) environment, if you can. Outside that, a pro DSLR can get a lot of sand...without damage.

incremental?? Is it a joke? I have a slowly walking toddler, A7 II cannot even follow him at all...

I would argue that this is one case where hyperbole may be justified. Sony has undeniably raised the value proposition for this price point. And their advancement in terms of eye focus in continuous AF as well as focus point viewfinder coverage is hardly incremental in my opinion. Yes, some of this may be available in the A9 but what does it cost again?

"True, it's very good. However reasonably priced. Unlike other brands that cripple cheap ($1900) camera."

It seems like Canon is pretty much the only one that does that. Everyone else seems to be bringing their 'A' game to that market segment.

Nikon cameras are crippled by default because their video specs are underwhelming. Also Nikon D610 lack in autofocus and metering. APS-c lenses are wasted on these FX camera bodies. And many everyday lens options are missing.

"Nikon cameras are crippled by default because their video specs are underwhelming."
If Nikon is missing a feature across their entire product line it may be a drawback, but that's vastly different than them deliberately crippling a $2k camera.

"Also Nikon D610 lack in autofocus and metering."
The D610 is 25% cheaper and isn't intended to compete with the A7 III. What do you think Nikon deliberately left off of the D750, when it came out 4 years ago, in order to "cripple" it?

"APS-c lenses are wasted on these FX camera bodies. And many everyday lens options are missing."
What are you even talking about here? Nikon's full frame bodies are somehow crippled be cause APS-C lenses exist? Wouldn't that same "logic" apply to Sony?

@winkalman

"If Nikon is missing a feature across their entire product line it may be a drawback, but that's vastly different than them deliberately crippling a $2k camera."

Their live view AF cripples both photo and video. They've even had decent AF in the 1 series, but never implemented it on their DSLRs, despite constant customer requests and negative points in reviews.

"The D610 is 25% cheaper and isn't intended to compete with the A7 III. What do you think Nikon deliberately left off of the D750, when it came out 4 years ago, in order to "cripple" it?"

D610 and A7 III are both company's entry level FF cameras. They compete head to head, along with the 6D II.

D750 has a crippled AF system, with still smaller AF point coverage than the D8xx and Dx series'. Pretty jarring when following Nikon's preferred DX -> FX path. Especially in a midrange camera. Also, a consumer body from the D7xxx, with limited metal construction. It's really just a D7100 with a bigger sensor and flippy screen (I had both back-to-back).

I think he's saying he wants Canon JPEGs in a Sony camera or something.

This is what happens when you legalize pot

Unless you shoot JPG only, you can have whatever flavor of film you want by shooting RAW. As a bonus, Sony also offers their pro video Picture Profiles in these cameras, which more than triples the number of looks/colors you can get in JPG via the standard Creative Styles. Using EOSHD's Pro Color settings, you can even simulate Canon JPG output on your Sony.

@MyReality You seem to equate best selling to best product. In my experience that happens in a small set of cases.

@Magnar W:
Hard to believe, but I actually agree with you !

I was wondering how long it would take this complaint to appear.

DPR scores and awards are a moving target. They are based on current technology and offerings. When was the D750 introduced? 3.5 years ago and the review is probably 3 or more years old. Weaker competition back then, so the D750 scored well.

Today, the Sony faces stronger competition, so it's actually laudable that Sony's scores are as high as they are.

Anyway, instead of paying too much attention to the scores and awards, use the comparison tool to see which camera performs based in the categories you value.

Cameras are rated and given awards within their own category. Ratings do not go across categories. Mirrorless FF ratings are not compared against DSLR ratings when an award is given.

@myreality
Why not ? Both type of cameras ( mirrorless or DSLRs )'s main purpose is taking pictures

Fascinating statistics. Ok, not really. If someone wanted to take the time, it could be that Sony comes out with new models more often than anybody else which leads to more tests and the inevitable gold awards.

Some more interesting data: OVERALL BREAKDOWN OF UNITS:

2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015
Nikon: (2018) 52.0%; (2017) 30.6%; (2016) 27.2%; (2015) 18.4%
Canon: (2018) 30.2%; (2017) 55.5%; (2016) 63.6%; 2015-60.5%
Sony: (2018) 5.2%; (2017) 0.0%: (2016) 2.3%; (2015) 0.0%

For discriminating professionals, Nikon has done a judo throw to Canon,

a reversal, tossing Canon on their heads and taking the lead. For pros

at least, who know what they need, Canon appears to be on the steady

decline, while Nikon is on the rise, due to their technological leads

in everything that is most important:

Critical AF;
Extreme High Iso;
Extreme Base Iso;
Lens Excellence (no adapter needed) and Selection;
Ruggedness and proven reliability;
Pro Support.

All the rest is fluff, really. Mirrorless has some fluff, but

essentially there's nothing solid to the mirrorless offerings at this

point, with their minimal professional representation confirming this.

"...which leads to more tests and the inevitable gold awards."

Like the

Nikon D7500, Silver Award (86% in 2017),
Canon 77D, Silver Award (82% in 2017), or
Canon 6D MII, No Award (80% in 2017).

Inevitable, indeed.

Whatever blows your skirt up...

No, camera ratings here are still compared and rated to cameras in its class that are recent.

@MyReality
"Mirrorless FF ratings are not compared against DSLR ratings when an award is given."

That's entirely false. If you switch on the 'compare mode' toggle in the rating box on the conclusion page you will see the other cameras that a model is being judged against.

The A7III is being compared directly with the D600/10, D750, K1 and 6D/2 - all DSLRs. If you look under the 'Semi-pro' category you will see the A7rIII being compared with the D850 and 5D4 and in the 'Professional' category the A9 matched against the D5 and 1DXII,

DPreview makes no distinction between whether a camera is a DSLR or mirrorless.

@RubberDials - You are confusing "compare", that is, comparing camera attributes with ratings for a single camera. You can compare many things online by simply creating columns that show the attributes, but this does not tell you anything about which one might be the best(rate them).
People need to re-read DPR's criteria for rating cameras. Of course there will always be some paranoia and distrust when some ones own perceptions are not fulfilled.

@Androole - "Comparisons" and "buying guides" are primarily for information only. The first one can be data factual while the second one is primarily subjective. Both of them have nothing to do with actual tests of camera attributes, assign a value to each attribute, and than forming a total.
The total at the end is not entirely objective, but at least it is a combination of controlled test and field test.
From what I have read in the preamble to DPR's tests of cameras, mirrorless is TESTED against mirrorless, FF against FF, APS-C against APS-C, etc.

@Androole - Why do people on this forum want to put words into my mouth, I did not say that I do not care about camera data or specs. I said there is a difference between comparisons that use specs and test results. Read the specs for any Nikon or Canon or etc., they do not tell you which one has the best AF or battery life or etc.
I use tests to show me the flaws a camera has, to me, the cons are more important than the pros.

The D750 sells for under$1400 refurbished with warranty.
Used it is even less.

The D750 with a 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses can be found for as little as $3500 new, while the only A7iii option is close to $7000.

Used the D750 with two f2.8 zooms can be found for under $3000 while the A7iii combo would still be more than double.

And don't forget. If one wants decent battery like and a comfortable grip, the A7iii costs $350 more.

The good news is the A7iii can match the D750 weather resistance with a cheap plastic bag.

And an original Canon 1D sells for $40 and a firm handshake, despite an original MSRP of $7000.

What does the price of a used camera have to do with the cost of watermelons in Great Britain?

@an-drool clearly didn't read the article. LOL!!!!

Mastering Light - B&H Pricing D750 = 1,800, 24-70 f/2.8 = $2,300 & 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,800 for total of $6,900.00 (NOT $3,500.00) A73 = $2,000, 24-70 f/2.8 = $2,200 & 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,600 for total of $6,800.00 or $100.00 less

Sheesh - I hate to be that Fact Checker Guy, but you were way out in left field. PS If you're going to use the Tamron/Sigma argument, we can adapt those to the A73 easily too...

Sad to see @Mared lying and misleading (common for Sony fans).
I specifically said the lower cost lenses and Tamron sells one for Nikon for $500 and Nikon sells one for $1400 (new on Amazon).

The point was the cheapest lens for the Sony is $2200.

So despite the lies and deflection, one can buy a new D750 with new 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms for under $3500, while the cheapest Sony option is close to $7000.

And Mared's point, which is equally valid, is that you can easily buy a new A7 III with new 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms (and a $250 MC11 adapter) for less than $500 difference in price.

We just saved you $3000 with 30 seconds of internet research. You're welcome!

Hey Tony, ever receive money or free stuff from Sony?
That would help in evaluating your comments.

Seriously, why can't Sony fanboys have discussions without throwing tantrums and confirming their reputation for childish name calling?

Btw, most review sites get free merchandise and reviewers get to go on paid junkets. The A7iii studio scene with the nasty striping was setup and paid for by Sony. Sony provided the cameras and models free of charge. DPR was open about that.

Mastering Light, how old are you?

Don't know how old he is but he spends an embarrassing amount of time repeating the same anti-Sony comments over and over again on any article that mentions Sony...and some that don't!!

If we receive free stuff from every camera company, why is it we're accused of favoring one over the other?

I traded in a Nikon D750 which I began to find too bulky and got the 7r3 with the 55 1.8 and 85 1.8. I may get the 35 2.8 or voigtlander 40 1.2.

I found with a large Zoom the a7r 3 grip was just too tight to the lens barrel where it flares out and it rubbed my knuckles. With smaller primes it is fine, small and reasonably light.

If you plan to use large zooms or 1.4 primes, the small size and v tight grip are a factor.

I want something I am prepared to carry around have the move to mirror less. I also really like the IBIS.

I should add that the eye focus of the Sony really swung me compared to the Fuji XH1. The Sony AF is v impressive for portraits.

I cannot use the Sony zoom lenses with A7 II and III cameras comfortably (the ones getting thicker). Not enough room for my middle finger. Collides with the edge of those lenses.

A used X-T2 might just be an affordable compromise especially when adding the price for lenses compared to Sony. You do not get the same image quality though.

My 50% pictures is exactly portraits againts bright light.

Relevance to others is of no relevance to me. I do exactly this kind of photography with this kind of lens. Learnt this lesson with Fuji purple grid the hard way.

they are referring to lower light situations, since e-mount af works better in low-light with faster glass, see this seminal article that rishi wrote: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance

but with good light, there really isn't an af penalty to speak of, when shooting at slightly stopped-down apertures... if you look at the a9, shooting at 15-20fps, is there really enough time to flap the aperture open at every frame, and wait for af? i think not.

15-20+fps is where the future of sony milc is headed.

@Dr Jon
Yes, because it has a slight crop.

Have you tried holding it? I find it easy to hold but ergonomics is a personal thing.

xPhoenix; imagine Ansel Adams saying that

@fjbyrne
I tried an a7riii recently, so if this body is anything like that, I wouldn't like it. I never thought I'd complain about a camera being TOO small, but it really is. I can only squeeze three fingers onto the grip. I guess for small primes it's no biggie, but I use long lenses. Different strokes for different folks...

The whole "sharp edges" comment is nonsense. Ain't nothing on this camera going to cut you, lol. As for ergonomics, I actually prefer smaller cameras. DSLRS have become way too big and bulky. Also keep in mind that the A7III is more modular and customizable than the average DSLR. You can add a variety of grips to it, either from Sony or third parties. For example, I added a third-party grip to my Fuji X-E1 which I like very much. It enhances its comfort.

If you want to or need to get more fingers onto the grip, definitely buy an accessory grip for the A9/A7 bodies. That's what they are there for.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images1500x1500/sony_alpha_a7_ii_mirrorless_1207794.jpg

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91d9wxVX2xL._SL1500_.jpg

http://www.photoloving.com/inter/NEWzone/IS-a7/01.jpg

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/assets/images/products/Alpha-a7RIII.1%7C2%7C1-01.jpg?resizeid=2&resizeh=400&resizew=400

Sony must design their cameras for little girls with small hands, or hipsters or something.

@xPhoenix - Well, if you think about it, the best selling ILCs in the world are smaller ILCs, such as Canon Rebel T6's and Nikon D3400's. "Big" cameras actually make up a very small percentage of ILCs sold. So Sony is making a camera designed to fit into a "popular" size specification. And for those who want it to be bigger, they can add a grip (which is why Sony offers two add-on grips fro their Sony A9/A7 bodies). From a practical point of view, it makes sense. It's easier to add something to a camera to make it larger (such as adding grips or body extenders) than it is to take a large camera and make it smaller (which you can't do at all). Sony is a very pragmatic and practical company, and I think they are being smart. After all, this is the company that uses the same body design across multiple models within each generation, which cuts down on design and manufacturing costs by sharing parts and production.

@xphoenix
"I don't care how good the photos are if it's uncomfortable to hold."

This is the point at which you part company with photographers. How a camera feels in the hand is completely subordinate to the quality of the photographs it takes. The fact that you are prepared to state online that how a camera feels in your hand is more important than the pictures it takes singles you out as someone who buys cameras to pose with and play with, not take photos.

I find Sony cameras very comfortable to use, but I would still use them if I had to use them on a tripod, because a camera is just a machine for taking photographs and if you're putting how the camera feels in your hand before the pictures it takes something has gone very badly wrong.

I've used all kinds of cameras over the last 35 years and spent literally no seconds worrying about they handled - because I was thinking about the shot. And you have no idea how challenging handling can be until you shoot medium format.

No point in using a camera if it's not comfortable to hold. I tried the a7rii with big 100-400 lens. Poor ergonomics, not enough room between grip and lens barrel, and the lens release is in a stupid spot. Why would I use a camera that's built for kid's hands when I can use a comfortable DSLR like the D850 that also wins in IQ. If the Sony took the best pictures in the world, MAYBE I'd consider overlooking the ergonomics, but it doesn't. The same IQ can be had from many other cameras.

And, it has the striping artifact. LOL. There's a sucker born every minute. That should be Sony's new slogan.

@Thorgrem - Well they did, didn't they? Larger grip, additional AF joystick, and a touchscreen.

That's undeniably useful progress.

They've certainly done their market research.

@Andoole, they did a little bit I see. Besides the joystick (which is great) they didn't change enough to make it comfortable; https://camerasize.com/compact/#579,777,ha,t To bad.

Doesn't comfort sort of depend on what kind of lenses you're using?

Anyway, with ISO performance this good, the idea of using massive f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes on FF seems a little bit old-fashioned from where I'm sitting.

Obviously lots of folks differ in that view, but they can stick to their 1 kg DSLRs with enormous grips, in that case, no?

So the high ISO performance is so good that you don't want to take advantage of that with fast lenses.... LOL, just LOL.

There is a concept called "sufficiency" that you may want to look up. More and more photographers (Ming Thein, The Online Photographer, Nat Geo's Dewitt Jones, etc...) have been writing about it. It's very useful, not just from a philosophical point of view, but from a practical one.

At the very least, it can help you abandon the gear treadmill, if you want to.

because technically you can't have continuous AF with open aperture and continuous live view with stopped down aperture at the same time?

It's been explained in the review - focus accuracy. Stopping down can shift the focus plane.

Turn off live view and the aperture stays open. You can assign a button for stopped down viewing.

If you use an A mount lens via the La-EA3 or 4 they do AF with the lens wide open, but personally I prefer to see the DoF simulation (I confess I mainly do MF) - because of this I often reach for a dumb adapter rather than the one that can control the lenses.

Agree with BBT. I have set LV effect on.off to a button and can switch back and force at will. No, no problem focussing stopped down that way (I hardly need it, but for the few times it works nicely).

"Turn off live view and the aperture stays open. You can assign a button for stopped down viewing."

No, turning Live View Settings Effect 'OFF' does not cause the aperture to stay open in AF-C. It only forces the initial acquisition to be done wide open (well, up to F2 anyway), and then immediately stops the lens down, at which point you experience the decrease in focus performance. This often shows up as hunting in low light or backlit situations.

Furthermore, even if it did occur, it wouldn't be an acceptable workaround, since turning Live View off negates one of the (arguably) biggest benefits of mirrorless: exposure preview. For most types of photography, the depth-of-field preview aspect of the live view is not what's desired, it's the exposure preview.

There is literally no workaround at the moment, unless you switch the camera to AF-S, which slows focus down and is unacceptable for moving subjects.

I agree that for tracking it is not a viable solution, for the behaviour mentioned by Rishi. I don't have any problem using that in a studio environment, though, as I only need the cam to get the initial acquisition and the take the shot immediately.
This works nicely in AFC and I experience no hunting for this.

Androole: A7iii PDR is equal or higher below ISO640 than D810. The massively higher (1.225 time higher linear resolution) MP number will make a huuuuge difference. Especially as you can use EFCS in the VF to avoid shutter and mirror shock, too, as well as avoid AFMA problems + stabilise the lenses to make use of much lower shutter speeds ... Ah, sorry, meant the A7iii.

If you shoot landscapes on a tripod at base iso only, I would prefer the K1/D810, too. In fact, I had the D810 once for quite some time. However, there are a lot of different shooting scenarios where there is not a "significantly better" result, quite the contrary.

+HFLM Outside of high very ISO performance I don't see where the a7 III has a better RAW output over the Pentax or Nikon.

When you say "A7iii PDR is equal or higher below ISO640 than D810" you are talking about such small differences that they might literally be rounding errors, or within the margins of experimental error. Any difference there is absolutely not ever going to be perceivable in a real photograph.

You can try and mitigate the megapixel difference by breaking it down into its constituent linear resolution, but the truth is that if you are respecting the same printing quality restrictions, you'll end up with a wall print that is fully 50% larger from the D810 or K1. I suspect that's noticeable for most people.

@ Rich... It depends on how you shoot and what is important to one. If you need the 36MP and shoot on a tripod only, the D810 is the way to go.
-If not, the PDR is equal (base iso) or better at intermediate and high ISO.
-High ISO S/N ratio looks better, just look at my link .
-You get all lenses stabilised to allow for lower shutter speeds handheld (I can shoot my 135 Batis at 1/20 to 1/30s without problems on the A73 or A7riii at 42MP. I can forget doing that with the Sigma 135 on the D810) in combination with lower ISO to increase IQ
-I have EFCS when shooting handheld. A raw affected by shutter shock or mirror slap is not a good raw. And your technique needs to be extremely good to make full use of the 36MP at 100%.
So this specs increase the envelope of shooting conditions where I can make best use of the sensor. If you only look at iso 64 on a tripod, I agree with you.

Sure.

That's getting into a fairly fuzzy interpretation of the meaning of RAW image quality, though.

Obviously I agree that from a practical point of view, the real world shooting envelope is enormously important. Though if you're taking into account a lot of those other variables, you could begin to make a strong case for cameras like the Olympus E-M1 II or Panasonic G9, due to their market-leading IBIS and ultra-fast e-shutter readout speeds for handheld usage (allowing practical handheld HDR bracketing or superresolution techniques, for instance), and pixel-shift Hi-Res modes for tripod-based usage.

I think that both of those circumstances, while certainly valid in the real world, don't really fit into the spirit of the RAW image quality metric, as measured by DPReview. Maybe I'm wrong.

+HFLM You're jumping around the topic a bit. By your metrics the a7 III Image quality (raw) is better than a $30,000 Phase One camera.

Do you need autofocus for talking-head interviews?

But still feels like a toy in the hand! Real men shoot with manly cameras. These pidly things are for hobbiests!

@imager of

Get better at trolling.

Sadly, Imager of, the results are in. In order to be a real man, you must shoot one of these.

https://saopaulocamerastyle.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/0005-pentax-67ii.jpg

Literally anything smaller or lighter marks you not only as a hobbyist, but one that is both weak-limbed and weak-willed, at that.

@ Imager of - this is what they say. I'm sure if they thought it would attract more buyers, Sony would find a way to take a way make the body bigger.

Maybe it's just me, but if you already have your foot in FF, I would hold off buying any new camera until Canon and Nikon show their long rumored, mirrorless, FF hand before making a decision.

Even if their offerings end up underwhelming, competition is always good at bringing prices down and Sony has had a free ride for far too long.

If a videographer is to use this as their main camera, it needs to run straight for at least 1:15 (half of a 2+ hour performance) .... 30 min stints won't be enough.

that's vlog. Most videographer don't record that long.

most videographers do not record for over an hour straight, that's nonsense.

for that sort of thing, you'd have to get a dedicated camcorder or an external recorder.

Lots of videographers pay their rent by shooting the speakers at big corporate conferences—that's usually eight hours straight and the clients want the whole thing, no breaks.
There are also deposition videos, recordings of trials, and long-winded ministers.
The only thing I would add is that please don't do your overheating test at 72F in a nice air-conditioned office building with controlled humidity. How about setting it up in a terrarium or other enclosed space where you can simulate the stifling heat and wet funk of a big church basement wedding celebration.

AFAIK, very few (if any) of these cameras in the consumer marketplace record longer than 29:59, because of various import duty rates in parts of the world that change depending on whether a camera is classified as a 'video' camera or not. Going beyond 30 minutes of recording can change this classification.

So...if 30 minutes isn't long enough for you, you need to be looking at a different class of camera, generally. I do believe the Panasonic GH-series records longer.

How much extra would it add to the price for Sony to offically re-classify this product as a "camcorder" for ITA purposes and remove the 29:59 restriction?
If it added $100 to the RRP price it would be well worth it for me.

I would choose moire over loss of sharpness all day. You can remove moire in post, but you can't really add sharpness.

Yes, ACR makes moire a cinch to remove, using the local tool. I was frankly blown away by how far that tool had evolved.