I wish my a9 didn’t have the PASM lock. Drives me nuts, and I never accidentally toggled the dial in my a7ii. It was much nicer to be able to rotate it with my thumb while holding the camera normally.

Has it ever been moved by accident? I have used digital cameras for the past 20 years and never once has this wheel moved accidentally. Now the exposure compensation at the edge of the camera is a different story, but the PASM wheel? Seriously???

BBQue:

I constantly have PASM dials move by accident.

Can't speak to using the A7III daily, I don't own one.

But generally unlockable PASM dials move when they shouldn't.

So yes, seriously the PASM dial.

I actually hate the dial lock. It's an extra step, which slows me down in fast paced shooting.

A dial toggle would satisfy all users though.

What Panasonic and Fuji do is irrelevant - the Sony PASM dial does not "spin freely". Hence no need for a lock. It has just the right amount of resistance to prevent it from moving by accident. This is my experience with Sony cameras from A6000 to A7rii.

I also had A6300 camera, took that on a trip to Vietnam. Would not describe that PASM wheel as "spinning freely". It never changed position once (I always keep it on A, very occasionally on M). Sorry your experience is different from mine.

My next camera is going to be A7riii. I really regret that Sony did not remove that lock on that camera too. If this issue is important, you may want to consider A7riii in lieu of A7iii. Get a better sensor and EVF too :) GOOD LUCK

I find the amount of force needed to turn the PASM wheel on the A6000 and the A6500 a tad too much, if anything. And when it does turn it gives a very clear tactile signal and an audible clack too, so I totally fail to see how it could happen by accident without you noticing.

What Androole said.

The only camera I expect to have done better for that stressful a test is an a9.

@Rishi Sanyal - what do you make of Eye-AF front focusing issue reported by several users? E.g. here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61056945

(I asked in a separate comment, but since this one is eye-AF related too, and you've already replied...)

I'm surprised that the missing battery charger didn't make the "What we don't like list".

It’s funny how photographers in here always give ‘family type’ photos the snide shoulder as if that’s not real photography, and fast action photos are really bif and pro sports. I’m glad this review laid out the truth that focusing on a misdirected toddler is just as serious business as pedigreed subjects.

Simply stop down to f/16 and diffraction softening will produce the effect of an anti-aliasing filter...

I believe you mean the Tamron 28-75? It is definitely small given its aperture (though 4.6" long and 550g is definitely no feather!), but given the ISO capabilities of FF, I would much prefer a wider, more useful range with a smaller aperture, personally. Though Tamron themselves admitted that stretching to 24mm would have made the lens much larger and heavier.

I understand that the Pentax zoom is old and would underperform somewhat when pixel peeping, but again, witness the popularity of the 16-50PZ a lens that by accounts is also "not comparable to modern glass" despite being released in 2013...

I honestly can't see a single use case for RAW processing in-camera.

As virtualreality says, why not just tweak the JPEG settings until they're "close enough" for instant smartphone sharing, and if they can't meet your standards, just wait until you can do RAW development on a proper screen with proper processing power and the full versatility of dedicated software.

Who would buy a 2k FF camera to do raw processing in camera? It's bad enough to do it on iPads... On the camera? what's the point?

In-camera RAW processing is extremely useful for sharing photos with others or through social media without having to use a computer first. Having to wait to process as desired or pass a jpeg and edit that on a smartphone seem antiquated and inferior solutions.

No need for waiting. You can transfer files to your phone on the go.

You can use Lightroom Mobile on your smartphone or tablet to edit and export RAW files. Again a camera does not have a good UI and small screen so in-camera RAW really is inferior.

We're working on implementing this real soon.

Are you a bot, bilbo bobbins?

You really need to shoot film if you want the non-digital film look. Seriously!

Besides, Fuji color profiles, including their "classic chrome" are available as plug-in if you process Sony files from raw (as everyone really should). If you are a JPG only shooter who wants to upload to social media a fast as possible, then the Fuji does have an edge here.

I already knew someone would say that.

Because it deserves it

Probably, but why? From what I've seen , but I stand corrected, on wide lenses corner and edge quality suffers not to mention the usual potential interface problems....

There is a potential interface problem with new ideas for most people. Not implying anything about you here, just that we don't really have to guess at this. It's a boon that one can mount Canon glass and many pieces have been thoroughly tested--one can just ask. Amazing that one has the option of filling a lens catalog with Canon pieces they already have + Sony pieces you want instead of a full on switch as is usually required. I would love for Sony to make a good TS--do you have that lens--then isn't it worth a try? The 40 should be no problem if that is what is holding you back. You are right on one thing, all current bodies are very good and one has to decide what strengths they want.

Since you ask... Nikon have a 24 TS and a cheap 40mm 2.8 :-)

@IvanM -

Max Yureyev, et al have already posted in youtube countless test using canon lenses with adapters and the speed of AF is excellent. They even have eye-focus activated for most lenses! So, electronic contacts and translation of canon signals to sony and vice-versa is not much of an issue in photo mode.

As for corners being not as good. Where did you get that info? If it is sharp on your canon camera, why would it be bad now in sony with adapters? I have a tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 di I want to test with my a7-3. I tested that years ago in a canon 5d and it was sharp at the corners. I don't expect to see it perform any worse.

And why would you need AF for TS lenses?

I get it if you don't want the A7-3. But your assumptions aren't true at all and has been demonstrated by many months ago to the contrary.

Cat... all of the YouTube adapted lens lens reviews I've seen show less than spectacular results... mediocre at best; especially when trying long Canon lenses.

Why "jerry rig" a system to get mediocre AF performance? No thanks.

@dgmushu - I don't know what you have seen, but they are very fast. "mediocre" is very inaccurate to describe the speed.

YES, thanks to the many who use it because it isn't that "slow" as you claim it to be.

Its like saying why dont car review websites put drag slicks on a car to test every 0-60

Isn't this an issue for all of these comparisons? Cameras are using different lenses which are probably at least as important for differences as sensors. Not to mention differences in default out of camera jpeg processing and any given raw development tool may do a better job with files from certain cameras, especially if simply used at default settings. And then if we let people process to taste we've introduced another variable. Seems to me there are too many variables to make any firm conclusions regarding the intrinsic body performance from any of these kinds of comparisons.

Holy mackerel, just watched the trailer. Mind blown. His gels are amazing too.

That $100 get's you:

2.8 Evs extra DR
Cleaner high ISO images
Dual SD cards
Fantastic 4K Video
IBIS
Eye AF
10 FPS
EVF

And more...

"why would anyone want a canon camera"

Battery Life (OVF can be left on forever, A7III gets half the shots per-charge)
Lenses
Comfortable Ergonomics
Abundance and Price of Accessories
Customer Support
Color Accuracy
Fully Articulating Screen (on the 6DMkII)
Software Maturity
Fully Touch Enabled Menu
Real Weather Sealing
Astrophotography (Sony has the "Star Eater" problem)
EF mount holds large lenses better

CANON 6DII AND a7iii IDENTICAL BETWEEN iso 400 and iso 3200 (where most peeps shoot) lol

https://image.ibb.co/dAGRPn/a7iii_canon14.jpg

@jennajenna I'd be hard pushed to find one of my photos shot above ISO 100. Either way the A7III is noticeably better outside that range and a far better camera beyond the sensor anyway.

@jennajenna
Sorry but you haven't quite got the right graph for the subject at hand.
"Measured ISO" just means they get the same exposure for the same settings.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
Look here to see the difference in noise handling between different cameras.
It is still very reasonable to point out that by ISO150 the D850 and 6DII are only about 1 stop apart.
The A7III is a bit better still, but as DXO likes to say, the difference between one stop is practically negligible.
I'm sure the A7III is a "technical" improvement in many ways but in practice I still think Nikon and Canon compensate with the way that they handle image noise.

@jennajenna Just came across this and had to laugh when I saw what you linked to in support of your outlandishly incorrect claim.

The chart at your link purports to compare (via a debatable measure) the accuracy of ISO calibration of the two cameras (whether the stated ISO is actually what you get at each setting). That the cameras are similarly scaled on this particular attribute is utterly unsurprising but has no bearing at all on image quality or sensor capability - e.g. it says nothing direct about the amount of noise or the usability of image data captured at these settings.

I'm afraid you seem to have posted a link with no grasp of what the referenced chart data actually mean.

"Battery Life (OVF can be left on forever, A7III gets half the shots per-charge)"

Again wrong claim.

Mirrorless battery is time based. You can take example with single battery either 0 frames in 4 hour power On time, or take as much as your card can store and your buffer and sequence speed allows, like 9000 frames.

DSLR battery is more frame based. You can keep camera On for a week without taking any photo, or you can shoot fast you can for a memory card for about 1200-2000 frames and then battery dies. TIme is dependent how quickly you take those shots.

I like how you took a gray market price and compared it to a full in market warranty price! Next time use refurbished prices vs new it’ll make your point louder!

Did you actually look at the low light photos? Clicking on the bulb on top and then looking at the left hand side of the image?

Canon 6d mk2 looks so much out of place next to this camera even at iso 3200. Noise is much higher, detail is gone.It is just useless

D750 for it's 4 years tenure looks quite decent up to 6400 and then falls behind swiftly. At 12800 and 25600 6dII and d750 are bad joke were A7iii with some heavy post processing will produce an image.....

Also we need to see results for dynamic range where 6d mk2 is behind many crop cameras....

Canon have lost digital if you ask me. I hope for sake of competition they find their way, but given the 6dmk2 I cannot see this happening any time soon.

it probably would win ..it would still work afterwards

Canon fanboys are hilarious!

Their just as bad as sony fanboys

I agree - most of the hype on this camera is based on what you get for the price. It' s not really objectively 'best' at any one thing, but it's a tempting package for the price. The 5div is $1300 more expensive than the A7iii, so you can get the sony + a nice lens for the same price as the canon body alone. That is huge to a lot of folks!

Yes, and they're massively different, but I guess they're fairly specific situations for shooting.

The reality is, all the real world use stuff I've seen with the camera so far looks great; plan on still upgrading :)

Yes RX10 holds it’s ground well. If you are shooting daytime on a trip there is probably very little benefit of carrying around interchangeable lens camera with heavy lenses. Even phones nowadays can do very good pictures in many situations. Of course when it comes to creativity and desire for pixel perfect or low light shots larger sensor and interchangeable lens system is rewarding

BlueBomerTurbo That is clearly wrong. Adobe’s horribly flawed original profile for the 5DS/R killed it in many early reviews that came out claiming it suffered huge noise issues when in fact it was the best Canon sensor ever released - including when it came to noise. I was stunned (in a good way) at the difference when I started processing the 5DS/R files using my own colour profiles. DPR has for almost 2 years promissed to re-review the 5DS/R using an updated colour profile - I now doubt it will ever happen. Their glaring mis-information remains the “public” opinion of so many who have never used the camera themselves.

Maybe (Canon and Nikon) pro's didn't use jpegs because they are so bad. I know photographers who don't shoot in raw. If the camera can do a good job of noise reduction AND keeping detail, then why bother. Yes, you lose dynamic range but most of the time you don't need it. And even in jpeg you can lift up shadows to some degree.
Sony is paying a lot of attention at their jpegs, from the RX100 to the A7 serie.
Wedding photographer David Ziser is a jpeg only shooter.

I wouldn't wish wedding photography on my worst enemy :^)

Your right. The Sony has great jpg. It's still better in RAW, but it's closer. I have a D750 and am seriously impressed with the Sony. I wouldn't switch, in a 11*17 print you couldn't tell the difference, and I never shoot JPG, that's silly, I don't pay this kind of money to shoot 8 bit.
But hats off to Sony, another great sensor. And the lens looks quite a bit better than what they have on the Nikon.

So is the Hubble telescope. What exactly is your point Magnar?

Shadow noise is usually what limits your puctures the most in low light and there's more than a stop difference there.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7iii&attr13_1=nikon_d7500&attr13_2=sony_a7riii&attr13_3=pentax_k1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=594&x=-0.18312945450491375&y=-0.8723596999619965

I can give you a great reason, the ability to use thousands of excellent legacy lenses at their native focal length, and save a fortune in the process, though to be honest any A7 will do, so you don't even need the A7III.

Try actually shooting real cameras instead of relying on an often badly controlled comparison. It might surprise you.

I really do wish DPR forums wasn't mostly old guys bitching about cameras they can't afford.

I can see that there may be some concerns about sharpness comparisons but I use it for noise and color comparisons. Perhaps the lens affects color (but shouldn't the color checker handle that?) but I can't see that it'd affect noise.

"Lens variation for the same brand/model can also be an issue."

Much less of an issue.

IMO, all three comparisons, Full, Comp, & Print tell necessary pieces of the story.

On the previous two occasions we've tested the use of a single lens design across multiple systems, we've found more inconsistency than with our current system (there's also the issue of which focal length to use: a 50mm is longer than we want for Four Thirds sensors but shorter than ideal for full frame).

On the basis that most people use own-brand lenses on their cameras, using a good, sharp, consistent lens stopped down to F5.6 on all systems seems like the most real-world relevant answer (since all answers have their pros and cons).

All the lenses we use are very sharp at F5.6 in the center. If you see significant difference in sharpness/detail at the edges that aren't present nearer the centre, then it's likely to be a lens difference, but the difference in good primes stopped-down are not huge.