I own the A7RIII and am trying to decide whether to get a 2nd A7RIII to use or the new A7 III. Aside from price I’m trying to determine if the focus performance would also be an improvement.

Sensor reflection? This is an A7 problem, fixed for all later models.

Any samples of what you're referring to? Sounds more like a lens issue than a camera issue.

Sony just like smart tv

Do you want want a chrome camera instead of a black? :-)

So you mean to tell us this camera is exactly like your photos?

jorgepr: You are quite right about early versions of Sony mirrorless...but this A7III is years after Sony launched their Nex5 back.

@jorgepr
'I do not like the digital appearance of the images.'

If you're missing that film look, you could always slightly defocus the lens or apply a gaussian blur in post along with some grain and a high contrast layer.

I think you posted under the wrong article...

Phone reviews are that way ----------->

Mind the step and make sure you check if there are batteries included in the box.

Try printing. Gets rid of the digital.

@Mark K I think he meant the body. And I think aps-c-only lenses are smaller hence the handling would benefit even more.

@joao
A new aps-c camera is coming and it will definitely have a joystick and the Z battery.

The current rangefinder style literally morphed iteratively out of the Nex 5 and has always been problematic in that it doesn't have a front control wheel.

An obvious option is a plastic version of the A7 body, but I think Sony may want to keep the rangefinder style for product differentiation.

@JoaoPedroAB - Ironically, I would prefer that Sony offer a FF body with a side-mount EVF like the A6500. I prefer side-mount EVF over center-mount EVF. I would love it if we could have the option of both types of cameras in FF. Sure, it would be bigger than the A6500, but that's fine. It would probably be something like the FF side-EVF Leica Q (except that the Q doesn't have a removable lens).

I do enjoy the rangefinder styled a6500 tbh, the grip is not the best but not horrible either. Just get the a7 if you're happy with its shape?

Actually, the A6xxx body style comes from way back in the early '00s, from their DSC-F707 camera, and arguably, the DSC-F505 (much softer lines). Instead of a tilt screen, though, it had a tilt body. ;) Also, a front control dial. :o

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707

"you could literally swap a Canon 1DX II for an a7 III and still get a similar or better hit-rate at an action event is unprecedented."

but on the other hand:
"Continuous AF at smaller apertures can result in hunting or focus failure"

@Azaathothh
Are you also Yossarian1 or are you just guessing what he's referring to and answering for him?

"you could literally swap a Canon 1DX II for an a7 III and still get a similar or better hit-rate at an action event is unprecedented."

Would you prefer that the reviewers didn't tell you that the A7III had better AF for action shooting than the 1DXII? They are right, it is unprecedented, and highly noteworthy.

"Continuous AF at smaller apertures can result in hunting or focus failure"

What more are they supposed to do? They've told you both the pluses and minuses of the AF system.

Sounds like you only wanted to hear the negatives.

I agree...some of the hype in the review is embarrassing.

Bottom line is that you pay your money and take your chances; we all have to decide for ourselves.

Given that tests showed that the Sony a9 couldn't quite match the 1DX II or D5 in AF, I seriously doubt that the a7III AF can outperform the 1DX II. A quite puzzling assertion...

RubberDials: Sounds like you didn't like to hear some evidence that some conclusions contradict each other

GOLD for a camera that can not reliably continuous AF at f5.6 ????
R E A L L Y ????
My 6 year old D800 will reliably CAF even at f8!

@Azathothh
They don't contradict each other.

If you're interested in what I like and don't like, one of the things I don't like is people with an obvious agenda and no obvious expertise in thinking or writing believing they have somehow caught out professional journalists.

@thoughts R Us
You need to read the A9 test again (or perhaps for the first time).

The A9 out performed the 1DXII in all aspects AF acquisition and tracking. It's tracking was deemed less reliable than the D5's tracking, which DPR considers the gold standard.

@azatothh - Those are not necessarily contradictory statements. IF you are shooting sports, you need the fastest lenses available. That is usually f2.8 or f4 for long lenses.
When Sony has come out with a 400mm f2.8 lens are you going to shoot it at f5.6 or f8? Sports require freezing motion so why would you shoot at f5.6? If you can do with f5.6 or f8, that has to be shooting at noon or near it outdoors with no clouds in the sky. You don't need a 70-200 f2.8 or 400mm f2.8. You can do even with their 70-300 f4.5-5.6 lens.

But the reality is, 90% of the time, you don't have enough light to muster 1/500, which is often the minimum for most action shooting. Imagine now if you have to go 1/1000-1/2000! This is the reason most use the fastest lens available. It's not always you have a cloudless sunny day shooting between 10am-2pm.

Rubberdials - I was referring to that exact text as an example. I see others have also picked up on it.

The assertion in the article was you could "swap a Canon 1DX II for an a7 III and still get a similar or better hit-rate at an action event is unprecedented." This statement had no qualifications on it such as "if you rely on AF tracking mode" which might have made it more accurate (I don't know, having not used the a7 III).

You see there are other modes available to the action shooter. Despite DPR's claims, these modes are the modes most often used by professional action photographers (even Nikon shooters from observation) . In these instances, the 1DX II is likely to significantly outperform the a7 III because of its higher frame rate - its simple physics.

Having shot with a 1DX II at motor sport events in these modes, the keeper rate is virtually 100%. Virtually the photographer has to make a mistake, not the camera.

I also think that the unwanted sensor deficiencies are somewhat glossed over (banding, striping under certain conditions) as is the moire issue (and its not just limited to wedding dresses).

Yes you can fix most of it in post-processing but this shouldn't be necessary quite frankly. Or perhaps you like spending hours in photo-editing software?

Btw did they fixed that issue about the huge fail that was tracking while zooming with the A9 and the A7riii? Ultimate sports camera indeed.

@Yossarian
"This statement had no qualifications on it such as "if you rely on AF tracking mode" which might have made it more accurate (I don't know, having not used the a7 III)."

I'm not sure why you are looking for a qualifying clause. I don't think that DPR intends there should be one. They said this:

"Sure, you lose out on absolute burst speeds when compared to dedicated sports cameras like the Sony a9, Nikon D5 and Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, but in terms of focus accuracy and reliability, the a7 III can hang with the best of them."

"Today 'real cameras' need to meet raised expectations at an affordable price point, and the fact that you could literally swap a Canon 1DX II for an a7 III and still get a similar or better hit-rate at an action event is unprecedented."

Why would you assume that either of these statements needed qualification?

@Yaossarian
"I also think that the unwanted sensor deficiencies are somewhat glossed over (banding, striping under certain conditions) as is the moire issue (and its not just limited to wedding dresses)."

The fact that you refer to them as unwanted sensor deficiencies suggests that you don't understand these phenomena. Banding is a fact of life in photography under artificial lights for all cameras. It can be minimised by shooting with a mechanical shutter (which the A7III has). The 'striping' is not a sensor deficiency any more than veiling glare or element ghosting is a sensor deficiency. These are effects of internal lens reflection and are rare. To induce them you need to shoot for flare and use a lens that has poor flare resistance. It would be wrong for DPR to ignore this and they didn't but it needs to be understood in context. The 35/1.4L photo in the test is unusable, despite the stripes because of the element ghosting on the child's neck and hands.

"If this is for the Pro's"

It is not, rendering the rest of your comment void.

The A9 is Sony's professional mirrorless camera.

A9 built quality is the same... at least A7iii is 2K off.

@Vignes
To the best of my knowledge the A9 has not been examined regarding sealing.

The Imaging Resource water test and the Lens Rental teardown were on the A7rIII which has a different body design to the A9.

There may well be no effective difference between the two, but you must not assume there isn't without evidence.

@Vignes - not according to the A9 review (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a9-full-review/12) - no criticism of build quality there

This is their base model.

In reality a difference of a few points on a subjective scale should not sway someone too much - stuff like continuity and how it feels in the hand for the individual photographer take over with that small a difference.

While I regard the D750 as a great camera, I wouldn't prefer it over the a7iii
despite DPR scoring it more, because I have more lenses I could use on the Sony, plus I like the size of the camera and the EVF. Different people will have different preferences that may mesh (or not) with the views of the reviewer, no matter how objective they can be.

A D700 will give you better IQ more consistently over any Fuji all day long in the field outside controlled tests.

I own both. A D700 will give consistent quality over a wider range of scenarios. This is why the D700 is popular.Low MP count FF. Big pixels give you better colour/tonal qualities and deep rich contrast, (often described as “filmic”) vs crop or large MP FF. Rendering is a large reason many stick with the D700 VS the high res Nikon’s that loose this quality IMO. This is IQ.

2x the surface area is not a theoretical advantage that FF has it is a real physical one that has qualities beyond low light.

A 10yo D700 has better overall IQ than any crop camera especially from iso 800 -1600> If we are talking about consistent output shooting in a wide variety of lighting scenarios, Real images not test charts. Colour rendering, especially as it translates to print. Consistency in IQ is not talked about enough. This is the FF advantage. This is due to a bigger sensor area.

Undoubtedly, enjoyment is one of, if not the most, subjective attributes applied to technological tools. I've never used a Fuji. Perhaps, taking pictures with Fuji cameras causes the body to increase the production of dopamine and endorphins or stimulates pleasure nerve receptacles. Whatever.

Frankly, I consider a camera a tool for producing pleasing images. If the camera doesn't get in the way and facilitates the production of high quality images I'm good. My A7R3 with a tiny Samyang 35mm 1.8 lens (less than 100gm) feels good when I use it, but so does my Nikon D500 with a 200-500mm lens attached (2300gm for the lens alone). What really matters, and what fires my brain's joy receptacles, is when I see the fine output that comes from using these tools.

Thus, for each their own. "Good enough" is fine for many photographers. However, for those of us who want to squeeze more--sometimes the most--out of our final output, maximizing enjoyment can require using other tools.

"Having had a Sony A7R2, I dig the quality but did not enjoy using it.

I am, however, enjoying Fuji Xt2. IQ is perfectly good enough and, crucially, I enjoy using it more than the Sony."

And that is the wonderful thing about choice - we don't all have to use or prefer the same thing. There are no stinkers out there, so personal preferences win out...

The smaller sensor matters to me, to the point of being almost (but not 100%) a deal breaker: I was debating if switching to Fuji X-T2 from my Canon 5DMkIII - I decided to wait. I do shoot high iso very often and I could not stand a step back (or a stop back, shall I say) in terms of high iso noise. That's what I gathered after seeing many reviews and downloading few raws. It might be just me, but If I decide to switch to a new system, I don't want a single step back on any feature, especially IQ-wise. A small step but still too annoying to me.

The d700 is a myth and like many myths there’s is another reality : the d700 just cannot be as good as more recent cameras. I sold off mine after comparing shots made with the d700 with what you call a good lens vs the old Leica x1 which is apsc. I believed my d700 had a problem but it had no problem, except that the shots were way much much better with the Leica x1 : detail, colors, sharpness, 3D feeling, etc. Also, compare the shots made with an old d600 and you will immediately see the huge difference.

I am not saying that. This is for those people who think that upgrading to this camera will radicalliy change their photography - I am trying to put that thought into perspective. Or for those people who think their current camera is limiting their ability.

Technology is power to the people. Only some years it would be imaginable to get this kind of ISO performance and AF tracking at a "consumer" price level.

if you've already seen a bunch of kit lens pics with the a7, why do you need to see it again with the a7iii?

Perhaps because when the a7 was tested there was a lack of available Sony or Sony/Zeiss lenses. When I bought my a7 there was only the kit lens and the 35 f/2.8. My only lens for a while for my a7 was the 35 f/2.8. Now there is a wide range of excellent lenses and many, including me, just buy a camera body.

Boissez gets the prize for the best response. Reviews of the kit lens are universally poor. Thus, why would I want to see mediocre output from a new camera with--likely--a new and improved lens? for a review gallery of the CAMERA, I want to see the best possible images that the camera can produce.

However, for the uninitiated, it might be helpful to tell readers that you may need to buy $1200 zoom or $800 prime to duplicate these results. :)

The improvements going A7 II to A7 III are very similar to the improvements made going A6000 to A6300. I owned a D7100 and D750 at the same time I owned an A6000, and the A6000 just couldn't keep up, so I stuck with the Nikons for my pro work. Enter the A6300, and the across-the-board improvements meant I was finally able to break free of Nikon. The camera did everything I needed it to do and then some.

The A7 III will be the same camera for many, many other people. Free of the things that held back the A7 II, becoming a very competent do-it-all camera. This is why it was previously compared to the D750, a camera with similar potential.

As far as taking photos while shooting video, the low quality Canon was putting out definitely gave leeway to do other things. The A6000's video is significantly better, despite the camera having a low price point (and the A6300 blows both out of the water repeatedly). Also, smaller sensor cameras have less data coming in per pixel than larger sensor cameras, so they also have wiggle room to do other things, as well.

@dansclic

Fake news. So many great lenses out there to choose from:

http://briansmith.com/aps-e-mount-lenses-for-sony-mirrorless-cameras/

@dansclic Quality zoom scarcity is well known for E-mount APS-C no doubt, but there're tonnes of marvelous prime on the other hand, namely the Sigma/ART/Contemporary trio and Sony/Zeiss 24/55/85mm f1.8, even Chinese 3rd party are making manual lens for E-mount, Laowa 9mm is especially interesting imo.

"As I have been saying all along, lenses are two big"
---
We all should listen more two you.

I guess all you are missing is an open mind. Buying a top-end camera technology to use with lesser glass is money malivested. All Sony primes (except the F1.4 professional line) are on the small side. In zooms, the 24-105mm/F4 is smaller than any competing product, as is the 12-24mm/F4. A

Telezooms are not smaller but that's physics fault, not Sony's.

Then of course you have a choice outstanding Zeiss Batis and Loxia primes to create a compact kit with quality untouchable by any competing camera system. If you want to save money, the world of manual focus lenses with more than a hundred years of optical design legacy awaits.

@keepreal "Unless you actually like EVF, the Nikon D750 is still the new D750" .
- In body stabilization doesn't count?
- UHD 4K/30p video doesn't count?
- 693 phase detection autofocus points doesn't count?
- Eye-AF doesn't count?
- 10 fps doesn't count?
- Ability to adapt lenses doesn't count?

Don't get me wrong the D750 is a fantastic camera but there is a lot more separating the A7III from the D750 than just the EVF.

I disagree with everything you have said.

Fanboy rant missing the point...

Sony & co. have plenty of small lenses that give the Nikkors a run for their money.

- FE 12-24/4 G
- B 18/2.8
- L 21/2.8
- B 25/2
- L 25/2.4
- FE 28/2 (cheap!)
- Tamron 28-75/2.8 (crazy compact!)
- ZA 35/2.8
- L 35/2
- CV 40/1.2 (crazy compact!)
- FE 50/1.8 (cheap!)
- FE 50/2.8 M (cheap!)
- FE 85/1.8 (cheap!)
- B 85/1.8
- L 85/2.4
- B 135/2.8

How many small lenses does one really need?

Add 10 fps Eye-AF across the entire frame and IBIS - the Nikon is 5 years behind. (coming from a long-time Nikon user)

Have you seen the D750's focus point array compared to the A7III's? It's pathetic. In fact, all FF DSLRs have poor focus coverage.

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

Compare that to the focus coverage of the A7III:
https://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Sony-A7III-mirrorless-camera-AF-points.jpg

As for lenses, there are more and more options for Sony E coming out every day, including a lot of third party lenses.

https://petapixel.com/2018/02/27/sigma-unveils-first-9-art-lenses-sony-e-mount/

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

https://www.lightandmatter.org/2018/news-2/industry-news/new-tamron-28-75-f-2-8-lens-their-first-for-sony-fe-mount/

https://www.dpreview.com/news/0958339925/tokina-unveils-firin-20mm-f2-0-fe-af-autofocus-lens-for-sony-e-mount

I think the D750 is too big, too heavy, too expensive, and too out-spec'd compared to the A7 III.

At any rate, Tamron, Sigma, Tomkins and now Fujinon have announced lenses for the system and we expect a wealth of ranges in the coming years...

The a7mk3 is incredible in low light!

As someone with a D750 (and very happy with one), it is fantastic for low light, but you wouldn't want to go above ISO 12,800 with it. ISO 25,600 is bearable for small prints or desktop viewing, but your colours would be pretty off by then. And while the D750's raw files have a lot of latitude, if you push the exposure too much, the image will start looking purplish (a problem not present in the newer D850 and newer Sony bodies).

One major problem I have with the D750 is the live view autofocus. D750's live view AF speed is at best, slow (about 1 second to focus on the kit lens), and at worst. practically unusable in low light (more so with AF-D lenses). I'm a concert photographer, so live view gives me variety for overhead or low angle shots. On a Canon body with Dual Pixel Live View or a mirrorless body, live view AF is far better than what Nikon is managing.

No need for screenshots, just look here: https://goo.gl/PWGJdG
Or here:
https://goo.gl/1uYE1E
Or here:
https://goo.gl/nXhiLi

@ vivaldibow: If the Nokon has better low light capabilities (not likely, judged from high ISO pictures, which basically is pushed files), this doesn't help much if mirror vibration is smoothing out fine detail sharpness, and you get slight out-of-focus images caused by non-calibrated lenses ... you should be careful when comparing just one detail, and then telling us that camera A is better than camera B.

@Thermidor - Actually the Olympus EVF is the only mirrorless system that doesn't exhibit slowdown in low light.

Please, man. Perhaps you need have your eyes checked? I've compared the A7III to almost all price-relative competitors and then gone above the price-point as well. The D750, whilst still a marvelous cam, is just that one stop or stop and a half behind.
Now, besides all that, in real life you will probably shoot at normal ISOs 98% of the time, in which case it doesn't matter if you have the A7III or the D750. If you have the latter, then simply ignore the Sony.

These comparisons are just pointless. The gaps here really are negligible in real world scenarios. These types comparisons just show the extremes you need to push to note any pointless differences between these sensors. Seriously if you feel that these types of difference are going to help you take good or better photos, you probably need to put your mental facility under a microscope. To the people who push these comparisons, the only thing stopping you from seeing real improvement in your photography is a severe case of ocd.

To put that "OCD" claim in perspective, in low light, shadow noise differences can amount to over a stop. The noise difference between FF and APS-C at a given efficiency (technology) level, is little over a stop too.

See what I did there?

For many, that isn't going to make a meaningful difference. For some, it may.

Sony cameras are not the most durable and I would recommend you stick to a DSLR for work where there is a chance of damage to your camera. The stabilisation unit can be affected with a hard fall.

Why not use a wriststrap for security and ease of carrying?

@Michiel953 that's what I had in mind as well, but I'd need to gauge the overall weight with the camera and lens, as I have a damaged wrist and have to be very mindful of how much weight I put on it. I really like the upcoming Tamron 28-75 f2.8, which I can see as a great workhorse for the A7 body.

My overall concern isn't the A7iii's capabilities which I'm more than confident about, but whether it can withstand being knocked about in a crowded gig, as well as weather sealing in an outdoor music festival. Since the Tamron claims to be weather sealed, on paper it's a winning combination.

@kodacolor200 - "I predict that Canon and Nikon will be making mirrorless bodies that are cohesive with DSLRS."

Canon have already lost that advantage since EF lenses already integrate cohesively with Sony bodies through the various smart adapters available in the market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoyUv8sHYQU&t=330s

It's also questionable whether Canon will implement IBIS in their mirrorless bodies. I'm a Canon DSLR user with plenty of EF lenses, and given the choice between adapting my EF lenses to a mirrorless body with IBIS versus a mirrorless body without IBIS, I would *much* rather have the camera with IBIS. Frankly, I don't think Canon will offer IBIS. The best they have is digital IBIS, and that only works for cropped-down video.

Nikon still holds an integration advantage since no one has yet produced a good F-mount adapter for Sony bodies. But I think it's only a matter of time before someone does.

@kodacolor200 - "Mirrorless is a prosumer driven format."

Maybe. If that's the case, it's smart that Sony is so aggressively targeting the prosumer market where all the sales are. The A7 II is now only $1098:

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Alpha-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera/dp/B00PX8CHO6

I think targeting the prosumer market is a smart strategy. Today's "prosumers" end up being tomorrow's pros. After all, pros aren't magically born out of the womb as pros. They all have to start somewhere. Sony is definitely targeting the next generation of photographers. Most current pros are typically very set in their ways, and will stick to their DSLRs regardless of whether Canon or Nikon come out with mirrorless bodies.

@kodacolor200 - That's true of the older generation. I don't see that so much with the younger generation. For example, the younger generation follows people like Youtube star Casey Neistat who has 9.3 million subscribers (yes, million!). He started using Sony mirrorless:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/01/26/casey-neistat-gives-dark-side-goes-sony/

People like Neistat are very influential, especially with the younger generation. I talk to a lot of younger people, and they have no brand loyalty to Canon and Nikon.

BTW, Nikonians used the "brand loyalty" argument against Canon when Canon first launched the EOS system. Nikonians argued that Canon would never gain ground against Nikon because of "brand loyalty" to Nikon (combined with the fact that Canon had abandoned their FD users when Canon switched to EOS, which many Canon users were livid over). "Brand loyalty" didn't keep lots of Nikon users from switching over to Canon EOS, allowing Canon EOS to rise to dominance!

@kodacolor200 - I think you are seriously out of touch. Yes, Fuji Instax instant film is doing well, but 35mm roll film continues to decline.

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/27/fujifilm-killing-off-films-2018-things-look-grim/

https://www.casualphotophile.com/2018/03/30/fujifilm-to-discontinue-acros-100-film-in-october-2018/

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/02/11/fujifilm-announces-discontinuation-800-1600-iso-films/

So don't confuse the success of Instax "film" with a resurgence of 35mm film. They are two totally different things, but they are lumped into the same financial bucket.

As for "far more attainable prices", that's not really the case either. Sony offers the A7 for $798, A7 II with IBIS for $1098. The A6000 that has 179 AF points covering almost the entire image frame, with face/eye AF, and 11fps bursts, is only $548. In the long run, DSLRs will definitely lose to mirrorless on price, especially when comparing price-per-specs because mirrorless is cheaper to produce.

@kodacolor200-
From Roger Cicala's teardown of the A7R:

"This is rather amazing. The completely disassembled Sony A7R consists of about a dozen major pieces, held together with 29 screws of just three different sizes. A typical DSLR has around 120 screws of 11 different sizes. You might not care less about that, but do you know what I thought about? How much easier it will be to fix this camera when it breaks. How much simpler it must be to perform all the calibration that must be done during assembly. And how much simpler it must be to assemble the A7R in the first place. In other words, how much cheaper it must be to make this camera, than to make a DSLR."

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/the-a7r-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-awesome-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/

DSLRs will lose against mirrorless when it comes to production cost. DSLRs bear the cost of far more parts/complexity while trying to add "mirrorless" Live View capabilities (as well as the associated R&D costs).

A total of 31 major cinematic features where shot on 35 film in 2017 including Star Wars! the trend is growing. I work closely with learning institutions and there are darkrooms being set up or refitted due to demand from students and this is global. Kodak releasing ektarchrome is another sign of growth in 35mm. People who aren’t noting this significant resurgence are the ones out of touch.
Yes Fuji is consolidating its 35mm film stock, and dropping ones that don’t sell well. However they are still seeing growth in sales of its standard 35mm consumer stocks and will be making these for sometime as they are still profitable.
mirrorless camera from my experience are just a problematic. All that “value”but Resale is terrible vs dslr- with limited and far more expensive flash solutions. Not so much an issue for amateurs who just pump up the iso, but there are so many applications for flash photography, that this is a major consideration for many professionals and students on a budget.

The A7R3 came out last summer. You’ve a while for the 4th Gen models to start appearing.

@bokeh blues: the A7r II did not interest only people who wanted a higher resolution. it's a better camera in every aspect and a step up from the previous generation. In this case it feels like the step up is really the A7 III, and the r version is back to its original purpose. What would have happened if the A7 III had been released before the A7r III?

Kodacolor 200
It will takes years before Canonikon have a full mirrorrless program with bodies and lenses....

User experience counts more than spec sheet, IMHO. I would rather shoot an XH1 simply for the more enjoyable experience.

I enjoy in-focus images. The A7 III delivers waaay more AF performance than the X-H1, with much better image quality to boot.

@BlueBomberTurbo: I don't own either Fuji or Sony, so I don't want to start this debate about which one is better. But I have used Fuji's and they always AF great, and their image quality is also great. The Sony may have a small edge but probably not that important in many situations. But when I have tried a Sony I have absolutely hated it, whereas I have thoroughly enjoyed the Fuji's.

But I love photography and my philosophy is why use a camera if you don't enjoy it? I want to really love using my cameras; it's part of the experience.

User experience is quite personal thing though. Don't extrapolate what you like to others.

"A7III silent shooting in an ever more LED lit word just doesn't cut it."

I suppose that the lighting-related banding with the A7III silent shutter might seem to be an insurmountable problem to those who are unable or unwilling to photograph with a shutter speed at a multiple of the line frequency (e.g., in the US, 1/30, 1/60, or even 1/125 second) but to those who can learn from experience it shouldn't be an issue.

I'm not 100% sold on any of the new Sony's - and I shoot the a7r2/s2 in addition to the XT2. Omitting features like the apps and not replacing them with basic 2018 camera functionality like an intervalometer, pano mode and so on is a deal breaker. Fuji just added focus stacking to its bodies - and continues to add features and refinements. They still don't offer 1/48 for video shooting at 24p either. Nor have they improved the bitrate or gone 4k60p.

I doubt we see any of that until the a7IV, when it could be added in a FW update. Sony's approach is just to address bugs like the blinking pixels.

Sony has the best sensors and tons of momentum, but usability features have me debating a future in the Sony ecosystem. I hate the EVF in the a7r2, not sure I want another camera with the same panel. So far the a73 is just meh...

Also, if you can't get a decent, in-focus image with any current ILC - its user error, not the camera.

@Trek of Joy. Agree with you. Sony cameras push the boundaries of tech innovation, but usability wise, they're functional but rarely great to use. I had the NEX-7, and the way the only Sony body which I really enjoyed using. Losing one dial on the a6000 wasn't a huge hit on the actual usability, but I never really warmed up to the camera, even if I did feel it served me well for the entire time I had it. My only Sony now is an RX100m3, which again, takes fantastic images, but not really inspiring to use.

On the other hand, my little Fuji X20 is an absolute joy to shoot with, and so was the X-Pro 1 despite its clunky and slow autofocus. I just want to go out and shoot with them.

Sony makes cutting edge products. Even their ergonomics is actually way better than Fuji's (at least their cameras come with decent grips by default). But the user experience feels more like handling a tech gadget than a photographer's trusty workhorse where every action comes instinctive from muscle memory.

Thoughts R Us,
I shoot with the X-Pro2 and recently picked up the A7iii. Advantages to both, but on AF it’s not simply “a small edge.”

@haiiyaa

Check out DPR's review of it. Lots of buts and excepts in there compared to the A7 III review.

As far as weather sealing, EVF, and IBIS, only a side-by-side comparison will work for weather sealing comparisons, and the X-H1 is the ultimate, top of the line camera from Fuji. It better have a better EVF than Sony's entry level camera. ;)

Meanwhile, Olympus has IBIS that beats both of them. Why? Because the sensor is smaller, leaving more room for a bigger IBIS setup, and having less mass to move around. Fuji could have come close to matching them, considering how massive the X-H1 body is, but they didn't bother.

Wow...to make an entire system change based on 1 review and not even a long term review at that.

My advice, if you are serious, would be to rent the Sony first and see how you like it. Many fall into this trap of switching and then regret it.

Also, I am surprised at how some attach no value to the experience they have gained using a brand or system. Part of mastering your equipment is getting used to it over time: learning the controls, the nuances, the strengths and weaknesses. To throw that away may be the worst cost to switching.

@Thoughts R Us

"Part of mastering your equipment is getting used to it over time: learning the controls, the nuances, the strengths and weaknesses."

This is what hangs up most switchers that switch back. They don't want to learn something new, so they automatically blame the product instead of themselves. They expect every brand to act the same as the one they've learned already. When it comes to DSLR vs mirrorless, the way that mirrorless DOESN'T act like a DSLR is where it gets its advantages from, and a few disadvantages. But with each major release, multiple disadvantages disappear. In the end, it'll be OVF vs EVF as the only significant "drawback", and even that's down to personal taste.

@ Thoughts R Us, as a 10-year Canon owner, I see your posts in Canon forum are so laughable. You have no idea for what you're talking about. You need to rent and try. Many will tell you that your Canon lenses actually run better on A7 III or A7r III. My 17L TS-E lens is so much easier to operate on Sony e-mount than on EF-mount itself, try it you will undersand because of EVF. My 24-70L/2.8 II suddenly becomes an 'IS' lens that I can take 1/8 sec hand-held at 70mm.

@BlueBomber Turbo: I would say that there are many and varied reasons why someone who switches systems eventually switches back. I've read accounts of people who switch to Sony who find its performance and ergonomics disappointing, and others who find it unreliable.

But I do agree with the central premise of there being a learning curve if you do switch. My point is why do that? Why incur that cost? Your time is limited, and at some point you have to value your skill set. There will always be that shiny new object to tempt you to switch.

Most pro's stick with what they know for a reason: because they realize in the long run they will get better results and advance their skills more.

@PWPhotography: I can always tell that I've hit a nerve when someone insults me personally.

I have tried a few Sony's...and each time I tell myself "never again." The worst experience. Poor menu's. Buttons too close together. Doesn't balance well with larger lenses. Can't trust the reliability factor. Again, that is my experience. I don't fault people who believe differently, and so neither should you.

I have not seen anyone attack you personally in Canon forum and your guys have special treatments, lol. Those menu, colors, ergonomic etc are just your personal subjective opinion and many will disagree with. But I found you are trying to make objective conclusion that you claimed no Sony prime lenses can close to your 40/2.8 STM on 5D IV etc. Come'on. That 40/2.8 (I used to own) is not super tack sharp lens and 5D IV is not high-res super sharp sensor with AA filter. Those fanboyish statements are far from truth except make you feel good. DR, high ISO, sharpness, resolution are not subjective but objective measured data.

@Thoughts R Us - you are confused about many things.

here are 96 canon owners who jumped ship for sony ff milc:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4226846

people aren't leaving sony for canon, because canon is weak sauce.

@cbphoto123 - you clearly are confused, with little comprehension about what the poll results mean, and what's been said in this thread.

Thoughts R Us made the totally unsubstantiated claim that "Many fall into this trap of switching and then regret it"... funny how you can't recognize nonsense when you read it, lol

he totally failed to back up that fud that he posted, and so did you.

@cbphoto123 - your fanboi bias is showing, as usual.

@Thoughts R Us - I'm making this decision based on many factors, not just one review. I have a Canon 5D IV and love mostly everything about it, besides the lack of a swivel screen, and mainly the lack of useful 4k. I'm not a pro, but have lots of pro gear. I've spoiled myself with amazing glass I realized i dont really need for the type of photography i do. I'm a hobbyist at best and would really want a good hybrid camera. The Sony A7III fits the bill as the most robust camera on the market. I shot extensively with a 6D, upgraded to 5D IV, have plenty of L lenses that i'm simply infatuated with, shot for about a year with a sony a7II (rented the a7RII) with the best sony primes (batis, gm, zeiss) and a plethora of vintage glass (rokkor 58mm 1.2 and helios 85 1.5 the bokeh monsters), done plenty of back and forth comparisons, and was simply torn between the two systems, ended up with the Canon for their glass mainly. But no longer, A7III, MC11, canon L primes is all i need.

In DPR A7 III review, Rishi said,

"Today 'real cameras' need to meet raised expectations at an affordable price point, and the fact that you could literally swap a Canon 1DX II for an a7 III and still get a similar or better hit-rate at an action event is unprecedented."

It's kind of funny that in recent this thread those Canon fanboys or more accurately Sony haters are still questioning if any Sony can take sport photos? I'd not surprise if someone there even questions if Sony ever can take a photo ;-) Are they living in another planet? Wake up this is 2018.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4275560?page=5

You say that like it's a bad thing! I'll just get every third or fourth iteration but I love the innovation!

A7 II: 1/15
A7 III: 4/18

You're running out of straws...

Sure beats waiting 5 years between Canon 6D models that still comes up short.

A7 IV is not coming soon at all.
A7 was released in 2013
A7 III in 2018, almost 5 years later.
You shouldn't expect A7 IV anytime before 2021...

Perhaps this will help:

If I were designing this camera, I would only have two hardware analog amplification modes: ISO 100 and 640.

For ISOs 125-500, I would use ISO 100 levels of analog amplification, and allow the Raw converter to brighten the image based on the 'stops above Base ISO' tag.

For ISOs 800 upward, I'd use ISO 640 levels of analog amplification, and allow the Raw converter to brighten the image these many stops:

(stops above base ISO) - 2.66 EV

That way you maximize the dynamic range of capture in Raw, with little to no noise cost.

@CanonKen
long list of cons conflicting with a high score has been brought up frequently in the past. It is not how many, but how relevant and what good instead it has to offer. The 6DII got 80% are you seriously proposing that the A7III is lesser than the Canon? Are you kidding me?

@thx1138
while arguably the A9 might be overpriced it still allows you to take pictures in a manner that no other camera does, additionally the EVF response has no match in the Sony line up. For some (like me) these features are huge because, again, I can deliver under certain conditions results that no one can unless they also have an A9 (and not many do). So for some, again like me, the price difference is still worth it because clients see results have never seen before and it has an impact on our reputation that is extremely valuable.

In your dreams buddy. The main difference comes down to the sensor. A9 has stacked sensor with embedded DRAM which is why is can read 20fps. The only other noteworthy advantages are higher res EVF and rear LCD and of course due to the sensor the blackout free shooting. If you think that the otherwise identical body, is worth $2.6K more then I have a bridge to sell you. At least Sony could have made an effort with the A9. I can accept the poor size of the A7R3 as I didn't buy it as a sports camera that can take a beating. At least Canon and Nikon make the effort with their pro cameras and don't just rehash 5D or D8xx bodies. The a7's now have gotten nearly all the improvements of the A9 and can still shoot 10fps and I'll bet next gen will get stacked sensors and probably shoot 12fps.

A9II will need to be a large upgrade in body ergonomics, build quality, ruggedness to warrant large mark up. If they can deliver on that front, then it will be a compelling camera.

@thx1138 - the a9 is cheaper and better than it's only competitors, the 1dxmk2 and the d5.

that's why it's priced where it is.

and yes, the a9 can deliver when the other sony milcs can't.

I think Sony has a huge advantage when it comes to product margin. Sony's cameras are relatively simple devices with a fraction of the parts and far less complexity than their DSLR counterparts. It certainly is possible that Sony could sell the A9 for a lot cheaper, but why should they? The A9's direct competitors are already far more expensive! Nikon D5 is $6500, Canon 1DX II is $6000, Sony A9 is $4500. A9 already seriously undercuts the price of the D5 and 1DX II, which are probably far more costly to produce than the A9.

@T3
In some regards Mirrorless is cheaper to produce but in terms of R&D of the advanced technologies they are often more costly.
Miniaturization and hitting small tolerances is also not an easy feat.

The A9 will go down as a landmark camera. I still remember the announcement and the shock reaction from everyone. The future was here.

But as I commented then, they really designed it like an A7III, but sold it at $4500 only because other sports cameras were $6K plus. It's almost like marketing saw the specs and decided what they could charge since they were going to market it as a sports camera. They already had the stacked sensor in the RX100M5 and smartphones. All they did was scale up. The mark up truly is hard to justify.

It is hard to win market share when you don't have the long glass sports shooters need. They really needed to be aggressive with the price or alternatively, justify the increased cost by providing integrated grip and proper weather proofing. They did neither.

Knowing how Sony learns from mistakes and improves rapidly; knowing the Tokyo Olympics is coming up, I would expect the A9M2 to be bigger, more robust and cheaper.

@StopTheGAS - "R&D of the advanced technologies they are often more costly.
Miniaturization and hitting small tolerances is also not an easy feat."

No, what you don't understand is that mirrorless cameras are not miniaturizing their components. Mirrorless cameras are able to get smaller due to an absence of components! There are a lot of components inside a DSLR that a mirrorless camera simply doesn't need! Fewer components means that the body can be made smaller.

As for R&D, what you fail to realize is that this same R&D is going into DSLRs to enable them to operate in Live View mode with the mirror flipped up. So basically, a DSLR can function is a "mirrorless" camera when the mirror is flipped up, but it also still has all of the expensive components required to make it a DSLR, and all of those components take up a lot of room.

It was addressed with the A9.

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/19/dont-panic-sony-a9-failed-overheat-even-baked-sun/

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4228347869/new-sony-alpha-a9-firmware-fixes-overheating-warning

Stop desperately clinging to FUD. Time to just enjoy the camera. Life is good :)

No shutdowns here either.

And as to weather sealing, bh sells plastic sleeves for cameras with seals that I use. Costs virtually nothing and can protect the camera in a tsunami (used it in the Philippines with an old a6000 no issues).

The time wasted worrying about weather sealing I think you could make the $2 to cover your gear.

Would better sealing be nice? Sure... But it's not a deal breaker.

While any weather resistance is welcome, I don't think it is that big an issue for the average, enthusiast photographer. Photographing in the rain isn't that much fun, or the results that good.
I have been photographing the outdoors for years including mountaineering, kayaking and caving, and manage to keep my gear dry. It is just a good habit.
If you know you are going to be getting your gear wet, by all means, get a more suitable camera.

Remember that weather sealing isn't water proofing. Just because it has rubber seals on every nook and cranny doesn't mean water can't still get through. It just makes entry harder. I killed a D7100 in a storm, despite its D800-level sealing, while my A6300s have survived rain, snow, and being coated in ice.

Do you really let your camera in sunlight for 30mins? I prefer to have it in my hands when it is not in the closet/or bag. From what I see they can overheat after 1h or 1.5hrs of use but it is a hybrid-camera overall. If you need to shoot so much video you are better of with a Panasonic.

Even with a D850 I would put a raincover of some sort over it when it is raining or snowing. Water getting into all the nooks and crevices will never be good and even Nikon will repair for free if you experience water damage.

There is a German YouTuber/Photog called Stephan Wiesner who does adventure/mountain/hiking photography. He had no issues with the A6000 over a long period of time and that thing is flimsy compared to the newer A7/A9s.

@Thoughts R Us
Sorry to tell you but weather sealing is no fundamental feature. The A9 and third gen A7s seem plenty robust and only have inferior weather sealing when you directly compare it to other brands - which will also not replace your gear when you get water damage by the way.
When a camera does not overheat I think you can say that it has proper internal cooling. Considering that physics and facts make it harder to design such cooling solutions Sony did quite well by eliminating the overheating issue.