Sony a7 III Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong weight!!! D7200 is 765g

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it's a totally ignorant comparison.

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

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

@GiM_6x - you are seriously confused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that Minolta was the first to have IBIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for mentioning the very important area of service.

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

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

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

etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Thoughts R Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you have a lot to learn about sony.

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

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

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

>sigh<

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

good grief.

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

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

@henrydjp - "i've definitely missed"

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

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

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

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

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

grow up.

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

@HenryDJP - "I actually own a D810"

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

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

@TRU Are you being paid by the competition? What has you so butt hurt about this camera? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

You need a hobby. I suggest photography. If you can find some camera gear laying around you should go use it.

I haven't shot the A9 but I find the A7iii to have exceptional AF even with my adapted A-mount lenses.

funny how these dslr fanbois never have any post history on dpr forums.

just a bunch of fake accounts, made up for the article comment sections.

Well it is an basic camera... This is what the 6Dii should have been. Really. At least nikon came out with the D850

I read a strong reaction here. Well, a fair way to compare is side by side, no just opinion online on forum, you can talk all you wan, that wonder change a side by side comparison. If you are so defensive, would it be because you aren't so confident in the result? If I was sure about A7 III superior AF performance, I'd be comfortable with side by side comparisons. I think, proposing side by side comparison to a potential buyer of the Sony A7 III is rather honest. I don't understand why there is so much fear about that.

@ pentaust: Do you really expect the A7III autofocus to be the same as the A9? They have different sensors and A7III has less processing data power and slower speed. This is just like expexting that Nikon and Canon low end FF cameras should have the same AF performance as their very expensive top models. Well, there is ot much wrong with the A7III autofocus. The real problem is your expectations.

I'd be glad to see an AF shootout but with one caveat - the person/group would need to be very familiar with all the AF systems being tested. Too many times you have someone testing a camera brand that they are not familiar with and as such not using the proper settings.

@pentaust: welcome to the reality where Sony fans will bash you and attack you personally if you don't subscribe to their cultish way of thinking.

The A7III is vastly overrated and over hyped, like most Sony cameras. It makes a splash in the world of reviewers but that's about it. To reviewers Sony is like candy to a baby: many new models, all with long spec sheets. And Sony even wines and dines a lot of reviewers at their press events. The event for the A7III was held in Vegas; hey I'd say good things if Sony gave me VIP treatment in Vegas with the promise of similar treatment at future launch events.

Most reviewers do try to be honest but cannot help but be influenced. And Sony was found to pay people to post on social media and forums.

But Sony only looks good on paper; in real life the user experience lacks. Then there's the lack of reliability and durability, coupled with second rate service if you do need help.

@Thought_R_us Sony A7iii lacks MIRROR !!! it's big mistake of this model! Yay!!!

Thoughts, you can say that again. Any time i post in a Sony article, insults are incoming, they just can't handle any opposing opinions. In reality there are far too many things i don't like about the A7III to justify the price, and not enough benefit. IQ for a hobbiest is pretty good for like a decade now, anything i want to shoot will look good on my wall or on a phone/TV with my 10yo D700.

Unless you have some rare high end needs, IQ isn't really a reason to get a new ILC. And DSLRs have had pro level C-AF for a long time too, same with sealing, lens selection, battery life, the list goes on.

So the end result is with DSLRs, i have a massive selection of super cheap cameras and lenses that cover my shooting needs. Would the A7III suffice? Probably, but it's 3x the cost (without a lens) of my D700 and 100mm f2, and the Sony is still inferior in many ways.

I don't consider what any of us are doing bashing, it's just important to let both sides the conversation be heard.

Pentaust, you touched on part of the reason for the push for ML. It's the hot new thing, it's the gear that fewer people have. If fewer people have it, that means there's more money to be made. All you have to do is convince people it's superior, convince them they need to upgrade to the new amazing tech and poof, their photos will be better.

I suspect a lot of companies know the fad will fade after a while. Not die off, i think both formats will survive, but this hype will eventually subside so the companies want to make their money while they can.

I actually feel bad for these guys who are full steam ahead for ML. They seem so unhappy with DSLR tech, it must have been very unpleasant to use cameras for them. Imagine a job or hobby where you HATE the gear you are using, a very sad proposition.

Im glad i don't feel that way.

@Thoughts r us
"And Sony was found to pay people to post on social media and forums."

That's very interesting as it is almost beyond a doubt that you are yourself an astroturfer, being paid to write negative fake grassroots comments about Sony. You have reproduced the same comments more than twenty times across at least three different threads. It doesn't take Columbo to work out that pattern of behaviour is not trolling but something more sinister - trolls are not that dedicated or organised.

I call on a mod or admin to ban you and to check your IP address on any other accounts. Clearly Pentaust and Mastering Light are also fake users.

You call on a mod? My god how old are you? I guess that's the way of the new age though, don't like what somebody says so you just censor them eh? Im a firm believer that the truth will stand on it's own merit. Let everybody speak, why be afraid of a common forum?

One doesn't need to call mods, here at dpr many brand fanboys are mods of various forums and they remove comments if they dislike. These comments don't have to break any rules.

zxaar i know that too well. In the past i had commented in the Sony forums and Marti58 was like a blood hound zeroing in on me. Even if it was a cordial helpful reply, it was removed and i was sometimes banned.

Whatever happened to Marti58 anyway?

@Max
'You call on a mod? My god how old are you?'
What has my age to do with it? I've reported the poster several times what else can I do other than make a request to an admin in the body of my post.

"I guess that's the way of the new age though, don't like what somebody says so you just censor them eh?"

It's nothing to do with not liking what he says, he/she's an astroturfer. I don't like what you say but I haven't called for you to be banned. The forum rules actually prohibit spamming, bashing and astroturfing anyway so I'm only calling for the forum rules to be applied.

Marti died at Christmas by the way. RIP Marti.

@Max
What a sad man you are.

The king pardons you...

Rent it. Then decide.

I second that. Most of these reviews are not real world scenarios. When I tried the A7Riii I was sorely disappointed with its lowlight focusing performance in a fast action gig. Not the same performance I was used to in Canon and Nikon.

It's quite possible you didn't set it up correctly. EVERY review is giving the A7iii high marks. The A7Riii I tried in the camera store last week didn't auto focus right either, but then I didn't set it up in any way.

As a wedding shooter, you’ll appreciate the eye af and silent shutter a lot and the amazing low light capabilities. I do encourage you to give it a try before you buy and see what you think.

@ Henrikw: With later Sony cameras you have eye focus that can be combined with face recognition. Also, there is no need for calibrating the lenses, like DSLR cameras. So focus precision is much better with the newer Sony cameras, even if the AF should be a tad slower that other cameras you compare them with.

When using non-native E mount lenses, the crux is how well your adapter and lens is working together with the camera. Those doing weddings and other kind of professional stuff will for sure learn their gear to know well before doing paid work, and most would not rely on adapted lenses unless they really know how reliable they work.

Note: Don't listen to Pentaust. He claims that he have tested everything there is, all Sony cameras and any lens combinations, and that none of the test results did meeet his expectations. I am exaggerating a bit, but my point is that this poster should not be trusted.

Every response you read will be biased. You will have Sony fans tell you Sony is the best. You will have Canon fans tell you that Canon is the best.

Here's what I do know, and I admit that my bias is towards Canon: more wedding shooters use Canon than any other equipment, by far. There is a reason why.

I have a friend of mine who is a really great auto mechanic: he tells me certain brands of tools are those most used by experienced mechanics and race car teams, and that he uses those. That means something.

More people shoot weddings with Canon not just because Canon makes great cameras but also because of history. Sony is the new kid on the block and it's going to take time to build customers.

Canon has a great history with pro's because they make great cameras. The pro's would leave them in a heartbeat if they ever stopped making great cameras and jeopardized their income.

Sony is on their 3rd gen of FF mirrorless and yet they still have not made appreciable penetration into the pro market.

Hi - thanks for the reply. In non-weighted order, here's what i'm worried about:
1) i was told that I should buy the sigma converter for my sigma lenses AND the canon converter for my Canon lenses...but I was also told that all lenses that use a converter will be slightly LESS good than when directly attached to the Canon.

2) The overall issue is that I feel like the second I drop 2k on a sony body, Canon will announce a great full frame mirrorless that will have better IQ than the sony, and it will work better with my current lenses. I don't want to spend $2500 (body plus converters) for a camera that won't make me feel like I made an order of magnitude change. If i'm spending that close to $3k, would I be better off with a new 5d M3? I'm so confused....

@thematic: every review is by definition an "opinion piece" including the article by DPR. You will rationalize in such a way as to excuse any Sony flaw and promote every Sony virtue. I admit that my bias is in the opposite direction. But let's not kid ourselves or others about our respective biases.

The article of that piece is honest enough to admit it is his own opinion.

it's the usual clickbait article, that we've come to expect from p.l.

petapixel wannabe.

funny how he devoted so much space to blaming sony, for his own failed sensor gel stick product.

@osv: rule #1 of debating: when you personally attack the author of an article, you have lost. You obviously cannot provide a reasoned response so you attack the messenger.

I'm sorry but Sony is not the greatest.

Gel stick.

#4, 7 and 8 are valid points, the rest is not really true I my opinion

@Thoughts diarrhoea - It's obvious that the a uther is disgruntled because of it affecting his sensor gel business. As such he is heavily biased and it clearly shows in his article.

The Sony fans are active in their character assassination of the person who dared to write an article critical of Sony. You see this a lot in politics.

Rather than confront the points, many of which other reviewers have noted, they just attack the messenger. That's a sign something is wrong with their arguments.

Sony fans argue from one perspective: spec sheet. That's it. In contrast, I read users of other brands who write about how much they love to actually use their cameras and the great results they get. But with Sony it's just a soulless spec sheet.

Beware the Sony trap.

@Thoughts diarrhoea - Lol a big troll like yourself commenting on Sony fans :p

The messenger is heavily biased since he lost money due to Sony. That alone will kill any credibility he has.

You will not hold someone who gets paid by Sony as credible and neither should you hold someone who lost substantial money due to Sony be credible.

How dare you bring rational thought and insight to the comments section of the internet! This is exclusively reserved for insults and ultimatums. /sarcasm

It's unfortunate that the comments section is pretty much a dumpster fire of hate and rhetoric - there could be a lot of useful discussion going on here.

@avguser: Your post and the responses only prove my point and contradict yours. in almost every case people come in with biases and seek confirmation, and will not change their minds. This is even more pronounced in forums like these, where in general only opinionated people care enough to post their opinions.

The people who agree with you are doing so out of their own bias, no matter how they may kid themselves on being so "rational." There's an entire field behind this called behavioral economics. We like to think we decide rationally and logically, but in reality we decide emotionally and then rationalize intellectually.

We see this all of the time, including in politics. Do not kid yourselves.

In reality those who are pretending they are so rational are really just confirming their bias of wanting to believe the Sony review.

@thoughts diarrhea. By now we all accept that your description of commenters ass opinionated folks who don't listen or learn from anyone else, is a correct description of you, and some others. But by your view, people can never learn, society can never move forward. It's a dismal view of humanity I do not share.

@AZheaven: The battery charger omission is a sign of what Sony thinks about their customers. Come on...the charger probably costs Sony about $10 or less, and they can't throw that in with a $2000 camera? And I don't know about you, but many times I like to charge one battery while using the camera with another battery.

Both Canon and Nikon, IMHO, are superior to Sony. I use Canon lenses as an example because they are the most common, and the ones most frequently mentioned as being adapted to other cameras.

My broader point: just as you have to consider the entire system when evaluating factors like size and quality, you need to do so when evaluating cost and value. It's so misleading to just mention the camera body, unless you are going to use it without lenses. One has to also consider how it holds resale value, durability, cost of repairs, etc. All factors considered, the Sony is not a great value, IMHO.

The 2470GM might be average compared to C/N offerings tbh, but 1635GM and 70200GM are both stellar and built better than the Canon Ls, gaining reputation over Japanese market.

You may also check the 1224G which is sharp across the range wide open, ~50% lighter yet ~50% cheaper than Canon's offerings. Great value huh?

First, Most of Sony Lens are better than Canon L lens. I was a Canon Shooter => You got what you pay for. Second, Most of Canon L lens with Metabones on Sony body is focus faster and better than Canon Body . EX: 85mm 1.2 L II , 50mm 1.2. When These FAST lens on Canon Body, there is no way to do Eye AF or face AF with low light or hard light condition, they become SLOW lens even with normal light condition at 1.2, and some stupid people tell me try to shoot at f/2. Third, there are many 3rd party lens for Sony now , Sigma Tamron Samyang .. and a charger + 2 batteries is $25 - $35 everyday on Amazon Prime.

@Billy_s: Sorry but the Sony 70-200GM is not up to the standards of the Canon or Nikon offerings. Don't know much about the 16-35 but I have heard the 12-24 is a good lens.

Of course Canon and Nikon also have the super tele's which Sony lacks. Not all may need them but for those who do they only have 2 options.

Also, when that Sony breaks, where to get it serviced, at least in the US? And the Sony is more prone to problems of reliability. That is part of the value equation.

@Thoughts R Us

Funny, since those Amazon chargers/batteries are the same brands people have used for years on Canikon. Should be fine for lowly a Sony camera. Then again, there's Nikon, who's famous for introducing firmware updates to cripple third party battery AND lens compatibility. ;)

As far as included chargers, the batteries charge via USB. EVERYONE already has a charger (for phone/tablet, in laptop/PC, etc. ). Otherwise, you'd never be able to open any of the images. Let alone edit them. And the USB charging time is pretty fast. I keep my RX100 in the car, and when the battery starts getting low, I just plug it into my cigarette lighter charger. Same one I charge my phone and my friends' phones with. The camera never has to leave the car, so I never forget it.

As far as service, you contact Sony and they tell you where to send the equipment for repair. That's what a warranty is for. Out of warranty? More choices open up, or even DIY (this isn't a complex DSLR).

One little fact, mobile phones sold here in Japan have stopped bundling chargers for a period of time already. I take that as an eco-friendly measures rather than being "cheap".

Sony did include one charger for their advanced models, the A7R3 and A9, and one could always charge their battery using a USB wall adapter or Power bank connected directly to their camera. Unlike Canon, which can't or refrain from adding USB charge functions to their mirrorless line up and keep using different type of batteries to cripple shots per charge, also forcing people to switch battery and chargers whenever upgrading. How "cheap" is that?

Fact: Canon lenses with a good latest Metabones adapter works just as well as the lens could ever do on anybody. So scrap that whole lens argument under the rug. You can glue an adaptor on the body and leave it an EF A7III or trade glass and get new FE equivalents. Both options work EXCELLENT.

Thoughts are Us. Are you ill? Here's your new name: "Thought Diarrhea". Hope everyone else uses it. Your repetitive misstatements about Sony cameras are extremely irritating. As to reliability, I have had no black spotting from my Sony's as I did from my D600, Nikon, and no general recalls (two so far on my Nikon D750).
The Sony lenses, and the Zeiss/Sony lenses, are for the most part excellent. I did get one bad copy of a Sony/Zeiss zoom. But Sony fixed it free of charge and even free of shipping and it's now its a great go to lens. As to optical quality, If you compare, the ratings of Sony and Sony/Zeiss lenses for sharpness at Dxomark they are generally higher than the Canon and Nikon equivalents...even when tested on Canon's 50 megapixel cameras, but in fairness to Nikon, no tests yet on the D850.
As for resale value, tech is moving forward so fast that the five year resale value is not that great for any of them.

True. Seriously I was a true Canon DSLR fan and a little defensive about it (and I'll still use my 5DIV for years probably before I upgrade) but this camera, the A7 III, with the existence of Sony FE glass and Metabones -> EF glass,

it's a camera that flips the entire professional market table.

Sony know what they're doing creating such a monster for 2000$, even if they sell at a lower margin it's immensely important.

In the future we'll look back and say that was the camera that flipped everyone's heads towards Sony and started the Canon to Sony migration of bodies. I truly believe it's that big of a deal. Don't care about any of the other A7 models. This, this will make history!

@Thoughts R Us - You're grasping at straws. Yes, some Sony lenses might be a little more expensive. But lenses are typically something you hold onto for a very long time. For many, it's a one-time investment. In the long run, over the lifetime of ownership, it's not that significant. Plus, every lens you put on a Sony body becomes image stabilized! That's a huge advantage.

"Sony doesn't include the battery charger with the A7III, but many people will want that, and that's another $90."

More like $14. And it's even a dual battery charger!

https://www.amazon.com/Newmowa-Charger-NP-FZ100-BC-QZ1-Digital/dp/B076CHQ1PM/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1525078490&sr=1-3&keywords=sony+a9+charger

I think it's hilarious that you bring up the cost of a charger, but you ignore how much it would cost to get full frame AF coverage, face/eye AF, 5-axis IBIS, 10fps, real-time exposure preview, a histogram in the viewfinder, and silent electronic shutter added to a Canon DSLR!

Its true that Sony lenses are more expensive on average then Canon lenses, but its simply as they are better and more up market on average. They simply don't have the "cheap" back catalogue that Canon has.
In terms of "not built as well", they are actually built better. I think that's just a bit of "wishful thinking" thrown in.

@T3: That Sony charger is a 3rd party brand, who knows the quality? Many times they don't work so well or even damage the battery. The Sony charger is retailing for about $90. So nice try confusing the Sony equipment with cheap knockoffs.

As for cost, what would it cost for Sony to provide true weather sealing? I value that over those spec sheet features. It's funny but all Sony fans can do is rattle off spec sheet stuff, which is a tell that the equipment is lacking.

@FujLiver: We have a difference of opinion. Canon L lenses are far superior to the Sony lenses, and the Sony lenses have been shown in detailed teardowns to have lesser quality and more copy to copy variation. We can argue until we are blue in the face about this, and we will not change our minds. But as for me, I will stick with the proven brand.

@Thoughts R Us - I have only ever bought 3rd chargers for all my cameras (including my Canon DSLRs). I've only ever bought 3rd party batteries too. They work fine. If you want to pay for an OEM charger, go ahead. But 3rd party chargers work just as well.

As for weather sealing, the reality is that very few people shoot in the pouring rain for extended periods of time. As I Canon user, I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D, 5D, and 60D. Only the 60D had any weather sealing. Yet in all my years of shooting-- in all kinds of weather-- weather sealing was never an issue. Anyone who bases their camera purchase on the "water hose test" is truly a bit out of the ordinary. Besides, most people who shoot in rain will STILL use a rain cover to protect their gear.

http://cisn.tv/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/corc-rain.jpg

http://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/171283985.jpg

So the whole weather sealing argument is way overblown. It's about desperate people grasping at straws.

@T3: those who excuse the lack of weather sealing on Sony are grasping at straws to defend that omission. Weather sealing is important, and is not just for shooting in pouring rain for extended periods of time. It is somewhat common that you go out shooting and it starts to rain. There can also be humidity in the air, as well as dust and sand. Weather pertains to more than just water.

Bottom line: if I'm paying $2000 or more for a camera, it had better have weather sealing. I notice those Canon models you mentioned as lacking weather sealing were all less expensive APS-C models. I'm assuming when you wrote "5D" that you meant 50D in your progression of cameras.

BTW, there are many customer reports that even the cheaper Canon models hold up extremely well to all types of situation and duress, moreso than they even are rated. Canons hold up very well over time, Sony's to a lesser extent.

@Thoughts R Us - "BTW, there are many customer reports that even the cheaper Canon models hold up extremely well to all types of situation and duress, moreso than they even are rated. Canons hold up very well over time, Sony's to a lesser extent."

I own an A6000. I've shot with it in rain. I shot with it during monsoon season in Sri Lanka, in Japan, in Myanmar, all during rainy season. It held up just fine. In intense rains, I threw a $7 rain cover over it just in case. No big deal. The A7 III has far better weather sealing than the A6000! It is more than adequate for most shooters. Most shooters are not dousing their camera under a water hose for 5 minutes!

"I'm assuming when you wrote "5D" that you meant 50D in your progression of cameras."

Nope, I meant 5D, as in the FF Canon 5D. That was a $2000 camera with no weather sealing! Its original list price was $2500, but I bought it when the price was $2000.

Your bias against Sony is ridiculous. It's very immature. Grow up.

i feel that with Canon and Nikon you need their top glass to make the system work. With Sony you can use any glass, that is the real value. I will bet most Sony users don't have Sony only glass.

Eventually you might make the choice to use only Sony glass, but it is not necessary to start with. That is really awesome

@cbphoto123 - Are you seriously still complaining about battery life?

"Sony A9 Battery real world test":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgmiREAxjO8

The latest Sonys get excellent battery life. Furthermore, you act as if changing the battery requires that you take apart the camera! Hahaha. It's a 3 second operation, and you might have to do it once, maybe twice, in a full day of shooting. Is this seriously what you are complaining about? Seriously? That is a very, very small price to pay for the considerable advancements that Sony's mirrorless cameras offer: 693 AF points covering 93% of the image frame, 5-axis IBIS, face/eye AF, face registration, 10 fps, silent electronic shutter, zero mirror slap, zero need for focus calibrations ever, etc, etc, for only $2000 with the A7III.

Add the battery grip and you get double the battery life. That's PLENTY of battery life. I don't need a camera that can last me a week of shooting on a single battery!

@cbphoto123..Wasn't knocking you or your statements, just stating what I've been seeing on other websites. Sometimes I wonder about my 7200's battery life though. And I don't have everything turned on. And I refuse to fine tune my lenses. My Canon friends all have the L lenses. And they don't have to fine tune them. I've seen some of their shots of Snow Leopards, Pumas, etc. and they are pretty amazing.

Sony paired the same cheap kit lens for the same reason why they did not include the battery charger inside the box: to keep the headline price down.

@AZheaven. It was most likely a cost reason, since people buying this camera are looking for a good and affordable full frame mirrorless. It's not a requirement that you take the 24-70 lens. You can buy the A7III body only and choose your own lens.

HenryDJP, Oh I know. I understand. Sony has released what seems to be a winner of a camera, but are pairing it with a ho hum lens for a kit. Just like Nikon and Canon does! Hmmm... lol. Like I said earlier, the new Tamron if it's as sharp as they say it's going to be a better option. But I'm going all in with the A7iii and 24-105 f4. GAS is so much fun!!!

Has anyone tried the sony 28-70 in real life? I've got it for the A7II and I've used it on the A7RIII just to see how good it was... And it's super sharp in most situations. For an entry level FF camera, the kit lens will deliver.

@PAntunes

I got the A7iii as a kit that included the Sony 28-70 (worked out well because the camera store had the kit in stock but sold out of the body only). I haven't used it much yet but so far it seems pretty good - certainly for the $200 I paid for it. Construction seems decent and the weight and handling are good. I think it's a good lens if you don't expect too much.

Good summary. But!! The Nikon fan boys dislike the Sony fan boys, etc., etc., etc. And the Nikon fan boys can be picked out in a heartbeat! I'm a Nikon shooter, for now. Then I'm sure when (it's not a matter of if anymore) I do switch to Sony I'll be called a traitor.

In reality there is only 1 type of person posting comments: those with a predisposed opinion. This opinion will not be changed by the others posting their comments. This opinion will color their opinion of everyone else's comments.

In short, we all have confirmation bias and so this is more like a college debate. Nothing wrong with that; I love a good debate. But let's not kid ourselves: we are all biased, and we are not changing our minds.

The last sentence tells it's a Sony gear article, and people here are talking about Sony gear. Change "Sony gear" by whatever brand gear dealt with in another article.

PS:
Yes, I own Sony stuff, like most people on earth who have electronics goods, but I also have Apple stuff, Nikon stuff, Canon stuff, Yamaha, Bose, Blaupunkt, Nad, Marantz, Technics, Microsoft, Pentax, Ricoh, HP, Monitor Audio... I don't care the brand as much as the relative performance of the piece of item I'm buying at the time of purchase.
Some people don't seem to be able to understand that, however it's what this site is about.

@surlezi: This article is on the front page of DPR, not in the Sony forum. As such, it's meant for all, not just Sony fans. I would not post my thoughts in the Sony forum, but on a front page featured article, yes.

I wasn't aware that this was supposed to be some sort of closed system where people just reassure each other how great Sony is.

Fanboy of innovation and technology here. No shame admitting it.

@Magnar W: If you compare cameras with different sensor sizes it only makes sense if you use equivalent settings. That means field of view AND depth of field must be the same. The difference between full frame and APSC is a little more than one f stop. Therefore an image one would take on a full frame camera with 85 mm f2 at ISO 6400 would be taken with an APSC with 56 mm f1.4 at ISO 3200. Interestingly no one would have the idea to compare full frame with APSC at the same focal length and discuss the pro and cons of the different view angle. However, it's just the same with ISO and aperture. When it comes to low light performance the only advantage of full frame is that you can buy lenses with even more light gathering capabilities (but even more shallow depth of field). Only in those cases where you use those wide open apertures in combination with the bigger sensor you get a better low light performance.

@ juergen hofinger: This equivalense talk is just nonsense, since we use what we have for what is worth! Why must view of field and depth of focus be the same? There are thousands of ways to photograph the same scene or subject.

When the light is low, using equivalense is sheer bullsh*t, since we need all the light the sensor can get when shooting handheld, and even sometimes when using a tipod. If you are photographing sports in low light environment, working at brightest aperture, you can't just lower the ISO setting and increase shutter speed. Then you can't stop motion, and your pictures will be blurred. And if you push the smaller sensor, noise might be an major issue.

The same is true when I am doing my polar light photography. No small sensor can replace the larger FF sensor.

@Magnar W: Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you with the e....-word. Just consider this example: Sony A7III with 85 mm f1.8 vs. Fuji X-T2 with 56 mm 1.2. An image taken at f1.8 with the Sony at 1/250 s will be almost exactly the same as an image taken with the Fuji at 1.2 at 1/250 s. In terms of noise, background blur, almost everything you could possibly see in the final image.
Since the full frame sensor can cope with more dynamic range there can be a difference in extreme situations, however. To me this is rather the difference between very good and super excellent.
By the way, the mentioned Fuji setup will be by no means smaller or lighter than the Sony (this one for the "APSC is always lighter and smaller groups"). Ah, and I have almost forgotten: Not cheaper anyway.
Bottom line: APSC hat the OPTION of a smaller package (smaller lenses) ; full frame has the OPTION for more light gathering (better low light performance, shallower dof at the same time).

@ juergen hofinger: The problem with smaller sensors is that those "equivalent lenses", like f:1.2 or f:1.4 doesn't even exist for most focal lengths, and the fact that the few you can find are huge, heavy and expensive.

The real problem when buying into a smaller sensor size system is that you are stuck with the smaller sensor. No lenses and no software upgrade can solve this problem.

Fuji 16/23/35 1.4 and 56 1.2 are very sensible in size and weight. So are Sony 28, 55, 85. The thing is if I want/need to improve beyond that level, then it is going to be huge and crazy expensive. I would have to buy into full frame with 1.4 lenses and we all know pretty much the difference in size and weight between an X-T2 with 23mm 1.4 and an A7 III with 35mm 1.4. It is a very personal decision if a stop or two of technical potential is worth the size, weight and price. On the other hand Fuji 18, 23 2.0, 27, 35 2.0, 50 2.0 are incredibly compact while Sony unfortunately forgot about that segment after their 35mm 2.8.

Well now....ain't that the sh..!!!!

@Thoughts are us. You still don't get it. I also have, and love my Nikon cameras, currently the D750 and D500. Have not recently had Canon or Fuji but when I did, I did like them. The fact that I love my A7rII (and my A6500) doesn't mean or require that I hate or call the others rubbish. You providing photos doesn't "prove" anything, it tells us who you are as a photographer. No one here will be criticizing your photos or judging you for them. Personally I would hope to enjoy them. A lot of people like the Canons for their wonderful skin tones and really good ergonomics. One of my friends is in the tank for Fuji because of its rendition of especially greens and blues that dated back to the days of film. Camera manufacturing is not one of the easier businesses. I hope to heaven all of these companies survive and continue to innovate for the benefit of all of us. I am urging you to focus on positives and try to enjoy the diversity of choice.

Average User: victory by intellectual K.O. in the first round vs TroughtUS

When EVERY review is coming through about what an amazing camera the A7iii is, especially for the price and the numerous features it has, I'm not getting you and your comments. Pretty much every reviewer has said this is a game changer. What's ridiculous is that you continue to promote Nikon and dis Sony. Yet Nikon (and Canon) have yet to produce anything close to what Sony has done in a mirrorless form, and that's going back to the A7ii series. Yes, the 850 is a pretty amazing camera with features Canon must be drooling over. But..show me something other than 153 focus points with only 99 cross type. More than any DSLR for sure. But once again. Sony has more and more features per price point. Nikon has it's little niche in DSLR's as does Canon. But Sony (and I'm not a "fanboy") has forged ahead, and full steam ahead at that. For those that want to go full frame, Sony is the answer since Nikon is hibernating and has been for years. Nikon FX? Sure, almost bought a D750. Glad I didn't.

Nice try

Nikon can’t even do live view well, forget about competitive mirrorless anytime soon. I can’t even think of anyone using Nikons for any half serious videography. Their lenses can’t do smooth AF racking. Canon will likely release a FF mirrorless by the end of the year but it will be too late to stop the inertia of A7iii that will dominate FF camera sales in the US throughout 2018 earning Sony a #1 spot in FF unit camera sales for the year of 2018. We can only hope this will serve as a wakeup call to Canon. Can’t wait!! We are entering golden age of photogtaphy when is finally seamleasly merging with high resolution videography. By generation IV, Sony will improve menu system, connectivity, touchscreen, etc. along with massive lens cataloge including vast third party support and will continue introducing more basic lower cost models to fulfill their long term goal to be #1 photography and videography brand.

Now...should I wait until the A7IV??!! Uh...no!!!

hahaha...I like a good comedy. At the end of the year, Canon will still be number 1 by a country mile over Sony, and Nikon will still be number 2.

I have been hearing for years now how this or that Sony model will really change the relative marketshare and shake things up, and it has yet to happen. It will not happen with this model.

Here's a more likely scenario: both Canon and Nikon introduce FF mirrorless and eat heavily into Sony marketshare. Sony is forced to slow down their releases of new cameras and lenses, like they have with APS-C mirrorless, and in about 1-2 years people will be wondering if Sony is going to stick with FE mount, or abandon it like they have A mount and APS-C E mount.

This of course is again speculation on your part. If Nikon waits until March of 19, which is right now the rumored release date of a pro full frame mirrorless, then I think Nikon will loose some of it's base to Sony. We will all find out soon maybe. Nikon and Canon had better come out with a mirrorless equal to or exceeding the A7iii or it will be game over for both. I know humans. In the world we live in now everything is NOW...millennials... The only reason I'm waiting to switch is for any holiday deals.

Thoughts - Current market share is a trailing indicator and heavily dictated by the size of each competitor's installed base. Boldly asserting future market share based on Canon/Nikon mirrorless offerings that haven't been released, with no knowledge/leaks of their product specs is again, a completely worthless assertion.

You would have made a great PR spokesperson for the Titanic, telling passengers "Look everyone, the Titanic's not sinking because of the amount of effort that was put in building it. And should it sink, which it won't, ships even better than the Titanic are just around the corner".

lol please stop...cell phones will take over photography.....bwaahhahahhah

thx for the laughs

AZheaven --- Here’s proof – Read DPR’s review. You’ll note that at the end of most sections they have a “con” section. You’ll have to ask DPR’s staff how all those negatives combine into such a favorable conclusion. Of course these Sony faults didn’t start with the a7iii, they are a continuing problem with their camera line. BTW did you see the horrible moiré in the “image quality” test shot? I’ve never seen worse moiré!

@Dan DeLion
of course you know so much better than all these online established reviewers who unanimously acclaimed this camera. You might want to state your credentials before sounding pathetically ridiculous.

The review said nothing about an overheating issue with this camera. Past Alpha series? Yes. Banding issues at fast shutter speeds? Yes, but one can only see it if you crop the photo 100% and enlarge it. Oh, and I read this review twice. Have read and watched reviews until my eyes bled. Everyone, well, except those Nikon die hards who think Nikon can do no harm (sound familiar?) and are untouchable. Not dissing Nikon. I own a D7200.

@Dan: It is particularly sad that this cheap price of crap still trounces every camera you have ever used by a decent margin.

What an odd thing to worry/have a beef about. Your complaint literally affects nothing....like, reallly nothing at all.

Just bizzare imho

razorfish: FF is an accepted and widely used term.

What does miniature format, half format, small format, medium format, large format from the film camera era tell us? Not much if you want a precise answer, except that everybody into photography knew what was ment by these terms.

I've been to the Grand Canyon 48 times now in the past several years. The last 2 years I've taken notice of the cameras people are shooting with (and how they hang a big heavy DSLR off their necks!) People from Japan, etc.? Sony. Yes, there are some Nikon and Canon users. But I've begun to notice more Sony's.

Funny how in spite of these anecdotal "reports" that Canon market share has held up and even slightly expanded, and Sony marketshare has stalled.

@ThoughtsRUs

What you say is either:
- wrong,
- a lie.

@Thoughts R Us

They would be outsold by smartphones by huge margin.
If thats your criteria then try cellphones and be happy.

Someone just mentioned that silly EOS Miserable lineup?

@Thoughts

Wrong analysis.

Sony = FF Mirrorless; APSC Enthusiast Mirrorless
Canon = Low-end / Garbage Mirrorless

Where is the "huge dent" you are talking about?

Well Thoughts are correct.
Sony has 100% of the FF MLC market.
If Canon sells one, that's means a decline.

@Thoughts r Us. Been going back through the comments...You hate the evf; you think the lack of a separate battery charger is unacceptable, yet you went to a store just to test the color on these cameras, and surprise of surprises, you found it to be "rubbish". (another judgemental term that conveys no actual information). You remind me of the guy who goes to someone else's birthday party then spends all night complaining about everything from the company to the cake. People respond by thinking the only thing wrong about the party is that that guy came. Don't be that guy.

@Average User: I do appreciate what you are saying and that is why I would never post these more critical comments on a Sony forum. But I wasn't aware that this article and discussion was supposed to be an echo chamber that only featured people praising the Sony.

I am commenting here because this is an article on the front page of DPR and I am treating it as an open discussion, both positive and negative points.

Honestly, I hope Sony produces good cameras and gets good results. What is silly is this hype which is totally unwarranted, no matter what people say. I remember when the Sony A7RII was hyped this way, as some sort of game changer, but now that hype has gone away. It will be the same with the A7III.

@Thoughts R Us.... when you're using a mythical product that doesn't exist as your rationale for Sony losing market share in the full frame mirrorless market and when you're promoting Canon selling aps-c cameras when Sony is ignoring aps-c I think you are unintentionally reinforcing Sony's position in the market. Instead you should be worried that the only chance Nikon and Canon have to compete is with products that do not exist. And if you think the success of a camera like the D850 today is indicative of the future then you should only hope Nikon doesn't use the same absurd logic. Samsung learned that it isn't just about a camera, it's about the complete system and that is why the D850 will sell more than the A7III today but the gap between the two will be dramatically smaller than before and the same for the next iterations and that is what anyone with any common sense should see. I guarantee you Nikon sees it... whether they will do anything about it is another story.

Remember all the negativity regarding the D7500?? Don't hear much griping about the 7500 anymore. I guess it's Sony's turn!! I'll say this again...if Nikon (or Canon) don't come out with a full frame mirrorless camera that is equal to or surpasses the A7iii? Trouble will be brewing. I think Nikon and Canon were blindsided by the A7iii. I could be wrong. And with Nikon pricing, known for OVER PRICING, the pricing had better be in line with the A7iii.

@Clayton
"when you're using a mythical product that doesn't exist as your rationale for Sony losing market share in the full frame mirrorless market and when you're promoting Canon selling aps-c cameras when Sony is ignoring aps-c I think you are unintentionally reinforcing Sony's position in the market. Instead you should be worried that the only chance Nikon and Canon have to compete is with products that do not exist."

Absolutely spot-on analysis.

Many Nikon and Canon users are afflicted by the gambler's fallacy - that what happened in the past is a predictor of future events. Unfortunately neither company is strong in the areas where Sony is strong and there isn't much transferable technology in a DSLR.

It's not even appropriate to talk about Nikon and Canon together as Nikon has no sensor foundry and will have to buy theirs in. The specs of their milc will be determined by a 3rd party. Canon will have to orphan existing users to move forward which is why they've waited so long.

@Mastering Light R Us
"I tried the A7RIII and the color was awful."

No you didn't and it wasn't. You seem to forget you're posting in the comments section of an in-depth review conducted by three professional reviewers. All the garbage you spout is contradicted by their considered observations and tests.

@TRU I am not in the position to comment on Canon colors since I haven't shot them but what do you make of DPR's comments about the A7iii colors?

Me thinks you don't read or watch any reviews. The A7iii, which EVERY reviewer so far has said publicly, is better than the A7Riii and A9 in many ways. In fact every way except for 2 know facts. The A7Riii has 42 mp. The A9 does 20 fps. Other than that it's the "upset the owners of the above mentioned cameras" because of the performance vs price factor of the A7iii.

Yes, I am a Canon shooter (have worked with almost all models) and I noticed right away that the A7 III seems to have a good color palette going on. If it indeed is close to the 6D2 remains to be seen after some testing, but if it is then it is a massive step forward since I believe the 6D2 has the best color rendition of all canons of the latest generation. It's almost back to the canon core...

Well, the EVF is a thing with people who never used one before. You can configure that in all kinds of directions. So they use it the first time, its configured for whatever, but they assume its always like that.

"Outsiders" using my camera notice the white grizzle pretty fast: Focus peaking feature. If you have no idea what is going on you'd thing something is broken.

Also, the argument with missing DR, colors, and whatever else is brought up: Aside of the fact you can configure a lot of things (DRO, saturation, picture profiles, ...), what does it matter really? In the end the images get processed and often to a point they don't match up with reality 100% (sometimes not even close). So what is the point in seeing things as they are through an OVF to begin with? Interestingly noone seems to have any problem properly composing an image with an EVF, or at least that is mentioned nowhere. Strange stuff ...

So glad you took the time to deliver your precious 2c in the EVF vs. OVF debate. Are you telling us that you never looked at an EVF before? You sound like a 25 yo that just looked at porn for the first time! What took you so long?

I have tried Sony, Fuji, Olympus. The Sony EVF is by far the worst, and I tried it out most recently with the A7RIII, supposedly a top of the line model.

Sony saves money by cutting corners on the details that matter to user experience so that they can pump up their spec sheet. That's also why they do not include a battery charger with the A7III, as if no one would actually want one.

Sony has some great features, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

I used to be like you. Hated EVFs and when Sony refused to launch any more OVF cameras I felt terrible as I loved my old A700's beautiful OVF.

I got the first EVF camera of Sony and hated it ! It had a horrible EVF to boot.

However after a while I got used to it and now I don't care for OVFs anymore. EVFs have just so many more advantages now adays like zoom, image preview, histogram, level meter, focus peaking, seeing a stabilized image even with lenses that lack IS, etc etc.

I don't hate EVF, I just don't like them. I need to feel good when I'm taking photos and EVFs are still not good enough in my opinion. That's a personal thing and your choice may vary.
By the way I have EM1 II and GM5, and have used several Sony cameras (DSLR, DSLT and mirrorless).

Hell, I shot a GH2 back in the day for a bit. Total tunnel vision, a pale, blue tinged screen, but it never got in my way. Screens today are like a miracle compared to that.

Viewfinders are tools. I'm more interested in what a viewfinder does for me. Quite frankly, OVFs do a lot less for me. They simply lack most of the features, capabilities and functions that EVF offers. Besides, a lot of OVFs don't look that great.

As for function, I would MUCH rather have a viewfinder that gave me this focus coverage:
https://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Sony-A7III-mirrorless-camera-AF-points.jpg

versus this focus coverage:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3910/15231370695_030835e674_b.jpg

As for the look of EVF, keep in mind that EVF may not "look" identical to OVF because it's a different technology. Many film users hated the "look" of digital images compared to film images, because digital images "looked" different from film images. It's different from what they were accustomed to. But that will pass. The younger generation does not have any attachment or habituation to the "look" of OVF. They've been looking at electronic screens all their lives.

I also enjoy switching my EVF to black-and-white viewing mode-- it's film simulation mode, which allows you to change how the EVF displays colors. In this case, I've asked the camera to simulate B/W film. But since I'm shooting RAW, I still get a color image file. You can even apply filters, just like when shooting black-and-white film (I apply a yellow filter). I absolutely LOVE this film sim feature in EVF! B/W EVF mode allows me to see the world more abstractly, which greatly helps with my compositions. It allows me to see lines, patterns, geometry, shapes more effectively, without the distraction of colors. I certainly wish my DSLR's OVF could do this, but it can't. With features like black-and-white film simulation mode, I prefer shooting with EVF. It's a tremendous tool. I certainly think it has enhanced my photography. And it's enjoyable to look at the world in this manner.

Compared to EVF, OVF just seems primitive to me. At first, EVF took getting used to. But now I prefer it.

Its not hard getting used to EVF. I got Fuji X100s which has both EVF and OVF, I now fully use EVF because it has more benefits, like realt-time exposure, focus peaking, framing accurasy.

The good news is that you can choose the type of viewfinder you like.

I question people telling other people what they can or cannot get used to. The thing about a good optical finder is, there is nothing to get used to. Either you see comfortably or you can't. But the idea that someone might prefer something with less technology is not acceptable to the Sony fan.

A histogram overlay on top of the picture saves me all the chiming, focus peaking is so helpful with Fstop lower than 2.8. I using a 1.4mil resolution EVF, I can take great picture with it, it always shows you the final picture (exposure, white balance, DOF, overexposed area), and best things is you save a lot of post-processing.

Unlike most everyone commenting, my first digital camera was an Olympus C2100 UZ with a crude EVF, then a Sony DSC-F717 with a somewhat better one. Moved to a DSLR with a Nikon D70, and really "missed" the EVF, which more closely resembled ground glass focusing than an OVF. Then to a D300, then a pair of D7000s. Was intrigued by the idea that I could shoot my old Leica M mounts on an NEX-6 - and when I first looked through its finder at B&H, I was floored. More than I hoped for. Like a eye-level view camera. The A7 was even better!

Before I had a superwide for my A7, I had to take a big indoor group photo that necessitated a really wide lens - so I attached my 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina to one of my D7000s.

I'd been shooting with an FE 35mm f2.8 on the A7, and the room looked nice and bright, even though many of the exposures were just 1/30th at f2.8, ISO 3200. But when I looked through the OVF of the D7000, I was shocked - who turned out the lights?

Went home and sold my Nikons.

Some good comments, some people who can't read, and some who assume too much.
1) I have been doing digital photography for 22 years
2) First was Fuji digital camera
3) God I wish I was 25
4) I have used many EVF's since my Sony F828
5) I love any kind of latest tech

I get some of the great arguments for EVF. I totally agree and sold on them except for one point.

Photography is a visual art and I enjoy shooting what I see and how i makes me feel. Clearly, many photographers are only interested in focus peaking and flashing lights in their VF.

My original post was very complimentary (so no idea why some jerks felt the need to demean me) except for the EVF image quality. When I tried my first FF Nikon it was like a cloud being lifted in front of my eyes, I moved from EVF to OVF.

Sure, I get all the practical advantages of EVF, but for photography.... where is the beauty?

Mirrorless and EVF is the future. But it's not quite there.

@xiao_xiang -
"Sure, I get all the practical advantages of EVF, but for photography.... where is the beauty?"

It's in the photos you capture. I don't get all the obsessions about wanting all the "beauty" in just looking through the viewfinder. And frankly, not all OVFs look that great. If you want to see and enjoy the true beauty of the world, put your camera down. Stop looking at a frosted piece of plastic focusing screen.

I remember going from ilm SLR to APS-C DSLR. Compare to film SLR OVFs, it was like looking through a tunnel. APS-C OVFs are smaller/dimmer than FF OVFs. Things haven't changed much. It's still that way. But we acclimated to it.

The nice thing about EVF is that no matter what sensor size you are using, you can still have a big bright vibrant viewfinder because EVF size is independent of sensor size. That's why APS-C and m4/3 cameras can have viewfinders as large as a FF 1DX:

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/55189947/4731f59059334b0d84f034e14cf47a5e

Lol good one! Trolls are getting a bit lazy these days. Most should be experts now! 😁

It makes me wonder what other features they were able to add by eliminatinng the cost of the separate charger...

You can always buy a additional charger if you want! I use the camera itself to charge the battery. And in my country Sony included a 64 gb uhs II card which is more expensive than a charger. I'll wait for a few months and pick up a 3rd party charger for cheap.

Honestly complaining about a charger when other cameras don't even have an option to charge their camera in body is a bit weak. This is their basic ff camera and not their flagship.

That's what reviewers are saying is the only issue with this $2,000 camera. No charger. But having the ability to charge in camera a plus for many. Maybe Sony will include one with later releases.

A third party charger costs like $20 if people really want.

I hate to say it because I'm heavily invested in Nikon- Sony will likely be the first to offer wireless charging à la iPhone X, negating a cable/ removable battery altogether.

When I bought my A7 II, the lack of a charger was a bit annoying until I reaslised I could charge the camera on the go in my car. Secondly as the battery life is not great, I bought cheap spare batteries and a dual charger, which I would have bought anyway, thus making a factory charger redundant.

Thoughts r us. Your comments make me laugh. I truly believe you are sitting there with a big smile on your face as you type. Must be as you cant possibly be serious.

Anyhow truly hillarious. 😁. I think everyone has a clear picture of who and what we are dealing with here.

By the way, just for the record I think the A7III is a fantastic bit of kit. My only question is do I go for A7III or A7RIII? Better check if the A7RIII comes with a charger!!! 😁👍

Would it be nice to have a charger included? Sure. Would I trade that for the ability to charge in-camera? Not in a million years. I've shot an A6000 over the past few years and I've always carried a power cell with me so the camera can charge in the bag if needed. Very convenient.

USB charges just as fast, if not faster. Something DSLR users aren't used to. ;)

I find it funny how much time Canikon trolls spend making comments on Sony cameras. And they all seem like envious comments with lack of real data or real experiences with the cameras.
It must be that they're angry that Canon and Nikon keep giving them really lackluster incremental updates every 4 years (!!!) and ask for a lot more money for them.
Oh well...

You guys never took into the account the camera allow you to charge without an external charger. Is that not a feature for travelers? Save your space for 1 black box with a dangling cable. Look at the bright sight dude, you know how pricey a Canon 5D Mark IV which angry so many Canon user for a meh features upgrades?

The two different card slots is a bummer but honestly you need to be shooting a lot of action shots to find it a problem. The buffer is pretty deep at around 80 uncompressed raw files and 40 compressed. I found the camera doesn't lock up like my earlier Sony cameras which happened at times I was shooting action a lot.

And you don't need a uhs II card to record 4k video. I do it very often with a 95 Mbps card.

for 100Mbps 4k, you need a faster card, you can't use ush-1: http://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1720/v1/en/contents/TP0001140402.html

the two different card slots can be a minor irritation, in part because they put the #1 slot on the bottom... who counts from the bottom up? lol

U3 standard is uhs-1 :p

Where does it say uhs-II card is required? :p :p