English

rishi covered some of the advantages of the sony menu system in depth, here:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8783241658/sony-a9-offers-powerful-pro-level-customization

i guess that it's just too complicated for these platform trolls ;-)

I especially like Sony's 'My Menu' because it allows Nikon shooters like myself to set it up the same way like I do on Nikon's 'My Menu' section.

I spent a day shooting with the A7III and I have to say, I don't see much difference image-wise in real world shooting as compared to the Nikon D750. In fact I still find the Nikon images a bit easier to tweak in raw editing mainly due how Nikon handles metering and white balance.

Though Sony high ISO renders very similar to how the D750 handles high ISO with grain-like noise that's easy to clean up in post-production. The big improvement is how it maintains dynamic range into the higher ISO range compared to the A7II. In real world use and for proficient raw editors, you can push the files further than it's predecessor.

I really don't get why people are complaining about the menus. Every camera menu is strange to start off but if you have even slight intelligence you'll work them out. They are not even hard on the A7.. very odd complaint.

@Thoughts R Us - The only confusing aspect is that there are numerous amounts of settings tailored for not only stills but even video users. Once you set your camera to your specific liking you'll never have to dive into the menu ever again.

Eye AF with continuous AF works on both native and adapted AF lenses using the A7III, nothing to compensate. I mentioned Nikon files are bit easier to work on, but by no means are the A7III files difficult to tweak in raw.

@Thoughts R Us - "AF on adapted lenses never works as well as with native lenses."

It gets you pretty darn close, so close that the differences are practically imperceptible with adapted lenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxaLeiJvX1A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQJa9u3Cdg4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OhmqCew6L0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaBhBhSQBVI

As for Sony's own long lenses, those are coming:

https://petapixel.com/2018/02/13/sony-400mm-f-2-8-lens-spotted-olympics/

So between Sony's own upcoming telephotos and full compatibility with all EF lenses, this is simply not the big issue that some sad troublemakers are trying to make it out to be.

You also have to remember that Nikonians used the same "lens selection" argument against Canon EOS in the first several years of EOS's existence. Gee, I wonder how that worked out? Hahaha. People have to remember that the Sony FF mirrorless system hasn't even been around for 5 years yet! But it's growing rapidly!

The last time I checked, even my D7200...my menu doesn't take pictures..one should set up the menu to ones liking. No matter how deep or difficult it is.

@T3: first, adapted lenses never work as well. You can throw all those Youtube videos at me as you want and it does not change that fact. BTW, I notice that 3 of those 4 videos are all from the same source, and all 4 involve the far more expensive a9. None are what I would call the most trusted sources.

Second, good for Sony for someday eventually launching a super telephoto lens. But I have news for you: it takes more than 1 to build a good collection. Canon and Nikon have far far more to offer. And I will bet that the Sony will not be as good.

I don't care that Sony's FF mirrorless has been around only 5 years, when Canon and Nikon enter it will get relegated to second tier. A train is a-coming.

Your EOS analogy is a very imperfect one: EOS was created to take advantage of AF, which was a true game changer in camera tech. Sony mirrorless is far from being that significant a development.

@Thoughts R Us - the only thing that you know is how to spew a bunch of unsubstantiated fud, that you can't ever back up.

you don't know squat about sony or adapted lenses, so you don't have a valid opinion on the subject.

you are hiding behind a fake user account, with nothing to prove that you even know how to use a camera... and you claim that people on youtube are not "trusted sources", lmao

In return he uses youtube himself to prove things. If you could meta-tag people, he would have "trollish tendencies" on his list, i.e. his ramblings can be mostly ignored.

Thoughts R Us - "@T3: first, adapted lenses never work as well. You can throw all those Youtube videos at me as you want and it does not change that fact."

Hahaha, wow, you are either totally out of touch, or you are in absolute denial! Yeah, you don't like to look at the youtube videos demonstrating that what you think is a "fact" is actually false.

Ironically, Canon EF lenses actually work BETTER on Sony bodies because Sony bodies give Canon lenses face and eye AF as well as image stabilization (for EF lenses that don't have image stabilization):

https://fstoppers.com/gear/testing-eye-af-sony-a7r-iii-adapted-canon-glass-207850

I found a photo that basically sums you up in a nutshell:
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/1425_3.jpg

And as time goes on, their will be numerous videos on Youtube on how to properly set up the new Sony's and the menus to ones liking!

According to Thoughts R Us, Canikon mirrorless is doomed. All they'll have in the beginning is 3 lenses to choose from, since adapted is useless! XD

@Mastering Light: you bring up a good point in viability of business models. Sony has already dramatically slowed down its APS-C mirrorless development. Why? Probably because it is not sustainable.

With this new a7 III, and its pricing, I wonder if they are shooting themselves in the foot? After all, for a Sony shooter, with this model out there, for many it removes the motivation to buy the A7RIII or A9. Now those models do have advantages, but the glowing reviews and Sony fans keep pointing out how this A7III pretty much has most of what users would want at a far lower cost. That is the main sales pitch.

After this release, how does Sony justify selling anyone a FF camera for more than $2K? And when their market share is pressured by Canon/Nikon, then what? Will Sony even be making FF mirrorless 5 years from now?

@MasteringLight... Problem with you and many of the other DSLR promoters is that you can't see what is changing no matter how obvious. You spend too much time in the past. Today isn't about how many units you sell and Sony gets that better than any of the competitors. Canon can try to keep selling inferior aps-c cameras but that is a dead end strategy. Smartphones will continue to eat into the volume and margin of the low end aps-c market and anything below it. You can keep saying things like the above and get away with it as long as Canon has brand equity to spend. Admittedly, they have quite a bit to spend but boy they've been on a shopping spree for several years! At some point they won't have enough to cover so many poor decisions.

@ThoughtsRUs... why are people buying the D850 today when the D750 had "pretty much what users would want at a far lower cost"? Just about every camera has "pretty much what users would want" until the next camera is released.

@Clayton1985: you do realize that Canon diversifying into markets other than standard photographic equipment is a good thing, and one reason why they are making profits today? What poor decisions by Canon are you referring to?

I do agree that the lower end of the market keeps getting eaten away by advancing smartphone technology and that in the end all that may be left is the higher end. Smart camera companies diversify, and at the same time pursue the higher end of the camera market.

As to your Q re D850: the D850 offers substantially more than the D750. No one pretends otherwise.

The A7III is being described as offering most of the advantages of the A7RIII and A9 at lower price. That is what is being described by its fans as its main selling point. Great features, low price, new "benchmark."

@Thoughts R Us - geez check this guy ^ looks like you can't even mention Nikon or Canon in relation to Sony without being told that you live in the past :D :D :D

@Clayton
You are sadly confused.
In mirrorless friendly countries like Japan, Sony has been getting killed by a couple Canon mirrorless models And Canon hasn't even introduced mirrorless FF yet. Tech matters little.
And worse Sony fans try to point to US sales, but in the US mirrorless is still only about %20 of the ILC market and Sony is sharing it with 4 or 5 other brands.
This is why Sony now only quotes "value" (an easy to fudge number -MSRP? Sale price? Sale price after discount?). There number of "items sold" is far less than a few years ago, and their marketshare is about the same as 2008.

@Thoughts R Us - "you bring up a good point in viability of business models. Sony has already dramatically slowed down its APS-C mirrorless development. Why? Probably because it is not sustainable."

Uh...go look at Amazon's Best Sellers in Mirrorless Cameras ranking list:

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011

Right now, every camera in the top 10 is a Sony APS-C mirrorless camera!

https://ibb.co/bCHJoc

Sony is selling plenty of their APS-C mirrorless cameras.

@Thoughts R Us - "With this new a7 III, and its pricing, I wonder if they are shooting themselves in the foot?"

No. Mirrorless cameras cost a lot less to produce than DSLRs. They have a fraction of the parts/components, and their assembly is far easier, which also lowers production cost.

Roger Cicala's conclusion after his Sony A7R teardown:

"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."

@Thoughts R Us - What this means is that Sony has tremendous pricing flexibility and margin. And there will ALWAYS be people who are willing to spend more to have certain things, certain aspects of performance, certain features. That's true of plenty of higher-end products where you might say, "Who would spend the extra money for that?!?!" And yet, people do, whether it be cars, or watches, or TVs, or stereo equipment, etc.

@T3 pretty much just humiliated himself. LOL!

In the US DSLRs still command near 80% of the ILC market. Amazon mirrorless sales account for a tiny fraction of the ILC market, and Amazon numbers are notoriously unreliable, (that is why Sony fans cling to the usually misleading numbers). Often you will see miscategorized items skewing numbers.

In markets like Japan where mirrorless is about 50%, Sony has been getting beat by Canon for years. And that is going by actual sales numbers from most retailers.

But the real concern is according to Sonys own records, they lost money every year on APSC, and only FF changed that...of course expect their FF sales to plummet after the 2 larger competitors enter the market.

@MrScrooge... well, now that you mention it.... I think you're right. That is unless you can give me an example of a Nikon or Canon camera that is evidence of the future? Exactly. But hey, I've heard for 5 years that Nikon and Canon and are going to release some amazing mirrorless cameras when they are ready.....

@Mastering Light - Keep on dismissing the rise of mirrorless. I have no problem with your continued ignorance and denial of the changes that are afoot. Throughout history, there have been people like yourself who have chosen to stick their heads in the sand, ignoring the writing on the way. They end up eating crow.

As for Japan, I find it astounding that people still use those numbers as evidence of the dominance of Canon over Sony. Firstly, Canon barely squeeks past Sony (21.3% vs 20.2%). Secondly, your comment that "In markets like Japan where mirrorless is about 50%", that is wrong. The actual quote that you are misrepresenting is, "These numbers represent the Japan camera market, using about 50% of the sales data out of Japan." Regardless, the Japan numbers have Olympus soundly beating both Canon and Sony in mirrorless with a considerably higher 27.7% market share. And yet, no one is arguing that Olympus is king of all mirrorless, haha (even though Oly kills Canon/Sony in Japan)!

@Mastering Light - The other thing about the Japan numbers is that it's based on unit volume, not by dollar volume. And a lot of volume is driven by lower-end models that are heavily discounted:

"The majority of the products generating the volume in mirrorless in Japan are the lower end, lower cost, or discounted models. For example, the top mirrorless cameras in last week's interchangeable lens camera listing were three different NEX-3N kits, the NEX-5R, the EOS M two-lens kit, and the E-PL5 two lens kit, in that order. All these are in the US$350-550 range." http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/bcns-final-japanese-market.html

Sony obviously dominates Canon in the higher-end mirrorless segment that caters to more serious users who are more likely to truly invest in the system, because Canon doesn't have anything in that segment, In today's market, the real money is in the higher-end market catering to more serious users, not the discount low-end market.

@T3
You are extremely gullible if you believe "value" numbers over units.

In Japan where Canon is crushing Sony, we have actual Unit Sales. Not shipments or shipped "value".

"Value" is extremely misleading because manufacturers often use MSRP even though items were sold at discounts and bundled with "free" items. Also, Sony "estimates " value of other manufacturers items. It is a complete joke.

No matter, Sony still only has 12-13% of the global ILC market. The same number as back in 2008. The completely failed at SLTs, and have 0% of the DSLR market which is 80% of ILCs in north America.

Sony relies heavily on FF mirrorless and 2 larger competitors are entering that segment. Expect their market share to get cut in half.

@Mastering Light- Haha, you are just an angry old man shaking your cane at the world:

https://forums.att.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/473i26B686DF4020E995/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=1.0&px=999
Keep shaking that cane!

@clayton - you have some strange spectacles on if you think that the only thing that counts as progress in the camera world is removal of the mirror box. There’s been far more technilogical development happening in the field of ILCs than trying to get EVFs usable. Nikon and Canon have not stoppedz
People keep saying mirrorless is the future and no-one is denying that some day that will be the format dejure. Until then, we will continue to choose the best tool for the job. That’s not always a sony.
After all, electric cars are the future but that doesn’t mean that BMW aren’t still making great petrol cars that outperform their electric counterparts in the meantime.

@T3: you can cite the ever changing amazon rankings all you want, but the bottom line is that Sony is not producing much in the way of new APS-C mirrorless? Why? Could it be because their strategy is not working and they are losing money? It seems that Sony has abandoned A mount, is now walking away from APS-C mirrorless....when will they walk away from FF mirrorless?

This new a7RIII puts a dagger in the heart of their higher priced models and makes it hard for them to ever justify selling a FF model above $2K. That may not prove to be a wise business decision.

@Mastering Light (and your echo in Thoughts R Us): "it is no surprise that they've slowed down APSC releases to near nonexistent."
What nonsense. They would not be expected to release a new APS-C camera until at least later this year—it's not an annual event. (And they have released new APS-C lenses recently.)
And who told you that "Sony has always lost money on APSC mirrorless" ?
Their financial results do not break down to model results so my guess it was some wombat on the internet. Certainly it wasn't a statement from Sony management who have stated in interviews that APS-C is central to their strategy.

"Sony has always lost money on APSC mirrorless"

Totally made up claim. In fact, let's counter that by this one: The A6000 is the best sold Sony camera to date and the best sold mirrorless camera to date.

But they totally lost money on it. They're still trying to earn back the R&D after 4 years, with it topping the mirrorless sales charts. Sure thing, because you said it.

@Thoughts R Us - You are a sad, desperate person grasping at straws.

Consider this: Sony sells a heck of a lot more APS-C mirrorless cameras than Pentax does. And yet Pentax is still around! Secondly, you are foolish to ignore Amazon sales, because Amazon is one of the biggest sellers of cameras in the world. Amazon's sales rankings are updated hourly, and there has consistently been a Sony APS-C camera in the Top 10 at Amazon for months now. In fact, I just checked right now. Here's what I found:

https://ibb.co/iwsYOc

The A6000 is the #7 best selling digital camera at Amazon. And it's the second best selling ILC behind only the Rebel T6. It's even outselling Nikon's best-selling DSLR, the Nikon D3300, which is at #9! Sony is losing money on APS-C?!? Hahaha, no. Additionally, you have to remember that mirrorless cameras have far fewer parts and components than DSLRs. So their margins on the A6000 are probably quite good.

You are seriously a sad person grasping at straws. Grow up.

@Luddhi @T3 : I'm not refuting your stance that the A6000 made Sony a profit - I don't have access to those figures - but you must appreciate that you're not bringing anything to the table to disprove the argument other than conjecture.
"It sold X so it must have made a profit" "Its been 4 years so the R&D must be paid off" - in the electronics industry some R&D takes many many years to pay for itself. It's also possible that it was designed to be a loss leader - it may have bespoke parts, even uniqie ASICs that could never be sold at a reasonable price when it was designed. That's not saying it wasn't a success - the Veyron was a success at what Bugatti was trying to do with it, but it was never profitable to manufacture.

@MrScrooge: No of course I am not disproving a claim that itself has no sound basis. I wasn't attempting to do that. I was pointing out that the claim was baseless. What was claimed was that Sony has always lost money on APSC mirrorless. Well how do they know this? Sony has never broken down the figures. Secondly given the obvious success of their A7 series why continue with a loss leader for four years? I don't deny that is possible but it doesn't make much sense. Sony's camera division is profitable (cf their published results) so why continue to manufacture the a6000 to sell at a loss? And if APS-C only generates losses why did Sony produce the a6300 and the a6500? Business logic therefor implies that APS-C is making money so extending the options is a viable strategy. My point in mentioning the APS-C cameras in the context of a review of the FF series is that I hope—and indeed expect, Sony to make similar improvements in the APS-C series due later this yea/r early next year.

@ MrScrooge: Just one more thing :-) I went and re-tread the last financial report and even now Sony does not break down which camera segments, P&S, APS-C,FF etc. made what. So the claims that specifically the APS-C segment is losing money is just pure invention and should be disregarded.

Now a days all cameras are so good I'm a big believer in using what you enjoy the most. Most reviews tend to focus on specs and features and pixel peeping, but in reality the largest factors these days should be usability and reliability, since they have more impact on the final user experience.

If you choose the camera you enjoy using, you will use it more, grow more in your photographic capabilities, and overall of course have a far better experience with photography. And that's what it should be all about.

IMHO, one Achilles heel of Sony is the usability and ergonomics. Even positive reviews such as DPR criticize Sony on this score. So while some may have no problems with Sony ergonomics, it's obvious that many people do.

@philo123

"When you're looking through a DSLR OVF you can see that little bird on a branch with ease and focus acquisition and lock on are spot on. The same CANNOT be said when looking through an EVF at the same bird - frustrating and you have to take your eye away to check the little fella is still there. "

Dunno, I have no problem seeing or focusing on birds with my A6300 + Sigma 150-600 C. The EVF is even more useful in backlit situations, where it brightens the scene so I can see past any flare/sun.

The A6000 was a bit limited, which is why I didn't switch to Sony back then (was also using D7100 + D750). Once the A6300 came out, however, all bets were off. I switched to Sony full time, with 2x A6300s, and never looked back. The A6300 was to Sony APS-C pretty much what the A7 III is to Sony FF. At the level where you can switch from DSLR to mirrorless without any deal-breaking limitations.

The EVF can be a huge liability, and it looks like this one is not the best.
While hiking my friends use the long zooms to scan the trees for birds to look for other wildlife in the distance. They've found with these Sony's they sometimes can only get 100 shots on one battery, because that EVF is constantly draining the battery. (Another problem on hot sunny days is Sony overheating when using the EVF to scan the horizon frequently).

But there is nothing better than a good OVF with a long telephoto lens.

ML may be great for some things, but I don't think it's there yet for wildlife/nature photogs. I compared the a7riii + 100-400GM to my D500 + 200-500, and I greatly prefer the Nikon. I would LOVE a smaller and lighter wildlife rig, but don't feel it's worth the tradeoffs at this point. I'm with Philo; I also prefer the OVF.

@philo - Ergonomics and usability depends on person to person. Fuji cameras have some of the worst ergonomics for me. It has no grip to speak off. I always felt like it would fall down and break if it wasn't for the strap that held it up and right enough the camera slipped from my hands once as it was hot and my fingers were sweaty. Thankfully I had the strap on and so no harm done to my friends camera :P

@brendon1000 - I initially felt that way about my X-E1, but I added a third-party grip to it. Now I really love how it feels. It's similar to this one:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41kOYHx5zML._SL500_.jpg

There are definitely a lot of options out there so you can customize your camera to your liking:

http://www.shuttercount.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/xe1case_grip.jpg

Yes but thats exactly my point. Its all up to the user. Everyone praises Fuji for their ergonomics but I couldn't get around it. I love the handling of my A7 III even without any additional grips. But thats with prime lenses. Once I add heavy lenses then the ergonomics fall flat.

@brendon1000 - It's not a one-size-fits-all world. I like the ability to make cameras more modular and customizable. It's easier to add things to a camera to make it bigger/heavier than it is to take things off to make it smaller/lighter. With cameras that are bigger/heavier, you're just stuck with that size and weight all the time, no matter what.

The first 3 words of your sentence are correct.

For tracking fast action, I'll take a D500 or D850 over the A7III any day. And I'll even have long super telephoto lenses to use with them.

The A7III is a nice camera for Sony shooters. But IMHO, if you've used Canon or Nikon, Sony's are a downgrade. I've tried the A7RIII and it feels more cheaply made than Canon or Nikon. But again, that's just me.

@Thoughts R Us

Funny, since I've used Nikons (D90, D7000, D7100, D750) for years, and the A6300 was a good step up from the last two in AF. The last two having the pro AF from the D300S and D4. The A7 III is a huge step up, with significant AF algorithm improvements over the A6300, and a relatively denser AF point array. Not to mention 96% frame AF coverage, where the D850 only has a centered cluster, and the D500 roughly 50% coverage (largest ever in a DSLR). If the A9 can go toe-to-toe with the D5 in AF, the A7 III can certainly go toe-to-toe with the less-than-D5-AF of those two cameras.

BTW, guess you don't know this, but you can adapt lenses to Sony cameras. People have been doing it for years now, and at the current level on the A7 III, performance with EF lenses is nearly native. As a bonus, you get many more AF modes to use and track your subject with. All without the headache of AF tuning.

BBT: An exception is with adapted telephoto lenses, where peripheral AF points start hunting and essentially stop functioning. We're not entirely sure why, and where that threshold is, at the moment.

sony improved the adapted peripheral af point performance considerably with the last a9 firmware release.

there are so many body/lens/adapter combos, that it's hard to make blanket generalizations either way... my a9/laea3/tamron 150-600 for example can accurately track at 10fps even while zooming out: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60668144

with a giant telephoto lens, it's generally always about shooting centered objects.

It is amazing how many Sony users deliberately use Canon EF mount lenses.

Sony crippled the A mount adapters. Most lenses need a crappy AF module from 2011 or get stuck at 2.5 FPS and other restrictions. My A mount lenses do NOT work well on my FE cameras.

I've talked to numerous Sony owners who can't wait to switch back once Nikon and Canon make FF mirrorless and since they all still have mostly non-Sony lenses it will be very easy.

@Mastering Light

Which FE cameras do you have? Until the A9/A7x III series, FE AF was rough. The A6xxx series held the AF crown in Sony's mirrorless stable by far.

And that "crappy" AF module is crappy because it uses a mirror. ;) Everyone has been wishing for an LA-EA5, that combines the OSPDAF from the LA-EA3 with the AF screw from the LA-EA4, with native AF options. Not sure if this will ever happen, but I'm using a Sigma 70-200 2.8 II and 17-50 2.8 OS on an LA-EA3 + A6300 with no issues beyond the burst/AF tracking limitation, which was lifted in the A9. Guessing the readout speed is the limitation with the other cameras.

And those users who can't wait to switch back? They're in for a long trip. Not a chance Canikon will get things right on the first try. They'd have to spend years ironing the problems out first, and by that time, the cameras would be horribly outdated. Reports are already in that Nikon's rushing progress on their mirrorless. Not a good sign...

@Bluebomber

You seem pretty clueless about Sony.

The reason why the LA-EA2 and 4 are so bad is because they are based on a terrible AF module from 2011 with only a few AF points. Blocking 1/3rd of the light makes matters worse. They can't use CDAF or OSPDAF at all.

Sadly, the new A7III and A7RIII can't shoot faster than 2.5 FPS with A mount lenses because of Sony crippling them. The A9 is the only one that can, but it costs well over $4000 and its mechanical shutter can still only shoot at 5 FPS. Sony has virtually killed off A mount.

Iacta alea esto... Based on how quickly Sony have managed to release superb cameras in the A7/A9 series and fill it out with some fine glass then I would respectfully suggest that they will continue to shake them dice and roll 'em! YMMV

They are as late to the party as Nokia was to smartphones. Let's hope they'll be able to catch up. Nokia as of now didn't.

The question both CaNikon and CaNikon fans needs to answer is:

-How much worse can their offer be and still find their fans and buyers?

No, the question is... what is your comment aiming for?

competition is good
bring it on

@vscd,
I read an implied assumption from the OP that the "Big Boys" will wipe the floor with Sony's offerings.
But I don't think it is so. I think experience builds knowledge and the Big boys will need to catch up.
What they CAN offer is a mount that already has a lot of lenses and lens owners.

And here is the crux for CaNikon, if the step into the MLC arena they will be head to head with today's offer, and they need to compete with those, be it Sony of someone else.
On the other hand, if they spend to much time developing something superior Sony will release yet another generation and they end up chasing a moving target.

So the reality is , their first attempt will most probably not beat the Sony offer AT THE SONY PRICE POINT.

But how much worse can those waiting accept?

@Eleson: it will be interesting to see how the FF mirrorless wars play out with the entrance of Canon and Nikon.

While Canon and Nikon should not take anything for granted, let's consider: Canon/Nikon may not have the experience in mirrorless, but do have far more experience in camera equipment in general, and most of that is transferrable. They also have the established brand names, and the trust of a lot of consumers.

The most direct history we have is with Canon and EOS M. When Canon entered APS-C mirrorless with their EOS M, most people shrugged. Even now most don't consider that system to be as serious an effort as could be made. Yet by most reports it's already at or near the top of mirrorless sales, beating out Sony.

There are new generation photographers coming up, who don't care about brands like Canon and Nikon. Those big DSLR cameras are for people who grew up well before year 2000, and that have strugeled with adapting to a moderne world with a new breed of digital cameras. :-)

That just adds support to the fact that mirrorless is the future. As for Canon and Nikon, they do have a lot of catching up to do. Canon and Nikon's previous mirrorless cameras haven't exactly been top performers or set the world on fire.

Canon's Fullframe 5DM4 was GOLD, before. What now? Inventing "diamond"-standard? Does it "change the game" again? Haha...

Face it, this entry level camera from Sony can easily compete with semi-pro level cameras from any DSLR maker. D850, D500, 5D IV, 7D II. Beats all but the D850 in photo quality, and destroys everyone in video quality and features. The cameras that are actually in the same category (D610, 6D II) are hopelessly outmatched. THAT is what makes the A7 III the new benchmark.

@Thoughts R Us

"To me it implies a stronger standard, a game changer, and that has to be proven."

10fps
Semi-pro AF
96% AF point coverage
Highest video quality in a non-video oriented ILC
Lowest noise/highest DR in its range

What makes this a game changer? The price. Nothing competes with it anywhere near its price range. For Nikon, you have to go at least D850, and you're still losing out on video and non-viewfinder usage. For Canon, you'd have to go 1DX II. Both still don't have the AF point coverage or video quality available in the A7 III, and the 1DX II even loses out in stills quality. At 3x the price.

"Does this change the industry? I doubt it. But again, only time will tell."

We'll see how Canikon responds. The A7 III means they can't be lazy about their entry level FF mirrorless, or even their midrange.

"but I would far rather use those Canon or Nikon models for usability, lens selection, reliability, etc. "

Nikon's pretty much ruled out in reliability after their continued series of missteps. Lens selection, Sony wins by a landslide. Mount almost everything. AF almost everything. AF Canon and Sony A with nearly native performance. Usability, very dependent on the user. The Sony has a bunch of features that help me get things done quick, where I had to waste nights/weekends calibrating lenses, and worry about exposure and AF accuracy, on DSLRs. In fact, AF accuracy could be put into the reliability column.

I've really enjoyed my first week with the A7iii, but...
Sony colors < Canon / Fuji / Sigma colors

Are all of you jpg-photographers?

No, but we may use line specific film simulations/color profiles as starting points in our RAW processing.* As important - they're not all equally accurate in recording color temperature.

* Adobe Default [/cringe]

People don't seem to understand that the camera isn't permanently set to 1 look. There are roughly 20 of them, with about half (Picture Profiles) having a ridiculous amount of flexibility. Don't judge any camera by their default settings unless you shoot in Auto, too.

Sonys color science changed with the a7r3, a9, and now this A7mk3.

It is exceptional.

Magnar W> With good color and metering I might as well become one. I've never felt less need to shoot RAW as I now feel with the A7 III.

ACR color profiles - especially the default one - produces extremely poor colors.

Using that as a basis for saying Sony colors aren't as good as others isn't very sound...

Capture One Pro

"The big advantage though is the ability to have more precise focus wide open"

That's what made me switch from Nikon DSLR to Sony mirrorless in the first place. Even stopped down, there's more accuracy. I never have to chimp focus anymore. Just aim, shoot, move on to framing the next image.

I'm genuinely curious - could you give a few other examples of equal aggressiveness & rudeness?

FIrst the headline says nothing about mirrorless. It says FF camera, which the Nikon D850 is and as for picking what you think are important, I would pick other things. I had the A7s, A7R2, A7r3, etc. I sent the A7R3 back because for my work (closeup, stacking) if was not as good IMO as the D810 or D850. I am not saying it was "no good." Of course not that would be like claiming it is THE standard. Standard for what? If is for what you want, I could only agree. But as standard for all FF cameras, not so IMO.

You must get infuriated reading daily news headlines. It is a bit over the top but they need to draw in readers, thus the headline. Most of today's journalists are pretty pathetic, nothing but advocates with very little actual information in their stories. At least this review has real information about the camera. Cheers.

I get what you are saying. In my mind it is way overhyped to say this camera represents a "new standard" or "benchmark."

Only time can tell if this is a "new standard" and I have a feeling it will not become that. In fact, if this camera ends up having some QA issues, which is likely with a Sony, then those who heaped this kind of praise will look foolish.

I wonder how many of the reviewers will be purchasing this miracle camera if it is so great? It's funny, but on sites where reviewers have praised this unit, no one seems to be switching over because of it. I wonder why?

Now this is not to say that the camera lacks merit. Only that the hype is overblown.

At risk of sounding cliche, you're missing THE point. Calling something "the" new standard has essentially nothing to do with potential denigration of other cameras. As a statement, it means that what the Sony brings to the table at the traditional entry-level price (for full frame) is now table stakes. This is basically just another (more concise) way of saying that, unless a camera has reliable and wide AF coverage, roughly 14 stops of dynamic range, high quality 4K output with usable video AF, etc. for about $2000, it's not really competitive.

If another FF camera meets your needs even though it doesn't satisfy those criteria that doesn't mean it's a bad option or that someone is criticizing your choice. But it does mean that, for the money, the Sony performs better, so it's value proposition is higher, regardless of whether it's mirrorless or a conventional DSLR. That's not rude or aggressive, it's factual.

@Thoughts R Us - "I wonder how many of the reviewers will be purchasing this miracle camera if it is so great? It's funny, but on sites where reviewers have praised this unit, no one seems to be switching over because of it. I wonder why?"

I've seen a lot of dye-in-the-wool users of DSLR reviewers jumping on the Sony bandwagon. Jared Polin was a Nikon die-hard. He's now posting a lot of videos about Sony mirrorless. Same with Matt Granger who used to go by the name "That Nikon Guy". Now he enthusiastically uses Sony too (and it wasn't too long ago that he gave gave up on Sony, but when the A7RIII came out he posted this:
https://www.mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/1101-sony-a7r3-best-camera-of-2017). Same with Tony & Chelsea Northrup. Rishi here at dpreview is a big fan of Sony mirrorless. Same with Max Yuryev. I've been following these reviewers for a while, and I've seen the change with all of them. So your statement is really out of touch and simply ill-informed.

@Thoughts R Us - "Now this is not to say that the camera lacks merit. Only that the hype is overblown."

Haha, I remember Nikon users saying the same thing about Canon EOS when EOS was still young and new. Nikonians dismissed EOS as "overblown hype." They dismissed the idea that EOS was "the new standard" or that it set "new benchmarks" with camera technology and performance. And they dismissed the idea that any reviewers or pros would ever switch to EOS. Gee, I wonder how that turned out? LOL. Well, we all know, don't we? It just goes to show that you shouldn't be so dismissive, smug and snotty. And you shouldn't have your head so buried in the sand.

@T3: While I don't know the exact shooting habits of those reviewers you cite, for the most part they are simply covering brands that people use to serve a wider market. Jared Polin for instance, has been a Nikon user for a long time, apparently still is, but has always covered Canon as well. No surprise he would cover Sony. It's good business. Same with the Northrups.

But I don't see any of them say, gee, I'm making a switch. They will continue to review a wide range of products to get the biggest viewership, and will largely continue to use what they have always used as well.

@Thoughts R Us - LOL, oh please. You're just trying to make every excuse in the world. In the past, I've known users who switched from Canon to Nikon, or vice versa, for far fewer reasons and far smaller differences in performance or specs than we are seeing with Sony's offerings! You also have to remember that there is a whole new generation of photographers coming up the ranks who have no Canon/Nikon equipment, no past loyalties to Canon/Nikon, and who are seeing the high praise that these reviewers are steeping on Sony's system. And again, these are pretty big differences-- bigger differences than Canon or Nikon ever had against each other. Plus, Sony has the ADDITIONAL advantage of cross-compatibility with Canon EF lenses, which makes it that much easier for existing Canon users to migrate over to Sony, or at the very least, add a Sony body. This greatly lowers the barrier to switching, which Canon and Nikon never enjoyed in the past when trying to get people to switch.

Other well-known names in photography that I'm sure you've heard of:

Matt Kloskoski:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/why-i-switched-nikon-sony-https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/why-i-switched-nikon-sony-matt-kloskowski

Colby Brown:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/why-i-switched-canon-sony-colby-brown

Jason Lanier:
https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/why-one-nikon-photographer-switched-to-sony/

Others:
http://ilovehatephoto.com/tag/famous-photographers-who-switched-to-the-sony-a7-series/

The list goes on. And it's not just younger photographers switching. Older pros such as David Burnett have too:

https://www.slrlounge.com/one-of-the-100-most-important-people-in-photography-has-moved-to-sony-after-40-years-with-canon/

Watch his video and comments in the video: https://vimeo.com/252216064

Esteemed old-timers like him are seeing the light, and aren't so set in their ways like some people here.

I love my Menus because I made them myself!

Your feeling is echoed by a lot of people. Not everyone enjoys using a Sony; in fact, even positive reviews like this one criticize the camera on ergonomics and handling.

My philosophy is to use the camera you enjoy using: in the long run you'll use it more, master it more, and end up with more and better pictures. If you take photographs because you enjoy it, then why not use the camera you enjoy? That's much more important than any specs.

To be honest I don't enjoy using a camera more than any other tool, what I enjoy is the results.

@Daft Punk - Not a hipster, not necessarily. But you do realize that this is not about the A7-2. This is the A7-3. And there is a BIG difference between your camera and this new one.

Ergonomics is a personal thing. So let's call that a draw. Menus? You should really try this one out. I have the a5100 and nex-5t and they are vastly improved. Maybe not the way I like it like I like Panasonic's menu, but then again, compared to my now sold canon m6, it is now way better than that.

But in the end, most are getting the camera not for those things you mentioned. I am not saying they are not important. But in the bigger scheme of things, there are other more important qualities to other people than those 2 things. Later on, when Canikon comes out with their own MILC, I am sure, they will go through the same criticisms. Not unless they maintain the same dslr form factor, size, and current menu system.

A single brush stroke in ACR/LR gets rid of moire these days. It's nowhere near the problem it used to be. In fact, the only place you'll have a problem with it now is in video. And with the 6K->4K supersampling, its appearance will be reduced if it even occurs in the first place.

We see this with all kinds of products, I am an automobile photographer, I shoot dozens and dozens of new vehicles ever week, cars reached a point years ago when they were fast enough for any practical purpose, so the manufacturers now just add more and more gadgets and the buying public lap it up, seats that give you a massage (seriously) multifunction driver displays with overlayed sat nav/speedo etc, electrically adjustable everything, I go about my job on a 1977 single cylinder 2 stroke motorcycle, its great, maybe its a kind of "inverted snobbery", whatever, it does a splendid job

My 'newest' camera is 6 years old and my car is 23 years old and they both work fine. There must be something wrong with me .....

How do you manage to get through the day?, you poor fellow, it must be a struggle

It's a challenge ... ;-)

Many Autofocus points is for
- speed
- precision
- tracking
- incredible eye AF
- having 93% of the image covered by AutoFocus

Of course you don't need them if you always shoot centered dead natures in good light conditions.

"Of course you don't need them if you always shoot centered dead natures in good light conditions."

And of course until this epic technology, all people ever photographed was "centred dead nature in good light conditions"

@ vaughanB: Why not welcome new features that can be very helpful - at least for others if not for you?

I have found a wider array of focus point and subject tracking very helpful for erratic and fast moving subjects. I was used with center point AF, and now I have an excellent option that helps me get even more keepers. Not bad, or what?

@surlezi If you keep telling yourself that, I am sure you can justify buying one, yes we all need that speed, precision, tracking, eyeAF etc. don't we, I reckon I need to change my car because I have seen a new one that gives me a massage while I drive, I am sure it will change my life :-)

vaughanB - sure, I can justify anything but I still know its "me" and not the "kit" that makes it necessary. :-)

@vaughanB Should camera companies just stagnate and not try to improve technology even if the older technology is good for most shooters? Sounds like a recipe for the further expansion of cell phone cameras.

BTW no one is forcing you to buy the new stuff. Your old camera should still work today just like it did yesterday.

@fjbyrne I agree you have a point there, camera companies are up against it now, cameras matured later than other tech like cars and computers, but they all face the same problem, the technology reached a point where it was "good enough" some time ago, so they have to keep trying to convince us to throw away the old and buy new, my D7200 is just so good at most things its kind of hard to convince the likes of me that I should ever abandon it, the nature of the job in hand and what I need it to do will not change, and I have a tool that is more than up to the task, that was not the case 10 years ago

@vaughanB
"Did I read this correctly.....693 AF points ??? why??, I use 1 :-)"
A very advanced AF system makes the difference in concentrating on the composition while not having to worry about the AF technicality. If that does not concern you that is fine. Some use manual focus cameras too. For many and definitely for me, it is a huge feature, one of the most relevant, actually. I really do not want to relay on locking focus and reframing missing out on the moment that mattered or missing the exact focus when shooting wide open.

If the 51 AF points on my D7100 and D750 were an indicator, more are definitely needed. Always had AF consistency troubles, and random OOF images on things that were even standing still. No more problems since I moved to a 425-point camera.

@George1958 - "The new standard is to have more and more and more bells and whistles"

I don't think having focus points that cover the entire viewfinder frame is "bells and whistles." In actuality, that's how cameras should have been all along! But technology simply couldn't offer it up until now. So up until now, we've adapted to the status quo of only having focus points clustered in the center of the frame. We've used work-arounds like "focus-lock, re-compose", etc. The reality is that a camera should be able to track or acquire focus on your subject WHEREVER they are in the frame. But only until recently has technology allowed us to do this. For me, as a former DSLR user who now uses mirrorless, having focus coverage THROUGHOUT the entire viewfinder is now the new standard, as well as having face/eye AF. It's not a "bell and whistle" for me. It's how cameras should have been all along.

@Mastering Light - You have some serious emotional issues, dude. Why is it so hard for you to embrace a new type of camera that brings new capabilities to the world of photography? Just enjoy what it has to offer!

"Too bad the camera is crippled."

Oddly, that's the feeling I get when I go back to using my DSLR that doesn't have full viewfinder autofocus coverage, doesn't have face/eye AF, doesn't give me real-time exposure preview, doesn't give me a histogram inside the viewfinder, doesn't give me focus magnification or focus peaking, doesn't allow me to switch the viewfinder into black-and-white viewing mode, etc. I've become so accustomed to these useful features. They've become an integral part of my photography. Going back to a DSLR that can't do any of these things makes it feel "crippled."

I thought stuff like the 6DII or the 5DIV were crippled. I might have the wrong definition of crippled.

Well I must be missing something because I dislike multipoint AF, I get more OOF shots using multiple focus points that ever I do with just a single point the I choose myself, I never use it, 693 AF points just sounds like 692 more chances that the camera will pick a focus point I didn't want :-)

@vaughnB

Don't knock it until you try it ;-)

Every working sports photographer knows there is no such thing as perfect autofocus. It's not just a matter of more focus points. There simply isn't an algorithm that knows where you want to focus on, no matter how many focus points are available. That's why there isn't a simple or scientific way to test AF. The bicycle test DPR uses certainly isn't scientific. They use different locations, different lighting (overcast, sunny, mixed ..). Hard to draw any conclusions from. So in the real photographic world AF is a percentage thing where a 100% hit rate under all circumstances (= 100% focussed where you wanted it to focus) is simply not possible. To get as close to that 100% will never be completely 'automatic' thing by the camera alone. It's also about the skills of the photographer that knows how the specific AF unit of the camera is responding in all kinds of situations and anticipating on it. So a zillion AF points are not the holy grail.

@Robemo Thank you and very nicely put, if anybody imagines that 693 focus points is going to give them perfect focus every time then they are kidding themselves, personally when shooting sports, I STILL use single point AF, I have tried Nikon, Sony and Olympus and I get just as much success (probably more) by using single point that any other method. My 6 year old Canon G1x has focus tracking that I find pretty good and I leave that on at all times, ie you focus on an object and as it moves the focus point box moves with it, that is pretty good, but using multi point AF on most cameras usually ends in disaster for me, the camera focuses correctly but not on what I wanted it to. If I were to use 693 point AF at work it would be a big mistake, unless this Sony can read my mind :-) sounds like a Gimmik to me

Man, are you kidding???
G1X got a poor 76% more than 6 years ago, and in the compact category, and you dare compare it with A7III today.
What a joke ! You can’t be taken seriously.

I wasn't comparing a G1X to this Sony, totally different cameras, but you obviously put alot of faith in reviews so 693 focus points must be great right ? because thats loads more than the previous model so that must be good right ?, whatever gets the highest score must be the best right ? maybe just maybe reviewers have a vested interest in stoking demand and encouraging people to upgrade then upgrade again.....just a thought :-)

You are the one who cares for the number of AF points (since the begining of this thread), I don't, I care for the result it allows for.
Do you get that ?

On my side I totally get that if you're so happy with a 6 year old compact camera, you don't need a top of the line full frame ILC, and shouldn't be losing your time promoting end of life products on here instead of eBay.

@vaughanB - "maybe just maybe reviewers have a vested interest in stoking demand and encouraging people to upgrade then upgrade again.....just a thought :-)"

Maybe just maybe consumers have a mind of their own and are able to evaluate a product based on reviews to decide if they want to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a new product. $2000 is not an impulse buy for most people. Therefore it's good to have the information provided in reviews that allows people to make an informed decision. By attacking reviewers, you're just making a vain attempt at shooting the messenger.

There is some truth in both positions. One the one hand there is ,at best , only a marginal difference, if at all, between output from modern FF mirrorless and DSLRs. You can also live without the much vaunted advantages of mirrorless without loosing in IQ. The disadvantages of the DSLR are often over stated. It can be argued either way but it still does not amount to any real world differences in the output.
The impressive mirrorless spec lists are a commercial necessity and marketing propaganda until the day when a DSLR is not able to produce an equally good image. That’s no reason not to buy one. I did and objectively I gained nothing I did not already have.

@George1958 very well expressed, I shoot images for a living, all day, every day, its not art, its not clever but I need to produce solid well framed well exposed images, hundreds per day, with the minimum of PP, my Nikon D7200 is a very capable product, its proven, reliable and robust, if I were to "upgrade" to this new mirrorless tech, I would be taking a risk and I would gain precisely nothing because my Nikon does the job brilliantly, I am very sceptical that many people if any actually "need" 693 focus points, its a marketing number and how reliable is this camera ?? we don't know do we, I did buy a Sony SLT A68 for personal use and I wanted to like it but I found it was a very flawed product and nowhere near as good as my Nikon, it did have 3 user memories, fast burst, an EVF, good live view and a whole list of impressive features, but it just wasn't a very good camera (in my opinion) and is already forgotten, I will stick with what I know works at least for now

@ vaughanB and Robemo
Based on your comments I would be drawn to believe that you both likely have no experience in using a camera like the A9, nor you mastered its sophisticated AF system. As Robemo pointed out no AF is flawless, which I can generalize this to: no technology is flawless. What we always do, we "Master it" which means, we get the best out of what it can do. A 693 AF point with 93% coverage is capable of phenomenal stuff. That does not mean that you would use them all all the time, yet I have come to easily accurately nail images, that would be otherwise impossible or very challenging. Of course, because you both do not have any experience with it you cannot possibly argue against it, simply because you are unaware of the expanded possibilities.

I have yet to see a concrete example of an image that could not be taken equally well by both a DSLR and a mirrorless camera.
I have no issue with the tech, lots of focus points or eye focus etc, they are excellent innovations. I see no evidence that these features translate into real world advantages in the final image output. I am sure such features are convenient and make life easier in some situations but for me that does not amount to better or worse. It is not unreasonable to beg the question whether such features as eye focus or a sack load of focus points are essential. However I do see such feature may be desirable for some, and why not.
IMHO negative comparisons between DSLR and Mirrorless formats are more about consumer choice than actually getting the job done.

@George1958
while "could not be taken equally well" is a subjective matter it seems to me to be so obvious that:
1) Shooting a lot of portraits greatly simplifies the framing process while improving on the hit rate especially when shooting wide open
2) Event photography, shooting candids, for the same reason
3) Action photography when the subject is well defined against the background
4) general photography when you do not want to mess with the AF and you are pretty confident that the camera will guess right (believe me this is becoming more and more the case).
5) As I already mentioned before a high resolution AF sensor that covers a large area (possibly the entire frame like the A7III and A9) allow new algorithms like eye AF to excel.

@George1958 - If it's not for you, don't buy it. But for me, and many others, these added capabilities do enhance our photography. And as someone who uses both DSLR and mirrorless, the added features and capabilities of mirrorless have made a big difference for me, and have even allowed me to get shots that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to do with my DSLR. For example, face AF is a HUGE benefit. I am regularly stunned at how well my Sony mirrorless camera is able to lock onto a person's face, no matter how cluttered a scene is, and hold focus on the subject's face even as they move around the frame. Even when the subject looks away for a moment, the camera instantly locks back on when the subject turns back. I used to do a lot of focus-lock-recompose when shooting people. Now, I don't do it at all! I can just hold my composition/framing, and just shoot! This is a "true real-world advantage" for me.

BlueBomberTurbo - I am with you in that there are many convenient features with mirrorless cameras. (I own 2 mirrorless cameras myself). I have previously stated that many of the apparent limitations of DSLR are over stated. I personally have never had any issues with front or back focus in wildlife and wedding photography. I also take my time to work out my exposure when I first set up my shoots, 2/3 test shots usually does it. Chimping, no. I don't have time. You will know wildlife and weddings can be all about the moment and chimping is too much of a distraction. So If I draw on my own personal experience , there really are no issues to be resolved either way. I really do believe it would make no meaningful difference in the outcome which ever system you use. I do think I enjoy my DSLRs rather more but that's subjective on my part. Had I cut my teeth on mirrorless I might prefer them to DSLRs. I dislike the hype mirrorless V DSLRs. Its the other side of the same coin.

@George1958 - I would also think that silent electronic shutter would also be beneficial for certain wildlife photography where the sound of a mirror and shutter clapping would be undesirable. When you think about it, there are a ton of situations where the sound of a DSLR is just very undesirable. But up until now, we've just accepted it, or we've been relegated to shooting from a distant location to avoid being heard, or we simply aren't allowed to shoot at all!

"Sony α9 Silent shutter (Electronic Shutter)
The Death of Mechanical Shutter Era?":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMtMCse6hcM

Just imagine the annoying cacophony of DSLR mirrors and shutters clacking away in this scene:
https://static.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2018/04/2018-04-11-image.jpg
I think that will eventually become a thing of the past as pros gradually migrate to mirrorless cameras with silent e-shutter technology.

T3 - I do not disagree with you that those features have a value. Typical of all like discussions people do break down the pro’s and con’s really well. However I never find myself directly experiencing any problems or restrictions frequently described when using a DSLR. I might select a quite shutter option from time to time, I tend to meter for each zone I shoot in and really have no need to chimp, I never have issues with focus or exposure. I get the job done without any sense of feeling either challenged or limited by using a DSLR. I also some how doubt there is any job that I will ever take where using a DSLR will be prohibited.
My wildlife has never objected and wedding/event customers have never once mentioned concerns about noisy shutters etc. Interestingly when I do use a mirrorless with silent shutter some remark, did you get that shot because most of the public expect to hear a shutter sound , it also works quite well as an auditory cue when directing a shoot.
I

Good point George1958, people expect to hear a shutter, especially when posing for a shot, mirrorless cameras will probably incorporate (maybe already do) an artificial shutter sound which most photographers will leave on most of the time, I accept that sometimes totally silent op is desirable but on cameras I have owned that have it I have never once used it, as you say, the disadvantages of DSLRs are often overstated I suspect because people are desperate to justify the purchase of a new toy :-)

@George1958 - What you said basically applies to practically every new feature or advancement that has come to photography: auto exposure, auto focus, matrix metering, multiple focus points, image stabilization, TTL flash, faster frame rates, etc, etc, etc. With the introduction and advancement of each of these features, people have said, "I don't need these features, I get the job done without them." And yet, it hasn't stopped these features from becoming the norm that people have come to expect. I remember when the flagship Nikon F5 only had 5 focus points:

https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/NikonF5/focusing/finderF5.gif

Then Canon introduced their 45-point focus point AF system. And Nikon users scoffed, "No one needs more than 5 focus points. We get shots just fine with only 5 focus points." Today, would anyone buy a high-end DSLR with just five focus points? No, most likely not. Yes, you can get the shot with 5 focus points, but it's better with more.

@George1958 - It's a matter of convenience and wanting to get the best bang-for-your-buck. Like I said, no one would buy a camera with the Nikon F5's 5-point AF system today. Even the lowest entry-level Nikon D3300 has a better focus system, with 11 focus points.

Yes, you can "get the job done" with cameras that have low specs. But DSLRs are no longer competing in a vacuum (ie, in an ILC world totally lacking in any other alternative other than DSLR). DSLRs no longer have a monopoly on the ILC segment. "Good enough" back then may not necessarily be "good enough" going forward. For example, Canon's latest 6D MKII has been a sales dud, while the A7III is a hot seller. On Amazon's "Best Sellers in Digital Cameras" rankings, the 6DII doesn't break the top 100. A7III is currently #17 and is now backordered 1-2 months. Even when the 6DII was first introduced, it never ranked higher than #35 in sales, and quickly dropped off the list. Times are changing.

Armandino - you don't know my experience, you only know that one of the cameras I use is a 7D mkii. Please don't think I am criticising the A7 mkiii. I said it was a lot of camera for the money. I still think that. However there is a lot of nonsensical negative comparisons DSLR V Mirrorless on forums.
When you ask is there any difference in final images between the two formats there is no evidence that there is. Many of the advantages of mirrorless are solutions to problems that are over stated or simply don't exist. I grant there very convenient technologies in the A7 mkiii, The difference is never seen in the final image.
Honestly why would any one struggle on with an unusable camera system? I would say and you may know the 7D mk ii has a very complex AF. It might have fewer AF points but its far far more than a numbers game. There are hours of tube and web tutorials on the 7Ds AF system because it's much more sophisticated than most garden variety DSLR or Mirrorless cameras.

@George1958 - "When you ask is there any difference in final images between the two formats there is no evidence that there is...The difference is never seen in the final image. "

That is really a rather absurd attempt at minimizing the differences between mirrorless and DSLRs. Final image? Really? That's like saying there's really no difference between a Canon Rebel and a Canon 7DII using the same or similar sensors because "The difference is never seen in the final image." Features and specs can, and do, make a difference. If it didn't, we'd all be using lower-end bodies with lower specs! Or it's like saying there's no difference between using a low-end Canon Rebel film SLR versus the flagship Canon EOS 1V film SLR, because if you're using the same film "the difference is never seen in the final image."

@George1958 - As for 7DII's AF system, it's simply not as sophisticated or advanced as Sony's AF system. For example, look at what Sony's AF system can do: face AF with facial recognition that allows you to register multiple people's faces and allows you to prioritize them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xZ8SYVwIzE&t=50s

For example, if you are a wedding photographer, you can register (memorize) the face of the bride and groom. If you are shooting a scene with multiple faces, the camera can prioritize focusing on the face of the bride and groom. Even Sony's $450 Sony A6000 can do face registration! When you allow the image sensor to actually see the scene, it can do amazing things.

Here's what Sony's mirrorless bodies can do even with Canon lenses!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoyUv8sHYQU&t=286s

The Canon 7DII is so "complex" that it can't do face/eye AF with Canon lenses. And yet, when you put these same Canon lenses on a Sony body, you get advanced face/eye AF!

@George1958
is not about "I don’t know why it bothers you that people like me don’t need any more assistance"
Anyone can shoot as they like and have personal unquestionable preference. However it gets a bit annoying when people confuse personal preference with factual evidence i.e. if you prefer shooting with a simpler AF system or mr.
vaughanB with a single AF points that should not detract from the fact that a more sophisticated AF is a welcome advancement in technology.

@George1958
"Armandino - you don't know my experience, you only know that one of the cameras I use is a 7D mkii."
You might need to clarify your expertise because it does not come across from your comments, which, in total honesty, tent to revel the opposite. For instance you are claiming "the 7D mk ii has a very complex AF". Which is true when compared to a 10 years old camera but absolutely not when compared to the A9 and third generation Sony FF cameras. What is your expertise in using the A9 and the A7III. Please state your experience in this. In my opinion you have virtually no experience otherwise you would never get to say "the 7D mk ii has a very complex AF" which it is basically a dumber and slower version of the 1DX.
"you don't know my experience, you only know that one of the cameras I use is a 7D mkii' do not be shy please go ahead and tell us what you mastered besides Canon bodies and some Olympus mirrorless :-)

@George1958 - People used to say, "I don't need any fancy-schmancy auto focus! I do fine with just manual focus!" Ok, that's fine. To each his own. So be it. But that's more of a subjective preference than an actual evaluation of the performance benefits of certain technologies. Face and eye AF with more tightly spaced focus points covering a wider area of the image frame, with no potential for front/back focus issues due to the mis-alignment of the PDAF module and the sensor plane is, factually, an advantage over less focus coverage using more widely spaced focus points that reside on a separate focusing component that needs precise alignment. Plus, I've shot people in very cluttered, busy environments where my DSLR's autofocus system gets easily confused, so I must rely on center-point AF most of the time. That defeats the purpose of having more AF points. That's not the case with face/eye AF. It easily and reliable identifies faces even in the busiest, most cluttered situations.

"G9- X-H1 - E-M1II are the by gar better cameras."

Wow...

Those cameras truly are superior. If you've used the A7III you know there is a terrible delay with most functionality. It needs to stay in a bag if it rains and overheats if it is hot out. You get ugly stripes if you shoot near the direction of the sun.
Besides the sensor size every worthwhile spec is superior on those other cameras. The Sony doesn't even come with a usable touchscreen, do they think this is 1970??? ( old folks are crying, I don't need no touchscreen nor some new fangled phone without cords!!!!).

The A7iii is not perfect. Sure there are issues. But it's better than snoozeville Nikon and Canon at the moment. And with basically every reviewer (and I've read and watched many) going crazy for the A7iii (well, except the Nikon fan boys naturally, I'm a Nikon owner btw). I'm heading to a local camera store later to put my hands on an A7Riii to see how it feels in my hand vs the D7200. And check out what the fuss is about with the EVF. I'll say it again and will keep saying it until Nikon releases SOMETHING this year. Nikon better release a mirrorless camera the same as or superior to that of the new Sonys. Especially the "entry level" A7iii.

@Mastering Light

Funny, I've had my lowly A6300s out in rain, snow, and ice. Didn't even flinch. Never had them overheat, despite filming soccer on a mid 80s day in full sun. And never had stripes on my A6000, which was considered to be the most prone to the issue. And I love shooting sunrises/sunsets. Which brings me to...

"Besides the sensor size"

This is the key. If you don't like the images coming out of the camera, what's the point? I use ISO 100 just as much as I use 1600, 3200, and 6400. And I exploit the full DR of the sensor on every outdoor scene that calls for it (blown out heavy bokeh is fine). I've tested M4/3 images, and they're not what I or many people (besides smartphone shooters) would use, for the sake of image quality.

There's no cost savings between high end M4/3 and high end APS-C, either, or even basic FF now (which has equal/higher specs!). M4/3 has always been in a sort of no man's land, and most of that is due to price. Nikon even took it a step further with the 1 series's pricing. The reason we haven't seen a new release from them in 3 years now.

Mastering Light must have some alien science if he can confidently stand against every any reputable reviewer.

Sony has plenty of options for consumers. For example, the A6000 is a tremendous value at only $448.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera-3-0-Inch/dp/B00I8BICCG

It runs circles around the Canon 450D and EOS M (I own an M).

What is really the best thing with all the MILC : they make people spend tons of money, and they still make not much more usable pics.

Guys who have to swap every two years their photocamera are just needing something to spend money on it.

When I see how many camera some SONY MILC loudest fanboys have owned, I only see guys still lost in their quest of the holy camera that will have the latest marketed feature available.

nowadays, it is SONY that thrive this band of consumers. It will be funny in a few years to see where they'll have to pour their money in order to get the newest 'must have or you die' thing.

Moving from manufacturer A to B to C to A to D to E to whatever makes an effective experience of toying around with different devices. But I am not sure the money was wisely spent nor the needs really thought and adressed.

But people make what they want about their money. Just asking them to keep their 'XP' a little bit less loud.

I'm curious to see the comments after Canon and Nikon release their mirrorless cameras. Somehow these gimmicks will become features.

@Gon0S

So, how's that camera obscura treatin' ya?

If you already own a serious camera from the 5 latests years and you think you'll get better pics with the latest MILC because it is a MILC, you are all wrong.
All theses pseudos revolutionnary features will have zero to marginal impact onto the final results.

But of course, if you are coming from a P&S entry level camera, all the Alpha FX MILC camera will give you nice and tangible technical improvments, like any dSLR available.

@GonOS

I am not about to tell anyone what they need in a camera and no one else should either. But just because you may not need a feature doesn't mean it's not valuable to someone else. I just as bad to say "I don't need this feature so it's worthless" as it is to say "DLSRs don't have this feature so they are worthless". Each person should pick what camera/system that works best for them and stop the brand wars. If you can't take great photos from any modern digital camera it's not the camera's fault.

I just ask for the death of focus inconsistencies. Which is a feature inherent in DSLRs. And face it, anyone shooting a digital camera is shooting a video camera. We look at our pictures on what amounts to fancy TV screens, not negatives and prints.

That's one of the appeals of mirrorless: to see closer to the end result when taking a photo than ever before. An OVF on a DSLR is 100% inaccurate for that. And no, before anyone says it, it wasn't better in the film days, either, as each film had its own look. None which could duplicate what you saw in the OVF.

Tony Northrup speculated what's to come. 16 bit instead of 14 bit. 100mp sensor etc. The A7IV? My guess a A7iii replacement in 2 years they will improve greatly. 30mp + sensor with the same focus points as the A7iii. Better EVF?? Dual UHS2 slots to name a few.

693 AF points gives you 93% af coverage to the frame, and yes better tracking

ttran88 said: {The beauty is you don’t need to do anything, just focus on composition and subject matter and let the camera do the rest. The days of focus and recompose are over!!}

Maybe, for specific scenes - - except that you then have no control of exactly what it is that the camera focuses on ... most likely, it will be whatever is closest to the camera ... which is not necessarily what the maker/taker had in mind.

You can still use the joystick to chose where to focus (or touchscreen), the difference is that now you can do this up to the edge of the frame and it'll focus and track with no problem.

But the auto af is actually quite good at deciding what you want to focus. Kind of magic to be honest. I've tracked flying birds and in a point and shoot situation it was able to focus with no problem. It's fast and smart.

@BobT3218
So you are asking yourself what is the purpose of having a high resolution AF matrix covering the entire frame? No offence but does it really take that much thinking of the benefit? Things as simple as putting your AF exactly where you want it, tracking everywhere on the frame, allowing the introduction of sophisticated algorithms such as eye af and face recognition (you can register faces to establish AF priority in a multi-face context). Note that eye AF is quite an advanced feature, it detects eyes with sun glasses and eyes in profile position. This all requires a high resolution AF matrix. AF is conceptually changing and it is becoming a lot smarter in picking the subject and you can more reliably hand off to to the camera the task of pinpointing the focus of choice while the photographer can concentrate more freely on the composition.

@JohnTheKeenAmateur

"Maybe, for specific scenes - - except that you then have no control of exactly what it is that the camera focuses on ... most likely, it will be whatever is closest to the camera ... which is not necessarily what the maker/taker had in mind."

If you use tracking, the camera will follow the subject/point of focus all over the frame. You don't have to let the camera decide if you don't want. You can also move the AF box around the entire frame if you want to do it manually. Hell, you can just use focus peaking in MF if you really want pinpoint precision. Regardless, you won't have to worry about things like field curvature, which can rear its ugly head when you use focus-and-recompose.

You can focus on practically any point in the frame. You don't have to set the focus and then re-compose.

Sometimes a picture (or video) is worth a thousand words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyaOjhx_mK0&t=33s

Notice how the camera is able to acquire and maintain focus on the subject (face or eye) even when those points of focus go well beyond the central region of the image frame. Also, more tightly packed focus points means greater focus accuracy to the true point at which the lens should be focusing.

Wildlife wide-area AF tracking in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eQH_praFbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C05pYg0p9xQ

Obviously, not EVERY feature that a camera has is going to be useful to everyone, all the time. As for auto AF point selection, you can just use manual AF point selection if that is going to work better in your particular situation. The A7III has a joystick and touchscreen AF that makes it easy to manually select any of its many AF points.

@BobT3218 - I don't think you know how good Sony's AF tracking is. The second video clearly shows a small BIF flying across a busy background, not against "clear air." There are plenty of examples of Sony's AF tracking doing "all the work" extremely well, not PITA. This is because on-sensor AF is very intelligent thanks to the image sensor being able to "see" the seen and apply the latest AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eycLrA_5JM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYLac-csytg

In the second video, notice how the tracking AF points are well out of the central region of the image frame as the camera tracks the subject's eye.

Jump to 8:30 in this video for AF tracking in a "rainforest":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4&t=1435s

Sony's latest AF and metering system truly do set a new standard for performance. I think you are still thinking of the performance of older camera technology when you say, "Spot meterring and small central AF point or manual AF is the only way."

"I don't want to pay extra for vital post processing."

If it was vital, you would pay,

I use Capture One Express (Free for any Sony camera) to handle Sony raw conversion and some basic adjustment. The raw converter is much accurate and better than the latest Lightroom CC. You don't need lightroom for Sony picture.

Lightroom 6 (non CC) will never support any new camera because Adobe decided it is a dead product. So no need for you to look and comment about any new camera, it will be the same.

All other current RAW editors support A7 III.

"Face detection and EyeAF for shooting portraiture, focus magnification and focus peaking when shooting manual focus or hundreds of selectable single-AF points of various sizes over the whole sensor area and a convenient joystick (+touchscreen) to facilitate its use. No style of focusing is left wanting."

However did we cope without all of that tech?

All that magnum photography that preceded this wonderful and apparently indispensable tech is the real miracle.

Glina - the comment made by a certain DPR staff member was "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"... which is a silly statement.

In regard to your comments, I would wager that you are most unlikely to use face detection AF or EyeAF in the context of an action event. The hit rate would be unacceptably low and in many cases inappropriate. I think the article refers to using EyeAF on an active child and getting a hit rate of around 65-70% - good but not stellar by any means.

If I'm ever in Seattle I'll challenge Rishi to a shoot off at an action event - he can have his a7 III using his beloved tracking and I'll be happy with a 1DX II using conventional focussing methods.

Yossarian1> I don't know which of the two cameras would win in this competition, as I have no first hand experience with the 1DX II.
I assume you've used the A7 III and have the experience. Obviously this kind of test should be carried out with comparable lenses, for example 100-400L from Canon and 100-400GM from Sony. Was it the case?

I haven't used the a7 III and it looks a great camera, especially for the price although Sony has inflated the price of it in Australia (it should retail for around AUD$2,500 but its at AUD$3,000 and Sony lens are considerably more expensive than Canon equivalents).

I have used the 1DX II at a number of motorsport events, using it with a 100-400L II. My experience has been that AF acquisition is super fast and it has a phenomenal keeper rate (95%+) when using conventional AF techniques.

When shooting at 14FPS, it already has a 40% speed advantage over the a7 III and I find that it is usually my error and not the camera that accounts for rejections.

It then comes down to the maths. A five second burst of shooting (not necessarily recommended by the way) on the two cameras will give 50 images for the a7 III and 70 on the 1DX II. The Canon can afford to have a 30% rejection rate (most likely me!!) and still come out ahead of the a7 III.

Gotta love math. You are right. By the numbers, 1DXII would have to miss more than 28% of the time when shot at 14fps, even if Sony shot only keepers at 10fps.

@George1958

"However did we cope without all of that tech?

All that magnum photography that preceded this wonderful and apparently indispensable tech is the real miracle."

Things moved slower back in the day. If people from back then saw us now, they'd think we were chickens running around with our heads cut off. At least in the US. In some other countries, things still move at a more reasonable pace.

So a bunch of people in the comments who haven't used the A7 III are claiming it's not better than another camera?

Don't you have something better to do...

Yossarian: "The claim by a certain staff member at DPR that the A7III has better AF for action shooting than the 1DXII is frankly quite silly"

Yossarian: "the comment made by a certain DPR staff member was "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"... which is a silly statement."

DRUM ROLL

Yossarian: "I haven't used the a7 III"

Rubberdials. You obviously don't understand the point about various AF modes.

Can I suggest that you study the issue so that you understand this better. AF tracking is not as widely used as some would have you believe even with the improvements. Other modes are often preferred as they provide the accuracy and control desired.

I don't have the a7III, but I do own both a7R3 and Canon 5D4. Eye AF is Sony's winning part, as DPR showing to us and confirmed by my test on my Sony.

However, DPR didn't have Lock-on AF testing shooting BIF, but I did. I do see Canon DSLR have more reliable Lock-on tracking than a7R3 for BIF shoot. I assume the a7III sensor will use the same AF tracking technology. If someone shows facts that a7III has big improvement over the a7R3 with lock-on AF tracking, I will be glad to see that.

Given the choice between one 1DXII ($6000) and three A7III"s ($2000 x 3), for my money I'd rather have three A7III"s. For one thing, it's smart to always have backup bodies. And secondly, I like having different lenses mounted on different bodies because it saves you from doing a lot of lens changes. Much easier to switch between bodies than to dismount/mount lenses from a single body. Of course, people can do whatever they want with their money, but I think the A7III at only $2000 is a tremendous value, especially with the specs it offers.

Yes, looks like i was the one who missed something :)
Hopefully they will fix this later with fw.

Only for that tiny diamond af layout in the middle of the frame. That's dinosaur tech compared to 93% af coverage.

Admit it, you don't own the a7mk3.

Nothing against the Canon but that's a bunk comparison and you know it.

Thematic, If you didn't shoot BIF, you don't know what I am talking about.

AF point coverage matters only if they can track the subject constantly. The Sony loses track of moving subject easily, the wide AF point coverage can't help in this situation.

Magnar W, I agree with you on the lens calibrate part. Your high hit rate may be mostly due to the initial focus speed and accuracy brought by the mirrorless camera. But my test for Sony a7R3 lock on AF subject tracking is still not that reliable, compared to Canon DSLR.

LiangMing> Would you care to share which lenses did you compare on both of your cameras? Did you adjust AF Tracking sensitivity on your Sony or is it at its default setting?

All of this, and I'm shooting BIF with a lowly A6300. I'm just waiting for Sigma to release a mount conversion for the 150-600 C. :D

Wrong

Why not post this in the Nikon forum?

Good for you!!!!
(slow clapping)

Cool story!

Insecurities abound... You feel better?

How is that Nikon DX lens selection working out for you? Still no moderate wide angle prime, huh? Yeah... been there, done that.

“...there are plenty of people in the trade that just will never need this camera.” As could be said about all our current cameras and the cameras we owned before those.

@vaughan

Don't hesitate to post such insightful comments in medium format camera reviews instead.

@blessingx No there is a difference , years ago you needed to keep upgrading your computer, your camera, and long before that your motorcycle because they were never quite good enough for general all round practical use, too slow, not enough storage etc etc , cameras have matured now, so when we reached 24mp APS-C based cameras that can shoot clean at ISO 16000 and above the real "need" to upgrade is far harder to justify, hence the 693 AF points and other such sales features, its fine if you fancy a new toy or just love new gadgets, but photographs are printed, displayed on the Web and older cameras can do this with ease and reliability perfectly well now, but sure, its a great camera, I just don't in any way shape or form need one

@Roland Schulz

How would you say AF compares to the A6300? I've had the same experience with my A6300 in that it was more precise than my Nikon gear (D7100, D750).

As far as RGB/highlight warning, at least my A6300 has it. Not sure if things have changed since then, but I don't see why they would have.

Thoughts, you have absolutely no way of proving that the D850 will outsell the A7III over its life. No camera manufacturer breaks out unit sales by model. And in that regard, the validity of your assertion is as worthless as someone asserting that the A7III will outsell the D850 and the D750's successor combined. You made some interesting points elsewhere but now you're just sounding desperate and vindictive on the success of a manufacturer that's been willing to push the edge.

"In biology, the evolution of something new does not necessarily kill the old; it may simply be another branch to co exist. It may be the same here. Time will tell."

In biology, there are also plenty of examples of extinction.

I don't think DSLRs will go extinct, but their dominance is certainly in its twilight days. It's like record players and vinyl. Vinyl records are still being produced and sold. But they are certainly not as prevalent and popular as they use to be.

I think the DSLR will exist, but I think we're at it's brink right now. From here-on, we will see a transition where DSLR releases are fewer and fewer, and mirrorless become the logical replacements. Tell you what, let's circle back to this conversation one year from now, and if both Canon and Nikon have not both announced a full frame mirrorless line, and have fewer DSLR cameras in the works than their averages if the last 10 years, I'll eat my SD card.

@XeroJay

Yup, look at Nikon. ONE new DSLR last year. Just ONE. In 2016, there were three. In 2015, three also. 2014, four. And 2013, four again. Canon, on the other hand, seems content to spew out minor variations of their cameras with nonsensical names (77D, M50, 4000D, etc.) to up their release count.

The Sony A7III is the new benchmark for full frame cameras!!

It is beginning to sound like the church of Sony!
You should pray for reliable CAF!

@NOWHITELENS

This IS the Church of Sony you happened to set your foot on.
Now, away with your blasphemy! 😁😁😁😁

I pray for all the mirror slappers to be happy with what they have and to find peace in their old technology.

Wait a moment. It really doesn't open wide for continuous focusing in burst? I did not read the review really, because I watched many different videos about A7 III but I remember that not opening wide was one of the drawbacks of Sony's nifty fifty FE 50 1.8, hurting the focusing performance seriously, even in AF-Single. This seems like a firmware issue or potential settings option where if you want to have final depth of field preview all the time then it would have to stay closed down, hurting the AF-C performance and not even fully opening between shots to aid acquiring focus as fast as possible. My Samyang AF 35mm focused stopped down in AF-Single! when in aperture priority mode, which was hurting the AF performance in AF-Single too. It is strange oversight or do you think that the iris on E mount lenses is not capable to open and close 10 times a second, if not more on different cameras with faster burst using electronic shutter...?

It can shoot wide open continously if you turn of the live exposure simulate.

you should pray for live view that actually works

@Nowithnoclue

Really not a Sony hater then ?
But couldn't help spitting your hate once more here again. tsss

That's because, according to reviews, all Sony G lenses are super sharp wide open. But to your point, I shoot mainly landscapes. What would I do if I need f8 or more? Manual focus? Would that help? You have me thinking!

You’re right It’s not regular GOLD STANDARD, it’s 24K GOLD STANDARD!!! 😂

@Avatar480234: I do appreciate what you are saying. I am not one to crash a Sony forum just to spoil the fun and would not do so.

I am only commenting because this is a front page feature on DPR and I consider it to be a discussion for all users, not just particularly fans of Sony equipment. And I am trying, however imperfectly, to make a point on evaluation of tech equipment and over reliance on specs.

But I am not trying to malign Sony users; as I've said many times, to each their own. I really don't care what brand others use and respect their choices.

Sure, stick with the familiar and that's ok. But, of course, there are no real historical issues regarding reliability compared to say, Nikon. My own experience with Sony over these last 4 years has been excellent.

As for fun, that's in the eye of the beholder. I certainly find my a6500 a blast to shoot, but I also recognize that Sony mirrorless is very different than a traditional DSLR experience.

Your words
"So why should I even consider a camera that no one really thinks is particularly enjoyable to use, from a brand with a history of lesser reliability?"
Don't consider it. It won't hurt my feelings. Your opinion is far from universal.
Cheers

Well, you do come on in as a sour-graping guy hell-bent on raining on one's parade.
Thanks for being so gracious despite my offensive post.

Great review DPR!! What a great camera to debut your new format of reviews, it really looks to be the new benchmark for full frame camera!! 👏👏

@Avatar480234: Thanks for giving me. your perspective. I love to debate and can come across as strongly opinionated. Your post was not offensive and in fact I will try to make my points a bit more graciously in the future. I can't guarantee I will be perfect though :)

@golfhov: you are correct: this is only my opinion and I admit as much. I consider this to be a general discussion rather than one confined to the Sony Forum, and am simply trying to offer a different perspective. As noted above, though, I can express it rather strongly.

"no one really thinks is particularly enjoyable to use"? Really? I'm here to prove this statement wrong. I find my A7iii extremely enjoyable to use. More enjoyable than my DSLRs. You can feel the way you want but please stop projecting your personal bias beyond where it's appropriate.

@fjbyrne: When I write "no one thinks is particularly enjoyable to use" I am speaking rhetorically. What I mean is that in general Sony gets lower marks on ergonomics and usability, even among favorable reviews. Even this glowing review gave the camera criticism on those points.

When you use the word 'no one' you are particularly speaking for everyone else and again, in plain English, who are you to speak for me?

I have been always a very happy sony user and never had problems with their products.

"So why should I even consider a camera that no one really thinks is particularly enjoyable to use, from a brand with a history of lesser reliability?"

Never enjoyed photography more than after I switched from Canon to Sony.

No more worry about AFMA.
No more oilspots on my sensor every few k shots.
No more having to chimp every time I take a picture to check focus and exposure, you know, the basics!
No more limited by AF points only in center.
The option to travel really light with the right lenses. It is not just camera + lens that can be lighter, now also tripods and backpacks can be smaller and lighter.
IBIS, small primes + IBIS enables shooting hand held in low light without carrying that damn tripod all the time.

DLR technology is so unnecessary complex and unnatural to shoot, the mirror is just a kludge remaining from days past when current mirrorless technology was unavailable.

The A7 III is just a camera, it's not the Toronto truck driver. Chill.

@fjbyrne
enjoyable things about a7iii compared to 6dii.
more direct controls including joystiq, can af through the finder without being limited to center of frame, superior tracking, superior c af, better video(stabilization and 4k), prefer the form factor, the fact it doesn't feel like I am using two different cameras when I use the LCD, dual card slots, to name a few off the top of my head. I haven't had the a7iii very long
that is trying to be brief. Other recent cameras 6d,6dii, 5div(rentals), a7rii, a7ii to name a few

A7IV

I meant for other brands to catch up, if Sony then yes, 1.5 years :)

A7 II to A7 III was 3 years, 3 months. Try harder. ;)

@ozturert If Canon's M series is any indication, no one is running out to buy them. Nikon 1 series was a market failure. Don't be making bets on Canikon pushing Sony and Fujifilm aside, because that isn't going to happen.

I know the truth hurts....

It keeps up with my 1dx markII in terms of image quality and it's smaller easier to carry, which translates to me shooting more.

I got it because Canon makes you shoot in motion jpeg for 4k and comes with a crop.

"Specs never mattered for cameras. And the average person can't tell any difference between stills from this camera and any FF cameras from 5 years ago (yeah we "know" better than them)."

so why buy ANY other camera EVER?

@Mastering Light... specs never matter when your camera is on the losing end. Anything that starts with "and the truth is" is anything but the truth. The NX1 was a system problem not a camera problem... the Samsung system never approached the level of the current Sony E mount system and that is why the NX1 was a dud.

Mastering Light:

You have just posted the ultimate in fanboy stupidity. I bet you don’t realize how dumb your post is. Since specs don’t matter to you I have a 15 year old Olympus C4000z around here somewhere that should make you happy.

tbcass

He said full frame 5 years ago, Not a compact 15 years ago

Trouble is in many ways he is right. Camera marketing is genius. Most people haven't noticed that cameras are by and large good enough

My D90 is good enough for me, As were all those D300. So why buy a new camera? Well I think I might as well have a smaller one.

I could by a 24MP camera and store thousands of images capable of being printed 30 inches by 20 inches. Of course I won't print any of then that big. Instead I'll come on here and moan that my lenses are out resolved by the sensor, the corners are soft etc.

I disagree because there have been real advances in recent years. Things like face detection and eye-AF for instance. These technologies really enhance the photo taking experience IMO.

Faster and better autofocus is a thing. For me the selling point is the video capabilities and the camera size. People flich if I try street photos with a full frame DSLR. They don't with this. And quiet mode is a huge benefit.

Haha, so is that the argument that you are now resorting too? "Specs don't matter?" Sounds like you went from grasping at straws to simply throwing in the towel!

"... the average person can't tell any difference between stills from this camera and any..."

The average user is happy these days with their smart phone cam. For those of us that may be out of the average camera user then this sounds like a next step in our evolution.

john Clinch

You don't get sarcasm do you. He said specs don't matter so I carried it to an extreme example. What he said was absurd. What is good enough for you and Mastering Light is most certainly not good enough for me so don't try to impose your values on me. I'm not "the average person".

Cell phones are good enough for most people so what's your point?

@John Clinch
Eye controlled AF is not the same thing as Sony's eye-AF. Eye controlled AF was an attempt at "focus where you look" . Sony's AF finds the eyes of the subject and focuses on them.

While face recognition has been around for a while its performance has been improved.

As I said in another post: If camera companies don't innovate they will not sell new cameras to existing users and not attract new users.

If you are happy with your current equipment then that is great. It should still work tomorrow as it does today. But IMO new advances are needed for a healthy industry. I don't use video but I welcome all the advances since it helps sell cameras.

@john Clinch - "Eye controlled auto focus was rolled out in 1996"

No, that was entirely different. Canon's ECF (Eye Control Focus) allowed you to select a focus point by staring at it. I had it in my Canon Elan IIe. It had three focus points. If I stared at the right AF point, the camera activated that focus point. If I stared at the left AF point, the camera activated that focus point.

Sony's Eye AF is totally different. It uses facial recognition to identify the subject's eye, is able to focus on the subject's eye, and is able to track it continuously.

So the two systems are totally opposite. Canon's Eye AF tracked the shooter's eye. Sony's Eye AF tracked the subject's eye. And Canon's system was very inconsistent because it was very dependant on the positioning of the user's eye at the viewfinder. It worked for some people, didn't work for other people, which is probably why they abandoned it. For me, it worked most of the time. But my camera only had 3 AF points.

@BlueBomberTurbo: I don't care what brand it is, if a camera is unreliable or has notable service issues that does make a huge difference to most consumers.

As to whether DPR should revoke awards when that happens...I really don't care.

But my point is that before one gives out such high accolades, and this goes further than simply a "gold" status...that one should allow for longer term perspectives. To say anything sets a new "benchmark" to me would imply taking into account longer term evaluations including reliability.

He is 100% correct. We need to see how reliable this camera is over time.

So far it is not doing well.
There are already a number of complaints about overheating and shutdowns.
The striping issue appears worse than o the previous models.
The star eater problem occurs with this camera, though since it has fewer pixels than the A7RIII it is not as bad.

What potential buyers need to look at is, ALL these problems have plagued Sony cameras for more than 5 years and Sony still done little to fix them. Some are worse than ever.

So while other manufacturers get dinged for a small bad batch of cameras or a flaw in one model, with Sony we the same flaws in most of their cameras over years.

We see the same with weather sealing claims. For YEARS Sony has implied their cameras are fully sealed and every camera dissected over the years has been proven not to be.

So the question becomes, what other flaws might this camera have?

@Thoughts R Us can You please give us realible sorce for info about reliability and usability of Sony cameras??? Is it your mambo jumbo statment or statisticaly proven fact? Do You have experience with Sony cameras?

Benchmarks are mainly about specs and performance at the time of introduction relative to competing products. That's just the way it is. Benchmarks should be concrete, measurable, quantifiable things. The whole concept of "how to prove itself over time" is nebulous, vague, subjective and difficult to quantify. I think you're just grasping at straws, and trying to move the goal post around. I have cameras that have relatively low specs, but to me they have "proven themselves over time." However, they certainly would NOT have ever qualified as setting any new "benchmark" for photography.

I'm gonna bet that the Sony A7III will outlast most DSLRs because it has far fewer moving parts, far fewer components, and a very simple, solid body.

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/A9magn-700x319.jpg

DSLRs are like Rube-Goldberg devices, with their huge number of components and complexity.

@kikiriki: Please. I don't have time to do the research for you, but you know how to use Google. I will mention a few.

There was the water hose test by Imaging Resource. Really, such a simple test I'm surprised it's not done by more on every camera. Maybe because the Sony's would always fail.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has noted that Sony doesn't have the reliability of other brands. For instance, he noted "they're still some years behind in quality assurance and their support section is a few % of Canon's (less than 10%, probably less than 5%) in terms of personnel, repair facilities, and QA."

Read the Sony forums. Read the complaints of real users. This perception didn't appear out of nowhere.

You can believe it or not: I really don't care. But I know which brands I trust and which ones I do not. Sony has yet to earn my trust.

@T3: Benchmarks are whatever readers think it is. To me the word "benchmark" is a very strong term, and implies a broader spectrum of comparison than just the specs. Indeed, it's very nature is subjective, as is the "gold" rating. If you want just something "concrete and measurable" then just list the spec sheets.

The "goalpost" of reliability is surely an important one for most, and yes, it can be quantified over time. But that's the key. Reviewers do not use cameras the way most people do in the real world. They use them for very short period of time and then move onto the next camera.

As to your notion about mirrorless being inherently more reliable than dslr's due to less parts, well, that's not what is found in the real world. What counts is the manufacturers commitment to quality.

So IMHO compare specs all you want, but don't claim something is a benchmark without it earning it over time.

@Thoughts R Us - You are forgetting that Canon and Nikon cameras have received their own share of problems. Remember when Canon's mirrors were falling out?

https://petapixel.com/2015/05/13/canon-warns-the-original-5d-may-suffer-from-mirror-separation/

Remember when Nikon was recalling their cameras for shutter issues?
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/01/nikon-recalls-d750-shutter-issue/

Remember that DSLRs had focus calibration issues that resulted in all decent-level DSLRs now having micro-adjust focus calibration capability?

The reality is that you can Google "Canon quality control issues" or "Nikon quality control issues" and get plenty of hits. If you look for dirt, you can find it. That applies to practically every brand, whether it be Apple, or Canon, or Nikon, or Sony. The reality is that it's just something like FUD-meisters like you use to spread FUD against other brands that you may not like.

@Thoughts R Us - One thing I see is that Sony is far more responsive and moves faster to address any issues than Canon and Nikon historically have done. In the long run, that fast iterative process and quick response means better products, faster. It is a quicker course of product evolution, rather than the slow, plodding, glacial pace that other manufacturers tend to move in.

There are always going to be people who are very fearful and uncomfortable with changes to the status quo. It seems like you are getting very wound up over the term "benchmark" simply because it is being applied to Sony. Your bias is pretty clear. This is a threat to the status quo that you are accustomed to. The reality is that things change. I remember Nikonians expressing the same fearful, disdainful attitude towards Canon EOS back when it was a relatively new system.

@T3: Funny that you had to go back years to find QA problems with Canon and Nikon. I especially find the Canon issue funny, as that goes back to a camera that was released in 2005.

You can try to muddy the waters all you want, but all brands are not equal. Sony consistently is behind Canon and Nikon in QA. Just this very year it was found that the new Sony A7R3, a $3200 camera, couldn't pass a backyard water hose test. Canon, Nikon, Olympus all held up just fine.

Wanna bet that the A73 couldn't pass that water test?

So I don't need to go back to a 2005 camera model to find a flaw in a Sony...I just have to look to today.

@T3: Sony is by far the worst in customer support. Virtually everyone except you acknowledges that. Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals, who should know, estimates that Sony is years behind, maybe without 5 to 10% of the support capacity of Canon.

In the US, Sony outsources and that is never as good. So sure Sony releases new models more frequently: it builds their hype. But that means if you have an issue I guess you need to spend even more money to upgrade. With Canon I have super support and don't need to do that.

And for all of their product evolution, Sony still hasn't figured out weather sealing to the degree of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, or Fuji. Maybe they need to focus on the fundamentals a bit more and worry less about gadgetry.

@ Thoughts R Us. I take that perception with caution, but I don’t think every complaint is spot on. I found Canon unreliable because problem with mirrors fall off from 5D series, and that was not few isolated cases, that was common problem. I won’t even mention Nikon’s oily sensors, exploding batteries, etc.. Use google and search for vital parts that fall off from Sony camera, or something like that. Not so good waterproofing, or sensor overheating on rare ocasions is not even close to vital parts falling off from camera. Everything is in the eye of the spectator...

@Thoughts R Us - As I said, the fast iterative process and product evolution that Sony moves with ultimately results in better products in a shorter period of time. Sony is moving FAST. People seem to forget that the Sony FF mirrorless system is not even 5 years old (first A7 was introduced in October 2013)! And yet, in that time they have introduced 9 FF mirrorless bodies (A7, A7S, A7R, A7II, A7RII, A7SII, A9, A7RIII, A7III). Rapid evolution beats out slow evolution in the long run.

As a Canon user, I know all too well how slowly Canon moves. They move at a glacial pace. Improvements come at a trickle.

As for this "water hose test", ask yourself what true practical value that has. I've owned the Canon 10D, 20D, 40D, 5D, and 60D. Of all those cameras, only the 60D had weather sealing. And never once did I do a "water hose test" on any of these cameras. People like you are truly grasping at straws. I find the "water hose test" the least valuable test of a camera, lol.

@Thoughts R Us

The A7III exists. Dry your make up and deal with it.

And Roger Cicala posts on these forums occasionally, so I'd be careful bending his words and selectively quoting him to support your threadbare thesis.

@ Thoughts R Us You have to go back to 2005, because it was the last year Canon produced revolutionary camera (that had mirror falling off problem). Got it?

@T3: Sony is moving fast, but still can't master usability or reliability or service. People can move fast off of a cliff, but I don't want to be there. And for all their speed of iteration, they haven't made a dent in Canon's market share.

Listen, you can have your Sony. I really don't care. But don't tell me it's this breakthrough camera when it is not. Also, one funny thing I've noticed: most of the reviewers who are heaping praise on this camera are not buying one or switching to it for personal use. That should tell you something.

@Thoughts R Us - "don't tell me it's this breakthrough camera when it is not."

It's a breakthrough camera. Show me another camera with superb autofocus, with 693 AF points covering 93% of the image frame, 5-axis IBIS, face/eye AF, facial recognition and registration, 10fps, silent electronic shutter with zero shutter shock, oversampled 4K/24p video taken from full width 6K, AF joystick, touchscreen, full compatibility with E-mount, A-mount, and EF-mount lenses, no need for micro-adjust focus calibration EVER, all for just $2000?

And yes, by the end of the year I'll be buying one. It's the camera I've been waiting for. Sony is doing very well in the FF ILC market. In comparison, Canon's 6D MKII was a flop, probably one of the most disappointing FF DSLRs Canon has ever introduced. It just goes to show, not everyone blindly idolizes brands like you do. Open your eyes, broaden your mind. Try other brands. You'll realize that ALL brands, ALL cameras have their strengths and weaknesses.

Im still confused....How does a hose test equate to reliability. Reliability is usually related to a failure mode a component was designed to operate under. If I push a ferrari off a bridge and it breaks, is it the ferrari's fault?

Sure Sony need to address the sealing issue on there higher end models but it isn't a reliability issue. Customer service may also be an issue but this isn't a reliability problem either.

Feel free to list real reliability issues alongside other manufactures lists.