Sony a7R Mark III review

Or there's a middle ground that says that, although there are obvious problems with that test, it still shows something interesting (with the cliche that "the plural of anecdote is not 'data'" acting as caveat).

The a7R III was already rated lower than the D850 for build quality, so there's only so much scope for reducing it further.

The scores are calculated from something like 40 parameters each of which has a specific weighting, so it's meaningless to say 'it should be an 80.' As it turns out, the only way to have that much impact on the score by adjusting the build quality assessment would be to give it a negative score and I can't quite get my head 'round what a negative rating for build quality would mean (you have to build it yourself but the parts are quite fiddly and need to be filed down before assembly?).

@Richard Butler
> The scores are calculated from something like 40 parameters each of which has a specific weighting

Or may be apart from giving the score with default weights also allow users to play with the weights depending on their personal weight and may be set their default weights? That would certainly eliminate the complaints about subjective differences in what is important. You may also have presets for weights for some common typical scenarios - e.g. event photographers, videographers, sports, landscape... Each of these presets clearly has different biases to what scoring weights make sense.

@armandino

Even A9 still on the specs alone is not great for low light AF compared to competition. The best of competition has AF working down to -4EV IRRESPECTIVE of F-number while A9 claims to focus down to -3EV with F2 only and you are not as lucky if you use higher F-numbers (which is highly likely if you do sports/action with A9 with 70-200 F 2.8 or alike). Sony still needs to up the game quite significantly. Some cameras now can focus even at -5EV.

Frankly it would not be a problem if only I did not see it being a problem in what I would consider rather regular uses cases in which I tried A7R III.

@ miksto
From a practical point of view there is virtually no need to shoot f2.8 or higher in -3EV, -4EV. Generally you would shoot 1.4-2.0 and you are hard pressed seeing A9 lagging in performance. I shoot low light events all the time and realistically I prefer using the A9 over the 1DX because I find the A9 actually being more accurate and somewhat faster and for the far brighter EVF. So it might lose a tad in extreme low light (questionable if you are shooting at 1.4) but you do gain advantages even in marginally better light.

@armandino
>> From a practical point of view there is virtually no need to shoot f2.8 or higher in -3EV, -4EV.

This is immediately false since Sony does not have zoom lenses that are below F2.8 and that is precisely the kind of lenses you would use where A9 is at its best - different fast action events. And some such events do not have good lighting. If A9 focuses down to -3EV on F2 then I expect on F2.8 it will be roughly around -2EV.

Based on A7R III with F2 lens I can already say that Sony's -2EV is not enough for some regular indoors cases to autofocus. It simply fails where it does not see good contrast or where foreground is dimmer than background and so on...

So it is definitely a problem with A9 based on these observations alone.

(continuing)

@armandino
(continuing)
Things get even worse if you want to use F4 lenses to get you the extra zoom leg some of them provide like the recent SEL24105G. Then Sony is down to needing really good light for autofocus and low light is a no go.

You want video with cine lenses? You are out of lack - those are F4 as well and Sony's autofocus is just no good for low light as is and gets even worse with the zoom and cine lenses Sony has.

I really am not happy with Sony's AF as it fails too often for me. I hoped A7R III would fix it but no - still fails way too often.

It is crap that AF depends on F-number. If it does then Sony should have looked at AF working in really low light like the recent Panasonic that focuses down to -5EV at F2. This is a huge gap for Sony to cross just to catch up.

Another good alternative is to have off-sensor AF that does not go through the lens and use on-sensor for calibration but work fine without it in low light.

@miksto
whatever you say. I guess you never heard of PRIMES yet. Why would you use an F4 in such conditions? loving the ISO 100K grain?

is this not spurious ? there are lots for techniques for low light. I still use manual focus most of the time. The A7RII is very good for low light but needs extra work, like most cameras. I prefer not be spoon fed. I don't expect the camera to think for me .....

@FujLiver
It is one thing when it is your choice to use manual focus and a totally different one when you have to because Sony's AF simply does not work.
Also in events outside of ceremonial parts you often have no time to manually focus. You either snap the shot when you see something interesting happening or lose the shot if you do not do it quickly. I see no reason to be apologetic for Sony's poor AF when competition does not have a problem in the same circumstances.

@miksto
I think you are full of it. I never seen a wedding performed in such a poor light that a camera like the A7RIII or the A9 cannot handle it. And seriously, are shooting weddings with an F4 zoom lens?
Not to mention that if you are trained properly and you have proper custom buttons set up mf on a Sony can be fast and accurate. You can actually mf conditions in which you cannot even see your subject through a OVF.
I shoot glow in the dark fast events like dodgeball, really fast moving with my A9 and I yield better results than with my 1DX, never mind a semi-stationary wedding in much better light!

@armandino
Learn to read.
1) I did not say wedding. I said event. Strange you do not grasp the difference and narrow it down.
2) Even with weddings I have seen many cases in weddings when lights are poor and there are brilliant not staged fast developing moments worth capturing that you lose with Sony (saw it with A7R II). It does not mean the entire wedding is in that low light. But it does mean you lost what was a valuable memory.

You seem to be totally confusing things. Learn to read please. I am glad you do not have to deal with the cases (unless you are just a fanboy who prefers to be blind even though comes across these AF failures) when Sony's AF is no good. That hardly changes Sony's low light AF fallacies compared to competition. It is a real life problem for me and I regularly lost good moments with Sony A7R III while was trying it out in the last couple of weeks. Nikon/Canon snap focus where Sony totally fails.

@miksto
I tend to think that you are trying to use the Sony AF like a Canon/Nikon camera. I agree that Sony cameras have a steeper learning curve. I disagree with i.e. A9 having a weaker AF than to say the 1DX or the D5. Is it more difficult to learn? Yes. It is better or worse in every regard? No, just different. Facts are that I get better yield with my A9 than 1DX including very low light conditions such as, I mentioned, glow in the dark fast moving subjects.

>> I tend to think that you are trying to use the Sony AF like a Canon/Nikon camera.

1) Are you saying that expecting Sony AF to acquire focus in low light is using it like a Nikon/Canon? And in Sony world it is fine that it fails to focus?
2) Are you saying that expecting that if it indicated it focused on the face with face detection with green box is using it like a Nikon/Canon and in Sony world it is actually fine to show you focused on the face but but actually focus on background?

Which exact part here is anything to do with Nikon/Canon?

I think you are just being silly here as poor focusing of Sony in low light is nothing to do with trying to use like Canon/Nikon. It is just that Sony still needs to catch up to competition in low light focus. It is evident from their specs (-2EV at F2 and way worse at higher Fs compared to -4EV or even -5EV from the best out there) but unfortunately it also is a problem in real life.

@osv
What exactly is a lie? You have only just confirmed I am right.

Your quote above clearly demonstrates that you have not even read what I wrote. As even your quote already hints at the AF problem that I describe. So you kind of confirmed what I said. This is further strengthened given the comparison is done:
1) In super ideal case for Sony A7R III (F1.4).
2) Not the best of competition in terms of low light AF.
So the best Sony can do is to match in super ideal circumstances with not the best of AF competitors. In less ideal circumstances (e.g. F2.8 zoom lenses or F4 Cine lenses) it will be significantly worse than even not the best of competitors.

Thanks for confirming what I said above but not sure why you felt you need to confirm.

What I said are easily verifiable facts and I have personally experienced everything I described above. Sony A7R II was known for AF issues in low light (and not only low light). And I was hoping A7R III would fix that but clearly not.

@miksto
I really think you are missing the point we are making: you are making a big deal out of a pretty niche application. Please give us practical conditions in which 1) you would want to shoot in such low light with an F4 lens, 2) why you would not use an F2 or faster.
I would easily trade the extreme low light close aperture AF performace for eye focus. All cameras AF systems have trade offs: You are praising Panasonic yet its continuous focus is subpar, Nikon and Canon do not offer eye AF and lack the flexibility of a mirrorless of switching from EVF to monitor seamlessly, Nikon live view AF is subpar. If the niche application of using slow lenses AF in low light you might not be in the market for a Sony. I am not in a market for a Canikon because of the lack of the above.

@armandino
I am making a point. Big deal or not depends on circumstances. But it definitely is an issue.

>> 1) you would want to shoot in such low light with an F4 lens
Cine lenses for video. They are F4 and there are no other cine lenses (at least natively).

>> 2) why you would not use an F2 or faster.
a) All the issues I described above I observed with 25mm F2 lens in an evening city lit with Xmas decorations. I had a camera to play with for two weeks and was going around the city testing it. It fails way too often in the Xmas decorated city which is not even serious low light. So AF is crappy even with F2.
b) Answering your direct question: zoom lenses. They are either F2.8 or F4. I hope I do not need to explain why one would use zoom lenses. Similarly see answer to your first question wrt cine lenses that are F4. I hope no need to explain what cine lenses are for.

@armandino
>> You are praising Panasonic
I was not praising Panasonic if you really read. I stated one simple fact that holds true.

>> Nikon and Canon do not offer eye AF
Given Sony fails to acquire focus completely eye AF does not even come into picture in low light.

>> If the niche application of using slow lenses AF in low light
1) I would rather say that only using fast lenses is a niche application as it excludes majority of lens line up.
2) Sony's low light AF issues I described I observed with 25mm F2 lens. So you are not digging the right bush here. F1.4 may have given more leverage but how more niche does it get if AF fails with anything above F1.4?

>> Nikon live view AF is subpar
It is superior in low light. If it focuses it is already superior to the one that does not focus.

@osv
You totally missed in all points you tried to make. Learn to read. Never I said DSLR benefits from fast glass - in fact I even said the opposite that it does not depend on F number. You just cannot master basic reading, eh? and only end up talking to your own delusions...

Whatever Rishi says it does not change the fact that Sony totally fails to focus too often for my liking where Nikon/Canon do not. And I am sure Rishi understands that. In fact even you with your inability to read should understand the meaning of -EV in focus specs and what it says about relative ability to focus in low light. If you do not - I cannot help you or rather would not care to waste my time explaining basics.

It is ridiculous to say that something what does not focus at all (Sony in quite a few low light scenes) is better than something what focuses (you mention Nikon) in the same conditions and does so instantly with no hunting. You are so funny with such delusional statements. Real funny! LOL

@osv
You are still a hopelessly terrible reader. What you quoted and what I said are actually in sync with each other. Work it out if you at all can read and work out based on reading - I am not very hopeful in your ability to work it out based on past experience including your above posts that fail to grasp rather basic things but I have no reason to teach you either. There is enough info above to work out if you could only master reading and understanding. You so funny! So funny!

>> such a dumb comment! lmao

Still making me laugh at how what does not focus at all is better in your rather twisted mind than what focuses instantly. You are so self-descriptive in this comment. LOL. Please stop! You are so funny! LOL

@miksto
">> Nikon and Canon do not offer eye AF
Given Sony fails to acquire focus completely eye AF does not even come into picture in low light."
BS
">> Nikon and Canon do not offer eye AF
Given Sony fails to acquire focus completely eye AF does not even come into picture in low light."
more BS
">> Nikon live view AF is subpar
It is superior in low light. If it focuses it is already superior to the one that does not focus."
This is the cherry on the cake.

@armandino
Nope. It is a fact. Sony requires good light and good contrast. Even if the light is reasonable but good contrast is not there Sony fails to focus while Nikon/Canon do. I test this with simply focusing on a table. It has lightly contrast wooden texture. Sony hunts and fails to focus. Nikon snaps instantly. If I point at the table corner then Sony focuses. Lighting conditions have not changed. Nikon and Canon have no problem focusing anywhere.

Or tell me what am I doing wrong here:
1) Enabled face detection
2) Half pressed the shutter and Sony finds the face and shows green rectangle indicating it focused.
3) I press full way.
4) Checked the picture and it focused on the background.
What am I doing wrong?
This happens in low light but not in good light.

I can give a dozen more examples.

It is you who lives in denial of rather basic easily verifiable fallacies. May be you have no latest Nikon/Canon. No idea what leaves you in this blind denial of facts. BS is on you.

@miksto
Dear miksto. I shoot Canon, Pentax, Sony, and Fuji. I shoot with my 1DX pretty much anything (which I own) from 16-35 to 500/4. I shoot about 1/2M pictures/year. I really have no reason to live on denial. The 1DX is the last Canon body I have (had pretty much any iteration of 1D, 5D and 7D). I might buy Canon again if they come up with a worthy mirrorless. Do you really think I am affected by some form of masochism?
"Or tell me what am I doing wrong here:"
What lenses are you using? what AF setting are you using?

@miksto - "Or tell me what am I doing wrong here:"

i've already told you what you are doing wrong, so learn how to read, and learn how to use a camera.

"Even if the light is reasonable but good contrast is not there Sony fails to focus while Nikon/Canon do"

constantly re-posting lies about sony does not make you right, lol, it just means that you are trolling sony... watch this af test, a9 has better low-light af than d5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4

>> What lenses are you using? what AF setting are you using?
Those trials of Xmas city in the evening sessions were shot mostly with Sony E-mount Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2 lens.
I tried different settings as it was a two week trial of A7R II. Most of it was in AF-S but I also tested other modes. I tried face detection on as well but found it to fail as I described above too often in low light.

I also tried SEL70200GM. Hardly surprising but the issues are the same with this lens but exacerbated by higher F.

Ultimately I found (as already described above):
1) Eye AF gives up first
2) Then face detection fails. It sometimes does so misleadingly - still shows that it found the face and focused on it but actually focuses on better lit background of Xmas decorations.
3) The general AF gives up last and at certain point focusing is not possible.

With the table example below I switched from Wide focus area to centre and spot-M to see how it focuses on low contrast texture and it failed.

@osv
Unfortunately you told nothing useful thus far. But what you said already proves you live in denial and cannot even read. Sorry but I have little interest wasting time on you until you become constructive rather than denying. No offence but I do not want to waste my time.

@armandino
Sorry for confusion. It was A7R III - the new one. I knew about this AF issues with A7R II and was intently trying to see if the same low light focusing issues exist on the new A7R III. A7R III is definitely better in good light - it does not hunt as awfully as A7R II used to. But in low light I find that the new A7R III still fails in the same cases as A7R II and where Nikon/Canon do not fail. That may be hardly surprising as on the specs it is the same -2EV on F2 but I was hopeful.

>> 1) AF-S or AF-C
Mostly AF-S. I played a bit with AF-C just to see how its performance changed but otherwise mainly short in AF-S.

(continuing)

(continuing)

>> 2) Wide, Zone, Center, Flexible spot, Lock-on
I tried Wide, Zone, Center and Flexible Spot - Medium. I did not try Lock-on.
I liked the joystick for Flexible Spot but that is besides low light focusing issues.
When I was testing Face Detection I used Wide. This is the case above where it finds the face but focuses on background if background is better lit (what is difficult to overcome with Xmas decoration and what in itself should not fool the camera).
When I was testing low contrast focusing I used Center and Flexible Spot pointing at low contrast areas (where Nikon/Canon focus fine and instantly but Sony totally fails).

>> 3) If Lock-on S, or M, or L?
Did not use Lock-on - quickly found it unreliable and did not use after that.

@miksto
I find that in low light AF-C is considerably better that AF-S especially if you are using eye AF. This might be counter-intuitive but I suggest to try it out a bit more if you still have the chance of having the camera around. The test that osv refers to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4
it is indeed a proof that in AF-C Sony does quite well. The A7RIII will not be as good as the A9 but if you know how to use it will not be cause of missing shots in common low light conditions. I would use flexible spot (S-M-L most of the time) definitely not wide. In adequate conditions Lock-on works well too but I agree that you that it is not always reliable (although it is very good if you have eye-AF enabled and the face is well detected).

@armandino
Earlier I tried AF-C with the focusing on the low contrast pattern case and it still failed to focus where Nikon/Canons focused instantly. I need to get hold of a camera again to try out other scenarios but I suspect nothing will overcome the fundamental specifications of -2EV at F2 what immediately makes Sony A7R II worse than the competitors from Nikon/Canon in low light focusing on most lenses. There is a big advantage when your focusing does not depend on aperture.
This design decision (on sensor AF rather than, for example, hybrid of both on and off-sensor where in low light only off-sensor is used while at other times it is calibrated based on on-sensor) makes it almost impossible to use most lenses in low light since they will fail to focus way too often while on Nikon/Canon you can use any lens.

@armandino
The video you refer to is not exactly relevant:
1) Is not for A7R III we discuss in this review.
2) They do not even check if the photos are in focus. I found Sony A7R III lies it focused in low light too often - no numbers on the keepers there. A7R III indicates it focused but when you take a shot and zoom 100% even in camera you see it has not really focused and worse of all it also lies for face detection AF as well. May be A9 is better there than A7R III - no idea from that video.
3) D5 still would have focused where A9 would not since they went in that test to -3EV and only speculated on -4EV. A7R III is nowhere near with -2EV on select lenses and this was a problem even in Xmas lit city in the evening.
4) They seem to agree with me on ergonomics saying that "ergonomically A9 is more of a challenge". This is what I found with A7R III over two week trial.

What is at odds with your suggestion on AF-C is they actually used AF-S in low light - not AF-C as you suggested

@miksto
" D5 still would have focused where A9 would not since they went in that test to -3EV and only speculated on -4EV."
Maybe, but facts are that down to what I would consider be 99.5% of the photography the A9 seemed to be better that the D5. At -4EV with the D5 realistically you cannot even see the subject in the OVF.
Anyway I am sorry to hear that the A7RIII is not for you, I cannot say that I miss using Canon and when I have to get my dusty 1DX off the shelf to lock it into the back of my 500/4 I cringe as I wish I could stick my A7RIII there but admittedly 3fps would not cut.

@armandino
I hope Sony will fix it next time. I was hopeful this time around and they addressed some of the glaring issues but not all of them. I hope they will address low light focusing, poor ergonomics and improve more on battery life so that battery will last an event day for video shooting without having to take the camera out of the rig/gimbal to replace batteries. I also hope they will get 10 or higher bit internal video recording with 4:2:2 or higher - they did not seem to do anything on this side at all with A7R III. Rolling shutter also still seems to be a big problem. In one case when I tested on a gimbal and the gimbal got hit by a passer by with only gentle shake and not much movement of the frame the rolling shutter resulted in very visible jello effect that lasted for about 10 seconds - this is just awful rolling shutter. May be it is how sensor stabilization played with gimbal but was really awful rendering footage unusuable without shame.

There is always next time.

@miksto
no system and no camera are perfect. That is why there are preferences among people. For my type of use the A9+A7RIII have the most to offer now on the market. If I need the ultimate IQ the A7RIII will do, if I need the complete discreteness or ultimate speed and AF I have the A9. 4:2:2 is already available with an external recorder on both, rolling shutter is not an issue with the A9. Btw "I tested on a gimbal and the gimbal got hit by a passer by with only gentle shake and not much movement of the frame the rolling shutter resulted in very visible jello effect that lasted for about 10 seconds "
I am not sure what sort of Hulk bumped you. I have my A7RII set up like that all the time and I do not seem to have major rolling shutter issues. I think you are really trying hard to find negatives on this camera. I could find negatives on Canon and Nikon bodies much more easily. You might want to check this our from 16:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyPc7g_W6yg&t=606s

@armandino

>> I think you are really trying hard to find negatives on this camera

Not that way around. It is just that I knew the A7R II's pain points and was trying to see if A7R III has notably bettered them and in most cases it has not.

You are right that no camera is perfect but I had hopes Sony would do better in the third iteration.

>> 4:2:2 is already available with an external recorder

Yup. Tried that as well with Atomos but for retouching that alone is not enough and you strongly benefit from 10 bits or more to have freedom without introducing banding and you do not get that. So you have all sort of logs with the camera but not enough bits to play with them freely.

>> I am not sure what sort of Hulk bumped you

No Hulk :-). As I said the actual shake was so gentle that the frame has hardly moved but the shake/vibration got it into jello that did not die out for way too long and was just too awful to consider useable.

@miksto
"I think you are really trying hard to find negatives on this camera"
Yes you are as your negative opinion is not in line with virtually everyone
"Yup. Tried that as well with Atomos but for retouching that alone is not enough and you strongly benefit from 10 bits or more to have freedom without introducing banding and you do not get that."
That is also BS. I never seen banding in editing my video files not even without using the external recorded. Lots of really demanding videographers that are perfectly fine with the files. Besides, you do not get better files from your Canon/nikon!
"No Hulk :-). As I said the actual shake was so gentle that the frame has hardly moved"
You are dreaming, as I said I use my A7RII/III and A9 all the time on gimbals.
Now more than ever I really think you are making a big fuss. The additional comments really clarify that and put even less credibility in your AF experience and criticism.

@armandino

> Yes you are as your negative opinion is not in line with virtually everyone

This is simply not true as you can see a lot of others here highlighting the same problems in the comments to review. It is a different matter there are those who do not care about these areas. But the things I am referring to are also popping up in reviews including the one you linked to. You just prefer not to notice.

> I never seen banding in editing my video files

Then you did not push them to that point. I saw it. The fact you have not seen something does not make what you did not see BS. You never saw god or individual protons. You not seeing does not make things BS. Be careful with such generalizations that assume everything you have not seen is BS.

> You are dreaming, as I said I use my A7RII/III and A9 all the time on gimbals.

Same fallacy again as above. It is a real problem and is a serious one on A7R II in certain circumstances. Stop thinking you've seen it all.

>> The additional comments really clarify that and put even less credibility in your AF experience and criticism.

Your responses of the style - if I have not seen it is BS - rather make me think of you lacking credibility in experience in the areas which you deny. I clearly see the problems. They were easy to reproduce on A7R III based on my experience of A7R II and yet you live in total denial what makes me doubt your credibility in the areas you deny. You have not seen enough in your boxed up world.

I faced all those problems in real shooting situations on A7R II and that is why I went out to see if they still are problems with A7R III. You totally lose credibility once you start blindly denying what I see with my own eyes. And I was hoping you may have anything of substance and wasted time giving more info to you so that you can tell me what exactly I do wrong. The only thing you said is not to use AF-S which in itself is a crappy suggestion.

@miksto
Cameras are tools and as such they have capabilities and limits. I.e. your comments about banding or gello. I am sure that these happen, the question is if they are a problem for general use. I push my video files pretty hard with post processing believe me. If you have a problem with A7RIII gello and banding in video then you are extremely demanding in video, far more than most who are in the professional business. This is what I have been taking about all along: i am not making objections to the limitations you are presenting, but the fact that you are presenting them all as deal breakers and the camera being inadequate or incompetent. Facts are that the camera is very competent and only very demanding users in specific areas might be limited by this camera and there is no camera on the market today that will have all the points you arising covered anyway.

@miksto
"The only thing you said is not to use AF-S which in itself is a crappy suggestion."
Clearly you have limited experience with Sony AF

>> the fact that you are presenting them all as deal breakers and the camera being inadequate or incompetent

If you read what I said I never made any of the two claims you misrepresent here as coming from me.
The camera can be used but with understanding of its limitations and when you need to go elsewhere. As I explained in my trial I focused specifically on the areas where I knew A7R II had serious real life limitations for me and that is the right thing to do when trialing the new A7R III to see whether Sony addressed those pain points.

>> Clearly you have limited experience with Sony AF

Let me disappoint you. AF-C does not solve the AF problems unlike your limited experience leads you to believe. I have not tested it for all use cases but I tested in my trial for the low contrast pattern focusing in low light and it failed just as AF-S did and where Nikon/Canon did not and snapped focus instantly.

@miksto - "If you read what I said I never made any of the two claims you misrepresent here as coming from me."

funny how you troll sony with false information, then claim that no one understands what you say, lmao

i gave you a video proving that the a9 has better af than the d5... you never prove any of the garbage that you post.

@osv
Don't continue being a lair. The information I've given is 100% true.

You gave me a video that proves nothing against what I am saying and didn't grow up enough to realize that. I already explained above why it is irrelevant - please learn to read. You are just being ridiculously irrelevant in your denial.

I gave 3 points above that explain irrelevance of that video. There is also a forth:
4) Even if we ignore that the video has nothing to do with A7R III of which I was raising my points and thus the whole video is irrelevant to the points I am making it still is worse for Sony since on Nikon your low light AF does not depend on aperture and will work with any lens while on Sony you are limited by aperture in low light and cannot just use any lens. Claiming that Sony is on a par by only looking at wide aperture lenses is like claiming the lens is sharp where MFT chart shows it is in the center despite it is very poor off center.

@miksto - "The information I've given is 100% true."

no, miksto, you ALWAYS fail to back up what you claim, so it's never true... your exact words were:

"Sony still cannot nail low light AF."

the video that i posted proves that you were wrong there.

@osv
Still totally failing to learn to read, eh? Are not able to read fully, have too short attention span for that and thus only can take words out of context? Persistently incurable in that, eh? Amazing!!! If you continue to fail to read so grotesquely bringing ever more irrelevant stuff you may get me laughing again as you once did already - you are close enough. Not that I come here for amusement but given you tend to be otherwise useless a good laughter is a fair substitute for being helpful. Keep on being hilariously irrelevant if you want to amuse. Almost LOL now. Please do not stop!!!

@miksto
"Let me disappoint you. AF-C does not solve the AF problems unlike your limited experience leads you to believe."
...mmm... let me think, I shot about 300K images with my A7RII, about the same with my A9. My guess about 2M with Canon pro bodies. Please define limited experience.
Just in line with the rest of your assertion, thank you.
You are clearly not disappointing me at all as I know EXACTLY what I get from my Sony and Canon bodies. And differently from you I do not miss my shots in low light with my Sony cameras. As a fact I yield more with them than with Canon EVEN in low light.

@armandino
I am sure you are lying and you miss shots in low light. Sony sometimes misses shots even in good light. So that is a clear lie that you do not.
I personally find Sony to be less reliable in low light than Nikon or Canon. More so that it lies about acquiring focus where it clearly did not as with face detection example I gave above. I just learnt not to trust Sony A7R II (and based on my trials A7R III is akin) and always check and re-shoot if I have time as when Sony fails it may do so for the entire series in the same conditions. With Canon or Nikon I need not do that - I just take several shots and there were bound to be keepers.

As for limited experience... I only used that term to deflect you using it. Our experience is comparable based on your numbers. So if your claim wrt me is correct then you also have limited experience. Or both of us do not have limited experience. As simple as that. All relative to how you consider yourself - the same then applies to me.

@miksto
of course I am laying, if I am not there is a chance that you might be wrong, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
Again you look like you do not like to talk about the A9 at all because:
1) you have no experience with it
2) it will prove you wrong
I really doubt you have a similar experience as I do because you have no experience in using the A9. Do you have proof of having shot around 300K with an A7RII? How much is done in low light? how much with fast primes (faster than 2.0)? I have used 2 A7RII as primary cameras since its first release, honestly there are not very many people who have used a7RII as much as I have and hardly any in combination with an A9, again to the extent I did. The very reason I have used it so much is because it worked effectively for me, since it did not for you I seriously doubt you used as much because as you say, you do not trust it.

Again one more assertion from your side "Our experience is comparable based on your numbers" that show your statements are questionable. What are your numbers?

@miksto - "My numbers are just an approximation."

lets see...

1) you don't have a website

2) you don't have an instagram page

3) you don't have any dpr gallery

4) you don't have any dpr challenge photos

so no, i don't see any evidence that you have any experience with photography.

unlike you, armandino has a website, and he has pics to back up what he says.

@miksto - "I do not like to talk about A9 because that has no relevance to A7R III which is the subject of this article and of what I was talking about."

wrong again... YOU made the specific troll claim: "Sony still cannot nail low light AF."

which includes all sony cameras, by your own admission.

@Miksto : "Nikon live view nails it in low light"
My experience indicates something completely different. I've used a D750 with 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and can comfortably say that your statement does not apply in even the remotest way. I hunted forever to the point that I simply gave up. And it wasn't even that dark. PLease state your facts with much greater precision, e.g. what miraculous Nikon camera you were using, what lens and what f-stop plus the exposure settings to give an idea of the level of light.
Just a point on the over-generalisation you applied.

3 fps continiuous shooting if you need continuous AF. Sure a big limitation but you can shoot 10FPS if you do not require tracking.

and why the hell would you need more then 3 fps for adapted lens ?
need more and shooting a professional job, get the proper system lens for the job

@cbphoto123
>> it has eyeAf.. which is the most important thing ever
I am sorry but you make me laugh.
1) Eye AF is not the most important thing ever.
2) Especially so given that even the basic AF (let alone eye AF) of Sony's does not work at all in conditions when Canon or Nikon's one snaps focus instantly.
I prefer AF that works to one that does not work where others do.

>>on Canon you can't turn on your camera with on hand, you have to use both hands
1) I can do it on Canon.
2) Not that I need to.
3) I cannot handle Sony on whole day events without pain in my arms at the end of the day - ergonomics are really poor while I can on Nikon or Canon. Sony still needs to improve ergonomics.

>> now it has 2 slots instead of one which is, like, super innovative!!
You are being silly again. Catching up to others is not innovation, let alone super innovation (not sure what 'super' adds in your brain and why you wanted to add this irrelevant word). It is just "catching up".

@miksto.. I was being totally sarcastic. I have heard the 3 arguments so often by Sony fanboys..thought I would regurgitate them.
The best focus is the one that works all/most of the time ... regardless of how many million autofocus points more Sony has.
As far as turning on the Canon with one or both hands..I also could not care less, since I always shoot with both hands (one on lens and one on body).. Rubber has mentioned the on/off switch of Canon.. in defense of Sony ergonomics at least 50 times.
Sony ergonomics is by far the least comfortable off all camera brands...
As far as 2 slots and many other improvements on the A7RIII over it's predecessor.. they are hailed by Sony fans as some how innovative..in the pro list vs the negatives.. I see it merely as catching up to DSLR's and other mirrorless brands, I would choose them over a Sony. Sony makes great sensors, but come up short in just about everything else I look for in a camera system.

The score is generated based on the ratings in a series of tests and assessments: we don't get to choose it. The a7R III performed such that it got 90. Given how weighted the algorithm is towards image quality, the a7R III was never going to score as low as 82, even if the body had been coated with razor blades.

Pros and Cons are a list of factors that would-be purchasers might want to be aware of. They're not all applicable to everyone and they're not equally important. The lack of in-camera Raw conversion doesn't totally negate the extremely high Raw image quality the camera produces, so it's senseless to simply count the number of pros and cons.

Ultimately, none of the three principle reviewers had nearly the problem with ergonomics that you describe. Even as someone who believes Sony still has a lot of work to do on its menu systems, I found I could configure it to be fast and comfortable to use.

Frankly I would want an even bigger grip than what you describe but otherwise I agree that ergonomics of this camera is still very poor. And I would say I have average sized hands.

With A7R II I tried battery/grip extender and it was still less ergonomic for my hands then Canon or Nikon DSLRs - just did not feel right at all.

Sony has made so many great innovations over the years, but seems pretty stubborn on this one, just to annoy some people, including me.

@Everythingis1
You are just being silly and lacking attention. I tried those and they still do not make it for a comfortable grip. It still somehow feels way worse and not ergonomic than Nikon or Canon cameras without a grip. That really means you have no real way of fixing that problem as the grips do not do it.

Sony cameras have a lot of problems. For some of them there is a solution. E.g. Sony is known to clip blue channel highlights prematurely and do a few other nasty things with color but at least you have a way of fixing this poor color science from Sony with things like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQXg38qaRuY

But I still saw no real fix for the overall ergonomics. Yes it became a tad better with tiny increase of the grip than it was but still is not good.

@miksto
'It still somehow feels way worse and not ergonomic than Nikon or Canon cameras without a grip. That really means you have no real way of fixing that problem as the grips do not do it.'

You are comparing two different things and looking for equivalence that cannot exist.

You can't say the ergonomics of Canon and Nikon are better than a Sony mirrorless because they are different things. You need to compare your Canon and Nikon DSLRs to the Sony equivalent, which is an A-mount camera like the the A77II or A99II. You will see the 'ergonomics' are the same.

@RubberDials
Rubbish. Nowhere in what I said I was looking for equivalence. You delude yourself if you see equivalence. I was looking for good ergonomics, not for equivalence. I am sorry if you cannot see the difference.

And yes, I can definitely say that Canon/Nikon ergonomics are better than Sony's when it comes to comparing their top ILC offerings.

This article is about A7RIII and let me repeat: the ergonomics of A7RIII is quite poor compared to Nikon/Canon cameras. The grip does not solve the problem - it still does not quite feel right in my hand. Without a grip it is just awful in comparison. May be if I did not own ergonomically better cameras I would not know the difference having no choice but... in direct comparison Sony loses.

@Miksto
'This article is about A7RIII and let me repeat: the ergonomics of A7RIII is quite poor compared to Nikon/Canon cameras. '

If you want to talk about the handling of a Canon or Nikon DSLR you need to compare it to a Sony DSLR, not a mirrorless.

Mirrorless cameras are much smaller than DSLRs and are de facto not as comfortable to hold - that doesn't mean they're badly designed.

You might as well say Canon's ergonomics are poor because the Sony A99II handles much better than the M5. Of course it does, it's twice the size and has an enormous grip in comparison.

Rubber.. since you feel the need to distract/deflect with your very odd argument...the m5 also has better ergonomics than the A7RIII, as do most Canon cameras both larger than and much smaller than the what Sony offers. Sony has still not put it's shutter release button further forward (so ones index finger does not need to contort back) and more importantly need a much deeper and less slippery surface for thumb placement... to have a secure hold on the camera during operation.

@cbphoto123
RubberDials seems to be playing dumb. He really needs to look at the dictionary definition of ergonomics before putting forward such silly argument as "you cannot compare ergonomics of mirroless to DSLR" as ergonomics has nothing to do with mirrorless and more to do with design decisions that make it comfortable or not in comparison. It is almost like acceptance by RubberDials that mirrorless is bound to have crappy ergonomics which it does not have to be.

Everythingis1
Does your handle imply that you like to use one word for all occasions?
Hint: get a thesaurus.(imbecile)

'the m5 also has better ergonomics than the A7RIII'

Sorry, but you're just inviting complete ridicule with that comment.

The M5 is plastic body that flexes when you hold it. It also has no joystick and requires two hands to turn on. It's got 1 custom button.

No-one in their right mind would compare it to the A7rIII using any metric ranging from handling to performance. It's not meant to compete with it - it's an entry-level camera costing a third of the price.

It also has lots of handling quirks that are commensurate with a first gen. product - such as the video on button being right under your thumb all the time and very easily pressed and pulling out the screen not turning off the eye sensor - something that once was a problem with Sony mirrorless cameras.

It's a good handling body and if you said it had better handling than the A6000 - I would have agreed with you but not the A7rIII. You've let your love of Canon and hatred of Sony lead you up the path to absurdity there.

Rubber... we are talking about physical ergonomics. How the camera feels/handles... how secure is your grip. Yes.. the M5 feels/is more comfortable/secure in ones hand, even though it is quite a bit smaller than the A7RIII.
As far as fanboyism (really all you).. I would say almost every Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Samsung etc...regardless of size, is more ergonomic to hold than just about all Sony's. The only exception would be Leica.
Time and time again.. you confuse my not feeling Sony is there yet, not ready to switch over to EVF (because it is also not where I feel it need to be).. that I must be a "fanboy" of Canon. I like many aspects of many brands. Fuji in particular.. Pentax for years, for example. It is you that is fixated on everything Sony.

Typical rubber... come in with some kind of spin/deflection, get called on it, and leave to the next thread with more of the same.

I would like to note at this point that while there are certainly advantages in ergonomics when holding a larger body, I really think that much of the physical positive feel of the ergonomics has to do with what we are used to. In order to make valuable statements anyone should clarify what they use primarily because that gives context to their argument.
I come from many years of pro Canon body use, I remember the time I considered cameras like the 5DII/III smallish and light. For the last 2 years I have been primarily Sony FF mirrorless user and the Canon bodies now feel unnecessary large. Boy, I just held my collection item Canon 20D and it feels too fat to the point to be borderline uncomfortable.
Please do not kill each other arguing on very personal experience that makes us subjective, keep your mind open to other's opinions.

@armandino
>> much of the physical positive feel of the ergonomics has to do with what we are used to.

I would disagree when it comes to A7R II/III. In their case it is not about just what you are used to. I have average sized hands for a westerner. And when I hold A7R III I have only two finger firm grip which is no good for a day of shooting. My little finger is on the edge with no firm grip and easily slips off under the camera when I hold tighter.

Frankly two finger grip is no good for ergonomics. And extended battery/grip does not fix it either as I can feel where the two are attached and my little finger is right on that line and that feels uncomfortable/un-ergonomic.

I tried to get used to A7R II forcing myself to take as the only one on holiday and no - it is not about what you are used to. Getting used does not fix the uncomfortable grip of the body with or without the extended battery/grip. Once you hold camera with better ergonomics you feel what you lost.

@armandino

Things get even worse if I need to operate the camera because then the poor Sony ergonomics force me to lower the big finger and as a result to twist my hand down and in that position my palm is not just against the corner but its center is actually below the corner and my little finger gets completely unused and is about a quarter to half an inch below the camera body hanging there useless - no longer used at all for a grip either in front or below the camera. And again an extended battery/grip does not fix it for me.

May be it is good for small hands - no idea. But for average sized or large hands the ergonomics just awful.

My arm and fingers hurt after a day of shooting what does not happen with Nikon/Canon bodies. If after a long use of Sony A7x bodies I then use camera with better ergonomics I immediately feel positive difference. And that happens even after I get used to Sony with extended multi-day use while not with Nikon/Canon bodies.

Interesting armandino, I'm glad it's working for you. I'd love for it to work for me but I just found it unusable. the weight was fine, although yes, it was heavier than I expected. My problems were the AF-joystick next to my nose and my pinky under the body.

I find it really comfortable but I always have the vertical grip attached. I think that is almost essential and I agree that the camera isn't deep enough for a normal sized hand without it. With the grip attached, the camera is still very light and compact but I like the fact that I can take it off and use one of the small lenses to make a small stealth camera with enormous power.

@Chriscotech
Absolutely, that is the obvious consideration, but honestly I got tired of repeating myself.
Also, "using the joystick painfully jammed my right thumb against my nose" is very opinionated as the joystick is positioned like any other camera:
http://j.mp/2k6Ch1R

Yeah, the AF-ON is in the completely wrong place anyway, and even worse if you are left-eyed.
I find it very awkward and painful to shoot my A9s and now A7r III for very long, holding in the AF-ON button.
I wish I would toggle it on :)

>> "using the joystick painfully jammed my right thumb against my nose" is very opinionated as the joystick is positioned like any other camera

You cannot use that argument when you compare cameras with different grip and body size as that makes a noticeable difference to positioning of elements being comfortable or not.

@tbcass

>> The A7Riii is better than most

Here is evidence that A7R II has "the MOST SEVERE rolling shutter we EVER TESTED" from cinema5d.com:
https://www.cinema5d.com/sony-a7rii-rolling-shutter/
Their claim refers to UHD super 35 that is pretty much the only worthy mode as far as I am concerned as I long abandoned shooting 1080p.

It would be great if A7R III made the improvement you claim. But over the years I learnt to distrust claims that are not backed up by any clear evidence. So far I do not see such evidence anywhere apart from highly generic non-comparable non-verifiable statements.

Could you please back up this claim with anything verifiable? I have not yet found any scientific and comparable rolling shutter test of A7R III.

@miksto - "shares the MOST SEVERE rolling shutter we EVER TESTED"

the article clearly shows a *lot* less rolling shutter in ff mode.

"Their claim refers to UHD super 35 that is pretty much the only worthy mode as far as I am concerned as I long abandoned shooting 1080p"

what part of shooting UHD in ff mode did you not get? the article was very clear about that.

it also stated that: "Rolling Shutter is for many not a purchase criteria. The phenomenon is mostly an issue when there is overly fast handheld movement".

did you see the words "OVERLY FAST" there? fyi, with 24p in particular, good camera technique dictates that you should NEVER be panning the camera fast enough to where rolling shutter is noticeable.

@osv

>> the article clearly shows a *lot* less rolling shutter in ff mode.
>> what part of shooting UHD in ff mode did you not get?

Again. Please learn to read. I am interested in UHD Super 35, not what you are alleging here. I made it quite clear when I said "UHD super 35 that is pretty much the only worthy mode as far as I am concerned".

I think you could have saved yourself a lot of time needlessly typing if you just read what I am after - your response misses it completely wasting my and your time.

If you find what I am after please share. Otherwise you so far are not being useful nor helpful missing the point totally.

It is fine if you fail to be helpful because you cannot. I will just wait until cinema5d.com or someone else measures it.

@miksto - "I am interested in UHD Super 35"

what you want doesn't matter, this is about making it clear that rolling shutter is not as bad as you claim that it is.

beyond that, your exact words were "as I long abandoned shooting 1080p"" ... that proves that you did not say that crop UHD mode was all that you wanted to shoot... learn how to read yourself.

i see that you ignored what cinema5d told you: "Rolling Shutter is for many not a purchase criteria. The phenomenon is mostly an issue when there is overly fast handheld movement" ...because it proves that your concerns are grossly exaggerated.

your time would be better spent learning how to operate your camera, at SLOW panning speeds, instead of yelling on the internet about things that do not matter in the real world.

It's also possible miksto doesn't even take much video but is just trolling.

@osv
>> what you want doesn't matter, this is about making it clear that rolling shutter is not as bad as you claim that it is.

1) If you respond to my question it matters what I want. Otherwise you are a troll.
2) The evidence is clear the rolling shutter is exactly as bad as I say even if you prefer to be blind about it.

>> see that you ignored what cinema5d told you: "Rolling Shutter is for many not a purchase criteria."

1) "For many" is not "for all". Learn to read.
2) I have A7RII and I know first hand how terrible its rolling shutter is. If you prefer to be blind about that it is your choice, not mine. I want better and want it clearly confirmed.

>> SLOW panning speeds

Your choice. Not mine. I regularly film in conditions where fast panning is a necessity due to the nature of the scene - such as airplanes and generally fast moving objects.

You are just being silly assuming your little delusions are the nature of things for everybody. Sorry but they are not.

@miksto - "I have A7RII and I know first hand how terrible its rolling shutter is"

then you are just out here trolling, as we suspected all along.

"If you respond to my question it matters what I want."

wrong, this is not your forum, you don't get to tell people what to post and who to respond to... stop behaving like a troll, you are not the only person who reads these threads.

"SLOW panning speeds: Your choice. Not mine."

wrong again, it's not my choice... the cinema5d link that YOU posted clearly told YOU that you are not operating the camera correctly.

"I regularly film"

no, you never "film" at all, you are shooting digital, not film.

@osv

I am afraid you just continue to troll and have nothing useful to say to the point that interests me.

>> the cinema5d link that YOU posted clearly told YOU that you are not operating the camera correctly

You are a terrible reader. They said "overly fast movement" but that is not the same as "not operate correctly". What is correct depends on the scene. It is not the scene that is incorrect but the camera if it cannot do the scene I need such as filming fast moving objects or from fast moving objects.

>> wrong, this is not your forum

You are deluded. I never said that. But you respond to the question I raised in the topic I created and unless you respond to what I am asking you are just a useless to my question troll.

Be kindly informed I will ignore your further comments and will only be interested if someone finds an answer to my question on measurable rolling shutter for A7R III. If you have what I ask - kindly share.

Otherwise I leave you to your little delusions.

@miksto - "What is correct depends on the scene."

no, that's wrong: "The rule of thumb is to pan no faster than a full image width every seven seconds, otherwise judder will become too detrimental. This rule is especially simple and powerful because it applies regardless of camera lens, model or sensor size."
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed

"It is not the scene that is incorrect but the camera if it cannot do the scene"

wrong again, it's your ignorant claims that are the problem: "UHD super 35 that is pretty much the only worthy mode", when you know for a fact that ff UHD has much less rolling shutter... but you stupidly refuse to use it.

you are trolling sony because you don't know how to operate a camera correctly, as the cinema5d link that YOU posted told you.

@osv

Wow!!! Really wow!!! I am amazed at this ignorance. You still have no idea what a fast moving object is, do you?

Fast moving object moves fast relative to its background. You have two options: either pan following the object in which case the background moves and gets skewed by terrible rolling shutter (definitely the case with A7R II) or you stick to background but then the fast moving object gets through too fast and gets skewed by terrible rolling shutter of Sony's.

I am really sorry for your ignorance of such basic things. This has nothing to do with knowing how to operate the camera and all to do with the scene. It is just the camera is not good enough for such scenes.

Thus my question still stands narrowly and specifically: is there any scientifically and comparably measured rolling shutter test for UHD Super 35 mode on A7R III?

Please just answer this question. This is the only thing that interests me and I do not want to waste any more time teaching you to read.

>> you don't know how to operate a camera correctly, as the cinema5d link that YOU posted told you.

Learn to read. Cinema5d does not say anything about what is correct. They referred to "overly fast movement" pointing out clearly that A7R II is so bad it cannot handle fast movement well.
But I am specifically interested in handling objects that move fast and filming them without either them or background getting skewed.

You really are a persistently terrible reader. Cinema5d says one thing but you read something completely different what they do not say.

I understand that cameras with terrible rolling shutter like A7R II in the mode I am asking about cannot handle fast movement well. That was not my question though. I already know that. My question is narrow and specific: is there any scientifically and comparably measured rolling shutter test for UHD Super 35 mode on A7R III?
This is the only thing that interests me and I do not want to waste any more time teaching you to read.

@miksto - "Cinema5d does not say anything about what is correct."

wrong again as usual... both cinema5d and the red camera link are talking about best practices when using a camera.

you obviously don't have any experience operating a video camera... here is a panning speed calculator that will help keep you from trashing your videos, like you are doing now: http://www.staminteractive.com/distributors/calc_5.html

ONCE AGAIN: *ff UHD has much less rolling shutter*

don't come out here whining about rolling shutter, when you don't know how to pan the camera, and don't know how to shoot it!

@osv

Based on your ignorant attempts to do anything but to answer my specific question I can only guess you have no answer but are desperate to say something even if you do not have the answer.

No panning speed calculators have yet answered my very specific question. And if you have any mental ability you should understand that. Both cinema5d and red do not postulate what you lie here. Both qualify their statements and do not make them absolute as you are trying to brainwash here.

If you have no answer to my question please kindly stop wasting my time. I am only interested in answer to my question that you seem to be unable to provide and only keep playing some diversion tactics thinking I can get distracted from my very narrow question. I totally give up on any attempts to help you learn to read as you clearly seem to be incurable in that respect.

@miksto - "No panning speed calculators have yet answered my very specific question"

you don't have a legitimate question, all you've done out here is troll sony with ignorant nonsense, and prove how little you know about camera operation.

maybe someday you'll understand why the film/video industry relies on things like panning speed calculators, but i'm not going to hold my breath, lol

@osv

That is not the question I asked. Do you or do you not have answer to my question?

>> you don't have a legitimate question, all you've done out here is troll sony with ignorant nonsense, and prove how little you know about camera operation

1) Question on existence of measurable rolling shutter test for UHD Super 35 on A7R III is perfectly legitimate.
2) It is you who trolls when you resort to any distractions but answer the specific and narrow question I have about the camera.
3) It is you who have proven that you do not only not know how to operate the camera with your absolutist delusions but are further not capable of even reading the very easy to understand materials and understand what exactly they say and why and with what conditions they qualify those statements. I am not here to educate you in such basics as learning to read.

If you still have no answer to my question please stop wasting my time. You are of no use to me without the answer.

@miksto - "That is not the question I asked"

wrong, i didn't post a question, and you never asked one... learn how to read.

your exact words were: "Unfortunately it seems that rolling shutter is still awful"

that's NOT a question, it's you trolling... see how no one has anything to say to you? because you are trolling.

this is a FACT: "Rolling Shutter is for many not a purchase criteria. The phenomenon is mostly an issue when there is overly fast handheld movement"

@osv

Wow!!! Amazing! Looks like your ability to read is totally missing that even claim I did not ask a question. Let alone being totally confused about almost everything you attempt to read. But does not matter - you make me laugh here at least.

I guess you really are totally hopeless and of no use to me but are a truly amazing incomprehensible demagogue!!! You made my day!!! You are the biggest laugh of my day today!!! Thanks for that but no thanks for not answering the question.

I have 3 comments to make on this war between you two. FF cameras in general have problems with rolling shutter because of electronic shutter. Fast panning with still subjects is terrible technique because it makes the viewer dizzy. If you are panning to follow a fast moving subject the rolling shutter on the background doesn't matter because it will be out of focus and blurry from movement.

Now where does Rolling shutter matter. If you are trying to freeze the movement of a fast moving subject without panning which is poor technique in my opinion but I suppose there is a rare situation where someone wants to do it. The biggest problem occurs when photographing something spinning like an airplane prop or a spoked wheel.

So to both of you guys. The A7Rii does have a problem with rolling shutter. While it exists it rarely matters in real life video.

@tbcass
What you said is great but do you have answer to my question wrt A7R III and its measurable and comparable rolling shutter in UHD Super 35? I know of A7R II's terrible rolling shutter in UHD Super 35 - it is among the worst and no news to me here.

I can already see in reviews on the web that A7R III's rolling shutter is still a problem but I want to see how much of a problem it is in a measurable and comparable way. That is all I was repeatedly asking for but got all sorts of crap except answer to my question.

I already know that I regularly have use cases of dealing with fast moving objects and that rolling shutter matters to me. I also know that I often shoot in low light warranting Super 35 for its better low light. I do not need advise on not using Super 35 or not shooting scenes with fast moving objects and others. Leave that to others please.

I need one answer: measurable and comparable rolling shutter in UHD Super 35 on A7R III.

I have no answer. My point is you two are going back and forth ad infinitum about something that rarely matters. In other words who gives a shixxt?

@tbclass

I give a shixxt as I regularly have scenes where rolling shutter matters and that is the reason I am asking. If A7R III is still terrible I want it confirmed in a measured way and move on. But first I want to give it a chance - thus my interest in measured rolling shutter in UHD Super 35.

I applaud your honesty in saying you have no answer. Thank you for that.
I only wish osv did the same and stopped wasting my time. The only reason I come back here is in the hope someone would give an answer I am after and it is all the more disappointment to see again and again irrelevant mumbling from time wasting osv instead of the answer. However amusing osv's inability to read is it is still a waste of my time.

@tbcass - "I have no answer."

it's irrelevant, as you and i have already stated multiple times, and proved with credible links... miksto is only out here to troll sony.

if he really wanted information on something that doesn't matter, he could use google, but then he wouldn't have his feeble excuse for trolling sony on dpr.

his troll fails are compounded by the fact that he doesn't know how to use a camera, despite reading the links telling him how to do it, lol, and his ongoing refusal to use ff uhd as well.

trying to have a coherent conversation with him is just feeding the troll.

@miksto
If shooting 4K super 35 with minimal rolling shutter is you primary goal why didn't you buy the A6500? It has very, very minimal rolling shutter when whip-panning plus class-leading low light performance in 4K.

I simply do not agree that OVF wins.

For ME, a good EVF is better than an OVF for everything that I do with a camera.

I would never, ever go back willingly to OVF.

There are two sides to this, as ever.

The A7R3 EVF is fantastic. Much better than the A7R2. Even my Canon friend commented on this immediately when he tried my A7R3. Never ever will I go back to that tiny impossible-to-see-in-the-dark OVF of Canon 5D3 that I had before I switched to Sony.

@Dougbm_2
'As much as the EVF is useful for judging exposure when it comes to critical shooting and clearly seeing the scene the optical viewfinder wins.'

You accidentally deleted the part of your post that included your argument.

tbcass. It's pretty hard for it not to be my opinion! ; )

Until the sun goes down.

Dougbm_2 wrote: "when it comes to critical shooting and clearly seeing the scene the optical viewfinder wins."

When I want to judge a scene, I use my eyes. Way better than looking trough a grainy OVF groundglass or an OVF. And when the light is low, the EVF wins for focusing and framing!

Exactly. I always use my unaided eyes to judge a scene before I shoot. The viewfinder is used to compose the shot.

The people who say they do not like EVF confuse me. I do not understand their workflow. Just how much time do they spend peering through their OVF? Is the camera planted on their face all the time? Why?

I use my eyes to see a picture. I only put the camera to my face when I am about to shoot. The EVF gives me an instant understanding of how the camera sees what my eyes were looking at moments before.

I find it hard now to imagine how an OVF can be better. Unless I choose to spend more time with my face pressed to the camera. But why would I do that?

See the image.

Lift the camera.

Instantly see exposure.

Shoot.

No need to chimp. You knew what to expect BEFORE you pressed the shutter.

Do OVF users like to spend time peering through a tunnel? Why would they do that?

I did all of that 40 years ago, when there was no choice....didn't keep me grounded, it was what we had. I'd much rather use todays tools, especially the EVF -to free me from several layers of guesswork...which frees *my* imagination.

Eric Hensel
I agree. Back in my film days I was too worried about using up all my film. I sometimes passed up good possibilities hoping for a better one that never came. Of course for landscapes that wasn't the case because spending more time getting things just right but landscapes are only a small part of what I like to photograph. When I do landscapes now I spend the same time as I did back then so in that case it's no different.

Clayton1985:
When Sony started the attempt to make real cameras they knew that they could not compete with real camera manufacturers, so they brainwashed people to buy into the "SMALLER AND LIGHTER PHILOSOPHY".
Now I noticed, while Sony cameras are getting better, they are also getting bigger and heavier.
a7 = 474g
a7II = 599g
a7III = 657g
So if you don't like big and heavy you better buy your Sony now before they will be big and embarrassing like a 1980 cell phone!

They're still making tiny APS-C bodies as well as selling older models, shockingly there might be room in the market for both ends of the spectrum, only their system gives you both options... Kinda hard to fault them for that.

Impulses
The fanboys will always inject their useless opinions.

Clayton1985
No serious photographer uses the looks of a camera as a basis of making a choice.

I have no interest in the Fuji controls and don't understand why anyone would in 2017. It looks great but when you realize that Fuji has a tug of war between the physical controls and the menus you realize why it doesn't work. I'd be happy to see the Fuji style LCD screen in the A7x cameras though. The Fuji Q menu is nice too but otherwise I'll take the Sony menus.

I feel the same way. The blank space on the left hand side is a silly design error in my opinion. I cant see a reason why they could not use the space to provide some simple controls that would reduce use of the menu.

Sony did this with the A9, which makes it even more strange that they selected to not do the same with the A7RIII

The A9 only has drive controls on the left. I don't think it was product differentiation, I think Sony thought they'd give users something off the price rather than a cluster of controls they wouldn't access often.

As for Sony taking a look at the XT2 - I think it should be the other way round. Fuji has that crummy four way pad on the back, Sony has a third control dial. Far superior.

Love the direct fuji controls. In a studio set-up.
Want just more ambient light? move the shutterspeed dial
Want more flash light? move the aperture on the lens.

Becomes second nature over time. Wouldn't want to go back to PASM. Even though it did confuse me the first few weeks.

Ummm... that would be the M in PASM just like any other camera. One control to change aperture and one control to change shutter speed (or 2 controls to change shutter speed in your case). What do you do in the studio when you want 1/200s shutter speed?

The a9 is the first in Sony’s professional series. The a9R will make use of the left shoulder.

Maybe, but not if you shoot a lot of moving subjects like in sports and wildlife photography. I'm not criticizing the camera, the d850 just has a couple of different strengths is all. Imo these are the two best examples of the state of the art right now. I wonder what Canon is thinking/doing?

.....remember how poorly spaced the AF points are on the Nikon. You can claim lock speeds all you want...but since the Nikon can't lock at any edge of the frame, it will lose AF challenges 100% of the time if focus coverage is needed.

@richard cohen
D850 AF praise is about 3D tracking. The equivalent option with the Sony is lock-on and it is not as good. However, If you pick your flexible spot af point on an A9 and I am assuming on the A7RIII you get similar performance, I do not see it lagging in sports and wildlife. You would not want to use lock on and 3D tracking for a critical shot anyway, you would not want to risk the camera to pick the wrong subject. Again the advantage is not in faster af, but better subject detection so you can reliably let the camera follow it around. If your AF point is manually selected there is no real difference, actually it seems pretty well documented that the A9 outperforms the D5 and 1DXII.