Sony a7S III initial review

Well, the 1080 of the A7iii & A9 are clearly worse than the A7Siii and the R6...

The power of over sampling.

Relying on 1:1 pixels for 4K is not a good idea IMHO.
https://www.imatest.com/docs/nyquist-aliasing/

TsaiProject
"A7SIII noise comparable to, or even worse than A7III"
You messed up something
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7siii&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=sony_a7riii&attr13_3=canon_eosr5&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=792&x=0.31725915910046404&y=-1.0238364633887704

@Anulu Not so fast. In "low light mode" (which is what you selected to show), the A7 III has noisier blacks but the whites and midtones are comparable to the A7S III. In "day light" mode, the A7 III appears to be better or comparable to the A7S III in terms of noise. The A7III still has better resolution whether daylight/low light mode @25600. It'd be interesting to see how the A7 III looks in either case when down sampled to the A7S III resolution.

Still if you disagree, I hope it's worth twice the price ($1798 vs $3498).

You have to deal down like 2 stops (i.e. ISO25k) to get to about the point where the A7r4 looks about similar in terms of this color distortion like the A7s3 does for ISO100k. That is also the difference you can expect simply from the resolution difference (~ 2.3 stops), and also means the A7s3 has more latitude into the shadows at lower ISOs, something the studio scene doesn't even show. For that you'd need to underexpose and then push up in post, which unfortunately is only done for base ISOs, not across the entire ISO range.

Luckily for us, someone did that against the A9, and there the A7s3 really flexes the muscles, up to the point where I'd say it even fares better than the A7s I have. Because in the end it is not so much about visible grain, but post-processing latitude at high ISOs. ISO12k with the A7r4 is post-fixing, nothing else. With the A7s line you can still post-process.

Link: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64442377

If you switch to JPG the A7Siii is cleaner and makes Sony the low light king.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7siii&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=canon_eosr6&attr13_3=canon_eosr5&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=102400&attr16_3=102400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=792&x=-0.6236045947257725&y=0.270842767580405

The 12mp sensor is not being used for low light shooting anyway - this is something of a false argument- the low resolution is to enable a fast readout,
The advantage of A7sIII over the other cameras you mention is in the frame rate options - 14bit 4K120 with only a 1.1x crop, no rolling shutter. Its wrong to compare it for stills to a camera with the twice the pixels.

@funny Valentine, what are you talking about! The colours have been universally praised and ISO performance is excellent. It’s an excellent camera! Jordan even said it’s the best hybrid camera of 2020.

Only Canon promoters are putting it down and bashing it without substantiating their claims.

That's basic science. But science is unpopular on dpreview. Marketing is more popular.

Dpreview is the only place on earth where people think high megapixel sensors and Phase Detect AF have no drawbacks. The marketing teams of manufacturers have done a very good job with their brainwashing.

Even Sony killed their low megapixel lineup with PDAF to please the PDAF fanatics. Now the last bastion of low megapixel sesnors is Canon with their 1DXIII and R6.

These days every manufacturer is pushing high megapixel diffraction infested sensors. Diffraction showing up at f/5.6 ?, no thanks. I will stick with my 20 mp sensor.

So are the normal pixels blocked and interpolated? For 42MP there would still be a lot of detail let, but for 12MP ever bit of detail is precious.

And if true it might be why the Canon 20MP sensor compares so well with the various 24MP cameras except the S1.

Yeah usually they are half masked and cannot be used for light gathering so they are interpolated. That's actually the reason why the first two A7S didn't have phase detection.

800 missing pixels vs. 12 million, as in 12,000,000, or ~0.007% of the pixel total. That will for sure have massive negative impact on low-light capabilities, I'm sure of it. There were issues like the striping we've seen in other models, but I have yet to hear/read about that with the A7sIII.

yeah " slight" :D
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d750&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=sony_a7siii&attr13_3=nikon_d850&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr126_0=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.3095516590845016&y=-1.0117787989432534

To be honest, the colour of my Sony often had some distortion, usually a strong red or yellow tone to portraits.

I like the colors of the zv-1. It looked good - even for skin.

“Moiré pattern occurs when a scene or an object that is being photographed contains repetitive details (such as lines, dots, etc) that exceed sensor resolution. “

The A7siii sensor can’t resolve the detail which causes problems in photos and videos.

For video most new cameras oversample to achieve full 4K resolution, but the A7siii does not. It gets worse if you need to crop a video scene too. Adding stabilization, cropping, re-centering a subject, adding a zoom effect, etc.
This is why cameras that shoot 5k to 8k are more desirable when the goal is only 4K. You get a lot less ugly artifacts and a lot more detail.

it's a whole 2 stop, not half :
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7siii&attr13_1=canon_eos6d&attr13_2=canon_eos6d&attr13_3=canon_eos6d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=25600&attr126_0=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.3095516590845016&y=-1.0117787989432534

@Anulu The end product in photography is usually either a printed paper, or a fixed-size box on a web page. In either case, the output resolution is a function of the published medium, not the camera sensor. A 45MP camera would almost always be downscaled for such output, and result in the same number of final pixels as you would get if you were shooting with a 12MP camera.

The reason people still want bigger pixel count in those cases is because downscaling from 45MP allows better preservation of details than shooting with the exact number of pixels required from the beginning.

Exactly! Just like any modern Ferrari out here blows out any minivan! I mean, It's not even a competition? Lmao! If you are comparing between those two you really need neither one of them....

@ Poul Jensen: If you look at quantum efficiency, which is very important for aurora and night sky photography, you will find that Sony does very well! They are simply among the very best.

Also, lenses are extremely important for this kind of photography (astigmatism, amount of vignetting, etc.). There are many excellent E mount lenses.

Also, I have no trouble setting up and handling my Sony cameras in the dark, also on biting cold nights where you have to use gloves, included my first generation Sony A7. that I used a lot for aurora and night sky/astro photography.

So you're going by the marketing name and the handling of a five-year-old camera to make decisions on a product you've never touched? This is beyond silly. You're not putting your money where the performance is at all but rather throwing it away based on biases.

Check out this intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_hp7HYDveQ

@ Poul Jensen: If you look at Sony sensors, you will see that they have become better for every generation, also the latest generations. Since quantum efficiency is already excllent, average about 60 percent, there is not that much you could gain in this respect. Scientific grade sensors are measured up to about 95% for some vawelengths, but this is less than one stop better than our Sony sensors, and cost is astronomical. So also with noise characteristic, and how they deal with signal handling at the analog to digital stage. They can't go further than the laws of physics allows.

When working at very low temperatures, I set up my camera as much as possible before doing a task, like optimising setting for one of the preset programs. Things are more trublesome when you need to wear gloves, but nothing that have stopped me doing what I need do to get the job done.

@ Poul Jensen: Have you checked low light performance with long exposures for the A7sIII?

To get better low light performance, high quantum efficiency is essential. There have also been other sensor improvements, like autofocus performance, readout speed, etc.

@TwoPointOne

I know, right? I was extremely disappointed as well.

Registered Dec 6th.
I could tell just from the tone. Shocker.

According to ConeD, R6 has lowest dynamic range and highest rolling shutter of any camera they’ve ever tested.

“ Even in low light other cameras have less noise and a lot more detail.”

What are you talking about? Here is an example at ISO 102400 with raw. I can clearly see more noise with the R5 https://ibb.co/ZHJKPrr

Here is another example at ISO 102400 with JPEG. I can clearly see more detail in A7S III than R5 https://ibb.co/55V5tNV

@Handsome90 You can see more noise in R5? How can that be when you can see more of the test chart pattern in the R5 photo because they are obstructed by noise in the SIII photo.

Maybe you're mistaking color cast with noise.

prsc, you are right

I’d say for noise at that ISO from best to worst, it goes S1, R6, R5, A7siii. It’s the same at other ISOs too.
It similar for detail too. For stills and video the A7siii is last.

prsc: The color cast you see *is* noise, too, just not perceived as such, because everyone and their dog thinks "grain" when it comes to noise. And currently, aside of AI "magic", it is very difficult to make away with that, plus even AI magic cannot solve the problem that the overall colors are dull plus it will introduce other artifacts in the process. Also, AI magic can be applied to A7sIII images as well ...

Or to say it differently: You will see the differences once you start processing such images. Years ago I had a long discussion on a different board with someone who claimed the D810 is as good as the A7s. It was like talking to a zealot. However, and I book that as a move into the right direction already, he actually admitted that for example at ISO12k the A7s images were much much easier to work with while you had to jump through hoops to get the D810 anywhere close, and trying to fix one thing broke something else, like trivial approaches at solving a Rubik's cube.

It's a video camera! The video from this camera blows away the low DR canons (when they aren't overheating), and Panasonic dont even offer full frame 4k60, the sony can do 4k120!

For stills though sure this isn't the camera to go for

prsc: You still have blue mess there? If you are lucky, the only thing you will see are crushed blacks. To fix that, you need to pull down the darker parts, and in doing so you stretch the values in that part of the images ... with some bad luck posterization says hello then. Fixing all this stuff is not easy. I'm doing this low-light stuff for 10 years now and I've thrown quite a few different cameras into the dark ... pixel size is king.

S1 is a towerjazz sensor if i recall right

Mark3794 - I'd check your source for that information. It's rare to get anything definitive, now that Chipworks aren't regularly publishing images of sensor strip-downs, but the specs and performance of the S1's chip all line up very well with Sony Semiconductors' IMX 410.

@RubberDials
I guess the question for @John2001 is, how often will he find himself panning very quickly versus find himself in low to poor light?
If it's the latter, then the A7SIII should not be the go-to camera based on the poor low light (High ISO) performance vs. other cameras.

@20thCentury

Not really. I can't think of a real actual person who would choose a camera based on a comparison between those criteria. The A7sIII doesn't have poor low light/high ISO performance BTW - it's images are extremely clean at high ISO. You're literally posting under the image quality widget.

Rolling shutter is not just a panning issue - it affects anything moving in the frame - the camera could be stationary.

Although it is technically a hybrid camera, the A7sIII's low mp count makes it a poor choice as an all rounder. It's for video shooters.

Whatever.
20thCentury, you got it. I've never cared about rolling shutter before, nor 120p video. They rank 49th and 50th on my list of things to consider.

I was look for a camera good at ISO3200 to ISO12800. Maybe ISO 25600 in low light. To my eyes the Sony A7Siii is the worst and the S1 and R6 looks better. They also have more fine detail.

I've read through a lot of forums and never once saw anyone say, "the S1H is bad for video because of rolling shutter" . Instead I've read it is the best for video for a plethora for reasons.

I don't want to pay for an S1H though. I was considering the A7Siii because ti was said to be a low light machine. But in the comparison it looks to be the opposite.

An older A7iii is still a dark horse though.

@RubberDials
Not trying to be pedantic, but isn't the image quality widget exactly for the purpose of determining High ISO performance against other cameras?
If so, then the High ISO of the A7SIII is not "extremely clean" as shown against its rivals.

@John 2001

"I was considering the A7Siii because ti was said to be a low light machine."

Sure you were. I see you joined on the 10th November without a post and just made your first today in his thread. When will you trolls learn, real people don't join a forum without posting. That's a sign of someone creating a batch of log-ins to use down the line.

@20th Century

"If so, then the High ISO of the A7SIII is not "extremely clean" as shown against its rivals."

It is. Here's the A7sIII, A7III, R5 and R6 at 102400 ISO.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7siii&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=canon_eosr6&attr13_3=canon_eosr5&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=102400&attr16_3=102400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=792&x=-0.6236045947257725&y=0.270842767580405

Both the Canons have false colour and heavy noise reduction. The 45mp R5 has less detail than the 12mp A7sIII.

Remember that the 24mp cameras and the R5 and R6 oversample their 4K so the subsampling process reduces the size of the grain, and of course the files will appear more detailed at lower ISO, but they aren't cleaner at high ISO.

Contd.

The 12mp sensor is not being used for low light shooting anyway - this is something of a false argument- the low resolution is to enable a fast readout, which can make enable the camera to shoot 4K120 at 14bit and output 16bit externally.

Here is another section at 102400 ISO...
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7siii&attr13_1=nikon_z6ii&attr13_2=panasonic_dcs1&attr13_3=canon_eosr6&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=102400&attr16_3=102400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=792&x=0.053623669259294925&y=0.44639138419710656

The first comparison above is for JPEGS and the light setting was set to daylight not indoor lighting.
Adjust those and the A7Siii gets shockingly bad. The R5 does not fair well either. The A7iii, S1 and R6 look better. "cleaner" with more detail.
The S1 could be a full stop better than the A7Siii in some places.
ISO 102400 is an extreme case, though the A7Siii is behind at all the other ISOs too. IMHO, its the larger pixels that make the A7Siii noise look so bad, but they also contribute to less real detail.
We can see this is 20thCentury's examples. The A7Siii was said to be a way ahead of the competition. But it is instead a step behind despite its sacrifice of detail.

It is what it is. It not worth arguing about anymore.

@Mark3794: Well, I'm not sure if it's to necessarily justify low resolution as much as it is to market the camera to hybrid shooters. Also, I don't know that it's lack of processing power as much as it is that their next generation sensors with technology that allows higher readout speeds weren't ready yet.

How fast is the Sony readout speed? IIRC the R5 is about 1/60th for 45MP and 1/100th in 18MP crop 1.6x mode.

Maybe this gets overlooked but it might be a case where Canon sensors are more advanced than Sony and do not need multiple stacked sensors for fast readout.

@Mark3794

"The real reason is that sony didn't have enough processing power to have 4k60p and 120p with a 24mp sensor or higher"

Nope. 12mp was chosen to give a faster readout speed. The A7sIII reads out its full sensor width at bellow 9ms in all modes. That's faster than any other FF camera on the market.

As Richard says in the review:

"The a7S III takes a different approach to the one used in more stills-focused generalist cameras: rather than taking advantage of a high pixel count sensor to give more detailed footage, the a7S III uses just a handful more than the bare minimum required to shoot 4K at all. The great advantage of this approach is that it has less data to read out. Which in turn means less risk of rolling shutter.

We measured the camera in a variety of modes, and the decision appears to pay off."

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7s-iii-initial-review/4

Come one it’s not that much faster and there is still rolling shutter. Other camera can use crop mode, still oversample, and have the same readout speed. Still others are close in FF without cropping.

It’s a minor benefit at best and pales to all the downsides caused. It’s not as good in lowlight going by the test scene (even at ISO 51200), and it lacks the detail of other cameras.

@TwoPointOne

"How fast is the Sony readout speed?"

You could check the DPR reviews... :)

A7sIII
8.7ms for 4K 60p / 30p / 24p
7.7ms for 4K 120p (1.1x crop)

The 4K/120 is read out slightly faster on the Sony because it has a 1.1x crop. The Sony shoots 4K 24/30/60/120 all below 9ms 14bit full sensor width. That's the reason for using the low MP count to give a very fast performance like this.

R6
29.3ms for 24/30p 8K/4KHQ
14.9ms for 60p (12bit only)

The readout speed in 24/30p is very slow and the camera drops down to 12 bit to shoot 60p

R5
15.4ms for 8K/30p / oversampled 4K
9.7ms for 4K/60p 4K/120 (12 bit only)

The R5 reads out very fast for its size in 8K/30/4KHQ, but has to drop down to 12 bit to record at 60p like the R6

Panasonic S1H

25.7ms for 4K/24p
13.8ms for 4K/160p (aps-c crop only)

The 24p readout is very leisurely and the camera has to drop to a super 35 crop to shoot 60p, though it is still 14bit like the Sony.

Data from individual camera reviews.

So it’s a very minor advantage most will never notice, but at the expense of detail and low light performance.

IMHO, A higher resolution sensor that can switch to crop mode for fast read in those rare cases makes more sense if it also means more detail and the same low light performance up to ISO 51200.

Final Cut Pro has a nice option to fix rolling shutter too, so it’s almost never a concern.

@TwoPointone

Are you talking to me? Please indicate if you are.

You should re-read my post. The differences in read out speed are profound, not minor.

They are the differences between a camera that shoots stills and a bit of video and a camera primarily designed to shoot video in professional environment.

The A7sIII can shoot full sensor width 4K with effectively no rolling shutter in 14bit up to 120p. None of the other cameras listed can do this. Switching from FF to crop is sub-optimal because it requires using a different FL or even a different lens.

The two best features of the Sony are it's ability to mix and match codecs and colour sampling whilst shooting 24-120p full width. It's what makes it such an impressive product.

The only time I’ve seen rolled shutter as an issue is with the A6300 and A7riv. IIRC both are near 40ms.
Both Premiere and Final Cut have tools to fix it too. I’ve never seen any complaints.

It’s a very minor issue these days.

Rubberdials
About readout times.
In the a9 ii. About 1/150 th second. (7 ms)
In the SL2. About 1/60 th second (16 ms) in FF 47 MP, less than 1/100 th second (10 ms) in Super35 (crop mode). 20 MP

So isn’t the a9 faster ? And results look better ?
And on the SL2 you can use M lenses with better results.

Take a look at the RAW samples of the Z 6II vs. A7SIII at high ISO's...Z 6II looks to have about a 1/2 to full stop advantage despite having twice the megapixels.

Between the A7iii, Z6, S1,R6, and A7siii, the A7siii looks a little worse than the rest, even at ISO 51200.
Look at the faces on the left and the King of Clubs with the indoor lighting setting (lightbulb).

The second gain step is used from ISO 2000 and above for images using the standard tone curve.

“ Sticking with 12MP appears to have been a mistake.”

And how many megapixels do C300III and C70 have? My point is that it’s not as a big deal as you are making it out.

@Handsome90
Ummm, what in hybrid (A7SIII) are you not getting?
The High ISO performance of this camera is almost a full stop behind many competitor's models that have twice the megapixel count.
That is pretty poor performance no matter how you try to spin it.

I did not real the C300III and C70 were hybrid stills cameras. Can you link to your proof so you don’t come off looking crazy?

And +1 to 20thcentury.

Is this comment a joke or something ? How can you compare a native 4K video and a 4K downsampled from 6K or 8K ? Obviously the R5 and R6 are sharper in video...
The benefits of a lower resolution sensor are well explained in the article : better low light performance and faster readout of the sensor, limiting rolling shutter issues.

@zephyrion974
But i don't see better low light performance

@TwoPointOne
Maybe it's heavy noise reduction

What is it a problem comparing? The R6 and R5 have more detailed video. This confirms it.

But the real shocker is how much better the R6 is in low light, even ISO 51200, higher than I’ve ever had to use.

The R5 also has a similar sensor readout speed. It’s about the same in low light with a lot more detail. So I think going with 12MP was a big mistake.

Hopefully you will add it to the Studio scene comparison tool soon

I'm hoping to go into the office early next week to shoot it.

Counting's hard ain't it? How sad must your life be to complain about free content. I pity you.

More MegaPixels

Arri Alexa must be a joke, it's not even 4K, let alone 6k
Mark III seems like a great B cam. Match it with an FX9/7 and you are set.

Regards

It is actually a bit more complicated. If the post-processing software doesn't do dithering on the incoming data at the time it converts whatever bitwidth to the larger internal one, then you will see differences between 14 and 16bit, regardless of whether 16bit will show higher DR or not. For example, I remember Jim Kasson comparing 14 and 16bit on the GFX100, which has an engineering DR you can fit into 14bit, The shadow pushing was showing twisted colors in the 14bit files, while they were ok with the 16bit ones, which means currently even FF cameras are limited by the 14bit / post-processing software. However, it goes beyond that, like tonal steps and the like.

Especially with large pixels like that from the A7sIII I had really hoped they would use that opportunity and provide 16bit image RAWs, especially because even in photo mode they read the sensor in 16bit but convert it internally into 14bit files. What a waste.

I am not sure they must do 16 bit readout. In theory at least 16 bit conversion is slower than 14 bit. So there is some benefit of using 14 bit in terms of speed, power consumption etc.

At the initial presentation, after all that video stuff, there were 2 or so pages containing an overview of features. One mentioned that in photo mode the data was read in 16bit from the sensor and converted into 14bit for the user / ARW files. Contrary to the A7rIV where that happens only in specific modes there hasn't been any indication whether this is similarly limited or applies to all photo modes.

And sure, 16bit conversion is slower than 14bit, but obviously they are able to do that fast enough.

funny thing is, most of post production is done on 8, maybe 10bit max color depth screen/gpu support.

The point of large bit depth is to enable editing. So it is perfectly fine for display devices to have lower bit depth. Though with HDR displays this may change too.

It is more like HDR displays will force you to use even higher bit depth in the recording material to have enough latitude for the post-processing if you want to avoid editing artifacts becoming visible.

Oh really? Got solid numbers?

I'm sure the Canon's are selling like "Hot Cakes" ;P

The few that got their R5 units, since Canon is still not sure if they will take the recall route, seem to be returning them due to the overheating and IQ issues (remember, it bands in shadows due to heat).

deep purple: there you go again! Making stuff up.

If you read the forums of real users, they are delighted with the R5 and a constant question from others who don't have it yet is where can I find one.

But hey, you gotta spread the bad vibes, right?

BTW, that was kind of sneaky how you posted that link to the Philip Bloom video without telling anyone that he's a paid spokesperson for Sony...aSony Pro Ambassador...and was even hired to create not 1 but 2 promotional videos for the A7SIII.

TRU Let's play a game. Every time we say something we back that up with links/manuals/videos. The one that does not do that loses.

I'll start.

If you didn't like what PB had to say here are others saying something on the same vein. You sure not gonna like the next links:
* GU on why the R5 is unusable https://youtu.be/mGdY6TgNOt0
* DPR on R5 overheating issues https://youtu.be/8SSFGBYp_Tc
* OA on same issues https://youtu.be/9CnRhEUGpcQ
* CineD https://youtu.be/nt7ZbvqWfdY

I could go on but I have to debunk the rest of your post.

And here is a quick YouTube search for users returning their R5s (and why many of them are going A7S3):
https://youtu.be/3Ti79Q6_Nf0
https://youtu.be/cs58eJl3CPM
https://youtu.be/aV6CczRBhN0

Here is a report saying Canon only delivered 70 units to Germany:
https://www.eoshd.com/news/will-canon-recall-the-eos-r5-i-asked-retailers-today-and-the-picture-is-grim/

I will wait for you to back up what you said with bated breath.

@TRU "Making stuff up. "
Pot Calling the Kettle Black.

And the funniest fact is that Sony fan boys still can’t stop talking about Canon even when Sony is the camera being reviewed. LOL
TRU do you think it’s the menus on the Sony that reminds them of the constant pain to navigating them.. LOL Or maybe the flip out screen. Guys just enjoy your Sony camera and stop comparing it to Canon.

True, true... Menus are a pain that the R5 users will never have to deal with.

Because the R5 is overheating already on the Menus.

https://www.eoshd.com/news/i-bought-a-canon-eos-r5-and-it-overheated-in-the-wifi-menu-also-a-look-at-potential-solutions/

"Oh noes"

Deeppurple I own the R5 using it everyday and have never got a over heating warning. Real hands on review, and not speculating like you.

DavidRamos

Your experience goes against *al*l other reviews which leads me _not_ to believe on some random internet stranger.

I have been burned before (not by a R5 though).

Sincerely,
deepDEEPpurple

Hope those reviewing R5 get hazard pay, who knows if the grip gets toxic when camera overheats.

Must be a nice camera if you like getting high on toxic plastic fumes. LOL!

Deeppurple stop the BS, Canon customer services is the best and most reliable. Canon cameras are built like tanks to last forever, and never made in Thailand.

LOL! Goal post shifting much?

And what is the point of being Made in ________ if the camera overheats?

I could care less if Sony decides to build a camera in Belgium, Thailand or Swaziland.

As long as it works and does not burn my house? I am fine with that.

Deeppurple here’s another podcast for you to be reminded why Canon is still in the lead. https://youtu.be/-9L_StKl3o0

Subway biggest fast food seller in the world
Toyota biggest car manufacturer
Walmart biggest chain

Your point being?

And let's not forget, Canon posted terrible finances not even 2 weeks ago. Their marketshare is being supported by DSLR users.

deepDEEPpurple:

Shadow banding with the R5?

Not when shooting stills.

I tried an R5 and shot it at ISO 25,600 into deep shadows. There was no banding.

Didn’t like the “kit” 24-105 f/4.0 lens from Canon, but don’t like the SLR version either.

Didn’t try video, even a tiny bit.

R5/6 aren't perfect, but they seem to be good reasons to start building a system around those magnificent RF lens that will enventually outlast 3-5 canon R bodies. Canon is gaining momentum.

i jest see on fb post today, one of the people i know locally , got R6. small 2, mil eu country. so i would say yes, they're selling well..

"small 2 square mil european country"? Monaco?

"Or are you just one of those accounts that pops up to write negative comments on new products that you do not indulge others to be happy with ..."

No-one has any doubt about it.

since your Mr A7R4 this camera just got compared with the R5... the review indicates the R5 is just as sharp as the 62 mp wow and it's only 45 mp & can shoot 8K raw and has a much better IBIS.
https://youtu.be/jrS2dUPSiSw

LOL! One more brand warrior and Mp chaser!

" it's only 45 mp"

Yaa it is just dozen or so mp less than the best. :-D

Buy the crappy Canon then...you can have the worst of both worlds ;P

Tru yes. If I am out looking for stills camera my first choice would be a 12mp camera because I do not know that Sony also makes A7r4.

I am that ignorant.

By your logic TRU, then you shouldn't record on the R5's 4k lower quality mode to avoid overheating then. You can take your own advice and never recommend it to anyone else.

Ethan, so by YOUR logic yer saying tech advancements DONT change peoples expectations...? *eyebrows raised* stop acting like thoughts r us peed in yer cheerios.

Theres actually different expectations of what a camera should do.

Its not about specs on paper, but the final result of the footage and how easy the machine was to use in real life. Everything else is just numbers on a sheet.

Doesn't matter if you can shoot in 100000k, if the machine is a pain in the ass to use. People want reliability and reasonable quality.

TRU I am paid by Sony as much as you are paid by Canon: 0

It is quite simple actually: My time is being wasted on the video anyway. Why not document it for myself when I have a question later.

The difference between us is even simpler: I back up what I say with links, manuals and documents.

You on the other hand change/invent/distort facts to fit your narrative.

Then you cry foul when someone post the facts.

When comparing the S1H to A7s3, some things to consider
S1H better DR
S1H better much better stabilization
S1H Better Skin tones
S1H 24mp photos

I've gotta give sony props on its upgrade but is it Netflix approved?

@dream. Link to the test or you are just dreaming.

@ Dreamjuice1: No matter if you have links to support these claims or not, or if this is just your daydreams, the Sony A7sIII will outsell the slow focusing S1H by a large margin, and will serve professionals and advanced user well for many years.

@Magnar

very rarely we come up with a comparison where one camera is better than other at every metric. Here he picked up what he thought he can get away with:

"S1H better DR"

Nobody tested and no one knows who exactly has better DR in video mode?

"S1H better much better stabilization"

No one has done a reliable test.

"S1H Better Skin tones"

His wish list item.

"S1H 24mp photos"

Sony user buys A7r4 for stills and sony thrashes anything S1h has to offer in stills. His best bet is that sony users have not heard of A7r4.

In the end, it looks like from one of our usual accounts who often get banned with various names.

@ Thoughts R Us: Don't tell us that you are not biased ... and promotion is nothing special for Sony. They all do this. Canon has an even higher budget for such activity, is my guess.

"Philip Bloom was paid by Sony to make 2 promotional videos with the A7SIII"

Philip Bloom was also paid many times by Canon. I remember one NAB where Philip Bloom was hired/paid by Canon to do a presentation. Not sure if it was C300 or something else.

This however does not mean all his reviews or opinions are tainted. He clearly says Sony never paid him anything to review A7SIII. As far as I know, neither Canon nor Sony ever paid him for reviews. Both have paid him/hired him for other things

He paid for his FX9. It was not free. He also paid for all his Sony cameras, as far as I know. None of them was free. Since Canon has paid him too before and he owns tons of Canon cameras, why do you think his R5 views are no influenced?

If Canon had paid him to do a video with R5, and if he had reviewed R5 on his channel after, I am sure he would have still said R5 overheats and needs to be fixed. He mentions many problems with Sony cameras that he reviewed, so I am sure he would have still mentioned R5 issues.

P. Bloom in his review was more critical than many other reviews of A7SIII on youtube many of whom called it "perfect" camera (including Gerald Undone). If PB was influenced, it didn't show in the review.

Tru since Canon has paid him more I would say that he is more in favor of Canon than Sony.

May be this is why he was critical of A7s3. Explains things.

Now let's list people flying to Canon events on canon's expense and never mention their opinion.

"zxaar: that's a rather bizarre comment. "

It is same logic as you used. I also found your idea bizzare and nonesense this is why shown you that it is nonesense.

"Second, if any company is famous for flying influencers to exotic locales and treating them to a free vacation to try out new equipment, that is Sony. But sure, Canon has done that too."

Sony just came to camera market and canon has been paying to people for decades before sony even started.

"The fact is that Bloom was paid by Sony to make 2 videos showcasing the A7SIII. "

Yaa and thats it.
By paying him for 2 videos he has not become their permanent employee. Just as by paying for two flights canon is not able to get favourable views always and on everything.

If you claim that just because sony paid him for something then his views for other things are influenced you have to apply that to everyone that is paid by canon on any capacity.

You do not like using same idea when brands are reversed.

" Sony that you won't ........... more of a hole."

I am all for applying the logic to everyone paid in any capacity. It is you who are not willing to apply it to people paid by canon.

Here it was

"If you claim that just because sony paid him for something then his views for other things are influenced you have to apply that to everyone that is paid by canon on any capacity. "

See, I am okay if you are not hypocrite and change standards when it comes to your brand.

"Sony has been making ILCs for over a decade, and other types of cameras before that"

Yaa and canon had 3 decades of headstart.

"What Canon did decades ago doesn't matter as P Bloom and other Youtubers were not involved."

Off course it matters and it is crux of what you are saying that a company paying to get favourable opinion. Canon has been doing it few decades longer than sony.

The timeline of cameras does not start with sony buying minolta.

@zxaar & @Deeppurple:

Are you seriously still trying to have an adult conversation with TRU? His nonsense reached a level where you are better to argue with a child.

His ultimate biased posts here are so ignorant and no fact will change his mind at all. He keep repeating the same thing over and over and it is getting boring.

Thoughts R Us, Gerald Undibe called A7SIII a perfect camera, and he also said R5/R5 aren't good hybrid cameras. He has never been paid by Sony. PB was way more critical in his review. Instead, of using ad hominem attack (that is a logical fallacy by the way) cite an exact quote by PB that you think was wrong or shows bias

ElGhuraify I personally feel TRU goes out of his way to explain his answers and address facts. And the fact that your resorting to a derogatory comment rather than that facts shows who's the real child here.

David Ramos, there are not. All YouTubers that I saw agree R5 is not a reliable video camera and overheats. The same thing that PB said. So where is the bias?

Thoughts R Us, PB was not paid by Sony to promote A7SIII. Stop lying. He was paid by Sony to shoot videos with A7SIII. you have not posted an actual statement that you can say you disagree with. What are you babbling about there? Why don't you quote something that you disagree with?

No, it's not the same thing. Being paid to make a video with a camera is not the same thing as being paid to promote the camera outside in your own blog or own youtube channel. Also, the only reason you know that is because PB himself said he was paid to make the video -- at least have the decency to post the video where you got that info from, which was here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6G7Lk3tr0Y&t=3481s

"The bottom line...regardless of other YouTubers, etc...is that Philip Bloom is a paid spokesperson for the A7SIII. "

He is not. You can believe it , it is fine.

Now would you admit that we have to apply the same rule to people paid by canon too?

"Thoughts R Us. PB is not a paid spokesman for the camera. Why do you keep lying when you know you are lying? "

He presents his opinion as fact and thinks that he won the debate while everyone else is thinking what is he smoking.

You don't need to be paid to have a biased opinion. We all pick a camera to use and can be biased towards it. P Bloom is no different. He has often chosen Sony for his work, so he doesn't need to have them pay him to influence an opinion. That said, speaking as a non Sony user, there was much in his report I agreed with and his views on the pros and cons of the cameras well argued and relevant to Professionals using them. Though in the past, I've favoured Canon over Sony, his thoughts on the R5 are spot on and why many Video guys (though not all) would be reluctant to buy one with video in mind. His video hasn't convinced me yet to pick the A7sIII, but its at least shown it as a compelling alternative to the R5.

Jared Polin is indicating that the R5 is just as good as the A7r4. That means that the 45mp is just as good as a 62.5 mp from Sony. Is Jared Polin being bias toward Canon? https://youtu.be/jrS2dUPSiSw

Tru learn to read it will help you a lot in life.

I agree with your idea that if someone has taken some fabours from a company then he is biased.

Unlike you I don't exclude people who take favors from Canon.

@ramos YouTubers taking favours from Canon too.

"Philip Bloom is biased b/c he was paid by Sony to make promotional videos showing off the A7SIII and is also a Sony Pro Ambassador."

no I do not agree on this.

As I said learn to read. What i said was different. I have said multiple times:

"I agree with your idea that if someone has taken some fabours from a company then he is biased."

favours*

It is not same as:

"he was paid by Sony to make promotional videos showing off the A7SIII and is also a Sony Pro Ambassador. "

Keep trying to twist things but it won't work.

Well at least PB states he was paid by sony, unlike for example, Vanessa Joy who is a canon ambassador, doesn't state this in her very positive "review" of the R5 and R6. Let's throw in Irene Rudnyk and Peter McKinnon in there too. All 3 of these people never mentioned anything about the R5 shortcomings until after shit hit the fan.

@David Ramos: "Butoa but Parker Walbeck is staying with Canon. So why is every other reviewer that i know, keeping the R5."

Why didn't you include the fact that he (Parker Walbeck) will NOT use an R5 for his clients as it is UNRELIABLE due to the heating issues? Key word here (unreliable), you could re-watch the video and see how many times he stated that fact and it is not even an option to be his main camera 21:00 from his video.

Landon on the other hand said that is is most likely will pre-order his A7SIII after the video as it is the best option for his type of work.

So don't try to twist facts to suit your argument.

and regarding your mention of Jared Polin and the 45 vs 62 MP.

Parker Walbeck did a blind test between the R5/1DXIII and A7SIII and 2/3 of the people guessed wrong as there are almost no difference (R5 is down-sampled from 8K btw).

@David Ramos: "Butoa there are hundreds of other YouTube reviewers out there explaining that the R5 is the best camera."

Are you seriously saying that? could you link 80 YouTube reviews about the camera? or 50?

"Hundreds" lol. Please try to include some facts not some nonsense. Your knowledge is clearly limited and blinded by your biased opinion. So instead of stating some lies, you are welcome to discuss some facts about the cameras. Otherwise, just buy the camera and enjoy it if it suits you.

At the end of the day, buyers are voting with their pocket book. Look at the mirrorless best sellers rankings at B&H:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Mirrorless-System-Cameras/ci/16158/N/4288586281

If you aren’t aware that S1H has better ibis then that is on you. On paper S1H has 1 stop better dr. Yes it is Netflix approved and I don’t own it but am a fan. However, based on your reactions ...

The thread was started by posting a link to PB live chat. He was not paid by Sony for his opinions given in live chat. He is famous with thousands of followers who take his opinion seriously and trust him. Second, you have not yet posted a single line where you disagree with PB. That's weird. Why can't you do that? You know R5 overheats -- and he bought R5 with his own money. He is expert on DSLR/Mirrorless as a video camera for past 15 years, since 5D Mark II days, so his opinion is worth a lot and he has thousands of followers who trust him. He was never paid by Sony for his opinions.

He was paid to make videos with the camera, just as he was paid by Canon and others before. Big difference. He is not a paid spokesman for the camera.

Sony paid him to make videos but they did not pay him to promote the camera in his blog or youtube. I told you this a dozen times, but you continue to lie like a broken record. You have also not told me a single thing where you disagree with him or where he lying about the camera. How come?

Of course. But it's still hypocritical nonetheless.

No. One is a stills camera. Another is a video camera. I also agree 20MP is enough. I don’t agree with those critics. But the 1DXIII and the A7SIII are so far apart market wise I don’t know why you are comparing them here.

First, the A7SIII is not per se a "low light camera"...it is a video camera. That is why it is 12MP. The low light capabilities are part of that, but it is not marketed as a stills camera for low light. No one will buy it for that.

Second, the 1DXIII is also a great low light camera.

Third, the 1DXIII also has some pretty strong video credentials of it's own. It's not the main feature but it is very competent.

Fourth, I agree that the two cameras are intended for different markets, but hey, we get all sorts of silly comparisons these days, so why not?

Fifth, getting to the main point, many Sony promoters were slamming the 1DXIII for having low megapixels, even stating that the 4 extra MP of the A9II would somehow make a noticeable difference, and now are defending the A7SIII for 12MP. Just like they will be singing the praises of high MP when the next A7R series unit comes out. The point is that many operate more out of bias and spin than good faith.

Good counter-point Mike. But another closer comparison to the a7S III would be the R6. Which was still criticised for only having 20 megapixels (same sensor). Not to the same extent as the 1Dx, but I feel it's worth mentioning.

I know that they can't be compared (feature-wise) as they're from two different camps. I was talking about the sensor only, which was what some comments were fixated on.

@TRU: I bought the A7s for its low-light capabilities for still images. That low-light capability comes with low pixel count is a well known fact, even Sony said in one of the many interviews here at DPR that sensitivity requires pixel size. And I'm not the only one who got the A7s for this purpose. Unfortunately, everyone and their dog is focusing on the video capabilities of the A7sIII, and there were a few voices here already who complained about no one giving a more in-depth review of the photo capabilities.

Astro guys Lille the 12MP for its low light capabilities. It is a great video camera that doubles as a stills camera specializing in low light photography.

So, i guess the A7IV and it's 60something MP must have very weak low-light capabilities, right? Yet, people were praising it for it's low-light capabilities. Isn't that interesting?

First off when the A7S came out it was 2014 and 12MP, even though a bit dated, didn't seem as much dated as it does now for still photography.

Needless to say, today's modern sensors, whether 24MP or higher, all have excellent low light capabilities, moreso than most could ever want. Plus if you take a high res photo and downsample it, the noise is reduced and you end up with something that generally will look better than if originally taken at the lower res.

For astro photog, you can get a specialized astro cam like the EOS Ra that is optimized for the wavelengths of light needed for that type of work.

And like Alex alludes to, if 12MP is so great for stills then I guess that negates the need for the A7R4. Someone call Sony and tell them to pull that model :)

What is really funny is when Sony comes out with a new A7R body the same people saying 12MP is enough will be praising its ultra high resolution and proclaiming it to be the greatest.

Show still photographs in a movie theatre with a 4K resolution projector, and they will look excellent! Even HD will look great.

Who said 12 Mp can't be used for stills?

Well, film cameras can be useful for stills...an 8MP or even 6MP can be useful for stills in the right situation.

And who shows stills in a movie theatre anyway? Is that how you show off your stills? Take them to a movie theatre and pay the projectionist to show them? :)

As tech advances, standards shift. One can always argue that outdated tech can still work: it often can. But that doesn't mean it will be the choice of most consumers or preferable.

Of course the 12MP A7SIII can be used for stills; but no one will buy it for that purpose. Why? Because most want the benefits of higher resolution. Ask Sony why their other cameras except for the A7S series have higher than 12MP.

!2MP was chosen to optimize for video and not stills. Even in video higher res is preferable, if only to downsample to a lower res standard. But the only way Sony could meet their more ambitious thermal limits was to keep it at 12MP.

@ Thoughts R Us: How are pictures displayed and distributed today? Mainly on monitors, often with less resolution than HD.

And for prints? With 6 Mp you can make great large format prints, and publish spreads in a high quality magazine or book.

Why? There are two important factors:

1) The resolution of the eye is limited. Just measure the angle of view (resolution, arch seconds) and also take in account the light level (contrast needed to resolve fine detail), and you will find the limit. From this you will realize that 12 Mp is actually very useable for a lot of stil photography work. What people expect and what people are used with, is something very different from what is actually needed.

2) Most important: When we view images, we care way more about content that technical quality and fine detail resolution.

To double the resolution from 12 Mp you need 48 Mp, and to double this again, we are talking about sensors in the 200 Mp range.

@Magnar: then you are really saying that cameras with higher than 12MP. are mostly a rip off and unecessary. Which is a perfectly defensible position. But it does run contrary to the way virtually every camera company and every reviewer has trained consumers for the last several years.

Here is what Sony writes on their website about their 61MP A7R4:
"The 61.0-megapixel2 full-frame Exmor R™ CMOS sensor combined with BIONZ X imaging engine delivers unprecedented resolution, fine gradation, and low noise to open entirely new dimensions of detail just as pro photographers expect. The α7R IV captures the mood of each scene and the texture of subjects."

So please take up the issue with Sony. And when they release their next camera with higher resolution, I expect you to argue that the higher resolution is not necessary.

@ Thoughts R Us: Get all the megapixels you want, way more than needed if this makes you feels better. Go ahead! It is your choice! And your money!

Trust the marketing, go for what every advertisement on high megapixel cameras tell you. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica ... they all do the same. Most people know that this talk is just to affect emotions, so that you feel a need to buy the product!

But don't mix marketing talk with factual information on how we relate to technical aspects of representations like photographs! Just an idiot would make such an mistake!

What a pointless argument this has become.
Check Sonys website. They market this as a video camera first. And a high sensitivity stills camera second.

And yes their new cameras do quite well in low light when scaled to the same final resolution. I guess we will have to wait for the studio test to see if this does better. I suspect at ISO40,000 and up this camera will beat everything else out there for stills but we’ll see.

And no. I’m not suggesting this will be a great stills camera. So don’t take my comments out of context. I’m just saying for really high ISOs. If you have a need to shoot that high you will probably get quite good results.

First off, I'm not interested in what Joe Random thinks is sufficient in terms of low-light capabilities. I'm interested in *my* needs, and I'm very well aware of the fact that this differs quite a bit from Joe Random.

Secondly, I barely print, and the ones I did are by far not large enough to make 12MPix a problem. If the pictures see the daylight at all, it is in social media, and for that 12MPix is already overkill with enough cropping capabilities. Everything beyond that would be purely personal need. The A7s made me conscious about that zooming-in-images addiction a lot of people nurture, but will never admit to and hence have to find the weirdest reasons to validate their newest MPix flagship camera.

That aside, people have seen already the A7rIV suffering vs. the A7rIII in the low(er) light contexts. There is no free lunch, as usual.

The one thing I know already Sony botched with the A7sIII: They don't offer 16bit ARW RAWs. Seriously ...

@Magnar: You wrote "Get all the megapixels you want, way more than needed if this makes you feels better. Go ahead! It is your choice! And your money!"

Well, the A7SIII is not cheap: it's $3500! There are many cameras with more MP that are less expensive. On a dollar per MP basis, it's actually among the most expensive!

So it's not like you are saving money by going with less MP on the A7SIII. But of course if one thinks 12MP is enough there are plenty of great deals on used cameras with 12MP: one favorite seems to be used D700's.

I actually think you have an interesting argument; only that it's wasted on the A7SIII given its price. But I also think we all know that Mike is right: the A7SIII is aimed at videographers, not stills photographers.

Since you’re talking about dollars per MP, the King is the 1DXIII. You brought it up.

@ Thought R Us: 12 Mp will fill the needs for most of those who use the A7SIII a lot for video, and also want a camera for some stills work, like social event photography (weddings etc.) or reportage (news and documentay work). Those don't need an extra higher Mp camera as a supplement to the A7SIII.

NixonS
"I don't want to start a war, but some you guys (yes, some of you) have slammed the 1DX Mark III for 'only' having 20 megapixels, yet defend the a7S Mark III for having less than that."
Let's be honest, you don't really know if the ones criticizing the 1DX MKIII for having 20mp are the same people saying 12mp is enough. There may be one or two but I bet that's about it. There are Fan Boyz from every brand making stupid statements.
The 1Dx III is a stills sports camera while this Sony is a video camera disguised as a still camera so it's an apples to oranges comparison. Maybe the people you are referring two are comparing the 1DX III with the A9II. It's not a cut and dried comparison. I know personally for a full frame camera I don't think 12, 20 or 24mp are enough for me so none of those cameras appeal..

@Magnar: I do agree; if using the A7SIII for video work, if one also wants some stills for social media, then it will work just fine.

But that's different from your original argument about how 12MP is enough, where you cited the resolution of the eye and the way we perceive images, and the fact that content is more important than technical detail. You also stated "6 Mp you can make great large format prints."

Now I actually find that argument more interesting and it probably deserves more attention than it gets these days. But that argument is way different than saying the A7SIII can also do stills on the side that are good enough for social media. No one disputes that.

My point is that virtually no one will buy the A7SIII as primarily a stills camera because most stills photographers want more than 12MP. I think that is objectively true. My other point is that camera company marketing, including from Sony, and reviewers, have created the perception that more MP is better.

@ Thoughts R Us: People buy what they want, based on what they find attractive and what they think they need. Some will even buy this camera mainly for still photography is my guess. But since the A7sIII is mainly a videocamera, this will for sure be the main user group.
As said earlier, when it comes to megapixels there is a difference from what is needed and what people want. This doesn't alter the fact that 12 Mp, and even 6 Mp, is useful for a lot of serious stills work.

Even though I repeat myself here: Apple plastered 8MPix smartphones pictures (properly upscaled) in like 5x4m sizes, and I've seen a 5 or 6 story house sized scaffold ad covering even. And with the implied viewing distances it was more than ok. Which also means I wouldn't be worried printing big from 12MPix out of a FF camera, if there should ever be the need for it. Unless the requirement is to press your nose against the print and still see fine details; then I would rent something with more MPix, naturally.

If you need to crop almost always and maybe even to a larger degree, it is either part of the requirements or something is actually wrong (which includes being cheap and not getting more focal length). The people who actually need a lot of resolution are far and few in between, most of them are just addicted to zooming around in their images.

That is why I for example don't understand people complaining about the R6 with 20MPix. That is enough for common use cases.

The problem is when people like me get close to see fine detail there will be none. You can criticize me if you want but I really like getting close to a huge print to see hidden detail. I like viewing 100% on screen for the same reason.

The 1DXIII is a $6500 DSLR that came out as the DSLR era comes to a close. The A7S III is a $3500 mirrorless camera coming out as FF MILC is steadily taking over the camera world. The 1DXIII costs 85% more! You could easily argue that the 1DXIII and D6 are both overpriced dinosaurs.

I compare 1DXIII and D6 to the last great battleships (Japan's Yamamoto and Germany's Bismark). Both were the pinnacle of their kind, massive, expensive, both launched during WWII. Both were sunk within a year of being launched. Kind of like the 1DXIII and D6, which are like the camera equipment of battleships. But they too were pretty much sink within a year of being released.

@Thoughts R Us - How many 1DXIII and D6 have actually been sold? 2020 hasn't been a great year of major sporting events, lol. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics should have been the last hurrah for these DSLR battleships. But 1DXIII was released with lockup issues, and the 2020 Summer Olympics never happened. It was the perfect storm that hit these battleships just as they went out to sea! Like I said, these DSLRs are like the great battleships Yamamoto and Bismark: they might have been the pinnacle of their kind, but it still didn't keep them from being sunk by newer technology and changing times.

The age of mirrorless is upon us. 2020 was probably a crushing year for these new DSLR releases (1DXIII and D6). It was the worst timing possible!

Anyone that needs a reviewer, marketing or some random stranger in these forums to tell them what they need or how good a camera is for their output is really just a hack. For many, 12mp is a sensible option considering that they might be only producing content for web or print up to 18 x12, in which case 12mp is ample. You can even go larger if necessary and get great results. But to state this 12mp sensor as unusable for still is really just rubbish.

12mp is enough for stills, and if the 12mp is amazing in low light then why you need more? Remember 12MP Nikon D700? it is still can produce amazing pictures.

Still use my D700 and I have 42mp in A7R’s, certainly usable and I still love the output from that old tank ;)