Sony a7S III review

Excellent idea since I purchase cameras primarily for stills with video being secondary.

This camera is highly videocentric, and info about this is not hidden away.

Why should a camera be judged for what it is not?

Why buy such a camera mainly for stills photography? You would not even gain anything noticeable for very high ISO shooting, compared to the 42 Mp and 60 Mp Sony cameras, which are much more stills orientated.

Magnar W
I stand by my opinion and it is your right to disagree.

Sure, this is a discussion forum. 😉

As an A7S shooter I agree. I see nothing in the Mk2 or Mk3 that makes me want to upgrade. I bought the MK1 to play with shooting street using legacy glass whilst I waited to get an A9. Its small size made me keep it. A9 was overkill and relegated to sports/action use..

@Fujifilmxt3 - Im not a Sony user but I don't have a problem figuring out their camera models.

@Cxsparc
X-A# and X-M# - entry-level, PASM (The XA1 was the cheaper bayer version of the XM1, most people bought the cheaper camera which is why only the X-A series continued)
X-T### - entry-level with EVF, PASM
X-E# - mid-level rangefinder-style
X-T## - mid level slr-style
X-S10 - mid-level slr-style, stabilized, PASM
X-Pro# - high-end rangefinder style
X-T# - high-end slr-style
X-H1 - high-end stabilized slr-style
X100# - Fixed lens rangefinder-style

@DarnGoodPhotos
When i first looked your post, i tought is in Chinese

Fuji is damn confusing.

Everyone else has a number scheme, Fuji? NAH LETS DO LETTERS.

@Confused: Well you ARE quite confused when you post such nonsense:
"Interesting someone has come up with a list of Fuji cameras exactly describing their role. Not so for Sony."
Wrong. Even above that I listed the FEW camera models from Sony with the differentiar between those. FF&APSC from Sony are "outnumbered" by the plethora of Fuji APSC models. Go figure which one is less hard o understand...

"Can people quantify off the top of their heads what this jumble of A6XXX cameras do or the differences between a Mk I, II, III and IV Sony camera in the same series? They all look the same. Sony have a host of different cameras but not a lot of real variety to explain it."

Easy: A6000 inital camera. 6300 improved in many aspects. 6500 had IBIS added to that. 6100 to follow up as entry level camera with further improved AF tracking. 6400 midrange feature set added. 6600 again added IBIS that. See? Done in three lines.
Same for FF models I, II, III. Improved AF, operating speed, feature set.

"Interesting someone has come up with a list of Fuji cameras exactly describing their role. Not so for Sony.

Can people quantify off the top of their heads what this jumble of A6XXX cameras do or the differences between a Mk I, II, III and IV "

Sony is one of the easiest brands to figure out.

With APSC A6###, higher numbers are generally newer, faster, and better specced than than lower numbers.

A7S low light sensitive and now primarily video focused
A7 - Medium resolution general purpose
A7R - High res
A9 - Medium resolution, general purpose sports (was flagship sports until the A1 was released)
A1 - Flagship high-res pro sports, the best of everything

With APSC A6, higher numbers are generally newer, faster, and better than than lower numbers.

With full frame A7#, higher mark numbers are newer, faster, and better specced than than lower mark numbers of the same body.

"•12MP BSI CMOS sensor"

It's right after the opening paragraph. And the the first sentence under sensor begins with "While the 12MP resolution hasn't changed..."

@Richard Butler You are absolutely right, but akin to HiFi equipment in the old days being promoted with frequency responses far above human hearing ability: when I do (not nauseatingly fast) panning with z7, and even to follow birds, I have no rolling shutter with the Z7 either in 4K FF or 4K APS-C or HD 120fps. I do see jaggies in feather detail of birds on 4K FF that I do NOT see on 4K APS-C. The latter should be equal in quality SOOC to the Sony. Oversampling on 4K FF would be welcome with Nikon. For my birding the 4K APS-C offers "free" 1.5x longer focal length + Nikon glass NOT available from Sony, i.e. the "ultra-lightweight ultra-sharp" Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF that allows me to dance and wave the lens around to capture birds without need for a tripod. I can shoot up to 90 4K jpeg images @ 30 images per second electronically - in a burst & HD: 180 images @ 60 images/sec. The jpegs are sharp-sharp-sharp after Topaz Denoise. Slo-mo in 4K would be very welcome however!!!

Cameras that are extremely stills oriented tend to get marked down for not being strong in video, but being totally video oriented is apparently fine, and note I also think it is (different horses for different courses and all that), but then this should also be reflected when a camera excels in stills and not video (just to clarify why I picked up on this). or at least this is perhaps my impression.

Many cameras of this class are perfectly capable of shooting feature films, art projects and music videos, and more practical that any cinematography solution of the past. By a proper video camera you probably mean a camera for event videography, run and gun, etc. These are things I'm not interested in.

Well, this is about the Sony A7rIII.

There are separate forums for each of the other brands where you can discuss those cameras, if such discussions are important for you. I am sure you also will find a forum for your brand. So why waste time on a Sony camera if you are smart enough to value your time?

@David Ramos

Ok... try to put next to the following Sony models what U think other brands have to offer in terms of specs and easy to use, e.g. card/slot type/number or battery life, considering also, but not only this, the price...

- A7III
- A7RIII
- A7RIV
- A7SIII
- A1
- (A9/A9II)

...leave aside the image quality 'cos (almost) ev'ry camera nowadays is capable to produce excellent/good file/output (RAW & IPEG).

It's about the A7Siii...And the funniest part about fan boys is that the majority of the time they don't even purchase the camera they're bragging about. What waste of time... LOL

@ David Ramos: "about fan boys" ... what about those attacking people that are commenting on a brand they actually use, and that they are pleased with? Doesn't this look like some kind of absurd, anti-social behavior?

Just enjoy the camera you bought and stop comparing it.
Otherwise you'll never realize that what's standing behind the camera is the most important feature...
"Comparison is the death of joy" Mark Twain

@David Ramos

"Just enjoy the camera you bought and stop comparing it. "

Hem... You were the first to do it, so don't reproach others for Ur "mistakes".

"There are plenty of other camera brands that are also available with even better competitive pricing" (David Ramos).

remrebus just keep talking & talking endlessly about how great Sony is while your camera stays in it's bag endlessly gathering dust. And don't let anyone stop you from posting endlessly... Okay. And please proving me wrong... ;)

@David Ramos

"There are plenty of other camera brands that are also available with even better competitive pricing. "

Care to name one brand that has A7s3 camera with better pricing?

"Zxaar, NO, because I’m not stupid enough to waste my time being a commercial for any other brand when I’m not getting paid for it."

Let me help you.

It does not exist. Even if you wanted you can not. It is a fact.

David Ramos - account created Dec 2009

First post Nov 2018 - nine years later!

Classic astroturfer/troll account

@Rubber notice how he makes claim which everyone knows that not possible to demonstrate to be true. He just talks nonesense without really thinking.

I don’t waste my time reading about cameras, I rather use them. Ever hear musicians arguing about which instruments, or artist arguing about paintbrushes. Only folks who live in their mothers basement do. LOL

The Sony A1 supports lossless compressed raw

No raw video is a downside of the A1

Criticizing the resolution of the A1 and A7Siii's rear LCD borders on the stupid.

The physical size (3-inch diagonal) of the LCD display panel that Sony can use is pretty much dictated by the camera's body size.

The body size is a subjective design choice, and a compact body has, arguably, many benefits and market support. Besides, a compact body can always be made beefier by adding e.g. a battery grip.

A 3" diagonal size for a 4:3 aspect ratio LCD implies a width of 2.4"

1.44 million dots means that the display has 800x600 R, G and B dots.
800 full RGB pixels on a width of 2.4" is a density of 800/2.4 ~= 333 pixels per inch or slightly more than 13 pixels per millimeter.

That pixel density is higher even than e.g. a common monochrome laser printer's 300dpi output, whose dot spacings are already quite at the limit of human visual acuity.

../..

../..

Even better, these high-density LCD pixels are full RGB pixels that are capable of fine tonal gradation, unlike a monochrome laser printer's on/off, binary dots.

Increasing a LCD's resolution typically makes it darker, as the relative size of the opaque, "overhead" parts — color filter borders, control transistor — would occupy a larger part of the pixel's real estate and block a larger fraction of the backlight's output.

People seem to completely overlook the fact that, for displays that could be used in sunny outdoors, maximum brightness matters more than increasing resolution, especially if the latter is already at a stage where it's near the limit of human visual acuity.

@fferreres

Imagine thinking this camera has an 'ergonomics and usability problem'...

https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1302823.html

Not sure about usability as I haven’t used the new menu system much, but I think grip and so on is decent, maybe two notches below Nikon and one notch below canon. Don’t think the old menus were ever bad - but Nikon menus are a lot more responsive, which allegedly has been fixed.

My only real complaint on these things is the limited amount of firmware updates afforded to older bodies. Otherwise I would say it’s not bad at all

@fferreres

"Is there a way to analyze ergonomics, usability and UX formally?"

Yes. There are established design principles for all products unless they are new. Usability is assessed by controlled testing of target users. There's very little chance involved and there is much more uniformity across brands than people realise.

Different approaches exist, for example Nikon and Canon have traditionally gone for modal controls, where a user inputs a command by a combination of button and dial actuations. Sony and Fuji favour direct controls, where a function has a designated switch or button.

The former is more versatile and can mean fewer visible controls - useful if you want to maintain a minimalist or sleek appearance. The latter is more efficient, but will lead to a more crowded control area and could be off putting to a novice or casual user.

Most of the complaints on here are the result of a phenomenon that is controlled for in testing called 'prior learning'.

Oh, and loss of details in comparison to the other 4k's that do oversampling... Disappointing.

Yet you've managed to specify none of them. Disappointing.

There was this argument 12MP was better in low light. Compare the A7Siii to the S1, R6, or Z6ii at high ISO in the studio scene and decide for you self it I still true (at least for still). If not, they you really need to ask why 12MP?

Also compare the video scene for R6 and Z6ii and decide if not oversampling like those cameras can affects video detail/IQ.

There are several benefits for a low res sensor, particularly with video. Less rolling shutter, higher framerates with a full sensor readout, less overheating, less processing needed per frame, smaller file sizes (particularly when recording RAW video). Yes, it's a less detailed image than if you downsample from 6k or 8k, but realistically your audience can't really see the difference because they watch videos with their face far enough away that the whole image is visible at once. Capturing at a higher resolution like that is mostly useful if you crop in in post or if you're doing vfx work.

If you're doing large prints with stills images, you're inviting your audience to step up close and really look at the details. In that kind of situation, 12MP might not be enough and having a high res sensor will really pay off. However, with video people are forced to keep some distance from the screen and the point of diminishing returns is at a much lower resolution as a result.

@Mach, this is a video camera.

The rolling shutter advantage is huge. The A7S II had hideous rolling shutter that made it unusable in some situations (for example, a car mount).

However, a better solution than a full-frame 12 MP sensor would be a higher-resolution sensor and a Super-35mm-sized crop with faster readout. That would give you a better stills AND video camera.

The thing to me is this: if they can make a camera that is basically video-only, why don't they also make a camera that is basically stills-only? To me that's wrong. Plenty of people don't care for video just as plenty don't care about photos.

That's a bogus analogy. If your plumber also does electricity, what do you care? As long as he's a good plumber, it's fine if he does whatever he wants aside from that. You wouldn't want your computer to do only Excel, because it's better to have specialist computers?

You can expect whatever you like, but if the plumber wants to be a decent electricien as well, who are you to tell him he's not supposed to do that?

I mean as long as DPR is validating your opinion, who can argue right?

(eyeroll)

It depends what you are doing. For many things 45MP is superior to 12MP, wouldn't you agree?
But don't let that stop your opportunity to insult others here. Go for it.

@Onteo

Well said, unfortunately here many think that personal preference mean better overall. At the end, both are great cameras with same rating and gold award.

Buy whatever make you happy and get the job done.

Well said Ric, and ElGhuraify.

I am pretty happy with 12Mpix fast sensor and CPU! I am not happy with the price! But at least we start from here with fast sensor and 10 bit internal. So hopefully in next years we will see this tech in the cheaper models. And in smaller sensors cameras.

There's more to a camera than mega-pixels, or even image quality. The A7Siii does everything I need in 4K video, and then some. It is equal to or better than an FS5M2 except for control accessibility. For landscapes and studio work, the A7Riv excels. For sports and action (including young grandchildren), I use an A9.

I wouldn't build a house with a tack hammer, nor a picture frame with a sledge. Not even a Sony A1 does everything to perfection.

@MrHollywood
Actually it is very capable for wide variety of still work. And not very good for some specific still needs. 12Mpix are pretty much enough for whole internet including youtube.

Oh, and just how would you know that for sure MikeRan?

@PC-dot-Com
Maybe because they endlessly repeat same repertoire?
-
And not sure what they are looking at, but if you download and look at the pictures on your big screen you will see a7S3 looks much better and preserve colors better.
And all this complaints come from people which are expecting noise free images without light. Which is part of this community beliefs that somehow bigger sensor PRODUCE more photons in the frame.....
But in reality in video mode this camera has same DR at ISO 640 and ISO 16000.
And their "ultra sharp" favorite R6 with oversampled video has DR 10 stops at base ISO and rolling shutter more than 30ms which is close to a6300 produced 2016, and providing DR 11 stops !!!
So about R5 which DR wise is fine but has 2x rolling shutter and absolutely useless for long events, concerts, trainings, broadcast and so on very practical usage of this camera. In our area usual wedding ceremony is around 30-40 minutes! Apples to grapes comparisons......

@MrHollywood
Could you please explain how you eventually become more openminded when you need more than 12Mpix and heavy crop for events, jewelry, candids and sport. So many people are shooting wildlife with 12-20Mpix old gen pro cameras, now out of nowhere 12Mpiz is not enough......
So actually if you want to be open minded and honest you must admit that resolution depends MOSTLY of delivery format! Up to A0/4K on 70" screens you are pretty fine with 12Mpix. And you can go even higher with some postprocessing.
You want your jewelry and candid's with 100Mpix, OK!!! Bu do not come here and say what we can't do with 12Mpix. And that we are not honest and open minded......

@MrHollywod
Do not get me wrong or be offended but this explains all - " I will often require some fairly heavy cropping that 12mp will not allow" - this are just your needs!
This are not my needs ! And also it seems like you just do not have lenses needed to fill up the frame with your subject.
But again this is how you are doing, this is not universal truth or need!

Yes, we understand that YOU don't need more than 12MP.
But the photography industry as a whole has moved on and few top cameras have less than 20mp, with the best models generally having higher MP counts.
It matters for MANY types of shooting. That's just a fact. A majority of venues will benefit from a higher MP count. That's not an opinion.
This particular Sony is aimed at Video, so I'm not expecting it to match up against better still-focused designs. Let's not pretend that it does.

Actually the TOP models - most expensive cameras from CaNikon are exactly 20Mpix and they are used especially for PRO work.
BTW how exactly photography at whole has moved for higher resolution? Printing large? Exporting to 12K screens or what is the case? When I look at magazines or documents they are at maximum A3 format.
So do you agree that resolution is important for delivery format or no?
And anyway if you are using high res camera with heavy crop you actually end up with low res image in the range 10-20Mpix. So what we are talking about exactly?
At current time for mass media usage you are pretty good with 2-4Mpix images. This is it. And this is why many people do not really need something more than 12Mpix, and this is mass resolution in the smartphones.
Of course there are use cases where you can use or need higher Mpix but to pretend that 12Mpix is not enough for photography at whole .........
This strange for me!

No, you've got that wrong. The top cameras are all high MP. Only some sports and PJ type cameras are 20mp, which is still quite a bit more than 12mp. Nikon is about to release a top tier high MP camera. Sony and Canon already have them, with more on the way.
You don't seem to get that cropping into images, often deeply, is a STANDARD PRACTICE for a variety of shooting venues. I work with set photographers, wildlife shooters, folks who focus mainly on portraits and others. None would want to be limited to 12mp. Another pro, who does shoot magazine covers, just bought my D850. He just finished a surfing series that could not have been done with a 12mp camera.
This is a silly discussion. The entire industry is heading for high MP and has been for years. Pretending that 12 MP is anywhere near as versatile as 45 or 60 MP is just ignoring the basics of modern shooting. I have no idea why you feel the need to defend a camera never intended to be competitive with still-focused cameras.

@MrHollywood
Seems like we both have strange feelings.....
But we have history behind and we can clearly see that 12Mpix is well enough for many tasks. We also have tons of images created every day from smart devices with similar resolution which optically is maybe 5-6Mpix.
So I am wondering why photographer is not able to shoot with 12Mpix camera anymore. When we do not have higher delivery requirements.
So you are telling me, we are cropping heavy and most of the time. Ok so why then you need 135 format? Maybe you can go much cheaper with APS-C?
It seems like you have money for good body and you found a way to use your lenses without upgrades. I am fine with this.
I am just not fine with - me and my friends are doing this so this resolution does not work for photography and for PRO work. And why not? If your subject is filling up your frame with this camera you can shoot stills and video with equal quality.
Anyway I get your point.

That's a silly response. I don't know ANY working pros with a 12 MP camera. Not one. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I work in Hollywood and have two feature films in pre-production. It's a photo/video community to put it mildly. No one is on your page. No one has a 12 MP stills camera. I know a few people still shooting the D4s, but they no longer use them for pro work. That's simply because more MP is an "edge" in capability that they want.
Nothing you say is observed in the pro community. It flies in the face of why people buy the best gear for shooting stills, which is clearly not what this Sony is aimed at. Denial of that is laughable. You can have the last word. You seem unable or unaware of where and how the industry operates.
Saying 12 MP can do lots of things is about as relevant as saying that front wheel drive can handle many road conditions. But the reality is that AWD is superior.

Good, mr. Hollywood is in sin city :) .
So you do not know anyone with iPhone around you?
Jokes aside.
-
On the cars example. This example is bad! And this is why we have world full with FWD cars!
-
Anyway, Hollywood is not the world, as US is not the world.
For many people even in US this camera will server as good photo/video hybrid. For people like you GFX100 for photos, RED 8K for video, latest Mac on the desktop with pair HDR monitors and life is easy. No need to worry about 12 Mpix anymore! :D

My friend I told you we are looping in nonsense here anything from NASCAR, IndyCar, F1, Dragsters IS RWD!
And MB AMG is not best performing car. It is just luxury/status item! I am not from Hollywood but we have all the latest and greatest cars on the streets here! Usual driven from corrupted politicians, pseudo celebrities, and people from all kind of criminal gangs!
-
"Can it be used for still work? Sure. But it's FAR from the best. In it's class, it's a terrific video pick. That's the whole POINT of the design." - agree on this!
And if you do not deliver above 250-300dpi you can go up to A2 printing. But you need to have the lenses to fill the frame.
And If I go for this camera I will not have the budget to add more versatility with a7RIV, some speed with A9 and to have for landscapes with GFX body and lenses.
This way we could easily go for 20 000-30 000$ for more versatility..... or go with 2 generations old AMG, and stop on the front of local bar like BOSSe.........

I am the last that will defend Sony products here! But I am defending reality and facts! Which are - this camera is veeery late to the party! BUT it is performing well and it is super expensive, BUT it has no competition. It can be used for video or for stills or for whatever one will like. Exactly as hundreds of millions of iPhones out there!
And majority of photographers around the world shoot with old gen DSLRs! This is the majority, and this are facts! Actually APS-C DSLRs!
-
About your status demonstration - I am happy for you and your community! Be blessed and get even more cars and cameras, but you need to know that you can not bring all this status/luxury items with you when your live ends! So better invest more in people instead of expensive toys. Human soul is much more expensive than metal, glass and concrete.
-
You added AWD cars in the conversation, and the absolute fact is they are better ONLY in worse road conditions. For normal usage you have FWD/RWD.

I'm fairly sure that Fisher Price cameras do not have fully articulating screens. Some have dual eye pieces but none have an articulating screen.

I've had my A7Siii for about a month and logged over 50 hours of video. The only time I use the rear LCD is to set the menu. I have not once used the articulated screen except in the unboxing ritual. Neither the LCD nor EVF have much use in professional applications. That's what monitor/recorders are for.

Cell phones make much better selfies than a 2 pound camera, and I don't do those either.

@Ed Ingold I suppose that's the reason why Arri makes viewfinders that cost more than 2 x A7S III... it's a supplier to the amateur market. You should call them and ask them to stop the nonsense.

@Ed Ingold, I don't do video, but why would a pro pick the A7s III over a dedicated video camera?

@Kona Mike You take everything so literally, you sure are camera manufacturers' perfect consumer target. They'd sell you a feature such as "Revolutionary flat bottom design allows resting the camera on a desk without any accessories".

Not surprising. The major technologies they have pushed over the last decade like full frame mirrorless, EyeAF (which used to be mocked by the old faithful) and now high speed sensors makes some people uncomfortable.

Sony is the "Tom Brady" of cameras. Everybody has something to criticize about the winner.

The color is what I want it to be, thanks to standards, calibration gear, and many years of experience.

"Most Users never print:

Okay, and most users would never spend $3,500 on an Camera. Especially one with 12MP.

@Richard Butler
Just right, but ordinary, i am completely fine with my 12.8 MP Output, just resize it for smaller Web Formats as Jpeg, i do crop really seldom. The 16 MP are from my Nikon/Fuji DX/APS-C Gear, and 24 MP from Sony, which i never needed so far, means, 6000x4000 Pixels. Your Milage may vary. :)

Of course, more MP means more Details, but on the usual Websites, a Picture is seldom bigger than 1050x754, at least for my needs. Everybody is being different, and it's good this way.

A fine Evening, good light.

/edit typo fixed.

@Marc, "640kiB should be enough for anybody” ;-)

I think Richard makes a great point. Sensors do not capture their advertised resolution. Downs scale 24MP to 12MP and you get more than the 12MP sensor would.
Same for video, downsample from ~6K (24MP) to 4K and you get greater detail and less moire than a sensor using only 4K or a little more than 4K.
Check the A7iii video capture and compare the detail. You can see why it was a big deal when it came out about 3 years ago. It set the standard for the 24MP cameras.

I don't really agree that 12MP cameras sensors don't capture their advertised resolution. They do in the senses that matter (ie: luminance resolution).

It's more that capturing 12MP won't give you the maximum amount of information that could be fitted in a 12MP image. It's a subtle distinction. A 12MP sensor will capture 12MP, but you'd need 48MP to perfectly describe what was in the scene. Notably, this would be true even with a mono sensor: it's not a Bayer/color sampling issue.

I don't believe CIPA do any testing, they just have a standard that the manufacturers test to. (Well, standards, also stuff like Battery Life.)
Also previous E-mount cameras haven't been great for real-World IBIS performance, but that may not apply to new models.

I think most of the posts are similar to Mateus1 "How much would it be for Sony to make it as it is but with 24mp?With only 12mp Sony lost thousands new buyers I think."
And TomCody's "At silly ISOs like 102,400 the noise is much worse than something like the Z6ii."
Or MamiyaMax "Seems noise for stills is worse than all the 24mp and higher cameras out there. So much for big pixels giving us better noise."
The big surprise to everyone was the low light performance. It is good, but check the studio scenes and compare to most 24MP cameras. Share your thoughts.

Mike - Yes, it gets quite pathetic when the brand-obsessives get offended and get so defensive.

A lot here don't seem capable of neutrality, or of admitting when their perceived "enemy" brand has achieved something that their own brand hasn't (yet).

And as you imply, many seem quite incapable of realising that various models are targetted at people other than themselves.

The truth is that all modern cameras are absolutely fantastic, so people should just buy the one that they like, or think most suitable for their own work, and then go out and *enjoy* themselves, instead of adding to the endless bickering and bitching that goes on here.