Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.
Recent Videos
Sony a7S III 4K sample reel
We shot 4K video samples in both daylight and low light, and this sample reel includes examples all the way up to ISO 409,600. Download the original to see it without YouTube compression.
I was interested to see Joel V.'s apparent plagiarism of significant sections of this review, here: https://gearupcamera.com/sony-a7s-iii-vs-canon-r5/ Unless Joel V. is a pseudonym for Richard Butler...
The Z6 (like the S1, S5 and a7 III) shoots using all ~6000 of its horizontal pixels, then downsamples this to 4K. This produces more detailed results than are possible by creating 4K video from ~4200 horizontal pixels. (This is the reason why the R5's 4K, created from 8K capture is the most detailed in the widget: because you need to sample 2:1 to capture the maximum possible detail).
However, the downsize of this is that it takes longer to read out, so the Z6 (and those other cameras mentioned) exhibit more rolling shutter and can't shoot full-frame 60p.
Rolling shutter is easily mitigated on the Z6 by shooting the high camera movement 4K shots in APS-C, where the rolling shutter is just 15ms. The APS-C 4K is very sharp, the only real downside besides requiring wider lenses to achieve a wide angle is in low light where full frame does offer a stop and a half improvement with noise.
While I have not had any issues with video quality with the Z6 (much better than the original A7 III with much gentler highlight rolloff) I do envy the in camera 4:2:2 10-bit though. Not a fan at all of outboard recording.
As I think about this I wonder if Dpreview could update their grade system. Since the cameras are reviewed for both still and video use how about a separate grade for each side?
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.
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..
You're confusing the a7Siii with photography cameras. No-one is considering the a7Siii for photography; it's a video camera. DP review do reviews for photography cameras and video cameras. Many video cameras don't take photos at all, so what do you suggest? Massively reduce all their ratings because of this? Even if it's a perfect video camera? That would be so unhelpful for people like me looking for a review of a video camera, wanting to know how good it is as a video camera.
The a7S III is built for a very specific purpose, and any increase in the resolution would run counter to that purpose. This is a 4K video camera that can shoot stills in a pinch.
Higher resolution would cause more rolling shutter and increase noise at higher ISOs. If you want proof of that, just look at the a7 IV. Even the lauded Panasonic S1H has issues with rolling shutter and a crop in 4K 60p because of its 24 MP sensor.
Even with just 12 megapixels, you can still print a 9" x 14" at 300 dpi, and larger sizes at lower PPI.
I'm actually looking at this for a photo camera because it seems like 12mp is the perfect size to get all the light in this sensor. Yes I understand it's not 42mp of goodness like the a7r3 but I'm curious how this would do in concerts as a photo cam.
I was just thinking it would be nice if Sony used the supply shortage to give us a smaller MP camera with all the bells and whistles (aka fast focusing and shooting) but this might be the answer.
Well, that says more about you that about Sony:-). But then you are Fuji-wired :-) Only 5 FF variants with updates, 13 total. 6 current APSC, 7 discontinued ones. Considering that Sony has FF and APSC cameras actually very compact. Fujifilm has 10 different series in APSC with about 30 cameras, so more than Sony with FF and APSC together.
@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
Compared to Fuji it’s a walk in the park and easy to figure out!
Fuji is still a random mess, there might be a logic behind it, but most people will never figure it out, Leica isn’t much better. Canon doesn’t seem to decide between letter and numbering system in their Mirrorless numbering system so is less clean as it could have been.
Nikon and Sony is by far the easiest to figure out of the lot. I honestly don’t think Sony would have named their APS-C cameras what they called today, they just followed the trend set by Nikon and Canon in their DSLR range at the time of release. Most of the stuff is probably also getting discontinued soon.
@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.
... "Also Fuji can provide an affordable camera built to their latest technology whereas Sony say buy an obsolete one if cash strapped. There does seem a marked contradiction in running old models in that they obviously needed to enhance the camera but the original one will suffice!"
Err, you are aware that Fujis APSC run up to and above prices of serious FF cameras? And that Fuji has been anything but affordable compared to other brands? And what is your logic behind objecting to Sonys keeping older models on Sale, if that allows to offer much cheaper cameras?
One might even argue why Fuji has to push out such a high number of new cameras instead of getting them right the first time. Even the XT4 is not up the AF tracking speed of the entry level A6100 right now.
"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.
Where does it say how many megapixels this camera has? OH, no where. Except a comparison chart. Pfff, why not put that under "SENSOR?" what a brilliant thought, you talk about it having the same old sensor as before, but never what it actually is. These reviews are all over the place.
...video centricity continued...however the review of the Sony is not that impressive because, if you drag in Z6, Z7 in the comparison, they are simply quite noticeably sharper with the examples provided. This is weird because the bitrate on the Sony is indicated to be more than twice that of the Nikons. I am not a video specialist, just doing some birding in oversampled APS-C 4K mode, i.e. down-sampled from about 20 Mpix to 8 Mpix in-camera. The result is gorgeous and small curve adjustments can be made in DaVinci Resolve even though it is "only" 8-bit video that I record :-) Happy shooting everybody with your favorite gear! Don't even talk about stills! The Nikons and Canons smoke this Sony. My conclusion is that these 12Mpixel sensors have no advantage in hybrid bodies because the computational power of bodies and editing is so good. That money would be better spent on a dedicated video-only body is my conclusion.
Video taken from a 6K region will be more detailed than footage taken from a 4.2 region. That's got nothing to do with bitrates, it's just sampling theory.
However, the 4.2K region can be read out faster, which means less rolling shutter for capturing motion. It also opens up the option to shoot 60p, either for its own sake or to act as 1/2.5x slow-mo. Or 120p, for 1/5th slow-mo.
10-bit footage is vastly more tolerant of grading than 8-bit is. So if you need to shoot Log for high dynamic range situations or your grade is going to amount to more than small curve adjustments, it's a lot more tolerant.
It's a high-end video camera, whose capabilities become apparent if you're shooting in a demanding manner. If you're not a video specialist then yes, a general stills/video camera like the Z6 will be a better choice, but that's not what this camera is trying to do.
Dedicated video bodies such as the FX6 are larger and cost more. I think there are times where this makes more sense.
@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!!!
I have a Z6 and a7s3, the Nikon does not 'smoke' the Sony, in fact for video it's quite the reverse. Before this I've always used Nikon's, and I love the Z6, but for video the Sony is in a completely different league.
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.
That's a fair point. Hmm. Ideally I guess there could be a ratings optimize feature on this site, allowing you to state how much you care about video and how much you care about photo, and it adjusts the ratings for you. Of course you could theoretically do this with many different things like sports or landscape shooting etc but I feel video Vs photo is the most important way to customise how ratings are biased for you
Sounds like a great camera! But I'll have to live with my a7ii, as old as it is, it's still a great camera and does what I want it to do! PS, I have no desire to do video, I do not think in video, only in still pictures.
A7siii is definitely not the best bang for your buck if you're only interested in photos - this is a 95% video focused camera. Would never use it for stills personally
Shooting video is definitely an adjustment from shooting stills. It takes a lot of practice to do it well, but it can be a lot of fun.
The video coming out of these hybrid cameras today is incredible...cannibalizing the professional camcorder market in many ways. The a7S III and Lumix S1H are essentially cinema cameras in photo camera bodies.
Even the a7 II is a pretty good starter camera if you're just learning to shoot video.
We're looking into a way of conveying this. However, still images are not an effective way of showing video noise (which has a changing, temporal component), so our stills comparison widget wouldn't be very useful.
When we compare video quality in imaging, we use PSNR in a series of frames but even a compressed still is very useful in intraframe formats.
The main problem will be interframe compression. On a static scene, stills provide very useful information, but in some cameras the first GOP range is faulty.
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.
Mirrorless or DSLR style body is always a compromise - for instance how are you dealing with zooming especially high power fast lens without introducing camera shake and jerkiness in your video - I don't see Sony or any camera maker has a decent motorised zoom lens dedicated to video.
Sony have power zoom lenses for E-mount, but this is again a videography feature. For Fuji/Sony there are manual lenses that are designed for cinematography and are very affordable. There are many primes and there is the Fujinon MK/MKX zoom line that is designed for manual control and quite affordable.
Mais51 - I disagree. If you pick almost any other camera of same budget, I will shoot better video than you with my a7Siii in a wide range of different situations. Let's meet and test it out.
"Mirrorless or DSLR style body is always a compromise"
Yes but being able to put a full frame camera and lens on a high quality lightweight electronic gimble at less than 1.2kg is a pretty big selling point. What the A7S III brings to the table with internal 4:2:2 10-bit video, over an hour recording in a single take (or multiple long takes for two hours) with no overheating is amazing.
As a heavy video user, this review is accurate. Panasonic does some things better for videographers, but can’t match the Siii power. In terms of pleasurable use, it’s right up there with the A9 series, Sony made huge strides with this camera, it has some flaws, and at the same time, exceeds expectations in many ways
Going by the studio test scenes this camera is average or below average compared to the lower resolution FF camera. In the video scene it looks a little fuzzy compared to the R6 and Z6ii. There is also noticeable moire. Moving to the stills test scene the lack of detail is apparent. And as I bump up the ISO and switch to indoors mode it lags behind the others in detail but with a little more noise. I realize this camera has many features for video, but the end results in the studio scene at at best average. And as a stills camera it is not as good as entry level FF cameras going by the test scenes.
@Scrollop ...and the video examples look fuzzy compared to Nikon z7 - you can check yourself. This is odd because the stated bitrate is more than twice in the Sony compared to Nikon. I guess you cannot judge the horse by its numbers :-)
There are plenty of other camera brands that are also available with even better competitive pricing. No need to be a commercial for Sony unless you’re being paid for it. Otherwise you’re just not smart enough to value your time.
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?
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...
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
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... ;)
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
In A1 only the low resolution lcd and the no small RAW option can be objectivly critized, Subjectivly more, but subjective opinions doesn't matter much. R5 got 91% with ridiculous overheating issues, limitations and seriously crippled features. So i think A1 should get 95% or more.
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.
Anula, A1 has an ergonomics and menu and usability problem, and very confusing options. No Sony should score above 85% if ergonomics, usability and UI weighted even 15%, which it should.
I don’t say this as a Canon or Nikon or Fuji user. I say this as a solely Sony user (but ex Canon user)
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
I get strained, my fingers don't seem to hold it well, the menus are confusing. I they are improving, but don't have usability and UX as a core of the camera. Is there a way to analyze ergonomics, usability and UX formally? There could, but right now, it's mostly opinion, so it's up to each person to decide the score. For IQ, I think Sony sensor is at the top, and the other hard metrics.
"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'.
I used Nikon before, then Canon. The Canon with the overloaded dials is the best. For example, in landscape, one tends to not use AF. Many good lenses are MF no contacts. What does the Sony give me? Two dials that do nothing at all in A and S modes. Dead dials. Say I want to use Peaking. It's quite involved, Fn->Stick->Click-Move->Select or can sometimes Fn->Stick->Wheel (not easy as a dial). But usually, I what to cycle Off/Low/Mid/High (as A7ii had). With A7Riii, they made two options instead: On/Off PLUS High/Mid/Low options. So it was bad requiring a full dedicated button, now it needs two. How come? So when I want to visually validate, I need Off.
[Continued] But anytime the contrast is a bit high, I need to lower, or vice versa. I need two buttons now. I could easily use C4 overloaded with Front Dial to Off/Low/Mid/High and Rear Dial with same C4 for say, Magnification behavior. No, I need to consume 2 buttons or introduce multiple clicks and slide movements which may also introduce unwanted clicks, an a delay that has consequences. Now, all this is while holding the camera with 4 fingers and palm, the opposed thumb isn't helping and must do lots of things, and the body isn't large enough for me to use my palm to hold. I must stress my four fingers pushing towards palm, excessive force, and hopefully it's not a tele (which is common for peaking).
Compare that to overloading the unused dials. Given the amount of very different options the camera has, overloading is basic. And it also avoids me to have so many custom modes, that every button may have different uses depending on mode. There are 12s of things like that with Sony.
DGP sony disaggrees saying it's good for both but is what you are saying a yes or a no to my question?
It's video centric so of course it take an uncompressed still frame when taking a movie (like the Sony ZV-1 can, their vloggin camera) or it's video centric so it does not care about stills?
There are now videos and pics from the A7S III all over the Internet since it's been on sale for a little while now. And the general consensus is that it's a solid workhorse of a camera for a pro. If you want higher rez results, just get an AI enhancer. But photos with a lot of depth and dynamic range will be more memorable, as well as ones shot in extra low light with nothing artificial added.
Well, "classic" video camera form factor aside, this is a video camera isn't it? And for the moments, when you need or want to snap a few pics, it's up and ready.
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.
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.
@larrytusaz what good would that do anybody? If you want to take photos on a photo focused camera, why does it bother you that you have the option to take a video?
It doesn't cost Sony anything to give us the option to do an occasional video, the body isn't compromised by it, as the photo focused body doesn't sacrifice anything of its photo making capabilities, and likewise for the video focused body.
The question is, do they have video only cameras? If so, why don't they have photos only cameras? I don't mind video cameras existing, but I'm tired of video being crammed down my throat when I'm into photos only. I like the days pre Nikon D90, when you'd been laughed out of the room for suggesting that an SLR should be able to shoot YouTube clips. I like it better that way.
@larrytusaz crammed down your throat how exactly? You don't have to use that feature.
The sensor can somewhat do both, albeit it is better at one over the other, so might as well make full use of what the sensor can do rather than artificially don't allow it to do something it is able to do.
Clients now demand it when they used to understand the concept of someone being something of a specialist in one vs the other. It makes me glad I do this as a hobby. Buttons being hard mapped to video functions unable to be remapped to a more useful function like, say, ISO or WB. The way when they review a camera they ding it if its video isn't good enough for them, even if it's primarily a stills camera anyway.
The first one especially bothers me. I don't expect my electrician to fix my plumbing. I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, an electrician to fix my wires.
@larrytusaz the a7r4 and A1 are just about as good stills cameras as Sony is capable of making. Removing video functionality would not get you better stills cameras out of those two products.
Maybe, but still, what is with people demanding that such a camera also can record video and do it well? Why can't it be "I'm a photographer (or videographer), period" vs your being expected to do both and both well? That should've never changed. As I said, I don't expect my plumber to fix my electricity.
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?
The point is I don't EXPECT my plumber to do electrical work. If he does plumbing only and I have to hire an electrician for electrical work, I accept that. I liked it better when it was the same here, when photography and videography were separate.
I'm a person who understands what photography is and doesn't care to see it corrupted and mocked. Having photographers turn into YouTube clip creators is a mockery to me. It is disrespectful to tradition. Yes things change, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
Maybe they did, I don't know nor care. As for me, I see it as a "dumbing down for the masses," all those people who used to say "my Kodak can do video, why can't a Nikon or Canon DSLR that costs so much?" In those days, enthusiasts & such would scoff at such a remark as something only a two bit Schuster would say. Anyone who knew & practiced photography back then hardly considered it worthy of their time to explain to a Kodak soccer mom type why their teeny puny camera could record video but an SLR couldn't. It was an accepted and understood practice, until the Nikon D90 and Canon 5D Mark II. To me that's catering to the masses. I don't accept things changing, to me they should stay that way for all time purely for the sake of staying that way for all time no matter anything else at all. If that makes me a "Luddite stuck in the past" so be it, I don't care.
Regarding megapixels in photos... In a post-corona world you're often not as close to the action/subject as you would like to be, so for social media it's ironically very useful to have a lot of pixels to crop in post.
I was having breakfast the other day and noticed my pictures in an ad in the paper! To my horror my client had just told the ad sales person to grab whatever pictures they liked from the Instagram account and use it in the ad. Luckily they came out okay... Moral of the story? Don't worry, be happy.
#real342 in a time when most of what *I* see on social media is clearly shot on cellphones (AND in vertical alignment), do you REALLY need anything better than this? Besides, the A7SIII is primarily a video camera, and if you need to be closer, GET a freakin longer lens!
@SDKat Yeah I wouldn't use such a tele beast indoors haha!
This wasn't in response to the A7Siii as such, more the megapixel debate. However, social media is getting pretty competitive, and using a cellphone is fine, but clients want to see you walking around with a "big camera" which doesn't really bother me since my cellphone is crap and I love to use my camera equipment.
Shallow dof is probably the next thing in video for cellphones but it's readily available with cameras, so the effort is worth it. I'm so used to shooting vertical now that one of my cameras is always set to 16:9 (9:16) crop in photo mode! Vertical video isn't pretty, but it's a good challenge to utilize the full area.
I would love to get the A7Siii, but I think having UHD/4K in both FF and APS-C is really useful, so I'm waiting for whatever is coming around the corner...
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.
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.
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.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out the serious limitations of a camera. In this case, we have a camera that is certainly very weak for a wide variety of still work. I understand that this is NOT the focus, but it's certainly reasonable to point it out. We have a LOT of very capable and versatile cameras out there. You can literally shoot a sellable feature film with a iPone or cheap mirrorless these days. Great times for shooters, to say the least!
@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.
I shoot professionally. This camera lacks the resolution for my still work. I also shoot candids and wildlife. Those both often require some fairly deep cropping, which is why I chose a Z7II over a Z6II. For landscape I don't know any shooter who wants to work with lower resolution and 12MP is very low. I have friends who shoot sports and cropping is still a factor which is why many use a high MP body next to something like a D5 or 1DX. There's a wide variety of better choices for still work. Let's keep it honest. This Sony is focused primarily on video. If that's at the top of your list, this would be a great pick. But... If you're looking for still work, there are a LOT of far better choices.
@MrHollywood So this is advertised as photo/video hybrid not as the best landscape or sports camera. And what you are saying is reasonable though. For me biggest problem with this camera is not low resolution but high price.
Incredibly repetitive comments, mostly about megapixels high iso, as if the A7s3 didn't offer many other features that make it stand out for making video.
@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......
This camera is aimed at VIDEO. For stills, there are much better choices. This is not a great camera for anything that might require deeper crops. It would not be ideal for my jewelry work, or candids, or wildlife or even some sports. I'm also not going to pick it for event work. MP isn't everything, but it DOES matter.
This looks like a great camera, IF its strengths are what you require.
@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......
I don't think you understand what goes on in a studio or in the field. Shooting sea lions with my Z7II and a 500mm, I will often require some fairly heavy cropping that 12mp will not allow. The same will apply when we take our boat out for whale watching this weekend. Shooting for one my clients next week, single shots of earrings can yield extreme detail on crops, which means a single photo can be divided into unique elements. This cannot be done with 12 MP. A few years ago I shot for boat show murals and 16mp shots was clearly inferior to those made with a Nikon D810. And again, every sports and wildlife shooter I know has higher MP bodies in their bags-FAR higher than 12 MP. Nobody is saying you can't do good work with 12 MP, but more MP means more versatility. And versatility is usually what we want. MOST people prioritizing still work don't want the limitations of 12mp in 2021.
@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
As I said, I don't know anyone shooting low MP cameras. None. Zilch. Zero. I'm sure they'e out there, but the folks I know in NY, PA, Arizona and New Mexico are all utilizing higher MP cameras and getting far more done. Better AF, mirrorless and other advances also push the envelope. No one seeking a top tier still camera will seek this Sony out, unless they're tremendously ill informed. Folks seeking a great video option at this price point will be well served by the Sony. Yes, we have a world with many FWD cars, but they have lesser handling and don't tend to sit at the top level. No, I don't need an 8K camera, though the Fuji looks like fun and I may pick one up to try out. But the fact remains that the photography community is not going to be clamoring for a 12MP camera. The last new D3 was sold nearly 12 years ago. The D4s is over five years old and was behind the times even then.
I agree most of the part! You have your points and I am fine with this. But this is not a must!!! About cars if you do not have needs to go out of the road or over the bad road 4x4 provide you with - None. Zilch. Zero benefits BUT will consume more fuel most of the time! Same as high res camera! If you do not need to deliver high res or do not need heavy cropping, you are just filling your storage with useless details, that will be lost at time of export, or will add tons of postprocessing time! So why do not need 8K video camera? You can crop more, right? So this conversation start to be useless loop of arguments! I get your point, if you are not able get main, no problem!
AWD is not just about going off-road. Many of the best performing cars, including my Mercedes AMG, send power to all four wheels. It's safer, faster and often more enjoyable to drive. What it ADDS is versatility. And versatility is what defines the best modern cameras. But Sony has not tried to design a versatile camera here. This is a very focused design leaning heavily on video. They are not expecting still, sport, wildlife or portrait shooters to seek this model out, because that would make zero sense. 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.
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.........
LOL, we were talking about front wheel drive vs. AWD. Those are REAR wheel drive cars. I drive AMG, Hellcat and have a ZL1 1LE on the way for track usage. The problem here is that you're simply pushing a false narrative. This is 2021 and a MAJORITY of experienced photographers do not want a 12 MP camera. Can SOME of their work be done with 12MP? Of course, but we commonly enjoy the benefits of higher resolution. No one seeks a 12 MP still camera. Stop it already. This is a ridiculous discussion where you have some need to defend the Sony product in an arena where it was never meant to compete. It was NOT built to be a top tier still camera. Period. It was also not built to be a hammer, even though I might drive a nail with it. My drone can also take a pretty good still, but it's NOT optimized for such work, nor is this Sony.
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 can't take it with me, but my son and his son will get to enjoy it. Now you're talking about old cameras? I'm pretty sure this Sony is BRAND NEW. Nobody is calling for a 12MP still camera. It's a low end specification. We're not talking about cell phones or old DSLRs. We're talking high-end premium products. In this case the Sony is geared to VIDEO, not stills. Do you comprehend this? If not, Sony did a bad job. As for advantages of AWD, it doesn't sound like you have much driving experience. AWD cars are better in dry conditions. They offer drivers more controls in hard driving, exiting corners, launching as well as providing superior recovery during any loss of control. RWD is best suited to specific high performance applications and FWD is fine for the masses.
very surprised how different the A7SIII color compared to A7RIV. it looks better. hope the new A1 have the same color as A7SIII. although it still have some room for improvement . for me, looking at test image darker skin color is just not there. better than A7RIV but not my liking. other than that, skin color is well rendered. well done sony
I have the A7S III, it performs well and I use it a lot. But a major shortcoming is the lack of a waveform monitor. I can only hope Sony adds this in a firmware update. It is hard to believe they left this off.
I use an Atomos Shogun 7 instead of memory cards in the A7Siii (and other video cameras). It has all of the diagnostic displays you need, large enough to use and at your fingertips. If you're unsure about exposure, use log2 or log3 gamma.
Yes, I use a Ninja V for that now and then. But I'm spoiled by the Panasonic cameras that have waveform monitors built in. I shoot mostly HDR with s-log3, and use zebras at level 95 for exposure, which is an okay solution with the A7S III. But I would prefer a waveform monitor,
Fantastic video camera, but the stills quality is disappointing, particularly at high ISO, even when considering it's only 12MP. It's not really a hybrid camera.
I think the low mp equals greater low light performance is a misconception, widespread by many bloggers who review cameras. A single bigger pixel may be better at light-gathering, but considering that there are fewer than in a high-mp camera that has many more, lower-light gathering pixels, the results are equal. This I do not understand yet
I find mentioning the "Fully articulating screen" as one of the camera's highlighted features to be surprising. Why is this banal to implement feature worth mentioning??? As if it were some kind of a technological break through. Is the praise about the 50/50 decision between articulated and tilting screen?? Fisher Price cameras have fully articulating screens, some have tilting screens. What's the big deal about it? It's been around forever. The companies try to resell old stuff and the only reason they are successful doing so is because not only an average consumer but apparently even a website devoted to writing about cameras seems to act stupid about it.
Because there are competitors that don't have fully articulated LCD. The Z6 II is a good example. Although the Nikon isn't nearly as advanced when it comes to video, it's pretty good, and it's a much better hybrid camera and cheaper too. These are two of the cameras that I consider for my work, and the lack of articulated LCD on the Nikon is one of the factors that bother me.
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.
@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".
@User4874739435, lol, so let me get this straight. When DPR writes up a review of a camera and they include a built list of things that are new on a version "III" camera, they are prohibited from listing anything that isn't a camera industry wide new feature??? lol
@Kona Mike They can write whatever they want and I can comment on it in the dedicated comments section hoping that not every Dpreview reader has a sheep mentality.
@User4874739435, wow you are "special". I'd wager that the vast overwhelming majority of people reading this review do appreciate that the flip screen is included in the bullet list at the top of the review.
Do you have a problem with the pictures in this review of the flip screen? There are many pictures of the old flip screens that predate this out on the internet already.
You need to call Richard Butler right now and demand that he removes "Fully articulating LCD" from the list at the top of the review!!!
Its not new but it is certainly worth mentioning because earlier Sonys did not have a fully articulating screen. Could be just what some is looking for or not.
"why would a pro pick the A7s III over a dedicated video camera?" Well, it is basically a dedicated video camera. Vs the FX6 it has a better touchscreen which is useful for autofocus. Sensor stabilization is also a plus for handheld use, even if the tradeoff is no built-in ND filter. The form factor is ideal for gimbal or other work where size matters. Price is lower as well.
One of the less discussed feature is the in-camera gyro-based stabilization that allows gimbal-like stabilization using Catalyst software in certain use cases.
Peeyaj that’s right. The gyro data is stored in the metadata of the video to assist stabilization in post. This was mentioned as part of the A1 release as well.
Sony is probably one of the most polarizing of brands. Maybe it’s just me they make very exciting cameras that are less appealing in real world use. Maybe it’s the bias of growing up with other brands...
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 keeps tweaking ergonomics, menus, etc. has for the last 3 generations. Must be some actual substance to the criticism. Maybe in another decade they will finally get that dialed in. In the meantime they can continue to sell more clone body FF cameras in multiple versions promising "tweaks" each iteration so people will upgrade.
Gotta hand it to them, if people keep buying the snake oil, keep selling it.
@Dan Bracaglia I would absolutely read an article, or watch a video, of the "science behind the review". How you get the cameras/lenses, how you prep, what you do during review, and so on.
I think that is one of the reasons Roger's articles are so interesting to read. He could just post the MTF and his conclusion, but there is so much background that is an enjoyable story.
I have a question: using the studio comparison tool, the Sony A7s iii seems to have visibly more chroma noise than its predecessor, the A7s ii (in RAW, at low light and at higher ISO, 6400 and upwards). How is that possible?
a7SIII has dual gain ISO, the first gain isn't optimised for the whole scale of ISO range. It seems like the second gain only kicks in video mode, not in stills. I'm just guessing...
All three a7S models have had dual gain sensors (the original a7S was the first time we'd seen the tech in a Sony chip). Both gain steps are used in both stills and video mode.
Everyone seems to be in love with this camera, but the noise levels in video are actually very high (shoot in RAW to see how much noise reduction is actually happening in-camera). You'd have thought being 12mp it would have an advantage over the competition in this area, but it doesn't. In fact, it's worse. Most other features are great though, rolling shutter, 4K 120fps etc, but the sensor seems to let it down.
How the sensor will let you down when it is faster? Actually it is the fastest sensor in 135 format for video! And there are more than 12 stops of DR MEASURED with SNR=2! Same result for R6 is 10 stops of DR! And R5 is again 12 and something. And actually a7S3 has close to 12 stop DR at ISO 12 000/16 000!!!
And if you have some RAW examples from this camera please show us so we can see exactly how noisy is.
I do not see everyone to be in love with this camera but if you need it you can buy it! Тhere is no analogue on the market!
"Not so good for Landscape photography." Okay, it's the year 2021. I am perfectly fine with my 12.8 MP from the 5D, so is the D700, and also former A7S I/II Iterations are fine nowadays...and still, many people are shooting Landscapes with especially that Gear.
I am perfectly fine with 12 MP, 24 MP here is too much, i resize it always to smaller Filesize. Most Users never print, and if any, not 80x60cm, or way even bigger. I've made more than a dozen 120x80cm Canvas Prints, with just 16 or 24 MP, and noone, nobody complained about too less MP.
Ultimately everyone has their own quality threshold. But if you downscale 24MP images to 12MP, they'll still have more detail than a 12MP camera can capture.
And, since there are many less expensive cameras that will capture more detail with otherwise comparable image quality, for a little over half the price, I think it's fair to say that it's not so good for landscape photography. There's nothing to stop you using it, but its not particularly competitive in that regard.
@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.
Pixelmator on a Mac has ML Super Resolution that upscales an image 3x. I've used it many times with 24mp FF, APSC and 20mp M43 files on an M1 Mac and it works really well. So the 12mp can be turned into 36mp. Software can advance faster than hardware. You can also do hand held out-of-camera pixel shifting and let many PP software do a multi-frame .
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.
As an iMac user I figure I need a camera that provides a resolution that’s at least 5,120x2880, however, more resolution would be even better for the purposes of cropping. I might not print big very often, but I sure do love setting my full-resolution images as wallpapers.
Did I miss it or did they not do any testing on the IBIS and just print Sony's figure in a table? For their suggested "Run and Gun" use it would be worth testing I think...
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.
If Sony 4K video is jerky, lower the shutter speed. I keep mine between 1/30 and 1/60. Anything faster than 1/100 tends to have a strobe effect. If it stutters, you may need a faster processor, or use proxy files for editing.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
In addition to the new stills and video capture modes for the a1, Sony has also released a minor firmware update for its a7S III full-frame mirrorless camera.
Quad Bayer and Quad Pixel AF are two very similar technologies with utterly different impact on the cameras that use them. Find out what OM Digital Solutions is doing with its OM-1 and learn about the secret behind two of the best video ILCs on the market.
A few days after Sony Nordic revealed the details of the 2.00 firmware update for the Sony a7S III, the firmware update is now live and ready to download.
An email sent by Sony Nordic to newsletter subscribers appears to have let the preverbal cat out of the bag — the a7S III will get Sony’s S-Cinetone color profile in a version 2.00 update.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.
The new Wacom One 12 pen display, now in its second generation, offers photographers an affordable option to the mouse or trackpad, making processing images easy and efficient by editing directly on the screen.
For photographers who need advanced photo editing options, Pixelmator Pro for macOS offers layer-based editing, machine learning-powered adjustment and selection tools, and features such as Denoise and Super Resolution. It's also affordable.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
Sony's gridline update adds up to four customizable grids to which users can add color codes and apply transparency masks. It also raises questions about the future of cameras and what it means for feature updates.
At last, people who don’t want to pay a premium for Apple’s Pro models can capture high-resolution 24MP and 48MP photos using the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus. Is the lack of a dedicated telephoto lens or the ability to capture Raw images worth the savings for photographers?
Kodak's Super 8 Camera is a hybrid of old and new: it shoots movies using Super 8 motion picture film but incorporates digital elements like a flip-out LCD screen and audio capture. Eight years after we first saw the camera at CES 2016, Kodak is finally bringing it to market.
In this supplement to his recently completed 10-part series on landscape photography, photographer Erez Marom explores how the compositional skills developed for capturing landscapes can be extended to other areas of photography.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
A color-accurate monitor is an essential piece of the digital creator's toolkit. In this guide, we'll go over everything you need to know about how color calibration actually works so you can understand the process and improve your workflow.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
It's that time of year again: When people get up way too early to rush out to big box stores and climb over each other to buy $99 TVs. We've saved you the trip, highlighting the best photo-related deals that can be ordered from the comfort of your own home.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Sigma's latest 70-200mm F2.8 offering promises to blend solid build, reasonably light weight and impressive image quality into a relatively affordable package. See how it stacks up in our initial impressions.
The Sony a9 III is heralded as a revolutionary camera, but is all the hype warranted? DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin break down what's actually new and worth paying attention to.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
DJI's Air 3 and Mini 4 Pro are two of the most popular drones on the market, but there are important differences between the two. In this article, we'll help figure out which of these two popular drones is right for you.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The iPhone 15 Pro allows users to capture 48MP photos in HEIF or JPEG format in addition to Raw files, while new lens coatings claim to cut down lens flare. How do the cameras in Apple's latest flagship look in everyday circumstances? Check out our gallery to find out.
Global shutters, that can read all their pixels at exactly the same moment have been the valued by videographers for some time, but this approach has benefits for photographers, too.
We had an opportunity to shoot a pre-production a9 III camera with global shutter following Sony's announcement this week. This gallery includes images captured with the new 300mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto lens and some high-speed flash photos.
The Sony a9 III is a ground-breaking full-frame mirrorless camera that brings global shutter to deliver unforeseen high-speed capture, flash sync and capabilities not seen before. We delve a little further into the a9III to find out what makes it tick.
The "Big Four" Fashion Weeks – New York, London, Milan and Paris - have wrapped for 2023 but it's never too early to start planning for next season. If shooting Fashion Week is on your bucket list, read on. We'll tell you what opportunities are available for photographers and provide some tips to get you started.
Sony has announced the a9 III: the first full-frame camera to use a global shutter sensor. This gives it the ability to shoot at up to 120 fps with flash sync up to 1/80,000 sec and zero rolling shutter.
What’s the best camera for around $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. We recommend our favorite options.
Comments