They made this camera 12mp because that’s the base resolution for 4k so video is processed at a 1:1 to cut down on processing.

12Mpixs for 4k = less heat, less rolling shutter, bigger pixels for lower noise, etc...

@ Strobist: Your "greedy Sony" theory doesn't fit well in a free marked where competition is very hard. What about "bad color science" instead? Or "bad ergonomics"? That doesn't fit either, but you would probably be taken a bit more serious. 😃

Shareholders are also interested in long term business - and how is Sony different from other camera makers in this respect? Is losses great news for, say, Nikon users? Any healthy business need to earn money.

@strobist guess your theory explains why Tesla is constantly eschewing innovation to focus only on the bottom line, and why Amazon has gotten to where it is since they've obviously always put the shareholder first and why Sony decided to buck the trend and go mirrorless with an uber aggressive update schedule, shareholder bottom line.

The grossly oversimplified notion of 'fat companies only being beholden to shareholders' truly is outdated and is as wrong thinking as saying 'photographers' and pretending that there is some global generic single mindset that everyone who uses any sort of camera falls into.

Guys,

Really...?

I am not telling anyone what to do. (Your money, your way)
I have cameras and lenses from 5 different brands, from FF to 1".
(actually seven if we count iPhone and Android as cameras :-)

So I have no favourite, and have no bias agains/for any brand.
( well, i still LOVE the versatility of the M43 lenses, so I might have a bias there)

Still: I would never fool myself that a company (be Tesla or whoever) started their production out of care of/for the customers.

it's always about making the biggest dent in the market, maximising the bottom line.
(else it is called charity, and that is something completely different)

This is also why I dont understand "loyal customers". For what?
Does the company send them a christmas card, thanking them for being loyal customers?

I say, do what you like, but dont fool yourself thinking that the company youare buying a product from, is doing you any favor. It's the other way around.

BR , Strobist

@ Strobist: Well, how else would you get a modern digital camera? Building it yourself?

noone is interested in minimal sharpness difference. but will notice worse colors, codec, stabilization and rolling shutter...

@Magnar W
I am old fashioned. I get the tools that are best for the job.

Main need at the moment is of viewers who can differentiate the different models offered by certain company. For example if stills is your thing then sony also offer A9, A7r3 etc etc.

This clearly is more aimed at video and someone who is interested in stills complaining about it makes little to no sense.

@ YuryVilin: Why comment at all on a modern video centric camera if your argument is: "I am old fashioned"?!?

@YuryVilin then buy other cameras? The AS3 clearly isn't for you and Sony makes it clear which market this camera is aiming for

Ottonis, "universally praised?" By whom? Youtubers or real videographers? Real videographers using dedicated cine cameras.

@SteveAnderson

Its a sony thing. The RF bodies all show you full rez images. I don't know about other brands. But somehow I think that leica also shows you full rez, and maybe even canon and Panasonic.

But I think this is one of the ways that sony is able to have the battery specs as high as it does.

For video work, color grading is more often used to affect emotins than trying to mimic "real" or "true" color. Often so with serious still photography work too.

That said, when measured, Sony OOC color is very close to "true" color. When informed about this, users of other brands reply: Sorry, I meant pleasant color! LOL!

Aah...the classic D700! That was a fabulous camera..really a breakthrough in its day...and yes, still takes wonderful images.

*videocamera of the year naybe

Because it works for you, hence should be camera of the year? :)

@Mark3794, "*videocamera of the year naybe"

that may goes to the new Canon C70.

"As far as 12 MP goes, like I said, if you really need greater detail than, there is now software for that, like Gigapixel AI"

Surely, if you need more detail, it's better to record it in the first place, rather than trying to fill it in after the fact? Guesswork, no matter how sophisticated, isn't the best solution.

If you're buying a7sIII to shoot high-resolution stills, you're crazy.
If you think Sony's GM lenses are spendy, look at Canon's RF or Panasonic's lineup. Sony has by far the most extensive range of native AF lenses.

There are lots of "non spendy" lenses, some DSLR lines, some ML lines. Fuji is similar to Sony E mount, very few budget options that give you big bang for the buck. And Canon may have spendy RF glass but they also have the BIGGEST lineup in EF and all of those Canon made (and many 3rd party) EF lenses work exactly like native glass.

Yea yea but but but, the adapter waaaahhhhh!!! Adapters add maybe 1.5", yet nobody complains about the size of a telephoto lens like the Sony 70-200. No system has every FL with pancake options so i don't factor in size, the bottom line is MFT has way more budget options in lenses, so does EF with Canon.

Even the FTZ adapter puts Nikon ML ahead with pricing options. Now Sony apsc E mount isn't as bad off, they have several 3rd party budget options, but the A7SIII is FF and those lenses tend to be overpriced.

"Fuji is similar to Sony E mount, very few budget options that give you big bang for the buck."

What? Between Tamron and Sigma you have pro-quality glass at prices way, way lower than RF and Z (and generally F or EF) with newer optics and smaller size than adapted DSLR lenses.

It's like you've literally never looked at the lenses available for each mount.

As mentioned in previous comments, budget options from Tamron, Tokina, Samyang and Sigma, and not so budget options from Zeiss and Voigtlander, APART from Sony first party lenses.
E Mount currently owns the lens selection in terms of choices.

Eh... since you guys are discussing a video based camera I would put the RF mount ahead of the E-mount. Yes sony has the most native lenses... (for now, if canon does release 14 lenses next year than that argument becomes almost moot) but for video. A mechanically coupled focus ring is preferable, so in this regard I would rather have the EF lenses adapted. Though sony can also adapt the EF lenses canon has the filter adapter in its corner. That opens up things a whole lot considering you just need a set of filters for all the lenses.

People point out the third party glass, seemingly also forgetting the whole line up of adaptable third party glass to the RF mount with said filter adapter. For video, at least I definitely see an advantage to the RF.

For stills... canon's and nikon's lens lineup is still in the works and sony does have an advantage there.

Last but not least... its the exotic (f1.2 and f2 primes/zooms) lenses from canon that are high in price.

lawny13 no one is disputing that RF glass with better features and optical performance should be priced higher than inferior designs, but we currently see lenses that are 2-3x the price of Tamron and Sigma lenses in the similar class.

E.g. The RF 24-70mm F2.8 is $2,300 while the Sigma 24-70mm is $1,100 and the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 is $880. Is the RF lens higher quality? Probably. Does it differentiate with stabilization? Yes. Does its high price leave RF mount with a big price gap for hobbyists? Absolutely.

People can get less expensive - better value - third-party lenses for E mount that were designed with the blessing and cooperation of the camera maker (open mount). This is a huge advantage over the current lack of such options on RF and Z mounts, and even when those mounts get reverse-engineered lenses they could - as you noted - be broken with future updates.

To reiterate, THIRD PARTY LENSES ON E MOUNT ARE NOT REVERSED ENGINEERED. IT IS AN OPEN MOUNT, making your argument null and void.

lawny, if you have a given budget, it will go further on E mount. Full stop. There is more choice and more value options. I don't care if Nikon and Canon "choose to do business" by constricting customers to OEM lenses, because I'll just choose with my wallet not to buy them. And I say that as someone who would probably be on Nikon right now if they had opened Z mount.

@lawny

"(for now, if canon does release 14 lenses next year than that argument becomes almost moot)"

Unless Sony stops making lenses, Canon will never catch them, in the way that Sony couldn't catch Canon in A-mount. The position of the two companies is basically reversed now.

Canon will work hard to make RF a video mount and a popular mount, but it is simply never going to be as ubiquitous as e-mount and there will never be more lenses available for it.

@lawny

"I don't think canon needs to think about catching sony. Who cares?"

I agree. But I was responding to your earlier post which suggests the opposite:

"Eh... since you guys are discussing a video based camera I would put the RF mount ahead of the E-mount. Yes sony has the most native lenses... (for now, if canon does release 14 lenses next year than that argument becomes almost moot) but for video."

Honestly, when it comes to sharpness there's just no real contest here. The A7SIII uses 1:1 sampling for 4k, since that's how many megapixels its sensor has. With 1:1 sampling, you lose some chroma resolution due to the Bayer array on the sensor. Other high-end video options like the S1H and R5 use oversampling from a higher-resolution sensor, which allows for more (or in the case of the R5 full) chroma resolution at every pixel. There's nothing to be done about it, it's a limit that's baked into the design of the camera. Sure you can use sharpening in post, but you can do that to any camera. The baseline situation here is that the A7SIII cannot record 4k as sharp as some of its rivals, because it is simply a lower-resolution camera.

On the other hand, oversampling is very processor intensive and generates a lot of heat. The S1H has to have a fan to deal with that, and the R5 has overheating issues. But they do generate sharper video.

Yes, I understand the issue. I am not denying that the oversampling gives a better image. But we were shown a comparison in the video. My question is:

1. Did they all have the same amount of sharpening (preferably none)
2. If the same amount of sharpening is applied to each (in post) how do they compare.

Just want the comparison to be a useful and fair one.

Supposedly at 4K 60 and 120 frames, the A7Siii is sharper than the Canon R5 and Panasonic as they drop every other line or something along that idea.

@Halftrack

But only in 4K 30p HQ mode which won't last very long due to overheating.

With higher framerates R5 video resolution seem to be clearly inferior.

Yes, I did in fact mention that the R5 overheats and that the S1H requires a fan. Honestly, the A7SIII is probably the best video-focused hybrid out there in a lot of ways. No, the maximum video quality isn't *quite* as good as some other cameras, but it's reliable (unlike the R5) and has great autofocus (unlike the S1H). If you look at the overall package, it's quite good. Maybe not the absolute best in any one key statistic, but pretty consistently good in all areas. Its main competitors each seem to have at least one major Achilles' heel, whereas the A7SIII doesn't.

Kinda unusual, really. Normally Sony cameras have incredible specs but are let down in one or two key areas. In this case though, they've released something that looks consistently solid across the board, but not exactly revolutionary in any particular area.

It can’t be over sampling.
If you have a 10x10 pixel image and try to downsample to 9x9 it softens and ruins any diagonal lines. You really need 50-100% more to over sample.
With as popular as the 2:1 and 17:9 aspect ratios have become for pro video, it is shocking Sony can’t do DCI 4K. Some Sony promotional videos are 2:1 which means they have 10-12% less resolution. And that’s before considering the camera can’t oversample for full detail.

Slightly oversampling by default, if you engage the active stabilization or 4K/120 mode it's a 1.1x crop with 1:1 pixels. That it doesn't record in 17:9 is an artificial limitation, but if you want to shoot 4K DCI 24fps there's a lot of better cameras for that. If you're not doing low light or 60+ FPS why get this camera?

It does a 1.1x oversampling, and if you want DCI, you have to shoot in RAW, in which case you get 4.2k, which could can downsample to 4096.

More than enough in 4K FF mode (actually superb in this mode), not enough for 4K in Super35 mode or serious photographers who need large prints and crop potential.

It's a decision for money, they hope 12mp will be enough for "photogs" to not completely abandon the camera, but close enough to 8mp that it gains some lowlight benefits. Im surprised they just don't make a VIDEO ILC and be done with it, give it 8.26mp maximize video specs.

But they know no still shooter would be caught dead with an 8mp body today lol.

@Vincenco: I know, it seems ridiculous, but I used to own a Canon 5D at 12.7 Mpix. Up to a certain size, they are fine. (Surprisingly good actually).

Vincenco: Explain what's wrong with 12 Mp for stills?

12 MP was great in 2008 for 3500USD still cameras. In 2020, 12MP is great for video cameras.

Vincenco: ducking the question?

I'd say 12mp is more than enough for many people, i still have a D300 and won't get rid of it, still use it. But then it can be had for under $100 now, a far cry from the price of new FF cameras today let alone this one.

In your case ducking.

When Sony produces a 5MP camera, then even 3MP will be good enough so 5MP will be perfect for some people. If Sony comes up with a 2MP camera, then "1MP is enough for internet anyway" chorus will appear in no time.

@Michiel953 I duck you.

It is okay when Sony make a 12 mp hybrid cameras. But if other brands made it, they would be cursed like there is no tomorrow - even from a Sony users that don't have intentions to buy it.

@Vincenco

I think @misspiggy01 said that with a sparkle of humor in her eye.

I had the sparkles in both of mine.

...until the R5 joined the AF, IBIS, FPS and Video party.

@ Richmondthefish... Thank you for posting Max Yuryev URL for both the R5 & A7s3. I'm not a videographer... however Max gave, what I thought, was an excellent AB comparison. For my needs, the R5 would be a better fit... that is if I could afford it. Again, thanks & HAGD!

So where's that written review?

Coming, presumably. Written reviews take longer, due to all the additional detail and the labor involved in doing things like shooting the studio test scene. This comes up in literally every single video review, and it's getting hard at this point to see it as a good-faith question rather than trolling by cranky old men who just can't get used to these newfangled "moving pictures."

@temana: Why do you think that no written review will come? DP-Review is doing many written review, DP-Review TV is only a (very nice) extra on this site!

@temama, you wrote, “ I doubt any written A7SIII review will even come. This is so lazy nowadays.”

I am afraid you are wrong here. They have started writing the review https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7s-iii-initial-review

They have told everybody, over and over again, in almost every single video review that has ever been done. I imagine that the only reason they aren't doing it now is that A) it's Saturday morning and they can't be arsed to deal with this right now or B) they just can't be arsed to do it ever again, because clearly the first thirty times made no difference.

You do realize that the main use for the A7SIII is for videos, right? So a video review is in fact much more useful than a written review if you want to assess video and audio quality.

@temama "I want, I don't want" just about says it all!

A LUT is a Look Up Table. It's a table of how any given color in the recording should be mapped to a different color in the edit. It pairs with the log profile and tells the editing software how to de-squeeze the luminance channel so that the recording looks normal again. It can also be used to provide different "looks," as desired—the possibilities are endless, really.

4:2:2 means full chroma resolution is recorded. In the interests of controlling bandwidth, video is often saved such that for any given square of 4 pixels, color data is only recorded on the top 2 and is then interpolated down to the bottom 2. This is 4:2:0 recording, which saves bandwidth but reduces chroma resolution. In 4:2:2 recording, color data is recorded for both the top and bottom 2 pixels of the 4-pixel square.

There, easy. I am not even a videographer, I've literally learned all this by watching Chris & Jordan's videos. Now you know too, so no excuse for complaining next time.

(2/2)

Oh, and Atomos is a brand. They make videography accessories. You know, like Manfrotto or Godox does for photography. They're just a brand.

a) I was partly joking which I appreciate is tough for the earnest types on here to appreciate - DPRTV is great, but a video specific review holds minimal interest
b) I have no interest in videography but appreciate this is the way the industry is going now that video, YouTube, vimeo etc is king

I get it, but why comment on a video review about video if you have little interest in the topic? Wait for the written camera review which will be mainly about photography.
Truthfully though, cameras have been sufficient for photos for years making reviews less interesting than they once were. It really comes down to preferences and difficult use cases.

yeah - too much Video stuff on here , maybe they ought to start a sister site Videography Review and leave this place back to being mainly photography centric

Yeah, those are *very* different cameras from what the A7SIII is trying to be. If you wanted a camera to replace your 5D or D700, Sony's current full-frame offerings are the A7III, A7RIV, and A9II. Similar options are available from other manufacturers, of course. In any case, if you primarily shoot stills, you probably don't want an A7SIII.

The problem with shooting 4k video with a sensor that uses 8M pixels to shoot it is you only get 2M Red, 2M Blue and 4M green pixels to make it from. A R5, for example, had 8M of each (actually 16M G) and so much more colour resolution (having R, G and B info for every pixel, vs just one of those).

@Handsome90

Well than i don't know why he chose that lens as a comparison point. There is no F2.8 12mm zoom in any other system available so the A7S III is the only choice if you want such a lens anyway

I’m [theoretically] interested in this question too. At what price does buying a notional stills camera for video stop making sense? To instead favour a cine camera or camcorder with video ergonomics or flexibility, maybe XLR connectors, etc.