"I saw the videos. I ask? Is it worth $3500?"

Depends. Do you want top notch autofocus without overheating?

I believe that if you like Sony and wand to shoot 4K video the A7SIII is the best option,

I also believe because the R5 is a multipurpose camera, it while be used by more people. Many more for stills, but time will tell for video. Neither of us can say one way or the other today.

It's simple. The R5/R6 will be bought primarily by those already in the Canon system and using Canon DSLRs and maybe the R. The Sony will be bought by those in the Sony system and purchased by those using the A7SII or maybe the A7III for video.

But R5/6 for those wanting stills shooting, some video, all arounder. I also believe some videographers will add the R5 for brief shots in 8K or oversampled 4K. It's just too good to pass up. A7SIII for those wanting primarily video.

Very few new customers these days in the camera market. Most don't switch.

That's one reason why this brand war in these forums is so funny. We are all just debating each other for the fun. In reality most customers are already with one system or another and will remain that way. Most camera companies these days are positioned to sell to their existing customers.

Willow, watch Dan Watsons 4K60 test R5 vs A7S3. the A7S3 shutdown earlier than R5. not sure about A7S3 doing well in the outside.

When shooting in high frame rates you always want to slow them down to a 24, 25 or worse case 30 FPS timeline. Anything above just looks like a soap opera shot in the 80s or a football match. Maybe for sport 60fps looks okay but for everything else it is just wrong and should never be used.

Our PC screens are running refresh rates divisible by 60 though. Most displays at 60hz.

In a movie theatre, you are viewing 24fps at 24fps. Thats why it is not choppy.

I am not defending this video btw.

Of course it's not more light. Anyway, the purpose of video is not really "averaging over many frames", static scene or not. Static scenes make it easier to judge the noise though.

Hahaha thanks for the semi funny passive aggressive comment instead of engaging in debate from which we could learn from each other points of view. Perception is a funny thing. It's also the main reason people hire me actually: how I perceive how things should look, which is btw entirely subjective. I'm not debating there is a majority who would not notice or care and why this camera is a very interesting proposition to a big group of creatives who focus on things that matter more to them and their customer base. But as YouTube is full of comparisons, mostly for those who aspire to work up to big budget production level. I pose the question why no manufacturer would create a slightly overpriced beast of a camera with the quality of an Arri or red and just sell a sh*t ton. Blackmagic sort of does and prove there's a large market. They a re just a bit too low budget to get it completely right. Why would a Sony or canon not top that with better build and autofocus?

Sony A7's have the same profiles as each other and the FS5 and FS7. It makes matching color among multiple cameras a breeze. It would be nice to have BMD joystick color control, but BMD cameras don't have Sony lens choices.

Log gamma (and RAW) doesn't have a "look." That's up to who's doing the grading.

Sensors, CFA, and electronics have a look though. And thats before RAW.

You grade with what youre given. And its not all the same.

There are engineers that check the color accuracy by using physical color checkers with ground truth swatches, if you choose neutral profile or use log with standard LUTs the differences are very, very small. There's really no modern camera that can be said to have inaccurate colors. That said, people prefer what's pleasing over what's accurate. Like when women use tons of make-up to create that "natural look" which isn't natural at all.

mmeerdam, Correct me if im way off your thinking;

Its like the difference between a plasma display and an LCD display. No matter how expensive or how much contrast the LCD has, it always looks 'digital' somehow.
Where as a 500$ plasma looks 'natural, deep, thick, etc...'

Its something that is not as simple as CR or DR.

I work in film but never interested in using a hybrid, so, you know what you are talking about as far as models/tech.

I have always had hyper sensitive eyes to visual quality. Most people do not notice the things that are so obvious to my eyes.

People download extremely low bitrate movies to watch and seem to not notice how horrid they look.

I fear it may be a bit of that going on. Cheaper, the fanatics care about sharpness and DR. The masses dont notice anyways.
Manufacturers work from that.

Could it be internal processing? Like how good SD TV looks on a CRT but awful on an LCD and Plasma even.

I get your point completely. Good to know I'm not the only one that sort of hyper sensitive to what looks natural. It must be. The color science is definitely different when I compare the fx9 to the a7siii in the video. It's all so overly sharp and harsh. I always contributed it to the sensors and the anti alias filters being made for photo and video so there are trade offs to the video part. But this a7siii is mainly designed for video so I don't get why it would need to look so harsh. Maybe the raw out is better. kinda curious. I do like the run and gun kind of production, I would love to find a stabilised camera to shoot from the hip that does organic film like footage to complement my stills work.

@mmeerdam
Have you watched Philip Bloom's samples? ProRes RAW looks very good.
Of course, it's not an Arri or CineAlta, but most people can't see the difference anyway.

In my view, nothing can come close to the real film. Some companies have excellent marketing, claiming they're there, but that's just not true.
As for cinema cameras, my top 3 would be:
1. CineAlta F35
2. Arri Alexa
3. Venice
The new FX9 looks very promising too.
RED and Blackmagic are still relatively „new“ companies. Despite good marketing and fanbase, I still find them a bit „complicated“ and unreliable.
Regards

@NemanRa
I did not, will have a look. thanks!
I agree with your points on film, it was somewhat before my time and digital can make great use of available light in darker scenes it enables a style of shooting I really like. Not too familiar with the cinealta, arri is top of my list. The Red's are known to be somewhat unreliable, never really experienced that on the shoots I was involved in but those were the models that were longer in the running already. I have some go to combo's I just really like: Arri + master primes for that smooth look. ARRI with Leica (new and vintage) and Red + Leica for a more gritty feel. I would like to combine Leica with Venice sometime, looks great on ozark 3. I am curious what the a7siii will look like with some vintage glass to take the edge off a bit. cheers!

mmeerdam, Like i said in the first, CFA, AA filter, and who knows what else, affects the RAW.

I have researched for years on this what seems to be a phenomenon haha. The more heavy duty the physics get, the less clear things become. The questions come simply from Why am I seeing what I see?

People always say that colour doesnt matter because of RAW but it is not true.

I have never seen an excellently colour matched Nikon to Canon photo. I tried for months, but the next level of attempting it was going to be double extreme. I was already in extreme territory.

Was far easier on my sanity to just stick with Canon, even though Nikon cameras are excellent.

SteveAnderson - Yeah raw is not universally the same, just like a films chemical formula isn't, a sensor and it's processing path to the raw file just isn't. I have actually just sold my z7 and ordered a R5. I just couldn't get used to the colours from the raw files and how to process them to my liking, even though they are technically better than the Eos R. I bought a z7 because I shot with a d810 a couple of times and although different than canon I still loved what I got from those raw files.
I can make a canon file more or less look like what a Nikon file feels like because I have had both camera's for a while. It's not a one to one match but I know how the colours, contrast and saturation balance each other in a Nikon file. I still can't make a Nikon file look like canon though, hahaha.

The A7iii does okay within its envelope. I have two dedicated to video, along with an FS5. Internal recording is 4,2,0 8-bit and GOP-L. I record to Atomos Ninja V's, from the uncompressed HDMI output (SDI from the FS5), which is much cleaner and sharper. 8-bit is okay if you don't need extensive adjustments. It's always better to get it right the first time.

@Scrollop
My point exactly, somewhat better demonstration but again shows the same thing, the light sources are bright and rendered well, the darker areas not so much.
Although he is showing better examples of what actual "dark footage" is rather than "bright lights on dark background" footage which misleading since lights will have low noise and be well resolved no matter what.

Best example would be to shoot a performance, actors on a dimly lit theater stage. Amateur theater lighting is often low and there won't be any light sources on stage, only set and actors. Results are VERY different than these scenes that include city lights and store signs and stop lights and all those extra sources of light that make the scene feel amazing while hiding how bad the midtones and shadows look. Not hating on Sony, they are probably better right now than others, just trying to be critical and not swept up in euphoria.

@huyzer
FINALLY! Halleluyah!
Now we are seeing examples of low illumination footage when he is NOT including sources of bright light in the picture. The house and the grass and the flowers, that's true low light scene. Yes, camera is delivering, would be nice to see side by sides with others, it is probably better if not much better?
Just trying to make an important point that people are easily mislead and mistake one thing for another and just because they see a city at night with bright neon signs and store fronts and skyscraper windows illuminated that doesn't make for a good "low light camera".
Now, Sony, please drop the price one grand and you got a winner.

@Pascal F

No, he even said in the video that hew was using high shutter speeds to simulate low light. So if he was at regular shutter speeds at base ISO by ISO 25600 he is in the high thousands with the shutter speed

You are likely right, but it is curious the A7SIII is the only one with the problem. No one should use a shutter speed that high.

It is interesting the R6 looks so much better even in lower light. That is said to be a strong point for the A7SIII but it is a weakness. Probably the power of oversampling.

@Pascal F

It is not if you watch the video you will see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_hp7HYDveQ
here you can see it better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmGaYYQenSo

At ISO 25600 the banding is just so extreme on the R6 it is almost gone again showing the higher readout speed of the A7S III

And then you have pros who say:

Gordon Laing "A7sIII better for pro work; R5 you'd have to be very careful of its limitations."
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4507889

And Jordan Drake on the Canons:

https://twitter.com/thatJordanDrake/status/1287870304958599169

And check out Philip Blooms videos using the A7SIII. https://www.youtube.com/c/PhilipBloomphilipbloom/videos

Geralrd Undone measured dynamic Range and found the R5's DR at base is equal to the A7SIIIs DR at... 100 000 ISO.

If you were a filmographer you'd know that sharpness is not of paramount importance.

Forgive me, but I'll believe real pros, rather than you.

Camcorders, even iPhones give good results as long as you stay inside the envelope. The A7Siii doesn't seem to have an envelope.

@Willow w
Yeahh, seems like TN and CN need to do what they really know how to do - shoot BIF! This banding is not camera problem but just demonstrate their lack of knowledge and slow read out of R6 .............
How is this even possible, people with number of followers like small country population has no idea what they are talking about ..........
About softness.... its seems to be because of codec or maybe this is too small for the resolution. In both cases this is irrelevant. You can use ALL i codec or you can even write 16 bit RAW. If object is too small for the frame and resolution it is irrelevant. No one will buy this camera to shoot high res landscapes ..........

The R5 and R6 banded as well in the video that compares them to the A7III. It's a shutter speed thing.

Of course they will band with this cheap poor lighting setup.....

@willow, you really have no life, huh? You're clearly not interested in this camera but you desperately try to crap on it where ever you can. Why don't you just move on and focus on something positive.

Even the first A7s had such performance.

Shooting light sources against dark scenes is a misleading way to assess "low light" performance and will always look great due to DR and visual processing limitations. You are not perceiving how bad the midtones and low shadows are, your eyes are just 'happy' to see the lights against the dark and you are distracted. That's why all those night cityscapes "Vegas by night" type images look great. Very little midtones to show and if you saw them you won't be impressed. Waiting for examples that better show what this camera is capable of. Cellphones can also shoot night scenes like that and look amazing.

Gerald made it clear. Iso 16000 doesn’t kick in the noise reduction utility.
It acts more like a second iso base.
Potatoe Jet also made a film with iso 12800 thinking it’s very clean. He didn’t discover another stop, iso 16000 would give much cleaner results.

Sony should have made this clear.

@Willow w, interesting that Canon made the world’s first seasonal camera!

Photo colour science was too accurate for some people

@mainger dpreview doesnt do reviews?

@Coomer: is this article supposed to be a review?

Where does it state dpreview didnt shoot this video? And where does it state they havent reviewed previous a7 bodies? And where does it say they dont have experience of how the different cameras handle colors after handling all models?

I... errh ... what?