Trek of Joy

Your needs aren't everyones. I just sent some stuff to an agency for print/digital work, a cropped image from the a73 that was about 16mp and they asked if I had a larger version. Sometimes I need a heavy vertical/horizontal crop for things like banner or sidebar type ads, so most of the image is thrown away. Even with 24" prints there's a noticeable difference between 42mp files from the a7r2/3 and the 12mp files from a7s2, I shot both extensively and its easy to tell which camera shot which image. This "normal viewing distance" stuff people constantly throw out is bullshit. I've found people constantly get right up against a print and look at the details, for me more is better and it has zero to do with poor composition. Its about getting the end product I want, even if I need to crop. Sometimes I look at a shot and see a second image that's completely different just by cropping a large chunk out. I shot tons of safari stuff and cropping to get details like a tight shot of a face or texture in feathers gives an entirely new perspective, same when I shoot automotive stuff. I do the same thing with landscapes too, lots of times you can just crop the foreground and get a dramatic sky shot without wasting sunrise/sunset light trying to reframe to get different angles. Most of the time I'm chasing a short window of perfect light, I don't waste it reframing and moving around, I just crop. I like the creative freedom more mp gives me. The s3 - for me - is going to be for video and social photos only. I need more mp for my regular work, the a73 is minimum for my stills work. YMMV.
Chris

Lack of front dial is a mistake. Especially at the rumored price.

I call them flying lawnmowers and take extreme care to not fly over people.

My bet is "video" will be trying to make inroads on volume/growth opportunities like surveillance cameras and the automotive world. Supposedly the auto industry was on track for about 150 million cameras for automotive use this year before COVID, which is double the volume from just a couple years ago.
I doubt they're buying Olympus to make a significant investment in an entirely new product segment for a small slice of a rapidly declining market, while also pledging to make a profit. They're going to leave high end video cameras to the likes of Canon, Sony and Panasonic. Just like Nikon and Fuji. 
Just my opinion.
Chris

I'm not speaking in absolutes, but some buy speedbosters to get shallower DOF or reduce the crop factor. That's why I said its an individual thing. I'm aware of the other aspects, but that's not what I was talking about. Yes there's no FF specific aesthetic, but there's no lens available that gets me the same thing I get with a 24/1.4 or 135/1.8 with smaller sensors. Aesthetic was just a poor choice of words for DOF at a given FOV.
But again its an individual thing, I shoot with available light and I need photos for everything I shoot. For me FF has significant advantages over everything else, its the sweet spot of size/cost/IQ - for me. YMMV.
Cheers
Chris

Its such an individual thing, its an impossible discussion to have - hence the millions of mind-numbing arguments about equivalence. They're all tools that can get the job done. IMO the best balance of IQ with camera/lens size and cost is FF for stills and now - for me - video too. I need great AF, and really don't want to juggle two (or more) sets of lenses anymore. Now that FF cameras have some mind blowing video specs, its all come together - again for me. Personally I like the look of a fast wide, my 24 or 28/1.4 is my favorite, and I can only get that on a FF. Fuji's 16/1.4 and various m43 options come close, but its just not the same. I can't imagine the size of a Fuji equivalent to Sony's minuscule 24/1.4 GM since they said the 33/1.0 needed a tripod collar for support and was too large/expensive to make a reality. The new 50/1.0 is huge. I like the creative options with shallow DOF at times too, and again its much easier with FF. But I recognize everyone has different needs, I'm not trying to say one is better, I just prefer the IQ and aesthetic options FF gives me.
The arguments against FF years ago - mainly big/expensive lenses and bodies - are a thing of the past when you look at the Tamron zooms and lenses like the Sony 20G, 24GM, 85 1.8 and so on - compared to Olympus Pro primes or something like that new Fuji 50/1.0. Unless you shoot Panasonic's S lenses LOL! Its easy to go small/light, or no compromise with IQ or speed and thanks to so many jumping in on the E-mount, there are more 3rd party options than anything on the mirrorless side. I'm deliberately ignoring DSLR stuff because I don't shoot anything with a mirror anymore. But when you look at the popularity of speedboosters, lots shooting sensors smaller than FF are still looking for that FF aesthetic. IDK, just my perspective.
As always YMMV.
Chris

While we are on the wish list for lenses from Sigma:  One of the key advantages of the Sigma fp is it is small. A disadvantage is it lacks in-body stabilization. But, most Sigma lenses are big, as was said, and most also lack stabilization. To use the fp handheld for video, small lenses with OIS are needed. Right now, one really has to use Canon lenses for that.

CVP sent me an email to say they are receiving the A7SIII in the next few days! 

I'm not speaking in absolutes, but some buy speedbosters to get shallower DOF or reduce the crop factor. That's why I said its an individual thing. I'm aware of the other aspects, but that's not what I was talking about. Yes there's no FF specific aesthetic, but there's no lens available that gets me the same thing I get with a 24/1.4 or 135/1.8 with smaller sensors. Aesthetic was just a poor choice of words for DOF at a given FOV.
But again its an individual thing, I shoot with available light and I need photos for everything I shoot. For me FF has significant advantages over everything else, its the sweet spot of size/cost/IQ - for me. YMMV.
Cheers
Chris

Its such an individual thing, its an impossible discussion to have - hence the millions of mind-numbing arguments about equivalence. They're all tools that can get the job done. IMO the best balance of IQ with camera/lens size and cost is FF for stills and now - for me - video too. I need great AF, and really don't want to juggle two (or more) sets of lenses anymore. Now that FF cameras have some mind blowing video specs, its all come together - again for me. Personally I like the look of a fast wide, my 24 or 28/1.4 is my favorite, and I can only get that on a FF. Fuji's 16/1.4 and various m43 options come close, but its just not the same. I can't imagine the size of a Fuji equivalent to Sony's minuscule 24/1.4 GM since they said the 33/1.0 needed a tripod collar for support and was too large/expensive to make a reality. The new 50/1.0 is huge. I like the creative options with shallow DOF at times too, and again its much easier with FF. But I recognize everyone has different needs, I'm not trying to say one is better, I just prefer the IQ and aesthetic options FF gives me.
The arguments against FF years ago - mainly big/expensive lenses and bodies - are a thing of the past when you look at the Tamron zooms and lenses like the Sony 20G, 24GM, 85 1.8 and so on - compared to Olympus Pro primes or something like that new Fuji 50/1.0. Unless you shoot Panasonic's S lenses LOL! Its easy to go small/light, or no compromise with IQ or speed and thanks to so many jumping in on the E-mount, there are more 3rd party options than anything on the mirrorless side. I'm deliberately ignoring DSLR stuff because I don't shoot anything with a mirror anymore. But when you look at the popularity of speedboosters, lots shooting sensors smaller than FF are still looking for that FF aesthetic. IDK, just my perspective.
As always YMMV.
Chris

Its such an individual thing, its an impossible discussion to have - hence the millions of mind-numbing arguments about equivalence. They're all tools that can get the job done. IMO the best balance of IQ with camera/lens size and cost is FF for stills and now - for me - video too. I need great AF, and really don't want to juggle two (or more) sets of lenses anymore. Now that FF cameras have some mind blowing video specs, its all come together - again for me. Personally I like the look of a fast wide, my 24 or 28/1.4 is my favorite, and I can only get that on a FF. Fuji's 16/1.4 and various m43 options come close, but its just not the same. I can't imagine the size of a Fuji equivalent to Sony's minuscule 24/1.4 GM since they said the 33/1.0 needed a tripod collar for support and was too large/expensive to make a reality. The new 50/1.0 is huge. I like the creative options with shallow DOF at times too, and again its much easier with FF. But I recognize everyone has different needs, I'm not trying to say one is better, I just prefer the IQ and aesthetic options FF gives me.
The arguments against FF years ago - mainly big/expensive lenses and bodies - are a thing of the past when you look at the Tamron zooms and lenses like the Sony 20G, 24GM, 85 1.8 and so on - compared to Olympus Pro primes or something like that new Fuji 50/1.0. Unless you shoot Panasonic's S lenses LOL! Its easy to go small/light, or no compromise with IQ or speed and thanks to so many jumping in on the E-mount, there are more 3rd party options than anything on the mirrorless side. I'm deliberately ignoring DSLR stuff because I don't shoot anything with a mirror anymore. But when you look at the popularity of speedboosters, lots shooting sensors smaller than FF are still looking for that FF aesthetic. IDK, just my perspective.
As always YMMV.
Chris

Your needs aren't everyones. I just sent some stuff to an agency for print/digital work, a cropped image from the a73 that was about 16mp and they asked if I had a larger version. Sometimes I need a heavy vertical/horizontal crop for things like banner or sidebar type ads, so most of the image is thrown away. Even with 24" prints there's a noticeable difference between 42mp files from the a7r2/3 and the 12mp files from a7s2, I shot both extensively and its easy to tell which camera shot which image. This "normal viewing distance" stuff people constantly throw out is bullshit. I've found people constantly get right up against a print and look at the details, for me more is better and it has zero to do with poor composition. Its about getting the end product I want, even if I need to crop. Sometimes I look at a shot and see a second image that's completely different just by cropping a large chunk out. I shot tons of safari stuff and cropping to get details like a tight shot of a face or texture in feathers gives an entirely new perspective, same when I shoot automotive stuff. I do the same thing with landscapes too, lots of times you can just crop the foreground and get a dramatic sky shot without wasting sunrise/sunset light trying to reframe to get different angles. Most of the time I'm chasing a short window of perfect light, I don't waste it reframing and moving around, I just crop. I like the creative freedom more mp gives me. The s3 - for me - is going to be for video and social photos only. I need more mp for my regular work, the a73 is minimum for my stills work. YMMV.
Chris

The drone and gopro groups have lots of photos of broken micro SD cards - as in snapped in half. I use them because I have to in my drone and gopro, but anywhere else I'd personally avoid it.  Again, just me, but no way. Plus they're so small and you can't lock them to prevent accidentally recording over footage you want to save, its not a very robust solution.
Chris

No, I'm just getting it from B&H. As it stands I only have one Sony body and two lenses, the 12-24/4 and the 24 GM, I'll need the s3 and I think another Sony lens to get pro support - but I'm probably getting the 35/85 1.8's so that should get me there unless I go Batis 40/85 instead. My order was processed just a few seconds after it went live and this is such a niche camera its not going to be in short supply with almost 2-months of lead time from announcement to ship date. IMO if it had 24mp or so it would be far more appealing to more photo-centric users because of the EVF and AF advancements. But that just means we'll get it faster LOL!
Chris

Yes, the 10-bit, all-i, S&Q 4k 120 and the HD240 are the options that require the CFA cards. I'm going to get one because I want the full glory of 10-bit and 240fps without long gop compression. For the rest I'm getting a couple v90 cards.
On the a7s3 FB group people are constantly asking about the cheapest cards to use in this camera or if a v60 card will record XXX framerate in XX resolution. I never understand these questions, if you're spending $3500 on a body for your projects, don't you want reliable recording? The difference between a 128gb v60 and v90 card isn't much. You can get two Kingston or Prograde 128gb v90 cards for about $250, pennies compared to the cost of the camera and none of this nonsense about "will this card work if I'm shooting...."
Anyway. Three more weeks till it ships...
Chris

XT-40 seems most likely, that model always follows the flagship XT by 6-8 months or so. Its about time to give it an update too with a better EVF and some body refinements.
Chris

Dang, I just noticed the "Max Rec. Bitrate" on XAVC S-I 4K is 1,200 Mbps 😮    
Notice how they support V90 or faster for that.  What is weird to me, is that sure if you multiply out the 299 MB/s (Mega Bytes/sec) rating of the Sony Tough G cards you get 299 MB/s x 8 bits/1MB or 2,392 Mbps (Mega Bits/sec), so clearly those Tough G cards are capable of such speeds. 
HOWEVER, the whole point of a V rating is to identify the max sustained write speed of the card and V90 is 90MB/s sustained write or 90MB/s x 8 bits/1MB = 720 Mbps, which is supposedly the max sustained bitrate from a V90 card.  So not, sure if Sony has a typo here or if their TOUGH G cards are more like V150 cards which is the rating that would be needed to sustain writes at 1,200Mbps

First outing with the camera. handheld with a 24-105. Loved the camera. I need to adjust a couple things but for the most part a near perfect camera for me. It was extremely dark with the forest canopy. I'll try the Sigma 18-35 next. 
-Dave

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li.
Chris
 

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li.
Chris
 

CR just posted about another upcoming FW update confirmed by Canon:
Canon EOS-1D X Mark III
Canon Log 3 option
Lower bitrate option for 5.5K RAW video recording
Lower bit rate option for all IPB video recording modes
Canon EOS R5
Canon Log 3 option
Lower bit rate option for 8K RAW video recording
Lower bit rate option for all IPB video recording modes
Addition of the 119.88 fps option for Full HD (1080p) recording

THIS.
You have to hope that people see through it. A lot of them don't.
Jordan has no honour in this whatsoever, a bit like the Canon people responsible for and complicit in lying to customers.
This is a face saving firmware, it doesn't actually change anything fundamental about the usability or the bollocks segmentation strategy.
They are not even being at all generous with us - An extra 5 minutes after 1 hour of downtime on a shoot? Nobody works like this.
No apology. Secretive. Won't come clean.
If it's fine for the Sony A7S III to have normal recording times why not the EOS R5? Sony has a cine line as well but don't pull this kind of bollocks.
Also you'd think with the earlier promises of a firmware update for C-LOG 3 and C-RAW Lite, this would be a good time to make good on those too.

@Trek of Joy I was not aware of Brandon before so thanks for the heads up.
Very impressed. I have never been much of  Sony fan before but this unit and the lens options available are ticking just about every box except...
Price
I’d prefer 20 megapixies 
I’d prefer a tilt screen
None of the above are deal-breakers however.
Otherwise that XH2 had better be damn good and available by end of March 2021 otherwise for only the 3rd time in my 20 year professional career, I will be switching. 

Unlike those folks that switch 3 times in a year.
And then actually admit it in a specially made YouTube video...

That seems to be the case, but its a head scratcher. I was set to go all in on the RF mount with the R5, and RF lenses aren't cheap. I bought a R and the RF 24-70/2.8, I was set to get the holy trinity. I'll never buy a C300 - ever - as I need portability and the photo capabilities, but I was set to spend $10k+ and likely get the R6 down the line. More people buying into the system in a steeply declining market is a good thing as the lens lineup continues to grow, shame Canon doesn't see it that way. 
Chris

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li.
Chris