Jump to content

A7SIII (and why you should wait before buying GH5)


wolf33d
 Share

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, noone said:

Oops, this was wrong in terms of exposure as of course there are lenses at and near 42.5 mm as fast and faster though not enough to overcome the sensor size difference in ISO.

DOF could not be matched currently though that is really going to be very shallow DOF at close distances.

You wrote: "Again, the speed boosters are not changing the camera, they are changing the lens.     I have two focal reducers and they are just giving you a faster lens as well as wider lens."

I'm perfectly aware of that. I didn't say the speed booster changed the camera, it affects the light that passes through the lens and provides a wider angle of view---the EFFECT is similar, if not identical in many cases, to a larger sensor camera----the EFFECT--that is, what viewers of the footage will actually see.

In the end both cams and methods have their virtues and vices. I've owned an a7sii--and it is an amazing camera, but color has always been an issue for me with Sony--until I bought the a6500.

Low light was amazing on the a7sii, but I'm not a spelunker and do little to no shooting in caves or places where I don't have adequate lighting, so the ultra low light and high ISO--for me--ended up being little more than a parlor trick--nice, amazing, but in the end, regarding real world usefulness, it was a feature that provided little practical benefit. If I ever shoot caving expeditions or do a documentary on a second story guy I may have to reconsider.

There's a lot of choices out there and progress has been amazing. But just because it exists it doesn't mean you have to have it. You only need what you need, and the a7sii is definitely over kill for what I do.

Despite all you say, which would take me more time than I have to respond to in detail, I believe the a6500 and GH5 are cams that will provide the lighter, less expensive, and more ergonomic option. I know I sound like a broken record, but I really do wish the 6500 had a better shell, didn't overheat, and was rid of those absolutely HORRIBLE batteries--gawd awful! Make a professional camera--provide a professional battery dammit--and don't put it out until you can run it without shutting down at unexpected times.

But what I really wish is Canon would get off their asses and make what they are capable of making in and aps-c cam and in a mirrorless--in 4k!!! and stop their horrible policies that demand the highest prices for the most niggardly amount of features. They're capable--but I don't think those tight asses will ever do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Low light was amazing on the a7sii, but I'm not a spelunker and do little to no shooting in caves or places where I don't have adequate lighting, so the ultra low light and high ISO--for me--ended up being little more than a parlor trick--nice, amazing, but in the end, regarding real world usefulness, it was a feature that provided little practical benefit. If I ever shoot caving expeditions or do a documentary on a second story guy I may have to reconsider.

A normal pub or club or walk around the city at night is enough of a difference for me.

No way I would use any M4/3 for that (I could but would be limiting myself to brighter opportunities and or using a fast lens only).

To each their own.

I will always want/need a secondary camera (APSC or M4/3 probably) I think and currently the GX7 is fine for that.     I am surprised that the G80/G85 hasn't improved all that much for stills on the GX7 and seemingly not at all for high ISO.  

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G80-versus-Sony-A7S-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7___1118_949_901

 

  Video is a different matter and it seems much better for that.

The A7siii is probably not for me either but that is because I am happy with what I have though I am sure I would love it.

Happy shooting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, noone said:

A normal pub or club or walk around the city at night is enough of a difference for me.

No way I would use any M4/3 for that (I could but would be limiting myself to brighter opportunities and or using a fast lens only).

To each their own.

 

I'd probably use the a6500 for that. Have fun bearing the load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I'd probably use the a6500 for that. Have fun bearing the load.

Bearing the load?        The A6500 weighs a massive 36 grams less than the A7s!

My kit I take to a gig or for very early morning walks would typically be-

A7s

Sony Zeiss 55 1.8      which is not a lot heavier than the little APSC Sony 50 1.8 OSS (I had one and loved it) but the FF lens is really nice and can be used in APSC mode.

Canon EF 100mm f2 with very lightweight Fotga smart adapter.

Canon 17 f4 L TS-E.

 

The Canon 17mm is the only one that I would consider to be heavy but it is worth it and nothing else like it for M4/3 or APSC currently and with the rest of the kit is easily taken for a night out (walking, I live in the city centre).    I can use the lens on M4/3 or APSC but of course it isn't as wide.       I can also use it on a focal reducer (I do on my GX7 on rare occasions).

 

Sometimes I will vary it and take the 24 1.4 instead of the 17 in which case it really is a lightweight kit (the FD 24 1.4 is the lightest of its kind and lighter than some 25mm M4/3 lenses and not a huge amount heavier than the 12mm 1.4),

Other times I will take the FE kit lens and others Canon 40 2.8 STM and/or the 85 1.2 or even a 150 2.8 or others.

 

Next gig I will take the 17, 55 and 150 2.8 and small hotshoe flash (for punter pics).

The other thing is if I DID take my GX7 instead, the weight and size of my bag would not be very different at all if I don't take the 17 and even if I do, it would not be a huge difference.    the bigger difference is I would be shooting a lot less because of too low a light level.

Daytime, and I may well take the GX7 instead.     Especially if going to the zoo or similar.     That 150 2.8 makes a very nice 300mm FF angle of view lens with fast AF on my GX7.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, noone said:

Bearing the load?        The A6500 weighs a massive 36 grams less than the A7s!

My kit I take to a gig or for very early morning walks would typically be-

A7s

Sony Zeiss 55 1.8      which is not a lot heavier than the little APSC Sony 50 1.8 OSS (I had one and loved it) but the FF lens is really nice and can be used in APSC mode.

Canon EF 100mm f2 with very lightweight Fotga smart adapter.

Canon 17 f4 L TS-E.

 

The Canon 17mm is the only one that I would consider to be heavy but it is worth it and nothing else like it for M4/3 or APSC currently and with the rest of the kit is easily taken for a night out (walking, I live in the city centre).    I can use the lens on M4/3 or APSC but of course it isn't as wide.       I can also use it on a focal reducer (I do on my GX7 on rare occasions).

 

Sometimes I will vary it and take the 24 1.4 instead of the 17 in which case it really is a lightweight kit (the FD 24 1.4 is the lightest of its kind and lighter than some 25mm M4/3 lenses and not a huge amount heavier than the 12mm 1.4),

Other times I will take the FE kit lens and others Canon 40 2.8 STM and/or the 85 1.2 or even a 150 2.8 or others.

 

Next gig I will take the 17, 55 and 150 2.8 and small hotshoe flash (for punter pics).

The other thing is if I DID take my GX7 instead, the weight and size of my bag would not be very different at all if I don't take the 17 and even if I do, it would not be a huge difference.    the bigger difference is I would be shooting a lot less because of too low a light level.

Daytime, and I may well take the GX7 instead.     Especially if going to the zoo or similar.     That 150 2.8 makes a very nice 300mm FF angle of view lens with fast AF on my GX7.

 

 

I knew it. You're just the kind of guy who has to have the last word...compulsive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predict the A7SIII or A9 or whatever it will be called will oversample FF over 24-28MP at 4k30p finally matching what NX1 did. It will do 60p with a S35 mode doing 4k60p and FHD240p. The PDAF will work continuously in video even with non native lens. It will be a great general purpose camera. Sony would be thinking what would make the A7SII sell better? The answer is not necessarily make it break new ground but to make it less specialized for a wider audience. It will feature a great many checkbox items and great IQ in all respects but not orthogonally all the time e.g. 60p will be S35 only.

I would be surprised if the camera end up having only 20MP because it will strain readout and processing to move and crunch that much data at 60p. Sony is hard to ignore the unexpected success of A7RII S35 but not repeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, conurus said:

I predict the A7SIII or A9 or whatever it will be called will oversample FF over 24-28MP at 4k30p finally matching what NX1 did. It will do 60p with a S35 mode doing 4k60p and FHD240p. The PDAF will work continuously in video even with non native lens. It will be a great general purpose camera. Sony would be thinking what would make the A7SII sell better? The answer is not necessarily make it break new ground but to make it less specialized for a wider audience. It will feature a great many checkbox items and great IQ in all respects but not orthogonally all the time e.g. 60p will be S35 only.

I would be surprised if the camera end up having only 20MP because it will strain readout and processing to move and crunch that much data at 60p. Sony is hard to ignore the unexpected success of A7RII S35 but not repeat it.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-upcoming-sony-ff-e-mount-camera-around-20mp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They problem as I see it as that the GH5, on a spec for spec basis, competes with the FS5/FS7. In order to compete in pure capabilities, Sony would have to canibalize their own high end cameras. Don't get me wrong, that sounds great, but I just don't think it's probable. Plus, on a pure reliability/ergonomics/ease of use level, none of Sony's mirrorless line holds a candle to Panasonic's. 

Low light performance has reached the point of diminishing returns, frame rates are impressive all around, and everyone's sorted out internal 4K. The technology has begun to plateau, begging the question: how will everyone differentiate themselves? Panasonic rocks in ergonomics, bit depth, and stabilization. Canon has pretty color, lens selection, and DPAF. Sony still has the edge in extremely low light, but other than that...What do they offer over everyone else? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

What do they offer over everyone else?

They still have a FF sensor used FF.   

Don't knock low light performance as being a small thing either.

For most here who light their videos or shoot in the day time it might not matter.

Just out of curiosity regards a few different threads here I have been following, I put my old 300 2.8 lens on A7s on my cheap $5 tripod from a charity shop and stuck it out the window in the middle of the night.      I focused on a sign some distance away and used Clear Image zoom.      Was at ISO 51200 1/50.

Ok this is lame but I am now thinking of how I can use this properly.

 

300 2.8 clear image zoom.mp4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, noone said:

They still have a FF sensor used FF.   

Don't knock low light performance as being a small thing either.

For most here who light their videos or shoot in the day time it might not matter.

Just out of curiosity regards a few different threads here I have been following, I put my old 300 2.8 lens on A7s on my cheap $5 tripod from a charity shop and stuck it out the window in the middle of the night.      I focused on a sign some distance away and used Clear Image zoom.      Was at ISO 51200 1/50.

Ok this is lame but I am now thinking of how I can use this properly.

 

300 2.8 clear image zoom.mp4

Most manufacturers look fine at 3200/6400 these days. Even in the evening or at night, I've never needed more. 

And personally, I find full frame overrated. Difficult to focus, and easily matched with a speed booster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Most manufacturers look fine at 3200 these days. Even in the evening or at night, I've never needed more. 

And personally, I find full frame overrated. Difficult to focus, and easily matched with a speed booster.

I agree that most cameras are fine at ISO 3200 now.

Most people wont ever need (much) higher but for those that do, it really does matter a lot.        I don't need 4k or great slow motion or even great AFC but I recognize that others will.

A lot of my shooting is done over ISO 12800 and when I was using DSLRs I always wanted better high ISO.

FF just gives me more choice.      I don't find everything easily matched with a speed booster and something's not at all.

There are things I can not do with my Sony that I can with my Panasonic and vice versa.

The Council here is going to use three of my photos in a document they are launching next week.    Two from the A7s and one from the GX7 and none could have been done with the other.

Choice is better than ever now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, noone said:

I agree that most cameras are fine at ISO 3200 now.

Most people wont ever need (much) higher but for those that do, it really does matter a lot.        I don't need 4k or great slow motion or even great AFC but I recognize that others will.

A lot of my shooting is done over ISO 12800 and when I was using DSLRs I always wanted better high ISO.

FF just gives me more choice.      I don't find everything easily matched with a speed booster and something's not at all.

There are things I can not do with my Sony that I can with my Panasonic and vice versa.

The Council here is going to use three of my photos in a document they are launching next week.    Two from the A7s and one from the GX7 and none could have been done with the other.

Choice is better than ever now!

Photos, or videos? I was under the impression we were just talking video.

What do you do that requires 12,800 on the regular? Even the weddings I've worked rarely even need 3200.

And if you don't need great slow motion, 4K, or autofocus, and take lots of stills, what does Sony provide over a D750, for example?

The point remains: besides extreme low light and sensor size (which is a non-issue imo), Sony lacks a definitive image quality/usability differentiator over their competition's offerings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Photos, or videos? I was under the impression we were just talking video.

What do you do that requires 12,800 on the regular? Even the weddings I've worked rarely even need 3200.

And if you don't need great slow motion, 4K, or autofocus, and take lots of stills, what does Sony provide over a D750, for example?

The point remains: besides extreme low light and sensor size (which is a non-issue imo), Sony lacks a definitive image quality/usability differentiator over their competition's offerings.

Mostly photo but also some video.

A lot of live music.    Sometimes I have the luxury of a very nice stage but other times it can be a outdoor beer garden at a bar at night in the middle of winter.

My ISOs can easily go up to 102400 sometimes for full band shots or musicians not in the spotlight.      Individual shots will mostly be at much lower ISOs.

I also use lenses like a 17mm TS walk around at night.

Sports at night is another.      By having decent high ISO I can shoot at much faster shutter speeds.     I mostly use an old manual focus lens for that so AF doesn't matter (and I would take better high ISO over fast AF for night sports anytime for my uses. (football and harness racing and greyhound racing, not that I do enough of any lately.

D750 seems a good camera but isn't as good for high ISO and I am done with DSLRs for the most part now (after having had five).     I also prefer Canon lenses as they can adapt easily to both Sony and M4/3 with smart adapters.      D750 doesn't have as good high ISO, doesn't have digital/clearzoom, only has 1/4000 max shutter speed, lower flash sync speed and is larger heavier, doesn't have an EVF and plenty more.     I love the Sony ISO wheel, EVF, customization, ergonomics and more.

Don't get me wrong, most people might prefer a D750 to an A7 but not for me.     Same with all those other things other makers have that Sony doesn't.     That is all great stuff but not so much for me.

We each buy what suits us (I hope).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, noone said:

Mostly photo but also some video.

A lot of live music.    Sometimes I have the luxury of a very nice stage but other times it can be a outdoor beer garden at a bar at night in the middle of winter.

My ISOs can easily go up to 102400 sometimes for full band shots or musicians not in the spotlight.      Individual shots will mostly be at much lower ISOs.

I also use lenses like a 17mm TS walk around at night.

Sports at night is another.      By having decent high ISO I can shoot at much faster shutter speeds.     I mostly use an old manual focus lens for that so AF doesn't matter (and I would take better high ISO over fast AF for night sports anytime for my uses. (football and harness racing and greyhound racing, not that I do enough of any lately.

D750 seems a good camera but isn't as good for high ISO and I am done with DSLRs for the most part now (after having had five).     I also prefer Canon lenses as they can adapt easily to both Sony and M4/3 with smart adapters.      D750 doesn't have as good high ISO, doesn't have digital/clearzoom, only has 1/4000 max shutter speed, lower flash sync speed and is larger heavier, doesn't have an EVF and plenty more.     I love the Sony ISO wheel, EVF, customization, ergonomics and more.

Don't get me wrong, most people might prefer a D750 to an A7 but not for me.     Same with all those other things other makers have that Sony doesn't.     That is all great stuff but not so much for me.

We each buy what suits us (I hope).

 

Well the forum is focused on video, as was my post. I understand photographic needs perfectly well, but was not factoring them into my discussion of the marketplace's offerings to video shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Well the forum is focused on video, as was my post. I understand photographic needs perfectly well, but was not factoring them into my discussion of the marketplace's offerings to video shooting.

Well it does apply to video.          I got the camera for stills but using it for video more and more.

Happy t leave it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...