Jump to content

Sony A7S III (Or will it be A7H?) set for July - video specs tease


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

The S1H is hardly a completely different camera and experience to the A7sIII and R5.  Its still another hybrid, with admittedly poorer AF than the competition; but still comparable.  We all have different needs and requirements.  Mine is long form recording, making the R5 less desirable to me as the S1H is less for you due to your own needs.  If you're a hybrid shooter that needs higher pixel count for photos than 12MP, you won't be looking at the A7sIII.  Comparing these cameras is only natural as features on one will be desired in the other.  

I agree the Netflix talk was totally irrelevant to this particular discussion.  

 

If you're a FF hybrid shooter, then one of your other bodies will probably be a 24, 42 or 61 mp a7/a9 that you shoot alongside the a7s3, or even one of the aps-c cameras. Most a7s3 buyers that shoot lots of stills aren't getting it as their only camera to cover all photo/video needs, most already have a camera or two - likely other E-mount bodies. And if your final delivery is all social - which is increasingly common these days, 12mp isn't really any sort of an issue. But focusing on the 12mp thing without considering the fact you can get a 42mp a7r2 for about $800 used would just be ignoring reality, that's a $4300 kit that shoots much better stills than the S1h at a minimal extra cash outlay compared to a S1h body. And that's not factoring the bloated costs of Panasonic's L-mount lenses or the limited total options in L-mount, which will drive the costs up fast. Adapting kills AF, and again one of the big selling points of the a7s3 - and others like the R5 is the stellar AF. I'd like waveforms, shutter angle and a few other S1h goodies, but not at the expense of Panasonic's AF and buying into the L-mount. I picked up a mint 36mp a7r not too long ago for $500. An a6300 runs about $350 used, that's peanuts to have one in the bag as a knockaround body if you want a cheap 24mp cam, an a6000 is even less. Everyone's needs are different, YMMV.

Cheers

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You could literally post a frame from R5 or Arri Alexa, say it's a Sony A7siii frame and someone would say the color isnt that good and that something is wrong with the skin tones.

These recent camera releases have resulted in a significant amount of velocity  and trolling right across the web.  Every camera is good these days. Every single one. Nor is a single one of them

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li. Chris  

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Trek of Joy said:

But focusing on the 12mp thing without considering the fact you can get a 42mp a7r2 for about $800 used would just be ignoring reality, that's a $4300 kit that shoots much better stills than the S1h at a minimal extra cash outlay compared to a S1h body. 

You can use that argument to justify any camera weakness..  why worry about the R5 overheating, when most video shooters will have a proper cinema camera to hand to shoot longer content.  I've read that argument a lot lately.  Or real Video creators don't use AF to justify poor or lack of any AF... 

Your argument is just the same thing in a different package.   If I want a hybrid camera that can shoot great video and photos at a decent resolution applicable to 2020 and not 2008, and don't want 2 bodies, the A7sIII won't cut it.  Its as big an obstacle to me as a lack of AF is for you.  Of course there are workarounds.  There are workarounds for the Pocket 4K deficiencies that I use, workarounds for the S1H and even the R5.   That's not the point, which is that no camera is perfect, but depending on our needs, it can be god enough for our use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Django said:

No camera is perfect. We all have different needs.

S1H is Netflix approved as it is one of the only large sensor hybrids that check marks their capture requirements ie. Timecode, high bitrate 10-bit 4:2:2 Log, DCI 4K, Anamorphic support. 

 

 

It seems to me the S1H is approved only for 422 all I 400mbs.

The only cameras approved for Anamorphic capture are the Canon C500 ii, the Canon C700 FF, and the Sony Venice.

It looks like Netflix approves camera modes generally rather than cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, noone said:

It seems to me the S1H is approved only for 422 all I 400mbs.

The only cameras approved for Anamorphic capture are the Canon C500 ii, the Canon C700 FF, and the Sony Venice.

It looks like Netflix approves camera modes generally rather than cameras.

I meant to add, (to keep it relevant) that I am not sure the A7s iii will meet any of the current requirements other than maybe externally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveV4D said:

You can use that argument to justify any camera weakness..  why worry about the R5 overheating, when most video shooters will have a proper cinema camera to hand to shoot longer content.  I've read that argument a lot lately.  Or real Video creators don't use AF to justify poor or lack of any AF... 

Your argument is just the same thing in a different package.   If I want a hybrid camera that can shoot great video and photos at a decent resolution applicable to 2020 and not 2008, and don't want 2 bodies, the A7sIII won't cut it.  Its as big an obstacle to me as a lack of AF is for you.  Of course there are workarounds.  There are workarounds for the Pocket 4K deficiencies that I use, workarounds for the S1H and even the R5.   That's not the point, which is that no camera is perfect, but depending on our needs, it can be god enough for our use.

What is "decent resolution"?

Why is it so many people would rather have a (say) 24mp camera just because it has more MP than a 12mp camera when (in the case of the A7s cameras) they may well be a better choice for some people as a stills photo camera?   

If this IS a better camera at high ISOs than its grandfather, there will not be a current camera with greater DR once you hit around ISO 25600 and it will also be the first Sony with 16 bit stills.

 

I would also not be surprised if a lot of people who get it DO suddenly think it is pretty good as a hybrid (video and photos) as I think the CDAF of the mk i and ii was a far bigger limiting thing than the pixel count.    

I do agree that it will be much more thought of as a video camera but that it may surprise a few people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, noone said:

What is "decent resolution"?

Why is it so many people would rather have a (say) 24mp camera just because it has more MP than a 12mp camera when (in the case of the A7s cameras) they may well be a better choice for some people as a stills photo camera?   

 

I think a resolution that has slightly less pixels than a camera I purchaed over 10 years ago is a step back for photo use.  When a Pocket 6K video camera gives high res stills than a hybrid Professional camera costing twice more, also seems like going backwards than forward.

Ultimately what is a decent resolution depends on your needs.  If I replace my GH5 with a fullframe mirrorless hybrid, I want it to take my work into 2021, not 2009.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

I think a resolution that has slightly less pixels than a camera I purchaed over 10 years ago is a step back for photo use.  When a Pocket 6K video camera gives high res stills than a hybrid Professional camera costing twice more, also seems like going backwards than forward.

Ultimately what is a decent resolution depends on your needs.  If I replace my GH5 with a fullframe mirrorless hybrid, I want it to take my work into 2021, not 2009.

To each their own.

Canon R and RP are much higher MP cameras than my first version A7s but for me, while the Canons ARE nice cameras (I almost got an RP recently), I think I would still MUCH prefer the lowly 12mp camera for photos, for a start the (older) A7s has a stop more DR at base and it is out to a stop and a half at ISO 25600 and the photos I take would be used at the same size from any of them and would print equally well at any size I would use and if I ever DID need larger, there are plenty of software programs I could use to upsize.

Yes, i would have more limited cropping in camera choice  and APSC mode is a bit lower than I would like.

Both those Canons would run rings around my A7s for auto focus (AFC anyway) and the A7s iii fixes that (not that it has been an issue for me).     I hated the Canon 7D as a camera and the 24mp A7 was nice enough (and better at base ISO for photos) but not nice enough against the A7s for me to keep them both.

A modern 12mp camera is NOT the same as a 12mp camera from 2009 (EG Leica M9 which is already more than 2 stps of DR behind an A7s even at ISO 1600.

Again, I now I am hardly going to convince anyone but I suggest there will be a fair number of people who will be surprised by this new camera for photos (especially if their main use is video but they do shoot a lot of stills) and also for low light photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to decide between this and the FX9.   Forget the sound.  That's done externally anyway. 

They both shoot at H.264/XAVC S-I 4:2:2 10-Bit UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p [240 to 600 Mb/s]

600 Mb/s.  So, same as FX-9.

What is the difference between 600 Mb/s on an A7SIII and an FX-9?

So, 7K for Venice color?

Don't care about slow motion.  Not one bit.

Rolling shutter IS an issue.

Image stabilization.  Yeah, that's a factor but not a deal-breaker.

Why do I like the FX-9 footage better in the videos I've seen?

600 Mb/s is 600 Mb/s, am I right?

Or is Sony crippling the cameras so as to not compete with their other products?

Sort of like Intel would cripple Celeron chips vs. Pentium chips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is where you get into the weeds. Clearly they aren’t the same. Color is better on the FX9, thats easy to notice. But your right, the FX9 footage just looks better. It’s that little bit of sprinkling of...something...that makes it look different.

That, or its confirmation bias, because we know it’s more expensive = better? I don’t know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Viscount Omega said:

Trying to decide between this and the FX9.   Forget the sound.  That's done externally anyway. 

Why do I like the FX-9 footage better in the videos I've seen?

Sorry for my pure and probably wrong opinion in this very thread, but you provoke it with question - I fully agree, regarding just IQ, all off till now here and there provided footage of A7S III look comparatively very so-so, or not to the upper standard 😞 (Actually, somewhere up in thread posted review by that Chinese guy, footage - although mostly 120p - even look horible to me.) Phillip Bloom probably made it look the best between other reviewers, but IMO it is pretty (even incomparably) far away of FX9 or Venice regarding image fullness... Up to now  footage mostly look to me tiny or, to say ultracontemporary - little bit overheated...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Viscount Omega said:

Trying to decide between this and the FX9.   Forget the sound.  That's done externally anyway. 

They both shoot at H.264/XAVC S-I 4:2:2 10-Bit UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p [240 to 600 Mb/s]

600 Mb/s.  So, same as FX-9.

What is the difference between 600 Mb/s on an A7SIII and an FX-9?

So, 7K for Venice color?

Don't care about slow motion.  Not one bit.

Rolling shutter IS an issue.

Image stabilization.  Yeah, that's a factor but not a deal-breaker.

Why do I like the FX-9 footage better in the videos I've seen?

600 Mb/s is 600 Mb/s, am I right?

Or is Sony crippling the cameras so as to not compete with their other products?

Sort of like Intel would cripple Celeron chips vs. Pentium chips.

I would say NR would ruin an organic looking image. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Viscount Omega said:

Well, yeah.  But that has been worked on for years and continues to evolve.

Noise reduction is only part of the equation.

True but I don't think the FX9 is using noise reduction like the A7s3. Also yes I think noise reduction could be it. 

I guess the other two factors are color and motion cadence. I've never noticed motion cadence myself, though its a thing according to many people. I am also color blind haha. 

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...