jamato8 wrote:
This is what I have used for a few years. Very well made, easy to apply and take off but stays put and has saved my sensor as I take falls and bang into rocks in my work. The edges are also very nicely polished and rounded. I don't see any real diminishing in brightness and actually like the appearance over the stock screen.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Does this work ok with the touchscreen?
I don't know. I haven't tried the TS. Still figuring everything out. :^)
edit:
Ok, I applied it and then set the touch screen. The focus follows my finger like it is on a leash, very good. Very good quality packaging as well and a six layer thin but very durable screen. To me, this screen gives a much better quality appearance both in looks and actual use. And it is easy to clean.
-
So far not overly impressed by the battery. I don't have anything that I know of that is turned on that shouldn't be but I will drop 10% in an hour just shooting a few images and I did some custom button changes. I will go out and do some actual work and see how it goes.
You browsed settings for hour and did some shooting and battery dropped 10%? That is huge boost from R2. NP-FW50 would have died already from such usage.
So far not overly impressed by the battery. I don't have anything that I know of that is turned on that shouldn't be but I will drop 10% in an hour just shooting a few images and I did some custom button changes. I will go out and do some actual work and see how it goes.
jamato8 wrote:
I don't know. I haven't tried the TS. Still figuring everything out. :^)
edit:
Ok, I applied it and then set the touch screen. The focus follows my finger like it is on a leash, very good. Very good quality packaging as well and a six layer thin but very durable screen. To me, this screen gives a much better quality appearance both in looks and actual use. And it is easy to clean.
-
So far not overly impressed by the battery. I don't have anything that I know of that is turned on that shouldn't be but I will drop 10% in an hour just shooting a few images and I did some custom button changes. I will go out and do some actual work and see how it goes. ...Show more →
Keep in mind the battery will sometimes discharge to recharge the internal clock/CMOS battery, particularly if the camera hasn't had a battery in it for some time, which would be the case for a newly-manufactured unit that's probably been sitting in Sony's factory warehouse for at least a few weeks. I've seen this with all A7-series cameras. Once the internal battery is charged then the "phantom" loss of main battery charge goes away.
MJKoski wrote:
You browsed settings for hour and did some shooting and battery dropped 10%? That is huge boost from R2. NP-FW50 would have died already from such usage.
Not with mine. I would have used about the same amount on the II. I have been using it since they came out and am very familiar with it.
snapsy wrote:
Keep in mind the battery will sometimes discharge to recharge the internal clock/CMOS battery, particularly if the camera hasn't had a battery in it for some time, which would be the case for a newly-manufactured unit that's probably been sitting in Sony's factory warehouse for at least a few weeks. I've seen this with all A7-series cameras. Once the internal battery is charged then the "phantom" loss of main battery charge goes away.
Will keep an eye on it. I left the camera on over night to see how it would do and it lost 1%, which is fine. So real use will tell and I am sure it will work out.
Very interested in the electronic shutter rate going up to 1/30 in compressed mode. I notice it's tested at being in continuous shooting, can anyone confirm if it's also 1/30 in single shot? I think I could get away with most all of my shooting being electronic with a 1/30 refresh, which is the only thing I really want on the a9 over this camera
trogdon wrote:
Very interested in the electronic shutter rate going up to 1/30 in compressed mode. I notice it's tested at being in continuous shooting, can anyone confirm if it's also 1/30 in single shot? I think I could get away with most all of my shooting being electronic with a 1/30 refresh, which is the only thing I really want on the a9 over this camera
It is 1/15 for single shot since all the single shot stuff is 14 bit (13 if you use compressed). It is only 1/30 when camera switches the ADCs to 12 bit mode; and that only happens when you select compressed and continuous. Mentioned in Help Guide too, "f you want to shoot images in the RAW format with less distortion, set [Drive Mode] to [Cont. Shooting] and [RAW File Type] to [Compressed]." Lesser Distortion equals 1/30.
Not sure if someone commented about this but did an informal test with the R2 and the R3 to see how far Eye AF works. With a 35mm , the Eye AF was gone at around 9ft in a bit dimly lit room with the R2. With the R3 it was solidly working to about 14' and then I had a few more feet of face detection where the R2 kind of stop Eye AF and Face detection before 10'.
I plan to do a more formal test tomorrow but so far, the range of Eye AF is one impressive thing..not to mention how much better and faster it is at keeping up with the eye.
In fact, just for fun I tried the R2 with the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 vs the R3 with the MB and Canon 35mm 1.4 Lii and the R3 with the canon was faster and better at keeping up with the movements I was doing vs the R2 with a native lens.
JonathanP wrote:
I just wondered if anyone who has moved from the A7rRii to Riii who wears glasses has noticed any improvement with the view into the EVF. I understand it has more resolution, but wondered if the optics have improved for glasses wearers?
I find with my Rii that the extra distance introduced by my glasses means I don't easily get a complete view of the EVF - it feels like the entrance hole is too small. Not a big problem, but would be wonderful to see an improvement.
Thanks,
Jonathan
I have an a7rii and wear glasses, but I don't shoot with them on - I adjust the diopter and shoot without them. Even so, I find the eye relief to be short on the a7rii (and also the a6300). I got to handle the a7riii today. My impression is that eye relief is improved, but only very slightly.
Parariss wrote:
I have an a7rii and wear glasses, but I don't shoot with them on - I adjust the diopter and shoot without them. Even so, I find the eye relief to be short on the a7rii (and also the a6300). I got to handle the a7riii today. My impression is that eye relief is improved, but only very slightly.
You might be right, but my sense is that there is no improvement. So if there is some, it's indeed very small...
After 17 years of knowing Canon DSLRs blindfolded, this menu system is making the learning curve a bit steeper than I anticipated. I guess once I'm more familiar with the potential of each function (and their menu location) it will get easier to program.
As far as the camera itself, I like the compactness of the body, however I miss the ergonomics of the Canon bodies, I guess things like this just part of the transition process.
Spent the day reading on researching online, I can't wait to try it on the field tomorrow.
Kronologix wrote:
After 17 years of knowing Canon DSLRs blindfolded, this menu system is making the learning curve a bit steeper than I anticipated. I guess once I'm more familiar with the potential of each function (and their menu location) it will get easier to program.
As far as the camera itself, I like the compactness of the body, however I miss the ergonomics of the Canon bodies, I guess things like this just part of the transition process.
Spent the day reading on researching online, I can't wait to try it on the field tomorrow.
Even using a Nikon D500 after being a Canon user for 20 years was a bit of a curve. It's now feeling more intuitive but the Nikon ergonomics aren't quite as good IMO and it definitely takes longer to set-up the camera than a Canon. The Sony reminds me more of the Olympus experience, lot's of customization, but poor menu system and not sure about the Sony manual, it's seems way too short for such an advanced camera at a paltry 96 pages, but the Olympus manual for my E-M5 was a joke.
Is there a more detailed user guide than the one at Sony?
Stoffer wrote:
Interesting. The readout speed is almost twice as fast, about 1/30 second, IF you set the file format to compressed raw, and the drive mode to continuous (C). Otherwise it is 1/15 second as before and as expected.
So far, based on Jim's latest tests, we could summarize it like this:
Silent shutter + uncompressed raw + single shot = 14-bit precision (1/15 sensor scan time)
Silent shutter + uncompressed raw + continuous-mode = 13-bit precision with same noise level as above (1/15 sensor scan time)
Silent shutter + compressed raw + continuous-mode = 12-bit precision and more noise, but we get 1/30 sensor scan time.
How about Silent shutter + compressed + single shot?
