It may be a couple of weeks too early to really answer this question, because there are not enough full reviews or A73 cameras in the wild yet. But I thought many forum members might be interested in having well-informed responses to this issue in one thread. I know that I am interested in collecting the details on this.
Apart from price and resolution/file-size, what are the advantages and disadvantages of these two cameras in relation to each other?
Are there any reasons to prefer the A73 to the A7R3?
Sensor quality?
Dynamic range?
Color qualities?
White balance?
Electronic shutter differences?
Mechanical shutter differences?
Flash differences?
Noise?
Low light shooting?
High ISO qualities?
JPEG quality?
Autofocus speed, accuracy, sensitivity, and features?
EVF differences?
LCD differences?
Touch-screen differences?
Buffer differences?
IBIS differences?
Time-to-shoot and general responsiveness?
What are the best/most-ideal applications for each camera?
How can you dismiss resolution file size in this equation. But the simple answer bigger is better is not that simple. Does the larger pixels of the III make for better tonal gradation than the greater sharpness of the RIII? Then in real life how much difference is there between 24 and 42 mp? If price is an issue and you can't afford the RIII are you better off with the III or the RII?
The price is probably the biggest point of the A7iii. I picked up the first batch of A7iii in my local area as a pre ordered body.
Do I want an A7Riii yes I do but analyzing most of my photography and print size I think 24MP from the cheaper A7iii is very good. I do see how I'd enjoy having more MP. This is why I'd love to have an A7Riii as well.
Whatever fits a photogs needs as proper tools is the "best". Just like any trade or job we can simply open our wallets and analyze our budget and buy more tools. More tools just allows more versatility!!
I'm quite shocked in how much I'm enjoying the responsive body of the Sony system. As a Canon and Fuji shooter I think I'm gonna dig the Sony system and eco system.
Better AF on the A7 III, at least with coverage, and probably a little better overall AF.
R III has a higher resolution viewfinder. (same magnification)
Other than that, they are basically identical.
The EVF would seem to be a big deal, but frankly, the EVF on the A7 III is outstanding. Unlike the R II, it doesn't get soft when magnifying, and it's huge and bright and clear. It's a big step up from my A7 II in that department.
chiron wrote:
It may be a couple of weeks too early to really answer this question, because there are not enough full reviews or A73 cameras in the wild yet. But I thought many forum members might be interested in having well-informed responses to this issue in one thread. I know that I am interested in collecting the details on this.
Apart from price and resolution/file-size, what are the advantages and disadvantages of these two cameras in relation to each other?
Are there any reasons to prefer the A73 to the A7R3?
Sensor quality?
Dynamic range?
Color qualities?
White balance?
Electronic shutter differences?
Mechanical shutter differences?
Flash differences?
Noise?
Low light shooting?
High ISO qualities?
JPEG quality?
Autofocus speed, accuracy, sensitivity, and features?
EVF differences?
LCD differences?
Touch-screen differences?
Buffer differences?
IBIS differences?
Time-to-shoot and general responsiveness?
What are the best/most-ideal applications for each camera?
Nice comprehensive list of questions. Here are my best answer from trying to understand the new cameras:
Sensor quality? 7R III has more resolution obviously that makes it a better sensor, but otherwise similar.
Dynamic range? Very similar
Color qualities? A7r III has a bit higher color depth score at DXO, but I'm not sure there is much too it.
White balance? I haven't seen anything indicating meaningful differences
Electronic shutter differences? I am not sure. We will know more when Jim Kasson tests the A7 III
Mechanical shutter differences? I am not sure but it appears they are the same mechanical shutter. I may be wrong about that, however.
Flash differences? The A7r III has a PC port which can be very useful for using some flashes; the A7 III does not. Otherwise they appear very similar at least in all reports I have seen.
Noise? Very similar when looking at similar output size
Low light shooting? Very similar
High ISO qualities? Very similar
JPEG quality? Very similar as far as I can tell
Autofocus speed, accuracy, sensitivity, and features? I don't think we will know until the A7 III is more fully tested. The A7 III obviously has more points and covers more of the sensor, but speed, accuracy, sensitivity and features I expect to be pretty similar, but the proof will be in the testing.
EVF differences? A7r III has a bigger EVF than A7 III
LCD differences? A7r III has a higher resolution LCD than A7 III
Touch-screen differences? None that I have seen reported
Buffer differences? Image resources tests the A7 III as having a bit deeper buffer with 40 Raw images for the A7 III and 30 for the A7r III
IBIS differences? Only the obvious pixel shift being available for the A7r III and not for the A7 III. Pixel shift takes advantage of the IBIS system
Time-to-shoot and general responsiveness? I haven't seen tests yet. Unfortunately image resources only reports these tests for the A7r III, which has very good results, but no tests for the A7 III
What are the best/most-ideal applications for each camera? The A7r III is a wonderful camera for everything in my view except for fast action, where it will be outclassed by the A9. The A7 III will be excellent for everything except where very high resolution is needed and it too will be outclassed for fast action by the A9. They both cover a wide range of subjects. The A9 is still the better choice for fast action and when ultimate AF is needed.
I would be interested in learning about how the AF of the cameras compare. I’m talking about focus acquisition speed and ability to track, in real life use. Is there a significant or noticeable difference in the cameras? I know the A7III has more coverage area with AF points but how does that translate in actual use, from people that have both cameras or have used both cameras.
I rented an A7III to take with me to the Columbia River Gorge next week. I sold my A7RII (not III) a few weeks ago because I simply didn't use it much. It was nice for landscapes, but I personally never liked the greens it produced compared to my Canon. I'm red/green colorblind, so your mileage may vary and probably will, so no flames on that one please.
To me, the A7III would seem like more of an all-around shooter if highest resolution isn't a big deal. I hadn't sold my two Loxia lenses yet, which led me to rent and try it. I can also mount my Canon lenses with the adapter. Obviously, I won't be able to comment on AF with the Loxias, but I like to manual focus almost anything except people anyway.
it won't be an A7RIII comparison as the OP asked, but I will be glad to give my impressions and compare to the Canon 5DIV, which has only minimally more resolution.
I'd like to know how they compare in terms of IQ / rendering. Love A7R2/3 images. Wonder if A73 has the same IQ / rendering with just less MP or is more like A9.
milkod2001 wrote:
I'd like to know how they compare in terms of IQ / rendering. Love A7R2/3 images. Wonder if A73 has the same IQ / rendering with just less MP or is more like A9.
Yes, I agree that this is a very interesting question.
How would you compare the rendering of the A7R3 and the A9? How do you find them different from each other?
DougVaughn wrote:
I rented an A7III to take with me to the Columbia River Gorge next week. I sold my A7RII (not III) a few weeks ago because I simply didn't use it much. It was nice for landscapes, but I personally never liked the greens it produced compared to my Canon. I'm red/green colorblind, so your mileage may vary and probably will, so no flames on that one please.
To me, the A7III would seem like more of an all-around shooter if highest resolution isn't a big deal. I hadn't sold my two Loxia lenses yet, which led me to rent and try it. I can also mount my Canon lenses with the adapter. Obviously, I won't be able to comment on AF with the Loxias, but I like to manual focus almost anything except people anyway.
it won't be an A7RIII comparison as the OP asked, but I will be glad to give my impressions and compare to the Canon 5DIV, which has only minimally more resolution. ...Show more →
Be interesting to have the comparison. There are a lot of Canon folk stopping by this forum lately.
Iman113 wrote:
I would be interested in learning about how the AF of the cameras compare. I’m talking about focus acquisition speed and ability to track, in real life use. Is there a significant or noticeable difference in the cameras? I know the A7III has more coverage area with AF points but how does that translate in actual use, from people that have both cameras or have used both cameras.
The AF of the A73 is said to be quicker and better in low light. We'll need real reviews to know for sure, but that makes sense given the larger number of PD focus points on the A73.
Also, the electronic shutter on the A73 is said to have a faster read-out than than that on the A7R3. The A73's read-out speed is not as fast as the A9, but quicker than the A7R3. That should affect focus acquisition in AF-C and multi-frame modes especially.
DougVaughn wrote:
I rented an A7III to take with me to the Columbia River Gorge next week. I sold my A7RII (not III) a few weeks ago because I simply didn't use it much. It was nice for landscapes, but I personally never liked the greens it produced compared to my Canon. I'm red/green colorblind, so your mileage may vary and probably will, so no flames on that one please.
To me, the A7III would seem like more of an all-around shooter if highest resolution isn't a big deal. I hadn't sold my two Loxia lenses yet, which led me to rent and try it. I can also mount my Canon lenses with the adapter. Obviously, I won't be able to comment on AF with the Loxias, but I like to manual focus almost anything except people anyway.
it won't be an A7RIII comparison as the OP asked, but I will be glad to give my impressions and compare to the Canon 5DIV, which has only minimally more resolution. ...Show more →
Can you do a comparison between 5D IV vs A7III. What genre of photography do you shoot? Are you using any adapated lens?
Can you do a comparison between 5D IV vs A7III. What genre of photography do you shoot? Are you using any adapated lens?
I plan on doing some comparisons between the two once I have my keeper shots. I will be shooting landscape next week but also mess around with portraits and everything in between. Yes, I will adapt my Canon lenses to the A7III also. Aside from those, I sometimes adapt C/Y lenses but won't mess with that while traveling.
level1photog wrote:
Can you do a comparison between 5D IV vs A7III. What genre of photography do you shoot? Are you using any adapated lens?
People can compare camera's but what's interesting is we all have personal preference.
So far I've adapted my Canon glass to the A73. It works reasonably well considering I'm using an adapter.
With a Sigma MC-11 video AF does NOT work. I'm not sure but AF-C is deactivated and grey out.
With my Canon 5d3/5d4 I get full confidence in shooting events in low light. I like the fact that red focus assist just lands every single shot in low lit dancefloors or extremely dark low contrast situations. This is where my fuji simply fails in the bounce flash low light situation. I was going to buy another fuji X-t2 for my second body for a dual camera fuji combo for my secondary system. Suddenly as I discovered the pre order of the A7iii and I simply signed up and got the first batch in my local area!!
So far Sony A7iii adapted with Canon glass is OK and it's decent. What I'm learning is building a workflow in LR to massage the RAW files. Just overall tweaking I find the Sony files nice to play with but just different from my 5d3/4 RAW files.
Took me one day to configure the camera customizing buttons and favourite menu. Now I think I can use this camera just like my fuji and canon bodies.
The more and more I use my adapted glass it's becoming every apparent that I'll need to spend a good chunk of money on sony native glass. However as the A7iii is still my "non primary" system I'll just use whatever I have and slowly spend a good 12+ grand CDN just to fill in the blanks. Sony certainly isn't a cheap system to get into.
Shooting the 5dmk4 I can virtually shoot portrait's, events and fast moving subject with zero issues. Only thing I can
whine and cry about is that it's a heavier body. However realistically demanding Sony users will very likely be using G master glass and Sony is not much better in weight savings however my experience Canon/Nikon mirrored bodies just work awesome in low light AF with red focus assist with external flash. That alone I just rely on my canon gear for events photography because I know it simply works 99.99999999% of the time. I've heard some folks transitioning from canon/nikon realizing mirrorless utilize AF with different technology so AF can still hunt as mirrorless cannot utilize red focus beam from a speedlight for events.
At the end of the day I bought the Sony A7iii to get first hand experience. So far I'm amazed how responsive it is with adapted glass. So far so good but I cannot truly rate my Sony until I get some native glass.
yes I do but analyzing most of my photography and print size I think 24MP from the cheaper A7iii is very good. I do see how I'd enjoy having more MP. This is why I'd love to have an A7Riii as well.