The remarks about dynamic range at 17:06 were surprising, though I'm not sure whether I fully understand them.
I'm curious to know what the "native" ISOs are - the dual-gain sweet spots. Back in the A7S and A7Sii days it was ISO 100 and ISO 2000, I think. The A9, A7III, and A7RII&3 had it at ISO 100 and 640. The A7Rmk4 had ISO 100 and ISO 320. The video suggests sweet spots at ISO 640 and 16000, but perhaps I misunderstood something (how would all the ISOs below 640 work, if it goes all the way down to 80? Is this a triple-gain sensor? Say... 160, 640, 16000? I've probably just misunderstood.)
I may be missing the 'point' but, the form factor of this camera is that is a still camera. However, for stills, it is only 12MP. if my interest was in still photography, I'm not spending $3,500+ for 12MP.
The rave comments appear to relate to its video capabilities (which seem impressive). So, why not design the camera with the form factor used by video cameras? What is the advantage of building all this video capability into a DSLR form factor?
tdlavigne wrote:
Downside is those savings will go straight to those $400 CFE cards.
It seems that those will only be necessary for the higher bitrate All-I options in S&Q mode. Everything else can be done on SD cards, provided they're sufficiently fast. If you go with H.265 encoding there's even a 100mbps option for 4k 120 10-bit 4:2:2 which will work on even V30 SD cards.
Nick Birkett wrote:
I may be missing the 'point' but, the form factor of this camera is that is a still camera. However, for stills, it is only 12MP. if my interest was in still photography, I'm not spending $3,500+ for 12MP.
The rave comments appear to relate to its video capabilities (which seem impressive). So, why not design the camera with the form factor used by video cameras? What is the advantage of building all this video capability into a DSLR form factor?
size
Nick Birkett wrote:
I may be missing the 'point' but, the form factor of this camera is that is a still camera. However, for stills, it is only 12MP. if my interest was in still photography, I'm not spending $3,500+ for 12MP.
The rave comments appear to relate to its video capabilities (which seem impressive). So, why not design the camera with the form factor used by video cameras? What is the advantage of building all this video capability into a DSLR form factor?
When shooting in low light (high ISO), you are effectively shooting in low resolution, no matter what megapixel count your sensor boasts. Those extra megapixels on higher-resolution sensors are just a heap of noise and have to be downscaled to look cleaner - the resolution just isn't really there.
The new A7Siii's real-world resolution at very high ISOs will match and, who knows, hopefully beat downscaled grain-shots from a many-megapixel-monster. I will be curious to find out whether Sony have managed to squeeze any higher quantum efficiency / low light sensitivity out of their new sensor, compared to their previous bests with the A7Sii and the A7iii.
It may well be a niche kind of photography, but low light shooting is a thing. With the A7Siii's (hopefully) extraordinary sensitivity, and (hopefully) exceptional low-light autofocus, it has its place.
I agree that the as-new prices for these full-frame bodies is nuts, and just plain too much, though, unless you're very well off or earn heaps from your photography business.
I basically just ignore the fancy new cameras until the "shiny new thing" tax has gone away and the prices have plummetted at least a few months, or if necessary a year or two, after launch. And shop around, use grey market sources, etc. etc. It's the only way, for me, to make the prices acceptable. I wouldn't defend the $3500 prices either.
GHarris wrote:
This video is pretty interesting too -
The remarks about dynamic range at 17:06 were surprising, though I'm not sure whether I fully understand them.
I'm curious to know what the "native" ISOs are - the dual-gain sweet spots. Back in the A7S and A7Sii days it was ISO 100 and ISO 2000, I think. The A9, A7III, and A7RII&3 had it at ISO 100 and 640. The A7Rmk4 had ISO 100 and ISO 320. The video suggests sweet spots at ISO 640 and 16000, but perhaps I misunderstood something (how would all the ISOs below 640 work, if it goes all the way down to 80? Is this a triple-gain sensor? Say... 160, 640, 16000? I've probably just misunderstood.)...Show more →
Thanks for the link - I added it to the OP. His DR test appears to film light wedges, each of doubling intensity, then he checks how many wedges were uniquely identifiable in a waveform of the video in post.
It's likely a double-gain sensor, as in previous Sony sensors.
1bwana1 wrote:
With high taxes I don't understand why you guys buy things in Germany. Portable items like money and cameras are easily moved around.
In the end, you're right. That's why I find myself more and more often buying from abroad, grey market items, even if I'm unhappy to do so and there are restrictions about the warranty. But the price difference is simply far too big. Totally unreasonable. And I put a limit to the ripping off.
Nick Birkett wrote:
I may be missing the 'point' but, the form factor of this camera is that is a still camera. However, for stills, it is only 12MP. if my interest was in still photography, I'm not spending $3,500+ for 12MP.
The rave comments appear to relate to its video capabilities (which seem impressive). So, why not design the camera with the form factor used by video cameras? What is the advantage of building all this video capability into a DSLR form factor?
Portability (both size and weight) and hybrid shooting scenarios come to mind. The body is (marginally) lighter than the A7III, which lets you use smaller gimbals or stabilizer systems. I can see wedding video/photo hybrid shooters really digging this. Especially if you’re going to batch process a large number of files taken over the course of a wedding or other event, especially if the low light performance of the sensor is good in stills and your clients are looking mostly for digitals rather than big prints or things like that.
GHarris wrote:
When shooting in low light (high ISO), you are effectively shooting in low resolution, no matter what megapixel count your sensor boasts. Those extra megapixels on higher-resolution sensors are just a heap of noise and have to be downscaled to look cleaner - the resolution just isn't really there.
The new A7Siii's real-world resolution at very high ISOs will match and, who knows, hopefully beat downscaled grain-shots from a many-megapixel-monster. I will be curious to find out whether Sony have managed to squeeze any higher quantum efficiency / low light sensitivity out of their new sensor, compared to their previous bests with the A7Sii and the A7iii.
It may well be a niche kind of photography, but low light shooting is a thing. With the A7Siii's (hopefully) extraordinary sensitivity, and (hopefully) exceptional low-light autofocus, it has its place.
I agree that the as-new prices for these full-frame bodies is nuts, and just plain too much, though, unless you're very well off or earn heaps from your photography business.
I basically just ignore the fancy new cameras until the "shiny new thing" tax has gone away and the prices have plummetted at least a few months, or if necessary a year or two, after launch. And shop around, use grey market sources, etc. etc. It's the only way, for me, to make the prices acceptable. I wouldn't defend the $3500 prices either....Show more →
That's helpful information - thank you. But, if I am looking for a camera to take still images of landscape, I don't need low light capability for that. Hopefully when, and if, the price comes down, it will serve its target market very well.
?