More winning by Sony - A7rIII is 'best overall pro camera'

Headline:

 

Imaging Resource claims the A7rIII is the "best overall professional camera on the market today" - sonyalpharumors

 

DPReview named it the camera of the year. Both accolades are well deserved. And as far as 135 format cameras are concerned, the only better camera IMHO would be the Leica M10, but that is in a different class. If I shot sports, I'd be tempted to choose the A7rIII over the A9.

 

But here's the thing: I'm currently shooting Sony APS-C cameras. I think they're terrific. But what I'm seeing from Olympus is very impressive, and their pro cameras are appealing to me more than any other (digital) system.

 

They are priced very nicely so that you can own them without stretching your budget, and they're powerful enough to use on a daily basis, for almost any kind of application. And on the other end, the best achievement IMHO is the Hasselblad X1D (though it would make little sense for me to own one).

 

But, many photographers are still earning money with their M9s. And some are happy with $5 compacts from charity shops:

 

Interview: Sofi Lee is a pro shooting with vintage digital compacts

i wish i was a pro. life is so unfair.

At last, it's official: if you're not shooting Sony you obviously are a fool, even if you are not a pro.

I haven't bought a Sony anything since transistor radios in the mid '60's, can';t imagine starting now, especially with what I have invested in Nikon (have been buying Nikon consistently thru the same time period!) Pros will use what they choose to use.

DPReview named it the camera of the year.

No they did not, they named it "product of the year"; the honor of being "best high-end ILC" is shared with the Nikon D850 (which is also the runner-up in the "product of the year" category

"best overall professional camera on the market today"

If one actually reads beyond the headline, then one discovers that the summary of the field test casts an ever wider net: this is the best overall camera on the market today.

 

Everyone can now decide it "best overall" or best overall professional" is the bigger accolade. Personally, I find these "best of" "end-of-year" awards rather pointless.

The A7Rii is a very good camera, with more resolution at less cost than a Sony A9. I have been very pleased with my A7Rii for the last two+ years. There's not enough difference for me to upgrade, but if one were buying new, the mark 3 would be worthy of consideration. The improved focusing is attractive, as well as 10 fps speed in silent mode with a large buffer (I get about 7 uncompressed RAW). The high-capacity battery is very welcome. I have never exhausted the battery in my A9 in one day, and usually get two solid days from one charge. On closer examination, the pixel-shifting feature is over-hyped and clumsy to use.

 

The D850 is a contender if you have a collection of Nikon lenses. Having experienced Sony lenses, I wouldn't care to start a new Nikon system.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

I think "bestest overall camera in the whole universe, and the bestest there will ever be" should just about cover it.

I think "bestest overall camera in the whole universe, and the bestest there will ever be" should just about cover it.

Until the next "better than bestest" comes around - which, naturally, will be another Sony. Probably not more than 6 months away :D

Until the next "better than bestest" comes around - which, naturally, will be another Sony. Probably not more than 6 months away :D

The A7Rii was introduced over 2 years ago. The only other Sony introduced in the meantime was the A7Sii, which is optimized for video and only 12 MP. Soiny's model changes are no more frequent than any other manufacturer. I don't think the A6000 line should be included in this comparison, any more than Nikon single and three-digit models compete, much less the consumer lines.

 

Everyone has different needs and priorities, and these are not always met by the highly advertised features. Some of the 'hidden" features are only revealed in discussion threads like this one. For example, the new Sony battery has twice the capacity but over 4 times the life. Hidden away is the fact that the mark 3 versions use only 40% the power of the mark 2 cameras.

Soiny's model changes are no more frequent than any other manufacturer.

Tell that to someone who didn't get burned buying the A7 only to have Sony come out with MkII within a year.

The D850 is a contender if you have a collection of Nikon lenses. Having experienced Sony lenses, I wouldn't care to start a new Nikon system.

I guess you really haven't experienced the latest Nikon releases - it's not exactly fair to compare your new Sony system to the quite outdated Nikon system you were using before.

 

In any case, if I wouldn't be losing big in making that adjustment - a Sony A7RIII with 12-24/4, 24-105/4 (hopefully it will turn out as good as initial reports say), 70-200/4 and/or 100-400 would make for a really capable travel/landscape kit to which Nikon only offers one lens that could compete (the 70-200). Nikon's 80-400 sure is a disappointment when compared to what both Sony and Canon offer. Fairly certain Nikon's aging 24-120 will not compete favorably with Sony's 24-105 and as to the 12-24 - well, Nikon users will have to resort to Sigma to cover that range (a little cheaper but twice the weight). Granted, a rather special set and things may not be as clear cut if I were to compare f/2.8 zooms, for example (which I have no use for).

 

Still wouldn't want Sony to be my only system :rolleyes:

Edited December 12, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

Dieter: Ed has Sony so that's all you really need to know. If he chose it, it must be the best. Simple:)

Sorry about your A7 experience, Dieter. I liked the size, but the ergonomic suffered. When the A7ii was introduced with IBIS that worked with any lens, I bought into the system.

 

Dieter: Ed has Sony so that's all you really need to know. If he chose it, it must be the best. Simple:)

That's unfair. I've supported my opinions with facts and examples, and have not been shy about citing its deficiencies, nor calling out misrepresentation by others. Every camera has strong and weak points. You have to decide what properties best meets your needs (and budget).

"Dieter: Ed has Sony so that's all you really need to know. If he chose it, it must be the best. Simple:)"

 

I have a Fuji xt1 and that is really the best...no question about that.

 

Vibrant colours, sharp unmatched quality lenses, compact, fast auto focus....solid build and innotive handling.

 

What more would you want unless you are going to do blow ups the size of the Empire State building.

"...it seems a lot of people are hungry for that 'organic, analog look'"

- Would that be the same 'organic, analog look' that the pretentious idiots view as pixels on a digital screen?

 

I wonder if they digitise their vinyl record collection into MP3 files for that nostalgic analogue sound experience as well? After processing to remove the hiss and clicks of course.

Edited December 15, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

I wonder if they digitise their vinyl record collection into MP3 files for that nostalgic analogue sound experience as well? After processing to remove the hiss and clicks of course.

All media distorts reality. It's a matter of choosing distortion that pleases you.

 

There continues to be a spotty interest in analog sound, not derived from vinyl but recorded on analog equipment and perhaps transferred to vinyl. Several of my colleagues treasure their multi-track Ampex and Scully recorders. The magnetic process adds third-harmonic distortion as the level increases. It's not really musical (major twelfths), but distinctive. Besides distortion, analog recording is deficient in bass, and has an unweighted signal-to-noise ratio of about 40 db (digital is 120 db), and the noise floor rises and falls with the sound level. The noise pumping is easily heard when recording pure sounds, like flute or french horn. Bass is limited to the wavelength on tape vs the width of the recording head. The heads on my old Ampex 300 are about 1-1/4" wide, which roll off below about 50 Hz.

 

My Ampex is two channels, eats an $80 tape in 90 minutes or less, and weighs about 120 pounds. Now I record 8 channels on a recorder the size of a book, and multiple recorders can be linked for simultaneous recording. The bass goes from to 3 Hz to 24 KHz, and the S/N ration is about 100 dB end-to-end. (well below the noise level of a quiet studio, 35 DBA or so).

Edited December 15, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

A "pro camera" requires pro lenses. Sony is not there yet. As the owner of an a9 and a a7R III, I'm very happy from 12mm to 560mm. Some pros never shoot beyond 200mm, so I think it's time to start arguing about Sony being a "pro system" for wedding photographers, travel and portrait artist, but for sports and wildlife, it's still not there. The a9 has amazing, game changing autofocus with the native G Master lenses. IME, the FE 12-24mm f/4 G, the FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM, the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS and the FE 1.4x teleconverter are all at least as good as the Canon equivalents, if not better. I've not found a good copy of the FE 2.0x teleconverter yet, but I'm told that there are good ones out there. With the native lens, the autofocus, including eye-detection are peerless.

 

Metabones has done a pretty good job of mating EF lenses to FE bodies, BUT I still think that a Canon 1DX MkII is going to be more reliable with an EF 500/f4-II with and without 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. Pros that need to shoot with longer focal length or with larger apertures, don't have choice from Sony...yet.

 

An FE 400mm f/2.8 GM has been announced, which might complete the kit for some sports photographers. They really do need to fix their FE 2.0 teleconverter to support that lens. Wildlife and bird pro photographers need a 500/f4 or 600/f4, with sharp 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. I suspect those lenses are a long ways off, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

After you use the a9, the a7R III is clunky and the rolling-shutter distortion is particularly bad for sports and wildlife photographers. Until that's fixed, so that we can shoot silent shutter with no distortion, the a7R3 can't be considered "professional" in those applications. There are concerns about whether the weather sealing is "good enough" on the a7R III. I'd say, so long as there are questions, then it's not pro-level.

 

Would a landscape photographer use an EOS 1DX II or a 5DS-R if he or she had an a7R III in their bag? I think not. I've got a 5DS-R in my bag, but I'm now using the a7R3 every time I need a combination of high dynamic range and resolution.

 

So I'd conclude that Sony is really close. If you can do everything that you need to do within 12mm to 400mm, with a smaller aperture at the long end, then the a9 really is a "pro camera." The electronic shutter issues with the a7R III, means that you must use the mechanical shutter more than you might like.

For sport, I would agree with DC. But all cameras are professional cameras, and all lenses are professional lenses - if pros actually use them. Is the M9 not a pro camera? Is the RX10 IV not a pro camera? Is the Digilux 2 not a pro camera? Of course for most applications they are, without thinking about it.

 

Edit: I should repeat my current preference for the Olympus Micro 4/3 system. The D5 and A9 do not impress me as much.