I got a couple of A7R3's recently....

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by fotolopithecus, Jan 25, 2018.

  1. One for myself, and one for the Mrs. A couple of years ago I bought an A7ll, but that didn't take, so I went back to Nikon, and a D810. This time I think the change is for good, because Sony seems to have addressed all the things that gave me trepidations with the A7ll. I really love this camera, because it's lighter, easy to clean the sensor, no optical viewfinder to build up specs of dust over time. It's just really great. Here's my concern. I'm afraid I might turn into a "Fanboy," which would make me insufferable, and that's the last thing anyone wants to see. Can anyone describe what the symptoms look like, because these things have a way of sneaking up on you. It was only last year I finally shook the worst case of GAS ever seen. Thank God for modern medicine.
     
  2. Playing Hobbs, a baseball player in "The Natural," Robert Redford had a favorite bat he named "Wonderboy." With this bat, he could hardly miss. Sometimes we have a piece of equipment with which we seldom miss. It fits our needs, and more important, or style. It doesn't get in the way of success.

    The A7ii was not a bad camera, rather an enormous improvement over its predecessor. However there was nothing exceptional about it other than in-body image stabilization. For me, the A7Rii was an epiphany with its silent shutter, vastly improved focusing, and stunning resolution and clarity. Since it can run from an external USB power source, I could use it for video and event portraits without changing a battery every hour or so of continuous operation. The A9 is all that and more - faster, better color, cleaner menus, and more accessible controls. It doesn't get in the way. The A7Riii has most of those attributes too, and might have been my choice had I waited.

    Perhaps you have found your "Wonderboy" in the A7iii. Enjoy!

    The sensor is not only easier to clean than a DSLR, it doesn't need as much cleaning. There's no moving mirror to stir up dust. It also undergoes a cleaning cycle each time you power down. Have the lens pointed downward, if possible. The best cleaning tool is a set of micro-fiber brushes with an electric handle to spin, clean and recharge the bristles. A blower may work, but brushes are nearly dead certain to work, and take little space. I needed wet cleaning only twice in over two years with the A7Rii.
     
    fotolopithecus likes this.
  3. Mirrorless systems are a breath of fresh air. That's enough to make anyone enthusiastic. You can love something and be passionate without being negative or annoying.

    I still think that film is the best medium. But I still use digital a lot. At the same time, I try and give useful, no-nonsense advice to those asking questions about shooting film. It's worth encouraging people to use it. But you won't see me talk smack about those who prefer digital.

    I say, embrace the love!
     
  4. You're right Ed, perfectly described, and the biggest thing I did miss on the A7III was the ibis, because I kept thinking what a shame it is that Nikon hasn't adopted it.
     
  5. Yeah, I loved film too, and had to be dragged kicking, and screaming into digital. Having done so, I wouldn't go back in spite of the fact that they are completely different in appearance. In the film vs digital debate you have a situation analogous to the old tubes vs solid state debate among Hifi enthusiasts. For my money tubes do typically sound better than solid state electronics, but often they can sound indistinguishable if the solid state amp has enough power not to clip. Anyway, I understand the attraction to film.
     
  6. One thing you notice, when copying slides with a digital camera, is how film-like the copies are - very close to the original. It's obvious that film distorts color, while digital is often nearly neutral. We like film because it distorts in a way that pleases us.
     
    john_sevigny|2 likes this.
  7. I agree Ed. I've always thought that digital had more of a you are there, hyperreal, appearance, whereas film was like an artistic interpretation of the actual time, person, or place, with a certain distance between the viewer, and subject. I like both equally for different reasons, but let's face it, digital is so much less hassle to deal with.
     
  8. If all I was ever doing was sending negatives to the lab for prints, or doing traditional printing at home myself, I'd buy film being the best medium, but if the primary end-goal is to have digital files for all the reasons one would want digital files today, the quality loss from consumer-quality scanning of negatives and/or the cost-prohibitive expense of the best type of commercial-quality film scanning renders the point moot. Creating the file digitally to begin with is the way to go.

    I have my film Leica's and Contax IIA for playing with film because it is still a fun process to do from time to time in a limited way but for anything else, forget it.
     
  9. Wow >$6000 in a single purchase. That's a lot of scratch. I hope it is worth it. Still cheaper than a real medical condition, I suppose.
     
    fotolopithecus likes this.
  10. A few things to never say around a DSLR user:
    • Didn't your WSYWYG EVF show that you were underexposed?
    • I just shot 60-shots, silent
    • Was your eye-detection able to lock onto her eye?
    • Did your lock-on autofocus follow that eagle behind the tree and still focus?
    • One more time, how much does that thing weigh?
    Remember, there's good GAS and there's bad GAS. Anybody want to buy a 5D MkIV?
     
    fotolopithecus likes this.
  11. Yeah you're right, but that's what happens with GAS. I truly hope this is the last of it for a while.
     
  12. I would never agitate a dslr user as I was one myself, and know the limitations of human tolerance. ;)
     
  13. How much?
     

  14. $3,200 US, for the body. Add a few G Master lenses, a couple of teleconverters, an a9, a Metabones adapter and, before you know it, you're 16-grand into it. ;-)
     
  15. I was asking about 5D4, when Sony will have lens availability like Canon, including 3rd party support like Sigma Art, may be then I will be interested.
     
  16. I just shot two live broadcast productions (classical music) with a Sony A9, in studio, in the last two weeks, and a third will be this evening - no blimp, no evil eye from the production staff. In the past, I used a Sony A7Rii in similar situations, and the mod 3 would qualify in spades. Try that with a Canon or Nikon (or Leica). Try it with an iPhone if you forget using the silent mode. For many P&S cameras, the chirp returns each time you cycle the power. So much for simplicity ;)

    There are at least 22 high quality lenses for the Sony, including Zeiss and Zeiss/Sony collaborations. I selected from this system for my own use based on performance, not uniform appearance. I'm sure 300mm to 600mm lenses are important to some, but don't define a "system" for the vast majority of photographers. Besides, there is nothing keeping Sony from building out in that direction. For the broadcast events, I used a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/4.
     
  17. Rumor among Sony pros is that the 400/2.8 G Master will start delivery in August. The rumors of a Sigma or Tamron E-mount 500/f4 are out there, but less firm. Another strong rumor, among Sony pros, is a 150-600 G Master.

    Since the a9 and the a7RIII will autofocus at f/11, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G Master is already a viable 800mm lens. That said, I find myself shooting the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II, with the EF 1.4x TC-III, via a Metabones EF-to-E adapter on my a7RIII. Image quality would be similar, except I need a much higher ISO with Sony 100-400/2x combo. The high pixel-density of the a7RIII make a killer combo with the Canon lens:

    [​IMG]Profile Pose by David Stephens, on Flickr

    BTW, handheld at 1/500-sec, using both in-lens stabilization and in-body IS.
     
  18. Agreed, about the "vast majority", but for wildlife photographers it's mission critical. We are a minority, but a fast growing segment of the high-end camera/lens market.

    To date, the offerings of Tamron and Sigma have not been of comparable image quality with the equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses. The announced and soon to be released FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS, will partially fill that gap, although it's aimed primarily at the sports photographer. Still, I can imagine myself shooting a big white-tail buck, after sunset, at f/2.8 and ISO 10000, instead of ISO 20000.

    At the moment, the Metabones EF-to-E adapter cannot utilize the full functionality of the Sony a9/a7RIII AF system. I particularly miss the "lock-on" AF availability, for birds-in-flight. I'm fine on mammals and perched birds, but BIF are much easier with lock-on AF.
     
    fotolopithecus likes this.
  19. Interesting thought. I feel the same way about legacy glass on mirrorless cameras. It replicates, to a degree, a quality we remember from film photography.
     

Share This Page