Sony Announces New Camera - A7Riii

Sony a7R III promises faster bursts, better focusing and longer battery life

 

Sony announced today (10/25) a new version of their flagship A7Rii. It will have the same resolution, but with a faster shutter and processing, up to 10 fps with the mechanical shutter. One benefit of this feature is full compatibility with electronic flash for action and fashion photography, provided the flash can keep up.

 

The A7Riii will incorporate some of the features of the A9, including the larger, 2.25 mAH battery and the back panel controls (joy stick, button layout). It will also have the high resolution (3.84 MP) electronic viewfinder and the 1.44 MP rear LCD. The new battery in the A9 gives remarkable battery life, because the A9 consumes only 40% of the power of previous models. (I recently shot 400 images in the course of 3 hours at Chicago Botanic Garden, ending the day with 70% of the battery remaining.) Sony does not mention the power draw in regard to the A7Riii.

 

The A7Riii also has the option of pixel-shifting multi-shot imaging. This feature physically shifts the sensor under the Bayer filter so that each pixel is exposed to each of the four filter patches (RGGB), effectively tripling the resolution. This feature is found in some Pentax cameras, as well as some medium format backs.

 

Much as the A9 is a direct assault on the primacy of DSLRs in the field, the A7Riii seems to target medium format in the studio and for landscapes. Sony is rumored to have a 70 MP sensor in the wings. Perhaps it will appear in the A9 lineup in the near future.

 

The projected price of the A7Riii is $3199, which is $200 less than the introductory price of the mark 2 version.

I think the days of the SLR are numbered.

he A7Riii will incorporate some of the features of the A9

I wish they had used the entire A9 control layout.

I wish they had used the entire A9 control layout.

Agreed, but that will come at a price ($$). The top panel control knobs are very useful. You can switch AF and shutter modes without going through the menu, which saves a lot of time at weddings and events. The high-speed mode is great for short bursts to capture just the right expression and hand positions. I alternate between btacket (BRK) mode and and single frame for landscapes, also using the knob.

 

42 MP is retained, rather than something higher for an interesting reason. Less processing is required for 4K and 2K (HD) video, for better speed and fewer artifacts.

 

The joy stick is also useful. You can do the same thing with the 4-way ring, but only after pressing the center button. Pressing the joy stick returns the focus position to center.

 

The A7Rm3 has many times the number of contrast focus sensors, which should reduce the tendency to hunt in low light. The m2 tends to "chase squirrels" in low light, making continuous focus almost useless.

 

If you have an A7m2, the difference is only incremental. If you had your eye on the m2, then the m3 is a good choice. You could also opt for the A7Rm2 at its reduced price of $2400, while supplies last.

I think the days of the SLR are numbered.

Sony developing a 400mm F2.8 G Master lens

 

In the same news release, Sony put out a teaser for a 400/2.8 lens to be available mid-2018.

Horror of horrors, an incremental improvement-the shame....Looks to be a good 'un. Another $3200 down for those who must keep up. I think the 24-105 (and the 400mm) seem potentially more interesting/useful.

Horror of horrors, an incremental improvement-the shame....Looks to be a good 'un. Another $3200 down for those who must keep up. I think the 24-105 (and the 400mm) seem potentially more interesting/useful.

It's pretty obvious the A7m2 is discontinued and sold at a bargain to clear the shelves. It doesn't make sense to replace the A7m2 with the m3 unless you are a toy collector. However if you have an older A7, including the A7ii, it would be a significant upgrade. On the other hand, each upgrade seems to have under-reported features (easter eggs) which prove to be highly beneficial.

 

A9 Bon-Bon: When you review (chimp) an image and use the magnifier, the A9 opens up the spot used for focus instead of defaulting to the center.

 

I traded in my A7ii for an A9, which will probably serve 80% or more of my needs. I kept the A7Rii as a backup and for landscapes and subjects which require the best possible image quality.

The m2 tends to "chase squirrels" in low light, making continuous focus almost useless.

I know you are talking about the A7RII but I had the same experience with the A7II using the 12-24/4 in not actually that low light. In continuous AF mode, the lens was focusing back and forth, back and forth, eventually settling down (not always though). Quite obvious on the 12-24 as it changes focal length while doing so - quite disturbing and motion-sickness inducing. Switching away from continuous AF made the combo behave and focus properly (now focal length changes either). Makes back-button AF (AF-ON) virtually useless. Same spotty AF performance in low light situations with the 70-200/4 (where a D810 with a 70-200/4 had no issues at all).

 

Agreed, but that will come at a price ($$).

Keep wondering why we ever have been told that mirrorless would be cheaper than DSLRs, given the all that extra mechanical stuff like a moving mirror and that heavy and expensive prism were no longer needed? Another myth busted?

We don't really believe that Zeiss or Leica really add 3-5X more expensive components into their lenses to make them cost what they do, do we? It's largely about expected units sold, labor costs, and what marketing think they can get for them. These top end cameras are very expensive these days, I don't think most of the time they are truly worth it, which has the effect of dampening sales leading to still higher prices. I reckon these incremental improvements don't cost the manufacturers that much, and yet they charge the same astronomical prices for each one. It won't last for ever. Sony is no different, although perhaps they push the envelope even further than Canikon.

...

 

 

Keep wondering why we ever have been told that mirrorless would be cheaper than DSLRs, given the all that extra mechanical stuff like a moving mirror and that heavy and expensive prism were no longer needed? Another myth busted?

 

The a9 is cheaper than a Canon 1DX MkII, by a long shot. What would a DSLR that shoots 20-fps, with Lock-on AF of 693-AF points cost? Certainly more than a 1DX II. Think about the a9's electronic shutter's expected life. I'll bet that it far exceeds in DSLR shutter. The a9 seems like a bargain to me.

The a9 seems like a bargain to me.

I was actually thinking about a A7RII or A7RIII comparison with the Nikon D810 or D850 (and whatever the current Canon 5D model is).

 

Think about the a9's electronic shutter's expected life.

Sure (though I don't actually have seen a number). I am also thinking that the shutter may still work when the camera around it starts falling apart.

 

What would a DSLR that shoots 20-fps, with Lock-on AF of 693-AF points cost?

Nothing actually since 20 fps is something no mirror mechanism could do.

I was actually thinking about a A7RII or A7RIII comparison with the Nikon D810 or D850 (and whatever the current Canon 5D model is).

 

 

When the 5D MkIV was first released it was $3,500. $3,200 is very competitive with that.

Keep wondering why we ever have been told that mirrorless would be cheaper than DSLRs, given the all that extra mechanical stuff like a moving mirror and that heavy and expensive prism were no longer needed? Another myth busted?

I'm not sure who said that, nor why. They're supposed to be smaller and lighter too, which is true to a point. A Sony A7xxx has about the same footprint and weight as a Leica M, and is about 2/3rd the size of a Canon 5D. But it's not about size, rather capability.

 

¸A mirrorless setup is about 30% lighter than the same capabilities in a DSLR kit, at least in my situation. This is 22 lbs (present net weight in backpack) vs 35 lbs for my Nikon D3 kit. In practice, that means I carry the camera nearly every time I go out, as opposed to seeing something and wishing I had my camera.

 

The A9 shutter is rated at 500,000 clicks, compared to 250,000 for the A7Rii. The A7Riii will probably be somewhere in between. It costs about $500 to replace a Nikon shutter, but I haven't seen anything from Sony. By the time the shutter wears out, the camera should have paid for itself many times over, if only in enjoyment.

 

I was actually thinking about a A7RII or A7RIII comparison with the Nikon D810 or D850 (and whatever the current Canon 5D model is).

 

The Nikon D810 and D850 are different beasts. They are significantly larger and heavier than a Sony A7, but have full functionality with the myriad Nikon lenses. The Sony can use nearly any lens, including Nikon, in manual mode.The Sony is 100% full time "live view", though the viewfinder, complete with full functionality. While the D850 (and D5) have limited autofocus in video mode, the A7 and A9 have the same AF function and speed in video as for stills. These Nikons have somewhat better dynamic range than the Sony (tenths of a stop), and about the same high ISO performance. Of course, Sony makes the Nikon sensor, if not the image processor.

 

Another Sony bon-bon: If the lens has a button for focus lock, a different function can be assigned to that button through the menu. Eye AF is an extremely useful function, but only works as long as the programmed button is depressed, which is hard to do with the right hand alone, but easy if assigned to the lens button.

...

 

The A9 shutter is rated at 500,000 clicks, compared to 250,000 for the A7Rii. The A7Riii will probably be somewhere in between. It costs about $500 to replace a Nikon shutter, but I haven't seen anything from Sony. By the time the shutter wears out, the camera should have paid for itself many times over, if only in enjoyment.

 

 

....

 

I'm betting that a9 shutter life is for the mechanical shutter, which I haven't used yet. I'll bet that the electronic shutter last for more than one-million shots. (I'll probably need that, because I'm shooting at least twice as many shots per outing).

This is 22 lbs (present net weight in backpack) vs 35 lbs for my Nikon D3 kit.

We had that dance before and it was quite obvious that you weren't comparing like to like and that your DSLR pack must have had some lead lining to account for all that weight. Or a boat anchor. Or maybe just that you threw in the kitchen sink as well.

 

They're supposed to be smaller and lighter too, which is true to a point.

Yes indeed, though their small size not always counts as an advantage. Seems to be one reason, for example, why the A9 doesn't use a XQD card. And at least some lenses finally show up that do have a significant weight (if not size) advantage over their DSLR equivalents. The 12-24/4 comes to mind as well as the just announced 24-105/4. With others, there's no such advantage at all (70-200/4 as an example). It is as easy to put together a mirrorless and DSLR system where the only difference in weight is due to the camera bodies as it is to make up a comparison that shows a much greater weight differential.

 

A Sony A7xxx has about the same footprint and weight as a Leica M, and is about 2/3rd the size of a Canon 5D. But it's not about size, rather capability.

Then we should leave Leica M cameras out of this. Considering the SL and their lenses certainly does not support your argument (it actually turns it on its head).

I only mentioned the Leica M because it was considered small and inconspicuous when film ruled. It's a simply familiar frame of reference.

 

When I compare my Sony kit with Nikon, it's for a system with the same capability. I could go much lighter with the Sony and carry only three zoom lenses, but I'm about as light as I can go with the Nikon and still be prepared for a typical shoot. I carry what I need, because I've been there and done that. When you're 5000 miles from home (or even 50 in Chicago traffic), you can't go home for something you need. Throw in lights, stands and modifiers, we're talking another 50-100 pounds. YMMV, Dieter.

I think the days of the SLR are numbered.

The countdown timer started a few years ago. ;-)

Hmm, still great honking zoom lenses.

 

"I think the days of the SLR are numbered."

 

"The countdown timer started a few years ago. ;-)"

 

Interested to know where you are getting these statistics from. Or, are we talking about the usual web flora hype?

Edited October 25, 2017 by Allen Herbert

Interested to know where you are getting these statistics from. Or, are we talking about the usual web flora hype?

The financial news, for starters. Then from a photographer's point of view, where do DSLRs have room to grow? We are at the limit for multi-shot speed, auto focus response, video and live view. All you can do is increase resolution, then attach lenses with a mandatory minimum back focus handicap..

Edited October 26, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

The a9 is cheaper than a Canon 1DX MkII, by a long shot. What would a DSLR that shoots 20-fps, with Lock-on AF of 693-AF points cost? Certainly more than a 1DX II. Think about the a9's electronic shutter's expected life. I'll bet that it far exceeds in DSLR shutter. The a9 seems like a bargain to me.

 

But even though the camera body is less expensive, many of the telephoto lenses for Sony FE are are comparatively expensive.

where do DSLRs have room to grow?

 

Just in 2016-17 we have seen three new DSLRs from Nikon with significant improvements in autofocus capability (D500, D5, D850); I see no reason why the improvements would not continue like they have in the past. Faster fps may be useful for specialized applications but I use my 12-14 fps capable camera typically in single shot mode, and when I shoot continuous it is at 8fps, not at the maximum speed of the camera. This is because my subjects are people and they just don't move that fast. I don't want my hard drives to fill up so quickly so I mostly shoot in single shot mode and use my experience and intuition to time shots. This idea that "all moments with microscopic differences from shot to shot" should be captured instead of use of the photographer's knowledge, experience and style to decide which moments are valuable is just not at all attractive to me. Ultra high fps may be useful for specific situations when one may want to capture a moment that is far shorter than human observation would make possible, but I really don't shoot such subjects much. For those who do, and want to focus on capturing previously impossible moments of, e.g., insect flight, or other very fast phenomena, it is great to have the new techology available.

 

There has also been significant improvement in the optical viewfinder in the past few years (brightness, size and clarity of the viewfinder image (e.g. D850)). There are many technologies that can be used to improve DSLRs as they have been improved in the past. There are also accessory development such as more advanced flash features and new lenses. Fine tuning is now automated so it is much easier and faster to do once and then forgotten about. As good as 99% rate of images in focus (of dancers in procession for example) with a 105/1.4 wide open in daylight is now my expectation and the D5 delivers that if there is no operator error (in low light obviously the percentages drop but we're still talking about roughly 90% until it is really dark). I have no idea what you're talking about with "minimum back focus handicap." Your DSLR experience seems to be from a 2007 model (D3). Compare the best 2007 DSLR with the best 2007 mirrorless camera (or 2017 mirrorless with 2017 DSLR) to be fair. In their reviews the dpreview staff (who always tend to be favourable to new tech but in my opinion try to be fair about the results) admit the D5 tracks approaching moving subjects better than the A9, as do many other reviewers.

 

In my opinion, it is best to see that the different technologies have different advantages and disadvantages (such as the eye focus of mirrorless vs. faster initial focus acquisition with fast telephoto lenses of the best DSLRs; manual focus with peaking of mirrorless vs. artifact-free, real-time viewfinder of DSLRs; smaller and lighter wide angle lenses for mirrorless, vs. fast tele primes for DSLRs) and continue to compete for market share, which is good for photographers as there are more options and different solutions available. I use two different mirrorless cameras for photogrammetry and video capture, and DSLRs for photographing people and landscape. I think the richness of available options is a good thing to have and I hope in the future we have even more manufacturers with different technical solutions.

Edited October 26, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

One area which is interesting to me is how subject recognition and tracking features handle the situation where the intended subject's face turns momentarily away from direct sight of the camera. I would like to see the subject's head maintained in focus in such a case instead of the camera choosing another subject who is at that moment facing the camera (so the face and eyes can be recognized). Is this possible in current Sony cameras and how would the user take advantage of the camera's ability to find the subject's eyes and focus on the selected subject but not to choose a different subject entirely (when the eyes and face are not momentarily visible) unless requested by the user? Edited October 26, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

Interested to know where you are getting these statistics from. Or, are we talking about the usual web flora hype?

 

Just look at the sales. Mirrorless cameras have been escalating; SLRs, not so much. Smaller, lighter, more reliable, less expensive, etc. I think the introduction of the Sony Alpha 9's electronic viewfinder may be the tipping point. It's now shown up in the new A7R III and I suspect its technology will spread to other mirrorless cameras as its cost declines. This, to me, is the proverbial straw that will break the SLR's back.

Does adding Bluetooth make it a better automobile?

 

There have been many incremental improvements to DSLRs since their inception. Resolution has increased and image processing has improved, and there are many incidental features.. However the core operating principles remain largely the same, including a reciprocating mirror, mechanical shutter, focusing and exposure measurements made separate from the focal plane. Improvements to the viewing system have been mainly limited to replacing "penta-mirror" systems in lower level cameras with prisms, which are brighter due to total internal reflection. Live view in DSLRs is limited to mirror-up, shutter open, viewed using the rear LCD, much like a cheap P&S camera.

 

Would automatic lens calibration be necessary if there weren't a fundamental problem with DSLR auto focus? Why does the AF area in Nikon's flagship, D5, cover only 24% of the viewing area?

One area which is interesting to me is how subject recognition and tracking features handle the situation where the intended subject's face turns momentarily away from direct sight of the camera.

This is where things get interesting. There are several interrelated options in the Sony A series, including focus tracking, expanding focus areas, face recognition and eye recognition. You may have to change these selections, depending on the situation.

 

Tracking is locked in on the subject in the initial focus spot, as long as you hold the shutter release half-way. Even if you use single point focus, the actual focus area tracks the subject.

 

Face recognition works very well in the A9, even if the subject is in profile or turns away. The finder will identify all the faces in a scene, but remain locked on the original if possible. You can set the camera to recognize specific faces by registering up to 3 (?) individuals. Face recognition works in the A7Rii, but not nearly as well. Expect the A7Riii to do much better.

 

Eye recognition is only available as a programmed function, not in the menu itself. You assign it to a button, but must press and hold that button for it to work. It locks in on the subject in focus at the time, and tracks when the subject moves. If the subject turns so that the eyes aren't visible, the finder reverts to face recognition, if that is enabled. Alternately, focus tracks the original subject if tracking is enabled.

 

To make a long story short, tracking can be very effective, but you need to play the game and learn which options to use and how to use them to the best effect. it's a lot easier in the A9, and presumably the A7Riii, but I'm still learning after 3 weeks. As a corollary, take negative (or gushing) reports with a grain of salt from someone with only a few hours of experience with the camera, even professionals. This camera is like playing an accordion - you have to punch, squeeze, read and breath all at the same time. Like a musical instrument, you don't become an expert overnight.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Ed_Ingold