They laughed when we made it 12Mpx, but when we showed them the specs!--

Sony's A7SIII is 'only' 12Mpx, but remember that 4K resolution is nothing to sneeze at. The capability for enlargement from 12Mpx is massive. It has been the minimum standard for cinema cameras for a while now, so much so that ARRI had to cheat to get their older Alexas to be '4K' certified.

Further, with such good low light performance, those 12Mpx are very reliable. If the DR claims are true, that's even better. I wouldn't go back to HD just for an extra stop or two, but 4K is solid.

I don't doubt that a lot of sports photographers might switch over from the A9. I mean, 24Mpx lets you crop to half frame and still have, what, 10Mpx? But, the smaller file size means that it will be very difficult to fill the buffer.

I was wondering if they'd go up to 4.5K or 5K, but they stuck with 4K. I think that's fine, especially given what else the camera can do.

Of course, IMHO, it's not something that competes with an SL2, so if you have the Leica, the A7SIII doesn't make sense. Same if you have an M10 variant. Or an A7R. Or S1R, or GFX100.

But if you're shooting sports or news, quite frankly I think you'd have a hard time finding a better camera, save for the M, which is a thing all by itself. I'd say you could get better low light performance from the A7SIII, even if you're using slower lenses. So the total cost of an A7SIII based system would be somewhat lower.

Thoughts?

The A7S proved to be a disappointment to those who purchased one for still photography, except for its extraordinarily high sensitivity. While 12 MP is not to be completely dismissed, it is noticeably inferior to cameras with 24 MP and up, even in an 11x14 print.

The S was always at its best as a video camera, and its latest iteration, the A7Siii, runs with the big boys. The A7Siii is an affordable cinematic camera with specifications on a par with the FS5 and FS7, at a fraction of the price. There are better reviews of all the new features, but as a dedicated videographer, I value these attributes the most.

• Native (unbinned) 4K60 (UHD?)
  
• S-Log gamma
  
• 4,2,2 10-bit internal recording
  
• Uncompressed 10 bit external recording
  
• 4,2,2 16 bit linear RAW HDMI
  
• 12-bit ProRes log RAW
  
• Full-sized HDMI connector (micro HDMI is too fragile for regular use. I use an micro to full HDMI adapter and cable clamp)
  
• SDXC or optional CFexpress cards.
  
• Over 80 high quality native lenses, including 2 (or 3) professional video lenses.
  

For the present, I find little market for 4K video, but 1080p downsampled from 4K is superior to native 1080p. I can count on one hand jobs which specified 4K. HD meets my needs, and takes much less space and upload time than 4K. Once we get GB fiber in the fly-over states, that may change. Being an unrepentant technophile, I'd take 8K and settle for 6K, but that will be another year.

The things I shoot aren't subject to rolling shutter effects, but with 8x the scan speed of an A7iii, golf swings and bicycle races would look much more realistic. The silent shutter means you won't get thrown off the course for shooting that golf swing.

All things considred, the A7Siii is on my short list.

ps: I have never filled the buffer of an A9, even at 20 fps. There's a limit, but but nearly off the charts. Focusing is extremely fast, and unlike the A7 cameras, there doesn't seem to be a setting that doesn't work well.

Ed, I have two bones to pick (don't I always?):

1. 4K is future-proofing your work at minimal cost. You are accidentally doing this by shooting 4K for HD. Be happy about that!

2. 12Mpx is perfectly fine for journalism and almost anything else. Especially with high sensitivity and high DR (claimed). Some people are still using D3's and D4's, which were easily the best sports cameras in their day before the A9. They are still strong cameras, but they are now out-classed by Sony and even Olympus, although this is not due to their pixel count, but everything taken together.

The problem with 4K is not the quality, it's in the delivery and distribution. Footage is four times the size of 1080p, and before 300 Mb/s internet reached my village it would take 4-5 hours to upload an hour of YouTube quality HD. My customers would face a similar hurdle if they wished to distribute the results.

Only the largest agencies provide cameras to their photographers. In the real world, journalists use cameras until they fall apart, or (more important) their results are no longer competetive. In my experience, if there isn't enough light in the room, you add your own. Film Noir is not appreciated by editors. Too much black is a problem for pressmen and viewers alike.