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?