The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread

Richdog said:
Sure, but theoretically customs can still randomly stop and check you as are you are exiting the baggage claim area. Wouldn't be the first or last time it's happened. :p
Click to expand...
True but it’s unlikely, I noticed on the way out here that airport officials stay away from passengers now, I had sun glasses and a mask on and didn’t need to take either off when showing my passport :p
 
Captain said:
I went from working 4 days a week to working 7, not having any time to get out and take pictures.

Money isn’t an issue but I want that high mp for landscape and astro photography.
Click to expand...

As someone who went from the A7rIII to the A7rIV - Unless you plan on doing massive prints, the upgrade isn't worth it for the extra cost you're paying and even then you can handheld vertical stitch. If you shoot wildlife then yes, the ability to crop in comes in to play.

Your workflow will change, 81MB uncompressed raws on the rIII to 120MB uncompressed on the rIV.
 
sublime said:
As someone who went from the A7rIII to the A7rIV - Unless you plan on doing massive prints, the upgrade isn't worth it for the extra cost you're paying and even then you can handheld vertical stitch. If you shoot wildlife then yes, the ability to crop in comes in to play.

Your workflow will change, 81MB uncompressed raws on the rIII to 120MB uncompressed on the rIV.
Click to expand...

I know it comes down to more than just cost but there’s only a £600 difference between the A7R3 and A7R4 so it must be worth it going the extra bump in price?
 
Captain said:
I know it comes down to more than just cost but there’s only a £600 difference between the A7R3 and A7R4 so it must be worth it going the extra bump in price?
Click to expand...

The extra cost just doesn't apply to the camera.

More pixels means larger files, so more storage space required.

Larger files means longer processing times in Lightroom and Photoshop, even on a fast pc it takes time to work on those files.

This also means faster SD cards are a must (I don't used anything less than the 300MB/s read/write SD cards - and you'll only fit 501 images on a 64GB card). Depending on what you shoot you'll spend time waiting for the files to write from the buffer to the card, I shoot portraits and wildlife along with landscapes and if I burst then I have to wait for that buffer to clear.

The gains from the 42MP to 61MP aren't huge - yeah you're getting more pixels but this is only really beneficial if you're going to massively crop and print large (lets say anything A1/A0 or larger on a regular basis). The RIV also has massive noise at high ISO because of all those extra pixels you have.

The ergonomics of the RIV are much better than the RIII, with regards to the grip and the buttons on the camera. The battery life is pretty much the same with both (i.e. excellent). The weather sealing is better on the rIV - I've dealt with sandstorms in Nambia and extreme rain in Iceland.

But there are a lot of times I would have preferred I'd stuck to the A7RIII, it's more than capable

Oh, and if you want to do astrophotography the A7III beats both the RIII and RIV - but astrophotography with a Sony is by far it's weakest ability.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
I know it comes down to more than just cost but there’s only a £600 difference between the A7R3 and A7R4 so it must be worth it going the extra bump in price?
Click to expand...

It is worth it, I'd say the £600 extra is worth it so you don't have to put up with the stupid grey focus point! but on top of that the Ergonomics are so much better, weather sealing, AF and EVF.

The A7RIII was OK but I personally could not live it for the reasons mentioned ie poor Ergonomics, weather sealing and EVF.
 
I'd wait for updates before buying a R4. I had a number of issues and there's still plenty of others complaining. I've never had so many missed shots before that camera and there seems to be plenty of others saying the AF isn't reliable. I've gone back to the R3 and A9.
 
Jase said:
It is worth it, I'd say the £600 extra is worth it so you don't have to put up with the stupid grey focus point! but on top of that the Ergonomics are so much better, weather sealing, AF and EVF.

The A7RIII was OK but I personally could not live it for the reasons mentioned ie poor Ergonomics, weather sealing and EVF.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I find the ergonomics on my A7R3 decent enough (not poor by any stretch), the weather sealing has survived both the desert and Iceland without skipping a beat, and the EVF, once you’ve enabled high resolution mode, is excellent.
 
Very tempted to get rid of some of my gear and streamline. I'd love to replace my 24-70f4 with the 24-105. But only been offered £180 for that lens so that's a bit of a hit
Got a 16-35f4 I barely use as well. I use my 35mm f2.8 by far the most.
 
Spleen Sauce said:
Interesting, I find the ergonomics on my A7R3 decent enough (not poor by any stretch), the weather sealing has survived both the desert and Iceland without skipping a beat, and the EVF, once you’ve enabled high resolution mode, is excellent.
Click to expand...

All down to what you are used to I guess, although I never had a problem with weather sealing I didn't trust it as I knew people who had problems, the ergonomics just didn't suit me and even with high resolution enabled the EVF was still very poor.
 
The viewfinder looks smaller than the one on my Fuji XT20,so it will be OK but not as good as the other A7 models. A shame,as it looks pretty nice for a compact 35mm frame camera.
 
Hey guys, I had been considering the new Canon R6
but now I'm considering the Sony a7 lll as it can be bought used in excellent condition for about a grand cheaper. And I didn't realise until yesterday that Canon lenses can be used.

Wondering about animal AF reliability. That Northrup bloke on youtube says it's not? But I read a comment on here, I think it was greebo, where he said he hit 80% keeper shots with it, so it sounds like it works well.

How good is the in body stabilisation, does it mean I don't have to worry anymore about lenses that don't have it?

I'd need an adapter for my Canon 50mm f1.8 and Tamron 70-300mm, will those lenses work ok with an a7lll?

Do I lose any of the Sony focus modes with adapted lenses?

And I did some googling and I believe a Sigma MC-11 adapter is a good one to get, unless you'd suggest another?
 
Animal Eye AF works but it needs to be manually switching between, you can set up a short cut in the menu but since i don't shoot much animals I seldom use it. I have used it on a horse and it did work, but it is not as good as the Canon, you just got to be aware of that. I think a normal spot focus AF would be easier to get it in focus.

When a lens is adapted, you won't get all the focus modes in the Sony, about 3 of them will be greyed out. I forgot which one as I sold them all now, I do remember it wasn't any of the ones I use anyway so it wasn't ever a problem. I have the Sigma MC-11.

Some lenses adapt better than others, its hard to know unless someone tried it. I would say it ranges from Better than on a Canon body (weird i know, but 85L was better on the Sony!), some the same (Sigma 50/1.4 Art), some was not as good (Canon 24L mk2 in low light hunts around and 100L just didn't focus half the time).
 
Thanks Raymond. I guess I could live with losing some focus modes as long as I didn't lose animal and eye AF. But the eye and animal AF is the most important to me, if it's not that great then it's a dealbreaker and I won't bother and will just wait to afford an R6.
When you say it's not as good as the Canon, in what way? Do you mean it's not reliable in the way the R5/R6 will lock on?

Also, I've just seen there's another Sony which has just come out, the A7C I believe. Apparently it has 'real time tracking' which is meant to be more solid than the a7 lll animal and eye AF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom