DXO gives the A7R3 a 100

[ahsanford]

There you go:
https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7r-iii-sensor-review-nikon-d850-meets-mirrorless-match/

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

On my completely arbitrary scale including proprietary and unreleased algorithm to determine the 'results' I got 107 for the G1X MkIII, so I 'retested' it and rewrote the algorithm so it now gets a 78.

 

[ahsanford]

Also, no A7R3 Pixel Shift shots' scores were reported, while DXO has no qualms doing so for its own products. DXO gave their own DXO One (an RX100 sensor in a cell phone mounted camera module) a separate score just for its multi-shot mode. That camera scored some 15 points higher by doing this, and outperformed nearly every Canon FF rig at time of launch. :

Stay classy, DXO.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think that Sony is now moving into the realm of serious cameras. Their new service center for pros has a good reputation, I'd consider trying one, but having two virtually new Canon cameras, I'm unlikely to switch.

 

[docsmith]

I think that Sony is now moving into the realm of serious cameras.

^^^This.

Sony is now giving people a good reason to consider them right next to Canon and Nikon. The last sales numbers I saw seemed to indicate they are taking more business away from Nikon/others than from Canon, which gained market share.

If I was starting over, I would now consider an A9 or A7RIII. Then I would probably start playing with the menu system, price out the complete system (lenses and camera body), look at the ability to grow in the system and I would probably end up right where I am now, a happy Canon shooter.

But I would agree, they have crossed into the realm of serious cameras.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.

 

[ahsanford]

Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.

I agree with you, but it heavily depends on what you shoot:

1) Can an OVF get brighter* in a dark room where lighting is not allowed, say at a concert, event, church, etc.?
(*No, LiveView does not count.)

2) Can you wield a sweet manual focus large aperture prime and nail wide open focus through an OVF? That's a very tough ask if you are using an SLR that doesn't allow manual focusing screens (like the 5D4 and 6D2).

3) Can an OVF pipe a realtime histo up to your eye before you shoot handheld, or tell you what parts of the frame might clip if you take the shot?

Overall, OVFs are my preference. But for some needs, an EVF is already better than an OVF.

- A

 

[Dylan777]

Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.

It's almost impossible for me to get a bad exposure on my A9 EVF. OVF is no longer a must have in my camera purchase decision.

Kinda like framing your shots through Canon back screen and see that you over/under exposure and not making any adjustments.

 

[ahsanford]

Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.

It's almost impossible for me to get a bad exposure on my A9 EVF. OVF is no longer a must have in my camera purchase decision.

Kinda like framing your shots through Canon back screen with the camera ideally/stably held up against your eye/face and see that you over/under exposure and not making any adjustments.

Added a key bit above.

I think the gold potential of an EVF is the power of LiveView without needing a tripod, gimbal, or unnatural shooting position. Use it like you've always used your camera, but dark rooms are no longer unusable without AF or flash, manual focus lenses are suddenly a viable option, exposure misses become (largely) a thing of the past, etc.

But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

- A

 

[Hflm]

Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.

It's almost impossible for me to get a bad exposure on my A9 EVF. OVF is no longer a must have in my camera purchase decision.

Kinda like framing your shots through Canon back screen with the camera ideally/stably held up against your eye/face and see that you over/under exposure and not making any adjustments.

Added a key bit above.

I think the gold potential of an EVF is the power of LiveView without needing a tripod, gimbal, or unnatural shooting position. Use it like you've always used your camera, but dark rooms are no longer unusable without AF or flash, manual focus lenses are suddenly a viable option, exposure misses become (largely) a thing of the past, etc.

But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

- A

I use A9 and 5div for weddings. The A9 EVF is so good, I don't see any need for an OVF anymore in a future camera purchase decision. No refresh rate problems, no blackout. Battery is not an issue, too. To be honest, I get more shots on a single battery with the A9 than with the 5div. Quite surprising for me initially. But I use LV quite often at weddings to get different perspectives and make sure the AF for f1.4 lenses close to the outermost focus points is spot on for important moments, which eats batteries.

 

[ecqns]

But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

- A

Before you write off the newer Sony EVF - have you used one for a day? I've used them for the last 3 years and wouldn't switch if you paid me (and/or Canon's DR started to match)
I don't have any issues with refresh and zooming in to focus is really precise.
Batteries are not an issue - from what I've heard the a9 and a7r3 capacities have improved over previous generations, otherwise put a few charged ones in your pocket and you are all set.
I do work on a tripod most of the time and sometimes in tight quarters so the swivel LCD in invaluable.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

- A

Before you write off the newer Sony EVF - have you used one for a day? I've used them for the last 3 years and wouldn't switch if you paid me (and/or Canon's DR started to match)
I don't have any issues with refresh and zooming in to focus is really precise.
Batteries are not an issue - from what I've heard the a9 and a7r3 capacities have improved over previous generations, otherwise put a few charged ones in your pocket and you are all set.
I do work on a tripod most of the time and sometimes in tight quarters so the swivel LCD in invaluable.

EVF's tend to have issues with rapidly moving subjects like in sports photography. If you are not shooting sports or fast moving objects, a EVF may very well be a good choice. but --- It depends on the usage. They are getting better but pro sports photographers will have a issue with the lag and smearing.

Some who do not shoot fast moving subjects will still pan a EVF because of a issue that they won't see.

 

[ahsanford]

But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

- A

Before you write off the newer Sony EVF - have you used one for a day? I've used them for the last 3 years and wouldn't switch if you paid me (and/or Canon's DR started to match)
I don't have any issues with refresh and zooming in to focus is really precise.
Batteries are not an issue - from what I've heard the a9 and a7r3 capacities have improved over previous generations, otherwise put a few charged ones in your pocket and you are all set.
I do work on a tripod most of the time and sometimes in tight quarters so the swivel LCD in invaluable.

I've used the A7R2 in a store, but not an A9 (which I'll never buy) or an A7R3. Can't speak to the battery other than CIPA data, but the EVF is simply a half-step-behind facsimile of what I see with my eyes through an OVF. It has tremendous value in certain circumstances as I outline above -- I'm certainly no luddite avoiding the future here.

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

So, for wildlife and sports photogs, the EVF is currently not the best solution, but for *everyone else* it's far better.

I took the A7RII out the other day on a portrait shoot, with a single lens, (FE 55mm 1.8 ), something I'd usually take the 5DSR and 24-70 2.8 II (and a bag of other lenses) to do.

Came away extraordinarily happy with the results. The question is, do I really want to go back to a camera that doesn't have face detect focus?

 

[tron]

I have many Canon DSLRs and lenses and I am satisfied with them. The only way to take (not switch) a Sony is for them to make a ......... native EF mount!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D and add a few versions of improvement like for example not being so hungry as to eat ... stars and also improve handling 8)

 

[privatebydesign]

So, for wildlife and sports photogs, the EVF is currently not the best solution, but for *everyone else* it's far better.

I took the A7RII out the other day on a portrait shoot, with a single lens, (FE 55mm 1.8 ), something I'd usually take the 5DSR and 24-70 2.8 II (and a bag of other lenses) to do.

Came away extraordinarily happy with the results. The question is, do I really want to go back to a camera that doesn't have face detect focus?

The 5D MkIV and 1DX MkII and, no doubt, the 5DSR II and all cameras going forwards have face detect too.

As for enjoying the experience of going out with one camera and one lens, preferably a prime, of course you did! It wouldn't matter what body comparisons you are making most of the time we make ILC ownership worse than it should be because we carry so much junk 'just in case'. The trouble is all that junk often gets in the way of the simplicity of just getting in the groove and taking pictures.

 

[ecqns]

EVF's tend to have issues with rapidly moving subjects like in sports photography. If you are not shooting sports or fast moving objects, a EVF may very well be a good choice. but --- It depends on the usage. They are getting better but pro sports photographers will have a issue with the lag and smearing.

Some who do not shoot fast moving subjects will still pan a EVF because of a issue that they won't see.

I have used my a7r2 for my kid's soccer games - (not my first choice because its my work camera, but no other good AF options) and the EVF seems ok to me - but I'm not a sports shooter at all (its actually really difficult to keep up even though they're kids). I would assume the a9 would be better. The biggest issue I have with this setup is the tight zoom on my Sigma 100-400 which slows me down. But again its a work lens, I didn't buy it for kids sports.

re: EVF cameras, I use a Fuji xPro2 for street/travel photography and I cannot tell you how much I love everything about that camera. Sony and Fuji are making great EVF right now (and I started shooting way back when with a view camera - so I'm not quick to jump on technological gimmicks!)

 

[chrysoberyl]

I would probably get one of these, if:

1. I was assured that it will not erase stars.
2. It has an 'AstroTracer' type feature.

 

[ahsanford]

I would probably get one of these, if:

1. I was assured that it will not erase stars.
2. It has an 'AstroTracer' type feature.

Not my field of photography, but FYI.

Star eating is over:

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/14/sony-a7r-iii-star-eater-no/

No it's not:

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/21/sony-a7r-iii-eats-stars-new-report/

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3195011528/analysis-the-sony-a7r-iii-is-still-a-star-eater

Caveat emptor, I guess.

- A

 

[chrysoberyl]

Not my field of photography, but FYI.

Star eating is over:

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/14/sony-a7r-iii-star-eater-no/

No it's not:

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/21/sony-a7r-iii-eats-stars-new-report/

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3195011528/analysis-the-sony-a7r-iii-is-still-a-star-eater

Caveat emptor, I guess.

- A

Ha! Thanks for posting.