Industry News: Sony officially announces the Alpha A7s III

privatebydesign

I don't preorder, I'm not a paid beta tester!
Jan 29, 2011
8,860
2,791
120
I think they should release a video focused camera in the ILC form factor. Either high MP with cooling in a bigger body, or low MP in the R style body. I don't know that canon has the sensor for the latter. (There's a whole sidebar about the volume advantage Sony has here but I digress). I don't know if that's an XC-R, a R5c, or what.

I, as a Canon shooter about to invest heavily in RF over the next few years (100-500, then an UWA zoom, then go back and replace the EF 24-70 and 70-200), am starting to wonder what an A7R5 will be. I still don't like the aesthetics of Sony/Fuji/Leica (heresy, I know) but with the A7SIII it looks like Sony's got the ergonomics stuff nailed.
I'm very interested to see if this is what the coming RF mount camera will be. It could make a lot of sense for Canon to turn the C100 pricepoint into a video-centric hybrid, versus cinema-only, with this in mind. The XC-10 did 12 mp photographs alongside 4K video, which was definitely a slight attempt towards a hybrid.

I definitely don't think Canon would lose much of anything by allowing a 12 megapixel C100 RF mount replacement to also shoot stills now that Sony has pushed ahead with a 12 megapixel A7SIII.
I'm not saying it would be a bad thing for Canon to do, just pointing out they haven't actually done it so drawing comparisons between very dissimilar models is fraught with bias (depending on if you are photo or video centric not brand wise) so it is disingenuous at best.
 

Bert63

EOS RP
Dec 3, 2017
611
1,211

That's one experience and I had already read about the 4K60 capability. I was more curious about the claim that it could also do 4K120 the same way.

If I were someone who actually had a reason to shoot an uninterrupted 2 hour 'take' of 4K60P video (how big is that file again? I have no idea...) then this would excite me.

As a person who occasionally shoots a bunch of little things and then edits them together for purely recreational purposes this camera is completely unexciting to me.

I get the wedding shooters (sort of - I guess there is money in it but I can't think of a worse way to spend my life then to be at the whim of a couple getting married...... ACK! :):):):)) and the people that are somehow using this feature to make money (but I don't know what that could be that would need these incredibly long 'takes') but I cite my ignorance on the subject and will keep learning out of pure curiosity.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Baron_Karza

jedy

EOS 90D
Feb 14, 2014
149
89
I guess video specs are the same to the guys that are heavily into that. I just look at $3,500 dollars for this and wonder why people don't just buy a dedicated video camera whose whole purpose in life is to shoot video? I guess there aren't many options with these features at that price point.
And $3899 for a stills camera with some limited video capability is a good price? Your argument doesn’t add up. The R5 and A7SIII are very expensive and there are cheaper alternatives if you can live with the specs for your needs. You also sound a little rattled by the A7SIII release, trying to find fault like you’re convincing yourself it’s a bad camera.
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
445
I'm not saying it would be a bad thing for Canon to do, just pointing out they haven't actually done it so drawing comparisons between very dissimilar models is fraught with bias (depending on if you are photo or video centric not brand wise) so it is disingenuous at best.
Oh for sure—100%. Again, Sony's not discontinuing the A7R4 today! Just saying the wrinkle here is that Canon pitched the R5 as a no compromises hybrid, and while there's always wiggle room for tea-reading marketing statements, that's not really the camera we got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jedy

Krispy

EOS R5/5DIV
Oct 21, 2019
33
37
Looks cool, but ehh. I shoot Canon personally and Sony at work. If we gets these in, cool. If not, ehh.
 

NorskHest

EOS 90D
Jan 11, 2018
130
150
Minnesota - US
Visit site
I'm very interested to see if this is what the coming RF mount camera will be. It could make a lot of sense for Canon to turn the C100 pricepoint into a video-centric hybrid, versus cinema-only, with this in mind. The XC-10 did 12 mp photographs alongside 4K video, which was definitely a slight attempt towards a hybrid.

I definitely don't think Canon would lose much of anything by allowing a 12 megapixel C100 RF mount replacement to also shoot stills now that Sony has pushed ahead with a 12 megapixel A7SIII.
well dont look at the foto comparisons of the two cameras, it will wreck your house of cards
 

Bert63

EOS RP
Dec 3, 2017
611
1,211
And $3899 for a stills camera with some limited video capability is a good price? Your argument doesn’t add up. The R5 and A7SIII are very expensive and there are, cheaper alternatives with specs to match your actual requirements. You also sound a little rattled by the A7SIII release, trying to find fault like you’re convincing yourself it’s a bad camera.

I've never called this camera a bad camera at all. I've stated my ignorance of the subject from my very first post in this thread and asked people with more knowledge to explain why it is significant because I don't have that knowledge first hand.

WRT to the R5 at $3899 (I paid $3,700) it's a steal. Please direct me to the 'other' stills camera that carries the R5 specs. You could remove ALL the R5 video specs and it is still a remarkable stills camera and barely costs more than the 5D4 did six years ago - the net difference for me was less than $100. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the 5D4 stills-wise, AND is does exceptional video for people who don't expect a hand-held mirrorless consumer-grade camera to be able to film Terminator II in one take.
 
Last edited:

Max C

Canon 60D
Feb 9, 2020
104
115
Yeah - I edited my post to reflect that as well - I guess that's a good thing if you're big into using a little camera like this for making movies/interviews/weddings or whatnot.

I'm sure there is something revolutionary here I'm just not smart enough to know what that is.

Good tip on the low light - I saw that and it sort of bounced off because it isn't something that comes into play for me.
You must be a Canon engineer lol
For video shooters, who this camera is targeted for, it can shoot continuous 4k, 10bit , 422, with a full pixel readout and no crop in all shooting modes including at 120 fps. It's got an ISO range from 80 - 409,600 so it will more than likely continue its status as the lowlight king. These are all very good specs.

And more importantly, it is designed not to overheat.

I'm not a Sony person. I'm a Canon guy and have been for over a decade. But I'm a video shooter, and it's been a frustrating ride with Canon. When it comes to video, Sony beat the R series with this release.

Some video shots showing the lowlight capabilities. Looks great...

For video, this has effectively killed the R5 before it has even shipped. The R5 is still a much better for stills though, but so are alot of other cameras. A7sIII sits at the top of its class unquestionably for video simply because it's engineers are not dumb.
 

Juangrande

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2017
90
123
Sony just shat directly down canons throat
Hardly. I mean that’s your opinion because your obviously lowlight video excited but I wouldn’t want that camera as It’s useless for me personally because I don’t shoot video ever and 12mp sucks for the portrait and print work that I do. I almost always light a scene even on locations with multiple lights so I don’t need super low light capabilities as I’m not a PJ or street photographer. So to me the new Sony is a paperweight at best. It all comes down to what type of photographer you are. (Or videographer). It truly does sounds like a great video camera for someone who wants a small low light video centric camera good for low light shooting who doesn’t need quality stills. Doesn’t tick any boxes for me though so I don’t see how it “shit down Canons throat” as the R5 is perfect for my needs and I’m blown away by the specs and Sony hasn’t made a camera I’m interested in. They have a poor lens mount system and horrid ergonomics/menu system and I don’t like the way the sensor renders default colors, especially skin tones, but some are willing to deal with/work around those faults because it delivers in areas that are important to their needs, which is totally valid. I tried my friends AR73 and I really disliked it. But for the niche it’s designed for I do think it’s an exciting low light video camera and I’m stoked for those people but I wouldn’t compare it to a completely differently spec’ed camera.
 

Th0msky

EOS M50
Jun 8, 2020
31
19
Are they really? I'm not a hardcore video shooter so I'm dumber than the average bear when it comes to stuff like this but to me it seems like a lot of money for that camera.

I see it can shoot 4K60P for over an hour so that's a good thing if that's something you need. So kudos.

What is so appealing that makes it worth that kind of money - and I'm not being sarcastic - a compare and contrast in an 'explain it like I'm five' kind of way would be very helpful.
it literally has features that very good cinema cameras like the canon C300 or C500 have, but for 5 times less the price.
 

Th0msky

EOS M50
Jun 8, 2020
31
19
I just hope canon releases a dedicated video camera on the R series that would perform just as well or outperform this A7S III.

as a videographer myself i'd rather preorder the a7s III for now because it just has everything you want as a filmmaker for a fairly good price.
until canon releases something that would compete with this i'd definitely buy that instead.
 

Bert63

EOS RP
Dec 3, 2017
611
1,211
it literally has features that very good cinema cameras like the canon C300 or C500 have, but for 5 times less the price.

This I understand. I'm happy for the folks that were looking forward to something like this then. For me it doesn't resonate but I get what you're saying.

Nice summary. LOL..
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
445
Actually, no and not even CLOSE.

I've never called this camera a bad camera at all. I've stated my ignorance of the subject from my very first post in this thread and asked people with more knowledge to explain why it is significant because I don't have that knowledge first hand.

WRT to the R5, Please direct me to the 'other' stills camera that carries the R5 specs. You could remove ALL the R5 video specs and it is still a remarkable stills camera and barely costs more than the 5D4 did six years ago. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the 5D4 stills-wise, AND is does exceptyional video for people who don't expect a hand-held mirrorless consumer-grade camera to be abloe to film Terminator II in one take.
The Z7 is 45 mp at $2700
The A7R4 is 61 mp is $3200
The GFX is medium format 50 mp at $3500

All have great image quality and pro-level performance. If you're comparing the unlimited video modes, the FF ones have full frame binned/skipped 4K that's soft, and crop modes that provide great quality. There are auto focus, battery, EVF, lens mount, card slot tradeoffs across the board.

So, what makes the R5 worth $1100 more than an Z7, or $500 more than the A7R if you're a stills shooter?
 

Juangrande

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2017
90
123
I film a lot of protest and political content, the ability to do foto and video is indespensible as a freelancer. I sell footage and go into places most don't so to have both is a must. Here in Minneapolis I was out shooting and my 16-35 and 1dc were hit by rubber bullets, amazing the lens was ok and so was the body. They were not point blank but there was a blunt object that hit them. There is no denying that there is a place and time for all sorts of cameras but the low light of this a7 camera will allow for cleaner and more usable content. While out filming protests I witnessed people tying to steal news crews big cameras and people tried taking mine aswell but a slr style body is something tou can actually hold and run with if you need to. Will a sony take a betting like a 1d? probably not but to have both is a great thing. on a side not all these great tools coming out we never could have dreamed of, there is often so much anger and shit talk from our tribalism that we dont actually look and the genius ehind the tech. if you shoot sony thats great, if you shoot canon, thats great too. we should stop always fighting and just start capturing and using and adapting the tools that best suit us. and here is a link of what i shoot.
https://www.fox9.com/news/the-fall-of-the-third-precinct-a-timeline-of-events
They’re not protest they’re riots, call them what they are. #journalismnotpropaganda
 

Colorado

EOS M50
Dec 16, 2013
42
135
Obviously talking about the video side. I'm sure the stills are great on the r5, but that's all it is, once you start shooting stills you can't go to video cause the camera is overheated.

On the flip side 12 mpx is enough for me cause I only post photos to social. If you shoot prints the Sony is obviously not the camera for you
In two posts you just demonstrated the problem with internet forums. What you say here is basically that different use cases require different tools. Based on your use cases a video-focused camera with minor stills capabilities is what you are looking for. Other people want to maximize the skills capabilities and will rarely, if ever, use the video capabilities. Everything you said was very reasonable. (I think you are exaggerating the "shoot 5 stills and the camera is too hot for video" situation but we"ll see I guess.)

Your other post was, and I quote, "Sony just shat directly down canons throat" which is ridiculous. It is that Sony fanboy vs Canon fanboy taunting which i find tiresome.

I currently have a 1DX (no marks) and am close to ordering an R5. In all the time I have owned the 1DX there was one moment (I saw a herd of deer on a hike) that I thought a video would be interesting. I realized in the field that I had no idea how to switch the 1DX to video. :oops: By the time I fumbled around with it the deer were gone. Clearly for my uses cases a camera that focuses on stills capabilities at the expense of video capabilities is the right camera for me. If I need to take a video my phone does a fine job as I'm only going to be texting it in most cases.
 
Last edited:

Mark3794

EOS 90D
Sep 4, 2018
139
413
Well it looks like it won't ship before late september. Who knows if canon has another RF camera hidden under the pillow or a big firmware update for the R5/R6 ;)
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
445
Well it looks like it won't ship before late september. Who knows if canon has another RF camera hidden under the pillow or a big firmware update for the R5/R6 ;)
Give that my preorder is 4% of the way to being fulfilled based on my last update, I could likely get an A7SIII in my hands before an R5. Gives me plenty of time too read reviews and get re-aquainted with my 60D.
 

Max C

Canon 60D
Feb 9, 2020
104
115
The Z7 is 45 mp at $2700
The A7R4 is 61 mp is $3200
The GFX is medium format 50 mp at $3500

All have great image quality and pro-level performance. If you're comparing the unlimited video modes, the FF ones have full frame binned/skipped 4K that's soft, and crop modes that provide great quality. There are auto focus, battery, EVF, lens mount, card slot tradeoffs across the board.

So, what makes the R5 worth $1100 more than an Z7, or $500 more than the A7R if you're a stills shooter?
Exacteffingly!!!

Not to mention the $1100 saved on a Z7 vs R5 could get you an Atomos.

That means shit loads of storage on an SSD with Pro-effing-Res Raw out to HDMI, no recording limit. And other functionality.