Industry News: Sony officially announces the Alpha A7s III

[LDS]

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

The RF lenses?

 

[Bert63]

You seem very eager to find fault with the A7SIII yet defend the R5 which we now know isn’t the hybrid camera Canon initially made it out to be (and why I think $3899 in light of the overheating issues isn’t good value) If you really don’t care about video, why has the A7SIII got you so rattled?

Show me where it has me "rattled...."

Asking questions about something you don't understand used to be a good thing. In this day and age you can't ask anything without getting your head taken off.

I never said "i know what this camera can do and it isn't worth it" - I said "I don't know what this camera does so please help me understand it..."

Th0msky put it in perspective for me in words I can understand: It literally has features that very good cinema cameras like the canon C300 or C500 have, but for 5 times less the price.

I never looked at the R5 as a video camera so it's shortcomings (which aren't shortcomings at all to me because of the way I'll use the camera) are of no consequence.

The 5D4 came in at $3500 plus tax when it hit. The R5 is $3899 plus tax. Inflation-wise, it's a wash. I bought the R5 as a stills camera so the value is there regardless of any video it can shoot - it already outperforms the 5D4 on every front without even looking at video.

And I notice you didn't list all the stills cameras that can do what the R5 can do at its price point so we'll call that moot.

You also didn't try to answer my initial question which was 'what does this camera do that's so special?' Your choice was to give me shit for asking a simple question in the first place. Good job.

 

[navastronia]

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...

It really does. Lovely video camera, though it will handle much better in a cage and with a monitor, driving the real cost of the camera up from $3.5K to closer to $6K. "Ah," the amateur director says, "but with its high-ISO capability, I'd never have to light a scene ever again!"

No, but seriously, I could see myself shooting a low budget feature with 2 or 3 of these in the next few years. Here's hoping.

 

[Bert63]

The RF lenses?

and the EF lenses.
and the EF-S lenses
and a better EVF
and more FPS
and two memory card slots
and limited 8K
and tilty flippy versus tilty
and eight stops versus 5 stops IBIS combined

little things.

 

[navastronia]

Higher quality video. With the lower res sensor, it's really focused on great 4K. The oversampled 4k on the R5 will be better but comes with a ton of asterisks around heat, rolling shutter, etc. Sony's promising those big pixels mean low rolling shutter, great video dynamic range, longer shooting times before hitting thermal limits. This is exactly the camera that video shooters seem to want canon to build. (And, honestly, the R6 should have been a lot closer to this)

Preach.

 

[BakaBokeh]

Sony did good with this camera. It's target is videographer's and they almost nailed it. If not for the still crappy IBIS, it's near perfect for video.

I'm a 60:40 video : photo shooter so will stick with the R5. The R5 appears near flawless as a stills camera and has all video specs available with a time limit on it. My shooting style can work with that thankfully. It'd be nice not to have to worry about it, but it is likely a non-issue for me. I'm also in love with RF glass which Sony can't use. Also as a gimbal user, I can't wait to use Canon's IBIS, which looks best in class for a full frame camera.

The competition is great. I hope this will make Canon make a videography camera. They certainly have the tech for it, and its a matter of design decisions. Ditch the weather sealing, add passive/active cooling, remove the recording limit and it already has a winner. Then they can add video oriented features like more AutoFocus controls, a mini xlr module, and tune the processor/sensor performance for video first/stills second and that'd be a wrap.

Don't know why people need to feel threatened by Camera Brands. We are getting some amazing technology all across the board. I'm excited more about all the creators who now have these amazing tools to work with.

 

[davidhfe]

and the EF lenses.
and the EF-S lenses
and a better EVF
and more FPS
and two memory card slots
and limited 8K
and tilty flippy versus tilty
and eight stops versus 5 stops IBIS combined

little things.

There are lots of reasons why the R5 is better than those other cameras. I'd hope so, as it's more expensive. Canon did not aggressively price this one vs its stills competition, though. It seems to be priced as a "one body to do it all" type camera.

 

[mhbstudio]

Time to unload my A7III on Gear Focus.

 

[marioslrzn]

Higher quality video. With the lower res sensor, it's really focused on great 4K. The oversampled 4k on the R5 will be better but comes with a ton of asterisks around heat, rolling shutter, etc. Sony's promising those big pixels mean low rolling shutter, great video dynamic range, longer shooting times before hitting thermal limits. This is exactly the camera that video shooters seem to want canon to build. (And, honestly, the R6 should have been a lot closer to this)

The r5 and r6 have better rolling shutter performance , Dan Watson put side by side comparison and he was surprised that the 45mp had better performance and we know the r6 has better performance rolling shutter

 

[marioslrzn]

Sony just shat directly down canons throat

How is that when the r6 and r5 have better 4k quality, am i missing something?

 

[BakaBokeh]

The r5 and r6 have better rolling shutter performance , Dan Watson put side by side comparison and he was surprised that the 45mp had better performance and we know the r6 has better performance rolling shutter

Yeah it's weird. I didn't see Dan's video, but on other video side by side comparisons, they were saying Sony's was better as expected. They showed freeze frame side by side, and the angle certainly favored the Sony. But in real time the Canon just looked better.

 

[RayValdez360]

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?

Canon just stringing us along because of our investments.

 

[Bert63]

There are lots of reasons why the R5 is better than those other cameras. I'd hope so, as it's more expensive. Canon did not aggressively price this one vs its stills competition, though. It seems to be priced as a "one body to do it all" type camera.

I think they priced it as their 5D4 replacement and hit the nail on the head. Show me another camera with this much progress over the camera it replaces, video features aside, that is virtually price unchanged for six years.

Given all the lenses the R5 can use - at all price points from beginner to professional - and all it's stills features, who do you see as the competition, and which of those would be revolutionary enough to make someone with a large inventory of L glass switch?

I see very few.

I do, however, see the attraction to beginning with Canon and having this as an upgrade option down the road knowing all your stuff is going to carry forward.

 

[caffetin]

i dont know.but one think i dont like on sony is that thay pushing very fast tempo.like healing some complex and want to say we are the best.canon when something make is maked for long time.

 

[marioslrzn]

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?

Let’s get one thing straight, non of them have 20fps, 8 stop ibis, higher iso performance, 180 raw buffer, better autofocus, native f1.2 lens with 8stops of ibis, LCD screen, 5ghz WiFi .even my iPhone can shoot photos but lets put it in perspective the r5 as a package blows away it’s competitors. Yes the a7siii does 4k but it’s not the best 4k, only thing it has no time limit and 4k60fps 1 hour instead of 35 min. So the minute you slap on a ninja v on a r6 and you’ll be cheaper and have better 4k quality with unlimited recording. Canon just needs update their firmware with lower bit rates and codecs and that would help a lot with the heating

 

[marioslrzn]

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.

Can you shoot wildlife and birding with a z7, does it have the 8 stop of ibis, does the focusing comes even close, 20fps...you can put 3 atomos and that still won’t make it better.....you remind me of someone buying wheels for there car and when they try to sell it there’s no value added from the wheels . And z7 doesn’t do 4k120fps or oversampled 4k30fps, let’s not even talk about the 8k, which i don’t care about but it’s there

 

[cornieleous]

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.

Not really revolutionary at all but evolutionary it seems. I am sure it will be a fine, purpose built camera with excellent quality. It seems to improve in several areas but is not the desired hybrid camera people seem to want to do every job for a cheap price in a tiny body. I feel the R6 and R5 are more revolutionary although they seem to not handle long filming at high bitrate. The SH1 also looks revolutionary with a mid MP sensor and actually useful enough stills capability (although not weather sealed, it is a dedicated video cam that happens to make the grade for stills).

 

[davidhfe]

I think they priced it as their 5D4 replacement and hit the nail on the head. Show me another camera with this much progress over the camera it replaces, video features aside, that is virtually price unchanged for six years.

Given all the lenses the R5 can use - at all price points from beginner to professional - and all it's stills features, who do you see as the competition, and which of those would be revolutionary enough to make someone with a large inventory of L glass switch?

I see very few.

I do, however, see the attraction to beginning with Canon and having this as an upgrade option down the road knowing all your stuff is going to carry forward.

I have a pre-order, so I agree overall. If you're looking in a vacuum, or if you're heavily invested in L glass, you're likely to make the same call.

But I read the original point as "there's nothing that compares at this price for stills", and I disagree with that assessment. If you're looking at this on a stills-by-stills basis, it is more expensive (20-40% so) than it's peers. If that premium is worth it (Better speed, EVF, autofocus, ergonomics, being three key things) is the consumer's decision. But lets not pretend like the A7R4 isn't a phenomenal device that's hampered by some weird quirks. And it certainly seems like Sony has *finally* decided to address the quirks.

I mean, that was always the question, right? Will Sony figure out colors/ergo and get a lens catalog before Canon figures out speed. Turns out they both figured 'em out at the same time, oh, and Canon started from "scratch" with RF.

I am off topic now, but the A7R5 will be Sony's answer to the R5 and it will rock. What's Canon's answer for the A7SIII? Because "buy a C300" is not going to cut it anymore. "Use your EF glass on a Sony" is not going to cut it once we're all on RF glass. Sony chose to lead with video, and promote it as such. Canon chose to lead with stills and got skewered by a bunch of video people because apparently us stills shooters hang out on forums instead of making content thirst traps on YouTube

 

[koenkooi]

[..]

I'm also surprised nobody is talking about the oversampled 4k crop mode on the R5 (which has no overheating issues). For best quality video (and constant reliability) I foresee myself using this mode almost exclusively. Super35 fov, with DPAF, oversampled 5.1k into 4k, 10 bit 4::2:2 C-log..... [..]

I’m very excited about that crop mode, it should work wonders for my attempts at shooting macro videos.

 

[Deleted member 384473]

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.

Well one thing is that its usable and reliable for video shooters LOL. No record limit. No Overheating. No line skipping on 4k unlike Canon's LQ 4K. Canon's 4KHQ & 8K Raw are much more detailed, although less dynamic range, but it doesn't matter. It is not reliable and could ruin a day of shooting. Could be a great crash cam though, especially at 8K res. R5 is an amazing stills camera and I wanted it to be my hybrid work horse to compliment my cine cam but... I need a reliable tool for content. A7S3 is an amazing video camera from what I've seen.