Jared Polin a7III Review comparing with 6D Mark II
- Thread starter yungfat
- Start date
The whole thing is 38 minutes, and the guy was kind of annoyingly promotional and excited, so I couldn't bring myself to watch very much of it.
The biggest problem with the review is that most of it is just a regurgitation of stuff we've already seen in an endless litany of A7Riii reviews (since the A7iii is so similar). The TLDR is that he loves Sony MILCs and the Sony MILC experience, and if you absolutely love EVFs and want a full frame EVF camera in the very near future, go buy a Sony. But if you're invested in a Canon/Nikon system, wait a little while to see what they come up with in the next year.
However, I could turn it around: "There are no Sony cameras nowdays that are a comparison to DSLRs for a lot of the stuff I like to shoot, so I can throw them all out of a window."
1. You can actually see the painfully slow autofocus at about 3:30 into it, ironically, after he dives into how gen 3 is twice as fast as previous Sonys. I mean, my Canon T2i autofocuses faster than that through the viewfinder, by a factor of, maybe, triple?
2. You can turn off the lights and AF on a 6DII or any Nikon DSLR with an illuminator; and you can't on a Sony For whoever mentions the Godox X1T... turn off the lights and try to autofocus with it. Just because it lights up, doesn't mean it actually works.
3. The A7iii and A7Riii are really 8fps cameras, not 10fps cameras if you care about seeing what it is you're photographing through either the display or viewfinder.
4. If you like to shoot above f/8, A7 series sucks you into contrast detect AF, which is horribly slow. Guess what? LOTS of flash photography is at f/11 or higher.
5. If you need to AF in dim lighting -- like some modelling lights that aren't super bright, especially through modifiers, an A7Riii's AF is just horrible compared to something like a Canon or Nikon DSLR.
6. He talks about Silent Shutter banding, but never mentions distortion on moving subjects, which is far more significant.
7. If you care about telephoto better than 400/5.6... well, I don't think I have to finish that sentence.
8. If you like mechanical MF lenses, you're SOL.
9. If you enjoy charging batteries, the Sony A7 series is definitely going to be a hit. He doesn't seem to think so, but I don't believe for a second that he doesn't walk around with a fully charged spare. Oh, he didn't mention, the A7iii doesn't come with a charger (you plug in a USB cable to the camera to charge it).
10. He would personally buy an A9. And he's got a whole bunch of A7R's and such. And he talks about shooting on the Nikon D5 and D850. But on the Canon end... he's comparing it all to a 6DII?
I could go on and on. The Sony is a great camera situationally, but there are many times when it's a very poor tool. I actually don't like most of the unique features that make it special; frankly, a lot of them get in the way of photography, in my opinion. There are a couple of EVF-specific features that are pretty awesome, but for me, it's not worth the tradeoff, at least not yet. There is a magnificent sensor, but for me, it's not worth the crappy autofocus.
As a second camera, I think it could work pretty well. But I'd never give up my 6DII for it.
The biggest problem with the review is that most of it is just a regurgitation of stuff we've already seen in an endless litany of A7Riii reviews (since the A7iii is so similar). The TLDR is that he loves Sony MILCs and the Sony MILC experience, and if you absolutely love EVFs and want a full frame EVF camera in the very near future, go buy a Sony. But if you're invested in a Canon/Nikon system, wait a little while to see what they come up with in the next year.
However, I could turn it around: "There are no Sony cameras nowdays that are a comparison to DSLRs for a lot of the stuff I like to shoot, so I can throw them all out of a window."
1. You can actually see the painfully slow autofocus at about 3:30 into it, ironically, after he dives into how gen 3 is twice as fast as previous Sonys. I mean, my Canon T2i autofocuses faster than that through the viewfinder, by a factor of, maybe, triple?
2. You can turn off the lights and AF on a 6DII or any Nikon DSLR with an illuminator; and you can't on a Sony For whoever mentions the Godox X1T... turn off the lights and try to autofocus with it. Just because it lights up, doesn't mean it actually works.
3. The A7iii and A7Riii are really 8fps cameras, not 10fps cameras if you care about seeing what it is you're photographing through either the display or viewfinder.
4. If you like to shoot above f/8, A7 series sucks you into contrast detect AF, which is horribly slow. Guess what? LOTS of flash photography is at f/11 or higher.
5. If you need to AF in dim lighting -- like some modelling lights that aren't super bright, especially through modifiers, an A7Riii's AF is just horrible compared to something like a Canon or Nikon DSLR.
6. He talks about Silent Shutter banding, but never mentions distortion on moving subjects, which is far more significant.
7. If you care about telephoto better than 400/5.6... well, I don't think I have to finish that sentence.
8. If you like mechanical MF lenses, you're SOL.
9. If you enjoy charging batteries, the Sony A7 series is definitely going to be a hit. He doesn't seem to think so, but I don't believe for a second that he doesn't walk around with a fully charged spare. Oh, he didn't mention, the A7iii doesn't come with a charger (you plug in a USB cable to the camera to charge it).
10. He would personally buy an A9. And he's got a whole bunch of A7R's and such. And he talks about shooting on the Nikon D5 and D850. But on the Canon end... he's comparing it all to a 6DII?
I could go on and on. The Sony is a great camera situationally, but there are many times when it's a very poor tool. I actually don't like most of the unique features that make it special; frankly, a lot of them get in the way of photography, in my opinion. There are a couple of EVF-specific features that are pretty awesome, but for me, it's not worth the tradeoff, at least not yet. There is a magnificent sensor, but for me, it's not worth the crappy autofocus.
As a second camera, I think it could work pretty well. But I'd never give up my 6DII for it.
Upvote
0
I seem to recall that he does mention those (or similar) distortions at some point.
His video test of the 6D2 is mostly positive. Zone focusing doesn't work as well for him as it does on his Nikon. And he doesn't care for the spread of focus points.
Because of the widespread criticism of the dynamic range, he takes some of his test shots at ISO 100. He says at ISO 100 the camera has the same dynamic range as his $6,000 Nikon. His test shots can be downloaded so viewers can make their own comparisons.
This video does come off more like a puff piece.
His video test of the 6D2 is mostly positive. Zone focusing doesn't work as well for him as it does on his Nikon. And he doesn't care for the spread of focus points.
Because of the widespread criticism of the dynamic range, he takes some of his test shots at ISO 100. He says at ISO 100 the camera has the same dynamic range as his $6,000 Nikon. His test shots can be downloaded so viewers can make their own comparisons.
This video does come off more like a puff piece.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 379512
Guest
Talys said:
I think a lot of the points here will be really just dependent on what you shoot - I wouldn't throw the 6dmk2 out the window compared to it for this reason, but I do think the Sony is generally a more attractive camera, for the body cost. Throwing in the system as a whole, things probably even up more, but it does look like Sony have made the choice less black and white overall, than say when the a7ii was the alternative to the canon.
Just a few points to double check on though: I'm under the impression that this sony can focus to f11 in phase, unlike the a7riii which is f8. May not be a huge difference, but it is something.
Jared does go over the distortion in silent shooting, so I think that part was pretty fairly covered. The big part of this, compared to the 6dmk2 is that you get the option. It may not be perfect all the time but having it there is far better than not.
The battery life, again, is a bit of a 'what you're shooting' type of thing. I try to take spare batteries for whatever camera I'm taking with me if it's important.For what I shoot, the orignal 6d batteries last about the same on a single charge to my a7riii, but it's the usb charging that really makes the difference. Probably doesn't matter for most people, but it's huge for how I'm often shooting
8fps is faster than both the 6dmk2 and also the 5dmk4. As for the 10fps, it's not as smooth in the finder no, but if it's a fairly static situation (e.g a known bird landing spot), it's a nice option
I don't want to sound like I think the sony works miracles all the time, but compared to the 6dmk2, the a7iii really seems like a far more capable option, for what I like to shoot. The release of the 6dmk2 is the reason I even went with a sony in the end.
As for the comparison to the nikon d850, that seems a bit strange, the d750 would be a far more logical comparison choice given the pricings?
To answer the thread specifically, I think he does have a point; the 6dmk2 has some really strong competition from this sony, and as talys has shown, it's not because the sony does everything well. I'd put it as the canon really didn't push any boundaries for it's position and comes off looking lackluster compared to both this sony, and really the nikon d750 too
Upvote
0
Isaacheus said:
On this, I agree completely.
I just happen to be in the camp where most of what I want to photograph with a full frame camera is better served with a DSLR, either because an EVF is of zero value (because a big chunk of light is coming from strobes and modifiers), or because autofocus speed is extremely important (like birds in flight).
Also, because ergonomically, an A7/A9 body just serves me poorly, since I don't really have any small lenses -- 100L or 16-35L is probably my smallest lenses I frequently use; but 90% of the time, I have either a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 mounted.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 379512
Guest
Talys said:
Exactly this; the weight/size saving argument was never a plus for me as I typically use larger lenses too (sigma arts or the 16-35 f4) but as I have them on tripods a lot of the time, it has never been much of an issue.
I find the EVF is fantastic when shooting video, but again, that will be limited for a lot of people.
Family member has just picked up a new 5dmk4 so I'm very keen to try and sony and canon out side by side; unlike myself, their main focus is portraits, at times with flash, and I think the canon will be the better option here. How is the 6dmk2 for flash photography with the af spread? The spread always frustrates me on the original
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 379512
Guest
neuroanatomist said:
The one I have (a7r3) came with a charger - it would seem cheap to have a camera come without a charger yes.
But I'm often running timelapses, so being able to run a camera off a power bank is excellent. Or just charging it while travelling from my cell charger without taking the separate charger. On the Canon, I have to change batteries in the middle of timelapses, which can mean mistakes if I bump the tripod/missed frames, and often means I'm taking more spare batteries than the sony. I typically have a power bank or two anyway for my phone and lens warmers so those don't add anything extra in my use.
As an example, I was camping earlier this year, just 1 night but ended up running both canon batteries I had with me flat, while I didn't need to change the sony battery as it been able to run the entire time off the usb bank.
I'd love to see a Canon with the option of USB charging personally. Just a good feature to have, even if it's not used often for many situations
Upvote
0
When are not YouTube videos biased, marketing tools or uninformed? 98% of the time? Jared is no Tony and Chelsea but more and more these 'personalities' start merging into a similar vein. Makes me miss Kai and his sense of humor, tech info be damned...I can figure that out on my own thank you.
Upvote
0
yungfat said:
No offense to anyone. I'm sure Sony makes great camras.
I just don't care about it. At all.
I'm not tossing my gear and jumping ship for Sony.
Scott
Upvote
0
yungfat said:Talys said:
Thanks Tayls for informative reply.
Totally agreed with all your points, many people just do not tell the whole story.
Yes, and therein lies the danger of getting your information from the internet. No offense intended, but I think the current generation of folks who have grown up with the internet are unfortunately suckers for propaganda. The internet being, perhaps the greatest tool for propaganda and "spin" that we have ever seen. Are youtube reviews really unbiased? Are review sites really unbiased? Anyone can post "news and information" on the internet with absolutely no regard for truth and integrity. And there is pretty much no way to tell if you are being fed propaganda or truthful, well researched information.
If you want to buy a camera, go buy one and try it out. In regards to Sony - you may find that wanting one is a lot more fun and satisfying than having one.
Upvote
0
I don't care what camera I buy I always find things I love and things that drive me crazy. The thing I will say is that flip out screen on the 6dII is so handy. I remember when I shot the sx20, still got it, but I thought wow this flip out screen comes in handy. Then I went to the 7D and 5DII and I still curse the things when I want to shoot reAl low or high. As far as Jared is concerned my wife likes him so anything that can get my wife interested in photography is a plus for me.
Upvote
0
jd7 said:
Congrats! I think it's a fantastic camera. I love mine.
One thing that doesn't often get mentioned is that the 6DII is very good in post in low light. To the human eye, when it's unprocessed, the RAW noise not much different than any other. But when you put it in DPP default settings or use Lightroom at 25 - 50 noise correction for luminance/color, I find that the results are really, really pleasing.
For me, it's like every other Canon enthusiast camera -- very reliable, easy and comfortable to use, and doesn't get in the way of photography.
mover said:
I would have bought the 5D4 if a flip-out screen version of it had been made =X I think it is amazingly handy.
Upvote
0
dak723 said:yungfat said:Thanks Tayls for informative reply.
Totally agreed with all your points, many people just do not tell the whole story.
Yes, and therein lies the danger of getting your information from the internet. No offense intended, but I think the current generation of folks who have grown up with the internet are unfortunately suckers for propaganda. The internet being, perhaps the greatest tool for propaganda and "spin" that we have ever seen. Are youtube reviews really unbiased? Are review sites really unbiased? Anyone can post "news and information" on the internet with absolutely no regard for truth and integrity. And there is pretty much no way to tell if you are being fed propaganda or truthful, well researched information.
You think pre-internet print media was unbiased? That print journalists had to pass some test for "truth and integrity" before they were printed?
People have access to far more data than they ever did before. So there's a lot more fluff too - there's no reason why people growing up with this are more likely to believe falsehoods than their ancestors. It *is* possible to tell the difference - you can learn how to judge the quality of sources on the internet as in any other area of life.
Upvote
0
scyrene said:dak723 said:yungfat said:Thanks Tayls for informative reply.
Totally agreed with all your points, many people just do not tell the whole story.
Yes, and therein lies the danger of getting your information from the internet. No offense intended, but I think the current generation of folks who have grown up with the internet are unfortunately suckers for propaganda. The internet being, perhaps the greatest tool for propaganda and "spin" that we have ever seen. Are youtube reviews really unbiased? Are review sites really unbiased? Anyone can post "news and information" on the internet with absolutely no regard for truth and integrity. And there is pretty much no way to tell if you are being fed propaganda or truthful, well researched information.
You think pre-internet print media was unbiased? That print journalists had to pass some test for "truth and integrity" before they were printed?
People have access to far more data than they ever did before. So there's a lot more fluff too - there's no reason why people growing up with this are more likely to believe falsehoods than their ancestors. It *is* possible to tell the difference - you can learn how to judge the quality of sources on the internet as in any other area of life.
The following generation is never viewed as more intelligent by the previous.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
