Could it be a bandwidth issue? I remember reading about 120fps 4k video on an Android phone being limited to only a few (real-time) seconds because there wasn't enough I/O bandwidth to stream the video to storage so it had to stream into a specialized hardware buffer that was relatively small and expensive.
RAW format doesn't just mean an uncompressed image like a PNG. It's a direct readout from the sensor with minimal processing. It can be substantially larger than you'd expect just based on the resolution * bits per pixel.
Good point! But in the other direction, don't forget that even those there's less "pixels" than expected from the sensor, there will be more than 10 bits per channel, typically 12 or 14. I shouldn't have said it's larger, not necessarily - but it's definitely not 1:1!
You don't need a x3 there since most cameras use a single monochrome sensor with a colour filter array on top – the debayering process can happen offline.
I think if you're Raw spatialy down-sampled you'll want RGB and not Bayer under-sampled so triple that. No SD is reasonably over 250MB/sec and they are all 64GB. Even at FHD 30Hz you'll only get 30sec of 8bit (not really Raw) video on your insane SD card.
You realize that Bayer data counts every column and row whether R G or B, right? Half the pixels (21Mpix) are green and the other 2 quarters are R and G.
So if you're going down to FHD (2kx1k) from 42Mpix (8kx5k) you have already lost massive ammounts of resolution (and noise). Bayer FHD would be SPR (sup-pixel rendered) and even lower resolution (1/3 RGB e.g. 1080 lines of 1920 RG/BG alternating columns) than most JPEG FHD (natural scene) not suitable for video compression much less Raw. That would be silly.
If you don't down-sample the data somehow you can't even get it off the CIS which are limited to ~2-5Gb/sec. Since most reasonable image sizes are large enough you can see color at full resolution we typically use RGB at FHD, compressed or not. Alternately, you can go to 4:4:4 to 4:2:2 or even 4:1:1 in Yuv (YCbCr), but that's not Raw or anything like it.
Because it's literally another magnitude of data rate. For cinema raw, the whole camera has to be designed around a high speed data path to a very fast and wide storage system. This is much bigger, more power hungry, more thermally demanding, and more expensive than even the high end DSLRs.
The a7iii can shoot JPEG at 10fps pretty much continuously as far as I can tell. Well, that's about 80MB/s. Cinema RAW 4K @30fps varies wildly but one number I've heard is about 4.5Gbps. 550MB/s. That is a substantial increase which would require not only a redesign of the entire data path but presumably much higher grades of storage. Maybe one day but not happening anytime soon!
And the data rates for raw video aren't that high btw - redcode is lossless at 3:1 and visually lossless up to 9:1. CinemaDNG is about 3:1 - 4:1 (vbr).
My blackmagic pocket shoots 1080p/30fps RAW on a 90MB/s SD card and the camera is the size of smallest mirrorless.
I think the real reason we haven't seen more consumer RAW video is there isn't enough demand - which is a shame.
While I personally love RAW video for grading I'm looking forward to seeing how much dynamic range gets stored in 10bit HVEC footage, which I think will become very popular (because of HDR displays)
New UHS-ii cards do up to 300MB/s sequential write, blackmagic can record 1080p raw on them, could probably push more. For 4k Check BM Ursa Mini pro and Canon C200 - both shoot 4k raw internally to Cfast cards
For true Raw it would be 40Mpix×10bitx60Hz. That's 3GB/sec which greatly exceeds the imager transport speed. Even 4k@30Hz 10bit RGB Raw would be ~900MB/sec depending on how they down-sample Bayer, which is several times the imager transport limit (2-5Gb?). Even the highest speed SD cards can barely do 100MB/sec write speeds (edit: some can now do 250MB/sec but they are only 64GB) so you would need a DDR-DRAM buffer for as much as you wanted to store. 32GB would give you ~30sec burst, and you could get 4 bursts separated by 5min on a 128GB card, but your battery wouldn't last long.
Really high dynamic range M-JPEG would be reasonable unless you're trying to resolve the noise in your CIS.
Though often at lower resolutions/fps/color than the SD/CF, so maybe there's a bandwidth limitation there too?
I think there's also some "antifeatures" involved; artificially limiting that ability on cameras that cost less than $5k to avoid disrupting the expensive "cinema video camera" market. Of course custom firmware can sometimes help with that.
The only thing that gives Canon and Nikon momentum is lenses. People with a huge investment can't easily jump ship.
I stopped using my 5D3 a couple of years ago when I bought an A6000. I added the A6500 + 70-300mm G lens for sports (son does crew). The equivalent lens for my 5D3 would have been very, very expensive (300mm * 1.6 is 480mm, so the Canon 500mm is the closest and it's ~$5,000).
No loss, except perhaps some vignette (for lenses whose optical path might partially clip because of the smaller E-mount flange). The adapters pass through/translate the electronic signals and set the proper flange distance. Nothing more.
I've done this (using full frame lenses with a speed booster) but have to say native Sony lenses are often really good, and half the size/weight of full frame lenses.
Also autofocus doesn't always work or is slow with the speed booster
Using one of these with my Nikon lenses on an Olympus m43 body ... results are spectacular. It allows you to throw 35mm amounts of light on a sensor 1/4 as large, which has benefits.
I've been thinking of going that route, but when I looked a couple of years ago there were significant limitations. Seems the reviews are much more positive now.
I like how the article talks about the price and the specs but has no real shots. Maybe price and specs are what makes it appealing to people but not shots? ;-) Crazy high price, full frame, interchangeable lenses, BIONZ, megapixel, yada yada, no sample shots.
Although cameras with interchangeable lenses are not obsolete yet, I think innovations through software has been so phenomenal. The economy of scale has never worked so well. In many cases, the iPhone/Pixel with that tiny cheap camera sensors could do a good of a job as the bulky lenses and sensors of the $2k one. It's so ridiculous to me that cool stuff such as the bokeh effect or different lighting conditions or green screen effects can be computed/simulated to a believable degree in software. It still absolutely boggles my mind that my pixel in 2016 blew my Sony 2012 mirrorless camera away in terms of performance when shooting at nights (and in daylight when compared to using the kit lens).
I think if this trend continues, it's not long before interchangeable lenses cameras become in the same bin as tube amps, hi-def lossless mp3 players, handmade watches, film cameras, and nice turntables. These niches appealing to a very few and demand a crazy price (and maybe they have real merits), but you know that ship has sailed.
I used to think pretty much the same but now that I own one of Sony’s high end models I realize that’s quite naive.
There’s no comparison in quality, photo noise or pretty much anything in terms of possible results between my Sony A99 II and say, an iPhone X. The only place where iPhone X comes out ahead the ridiculous easiness in achieving decent (but not stunning) results due to its impressive camera software. In anything but a simple photo in perfect light the Sony can produce a photo that’s easily a magnitude better than the iPhone X.
I’m not an expert in optics/physics but I think the reason for this difference is simply how much light aka photons enter the tiny camera of an iPhone compared to a big lens. The difference there’s probably 1-2 orders of magnitude in terms of surface area of the lens.
I'm not sure about that. Smart phones still can't match APSC sized sensors in low light (and probably not even M43 either). They also can't change lenses if you need a different perspective. Also, for studio work, they need a way to trigger the lights. Right now, it's using hotshoe trigger. You also need a way to save to SD cards, not just to the internal HD, and a way to import the raws to a computer. And no, snapseed isn't usable for a professional that shoots 1000's of photos per session. If you add all that up, it basically becomes a bulky, mirrorless camera.
While I agree with everything you said, there are companies like Moment that are doing some very interesting things with add-on lenses for smartphones. I've been having a LOT of fun with their macro and wide-rectilinear lenses on my iPhone X. Their 60mm tele is nice too when you add it to the iPhone's tele lens, giving you 4x optical zoom. It won't replace my 5Dmark4 any time soon, but you can get some really nice photos.
For P&S cameras you're right. They are already done. People who use their DSLRs as a P&S also may be better served by the phones of the world.
As someone who is trying not carry my D7100 + lenses all over, I am constantly looking for ways to move to something lighter/smaller. While my iPhoneX does a good job in snapshot situations, it still doesn't compare to my D7100 + 35mm. And, if we get into 'bulky' lenses like my 70-300mm I don't see how a phone lens + software can ever be a stand in because of physics.
I'm not a phone camera hater, and in fact I'm routinely amazed how great many shots come off the phone with little effort. I just don't see how the physics problems can be solved with software anytime soon though.
As an aside, when will one of these camera manufactures partner with an Apple or Google and take their amazing image processing software and put it on a high quality body/lens?
I'm guessing you're not a wedding or news photographer...
You can't get around physics. Nobody is going to prefer fake bokeh to a real lens.
So far nothing in a cellphone that I've seen has been comparable to anything from a DSLR with a real lens, and that's also ignoring all the extra usability features found on a DSLR as well.
My perception from reading tech sites has been that Sony's cameras have been really good for 5-10 years. I expected that it's one of the few Sony businesses which has been doing well recently. Looking at financial statements, that's not the case - the unit's been declining since 2012 (the earliest I looked).
Competition has been stiff, even smaller companies like Pentax, Fujifilm and Sigma have made great cameras. The lock-in effect from Nikon and Canon lenses and accessories is strong (and those companies have also made great cameras, of course). Also the whole segment is in decline due to smartphones (Sony's semiconductor business has grown a lot - I assume due to smartphone camera sensors).
Anyway, it was an interesting exercise. Financial statements are really accessible and it's good to check your assumptions with data from time to time.
About everybody else but Canon uses Sony sensors and fab. Canon still designs their own sensors and ATM they seem to be losing the sensor tech race to Sony.
While Sony's sensor technology has been great, until last year there were significant issues with the full frame camera line up that prevented many people from switching: poor battery life, difficult controls (no joystick for moving focus point), slightly worse colors, complex menu system, not great autofocus using adapted lenses, small range of native E-mount lenses.
This changed with the A9, then A7R III and now the A7 III, and the Sony lens range has really improved. While the configuration is still a bother e.g. setting up eye autofocus (eye-AF), the other issues have been addressed. Weather sealing is below the competitors.
The A7 III represents tremendous value compared to the competition, I think it will shift people to Sony — I switched to Sony after 12 years of shooting Canon DSLRs and quite an investment in Canon 'L' glass.
At the same retail price the Canon 6D Mark II is an embarrassment compared to the A7 III. The A7 III is probably better than the Canon 5D Mark IV, retailing at 1/2 the price.
Now, the camera itself doesn't make you a great photographer, but if you are parting with that kind of money you want a tool that helps you, and the Sony is very impressive. Eye-AF speed and accuracy alone has breathed new life into my Canon lenses and allowed me to get shots that I would have missed with my Canon bodies.
Anecdata from my end is that when I last changed cameras, I really wanted an A7 but got an m43 kit instead, because quality lenses for the Sony were extremely limited and expensive compared to the Canon DSLR equivalents I'm used to.
The body seems killer but lenses are the other half of the equation. I am an early mirrorless believer (bought a Panasonic G1 new) and I've been excited about mirrorless full framers from Sony since they first came up.
The fact that despite having wanted that camera for so long I still failed to justify the purchase is bad news for Sony in my book.
I looked over the images in DPReview's sample gallery [0] and I'm astounded by the noise performance. I'd consider printing an image taken at ISO 3200 or maybe even 6400 with that camera. For context, I don't think I would print an image above ISO 800 from my current camera (Canon 7D).
Noise at high ISO has gotten dramatically better pretty much across the board. There was a bit of a megapixel race for a while but today manufacturers seem to generally be ramping up quality/capabilities in a more balaced way.
As someone why used to do a lot of available light photography with film. I find setting the iso dial to 3200 and just shoot with very little compromise almost magical.
This appears to be an artefact that occurs with silent shutter mode in some cases. Regular shooting mode doesn't have this problem. I've read about this but I don't know the cause.
I have too much money in Fuji so I won't switch. But the A7iii looks really good. Sony's lens line up is a little thin but if they can convince Tamron and Sigma to make lenses for their mount they may be unbeatable.
This is a lovely bit of kit, and if i had stacks of spare money, i would absolutely buy one.
But. What is this for? if you want uncompromising image quality in all use cases, the A7 is competitive with Canon and Nikon, but not clearly superior. If you want the compactness that mirrorless can bring, Micro Four Thirds' smaller sensor enables very significantly smaller lenses, requiring only the sacrifice of low-light sensitivity. It think it falls between those two stools.
Mind you, i say that as a Micro Four Thirds owner. Perhaps i'm biased. Still, if i was going to add an expensive big camera to my arsenal, i'd probably jump all the way to medium format!
Depth of field changes by the equivalent of one stop from full frame to aps-c, another from aps-c to micro four thirds. Thus, a f/2.8 zoom on mft shoots like a f/5.6 zoom on full frame.
Now if there only were fast full frame lenses for Sony E ...
What are you looking for? You have native 35mm, 50mm, 85mm at f1.4, not to mention the very sharp 55 f1.8. You have the 16-35mm and 24-70mm at f2.8. Sigma have just announced their range of primes for E-Mount.
I use the Canon 135 f2 and 35 f1.4 using a Metabones adapter. Not as good as native E-mount but pretty good.
This is a general statement. Something like ISO performance can be affected by engineering if the sensor (BSI vs old tech for instance) but based on the underlying physics the above holds true.
The viewfinder in a mirrorless is a full-on digital display, meaning it can be overlaid with all sorts of useful information that simply isn't possible on a DSLR's optical viewfinder. You also see exactly what the sensor is actually capturing. A lot of people (me included) consider mirrorless to be the future, whereas the writing is on the wall for DSLRs. DSLRs exist because sensors and displays didn't use to be good enough, necessitating the optical path, but they are now.
Also, mirrorless is significantly smaller than DSLRs for the same sensor size. Smaller and lighter is always welcome.
I have one myself, so I'm aware -- just didn't see that part of the post properly. Fixed my comment accordingly.
Anyway, the simple answer is that a full-frame mirrorless is for people who want the features you can't get in a DSLR, and also for the size and weight advantage. If you don't already have a bunch of lenses invested in some previous system, then it's pretty obvious why you'd choose a mirrorless when starting from scratch.
Sony also has more compact offerings such as the alpha 6500 and the excellent RX100 in its fifth iteration. They also have a partnership with Carl Zeiss.
Medium format is quite another league, you're looking at an order of magnitude more expensive gear, mainly studio oriented.
One benefit of the larger sensor is higher dynamic range. If you want to photograph images with great contrast and details at the same time (e.g. for product photography or landscapes), you need a camera that offers you great color sensitivity.
Of course, it is all depends on how maximalist you (or your clients) are.
I recently switched to full-frame from APC-C, the first thing I noticed was it is much easier to make pictures with “wow” factor than with my APC-C one, but that is something I expect after spending 4-times prince on the gear. (Sony NEX-6 -> Sony A7 II, almost the same years they came out, so I don't expect much difference on camera IQ.)
It's about depth of field, i.e. getting that beautiful out of focus effect for backgrounds (bokeh) to isolate your subject. And also about megapixels.
Shooting with a portrait lens on full frame e.g. 85mm at f1/4 at 2m from a subject I have about 4cm depth of field, with everything outside of that increasingly blurred. On a micro 4/3 the closest equivalent zoom would be using a 42mm lens, say at f1.4 which would have 9cm depth of field, equivalent to a full frame 85mm at f2.8.
The advantage of mirrorless camera size then goes away because lenses with wide aperture are bigger and heavier, because of physics.
I don't know what the advantage of medium format is at this point. I have the A7R III which has 42mp and a wide range of Sony and Canon lenses available. The quality is amazing, it's a relatively light, and relatively 'affordable' compared to medium format when you take into account body and high quality lenses.
Full frame sensor has almost 4x the area of a m4/3 sensor. It seems a little hyperbolic to describe the difference as merely sacrificing low-light sensitivity; noise is also a big difference with the smaller sensor "pixels", surely?
Bodies are uber cool (and that comes from a guy shooting stars and nature with Nikon D750 every weekend), but Sony lenses portfolio is pathetically small at this moment. You know, the other half of the whole quality equation camera.
Where is cheap all-around high quality 24-120? Cheap and yet superbly sharp 20mm 1.8 or better? Yes, you can find some, but cheap ain't part of description.
Size and weight isn't everything (otherwise everybody would be shooting with cell phones or gopro-likes). I don't mind my 2.5kg setup when backpacking for weeks, I don't mind it when hiking/ski touring. I know what I get in return. For climbing/skiing/paraglide gopro is anyway much much better.
Also, you can't cheat physics and have big sensor complemented by lightweight tiny lens and expect good result. Now if Nikon would come up with these electronics in in their FF D line, I would take it even if they would weight the same.
Fixed focal length lenses are also easier to make. My Nikon 35mm is inexpensive, light, and takes great pictures. The downside is I have to zoom with my feet.
You don’t have to cheat physics to get a much smaller lens with mirrorless. Without the room for the reflex mirror, the rear element of the lens can be much closer to the image plane. This makes it MUCH easier to build a really high quality 50mm or shorter fast lens in a small package. Yes, if they’re Leica, they can be very expensive, but Cosina makes some beautiful lenses under the Voigtlander label that will knock your socks off for less than $500. If you really want to blow your mind, check out the Voigtlander 12mm and 10mm full-frame lenses - try that with your SLR!
DSLR’s are at a major disadvantage for focal lengths of 50mm and shorter.
I’ve been shooting a Sony NEX-7 for years. Amazing camera. The great thing about e-mount (and mirrorless in general) is that you can stick almost any old manual lens on the thing with the proper mechanical adapter. Gives you an enormous back catalog of 50 years worth of gear to play around with, much of it reasonably priced ($5 bargin bin lenses are often the most fun too, so don’t bother lusting after Leica). The MC and MD Minoltas are my personal favorites lines, along with the Olympus OMs. One of those is a good, cheap way to get your feet wet
For still photography only, it is bested at the same price by the Pentax K1 mkII.
Pentax has 36mp to the Sony 24mp, and not only the current lenses made by Pentax and 3rd parties for the K mount, but the entire K mount and M42 legacy lens system is easy to use as well.
Maybe I am just an old neckbeard, but the electronic gimmicks Sony has added don't impress me nor do I believe that it will improve a person's photography.
Still, if doing a mix of stills and video, the Sony wins out with superior video.
73 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] thread3840×2160×10×3×60÷8÷1024÷1024÷1024
8-bit pixels: 1920x1080x30 = 62.2 MB/sec
14-bit: 109 MB/s
Even UHD in 8 bits should work.
https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/fastest-sd-car...
So if you're going down to FHD (2kx1k) from 42Mpix (8kx5k) you have already lost massive ammounts of resolution (and noise). Bayer FHD would be SPR (sup-pixel rendered) and even lower resolution (1/3 RGB e.g. 1080 lines of 1920 RG/BG alternating columns) than most JPEG FHD (natural scene) not suitable for video compression much less Raw. That would be silly.
If you don't down-sample the data somehow you can't even get it off the CIS which are limited to ~2-5Gb/sec. Since most reasonable image sizes are large enough you can see color at full resolution we typically use RGB at FHD, compressed or not. Alternately, you can go to 4:4:4 to 4:2:2 or even 4:1:1 in Yuv (YCbCr), but that's not Raw or anything like it.
The a7iii can shoot JPEG at 10fps pretty much continuously as far as I can tell. Well, that's about 80MB/s. Cinema RAW 4K @30fps varies wildly but one number I've heard is about 4.5Gbps. 550MB/s. That is a substantial increase which would require not only a redesign of the entire data path but presumably much higher grades of storage. Maybe one day but not happening anytime soon!
And even more (Sony FS, Panasonic EVA 1) with external recorders.
Almost all use SSD though for raw video - new SD cards have good enough speed but haven't been widely implemented - https://liliputing.com/2018/02/wd-demos-sd-card-880mb-s-spee...
And the data rates for raw video aren't that high btw - redcode is lossless at 3:1 and visually lossless up to 9:1. CinemaDNG is about 3:1 - 4:1 (vbr).
My blackmagic pocket shoots 1080p/30fps RAW on a 90MB/s SD card and the camera is the size of smallest mirrorless.
I think the real reason we haven't seen more consumer RAW video is there isn't enough demand - which is a shame.
While I personally love RAW video for grading I'm looking forward to seeing how much dynamic range gets stored in 10bit HVEC footage, which I think will become very popular (because of HDR displays)
For true Raw it would be 40Mpix×10bitx60Hz. That's 3GB/sec which greatly exceeds the imager transport speed. Even 4k@30Hz 10bit RGB Raw would be ~900MB/sec depending on how they down-sample Bayer, which is several times the imager transport limit (2-5Gb?). Even the highest speed SD cards can barely do 100MB/sec write speeds (edit: some can now do 250MB/sec but they are only 64GB) so you would need a DDR-DRAM buffer for as much as you wanted to store. 32GB would give you ~30sec burst, and you could get 4 bursts separated by 5min on a 128GB card, but your battery wouldn't last long.
Really high dynamic range M-JPEG would be reasonable unless you're trying to resolve the noise in your CIS.
I think there's also some "antifeatures" involved; artificially limiting that ability on cameras that cost less than $5k to avoid disrupting the expensive "cinema video camera" market. Of course custom firmware can sometimes help with that.
I stopped using my 5D3 a couple of years ago when I bought an A6000. I added the A6500 + 70-300mm G lens for sports (son does crew). The equivalent lens for my 5D3 would have been very, very expensive (300mm * 1.6 is 480mm, so the Canon 500mm is the closest and it's ~$5,000).
Do you know if you loose a stop or two of aperture like you do with a doubler? i.e. if the lens is f/1.8, will it still be that mounted on the Sony?
Also autofocus doesn't always work or is slow with the speed booster
That is not a G Master lens. The G Master lenses are quite a bit more expensive. I don't believe Sony even makes a 24-105 G Master: https://www.sony.com/electronics/g-master-lenses
Either way, the quality of all Sony native E-mount lenses are amazing.
Although cameras with interchangeable lenses are not obsolete yet, I think innovations through software has been so phenomenal. The economy of scale has never worked so well. In many cases, the iPhone/Pixel with that tiny cheap camera sensors could do a good of a job as the bulky lenses and sensors of the $2k one. It's so ridiculous to me that cool stuff such as the bokeh effect or different lighting conditions or green screen effects can be computed/simulated to a believable degree in software. It still absolutely boggles my mind that my pixel in 2016 blew my Sony 2012 mirrorless camera away in terms of performance when shooting at nights (and in daylight when compared to using the kit lens).
I think if this trend continues, it's not long before interchangeable lenses cameras become in the same bin as tube amps, hi-def lossless mp3 players, handmade watches, film cameras, and nice turntables. These niches appealing to a very few and demand a crazy price (and maybe they have real merits), but you know that ship has sailed.
There’s no comparison in quality, photo noise or pretty much anything in terms of possible results between my Sony A99 II and say, an iPhone X. The only place where iPhone X comes out ahead the ridiculous easiness in achieving decent (but not stunning) results due to its impressive camera software. In anything but a simple photo in perfect light the Sony can produce a photo that’s easily a magnitude better than the iPhone X.
I’m not an expert in optics/physics but I think the reason for this difference is simply how much light aka photons enter the tiny camera of an iPhone compared to a big lens. The difference there’s probably 1-2 orders of magnitude in terms of surface area of the lens.
As someone who is trying not carry my D7100 + lenses all over, I am constantly looking for ways to move to something lighter/smaller. While my iPhoneX does a good job in snapshot situations, it still doesn't compare to my D7100 + 35mm. And, if we get into 'bulky' lenses like my 70-300mm I don't see how a phone lens + software can ever be a stand in because of physics.
I'm not a phone camera hater, and in fact I'm routinely amazed how great many shots come off the phone with little effort. I just don't see how the physics problems can be solved with software anytime soon though.
As an aside, when will one of these camera manufactures partner with an Apple or Google and take their amazing image processing software and put it on a high quality body/lens?
You can't get around physics. Nobody is going to prefer fake bokeh to a real lens.
So far nothing in a cellphone that I've seen has been comparable to anything from a DSLR with a real lens, and that's also ignoring all the extra usability features found on a DSLR as well.
Competition has been stiff, even smaller companies like Pentax, Fujifilm and Sigma have made great cameras. The lock-in effect from Nikon and Canon lenses and accessories is strong (and those companies have also made great cameras, of course). Also the whole segment is in decline due to smartphones (Sony's semiconductor business has grown a lot - I assume due to smartphone camera sensors).
Anyway, it was an interesting exercise. Financial statements are really accessible and it's good to check your assumptions with data from time to time.
This changed with the A9, then A7R III and now the A7 III, and the Sony lens range has really improved. While the configuration is still a bother e.g. setting up eye autofocus (eye-AF), the other issues have been addressed. Weather sealing is below the competitors.
The A7 III represents tremendous value compared to the competition, I think it will shift people to Sony — I switched to Sony after 12 years of shooting Canon DSLRs and quite an investment in Canon 'L' glass.
At the same retail price the Canon 6D Mark II is an embarrassment compared to the A7 III. The A7 III is probably better than the Canon 5D Mark IV, retailing at 1/2 the price.
Now, the camera itself doesn't make you a great photographer, but if you are parting with that kind of money you want a tool that helps you, and the Sony is very impressive. Eye-AF speed and accuracy alone has breathed new life into my Canon lenses and allowed me to get shots that I would have missed with my Canon bodies.
The body seems killer but lenses are the other half of the equation. I am an early mirrorless believer (bought a Panasonic G1 new) and I've been excited about mirrorless full framers from Sony since they first came up.
The fact that despite having wanted that camera for so long I still failed to justify the purchase is bad news for Sony in my book.
[0] https://www.dpreview.com/samples/9120111657/sony-a7-iii-samp...
As someone why used to do a lot of available light photography with film. I find setting the iso dial to 3200 and just shoot with very little compromise almost magical.
Zoom in
http://hamamatsu.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/ccdsatandblooming.h...
The lens line up is pretty good now.
I own a 6000 and 6500 and they are both amazing for the pricepoint. I have been looking to invest into their full frame offering for a while now.
But. What is this for? if you want uncompromising image quality in all use cases, the A7 is competitive with Canon and Nikon, but not clearly superior. If you want the compactness that mirrorless can bring, Micro Four Thirds' smaller sensor enables very significantly smaller lenses, requiring only the sacrifice of low-light sensitivity. It think it falls between those two stools.
Mind you, i say that as a Micro Four Thirds owner. Perhaps i'm biased. Still, if i was going to add an expensive big camera to my arsenal, i'd probably jump all the way to medium format!
Now if there only were fast full frame lenses for Sony E ...
I use the Canon 135 f2 and 35 f1.4 using a Metabones adapter. Not as good as native E-mount but pretty good.
Sony lack the range in long zooms though.
Focal length x crop factor
Aperture x crop factor
ISO x crop factor squared
This is a general statement. Something like ISO performance can be affected by engineering if the sensor (BSI vs old tech for instance) but based on the underlying physics the above holds true.
Also, mirrorless is significantly smaller than DSLRs for the same sensor size. Smaller and lighter is always welcome.
Anyway, the simple answer is that a full-frame mirrorless is for people who want the features you can't get in a DSLR, and also for the size and weight advantage. If you don't already have a bunch of lenses invested in some previous system, then it's pretty obvious why you'd choose a mirrorless when starting from scratch.
Medium format is quite another league, you're looking at an order of magnitude more expensive gear, mainly studio oriented.
I'm also a m43 owner.
Shooting with a portrait lens on full frame e.g. 85mm at f1/4 at 2m from a subject I have about 4cm depth of field, with everything outside of that increasingly blurred. On a micro 4/3 the closest equivalent zoom would be using a 42mm lens, say at f1.4 which would have 9cm depth of field, equivalent to a full frame 85mm at f2.8.
The advantage of mirrorless camera size then goes away because lenses with wide aperture are bigger and heavier, because of physics.
I don't know what the advantage of medium format is at this point. I have the A7R III which has 42mp and a wide range of Sony and Canon lenses available. The quality is amazing, it's a relatively light, and relatively 'affordable' compared to medium format when you take into account body and high quality lenses.
Where is cheap all-around high quality 24-120? Cheap and yet superbly sharp 20mm 1.8 or better? Yes, you can find some, but cheap ain't part of description.
Size and weight isn't everything (otherwise everybody would be shooting with cell phones or gopro-likes). I don't mind my 2.5kg setup when backpacking for weeks, I don't mind it when hiking/ski touring. I know what I get in return. For climbing/skiing/paraglide gopro is anyway much much better.
Also, you can't cheat physics and have big sensor complemented by lightweight tiny lens and expect good result. Now if Nikon would come up with these electronics in in their FF D line, I would take it even if they would weight the same.
Noob here, how does it work with traditional 35mm film cameras, or the Leica digital full frame bodies that have small lenses then?
The Leica lenses are insanely expensive. Also many are manual only, which saves in size and weight.
DSLR’s are at a major disadvantage for focal lengths of 50mm and shorter.
Pentax has 36mp to the Sony 24mp, and not only the current lenses made by Pentax and 3rd parties for the K mount, but the entire K mount and M42 legacy lens system is easy to use as well.
Maybe I am just an old neckbeard, but the electronic gimmicks Sony has added don't impress me nor do I believe that it will improve a person's photography.
Still, if doing a mix of stills and video, the Sony wins out with superior video.