A7RIII

[christilou]

Having had the 7III and the A7RIII I am still unsure of the way to go. The A7RIII arrived with some faulty. It refused to set the date/time and gave random errors using different Sandisk SD cards... sometimes in the middle of shooting although the data seems to have recorded on the card in any case. I remain a bit puzzled by the image quality. I was disappointed when I looked through my first shots on the A7RIII whereas I was grudgingly impressed when I first tried out the 7III. Here is my dilemma

I'm the first to say these are not overly scientific ! I use RAW only and I've simple brought them into LR (7) and pressed the "auto" for exposure. I wouldn't normally do this but it seems the fairest way. Here a couple of crops no sharpening or anything else just a square as fair as I can. Both cameras iso 100 f2.2 or 2.8 around 125th shutter.

ILCE-7M3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/2.2    1/125s    ISO 100

ILCE-7RM3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/2.8    1/200s    ISO 100

First A7III, second A7RIII both FE55 1.8

Second are a couple out of the A7RIII, they both seem rather grainy for iso 400 and 8oo. What do you think.... am I just being too fussy?

ILCE-7RM3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/2.8    1/125s    ISO 800

ILCE-7RM3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/2.8    1/125s    ISO 400

I had previously set up the A7RIII for portrait shooting following Mark Gailer's video as I wanted to be sure I had everything just so. It still missed quite a few shots, not getting the eye or even a face sometimes. I wasn't expecting blazing fast af, just better than the A7RII.

 

[WestOkid]

I don’t know if this is the reason but mistake folks always make when comparing images from high res cameras against others is noise. Particularly in crops or viewing 100%.

Unless the images are normalized to the same resolution, the perception is that the high res image has more noise. There’s more pixels so there’s more noise overall, but what matters is the percentage of noise pixels.

In reality you are looking at a much smaller section of the image. If you want to check noise, you have to go through the trouble of resizing the high res image to match the lower res image.

 

[TedG954]

7RIII

 

[quezra]

I don’t know if this is the reason but mistake folks always make when comparing images from high res cameras against others is noise. Particularly in crops or viewing 100%.

Unless the images are normalized to the same resolution, the perception is that the high res image has more noise. There’s more pixels so there’s more noise overall, but what matters is the percentage of noise pixels.

In reality you are looking at a much smaller section of the image. If you want to check noise, you have to go through the trouble of resizing the high res image to match the lower res image.

This is a very good point, but you don't have to go through the trouble of resizing. Given the 42 (7952 x 5304) vs 24 (6000 x 4000) MP difference, a 75% view of an A7rIII file will be approximately the same screen size as the 100% view of an A7III file, so you can set this ratio easily to compare the files if you like (basically 75% of 7952 gives you 5,964 - almost equal to the 6000 pixel width of the A7III file).

 

[Ad Dieleman]

The amount of noise of the A7R3 doesn't look excessive to me. These are some samples of my A7R2 at ISO 800, which should have comparable signal-to-noise ratio according to DxOMark. If your A7R3 behaves erratically, I'd exchange it instantly, if only to prevent false judgement because of faults that aren't immediately obvious.

   ---            

   ---            

 

[runnerpsu]

Christilou, thanks for creating this thread. Currently, I have an A7 II. I'm debating between the A7RIII and the A7III so this thread is interesting and helpful.

My A7II and 55 1.8 produce very sharp photos. I must say, however, that when I see photos posted by members that used the A7RII or A7RIII, I can see an improvement in clarity and sharpness and that is what is motivating me to upgrade.

Just read this The $2,000 Sony a7 III vs. the $3,200 Sony a7R III: Here's the Difference. which, somewhat, helps explain the noise issue

 

[christilou]

I've read about re sizing different sized pixel sensors but sorry, it's too tricky for me. I just look in good 'ol Lightroom and see what I see! To me the III looks sharper but as you say, this may be because it just seems so as there are less pixels..... nonetheless I might prefer this for portrait work....! Here are a couple cropped and worked on in LR and also ASE. I like the final images but if you zoom in, well I don't like it so much

ILCE-7RM3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/2.8    1/125s    ISO 500

ILCE-7RM3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/2.8    1/125s    ISO 400

Charlotte here was not a happy bunny

A7RIII FE55 1.8
I have said that I'm happy to try another A7RIII body from another batch but I can't have a camera that permanently loads everything into January 2017!

 

[serhan]

Thanks for the post. You need to resize for comparison. I wonder how much rIII improved over rII. It looks like A7III might be better baked product...

The video below has a good comparison of dynamic range/high iso/af:

 

[Amin]

I've read about re sizing different sized pixel sensors but sorry, it's too tricky for me. I just look in good 'ol Lightroom and see what I see!

It is tough to compare. There is always the temptation to zoom in and look at 100%. Especially in Lightroom. But if you have a high res display and look at the whole images in Lightroom full screen view, the A7R III should fare well against the A7 III.

Personally, I'd rather not deal with all the resolution. I don't find myself wanting to crop much very often and find the files easier to work with on my decent-enough (but not latest and greatest) computer.

 

[christilou]

It is tough to compare. There is always the temptation to zoom in and look at 100%. Especially in Lightroom. But if you have a high res display and look at the whole images in Lightroom full screen view, the A7R III should fare well against the A7 III.

Personally, I'd rather not deal with all the resolution. I don't find myself wanting to crop much very often and find the files easier to work with on my decent-enough (but not latest and greatest) computer.

I have a 6 year old 27" iMac which limps along still. I have a picture from the Leica M10 and 50mm Summilux exported hi res that I'm using as a screen saver and it looks lovely (it's Venice) I also have an image of Venice at night on Getty Images for sale at £250 (I wish!) from the Leica so that also tells me that I don't really "need" all those megapixels in the A7RIII!

 

[runnerpsu]

I don't know how credible this fellow is but I've watched several of his videos. This

particular video compares the A7Riii and A7iii. Close to the end of the video he tells viewers they will know if they need the R & 42M/P.

Like you, I have an older Mac (2013 MBP) I just replaced the battery. It has 8 megs of memory. I use single license version of LR 6.14. I'm rather sure I would notice a big difference processing files from the R version.

What, if anything, have you decided?

 

[christilou]

He talks good sense. I'm awaiting a new A7RIII to replace the faulty one and I'm not sure if they would be very happy if I changed to the A7III so would have to talk to the vendors. That aside, I got to thinking about the file size. The old A7RII (which I'm replacing) had a files size of 42mb. The A7III has a file size of about 23mb...... the A7RIII has a file size of 84mb! I'm beginning to think that this might kill off my iMac. Lightroom CC is already twitchy and slow so this might sway my decision.

 

[Ad Dieleman]

The A7RIII has a file size of 84mb!

That sounds like you have it set to uncompressed raw, that's the file size for my A7R2 uncompressed.

 

[christilou]

Hmm, I thought I set it for compressed. The date/time wouldn't "stick" so perhaps some settings didn't either.

 

[Ad Dieleman]

Hmm, I thought I set it for compressed. The date/time wouldn't "stick" so perhaps some settings didn't either.

Sounds likely, something seriously amiss around the processor.

Edit: I checked some of my downloaded A7R3 raw samples and they are either 80+ MB or slightly above 40 MB (compressed raw according to EXIF data).

 

[bdbits]

Given all the problems it seems to have, I would not make any decisions based on the camera body you now have. Who knows what else it is doing out of the norm. Get it replaced first.

 

[christilou]

Here are a couple with the FE55 1.8 from that day. I think these have come out well, showing good detail and low noise, both iso 200. The baby one is from the uncompressed file whilst the dog is compressed. It seems that I reset the whole thing the next day to try and begin again and the file size shows I've managed to use the compressed for the few random shots I took before I decided to return it.

ILCE-7RM3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/5.0    1/125s    ISO 200

ILCE-7RM3    FE 55mm F1.8 ZA    55mm    f/1.8    1/250s    ISO 100

 

[unlo]

Christilou, thanks for creating this thread. Currently, I have an A7 II. I'm debating between the A7RIII and the A7III so this thread is interesting and helpful.

My A7II and 55 1.8 produce very sharp photos. I must say, however, that when I see photos posted by members that used the A7RII or A7RIII, I can see an improvement in clarity and sharpness and that is what is motivating me to upgrade.

Just read this The $2,000 Sony a7 III vs. the $3,200 Sony a7R III: Here's the Difference. which, somewhat, helps explain the noise issue

for me it isn't even looking at a7iii or a7riii pics... it's examining my a6500 files vs my a7ii sigh...WHY is the low light IQ of my aps-c sensor better than that of my full frame..? been itching to sell my a7ii and get the a7iii each day I put it off, i'm only hurting myself (doh!)

 

[Amin]

the A7RIII has a file size of 84mb!

 

[runnerpsu]

He talks good sense. I'm awaiting a new A7RIII to replace the faulty one and I'm not sure if they would be very happy if I changed to the A7III so would have to talk to the vendors. That aside, I got to thinking about the file size. The old A7RII (which I'm replacing) had a files size of 42mb. The A7III has a file size of about 23mb...... the A7RIII has a file size of 84mb! I'm beginning to think that this might kill off my iMac. Lightroom CC is already twitchy and slow so this might sway my decision.

I may be wrong but unless one has a very high end computer with 16 MB or more of memory processing a 84mb file will stress most of our computers.