Is a7r3 worth the upgrade (?) from a73?

bdbits

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
2,029
Real Name
Bob
JPEG has options for quality vs compression, which you can set in most editors. Often labeled 'quality' in my experience.

Really, RAWs are just a bunch of sensor data points that actually require quite a lot of interpretation to get to an image. While this has the potential to maximize whatever it is you want to get from what you captured, this is somewhat different than what gets stored in an image format like a JPEG file. So as soon as you convert from RAW to something else, you are stamping an interpretation into the image.
 

pellicle

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2018
Messages
271
Location
Killarney, Queensland, OzTrailEYa
.

Really, RAWs are just a bunch of sensor data points that actually require quite a lot of interpretation to get to an image... So as soon as you convert from RAW to something else, you are stamping an interpretation into the image.
Yep

I liken it to looking directly at a negative. As a printer you can see what you'll be able to get out if it, but you'll need to print it to have anyone see it.

Although a 16bit linear unsharpened TIFF will save it presentationally you'll need to do some tone mapping (curves at least) to get something nice.
 

mesmerized

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
96
I've been looking at sample pictures taken with a7r3 and... the decision isn't any easier to make! :|
 

mesmerized

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
96
if ultimate pixel peeping is your goal:

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review
I know this is pretty crazy but... I don't see much of a difference between A7iii and the R version in that image comparison tool!? <shocked> :eek-30::eek-30::eek-30:

Where I see a massive difference is... Fuji GFX100.

EDIT: But then again, the A7iii window doesn't seem to be showing the exact same close-up of the picture.

EDIT2: In fact, A7iii seems to have less noise than the R version at higher 1600 annd 3200 ISO (comparing RAWs) How can this be?

EDIT3: A strange discoloration appears on the A7Riii with ISO 3200 and 6400. I'm looking at the part where we can see an old picture/sketch of a family looking at a painting.
 
Last edited:

anupaml

New to TalkEmount
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
6
Hello all!

I’ve been using my a73 for nearly a year now and I’ve been wondering if moving up to a7r3 is worth the extra money. I’m a bit of a pixel peeper and focus on landscapes most of the time (although street photography is my thing too). Those extra MP’s could come in handy, but I don’t want to spend money on GM glass, so... will I actually see the difference?

I know this question has surely been asked here a million times, but I’d love to hear from you all what you think.

Thanks
(My very first post in this forum :):
The A7RIII is an upgrade in a few ways over the A7III like EVF, screen, user modes and off course no AA filter-42 mp sensor; but not auto-focus. In that case it is a bit of a downgrade.
 

pellicle

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2018
Messages
271
Location
Killarney, Queensland, OzTrailEYa
EDIT2: In fact, A7iii seems to have less noise than the R version at higher 1600 annd 3200 ISO (comparing RAWs) How can this be?
I believe that there is an interesting thing that as more pixels are available (per square mm), the more effective signal processing can be at noise reduction. This can be baked into the RAW file. Look at the Nokia pure view 43 megapixel phone sensor.

EDIT3: A strange discoloration appears on the A7Riii with ISO 3200 and 6400. I'm looking at the part where we can see an old picture/sketch of a family looking at a painting.
Moire is emerging at colour levels because Bayer...
 

tino84

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
112
I know this is pretty crazy but... I don't see much of a difference between A7iii and the R version in that image comparison tool!? <shocked> :eek-30::eek-30::eek-30:

EDIT2: In fact, A7iii seems to have less noise than the R version at higher 1600 annd 3200 ISO (comparing RAWs) How can this be?
You see more noise because you’d have to Resize the resolution of the R to the resolution of the a7iii ( or expand the size of the a7iii to 42mpx).

It’s referred to the mk2, and it’s only in italian, but you can read something about here:

FOTOGRAFIA NADIR MAGAZINE - TEST SONY A7S II TEST - CONFRONTO CON LE SORELLE SONY A7 II E SONY A7R II
 

JonathanF2

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,060
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I know this is pretty crazy but... I don't see much of a difference between A7iii and the R version in that image comparison tool!? <shocked> :eek-30::eek-30::eek-30:

Where I see a massive difference is... Fuji GFX100.

EDIT: But then again, the A7iii window doesn't seem to be showing the exact same close-up of the picture.

EDIT2: In fact, A7iii seems to have less noise than the R version at higher 1600 annd 3200 ISO (comparing RAWs) How can this be?

EDIT3: A strange discoloration appears on the A7Riii with ISO 3200 and 6400. I'm looking at the part where we can see an old picture/sketch of a family looking at a painting.
The A7III actually has a very weak AA filter. Seriously unless you need to make large prints, which you probably won't do I'd just keep your A7III unless you absolutely must kick off that GAS itch! :D
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
TalkEmount is a fan site and not associated with Sony Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2011-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom