Looking back on my older photography posts I discover that in April I will have had my Sony A7 III camera for three years. I think this is a good time to review what I think about the recent progress that Sony has made and where the A7 III and my photographic needs stand.
First off, the A7 III is a wonderful camera. It produces images that I never could have imagined possible ten years ago when I started using the Sony mirrorless cameras. When I moved from my Sony A-850 DSLR to the NEX mirrorless cameras it was incredibly disappointing. The autofocus didn’t deserve the name. It was manual focus or nothing. The battery life was laughable and the viewfinder was pretty sad. I could get some good results from it, even results indoors that I might not be able to get with my DSLR but frustration was a constant part of the Sony photographic experience. If I knew then how long it would take Sony to reach the A7 III level of capability I probably would have bitten the bullet and moved on to Canon or Nikon. But I didn’t and now finally I am truly pleased with the system. Sure, there are still some quibbles, I wish the LAEA5 adapter would allow me to autofocus my mechanical autofocus A-mount lenses with the A7 III but that is just that, a quibble. If I wanted, I could buy an A7R IV or an A9 and get that functionality but that would be kind of crazy from my point of view. So here I am with a very good digital camera and a chance to compare it to the newer Sony models. After all, the A7 III is a generation before the IV series and a notch down from the professional A9’s and two notches down from the flagship A1. So here are my thoughts.
Back when the Sony A9 first came out I was curious to see what the advantages of such a camera would be. I rented it and gave it a tryout. What I found was that it was a sports camera and the A7 III was not. I know that was what it was touted as but it wasn’t apparent until I had it in hand just how inadequate the A7 III was for things like tracking autofocus or just how inadequate the file buffer was. The A9 was light years ahead of my camera. And even the autofocus I typically used for macro shots of insects and birds was more precise and faster and had additional capability that my camera lacked. For instance, the A7 III can stay in magnified view when focusing repeatedly on a subject that I’m getting ready to capture. But once the shot is taken it returns to unmagnified view. The A9 can stay in magnified view indefinitely for shot after shot. That is a great advantage.
So, the A9 has capability that I do wish I had. But image-wise I think the A7 III files are at least as good as the A9 files. There has been an A9 II update a few years back. I haven’t tried it out. From what I’ve read the improvements are part of the autofocus upgrades and allow for even better sports and wildlife action shooting. I’m sure it’s very capable but once again the sensor hasn’t progressed in terms of high ISO capability. In fact, based on the DXOMARK testing the A7 III still has the highest ISO rating of any full frame camera on the market.
Recently Sony came out with a $6,500 flagship camera, the A-1. From what I understand it is an even more miraculous sports camera than the A9 series. It has a ridiculously large writing buffer and can take thirty shots per second or something obscene like that. But its sensor is not rated to a higher ISO rating. It does have a 50-megapixel sensor. But that also means you get 50+ megabyte file sizes which is starting to get cumbersome. Maybe someday I’ll try it out just for laughs but that price tag is outrageous.
So here I am. Other than my camera not being able to autofocus my two favorite a-mount lenses, the Sony 135mm f1.8 lens and the Minolta 200mm f4 Macro, I really don’t need any of the new cameras. Even the new Sony A7S III really doesn’t interest me. I’m not a videographer and its high ISO numbers surprisingly still don’t match the A7 III. This was a bit of a shocker for me. The A7S series is supposed to have the best low light sensitivity of all the A7 line. But apparently the video improvements are what drove the new model and high ISO was left as is.
If I were a sports and wildlife photographer then the A1 or at least the A9 II would be the cameras I wanted. If I was a purely landscape guy then the A1 or the A7R IV would provide me with the resolution I crave. If I was a videographer and I didn’t want a full-blown video camera I’d be looking at the A7S III. But I’m just a general-purpose photographer that does some landscape and some macro and a little bit of wildlife and no video. So, all of those other cameras are overkill and sometimes inferior for my needs.
For yourself this review might help point you in the direction of which Sony full frame ILC is right for you.
Long time photographer, film to 1meg Kodak digital to Sony since their original A100. Now I have an A6300, A7III (like yours) and an A7RII. Somewhere along the line, I came to realize that photography is 60% photographer, 30% glass and 10% camera body. Though the new bodies do some fantastic things, principally autofocus and low light capability that maybe kick the importance factor up. I shoot animals and people in low light a lot and the capability of the A7III is magic. I got my A7’s about the same time as you and had the same A850 before. But… Read more »
As you say Tom we’ve walked down a similar path with Sony. I was recently discussing these same things with my son. Now that the Sony A7 cameras have competent autofocus I no longer itch to get the latest and greatest new cameras. Working on my technique is more rewarding than lusting after the next innovation in buffer depth. Yeah, the A850 was a hell of a camera. I kept it even when I had the A7S. That camera had great low light capability but abysmal autofocus so I kept the A850 as my daylight camera. When I got the… Read more »
Hey Tom, that light box that opens up when I click on the photo you linked looks real good. What was the lens?
That was the 850 with a Minolta branded 100mm f2.8 Macro, A Mount (obviously). When Sony bought Minolta they continued making the exact same lens but with the Sony name on it, maybe still do.
I still have that lens despite no longer having an A mount camera. What a lens! I got more beautiful shots with that than you could shake a stick at, plus the stick. (old Southern saying)
That is a sharp lens, I remember. Well if you still have it and end up with a new camera someday you can use the LAEA5 and autofocus it. I’ve kept a couple of my favorite screw-focus lenses because I hated to part with them. But wouldn’t you know they’d introduce the LAEA5 after my camera wasn’t new enough to get the firmware fix.
It occurs to me that I still have another A mount lens that seemed to produce a highly outsized proportion of my best shots with the 850: a 70-300 4.5-5.6 G series. That lens is currently mated to a LAEH-4 A mount to E mount adaptor. That lens still produces beautiful shots.
Sony still makes that exact lens but in E mount and sells them for $1200.
Here’s a shot from that one. Hope you don’t freak at the subject, it’s not politically correct.
You’re not going to freak me out over American History. Anyone who grew up loving this country before they ruined it can’t hate our heroes. They performed acts of courage that those morons who pull down their statues couldn’t even conceive.