A7 mk iii - looks really tasty, and the price is tempting

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I don't get why you guys are comparing head-to-head equivalent FLs with the A7 series? These comparisons are just not accurate in real world use. You can shoot slower, smaller lenses with Sony FF and then take advantage of the wider DR and leeway on noise reduction with high ISO photos. Also you can still purchase an A6500 which gains a crop factor advantage similar to M43 while allowing you to share the same mount switching back and forth from APS-C and FF while still using the same lenses, AF adapters and flash system.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,644
Location
Boston
I don't get why you guys are comparing head-to-head equivalent FLs with the A7 series? These comparisons are just not accurate in real world use. You can shoot slower, smaller lenses with Sony FF and then take advantage of the wider DR and leeway on noise reduction with high ISO photos. Also you can still purchase an A6500 which gains a crop factor advantage similar to M43 while allowing you to share the same mount switching back and forth from APS-C and FF while still using the same lenses, AF adapters and flash system.
I did the a7 + a6000 route without m43 in 2016. Forced myself to shoot only Sony (also had an rx100) The system never gets as small, is certainly more expensive, and is just not fun to shoot IMO. Though it is effective.

I’m now down to m43 full time and I’ll buy or rent FF with specific lenses for certain uses
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I did the a7 + a6000 route without m43 in 2016. Forced myself to shoot only Sony (also had an rx100) The system never gets as small, is certainly more expensive, and is just not fun to shoot IMO. Though it is effective.

I’m now down to m43 full time and I’ll buy or rent FF with specific lenses for certain uses
I'm mostly a prime shooter though and I prefer fast glass. I did a head-to-head with the Oly 17mm 1.8 and 75mm 1.8 and the Sony 28mm f/2 and 85mm 1.8 on an A6300 (40mm and 127.5mm FOV approx.), honestly they're not too far apart in regards to size and performance. Price wise they're also similar. On top of that, you can slap those same lenses on a Sony FF body and get a fast 28mm and 85mm portrait pair. You get two lens sets (FF: 28mm, 85mm APSC: 40mm, 127.5mm) for the price of one!

I probably approach Sony different than other shooters though, because I'm more interested in gaining bang-for-buck performance and certain looks via adapted lenses.

If budget/price/performance is a concern, the D750 paired with the f4 zooms, 200-500 5.6 and 1.8 G primes is probably one of the best deals out there not considering size. :D
 

John M Flores

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,988
Location
NJ
A full frame sensor in a small body is certainly appealing - there are times when I wish I had more resolution/IQ. But it's the size of the lenses that still keep me away. Here's the GX85 + 35-100 F2.8 that I carried on my back for 2+ weeks in Patagonia vs. an A7 + 70-200 F4 lens that I'd replace it with...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


If someone knows a Sony lens that's more comparable to the 35-100 F2.8, please let me know.

At this point, for the kind of work that I do, M43 is good enough. As long as the M43 improvement curve matches my needs curve I'm staying here.
 

ionian

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
1,355
Location
Kent, UK
Real Name
Simon
I kinda want to try this. I won't be an early adopter but I'll certainly keep an eye on it.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,644
Location
Boston
I'm mostly a prime shooter though and I prefer fast glass. I did a head-to-head with the Oly 17mm 1.8 and 75mm 1.8 and the Sony 28mm f/2 and 85mm 1.8 on an A6300 (40mm and 127.5mm FOV approx.), honestly they're not too far apart in regards to size and performance. Price wise they're also similar. On top of that, you can slap those same lenses on a Sony FF body and get a fast 28mm and 85mm portrait pair. You get two lens sets (FF: 28mm, 85mm APSC: 40mm, 127.5mm) for the price of one!
Agree 100%. That 28/2 on the a6000 was pretty close to perfect, but no real UWA zoom that covered to 35mm Eq. And the telephoto on the a6000 is just terrible (55-210)

It depends on your use case. For me, for traveling light, I have a Domke w/GX85, P45-150 (tele zoom), O9-18 (UWA zoom) and P20 (fast prime) that handles everything I need. Purchased used, it was $400+$100+$300+$150=$950. What's the weight, like 3 pounds or something. Can't touch that anywhere else. If I was doing studio, sports, portrait, or maybe even critical landscape, that would be a different story.
 

JonSnih

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
171
Location
CZE
Agree. I usually don’t get worked up over new stuff but I’m really close to buying an EM1mkii. My mki is best to hell and I sold my em5ii. So when I’ve already got the money sitting here, it’s hard to get excited about the em1mkii when is could buy the a7iii for the same.
The price is not everything. In speech of numbers it is $1699 (Oly) vs. $1999 (the A7.3). In Europe it is a different story: €1699 (Oly) vs. €2300 (A7.3). With Oly you get a durable and weather-sealed camera + there is a promise of future improvements.
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
597
Agree 100%. That 28/2 on the a6000 was pretty close to perfect, but no real UWA zoom that covered to 35mm Eq. And the telephoto on the a6000 is just terrible (55-210)

It depends on your use case. For me, for traveling light, I have a Domke w/GX85, P45-150 (tele zoom), O9-18 (UWA zoom) and P20 (fast prime) that handles everything I need. Purchased used, it was $400+$100+$300+$150=$950. What's the weight, like 3 pounds or something. Can't touch that anywhere else. If I was doing studio, sports, portrait, or maybe even critical landscape, that would be a different story.
I'd agree. If form factor, side and weight are your key priorities, full frame can't compete due to the lenses. But the >$1200 price range is predominated by cameras that have full grips and solid bodies. I don't think m43 is in jeopardy at all as a whole, but the high end segment, where people are prepared to live with a little bit, had just heated up.

I also fully agree that m43 had a distinct size advantage where super telephoto is concerned. Continuous Autofocus may leave some high users concerned, however.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,710
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I kinda want to try this. I won't be an early adopter but I'll certainly keep an eye on it.
I feel much the same. I just bought an absolutely mint OM 100mm f2.8 to add to my OM-1 collection. I keep musing that getting a basic A7 to exercise them with would be a good idea. But - I tried an A7Rii (twice actually) and really didn't gel with it. However, maybe this is better (hmmm... who am I kidding?).
 
Last edited:

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,439
I don't get why you guys are comparing head-to-head equivalent FLs with the A7 series? These comparisons are just not accurate in real world use. You can shoot slower, smaller lenses with Sony FF and then take advantage of the wider DR and leeway on noise reduction with high ISO photos. Also you can still purchase an A6500 which gains a crop factor advantage similar to M43 while allowing you to share the same mount switching back and forth from APS-C and FF while still using the same lenses, AF adapters and flash system.
I compare equivalent FLs because that is what is relevant to me. I can get roughly the same pictures with those lenses. Note that I quoted the 70-200 f4 compared to the 35-100 f2.8. The size difference is still massive. If you're saying that I would get better IQ with the Sony than that is likely correct, but at a serious cost (both financial and in size).
 

alex66

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,487
As an owner of the mk1 this is tempting when the current A7 gives up the ghost, but that will be probably when the A7 mk4 or 5 come out and these are a good price used. I mostly only use one lens with it, the beautiful 55mm and honestly cant see other lenses being bought. 24mp is plenty enough for my uses, people where printing massive off 10mp cameras, have done A0 for a show from 10mp but have seen good larger ones. Originally the A7 was bought as the lowest cost way to use the lens, for most day to day stuff the small size advantage of m42 or APS makes them far more attractive. I did think of ordering one this morning but the tight git in me shut down that foolishness, like most digital in a couple of years it will be less than half its price.
 

Armanius

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,931
Location
Houston
Real Name
Muttley
I was an early adopter of the original A7. The shutter in it felt like a jackhammer. I hope Sony has improved the shutter since.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
Agree 100%. That 28/2 on the a6000 was pretty close to perfect, but no real UWA zoom that covered to 35mm Eq. And the telephoto on the a6000 is just terrible (55-210)

It depends on your use case. For me, for traveling light, I have a Domke w/GX85, P45-150 (tele zoom), O9-18 (UWA zoom) and P20 (fast prime) that handles everything I need. Purchased used, it was $400+$100+$300+$150=$950. What's the weight, like 3 pounds or something. Can't touch that anywhere else. If I was doing studio, sports, portrait, or maybe even critical landscape, that would be a different story.
Budget M43 can't be touched when it comes to building a comprehensive lens set for a good price. The overlap happens when you start chasing fast Olympus Pro lenses and high end Panasonic Leica lenses to match FF in regards to DOF control or high ISO.

On my last overseas trip though, I found I didn't really bother using my telephoto lens often and I think I could of made due with just a short telephoto lens like the 75mm on M43 or 85mm on APS-C. Also I've just come to terms that part of the mirrorless experience is the ability to adapt lenses and if it fills a gap that native lenses don't cover, I have no problem going that route.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
If I was solely a prime shooter, I would be all over Sony, and might even be tempted to Fuji (though their darned X-Trans sensor always convinces me otherwise).

The trouble is that I have discovered that from a practical point of view, I really prefer to be a zoom shooter. With primes, I inevitably have the wrong lens on, all the time. At least if I'm "out and about." If I'm indoors, or it's night time, I can happily make do with a fast normal prime.

And M4/3 and 1" are the only sensor formats that can seem to achieve reasonably sized zoom lenses. The Fuji 18-55/f2.8-4 appears to the be single solitary exception to this rule, but even that is frustratingly short ranging from my point of view. The Fuji 18-135mm is closer to the form factor of the 12-100/f4 PRO than it is to the 14-140/3.5-5.6, but basically has the optical quality of the latter (if even at that level), so...

And there's nothing, nothing at all in Sony land that fits the bill. It's a barren wasteland. Except for their new 18-135mm, but that's of course an APS-C only lens, so you're stuck with the compromises they make on their APS-C bodies. Like no weather-sealing to mention on the bodies, and none at all on any of the lenses.

The Tamron 28-75/f2.8 is an interesting enough proposition, at a rumoured 500g, that it might be fun to try and give up the long end entirely (or crop ruthlessly) and just see what you can do with such tremendous aperture flexibility, at the expense of FL flexibility...
 

mattia

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
2,391
Location
The Netherlands
I'm one of the odd ducks who actually enjoyed the A7r original, and now shoots an A7rIII. At least for ultrawide to normal, though I added an 85/1.8 recently. Bigger and heavier than my E-M1 kit? Yep. But the files are much nicer to work with. And the r mark III is a perfect camera for me. This one looks like an excellent all-rounder, but not enough of one to make it worthwhile for me personally. At this resolution, I would still take the m43 kit.

I've shot telephoto FF before and I'm not willing to go back. Simply too big. Given I don't shoot tele very often, I've even considered simply getting an rx10 mk IV and selling the E-M1, little tuna, 50-200 SWD and teleconverters. But those lenses are just so darn amazing I can't quite bring myself the do it...
 

Armanius

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,931
Location
Houston
Real Name
Muttley
Sony primes are only small (relatively) when their aperture is 1.8 or slower. None of the 1.4 stuff is small. That being said, I'm perfectly happy with 1.8 combined with a superior sensor.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,644
Location
Boston
Budget M43 can't be touched when it comes to building a comprehensive lens set for a good price. The overlap happens when you start chasing fast Olympus Pro lenses and high end Panasonic Leica lenses to match FF in regards to DOF control or high ISO.

On my last overseas trip though, I found I didn't really bother using my telephoto lens often and I think I could of made due with just a short telephoto lens like the 75mm on M43 or 85mm on APS-C. Also I've just come to terms that part of the mirrorless experience is the ability to adapt lenses and if it fills a gap that native lenses don't cover, I have no problem going that route.
I love telephoto and wide on a trip. Here are 4 pics, 2 at 9mm and 2 at 150mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20151125-P2510891.jpg by W T, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20151125-P2510918.jpg by W T, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20151127-P2520306.jpg by W T, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20151127-P2520315.jpg by W T, on Flickr
 

cdmicha

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
212
Location
Arkansas
Real Name
Chris
Their lenses are bulky, not cheap and both their cameras and lenses are dull as dishwater.
But yes, all these cameras are too expensive, and the lenses are too big.
This is why I came to m43 in the first place- my FF gear was becoming just too much of a hassle (both weight and size of the kit) to carry around all the time. Most of that weight was the lenses, and when I switched to m43, a slight drop in image quality and dof was a tradeoff I was more than willing to make.

I love the specs of this camera- I think it will sell well for Sony, and help continue this gradual transition to mirrorless cameras. I sure wish Canon and Nikon would join along, it's good for everyone. For me, I'm firmly in m43 land, both due to the size, as well as the lens collection I already have. And you know what? The image quality, at least for what I shoot, is pretty darn amazing, so in the end, I gave up very little.
 

jli

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
80
What lenses are worth switching to or adding a sony system for? If that is a lens you want or maybe another system wont quite fill the gap, then that's a good reason to add a sony body - perhaps this new appealing one or an older model to save $$$.

For me, I got the olympus tele pro since no other system effectviely covers 80-300 2.8 at that size. And with it used and a used g85, I'd recken I got a good deal for a high performing combo.
 

saladin

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
1,808
Location
Melbourne
Real Name
jason
It looks like a good device, but that's the key word -"device". If you view cameras simply as a tool, then Sony FF is a great proposition. But if - like me - there's an emotional factor to what you buy and use, then I find Sony hard to love. I had the original A7 and it was ok. But I moved it on to fund more MFT stuff because I just bonded with the retro feel of the Em5 and the IQ was good enough. Occasionally, I toy with the idea of an RX1 . That's a FF that I think would be handy to have in my bag and it's fixed lens setup is different enough for me to be interested. But it's not far short of Leica Q pricing and there's a camera of legit interest, lol.

I may get a FF one day. Just to have one. But probably 2nd hand. And truth be told, even a Fuji Xpro2 is of far more interest to me than anything Sony is building. They just dont feel like camera company, even now. YMMV.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom