Sony A7 III Review

In small format, I am a long-time Nikon F2 to F5 and Canon EOS 300D to 5DS user primarily as a non-event studio/advertising professional, though I did work at two newspapers in Montreal, Quebec and Milton, Ontario, Canada. I had the A7III for a couple of weeks before my local camera store got in their shipment of Z cameras. I wanted to love it, but: 1. Ergonomics. The Sony A7III felt like like a chintzy little metal block in my regular-sized hands. The grip was awful. Viewing was surprisingly unnatural. (Focus-peeking on the Z6 is far more effective than on the A7III.) Yes, setting it up was a chore but having used so many cameras over the decades I have learned that good photographers are an adaptable bunch and the menus on a given camera are something one gets used to. FYI, IMHO, Canon menus are great, Nikon’s just a hair less. Finally, card slots: I am surprised there is so much whining about this. The main reason for more than one body used to be to have a back-up in the event a body was broken, stolen or lost. The secondary reason was to be able to shoot more than one type of film. The tertiary reason was usually to have dedicated lenses on each body for convenience in fast moving shooting situations. But when it comes to card speed, card build quality and what using certain cards say about the underlying digital/electronic infrastructure pipeline, is anyone really trying to compare XQD/CFast cards against SD? Even two SD cards? “But I might lose data”, someone may whine. You’ll likely lose a whole body first. 2. Body+Lenses. I am accustomed to considering cameras as systems so it is difficult to isolate a camera at a given price point from lenses offered. The kit lens with the Sony A7III is abysmal, the Zeiss 24-70/4 slightly less so. One has to move to the Sony 24-105 to find field-flatness, coma and focus-breathing that doesn’t smack-your-face offend. How much is that compared to the Z6/24-70 kit? BTW, try focus stacking with that A7III and those lenses, then try it with the Z6 and the 24-70/4 S. A revelation, indeed. I got flashbacks to switching over to Rodenstock Apo-Ronars from Sironars for critical large format work. 3. We need to differentiate between stuff that can and cannot be corrected in software or firmware updates. E.g., field flatness or focus breathing cannot be fixed with an algorithms. I had the Sony A7III over the Christmas season and was able to use that tried and true method for discerning just how good a camera/lens setup is – capturing Christmas lights at late evening/night. (During the summer, get to an amusement park). None of those Sony zoom lenses I tried on the A7III held up in the corners. They were smeary. They tugged and pulled at circles and rectangles. They breathed heavily and never let you forget you were using a zoom lens. Fair enough. In my experience, that’s why we use so-called prime lenses. And of the Sony’s lauded dynamic range, in real life, quite good but so is Nikon’s. ( Sadly, the Canons embarrass; witness me being an ex-5DS owner). Which brings me to the Nikon Z6 kit I ended up with. C,mon people. There is no comparison. PS. Nikon Z6 eats batteries? I must have an outlier.

ive been reading all your review and was impressed with most of the photos you took. but there is something on sony cameras that make the photos look cheap and like something is wrong with them. i just review each and every photo on this article and each of them is not impressive technically. something is wrong. there and i cant tell what. maybe the colours or sharpness. I’m not sure.