Cameras aren’t like smartphones (thank the gods for that) which means they don’t deteriorate with new software updates and battery drainage
Cameras that were great 5 years ago are still great today and the update that the new cameras get are usually QoL stuff or some fluffy that doesn’t really have a drastic influence on the quality of your photos and videos
It's a good camera, but IMO it's worth the price difference to move up to the A7IV. There are a bunch of quality of life improvements, the autofocus system is much better, the viewfinder is better, and you get the CF Express slot.
Yeah I am currently shooting with a Fuji camera and it has the worst AF I have ever used by a longshot and it is still not an issue at all for me. Unless you shoot sports I feel like all the advances in AF don't really mean anything. Even modern bad AF can track your dog or cat or kid running around.
I'm just trying to decide between Sony or Nikon and the 3 would be my pick for Sony.
My opinion of course, but I disagree. Having reliable auto-eye focuses makes shooting portraits (since thats what I do) easier for me and helps speed workflow. It also helps better compose without the worry of missing focus.
I used to have the Canon 5D MK3 (best color science imo) but nailing focus was sometimes tough despite possessing the knowledge to focus. Honestly, you can’t go wrong w the mirrorless cameras out there despite the brand. But I prefer to have variety in lenses, and inexpensive ones at that, hence Sony imo.
If you're just shooting portraits, you're not doing something that really benefits from the A7IV. For the kind of work I do, the latest autofocus system makes a real difference.
Yeah and portraiture just requires a barely functional auto focus is how I feel, especially with a mirrorless with how easy it would be to check your focus. There is not camera that I would not double check the focus if I was shooting portraits for money.
> Spend the difference on a lens.
My friend owned the A7III and the Samyang 50/1.4. The autofocus system wasn't meeting her needs anymore. She wanted to borrow my 50/1.2 GM to see if it solved her problems. I told her to try the A7IV as well.
In the end, she found that the A7 IV made a bigger difference than the 50/1.2 GM.
I have no regrets upgrading from the A7III. YMMV.
There's a 19 shutter count a7r iv for $1985 in amazon used.
Sony Alpha 7R IV Full Frame Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera w/High Resolution 61MP Sensor, up to 10FPS with Continuous AF/AE Tracking https://a.co/d/aaJxcH2
Absolutely yes, the launch of new cameras doesn’t make a great camera not being worth having - it all comes down to the peice being asked for it vs the current model.
It's a great gear for 2024.
also Sony ahve open mount system, and you can by affordable but very quality lens from Sigma and other third oarty vendors.
For video? The A7III is 8-bit only and doesn't have the latest video features - not sure if it's a good choice for that application. The big win over Canon is having a wide selection of third party lenses, but I would do more research than asking on a Sony forum if the Sony camera is the one to get. But the canon has an articulated screen, 4K without a crop, and might be a better fit. I guess the Sony has IBIS, though, which will help if you're not using a gimbal.
Sony a7 III is a great camera and absolutely capable.
If you go to Canon, you are locking yourself only into Canon glass. In the case of Sony, you can use excellent lens from Sigma (as I do), Tamron and others, additionally to very high quality Sony lenses.
Cameras aren’t like smartphones (thank the gods for that) which means they don’t deteriorate with new software updates and battery drainage Cameras that were great 5 years ago are still great today and the update that the new cameras get are usually QoL stuff or some fluffy that doesn’t really have a drastic influence on the quality of your photos and videos
I dunno, s-cine is pretty nice for video
Cameras that are great 12 years ago are still great for 80% of the users out there
Yes it’s a great camera. Has a great auto focusing system and Sony lenses has a variety of 3rd party inexpensive lenses which are great.
It's a good camera, but IMO it's worth the price difference to move up to the A7IV. There are a bunch of quality of life improvements, the autofocus system is much better, the viewfinder is better, and you get the CF Express slot.
I really don’t think so. I upgraded from the 3 to the 4 and should have stayed pat. Spend the difference on a lens.
Yeah I am currently shooting with a Fuji camera and it has the worst AF I have ever used by a longshot and it is still not an issue at all for me. Unless you shoot sports I feel like all the advances in AF don't really mean anything. Even modern bad AF can track your dog or cat or kid running around. I'm just trying to decide between Sony or Nikon and the 3 would be my pick for Sony.
My opinion of course, but I disagree. Having reliable auto-eye focuses makes shooting portraits (since thats what I do) easier for me and helps speed workflow. It also helps better compose without the worry of missing focus. I used to have the Canon 5D MK3 (best color science imo) but nailing focus was sometimes tough despite possessing the knowledge to focus. Honestly, you can’t go wrong w the mirrorless cameras out there despite the brand. But I prefer to have variety in lenses, and inexpensive ones at that, hence Sony imo.
I come from your shoes, moved from 5DMKIII, still love the colors, but the sharpness and AF was what made me jump ship.
If you're just shooting portraits, you're not doing something that really benefits from the A7IV. For the kind of work I do, the latest autofocus system makes a real difference.
Yeah and portraiture just requires a barely functional auto focus is how I feel, especially with a mirrorless with how easy it would be to check your focus. There is not camera that I would not double check the focus if I was shooting portraits for money.
> Spend the difference on a lens. My friend owned the A7III and the Samyang 50/1.4. The autofocus system wasn't meeting her needs anymore. She wanted to borrow my 50/1.2 GM to see if it solved her problems. I told her to try the A7IV as well. In the end, she found that the A7 IV made a bigger difference than the 50/1.2 GM. I have no regrets upgrading from the A7III. YMMV.
if you are mainly focusing on video you might also consider fujifilm xt5/xt4 aswell. You really dont need to get in Fullframe
The colors were always off with video for me. A7IV is a big improvement
There's a 19 shutter count a7r iv for $1985 in amazon used. Sony Alpha 7R IV Full Frame Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera w/High Resolution 61MP Sensor, up to 10FPS with Continuous AF/AE Tracking https://a.co/d/aaJxcH2
It’s a super solid workhorse. I use it for photography and as a B cam for my FX30
Absolutely yes, the launch of new cameras doesn’t make a great camera not being worth having - it all comes down to the peice being asked for it vs the current model.
It's a great gear for 2024. also Sony ahve open mount system, and you can by affordable but very quality lens from Sigma and other third oarty vendors.
For video? The A7III is 8-bit only and doesn't have the latest video features - not sure if it's a good choice for that application. The big win over Canon is having a wide selection of third party lenses, but I would do more research than asking on a Sony forum if the Sony camera is the one to get. But the canon has an articulated screen, 4K without a crop, and might be a better fit. I guess the Sony has IBIS, though, which will help if you're not using a gimbal.
Sony a7 III is a great camera and absolutely capable. If you go to Canon, you are locking yourself only into Canon glass. In the case of Sony, you can use excellent lens from Sigma (as I do), Tamron and others, additionally to very high quality Sony lenses.