# DXO gives the A7R3 a 100



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

There you go:
https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7r-iii-sensor-review-nikon-d850-meets-mirrorless-match/







- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 28, 2017)

On my completely arbitrary scale including proprietary and unreleased algorithm to determine the 'results' I got 107 for the G1X MkIII, so I 'retested' it and rewrote the algorithm so it now gets a 78.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

Also, no A7R3 Pixel Shift shots' scores were reported, while DXO has no qualms doing so for its own products. DXO gave their own DXO One (an RX100 sensor in a cell phone mounted camera module) a separate score just for its multi-shot mode. That camera scored some 15 points higher by doing this, and _outperformed nearly every Canon FF rig at time of launch._ :

Stay classy, DXO.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 28, 2017)

I think that Sony is now moving into the realm of serious cameras. Their new service center for pros has a good reputation, I'd consider trying one, but having two virtually new Canon cameras, I'm unlikely to switch.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 28, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think that Sony is now moving into the realm of serious cameras.



^^^This.

Sony is now giving people a good reason to consider them right next to Canon and Nikon. The last sales numbers I saw seemed to indicate they are taking more business away from Nikon/others than from Canon, which gained market share. 

If I was starting over, I would now consider an A9 or A7RIII. Then I would probably start playing with the menu system, price out the complete system (lenses and camera body), look at the ability to grow in the system and I would probably end up right where I am now, a happy Canon shooter.

But I would agree, they have crossed into the realm of serious cameras.


----------



## rjbray01 (Nov 28, 2017)

Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

rjbray01 said:


> Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.



I agree with you, but it heavily depends on what you shoot: 

1) Can an OVF get brighter* in a dark room where lighting is not allowed, say at a concert, event, church, etc.? 
(*No, LiveView does not count.)

2) Can you wield a sweet manual focus large aperture prime and nail wide open focus through an OVF? That's a very tough ask if you are using an SLR that doesn't allow manual focusing screens (like the 5D4 and 6D2).

3) Can an OVF pipe a realtime histo up to your eye before you shoot handheld, or tell you what parts of the frame might clip if you take the shot?

Overall, OVFs are my preference. But for some needs, an EVF is _already_ better than an OVF.

- A


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2017)

rjbray01 said:


> Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.



It's almost impossible for me to get a bad exposure on my A9 EVF. OVF is no longer a must have in my camera purchase decision. 

Kinda like framing your shots through Canon back screen and see that you over/under exposure and not making any adjustments.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> rjbray01 said:
> 
> 
> > Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.
> ...



Added a key bit above.

I think the gold potential of an EVF is the _power of LiveView without needing a tripod, gimbal, or unnatural shooting position_. Use it like you've always used your camera, but dark rooms are no longer unusable without AF or flash, manual focus lenses are suddenly a viable option, exposure misses become (largely) a thing of the past, etc.

But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

- A


----------



## Hflm (Nov 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > rjbray01 said:
> ...


I use A9 and 5div for weddings. The A9 EVF is so good, I don't see any need for an OVF anymore in a future camera purchase decision. No refresh rate problems, no blackout. Battery is not an issue, too. To be honest, I get more shots on a single battery with the A9 than with the 5div. Quite surprising for me initially. But I use LV quite often at weddings to get different perspectives and make sure the AF for f1.4 lenses close to the outermost focus points is spot on for important moments, which eats batteries.


----------



## ecqns (Nov 29, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.
> 
> - A



Before you write off the newer Sony EVF - have you used one for a day? I've used them for the last 3 years and wouldn't switch if you paid me (and/or Canon's DR started to match)
I don't have any issues with refresh and zooming in to focus is really precise.
Batteries are not an issue - from what I've heard the a9 and a7r3 capacities have improved over previous generations, otherwise put a few charged ones in your pocket and you are all set.
I do work on a tripod most of the time and sometimes in tight quarters so the swivel LCD in invaluable.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 29, 2017)

ecqns said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.
> ...



EVF's tend to have issues with rapidly moving subjects like in sports photography. If you are not shooting sports or fast moving objects, a EVF may very well be a good choice. but --- It depends on the usage. They are getting better but pro sports photographers will have a issue with the lag and smearing.

Some who do not shoot fast moving subjects will still pan a EVF because of a issue that they won't see.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 29, 2017)

ecqns said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But again, I still prefer the detail, lack of refresh rate considerations, battery conservation and responsiveness of an OVF over an EVF today. The general quality of an OVF is superior in that way, but in some circumstances an EVF can pull a rabbit out of a hat.
> ...



I've used the A7R2 in a store, but not an A9 (which I'll never buy) or an A7R3. Can't speak to the battery other than CIPA data, but the EVF is simply a half-step-behind facsimile of what I see with my eyes through an OVF. It has tremendous value in certain circumstances as I outline above -- I'm certainly no luddite avoiding the future here. 

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 29, 2017)

So, for wildlife and sports photogs, the EVF is currently not the best solution, but for *everyone else* it's far better.

I took the A7RII out the other day on a portrait shoot, with a single lens, (FE 55mm 1.8 ), something I'd usually take the 5DSR and 24-70 2.8 II (and a bag of other lenses) to do.

Came away extraordinarily happy with the results. The question is, do I really want to go back to a camera that doesn't have face detect focus?


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2017)

I have many Canon DSLRs and lenses and I am satisfied with them. The only way to take (not switch) a Sony is for them to make a ......... native EF mount!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D and add a few versions of improvement like for example not being so hungry as to eat ... stars and also improve handling 8)


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 29, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> So, for wildlife and sports photogs, the EVF is currently not the best solution, but for *everyone else* it's far better.
> 
> I took the A7RII out the other day on a portrait shoot, with a single lens, (FE 55mm 1.8 ), something I'd usually take the 5DSR and 24-70 2.8 II (and a bag of other lenses) to do.
> 
> Came away extraordinarily happy with the results. The question is, do I really want to go back to a camera that doesn't have face detect focus?



The 5D MkIV and 1DX MkII and, no doubt, the 5DSR II and all cameras going forwards have face detect too.

As for enjoying the experience of going out with one camera and one lens, preferably a prime, of course you did! It wouldn't matter what body comparisons you are making most of the time we make ILC ownership worse than it should be because we carry so much junk 'just in case'. The trouble is all that junk often gets in the way of the simplicity of just getting in the groove and taking pictures.


----------



## ecqns (Nov 29, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> EVF's tend to have issues with rapidly moving subjects like in sports photography. If you are not shooting sports or fast moving objects, a EVF may very well be a good choice. but --- It depends on the usage. They are getting better but pro sports photographers will have a issue with the lag and smearing.
> 
> Some who do not shoot fast moving subjects will still pan a EVF because of a issue that they won't see.



I have used my a7r2 for my kid's soccer games - (not my first choice because its my work camera, but no other good AF options) and the EVF seems ok to me - but I'm not a sports shooter at all (its actually really difficult to keep up even though they're kids). I would assume the a9 would be better. The biggest issue I have with this setup is the tight zoom on my Sigma 100-400 which slows me down. But again its a work lens, I didn't buy it for kids sports. 

re: EVF cameras, I use a Fuji xPro2 for street/travel photography and I cannot tell you how much I love everything about that camera. Sony and Fuji are making great EVF right now (and I started shooting way back when with a view camera - so I'm not quick to jump on technological gimmicks!)


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 29, 2017)

I would probably get one of these, if:

1. I was assured that it will not erase stars.
2. It has an 'AstroTracer' type feature.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 29, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> I would probably get one of these, if:
> 
> 1. I was assured that it will not erase stars.
> 2. It has an 'AstroTracer' type feature.



Not my field of photography, but FYI.

Star eating is over: 

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/14/sony-a7r-iii-star-eater-no/

No it's not: 

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/21/sony-a7r-iii-eats-stars-new-report/

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3195011528/analysis-the-sony-a7r-iii-is-still-a-star-eater

Caveat emptor, I guess.

- A


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 29, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Not my field of photography, but FYI.
> 
> Star eating is over:
> 
> ...



Ha! Thanks for posting.


----------



## Neutral (Nov 29, 2017)

What is interesting is that though per DXO a7r3 high ISO performance is only slightly better than of a7r2 and basically should not be practically noticeable.
But in reality a7r3 better high ISO performance is much more pronounced visually and noise pattern also looks more natural. 
In addition to all a7r3 improvements over a7r2 this is very enticing.
Should be great for high ISO low light shooting combined with DXO Prime NR which for less blotchy noise pattern should give better results.
Here are several snapshots from DPR using low light scene and image size normalized to the lowest res camera in comparison.


----------



## sanj (Nov 30, 2017)

rjbray01 said:


> Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.



Could not disagree more.


----------



## MickDK (Jan 1, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.


That's may have been the case before but the A9 and the A7R3 (which I own) are so much improved that even my did-hard Canon friend was immediately impressed when he tried my A7R3. I suggest that you go check the A9 (or A7R3) and see for youself.


----------



## turtle (Jan 15, 2018)

Sure, the DSLRs you mention have face detect, but their effectiveness in use is not competitive with the likes of the A7R III or A9. These latest Sony cameras have stunning face detect and eye detect that works to such a standard that it transforms how many people use the cameras with moving subjects. In the worst possible light, the best DSLRs retain a clear edge with AF acquisition and tracking, however. One gets to choose the best fit. 



privatebydesign said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > So, for wildlife and sports photogs, the EVF is currently not the best solution, but for *everyone else* it's far better.
> ...


----------



## rocksubculture (Jan 22, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Even the best electronic viewfinders don't hold a candle to optical - no comparison. Personally I know I won't consider switching until I can hardly tell the difference.



Late last year I literally sold all of my Canon gear because of my experience using a camera with an EVF on vacation. It made the OVF on my Canon bodies seem like ancient technology.

If you haven't tried a new camera with an EVF you really owe it to yourself to try it out... for me, it was a game changer. And I'm not a fanboy of any particular brand - I've shot Canon seriously beginning with the 5DII (after many years and many iterations of the Rebel bodies). Over the past six years or so I've owned at least three serious Canon bodies at any given time (5DII, III, IV, 1DX, 6D, 5DSR). 

I went to Italy for a few weeks last year and didn't want to drag my heavy Canon gear all over the country so I decided to buy a Fuji X100F just for the trip (having owned earlier iterations previously and enjoyed the interface)...

The EVF technology has come so far in such a short period of time. 

I absolutely loved using the camera, and the EVF was really a remarkable thing to experience - "seeing" your photo before you take and and adjusting as needed before pushing the shutter button, rather than chimping.

And even though the Fuji is APS-C (and half the megapixels I was used to with the 5DSR), I found the images not only comparable (if not needing to crop) but the JPEGs were remarkable. It changed all my notions about gear and photography.

I sold every Canon camera I had and bought most of the Fuji lens line-up and a few XT2s.

My wife has always shot Sony, and with the A7RIII, I bought my second Sony body (I had an A7S long ago for low light but didn't like it for a variety of reasons and sold it).

The A7RIII is amazing. The eye detect is phenomenal for portrait work. I spent two full days on a shoot in LA a few months ago and it enabled me to work faster and with more precision with wide aperture lenses.

And it is also incredible for sports, with it's super fast focus and tracking.

For me, I love Sony for action and portraits and Fuji more for "creating images", if that makes sense, though both are really great for everything (I've used both systems for everything).

I still love Canon (though I own zero Canon products at this point) and enjoy reading these forums. And while they still do great in terms of overall marketshare, I've found talking to people - other pro and semi-pro photographers - that there is definitely a shift happening at a certain level. Not mass consumer and hobbyists maybe, but like at my local camera shop, every single person that works there shoots either Sony or Fuji. And when I run into other photographers at events and such, I'm surprised how many are switching from Canon and Nikon to mirrorless (Sony, Fuji, and Olympus, in that order) for weight, benefits of mirrorless, and other reasons.

Anyway, not trying to be a troll or anything, just sharing my own experience. I think competition is great because it forces new advancements and competition in pricing, so it's good for everyone IMO. Plus cameras from all major companies these days are all great, but there are enough differences to give people some options to choose what best suits them. But I really love the EVF on the newer cameras (and no, they weren't this good even a few years ago).


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 22, 2018)

rocksubculture said:


> ...
> The EVF technology has come so far in such a short period of time.
> 
> I absolutely loved using the camera, and the EVF was really a remarkable thing to experience - "seeing" your photo before you take and and adjusting as needed before pushing the shutter button, rather than chimping.
> ...



My impression has been exactly opposite with the electronic viewfinder. I took both Fujifilm's XT2 +23mm f1.4 and Canon's 5DSR + 24-70mm f/4 to my trip to Japan last summer. XT2 was supposed to be my night shot warrior but I couldn't get even a dozen of merely usable night landscape or long fireworks shots with XT2 out of hundreds using its native lenses. On the contrary, 5DSR and f/4 lens combo, in spite of its reputation of being weak with high ISO, was rock solid and could always nail the exposure and focus. And still in those scenarios EVF lag was not an issue. I assume that taking picture of moving objects in low light using the current EVF technology could be an absolute nightmare.
My only use case for XT2 now is shooting music performances is absolute silence and nothing else.


----------



## Talys (Jan 22, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> rocksubculture said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I've borrowed a friend's A7RII + 70-200/2.8, and in my extremely limited shooting in low light, I found that I didn't like EVF with flash photography at all.

1. It was really, really terrible for flash photography in low light (for example, room lit by fireplace), especially without AF assist. 

In my case, I was using one and two off-camera flashes with a remote trigger. The AF assist beam is a no go, because the red light makes my cat behave differently. Here the AF was unable to lock at all; I ended up turn on the lights a little to give the camera help, whereas my 6DII + 70-200/2.8 autofocuses just fine. The EVF isn't WYSIWYG at all, obviously -- especially since one flash had a 1/4 CTO and the other flash was rigged with a honeycomb.

2. Inferior for photos of my wife in my home studio, with proper lighting + strobes

There just wasn't any benefit to EVF, and it wasn't as natural to use. Since you don't get EVF preview, you need to look at your shots anyways, and adjust your lighting or exposure accordingly.

On the downside, it chewed through a battery at a stupid crazy alarming rate. Between shooting my cat for a bit, and my wife for a bit, the battery went from full to 25%! If it had been my 6DII or 80D, I'm positive the battery would have still been at full bars.

One thing worth mentioning, I guess, cat photography involves looking through the EVF and being patient, so maybe that wears out the battery a whole lot more/quickly.


----------



## bwud (Jan 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> bhf3737 said:
> 
> 
> > rocksubculture said:
> ...



That isn’t part and parcel to the EVF, however. Maybe DPAF will be better in low light than masked OSPDAF pixels, regardless of EVF tech.

Regarding WYSIWYG, you can get there, to an extent, with modeling lamps.


----------



## Talys (Jan 23, 2018)

bwud said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > I've borrowed a friend's A7RII + 70-200/2.8, and in my extremely limited shooting in low light, I found that I didn't like EVF with flash photography at all.
> ...



For flash photography, I almost exclusively use the viewfinder, so DPAF is not relevant. I'm comparing the optical autofocus with the pixel detection on mirrorless (I don't want to get abbreviations of the tech wrong, so I'm not using them ).

Regarding modeling lamps, this is true if you have the luxury of using a studio strobe. And I'd argue that in that case, who cares about EVF or OVF... just look at what you're shooting  But a lot of times, especially for portable setups and animal photography (where you have to quickly move your lighting), you're not going to want to have either the bulk or the power cables of a strobe.

I think that when I began studio photography, almost everything was studio strobe. It was so much easier with modeling lights, not running out of batteries, being able to power everything from wee to blinding, etc. I invested what I thought at the time was a fortune in Elinchrom stuff. Now, I hardly use it at all. I still like them for huge softboxes (anything over 4 ft), but almost everything I do is with flashes/speedlights, and I just move stuff a little this way or that if I have to.

Part of it is also that it's hard to gel strobes, especially if the strobe is in a softbox. On the other hand, with a flash, it's dead easy to gel it, and then add light modifiers, softbox or otherwise.

But anyways, sorry, totally off topic


----------



## bwud (Jan 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



My mistake, I thought this was a canon mirrorless thread. Whoops!

It’s not relevant to OVF shooting, but my assumption is that a canon mirrorless ILC camera will use DPAF to acquire focus rather than masked pixels like found in the Sony system.

And yes, for speedlites the exposure preview mode doesn’t do any good and is in fact a drawback: it’s dark. With my A7Rii I always had to fumble through the menus to turn it off (and since there is no OVF I’m not exactly clear on what that means... it’s doing *something*). Fortunately A7Riii lets me assign a button to toggle it on and off.


----------



## Talys (Jan 25, 2018)

Neutral said:


> What is interesting is that though per DXO a7r3 high ISO performance is only slightly better than of a7r2 and basically should not be practically noticeable.
> But in reality a7r3 better high ISO performance is much more pronounced visually and noise pattern also looks more natural.
> In addition to all a7r3 improvements over a7r2 this is very enticing.



Given the price difference -- and what people seem to ask for used a7r2's, it makes no sense to buy the 2, as far as I'm concerned. The 3 has a WAY better EVF, better buffer, and answers to a bunch of other annoying things about the 2.

If I were interested in that style of camera and already had *something* I was happying using, I'd wait for 2019 for a7r4 to be released, lol.


----------



## tron (Jan 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > What is interesting is that though per DXO a7r3 high ISO performance is only slightly better than of a7r2 and basically should not be practically noticeable.
> ...


Whaaat? Wouldn't you wait until 2020 or 2021 for the A7R5????????? I am shocked ;D


----------



## RGF (Feb 8, 2018)

A great sensor with a terrible user interface.

Too bad DXO does not rate usability


----------

