A7S - By My Side
Click Here === https://urlin.us/2tlCHK
To put things to the test, I went out one evening to replicate an image I had shot previously with my Sony a7 III. This would give me a side-by-side comparison to see how the quality compares between 12 megapixels and 24 megapixels. Additionally, it would allow me to test out the low light capabilities of this new sensor. After the shoot, I edited the images to be similar and ordered a 20x30-inch print of each. When the prints arrived, I sat down to compare them and made a video summarizing my thoughts:
After reviewing the results, I found that 12 megapixels are completely adequate. The prints were nearly identical in quality, and only a closeup look revealed slight differences. The reduced pixel density made the prints look slightly less crisp, but I only noticed a difference when examining them very closely side by side. Most people hang a 20x30 print on the wall because they want to be able to view it from a few feet away or across a room.
All debate aside, Adobe just released a product making the megapixel debate a non-issue. The Super Resolution feature just incorporated into Adobe Camera Raw allows you to quadruple the resolution of an image: think 12 megapixels to 48 megapixels with the click of a button.
I'm not a professional. Just a long time (since late 70s) hobbyist. So maybe you can answer this question. From my readings the A7S to A7Siii were aimed at better high ISO images. Its reason to exist along side the A7 and A7R series. I see it as a camera for low light images instead of one aimed at portrait photographers. Wouldn't the hair moire be a problem for somebody who does a lot of low (mostly natural) light portraits I'm thinking along the lines of boudoir where low light is used for a romantic mood. Most other portraits are done in moderate to bright light (natural and/or strobes), so those photographers would be looking at higher resolution cameras.
Just to point out the math, 7952 x 5304 is indeed (more than) three times 4240 x 2832.(What you meant by \"not even a doubling\" is perhaps because you saw each number side by side - I agree with your stance but the math is wrong)
You make a print size statement from my heart !I'm a retired photographer and can look back at a well spent career behind the camera.In my film days - staring in the 1970 - we were forced to crop 'in camera' , there was little room or time to crop via the photo lab. So that issue is out of the way. 12 Mp sensors allow for indeed 95 ++ % of all prints. In my portrait studio I rarely delivered larger as 30 inch on the long side , my architecture work sometimes up to 60 inch on the long side but that was it. When digital entered my life I was very confused. Thinking in film formats 35mm up to 4\"x5\" did not convert to sensor sizes. Recently re edited a shot from my long gone Nikon D2X and indeed 'threw' it in Adobe PS enhancer. Nothing short of blown away.Currently I make Landscape panoramas, the majority sells as luxury greeting cards , every now and then a large print of up to 50 inch long. My camera A Fuji X-Pro3 with some prime lenses. When I know the photo I make will be a 'seller' -- trust me after 40++ years you know -- I shoot a tiled panorama with say my 50mm f2 and end up with a stitched pano of 20000 pixels wide. plenty of room for enlargement for the largest billboard. It keeps me smiling with very portable and affordable camera kit.
Then we have the rear monitor, and I think some of you will be happy to hear that the A7S III has a multi-angle LCD screen, a first for the A7 / A9 series. You can open it to the side and rotate it 180, unlike the one on the A7 III that only tilts up or down.
The A7s Mark II takes the 12 Megapixel full-frame sensor of the A7s and fits it into the updated body of the Mark II Alpha A7 series. So it inherits the upgraded viewfinder, built-in stabilisation, chunkier grip and repositioned controls last seen on the A7r Mark II; indeed place them side by side and they look physically identical other than their model names.
Continuous AF is an area where the A7r Mark II is much more at home, and in my side-by-side tests it had no problem tracking approaching cyclists with its embedded phase-detect AF system at the top speed of 5fps.
In my tests with the A7r Mark II, I captured 38 Large Fine JPEGs in 7.2 seconds before the camera slowed-down. This works out at an initial speed of 5.28fps, before slowing to around 2.5fps. Switching to RAW allowed me to capture the quoted 23 compressed files in 4.46 seconds for a rate of 5.16fps, after which the speed fell considerably to around 1fps.
This kit of the Sony a7S III cage will help to fully build out your setup. It includes: the Full Camera Cage for Sony a7S III, quick release top handle, Arca and Manfrotto quick release baseplates, a 15mm LWS baseplate for mounting accessories (as well as 15mm rods for the plate), a male HDMI to female HDMI adapter, a clamp to attach the HDMI adapter comfortably to the cage, and finally a Left Side Advanced Power Handle with Run/Stop that can attach to the side of the cage (as well as a compatible run/stop cable for the Sony a6/a7/a9).
I understand that I may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking below, I agree to the Sony Electronics Inc. Privacy Policyand Terms & Conditions, and certify that I am a U.S. resident. (CA Privacy Notice).
One other tidbit: I was surprised to see, to my eyes at least, that the GH5S seemed to produce cleaner and sharper images than the Canon EOS 80D. Again, this is only one data point. Still, considering the 80D has a 24MP sensor, to this long-time Canon shooter, the initial evidence is unexpected. And the GH5S files are, once again, much smaller. How can this be I wonder
With a background in photojournalism, I often found myself on assignments shooting in situations where using a flash was disruptive or downright forbidden, such as in courtrooms or on the sidelines of football or basketball games. As such, having to shoot at higher ISOs was very common, and I often wished I could bump up the ISO a little more to get a more usable exposure, but I was limited to my cameras' high ISO capabilities. Now, with the A7S, my first thought was could this camera be the perfect photojournalist camera
Like many other people in the past year or two, I've made the switch from Canon to Sony for video purposes. I've been shooting video mostly with Canon DSLRs for the past 5 years and aside from ISO performance in sensor technology, they have all had the same exact features since the 5D II was released. I don't know whats going on at Canon but they are not keeping with the times. A year ago I was looking into an alternative to my 6D and found myself deciding between the Panasonic GH4 and the Sony A7S. I went with the Panasonic since it was better value but it had a different place for me since it was so different from a Canon DSLR. I was either using one or the other, very rarely would I use both on the same shoot. I was looking for an all in one package. Since Sony released the A7S II, I had no choice but to look into it. On paper it seemed like a real game changer.
This is the Sony A7S's main show, its low light performance. This was extremely beneficial for me shooting weddings since a lot of ceremonies in churches and receptions are poorly lit, so this was a major plus for me. I've looked at reception footage from the same wedding shot on my A7S II and a Canon 5D Mark III and there's no comparison. The detail, dynamic range and lack of noise is head and shoulders over the Canon (They have the new SLog3 profile on the A7S II but I find that to be a little too flat, I prefer PP5 for my use). I even use auto ISO a lot of the time now since I know I'm going to get a clean image no matter what the camera thinks is right. I was even able to get establishing shots at night outside the venues that a Canon DSLR would never be able to get.
With the Canons I've been shooting with, I always installed Magic Lantern, which is a hack for the firmware which gives you a ton more options for photo and video. The main reason I had it installed on my Canon 6D was to utilize simple video functions such as focus peeking, which I feel is essential for using video with manual focus, and crop marks which I use for cropping certain video in post to an anamorphic 2:35 video. Aside from Canon not offering these features at all, the Sony gives you a lot of options with focus peeking such as 3 levels of intensity and you can change the color to your preference.
Sony and Zeiss make some good lenses and I'm highly considering switching everything over to their glass from Canon but it's a huge hassle to do so and it'll be quite expensive to do so. I really would like a smaller form factor though with mirrorless lenses and I've heard that although Sony and Zeiss primes are expensive, they're wayyy better than the Canon EF primes I have now. It just feels like a waste to spend money on a new camera body and not be able to take advantage of all the features (Fast AF, Continuous AF, AF Lock, 5-Axis Stabilization) that I paid for.
Along with Sony's shity lens selection, this is my only other major flaw I can find with this camera. Between the lack of proper auto focus with my Canon lenses and the fact that this is only a 12MP camera, I cannot use the A7S II to shoot photos. I still gladly go to my Canon 6D for photos but I would ideally love to have both functions in one camera so I wouldn't have to travel around with 2 bodies. This contradicts the whole \"going mirrorless to help downsize my gear\" thing. I have considered purchasing an A7R II to replace my 6D for photos since that thing is a killer camera but thats another $3,200 and only something I'd consider if I were to commit to switching all my lenses to Sony/Zeiss. 59ce067264