Sony A7R III There's no one here?

[Chris]

It is deserted Well time to liven it up.

I'm a Sony gearhead and I've acheived at least 18 minutes so far without thinking about how to twiddle knobs on my A7R3

Ok. Back to zero.

Seriously though, I would be interested in why people picked the R over the regulaur 20Mp version. Was all those pixels really needed? I often wonder if perhaps I would have been better off with half the resolution and less noisy sensor, but then I look at those enourmous resolution images and think damn... they look amazing anyway...

 

[Ziggy]

Well, I do birds almost exclusively but while I'm out sometimes a landscape shot pops out so I got the R III as a second body since swapping out a supertelephoto when you're standing in a marsh is a wealth hazard. There's also what I call the 'megapitch' that I wanted to scratch like so many others.

Gordon Laing and Marc Alhadeff both pointed out with the IV that over 400 ISO any resolution gain over the III gets lost to noise so since I'm handholding there was no point in going for that megapitch bust.

What has been a surprise is how well the R III does with bird plumage. The extra detail over the A9 is striking. There are some shots that I too think 'damn, look at that'. And double that since adding a 400/2.8 lens to the kit (should I not mention that? ).

The AF is none too shabby. Big moving birds are no problem. Smaller ones are more tricky, and like the A9 sometimes it simply fails to lock on a small static subject.

And yeah, I have taken a few landscapes

 

[Tim Mayo]

Cheers for livening the place up Chris! Things should hopefully be picking up over the next days and weeks as I start to promote the forum more, just a couple of last bugs to squash first!

I picked the R III mainly for wildlife as you can rarely get as close as you want so those extra megapixels are helpful for cropping, the price you pay is a little more noise. The a7R III also has no anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor unlike the a7III which does have one, so the images from the R III are just a little sharper although you really have to zoom in to see the difference.

 

[gfcphotography]

Likewise with the R III - use it a lot for macro and the extra detail is amazing! Also having the ability to use APS-C mode means you still get an 18MP image. Also as a second body when out for the odd landscape. Not odd but occaisional I should say!

 

[Chris]

Macro was the main reason that I bought it if truth be told - the extra resolution is just worth having as well as no filter. For the macro I have been doing then the noise is no issue - just use a brighter flash

 

[Chris Valle]

R3 guy here: For me, 42mp is fantastic, and more than enough. The 4's 61mp, and the coresponding file size is overkill in most cases. I also need the low-light performance to hold together, even if I'm not doing long exposures. Ultimately, the 3 hits the sweet spot. If I could only carry one...well, that might be the 7iii, but find myself gravitating to the r3 when I just grab one and head out the door.

 

[celin]

Hi all. I have both the Riii and the iii. I use the riii for wildlife and other cases where I know I will be cropping in. I couldn’t do that with the iii. I use the iii most of the time. A lot of times I will take both with different lenses depending on what I think I will encounter

 

[Chris]

R3 guy here: For me, 42mp is fantastic, and more than enough. The 4's 61mp, and the coresponding file size is overkill in most cases. I also need the low-light performance to hold together, even if I'm not doing long exposures. Ultimately, the 3 hits the sweet spot. If I could only carry one...well, that might be the 7iii, but find myself gravitating to the r3 when I just grab one and head out the door.

I have to say this was the reason that I didn't upgrade to the A4 - I don't need the resolution and the noise looks like it's worse as well. I mean it is still OK, but why go for smaller photosensors...?

 

[Carlos]

Hello

I hesitate to change my sony A7RII but in the end I pull for the RIII, like the ferraris, more horses, it never hurts.

Regards!!

 

[Mvilaret]

Love my R3 and I think the extra pixels was worth it. I find I can crop in significantly and maintain quality. This has allowed me to carry a 100-400 Sigma instead of my 200-600 when walking around. It's much lighter.

 

[Drewid]

Resolution, Resolution, Resolution and couldn't afford the RIV with my lens choice added to it. The odd thing is I came from the Alpha 99 II. Wonder if many others have done that?

 

[reinocruz]

I just upgraded from A7ii, and opted for the A7Riii for the pixels & ability to crop, if needed. In doing my research, didn't really hear much that steered me away. In this 1st week, I have to say, Im not disappointed one bit with the enhanced performance using the same lenses I had been using on the last body. Thankfully to some help in the forum, I was able to push the A7ii to what it was able to do, and just felt that if I was going to be putting in the time and effort into this, I may as well set myself up for better production from given opportunities!

 

[Paul stuart]

The a7r3 is a bargin sony camera ,one of the best performing sensors around ,would i prefer a a7r4 yes but happy with the 3 ,just need a second e mount body now ,a6600 or a7c when price tumbles to below £1500.

 

[Ziggy]

Yep. Down Under it was on sale at AUD 3000 when I bought mine. Could've afforded the R IV which was way more but not as good an all-round camera IMO.