amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Full frame still isn't ideal for sports photography.... To get the best out of a FF camera requires you use larger, heavier, more expensive full-frame-capable lenses too.

Also, 42MP images at 10 fps will fill up a terabyte in no time!

Of course, starting out with 42MP full frame, you can always crop to APS-C equivalent and still end up with approx. 17MP images. (Or you can just get a 24MP APS-C camera.)

Personally, I really like the somewhat "retro" and relatively uncluttered styling of Sony DSLRs.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Alan we're both old enough to remember when folk said the SAME things about 6, then 12, then 14, the 20mp cameras.

Time marches on....

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

BTW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6YBnjNOi1U

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

This is not designed to compete with your D5, which in many ways is superior to the a7Riii. This is more of a premier landscape/portrait camera that has been improved to also serve as a sports camera for the casual user.

Sony's a9 is its premier sports beast, but that's fodder for a different thread.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I think you're right, Cholly, that Sony made up my mind for me. I have until November 3rd to decide as that's when the discount on the a7Rii is set to expire. On the other hand, with the a7Riii coming in at $3198, can Sony really raise the price for the ii back to $2800? I bet it remains at $2398 tops. Oh, and the iii does only 8fps without EVF blackout (or 10fps blind), but 8fps is good enough. Even that is getting into territory that's impossible to follow through any viewfinder.

I need to be convinced that the iii is really a viable option for casual sports. I have no reason to doubt, as it utilizes a lot of tech from the proven a9, but I want to be certain before deciding because a $2400 a7Rii and an a6k for sports are still a practical option. What I want to see between now and then are some videos with real-world results, not just Sony's claims. I want to see how well this thing focuses and tracks with native and adapted glass, wither with the EA3 or the EA4, because despite that I concur Sony now has good lens coverage, I still like the availability of vintage Minolta glass that I find much more affordable. BTW Sony did announce a 400mm f/2.8 FE prime and it offers a 100-400mm zoom in the FE mount, so it does cover that long end.

What do you think my friend, what will you end up with?

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

True about the advantage of a crop using a smaller, lighter lens. But you sacrifice so much with a crop, most notably smaller pixels that collect less light, so you shoot at a higher ISO or lower shutter. And there's the smaller image that gets costly when you want to crop. I guess it's all about what you consider to be more important, and you make a valid point except I wouldn't say ff isn't ideal -- because neither is crop.

I also agree that I prefer the Sony DSLR-style body, such as the a77ii or a99ii. But I own an a7R that I got used to very quickly. I'm no longer bothered by the smaller body, and although I still prefer the larger one, what really matters is what I can do with whatever I have at hand (I need all the help I can get). This a7Riii seems to be an exciting and very capable tool for all-around photography, or arguably one of the best landscape/portrait cameras (the a7Rii) improved and made into a respectable tool for sports as well. I suspect Sony really hit another homerun here, and I'll wait to see real-world analysis, but with other Sony releases results have mostly held up to scrutiny, so I expect the same here.

Shel Loc: Lecanto FL

I am debating between the A7Rii and the A7Riii. I am an amateur and my interest is in photographing birds. I like the new price of the A7Rii while the A7Riii is more than I care to spend. I have a Nikon D7000 and have problems with focusing so I need to make a change. The in-body stabilization is critical for me but I wonder if it provides any benefit when shooting at 1/300 and faster. I am 84 and my hands are no longer steady so ibis seems like the logical way for me to go.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I absolutely agree. It sounds like a wonderful camera. There's just not enough money in my retirement account. . . but. . .

kbatschke Loc: Chicagoland-west

I can speak to Sony IBIS at 1/300 and greater shutter speeds (up to 640 anyway). I have used my Canon EF 100-400II on my 70d and adapted (Sigma adapter) on my a6500 with IBIS. Hand-held, I was not able to get sharp images at 1/640th on the Canon even though the lens has stabilization. I can hand-hold the Sony a6500 with the Canon glass at 1/400 and get tack-sharp images (image directly below). I had to go up to 1/1000 on my Canon 70d with the same lens to get consistently sharp (no blur) images.

After using the Sony with IBIS, I won't go back to a non-stabilized camera body. BTW, I've been able to get sharp images with the 16-50mm at 1/20th at the 50mm end of the zoom (second image. No noise reduction applied. You can still read the street signs at 1:1 crop).

A6500. Canon 100-400II@400mm. 1/400sec

(Download)

A6500. E 16-50mm@50mm. 1/20sec

(Download)

Noledge Loc: Sweden

I have the RII. Is is a fantastic camera. However, this new RIII seems to tick all the boxes for everything You can possibly want. Awesome Sony!

TheDman Loc: USA

It captures 170 megapixels of data to combine into a 42mp image. It doesn't output a 170mp photo.

kbatschke Loc: Chicagoland-west

According to Sony's website, the camera captures 4 images of 42mp and these are then combined in post to deliver an image equal to 170mp. I think the OP has it right.


"Pixel Shift Multi Shooting26 opens a new world of resolution"

"Applying mechanisms and control technology of image stabilization, this new feature composites four separate pixel-shifted images that contain total data27 equal to approx. 169.6 million, or 42.4 million x 4 (RGGB), pixels to reproduce a single optimal still image of super-high resolution, detailed texture, balanced color, and realistic atmosphere, with minimal moiré and color artifacts. Images shot using this feature can be processed with the new Sony imaging software suite. [1] The image sensor is moved in 1-pixel increments while shooting four sequential frames. [2] Each pixel represents R, G, and B information."

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

This really does look like a real game changer. Pretty incredible it's reported capabilities. Kind of makes the D850 look primitive by comparison. I won't even mention my Canon system in the same breath with this new Sony.
Very impressive.

TheDman Loc: USA

Reread the part I bolded. Single, optimal image. Pentax and some others can already do this. It's of very limited use:
https://www.digitalrev.com/article/is-pentax-pixel-shift-technology-any-good

kbatschke Loc: Chicagoland-west

Correct. The four images become combined into a single image once processed in Sony's PP software. My reading of the feature is that the combined image is equal to roughly 170mp, not 42mp, that's all I was attempting to clarify. The usefulness would be up to the user of course. I do floral photography and can imagine the benefits for my work. For architectural photography as well.