stevetassi

I need a new camera for shooting portraiture and have decided to go with Sony. At first I was going to get the Nikon D850 but I changed my mind. Should I get the a7riii or the a7iii? I’m leaning toward the a7iii due to the 693 focus points and 93% focus coverage. Anybody here with experience with both of these cameras?

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Either camera will be satisfactory for portraiture. Eye AF is fantastic on both. If it were me, I'd get the A7iii--you don't really need more than 24Mp, and the larger photo sites of the A7iii should handle shadows and low light a bit better.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Try some comparison sites.

(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

trippingpara Loc: Pawtucket, RI

I have the a7riii and love it!! Although I do a lot of portraiture work, I also do a lot of landscape work too, so I really need (or want) that extra resolution in the 7riii. However, if you're doing just portraiture work, you're not going to go wrong with lower priced a7iii since you don't need all of that extra megapixels. Both are awesome cameras, you're going to love 'em!

coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA

I was in a similar situation just a little while ago. My choices were the A7Rii and the A7Riii (before release of the A7iii). I didn't need the longer life batteries since I always a use a battery grip with two batteries in it (and I carry four additional ones with me). I do wish I had the faster burst rate, but .... I shoot a lot in churches and the silent shutter was very important, but both have that {though the A7Riii's is a little more flexible); and there was the $1000 price differential. So I went with the A7Rii and a 16-35mm F4 lens. Very happy with the decision.

tallenvt

after years of lugging multiple lenses for my canon system, i sold it all and bought the 7r3 with the 24-105 lens. the extra mpixels mean that i can get the same detail by cropping a pic shot at 105 as i did with a 200mm lens. so with weight a factor, i now use only this combo and [so far] dont want other lenses. the 42mp made this possible, so it was a deal clincher for me.

gwilliams6

I have both the A7RIII and the A7III. I am a pro of four decades and shoot all subjects. I switched from Nikon and Canon SLR and DSLRs after 40 years, yes 40, to Sony FF Mirrorless back in January 2017, and would never go back. Both these cameras are awesome. However if you don't really need all 42 megapixels, then buying the A7III would allow you to use the savings to get a great all-around lens like the 24-105mm f4. If you want the ultimate image resolution then the A7RIII is worth the extra $1200. I think for most subjects I will be using the A7III more than my A7RIII. 24 megapixels is a "sweet spot" when I don't want to edit and process hundreds or thousands of 42 megapixel shots from events, weddings and sports. The A7III is actually slightly better in low light in stills and video than the still super A7RIII. Both have 15 stops dynamic range.

THIS JUST POSTED A FEW DAYS AGO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY5tzBJZibc
Jared Polin discusses the Sony A9 vs A7RIII vs A7III ,which one to buy, and tells what features they have, including what the Sonys can do better than ANY DSLR, as well as what he likes on Canon and Nikon. BTW Jared is NOT sponsored by Sony and is a longtime Nikon and Canon user, but reviews and uses all types of gear.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Coolhoosier has stated what I would suggest. If you want the more MP, then the A7RM2 is still a great camera.

hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico

Jared Polin discusses the Sony A9 vs A7RIII vs A7III ,which one to buy, and tells what features they have, including what the Sonys can do better than ANY DSLR, as well as what he likes on Canon and Nikon. BTW Jared is NOT sponsored by Sony and is a longtime Nikon and Canon user, but reviews and uses all types of gear.
gwilliams6

Jared does not review the a7lll in the video.... the a7Rlll, the a9, and the a7S

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

What lenses are you using to get the most free m that sensor?

gwilliams6

Hookedupin2005 ,YOU ARE WRONG. Jared DOES review the A7III. There is absolutely no mention of any A7S. Look at it again. The entire reason for the video is the introduction of the hot A7III. Did you even look at it ?

Here is the title: Sony a7 III vs Sony a7R III vs Sony a9: Which To Buy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY5tzBJZibc

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Just for shooting portraiture? Or do you have other uses for it?

You don't need as many megapixels for portraits as you do for landscape. After all, what lady wants to see all of her pores and blemishes to be clearly recorded. Men don't mind as much.

But even for landscapes, if you get a camera that records more than 24 MP you are probably going to need some new prime lenses that can keep up with all of the extra resolution. If you invest more than $3,000 on the body, be prepared to spend several thousand more on lenses. Otherwise you will have wasted your money.

gwilliams6

stevetassi, I think you should try to shoot with both and see if the file size and ultimate resolution is worth the $1200 more for the A7RIII body. You DO NOT have to buy the more expensive G-Master lenses to get great resolution with either camera. For my A7RIII and A7III I have a mix of Sony and Sigma glass. Some of the Sony glass is the "G" series, and some are the G-Master series. You would need to pixel-peep to see any resolution advantage in the pricier G-Master glass. Also the Sigma Art series have equal resolution as the G-Master line and cost much less.

Any pores and blemishes exposed with the A7RIII's resolution can be tamed in post. If you want comparable resolution to the D850, then yes the A7RIII is the choice. But the introduction of the A7III does present another choice. The A7III quality, dynamic range and low light performance will be more than enough for most subjects. The 695 focus points of the A7III is great. But that one better feature doesn't mean you will have any issue with the focusing in the A7RIII. If you are doing portraits you will be using Eye-AF and face detect anyway.

Tough decision. I am fortunate to have both. Going on vacation to Caribbean in two weeks and will only be taking the A7III, no real need for the A7RIII . May take my A6500 along too, as it still shoots in-camera panoramas. (they had that feature in my old A7RII, but took it out of A9, A7RIII and A7III)

hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico

You are right... My bad.. I don't know where I got the a7S at...I stand corrected.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And that's pretty much the point I was making. What's the point of pixel peeping on a portrait?

If you have to pixel peep to see the difference in resolution for those lenses then maybe you don't need all of the extra sensor resolution either. You are not likely to be printing mural sized portraits.

But if you are shooting landscape, the extra resolution might actually be useful. Even then you have a choice - you can spend a lot of money on the body and the lenses or you can take multiple images with less expensive lenses and cameras and stitch them together. You will end up with much more resolution than any single full frame camera image can produce.