
Long awaited is one of the best descriptors for the just-announced Sony a7S III. I've been waiting. You've been waiting. We've all been waiting. In the years since its predecessor was released, we've seen an unprecedented number of new video-capable cameras from every major camera manufacturer. That means there are a lot of very competitive options in the mirrorless and DSLR world when it comes to high-end video. We are going to take a closer look at some of these and how they compare to the new a7S III.
Setting the parameters for this test, we need to point out a lot is based purely on written specs. If you saw our Canon R5 Comparison, you might be familiar with this already. It's still early days for a few of these cameras, and with limited time and experience it's extremely difficult to put a definitive answer to the question of "Which camera is better?" Keep in mind this guide is meant to be helpful in pointing out where cameras differ and in what situations one option might excel over the other. Camera decisions tend to be very personal decisions as well. Just because one camera "wins," that doesn't mean it's going to be the best camera for you.
The Comparisons:
Panasonic S1H
Canon EOS R5
Sony a7 III
Sony a7S II
Sony a7R IV
FUJIFILM X-T4
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K
Sony FX9
a7S III versus Panasonic S1H
The most direct competition in the video-oriented mirrorless space is the Panasonic S1H. They are priced similarly, use full-frame sensors, have many advanced features, and are going to be battling for top video in a compact system. Just to get it out front, both are great picks, they are just different.
a7S III |
Feature |
Panasonic S1H |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
24MP Full-Frame CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
Leica L |
4K up to 120p |
Video Resolution |
6K up to 24p 4K up to 60p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
5.9K (12-bit) up to 30p via HDMI |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 100-51200 (Extended: ISO 50-204800) |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
5-Axis In-Body (6 Stops) |
None |
Recording Limits |
None |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
V-Log, HLG Dual Native ISO Timecode Input |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
Contrast-Detect (225 areas) |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
5.76m-dot OLED EVF |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
3.2" 2.33m-dot Articulating Touchscreen |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
2 x SD (UHS-II) |
- Sensor choice is the huge difference here. The a7S III opts for a lower resolution, but more sensitive 12MP backilluminated CMOS and the S1H uses a more conventional 24MP sensor that opens the door for greater than 4K video recording.
- For 4K imaging resolutions, the a7S III hits 4K at up to 120p while the S1H only hits 4K up to 60p.
- Panasonic has multiple greater than 4K options with the S1H able to record fullframe 6K up to 24p.
- Both cameras can record 10bit 4:2:2 internally and externally.
- For raw, both output over HDMI, though Sony has a better 16bit raw and Panasonic has higher resolutions available.
- Sony's 759point phase-detect AF system is way faster and more responsive than the S1H's contrast system.
- The Panasonic S1H's image stabilization system rates a half stop better.
- Both cameras have their respective log formats and HLG HDR for maximum dynamic range.
- The S1H is Netflix certified and has pro features like Dual Native ISO and support for timecode.
- The a7S III is the king of low light with sensitivities up to ISO 409600.
Final Thoughts: Call me biased for Sony if you want, but I think a strong emphasis on improving 4K quality (plus 120p) is a bigger selling point than the greater than 4K resolutions the S1H offers. With solid autofocus, amazing dynamic range of 15+ stops, faster 4K frame rates, and a more fleshed-out lens ecosystem, the a7S III is a more complete package. Perhaps if you were working on a Netflix show with some Varicam systems and V-Log, then the S1H is objectively better. However, I suspect most average shooters will be using the a7S III as a main camera for web and don't need all the extra "pro" features of the S1H.
a7S III versus Canon EOS R5
Both being very new cameras, the a7S III and Canon EOS R5 are certainly going to get a lot of scrutiny. To be honest, if you need a good all-around camera, one that addresses photography, too, you are going to want the a7R IV or Canon R5 instead of the a7S III. The a7S III is designed around video specs. But, the R5 does have some solid video chops, so we are going to compare them here.
a7S III |
Feature |
EOS R5 |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
45MP Full-Frame CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
Canon RF |
4K up to 120p |
Video Resolution |
8K up to 30p 4K up to 120p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
Internal DCI 8K raw (12-bit) |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 100-51200 (Extended: ISO 50-102400) |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops) |
None |
Recording Limits |
8K: 20 minutes 4K60: 25 minutes All: 30 minutes |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
Canon Log, PQ-HDR |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
Dual Pixel CMOS AF II (100% coverage, 1,053 points) |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
5.76m-dot OLED EVF |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
3.2" 2.1m-dot Articulating Touchscreen |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
1 x CFexpress Type B 1 x SD (UHS-II) |
- Vastly different sensor resolutions: the a7S III has a lowres 12MP sensor, while the R5 has a 45MP sensor.
- The a7S III is superior in low light, with extended sensitivities up to ISO 409600.
- For stills, the R5's greater resolution is more useful.
- The R5's image stabilization system rates higher at 8 stops.
- The R5 can record DCI 8K 12bit raw internally, while Sony will export 16-bit 4.2K raw signal.
- Both cameras offer fullframe 4K up to 120p with 10-bit 4:2:2.
- Sony has no recording limits for video.
- Both have log and HDR profiles; however, Sony's profiles claim 15+ stops of dynamic range.
- Sony's viewfinder is better, but Canon has a larger screen. You can probably just say these cancel out.
- Autofocus systems should provide similar performance with matched features.
- Both use some variant of CFexpress and SD.
Final Thoughts: This is a weird one for sure. Canon has some much better specs for sure on paper, but usability is a concern. There are recording limits, the files sizes can be massive, and overheating already had to be addressed by Canon. However, the R5 is a better all-around camera. So, if you need something for stills and video, the R5 is a great choice because of its higher resolution sensor. If video is your game, the a7S III's practicality is going to serve you significantly better.
a7S III versus Sony a7 III
Now we have to get into the Sony versus Sony comparisons. I saved these for a little bit later in the list because Sony has explicitly said that the a7S is the video-centric model, so it's going to be better than the others. This will be a more holistic comparison where we talk about who would be better served by each camera, starting with the a7 III.
a7S III |
Feature |
a7 III |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
24MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
Sony E |
4K up to 120p |
Video Resolution |
4K up to 30p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
8-bit 4:2:0 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
None |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 100-51200 (Extended: ISO 50-204800) |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
5-Axis In-Body (5 Stops) |
None |
Recording Limits |
Yes, 30 minutes |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (93% coverage, 693 points) |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
2.36m-dot OLED EVF |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
3.0" Tilting Touchscreen |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
2 x SD |
- Both sensors use backilluminated architecture, with the a7 III leading in resolution at 24MP and the a7S III's 12MP sensor dominating in lowlight performance.
- For video, the a7 III might be able to produce more detail as it downsamples from 6K, while the a7S III is using 1:1 pixel readout.
- The a7S III excels in every other video spec, with 4K 120p, 10bit 4:2:2 internal, raw output, and plenty more.
- AF systems are similar on both.
- The a7S III has no recording limit.
- Videographers will love the new fully articulating screen of the a7S III and highres EVF.
- The a7S III introduces a new touchcapable menu system for faster, easier navigation.
- CFexpress cards open the door for faster transfer speeds without giving up the option to use SD.
- Every other aspect of the a7S III is an improvement over the a7 III.
- The a7 III is much more affordable.
Final Thoughts: This comparison was easy. If you need or want the best video, the a7S III is the only choice. However, the a7 III is much cheaper and will better suit people who want to shoot both stills and video with its reasonable 24MP resolution. I would say the a7 III still has a very solid place based on its price point, and if you are still just getting started in video, or perhaps are more of a photographer, then the a7 III is a better choice. It can also work still as a B camera for the a7S III if you decide to upgrade or add to your kit in the future.
a7S III versus Sony a7S II
Okay, I guess we have to do this comparison. But, it's a blowout in every sense. The a7S III trounces its predecessor the a7S II in every single way. This is really to take a deeper look at where it wins.
a7S III |
Feature |
a7S II |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
12MP Full-Frame CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
Sony E |
4K up to 120p |
Video Resolution |
4K up to 30p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
8-bit 4:2:0 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
None |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 100-102400 (Extended: ISO 50-409600) |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
5-Axis In-Body (4.5 Stops) |
None |
Recording Limits |
Yes, 30 minutes |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
S-Log2, S-Log3 |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
Contrast-Detect (169 points) |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
2.36m-dot OLED EVF |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
3.0" Tilting LCD |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
1 x SD |
- Both are fullframe sensors with the same sensitivity range; however, the a7S III uses a new backilluminated design that means better dynamic range, readout speeds, and lowlight performance.
- Both do 4K, and do it well, but the a7S III upgrades to 10bit 4:2:2 and can hit 120p.
- The image stabilization has improved to 5.5 stops from 4.5 stops on the a7S II.
- Phasedetect AF comes to the a7S III for fast, responsive focusing.
- The a7S III's EVF gets a major resolution boost and the screen is both touch sensitive and fully articulating.
- Raw video output via the fullsize HDMI is a first for Sony with the a7S III.
- Another first is the use of CFexpress Type A while still retaining full SD compatibility.
Final Thoughts: What do you really need to know about the a7S III compared to its predecessor? It's better in every way, and if you want the latest and greatest video, you should upgrade. Don't worry, the a7S II is still a good pick for the price, but seriously consider stepping up if filmmaking is your goal.
a7S III versus Sony a7R IV
This comparison pits the video-centric a7S III up against the stills powerhouse that is the a7R IV. Honestly, these serve two very different markets. The a7S III is for video-first users looking for top-tier 4K specs and some photo in a pinch. The a7R IV is the opposite, delivering class-leading resolution and autofocus with decent video for hybrid use.
a7S III |
Feature |
a7R IV |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
61MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
Sony E |
4K up to 120p |
Video Resolution |
4K up to 30p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
8-bit 4:2:0 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
None |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 100-32000 (Extended: ISO 50-204800) |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
None |
Recording Limits |
None |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (87% coverage, 567 points) |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
5.76m-dot OLED EVF |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
3.0" Tilting Touchscreen |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
2 x SD |
- The key difference is the sensor, with the a7R IV boasting a 61MP resolution and the a7S III offering a modest 12MP resolution.
- The a7S III offers notably better lowlight performance.
- The a7R IV can capture lots more detail.
- For video, the a7S III is a clear winner, with 10bit 4:2:2 4K up to 120p. The a7R IV is limited to 4K 30p in 8-bit 4:2:0.
- Cropping is much more viable on the a7R IV, adding to versatility.
- Both have solid autofocus systems and inbody image stabilization.
Final Thoughts: Different cameras for different folks. If you are a photographer first, then the a7R IV will make more sense. The extra resolution combined with tons of other solid performance will make it a great option. Videographers and filmmakers will be much better suited to picking up the a7S III with its plenty of upgrades.
a7S III versus FUJIFILM X-T4
This is a tough comparison, as the FUJIFILM X-T4 has a smaller APS-C sensor instead of the full-frame options found in all the other cameras listed above. It does take advantage of that sensor size to create a smaller, yet still super-capable stills and video system that comes in at a much more affordable price point.
a7S III |
Feature |
X-T4 |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
26MP BSI APS-C CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
FUJIFILM X |
4K up to 120p |
Video Resolution |
4K up to 60p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
10-bit 4:2:0 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
None |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 160-12800 (Extended: ISO 80-51200) |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
5-Axis In-Body (6.5 Stops) |
None |
Recording Limits |
Yes, 30 minutes |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
F-Log, Film Simulations |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (425 points) |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
3.69m-dot OLED EVF |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
2 x SD |
- Sensor size is a key differentiator, with the XT4 opting for APS-C and the a7S III going for full-frame.
- Advantages of the a7S III's larger, 12MP sensor include superior lowlight performance and faster readout.
- The a7S III can hit higher frame rates, up to 120p in 4K.
- Both offer internal 10bit recording, though the a7S III has full 10bit 4:2:2 internally and no recording limits.
- The a7S III steps up externally with 16bit raw output.
- Autofocus will hopefully be close between them, but Sony's is more mature at this point.
- Image stabilization is interesting, as the smaller format of FUJIFILM cameras permits greater IS performance.
- The XT4 has a smaller form factor than the a7S III. The entire X System has smaller products.
- The XT4 is much more affordable.
Final Thoughts: If you are looking to build out a new system for the first time, you can't go wrong with either the FUJIFILM X-T4 or Sony a7S III. However, if you are limited by budget, the X-T4 comes in with a top-notch feature set at a much more affordable price. Of course, there is no upgrade path to full-frame for FUJIFILM, so if you must have full-frame, you'll have to stick with Sony. Arguably, Sony does provide more in the a7S III than the X-T4, though at a higher cost. For the best, go with the a7S.
a7S III versus Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K
As the a7S III is going after a now quite large compact cinema camera market, it would only make sense to look at some other cameras in the space, like the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K. It's a Super 35mm camera, but it is one of the most feature-packed cameras you can get for video. It's also quite well priced.
a7S III |
Feature |
PCC 6K |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
21MP Super 35mm CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
Canon EF |
4K up to 120p Full HD up to 240p |
Video Resolution |
6K up to 50p 5.7k up to 60p 4K up to 60p 2.8K up to 120p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
6K up to 50p 6K 2.4:1 up to 60p 5.7K up to 60p |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 100-25600 |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
None |
None |
Recording Limits |
None |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
Dual Native ISO Mini-XLR Audio Input 3.5mm Stereo Input (TC) |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
Limited |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
None |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
5.0" Fixed Touchscreen |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
1 x CFast 2.0 1 x SD USB-C (SSD Support) |
- Fullframe or Super 35mm; that's your sensor choice. The a7S III has a larger, lowerresolution 12MP full-frame sensor that is better in low light. The Pocket 6K's Super 35mm sensor offers more resolution.
- The a7S III's mirrorless body has a few advantages: advanced autofocus, inbody image stabilization, a high-res EVF, and more.
- The Pocket 6K, being built for video alone, has 12bit internal raw recording up to 6K and 10-bit 4K recording in ProRes up to 60p. Both are incredible specs. Add on a timecode input and USBC for recording to external SSDs and you have a very capable compact cinema system.
- The a7S III doesn't have the same resolutions, but has faster 4K at up to 120p while keeping 10bit 4:2:2 in various compressed formats.
- The a7S III excels in lowlight performance by multiple stops.
- Blackmagic offers Dual Native ISO to boost lowlight performance.
- Sony's claimed dynamic range of 15+ stops beats Blackmagic's claim of 13 stops.
- Sony uses the more versatile Sony E mount, which can accept adapted lenses from almost any system, while the Pocket 6K uses the more common Canon EF mount.
Final Thoughts: I would honestly give the win to the a7S III if I was picking a straight-up winner right now. The full-frame sensor offers plenty of advantages, and Sony has some very useful additions (IBIS and AF) that make video shooting a more enjoyable experience. Its 4K should also be noticeably better. Blackmagic still offers a lot, in a smaller, more affordable package as expected. The Pocket 6K is an incredibly powerful filmmaking tool, and if you are a fan of Blackmagic's systems or want internal raw it makes sense for the price. It also is a better B camera to other Blackmagic cameras, such as the URSA.
a7S III versus Sony FX9
Okay, this one is just for fun. The FX9 is Sony's impressive full-frame cinema camera, and it's a doozy. Now, it is in a different class than the a7S III, but it is interesting to see where the tiny camera excels and where the cinema camera comes in handy.
a7S III |
Feature |
FX9 |
12MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sensor |
24MP BSI Full-Frame CMOS |
Sony E |
Lens Mount |
Sony E |
4K up to 120p |
Video Resolution |
4K up to 60p |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
Color Depth |
10-bit 4:2:2 |
4K (16-bit) up to 60p via HDMI |
Raw Video |
4K (16-bit) via firmware |
ISO 80-102400 (Extended: ISO 40-409600) |
Sensitivity |
ISO 800/4000 (Base) |
5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops) |
Stabilization |
None |
None |
Recording Limits |
None |
S-Log2, S-Log3, HLG
|
Other Video Features |
S-Log3, S-Cinetone Dual Native ISO 4-128 Stop Electronic ND XLR Inputs |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (92% coverage, 759 points) |
Autofocus |
On-Sensor Phase-Detect (95% coverage, 561 points) |
9.44m-dot OLED EVF |
Viewfinder |
None |
3.0" Articulating Touchscreen |
Screen |
3.5" Articulating Touchscreen |
2 x CFexpress Type A/SD |
Media |
2 x XQD 1 x SD |
- Both offer backilluminated full-frame sensors; however, the FX9 uses a higher resolution 24MP sensor for 6K downsampling and viable Super 35mm 4K modes.
- Both offer advanced 4K recording at high frame rates, but the FX9 offers higher quality XAVCI and XAVC-L codecs by default.
- The FX9 packs in an electronic variable ND filter.
- Other advantages of the FX9 include networking, true timecode support, SCinetone, Dual Native ISO, and a top handle with XLR inputs.
- Autofocus should be surprisingly similar between the two models.
- The FX9's larger, cinefocused body design offers more controls for faster operation.
- The FX9 has prolevel outputs, such as SDI, in addition to HDMI.
- Both shockingly have a claimed dynamic range of 15+ stops.
Final Thoughts: If you need a pro cinema camera and are looking at Sony, the FX9 is the one to get here. However, if you already have an FX9, the similarities between it and the a7S III mean it will make a great, compact B camera on set, especially since it will be able to share lenses and other capabilities. I think the a7S III is now a solid part of Sony's cinema ecosystem, even if it doesn't compare when it comes to professional workflows.
What are your thoughts on this comparison? Anything you think we missed and want us to add? Which of these comparisons would you most like to see turn into a true hands-on comparison when the opportunity arises? Be sure to let us know in the Comments, below!
30 Comments
How does it look compared to the Panasonic S5? Would the Panasonic S5 be a good alternative that's $1500 cheaper?
In terms of stabilization, autofocus, video bit rate and battery life, the A7S III would better over the Panasonic S5. However, the S5 would be stronger in terms of stills with its higher resolution, Pixel Shift mode and focus stacking.
I've seen the Panasonic S5 realistically have much better stabilization than the A7SIII and the low light is surprisingly close.
Id love to see an article comparing the A7SIII versus other focused cinema cameras like the FX9 and FS7. I currently have an A6600 with an Atomos recorder and zoom recorder attached to a cage and wish I could a cam that has most of the same features integrated already. The 10-bit 422, 4k and 3 channels of audio are the most important to me.
We are certainly discussing options for comparisons here. We are hoping to do this with production models when they become more widely available.
ISO isn't a measure of sensitivity and should not be listed as such, to do so is a failure of fundamental understanding what ISO is with relation to modern digital sensors.
Hi Eric,
If we wanted to be extremely technical, then yes you would be right. The whole point of this type of article is to put some relatively complex ideas in a format where nearly anyone can grasp differences between different cameras, and at this point ISO is our best way of doing that. Cameras with greater sensitivities tend to have higher ISO ranges, so by showing that in these tables we can demonstrate the point effectively for your average user. Not everyone is expected to have a deep understanding of sensors and digital image processing to figure out what camera they should use.
Thanks for taking the time to write in!
"Cameras with greater sensitivities tend to have higher ISO ranges"
No, they don't, go ahead and read through the photonstophotos.net analysis done by Bill Claff on the quantum efficiency of various digital cameras, you'll find there's no correlation between ISO (either total range or absolute values) and the quantum efficiency of their sensors. As a prime example, the ISO range of the A7sII is 100-102400 with a quantum efficiency of 55%, the A7RIV has a smaller ISO range of 100-32000 with a quantum efficiency of 58% and the A7iii with its ISO range of 100-51200 has a quantum efficiency of 64%. To label ISO as sensitivity is misleading, that's all there is to. The term ISO is a vague and pointless link to the ages of film cameras where film ISO was a measure of sensitivity, ISO in modern digital cameras is purely a voltage gain applied by the camera to the sensor and to state it as a measure of sensitivity just promotes a false metric. It's better to educate and help the masses with accurate information than to overly simplify in a false and misleading way.
To state it as simply as possible, the sensitivity of the sensor in the A7sIII is unknown at this time, no technical measurements of the sensor's quantum efficiency have been made. Odds are that the A7sIII will probably be in the mid-50's to mid-60's in terms of quantum efficiency similar to recent Sony sensors found in recent Sony and Nikon MILC's. Instead of labeling it as sensitivity just call it was it is, the ISO range. Help consumers make decisions based on accurate information and not misleading, outdated terminology.
I want to level with you here. Everything you said is accurate. Everything you said is important. Practically speaking though, educating a photographer on quantum efficiency and the like isn't going to help them make their photos better. Explaining to them that "sensitivity" might not be wholly accurate a term for ISO isn't going to make their photos better or help them find a better camera. Knowing that practically they can get a better image in low-light shooting with a camera that has a higher ISO range/sensitivity is helpful on the other hand.
As the term sensitivity has become associated with ISO range (remember the a7S II had the nice tagline "Sensitivity Mastered" and boasted its ISO range as a major point) one could make a linguistics argument that they can actually mean the same thing to a greater percentage of the population involved with the discussion.
Assuming many of the readers here are not engineers or individuals with highly specific use cases where things like quantum efficiency matter, we choose to use accessible terms that more people will be able to find and understand. New photographers looking for cameras—whether these are the right cameras for beginners is a whole other argument—might not know what ISO is without looking it up, so having a more general term can be helpful. And, as practical low-light performance is a combination of hardware and software, I think we can safely assume that cameras in similar generations can be compared based on given ISO ranges. An a7S III is going to be slightly better practically speaking in low-light and at higher ISOs than an a7R IV.
Side note, the organization that literally defines ISO states in their documentation that ISO and sensitivity are used interchangeably in many cases because of historical reasons (film and all that as you mentioned). Using the term as a bridge between the worlds was a very good decision that helped people move to digital. Now the term may not make as much sense as it used to, but I would argue there is good reason to continue using the terms together.
Are you right? Yes, but I hope you see where I am coming from.
Thanks for the excellent conversation though! Not too often we get to dive deep into this type of stuff.
Very good article, congratulation . You said that Sony A7SIII has 15+ stops of dynamic range. Do you know the dynamic rage of Canon EOSR5?
Hi Leo,
Currently, with Canon Log 1, the dynamic range in video will hit about 12 stops. Now, this is a limitation of the profile. In theory you could boost this significantly with Canon Log 2 or 3, but we would have to hope Canon updates the R5 with these options.
And it's safe to say they won't offer the update, considering Canon's history of holding back on functionality to preserve their cinema line. That's why after being a long time Canon user, I have sold all my Canon gear in favor of Sony and the new A7SIII. I'd be surprised if they even updated firmware to solve the overheating issues, they had more than enough time to develop and test the R5 and they still put it out as-is knowing it's limitations.
Hey i i would like to see a comparison between the a7siii and the fs5ii
You can also put bitrate infos for better understanding.thnks
That is an interesting comparison. I'll see what we can put together.
The FS5ii has wonky autofocus and you need an external recorder to use any of its professional codecs. It may have a slightly better IQ and the auto ND feature is pretty rad, but unless you are a pro with a rig and a manual focus solution, I don't see the benefit in it. Especially considering the A7SIII will have better low light performance and an extra useable stop of dynamic range!
In the comparison with the FX9 you should mention that it does 'kind of' have image stabilisation, via giroscopic metadata and the Catalyst software. The results look pretty good, and Sony say there will be plugins for NLEs soon. For documentary makers I think this will be a game changer.
It was a consideration, but considering it is limited to their software I wasn't so sure about including it here. Also, it looks good by the tests but optical will always be better than digital.
My only question here is... We know it's awesome in low light but how well would this camera work in bright outdoor conditions? I work in the outdoors hunting/fishing industry so having a camera with seriously low light capabilities is absolutely paramount. It's always been a challenge until now. But... when the sun gets high and you need to use an ND filter, how well does this camera stack up to others in its class?
There is no built-in ND filter, so you’ll still need to use an ND filter in bright conditions if you are planning to stick to 180-degree shutter.
If you wanted to bump up the shutter speed and stick to a standard profile the ability to drop down to ISO 80 will allow you to get away without using one though and the footage still looks great with very good dynamic range (max dynamic range is around ISO 640 in S-Log3 still).
An ND filter will help you get proper exposure while preserving depth of field and shutter angle, but the real magic is in the dynamic range. The difference between things in the shadows vs. direct sunlight can't be solved with ND, and the A7SIII is the camera to have when you have to shoot in those situations. Gerald Undone has a great review video where he tests dynamic range and comes close to achieving 14 useable stops, which is insane - literally the best a mirrorless camera can do right now, and better than many cinema cameras
You should mention that bmpcc6k can do 2.8k at 120 fps...also it says the bmpcc6k is 8 bit, which is simply wrong.
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for letting us know. That’s what I get for trying to build so many charts very quickly. It has all been corrected. (I put it at 10-bit, since to get higher you’ll need raw which is a different spec).
UPD
Wrong data!
Canon R5 shoots max 4K@120fps, not 60fps.
We appreciate letting us know and the error was corrected after your initial comment. Thank you.
Wrong data!
Canon R5 shoots max 4K@120fps, not 60fps.
Canon R5 media is CFexpress Type A, not Type B.
You are correct about the 4K at 120. Typo on my part. Thank you.
However, the CFexpress on the R5 is definitely Type B.
Compare it to DSC-RX10 III. Where are the Specs? How much does it weigh? The DSC-RX10 III is the heaviest weight with the largest zoom I can use for video. I have been waiting for the a7S III features. But need to know more if moving to a body-only camera and getting a lens to match 600 zoom that I now enjoy.
Good thought for a comparison. My initial points would be that the a7S III with an equivalent 600mm zoom will be multiple times the weight however. And you wouldn’t be able to get a single lens with the same lens. You would need multiple lenses to cover well. It’ll be much higher quality than the RX10 III, but a lot more to work with.
Thanks Shawn. That covers my fears. I wonder if Sony will ever come out with a DSC-RX10 V that is the same weight and zoom lens but has the touch screen focus with image tracking (wow!!!), low light features, and image stabilization I need. Or how about a kit lens like the RX10 that would come with the a7S III. It isn't the money, it is what I can hike with that matters.
I will like to see both A9 compared here.