Home

10%

BLOG POST NO 2

switching to mirrorless from DSLR / an informal review

By Hanni Gharib

September 10^th, 2018

First off, let me make it clear that this is not intended to be a this-brand-is-better-than-that-brand tirade. It isn't meant to spark a debate with respective fans of Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, Panasonic and so forth. Like with pretty much any material object in life, it's a matter of taste, usage and budget.

Nor is it meant to be an incredibly technical review of the Sony A7 III. There will be no sharpness comparisons or MTF charts and definitely no signal-to-noise ratios.

Instead, I'll share with you my experience of switching from a full frame DSLR to a Sony full frame mirrorless camera - as well as my general thoughts on using my first mirrorless system coming from well more than a decade of using Canon's DSLR range. I'll talk about ergonomics, key differences in features and other things that general reviews might not touch on(?).

Changing camera systems is no small - or cheap - decision so I hope this blog post will be useful for DSLR users who are on the fence about trying out a [Sony] full-frame mirrorless system. While this is specifically about the Sony A7 III - the A7R III and A9 are very similar to it - so most of the points below will be relevant for them too.

This is a long piece, so if you just want the skinny, feel free to skip to the conclusion (right before the sample images).

ergonomics, size and weight

Size

The very first thing I noticed when picking up the A7 III, was that my pinky was homeless. I had a feeling I'd encounter this issue, as I have larger-than-average hands. But the camera body is quite well-balanced. At no point do I feel like it's trying to wrestle itself out of my sweaty palms. That being said, I always use a wrist strap for protection against theft and general clumsiness - mostly the latter.

There is, in fact, an accessory - the grip extension - which will give you the added space for your pinky. But having this accessory on, means you have to take it off whenever you want to access the battery port or use your tripod screw mount. Not ideal, so I skipped the $130 Sony accessory.

Weight

The second thing I noticed was that the body was noticeably heavier than I had expected for a camera that was so much physically smaller than my previous Canon 6D. And this is not meant in a negative way. Without being too heavy, it feels robust and professional - "the weight is a sign of reliability" as Boris the Blade once said.

The A7 III body with battery weighs 650 g. For comparison the Canon 5D Mark IV body weighs 890 g, Nikon 850D is 1005 g and Canon 6D Mark II is 765 g. A few hundred grams may not sound like a lot, but if you're shooting all day or carrying it in your hand a lot, the lighter body may be a welcome feature.

Obviously, if you're planning on exclusively purchasing Sony's quite heavy (and very expensive) GM lenses, then the reduced weight of the camera body is not going to make a huge impact. That being said, the rest of Sony's lens lineup - including their G lenses and Zeiss lenses - is fairly light and compact.

Handling

Ok, so obviously getting used to a new button layout takes a while. If you're a full time photographer, you may want to hold out switching camera systems until you're in between assignments. That being said, spending a little time setting up the custom buttons to your liking will make the camera so much more intuitive to use. The custom buttons can be set to different functions depending on if you're in photo mode, video mode or viewing mode. This gives you a lot of handy custom buttons at your disposal. All in all, I don't feel that any of the buttons are placed oddly or inaccessibly.

Having a tilt-screen (standard on all newer Sony Alpha cameras) is a godsend when doing any kind of near-ground shooting, shooting over a crowd or when using a tripod. There is no position more awkward than trying to compose these kinds of shots with a fixed screen. Period. The tilt-screen is not nearly as flexible as a full flip-screen - but so much better than having a fixed screen. Side note: I know that some photographers scoff at flip-/tilt-screens (probably because their current camera doesn't have one) - but believe me: once you try it, you'll never ever want to go back.

PERFORMANCE

Autofocus (AF)

Now, this was one of the reasons I wanted to try out Sony's latest generation of cameras. The autofocus system - and more so the Eye AF feature. It takes a little while to get accustomed to the numerous different focus modes, but that's still quite easily done via one of the many online tutorials.

After using the A7 III for five months, I have to say - autofocus performance is top notch on this camera. With 93% frame coverage and half a gazillion AF points (693 to be exact) you'll never ever have to worry about your subject slipping outside the AF coverage area and the continuous AF tracks subjects relentlessly.

The Eye AF feature alone is almost reason enough to switch to Sony if you're frequently shooting human subjects. It's impressively consistent in tracking and picks up the eye instantaneously should your subject turn their face away or walk behind an object. Obviously, getting the eyes sharp in portraits is not a new thing but this feature really gives me more confidence when shooting non-static subjects and a much higher hit rate of sharp eyes. And just as importantly; it's easy and fun to use. How about that.

Manual focus (MF)

To be honest, I've only really bothered with manual focus when shootings static subjects at very large apertures or sometimes when taking landscape photos. But with the focus peaking feature - that highlights the subject(s) in focus - manual focus is a delight to use. This makes me more inclined to use some of my adapted vintage MF lenses on the Sony A7 III. Additionally there is also a DMF mode (Dynamic Manual Focus) which is a hybrid between AF and MF: you use autofocus to gain a general focus and then seamlessly finetune the focus with manual focus - again, with focus peaking. This is such a neat feature.

EVF (electronic viewfinder)

Now, this is a subject where opinions are often divided. I've always enjoyed using optical viewfinders (OVF) and the first time I looked through an EVF (on an Olympus) I was not impressed. That being said, there has been noticeable progress with EVF's the last few years.

The main advantage of using an EVF is that you get a live preview of the exposure and depth of field of the image you are about to take. (Both on the EVF and on the screen). If you are a night shooter you'll love not having to try to compose your shot in a completely pitch black optical viewfinder!

Having a live preview in the EVF also allows you adjust your settings on-the-fly without having to take a photo, look at the screen, adjust and retake. This brings me to the next advantage of an EVF over an OVF: you can review images you've just taken directly in the EVF meaning you won't have to take your eye away from the viewfinder to look at your LCD display. This is actually a lot nicer than I had expected it to be. Plus if you're outside in super bright conditions, it's usually far from ideal to review images on an LCD displays - so doing it in the EVF is a great alternative.

The only real annoyance I have with the EVF on the Sony A7 III, is that there is a slight lag, from when the camera detects that you've put your eye up to the EVF, until it activates it. We're only talking about half a second or so, but when you're used to using optical viewfinders you will notice that it's not instantaneous. I hope Sony will address this in a future firmware update(?)

Worth noting: the sensor that activates the EVF seems to be well-calibrated. If you've flipped out the tilt-screen and, for example, you're shooting from the hip, your body won't accidentally activate the EVF and cause the LCD screen to black out. Candid photographers will love this.

My final note on the A7 III's EVF and LCD screen is that they are of lower resolution compared to its older siblings - the A7R III and A9. This does makes sense, seeing as Sony had to cut costs somewhere to keep the price reasonable - and this is one of the few places they did so. To be honest, it would be nice to have crisper displays, but at the end of the day, this doesn't affect the camera's capabilities or image quality.

Battery life

The battery life of the new Z-battery is very capable. If you've read my first blog post, one of the major issues that kept me from switching to a mirrorless system was the subpar battery life. No way was I going to carry 4-8 spare batteries on me - the very idea of it was ludicrous.

Sony has now addressed this with these new batteries and I'm happy to confirm these will last you a full day and more. I've purchased one spare battery and cannot think of any scenario where I would need more than two spare batteries. Additionally, the battery can be charged in-camera, so in a cinch you can extend your juice on-the-go with a powerbank. Reportedly, the A7 III also manages power better than the more expensive A7R III and A9 (perhaps due to the lower res EVF and display?) and therefore will give you slightly better battery life than its elder siblings.

The Z-battery is not quite on par with the LP-E6 battery (that I had in my Canon 6D) but then again, that battery was a beast.

FYI the A7 III does not come with an actual battery charger - instead you get a USB cable so you can charge the battery in-camera. Handy to some extent, this quickly got old for two reasons: 1) I couldn't use the camera while charging my spare battery. 2) Despite the sturdy build of the A7 III, the plastic hatches that cover the ports seems pretty flimsy to be honest. This means I don't want to open and close them more often than absolutely necessary. So instead I bought a Newmowa dual battery charger ($14 on Amazon, also sold under the name Kingma) which had gotten good reviews. This will charge two batteries simultaneously with LED indicator lights to show you charging/full status. So far, I've had no issues with it. It's light and incredibly compact so it's perfect to travel with. Sony's own battery charger is too expensive ($90) and bulky in my opinion.

Bottom line: the battery life of the third generation Sony Alpha cameras should no longer be the reason for you to hesitate trying them.

Silent shooting

I remember that some of my previous DSLR's had a "silent" shooting mode. Sure, it was less noisy than the normal shutter sound, but silent it was not. Mirrorless cameras have the ability to shoot 100% actually silent - as there is no clattering mirror when you take the shot. Even with that knowledge beforehand, I still marveled the first (many) times I fired off 10 fps without my surroundings having a clue. I cannot begin to describe how handy this feature is; for street and candid photography, when shooting in situations like weddings where you want to disturb the moment as little as possible, and so on.

The silent shutter mode has its limitations however - it's not ideal for fast moving subjects due to rolling shutter effect. Make sure to switch back to normal shutter mode if you're shooting sports, animals, vehicles in motion, etc.

Additionally some LED light sources may cause "banding" - slightly darker broad bands across your picture - due to the frequency of the light emitted by the light source. YMMV. This can be a nuisance as there inevitably will be situations where you want to shoot silently in these light conditions, but the only solution will be to use the normal shutter mode.

Button customisation

I've constantly heard people online complaining about the deep Sony menu system. And yes, it is quite extensive - perhaps due to the array of features and settings. That being said, there are plenty of good online tutorials that painstakingly go through every single menu item, describing what each one does and their recommended settings (for people like me who never read the user manual). I've watched this and this. It's an hour well spent - as getting your custom functions and buttons set up will make the camera much more intuitive for you.

IMAGE QUALITY

Colours

I have no complaints with the colours rendered by the Sony A7 III sensor (just as I've never had any complaints with the colours rendered by Canon's sensors). I've read several places that Sony hadn't quite nailed their colour science yet, but subsequently also read that this has been greatly improved in the latest generation of A7 models (A7 III, A7R III and A9).

High ISO

One of the big reasons I was looking forward to trying the A7 III was its purportedly amazing performance when operating in the high ISO's. So far my experiences show that I get cleaner results when pushing shadows and that grain is fine and well-controlled. I find myself confidently shooting at ISO 3200 and upwards, whereas I previously shyed away from anything above ISO 1600 if possible.

I haven't yet done any systematic ISO testing but I know that DPReview have made a review and comparison tool if you're interested. The results show that the A7 III fares very well in the high ISO department.

Sharpness

Obviously, sharpness depends a whole lot on the lens used but the A7 III sensor is definitely capable of resolving fine, sharp imagery. I am really pleased with the detail in images at 100% crop with my current lenses.

For comparison, the details and sharpness in images taken with my Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 rival those taken with my previous Canon EF 135mm f/2 L. If you've owned the latter, you know it's a crazy sharp lens). Click on the images below for full size view.

Dynamic range

The dynamic range of the A7 III is very impressive. I have not done any formal tests as such, but when working with my images I clearly notice that I'm able to pull out much more detail from my highlights and shadows - without it looking like pixel poop. Obviously getting the exposure correct when shooting is the optimal scenario, but some shooting conditions don't lend themselves well to balanced exposures (e.g. landscapes with bright sky and dark foreground). For me, having more flexibility in post-processing is definitely preferable to setting up a tripod for bracketed exposures, using graduated ND-filters, etc.

price (SYSTEM PRICE)

The A7 III and A7R III are more or less priced the same as their Canon DSLR counterparts (6D Mark II and 5D Mark IV respectively). And the A9 actually costs a full $1,000 less than the Canon 1Dx Mark II. While you can argue these two bodies are not directly comparable, I'm basing it on the fact that the A9 and 1D are the flagships of Sony and Canon respectively and both focus on high-framerate shooting for sports, wildlife, etc.

But to be clear: the Sony system is not a cheap system by any means. Once you start looking at lenses for the cameras, you'll quickly realise that you're going to need to go deep in those pockets. While the assortment of native Sony lenses is decent and growing, it's still not near as expansive as Nikon or Canon's lineup. Good, affordable Sony lenses are few and far between - for now. There's plenty of high quality primes and zooms - but they will cost you.

On the bright side, the Metabones and Sigma adapters do a pretty good job with autofocus, from what I've seen online. For example, Jason Lanier did a useful video with a variety of Canon L lenses - and focus performance (including Eye AF) was impressive with the Sigma MC-11 adapter. Some features (like Eye AF) may not work on all non-native lenses though.

If you choose to adapt your current lenses, you'll have plenty of time to gradually transition to native lenses (if that is what you want).

Additionally, Sigma have announced at least seven ART primes for Sony's FE mount, ranging from 14mm to 135mm. This means there are some very high quality alternatives to Sony's own lenses at a more affordable (not cheap) price point.

Or you can choose to do it the hard way - as I did - and sell all your gear and start from fresh. Despite the cost of switching systems, I have yet to experience a second of regret!

MY CURRENT SETUP

It had taken me a good long while to figure out what my optimal lens combo was. Before I sold all my Canon gear, I was using a Canon 20mm f/2.8, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L I, Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and a Canon 135 mm f/2 L (perhaps my favourite lens to date!).

Now I was forced to - and had the chance to - reevaluate my focal length setup. Roughly speaking, my general needs are:

Ultra-wide prime or zoom (for landscapes, architecture and tight city shots)
Fast standard zoom (for when I really only want to bring/use one lens)
Small standard-ish prime/pancake (for when I only want something small with me)
Fast portrait prime (for low light and that delicious bokeh)
Lightweight telephoto zoom (for landscapes, without breaking my back)

For the above lens needs, I've acquired the following lenses:

Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 for Sony FE mount
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ART for Sony FE mount
Sony FE 55mm f/1.8
Sony FE 70-200mm f/4

Not quite the same setup as before, but so far it feels right.

Everyone's ideal setup is going to differ from this as everyone has different shooting needs, budgets and gear philosophies.

The above list is solely for inspiration and to add a little explanation to my lens choices. Notice, that I've emphasised "lightweight" and "small" in the list above. When traveling, I'm often also carrying my Mavic 2 Pro, spare drone batteries, numerous chargers, a laptop, external harddrive etc. so keeping things as light (as possible) is a very high priority for me, which I also talk about in my previous blog post. Generally speaking, f/1.4 primes are nicer than f/1.8 primes, yes. And f/2.8 zoom lenses are nicer than f/4 zoom lenses. But... they also come with a hefty size and weight penalty (not to mention a much higher price).

Some people might try to tell you that only L or GM lenses are good enough for "pro work". Or that a lens with any aperture above f/1.4 is for amateurs. Pay them no mind. Find out what works for you and enjoy taking photos. That is all.

The good

Features for the price.
Features for the price (repeated intentionally!).
AF system vastly superior to almost all DSLRs.
Focus peaking.
10 fps burst shooting. More than enough for most people.
Top quality uncropped 4K/30 video with a number of colour profiles.
Dual card-slots.
Tilt-screen. Really should be standard on all professional cameras.
Actual silent shooting (because there is no mirror). Ideal for event and street photography.
The camera design is understated and minimal, why is to my taste. Also makes it less conspicuous.
High level of button customisation options.
You can use a HUGE amount of non-native lenses with adapters. Even vintage glass.
Reliable! Even though it's only firmware version 1.0, there's been zero bugs to date.

THE LESS GOOD

Banding on images shot in silent shooting mode under some LED light sources.
When manually selecting a focus point with the thumbstick, it can be quite hard to see it, as it's coloured light grey. This ought to be fixable in a future firmware update though.
Flimsy port covers for USB, headphone jack, etc. Ports are not weather-sealed.
Not best-in-market EVF or LCD screen - a casualty of keeping the price down.
Flip-screen not much use when taking photos in portrait format.

CONCLUSION

So who is this camera for? It's for the all-rounder, really. And for anyone who is seeking a more compact yet capable package to travel with.

It's for someone like me, who mainly does stills - interchanging between landscape, street photography and portraiture, at which it is equally capable. And who wants to do more serious video work in the near future.

If you need a 42 MP resolution for big prints and/or the increased sharpness of a camera without anti-aliasing filter, then the A7R III is the camera for you.

If you need 20 fps, no rolling shutter and a blackout-free viewfinder for sports or wildlife photography, then the A9 is your go-to option.

If you plan on getting your camera drenched for prolonged periods of time - the A7R III or A9 may be better options. And I say "may" because I haven't tested these two cameras for comparison. The A7 III's been out in the field with me for several consecutive days where it was raining on and off, and so far I have yet to experience any issues.

In any other scenario, I dare say: get the A7 III instead of its elder siblings and spend the cash saved on some good glass. It's a stellar camera for both stills and 4K video - even more so considering the price. I've had it for over 5 months and if I was to buy a new camera today, the A7 III would still be my choice! **Update: 13 months in, and the same still goes.**