Sony DRP's Chris and Jordan name Sony's A7RIII as the best choice in used FF cameras

You guys are NOT helping me with my GAS problem.

I should just let go of my A7ii, but it's hard to let it go for trade-in prices. It's still a very capable camera even though it's not the latest and greatest.

That's how I feel about a few cameras I own. The Canon 7D is worth peanuts today but it's still a very capable camera. I just gave it to my father, rather than selling it for peanuts.

I also own the original A7 but, I never sold it for the same reason.
 
As far as I've realized the latter generations of Sony camera are more concentrating on the videographing capability/performance over the photographing. Fortunately the upgrades (AFC, burst rate etc) are to photographing benefit to some extent, making shoot swift moving subjects (like birds in flight) less difficult. However the upgrade/improvement of image quality is unnoticeable. ARiii is still a very good camera for landscape, cityscape, portrait, commercial photography provided that it pairs with a capable lens and is in capable hands.

There's still a lot of things that can be improved when it comes to filmmaking functionality in consumer cameras. But with stills, we're already quite spoilt in terms of features.
 
One thing that can really bite you on the bum ...

Can your computer handle the huge RAW files that these cameras generate?

Paying upwards of a couple of grand to upgrade or (shudder) completely replace your existing computer to handle these files at a reasonable speed and still be able to multitask can really hurt.

Storage of not only RAW files but also Tiff-16 (or 16 bit .PSD) files can really gobble up disk space. Then there's backup space ...

What I'm trying to say is make sure that you get all your ducks in a row BEFORE you rush out and buy these sorts of cameras.

I read people saying this every so often, and I don’t understand - what causes so much fear of “huge” files?

I have a liking for cameras with lots of pixels, and I shoot what I consider to be a lot of images (thousands in one shoot, often), but I’ve never struck a problem. I shoot RAW, I copy the files to the computer, I bring up Adobe Bridge, I work through the files, tagging the ones I think are worth processing, and then I run those through PhotoShop, one by one. It never takes long to load an image, even a 60Mpixel one.

Are people processing every single image? I can imagine that taking a while. I might wonder why - I rarely find myself wanting to process more than a small subset of the images I shoot.

As far as I’ve seen, processing time seems to be linear with the number of pixels, or maybe a bit faster. It’s not like doubling the pixel count means quadrupling the processing time - that could rapidly get tedious!

And the disk space occupied by RAW files and PSDs is linear by pixel count, too - double the pixels means double the size for uncompressed files. Disk space is getting cheaper all the time. I remember the excitement of buying my first 1GB hard drive (cost me close to a thousand dollars at the time) - that was a while back. I remember getting an 8MB CF card with my first digital camera (the first Canon Ixus). Now I use 5TB hard drives as backup media, and the memory cards for my camera are over 100GB.

I think it’s possible to overstate the impact of going for higher resolution cameras.
 
I read people saying this every so often, and I don’t understand - what causes so much fear of “huge” files?

I have a liking for cameras with lots of pixels, and I shoot what I consider to be a lot of images (thousands in one shoot, often), but I’ve never struck a problem. I shoot RAW, I copy the files to the computer, I bring up Adobe Bridge, I work through the files, tagging the ones I think are worth processing, and then I run those through PhotoShop, one by one. It never takes long to load an image, even a 60Mpixel one.

Are people processing every single image? I can imagine that taking a while. I might wonder why - I rarely find myself wanting to process more than a small subset of the images I shoot.

As far as I’ve seen, processing time seems to be linear with the number of pixels, or maybe a bit faster. It’s not like doubling the pixel count means quadrupling the processing time - that could rapidly get tedious!

And the disk space occupied by RAW files and PSDs is linear by pixel count, too - double the pixels means double the size for uncompressed files. Disk space is getting cheaper all the time. I remember the excitement of buying my first 1GB hard drive (cost me close to a thousand dollars at the time) - that was a while back. I remember getting an 8MB CF card with my first digital camera (the first Canon Ixus). Now I use 5TB hard drives as backup media, and the memory cards for my camera are over 100GB.

I think it’s possible to overstate the impact of going for higher resolution cameras.
1) :Welcome: to this friendly forum ...
2) You just demonstrated that exactly what I wrote is correct.
3) I've just had to upgrade my old computer because it took forever to do what my new computer does in less than a second, per image.
4) Others on this forum have faced similar issues.
 
Last edited:
1) :welcome: to this friendly forum ...
2) You just demonstrated that exactly what I wrote is correct.
3) I've just had to upgrade my old computer because it took forever to do what my new computer does in less than a second, per image.
4) Others on this forum have faced similar issues.

Thank you for the welcome.

Camera resolution hasn’t changed as fast as other computer related factors. My first DSLR was 8 megapixel. I was using 21Mpixel in 2008. My current camera is 60. That is less than 8x from my first DSLR camera, and less than 3x from 2008. My internet connection speed has risen about 30x in less time. My disk space by more than that. I cannot readily estimate how much faster my computers are, but it’s a lot more than 8x.

I’m glad you have a computer now that will process your images rapidly. I suspect it would handle 60 megapixel images easily, too. They really aren’t that much bigger.

Now if they start trying to sell us terapixel cameras, I’ll be on your side, ‘cause nothing I own will handle that! Chris and Jordan are about to join PetaPixel - that’s a million megapixels - I don’t expect to own a petapixel camera in my lifetime.
 
@MorePixels My new PC does in less than a second what used to take 20-30 seconds for each image.

However, it also handles 200 MB, 102 MPx RAW images at that same speed.

Some people have found out the hard way that their lovely new camera gags their computer.

Like you, I'm fortunate enough to be able to buy anything I like (within reason) without thinking about it. Some people are not so fortunate. You will find that people here tend to be honest about these things, rather than being full of BS like on some web sites.
 
That is why I'm leaning towards the R3a rather than an R4a. I think 42mb's will be fine for what I want out of a camera now vs the 61mp of the later R4a.
I've got an i7 computer so speed is not a worry, besides, I'm retired so nobody is holding a stop watch on me when playing with pictures on the computer.
The computer would handle the R4 just fine. You may need to get a cup of coffee while uploading, but other than that there should be no issue. The best thing you can do is to get a dedicated graphics card. Doesn’t have to be expensive. The onboard memory takes the strain off the computers’ RAM.
 
Back
Top