I believe the majority of people will save their money and get the A7iii, but I came from an A7Rii and the greater megapixels were one of the reasons I first purchased into Sony to utilize with my Canons, so I was not willing to give that up. Despite the fact that I still have most of my Canon equipment, I will most likely sell it since the 5D Mark IV, although very wonderful, no longer provides any advantages over my Sony gear, especially now that Godox has permitted similar flash shooting on Sony cameras. For resolution and picture quality, the A7R series cameras have always been the top of the line, whilst the normal A7 model was a more modest model with inferior features at a more reasonable price. Although the current version of this ‘simple’ model, the A7 III, is highly powerful in its own right, making this choice even more difficult, the A7 III is also extremely expensive. There has been much criticism of the previous battery type used in the Alpha series, which was condemned for being undersized and wasteful. This is a significant improvement over that model.
Improved JPEG colors, improved build quality, fast focusing, and great 4K video are just a few of the benefits of the new 24MP sensor. The battery life is excellent. The A7 III, on the other hand, may be a better choice for photographers who shoot sports or in low light. In terms of continuous shooting rates, it is on par with the A7R III, but it has a slightly bigger buffer capacity for shooting longer bursts and a more advanced focusing technology that covers a greater region of the image sensor.
However, bear in mind that none of this implies that the A7R is a bad camera; it is just different. Despite the fact that both cameras have similar ports, the a7R III adds an additional flash sync port for use with studio flash units and other external lighting equipment. Both cameras can be charged via a USB cable, and the Sony a7R III comes with the Sony BC-QZ1 Battery Charger as well. Unfortunately, the Sony a7 III does not come with a charger, so you’ll have to rely on USB charging to get your camera up and running. Using the BC-QZ1 Charger, it takes around 5 hours to charge the NP-FZ100 battery, compared to 2.5 hours when using the USB charging cable.
For output to high dynamic range televisions, both cameras feature in-camera image profiles, including S-Log2, S-Log3, and an HLG (Hybrid Log-Gamma) profile, which eliminates the need for color grading. This enables you to choose between 1fps and 120fps for slow-motion and fast-motion recordings, respectively. While the number of phase detection AF points on the a7R III is less than on the a7 II, they still cover 68 percent of the sensor surface. Between the two cameras, the number of contrast detection AF points remains at 425, the same as before.
The A7 III performs better, recording up to 177 JPEGs in a single burst, as well as 89 compressed raw files and 40 uncompressed raws in the same period. The A7R, on the other hand, suffers with shutter speeds less than one-fourth second, creating washed-out shots and having slower focusing. Another area where the A7R’s high resolution was a hindrance was picture buffering, which was unsurprisingly a problem. When writing huge 42-megapixel files at 10 frames per second, you can only save 76 frames in JPG format or 76 frames in compressed RAW format, respectively. The A7 III also shoots at 10 frames per second, but it can only capture 177 JPGs or 89 RAW photos before its buffer fills up and the camera comes to a grinding stop.
With the a7R Mark III, you may magnify images with the focus magnification feature or zoom in with the clear picture zoom feature because of the greater quality of both the viewfinder and LCD screen. Touch controls are included on the back LCD panels of both cameras, allowing you to pick and move your focus point as well as zoom in and out. The a7R III, on the other hand, outperforms the a7III thanks to its better resolution LCD screen. Both the a7III and the a7RIII are capable of recording 4K footage at up to 30 frames per second and 100 megabits per second utilizing XAVC S compression.
It is equipped with Sony’s renowned five-axis stabilization technology, which when combined with optically stabilized lenses combines three axes on the sensor and two axes inside the lens to provide stabilization. However, although the A7R’s official specification for this is 5.5EV, this isn’t much better than the A7 III’s rating of 5EV. However, while having fewer total autofocus points than the A7 III and the A9, which cover 68 percent of the sensor surface respectively, both cameras have the same amount of contrast detection points, which is acceptable. The bulk of the autofocus points are located in the center of the picture, enabling the joystick to serve as the ideal precise instrument for selecting your focuses.
It is possible to charge the battery packs of both cameras using a USB cable, which may be quite useful while traveling. The A7 series has long been a favorite among video artists, and I see no reason why that won’t continue with the next generation of cameras. It is just a completely articulated screen that is lacking, which makes vlogging difficult to do on this device. Support for gamma curves has also been added by Sony, enabling you to compensate for changing lighting settings while recording and eventually, create a new look for each curve.
As can be seen in this comparison, the Sony a7 Mark III has a distinct edge over the Sony a7R Mark III when it comes to phase detect autofocus. Using this technique may be advantageous for monitoring quickly moving objects across the screen, such as football players, racing motorcycles, or birds in flight. Another consideration is weight, which is particularly significant when choosing a camera that you will be carrying about with you all day. The Sony A7 III weighs 7g less than the Sony A7R III, however we don’t believe this will make a major difference in terms of performance.
My recommendation is to get acquainted with the process of making custom settings in order to avoid the convoluted menu structure. The buffer of the a7 Mark III can hold up to about 177 JPEG pictures, 89 compressed RAW photos, or 40 uncompressed RAW photographs in a single continuous burst, depending on the image format. In comparison, while shooting continuous on the a7R Mark III, 76 JPEG photos, 76 compressed RAW images, or 28 uncompressed RAW photographs are captured.
Several prominent camera review websites have provided their overall evaluations of the cameras, which are included in the following table (amateurphotographer , cameralabs , digitalcameraworld , dpreview , ephotozine , photographyblog ). As can be seen, the expert reviewers generally agree on the overall quality of various cameras, although their ratings may vary in certain instances, emphasizing the previous argument that choosing a camera is typically a highly personal decision. What are the differences between the Sony Alpha A7 III and the Sony Alpha A7R III, in addition to the distinctions shown in this snapshot of fundamental features and characteristics? Check out the table below to see how these two cameras compare with regard to their body size, their image sensors, their shooting functions, their input-output connectors, and the reaction they received from professional reviewers.
Professional photographers are likely to pick between these cameras solely on the basis of their specs, but for hobbyists, the price will be a significant consideration in their decision. In contrast to the A7 III, the A7R III has a function that is only available on that model. In this mode, the camera takes four photos in sequence, each one resulting in a one-pixel change in the sensor’s position. Instead of needing to interpolate color information from neighboring pixels, as is the case with most sensors, it is able to capture full-color data for each photosite in this manner.