What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been... (Sony A7III)

...That's what it says on one of my friend Dan's many T-shirts. (Another has a picture of a bone with the words "I find that humerus.")

But as I get to know the Sony A7III, I can't help but think of the first digital camera I ever used, the Agfa ePhoto 1280. That was about exactly 20 years ago, and the Agfa was still new, having started shipping a few months earlier. It had a sensor that was 6mm on the diagonal and almost (not quite) .8 of a megapixel. (That's not eight megapixels, that's point-eight of a megapixel, a million pixels in a digicam being a Shangri-la that was still over the horizon at the time.)

Same thing, over and over
At the time I was still in the habit of standing at my kitchen sink in Woodstock (where I used to live and where Groundhog Day was filmed) developing 105 frames of 35mm Tri-X by hand two or three times a week, a process that took just a little over two hours from prep to cleanup. I remember thinking, using the Agfa, gee, this is really fun! Too bad I can never use it, because the image quality will never be good enough. (I do think I thought "never," as human beings tend to be absolutist about things, and I, like many of you, am a human being.)

Some time after that, the urban myth that 6 megapixels would finally match 35mm image quality entered a short period of currency. Michael Reichmann (R.I.P.) created the greatest sensation of his distinguished Internet career by claiming that the 3-megapixel Canon D30 (note: not 30D) turned that trick. My thought at the time? We all just really want that to be true. 

I remember when I wrote that "I'm a Sony Man" because of a space-age new camera called the F-707 (5 megapixels, but a small sensor), the color accuracy of digital sensors was wildly off; the F-707 exaggerated and oversaturated reds. I really wanted small sensors to be good enough, too. They kind of almost were. Not quite. (I'm still at that.)

I shot with a Nikon D100 that had 6 megapixels. DPReview wrote, "It's still pretty amazing to think that you can now pick up a six megapixel D-SLR for around $2,000." The D100's image quality? Rah-rah forumers put the bravest possible face on it when it was new, but my opinion was that, well, 35mm wasn't really that great either.

The best thing about my first DSLR, the Konica-Minolta 7D—which also had the holy grail 6 megapixels—was its color accuracy—greatly better than that of the F-707 and better than most other DSLRs of the time. I still like that camera. Wish it hadn't broken. Wish the company that made it hadn't exited the field. But then as we know now, nothing is forever in digital-land.

It's possible to argue that the A7III is the K-M 7D's descendant, many generations removed.

I notice DPReview is still publishing "Image Samples" of new cameras and lenses. Hmm. I do remember, back in the antediluvian aughts, that I used to anxiously pore over DPR's image samples thinking is this one good enough? Does this one have that special something? I haven't done that for years. (Does anyone?) Now, I think, the challenge for camera and lens reviewers is to detect the differences in image samples, not that the samples really tell us anything of much importance.

This picture shows—or would show, if you could see and play with the whole file—several things the Sony A7III is really good at: preserving the subtle sense of real light; preserving the delicacy of accurate colors; and allowing as much correction in post as you're probably going to need.

Now, of course, the A7III's 24 megapixels isn't adequate for many enthusiasts. They pine instead for the A7rIII, which has mo' bettah. The A7III's color accuracy is fantastico, and it's one of the great things about a big sensor—that, and the file's deep responsiveness to Photoshop massagings. The land-and-lakescape you can see here is one of my favorites among the photographs I've taken recently, but the tiny-sensor-having iPhone just plain missed the subtle turquoisiness of the water that was actually the reason I tried to take the picture in the first place. The A7III would have preserved it, I'm pretty sure.

The A7III's IBIS is better than the K-M 7D's.

Remarkably unremarkable
It's possible that the most remarkable thing about the A7III is that it isn't remarkable. It's a great camera, but it's Sony's bread-and-butter A7-series model, the one in the middle. It's not even the slightest bit amazing, to paraphrase what DPR said of the D100, that we can pick up a 24-megapixel D-SLR [sic] for around $2,000. And full frame to boot. Ho-hum.

So anyway, the A7III is one of the best cameras I've ever used. I can almost not imagine a generalist shooter not being happy with it, although, as with those image samples, I suppose h8ers could find something to h8 if they worked at it. Really worked.

But what I keep coming back to is how far we've come over the past 20 years, and what a long strange trip Dan's been on. Just kidding, Dan.

The only thing that Agfa 1280 did better twenty years ago was that the Agfa was amazing, exciting and fun, and the A7III ain't.

But that's not anybody's fault. That's just how far we've come; it's the measure of how good good is now expected to be.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stephanie Luke: "Love the egg picture. Just had to be color, that's for sure. Hmm, that reminds me of something else, but I can't quite remember what....  :-)  "

Rob de Loe: "I confess to looking for a hidden message in the arrangement of those eggs!"

Mike replies: I didn't even rearrange them before I shot that. So if there's a message, it's from the Cosmos, not me.

Bill Wheeler: "This relates to your amazing and fun comment above, Mike. Earlier today after developing a roll of Tri-X film (holy, holy, holy), I was reminded that for me (now and forever) there is nothing more magical than film. Amen."

Dillan: "Every article should start with a Grateful Dead reference."

David Evans: "Those eggs make me want an A7III. Again. But I can really only afford one or two lenses for it. And I just know I wouldn't be happy until I had acquired two or three more lenses and the whole thing was too heavy to carry. I'll stick with my GX8. I think."

John Holmes: "With the newer sensors I think that the differences in colors, ISO capability, etc., are more the result of the in-camera processing of the signals from the sensor."

Comments

[brian]

The new Sony might be perfect for my needs* except that the otherwise-excellent Eye AF doesn't seem to work on dogs. (Have you tried it on Butters?)

*Well, except that it doesn't play well with my Nikon G lenses.

[James Weekes]

A little off-topic. You mentioned shooting 105 frames, on Tri-x. Was this because 35 frames filled a Print-File negative sheet and could make a perfect contact sheet? That’s what I did back then.

[hugh crawford]

Dave Standish has ameraucanas?

[Stephen Scharf]

The A7III's color accuracy is fantastico, and it's one of the great things about a big sensor...-Mike

So....I'm struggling to understand how sensor size impacts color accuracy. I shot with a Canon 1D MkII N for well over a decade; it had the same exact CMOS sensor as the full-frame Canon 5D, except it was cut 30% smaller to produce an APS-H 1.3X crop-sensor for the MkII N instead the 5D's FF sensor.

Is what your telling me that because the same exact CMOS sensor chip/design was cut 30% smaller in the 1D MKII N, its color accuracy was less than the Canon 5D's?

Or, is this merely anectodal, like that whole Neils Bohr and the horseshoe thang?

[You can make whatever comparison you wish to and draw whatever conclusion you care to, but the comparison I made, if you'll read the paragraph again, was between the A7III and the "tiny-sensor-having iPhone." --Mike]

[John Krumm]

I think you are right. Digital cameras are both highly competent and strangely, a slight consumer letdown. Like the song goes, "The thrill is gone."
Except for my K1 :) .

[Rob L.]

An alternate title in the musical theme - 'The thrill is gone'?

When my XT-1 died, I decided i was going to use all these nikon lenses I still had and got a D750 for cheeeeeep and a lens or two. Amazing camera, great sensor, but it wasn't exciting. To the point that I grabbed my smaller-sensor, 16mp XT-1 that had been superglued back into shape when I wanted to grab a shot.

The chase is dying down, and that's a hobby, too - and while part of my collector/sorter brain misses the rapid releases of the early digital days, I'm relieved but wary.

We've been at the point for a while where the used market had enough great cameras that you could get into the hobby at a sane price and get great results - the A7III and competition are amazing, but 2k is still a lot of money. And because the cameras are amazing, we're holding on to them longer(and less people are buying standalone cameras because their smartphone cameras are also insane), which means sales volumes are dropping. To which the answer is higher unit prices.

So far, no worries, as there's a huge used market. But the digital used field is less reliable a long term source of cameras, as unlike film bodies there's so much for entropy to work on. Just concerned that the entry point is getting pretty steep after your phone camera, as what was the 1k 'Enthusiast' model is creeping to 2k.

[Terry Letton]

Looks like we are past the point where it is more rewarding to invest time into understanding the hardware and software we have than to chase the newest thing. Unless there is another copernican leap in technology we just need to watch the expected lifetime of all this technology and plan for the necessary replacements hopefully without throwing away our whole system. Oh yea, and print and label the images that are important to us.

[Russ]

We entered "good enough" territory almost 10 years ago when the Nikon D700 hit the marketplace.

[Richard Skoonberg]

Not exciting and fun? but when you have a camera like that, processing the images in Lightroom, is pretty exciting and fun!

[David Brookes]

Mike

The humerus is in the arm, not the thigh!

[William Schneider]

That's a remarkably delicate rendering of the eggs and light. If that kind of color had been around when I started photography, I doubt that I would have become so involved with b/w.

[Allan Ostling]

Perhaps it is time for you to go back to Tri-X, or (for the best of color) the rather pricey Fujifilm Pro 400H color negative.

After twelve years of shooting digital, I decided that I want my images to be real, not virtual. What makes this so easy (compared to the darkroom era) is that we can now make high-resolution camera scans of the negatives, using the pixel-shift high-definition modes available from some of the newer cameras.

For digitizing, I use an Olympus E-M5 II with an M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro lens. To keep it flat I sandwich a strip of five negatives between two sheets of anti-Newton glass (plain glass will not avail). This set up produces files of 7296 x 4864 (about 35 megapixels).

Most of the film cameras you have used through the years are now available on eBay at bargain prices. (There are exceptions -- a nice Contax T2 one sells for $650.)

I now shoot with a Minolta CLE, with Zeiss C-Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 ZM lens.

[Zafar Kazmi]

Mike, do you think any of your other recent cameras, e.g. Fuji X-Ts, D8xxs, and A6xxx would not have been able to pick the nuances of the colors in you eggs shot?

[Ian Goss]

If you have a Sony camera, you can work with a free version of Capture One—that version is limited in its abilities, but may be upgraded for €79 to the full—but strictly for Sony—version.

I entered the C1 universe in 2010, and have been happy ever since. I rent Ps and Lr but scarcely use ’em. Pixelmator is my finishing app of choice, rather than the bulky, overstuffed Ps!

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

“and I, like many of you, am a human being.”

The remainder of us are beings from a galaxy far, far away, that enjoy observing the quaint habits of humans. :-)

Thanks for the Sat morn chuckle over breakfast. As a mate jokingly says, with a bit of a slur “I resemble that remark, ociffer”.

[Edwin]

Yeah, we've come to a point when we don't get excited over a new camera!!
I can't stop buying cameras, so I have to make up the excuse for getting that camera...
I bought the Sony A850 because it's the affordable full frame camera with 24MP -- really excited.
I bought the Nikon D800 because it's a huge jump in megapixels from the then current 12MP Nikon cameras -- very excited with the huge files.
I bought the Fujifilm XT1 because I heard good things about the X-Trans sensor, I still love the original X-Trans sensor over the current 24MP ones.
I bought the Fujifilm X100S because it's unique -- there's no other camera like that, I'm still excited every time I bring it out.
I bought the Fujifilm X-Pro2 because it had the unique viewfinder, I'm still excited with it.
I bought the Nikon J5 because my Nikon tele-lenses become super-tele-lenses.
I bought the Olympus Pen-F because it's the most beautiful camera, still is.
I bought the Panasonic GX8 because it has the unique tilting viewfinder, I'm excited to find out all the features packed into the camera that I can't find in other cameras! (There's a feature where you set the time period when you'll be away from you home time zone, so that all pictures captured during that period will be recorded with the right time and date. And you don't have to set it back!!)
I bought the Sony A7Rii because it has the most MP, period.
Well, what would I get excited about the Sony A7iii?

[Tex Andrews]

Indeed, yes...what a 20 years it has been (and this can be said for more than photography, ahem...). But, I think you articulated precisely what the most amazing thing about the A7III is: the new excellence level of the middle. And it really is a high bar.

My camera kits are better than that, and are completely extraordinary in pretty much every way I can imagine, truly dream systems for me. The negatives I read about them have more than a whiff of the narcissism of small differences.

2 off topic things: please re-shoot that egg photo on a nice white napkin with just that light. The Bounty paper towel is just too P-M ironic. Don't get me started about the Moebius strip that P-M irony has become....

And also, I had to drive to Toronto last week, and on the way I passed a sign on the interstate for Keuka Lake. You almost had a rando visitor. I have to make that drive again on or about the 27th of this month. How about lunch?

[Bill Mitchell]

I can have almost any camera that I want, and after 60+ years of photography have settled on a Sony T100 (8 MP) as my faithful companion.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Love the colors of the eggs!

[Mark Sampson]

We have, indeed, reached the age of sufficiency. Just remember, once a technology is essentially perfected, something new will come along to replace it.

[David Brown]

Years ago, you and I exchanged a couple of messages where I said that all I wanted was a Minolta SRt with a digital sensor, and you suggested the Sony a900. I did, in fact, buy a Sony a850, but you were wrong (IMO) about the comparison. It seems a digital version of my Minolta Maxxum 7. So, maybe it’s a little like your 7D? (And, it was around $2K) Still works. No reason to replace it.

[Steve Higgins]

"I didn't even rearrange them before I shot that. So if there's a message, it's from the Cosmos, not me."

42?

[Olybacker]

Mike " a million pixels in a digicam being a Shangri-la that was still over the horizon at the time."

Did not Minolta make a 1+ mp camera 20 years ago? The Dimage Ex?

And Kodak's hernia inducing DSLRs had already been available for some years with a sensor halfway to 2mp.

Not that it matters. The key is to be happy with your photography, now - using the A7iii - and maybe shooting some film every now and then for real fun.

I wish you joy with the Sony.

[s.wolters]

If you say these eggs have accurate colors I believe you. But it is not a picture where this is very critical. A minor shift towards red or blue would still make them look natural. The Gallus Gallus Domesticus produces its eggs in a wide variety of colors. (To be honest at first sight I thought you had painted some).
In my past as designer it could be a struggle to get the right colors in photography. I remember one time we tried all the emulsions we could find to reproduce the exact corporate colors of an important client. And it stil did not work. Very difficult for example are turquoise tones. Colors that we see as green with a blue sky behind it and as blue in a field of grass. Or egg-yellow, which is process yellow with a drop of magenta in it. If that drop is too big it becomes orange right away.
A difficult one and very good for testing is the FedEx logo. Blue at the edge of purple combined with red at the edge of orange.

[Rob R.]

For me, that Holy Grail of 35mm quality was the Canon 20D (8, count 'em eight megapickles!) But while that camera did satisfy that quest for resolution I could be happy with, what really converted was the increased dynamic range over slide film. I wasn't looking for it and was shocked to see how much better it was.