Harmonic
Executive Member
Some of these cameras are really very OLLLDDDD I mean 7 years old. Who buys these anyway.
SLR is also pretty much dead. Mostly. Mirrorless Full Form is faster, has way more focus points I mean about 25x more if not 50x more than some SLR, and shoots really quick. Downside is battery life.
If you have the bucks Get the higher Nikon Zs or the Sony A7 (just watch out which model Sony as some are 12mp bodies but mainly being used for cinematography) ok its no arriflex but the sony is good for colour accuracy.
16mp is great but you ideally want to go higher. Some demand 30mp and higher if uploaded to some photo libraries.
I use a Hasselblad still and a Sony A7R IVA
Replaced my A7SIII with an A1 a while back. One thing I can say about the A7SIII, even being 12MP, it took brilliant photos in almost any lighting conditions. It was much easier to get good results with it compared to the A1. Sony definitely delivered with the "low light" capabilities. With the A1 I find I almost always shoot in manual with auto ISO where in the S3 I mostly just used aperture priority unless using filters.
Also, the 12MP A7SIII is actually a 48MP quad bayer sensor. Pixel pitch is the same as any other high resolution sensor, they just use four pixels to make a single pixel at a rough approximation.
That said, I would still pick the A1 over the S3 any day of the week. Framing isn't always as important when you have 51MP to crop with. When doing landscapes I almost always shoot wider than what I think the final frame should look like and crop to taste in post.
On the more budget friendly high end side, the A7IV definitely makes a very compelling case. It even has some more higher end features much to the ire of A1 owners. I've been tempted to pick one up to play with.