Should You Buy a Sony a7iii in 2024? 

Do you think it is good for videography? Im on a tight budget and can buy the camera for $500. Im thinking about it

​@@CalledByHimMinistries yes it is very reliable and good for videography you will not be disappointed

@@CalledByHimMinistries you'd be better off with A7s III if you can manage to get your hands on it. No time limit, 10 bit color, which A7 III does not have. Also better codec than A7 III. However many videographers used this camera with great results.

Yeah I never understood why they that decision on a full frame body like at our college that media services we still got the Nikon d610 and that's got two memory slots 😂

Hey! Thats a great point of view. Do you recommend any lenses for the a7 iv a7 iii?

@@burakgencer65 depends on what you use them for and what you want to get from or photography/videography. Fast primes are always a good choice for just about anything, however they are pricier and you need to zoom in and out with your legs a lot. And it will make you find interesting compositions by limiting you to just one focal length. But you will need to take the time with it and you will learn to see the world through that specific focal length. Sony 35/1.4, 50/1.4 or 1.2, 85/1.4, 135/1.8. If the situation doesn't allow it or you really need the versatility the zoom lenses are very good and usual choices. I would choose constant aperture of 2.8 on the whole focal range. Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 is a good and less expensive alternative to the Sony 24-70/2.8 GM2. I have it and is a good all rounder. But I'll se myself switching to the latter one in the near future. For build and AF mainly. For telephoto needs I have the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM2 which is just awesome. In terms of AF in low light there is no match to it from Sigma or Tamron. If you make money with the gear, get this one. If you need these focal lengths, of course. If you use the gear as a hobby you could go for Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2. It's got built in stabilisation, but the AF is not on the same level with Sony GM2. In terms of image quality it does exceptionally good for the money. For wild life a very good and reasonably priced lens would be Sony 200-600/f5.6-6.3 G. Awesome lens. I will get this one in the near future. For wide angle situations you could consider Sigma 14-24/f2.8 which does very good for the money. However Sony 12-24/f2.8 GM is just a piece of art. You can look online for reviews. It all depends what you use it for, the style of image you aim for (fast lens allow for a nice creamy bokeh and good subject isolation from background) and wether you make money with them or not. Check dpreview.com and Jared Polin's YT channel for more detailed info on lenses and cameras.

Glad you liked it! Thanks!

I love the a7c! That was one that i sold that i wish i kept

Briefly had an a7c but quickly sold it due to the poor EVF. Removing the normal size EVF and replacing it with a tiny view finder is primary way they were able to shrink it. I'd stick with the a7III or a7IV.

Awesome! I never used the a7ii, my first video centered camera i used was the gh4 which really got me into video. But yeah! It’s a great camera!

​@@thomasjmcclure I was originally trained on a GH4! Ended up upgrading when I graduated to just have a semi-newer model and I love the G85. Actually got the ZV-E10 recently because of you so I've been running that more too 😂

Might be able to get it for 650 euros

@@TehGoRy how? In France?

@@francousi good second hand deal. Though I’ll invest in a fx30 as it’s for professional use

Brand new!? That’s a great deal!

@@thomasjmcclure correct it's new

A7iii or a7ii? I can't seem to find an a7iii for 998?!

@@roshanshetty5661 too late

Sony's UX always sucked donkey balls. The new UX is far far better. If you don't need a FF sensor, A6700 is a great option.

1,499 brand new rn

1,499 kit Len, with a 28-70mm lens

I switched to Sony for much better autofocus and image quality. Never looked back.

You cant, i dunno why he was saying $1300 new. I have this camera its great and yeah cost basically the same as what it did when i bought it new in 2018. It doesnt shoot 4k 60 but does 4k30 or 1080 60 and 120. For photos its great. And for most video its great. Sometime having that latest and greatest doest make you a better filmmaker. There will always be something new out. So im working with what i have.

On the second hand market you can find an a7 IV for $1,900

If it’s the camera you’re wanting, you have lenses or the budget for a lens or two, then yeah it’ll be great! Some people really don’t like the zve10 or a7c size, if you think it would serve you well, and you can afford it then yeah!

Yesssss I’m curious too

Night & Day upgrade. Years ago I migrated from the D3100 to D5100 to D7000 to D7100, D600 & D750 before selling off Nikon gear in early 2018 and began shooting with an a7III. Better than the D750 in every way. Now shoot with a7IV and a7III. You'll find the a7III is as good as any current camara for photography.

I have A73 and A7c both, for 5+ years. Since video is your priority, i would say, get the A7c because of flip out screen. On a gimbal , this flip screen is a savior , as you don't need additional monitor. Also, it's lighter , perfect for long trips and Gimbal. Compared to a6700, A7c is better for lowlight, as it's full frame. Hope this helps !!

A couple options, I’d definitely say that if you’re filming something important, make sure you get very high quality/reliable sd cards to minimize risk (I’ve personally never had an sd card fail, but i also haven’t ever bought cheap ones) You could go with a ninja V recorder/monitor and record on it and the camera. Or if you wanna save some money, accsoon make something called the “seemo”. It’s a mount for an iPhone that turns your iPhone into a recorder. I have a video here about it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J0-23apUdM8.htmlsi=9pqipaS-Q76l43tW

I am between these two cameras..I can get the A7C at around 1100€ new, or the a6700, for family documentary photos and some portraits, any advice?

@@bronzepodcast I personally am a fan of the a6700, you get 10bit color, way more features, cheaper lenses (without losing any quality) and the only difference is the size of the sensor. which I would happily trade off for the savings on lenses and features. But I understand that Full Frame is "In" these days, and the A7C is a great camera!

How much?

No it's not

They’re both great, depends what you need. If you use a view finder a lot, or if you like having more custom buttons, probably the a7iii. But if you prefer saving the space and having a smaller camera, or if you prefer a flip out screen, go a7c

Go for it! That’s an amazing deal!!! The 55 f1.8 is one of my all time favorite lenses. And the 24-105 is super versatile. I’d say even if you’re not happy with the a7iii, go for it and then sell the body but keep the lenses. You could get $1000 for the body back to put towards another option if you change your mind

@@thomasjmcclure Thank you so much for the reply, you are absolutely right! Keep up the good work my friend, love your vids!

Of course! 30fps in 4k or 1080p at up to 120fps. That said, video isn't it's primary purpose but it will handle most video work for most people

Thanks!

overexpose when shooting log footage

Most definitely always go with Sony before canon if your doing video. My personal opinion. I film for a living

@@kelvv_ Got it; also, after further research, I was looking at the Sony a7siii too. Obviously it costs more but i’d rather buy once cry once versus regretting my choice. Would you recommend? And yes I’ll likely be doing more video than photography

@@Alexander.FoxTrot that is actually what I’m getting. Amazing all around camera. Id pair it with sigma art lenses. glass quality on them are great.

Neither are bad options. The features/frame rates/codecs in the a6700 will pair better with the a7iv, just with a apsc sensor. The a7c will have the same field of view. But thankfully your full frame lenses will work on both! The only other thing is I’d imagine the color science in the a6700 will be more similar to the a7iv than the a7c. They’ve updated it quite a lot over the last couple years

@@thomasjmcclure great points , really appreciate it :)

Amazing. I used to shoot around 1000 photos and there was still juice.

That is an INSANE deal if legit.

That was the sigma 35mm f1.4.

@@thomasjmcclure gorgeous photo!

​@@thomasjmcclure really loving your PP and the soft whites - is this just with curves (Lightroom?)

There’s so much more to a camera than the size of the sensor. I really don’t believe sensor size is anywhere near as important as features like 10 bit, dynamic range, sensor read out speeds, frame rates, lowlight, autofocus performance, form factor, screen style (fully articulating vs static), color science, log performance, codecs etc. APSC is great, take the fx30 as an example, I’d choose that over an a7iii any day of the week for video, heck there’s micro four thirds cameras that produce better images than some full frame cameras

@@thomasjmcclure This has been said over the years many many times. But the bottom line is - you will not get the same 'look' between a crop sensor and full frame camera. You will not.

There is a slightly different look of course! I agree. I don’t think one is better or worse. But different, and most people watching something aren’t thinking “oooooh that’s full frame for sure”. It’s one part of many important aspects of capturing an image. Of course full frame cameras are good, that doesn’t mean apsc is therefore bad, just different. The idea that the only feature that matters is sensor size is pretty silly in my opinion, you gotta weigh up all aspects of the camera and ask if it’s worth it based off all areas, not just sensor size

I find both of them to be useable up until ISO 6400. Not all full frame cameras are amazing in low light, the newer Sony ones for sure are, by miles. But the newer APSC cameras are doing pretty well for the restrictions on the sensor size, yes they aren’t as good as an a7iv or a7siii sensor, but compared to older cameras where the tech for low light wasn’t as good as it is today, the a6700 holds up great

@@thomasjmcclure well. Dxo didnt test 6700. But they test 6600 which scored what you would exspect in iso performance. The a7iii is really really high on iso performance, and was a huge step from a7ii. Ill see if I can find a webpage that measuered this. But i stand by my Word. The 6700 is nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to iso performance. Add to that, here in denmark the 6700 house only are around what equals to 400 us dollar more expensive ATM.