A7 iii & GH5s

Messages
9,867
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm moving away from DSLR early next year and back to mirrorless with a stronger focus on video. I know the A7 iii has that awesome AF system, but after watching and reading a lot of other people's experiences, I think I want 10-bit 4:2:2 because I do like colour grading and advanced editing in Premiere Pro. Although Cine4 in the A7 iii does seem very good.

The GH5s certainly appeals with regard to video, not only for the 10-bit 4:2:2 output but also it seems to control colours better throughout the ISO range, but I'm not sure how good the AF is for video (I do some manual as well) and in particular for photo? I moved away from the Sony A6000 because of the slow AF system so I worry that the GH5s will be similar?

Is there anything else I should be looking at in this price range? This is new territory for me so I appreciate any and all advice!
 
If you call A6000 slow not sure what to call Panasonic's AF lol.
But GH5s does seem to be a better video cam than most Sony's in terms of video features and options.
But I know plenty people who use A7III for video (mostly YouTube type stuff) and they do just fine without 10-bit 4:2:2. So I think it depends on your use case really and what kind of videos you want to shoot.

If you want to do it at a professional level then I'd skip Sony unless you are willing to fork out A7siii kinda money.
 
If you call A6000 slow not sure what to call Panasonic's AF lol.
But GH5s does seem to be a better video cam than most Sony's in terms of video features and options.
But I know plenty people who use A7III for video (mostly YouTube type stuff) and they do just fine without 10-bit 4:2:2. So I think it depends on your use case really and what kind of videos you want to shoot.

If you want to do it at a professional level then I'd skip Sony unless you are willing to fork out A7siii kinda money.

Thanks. It has been a constant debate in my head for a few weeks now the whole 10-bit 4:2:2 thing and I've gone through a crazy amount of articles and videos on it. Just as I'm thinking 8-bit 4:2:0 will be ok especially when seeing Cine4 stuff, along comes a video showing horrible banding in the sky and how much more latitude 10-bit will provide. But then if I don't get the scene in focus then it would all be irrelevant! lol
 
Thanks. It has been a constant debate in my head for a few weeks now the whole 10-bit 4:2:2 thing and I've gone through a crazy amount of articles and videos on it. Just as I'm thinking 8-bit 4:2:0 will be ok especially when seeing Cine4 stuff, along comes a video showing horrible banding in the sky and how much more latitude 10-bit will provide. But then if I don't get the scene in focus then it would all be irrelevant! lol

How about the new canon R6?
(Make sure it has the lenses you want though and at the right prices)

A new Sony A7IV is due sometime next year and may do 10-bit 4:2:2
 
Last edited:
How about the new canon R6?
(Make sure it has the lenses you want though and at the right prices)

A new Sony A7IV is due sometime next year and may do 10-bit 4:2:2

I've have a look at the Canon, I'm sure I remember reading something about some of them having some clever dual AF? It does look a bit big though, although the GH5s isn't all that small either I guess. It's got the specs so I'll look up some literature and videos thanks.
 
I've have a look at the Canon, I'm sure I remember reading something about some of them having some clever dual AF? It does look a bit big though, although the GH5s isn't all that small either I guess. It's got the specs so I'll look up some literature and videos thanks.

Please also read up about the overheating. I believe it's much better with later fw update but it's still a thing. So make sure you are happy with is performance in that respect.

I personally would be happy with it, then again I am also happy with 8-bits ;)
 
The GH5s is OK if you want to use the autofocus like a sills camera. Focus on something, then focus on something else and if there is a bit of hunting before it locks on it doesn't really impact the result. If you want continuous autofocus and the ability to focus on a moving subject while recording video then the the GH5s won't do that very well.

There is a good selection of cameras for GH5s money that will give you 10 bit, or 12 bit video but the lowest price option that I am aware of that will give you 10 bit and reliable, stable continuous auto focus is the the A7Siii
 
I don't think the Panasonic AF system is as good as the Sony and Canon Systems, or even as good as the Nikon Z series which has lagged behind the competition until now. Going beyond the technical specs like 10 bit, 12 bit etc though, if I was in the market I'd be more interested in the ergonomics of the camera to complete the job. For example:
  • Are you going to just record things in front of the camera or are you wanting to record yourself (or interviewees) as well. If the latter, then the fully articulating screen of the Canon and Panasonic would be better (although the new Sony has one now and probably the A7iv when it arrives next year will do as well).
  • Does it switch easily between stills and video at the flick of a switch and remember the settings for each mode?
  • Does it have a "proper" touchscreen that can access focus points, camera settings AND the menu system?
  • Having a deep grip will help control movement in the camera and supplement any IBIS to create steady footage.
If can't control the camera in a functional and quick way, then no matter what the internal specifications are like, then you'll have a frustrating experience. So it might be worth working out what you'll be shooting, how you'll be shooting it and what functions and control will help you get the most from the camera.
 
I bought the A7iii partly for it's video ability - it is very good but the poor stabilisation is a real hindrance far more than lack of 10 bit.
I much prefer the ZV-1 for video it has slightly updated and better colours too
 
Thanks for the replies, it's helping built a much better picture for me. I had a look at the Canon and in particular the dual pixel autofocus, but a test comparison video I saw showed it to be quite underwhelming compared to the A7 iii, but could this be a case of the other AF not being poor but more the Sony being so good?

AF is going to be important because the bulk of my videos will be fast moving family life, but I'm also going to delve into the creative side of things where I will be more control of the situation. I'll not be doing any vlogging, my personality doesn't quite suit that lol.

Sony is going to be hard to beat with the AF but maybe it is worth upping the budget and getting one which can do 10-bit internal (an Atomos may come later for external recording) and just satisfy that need from the beginning as changing later could end up costing more. Probably worth noting that I only have an 8-bit monitor to edit on.

One possible concern is I've seen a fair few express issues with slog and saying it's not the best?
 
One possible concern is I've seen a fair few express issues with slog and saying it's not the best?

Interestingly I have heard the opposite. People I have talked to or watched online said Sony's output was easier to edit and had better support than the outputs from canons. One of the reasons they stuck with 8-bits till recently Sony came out with A7siii.
 
Interestingly I have heard the opposite. People I have talked to or watched online said Sony's output was easier to edit and had better support than the outputs from canons. One of the reasons they stuck with 8-bits till recently Sony came out with A7siii.

I can't remember what it was but there was a few videos on it. Could it have been something about having to overexpose if using slog?
 
I can't remember what it was but there was a few videos on it. Could it have been something about having to overexpose if using slog?

its mostly to do with having amazing dynamic range along with very nice codecs and being able to edits the files smoothly and quickly without transcoding.

unfortunately my video experience is limited. i take the in-camera results and the only editing I do is on the timeline to put bits and pieces together.
 
its mostly to do with having amazing dynamic range along with very nice codecs and being able to edits the files smoothly and quickly without transcoding.

unfortunately my video experience is limited. i take the in-camera results and the only editing I do is on the timeline to put bits and pieces together.

I've found the main video I was thinking of here: link although you can definitely see the extra detail in the snow at this point in the video when using slog2.
 
sLOG is OK but not easy to get right consistently in particular keeping a sensible shutter speed when lowest possible ISO is so high.
You need to seriously ETTR about +2.0 Most are using HLG or Cine2 (my favourite) - or no Picture Profile often works well enough.
 
sLOG is OK but not easy to get right consistently in particular keeping a sensible shutter speed when lowest possible ISO is so high.
You need to seriously ETTR about +2.0 Most are using HLG or Cine2 (my favourite) - or no Picture Profile often works well enough.

Thanks, that ETTR +2 rings a bell from a video I've watched (possibly the one I linked?). Also, I'm sure I watched one where it was said that shooting at a higher frames per second will give you better dynamic range to play with because it will essentially capture more data? I may have mis-remembered this though. I really need to start logging in and saving these videos I'm watching so I can go back for reference.
 
Thanks, that ETTR +2 rings a bell from a video I've watched (possibly the one I linked?). Also, I'm sure I watched one where it was said that shooting at a higher frames per second will give you better dynamic range to play with because it will essentially capture more data? I may have mis-remembered this though. I really need to start logging in and saving these videos I'm watching so I can go back for reference.
They all say different things though, there isn't one magic best profile or settings option.
If you are in a studio setting with controlled light it's a world away from harsh sunlight or gloomy woodland outside.

If you aren't reasonably experienced at grading [with Sony] best use default no profile which diverts to creative styles and use neutral or standard with contrast and saturation on -1 or -2.
Or perhaps a Cine2+Still which is rather flat but only needs modest adjustment.
The default Picture Profiles are only starting points you can change a range of options beyond that.

Whereas the ZV-1 looks splendid even on full Auto (another hint ;))
 
Last edited:
They all say different things though, there isn't one magic best profile or settings option.
If you are in a studio setting with controlled light it's a world away from harsh sunlight or gloomy woodland outside.

If you aren't reasonably experienced at grading [with Sony] best use default no profile which diverts to creative styles and use neutral or standard with contrast and saturation on -1 or -2.
Or perhaps a Cine2+Still which is rather flat but only needs modest adjustment.
The default Picture Profiles are only starting points you can change a range of options beyond that.

Whereas the ZV-1 looks splendid even on full Auto (another hint ;))

Thanks, I don't mind getting stuck into post processing and learn the various grading requirements. I'll have a look at the ZV-1. Am I right in thinking it has the real-time tracking as found in the A7 iii, RX100vii etc?
 
Thanks, I don't mind getting stuck into post processing and learn the various grading requirements. I'll have a look at the ZV-1. Am I right in thinking it has the real-time tracking as found in the A7 iii, RX100vii etc?
Yes it grabs and follows your eye or at least face while recording, the A7iii can't do that.
You also get an infinitely better articulating screen with touch tracking.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I don't mind getting stuck into post processing and learn the various grading requirements. I'll have a look at the ZV-1. Am I right in thinking it has the real-time tracking as found in the A7 iii, RX100vii etc?

A7iii does not have fully real time tracking.
Bodies with full real time tracking inc. A9/ii, A7RIV (humans-only), A7C, A6100/6400/6600.
 
I was wondering about this, I take it you mean when in video? I'm sure I watched a video last night showing the A7 iii doing real time tracking comparison test in a multi storey carpark? Might have been against the G6 and also may not have been the A7 iii but it was definitely a Sony.

Damn it, just when I thought I was coming to a decision lol
 
no i meant in general... let me copy paste my explanation from sony thread

It's easier to show than explain.

Let take it from the "beginning"....

The AF-C setting is common across these.

1. a7RII/A7III/A7RIII (pre FW v3.0)
You had to set eyeAF to a separate button. When you pressed that button the camera did it's best to find the eye within the entire frame and track it. It simply ignored the focus area setting.
The focus area setting (simplifying it a little) ranged from wide area i.e. the entire frame, zones i.e. part of the frame and center/single spot which you can move across the frame. So half-pressing the shutter (or back-button) to focus would cause the camera to track whatever subject falls in that area. So in wide area while it's least accurate in terms of pinpointing the subject gave full frame coverage for tracking. On the other hand the centre/single spot gave you the accuracy for pinpointing the subject but you have to keep keep your subject on that single point for it to track and if left the centre spot you lose focus. The zone is a middle ground between the two.
To get over this limitation Sony provided another focus area called expanded flexible spot. So basically you get a central/single point, you find the subject with this point hence you get the pinpoint accuracy and should the subject move away from this point it'll track it across the frame thus providing the wider frame coverage. Win-win.
Notice how thus far eyeAF tracking and subject tracking are different things. Nothing to do with each other apart from both needing AF-C.

2. A7III/A7RIII FW v3.0
So they added real-time eyeAF (not the same as real-time AF, that's next). So in non-expanded flexible spot focussing area modes i.e. wide, zone, centre/single the camera will track the eyes as long as the eye(s) falls in the focus area. And if the subject leaves the focus area (bad in case of centre/single spot) it'll stop tracking it regardless of whether there are eyes in the frame. So for humans/animals i.e. subjects with eyes it can detect, setting camera to wide area mode (like in Nikon Zs) may work fine because it'll find the eye and when it can't it'll track something it thinks it should be tracking.
And in expanded flexible spot focus area mode you only got subject tracking and no eyeAF. Now you are back to above option 1 of setting a separate button for eyeAF.

3. "Full-fat" real-time tracking.
They replaced the "expanded flexible spot" with a "tracking" focus area option. In this option you point the centre/single spot at your subject and it'll track that subject. Should the subject have eyes it'll track the eyes (regardless of whether your point was on the eye or not) and if it doesn't find eyes it'll just track the subject across the frame till it sees the subject's eye again.
You can still of course map a separate button to do eyeAF still but it's not needed anymore.

A7RIV has 3rd version for humans and 2nd version for animals. A9/ii, A7C, A6100/6400/6600. has 3rd version for both.

Makes sense? :ROFLMAO:
 
no i meant in general... let me copy paste my explanation from sony thread

It's easier to show than explain.

Let take it from the "beginning"....

The AF-C setting is common across these.

1. a7RII/A7III/A7RIII (pre FW v3.0)
You had to set eyeAF to a separate button. When you pressed that button the camera did it's best to find the eye within the entire frame and track it. It simply ignored the focus area setting.
The focus area setting (simplifying it a little) ranged from wide area i.e. the entire frame, zones i.e. part of the frame and center/single spot which you can move across the frame. So half-pressing the shutter (or back-button) to focus would cause the camera to track whatever subject falls in that area. So in wide area while it's least accurate in terms of pinpointing the subject gave full frame coverage for tracking. On the other hand the centre/single spot gave you the accuracy for pinpointing the subject but you have to keep keep your subject on that single point for it to track and if left the centre spot you lose focus. The zone is a middle ground between the two.
To get over this limitation Sony provided another focus area called expanded flexible spot. So basically you get a central/single point, you find the subject with this point hence you get the pinpoint accuracy and should the subject move away from this point it'll track it across the frame thus providing the wider frame coverage. Win-win.
Notice how thus far eyeAF tracking and subject tracking are different things. Nothing to do with each other apart from both needing AF-C.

2. A7III/A7RIII FW v3.0
So they added real-time eyeAF (not the same as real-time AF, that's next). So in non-expanded flexible spot focussing area modes i.e. wide, zone, centre/single the camera will track the eyes as long as the eye(s) falls in the focus area. And if the subject leaves the focus area (bad in case of centre/single spot) it'll stop tracking it regardless of whether there are eyes in the frame. So for humans/animals i.e. subjects with eyes it can detect, setting camera to wide area mode (like in Nikon Zs) may work fine because it'll find the eye and when it can't it'll track something it thinks it should be tracking.
And in expanded flexible spot focus area mode you only got subject tracking and no eyeAF. Now you are back to above option 1 of setting a separate button for eyeAF.

3. "Full-fat" real-time tracking.
They replaced the "expanded flexible spot" with a "tracking" focus area option. In this option you point the centre/single spot at your subject and it'll track that subject. Should the subject have eyes it'll track the eyes (regardless of whether your point was on the eye or not) and if it doesn't find eyes it'll just track the subject across the frame till it sees the subject's eye again.
You can still of course map a separate button to do eyeAF still but it's not needed anymore.

A7RIV has 3rd version for humans and 2nd version for animals. A9/ii, A7C, A6100/6400/6600. has 3rd version for both.

Makes sense? :ROFLMAO:


:oops: :$


Thanks for the detail, interesting to read, but I'm not sure I'm still 100% sure. I'm I confusing very fast tracking with what they official class as real-time tracking? The video below looks like real-time tracking for the A7 iii or is it just very fast? I've seen a video which can seem to do this (might have just been face tracking) during video recording but I can't find it again.

 
:oops: :$


Thanks for the detail, interesting to read, but I'm not sure I'm still 100% sure. I'm I confusing very fast tracking with what they official class as real-time tracking? The video below looks like real-time tracking for the A7 iii or is it just very fast? I've seen a video which can seem to do this (might have just been face tracking) during video recording but I can't find it again.


video looks quite old and looking at comments people are talking about receiving their pre-ordered A7III. so this is pre- real time tracking era i.e. before sony made realtime tracking a thing.
I think you are confusing real-time tracking with eye-AF. A7III can still do eyeAF rather well and it always could. realtime tracking makes it:
1 - simpler and easier to use
2 - slightly more accurate and faster but at this point we are looking at incremental improvements because A7III was already quite good at it. A7III still seems to have a leg up on the likes of panasonic and nikon.

Have a look at A7C vs. A7III videos if you want to understand the differences in the new world order vs. old.
 
video looks quite old and looking at comments people are talking about receiving their pre-ordered A7III. so this is pre- real time tracking era i.e. before sony made realtime tracking a thing.
I think you are confusing real-time tracking with eye-AF. A7III can still do eyeAF rather well and it always could. realtime tracking makes it:
1 - simpler and easier to use
2 - slightly more accurate and faster but at this point we are looking at incremental improvements because A7III was already quite good at it. A7III still seems to have a leg up on the likes of panasonic and nikon.

Have a look at A7C vs. A7III videos if you want to understand the differences in the new world order vs. old.

Nice one thanks, I'll have a look soon.
 
This A7C looks interesting, the small form factor yet being full frame is definitely appealing. I'm curious how it can have the proper real-time tracking yet the A3iii doesn't, even with a firmware update, yet the A7C and A7iii have the same sensor? Is it just a software restriction with the A7iii?
 
This A7C looks interesting, the small form factor yet being full frame is definitely appealing. I'm curious how it can have the proper real-time tracking yet the A3iii doesn't, even with a firmware update, yet the A7C and A7iii have the same sensor? Is it just a software restriction with the A7iii?
Sony's claim is they have updated the MK3 bodies as far as they possibly can over firmware updates. Same sensor doesn't necessarily mean they both can do everything the same. You never know what new tweaks they have done.
OR it could just be them protecting their sales of new bodies.
Whatever the reason I don't think it matters beyond what each body can and cannot do.
 
Sony's claim is they have updated the MK3 bodies as far as they possibly can over firmware updates. Same sensor doesn't necessarily mean they both can do everything the same. You never know what new tweaks they have done.
OR it could just be them protecting their sales of new bodies.
Whatever the reason I don't think it matters beyond what each body can and cannot do.

Aye I think I've read that it could mainly be to protect their higher level bodies etc. I'll really warming to the A7C, the features it appears to lack compared to the A7iii wouldn't really bother me but the small form is a definite bonus and it's almost like the RX100 vii but in full frame! Thanks for bringing this to my attention (y)
 
Aye I think I've read that it could mainly be to protect their higher level bodies etc. I'll really warming to the A7C, the features it appears to lack compared to the A7iii wouldn't really bother me but the small form is a definite bonus and it's almost like the RX100 vii but in full frame! Thanks for bringing this to my attention (y)

I have got one and I really like it myself. Possibly my favourite FF body yet! (and I have owned quite a few from DSLRs to first A7 to all the A7R series)
 
I have got one and I really like it myself. Possibly my favourite FF body yet! (and I have owned quite a few from DSLRs to first A7 to all the A7R series)

Unless something else springs up I think that's me decided on the A7C. The auto focus is the key thing and I've always believe that everything else can be sorted in post but if it's out of focus then there's nothing you can do. Going to wait until the pandemic settles and I can wait whilst WEX inspect my gear to be traded in, or possible put it up on here and give someone a good bargain.

Next thing I need to start looking at is lenses, specifically ones which are good for video. I had a Sigma 35mm ART 1.4 in the past and loved it, but that was for photography.
 
Unless something else springs up I think that's me decided on the A7C. The auto focus is the key thing and I've always believe that everything else can be sorted in post but if it's out of focus then there's nothing you can do. Going to wait until the pandemic settles and I can wait whilst WEX inspect my gear to be traded in, or possible put it up on here and give someone a good bargain.

Next thing I need to start looking at is lenses, specifically ones which are good for video. I had a Sigma 35mm ART 1.4 in the past and loved it, but that was for photography.

you missed out on some amazing deals in the sales.

if you want small then new sigma DN lenses are pretty good, so are tamron lenses. some samyang primes have come a long way too and can be used for video.
 
I'm using several of the canons for video - R, R5 and C200. The autofocus is very reliable, especially eye tracking in the R5. 35 1.4 footage looks amazing :) The c200 is a full cine camera and that includes a "face only" mode which prevents the AF system hunting if the subject turns around or moves out of frame. Very handy.
 
I'm using several of the canons for video - R, R5 and C200. The autofocus is very reliable, especially eye tracking in the R5. 35 1.4 footage looks amazing :) The c200 is a full cine camera and that includes a "face only" mode which prevents the AF system hunting if the subject turns around or moves out of frame. Very handy.

Thanks, C200 has come up a lot with various videos I've been watching, but it's a little on the big side for non pro use perhaps? R5 is too much money for home use but I have been looking at the R6 based on earlier suggestions.
 
The D750 and 24-70mm are now gone, I hope I don't regret losing such an excellent piece of kit.

The R6 is tempting, especially for the video output, but it's a little too big. I am tempted to wait for the A7S iii to come in stock but for home use it's probably overkill and there's still the size issue. So that still leaves the A7C, but I can't help but feel like I'll want 10-bit 4:2:2 video output.
 
Back
Top