Test du Sony a73 (a7III)

Sony chose the WPPI conference in February 2018 to drop the bomb that we now know as

sony a73

(ILCE-7M3). I call it a bombshell as many camera manufacturers hold back many key features on their “entry level” full frame cameras (which are usually around that $2000 price tag), it seemed Sony wasn't holding anything back. That's not entirely true (as we'll find out in this review), but, at the same time, the a73 is a serious jab through the Canon and Nikon arcs that seriously raises the bar for what we can expect from an "entry level" full frame camera. I continue to use it in quotes because, frankly, the spec list of the

Alpha 7 Mark III

looks remarkably close to what a flagship camera might have from just a few years ago.

24MP full-frame BSI Exmor R CMOS sensor

BIONZ X Image Processor & Front-End LSI

693-point hybrid AF system

4K30p UHD Video with HLG & S-Log3 Gammas

2.36m-dot OLED Tru-Finder EVF

3.0 922k-dot tilting touchscreen LCD

Indoor 5-axis SteadyShot stabilization p>

ISO 204800 and 10 fps shooting

Built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, two SD slots

USB Type-C port, weatherproof design

10 frames per second? 693-point AF system (which easily outperforms the 399-point AF system of the

Sony a7R3

, which costs more than 50% more)? Full 4K video with excellent codecs and gammas? Two card slots? In body image stabilization?

I actually betrayed my familiarity with Canon by saying that one of the first things I did with the a73 was turn the dial to control the TV (shutter speed) to check if it was capped at 1/4000

th

second instead of going up to 1/8000

th

second. It wasn't capped...so it wasn't a Canon. While Canon has often chosen to employ very obvious protectionist tactics that limit the performance of its cheaper cameras (things like the aforementioned maximum shutter speed, limited AF systems, single card slots and limited video capabilities and resolution options), Sony chose to use mainly resolution (a7R3 is 42mp, a73 is 24mp) and viewfinder/LCD (both have higher resolution and with better rates refresh rate on the a7R3) to differentiate between the two cameras.

As I went through the specs lists in my video episode where I

reacted to the ad

I had a few questions. One of my most popular articles I've ever written was titled "

Why I chose a Canon 6D over a 5D Mark III

". In this article, I explained how some of the features of the 6D made it the most interesting camera for me despite the areas that Canon had intentionally "crippled" it. I think my feelings were echoed by many others as well, as the 6D became one of Canon's best-selling models.

I've been thinking aloud in this a73 video episode that while I think the a73 is going to do serious damage to Canon's 6D and Nikon D600 series, I'm also wondering how many orders for an a7R3 (or even an A9) were overruled by those who thought 24 megapixels was enough resolution (a7R3) or 10 FPS was fast enough (A9) when paired with a focus system very similar to the flagship A9? While I appreciate the higher resolution of the a7R3 for my own kit, I would personally say that 10fps is more than enough for me, and I would probably opt for an a73 for sports and wildlife over an A9. That's a potential conundrum for Sony, which can cannibalize sales of their other models by those who look at the a73 and conclude it's "enough". I suspect it's a calculated risk by Sony, however, who see the a73 as the vehicle to get a lot of Canon and Nikon shooters on the fence to make the jump to Sony. And from the buzz I'm hearing, I think they might have got it right. At the same time, after spending a lot of time with the a73, I feel like I could write a similar post about why people might choose a Sony a73 over an a7R3.

On paper, the Sony a73 is one of the most well-rounded full-frame options on the market and offers incredible value for money, but how does it hold up in real life? Let's find out together...

Prefer to look at your reviews? Here is my final verdict regarding the camera:

watch me on

:

My Patreon

: |

Google+

: |

Facebook

: |

Twitter

: |

Flickr

: |

500px

: |

Subscribe to my newsletter

:

Build and design

The best way to interactively see the build and design as well as comparisons to the a7R3 is to watch this video.

The Sony a73 is instantly familiar to those who have used the Sony A9 or a7R3. It looks and feels almost identical to the a7R3 and, in fact, weighs only 7 grams less (650 vs. 657 g, or 1.43 lbs vs. 1.45 lbs). The physical dimensions are actually identical, with the Width x Height x Depth ratio at 126.9 x 95.6 x 73.7 mm (5 x 3.8 x 2.9"). There are only a few markings externals that separate the two models 1) the small badge on the front right of the camera (the a73 rightly says a7III, while the a7R3 says, somewhat oddly, just a7R with no mention of the mark series) and 2) the mode dial on the top of the camera is slightly different The mode dial on the a73 does not have the lock button, has one less custom mode option (2 at the instead of 3, although it adds a "scene" option) and has a slightly cheaper finish with printed rather than engraved letters.

It's probably only those with great attention to detail who will ever notice these physical differences.

One of the biggest criticisms of the a72 was the battery life. He shared the battery

NP-FW50

than the smaller a6300/a6500 cameras use, and the battery life was, well, abysmal. I own an a6500 and since I use it most often for shooting video I'm shocked that it almost always seems to need a fresh battery. The battery life is terrible. It was not uncommon for the batteries to be "depleted" (as the camera puts it) before the memory card was full when shooting 4K video. Switching to battery

NP-FZ100

really, really turned a fundamental weakness of Sony's mirrorless cameras into a real strength. The FZ100 batteries are fantastic and more than double the capacity of the NP-FW50 which has a 1020mAh capacity compared to the 2280mAh capacity of the FZ100 battery. I photographed a wedding a few weeks ago with the a7R3 and a

Canon 5D Mark IV

, and the Canon's battery died long before the a7R3's battery. In the a73, battery power is even higher and is rated at 710 frames per charge, compared to 650 on the a7R3. I've found that the a7R3 regularly exceeds the rated battery life, and beyond that it also handles video shooting much better. All signs point to the A73 being even better. After my first 3-4 days with the camera (which included all of setting up the controls and getting to know the camera as well as shooting with it) I was still at 86% battery life from the battery. In fact, after having the a73 in my hand for a month with daily shooting and occasional video work, I had recharged the battery

Once

after the initial charge!

The improved battery life has definitely made the a73 a much more “liveable” camera. One thing I noticed while unboxing the a73 is that, unlike the a7R3, it doesn't come with a standalone battery charger. It has an AC adapter so you can use the camera's USB port for direct charging, but your only default charging option is the camera. I like that Sony batteries can be charged in-camera (as a backup), but it's not my preferred charging method. the

Sony BC-QZ1 battery charger

is a bit pricey, but luckily there is

good Watson charging options

which works well and at a much cheaper price.

On the left side of the camera behind one of the covered ports is another physical difference; the a7R3 has a flash (PC) sync port which the a73 lacks. Personally, I haven't used a flash sync cord in years, as I tend to use wireless triggers instead, but this might be an important feature for you. Otherwise the connection is the same, with a 1/8 headphone jack

th

", 1/8

th

" microphone jack, HDMI D (Micro), Micro USB and USB 3.0/USB Type-C ports. Wireless connections include WiFi, NFC and Bluetooth. Just be aware that Sony's PlayMemories Mobile app is still very rough and limited and has changed little over the past few years.You can't even change the focus point from the mobile app.

About Bluetooth: The main app for Bluetooth allows the camera to sync with your phone to provide geotagging for your images. This uses the PlayMemories Mobile app. As I noted in my review of the a7R3, I strongly prefer the built-in GPS options of Canon cameras. It works much more reliably with the internal GPS, and I've found that trying to geotag on the

a6500

, multiple A7RIII bodies, and now this a73 to be a somewhat tedious process that produces inconsistent results. Sometimes it stays connected, sometimes not. I would prefer Sony to move to an integrated GPS solution in the future, especially now that they seem to have solved the battery life issue.

I noted earlier that Sony chose not to give the a73 the upgraded viewfinder found in the a7R3 and a9, so it has an OLED viewfinder with a 2,360,000 dot resolution and 60 refresh rate frames per second. High-end models have a 3686k OLED with twice the refresh rate (120 fps), allowing for a more engaging experience at all times and a much better manual focus lens experience due to increased clarity when magnifying the image in the viewfinder. When you go from the a7R3 to the a73, it's a bit like having the impression of having forgotten your glasses and not seeing things well. It makes the shooting experience less enjoyable in some ways, but if you've never used the high-res viewfinder, you might not miss it.

The LCD screen is also higher resolution on the a7R3, with a 1440k dot resolution compared to the a73's 921,000 dot resolution. While I do miss the higher screen and viewfinder resolution of the a73, I can at least consider this a reasonable method of cost cutting and a logical way to differentiate product lines.

Since the bodies are essentially identical, the strengths and weaknesses of the a7R3 are essentially all true here as well. I find that my little finger still has no place to go when I grip the A73. Sony actually sells a grip extension to help solve this problem -

the GP-X1EM

. It basically has one purpose - to add a bit more length to the grip. Ironic to pay an extra $115 to enlarge the camera

bigger

! Another option is to add a battery grip, which has the added benefit of doubling the potential battery life as well as providing vertical controls. the

VG-C3EM costs around $350

.

An unfortunate trend that seems to continue from the a7R3 to the a73 is a problem with the sensor that accumulates quickly. dust. I noticed a speck of dust on some of my pictures a few hours after I received the camera, and there had only been one lens mount! Plan to keep a

handy blower to help you solve this problem

!

There are also some key ergonomic improvements inherited from the a7R3 (in turn inherited from the a9). The first is just a basic improvement in the tactile quality of the switches, dials and buttons themselves. Everything feels a bit more premium; more precise. Another improvement is the placement of the video record button, which is now just to the right of the viewfinder rather than to the side of the camera. The biggest improvement, however, is the addition of a joystick above the rotary dial on the rear that's similar to that found on the best DSLRs. This makes a huge difference in navigating menus and images during playback, changing settings and selecting focus positions.

The a73's ergonomics will either be an improvement or a disappointment depending on several factors. The first is whether you're upgrading from an older Sony body (where things will feel like a marked improvement) or coming from a DSLR (where you might be a little disappointed). The second factor is your comfort in customizing your camera. The strength of Sony cameras is the ability to map many functions to the physical control point of your choice (buttons, dials, etc.) "configured" to my preference, my ergonomic experience improves dramatically.

The same goes for menu options. Sony's menus have long been considered unintuitive. What helps (a lot) about the a73 is that you can customize your 'My Menu' to put the settings you most often need to access in one easy place that's categorized according to your own logic.

The combination of the ability to customize menus and physical controls goes a long way towards improving the ergonomic experience of the a73, although it will likely take some trial and error until you find the combination that works best for you. . At this point, I personally have a choice arrangement that I can set up quickly, and it's worth noting that Sony lets you save a setup to an SD card so you can transfer it. However, there's no doubt that the ergonomics are improved over earlier Sony cameras, and the improved feel of the switches and dials makes everything more user-friendly. I should also note that having a dedicated dial for exposure value compensation (+/-3 EV) is one of the main advantages of Sony's mirrorless over many DSLRs I've seen. have used.

Unfortunately, there remains one glaring ergonomic problem that, frankly, is beyond me. Sony continues to have the most incomplete touchscreen integration of any true competitor, and lags far behind the touchscreens of Canon's most basic DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. You cannot use the touch screen to navigate menus, to browse images during playback, to change settings, or to touch to focus during shooting or to release the shutter. The last point is a bit confusing because you can tap to focus while recording video. The amount of stuff you can do is quite limited, however, luckily you can use your finger on the touchscreen to move focus while your eye is pressed to the viewfinder. You can also touch the screen to select a focus point when using the LCD screen, although this does not trigger focus. What I find irritating is that there is no doubt that Sony is capable of doing better. I find the lack of navigation capability via the touchscreen particularly irritating. I love bringing up Canon's Q menu (FN on a Sony) and making quick changes with the touchscreen. Sony's FN menu works the same way, although you have to do all your old-fashioned navigation there.

I'm still hoping the next Sony body I try will be the one where the touchscreen is decent, but unfortunately the a73 isn't that body.

For better or worse, the a73 achieves a similar degree of waterproofing as the a7R3. That makes sense because it's essentially the same outer shell. Tests have shown that while the sealing on a good part of the bodywork is quite good, the bottom plate has little sealing. Don't leave your camera in water... or there could be a problem. The weather sealing doesn't seem to be on par with the best DSLRs, which makes sense considering the amount of content in the compact body of these E-mount mirrorless cameras. My experience is that the camera photo works well in somewhat adverse conditions, but you must exercise caution in extreme situations to protect your investment.

Ultimately I find the physical design of the camera to be good, although if you have larger hands you might find the smaller body a disadvantage compared to a DSLR.

Sony a73 sensor performance

The main way Sony separates the a73 from the a7R3 is found in what the "R" stands for - resolution. The A7 III has 24.2 megapixels while the A7R III has 42.4 megapixels. This gives the a73 a resolution of 6000 x 4000 pixels, which many users will find ample for their applications. Both models include a BSI structure that collects more light than conventional sensors and a front-end LSI chip to improve the readout and processing speed of the cameras. Both cameras record in 14-bit RAW with uncompressed or compressed options.

For my own purposes, the a73 has one significant drawback over the a7R3, which is APS-C/crop mode. For video that's no problem, but when shooting stills it means you only get 10MP APS-C mode instead of the a7R3's much more useful 18MP APS-C mode. On the a7R3 you get 75% of the resolution of, say, the a6500, but with all the sensor benefits of the a7R3. It produces very good results. On the a73 you get less than 42% of the resolution of the a6500 in APS-C mode, and while there are apps for that, I personally found the images to lack the kind of detail I am used to seeing.

At the same time, however, there are certainly advantages for a sensor that isn't hampered by having to bear the 'weight' of such a high resolution. We'll explore some of these benefits in the following sections.

Dynamic range

Dynamic range has become one of the hot topics

ad nauseam

< p>on photography forums and hassled by some critics to where some perspective has been lost on the subject. It has become one of the key “stats” where brand fanboys push their brand or criticize another. At the same time, as someone who is lucky enough to use most current equipment and who has used the best of Canon (5D Mark IV), Nikon (D850) and Sony (a7R3) with older cameras, I can definitely say that there are a number of situations where improved dynamic range gives the photographer (and in particular the post-processor) more leeway to achieve their vision. This could be in the ability to retrieve a blown sky or shadow area as a landscape photographer or the ability to balance a foreground subject with a background or sky for portrait photographers.

I have found with each of these cameras that I support exposures less often for exposure/HDR mixing, as it is often possible to get the result I want with a single exposure. Dynamic range is the range of visible light a sensor can record, and the Sony a7R3 has a nominal dynamic range of 15 stops, although that figure is a normalized 8MP subsampling (that's the approach DXO). While this is useful for normalizing test results, note that in most practical situations (at a native pixel level) this dynamic range is 13.6 pixel-level stops (the D850 is rated at 13.7 stops). It's worth noting that Sony managed to improve on this figure over the a7R2's 13.2 stops, showing a significant improvement of almost 1⁄2 stop. At the standardized level, the Canon 5D Mark IV has a stop rating of 13.6, which is just over a stop behind the D850 and the a7R3.

DXO ranked the Sony a73 with an identical score to the a7R3, but in actual global testing I found the full picture actually favored the a73.

Watch this video to see the details.

What I found by deliberately underexposing by one, two, three, and four stops, then adding the return exposure is that the a7R3 and a73 produced very similar results over three stops, but the recovery at four stops showed sharper results in the shadows for the a73 (even when downsampling the a7R3 result). Additionally, while the a7R3 shows a tendency to push towards a green tint when pushed to the limit, the a73 remains impressively neutral, with no color cast of any kind. It was the best shadow recovery I've seen (on par with the

Nikon D850

). Like the D850, the a73 seems to retain a bit more "brightness" in the image when pushed compared to the a7R3.

When I overexposed one, two, three and four stops and reduced that exposure in post, I found little difference between the two Sony models. The typical trend is that modern cameras are better at picking up shadows than highlights, and that remains the case here. Two stops can be recovered perfectly, while three stops will produce some minor "hot spots" in the brightest area of ​​the image. Four saves is pretty much a mess, though, with 'recovered' areas that don't look too believable.

Ultimately, the a73 ranks among the best models on the market in terms of dynamic range performance. Here's an overview of how much leeway you have to recover an actual image from severe underexposure or overexposure:

Whenever you talk about dynamic range, you invariably spark the debate about its importance, with some saying that “good photographers” don't need it, while others who say that cameras without a better score in this area are garbage". For me, however, I don't need good dynamic range because I blow out and under or overexpose, but I do need good dynamic range because a lot of the things I shoot (from landscapes to portraits) require some leeway when processing to create the best results. Having a good dynamic range allows me to recover shadows in forest areas, for example, while having a well exposed sky. This allows me to boost the lighting on people's faces when using available light and balance the exposure with the background.

At the same time, however, we've reached a point where you can overdo the recovery of shadows and highlights and create the images that look somewhat cartoonish and HDR-like badly look like this image:

I'd always prefer to have more than I need, but it's important not to overuse images in post-processing. p>

ISO performance

The A7 III has a native range of 100 to 51200 with extended levels going from 50 to 204800. The A7R III goes up to 32000 (native) and 102400 (extended).

Is the extra “margin of safety” justified? I suggest you watch this video to get an overview:

I had previously compared the best models on the market in their ISO performance, but focused on the a7R3 for this comparison, as it was the previous best of the bunch.

Was. As in the past.

The a73 most certainly leaves the a7R3 in the dust, producing the best results at higher ISO settings I've ever seen. Although I'm shocked to say it, I wouldn't hesitate to use ISO 51200 for event work on the a73.

Where it outperforms the a7R3 is in its complete lack of color banding or melting when pushed to the limits. The a7R3 tends to lean towards a green hue, while the a73 remains impressively neutral. In fact, the color fidelity at higher ISO settings is fantastic, as is the fact that the contrast remains strong. You can very faintly see green and magenta noise at ISO 51200 in shadow areas, but it's minimal. This is a camera that is clearly tuned to work at higher ISO settings.

Although the noise increases at higher ISO levels, it remains fine and non-destructive globally. You can see it, but it doesn't spoil the picture.

What also struck me was how brighter the a73's image is, even with all other settings equalized (lens, settings, lighting). When I look at the histograms, I can see a clear shift to the right (darker) with the a7R3 image. It's not significant (about a third stop), but it's noticeable.

In my experience, the Sony a73 is the new king of lowlights.

Resolution

The Sony a73 is far behind the a7R3 in the resolution category and, as mentioned, the biggest impact is felt in the APS-C (crop) mode. On the a7R3, I feel like using the APS-C lens in crop mode (or even using crop mode for different framing when shooting events) is a worthy effort . I don't feel that way with the a73.

But I also think the a73's resolution is great for a lot of things, including events and weddings. The resolution of the a7R3 is excessive in these parameters. I find the a73's images have a lot of detail, and their small size makes them eye-catching to work with in the post. I feel like Sony gets the most out of this sensor in terms of resolution.

You have the option of taking compressed or uncompressed RAW images (the difference is only noticeable in the most demanding situations), but you don't have anything like MRAW or SRAW resolution options where you can still get a RAW at a smaller resolution. This is much less of an issue than with the Sony a7R3 though, as the resolution is already in a reasonable range. 24MP is probably sufficient for most shooters in most situations.

color science

I criticized the a7R3 for its color science, which I felt lags behind that of models like the< /p>

Canon 5D Mark IV

. I still think Canon's color is easier to play with in post-production, while Sony's color can sometimes get "extreme" very quickly. At the same time, however, I think Sony has continued to hone its color science, and I think the a73 has a little less of the green/yellow bias that I saw on the a7R3. I don't think the gap between it and Canon is any bigger. As noted, the a73 does a better job when pushed to its limits keeping colors neutral, which tells me the color science is a little better too.

When I directly compared the a73 and the a7R3 with equal settings, color balance, profile and the same lens (the new

impressive Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 RXD

), I found the a73 to offer more natural skin tones, without the somewhat yellowish, yellowish tint I've seen with other Sony cameras.

I also find the skin tones a little more natural (less yellow/yellow) and the custom profiles I created for the a7R3 exaggerate the addition of reds and blues in the skin, which is another indicator that they are already better represented there. In this example, I played around with color a bit and found natural (and accurate) skin tones that were easy to produce. I used the

Sony/Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4

for this shot, which helps in that it's a lens with excellent neutral Zeiss color.

One final boost (at least for my workflow) is that Adobe has redone its color profile structure in Lightroom and ACR, and I find these new profiles work better with Sony's color science. Here are some “people shots” that show the progress in rendering skin tones.

I'm encouraged by what I see as progress towards improving the color science of Sony cameras.

Look at the picture galleries

to really get a feel for what this camera can do with a variety of lenses!

A73 Autofocus

Quand j'ai entendu pour la première fois certains suggérer que l'a73 aurait un MEILLEUR système de mise au point automatique que l'a7R3, j'ai d'abord rejeté l'idée. «Comment cela se peut-il?», me suis-je dit, car l'a7R3 est encore très récent et coûte près de 60% de plus que l'a73.

But it's true.

Cet épisode vidéo détaille les différences entre les deux.

Il semble que bien que Sony ait fait un travail incroyable en intégrant un capteur fantastique avec une résolution extrême dans un appareil photo extrêmement polyvalent avec l'a7R3, il y avait des limites à ce que le processeur pouvait suivre. L'a73 n'est pas aux prises avec le fardeau supplémentaire de cette résolution extrême, laissant à Sony la possibilité de se balancer pour les clôtures avec son système AF. Ce que nous avons obtenu est probablement plus de 95% du système de mise au point automatique du produit phare

sony a9

. Voici un aperçu de quelques-uns des points forts de l'endroit où il l'emporte sur le système AF de l'a7R3:

693 points de détection de phase contre 399

Couverture de 93% contre 68%

Les deux avec 425 points de détection de contraste

Alors oui, il a près de 300 points de détection de phase supplémentaires, ce qui fait que presque tout le cadre de l'image est recouvert de points de mise au point. La première image montre ici la couverture de détection de phase de a73, la seconde de l'a7R3, et enfin les points de détection de contraste qu'ils partagent tous les deux.

Vous pouvez essentiellement faire la mise au point n'importe où. Cela embarrasse juste la zone de couverture relativement étroite du Canon 6D Mark II, qui ne couvre que 39% de la largeur et 30% de la hauteur. Ouch!

Et oui, dans le monde réel, je pouvais voir une différence. J'avais déjà trouvé le système de mise au point assez excellent dans l'a7R3, mais l'a73 fonctionne un peu mieux.

Tout d'abord, soulignons l'une des technologies propriétaires de Sony - Eye AF. Lorsque Eye AF est activé, il cherche à se concentrer sur la zone la plus importante à mettre au point lors de la prise de vue sur des humains ou des animaux - l'œil. Eye AF fonctionne très bien (même avec de nombreux objectifs adaptés) et permet une mise au point rapide sur les yeux du sujet... où qu'il se trouve dans le cadre. Cela a plusieurs avantages dans le monde réel. L'une est que vous passez moins de temps à essayer d'obtenir un point de mise au point là où vous le souhaitez, ce qui vous permet de vous déplacer plus rapidement dans une séance de portrait... ou peut-être de prendre une photo dans un cadre d'événement que vous auriez pu manquer autrement. Il offre également plus de précision avec des objectifs à grande ouverture dans les "points extérieurs" que ce que j'ai l'habitude de voir. Eye AF fonctionne mieux avec une plus grande variété d'objectifs que jamais.

Même lorsque vous n'utilisez pas Eye AF, le système de mise au point est excellent pour détecter les visages et les suivre, ce qui rend la mise au point automatique souvent plus intuitive. J'aime pouvoir toucher l'écran LCD tout en utilisant le viseur pour annuler la mise au point et faire glisser le collimateur AF «point flexible» où je le souhaite. Pour moi, mapper cela sur le côté droit de l'écran et sélectionner «relatif» dans le menu me donne la meilleure expérience.

Les capacités de suivi de l'a73 sont nettement améliorées par rapport à l'a7R3. J'ai suivi un sprinter se déplaçant vers moi à toute vitesse, et lors d'une rafale de 82 images à l'aide du Sony/Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 (à f/2), je n'ai pas pu détecter même UNE image mal mise au point! Lorsque j'ai répété ce scénario avec l'a7R3, j'ai obtenu plusieurs images avant et arrière au cours de cette même séquence. Le Planar 1.4/50 mm n'est pas le meilleur objectif sportif du marché, ce qui rend cette performance doublement impressionnante. Cela représentait également la meilleure expérience de mise au point absolue que j'aie jamais eue avec un objectif 50 mm (et j'en ai utilisé et examiné BEAUCOUP!).

Lorsque vous essayez de suivre avec du verre non natif et divers adaptateurs (y compris les adaptateurs Metabones Fifth Generation, Sigma MC-11, Vello EF vers E et le nouvel adaptateur Commlite High Speed ​​EF vers E), j'ai obtenu des résultats mitigés. When shooting single shots or short bursts I actually saw excellent results with various adapted lenses (including the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, Tamron 70-210mm f/4 VC, and Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC). When I attempted a sustained burst like the scenario I describe above, however, I found that the lens just stopped focusing even though the camera continued to hammer out frame after frame. The plane of focus just fell further and further behind.

Some have reported that Sony only supports 3 FPS (Low Speed Drive Mode) with continuous AF with adapted lenses.

Fortunately, when shooting birds in flight (and primarily panning), I got much better results.

Focus accuracy with adapted lenses was downright excellent (exceeding what I achieve on their native DSLRs), and while focus speed varies from lens to lens, I felt that adapting lenses is an increasingly successful endeavor. The very fact that you can adapt Canon EF mount lenses and use them successfully is a key advantage for Sony. Still, if you want to do critical work for sports or wildlife, I do think that using native lenses is going to produce the best result. Unfortunately, Sony still has a lot of work to do in providing more options for both consumer grade and professional grade telephoto options.

The a73's ability to customize button functionality means that you can map key focus-related menu items to physical buttons (including Eye AF), which further aids ergonomics. If shooting with a native Sony lens (one with the AF Hold button) you can even map something like Eye AF to it.

One other interesting feature is the a73's Silent Shutter mode, which, combined with the whisper quiet focus of lenses like the

FE 24-105mm f/4G OSS

or the new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD, results in such a silent operation that the only indication of a photo having been taken is the writing of the file to the card. This is pretty huge for events or quiet venues, allowing you to take photos in a completely unobtrusive fashion. There are a few quirks with this, however, including the fact that it doesn't work with the anti-flicker mode (which helps get even lighting results from lights that cycle – a common feature in many venues). It appears to be an either/or thing, which is unfortunate considering that these should be complimentary rather competing technologies.

The a73 has a truly exceptional focus system that I found a joy to use. It is fast, accurate, and flexible, and I love not having to calibrate lenses before I can expect good focus accuracy from them…even when shooting at wide apertures and far off center!

Buffer and Burst Rate

The a7R3 had taken the biggest jump in burst rate that I had ever seen in a camera line, and the a73 matches it...and some. While the a73 shares a burst rate that is up to 10 FPS with either mechanical or electronic shutter, its buffer deepens even further. It can now go to 89 RAW images, and up to 177 JPEG images. The a7R3 caps at 76 frames for either RAW or JPEG. When shooting tracking sequences, I had several situations where the a7R3 started to stutter and drop frames while the a73 showed no signs of slowing down.

Another bonus is that while you are still limited in what you can do while the camera is flushing the buffer and writing to the card, this happens much more quickly due to the smaller file sizes of the a73. I rarely found it an impediment in real-world shooting.

In some situations you can speed things by tweaking what format you are recording in and where you are writing to. You obviously want to prioritize the Slot 1 (UHS-II supported) card slot (and have a fast UHS-II card in there). Slot 2 only supports UHS-1, so, for me, that's where I write JPEGs so that doesn't slow me down. I like to shoot RAW + JPEG, but with the JPEGs stored on a second card to give me an automatic backup but also the alternative of grabbing JPEGs if I want them. You might get a little more speed if you were just writing to the UHS-II Slot/card.

This is an astoundingly good performance from an “entry-level” full frame camera.

Video Performance

One of the strengths of the Sony mirrorless brand for the past five years has been on the video side of things, where Sony has been far more aggressive than Canon or Nikon in introducing video features. Sony seems to have solved earlier issues that plagued video recording, including overheating and short battery life. Neither of those are an issue with the a73.

The nature of the resolution of the a73 also makes it a more natural video option than the a7R3. It has a near perfect 6K native resolution (6000×4000 pixels), which easily downsamples to a highly detailed 4K image without an “pixel-binning”. This allows for a perfect full frame readout at 24/25fps. If you want to film at 30fps, it goes to a downsampled 5K readout at a very mild 1.2x crop factor. Both formats are very, very clean and handle high ISO filming better than the a7R3.

You also have the option of shooting in the Super 35 Crop mode, which means you get the option of using lenses designed for that crop (APS-C lenses) without having vignette issues. It means that all of my lenses from the a6500 will also work on the a7R3 in Super 35 mode, which is fantastic!

A little note on Super 35: it is enabled by default, and the menu option to enable full frame mode isn't as intuitive as what you might like. In my mind this should be a menu choice where you select between the two, but instead the menu option is essentially just turning Super 35 off, which then enables the full frame option. And even that is a little convoluted, as the default mode is “Auto” on Super 35, which is the best mode for stills (it detects whether a lens is APS-C or full frame and acts accordingly). For video, however, it's as if that doesn't apply any longer, and “Auto” always selects Super 35 regardless of the lens attached. So, you first have to switch Super 35/APS-C from Auto to Manual, and then turn Super 35 off. Like I said, a little more convoluted than what it should be. I personally map Super 35/Crop mode to the C1 button on Sony cameras so that I can quickly switch back and forth. I like having the option when shooting events so that I can change up framing without having to go into post (some clients want photos immediately so that they can push them out).

Things like picture profiles, S-Log2, S-Log3 and HLG gamma curves are included along with audio in & out and a clean 4:2:2 8-bit HDMI output.

The codec choices are mostly MP4 variants (XAVC-S) in a compressed IPB format that is limited to 100Mbs. 4K framerates are still limited to 24/25/30P, but you can now shoot 1080 footage up to 120P. On the codec front this is good news (compared to the Canon) for the average shooter (the footage looks great and takes up 1/5

th

of the space!), though it's also a negative for the serious cinematographers who would prefer a higher bitrate, less compressed option.

Earlier Sony cameras had two main areas people complained about for video work: battery life and overheating issues. Both seem to be solved here. The new Z series battery is VASTLY improved, and for video work will give you about 3x the battery life of the older NP-FW50 packs in the a7RII. I had no issues with overheating at any time during my six-week review period.

One other ergonomic asset is that the dedicated video “record” button has moved from the somewhat awkward side position to a new location just to the right of the viewfinder on the back of the camera. The button itself is now more raised and easier to use. It's definitely more logical, though long time Sony users will have to mentally readjust.

Sony employs a tilting screen much like the D850, which is better than the fixed screen on the 5D Mark IV but not nearly as useful as the fully articulating screen on the Canon 6D Mark II. For video work, however, the tilting screen is useful, whether using it handheld or on a gimbal.

One issue does remain, however, and that is that Sony's touchscreen is still rather lackluster. Beyond this, the “touch-to-focus” selection box is extremely small and a sort of grey color that seems to disappear, making it hard to know where the focus point is. The touchscreen isn't as responsive as that on the 5D Mark IV, thus selecting a point of focus in general is a much poorer experience in general.

On a positive note, however, Sony's face tracking during video is much improved. I still find Canon's industry-leading DPAF a hair better, but the a73's face tracking and smoothness of Servo AF during video is the closest I've seen to. It is miles ahead of the rather poor tracking capabilities of the Nikon D850.

Sony's EVF has an extra degree of usefulness when recording video, as you can playback video clips not only on the screen but on the viewfinder. I find this very useful if I'm recording in bright, sunny conditions where it's difficult to see anything on the LCD screen. I can get better feedback on the levels of my footage that way.

Sony's built in 5 axis Steady Shot OSS is undoubtedly useful, as it applies equally to whatever lens you may have mounted for video. I think Sony's IBIS works a little better for stills than video, though, and your best results will come from using a gimbal assembly of some kind.

I seriously doubt any hybrid body does as a good of job for both photos and video than the a73. It is impressive!

Conclusion

I was still in Sony a7R3 mode when the a73 was announced, and I wondered at the timing of Sony's announcement. I was also more excited about the

a7R3

because of it's huge improvements along with the fantastic resolution. I went into this review with no interest in owning an a73 for myself, but, having now spent some serious time with one, I have reconsidered. I'm seriously considering adding the a73 to my kit, selling the a6500, and just using the crop mode on the a7R3 when testing APS-C glass. I can easily see the benefits of having the a73 for 1) shooting events, where the 24MP resolution and amazing low light performance makes it a top choice and 2) shooting action, where having incredibly high resolution is less important. In many ways it is a complimentary camera to the a7R3. I have only a few complaints: I miss the higher resolution EVF on the a7R3, find the APS-C mode less useful, and continue to be seriously disappointed in Sony touchscreens. And that's about as much negative as I can come up with. The DSLR vs Mirrorless debate will continue, but regardless of what side of the fence you land, this is a great camera. Sony swung for the fences with the new

Sony a73

, and I think they connected.

Pros:

Great focus system that is easily the best in class

Great price-to-performance ratio

Awesome battery life

Improved color science

Incredible low light (high ISO) performance

Excellent dynamic range

Excellent frame rate and buffer depth

Solid In Body Image Stabilization

Outstanding video performance

Cons:

APS-C mode is much less useful than a7R3 for stills

Lower resolution viewfinder makes shooting experience less enjoyable than a7R3

Touchscreen execution continues to be lackluster

Clunky GPS/smartphone implementation

No dedicated battery charger included

Still a dust magnet – plan on blowing off the sensor often!

Gear Used:

Sony a73 Camera:

B&H Photography

|

Amazon

|

Amazon Canada

|

AmazonUK

|

eBay

Sony a7R III Camera:

B&H Photography

|

Amazon

|

Amazon.ca

|

AmazonUK

|

eBay

Peak Design Slide Lite:

Peak Design Store

|

B&H Photography

|

Amazon

|

Amazon Canada

|

AmazonUK

Sony a6500:

B&H Photography

|

Amazon

|

Amazon.ca

|

AmazonUK

|

eBay

Peak Design Leash Strap:

B&H Photography

|

Amazon

|

Amazon Canada

|

AmazonUK

BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor –

B&H Photography

|

Amazon

|

Amazon.ca

|

AmazonUK

Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription

Alien Skin Exposure X2

(Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)

Purchasing your gear through

B&H

and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also

make a donation here

if you would like. Visit

my Amazon page

for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at

Amplis Foto

, Canada's Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code:

AMPLIS52018DA

in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is

stackable

with other coupons, too!

It will take 5% off your entire order

! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Check me out on

:

My Patreon

:|

Google+

: |

Facebook

: |

Twitter

: |

Flickr

: |

500px

: |

Sign Up for My Newsletter

:

Keywords: Sony a7III, Sony a73, Sony, Canon, Sony a73 Review, Sony a7 iii review, Sigma FE, Sigma, ART, FE, Dustin Abbott, Review, Sony A7R3, Sony A9, MC-11, Sample Images, Video Test, Autofocus test, Real World, Hands On, ISO, Dynamic Range, Resolution, Tracking, Video, Sony Alpha, ILCE7M3

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on Linkedin

Share on Pinterest

Share on Xing

Share on Reddit