This is where things get more difficult to figure out, and in the end it’s going to come down to needs and use case scenarios. Let’s work up another chart, but this time it’s going to be the A7 III versus the A7 II, the older Canon 5D III and a more entry-level camera like the Nikon D5300.
|Sony A7 III||Sony A7 II||Canon 5D III||Nikon D5300|
When you compare the A7 III to a collection of all new cameras, it looks downright impressive. But suddenly, if you are someone who already owns a decent camera, it can be difficult to justify the jump.
Compared to the older A7 mark II, the new A7 III shows massive improvements in ISO and burst rates, but it may not enough to get someone to crack open their wallet. If you are a videographer looking to move into 4K production it makes sense, but for a photographer who occasionally dabbles in video why would they need a new camera so soon?
If you are a Canon owner, the scenario is close to the same. If you want better video performance, the A7 III makes sense, but for just photography, there is not much reason to make the upgrade. Especially when moving from Canon to Sony would mean investment in new lenses or at least some pricey adapters.
The most interesting argument here is for the cheap camera owner. If you are someone who purchased an entry-level DSLR a few years ago, you might be looking to upgrade. While you won’t gain any resolution by jumping to the A7 III, you get to move to a full-frame sensor. That means better depth of field control, greater light sensitivity and wider focal lengths on lenses. As an amateur shooter moving into more advanced photography, the move to full-frame make sense. The increased video abilities are just icing on the cake at that point.
The choice is ultimately yours to make, but if you own a full-frame camera less than 2 years old, we can’t really suggest the A7 III unless you need greater video support. For anyone rocking an older camera, or something with a smaller sensor, we don’t know why the A7 III wouldn’t be the choice for new buyers.