Sony A7 III Image Quality

Here we compare the Sony A7 III to its predecessor, the 24-megapixel Sony A7 II, just to see how default image processing has progressed since the A7 II came out in late 2014. As you can see, image quality here at ISO 100 is similar in most areas, however the Mark III does a much better job with fine detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch, resolving many of the individual threads that the A7 II blurs away as if noise. The A7 III image also looks slightly crisper, and color has improved as well. It'll be interesting to see how they compare at higher ISOs but there is a definite improvement here at base ISO.

Above we compare the A7 III to the 26-megapixel Canon 6D Mark II DSLR (the 5D Mark IV sells for over $1000 more than the Sony, so the $1600 6D Mark II is a closer competitor in terms of price). Here we can see the Sony A7 III resolves similar levels of detail with comparable noise levels, however Sony's sharpening is much more advanced producing a much crisper image with less noticeable sharpening haloes. (Note that Canon's Fine Detail Picture Style does better than the default Standard Picture Style shown here in terms of detail and sharpening, but it's also noisier and not quite as contrasty.) Contrast in our red-leaf swatch is much better from the Sony with less pattern break up from individual threads, however moiré patterns are more evident suggesting a weaker optical low-pass filter. Colors are a little more pumped from the Sony, however they are generally more accurate from the Canon.

Above we compare the new 24-megapixel APS-C Fuji X-H1 to the 24-megapixel full-frame Sony A7 III. This isn't really a fair comparison, but the A7 III body lists for a similar price, and Fuji has claimed their X-Trans APS-C sensors offer image quality comparable to full-frame cameras. Here, the Sony produces a sharper, crisper image with better detail and lower noise, however there are noticeable moiré patterns in the red-leaf swatch which the Fuji's X-Trans sensor helps to avoid. The Sony reproduces many of the offset printing colors in the mosaic crop and resolves much more of the fine thread pattern in the fabrics, but overall color is warmer and generally a little more pleasing from the Fuji.

Here we compare the A7 III to the Nikon D750, an older full-frame 24-megapixel DSLR that currently sells for about $300 less than the Sony. The default in-camera JPEG processing of the A7 III creates a noticeably crisper and more detailed image which is particularly noticeable on the mosaic and fabric crops, though both cameras show obvious moiré patterns in red-leaf fabric. Color is also a little more accurate from the Sony.

Here, we decided to compare the full-frame Sony A7 III to the 20.9-megapixel APS-C Nikon D500, as the A7 III offers similar burst speed and is similarly priced. As you can see, the 24-megapixel A7 III generates a sharper, more detailed image than the D500, with less obvious sharpening haloes. Both cameras produce good color, though the Sony's is a little more accurate.

Both of these siblings produce very crisp images with excellent detail for ISO 1600, however both luma and chroma noise appear a little higher from the A7 III, and as mentioned previously, the revised area-specific noise reduction retains more fine detail in our red-leaf swatch. However, the Mark III leaves behind small areas with well-defined individual thread patterns while blurring other areas that results in a somewhat peppered look compared to the smoother but more blurred rendering of our trickly red-leaf fabric from the A7 II.

The Sony A7 III's image remains much crisper here at ISO 1600, while still containing only minor sharpening haloes that have a smaller radius than the ones generated by the Canon. Fine detail is better from the Sony as well, despite the slightly lower resolution. Noise levels are higher from the Sony, though, and the "grain" pattern is a little less consistent and natural than the Canon's. Color continues to be a bit more accurate from the Canon.

Unsurprisingly, the full-frame Sony A7 III out-performs the X-H1 here at ISO 1600, with a crisper, more detailed image overall, although moiré patterns and area/frequency-dependent noise reduction artifacts interfere with subtle detail in the red-leaf swatch. Luma noise is a little higher from the Fuji, though chroma noise is practically non-existent. Colors are still warmer and arguably more pleasing from the Fuji.

Here at ISO 1600, the Sony still produces a much crisper image with better detail and lower noise, though its area-specific noise reduction does generate that pepper effect in the red-leaf fabric while moiré interferes with the leaf pattern much more than from the Nikon. Color remains a little more accurate from the Sony.

Again, the Sony A7 III's image quality is markedly better than the Nikon D500 here ate ISO 1600, producing a much sharper, more detailed image with lower noise levels. The Nikon does better with our red-leaf fabric, though, with fewer noise reduction and aliasing artifacts.

Here at ISO 3200, the Sony A7 III leaves behind more noise than the A7 II which is especially visible in the flatter areas, but the noise "grain" appears a little tighter and more consistent, and fine detail is noticeably better in our mosaic crop. The A7 II does a bit better overall with our tricky red-leaf swatch as well as the pink fabric even though the Mark III still manages to hold onto at least some of the fine thread pattern in the red-leaf fabric. Color from the Mark III also remains improved, giving the A7 III an overall win here.

The Sony A7 III continues to produce a much sharper, crisper image with better detail than the 6D II, however noise is much higher in flatter areas, and the noise "grain" is not as consistent giving the Sony image a slightly more processed look. Color is still more accurate and pleasing from the Canon, but overall the Sony easily comes out ahead here as we prefer to see a little noise with better detail retention versus a cleaner image which looks somewhat smeared.

The A7 III continues to produce a crisper, more contrasty and detailed image than the X-H1 here at ISO 3200. Luma noise levels are indeed lower from the full-frame Sony, though less natural-looking noise reduction artifacts can be seen in flatter areas, and we still see aliasing artifacts in the red-leaf swatch. Overall, the Sony A7 III still comes out ahead here when viewed at 100% like this, but there is no denying the X-H1 does amazingly well for an APS-C camera.

The A7 Mark III easily wins this battle against the D750 at ISO 3200, with a much sharper, more detailed image with better color. Luma noise levels are perhaps slightly lower from the Sony in flatter areas, however the Nikon's "grain" pattern looks more consistent and film-like.

Unsurprisingly, it's a similar story here as the A7 III clearly comes out ahead against the D500 at ISO 3200, with a much crisper, more detailed image