Sony A7R III Image Quality

Here we compare the A7R III to its predecessor, the A7R II, which uses the same back-illuminated 42.4-megapixel full-frame sensor but with improved circuitry and processing. As you can see, the A7R III images appear a little crisper and more contrasty overall, and fine detail is rendered better in the mosaic crop and in our troublesome red-leaf swatch. Both show minimal sharpening artifacts but unsurprisingly, both also show some aliasing in the form of moiré patterns. Color is also improved from the Mark III, with slightly higher saturation in reds and yellows and less of a yellow to green shift.

Here we compare the mirrorless E-mount A7R Mark III to its A-mount sibling with the same resolution, the A99 Mark II SLT camera. At base ISO, detail, sharpness and aliasing appear nearly identical, however the A7R III does exhibit improved color over the older A99 II.

With 50 megapixels and no optical low-pass filter like all these cameras, the Canon 5DS R does best the Sony A7R III in terms of resolution on paper. And as you'd expect, at base sensitivity the Canon DSLR does indeed resolve a bit more detail than its mirrorless Sony rival. The A7R III image does however appear crisper with higher contrast, and detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch appears much better defined. Colors are more vibrant from the Sony as well, though Canon's are still slightly more accurate overall. (Note that the 5DS R was shot with Fine Detail Picture Style, and thus shows improved rendering of fine detail along with less obvious sharpening halos than the default Standard Picture Style, but with lower contrast and higher apparent noise.)

The 51-megapixel medium format Fuji GFX 50S readily out-resolves Sony's 42-megapixel full-frame A7R III mirrorless, though when framed vertically like this, the 4:3 aspect ratio Fuji has a larger advantage over the 3:2 Sony in terms of resolving power than their relative pixel counts would imply. The Fuji exhibits lower chroma noise in the shadows, but the Sony does a better job at reproducing the offset printing coloration in the mosaic crop. Sharpening halos are practically nonexistent from the Sony, but they aren't very obtrusive from the GFX. Both cameras produce aliasing artifacts but the difference in resolution happens to make moiré patterns more visible from the Sony in our red-leaf swatch. The A7R III renders much higher contrast in our red-leaf swatch than the GFX 50S , however overall color is warmer and more accurate from the Fuji.

Here we compare the 45.7-megapixel Nikon D850 to the 42.4-megapixel Sony A7R III. Although the D850 has slightly higher resolution, both resolve very similar amounts of detail and produce very crisp images, however the Sony image contains fewer sharpening halos due to its more sophisticated sharpening algorithm. Contrast is noticeably higher from the Sony in our tricky red-leaf swatch as well. Both produce good color, however the Nikon's is a bit warmer overall.

Here at ISO 1600, both siblings produce similar noise levels, however the Mark III holds onto more detail in some areas such as our tricky red-leaf swatch, indicating a change in Sony's area-specific noise reduction algorithm. Where the Mark II blurs away most of the fine thread pattern as if noise, the Mark III holds onto much more of the thread pattern. However the Mark III produces some unwanted artifacts in the form of very dark or black individual or small groups of pixels, which results in a somewhat "peppered" effect. Chroma noise in the shadows is higher from the Mark III as are noise reduction artifacts in flatter areas, producing a slightly more "crystalline" noise pattern in our textured background. Color continues to be better from the newer model.

The A7R III produces a slightly crisper image than the A99 II here at ISO 1600, though the A-mount sibling holds onto more fine detail in the red-leaf pattern, while producing fewer noise reduction artifacts. Color remains better from the A7R III.

The Canon 5DS R still captures marginally better detail at ISO 1600, but it produces a noisier image. The Sony image is cleaner, crisper and with more "pop", however its noise reduction processing generates slightly unnatural artifacts in flatter areas while the Canon's noise "grain" is more consistent and film-like. The Sony's rendering of the red-leaf pattern appears sharper and more detailed while the Canon's is soft and blurred, however the Canon didn't produce those objectionable dark pixels. Colors continue to be more saturated from the Sony.

Here at ISO 1600, the Fuji GFX continues to easily out-resolve the Sony A7R III as expected. Both show similar levels of luminance noise however the Fuji's grain pattern is a bit more regular and film-like, and it leaves behind much lower chroma noise. The Sony still shows much higher contrast in our tricky red-leaf swatch along with more obvious moiré patterns, however the Fuji's low-contrast rendering doesn't suffer from the Sony's peppered look.

A tough call here. The Nikon D850 image is softer with fine detail that appears slightly smeared, yet it contains more obvious sharpening halos around high-contrast edges. But the Nikon's low-contrast edges are better defined (ie., the bottle edge), luma noise looks more natural and film-like, chroma noise is lower, there's no peppered effect in the red-leaf fabric, and colors are warmer than the Sony A7R III.

Again, the Mark III image is a bit sharper and more detailed though noise reduction and sharpening artifacts are a little more evident. Detail in the leaves of our troublesome red-leaf swatch is a bit better from the Mark II as remnants of the fine thread pattern interfere with the leaf pattern from the Mark III, however the unwanted black pixels seen at ISO 1600 are all but gone. Color is still more pleasing from the Mark III.

Here at ISO 3200, luma noise is a little higher from A99 II but it also appears a bit more consistent and natural-looking in flatter areas. Chroma noise reduction is lower from the A7R III allowing it to hold onto more coloration in our mosaic crop, yet it's the A99 II that holds onto a bit more detail in our red-leaf swatch. Color continues to be better from the A7R III.

At ISO 3200, the Sony A7R III produces a much cleaner, more contrasty image than the Canon, though the 5DS R's noise "grain" remains more consistent and natural-looking in flatter areas. However the Sony does a better job at rendering fine detail than the Canon in most areas, including in the red-leaf fabric, while the Canon's anti-noise processing blurs and smudges fine detail while struggling to keep higher noise levels in check.

Again, the Fuji GFX bests the Sony A7R III in this comparison at ISO 3200, producing a cleaner, crisper, more detailed image with lower chroma noise and fewer noise reduction artifacts. The Sony continues to produce better contrast in our troublesome red-leaf swatch, however subtle detail is more distorted than the Fuji's.

The Nikon D850 image is softer and less detailed here at ISO 3200, but like we saw at ISO 1600, luma noise looks more natural and film-like, chroma noise is lower, low-contrast edges are better defined, and colors are warmer than from the Sony A7R III. Overall, we'd say the Sony comes out ahead here, though it's really up to personal preference.

As you can see, the pixel-shift image crops on the right contain much finer and better defined detail than the single-shot images straight from the camera on the left. Also notice the moiré patterns in the red-leaf fabric and green bottle label are no longer present with pixel-shift mode. However, the default software settings used don't replicate the camera's superior sharpening as halos are quite evident in the pixel-shift shot, and noise also appears higher, exacerbated by the less sophisticated and more aggressive sharpening. You can however adjust sharpening, noise reduction and a host of other settings in Sony's software. Bottom line: The Sony A7R III's new pixel-shift mode takes the cameras's already outstanding image quality and ratchets it up a big notch, at least for static subjects taken on a sturdy tripod.