Hello all! New here. I am a primarily a film shooter using both medium format & 35mm SLR/RF for over 50 years. In 2018 I bough an A7III body & grip to use my Leica & Olympus wide angle lenses. I am getting into video production and while the A7III does 4k, it falls very short as a video camera. I have been looking for a new E-mount camera to use primarily as a video camera. My A7 III still works so I am not interested in any new still camera features.

My cine lenses are all manual focus and manual iris stop down. Auto-focus is not a consideration. The two cameras that I am considering are:

A1 II $7,000

A7S III $3,700

The A1 II will do 8K (7680 × 4320) video but has no internal RAW recording. The A7S III is only a 4K (3840 x 2160) camera and also has no RAW internal recording. The usual way to get RAW files when there is no internal RAW recording is to use an external HDMI recorder like the Atamos Ninja.

The A7S III will push a 4264 x 2408 video image out of the HDMI port that can be recorded as a RAW file (per the specs, I need to verify this). Now here's the killer:

The A1 II when shooting in 8K (7680 × 4320) pushes a 4K (3840 x 2160) image out of the HDMI port! There is no way to get the 8K images out the HDMI port. An this is an $7K flagship model. I am dumbfounded. My A7 III pushes a 4K (3840 x 2160) file out the HDMI port so I am no better off with the newer cameras.

Why doesn't SONY provide an internal RAW video recording mode in ether of their cameras? Is there any way to get internal RAW video recording from a Sony E-Mount camera?

Both Nikon Z and Canon RF do provide internal RAW video recording and at a much, much lower cost than the A1 II or the A7S III.

Thanks all!

Edited November 26Nov 26 by aoresteen
clarity

You have to remember that Sony makes cinema cameras so I guess they don't want to cannibalise sales of those. To be honest, I reckon RAW video would be more of a PITA than anything else for most people using a camera that is predominantly for photography. I take a lot of video with my A7R5 and the quality blows me away. There's no way I want to be mucking around with RAW video file sizes. I don't know about Canon but I read a review recently that says the Nikon RAW video isn't very good. As regards the A7III and the A7SIII, you have to remember both are over 5 years old now.

If you really need RAW video that badly, why don't you buy a Canon or Nikon body?

Richard A,

Thank you. I have suspected that Sony is defending their cinema cameras but you are looking at $30-80K for one - that is way beyond my budget :) and most others as well . I have started looking at Nikon Z cameras as there is an adapter for E-Mount lenses. Canon R is out because it has a 20mm flange distance that prevents mounting an E-Mount lens with infinity focusing. Sony E-Mount flange distance is 18mm, Nikon Z is 16mm. Based only on the published specs, the Nikon ZR 6K camera with Red RAW seems to be the winner. Body cost is $2100, far less than the Sony options. I need to see some footage before I decide.

I could live with no internal RAW if Sony would push 6K or 8K out the HDMI port and I could use an Atamos Ninja to record it in ProRES RAW, but they have intentionally crippled their HDMI ports to 4K only. That's a shame as all it does is push us to Nikon or Canon solutions.

Why do you need to shoot in 8K ProRES RAW?

8 hours ago, Richard A said:

Why do you need to shoot in 8K ProRES RAW?

That's like asking why you need 61MP when 20 is more than sufficient. People want what they want. Witness the ridiculous A9III. The vast majority of people have no use for that kind of insane speed, but they buy them anyway then go take photos of their dogs, lions at a zoo, or their wife at the kitchen table. Makes no sense.

Need REDs permission. Red holds the patent for INTERNAL RAW recording and if you don't pay the license then you're stuck with external devices. (Relying on memory here.)

2 minutes ago, VTC said:

Need REDs permission. Red holds the patent for INTERNAL RAW recording and if you don't pay the license then you're stuck with external devices. (Relying on memory here.)

A quick search confirms that. In fact, Apple lost a lawsuit against RED.

17 hours ago, Cameratose said:

That's like asking why you need 61MP when 20 is more than sufficient. People want what they want. Witness the ridiculous A9III. The vast majority of people have no use for that kind of insane speed, but they buy them anyway then go take photos of their dogs, lions at a zoo, or their wife at the kitchen table. Makes no sense.

That's been the case for a long time. Back in the early '90's an uncle of mine bought a top of the range Canon EOS SLR (with only a cheap standard zoom lens) and just used it with cheap, no name colour print film which he got developed at the local corner shop. Artistically he never had a clue really. Some people have more dollars than sense as my old man used to say.

I bought a 61MP camera because I make large prints (A2+) on my Canon Pro 1100 printer. But like you said, if you are just posting small JPEG images online the even 20MP is overkill.

8 hours ago, Richard A said:

That's been the case for a long time. Back in the early '90's an uncle of mine bought a top of the range Canon EOS SLR (with only a cheap standard zoom lens) and just used it with cheap, no name colour print film which he got developed at the local corner shop. Artistically he never had a clue really. Some people have more dollars than sense as my old man used to say.

I bought a 61MP camera because I make large prints (A2+) on my Canon Pro 1100 printer. But like you said, if you are just posting small JPEG images online the even 20MP is overkill.

I have several 22" x 28" prints (much larger than A2) hanging now that were made with a 20MP Panasonic G9 M-4/3. They look great, one of them won a contest. Had I not needed much better action AF than Panasonic can provide, I would likely have never switched to Sony. About the only thing they can't do is sustain a large crop, but even that can be overcome with upscaling.