Not that I was interested in this camera as an a7r4 owner, but the articulating screen type really is disqualifying to me and would make me choose a different camera entirely. I hate not having a screen in line with the lens, and it’s too many movements to pull it away at a tilted angle. I shoot probably 90% of the time handheld with the screen tilted from a hip position, so the LCD usability is very important to me.
Same here. For portrait orientation it is a must have for me
Photosbydlee wrote:
Fully articulating screens are really useful if you shoot in portrait orientation at high or low angles. Also I shoot a lot of still life/product shots and tend to hold stuff in my background or like to adjust things while being behind the camera so having the fully articulating screen makes it much easier. I always found the play memories app more inconvenient that a flippy screen with a remote trigger.
Really depends on the person but for me I can’t own a camera without one now.
QuietOC wrote:
The A7RIV has Real-time tracking. It has phase-detect up to f/11 (the A7/A7II/A7RII/A7RIII are limited to f/8). The sensor readout of the A7RIV is slower than A7RIII which probably affects AF performance.
The previous plain A7 cameras have had half an optical low pass filter--meaning it only worked vertically--maybe to help phase-detect. The A9 models seem to have a normal full two way filter. Sony doesn't publish these like they do the lack of filter on other models.
I personally really dislike fully articulating screens (it was one of the things I disliked the most when using the Canon EOS R for almost a year).
The use of an L bracket becomes so much more of a hassle, because it needs to flip out to the side first before it can be tilted. The L brackets have a gap for this, but you only have a small amount of movement that way. You are constantly bumping into the bracket.
I also find framing easier and faster when the screen is behind the lens. Having to look at a screen that's dangling next to the body is awkward.
It also makes the camera look almost twice as wide when you just want to look down at a tilted screen. Not something I like for street photography.
It's a stupid design that's only for those people that love filming their own face.
Dual tilting screens (like for example Panasonic uses) are a much better design for photography, because it doesn't need flipping it to the side first to be able to tilt your screen in both landscape and portrait orientation.
I really hope Sony will never put the fully articulating screen on the R series.
Immortal wrote:
Firstly stop with the insulting tone and sentances like "Why do people not think first" it makes you look like an... This is a friendly community and it's always good to remember that. There are no better nor worse here.
Second - i'm not complaining. It's an opinion and it's not even that at this point in time. It's simply few thoughts IF what he said (Northrup) is true.
Also different people, have different expectations. Nothing wrong with that. Like already several people said here - IF - what Northrup said is true then for ME/US - this camera could've been named A73 II - coz imo it's a bit underwhelming for the price.
That is not true. You didn't state it as an opinion. You said I "IBIS is worse than the one in A7 III and IQ is pretty much the same (better colors on IV thou)."
And you base all that on a video of people who have shown not to be that accurate in the past, as has been discussed here a lot. Without measurements and more reviews, we can't know this to be true at this very moment (although it could be, of course).
More PDAF points (you know the effect on IQ?) and MP and still equal IQ would be fantastic, as the A73 sensor is still one of the class leading sensors. You can't expect miracles for a 2500$ camera furthermore. If it had A73 IQ in terms of DR etc. it would outclass R6 and Z6ii etc. again _and_ providing more MP at the same time (see my link to photonstophotos).
So what is bad about it? More MP and PDAF points don't come for free!
You say better colors... come on, after _one_ video? This is subjective and usually brought up by people not having read about color science at all (no pun intended, most here aren't scientists).
10 vs. 12 fps? Those 2 fps won't make the A7iv trail the R6 big time, giving all the other improvements.
I would first wait and see how all the reviews and measurements turn out and then decide whether it is underwhelming for you or justifying the price.
I'm starting to consider a used A7R4 more and more. Unless other reviews give it a lot of praise I feel like the R4 will just give me a lot more bang-for-buck and similar AF performance for general use. I'd much rather take 61MP at 10 fps than 33MP at 10 fps.
I'm also not really convinced yet why this new sensor was made if it has worse IBIS and similar DR. Pitching it as a discount A1 is good of course, but I don't think that's enough for most especially if there's some shortcomings.
patotts wrote:
The secret sauce of the A7 III was it sub $2,000 price point at launch. I'm sure the A7 IV will be "better" camera in every possible aspect (erg, menu, AF, MP, color science, programmability, speed, etc, etc) but keeping the price at $2K would have been the real competition killer.
My feeling is that the A7 IV is moving „up“ in Sony‘s line up and the entry level spot will be taken by the A7c line or something like a new „A5“ that directly competes with the Nikon Z5 and Canon RP lines.
joychris wrote:
For video shooters 4k 24/30/60p 10 bit 422 > 8-bit 6k, easily. It’s not even close. The a7sIII is such a big step up from the a7III’s 8-bit. I do think Sony is protecting the a7sIII by not offering 6k and I agree it should have gotten a stacked 24mp sensor and specs in line with the S1h instead of staying 12 mp, I’ll still take better 4k any day. I’m replacing my a7III as soon as I can get one. 👍
Chris
As a video shooter, since the 1980's, I disagree.
10bit vs 8bit only makes a difference if you're grading and grading any of this compressed codec is amateur town.
They both break super easy.
Serious video shooters aren't grading h265. You're using these types of camera to deliver, or you're using a proper video codec to grade, at the very least that's ProRws Raw or something like BRAW.
I think the issue is not really what A7IV is in absolute terms, but relative to the current market. I was expecting a similar "groundbreaking" entry in the series to its predecessor, but now that I think about it, it was naive. In current market and with current tech, the only way to do that would be to put a stacked sensor in it and I knew that was not going to happen .
I'm sure it will be a great camera, but it just doesn't seem to be a universally better choice than its competitors (which I think could have been said about A7III [what competitors then ] ).
Totally agree, when the A7III came out a few years ago the competition had nothing in the same ballpark. Now the rest have caught up and the A7IV is just 'another good camera'.
I bit the bullet and bought a lightly used A7R4 for the same price a new A7IV would cost
I think I just prefer having a proven product in my hands now over waiting six weeks for a product that I'm not entirely convinced by that might have shipment delays.
Robjwilli wrote:
Totally agree, when the A7III came out a few years ago the competition had nothing in the same ballpark. Now the rest have caught up and the A7IV is just 'another good camera'.
Jochenb wrote:
I personally really dislike fully articulating screens (it was one of the things I disliked the most when using the Canon EOS R for almost a year).
The use of an L bracket becomes so much more of a hassle, because it needs to flip out to the side first before it can be tilted. The L brackets have a gap for this, but you only have a small amount of movement that way. You are constantly bumping into the bracket.
I also find framing easier and faster when the screen is behind the lens. Having to look at a screen that's dangling next to the body is awkward.
It also makes the camera look almost twice as wide when you just want to look down at a tilted screen. Not something I like for street photography.
It's a stupid design that's only for those people that love filming their own face.
Dual tilting screens (like for example Panasonic uses) are a much better design for photography, because it doesn't need flipping it to the side first to be able to tilt your screen in both landscape and portrait orientation.
I really hope Sony will never put the fully articulating screen on the R series.
j4nu wrote:
I think the issue is not really what A7IV is in absolute terms, but relative to the current market. I was expecting a similar "groundbreaking" entry in the series to its predecessor, but now that I think about it, it was naive. In current market and with current tech, the only way to do that would be to put a stacked sensor in it and I knew that was not going to happen .
I'm sure it will be a great camera, but it just doesn't seem to be a universally better choice than its competitors (which I think could have been said about A7III [what competitors then ] )....Show more →
Why care so much about its competitors. Would you flip systems for a camera that you know will be outdated in a few years. Would the A74 really stop you from making great photos, and the R6 would somehow magically make those photos for you. Why is it that we have to make these things a race between camera brands?
