chez wrote:
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 Would you flip systems for a camera that you know will be outdated in a few years.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?
I don't know what's so hard to understand about it. If you disregard all the competition, then the whole idea of non-monopoly market benefitting the customer is rendered invalid.
arbitrage wrote:
1/15s scan speed as per DPReview article. Ugghhh....
10FPS only in Lossy RAW...5FPS in any other RAW
Too slow for me...I'm out....
The same as A7III, but more pixels so I guess it's "technically" faster .
Though I didn't expect the RAW fps limitation. It seems it's worse than A7III in that regard.
Does anyone mention if it still has full mech shutter?
zz wrote:
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.
I feel the A7r4 is the better purchase myself but of course that depends on what you are doing. This will not in any way shape or form replace a A9 or A9II and 33 mpx is just not a big enough jump but 61 is and a lightly used A7R4 at 61 plus still having great AF speed and such might be the better option. If the pricing is at 2400 or 2500 makes you wonder. The A7III was great for its time and I used it a lot but the the A7C is far better as far as file. The A9II is more specific for a certain need for me but a used A7r4 would be a cam with enough difference to revisit it. I dont shoot video per say so those features im not interested in
Watching the announcement and getting more and more disappointed as it goes on. The only thing that would save this is if the price stayed at $1999 which it isn't. I see this as a pretty big fail to do anything with a super popular model line. There was a real chance here to put the screws to the competition and instead they went with not quite catching up.
This looks perfect to me, checks all my boxes as a second camera (keeping my A7iii so I have two bodies). With that new 33mp sensor, what is the resolution in APS-C mode?
After reviewing the official specs, I'm underwhelmed around the speed.
Sony really dropped the ball here. I was expecting 10fps with no limitations. It's already got the second worst speed in class (beating out the Panasonic's) but no limitations 10fps would have made up for a lot.
We got a 5fps camera uncompressed and lossless configurations.
That's badly gimped. The Z6II is 10fps in 14bit lossless.
Buffer specs look amazing, albeit they specified 800 uncompressed RAW+JPEG at 5fps. With CFE-A you should be able to write as fast as you shoot at 5fps, even with uncompressed RAW's.
Otherwise it looks quite good. But with those speed limitations it just doesn't feel like a $2500 body to me. It would be killer at $2k, but at $2500 it just screams 'we could have done a bit more'.
bjhurley wrote:
This looks perfect to me, checks all my boxes as a second camera (keeping my A7iii so I have two bodies). With that new 33mp sensor, what is the resolution in APS-C mode?
Around 15MP. The A7R and Nikon D8x0's at 36MP delivered ~16MP in crop.
buffalowolff wrote:
Watching the announcement and getting more and more disappointed as it goes on. The only thing that would save this is if the price stayed at $1999 which it isn't. I see this as a pretty big fail to do anything with a super popular model line. There was a real chance here to put the screws to the competition and instead they went with not quite catching up.
I feel the same, a chance missed, it seems like Sony are really pushing the video side of things now. There were some improvements, it is still a capable camera, I just feel they could have done more.
As an a7r2 owner, Im in love with those new menus, they look so much better....
Crazy that Sony didn't put the A7R4 EVF in this, especially for the money.
This is what drives me crazy about Sony the most...they will introduce a higher end part, but not standardize on it for future models.
Crappy EVF res is what has held me back from entertaining the GFX line up to the point, for instance, even though Fuji has better tech in the top-most model.
I guess ultimately the question is for current a7iii owners for whom its their primary camera: Are you going to upgrade. I was hoping for a more capable backup than the a7c, but this doesn't do it for me. Yes it is certainly better than the a7c, but not in enough ways for what I'd use it for to spend the money on. Here's to hoping for a surprise a7RV announcement at 80MP :-)
wastedimages wrote:
I feel the same, a chance missed, it seems like Sony are really pushing the video side of things now. There were some improvements, it is still a capable camera, I just feel they could have done more.
As an a7r2 owner, Im in love with those new menus, they look so much better....
Agree. Sounds like the IV is really the new S. Maybe having an entry "non-letter", then an "S" for video, and an "R" for pure photography is too many variations of the same model. That would make sense.
Does the 1/15 readout speed mean that it's only updating AF at 15hz instead of 60hz like the A9? Would love to grab this as a second body but I doubt it will do well shooting action with 1.4 and 1.8 apertures and fast moving subjects. That said I might rent it to see if it works for my type of shooting.
I really don't get the point that reviewers are praising the A7IV for having the same level of pixel quality as the A7III. If there's a three year difference between these two cameras and the A7IV has a completely new sensor, isn't that what's expected?
The A7IV just isn't a clear-cut upgrade over the A7III and that's a problem for Sony I think. It should be an immediate upgrade, and for photograpthers this doesn't seem to be that.
So how does this compare to A9 just for photography? I upgraded from A7III to A9 a few months ago and I feel like it has everything I will ever need in a camera, but still a new camera has me excited as a hobbyist.
zz wrote: