buffalowolff wrote:
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 :-)
I just moved to Sony from another brand. All the key features of the IV were out there, enough to make a decision on which body to start with. Based on the video vlogger floppy screen, dedicated video button in prime location, the dial, and focus on other video features, the IV was never a contender.
But that's just me. The only video I have ever did is the kids when they were little in a few school plays, or a kiddie birthday party, and once to Disney. I don't think we ever watched these videos. I recently found the cassettes, and tried to give them to the kids (they are in their 20's now), even the grand parents. No one wants them.
I chose the 7R III A. Only other consideration was the R IV, but I don't want 61MP. But the rest of that camera looks great.
chiron wrote:
For me, the question is how does the A74 compare to the A9 as a second camera to an A1. The faster scan speed of the A9 is important to me, more important than minor improvements in DR, in resolution, or in the EVF. The AF of the A9 is also awfully good.
Well, my question is answered. For stills photography, I would much rather have an A9 than an A74. And that is even more true if the A9 is a second camera with either an A1 or an A7R4.
zz wrote:
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.
What was the basis for those statements? Was it for a shot noise dominated or read noise dominated situation?
Despite that, having smaller pixels and more PDAF points introduces a toll to overcome. Technology only marginally improved over the last couple of years. Other aspects became more important (pattern recognition - AI, intelligent noise reduction etc.).
Being as good as the A73 with such an improved camera would be really nice.
zz wrote:
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.
Actually having the same per-pixel performance with a 40% increase in pixel count is actually a pretty big deal. That's one of the larger jumps in per-pixel performance we've seen since we saw the switch to dual gain BSI sensors (it's actually a bigger improvement in IQ than the A7II->A7III sensor change)
I'm on the fence about the A7IV as a big upgrade. I think it is a big upgrade over the A7III, improving just about everything except fps but I also think it's not enough to justify both being a generational update and a 25% price hike.
If it had been $2k, it would have been a no-brainer for most A7III users. Everything gets better, except FPS, IBIS and battery life (I don't expect the 0.5 stop CIPA improvement to be meaningful and while the A7IV is still best in class for battery, it isn't nearly as good as the A7III which is to be expected from the much more power hungry EVF and faster processing chain).
At $2500 it simply has no compelling feature to justify the price. The R6 has 20fps with tracking, the S1 had the wildly class leading video (at release) and build/EVF. Today, the A7IV has 33MP, but it's at a price point where it also competes against new Z7's and A7RIII's both of which beat it handily there.
zz wrote:
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.
Sort of agree. The AF sounds like a big improvement, if you need that. The ergonomics have some positive improvements, BUT also some equally detracting things: the cheap, smaller, vloger flippy screen, the lost C1 button, the video dial.
Not long ago I would have seen the 33MP's a good upgrade, but now using a III R, I would have rather seen that sensor in the IV.
The IV seems to me like a good all around camera. A jack of all trades. As such, I think it's over priced. Maybe it will quickly go down; given inflation and supply chain shortages all projected to escalate well into 2022, Sony may have had to start higher.
chiron wrote:
Well, my question is answered. For stills photography, I would much rather have an A9 than an A74. And that is even more true if the A9 is a second camera with either an A1 or an A7R4.
It is depending on how you shoot. I use the A9, too, for weddings. Whenever I can and use the E-shutter, I am happy. Otherwise, esp. with mechanical shutter use, the cam feels limited compared to the A9ii or of course the A1. Using an A1 spoils it additionally, as it is so fast to operate, the EVF so good compared to the A9. The A9, furthermore, was freakingly expensive when introduced. Sony still lists it for 3900 Euros (of course you can get it cheaper).
I like Gerald Undone's Video and think that the A7iv is a great camera for this price. Surely not perfect.
patriot wrote:
Sort of agree. The AF sounds like a big improvement, if you need that. The ergonomics have some positive improvements, BUT also some equally detracting things: the cheap, smaller, vloger flippy screen, the lost C1 button, the video dial.
Not long ago I would have seen the 33MP's a good upgrade, but now using a III R, I would have rather seen that sensor in the IV.
The IV seems to me like a good all around camera. A jack of all trades. As such, I think it's over priced. Maybe it will quickly go down; given inflation and supply chain shortages all projected to escalate well into 2022, Sony may have had to start higher.
C1 isn't lost, it's now to the left of the AF-on button and the record button can be re-assigned, it just defaults to record.
The video dial can safely be ignored if you don't use that. Unlike the Fuji X-T4, you aren't losing another control to get it and now it frees space for a 3rd custom setting slot on the mode dial for stills work.
The LCD might be smaller, but it's 50% more pixels as well, so higher resolution and real touch UI.
buffalowolff wrote:
I guess ultimately the question is for current a7iii owners for whom its their primary camera: Are you going to upgrade.
I'd really like to have a second full-frame body, but while the A7iv looked very tempting at first I'm on the fence. 24 megapixels is more than enough for me so I'm now thinking the best approach would be to just get a used A7iii now that they will be flooding the secondhand market as people upgrade (and I think a lot of people will). Then I can copy the settings from my existing A7iii and have two identical cameras, nothing new to learn.
I do like using APS-C for some of my lenses and it would be efficient to have one camera that can do both, but the A7iv in APS-C mode is actually lower resolution than my old NEX-6, which I still use regularly. So I think I'll stick with the NEX as my APS-C camera and get a used A7iii for my second full-frame body.
bjhurley wrote:
I'd really like to have a second full-frame body, but while the A7iv looked very tempting at first I'm on the fence. 24 megapixels is more than enough for me so I'm now thinking the best approach would be to just get a used A7iii now that they will be flooding the secondhand market as people upgrade (and I think a lot of people will). Then I can copy the settings from my existing A7iii and have two identical cameras, nothing new to learn.
I do like using APS-C for some of my lenses and it would be efficient to have one camera that can do both, but the A7iv in APS-C mode is actually lower resolution than my old NEX-6, which I still use regularly. So I think I'll stick with the NEX as my APS-C camera and get a used A7iii for my second full-frame body. ...Show more →
Alternatively you could go with the A7RIII, which has basically identical UI to your A7III and gives you 18MP APS-C crop. Pricing is $200 more than an A7IV, but lots of used cheaper.
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
mawz wrote:
Actually having the same per-pixel performance with a 40% increase in pixel count is actually a pretty big deal. That's one of the larger jumps in per-pixel performance we've seen since we saw the switch to dual gain BSI sensors (it's actually a bigger improvement in IQ than the A7II->A7III sensor change)
I'm on the fence about the A7IV as a big upgrade. I think it is a big upgrade over the A7III, improving just about everything except fps but I also think it's not enough to justify both being a generational update and a 25% price hike.
If it had been $2k, it would have been a no-brainer for most A7III users. Everything gets better, except FPS, IBIS and battery life (I don't expect the 0.5 stop CIPA improvement to be meaningful and while the A7IV is still best in class for battery, it isn't nearly as good as the A7III which is to be expected from the much more power hungry EVF and faster processing chain).
At $2500 it simply has no compelling feature to justify the price. The R6 has 20fps with tracking, the S1 had the wildly class leading video (at release) and build/EVF. Today, the A7IV has 33MP, but it's at a price point where it also competes against new Z7's and A7RIII's both of which beat it handily there....Show more →
"it also competes against new Z7's and A7RIII's both of which beat it handily there."
Huh? I used the A7riii for quite some time. I bet the A7iv runs circles around it. It has its strengths, but also many weaknesses. The only advantage of the A7riii is the higher MP count, for those who need that. If I want to shoot landscape stuff only, the A7riii is a fantastic value. But video quality, operating spped, EVF, LCD, AF, ...?
The R6 20 fps is nice, but limited (slow readout, 20MP). Is that feature really enough to justify that price, but the sum of the features in the A7iv and likely better IQ isn't? In my opinion, there doesn't have to be one distinct feature to justify the price, the whole package suffices.
raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past....Show more →
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
As a A9 and A7RIV owner I probably will buy the A7IV. Not to replace either my R4 and/or my A9 but as an alternative and truly Hybrid camera. I think the specs look good, the body style and features look great to me and what really interest me is the Active Stabilization and Catalyst Data capabilities for video. My previous A7C had Catalyst that found very useful sometimes but I just could not get along with the A7C EVF and limit of 1/4000 sec. So I will preorder one and give the shutters in my A7RIV and A9 a little break. lol
I was expecting better specs on the EVF and LCD for $2,500. I had been saving money to buy the A7IV as I thought it was going to be as good and exciting as the A7III. I mostly shoot portraits, but after seeing the specs I'm not impressed. The A7III still continues to create amazing photos for me. I also considered the R IV, but I don't want 61MP. The rest of the camera looks great. I might buy one once the price comes down under 2K or my A7 III dies.
Maybe what's confusing is that A7 III owners aren't really upgrading in the same line anymore. A7 III was entry level but Sony has moved the A7 IV into more of a middle tier price point.
It's almost as if A7 III -> A7C is the actual upgrade for those who want to stay in budget or entry level Sony full frame. It comes with some upgrades (like AF) but also the compromises that Sony has put into the A7C (like single SD card slot and fewer dials and buttons).
A7 III -> A7 IV is moving out of budget / entry level and up to a higher price point.
Will be interesting to see where A7 III owners end up: A7C, A7 IV, or maybe older specialist bodies with higher original MSRP like A7R III/IV and A9 i/ii
chiron wrote:
Well, my question is answered. For stills photography, I would much rather have an A9 than an A74. And that is even more true if the A9 is a second camera with either an A1 or an A7R4.
zz wrote: