I'm not really a video shooter so the video specs aren't a big deal to me, but they are a little disappointing mostly in readout and 4k60p being only s35. Not sure why they didn't at least add a line skipped/binned 4k60. Everything seems really nice for stills, the dramatically improved af, I like the ergonomics of the newer body, the new exposure comp dial. Flippy screen is neither good nor bad to me. At least the lcs and evf are improved over the 7III. I don't really do a lot of crazy burst shooting, but I am sad to see that they dropped from 10 to 5 with uncompressed. The 5fps limit seems like a software limit. I placed a pre-order and figured I'll debate on whether I want to keep it or not since I have about 2 months.
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offers better technology or some definite advantages over each of those models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) and sometimes a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what? Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely my choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera by making some minor tweaks by adding or improving some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. For another example, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give provide the option of 6k footage without resampling it to 4k?. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!) and seems even less taxing on the camera since the camera's processor doesn't have to do the extra work of sub-sampling.
mawz wrote:
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)
Except for the FPS I am not sure what else Sony could have upgraded.
New sensor
new processor
new body
new EVF
new back screen with different form factor
new menu system
new firmware
latest AF implementation in stills and video
innovative new features like focus breathing compensation and more
new shutter sensor protection
improved Dynamic Range
Many new video features.
New and expanded buttons for improved ergonomics and workflow.
Many more improvements. The sum of which will result in a greatly improved shooting experience, and capabilities.
Sony is not going to put a stacked sensor in a camera in this class until the flagships have transitioned to Global Shutters. It's a business decision, not a technical one
Sony users are to some extent used to Sony have a big lead in many mirrorless based technologies. Now that the others are maturing their mirrorless offers and catching up the gap will be shrinking considerably in each category of camera, soon to include stacked sensor cameras. That is just the way things work.
zz wrote:
The A7IV is still a compelling product and it does provide better options than the Z6II and R6 in my opinion for photography and as an all-rounder, but it seems like it cut corners to get there and I feel like that's what irks people. Sony seems to have the attitude of not feeling the need to innovate much. "As long as we give people 50% better performance every 3 years we don't have to worry about them running off to our competitor".
It's just that complacency that irks people; and that's a bad thing to have in your customer base. Especially combined with a rather significant price increase....Show more →
You're kidding. Have you actually watched any of the review videos? A lot of the features are truly game changing.
1) The focus heat map
2) The active IS that allows me to leave my gimbal at home
3) focus breathing active correction (what)
4) better body
5) sensor protection with the shutter
It's everything we asked for, minus ff 4k60, and way more
Sony could have done a stacked sensor and owned entry level forever, could have taken the game to the next level, could have sent a cat amongst pigeons.
Imagine an entry level stacked sensor at a time when competition is planning to put it in their flagships.
They could have done this because they brought stacked to the market 4 years ago, and Nikon and Canon still do not have it on the shelves.
You make some good points, but in a way I feel people such as myself are disappointed in not having things that are real standouts. A large majority of the things you mentioned are normal evolutions that come with every generation.
I think a real standout feature is like the flash sync speed of 1/400 for the A1. That's real change that can change how I shoot things. I can freeze faster action, I can shoot wide open and not need a ND, and I can limit ambient light. I can potentially have my battery for the flash last longer or I can carry a smaller flash because I just doubled the shutter speed and I can more easily overpower ambient light.
A lot of these upgrades are just hardware updates with software updates that lean heavy to video work.
It feels a lot like the mid cycle upgrade that cars get instead of the real upgrade that comes at 5-6 years.
1bwana1 wrote:
Except for the FPS I am not sure what else Sony could have upgraded.
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 →
I actually prefer the a7c for this over the a7 iii. I like the flippy screen and the updated AF. Its mostly an astro/beater body for me anyway.
Standout features seems more likely on specialist models at higher price points, not on a mid-range hybrid jack-of-all trades. Not that my comment makes the letdown any better.
Ludvig83 wrote:
You make some good points, but in a way I feel people such as myself are disappointed in not having things that are real standouts. A large majority of the things you mentioned are normal evolutions that come with every generation.
I think a real standout feature is like the flash sync speed of 1/400 for the A1. That's real change that can change how I shoot things. I can freeze faster action, I can shoot wide open and not need a ND, and I can limit ambient light.
A lot of these upgrades are just hardware updates with software updates that lean heavy to video work.
It feels a lot like the mid cycle upgrade that cars get instead of the real upgrade that comes at 5-6 years.
Ludvig83 wrote:
You make some good points, but in a way I feel people such as myself are disappointed in not having things that are real standouts. A large majority of the things you mentioned are normal evolutions that come with every generation.
I think a real standout feature is like the flash sync speed of 1/400 for the A1. That's real change that can change how I shoot things. I can freeze faster action, I can shoot wide open and not need a ND, and I can limit ambient light.
A lot of these upgrades are just hardware updates with software updates that lean heavy to video work.
It feels a lot like the mid cycle upgrade that cars get instead of the real upgrade that comes at 5-6 years.
If it recycled the same sensor the way the a7rIII did I'd agree - that was clearly more of a refresh. This is an entirely new camera.
Also from what Arbitrage has said when it comes to the newer processor/system is one of the things that really makes me want to upgrade. I don't do crazy shooting on my a7III, but I still notice the lagginess at times. Saying that going from the a1 back to the a9 and the a9 feeling like something was wrong just says a lot about how much more responsive it is. Plus it sounds like the improvements when transferring photos and using the imaging edge app with touch to focus sounds like quality of life improvements that would be really appreciated. Maybe if we can get enough complaints about the 5fps Sony will magically find a way to improve it in the firmware like Canon has done with some of the lackluster things in the R5/6. Although it's wishful thinking.
such a shame that sony is still stuck with the same crappy IBIS that they introduced six years ago (I know newer models are advertised with 5.5 stops but you can really only get ~3 stops in reality). the competition has taken over a long time ago and sony is unable to catch up.
Ludvig83 wrote:
You make some good points, but in a way I feel people such as myself are disappointed in not having things that are real standouts. A large majority of the things you mentioned are normal evolutions that come with every generation.
I think a real standout feature is like the flash sync speed of 1/400 for the A1. That's real change that can change how I shoot things. I can freeze faster action, I can shoot wide open and not need a ND, and I can limit ambient light. I can potentially have my battery for the flash last longer or I can carry a smaller flash because I just doubled the shutter speed and I can more easily overpower ambient light.
A lot of these upgrades are just hardware updates with software updates that lean heavy to video work.
It feels a lot like the mid cycle upgrade that cars get instead of the real upgrade that comes at 5-6 years.
Almost no one would see that as a standout feature in an entry level camera vs. more MP, AF tracking, improved IBIS, improved video, better body, better menus, etc. I think Sony put that feature in the right body...
Holger wrote:
"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"
What do you mean by action with 1.4 aperture? I shot weddings with the A73 and it did fine. So why do you think the A7iv would let you down? Do you intend to use it for BIF?
The A7iii cannot hit dogs running towards the camera reliably when shot on my 135GM at 1.8, maybe 30% hit rate. Same with 24mm GM @ 1.4, when subjects are really close to the lens, the DOF changes rapidly as subject fills the frame, and A7iii just can't hit with accuracy. A9 on the other hand is excellent with these scenarios.
A7iii is also terrible at focusing in low light and in situations where you are using flash and cutting the ambient light down to complete black. It would be good to know if the A7iv improves here too.
nandadevieast wrote:
Sony could have done a stacked sensor and owned entry level forever, could have taken the game to the next level, could have sent a cat amongst pigeons.
Imagine an entry level stacked sensor at a time when competition is planning to put it in their flagships.
They could have done this because they brought stacked to the market 4 years ago, and Nikon and Canon still do not have it on the shelves.
Yeh...and killed all sales of the A9 and A1 cameras with an entry level $2,500 camera. That would sure show the competition a thing or two.
And why stop with the cameras...release the 70-200 2.8 lens at $500...they'd have swarms jumping ship.
nandadevieast wrote:
Sony could have done a stacked sensor and owned entry level forever, could have taken the game to the next level, could have sent a cat amongst pigeons.
Imagine an entry level stacked sensor at a time when competition is planning to put it in their flagships.
They could have done this because they brought stacked to the market 4 years ago, and Nikon and Canon still do not have it on the shelves.
That would be a horrible business decision for Sony. They won't have lower/mid category stacked sensor cameras until flagships have global shutters.
Sony's job is to compete for users/revenue in each level of camera category. The need to create capable, quality, slightly better cameras in each category. Not dominate them technically.
The a7III was Sony's best selling FF camera ever. It was number 1 its market for years, and still is. Sony didn't replace this camera until now because the others are just starting to reach parity in the category. Sony sees the feature set of the a7IV as what is needed to maintain the leadership in this category of camera, and get a decent upgrade rate among existing a7II users.
Just watched Mark Galers video which i will not watch anyone else to be honest. But my impression its no where near the A7III. For a working Pro with a A9II its fairly close. First off wast hours his video. But the lacking features i see is only 1/250 sync speed and in mechanical shutter and no provision to adjust shutter in electronic mode for LED light which is why i bought the A9II. But given the price its really almost a throw away body at 2500. I know but i make a lot of money shooting and I could almost use this take that extra money and put towards the new 70-200. It does hit the streets too late for me. I start shooting 1/4/22 of about 20 thousand images in LED so ill use the A9II but after that i may buy one. I love the new feature sets and until you watch his video you will see why
zz wrote:
)