nehemiahphoto wrote:
2 Questions (I have not follow the rumorsannouncement closely).
1) Does this use the same AF module and processor power as the a7siii/a7c?
2) Is it fully compatible with the LAEA5, including screw driven lenses?
Thanks!
The a7iv get the same AF Algorithm from the a1, so that’s indeed great.
For anybody else who is curious, that LAEA5 is fully compatible with screw driven lenses according to the DPReview guy who did a Reddit AMA and asked Sony directly.
Watching Galer’s excellent walkthrough of the camera, it looks just amazing. All one could have wanted, plus more. That said, I am already very well served by my a7iii and Riii and would have a hard time justifying a genuine “need” to upgrade. My requirements are far less demanding than what I have already, let alone the Ferrari that is the a7iv. I wish I shot video!
Hats off to Sony for blowing the doors off of this one!
Jim
Zayne12 wrote:
I hated it with a passion especially when I was shooting in the dark and hadn't noticed the ev had been pushed to +1. When the riv came out I was happy they placed a lock on. Never unlocked it since. I'm happy with the move as well but now I'm lost as to what exactly I'd use it for. I'd say iso but I do that on the rear wheel already.
Do you just shoot manual all the time then? I see these sorts of comments somewhat regularly, and they baffle me, but I shoot about 70% of my shots in aperture priority, so EC is essential to dialing in the correct exposure. I generally don't care about my shutter speed for most of what I shoot, so I let it fall where it may most of the time. Then I'm just dealing with the chosen aperture, and the exposure level, and adjusting ISO as needed. I use manual for flash photography, and a fair bit of landscape work, but my EC dials always get a work out.
I am currently looking at updating my 6D to a mirrorless FF. I mainly shoot landscapes, some astro, and a little wildlife (including the grandkids). It is my feeling that Sony is ahead of Canon in regard to sensors. I was disappointed in the R6 not being "substantially" better for higher ISO than the 6D. The R5 is more than I wanted to spend and I really did not want to deal with the issues of double the MP. They all have much improved autofocus.
To me the A7iv looks like a viable switch from my Canon 6D. What do you think?
Sorry if this is asked/stated already in this thread, but I'm wondering if any of the new features, such as focus mapping and focus breathing correction would make its way to the A1 via firmware update. That would be cool.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Sorry, but how does 20mp suck but 24mp, which is BARELY anything over 20mp in real-world side by side, is perfectly fine as in the A9, A9ii, and A7iii?
Sure for some the higher res of the A7 IV will be a better option over the R6 but for others, it could be the opposite in terms of what features each camera offers. I just feel that to just say "2005" 20MP is not a fair statement.
I think he is not just referring to resolution, but the totality of a sensor design of that age. It shows up in a number of areas including noise and Dynamic Range.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Sorry, but how does 20mp suck but 24mp, which is BARELY anything over 20mp in real-world side by side, is perfectly fine as in the A9, A9ii, and A7iii?
Sure for some the higher res of the A7 IV will be a better option over the R6 but for others, it could be the opposite in terms of what features each camera offers. I just feel that to just say "2005" 20MP is not a fair statement.
I am not saying one camera is clearly better than the other for everyone..it is a matter of picking the one that has the features that more closely matches our needs of course.
Sure...but those are 4 year old cameras you are bringing up. Maybe you don't need the extra pixels, but most people to require 20fps also could use more pixels as they most likely will be shooting sports or wildlife which is reach constrained most of the time. So releasing a 20fps 20mp camera sort of puts if behind the 8 ball for those that might shoot at 20fps.
raminolta wrote:
Moreover, it says in the specifications that the body material is magnesium alloy while this wasn't mentioned about A7 iii. It could be that A7 iii is only partially made of metal. So that;s another upgrade. Moreover, if the body is modeled after A7s iii (and not after A7 iii), I am guessing the weather sealing is must have been…
Back is plastic, like a7iii:
A lightweight, high-rigidity magnesium alloy used for the camera's top cover, front cover, and internal frame provides excellent durability.
1bwana1 wrote:
I think he is not just referring to resolution, but the totality of a sensor design of that age. It shows up in a number of areas including noise and Dynamic Range.
The sensor in the R6 first appeared in the 1DX Mark III, which was released last year. It has excellent dynamic range and excellent noise control. It is likely that the A7 IV sensor is better, but this is not one of the old-tech Canon sensors that were recycled over and over. (It also has a read speed 4x faster than that of the A7 IV, so that's something).
mawz wrote:
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.
Thanks, did not know the C1 could be reprogramed. Yes, when Fuji did the X-T4, they made some changes that were net loses for photographers. The only good thing on the flippy screen is you can turn it around so the screen is inside and protected. It's not what I'm looking for now, but years ago when the kids were young and in sports, dance, etc the AF would have been a positive. Would have been worth a trade off.
I put my pre-order in with BH. Hoping things go as planned but who knows.
I own the Siii for video work and excited to have the files match easier with two camera setups. How quick the Siii is makes me really excited for the 7IV too. I've already invested in CFA cards so the addition is very welcome. I think the 33mp file sizes are a perfect medium and will fit in my commercial work very well.
Even better it looks to be nearly the same size, button layout, etc so it should fit in my Salty Surf underwater housing!
chez wrote:
Sure...but those are 4 year old cameras you are bringing up. Maybe you don't need the extra pixels, but most people to require 20fps also could use more pixels as they most likely will be shooting sports or wildlife which is reach constrained most of the time. So releasing a 20fps 20mp camera sort of puts if behind the 8 ball for those that might shoot at 20fps.
Really? The A9ii is a 4 year old camera?...
So the A9ii announced on October 2019 with 24MP and tailormade for sports is suddenly a useless camera per your criteria Or did something happen between 2019 and 2021 that now any camera under 30MP is useless?
I had shot 61MP, I shoot 45MP now and I shoot 20MP and whatever fits my needs.
So no, those are not ALL 4 year old cameras, check your facts...
Probably going to opt for a used a9 to upgrade my a7iii over this camera. While I really like the 33mp, I personally think it’s almost a perfect sweet spot and the AF looks awesome, I can’t get over the 10fps compressed and 6fps uncompressed raw.
I’m kind of disappointed in Sony because this felt like the perfect chance to deal an absolute KO to Canon. 10-12fps mechanical uncompressed and even 15 electronic should not have been out of the wheelhouse with some higher readout… It’s a brand new sensor from the folks who make sensors for damn well everything. Hell if it would have been a couple hundred dollars more with these specs that would have been fine as the a7c seems to be the true entry level Sony FF camera these days. And it’s not like the a7iii is going to vanish.
Now I’ve never been one of the ones who was in any way hoping for this thing having a stacked sensor, but Ive had a thought the last few days that has been cemented by others on this thread in the form of “oh Sony can’t offer that because it will take away from the a9 line, or oh they can’t offer that because it will take away from the a7s line. Oh they can’t offer that because…” One reason I chose Sony over Canon years back was due to criticisms of friends who shoot Canon complaining that Canon would hold out on features to push people to buy their higher end cameras and Sony did not seem to do this. They just swung for the fences.
Now I get the small feeling that Sony seems to be in a position where they’re the top mirrorless dog and they have a bunch of bodies and they are falling into that same trap of leaving just a bit out so you’ll need the AX.
Mostly disappointed just because I really liked the resolution and though I expect the a9iii to probably clock in around here resolution-wise, but it will probably be out of my price range and a year or so away.
All things said it is a nice and substantial upgrade to the a7iii but the a7iii doesn’t exist in a vacuum so I was hoping for a little more.
Jman13 wrote:
(It also has a read speed 4x faster than that of the A7 IV, so that's something).
Huh, where did you get that information? Canon R6 sensor scan speed is ~1/50s (slower than R5). At worse A7IV is 1/30s at least in 12 bit mode. So about 1.67x faster
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well A9 II brings nothing new to A9 tech wise, so yes A9II is effectively over 4 years old, same sensor as A9, same AF as A9.
So again, does that mean the A9 and A9ii are useless sports machines because of their "measly" 24MPs? Which btw the 20MPish seems to be THE resolution of choice for sports cameras in the industry? THAT is the point I am discussing with chez..
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Huh, where did you get that information? Canon R6 sensor scan speed is ~1/50s (slower than R5). At worse A7IV is 1/30s at least in 12 bit mode. So about 1.67x faster
The R6 is 19ms . 1 / 0.019 = 1/55 or rounded to 1/60.
The A7 IV I do not know for sure yet. I will be testing them whenever I can get my hands on one.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
So again, does that mean the A9 and A9ii are useless sports machines because of their "measly" 24MPs? Which btw the 20MPish seems to be THE resolution of choice for sports cameras in the industry? THAT is the point I am discussing with chez..
Geez stretching things much. Where did I mention resolution? I'm pointing out that technically A9II is effectively 4 years old as it's an A9 with a better grip and a few other upgrades but not where it really counts. And I never mentioned 24MP as being useless, I own the A9.
Or did something happen between 2019 and 2021 that now any camera under 30MP is useless?