Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.
Geez are you NOT reading what I said THAT is the point I am discussing with chez..
You addressed my comment so I figured you followed my conversation with chez and even mentioned it on my reply to you...
I don’t understand any of the hate this camera is getting.
I’ve been shooting weddings for years and my main camera has been the A9. I always rented an A7iii to use as my second body as I duel wield with them. The A7iii has taken amazing photos for me with autofocus that has never let me down. One gripe I had with both cameras was that the auto white balance and skin tones out of both cameras were always a chore to fix and that the A9 had no video profiles like SLog. Cue the A7IV.
My A9 is now being put up for sale because I got my A7IV pre order in. This camera is going to be an absolute beast for wedding photography. Let’s not forget that one of the reviewers said she liked the skin tones out of this camera more than her Canon R6! How many times have posts been made on this forum where people want the Canon look and now we have a body that will deliver it.
I am just now dabbling in video starting with videos of my family but people are out there shooting amazing wedding video professionally with an R6 and that apparently has a small crop factor in 4K60 and also pretty bad rolling shutter so I don’t truly get the heat this camera is getting. Your getting better skin tones, beefier sensor, even better auto focus from the A7iii which already managed weddings amazingly, more up to date video options, QoL improvements on the body design and correct me if I’m wrong but a new hot shoe for smarter components like the new Sony flashes.
M Gotchall wrote:
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?...Show more →
Honestly, the a7ii was already better than the 6D. The a7iii is a big step better than the ii, and the newly announced iv is another massive leap up from that. I am a former Canon shooter myself and have had zero regrets about the leap. The new iv would run circles around even Canon’s 1 series…and at a fraction of the cost.
When Sony bought Minolta years ago, I remember thinking that they would never really compete with Canon and Nikon. Oh my was I wrong!
Grenache wrote:
Honestly, the a7ii was already better than the 6D. The a7iii is a big step better than the ii, and the newly announced iv is another massive leap up from that. I am a former Canon shooter myself and have had zero regrets about the leap. The new iv would run circles around even Canon’s 1 series…and at a fraction of the cost.
When Sony bought Minolta years ago, I remember thinking that they would never really compete with Canon and Nikon. Oh my was I wrong!
Jim
Not only competes, but Sony is the standard others compare against…all in about 10 years time.
I briefly kicked around the idea of trading in my a7riii for this and using it alongside my a9. The improved ergonomics and touch screen are highly welcomed additions. I lose some resolution but 33MP is still very nice. But it's too incremental of an upgrade to give up on my riii just yet. But anyone on an a7ii/rii or earlier, now is the time to buy that upgrade you may have been thinking about. This is a really nice camera all around.
Well I wrote a somewhat disappointed remark above I definitely was not hating on this camera.
But yes, for weddings and portraits this camera seems absolutely fantastic. Where I am frustrated is as someone who shoots action where 6fps uncompressed raw to 10 FPS compressed for a $2500 body in 2021 feels lackluster. Also slow readout. Especially for Sony who has always seemed like the action king with their AF.
They want you to buy the a9 or a1 if you’re shooting action and that’s probably what I’ll do. Just wanted this camera to be better in this regard. Still an awesome body.
Leonberger wrote:
I don’t understand any of the hate this camera is getting.
I’ve been shooting weddings for years and my main camera has been the A9. I always rented an A7iii to use as my second body as I duel wield with them. The A7iii has taken amazing photos for me with autofocus that has never let me down. One gripe I had with both cameras was that the auto white balance and skin tones out of both cameras were always a chore to fix and that the A9 had no video profiles like SLog. Cue the A7IV.
My A9 is now being put up for sale because I got my A7IV pre order in. This camera is going to be an absolute beast for wedding photography. Let’s not forget that one of the reviewers said she liked the skin tones out of this camera more than her Canon R6! How many times have posts been made on this forum where people want the Canon look and now we have a body that will deliver it.
I am just now dabbling in video starting with videos of my family but people are out there shooting amazing wedding video professionally with an R6 and that apparently has a small crop factor in 4K60 and also pretty bad rolling shutter so I don’t truly get the heat this camera is getting. Your getting better skin tones, beefier sensor, even better auto focus from the A7iii which already managed weddings amazingly, more up to date video options, QoL improvements on the body design and correct me if I’m wrong but a new hot shoe for smarter components like the new Sony flashes.
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 information I saw was that the A7 IV reads at 1/15s, but it's possible that was incorrect.
It’s the biggest strike against the camera for me. 6fps isn’t good for a file size I will always shoot.
AlaskanNiz wrote:
Well I wrote a somewhat disappointed remark above I definitely was not hating on this camera.
But yes, for weddings and portraits this camera seems absolutely fantastic. Where I am frustrated is as someone who shoots action where 6fps uncompressed raw to 10 FPS compressed for a $2500 body in 2021 feels lackluster. Also slow readout. Especially for Sony who has always seemed like the action king with their AF.
They want you to buy the a9 or a1 if you’re shooting action and that’s probably what I’ll do. Just wanted this camera to be better in this regard. Still an awesome body.
M Gotchall wrote:
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?...Show more →
With those shooting requirements/use-cases, I think any modern generation mirrorless will serve you very well. There will be a switching cost though as your won't get you much money, and we don't know if you have good Canon EF glass that you could use on a Canon R-body. Buying a used Canon R5 might be an option as well. Nikon is interesting as well, very good files but AF system is certainly not on par with Sony or Canon. Having said all of this, A7IV looks like a great option for you but I'd wait until people have testing astro photography, etc.
patotts wrote:
With those shooting requirements/use-cases, I think any modern generation mirrorless will serve you very well. There will be a switching cost though as your won't get you much money, and we don't know if you have good Canon EF glass that you could use on a Canon R-body. Buying a used Canon R5 might be an option as well. Nikon is interesting as well, very good files but AF system is certainly not on par with Sony or Canon. Having said all of this, A7IV looks like a great option for you but I'd wait until people have testing astro photography, etc.
I have a Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, Canon 24-105 f/4L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, and 100 mm f2.8L macro. I was planning on keeping the 100 mm macro and getting an adapter, then buying the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8, Sony 24-105 f/4, and the Sony 100-400 mm.
I am also looking at dropping some weight from my camera bag, the 15-30 Tamron is a brick and the 150 mm filters I have for it take up a fair amount of room. So if I went the used R5 route, I would still want to replace that lens. I have a 1.4x teleconvertor, but would like an additional 120 mm of reach of the 100-400 mm. To go the same route with Canon, I would be buying two lenses, instead of 3..... so that might be an option. More to think about...
Yes as I'm mainly shooting landscapes. I've never once had to resort to using the ev dial but do remember from owning an a7iii and riii that the dial would be messed with from putting it in and taking out of the had without me having realized and because I'm focusing on the scene in hand I sometimes for got to check the ev dial till after I got home and notice that it wasn't set to 0.
Jman13 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
The DP review indicated it was about 1/15 read speed, but I'm not sure what compression/raw format that was - if I remember correctly, the a7iii was 1/15 for uncompressed and 1/30 for compressed?
Jman13 wrote:
The information I saw was that the A7 IV reads at 1/15s, but it's possible that was incorrect.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Geez are you NOT reading what I said
You addressed my comment so I figured you followed my conversation with chez and even mentioned it on my reply to you...
In my initial comment I did not reply to anyone, I did not follow the discussion, I saw a comment about the A9II being 4 years old and I added my own 2c and that's it. You then specifically attacked me for insinuating that 24MP was now useless when I never mentioned resolution.
Feel similar here - I'm sure it's a great camera for most use cases, but coming from an a7iii and a7Riii, the fps doesn't feel like a step in the right direction at all.
The sensor read speed and lower res lcd (on the a7iii) were specs I'd hoped would see improvements in, along with 40k 60.
I think pixel binned 4k 60 full width would still make it considerably more appealing overall, so I'm hoping that might be addressed in a firmware update. I don't think the fps would be as easy to get back to 10 with compressed lossless raw, but if those two were added I'd likely replace both v3s with v4s
AlaskanNiz wrote:
Well I wrote a somewhat disappointed remark above I definitely was not hating on this camera.
But yes, for weddings and portraits this camera seems absolutely fantastic. Where I am frustrated is as someone who shoots action where 6fps uncompressed raw to 10 FPS compressed for a $2500 body in 2021 feels lackluster. Also slow readout. Especially for Sony who has always seemed like the action king with their AF.
They want you to buy the a9 or a1 if you’re shooting action and that’s probably what I’ll do. Just wanted this camera to be better in this regard. Still an awesome body.
Jman13 wrote:
The information I saw was that the A7 IV reads at 1/15s, but it's possible that was incorrect.
Ok yes Chris's video review on dpr indicates it's still woeful at ~ 1/15, I was assuming 7IV would also offer a 1/30s rate for 12 bit capture and for video surely they would do that since it's 10 bit at best.
Really bummed they could not improve sensor scan speed for what was already terrible. So ES for action is still utterly useless. My idea this could be a good back-up for say A1 is now gone. Can't stand mechanical shutters now after 3 years with the A9.
I am not in the market for another camera at the moment. The issue that I have with this release?aside from the tilt out lcd) is that it just isn't a standout value at 2500. It is an awkward price for a camera thar has a lot of incremental changes, but nothing standout. The R4 was able to get away with it, partially because it was the first to 61, but also the audience there is less price sensitive. I would never recommend a $2500 camera as a starting camera. It makes Fuji with its xs10 stand out even moreso as the ultimate value. I think sony got a bit greedy and full of themselves.
Well that was the issue. You replied to my comment about the A9ii without actually reading what the conversation was about and what I was specifically referring to in my exchange with the other member.
So you took a comment out of context and replied to it.
I don't attack people...this is not game of thrones... We are discussing gear...simple inanimate objects that are tools for us to do our work not to worship them.
I deal with facts in my comments..as simple as that.
Regards
Pixel Perfect wrote:
In my initial comment I did not reply to anyone, I did not follow the discussion, I saw a comment about the A9II being 4 years old and I added my own 2c and that's it. You then specifically attacked me for insinuating that 24MP was now useless when I never mentioned resolution.
If I look at my a7r2 then this is a much harder question regarding upgrades
New menus, bluetooth connectivity, bit better EVF, better battery, much better AF including animals, R2 really suffers on that one
Then I have to think about the negatives
drop in resolution, no real improvement in the sensor, doesn't have that proper upgrade feel, a7r2 is still a very good camera image wise
The improvements are all around quality of life rather than pure image quality as the R2 is still a very good camera - Im really on the fence with this one, if it had been 36MP, then probably yes, I need to decide how much the little things are worth as if I went down the a7IV route, I would solve a lot of really annoying little niggles, but my picture quality wouldn't be any better and arguably worse due to 33MP, that's a tough choice to make
