nhsonyshooter wrote:
I also think the stage is set for possibly the A9iii being the first camera with no mechanical shutter.
You mean the first Sony camera with no mechanical shutter, right? Because the Sigma fp has no mechanical shutter and came out a few years ago, but in its case the lack of mechanical shutter is a handicap because it's subject to rolling shutter and bokeh artifacts.
nandadevieast wrote:
As someone said, a mint a9 seems to be the best upgrade from a7III.
It depends. If you are a hybrid shooter, definitely not. I'm a stills hobbyist, and I did make the switch to the A9 and while I can't tell the difference in dynamic range with landscape shots, the A9 has really been transformative for shooting birds in flight and other fast moving subjects.
bjhurley wrote:
You mean the first Sony camera with no mechanical shutter, right? Because the Sigma fp has no mechanical shutter and came out a few years ago, but in its case the lack of mechanical shutter is a handicap because it's subject to rolling shutter and bokeh artifacts.
Yes, of course. Sony. Personally I don't even consider that Sigma a real option my self.
wastedimages wrote:
I can see that there are alot of quality of life improvements but for pure image quality, is it an upgrade bearing in mind the drop in resolution? Do I want to spend 2.5k for a slightly better EVF, longer battery, dual card slots and better AF - for less MP and roughly the same image quality - it isn't an obvious answer, I think if it was 36MP then maybe it would be an easier question to answer..
Depends on what you shoot. If AF abilities are the important for your photography, then the A74 is a major upgrade from the 7R2…after all a misfocused image hits the garbage bin every time no matter how many pixels it contains. I use the 7R2 for landscapes using manual focus so I see little value in the A74 for that scenario.
Having read up and reflected on the A7IV I think most can agree that offers a lot for the hybrid non-pro shooter and it is most likely the class leader again (we need to wait for production samples, evaluate the RAW files, etc).
As impressed as I am with performance on the A7IV I cannot help to think that a) Sony got a bit greedy on the price, it would have been a few hundred less, and b) Sony "dumbed down" some performance in order to protect other products. While the AF seems amazing, I suspect that Sony could have easily added some more frames per second, improved sensor read-out speeds to avoid some e-shutter wobble, or done 4K 60 video on full-frame read-out. But adding any of those could potentially cut into A7SIII or A1 sales...
Regardless, this will be all the cameras 90% of the people need out there - on par or better than the Canon R6 in almost any aspect and with an open lens mount system with endless possibilities to use 3rd party glass. Class leader.
I still shoot mostly from a tripod, with my cameras mounted on L-brackets, so the goofy selfie-screen on the A74 immediately disqualifies it from my shopping list.
arbitrage wrote:
I can shoot 100s of shots (I haven't tested how many but buffer bar barely moves) to a V90 SD card on the A1 at 15FPS lossy compressed RAW. I don't own a CFe-A but I'm sure it may even handle 20FPS without running into issues. A1 at 10FPS can shoot forever.
I don't think the A7IV has any better buffer or card write speeds. It is just that 33MP at 10FPS should be easy with Sony's large internal buffer and how they've recently been able to get up to 260MB/s write speed to a V90 card.
Yeah, I was misreading. When I saw the 800+ RAW/JPEG buffer figure being touted, I thought it meant that the buffer could hold that much data at once, but after reading into it more, I realized that it's just the number of shots that can be taken in succession at 10 FPS before the buffer fills up and the frames per second slows down.
nandadevieast wrote:
As someone said, a mint a9 seems to be the best upgrade from a7III.
That's funny. I think the more logical upgrade to A7 iii is A7 iv except for a minority who really 'need' the highest fps possible a specific feature A7 iv does not have.
I mainly shoot landscape and own A7r iii. For me, A7 iv is a better upgrade to A7r iii than an A7r iv can be. It's perhaps time to question the myth that landscape shooters need the highest resolution camera possible. For a fact, I know only a small minority of landscape shooters print their photos large. The rest just talk about it.
I also want to experiment with a fully articulating screen. In many occasions I have found the movement
of the LCD screen on my camera was limiting me (like when shooting in portrait mode.
Immortal wrote:
I don't think anybody having A7R II or (even better) R III thought A7 IV is gonna be an upgrade for them. It's not even an upgrade in every way for A7 III. I'm just waiting for A7R V at this point and pretty sure it won't be long now, althou i expect 4500+$ for it.
Sony A7 IV is a good camera. Just imo a bit pricey for an entry-level for people who think about entering Sony system. I guess for that we still have A7 III and A7C for more reasonable price.
patotts wrote:
Having read up and reflected on the A7IV I think most can agree that offers a lot for the hybrid non-pro shooter and it is most likely the class leader again (we need to wait for production samples, evaluate the RAW files, etc).
As impressed as I am with performance on the A7IV I cannot help to think that a) Sony got a bit greedy on the price, it would have been a few hundred less, and b) Sony "dumbed down" some performance in order to protect other products. While the AF seems amazing, I suspect that Sony could have easily added some more frames per second, improved sensor read-out speeds to avoid some e-shutter wobble, or done 4K 60 video on full-frame read-out. But adding any of those could potentially cut into A7SIII or A1 sales...
Regardless, this will be all the cameras 90% of the people need out there - on par or better than the Canon R6 in almost any aspect and with an open lens mount system with endless possibilities to use 3rd party glass. Class leader....Show more →
I knew someone would point that out :-) It surely works for pros as well, but in the segmentation is stacked as an enthusiast FF entry camera vs A1/A7SIII/A9II which are considered pro cameras. I didn't make up that segmentation ;-)
raminolta wrote:
That's funny. I think the best upgrade from A7 iii is A7 iv except for a small minority who really 'need' the highest fps possible.
I agree if your a birder or video worrying about rolling shutter than maybe not the best choice but this is for the other 95 percent of folks here. If I did not have a A9II I’d jump all over this cam. Rather put that extra cash into the 70-200. This IV has what I need and 10fps is just fine for me. I’m not a spray and pray shooter, never have been even with sports back in the day
raminolta wrote:
That's funny. I think the best upgrade from A7 iii is A7 iv except for a small minority who really 'need' the highest fps possible.
The A7IV will have better IQ, but there's a lot more to the A9 than just the highest fps.
- The A9 also offers an electronic shutter with very little downsides because of the MUCH faster sensor readout speed.
- You never have to worry about shooting fast primes wide open and ruining (cutting off) the bokeh because you still had the electronic first curtain shutter on.
- The A9 can has a max shutter speed of 1/32000. Another benefit when you want to shoot fast primes wide open without the need for NDs.
- Zero blackout viewfinder/lcd.
- 60 AF calculations/second.
patotts wrote:
Having read up and reflected on the A7IV I think most can agree that offers a lot for the hybrid non-pro shooter and it is most likely the class leader again (we need to wait for production samples, evaluate the RAW files, etc).
As impressed as I am with performance on the A7IV I cannot help to think that a) Sony got a bit greedy on the price, it would have been a few hundred less, and b) Sony "dumbed down" some performance in order to protect other products. While the AF seems amazing, I suspect that Sony could have easily added some more frames per second, improved sensor read-out speeds to avoid some e-shutter wobble, or done 4K 60 video on full-frame read-out. But adding any of those could potentially cut into A7SIII or A1 sales...
Regardless, this will be all the cameras 90% of the people need out there - on par or better than the Canon R6 in almost any aspect and with an open lens mount system with endless possibilities to use 3rd party glass. Class leader....Show more →
Well, of course Sony dumbed down the performance to protect other products. That a camera company leaves high end features out of a low end camera to protect, uh, sales of higher end camera is to be expected. That's kind of why companies have different models at different price points.
Be happy that Sony put the AF from a $6k camera into a $2.5k one...that's amazing.
patotts wrote:
I knew someone would point that out :-) It surely works for pros as well, but in the segmentation is stacked as an enthusiast FF entry camera vs A1/A7SIII/A9II which are considered pro cameras. I didn't make up that segmentation ;-)
Disagree. The A7IV is specifically targeted at wedding, event, portrait, professional photographers. They benefit greatly from the stills feature set, the hybrid capabilities, and the communication features. They do not not need faster than 10 fps. They are not PJs, sports, or wildlife photographers, but are still pros in every sense of the word.
It just happens that these same feature sets work well for many enthusiasts as well. Don't forget that prior to the a9 release only 4 years ago a 10 fps camera was reserved only for the highest level of integrated grip DSLR cameras. Even those cameras overall feature sets and resolutions didn't come close to what is in the a7IV.
I can see why people are a bit underwhelmed, but I can also see why they shouldn't be. Its a body that has better internals and a 73% increase in mp with no loss in performance. And there really shouldn't be a comparison between a 20mp and 33mp body.
If Sony does a firmware update where the a7IV gets 15fps in ES, that just might erase a large portion of folks' issues. A better rear screen would have been really nice. And folks have to adapt to the a7c's being the new entry level. The a7IV just isn't. Its just really good at everything where the a1 is excellent at everything. Sony has enough models (and people interested in them!) to have a fully fledged FF lineup with proper segmentation.
Compare the a7c to the R6 or Z6.
Compare the a7r lineup to the R5 and Z7
Compare the a9 to the R3.
There isn't a comparable body to the a7s, a1, or a7 yet. And Sony has nothing comparable to the Ra. It would be great to see an a7c, a7, or even an a7r body designed for astro.
The a7 is the jack of all trades. It can do everything well, but nothing is exceptional. Call it an a1 lite. Its just about the ultimate prosumer body: great at landscape, portrait, and action. But, its not going to be top tier at any of these.
1bwana1 wrote:
Disagree. The A7IV is specifically targeted at wedding, event, portrait, professional photographers. They benefit greatly from the stills feature set, the hybrid capabilities, and the communication features. They do not not need faster than 10 fps. They are not PJs, sports, or wildlife photographers, but are still pros in every sense of the word.
It just happens that these same feature sets work well for many enthusiasts as well. Don't forget that prior to the a9 release only 4 years ago a 10 fps camera was reserved only for the highest level of integrated grip DSLR cameras. Even those cameras overall feature sets and resolutions didn't come close to what is in the a7IV.
Or maybe it is the other way around? The tech has advanced so far that an "entry-level enthusiast camera" fulfills all the requirements of wedding, event, and portrait professional photographers
At any rate, calling a $2,500 camera "entry level" is a bit rich.
Regardless of segmentations or labels, I'm sure the A7IV will be an amazing camera that, as pointed out above, will be great at many things but perhaps not "the best" at anything. Sounds like what I need...
patotts wrote:
I knew someone would point that out :-) It surely works for pros as well, but in the segmentation is stacked as an enthusiast FF entry camera vs A1/A7SIII/A9II which are considered pro cameras. I didn't make up that segmentation ;-)
Yes, pros can use any camera, but camera companies have long had a camera that sits on top as their 'pro' body. For Canon and Nikon, starting with the F5 and the Canon 1 series, it was always a full-sized body with integrated grip and heavy duty weather sealing. Their new releases (or soon to be releases) show that they're applying that same idea to mirrorless.
So, yeah, a pro can use any camera, but the camera companies definitely have ideas about what constitutes a camera for a working pro. I think that's changing, as most of the Pro Services now will accept ownership of any FF cameras, but in the past, they had requirements, which was always kind of funny, IMO. But, their goal is to sell more cameras with higher margins, so maybe not funny
