patotts wrote:
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
I think this is accurate. And Sony's decision to release a high-zoot AF system in a top camera, then a year or two later put it into their least expensive FF, is what started it. Back in the DSLR days sure, a wedding, event or portrait person could shoot with a Canon 6D or Nikon D600...but they weren't getting anything near top AF performance. That's not the case with Sony now.
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.
Dave Sanders wrote:
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.
Fro opined the A1 focuses noticeably better than the A7iv, but didn't quite have the data to prove it. I'm curious whether AF is better than the A9. Even if iv AF matches the A9, a few others have pointed out that the stacked sensor really helps with many shooting situations beyond BIF. Just happy I went to the A9 now. I would have had total FOMO had the A7iv had a stacked sensor with FPS crippling, though. Whew!
I am disappointed with a7IV. Not that it has bad specs but for wildlife I am interested in it lacks, greatly.
I wished for something like R6/R5 or actually something inbetween, for instance 1/60s - 1/100s readout speed with blackout and 12-15 fps. It would still lack greatly compared to A9 sensor capabilities - no blackout, some rolling shutter. But its e-shutter would be useful up to slow paced action.
michal.narozny wrote:
I am disappointed with a7IV. Not that it has bad specs but for wildlife I am interested in it lacks, greatly.
I wished for something like R6/R5 or actually something inbetween, for instance 1/60s - 1/100s readout speed with blackout and 12-15 fps. It would still lack greatly compared to A9 sensor capabilities - no blackout, some rolling shutter. But its e-shutter would be useful up to slow paced action.
Why not pick up a used A9 which is much better than any of the other cameras you mentioned for wildlife. Also cheaper used.
Newenglandrocks wrote:
Fro opined the A1 focuses noticeably better than the A7iv, but didn't quite have the data to prove it. I'm curious whether AF is better than the A9. Even if iv AF matches the A9, a few others have pointed out that the stacked sensor really helps with many shooting situations beyond BIF. Just happy I went to the A9 now. I would have had total FOMO had the A7iv had a stacked sensor with FPS crippling, though. Whew!
A9 still does 3x the AF calculations per second. A7IV won't touch it...nevermind how much easier it is to shoot fast action with a live feed EVF.
I can't see any way in which the A7IV will best the A9 for AF other than having Bird Eye AF.
IMO the A1 isn't even all that much better than A9 when just used in Wide and Zone non-tracking versions (which is all I use anyways for fast action). Yes the A1 does seem to get a bit higher hit rate but the A9 already has such a high hit rate that the gains are marginal.
I think we'll just have to wait until the a7iv is available and gets properly reviewed with by someone a little more impartial. All these initial 'previews' are just product adverts. They never have anything bad to say, breeze over any shortcomings about the product, obviously they don't want to upset Sony as they won't get future products to 'review'.
I'm a little disapointed by the 5 uncompressed raw fps, especially when the a7iii does 10. Even my 13year old Nikon D700 does 7 or 8fps with the grip uncompressed raw.
So interesting to read peoples comments about this camera. With so many choices in the new and used Sony body lineup and the extensive lens choices for e-mount it seems to me that the Sony ecosystem is fantastic. I guess it is human behavior to complain even though there are currently options available that better meet some people needs. I was happy to pay 1800 for the A7C and 700 more for the improvements in the A7IV are reasonable to me. The A7IV has so many more improvements that I care about then spending a similar amount for a used A7R3 or 4 which I have owned. I have no interest in comparing the A7IV specs to other brands because of the great Sony ecosystem. Happily awaiting a preorder delivery in late Dec. I’ll keep my A7C and with a pancake fast prime it is a great concealed carry camera when out to dinner, cross country skiing etc and use the A74 with multiple primes carried in my new Atlas Athlete pack when I want to focus on photography
arbitrage wrote:
A9 still does 3x the AF calculations per second. A7IV won't touch it...nevermind how much easier it is to shoot fast action with a live feed EVF.
I can't see any way in which the A7IV will best the A9 for AF other than having Bird Eye AF.
IMO the A1 isn't even all that much better than A9 when just used in Wide and Zone non-tracking versions (which is all I use anyways for fast action). Yes the A1 does seem to get a bit higher hit rate but the A9 already has such a high hit rate that the gains are marginal....Show more →
My suspicion is that the AF performance will be decidedly different between the A9 and the A7IV because they have different strengths.
The A9 definitely has the better AF sensor, but the processing on the A7IV is wildly more capable than the A9.
I'd bet the A9 will have faster AF and generally faster tracking, but the A7IV will track better/stickier when presented with difficult subjects.
Don't assume the A9 is doing more calculations per second, it's delivering more data updates per second, but the A7IV has more horsepower and may well be doing extra calculations per update.
For your uses, I'd bet on the A9 remaining the preferred choice, outside of some edge cases around Bird Eye AF and general subject recognition. For other uses where the subject recognition comes to the fore, the A7IV may edge it out just because it has that extra processing power and updated AF algorithms that the A9 lacks.
GMPhotography wrote:
On IBIS it maybe the last thing I look at. Seriously learn to hand hold a camera . Stop drinking coffee . I don’t know but it’s a endless conversation and worse a actual factor in buying for some. You know they make tripods , monopods, chest pods and even table top
Just sayin
That's all fine until you mount something like a 200-600mm on it and look through the EVF handheld (a common activity for me and pretty much everyone else who does wildlife). Try doing this on a platform that properly combines IBIS + OSS and you'll have a much much better experience (even Fuji's now do a decent job at this, albeit eased by the smaller APS-C sensor they need to move around).
mawz wrote:
The A9 definitely has the better AF sensor, but the processing on the A7IV is wildly more capable than the A9.
Good points.
Picking up on this one in particular....my experience between A9II and A1 doesn't give me great confidence that the new processor is going to make much, if any, difference. As I said improvements are marginal because the A9 already performs at such a high level.
I've never used the A7SIII but I'd guess that at most the A7IV will match that but maybe not as the A7SIII is scanning the sensor faster.
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.
For the record, electronic shutter has no bokeh artifacts. In fact it is perfect in that sense because the shutter plane and image plane is identical. It is when you mix mechanical and electronic shutter you get the most problems, i.e. when using efcs.
Picking up on this one in particular....my experience between A9II and A1 doesn't give me great confidence that the new processor is going to make much, if any, difference. As I said improvements are marginal because the A9 already performs at such a high level.
I've never used the A7SIII but I'd guess that at most the A7IV will match that but maybe not as the A7SIII is scanning the sensor faster.
I think your subjects reward AF update speed more than pure tracking stickiness and the A1 and A7IV's advantages over the A9 are with the latter.
My guess is the A7IV will beat the A9 for things like maintaining a lock on a person's eye with really shallow DoF in event or video work, rather than updating fast enough to track a really fast moving and unpredictable bird in flight. It will be where the primary issue is subject recognition rather than update speed, because that's where the processor and algorithms matter the most.
Went to preorder and saw ship date wasn't till Dec 30th? Wish these companies wouldnt even release stuff if you cant ship it. Either way will likely pre-order if Canon doesn't release a 35m 1.4 or 1.2 by then. Love my R6 but hate the weight and lack of quality 35mm lens. Love the Sony 35mm 1.4gm.
randomguy wrote:
For the record, electronic shutter has no bokeh artifacts. In fact it is perfect in that sense because the shutter plane and image plane is identical. It is when you mix mechanical and electronic shutter you get the most problems, i.e. when using efcs.
Yes, EFCS is the issue. Fred Miranda's very own Luis Gabriel has an excellent video that illustrates this very clearly:
The comparison photos are around 1m 30s.
EDIT: I should mention that Luis is using the Sigma 105/1.4, so it's a good example of how a lens with superlative bokeh can be made to look pedestrian.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Yes, EFCS is the issue. Fred Miranda's very own Luis Gabriel has an excellent video that illustrates this very clearly:
The comparison photos are around 1m 30s.
EDIT: I should mention that Luis is using the Sigma 105/1.4, so it's a good example of how a lens with superlative bokeh can be made to look pedestrian.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Yes, EFCS is the issue. Fred Miranda's very own Luis Gabriel has an excellent video that illustrates this very clearly:
The comparison photos are around 1m 30s.
EDIT: I should mention that Luis is using the Sigma 105/1.4, so it's a good example of how a lens with superlative bokeh can be made to look pedestrian.
So should I leave this permanently off on my a9? Or only when shooting at fast shutter speeds? That''s a real hit to the quality of the bokeh.
