keepcoding wrote:
It is supposed to be 2799€ in Europe. If that's true it is pretty much DOA
It won't be DOA with that price, with the leaked specs many people still gonna be happy to pay this much and i'm pretty sure preorder numbers will be off the charts.
Parts shortage, covid and whatnot but this doesn't look half as good (bang per buck) as A7III when it released imho... Unless there is something we still don't know, that is .
j4nu wrote:
Parts shorage, covid and whatnot but this doesn't look half as good (bang per buck) as A7III when it released imho... Unless there is something we still don't know, that is .
I think if anyone is expecting huge improvements between releases yet keeping the price basically the same will be disappointed going forward. Today's cameras are all very capable and future releases will be incremental.
chez wrote:
I think if anyone is expecting huge improvements between releases yet keeping the price basically the same will be disappointed going forward. Today's cameras are all very capable and future releases will be incremental.
I wouldn't call +500$ "basically, the same" but to each, his own. Or I don't see the "huge improvements" .
Anyways, my comment was mostly about the relative value to the current market offerings...
patriot wrote:
In the digital world, it makes sense for camera manufacturer's to include video as an option on their stills cameras. Why not? It's not like trying to add a cassette to a film camera would have been. It's a relatively easy add-in to offer a more versatile product which leads to incremental sales.
BUT in this form factor, these are all basically stills cameras. I.e. they are not the ideal form factor for video. So, IMHO on this topic, there has to be Brand guard rails, or a "prime directive", that product management needs to adhere to: accommodating video on a stills camera should not compromise the primary purpose. Go to far, and they will loose their brand proposition. That its the graveyard of marketing.
These non-"letter" 7's are said to Sony's entry level FF. So they can lean more into video, I think, vs the R, and remain true to their Prime Directive. But Sony offers the "S", which I believe IS their more video-centric 7.
If Sony is not careful, and blur the line too much, that opens the door for another brand like Nikon or Canon, or even Fuji, to appeal to photographers. Of course that has too be combined with performance and other factors ... which is starting to happen.
I just switched to Sony from Fuji. Several factors on this, but one, perhaps down the list but a real concern, is their decision to replace a solid and very useful flip screen on their X-T4 with a vloger's cheaply made floppy screen. Many Fuji customers feel this way too. They also "wasted" a useful dial for video. Fuji also has tried to position one model as a more "video" featured body. The X-TX series was NOT it.
If I was into video and vloging, personally I'd buy a camcorder form factor, that can take stills. See, it works both ways: don't compromise the camcorder's "prime directive" either.
From a marketing standpoint, I think is bigger opportunity for manufacturers for incremental sales vs overly compromising stills cameras. I think ONE has the right idea ... and it's not Fuji or Sony: Panasonic BS1H.
I agree with you, but you're looking at it from the perspective of a customer who is stills oriented and most consumers aren't.
If Sony were to produce a stills camera only it would hurt sales as the expectation is that every stills camera must have video functionality.
Every phone and stills camera has it, also, some video cameras have stills functionality, the Blackmgaic 4&6K PCC for example have a dedicated still image capture button.
chez wrote:
Why does it need at least 6k? It's an entry level camera and most of the video taken with entry level are viewed either on phones or iPads where the existing video is just fine. If one wants more professional options, Sony has many, but for the casual photographer which the entry level A7 series camera is aimed at, they sure don't need anymore video capabilities than what the A7 already has.
Because 4K standard frame rates (24,25,30p) is old news, the 7R2 shoots glorious 4K in S35 and decent 4K FF and is almost 7 years old.
It still available too and for significantly less money than the 74 is likely to land at (it's aud1400 now, the 74 is likely to be at least aud2400 since the 73 is currently that price).
Yes it will likely have 4K60 in crop and standard frame rate video will be 10bit, not 8bit, but that's still old news, 6K at this price point is where it's gotta be.
I'm guessing Sony will drop the ball again and offer only 4K though.
Bob_S wrote:
Yes it will likely have 4K60 in crop and standard frame rate video will be 10bit, not 8bit, but that's still old news, 6K at this price point is where it's gotta be.
I'm guessing Sony will drop the ball again and offer only 4K though.
Agreed. Unfortunately they can't really offer 6k without alienating or upsetting all the people who just forked over the money for SIII/FX3's. I said it then, and I'll say it again: SIII being released in 2020 (and after such a long development time) should have had 6k. Surely they had to know Canon was working on 8k and Panasonic had claimed years ago that their goal was 8k by 2020, and then on top of that BMPCC was already at 6k.
It would have made far more sense to do that, plus keep the A1 plans for 8k, and then just offer either TOTL 4k for the A7IV (10 bit, 4k120, etc) or slightly nerfed 6k. The lineup would make more sense that way: $6500 8k ultimate body, $3500 video oriented body with no compromises at 6k, and $2500 (another mistake, should be $2000) 4k monster.
Either way, with better 4k or even basic 6k the A7IV would be more of an upgrade over the A7III than what this looks to be. 33mp is nice and all, but in real world usage it's not that big a deal coming from 24mp. At the moment it looks like it's just "a couple more MP, a tilty screen, and a new menu...oh and some networking stuff 99% of people won't use". Was set to preorder but now I think I'll wait, maybe see what a potential RV has hopefully next year.
tdlavigne wrote:
Agreed. Unfortunately they can't really offer 6k without alienating or upsetting all the people who just forked over the money for SIII/FX3's. I said it then, and I'll say it again: SIII being released in 2020 (and after such a long development time) should have had 6k. Surely they had to know Canon was working on 8k and Panasonic had claimed years ago that their goal was 8k by 2020, and then on top of that BMPCC was already at 6k.
It would have made far more sense to do that, plus keep the A1 plans for 8k, and then just offer either TOTL 4k for the A7IV (10 bit, 4k120, etc) or slightly nerfed 6k. The lineup would make more sense that way: $6500 8k ultimate body, $3500 video oriented body with no compromises at 6k, and $2500 (another mistake, should be $2000) 4k monster.
Either way, with better 4k or even basic 6k the A7IV would be more of an upgrade over the A7III than what this looks to be. 33mp is nice and all, but in real world usage it's not that big a deal coming from 24mp. At the moment it looks like it's just "a couple more MP, a tilty screen, and a new menu...oh and some networking stuff 99% of people won't use". Was set to preorder but now I think I'll wait, maybe see what a potential RV has hopefully next year....Show more →
Don't discount the new processor for just a totally better experience overall with speed of operation. That to me is the main reason (along with 33MP and Bird Eye-AF) that I'm actually considering this A7IV as a backup to A1 over an A9 even though this A7IV is going to have rolling shutter and only 10FPS forcing me mostly to MS. I tried shooting my A9II after using my A1 for a couple months and it was so laggy I thought something may have been broken
tdlavigne wrote:
Agreed. Unfortunately they can't really offer 6k without alienating or upsetting all the people who just forked over the money for SIII/FX3's. I said it then, and I'll say it again: SIII being released in 2020 (and after such a long development time) should have had 6k. Surely they had to know Canon was working on 8k and Panasonic had claimed years ago that their goal was 8k by 2020, and then on top of that BMPCC was already at 6k.
It would have made far more sense to do that, plus keep the A1 plans for 8k, and then just offer either TOTL 4k for the A7IV (10 bit, 4k120, etc) or slightly nerfed 6k. The lineup would make more sense that way: $6500 8k ultimate body, $3500 video oriented body with no compromises at 6k, and $2500 (another mistake, should be $2000) 4k monster.
Either way, with better 4k or even basic 6k the A7IV would be more of an upgrade over the A7III than what this looks to be. 33mp is nice and all, but in real world usage it's not that big a deal coming from 24mp. At the moment it looks like it's just "a couple more MP, a tilty screen, and a new menu...oh and some networking stuff 99% of people won't use". Was set to preorder but now I think I'll wait, maybe see what a potential RV has hopefully next year....Show more →
Much better AF system in A7 IV (thanks to new Bionz) is a big deal for people who want to do BIF and video, this alone will be worth the upgrade from A7 III. Not everybody can or want to buy A1. 33 Mpix and a decent video (way better than A9) will be a bonus for many. A IV will be a jack of all trades, master of none and this is fine. That's exactly what Sony is aiming for with this camera in their current lineup.
The S5, S1, X-T3, X-T4, Sigma FP, BMPCC4k, BMPCC6K/Pro, and Z6 II all have better video specs, but only the Fuji and Nikon bodies have usable AF and neither of anywhere near as good as Sonys.
The R6 is either the same or worse than the A7IV. Everything else is outside of this price bracket and so is irrelevant.
Since it has XAVC S-I and 10-bit 4:2:2, I'm expecting a top end bitrate of 280Mbps. That makes HLG and Slog-3 properly viable and we can be done with shitty S-log2 for good. A crop in 4K60p is expected but if rolling shutter isn't awful like in some Sony cameras, I can see plenty of people moving to this body. I'm assuming they will offer DNx support and possibly ProRes HQ/LT at some point. ProRes RAW is obviously possible and competing cameras have it and/or BRAW but I can't see them putting it in this camera as it would cannibalize a portion of the A7SIII and FX3 sales.
I'm not buying it, but if I was I'd only really be disappointed by the EVF and rear LCD resolutions. Everything else looks fine, and the price increase is in line with Sonys 5%/year inflation increases.
The reality is that if you are in the market for a hybrid camera under $2500, the Sony is going to be your best option unless you value stills considerably more than video. For those people, a grey market A7R III is likely the best bet for non-sport/wildlife photography within the Sony system.
Bob_S wrote:
Because 4K standard frame rates (24,25,30p) is old news, the 7R2 shoots glorious 4K in S35 and decent 4K FF and is almost 7 years old.
It still available too and for significantly less money than the 74 is likely to land at (it's aud1400 now, the 74 is likely to be at least aud2400 since the 73 is currently that price).
Yes it will likely have 4K60 in crop and standard frame rate video will be 10bit, not 8bit, but that's still old news, 6K at this price point is where it's gotta be.
I'm guessing Sony will drop the ball again and offer only 4K though....Show more →
You are giving the 7R2 more credit than it deserves: cropped 8-bit video is not glorious—it was great during its time in the sun, but sadly lacking today.
People already underselling the 7IV improvements sight unseen. Sheesh I'm cynical but it looks to be one of Sony's better camera updates. EVF res bump + 120Hz is big deal, A7sIII body and menus, animal eye AF and real time tracking, improved 4K30p from FF, 4K60p from super35, much faster BionZ CPU, no doubt much snappier operation and faster AF. Lacks nothing compared to the R6 other than 20fps mode in ES, which is too fast IMO and should have a 10fps option anyway. Price looks good compared to R6.
I'm with Geoff, might be a good partner for A1 down the track if AF is a nice step up from the A7III.
Only disappointment is sensor scan speed doesn't look to be any better than R6 given it can't do 4K60 from full sensor only crop or possibly line skipped. If sensor scan speed is say1/60 in 12 bit mode, it will be as good as R5 so ES will be usable. What I'd love to see is say 1/50s 14 bit but 1/100s 12 bit then ES would become very usable. Wishful thinking I know.
For me, the question is how does the A74 compare to the A9 as a second camera to an A1. The faster scan speed of the A9 is important to me, more important than minor improvements in DR, in resolution, or in the EVF. The AF of the A9 is also awfully good.
There's some confirmation from Nokishita too now, including mention of a kit-lens combo (but no specifics if that's with the 24-70 or 28-60). He also confirmed two new flashes (I think that had been leaked by SAR too).
Alas there's no further leaks when it comes to specs or pricing from him. https://twitter.com/nokishita_c/status/1450756004048629766
SAR meanwhile is hinting that six weeks from now there's going to be more to come from Sony. That would put that announcement in line with the shipping/delivery date for the A7IV if we go by that week 48/49 window.
tdlavigne wrote:
Agreed. Unfortunately they can't really offer 6k without alienating or upsetting all the people who just forked over the money for SIII/FX3's. I said it then, and I'll say it again: SIII being released in 2020 (and after such a long development time) should have had 6k. Surely they had to know Canon was working on 8k and Panasonic had claimed years ago that their goal was 8k by 2020, and then on top of that BMPCC was already at 6k.
It would have made far more sense to do that, plus keep the A1 plans for 8k, and then just offer either TOTL 4k for the A7IV (10 bit, 4k120, etc) or slightly nerfed 6k. The lineup would make more sense that way: $6500 8k ultimate body, $3500 video oriented body with no compromises at 6k, and $2500 (another mistake, should be $2000) 4k monster.
Either way, with better 4k or even basic 6k the A7IV would be more of an upgrade over the A7III than what this looks to be. 33mp is nice and all, but in real world usage it's not that big a deal coming from 24mp. At the moment it looks like it's just "a couple more MP, a tilty screen, and a new menu...oh and some networking stuff 99% of people won't use". Was set to preorder but now I think I'll wait, maybe see what a potential RV has hopefully next year....Show more →
Agreed. I think they should have made the cinema focused cameras 6K 10bit and the 74 6K 8bit for the separation.
Again, 4K is no big deal, the iPhone X had 4K and 4K60, that was a lifetime ago, so if Sony come with 4K24/25/30p it's going to be a huge let down, no one cares about it being 10bit or whatever, it's all 265 compressed stiff anyway, anyone serious is shooting raw or at the very least some flavour of ProRes.
Atlasman2 wrote:
You are giving the 7R2 more credit than it deserves: cropped 8-bit video is not glorious—it was great during its time in the sun, but sadly lacking today.
It's not cropped, it's 4K available in both cropped and FF and it is glorious, for what is now a AUD1400 (USD1K) camera. Thats easily about a third of what the 74 will retail for.
The difference between the 7R2's 4K 8bit 264 and any 4K 10bit 265 is very, very little.
As I said before, this compressed stuff isn't for grading, anyone that wants decent footage for pushing around in post is shooting ProRes Raw or something like braw.
So, again, to be of any value to video shooters, the 74 will need better than 4K 10bit video, much better, 6K 8 bit will do it for serious sales.
The Blackmagic shoots 6K raw and is AUD2500 (USD1800).
chiron wrote:
For me, the question is how does the A74 compare to the A9 as a second camera to an A1. The faster scan speed of the A9 is important to me, more important than minor improvements in DR, in resolution, or in the EVF. The AF of the A9 is also awfully good.
No one knows.
I'm guessing it'll be close, but the A9 will probably still be a faster camera.
chiron wrote:
For me, the question is how does the A74 compare to the A9 as a second camera to an A1. The faster scan speed of the A9 is important to me, more important than minor improvements in DR, in resolution, or in the EVF. The AF of the A9 is also awfully good.
Same here, if I still had my A9 I would stick with that but as a partner to my A1, primarily due to stacked sensor tech.
However as I need a second body it will be a cheaper one than A9/A9ii.
But then I am thinking that the A1 will be doing the heavy lifting anyhow so maybe the A7iii is a sensible option for what will essentially be a backup/second camera.
.
.