Holger wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: DavidBM wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: DavidBM wrote: httivals wrote:
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)
Has anybody seen the behavior described by Lloyd Chambers regarding the 12-24:
"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
Yes, I have noticed some pretty obvious focus shift for the corners when comparing wide open and stopped down behavior at infinity with this lens too. At least that's the case for my fourth copy, which is the least decentered one I've tried so far. However it does have some swing that after more careful testing turns out to be evident even stopped down to f6.3 at the extremes of its range. I have #5 on its way to me, so if by any stroke of luck it has decent corner symmetry across the whole range I'll report back on its focus shift.
Oct 05, 2020 at 06:03 AM
Previous versions of rvh23's message #15366513 « Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review »
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)