GabrielPhoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Pre-order: Sony Alpha a7 IV Mirrorless | |
chez wrote:
mawz wrote:
Holger wrote:
mawz wrote:
 zz wrote:
I really don't get the point that reviewers are praising the A7IV for having the same level of pixel quality as the A7III. If there's a three year difference between these two cameras and the A7IV has a completely new sensor, isn't that what's expected? 
The A7IV just isn't a clear-cut upgrade over the A7III and that's a problem for Sony I think. It should be an immediate upgrade, and for photograpthers this doesn't seem to be that.
Actually having the same per-pixel performance with a 40% increase in pixel count is actually a pretty big deal. That's one of the larger jumps in per-pixel performance we've seen since we saw the switch to dual gain BSI sensors (it's actually a bigger improvement in IQ than the A7II->A7III sensor change)
I'm on the fence about the A7IV as a big upgrade. I think it is a big upgrade over the A7III, improving just about everything except fps but I also think it's not enough to justify both being a generational update and a 25% price hike.
If it had been $2k, it would have been a no-brainer for most A7III users. Everything gets better, except FPS, IBIS and battery life (I don't expect the 0.5 stop CIPA improvement to be meaningful and while the A7IV is still best in class for battery, it isn't nearly as good as the A7III which is to be expected from the much more power hungry EVF and faster processing chain).
At $2500 it simply has no compelling feature to justify the price. The R6 has 20fps with tracking, the S1 had the wildly class leading video (at release) and build/EVF. Today, the A7IV has 33MP, but it's at a price point where it also competes against new Z7's and A7RIII's both of which beat it handily there.
"it also competes against new Z7's and A7RIII's both of which beat it handily there."
Huh? I used the A7riii for quite some time. I bet the A7iv runs circles around it. It has its strengths, but also many weaknesses. The only advantage of the A7riii is the higher MP count, for those who need that. If I want to shoot landscape stuff only, the A7riii is a fantastic value. But video quality, operating spped, EVF, LCD, AF, ...?
Why should the Z7 or R6 be preferable? Just look at the DR measurement:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R6,Nikon%20Z%207,Sony%20ILCE-7M3
The R6 20 fps is nice, but limited (slow readout, 20MP). Is that feature really enough to justify that price, but the sum of the features in the A7iv and likely better IQ isn't? In my opinion, there doesn't have to be one distinct feature to justify the price, the whole package suffices.
I'm talking specifically about 33MP being a selling point of the A7IV, the Z7 and A7RIII both beat it on MP for pretty much identical cost.
As to the R6, while 20fps is limited, 12fps mechanical is not and the A7IV can be as little as 5fps in configurations that the R6 is 12fps (uncompressed RAW....)
But you are picking individual features from different cameras. Sure the R6 has better fps...but it sucks with its 2005 20mpux sensor. From a complete package, the A74 looks pretty damn good.
Sorry, but how does 20mp suck but 24mp, which is BARELY anything over 20mp in real-world side by side, is perfectly fine as in the A9, A9ii, and A7iii?
Sure for some the higher res of the A7 IV will be a better option over the R6 but for others it could be the opposite in terms of what features each camera offers. Just feel that to just say "2005" 20MP is not a fair statement.
|
