Is it worthwhile pre order the new Sony a7 IV or should I go for the Sony a7 III?

deednets said:

liopleurodon said:

Garyster said:

A73 is a pretty amazing camera (I use it for my full-time wedding business).

Please don't think the V4 will make you a better photographer (it won't).

Click to expand...

I do not understand this argument. Will it make you better at composition/framing? No, clearly not. Will it make you understand lighting and posing your subject better? How could it? However, will it's upgraded AF system help you get more sharp photos with moving subjects? Obviously. Will the 33mp give you more room to crop? Yes. Will the improved ergonomics help the camera further get out of your way as you make images? Of course. The a7m4 can absolutely improve your results. Like many things photography is an art and a science. Better equipment means you can focus more on the art part as it makes the science part fade into the background.

deednets said:

Get the V3 now and see if you feel hindered by it's features (you won't).

If you cannot take the pix you like with the V3, getting the V4 won't solve this for you.

HTH

g

Click to expand...

I can't take real HDR footage with the a7m3 no matter how good a videographer I am. I can with the a7m4.

Click to expand...

Over the last 50+ years i have "followed" (possibly too strong a word) the argument as to whether a Plaubel or a Z9 makes you a better photographer.

My gut feeling was always leaning towards the Plaubel as it was more necessary to think, plan and then execute.

Since I have a strong interest in cultures, mathematics and philosophy, here is a question for you:

If more in-focus images are better, then getting an infinite number of images in focus would be best. Correct so far? If then a technology allows you to get everything in perfect focus at the scene, which can then by way of software later de-selected, this would then mean an infinite number of images that are all perfectly in focus where you want it to be, blur what's of no importance, apply a Zeiss algorithm, or a Noctilux one, and get millions of images which are just perfect. There are already cameras out there that could potentially do that and APPLE is trying to train its iPhones to simulate that.

So if you then use a wide angle with 1terapixel of resolution, or a vector based truly organic sensor (for scaling) then you would only have to take a million pics - and you would get close to perfection images?

Sorry got carried away here, but when people ask this evergreen question: will it make me a better photographer, I think in terms of infinity and this at the same time:

Plaubel, slow down - and think about your means! Diminishing returns when watching a BlueRay versus a pirated 720p video? MP3 versus DVD audio? A7III versus IV?

Simplified: better is better. Optimal is different, Art very different and learning and understanding doesn't happen anymore when you use the 1Tpx multi-focus camera.

Maybe for another day, aye??

Deed

Click to expand...

You pose interesting questions. There is much truth to the idea that less capable equipment makes us more deliberate and cautious with our work. I don't dispute that. My counter argument is more of an "OK buy why" type of thought.

My focus on photography is pragmatic. I'm an ethusiast who mostly shoots candids, faily events and environmental portraits. Spontaneity is often the name of the game. We've all had a candid shot where we framed it well; froze a wonderful moment in time... and the camera's autofocus biffed; subject is unsuitably out of focus. Or in the case that applies directly to OP's quesiton; my a7 III's issue is that the AF will sometimes wander off an intended subject at a most inopportune time. Also its eye af will often decide my daughter's eyes don't exist since she wears glasses and grab another face in frame instead which it will not abandon unless i switch to different AF area or disable eyeAF. Then instead of trying to make a great image of her playing I'm fighting with the AF system to focus on what I want focused on and I miss shots I have no opportunity to retake. In that sense an a7 IV will improve my photography with a sticker and more accurate AF system. The tap-to-track will also reduce my effort needed to have good focus in video.

It's no different then other pursuits. I had a cheap tool shop weight on a stick hammer and was tasked with installing underlayment with ring shank nails. After an hour of hammering I decided there has to be a better way. Bought an Estwing hammer for 3x the cost. Because of its single piece forged design the tool was more balanced and my hammering was less fatiguing and more accurate reducing the time and effort to get the job done. Was I made a better flooring installer when I used the less capable hammer? How about for my next project when I bought a round head nailer to install the underlayment with ring shanks instead of manually hammering. I didn't need to be nearly as cautious or deliberate as i was even with the estwing hammer; the nailer handled everything for me other than "where does the nail go". When I buy sherwin-williams paint I can load rollers up with more paint and roll it faster and thicker without runs vs some colored water like Behr or Glidden. One could argue the Behr would force me to be more deliberate with my craft and develop more skill. My counter argument would be "so what"? Is the end goal the craft itself or the results? In my case, though I enjoy the process, the goal of photography/videography is the results. If a tool helps me get them with less time or effort or even improves the quality of my results I'll buy it.

deednets said:

will it make me a better photographer, I think in terms of infinity and this at the same time:

Click to expand...

Interesting argument! The job of the photographer then would be to select among the infinity of images "the best" - so the creative process gets shifted from the time you take the image to the time you edit or select the image you want to present to the world.

liopleurodon said:

deednets said:

liopleurodon said:

Garyster said:

A73 is a pretty amazing camera (I use it for my full-time wedding business).

Please don't think the V4 will make you a better photographer (it won't).

Click to expand...

I do not understand this argument. Will it make you better at composition/framing? No, clearly not. Will it make you understand lighting and posing your subject better? How could it? However, will it's upgraded AF system help you get more sharp photos with moving subjects? Obviously. Will the 33mp give you more room to crop? Yes. Will the improved ergonomics help the camera further get out of your way as you make images? Of course. The a7m4 can absolutely improve your results. Like many things photography is an art and a science. Better equipment means you can focus more on the art part as it makes the science part fade into the background.

liopleurodon said:

Get the V3 now and see if you feel hindered by it's features (you won't).

If you cannot take the pix you like with the V3, getting the V4 won't solve this for you.

HTH

g

Click to expand...

I can't take real HDR footage with the a7m3 no matter how good a videographer I am. I can with the a7m4.

Click to expand...

Over the last 50+ years i have "followed" (possibly too strong a word) the argument as to whether a Plaubel or a Z9 makes you a better photographer.

My gut feeling was always leaning towards the Plaubel as it was more necessary to think, plan and then execute.

Since I have a strong interest in cultures, mathematics and philosophy, here is a question for you:

If more in-focus images are better, then getting an infinite number of images in focus would be best. Correct so far? If then a technology allows you to get everything in perfect focus at the scene, which can then by way of software later de-selected, this would then mean an infinite number of images that are all perfectly in focus where you want it to be, blur what's of no importance, apply a Zeiss algorithm, or a Noctilux one, and get millions of images which are just perfect. There are already cameras out there that could potentially do that and APPLE is trying to train its iPhones to simulate that.

So if you then use a wide angle with 1terapixel of resolution, or a vector based truly organic sensor (for scaling) then you would only have to take a million pics - and you would get close to perfection images?

Sorry got carried away here, but when people ask this evergreen question: will it make me a better photographer, I think in terms of infinity and this at the same time:

Plaubel, slow down - and think about your means! Diminishing returns when watching a BlueRay versus a pirated 720p video? MP3 versus DVD audio? A7III versus IV?

Simplified: better is better. Optimal is different, Art very different and learning and understanding doesn't happen anymore when you use the 1Tpx multi-focus camera.

Maybe for another day, aye??

Deed

Click to expand...

You pose interesting questions. There is much truth to the idea that less capable equipment makes us more deliberate and cautious with our work. I don't dispute that. My counter argument is more of an "OK buy why" type of thought.

My focus on photography is pragmatic. I'm an ethusiast who mostly shoots candids, faily events and environmental portraits. Spontaneity is often the name of the game. We've all had a candid shot where we framed it well; froze a wonderful moment in time... and the camera's autofocus biffed; subject is unsuitably out of focus. Or in the case that applies directly to OP's quesiton; my a7 III's issue is that the AF will sometimes wander off an intended subject at a most inopportune time. Also its eye af will often decide my daughter's eyes don't exist since she wears glasses and grab another face in frame instead which it will not abandon unless i switch to different AF area or disable eyeAF. Then instead of trying to make a great image of her playing I'm fighting with the AF system to focus on what I want focused on and I miss shots I have no opportunity to retake. In that sense an a7 IV will improve my photography with a sticker and more accurate AF system. The tap-to-track will also reduce my effort needed to have good focus in video.

It's no different then other pursuits. I had a cheap tool shop weight on a stick hammer and was tasked with installing underlayment with ring shank nails. After an hour of hammering I decided there has to be a better way. Bought an Estwing hammer for 3x the cost. Because of its single piece forged design the tool was more balanced and my hammering was less fatiguing and more accurate reducing the time and effort to get the job done. Was I made a better flooring installer when I used the less capable hammer? How about for my next project when I bought a round head nailer to install the underlayment with ring shanks instead of manually hammering. I didn't need to be nearly as cautious or deliberate as i was even with the estwing hammer; the nailer handled everything for me other than "where does the nail go". When I buy sherwin-williams paint I can load rollers up with more paint and roll it faster and thicker without runs vs some colored water like Behr or Glidden. One could argue the Behr would force me to be more deliberate with my craft and develop more skill. My counter argument would be "so what"? Is the end goal the craft itself or the results? In my case, though I enjoy the process, the goal of photography/videography is the results. If a tool helps me get them with less time or effort or even improves the quality of my results I'll buy it.

Click to expand...

Funny story. I started doing a deck an after an hour or so my Stanley El Cheapo gave up and I could no longer pull the old nails.

Bought an Estwing, which I still have ;-)

Why is an interesting question you might not want to ask a painter. Or, my personal favourite, why not take a Russian helicopter up the Anapurna? If the result is all that matters??

Deed

liopleurodon said:

Garyster said:

A73 is a pretty amazing camera (I use it for my full-time wedding business).

Please don't think the V4 will make you a better photographer (it won't).

Click to expand...

I do not understand this argument. Will it make you better at composition/framing? No, clearly not. Will it make you understand lighting and posing your subject better? How could it? However, will it's upgraded AF system help you get more sharp photos with moving subjects? Obviously. Will the 33mp give you more room to crop? Yes. Will the improved ergonomics help the camera further get out of your way as you make images? Of course. The a7m4 can absolutely improve your results. Like many things photography is an art and a science. Better equipment means you can focus more on the art part as it makes the science part fade into the background.

liopleurodon said:

Get the V3 now and see if you feel hindered by it's features (you won't).

If you cannot take the pix you like with the V3, getting the V4 won't solve this for you.

HTH

g

Click to expand...

I can't take real HDR footage with the a7m3 no matter how good a videographer I am. I can with the a7m4.

Click to expand...

With the improvements in auto focus tech in the new cameras, then the argument that any camera won't improve your technique, etc mute. If the AF on the A7IV is vastly improved over the A7III then yes, it's worth buying the A7IV.

If it's the case that it's the user not the gear then everyone wouldn't be buying the A1 or R5.

Fbbrv said:

For a series of reasons I want to switch from my current fuji aps-c setup to a Sony full frame camera.

Click to expand...

What are the reasons? These will be important in determining whether the incremental cost would be worth it.

IMO, for someone who identifies as a beginner, the jump from the A7III to IV is not worth it, unless there is something specific about the A7IV that will benefit you and is worth waiting + paying another $1000 or so.

Something else to consider.... if you're OK with buying used an A9 can be cheaper than an A7IV and is available immediately. MPs aside that seems like a much better camera for general photography.

sportyaccordy said:

Fbbrv said:

For a series of reasons I want to switch from my current fuji aps-c setup to a Sony full frame camera.

Click to expand...

What are the reasons? These will be important in determining whether the incremental cost would be worth it.

IMO, for someone who identifies as a beginner, the jump from the A7III to IV is not worth it, unless there is something specific about the A7IV that will benefit you and is worth waiting + paying another $1000 or so.

Something else to consider.... if you're OK with buying used an A9 can be cheaper than an A7IV and is available immediately. MPs aside that seems like a much better camera for general photography.

Click to expand...

Regarding mega pixels, I've had this discussion with my far better half quite a bit. How much is enough? I always thought that the more the merrier. But I've always had better luck with 24mp's than the 61mp's in the A7RIV. While the A9 is 4.5 years old it's still a great camera with excellent AF. Of course it's lacking in some areas that the A9II and A1 offer, but still an excellent camera none the less.

Maybe, maybe Sony will offer Bird Eye AF in the A9II and lower the price a bit now that the A1 has been out for 9 months now. And especially now that the Canon R5 and Nikon Z9 is out at a lower price option.

AZheaven said:

Regarding mega pixels, I've had this discussion with my far better half quite a bit. How much is enough? I always thought that the more the merrier. But I've always had better luck with 24mp's than the 61mp's in the A7RIV.

Click to expand...

You can always downsample to 24MP. This can be automated in Capture One (output recipes). I never print, but I love Megapixels:

• I love to zoom into my photos and discover details I had not seen before.
• I love the ability to crop severely. Beats carrying a heavy tele.
• For architecture, if you want to "screw-transform" to correct falling lines, the more megapixel you have to work with the better.

With todays computers and storage being so cheap, there really is no downside to having more megapixels.

sportyaccordy said:

Fbbrv said:

For a series of reasons I want to switch from my current fuji aps-c setup to a Sony full frame camera.

Click to expand...

What are the reasons? These will be important in determining whether the incremental cost would be worth it.

IMO, for someone who identifies as a beginner, the jump from the A7III to IV is not worth it, unless there is something specific about the A7IV that will benefit you and is worth waiting + paying another $1000 or so.

Something else to consider.... if you're OK with buying used an A9 can be cheaper than an A7IV and is available immediately. MPs aside that seems like a much better camera for general photography.

Click to expand...

Once you have decided on the range of cameras you want to buy, buy the best one you can afford. Buy the best lenses you can afford, even if you are beginner. The two best reasons are:

1. If you like the camera you can keep it for a longer period of time.

2. If you don't like it you can sell it generally for a higher percentage of what you paid for it.

Don't let the fact that these cameras are extremely configurable, even a beginner can put a camera in Auto and get dynamite pictures.

4Photos said:

4Photos said:

Regarding mega pixels, I've had this discussion with my far better half quite a bit. How much is enough? I always thought that the more the merrier. But I've always had better luck with 24mp's than the 61mp's in the A7RIV.

Click to expand...

You can always downsample to 24MP. This can be automated in Capture One (output recipes). I never print, but I love Megapixels:

• I love to zoom into my photos and discover details I had not seen before.
• I love the ability to crop severely. Beats carrying a heavy tele.
• For architecture, if you want to "screw-transform" to correct falling lines, the more megapixel you have to work with the better.

With todays computers and storage being so cheap, there really is no downside to having more megapixels.

Click to expand...

One downside is that if you don't already have the computer, you would need to upgrade. Its like adding a couch to a room and all of a sudden the old furniture and rugs need to be upgraded...

jhunna said:

sportyaccordy said:

Fbbrv said:

For a series of reasons I want to switch from my current fuji aps-c setup to a Sony full frame camera.

Click to expand...

What are the reasons? These will be important in determining whether the incremental cost would be worth it.

IMO, for someone who identifies as a beginner, the jump from the A7III to IV is not worth it, unless there is something specific about the A7IV that will benefit you and is worth waiting + paying another $1000 or so.

Something else to consider.... if you're OK with buying used an A9 can be cheaper than an A7IV and is available immediately. MPs aside that seems like a much better camera for general photography.

Click to expand...

Once you have decided on the range of cameras you want to buy, buy the best one you can afford. Buy the best lenses you can afford, even if you are beginner. The two best reasons are:

1. If you like the camera you can keep it for a longer period of time.

Click to expand...

I dont understand this.

jhunna said:

2. If you don't like it you can sell it generally for a higher percentage of what you paid for it.

Click to expand...

This isn't true either. A7III resale values are insanely high relative to MSRP, and IMO will stay that way once Sony starts dropping that price. And if you buy lenses used they pretty much all don't lose value, cheap or expensive.

jhunna said:

Don't let the fact that these cameras are extremely configurable, even a beginner can put a camera in Auto and get dynamite pictures.

Click to expand...

Which makes a more expensive camera less logical as the beginner won't be leveraging its capabilities. Once they reach the limits of the cheaper camera they can always upgrade, and by the time they want to the better camera will probably be cheaper.

I def think there's a floor below which people shouldn't enter Sony FE, but I also think a newbie shouldn't grab an A1 because they can afford it.

If you can wait until next year, possibly spring some say (will take that long to fulfill all the pre-orders already in), IMHO the IV is in every way the way to go.

The only backwards step I can see is the selfie LCD. But that is not all that bad, and it's always about trade offs anyway.

All the other specs and features are a no-brainer, if you are buying into the 7, and the III meets your needs. The IV will as will, just better.

I just moved to Sony last month. If this had been 10 years ago, maybe even 5, I would have wanted the IV.

I just watched Chris Turners video regarding his take on the A7IV. His camera has the 1.0 firmware included while the first initial cameras sent out didn't. He did (ok, let the bashing begin) say the AF is on par with the A9II....if not better. If Sony only did a stacked sensor and gave us 15fps...

Fbbrv said:

The most interesting thing for me would be the improved autofocus, I'm never getting really interested in the video side. The other interesting thing is the full HDMI port, in the future some underwater case producer could use it for external monitor (at the moment those monitors already exists using mini HDMI).

Click to expand...

If you are looking for truly huge change in AF speed, accuracy, and tracking consider the A9 used. It is an older camera but first with stacked sensor meaning D-RAM on the sensor for very fast read out speeds and AF. But it will be behind in othe way 24 MP (should be enough), 8-bit video, tracking but not the latest (still good), older menus, and smaller, grip. But the AF grabs very quickly and good low light performance. It is a compromise for very good AF. You might want to rent and try first.

s-trap said:

Fbbrv said:

a part from underwater photography (main reason for why I’m looking to change the rig)

Click to expand...

In underwater you may need speed (fps) to catch the best moment and high quality RAW for freedom of post processing (white balance etc).

Both these aspects are compromised in A7 IV for resolution. It requires lossy compressed RAW for high fps and then downgrades to 12 bit.

On the other hand the AF tracking should be better.

If AF is important to you, you may consider A9, as it is actually cheaper than A7 IV with current cashback, brand new.

Click to expand...

This is overblown. Sony lossy compression only matters in edge cases.

And doubly so underwater, where many (most?) people use external strobes that aren't shooting at 10 FPS.

Scott Alan said:

Fbbrv said:

The most interesting thing for me would be the improved autofocus, I'm never getting really interested in the video side. The other interesting thing is the full HDMI port, in the future some underwater case producer could use it for external monitor (at the moment those monitors already exists using mini HDMI).

Click to expand...

If you are looking for truly huge change in AF speed, accuracy, and tracking consider the A9 used. It is an older camera but first with stacked sensor meaning D-RAM on the sensor for very fast read out speeds and AF. But it will be behind in othe way 24 MP (should be enough), 8-bit video, tracking but not the latest (still good), older menus, and smaller, grip. But the AF grabs very quickly and good low light performance. It is a compromise for very good AF. You might want to rent and try first.

Click to expand...

The A9 AF is likely a downgrade to the A7IV, and would be a regression in many other areas.

jhunna said:

4Photos said:

jhunna said:

Regarding mega pixels, I've had this discussion with my far better half quite a bit. How much is enough? I always thought that the more the merrier. But I've always had better luck with 24mp's than the 61mp's in the A7RIV.

Click to expand...

You can always downsample to 24MP. This can be automated in Capture One (output recipes). I never print, but I love Megapixels:

• I love to zoom into my photos and discover details I had not seen before.
• I love the ability to crop severely. Beats carrying a heavy tele.
• For architecture, if you want to "screw-transform" to correct falling lines, the more megapixel you have to work with the better.

With todays computers and storage being so cheap, there really is no downside to having more megapixels.

Click to expand...

One downside is that if you don't already have the computer, you would need to upgrade. Its like adding a couch to a room and all of a sudden the old furniture and rugs need to be upgraded...

Click to expand...

I have an older computer, and going from 24MP to 42MP wasn't a hit to my editing. Importing and previews take longer, with a slightly longer "pop in" when I move to each image. But it's not a material difference. I doubt anyone will notice 24MP->33MP.

If your budget can support it, the A7IV is better in every way, and a direct upgrade from Fuji's best.

If your budget strains with the A7IV, a used A7III is a great option.

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

Don't let the fact that these cameras are extremely configurable, even a beginner can put a camera in Auto and get dynamite pictures.

Click to expand...

Which makes a more expensive camera less logical as the beginner won't be leveraging its capabilities. Once they reach the limits of the cheaper camera they can always upgrade, and by the time they want to the better camera will probably be cheaper.

I def think there's a floor below which people shouldn't enter Sony FE, but I also think a newbie shouldn't grab an A1 because they can afford it.

Click to expand...

There is a bit more “zen” to what I suggested, I don’t think a real beginner would go for an A1, but the op selected two cameras that are in his “ space”. In that scenario take the most advanced camera.

BrentSchumer said:

If your budget can support it, the A7IV is better in every way, and a direct upgrade from Fuji's best.

If your budget strains with the A7IV, a used A7III is a great option.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Stated perfectly.

The A7 IV looks amazing and I really like the video features and the articulating screen. It is of course the better camera. But a few months ago I pulled the trigger on the A7 III during a Sony cashback deal and got the A7 III for $1740 new. The A7 IV is $3250 in my country. That's a difference of $1510. I could almost buy two new A7 III camera's for the price of one A7 IV.