Did a7iv make it harder to decide to get the R6?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Salgado Photo Regular Member • Posts: 377
Re: Did a7iv make it harder to decide to get the R6?

And-roid wrote:

liopleurodon wrote:

I'll come at this from the other end. I'm a Sony shooter with an a7 III that drooled over the R6 when it was released; especially its video features and best electronic shutter this side of an a9. I was very tempted to switch. Ultimately what held me back was was the lens ecosystem.

Personally, I do find the R6 a "difficult" to accept due to it's resolution, but that's me, I'm sure others see no issue with it's resolution and find it more than sufficient.

How I see the MP count is like this guys: (BTW this is just me, I could be completely wrong about it and everyone sees it their way, I believe if you get an R5 you did it right and there is NOTHING to second guess. Same is true if you went with the R6, but on here we discuss nuances that will mean very little once you pick one.

MP Count Argument:

I believe the higher MP count is great if you are the type of person who is going to zoom in on your pictures and expect to see the ant on the blade of grass with a 24mm lens and the ant is like 10 meters out, if the lens is good enough that is, and that is it from my perspective. (Also I have no experience shooting birds and super zoom stuff so maybe there it is common practice to shoot the bird and be able to crop it right around him. I would not know and if I did know, I don't think I would shoot like that, I would try to get the shot with very minimal is any cropping. I understand there will be the outliers. where maybe if you could have cropped more you would have saved it, but I'm to old school to think like that, I just missed the shot period and maybe I can salvage but I hate salvaging it is never as satisfying, no where near getting the shot the old fashion way. Ok that is it for why I can see it.

Why I don't see it is because, you will need to crop over 50% of your megapixels away in order to reach about the same size mega pixel by mega pixel of like the R6. So you have a lot of freedom to crop and be higher still then the R6. But the problem is you will never really view your pictures at full megapixels unless you pixel peeping which will feel like your looking at one tiny tiny section of the picture and even if you do do your work at that level what happens when you zoom out to look at the picture? It shrinks and you can't tell if it is 45 MP or 20 MP. You might in fact even see a better picture with the smaller pixel count because it was taken native and there is less noise on it because bigger pixels have always been less noisy. If this has changed then my bad here but I doubt it has, I come from shooting 12mp camera and I compared it to my new R6 and I was shocked that the 12mp image just has an amazing 3D quality to it, it is the more film like. Even the R6 I will need to get use to the mega pixels because everything looks so perfect in my pictures, its like I am just on my monitor a perfect snip of real life.

When we look at pictures on the computer most of us will see 4K which is I guess about 4 MP but that is a complete guess, might even be less. And when we look at them on the website and we say wow what a great shot that is I wish I could do that. Well again your looking at them even smaller, maybe 1000x1000, and yea you too can do that, with any modern camera, from the R to the R3, and one of those amazing Canon lenses.

My brother has an R and he shoots with like the cheap RF lenses and because he is a professional photographer his images look  amazing to me. He was even showing me like these giant poster size pictures he had made up for his client and it looked like it was taken with a medium format film camera.

So to sum up:

You wont ever really view your pictures at full resolution unless your pixel peeping kind of guy. (You can still pixel peep with 20MP btw and it you will still see that and, you just might not see if he is facing you or not, when 60MP comes out we will see if it can do it.)

Lastly...there is storage, but I am guessing if your getting something like a R5 with 45-MP you have amazing storage already, But if it is mediocre like 500gb? Do you think that is enough? I shot like barely any pictures today all raw and I had like 1gb of data. I am talking like idk 20 pictures, I am guessing here. But my point is, unless your like truly a hardcore enthusiast then this is a non issue. But to be safe your going to need Terbaytes worth of memory or you won't feel safe.

20 MP is more than enough for ANYONE, professional to hobbyist.

So why did I go with the R6?

Because the I just like the R6 better with less MP, and a slight edge in that EV spec, due to bigger pixels I'm guessing. And I prefer the look of images as shot with as minimal cropping as possible. I also like that dial on the top, I've learned to spin it without looking at it, not that I need to often, but less menu surfing is better. Lastly there are still flaws with the video on both R5 and R6 I believe, (I wouldn't know because I do not do more than 30min of video at a time, more like 1 min while my son shows me his new skate board trick or something.), you might tell me you don't shoot video either, could care less about 8k video so who cares? So why then pay for it? I get the cheaper camera now that can still shoot AMZAZING video at 4K. I am waiting for round two of the R5 where they hopefully have that fixed somehow.

These things are irrelevant too but I mention them because they are not irrelevant to me but some will say who cares. With the R6 because the files are smaller everything is faster. Including the Electronic Shutter read out speed because the files are less then half the size. Because of this the R6 electronic shutter shows readout rate is sped up meaning it will be harder for it to develop that shutter lag. I saw some guys test it, I do not even remember where, I have used it with my son playing soccer and throwing a ball and throwing an airplane so nothing too crazy, a test or too me waving one arm really fast while I shot but I never noticed anything. So that is just how I feel, the hardware inside the cameras I believe other than the sensors is pretty much the same. But I feel the R5 is better supported by that hardware then the R6 which is like struggling to stay alive when shooting 8k. BTW when I take out my memory cards, they are really hot...just saying the R5 works even harder...


Do you have someone who pictures you admire on line?

There's nothing in Canon's lineup to compete with the Tamron 28-75 or 28-200.

This is not how I see it, that's for sure and one of the reasons I dropped Sony, A1, was my total frustration with these sort of lenses, ie cutting off the 24-27.9 in order to offer a bit more speed! For me it was an absolute headache and the frustration this adds by not providing a little wider made them very limiting!

Talking of the 28-200 it's a good lens but certainly no better than the 24-240 which is longer and in the main around a stop slower, for such a lens it's doesn't stack up to much plus the 28-200 really struggles with Sony ibis above 100mm, whereas the 24-240 is stable right through the range. In a nutshell I prefer the RF 24-105 to Sony's and the 28-75 or indeed most 24-70 2.8's of any manufacturer and the 24-240 is far more the single lens solution than a 28-200 will ever be.

Also, Sony has nothing to compete with the rf 16 2.8, in fact I don't think anyone does!

The Canon RF 24-70 is bigger and heavier than my Tamron

This true but the RF 24-70 is not competing with a 28-75, which has had the 24-27.9 range removed! Sony FE 24-70 2.8 is a comparable lens and weighs?

and the RF 24-240 does not deliver the speed or optical quality of the 28-200.

This is just not true, optically the 24-240 might actually be better and the ois/ibis combination is better plus it supports 20fps!

Additionally the RF 35/1.8 isn't nearly as good as the FE 35/1.8.

Rubbish, in what way?

FE 35 1.8 suffers really bad from CA and its bokeh is not the best plus it lacks the mfd and much better sharpness right across the frame!

Now I have an a7 IV on order.

Cool, I hope you'll be happy

It gives me 95% of what I wanted from the R6: touch to focus/track in video, h265 video, 10-bit 4k, HEIF images instead of JPG, higher res and refresh EVF, flippy screen, etc. The 4k (at 24p or 30p) quality of the a7 IV should beat the R6 as well as its downsampled from more resolution than the R6. 4k60 was compromised for the 33mp sensor. I personally would have preferred a pixel binned option like the R5 has, but Sony decided on a damned crop. Sony also adds a few new cool features like a fully programmable EC dial, a dedicated dial to switch from stills to video, etc.

The choice between the two amounts to resolution or speed. Both have top shelf autofocus systems; both have a great sensor with great dynamic range; both have fantastic 4k capabilities with high bitrates and good codecs. You can't go wrong with either. For everyday life, events, landscapes and such I'd choose the Sony as 33MP will matter more than the extra speed. If I was focused primarily on wildlife, birding, or sports I'd take the R6 for its superior speed, more manageable files (gonna have a lot of them at 20fps), and access to the EF lens catalog of excellent affordable telephoto glass that Sony FE can't touch.

Of course the lenses you want matter far more than the body itself.

Honestly, I'd say save for the R5, its a phenomenal camera and it feels a substantially better camera in every way than the A1.

 Salgado Photo's gear list:Salgado Photo's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D700 Canon EOS R6
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow