. The Sony A7iv has the same EVF as the Sony A7riii, which was always a very comfortable EVF for me.
The R3 and R4 do not share the same EVF. The R4 has 5.76m-Dot Tru-Finder OLED EVF. The R3 has a 3.69m-Dot Tru-Finder OLED EVF, while the new 4 Base has a 3.68m-Dot EVF.
Read -- I did not say that the the R4 and R3 have the same EVF. I said the A7iv and A7r3 have the same EVF -- I have compared them side by side, there is absolutely no perceptible difference.
But for others, maybe the fully articulating LCD and true touch screen really enhance the joy and comfort of the shooting experience.
Very subjective ... it's a "deal breaker" for perhaps as many photographers as those who would find it a "joy" or "comfort".
YES! Very subjective! Including, just how valuable is an EVF of 5.76m Dots vs 3.69M dots. For me, once you get to 3.69m dots and higher, it's almost impossible to tell the difference. I've used the 5.76m A7r4. If everything else about the cameras was equal, I would take the higher resolution EVF. But it really is a pretty minor factor in my experience. And not all else is equal.
But for a vast number of shooters, those advantages are extremely minor and outweighed by the advantages of the A7iv.
That's a rather bold and unsubstantiated assumption I think. To those who want\need the features of the 4R, I'm sure those are not "extremely mild" to them. The numbers may be "less vast" than you imagine.
I'm not talking about the 61mp resolution -- That will have a fair number of subscribers. Are you saying that people would throw their cameras in the garbage without a 5.76m EVF? What did those R4 owners do before the R4 existed?!?!?!
So no, don't pretend anybody "needs" a 5.76m dot EVF. It's a nice feature. Nobody needs it. And the A7iv has tons of nice features that the A7rIV lacks. If the R4 had a 24mp sensor, do you think it would still have lots of buyers just to get the 5.76m EVF? (And I'd say that not many people are going to buy the A7iv just for a customizable exposure comp dial though it's a feature I really like).
As to which features matter the most, that's a subjective question. But I don't see hordes of people getting a camera SOLELY for a higher resolution EVF.
The 4RA and 3RA have a higher resolution LCD than the 4 Base. And the 4R has a number of other features not found in the 4 Base.
Thing is, it's a rather small number of features. The only "positive" features that the 4R has, IMO, are the higher resolution EVF and LCD. Now, this is my subjective opinion -- not trying to start a fight -- But for me, the R4 sensor is a negative. I have written extensively on it, I hate it. But that is a subjective issue -- I know there are plenty of people who love it.
So objectively -- The only positive features in the 4R are the higher resolution EVF, higher resolution LCD, and pixel shift technology. That's it -- those 3. Then 1 big subjective difference -- the sensor, which is a positive for some people, and a negative for other people.
For me, the A7iv -- Subjectively, it has a better sensor than the R4. Now objectively -- It has a true touch screen, it has lossless compression, CF Express support, the newest AF system, the newest menu system, 60p 4K support, articulating LCD, customizable exposure compensation dial, more advanced networking including the new Visual Story app, and a slew of other features.
That said, the 4 Base if better "jack of all trades", and Sony made the 4 Base more video capable, and blessed it with a better AF than even the 4R.
Yes, which is why the A7iv is better for many people. The R4 is great for those who want the ultra high resolution.
So, the 4 Base and the 4R are each "better" than the other, in different ways, for different people, based on those people's individual needs, and each camera's feature set, right?
Yes.
Just as the features you list above as making the 4 Base "better" than a 4R are, to many others, minor and inconsequential, because those specific feature you like so much might be exactly why they chose a 4R INSTEAD of a 4 Base.
But there is such a thing as honest discussion, which requires people to be honest with themselves.
There are features that are major difference makers, which drives purchase decisions. The 61mp resolution being an example of such a feature.
There are features that may be somewhat minor to some people, major to others. The a7iv shooting 4k60p May be important to some, meaningless to others.
Then there are things that are truly small. Combining a bunch of small things may drive a purchase decision, but it would be pretty rare for 1 of those small things, alone, to drive a purchase decision. Few people are going to sell their a7r4 and buy the a7iv solely for lossless compression. And few people would switch to the a7r4 solely because of a higher resolution EVF.
For example, for "vastly" many people, the 4R sensor is better than the one in the 4 Base.... for what THEY want.
Other than the poor grammar, absolutely true!!! The resolution difference is a significant factor for many people! The EVF -alone- is not.
And the selfie LCD on the Base is a negative,
not a positive; just as the added video capability, the touch screen functionality, and many of the "slew of other features" you mention, valueless.
Absolutely. Different things will have different levels of value to different people. But if anybody said that the A7iv was the better camera than the A7r4 solely because of lossless compression or solely because of focus depth mapping… Such statements would seem hollow.
LOL, these are just tools. And there are many different tools and processes we can prefer to use over others to get the task done. The 4 Base is not "vastly" anything over the 4R, and visa versa, EXCEPT when it comes to what each of us wants, for the way we want to get the job done.
That’s where you’re wrong. The a7r4 has vastly higher resolution than the a7iv. For someone wanting ultra high resolution, the a7r4 is the vastly better camera.
For someone who doesn’t want 61mp resolution, the a7iv is indeed the vastly better camera.
That’s just objective and honest discussion. Would anybody say the Sony A100 dslr is vastly better than the Sony A1? You could certainly make the argument… the a100 had an OVF, and therefore it’s better than the A1. But that would be a pretty desperate argument.
Always amazing to see people, with a wave, try to dismiss and marginalize one tool, and invalidate anyone who uses it, just because it isn't the tool they prefer to use, instead of respecting that this same tool is perfect for what many others prefer to use.
Agreed—- and that’s the opposite of what I’m doing. I’m not marginalizing either camera. The a7r4 is FANTASTIC if you want the highest resolution. The a7iv is FANTASTIC if you don’t care about ultra high resolution but you want the newest and most advanced features.
This was my original statement that sparked your protests:
“Again, I'm definitely not denying that the A7R4 has advantages. But for a vast number of shooters, those advantages are extremely minor and outweighed by the advantages of the A7iv. Certainly, there are shooters who will be swayed by the advantages of the A7r4”
I don't have either of these cameras, find both equally interesting, and if handed either one, could use it to happily take pictures ... even if I preferred one over the other... even I had to use the one with the flippy vlogger-selfie screen, or the other one with a few more MP's and dots in the EVF.
That’s interesting. Because I have used both cameras. I returned the R4 because it wasn’t for me, but I still own an R3.
So here is a thought… The people I don’t trust are those who assume the superiority of their camera, but haven’t any experience with the cameras they are comparing. Maybe people with actual experience… just maybe their opinions have a bit more credibility.
