Reading mode: Light Dark

Stills only....A7 lV or A7 RlllA

Go to last post
Did Sony make an official statement saying there is no AA filter?

Because I asked the Sony Alpha Turkey office experience store manager about this issue. Stated that the A7 IV has an AA Filter. They also asked Sony Japan about this issue. And it has been said that the AA filter is not removed, as is the case with the flat A7 models.
 
candasulas said:
Did Sony make an official statement saying there is no AA filter?

Because I asked the Sony Alpha Turkey office experience store manager about this issue. Stated that the A7 IV has an AA Filter. They also asked Sony Japan about this issue. And it has been said that the AA filter is not removed, as is the case with the flat A7 models.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of confusion around this issue I’ve read more than once. I’m convinced no one has an official answer yet.

It has been discussed many times:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

I personally wish Sony would simply publish the data on their specs. Customer service isn’t typically a great source for accurate data. In this thread we have reports of two conflicting answers from people who asked customer service.



It really is not a huge deal breaker either way, results suggest it’s either not in this camera or it’sa weak filter that doesn’t destroy detail like some olpf/ AA filters do.
 
UncleVanya said:
candasulas said:
Did Sony make an official statement saying there is no AA filter?

Because I asked the Sony Alpha Turkey office experience store manager about this issue. Stated that the A7 IV has an AA Filter. They also asked Sony Japan about this issue. And it has been said that the AA filter is not removed, as is the case with the flat A7 models.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of confusion around this issue I’ve read more than once. I’m convinced no one has an official answer yet.

It has been discussed many times:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66219862

I personally wish Sony would simply publish the data on their specs. Customer service isn’t typically a great source for accurate data. In this thread we have reports of two conflicting answers from people who asked customer service.

It really is not a huge deal breaker either way, results suggest it’s either not in this camera or it’sa weak filter that doesn’t destroy detail like some olpf/ AA filters do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you're arguing about whether or not there is an AA filter, then clearly it is not destructive of detail.
 
UncleVanya said:
candasulas said:
Did Sony make an official statement saying there is no AA filter?

Because I asked the Sony Alpha Turkey office experience store manager about this issue. Stated that the A7 IV has an AA Filter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wrong.
UncleVanya said:
UncleVanya said:
They also asked Sony Japan about this issue. And it has been said that the AA filter is not removed, as is the case with the flat A7 models.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of confusion around this issue I’ve read more than once. I’m convinced no one has an official answer yet.

It has been discussed many times:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66219862

I personally wish Sony would simply publish the data on their specs. Customer service isn’t typically a great source for accurate data. In this thread we have reports of two conflicting answers from people who asked customer service.

It really is not a huge deal breaker either way, results suggest it’s either not in this camera or it’sa weak filter that doesn’t destroy detail like some olpf/ AA filters do.
Click to expand...
Using the DPR test scene, it's quite easy to tell which cameras have the AA filter and which do not:



DPR
DPR

The Canon R5 has a weak AA filter, the 5DIV a strong one, the Sonys none at all.

For those concerned with moire and false color, I highly recommend Enhanced Detail in Lightroom or Photoshop:



DPR Moire Torture Test
DPR Moire Torture Test

80-90% of moire and false color removed with absolutely no damage to detail or color.
 
The difference between 33mp and 42mp isn't that great in my opinion.

What you get with the IV isn't just some video features but a whole new menu system, touch screen operation and better grip as well as a few new features for photos. It's just a more evolved camera as you would expect being newer.

I don't do video either and I never considered the RIIIA. I did consider the R IV but in the end decided I just didn't need 61mp of resolution or having to handle files that size.

There is also something about the images that com out of the IV that is very pleasing. They remind me if images shot on old CCD sensors which even though lower resolution always looked clean to me. Of course the same may apply to an RIIIA. I would not know as I don't own one but what I saying is the image quality of the IV is excellent.
 
I had to choose between a new A7RIIIa or a A7IV. Since my outgoing Canon 5DMKIII had 430K actuations I found the 7RIII's shutter life more adapted to my style of shooting.

The regrets are there ; the AF is not always working as expected, the menu system such crap, no lossless compressed options etc.

That said what is Sony thinking with 1 max LCD's? At least the IIIa and IVa have a 2mpx LCD albeit quite green.

The IQ of the RIII is really top I find it above my expectations.
 
The a7iv has basically nothing on the a7riii. Only minor detail I can think of is sensor shift super resolution. There is also the hope of getting firmware updates.



the a7riv is better than the a7iv except for low light tracking.
 
SafariBob said:
The a7iv has basically nothing on the a7riii. Only minor detail I can think of is sensor shift super resolution. There is also the hope of getting firmware updates.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. The A7IV has a ton of upgrades. And I write this an an A7RIII owner that has tried later Sony bodies including the A7IV.
 
BrentSchumer said:
SafariBob said:
The a7iv has basically nothing on the a7riii. Only minor detail I can think of is sensor shift super resolution. There is also the hope of getting firmware updates.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. The A7IV has a ton of upgrades. And I write this an an A7RIII owner that has tried later Sony bodies including the A7IV.
Click to expand...
I meant it the other way around, the a7riii has basically nothing on the a7iv 🤣

thank you for catching that
 
SafariBob said:
BrentSchumer said:
SafariBob said:
The a7iv has basically nothing on the a7riii. Only minor detail I can think of is sensor shift super resolution. There is also the hope of getting firmware updates.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. The A7IV has a ton of upgrades. And I write this an an A7RIII owner that has tried later Sony bodies including the A7IV.
Click to expand...
I meant it the other way around, the a7riii has basically nothing on the a7iv 🤣

thank you for catching that
Click to expand...
I was confused also. I thought maybe you’d reversed them as the pixel shift of the a7rIII doesn’t appear to be supported in the a7iv.
 
I am also heavily doubting between these two cameras.

You can find really good used copies of the A7RIII (non a version most likely) for around €2000 while the A7IV is €800 more expensive. I have a hard time justifying paying the €800 euro premium for the IV over the RIII.
 
Barnie25 said:
I am also heavily doubting between these two cameras.

You can find really good used copies of the A7RIII (non a version most likely) for around €2000 while the A7IV is €800 more expensive. I have a hard time justifying paying the €800 euro premium for the IV over the RIII.
Click to expand...
If you're looking at the used market the A7RIV becomes really appealing...
 
BrentSchumer said:
Barnie25 said:
I am also heavily doubting between these two cameras.

You can find really good used copies of the A7RIII (non a version most likely) for around €2000 while the A7IV is €800 more expensive. I have a hard time justifying paying the €800 euro premium for the IV over the RIII.
Click to expand...
If you're looking at the used market the A7RIV becomes really appealing...
Click to expand...
For me 61 megapixels is kind of overkill, makes the files so large and taxing on your CPU to even consider it. The 33 megapixels of the A7IV is actually really useful but the body is a bit too much for me to consider currently. Rather spend more on lenses than just on the body alone.
 
Barnie25 said:
BrentSchumer said:
Barnie25 said:
I am also heavily doubting between these two cameras.

You can find really good used copies of the A7RIII (non a version most likely) for around €2000 while the A7IV is €800 more expensive. I have a hard time justifying paying the €800 euro premium for the IV over the RIII.
Click to expand...
If you're looking at the used market the A7RIV becomes really appealing...
Click to expand...
For me 61 megapixels is kind of overkill, makes the files so large and taxing on your CPU to even consider it. The 33 megapixels of the A7IV is actually really useful but the body is a bit too much for me to consider currently. Rather spend more on lenses than just on the body alone.
Click to expand...
That's very fair.

From my perspective going from 24MP->42MP didn't cause too much of a slowdown even with an older computer, but maybe Capture One is more efficient?

I do wish that there was a "middle ground" camera that used the 42MP sensor or 33MP sensor, had the upgraded EVF/LCD, had the latest software goodies, and had a flip or two-way-tilt screen. The A7RIV and A7IV both check boxes that the other lacks.
 
BrentSchumer said:
Barnie25 said:
BrentSchumer said:
Barnie25 said:
I am also heavily doubting between these two cameras.

You can find really good used copies of the A7RIII (non a version most likely) for around €2000 while the A7IV is €800 more expensive. I have a hard time justifying paying the €800 euro premium for the IV over the RIII.
Click to expand...
If you're looking at the used market the A7RIV becomes really appealing...
Click to expand...
For me 61 megapixels is kind of overkill, makes the files so large and taxing on your CPU to even consider it. The 33 megapixels of the A7IV is actually really useful but the body is a bit too much for me to consider currently. Rather spend more on lenses than just on the body alone.
Click to expand...
That's very fair.

From my perspective going from 24MP->42MP didn't cause too much of a slowdown even with an older computer, but maybe Capture One is more efficient?

I do wish that there was a "middle ground" camera that used the 42MP sensor or 33MP sensor, had the upgraded EVF/LCD, had the latest software goodies, and had a flip or two-way-tilt screen. The A7RIV and A7IV both check boxes that the other lacks.
Click to expand...
It's why I am also considering the Lumix S1R, it's the perfect body for me in terms of controls, imago quality, form factor and screen tilt but the AF scares me.
 
Barnie25 said:
BrentSchumer said:
Barnie25 said:
BrentSchumer said:
Barnie25 said:
I am also heavily doubting between these two cameras.

You can find really good used copies of the A7RIII (non a version most likely) for around €2000 while the A7IV is €800 more expensive. I have a hard time justifying paying the €800 euro premium for the IV over the RIII.
Click to expand...
If you're looking at the used market the A7RIV becomes really appealing...
Click to expand...
For me 61 megapixels is kind of overkill, makes the files so large and taxing on your CPU to even consider it. The 33 megapixels of the A7IV is actually really useful but the body is a bit too much for me to consider currently. Rather spend more on lenses than just on the body alone.
Click to expand...
That's very fair.

From my perspective going from 24MP->42MP didn't cause too much of a slowdown even with an older computer, but maybe Capture One is more efficient?

I do wish that there was a "middle ground" camera that used the 42MP sensor or 33MP sensor, had the upgraded EVF/LCD, had the latest software goodies, and had a flip or two-way-tilt screen. The A7RIV and A7IV both check boxes that the other lacks.
Click to expand...
It's why I am also considering the Lumix S1R, it's the perfect body for me in terms of controls, imago quality, form factor and screen tilt but the AF scares me.
Click to expand...
If I could go back in time I might pick up one of the S1R + 24-105mm renewed bundles for $2,500 back in 2020. I feel like the S1R really improves on certain things that drive me nuts with my A7RIII (e.g., one way tilt or layout), and it has a decent selection of Sigma glass. That said, it would be tough to forgo Tamron, and it looks like Panasonic's high-rez L-Mount lineup died with the S1R, so no updates.

The AF is supposed to be good for stills with all the firmware updates. Not in the same league as the A7IV and pitiful for video, but reasonable for stills. S5 was reviewed for the new Panasonic AF capabilities that were later ported to S1R.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=1jUd3izgwiI&feature=emb_logo


And of course those deals seem to be gone, with the S1R alone going for $2,500 renewed and $2,000 used.
 
Dave in Wales said:
I have NEVER, EVER shot video and never will.

Recommendations please, I'm considering one of the above with a 24-105mm.
Click to expand...
Tamron 28-200 is much better choice than Sony 24-105, if you don't need 24mm.

Its sharper with better f stops. Had a chance to compare 2 Sony's and both were softer at 105mm than Tamron (Tamron is f4.5 wide open)
Dave in Wales said:
I'm aware of the vast difference in file size, and price is about the same.

Is it a 'no brainer'...does the A7 RlllA win hands down or are there other considerations I'm unaware of.

TIA.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top