Reading mode: Light Dark

Comparing A7R IV and A6600 images

Go to last post
W

wb2trf

Senior Member
Messages
3,425
Solutions
10
Reaction score
1,787
Location
US
I have owned the A6600 since shortly after it started shipping. I recently, on a bit of a lark, purchased an A7R4 and a Sony 24-105mm f4 G zoom. I plan to keep one of the two cameras but have not yet decided which. If I can't find some justification in practical image quality for the A7R4, my decision would lean toward the A6600 because of smaller size, particularly smaller size when combined with APS-C lenses.

I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.

My testing method has been to move the same, above mentioned, zoom lens between the two cameras, shoot the same scene under realistic or challenging lighting, adjusting zoom to make the angle of view equivalent, make all the exposure settings the same, and then look at the two jpeg images side by side at varying degrees of amplification on screen. Consistent advantages for the A7R4 are not there or not found yet.

I do like the A7R4 handling and performance, but I like A6600 also and am not sure the A7r4, nice as it is, is any better.

I'm not interested in assurances that FF is just better. I would be interested in "try this test and the advantage of FF will be clear."
 
Last edited:
wb2trf said:
I have owned the A6600 since shortly after it started shipping. I recently, on a bit of a lark, purchased an A7R4 and a Sony 24-105mm f4 G zoom. I plan to keep one of the two cameras but have not yet decided which. If I can't find some justification in practical image quality for the A7R4, my decision would lean toward the A6600 because of smaller size, particularly smaller size when combined with APS-C lenses.

I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.

My testing method has been to move the same, above mentioned, zoom lens between the two cameras, shoot the same scene under realistic or challenging lighting, adjusting zoom to make the angle of view equivalent, make all the exposure settings the same, and then look at the two jpeg images side by side at varying degrees of amplification on screen. Consistent advantages for the A7R4 are not there or not found yet.

I do like the A7R4 handling and performance, but I like A6600 also and am not sure the A7r4, nice as it is, is any better.

I'm not interested in assurances that FF is just better. I would be interested in "try this test and the advantage of FF will be clear."
Click to expand...
I have both an APSC camera (an XT5) similar to your A6600 and a FF (A7C2) similar to your A7R4. For me, one main advantage of a FF camera vs smaller sensor is in family, children and portraits. You can use small and relatively light lenses which can separate your subjects more easily vs an APSC lens. Examples are the Sony 85/1.8 (similar to 56/1.2 in APSC will be heavier bigger) or the 55/1.8 (similar to 35/1.2 in APSC).

Another advantage I found were some great lenses that do not exist for my APSC camera, such as the Sony 20-70/f4 or the Tamron 28-200, both great for landscapes. The 20-70 is great also for city and street shooting if you don't mind the size.
 
wb2trf said:
I have owned the A6600 since shortly after it started shipping. I recently, on a bit of a lark, purchased an A7R4 and a Sony 24-105mm f4 G zoom. I plan to keep one of the two cameras but have not yet decided which. If I can't find some justification in practical image quality for the A7R4, my decision would lean toward the A6600 because of smaller size, particularly smaller size when combined with APS-C lenses.

I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.

My testing method has been to move the same, above mentioned, zoom lens between the two cameras, shoot the same scene under realistic or challenging lighting, adjusting zoom to make the angle of view equivalent, make all the exposure settings the same, and then look at the two jpeg images side by side at varying degrees of amplification on screen. Consistent advantages for the A7R4 are not there or not found yet.

I do like the A7R4 handling and performance, but I like A6600 also and am not sure the A7r4, nice as it is, is any better.

I'm not interested in assurances that FF is just better. I would be interested in "try this test and the advantage of FF will be clear."
Click to expand...
I have poor vision (eyesight), so for me it's mainly about the EVF. I also enjoy cropping from the 61MP sensor and the resolution of an image that fills the frame. I still use my APS-C when it's not a critical shoot.

40d1620157054a899f1b88c0a1de4fdb.jpg

--
I enjoy content, simplicity and light weight: A5100, A6500, A7C and A7RV w/ G + GM Glass
 
Last edited:
wb2trf said:
adjusting zoom to make the angle of view equivalent,
Click to expand...
If you make them the same, they will be the same, more or less.
Find a better criterion, speed in chasing kids, better croppage if you miss, etc etc
 
wb2trf said:
I have owned the A6600 since shortly after it started shipping. I recently, on a bit of a lark, purchased an A7R4 and a Sony 24-105mm f4 G zoom. I plan to keep one of the two cameras but have not yet decided which. If I can't find some justification in practical image quality for the A7R4, my decision would lean toward the A6600 because of smaller size, particularly smaller size when combined with APS-C lenses.

I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.
Click to expand...
As a wildlife shooter, the cropping advantage of a high-resolution camera is much appreciated. Those darn birds & animals are always too far away (or too hard to follow in-flight), no matter what big lens you carry. Example of a big crop.

A landscape shooter may appreciate the extra detail in their images, as would people who print very large. I personally liked that all my lenses appeared sharper when used on a high-resolution body.

None of which sounds very useful for "family informal photos".
 
Generally speaking, one is photographing something and then there is the rest of the world, outside the photo. Photography involves selecting what should be inside. Presumably I would do that with either camera, choosing the same to be inside the photo, the same subject and the same subject boundaries.

One idea of a "better camera" is that that which you choose to be in the photo has better fidelity. The better fidelity is what I can't find, yet.
 
I do shoot landscape. That's a major interest. I quick first test didn't suggest that there was much improvement with the A7RIV vs. A6600. I'm not saying that some other test might not show that there is, but here's an example of one that doesn't.



A6600 with Sony 24-15 f5 G lens
A6600 with Sony 24-15 f5 G lens



View attachment 2c414dbc80724c8982f5676c8e246fe3.jpg
A7r4 with Sony 24-105 f4 G lens
 
wb2trf said:
One idea of a "better camera" is that that which you choose to be in the photo has better fidelity. The better fidelity is what I can't find, yet.
Click to expand...
Not going down the semantics path. Use the right methodology or not, your call.
 
I have an A6400 and later A7Riv, more recently an A6700. If I were to consider between them all, I look at features, size and weight, different lenses and the higher resolution. The resolution allows a lot of flexibility in different crops. But for viewing and sharing on screen? I don't find them that different. The numbers may be there but if not really pushing things, really low light, wanting the widest apertures, etc., may not be a truly obvious difference. Certainly nothing to make me stop using aps-c and solely use ff.
 
wb2trf said:
I do shoot landscape. That's a major interest. I quick first test didn't suggest that there was much improvement with the A7RIV vs. A6600. I'm not saying that some other test might not show that there is, but here's an example of one that doesn't.

A6600 with Sony 24-15 f5 G lens
A6600 with Sony 24-15 f5 G lens

View attachment 2c414dbc80724c8982f5676c8e246fe3.jpg
A7r4 with Sony 24-105 f4 G lens
Click to expand...
You need to realize what you really tested. A lot of elements have influence on image quality - camera sensor, lens, lighting in the scene, your setting, postprocess.

You changed only one element (camera sensor) which lead to advantages:

- increase low light performance (not tested)

- easier to get background blur (not tested)

- high resolution (not tested)

- in this case of the same lens access to wider focal lengths (not considered)

- much larger lens catalogue (not considered)

So seems at first look, that you are not really interested in fullframe advantages, better to stay with smaller and cheaper apsc.
 
wb2trf said:
Generally speaking, one is photographing something and then there is the rest of the world, outside the photo. Photography involves selecting what should be inside. Presumably I would do that with either camera, choosing the same to be inside the photo, the same subject and the same subject boundaries.

One idea of a "better camera" is that that which you choose to be in the photo has better fidelity. The better fidelity is what I can't find, yet.
Click to expand...
you wont get better fidelity because the pixels are the same size.
 
wb2trf, this stuff is so subjective. I started with the a6300, then an a6500, then an a6600, then (2) 6600s all with good G lenses. But I was always wondering, like you. So I bought a new a7RIII at 42mp pretty much at the end of their availability. First, it just felt great in my hand even with the extra weight. But the decision maker for me was the ability to compose shots in post. After a couple of days with the 2 full frame lenses I had there was no going back to a cropped sensor. I then bought an a7RIV at 61mp and I am still in awe at how I can crop my photos. I sold all of my cropped sensor stuff and wished I'd done it sooner.

All of those guys who say, "Oh, you don't need FF." weren't talking about me.
 
wb2trf said:
I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.
Click to expand...
I invite you to view these images that I created:

9093cd49af944e0ba0dc0c94fc57d6f3.jpg

1de5d73132c248d9bd42fdae3f0b4582.jpg

b8189fb19f944dc58f469010940d988e.jpg

acbc3e0ec1804cc18087e568cde26787.jpg

If you think that they are more than good enough for most practical applications in your life, I wish to tell you that they were not captured with A6600 nor A7R IV.

The first two images were created with Panasonic GX8, released in 2015, having a sensor 1/4 the size of "full-frame" sensors.

The last two images were created with iPhone 13 Pro, having sub-1" sensors.

Of course, I am in no position to suggest whether you should keep the A7R IV, or that you should consider, say, the Hasselblad X2D II 100C for true-to-life "fidelity".

By the way, my main gear is A7CR and A7R V.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
AshleyMC said:
wb2trf said:
I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.
Click to expand...
I invite you to view these images that I created:

9093cd49af944e0ba0dc0c94fc57d6f3.jpg

1de5d73132c248d9bd42fdae3f0b4582.jpg

b8189fb19f944dc58f469010940d988e.jpg

acbc3e0ec1804cc18087e568cde26787.jpg

If you think that they are more than good enough for most practical applications in your life, I wish to tell you that they were not captured with A6600 nor A7R IV.

The first two images were created with Panasonic GX8, released in 2015, having a sensor 1/4 the size of "full-frame" sensors.

The last two images were created with iPhone 13 Pro, having sub-1" sensors.

Of course, I am in no position to suggest whether you should keep the A7R IV, or that you should consider, say, the Hasselblad X2D II 100C for true-to-life "fidelity".

By the way, my main gear is A7CR and A7R V.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. Just goes to show (more than good enough for most practical applications) is worth a lot. My A7RV is my main camera with many lenses but I still use my A6500 w/E 16-55mm f/2.8 G a lot also because it's smaller and lighter gives me good results.

--
I enjoy content, simplicity and light weight: A5100, A6500, A7C and A7RV w/ G + GM Glass
 
Last edited:
wb2trf said:
I do shoot landscape. That's a major interest. I quick first test didn't suggest that there was much improvement with the A7RIV vs. A6600. I'm not saying that some other test might not show that there is, but here's an example of one that doesn't.

A6600 with Sony 24-15 f5 G lens
A6600 with Sony 24-15 f5 G lens

View attachment 2c414dbc80724c8982f5676c8e246fe3.jpg
A7r4 with Sony 24-105 f4 G lens
Click to expand...


Your A7Riv shot is blurry - that's not the camera, that's something in how it was shot. Looks like motion blur maybe?

Screenshots at 100% of the a6600 then the FF - there's clearly something going on with the second shot



2a156884e2bc491eb1b0bf6fa634a15d.jpg.png



7018dcb6ad8f401d99b0e262f8dac131.jpg.png



I don't think you should judge the capability of the camera by this!
 
Also probably a good idea to shoot to the same depth of field as well as angle of view.

Andrew
 
wb2trf said:
I have owned the A6600 since shortly after it started shipping. I recently, on a bit of a lark, purchased an A7R4 and a Sony 24-105mm f4 G zoom. I plan to keep one of the two cameras but have not yet decided which. If I can't find some justification in practical image quality for the A7R4, my decision would lean toward the A6600 because of smaller size, particularly smaller size when combined with APS-C lenses.

I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.

My testing method has been to move the same, above mentioned, zoom lens between the two cameras, shoot the same scene under realistic or challenging lighting, adjusting zoom to make the angle of view equivalent, make all the exposure settings the same, and then look at the two jpeg images side by side at varying degrees of amplification on screen. Consistent advantages for the A7R4 are not there or not found yet.

I do like the A7R4 handling and performance, but I like A6600 also and am not sure the A7r4, nice as it is, is any better.

I'm not interested in assurances that FF is just better. I would be interested in "try this test and the advantage of FF will be clear."
Click to expand...
There is one test that I did on my A7R IV, which I couldn't believe when I saw the results. The Sony 61MP sensor is an ISO invariance sensor, which means that it can handle pulling shadows in a way that not many sensors can. So I shot the same image at -5 stops underexposed, -4, -3, -2, -1 and at the correct exposure, and later pulled the shadows im post from -5 to -1 and I got nearly the same noise pattern. This means that you can fix your to ISO 100 in broad daylight, and 400 at night, even if the captured image is almost dark, adjust the exposure in post and get perfectly fine results.

I spent two full threads in the Photography Science and Technology forum about how this works and why, and I still can't say for sure, but it does.

You can do the test for yourself and see if your APS-C sensor can do the same. According to CGPT it is also invariant, but the A7R IV has a 1.3 stops more dynamic range.

This completely changed the way I shoot. I now simply put ISO 100 if in daylight, and 400 if at nighttime, and use Manual to set the DOF I need, and a speed fast enough to not get motion blur, and let the sensor handle the rest. I only need to be sure I'm not blowing up the highlights exposing to the right as much as I can.
 
the far right hand side window is perfectly sharp with both cameras, if you have to look at an image at 300% vers 450% then the amount of pixels is moot. lets face it its only a 1.5x crop difference anyway.
 
Martin Ocando said:
wb2trf said:
I have owned the A6600 since shortly after it started shipping. I recently, on a bit of a lark, purchased an A7R4 and a Sony 24-105mm f4 G zoom. I plan to keep one of the two cameras but have not yet decided which. If I can't find some justification in practical image quality for the A7R4, my decision would lean toward the A6600 because of smaller size, particularly smaller size when combined with APS-C lenses.

I shoot family informal photos, mostly of children, and landscapes. Nothing else really. I have begun some comparisons of accessible image quality, hoping as it were, to tease out some advantageous justification for the A7R4. This has not met with early success. I'm not really seeing any advantages in image quality that seem as if they could be meaningful.

My testing method has been to move the same, above mentioned, zoom lens between the two cameras, shoot the same scene under realistic or challenging lighting, adjusting zoom to make the angle of view equivalent, make all the exposure settings the same, and then look at the two jpeg images side by side at varying degrees of amplification on screen. Consistent advantages for the A7R4 are not there or not found yet.

I do like the A7R4 handling and performance, but I like A6600 also and am not sure the A7r4, nice as it is, is any better.

I'm not interested in assurances that FF is just better. I would be interested in "try this test and the advantage of FF will be clear."
Click to expand...
There is one test that I did on my A7R IV, which I couldn't believe when I saw the results. The Sony 61MP sensor is an ISO invariance sensor,
Click to expand...
no sensor ever made is iso invariant.
Martin Ocando said:
which means that it can handle pulling shadows in a way that not many sensors can. So I shot the same image at -5 stops underexposed, -4, -3, -2, -1 and at the correct exposure, and later pulled the shadows im post from -5 to -1 and I got nearly the same noise pattern. This means that you can fix your to ISO 100 in broad daylight, and 400 at night, even if the captured image is almost dark, adjust the exposure in post and get perfectly fine results.

I spent two full threads in the Photography Science and Technology forum about how this works and why, and I still can't say for sure, but it does.

You can do the test for yourself and see if your APS-C sensor can do the same. According to CGPT it is also invariant, but the A7R IV has a 1.3 stops more dynamic range.

This completely changed the way I shoot. I now simply put ISO 100 if in daylight, and 400 if at nighttime, and use Manual to set the DOF I need, and a speed fast enough to not get motion blur, and let the sensor handle the rest. I only need to be sure I'm not blowing up the highlights exposing to the right as much as I can.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AeroPhotographer
The Limits of Perception
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
116
JimKasson
JimKasson
B
Sony A6600 vs Olympus E-M5 III vs E-M10 IV?
Replies
5
Views
231
UsherFellig
U
Adam-T
For the price of a used A6600 - A7-III
Replies
13
Views
295
j tokarz
J
D
A6700 vs A6600
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Landscapephoto99
L
Martin Ocando
It happened A7R IV -> A7R V
2
Replies
26
Views
697
Martin Ocando
Martin Ocando

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