Just got a Sony A7R4 and compared it to Nikon D500

I'm a hobby photographer with occasional paid gigs in between. I've been using my D500 for over seven years and completely love it with all my heart. On my trip to NYC last week, after months of deliberation and self-convincing, I finally grabbed my, you know, and bought a SONY A7R4. My first full frame, 61 MP. Woohoo... after getting back to FLA last night, I made a side-by-side comparison between the A7R4 and D500 .. the results are not what I expected. I'm mad I spent so much money on the SONY with the lenses when I have over 12 lenses I'm happy with on my Nikon. The iso noise is evident on the sony, and I'm very disappointed with the price tag. I may be doing something wrong, but I don't know or understand.

I took two pictures with the same zoom, same settings, and everything to compare, and I'm afraid to say I am not happy with my sony at all compared to my Nikon.

Please explain or help me understand what or why I feel this way. I will add two pics to compare and both raw images for anyone to play around with.

Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong since this is my first full frame and my first sony ever.,

WallStBroker wrote:

I'm a hobby photographer with occasional paid gigs in between. I've been using my D500 for over seven years and completely love it with all my heart. On my trip to NYC last week, after months of deliberation and self-convincing, I finally grabbed my, you know, and bought a SONY A7R4. My first full frame, 61 MP. Woohoo... after getting back to FLA last night, I made a side-by-side comparison between the A7R4 and D500 .. the results are not what I expected. I'm mad I spent so much money on the SONY with the lenses when I have over 12 lenses I'm happy with on my Nikon. The iso noise is evident on the sony, and I'm very disappointed with the price tag. I may be doing something wrong, but I don't know or understand.

I took two pictures with the same zoom, same settings, and everything to compare, and I'm afraid to say I am not happy with my sony at all compared to my Nikon.

Please explain or help me understand what or why I feel this way. I will add two pics to compare and both raw images for anyone to play around with.

Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong since this is my first full frame and my first sony ever.,

I'm afraid you'll have to be a little bit more generous with info about your complaints.

Anyway, if noise (at high ISO's?) is what this is all about, I think that once you've resized your Sony files to the same size as the D500 files you will not, at least you should not, see an appreciable difference.

WallStBroker wrote:

Thank you and please do let me know

Still no exif Sergei. But the D500 image certainly looks much cleaner. Were the two taken at the same ISO value?

WallStBroker wrote:

Yes, check the raw images in Dropbox maybe that would help

Both images were taken at 5:50 PM / ISO 1000 / 200mm (35mm mode on sony) / f8 / 1/250 sec / BOTH WITH SAME EDITS IN LIGHTROOM EVEN THOUGH THEY LOOK DIFFERENT.

NIKON LENS - 80-200mm 2.8 ED

SONY LENS - 70-200mm F4 OSS

Yes, the colours are quite different (I prefer the D500) and even when viewed at the same size the D500 image is much cleaner. But what do you mean by 35mm mode on the Sony?

I'm afraid I have no explanation. Maybe others have?

From my experience Nikon and Canon (and Apple) have the best processing in camera of image data. Sony may have the best technical specs, resolution, autofocus, etc, but given RAW sensor data, Nikon & Canon make better images (in a 1/10 of a second) than I can tweaking in any RAW editor. My workflow is JPEG out of the camera (neutral or portrait picture control) into Perfectly Clear (90% go through w/ default settings, and the rest I tweak exposure a little or choose a different pre-set). I shoot RAW+JPEG so I have the RAW as a backup, but have never got better results from the RAW files.

With digital, ISO is less meaningful as a standard, it really should be gain. The Sony at ISO1000, exposes the same as the Nikon closer to ISO640, which may be expected with the relative pixel density of each sensor.

With the higher exposure of the sky, it looks like the Nikon just gave it all up to the noise reduction filter, as would our human brains (not much necessary detail there), and handled the buildings better. The Sony machine thought, "I've got 60M pixels to work with, there's detail to render here, how's this look?" and us humans went "ehh..."

Now, you've forced the Sony to work with the Nikon's settings, without letting the Sony work its advantages, newer lens and excellent in-body VR. I would venture to guess the new Sony lens is sharper when more open, and you can slow the shutter (2-3-stops beyond 1/focal length), letting you shoot at ISO 100-200. I doubt both cameras chose these exp settings in P-mode.

I'm a D500 diehard as much as anyone, and me with my D500 would probably outperform myself w/ a new A7R4. But given some time, I'd figure it out.

Like others here I am a bit confused about the 35mm crop mode. Is that APS-C?

I recall that the first few shots I have gotten from new cameras tend to be not the greatest. By all accounts the A7RV should produce very good photos. I think you may need to experiment with different settings both in camera and in Lightroom. A good guidebook or online course on the A7RV might be helpful.

But you do confirm one thing. The D500 is still a very fine camera capable of producing excellent photographs.

WallStBroker wrote:

I'm a hobby photographer with occasional paid gigs in between. I've been using my D500 for over seven years and completely love it with all my heart. On my trip to NYC last week, after months of deliberation and self-convincing, I finally grabbed my, you know, and bought a SONY A7R4. My first full frame, 61 MP. Woohoo... after getting back to FLA last night, I made a side-by-side comparison between the A7R4 and D500 .. the results are not what I expected. I'm mad I spent so much money on the SONY with the lenses when I have over 12 lenses I'm happy with on my Nikon. The iso noise is evident on the sony, and I'm very disappointed with the price tag. I may be doing something wrong, but I don't know or understand.

I took two pictures with the same zoom, same settings, and everything to compare, and I'm afraid to say I am not happy with my sony at all compared to my Nikon.

Please explain or help me understand what or why I feel this way. I will add two pics to compare and both raw images for anyone to play around with.

Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong since this is my first full frame and my first sony ever.,

Sergei,

I suggest you also post your question in the Sony full frame forum.

Michiel953 wrote:

Sergei,

I suggest you also post your question in the Sony full frame forum.

Thank you.

Michiel953 wrote:

WallStBroker wrote:

I'm a hobby photographer with occasional paid gigs in between. I've been using my D500 for over seven years and completely love it with all my heart. On my trip to NYC last week, after months of deliberation and self-convincing, I finally grabbed my, you know, and bought a SONY A7R4. My first full frame, 61 MP. Woohoo... after getting back to FLA last night, I made a side-by-side comparison between the A7R4 and D500 .. the results are not what I expected. I'm mad I spent so much money on the SONY with the lenses when I have over 12 lenses I'm happy with on my Nikon. The iso noise is evident on the sony, and I'm very disappointed with the price tag. I may be doing something wrong, but I don't know or understand.

I took two pictures with the same zoom, same settings, and everything to compare, and I'm afraid to say I am not happy with my sony at all compared to my Nikon.

Please explain or help me understand what or why I feel this way. I will add two pics to compare and both raw images for anyone to play around with.

Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong since this is my first full frame and my first sony ever.,

Sergei,

I suggest you also post your question in the Sony full frame forum.

That will go over real well over there. Hater is the word used for anyone who questions anything Sony or offers positive feedback on anything non Sony.

egk4260 wrote:

Michiel953 wrote:

WallStBroker wrote:

I'm a hobby photographer with occasional paid gigs in between. I've been using my D500 for over seven years and completely love it with all my heart. On my trip to NYC last week, after months of deliberation and self-convincing, I finally grabbed my, you know, and bought a SONY A7R4. My first full frame, 61 MP. Woohoo... after getting back to FLA last night, I made a side-by-side comparison between the A7R4 and D500 .. the results are not what I expected. I'm mad I spent so much money on the SONY with the lenses when I have over 12 lenses I'm happy with on my Nikon. The iso noise is evident on the sony, and I'm very disappointed with the price tag. I may be doing something wrong, but I don't know or understand.

I took two pictures with the same zoom, same settings, and everything to compare, and I'm afraid to say I am not happy with my sony at all compared to my Nikon.

Please explain or help me understand what or why I feel this way. I will add two pics to compare and both raw images for anyone to play around with.

Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong since this is my first full frame and my first sony ever.,

Sergei,

I suggest you also post your question in the Sony full frame forum.

That will go over real well over there. Hater is the word used for anyone who questions anything Sony or offers positive feedback on anything non Sony.

I wasn't thinking of that at all. I just thought Sergei might try getting an explanation there from Sony users.

I just wonder if you have and ND filters or lens protectors in front of the lenses...