Questions from a potential convert

[Martin Ocando]

Hello everyone,

After far too long thought, and due to a new job that will get me traveling a lot, I’m starting to consider making an investment in an Alpha body and a couple of lenses. It’ll be mostly for traveling, and maybe portraiture, not commercial, but family and friends.

I’ve been a Micro 4/3s user for over 14 years, and I never felt the need to move to a bigger sensor, but giving that the A7R IV is nowadays in a reachable price point in MPB, I’m thinking that I’d like to capture the cities I’ll be visiting with more image real state than just 20 Mpix.

Besides, I’m sure my travels, being mostly work oriented, will only allow me to shoot at dawn or night, so the more light gathering sensor I can have, the better.

So, this will be my initial kit:

• A7R IV
• Either the Sony FE 40mm f:2.5 G or a Viltrox 40mm f:2.5

This is a starting point, I just got my job, and don’t want to spend too much. Once I have sold some of my MFT kit my plan is to get a:

• Sony FE 24-50mm f:2.8G
• Sigma 20mm f:2.0 DG DN or Viltrox 20mm f:2.8

And that is basically it. I don’t plan to invest in longer lenses (for now), as for that MFT has the edge in reach and compactness. And I already have it.

Maybe a 70-200mm f:4, but that is way long down the line.

My reasoning is small size, low weight, and low cost. I might consider other options in the future, or maybe after I get some feedback from you in this thread, but this is my initial plan.

BTW, I’m considering the A7R IV and not the V for obvious reasons that it costs almost double. I know it gets 8 stops of IBIS and a far better EVF, but the sensor being the same, I think I’ll be good for starters. Can't say about AF performance, but I believe it should be good enough, and far better than anything MFT can provide.

Ideas? Other options? Advice?




This is basically the image that made me doubt the compactness vs performance ratio of my current system



--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

 

[Martin Ocando]

I might not make any sense, but you keep saying that the A7R IV IBIS will be much worse than the IBIS I have on my G9 or G95, but couldn't that be that FF sensors catch all kinds of small details, that the minor motion blur that goes unnoticed on a 4/3s 20MP sensor, on a 61MP FF sensor will not?

Pixel density is actually higher on the 20MP sensor though, if anything the smaller sensor probably just puts less of a toll on the IBIS mechanisms so maybe FF needs better mechanics to achieve similar results thru IBIS. Both M4/3 manufacturers also have a longer history in implementing IBIS, Pana's wasn't anywhere near as good as Oly's when it debuted in the GX7 then it started evolving quickly over 2-3 gens...

That's exactly my point. The G9 at 6.5 stops and the A7RIV with 5.5, it shouldn't be such a big of a difference, but I bet the higher resolution sensor is more demanding.

I don't think it's a question of resolution, the M4/3 sensor is equivalent to an 80MP FF sensor so IBIS for it actually needs to be more precise (but again, it's moving a physically smaller and lighter sensor...). The CIPA ratings for IBIS are just as worthless as the battery ones though, I'm pretty sure everyone is gaming them so they're not very indicative of anything IMO.

We now have cameras rated for as much as 8 stops under perfectly ideal test conditions with a certain lens or a certain combo of IBIS+OIS, and even that doesn't seem to adequately characterize the real world edge cases...

My E-M5 III was rated for 6.5 stops and my E-M5 II was rated for 5 stops, but I felt like IBIS was pretty awesome on both and clearly better than on my A7R IV. Sony had only been working on IBIS for like 2-2.5 generations at that point, and surprise surprise the A7R V represents a significant improvement. I stopped paying attention to the CIPA ratings tho, reviews and user reports seemed more useful...

Hmm, makes sense. Oh well, so I guess that we'll have to stay with 1/FL for now. It's ok, I'm used to do that.

 

[ray_burnimage]

Got a great eBay deal for a 20-70mm f:4 in open box condition.

Now I need a body to go with it, but that might take a little bit longer.

So, for now, it'll be a just one lens deal. Or maybe I'll add the Viltrox 40mm f:2.5, being so cheap. But is definitely overwhelming the number of options available from so many different manufacturers. And I though MFT had a lot.

Wish me luck.

I’m late to the thread but wow you’ve had a ton of good suggestions already, well done everybody for being so helpful!

I don’t know much about M43, but did shoot with EM1.2 for a year before returning to FF, firstly with Nikon Z and now Sony. I think your choice of Sony is very wise.

Congratulations on picking up a copy of 20-70mm f4 G. That would absolutely be my suggestion as your primary lens for travel etc.

I do think the A7Riv is a good choice too as they are a great value used these days.

However, if you could find the extra funds, a used A7Rv would be a better long term “buy once” investment. Especially if you end up restarting your events and portraiture business.

I’ve owned both and the latter is a massive upgrade.

Things I especially appreciated with the A7Rv over the A7Riv:

1. Lossless compressed RAW.

2. Way better IBIS.

3. Way better AWB, leading to better colours SOOC. I think the dedicated external WB sensor plays a major role here.

4. The rear screen articulation and resolution.

5. Sublime EVF.

6. Full time DMF.

7. The newer menu system.

8. Significantly improved AF with the dedicated AI AF chip.

However, the A7Riv is still a great value choice if funds are limited.

--
Follow: https://www.instagram.com/ray_burnimage/

 

[James Stirling]

FWIW, the lens review sites I used/read when I only shot M4/3 weren't quite enough to cover my E mount interests... Cameralabs is still great but Gordon has slowed down a little and didn't always cover a lot of the 3rd party stuff. If you haven't discovered them already I'd suggest checking out Dustin Abbott's reviews (https://dustinabbott.net/photography-blog/) which are very much in the same vein as Gordon's, as well as PhillipReeve's reviews and guides (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/) though they're somewhat more focused on primes than zooms, their comparisons are second to none. Lenstip and Optical Limits are still good for hard data and bench tests, Gerald Undone also has solid video reviews.

A good set of recommendations there, I find Dustin's reviews both on YT and written are just about the best for real life use. Phillip Reeve lens coverage is excellent covering a huge amount of lenses including third party and vintage

For a quick overview and test I would also recommend Christopher Frost on YT

Christopher Frost

Howdy everyone - my name is Christopher Frost, and on this channel you will find over 900 standardised reviews of all kinds of different camera lenses, as well as other videos about cameras, photography, and occasional Christian videos, too. Enjoy! Are you wanting to get in touch? IMPORTANT...

www.youtube.com

 

[UncleVanya]

My m43 kit was far smaller than my Sony kits. It isn’t simply that the bodies are potentially smaller - the equivalent focal length is halved. This matters more as an aggregate for a bag than for each combo. It adds up. I used to carry a travel kit of two zooms and one prime and a body n a bag that would hardly hold my a6600 and a single zoom let alone my a7RV.

I only exited m43 to simply my sprawl. Three to four complete lens systems was too much.

There are tiny lenses for Sony for sure but if you picked an average for each system there's no way they are equal. As you say the focal length is halved, but also the lens mount is much smaller due to a smaller sensor but also that it's 4/3 which wastes less of an image circle (it's closer to square than 3/2). The result is less material, including glass needed for the smaller light path.

For example i have a Samyang 45 1.8 for my Sony, and an Olympus 45 1.8 for my EM1. The Oly lens is tiny in comparison and lighter, but since it's considerably shorter the center of gravity is closer to your hand also (less rotational force on your wrist).

Now with that said, the Samyang is INSANELY small and light for a fast FF nifty 50'ish lens and it's cheap and sharp so im not complaining but on average, a bigger light path is just physics, no way around it. . The good news is there are big and small lenses for every system so we have lots of choice.

Agreed. I am just trying to clearly articulate the difference isn’t between a body and a lens vs another body and another lens. It’s the entire system. If you carry more than one lens the differences add up more quickly than an initial glance at camera size might suggest.

I made the choice to jettison m43 fully aware of the delta. But even now I sometimes am wistful about the tiny kits I had access to. lol.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Got a great eBay deal for a 20-70mm f:4 in open box condition.

Now I need a body to go with it, but that might take a little bit longer.

So, for now, it'll be a just one lens deal. Or maybe I'll add the Viltrox 40mm f:2.5, being so cheap. But is definitely overwhelming the number of options available from so many different manufacturers. And I though MFT had a lot.

Wish me luck.

I’m late to the thread but wow you’ve had a ton of good suggestions already, well done everybody for being so helpful!

I don’t know much about M43, but did shoot with EM1.2 for a year before returning to FF, firstly with Nikon Z and now Sony. I think your choice of Sony is very wise.

Congratulations on picking up a copy of 20-70mm f4 G. That would absolutely be my suggestion as your primary lens for travel etc.

I do think the A7Riv is a good choice too as they are a great value used these days.

However, if you could find the extra funds, a used A7Rv would be a better long term “buy once” investment. Especially if you end up restarting your events and portraiture business.

I’ve owned both and the latter is a massive upgrade.

Things I especially appreciated with the A7Rv over the A7Riv:

1. Lossless compressed RAW.

2. Way better IBIS.

3. Way better AWB, leading to better colours SOOC. I think the dedicated external WB sensor plays a major role here.

4. The rear screen articulation and resolution.

5. Sublime EVF.

6. Full time DMF.

7. The newer menu system.

8. Significantly improved AF with the dedicated AI AF chip.

However, the A7Riv is still a great value choice if funds are limited.

Thanks. I know, I'd love to have the A7RV, although I just got a new job, and I'm recuperating from the 3 month hiatus. My plan is to sell most of my M43 gear and an M2 IPad Pro which I'm not using anymore and finance as much as I can for the new body, but reaching for the V is kind of steep right now. I might even go with a A7RIII for now, and save for the V by the end of the year. I still think is a good idea to have 2 bodies, just in case. Especially for paid jobs.

Still too soon. Once I figure out how to ship my gear to MPB and sell my iPad, I'll make the decision. But definitely the priority is IV, then III and finally the V, if possible.

 

[rashid7]

so I spent similar time w/ m4/3, and I'm glad to have moved over to Sony FF.

- don't neglect the Tamron zoom options, or the Samyang "Tiny" series of f1.8 primes!

(for daylight pix, the 170g kit 28-60 is remarkably sharp)

My fav two Sony lenses are 16-35f4G PZ (350g) and 20-70f4G

 

[rashid7]

FWIW, the lens review sites I used/read when I only shot M4/3 weren't quite enough to cover my E mount interests... Cameralabs is still great but Gordon has slowed down a little and didn't always cover a lot of the 3rd party stuff. If you haven't discovered them already I'd suggest checking out Dustin Abbott's reviews (https://dustinabbott.net/photography-blog/) which are very much in the same vein as Gordon's, as well as PhillipReeve's reviews and guides (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/) though they're somewhat more focused on primes than zooms, their comparisons are second to none. Lenstip and Optical Limits are still good for hard data and bench tests, Gerald Undone also has solid video reviews.

A good set of recommendations there, I find Dustin's reviews both on YT and written are just about the best for real life use. Phillip Reeve lens coverage is excellent covering a huge amount of lenses including third party and vintage

For a quick overview and test I would also recommend Christopher Frost on YT

https://www.youtube.com/@christopherfrost/videos

= good advice

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Got a great eBay deal for a 20-70mm f:4 in open box condition.

Now I need a body to go with it, but that might take a little bit longer.

So, for now, it'll be a just one lens deal. Or maybe I'll add the Viltrox 40mm f:2.5, being so cheap. But is definitely overwhelming the number of options available from so many different manufacturers. And I though MFT had a lot.

Wish me luck.

I’m late to the thread but wow you’ve had a ton of good suggestions already, well done everybody for being so helpful!

I don’t know much about M43, but did shoot with EM1.2 for a year before returning to FF, firstly with Nikon Z and now Sony. I think your choice of Sony is very wise.

Congratulations on picking up a copy of 20-70mm f4 G. That would absolutely be my suggestion as your primary lens for travel etc.

I do think the A7Riv is a good choice too as they are a great value used these days.

However, if you could find the extra funds, a used A7Rv would be a better long term “buy once” investment. Especially if you end up restarting your events and portraiture business.

I’ve owned both and the latter is a massive upgrade.

Things I especially appreciated with the A7Rv over the A7Riv:

1. Lossless compressed RAW.

2. Way better IBIS.

3. Way better AWB, leading to better colours SOOC. I think the dedicated external WB sensor plays a major role here.

4. The rear screen articulation and resolution.

5. Sublime EVF.

6. Full time DMF.

7. The newer menu system.

8. Significantly improved AF with the dedicated AI AF chip.

However, the A7Riv is still a great value choice if funds are limited.

Thanks. I know, I'd love to have the A7RV, although I just got a new job, and I'm recuperating from the 3 month hiatus. My plan is to sell most of my M43 gear and an M2 IPad Pro which I'm not using anymore and finance as much as I can for the new body, but reaching for the V is kind of steep right now. I might even go with a A7RIII for now, and save for the V by the end of the year. I still think is a good idea to have 2 bodies, just in case. Especially for paid jobs.

Still too soon. Once I figure out how to ship my gear to MPB and sell my iPad, I'll make the decision. But definitely the priority is IV, then III and finally the V, if possible.

If you're thinking of two bodies for work in the near future, and one of them will be an a7RV, you could start cheaper now by getting an a7IV as your future second body. I use an a7IV and a7RV side-by-side for event work, and they make a great pair - similar UI and controls, but different pixel counts.

I put my 35-150 on the gripped a7IV because I don't need crop mode for reach, and 33MP is just right for most of my work. I put my 20-40 on the a7RV and use crop mode a lot to keep file sizes down but also use the full 61MP when it matters (e.g. large group shots). With an 85 on the a7IV and a 135 on the a7RV, I don't need crop mode for the former but have it available for 200mm EFL with the latter. Or, if I don't need more than 85 from the a7IV, I'll put a 35 on the a7RV and have the option to crop to 50.

 

[xGR86x]

My m43 kit was far smaller than my Sony kits. It isn’t simply that the bodies are potentially smaller - the equivalent focal length is halved. This matters more as an aggregate for a bag than for each combo. It adds up. I used to carry a travel kit of two zooms and one prime and a body n a bag that would hardly hold my a6600 and a single zoom let alone my a7RV.

I only exited m43 to simply my sprawl. Three to four complete lens systems was too much.

There are tiny lenses for Sony for sure but if you picked an average for each system there's no way they are equal. As you say the focal length is halved, but also the lens mount is much smaller due to a smaller sensor but also that it's 4/3 which wastes less of an image circle (it's closer to square than 3/2). The result is less material, including glass needed for the smaller light path.

For example i have a Samyang 45 1.8 for my Sony, and an Olympus 45 1.8 for my EM1. The Oly lens is tiny in comparison and lighter, but since it's considerably shorter the center of gravity is closer to your hand also (less rotational force on your wrist).

I'm not sure cherry picking examples helps anything, specially if you're not even comparing equivalent FLs & f-stops... How about the Samyang 75/1.8 vs the Oly 75/1.8? Sony 24/2.8 vs Oly 12/2? Etc etc.

That was an example simply to show how two non IS lenses of the same F stop and FL, when small size is prioritized, have VERY different measurements especially at the mount ends, which is of course due to the light paths being vastly different sizes. I don't know why this is an issue at all, the MFT sensor is roughly 1/4 the size of FF, how could the FF lenses possibly be smaller even at equiv FOV and aperture?

Some FF lenses are smaller than some MFT lenses but the average is still in favor of a smaller sensor. With that said Sony's smaller'ish FF mount helps reduce their size a bit and they have focused on making small stuff (and 3rd party) so that's helped close the gap a little but the gap is still there.

 

[UncleVanya]

so I spent similar time w/ m4/3, and I'm glad to have moved over to Sony FF.

• don't neglect the Tamron zoom options, or the Samyang "Tiny" series of f1.8 primes!

(for daylight pix, the 170g kit 28-60 is remarkably sharp)

My fav two Sony lenses are 16-35f4G PZ (350g) and 20-70f4G

No regrets. I shoot things that the ff sensor doe give more options for.

But for some travel I really liked the m43 kit. I now use an rx100 vi as my really light and simple option.

 

[ahaslett]

so I spent similar time w/ m4/3, and I'm glad to have moved over to Sony FF.

• don't neglect the Tamron zoom options, or the Samyang "Tiny" series of f1.8 primes!

(for daylight pix, the 170g kit 28-60 is remarkably sharp)

My fav two Sony lenses are 16-35f4G PZ (350g) and 20-70f4G

No regrets. I shoot things that the ff sensor doe give more options for.

But for some travel I really liked the m43 kit. I now use an rx100 vi as my really light and simple option.

I use a GM1 for tiny, an OM5 for small, and an OM1 for fisheye to 300mm FF equivalent, although I do have a 300/4.

The A7CR and 20-70/4 covers a lot of territory in good light.

A

 

[Impulses]

My m43 kit was far smaller than my Sony kits. It isn’t simply that the bodies are potentially smaller - the equivalent focal length is halved. This matters more as an aggregate for a bag than for each combo. It adds up. I used to carry a travel kit of two zooms and one prime and a body n a bag that would hardly hold my a6600 and a single zoom let alone my a7RV.

I only exited m43 to simply my sprawl. Three to four complete lens systems was too much.

There are tiny lenses for Sony for sure but if you picked an average for each system there's no way they are equal. As you say the focal length is halved, but also the lens mount is much smaller due to a smaller sensor but also that it's 4/3 which wastes less of an image circle (it's closer to square than 3/2). The result is less material, including glass needed for the smaller light path.

For example i have a Samyang 45 1.8 for my Sony, and an Olympus 45 1.8 for my EM1. The Oly lens is tiny in comparison and lighter, but since it's considerably shorter the center of gravity is closer to your hand also (less rotational force on your wrist).

I'm not sure cherry picking examples helps anything, specially if you're not even comparing equivalent FLs & f-stops... How about the Samyang 75/1.8 vs the Oly 75/1.8? Sony 24/2.8 vs Oly 12/2? Etc etc.

That was an example simply to show how two non IS lenses of the same F stop and FL, when small size is prioritized, have VERY different measurements especially at the mount ends, which is of course due to the light paths being vastly different sizes.

Like I said, it's a cherry picked example. What about the example I gave of two identically sized 75mm for both formats? (the FF one is lighter to boot!) Mind you it's also a cherry picked example, but the point is neither one is a rule that can be applied across the board.

I don't know why this is an issue at all, the MFT sensor is roughly 1/4 the size of FF, how could the FF lenses possibly be smaller even at equiv FOV and aperture?

And yet, often they are! No lens makes complete use of the imaging circle, specially at longer FLs, so that tends to be less important than the more basic parameters of FL, aperture, and basic build quality. You're disassembling your own argument, specially the second you invoked equivalent aperture, I own half a dozen FF lenses that are smaller and/or lighter than a truly equivalent M4/3 lens.

Some FF lenses are smaller than some MFT lenses but the average is still in favor of a smaller sensor.

Is it? Start counting, I'll wait. I'd argue that the average for primes from UWA thru normal actually skews in FF's favor, for tele primes it might skews in M4/3's favor but there's far fewer of those and there's still instances where it favors FF (500/5.6 DN vs 300/4 Pro!?)... Looking at UWA zooms things skew even harder in favor of FF if you're gonna go by direct equivalency.

It's not until you start looking at normal zooms, super zooms, and tele zooms that the overall size of lenses heavily favors M4/3, but then you're usually not talking about direct equivalents either because those M4/3 lenses are at best constant f5.6 equivalents and often slow down to f8 or f11 equivalent, there's few FF zooms like that and no premium ones.

With that said Sony's smaller'ish FF mount helps reduce their size a bit and they have focused on making small stuff (and 3rd party) so that's helped close the gap a little but the gap is still there.

It's really not about the mount size, this has been debunked quite a bit... It's definitely mostly about design intent, M4/3 used to have a lead in that regard a decade ago, then the system slowed down. Look at the size/weight of the PL8-18, 7-14 Pro, or 8-25 Pro... They're no smaller (often heavier/larger) than some of the best FF zooms that are still faster by equivalence, eg 16-35/4 G, 17-28/2.8, 17-50/4, etc.

Look at where APS-C has ended up with the 10-20/4 G and the 10-18/2.8 DN... Those didn't exist when I was shooting M4/3, but they do now and they put something like the 9-18 Oly to shame by being wider, sharper, and faster.

Outside of the 20/1.7, the 75/1.8 and maybe a couple other primes (I still own those two) I can find a FF prime that matches the size and FL of most other popular M4/3 primes, and they often have an equivalent speed advantage while doing so without being any pricier. M4/3's main portability advantage has been reduced to normal zooms, super zooms, and teles; and only because there's few direct aperture equivalents.

So there's no FF superzoom as small as the 14-140, but Pana's own 28-200 on L mount comes pretty close (and the cropping leeway of high res bodies makes up the reach difference)... Something like the 28-200 is the same size as the 12-100 Pro and faster/cheaper though. There's no FF tele zooms as small as the smallest M4/3 options (I still think the 35-100/2.8 & 40-150/4 are pretty special) but something like the Canon RF 100-400 F5.6-8 comes pretty close to a M4/3 xx-300.

There's definitely no f4 zooms as small as the 12-35/2.8 or the 12-45/4, but then those are equivalent to f5.8 & f8 so when it comes to these kinda zooms in general the systems just diverge into different shooting envelopes. When they overlap though, things are very very close and the imaging circle doesn't really make M4/3 lenses much smaller, if anything the crop factor makes wides and UWAs more challenging.

 

[Impulses]

My m43 kit was far smaller than my Sony kits. It isn’t simply that the bodies are potentially smaller - the equivalent focal length is halved. This matters more as an aggregate for a bag than for each combo. It adds up. I used to carry a travel kit of two zooms and one prime and a body n a bag that would hardly hold my a6600 and a single zoom let alone my a7RV.

I only exited m43 to simply my sprawl. Three to four complete lens systems was too much.

There are tiny lenses for Sony for sure but if you picked an average for each system there's no way they are equal. As you say the focal length is halved, but also the lens mount is much smaller due to a smaller sensor but also that it's 4/3 which wastes less of an image circle (it's closer to square than 3/2). The result is less material, including glass needed for the smaller light path.

For example i have a Samyang 45 1.8 for my Sony, and an Olympus 45 1.8 for my EM1. The Oly lens is tiny in comparison and lighter, but since it's considerably shorter the center of gravity is closer to your hand also (less rotational force on your wrist).

Now with that said, the Samyang is INSANELY small and light for a fast FF nifty 50'ish lens and it's cheap and sharp so im not complaining but on average, a bigger light path is just physics, no way around it. . The good news is there are big and small lenses for every system so we have lots of choice.

Agreed. I am just trying to clearly articulate the difference isn’t between a body and a lens vs another body and another lens. It’s the entire system. If you carry more than one lens the differences add up more quickly than an initial glance at camera size might suggest.

Depending on what you pick, if you're caring a normal/super zoom and some tele zooms I'd agree. If you're carrying mostly primes or an UWA zoom I disagree, based on personal experience with both systems.

I made the choice to jettison m43 fully aware of the delta. But even now I sometimes am wistful about the tiny kits I had access to. lol.

I've kept some M4/3 gear, mostly for the Oly 75/1.8 (in combination with a tiny body) more than anything else, but if I wanted to assemble a tiny kit that included an UWA zoom and a long tele (>300mm) that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, I'd probably go APS-C tbh. 10-18/2.8 DN or 10-20/4 G plus 50-300 or 70-350 G, done. M4/3 has some nicer primes in some instances, and I do love primes, but when it comes to that you really don't sacrifice anything with FF until the aforementioned Oly.

 

[Impulses]

I might not make any sense, but you keep saying that the A7R IV IBIS will be much worse than the IBIS I have on my G9 or G95, but couldn't that be that FF sensors catch all kinds of small details, that the minor motion blur that goes unnoticed on a 4/3s 20MP sensor, on a 61MP FF sensor will not?

Pixel density is actually higher on the 20MP sensor though, if anything the smaller sensor probably just puts less of a toll on the IBIS mechanisms so maybe FF needs better mechanics to achieve similar results thru IBIS. Both M4/3 manufacturers also have a longer history in implementing IBIS, Pana's wasn't anywhere near as good as Oly's when it debuted in the GX7 then it started evolving quickly over 2-3 gens...

That's exactly my point. The G9 at 6.5 stops and the A7RIV with 5.5, it shouldn't be such a big of a difference, but I bet the higher resolution sensor is more demanding.

I don't think it's a question of resolution, the M4/3 sensor is equivalent to an 80MP FF sensor so IBIS for it actually needs to be more precise (but again, it's moving a physically smaller and lighter sensor...). The CIPA ratings for IBIS are just as worthless as the battery ones though, I'm pretty sure everyone is gaming them so they're not very indicative of anything IMO.

We now have cameras rated for as much as 8 stops under perfectly ideal test conditions with a certain lens or a certain combo of IBIS+OIS, and even that doesn't seem to adequately characterize the real world edge cases...

My E-M5 III was rated for 6.5 stops and my E-M5 II was rated for 5 stops, but I felt like IBIS was pretty awesome on both and clearly better than on my A7R IV. Sony had only been working on IBIS for like 2-2.5 generations at that point, and surprise surprise the A7R V represents a significant improvement. I stopped paying attention to the CIPA ratings tho, reviews and user reports seemed more useful...

Hmm, makes sense. Oh well, so I guess that we'll have to stay with 1/FL for now. It's ok, I'm used to do that.

 

[Impulses]

so I spent similar time w/ m4/3, and I'm glad to have moved over to Sony FF.

• don't neglect the Tamron zoom options, or the Samyang "Tiny" series of f1.8 primes!

(for daylight pix, the 170g kit 28-60 is remarkably sharp)

My fav two Sony lenses are 16-35f4G PZ (350g) and 20-70f4G

No regrets. I shoot things that the ff sensor doe give more options for.

But for some travel I really liked the m43 kit. I now use an rx100 vi as my really light and simple option.

I've rented an RX100 VII twice in the last year and change and will probably rent it again this summer, purely for concerts. My GX850 + 75/1.8 or 35-100/2.8 used to be my go-to for concerts, but venue rules have gotten so restrictive that any kinda ILC is often barred, and although I'm giving up some quality with the RX100 vs M4/3 + the better subject tracking more than makes up for it.

That's pretty much the only instance where I miss M4/3 tbh, that or having those same combos as a second body with a tele mounted (which I can still do and is part of why I've kept them). I had long given up my 9-18 so the only small M4/3 zoom I kinda miss is the slower 35-100 f4-5.6 (but a 75mm FF tele plus some cropping goes a long way), and I've found FF primes just as small as practically any of my other M4/3 ones.

A FF kit can be pretty tiny if you're not a stickler for zooms, I'm using the same size waist packs for my A7R IV & 2 primes as I used to for my OM-Ds, I could go smaller with the GX850 but there's no modern body replacement for that and both OM and Pana seem to have given up on that end of the market.

 

[ahaslett]

I might not make any sense, but you keep saying that the A7R IV IBIS will be much worse than the IBIS I have on my G9 or G95, but couldn't that be that FF sensors catch all kinds of small details, that the minor motion blur that goes unnoticed on a 4/3s 20MP sensor, on a 61MP FF sensor will not?

Pixel density is actually higher on the 20MP sensor though, if anything the smaller sensor probably just puts less of a toll on the IBIS mechanisms so maybe FF needs better mechanics to achieve similar results thru IBIS. Both M4/3 manufacturers also have a longer history in implementing IBIS, Pana's wasn't anywhere near as good as Oly's when it debuted in the GX7 then it started evolving quickly over 2-3 gens...

That's exactly my point. The G9 at 6.5 stops and the A7RIV with 5.5, it shouldn't be such a big of a difference, but I bet the higher resolution sensor is more demanding.

I don't think it's a question of resolution, the M4/3 sensor is equivalent to an 80MP FF sensor so IBIS for it actually needs to be more precise (but again, it's moving a physically smaller and lighter sensor...). The CIPA ratings for IBIS are just as worthless as the battery ones though, I'm pretty sure everyone is gaming them so they're not very indicative of anything IMO.

We now have cameras rated for as much as 8 stops under perfectly ideal test conditions with a certain lens or a certain combo of IBIS+OIS, and even that doesn't seem to adequately characterize the real world edge cases...

My E-M5 III was rated for 6.5 stops and my E-M5 II was rated for 5 stops, but I felt like IBIS was pretty awesome on both and clearly better than on my A7R IV. Sony had only been working on IBIS for like 2-2.5 generations at that point, and surprise surprise the A7R V represents a significant improvement. I stopped paying attention to the CIPA ratings tho, reviews and user reports seemed more useful...

Hmm, makes sense. Oh well, so I guess that we'll have to stay with 1/FL for now. It's ok, I'm used to do that.

Yeah, outside of edge cases it's not that big a drawback. With a M4/3 wide angle I would occasionally drag my exposure to 1-2s, and that was useful, but any meaningful long exposure work still required a tripod and I'm usually shooting faster wides on FF anyway (or if nothing else, better corrected ones at f1.4-1.8, whereas my M4/3 wides started at f4 equivalent and the 17/1.2 Pro tho much lighter wasn't much smaller than my 35GM).

A slower FF zoom is still about as fast as a small M4/3 prime, but then you're entering a subjective space where you're not comparing like for like... Lens choices aside, it's video where really good IBIS makes a more significant difference IMO, if you shoot a lot of video it might be worth keeping a M4/3 body around (until you have a Sony body with better IBIS)... Shaky good quality video from an A7R IV or any older body won't look as nice as much better stabilized video from the last few generations of M4/3 bodies.

Interior shots and outdoor night time ones are much easier with good IS. Shallow DoF is not your friend in many situations. Also, having a small but decent zoom is very handy sometimes.

It all depends what you shoot and how much stuff you can carry.

A

 

[Impulses]

Got a great eBay deal for a 20-70mm f:4 in open box condition.

Now I need a body to go with it, but that might take a little bit longer.

So, for now, it'll be a just one lens deal. Or maybe I'll add the Viltrox 40mm f:2.5, being so cheap. But is definitely overwhelming the number of options available from so many different manufacturers. And I though MFT had a lot.

Wish me luck.

I’m late to the thread but wow you’ve had a ton of good suggestions already, well done everybody for being so helpful!

I don’t know much about M43, but did shoot with EM1.2 for a year before returning to FF, firstly with Nikon Z and now Sony. I think your choice of Sony is very wise.

Congratulations on picking up a copy of 20-70mm f4 G. That would absolutely be my suggestion as your primary lens for travel etc.

I do think the A7Riv is a good choice too as they are a great value used these days.

However, if you could find the extra funds, a used A7Rv would be a better long term “buy once” investment. Especially if you end up restarting your events and portraiture business.

I’ve owned both and the latter is a massive upgrade.

Things I especially appreciated with the A7Rv over the A7Riv:

1. Lossless compressed RAW.

2. Way better IBIS.

3. Way better AWB, leading to better colours SOOC. I think the dedicated external WB sensor plays a major role here.

4. The rear screen articulation and resolution.

5. Sublime EVF.

6. Full time DMF.

7. The newer menu system.

8. Significantly improved AF with the dedicated AI AF chip.

However, the A7Riv is still a great value choice if funds are limited.

Those two things (bolded above by me) tempt me to upgrade all the time (from the Mk IV to the V)... I bought the IV in 2020 when the V wasn't around, for like $2,700 because the price gap vs the Mk III wasn't huge at the time and I thought the improvements were worth it (AF mainly, plus a couple interface/body things, and the matched card slots), but I definitely agree that the V is a much bigger jump ahead... The buffer on the V is much larger too and card clearing speed much faster.

I think a new V is still running well over 2x the price of a used IV though, new vs new the difference is $700 though, I'd be inclined to spend it myself. There's also focus bracketing on the V, which M4/3 bodies have had for ages. I think AF on the IV is already better than a lot of M4/3 bodies, but subject recognition (specially with animals) went up yet another notch on the V. I only use basic tracking on animals with my IV.

I'll add one thing that probably doesn't impact a lot of people but will impact anyone with myopia who needs to wear glasses/spectacles. The V (and all newer Sony bodies since the A1, I think) has a very obscure option to reduce viewfinder magnification, all it does is shrink it by a set amount over which you have no control. It's a godsend when wearing glasses though, I got to try it in person this year and that makes me wanna upgrade almost as much as better IBIS.

The EVF on my A7R IV is still pretty great by current standards, but I only really get to enjoy it when I'm wearing contact lenses. While wearing glasses I can never see all 4 corners, which is pretty annoying. I had similar issues (if not more, cause it was a polarized LCD) with my E-M5 II, the Mk III went to a deeper viewpoint which alleviated matters a little but didn't address it entirely, that option does.

EVF aside, the A7CR has a lot of the same improvements from the A7R V, and it's cheaper.

It makes a bunch of sacrifices you can (but may not want to) work around of, and one you can't. No joystick but the touchscreen UI is improved, I don't use mine much on the A7R IV outside of tripod work tbh. The A7CR also has a single UHS-II card slot and it's EFCS only with a 1/4000 mechanical cap so you need an ND around for fast lenses (to protect rendering vs EFCS >1/1000 and cause of the cap). Display is fully articulated but with no tilt-only option.

There's probably a few other drawbacks, but the one you can't work around of is the buffer, the A7CR's is half the size of the A7R IV's (30-something shots vs 60-something).

Word of warning Martin: if you plan to shoot bursts with the A7R IV and want max buffer depth, get ready to and set it to RAW only. JPEG processing is so slow on older Sony bodies that RAW+JPEG more than doubles buffer clearing times. Newer bodies have much better processors that have cleared this bottleneck, so it's only relevant on the Mk III bodies, the original A7C, the A7R IV, and the A9 (which does have a deeper buffer).

 

[Impulses]

Got a great eBay deal for a 20-70mm f:4 in open box condition.

Now I need a body to go with it, but that might take a little bit longer.

So, for now, it'll be a just one lens deal. Or maybe I'll add the Viltrox 40mm f:2.5, being so cheap. But is definitely overwhelming the number of options available from so many different manufacturers. And I though MFT had a lot.

Wish me luck.

I’m late to the thread but wow you’ve had a ton of good suggestions already, well done everybody for being so helpful!

I don’t know much about M43, but did shoot with EM1.2 for a year before returning to FF, firstly with Nikon Z and now Sony. I think your choice of Sony is very wise.

Congratulations on picking up a copy of 20-70mm f4 G. That would absolutely be my suggestion as your primary lens for travel etc.

I do think the A7Riv is a good choice too as they are a great value used these days.

However, if you could find the extra funds, a used A7Rv would be a better long term “buy once” investment. Especially if you end up restarting your events and portraiture business.

I’ve owned both and the latter is a massive upgrade.

Things I especially appreciated with the A7Rv over the A7Riv:

1. Lossless compressed RAW.

2. Way better IBIS.

3. Way better AWB, leading to better colours SOOC. I think the dedicated external WB sensor plays a major role here.

4. The rear screen articulation and resolution.

5. Sublime EVF.

6. Full time DMF.

7. The newer menu system.

8. Significantly improved AF with the dedicated AI AF chip.

However, the A7Riv is still a great value choice if funds are limited.

Thanks. I know, I'd love to have the A7RV, although I just got a new job, and I'm recuperating from the 3 month hiatus. My plan is to sell most of my M43 gear and an M2 IPad Pro which I'm not using anymore and finance as much as I can for the new body, but reaching for the V is kind of steep right now. I might even go with a A7RIII for now, and save for the V by the end of the year. I still think is a good idea to have 2 bodies, just in case. Especially for paid jobs.

Still too soon. Once I figure out how to ship my gear to MPB and sell my iPad, I'll make the decision. But definitely the priority is IV, then III and finally the V, if possible.

If you're thinking of two bodies for work in the near future, and one of them will be an a7RV, you could start cheaper now by getting an a7IV as your future second body. I use an a7IV and a7RV side-by-side for event work, and they make a great pair - similar UI and controls, but different pixel counts.

I put my 35-150 on the gripped a7IV because I don't need crop mode for reach, and 33MP is just right for most of my work. I put my 20-40 on the a7RV and use crop mode a lot to keep file sizes down but also use the full 61MP when it matters (e.g. large group shots). With an 85 on the a7IV and a 135 on the a7RV, I don't need crop mode for the former but have it available for 200mm EFL with the latter. Or, if I don't need more than 85 from the a7IV, I'll put a 35 on the a7RV and have the option to crop to 50.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Seller has very good ratings, didn't beautify the photos (green flag to me) and accepted my offer.

So, in a couple of weeks, and just before my trip to spend a week with my granddaughter, I'll have the A7 RIV and the 20-70. What a better moment to test it out.

Oh, I'm so excited.

 

[A74Me]

I might not make any sense, but you keep saying that the A7R IV IBIS will be much worse than the IBIS I have on my G9 or G95, but couldn't that be that FF sensors catch all kinds of small details, that the minor motion blur that goes unnoticed on a 4/3s 20MP sensor, on a 61MP FF sensor will not?

The only Sony cameras I have owned that comes close to the ibis of my em12 is the a7iv and a6700 in video mode using active stabilisation. No Sony camera comes close in stills shooting.