Sony a7R IV review

Sony tough cards

Way better build quality vs San Disk junk.

Thicker materials, no cheap side lock, no cheap plastic ribbs, greater temperature resistance, less likely to produce hear when reading and writing.

@thematic. Well, so far I've never encountered any problems with Sandisk cards. Not in freezing cold and not in sweltering tropical heat. So, to me Sandisk has been perfect. No junk experiences here.

Flash memory cards are very widely pirated. Recommend you use a high quality, dedicated vendor such as B&H. Amazon and eBay sell a lot of pirated products; their supply chain is a patchwork of third-party vendors competing for the lowest sale price. Not saying Amazon is bad to buy from, but there are items which they are a poor choice for, and memory cards is one.

That said, I suppose its possible that a lens profile is automatically processed by the camera, which would avoid changing aperture regardless of the setting, if the lens exhibited focus shift. Just don't know. This is what I was trying to get at when I first asked this question. Was hoping the dpreview folks might have info on this.

Well, to each his own,... but for me, and I suspect for many others, I'd be an idiot to avoid using my Batis on the A7RIV. It's a great lens ! I'll just need to be careful to ensure I don't accidentaly get bit by focus shift. (And, it's not just me that thinks this is a great lens - check out the optical limits review of the Batis, for example.)

MattiD80: I had the 70-200 mm f:4 lens, a really nice one. But I skipped it for the GM 100-400 and have never looked back. I also added the 1.4x TC for even more reach. For action photo I mostly use ISO ranging from 800 to 6400 to get motion stopping shutter speed (exceptions for panning).

Of course you don’t..

@Viggo

Yes, it's quite incredible:- the better Sony's cameras get the more biased DPReview becomes...

It's been a problem since the invention of photography, but so few people of nowadays have gotten an up-close look at large format photography that they don't know what to look for.
If you need the acuity, the solution now is the same as the solution in the 1800s careful focusing with the screen on the back of the camera and a tripod. You don't need a dark cloth anymore, you can use something like a Hoodman loupe.

@verstovsky You wanna buy my A7RIII? Looks new, less than 1200 photos taken :D

I think it's better to buy a cheap FF camera that an expensive APSC one...

@mart1234

Although there is a lot of communication around the 61Mpx, the more I read review and first owners comments, the hink this *not* the main improvement.

It's more about usability and shooting experience: better AF system overall (still and video), faster performances, better EVF (120fps possible *or* very high res.), deeper and diffrently shaped grip, better weather sealing, revamped buttons, etc.

Thank you Turbo, what is relevant is that there is no crop nor touch up, with barely any Lightroom adjustments so the picture is a neutral and as it gets. Make sure to download the original resolution image to appreciate the details :-)

Wow thanks for posting, I wanna see more pictures full ress of A7RIV online. Phenomal image quality lenses like sigma 105mm art, certainly keep up with 62mp. Now i want samples of the 24-70mm GM (lens i bought, in preparation of buying A7RIV.)

Hi Matti,
here are 2 pictures with the 35/1.2
https://www.flickr.com/gp/neatpicture/K2RHZe
https://www.flickr.com/gp/neatpicture/58g311

Nice shot. The level of detail on her face is quite wonderful without looking weird or overly scientific. Thanks

@Dan Goldman

Not as rushed as your comment.

45% more res on the sensor should have had better processing power to handle that, but I guess they prioritised the res to kill the competition. I get that, I would have done the same, but do not expect better results than R3. If you throw another 3.5K on this baby it has to be for the AF. If you buy it for the sensor you lose on it, so better buy your wife a used Rolex and you will be rewarded for years to come :) Btw you can still shoot her with your old superior R3 (sorry no pun intended)

Yeah right, but you should explain why you picked up this + 6 EV lift.
That is not very common case anyway.
I mean sure there is limit that a 3,76 micron photo site can do in terms of dynamics.
But also the fact that Sony α7R IV is a super high-res camera, you see these artifacts more easily, it becomes more like emphasized.
Definitely Sony α7R IV is the sharpest of those.

And ask yourself, do you really need more detailed pimples in your shots? ;-)

Photoshop has a great set of tools designed just for the purpose of removing those pimples and blems....it has been around for quite some time too. Are you doing any post processing on your portraits? If not, maybe you should consider it.

It's actually an issue when you do (high volume) weddings, so i heard.

So shoot your weddings with a low res camera like a cell phone. Why bother with a good camera to start with? Just use a big DSLR as a prop so your client will think they're getting their moneys worth.

Actually, weddings and events are probably not the best use case for the high res part of this camera. You'd be much better off with a 24mp camera like the A9 or A7III, or you could use this camera in APS-C mode at 26mp.

All cameras are toys

@edn80: you realise that your comment is at best stupid if you haaven’t at least handled all these cameras?

@edn80: you realise that your comment is at best stupid if you haven’t at least handled all these cameras?

@edn80 I don't think innovative must be a criteria to get a better score.... The best camera must get the best score...

@edn80: If you had handled all cameras then you wouldn't have made the statement. So I'm not assuming anything, you're an open page.

For this ample amount of resolution, no need to look further than the AF weave test samples and please tell us if this is not worthy of the gold award it deserves. Also tell us if the AF performance of the Panasonic's higher resolution FF and Fuji's MF GFX can even match that.

@armandino What is this? The Inquisition?

If you must know, I own the S1, I played with the S1H at an event with Matt Frazier and Brandon Cortez, I registered and handled the GFX 100 @ a the GFX FOTO CARE event on June 22nd in NYC, and handled the FP and A7RIV at B&H a few days ago.

Enough to be clear exactly about what products are being released here and I maintain-- out of the cameras mentioned, the A7RIV is the least impressive. It's just a retread of what we've seen many times before from Sony. Just a new iteration of the same with a few extra MPs for premium $$$.

Oh, and it's still no 4K60p and 8bit 4:2:0 in 2019, which alone makes it lesser than any of the cameras above, which an either do 10bit 4:2:2 or RAW.

@jay-A See above ^^^^ and oh, I don't care about upvotes. I have a life.

Yeah suuure, enough of a life to entertain this kind of silly internet discussion. Must be a full life indeed. Myself I'll leave it here.

Yes, I was thinking the same. GFX 100 is the camera to beat, which A7R IV already tried to and failed. GFX 100 is on a league of its own.

@Manzur Fahim
"GFX 100 is the camera to beat".
Ultimate IQ is generally speaking not the ultimate goal in photography and photographic tools. A camera should maximize your creative potential, and in that regard, sorry I disagree with both you and Greg. Do not get me wrong, the GFX is an amazing camera, I just wish Fuji invested in a larger sensor format rather than marginally larger than 35mm FF.

Fujifilm GFX 100 is a magnificent tool for studio, architecture, landscape or even portraits.
But, and this is a big but, that camera has no place in the wildlife and nature photography, where you really need fast auto focus and a very fast tracking speed.
Now I am not saying the 61 MP is enough for me. Because it isn't.
Printing large wall prints (paintings) is done better with more data in photos.
I did even consider GFX 100, for a tiny little while, but then I stopped being insane. It would mean giving up of all the closeups of those magnificent insects and all that "chasing" with my lens.

Harry, i agree with you. I doubt anyone will buy a GFX100 for BIF, wildlife or sports. And yes, you have to be nuts to buy one at ten grand anyway. I sure as Hell dont need it. But i did want it.
By the way, check out mads on the MF forum. He has posted some great wildlife shots w the GFX 100. But they are wider scenes.

I agree that the title of "camera to beat" is a bit silly, since every photographer is different and uses their camera in different ways. It's not the camera to beat for someone on a more limited budget, nor is it the camera to beat for ultimate IQ, nor the camera to beat for ultimate AF, it's not the ultimate camera for durability, it's not the ultimate camera for ergonomics, etc.

I get that it's a well rounded camera (at least for stills), but again that's assuming everyone uses all features equally. It's kind of like declaring one movie or one song the best, when you have to take into account genre and other factors.

BTW, re the Fuji GFX 100...someone mentioned macro shots...here is a nice writeup by someone who used it for incredible macro:
https://madsbjerke.com/2019/07/27/fujifilm-gfx-100-macro/

From what I have read and heard, the AF on the GFX 100 is pretty good for certain types of wildlife shots.

Man I love that Q2! I shot it almost every day on a 3 -week drive through Quebec and New England. I am doing post work on the DNG files now
and will post 100 Q2 images by this weekend. The Q2 is awesome. Love it love it love it. Lot of fun. Like shooting the X100F but 4 times more money plus OIS and weather sealing (oh, and the red dot). Love the fixed 28 (vs a 35). But like the GFX100 at 10 grand, you have to be a little nuts to spend 5 grand on that little fixed lens Leica beauty. But I'm nuts and really sort of borderline insane when it comes to high res camera gear these days. If I was sane I wouldn't have 25 grand in Fuji GFX and another 5 in the Q2 plus untold amount of Fuji APSC X gear. I would probably just have the alphasevenarefour and 5 lenses since I love peeping high res shots. But I sure do like that MF gear. Hey, it's all good stuff. This alpha looks incredible as an all-rounder and pretty small too.

You asked about IQ not files sizes therefore what Ed said.

The A9II will likely be better than the A7RIV image-quality wise, as the A7RIV is perhaps the noisiest A7 series camera to date. The A7RIV appears to have image quality akin to an A6500 at similar ISO levels. What's more, I believe the EVF on the A7RIV is worse than that of the A9/A7RIII, as it is laggy and looks more like a delayed TV screen image when looking through the viewfinder--at least that was my impression.

I can only speak of the R3 and A9, and the A9 is very good and forgiving. I cant find anything wrong with it, except lower resolution, but oh boy, it's quite a beast. In the most demanding scenarios, it's clear who the boss is, the A9 is a total sleeper, until you use it a bit. Feels like a video game at first, how can it be so fast AND accurate? You get the idea.

@TheOwl360 Your impression is wrong. A7R IV image quality is great, noise only visible when you are looking at 100% and the ISO level is over 800, but even then not as much, and comparable to A7R III which I also have. What you believe is wrong too, the EVF is of much higher quality, the resolution is now doubled and it looks very good. If you want completely blackout free EVF response then go for A9 or A9 II, but other than action shooting, the EVF is the best of all other A7 cameras.

I just got my A7RIV to workout the sidelines beside the A9 when the extra reach is needed. I hope the FE 200-600 will survive the 60MP endurance, because that will give me a 900mm equivalent (same resolution as A9). As long as there is decent light, which is often the case for outdoors college sports.

Exactly what Manzur Fahim wisely wrote.
This discussion would be a lot better without the trolls.
Theowl360's text is widely false and completely unnecessary.

With film I composed and took the shot and was done. When developed, the picture was perfect.

With current Canon, I compose and take the shot. The image file does not need post color processing and can be printed immediately.

For those who dwell deep in the technology world and enjoy pixel peeping, and spending hours at the PC, Sony is a good fit.

For someone like me who enjoys taking photo's, then downloading and producing great looking prints with zero post processing, my "old" technology Canon" is a great tool.

RoyGun, Ok if you say so.
However, I don't know how you take photos in the morning, on a bright sunny midday, at the evening sunset, near the ocean - if you don't adjust color temperature. Do you adjust white balance manually each time. Is that really simple?
Pro photographers that do nature photographing tend to take photos in variety of color temperatures, and we always must do some post editing.

However, it is not so cumbersome. The photos must be edited anyway.
You simply never manage to frame a photo perfectly when you chase moving butterfly's in the wind, never.
I always have to reframe the shot, make a lot of adjustments according to my liking.
For me the editing is the start point of creating art from the raw material, which is the RAW photos taken in the field.
And believe me, that is fun, it is satisfying. The art is what I'm looking for and what I need.
Sony α7R IV + FE 100-400 G Master are the tools to collect the raw material that has a great potential to do what I want.

@RoyGun,

No offense intended, but if you're not doing any post processing, your work cannot be anywhere near it's true potential. And that's coming from a Canon 5DmIII camera user, and 20 plus years of using canon gear. I think you're just settling for whatever the camera or film is giving you.

then I guess I was right in my first response. A 10 years old sensor is more than enough for such use. Why did you even bother buying a new camera? A 5DII would have done just fine for you for less than half the money.

And I wrote that page, so I'm also embarrassed. Thank you for pointing it out to us.

You are doing something wrong Ed if half the images are out of focus. I shoot both 75mm and 90mm on Leica M, and my hit rate is waaaaaaay higher than 50%, and I’m sure many other Leica photographer would agree. Just takes practice.

Rangefinder is more thought out process and timing, the A7 is a brute force type device, take a pick

Cerr,
Sometimes you don't know what is really best until you try it. Might I suggest you give an EVF a try? I felt as you did 7 years ago.

why you are even here?

@Mr_Win "Rangefinder is more thought out process and timing, the A7 is a brute force type device, take a pick"

M9 and A7r are two completely different cameras, and most likely you will have a different shooting experience. However, I think your description, "thought out" vs "brute force" is not about the camera but the photographer. You can certainly think through your process with an A7 camera and time your shots, etc. You can also brutishly use an M9. Like I said, I don't think it's the camera, it's the one using it.

As I was reminded when I used the D850 for some quick shooting today, it is an extremely capable AF system, but the absolute accuracy just isn't (and can't be, really) on par with on-sensor systems of mirrorless cameras. The secondary system will sometimes need calibration depending on which lenses you use, and of course, Eye AF is pretty stunning. And you notice very slight focus misses more easily at these types of resolutions.

When it comes to wildlife and bird photography, it is THE area where I, personally, still prefer cameras with an OVF.
I have used EVF for wildlife since the Sony A77 came out, and am using a Nikon D7500 now, plus a Sony a6400 for other purposes. While both have their advantages and disadvantages, the higher resolution and more natural rendring of the OVF often makes for a better tool for birds. In particular when the subject is small and moving around, possibly through foilage with challenging lighting, the OVF makes it easier to follow the subject. In terms of AF precision, the recent Sonys may be better than their DSLR equivalents, but to me, the OVF experience and rendring plays an important role when trying to keep up with relatively small subjects, while using a long lens.

Have a seat

The lack of lossless compressed RAW is a major weakness. Only reinforces the image of Sony being impractical.

@Stroker. I don’t care for star eating or not, at all.
I DO care about lossless compressed RAW. I really would like this on a high mp camera like the A7RIV!
And why a gold award? Well, just read the review and you should know why. Short conclusion: it deserves Gold. Nothing less.

"Sony still thinks it can continue to release cameras that eat stars and that have no lossless compressed RAW, forcing users to contend with +100MB raw files."

This camera is obviously not for you. If you care about the star eater issue so much (unsubstantiated claim, btw) you should be looking at a dedicated astro camera and astro software driving it. As far as 100 MB raw files, get over it or use APS-C mode.

@Stroker: Could you please show us how spatial filtering affects A7rIV real world astrophotography? Or A7rIII if you have not had time to test the latest high resolution model?

I'm not obsessed enough to count stars

Well, if anyone wanted to know why Sony can't be bothered to implement what should be *basic* functionality like lossless compressed RAW, they need look no farther than the comments here. Not only can your average consumer not be bothered to understand why someone might complain about these issues, they'll go out of their way to let Sony know they simply don't care.

Personally, I couldn't care less about WiFi. A fully functional RAW codec that doesn't, on occasion, visibly alter images is pretty basic functionality in comparison.

Lossless compressed Raw files are not really lossless. Sony's uncompressed Raw files contain far more usable data than so called 'lossless' Raw files. Check out this video, slightly dated, but still valid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsDI84-GIPM

If it's not truly lossless, it's not lossless, it's lossy. I know Sony's current compression is lossy, but that doesn't mean they can't implement a "truly lossless" compression. RAW data will be compressible unless it's a completely random mess.

Do you mean in the marquee section at the top of the page? That's where we show recent articles that have dropped down the front page. We do that for all brands and all reviews.

@henrikbengtson. Not this reader.

No worries. It just gets a bit depressing to have everything taken as damning proof of our apparent bias, while also fire-fighting comments outraged that we dare highlight the shortcomings in Sony's cameras (menus, poor Raw compression, etc).

"A second review post on the frontpage? The regular post was not enough? A new almost click-bait headline with a link back to the review was needed. And you ask why readers think you're Sony biased."

Interesting...there have been very few articles recently concerning Sony and a day or two after the review for one of their new camera's comes out you're complaining about too many articles? Wow. Not cool. You may be the one who is biased, not DPR.

They do it to fill space and give the impression that their news coverage has progressed when, in fact, it hasn't.

Not sure but I imagine it is the same in the USA and other countries as for me in the UK. The on-line newspapers often repeat links to entries even as many as five times on the one page. That and useless pop-ups insistently getting in the way make me sick to death.

Although I used to work in Information Technology, I hate a great deal about it. They seem intent on annoying us and obstructing us as much as they can. There is some genuinely useful stuff there, some of it is great but sorting the few gems from the overwhelming trash is tormenting.

It pains me to say this but DPR is guilty as hell but relatively saintly compared to many places on the web.

It's only a rating. Users have reported Z batteries shooting 1800+ images per charge.

@Ramjager: That battery life indication is only the standardized CIPA rating, and depends heavily on the use, including video. You can shoot over 2000 shots with no problem if you don't too often review your shots. Acutally 670 frames for a MILC is an excellent rating.

Mechanical SLRs didn't need a battery at all. Nevertheless, pretty much everybody upgraded to autofocus cameras even though they all needed expensive lithium batteries that seemed to last just a few rolls.

Sorry but you are not comparing DSLR reality to DSLM reality but CIPA standard to your DSLR experience.
We`ve shot about 8.500 photos with a Sony A7III in a BIF session on the north sea near Bempton Cliffs in England last year needing only one battery change. 1 was totally empty the second still nearly half full !
You might agree that this is just a little more than the 700 frames stated by CIPA standards for the A7III.
My friend shooting with his A9 at this event approx. 10.000 photos did not exhaust the second battery either !
So +4000 pictures per battery might be an extreme shooting situation - but it is possible !

@toughluck. Right. I remember my Nikon FM2. Liked it a lot! Still prefer my A7RIV at the moment .

If battery life is important to you then use a DSLR

DSLRs are still the more practical workhorses of the camera world. That’s why most professionals are sticking with them.

@D7000ShooterUK. I like your advice. Simple and straightforward.

90D has 1,300 shots CIPA rating when using the OVF but only 450 when using the rear LCD. That tells you that you cannot compare DSLR with Mirrorless. The same exact camera takes 3 times less shots in one mode vs the other.

For comparison if you use the rear LCD in A7RIV you get 670 shots.

@Ramjager. Just did a quick calculation. When you did shoot about 6800 pictures in a day on one battery, you would be taking about 1 picture every 6.5 seconds (when your shooting day last 12 hours, so when it last 24 hours you took ever 13 seconds a picture. That is a lot!
So we have to agree that you used a lot of bursts. When i use My A6000 with the tiny FW50 batter (rated at 360 CIPA shots) I can easily get 1500 shots on one battery charge (did it several times). So when we set that to the modern FF cameras, we can expect that the 670 CIPA shots can get you about 3000 pictures. So your problem is not as large as you make it look here.
And when we look at ALL Canon FF cameras, their CIPA battery life is about 1300 shots or less. So according to your own ideas, you needed about 5-6 batteries. Maybe you should learn the difference between real life work and test numbers...

With S&Q mode you can create time lapse or high fps videos without any post processing. I don't know any details Pixel Shift and its processing pipeline.