Sony a7R V sample gallery (DPReview TV)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr6&attr13_1=sony_a7rv&attr13_2=canon_eosr3&attr13_3=sony_a1&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&attr199_1=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.370836376241513&y=-1.021433302403157

R6 and R3 are as usual much better. Sony is lagging behind, they just can't make descent low light, they are years behind, even though Sony fans want to believe the contrary and get mad when told to look at the facts.Sony are mushy, lose the details, noisy why Canon are sharp and clean. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr6&attr13_1=sony_a7rv&attr13_2=canon_eosr3&attr13_3=sony_a1&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&attr199_1=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.22354621848739495&y=-0.8025951231743246

2 months ago*permalink

(unknown member)

OMG... here we go again.

Move window just an inch, from that blurry note to the cards, where some real details are, and see that Sonys are VERY noticeably better (hair, backs of the cards, anything):

2 months agopermalink

@vadims, comparing high isos in the ligthed area with the brighest light of the settings (sun vs bulb) only proves your ignorance. Sorry guy.

2 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

@JPM29

First, it was *you* who picked light ("sun vs bulb", as you call it) setting, not me.

Second, I examine areas where real details are, not lighter or darker ones.

Third, be polite. Calling someone "ignorant" does not invalidate facts. That's high school (at best...) talk.

Now let's step back, and think about what we're scrutinizing here: a well-lit (again, your choice) scene shot at ISO 25k. Is that something you'd do in real life? Yeah, didn't think so.

So what's the point of all this?

I shot FF Canons (plural) for quite some time, they were once undisputed leaders in IQ. If/when they leapfrog Sony, I will be the first to applaud them (I have zero brand loyally), but that day hasn't come yet.

2 months agopermalink

@vadims, ok, let's try to be as polite as possible, i may sometimes be a too blunt.
However,
1) what is the point to compare high iso in lighted areas ?
2) obviously more pixels in ligthed areas will find more details and what is the point if you have to pixel peep to see the difference ? Moreover is the number of pixel is you only metering, then why don't you buy a 200 mp cell phone ?

I don't buy a cell phone because I don't think that is point, that it's the way we can get better photos.
My loyalty to brands depends on my lenses, It's true. I have been VERY frustrated by Canon for lots of years, not now, I think they found the perfect sweet spot with the R6 and the R3. I don't know why some are running after the number of pixels, that was 15 years ago.

Anyways, up to you.

2 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

@JPM29

Well, I see no point in scrutinizing a well-lit scene shot at ISO 25K at all. But if we do it, I just look at how details are preserved.

The noise *per se* is never a problem. It only becomes problem when it destroys details -- you can easily remove noise, but you cannot restore details. So, it stands to reason to compare images (for IQ) based upon how much detail remains.

Mind you, I'm not cherry-picking those cards... Over the years, I just came to conclusion that if there's an IQ differentiator in the scene, it's them. I used face of the watch on old studio scene for the same purpose.

I quite agree with you on resolution in general; for me, personally, sweet spot is around 24Mp; I simply do not need more. That said, Sony manages to make 61Mp cameras that retain amazing details even at high ISOs; more than competition.

I understand you have different priorities; you want your blue sky be silky smooth, while I want those white cloud wisps retain details, that's all.

2 months agopermalink

@JPM29
"R6 and R3 are as usual much better. Sony is lagging behind, they just can't make descent low light, they are years behind, even though Sony fans want to believe the contrary and get mad when told to look at the facts."
First off you are comparing low resolution cameras to high resolution cameras in jpg and scaled to the same resolution, so your conclusions are highly questionable.
Secondly, 24MP is not the sweet spot for the future. While that is acceptable for the R6 at its price point, I do not think the R3 is priced well for its resolution. That is the one and only reason for which I do not own one. I will give you a simple example: every single image from an R3 would need to be upscaled substantially for my 8K TV.
I shoot sports with a 1DXIII, R5 and A1 and by far I prefer the higher resolution images even if at the cost of more grain.

2 months ago*permalink

@armandino
It is true that we don't shoot the same thing, so we don't need the same material.
Some question what is comparable but, whatever we do the test, the resolution, Jpeg, Raw, we get pretty much the same results as far as we shoot in low light, which is why the high iso is for.
I agree with vadims, the sweet spot is around 23 mp. However I don't know why so many here are so obsessed with details.
With my previous cams I had to discard a lot of photos because of noise or movement of the subjects (dancers in low light). With the R6 it quite never happens, it is just fantastic to shoot with it in ANY conditions.
The details ? I don't shoot to look at the photos in an 8k TV, and I have never seen a danser, a model, or any body complaining because there were missing details. The contrary is true though ! Lots of women hate to see details of the skin or hair that they don't like.
For me, cameras are done for difficult conditions, in good one nobody can see the difference.

2 months agopermalink

@JPM29
have you used a high resolution body for an extended use? Is like getting used watch a large TV. You go back to much lower resolution and it just does not look like you got enough. If you shoot dancers in low light (which I do a lot too) is priceless to to have generous cropping power.
What is your experience with using 40MP+ cameras? Seeing what you shoot with It does not look like a lot. Also, your glass does not seem to be up to the task for higher resolution sensors. My photos as displayed to clients on 8K TV and especially when shot in studio, details are eye popping and people enjoy that. This is a fact too. We are moving toward future, not the past and I do not see a future with less pixels, but more. I have a 1DXIII and I would buy an R6, just I would not invest in an R3, too much money for the resolution.

2 months agopermalink

@JPM29
I would like to add that, in general, because the higher resolution camera will record more details, even when you deliver to the client a lower resolution copy (my client galleries are at about 12 MP) the images are far more detailed and crisp when from a higher resolution sensor.

2 months agopermalink

nicolaiecostel

I'm not trying to troll or disturb anyone but evenmy old nikon D80 had better color reproduction

Terrible, flat colors, with pale and shifted yellows

2 months agopermalink

Maybe that's what the scene looked like and it is a true and accurate reproduction? You simply cannot judge these things without direct comparisons. There is no way knowing how your D80 would have handled these scenes.

2 months agopermalink

Fairlane

These are some of the least good pics I've seen in these galleries for a while.
Or is it just the Sony colours? Don't know but something is off..

2 months agopermalink

It isn't Sony colors cause Sony colors are as good as any in blinded tests.

2 months agopermalink

BITPhotoSpace

Yes - tis what you might describe as flat (aka lifeless) colours and it has nothing to do with the lighting

2 months agopermalink

The rolling drumstick is nice... :-P

2 months agopermalink

jackspra

Liked the photos.Great camera.

2 months agopermalink

Flat, lightless, lifeless, dead photos.. Very bad two dimensions feeling DR. Bad color rendering. There is no contrast. You have to work for days to process these photos and make them good. Those who can call these photos good, go get their eyes checked.

2 months agopermalink

I would agree but they would say we are trolls... So I'm quiet for the sake of peace.

2 months agopermalink

Agree, these need allot of editing to look good. Mistake to choose a flat jpeg profile and think the jpegs will work for everything.

2 months agopermalink

Paul JN

I am more interested in what comes straight out of camera.

2 months agopermalink

Also, look at the sky in the photos even at 100 iso there is unbelievable noise.

2 months agopermalink

If you take pictures of flat, lifeless subjects in poor lighting, this is exactly what the camera will give you - provided it faithfully reproduces the scene.

2 months agopermalink

Gkuzu: "Also, look at the sky in the photos even at 100 iso there is unbelievable noise."

Download #2 and view at 100% magnification pixel peeping. There is no noise whatsoever. What exactly are you seeing, I wonder?

2 months agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0641980724/sony-a7r-v-sample-gallery/5505667203

4Photos: look carefully, there is disturbing noise level in 100 iso

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3794590539/sony-a7r-v-production-sample-gallery/2897197928

2 months agopermalink

Maybe your and mine definition of "disturbing" are different. Much depends also on how much noise suppression was down during the RAW -> JPG conversion (either in camera or by the raw processor of choice).

2 months agopermalink

No matter what, noise is unacceptable at 100 ISO.

2 months agopermalink

BITPhotoSpace

No amount of post editing would fix the perception of the photographer of the shot and environment or a processing pipeline that jacks up yellows to camouflage the lack of tonality - and pls. don't quote dem D*O color depth values again

2 months agopermalink

But for a iso100 it's really not that good. Greenish colors is Sony look, we can fix that in post... But noise in those low iso modes is a problem of the high resolution, I guess.

2 months agopermalink

"No matter what, noise is unacceptable at 100 ISO."

No matter what film you use, or what digital sensor you use, there will always be SOME noise (or grain) even at the lowest ISO.

2 months agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a1-review?comment=4623135773

"Greenish colors is Sony look"

Where did you get that from? It's certainly not true.

2 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

@rawdinal

> Greenish colors is Sony look

How many times this has to be debunked, I wonder?..

Here's a link to comments under A1 review, where Canon user claimed A1 had green cast compared to R5 -- only to find out that it was Canon that had a tint (red), and Sony's white was *perfectly* white:

(the comment is on the first page, in reply to Bassman2003; writing this in case DPR opens up wrong page, which happens sometimes)

The "green cast" thing was super-easy to disprove, as it was a test scene, with some parts known to be white/gray.

Some people just wouldn't let it go, and repeat misinformation like parrots...

2 months agopermalink

Paul JN

There are two parts to this.

Firstly, no camera has 100% accurate auto white balance. Either the tint or temp or both will be out and this will vary from photo to photo. You can see this in some of the sample photos. Auto white balance is getting better but never 100% accurate.

The second part is that when white balance has been corrected the colours do differ between cameras. Going back 5-10 years, many people subjectively preferred Canon colours to Sony colours but neither were accurate. I think Canon's inaccuracies were kinder to skin tones. Today, those differences are minimal as all the manufacturers are getting colours quite true to life.

2 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

@Paul JN

> I think Canon's inaccuracies were kinder to skin tones.

I think so too.

Pretty much from the very beginning. I remember an image of some angler (by the river or sea... can't remember) taken with 1Ds by Michael Reichmann (LuLa). The image was warm and very pleasing... I bet if I examined it with color picker, I'd find red cast. But who cares? The image was very good. And all this "color science" talk is sooo long in the tooth...

2 months agopermalink

"And all this "color science" talk is sooo long in the tooth..." - Exactly!

And even more so, since 99.99% of all photos are viewed on uncalibrated screens the size of a credit card.

2 months agopermalink

@ 4Photos Your world turned upside down. Take a daytime photo with 100 iso, take a big print, and have a sky like mud. Like a joke. At 100 ISO, there is no noise in the sky, if it does, there is a problem with the sensor. Even in analog film, Ektachrome 100s don't produce that much grain.

2 months agopermalink

...second that. But some people are so prone to postprocessing that flat out of camera pictures with noise are normal. Dxo prime HD ultra super premium editionwill fix that later.

2 months ago*permalink

Also, look at this.. how can a camera give such flat photos even though angled lights are used in the studio. Unbelievable. It's as if a portrait was taken with a 400 mm lens, not an 85 mm lens.. only sony can do this..bravo sony..flat sony., Unbelievable Sony..
https://petapixel.com/2023/01/18/tips-for-studio-photography-using-the-sony-a7r-iv/

2 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

A clown-infested zoo... 😂😆😆

2 months agopermalink

phouphou

you can easily crop to 2xFL in the 240.9 MP photo, even 3x still ok.
We start to realize that hi-MP FF especially means one thing: A 24-70f2.8 turns into a 24-140f2.8-5.6 in post. Is incredible and pretty much destroys the reasons to pick a crop sensor camera.

2 months agopermalink

Need a tripod to do that and if it's windy you need a stable/heavy one. Also cropping afterwards is not great for composition. Files take up very much space. I don't think it's a great idea.

2 months agopermalink

...and don't forget, it's useless with moving subjects. So, apart from landscape or has no real life benefit.

2 months agopermalink

I bet, if you posted images taken with cameras reviewed here during the past 10 years and scrambled them all up, no one would be able to tell which is from which camera. Technology has matured to the point ...

2 months agopermalink

Magnar W

I agree with you, after doing a few real world tests with large format prints that could be inspected by other photographers at a close distance. If I had not marked the prints, I would quickly have lost the track of which print was from what camera myself.

2 months ago*permalink

Simonella

Sadly true. Wars have been waged for a lot less lol.

2 months agopermalink

zakaria

The color rendering is off. The pictures look flat no details.

2 months agopermalink

Not a fan of the colors in this gallery. A bit pale and sick like older panasonics. Probably not the cameras fault,

2 months agopermalink

Alex Hanin

Maybe the lighting (sport hall, winter light) is "pale and sick", and color rendering is actually fabulous.

2 months agopermalink

...would not explain the outdoor colors.

2 months agopermalink

Should not have choosen a flat profile for that lightning. A good camera should deliver good punch but without too much clipping. I don't know if this camera is capable of that.

2 months agopermalink

Of course the Sony is capable of giving "good punch without clipping", as is every other camera made in the past 10 years or so. And you know this perfectly well, ...

2 months ago*permalink

nando11

Una fotocamera di dieci anni fa produce immagini molto più belle. Sony sta girando la minestra riscaldata

2 months agopermalink

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth - there is no spoon.

2 months agopermalink

TJRG

Ok, nice, but I'll stick with the Linhof 8x10 and 5x7 for both Landscapes and portraits. For sports there are other options. So, all-in-all, yeah, they're good photos, but nothing all that special.

2 months ago*permalink

I guess that is true for most digital cameras on the market, isn't it? So what is exactly the value in your comment?

2 months agopermalink

A Owens

Totally , I thought my lawn looked much better when I used to cut it with nail scissors. Then my wife decided she wanted wild flowers instead of lawn and that looks great too. And I've got a life.

2 months agopermalink

Reilly Diefenbach

A lot of posters here have a lot more pressing issues than what level of detail the a7rV can provide.

2 months agopermalink

ilza

@TJRG: obviously, α7rIV–α7rV cannot match 8×10 without stacking.

On the other hand, my calculations show that to beat α7rV paired WITH BEST LENSES AVAILABLE, one would be forced to use 5×7 with significantly wider apertures than ƒ/32. And AFAIU, there is only a very limited number of scenarios where such wide apertures are feasible.

Do you know any side-by-side comparisons which show any kind of (technical) advantage of 5×7 with apertures ƒ/32 or darker?

2 months ago*permalink

River Photography

thank you for posting these of your daughter, i made the right choice buying the a74 for low light portraits. been waiting for a real life image to show up from the a7r5 for a comparison.

2 months ago*permalink

Imager of

Amazing how far image quality has come. These look amazing. Going to be tough to beat these for sure.

2 months agopermalink

Platinumkid

I cannot see here anything, that half-decent photographer wouldn't be able to do with the Mark III of the R series. Yes, I did see the 240MP shots. Pointless imo. Make a simple pano of 6 or even 4 and get better results.

2 months agopermalink

The iq really isn't that great!

2 months agopermalink

What was your expectation? Rv has the same sensor as Riv - which has a few more pixels than Riii and a little more noise at higher ISO, overall pretty similar.

The true strength of this camera (which make an upgrade worthwhile for me, coming from Riii) lie elsewhere.

2 months agopermalink

I was expecting the mind-boggling resolution the riv/rv promised, which supposedly would make up for the huge file sizes!

2 months agopermalink

From 8000 pixels horizontally (A7r4) to 9500 pixels horizontally (A7r5) is an increase by merely 18%. I wouldn't expect "mind boggling", in fact I wouldn't expect to even notice this in real life prints.

As for file sizes: The A7r5 offers several choices, this is great for event photographers, you need a fast turnaround time. For everyone else: just go pour yourself a cup of coffee, while the computer reads the SD card.

2 months agopermalink

I meant the riv and rv promised amazing resolution for those file sizes and for 60mp, but that is not the case.

2 months agopermalink

The resolution is what it is. 9504 x 6336 pixels. That's the resolution Sony "promised" and that's the resolution you get. Not sure what else you are expecting?

File size is no issue. Mass storage is cheap. I store all my Sony RAW files on external 1TB SSD drives connected to my M1 Mac Mini. Works sweet.

2 months agopermalink

This silly notion that storage is cheap is not always true!

2 months ago*permalink

joe173

I think most of the upgrade is in the focusing and AI aspects. The pixel shift won't do a lot except under specific circumstances, not an overall mode to use. I could see it being useful for digitizing film for instance where you want to get full color in all pixels, the way film does.

2 months agopermalink

"This silly notion that storage is cheap is not always true!"

Last I looked 2TB SSD costs a little over $100. How many RAW files does that fit? In my books, that's cheap (especially if you are using $4000 camera body with another $4000 in lenses likely.)

But if $100 is too much, you could get a regular external hard drive for backup for even less.

2 months agopermalink

In comparison to cameras and lenses, yes, but when you have cameras with 60mp files and pros taking thousands upon thousands of shots, that adds up quick.

2 months agopermalink

Even if you shoot "uncompressed raw" (which is more an amateur thing, than a pro thing, cause pros are interested in fast turnaround times and making money and good enough is good enough)..... but even if: At 100MB per file, a 2TB SSD will fit around 20,000 images. I am pretty sure, a professional, who is earning money from these, will have $100 in his budget to store these 20.000 images. Don't you think so?

2 months ago*permalink

And if you are into BIF and just got home with 2000 images from that flying eagle: do you really store all 2000 for eternity, or do you pick 10 winners or so and delete the rest?

2 months agopermalink

Inflation
Hyperinflation entered the chat...

2 months agopermalink

... and left the room quietly :)

2 months agopermalink

And came back BIG TIME....

2 months agopermalink

Matt

Couple of electronic shutter frames with 'curved' in motion objects. Obviously would have expect blurred objects given the shutter speeds. Would like to hear your take on them. Surprised other shots were not taken to show what can be done to eliminate the curving, ergo mechanical shutter, etc.

2 months agopermalink

Strobist

Matt,

The (funny) curved photographs is a cold-fact testimony that for silent shooting, this camera is an epic (and funny) fail reg. objects moving with moderate speed and up.

If silent and fast shooting is important - Sony and other manufacturers have other cameramodels to meet that need.

(My guess) There will probably be 10 more years before we have global shutter sensors with instant readout, that also dont impact DR negativily, so for now - pick your specific camera, for the specific requirements needed. (sometimes, rental still is king! :-)

BR Strobist

2 months ago*permalink

"that for silent shooting, this camera is an epic (and funny) fail"

The camera is about as fast as all previous Sony non-stacked cameras, competition like the Z7 II or S1R

It is not great for shooting but the camera also isn't crazy out of line here

2 months agopermalink

Strobist

Panter,

You cant seriously be defending this bent photographs as accaptable on any professional level - Im asuming your joking with me and that you also are laughing at the funny bent lines :-)

2 months ago*permalink

If you know my post history, you know that I sang the praises of stacked sensors for ages.

That said it is a test specifically designed to produce rolling shutter effect. Not necessarily real-world applications. The are quite a few people who enjoy silent shooting on their A7x 1/2/3 Nikon Z6/7 Panasonics etc... Yes it has some limitations and is not ideal. I just wanted to point out that it is not unexpected at all and most modern camera would "fail" this test

2 months agopermalink

Strobist

Panter,

I hear you - Fair enogh.

Still good work from C&J to point out to potentail buyers, the caveats on their reviews.

2 months agopermalink

Definetly

If this camera had a stacked sensor at that price my A9 would be on ebay Yesterday

2 months agopermalink

Malling

Strobist you get bend in that situation with all sub stacked in silent…

Yes its okay for a professional camera as there is different field of pro, the rule still applies that you pick the camera that fit use. It was stacked that made silent useful before introduction of stacked silent was and still isn’t useful for moving objects. If you use it regardless of this the flaws is on you not the camera, on none stacked it needs to be shot mechanical this is a good example of why that is so.

2 months agopermalink

Magnar W

@ Matt: This is where tech is today. Simply use EFCS or full mechanical shutter if you photograph fast movements or are panning fast moving subjects, or get one of the camera models with stacked sensor. The key is to use the gear within the specifications.

A few years ago full electronic shutter was not even an option ...

2 months ago*permalink

Matt

@MagnarW: agreed the only solution for this body is EFCS or go to mechanical shutter.

2 months agopermalink

Magnar W

@ Matt: Actually, full electronic shutter works just fine for ordinary subjects that are not moving fast.

I assume you never have used a Sony camera in this league for real world photography with full electronic shutter enabled.

For video, the readout speed is not a problem for general real world use, like reportage and documentary stuff, weddings and other social events, etc.

2 months ago*permalink

MikeRan

Professionals know their equipment and the limitations.

This is clearly a camera designed to be used with the mechanical shutter. It has an electronic shutter that’s useful in certain situations and the pro will know when that is especially after gaining some experience with the camera. Shooting fast action doesn’t qualify.

Again. This is a mechanical shutter camera, as are practically all cameras that lack stacked sensors. Nothing to see here, really..

2 months agopermalink

This is why the a1 is still my favorite, no rolling shutter or shutter wear.

2 months agopermalink

Eric Hensel

Hawkypuck -it's also *$3k* more than the RV. There's more to camera-wear than the shutter, BTW.

2 months agopermalink

Buttons?

2 months agopermalink

Pixel shift with or without motion correction. Both appear to be a joke; indistinguishable mush in the background, at 100%. I'm assuming focus was on the background.

2 months ago*permalink

Focus seems to be on the foreground trees, and they are surprisingly sharp for 240MP

2 months agopermalink

OK panther fan; I'll look again.

2 months agopermalink

So I did. Sorry; still not impressed. No appreciable difference between with or without correction. I should've known focus would be at something where movement would actually be visible; my bad.

I was processing some recent landscape images yesterday taken with my D850 (and particularly the 24/1.4G, mainly at f4.0, 64 ISO) and was amazed at the detail still visible at 100%, 200%, 400%...

Oh well.

2 months agopermalink

Well, you have to be aware of the total magnification you are looking at with a 240MP image even at 100%.

I guess the 4shot 60MP mode is the happy middle ground between the 16shot 240MP and the regular mode. 240MP is just too much for most lenses (or DOF without focus stacking). But digilloyd has some comparisons where even that 4shot 60MP mode clearly outresolves even the 100MP GFX system. And that with multiple different lenses

"No appreciable difference between with or without correction."

Then you haven't looked closely at all. All the water artefacting is gone visible all over the frame, but especially at the moving ice

2 months ago*permalink

kristof93

Don't worry, your d850 and 24mm doesn't resolve more detail than the Sony. Quite the opposite, especially in pixel shift.

2 months agopermalink

Kristof: I just comment on what I'm looking at, ok?

2 months agopermalink

To get on the same page, what I am talking about:
https://ibb.co/9sZgHLB

2 months agopermalink

Panther fan: But the DETAIL, what it's all about, hasn't appreciably improved where according to you focus was laid. And, gruesome colour artifacts remain.

2 months agopermalink

@Michiel953
Not sure those color artifacts are not just normal color noise (easy to deal with)

Also not sure why you think the detail should noticeably change between the shots the better detail can be had because of the better positioning of the IBIS unit in the A7R V vs the A7R IV. But that's benefiting both shots

2 months agopermalink

@panther fan: Yes, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the colour artifacts, as I was commenting on the much touted pixel shift and motion correction gimmicks.

As I said before, not impressed with the pixel shift, and certainly not impressed with the motion correction.

And: "moving ice"? That's a new one to me ;-)!

2 months ago*permalink

The job of the motion correction is to give the detail of the regular version without the motion artifacts

And it seems to do exactly that. Or do you see motion artifacts left?

2 months agopermalink

panther fan: I don't see any (appreciable) difference, ok? Maybe it's the shot that's unsuitable to prove that point.

2 months agopermalink

Did you look at the link i posted in full res. If you can't see the removed artifacts i really don't know what you are looking at

2 months agopermalink

panther fan: Yes, that's why I gave it a "thank you" like. I'm not looking so much at artifacts, removed or not, I'm looking at improved detail, caused by pixel shift and by motion correction, in that order. I don't see much of that.

2 months agopermalink

The static parts don't lack detail due to motion to begin with. That's as good as it's going to get

2 months agopermalink

@Michiel953
definitely not for most applications. I have used the A7RIV pixel shift for paint reproductions and the result I stunning and far superior than a single shot. So it is worth it for where it works.

2 months agopermalink

Liquid Light

@panther fan: My impression is that motion corrected pixelshift may remove motion related artifacts, but does soften detail in static areas. I just overlayed your comparison as well as the two images uploaded by dpreview, and the result seems quite obvious to my eyes.

It is still more resolution compared to 60mp, but motion correction appears to influence resolution in moving areas positively, in static areas negatively.

I´m wondering what would happen if 4 uncorrected pixelshift files (meaning 4 x 16 = 4 x 240mp files) are stacked in PS, turned into a smart object and merged using either arithmetic middle or median as stack mode. Shouldn´t this remove some of the artifacts without sacrificing sharpness and detail?! I´m thinking particularly of areas where artifacts are due to changing light or only slight motion.

2 months agopermalink

joe173

This is a new(ish) technology. It will get better. Consider the background blur feature in cell phones. It used to be bad, but now is halfway decent. And right now it is the worst it will be. Moving forward, these little modes, right now are more of a gimmick today, will begin to really be usable.

2 months agopermalink

Satyaa

Great improvements to an already good camera. What impressed me were all the new features added from IV to V.

Image quality wise, I can't tell the difference from the A7R IV, or even A7 IV. May be it takes a special monitor and special glasses for me to see that difference.

2 months agopermalink