It is, indeed.

Compare the bricks and the blue info signs on picture 13: to the right the image is clearly soft. The object distance is slightly larger (r), but f/8 with a 24mm lens should do better IMO

It appears to me that both sides of these photos are soft. The church shot in particular shows strong distortion on the left side (the people against the wall look like they are leaning sideways). Dustin Abbott in his review did note that the Sony FE 24mm F2.8 G does suffer from "massive barrel distortion" as he put it. The camera does a significant amount of correction to (try to) fix the distortion, but such corrections can lead to loss of image quality.

Abbott concludes his review by saying that while the Sony 24mm "G" has great build quality, optically it is surpassed by some of the cheaper third-party 24mm lenses. Once again we see the importance of being able to buy third-party lenses, and kudos to Sony for allowing and actively supporting them.

No its just not a very good sony lens

mikegt - I was aiming more for the wide/long pair of shots that Andy Westlake used to include at the beginning of his lens reviews. Not coincidentally, these shots were taken while waiting for him to finish work, so we could go for a beer.

I thought it'd be nice to get some shots from near the old office.

well that's what the announcement implies: if the software corrects for shake & movement, then you can take the pictures handheld....

I agree that’s the implication.

IBIS is not perfect. You can see movement at the pixel level for handheld shots, and even when used on a tripod. For best results you should turn IBIS off when a tripod is used, especially if you do the pixel shifting thing.

Frankly, I don't usually bother. It's something to do only if you want the ultimate resolution, and have the lens to match, and perhaps something to prove to yourself.

I agree with you and have been trying to figure out what it is. Definitely I prefer CCD to CMOS look, but that's not the whole story. That said I think this series looks great!

Have you changed your processing to adapt to the newer sensors?

Umm.. no.

I prefer image content over any hardly visible differences in color any time!

If people understood color perception, they would realize how silly this "color science" comparing process is, especially when using terms like good or pleasant or bad without arguments.

@ ChicagoRob: Could you describe this organic look og folor, and how it differ from (rendering from) digital or non-organic look? Would be helpful.

Bit rot. It's like wine...the older the better.

and what do you think of the actual IQ form the camera? I think it is the purpose of this samples gallery.....

Platinumkid:

Is there a new RX100 model out?

I'd pick the OM System OM-1 as a travel camera.

I travel a lot and have owned the a couple rx100s over the years as well as A7x cameras going back to the A7R. I always bring my A7x with me on trips. The rx100 I used to use when going out at night until handphones made it obsolete for that easy carry purpose…

You might be missing the point that the bloke works for a camera review outfit and saw an opportunity? My RX10/4 would easily be a more convenient camera for such a holiday but we're not here looking for the best travel camera!

Platinumkid:

You omitted that RB is visiting family in England; that's entirely different than traveling as light as possible.

I find it normal. You never saw tourists with DSLRs? People travelling abroad for vacations bring their best gear. In the case of the poster, I am pretty sure he took the opportunity of having the camera to keep working during his vacation and offer us this samples gallery. He should be commanded for that.

People travel with the best gear they have. The reason is pretty simple, the moment will never be the same the second time if they get a second time so they want the best keepsake they can afford. Sure some venues you can't bring ILCs but where you can, people will bring it.

I wouldn't suggest it as a travel camera under normal circumstances, but it was the camera I knew I'd be writing about as soon as my vacation ended, so it made sense to bring it along and start to familiarise myself with it.

@HowaboutRAW …. I used the first and second models of the RX100 for social occasions. Before the integrated viewfinder, it could fit in your jeans pocket. After the pop up viewfinder, no longer. But by then, my phones were taking images almost as good… IQ not critical for social shooting. Hope that explains….

Nah. When I travel, I want the A team not the C team.

I suppose there are two types of travel camera - the one you take on an expedition and the one for the quick escape. When I did a fairly epic 20,000 mile trip criss-crossing the centre of Australia, I took the best gear I could afford and plenty of it. Living and travelling in a car, there is room for it. When I'm away for a two day trip and have to fly, the RX10/4 is excellent (actually better than what I took around Australia in 2004 but that's progress). If it's a quick trip with no real chance for serious photography, my iPhone doesn't let me down much. A friend did his big O.E. years ago with nothing more than an Olympus mju and his photos were stunning.

There is a tendency for people to pigeonhole too much. Grabbing the camera you know and trust and lenses you are familiar with is not a bad idea for any sort of travel.

@janist74: If you'd understand the basics of photography, you'd well understand that it is not at all a question of screen size.

So the truth is: The vast majority will not be able to tell any differences even on big displays (65 inch upwards).

But then: The advertising guys from camera companies just LOVE your funny believing in pixelcounts.

You've got to be kidding.

Do the comparison, take a $500 phone and even a 7R2 out and show us, with full resolution raw images we can download and edit, that a phone camera file has the latitude, dynamic range, actual ability to resolve fine detail etc. to match the 7R2, let alone this new V.

@Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: just let it. KKnipser know eeeevrything about photography, so we should just sit an listen.
:)

@Knipser: This tells us a lot about yourself and nothing about the A7r5. Do you also have the habit to go on Porsche automobile website and tell everyone how much you love your bicycle? ....

If nothing else, you definitely have a thoughtfully chosen nickname.

You gonna tell people your Civic is better than F1 cars because you can actually drive it next?

Knipser has indeed a point here. The quality differences between dedicated cameras and smartphones are getting minimal in standard scenarios: Ca. 24-50mm range, acceptable lighting conditions, no harsh light. And this not only at screen size, but up to ca. A3+ prints. It is a known fact, that current high-end smartphones have a achieved a level of picture quality, which fulfills expectations of 95% of customers.

This does not mean, that the other 5% of enthusiasts and professionals will be able to shoot high-res landscapes, weddings and wildlife with an iPhone 14…

Even though the images were placed in a 4K timeline (video) the 7R4 (and 24GM) cropped images which were processed to match the Pixel were noticeably better (of course).

The Pixel is amazing, for a phone, but even in the best conditions it absolutely cannot match a 7R4 or 7R2 even which is an old body that can be had for $500-1000.

@f1point4andbethere
It's also pretty telling that they have no idea what they are talking about when they are reducing the only purpose of a high-resolution sensor down to prints and nothing else.

I like to make prints. They are more satisfying than quick glances at a screen. For most printing, 20 mega pixels is fine unless you need to crop a lot.

@CamFiasco:

"...the number of people actually NEED such high pixel count to make print you can count with one hand..."

Depends on what you are doing with your hand!

More seriously, now that many lensmakers are relying on software correction of lens flaws (such as high levels of barrel or pincushion distortion allowed to exist in order to improve other optical parameters or reduce lens size, weight, or cost), the very high pixel counts of cameras such as the A7R IV/V will reduce the resolution "damage" that software image correction can produce. Irrespective of lens flaws, the high pixel counts also benefit the blending necessary for panoramic stitching and focus stacking.

No one "needs" a camera. Period. I love high MP for its cropping capability. You don't? That's just fine with me - but don't kid yourself into thinking everyone is like you :)

Agreed, deep cropping on the 60mp for macro and wildlife is still rather amazing at times.

And? If everything in this world was sold strictly by what the build of materials tally up then there would be very little innovation to go around... Ultimately it's the market that sets the value, and tbh prices in the photography market have been far more stable than average.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/9545017500/why-have-cameras-and-lenses-become-so-expensive

Fiasco: if anyone could make a camera with the specs of the A7Rv for $400 like you claim, you could bet they would. It would sell like hot cakes.

Depends on what you mean by image quality. The resolution is identical between a7RV and a7RIV so yes, but the IQ has improved.

Better IBIS, better AWB, better processing should give better colours and IQ overall to the RAW files. New ultrasonic anti dust sensor cover means less dust on the sensor too (big problem from a7RIV).

Overall the aRV should have better IQ than aRIV

Its the same sensor with better AF, its same IQ with more keepers theoretically. Video definately better IQ wise if resolution is your idea of image quality, video is different beast.

I could hand hold a tack sharp 2 second exposure at 12mm on the 7R2. Don't know why you'd need more than 2 seconds hand held, that's ISO100 in moonlight and these cameras do great at ISO6400.

I've not been able to hand hold anything near that long with a less extreme WA on my A7R IV (say, a 20mm), and I found it useful occasionally on my M4/3 bodies to get some intentional blurring of moving elements, admittedly most of the time I did lean on it as a crutch for exposure purposes which I don't really need to do on the A7R IV.