Sony a7 IV sample gallery (DPReview TV)

"Images look no better than other cameras on the market from different brands." - honestly, what did you expect? All modern cameras are capable of taking great looking photos.
Nowadays, it is not that much about the "best" picture quality (as all are capable), but more thinks like
- feature set
- lenses available
- AF system
- battery life
- video functionality
- ecosytem
- etc.

all of that cannot be seen in a single photo, no? :)

To the above list of factors other than image quality that would be important:
-durability
-ergonomics
-usability

It is true, Tony Northrup made a blind test and many nikon and canon users liked sony colors.. and that was before A7S-III and A-1. Color adjustment depends on the editor, in your case you are slow because this is how you work apparently. Nowadays all cameras have pretty spot on colors, not to mention that you work with raw files and you can make all the adjustments you want.

Color is subjective, always has been, no two people see the same color the same way, some people are dichromats, most people are trichromats and few are tetrachromats, even within those specific groups there are variations and researchers say women might have superior color vision to men.

https://www.bibalex.org/SCIplanet/en/Article/Details.aspx?id=10304

@AcerK -- if you believe Tony Northrup's test is meaningful you can believe anything. Tony has a technical background and should know better how to do tests, his presentation was a total embarrassment.

@papajohhny His blind test was simple and it made a good point, something that went over your thick head obviously. Everybody can do a test like this, regardless of your technical background whatever you mean by that. I'm pretty sure he has a point with a following of 1,5M viewers while you're a nobody. So the results of his blind test do show a good point and it shows that Canon/N ikon colors and their skin colors accuracy are a myth.. but you weren't smart enough to realize that on your own, obviously.

Law of diminishing returns

It's true. But what you don't know is how many keepers were among all taken shots, what shots they couldn't get at all due to poor AF, bad low light performance, the camera overheated, etc.

That was always the case from film emulsion to this day. My own view is the keeper rate is rarely in practice a significant issue for most applications.

To illustrate, I used to use zone focusing with film to great effect. I sometimes do today. There is seldom a time that I get a miss if I get the settings right. Failure would be me the photographer in this instance.

I have used most brands of digital cameras and in most formats. In general I find little to separate them in any respect. No question the Sony AF system is very good. But that is true for most recent cameras.
It’s bound to be the case that other brands catch up and future additional benefits become more and more marginal.
As others have commented , perhaps handling and ergonomics will become more important given the differences between brands is getting small enough not to matter.

Howaboutraw- I have kept it simple. For me the visual arts are about the content of the image and the quality of the file medium. I look at printed and view images on monitors at normal viewing distances. This is because people who consume digital and printed media view them in this way, indeed this is for me is the only worthwhile outcome.
Recent cameras are so good Irrespective of brand. If you do blind tests knowing which is which is at best a lucky guess with the above normal viewing conventions.
As for jpg engines , raw converters etc , they make a difference. For me that comes down to personal preference and taste.
Lenses etc also make a big difference too, but to consumers of visual media ? I’m not sure any one cares as a consumer. As photographers raw, jpg , and lenses etc are just choices we make toward an outcome we are seeking.

So true, i am one of those saying this all along, image quality is no longer the deciding factor for camera selection there days, not to mention a gallery with some out of camera JPEG images that can tell us anything about the camera, it's how the camera feel in my hand, how the overall performance vs the application I will be using it for the deciding factor, with that being said, I am not a huge fan of Sony body ergonomics so this is not for me, even it produces beautiful images.

Re 33mp, I hear you. My old computer hears you. I'm still enjoying my dslrs but my dodgy eyesight's struggling these days. Now to find a mirrorless camera that won't get in the way of shooting. It doesn't have to be too fancy, just dependable like my 2006 Corolla.

You forgot Pentax, how can we trust you? 😂

Papajohnny shows how silly these comments are when he replies without even checking #57

Mike, you don't get it...that pilot was turned to wax by having a Sony camera pointed at him :)

I shoot live music video and we have Nikon , Sony , Canon and Panasonic cameras. When color matching the cameras time and time again the Nikon imaging is my favorite as a whole . The colors just seem better or should I say more pleasing as a whole . The skin isn’t always the best but for that I cannot say any of the others are either . Over all the Nikon skin wins out to me except for it can be a touch red . The people seem to look the most natural.

@NatuRaOx2 -- agree, with all the AF deficiencies I still love Nikon most, and whenever can use it instead of Sony.

@papajohnny
Easy! When last you heard that you are being ignored? )))

In my own case, in 2021, image quality is no longer the deciding factor for buying a new camera, it's the shooting experience user experience that sells me a new camera.

@ Dan_168: I could use almost any camera system, but I really appreciate light and compact full frame cameras since I often carry the gear far away from the parked car.

@Magnar W
That's why I have a 7R IV when going hiking and backpacking and two canon 1-series and D850 when i am less than few miles from the car and looking forward to the Z9. in general speaking I am no a huge fan of the shooting experience I got from my 7R IV even it's already day and night better than the old 7R II, but it does have a place in my bag. not to mention when combined with those Voigtlander and Zeiss Loxia, they are so nice for hiking/backpacking landscape application.

Yes, light weight and compact in some situation and the comfort of holding and shooting with a big camera when weight is not a concern are both user/shooting experience.

I think what he means is. that no one can tell anything from any of these pictures that would characterize one camera from another. They all look good, they are all indistinguishable. This has probably been true for a hundred years.

100 years? I think Ansel Adams would've had a field day with today's tech... :P At the very least he would've saved a lot of time and hassle, but maybe the suffering is part of the process.

yeah. And I guess the same difference between a 33MP and a 45MP image.

So who needs to spend $3800 on 45MP?
Just buy a 33MP camera for $2500.

Too bad the R6 isn’t even 24MP. :)

Are YouTubers often more defocused than photographers? ;P

Heh, DPRTV can't win... When the video is posted early there's always a peanut gallery complaining about it and wanting a written review ASAP, and now it's "where's the video?".

Don’t forget “I told you they were already reviewing the camera!”

Hope so !!! That is the camera I want but this Sony is probably the I will get .
I have both Sony and Nikon F glass so I’m staying in both systems. $2500 is much easier to come up with and it will do 90% of what I need .

No wondering necessary.
I believe that's what A9 and A1 series is meant for.
This camera is fast enough for most use cases.

Slow compared to some other options in the market - sure, compared to the A1, that's quite slow. But then again every camera is slow compared to the A1.

Apparently the A1 will be slow compared to the Z9. But that's not really the point of this camera(a7iv) is it. To make comparisons of cameras costing almost 3 times as much.

@ darobin1: 10 fps is fast, even by today's standard.

BTN as far as we know the Z9 shoots at 20FPS.
Do you know different?

All we know are mostly rumors on some of the more insane specs. An there are some WILD rumors at this point. For example the latest, no mech shutter.

So this camera would have to be very fast if they did that along with all the other rumors we are hearing. At this point, an this close to release, those rumors tend to firm up.

Pretty sure if the camera could shoot faster than 20FPS the third teaser would have demonstrated that.

Anyway you said it was going to be faster. But it seems you have no idea.

Actually I said Apparently

"Apparently means seemingly so based on the appearance of things. It's a way of saying “it seems that” something is the case or is true"

So no, neither you nor I know for certain. But I will take bets that It will be. How about you?

If rumors turn out to be correct Z9 will do 20fps 16-bit in FF, and 120fps in DX mode (12/14-bit). It supposed to be able to record 8K60P 10-bit for 59.59 min/sec internal ProResRAW as for price it supposed to be set against the A1.

We will most likely know for sure in the upcoming week.

But that's not what this thread is about.
A7iv competes against camera's like R6 and Z6II. Not higher tier cameras.

There is nothing apparent that indicates it will do better than 20FPS.
As Francis says we will finally see soon enough.
By the way I have been shooting with an A1 since April while you continue to speculate on the specs.

Just sayin.

I don't know about Sony's compressed raw, but Nikon's compressed raw doesn't reduce image quality by any noticeable amount except in very specific situations, and then only by a tiny amount.

And those situations usually don't overlap with when you need full FPS.

Right

Actually you don't get 10 FPS unless you shoot Lossy Compresed.

It doesn't move the needle on speed compared to the A7 III, but you do get more res than with the faster 20-24MP 14fps options at $2-2.5K and the deepest buffer of all of them (or just the fastest write speed to card that can seemingly keep up with the burst rate).

If anything I think the biggest advantage to the R6 is the e-shutter readout speed which makes *that* usable in a lot of situations, whereas the A7 IV's is pretty limited (1/60 vs 1/15 no?).

A camera is not all about blistering fast AF.

I think this is a decent update for people who have had their A7II and A7III for long now and want a tad better.

I don't think this update is earth shattering, but still nice for those who are in the Sony eco system and want something better than they currently have.

@ Alam12: They say so, all those who feel the need to defend their own camera brand and are out of rational arguments. :-)

Fact is that if we (and all others) had to judge a blind test, the results would be all over the place. Those of us who participated would not even be able to explain why we/they could not pick the images from a certain/our/their beloved camera model or camera brand.

I've never had a significant issue with lossy RAWs on my A7R4, I mostly switch to uncompressed when doing stuff like astro or some other landscape work on a tripod out of an abundance of caution. It's still disappointing that some compression bottlenecks remain in Sony's pipeline mind you, but it's not a big deal IMO.

Portrait shooters don't need fast frame rates either, your model isn't gonna run away unless he/she isn't there by choice.

@Alam12
You overestimate the effect of lossy RAW. There is pretty much none. Noise, Resolution, DR, etc... are all unaffected.

An A7 IV compressed file still has vastly better IQ than a RP or Z5, which both have aging sensors.

Also the times you wan't speed you generally don't need the last bit of IQ. That's why the R5 is called a 20FPS camera and not a 8 FPS body, even though it drops far more IQ for that speed. All electronic shutter modes on that camera are 12bit regardless of speed and drop DR. And the 12 FPS mechanical is 13bit. Only 8FPS gives you 14 bit.

Even sports cameras have this. The A9 is 12bit at 20 FPS and compressed. It only offers full IQ at 12 FPS. The A1 only allows compressed RAW at 30FPS (but still 14bit) and needs to drop to 20 FPS for uncompressed.

A Z6 II is only 14 FPS with a single AF point in 12bit mode. For 14bit it drops to 10FPS but still omits live view. For live view it drops to 5.5FPS

So where is the alternative?