No, I'm not really into bird/wildlife photography though I can 100% appreciate that cropping with a high res camera would definitely be a benefit if that's your thing.

I've created 40x60 prints from 24MP photos no problem but that's starting to push the limits. What happens if a client loves the 24MP photo but wants to create a 30x90 panoramic that requires cropping off a good chunk of megapixels? Quality isn't that great. With a 187MP file cropped to 1:3 you still have probably close to 100MP panoramic file which is plenty big for high quality 30x90 or way larger prints. But yeah, not sure how many people out there are like me creating huge prints.

@MrWalnuts - Well that's the thing, how many people ever print that big. I mean..I live in a big house, around 3000 sq ft and have a tonne of wall space and I can't see ever printing anything bigger than 24x36.

Aside from that...I still think you can print quite big from even 24Mp if the technique is there. I mean, like him or hate him Peter Lik made a career of selling huge, world class prints and a lot of those early works were shot on 35mm film. Modern 24MP sensors have more detail and DR than 35mm film.

@Clint Dunn I have both residential and business clients. While some homes need larger prints over 40x60, most are for businesses. I have a client where the lobby has a 40 foot wide panoramic of a city skyline of mine, No way a 24MP image would have worked. I have plenty of other clients where 24MP wouldn't cut it either. I like my A7RII but 42MP isn't enough nor is the A7RiV's 60MP. Which is why the S1R is an awesome tool for me right now.

“I think I would prefer a modern 24MP sensor with better noise performance and extended dynamic range over a high MP sensor.”

In current cameras, more pixels *is* a way to achieve more dynamic range. See: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64253207

Large Panoramas: Nobody is stopping you from taking multiple 24 Mpx shots and stitching them together to create a higher rez large print. I have a 2 Meter wide pano of a cave in Portugal on my wall.

@cxsparc This is what I've been doing for years and it's inefficient and error prone. So let's say I I'm taking multiple long exposures of a sunset beach scene of 30-60 seconds each. I'd need at least eight shots for a 100MP result. In that time, the waves are in different spots. The sun and clouds have moved. Lighting has changed. Lightroom photo merge tool isn't perfect so I then spend hours Photoshopping all of the problems. If I want more MP I'll need to take more photos which compounds the problems. Or I find that all of the problems are too time consuming, or not possible to fix, and I've wasted time and money.

Or, I can simply use the S1R to take one 187MP photo. I save myself 4-8 or more minutes so I can capture more photos of the sunset. Since I'll have almost none of the above mentioned problems to deal with in post processing, I can spend those hours of saved time processing more photos which results in increased sales for my business.

Which method sounds better to you?

@MrWalnuts: I have made huge prints (6' X 4') from 24mpix cameras, -a couple, even cropped to what I would guess to be about 18mpix. All were/are beautiful, with no loss of quality or resolution that I can discern. I strongly recommend to anyone who makes large-ish prints to try it at least once, if, for no other reason than to prove to themselves once and for all that it's entirely possible.
Cameras used were Fuji X-T2, and X-T3 (which is actually 26mpix.)

@William Loney Not debating it isn't possible especially because quality is subjective to the person viewing the print. If you're a hobbyist printing for your home, there is nothing to debate. If you're happy with the large print results using a 24MP photo, or even a phone photo, then that's really all that matters. And I'd agree, everyone should do testing themselves to form an opinion.

In many cases, my client's print lab is establishing the minimum requirements. If they say they need certain specifications and my photos don't meet them, then I risk losing that business. So I can either change my approach to meet client business needs or I can try to debate with the client and print lab to convince them their requirements are wrong. For my business, I choose to adapt to client needs.

@William Loney One thought to add about subjective quality, I had a residential client who ordered a 48x72 wood print. Photo was taken with a Canon 5DMii using an L lens. Love the camera and still have it but not one of Canon's best sensors especially for artistic editing. Client loved the print but commented they wished it had been a bit more detailed. I've had no problems using 20-ish MP photos up to 40x60. For prints above 40x60 is where client feedback starts getting a bit mixed where some clients love it and some really like it with some minor quality reservations. I've never had a client say they hate print quality or return a print for quality problems. But it's the grey area feedback and business client requirements that have caused me to default to going with the highest resolution camera I can justify so quality/resolution never comes into question.

@cxsparc Yes long exposure does reduce disparities between the photo set and makes it easier to edit. But it doesn't totally eliminate the problems. Using waves as an example.

Photo 1: Small wave crests in top third of photo and leaves a small wave line
Photo 2: Large wave crests in bottom middle and leaves a large wave line
Photos 3-12: Varying wave location, clouds moved, etc

Merging the first two makes a photo where there's an abrupt wave line at the top left and also the bottom right which looks totally unrealistic and is obvious two photos were merged. Trying to fix this to make it look natural requires a lot of Photoshop. Now, I can increase exposure time to a few minutes each so everything is totally blended but now we're talking about 30 minutes of shooting time. Everything in the beach scene will likely have changed dramatically which fixes one problem but creates others.

@cxsparc I owned a Sony a6000. Some of my best work came from a Sony NEX-7 and 18-200mm.Great cameras. Also still have a Sony A7Rii which is an exceptional tool.

My point is, what's possible versus what's efficient and more profitable? It's personal preference. If you prefer to stitch and have the time, there's nothing wrong with that. I just prefer to capture the scene quickly and move on because I'm normally traveling to a location for a limited amount of time and a small window of the best light.

@William Loney A bit of what you're saying comes into play but my situation would look more like this.

Lower Resolution Photo - Client loves photo. Print lab says doesn't meet requirements. I politely say I've created larger prints with lower res photos and it should be fine. Lab suggests creating small sample print for client to approve/reject. Lab creates sample. Client Director of Photography needs to review/approve print but is out for two weeks on vacation. Director is now back but catching up and review isn't priority. Director requests a larger sample. Print lab project manager is out sick for a few days so need to wait for another sample. Client found another photo they also like and want a sample of it. This is now dragging out for weeks or months and project risks stalling or being cancelled.

Ultra High Resolution Photo - Client loves photo. Print lab responds it far exceeds requirements and should look great. Print is created/installed. Client loves it. End of story.

@Clint Dunn I never said a 45MP vs 24MP photo would be better for a 40 foot print. If you go back and read what I wrote, I said 24MP, 42MP and even 60MP wouldn't be good enough. The file I used was a stitched panorama made from multiple photos. If I remember correctly it was around 120MP. Which gets back to my point of using something like the 187MP S1R removes a lot of obstacles and inefficiencies for my business. If you're happy the way you do business then there's nothing to debate. Just providing my perspective for all of the people who are saying "who could possibly need one of these high-res cameras" or "nobody needs one of these cameras". Use whatever works for you and I'll use what works best for me.

If large corporations are investing time and money to produce hi-res cameras, they must have research data suggesting there is enough sales demand to justify building them. Otherwise there would be no ultra hi-res cameras.

Mr Walnuts - Well...the original point of my post is most people DON'T need hi res cameras....or if they think they do, they should try printing with a 24mp and will be surprised how big you can go. I would think your needs are an exception as opposed to the norm. Heck, the majority of people buying cameras don't print ANYTHING of significance let alone billboard size.

The problem is that the critics here don't eat the meal. They just taste it.

PAntunes, I'd say most here don't even taste it. They peer through the window from the pavement outside, and judge the food from the facial expressions of the diners ;)

The Sony is more expensive in the Netherlands.
And MF is a big step up from FF. Large pixels.

The price difference is crazy. In the UK the A7RIV costs about 3200€.

I don't buy the argument that it has less resolution than an 60mp A7R1V. The sensor size, pixel sizes and focal lengths are different. Maybe these features make up for the smaller number of pixels.
After all, it's not as if a pixel is always exploited to its maximum possibility.

I am throwing the BS flag.

I know 1 person with an R5. He showed me how his kit was over $1000 cheaper than an A7Riv and about $2000 cheaper than an A9ii after factoring the prices of lenses. And some of the EF lenses he purchased are consider to be top performing lenses. He also recently purchased the $900 800mm canon lens with has no competition among FF competitors.

I am sure you want to complain that he uses EF lenses, but he says they work as well as his Sony lens did. You can debate that with someone else. I'd also argue his camera does what it normally takes 2 cameras to do, so he saved even more. Thats my opinion.
I did read there may be a $5000 A9iii with higher resolution. I wonder if it will shoot RAW video though. Between it and the Sony lenses that's way above what I am willing to pay.

Ric 360, what's his kit?

The R5 effectively substitutes for the Sony a9II and the Sony a7RIV, and so it's a bargain when viewed like that. And it's got some leading edge video features that one can only find in the A7sIII. That's why Sony is rumored to come out with a high res a9 series model soon; if that happens then Sony shooters can thank Canon for forcing their hand. Sony is more than happy to let their customers pay for multiple segmented bodies...on for high res, one for high speed shooting, one for video. With Canon you can get all in one.

It's disingenuous to say that the R5 is so expensive with lenses, when one can cherry pick lenses from any system for a comparison. Also as noted, the Canon EF lenses work great and many of those are very reasonably priced with great performance.

Bottom line is that all of these companies offer incredible products these days and it's more a matter of personal preference, and if you already have an investment in lenses.

@Thoughts R Us said, “The R5 effectively substitutes for the Sony a9II and the Sony a7RIV, and so it's a bargain when viewed like that.”

Presumably, you’re contending the “R5 effectively substitutes” for the A9II because you it has comparable AF capabilities? However, in the above review (which I’m not contending is evidence-based) the R5 was assessed to have poorer AF than the A7RIV?

And presumably, you’re contending the R5 “effectively substitutes” for the A7RIV because it produces high resolution stills. However, in the above review (which I’m not contending is evidence-based) the R5 was assessed to have poorer resolution than the A7RIV?

Deductively, one could conclude your statement is_____?

@TheOwl360

Don't bother yourself with TRU as he/she is well known troll over here. He/she keeps parroting the same nonsense over and over again. He/she won't reply to your facts that was supported by the video.

Other brand's users should thank Sony for setting the benchmark that pushed them to make great cameras.

@Ric 360

I know one person with A7RIV. He showed me his kit was over 2500$ cheaper than the R5 after factoring the prices of lenses. His lenses works better than Canon lenses though.

I said above. "The R5 keeps getting named the best for almost everything here. Its well deserved too."

I just realized I fell for it. My original comment was, "The R5 keeps getting named the best for almost everything here. Its well deserved too.".
And since that is a fact no one can argue with the subject was changed and questionably opinions were were made.
The R5 does "substitute" for any portrait camera, and high resolution camera. It was named best at both. And it substitutes for many other uses too because it is in the top 3 in almost any category. It truly could replace 3 other cameras, and in some ways be an improvement (best portraits, best high resolution, and so on)

@TheOwl360: Sorry, but the R5 AF is far superior to the A7RIV and is at least as good as the A9II, even better for birds/wildlife. The R5 already has a great following among birders because its AF is so great.

As for resolution, 45MP is not that different from 61MP, and again, with the R5 I can get 20 fps whereas with the A7RIV I only get 10.

But hey, tell yourself whatever you want...

I agree...the R5 AF is so superior to the A7RIV I don't know how anyone could rank them differently. The R5 AF is in a different league than the A7RIV; as mentioned by spider-mario, almost all of the comparisons in AF are made between the R5 and the A9/A9II, because the R5 AF is that good.

What makes you so confident that Sony won't have to change their mount in the coming years like Canon?

I won't comment otherwise you opinions, but really struggle with this line "ergonomics not aligned with their top tier bodies" and then you mention Sony as an example. To which ergonomic "standard" Sony is aligned?

The Sony A7RIV having easily the worst ergonomics/ui design of the high resolution bodies mentioned in the review, and Nikon Z7II being much better and familiar enough for ex-D850 user. Can say this as owner of both cameras btw.

@ impulses. Thanks for the added color, I honestly had not checked others, but the timing of that decision plus the shortening in Canada just adds to the feeling of "unease"

@ its_a_knife - nothing besides the fact that they are mirrorless already and although not a "perfect" mirrorless mount, I don't know that they have a pressing need to update it.

@ Darkshift - sorry I didn't make my point well enough. What I meant is that although familiar to D5/6/500/850 users, a Z7ii is not an "copy and paste" transition; it's just another additional element that "leaves the door open" to look at other brands. Probably not the biggest issue but if you are Nikon, trying to entice all brand users to switch to Z mount, it is another point where they make the transition less seamless than it could be. That said, I never jumped on Sony because I don't like the ergonomics at all (so no risk there for me) but I could as easily be talked into a Canon R5 as in a Z7ii purely from an ergonomics standpoint.

@FBoneOne: For a Nikon user, it will still be easier to transition to a Nikon Z than to another brand. And the F mount lenses work fine with the FTZ adapter, esp the later models.

I don't know where you got this idea:
"FTZ adapter that struggles with long zooms and primes."

Every wildlife/bird shooter I know that uses Nikon with long lenses doesn't find a problem with the FTZ adapter. To the best of my knowledge that is not a problem. In fact I know at least one who uses the 500 pf lens on a Z body and finds the Z body offers more accurate focus due to mirrorless PDAF.

As for primes, again I know someone using the 105 f1.4 on a Z body and he finds it terrific.

So I wouldn't write Nikon off just yet...

Short answer is that it is a AAA requirement, which admittedly is the most stringent requirement, but a general explanation is that for people who use controllers like mouth-sticks, having a transcript read by their computer is just an easier experience. Blind users who are used to screenreader listen at what would appear to everyone else as a 2-4X speed so being limited to the video's pace can be very frustrating.

You know YouTube lets you play back at 1x, 1.25x, 1.5x, 1.75x and 2x, yes?

A screenreader and transcript lets you control the pace and it is easier to interact with, which is important for people who can't interact in the way we are all used to. Its not the kind fo thing you would understand until you deal with it regularly.

Since it's not the same people making the videos as the written content, less videos probably wouldn't mean more articles. What we get from Chris and Jordan is an addition or complement to the content provided by the main staff in Seattle.

Revenant, more often that not it's exactly the same person. You only need to trawl through some back-issues here to see that. Many photographers - who would historically have written an article , got the video bug when it became so accessible, and thought it would be a good idea to migrate the reportage to video!

I was specifically referring to Chris and Jordan, who are not part of the regular editorial staff in Seattle. I'm pretty sure DPR brought them on board as video creators to expand upon the regular written content.

"I don't have the time, or the interest, to wade through videos at speeds dictated to me by the videographer."

Change the video playback speed genius. Also who cares what you have time or interest for? DPR brought in Chris and Jordan to produce video not to cater to your needs. It's a simple litmus test....if there wasn't a demand for video they wouldn't spend the time and money producing episodes.

One thing to consider, though, with Canon was it's emphasis on 8k. Did it deliver? Yes... and no. You can do shorter segments, but someone recording an interview, for example, that might be 30 minutes or an hour, that becomes a problem. Even more so if you were hoping to record a concert or sports game, or some other venue (where you don't have control of the event).

So while Canon has delivered a remarkable camera, I think it was also overhyped (and perhaps a bit disappointing to some, particularly those looking to do full 30 minute 8k clips).

(This is also the reason why I think even Sony hasn't bothered to do 8k in their ML cameras. They probably found out that it probably wasn't feasible given what people would want to do with it: ie. 30 min clips, so they didn't bother... at least not yet).

Yeah, because this site is all about YOUR needs... Shame on DPReview 🤦

Of all the YouTube reviewers, Chris and Jordan are the best at delivering snappy and informative content without a lot of filler. I always enjoy their videos, though I am also primarily a reader. The fact is that the index they provide means you can jump to a specific 2-minute section of interest easily. That's more than fair.

Agreed. I prefer a written article

Translation of tuliof's comment : "Just shut up and take DPReview as it is..."
I also prefer a written article and I am free to express it !

Would be faster to just scroll to the end then it took to write your post

@Karroly You got lost in translating my post. I'm criticizing calling a shame to be a TV article. It takes a lot to make a video like that, and a lot of folks enjoy it. It seems that for you that they took the easy road, when actually it's harder then just make the written version. And, besides, there are deep reviews of each camera and comparison tools, if you need to get further on comparisons. Free speech is for all, and I'm expressing mine saying that it's a shame to diminish other's work in face only of your needs.

Canon recently raised their earnings forecast for cameras and has remained profitable. It will be interesting to see how the all the camera manufacturers handle R&D with shrinking sales.

Sony does not break out the results of its camera business, so one cannot say it is "bleeding money". There is no good reason to believe that it is. Hard to know if it has been profitable in 2020, but highly unlikely that it is "bleeding money".

Because, well, you know, ranking third in a video on a review website with rankings with are neither objective, nor remembered by the buyer really bodes for the brand to go bust.

Or maybe you take these comparison videos a bit too serious, even though they make sense, are helpful and fun to watch.

Camera rankings are about as useful as Car and Driver's "10 Best" list. Of course the 700 horsepower Ferrari is always going to win....

@PhotoRotterdam, say what you want, but for a top tier company like Nikon, that has been loosing money on cameras long before covid hit, they sure didn't wow the market. The Z7II was just a minor incremental improvement. Will that be enough to increase profits? There is no doubt that Nikon won't be going out of business anytime soon, but they are slowly sliding down the market share ladder. That will lead to less relevance.

There are many factors lining up against Nikon, so don't expect much innovation from Nikon. The company is not diversified and the overall camera market is in free fall. The lack of money will affect R&D, investors won't keep throwing money in a hole. Nikon is in a cost cutting mode and many key camera components are outsourced. They will rely on their loyal base of customers and strong lens capabilities. However, I doubt they will pull many people into their system. Can they retain enough current loyalists? Is that enough to stay a top tier company?

@stuntmonkey, I agree, one review isn't much, but by all accounts Nikon didn't impress many with the Z7II's incremental update. The company is bleeding money and needs to hit a home run. They didn't do it with the Z7II. Will they do it with their next release? Do they have enough financial backing to design, build and release the cameras they want?

Rubbish. The Z7II is wonderful camera and in many ways better/faster/quieter/easier to use than my A7RIV.

The devil lies in small details, and it seem hard for some manufacturers to get them right even after several iterations.

@DarkShift, all four cameras in this review are wonderful.

The devil is in the money.

These cameras don't just fall out of rainbows. They need a lot of resources to be designed and produced. Nikon is now in a terrible cycle of poor financial health and run of the mill tech. Will Nikon be able to leapfrog anyone with such a dire financial outlook? If their answer was the Z7ii, then that would be a no.

I got as far as "loosing."

@Reilly Diefenbach, too bad Nikon can't claim there was a type-o and ignore the years of red ink. The fact that Nikon was in the red shortly after their flashy Z6/Z7 launch is very telling and will have long lasting ramifications on the development of the Z system.

Having briefly owned a Z7 (original) I would take any of the Panasonic S series (or particularly the Leica SLs) over it any day as far as ergonomics goes. Ergonomics does not = weight, and while the Z7 may weigh less, it does not feel anywhere near as good in the hand.

Yes, and 2021 is the year of the new A9 and the A7IV.... So then Sony will be once again lightyears ahead of the competition...

Kinda rounding up there... A7R IV came out late 2019, it's not quite 1.5 yrs old yet (more like 1 yr & 4.5 mo). I don't think any of these will see an update in 2021, or possibly well into 2022, so it was a pretty good time for a roundup.

The Pana is the oldest. Sony's been killing it with lenses, as have 3rd parties, tho I think Sony's next few releases after the rumored 16/1.8 will end up being updates to existing G/GM zooms, will be interesting to see how aggressive they are with that.

@Wiel
Well - you can dream of the glory days I suppose......🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

The R5 can focus better in low light than the A7RIV, that has been ignored. But honestly, people are thinking about these comparisons too much, people can choose whatever they feel like is the best for them.

Yes, Sony really showed us with their overpriced best in class A7C, oh wait...my bad.

If you have actually used Leica cameras and Leica lenses (e.g. SL2 with 50mm prime or 16-35 zoom), you will know that Sony IQ is not comparable to Leica. And their lenses are no equivalent.
So for an actual user this marketing here sounds quite strange. (Yes, try it, you will see for yourself. You can start with a Q2 if a SL2 or SL2-S is currently too expensive.)
Yes, AF is slower. But will you see this in the final picture ? All the AF examples that are used here in these tests will result in very ugly and unusable photos anyway. There are exceptions, but few.
And yes, a Pana camera can also use Leica SL lenses natively (But is not optimized for M lenses).

One thing to add: highres mode. Terrible on the Sony, excellent on S1R and Leica SL2. It improves DR, gives true color and if you wish additionally excellent resolution for archiving or even landscape.
If you have used it and “need” it professionally, then the other cameras are simply not interesting anymore.
On the SL2 it can even be used with adapted M lenses. (They are fully supported as if native lenses.)

@kandid, there you are smiley, the A1....

@Kandid:
What happened Kandid, no more smileys ????????

RAW files have no colors. They come out exactly how you wish them to look.

Nor is there anything mystical about ISO 64. The base ISO of a digital sensor yields the lowest noise and widest dynamic range, whether it is 100, 200, or 64.

Ed, a lower base ISO does mean that the camera has the potential to gather more light. More light, all else being equal, means more dynamic range and less noise. That being said, personally I would still choose the A7R IV if I had the money to get into one of these systems right now. The practical difference in terms of noise levels and DR is pretty negligible, but the extra resolution does matter to me. The problem in my mind is that by the time I had the body and a set of suitable lenses (they better be good ones, not every lens can resolve 45mp let alone 60) I'm looking at the cost of basically a decent used car. If I were a richer man though, I'd be all over one of these setups and honestly I can see myself being happy with any of them, regardless of manufacturer.

When the A7Riv came out, most comments were along the lines that 61MP was overkill and a bad thing. Suddenly it means it has the best IQ? Not based on all the reviews I read which showed increased noise from low ISOs onwards. And huge files.

BTN I know it’s tough for you to imagine given your long posting history under different user IDs that someone could be happy with a Sony but you know it happens! No need to push rumored canon bodies that don’t exist yet onto other people that are happy with their recent camera purchases.

61 MP is not a revolutionary improvement over 42 MP, but neither is it nothing. There are other advantages of the m4 over the m3 cameras, not the least of which is nearly double the battery life. As for memory, a 128 GB memory cards holds just over 1000 uncompressed raw images. That's half a day's worth when I'm traveling.

I think the other big benefit of the RIV over the RIII is real time tracking. It’s not on A9 level but still very useful depending on what you’re shooting.

" There are other advantages of the m4 over the m3 cameras, not the least of which is nearly double the battery life. " -Ed

Both Mk III bodies already had the larger Z battery, it wasn't new to the A7R IV or the new S...

Most of them?

I paid £699 for my EF 24-105 new in a London shop
RF is currently £1119
EF is currently £995

I paid £1889 for my 70-200 2.8 on the first day it was being sold in the UK
RF is currently £2658
EF is currently £1989

IIRC my 85/1.2 was 1599
The RF is £2566
EF is currently £1999

EF 50/1.8 is £98
RF 50/1.8 is £219

EF 50/1.2 is £799
RF 50/1.2 is £2200

Nikon F 50/1.8 G is £189
Nikon Z 50/1.8 is £499

Nikon F 70-200/2.8 G II is £11649
Nikon Z 70-200/2.8 is £2299

etc.

The new lenses may be better, but the old ones are still good lenses.

Plus the cost to trade-in and upgrade would be insane.

So, you still use current prices when I talk about historic (therefore launch) prices. And yes, you did find some exceptions like the Nikon 50mm but, really, the target market for both lenses is so drastically different that I don't bother comparing the two.

I thought the super-clever AA filter was the big plus, keeps almost all the resolution while losing a lot of the aliasing/moire?

Need to I just can't follow the reasoning, it won't fold over with a lcd screen protector on, surely it's much easier to just tilt the screen up than having to fold it out? Panasonic and fuji have this sorted tilting both ways. Folding out is a loathsome feature for video users, it shows the manufactures contempt for stills shooters when it goes on a high resolution stills focused camera. We're back to my never ending question how many users want to shoot video on a high end mirrorless camera? We never see a survey on the subject, my gut instinct is very few of us want to shoot video

The A7III and the A7RIV don't have the same viewfinder.

Not really the point PAntunes, but it still drops resolution when in use right.

I dont know if the a7RIV has the same K problem the a7III has.

The point is that there are large differences and many deficiencies of EVF that no one seems to even know exist.

If they knew would they notice or care?

DPR could explain more. They are very different.

Its odd. A large bright OVF is very nice to look through and noticeable.

EVF should be nice to look at. They arnt. Yet.

The number of mindless fans in this forum is still disturbing. I dont mean you PAntunes or Nabilion.

SteveAnderson, if you want a large, bright viewfinder, try a MF camera. :)

It's not that people don't know that there are differences. It's just that those differences, when what you're looking for is producing an image, don't have a significant impact.

Have to massively disagree. Its not even a preferential thing.

Most EVF are still very bad at motion. Never mind the lag and blur. Its the stuttering and flickering.

Very distracting when tracking.

And, just not a pleasing experience.

Some are much better than others. It should be a topic people would care about.

Also, when you use the EVF to set WB, and its 400k off, its significantly impacting your image. a7III might be worse than 400k, cant remember the number.

SteveAnderson, well, it clearly is not a topic people care about. :)

Probably because most EVFs in recent cameras are very similar in that regard.

It wouldnt surprise me if my issue was people not noticing. :-)

It would be the reason EVF wont make leaps and bounds. Ill just keep waiting.

Same as for TVs. 20yrs later, LCD still sucks.

When color is important, I use an X-Rite Color Checker, and possibly a color meter. Most of the time, auto WB is sufficient, or a fixed WB based on experience or other readings. I can't image adjusting WB according to what I see in the EVF.

which part of high rez cam u did not get it ? oly is stuck at 20mpix the end

It was not stated clearly, But to me it was definitely implied that this was a FF comparison.

Or else why not the high Rez fuji MF camera??

Unless you are being sarcastic of course.

I’ve four current Olympus mirrorless including the em1x because they are fun but not for any serious shooting, the gap between them and FF options widens as the years pass, you don’t have to move to full frame but the detriment to your work and missed time with much superior equipment will have been your choice.

I don't know if you are joking or serious but will agree the title is misleading.
I too thought this might be a shoot out between the GFX100 with high resolution mode vs Panasonic s1r HR vs Olympus Em1mk3 vs what Sony does which seem the most limited.
They might just rank in that order.