Chris and Jordan pay a visit to friend and studio photographer Rene Michaud to test out the Sony a7R IV. Is it compelling enough to tempt a staunch DSLR shooter to switch to mirrorless? And do Canadians wear parkas indoors during the winter? These questions and more will be answered.
@StoneJack... in today's market posting units sold without any other supporting data is worthless. Anyone paying attention for 5 minutes knows the overall market is declining and that is in large part due to smartphones replacing the lower to mid range ILC cameras for many consumers and coincidentally those cameras make up most of the units sold in past years. Combine that with Sony making a very obvious decision to move up market acrtoss their entire camera line a few years ago which causes the number of units to decline even more (in favor of margin and profit). So, today posting units by itself is either careless and misleading or it reflects an agenda.
Can DPR please add an option to block/hide users and posts in the comments section? I'm all for free speech and open discussion, but the signal-to-noise ratio here has become just too low. I can barely find useful information only after scrolling and scrolling, and scrolling.
I bought the A7R IV and it weighs as much as a dSLR. There's almost no difference. And with the 85/1.4 Sony lens it's basically a brick, as heavy as any other dSLR camera out there. So the weight argument doesn't work, SLTs aren't any lighter — at least, Sony certainly isn't.
One reason it's heavier is the redesigned battery. I also own the A7R II and am not really happy to see a completely different battery standard. Now I need two chargers. But yeah, the A7R II batteries are abysmally bad which is why I had to buy a 2-battery vertical grip just to be able to handle 1-hour 4K video recordings.
Sony's menus are still a mess. It's embarrassing. How do those UI designers look in the mirror in the morning? It's shameful.
@mezastel "I bought the A7R IV and it weighs as much as a dSLR. There's almost no difference."
Which DSLR are you comparing it to? Compared to a Nikon D850 with 85mm f/1.4 lens, the Sony A7RIV with 85 f/1.4 is about 12% lighter. But that's not the whole picture. The Sony is significantly smaller in overall size. The lens length may be about the same, but the overall body size is much smaller which makes fitting the camera in the bag much easier.
Also, there are other advantages to mirrorless besides size and weight.
Sure. Serious cameras are heavier than smartphones. And all this mirrorless'ness isn't about the small size, despite that it is being advertised that way. The problem is that people believe this nonsense and lies in the first place, while denying Equivalence (which easily explains everything). You want to believe that mirrorless'ness is supposed to make everything small and "featherweight" (magically). But, unfortunately, that's not possible and you are being lied to. Smaller mirrorless cameras are smaller for a reason. They cannot produce the same images that this A7R IV can. We had really tiny "mirrorless" P&S cameras for decades and we don't want them anymore, because we have those same tiny sensors in our phones now. What we want is higher images quality, which inevitably comes with certain size and weight.
The promise of mirrorless was that it would weigh less. The A7R II does weigh less than, say, a Canon SLR, but that difference is offset by the fact that serious lenses weigh pretty much the same.
I don't hate the A7R4. I like it. I think PixelShift is amazing for any sort of product/still-life photography. The removal of the Android software support is really sad because the A7R2 could be jailbroken to go beyond the 30min limit and the A7R4 cannot (at least, not that I know of).
For the particular model's you have chosen, there's also several features that have the D850, but lacks in the A7R series. That must consequently mean, that DLSR have also advantages over mirrorless, or not?
D850 has: - Focus stacking - In camera RAW processing (not used much, but very handy when you need that) - Bigger LCD with full touch support > much faster menu and adjustment access vs. the archaic controls in the Sony - Less lag with controls vs the sluggish Sony - More logical button layout -XQD card support (not available in the Sony altough they make those cards???)
"The promise of mirrorless was that it would weigh less" - They simply made some room for more stuff like IBIS and other new tricks. The A7R IV is barely any lighter than my 6D.
@Darkshift I was asking metazel to which DSLR camera he was comparing the A7RIV when he said they were both the same size and weight. Apparently it was all DSLRs. I was just pointing out one camera of comparable capabilities that was actually larger and weighs more. Does the D850 have capabilities that are superior to the A7RIV? I've not done any direct comparisons between the two, but if I had to guess the answer would be yes, of course. But that wasn't what metazel was talking about in his post.
@mezastel.... you need to find your way out of 2012. I don't know who you think made you this promise but my guess is that you made it up. You can find lighter weight with mirrorless systems but to think that any camera should prioritize lighter weight is just a reflection of someone stuck in 2012 and not able to face the reality that many people prefer the A7rIV even if it is heavier than a DSLR.... because it's a better camera.
@ecka84... what mirrorless system do you have experience with? My guess is the answer is not much. I can tell you from experience that mirrorless can absolutely mean lighter weight. You've decided that the discussion has to be limited to only the technical differences & that is not true. Mirrorless being lighter can simply be about decisions to make a lens lighter or slower or a decision to make accessories lighter. Lighter can be because the camera is smaller and thus takes up less room in a backpack leading to a smaller (and lighter) backpack. Yes it's a moving target because some of these things can absolutely be done for DSLRs too but that's like saying you can make a 24-70 f8 lens for FF.. that only matters if you do make it. My mirrorless system when you consider my backpack, tripod, filters & accessories is much lighter than a similar system with a DSLR. You can split hairs over the technical side but whe you try to match my backpack with a DSLR setup you'll lose.
Clayton, I'm pretty sure the OP's point is on a same-sensor basis. The AR7IV is playing in the FF end of the pool. Slap an equivalent lens on it or a D850, and you're in the same ballpark weight-wise. Yes, you can get an M43 kit that weighs a fraction of this - which is great! Not so great if you are the kind of shooter inclined to "split hairs over the technical side," however.
@Adam007... I don't think you're reading what I wrote. My Z7 backpack is considerably lighter and less bulky than it would be with two D850s with equivalent lenses. There are a number of reasons for this and only looking at equivalent lenses is shortsighted and overly simplistic. Sure, there are some people that carry one camera and one lens and in that case your point is closer to being valid but that doesn't apply to me and one size does not fit all.
@Clayton1985 Mirrorless doesn't mean lighter. Less capable cameras are lighter. DSLR doesn't mean heavier. There are small and light DSLRs too (like the Canon Rebel SL series). Equivalent optics weight the same. "try to match my backpack with a DSLR setup you'll lose" - My DSLR setup doesn't require a backpack. You may use smaller and terribly slow crop telephotos that have no alternatives on FF side. But I'd rather use 1" super-zoom P&S (RX10 or something) instead of such pointlessly overpriced snapshot factory. Learn Equivalence. Mirrorless smallness is a scam. Also they need more batteries than DSLRs, which means extra weight, like 50g per battery. And, depending on what you shoot, the extra battery weight can be more than what you save with a tiny bit lighter camera body. When I'm shooting landscapes, two batteries can last for a week. With mirrorless they'd be draining while only preparing to take a picture. Mirrorless isn't better in every way, not yet. DSLRs have advantages too.
@ecka84.... again, you can't match my setup with a DSLR setup of equal or even similar performance and that is with "equivalent optics". The reason is because my mirrorless system is lighter and it allows for lighter accessories and supporting equipment. You can talk hypotheticals all you want but I'm happy to lay out my gear list and see you work your magic with an equivalent DSLR bag. We can all create these made up situations but I'm talking about my actual bag.
As with most new cameras, it seems like this one doesn't offer a significant upgrade over it's predecessor. That would be fine if it were less expensive, but we're talking big bucks here. Most people would probably be better off buying the rIII. Also, going from 45 to 60 MPs seems to be a negligible change, maybe even a change for the worse.
Where can I learn more about pushing the underexposed frames open. ? Which software works well ? As an interior photographer this is tremendous boon. I have owned sonys since a7r and shoot canon dslrs. Seems most miss the whole point of why dslrs were made. To see through the lens. Mirrors have there problems. Which mirrorless solves, faster frames rates smaller size, big advantages in wide angle lens design. I see Canons advantage in how they keep the sensor cleaner. Rf has a senser shutter to keep unexposed between lens changes. It's a big deal working outside. All day changing multiple times. Some pros resort to extra body's to avoid lens changes for multiple reasons dust is now another one. Canon is got new wide angle glass in the pipe line and I am on board. Read an articles and had a statement at the photoplus show that the canon rf is as sharp as the 5dsr ! Dslrs are a dead end.
No wonder sony disbanded camera division and continues to suffer lost sales and falling market share. How much time before they quit ILC camera market and concentrate on ps5?
After reading comments here, I have to share my experiences. With my 16-35GM or the Batis 85mm f1.8, the A7RIV is easily the best camera I ever had (coming from A7RII). - focussing is very fast and very accurate! - noise is no problem at all for me (using DXO Photolab Prime) iso3200 or 6400....doesn’t matter. - superb large files with tremendous cropping possibilities. - I do pixel peep and at 100% files are absolutely bitingly sharp! - I shoot raw, but tried jpeg and colours are beautiful . Mostly portraits here. - Handling is perfect - Definitely worth the price; I would even have paid more for this camera - Eye tracking is unbelievable! Well, those are my personal experiences after a couple of weeks of usage, and no, I’m not a Sony fan boy. Thank you!
U paid 1000 bucks more for updated button, do u realize it? Older model is same but for one updated button but sells for 1000 dollars less. Welcome to phony world
@StoneJack. What button fo you mean? I’ve held and tried A7RIII (only in store). A7RIV immediately felt better in my hands (slightly larger grip). In general buttons feel more solid and responsive as well. So what button do you mean? I did not yet mention double UHS II and 60mp certainly gives me more than 42 mp of my former A7RII.
Everybody has their own preference and that is OK. This new Sony cam is an extremely capable unit, no doubt.
But I am still surprised that Sony has not put full touch screen functionality on it where you can navigate and make selections in the menus. Also, the lack of a lossless compressed RAW is a major miss, especially in such a high megapixel camera.
Sony has great tech inside but still lacks finesse and care with usability.
"U paid 1000 bucks more for updated button, do u realize it? "
His money no.
Like you i think the people who are buying 2500$ plus lenses in canon and 8000$ lens in nikon are paying too much BUT at the end of the day its their money and they decide.
@Thoughts R Us. Full functionality on touchscreen would be nice indeed, but I never used touchscreen on my former Olympus cameras. Certainly not for shooting images. I would use it for navigate and make selections in the menus though. I agree that the lack of lossless compressed raw is a major miss. Indeed especially in a high mp camera like A7RIV. I hope Sony will implement it in firmware upgrade one day (but these hopes have been here for years, so there' s doubt wether it will come at all).
@zxaar. Agree...it' s my money and I think the A7RIV is worth it. If money was no problem I would even buy myself a nice Phase One camera+ lenses, next to my A7RIV.
"Agree...it' s my money and I think the A7RIV is worth it."
Yes indeed. This part that what is worth your money is you and you can decide. The comments like this "U paid 1000 bucks more for updated button, do u realize it? " only shows that the person making it thinks he is much smarter then the person who is really putting his money where his mouth is.
Still such comments would not be problem if the same person would not be singing different song when it comes to 8000$ lens or 2500$ plus lens just because they are made by brand they love or like.
Nice troll by StoneJack, but I think he's stoned. "U paid 1000 bucks more for updated button, do u realize it? Older model is same but for one updated button but sells for 1000 dollars less." I have the older model (and the one before it), and the differences are far more than a button. Still, if that keeps him from buying it, that's a good thing, because it means one more body available for someone who can appreciate it :-)
This comment got buried down below, so I'm adding it here:
Chris, there's no denying that DPR (not you personally) seem to be pushing Mirrorless, constantly. After so many glowing reviews and analysis of DSLRs over the years, DPR talk about them like they are some archaic device of the past. I think whether or not that is intended, DPR are coming across that way to readers.
Look, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the enthusiasm at this point is a bit offensive to the majority of shooters that still like and shoot DSLR's (many often alongside mirrorless). Whether or not my feedback is valuable to you or not isn't up to me. I love you and Jordan alike, but to refer to still modern cameras as "dinosaurs" etc. is a rather dull remark and it doesn't hold up.
More people shoot with DSLRs. DSLRs still outsell mirrorless. There are more and better lenses for DSLRs. Still, for video, Panasonic dominates, but Fujifilm and Nikon are getting closer.
Here are the latest numbers for the camera market: •DSLR Units -34% •DSLR Shipped Value -43% •Mirrorless Units -9% •Mirrorless Shipped Value +6% •Compact Units -20% •Compact Shipped Value -16%
DSLR sales continue to see massive declines, even after many years of massive declines. DSLR units dropped by a whopping 34% compared to only 9% for mirrorless. Even worse, DSLR shipped value dropped 43% while mirrorless value increased 6%.
As for market share: Mirrorless unit share (of Mirrorless + DSLR) 44.5% (was 36.8% YTD last year) Mirrorless Shipped Value share 59.8%
So mirrorless unit share is almost equal to DSLR, but mirrorless value share now *exceeds* DSLRs. And at the rate that DSLR sales are sinking, mirrorless unit share will probably exceed DSLRs in the next year or so.
Sure, it's great that you still love DSLRs. But the market seems to feel otherwise.
@Photo Liz - "There are more and better lenses for DSLRs."
That's not much of an argument when you take into consideration that those DSLR lenses can be used on mirrorless bodies. Mirrorless has the advantage of access to both DSLR and mirrorless lenses. Therefore, mirrorless has access to a larger pool of lenses than DSLRs--- even rangefinder lenses. DSLRs just have access to DSLR lenses-- and only DSLR lenses in their own system. There is a *lot* more system cross-compatibility with mirrorless.
@cgarrard - just pointing out what is happening in the market. The market is abandoning DSLR at a considerable rate. It has been a persistent trend for quite some time. And it's not going to get better for DSLR sales as mirrorless becomes more prevalent. In fact, it will likely get worse for DSLR sales as mirrorless continues to mature.
Even after all these years dslr are majority of selling cameras and with installed base are absolute majority. Moreover, since mirrorless sales are falling too it means that mirrorless never will be a majority of ilc cameras for decades.
@StoneJack - Time to face the facts: •DSLR Units -34% •DSLR Shipped Value -43% •Mirrorless Units -9% •Mirrorless Shipped Value +6% •Mirrorless unit share (of Mirrorless + DSLR) 44.5% (was 36.8% YTD last year) •Mirrorless Shipped Value share 59.8%
At the rate that DSLR sales are declining (at nearly 4x the rate that mirrorless is falling), it won't be long before mirrorless has the majority of sales. And mirrorless camera sales value already exceeds DSLRs. That means that the only DSLRs that are still selling are low-end bargain-basement DSLRs which don't bring in much money, and whose users are unlikely to invest that much in additional lenses and bodies. That's not a great outlook for the future of the DSLR business, from a financial standpoint.
There was a time when the majority of music listeners listened to music on record players. A huge "installed base." Then the majority listened on cassette tapes. Then CDs. But times change, and majority installed bases fade away.
Sadly Sony chose to cripple their A mount DSLR lenses on their mirrorless cameras. Nikon did a much better job as did Canon. There are over 60 DSLR lenses that work like they are virtually native on Nikon Z mount. For Sony almost all disable the camera's AF system, and the few that can use the camera's AF are severely limited on all E mount bodies except the A9. But then the A9 is possibly the worst Sony for video.
@Photo Liz - "Sadly Sony chose to cripple their A mount DSLR lenses on their mirrorless cameras."
The really is that not that many people really care. A-mount usership was never that high. And while A-mount users may not get *all* the capabilities that the latest mirrorless cameras offer, they still work fine. But like I said, this actually affects a very small population of users. You are playing the world's smallest whiney violin. It's still a far cry from Canon's abandonment of the FD mount, which effected far more people and without any provision for adapting FD lenses to the new EF mount since EF had a longer flange distance. The difference was only 2mm longer (44mm vs 42mm), but enough to make FD lenses unadaptable.
I would not be surprised if Canon eventually abandoned the EF-M mount as well. I think it's only a matter of time before Canon puts an APS-C sensor into an RF-mount body. At that point, they will abandon EF-M. It's too costly to support so many different mounts.
The entire camera market is declining, including mirrorless. Mirrorless definitely has not turned out to be the savior of the camera market, as some predicted.
DSLRs have dropped more because they had a much bigger market to begin with and thus had farther to fall.
Also, just counting current sales does not tell the whole story. There are a whole lot of DSLR users out there who are using gear that they are totally happy with and may not upgrade for years.
The DSLR is not going away any time soon and is still the more refined mature product. The flaws in mirrorless are still being worked out. Plus, mirrorless is not a big revolution, it's only an evolution from the DSLR...so it's not like it's some whole new paradigm. What is the revolution is the smartphone, and that's really what all companies are competing against.
@Thoughts R Us - "DSLRs have dropped more because they had a much bigger market to begin with and thus had farther to fall."
Flawed logic. A larger DSLR market does not mean it should see a larger percentage drop. If both DSLR and MILC lost the *same* number of units (eg, 100,000 units each), the percentage loss for DSLRs would be *less* than for MILC. If the percentage loss were the *same* between DSLR and MILC, then DSLR would have lost *fewer* units than MILC. However, what we are seeing is the percentage of DSLR unit decline is many times *more* than for MILC, which means a *massive* and *disproportionately* high loss of sales for DSLRs compared to MILC.
Here are key metrics: •Mirrorless unit share (of Mirrorless + DSLR) 44.5% (was 36.8% YTD last year) •Mirrorless Shipped Value share 59.8%
The 1st indicates MILC unit share rapidly gaining on DSLR, and the 2nd indicates MILC attracting higher-end users (who are typically more serious, more pro, more dedicated).
@Thoughts R Us - "What is the revolution is the smartphone, and that's really what all companies are competing against."
Yeah, it's a good thing Canon and Nikon are so heavily involved in the smartphone market! Not. Canon and Nikon missed the smartphone revolution. Like, *totally* missed it! They basically have no footprint or investment in the smartphone industry. Only Sony makes massive amounts of money from the smartphone industry. They supply most of the world's smartphone imaging sensors. This is why Sony is able to continue investing massive amounts of money: https://www.stofficetokyo.ch/news/electronics/sony-invests-900m-in-chips-to-seize-5g-smartphone-demand
They make so much money from the smartphone business that it easily funds their additional investment in the smarphone industry. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Canon or Nikon. Like I said, Canon and Nikon missed that boat. I guess they were too focused on DSLRs, which (ironically) has become a sinking ship.
@T3: Sony does do well with their imaging sensors for smartphone vendors, like Apple...and yes, that is a great thing for them. But Sony Semiconductor is a separate division from Sony Imaging; Sony Imaging has to carry its own weight and Sony Semiconductor is not going to bail them out.
Also, while you knock companies like Canon and Nikon for somehow "missing the boat" on smartphones, as if it ever was realistic that they would create their own smartphone...it seems to me your leaving out a key part of the story: Sony was in the cell phone/smartphone business, and they are the ones who missed the boat. It seems their smartphone business lost about 900 million USD in one year alone...wiping out a lot of the profits from other divisions. So it's Sony that has completely mismanaged the smartphone business.
@T3: By your line of reasoning, perhaps Sony was too busy going after a very small mirrorless camera market and "missed the boat" on the far larger smartphone market. And let's face it, by any measure, Sony has managed a great failure in the smartphone market where they could have been a major player.
T3 said, "The really is that not that many people really care. A-mount usership was never that high."
That is true. A mount peaked at a 13% market share before Sony tried mirrorless. That is about where Sony is today with both A mount and E mount. So neither A mount nor E mount was ever that high. One reason maybe Sony's habit of quickly abandoning users, like they did DSLR users and A mount users, and all those who bought Minolta and Sony A mount lenses.
Thoughts R Us, you are right too. Just as Sony failed with DSLRs and SLTs, they been massive failures with smartphones.
@Thoughts R Us - lol, you keep grasping at straws with your brand blindness. Like when you predicted that Canon and Nikon would crush Sony when they entered the FF mirrorless market. We now know that the opposite has happened 😂. And now you are claiming that it's not Canon or Nikon that missed the boat with smartphones but that it is Sony that missed the boat 🤣🤣🤣. Seriously? Sony thinks long term. Sony plays the long game. Canon and Nikon aren't even *in* the (smartphone) game. And it's now far too late for them to even enter the game. They are totally shut out of smartphone photography. And years from now, we'll probably look back and see that this was their fatal mistake. This will be CaNikon's "massive failure." Meanwhile , you and your fellow shortsighted buddy Photo Liz are still stuck on DSLRs and SLT? 🤣😂 Wow, talk about shortsighted!
"Sony managed to sell just 2 million smartphones in the quarter ending in July 2018, which is down 1.4 million from the same period in 2017. You read that right — in one year, Sony’s smartphone division diminished by nearly half.
In response to these poor sales numbers, the company revised its estimate for 2018 smartphone sales from 10 million down to 9 million. For comparison’s sake, leaked sales numbers point to Samsung “only” selling around 9 million Galaxy S9 units in Q2 2018. That’s just for one quarter, not the whole year, and that’s just one phone."
Sony DSLRs, Sony SLTs, Sony smartphones all fit the same "Long term" pattern. Now you know what "long term" means to Sony. Failure.
@Photo Liz - "Long term? How did that work out for Sony SLTs and DSLRs?"
That's actually a perfect example of Sony's long-term thinking. They had the foresight to realize that mirror-based ILCs were an 80-year-old technology that was coming to the end of its life, and that it would eventually be replaced by more modern mirrorless camera technology. In other words, they knew that DSLR/DSLT would become a sinking ship. And they were right:
•DSLR Units -34% •DSLR Shipped Value -43% •Mirrorless Units -9% •Mirrorless Shipped Value +6%
•Mirrorless Shipped Value share 59.8%
Today, mirrorless sales (by value) exceeds DSLR sales! So, yes, Sony's move away from DSLR/DSLT was a smart move based on long-term thinking. At the time, getting into DSLR/DSLT was a necessary evil as they continued to develop their mirrorless system. But it was only really a short-term necessity, a stepping stone towards a longer-term path (mirrorless).
@Photo Liz - As for smartphones, they have their foot in the door, which is more than you can say for Canon/Nikon! And one thing is undeniable: Sony has sold *millions* more smartphones than Canon and Nikon. How many smartphones have Canon and Nikon sold? In the long run, we'll all look back and see that it was smart to be in the smartphone game because that's the future (and the present) of photography. Canon and Nikon don't have their foot in the door. They aren't in the room. They are outside the room, with no access in. In the long run, I think we'll all look back and see this as their fatal mistake. Many years from now, people will be saying, "How could Canon/Nikon have been so stupid to have ignored the smartphone revolution? How short-sighted of them!"
I'll say it again: Canon and Nikon have ZERO presence, participation, or activity in the smartphone world. Zero. Nada. Zippo. Think about that the next time you try to argue that it is Sony that missed the smartphone boat, LOL.
I shoot Sony A7R3s as my main two rigs... but i also shoot DSLRs (i have still have a couple) as well as Film (yes we exist) SLRs .....
Mirrorless models simply give more info. I think that for that, they are better. DSLRs are no longer "better" in any real regard... don't have the buffer, ergonomics, autofocus, etc. advantages that they once had. Are they dead, no, not yet... are they going to see a continual decline in sales and use, ..... probably. Mirrorless don't really have too much an advantage like they are claimed to have... other than the 'what you see is what you get' mantra with the EVF (unless like me, in studio, that feature is turned off--which is a nice flexible option if needed) mirrorless cameras are still digital cameras and still do a job and serve a purpose for whatever their purchasing owner intends them to have.
....cameras are photographic tools.....
go shoot, make art, capture memories and stop all this bickering over which is better.
So in 2008 Sony had a 13% marketshare with A mount. Like T3 says, "A-mount usership was never that high" Here are the latest figures I could find on this site: Canon: 40.5 percent, a 3.9 percent increase - Nikon: 19.1 percent, a 2.7 percent decrease - Sony: 17.7 percent, a 0.7 percent decrease - Fujifilm: 5.1 percent, a 1.3 percent increase - Olympus: 2.8 percent, a 0.1 percent increase
Add to this in the last 3 months (after several big releases), "Sony's Camera Sales Are Down 3.5 Percent for the Quarter Compared to 2018"
Even after the A7R4, A6100, A6600, A6400, all new releases, in the past year, Sony sales continue to decline - while Canon's increase. Like T3 says, Sony usership isn't that high and Sony's numbers show they continue to fall.
As for Sony having their foot in door with smarphones. That door is breaking every bone in their foot! lmao!!! "Over the last four quarters, Sony Mobile has lost 100.6 billion yen or $910 million at current exchange rates. In fact, Sony Mobile lost enough in the most recent quarter to completely wipe out all of Sony's profits from movies. Over the last year, it lost more than the camera division earned in profit"
Think about it "Sony Mobile lost enough in the most recent quarter to completely wipe out all of Sony's profits from movies."!!!!
T3 calls that a good thing! OH MY GOD THAT IS HILARIOUS!! Just not to Sony.
@Photo Liz - You can go on and on about market share, but...
"Of Japan’s eight digital camera makers, a group which includes Nikon, Canon and Fujifilm, only one posted sales and profit growth in the most recent annual period: Sony."
A camera company can easily grab market share by selling a lot of dirt-cheap units at almost no profit. That makes your market share numbers look great. but it makes your financials look terrible:
"Canon Imaging: 23% decline in camera sales, 81% drop in operating profit"
@Photo Liz - As for Sony's expenditures in mobile, Canon and Nikon only wish they had that kind of money to play with in mobile. But they don't. They simply don't have the monetary resources and financial cushion that Sony enjoys.
T3 Correction, Canon and Nikon as well as Samsung and Apple are laughing their rear-ends off over the money Sony has lost trying to sell smartphones with nothing to show for it (non existent market share).
If you argument is Sony losing more money than they made from Spiderman movies and all other Sony pictures is "good", then let's mark this page for all to see. It explains perfectly just how far you are willing to go an how messed up all your arguments are.
T3- the guy who say Sony losing a billion US dollars while losing what little market share they had is "great!!". Please add that to your signature.
@Photo Liz - Everyone knows you have to invest money to make money. Sony has that money to invest. Sony has a massive financial cushion that gives them the power and capability to invest amounts of money that Canon and Nikon can only dream of. But in the long run, I think we'll all see that it was better to play in the game than to be totally shut out of it. The crazy thing is that, inspite of all the losses that Sony has had in their smartphone division, Sony are STILL in better financial health than Canon and Nikon. Those kinds of losses would have totally wiped out Canon and Nikon. But not Sony. Canon and Nikon wish they had that level of financial resilience and flexibility!
T3, i like how you say spendingand losing a billion dollars to lose market share and become a laughing stock is "investing". Sony no longer has a market share in smartphones. They do have the worst reputation though and considered a joke. What Sony did is like paying someone triple what your house is worth to burn it down and then dump toxic waste so the land is unusable. T3 calls that "investing", then says Canon wishes they had put all their money in the house before it burnt down and bought that toxic waste dump where a burnt down house use to be!
I can’t for my life understand that anybody still holds to DSLRs. I had one in the 90’s. It is really a dinosaur from the time you just switched film to sensor but kept the rest of the mechanics. There is no meaning to it 2019. It resembles of the digital tapes used in video cameras before they got completely digitalised.
@T3 These numbers are from Sonys Q2 2019 report (up to 30 September 2019). Stills and Video Camera revenue in billions of yen. Q1 2018 113,256, Q1 2019 100,254. Q2 2018 103,034, Q2 2019 99,606 Digital camera sales in millions of units. Q1 2018 1.0, Q1 2019 0.8. Q2 2018 0.9, Q2 2019 0.7. Year on year decrease in both unit sales and revenues. I am not aware that Sony is still selling DSLR,s so I have to assume they are selling fewer mirrorless cameras than last year. All of the camera makers, including Sony are facing the same shrinking market, mirrorless or DSLR is not changing that.
//There are over 60 DSLR lenses that work like they are virtually native on Nikon Z mount.//
Trying out being a woman again? Let's hope this one lasts longer than your previous female log-in.
There are 52 Sony e-mount lenses. Reaching from 12mm to 600mm. And many more third party ones. When you move into the field of manual focus the numbers are in hundreds. All native e-mount - no adaptor required. This is excluding adapting lenses from other brands like EF.
You're not a Nikon user, are you. There certainly are not 60 DSLR lenses that perform 'virtually natively' on Z mount. Take a look in the forums - issues with lots of lenses. And compatibility will get worse as Nikon improves their AF, which is what happened with Sony.
Manufacturers don't want you to adapt old lenses, they want you to buy new ones. The adaptor exists to transition people and make the system viable when it is first introduced. Then it is allowed to wither and die. Nikon and Canon will be the same.
// Here are the latest figures I could find on this site: Canon: 40.5 percent, a 3.9 percent increase - Nikon: 19.1 percent, a 2.7 percent decrease - Sony: 17.7 percent, a 0.7 percent decrease//
You must be very bad at searching because the most rudimentary search brings up this from May this year:
'Sony bumps Nikon from #2 spot as its global ILC market share increases 4% year-over-year.'
Sony's market share was 24% in it's FY2018 report, not 17.7 and it was ahead of Nikon by more than three percent points. A gap that has no chance of doing anything but growing.
Sony has stated that it aims to be #1 by 2021. They are already #1 in FF (both DSLR and mirrorless) and #2 in aps-c mirrorless.
Canon's dominant overall sales position is based on their sales of entry level DSLRs. Those are about to fall off a cliff as mirrorless reaches tipping point. Those customers will be shaken out across the brands with most going to Canon and Sony. Even a 50/50 split would likely give Sony the #1 overall position.
To even begin to compete Canikon need an A7III clone, a camera both seem some way away from making. Even worse for them, the A7IV is imminent (Q1, 2020) and even if it only receives the new body and Real Time Tracking but keeps the same sensor it will still result in a whole new tranche of users jumping to Sony.
It will slot in at circa $2K and the A7III will drop down to $1.5K to mop up all other sales.
Canon and Nikon couldn't afford to sell their A7III clone at that price even if they could make one. They are not in a good position.
@RubberDials Of course, you don't have any sources to back up your assertions about the No1 and 2. Even Japanese do not believe any Sony marketing crap about its No2. It is No3 and it is losing sales by -40% in recent 18 months.
@Rubberdials You cannot deny that Sony has sold fewer cameras for less money this year than last. Its a fact, as shown in Sonys finacial reports. Mirrorless cameras with live view have been with us since the dawn of the digital age, this is not new technology. It has matured and the form factor has changed thats all. It is not a panacea to the declining camera market By far the largest selling type of digital camera has been the compact camera, that market has collapsed and been replaced by smartphones. Low end ILC's of which DSLR's still make up the most are going that way to. They are not being replaced in the same numbers by mirrorless cameras, they are also going to smartphones. This affects the whole market, not just Canon & Nikon.
Hold on Guys, our Topic here is Sony Mirrorless vs DSLR. I'm no doubt that this Camera is good as it what advertise. The thing is why DSLR sale going low every year is because you do not need to upgrade or buy every year once you purchase a good DLSR. A very good comparison maybe every 5 year analysis. As for my gear, I still own the old Canon 7D first model, and that was 10 years ago. And I feel still not getting an upgrade for another 5 years for my needs.
@Archideos Agreed. Digital cameras have been so good for many years now that there is no need to constantly upgrade for the majority of users. I had the 7D as well, the only reason I changed it was because I accidently drowned it in 30ft of water. I constantly see on these forums where people are selling off all of their gear and swapping brands or constantly upgrading, for some percieved advantage or another. Good on them that they can afford to do that, but for me the benefits are neglible compared to the cost. The sales of cameras were leveling off for that reason anyway, before the smartphone accelerated the decline.
1. Most lenses are not capable of resolving 61mp 2. With no smaller raw options, this is a non starter for weddings, I couldn't imaging trying to work with a 1000 plus images at that size, even with my maxed out macbook pro. 3. From everything I see it is a step backwards in video 4. still no improvement on the touch screen 5. The ISO noise may be good, but good luck with hand shake with that resolution, it was the single biggest issue when I got the a7r3. The higher the resolution, the more sensitive it is to any shake. 6. My a7r3 is only two years old, this is such a small upgrade I wish they would have waited another year, and released a camera with significant updates.
Not that Nikon and Canon are any better at keeping value, all these mirrorless cameras drop in price so fast it makes buying them a bad decision. Buy a camera for 3500, less than two years later it is 2500 new, good luck with the resale value.
You older camera that can be had for $1000 less has better IQ and is better in low light. But Sony's IBIS has a lot to be desired. A tripod is virtually mandatory and as a Sony owner you know from experience, "Most lenses are not capable of resolving 61mp"
A7R3 owner, and no handshake issues. Yeah, I tend to shoot at 160th or better, and just crank up ISO when I need it.
I haven't tested the A7rIV, but since I have GM and Batis lenses, if I decide to upgrade I'll probably rent the camera and test it out first. That's the only way to know if *your* lenses can resolve the higher resolution.
"Most lenses are not capable of resolving 60Mp" - have you tried?
I have, and I'm not having any problems. Admittedly, I only have a limited selection of lenses, but I've been getting sharp results at the pixel level out of the 135 GM (OK, that's not a surprise), but also out of the old 55mm Zony (first Sony lens I bought).
I remember way back in 2012, when I bought a Nikon D800e there were people making lists of which lenses were "sharp enough" for 36 Mpixel. I guess we should be looking for lists of lenses "sharp enough" for 60 Mpixel. Or maybe not, because you can use pretty much any lens on a 60 Mpixel body :-)
Sony has been and continues to be on the leading edge of digital camera technology.
That means people who have already bought a Sony camera will see a faster decline in equipment value.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. People who can't afford it can get it on the second-hand market and people who desire to upgrade can get the best technology has to offer more quickly.
Yeah, long-term cost of ownership depends on the use one gets out of the tool. Journalism, weddings, studio, all have different ways to calculate the cost:benefit of a given setup. I don't care about resale value because generally, when I'm done with a camera, you're not going to want it. Except for my old Leica M cameras, the M4 was repaired multiple times and still commanded a decent resale.
A7R3 images look noticeably better. Especially colors. Its better in low light. With AI upscaling SW, there is no noticeable difference in IQ (unless you do some extreme pixel peeping). The A7R3 is 1000 bucks less and takes noticeably better pictures. If you must buy Sony, get the superior A7R3 and apply the latest FW. Then take a nice vacation, and buy a better lens with the extra $$$.
I don't think Sony is desperate...but I do think they are investing less in R&D for their cameras because the market has contracted so much and so fast.
Sony doesn't like to invest in a small markets. When they started out the camera market was much larger and growing. Digital was bringing in more people than ever. But then the smartphone as a camera really took off, and now the camera market is maybe 10 percent of what it was when Sony started out producing large sensor camera systems.
The top selling cameras of today sell only a small fraction of what the best selling cameras of 5 or 10 years ago did. For instance, the Canon 5D II and 5D III models each probably had more sales than the entire FF market today.
I think most people trying to understand and analyze the camera market do not adequately factor into their analysis the fact that the market shrinking changes everything in terms of investment and planning.
As for market contraction, here are the latest numbers: •DSLR Units -34% •DSLR Shipped Value -43% •Mirrorless Units -9% •Mirrorless Shipped Value +6% •Compact Units -20% •Compact Shipped Value -16%
As you can see, MILC had a very small drop in units of only 9%, but dollar value actually went up 6%. So the MILC market is actually increasing in value, not shrinking. It's the DSLR market which CONTINUES to plummet. And that hurts Canon/Nikon, not Sony.
As for mirrorless market share and value share: •Mirrorless unit share (of Mirrorless + DSLR): 44.5% (was 36.8% YTD last year) •Mirrorless Shipped Value share: 59.8%
MILC unit share is nearly equal, and value share is now HIGHER than DSLR.
@Thoughts R Us - "now the camera market is maybe 10 percent of what it was when Sony started out producing large sensor camera systems."
But almost all of that decline has happened in the DSLR market. The large sensor camera market remains relatively healthy, especially in mirrorless where Sony dominates the FF mirrorless market. Sony now sells more FF cameras than Canon or Nikon.
@T3: sure DSLR sales have dropped far more than mirrorless, because they were the bulk of the market and had more to drop.
But regardless, the entire market is smaller...far smaller than the target that Sony had when they started out. And it is still dropping. And I don't think Sony or anyone anticipated the drastic falloff that would occur due to smartphones. Sony even missed out on the entire smartphone revolution as their smartphone business is almost non existent.
So Sony could have the entire market and still sell far less cameras than Canon or Nikon did even just a few years ago. So you can talk in percentages all you want, but the market is far smaller, and that means it does not merit the same type of investment as perhaps it did say 5 or 7 years ago, esp. to a large company like Sony. Sony now has a far lower ceiling to what the business can bring.
BTW, something has to explain Sony's slowing investment in their MILC platform, and others have noticed it as well. Here's an article "Sony is Falling Behind in the Spec War It Started"
@Thoughts R Us - My point is that Sony played its cards right. They invested in the one segment of the camera market that is actually growing in value and that is holding relatively steady in unit volume (compared to other segments). Meanwhile, other camera brands continue investing in...DSLRs. It's like buying a ticket on the Titanic *after* it hit the iceberg. A 34% drop in DSLR unit volume and a whopping 43% drop in DSLR value (on top of many years of drops) is quite astounding. Yet, Canon/Nikon continue down the DSLR path even as the DSLR market slips below the value of the MILC market. It's not a pretty picture. Read this analysis of Canon, which now supports three ILC systems (EF mount, RF mount, M mount):
@ Thoughts R Us: Your speculations about Sony slowing down their R&D har way more to do with your bias on this brand (and your love to bulky cameras) than to what Sony actually is doing.
Next step is even more advanced sensors, like full global shutter and other implementations, but it is a bit hard to introduce cameras with a technology that is NOT yet there!
In the meantime Sony is improving their class leading cameras, like no other brands. And as a tech company, I don't think they will stop where they are right now. To stay strong in a shrinking marked, you need to be really good!
T3, you know why Canon and Nikon make DSLRs? Because photographers still want them. And they will continue too.
Mirrorless and DSLR's can both co-exist on the market. They both have their advantages and always will. Get used to it. Aren't there better things to argue about, really?
Also, they do not use their own latest technology and usually opt for older outdated technology in their cameras. Until recently they were stuck with Memory sticks and USH-I, while the industry moved to UHS-II. Sony still doesn't support their superior XQD cards in cameras even though competitors do. And look at Sony's APSC cameras. 3 new models all using their outdated sensor from over 5 years ago, that has the worst rolling shutter in the industry. But Fujifilm has been using a superior 26MP sensor that can output 30 FPS and has very little rolling shutter. Sony has virtually given up on APSC, and as Petapixel says, they've fallen behind. Looking at their "new" models all the hardware is from 2014.
We also need to mention Sony has history of quitting when it comes to cameras. They were one of the first to quit DLSRs, before they had any mirrorless alternative and upsetting most of their owners. They heavily pushed SLTs for a few years and then quit, greatly upsetting those owners. They quit the "NEX" system of small pocketable ILC cameras. And now appear to be phoning in their APSC line and possibly getting ready to quit that too. Like Petapixel reported they are are falling behind with the systems they haven't quit on. Their sales dropped another 3.5% last quarter too (equates to 14% a year).
@cgarrard - "T3, you know why Canon and Nikon make DSLRs? Because photographers still want them. And they will continue too."
It's not about *making* DSLRs. It's about pouring resources into developing new DSLRs. Canon and Nikon kept making the EOS 1V (released 2000) and F6 (released 2004) film SLRs for many years. But after those models, they didn't put any more money into developing new film SLRs.
Consider, for example, the new Canon 90D. It's been an extremely slow seller. On Amazon's "Best Sellers in DSLRs", it's currently ranked #31, which is abysmal for a new model. I just don't think the sales (or lack thereof) justified the investment of putting this camera out. In comparison, if you look at Amazon's Best Sellers in Digital Cameras (all digital cameras, including both DSLR and MILC), the A7III (at #4) is the second best selling ILC behind the Canon Rebel T7 (#2):
Just another troll account. This person is also wrong: >"They were one of the first to quit DLSRs"
Nope. Sony still makes their A-mount system. They just don't develop much for it anymore. But why should they? The DSLR market is a rapidly sinking ship. And A-mount was never a huge part of the market anyway. But they still make and sell it.
>"They quit the "NEX" system of small pocketable ILC cameras."
Wrong. NEX was simply the original name of Sony's E-mount system. They just dropped the NEX name, but Sony's E-mount system obviously continues.
>"And now appear to be phoning in their APSC line and possibly getting ready to quit that too."
LOL, sure. That's why Sony introduced the following APS-C E-mount mirrorless gear in this year alone: A6100 A6400 A6600 16-55/2.8 G (weather-sealed enthusiast-oriented APS-C zoom) 70-350mm f4.5-6.3 G OSS (weather-sealed enthusiast-oriented APS-C zoom) 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS (consumer-oriented APS-C zoom)
@Photo Liz - "We also need to mention Sony has history of quitting when it comes to cameras."
Canon quit their FD system. Nikon quit their Nikon 1 system. And by "quit", I mean they *totally* killed off these systems, with no provisions for adaptability with future systems. That's obviously not the case with Sony. Sony has not discontinued the A-mount system, and A-mount lenses can be adapted to E-mount bodies.
People have to remember that Sony kept selling Betamax long after it lost the video war to VHS. Betamax was introduced 1975, but Sony didn't end the production of Betamax players until 2002. They kept supporting Betamax by continuing repair services and by continuing tape production.
"On November 10, 2015, Sony announced that it would no longer be producing Betamax video cassettes. Production and sales ended March 2016 after nearly 41 years of continuous production. Third party manufacturers continue to make new cassettes."
Photo Liz, I never realized it, but yes indeed they have quit all projects they have started so far but Cybershot and the newest ILC system. You broke it down pretty darn well. Amazing that Sony fans here are so adamant to defend them!
"We also need to mention Sony has history of quitting when it comes to cameras. They were one of the first to quit DLSRs, before they had any mirrorless alternative and upsetting most of their owners. They heavily pushed SLTs for a few years and then quit, greatly upsetting those owners. They quit the "NEX" system of small pocketable ILC cameras. And now appear to be phoning in their APSC line and possibly getting ready to quit that too. Like Petapixel reported they are are falling behind with the systems they haven't quit on. Their sales dropped another 3.5% last quarter too (equates to 14% a year)."
@cgarrard - Sadly, this is the "last resort" argument that people such as yourself have left: "We hope Sony quits!" 😂
A 3.5% drop is downright tiny in today's camera market. Secondly, Sony still has their A-mount system. However, their continued investment in it is (smartly) proportional to market demand for this system, which isn't much. At this point in time, with the DSLR market in continued freefall, it doesn't make much sense to invest much money into new DSLR (unless you enjoy losing money).
As for quitting, remember that Canon abandoned their FD users and their massive FD system. FD had *far* more users than A-mount. Also, Nikon quit Nikon 1, Nikon DL, Nikon KeyMission, etc.
To clarify, Sony said the lost close to 4% of sales in one quarter, a quarter when several new "inexpensive" bodies were released. The previous quarter saw an even greater decline. Add those losses up and the decline is double digits for the year. This site also showed Sony lost market share over the past year while Canon, Fujifilm and Olympus gained market share. Sadly Sony won't have any new popular releases for a long time since they had their biggest this year, but saw still saw a decline in sales. It might be 2 or 3 years before the next APSC body.
And their FF mirrorless sales are slow. Sony continues to far outsell Canon and Nikon in FF mirrorless. As for Canon DSLR, their latest 90D release has basically been a flop. It's currently sitting at #31 in Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list, which is abysmal for a new release:
In comparison, the Sony A7III which hit the market in April 2018 (more than a year and a half ago) is the 2nd best selling ILC on Amazon, behind the bargain-basement Canon Rebel T7 which sells for a fraction of the price:
Regardless, one of Sony's biggest APS-C mirrorless sellers has been the A6000 which was released back in 2014! And it still remains one of their top sellers.
@Thoughts R Us... I'm glad you have stopped telling everyone how great DSLR's are, and how mirrorless is just a fad. I think you have finally reallized how wrong your have been all this time. Thank you!
Mujana because they arent camera makers they are an aggressive consumer electronics company with a history of bulldozing anywhere there is a profit, audio TVs, the video game industry and now while there's money, photography. I like their sensors but I'll take them in a camera brand with some heritage
Almost tempted to sell my trustworthy old 5d3 for this one and go full Sony but will Wait until Canon makes a mirrorless 5dsr version. Well Done Sony, well Done.
More weird colors. Except for the 8 over compensating males who feel they need the higher resolution (and there are better options for that), I see no need for this camera. The A7R3 with its latest FW is better in low light and has better image quality. Its $1K less. And the weird colors and poor controls kill it for me.
How is the resoluation not a great thing? Higher resolution is great for wildlife photography where you can crop mach more in. Its great for landscape if you want to go for big prints. Its great for weddings, where you could even ditch a second lense and achieve way easier new compositions by croping (also it got a silent shutter). The biggest advantage is obviously found in product photograpyh. Cutouts can be done WAY more precise. Retouching is much better if you have more pixels to start from - even if you deliver in a smaller resolution. Tools like the stamp or automatic stamp work better with shaper, more details images. All of this are BIG benefits in a photographers everyday life. The ONLY downsize is the filesize, but honestly, with todays SSD / HDD prices, this is a non issue. Also compared to RAW video this filesizes are no problem is any modern working enviroment (unless you are a olympic sports photog. sitting on the sideline with a LAN connected to getty)
FIle size is a big issue if you are a pro dealing with 1000s of images a month and 10 to 100s of thousand of images a year. Suddenly your storage needs and costs double or triple. Also since these photo files are digital you must have at least two back-ups (one local, one remote) to limit the chance of data loss.
Another thing is processing power. With 61MP images you need a computer to handle processing these massive images in a reasonable amount of time. This costs money or it can cost you time in processing time to output the final images.
Yeah, storage and computers are cheap, but they aint free...
One last point...Honest question...To anyone who owns these hi-mp cameras...How steady do you have to be to maximize the sharpness and utilization of these MP or does camera shake often give you less than the full 61mp....Obviously tripod use makes this a non-issue, but I am curious...
Take and A7R3 or Z7 image and apply some AI upscaling and there will be little difference. Its just for guys over compensating. There are a good number of things more important than resolution (which gets thrown away 98% of the time). Content, color, etc. mwhyte makes a good point too. Sony's IS ranks, below Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, etc. Shake is going to kill that resolution..which gets thrown away 98% of the time.
@ Photo Liz - yeah right. You joined the forum 5 days ago and can already testify that all the persons who take sharp picures with this camera must be wrong. There are high resolution cameras without IBIS such as the Canon 5Ds and Medium Format Cameras without IBIS. How can they ever work?? This is one of the easiest to use cameras ever made thanks to fantastic autofocus system and very well working IBIS for photos. And it has great resolution. Try it!
sillen Said in a post I..."testify that all the persons who take sharp picures with this camera must be wrong." What is up with all the troll making up fake posts??? sillen knows I NEVER said the camera cannot take sharp photos. There is no such quote or post by me. sillen is lying and he knows it. Any new camera with a good lens takes sharp photos these days. Just ignore that troll who makes up lies.
I agree that the colors look a bit off; the colors that I've gotten SOOC when I've used an a9 are far superior IMHO. And compare with let's say any Canon gallery; where the colors are superior.
As to resolution, the maxim I always go by is, all things being equal, the more information the better. Of course the problem is that not all things are equal for many users. Many users don't have the computer processing power, storage or bandwidth to comfortably handle these files. So there are real world concerns.
And of course Sony makes things harder by not having a lossless compressed RAW available, like other vendors.
Unless you give me an absolutely huge increase in resolution along with increase in sensor size, like the GFX 100, then IMHO more resolution is a long way down on my priorities.
@ Thoughts are us - so if you are not interested in high resolution, why are you spending your valuable time commenting negatively so many times on the highest resolution full frame camera? One might get the impression that you are actually very interested, even that you envy this camera as you spend so much energy on it
The Fujifilm camera is better if you want high resolution. It cost more, but resolution, colors, in low light, and jsut about every way possible it is a better camera. The Sony can't touch the Panasonic FF high resolution mode either. Of course the Panasonic embarrasses the Sony for video too. Sony failed trying to copy and implement a hi-res mode, just as their 5 axis IBIS mode is noticeably inferior.
If you want a better camera than the A7R4, get the A7R3 which is better in low light and save over 1000 bucks. The A7R4 is mostly a waste of money.
Should I reply to Photo Liz or your alternaitve name Thoughts Are Us? Either way you are only here to troll and say bad things about the camera. But the more you write, the more you show your interest in this camera. I'll let the review speak for itself, and it is pretty clear about the good performance of this camera :-)
Sony does not outsell all other FF cameras. They rank #3. If you go by "value" they rank #2 though. You've been drinking too much Sony Kool-aid.
Oh, Sony just said their camera sales fell another 4% and they lost more market share. Canon, Fujifilm and Olympus, going by the news story on this site, all gained market share last year...at Sony's expense.
@sillen: listen, sillen! Sorry, I couldn't resist that little joke, pun, rhyme, whatever.
Why so defensive? My commentary is very reasoned and balanced, even if you don't like it. And it's silly how you accuse all those who might criticize as being the same person, as if only 1 critic might exist in the world
But come on, the colors in these sample photos are awful...just bad. They do not make the camera look good.
That doesn't mean this is a bad camera, or perhaps these colors are not necessarily indicative of the output. But Photo Liz is right about the colors being a bit off.
sillen You were caught lying about saying the camera can't take sharp pics You were caught lying about Sony selling more FF camera than all others And you embarrassed yourself thinking I am Thoughts R US.
@Photo Liz: You seem to want to repeat your opinion that the A7R III is a better choice than the A7R IV over and over. You have been here 12 days, and have just one opinion - maybe you should look around and comment on some lenses (I'm sure you could find some lenses you hate as much as you hate the A7R IV :D ).
I love the video reviews combined with the excellent written reviews DPR and RB are cranking out. I let it go without argument the conclusion that this camera "competes" with MF. I make it a rule not to talk to much about cameras I do not own or have not shot (like the r4). But I do own and do shoot the GFX 100 and GFX 50r. If the r4 "competes" with them, then that is really something to celebrate at Sony and in the world of the ultra-high end of photography gear. If that conclusion were so, it would put Fuji 6 feet under with their MF. But I doubt if it is so. My very good Fuji APSC gear (I have all of it) "competes" with Fuji GFX too. But it depends what you mean by compete. Fuji APSC X cameras and that very fine XF glass actually beats my Fuji MF cameras in many areas - size, weight, ergo, action, wildlife, getting long reach, etc. I doubt the reviewers would claim that the r4 competes with MF in the areas I really care about right now.
Nice analysis, Greg. Every FF camera since the 36 MP D800 gets the review of it approaching MF image quality. Of course that's not exactly true, same as a great APS-C camera doesn't quite get to FF image quality. A larger sensor still gathers more light and the laws of physics still hold. And these cameras do not use any type of computational photography techniques to try to compensate.
It's wishful thinking to assume a great FF sensor can image with the same quality as a great MF sensor.
That being said, as you allude to, the reviewers should say something like this: while this may not match MF in IQ, it gets very close in many situations, and offers other advantages that make it a more well rounded camera for many.
Just like as you said, the Fuji APS-C cameras offer advantages in overall flexibility that the MF do not.
I think it's a bit like comparing desktops to laptops, obviously a desktop has more space for more power and cooling so you can always build a more powerful machine. But the laptop you buy today can be more powerful than the desktop you had 10 years ago. That maybe the image quality that used to only be possible in MF can now be matched by an FF camera because of better sensors, better lenses, better processing etc. even though state of the art MF has taken it to the next level.
I have been pushing dark areas 5 stops on pentax since the k5 in 2010 (beautiful sony sensor) and have been ever since and pentax continue to run sony sensors , they appear to have the edge still.
Look at the gain curves it's a big mistake to shoot below ISO 640 if you are going to boost it 4-5 stops in post. Shooting at ISO 320 is far worse than shooting at ISO 640. The ISO 320 shot of Jordan in front of the window, looked far worse than the ISO 6400 shot, muddier colours and the eyes weren't in focus.
No doubt a great camera but nothing compelling at all to entice one from an A7RIII which is now a steal and it has better high ISO even when equalising the resolution. The 61MP is a turn off given lossless compression is beyond Sony's capabilities, and the A7RIII has bags of detail, hardly an urgent need to increase resolution.
What? Shooting above base ISO is not advisable anytime unless you need the stops. It costs you DR and less stops of play in post. You were kidding right? You lost me there.... Maybe I didn't understand what you meant.
Actually, Greg, some sensors have a dual-gain architecture where there’s a boost of dynamic range at higher ISO settings compared to a lower setting. So for instance, for some sensors ISO 640 can be cleaner than ISO 200. I wouldn’t say it’s all that noticeable really, but it’s just something to keep in mind.
You need to take another look at the gain curve for the A7rIV.
For the A7rIII the gain jump is at ISO 640, but for the A7rIV it is lower, the jump is somewhere closer to ISO 320. Just look at the curves at photonstophotos.net
Cannot watch video in the office. Missing text transcript (or cannot find it). So I'll have to ask here: do Canadians wear parkas indoors during the winter?
The vertical grip does not add the fully articulated screen which has been standard on the A99/A77 series of cameras for years. Also adding the grip doesn't move the lens mount any further away from the grip ( for us weirdoes with normal sized hands. And yes I have normal sized hands, and have a A99, and an A7RIII, so I use both all the time, and definitely prefer one ergonomic approach over the other, can you guess which one?
Sony is winning the camera war... Does Cannon and Nikon have what it takes to dethrone the new king.... The rx line has also destroyed Nikon and Canon point and shoot enthusiast .. why can’t Nikon and Canon make a better camera..
I think too much is made of "which brand has the best functions." Many pros used the Canon 10D when it became the first viable DSLR and IMHO there were some amazing works, just at lower resolution. Seems that nowadays every gearhead needs to have the latest and greatest, otherwise they can't meter right or frame properly. Surely we're above that!
Aroart, you confuse opinions and facts. I know for the internet generation that’s a very hard thing to distinguish. There isn’t a camera war going on. It is called ‘competition’ and it is a natural economic phenomenon.
And if you follow the reviews here, you see that over time the differences between the brands are negible. If you read market and financial results, none of the brands is winning, but losing a lot of money quickly in the camera market.
And Thougst R Us is right: the phones are taking over.
I own and run this Sony, and Fuji GFX-100 and Phase One IQ4 systems. It's an excellent camera, but as usual some wishful thinking clouds the conclusions.
People use MF because they need big *big* files. Sony is large for FF, but not huge. If you make 40x60" prints, or 60x80" for that matter, you need a really large direct from camera file, not a 60mp Sony one. Quality of MF for this purpose remains a full level above the Sony, assuming it is something MF can shoot (it can't do f1.4 or sports, for example)
"Horses for Courses' as the saying goes. No camera does everything, and we all have different needs in our photography. The A7R4 is a really great camera, and likely suits more people than any other high end FF, but... it is not MF, and is not really comparable, despite the statements made here.
Ever used the Canon EOS 5DSR? I found the ISO not very tempting... everything above ISO6400 was less useable but the resolution was extremely well to the point. No mediumformat-contender, too, but an ergonomical near perfect body.
I shoot Fuji GFX 50r, Fuji GFX 100, Leica Q2 and Fuji X. I shoot tens of thousands of images a year, but I have never printed one, so your point about that is not important to me (but I certainly understand it). The r4 sounds like an amazing camera. I only know two other guys besides you on the Medium Format board who shoot the GFX 100 and new r4. You love them both? I bet you do. Any comparison comments besides the print size comments? Which gives you the most pleasure?
Right now I'm looking at a 75" (65.4"x36.8") 4K TV and thinking okay if this was 8K then I could show about half a 60 MP picture at 1:1. Even if it's not 300 DPI like the GFX a big A7r4 print still has to look pretty damn good. Plus you can maybe steal a few points with the 240 MP mode for completely static subjects.
Kje, that 4K TV viewing comment was misleading. Nothing right now beats editing and viewing raw images on a professional 32 inch color calibrated PC monitor. I have been pixel peeping GFX 50 vs GFX 100 shots at 1:1 and there is a big difference. I think the reviewer was getting carried away when he said that the r4 "competed" with MF. I guess it depends on what you are talking about specifically. The r4 beats my MF in many areas but gets smoked in about 3 others we could talk about.
what minimum computer specs do you (reader or DPR) recommend (mac & PC) to handle A7RIV stills -- thinking Lightroom/PShop with a one or two third party filter sets configuration.
Jimi, I build my own gaming PCs and am a computer hobbyist. Trust me, these new CPUs and GPUs are so powerful and storage is so cheap that it is not even a small issue. In fact, LR runs very smoothly on my road editing solution, which is a tiny Dell XPS 13 4K laptop. No problem with GFX 50r files and Leica Q2 files. It even handles GFX 100 files. I could name the CPUs and GPUs, but if you are running LR on an M.2 PCIe NVME SSD, it will be plenty fast on any of the current 4K laptops and certainly any current generation PC or Mac. But please - get a big 4K pro high-end screen for your PC and go 4k on your laptop for these high res images.
Another excellent well done review followed by numerous morons who are outraged by the EXTRA content DPReview is producing. The video reviews are in addition to the written content, not replacing it. Stop being morons please.
No, read my original comment. It's okay to prefer written reviews. It's moronic to hate the video reviews when a written review ALSO exists. I also like the written content which still exists.
I agree with Fat Fish; I don’t have or (ever) want this camera, but I really enjoy watching the Chris and Jordan videos. If you moan about DPR producing these extra content video’s then yes, I too think you’re being moronic!
Yes, the funny thing is that with some cameras the video review has been released first, and people complained. The answer always. was that the text review was coming, and indeed it did show up.
With this release, the text review was published first, and now the video review, and we still have people complaining that there is no text review, when in fact it's been hidden in plane sight all along. LOL.
The only learn from this might be that perhaps when DPR puts out their video review after a text review, that they put a link in the blurb to the text review.
Now that would be a great idea. The precise reason I didn’t know about this is that I don’t hang around here all day and so seeing what appeared to be a video only review, I assumed that if there indeed was also a text version, or separate text review, it would be linked.
Let's keep in mind we did have have him try the GFX system as well. He has expressed a desire to learn about mirrorless cameras and see if it makes sense to transition from SLRS. I think it makes sense that we show him the latest stuff and see if it really does do something useful for his workflow. That's really all there is to it. No agenda beyond that.
@Chris Niccolls I didn’t think you had an agenda until you denied having an agenda. Denying an agenda is Exactly what someone with an agenda would do 🤔
Chris, there's no denying that DPR (not you personally) seem to be pushing Mirrorless, constantly. After so many glowing reviews and analysis of DSLR over the years, DPR talk about them like they are some archaic device of the past. I think whether or not that is intended, DPR are coming across that way to readers.
Look, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the enthusiasm at this point is a bit offensive to the majority of shooters that still like and DSLR's (often alongside mirrorless). Whether or not my feedback is valuable to you or not isn't up to me. I love you and Jordan alike, but to refer to still modern cameras as dinosaurs etc. is rather dull and doesn't hold up.
@cgarrard - I think it's the internet in general - YouTube is sure the future s mirrorless - I think that people who make a living by attracting followers and subscribers are terrifed of being seen as out of touch with trends - even when those trends are more prominent amongst the influencers than the influencees - also if they all sing the same song they can maybe create enough influence to make sure they are right! :)
So much vitriol and antagonism on the comments section. . It's just a new camera . It does everything for you except press the shutter button.. Photography is dead.
Then get one of the literally thousands of models that don't do everything for you. Shoot film. Use a large format view camera. Get a Pentax 645D, or a Canon 5D classic.
Leave the cutting-edge stuff to the people who want it and stop complaining over absurd things.
@Kharan - or simply turn off the functions you don't want. Turn off AF if you want. Set the camera to a fixed ISO and Manual mode and work out your own exposure. This camera can be as manual as you want. You can even turn off the magnified view when focussing manually (although I wouldn't - that magnification helps me a lot when using manual focus).
@fly I see, if you have Z7 you definitely don’t need an A7R. So actually then why are you on this discussion? Are you visiting every single camera discussion to publish that you don’t need that toy? Of course it’s your business. I am just asking what is your motivation?
I do not know how carefully the camera was handeled before, but you can see the spost from the dirty sensor in some images. A known issue no many photographers want to deal with as often as you see in some Sony MILC's
You could argue that actually professionals would be the easiest to convince of the value of a camera like the A7R IV, as professional are generally results driven, and the camera delivers the results in most situations. A lot of enthusiasts, on the other hand, are more process driven, which can make most of such a camera's technical wizardry a waste of money - they prefer to be in control all apects of the process themselves - including visualisation through an OVF (and in some cases still fully manual film cameras). However, it's also probably true that this will change as more and more people's introduction to photography is their smart phone
"A lot of enthusiasts, on the other hand, are more process driven"
Probably true, but many of them are also "tech driven", and are always looking for cameras with impressive specs and all the latest features, no matter if they're planning to use them or not.
It's consumer electronics. Other than some ergonomic considerations, there isn't much besides the specs, and not surprisingly, this is where Sony excels. If you decide you "need" the next model, it's nice to know you're getting additional new features, even if you don't have a use for them.
The emphasis on the "tech driven" customer is one thing that's killing the market for cameras faster than it otherwise would be.
The tech driven consumer is more vocal and obvious. But the general market votes for convenience / ease of use, hence the overwhelming popularity of the smartphone camera.
By focusing so much on tech specs the camera companies appeal to a very small market and even that one is shrinking. Had they focused more on usability and user experience these last few years we still would have seen the camera market decline but probably not so much.
Think of it this way: this year over 1.5 billion smartphones will be sold. If the camera companies could even get at least 1% of that to buy a dedicated camera, that would be over 15 million more customers. It's projected that this year less than 10 million dedicated cameras will be sold. So you could more than double your market. But these customers don't want arcane tech specs, they want a better experience.
The way things are going, smartphones will cost UKP 5000, with 15 inch screens that fold to 4 inches, speaker systems that do 20hz to 25khz, full frame sensors, large lenses and attachments. Power requirements will be delivered by hydrogen fuel cells.
As good as the R4 is, I agree with everything in this review, I still think that all of its considerable technical advantages disappear when shooting moving objects handheld at any speed.
I've had the Riv for 3+ weeks now. Boxing up the D850 tomorrow. Last week working in a blind the D850 gave an Eastern Towhee a heart attack with its stentorian shutter sound. I admit to loving the files coming out of the D850, the shadow pull ability, etc. but just no need for it anymore. I do plan on keeping the D500 for the wonderful 500PF/300PF, and the D500 is the only crop body I have that can give my a9 a run for the money in AF acquisition/AF tracking. Doubt I'll miss the D850. The Riv just has so many more useful characteristics (even in non-silent I've not startled a bird yet).
@ cbphoto123: Sure, since your set of lenses are perfectly calibrated, all other DSLR lenses must also be perfect out of the box. No need for in-camera calibration options or calibration tools whatsoever ... this is just a gimmick.
@magnar w.. u are the person that said: “..have to calibrate every single lens to get perfect focus..”. I did have an old 28-70 f2.8l film era, purchased new around 1995, that front focused when tested around 5 years ago that needed calibration. (Took around 5 minutes to take care of that). But of all the lenses I have owned..that’s the only one.
Try and be objective. Read what I wrote and your response/interpretation.
It actually isn't the best APSC camera. For action, D500 remains the best APSC. For portability, probably the new Fujifilm X-A7 is the best APS-C one. But, it can be used as APS-C camera and it is very good at it as well
I didn't say say the most portable or most action oriented apsc camera. I said the best. Besides, the new Real Time Sony AF algos leave even Nikon's 3D tracking in the dust. I've tried it. With crop mode and the dual uhs-2 cards it also has buffer for days, so yeah, I'd choose it over the D500 every day, even for action.
Regardless of the merits of this particular camera...one thing I've noticed starting with the 36 MP D800...every high resolution FF camera gets labeled as being able to complete against medium format.
I would suggest not really. A larger sensor is a larger sensor; there are benefits, in terms of color depth, richness, contrast, smoothness of transition of tonal range, etc.
This is just like saying that APS-C can match FF. Certainly in some ways it can suffice, just like even a small smartphone sensor can suffice. But it is not the same.
In fact, if we go by the logic, if a high res APS-C sensor can be like FF, which can be like MF, therefore a high res APS-C sensor is just as good as MF!
Can you please explain me one thing: why do people who believe that sensor size is that important always talk about things like “richness”, “smoothness of transitions of tonal range”, “image plasticity” etc., when we have to deal with technology, based on photodiodes spread on a surface? When you take your MF camera and crop an FF part of it does it loose its richness and all other advantages you talk about when saying MF is far superior to FF? Does the same happens with FF cropped to APS-C during capture or during post? Is a 10 year old MF sensor still better than modern FF, or is the technology used in different sensors evolving? When comparing APS-C, FF and MF are you comparing the same generation of sensors, or do you mean that any bigger sensor is generating that magical better result? If you put a Canon glass on an MF body, using a simple mechanical adapter and it can’t cover the whole MF is the magic gone or still there?
What generates that richness etc. - bigger pixels, more light per whole sensor surface, maybe the lenses? What technology aspects do that magic you are talking about when stating that some sensor size can’t match another. I’m really curious to understand.
@Stan From a completely unscientific point I've assumed it was the sensor size. More light in the same picture gives you more to work with regardless of mpix
@Stan: Every sensor size has its strong and weak points. The strong points of every larger sensor is that it will gather more light in one shot then the smaller sensor does. When the sensor has the same size pixels the larger sensor will have a higher resolution and more details then the smaller sensor. The larger sensor will show a larger field of view when you shoot with the same focal length lens. In the end this is a good thing for people shooting indoors, or shooting wide landscapes, but it is a downside for people doing telephoto shots a lot, they need longer (heavier) telephoto lenses to get the same results. The size of the sensor will be lost for a great part when you crop. In the end I find the differences between APS-C and FF very small, not enough for me to go Full Frame. The differences between the FF and most of the MF cameras is small too, the differences between APS-C and MF is a large step, but as I like to do telephoto shots over wide angle, APS-C is better for me!
It's very simple: photography is about light. A larger sensor gathers more light...more information.
Now one can get more technical about it...but that's what google is for.
There are any number of articles on the web about the advantages of a larger sensor. Just google some topic like "advantages of larger image sensor"...
And to argue that sensor size is irrelevant at one level, but not at another makes no sense...which is why it's funny to see some argue that there is no difference between FF and MF, yet argue that FF is a must have over APS-C for the same reason: sensor size.
Of course it also depends on what you are shooting and the conditions. As with everything else, everyone has to come to their own answer as to what works for them best.
@gfrensen I clearly understand what are you talking about, but when we talk about amount of light we should remember that the _whole sensor_ does may capture more light when we talk about same aperture (F) and same transmission (T) of the lens. But at the same time we have exactly the same amount of light on the same surface area on different sensor sizes. Then we should consider lenses - for MF they are darker (I mean that a standard lens for MF is something like 100/3.5, 80/2.8 or 63/2.8 for different MF sizes), and this means they pass LESS light to the sensor. Then we have to consider pixel density and how much light does every diode get.
... At last we have to consider the technology behind that physics and how well this light is captured/measured/preamped etc. At last there is mathematics - how the result is interpreted. When we put that all together we will find that from technology point of view we get not that much difference that we expected or even negative difference in some situations. So when we talk that photography is about light we have to remember, that it’s about technology and all factors should be carefully measured and compared. At real life I see little to no difference in MF vs FF vs APS-C/MFT results WHEN it’s used by a photographer who does understand what he is doing. And still FF bodies are far superior to MF in terms of handling, AF performance and lot of other things.
@Thoughts R Us - «It's very simple: photography is about light. A larger sensor gathers more light...more information.»
Don’t overestimate this. This kind of statements often confuse people who don’t know details. I mostly answered about it higher in this thread.
“Now one can get more technical about it...but that's what google is for.”
Google is a bad source for this kind of education, as we see tons of articles written by people who know near to nothing but think they can learn others. We have to consider A LOT of factors when talking about sensor size and how exactly is it used to get the result, when comparing image quality, DR, color depth etc.
... In our photography school I often meet students who can afford MF cameras, all those hassels and leicas and have that much problems then when learning photography, just because they used google and are sure that MF is always far superior to anything else on this planet. Photography is about light, but it’s also about technology and math and lot more things.
Just to add to Stan’s clarifications: larger sensors only collect more light if you give them more light to begin with, i.e. if, for a given field of view, you use a larger equivalent aperture (at the expense of depth of field) or expose longer (at the risk of more motion blur if not in a controlled or very bright environment). They do not gather more light just by virtue of being larger, although they *are* generally able to hold more of it before clipping (hence a higher maximum SNR achievable), and they *do* enable the use of larger lenses to sacrifice some DOF for more light (because that additional light is in the form of more marginal rays).
@spider Assuming 2 properly exposed photos of the exact picture the MF is working with more light than a smaller format. Disregarding all the other pros and cons for the system you cant get around that fact. Whether it's practical to shoot the same picture in different formats is a different question
But sometimes, you simply cannot “properly expose”. If light is in abundance, then yes, you can afford to expose the MF shot longer and thus get a cleaner image (though a smaller sensor could achieve something similar with multiple shots, à la Google Pixel or Olympus HHHR). And in any case where DOF is not a problem, you will achieve a higher exposure in the same amount of time with the same f-number with the longer focal length used on the MF camera (but that lens will also be larger).
But on the other hand, if you are both light- and DOF-limited on a small sensor, then a larger sensor won’t help: whatever advantage you could get in quantity of light, you would have to pay for in depth of field. My point was basically that a larger sensor is not an automatic win in terms of light gathered, it just allows more tradeoffs in certain situations, tradeoffs that you may not necessarily want to make.
The big reason medium format aren't always better is due to the difference in capital investment/expenditure. Though MF sensors have the intrinsic advantage of having greater surface in which to capture the light given the same optics, FF sensors have the economic advantage of much higher volume which translates to higher conversion efficiency as well as smaller surface which allows for more aggressive designs without killing yields.
That economic advantage won't last forever however. We're now nearing the limits of quantum efficiency for sensors so area may soon be the best way to improve image quality once again but again there are still other dimensions like as read out speeds, read out/processing latency, packaging considerations like cover glass depth, filter geometry, pixel geometry, process consistency (cherry picked/defect-graded sensors), calibration/processing optimizations, etc. that are affected by capital investment.
> MF sensors have the intrinsic advantage of having greater surface in which to capture the light given the same optics
Again, that’s not strictly true (it depends on what you mean by capturing more light and by “the same optics”). The same focal length on a larger sensor will map the same portion of the scene to the same surface on the sensor, meaning that the additional surface will only serve to capture a wider field of view.
What the larger sensor does allow is to use a longer focal length (so, not the same optics) to capture the same FOV, which means that: 1. the same f-number implies a larger entrance pupil and hence more light and less depth of field (if you want to keep your original DOF, you need to stop down to a point that gives you the same total light flux that you initially had), 2. for a given full well capacity per sensor unit area, spreading the light more on the sensor allows to hold more light from the scene and hence expose more/longer if the conditions allow it.
I have been through all this on the MF Board many times. I don't argue the MF Look anymore. I know what I see and that is why I just bought the GFX 100 after shooting the GFX 50r for 10 months. DPR does not allow promotion of the MF Look gospel that so many MF shooters believe. It is verboten. I respect that rule now because I have no choice and no longer push the argument except to say I know what I see and choose to put my money where I want to on photo gear.
Sure but in practice lens size and volume is the primary determinant of any quality measure, next up are specific manufacturing concerns for the solution derived -- which is just a long winded way to say the primary concern should be price optimization given some value function.
An idea for you DPR: think differently. Make a video aimed at the mirrorless crowd, persuading them to switch to the DSLR. Say Nikon D850 ... is it compelling enough to tempt a staunch mirrorless shooter to switch to the DSLR?
It's a v good cam - probably the best DSLR, but has no IBIS, a legacy mount and AF 'issues'. From the review:
"Click through on the above image to see how the Nikon back-focused despite the autofocus point being placed directly over the subjects face. At this particular distance, this happened repeatedly.
"repeated testing has shown both that lenses (including our 105mm F1.4) can require different fine tuning for different focus depths. Furthermore, we found the results change, based on whether the lens starts at close focus or infinity: a source of error that calibration can't address.
"there is no provision to calibrate a lens at different focal lengths (for zooms), or different focus distances, or for anything but the central AF point. When you've got F1.4 primes and 45.7MP of resolution, a small calibration can be the difference between the perfect shot and a throwaway shot: the D850's resolution ends up highlighting a problem inherent to DSLRs.
The D850 will be better for many. IBIS is not needed for stills; way overrated. IS is needed for long telephoto work but comes with the lens, which is better.
D850 gives a far more polished and satisfying shooting experience.
As for AF issues, well, there are people on other forums like Fred Miranda complaining about AF issues with the A7RIV.
So it is a valid point: at this stage mirrorless is not alway superior overall to a DSLR.
You have an EOS R which has no stabilisation and a z7 which has IBIS. Why don't you conduct an experiment. Shoot both cameras up to 1/125 and then pixel-peep the results. And then tell us that 'IBIS is not needed'.
"D850 gives a far more polished and satisfying shooting experience."
Evidently not.
As per usual you conflate two things that are related but not the same. The AF behaviour detailed in the review is not the AF failing, but rather an insurmountable issue with DSLR AF. It cannot be calibrated before every shot and so can never be as accurate as OSPDAF. With high resolution sensors like that in the D850 and z7 you will notice AF errors more readily.
@RD: once again you repeat simple tech spec talking points..but I have news for you: DSLRs like the D850 focus wonderfully...most DSLRs do...
Sure there can be the focus errors, but you act as if it is somehow some fatal flaw, when in fact the best photographers on the planet still happily use their DSLRs to achieve amazing results.
The focusing behavior you speak of is more of a talking point to try to spur mirrorless sales. It's kind of a solution largely looking for a problem, way overplayed.
They don’t. Unfortunately we saw so much examples where photographers miss the focus, because DSLR focusing principals are dated, all those problems with front and back focusing, that need to carefully nail and recompose. And when we talk about modern technology like that implemented in A7R4, it’s not about focus, but about the ease it is used. I’m shooting digital for more then two decades and clearly remember how I focus on DSLRs compared to MILCs, and I definitely feel that moving to mirrorless made my results better, work easier and faster. I can finally rely on AF instead of nailing, I even can simply don’t look in the camera and know it will focus exactly where I need - on the eyes of the model, of the bride or of the cat. Not on the nose, not on the eyebrows. No need to recompose, to use the most precise focus points etc. It’s a huge leap forward.
“when in fact the best photographers on the planet still happily use their DSLRs to achieve amazing results”
Best travelers of the world still happily use the original LR Defender to reach their destinations, so what? Is it the best, the most comfortable and the most safe car? ;-) I doubt best photographers don’t look at technology evolution. I saw many great photographers moving to mirrorless, and I know they are happy with it. For sure I know some famous photogs who stuck in older tech and yes, they still are able to archive their usual perfect result, but this does not mean they use cutting edge tech and can’t be better.
I'm not 'repeating simple tech points', I'm quoting from this site's D850 review.
For someone who plucks information from his nether regions that might seem like a strange activity to you, but the journalists on this site don't think of it as 'overplayed' and neither does your 'buddy' Jim Kasson.
His advice for 'working around' the focus calibration issues of the D850 is to: • Take lots of pictures. • Show some flexibility in evaluating the position of the sharp plane. (LOL) • Stop down a bit. • Use LV at least some of the time. https://blog.kasson.com/d850/nikon-d850-autofocus-accuracy-summary/
You bought two mirrorless FF cameras from different manufacturers so presumably there was an incentive there. And presumably you never owned a DSLR, so you're not aware of how much more accurate their focussing is.
When I switched to A7RIII from Canon 5Dm3 I seriously considered moving to the D850. It's a really great camera. However, these old bones of mine have been complaining about carrying big heavy things for a few years now and the Sony was definitely easier to carry. I'd still like a D850, but I doubt that I'll ever get one any more than I'll get into medium format.
Try focus focal length above 50 mm manual Sony A7R4 vs. Nikon D850, and then say at IBIS is not useful. IBIS is one of the best things to still photography. And to past i use Nikon Professional Cameras (DX2, D3...etc). Never look back. May be i little smile when someone use Clap, clap cameras. I think DSLR cameras going to Die. New cameras EVF is so much versatile.
High quality EVFs, or electronic viewfinders, are pretty ubiquitous these days, but that wasn't always the case. This week we take a retrospective look at several cameras that raised the bar for EVF performance.
We recently got our hands on Adobe Camera Raw support for the Sony a7R IV and have updated our sample gallery accordingly with plenty of conversions. Have a look.
Sony just announced the a7R IV, its new high resolution flagship camera. DPReview TV was on hand for the launch and Jordan is here with a preview. Chris picked this week to go fishing, but we know a great website where he can learn more about the camera when he gets home.
Our team is at the launch event for the new Sony a7R IV and they're ready to share their initial thoughts. Find out what excites them about this camera, and get some more nuanced insight into some key features.
The Fujifilm X-Pro3's new viewfinder, new screen and titanium construction all make for an appealing camera, but perhaps only for a certain type of photographer.
Weighing in at just 249g, the Mavic Mini fits in the palm of your hand. You give up a few features in exchange for that tiny size, but we still found it to be a solid performer.
The Epson V600 is a reasonably priced scanner aimed at analog film shooters. It's fairly easy to operate and capable of decent image quality, but still easily bested by scans from our local photo lab.
The EOS M200 is Canon's new entry-level mirrorless camera. It's easy to use, takes great photos, and crams a big APS-C sensor into one of the smallest camera bodies on the market. We think that's a recipe for success – get all the details in our full review.
Sony's a6100 adds powerful autofocus and a touchscreen to its low-cost mirrorless camera. But little inconsistencies mean it's not quite the excellent beginners camera it could be.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with friends or loved-ones in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry-level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Sony Japan has issued a service advisory noting that select units are causing full-frame Sony cameras to stop working when the lens is attached to them.
We follow photographer Micael Bonocore as he tells the story of Igram Askar, a young eagle huntress in Mongolia. Filmed and photographed using the Sony a7R IV.
It offers a few benefits for photographers, but ultimately LG's Dual Screen accessory is a multi-tasker's dream come true. It just remains to be seen whether or not it will catch on.
A University of Georgia student photographer was knocked unconscious on the sideline after a wide receiver collided with her after going out of bounds.
We've updated our guide to the best cameras for landscape photographers with a new overall winner: the Sony a7R IV. Take a look at the full shortlist for all of our picks.
The a6100 is Sony's newest entry-level APS-C mirrorless camera. As Chris and Jordan highlight in their review, it features some useful upgrades over to the [apparently immortal] a6000.
As diplomat William Taylor and State Department official George Kent took their seats in day 1 of the house impeachment hearings this week, our eye was caught by David Burnett, and his custom-made 4 x 5 film camera.
Olympus has issued a statement to Chinese financial publication Sina Finance News claiming it will continue 'to work on the improvement of profitability and efficiency in these two business areas,' a direct response to a rumor that stated its imaging division would be shut down within a year.
We recently named the Canon EOS M200 our top choice for cameras under $500, and we're recognizing it again – this time as the best easy-to-use camera on the market.
We've pored over financial reports from Canon, Nikon and Sony, as well as sales figures from CIPA, to see how the three manufacturers stack up against each other and the industry as a whole.
Facebook has fixed a bug that caused iPhone users' Camera app to open alongside the Facebook app, causing concern that Facebook might be recording users.
Sony's a6x00 series (especially the most recent ones) are very good cameras. Yet our in-house contrarian, Richard, isn't convinced their design is well matched to any one type of user.
The previous winner of our 'Best cameras under $500' buying guide was the Canon EOS M100, and the recently announced M200 - which offers an improved AF system and 4K video capture - is the obvious choice to take over first place.
Today saw the opening of the public phase of impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump. But even before the questions had started, something else caught our eye.
Adobe has posted a video showing a new feature in a forthcoming update to Lightroom for iOS that makes it possible to import photos directly from external storage, such as SD cards and SSDs.
The 16-inch MacBook Pro replaces the previous 15-inch version and can be configured with up to an 8-core Intel i9 processor, maxes out at 64GB of RAM and can be ordered with up to 8TB of internal SSD storage.
With its newly improved Super Resolution Zoom, the Pixel 4 makes a case for itself as a replacement for a compact camera with a 4-6x zoom range. And for the most part it succeeds – compacts still have their advantages, but they're pretty much history for most users.
Comments