Sony anoounced the A7r IV today

[pierces]

I guess this deserves its own thread. It looks to be a pretty remarkable camera though the $3500 price tag will limit its appeal to most folks. 

 

Press text:

 

Sony Introduces High-Resolution Alpha 7R IV Camera with World’s First 61.0 MP Back-illuminated Full-frame Image Sensor

• 61.0 MP back-illuminated Exmor R™ CMOS image sensor with latest-generation BIONZ X™ image processor

• 15-stop[iii] dynamic range at low sensitivities, resulting in smooth natural gradations ranging from deep shadows to highlights

• High-speed continuous shooting at up to 10 fps with full AF / AE tracking for approx. 7 seconds in full-frame mode with an increased buffer memory, and approximately three times more in APS-C mode

• 567 focal-plane phase-detection AF points covering 74% of image area and 425 contrast AF points

• Debut of Real-time Eye AF for movie recording and advanced Real-time Tracking plus Real-time Eye AF for still image recording

• Features an APS-C crop mode delivering stunning high resolution of 26.2MP

• 5.76 million dot UXGA (Ultra-XGA) OLED Tru-Finder™ electric viewfinder with outstanding detail, brightness and contrast

• Upgraded connectivity and operability including high-speed Wi-Fi support, wireless PC remote connectivity, FTP wireless transfer, faster data transfer via USB and more

• Professional 4K movie recording functionality including full pixel readout with no pixel binning in Super 35mm mode, S-Log3, HDR workflow support

• Multi Interface Shoe™ with digital audio interface deliver the high-quality sound recording with new Sony’s microphones and XLR adaptor

• Additional enhancements to the body design include an improved grip and button for improvised control with compact, lightweight body

 

All in all, a worthy upgrade, IMHO.

 

$3500 is a fairly large pill to swallow but with all things considered, it doesn't seem to be overpriced. 

 

Triggered a minor GAS attack in yours truly.

 

 

Dave

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by pierces

[chipmaster]

GAS at it's best, currently have my D5 and Df for sale and already sold my D810

 

Took my Df on my last cruise, thought I'd use it but the iPhone worked out pretty well capturing the Kodak Moments.   Making a photo album, honestly the only pictures that could have been a bit better with DSLR were of course sunset.  If I was lugging the DSLR or mirrorless around everywhere it would have taken the joy a bit out of the vacation, it was left in the cabin after sailway and first hike in Kotor, and never once missed it in Santorini or Dubrovnik 

 

I can fully understand the joy of shooting and getting the shot in my many past days of shooting and thus....

For those that love to shoot, getting focus, prospective and the joy of setting up the shot, nothing here that can't be done in an older generation camera, what is interesting the ergo and buttons for the most part to be very same.     One can debate if the joy of shooting comes from more pixels, faster/more focus points, or better ergo and menus.     I know my D3s and D700 from almost a decade ago brought equal joy and don't think the pictures they produced were any less pleasing, but bring on the specs 

😉

3500 buys a lot of new used lens and save some $$$ for a porter, LOL

 

I can't wait to see if the wifi and bluethooth enables syncing with a smartphone or homewifi network/TV as easy as Android or iOS.

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by chipmaster

[pierces]

I almost forgot...

 

 

It's a great time to be a photographer!  🙂

 

 

 

Dave

[tommui987]

3 hours ago, pierces said:

I guess this deserves its own thread. It looks to be a pretty remarkable camera though the $3500 price tag will limit its appeal to most folks. 

 

 

AUWE! (Hawaiian for "ouch" or "good grief')

NO A6700/7000!

 

Only white cloud is that I picked up a A6400  on e-Bay (thanks to Aaron for all his comments on that camera).

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by tommui987
typo errpr

[havoc315]

My lengthy comments here:

 

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/sony-a7r4-upgrade-thoughts-and-questions/

 

In brief, as an owner of the Sony A7riii... a lot of the updates appeal to me, EXCEPT the 61mp (and price). I seldom actually need the 42mp of the Sony A7riii. The downside of 61mp (slower workflow, destroying hard drives) beats the upside.

The Nikon D850/Z7 allow the user to shoot "small" and "medium" raw. But even compressed Sony raw files from the A7riii are 41mb.... the A7riv will likely be over 60mb. I'm not interested unless Sony offers smaller raw file sizes. 

 

[pierces]

5 hours ago, tommui987 said:

 

AUWE! (Hawaiian for "ouch" or "good grief')

NO A6700/7000!

 

 

 

At least two more announcements before September. There's still a chance...

 

In an interview after the A6400 release, one of the Sony PTBs stated thea there would be a high-end APS-C camera coming. I really thought this was it. I'm not disappointed since it is a remarkable camera and the resolution in APS-C crop mode is sort of a game changer in my (theoretical) equipment roadmap. It would not only change my lens choices but would impact hard drive size considerations. Even though I typically shoot JPEG, them files are bigguns!

 

First world problems!

 

Dave

[masterdrago]

Order 7am PDT in the morning.     Not....... That's some list of features for those that just cannot wait.

Check Ken's review now...  https://kenrockwell.com/sony/a7r-iv.htm

Edited July 18, 2019 by masterdrago

[pierces]

That's a lot of transcribed specs with a fair number of donation requests... 🙂

 

Interested to see his completed review. Ken was one of Sony's most fervent critics when Sony took over Minolta and seems to have had a change of heart lately.

 

 

Dave

[havoc315]

Really want Justin's feedback on this:

 

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/sonya7riv-resolution-benefits/

 

So a word about the history of this article. I have many posts in many stages of development. I have a lens review where all the photos are taken but I still need to write the review. I have some posts that I half-wrote and abandoned. (like death of the A-mount). I have some in the idea stage -- Before the A7riv was released, I was going to do a detailed comparison of 24mp vs 42mp.... I didn't expect to see an A7r4 until next year, at the earliest.  So with the surprise announcement of the 61mp A7r4, I decided it was time to push through the article, along with extrapolation to 61mp.

 

I had to do a lot of math, lol.

 

Anyway, though I had my suspicions, I wasn't sure what I would find until I started doing sample images and the mathematical calculations.

 

My conclusion: Major diminishing returns with resolution improvements. If you went straight from 24mp to 61mp, you get a big difference. But even then, the difference isn't massive for real world uses. It's significant enough but not massive.

If you go from 24-42, you get a fair amount of benefit in terms of cropping and printing. Not huge, but a fair amount.

Going from 42mp to 61mp.. you really get very very little benefit. And you get the cost of all your files suddenly being 50% bigger.

 

A lot of people wrongly conclude "it's 50% more resolution than 42mp!"  No, it's not. It's 50% more megapixels. In terms of linear resolution, it's only an 18% difference. In terms of cropping, it only gives you 18% more cropping room.

In terms of printing, I've seen people say it will make a huge difference in print sizes. Not really. How big does anyone really print? If you're a medium format type printer, then sure....  

But you can comfortably print acceptable 30X40 with 24mp, you getn print gorgeous 30x40 with 42mp...  Add the 18%, you'll be able to print gorgeous 36X48. 

But some people are acting like they are going from 20 inch prints to 60inch prints. Ummm, no.

 

Lots of affluent enthusiasts may purchase the A7r4, like they did the A7r3. But the downside of megapixels is starting to outweigh the upside at 61mp. I think most of the people buying it should probably think twice.

 

[pierces]

There is more to the camera than the sensor's resolution. If you have an A7rII, A7II or earlier model, the benefits of the greatly improved AF, faster processor, better EVF, ergonomic improvements and weather sealing are all things to consider. Owners of the A9 or A7III looking for a higher resolution option could go with a sale-priced A7rIII, but the other items mentioned are  compelling reasons to consider the A7rIV.

 

Personally, I'm ok where I am for now with the A7III, but If I had jumped to full-frame with an earlier generation, I would be seriously considering upgrading. For that matter, if a hypothetical A7IV came out next year with the new viewfinder, hopped-up AF and all the other shiny new features, it might just catch my eye.

 

One thing is for sure, I won't be buying any lens that 60MP would be wasted on. Y'know...just in case.

 

 

Dave

Edited July 26, 2019 by pierces

[chipmaster]

23 hours ago, havoc315 said:

Really want Justin's feedback on this:

 

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/sonya7riv-resolution-benefits/

 

So a word about the history of this article. I have many posts in many stages of development. I have a lens review where all the photos are taken but I still need to write the review. I have some posts that I half-wrote and abandoned. (like death of the A-mount). I have some in the idea stage -- Before the A7riv was released, I was going to do a detailed comparison of 24mp vs 42mp.... I didn't expect to see an A7r4 until next year, at the earliest.  So with the surprise announcement of the 61mp A7r4, I decided it was time to push through the article, along with extrapolation to 61mp.

 

I had to do a lot of math, lol.

 

Anyway, though I had my suspicions, I wasn't sure what I would find until I started doing sample images and the mathematical calculations.

 

My conclusion: Major diminishing returns with resolution improvements. If you went straight from 24mp to 61mp, you get a big difference. But even then, the difference isn't massive for real world uses. It's significant enough but not massive.

If you go from 24-42, you get a fair amount of benefit in terms of cropping and printing. Not huge, but a fair amount.

Going from 42mp to 61mp.. you really get very very little benefit. And you get the cost of all your files suddenly being 50% bigger.

 

A lot of people wrongly conclude "it's 50% more resolution than 42mp!"  No, it's not. It's 50% more megapixels. In terms of linear resolution, it's only an 18% difference. In terms of cropping, it only gives you 18% more cropping room.

In terms of printing, I've seen people say it will make a huge difference in print sizes. Not really. How big does anyone really print? If you're a medium format type printer, then sure....  

But you can comfortably print acceptable 30X40 with 24mp, you getn print gorgeous 30x40 with 42mp...  Add the 18%, you'll be able to print gorgeous 36X48. 

But some people are acting like they are going from 20 inch prints to 60inch prints. Ummm, no.

 

Lots of affluent enthusiasts may purchase the A7r4, like they did the A7r3. But the downside of megapixels is starting to outweigh the upside at 61mp. I think most of the people buying it should probably think twice.

 

 

How often do people print at sizes that it really matters?  I guess cropping is useful, but then how often is the lens you are using and the aperture not put you beyond the resolution limit?

 

I find one of my favorite pictures blown to 11 x 17 ( cropped ) ISO 1600 from D700 look pretty good compared to similar prints done with my D810.       

 

Happy shooting, and peeping,  I am lusting a D850 and can't wait till Nikon announces their body with it and pick up that D850 for cheap. 

[havoc315]

On 7/26/2019 at 6:00 PM, pierces said:

There is more to the camera than the sensor's resolution. If you have an A7rII, A7II or earlier model, the benefits of the greatly improved AF, faster processor, better EVF, ergonomic improvements and weather sealing are all things to consider. Owners of the A9 or A7III looking for a higher resolution option could go with a sale-priced A7rIII, but the other items mentioned are  compelling reasons to consider the A7rIV.

 

Personally, I'm ok where I am for now with the A7III, but If I had jumped to full-frame with an earlier generation, I would be seriously considering upgrading. For that matter, if a hypothetical A7IV came out next year with the new viewfinder, hopped-up AF and all the other shiny new features, it might just catch my eye.

 

One thing is for sure, I won't be buying any lens that 60MP would be wasted on. Y'know...just in case.

 

 

Dave

 

As you've limited yourself to date with 24mp cameras and mostly shoot jpeg... Not sure you appreciate the downside of all that resolution. File size increases exponentially, with limited actual value to the resolution.

If you're printing 20x30 or so (which is darn big), you won't even notice a difference between 24mp and 61mp.

If you want to crop... 61mp will give you a good amount extra over 24mp.... But less then you might think. Basically... take a 200mm lens: on the A7iii, you can easily crop it to 300mm. On the A7riii, you can easily crop it to 400mm. On the A7riv, my math takes it to 460mm. 

 

Meanwhile, the jpg files on the A7riv are bigger than the raw files on the A7iii.

If you want to process the raw files of the A7riv and you don't have a professional computer set up -- relying more on a good consumer computer set-up, your processing will be greatly slowed down.

Even just transferring files to the computer: After shooting a wedding, it can take me 2+ hours to transfer A7riii files into lightroom. A7riv would increase that by another 50%.

 

The extra resolution is mostly good for amazing yourself with pixel peeping. 

[pierces]

2 hours ago, havoc315 said:

 

As you've limited yourself to date with 24mp cameras and mostly shoot jpeg... Not sure you appreciate the downside of all that resolution. File size increases exponentially, with limited actual value to the resolution.

If you're printing 20x30 or so (which is darn big), you won't even notice a difference between 24mp and 61mp.

If you want to crop... 61mp will give you a good amount extra over 24mp.... But less then you might think. Basically... take a 200mm lens: on the A7iii, you can easily crop it to 300mm. On the A7riii, you can easily crop it to 400mm. On the A7riv, my math takes it to 460mm. 

 

Meanwhile, the jpg files on the A7riv are bigger than the raw files on the A7iii.

If you want to process the raw files of the A7riv and you don't have a professional computer set up -- relying more on a good consumer computer set-up, your processing will be greatly slowed down.

Even just transferring files to the computer: After shooting a wedding, it can take me 2+ hours to transfer A7riii files into lightroom. A7riv would increase that by another 50%.

 

The extra resolution is mostly good for amazing yourself with pixel peeping. 

 

I'm not really over the moon about all the resolution. the improved ability to crop is to me a nice-to-have. What caught my eye were the little things like the lock on the exposure adjustment dial and the improved EVF. Better, faster, smarter autofocus is always nice to see on a new camera as well. For me, 24MP with a good lens produces very nice images, especially with the excellent dynamic range you get with the A7III. I don't shoot a lot of long stuff and when I do, I usually use the A6300 which is pretty close to the crop resolution on the A7rIV. I am actually far more interested in a whiz-bang APS-C camera than moving to a higher resolution full-frame body. 

 

I assume by "professional" computer, you mean a Mac?  🙂

 

Dave

[Docker123]

 

Not sure who does or does not use a Mac. Nor do I care what people use.

 

However, this little article from my local fine art printer and supplier about MacOS Catalina should give some pause for thought.

 

https://imagescience.com.au/blog/exercise-caution-with-macos-catalina?utm_source=Image+Science+General+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4cedb48fff-2019_08_Image_Science_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_061a0896ec-4cedb48fff-86812493

Edited August 2, 2019 by Docker123

[pierces]

I have run 64-bit OSes since Windows 7 beta in 2009 and really can't think of a reason not to these days. With the 4GB cap on addressable memory for 32-bit systems, a modern PC of any flavor that has over 4GB of RAM has no option but to run a 64-bit OS. That said, there are a lot of business-centric legacy software programs that are 32-bit and will likely never be updated. Apple really doesn't have much of a stake in business computing beyond graphic designers and video production so dropping 32-bit support won't have a devastating impact. Just inconvenient for some. Windows will continue to support 32-bit for a while longer but will use a subsystem running under the 64-bit OS. Eventually they will abandon it like they did with 16-bit support when they moved to 64-bit. That had  little impact because of all those smart people who developed emulators to run old 16-bit software in a virtual environment on the 32-bit OS will do the same for 32 on 64. If there is an indispensable piece of 32-bit software out there for Mac, someone will write an emulator to support it. The good news is that the same emulator used for a critical business process will probably be downloadable to your 64-bit Mac to run that pirated copy of Adobe Creative Suite from 2007 that you can't justify upgrading!

 

🙂

 

Dave

[havoc315]

22 hours ago, pierces said:

 

 

 

I assume by "professional" computer, you mean a Mac?  🙂

 

Dave

 

hmmm......  I mean a PC with 64gb of ram and terms about quad core processors that I don't understand. I mean a souped up Mac Pro. 

Though I will say, Lightroom on my iPad Pro is much faster than Lightroom Classic on my PC. Alas, Lightroom Classic is still more powerful, especially when using custom brushes. 

 

So as it stands, sometimes I do my heavy portrait editing, first in Lightroom CC. I'll do my culling, exposure adjustments, cropping, some aspects of general brush work. But then go back into Lightroom Classic, to use my teeth whitening brush, eye brightening brush, skin smoothing brush. 

Based on experience with 42mp vs 24mp... I can say this type of workflow would be maddening with 61mp, unless you really have a "super computer."

 

One big objection to Sony, especially as resolution gets higher: Canon and Nikon allow the user to choose from multiple types of compression. On the Nikon D850, you can even choose to shoot 24mp files, for example. (The 45mp files get compressed to 24mp). It would be really nice if Sony incorporated a similar feature --

You can appreciate as a travel photographer -- Switch to the full 61mp when you have that perfect sunset that might make a great massive wall print. Switch back to 24mp for the hundred family candids. 

 

 

 

[pierces]

My PC has an older six-core/12 thread Intel i7-5820 and 32GB of RAM. I was looking at 64GB for the new build but could find no performance test that shows either Lightroom or Photoshop benefiting from more than 32GB. I found this questionable because of all the postings about "how much RAM for Photoshop" touting 64GB as a starting point, so I ran a couple of tests to see. I loaded 64 24MP RAW files loaded into Photoshop from Lightroom and in the couple of minutes it took to load them, memory usage never exceeded 28GB (11GB in use before loading with LR and some other stuff open) and the load time per image was constant. My workflow doesn't ever include having 64 files open at once or 50-60 adjustment layers stacked in an image and I have never once had an out of memory warning. Also, I have never had brushes lag behind the mouse, which is a sure sign that memory is exhausted and there is some writing to the swap file going on behind the scenes. I now feel comfortable with sticking to 32GB for the next build with an option left open to upgrade if ever needed. I am also confident that the new build would handle the larger files if I ever decided to go there. Hey, in four years our phones could have 60MP files!

 

Note: For video production, 64GB might be useful but since I do just about zero video, I'll spend the extra couple hundred dollars on a better graphics card. 

 

Dave

Edited August 2, 2019 by pierces

[pierces]

2 hours ago, havoc315 said:

One big objection to Sony, especially as resolution gets higher: Canon and Nikon allow the user to choose from multiple types of compression. On the Nikon D850, you can even choose to shoot 24mp files, for example. (The 45mp files get compressed to 24mp). It would be really nice if Sony incorporated a similar feature --

You can appreciate as a travel photographer -- Switch to the full 61mp when you have that perfect sunset that might make a great massive wall print. Switch back to 24mp for the hundred family candids. 

 

 

 

 

It does seem odd that they offer multiple resolution choices in JPEG but not RAW. Until now, I never actually looked to see since I never used the reduced image size, even on my past P&S cameras. I always felt that resolution is a one-way road since you can reduce a larger file by throwing out detail but enlarging a low-res file can never show detail that wasn't captured. I can see compressed RAW vs. uncompressed vs. JPEG as options but shooting at a lower resolution feels like a throwback to the times when you were running out of space on your 512MB Compact Flash card and had two days left on the trip with only film for sale everywhere you looked. 🙂

 

At 4¢/GB for hard drive storage...

 

Dave

[havoc315]

25 minutes ago, pierces said:

 

It does seem odd that they offer multiple resolution choices in JPEG but not RAW. Until now, I never actually looked to see since I never used the reduced image size, even on my past P&S cameras. I always felt that resolution is a one-way road since you can reduce a larger file by throwing out detail but enlarging a low-res file can never show detail that wasn't captured. I can see compressed RAW vs. uncompressed vs. JPEG as options but shooting at a lower resolution feels like a throwback to the times when you were running out of space on your 512MB Compact Flash card and had two days left on the trip with only film for sale everywhere you looked. 🙂

 

At 4¢/GB for hard drive storage...

 

Dave

 

On the a7r4, that can be $40 worth of HD for a busy day of uncompressed shooting.

 

But it’s not just storage. 

 

If it takes you 30 minutes to upload your 24mp files, could take over an hour and a half to upload 61mp files.

 

When I use a tooth whitening brush... on a 24mp file, my edits are nearly instant.  On a 42mp file, there is a 3-5 second lag with every edit. With a 61mp lag, I’d expect a 5-8 second lag.  When editing hundreds of photos, that’s no fun. 

 

Look at it this way... it’s better to have a million dollars in cash than $10 in cash, right?

what if you’re sitting on a crowded beach and just need enough to buy a soda? You probably don’t want to have $1 million in cash sitting in your beach bag as you go for a swim. 

 

It’s nice to have the money when you need it, but it can be cumbersome to carry it all around all the time. (Which is why you keep most in the bank). 

[pierces]

Interesting that you are seeing lag in your brushes. I just tried a 1200px exposure brush on a 51MP 16-bit TIFF panorama and there was no perceptible lag. Same with a quick custom brush with multiple corrections. I tried large burn, dodge and blur brushes in Photoshop as well. Same result. Do you have Lightroom set to use the graphics processor? That can make a pretty significant difference in develop module processing.

 

As a side note, I can't relate to your cash metaphor...I generally don't carry cash or go to the beach. 😉

 

Shooting at maximum resolution  is simply my preference as an acolyte of the Church of the One-Way Resolution Path. Since the early '90s I've always overbuilt my PCs with worst-case scenarios in mind and replace them every three to four  years or when data overcomes hardware. 

 

It's not only a great time to be a photographer right now, but it's also a great time to build a PC to process your files!

 

Dave

Edited August 2, 2019 by pierces