Sony a7 IV

For me to really see what a camera can deliver is to see someone use it in demanding lighting conditions and see just what it can deliver in dynamic range, color and noise levels. This is one of the first videos I've seen that actually shows you some results not just peoples opinions and snap judgements. I really can't see too much wrong with these images. For a hybrid stills/video camera this has a foot in both worlds quite comprehensively. Not the greatest stills camera, not the greatest video camera but it looks to be very capable in both those worlds. I think this will be back-ordered for some time.

Chris Young

 
People love their cameras...per usual, a new Sony or Canon camera's initial spot on the list immediately after preorders open.

Click image for larger version Name: image_128867.jpg Views: 3 Size: 39.8 KB ID: 5678943
 
I totally understand where ahalpert is coming from. It was widely known that the A7III was made out of more plastic than the more expensive A7RIII and had a cheaper viewfinder and cheaper LCD screen, not to mention it was missing certain top dial options that were found in the more expensive A7RIII or A9. It's not that Sony didn't care about the A7III, it was just simple economics. You use higher quality parts for your higher tier products. That's what any business would do.

As such the A7III does unfortunately suffer from shutter failures where the shutter blades literally fall out of the camera. Now that's not normal for a camera manufacture and I'm sure Sony is aware of this widespread problem and has likely addressed it in the A7IV. But, the A7IV does have the cheaper viewfinder and LCD screen, it does have different top dials compared to the higher priced models, and it is missing features of the higher priced models. As such it's only natural to think that the A7IV is likely made cheaper overall just like the A7III was which means as ahalpert says, it's likely a lesser built quality product.

That's not him starting a rumor. That's just basic thoughts based on simple economics and previous products. And that doesn't mean that it's a bad camera or even a poorly built camera. It just means that it isn't going to be built to the same standards with the same features of Sony's higher end models which makes perfect sense.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
I totally understand where ahalpert is coming from. It was widely known that the A7III was made out of more plastic than the more expensive A7RIII and had a cheaper viewfinder and cheaper LCD screen, not to mention it was missing certain top dial options that were found in the more expensive A7RIII or A9. It's not that Sony didn't care about the A7III, it was just simple economics. You use higher quality parts for your higher tier products. That's what any business would do.

As such the A7III does unfortunately suffer from shutter failures where the shutter blades literally fall out of the camera. Now that's not normal for a camera manufacture and I'm sure Sony is aware of this widespread problem and has likely addressed it in the A7IV. But, the A7IV does have the cheaper viewfinder and LCD screen, it does have different top dials compared to the higher priced models, and it is missing features of the higher priced models. As such it's only natural to think that the A7IV is likely made cheaper overall just like the A7III was which means as ahalpert says, it's likely a lesser built quality product.

That's not him starting a rumor. That's just basic thoughts based on simple economics and previous products. And that doesn't mean that it's a bad camera or even a poorly built camera. It just means that it isn't going to be built to the same standards with the same features of Sony's higher end models which makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

So you agree then that the color shift, (whatever in the world that is referring to), is because of cheaper parts. Not sure what shift he’s referring to, but every single alpha camera ever made has different color. Are we to assume that it is due to cheaper parts? What if I prefer the color of the a7 III over the a1? Or the OG Pocket over the Pocket 6K Pro? He’s saying the a7 IV suffers from worse color because it uses cheaper parts; therefore, the BMD Pocket 4K and Panasonic Lumix S5 must have even worse color still, because they are both less expensive than the Sony. They must also be more prone to failure. In truth, cheaper has got nothing to do with either reliability or color. Incidentally, I owned the a7 III for three years and it performed flawlessly the entire time. BTW, the only actual color shift I recall seeing in the CVP video was when the picture was underexposed by like four or five stops, something that has never occurred in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
The a7 IV has been anticipated for a long while by Sony shooters, but the worse color, poor rolling shutter and 60p crop ruled it out for me as a second body to my a7s III.
Click to expand...

I am referring to what you yourself wrote. No one is saying anything for certain, just speculating along wholly reasonable and historically accurate lines of thinking

Comparing across camera brands is trickier to do. But yes, the Pockets are infamous for poor quality control. And yes, the P6K is supposed to have better color than the P4K (I haven't tested it.) Did you overlook my anecdote about Alexa LF having more DR than Alexa solely due to greater quality control?
 
ahalpert said:
I am referring to what you yourself wrote. No one is saying anything for certain, just speculating along wholly reasonable and historically accurate lines of thinking

Comparing across camera brands is trickier to do. But yes, the Pockets are infamous for poor quality control. And yes, the P6K is supposed to have better color than the P4K (I haven't tested it.) Did you overlook my anecdote about Alexa LF having more DR than Alexa solely due to greater quality control?
Click to expand...

But I never wrote about any shift. Those are your words.
 
jonpais said:
So you agree then that the color shift, (whatever in the world that is referring to), is because of cheaper parts. Not sure what shift he’s referring to, but every single alpha camera ever made has different color. Are we to assume that it is due to cheaper parts? What if I prefer the color of the a7 III over the a1? Or the OG Pocket over the Pocket 6K Pro? He’s saying the a7 IV suffers from worse color because it uses cheaper parts; therefore, the BMD Pocket 4K and Panasonic Lumix S5 must have even worse color still, because they are both less expensive than the Sony. They must also be more prone to failure. In truth, cheaper has got nothing to do with either reliability or color. Incidentally, I owned the a7 III for three years and it performed flawlessly the entire time. BTW, the only actual color shift I recall seeing in the CVP video was when the picture was underexposed by like four or five stops, something that has never occurred in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Haha, what's your deal man? I didn't mention anything about color shift. ahalpert himself was only suggesting that perhaps the cheaper build was a possible cause of the color differences. He wasn't saying that it was certainly the cause of it. He was merely pointing out observations and saying he was curious if that had anything to do with it.

And why are you getting so wound up over ahalpert suggesting that the A7IV is probably built with lesser quality parts than the higher tier models? He wasn't bashing the camera, just again pointing out observations.

Geez I swear sometimes people argue about cameras like they are their own children. They are just tools that we are making observations about, no different than if we were carpenters discussing a new drill. You should really chill dude.
 
jonpais said:
But I never wrote about any shift. Those are your words.
Click to expand...

How would you characterize the worse color?

And generally I consider a color shift in an underexposure test to be indicative of color fidelity in the deep shadows of a normal exposure. Or not so deep shadows if you're boosting your gain. By which I mean that it can make an impact even if you don't wildly miss your exposure. And im not saying that to throw shade on the a7iv, it's very common
 
Joshua Milligan said:
Haha, what's your deal man? I didn't mention anything about color shift. ahalpert himself was only suggesting that perhaps the cheaper build was a possible cause of the color differences. He wasn't saying that it was certainly the cause of it. He was merely pointing out observations and saying he was curious if that had anything to do with it.

And why are you getting so wound up over ahalpert suggesting that the A7IV is probably built with lesser quality parts than the higher tier models? He wasn't bashing the camera, just again pointing out observations.

Geez I swear sometimes people argue about cameras like they are their own children. They are just tools that we are making observations about, no different than if we were carpenters discussing a new drill. You should really chill dude.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming that (a) you know nothing whatsoever about the build quality of the a7 IV and whether or not it will turn out to have a greater frequency of repairs than say, the a7s III and (b) that you don’t have a shred of evidence to support outrageous suppositions about the color science being a result of shoddy workmanship or cheap parts. While no two alpha cameras share precisely the same image processing, Sony does say that the a7 IV shares the same image processing engine as the more expensive a7s III and the flagship a1. So it is categorically not cheaper parts that account for the subtle difference in color between the a7 IV and its more costly siblings. Color is a highly subjective matter anyhow, and reviewers are practically unanimous in singing the praises of the a7 IV.

It is not at all uncommon for newer, less expensive models by the same manufacturer to actually incorporate improvements in design or color gained from prior experience. Such is the case with the shutter that protects the sensor in the a7 IV, as well as breathing compensation, the focus map tool and animal/bird eye autofocus, features which neither the a1 nor the a7s III can boast of. But it gets really bizarre when neither of you even suspects that the spanking new sensor just might have something to do with the difference in color - but we understand that that would be glaringly obvious and not nearly as juicy as spinning fairy tales about shoddy workmanship. You know - the 33 megapixel sensor with oversampled 7K, vastly more detail and greater dynamic range than the long-in -the-tooth 12mpx one!

And while Jake is an awesome reviewer, it's entirely possible there is a simple explanation for the disparity in exposure between the a7s III and the a7 IV during the tests - which also evidently impacts the image quality.

Be that as it may, had CVP wondered aloud during their tests whether the difference in color was due to cheap materials or workmanship, they would have been roundly ridiculed by the entire filmmaking community.


The poor rolling shutter performance is the real dealbreaker for me, but this is an issue with some other cameras at its price point or even higher as well, from the Canon R6 - which some perhaps think of as the direct competitor to the a7 IV - to the fully featured Lumix S1H.

"In the hand, the camera feels very durable with excellent build quality, much like I experienced with the A1... The A7 IV also is said to be dust- and moisture-resistant against harsh conditions, and while I didn't experience any rain or bad weather during my time with the camera, the A7 IV feels very well built and reliable. The body feels robust, and the controls and dials feel solid and not at all cheap or flimsy. I really have no complaints at all when it comes to the buttons and dials of this camera; having reviewed the new Alpha 1, the overall user experience here is essentially the same and an overwhelmingly positive one". - William Brawley
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
Jonpais, why did you say that the a7iv has worse color?
Click to expand...

IIRC, ProAv mentioned something of that nature. No one else has.

The guy from Three Blind Mice said they're selling their A7SIII and buying A7IV. Whenever it becomes available.
 
DLD said:
IIRC, ProAv mentioned something of that nature. No one else has.

The guy from Three Blind Mice said they're selling their A7SIII and buying A7IV. Whenever it becomes available.
Click to expand...

Correction: CVP's comparisons between the a7s III and the a7 IV reveal differences in handling of under- and overexposure (latitude), as well as color differences, disparities in tonality and dissimilarities in exposure that they couldn't account for.

My original post is about the suitability of the a7 IV as a second body to my a7s III, and while variations in color can be dealt with in post, exposure differences would be a hassle.

If I'm not mistaken, Hugh is both a photographer and filmmaker, so it makes sense to pick up a camera with more megapixels.
 
Last edited:
rudo_fr said:
Thank you for sharing jonpais.
10% more than internal resolution.
playback is good
i graded with premiere and it is nice after apply -1.7 in exposition (ETTR) with gamut color s-gamut3.ciné/s-log3. your iso was 640 ? it is very clean.
Click to expand...

My pleasure! I try to shoot at around +1.7 ETTR. And ISO was 640. I've got one more download to share this evening (Vietnam time).
 
The focus breathing compensation in the a7 IV is unreal and I've never said this before, but I hope they add it to the a1 and a7s III in a firmware update!

At the same time, cropping in on the 12 megapixel sensor might degrade the image too much - and it's unclear whether the feature works with ProRes RAW.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a really cool feature although it also means that they're variably cropping in on your lens. Which is probably worth it to eliminate breathing. But nevertheless it's a bit of a bummer, especially since I find that a lot of the "character" of a lens inhabits the periphery
 
cyvideo said:
From where your A7S iii cams come from I think? ...
Click to expand...

A few years ago, there was a kerfuffle between the Japanese and the Chinese - one of many, to be sure - after which the Japanese government upped its incentives to the manufacturers. But many of them still went to the lower cost locales - Vietnam (Olympus) and Thailand (Nikon, Sony). In fact, Nikon is about to close its old Tokyo plant and move all of its production to Thailand. Labor costs seem to be fairly even, however,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top