RESOLUTION KING? First Look at Our Sony A7R IV Images

[@imagingresourcereviews]

CORRECTION: I mistakenly said the A7R IV's EVF is larger and brighter than the previous model, but it's actually the same 0.78x magnification and 1.3cm display. However, they did upgrade the screen resolution with a 5.76M-dot UXGA color OLED screen compared to the 3,686K-dot Quad VGA color OLED in the previous model. Sorry for the confusion! -- William

[@UNLouise]

How do the two EVFs compare, especially to an A7iii’s? How much better (in a meaningful way) is the experience using them?

[@shotput8]

The music is very distracting. I am trying to follow what you are saying but even at a lower volume it is too much. Why not just use it for the intro?

[@TheEulerID]

To be clear, the 15 dB dynamic range is for an image downsized to a standard 8mp (the same approach taken by DXO and the only sensible way to compare sensors of different resolutions). It shows that there is no DR penalty for high resolution these days as read noise is very well controlled (and it also aligns with what the mathematics predicts). The disadvantages of high resolution are now in other areas; file size, processing and some aspects limited by the speed at which data can be read and processed. Namely things like rolling shutter artefacts in video and silent shooting modes as well as the inability to perform full sensor width reads without skipping/binning at higher frame rates in video.

[@ChannelAA]

Thanks for the video though the music in the background is a real distraction.

[@user-fza3]

is 240mp is raw or jpg

[@MrFabioBond]

Sony A7r Mark IV perhaps is not the resolution king, but is the KING of the Cameras as of today, cause you can shoot almost everything in every condition at a very high resolution. Competition has to catch up if they wants to stick with the future. Point.

[@jimyhustle]

thanks for the sample images

[@fotomats8651]

LOL

[@johnvandenbroek9753]

Great informative video ... thank you. One suggestion though, you might want to turn off the distracting music while talking. It would make a big difference for those of us who don’t hear as well.

[@scottedwards5191]

Thanks for the walk-though!

[@sidvicious3129]

There is good content here, but I have to agree with the others the music is distracting and should have been faded out after the intro.

[@peterferry1646]

Good camera for pixel peeping, and clinical results...However heavy files and not very fun to use ( Huge menu system, kind of bulky and unbalanced with the huge fullframe lenses). I find the images you showed us oversharpened . Maybe it's the way the camera internally processed the mpx into jpeg file or the lens you use....

[@Nicomanism]

I know this is a bit irrelevant, though, does the A7RIV have an improved color science in comparison to its predecessor: A7Riii? If so, could you share your perspective about it ?

[@stevemckenzie4731]

"Colour science" (if there is such a thing) is a subjective opinion of the camera's colour rendering. You might as well ask if they upgraded the atomic batteries and turbines.

[@cpowerca]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e37JdHern7asrbs

[@torphotographic2888]

@@stevemckenzie4731 I think any body that uses the words "colour science" should put a dollar into the swear box. I don't know where this came from but seems that this is a stock question from people that just don't understand the way camera sensors work. Camera sensors collect RAW data, the way that cameras interpret these files is overlaid by a colour profile that adjusts these setting into images that appeal to the user.

[@jameshandley8252]

There a such thing as color science and rendering.

[@davidlewis5929]

First video of yours I have watched and I must say I didn't make it past the 3 min mark the music is way to distracting.

[@dasaauto2024]

Interesting review. Thanks!

[@mhxtekken]

117MB 1 picture!!! too big for me, thanks for the sample images

[@LeoInterHyenaem]

I don't care for the tonal and color rendition of the skin at ca. 5:00 and onwards very much. I hope, it's not the lighting and the metering / exposure settings than the sensor's rendition. The Fuji sensor may lack the microdefinition of the Sony, but its dynamic range is fairly impressive. With minor highlight/shadow push and pull this is roughly what you get out of the Fuji X-T2: instagram.com/p/BmlGF_mBtMy/?igshid=1flq7a9iznf6a

[@tim1398]

Music is seizure/headache inducing - why, why, why why??????? Thank god for CC, muted.

[@RobShootPhotos]

If I calculate it right, if the Sony full frame sensor had the pixel density of their 1" 20mp sensor, it would be about 148mp. Sony is holding out on us....how dare they! On a side note, MFT sensors could potentially go up to 36mp with the same density of the Sony 1" sensor. And they said MFT sensors are at their maximum. Look forward to the advancement of noise reduction more than how many pixels fit on a sensor.

[@Noealz]

im sad camera companies are waging megapickles war : /

[@NatPhoto56]

I continue to be amused by reviewers taking pictures, then bringing them into LR and zooming into 1:1. Of course nobody views images like that. A real test would be to print an image at 20x30 or similar size from this camera, from the A7 III, the D850, the 5D IV, etc. of exactly the same scene then put them all on the wall and stand back 3 feet and see if you can see any difference. Of course we all know the answer already, but people seem obsessed with more pixels. If that's what you want, go for it, but stop the nonsense of trying to convince people the detail is great by zooming into 1:1 on JPEGS and coming up with any conclusions. You said it "if you are into pixel peeping then 61mp does a fantastic job"

[@daran0815]

"Of course nobody views images like that" Well, I do. I live mostly digital and hardly ever print anything. Zooming around landscape images seems to to be a pretty natural thing to do.

[@joealfanophotography9568]

More interested in having more MP for cropping and to have 26MP in super 35 mode. I don't print that often so don't really care about viewing prints.

[@ontheotherside3]

lol literally the only way I look at all the thousands of pics i take is zoomed way in on my landscape photos. half the fun is going through, zoomed way in, finding things I did not even realize I captured. more resolution and more detail are pretty much the only things that matter... btw, another yt photographer did a 3 foot print out of fuji xt3 vs z7 vz gfx 50r. same shot similar settings. the print from the medium format with 50 pixels looked 100x better than the xt3. (the nikon still looked pretty bad).

[@joealfanophotography9568]

Keith Bauer pixels actually do matter. I sell stock images on Getty and I get more $$$ for higher resolution images. In fact the higher the better. The new Sony will help me make even more in my stock photo sales.

[@jwilliams1563]

Actually viewing/ reviewing images 1:1 is very common for landscape and Macro photography. If you crop this is a dream come true. But if as you say there is no difference between cameras when printed a 20 x30 viewed 3 feet away on a wall, there needs to be some other objective measure to judge the difference in quality between them, like say viewing images 1:1

[@ahlvahluhv6728]

beyonce processor is real good

[@LeoInterHyenaem]

Also, please, those baby tunes! You really think they're that delightful? To Me, with due respect, that are vexatious. For a Baroque Music aficionado, I'm quite ashamed to be spotted watching [a video with] baby tunes like these. I'd hate for one to think I've lost My sanity and listen to rubbish like that (or worse yet, rap and like vulgar, lowbrow, distasteful abominations certain sorts of folksy folks love littering the KZbin space with). Come on, you can to better.