Sony a7R IV Image Quality, Dynamic Range, Banding (vs a7R III)

Little tip, you may want to try some better corrected lenses to show difference of sharpness and resolving power in a more accurate way.
Each lens has its own comfort zone, meaning it performs its best within certain range of pixel density, which can be related to its MTF performance under different line pairs. A lens looks nice on 12MP FF does not necessarily mean it will perform as good on a 42MP FF, vice versa.

Well corrected lenses, like Otus, or Loxia 25 / 85, has very balanced resolution on cameras with either higher or lower density of pixels.
From a test I made with a tiny Nikon 1 J5 (1 inch sensor with 20MP), these lenses remain cutting edge even under an approx. 200MP FF equivalent pixel density.
These are manual focusing lenses aim optical performance only, and they will really extract the power of high resolution cameras.

While GM lenses, especially zoom lenses, are designed for multi-usage, where as resolution for extra high pixel density is not the priority. It need to balance between optical and zoom design, focusing speed and electronic solutions, price and manufactures, too much compromises are incorporated. GM zooms, put aside the QC concern and the strong color fringing that stick around all the way to f/8, are very much capable for lower resolution like 24MP FF. Some GM primes can really "satisfy" the a7R iv, which I think including 24/1.4. 85/1.4 GM is more suitable for 36-42MP. Of course sharpness is not everything for a lens, being extra sharp can even damage the look of a portrait. GM 85 is quite good enough in its own way.

Nevertheless, for resolution test of cameras, I would recommend Loxia 25 and Loxia 85. Only need to remember stop them down when testing, they have some field curvature and vignette, also some chromatic aberration at wide open. Otus will be even better and easier for cross brand comparison, while being less easy to handle.

The lens can’t resolve 240mp or 960mp? What does pixel shift have to do with the lens? The file isn’t even created in camera.

60mp is a great achievement, but the best Sony lenses max out around 45 MP in sharpness, at best aperture, at center of the frame. And there are just a few primes that are even that good. I also wonder how useful the pixel shift is going to be in real life, where 1 pix of camera movement (~0.0037mm or 0.00015”) over 16 frames will spoil the shot. I don’t think I’m trading in my A7riii just yet.

I didn't understand your comparison of 14-bits to 15-stops dynamic range🤔

Isn't the 14-bits the granularity of the data where as the 15-stops is the range of the data or the ratio of the lowest to highest value in the range.

So, let's say that my camera has an 8-bit ADC, I still can represent 30-stops or let's say 1000-stops of data. But I'll only be able to tag 256 values from the lowest to the highest value.

Right?

Watch Andy Astbury's test on dynamic range.

No Tony, you don't magically get better dynamic range out of your shots by shooting in compressed mode and throwing away data… You had it right the first time around and then you "corrected" yourself by saying the opposite. lol

Also the Riii files looked significantly better to me when brought up by five stops, especially in terms of color noise. I have no idea if that's still true when shooting them at ISO 3200 vs bumping it up to that level in post, but it seems like something worth investigating.

Nice Describe Sir

My 7 year old d800 has too much resolution for almost everything, so I really can't imagine what this could be used for, aside from a few really specific applications.

With months and months going into the shot would you not be using something other than a 35mm mirrorless?

The Mark 4 looked worse noise/artifacts in dynamic range. Why'd he say 3 looked worse? Much more colored noise and off-color in Mark 4. The blacks of the 3 looked more black. The white looked more natural. I would say the Mark 4 simply has its noise spread out more evenly. Whereas the Mark 3 has not more clumps — but its more clean around its fewer clumps, so it maybe can be individually more noticeable. I think he meant to say maybe that he finds the Mark 4's noise to be "more pleasing?" But how is it cleaner? Time @06:33 — looks terrible!

This is night and day @ 4:09. Better look the global clarity.
The global effect is exactly the same as the gap between an average lens and a top level Leica one. Hope some see that.

So large files take up more space??? Whoa!!! Thanks.

I'm not sure you can conclude that dynamic range is better if it appears the added detail is at the expense of color rendition. I'll wait for further tests and reviews for this one.

If you switch to APC 26 MP mode does the effective f stop decrease? Ex: 300 f/4 to 450. F/4 or f/5.6?

A7r 4 Do you need a mac pc to use it as it takes 61mp

I am fond of your way of talking about new cameras and your couple is really nice! Thank you so much for your expertise. Kindly yours, Dahmane from Paris

Hmmm I’m swapping from canon at the moment would you buy an a7r3 that comes with a 16-35mm f4 or a a7r4 body only they both retail for $5500 in Australia, I primarily shoot landscapes and will also shoot the life of our daughter

Brilliant camera

I think a downsampled uncompressed raw function would be amazing. For example you are at a event and you're okay with "only 30mp" the raw files get downsampled, so you do not need so much space on your card i think it would be great. Even though i love working with big files they are not always needed but switching to jpg is a option i do not like

Hi, Can you please compare between Sony a7 III and Sony a7RIV. Thanks.

With the Sony A7R3 I have notice as an issue that they provide very poor knob options. It would be really useful to deactivate sound volume on image review. I go crazy to open this useless option on review all the time I use the wheel to review. Another I interesting option for a next firmware should be to cancel the review mode more faster for a better availability after review. Concerning menu you already notice that it's the worse to use but some improvement could simply add as option to change contextual for review who reset the position on shooting. Also when we work on key option, not to restart to the option 1 and to remain in sequence when one option is set. And in the end, what about global shutting? Any chance to get it one day?

I'd rather have less MPs with less grain at low light, add to that a touchscreen! 60 MPs for the Prosumer that's using a camera for both video and stills is nuts IMO. It's right up there with 48-64 MP phones in logic.

I have a question Tony. You said your dream was to have an Ansel Adams type, large print gallery. What exactly is keeping you from that? It seems like you've certainly had the most premium cameras available, so why is it so difficult? Btw, I do want to do prints, so now after watching your videos on print, I'm actually considering the a7r4.

Anything passed 32mp is just insane. NO ONE pixel peeps, specially in landscapes. Anyone with a A7R-III, Z7, D810 or D850 is perfectly fine. Same with 5D Mark IV

This is how I feel regarding ooc white balance. First & Second gen A7 cameras were too green. Third gen A7 cameras have a good balance. The A7R IV looks way TOO magenta. Is this going to be an issue again? To me the A7R III looks better in every shot. Also noise looks much worse in the A7R IV. I think IQ wise A7RIII & D850 are the best in the full frame cameras. As an A7III user I would still give it to the D850 for IQ.

Like with anything in life, the cost to go from 0-80% is like $500, 80%-90% is like $1500, 90-95% is like $3000, 95%-97% $4500, 97-98.5% $10000, 98.5-100% maximum quality available in the entire World $50k+

Why are the AR7R IV sample files in JPG? I want RAW at 61MP to mess within post at ISO50 on a tripod (preferably night shots). We can just drive the exposure up in post with the least amount of noise.

2:17, the Inspire 2 X7 Can fill up a 480GB CineSSD in 5 minutes of the highest quality video available. Making your shots count can matter plus it's less work to do in post if you know how to "sniper" shots.

On the light source that produces banding could we not change to DC powered LED lighting, that should eliminate that?

4:39 first world problems xD

Does image down sampling from higher Megapixel to lower megapixels in post reduces the noise and improves the overall look of the image? For that matter, down sampling from 24 MP to 16 versus 42 to 16 shows up any difference on the end result? Anyone having idea about this, may guide me… Thanks in advance for your time and consideration to comment!

I have yet to see a reviewer test a7r4 with high iso.

If you are to extract a frame (photo) from a 4k video taken by both cameras, would you see a difference in the photo resolution since the frame size is the same 3840 x 2160 ?

4:3 crop ratio!!!

I only see about a 5% improvement in detail 🧐

The price difference is not worth it !!

I’m into the z system with a Z6. Im waiting for the z camera with this Sony sensor, Nikon have already purchased the sensor apparently. Love my Z6, but can’t wait to get some super hi res landscapes with a new 60 plus mega pixel camera. Don’t like the ergonomics of the Sony cameras at all. Nikon is miles ahead in that department, which is most important for me.

How is the ibis especially compared to Panasonic g9 gh5?

Fast-forward to 16:50…. underpriced? Speak for yourself, please. It's $4,500 for Canadians (our dollar sucks). That is NOT underpriced.

So in other words:" the very definition of diminishing returns."( A.K.A. "go home Sony you're drunk"…)

It’s not intended for low light… no mystery…

I will keep my a7iii 😊 nothing mind blowing about a7riv to make me want to deal with large files slowing down my editing for only a little more resolution that you have to zoom 1:1 to see. Good video Tony 👍

My pet peeves with the camera:

– No integrated GPS
– No Losslessly-Compressed RAWs
– No mRAW, nosRAW
– No fully-functional touchscreen
– The cameras are getting larger and heavier with every new iteration. I was perfectly happy with the size and weight of the 1st-gen A7r; sold it because of all the reasons listed above this one, plus terrible AF).
– No global shutter for the video
– No sensor shield (akin to the one in the Canon EOS R).

Will buy one when all of the said shortcomings are addressed – a Sony A7r XXX perhaps, half a century from now.

To my eyes, the RIV resolution isn't just a little bit better – it's improved enough to give sharp edges over the RIII – a feat that I didn't actually think could be done at only 61MP over 42MP. I'm impressed. The RIV is all about resolution improvement. Most people will not need it. But for those who do – this body will make a big difference. Used in crop mode – it's going to be a pretty big game changer in a number of circumstances where the camera-to-subject distance can't be shortened any other way. I appreciate your comparisons. And I do see where you might think that the difference is minor – but when you can CLEARLY read a phone number vs. blurry to read phone number – the value of that difference becomes subjective. Also: prints. Will this resolution difference matter when making big prints?

Underpriced??? Are you insane? How many people do you think will pay $5.000 for one? I wager, roughly about 10% of those planning to buy one for $3.000-3.500.
As far as I'm concerned, $3.500 is a bit too much for one already. Remember, the A7r (first generation) cost $2.500 at launch?

Other essential omissions include:

– a lack of an onboard GPS chip
– a lack of losslessly compressed raw option
– a lack of global shutter (you mentioned that one)
– vastly improved resistance against water (and dust) ingress.
– smaller and lighter body (as opposed to bulkier and heavier)

I have an idea: let Sony price the A7r -series at €5.000 and lose the 90% of their customers, yeeeeey!!!
Remember, the 1st generation A7r cost €2.000 or €2.500 at the time of its release? No-one in his right mind is forgoing a purchase of a €5.000,- medium-format camera in favour of a €5.000,- full-format body. Thank you very much!
If Sony dare price their full-formate bodies at above €3.500 MSRP, I'm out (and so are tens upon tens of thousands of others)!

Quick question, can you explain how the dynamic range is better in compressed rather than uncompressed raw?

This is subjective, but I think this kind of resolution reflections is an excuse for the absence of creative potential. I understand that combining 2-3 files for HDR can be useful in times, but resolution beyond what 42MP can deliver is just resolution for the sake of resolution. Real world print comparisions can tell how much MP make a real difference. Many would be surprised how little 🙂

Yeah….not seeing any reason to spend on a 4 when 3's are already dropping in price.