Sony A7R IV A7RIV oddness...

There are no bad cameras at this price point and another maybe unpopular opinion on the way, but really, have we reached a point where, is there any gain to an amateur?
I don't think so. For most of us, the purchase of a new camera is a want more than a need. And I think the day of vast improvements from generation to generation is behind us. Still, I do like to look at the new stuff to see what they've come up with, and how they'll market the newest wonder.

How did we ever survive without autofocus? Shooting zone focus isn't all that much fun these days. Sure I can still do it, I could've done it with my old gear instead of making the move to something with better AF capability, but that's not why I paid thousands of dollars for a camera.

FYI, not arguing, discussing.
 
It's true Dave in the old days the skills and technique counted for more, and we all have every edge that tech and editing provides regardless of brand.
We had no choice. I couldn't afford to waste film back then, the shots had to count. The cost of buying and then developing forced skills. With digital you can shoot for free all day.
 
We had no choice. I couldn't afford to waste film back then, the shots had to count. The cost of buying and then developing forced skills. With digital you can shoot for free all day.
Thats so true but the fact is we have moved on and I don't want to influence Kev hence I told him he could loan the Olympus gear here in the Uk for 24 hours for free if he wants, it's a big deal changing brands, even a new lens or body is a big cost now whatever brand. I still stand by my respect for Olympus gear and the thing is its just learning it, and it is a little different, we see it all the time on here people knocking the gear they have without working through the issues.
 
I've no dog in the fight, but here's my mates latest with the OM1. Check out his comments.

Interesting. A shame he doesn't expand on that comment, Obviously there are many variables too, the skill of the photographer being one, and I never go by what Ambassadors say, they are, after all, there to promote the companies cameras regardless. I'm quite sure that every camera has it's foibles, and it's just how you deal with them that matters. Chances are I'll not change anyway, not brand at least, and I'll just wait and see what the next development Sony come up with is. There's no question they must be feeling pressure from the new Canon range, especially the ones at the lower end of the range, because the spec is very high for such a relatively inexpensive camera.
 
Update on the not switching off. Tim was right, for some reason IR Remote was on, now I've turned it off it's doing what it should, so cheers for that. Now to sort the hunting...
you would love the olympus kev there is very little that competes with in terms of light weight package had the om-1 come earlier i would not of swapped out ,only problem is the sensor performance has not seen a improvement in 10 years since the om1.2 ,but it sure has a good lens in the 150-400mm with built in t/c nothing really compares ,sure a sony 600mm f4 is going to look better but it is a prime and some times a zoom is what is needed ,its a tough call watch mike lanes videos he goes back to olympus from the sony a1 200-600mm so guess there is some proof ,at least for wildlife if you shooting other stuff though forget it sony fullframe all the way portrait ,motor sport ,events astro ,what sony is missing is the pre capture that would benefit a lot ,but hang on a r5 around the corner with a 100mp makes the m43 crop gain obsolete .imagine 30-40mp in apsc crop mode
 
you would love the olympus kev there is very little that competes with in terms of light weight package had the om-1 come earlier i would not of swapped out ,only problem is the sensor performance has not seen a improvement in 10 years since the om1.2 ,but it sure has a good lens in the 150-400mm with built in t/c nothing really compares ,sure a sony 600mm f4 is going to look better but it is a prime and some times a zoom is what is needed ,its a tough call watch mike lanes videos he goes back to olympus from the sony a1 200-600mm so guess there is some proof ,at least for wildlife if you shooting other stuff though forget it sony fullframe all the way portrait ,motor sport ,events astro ,what sony is missing is the pre capture that would benefit a lot ,but hang on a r5 around the corner with a 100mp makes the m43 crop gain obsolete .imagine 30-40mp in apsc crop mode
Yeah. I'm waiting to see what the RV brings, and at what cost, and then I'll decide.
 
,only problem is the sensor performance has not seen a improvement in 10 years since the om1.2
Well, that's not true unless all you care about is MP. They're both 20MP, but MP is not a measure of sensor performance, and it doesn't mean the sensor hasn't improved. The OM-1 has a stacked sensor and uses quad-pixel technology.
 
Of course there are trade offs. DR, Focus, and MP come to mind. Of course with MP instead of digitally cropping in post, the crop is automatic due to the sensor size. Still, these things are becoming less important as computational photography keeps getting better. OM has significantly reduced noise (but only under specific circumstances) and improved their focus to the point that they're now hanging with the big boys.

Lens selection is an important element. Between OM, Panasonic, Sigma, Sam/Rok, Tamron, and all the other players it's insane. One VERY cool unintended consequence of the smaller sensor is that with an adapted FF lens, you're only using the middle of it, automatically cropping out the softer corners. And there too, I have never seen a bad M-4/3 lens. I think it's just the nature of the beast, smaller is easier.

One very intriguing lens is the 150-400/4.5 It's awfully expensive, but with the built-in 1.25TC you get a hand-holdable 1000/5.6 equivalent lens that's slightly smaller than the Sony 200-600.

I still go through lens shock from time to time after making the switch. Here's a shot showing a G9 and Pana-Leica 100-400 (200-800 EQ) and an R-IV with the 200-600:

View attachment 25666

I could handhold the Panny for days, not so much the Sony.

This comparison is my normal carry at the track, then and now. Same FL EQ, Panasonic/Leica 50-200 on the Panny and Sigma 100-400 on the Sony:

View attachment 25667

After all of that though, there's still one big (at least to me) drawback. Even though OM has released a winner in the OM-1, they are still a 'new ' company. And let's not forget that the OM-1 is really a Olympus design, well underway before the change. Can OM sustain? There's supposedly an OM-5 in the works, a smaller body camera more along the normal M-4/3 size. When I moved to Sony part of it was due to Olympus selling off to OM. I didn't want to spend $2k on a new, unproven body only to have the company change hands yet again, or worse yet go under. That would still be a concern for me if I were considering a change.
I do not think there has been any sensor improvement in the m43 sector it is still as noisy ,maybe they got the colours better above 1600 iso ,but i would still not shoot above 3200 ,where the strengths lay with m43 is computational ,faster frame rates ,better ibis and smaller lenses if not your trying get the ff dof ,and at a guess a 100mp ff sensor makes m43 sensor crop obsolete .At the end of the day all those comparisons you shown are nonsense compare the tamron 50-400 and you can use it to compete with both of those lenses one lens will cover the range of both of those ,so it will be lighter and no need to swap lenses .A definitive win for sony ff .I owned the pl 100-400mm quality problems and not very sharp at distance and required good light ,when close very sharp,also extremely light on the olympus it will not give you all the features of the om-1 you need olympus pro lenses for focus stacking some pro capture features and combined ois and ibis and if m43 tries to match ff light gathering and dof another win for ff .my compare shows if m43 does not try to match ff it becomes lighter and smaller but not by much ,also the 25mm pro f1.2 really only has the dof of a 50mm f2.4 it needs f0.95 to match ff f1.8
camera size.jpg
 
I do not think there has been any sensor improvement in the m43 sector it is still as noisy ,maybe they got the colours better above 1600 iso ,but i would still not shoot above 3200 ,where the strengths lay with m43 is computational ,faster frame rates ,better ibis and smaller lenses if not your trying get the ff dof ,and at a guess a 100mp ff sensor makes m43 sensor crop obsolete .At the end of the day all those comparisons you shown are nonsense compare the tamron 50-400 and you can use it to compete with both of those lenses one lens will cover the range of both of those ,so it will be lighter and no need to swap lenses .A definitive win for sony ff .I owned the pl 100-400mm quality problems and not very sharp at distance and required good light ,when close very sharp,also extremely light on the olympus it will not give you all the features of the om-1 you need olympus pro lenses for focus stacking some pro capture features and combined ois and ibis and if m43 tries to match ff light gathering and dof another win for ff .my compare shows if m43 does not try to match ff it becomes lighter and smaller but not by much ,also the 25mm pro f1.2 really only has the dof of a 50mm f2.4 it needs f0.95 to match ff f1.8
I'm not going to argue with you. Believe what you like. Not sure why you call my comparisons nonsense, they're one-to one size comparisons. And the Tamron doesn't cover both ranges, it can't get to 800mm. I spent years in the M-4/3 world and am familiar with both formats. I owned PL form the 8-18 all the way to 100-400, including the 50-200.

This was made with a G9 and PL100-400 at full extension and is cropped. If you really want to see what they're capable of, go to the M-4/3 forum and look at real world examples.

P1049504 by telecast, on Flickr
 
I'm not going to argue with you. Believe what you like. Not sure why you call my comparisons nonsense, they're one-to one size comparisons. And the Tamron doesn't cover both ranges, it can't get to 800mm. I spent years in the M-4/3 world and am familiar with both formats. I owned PL form the 8-18 all the way to 100-400, including the 50-200.

This was made with a G9 and PL100-400 at full extension and is cropped. If you really want to see what they're capable of, go to the M-4/3 forum and look at real world examples.

P1049504 by telecast, on Flickr
still only ok, looks like the sky has blotchy artifacts so not the best example if truthful ,i used m43 since the g1 panasonic and over 100000 +images problem is to match m43 reach, with sony it has to either crop sensor ,which is the best way or to get like for like image of a 100-400mm 5.6 -6.3 on m43 sony needs to make a 200-800mm f11-f13 zoom which i doubt would sell to well although canon make a 800mm f11 for their rf cameras ,to get 800mm on sony in full frame you need to use crop mode or t/c on the 200-600 400mm f2.8 x2 or 600 mm f4 or the 100-400mm sony with x2 , The tamron 50-400mm is comparable to the pl 100-400mm because they are both the same f/l put a tamron 50-400mm on m43 and voila you have a 800mm fl,just that the tamron on f/f gathers twice the light or 4 x the surface area of light collected on full frame but half the reach on full sensor,its all about signal going in , that makes full frame have an advantage .
 
Back
Top