Really fascinating to follow your journey into the Sony system. I did the same journey from m4/3 about two years ago. Mostly I've been happy with it, but I still sometimes shoot at around 1/30 shutterspeed and am let down because the images are blurry. M4/3 IS is so far ahead of Sony's that it still amazes me. But other than that I'm pretty happy with it. Although I feel that the images from my old Olympus camera had a bit more punch or soul - or whatever you want to call it. The images from my Sony camera tend to be a bit more sterile - if that makes any sense.
I’ve upgraded to A7RIV from an old Canon 500D and I couldn’t be more happy about how liberating the cropping power is. I’m a casual shooter, so most of my images are gonna be looked at on phone screens, and I can crop like crazy, getting a decent digital zoom range while rocking fast primes!
I use an a7riv as my primary and a7iii as a backup. I usually mostly shoot concert photography and challenging lighting conditions. I still chose the a7riv everytime. It’s just a killer camera and no one will change my mind.
I’ve missed a year of you-wait wuuuuut? A baby? A huuuge congrats to your family - you look much more gathered than I ever could - I still love your opinions, your humility and your humour! Keep it up, always a fan!
This video just reminded me how we can get way too wrapped up in the technical. 🙄 A great image is unlikely to be even better because I can stare at details even closer...& I won't get any extra enjoyment when capturing it either. I look forward to seeing you out photographing again soon.
Matches my own more “scientific” (I would call it “engineering”) approach in comparing a G9 and Canon R5. The G9 isn’t being retired anytime soon because its image stabilization tops just about everything, whereas the R5 is so heavy that I’m forced to use a tripod for anything other than the brightest shots … IF that sharpness is my end goal. My G9 wins for portability and usability. The R5 wins for ultimate image quality and dynamic range, but it is definitely a luxury item for me.
G9 weight 1.27 lb or 579 g, R5 1.62 lb or 738 g (R5 weight includes battery and card. I could not find out wether G9 weight did or did not include battery.)
But what lenses are you using? My RF 28-70 f/2 gets 8 stops of stabilization, and my RF 70-200 gets 7. If you're adapting EF lenses, you won't get the full capability of Canon stabilization because the lens and body don't "talk to each other" about stabilization. The native lenses do so. Now, weight is definitely another matter entirely…
Based on the many, many conversations in my Canon 90D fb group, more pixels can be seriously affected by old glass. A lot of older lenses show their lack of resolution power when used on a high pixel camera. Personally, I love my 90D and my ability to crop in close when I want to. As to noise, there is always Topaz DeNoise to clear that right up. -Elaine
The 90D is an aps-c high-res camera, it's sensor area is only ~40% of a full frame camera, so it acts much higher res than a 40mpix FF camera for example, from the glasses point of view. A high-res aps-c camera lens can have much less imperfections than a high-res FF camera for excellent results. This is why crop cameras, especially higher res ones, or really cropped ones, like m43 or 1" feel oversharpened, because they need sharpening in software to make up for the crop factor.
I can echo this sentiment as well. It goes not just for older lenses, but budget lenses as well. I loved using my Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 lens for astrophotography on my 5D mark 4, but when I upgraded to the R5, the Rokinon lens was obviously underpowered resolution-wise
@@montazownianr1 Nah not even I haven't used their program specifically for denoising but their video upscaler is incredible I used it to upscale a few old Power Rangers episodes and it makes a pretty noticable difference with their Proteus ai model and having used their image upscaler as well on some old family photos and stuff it does a good job. All that being said I'd love to hear what in your experience works as well or better for denoising/ maybe upscaling though cause if there's something that does a better job I'd love to try it cause I upscale a lot of stuff.
The dynamic range on sony's newer sensors is just insane. It's not a system for me personally, but I was blown away after taking a few shots with a friend's A1
Their sensors are superb. I had an a6300 and just did not like it at all. Sold it for a gx85 and loved it. Kinda regret getting rid of it too. I too got caught up in the GAS unfortunately
@@paulanderson24 Probably going to get the GX85 as my first camera before I get the Fuji X-T4. Which lens would you recommend? I was thinking the 12-60 as I want to do nature photography. Any suggestions from your experience?
Sony cameras just produce those fake, almost digital looking, unrealistic images, oh and those Sony colors are just god-awful and a pain in the ass... Not a fan of that, whatsoever! Always stuck with Nikon and Canon - simply superior image quality and output. This still goes to this day, as I just upgraded from a 1DXll to a Z6ll (which has a Sony sensor but luckily does not produce Sony-like, god-awful images.) Always hated Sony colors and always hated the fact that after every shoot with a Sony camera, I had to color correct, tone down and mess with contrast, saturation and so on, BEFORE I even started editing... Now imagine when I borrowed my friends a7RIV and did a whole shoot with it - which ended up being over 300 shots, which I had to manually correct, out which over 200 images I had to correct one by one as they were shot under different conditions - ALL JUST SO I CAN CONTINUE WITH CULLING! I lost over 5 hours... Or to word it better, I spent over 5 hours working on POINTLESS image corrections, just so I can continue with my culling process! Let that sink in! Unreal... The greens, magenta, yellows and oranges on images shot on Sony cameras all look sooo digital or artificial or whatever you want to call it. Awful! And if I want one of these colors to stick out in an image, these colors turn almost to some neon-like paint all over the image - it's really, really bad. Never experienced something like that with any Canon or Nikon camera...
@@nogerboher5266 their image processing even on the raw files just wasn’t for me either. The a6300 was I guess technically the best camera I have owned, but I just didn’t get along with it personally. Everything looks overly sharpened also
Every time a “new and better” product is launched, I lust for it. But then I realize that the product I have already, doesn’t actually get worse, it is just as good as it used to be. The pictures from your old camera will still be the same, and for a pro like James, this means his old pictures will still be great!
Just pre-ordered the new book and bought the Vol 1 to complete my set because I missed it before. Thanks for making it available, my fav photographer, and thanks for being awesome!
If my memory serves me right, over 9 years ago when the Nikon D800 was introduced, every one went mad over its sensor of 36.3 mp. Even today that is not something to be taken lightly. No sooner than the usual army of the ' latest is the greatest ' purchased the camera and starting to, as Ansel Adams once put it, poking it into everyone's face, rumors started circulating that the camera was not producing sharp enough photographs. It took a while before it was discovered that one could not really handhold a 36 mp camera and shoot it street style and expect to see what the camera was capable of. Lenses were blamed, it wasn't the lens as my old Nikon AIS manual lenses were performing admirably on that camera, it was the photographers technique. At that resolution the slightest movement in the camera during the exposure, would produce an unsharp image, as on the other hand , with a 12 or even a 20 mp camera the chances of camera shake showing was much less than with a D800. That was an abject lesson for all in how not to handle a D800. Personally I am still wondering what I exactly expect from a D800 and all that resolution? Planted solidly on a hefty tripod ( not necessarily a CF one ), and using prime lenses, it can match the resolution of my 4X5 cameras. God knows what people want to do with a 60 mp sensor camera? Of all my digital cameras, Nikon, Canon and Olympus, it is the little EM5 MKii that gets used more than all the others put together. I don't feel that I am missing anything with the 16 mp MFT sensor. The IBIS is extraordinary in low light allowing exposures of 1" or longer even with the equivalent of a 300mm lens . You see there is more to a digital camera than just super mega pixel count and 2000 focus points or nasal hair or armpit focus modes. Hope you are happy with your choice.
@@michaelmorris1865 Nikon mirrors are as damped out as a mirror can get, but yes you are absolutely correct, to get the best of 850, it sould be tripod mounted and mirror locked up. I once lost my composure with one these new to film you tube guys. He had paid over £4000.00 for a Leica 35mm Summilux F1.4 ASPH and he was messing around with an M6 trying to shoot a ' model '. He then went on to claim, in his expert opinion , that the lens was over hyped because his results were not as sharp as he expected. When I told him that he was using an F1.4 lens on a 0.72 range finder and it was inevitable that his focusing would be off, he started to get shirty with me. He wasn't even holding the camera still when he was shooting his lady model. I guess he hadn't realised that the M6 not a digital camera with IBIS.
With my medium format Fuji, my Lightroom really struggles and does a frequent 'not responding' thing. It's something I didn't think about at the time, but it's always worth seeing if your computer can cope with big files.
Moved from a Sony A7r 4 this year to a Nikon z6ii , first Nikon camera and Iam more than happy with it menus are so much easier to use and to much trouble getting sharp pictures with the Sony
I understand the conundrum you face being a content creator on CZcams. The public perception is that unless you have the most expensive, highest megapixel setup, you are really not worth purchasing from. Wedding Photographers are in the same bind. But let me tell you a true life story of such a instance. A friend of mine had a Lumix G9 and switched to a Sony setup similart to yours. Well over $10,000. Then he had a lab print out the same image from each camera at 16x20. He had me over and showed me on his monitor each image blown up xxx% and showed me the difference, just a little. Then he showed me the images he had printed at the lab. At first we were about 3 feet away and neither of us were positive which was which. So the he brought the iimages up close and we looked again. Really could not tell. So, finally, he looked on the back of the image where he had written the camera name and said, "I thought it was that one". But it is about perception. Not image perception, but viewer perception of what gear was used.
This is the single most important thing isn't it? Creators can get lost in the technicalities and also start feeling sub-par when they see lots of surrounding creators using million dollar kit. Will the customer see it? Will the audience see it? 90% of people judge an image these days by a 1080px image on Instagram. But we know if we printed a nice big scene that someone was paying a bit of money for to hang up on their wall or decorate with, they still probably won't be staring at it 10cm from their face. It's not just photography that does this either, it's anything that involves technical gear. Can we tell a difference between a $500 Mexican Strat vs a $2400 Japanese or US special once it's been recorded and processed in a modern clean over-produced studio? Or even pumped through a deafening stadium system? Nope. The only pressure that exists in the creative community comes from ourselves; and it's all peer pressure. And it makes many people feel inadequate.
Do you think James is going to get more clicks with “Lumix” in his videos, or “Sony”? This is all about the megaclicks, not megapixels. Very disappointing.
Yea, I went from an 80D to an R5, and the differences aren't want most people (who aren't into photography, or new photo people who haven't tried higher res cameras) expect. It's really the cropping. Prints side by side at 11x17 or like you said 16x20 you cannot see the difference. It's really all the nice to have tech stuff plus cropping. Image quality is very similar in most situations.
I completely agree, especially about the value of the cropping capacity of the a7riv. I love the ability it gives me to find compositions within compositions, including compositions I did not see at the time of shooting.
🔴Man I liked it more when you spoke and were with Panasonic. Sony is great, I get that too I was A7C & will get the A1 unless the GH6 hits it out of the park.
Great video, I did find during testing on my older Sony A7RII that crop mode images are better quality than cropping in light room to the same size, which was quite a surprise. I done this quite a few times to double check too.
Paused the video at 0:40 because I didn't realize you had books available. Went to the link and ordered all 3 volumes. Cannot wait to receive them! Now to continue the video...
Great comparison video James! One of the things I noticed, having gone from the R to R5, is the better noise control at higher iso. I think the gap has lessened between lower and higher MP cameras in that regard. When I was shopping and comparing the R5 and R6 it was suggested it was about a 1/3 of a stop difference with the advantage going to the R6, and that's comparing a 45 MP to a 20 MP from the same manufacturer introduced at the same time. These cameras just keep getting better. Looking forward to seeing what the Nikon Z9 brings to the party! Cheers!
I had similar findings between my Canon R5 (45 MP), R6 (24 MP), and 5D Mark IV (32 MP, since sold). I can get good quality prints from any of them up to A3+ (the biggest my printer can do) but there's definitely more detail in the R5 files. As a sometime bird and macro shooter, the greater ability to crop R5 files is a huge advantage. Also, the R5 and R6 are both much better in low light and shadow detail recovery than the 5D4.
Just ordered your new book, great inspiration as always!! Can't wait to see what size volume 10 will be, must be over A1!!! 61 MP is indeed great for cropping and you don't need a 400mm lens, I'm more then happy with my 30MP APS-C camera.
That was very interesting James. I’m on a 16MP LUMIX G80 so I definitely don’t need to worry about any drawbacks of high resolution 😅 but I do love it. I pre-ordered your book yesterday and I can’t wait for it to arrive. If it’s anything like the first two then it will be well worth the money.
Hi James can yo make a folluw up Video and compare print from A7RIV with A7III and A7III processed with lightroom super Resolution Feature to 96 Megapixel and compare them as well for details/sharpness and High ISO noise.
The appeal of huge MP has bypassed me entirely, I have recently (ish) spent a LOT of money to upgrade my camera from 30mp to 24mp .. Very happy with the change, much more capable camera in every real world situation
Like you James I have a Sony A7riv and A7iii. Find both cameras great, although the handling of the A7riv and the viewfinder are much better than the A7iii. I don't print my images, but find the A7riv best advantage is cropping too. Regarding raw file sizes yes, at around 120mb per image it's a disk muncher, but just convert them to dng on import in LR, reduced to around 60mb there is no difference in quality. BTW - Book looks very nice, just pre-ordered 🙂
Very timely for me, I've just upgraded from a 22 to 30 megapixels cant imagine a 61. I'm blown away with just that. Photographed a music event on the weekend so impressed with the camera and its older tech too. I'm easily pleased. So far my old laptop is coping but they are only hi res jpeg for this job. So this video was very interesting for me. I'm glad you aren't scientific, I just get lost in that.
Still shooting D7200. I do sports, events, etc. and it does all I need. I've sold 36x24 framed prints even from 1.3 in camera crops. Had to edit for sure but I enjoy that. Now with LR's Enhance, there is no need for more mp, since the 1% of photos I'd need that resolution for can now get it easily in post without the need to import thousands of images that take 2 or 3 times the storage space and similar time penalties in processing. Try saving a 15 layer PDS file that starts at 60mp! I'm good with what I have.
I usually don't print much larger the A3, so my 20MP is good enough for me. Only the cropping possibilty would help. So something around 35mp would be the sweetspot for me to do a bit of cropping.
ITU-CCIR subjective viewing tests for TV pictures are done at a distance three times the picture height. I've not worked out how that relates to photographs but it will give you a good place to start. Book pre-ordered.
Re: RIV file size - I have found unless you are constantly pushing your highlights and shadows, like, two stops or more in post shooting compressed raw still results in excellent IQ at half the file size.
Great video James. Some really interesting and valid points raised in this video. I love the point you made about viewing an image so your eyes aren't wondering around. When explaining composition to people I think its so important to have a strong focal point or subject that draws the viewers eyes into the image rather than something distracting. I try and keep my large prints around A2 as any bigger then I feel the image begins to look a bit distorted even at 30MP.
Can't wait to receive my The Book Vol. 3 soon! I use a7RIII and just loving the extra reach I get out of my lenses by being able to crop. It's saves money I can spend on your books! ♥️
Greetings from Thailand. Nice to see you’re enjoying the Sony line. I shoot wildlife and embrace the cropping capability. Too funny, I also had to get in the habit of deleting photos and not keeping duplicates/everything on account of the file size. I enjoy your videos - take care.
Great video James! There is one comment I would add, the generalization you mention about lower MP sensors having less noise than higher MP sensors is more accurate when both sensors are made from the same process, lithography etc. Many new 60MP+ sensors have far better low light performance than older 20MP sensors. My A7IV has the same dynamic range as my A1, two very different sensors. At the end of the day, they both deliver great images if I am using my head when setting up the shots, no comment on that. Like yourself, I've just started using Sony after a 10 years, the new bodies and lenses are stunning. I seldom us my GFX100 system and planning on selling it.
Many of my bird photos thru the 300mm need the jubejubes cropped out of them to get anything decent, so more pixels is better for me. Enjoy all your videos James. 🤩
Thanks for this. I have an A7iii and looking at getting an A7R4 too. Interested to hear how the Lightroom super resolution A7iii version looked compared to the A7R4 shot?
Nice video! I shoot weddings on an Riv. Shooting in compressed RAW, no noticeable difference in the edit, half the file size. Just buy more hard drives, they're cheap enough now 🤷♂️ I'm often pushing ISO as far as 16000 - looks naff when you're zooming in on a 4K monitor, but exporting and viewing on a phone or web gallery they're perfectly fine.
I would be really curious of what a comparison would be between the Sony 61MP and something like the Olympus Hand Held High Resolution 50MP using the m4/3 sensor printed large like that. I have an Olympus EM-1 and a few Pro Lenses and I'm looking into maybe getting a printer. I can't justify getting a new camera and lenses just yet but we will see what happens.
But James just told us that there is no difference between 15MP and 61MP if you look at it from a reasonable distance. If you capture a breathtaking picture and print it on A1, no one will look at the pixels, but at the picture as a whole. I do High Res shots mainly when I know I need to crop in post. Otherwise I just shoot 20MP.
Now imagine that Fujifilm sent you a GFX100S (100Mpx) to play with for a couple of months.. It's probably the ultimate landscape camera. I've seen comparison shots on DPrevew and it makes the latest and greatest full-frame cameras (incl. the a7r IV) look like toy cameras, detail and DR-wise.
@@Biosynchro absolutely glorious. Have a 35mm 2.5 Summarit on it which is so under rated. For lower light needs and when I intend for monochrome, a single coated Voigtlander 35 Nokton v2
It will be fun to follow you for the next few months after you used the new camera and see if your opinion will change either direction and what you then see as positive and negative with you new gear. The biggest drawback for me personally is the use of tripod more then file size since I can't carry stuff on my back/shoulders.
My prediction is that after a year or two of using the Sony, James will gravitate back to the something like the G9. I think photography is a developmental process and eventually one comes to the conclusion that the pictures quality is so similar between cameras and the G9 so much more enjoyable that the balance tips back to micro 4/3's.
James will move back to G9 as soon as he is out of social media, or M43 becomes popular again, the print size is the least important factor in James revenue at the moment...in order to increase his revenue James needs to use a popular camera that people believe produces professional results. It is just my opinion, I have no insights of James' revenue sources.
I have owned both A7RIII and A7RIV and as long as it doesn't hurt the pocket and WANT to upgrade, its worth it. Otherwise, money invested in quality glass is better spent. Great review as always JAmes!
A great help because I have been looking at the canon 5DSr which is 50.5 mega pixels. Ive been waffeling about it and this helped me decide. Great information!!
As you say, the big benefit is cropping....however, this has implications for the cost of your kit. If you do crop, any flaws in your lens will be highlighted and negate the benefits of the extra pixels. So you need to have top quality ( expensive) lenses to make it worthwhile. The end product is only as good as the weakest link used to make it.
I started keeping a sweater in the car after my daughter was born because inevitably I'd get into the office and she had somehow left a parting puke shot on my shoulder. I feel the pain, cheers!
Having an A7RIV has forced me to get better about changing my workflow as well. Before it I tended to just stockpile tens of thousands of photos, but deleting files has become standard practice since getting it. And like you said I should have started sooner. I just got a new SSD and transferred files over to it. 23,000 photos…. If those were from the RIV instead of my APS-C that’d be around 2.3 terabytes of data. On the other hand, the cropping power is incredible. Interestingly my wilderness photography lens setup is almost identical to yours. 16-35f/2.8, 20mm f/1.8, and at the telephoto end I splurged on the 200-600. I will likely eventually get either a Tamron 70-180 or Sony 70-200 f/4 to be more practical. But at the moment if I *need* a telephoto and can’t be bothered to carry that 200-600mm I’ve been having good results with my APS-C 70-350. It’s proven to be a total workhorse since it’s actually a touch smaller than my 16-35 f/2.8 but still gives an equivalent of 525mm field of view at 26mp. Handy to have on hand as a “just in case” lens.
I shoot Fuji and their files for a 26 Mp sensor are pretty large. RAW run to 59 Mb. My iMac which is a couple of years old and has 16 Gb of RAM pauses before opening previews. I'm really poor at deleting photos. I have built a storage solution of three Terra Master boxes with coming on for 50 Tb of storage in a mix of RAID and individual disks. Plus an 8Tb USB-C drive as the landing ground for my images. Currently I have a load of space and won't need to upgrade for 4 or 5 years. Unless I have drive failure. I back up the 8 Tb across the RAID storage.
I agree completely with appropriate viewing distance, but even when people view the image (or paintings) at appropriate viewing distances, they often inspect specific items of the image which is where detail is required. Otherwise, a good video and nice to see you enjoying full frame :)
I've said it before, somewhere, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself - Large prints for small spaces = 'optimal view' and 'pixel peep closeup view'. I made the leap from Olympus m4/3 to Sony a7Riii and boom! Sold a lot, faster than anything previously.
This is my camera body history, in this exact order: Canon 5Dmk2, Nikon D500, Canon 1DXmkll and as of three weeks ago Nikon Z6ll. None of the cameras I ever used, had more than 25MP and never have I ever needed (for any reason, whatsoever) or felt the need for more than those 20-25 megapixels. Never. Even for landscape shots - and I tried plenty of high-res cameras, including the GFX100 and GFX50S amongst others. Two of my most popular landscape shots ever, one of which got me my first photography award, were both shot on 1DXll and Z6ll, both of which have ''only'' 20/24 MP image output. The one I shot on the Z6ll, not even two weeks ago, was shot on a 50mm and was even slightly cropped (10-15%) but was one of my most popular shots ever and it was a landscape shot of all things (I don't even do landscape photography) AND it was also shot on a 24 MP camera. So there is that I guess... That's my two cents on this subject.
I save all my photos on the sd card first, which is the advantage of having enough cards. then when I have time I put them on the imac then I sort the photos and save the selected photos on the mac and on the drive / backup HD then the sd card can be empty and then once a month I empty the mac disk . double backup and enough time to sort.
On a side note, in 2006 the photography magazines were speculating that sensors had topped out at 12 megapixels. That's as high as technology would allow. As far as handholding high res images I never have trouble if VR is on and I use a sufficient shutter speed.
Nice I look forward to the new book!! I just had a gander at your gear page to see what printer you use. I wonder if you have a vid about printing ... I don't remember seeing one but I'll check. I've always hated printers ... ink jet, laser, black and white, or color. I have a funny story of throwing a laser printer down a flight of stairs ... and then lumping it back up to my office to finish printing the proofs for a brochure I was working on. 😆 Over here that printer costs $1,300 but if I add an extra ink set it jumps to $2,000 😲 sweet Jesus $700 for ink!! Never mind I'll just look for a print shop! 😅
Its also worth considering that viewing from a certain distance that you can see a difference. However, that's not usually the case that you will get a side by side comparison of different resolutions in most viewing scenarios. Except I suppose if you are showing those images together side by side. Even then, they will be different images and so it doubtful any comparisons would be drawn - not by any member of the public anyway. Hopefully, the beauty of the image will be sufficiently distracting ; )
The puking will settle down soon enough although the slobber may last somewhat longer. A towel over the shoulder will save a little washing of your clothes James. I bought the Canon R5 with 45 MP and happy with it. 🥳 Stay safe 🇦🇺
Nice comparison, thanks. I still take most my photos at my camera's lowest resolution, unless I see something special and not just capturing a sequence to tell a story. I still need to program one of my hot buttons to do the switch.
I will def be getting the third one. other than the Wright Bros. first flight photo, you work is the only thing on my wall (or coffee table) other than my own.
My 2cts opinion about viewing distances and printing size : if i buy a print from you, and display it in my living room, for example the man walking on the beach, yes i will look at it at the appropriate distance and enjoy BUT I also getvery close and look at the tiny details of the picture. Thats the difference between the print of my own photo, which looks nice and that I like, and professional prints that need to be perfect and detailed. So perhaps it is a bit rude, but I think you have to carry the extra weight, the extra volume and the extra sweat to carry the appropriate gear and get these details. But i must say i am an amateur photographer, so my expectstion might be different from the general public. IMO a pro should be able to deliver more in term of composition, sharpness, exposition and focus. And that takes weight, money and time :)
With all the incredible improvement in the denoising, sharpening, enhancing, upsizing AI-based software in the year since you did this video, time to revisit this topic. Meanwhile, I'll happily use my OM-Systems OM-1 with its lowly ~20MP images and my existing computer setup.
Appreciate the time spent on this. However, it's not something that makes that much difference to me. Looking forward to your next effort, as always. Carry on! Cheers!
Book pre-ordered! Looking forward to it being yet another different size to the other two on my shelf 😬 at this stage I don’t ever want them to be uniform 🤣
There's a similar thing to be said of 4K and higher res TVs. It's when you get closer that you really notice the difference, and you probably wouldn't watch a 60 inch TV from 3 feet away or less for more than a minute. I remember when I bought a 5DS R some years back, I was blown away by what was possible at base ISO. There was a brilliant difference in what it could do in certain situations. But it was a bit of a disaster past ISO 400 and it revealed severe resolution issues in what I had previously thought were solid lenses. The sensor tech has come light years forward since 2015, and modern high MP cameras are far more usable than in years past.
Very timely video James as I’m weighing up getting A7IV or the A7RIV to replace my A7III. I agree that the APSC crop of very useful and would be the overriding reason why I would chose the A7RIV but I don’t print that often nor that big, so I’m leaning towards the A7IV. I’ve loved the A7III and can’t wait to see what Sony brings to the table….hopefully this week.
I wanted to upgrade my a7iii to a7iv but I realized a7Riv and a7Riva with very little use were going bargain deals on the used market with the a7Rv being out. As a primary 1 prime shooter (sometimes with one extra in the bag), the ability to crop down by 1.5x (even more if it's not going to be uploaded in high res), this gives my kit so much more flexibility. If you use UHS-II v60 or v90 cards (or the ungodly expensive CFExpress Type A for the a7Rv) and spend some cash on a USB C 3.1/Thunderbolt SSD, the files sizes aren't bad to work with. You can shoot compressed, which on the a7Riv at least gets 13-bit color (12-bit in any continuous mode) which doubles your speed and storage by ~ halving your file size.
You should ask your customers who have bought large prints to take a photo of it in place, maybe with then in it and do an appreciation video or post on social. Might just encourage more sales.
Was debating between the Canon R5 vs R6 as a massive upgrade from a 7D Mk I and this really sold me on the 20-ish MP of the R6. Now I can get another lens with the extra money saved. 😎
I am more interested in the resolution to noise ratio. If the resolution is higher but the image is just as noisy as a low resolution image, then that extra resolution is worthless since you don't get the extra details when cropping.
I'm one of those ones that likes looking at prints up close, same as I like looking at photos 1:1 on whatever screen I'm showing someone else a photo on. And that's mostly because I like showing little details in things, and you need to look closely for that sort of thing. Being able to physically pick something up and hold it as close as someone's eye can focus is a bigger deal to me than I thought it would be, and 1:1 viewing even on a phone is more useful than I thought it would be too. That said, I don't print any bigger than 8x12 because I don't physically have the room for a bunch of bigger prints, so my a7III is plenty good enough. Wouldn't complain about having some more resolution for cropping reasons, but I _really_ don't need 61MP or even 42.
Could you review bicycles for adventure photography? I am curious why we don’t see you riding you new orange gravel bike anymore but you used to ride your mountain bike all the time. I am thinking about some sort of adventure bike for myself and I’m wondering if you find the drop bars too sketchy for taking expensive camera gear? I’m also considering a fat bike for it’s simplicity and comfort without suspension and the surefootedness of big tyres for exploring areas for photography. Also, the fact you rode a bike was another point of differentiation for your channel. You could do more with it...
11:14 "I can just use a tripod"...
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH JAMES YOU MONSTER!?!?!?
lol
Really fascinating to follow your journey into the Sony system. I did the same journey from m4/3 about two years ago. Mostly I've been happy with it, but I still sometimes shoot at around 1/30 shutterspeed and am let down because the images are blurry. M4/3 IS is so far ahead of Sony's that it still amazes me. But other than that I'm pretty happy with it. Although I feel that the images from my old Olympus camera had a bit more punch or soul - or whatever you want to call it. The images from my Sony camera tend to be a bit more sterile - if that makes any sense.
I’ve upgraded to A7RIV from an old Canon 500D and I couldn’t be more happy about how liberating the cropping power is. I’m a casual shooter, so most of my images are gonna be looked at on phone screens, and I can crop like crazy, getting a decent digital zoom range while rocking fast primes!
I use an a7riv as my primary and a7iii as a backup. I usually mostly shoot concert photography and challenging lighting conditions. I still chose the a7riv everytime. It’s just a killer camera and no one will change my mind.
I’ve missed a year of you-wait wuuuuut? A baby? A huuuge congrats to your family - you look much more gathered than I ever could - I still love your opinions, your humility and your humour! Keep it up, always a fan!
A baby AND a switch to Sony!
It's a full-frame baby too !
I’ll bet he’s not switching to Sony
@@suerakes he’s still keeping the Panasonic around so there’s hope haha
This video just reminded me how we can get way too wrapped up in the technical. 🙄 A great image is unlikely to be even better because I can stare at details even closer...& I won't get any extra enjoyment when capturing it either. I look forward to seeing you out photographing again soon.
Matches my own more “scientific” (I would call it “engineering”) approach in comparing a G9 and Canon R5. The G9 isn’t being retired anytime soon because its image stabilization tops just about everything, whereas the R5 is so heavy that I’m forced to use a tripod for anything other than the brightest shots … IF that sharpness is my end goal. My G9 wins for portability and usability. The R5 wins for ultimate image quality and dynamic range, but it is definitely a luxury item for me.
Excellent comment. I feel the same (I use an E-M1 M3 rather than a G9 though but it's the same principle!
G9 weight 1.27 lb or 579 g, R5 1.62 lb or 738 g (R5 weight includes battery and card. I could not find out wether G9 weight did or did not include battery.)
@@TimothyStringer then add the lenses 🤦🏻♂️
@@greggpedder Indeed. It’s the lens that kills me. Well, that and my aging shaky hands.
But what lenses are you using? My RF 28-70 f/2 gets 8 stops of stabilization, and my RF 70-200 gets 7. If you're adapting EF lenses, you won't get the full capability of Canon stabilization because the lens and body don't "talk to each other" about stabilization. The native lenses do so. Now, weight is definitely another matter entirely…
Based on the many, many conversations in my Canon 90D fb group, more pixels can be seriously affected by old glass. A lot of older lenses show their lack of resolution power when used on a high pixel camera. Personally, I love my 90D and my ability to crop in close when I want to. As to noise, there is always Topaz DeNoise to clear that right up. -Elaine
The 90D is an aps-c high-res camera, it's sensor area is only ~40% of a full frame camera, so it acts much higher res than a 40mpix FF camera for example, from the glasses point of view. A high-res aps-c camera lens can have much less imperfections than a high-res FF camera for excellent results. This is why crop cameras, especially higher res ones, or really cropped ones, like m43 or 1" feel oversharpened, because they need sharpening in software to make up for the crop factor.
I can echo this sentiment as well. It goes not just for older lenses, but budget lenses as well. I loved using my Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 lens for astrophotography on my 5D mark 4, but when I upgraded to the R5, the Rokinon lens was obviously underpowered resolution-wise
Topaz is a joke
@@montazownianr1 Nah not even I haven't used their program specifically for denoising but their video upscaler is incredible I used it to upscale a few old Power Rangers episodes and it makes a pretty noticable difference with their Proteus ai model and having used their image upscaler as well on some old family photos and stuff it does a good job.
All that being said I'd love to hear what in your experience works as well or better for denoising/ maybe upscaling though cause if there's something that does a better job I'd love to try it cause I upscale a lot of stuff.
The dynamic range on sony's newer sensors is just insane. It's not a system for me personally, but I was blown away after taking a few shots with a friend's A1
Their sensors are superb. I had an a6300 and just did not like it at all. Sold it for a gx85 and loved it. Kinda regret getting rid of it too. I too got caught up in the GAS unfortunately
@@paulanderson24 Probably going to get the GX85 as my first camera before I get the Fuji X-T4. Which lens would you recommend? I was thinking the 12-60 as I want to do nature photography. Any suggestions from your experience?
@@icyearth I'd just suggest getting an xs-10 right away, so you can collect fuji glass.
Sony cameras just produce those fake, almost digital looking, unrealistic images, oh and those Sony colors are just god-awful and a pain in the ass... Not a fan of that, whatsoever! Always stuck with Nikon and Canon - simply superior image quality and output. This still goes to this day, as I just upgraded from a 1DXll to a Z6ll (which has a Sony sensor but luckily does not produce Sony-like, god-awful images.) Always hated Sony colors and always hated the fact that after every shoot with a Sony camera, I had to color correct, tone down and mess with contrast, saturation and so on, BEFORE I even started editing... Now imagine when I borrowed my friends a7RIV and did a whole shoot with it - which ended up being over 300 shots, which I had to manually correct, out which over 200 images I had to correct one by one as they were shot under different conditions - ALL JUST SO I CAN CONTINUE WITH CULLING! I lost over 5 hours... Or to word it better, I spent over 5 hours working on POINTLESS image corrections, just so I can continue with my culling process! Let that sink in! Unreal... The greens, magenta, yellows and oranges on images shot on Sony cameras all look sooo digital or artificial or whatever you want to call it. Awful! And if I want one of these colors to stick out in an image, these colors turn almost to some neon-like paint all over the image - it's really, really bad. Never experienced something like that with any Canon or Nikon camera...
@@nogerboher5266 their image processing even on the raw files just wasn’t for me either. The a6300 was I guess technically the best camera I have owned, but I just didn’t get along with it personally. Everything looks overly sharpened also
Every time a “new and better” product is launched, I lust for it. But then I realize that the product I have already, doesn’t actually get worse, it is just as good as it used to be. The pictures from your old camera will still be the same, and for a pro like James, this means his old pictures will still be great!
I have just pre-ordered your book, it can join the first two on your collection on my shelves. Thank you for producing them.
Just pre-ordered the new book and bought the Vol 1 to complete my set because I missed it before. Thanks for making it available, my fav photographer, and thanks for being awesome!
If my memory serves me right, over 9 years ago when the Nikon D800 was introduced, every one went mad over its sensor of 36.3 mp. Even today that is not something to be taken lightly. No sooner than the usual army of the ' latest is the greatest ' purchased the camera and starting to, as Ansel Adams once put it, poking it into everyone's face, rumors started circulating that the camera was not producing sharp enough photographs. It took a while before it was discovered that one could not really handhold a 36 mp camera and shoot it street style and expect to see what the camera was capable of. Lenses were blamed, it wasn't the lens as my old Nikon AIS manual lenses were performing admirably on that camera, it was the photographers technique. At that resolution the slightest movement in the camera during the exposure, would produce an unsharp image, as on the other hand , with a 12 or even a 20 mp camera the chances of camera shake showing was much less than with a D800. That was an abject lesson for all in how not to handle a D800. Personally I am still wondering what I exactly expect from a D800 and all that resolution? Planted solidly on a hefty tripod ( not necessarily a CF one ), and using prime lenses, it can match the resolution of my 4X5 cameras. God knows what people want to do with a 60 mp sensor camera? Of all my digital cameras, Nikon, Canon and Olympus, it is the little EM5 MKii that gets used more than all the others put together. I don't feel that I am missing anything with the 16 mp MFT sensor. The IBIS is extraordinary in low light allowing exposures of 1" or longer even with the equivalent of a 300mm lens . You see there is more to a digital camera than just super mega pixel count and 2000 focus points or nasal hair or armpit focus modes. Hope you are happy with your choice.
I’m a canon shooter wildlife but I hv a little oly m5 takes great landscape amazing really
LOL @ this nonsense.
Tell me about it shoot a D850 and that mirror slap alone is enough to produce a soft image.
@@michaelmorris1865 Nikon mirrors are as damped out as a mirror can get, but yes you are absolutely correct, to get the best of 850, it sould be tripod mounted and mirror locked up. I once lost my composure with one these new to film you tube guys. He had paid over £4000.00 for a Leica 35mm Summilux F1.4 ASPH and he was messing around with an M6 trying to shoot a ' model '. He then went on to claim, in his expert opinion , that the lens was over hyped because his results were not as sharp as he expected. When I told him that he was using an F1.4 lens on a 0.72 range finder and it was inevitable that his focusing would be off, he started to get shirty with me. He wasn't even holding the camera still when he was shooting his lady model. I guess he hadn't realised that the M6 not a digital camera with IBIS.
@@rewris Which part of it did you find nonsensical or amusing? Enlighten us with your expertise, perhaps we can learn something.
With my medium format Fuji, my Lightroom really struggles and does a frequent 'not responding' thing.
It's something I didn't think about at the time, but it's always worth seeing if your computer can cope with big files.
I had to buy a new Mac when I upgraded to GFX.
4:18 - 4:20 - damn, that's a hot eye roll action
Moved from a Sony A7r 4 this year to a Nikon z6ii , first Nikon camera and Iam more than happy with it menus are so much easier to use and to much trouble getting sharp pictures with the Sony
I understand the conundrum you face being a content creator on CZcams. The public perception is that unless you have the most expensive, highest megapixel setup, you are really not worth purchasing from. Wedding Photographers are in the same bind. But let me tell you a true life story of such a instance. A friend of mine had a Lumix G9 and switched to a Sony setup similart to yours. Well over $10,000. Then he had a lab print out the same image from each camera at 16x20. He had me over and showed me on his monitor each image blown up xxx% and showed me the difference, just a little. Then he showed me the images he had printed at the lab. At first we were about 3 feet away and neither of us were positive which was which. So the he brought the iimages up close and we looked again. Really could not tell. So, finally, he looked on the back of the image where he had written the camera name and said, "I thought it was that one". But it is about perception. Not image perception, but viewer perception of what gear was used.
This is the single most important thing isn't it? Creators can get lost in the technicalities and also start feeling sub-par when they see lots of surrounding creators using million dollar kit. Will the customer see it? Will the audience see it? 90% of people judge an image these days by a 1080px image on Instagram. But we know if we printed a nice big scene that someone was paying a bit of money for to hang up on their wall or decorate with, they still probably won't be staring at it 10cm from their face.
It's not just photography that does this either, it's anything that involves technical gear. Can we tell a difference between a $500 Mexican Strat vs a $2400 Japanese or US special once it's been recorded and processed in a modern clean over-produced studio? Or even pumped through a deafening stadium system? Nope.
The only pressure that exists in the creative community comes from ourselves; and it's all peer pressure. And it makes many people feel inadequate.
Do you think James is going to get more clicks with “Lumix” in his videos, or “Sony”? This is all about the megaclicks, not megapixels. Very disappointing.
Yea, I went from an 80D to an R5, and the differences aren't want most people (who aren't into photography, or new photo people who haven't tried higher res cameras) expect. It's really the cropping. Prints side by side at 11x17 or like you said 16x20 you cannot see the difference. It's really all the nice to have tech stuff plus cropping. Image quality is very similar in most situations.
I completely agree, especially about the value of the cropping capacity of the a7riv. I love the ability it gives me to find compositions within compositions, including compositions I did not see at the time of shooting.
🔴Man I liked it more when you spoke and were with Panasonic. Sony is great, I get that too I was A7C & will get the A1 unless the GH6 hits it out of the park.
Great video, I did find during testing on my older Sony A7RII that crop mode images are better quality than cropping in light room to the same size, which was quite a surprise. I done this quite a few times to double check too.
Paused the video at 0:40 because I didn't realize you had books available. Went to the link and ordered all 3 volumes. Cannot wait to receive them!
Now to continue the video...
Honestly I watch a few photographers but you keep dragging me back you are so interesting to watch and I learn from every video so I guess thank you 😊
Looking forward to all 3 books. Hope to see some of my favorites in there 😊
Great comparison video James! One of the things I noticed, having gone from the R to R5, is the better noise control at higher iso. I think the gap has lessened between lower and higher MP cameras in that regard. When I was shopping and comparing the R5 and R6 it was suggested it was about a 1/3 of a stop difference with the advantage going to the R6, and that's comparing a 45 MP to a 20 MP from the same manufacturer introduced at the same time. These cameras just keep getting better. Looking forward to seeing what the Nikon Z9 brings to the party! Cheers!
I had similar findings between my Canon R5 (45 MP), R6 (24 MP), and 5D Mark IV (32 MP, since sold). I can get good quality prints from any of them up to A3+ (the biggest my printer can do) but there's definitely more detail in the R5 files. As a sometime bird and macro shooter, the greater ability to crop R5 files is a huge advantage. Also, the R5 and R6 are both much better in low light and shadow detail recovery than the 5D4.
Just ordered your new book, great inspiration as always!! Can't wait to see what size volume 10 will be, must be over A1!!!
61 MP is indeed great for cropping and you don't need a 400mm lens, I'm more then happy with my 30MP APS-C camera.
That was very interesting James. I’m on a 16MP LUMIX G80 so I definitely don’t need to worry about any drawbacks of high resolution 😅 but I do love it. I pre-ordered your book yesterday and I can’t wait for it to arrive. If it’s anything like the first two then it will be well worth the money.
I like how you start with 100% comparisons and then start talking about massive cropping ability ;-)
Hi James can yo make a folluw up Video and compare print from A7RIV with A7III and A7III processed with lightroom super Resolution Feature to 96 Megapixel and compare them as well for details/sharpness and High ISO noise.
The appeal of huge MP has bypassed me entirely, I have recently (ish) spent a LOT of money to upgrade my camera from 30mp to 24mp .. Very happy with the change, much more capable camera in every real world situation
Good information you give on this vlog❤
FANTASTIC video James! One of the best comparisons I've seen.
Like you James I have a Sony A7riv and A7iii. Find both cameras great, although the handling of the A7riv and the viewfinder are much better than the A7iii. I don't print my images, but find the A7riv best advantage is cropping too. Regarding raw file sizes yes, at around 120mb per image it's a disk muncher, but just convert them to dng on import in LR, reduced to around 60mb there is no difference in quality.
BTW - Book looks very nice, just pre-ordered 🙂
I do this too! I just wish the stabilization was a bit better given the resolution
@@Alexrocks1253 Agree Sony stabilisation not class leading, but does ok.
Very timely for me, I've just upgraded from a 22 to 30 megapixels cant imagine a 61. I'm blown away with just that. Photographed a music event on the weekend so impressed with the camera and its older tech too. I'm easily pleased. So far my old laptop is coping but they are only hi res jpeg for this job. So this video was very interesting for me. I'm glad you aren't scientific, I just get lost in that.
I am delighted that the 3rd book will be a different size yet again :)
Still shooting D7200. I do sports, events, etc. and it does all I need. I've sold 36x24 framed prints even from 1.3 in camera crops. Had to edit for sure but I enjoy that. Now with LR's Enhance, there is no need for more mp, since the 1% of photos I'd need that resolution for can now get it easily in post without the need to import thousands of images that take 2 or 3 times the storage space and similar time penalties in processing. Try saving a 15 layer PDS file that starts at 60mp!
I'm good with what I have.
I love those 61 MP. They have been a large help to me.
I usually don't print much larger the A3, so my 20MP is good enough for me. Only the cropping possibilty would help. So something around 35mp would be the sweetspot for me to do a bit of cropping.
ITU-CCIR subjective viewing tests for TV pictures are done at a distance three times the picture height. I've not worked out how that relates to photographs but it will give you a good place to start. Book pre-ordered.
Re: RIV file size - I have found unless you are constantly pushing your highlights and shadows, like, two stops or more in post shooting compressed raw still results in excellent IQ at half the file size.
I have the A7Riii and at 42mp it's a great compromise that suits my work
Great video James. Some really interesting and valid points raised in this video. I love the point you made about viewing an image so your eyes aren't wondering around. When explaining composition to people I think its so important to have a strong focal point or subject that draws the viewers eyes into the image rather than something distracting. I try and keep my large prints around A2 as any bigger then I feel the image begins to look a bit distorted even at 30MP.
a7riv love mine so much so just bought a new one a7riva the camera is on a different level
Nice vid! Got the A7RIII myself, and absolutely love it. A nice compromise between the A7III and the A7RIV I think.
Can't wait to receive my The Book Vol. 3 soon! I use a7RIII and just loving the extra reach I get out of my lenses by being able to crop. It's saves money I can spend on your books! ♥️
Greetings from Thailand. Nice to see you’re enjoying the Sony line. I shoot wildlife and embrace the cropping capability. Too funny, I also had to get in the habit of deleting photos and not keeping duplicates/everything on account of the file size. I enjoy your videos - take care.
Very excited for Vol. 3, already pre-ordered!
Great video James! There is one comment I would add, the generalization you mention about lower MP sensors having less noise than higher MP sensors is more accurate when both sensors are made from the same process, lithography etc. Many new 60MP+ sensors have far better low light performance than older 20MP sensors. My A7IV has the same dynamic range as my A1, two very different sensors. At the end of the day, they both deliver great images if I am using my head when setting up the shots, no comment on that. Like yourself, I've just started using Sony after a 10 years, the new bodies and lenses are stunning. I seldom us my GFX100 system and planning on selling it.
Many of my bird photos thru the 300mm need the jubejubes cropped out of them to get anything decent, so more pixels is better for me. Enjoy all your videos James. 🤩
Thank you. The most coherent explanation I've seen!
Thanks for this. I have an A7iii and looking at getting an A7R4 too. Interested to hear how the Lightroom super resolution A7iii version looked compared to the A7R4 shot?
Nice video! I shoot weddings on an Riv. Shooting in compressed RAW, no noticeable difference in the edit, half the file size. Just buy more hard drives, they're cheap enough now 🤷♂️ I'm often pushing ISO as far as 16000 - looks naff when you're zooming in on a 4K monitor, but exporting and viewing on a phone or web gallery they're perfectly fine.
I would be really curious of what a comparison would be between the Sony 61MP and something like the Olympus Hand Held High Resolution 50MP using the m4/3 sensor printed large like that. I have an Olympus EM-1 and a few Pro Lenses and I'm looking into maybe getting a printer. I can't justify getting a new camera and lenses just yet but we will see what happens.
But James just told us that there is no difference between 15MP and 61MP if you look at it from a reasonable distance. If you capture a breathtaking picture and print it on A1, no one will look at the pixels, but at the picture as a whole. I do High Res shots mainly when I know I need to crop in post. Otherwise I just shoot 20MP.
Now imagine that Fujifilm sent you a GFX100S (100Mpx) to play with for a couple of months.. It's probably the ultimate landscape camera. I've seen comparison shots on DPrevew and it makes the latest and greatest full-frame cameras (incl. the a7r IV) look like toy cameras, detail and DR-wise.
Thanks for sharing your opinion James!
My 10MP Leica M8 is more than enough for my needs. And I’ve done sizeable prints
That sensor is fantastic at base ISO with a good lens.
@@Biosynchro absolutely glorious. Have a 35mm 2.5 Summarit on it which is so under rated. For lower light needs and when I intend for monochrome, a single coated Voigtlander 35 Nokton v2
It will be fun to follow you for the next few months after you used the new camera and see if your opinion will change either direction and what you then see as positive and negative with you new gear.
The biggest drawback for me personally is the use of tripod more then file size since I can't carry stuff on my back/shoulders.
Just bought the book.Thanks James.👍🏻👍🏻
Good luck on your book!!
My prediction is that after a year or two of using the Sony, James will gravitate back to the something like the G9. I think photography is a developmental process and eventually one comes to the conclusion that the pictures quality is so similar between cameras and the G9 so much more enjoyable that the balance tips back to micro 4/3's.
James will move back to G9 as soon as he is out of social media, or M43 becomes popular again, the print size is the least important factor in James revenue at the moment...in order to increase his revenue James needs to use a popular camera that people believe produces professional results. It is just my opinion, I have no insights of James' revenue sources.
I have owned both A7RIII and A7RIV and as long as it doesn't hurt the pocket and WANT to upgrade, its worth it. Otherwise, money invested in quality glass is better spent.
Great review as always JAmes!
Excellent assessment James.
A great help because I have been looking at the canon 5DSr which is 50.5 mega pixels. Ive been waffeling about it and this helped me decide. Great information!!
Very helpful!
How does the G9's 80 megapixel high res mode compare?
As you say, the big benefit is cropping....however, this has implications for the cost of your kit. If you do crop, any flaws in your lens will be highlighted and negate the benefits of the extra pixels. So you need to have top quality ( expensive) lenses to make it worthwhile. The end product is only as good as the weakest link used to make it.
I started keeping a sweater in the car after my daughter was born because inevitably I'd get into the office and she had somehow left a parting puke shot on my shoulder. I feel the pain, cheers!
Just confirmed my check out! 📤
Having an A7RIV has forced me to get better about changing my workflow as well. Before it I tended to just stockpile tens of thousands of photos, but deleting files has become standard practice since getting it. And like you said I should have started sooner. I just got a new SSD and transferred files over to it. 23,000 photos…. If those were from the RIV instead of my APS-C that’d be around 2.3 terabytes of data.
On the other hand, the cropping power is incredible. Interestingly my wilderness photography lens setup is almost identical to yours. 16-35f/2.8, 20mm f/1.8, and at the telephoto end I splurged on the 200-600. I will likely eventually get either a Tamron 70-180 or Sony 70-200 f/4 to be more practical. But at the moment if I *need* a telephoto and can’t be bothered to carry that 200-600mm I’ve been having good results with my APS-C 70-350. It’s proven to be a total workhorse since it’s actually a touch smaller than my 16-35 f/2.8 but still gives an equivalent of 525mm field of view at 26mp. Handy to have on hand as a “just in case” lens.
I shoot Fuji and their files for a 26 Mp sensor are pretty large. RAW run to 59 Mb. My iMac which is a couple of years old and has 16 Gb of RAM pauses before opening previews.
I'm really poor at deleting photos. I have built a storage solution of three Terra Master boxes with coming on for 50 Tb of storage in a mix of RAID and individual disks. Plus an 8Tb USB-C drive as the landing ground for my images. Currently I have a load of space and won't need to upgrade for 4 or 5 years. Unless I have drive failure. I back up the 8 Tb across the RAID storage.
Great photography review.
I agree completely with appropriate viewing distance, but even when people view the image (or paintings) at appropriate viewing distances, they often inspect specific items of the image which is where detail is required.
Otherwise, a good video and nice to see you enjoying full frame :)
Your wisdom in the past helped me switch from a 5DSR to the 20mp R6. Quality of life is better :)
James - hope you are well. Glad you are enjoying the A7R4.
Give the Voigtlander 65mm a test. Best resolving lens on the system that I've tried.
Great video. I'm thinking to get Sony a7r III and this video was very helpful. Resolution does matter :)
I've said it before, somewhere, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself - Large prints for small spaces = 'optimal view' and 'pixel peep closeup view'. I made the leap from Olympus m4/3 to Sony a7Riii and boom! Sold a lot, faster than anything previously.
This is my camera body history, in this exact order: Canon 5Dmk2, Nikon D500, Canon 1DXmkll and as of three weeks ago Nikon Z6ll. None of the cameras I ever used, had more than 25MP and never have I ever needed (for any reason, whatsoever) or felt the need for more than those 20-25 megapixels. Never. Even for landscape shots - and I tried plenty of high-res cameras, including the GFX100 and GFX50S amongst others. Two of my most popular landscape shots ever, one of which got me my first photography award, were both shot on 1DXll and Z6ll, both of which have ''only'' 20/24 MP image output. The one I shot on the Z6ll, not even two weeks ago, was shot on a 50mm and was even slightly cropped (10-15%) but was one of my most popular shots ever and it was a landscape shot of all things (I don't even do landscape photography) AND it was also shot on a 24 MP camera. So there is that I guess... That's my two cents on this subject.
I save all my photos on the sd card first, which is the advantage of having enough cards. then when I have time I put them on the imac then I sort the photos and save the selected photos on the mac and on the drive / backup HD then the sd card can be empty and then once a month I empty the mac disk . double backup and enough time to sort.
I use an A7r4 and a Leica M10 24mp. Both are great cameras.
On a side note, in 2006 the photography magazines were speculating that sensors had topped out at 12 megapixels. That's as high as technology would allow. As far as handholding high res images I never have trouble if VR is on and I use a sufficient shutter speed.
Nice I look forward to the new book!! I just had a gander at your gear page to see what printer you use. I wonder if you have a vid about printing ... I don't remember seeing one but I'll check. I've always hated printers ... ink jet, laser, black and white, or color. I have a funny story of throwing a laser printer down a flight of stairs ... and then lumping it back up to my office to finish printing the proofs for a brochure I was working on. 😆 Over here that printer costs $1,300 but if I add an extra ink set it jumps to $2,000 😲 sweet Jesus $700 for ink!! Never mind I'll just look for a print shop! 😅
Its also worth considering that viewing from a certain distance that you can see a difference. However, that's not usually the case that you will get a side by side comparison of different resolutions in most viewing scenarios. Except I suppose if you are showing those images together side by side. Even then, they will be different images and so it doubtful any comparisons would be drawn - not by any member of the public anyway. Hopefully, the beauty of the image will be sufficiently distracting ; )
The puking will settle down soon enough although the slobber may last somewhat longer.
A towel over the shoulder will save a little washing of your clothes James.
I bought the Canon R5 with 45 MP and happy with it. 🥳
Stay safe 🇦🇺
Nice comparison, thanks. I still take most my photos at my camera's lowest resolution, unless I see something special and not just capturing a sequence to tell a story. I still need to program one of my hot buttons to do the switch.
I will def be getting the third one. other than the Wright Bros. first flight photo, you work is the only thing on my wall (or coffee table) other than my own.
Book ordered 😊
My 2cts opinion about viewing distances and printing size : if i buy a print from you, and display it in my living room, for example the man walking on the beach, yes i will look at it at the appropriate distance and enjoy BUT I also getvery close and look at the tiny details of the picture. Thats the difference between the print of my own photo, which looks nice and that I like, and professional prints that need to be perfect and detailed.
So perhaps it is a bit rude, but I think you have to carry the extra weight, the extra volume and the extra sweat to carry the appropriate gear and get these details.
But i must say i am an amateur photographer, so my expectstion might be different from the general public. IMO a pro should be able to deliver more in term of composition, sharpness, exposition and focus. And that takes weight, money and time :)
With all the incredible improvement in the denoising, sharpening, enhancing, upsizing AI-based software in the year since you did this video, time to revisit this topic. Meanwhile, I'll happily use my OM-Systems OM-1 with its lowly ~20MP images and my existing computer setup.
Appreciate the time spent on this. However, it's not something that makes that much difference to me. Looking forward to your next effort, as always. Carry on! Cheers!
Book pre-ordered! Looking forward to it being yet another different size to the other two on my shelf 😬 at this stage I don’t ever want them to be uniform 🤣
You can build a pyramid on your coffee table!
There's a similar thing to be said of 4K and higher res TVs. It's when you get closer that you really notice the difference, and you probably wouldn't watch a 60 inch TV from 3 feet away or less for more than a minute.
I remember when I bought a 5DS R some years back, I was blown away by what was possible at base ISO. There was a brilliant difference in what it could do in certain situations. But it was a bit of a disaster past ISO 400 and it revealed severe resolution issues in what I had previously thought were solid lenses. The sensor tech has come light years forward since 2015, and modern high MP cameras are far more usable than in years past.
Very timely video James as I’m weighing up getting A7IV or the A7RIV to replace my A7III. I agree that the APSC crop of very useful and would be the overriding reason why I would chose the A7RIV but I don’t print that often nor that big, so I’m leaning towards the A7IV. I’ve loved the A7III and can’t wait to see what Sony brings to the table….hopefully this week.
Pretty soon we'll be demanding cameras systems that produce significantly higher quality images than the scenes we're actually photographing :-)
I wanted to upgrade my a7iii to a7iv but I realized a7Riv and a7Riva with very little use were going bargain deals on the used market with the a7Rv being out. As a primary 1 prime shooter (sometimes with one extra in the bag), the ability to crop down by 1.5x (even more if it's not going to be uploaded in high res), this gives my kit so much more flexibility.
If you use UHS-II v60 or v90 cards (or the ungodly expensive CFExpress Type A for the a7Rv) and spend some cash on a USB C 3.1/Thunderbolt SSD, the files sizes aren't bad to work with. You can shoot compressed, which on the a7Riv at least gets 13-bit color (12-bit in any continuous mode) which doubles your speed and storage by ~ halving your file size.
You should ask your customers who have bought large prints to take a photo of it in place, maybe with then in it and do an appreciation video or post on social. Might just encourage more sales.
Was debating between the Canon R5 vs R6 as a massive upgrade from a 7D Mk I and this really sold me on the 20-ish MP of the R6. Now I can get another lens with the extra money saved. 😎
I am more interested in the resolution to noise ratio. If the resolution is higher but the image is just as noisy as a low resolution image, then that extra resolution is worthless since you don't get the extra details when cropping.
Oooh new book! Ordered 👍🏻
I'm one of those ones that likes looking at prints up close, same as I like looking at photos 1:1 on whatever screen I'm showing someone else a photo on. And that's mostly because I like showing little details in things, and you need to look closely for that sort of thing. Being able to physically pick something up and hold it as close as someone's eye can focus is a bigger deal to me than I thought it would be, and 1:1 viewing even on a phone is more useful than I thought it would be too. That said, I don't print any bigger than 8x12 because I don't physically have the room for a bunch of bigger prints, so my a7III is plenty good enough. Wouldn't complain about having some more resolution for cropping reasons, but I _really_ don't need 61MP or even 42.
Could you review bicycles for adventure photography? I am curious why we don’t see you riding you new orange gravel bike anymore but you used to ride your mountain bike all the time. I am thinking about some sort of adventure bike for myself and I’m wondering if you find the drop bars too sketchy for taking expensive camera gear? I’m also considering a fat bike for it’s simplicity and comfort without suspension and the surefootedness of big tyres for exploring areas for photography. Also, the fact you rode a bike was another point of differentiation for your channel. You could do more with it...
I bought the a7RII when the RIV came out, it went on sale. 42mpx is enough for me. its all about the lenses anyways