Industry News: Sony Introduces the High-resolution A7R IV with World’s First 61.0 MP Back-illuminated, Full-frame Image Sensor

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,025
369
If that isn't what you meant at all, you shouldn't cherry pick other people's posts, right (read the entire post I copied below)? Nikon doesn't get the best of Sony's tech -- at best is a delayed version. Sony led with the 40+ MP sensors in their own cameras for years before it was available to the D850. That is what happens when you're not in charge of a key component in your product. And a "win" in sensors doesn't mean that it has to dominate because, as you imply, there are other factors that influence the choice of camera system. But a win can translate into a competitive advantage that helps sales and profitability. Do you really think something else besides sensor technology is the primary advantage for Sony and a reason why Nikon isn't really hurting (imagine the D850 with a 5DR sensor?!).

You responded with "Their strategy of diminutive cameras that much of the market likes?" I don't think so. If it were true then this Sigma FP is going to be a best-seller, but I don't think it will... If camera size was the number one factor, then u4/3 and APS-C cameras would be doing better.
I didn’t cherry pick; I responded to a post without quoting it all.

Yes, I suspect sony’s camera size has affected its sales over the past several years. Part of the market craves small. I am not among that market; I owned an a7rii for a while and didn’t like using it - I prefer 5D size. However the market is there and for some time Sony alone was selling small 135-format ILCs. I’ll also note Sony leadership listed the ability to be small as the primary advantage of their system. If it were sensor first, I do indeed think nikon would substantially outsell Sony even if there were a year-ish delay between good and slightly better. There are multiple brands now selling small 135-format ILCs, and I expect that will impact Sony camera sales more than if Canon or Nikon put an a9 sensor into a 1D or D6 form factor.

I also question the assertion that Sony withholds sensors from customers like nikon. I don’t really follow APSC, but as far as I know the last time Sony and Nikon both used the same full frame sensor, Nikon was first to market.
 
Last edited:

sdz

EOS RP
Sep 13, 2016
211
108
Pittsburgh, PA
Jist had a quick look at the TN image quality video. At one point he is doing the whole 5 stop pushing BS and comparing the quality between the a7r3 and a7r4. To my eyes the 4 was far far worse but he straight up said the 3 was worse. Either I need to go to the eye doctor or TN is on drugs. Anyone else seen it?
I saw it too.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,327
1,681
Jist had a quick look at the TN image quality video. At one point he is doing the whole 5 stop pushing BS and comparing the quality between the a7r3 and a7r4. To my eyes the 4 was far far worse but he straight up said the 3 was worse. Either I need to go to the eye doctor or TN is on drugs. Anyone else seen it?
Obviously the 4 must be better. If the 3 is better, people don’t buy the 4 and TN loses affiliate income.
 

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,228
2,234
I like Lenstip reviews.

The only problem I see with this and several other review sites, is the fact that they only review one copy of the lens.

This is VERY important to keep in mind.

If they get a good (or bad) copy the results will be completely different from other ones.

I noticed it with a lens review they posted long ago (don't remember the lens).

So, for me, only sites that test many lenses copies are useful when considering a review of expensive lenses.

Otherwise it's kind of lottery...
I have written the same here many times and so fully agree with you. Lens rentals are of course the best by far for measuring MTFs because they have both the best equipment and look at many copies. Other sites like opticallimits and lenstip measure properties of lenses that lensrentals don’t, like efficiency of IS, consistency of AF and variation of MTFs with f-number. Too many Youtubers just wave arms around. Anyway, my message is the only copy of the lens that matters is the one you buy and you have to test it yourself. And we both agree on that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PVCC

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,426
285
UK
www.flickr.com
So 15 pages and all too predictable. Every time a competitor (especially with a Sony sensor) releases a new camera, it's the game changer that will transform the market, and Canon absolutely must respond right now, if it isn't already too late. And yet nothing happens, the sky doesn't fall, and relative sales don't change much in the medium to long term. I've been on this forum for a few years and nothing has altered in that regard. Perhaps one day it will, but this camera - which I don't doubt is very competent in many ways - is not the turning point for anything.
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
405
15
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
A "game changer" means you're missing shots that the other guy is getting and it's entirely due to equipment. When that actually happens you typically upgrade. That kind of a change has been rare in photographic history, despite the hype associated with every change.



If you looked it up you might realize you have completely failed to support your claim that Sony is 'drop kicking' Canon. Just because there is a feature Sony has that you really want does not mean that in the grand scheme of things, all technology considered, A is drop kicking B.



Yes, my opinion is that intelligent tracking features (like eye AF or animal AF) are most beneficial to newbies. They may reduce the workload of an experienced shooter, but they're not necessarily the difference between getting/missing the shot for experienced shooters.



But it is a game changer because you said so?



At the end of the day you have a lot of emotional rhetoric ('b*tch slaps', 'made this grave') and empty assertions ('worse bodies on the market'). And that's all.
Yikes. You're making some kind of bizarre side argument with lazy beliefs about what can be done with what, blah blah blah.

Look, Canon is getting MERCILESSY DDT'ED (jake the snake!!) by sony. If you dont believe that, tough wiggles.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,327
1,681
Look, Canon is getting MERCILESSY DDT'ED (jake the snake!!) by sony. If you dont believe that, tough wiggles.
You can believe whatever you want. The fact is that Sony’s market share has remained MERCILESSLY STAGNANT (actually it fell a bit last year).
 

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,228
2,234
I have been looking at some Sony forums for the response there. Some are thinking of jumping ship to the Panasonic S1R for its multi-shot mode that gives 187mpx! That gives 3x more resolution than a 1DXII or 2x more than a 5DSR. If a bird remained still for long enough, what fantastic resolution we'd get. So Sony, eat your heart out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

jayphotoworks

EOS 80D
Aug 11, 2016
182
48
You can believe whatever you want. The fact is that Sony’s market share has remained MERCILESSLY STAGNANT (actually it fell a bit last year).
Sony market share fell a bit last year but they've increased their camera sales value by quite a bit while Canon gained market share but their camera sales value dropped a fair bit. Canon does exceptionally well in the entry level space, and a fair part of their market share is driven by this. Sony, on the other hand is weak in this space, and at the same time have transitioned into premium FF products of late. Canon's market share in aggregate doesn't mean the success of any one product or line and I would be at least curious to see how well Sony does in perhaps just the FF space..

The only data I can find so far is that BCN reported in May that the A7III had 40+% market share while both the R and RP were at ~13% with a large drop in the RP's market share while the R was pretty flat. The A7III also popped up a few times on the BCN top 50 list a few times amidst entry level cameras costing much less. It would be interesting to see if Sony's recent efforts have had any impact on Canon's FF market share at all.

I would like to at least surmise that people buying into FF are more discerning where things like IBIS, 4K, readout and a number of other specs that might not be important to the mainstream entry level consumer would matter to the FF buyer and if Sony is making an impact.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,426
285
UK
www.flickr.com
I have been looking at some Sony forums for the response there. Some are thinking of jumping ship to the Panasonic S1R for its multi-shot mode that gives 187mpx! That gives 3x more resolution than a 1DXII or 2x more than a 5DSR. If a bird remained still for long enough, what fantastic resolution we'd get. So Sony, eat your heart out.
I do love the idea of that, for macro work for instance. Not enough to buy a new camera, mind you.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,025
369
I have been looking at some Sony forums for the response there. Some are thinking of jumping ship to the Panasonic S1R for its multi-shot mode that gives 187mpx! That gives 3x more resolution than a 1DXII or 2x more than a 5DSR. If a bird remained still for long enough, what fantastic resolution we'd get. So Sony, eat your heart out.
Not sure if this is a serious post or not, but a7r4 does 240MP pixel shift. One would think said Sony forum users would know that.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,228
2,234
Last edited:
Mar 14, 2012
2,274
157
So ‘success’ = not falling behind. Okidokee.

Can you really say that sensors increased profit, any more than say reducing personnel or manufacturing expenses?

Incidentally, two of the drivers of market share are brand loyalty/familiarity and popularity. I have Brand X so I’ll buy another one of them when the time comes. Particularly true when accessories (e.g. lenses) help lock in users. Plus if my friends use it, maybe I should too. Point being, barring a paradigm shift (Sony sensors aren’t, nor is removing the mirror from an ILC) or a manufacturer truly screwing things up, market share shifts slowly. Sony was (and remains) 3rd, well ahead of Fuji/Pentax/etc. They didn’t need great sensors to maintain that lead over Fuji/Pentax.

If a better sensor actually had the impact on the market that you seem to think it does, Sony would have gained some market share over time, as would Nikon for putting Sony sensors in their bodies. Instead, Sony stagnated and Nikon lost while Canon (without ‘great sensors’) gained.
If you go by total profit, then all major camera manufacturers have failed. And yes, I'd infer that Sony has increased its profit by product mix and not by reducing personnel and manufacturing expenses. Sony has launched many products in the last few years. Unlike Nikon, where the contraction continues in sales, profit and market share.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,274
157
No, back then Sony was selling an idea that mirrorless is "cool" because it's small. A7 was a fashion item.
Right, there are so many people that buy flawed cameras for 1-2k... but then Sony improved greatly with the R, R2, R3, R4 and their regular A7 and now A9 lines. I'm sure it's still for fashion now... right.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,274
157
I didn’t cherry pick; I responded to a post without quoting it all.

Yes, I suspect sony’s camera size has affected its sales over the past several years. Part of the market craves small. I am not among that market; I owned an a7rii for a while and didn’t like using it - I prefer 5D size. However the market is there and for some time Sony alone was selling small 135-format ILCs. I’ll also note Sony leadership listed the ability to be small as the primary advantage of their system. If it were sensor first, I do indeed think nikon would substantially outsell Sony even if there were a year-ish delay between good and slightly better. There are multiple brands now selling small 135-format ILCs, and I expect that will impact Sony camera sales more than if Canon or Nikon put an a9 sensor into a 1D or D6 form factor.

I also question the assertion that Sony withholds sensors from customers like nikon. I don’t really follow APSC, but as far as I know the last time Sony and Nikon both used the same full frame sensor, Nikon was first to market.
D800 was released before the A7R series. A7R announced October 2013 at 36.4 MP, A7R2 announced June 2015 at 42.4MP. D850 announced July 2017 at 45.7 MP. So Nikon was stuck in the 30 MP range for two years after Sony transitioned, and now Sony has transitioned to 61 MP. When will Nikon transition to 60+ MP? I'm guessing 2 years...
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,025
369
D800 was released before the A7R series. A7R announced October 2013 at 36.4 MP, A7R2 announced June 2015 at 42.4MP. D850 announced July 2017 at 45.7 MP. So Nikon was stuck in the 30 MP range for two years after Sony transitioned, and now Sony has transitioned to 61 MP. When will Nikon transition to 60+ MP? I'm guessing 2 years...
And you know that’s because Sony withheld something and not due to Nikon’s own timeline how*? I suspect the time between D810 and D850 allowed them to amortize development costs.

Why do they have datasheets for the IMX455 if they don’t intend to sell it? Wouldn’t withholding be counter to the reason Sony group spun the camera and semiconductor businesses into distinct corporations?

Sony has been selling size. Don’t take my word for it, take Kimio Maki’s (Senior General Manager of Sony’s Digital Imaging Business Group). I presume his market research and understanding of Sony customers is better than ours. When asked to summarize the benefit of a7 cameras versus DSLR:

KM: Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.

Not image sensors. Not mirrorless autofocus algorithms. Size. They’ve been selling small essentially alone. Now they have competitors.

*apologies if that isn’t what you meant. It is a sentiment I see often expressed directly.
 
Last edited:
Mar 14, 2012
2,274
157
And you know that’s because Sony withheld something and not due to Nikon’s own timeline how*? I suspect the time between D810 and D850 allowed them to amortize development costs.

Why do they have datasheets for the IMX455 if they don’t intend to sell it? Wouldn’t withholding be counter to the reason Sony group spun the camera and semiconductor businesses into distinct corporations?

Sony has been selling size. Don’t take my word for it, take Kimio Maki’s (Senior General Manager of Sony’s Digital Imaging Business Group). I presume his market research and understanding of Sony customers is better than ours. When asked to summarize the benefit of a7 cameras versus DSLR:

KM: Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.

Not image sensors. Not mirrorless autofocus algorithms. Size. They’ve been selling small essentially alone. Now they have competitors.

*apologies if that isn’t what you meant. It is a sentiment I see often expressed directly.
And you don't think Nikon would have asked for something than just a 45 MP sensor? Why is Sony the first out with a 60 MP sensor? How long does it take to develop product? Most likely more than a year. IMX455 was announced December 2018. You must think Sony only started developing the A7R4 after that, but I don't think so.

People aren't buying Sony just because of size anymore. It was their first advantage TOGETHER with sensors. GM lenses are not light. That is not why people buy Sony now.
And you know that’s because Sony withheld something and not due to Nikon’s own timeline how*? I suspect the time between D810 and D850 allowed them to amortize development costs.

Why do they have datasheets for the IMX455 if they don’t intend to sell it? Wouldn’t withholding be counter to the reason Sony group spun the camera and semiconductor businesses into distinct corporations?

Sony has been selling size. Don’t take my word for it, take Kimio Maki’s (Senior General Manager of Sony’s Digital Imaging Business Group). I presume his market research and understanding of Sony customers is better than ours. When asked to summarize the benefit of a7 cameras versus DSLR:

KM: Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.

Not image sensors. Not mirrorless autofocus algorithms. Size. They’ve been selling small essentially alone. Now they have competitors.

*apologies if that isn’t what you meant. It is a sentiment I see often expressed directly.
Do you know that Sony A7R4 is using IMX455 or is it using a higher version of the chip, IMX551 (from Sonyalpharumors, so take that as you will)? And the earliest pages I find about the IMX455 are from December 2018. So you're telling me, that Sony started developing the A7R4 after December 2018 and already has it as a product. Nikon signed on to buy IMX455 (per nikonrumors) in April 2019. Yup, real level playing field. And as far as Sony is concerned, Nikon isn't the the target competitor as it is starting to pass Nikon as the #2 manufacturer. The target is Canon, who still makes its own chips for its higher end cameras.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,025
369
And you don't think Nikon would have asked for something than just a 45 MP sensor?
I suspect they asked for that sensor specifically. They’re the only user. My best guess is that Nikon flowed Sony key design characteristics, including resolution. If Nikon wanted more at that time, they could have purchased from AMS (70MP full frame), but they evidently wanted something custom.

Why is Sony the first out with a 60 MP sensor?
In a full frame camera you mean? I dunno, maybe because Sony is aggressive and Canon has not opted to cut their 250MP APS-H sensor in a larger format.

How long does it take to develop product? Most likely more than a year.
My only frame of reference is military electronics. Since this is commercial, I’d guess probably 18 months, maybe less. Sensors more like 2 years minimum.

IMX455 was announced December 2018. You must think Sony only started developing the A7R4 after that, but I don't think so.
I must? No, I must not and I don’t.
People aren't buying Sony just because of size anymore. It was their first advantage TOGETHER with sensors. GM lenses are not light. That is not why people buy Sony now.
Of course they aren’t buying just because of size. Note the words used above. “Main reason” clearly does not exclude other reasons.

Do you know that Sony A7R4 is using IMX455 or is it using a higher version of the chip, IMX551 (from Sonyalpharumors, so take that as you will)?
I don’t think anyone knows that outside Sony. Guess: the cheaper one; they probably won’t put or be able to put sufficient processing in that form factor to make use of 551. I suspect if they package that in a camera at all, it will be in the Cinema lineup.
So you're telling me, that Sony started developing the A7R4 after December 2018 and already has it as a product.
I’m telling you nothing of the sort. What I’m saying is that I don’t believe Sony withholds sensors from Nikon.

And as far as Sony is concerned, Nikon isn't the the target competitor as it is starting to pass Nikon as the #2 manufacturer. The target is Canon, who still makes its own chips for its higher end cameras.
As far as Sony is concerned, or should be, Nikon is a great customer. It’s in their best interest that Nikon remains a viable vendor.
 
Last edited:

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
348
196
It is a serious post. The Sony forum dwellers are battling out. Apparently, this https://diglloyd.com/blog/2019/20190621_1710-PanasonicS1R-UltraHighResolutionImagery.html got them going, where he describes the Sony pixel shift as worthless in the field because of the checkerboard effect.
I wonder how that works as handhold. HDR mode seems work ok on canon handhold so why not this too :)?
would be cool if they could merge those two together.Shooting pixel shifts with different shutter speeds and somehow compute it all together.
 
Last edited: