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

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
97
23
Maybe you’re really unlucky, or maybe you’re ordering online and your UPS delivery person hates you?

Personally, I currently have 20 lenses including 10 L-series lenses ranging from 11mm to 600mm (plus two MkIII TCs not counted in the 20), and I’ve previously bought and subsequently sold another ~10 lenses, I think 6 were L-series (plus the two MkII TCs also not counted). Of all those lenses, I’ve had to exchange only one as a bad copy, and that one was the only 3rd party lens I’ve ever bought (a Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 for astro).

So from my perspective, Canon’s QC is excellent. Lest you think it’s a question of different standards or not knowing how to discern a poor copy, I’ll say that I evaluate lenses carefully and thoroughly. Among other things, I use an enhanced ISO 12233-type chart to evaluate new lenses (the same AI-QA77 chart that Bryan/TDP uses for his lens tests), along with Reikan FoCal. Along those lines, I wrote most of the EF-M lens reviews posted on TDP. Point being, when I say my lenses are performing well, it’s because I’ve tested them rigorously.

It’s unfortunate that you’ve had so many bad lenses and the hassle of exchanging them. I said maybe you’re really unlucky, but obviously it’s also possible that I’m just really lucky. Bryan has gotten bad copies of lenses...IIRC, he tested 4 copies of the 24-70/2.8 II whereas mine was great from the start, and after seeing my results with the EF-M 18-150, he ordered another copy and re-shot his ISO 12233 tests with much improved performance. I hope my experience is more typical than yours!

Hey!

Yes, I know Bryan tested 3-4 24-70 2.8L II...

That's was, in fact, one of the problematic lenses...
I talked to him many times about the problem.

I think you're very lucky if you got a very good copy at once! Especially because that lens has noticeable variations in performance (I didn't know this matter when I purchased my 24-70 L mark 1, and I got a good one! Never thought the mark 2 would be so complicated...)

BTW, mine were purchased/exchanged at BH and sent via 2 days air delivery.

I honestly don't think the FedEx/UPS guy had anything to do with my bad luck.

But, well... the REALLY BIG problem is when you're in a country where stores don't offer you the option to exchange a bad copy. Stores don't even recognize as "bad" copy unless a big problem in AF, stuck ring o something similar.

US/CA customers usually think that "everyone" has that chance to return, but sadly it's very far from reality if you live in other regions...

Cheers!
 

-pekr-

EOS R5
CR Pro
I took several.



Bye then!

What you said was that Canon has wasted a year. They have not. They've spent the year announcing and then releasing a ton of top of the line glass, because people like you would have bitched had the body come first and there were no lenses for it. If you'd like a Sony, go and buy one. My issue was only to do with the ludicrous level of threatening language you used, as if people from Canon read the comments here and might think "Oh no, RobbieHat is unhappy, quick chaps, let's release the megabeast!". Get over yourself. Better yet, go buy a Sony.

Drama, just stop being so dramatic :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PVCC

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
329
Sony wins on specs sites like dpreview want you to focus on. Canon was first to 50mp and held the high resolution title until a couple days ago (4 years). We know their hi rez R will be >61mp. Canon has DPAF and great color science. And while I don't think this is a sensor issue per se, Sony can't get above 100 Mbps with video.

Sony is not the clear winner unless you're dpreview and you hold your hands to your eyes to make sure you only see one or two metrics.

If Sony doesn't win on sensors, what was its success built on? Canon has better support, a wider product line, but Sony's main advantages are related to sensors. It's true that Canon got to 50MP first, but Sony pushed DR, face/eye detect, and higher video specs. The A9 is a serious bit of engineering.

The R is a good camera, but it was not a Sony beater. I bought one knowing exactly what the limitations are, and I'm hoping that Canon's next bodies will be truly "pro". I don't need the best video specs, but I do want AF that is capable of BIF (not because I bird, but because that type of AF can keep up with kids on the soccer field, which I do shoot a lot of... with a 5D4). As an overall camera, I still like the 5D4 better than the R, but I fully expect the pro R to make the 5D4 obsolete as it should.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
329
I'm not sure. Actually, 5D4 sensor is a 61 megapixel sensor, it just has pairs of pixels covered by the same microlens, which enables DPAF but lowers effective resolution.

Only if you want your pixels to be rectangular rather than square. It's too bad Canon didn't more with dual pixel RAW. Even "adding" the values from the two RAWs to make one RAW automatically would have boosted DR at the cost of more processing... which I think many of us would have taken advantage of.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,780
4,165
If Sony doesn't win on sensors, what was its success built on?
What success? Last year, Sony had about 14% of the ILC market share, and Canon had just under 50%. A decade ago, around the time Sony launched the Exmor sensor and was still heavily focused on DSLRs, Sony had about 14% of the ILC market share, and Canon had just under 45%. Personally, I don’t define maintaining the status quo as success, but I suppose it’s better than having your marketshare drop like a stone and bailing out of the market (can you say Vaio?).

Now, maybe you mean success in terms of Internet buzz created by paid influencers and the fanboys at DPR. In that case, you’re totally right that their ‘success’ is built on their sensors.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,308
3,846
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
If Sony doesn't win on sensors, what was its success built on?

I'll chime in as well.

The question reveals a typical gearhead perspective. Product "A" has the best "X" so therefore, people are buying Product "A" because of "X." But it doesn't work that way in the real world.

Companies market the whole product, not just one component and they market it based on emotion as much as on fact. Take a look at Sony's (or Canon's or Nikon's or Fuji's or anyone else's advertising.) They aren't selling a dry list of supposed features, they are selling the experience of owning and using the camera. Sony's success, to the extent they have been successful, has been built on convincing buyers that their's in the camera the buyer wants. Yes, that may include convincing a certain percentage of buyers that their sensors are superior, but it includes many other things as well. And, in the case of the sensors, marketing that they have a superior sensor appeals to buyers who want to feel good about owning a camera that they think has a superior sensor. In fact, just because they market their cameras as having superior sensors, that doesn't mean they really are superior in any practical or discernible fashion, it just means their marketing worked on you.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
329
I'll chime in as well.

The question reveals a typical gearhead perspective. Product "A" has the best "X" so therefore, people are buying Product "A" because of "X." But it doesn't work that way in the real world.

Companies market the whole product, not just one component and they market it based on emotion as much as on fact. Take a look at Sony's (or Canon's or Nikon's or Fuji's or anyone else's advertising.) They aren't selling a dry list of supposed features, they are selling the experience of owning and using the camera. Sony's success, to the extent they have been successful, has been built on convincing buyers that their's in the camera the buyer wants. Yes, that may include convincing a certain percentage of buyers that their sensors are superior, but it includes many other things as well. And, in the case of the sensors, marketing that they have a superior sensor appeals to buyers who want to feel good about owning a camera that they think has a superior sensor. In fact, just because they market their cameras as having superior sensors, that doesn't mean they really are superior in any practical or discernible fashion, it just means their marketing worked on you.

So the A9 doesn't have REAL advantages over a 5D4 or the R? No viewfinder blackout, higher frame rate, better AF than the R? Those aren't concrete and usable advantages? Sustained success is based on fulling what buyers want, and Sony is leveraging its advantages as any company should. Without Sony's advantages in sensor/processing tech, Sony would have been relegated to Pentax/Ricoh status and no jockeying with Nikon for #2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ashmadux

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,148
852
Davidson, NC
You work in landscape, astro and nature photography? Tell us your secrets, oh wise one!
Canon have hardly "thrown away" 2019. They've announced and released a ton of RF mount lenses in readiness for a new body, and we're only six months in. If you don't want to wait, Sony just announced a 60mpx 10fps camera for your nature/astro/landscape fast moving work. I guess you're the target market! Either way, I'm sure Canon will heed your demands and immediately release all their R&D for fear of you leaving.
Isn't there an adaptor so he can use his Canon lenses on his new Sony? So shouldn't that be a relatively painless transition, using the old lenses until they can be sold and replaced with the latest and greatest from Sony?
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
329
What success? Last year, Sony had about 14% of the ILC market share, and Canon had just under 50%. A decade ago, around the time Sony launched the Exmor sensor and was still heavily focused on DSLRs, Sony had about 14% of the ILC market share, and Canon had just under 45%. Personally, I don’t define maintaining the status quo as success, but I suppose it’s better than having your marketshare drop like a stone and bailing out of the market (can you say Vaio?).

Now, maybe you mean success in terms of Internet buzz created by paid influencers and the fanboys at DPR. In that case, you’re totally right that their ‘success’ is built on their sensors.

Increased profitability. Sony is in a better position now than was a decade ago. It's lens lineup is better and the ecosystem is better fleshed out and it is able to sustain future development (unlike Pentax). Without their sensors, do you think Sony would have been able to maintain the status quo. I don't think so -- it would have fallen behind Fuji into Ricoh/Pentax status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drama

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
329
Their strategy of diminutive cameras that much of the market likes? If sensors are the primary offset, why isn’t nikon dominating with Sony sensors?

Nikon has a whole host of other problems besides sensors. Unless you honestly believe Nikon would be better now if it didn't have Sony tech in its D8xx line? Imagine Nikon without the D800/D810/D850. You can't honestly believe that Nikon would be better off without those Sony sensors, or perhaps you do. Or perhaps you believe Sony would have been just as successful if it hadn't developed sensors for A7 and A9 series? Hmmm????
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,652
4,081
Irving, Texas
We've been holding our hats for many years, and each year it's the same... wait a little longer and Canon will catch up. And with every release Canon crimps their cameras to protect the top of the line. Oh, joy ... keep the faith... Canon is coming. But Sony isn't sitting on their hands. Canon should become a lens company, and release their lenses in sony, nikon, panasonic mounts.... we'd have the best of both worlds, great lenses on great cameras
I hear the sky is falling at 7pm tonight (GMT). Canon can't make cameras anymore. They are going into the spec sheet printing business instead.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dtaylor

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
If Sony doesn't win on sensors, what was its success built on?

Success at being third? Was that even an improvement over Minolta, the company they bought?

Sony really couldn't compete in DSLRs. They made a bit of a splash with APS-C mirrorless. Their main accomplishment was offering the only FF mirrorless bodies for a few years. The A7's and A9 are what they are known for. You hear 'Sony, Sony, Sony!' so much from certain sites and 'influencers' that it's difficult to imagine the EOS M series out sells Sony in the only market where mirrorless out sells DSLRs, Japan. Yet it does. The mocked, derided, limited lens catalog, 'old Canon sensor' M series kick's Sony's butt in the most important MILC market in the world.

Neuro nails it every time he points out that the things we think about and debate on this forum are not the things that concern the average consumer or probably even the average professional. "DR, DR, DR!!!" yet what percentage of photographs are exposed ETTR RAW, processed for maximum DR, then printed to 16x20 or larger? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? I can count on one hand the times a freaking 11 stop 7D failed to capture what I wanted in a single frame, yet thanks to DxO and dpreview sensors are now judged ONLY by DR and Sony is 'so far ahead.' Give me a break. The R is sharper/more detailed than the A73 despite having an AA filter (something even Tony Northrup pointed out). This impacts every image taken. But 'Sony is ahead' because of a DR difference that would be nearly impossible to exploit. DxO biases their score to this tiny DR difference while completely ignoring resolution and sharpness.

A number of Sony sensors, including the A9, have less DR than the 5D4/R but 'Sony is ahead.' The A72 had particularly poor high ISO for a FF sensor, well behind a 6D/6D2/RP, but 'Sony is ahead.' The first and second generation A7's suffered from off sensor flare, compressed RAW artifacts, and eating stars but 'Sony is ahead.' Both Canon and Fuji 4k footage grades far better than Sony's due to Sony's 100 Mbps limit but 'Sony is ahead.'

No, Sony is not ahead on every metric even when we look strictly at sensors.

The A9 is a serious bit of engineering.

It has a few very impressive specs but with Sony's typically poor ergonomics and poor weather sealing. It also has less DR than a 5D4 or 1DX II so clearly it's junk and Canon is ahead :LOL:

The R is a good camera, but it was not a Sony beater.

Its competition is the A73. It has better stills IQ. It produces video that grades better but is worse at high ISO (due to the crop factor; stills high ISO is on par). Despite the fact that we Canon users complain a bit about the ergonomics, it has better ergonomics than the A73 (showing how spoiled Canon DSLR users really are by Canon ergonomics). It's better weather sealed. It has better/worse AF depending on the situation. It lacks some of the cool features of the A73 (like IBIS).

And at the end of the day, the differences are not going to matter in the hands of competent photographers / videographers. The guy who really wants IBIS for adapting old glass, or maybe high ISO 4k footage, is going to get the Sony. The guy who wants weather sealing and a touchscreen is going to get the R. Some other guy will decide based on what's on sale that week.

Small differences in select sensor metrics don't matter nearly as much as you imagine.
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
Nikon has a whole host of other problems besides sensors. Unless you honestly believe Nikon would be better now if it didn't have Sony tech in its D8xx line? Imagine Nikon without the D800/D810/D850. You can't honestly believe that Nikon would be better off without those Sony sensors, or perhaps you do. Or perhaps you believe Sony would have been just as successful if it hadn't developed sensors for A7 and A9 series? Hmmm????
That’s not what I meant at all.

No, I don’t think nikon would necessarily be better off without Sony sensors and didn’t imply anything of the sort.

If Sony “wins” due to sensors (the post I replied to), then Nikon should dominate Sony camera sales since the use Sony sensors in better cameras with a more fleshed out system. They don’t, ergo an image sensor is not the primary offset (aka differentiator) in a camera purchase decision.
 
Last edited:

Stereodude

EOS 90D
Jul 8, 2019
149
130
Let’s look at my initial response, shall we?
If you insist.

The membership comprises a self-selected group of ~16,000 people interested in rumors about Canon. There were nearly 11,000,000 ILCs sold last year alone. Pick up any textbook on population sampling. <0.15% cannot be representative if that small a fraction is self-selected. Verdict: fact, not opinion.
Verdict: Strawman. I didn't say the membership here was representative of anything.

Read back forum posts, the comments are there. Check market share data for the past decade, Canon has gained slightly. Verdict: fact, not opinion.
Verdict: Strawman. I didn't say that Canon had lost market share.

Clearly speculative, stated as such.
Yes, when taken literally, ignoring the sarcasm you wrote it with, or the way with which you present and defend it.

The only opinion I stated (which was phrased as ‘should be’ was that someone with a modicum of intelligence could grasp simple, verifiable facts. Facts which you’re calling opinions, suggesting you can’t grasp them.
I didn't call the strawmen ancillary talking points that you used as the backing and foundation of your "opinion" that Canon can't lose an opinion. Regardless of the disclaimer, you present and defend your opinion that Canon can't lose as a fact. You climb all over anyone who holds a different opinion from yourself and attempt to beat them into submission with strawmen as if they has posted 2+2=5 because you hold a different opinion. An opinion which you defend with the fervor of a zealot's most foundational belief. When challenged and called out you fall back on the highly disingenuous disclaimer of, "Well, I said it was speculative not a fact". When you present and defend it like an opinion, I'll respond to it as such.

Good day...
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,670
11,623
... The R is sharper/more detailed than the A73 despite having an AA filter (something even Tony Northrup pointed out). ...
As soon as Tony Northrup is mentioned, my BS detector begins to scream. So I checked this "fact" with the people who actually measure the sharpness of sensors https://www.optyczne.pl/413.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R_Rozdzielczość.html
And sure enough, proper measurement contradicts eyeballing and hand waving.
185734
 
  • Love
Reactions: PVCC

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
477
66
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
And inability to supply spare parts for a three years old (only) high cost large screen TVs.
No stock, no support. The tech is good until it fails and when it fails you better be prepared to fork out mega dollars for a replacement “toy”.
Just great.


this....this is the only reason i woudl hesistate to buy a sony. Nut for minimal budgets where support is een more crucial
Success at being third? Was that even an improvement over Minolta, the company they bought?

Sony really couldn't compete in DSLRs. They made a bit of a splash with APS-C mirrorless. Their main accomplishment was offering the only FF mirrorless bodies for a few years. The A7's and A9 are what they are known for. You hear 'Sony, Sony, Sony!' so much from certain sites and 'influencers' that it's difficult to imagine the EOS M series out sells Sony in the only market where mirrorless out sells DSLRs, Japan. Yet it does. The mocked, derided, limited lens catalog, 'old Canon sensor' M series kick's Sony's butt in the most important MILC market in the world.

Neuro nails it every time he points out that the things we think about and debate on this forum are not the things that concern the average consumer or probably even the average professional. "DR, DR, DR!!!" yet what percentage of photographs are exposed ETTR RAW, processed for maximum DR, then printed to 16x20 or larger? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? I can count on one hand the times a freaking 11 stop 7D failed to capture what I wanted in a single frame, yet thanks to DxO and dpreview sensors are now judged ONLY by DR and Sony is 'so far ahead.' Give me a break. The R is sharper/more detailed than the A73 despite having an AA filter (something even Tony Northrup pointed out). This impacts every image taken. But 'Sony is ahead' because of a DR difference that would be nearly impossible to exploit. DxO biases their score to this tiny DR difference while completely ignoring resolution and sharpness.

A number of Sony sensors, including the A9, have less DR than the 5D4/R but 'Sony is ahead.' The A72 had particularly poor high ISO for a FF sensor, well behind a 6D/6D2/RP, but 'Sony is ahead.' The first and second generation A7's suffered from off sensor flare, compressed RAW artifacts, and eating stars but 'Sony is ahead.' Both Canon and Fuji 4k footage grades far better than Sony's due to Sony's 100 Mbps limit but 'Sony is ahead.'

No, Sony is not ahead on every metric even when we look strictly at sensors.



It has a few very impressive specs but with Sony's typically poor ergonomics and poor weather sealing. It also has less DR than a 5D4 or 1DX II so clearly it's junk and Canon is ahead :LOL:



Its competition is the A73. It has better stills IQ. It produces video that grades better but is worse at high ISO (due to the crop factor; stills high ISO is on par). Despite the fact that we Canon users complain a bit about the ergonomics, it has better ergonomics than the A73 (showing how spoiled Canon DSLR users really are by Canon ergonomics). It's better weather sealed. It has better/worse AF depending on the situation. It lacks some of the cool features of the A73 (like IBIS).

And at the end of the day, the differences are not going to matter in the hands of competent photographers / videographers. The guy who really wants IBIS for adapting old glass, or maybe high ISO 4k footage, is going to get the Sony. The guy who wants weather sealing and a touchscreen is going to get the R. Some other guy will decide based on what's on sale that week.

Small differences in select sensor metrics don't matter nearly as much as you imagine.


What is this 'average consumer nonsense? Not a single person in here can say what canon's average consumer actually is.
Just like in other industries, there are professional, semi pros, and amateurs...and there are "whales"- those people that spend a ton on gear regardless of their status.

Consumers - pro or not- on forums like these are OBVIOUSLY more well informed than most. And it is OBVIOUS that canon has been dragging their feet for years. I dont get the point of "but they still have profits" responses, because...that isn't even what we are discussing here.

The main points are that Canon's getting drop-kicked by Sony. If you cant find in your tech heart to believe it, then thou must be quite foolish. Everyone can see it, and if you cant then you're the problem. Canons sensor tech is NOT as good as Sony. Spin it however you want, you cant make that untrue. Every time canon brings out a camera, we sit back and see that's still the same (lame sensor tech) and whats missing (ALWAYS something critical). Its been this way for YEARS, so come on, give us all a break. Sony's AF is a game changer. AF is critical to cameras and is better than canon by far.

The problem is I want those features on CANON BODIES. But Canon wont give them to us. At this point the reasons dont matter - its embarrassing and worrisome to us, the customers. If my 5d3 ever goes belly up, it would be great to have a modern mirror-less that is not all kinds of 'meh'. Market share...who cares.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
As soon as Tony Northrup is mentioned, my BS detector begins to scream.

He had images to back up his claim.

So I checked this "fact" with the people who actually measure the sharpness of sensors

They are not 'the people' who test anything. They're just another site on the web. Their data must stand or fall on its own, and not on any claim to authority made by them, or by you on their behalf.

And it falls. They say they tested three lenses multiple times and chose 'the highest results' but they do not state which lens produced the highest results. I don't know what lens those data points are from, or if they're even all from one lens!

More importantly, they don't tell you what lenses were used on the other cameras. We know they're not adapting the two Canon lenses to the K-1, nor the RF lens to anything. So they weren't using the same lens on each body. How were the other cameras tested? What lenses used, and which ones produced 'the highest results'? Where does each square on the graph come from? I don't know and neither do you. Which means the graph is useless.

I can post sample images that agree with Tony's claim, but you'll hand wave them as "eyeballing." Problem is you can shop the web for a graph proving anything you want, including that men never landed on the moon and that the Earth is flat. Between a 'guess which lens produced this data point' graph and my lying eyes, I'll trust my lying eyes. Heck, I'll trust Tony's lying eyes over sharpness graph bingo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ozturert

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
329
That’s not what I meant at all.

No, I don’t think nikon would necessarily be better off without Sony sensors and didn’t imply anything of the sort.

If Sony “wins” due to sensors (the post I replied to), then Nikon should dominate Sony camera sales since the use Sony sensors in better cameras with a more fleshed out system. They don’t, ergo an image sensor is not the primary offset (aka differentiator) in a camera purchase decision.

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.

If Sony doesn't win on sensors, what was its success built on? Canon has better support, a wider product line, but Sony's main advantages are related to sensors. It's true that Canon got to 50MP first, but Sony pushed DR, face/eye detect, and higher video specs. The A9 is a serious bit of engineering.

The R is a good camera, but it was not a Sony beater. I bought one knowing exactly what the limitations are, and I'm hoping that Canon's next bodies will be truly "pro". I don't need the best video specs, but I do want AF that is capable of BIF (not because I bird, but because that type of AF can keep up with kids on the soccer field, which I do shoot a lot of... with a 5D4). As an overall camera, I still like the 5D4 better than the R, but I fully expect the pro R to make the 5D4 obsolete as it should.