Upgrade from Canon 5D Mark IV to A7R IV ?

Croasdail wrote in post #18914858
Yep... not to hard to find. And this works fine for smaller prints. But look at the test Tony Northrop did with 240 mpx. The detail blown up was pretty dang amazing. Much more so than I would imagine. The small camera in his shot in the background, you could read the dials and see the knurling on the nobs just as if you shot the camera alone at close range. Not a huge Tony fan... but his test was pretty convincing.

This is a nice image.... but your crop shows how much more detail the 240 mpx could deliver. Using his example, the cut out would be pixelated at all, and you would be able to see roof detail. Not that important for smaller shots... but larger ones (which most of us would never create in reality).... I was impressed. Don't need it myself... but was impressed none the less. I'm sticking with my old stuff for now.

https://youtu.be/3526K​GRuVHo

Nice shot though....

Sure, this was just a handful of images using a Rokinon 12mm lens... Whatever pixelation you see has nothing to do with the process, it is the ISO performance of the M50 coupled with a misty foggy morning, along with the lens used. Imagine if I would use one of my Ls and taken a larger array. This works just fine and is the original way to create large resolution prints for those that didn't shoot with medium format or high resolution cameras.

From the Sony Spec Sheet

IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [3:2]
35 mm full frame L: 9504 x 6336 (60 M), M: 6240 x 4160 (26 M), S: 4752 x 3168 (15M)
APS-C L: 6240 x 4160 (26 M), M: 4752 x 3168 (15M), S: 3120 x 2080 (6.5 M)

IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [4:3]
35 mm full frame L: 8448 x 6336 (54 M), M: 5552 x 4160 (23 M), S: 4224 x 3168 (13M)
APS-C L: 5552 x 4160 (23 M), M: 4224 x 3168 (13 M), S: 2768 x 2080 (5.8 M)

14BIT RAW
Yes

UNCOMPRESSED RAW
Yes


https://www.sony.com …/ilce-7rm4/specifications

Again, take a good camera with good ISO and put a good lens on it, and this technique, of which I simply showed an example of, works just fine. The pixel shift just isn't critical for many of us I am sure, and feels gimmicky like Canon's dual pixel for sharpness tweaking, nobody really uses it. Time will tell on how many and when this will be used, and for me, simply isn't a factor for a purchase. Much more important things like animal eye AF, etc.

I am not sure what you are arguing for or against here, as you are all over the place. I am not against the A7r4, and in fact am interested in Sony, so please consider that as every time I bring something up. I continue to remain objective on all the options open to me, and am not locked into a single manufacturer. However, I personally am not interested at all in the A73r or A73 at this point. The only camera that has my attention in Sony's lineup is the A9, but am curious about the A74r as well just because it is new.

I keep watching out for a $2500 or less for an A9, every once in a while I see one that gets close.

I missed this deal. https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18851418

Croasdail wrote in post #18914872
From the Sony Spec Sheet

IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [3:2]
35 mm full frame L: 9504 x 6336 (60 M), M: 6240 x 4160 (26 M), S: 4752 x 3168 (15M)
APS-C L: 6240 x 4160 (26 M), M: 4752 x 3168 (15M), S: 3120 x 2080 (6.5 M)

IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [4:3]
35 mm full frame L: 8448 x 6336 (54 M), M: 5552 x 4160 (23 M), S: 4224 x 3168 (13M)
APS-C L: 5552 x 4160 (23 M), M: 4224 x 3168 (13 M), S: 2768 x 2080 (5.8 M)

14BIT RAW
Yes

UNCOMPRESSED RAW
Yes


https://www.sony.com …/ilce-7rm4/specifications

My a73 only has one setting for compressed raw.

I thought that one could shoot at lower resolutions only in compressed raw, there isn't a way to shoot lower resolutions in uncompressed raw, is that the case?

AlanU wrote in post #18914875
My a73 only has one setting for compressed raw.

it should have uncompressed raw, it's in another menu item "Raw File type" rather than file type. I wouldnt recommend it, cuts your buffer in half, enormous in size, and IQ not really noticeable.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18914877
I thought that one could shoot at lower resolutions only in compressed raw, there isn't a way to shoot lower resolutions in uncompressed raw, is that the case?

only way to lower resolution is through JPEG. many variations with that.

mdvaden wrote in post #18914882

lol, it's right there in the spec sheet, and exists on every Sony camera I've owned

it's sort of like Canon in a way, if you want 4K, shoot crop mode. With sony, if you want to RETAIN raw, and save size, shoot crop mode

cuts size right in half.

EDIT: you can also do this in post as well, using a dng converter, adobe has a free offering. I do this on occasion.

Croasdail wrote in post #18914872
From the Sony Spec Sheet

IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [3:2]
35 mm full frame L: 9504 x 6336 (60 M), M: 6240 x 4160 (26 M), S: 4752 x 3168 (15M)
APS-C L: 6240 x 4160 (26 M), M: 4752 x 3168 (15M), S: 3120 x 2080 (6.5 M)

IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [4:3]
35 mm full frame L: 8448 x 6336 (54 M), M: 5552 x 4160 (23 M), S: 4224 x 3168 (13M)
APS-C L: 5552 x 4160 (23 M), M: 4224 x 3168 (13 M), S: 2768 x 2080 (5.8 M)

14BIT RAW
Yes

UNCOMPRESSED RAW
Yes


https://www.sony.com …/ilce-7rm4/specifications

I cannot explain why Sony includes the following Note in the specs for A6300 but does not include it for A9/A7RIII etc.

ILCE-6300

Image size when [Aspect Ratio] is 3:2
L: 24M
6000×4000 pixels
M: 12M
4240×2832 pixels
S: 6.0M
3008×2000 pixels

Image size when [Aspect Ratio] is 16:9
L: 20M
6000×3376 pixels
M: 10M
4240×2400 pixels
S: 5.1M
3008×1688 pixels

Note:
When [Quality] is set to [RAW] or [RAW & JPEG], the image size for RAW images corresponds to [L]

https://helpguide.sony​.net …ontents/TP00008​23199.html

I have out of hand dismissed shooting JPG for years. And most of my experience with older files has proven out that over time, RAW files just have better flexibility over time. THAT SAID.... I was playing with my A7RII the other day and selected RAQ and JPEG.... and was blown away by the quality of the JPEGs. And they were still quit workable. My oldest is starting his final year of high school ball tonight. Horrible lighting. But what the heck, going to see what the Sony can do under those horrendous conditions.

One thing I like about the JPEG option is buffer size pretty much stops being an issue. So we shall see.

Croasdail wrote in post #18915064
I have out of hand dismissed shooting JPG for years. And most of my experience with older files has proven out that over time, RAW files just have better flexibility over time. THAT SAID.... I was playing with my A7RII the other day and selected RAQ and JPEG.... and was blown away by the quality of the JPEGs. And they were still quit workable. My oldest is starting his final year of high school ball tonight. Horrible lighting. But what the heck, going to see what the Sony can do under those horrendous conditions.

One thing I like about the JPEG option is buffer size pretty much stops being an issue. So we shall see.

LOL, the R2 has a HORRIBLE buffer. Newer cams have huge buffers in comparison, like 80-90 shot vs 14? Nearly limitless in Jpeg.

Croasdail wrote in post #18915064
I have out of hand dismissed shooting JPG for years. And most of my experience with older files has proven out that over time, RAW files just have better flexibility over time. THAT SAID.... I was playing with my A7RII the other day and selected RAQ and JPEG.... and was blown away by the quality of the JPEGs. And they were still quit workable. My oldest is starting his final year of high school ball tonight. Horrible lighting. But what the heck, going to see what the Sony can do under those horrendous conditions.

One thing I like about the JPEG option is buffer size pretty much stops being an issue. So we shall see.

Canon updated their JPG engine some years back. It used to be terrible. Today, there is a very tiny gap between the raw file and the resulting JPG from either the camera or through DPP. I have spent hours developing ISO NR actions over the years, and with the 5D4 for example, it is more and more difficult to eek out more IQ from the raw, the JPG is that good.

I now only shoot high ISO (up to 32000) at games with the 5D4 through JPG and just post process those JPG for post game use. No more do I have to run all raw files through DPP, mass update them, mass convert them, then run a NR action in Photoshop in bulk, before I can get in and look at each image. I just do the last step only.

ISO 25600 from JPG out of camera with some cleanup.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18914873
Again, take a good camera with good ISO and put a good lens on it, and this technique, of which I simply showed an example of, works just fine. The pixel shift just isn't critical for many of us I am sure, and feels gimmicky like Canon's dual pixel for sharpness tweaking, nobody really uses it. Time will tell on how many and when this will be used, and for me, simply isn't a factor for a purchase. Much more important things like animal eye AF, etc.

I am not sure what you are arguing for or against here, as you are all over the place. I am not against the A7r4, and in fact am interested in Sony, so please consider that as every time I bring something up. I continue to remain objective on all the options open to me, and am not locked into a single manufacturer. However, I personally am not interested at all in the A73r or A73 at this point. The only camera that has my attention in Sony's lineup is the A9, but am curious about the A74r as well just because it is new.

I keep watching out for a $2500 or less for an A9, every once in a while I see one that gets close.

I missed this deal. https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18851418

I seem to always wish I could get US prices. On sale I was going to walk out with a new A9 for "only" $5600 CDN!!!! Manager/friend wouldn't let me buy it LOL!! He told me to go to the demo today.

I'm gonna test the A7r4 and see how it plays. It's just so appealing to have A9 Auto focus with high res capabilities. I think my 3yrs old skylake i7 4.0ghz system will still get bogged down with 61MP.

I do like my 5dmk4!! But having Sony eye AF locking the eyes makes the 5dmk4 feel old. Eye af isn't perfect as having 2-3 people, the system can lock on any of them if they are close in proximity. In some cases turning eye AF "off" you can target an individual and NOT have the camera decide for you. This is where the photog must determine what features works for a particular situation. At that point the 5dmk4 will do pretty much what a Sony A9 would do. Performance wise I think the A9 beats the 5dmk4 to a point.

I'm still wanting to test the A9 as dynamic range and high iso does not match my A73.

I'm still waiting to see how things go with the A7r4.

Thanks guys for the interesting views and and discussion. Its all positive and while asking the questions just heard Canon releasing the new Eye AF in EOS R line which seems a major progress on Canon side.

I love the Canon body, screen and menu system etc. where as we all know Sony did not improve those much :S

https://www.youtube.co​m …continue=38&v=u​uQiqd-a32g

What you take on the this new firmware upgrade on Canon side ?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18914700
I fail to see why buying an A73R is better than renting an A74R with what you listed?

So once again, why not spend $160 for a week with the a74r just to see what it is all about before committing to any kind of shift over to the a73r or a74r? I still haven't really seen a reason for the "no" you replied with on my original reply.

I am certain any reasonably intelligent person could figure out the Sony camera settings and controls within 24-48 hours, and be able to produce great shots and process them within another 24-48 hours, and the remaining time to play with all the different modes before having to send it back on the 7th day.

Because when you move over from one to the other for just a few days, you will just be frustrated, you will not have time to learn and appreciate how you do things differently with an EVF versus DSLR. In some ways the differences are minor.... but mastering those takes time. At least for me it did. Maybe you all can catch all the nuances in a few days... I didn't. Little things, like having a whole frame to focus on, and trusting the camera to track outside of the smaller cluster the 5D gave you.

ALL THAT SAID..... I would wait to see what Canon comes up with. I shoot both Sony and Canon, I like Sony better right now, but I can't imagine Canon is going to let this stay the way it is. The R is a fine camera for non-action shooting. I would even consider if you must upgrade, going there first. Swapping out your glass is going to be expensive.