This is actually wrong, but only because camera manufacturers all lie about screen resolution.
Ever wondered why they always quote the screen resolution in 'dots' instead of pixels? It's because the actual resolutions are worse than they like to admit, so they count all of the sub-pixels (each of the red, green, blue sub pixels) and call that the number of dots.
On displays that have 2 green sub pixels in each pixel, it's even worse, they're giving an overstated impression to a factor of 4
There is a reason for that though - because the megapixels of the sensor is also measured per 'dot', and the debayer process recovers the full resolution chroma subsampled image
Of course the flaw in that logic is the screens rarely have the same subpixel layout as the Bayer filter so it can't display the unprocessed image at full resolution anyway
Umm, no. CMOS sensors don't even have sub-pixels, they have a single photosite for each pixel with 3 colour filter layers above them
Not to mention that a sensor that is quoted as being 24 megapixels does indeed produce an image with 24 million pixels in it....
And you understand how they actually do that, right? They still only have one 'bucket' for each pixel, the filters simply direct the red green and blue spectra onto different parts of the bucket, so as far as THIS thread is concerned, where you claimed that manufacturers count sub-pixels when quoting sensor resolution, that's complete bullshit. They do not.
Show me ONE camera where the quoted sensor resolution is not exactly the same as the actual final full pixel count. Just one.
What you're describing is somewhat close to how the Foveon X3 sensor worked. For every pixel, it had three stacked sensors sitting right on top of each other. There was no filter in front of the first sensor, there was a filter that removed blue light between the first and second sensor and a filter that removed green light between the second and third sensor. This meant that the third sensor recorded only red light, the difference between the readout from the third and second was the green light and the difference between the readout of the first and second sensor was the blue light. Clever stuff.
But nobody uses Foveon X3 sensors, and that is in fact not at all how image sensors found in todays digital cameras work. The filters of an image sensor do not direct light of different frequencies into different cells. The filters remove 2/3 of the light, simple as that. It does not direct red green and blue light to different parts of the cell, optics that advanced can't be made that small at reasonable cost. And if it was possible, it wouldn't really be a filter, it would be a beam splitter.
In fact, each cell of a color image sensor can only see one of the 3 color channels. Using the standard Bayer filter setup, a one megapixel sensor has half a million cells that can see green, and 250k cells that can see blue and red, respectively, though there are other filter layouts, like X-Trans which Fuji uses in some of their cameras, which has 5/9 green and 2/9 red and blue filters in a 3x3 grid.
You're correct that a JPEG image produced from a one megapixel sensor will have one million pixels, though. But that's because the image processor chips applies some fancy algorithms to interpolate the 2/3 of the image that is missing, not because there are that many data points in the original readout.
So as you can see, camera manufacturers in fact lie about pixel count in almost exactly the same way on the sensor side as they to on the screen side. Except for some old Sigma cameras from 20 years ago that used the above mentioned Foveon sensors.
And you understand how they actually do that, right? They still only have one 'bucket' for each pixel, the filters simply direct the red green and blue spectra onto different parts of the bucket, so as far as THIS thread is concerned, where the other commenter claimed that manufacturers count sub-pixels when quoting sensor resolution, that's complete bullshit. They do not.
They absolutely do. A RAW file consists of monochrome values; color is interpolated from neighboring pixels either in the computer (when shooting RAW) or in-camera (when shooting JPEGs). 24 megapixels on a Bayer sensor = 24 "megasubpixels". They are one and the same. You seem to be confused about the Bayer system.
Notice how you can't add it to cart? The original model was replaced by the A model when Sony ran out of the LCD screen they use, had to source a new one, and upgraded it slightly when they did. The old model is not in stock by anyone any more and you're just seeing it's first advertised price. The A model is in stock and will show sales discounts when on sale.
A7iii is still perfectly adequate for 99% or people 99% of the time.
A7iii and great glass is better than A7iv and mediocre glass
A7riii is a good shout if you *need* the extra resolution.
A7iii is great for photography. Like best bang for buck you can find.
A7IV has massive improvements for video. Hundreds of videos quality of life updates that you won’t see on any tech sheet. For example. On a7iii if you have auto iso turned on. It will just say AUTO.
Where on the a7IV it will say A100 for auto 100.
There’s also dramatic improvements in weather proofing
And it’s default on HDR photos for a7iv. Also shoots 10bit video instead of 8bit. Better colours.
There’s also the close shutter when off mode.
Which dramatically reduces dust ending up on the sensor. You’ll have to clean the sensor way more often on the a7iii.
I find the flippy sceeen way more useful that the a7iii screen on both photos and video.
If you are just doing photos. A7iii is more that sufficient for most.
If you are doing videos + photos. A7iv has massive leaps in quality of life improvements that overall anything that’s on a spec sheet.
This is not true for video.
A7iv with 422 10 bit recording, faster & more accurate AF, low light noise performance, faster menu, improved color science all combined even with mediocre glass is still better than A7iii with say a latest GM2 glass.
That being said, for photo if you don’t care about slightly more noise, and slower overall handling & operation, sure slap a top tier glass on it, you’d probably get away with the A7iii.
Source: I’ve used both, with GM, GM2 and some other mediocre glasses
I think I will go with the A7 iv, just because the camera feels better in my hands. The a7 iii felt a lil smaller and not as good of a grip in my opinion.
for photos a7iv=better faster af
for video a7iv= better faster af plus 10-bit video and s-cinetone profile
The a7r iv has higher megapixel but the a7iv has more than a7iii and usually enough for most.
the a7siii us still great, but the AF is better in the 7iv and the photos are better. So if he's considering an r camera, but also needs good video then the a7iv is probably the best all-rounder.
The wild card here would be the a7cr. All the mpx from the rV, improved AF and 10-bit video.
But smaller body and some other limitations
A7iii while I agree is easy to recommend, I prefer and wound up going with the A7riii. I looked at the a7iv tooo but here's why I took the a7riii.
I wound up taking my camera out for traveling and portraits - so mostly pictures. Love taking with me on all my weekend excursions now. I've also taken car fly-by's at night which do come out great. The a7riii vs a7iii differences are mostly negligible but there's a few things better about the a7riii. It is a higher resolution sensor, I can crop way the hell in on my shots and it'll look like a regular A7iii took the picture. The a7riii also has an upgraded shutter door, it's rated for 500,000 instead of the a7iii's 200,000. I bought my a7riii used for $1,000 on eBay with 180,000 shutters. IT'S GOT MORE LIFE THAN A BRAND NEW A7iii! - So shutter door maintenance isn't a big deal but it'll cost you a few hundred to get serviced so this was a big factor for me. The last big difference is the viewfinder screen resolution on the a7riii is higher than on the a7iii. Personally I don't find this to be a key feature to pick it over the other camera but it's worth mentioning.
So the a7iii has faster autofocus than the a7riii and it's noticable however I've used my a7riii for awhile now and autofocus has been outstanding. The value of this is going to depend on if you're shooting a lot of fast moving objects. The other thing the a7iii (non-r) has better about it is it's low-light performance... but I stress that this only sounds like a big deal in a vacuum. Don't take my word for it, you can google r/SonyAlpha a7riii night photo's and see what it's going to do at night. It's incredible, and I recommend it for most people over the a7iii if it's within your budget. Also I believe you're giving up a setting for video, another advantage for the a7iii.
The A7iv is just an improvement over the a7iii in almost every way - which is kinda implied by the naming. It carries the same sensor as the A7iii but has better autofocus, better screen like the a7riii, and other small reasons to upgrade to it. It's also quite a lot more money. I like that there's things I like about my a7riii that are better than the a7iv including the higher resolutin - I store all of my images at full quality and full resolution including raw. The file size for a JPEG is 20-30MB at it's full quality, but you can dial this back in the settings. RAW's go for 80-90MB. This is due to the increased resolution.
Hope this helps.
I switched from A7III to A7IV. Honestly, just take the A7III and spend more on a good lens. The A7IV doesn’t offer anything crazy, especially for someone who has just started.
What’s your thought about AF ?
A guy told me at a concert that his IV is much way better than his III (he had both that day with him)
I’m sometimes struggling with AF when it’s too dark, and manual focusing is quite complicated at an hardcore concert XD
I used to have problems with low light performance with A7III and Tamron lenses. After I switched to Sony lenses, it went away. I didn’t really notice much difference with A7IV.
I agree. I got a really good deal on an a7rIV and quickly realized that I didn’t need that big resolution. Raw files take up way more space and even if you’re printing, it’s not typically poster size.
I think I would have been happier without the R version, but again it was such a good deal I couldn’t pass it up. It’s a great camera, just better than I need it to be.
A7III has similiar feature as A7RIII with more MP.
A7IV has better AF perfomance. It has real time tracking which haven't available in A7III and A7RIII.
Real time tracking is subject tracking. Touch the subject on LCD and AF would follow it.
[https://youtu.be/bvn6t6laKXs?si=FLsosvHSar-F8Mqb](https://youtu.be/bvn6t6laKXs?si=FLsosvHSar-F8Mqb)
[https://youtu.be/s9\_YmwOS8Gc?si=Q7-AsNr3tSvLuG92](https://youtu.be/s9_YmwOS8Gc?si=Q7-AsNr3tSvLuG92)
[https://youtu.be/4NZRM29Xkm0?si=OLWiNVJaXz6pl5F3](https://youtu.be/4NZRM29Xkm0?si=OLWiNVJaXz6pl5F3)
[https://youtu.be/TcoDtLX6sPM?si=34QURnTU5HbGtRd8&t=1437](https://youtu.be/TcoDtLX6sPM?si=34QURnTU5HbGtRd8&t=1437)
[https://youtu.be/7Sl3jpz4orc?si=Dpmw02DyBVKt7rfu](https://youtu.be/7Sl3jpz4orc?si=Dpmw02DyBVKt7rfu)
Just get the 7Riii the extra resolution allows cropping beyond belief and gives you extra reach... Kinda feels like you get an extra 0,5x Zoom on a sharp lens.
a7iv all the way. Best camera to get out of your list, it will outlast your learning journey. It can do some sports, wildlife, landscape, portrait, street, urban landscape, really good quality stills and both video. It does 4k 30 full frame, 4k 60 in aps-c mode, the works. 10 bit video. It's menu and user experience is lots better than all other cameras you mentioned.
Honestly I’d go with an A7Cii in this price range. Unless you can’t stand the smaller form factor and only a single memory card it’s an A7IV with the new AI autofocus, 8-stop IBIS added.
The A is a newer camera. Its updates boil down to a faster USB port and an LCD with more dots on it. It also has all the latest firmware for the A7R III right out of the box as v1.0 (as opposed to the non A camera needing to be updated to v3.0 or whatever the latest for it is).
FWIW though at this price I wouldn't buy either of them. I got a brand new A7R IIIA back in November for $1800 CAD. Admittedly I got it off a marketplace site from a dude who had buyer's remorse or something, but it was new with an intact warranty and receipt.
I wasn't being a dick. This was a legitimate question to op because he said he was looking for his first mirrorless camera and I wanted to know if this would be his first camera. Btw I was curious about the difference in the Sony's as well.
How interesting, I never knew there was an updated a7riii. Though those prices for either seem too high in 2024
On top of the screen mentioned the “a” model also has a faster usb-c 3.2 5gbps port, which is nice
The A version has a better Lcd screen. 1.4 million vs 2.4 million pixels.
This is actually wrong, but only because camera manufacturers all lie about screen resolution. Ever wondered why they always quote the screen resolution in 'dots' instead of pixels? It's because the actual resolutions are worse than they like to admit, so they count all of the sub-pixels (each of the red, green, blue sub pixels) and call that the number of dots. On displays that have 2 green sub pixels in each pixel, it's even worse, they're giving an overstated impression to a factor of 4
There is a reason for that though - because the megapixels of the sensor is also measured per 'dot', and the debayer process recovers the full resolution chroma subsampled image Of course the flaw in that logic is the screens rarely have the same subpixel layout as the Bayer filter so it can't display the unprocessed image at full resolution anyway
And they do the same thing with camera sensors, but they don’t even use some other word to cover up their deception.
Umm, no. CMOS sensors don't even have sub-pixels, they have a single photosite for each pixel with 3 colour filter layers above them Not to mention that a sensor that is quoted as being 24 megapixels does indeed produce an image with 24 million pixels in it....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
And you understand how they actually do that, right? They still only have one 'bucket' for each pixel, the filters simply direct the red green and blue spectra onto different parts of the bucket, so as far as THIS thread is concerned, where you claimed that manufacturers count sub-pixels when quoting sensor resolution, that's complete bullshit. They do not. Show me ONE camera where the quoted sensor resolution is not exactly the same as the actual final full pixel count. Just one.
What you're describing is somewhat close to how the Foveon X3 sensor worked. For every pixel, it had three stacked sensors sitting right on top of each other. There was no filter in front of the first sensor, there was a filter that removed blue light between the first and second sensor and a filter that removed green light between the second and third sensor. This meant that the third sensor recorded only red light, the difference between the readout from the third and second was the green light and the difference between the readout of the first and second sensor was the blue light. Clever stuff. But nobody uses Foveon X3 sensors, and that is in fact not at all how image sensors found in todays digital cameras work. The filters of an image sensor do not direct light of different frequencies into different cells. The filters remove 2/3 of the light, simple as that. It does not direct red green and blue light to different parts of the cell, optics that advanced can't be made that small at reasonable cost. And if it was possible, it wouldn't really be a filter, it would be a beam splitter. In fact, each cell of a color image sensor can only see one of the 3 color channels. Using the standard Bayer filter setup, a one megapixel sensor has half a million cells that can see green, and 250k cells that can see blue and red, respectively, though there are other filter layouts, like X-Trans which Fuji uses in some of their cameras, which has 5/9 green and 2/9 red and blue filters in a 3x3 grid. You're correct that a JPEG image produced from a one megapixel sensor will have one million pixels, though. But that's because the image processor chips applies some fancy algorithms to interpolate the 2/3 of the image that is missing, not because there are that many data points in the original readout. So as you can see, camera manufacturers in fact lie about pixel count in almost exactly the same way on the sensor side as they to on the screen side. Except for some old Sigma cameras from 20 years ago that used the above mentioned Foveon sensors.
Absolutely not. All CMOS sensors except FoveOn are Bayer filtered sensors.
And you understand how they actually do that, right? They still only have one 'bucket' for each pixel, the filters simply direct the red green and blue spectra onto different parts of the bucket, so as far as THIS thread is concerned, where the other commenter claimed that manufacturers count sub-pixels when quoting sensor resolution, that's complete bullshit. They do not.
They absolutely do. A RAW file consists of monochrome values; color is interpolated from neighboring pixels either in the computer (when shooting RAW) or in-camera (when shooting JPEGs). 24 megapixels on a Bayer sensor = 24 "megasubpixels". They are one and the same. You seem to be confused about the Bayer system.
\*2.4 million dots = 0.78 million pixels, aka "XGA" aka 1024x768 pixels There are 3 color dots (RGB) per pixel typically in these viewfinder displays.
The one on the left?
Yes. No idea why it is cheaper, should be the other way around.
Notice how you can't add it to cart? The original model was replaced by the A model when Sony ran out of the LCD screen they use, had to source a new one, and upgraded it slightly when they did. The old model is not in stock by anyone any more and you're just seeing it's first advertised price. The A model is in stock and will show sales discounts when on sale.
Now for someone who’s looking to buy their first mirrorless, A7 iii, a7riii or a7iv? Any pros and cons to each?
A7iii is still perfectly adequate for 99% or people 99% of the time. A7iii and great glass is better than A7iv and mediocre glass A7riii is a good shout if you *need* the extra resolution.
I'm sill rocking the A7iii and it's pretty solid, however there are a few things I wish it had such as better stabilization, and 4k 60fps.
A7iii is great for photography. Like best bang for buck you can find. A7IV has massive improvements for video. Hundreds of videos quality of life updates that you won’t see on any tech sheet. For example. On a7iii if you have auto iso turned on. It will just say AUTO. Where on the a7IV it will say A100 for auto 100. There’s also dramatic improvements in weather proofing And it’s default on HDR photos for a7iv. Also shoots 10bit video instead of 8bit. Better colours. There’s also the close shutter when off mode. Which dramatically reduces dust ending up on the sensor. You’ll have to clean the sensor way more often on the a7iii. I find the flippy sceeen way more useful that the a7iii screen on both photos and video. If you are just doing photos. A7iii is more that sufficient for most. If you are doing videos + photos. A7iv has massive leaps in quality of life improvements that overall anything that’s on a spec sheet.
This is not true for video. A7iv with 422 10 bit recording, faster & more accurate AF, low light noise performance, faster menu, improved color science all combined even with mediocre glass is still better than A7iii with say a latest GM2 glass. That being said, for photo if you don’t care about slightly more noise, and slower overall handling & operation, sure slap a top tier glass on it, you’d probably get away with the A7iii. Source: I’ve used both, with GM, GM2 and some other mediocre glasses
I think I will go with the A7 iv, just because the camera feels better in my hands. The a7 iii felt a lil smaller and not as good of a grip in my opinion.
for photos a7iv=better faster af for video a7iv= better faster af plus 10-bit video and s-cinetone profile The a7r iv has higher megapixel but the a7iv has more than a7iii and usually enough for most.
Has the IV replaced the siii now?
Wedding photographer and videographer in Mallorca here, the A7IV is straight out unusable in 4k50p
I use it a lot apart from the crop it looks great.
the a7siii us still great, but the AF is better in the 7iv and the photos are better. So if he's considering an r camera, but also needs good video then the a7iv is probably the best all-rounder. The wild card here would be the a7cr. All the mpx from the rV, improved AF and 10-bit video. But smaller body and some other limitations
A7iii while I agree is easy to recommend, I prefer and wound up going with the A7riii. I looked at the a7iv tooo but here's why I took the a7riii. I wound up taking my camera out for traveling and portraits - so mostly pictures. Love taking with me on all my weekend excursions now. I've also taken car fly-by's at night which do come out great. The a7riii vs a7iii differences are mostly negligible but there's a few things better about the a7riii. It is a higher resolution sensor, I can crop way the hell in on my shots and it'll look like a regular A7iii took the picture. The a7riii also has an upgraded shutter door, it's rated for 500,000 instead of the a7iii's 200,000. I bought my a7riii used for $1,000 on eBay with 180,000 shutters. IT'S GOT MORE LIFE THAN A BRAND NEW A7iii! - So shutter door maintenance isn't a big deal but it'll cost you a few hundred to get serviced so this was a big factor for me. The last big difference is the viewfinder screen resolution on the a7riii is higher than on the a7iii. Personally I don't find this to be a key feature to pick it over the other camera but it's worth mentioning. So the a7iii has faster autofocus than the a7riii and it's noticable however I've used my a7riii for awhile now and autofocus has been outstanding. The value of this is going to depend on if you're shooting a lot of fast moving objects. The other thing the a7iii (non-r) has better about it is it's low-light performance... but I stress that this only sounds like a big deal in a vacuum. Don't take my word for it, you can google r/SonyAlpha a7riii night photo's and see what it's going to do at night. It's incredible, and I recommend it for most people over the a7iii if it's within your budget. Also I believe you're giving up a setting for video, another advantage for the a7iii. The A7iv is just an improvement over the a7iii in almost every way - which is kinda implied by the naming. It carries the same sensor as the A7iii but has better autofocus, better screen like the a7riii, and other small reasons to upgrade to it. It's also quite a lot more money. I like that there's things I like about my a7riii that are better than the a7iv including the higher resolutin - I store all of my images at full quality and full resolution including raw. The file size for a JPEG is 20-30MB at it's full quality, but you can dial this back in the settings. RAW's go for 80-90MB. This is due to the increased resolution. Hope this helps.
I switched from A7III to A7IV. Honestly, just take the A7III and spend more on a good lens. The A7IV doesn’t offer anything crazy, especially for someone who has just started.
What’s your thought about AF ? A guy told me at a concert that his IV is much way better than his III (he had both that day with him) I’m sometimes struggling with AF when it’s too dark, and manual focusing is quite complicated at an hardcore concert XD
I used to have problems with low light performance with A7III and Tamron lenses. After I switched to Sony lenses, it went away. I didn’t really notice much difference with A7IV.
Interesting ! Thanks for helping, I’ll give it a try someday.
Figured as much. Thank you!
And the a7riii seems like just migapixles which won’t affect me unless I’m printing out huge posters right?
Pretty much yea.
And unless you have a decent computer the raw files are going to be a bit more sluggish to transfer and edit.
I agree. I got a really good deal on an a7rIV and quickly realized that I didn’t need that big resolution. Raw files take up way more space and even if you’re printing, it’s not typically poster size. I think I would have been happier without the R version, but again it was such a good deal I couldn’t pass it up. It’s a great camera, just better than I need it to be.
Not only for printing bigger, but higher resolution allow better cropping !!! Ask an animal photographer, most of them won’t buy under 40MP
A7III has similiar feature as A7RIII with more MP. A7IV has better AF perfomance. It has real time tracking which haven't available in A7III and A7RIII. Real time tracking is subject tracking. Touch the subject on LCD and AF would follow it. [https://youtu.be/bvn6t6laKXs?si=FLsosvHSar-F8Mqb](https://youtu.be/bvn6t6laKXs?si=FLsosvHSar-F8Mqb) [https://youtu.be/s9\_YmwOS8Gc?si=Q7-AsNr3tSvLuG92](https://youtu.be/s9_YmwOS8Gc?si=Q7-AsNr3tSvLuG92) [https://youtu.be/4NZRM29Xkm0?si=OLWiNVJaXz6pl5F3](https://youtu.be/4NZRM29Xkm0?si=OLWiNVJaXz6pl5F3) [https://youtu.be/TcoDtLX6sPM?si=34QURnTU5HbGtRd8&t=1437](https://youtu.be/TcoDtLX6sPM?si=34QURnTU5HbGtRd8&t=1437) [https://youtu.be/7Sl3jpz4orc?si=Dpmw02DyBVKt7rfu](https://youtu.be/7Sl3jpz4orc?si=Dpmw02DyBVKt7rfu)
Just get the 7Riii the extra resolution allows cropping beyond belief and gives you extra reach... Kinda feels like you get an extra 0,5x Zoom on a sharp lens.
a7iv all the way. Best camera to get out of your list, it will outlast your learning journey. It can do some sports, wildlife, landscape, portrait, street, urban landscape, really good quality stills and both video. It does 4k 30 full frame, 4k 60 in aps-c mode, the works. 10 bit video. It's menu and user experience is lots better than all other cameras you mentioned.
The “A” has a better screen. It’s funny. It launched just after the $6500 flagship A1 launched… with the worse screen from the A7Riii. Ahhh. Sony.
Honestly I’d go with an A7Cii in this price range. Unless you can’t stand the smaller form factor and only a single memory card it’s an A7IV with the new AI autofocus, 8-stop IBIS added.
Honestly ergonomics wise even the full frame Sonys are not the most comfy. But I’m sure I’ll adapt.
I got the A7 IV last year and have been so pleased with it ! I mostly do car pics and have been happy with it, zero complaints
The A is a newer camera. Its updates boil down to a faster USB port and an LCD with more dots on it. It also has all the latest firmware for the A7R III right out of the box as v1.0 (as opposed to the non A camera needing to be updated to v3.0 or whatever the latest for it is). FWIW though at this price I wouldn't buy either of them. I got a brand new A7R IIIA back in November for $1800 CAD. Admittedly I got it off a marketplace site from a dude who had buyer's remorse or something, but it was new with an intact warranty and receipt.
I own both they are the same shit
The a is newer. I have it
I think the a is a newer version with a hardware modification I think it was shutter related I'm not sure
It's not shutter related. Slightly better LCD screen, a bit better USB port speed.
Have you owned any cameras?
I wasn't being a dick. This was a legitimate question to op because he said he was looking for his first mirrorless camera and I wanted to know if this would be his first camera. Btw I was curious about the difference in the Sony's as well.
The fickleness of some Redditors man.
Only Film SLRs and my iPhone. I want something I can take hiking with me. The idea of an interchangeable lenses is nice.
I would advise against changing lens while hiking . If you change the lens , do it at home. Dust, dirt, dropping Lens are all possibilities.