Hey buddy. Nice video. I’m thinking. It’s not a small thing to have cleaner footage and 4K 30 and (60 despite the crop). Also what about APSC mode ? That’s a big plus. Essentially a zoom mode. Good flexibility for a prime lens. I had the FX3. It had nice footage but the a7IV is noticeably cleaner. I hate noise. The fx3 has chunky noise as your video demonstrated. (Good demo- thanks ). That being said, I’m a hybrid shooter so I’ll take the photo ability combined with clean video every day… I know you don’t care. But hey my comments help your algorithm. Thanks for making the effort.
Hey - yeah even though I don't think I mentioned it here, big fan of apsc mode - you're absolutely right. The 60fps crop doesn't bother me at all. I have a a7siii as well and I've found myself grabbing the a7iv more and more lately for standard 24/30fps work, both for the cleaner image and the photo side. The only big downside for me is no IR so I'm going to have to bite the bullet someday and buy that expensive bluetooth remote. And hey I care! Thanks for watching!
Great video man. Glad TH-cam threw you on my feed. Came here for the overheating question on A7 IV. I will likely need an A7s III since I'll be recording for hours at a time.
Really wish TH-cam was able to reward for quality of content over quantity as your channel is gold! I was very tempted by the A7iv for the lens breathing compensation and just how clean and detailed that 7k downsampled 4k footage looks. I shoot in far too much extreme low light environments where artificial lighting isn't an option, so often shooting at ISO25600 or even higher. Find this really interesting in the big pixel vs small pixel debate in terms of low light noise and ISO performance. DPReview did a really good video on this from a photography perspective, would love to see it explored more from a video perspective. Seems all the best performing video centric hybrids for low light (especially extreme low light) are still largely using large pixel sensors. As your video shows, this would appear to be gain bound (so camera rather than raw photon gathering). Is it mainly thermal/dark current sort of noise that is limiting these high megapixel cameras from pushing up in to a7s series levels of gain with usable footage?
Hey thanks so much! I've been trying to be consistent, but it's hard when it's not a full-time job. Perhaps someday! But to answer your question (as far as I understand it) I think it really comes down to what the sensor is designed to accomplish. There are different types of noise, but I think in general the upstream read noise and the raw photon gathering are the biggest culprits in low light / high ISO. Without getting super technical, each photosite on these dual conversion gain cameras contain 2 well capacities, one for maximum dynamic range (low conversion gain mode) and one for low light (high conversion gain mode). And depending on the camera, it switches from low to high at a certain ISO (12800 on the Sony a7siii, 3200 on the a74). I do think the larger photosites (from the lower MP) and well capacities help collect more light and therefore perform better in low light, but this is only one of several factors that go into overall noise. I just watched that DPReview video, and yeah it makes sense what they are saying regarding photos (especially when they're blowing them up), but I think the noise differences are more noticeable for video, especially when the output resolution is the same. Ultimately it could be something as simple as Sony designed the a7siii specifically as a low light video camera, and therefore made sure the sensor was optimized for that. Conversely, these hybrid models find a mid-ground where everything is great, and therefore aren’t prioritizing super high conversion gain mode ISO levels. All that being said, it's been a few months now since I made this video, and I continually find myself reaching for the Sony a74. The only real frustration I have with it (which I mentioned in the video) is the Bluetooth remote control, which has very little functionality. But more often than not I find myself picking it over the a7siii, despite the not quite as good very high ISO performance. Does that make sense?
@@BradGiannini thanks for the reply, and yeah, it makes sense. From what I can gather it seems Sony's main design intentions for the a7s III was high dynamic range at high readout speeds. I've read an article covering a teardown of the Sony a7s III sensor showing it is actually a 48mp sensor which uses 2 x 2 digital binning configuration on read out to come to the 12mp effective resolution. Theory being (given Sony have published no detail on this afaik) pixel readouts are done at slightly offset gain to improve the dynamic range of the binned value. Sort of fits as I remember Sony telling the likes of Gerald Undone and Philip Bloom at release that the a7s III didn't have dual native ISO. Maybe they meant it wasn't dual native ISO in the traditional sense, rather use of some custom digital binning algorithms? Who knows, what is relevant is that multiple websites show that the upstream read noise of the a7s III is somewhere between a half stop and full stop worse than the a7s II despite the FSI vs BSI architecture which should have those results the other way around. This would support the notion that large pixels still provide an upstream read noise advantage over that of small pixels when it comes to video. Downstream read noise (post amplification) would be heavily impacted by how clean the source signal is as it gets amplified. All just guessing at the end of the day as it's not like Sony (or any manufacturer in this space) are cracking open the vault and publishing the ins and outs of how their cameras process the signal internally. Interesting that you aren't reaching for the a7s III as much anymore as I'm finding the same for myself, except reaching for the old a7s II which I have permanently rigged up to a Weebill S with follow focus as most of my super wide aperture lenses are fully manual anyway. As much as I love the AF and 4k120P of the a7s III for daytime shooting, wondering if my needs would be better suited with a a7 IV or even an a7 III to get those highly downsampled 4k images which will be sharper and have more noise averaged out from the downsampling process.
@@dominic-ryan @Dominic Ryan That's pretty interesting and yes I agree about the pixel size. I had read Sony doesn't like to say dual native ISO on many of their cameras because the dynamic range between the 2 aren't identical. But either way yeah most of my shooting is relatively stable and the a74 just provides a slightly better image overall. And I do like having those extra MP for photos just in case. I would say if you don't shoot where rolling shutter becomes an issue (or you need 120fps) a74 probably gets the edge. But honestly both cameras are fantastic, and I think we're only a generation or so away from a true perfect combination of performance, flexibility, and size.
My A74 has never overheated but I live in Scotland… nothing overheats in Scotland. The only reason I watched this is because I’m think of buying the A7s3. I suspect Sony are waiting for me to do that (using some sort of tracking cookie), and when I do they will release the A7s4. Anyway, I’m tempted by the higher FPS but nobody ever mentions that higher frame rates mean less light hitting the sensor and the consequences of that (darkness/higher ISO/noise).
I was in this same boat a few weeks ago. For the price A7IV wins and I was leaning towards that. Until I decided to take my A6500 and shoot in Slog3 for 2 weeks to see if I need 12500iso or 3200iso. At night I've realized I stayed at 6400iso. So any would be fine, certain situations i used 10k iso, indoors at night I needed that 12500iso all ISO were me trying to keep +1-2 stops over exposed. With that info I've realized, I'm not a pro to walk around with lights everywhere. I take natural lighting photos and videos. Having that higher ISO cushion was more beneficial to me then carrying lights. My goal for upgrading was use Slog3 Exclusively, and I felt A7S3 provided the better ISO range to work within this profile. So I went for A7S3, and couldn't be happier. I shoot almost everything at 12500ISO. If I need 6400ISO I bump it to 12500, higher the Fstop and possibly ND if needed what ever I need to keep my skin tones at that perfect exposure.
Great to hear - yeah I think that's a legit reason to choose the a7siii over the a7iv. ISO 12800 can pull a pretty great image in some serious low light. I'm the same way, I definitely prefer the low light flexibility. There is probably a group of people that would stay at or below ISO 5000 or so though, and for them the a7iv really checks a lot of boxes!
@@BradGiannini hi Brad! If i will use only S-Cinetone on a7iv/a7siii that high iso compare will still be the same? Or in S-Cinetone it does't matter if i use iso 6400 or 12500?
@@bartoszjeromin6257 Hi! So are you referring to S-Cinetone gamma or color? On these cameras you can choose it for either so for instance you can use S-Log 3 gamma and S-Cinetone colors, or S-Cinetone gamma and colors (and lots of other combinations). If you're just using the S-Cinetone colors then yes the ISOs are the same. But S-Cinetone gamma has a different set of native ISOs. On the a7siii it's ISO 100 and 2000 and on the a7iv I believe the first is 125. So yes there will be a difference using the S-Cinetone gamma. I did a video on the low light capabilities of the a7siii, you can check it out here: th-cam.com/video/fjQGKDBk58s/w-d-xo.html You can see how S-Cinetone looks by comparison. The a7iv should be fairly close. Hope that helps!
Hey - do you lean towards video or photo? Or 50/50? If you're doing both equally I'd save some money and get the a7iv. Take the extra and get a lens. But if you're mostly video the a7siii can handle most photography pretty well honestly, and you'll like the extra video specs. Hope that helps!
Thanks for the video. If you are using other Picture Profile then the Sony A7s3 is better with 2000-10 000 ISO. Because the second native ISO for S Cinetone is 2000 with A7siii and only 500 with A7iv. Also the HD 24fps/25fps quality is much better with A7siii. Sometimes needed if need to stream or record very long.
Yeah I haven't looked too much at S-Cinetone differences yet but I would bet the a74 holds up well but yes you're right certainly the a7siii handles the lowest of light better. The HD on the a74 is pretty good too I thought!
@@BradGiannini Not a problem mate. I have the A7IV what is it that causes the rolling shutter, is it fast pans or ANYTHING fast moving within the frame?
Yeah so even with the sunny weather mode turned on the a7 IV, it's still dark compared to the a7S III. In practice I often leave that setting on for the a7 IV and that helps a bit. The record border is still really dark though - I think they used a darker color red. By comparison I virtually never turn on the bright screen on the a7S III. For the a7 IV, it's fine and you get used to it, just a bit of a bummer!
Nice comparison! Im leaning towards the A7iv. But im kinda sceptical because of all the overheating reports even while browsing the menu.... Do you think this could be solved through a firmware update?
Hey thanks! I think the menu overheating could be addressed, as it seems more like a bug than anything. As far as the other situations I'm not sure. Definitely keeping it on a tripod with the screen open helps - anything to give as much air flow as possible. I will say it's a pretty great camera overall though. The video quality is pretty remarkable!
@@BradGiannini Thank you for your quick response! It could also be related to a ‘bad batch' problem due to the whole covid situation/shortages. Im just concerned that a camera which ’overheats‘ on a daily basis isnt that great longevity wise. I surely want to use that device for 5 years at least… :/
@@eliasgottschlich Yeah I totally get that - I think it depends on what your primary use is, but no question this camera should still be really good even 5 years from now!
![Sony a7 IV vs a7III | 50 Differences! [4K60FPS]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HYaRmHmsvRM/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey buddy. Nice video. I’m thinking. It’s not a small thing to have cleaner footage and 4K 30 and (60 despite the crop). Also what about APSC mode ? That’s a big plus. Essentially a zoom mode. Good flexibility for a prime lens. I had the FX3. It had nice footage but the a7IV is noticeably cleaner. I hate noise. The fx3 has chunky noise as your video demonstrated. (Good demo- thanks ). That being said, I’m a hybrid shooter so I’ll take the photo ability combined with clean video every day… I know you don’t care. But hey my comments help your algorithm. Thanks for making the effort.
Hey - yeah even though I don't think I mentioned it here, big fan of apsc mode - you're absolutely right. The 60fps crop doesn't bother me at all. I have a a7siii as well and I've found myself grabbing the a7iv more and more lately for standard 24/30fps work, both for the cleaner image and the photo side. The only big downside for me is no IR so I'm going to have to bite the bullet someday and buy that expensive bluetooth remote. And hey I care! Thanks for watching!
Great video man. Glad TH-cam threw you on my feed. Came here for the overheating question on A7 IV. I will likely need an A7s III since I'll be recording for hours at a time.
Cool thank you! Yeah both are great cameras but for long recording sessions a7siii is the way to go!
Really wish TH-cam was able to reward for quality of content over quantity as your channel is gold! I was very tempted by the A7iv for the lens breathing compensation and just how clean and detailed that 7k downsampled 4k footage looks. I shoot in far too much extreme low light environments where artificial lighting isn't an option, so often shooting at ISO25600 or even higher.
Find this really interesting in the big pixel vs small pixel debate in terms of low light noise and ISO performance. DPReview did a really good video on this from a photography perspective, would love to see it explored more from a video perspective. Seems all the best performing video centric hybrids for low light (especially extreme low light) are still largely using large pixel sensors. As your video shows, this would appear to be gain bound (so camera rather than raw photon gathering). Is it mainly thermal/dark current sort of noise that is limiting these high megapixel cameras from pushing up in to a7s series levels of gain with usable footage?
Hey thanks so much! I've been trying to be consistent, but it's hard when it's not a full-time job. Perhaps someday! But to answer your question (as far as I understand it) I think it really comes down to what the sensor is designed to accomplish. There are different types of noise, but I think in general the upstream read noise and the raw photon gathering are the biggest culprits in low light / high ISO. Without getting super technical, each photosite on these dual conversion gain cameras contain 2 well capacities, one for maximum dynamic range (low conversion gain mode) and one for low light (high conversion gain mode). And depending on the camera, it switches from low to high at a certain ISO (12800 on the Sony a7siii, 3200 on the a74). I do think the larger photosites (from the lower MP) and well capacities help collect more light and therefore perform better in low light, but this is only one of several factors that go into overall noise. I just watched that DPReview video, and yeah it makes sense what they are saying regarding photos (especially when they're blowing them up), but I think the noise differences are more noticeable for video, especially when the output resolution is the same. Ultimately it could be something as simple as Sony designed the a7siii specifically as a low light video camera, and therefore made sure the sensor was optimized for that. Conversely, these hybrid models find a mid-ground where everything is great, and therefore aren’t prioritizing super high conversion gain mode ISO levels.
All that being said, it's been a few months now since I made this video, and I continually find myself reaching for the Sony a74. The only real frustration I have with it (which I mentioned in the video) is the Bluetooth remote control, which has very little functionality. But more often than not I find myself picking it over the a7siii, despite the not quite as good very high ISO performance. Does that make sense?
@@BradGiannini thanks for the reply, and yeah, it makes sense. From what I can gather it seems Sony's main design intentions for the a7s III was high dynamic range at high readout speeds. I've read an article covering a teardown of the Sony a7s III sensor showing it is actually a 48mp sensor which uses 2 x 2 digital binning configuration on read out to come to the 12mp effective resolution. Theory being (given Sony have published no detail on this afaik) pixel readouts are done at slightly offset gain to improve the dynamic range of the binned value. Sort of fits as I remember Sony telling the likes of Gerald Undone and Philip Bloom at release that the a7s III didn't have dual native ISO. Maybe they meant it wasn't dual native ISO in the traditional sense, rather use of some custom digital binning algorithms?
Who knows, what is relevant is that multiple websites show that the upstream read noise of the a7s III is somewhere between a half stop and full stop worse than the a7s II despite the FSI vs BSI architecture which should have those results the other way around. This would support the notion that large pixels still provide an upstream read noise advantage over that of small pixels when it comes to video. Downstream read noise (post amplification) would be heavily impacted by how clean the source signal is as it gets amplified.
All just guessing at the end of the day as it's not like Sony (or any manufacturer in this space) are cracking open the vault and publishing the ins and outs of how their cameras process the signal internally. Interesting that you aren't reaching for the a7s III as much anymore as I'm finding the same for myself, except reaching for the old a7s II which I have permanently rigged up to a Weebill S with follow focus as most of my super wide aperture lenses are fully manual anyway. As much as I love the AF and 4k120P of the a7s III for daytime shooting, wondering if my needs would be better suited with a a7 IV or even an a7 III to get those highly downsampled 4k images which will be sharper and have more noise averaged out from the downsampling process.
@@dominic-ryan @Dominic Ryan That's pretty interesting and yes I agree about the pixel size. I had read Sony doesn't like to say dual native ISO on many of their cameras because the dynamic range between the 2 aren't identical. But either way yeah most of my shooting is relatively stable and the a74 just provides a slightly better image overall. And I do like having those extra MP for photos just in case. I would say if you don't shoot where rolling shutter becomes an issue (or you need 120fps) a74 probably gets the edge. But honestly both cameras are fantastic, and I think we're only a generation or so away from a true perfect combination of performance, flexibility, and size.
I hope your channel explodes. Really quality video.
Thanks so much, that would be fun!
My A74 has never overheated but I live in Scotland… nothing overheats in Scotland. The only reason I watched this is because I’m think of buying the A7s3. I suspect Sony are waiting for me to do that (using some sort of tracking cookie), and when I do they will release the A7s4. Anyway, I’m tempted by the higher FPS but nobody ever mentions that higher frame rates mean less light hitting the sensor and the consequences of that (darkness/higher ISO/noise).
I was in this same boat a few weeks ago. For the price A7IV wins and I was leaning towards that. Until I decided to take my A6500 and shoot in Slog3 for 2 weeks to see if I need 12500iso or 3200iso. At night I've realized I stayed at 6400iso. So any would be fine, certain situations i used 10k iso, indoors at night I needed that 12500iso all ISO were me trying to keep +1-2 stops over exposed. With that info I've realized, I'm not a pro to walk around with lights everywhere. I take natural lighting photos and videos. Having that higher ISO cushion was more beneficial to me then carrying lights. My goal for upgrading was use Slog3 Exclusively, and I felt A7S3 provided the better ISO range to work within this profile. So I went for A7S3, and couldn't be happier. I shoot almost everything at 12500ISO. If I need 6400ISO I bump it to 12500, higher the Fstop and possibly ND if needed what ever I need to keep my skin tones at that perfect exposure.
Great to hear - yeah I think that's a legit reason to choose the a7siii over the a7iv. ISO 12800 can pull a pretty great image in some serious low light. I'm the same way, I definitely prefer the low light flexibility. There is probably a group of people that would stay at or below ISO 5000 or so though, and for them the a7iv really checks a lot of boxes!
@@BradGiannini hi Brad! If i will use only S-Cinetone on a7iv/a7siii that high iso compare will still be the same? Or in S-Cinetone it does't matter if i use iso 6400 or 12500?
@@bartoszjeromin6257 Hi! So are you referring to S-Cinetone gamma or color? On these cameras you can choose it for either so for instance you can use S-Log 3 gamma and S-Cinetone colors, or S-Cinetone gamma and colors (and lots of other combinations). If you're just using the S-Cinetone colors then yes the ISOs are the same. But S-Cinetone gamma has a different set of native ISOs. On the a7siii it's ISO 100 and 2000 and on the a7iv I believe the first is 125. So yes there will be a difference using the S-Cinetone gamma. I did a video on the low light capabilities of the a7siii, you can check it out here: th-cam.com/video/fjQGKDBk58s/w-d-xo.html You can see how S-Cinetone looks by comparison. The a7iv should be fairly close. Hope that helps!
Bro i want to buy the camera for video and photos.wich best A7Slll ? A7lV?
Hey - do you lean towards video or photo? Or 50/50? If you're doing both equally I'd save some money and get the a7iv. Take the extra and get a lens. But if you're mostly video the a7siii can handle most photography pretty well honestly, and you'll like the extra video specs. Hope that helps!
@@BradGiannini bro a7slll best photoshoot too?
@@B2BOY If you're doing photoshoots I'd probably go a7iv, it's a great camera
A7IV almost the best Hybrid Camera on the world but this overheating problem is so bad
Yeah it's been manageable but handling the camera sometimes is tough because it gets hot!
R8, zve1, a7c2. Any thoughts ?
All good cameras so depends on what you're using it for and what lenses you have already
@@BradGiannini no lenses. Travel, mini docs, YT talking heads. Want the best skintones with least work involved.
Wow...all your videos are excellent!
Well thank you!
Thanks for the video. If you are using other Picture Profile then the Sony A7s3 is better with 2000-10 000 ISO. Because the second native ISO for S Cinetone is 2000 with A7siii and only 500 with A7iv.
Also the HD 24fps/25fps quality is much better with A7siii. Sometimes needed if need to stream or record very long.
Yeah I haven't looked too much at S-Cinetone differences yet but I would bet the a74 holds up well but yes you're right certainly the a7siii handles the lowest of light better. The HD on the a74 is pretty good too I thought!
Gerald Undone Vibes, High Quality Content, thanks mate - Subbed.
High praise, thank you!
@@BradGiannini Not a problem mate. I have the A7IV what is it that causes the rolling shutter, is it fast pans or ANYTHING fast moving within the frame?
About the LCD screen. Have you compared the "Sunny weather" mode between the A7iv and A7siii? Are there also brightness difference then?
Yeah so even with the sunny weather mode turned on the a7 IV, it's still dark compared to the a7S III. In practice I often leave that setting on for the a7 IV and that helps a bit. The record border is still really dark though - I think they used a darker color red. By comparison I virtually never turn on the bright screen on the a7S III. For the a7 IV, it's fine and you get used to it, just a bit of a bummer!
Nice comparison! Im leaning towards the A7iv. But im kinda sceptical because of all the overheating reports even while browsing the menu.... Do you think this could be solved through a firmware update?
Hey thanks! I think the menu overheating could be addressed, as it seems more like a bug than anything. As far as the other situations I'm not sure. Definitely keeping it on a tripod with the screen open helps - anything to give as much air flow as possible. I will say it's a pretty great camera overall though. The video quality is pretty remarkable!
@@BradGiannini Thank you for your quick response!
It could also be related to a ‘bad batch' problem due to the whole covid situation/shortages.
Im just concerned that a camera which ’overheats‘ on a daily basis isnt that great longevity wise.
I surely want to use that device for 5 years at least… :/
@@eliasgottschlich Yeah I totally get that - I think it depends on what your primary use is, but no question this camera should still be really good even 5 years from now!
Really, No mention to Sony 7siii raw capabilities?
Yeah fair, although after having used it for quite a while now, I don't find the raw super useful in most scenarios. But nice to have!
Honestly this over heating issue is unnacceptable
It's a bummer but it's manageable at least