charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.

I only have the a7Rv.
Please tell me if you know the basic difference between the two cameras if you know.
I've never really never known.

User ID

Google "Compare .... ".
One of the hits was "DPReviee" and that article is likely what youre looking for.

Harry02 Loc: Gardena, CA

So far my D800e is close enough.

User ID

Like kissing you sister ?

When you catch up, please let us know what 61MP body you settle on. I launched this poll and my "sister" is only 50MP. Good kisser ;-)

gwilliams6

Sorry I missed your question.

The superb 61mp sensor are the same in both A7RIV and A7RV, so the image resolution and detail will be similar, but there are many other differences. The A7RV has a much better resolution EVF with 9.2 million dot . The A7RV also has a higher resolution LCD screen which is a new 4-way fully articulating screen. The A7RV has double the buffer size. The A7RV has focus breathing compensation. The A7RV can shoot 8k video. The A7RV has the newer touch-menus. And so much more.

Take a look here:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-A7R-V-vs-Sony-Alpha-A7R-IV

https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-a7riv-vs-a7rv/

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7316649349/sony-a7r-v-vs-a7r-iv-what-s-changed-and-is-it-worth-the-upgrade

Cheers and best to you.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Paying for pixels you don’t need is a waste of money.

It’s better to invest in a camera with a better quality lens, larger sensor and more effective image processor.
You should also consider how well your printer can reproduce fine detail. There’s little point in shooting or scanning photos at high resolution and creating huge image files, unless you have a printer that can reproduce all the detail in the image.

There comes a point beyond which high output resolution on its own is irrelevant. The size of a camera’s image sensor is the main determinant of picture quality.

While megapixels are a factor in image quality, they are in fact a very small part of what makes up a good high-quality image. Other factors that contribute to your image quality are sensor size and type, file type, lens choice, and you, the photographer.

The "size" of the actual photo-sites on the sensor that collects the image-making light plays a huge roll. The larger the photo-site, the more light can be collect and... consequently, that increases the amount of image data made available to the camera’s image processor.

In short, one photo-site is equal to one pixel. The more of them you have, the higher the resolution. Each photo-site is like a scoop, the larger the scoop, the more ice cream it can get... therefore, a tiny high-resolution sensor will perform a lot worse because it won’t capture as much light and therefore has decreased dynamic range.

A larger photo-site have a much better signal-to-noise ratio. They can also collect more light with the same exposure time and, therefore, respond with higher sensitivity.

That said, don’t go crazy and think that you need to buy the highest megapixel count possible, It doesn’t matter as much as camera companies would like you to think. Sensor size, pixel pitch and pixel spacing equate quality, not pixel count. Pixel count is for cropping and larger size.

User ID

I confess I missed it while skimming all that boilerplate. Which 61MP camera do you use ? Bonus points would be why you use that one ... in five lines or less !

I was stuck at 50 before "upgrading" to 45 to get a thinner sensor stack for RF type lenses. 45 seems to be enuf to capture the rendering that I wasnt seeing at 24MP. (I couldnt even fit most classics at 50MP, cuz it was an SLR.)

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Image size is pixel count, and that means that you can look further with your magnification before seeing a single individual pixel. Its all about size and not image rendering or quality, unless you extreme crop or want a print larger than 24 megapixels allows.

More megapixels will not make your image look any better by the simple count of pixels. A shortage of Pixels only affects quality when reached the ‘potential’ ceiling in size. For monitor viewing you compress to 6 megapixels and will never see any difference or advantage in something like 61 megapixels... only a larger file size but a always the "potential" to print large.

Something like "back lit" sensor technology is far more important when talking about better images.

Red6

I wonder if the camera companies have an ulterior motive for the ever-increasing megapixels in cameras.

For example, after upgrading to a higher-megapixel camera, you start to see issues with your lenses that you never noticed before. Then you feel compelled to upgrade your lenses to the next higher (and more expensive) lens grade.

After a few more years, another even higher megapixel camera is released but has a new and improved lens mount system.

You see where I am going with this.

User ID

When its all about to seeing the difference in images between a modern lens and a classic lens 45MP captures, or shows, the difference where 24MP does not. Thaz not any armchair math. Its about real world visible differences, despite that your calculations might suggest otherwise.

My 24 and 45MP bodies are identical other than their pixel counts. This would indicate that while your math is accurate for what youve input, your input is just incomplete.

###########################

Its looking doubtful that your ~61MP camera shares bag space with a lower rez version of ittself. Its not evident whether the same is true of your lenses. So, its believable that visual differences are not present for you. It also looks like you never use such cameras simply cuz your armchair theorizing tells you not to bother.

IOW you verbosely skirt a question cuz you feel compelled to reply even when you have no real answer. That is all.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Here are some thoughts to chew on... I came across this by a noted photographer a little while back . " A camera with a very high resolution sensor cannot perform at its best unless the lens delivers high micro contrast to its sensor. This seems obvious, but plenty of photographers buy 36 or 42 or 50 megapixel cameras while utilizing lenses incapable of resolving to the sensor, or stop down to f/16 or even f/22, thus mashing micro contrast. "

User ID

So hes a "noted photographer". Most of being "noted" has really nothing to do with correct technical understanding, a fact for which you have posted the evidence.

Hes not toadally off the wall. Microcontrast is very important, regardless of a sensors pixel resolution. A high rez sensor does take more advantage of microcontrast. The reverse does not undo the benefits of lenses with excellent microcontrast. And likewise, lenses with less microcontrast do not undo the overall benefit of extra sensor resolution.

IOW, way too many "noted" individuals are peddling incomplete info as gospel.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Didn't Johnny Carson once say that to Dolly Parton?

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

I use Canon tilt shift lenses and produce 100 megapixel images that are absolutely incredible in detail for large print. Keep in mind the photo-site spacing, photo-site size and the fact that I have three times the sensor surface area than a FF 61 megapixel camera.

Take that same image and share it on social media and no one will ever know or care, because the maximum resolution you can see on any monitor is 6 megapixels. A total waste of time.

Pixel peeping is fun and can impress anyone when magnifying edits, but it is only a preview of what is possible for printing large or when cropping. .

That is why you should consider a camera for your output size needs, not maximum megapixels the public seem to be drawn to.

A magazine or sports photographer is good with 16-20 megapixels. I print both large and am published monthly, so I see both ends of the spectrum...

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway