Review of the Sony A7riv

Real World Images taken with Sony A7r4

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Sony A7r4

Before I get into the substance of the review, it may help to explain my perspective. I was a long time Sony dSLR shooter. As the Sony A-mount started to be phased out and I wasn’t ready for mirrorless, I spent a few years with the Nikon D750 as my main camera. Advancements in mirrorless seen in the Sony A7riii brought me back to Sony in late 2017. I was a bit tentative that 42 megapixels would be unnecessary and too much but ultimately found that it offered a nice balance. I was surprised when the Sony A7riv was announced less than two years after the A7riii. Further, the A7r4 launched with the first all new high resolution sensor since the A7rii in 2015. Once again, I was hesitant about the benefits of a massive resolution increase, moving from 42 megapixels of the Sony A7riii to the 61 megapixels of the Sony A7riv. But I kept and open mind and hoped to find it was a nice balance, as I had discovered with my A7riii. On paper, the A7riv promised major ergonomic improvements, fixing many of my complaints about the Sony A7riii. I really truly wanted to love the Sony A7riv, so that I could have the camera that perfectly balanced IQ, performance and ergonomics. 

So I spent over two weeks using the Sony A7riv extensively, taking a few thousand photos. I didn’t get a chance to test every plausible use case, but I tested many. As you’ll see below, the Sony A7riv left me torn. It’s an excellent camera with many major improvements over the Sonu A7riii, but it’s actually a worse “all around” camera than the Sony A7riii. You’ll see a common thread through much of this review: the 61 megapixel sensor, as implemented by Sony, brings more disadvantages than advantages. I previously analyzed the potential benefits of high resolution in this post. To avoid over-generalization, there are some photographers who will obtain true benefit from ever-increasing resolution. But most photographers will not obtain significant benefit from being able to shoot 61 mp compared to 42 or even 24mp. In this review, we will look at the improvements made in the Sony A7r4 as well as the gains and losses associated with the new sensor. Hopefully, this will provide useful information for potential A7riv shooters..

The Body and Ergonomics of the Sony A7riv

Ergonomics of the Sony A7r4

With each generation of full frame camera, the body has evolved considerably. Based on the earlier generations, Sony developed a reputation for horrible ergonomics. Buttons were too small and poorly placed, small grips left the camera uncomfortable to hold. The Sony A7r3 offered significant improvements with a bigger grip, thumbstick and sensible button layout. Combined with other body improvements including bigger battery, dual card slots and improved weather sealing, the Sony A7r3 finally offered a half-decent body. The Sony A7r4 offers further significant improvements to the point where the ergonomics are actually good.

The Sony A7r4 manages to come in at almost the exact same weight as the predecessor A7r3, at 665 grams. It’s a very light-weight camera for a professional full frame body. Despite keeping the same weight, the size of the camera has subtly increased in positive ways. As shown in the comparison above, the grip of the A7r4 is just a bit deeper and the camera body/grip is just a bit taller. These subtle differences make the camera much more comfortable to handhold for long stretches. The hand fits much more naturally. A big complaint about the older Sony bodies is that the grip was not big enough for an entire hand, generally leaving the pinkie dangling at the bottom. Admittedly, I don’t have large hands — but now I can just barely fit my pinkie. If they would add just 1 more centimeter, I think even larger hands could hold it.

The above image shows two important changes and improvements. The exposure compensation dial gains a locking button. On the Sony A7r3, it’s pretty common for the dial to accidentally move while in a camera bag or even jostling at the side of your body. Now, you can lock and unlock the dial.

Though it’s hard to tell in a photograph of the camera, the bigger change is that the buttons are more raised. You can see the AF-on button is visibly raised from the camera body. The AF-on button is also now larger. All the buttons are a bit more tactile. It just makes the camera more comfortable to operate by touch.

The thumbstick (right of the LCD) is now more tactile, easier to operate. As noted previously, all the buttons have gotten just a bit larger. The EVF remains big and bright. The resolution of the EVF has increased from 3.69m to 5.76m. So on paper there is a big improvement in EVF resolution though my eyes couldn’t really tell the difference. The EVF was bright and sharp before, and it’s still very bright and sharp.

With dual control dials, the thumbstick, mode dial, exposure compensation dial and multiple customizable buttons, it’s easy to program any function you would need in a comfortable position to use. The greatest downside is the number of unlabeled buttons (C1, C2, C3), so it can take some time to build memory of what function was placed where. I have posted my recommendations for customizing the Sony A7r4. 

Other Notes About the Body

Weather sealing was questionable on older models and it is obviously improved in the Sony A7r4. All elements seem well sealed. Even the memory card door has been upgraded and feels much more solid.

As demonstrated above, the A7r4 has no shortage of ports including usb-c and micro usb, microphone, headphone, micro hdmi and a flash sync port.

The touchscreen LCD will tilt up and down but is not fully articulated. A major but not unexpected disappointment is the continued limited function of the touch screen. Other than selecting focus points, the touch screen can perform few other functions. It’s the 21st century and consumers expect to be able to swipe through menus, etc, using the touch screen. Sony’s touchscreens remain rudimentary.

A big complaint about the last generation of Sony cameras was the presence of only one fast UHS-II card slow, with the second slot being slower UHS-I. Thus, if you were writing to both slots, you were effectively limited to the slower slot speed. Both slots are now UHS-II which sounds great on paper. But as will be discussed further below, the file sizes are so large with the Sony A7riv that even these fast card slots feel slow. It may be time for Sony to switch to more expensive XQD or CFast cards.

I was surprised by something I really loved a lot on the Sony A7riv — The shutter sound. Or, I should say the lack of sound. When shooting with electronic first curtain shutter, the only sound is a very soft tap where the Sony A7riii had more of an audible clunk. I’ve routinely shot in silent mode at wedding ceremonies, for example, but this risks banding issues. The shutter on the Sony A7riv is so quiet that it nearly eliminates the need for silent electronic shooting. It’s audible, but barely a whisper. 

Sony A7riv Functional Issues

As with the third generation models, battery life remains excellent for a mirrorless camera. A single battery will generally get you through a pretty heavy day of shooting. 

While it’s more of a firmware improvement than a body improvement, a significant change is that you can now assign a color to the active focus point, where it was stuck to a light gray color previously. When light gray, the focus point would often get lost in the background and was difficult to see. As shown below, it’s now much easier to find the focus point. In both camera below, there is a focus point over the framed photograph, but it’s virtually invisible on the Sony A7r3.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the menus. As Chevy Chase said on Saturday Night Live, “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.” Well, the Sony menu system is still absolutely awful. Added in the Sony A7riii and continued in the current model, you can customize a “myMenu.” This helps a bit, as you can group together the menu items you would use most. Effectively, you can replace Sony’s awful menus with your own. Unfortunately, the default menus remain confused, poorly labelled and simply illogical. For example, if you want to shoot with back button autofocus, you have to go into one menu to assign “AF-on” to the AF-on button, but then go to an entirely different menu grouping to turn off “AF with shutter.” Otherwise, your shutter button will be constantly overriding your back button AF.

There are a couple of small improvements to the menu system: As with previous models, you can assign a FN (function) menu, accessible in the EVF/LCD. But now, you can customize different FN menus for stills versus video, effectively increasing the number of usable slots. Additionally, when programming the custom buttons, the menu system now includes a diagram of the camera so that you can more easily identify the button you are customizing.

Ergonomics and Body Summary

• The Good: Excellent overall ergonomics with very comfortable grip and great tactile controls. The first generation of Sony mirrorless camera with objectively excellent ergonomics. Even more programmable functions than before. It’s the first time since I switched over to mirrorless from the Sony A99 and Nikon D750 that I didn’t feel like I was compromising the ergonomics. The soft nearly silent shutter is fantastic.
• The Bad: While with small hands, the pinkie may rest a bit better, still about a centimeter too short for comfortable pinkie placement
• The Ugly: It’s almost 2020, and still the touch screen can’t be used for much more than focus selection. As more functions have gotten added, the menus have gotten even more cumbersome and confusing. 

Performance, Autofocus and Shooting Experience with the Sony A7riv

Autofocus

The days when mirrorless autofocus was considering inferior to dSLR are long gone. Modern cameras, including the A7riv, realize the potential gains of on-sensor autofocus. 

One advantage of mirrorless AF is the possibility of AF points stretching out to cover all or most of the frame. The A7r3 has 399 phase detect points covering much of the frame (68%), while 425 contrast detect points stretched to cover the rest of the frame. As a result, you had very good continuous phase detect AF over much of the frame, but the camera switched to contrast detect at the edges of the frame, which causes a lot of hunting with continuous AF. Taking a big step forward, the A7r4 uses 527 hybrid AF points covering 74% of the frame. The jump from 68 to 74% is meaningful and noticeable. Getting pretty close to the edges of the frame, the camera was able to deliver excellent continuous AF.

The other big autofocus jump is more of a firmware feature, first appearing as a firmware update in the Sony A9 and in the introduction of the Sony A6400: Real time tracking. Autofocus has become increasingly complex with a long list of af modes and af-area modes. Real-time tracking brings great simplification: Set a AF point over your subject, and it sticks pretty much like glue. If your subject moves, the focus will follow it. Or you can use the old focus and re-compose method, focus will stay glued to the subject. If the subject is a person, then face detect and eye-AF should kick in automatically.

In theory, real time tracking is an option you should be able to use for almost all of your shooting. It works incredibly well on the Sony A9, a camera really designed with processing speed in mind. As noted in my review of the Sony A6400, it works a bit  less well on this more economical camera. Specifically, when shooting a burst of action, the tracking focus box seemed to lag behind. 

I’m pleased to report that the real time tracking on the A7r4 works a bit better than it does on the Sony A6400. There is no perceptible lag, the box is very sticky. But it still isn’t quite as good as the Sony A9. There were times when my subject was a person and it wouldn’t switch to face/eye-detect very quickly. Additionally, when initiating tracking on a larger subject, the tracking box tended to wander a bit to different spots on the same subject. It didn’t stick to an exact spot to the same degree as the A9.

A New AF Feature..

One aspect of Sony’s autofocus implementation that has both positives and negatives, is that when shooting in continuous AF, the camera acquires focus at the shooting aperture. This reduces the risk of focus shift and also allows for less shutter lag. On the downside, it allows less light into the camera with which to acquire autofocus. As a result, in lesser light and smaller aperture, Sony cameras are known to often hunt in autofocus. (The solution is often to switch to AF-S modes, where the camera opens up the aperture and uses contract detect to confirm focus). 

The A7r4 includes a new mode, “Focus Priority” mode, in which the camera will obtain autofocus with the aperture open and then stop down to the selected aperture to take the shot. 

It’s nice to have the option to use this mode, but it shouldn’t be used as the default setting. There is noticeable lag as the aperture stops down, slowing down the performance of the camera. Use “Focus Priority” only in cases where focus is struggling.

File Size

There is one big issue that haunts the performance of the Sony A7riv: file size. Compressed raw files are nearly 60mb while uncompressed raw files push up to 120mb. Those are massive files for the camera to push through.

Unfortunately, unlike high resolution cameras from other brands, there aren’t a whole lot of options for compressing the raw files. It’s been a long standing complaint against Sony that there is no lossless compress raw. Using compressed raw will cause a reduction (but very very slight) in the potential image quality. Meanwhile, a camera like the Nikon D850 or Z7 offers a whole array of raw file compression options. 

In other words, on the Sony A7riv, if you want a lossless file, you must shoot uncompressed, with each file being about 120 megabytes. If you are willing to lose a tiny bit of quality, you can get the file size down to 60 megabytes. There are no smaller raw options. The Nikon D850 is a 45 megapixel camera: lossless compress files are 41.5mb and the D850 also offers smaller raw files (with less resolution) of 22mb and 30mb. 

No shooter needs 61 megapixels of resolution in every capture. The user would benefit from being able to choose smaller raw files, even giving up some resolution. 

As some people are reading this, they are saying to themselves “memory cards have gotten cheap.” True, but shooting uncompressed raw will fill even a 128gb card in about 1,000 images. Where you can’t count on a single memory card holding an intense day of shooting, it becomes an inconvenience. Hard drives get full much more quickly. Moving from mere inconvenience to actual detriment, the large files take longer to upload into a computer and slow down processing. I recently updated to a top of the line computer with lots of RAM, top processor, etc. Lightroom still lagged slightly when processing A7r4 files. On my older laptop, processing such files is impossibly slow. 

As discussed below, the large file sizes start to negatively impact the camera performance as well..

Speed and Performance

Like its predecessor, the Sony A7riv can shoot at 10 frames per second. To get a continuous live view in the EVF/LCD, you are limited to 8 frames per second. For a full frame camera, this is still excellent speed. It’s fast enough to shoot just about anything. Unfortunately, there are some significant limitations. For starters, shooting at high burst rate drops the raw files down to 12 bit files.

A positive note is that the A7riv now has dual UHS-II card slots. UHS-II slots can write files at about 2-3 times the speed of UHS-I slots. Unfortunately, the file sizes are now about 2-3 times bigger than 24mp cameras. In other words, despite the more advanced memory card slots, the A7riv still won’t clear files any faster than a 24mp camera with UHS-I slots. Dual UHS-II slots on the Sony A9 creates an incredibly fast experience. On the Sony A7riv, memory card writing is a slow laggy experience. Taking measurements from dpreview, shooting compressed raw at 10 fps, the buffer depth is a respectable 61 images but it takes a whopping 55 seconds to clear the buffer. Meanwhile, many functions are frozen out while clearing the buffer. 

Sony A7riv Autofocus and Performance Summary

• The Good: Autofocus is improved upon an already excellent system. Continued excellent battery life.
• The Bad: Burst shooting reduces image quality. 
• The Ugly:  Laggy buffer clearing when shooting bursts.

Image Quality of the Sony A7r4

Sony upgraded the A7r sensor for the first time since the A7rii in 2015. Furthermore, the A7rii only represented a small resolution increase over the original A7r, going from 36mp to 42mp. Thus, jumping to 61mp, this is the first significant resolution increase since the original A7r was launched in 2013. Above, we covered some of the performance trade-offs. Those trade offs could be well worthwhile if we see a leap in image quality.

Let’s start by pixel peeping at the resolution potential:

The above example shows both the potential and the limits of ultra high resolution. When you pixel peep, you see incredible detail in the model’s right eye (camera left) but with such narrow depth of field, there is some softness in the opposite eye. The ultra high resolution magnifies the slightest of miss when pixel peeping, as shown in the next set of images:

So one really will need better technique than ever in order to maximize the potential of the Sony A7riv resolution. 

Let’s take a look at a cropped image where we benefited from all the resolution:

To look at the flexibility of the raw files and the dynamic range in landscapes, with unprocessed and processed images:

Now, after some work in lightroom:

 

We see a lovely final image. The Sony A7riv gives wide latitude to protect highlights, lifting shadows and exposure in post processing. It’s easy for me to conclude the image quality is excellent . . . . 

But now the caveat. While offering more resolution, the image quality just isn’t quite as good as the Sony A7riii. It’s a small but noticeable step in the wrong direction. If you look carefully at the image above, the areas of lifted shadows include a fair amount of color and luminance noise. 

Overall, noise becomes a bigger issue in the Sony A7riv at lower ISO than with the Sony A7riii. Low light performance and noise performance is still very good in an absolute sense, but worse than you find with the Sony A7riii. 

The below graph from DXOMark is informative. Image noise is ultimately a function of both dynamic range and signal to noise ration. DXOMark defines their dynamic range test as follows:

Let’s look at the DXOMark dynamic range comparison, first at the pixel level:

If you are pixel peeping, you’ll see the A7riv has significantly less dynamic range at mid to high ISO in comparison to the A7riii, which in turn is significantly less than the A7iii. This is the effect of having smaller pixels. 

In theory, this effect is usually cancelled out if we don’t pixel peep: If we compare equal sized images. DXO also compares with each camera downsized to 8mps, the size of a medium-large print:

Now things get interesting. The A7riii tracks very close to the A7iii, barely dropping .25 EV’s below the A7iii at ISO 6400. Meanwhile, the A7riv falls 0.50 EV+ behind, starting around ISO 1600-3200.

These test results comport to my experience in real world shooting. Below ISO 800, image quality between the A7riii and A7riv was nearly identical, with the A7riv offering more resolution. A win for the A7riv. But above ISO 800, the performance of the A7riv dropped below the A7riii, cancelling out the resolution gains.

Some real world shooting examples (many with crops), with ISO listed:

Sony A7r4 Low Light Test Shooting and Comparisons

At different ISOs, I did some test shooting comparisons between the A9, A7riii and A7riv. They were each cropped for the same final resolution. As a result, the cropped A7riv has more resolution than the cropped A9 and A7r3.

Starting at ISO 5000:

At ISO 5,000, the images show a similar level of detail. Despite the A9 crop being only 1.3 megapixels while the A7r4 crop is 3.2mp, they show pretty similar detail. Meanwhile, the A7riv shows just slightly more noise.

At ISO 10,000, we tested slightly differently: We cropped each image down to 1 megapixel. This will demonstrate the extra “cropability” as we increase resolution: 

Both the A7riii and A7riv allow significantly more cropping than the 24 megapixels of the A9 but the difference between the A7riii and A7riv is pretty slight. Worse unfortunately, the A7r4 is significantly noisier, so one wouldn’t want to crop so extremely.

Turning to ISO 20,000, testing crops, with and without noise reduction:

The good news is that even at ISO 20,000, the A7riv noise is manageable with noise reduction. The bad new is that there is more noise to reduce, leading to greater loss of detail, despite having room for more detail to lose.

Cropping Comparison at Low ISO

The above testing demonstrated that due to loss of IQ, you don’t really get extra cropping flexibility on the A7r4 at high ISO. Let’s compare the A7riii and A7riv shooting at low ISO at 100mm/F2.8. We crop both images down to 3.4mp:

Here we see excellent image quality even with an extreme crop, in both cameras. The 61 megapixels of the Sony A7riv give a slightly more significant crop than the A7riii.

Pixel Shift

Sony first introduced their version of pixel shift on the Sony A7riii: shifting the sensor ever so slightly while capturing multiple images. It’s been improved on the Sony A7riv, so that you can get a final image with a whopping 240 megapixels of resolution. Unfortunately, it’s more a gimmick than a useful feature. It can only be used on a tripod with a completely still scene. Forget even most landscapes: movement of clouds, wind blowing leaves, will leave bad artifacts. 

Making it even more unappealing, the multiple images cannot be combined in-camera. You must use Sony’s [fairly poor] proprietary software after uploading the images to your computer. 

If you do shoot a totally still scene, go through the steps to process them with the Sony software, you will get a final image with more detail and better image quality. But unless you’re examining a 60×90 print close-up, you probably won’t notice the difference. 

Pixel shift provides very little real world benefit, you can rarely use it, and it’s a lot of work when you use it. Interior architecture shots, some studio fine art shots, etc, may benefit.  

Sony A7riv Image Quality Conclusions

• The Good: Lots of dynamic range, great overall image quality. Lots of detail potential in 61 mp.
• The Bad: The extra resolution puts technique to the test, really elevating the slightest of misses. Despite the big increase in resolution on paper, it really only gives a slight increase in terms of print size/cropping/etc.
• The Ugly: Image quality is great but it’s actually a step backwards from the A7riii. Above ISO 800-1600 or so, losses in image quality will more than cancel out any gains in resolution.

Overall Conclusions on the Sony A7r4

I confess, I wanted to love this camera. It’s fun for me to own and shoot with the newest and best gear. Alas, I won’t be upgrading my main camera from the Sony A7riii to the Sony A7riv.

There are some significant improvements in the Sony A7riv, especially the ergonomics. It’s the most comfortable Sony camera that I’ve ever shot with. If the A7riv had simply stuck with the A7riii sensor, I’d probably be a buyer.

Unfortunately, the sensor is a step in the wrong direction. There are too many negative trade offs. The Sony A7riii is a great all-around camera. It gives a nice jump in resolution compared to the more common 24 megapixel models, while retaining best in class image quality. File sizes are big but manageable. Thus, it’s a great camera for travel, wedding photography, events, casual family use, etc. The A7riv is not a great general purpose camera. The files are simply too big for a wedding photographer who needs to upload and process thousands of images at a time. A wildlife photographer may love all the cropping latitude but would hate the slow buffer clearing and would rarely get to utilize the extra cropping unless shooting at low ISO. A casual user won’t get any benefit from 61 megapixels. A travel photographer often shooting at higher ISO won’t be experiencing the best in image quality. That’s not to say a camera like this is useless, just that the true target market is extremely small. If you shoot landscapes on tripods, if you are a fine art photographer who makes massive prints for close-up viewing, if you are shooting in a studio and never go above ISO 800, then the A7riv may be an amazing tool for you. For me, the trade-offs outweigh the gains.

My final Good, Bad and Ugly:

• The Good: Excellent ergonomics and autofocus. Image quality still excellent overall.
• The Bad: Image quality slightly worse than the predecessor, horrible menu system, limited function of the touch screen.
• The Ugly: Massive files that clog up the workflow and slow down the performance of the camera. Lack of lossless compressed raw and other alternative raw options.

Advice

If you’re considering the Sony A7riv, think carefully about whether you will benefit from the new sensor. Even if you regularly print at sizes as big as 30×40, you don’t need 61 megapixels. If you regularly shoot over ISO 800, you’ll probably prefer the image quality of the Sony A7riii. If you regularly shoot, upload and process hundreds of images at a time, you’ll be frustrated with the A7riv file size. If you regularly shoot bursts, you’ll be annoyed by the slow buffer clearing on the Sony A7riv. 

If you are one of the people who will truly benefit from the 61 megapixels of resolution, make sure to get lenses that will maximize the resolution. Two “bargain” lenses that shine on the Sony A7riv are the Sony 35mm F/1.8 (See on Amazon / Adorama) and the Samyang 85mm F/1.4 (See on Amazon / Adorama). You also can’t go wrong shooting with Sony’s “GM” lenses. (Sony GM Lenses on Amazon / Adorama). 

If you are purchasing the Sony A7riv, retailers are already putting together bundles with lots of “free” extras included in the base price. Adorama has this excellent kit with a high quality tripod, extra batteries and more. For videographers, Adorama offers a kit that includes an Atomos Ninja Inferno ($800 when bought separately). Amazon has an excellent bundle that includes a DJI Ronin handheld gimbal and other accessories. Amazon also has a bundle that includes my preferred flash, the Godox 860ii, as well as memory cards and other accessories. All these bundles represent unofficial price drops.

My most significant advice would be to strongly consider purchasing the Sony A7riii instead of the A7riv. The Sony A7riii is the better “all around” camera with slightly better image quality and without the trade offs of the excessive file size of the A7riv. As of this writing, you can find the A7riii for under $2500. (See the Sony A7riii on Amazon / Adorama). The only thing I miss substantially shooting with the A7riii compared to the A7riv is the upgraded ergonomics. 

If you found this review informative, please follow me on twitter or accept notifications from this blog. In the near future, we will complete our catalog of Sony FE lens reviews (until Sony introduces more lenses!). In the new year, expect to see reviews of the Sony A6600 and the new Sony aps-c lenses.  Thank you for reading.