We are now in an era where we can rest easy and not worry about using ISO 12,800 as it will still provide you spectacular results T_T thank you for this, Sony!
Exactly the proof I was searching for. This is the reason I'm staying away from A7 IV. Not only that you change perspective and POV with 4k60p crop, but you loose dynamic range and low light performance. Also to all the people that say just use wider APS-C lenses - not really the same, because you lose a lot of DOF with 1.5 crop apeture as well. So I'm happy to keep my old A7 III for photography and buy zv-e1 for some B-Rolls and shallow DOF 4k slow-mos. Thanks!
It's certainly not a specialized video camera, but I use it in APS-C 4k60 when shooting wedding videos and I don't really have any issues. I just use fast lenses, both full frame and APS-C. The Sigma APS-C primes are great, the Sony 11mm and 15mm are amazing, and even adapting the old Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses works well.
fun fact the 4k crop still has more detail than a7siii ff 4k, but certainly a bit noiser. [a1, a7rv included as well]. a lot of the current down sampling tech in the industry is really great for bird/nature videography given you have enough light to stay above the noise floor.
It's surprisingly good. Fast rolling shutter in APS-C for a non-stacked sensor, and it allows for proper 4k capture when used with any of the massive catalog of Super35 cinema lenses (and APS-C stills lenses), something the A7S III/FX3 cannot do.
Thanks for sharing. This is a very useful comparison. It is worth noting, that when comparing HD vs HD crop on the A7IV, the quality and dynamic range actually improves. The same was true of my Canon 90d.
Yep, that's because for whatever reason Sony decided that the camera wasn't going to downscale the full sensor readout for full frame 1080p but it WAS going to downscale the 4.6k readout of the APS-C crop for it's 1080p. Even more odd is that this is only the case up to 60fps, at 100 and 120fps the full frame 1080p is actually better quality than the APS-C crop.
Thanks for the informative video! No apologies necessary - your presenting skills and the quality you achieved in this video are excellent! Currently, I am debating between the A74 and the A7R5. very different cameras to be sure; however, they'd be used for the same work - video/photo hybrid use (mostly shooting 23.9 fps) with 32 MP being the minimum req for my photo work. After selling my a7siii, I'm left with a Ninja V, and of the two current options I'm giving myself, the 7R5 has the capability of shooting RAW, which I sometimes do on certain, very specific, productions. Anyway, this video helped me in my little consumerism detour of researching cameras, and I thank and virtually applaud you for the work you've done, good sir. Also, I'm applying your findings to the new A6700, and do wonder how the APSC crop on these two FF cameras differs from it, as opposed to the A6400. Cheers!
I've typically read that it's not pixel size that determines noise performance, but the size/surface area of the pixel that helps it take in light. Of course they are similar, but that could be taken the wrong way, no? I also feel it's kind of hard to test when there are so many differences with these cameras, ESPECIALLY with the denoising. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Correct. The technical term for this is the fill factor, it's the ratio between the light sensitive area of the photosite and the other electronics. Modern sensors that might be backside illuminated or have more advanced microlenses over each photosite means that this has become less of an issue over time. A good example I like to share is the Sony A7S III and A7R IV. 12mp and 61mp respectively. Huge photosite size difference and yet they have nearly identical noise performance, actually slightly lower on the A7R IV, up until around ISO 51,200 where the A7S III catches up and then has less noise at ISO 102,400. Now obviously these are extremely high, borderline unusable ISO values for most types of photography, and the A7S III pulling ahead at those extremes is likely less due to the larger photosites and more due to how other electronics in the camera are designed.
What you're saying is that atomic info is better than aggregate info (that can be computed anyway) when you want more total info. Of course that's true. So yes for a given sensor size you have more info with more pixels than bigger ones. Meaning better details, dynamic range... However it's the opposite for rolling shutter.
That would be a combination of my floors and the tripod I used not being super stable. I likely had my feet too close to the tripod and my floors in that room have a little bit of give in some areas.
Up to preference. The full frame 1080p recording is line skipped/pixel binned, so the quality isn't great and is going to be worse than the APS-C crop 4k. However, you'll get more background blur and subject separation in full frame 1080p when using similar primes or zooms. I have tested 120fps though, which is 1080p in both full frame and APS-C crop. It's usable in full frame and absolutely terrible in the APS-C crop mode.
If I'm not mistaken the only S&Q mode that requires CFe-A is the 4k60 XAVC S-I, since it's higher bitrate than even the XAVC S-I 4k60 in real-time recording. I would say don't bother. I see no use for CFe-A on the A7 IV, outside of super intense sports or wildlife photography.
I wonder why Josh Sattin’s low light results show the FX30 with more noise in the shadows than the a7IV in crop mode. Did he do something wrong in his tests?
Haven't seen it myself, but I'll check it out. I do know that the FX30 does a bit less denoising than Sony's other cameras, but that can be a good thing for detail. It also could come down to a slight dynamic range difference, depending on how the test was done, since the basis for the FX30 sensor is an older technology than the sensor in the A7 IV.
Update: I checked out Josh's channel, but you're gonna have to point me to a video where he showed a low light test between the FX30 and the A7 IV in crop mode. All I found were multiple videos where he compared the FX30 to the A7 IV in full frame recording, where obviously the A7 IV has better performance.
While it is generally good practice to ETTR (Expose to the right of the histogram), I'm not really sure what that has to do with the purpose of the video or my findings.
@@TechnoBabble can you explain a little bit more why? Should i usse clear image zoom instead of crop mode? I am thinking about getting an APSC f1.2 lens to use on my a7c :D
@@duyhungphannguyen3049 You should probably test it for yourself, but I believe clear image zoom will give a better result than APS-C crop. Also, something to note, an f/1.2 lens for APS-C will give about the same results as an f/1.8 lens for full frame. Plus, because of the poor APS-C crop quality/having to use clear image zoom, you'll probably get a better result with a cheap full frame lens instead.
