Alpha 7 IV: where are the weak points?

I could end just about all my camera views with: it’s fine, you can go ahead and buy it. But because that kind of comment is boring and not very helpful, I look for the small differences. I search for weak points, flies in the ointment. For the Sony A7 IV, this search was very extensive.

There’s no question: the A7 IV has it all. The previous model, the A7 III, already had me weak at the knees. And now the fourth generation of the A7 outshines its predecessors in virtually all aspects. Think higher resolution, much better autofocus, clearer menu navigation, more potent video function ... points I already described in detail in my initial test.

Cash‐back

Cameras

EUR2246,51 Cashback EUR 300.–

Sony Alpha 7 IV

33 Mpx, Full frame

137

Cameras

Cash‐back

EUR2246,51 Cashback EUR 300.–

Sony Alpha 7 IV

33 Mpx, Full frame

137

However, the A7 IV failed to blow me away, as I’ve become quite spoiled. In the three and a half years between the release of the third and the fourth generation, the Alpha 7 developed quite a bit. In early 2018, Sony’s mirrorless system cameras were largely unrivalled; Canon and Nikon only had SLRs in full frame. But that’s no longer the case. In fact, things have changed a lot.

The flies in the ointment

Armed with high expectations by late 2021, I start looking for those flies.

The 4K crop

When shooting 4K at 50 or 60 frames per second, the camera severely crops the viewing angle. Namely, by a factor of 1.5 – just like it does when you attach an APS-C lens. It’s as if you’re zooming in. Granted, this may be practical in certain cases, such as bird shots. But it’s still a flaw, as it diminishes the options for wide-angle videos.

This isn’t the end of the world. But it’s a pity, because the Sony Alpha 7 IV is a super video camera apart from that. The setting options and display aids for shooting videos cover needs I didn’t even know existed. The image quality of the videos is also excellent.

It’s also a pity because Sony released a great super wide-angle lens this year that’s perfect for videos. And this potential remains untapped. I’m talking about the FE 14mm F1.8 GM.

Continuous shooting speed

At 10 frames per second, the speed remains unchanged with the new model. This goes for both the mechanical and electronic shutter. Technically, this is fine and should do for most cases. However, the camera only managed this speed with JPEGs and lossy compressed RAW files. With lossless compressed and uncompressed RAW files, the camera is significantly slower – an estimated 6 frames per second.

In my opinion, Sony should state this in the specifications. But it doesn't say that anywhere, not even in a footnote.

Whether or not this is a problem in practice depends on the following question: is the lossy compressed RAW file visibly worse?

Compressed RAW

The camera is familiar with three different RAW formats:

• Uncompressed
• Lossless compressed
• (Lossy) compressed

I didn’t use uncompressed because the quality should be the same as lossless compressed. When comparing lossless and lossy compression, I can’t see any difference. I shot in difficult light – backlighting and darkness – and heavily edited the images. Both formats produce the same results in editing.

Display this image in a large size

Display this image in a large size

The pictures aren’t identical, because they were shot by hand. But the differences have nothing to do with the file type. Here’s another example with 2000 ISO and obvious noise in the edited version.

Display this image in a large size

Display this image in a large size

The lossy compressed files aren’t much smaller either. In the above examples: 35.8 MB versus 41.4 MB and 37.5 versus 42.8 MB. The file size alone cannot be the reason that the camera only manages 6 frames per second with the lossless compressed format. Presumably, the lossless compression algorithm is slower. In other words, it takes longer to create the file in the first place.

This means that the problem isn’t really a problem at all. If you need fast continuous shooting, you can set the lossy compression to RAW without hesitation. The only annoyance is that you have to find that out for yourself, because Sony won’t tell you.

The viewfinder image

While testing this camera, I couldn’t help feeling that the viewfinder wasn’t fully sharp. I can rule out an incorrectly adjusted dioptric correction as the cause. The same goes for the viewfinder’s resolution – it’s lower than on the Alpha 1, but sufficient. With 3.69 million subpixels, it’s on par with the Canon R6 as well as the Nikon Z6 II and clearly above the A7 III with its 2.36 million subpixels.

So it definitely has nothing to do with the viewfinder. The live image isn’t entirely sharp even via HDMI export. Here’s a screenshot. The final photo is significantly sharper than the live image.

I have no idea why this is the case. Photos are sharpened post capture, but I’ve never noticed it so clearly.

The ointment

I was searching for bad stuff, but couldn’t find much. The Sony A7 IV produces a significant crop at 4K with 50 or 60 frames. Other than that, the video function of this camera is top-notch. There are three different RAW formats; with two of them, the continuous shooting function is slowed down. But since all RAW formats deliver impeccable quality, this isn’t a problem in everyday use.

Then there’s the issue with the blurry viewfinder image. The cause is unclear to me, but I found it bothersome. That’s it. All things considered, this is a state-of-the-art and very versatile camera. Once again, I was impressed by the autofocus. Bird detection works flawlessly; just like it did with the Sony Alpha 1. In terms of applications, the A7 IV can hold a candle to the much more expensive A1; therefore, I don’t find it over expensive. In other words: it’s fine, you can go ahead and buy it.