Which Sony Camera For Wildlife Photography, a7r IV or a9?
This is the question I get most asked lately, which of the Sony cameras is best for wildlife photography. The answer is not really straightforward, as it depends on what typy of wildlife photography you do.
In this video I talk about the strengts and weaknesses of the a7T IV and a9 and share with you my opinion on which camera may be best for you.
As always please let me know if you have any questions by posting a comment.
==============================
Gear I Talk about on the video
a7RIV: bhpho.to/2XTLo7m
a9: bhpho.to/30TGRnB
a9II: bhpho.to/2Pegc1p
All my photo gear recommendations: kit.co/jpons
==============================
Visit my links:
Website: juanpons.org
Facebook: / juanpons
KZhead Channel: / juanpons
My photo gear recommendations: kit.co/jpons
Amazing video and great review. Thank you!
Crystal clear presentation! Thank you
Thanks Juan. I enjoyed vey much your explanations. Clear and concise. To those people who are lucky enough to own both cameras, the advise will be to carry both cameras in the field, one in a small backpack or in a pouch belt, and interchange them according to the shooting circumstances. I've seen it done very successfully.
Excellent job. Thank you very much. You answered all my questions.
Glad to hear it.
Superb video. You helped me make my decision!
a great informative video and I like how you elaborate the details and been honest about your experience with these products. .. Great job...
Thanks! Glad you found it useful.
Thank you Juan, i have Canon and Sony. i was looking for the next Sony full frame body..this was helpful. Much appreciated.
Glad you found the info helpful
Very nice and detail explanation,your technic of elaborating things is great, please do a video on Sony a7 m3
Thinking of moving to Sony from fuji xt3 for my wildlife camera. Your video very helpful in answering my questions. Thanks!
Glad to hear it.
I own both of them, the A7RIV and the A9II...and both of them are fantastic cameras. If I could have only one of them I would go with the A9II...Greetings from Germany 🙋♂️
Enno Fehse , I suspect that everyone using an A9 has their moment of amazement at the tracking and autofocus. For me, it was when I saw a flock of swallows feeding on hatching insects over a pond. I instantly dismissed the idea of trying to photograph them. A swallow flies very fast and has a turn radius of a few cm. Then I thought, why not try? I just started laughing when the A9 routinely nailed the shots. Grüße aus den Vereinigten Staaten✌🏻
@@stuartschaffner9744 I couldn't describe it in a better way!!! 👍😉👍🙋♂️
Reuel T , please don’t put blanket statements like this on the internet without checking. Perhaps you are confusing LEDs with laser diodes.
I have a filling - if you decide to sell A9II later on - it would be almost impossible to get a good price since market for such cameras is very small....
Of course, this is reasonable.
I use the sony a6600 and I am thrilled. Your contrast was great when and if I fo go to full frame I will keep you in mind
Nicely done and timely for me. I am heavy into Nikon. Using the d810 and d4s. Both are great cameras and can accomplish any photo task. However I would like a lighter camera system. Today for the first time I came across a used Sony A7RIV. Thinking I would rather have the A9 and not yet ready to make a leap I held off. After viewing your video the A7RIV is the camera I would like to have with a A9 as a back up. Maybe. I have not yet had my hands on a Sony A9 yet. Taking my Nikon gear back to my home state of Wyoming in a few weeks, being Sept of 2021. I will see if I still love my Nikon gear or ready to jump ship. Thanks much for this wonderful video.
Excellent video! Well done!!
Thank you very much!
Wonderful video Juan and very helpful to me. I'll be checking out your video re: Sony 200-600mm with the Ar7Vl. I currently shoot Nikon, but may be interested in a smaller sized full-frame body. Thanks!
Good to hear. Thanks.
thank you very much for this video great job !!! i own two A7R4 and i'm about to buy an A9/A9 Mark II for BIF and other fast actions Greeting from Germany
thanks for your opinions
Most welcome
Nice video & good info. But I prefer to combo a9 for AF + no blackout with a6400 for MP
Very good analysis. I will buy one a7r4
Thank you for this review! I was debating updating my Sony a7 III with the a7r IV but I was also considering the a9 II. In the end, the price difference makes me consider the a7r IV for my style of photography.
Glad it was helpful!
This is one of the best videos anyone can watch for this comparison
Hi Juan. Your videos on KZhead have really inspired me .. I bought the Sony a9 and a7R iv. My lenses are: Sony 100-400mm GM, Sony 200-600mm and Sony 24-105 f4. I couldn't wish for anything better .... thank you, and finally continue your amazing work on KZhead. Merry Christmas from Denmark
Hi Jan, so glad to hear I was able to help you on this path. Your setup is about the best you could ask for today. Take care and have a Merry Christmas.
Which lens do your prefer between your 100-400 & 200-600 with your a7R iv? With the amount of pixels in the a7R iv, the 100-400 seems to offer greater versatility
absolu222 What I prefer depends on sunlight and distance! If there is good light, I use a7r iv and 200-600mm (and sometimes crop 1.5) For birds in flight, I use a9 (and sometimes Sony 1.4) and 100-400mm Try your way because there are many combinations. Opportunities rather than restrictions ... 😇
very nice video. from my experience, spot on. i shoot an a7r4 with an a9 as backup, but seldom use it. was originally going to put the short zoom on the a9 and the long zoom on the r4 to avoid field lens swaps. yesterday, i did a field zoom swap anyway because the r4 has spoiled me so much for the "unnecessary" but nice to have resolution. getting good results from hand held 200-600 lead me to shooting it with the 2xTC (still hand held). having great fun with that, but took it off burst shooting because after the first 2 frames, it has so much front lens motion that it tries to refocus and you come home with a dozen or so to toss for each burst.
Thanks for the kind words.
Brilliant Video, really has helped me with my choice of camera, At Present I'm using Nikon for my wildlife photography. and have given a lot of thought about Sony, The Sony A7r 4 is the way forward for my next Camera. Very Helpful and Informative, many thanks for sharing your experience. 🇬🇧
Glad you enjoyed it. Switching system is painful, so I would think about it long and hard. I recommend you watch my video on switching systems, to get some tips and help in making the decision.
Thank you Juan for another great video. I am in with you now having the A7RIV and the A9. We are lucky Sony put such great firmware updates into to the A9 with their continued updates.. I've owned mine since it first came out and have zero regrets and felt no need to upgrade with the A9II. Of course Sony still got my money since I used it to improve my lens collection. Take care.
Agree 100%
thanks for this great video. You might be the first to say the low light and IQ is better in the A7RIV than A9! I am a recent convert to Sony and so far.. love..love .. love it. I have no experience with the A9 but the RIV has been outstanding!
In absolute terms the a9 has better low light performance over the a7R IV, but the a7R IV over all has significantly better image quality. For me and many others the overall image quality is more important. But that is why we have different tools, to meet the needs of different people. Thanks for the comment.
Hi Juan, I've just seen your fantastic video. I bought a Sony A7RIII three months ago with a Tamron 28-200 F/2.8 - 5.6 zoom lens and I'm waiting the new Sigma 150 - 600 for Sony E mount (in Italy it's not available yet). I'm happy in general but sometimes I'm struggling in AF in very fast subject, do you have any suggestions for the best AF setting? Roberto from Italy PS: Did you test the Sigma 150 -600 for wild life photography?
Thanks Juan! Great info about both cameras. Sony should be listening to you! Next up, the A7RIV9II (alphabet soup) with all the bells and whistles. I have not been happy lately with my Canon 7D Mkii, the autofocus has been frustrating. Maybe its time for me to try Sony... rent first I guess.
Hi Kathy! Yes rentals are probably one of the best way to give them a try on your terms. Do let me know if you have any questions or issues when you try them out. Take care.
I guarantee if you are shooting birds or fast animals and try the A9 you will sell your Canon gear so fast and switch to Sony in a heartbeat.
Great Video as always! Thank you g=for your time and hard work. Question about your comments on the a7r4 crop mode: Which yields better IQ a full res (61mpxl) image that gets cropped in post prodution or an image taken in crop mode (26mpxl). Assume the full res image is cropped to the same image area as the crop mode image.
It really should be the same IQ, as the camera is simply cropping the image as it comes out of the sensor.
Hope you are staying safe.. I had a7riii for my landscape/portraiture work and a6400 for videos and birding.. however just got a9 on discount.. so impressed with it..
Thanks for sharing
How do you like the a9 compared to the a7r3 and a6409 bodies with the 200-600? I have an A7R2 and just rented an A7R3a and A7R4a. I have a 100-400 GM and a 1.4TC. The A7R2 has great image quality but focusing, handling, battery life stinks. Thanks.
@@vettepwr23 a9 is amazingly fast.. still a great machine 3.5 yrs down the line. You may get good deal on it. You will miss the details from a7rii on this. But it serves its purpose of focusing and keeping it nailed. The eye af for birds is missing here as well. So if u want a perfect camera a1 is for you. But the cost is bit too much. A9 and a7riii are like neo and trinity :) .. sorry for my matrix inclusion here.. just came out of theatre watching it.
@@DipeshMehrotra I’m thinking about getting the A7IV instead to use for bif, sports and portraits.
Sold my A9 and A7III and purchased ans A7R4. It is a stunning camera for wildlife photography. I evaluated my shots over a period of 6 weeks and concluded only about 10% required the outright AF speed and accuracy of an A9: but most would benefit from a 61MP sensor for cropping. I haven't regretted my decision for a moment.
My thoughts exactly.
What about the performance in low light
@@just4harii. Not as good as the A9 or A7III: but that is only to be expected due to the 61MP. There is always a compromise. So when choosing a camera you have to decide on your priorites and manage your expectations. The ability to crop, plus excellent AF were my priorites - hence the A7R4 is almost perfect for me. I also own an Olympus EM1X, which is M43 format. It, too, has a lower perfomance in low light than most FF cameras; but that is not an issue for me because of the way I use it.
Or grab a a7Riii and a9. :) Great video and break down of the pros and cons.
Excellent video Juan, as an owner of both cameras for the reasons you very accurately explain I would find it hard to part with either camera. Your wish list for the perfect camera is spot on if only Sony would take heed and produce that perfect camera! Could I ask? with all the focus mode's which are available with either camera which focus mode do you prefer for shooting small fast birds in flight or static?
I typically use "zone" mode when shooting birds. It allows me to much more easily follow those fast moving birds.
Juan thanks for all your great episodes. I am on the point of switching to sony... In the video I saw you have been shooting with the Canon EOS 7D Mk2 before. I would love to hear your opinion on how it compares to the A7 R4 quality and autofocus wise?
Comparing the 7D2 with the a7R4 is like comparing a Ford Fiesta with a Ferrari both in AF and IQ. No comparison. You will be blown away when you try the a7R4.
Juan thank you for the quick reply. Even with this setup I get some beautiful results. So I am very looking forward to the Sony!!!
Just returned from Yellowstone where I used both and ended using the a7RIV 90% of the time because of the crop mode that gives me a 600mm f 2.8 when used with the 400 mm f2.8 and a 100% AF area, reduced file size and faster buffer. I will not argue that the a9 has better AF but the a7IV at 10 f/s even when it missed 2-3 images in focus got my shots. Another advantage for me is that when using a long telephoto I do not have to change the focus and shutter speed modes by adjusting the knobs in the top left dial of the a9 since I can do that from the buttons/rotary wheel s in the right sided without having to remove my eye from the viewfinder. Both cameras complement each other so both have a place in my backpack with a 400 and 100-400 for wildlife and an iPhone for landscapes to travel light.
Using the crop mode in the a7RIV (or any full-frame camera) does not give you 600mm reach with a 400mm lens. It gives you a cropped 400mm picture ... exactly the same as if you shot in full-frame mode and cropped it the same amount later in post. In your final shot, your subject is exactly the same size in pixels whether you shoot in full-frame or crop mode.
Nice comparison Juan 🙂 The APSC mode is given not for the sake of APSC look. It is given just in case if we happen to have E mount APSC lenses. The auto setting detects which format the lens is and switches to it automatically. Thats the reason I did not sell my 16mm f1.4 Sigma Contemporary lens.
Partly true, but you can also use the APS-C mode even though you are using a full frame lens. Some people like doing that because it gives them a smaller file and much deeper buffer.
@@JuanPons Ok 🙂 Thank you for the reply.
An apsc mode on Riv gives trippel the buffer size, 204 shots in apsc mode vs 68 in full frame. I and shoot wildlife, but I do shoot sports, and apsc mode makes so much of a difference
Excellent comparison, thank you. But what about viewfinder blackout in the R7iv?
You can enable a mode on the a7RIV that provides close to no blackout. Definitely not as goos as the a9, but much better than a DSLR.
The switch from my Nikon DSLR to Sony mirrorless is very tempting. Fortunately (??) cost of switching is holding me back. However ... I live in hope that Nikon will produce an F-mount mirrorless camera that somewhat matches your "personal wish". They say that having lots of money doesn't make you happy ... but it would be a good start!
The Nikon Z series is a great system, I think that when they come out with the 2nd generation the gap in features and functionality will be much smaller.
Thank you for your excellent revue of two amazing Sony cameras. Do you know if the AF on a7RM4 is performing any better in crop mode?
I never shoot it in crop mode so I can't tell you from personal experience but from others I have heard that yes it performs better.
Juan Pons Thank you for your respons Juan. I now know that the cropped image has about 90% coveage with the auto focus sensors it performs rather well. 26 Mp photos in crop mode makes the photos useable and with higher resolution than A9II... I’m so far really content with my a7RIV... even with my old crop lenses...
It does not work well in any way, at least compared to the autofocus of the A9 and A9II.
I would very much like to see (i.e.e download) an exact 1:1 same image/settings comparison of higher iso (3200) images.
I have seen it in other reviews and in all cases the A7RIII and the A9 shows a better quality at high ISO than the A7IV.
I’m always confused at “image quality” as being measured in pixels. I always took that as quality of pixels. DXO mark will always give higher marks to higher Megapixels, part of their algorithm. But I know what you are saying.
Both awesome cameras. I rather have the great focusing of the a9... but being able to crop pics with the a7riv is amazing. Im shocked at how the cropped images look.
Hello from Kyiv Ukraine. Your wish came true just a year after this video. The A1. Sony was listening. Expensive at $6500+ but it is a major evolution in cameras. The A1 is a mix of the A9, A7RIV and some of the A7SIII. Will you be getting one? I am a professional photographer and I own the A9, A7RIII and two A7III's. These cameras do everything I need them to and more plus I do not yet believe they are outdated. The A1 is something I would like but not something I need.
Yes this new A1 looks very good, at least on paper. I have mine on order and will be doing an video review once I have time to use it in real world scenarios, so it may take a month or so after the camera is released. Take care.
Thanks Juan, I really appreciate your analysis. I'm not a full-time photographer yet (still have the 9-5), but I sell some photos and make some money in contests, but while I'd love to have the A7RIV and A9, it's hard for me to justify with the money I make from photography. I'm currently shooting the A7RIII and A7III. I have the 100-400mm GM and the 200-600mm G and usually use the A7RIV for wildlife because of the additional pixels for cropping. I'm considering selling my A7III and buying the a6600 for wildlife for the extra reach and improved tracking. Being in South Carolina, I primarily shoot birds and need the extra reach. I do have the 1.4x, but it only really works well with the A7III, and then I'm giving up light which is a precious commodity. You mentioned a budget situation very similar to mine. Have you shot the a6600 and if so, how does its tracking compare with the A7RIV or A9? I rented an a6400 and wasn't that impressed using the new real-time tracking for BIF. If I can swing the cash, do you see a significant advantage for the A7RIV over the A7RIII for BIF? thanks, Jim
I personally wouldn't buy the A6600 as the sensor is now showing it's age. Much better idea to get the A7R4 and use it in crop mode where the buffer increases to 200 plus shots and gives you 26MP files, the A6600 doesn't have the A9 focus but the focus on the A7R4 is more than adequate, sure it takes milliseconds more to acquire focus compared to the A9 but it proves just as sticky & on H+ at 10 FPS there's very little noticeable screen blackout. You also get the fantastic EVF in the A7RV and better colours. One thing I would mention though is that the A7R4 likes light, it doesn't care for high ISO like the A9 but it's manageable, I've been shooting it at ISO4000 and the files clean up ok
The a6600 sensor is definitely not the best in terms of image quality but for the price, specially compared to the a7R IV, it is a good compromise with it's spectacular AF.
@@ripley1690 Thanks, that's good info. Did you shoot with the A7RIII? If so, do you find the A7RIV's focus "stickier" ?
A9 for fast moving action and less cropping, A7R IV for slow still animals where you need to crop tighter
correcto
No true, A7RIV is great for BIF and fast moving subjects, if you're good enough to take advantage of the camera. kzhead.info/sun/gpx9eMmXq6eFoqM/bejne.html
Thanks for that Video. I think you get a new Camera...... The Sony A1 ;-)
Hi Juan, good comparison. You mentioned you don’t recommend shooting in crop mode in the A7R IV, but can crop mode help with auto focus on fast and smaller moving subjects? And how much better do you think the A7R IV auto focus is over the A7R III? Thanks
I do not think engaging APS-C will improve the AF at all. I may be wrong as I have not personally tested that, but I really don’t think it would have an effect. The AF on the a7R IV is MUCH faster and accurate than the a7R III. The AF on that camera is just so so. Hope that helps.
@@JuanPons Although in APS-C you have a larger image to focus on, so perhaps more precise focus can be achieved in APS-C. (i.e. on eye rather than face).
Hi. Great video. Looking to get into wildlife and BIF photography. I’m have an A7R2 and have the 100-400 GM with a 1.4 TC. Looking to add a 200-600 in the future. I used an A6400 and 200-600 in the past but found that combo hard to use for long periods. I’m planning to sell the R2 unless it makes sense to keep in combination with my next camera. For example the R2 is still and amazing landscape camera. Should I pick up an A7R3, A7R4 or an A9? The A7R3a with an extra battery can be had new for $2k and the A7RIVa for $3k. I’m guess the A1 would be the best solution but I can’t spend $6400 at this time. Thanks.
Hi, My recommendation out of the cameras you mentioned would be the a7R4, the R3 AF system is really not up to tracking wildlife. I would also consider the newly released a74, great AF (better than the a7R4) good sensor and resolution. The big advantage of the a7R4 is the 60 megapixels which is great to crop into the images when you need that extra reach which you always seem to with wildlife. Best of luck!
@@JuanPons Thank you! I really appreciate the response. Should I just bite the bullet and get in get the A1? Or is there a legitimate two camera solution? E.g., A7R4 and A74? Also if you had to pick only one not including the A1, what would you choose if buying today?
Thanks for the video, good info. What I would like to see is a video that takes into consideration the fact that most people can’t afford these two cameras, much less when you add the zoom lenses on top of that. The cost of these systems are out of reach for the average person. A video about the best wildlife camera and lenses at a lower price point would be helpful. I know the quality of images won’t be comparable but it is what it is. Thank you!
Thanks for the comment, and yes that is worthwhile subject. I'll think about it and see if I can come up with something.
That’s easy - the a7iii. It costs $1,500 less than the a7Riv.
have you actually shot the A6600? Unfortunately it has NOT the AF system of the A9. A6600 vs A7riv would be nice in terms of AF performance. one difference: you can‘t change tracking sensitivity on A6600
Juan: Kudos on your thoughtful comparison of A9 vs A7R4 for wildlife - I agree fully with your relative pros/cons of these alternatives. However, I wish you had started out directly comparing pros/cons of A92 vs A7R4, since some of the relative pros/cons of your comparison are negated by a current "best of breed" Sony mirrorless comparison. I am a wildlife shooter with strong emphasis on birds, and agree with your logic that the A9/A92 is the better choice for shooters like me. Incidentally, while most of the improvements in the A92 over A9 appear to be subtle or irrelevant for wildlife shooters, I have found the improved ergonomics, improved AF (yes, it's better with new processor despite same sensor), better battery life, better weatherproofing worth the upgrade to A92 for my wildlife work. You have helped to convince me that the pros of the A7R4 warrant upgrading from my current A7R3 to the A7R4 as my backup camera, but contrary to your viewpoint on the merits of shooting in APS-C mode on the A7R4, I think the advantages of smaller file size, longer bursts due to faster buffer clearing, and post-crop composing would be appealing to me under my typical shooting conditions. Again, thank you for your thoughtful coverage here.
Gordon, Thanks for your very thoughtful comment! The reason I started with the a9 vs the a92 is because for most people putting the $1,000 difference into glass would be a greater advantage. For others that may not be a consideration and in that case the a92 is a better choice. In addition, for people like me who already have the a9 it's not worth the $1,500 or so that it would cost to do the upgrade, specially since the a9 gets much less usage compared to the a7R4. I like to say that the a9 is a specialist camera, while the a7r4 is a generalist camera. Thanks and take care.
@@JuanPons Just curious about something you didn't mention. I do not shoot SONY but appreciate the advantages. I shoot birds and BIF and both a Full frame and APS-C camera (almost never put my FF camera in APS-C mode). Here's my question: I agree that you have more flexibility when cropping FF image to APS-C size (Sony A7RIV). However, some would argue that the AF improves when because a small image takes up more of the sensor. Your experience?
Hey, thanks for the informative video. I just sold my a9 to get the new a7riv.
Enjoy it
Wonderful review, I would need one guidance from you. Currently i use MFT camera and would like to shift to Sony mirror-less. Which would be better to take (A7R IV / A9 II) with 200-600 lens. I mostly shoot nature and wildlife. Your suggestion would help photographers like me.
If you are doing general nature and wildlife, then the a7RIV would be best in my opinion, if you shoot fast action wildlife like birds in flight then the a9II would be best. Hope that helps.
Nice comparison and video! Top! 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 im confused for Wildphoto.. if stay with nikon or pass to Sony....😬😬😬😬
Yeeeee !!!! I am the 1000 guy who like your video
Awesome!
It’s the A9II for me low light performance insane autofocus and 20 frames per second
The Sony A9 Mark I does the same at lower price :)
@@Stefan1968ful Mostly, but there is about 10-15% overall improvement in the A9II depending what you shoot. Is it worth it $1500 or £1600 more ?
Camilla & I Image wise they are identical. Changed are network function and housing. No, not worth for me the extra money.
Of course!!!!!
... great comparison. 👍🏻 But if you looking at DxO Mark the low light performance of the a9 is better than the a7R IV and nearly the same like the a7R III. So I can‘t see here a „con“ to use the a9. 🤔
Yes, you are right, the a9 is better at low light in absolute terms, but the IQ (Image quality) of the a7R IV is better. Check out the DXO ratings.
Juan Pons ... of cause, 61 MP and better DR. And I like my a7 RIV also. 😎
Hi great video. I have a question and I would like to know your opinion please. The sony a9 II all claim to be ideal for wildlife photography, but it only has 24MP, in wildlife photography you often have to shoot away from the animals and you need to crop the image. What is your opinion about image quality of the A9 II? Thanks a lot. Best regards
The a9II as well as the a9 are great wildlife cameras, great AF and great low light capabilities. However the 24Mpix is a huge issue, as you don't have a lot of room for cropping and printing in large sizes. Also even though the a9II has great low light capabilities I personally feel that the images the camera produces don't hold up as well when editing them, specially bringing up the shadows. My recommendation has been that unless you are shooting fast moving subjects like birds in flight, you are better off with the a7RIV. Yes the AF is not as good, but it still is very good. The 60Mpix helps with cropping on distant subjects and the files the camera produces are amazing, and hold up extremely well in editing. Then there is the A1, although it is a super expensive camera if you are serious about wildlife photography, there is nothing better out there. Super fast AF, super fast frame rate and great images. It is the perfect package as far as I am concerned. I will be releasing my review of the A1 very soon.
@@JuanPons thanks a lot. Best regards
How about the electronic shutter no noise distraction does a7RIII a7RIV alpha9 that particular subject is not covered in detail does a7RIV works like a9 electronic shutter
I really like this video. I think it is a very critical analysis of the pros and cons. After watching, we will use our Sony A99 II's in Yellowstone when the light is good. We'll use the A9 when the light is more iffy and the A 9 for eagles in winter. I would note that I checked the DxOmark low light scores. While the A7RIII is very slightly better than the A9 (3523 v. 3517), both cameras appear to be a little better than the A7RIV (3344). Having said that, the low light performance of all three seems remarkable and the differences appear insignificant for practical purposes. P.S. Look me up if you're in Yellowstone in the spring or fall. I'll get you out of the Lamar Valley and show you some places where your opportunities for decent grizzly shots are much better.
Hi Jeff, thanks for the comment. Yes the III and 9 are better in the low light scores the the IV but the overall score of the IV blows the a9 out of the water. Love to take you up on the offer next time I am out that way.
@@JuanPons Try not to stay in Cooke City or Gardiner but a place more centrally located. The bears they call Raspberry and Snow hang out on the East Entrance Road oftentimes very close to the road. Most of the Bear Management folks on that end are very are reasonable. They'll allow the photographers to get quite a bit closer than 100 yards as long as they feel they can control the situation. If you beat the sun up, sometimes you can catch the bears right by the sides of the road and either shoot out your window or moon roof (if you have one).
@@JuanPons P.S. And, Yes the overall sensor scores for both the A7RIII and A7RIV are almost identical and are better than the A 9.
@@jeffbittner1019 I've photographed both Snow and Raspberry quite a few times in the past. I have friends that I sometimes stay with at Lake, and I have camped at Fishing Bridge, but my favorite place to stay is at the Rosevelt lodge.
@@JuanPons Roosevelt is a nice place. You have the advantage of being in the middle of "black bear territory". Sometimes, you can get some decent grizzly shots up at Dunraven but, I've found that the bears up there tend to be on the move for the most part so, it's really "hit and miss". The best times for Raspberry and Snow are before June 1 and around the very end of September and early October. Of course, those times also coincide with when Roosevelt is closed. Raspberry and Snow show up at the sides of the roads less frequently around June 1 because they go up on their favorite mountain when the elk calves start dropping. In the fall they are less predictable although in the fall of 2014, Raspberry was roadside virtually every single day. We stay in Pahaska. An added advantage of Pahaska is that the grizzlies are fairly thick along the North Fork Highway for about the first dozen or so miles out of East Gate. But, the North Fork bears tend to be "spookier". The best times to catch them are at first and last light which, obviously, is less than ideal for photography purposes. One of the disadvantages to Pahaska is that in the early and late seasons, it is quite possible to get "snowed out" for hours in the mornings while they clear out the freshly fallen snow. Hope this helps.
I am on the fence about switching to Sony from Nikon. I was wondering from the time you did this video the A1 came out. Is this camera have the wish list on it that makes it the perfect camera for wildlife.
Fran, Yes the A1 is as close to the perfect camera as there is. However if you have a lot of Nikon glass you may be better off with some of the new mirrorless cameras from Nikon, they are excellent. The frame rate and AF systems are not up there yet, but it probably won't be long before they are. Switching systems is painful also. You may want to watch my video on switching systems.
Hola Juan, Hello Juan, how about using the APSC mode to gain reach with the lenses (I can only afford the 200-600) , Do you loose light as well , when you use the APSC mode? Thank you and best from Uruguay. PSD I have some videos from you which are great!
Hola amigo. You won't lose any light, the f-stops remain the same, however switching the camera to APSC mode is the exact same thing as cropping in post processing, so why switch to APSC? There are a couple of advantages, smaller files, the buffer clears faster, and AF can be a little more responsive. Hope that helps. Hasta Luego.
@@JuanPons Thank you soo much!!! Well, I love not switching to apsc, but, I thought that it might gain some lens reach, as it happens with the real apsc, not only crop the image. For what you just said, it just crops the image, but doesn't gain any distance with the apsc mode, right? Thank you again Juan, por answering back!!!
@@DalsPhotography You are correct, you are not gaining any reach, it's just a crop. So you can achieve the same by simply cropping the image after you take it.
@@JuanPons then it's just for buffer and less mpx files :/ boo lol Gracias Juan :)
I have compared the two thoroughly before I chose the a9: AF tracking speed, silence, buffering, and also (and this contradicts your findings) low light performance was better for what I needed. All the complaints about ergonomics can be thrown into garbage as far as my experience goes, except for the USB connection, which feels like it doesn’t match but still works). Just did not wanted to be limited by lack of speed for wildlife & sports situations, which the 7R4 definitely did.
Yes, everyones needs are different and that is why we have different cameras. In absolute terms that a9 does better in low light but in therms of overall IQ the a7R IV does better. Check out the DXO ratings.
Watching this 2 years later, the wildlife photographers dream camera has come true with the Alpha 1
i realize this is 4 yrs old but i also heard that the processor in the a9 ii is a little faster and the color science is better with the a9 ii.
Wasn‘t the a9ii delivering more fps with mechanical shutter? And as far as I remember the a9’s compresses files when shooting in high plus Mode? Nice Video anyway
The only way these cameras get their top fps is by using the electronic shutters and by using compression on the RAW files.
The a9ii mechanical shutter is up to 10fps. That’s not too shabby. Especially if you don’t require or can’t use electronic shutter.
How come the dedicated drive mode dial on the A9 is not on the pros list? It's fantastic to have one I think!
It’s a personal preference but I MUCH prefer to have a menu system to change the drive mode, that way I can do it while still looking through the viewfinder. Turning a dial with no confirmation of the mode through the viewfinder means that I have to take my eye off the viewfinder and my subject to change drive modes.
I'm using the a9, and would like to add an a7RIV. I wonder if it would be accurate to state that the a9/a9II will work with extenders better than the a7RIV?
Yes, the a9 will most definitely work better with the TC. Here is one concrete example: When using the 1.4x TC with the 100-400 the a7RIII will not be able to track objects while focusing when extended at 400mm, because your aperture will be down to f/8. The a9 not the a7RIV will not have any issues doing AF, still the a9 will perform better than the a7RIV in this situation.
great video but crop mode brings more : way deeper buffer (220+ in compressed raw), you see 1.5 zoomed in view finder, quicker write, probably faster af (still testing that) given that it has less space too look at. Biggest downside (grrr) you can't quickly change from FF to CROP and back when buffer is writing..
I am curious about the faster AF, I have not tested that sine I rarely shoot in APS-C but I've heard that claim a couple of times. If you do get around to testing it please let me know. Thanks.
@@JuanPons I will are you part of our sony full frame setup tips facebook group ?
My experience is faster AF and better hit rate in APS-C mode as the contrast and phase detect points cover almost entirely the cropped APS-C frame mode.. add to that the faster buffer readout at 26 MPs and you will get a higher number of sharp focus hits per burst on fast moving subjects such as birds.. it’s true that switching from FF bursts to APS-C mode is locked out while buffer is clearing but is faster in switching from APS-C buffer readout to FF mode .. as Juan said, no camera is perfect .. but we are getting close with the A7RIV.. and knowing it’s full feature set to use in different shooting situations.. that’s what the my menu and memory recall modes are for!!
@@surrogatemarker My 'logic' and thinking is also simple. it has less contrast areas and phase-detect areas to 'care about' so i assume that the hitrate will go up since it has 2.25x less space to check. Thats why i wanted to test it more since to me it makes sense that in crop mode the whole engine has todo less so what did sony do with the cpu cycles it gains i expect and hope it uppped the number of times a second it does if AF loop.
How would the Nikon D500 focusing speed compare to the A7r4’s for bird photography?
I could not give you a fair assessment as I have not done extensive shooting with the D500. I know it's an excellent camera, but I can't give you a detailed analysis.
Hi Iam new to the Sony system and I bought few days ago the a7iv and I can not find how you make the single focus point smaller the ergonomics are bit different to Nikon cameras.
when you select the Flexible Single point, you can hit left or right on the rear wheel and that will let you have the size of the focus point. There are a number of settings that can be modified this way so always be looking for those two little arrow indicators.
@@JuanPons got it thank you for quick answer!
now I know which one might be my favourite. its always interesting to learn new camera systems!
Hello Juan, very interesting comparison between both super camera's. I noticed on the background an Mac mini. Since I'm thinking about buying one, I was wondering whether the Mac mini is powerful enough to deal with the large a7r iv files... how about the videocard: is this one fast enough ?
Good eye. Yes I use the highest end Mac mini you can configure for all my work, stills and video. Works great for my needs and does very well with the a7RIV image files.
@@JuanPons thanks for the info ! So, If I'm not mistaken that means that you have 64GB of RAM + 2TB SSD ? sounds great !
@@gandalf253 Mine has 32GB of memory and various external drives as these you can upgrade as you go along. The important thing is the processor speed, I have a 6 core i7 running at 3.2Ghz, This was the fastest I could get at the time. I am not sure if you can get a faster one now, but I would get the fastest possible.
Would love your suggestion on L Bracket for Sony A7R IV.
The brackets from Really Right Stuff are in my opinion the best in the business. They offer two, the L-Plate set that covers the entire bottom of the camera (My preference): bhpho.to/2Peto6r and a new "UltraLight" bracket: bhpho.to/2RIQqnB Hope that helps.
@@JuanPons Thanks for quick reply. I was looking Really Right stuff L plates. Now just confused between those 2 plates. Anyways, really like your videos, Keep up the good work.
I went with the full RRS plate as it covers the whole bottom of the camera. For me the L-bracket is not only for mounting, but for carry options (portrait or landscape) and also some protection while carrying.
@@HemlockBrook That is very good point you made above that Full RRS plate will give protection as well. And that makes my decision easier to go with Full RRS L bracket. Thanks.
@@JuanPons Hey Jaun, By any chance do you know how to connect RMT- DSLR2 Remote with A7RIV?
Boy, you missed so many more features the a9II have. Shutter curtain for one, very important for those who change lenses on the field.
I’ve been using the Sony a6400 with the 200-600mm with zero problems. Mind you I’m not a professional photographer (I don’t make my living with my photos) but I do shoot a lot and get excellent results with a cheaper price and still getting almost 25MP
Yes, that is a very nice combination. I find the smaller bodies hard to hold for extended periods of time, but that is a personal preference.
@@JuanPons this is true. I am 6’2 and have large hands. It took time to get used to it. I will get a larger body at some point but this works for now. Great video!
The soon coming up A7 IV would be my camera. Arround 30 to 32 MP and the AF like the A9 would be the perfekt camera for wildlife. 61 MP is to much in processing.
Yes, many people are looking for this camera. I think it will fit the needs of many out there.
BTW, contrary to what you say in the video, DXO actually rates the low light performance of the a9 as better (slightly) than the a7R IV. And the dynamic range of the a9 is actually better than the a7R IV above about ISO 640 which is where an awful lot of wildlife photography takes place.
You are right that in terms of absolute ISO performance DXO rates the a9 better than the a7RIV. However I have much better flexibility when editing a a7RIV file than an a9.
Currently using the A7iii and I want to upgrade but can't decide between the A7Riv or A9ii, I shoot macro and wildlife so I want to speed of the A9 but the resolution of the Riv. I want both LOL.
Don’t we all??!! We might just get what we want with the newly announced A1. I’ve already ordered mine and will be sure to do a real world review some time after I receive mine. I do have high hopes for it.
A9 all day :)
Of course!!!!!
If you need reach, the Sony A7R4 is the name of the game. If you need exceptional low light performance then the Sony A9 (does not matter if Mark I or Mark II - they are the same). If one to select then the Sony A7R4 - it allowed way more cropping what us crucial in my Wildlife work.
A7RIV needs plenty of light to be effective and it has inconsistent focus and barely tracks in low light conditions. Its not a camera for work in woods because in truth, the noise levels make any captures worthless, I had it for 2 months and sold it. It's fine with raptors and big birds and animals (as long as there's light) but it isn't the do it all, one solution that everyone seems to say it is.
Ripley Cannot agree on this one. I use both the A9 and A7r4 for bird photography, especially in rainforests (Malaysia, Borneo). And the A7r4 is a great performer here, with my Sony 400mm 2.8 GM I have no issue at all, you do a 100% crop and get effectively a 600mm lens at 2.8 with still 27MP. The Autofocus is not the same as on A9 but very close (same thing as with D5 and D850 I would say). Yes, there is no doubt that the Sony A9 is much better in low light situations but in case you can only take on camera with you, for me personally it would be the A7R4.
@@Stefan1968ful lol that's fine, I appreciate and understand not everyone will agree, it's just my experience, there's many others experiencing problems though but mostly the conversation is around the 200- 600 ( check out DP review and Fred Miranda forums) my own experience is in poor light, it can't track small birds and jumps around off the subject,. I shot red kites at ISO4000 and it performed great, but on small subjects it is poor and the noise levels are not acceptable even using topaz. I don't think my camera is faulty, I just believe that on this occasion, the compromises made by Sony to get the megapixels award hasn't worked. Higher shutter speed to accomodate the higher mp leads to more noise which in some instances cannot be cleaned without loss of detail. Try shooting at ISO4000 and see if you get an image you could sell .👍
@@Stefan1968ful also note your using the 400 2.8 try using the the 100 to 400 at 5.6 and see how you go. As I said this needs light and plenty of it.
@@ripley1690 Yes, I know. I stopped using a 200-600mm 5.6-6.3 or 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 but this not just with the A7R4. As I said, I agree the low light performance of the A9 is better compared with A7R4 what is not s surprise as the pixel pitch is bigger on the A9. Anyway, happy shooting!
Well.. I have both a9 and a7iv. Juan’s comparison of the cameras is great, and considering all pros and cons, most possibly I’ll sell the a9. The camera is great, but its market price is dropping. The best camera would be.... a9 focusing, 45MP resolution, 8k video, etc...but, as Juan mentioned, there are no perfect cameras exist...
Then Sony releases the Alpha 1... basically that perfect camera apart from the price. I wish I could get one for myself
👏👏👏👏
ok, what about the a7iv not R ?
Watching this now, aren't you glad the A1 came out.. haha
Your wish has come true because of A1.
It most certainly has. I have been using the a1 extensively and it's as close to a perfect camera as there is out there.
What about the A9 vs the A7R III? Which would you choose?
A9 for sure!
Now it sounds like the Sony A1
a7iii vs a6400 with the 200-600 or 100 - 400 would be a more realistic real world comparison. These are in the price ranges of mere mortals, and have the capabilities forus non pro shooters.
Looking at your Wish- that's the Canon R5!
Sony A1*****
Hi, I have a laptop i7 and 8.00gb ram with AMD Graphics card standard, is the sony a7r 4 camera suitable to run on this kind of laptop?
I am assuming you mean whether you will be able to process the files produced by the a7R4. And the answer is that you should be able to edit the files on a laptop like that using Lightroom, as long as you don't run anything else but LR as the 8GB is limiting. I am not sure the speed of your processor but the i7 is a pretty capable chip so it should work. But your processor speed will determine how fast the laptop will be able to process the images. Hope that helps.
I only shoot in raw. and I never have more one program open at one time. usually I edit in Lightroom 4.1 then after closing that program, I then go to CS4 and edit and save as jpeg.
@@marilynzanca7712 Unfortunately you will have to update LR to be able to edit the raw files from the a7r4.
yes you should be able to - you can also use the inage edge sony free software for raw rendering - I prefer it to LR
Thank you.
Not true about aps-c mode...the biggest advantage of cropping in camera is 100% focus coverage and a bigger buffer
Agreed, I discussed this on an earlier post.
What I don't understand is why is the A9-ii so much more expensive?
I agree
DXO says the dynamic range of a9II is better than a9
A1
We will have to see when I am able to put to use in the real world. I am have high hopes.
so it has very old SD cards, not XQD which is a sony product nor CFexpress which is 6 times faster. and while your buffer is clearing after a burst shot unlike the nikon D850 the sony cant enter the menu system nor can you do anything else, like view images. i would rather wait for the Nikon version with the sony 61 mpx sensor thats coming out in may. comparing a sports camera to a high megapixel camera doesnt seem fair. i would pick the r4 because ofthe high megapixel. it prints big and has much higher detail. the A9 i would pick if i would shoot sports and print small. each tool for its own job.
Rob, everyone has different needs and different styles. Rarely is there ever a "one piece of kit to rule them all"
Hi Juan, thanks for your video. I must say that I disagree with you conclusion. For me, a9 and a9II are better cameras than a7RIV for wildlife photography. We are talking about moving animals in nature. Therefore AF system and no blackout screen are absolutely vital for wildlife photography. When shooting wildlife you often need faster shutter speeds. Furthermore, you are mostly shooting in low or medium light situations which require higher ISO. Having said that, IQ of all images I have seen so far, shot in same conditions and camera settings, is better on a9. Why? Because in those situations extra 37 MP of the a7RIV often introduce extra noise and blur. Juan, it would be very interesting if you provide some samples (RAW files) of images taken on a9 and a7RIV side-by-side and with same camera settings for each one of us judge about IQ.
As I said at the beginning of the video this is not an easy answer. Yes AF is important, but I believe IQ is more important because as wildlife photographers we are shooting in low light most often and the AF on the a7R IV is good enough for most wildlife except the fastest, such as birds in flight. I almost never do technical comparisons since there are people better qualified, I do in the field evaluations but my in the field experience shows me that when shooting in low light the IQ of the a9 does not compare to the a7rIII or IV. Here is a link to the best regarded lab who does this kind of scientific testing and it shows the difference in IQ between the a9, a7RIII and a7RIV: www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-a9-versus-Sony-A7R-III-versus-Sony-A7R-IV___1162_1187_1326 As a matter of fact the a9 comes in below even the a7R. Hope this helps.
@@JuanPons thanks for your reply, but I stress my point: IQ of all images I have seen so far, shot in same conditions and camera settings, is better on a9. You have a different opinion. That is why I suggested that you provide some samples (RAW files) of images taken on a9 and a7RIV, side-by-side and with same camera settings. That would be awesome!
Antonio, I don't mean to belabor the issue, but my point is that even the experts agree that the IQ on the a9 is inferior to the a7r entire line, as is the general consensus and my personal experience bears that out. I don't have an interest in proving what is a general accepted opinion and proven by the pre-eminent experts in the field, DXO. It would be a waste of my scarce time.
Here are the IQ ratings as per DXO: take.ms/OXfNI
It occurred to me where some of the disagreement and confusion may be coming from. IQ is not the same as low light performance, if you read my responses I always talk about IQ. While the a9 has a small advantage over the a7RIV (and III) in low light performance, when you consider IQ, the entire a7R line is significantly better than the a9. This is most evident when editing an image. An image taken with a a7R (any of them) will withstand more editing than one taken with an a9. In my experience a9 images start breaking down much quicker. And I am not one to do that much editing on images. I hope that helps.
My 7R4 is very noisy at iso above 800, so it's not as good as A9 at higher iso, in my shooting both for the past 2 months,thanks for the comparison.
In absolute terms the a9 has better low light performance over the a7R IV, but the a7R IV over all has significantly better image quality. For me and many others the overall image quality is more important. But that is why we have different tools, to meet the needs of different people. Thanks for the comment.
Image quality - How does the A7R4 handle noise at high iso?
not great but post processing may help
Yes, it is a nonsense what is stated in the video that A7R4 shows better low light performance.
@@jazinzlaty4823 In that case it will be better to shoot in RAW and in lower ISO and underexpose and correct the exposure in post.
LVRider done that it doesn’t work the sony doesn’t cope very well with underexposed images there is some strange colour to the noise. not sure if i’m doing something wrong but the raw images from my nikon d500 are so much smoother
@@jazinzlaty4823 I downloaded some full jpg images from somebody he took of birds in flight on a very low light cloudy day, you can even see the clouds in the bird's eye, and also saw a lot of noise. He used ISO 2500 and did zero in camera noise reduction. I then used Topaz Denoise AI to reduce the noise and the images came out fantastic. There was also some colour noise it took away but I think it might have something to do with the white balance choice in camera.
You lost me when said the A7R IV has better “Higher ISO performance”.
If you read then comments below you will see my response to this question. While the a9 does have better ISO sensitivity the overall image quality is significantly better on the a7RIV. Even DXO bears this out if you look at the combined image quality and not just at the ISO performance. The files from the a7RIV can sustain more editing while post processing especially when bringing out details in the shadows.
I think he meant the A7R4 has more details to lose at a certain ISO say ISO6400 than A9 or A7iii. If you downsample the A7R4 image to 24mp and compare it with an A9 image both shot @ISO6400. The A7R4 image will have more details. Yes the noise will be more @61Mp but so will be an A9 image shot @ISO6400 upscaled to 61MP.
If you shoot in full manual the exposure compensation does not work. That's mean those who complain does not shoot full manual. Probably they shoot in "A" mode. This is a lazy way to shoot. I think the present photographers are far far behind the old one (80s) . At that time was no AF or SD cards and they have a GREAT GREAT photos