mini orion live feed lcd screen drone quotation

*Estimated delivery dates- opens in a new window or tabinclude seller"s handling time, origin ZIP Code, destination ZIP Code and time of acceptance and will depend on shipping service selected and receipt of cleared payment. Delivery times may vary, especially during peak periods.Notes - Delivery *Estimated delivery dates include seller"s handling time, origin ZIP Code, destination ZIP Code and time of acceptance and will depend on shipping service selected and receipt of cleared payment. Delivery times may vary, especially during peak periods.

....and is the LCD screen any "better"? I own an A7R2 and find that the live-view image on the LCD screen is quite noisy when using it to focus in low-light. I"m hoping that the A7RIVA is a much better prospect for that use.

Mheh. Too little imrpvements. New viewfinder, new menues, fully articulating screen, then it would be something. But everyone agrees their sensors are still very good.

So if you change out the LCD, you have to test things like the impact on battery life, processor load, how the software handles the higher resolution, etc. It"s not a trivial change and modern cameras are not Lego"s!

Then there"s the manufacturing logistics. You have to source the part and test the QA off of the assembly line. You have to incorporate the new part into the current final assembly manufacturing line, which includes even arranging for proper shipping and delivery in time. None of which is trivial.

1) Why did Sony decide to update these two older models with the better LCD screens and not the flagship a1 instead? Or even the FX3 for that matter?

3) Will the rumored a7 IV have these better LCD panels? Or will these be reserved for now for these two older models? When will Sony put these LCD panels into their new releases?

4) Will at any point Sony issue updates to the a1 with these new LCD panels? I wouldn"t expect so in the near future as there is no product registration for such a model. Remember, all new cameras will have these regulatory filings before they launch.

Of course it has been planned for a long time, but not as long back as the A1 or A7SIII. It takes much longer time to develop a new camera with a new sensor than just out a new lcd and a new board in an already existing camera........

Also given that Sony is now going to use updated LCD panels in these two older models, it still begs the question of why they are so stubborn in not giving these to the newer, more expensive models. Sony makes some of the best LCD panels in the world but won"t use them in their own cameras, not even their $6500 flagship.

@Handsome90: Please...are you really going to go there? The point that some made was that this was an odd and unexpected change, and so may have been brought about by an unexpected parts shortage. That was the whole point...that the parts shortage was unexpected and relatively sudden. Hence not giving the better LCD panels to newer more expensive models already in full production runs.

The main point is that this was planned by Sony all along, at least going back to last year. Which gets to the question that you seem to want to avoid: why not put these better panels in their far more expensive flagship model? For that matter why not put even better LCD panels in the flagship? Sony is capable of doing so; they make some of the best LCD panels in the world.

So are they saying, when the current supply runs dry, no longer will the lower grade LCD panels exist in that lineup. Certainly appears so. How long before an Sony a1a version. That would really tick off many of the current buyers of the a1. That"s the kind of respect spending $6500 on a Camera body gets you these days, not much.

Sony might do it but I doubt it. After all, you knew the specifications of the camera when you bought it; evidently the back screen resolution at the time didn"t bother you enough to stop you spending $6,500 on it.

In regard to your A1, take comfort in the fact that you still have the best viewfinder in the business at 9.4 million dots and other than the LCD screen (which has no effect on the quality of your pictures) it is still the best camera Sony has ever made.

In spite of how some folks continue to spin it, this is hardly an normal upgrade cycle since the Sony a1 was released with the inferior screen. If all of an sudden, all the models see the upgrade, then Sony"s explaining why becomes shaky at best.

Some owners of the a1 will not like the idea that Sony updated two older models with a better LCD panel than their far more expensive flagship model. And many Sony users are inclined to notice and put emphasis on spec sheet details. Remember Sony is the king of selling on specs.

So apparently Sony does consider the updated better resolution LCD panels to offer an advantage to customers, which should put to rest the arguments by some that the quality of the back LCD is an insignificant issue.

Anyway, who cares? These are minor alterations to excellent cameras that require an administrative change; hence, the addition of the a. It so minimal that Sony itself thinks it’s not worth an announcement. Tech companies aren’t really shy when it comes to grand statements. It’s a +/- meaningless change. You would not buy a new A7RIII because of the increased screen resolution (certainly, I wouldn’t change mine for that) and most people who do buy a new camera of this class would see this as a minor improvement.

Why can"t some take in account how the screen is used, what fine detail the eye can split at the actual viewing distance, and what the screen resolution means for real world use? Or is it just the number of dots that interests you?

I suggest you place the old and new model side by side, and then evaluate the screen quality, pragmatic, with as little bias as possible. Is one not useable and the other great? Or do both screens do the job just fine?

If the quality of the back screens matters as much as you say, why aren"t you castigating Canon? They don"t make a single camera with a resolution as high as these new Sony screens and yet I didn"t see you mention this once in the 83 posts you"ve made in this thread.

The 5Dmk4 - a current model - which costs 3 grand - only has a 1.6m dot screen. The D90 and the RP - both only 1m dot - less than the eight year old Sony A7 - a camera you once called "junk".

The D90 only came out a year and a half ago and unlike any of the Sony cameras is not a mirrorless, so lacks the second hi-res LCD in the viewfinder to check critical focus - ditto the 5D - you"re stuck with the low res rear screen.

So Canon does have time to respond and Nobody as of yet has the higher res LCDs. Of course, one could go further and talk about the touch functionality of each maker"s screen compared to the other. If you really want to dig deeper into who"s really getting shafted.

Z7ii: better LCD, better sealing, better IBIS, better ergonomics, better video specs, better user interface, more PDAF points and coverage, better dynamic range at lower iso......the only thing A7riii wins out spec wise is battery life.

Sounds strange. First, if the intent was a noticeable camera improvement, why not associate it with changed camera names? Second, how come the same screen is good enough for their just released top of the line a1?

My guess is, they sacrificed the cost a little bit to bring the camera specs up to better compete with r5, and may upgrade the a1 screen as well when r1 or z9 arrives.

My guess is that many amateur photographers are more picky about specs than professionals, who are result and content orientated. So upgrading the screens according to the requirements for this segment of cameras makes sense from a sales and customer satisfaction perspective.

If SONY made a minor visible name change (not just the ILCE), this would prevent many possible PoS issues, such as customers angry that the camera they bought has screen not as good as in specs they saw online before the purchase, customers returning cameras next day, retailers with stock of these older models, new or open box, etc.

@ Vladyslav Kosulin: How many would care if they get the old or the new screen? A few readers on photography forums, but not those screaming loudest, who use other camera brands.

@Magnar W, I do not know how many. But I know that I hate SONY screens (one of two main reasons why I stay away from Alpha, another being thier grip). Any improvement in this area is very welcome. All I am saying, SONY could make this improvement completely trouble free.

Well I say shame on Sony for taking this long to begin addressing these two issues that Most Sony Users have noted for a long time now. Poorly implemented menus system and cheap LCD panels which most Sony Users can agree on the changes are long overdue.

Two cameras have silently got a screen with some more pixels, and some react like the camera maker was fooling them instead of being happy on behalf of the new buyers. Can"t those accept that others get something that they don"t get themselves? Or was it just bashing, covered up as a "critical" voice?

The VAST majority of criticism in this article has come from a small number of users that aren’t Sony users, have not bought either of these cameras and have no intention of buying either of these updates. Most actual users have been somewhat positive of the move or are completely nonplused. There are a small number of users who are wondering why these new screens have not been used in the latest models that have only recently been announced, which is a fair question, but certainly probably has some reasoning behind it.

"There are a small number of users who are wondering why these new screens have not been used in the latest models that have only recently been announced, which is a fair question, but certainly probably has some reasoning behind it."

@ Thoughts R Us: Tweaks like this is common. Sony even added an "a" so that their customers can be aware of this change. Still, this is a minor adjustment, since the new screen does not affect image quality or camera performance as a total. You just get some more resolution on a screen that already allowed you to do super duper ultra extreme precise manual focus.

I’m going on record to say the trolling of this change is embarrassing, it’s being fuelled by the anti Sony crowd but no need to lower yourself to their level by making these unrealistic claims... no company upgrades their screens like this mid cycle. I work with professional grade android supply chain devices and something this significant would be a whole new model.

Only Sony know why they exchanged the screen and updated the USB connection. I really don"t care why they did it. I am just happy with my old Alpha camera and on behalf of the new owners of an A7RIII or RIV that they get this update.

Simply use your calculator to find how much the difference means for the area that the camera screen covers, and then relate the number of dots to how fine detail the eye can separate at the actual viewing distance. That"s the argument I prefer to relate to when discussing how noticeable the change is. This would be the same for any camera brand.

I was talking from an engineering/design perspective, upgrading the physical screen is not a small change that is typically done to a product mid life cycle, that you are referring to as a ‘tweak’

I"ve three Minolta (sony, I"ve put stickers over the brand out of embarrassment) a7r4 cameras I got grey from Hong Kong which don"t have the Sony logo at the bottom of the LCD, obviously I like that, but anyone have an opinion on why my imported a7r4 cameras don"t have it, I"m wondering if I already have the upgraded screen..

My Sony A1 and 7S3 have no Sony logo on the LCD, makes sense not to have on the S3 when the screen is flipped out upside down. Last Sony with the logo on the screen was the ZV1.

I’m not going to try and convince anyone that resolution in a rear screen isn’t a good thing. I’ve shot plenty of cameras with 2.1m dots and 1m dots and everything in between (and much less). The difference between the screen on my M6 IIs and my 90Ds is stark.

I DO think there could be some engineering reasons why Sony haven’t had better screens before. 1.44m and 2.1m aren’t miles apart, but the difference is definitely there. However I don’t believe there are any cameras with screens that would suit the A7/A9/A1 cameras in terms of size and aspect ratio that are higher resolution than 1.44m dots. It seems to me that Sony have been waiting for a better screen to become available and are now that it is are implementing it in an initially limited way. I suspect these will become commonplace in Sony cameras in time.

I do also note that companies like Fujifilm also opt for a lower resolution LCD on their performance oriented X-T3 and X-T4 cameras vs their X-Pro3 for example. Now I don’t think anyone is accusing Fujifilm of being incompetent.

Every engineering choice is a compromise. There is a reason why all modern cameras aren’t ~50MP for example. People seem to understand the compromises there, but somehow that doesn’t apply to LCD screens?

As such I think it makes sense to add such a screen to their resolution oriented cameras, maybe at least initially. There may be little to no difference (now that these particular panels are available, I know nothing about their performance), but it may not yet be feasible for them to roll these displays out catalog wide.

1) It leaves customers with questions...customers who may want to purchase one of these two models, and customers who may want to purchase other newer models wondering if they too will get the screen upgrade.

3) Ordinarily this new higher quality screen should have been a cause for Sony to celebrate and promote, like they did with their new menu system. It"s a clear upgrade and answers some of the criticism of Sony. But it seems like now they just kind of want to hide it, maybe because of points 1 and 2.

And let’s not forget “no one should buy Sony cameras now because maybe they will update other camera screens later”. (That one was basically yours TRU)

As it is, people are left to wonder and yes, some still are going to think that they should wait to buy on hopes of an updated screen. That"s poor customer relations.

So if this is a component shortage problem...a shortage of the lower quality LCD panels...then that begs the question: will this eventually force Sony to put the higher quality LCD"s in other models, most notably their newer a1, FX3, etc?

This change is very visible impacting one of the two main ways that a user interacts with their camera (LCD screen plus EVF). And it comes in the context of Sony being criticized for being behind the curve with their LCD screens and so it is even more notable.

Considering the back lcd is one of the weakest points of the entire design, yes I would definitely try to get it swapped out for the new version if at all possible.

Were you fascinated when canon overhyped an 8K camera months in advance of its announcement and failed to deliver a camera that can record more than 20 minutes without keeping all the doors open and powering from external sources? Yeah. Didn’t think so.

By the way I picked up my A1 today and it’s as good as all the reviews say it is. And I highly doubt any stills photographers who have looked through the EVF are at all concerned about the LCD resolution.

Please do not assume all photographers are like you. You know very well that there are photographers out there who have very good reasons for using that back LCD screen.

Also, even if a supply issue, why doesn"t Sony tout the new improved screens on these models? Usually they are the king of marketing. Why so silent and hushed about it? They aren"t doing this out of charity towards their customers.

All new sensors for lcd"s are going to the auto manufacturers who are paying a premium for low end units...it pays for Sony to supply them. World wide chip problems.

It’s not a free lunch to launch a marketing campaign, that’s why companies always make a cost benefit analysis beforehand, in this case a marketing campaign should result in a noticeable higher sales number so Sony can get their investment in marketing back, I honestly don’t believe an updated screen is a big enough update for that to be worthwhile, it’s mostly a nice to have not a need to have

there can literally be tons of reasons why Sony decided to upgrade/change it. All from the screen being discontinued, increased in production cost etc. etc. we don’t really know why and I guess we never will.

As to one of your theories...an increase in production cost (of presumably the lower quality screen)...that doesn"t fly because the better quality screen would cost more.

“ As to one of your theories...an increase in production cost (of presumably the lower quality screen)...that doesn"t fly because the better quality screen would cost more.”

The basic truth is that Sony has, for whatever reasons, updated the LCD screen on cheaper models while maintaining a lesser screen on the most expensive models. I don’t recall any such move in the history of digital cameras.

How many Sony a1s are being sold each month compared to how many a7R III, a7R IV? I wonder where folks are getting this info of an LCD panel shortage. I wonder why anyone would defend Sony putting an upgraded LCD in lower models but not their latest which costs almost double.

Still waiting for any real LINK to Sony as to why. Otherwise, it"s just pure speculation as to why on the LCDS. Which apparently, only the usual suspect are allowed to do, Not You.

I think you are overreacting. no one here knows why Sony did this. People are are just joking that Sony couldn"t get any more of those old low res screens to make new cameras, so they upgraded them to higher quality ones. It is probably not true, but just minor banter against Sony.

That"s fun.. probably they got in shortage of this old panels because they had to put all of them in the newly released A1!!!! As a Sony A1 buyer (I prepaid one months ago but not yet received) I"m very surprised and I really don"t know what to think.. I always criticized the choice of putting such a low-res LCD panel on a top of the line camera also because I"m shooting a lot from the LCD (because I enjoy the two eyes view I get). But now I really hope they will manage to put new and higher-res LCD also in the A1 bodies or I"ll start to think that Sony is making fun of their top-spending customers!!

- The lower quality LCD on A1 is actually a deliberately considered engineering decision because adding LCD resolution would cast devastating effect on battery life / processing power / refresh rate / heat management.....etc.

They have. They’ve said that these cameras get a different LCD with different specs. It’s not going to be a surprise. Nobody is not getting what they payed for.

All the noise is being made by the usual suspects while all the reasonable posts are being made by everyone else including MOST Sony users. So the only real question why are those usual suspects attacking everyone on such an basic issue? If you don"t care about the LCD you can buy the older version while if you prefer the new one, Sony gives you the option to upgrade.

This is very simple. Sony is now offering better-quality rear LCD panels on cheaper cameras while offering worse-quality panels on their most expensive cameras. If I had, for instance, just ordered an A1, I would cancel that order, and wait to see what happens.

True, that"s exactly the targeted audience for the A1: People cancelling the order of the best sport cam before Summer Olympic Games because of the screen resolution ... hmm ... oh wait! :-D

So basically you want to tell me a BIF-shooter can"t make excellent BIF pictures with the A1 and the outstanding bird eye AF because of the "missing" screen resolution ... hhmmm .... oh wait :-D

A few things to keep in mind before all the mindless bashing. Existing 3.2” 2.1m dot LCDs won’t fit in Sony cameras. They are also 3:2 aspect ratio displays, which would require UI changes and doesn’t match the display properties of their EVFs. This requires more processing overheads and other UI issues switching between EVF and LCD. Yes I’m aware that other brands do this, but it does cause inconsistencies between the two displays.

Furthermore Sony seem to be using resolutions that are equal to common EVFs, 1.44m dots and now 2.36MP dots. This may be influential to the above and for live view read out modes better supporting these resolutions.

Third is that nobody is used THIS screen before. This likely means it was not available before now and may still be in somewhat limited quantities. It may make sense to make these available in lower volume cameras otherwise it may cause supply constraints they don’t want in new models.

Does Sony want their latest A1 constrained because of an LCD panel? Unlikely. These panels are wholly untested, except for resolution NOBODY who is commenting here knows anything about it. There is much more to the properties and usability of an LCD than just its resolution. Brightness is a huge part of it, having larger pixels means more light passing through. Transflectivity is also important. This is not taking into account things like refresh and update rates.

But the specs chasers always think they know best and proudly beat their chest over it. Look what happened with Olympus and the E-M1X. They used a much faster but lower res TFT EVF on their flagship camera for the speed benefits, but every spec chaser claimed it was a disaster. Well that EVF itself is actually excellent, however it almost never takes advantage of it due to lower live view feed resolution. Which would in no way be fixed with a higher resolution panel.

And these are LCD panels...not exactly the most cutting edge tech these days. You make it sound as if they dropped in an entirely new image sensor or processor.

Sony put these LCD panels into the cameras for a reason; but they need to explain this rather odd unexpected update. They owe that to their customers.

“And these are LCD panels...not exactly the most cutting edge tech these days. You make it sound as if they dropped in an entirely new image sensor or processor.”

“Sony put these LCD panels into the cameras for a reason; but they need to explain this rather odd unexpected update. They owe that to their customers.”

Pretty sure I explained this (or at least provided a plausible explaination, unlike your constant hyperbole) above. Assuming this is a new panel (please point to me another device using it, it may be constrained at this time. As such, at least initially, it may make the most sense to go into slower moving products that have been on the market a little while (but still sell) rather than constraining a whole new product range because of a lack of LCD supplies. How is that not explaining why they haven’t put it in their latest and greatest?

If you are buying an a1, wouldn"t you want to know if this new screen will soon come to that model? Many would. One Sony fan here, @RubberDials, has assured people that this new LCD panel is coming to other models like the a1. If true, then that changes the buying calculus for some.

Canon M50 II. Canon M200. Canon 200D II. Canon 850D (if memory serves, or it may have been 750D... or 800D... or, well you get the point). Sony RX100Va. There have been countless ‘silent’ upgrades to pretty much anything technology wise. When you buy a Samsung phone you often have no idea which screen, processor, LTE chip, camera or whatever your particular device in your region will ship with. Apple use different brands of SSDs. Same as LCDs. Same as whatever. Sometimes companies bring in a silent update to align hardware or to streamline production or quantities buying through suppliers.

What you talk about are internal components that do not change the nature of the device or its specs. When Samsung might change its internal LTE chip, it doesn"t change the fundamentals of the device. What we see here would be akin to Samsung deciding to update the screen on one if its 2 year old models that it still sells at a discount, and in fact making that screen higher quality than the current flagship model....But then saying nothing about it or why, just quietly doing it. That would get a lot of questions.

“What we see here would be akin to Samsung deciding to update the screen on one if its 2 year old models that it still sells at a discount, and in fact making that screen higher quality than the current flagship model....But then saying nothing about it or why, just quietly doing it. That would get a lot of questions.”

Folks don"t have to have an agenda to take either side of the debate of THEIR preference of using either the LCD panel as opposed to the EVF. People who claim otherwise have the agenda. Period. Everybody"s different. There is no, well you got to do it this way.

But is there any noticeable differences between these panels for real world work? What can you do with the new version that you could not do with the previous screen?

Yes the screen is not as much noticable, but still noticable. And not just that. Newer, higher res displays also tend to be higher quality as well (higher brightness, better contrast and viewing angles).

The Panasonic S5 has 1,840,000 dots. The Nikon Z7 II has 2,100,000 dots. Maybe THAT"s why Sony made the decision to upgrade their A7r III and A7r IV bodies with "better" rear screens.

You are a troll. If they had a glut of older inventories why do you think they would be changing their manufacturing to use a new LCD screen? Without a marketing announcement highlighting the change? It makes zero sense.

"According to the update product specifications, both the a7R III (model: ILCE-7RM3A) and a7R IV (model: ILCE-7RM4A) have improved rear LCD panels, up to 2.36 million dots compared to the 1.44 million dots in the original models."

• A couple of things occur - Sony mirrorless cameras have always had the highest resolution screens - just not on the rear of the camera. If you shoot mirrorless you know that you view your shots in the EVF, not on the back screen - it"s shaded from sunlight and has a much greater magnification and resolution - it"s akin to using a light box and a loupe. DSLR users don"t seem to be aware of this.

• Unless you"ve got an agenda, there is no issue here. Sony has not "announced" this update, so they are not seeking to profit from it. It"s either an anomaly caused by a parts shortage or they are replacing all their 1.44 mdot screens. If they were replacing the A7rIII/IV screens as some sort of incentive to buyers they would have announced it. Again though, thinking a rear screen is a buying incentive is very much a DSLR user"s mindset where the rear screen is all you"ve got.

As for reviewing your shots, again, there are plenty of situations where you would prefer to use the back screen vs hold up the camera to your eye. Let"s say you want to view the images with someone else; you need that back LCD.

Either the back LCD screen matters or it doesn"t. If it doesn"t then why did Sony update the LCD screens on these cameras? If it does then why didn"t they put this better quality LCD in their by far most expensive flagship camera, or their FX3? For that matter why not put this in their $4500 a9II?

This is just weird. There has to be some kind of internal supply chain reason or something for this. To re-release old cameras with a better rear screen and not put that same screen in the flagship $6500 body and instead use a lower end one makes so little sense something has to be going on that we"re not aware of. Sony had to know they would be a laughing stock and burn a lot of good will with their customers by doing this. So to me the question is why did they? Poor planing, incompetence, some thing forced their hand we dont" know about?

On the opposite side we have users that can"t provide a single argument challenging that, yet they disagree. Meaning, they don"t want Sony to update flagship cameras with better LCD, bit can"t explain why.

Electronic displays are the primary user interface on cameras, smartphones, tablets, notebooks, PC/monitors - all the work we do on and with these tools is 100% dependant on what we see on the display and how well we see it. Considering touch screens, their functionality and implementation/integration into user interface is even more crucial.

@ Magnar W I remember you have defended Sony"s use of lower quality LCD on high-end body several times in the comment section but you seem to ignore everyone who has pointed out your argument not making sense and keep repeating the same thing. At first you claim it might be due to battery consumption, and someone have pointed out that A7r3a/r4a"s battery life is almost the same after the update.

Then you silently removed this point and start claiming professionals might "need" a lower quality LCD, which is a jaw-dropping and even less realistic argument. Would you say professionals might need a lower battery life or lower dynamic range? It seems like you love Sony so much that whatever they do, you try to persuade yourself that it is a good decision without thinking logically.

The resolution of the A1 screen is within the limit for resolution of the eye. What more do you need? With such a screen I can even place focus in or out of the focus plane to get aberrations where I want them. Good enough, I would say,

I have never claimed that professionals "need" lower screen resolution. They/we can do excellent work with such a "bad" screen, though. And we can do much professional work with 12 or 24 Mp cameras too, dependent on what we do, of cause.

Also, you keep saying the 1.44m dot LCD has higher refresh rate without any proof. Now you even added "resolution of the A1 screen is within the limit for resolution of the eye", which you also provide no proof. The fact is, many people have reported that they can see the difference between 1.44m and 2.36m.

If you want to find the resolution angle for the unaided eye, there are plenty of information on the web. Then do your math. Have you tried a search for such info? Very helpful when discussing Mp and file/screen/paper resolution.

We’ve seen it heaps before. It’s only your stamping that is the root of this ‘movement’ to know why. Only your kind will sit around and trump up conspiracies around this kind of non-issue. You would trump up any conspiracy on any choice Sony made about these new LCDs regardless of the outcome. Because that’s your sad, lonely little purpose.

@Magnar W All smartphones with full hd screens today offer at least for 4 times better resolution than on Sony LCD, yet your eyes struggle to see the difference... Interesting... Time to get new glasses?

@ il_alexk: Well, once again you need to read you up on basic math: How much larger is a mobile phone screen than the A7rIII and A1 screen? Remember, resolution goes in two directions: with x height.

Engineer 2: That"s fantastic! We happen to have our new $6500 flagship a1 coming out then, and that would fit that model perfectly. Also after that we have a new cinema cam, the FX3, which is the a7sIII with the EVF removed and a more video centered body. That new screen would fit that model very well too.

If what we"re hearing is true about some parts becoming hard to source, Sony may have been forced to use these higher res LCD"s due to unavailability of the older ones. As they became harder to source, Sony may have prioritized the supply to their newer models, only to end up with a large stock of new models with old LCD"s and production of older models delayed unless alternatives were found. Don"t be surprised if the new models receive the upgrade as existing stocks are sold off. So if you"re in the market for an A1, but don"t need it ASAP, holding off might be a good idea.

He has also used the updated A7rIII/IV screens as a springboard to range widely in his criticism of all recent Sony releases and even the recent compact G lenses. He even uses apophasis (look it up) to link the A7III shutter controversy by denying there is a link.

That"s your prerogative. The vast majority of comments in this thread are irrelevant because they are talking about things other than the A7rIV and A7rIII screens.

The visual angle spanned by a 2.4"-wide LCD panel at a distance of 45cm is equivalent to observing the aforementioned combo test picture on a 50" TV at a distance of 4.59 meters, or about 15.08 feet.

If you can"t, do you really think you would be able to /actually/ perceive the difference in resolution between a 1.44M and 2.36M 3-inch LCD panel observed from a distance of 45cm ?

"do you really think you would be able to /actually/ perceive the difference in resolution between a 1.44M and 2.36M 3-inch LCD panel observed from a distance of 45cm ?"

If it’s true what fans are saying, “ the A7SIII, FX3 and A1 to also get updated screens. ”. And also updated USB, then it might be a good idea to hold off buying until we are sure. The updated cameras will be better obviously and have better resale value.

I"m curious to see if Sony will offer an upgrade program for existing owner. A bit in the form of "send you camera to get an updated LCD for a small fee"... I would be interested.