Does Sony Even Need to Make an A7S IV?

This is my Sony a7S III. I bought it brand new when it launched back in 2020, and it has been an absolute workhorse for me. I’ve used it on weddings, commercial shoots, documentaries, YouTube videos. It’s been rock solid.

But ever since Sony released the FX3, a camera with the same sensor that is more video-focused and has received more firmware attention, it’s made me wonder something I hear a lot from other filmmakers too.

Is the a7S III the last camera in the A7S line? And more importantly, does Sony even need to make an A7S IV?

I think there are good arguments on both sides, so let’s talk through them.

Why Sony Might Not Make an A7S IV

The EVF Problem… or Advantage?

One of the biggest reasons many filmmakers still prefer the a7S III over the FX3 is the electronic viewfinder. Being able to put your eye up to the camera and block out the world matters, especially when you’re filming outdoors.

If you’ve ever shot a wedding at sunset, you know exactly what I mean. The sun is blasting you in the face, reflections are bouncing off the LCD, and even at full brightness the screen is hard to see. Closing one eye and using an EVF instantly solves that problem, and there’s a reason cameras have had viewfinders forever.

The FX3, on the other hand, doesn’t have one at all, and that has always felt like a limitation.

At first glance, that sounds like a strong argument for the A7S line continuing. But then Sony released the FX2.

The FX2 Changes the Conversation

The FX2 is interesting because it introduces something Sony had never really done before. It adds a video-centric EVF to a cinema-style body.

What makes it special isn’t just that it exists, but how it moves. The EVF can face straight back like a traditional viewfinder, or tilt upward 90 degrees. That might sound minor, but in practice it’s a big deal.

When you’re filming, you’re often holding the camera closer to your chest for stability, not up at eye level like photography. A tilting EVF works with that posture instead of fighting it, and it ends up being extremely comfortable to use.

Once you use it, it’s hard to go back.

And here’s the key point. Sony didn’t spend the time and money developing a video-focused EVF just to put it on one niche camera. Historically, when Sony introduces a meaningful feature, it spreads.

We’ve seen this before. The flip-out screen everyone loved didn’t debut on the a7S III. It debuted on the ZV-1, a small vlogging camera, and then quickly made its way into higher-end models.

So if Sony plans to put that FX2-style EVF into future cinema cameras like an FX3 Mark II, it starts to raise the question:

If an FX3 II has a great EVF, why does an A7S IV need to exist at all?

The Fan Question

Another reason Sony might skip an A7S IV is cooling.

As video resolutions, frame rates, and bitrates keep climbing, active cooling becomes more important. Fans make sense, especially for long-form recording and higher-end codecs.

But Sony has never put a fan into a non-cinema body. Fans have always been reserved for the FX line and above.

Could Sony change that? Sure. Panasonic already has. But Sony may decide it’s cleaner to keep passive cooling in Alpha cameras and reserve fans for cinema bodies. If that’s the case, it points toward Sony focusing their energy on an FX3 Mark II instead of an A7S IV.

Why Sony Will Make an A7S IV

Now let’s flip the argument, because there are some very strong reasons why I think we will see one.

People Still Buy the A7S III

This is the simplest and most important reason. Even today, with the FX3 widely available, the a7S III continues to sell extremely well.

Why?

First, the EVF still matters to a lot of filmmakers. Even if Sony adds a video EVF to future FX cameras, some people will always prefer a traditional Alpha-style body.

Second, the a7S III still feels more like a hybrid camera. Yes, both cameras can take photos, but the FX3 feels about 90 percent video and 10 percent photo. The a7S III feels more like 70 percent video and 30 percent photo, and that difference matters to people who want one camera that can do both reasonably well.

And finally, price plays a huge role.

When the a7S III launched, it was cheaper than the FX3. Today, the FX3 has gone up in price, while the a7S III often sits lower, especially when sales or used pricing come into play. Even a few hundred dollars makes a psychological difference, and that has absolutely helped keep the a7S III attractive.

Sony Is Incentivized to Make One

Sony’s business structure also matters here.

Sony isn’t just one big “camera team.” There are multiple divisions. The Alpha camera division handles the a7 series. The cinema cameras live under Professional Solutions. They share sensors and technology, but they are separate teams with different goals.

That’s why you’ll sometimes see firmware updates hit FX cameras but not Alpha cameras, even when the hardware is similar.

From Sony’s perspective, it makes sense for both divisions to have their own version of a high-end video-focused camera. An A7S IV would serve the Alpha division, while an FX3 II serves the cinema side. That allows Sony to hit more price points, sell more sensors, and appeal to slightly different users.

Sony has shown over and over that they’re willing to make a wide range of cameras that overlap just enough to give people options.

So… Does Sony Need an A7S IV?

In my opinion, that’s not really the right question.

The better question is, why wouldn’t Sony make one?

People still want it. People will still buy it. And Sony, structurally and financially, has every reason to continue the line.

My bet is that we absolutely will see an A7S IV. The bigger mystery is when, and how much it will differentiate itself from whatever comes next in the FX lineup.

I’m curious what you think. Do you think Sony will make an A7S IV? And if they do, would you buy it, or would you stick with an FX camera instead?

Let me know your thoughts!

It’s time to review the Sony 100mm f2.8 GM Macro lens and answer one very specific question: is this lens a good choice if you want to film ultra close-up, super tight, highly detailed shots, like wedding rings?

Short answer: yes, it absolutely is.

And that makes this a fairly quick and straightforward review, because this is a niche lens. It’s not meant to replace a 24–70 zoom, and it’s not trying to be versatile. That’s not why you buy a lens like this in the first place.

Before we go any further, for transparency, this review is not sponsored by Sony. They did loan me the lens for review, and unfortunately, I’ll be sending it back before this ever goes live on YouTube.

In this review, I want to cover three things:

• Who this lens is for
• Whether it’s actually any good
• And whether you should buy it

Who Is This Lens For?

This one is easy.

If you regularly find yourself filming extremely close-up shots of small subjects, this lens was made for you.

That could be insects, spiders, and creepy crawlies. It could be Warhammer 40K figurines. Or maybe you’re a wedding filmmaker who loves getting ultra-detailed shots of the couple’s rings.

Side note: I don’t do ring shots anymore. Years ago, a photographer lost multiple diamonds off a groom’s ring at a wedding I was filming and tried to blame me. Ever since then, I’m out on ring shots. But you get the idea.

If you need ultra-tight, ultra-detailed footage of small things, the Sony 100mm f2.8 GM Macro is built for that exact job.

This lens effectively replaces the older Sony 90mm macro. While I didn’t personally use that lens, it was one of Sony’s earlier GM designs and was definitely due for an update. This new 100mm GM feels like a clear step forward.

Is the Sony 100mm f2.8 GM Any Good for Video?

If we’re talking about macro video specifically, the answer is yes, it’s excellent.

But I also want to include another realistic use case. A 100mm focal length can work very well for head-and-shoulders interview shots, so this lens isn’t limited to macro only. In those scenarios, the image quality is still fantastic.

Optically, this lens is incredibly sharp. And somehow, Sony keeps raising the bar.

Every time Sony releases a new GM lens, I’m impressed. Lenses like the 200mm f2 and the 50–150 f2 are already ridiculous, and now the 100mm f2.8 GM feels even sharper, which honestly shouldn’t be possible at this point. Yet here we are.

If you want extremely detailed footage of small subjects, this lens will almost certainly be sharper than anything you’ve used before.

That said, there is some focus breathing. That’s not surprising for a macro lens that also works for portraits, since it has to cover a massive focus range. Thankfully, Sony’s focus breathing compensation does a very good job of minimizing it on supported cameras.

Features Filmmakers Will Appreciate

As expected from a Sony GM lens, you get all the usual high-end features.

There are two programmable buttons, an AF/MF switch, and excellent autofocus performance. Speed and accuracy are both solid. You also get an aperture ring that can be clicked or de-clicked, which is great for video.

On top of that, there are some genuinely useful extras.

There’s full-time DMF, which lets you manually adjust focus even when autofocus is enabled. There’s also a focus range limiter, allowing you to restrict autofocus to very close subjects or let it focus further away.

And then there’s the focus clutch. You can switch between autofocus and manual focus just by sliding the focus ring forward or back. It sounds gimmicky, but it’s actually very well implemented and genuinely useful in real-world shooting.

Built-In Image Stabilization

One feature I was especially happy to see is optical image stabilization.

Sony doesn’t include lens-based stabilization on many lenses anymore, since their in-body stabilization is so good. But for macro video, stability matters a lot more. When you’re filming extremely close to a subject, even tiny movements are exaggerated.

Having optical stabilization built into this lens makes a real difference and makes handheld macro work much more usable.

Teleconverter Support

The hits keep coming.

Sony engineered this lens to work with their 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. That means you can push this lens to even higher magnification levels if you want to get absurdly close to your subject.

If you’re someone who wants to specialize even further in macro work, this lens gives you that flexibility.

Should You Buy the Sony 100mm f2.8 GM Macro?

This is the third and final part of the review, and the answer really comes down to one question: do you actually need it?

At around $1,700, this is not an impulse buy. And because it’s a niche lens, most people are already thinking about very specific shots before they even consider purchasing it.

If you need ultra-close, ultra-detailed macro video, and you want the highest possible image quality in a lens that feels purpose-built for macro photo and video, you’re probably going to love this lens.

Will I personally buy one? No. Mostly because I don’t want to be anywhere near wedding rings ever again.

But I can absolutely appreciate what this lens is and who it’s for. And for the right filmmaker, it’s an outstanding tool.

---

If you’re a wedding filmmaker, I also have a completely free gear guide that breaks down all the cameras, lenses, and accessories I personally recommend.

And if you enjoy deep dives like this on cameras and filmmaking gear, stick around! There’s plenty more coming.

If you’re looking for a compact but powerful Windows laptop with a great screen that can handle editing 4K and even 6K video at high frame rates, the Razer Blade 14 laptop absolutely gets the job done.

That said, it also has some weird quirks, mediocre battery life, and Razer as a company still has a few unresolved question marks. In this review, I’m looking at the Blade 14 specifically from the perspective of a video editor. So if you want a relatively compact video editing laptop, you want to stay on Windows, and you also want the option to game, this review is for you.

For transparency, this review is not sponsored by Razer. They did loan me this laptop to test, they had no input on this review, and I’ll be sending it back shortly.

Why I’ve Avoided Razer Laptops Until Now

If you’ve watched my previous laptop reviews, you know I’ve mostly covered Dell laptops. That’s what I bought for years before Dell started sending me units for review.

That said, I’ve always been interested in Razer laptops. From a design standpoint, they clearly take inspiration from Apple. The all-aluminum chassis, clean lines, and large trackpad all feel very MacBook-like, and it’s obvious Razer is trying to attract people who might otherwise consider a MacBook.

And honestly, that makes sense. In my experience, Apple is currently making the best overall laptops on the market. That’s some foreshadowing for later in this review.

So why haven’t I bought a Razer laptop before?

Reliability.

I use my laptops hard. I push CPUs and GPUs constantly with high-resolution video editing. Years ago, when I was deciding between Razer and Dell, I saw creators like Linus Tech Tips talk openly about Razer laptops failing within a year or two in office environments. That scared me off.

At the time, I bought a Dell laptop with a four-year warranty. While I don’t love how aggressively Dell pushes warranties, when my battery swelled two years later, they fixed it within three days at no cost. That experience mattered.

Reliability was also why I bought a MacBook Air in early 2025, my first Apple laptop. Apple laptops are generally reliable, Apple Stores are everywhere if something goes wrong, and even worst case, replacing a $1,000 MacBook Air hurts a lot less than replacing a $2,500 laptop.

Razer does now offer extended warranties up to three years, but I’m still hearing mixed feedback from creators like Gamers Nexus and Just Josh. For me, Razer still has a higher bar to clear compared to other manufacturers.

All of that context matters, because if I were buying a Razer laptop with my own money, I would absolutely purchase the extended warranty.

Build Quality, Ports, and First Impressions

From a physical standpoint, the Razer Blade 14 feels solid. It has an aluminum unibody design, excellent ventilation on the bottom and rear, and dual fans for cooling.

Port selection is decent:

• Two USB-A ports
• Two USB4 Type-C ports
• HDMI
• A snug power connector with a 200W power brick

But then there’s the memory card slot.

It’s microSD!

For filmmakers and photographers, this is genuinely confusing. Most cameras still use full-size SD cards. Unless you’re constantly flying drones or moving small audio files, a microSD slot is not very useful. It feels like a miss for a laptop that’s clearly marketed toward creators.

Keyboard, RGB, and the Trackpad Problem

Out of the box, the Blade 14 definitely leans into a gamer aesthetic. You get the glowing snake logo on the lid and Razer Chroma RGB lighting on the keyboard. It looks cool for about five minutes, and then it becomes distracting. Thankfully, you can turn it off, which I highly recommend if you’re editing professionally.

The keyboard itself feels great. The keys have a soft, pleasant feel, good spacing, and I enjoyed typing on it.

My biggest issue is that there’s only one control key on the left side of the keyboard.

Microsoft’s obsession with pushing Copilot AI has led to Razer removing the right control key, and that directly messes with my editing workflow. I use that key constantly in DaVinci Resolve for timeline navigation. Instead of zooming, I’m opening AI tools that absolutely cannot edit my videos. It’s annoying.

Now let’s talk about the trackpad.

It looks great. It’s massive. There’s plenty of room to move your fingers.

But the clicking experience is one of the worst I’ve used in years.

This is not a haptic trackpad. It physically clicks, which means pressing near the bottom is easy, while clicking near the top corners is difficult. Right-clicking requires awkward positioning or two-finger taps. Compared to Apple and even Dell trackpads, this feels like a step backward.

It’s not a dealbreaker, but it is disappointing at this price point.

The Display: A Big Win for Video Editors

The screen is one of the Blade 14’s strongest features.

It’s a 2880 x 1800 OLED display with a 120Hz refresh rate. While clearly designed with gaming in mind, it’s also Calman verified and very color accurate. In my testing, it covered 100% of Rec.709 and 99% of DCI-P3.

You can absolutely color grade on this screen with confidence.

Just keep in mind that it’s a glossy glass display, so reflections can be an issue in bright environments.

Video Editing Performance in DaVinci Resolve

Like most Windows laptops, performance changes significantly depending on whether you’re plugged in or on battery. I tested everything both ways.

Plugged in, editing in DaVinci Resolve is excellent. Playing back mixed 4K and 6K footage, scrubbing, adding effects, and color grading all felt smooth and responsive.

This configuration includes:

• AMD Ryzen AI 9 365
• RTX 5070 GPU
• 32GB of RAM

As long as it’s plugged in, it handles demanding video work very well.

On battery power, performance drops noticeably. Even with Windows set to maximum performance, clip loading and timeline scrubbing are slower. Some clips that loaded instantly while plugged in took several seconds on battery.

Battery Life Reality Check

Razer claims up to 11 hours of battery life. Realistically, that’s under ideal conditions doing light tasks.

For video editing, battery life is a completely different story.

When fully charged, Windows estimated just under seven hours. But once I started editing, that estimate collapsed fast. After about seven minutes of playback in Resolve, the estimated remaining battery life dropped from nearly seven hours to just over two.

In real-world use, expect around two to two and a half hours of video editing on battery.

Compared to my Dell Precision, which lasts three to four hours, that’s not shocking given the smaller 72Wh battery. But compared to a MacBook Air, which can edit 4K and 6K video for dramatically longer, it’s not even close. We’re talking five to seven times better battery life on the Mac.

Because of this, I don’t recommend the Blade 14 for fully unplugged editing sessions. You can do it, but not for long.

If you mostly edit plugged in, like in hotel rooms while traveling, this matters a lot less.

Fans and Thermals

One pleasant surprise is fan noise.

Even under load and during exports, the fans stayed relatively quiet and low-pitched. Compared to my Dell laptops, which often had an annoying whine, Razer did a great job with cooling here.

Export Performance

Exporting is one of the most objective performance tests you can run.

A 10-minute DaVinci Resolve project with mixed 4K and 6K footage exported to 4K in:

• 2 minutes 57 seconds while plugged in
• 5 minutes 48 seconds on battery

For comparison, a MacBook Air exported the same project on battery in 4 minutes 18 seconds.

Plugged in, the Blade 14 performs very well. On battery, not so much.

Final Thoughts: Should Video Editors Buy the Razer Blade 14?

If you want a compact, powerful Windows laptop with a great screen that can handle 4K and 6K video editing, the Razer Blade 14 will do the job.

But when you factor in:

• The awkward trackpad
• Missing right control key
• Confusing microSD slot
• Short battery life for editing
• And ongoing concerns about Razer’s reliability

It becomes harder to recommend purely as a video editing machine.

If you also want to game, the value proposition improves thanks to the RTX 5070. Still, at around $2,100 plus the cost of an extended warranty, Apple continues to make it very difficult to recommend a Windows laptop over a MacBook for video editing.

When I compare the Blade 14 to even an entry-level MacBook Air that costs half as much, I’d personally choose the Mac.

If you want more guidance, here are links to my full video editing laptop buyer’s guides and my free “Edit Videos Like a Pro” guide below.

Thanks for reading, and as always, have a great day.

I have been editing videos on the M4 MacBook Air for about six months now. Over that time, I have grown to love several things about this laptop, but I have also run into a few frustrations that I really hope Apple fixes in future versions.

This is a long-term, six month review of the M4 MacBook Air, specifically from a video editing perspective.

What I Love About the M4 MacBook Air

Ultra Compact Size That Changes How You Work

The first thing I love is the size.
This laptop is incredibly thin and lightweight.

I have used compact Windows laptops in the past, including Dell XPS and Precision models. While they were powerful enough for video editing, they were still bulky compared to the MacBook Air. Moving to such an ultra compact laptop that can still handle real video work felt like a big shift in how I travel and work.

Despite the size, the M4 MacBook Air can edit 4K and 6K footage without issue. That alone has been a huge productivity boost.

Before switching to the MacBook Air, I often avoided editing on planes. My Windows laptops were too large for tray tables, battery life was limited, and performance dropped noticeably when unplugged. Editing video on a plane was never a great experience.

That completely changed with the M4 MacBook Air.

It fits easily under the airplane seat, opens instantly, fits comfortably on the tray table, connects to my AirPods automatically, and within a minute I am editing video at 36,000 feet with a very minimal setup. That convenience alone has made me far more productive while traveling.

Impressive Video Editing Performance

The second thing I love is the performance, especially for video editing.

Apple designed the M series chips with dedicated hardware video encoders and decoders. While CPUs have done this in the past with technologies like Quick Sync, Apple has taken it much further by making video processing a core focus of the chip design.

On most Windows laptops, video encoding relies heavily on a dedicated GPU. That adds cost, complexity, and drains battery life faster. With the M4 chip, video encoding and decoding are handled extremely efficiently.

The result is smooth playback, fast timeline scrubbing, and responsive editing, even with 4K, 6K, and higher resolution footage. The laptop rarely feels stressed during normal editing tasks.

Before this MacBook Air, I used a small Asus laptop while traveling. It was fine for backing up footage, but editing was not realistic. If I wanted to edit, I had to bring a larger laptop or wait until I got home.

Now, the MacBook Air is the only laptop I bring. I back up footage and edit directly on it, and it handles the workload without issue.

Where the M4 MacBook Air Shows Its Limits

Slower Export Times

While the editing experience itself is excellent, exports are slower.

The MacBook Air has no fan and only one set of hardware encoders and decoders. When exporting video in Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, or Adobe Media Encoder, render times are noticeably longer than on higher end Macs.

Exports can take two to three times longer compared to a MacBook Pro with an M4 Max or a Mac Studio with an M3 Ultra. Those machines have more encoders and active cooling, which makes a big difference for rendering.

Multitasking also reveals the limits of the MacBook Air.

If I am rendering one 6K video while editing another, playback can start to stutter. I have especially noticed this when trying to play multiple streams of 6K footage while Media Encoder is running in the background.

If you are a heavy multitasker, this is something you need to keep in mind. As long as you understand these limits and work within them, the overall experience is still very good.

Battery Life Is Incredible, With One Caveat

Battery life is one of the standout features of the M4 MacBook Air.

On an international flight, I edited video for several hours in DaVinci Resolve. When I checked the battery, it had dropped from 100 percent to 89 percent. That level of efficiency is impressive.

My old Windows laptop would have been warning me about low battery long before that point.

However, after six months of use, I noticed one important downside.

External SSDs Drain the Battery Faster

When editing from the internal SSD, battery life is excellent.
When editing from an external SSD, battery life drops much faster.

The laptop has to power the external drive while constantly reading and writing large video files. That additional workload uses significantly more power.

Instead of losing around 11 percent over several hours, battery usage can jump to 50 or 60 percent. In real-world terms, battery life drops to around 6 to 8 hours.

That is still good, but it is no longer mind blowing.

Storage Is the Biggest Mistake I Made

The only upgrade I purchased was increasing storage from 256 GB to 512 GB for $200.

In hindsight, I should have gone with at least 1 TB.

I frequently have to copy files onto the laptop, then move them off again just to make room to edit from the internal SSD. This forces me to rely on external SSDs more often, which hurts battery life and adds friction to my workflow.

That said, upgrading from 256 GB to 1 TB costs another $400. That pricing is frustrating, even if the performance benefits are real.

At the very least, Apple should raise the base storage to 512 GB. Just like Apple increased the base memory from 8 GB to 16 GB, storage needs the same treatment.

The MacBook Air Needs More Ports

Another area I would love to see improved is port selection.

I understand that the MacBook Air is an entry-level laptop, but it is powerful enough that many creators rely on it daily. Even one additional USB-C port on the right side would make a big difference.

It would help with file transfers, charging flexibility, and using multiple external devices at once. I lost my MagSafe charging cable early on and now charge over USB-C, which makes the limited ports even more noticeable.

I am not asking for HDMI or an SD card reader. One or two more USB-C ports would go a long way for video editors.

Final Thoughts on the M4 MacBook Air for Video Editing

The M4 MacBook Air has become my go-to travel editing laptop. It is ultra compact, powerful, and reliable.

It does have limitations. Export times are slower, storage upgrades are expensive, and port selection is minimal. Even so, I do not regret buying it at all.

Looking ahead, I hope Apple improves export performance, increases base storage, and adds more USB-C ports in future versions. These are the main things I will be watching for when the M5 MacBook Air is released.

If you would like to see that review, let me know!