If I would be spending money on overpriced glass and using last decade tech like some in CaNikon land I would be even more jealous of what Sony has done here.
nhmorgan wrote:
Oh Boy. What a bummer. That rolling shutter is basically the same as the A7RV. Not much use for 30fps with rolling shutter that bad. Max shutter of 1/8000 is also not gonna cut it. Was pretty excited about this based on the rumors, but as always, there's no free lunch.
I also wondered about that: what subject and situation would merit a need for 30fps but also be slow enough for the rolling shutter performance offered here to be sufficient?
30fps and precapture screams sports camera but then they go out of their way to say it's not a sports camera. I think I'll keep shooting the A1s a little longer. I would like an A9III though.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
I also wondered about that: what subject and situation would merit a need for 30fps but also be slow enough for the rolling shutter performance offered here to be sufficient?
From DPR: "Given the a7R VI takes 1/50th of a second to read out each frame in e-shutter mode"
So that's a bit faster than Canon R5, and a lot, lot slower than Sony A9.
A1II sales killer? No. It will take some sales, sure, but unlikely A7R7 will even match A9 rolling shutter.
Hey Scott. If you start saving perhaps you can join us in Sony camp instead of lugging around Nikon and their bag-of-last-years-Sony-scraps. No need to be jealous
I have a hard time getting a definitive read on the rolling shutter situation. Birding camera: used A1II or would this camera be suitable enough for BIF?
deepDEEPpurple wrote:
Hey Scott. If you start saving perhaps you can join us in Sony camp instead of lugging around Nikon and their bag-of-last-years-Sony-scraps. No need to be jealous
You're not off to a very good start with this account. Which alt got permabanned?
I saw so much banding on the bird wings. I hope everyone buys this camera and the lens, because it just makes the A1 and 400GM 2.8 that much more powerful and a great long term investment. World Cup Glass they said? Yeah I shoot soccer NCAA championships and the video people use FX6 & FX3 but all the shooters I saw during the Championship game used Canon 100-300 2.8 & 400 2.8 on R3/1 bodies. You show up with this camera and lens and the real pros will blow you away. The only way it makes sense is the versatility but the ISO is going to be through the roof. Good luck shooting this glass under the stadium lights at nighttime on a 60htz sensor that can only do half the AF-C calculations of the A1 & A9iii. I’m not surprised the glass is so heavily discounted. It’s a daytime lens that is not going to be clinical in golden hour and the ISO will be out of control under the lights when you need to shoot 1/2000 shutter to freeze action. f/4 is still not good, but it would of been an 8K lens and be near the weight of the 400GM. I think they struck a great balance here.
One important revelation from Jean Wagner: 12 bit raw with compressed raw, you get 60 AF calculations, 14 bit lossless compressed at 60-80 shots with 30 AF calculations.
There is some serious compromise, I really didn't like the A9's 12 bit raw.
boblombardi wrote:
I have a hard time getting a definitive read on the rolling shutter situation. Birding camera: used A1II or is a good enough camera for BIF?
Quick question: Will a flash/strobe synch with Electronic Shutter on the A7RVI? I cannot find a mention in the spec's. This is a feature I really use a lot on the A1 II.
According to DPReview, A7RVI's stacked sensor doesn't have a DRAM layer, replacing it instead with a "processing layer". That doesn't make much sense to me. Most image processing algorithms require access to in-place image data and can't be applied to data coming off-the-fly from the sensor, which means the processing can only be applied to simple processing algorithms like impulse noise reduction - more advanced algorithms will need to access to the stored image data in DRAM, which means this new stacked "processing layer" would have to access DRAM over the slower SLVS-EC interface, negating its sensor co-located stacked performance benefits. They likely kept DRAM off the sensor to improve yields / reduce cost, which begs the question why make it a stacked sensor in the first place, other than for marketing reasons.
