old-gregg wrote:
As a happy owner of the A1 II, I say the A7R6. I am an IQ whore. In fact, a 3x IQ whore: in the EVF, LCD, and RAW. Sign me up for every additional bump, even if just theoretical, of dynamic range and resolution. Of course there are zero practical implications of these extra bumps, but they make me feel great and that's the point of spending money, isn't it?
Ha, ha! That did make me smile. Must have touched a nerve. But I thought the EVF and LCD were the same on both cameras? Yes there are fewer pixels on the A1 but I have never seen anyone (well ... until now) complain about that.
old-gregg wrote:
As a happy owner of the A1 II, I say the A7R6. I am an IQ whore. In fact, a 3x IQ whore: in the EVF, LCD, and RAW. Sign me up for every additional bump, even if just theoretical, of dynamic range and resolution. Of course there are zero practical implications of these extra bumps, but they make me feel great and that's the point of spending money, isn't it?
rob_ww wrote:
I've seen lots of comparisons to the A7R5 but not many to the A1ii. Hypothetical: if you had the chance to buy either the A7R6 or the A1ii for roughly the same price, which one would you choose?
This is from the perspective of someone that has the a7v and the a7rV along with its 5 or 6 extra batteries and a couple of chargers. I always shoot with 2 bodies, even traveling light haha.
The a1II would probably be my choice over the a7r6, just can’t beat the crazy fast readout speed and easy integration to my existing kit. Between my Sony’s, a drone, a 360 cam and so on - I value easy battery compatibility and carrying fewer chargers. Any mix with older bodies means two sets of batteries which for me isn’t something I’m interested at the moment. For action I find the a7v to be amazing and can live with amy issues from the slower than a1 readout speed. The a7rV is crazy cheap used too and has almost identical photo capabilities.
But once used copies pop up on B&S I may evaluate my kit and consider a switch - especially if the long rumored a7sIII/FX3 replacement surfaces. I have a bunch of Z batteries, so for now that transition is not something I want to do ATM.
Now if I were just carrying one body, I’d probably be really tempted by the a7r6 over the a1II since its rolling shutter is similar to the a7v and it does seem to shoot good video - which is a lot of my work. Plus battery life with the a1II is the worst of any Sony body I’ve used in recent years, it’s easy to see why they finally did a larger battery. After using the a7v, I actually sold my a1II largely because of the battery and just picked up a cheap a7rV for my landscape camera.
Seabassius wrote:
If they could just do an incrementally better EVF I think I'd be content with A7CR as is and anything extra is just icing. I don't know why but that just bugs me as an EVF guy.
Why not an A7CRii with an upgraded EVF, which will likely be improved, but not fully acceptable? The punch line is, why not an X2Dii like HDR LCD screen? The new 2026 TV’s have, in part, gone to RGB screens with crazy high peak brightness. Why not start making the EVF secondary and keep the camera small?
I haven't tried the A7CR finder. I understand it's better than the A6700? I would prefer enhancing the EVF over a too much larger rear panel.i don't know how much the A7Rv panel would grow things overall. There are times I can see and do things better on the panel but as lenses get larger, I like the on face stability of using the EVF. I don't think there's a universally popular answer. Guessing Sony's approach to translating the A7Rvi to A6xxx and A7CRx is likely kicked up a notch or two. Between "what" they might be and "when" and "which one first," should feed lots of threads.
Was just at my local camera store and they have 30 A7RVI in the warehouse, but they're embargoed. he didn't specify but I assume until next week, I heard the 4th from somewhere. I'll have to read all your perspectives on it and wait a couple of weeks. I'm going the opposite direction and flying to Hawaii tomorrow with an 10mpx M8 (ok so I have a q2 as well).
rob_ww wrote:
I've seen lots of comparisons to the A7R5 but not many to the A1ii. Hypothetical: if you had the chance to buy either the A7R6 or the A1ii for roughly the same price, which one would you choose?
Why not both? On a more serious note, I have one coming on launch day. I'm going to take it on a trip and compare it to my A1II's for my style of bird shooting. I suspect it will be perfectly fine most of the time and if I'm right, I'll use it vs. the A1II in certain scenarios.
Seabassius wrote:
Was just at my local camera store and they have 30 A7RVI in the warehouse, but they're embargoed. he didn't specify but I assume until next week, I heard the 4th from somewhere. I'll have to read all your perspectives on it and wait a couple of weeks. I'm going the opposite direction and flying to Hawaii tomorrow with an 10mpx M8 (ok so I have a q2 as well).
June 4th is the ship date on the reseller's websites. I suppose we'll see how popular it is.
Nice video. Shows some of the wing distortion in the extreme scenarios.
I really hope they can do a FW update to give A1II some of that new Memory functionality. I just want the option to toggle between 2 of them via a custom button and the option to have it auto update the Memory set. But not sure if they will do that via FW as there is no * on the A1II for the M functions.
Are there full-res files showing the distortion? I wonder if has the blockiness like the R5 did in ES. That was worse than the distortion in many motion cases.
He states that when photographing herons, geese, and ducks in flight, he never had any issues with rolling shutter effect in their wings. The readout is fast enough that these medium-speed birds don't cause distortion,
For faster-flying birds like swallows, swifts, and martins, he said that you will maybe see a bit of rolling shutter, but "not too bad". What he said about the 30fps vs 10fps mechanical really shuts up the arm chair reviewers that never touched the camera: if in ONE out of THIRTY I have a bit of rolling shutter it is not a big deal
The A7R VI may not be an A1 II killer, but it's getting much closer than before.
That said, I'm kind of disappointed that Sony went this direction instead of pushing the resolution envelope. We had 40MP APS-C sensors for a few years. That pixel density would make about 90MP on a FF sensor. I truly expected Sony to give us a 100MP A7R VI that could give MF a run for its money.
Manu-K1 wrote:
The A7R VI may not be an A1 II killer, but it's getting much closer than before.
That said, I'm kind of disappointed that Sony went this direction instead of pushing the resolution envelope. We had 40MP APS-C sensors for a few years. That pixel density would make about 90MP on a FF sensor. I truly expected Sony to give us a 100MP A7R VI that could give MF a run for its money.
Ahh.. someone that loves degraded images at all but fast apertures. Time for you to move to medium format. I’m hoping that they not go to higher resolution. There are so many other aspects that make up an image, or shooting experience. But seriously, full frame is not the right vehicle for higher resolution. I should add, that I’m one that loves high resolution and for most of what I shoot it isn’t FF. So, I’m not suggesting that you are off regarding your interest. On the other hand, there probably is a niche f/1.2-f/4.0(5.6) community where ultra high resolution FF would be perfect.
But seriously, how far has DPReview fallen? They're praising Panasonic's new point-and-shoot as though it's the standout camera of the year so far. At this point, they wouldn't recognize innovation if it landed on their heads.
It's hilarious.
When it's a Nikon product, that is then even the Z fc somehow ends up with a gold award.
Manu-K1 wrote:
That said, I'm kind of disappointed that Sony went this direction instead of pushing the resolution envelope. We had 40MP APS-C sensors for a few years. That pixel density would make about 90MP on a FF sensor. I truly expected Sony to give us a 100MP A7R VI that could give MF a run for its money.
I had that 40MP sensor. Also, most of my A7RV shooting is on a copy stand with pixel shift. I'll take as much resolution as I can find. Based on those experiences, I think you'd be disappointed by a 90MP full-frame sensor. Very, very few lenses are going to deliver any tangible improvement outside the dead center compared to a 60MP image.
Fun fact: for my film scanning work the A7RV actually outperformed the 100MP GFX, again, because of better glass available for the E-mount. See? Even the 60mp chip is already giving MF a run for its money. Basically, when it comes to resolution, even with current pixel densities sensors are already taking the backseat to lenses in many situations. Increasing density even further will yield very little. Law of diminishing returns.
Instead, I wish they adopted a more efficient aspect ratio. 3:2 is too wide AKA too short. Vast majority of 3:2 images posted online clearly could benefit from chopping 10-20% of "dead ears" on both ends. A 4:3 or even 5:4 ratio FF sensor with the same pixel density would deliver ~10-20% more practical resolution because cropping wouldn't be necessary. That would benefit everyone. And if they went full gangsta and gave me a 1:1 square sensor, that would have been heaven on Earth!
On a more serious note, I have one coming on launch day. I'm going to take it on a trip and compare it to my A1II's for my style of bird shooting. I suspect it will be perfectly fine most of the time and if I'm right, I'll use it vs. the A1II in certain scenarios. 