umut_h_toprak wrote:
This may be a bit unrelated to this particular announcement, but I am still curious to hear what others think.
We seem to have hit a dynamic range ceiling some years ago.
We are also close to the diffraction limits of the full frame format in terms of resolution, if I am not mistaken.
Regarding fps, I'd say we are already at a usable limit for all genres apart from those involving fast action.
Autofocus still has some room to improve, but I feel it is already more of a lens challenge than body at this stage.
Where do you see the field going in the next few generations? Global shutter seems like a likely next step but it could become harder to convince people to continue investing in bodies at some point. I'd probably be at that point a long time ago if I were a landscape or macro shooter....Show more →
Interesting point. At the very least, I expect that the number of camera generations between what I would regard as a worthwhile upgrade will increase, just as it has for ‘phones (I went from an iPhone X to 16 Pro, for instance).
For wildlife, particularly BIF, I have an A1. The A1 II AF is undoubtedly better, but I did not feel compelled to upgrade, whereas the combination of global shutter and AF improvements would, for me, be worthwhile. But after that?
Similarly, I still use our A7R IV with landscapes and architecture (rather than Leica M) if I feel inclined to have autofocus or wish to use lenses for which there is no real Leica counterpart (e.g. 12-24mm GM). But if I were to replace the A7R with another Sony, it would be more for form factor reasons (e.g. the A7CR or follow-on) rather than IQ (although I would be interested to try the latest AF too). I suspect you’re right about the limits of full frame; would significantly more than 60mp really make sense? Possibly not, unless something else significantly changes, too. For landscapes, the more likely next step for me — for IBIS / low light capabilities more than resolution per se — is an X2D II (or III).
So, aside from moving from the A1 (original) to one with global shutter + better AF, I am sceptical that there will be game-changing improvements — in full frame, that would enable me to do something significantly different — over the next few years. (Which I really don’t mind; what I already have is incredible.) Even moving to MF would be more of an indulgence than a fundamental change, although I do feel that the larger dimensions give the lens designers significantly more room for manoeuvre.
In other words, camera manufacturers may need to start thinking in terms of less frequent upgrades (either longer between versions or customers spending longer with a given product).
Andrew CD wrote:
Interesting point. At the very least, I expect that the number of camera generations between what I would regard as a worthwhile upgrade will increase, just as it has for ‘phones (I went from an iPhone X to 15 Pro, for instance).
For wildlife, particularly BIF, I have an A1. The A1 II AF is undoubtedly better, but I did not feel compelled to upgrade, whereas the combination of global shutter and AF improvements would, for me, be worthwhile. But after that?
Similarly, I still use our A7R IV with landscapes and architecture (rather than Leica M) if I feel inclined to have autofocus or wish to use lenses for which there is no real Leica counterpart (e.g. 12-24mm GM). But if I were to replace the A7R with another Sony, it would be more for form factor reasons (e.g. the A7CR or follow-on) rather than IQ (although I would be interested to try the latest AF too). I suspect you’re right about the limits of full frame; would significantly more than 60mp really make sense? Possibly not, unless something else significantly changes, too. For landscapes, the more likely next step for me — for IBIS / low light capabilities more than resolution per se — is an X2D II (or III).
So, aside from moving from the A1 (original) to one with global shutter + better AF, I am sceptical that there will be game-changing improvements — in full frame, that would enable me to do something significantly different — over the next few years. (Which I really don’t mind; what I already have is incredible.) Even moving to MF would be more of an indulgence than a fundamental change, although I do feel that the larger dimensions give the lens designers significantly more room for manoeuvre.
In other words, camera manufacturers may need to start thinking in terms of less frequent upgrades (either longer between versions or customers spending longer with a given product)....Show more →
Many good points, but given that camera companies primary goal is to separate their customers from their money, manufacturers will rely upon marketing to emphasize small design changes and will resist slowing the pace of new model introductions.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
This may be a bit unrelated to this particular announcement, but I am still curious to hear what others think.
We seem to have hit a dynamic range ceiling some years ago.
We are also close to the diffraction limits of the full frame format in terms of resolution, if I am not mistaken.
Regarding fps, I'd say we are already at a usable limit for all genres apart from those involving fast action.
Autofocus still has some room to improve, but I feel it is already more of a lens challenge than body at this stage.
Where do you see the field going in the next few generations? Global shutter seems like a likely next step but it could become harder to convince people to continue investing in bodies at some point. I'd probably be at that point a long time ago if I were a landscape or macro shooter....Show more →
As camera makers run out of even the smallest of hardware improvements I predict they'll start turning to computational photography features, like those already used of smartphones. This will mean the "hardware" improvements will come from image coprocessors (ASICs) and CPUs rather than from the sensors, which actually has been true for a generation or two.
It sounds like the consensus is 16ms sensor readout, so partially stacked speed. Would this improve focus vs the a7Rv? I assume it could do more focus calculations per second. Is 16ms fast enough for events, but maybe not sports? Or ok for casual sports where some rolling shutter is acceptable. Any idea why Sony rumors keeps emphasizing fully stacked?
Maybe a faster data transfer from sensor to EVF during focus to maintain EVF resolution.
If we are getting new menus it seems likely it has a new CPU. Or did the a7v already get the new cpu? From some other discussion it sounds like the text overlay for the displays is a weak spot on prior versions.
snapsy wrote:
As camera makers run out of even the smallest of hardware improvements I predict they'll start turning to computational photography features, like those already used of smartphones. This will mean the "hardware" improvements will come from image coprocessors (ASICs) and CPUs rather than from the sensors, which actually has been true for a generation or two.
I was about to type the same thing. A global shutter really opens up some huge potential here as well. We have previews of this with things like the composite raws. You could have 120fps in-camera real-time stacking of 3-6 raw images to greatly reduce high-ISO noise for example. Huge amount of potential and it's not just a computational thing either--sensors designed to feed that type of pipeline will be different as well.
And....who makes the sensors for Apple and others where this type of computational photography approach is now the norm? Sony!
umut_h_toprak wrote:
This may be a bit unrelated to this particular announcement, but I am still curious to hear what others think.
We seem to have hit a dynamic range ceiling some years ago.
We are also close to the diffraction limits of the full frame format in terms of resolution, if I am not mistaken.
Regarding fps, I'd say we are already at a usable limit for all genres apart from those involving fast action.
Autofocus still has some room to improve, but I feel it is already more of a lens challenge than body at this stage.
Where do you see the field going in the next few generations? Global shutter seems like a likely next step but it could become harder to convince people to continue investing in bodies at some point. I'd probably be at that point a long time ago if I were a landscape or macro shooter....Show more →
Great questions. I've thought the same. Sensor tech in terms of IQ seems to have plateaued. Now with the fps burst speed, we are getting tremendous rates that will work for all but the very fastest action. It seems that 30 fps will become the new normal. Consider that during the DSLR era the best flagships were around 10-12 fps. In mirrorless, 20-30 fps has been the standard for the flagships. Now one can get that on the Sony A7V. After a while, does one really need 60 ro 120 fps? There are use cases but far more narrow.
You mention global shutter. But even that has limited appeal. For most use cases, a global shutter and a fast stacked sensor are indistinguishable. I do think Sony will go to high resolution global shutter on the A1 III with all of the quality of life improvements on the A7RVI, because that's really all they can do.
After that, who knows? More refinement of the AF system, a bit higher resolution, a bit higher fps. With a high enough burst rate, some of the computational photography tricks can be had, but that will require great processing power and better battery life. Perhaps that's one reason why Sony is switching to a new battery system.
I think that's one reason why Sony has focused on the quality of experience improvements as well. A new battery with presumably significant enough improvement in battery life. A new menu system that one hopes is noticeably better. Perhaps a new EVF. This all matters too. It's not just about performance.
I'm hoping the A7rVI will be one of the first cameras to include support for full "internal" speed/processing of CFexpress Type A "4.0". I do wonder if some of the almost unbelievable rumored A7rVI specs might be impart due to new internal CFexpress 4.0 processing.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
We seem to have hit a dynamic range ceiling some years ago.
For landscape photography, the recent sony A7 V improvements in dynamic range are exciting. Nearly a stop improvement over the prior version. This advancement hasn't made it's way yet into most other cameras and is the feature I'm most hoping to appear in the R VI camera.
jwpstl wrote:
How long after the A7r VI announcement do you think we’ll see a new A7CR? That’s the new camera I’m most interested in.
I sold my A7Rv looking to take advantage of the slightly smaller A7CR, but the difference in viewfinder vs my other cameras put a damper on my excitement. Used the camera and just ignored the viewfinder’s shortcoming. Sold the A7CR, so no longer own a Sony body. It will take a new from the ground up design to produce a high quality EVF that fits in a reduced space. I hope that this is in development.
jwpstl wrote:
How long after the A7r VI announcement do you think we’ll see a new A7CR? That’s the new camera I’m most interested in.
The A7CII and the A7C R sell very well for Sony. The next generation of the a7C R may have the same sensor as the A7RVI has. If so, and they find a way to improve the EVF substantially without making the camera too much bigger, it will be a killer cam and very popular, as will the A7CII with the A7V sensor.
However, I think we have to wait to see what Sony does with the new body on the A7RVI. If they move back toward a smaller body on their flagships, that would br fantastic for my preferences and would make the C bodies less of an absolute preference. But the C bodies are awfully good.
I'm hoping the a7rVI body is larger, about 1cm taller so that the human 5th digit can rest on the grip. More importantly there needs to be another 1cm between the lens mount and handgrip. It's practically impossible to get a good grip when using the larger tele lenses and worse with even a thin underglove.
They can put the new sensor and a few other features in the next CR to differentiate the hi-res cameras. Meanwhile there will probably be plenty of a7rVs and CRs around for years. The a7rIII was available so long.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm hoping the a7rVI body is larger, about 1cm taller so that the human 5th digit can rest on the grip. More importantly there needs to be another 1cm between the lens mount and handgrip. It's practically impossible to get a good grip when using the larger tele lenses and worse with even a thin underglove.
They can put the new sensor and a few other features in the next CR to differentiate the hi-res cameras. Meanwhile there will probably be plenty of a7rVs and CRs around for years. The a7rIII was available so long.
EBH
Personally I appreciate the smaller size. The small size of the Sony cameras was one of the reasons I switched from Nikon in the first place. Never had any issues with the height of the grip or the space between the lens and grip. I think it entirely depends on how large your hand is and how thick your fingers are.
I could see a bit of space horizontally adding lens barrel clearance. Top to bottom? I usually have an L bracket or plate of some sort so adding space there can be addressed via accessories, etc.
I don't see stacked at 30 fps and 61 mp, that could be seen as beating the A1 ii. Some of that depends on how much processor/sensor/battery one stuffs in.
Go to the newer body A9iii ish, pick up the most recent focus system adds, drop in the A1 11 sensor, call it an A7Rvi, sell it for $5000 and start the ad campaign teasing the A1 iii. That's not likely to happen, of course.
Logan Nolag wrote:
Personally I appreciate the smaller size. The small size of the Sony cameras was one of the reasons I switched from Nikon in the first place. Never had any issues with the height of the grip or the space between the lens and grip. I think it entirely depends on how large your hand is and how thick your fingers are.
I thnk it also depends on how you hold the grip--if you wrap your hand and fingers deeply into the grip, it brings your knuckes into the space between the grip and the lens barrel. If you hold the grip more with the tips of your fingers, there is a lot of room.
Logan Nolag wrote:
Personally I appreciate the smaller size. The small size of the Sony cameras was one of the reasons I switched from Nikon in the first place. Never had any issues with the height of the grip or the space between the lens and grip. I think it entirely depends on how large your hand is and how thick your fingers are.
I have sized "man-hands." The smallest lens I use is a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400/5.6, but often the 200-600, and the 400-800 or 600/4 should be comfortable to use. You should easily be able to pick up the camera and a smaller lens like 100-400 with only the right hand, bring it up to the eye-head and then the left arm swings into place to support the lens.
I find the 200-600 annoying even on the tripod since it's just starting to rub on the knuckes. I have no such problem with Canon and Nikon bodies. My reason for Sony is the sensor. If they sold this new sensor to Nikon, obviously I'd go with Nikkors for the tele options. Canon has no resolution in the pro bodies. I can handle using two systems together sometimes, but not three.
Realistically I'm expecting the a7rVI to be in the same range of form factors as the a7rV and a1 II, a9 III.
The smaller version for those with small hands would be the "CR." I'm not paying $5K for some dinky little camera that you cannot handle with a 600/4.
EB-1 wrote:
I have sized "man-hands." The smallest lens I use is a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400/5.6, but often the 200-600, and the 400-800 or 600/4 should be comfortable to use. You should easily be able to pick up the camera and a smaller lens like 100-400 with only the right hand, bring it up to the eye-head and then the left arm swings into place to support the lens.
I find the 200-600 annoying even on the tripod since it's just starting to rub on the knuckes. I have no such problem with Canon and Nikon bodies. My reason for Sony is the sensor. If they sold this new sensor to Nikon, obviously I'd go with Nikkors for the tele options. Canon has no resolution in the pro bodies. I can handle using two systems together sometimes, but not three.
Realistically I'm expecting the a7rVI to be in the same range of form factors as the a7rV and a1 II, a9 III.
The smaller version for those with small hands would be the "CR." I'm not paying $5K for some dinky little camera that you cannot handle with a 600/4.
Yes, the CR is the smaller version but it has a few restrictions like the viewfinder that make it somewhat challenging to use.
One of the things that brought me over from Canon is the smaller camera sizes compared to the hyped up DSLR sizes. I’d hate to see Sony lose one of its true advantages over Nikon and Canon…the camera size.
