After spending more time with a production model of the Sony a7R V, we have our final conclusions. How does this camera stack up in terms of image quality, autofocus and video performance? We have answers.
Correction: The a7R V does offer the ability to engage autofocus tracking in video mode with the EVF in use. When selecting custom buttons for video shooting, set one to 'Tracking on' to allow it to initiate tracking.
I all these reviews, the boys are using the cameras outdoors in winter with bare hands. When it was really cold, they stayed indoors. Now if I'm hired to shoot an outdoor winter event, I can't say "it's too cold". So show us guys, how well the Sony, and other cameras, function with mitts or gloves! There's my challenge. If it's -22C (as it is now in Ontario), bare hands last about 5 min. You could also add how to use the rear lcd in a moderate snow fall, as the viewfinder fills up with snow and the slightest blockage tells the camera to turn off the lcd.
I used to find these reviews very useful when I could read the text. I'm not a native English speaker and I find it very hard to follow the fast pace of the speaker. It's like a hearing test, and unfortunately I don't pass.
Lots of comments about the rolling shutter... Does it really matter!? 8K is the video selling point of this camera. However, the real reason for buying this camera is image resolution.
I know this is sacrilege, but if you know the technique, a can of dust off is far more powerful at removing the bunnies.
Empty full can to 2/3s - angle camera face down - tip wand up at 45 degrees - clear any liquid by two or three short blasts - hold steady and blast sensor from about 2 inches away ... been doing this for years. If you do get some splatters on the sensor, a wet cleaning removes the resulting spots. But you won't if you are careful.
That's nonsense. Having lots of pixels to work with gives you freedom to crop (saves you the $$$ of a tele lens), freedom to perspective correct (saves you $$$ of a tilt shift lens) and allows you to downsample for very clean images.
I never understand the notion of "pixel peeper". Do you buy cars that can only drive 65mph max, or do you enjoy cars, that occasionally go faster.
And yes, many times I enjoy looking at all the detail in my photos that I never noticed when I took it, at the leisure at home.
@4Photos, if the number if pixel is your only measure in a cam, why don't you buy a 200 mp cell phone, it will give you the freedom to crop and save you tele lens, to correct and save you tilt shift lense, and I time to enjoy looking at all the details of your photos. Do you buy cars that can only drive 65mph max, or do you enjoy cars, that occasionally go faster ? :) :) :) :)
I have no idea what makes you think I am "focus on that". Do I like high resolution cameras like the R-series. Yes. (In my film days I used Hasselblad). Did I ever state that it's all about pixels and everything else is irrelevant? No. Never.
I've been a Sony shooter since the A200 and I bought essentially every full frame flagship, except this one. It's an exceptional camera for sure, but, for me, there's just not enough incentive to upgrade from my A7rIV. I wanted better IQ for my work so I went straight to MF.
The IVa was/is revered for its massive resolution. From what we read.hear, the V uses the same sensor so the photos, especially stills, will be the same. All the AF business isn't going to improve photos for landscape photogs. Besides, try and sell a IVa. Current list CAD is $4500, but they struggle to sell on KIJIJI for $2700. That's nearly $2k in two years. A Nikon D850 lists for $3900, was on sale at XMAS for about $3300 and sells used for over $2500, for a 5 year old camera!
Have you considered the hi-res mode of the the Sony cameras? I am not a Sony user but the 80MP photos made with a camera from another manufacturer are simply stunning. It would even be possible to increase resolution by 300% by using Lightroom's super resolution function (AI-based). That would bring me to 320 MP. Not too shabby for an original taken by a 20 MP sensor... In the case of Sony resolution would even be higher.
Hi-res mode is viable for certain use-cases (eg. art reproduction). I played with LR super resolution, but it adds a lot of artifacts. It's not yet ready for prime time.
The point of my question is that if these issues with the a7RV were solved in other bodies long before, why were the solutions not carried over to the V or even the IV?
To minimize rolling shutter requires faster readout speeds. The fastest readout speeds are possible with stacked sensors. In Sony's current full-frame lineup only the a9, a9ii, and a1 use stacked sensors.
Dust: yes, Sony sensor are very fond of dust. It can be very very frustrating out in the field and notice dust. While stills may be fixed in post, what about video? The vibration thing really doesn't work. Will every change of a lens mean another check for dust? A good reason to avoid using many lenses! BTW, I have found a simple way to get some dust off the sensor, without any special tools. I turn the camera off and whack it into my hand. It often jostles the dust off of the sensor. It may not be very elegant, but what are your options on the fly? Especially for video.
A rocket blower in the bag solves almost all dust problems.
I rarely have dust problems with my Sony cameras. Before an important shoot or a shoot that typically highlights dust (like an air show) I’ll do a quick check and use the rocket blower if I find anything objectionable.
When I'm out camping, dust is everywhere all the time. It's a bit cumbersome to carry my dust kit and do a check after every lens change. Every lens change is a guaranteed dust invasion.
Then I would suggest Sony vs not Sony doesn’t present a substantial difference. Mirrorless cameras do tend to have a bit more exposure risk than the DSLR but it’s doubtful the Sony’s are substantially worse than Canons or Nikons. Nikons are practically all using Sony sensors, after all.
Anyway follow standard best practices, point the camera down, be efficient, and if you find you have some added dust use the rocket blower. And I’m not sure what you mean by a dust kit. But all I carry is a rocket blower. It should be all you need.
For some reason Sony's do have a reputation for being a dust magnet compared to other mirrorless offerings. Nikons do not, even though they use Sony-made sensors.
TRU the dust magnet association with Sony predates the entry of Canon and Nikon into the full frame mirrorless market. While it’s possible there is some electrostatic difference between sensors used in different cameras I highly doubt it.
And this dust magnet thing is a legacy from when Sony was the only guy in the full frame mirrorless market and canon and Nikon were still pushing DSLRs.
That said dust isn’t really a problem if you blow off the sensor somewhat regularly (monthly?) and don’t allow dust to accumulate.
"And this dust magnet thing is a legacy from when Sony was the only guy in the full frame mirrorless market ...."
And that's how things get cemented and perpetuated on the internet. Same with this "rolling shutter" of the A7r5. Soon people will be convinced that Sony is the only camera maker with a rolling shutter problem, all thanks to a funny drum sticks by Jordan and Chris.
obscure question: Has anyone tried to pull single frames off of the video on the RV? (Video at , let say, 25 fps) What do they look like and what size are they? How easy can this be done in post?
Thanks. This suggests that if 8K video is shot for slow motion (ie 120 fps or 1/120 sec) this would that reduce blur. I think motion blur reduction programs are available. Looks like the industry is headed this way as cameras improve their data rates off the chip and onto the memory card.
It is remarkable to me that when we are watching a video we are actually watching a series of highly blurred images, but our brain sharpens them up.
I use frame grabs extensively for images of targets where a single shot would probably miss what I want to capture. An excellent example is lightning. Set the camera on a tripod, shoot video, extract the frames with a lightning strike. 4K frames are ok. 8K frames at 33MP are fabulous with enough room for cropping, etc. For other targets with 24/30 frames per second there are always frames without any noticeable motion blur to work with.
I’m okay if they tweak the body design but I REALLY hope they don’t make them substantially larger. I’m happy to have all the power and performance of the S9 in a body the size (and weight) of an A1 thank you very much.
Sony HQ may be in Japan, but the last batch of camera bodies in China, now reportedly Thailand, like the lenses. Used to be important to brag about "Made in Japan" quality. Doesn't seem to matter to camera Co. except Sigma. I may turn my dollars that way simply because of their worker loyalty, and quality. The Sony bodies have too many buttons that are too close together. Too many toggles. I'm constantly accidentally bumping the focus spot toggle. I usually notice it after taking the photo. I know, it's my fault. I need to adapt to the camera.
I passed on the A7RIV due to its noisy sensor and will be passing on this camera for the same.
The A7RIII remains the best R-series sensor in terms of DR and high ISO.
Is the A7RV a better overall camera than the A7RIII? Yes. Is it a better landscape camera? No? Why? Because it’s shadow recovery is relatively worse. Shadow recovery is critical for landscape photography for me.
I use the A7R4 for landscapes and have zero issues with noise. Which doesn't mean the camera is good or bad, just that I personally don't have a problem with it and like having the extra pixels for cropping and printing.
In fact, I sold my A7R3 to buy the R4 and haven't given the old camera a second thought.
How would a difference of 0.3 to 0.5 stop at very high ISO affect landscape photography when applying shadow recovery? Nobody would be able to tell the difference in noise level between the 42 Mp A7rIII and the newer 60 Mp models when looking at prints.
But people would easily notice the difference between the A7rIII tracking autofocus that almost nailed it, and the better AF of the latter cameras. What am I trying to tell here? There are other aspects of a camera that would matter more in general than small differences in noise performance.
The shadows is the parts of images where the eye is least sensitive, and where you need noticeable contrast differences to separate tones at all.
On the other hand, you gain about 2 stops lower ISO with the improved IBIS of the A7r5. Especially for stationary subjects (landscapes) this will give much better shadow recovery. Unless you always use a tripod and ISO 100 for all your photos. But still, I bet in real life this difference is small. Add to this modern noise reduction software, and noise becomes almost a non-issue.
Having said that - I also like my A7r3 very much and am on the fence whether to upgrade or not. But probably will, once the price comes down a bit.
@ 4Photos: If you want to get the most out of the dynamic range for high contrast subjects or scenes with extreme dynamic range, you need to use raw and optimise the exposure.
Most subjects and scenes have much lower dynamic range than what modern sensors can record, though. Then exposure is more about getting as clean and nosise free result as possible, rather than hadow recovery close to the noise floor.
TheOwl360 According to DXO the Signal to noise ratio of the A7RIII and A7RIV is exactly the same. The A7RIII as a tiny bit more DR. Because the IV has more resolution pixel peeping at full size gives the false impression the IV has more noise but if you reduce the 60mp file to 42mp there is no difference.
All this fuss over dynamic range. There is an option to auto bracket. The camera will take three shots or more +/- exposure. They can be combined as needed in "post". I wonder though if you can combine the multi-shot with bracketing? Combine twelve images?
I bought the A7RV after shooting five years with the RIII, the stabilization is absolutely impressive, I made a sharp shot at 150mm at 1/25 sec ! I was shooting with my arms stretched up to the maximum ! I'd say the improvement is of at least 2 stops compared to the RIII.
There is also a new bracketing mode that nobody talks about, it allows you to shoot at the current exposure + 1 image underexposed or overexposed by X stops. Very useful if there is a bright sky that you don't want to burn !
For those who don’t get it, try taking a low angle picture with a tilt screen then try it with a fold out selfie screen, it’s much easier to keep it level and shoot with the tilt. If you really think your fold out selfie screen is better it’s a waste of time discussing it
You are the one who clearly does not get it. The A7r5 let's you do exactly what you want. Low angle shots in landscape orientation. Low angle shots in portrait orientation. The A7r5 is made for you :)
Its more awkward to use and keep the camera straight??!! The screen needs to be as close to the lens as possible not jacked off to the side like a babies toy?
In low level portrait orientation (which, if I understand you correctly is what you are complaining about), the screen would not be flipped to the side, it would be flipped down. (i.e. both the side of the camera and the screen point towards the ground). This is about as perfect as it gets for this kind of photography.
(NOTE: I myself also hate the sidewise flippy screen for stills photography in landscape orientation. That's why I am so happy that the A7r5 has a fully articulated one. Which is why I don't understand your complaint at all.)
Looking at youtube videos, it tilts up for horizontal but not for vertical, you have to fold it out and rotate it for vertical, as far as i can tell :-)
Is there a camera on the market that does it all? Tilt in horizontal orientation plus tilt in vertical position (not even sure what kind of mechanism this would require) plus sidewise flip and rotation for video?
I do a lots of waist level work which requires tilt. I was very worried Sony would do away with the tilt and give us the flippy screen as on A7iv. I was very glad that we got articulated, i.e. tilt for horizontal work, and flip/rotate for vertical waist level work.
But its a stills focused camera, i wish it just tilted like on the a7r4. Ive no problem with flip and rotate screens on video focused models as i wouldnt want one anyway.
Motion corrected pixelshift seems to eliminate most artifacts, but appears clearly softer at the same time. Would several uncorrected pixelshift files in an image stack get rid of artifacts while maintaining sharpness in the merged file?
Slightly side topic to your question, but with a 60mp camera, when does anyone need 240mp or more? Especially if shooting raw. Many photo exhibitions are using illuminated displays as well, so sheer pixel count must matter even less.
@Muskokaphotog It would be quite useful when you want to crop a lot in the post process? Imagine just bringing one 24mm prime for travel lens and doing every zoom in crop. mmmh.
hjs_koeln Yes, it's a common DPR problem. "I don't need it therefore nobody else should". Another problem I see is the amount of brand bashing in the comment sections that would get someone on probation or even banned in the forums.
My question isn't about my personal need, it's just that in nearly 50 years of professional photography, I have yet to see a consistent need for such a size of file, especially given the compromises. I'm not seeing this feature coming up in a lot of finished gallery work. A comment regarding cropping.. I suppose, but what a nuisance? I'd rather pay for features and qualities that I need rather than bragging righs.
So there's a table in the initial review that shows the A7RV has a 4k/60p mode with 1.24 crop and a 15ms readout speed. It also reports the A7RV has a 4k/24p mode with a 1.50 crop, which has a 31ms readout speed.
So how does that work? How does the 1.24 crop have such a better readout speed than the 1.50 crop? Given the improvement, why would you use a 1.50 crop if the 1.24 crop performs so much better?
4k60 with 1.2 crop use pixel binning (not skipping) - it is important difference in my opinion (binning being better than skipping). End result the same - faster read-out.
What you have is an expensive stills camera that is made even more expensive by taking "OK" video. But is the person who is using a camera considered the pinnacle of stills shooting in its format, going to happily accept "OK" video after spending all this $$?
The readout speeds in video are not that different from R6 mark II. A7RV does some cropping and / or subsampling, but it has 2.5 time more pixels to process, so not that much of surprise.
@4photos It would depend on the circumstances. The A7RV should certainly produce great video in many conditions. The weaknesses would be low light and rolling shutter. It’s probably completely fine for the vast majority of non-professional purposes.
You could see the differences on a 4K TV in some circumstances.
Too many "specialists" cry here about "excessive noise" from this sensor.... Downloaded RAW images from ISO 12800 studio test shots from - R5 ( which is known with baked in NR!!!), a7mk3, a7mk4, a7Rmk3, a7Rmk4, a7Rmk5. So I covered 24 till 61Mpix range of sensors. Loaded in LR, default settings for all of them. Canon was a bit brighter, lowered exp. on Canon a bit. No Luma NR as by default, and Chroma NR as by default 25/50/50. Resized all of them to jpg, long edge 5000 pixels. Can not figure out which is which at 285% magnification. Like Canon has a bit finer grain ( because baked in NR ), no color noise at all on any of them, and a tad better very fine details on the high res cameras. No way to figure this difference without minimum 200% magnification!!! This is about all "specialists" crying all over the place and their lack/refusal to understand how things work. And why higher magnification aka high res looks more noisy. This sensor do not show excessive noise in any meaning!!!
Thanks for correction! Anyway all samples/exports looks the same and there is no such thing as excessive noise in any of this sensors! So this claims are just false, fake or illiterate, or maybe combinations of them. R5 image does not appears better but at close to 300% magnification it has different grain structure, which looks finer in this case! But also all seems a bit more blurred. Again we talk about absolutely impractical magnification that is impossible to be seen in normal conditions!!!
Yeah, exactly for people like you I did this test! And in exported images there is ZERO chroma noise and there is nothing else very different. What you see in this sample is just a bit more chroma noise. And even default LR setting is enough to remove all the chroma noise from all samples. And voila! nothing excessive but exactly the same behavior as all other Sony sensors.
And BTW it is very interesting that on Photons to Photos site Sony 60Mpix cameras are listed with NR from ISO 16090 and you can not see this in the files! And not only this but Canon files appears as 0,7-0,8 stops brighter. So all this is close to useless for comparison of sensors which are from same or close generations, if not done by more scientific and repeatable methods.
Hah, actually after some more play on the samples is seems like R5 is around 1 stop brighter compared to the a7R5!!! So it is like exposure to the right on R5 and normal exposure on the a7R5. Very interesting. This is why people should download and check the files! As this cameras are not shot at the same time. Name of the files so we can be on the same page: DSC00509.ARW 012A1016.CR3
But they are both shot with 1/5000s at f/5.6. Therefore the sensor should have receives roughly the same radiant energy, assuming the light did not change between the shots.
@LJ - Eljot Roughly sensors are the same. But people here tend to report "excessive" differences. And when you open both files by default there is around 1 stop difference. I see metadata but this does not change the fact. All files appears with different exposure and difference between R5 and a7R5 are biggest.
@J A C S Yeah sure, RAW file is like black hole..... actually RAW content is directly related to analog value of the registered/sensed light per pixel. You can represent/develop them later as you wish but there is definitely registered brightness/lightness whatever you like, and then digitized in the RAW file. But anyway this is yet another "scientific" off-topic. What I see is around 1 stop difference + for Canon, and of course when you lower the exposure 1 stop noise also looks better. So there could be more light in the scene, there could be more light transmission from the lens, also there could be other things. Everyone could check by himself.
What I found interesting after this totally impractical exams related to "excessive" differences that some people here see between the sensors. 60Mpix sensors from Sony has more chroma noise in high ISO and in the non processed file! If you do process the RAW file ( of course you do ) or use jpegs, there is no real, practical difference between the sensors in high ISO range. And there is clear benefit of high res sensors when there is enough light to resolve more details. if you need this more detail! What is even more interesting is somehow finer looking grain from R5 files. And after some thoughts I think this could be related to Dual Pixel design of the senor, which also could be beneficial for lower chroma noise in the RAW file. This is speculation/just my thoughts. It seems like next real difference could come from quad/octa end etc pixel sensors with HDR, faster read out and etc.
When comparing two different cameras, which is what we are doing here, RAWs have no brightness values per se which we can compare. On the top of that, the RAW converters may treat them differently.
What is far more revealing is to compare the ISO 100 to the high ISO images with the same camera. One would expect the same brightness, well, if the manufacturer implemented the ISO "properly," if the RAW converter "knows" that and agreed with it, and if the exposure was proportionally reduced. I see changes in the brightness in LR with the Canon file and not so much with the Sony one...
There are brightness values as they are written in the 14bit digits. So higher value is higher brightness. But we can not compare them directly with LR. But actually we can compare them exactly as photons to photos do. And as you know many people here cry out about RAW histogram from years. And we have tools like - FastRawViewer + RawDigger. I do not want to go that way at the moment just because some claims in the comments. For me is enough to see what I see in the LR and draw conclusion. At least we can see and note if there is any real difference between real exposure between two cameras if they are shoot in same conditions at the same time. Which is not the case here. This is why little bit more brain and logic need to be used when this comparison tools are used.
There is difference between a7RIV and a7R5 around 0,4 stops + for RIV. So for whatever reason RV is underexposed. And as evidence it has little more chroma noise after aligning.
Cool now we can start arguing about words meaning! :D Actually no, thank you. Just because it is not as simple as that and we have just this test scenes everyone should check what exactly is compared. Because 1 stop difference is a lot when trying to compare sensor noise by looking at developed by default images.
And finally focus stacking which is working like it should. And yes now we have also a two stops AE bracketing. Well split with =/- or =/+ (so first chosen exposure and afterwords under or overexposed). Very happy about it and can leave the reversed ND filter home. Before we had 3 stops but I missed the 2 stops when I had to shoot panorama’s against the sun. When you shoot several pano’s of a sunset or sunrise, time is very precious since the light/color conditions change rapidly. This allows me to make multiple panorama’s of the same view under changing light. I can manage this (two brackets) with ease since the high DR helps me for the rest. Had this feature before on the Canon 1Dx and used it a lot, and yes I missed it. Thank you Sony
If they are going to do a reshoot of the spoon bending scene in the Matrix, no need for any CGI special effects at 2:26. The rolling shutter will do the work!
It's MORE THAN ENOUGH for video. Hell, even A7s mk1 is still more than active in rentals. A7r V is a spaceship of a videocamera next to most popular options in active production work.
ShaiKhulud: Think of what video quality that have told great stories and brought prize winning movies to us for decades, from early, blooming video productions and VHS, to the 8K consumer products we can buy today!
The signals from the moon landing, directly broadcasted, was received as narrowband slow-scan TV signals, non-interlaced ten frames per second, 320 lines per frame. Pretty weak specs, but enough to tell the story!
Are we spoiled today? I would not say so. But we should really be impressed and excited by how far video technology has moved forward.
@Magnar Thing is, I still serve 60% of my clients with FHD max (per their request) so it's hard for me to blame 8K-capable camera for 'modest' video specs. Real-world porduction in a very interesting topic and even in movies quite old sub-4K S35 Arri Alexa with more or less same RS is still considered a viable option.
I dunno about the RS issue, seems to me that a lot of reviewers simply skewed to overblow this problem.
We're filming an arthouse motion picture right now and it's failry static, so for us A7r V is a brilliant option, considering that we work on a tight set, tight budget and with limited focus-pulling durung 'improvised' scenes.
Also I'm getting tired of the habit of reviews to just skip the part about lenses and ecosystems. Right now, Sony is a no-brainer for a working pro just because the incredible amount of lenses, accesories and mounting options. Z9 is a nice camera, but without ecosystem of lenses (expecially for rent), with it's limiting size for mounting and very low 3rd party support in other spaces it's just a paper tiger.
Love the delivery by Chris and Jordan as always, though. Just my 5 cents.
Agreed that Sony's infrastructure is much larger. Seems to reason that an older mount would have a more developed ecosystem. But to Nikon's credit, they are building out their lens offerings at a good pace. And they're opening it up to 3rd party AF options. Unlike some other manufacturer whose name will remain unspoken.
@Operon Oh, I love Nikon, don't get me wrong. But cinema-ecosystem around E-mount is miles ahead. Partly because it shares E-mount with Sony's movie cameras.
Always fun to read the comments of those who have not tried these cameras before. I have bought the A7RV as a camera in addition to my A1. I had A7RIV and A7IV before. I love the A7RV. The same lovely viewfinder as the A1, the same new body as the A7IV with the extra wheel for video settings. In addition, you get noticeably improved image stabilization, a screen with fantastic flexibility, very easy focus stacking, new BULB function with timer, in some areas better AF than the A1 and a lovely sensor. In real life I can see some noise differences between the A1, A7RIV and A7RV, so don't think of it as a problem at all. As for video, I fail to see the rolling shutter problem in real life filming. I think the vast majority will never see a problem with 99% of normal filming. This is, in my opinion, a fantastic camera. (Have used Canon for 23 years, and Nikon for 8 years)
Well Jordan tried the Camera out and clearly stated the Camera has horrible Rolling Shutter. Yet you think it's funny? I am pretty certain, Jordan has done way more filming than YOU. Especially, Real Life Filming. That doesn't change the Fact that otherwise this is a Good Camera. Such as 26MP in cropped Mode.
@ Jegruller: This is the difference between those who use the camera as a tool for creative production, and are used to find solutions if the camera is the limiting factor, and those who want the camera to solve everything, thinking hypotethical about "what if ... ", worrying about noise level, rolling shutter, etc., thinking that this might ruin their work.
For real world work, we never compare images from different cameras side by side. Never ever! Also, how we use and read stills and video content is content driven. If visible noise is a problem, then content is too weak for using/publishing the picture. The same with rolling shutter. If this is what you look for, then the content of the videi has to be extremely boring.
And so did I. The A7RV is my addition to the A1 and replaced my Pentax K1 & K1 II for Landscape shooting. BUT... The Bulb Timer is better than a cable release but very awfully implemented in comparison to the Pentax K1. Why do I have to set 100s, 10s and seconds? Why not implement the time setting by moving the front wheel like Pentax ? All in all, beside the great autofokus and the much improved IS the camera has still an awful handling. No in camera development of RAW Files, delete only single files, choosing the different settings for bracketing (see the phenomenal Pentax implementation!), only two rows in the Fast Menu, ...
How is tracking in low light, and what video setting would you actually use? The 8k?
For me, I struggle to see the value proposition vs the a1. But impressed by the number of features they have been able to catch up with in terms of sync is, stacking and even bulb that I wasn’t aware of. The extra stabilization does make a significant difference.
@BTN1 - what do you film that shows rolling shutter? In MANY classic film situations the film camera sits on a tripod. In an interview situation you have no camera movement at all - no RS. So many scenes just show a static "picture" with slow moving people. If you do a slow pan - RS is also no problem. You don't do a fast pan withput a reason.
So yes - when you do NEED to move your camera fast or FILM sports or running people, this is the wrong camera for sure (as are many other photo cameras). And to stay honest - if your goal is to FILM that's the wrong camera anyway.
To do a few interview video clips for e.g a corporate or music/band photoshoot - you don't need a 2nd camera, it will do it with all the performance you need.
Well... it's not just sensor that counts. There are also some very important improvements (for some shooters). Much better AF, fantastic EVF...etc. Many people expecting newer sensor with every new camera body, but Sony already has best FF high-res sensor on the market. Why would they promote something that has no competition. ;)
Granted this is a High MP sensor but the Sony a7rV gallery is one of the Worst, Noise related that I have seen to date. Sure, in PP one can remove the Noise but you can't just pretend it's doesn't exist.
Sure, Some camps are doing exactly that. As to be expected. I recall Jordan talking a ton about Rolling Shutter but I don't recall either talking much about the Excessive, NOISE levels. Even for a high MP sensor. Especially since this is the Final Review.
Well, you get noise but you also get a lot of fine detail.
With other brands you don't get as much noise, but you also lose fine detail with the excessive noise reduction applied directly to the raws, that you can't control.
Personally, I prefer to have the control of how aggressive the noise reduction is. And definitely don't want it applied to my raws at iso100.
Lot of the explanation is the others are just 45mp not 61mp and that added resolution do something, secondly the others apply noise reduction into the “raws” this will obviously screw any comparison. I much prefer that manufacturers don’t bake in that much reduction, i can always remove noise it’s much harder regaining fine detail.
I keep hearing about how others are using RAW reduction in their RAW but have yet to see any real tests out in the Wild that are proving that out. So I neither believe nor disbelieve at this point.
Regardless, until we see a rumored with the basically the same exact sensor but another Brand, it will be quite hard to do direct comparisons. So many state how Clean the Nikon files are by comparison to other brands. I would love to see how that work outs if the Nikon uses that same 61MP sensor. But with all the different things Nikon brings to the table around it.
The issue is the amount of noise, there shouldn't be as much and other cameras I used are just not as noisy. The noise reduction is just a symptomatic treatment. On my Fujifilm GFX100S (even though the pixel pitch is identical to the A7R IV's sensor) you will be hard pressed to introduce noise even when underexposing a lot.
A MF or what ever you gonna call that oddity of Fujifilm will obviously be less noisy. Compare a APS-C with similar pixel pitch FF and the APS-C is also more noisy.
There are none FF with a similar resolution that shows much different resolution the M11 Leica has tiny bit but it look like it has baked in noise reduction as well, not as much as Canon but it definitely look like noise reduction going on.
Noise is EVERYWHERE with EVERY camera. RAW is RAW......meant to post process. Time to get over it and get some chops. Topaz turns that issue into a thing of the past. Some would rather beef about the past. Sheesh
Just about everyone using EVERYDAY these higher MP cameras be that cropped or FF are talking about the excessive Noise in Real World Shooting. Then the need many times for excessive PP.
Specifically the Sony 61MP, the Canon 32MP cropped sensor, and lastly but not least, the Fuji 40MP cropped sensor.
That is just the Hard Cold reality. Now if that is or isn't important to each person is a totally different thing. Everyone's has a different case usage and or tolerance. That's the only common sense thing that matters.
Disappointing with the rolling shutter for silent shooting and video. Poor video modes too. Wouldn't expect those issues at this price. I'd like to be able to use a camera silently when photographing dance performances but this wouldn't work for that. Not sure this is worth nearly double the price of a new Mk4, when the autofocus on that is great already, unless you really want the fancy flippy screen. The Mk4 should be just as good for landscapes, studio, portrait work etc, no? What use case would the Mk5 be better for?
Then get a stacked, can’t afford that in FF then get a crop stacked.
The complaints about the RS is just ridiculous, what did you honestly expect it’s a 61mp sensor that is not stacked obviously it’s going to have RS… the problem isn’t with the camera but people insisting it to be something it physically can never be.
Hmm I'd say the Canon R6II and R5 prove that you can get good readout speeds on a non-stacked sensor, especially the R5 as it's MP count is quite high.
Albeit they aren't amazing for rolling shutter (they definitely aren't stacked sensor levels) but still quite a bit faster than their counterparts A7IV and A7RV (which has a 1/10s readout speed). I'm not saying this to start a flame war but the readout speeds of the Canon cameras has been one aspect that continues to impress me about their cameras.
I'm very sure that Sony can and will introduce faster non-stacked in their next generation, I mean they are the ones that first introduced stacked sensors, if anyone will make the fastest non-stacked sensor it would be Sony.
PAntunes, yes you raise a good point; the Canons are shooting in 12 bit RAW for ES if I've got my facts straight (at least this is for the R6II's ES), that's probably causing the hit to DR.
But even Canon's 14 bit RAW ES would have faster readout speeds than Sony's equivalent cameras if Canon allowed 14 bit RAW in ES. Again I'm not trying to say it's amazing on the Canon, we're talking in the range of 1/30s - 1/60s in 14 bit RAW but it's certainly something I'd really like Sony to implement.
And sure look; it's not a feature anyone really cared about (photography wise) till ironically Sony themselves introduced FF stacked sensors with the A9. I also appreciate that you can pick up an almost like new A9II (with an actual stacked sensor) for only £2600 in the UK (which is less than the R6II here), so don't get me wrong, I'm really not trying to poop on Sony here, but I strongly believe they'll implement faster non-stacked soon, Could I be wrong? Yes..it wouldn't be the first time.
PAntunes, good question, so from one of Jim Kasson's posts, named "How fast is the Sony a7RIV silent shutter?", we see that shooting in 12bit RAW is around twice as fast (approximately) than 14 bit RAW. The A7IV's readout speed in 14 bit RAW is around 1/15s, the A7RV should be 1/10s if it's using the same sensor as the A7RIV.
Getting info for Canon is trickier but The-Digital-Picture.com's review puts the R6II's readout speed at 14.5ms and the R5's at 16.3ms. That's just over 1/60s for the R6II and around 1/60s for the R5. I'm assuming they measured that in 12 bit RAW mode (I could be wrong about that), so that puts the R6II above 1/30s and the R5 at about 1/30s in 14 bit RAW, both quite a bit faster than their Sony counterparts (that's assuming that their readout speed wasn't actually measured in 14 bit RAW. If it was then they become a lot lot faster than Sony's non stacked sensors).
The other factor not mentioned is banding with stage lighting which will likely be much worse with any of the non stacked cameras. And of the 5 I mentioned 4 (all except the original A9) can fine tune the shutter speed to avoid banding. None of the non stacked sensors have that capability.
Since we are talking about dance performance photography this is relevant.
I do portraits, real estate and landscapes. I've yet to see ONE instance of rolling shutter using the ES on a A7R5. You folks just don't know how to use a tool to it's maximum potential, or are just spouting off on the internet because you have nothing better to do.
It really depends on what you're shooting. So if you're shooting slow moving objects then you don't really require a fast sensor to shoot with the ES.
However if, for example, you wanted to shoot birds (especially birds in flight) and you wanted to take advantage of the often faster FPS offered with ES then you'll want a decent readout speed, the more the better really (even on a non-stacked sensor).
Another area where it'll help is sports, because there are sports that don't necessarily need the speed of a stacked sensor but a decent non-stacked sensor will do.
So I think the conclusion about folks not knowing how to use their tools to the maximum potential is pretty unfair. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone else and there's no reason to make such a blanket statement just because people would like to see a certain feature implemented on their camera.
This camera is not for you! You need at least 100Mpix to shoot fast dancing in low light! Or maybe even 150-200Mpix. Some of the latest smartphones with 200Mpix sensors will serve you better!!!
Video-vs-photo I think you're a little (a lot) confused, nobody is talking about MPs or the amount of MPs being insufficient. In fact more MPs means it's harder for the sensor to be faster.
If you're going to use sarcasm at least use it appropriately, good grief.
Its is not sarcasm, more like between mix of joke and pity, And maybe you are confused a bit/lot as I am replying to the original post above. Which is total nonsense comment related to HIGH RES photo camera. So there is my proposal for even more high res camera! I think should be clear now :).
dka91, your readout speeds don't take into account the resolution.
It's normal that a 24mp camera can read faster than a 60mp camera. In absolute terms, canon sensors are not particularly faster, they just have less resolution.
And when you're losing 2 stops of DR, going down to 9stops in total, I'm not sure it's only by reducing the image from 14bit to 12bit.
Erm I wouldn't really say that. I think it's easier to design lower resolution cameras to be faster but the Canon R5 is 45 MP and it has a faster readout speed than the A7III (24 MP). Canon's sensors are definitely the fastest non-stacked FF sensors we've got and a fair bit faster than Sony's non stacked sensors currently.
As for losing DR there's no argument against that, but I think having the option to shoot 12 bit ES at pretty decent readout speeds is better than not having it.
I’m also impressed canon can achieve the non-stacked readout speeds they get on the R5 in stills mode. It’s impressive to sample and move that much data using the traditional architecture. That said their stacked readout rate is only marginally better than the A9 from 2017 and they have a long way to go to catch up to the A1 and Z9.
Hmn did you mean to say it's only marginally better than the A7III? Or perhaps you meant FPS? As the A9 is much faster than the R5 in stills mode (in terms of readout speed, not FPS).
The A9 has a stacked sensor though which is why it's faster and it's readout speed is 1/160s, the R5's is only around 1/30s or 1/60s in 12 bit ES mode.
No at that point I’m talking about stacked sensors. Currently canon only has one and it’s in the R3. Resolution is the same as the A9 and the readout is about 5.1ms compared to the A9’s 6.2ms for the same number of pixels.
From a pixel readout rate perspective the R3 is at 4.6 GPixels/sec, the Z9 at 12.3 GPixels/sec and the A1 13 GPixels/sec. So the other guys are nearly 3 times faster with cameras released within a year of each other.
Ahh ok, you said R5 in your previous message but I'm guessing you meant R3?
And yes the R3 is good, though it's a little expensive given what you get imo (but that's all I'll say before I upset somebody lol), but look the Z9, R3, A9 and A1 are all 1st class products let's just say that and leave it there.
The R3's readout speed is indeed a shade faster than the A9 and A9II's at 1/180s vs 1/160s on the Sony cameras.
That said the A9II is the best deal on a FF stacked sensor at the moment imho. You can pick them up used and almost like new for around £/$ 2500 and it's still a fantastic camera for those that want the speed of it.
R3's readout speed is 1/195s? Where did you get that information? I checked my information directly from DPReview before I replied to you. It's from the YT video titled "Canon EOS R3: Your top 5 questions answered!", they said the R3's readout speed is 1/180s.
Additionally you can shoot flash up to 1/180s in electronic shutter on the R3 (from https://www.imaging-resource.com), so that definitely points to the readout speed being 1/180s, I could be wrong though.
But yes I definitely concur the A9 is a great deal as well if you don't need those additional features or the slightly beefier body of the A9II.
Edit: Let me clarify as well as my terminology hasn't been tight, when I've been talking about readout speed I mean the electronic shutter readout speed.
It shoots short bursts at 195FPS so the implication is the readout is at least that fast. In an early DPR article they said something to the effect that it’s not quite 1/200th but it’s close.
Anyway 1/180 vs 1/195 isn’t THAT big of a difference.
Can anyone explain why the high ISO on A7RV is so much worse than the A7RIV? Yes, I understand the processor is different, but they have the same sensor. I was truly keen on the A7RV until the studio shots were posted. ISO 3200 is not good at all, and the margin is even wider when compared to the Canon R5, I need strands of hair, eyelashes, bright clear eyes, fabric. At ISO 3200 those are at risk except for closeups.
Raw I mean. The Sony jpgs are nice, but I need the malleability.
Yeah the a7r5 noise doesn't look bad to me. It's a funny thing ... I started doing "serious" (non-snapshooter type) photography in the mid-1990s. Everything was 35mm film for me, then. Mostly TMAX 400, pushed to 800, 1600, 3200, 6400. I learned to kind of love the grain.
But something is different for some people today ... some folks almost have a severe allergic reaction to noise. It just drives them nutty. *shrug*
The R5 has massive amounts of noise reduction baked into the raws so much it’s questionable calling them true raw the price loss of fine detail. You can remove noise in post but you cannot gain lost detail.
hfolkertsma: wedding receptions: dancing (available light), people outside in the evening. There are many situations at a reception where a flash is not good or possible, but detail is still important, and using a low shutter speed is not possible.
I owned a R5 prior. ITs by NO means perfect nor free of noise from ISO1600 on up. Besides, I pay NO attention to noise anymore as my last move in post processing is a pass through Topaz. Noise GONE and detail retained. End of story. You guys get your undies in a bunch over NOTHING.
@PandaSA: be glad you weren’t a photographer 10-15 years ago then! Where above ISO1600 you’d be treated to false colour.
In my opinion as long as you get to keep good enough colour, noise is no problem. Especially with 61MP and the usual online/small print output for most gigs. We’re spoiled these days :-)
I started in photography in 1966 for our high school yearbook. Yashica TLR. Yes, we are spoiled these days but the IQ went down from the A7RIV to the A7RV. It's worth wondering about.
Nothing is down, just download the files and see by your self. For whatever reason file is underexposed. Which perfectly demonstrate the difference. And R5 is much brighter, then surprise it is better ..... This tests are not scientific in precise controlled environment. This stuff should me mentioned as 1-2 stops exposure aligning of the files should not be normal. But most probably under stuff plays a role here.
I find it amazing that some people insist to compare this EXISTING camera to a Nikon Z8. The Z8 is not even announced as development, but these people are sure that it will be so much better than this Sony. Just a little bit too desperate?
The desparation comes from past sony owners like myself who enjoyed sony image quality and GM primes, but couldnt stand the handling and the feeling you were shooting with a PC not a camera. Sony just seems deaf to any of these concerns so we need something else
I think you are dreaming about the 60+MP. If anyone has learned anything it's that Sony does NOT give away their tech to any other company in it's top form. I would nearly swear you could expect the Z9 to be a baby Z9 in almost all aspects other then it won't have a few of the top specs of the video capabilities of the Z9. And may even lack a few of the photographic capabilities. It's price will likely be about the same as the A7R5. But the high MP is a pure imagination of those who WANT it but if Nikon's habits are the same they most certainly will NOT deliver all one wants.
Produde. No look at the way they gave 50 and 100mp sensors to Fuji GFX. If you make your own cameras and supply sensors to the opposition you win whenever any camera is sold I can see 60mp being the standard soon with mostly Sony sensors used. I’m sure Panasonic and Leica will release 60mp cameras in the next 18 months
Falls right into my wheel house, about 95% photo, 5% video. I plan on doing more video in the future but I’m sure this camera will fulfill my modest video needs.
Me too - I picked up my A7RV a couple of days ago, it's everything the A7RIV was and so much more. The new AF has me catching 99% of shots focused right on the eyes of my (usually moving) models. I can now stop worrying about what gear I should look forward to and just get back to shooting.
I do 98% stills as well, although the videos I plan to start doing won't have any fast-moving drumsticks so I have no worries that it won't be up to the task.
Hey Dippy. You'll have a hard time convincing these twits that have nothing better to do then come on and slam the poor A7RV for not having a stacked sensor with fast readout. Folks like you and I that shoot non moving subjects primarily find this camera to be our ideal tool.
The Final, final review will only come if the rumored Nikon Z8 is true, using this very same sensor. Then the so called Photo Only Crowd, shrinking by the day by the way, can have a true Shootout between two different FF brands with the exact same, 61MP sensor. Plus we can also put to rest the case of Nikon Lens offerings plus Tech with a high MP sensor vs Sony Lens entire Lens lineup and how it has implemented this sensor.
I highly doubt the rumored 100MP FF sensors will be coming soon from any of the Major Brands. I highly doubt we even see anytime soon a stacked one of this type MP much less a Global Sensor FF anything above 24MP, anytime soon. So 61MP is safe, for a few years to come. Gordan Lang summed it up best in his review of the Sony a7rV. He did maybe the best review of this Camera that I have seen so far.
Well the WE crowd, whom ever that might be can pretend to focus on whatever they want. But clearly for Everyone else outside of this site, there is Great interest in the rumors and Video.
So it's truly great that everyone can focus on whatever they want, won't change me, one bit, nor others. Also, It's pretty much a certainty that the Z8 isn't a Rumor.
Outside of this site and a couple of rumor websites, no one cares about what's not available to buy and not even half confirmed.
Right now the Z8 is a rumor. There have been rumours of a Z8 since July last year. Now the rumor is that it will be announce in the spring, so that could be another 4 months. Add a couple of months and it will be summer before anyone gets the camera.
Yes, let's wait 6 months before we can do a review of a camera that is actually in the market today, just in case the rumours are correct...
I don’t see how the z9 leaves anyone wanting. Personally, I don’t see more detail on the 61mp than the good old 36mp d800e. The noise has less color artifacts though, which is great. Canon does not really compete, but the r5 is a great camera and good enough for almost anyone. I think they would need to increase full well capacity for the high res sensors to deliver real world increased resolution.
Is "the final review" an end of the world thing, the ultimate review, the final chapter in the saga, or just the last review before Sony introduces the next model?
It appears that the sensor used in the A7R III still provides the best balance between noise, resolution and dynamic range. It's a shame that Sony hasn't decided to work around it by enhancing it with new video features or faster speed.
I have been shooting A7r3 for 5 years and there have been very few occasions when I was not happy with its image quality. Resolution, dynamic range and ISO perfomance are all excellent. Speed - or lack of it, af performance and evf blackout not so... A1 is very tempting, A7r4/5 not so much.
I just checked on photontophotos, the A7R3 and A7R5 are neck to neck in dynamic range. So the difference is just the 60MP vs 42MP, and in that case, I'll take the 60MP any day of the week.
For sure, I've stuck with the A7RIII, then A7RIV and now A7RV because they've improved the features like AF. The image quality has always been plenty good enough.
With strobes none of the discussion around ISO noise matters.
And I did a photoshoot with funky lights all around 3200 ISO and although I have PureRAW the results I got from the A7RV didn't need it at all. I suspect people just love to obsess over something so they do. I'll just go back to shooting and be happy.
How exactly sensor could balance between noise, resolution and DR? You either need resolution or do not. If you need it you need high res sensor. Also if you do not need noise you do not look for new sensor but just find more light for your subject. In last 5 or maybe even 10 years also seems like DR is close to constant per image sensor size. So if DR is your deal you need to go bigger, and also you need a lot light. Or you need to go HDR way. So if you need 100Mpix how exactly 45Mpix will balance it? people need to find very strange explanations to self-approve their choices. If you like it just use it, you do not need to represent it like the best solution in the world, with the best balance ever.
I was deciding between a A7R5 and Z9. In the end ironically I chose the Sony. For a couple of reasons. The lens choices are HUGE on the Sony and the prices quite reasonable. On the Nikon they are absurdly expensive and in short numbers of choice. The feature set on the Sony was an obvious winner. I shoot static subjects be they portraits, landscapes and static birds. Rolling shutter is a NON issue for me, and I NEVER hit that video button sorry. The A7R5 may well be the perfect solution for my desires of a higher resolution stills camera. The Z9 is all about sports and fast moving subjects which didn't fit my bill. Needless to say the EVF on the Sony is leagues beyond anyone else.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the Z8 won't be what everybody is touting it is going to. The 61mp sensor is a stretch. I picture it as a baby Z9 with most of what the Z9 has, which would NOT be enough to tempt me. As it is the lenses offered alone was enough of a reason to go with the Sony
Well I go back and forth as to which it will be. But it will be, that much by now is a certainty be that the Z9 sensor or the Sony 61MP version. Personally, I am far more impressed with Nikon Long Lens as opposed to the Sony ones. So I hardly see anyone on the Long end picking Sony over Nikon. So if they both have the same Sensor, that will be quite the shootout.
Based on posts I've seen you make in the MFT forum, you sold all your Canon FF gear and were saying that the OM-1 was better than Canon and Sony. And that you tried the A7RV and returned it.
I had a very short time initially with the Sony so couldn't be so sure. The decision to sell the Canon R5 was certain. I feel and still do that the OM-1 had more advantages. The A7R5 is being used for my paying jobs for portraits, landscapes. I will continue to use the OM-1 for my Real Estate work and travel. It's good to have the best of both worlds.
Yes, right now, it‘s Sony for short lenses, and more like Nikon for long ones. But I cannot believe that Sony isn‘t seeing that itself, it simply has to come out with a high-end long zoom, something like a 200-400/5.6 GM and something like a 500/5.6 GM. Moderately fast to keep price and size and weight under control, but better than the current 100-400 and 200-600. I mostly do landscapes but would use up to 500 to 600 for mountain ‚portraits‘. With modern sensors, even with 60 MP, it‘s unnecessary for a 500 to have f/4.
NOBODY had a lens choice such as the Tamron 35-150 f2.0/2.8. That lens is a pure gem and ideal for what I'm shooting. The 200-600 was a bit of a surprise. I didn't expect it to be as sharp as it ended up being at the long end. The Steadyshot upgraded by the firmware update exclusively (so far) for the A7R5 was yet another gift. Before I updated the firmware upon arrival it fell short of my OM-1's IBIS. But AFTER I updated it later that day of arrival it was like a completely different lens. I can shoot in absurdly lower light at 1/20th sec and get a clear shot with the A7R5. Perhaps the A1MkII will gain that gift down the road.
On my a7R III, the 200-600 is far from being sharp towards the borders and 600 mm. Let me not speak about using it with the 1.4x TC. It may work for animal portraits with the subject dead-center – but that‘s about it.
Sure seems like Sony is positioning its new A7S IV to fill in the video gaps left open with this A7R V. I reckon it'll mean a larger stacked sensor, somewhere in the 35-40 MP range and a faster processor to deal with all those MP coming out of the sensor, and including the updated features of the A7R IV. On the other hand, Sony never fails to disappoint, I won't have my hopes high.
Yes, I perceive the A7R V as largely a still-oriented camera. So while its video features are enhanced over its predecessor there are a number of glaring omissions. Rolling shutter for one; sub-sampled 4K full-width, among others. It would make sense that a A7S III replacement, a video-oriented camera, would overcome these limitations.
"Another camera with 30ms read-out times was the Nikon D90... Back in 2008"
Or the Canon R6 from 2020, with only a measley 20mp sensor: www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-review/8
The 7rV has a sensor that's 50% bigger than you need for 8K. Complaining about its rolling shutter seems somewhat redundant and disingenuous to me.
It's obviously far too large to offer an uncompromised video experience and commenters should acknowledge that. No other manufacturer even makes a FF camera with as high resolution, even as a DSR.
For static interview situations (which is a lot on youtube for e.g.) this is a huge thing. Just crop in for the tight shot and still get more than enough resolution.
In "old" times you needed 2-3 cameras and angles (which still looks better!) or a camera operator. Now you just put one camera there, activate AF and here we go. Saves a lot of costs.
(I would love it for live music performances. One camera for the whole stage and you zoom in on the musicians in post. You don't need perfect 4k for these events - so with 8k you get easy a 2-3x or even higher zoom)
"Correction to "No other manufacturer even makes a FF camera with as high resolution, even as a DS[L]R." Leica has the M11 with the same resolution FF sensor."
It's actually the same sensor. With the same scan time. And the camera doesn't shoot video, that's why I didn't mention it.
Unashamedly photographic centred. Yes, it can do video, yes it has really nice video features, but it doesn't compromise the photo aspect so the video can be less bad.
A photo camera that is a photo camera and not a "hybrid camera" first.
There are many situations that would benefit from different configurations, but then we're talking about a different camera.
And I like that honesty about it.
Other brands have much lower readout times in stills, but at the same time they sacrifice the dynamic range to aps-c levels to get those readouts, without informing the users of that.
The a1 and Z9 are not measurably behind other cameras from the same companies with a non stacked sensor. I don’t see any difference vs my Z7II. My Friends shooting a1 have no issue with DR at all.
Using a non stacked sensir in 2023 isn’t the result of an intent to build a more photo centric camera. It’s about cost cutting and market segmentation.
99.9% of photographers would be better off with an a1.
As far as lower res cameras having better video… that simply isn’t true. A Z9 simply trounces an a7s on all accounts for video.
I think the future we are all headed toward here is that every camera will be video first and foremost. Photography will become the art of pulling still frames off the video...and that will be done in software. Photoshop and all still photo imaging apps should be working towards that goal...pulling clean, high resolution images off of video clips.
Indohydra, we are definitely not going that way at all. The workflow of photography and video are totally different. The need for "the perfect moment at 120fps" isn't there in most cases.
The problem with photography is not the timing, is the content. And a video doesn't change that.
And that's even before we start talking about real life limitations of storage, processing power, etc.
Even leaving rolling shutter aside, users of a1s would gain - a much better AF performance when needed (very few people actually only take photographs of non moving subjects), - a much better EVF experience without much blackout, - usable silent photography, - a virtually unlimited camera life span due to low/nul usage of mechanical shutter,…
To me Sony is pretty much only about stacked sensors. As a former a9II and a7rIV user I found the a9II great and the a7 very disappointing.
The AF on the A7RV should be very very close to the A1. And even the A7RIII was good at moving subjects, so it's a little bit of a stretch to say that with the A7RV you can't take photos of moving objects.
The EVF on the A7RV is great. Not sure that many people care that much about the blackout.
Silent photography, is that such a big thing for most people?
All of that for $2k more? If you use them a lot, sure. For most people a couple of lenses would be a much better investment.
To me the a1 is a near perfect camera that any photographer could be fully satisfied about for years to come.
I have not had the chance to use an a7rV yet so my assessment may be a bit too harsh but I believe it is a very competent camera but one that people will find imperfect enough (because of all the aspects I listed above) that they will want to upgrade from when the next model shows up.
I've been using the A7RIII for probably 5 years. I've used it extensively for fashion and portraits, both in studio and location, travel, landscape.
I can see it being used easily for weddings, documental journalists, etc.
It's a little hard for me to understand where you're coming from. What kind of situations would need good AF performance, that many amateurs or even pros outside of sports or BIF would need? Where do you feel the A7RIII would fail, and realistically in the world of photography, how common is it?
PL you are being ridiculous. The AF on the recent 7 series cameras is still excellent. And you’ll still get reasonably high hit rates with fast action. You just won’t get the 99-100% hit rate you’ll get with an A1.
photography-lover I've shot exactly what you describe: the people lit by the fire camp. Even with a samyang lens, I had no problem with getting perfectly focused images with the A7RIII.
The A7RV has a much better AF system than the A7RIII, so I don't expect any problems with that. Even kids running indoors, I don't think the camera will have much of a problem.
Unless you need the fast FPS or the sensor with "no rolling shutter", is the A1 that much better for $2k more? I really don't see it for most cases.
After two rounds of voting, DPReview readers have decided on their favorite product (and runners-up) of 2022. Find out which cameras and lenses topped the list!
For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite cameras and lenses released last year. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to reveal the first-round winners and pick the best overall product of 2022.
This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2022 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2022 DPReview Awards!
Fujifilm's X-H2 is a high-resolution stills and video camera, that sits alongside the high-speed X-H2S at the pinnacle of the company's range of X-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras. We dug into what it does and what it means.
Holy Stone produces dozens of low-cost drone models aimed at consumers. We look at the HS710 and HS175D to see if they stack up to other sub-250g offerings. Are these secretly great or more like toys?
The EOS R6 II arrives in one of the most competitive parts of the market, facing off against some very capable competition. We think it rises to the challenge.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
Fujifilm's X-H2 is a high-resolution stills and video camera, that sits alongside the high-speed X-H2S at the pinnacle of the company's range of X-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras. We dug into what it does and what it means.
A blog post from Panasonic touts the ways its organic film CMOS sensor can control color spill between pixels, giving more accurate color in challenging lighting, but doesn't propose photography as something the sensor is suited for.
Digital sensors are at the heart of digital photography, but their development sometimes gets obscured by the marketing claims made along the way. We take a look at how sensors have developed since the early days of CCD, to better understand the milestones of the past and what's really going on today.
Who doesn't love a compact prime? This full frame 26mm F2.8 Nikkor lens has a sweet price, good features...but does it take a sharp photo? See for yourself in this new sample gallery shot with a production lens.
We met up with OM Digital Solutions' senior management at CP+ in Yokohama to find out what the transition from Olympus was like and to gain insight into its focus going forward.
If you're new to the drone world, there's much more you need to know than how to unbox and launch a drone. We break down the 5 mandatory steps you need to follow to fly safely and legally.
Camera and lens rental company Lensrentals has published a list of its most popular 'point-and-shoot' cameras, only to reveal that the very concept might now be obsolete.
Holy Stone produces dozens of low-cost drone models aimed at consumers. We look at the HS710 and HS175D to see if they stack up to other sub-250g offerings. Are these secretly great or more like toys?
Leica has announced the Vario-Elmar-SL 100-400mm F5-6.3, a telephoto zoom lens for L-mount. It's also announced a 1.4x extender teleconverter to work with it.
Round One voting results are in and we're now down to 8 matches. Jump in to see who won and sneak a look at how the DPReview team debated the choices, then get ready for Round Two – voting starts now!
Mathematical correction of lens distortion is commonplace. We explain why we don't think it makes sense to ignore it or to assume it's always a bad thing.
How well do Fujifilm's film simulations match up to their film counterparts? We revisit a classic DPReviewTV episode in which Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake shoot a few rolls of Fujifilm's Acros 100 II, and a few frames on the X-T3 in Acros film simulation, to find out.
It's March, and in America that means it's time to start arguing over which college athletics team is the best at basketball. For DPReview, it's also an opportunity for a good old-fashioned camera fight.
We take OM System's new 90mm prime F3.5 macro lens out and about around Seattle, in search of sunlight, people and very tiny things to get up close and personal with. Flip on through what we found, and see how the lens performs in the real world in our sample gallery.
After a three-year hiatus, we've been at the return of the CP+ camera show in Yokohama, Japan. In between interviews with executives of the major companies, Dale Baskin took to the show floor to bring you this report.
OM System's latest lens is a whopper of a macro, featuring optical stabilization, full weather sealing, up to 2x magnification and a whole lot more. What's it got and what's it like to use? Let's dig in.
Comments