One thing is still not entirely clear to me. Is the eye-focus of the A7 V better than that one in the A1 II? As I understood the A7 V has a new (and additional) chip which the A1II lacks? So for subject recognition and tracking, the A7 V is better? I'm thinking about buying the A1II instead of the A7 V even though it's way too expensive for me and my needs, but I want to have a really good EVF. I assume, the one in the A1II is clearly better.
Steve Spencer wrote:
People do of course add grips to their cameras for better handling and that adds weight, but also more room to hold the camera. For some people this does improve their experience handling the camera and I am sure for some people having the bigger camera and heavier weight of the Z8 improves their experience handling the camera with larger lenses. Maybe it doesn't improve your experience, but I don't doubt it does for some.
Yeah, well. The question wasn't whether using a grip or a larger body helps handling. It may do that, depending. The question was whether extra weight at the camera helps. I'm not sure you even tried to argue that it would.
zeitlos wrote:
One thing is still not entirely clear to me. Is the eye-focus of the A7 V better than that one in the A1 II? As I understood the A7 V has a new (and additional) chip which the A1II lacks? So for subject recognition and tracking, the A7 V is better? I'm thinking about buying the A1II instead of the A7 V even though it's way too expensive for me and my needs, but I want to have a really good EVF. I assume, the one in the A1II is clearly better.
A similar question kept popping up with A7RV vs A1: does better AF beat faster AF? The answer there was that for some tricky scenarios where the A1 failed subject detection, the A7RV was better, but for anything moving in a non-sedate fashion the A1 was. For the A7V vs A1II the speed gap is smaller, but it is also unclear whether the new chips subject detection is actually better and not just more power efficient.
Imagemaster wrote:
What a dismal review. 31 minutes could have been 3 minutes about the camera. Why would I want to see a review that mostly shows the reviewer walking around and close-ups of his face?
Daran wrote:
A similar question kept popping up with A7RV vs A1: does better AF beat faster AF? The answer there was that for some tricky scenarios where the A1 failed subject detection, the A7RV was better, but for anything moving in a non-sedate fashion the A1 was. For the A7V vs A1II the speed gap is smaller, but it is also unclear whether the new chips subject detection is actually better and not just more power efficient.
Thank you.
Yes, I have a similar suspicion. If it's purely about autofocus speed (i.e., without subject recognition), the A1 Mark II will probably be better, although Jared Polin was very impressed with the A7 Mark V's autofocus. For me, that wouldn't be so important. I'm really more concerned with subject recognition. I'm still debating whether I should take the plunge and buy the A1 Mark II. I used my A7 Mark III for seven years. If I use it for a similar length of time, the (significantly?) better viewfinder plus the improved body ergonomics might actually pay off. But I'd be annoyed if the subject recognition were (noticeably) bad, like in the A7 Mark V, because I often need it in everyday photography and it's one of the reasons I'm upgrading from the A7 Mark III. We'll have to wait for further reviews.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my basic research shows me that the A7V and A7RV do 60 AF/AE calculations per second while the A1 A1ii do 120.
Is it correct to say when you have perfect lock on, for example, the A1 will be better because it can calculate twice as fast, but the chance of perfect lock on is better in the A7V because it's newer algorithms? And how does that compare to a A9 ii/iii for example.
Or is it not that simple?
I have noticed that my A7RV struggles to capture animals running towards the camera as well as I have seen the A1 do it. With my 135 1.8 GM. I suspect my 70-200 gmii would fair a little better.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my basic research shows me that the A7V and A7RV do 60 AF/AE calculations per second while the A1 A1ii do 120.
Is it correct to say when you have perfect lock on, for example, the A1 will be better because it can calculate twice as fast, but the chance of perfect lock on is better in the A7V because it's newer algorithms? And how does that compare to a A9 ii/iii for example.
Or is it not that simple?
I have noticed that my A7RV struggles to capture animals running towards the camera as well as I have seen the A1 do it. With my 135 1.8 GM. I suspect my 70-200 gmii would fair a little better. ...Show more →
It's a bit more complex:
1) Sony mentioned in some spec sheets that the number of calculations also means the number of adjustments it can send to the lens, per second. So, having more adjustments per second means that the lens is less likely to lag behind.
2) Yes you're right that the better AF algorithms mean that the A7V will have a better subject detection, and those AF algos also mean that the camera can better "lock again" onto the subject after it was hidden, but having more calculations per second mean that once the lock has been acquired, the 120fps has the advantage "as long as the target remains obvious" let's say, meaning a bird on a blue sky background.
So it means that the A1 might have an advantage, but as soon as the subject moves behind a tree or grass or gets close to other subjects, then having the extra calc/s is not helping much, compared to having better AF algorithms (via the improved neural network) to identify where the subject is (or eye of the subject).
3) Last but not least, having 120 calc/s is a requirement for being able to shoot at 120fps AF-C, like the A9III.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my basic research shows me that the A7V and A7RV do 60 AF/AE calculations per second while the A1 A1ii do 120.
Is it correct to say when you have perfect lock on, for example, the A1 will be better because it can calculate twice as fast, but the chance of perfect lock on is better in the A7V because it's newer algorithms? And how does that compare to a A9 ii/iii for example.
Or is it not that simple?
I have noticed that my A7RV struggles to capture animals running towards the camera as well as I have seen the A1 do it. With my 135 1.8 GM. I suspect my 70-200 gmii would fair a little better. ...Show more →
From my experience, the AI models may acquire the targets slightly better, and in more tricky situations, but the A1 will track better. The shutter not coming down when bursting may help here as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
Yes, I have a similar suspicion. If it's purely about autofocus speed (i.e., without subject recognition), the A1 Mark II will probably be better, although Jared Polin was very impressed with the A7 Mark V's autofocus. For me, that wouldn't be so important. I'm really more concerned with subject recognition. I'm still debating whether I should take the plunge and buy the A1 Mark II. I used my A7 Mark III for seven years. If I use it for a similar length of time, the (significantly?) better viewfinder plus the improved body ergonomics might actually pay off. But I'd be annoyed if the subject recognition were (noticeably) bad, like in the A7 Mark V, because I often need it in everyday photography and it's one of the reasons I'm upgrading from the A7 Mark III. We'll have to wait for further reviews.
Yeah, it's kinda confusing as Sony does not explain it very well. But the comparisons you can find on the web all point in more or less the same direction:
AI models can recognize (and track) the target in a more difficult environment.
So, let's say you're tracking your kind and other kids run in front of it, the kid turns around, tumbles, gets up, hides behind a toy castle, pops out the next second, etc. In this kind of scenario, the models without AI AF should be slower to pick up your target once it's lost (or may even not pick it up at all by themselves again, unless you release the shutter/focus button and point at the target again). AI AF models should be able to recognize that even though your kid turned your back on you, it's still the target you want to be tracked and can anticipate (not 100% accurate of course) where it's eyes/face will appear again.
Of course, there are some nuances. There was a thread here recently where someone noticed that his A1 tracked a horse rider better than A1 II during/after a jump over an obstacle. The sudden movement caused A1 II AI AF to stop recognizing the target and somehow it wasn't trained well enough to recognize a horse rider (with a riding hat on) in such a dynamic scenario (poses, etc.). My understanding is that A1 simply tracked the given target (the horse rider) even if its AF did not recognize it as a human...
And a few extra notes :
* I don't understand why Sony is not updating its AI AF regularly, it should be taken for granted that better models will result in better AF performance.
* A1 II EVF still drops resolution when you focus in AF-C, this really takes away a lot of its charm...
It's been the same for previous A7 models and similar price point bodies from other manufacturers.
"It's got the same AF as the top tier model"
No it hasn't.
Often it has the same terms used to describe the AF system and often has something newer than the top tier model.
The top tier model has more processors, dedicated processors, or a more powerful processor. It usually has other things to assist the AF as well, going back to better PDAF sensor in DSLRs, more cross type AF points. Mirrorless have faster sensor readout time.
Dig up some old reviews and user comments about A7III around release time.
I'm not big on Video reviews and I'm not looking at buying A7V.
I am interested though.
So question: buffer is smaller than A1 / A1II.
What happens when buffer is clearing though?
Is it like A9 where you can continue shooting but not use menu?
It's important to remember "up to" XXX calculations per second. Like so many camera specifications, there is usually a long list of criteria that needs to be met to allow the maximum performance to be achieved.
Choderboy wrote:
I'm not big on Video reviews and I'm not looking at buying A7V.
I am interested though.
So question: buffer is smaller than A1 / A1II.
What happens when buffer is clearing though?
Is it like A9 where you can continue shooting but not use menu?
We don't have the answer to that yet. But Sony seems to always allow shooting while buffer drains and at reasonably fast FPS. A1II continues at 17FPS forever.
Even though the A7V allows 30FPS in all RAW modes if one is shooting action and using precapture at 30FPS they are still going to want to shoot Lossy Compressed just like we are forced to do on A1/A1II/A9/A9II. Same sort of thing with A9III where you really do need to keep it in Lossy to have any buffer at 60 or 120FPS. So that advantage to A7V and A9III isn't really an advantage in practice if one wants to shoot high FPS and have any chance at a reasonable buffer depth.
Choderboy wrote:
XXX model does XXX calculations per second.
It's important to remember "up to" XXX calculations per second. Like so many camera specifications, there is usually a long list of criteria that needs to be met to allow the maximum performance to be achieved.
And even if both does the same # of calculations, the difference in sensor read speed will affect how fresh the data is, thus affecting the accuracy and reliability. We also don't know whether the accuracy/tolerance setting in the computations are even set the same between the models. # of computations is a good, but not the single benchmark that determines the results.
j4nu wrote:
And a few extra notes :
* I don't understand why Sony is not updating its AI AF regularly, it should be taken for granted that better models will result in better AF performance.
* A1 II EVF still drops resolution when you focus in AF-C, this really takes away a lot of its charm...
I am going to speculate here as I don't know the real answers, but in short - I don't think Sony's cameras/products where built for continuous updating. If improving your core operating system and adding/changing functionality is at the heart of your product philosophy, then you engineer your products/software in a certain way to make it easy to add, update and change via firmware updates. I don't think that is how Sony works. They are a consumer product company > the R&D, produce and ship. Continuously improving existing products to maximize customer value just isn't part of their philosophy. I think Nikon used to think this way too, but it seems like they have shifted philosophy in the last 5 years.
arbitrage wrote:
Polin not a fan of the EVF.
Polin says Sony says the readout is 12ms. Don't know what to believe??
No one is a "fan" of the a7IV/V EVF. It does the job, but it is obvious that the product & marketing department brought in the segmentation hammer for the a7V. They could surely have provided an updated 5.7mdot EVF that is more modern, as well as updated the ergs of the body to make it a true "baby a1 II", but they are, rightlyfully so, afraid of that it would cut deeply into a1 II and a9 III sales. It is all about the dollar and cents at the end.
To be honest? Personally, I find all EVFs more or less unattractive compared to a good optical viewfinder (OVF), at least in daylight. Even the one in the A7Rv, which many claim is comparable to a ground glass screen, something I completely disagree with. For me, it's simply the least unpleasant. I also think that the optics used are at least as important as the resolution. For example, I find the 3.7MP EVF of the Z6 more pleasant than the 3.7MP EVF of the A7iv (and the one in the Z8 is supposed to be significantly better at the same resolution). And what surprised me most: In a direct comparison, I found the 3.7MP EVF of the A7iv clearly more pleasant than the 5.xMP EVF of the Leica Q3. The Leica owner, by the way, felt exactly the same.
Simply comparing the specifications on paper is completely pointless here. In my humble opinion.
Unless, of course, you're only comparing Sony EVFs with each other and assuming that the viewfinder optics are comparably good or bad. In that case, I would also say that 5.x MP is better than 3.7 MP and 9.x MP is better than 5.x MP.
But how significant the respective advantage is, and above all, what price premium it justifies, is certainly a matter of personal opinion.
Dec 05, 2025 at 04:36 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Nifty Fifty wrote:
To be honest? Personally, I find all EVFs more or less unattractive compared to a good optical viewfinder (OVF), at least in daylight. Even the one in the A7Rv, which many claim is comparable to a ground glass screen, something I completely disagree with. For me, it's simply the least unpleasant. I also think that the optics used are at least as important as the resolution. For example, I find the 3.7MP EVF of the Z6 more pleasant than the 3.7MP EVF of the A7iv (and the one in the Z8 is supposed to be significantly better at the same resolution). And what surprised me most: In a direct comparison, I found the 3.7MP EVF of the A7iv clearly more pleasant than the 5.xMP EVF of the Leica Q3. The Leica owner, by the way, felt exactly the same.
Simply comparing the specifications on paper is completely pointless here. In my humble opinion.
Unless, of course, you're only comparing Sony EVFs with each other and assuming that the viewfinder optics are comparably good or bad. In that case, I would also say that 5.x MP is better than 3.7 MP and 9.x MP is better than 5.x MP.
But how significant the respective advantage is, and above all, what price premium it justifies, is certainly a matter of personal opinion....Show more →
I think EVF's are very much a personal preference and depends on individual issues like your vision and particularly whether you wear glasses and if you are right eye or left eye dominant. I don't have perfect vision any more, I wear glasses when I shoot and I have to as I don't have contacts and have a fairly bad astigmatism in my vision. I am also right eye dominant and have a pretty big nose.
Personally I like the viewfinder in the upper corner so I can use my right eye without my big nose getting mashed by the camera. That isn't going to be a preference for everyone, especially if you are left eye dominant (I would hate the viewfinder in the other corner because of being right eye dominant for example).
Because of wearing glasses, I also really appreciate a longer eye point for the viewfinder, and my less than 100% corrected vision means I like a bigger viewfinder with the image magnified a bit more.
That said, I am typically satisfied with 3.7 million dot EVFs that are in the middle of the camera if the optics are at least decent. I won't use 2.3 million dot EVFs, however, as I find them all just really hard to use no matter how good the optics are. They are just too small for me.
So, these things are personal and vary with understandable differences in vision and eye dominance. That said there are also the natural tradeoffs that bigger EVFs are nice for bigger magnification, but take up more space and require more energy, so you either need a bigger battery (which makes the camera bigger) or live with reduced running time per battery. Better optics in the viewfinder are clearly important too, but again depending on your vision they may matter more or less to a specific person.
Do we know if Sony drops resolution during focusing/shooting with their 3.7M EVF like they do with the 5M and 9M ones?
If they don't drop resolution then the view during actual shooting should be equal to the 5M one and not as far off of the 9M one as it would be if the 9M didn't drop.
The last time I used this EVF was my A9/A9II (at least I think that is the same EVF??) and it was fine to get the job done.
I think what I would notice more is going from 0.9x mag on an A1II to 0.78x mag on the A7V. That large expansive view on the A1/A1II (when not in 240hz mode) is great. That said, I do use my A1II in 240Hz some of the time and I'm not that bothered by the lower mag view. That is 0.76x mag.
: