* AI-assisted smart manual focus. Steal from Nikon.
* Native completely noiseless ISO 50
* DGO sensor
* Better noise/DR at ISO 6400
* Firmware parity with newer cameras, like auto subject recognition
* Even better power management
* Arca-swiss shaped bottom plate
* In-camera pixel shift merging
NO:
* More megapixels.
* More weight.
* Fast/stacked sensor with DR pentalty.
* Video. Just remove this shit completely.
Expect that cameras will continue to have more megapixels at the same inflation-adjusted price point and with the same or better DR and noise performance. It is almost unheard of for a new generation of sensor to suffer from decreased DR. Best to simply accept it.
It is true that few people actually “need” more MP than 60, but some can make good use of it, so cameras will continue to push that boundary.
You also are not going to see Sony (or anyone else) remove video capability from these camera. some people really do want that feature, and the companies have managed to integrate it in ways that stills-only photographers (like me, most of the time) are not negatively affected by it at all.
Higher FPS, much faster electronic shutter and maybe a few more pixels. 10FPS mechanical shutter with lossy compressor and freeze frame is getting old for 2026. 20FPS in ES at 80MP would be a start.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You also are not going to see Sony (or anyone else) remove video capability from these camera. some people really do want that feature, and the companies have managed to integrate it in ways that stills-only photographers (like me, most of the time) are not negatively affected by it at all.
I agree with (almost) everything you said. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be complaining! The part where I disagree is your belief that video is not affecting you "at all". It does, in the form of the opportunity cost which is not obvious/invisible. Video, just like any other feature, eats into the transistor and power budget of BIONZ leaving less for photography features. Who knows what they could have done with that budget. Their autofocus, IBIS, and storage systems gained extra complexity to accomodate video. Heat dissipation requirement definitely affected the body design, and they probably tried to speed up the sensor leading to a slight noise increase (it performs slightly better at high ISO in Leicas). Plus little things like added complexity in the menus.
My point is: in product design nothing is ever free, and I'm sure that Sony engineers would have designed a better overall camera if they didn't have to support video. I wouldn't speculate how much better, but the video damage is not zero.
Video is not ever going away and some of those needs will help the still images, especially for sensor read speed and performance if not absolute IQ in low-gain mode. Good heatsinking helps everything. A cooler sensor produces less noise and cooler electronics can operate longer. So far I don't find the a7rV overheating, but it is slow. I'd like to capture 4000+ ARW files per hour without overheating.
Sony is painful with ergonomics, for some reason I don't understand not well matching the human anatomy. I'm not sure what would be any better with that if there were no video. Would there be a larger hand grip with more right-side spacing for the larger lenses?
old-gregg wrote:
I agree with (almost) everything you said. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be complaining! The part where I disagree is your belief that video is not affecting you "at all". It does, in the form of the opportunity cost which is not obvious/invisible. Video, just like any other feature, eats into the transistor and power budget of BIONZ leaving less for photography features. Who knows what they could have done with that budget. Their autofocus, IBIS, and storage systems gained extra complexity to accomodate video. Heat dissipation requirement definitely affected the body design, and they probably tried to speed up the sensor leading to a slight noise increase (it performs slightly better at high ISO in Leicas). Plus little things like added complexity in the menus.
My point is: in product design nothing is ever free, and I'm sure that Sony engineers would have designed a better overall camera if they didn't have to support video. I wouldn't speculate how much better, but the video damage is not zero....Show more →
Many of the things you mention are features that are already there in mirrorless cameras. The sensor already does video (that’s how it works!), it AFs in real time, it is using power to operate the sensor and EVF all the time anyway. Sure, actually recording a video may take more power… unless you don’t record videos! IBIS is a plus for still photography. I don’t see Sony bodies becomeing large — they actually seem a bit smaller than the competition in general.
And, while you may not be interested in the video capabilities, it is clear that quite a few folks are. Here the pluses are greater than any (likely imaginary) minuses.
In any case, they aren’t going to remove video features from any of these cameras. Can you actually imagine what the market’s reaction would be? ;-)
I have just replaced a pair of A7R4A for a pair of A7R5 after four years of usage.Honestly speaking I liked A7R4As very much and did not really want this change,but it was the last time to get a fairly reasonable price for them used.Sure the A7R5s have much better AF/tracking,but I have that anyway in A1 and A1 II.Besides I don't need it very often.
High megapixel count isn't bad,but lately I'm finding myself pleased with the "old" 24mpx A7C and 2-3 primes.No matter the brand,provided they are small and lightweight.
I'm on a used A7R4 and would mostly want to update to an A7R6 for the sake of user experience; updated subject detection, manual focus options, a nice EVF, cropless 4K video, good LCD screen (like the Nikon ZR) and general quality of life. Something like 75MP and higher FPS would be welcome, but certainly not required.
If I were to spend on a camera it should be worth it; and not be a smallish upgrade.
Peire wrote:
I have just replaced a pair of A7R4A for a pair of A7R5 after four years of usage.Honestly speaking I liked A7R4As very much and did not really want this change,but it was the last time to get a fairly reasonable price for them used.Sure the A7R5s have much better AF/tracking,but I have that anyway in A1 and A1 II.Besides I don't need it very often.
High megapixel count isn't bad,but lately I'm finding myself pleased with the "old" 24mpx A7C and 2-3 primes.No matter the brand,provided they are small and lightweight.
I like larger cameras if the weigth is not too much (Z8/R5 II is fine, but R1/R3/Z9 is not). I use the SmallsRig base on the a7rV to allow my 5th digit on the grip.
The main reason to use Sony now is the higher MP sensor for greater reach. I'd still rather use zooms when possible, or at least one zoom and a big tele with a TC for the smaller species. 80MP would allow more cropping options while still having a decent amount of pixels.
I personally think Sony should focus the a7R family on landscape still photography by eliminating the video and fancy AI focus modes and putting full effort into high resolution, dynamic range, bit depth and simpler/cleaner users interface. Hasselblad has shown with the x2d ii that this feature set approach is enormously compelling. Sony has specific models for video excelling all-rounders, pure video specialists and high speed sports/wildlife auto focus monsters. Making every camera line satisfy every niche confuses the messaging and dilutes the effort.
And since I never hand hold, I don't have any knocks about the ergonomics, but I would like a much larger and higher resolution rear display and a larger body would make that possible.
guidostow wrote:
I personally think Sony should focus the a7R family on landscape still photography by eliminating the video and fancy AI focus modes and putting full effort into high resolution, dynamic range, bit depth and simpler/cleaner users interface. Hasselblad has shown with the x2d ii that this feature set approach is enormously compelling. Sony has specific models for video excelling all-rounders, pure video specialists and high speed sports/wildlife auto focus monsters. Making every camera line satisfy every niche confuses the messaging and dilutes the effort.
And since I never hand hold, I don't have any knocks about the ergonomics, but I would like a much larger and higher resolution rear display and a larger body would make that possible....Show more →
Again, I think the point of such cameras is being missed.
Yes, the A7Rv is a fine landscape camera, but that is not all that it is. Eliminating features that appeal beyond the (supposed) constraints of landscape photography would have little benefit to actual landscape photographers, would reduce the rlexibilty and adaptability of the camera, and likely reduce its market share — meaning higher prices and longer times between updates and upgrades.
Eliminating video and “fancy AI focus modes” would do nothing to improve the functionality of the camera for landscape, nor would these things negatively impact resolution, dynamic range, bit depth and so on. As to the interface, and speaking as a landscape photography myself, you can simply ignore all that other stuff if you don’t want to use it.
It is important to keep in mind that Sony (and all manufacturers) can provide us with less expensive and more powerful systems by designing them to meet more than the narrowest range of needs. And they do a fine job of accomplishing that in ways that let the different needs coexist.
And, to be honest, not all landscape photography is quite as limited as you imply… and some of us use our “landscape cameras” and lenses for other subjects, too!
I just bought a new A7R4a (E-infinity), it's more than enough I need, AF is fast and reliable with GM lenses, only difference in A7RV/A7CR I experienced the AI subject/eye detection is another level, but as an amateur I don't really care much about it. I really like the price, smaller and lighter body, the older chip consume less power, the simple and thin tilting screen, dedicated EV dial.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Again, I think the point of such cameras is being missed.
Yes, the A7Rv is a fine landscape camera, but that is not all that it is. Eliminating features that appeal beyond the (supposed) constraints of landscape photography would have little benefit to actual landscape photographers, would reduce the rlexibilty and adaptability of the camera, and likely reduce its market share — meaning higher prices and longer times between updates and upgrades.
Eliminating video and “fancy AI focus modes” would do nothing to improve the functionality of the camera for landscape, nor would these things negatively impact resolution, dynamic range, bit depth and so on. As to the interface, and speaking as a landscape photography myself, you can simply ignore all that other stuff if you don’t want ot use it.
It is important to keep in mind that Sony (and all manufacturers) can provide us with less expensive and more powerful systems by designing them to meet more than the narrowest range of needs. And they do a fine job of accomplishing that in ways that let the different needs coexist.
And, to be honest, not all landscape photography is quite as limited as you imply… and some of us use our “landscape cameras” and lenses for other subjects, too!...Show more →
Actually I use a7RIVA cameras as they are better suited for my needs in the landscape than the a7RV. The higher resolution back screen back screen with it's simpler but highly effective tilt, is much easier for me to work on and the files are super clean. I really like the manual focus experience (magnification/peaking) which I use extensively with adapted Canon TS-E or Sigma I series primes. I do wish Sony (or Sigma!) would bring out tilt shift lenses, but that is another topic...
I'd like to see 2-3 usb-c ports. Use "adapters' instead of the proprietary multi/mini, potential for gps, connectivity to monitors, ethernet, power in/out. AS grooves. Not sure they can solve the rear panel swivel/tilt/articulate concerns that would make all happy. If not putting dials and wheels on the top left, add a hot or cold shoe. Maybe move the flash sync port to the front.
A new sensor could be faster, adding resolution could impact power draw, file size, dynamic range, noise, all of which are already acceptable or catastrophically bad.
The part where I disagree is your belief that video is not affecting you "at all". It does, in the form of the opportunity cost which is not obvious/invisible. Video, just like any other feature, eats into the transistor and power budget of BIONZ leaving less for photography features. Who knows what they could have done with that budget. Their autofocus, IBIS, and storage systems gained extra complexity to accomodate video. Heat dissipation requirement definitely affected the body design, and they probably tried to speed up the sensor leading to a slight noise increase (it performs slightly better at high ISO in Leicas). Plus little things like added complexity in the menus.