Wondering if a micro usb to usb-c adapter will successfully adapt my S2 cables to work with wired shutter release, intervalometer, astro controller, etc…
I thoroughly enjoy the pixel peeping power of my A7R5, but I don't enjoy the noise "signature" when peeping. Some of the low light testing for the A7R6 shows what to me looks like a significant improvement, and also for me, a bit of leverage as a novice or pro when exposure isn't perfect every time.
I currently have an RV and primarily use it for birding. I'm having difficulty sussing out if the RVI gets me 90% of what I want without having to go towards the A1II. Pre-capture, blackout free shooting, a useable electronic shutter, and fast enough burst. Is the AF calcs and rolling shutter really going to be meaningful for the majority of my shooting? It's really difficult to tell right now.
bwcolor wrote:
Isn’t that backwards? Compression takes up processing power and that is why AF is dropped to 30fps. Am I wrong?
Compression is likely handled by an independent IP block in BIONZ that doesn't affect other units in BIONZ including AF.
It's the sensor readout speed limiting the AF cals - the 14-bit full-sensor readout is 19.6ms (1/51), which doesn't leave time for 60fps AF calcs since the sensor will be consumed with the combination of exposures and driving LV.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy the pixel peeping power of my A7R5, but I don't enjoy the noise "signature" when peeping. Some of the low light testing for the A7R6 shows what to me looks like a significant improvement, and also for me, a bit of leverage as a novice or pro when exposure isn't perfect every time.
It does have me wanting the R6.
On DPR the comparison tests at 100% for all ISO’s have the A7RVI indeed looking a bit better for noise than the A7RV, and I notice especially that solid color tonalities look smoother. But they only have jpegs to compare at this time, so I’ll need to see the raw files when those are added.
Would love some feedback on whether my thought process is correct with regard to the electronic shutter readout speed difference different between FF and crop mode for photos. Is it logical to assume the per pixel readout speed is consistent and dropping from 66.8(FF) to about 29mpix (APSC) results in a linear reduction in sensor readout speed. ie - (18.5ms FF)*(29 apsc mpix)/(66.8 ff mpix) --> ~8ms readout for APSC photos
Not ideal to sacrifice resolution, but thinking out loud. a majority of my shooting does on requires 30fps, but I do find myself in nature enjoying birding and knowing there option of reducing readout by balancing resolution would be helpful
Talks about the camera only supporting 60fps AF calcs when using compressed raw, otherwise it uses 30fps AF calcs
Was the a7rV also 12 bits in the 10 FPS MS mode? When at high ISO for natural low light motion then I'd expect that 12 bits is normally enough since LSB are mostly noise.
For unnatural situations like sport it might be different.
Apparently I have been using 12 bit all along on the a7rV at 10FPS MS H+ since that's all it supports in that mode. https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00229990 That's OK at high ISO with DXO. At low ISO I am single frame. Is a7rVI more limited or is it the same?
As an A7riv user for many years (mainly landscape photography, but other genres as well), I am very happy with the direction that Sony has gone with the A7rvi. I typically upgrade every other generation, and though i was sorely tempted by the A7rv's built-in focus bracketing and cool flippy back panel, I held off my GAS. But I was really afraid that after my waiting I'd end up with some 80 megapixel duplicate of the A7rv. That would have been good for bragging rights, but beyond the point of diminishing returns for image quality.
So I'm delighted by the features of the A7rvi. The higher dynamic range, and cleaner files in general, look really promising. I was very interested in the A7V's dual gain capture, but I didn't think we'd get it with the high megapixel counts of Sony's R series. The EVF with better color accuracy and 10 bit dynamic range brings us even close to a view that looks like the real world. And the faster response times will be great for the times when I do wildlife. Other quality of life features look good too such as the illuminated buttons and named camera presets.
It's not an A1 killer. I wasn't looking for that. It's a smart evolution of the R series. I'm planning on getting one.
DrSkill wrote:
Would love some feedback on whether my thought process is correct with regard to the electronic shutter readout speed difference different between FF and crop mode for photos. Is it logical to assume the per pixel readout speed is consistent and dropping from 66.8(FF) to about 29mpix (APSC) results in a linear reduction in sensor readout speed. ie - (18.5ms FF)*(29 apsc mpix)/(66.8 ff mpix) --> ~8ms readout for APSC photos
Not ideal to sacrifice resolution, but thinking out loud. a majority of my shooting does on requires 30fps, but I do find myself in nature enjoying birding and knowing there option of reducing readout by balancing resolution would be helpful...Show more →
I don't think that math is correct because the camera is reading out rows, so the speed is increased by the fewer number of rows read not the smaller area, and the FF sensor scan speed for 14-bit capture seems to be 19.6ms not 18.5ms. So, there should be 1.5X less rows being scanned in APS-C mode, so it should be about 13ms sensor scan speed (at least with 14-bit capture) in APS-C mode.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think that math is correct because the camera is reading out rows, so the speed is increased by the fewer number of rows read not the smaller area, and the FF sensor scan speed for 14-bit capture seems to be 19.6ms not 18.5ms. So, there should be 1.5X less rows being scanned in APS-C mode, so it should be about 13ms sensor scan speed (at least with 14-bit capture) in APS-C mode.
Steve is correct and this is demonstrated in the detailed section of my readout measurements for the few cameras where I also tested DX mode. Examples:
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy the pixel peeping power of my A7R5, but I don't enjoy the noise "signature" when peeping. Some of the low light testing for the A7R6 shows what to me looks like a significant improvement, and also for me, a bit of leverage as a novice or pro when exposure isn't perfect every time.
It does have me wanting the R6.
I empathize. At the same time, when comparing the A7RV and A1 II. I own both and ran controlled experiments myself, with consistent flash exposure, color targets and greyscale stepwedges. I see very little difference at ISO 6400 between them, and it evaporates entirely when I downsample the R image to 50MP to match the A1. Strangely it seems, my eyes do not agree with what you're saying. But you are not the only one noticing this, I wonder why.
I have two theories to explain it.
First, is that I am only using high-DPI displays, i.e. I am only seeing 220 DPI+ image, which is far closer to a traditional 250ppi print than a typical pixel-peeping on a common 96dpi display [1]. At high DPI noise is nice and tight, like a high-quality film grain. If anything, it improves the image by eliminating the "plastic" feeling by adding a nice texture.
Second, I wonder if there could be sample variations across sensors? Maybe Sony fabs constantly make process tweaks and adjustments between manufacturing batches to increase yields and possibly improve performance of their sensors? If true, perhaps I was luckier because my A7RV was a mid-year 2025 model.
... or maybe my eyes are just shit now
[1] By the way, if your display pixel density is under 200dpi, I highly recommend switching to a retina-like panel. Your opinion on lenses will change for the better (they'll all appear sharper) and you'll become more grounded in reality with your judgement. Because once your image is done and out for consumption, it will be seen either printed or downsampled. The 100% view on 96dpi or god forbid 72dpi is not relevant, so don't torture yourself agonizing over invisible imperfections.
old-gregg wrote:
I empathize. At the same time, when comparing the A7RV and A1 II. I own both and ran controlled experiments myself, with consistent flash exposure, color targets and greyscale stepwedges. I see very little difference at ISO 6400 between them, and it evaporates entirely when I downsample the R image to 50MP to match the A1. Strangely it seems, my eyes do not agree with what you're saying. But you are not the only one noticing this, I wonder why.
I have two theories to explain it.
First, is that I am only using high-DPI displays, i.e. I am only seeing 220dpii+ image, which is far closer to a traditional 250ppi print than a typical pixel-peeping on a common 96dpi display [1].
Second, I wonder if there could be sample variations across sensors? Maybe Sony fabs constantly make process tweaks and adjustments between manufacturing batches to increase yields and possibly improve performance of their sensors? If true, perhaps I was luckier because my A7RV was a mid-year 2025 model.
[1] By the way, if your display pixel density is under 200dpi, I highly recommend switching to a retina-like panel. Your opinion on lenses will change for the better (they'll all appear sharper) and you'll become more grounded in reality with your judgement. Because once your image is done and out for consumption, it will be seen either printed or downsampled. The 100% view on 96dpi or god forbid 72dpi is not relevant, so don't torture yourself agonizing over invisible imperfections....Show more →
It's definitely your high-DPI display. It obscures both noise and detail issues.
Bill Claff has measured sample variations of sensors and found it to be very low:
WillR wrote:
As an A7riv user for many years (mainly landscape photography, but other genres as well), I am very happy with the direction that Sony has gone with the A7rvi. I typically upgrade every other generation, and though i was sorely tempted by the A7rv's built-in focus bracketing and cool flippy back panel, I held off my GAS. But I was really afraid that after my waiting I'd end up with some 80 megapixel duplicate of the A7rv. That would have been good for bragging rights, but beyond the point of diminishing returns for image quality.
So I'm delighted by the features of the A7rvi. The higher dynamic range, and cleaner files in general, look really promising. I was very interested in the A7V's dual gain capture, but I didn't think we'd get it with the high megapixel counts of Sony's R series. The EVF with better color accuracy and 10 bit dynamic range brings us even close to a view that looks like the real world. And the faster response times will be great for the times when I do wildlife. Other quality of life features look good too such as the illuminated buttons and named camera presets.
It's not an A1 killer. I wasn't looking for that. It's a smart evolution of the R series. I'm planning on getting one.
