Both the Sony A1 II and the Sony A7r VI are great all around cameras. They both can do really any genre and do it well. There may be some very specific scenarios in which the higher resolution and higher dynamic range of the A7r VI might give it an advantage over the A1 II. There are also some specific scenarios with very fast movement in which the faster sensor scan speed of the A1 II will be an advantage over the A7r VI. For certain LED lights and for faster flash sync speed the A1 II might have an advantage as well. Both cameras, however, are versatile enough to shoot a very wide variety of subjects very well. They are both great all around cameras, but the profile of what you shoot could suggest one camera is slightly better for the type of shooting that you predominantly do.
^^^ Well said Steve Spenser. At the current price points, I think I’d rather spend more for the A1 ii. I’d even consider looking at a low-mileage used one being about the same cost as a new A7R vi.
Douglas L wrote:
Thank you. I have been shooting hummingbirds in my yard for 7 or 8 years if not longer. For that I have been using a variety of Sony cameras, including the A7RIII (before Sony had any fast bodies), A1, A1II. I don't think I ever used the A7RIV or the A7RV for that because the A1 was already out 6 or 7 years ago. I have seen pretty "interesting mutant" hummingbirds taken with cameras with slow sensor readout. James' post above is a perfect illustration.I don’t think pictures taken with A1 A1II look that different, which is a big pleasant surprise to me. I do feel certain shots made by the A7RVI have longer wings.
I know some folks are sick and tired of the sensor readout speed/rolling shutter discussion. Everybody knows the A7RVI (or even the A7RV for that matter) is a fantastic body for landscape and a host of other genres. Nobody is even questioning that. To me, the somewhat uncertain part is for some very niche applications in fast action stuff, if you rarely use the A7RVI for that kind of stuff, carry on. I know if I want to have higher probability of getting "the" shot, I will pick up the A1II. For me, the A7RVI is an all round camera that excels in many many areas and also happens to be very very good at fast actions, just not as good at the A1(II) and A9III in some niche applications....Show more →
The point I’ve tried to make here a few times (occasionally with a humorous analogy) is that there are different tools for good reasons.
If one’s main thing is stuff that always requires stopping the action of the highest speed subjects, then you get the camera that does the best job of stopping hte action of the highest speed subjects and live with other (often minor for you, though it depends) downsides such as somewhat less sensor resolution, as long as the camera still works well for you with those other subjects.
If one’s main thing is stuff that benefits from the highest available resolution and other features, then you get the camera that does the best job of providing that and live with (often minor for you, but it depends) downsides such as a bit less ability to handle the most challenging high speed situations, as long as the camera works well for you with those other subjects.
Imagine two cars. One is a pickup truck and the other is a SUV. It would seem nuts to complain that the SUV can’t carry as much lumber as the pickup or that the pickup uses more gas per mile. While there are many things that both can do just fine, if your needs lean one way or the other you choose the one closest to those needs. It doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with the other choice — it is just that your needs are different.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The point I’ve tried to make here a few times (occasionally with a humorous analogy) is that there are different tools for good reasons.
If one’s main thing is stuff that always requires stopping the action of the highest speed subjects, then you get the camera that does the best job of stopping hte action of the highest speed subjects and live with other (often minor for you, though it depends) downsides such as somewhat less sensor resolution, as long as the camera still works well for you with those other subjects.
If one’s main thing is stuff that benefits from the highest available resolution and other features, then you get the camera that does the best job of providing that and live with (often minor for you, but it depends) downsides such as a bit less ability to handle the most challenging high speed situations, as long as the camera works well for you with those other subjects.
Imagine two cars. One is a pickup truck and the other is a SUV. It would seem nuts to complain that the SUV can’t carry as much lumber as the pickup or that the pickup uses more gas per mile. While there are many things that both can do just fine, if you needs lean one way or the other you choose the one closest to those needs. It doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with the other choice — it is just that your needs are different....Show more →
No disagreement there at all. I was just trying to test the A7RVI for certain type of shots to see how it performs, that's all. I don't think there is a need to test how well it does in landscape, everybody knows that already.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The point I’ve tried to make here a few times (occasionally with a humorous analogy) is that there are different tools for good reasons.
If one’s main thing is stuff that always requires stopping the action of the highest speed subjects, then you get the camera that does the best job of stopping hte action of the highest speed subjects and live with other (often minor for you, though it depends) downsides such as somewhat less sensor resolution, as long as the camera still works well for you with those other subjects.
If one’s main thing is stuff that benefits from the highest available resolution and other features, then you get the camera that does the best job of providing that and live with (often minor for you, but it depends) downsides such as a bit less ability to handle the most challenging high speed situations, as long as the camera works well for you with those other subjects.
Imagine two cars. One is a pickup truck and the other is a SUV. It would seem nuts to complain that the SUV can’t carry as much lumber as the pickup or that the pickup uses more gas per mile. While there are many things that both can do just fine, if you needs lean one way or the other you choose the one closest to those needs. It doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with the other choice — it is just that your needs are different....Show more →
Yes but🤷🏼.
I think, especially today with excellent AI interpolation, at a certain point added resolution is all but useless. In the case of the A1ii, it’s native 8640 px wide and at 300ppi makes a native ~29” wide print. The A7Rvi is 9984 px wide for a native 33” print. Use a good AI interpolation and you double to 58” vs 66”. Reduce print resolution to 150 ppi because of the long viewing distance and you double both again for 116” vs 132” — point is either is capable of making a highly detailed print far larger than anyone is likely to ever print.
I would grant that the larger sensor gives a bit more croppability, but in the scheme of things it’s a pretty marginal advantage.
Finally, all of the above assumes the lenses are as good as the sensor, which is not a given.
James Burden wrote:
....In order to maintain my sanity I got both....trying not to get the 100-400/4.5 so I can stay out of that discussion....😎
I have both too and the new 100-400 is on the brown truck out for delivery. I will test the 100+400+1.4TC against my very sharp copy of the 200-600. If it's equally good, I will sell the 200-600.
Douglas L wrote:
I have both too and the new 100-400 is on the brown truck out for delivery. I will test the 100+400+1.4TC against my very sharp copy of the 200-600. If it's equally good, I will sell the 200-600.
I’ll be curious to hear your comparative thoughts after using both 👍
Douglas L wrote:
I have both too and the new 100-400 is on the brown truck out for delivery. I will test the 100+400+1.4TC against my very sharp copy of the 200-600. If it's equally good, I will sell the 200-600.
Please don't forget to share! Do you need a test subject? HEY EVERYWONE!!! WHO HAS A SPARE JET AND AN HOUR OF FREE TIME TO FLY OVER DOUG'S HOUSE TONIGHT?! WE NEED A HERO!
old-gregg wrote:
Please don't forget to share! Do you need a test subject? HEY EVERYWONE!!! WHO HAS A SPARE JET AND AN HOUR OF FREE TIME TO FLY OVER DOUG'S HOUSE TONIGHT?! WE NEED A HERO!
I will be testing the 100-400+2X TC against my 400-800 too. But from what I have seen online so far, the 400-800 is sharper, but that thing is heavy. The other task is to test the 100-400+1.4TC vs the 300 GM+2.TC. I guess at some point, one has to ask, how sharp is sharp enough for posting on FM.
For that kind of test, I usually find a sign on a break wall, put to camera on tripod, take some shots at two different aperture. When I pixel peep, it's fairly easy to see which one has finer details. I am not testing the AF comparison though. I leave that to Geoff.
I think, especially today with excellent AI interpolation, at a certain point added resolution is all but useless. In the case of the A1ii, it’s native 8640 px wide and at 300ppi makes a native ~29” wide print. The A7Rvi is 9984 px wide for a native 33” print. Use a good AI interpolation and you double to 58” vs 66”. Reduce print resolution to 150 ppi because of the long viewing distance and you double both again for 116” vs 132” — point is either is capable of making a highly detailed print far larger than anyone is likely to ever print.
I would grant that the larger sensor gives a bit more croppability, but in the scheme of things it’s a pretty marginal advantage.
Finally, all of the above assumes the lenses are as good as the sensor, which is not a given. ...Show more →
My point remains.
You are simply saying that for your photography speed is more important than resolution, in which case giving up the higher resolution A7r6 for the somewhat faster A1ii is likely your choice.
My point is that, as you would do, you prefer the speed over the resolution, then you would simply pick the faster camera rather that being concerned that the slower, higher rest camera isn’t as fast.
It’s that old horses for courses” business. No horse is best for all courses. ;-)
You are simply saying that for your photography speed is more important than resolution, in which case giving up the higher resolution A7r6 for the somewhat faster A1ii is likely your choice.
My point is that, as you would do, you prefer the speed over the resolution, then you would simply pick the faster camera rather that being concerned that the slower, higher rest camera isn’t as fast.
It’s that old horses for courses” business. No horse is best for all courses. ;-)
Okay, I accept all that. Can you describe a situation in your photography where the extra resolution will make a visible difference to one of your final images? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I want to make sure I understand and am not overlooking a situation(s) where it would possibly be a better choice for me as well 👍
Jack Flesher wrote:
Okay, I accept all that. Can you describe a situation in your photography where the extra resolution will make a visible difference to one of your final images? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I want to make sure I understand and am not overlooking a situation(s) where it would possibly be a better choice for me as well 👍
This may be a niche case, but in the case of the GFX100 bodies with the (remarkably light for what it is) GF500mm F5.6 lens, the extra resolution means that this camera system can be used as a digital zoom, from 395mm F4.4 at 102MP to 500mm F5.6 at 62MP to 600mm at 44MP, to 700mm at 32MP, etc.
This added capacity is important in my use.
Another example might be the GF55mm lens that is 44mm F1.3 at 102MP, 55mm F1.7 at 62MP, and ultimately 90mm F2.8 at 24MP - effectively, this is a 44 - 90 mm digital zoom.
I don't mean to propose that this extra resolution should be useful for everyone, but I do appreciate the opportunity of deep cropping, in my use of the high-MP system.
ruthenium wrote:
This may be a niche case, but in the case of the GFX100 bodies with the (remarkably light for what it is) GF500mm F5.6 lens, the extra resolution means that this camera system can be used as a digital zoom, from 395mm F4.4 at 102MP to 500mm F5.6 at 62MP to 600mm at 44MP, to 700mm at 32MP, etc.
This added capacity is important in my use.
Another example might be the GF55mm lens that is 44mm F1.3 at 102MP, 55mm F1.7 at 62MP, and ultimately 90mm F2.8 at 24MP - effectively, this is a 44 - 90 mm digital zoom.
I don't mean to propose that this extra resolution should be useful for everyone, but I do appreciate the opportunity of deep cropping, in my use of the high-MP system....Show more →
Okay, I get digital zoom and I appreciate your comment. I had a GFX100 for a bit and I understand; but it’s also when I realized that there’s such a thing as more resolution than needed and with that camera I frequently had more than even practical, at least based on the downsizing I did for a lot of them. So I should rephrase my above question to include “assuming one regularly frames in the viewfinder.” 👍
Jack Flesher wrote:
Okay, I get digital zoom and I appreciate your comment. I had a GFX100 for a bit and I understand; but it’s also when I realized that there’s such a thing as more resolution than needed and with that camera I frequently had more than even practical, at least based on the downsizing I did for a lot of them. So I should rephrase my above question to include “assuming one regularly frames in the viewfinder.” 👍
There are many times I can’t get into the position due to some kind of barrier and rely on cropping to get the composition I would like. The more resolution I start with, the more flexibility with my compositions. I don’t use cropping as a crutch…but it sure is handy when I need it.
chez wrote:
There are many times I can’t get into the position due to some kind of barrier and rely on cropping to get the composition I would like. The more resolution I start with, the more flexibility with my compositions. I don’t use cropping as a crutch…but it sure is handy when I need it.
Okay. Can you share an example where 50mp would not have allowed that, but 67 would have?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Okay. Can you share an example where 50mp would not have allowed that, but 67 would have?
This game can be played forever.
Show me an example where a 36mp would not have allowed that, but a 50mp would have.
Show me an example where a 24mp would not have allowed that, but a 36mp would have.
And so on.
Incremental resolution increases add up to much bigger impacts over the years. All I know is that I can crop for much better results using my 42mp camera than I could with my 30mp camera.
I'm not here to convince you. You do what you do...other's do what they do.
Why do you worry about how others might use the extra pixels in the A7R6...if you don't see a need, then don't buy it.
Easy...peasy.
. I will test the 100+400+1.4TC against my very sharp copy of the 200-600. If it's equally good, I will sell the 200-600.