fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1       2       3       …       70      
71
       72       …       108       109       end
   

Sony A7RVI
  
 
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #1 · Sony A7RVI


chez wrote:
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.

Exactly. It seems like half the posts here are threadcrapping. The a1 has been around over 5 years and it was easy to simply buy it or buy the a1 II now if that's what the user prefers.

EBH
Jul 01, 2026 at 10:03 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #2 · Sony A7RVI


Ross Martin wrote:
And here are Mark Galer’s slides on buffer:

Buffer is bigger again at 20fps and this would be my standard fps in 90% of shooting, also gives the camera longer to acquire focus.
Jul 01, 2026 at 10:17 PM
racetratr
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #3 · Sony A7RVI


It depends.

First of all, fine art printmakers know that Epson large format printers give best quality at 360 or even, if possible, 720 ppi. A 30 x 20 inch print (at the lower of those two resolutions) calls for a 10,800 x 7200 file. That's if you don't crop at all or do any perspective control.

A larger print, a cropped image, or a perspective-controlled image must have a much bigger starting file than that to hold ultimate quality. Sure, you can fudge, and uprez. Or use a less optimal resolution in the printer. It might even be absolutely necessary to make those compromises, given the resolution of current mainstream sensors!

If you are happy with that, fine. Prints may still look good for your purposes. But you definitely aren't getting the very best print quality that the printer can produce. If you print for exhibition, that might be an issue. The differences in detail may seem obvious or slight depending on the person and the situation. But there's no pretending the differences aren't there, even for moderately large prints. (Jim Kasson has some good thoughts on this matter.)

Second of all, higher resolution sensors tend to minimize digital artifacts. For instance, take a look at the ugly color moire in the upper left hand line drawings in DPReview's test charts. The difference in color moire between lower and higher resolution cameras is obvious. There is even some visible difference between the A7RV and the A7RVI.

Another ugly digital artifact is stair stepping in geometrical subjects like urban landscape; also false detail in tree branches and other detailed natural subjects. Such artifacts tend to get worse, not better, if you use AI programs to uprez or sharpen.

These digital artifacts, which are the result of the Bayer sensor grid undersampling the fine detail resolved by the lens, can really affect image quality in some situations. And sometimes it requires extreme measures to overcome them in post processing. It makes much more sense to oversample, and eliminate the artifacts during capture if possible. That's another reason I look forward to the roll out of higher resolution sensors (that I might even be able to afford!).

High resolution files are cleaner, even when downsampled. And files at optimal printer resolution yield more detailed prints. These things are each noticeable in some use cases more than others. But they are real.
Jul 01, 2026 at 11:43 PM
duncangr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #4 · Sony A7RVI


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Buffer is bigger again at 20fps and this would be my standard fps in 90% of shooting, also gives the camera longer to acquire focus.

Shooting at 20fps does not give the camera longer to acquire focus. The camera will adjust focus at a constant speed of either 60 or 30 times a second.
Jul 02, 2026 at 12:34 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #5 · Sony A7RVI


duncangr wrote:
Shooting at 20fps does not give the camera longer to acquire focus. The camera will adjust focus at a constant speed of either 60 or 30 times a second.

Not true. If you shoot 30fps at 30(60) AF calculations you will 1(2) updates per frame, at 20fps you will get up to 3 updates per frame.
Jul 02, 2026 at 02:09 AM
duncangr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #6 · Sony A7RVI


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not true. If you shoot 30fps at 30(60) AF calculations you will 1(2) updates per frame, at 20fps you will get up to 3 updates per frame.

Look at it this way - for the 60 af calcs scenario:

In the 3/60 seconds prior to the images captured at 20fps you get 3 af calculations performed at 1/60s intervals.

In the 3/60 seconds prior to the images captured at 30fps you get 3 af calculations performed at 1/60s intervals.

The only difference is that first af calc in the 30fps scenario is the same as the last one for the previously captured image.
Jul 02, 2026 at 06:43 AM
rob_ww
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #7 · Sony A7RVI


duncangr wrote:
Look at it this way - for the 60 af calcs scenario:

In the 3/60 seconds prior to the images captured at 20fps you get 3 af calculations performed at 1/60s intervals.

In the 3/60 seconds prior to the images captured at 30fps you get 3 af calculations performed at 1/60s intervals.

The only difference is that first af calc in the 30fps scenario is the same as the last one for the previously captured image.


Should someone tell Mark Galer then? It appears he has innocently made an intuitive but inaccurate assumption. He might appreciate knowing that.
Jul 02, 2026 at 06:45 AM
duncangr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #8 · Sony A7RVI


rob_ww wrote:
Should someone tell Mark Galer then? It appears he has innocently made an intuitive but inaccurate assumption. He might appreciate knowing that.




For maximum AF accuracy shoot at 1fps - your camera gets 1 whole second to acquire focus. .

Better still shoot at 1 frame per minute, that way you'll never miss a shot ! Oh wait....
Jul 02, 2026 at 06:53 AM
rob_ww
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #9 · Sony A7RVI





Jul 02, 2026 at 07:17 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #10 · Sony A7RVI


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 👍

I have sold/licensed prints for commercial use at sizes up to 30’ wide and 11’ tall. I have an in-house Epson P-9000 44” printer. My main (though not my only) photography with my current FF system is landscapes and similar subjects.

I don’t focus on sports photography nor on other subjects requiring absolute fastest burst rates, so the capabilities of the A7r6 are more than sufficient for me. I’ve managed to do my bird photography for over a decade with a much slower cameras. While the A1ii is an impressive tool for those who need that, what it offers over the A7r6 is not really relevant to me.

As to extra resolution (and speaking here as a person who is about to move to Sony), if I already had the A7r5, I would not upgrade to the A7r6 for the small amount of additional resolution.

YMMV.

- - -

After reading the rest of the thread following the post I replied to, I’m back with one more perspective.

To some extent, we are arguing over pretty small differences at this point. While one can certainly point out that the A1ii has the highest level of performance for really fast-moving subjects and that the A7r6 has higher resolution… today the differences in suitability between cameras with these supposedly incompatibile design objectives are much less meaningful than they were a decade or more ago.

Very early in the development of digital cameras the differences were striking. For example, in order to get enough speed you typically ended up with a 1.6x (or possibly 1.3x at the very high end) sensor, while if you went of a higher resolution (12-16MP!!) full frame sensor you ended up with a small fraction of today’s frame rates and with impaired low light performance. The choice was pretty stark.

Today (to consider these two cameras) on one hand we have the camera with the fastest system (fps, focus calculations, etc.) and a slighlty lower resolution 50MP sensor. On the other hand we have the highest resolution system (66+MP) and a not-quite-as-state-of-the-art system for higher speed subjects.

Out at the fringes, the choice is likely significant.

If you are spending a lot of time stopping the action of hummingbird wings or perfectly aligning the fuselages of jets as they pass one another at hundreds of miles per hour… you want the fastest system you can get. You sound like an A1ii buyer. And your A1ii, having a 50MP sensor, can also do a fine job with just about any other subject, too.

If you place a high value on optimal resolution rather than optimal speed and perhaps spend a lot of time photographing selects like landscapes or architecture and you reproduce your photographs at large sizes and/or for a fine art market, then you place a higher priority on maximizing the system resolution, and that 67MP A7r6 sounds right for you. As an A7r6 buyer, you’ll still get a very fast camera, capable of working effectively with any speed-requiring subject that you’re likely to photograph.

Back in the day, there wasn’t all that much overlap meeting the cameras that the two types of photographers might choose. Today there’s along of the lot overlap. For the vast majority of buyers, the fast camera has plenty of resolution and the high resolution camera has plenty of speed.



Edited on Jul 02, 2026 at 05:32 PM · View previous versions
Jul 02, 2026 at 10:29 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Jack Flesher
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #11 · Sony A7RVI


gdanmitchell wrote:
I have sold/licensed prints for commercial use at sizes up to 30’ wide and 11’ tall. I have an in-house Epson P-9000 44” printer. My main (though not my only) photography with my current FF system is landscapes and similar subjects.

I don’t focus on sports photography nor on other subjects requiring absolute fastest burst rates, so the capabilities of the A7r6 are more than sufficient for me. I’ve managed to do my bird photography for over a decade with a much slower cameras. While the A1ii is an impressive tool for those who need that, what it offers over the...Show more →

Okay, think I understand you now. It isn’t about resolution per se, it’s about features on the A1ii you don’t feel you need and so aren’t worth the expense to you; and as such, the added resolution from the A7R6 becomes a bonus. Totally fair point.

For me, I think the added features of the A1ii will come in handier on more occasions than the bit of extra resolution would.

PS comment on billboards. As you know I was connected with PhaseOne for several years. Through that at a meeting in Copenhagen to go over new model designs, I met one of the top Chinese commercial fashion photographers. We met in the lobby of our hotel, both of us with a then new Nikon D800 over our shoulder. He asked me how I liked it, and I admitted I was impressed. He told me he was abandoning Phase medium format for the Nikon. The reason was even though the images weren’t as technically perfect, the clients couldn’t see the differences. He said he’d recently put files from both in front of his top client and they chose based on a look, and they happened to all be from the Nikon. Then he added that he could capture a lot more images a lot faster with the Nikon and so could get a greater quantity of poses, and the Nikon files were more than adequate quality for his billboards. For those not aware, the Nikon D800 was a 36mp camera.

Edited on Jul 02, 2026 at 11:03 AM · View previous versions
Jul 02, 2026 at 10:39 AM
jwpstl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #12 · Sony A7RVI


The D800 was a 36mp camera.
Jul 02, 2026 at 11:01 AM
Jack Flesher
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #13 · Sony A7RVI


jwpstl wrote:
The D800 was a 36mp camera.

Indeed it was, thanks!
Jul 02, 2026 at 11:35 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #14 · Sony A7RVI


jwpstl wrote:
The D800 was a 36mp camera.

The C800 the same sensor in the original A7r1. Sony’s initial advantage was that its mirrorless design provoked lots of interest… and it was largely marketed to Canon owners who were then limited to — IIRC — about 20MP, but who could bring their EF lenses to the Sony camera via adapters, with varying levels of functionality but plenty for, say, landscape photographers.

(This was an absolutely brilliant marketing move on Sony’s part since they could bring out the new camera even though they did not yet have anything approaching a line-up of lenses for it… and because a prime market for high MP cameras was landscape photographers, who weren’t so troubled by some of the downsides of their adapter with Canon lenses, which meant that they could switch systems without buying new lenses!)



Edited on Jul 02, 2026 at 02:05 PM · View previous versions
Jul 02, 2026 at 11:57 AM
DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #15 · Sony A7RVI


The D800 was in a different era, though (2012). We were happy at the time to get DSLRs that could film 1080p at 30fps. So that's a resolution of 1,920 × 1,080 while the D800 had a resolution of 7360 × 4912. Most people didn't have a display over 1080p.

Fast forward to 2026, and 4k video is becoming standard, many people have 4k displays, and most displays on new products are over 1080p. 4k gets us a resolution of 3,840 × 2,160.

To keep the same resolution gap as the D800 to 1080p, we would need a resolution of approximately 14,707 x 9,806, which is about 144mp sensor. Never mind the push towards 8k, which gets us to a resolution of 7680 × 4320. Realistically, I don't see us getting back to the resolution gap of the D800 with current technology, even a 144mp full frame sensor would probably have us well down the path of poor image quality at 100% resolution. Diffraction alone would start kicking in by f5.
Jul 02, 2026 at 01:01 PM
Jack Flesher
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #16 · Sony A7RVI


DWOfPaul wrote:
The D800 was in a different era, though (2012). We were happy at the time to get DSLRs that could film 1080p at 30fps. So that's a resolution of 1,920 × 1,080 while the D800 had a resolution of 7360 × 4912. Most people didn't have a display over 1080p.

Fast forward to 2026, and 4k video is becoming standard, many people have 4k displays, and most displays on new products are over 1080p. 4k gets us a resolution of 3,840 × 2,160.

To keep the same resolution gap as the D800 to 1080p, we would need a resolution of...Show more →

Part of my earlier point was we are already at a crossroads where many lenses aren’t up to current sensors and a majority aren’t up their own systems largest sensor; and thus at some point (and perhaps now?) it’s a zero sum game.


Jul 02, 2026 at 01:52 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #17 · Sony A7RVI


Jack Flesher wrote:
Part of my earlier point was we are already at a crossroads where many lenses aren’t up to current sensors and a majority aren’t up their own systems largest sensor; and thus at some point (and perhaps now?) it’s a zero sum game.

But there are those lenses that will excel with higher resolutions so if someone needs the higher resolution for more flexible cropping or making large prints…they have a way to do this. I don’t understand your point you are trying to make. If it’s the common Joe not needing these latest generation of cameras…then I agree…the common Joe does just fine with phones. But surely you must admit there are those that push the limits of gear in search of perfection and the latest gear just moves the needle just a bit further along.

What is wrong with that?
Jul 02, 2026 at 02:11 PM
InFocus2014
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #18 · Sony A7RVI


racetratr wrote:
It depends.

First of all, fine art printmakers know that Epson large format printers give best quality at 360 or even, if possible, 720 ppi. A 30 x 20 inch print (at the lower of those two resolutions) calls for a 10,800 x 7200 file. That's if you don't crop at all or do any perspective control.

A larger print, a cropped image, or a perspective-controlled image must have a much bigger starting file than that to hold ultimate quality. Sure, you can fudge, and uprez. Or use a less optimal resolution in the printer. It might even be absolutely necessary...Show more →

+1. This represents my experience. I hope a lot of folks read your post. The "megapixels don't matter" crowd is starting to annoy me.

I have been a megapixel junkie for some time. I pre-ordered the, then, groundbreaking 36mp D800E 14 years ago (later added the 36mp A7R) and then progressed through the 50mp 5DSR, and 61mp A7R5 (now A7RVI). In the last two years, I have also been shooting the 102mp GFX100SII alongside my Sony gear.

Of course, when not printing large, most of my files get down-converted for other uses. Often, but not always, there is a noticeable improvement in perceived quality with the higher MP files when down-converted to match the lower MP files. The effect is often subtle, but it is, often, there. Where I see a real difference is in portraits and architecture. I alway attributed such differences to aliasing, but realize there are also other factors at play.

At any rate, I am happy with my A7RVI and wholeheartedly welcome the small incremental boost in MP's (and, dynamic range). I will, however, reach for my A1 II when shooting fans.




Jul 02, 2026 at 02:11 PM
Erictator
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.71 #19 · Sony A7RVI


InFocus2014 wrote:
+1. This represents my experience. I hope a lot of folks read your post. The "megapixels don't matter" crowd is starting to annoy me.

I have been a megapixel junkie for some time. I pre-ordered the, then, groundbreaking 36mp D800E 14 years ago (later added the 36mp A7R) and then progressed through the 50mp 5DSR, and 61mp A7R5 (now A7RVI). In the last two years, I have also been shooting the 102mp GFX100SII alongside my Sony gear.

Of course, when not printing large, most of my files get down-converted for other uses. Often, but not always, there is a noticeable improvement...Show more →

Agreed. I learned the same thing when I did my first 8x10 contact print and 4x5 enlargement. Everything smaller has been for convenience factor ever since. My old Pentax 6x7 was what I felt was an awesome compromise, so much easier handling than plate film with the convenience of a roll film 35mm on steroids. Then came my Pentax 645 with motor drive and 220 backs and I thought, I can still do wedding albums and 8x10 prints just fine with this format, and maybe 20x30 prints if I am really careful without having to crop much... hah! And then came my first digital SLR, 6MP... it could do a decent 8x10, just barely, by the standards of its time compared to film anyway, but it was so cool to play with and have instant success and processing control instead of having to send to Reedy Photo and pay extra for them to work their magic on negs and prints! Now I loath doing PP and have had to come up with presets, and ways to batch process. Can't please everyone.

Anyone who's done print media knows the drill, and editors always beat me up for originals and the highest res possible file, even if they were going to down sample it into a 2 column magazine format. (I wrote a bimonthly article for a full color magazine and had to supply my own pic's as reporter for my district, and if you were lucky, one of your column pic's got picked for an inside cover or better yet, front or back cover) so yeah, I'm not saying megapixels are the answer to everything, but they sure are nice in the larger formats... high mp at cell phone size sensor? We all poo poo'd that...and rightly so at first... until they figured out how to make the CPU/GPU turn those into something half decent, now NASA takes an Iphone with them for a slingshot mission instead of the old Hassy for out the window shots, go figure...Don't get me wrong, I still hate those small sensor outputs, but the masses seem to like them just fine for digital screen sharing, which lets face it, is 99.9% of their use case anyway, so hard to argue with that.

Edit - Fun personal story: When my parents were still alive, I stumbled on a box of 4x5 b&w negs of their wedding! I asked, how the heck did you get these? They said the photographer was a family friend and gave them as a wedding present, including a set of color stereo slides he did of their wedding. ( I still have those and were pretty amazing for 1950's). But as an anniversary gift, I re-printed them a full 8x10 wedding album off those negs in my home darkroom... they were amazing neg's, the guy knew his stuff and only a very few flubs... no mold or aging and were well preserved in the wax paper baggie they were stored in somehow. My parents were bowled over how good they looked on modern paper and through my Bessler 45 with my good nikon enlargement lens... the photo's really popped... I still have the negs around here somewhere... but I digress, yeah, gimme bigger neg's/more pixels/ more photon's, whatever, and the technology will catch up to make use of them eventually. I can't wait to see what the future will bring.

EricV
Jul 02, 2026 at 02:36 PM
Jack Flesher
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #20 · Sony A7RVI


Sigh... So far my detractors here have yet to show an example of where a 50mp image failed and a 67mp image succeeded due to the extra pixels. You've posited lots of theoretical situations and shared a lot of diatribe to try and support the claim, but nothing yet as a clear example to support the claim -->

--> I will however accept the claim that IF one finds a lens that meets or exceeds the 67mp A7Rvi sensor and uses perfect capture technique, theoretically they will produce a more detailed image than that same lens on an A1ii. How much more detailed remains to be seen, because to date I don't know anywhere this theoretical comparison has been made... But yes, I will accept it as theoretically sound, even though I question whether the detail gains in said result would be visible to the naked eye at normal viewing distances for any output medium...

In the same breath, I will however agree that a 33mp definitely can be advantageous over a 24mp camera for the crop reasons, but specifically because the lenses are still resolving above the sensors. There is, no matter how much you want to ignore it, a diminishing return once the lenses can't utilize the sensor. All you get is a larger quantity of nothing discernible -- and newsflash folks, we're there now with the 60mp sensor and current lenses, let alone 67mp...

I also get cropping, and I also get printing big -- I used to teach large format printing for Epson. I even get the desire for the most pixels you can get. But as respects printing, there's this thing called viewing distance which at some point has to be taken into consideration -- there's little point to printing 360ppi for a billboard you can't get any closer than 30 feet to.

Back to current lenses... There are few lens options specifically for Sony that will utilize all the 50mp in the A1ii and fewer still the A7Rvi. I am sure there are some, but I don't know what they are. That's not a cut to the latter camera, nor an endorsement of the former camera -- Dan has shared a very logical reason why he'd choose the latter over the former. And to be clear, I'm not knocking the new camera at all, in fact I might even buy one myself for reasons similar to Dan's. But it won't be because it offers more pixels...




Jul 02, 2026 at 02:51 PM
1       2       3       …       70      
71
       72       …       108       109       end
FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       …       70      
71
       72       …       108       109       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register