For my new A7RVI, I'm using the Kirk bracket from my A7RV or perhaps A7RIV. It fits perfectly and allows access to the battery and all the ports. RRS gear is lovely but, in my opinion, seriously overpriced.
regulator wrote:
Has anyone discovered an intervelometer / remote trigger that works with the new body yet?
You can use the app as a remote control and the camera has a built in intervalometer that is very good. I may not completely understand your use case but wanted you to know it's on menu page 8 in the camera.
InFocus2014 wrote:
There are those of us who have the mental deficiency that serves to seek instant gratification and dopamine hits, all aroused by manufacturer pre-release propaganda contrived to do just that. Therefore, we (of questionable mental stability) have learned, over time in this same cycle, to endure living without such "necessities" for the initial period of newly-released equipment ownership. Rinse and repeat.
I learned a different lesson over the years. ;-)
For me, the lesson was that I can wait a bit longer and the new thing will seem just as new… and I won’t have to compromise my photography in the meantime by trying to work without stuff I need.
YMMV, and apparently does. ;-)
- - -
doc4x5 wrote:
For my new A7RVI, I'm using the Kirk bracket from my A7RV or perhaps A7RIV. It fits perfectly and allows access to the battery and all the ports. RRS gear is lovely but, in my opinion, seriously overpriced.
I hear you. I have a lot of RRS stuff (tripods, heads, brackets, plates) and some Kirk.
I’m interested to hear that the old “bracket” (an L-bracket) works on the new camera. If it does “fit perfectly,” why are you buying a different tone?
I had trouble seeing this juvenile gannet and used the focus box to keep the bird in the frame. Bear in mind these are approximately APS-C sized crops of the original image.
Usually a difficult situation for many cameras (you know who you are )
1/4000s seems to work well for avoiding motion blur at 800mm(400-800).
Pretty much every frame has sharp eyes with no sign of motion blur which I never achieved at slower shutter speeds although you might need a 5k or 6K display to see that clearly.
Not really any sign of rolling shutter distortion on any of the frames of these birds.
I didn't shoot anything for a week, so I picked up the A7RVI to shoot some hummingbirds this morning. Some shots definitely show the rolling effect. You can see a faintly visible third wing or elongated wings. For that type of shooting I will stick with my A1II.
Douglas L wrote:
I didn't shoot anything for a week, so I picked up the A7RVI to shoot some hummingbirds this morning. Some shots definitely show the rolling effect. You can see a vague third wing or elongated wings. For that type of shooting I will stick with my A1II.
Thanks for these examples, in which the electronic shutter definitely didn't work for these hummers. We have seen examples when it did, but these suggest that whether it does or not is not a simple yes or no answer. Sometimes it will work just fine. Sometimes the results will be clearly problematic. Sometimes the effect will be mild and will bother some people and not others.
Knowing that is helpful. Some may still choose to use the camera in electronic shutter mode just deleting the photos that are clearly problematic. Others might not want to risk it and will use a camera with a faster sensor scan speed or use the mechanical shutter.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for these examples, in which the electronic shutter definitely didn't work for these hummers. We have seen examples when it did, but these suggest that whether it does or not is not a simple yes or no answer. Sometimes it will work just fine. Sometimes the results will be clearly problematic. Sometimes the effect will be mild and will bother some people and not others.
Knowing that is helpful. Some may still choose to use the camera in electronic shutter mode just deleting the photos that are clearly problematic. Others might not want to risk it and will use a camera with a faster sensor scan speed or use the mechanical shutter. ...Show more →
Yes, I tried it on humming birds before and it didn't show much rolling shutter effect but this time there were maybe 6 or 7 shots out of 30 shots that have obvious distortion. One just needs to be careful with that type of subjects.
How is the high ISO performance on A7r VI? In some reviews I saw, it was mentioned that due to higher resolution the high ISO performance is quite bad and noise is evident as low as 1600 ISO.
I am considering jumping ship from Z8, but if high ISO performance is bad then I might just have to wait and see what Nikon brings in near future.
ajamils wrote:
How is the high ISO performance on A7r VI? In some reviews I saw, it was mentioned that due to higher resolution the high ISO performance is quite bad and noise is evident as low as 1600 ISO.
I am considering jumping ship from Z8, but if high ISO performance is bad then I might just have to wait and see what Nikon brings in near future.
Some reviewers or forum denizens aren't entirely reliable. They are selling/seeking views and clicks - attention,. Looking back to the A7Riii to A7Riv, there were, perhaps still are some who found excessive - personally unusably high noise levels. I'd suggest many, many others find them quite useful. Check a broader selection of reviews, maybe?
Not noise related, kind of interested in why you might want to leave the Z8 and are looking to the A7Rs?
ajamils wrote:
How is the high ISO performance on A7r VI? In some reviews I saw, it was mentioned that due to higher resolution the high ISO performance is quite bad and noise is evident as low as 1600 ISO.
I am considering jumping ship from Z8, but if high ISO performance is bad then I might just have to wait and see what Nikon brings in near future.
iso5000 - why would it be any worse than the Z8 or A1 for that matter?
ajamils wrote:
How is the high ISO performance on A7r VI? In some reviews I saw, it was mentioned that due to higher resolution the high ISO performance is quite bad and noise is evident as low as 1600 ISO.
I am considering jumping ship from Z8, but if high ISO performance is bad then I might just have to wait and see what Nikon brings in near future.
ajamils wrote:
How is the high ISO performance on A7r VI? In some reviews I saw, it was mentioned that due to higher resolution the high ISO performance is quite bad and noise is evident as low as 1600 ISO.
I am considering jumping ship from Z8, but if high ISO performance is bad then I might just have to wait and see what Nikon brings in near future.
You can download raw files across a range of ISO of the test scene from the DPR review, including files from your own camera to inspect and process yourself.
Well not sure but this is quite conclusive even bill claffs results indicate so, best 35mm high resolution sensor with regards to everything bar readout speed ,https://youtu.be/WyhDZL0Sg1I?si=WVr41GcwsUbHs1Oe
Here is one of the reviews that I am referring to.
As for my reason to change, I just want to try something new. In the past I used most sony bodies (including A1) up till A7r4 and then I got Z8 and did not feel the need to change. It not about the "need" but more of a "want" 🙂
Craig Gillette wrote:
Some reviewers or forum denizens aren't entirely reliable. They are selling/seeking views and clicks - attention,. Looking back to the A7Riii to A7Riv, there were, perhaps still are some who found excessive - personally unusably high noise levels. I'd suggest many, many others find them quite useful. Check a broader selection of reviews, maybe?
Not noise related, kind of interested in why you might want to leave the Z8 and are looking to the A7Rs?
Here is one of the reviews that I am referring to.
As for my reason to change, I just want to try something new. In the past I used most sony bodies (including A1) up till A7r4 and then I got Z8 and did not feel the need to change. It not about the "need" but more of a "want" 🙂
I have had no issue with high ISO and when you consider that ultimately you can reduce image size to match the Z8, where it will even be better than the search results that I found. I’ve read elsewhere that high ISO noise levels compete with the A1ii when you downsize the image to 50Mbyte. Here is the evaluation provided by Grok..
Key Lab Metrics (Higher = Better High ISO Noise / Low-Light Performance)
Photons to Photos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) and Low Light ISO (most relevant for high ISO noise; Low Light ISO indicates the highest usable ISO before noise/DR drops below a threshold):
• Sony A7R VI (Mechanical Shutter): Max PDR 12.56 | Low Light ISO 6072 | Low Light EV 10.92
• Sony A7R VI (Electronic Shutter): Max PDR 11.41 | Low Light ISO 5678 | Low Light EV 10.83
• Nikon Z8: Max PDR 11.32 | Low Light ISO 4224 | Low Light EV 10.40
Sony wins decisively:
• ~1.24 stops higher max PDR (mechanical shutter) — exceptional shadow recovery and overall latitude, even rivaling some medium-format cameras.
• Low Light ISO ~44% higher (6072 vs 4224) — roughly +0.5 stops or more advantage in maintaining clean high ISO performance. 
The A7R VI’s advantage is largest at base/low ISOs (thanks to DGO with mechanical shutter) and remains strong through mid-to-high ISOs. Electronic shutter narrows the gap at base ISO (losing ~1+ stop PDR) but stays competitive or better than the Z8 overall.
No full DXOMARK sensor score for the A7R VI appears in current data (it’s a newer 2026 model), but the Photons to Photos results and independent tests align on Sony’s superiority here.
"Wants" as a reason is, or should be, fine. There seem to be some who get bothered by other's "wants." Which is different from looking at "want" for some functionality and perhaps a better approach is being offered.
