p.5 #1 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
arbitrage wrote:
I still don't think a confirmed number for the readout speed is out there. One of these numbers may be the correct one but people are just using things like A7RV being 1/10s (which isn't true in every mode).
I looked back at Kasson's testing for the A7RIV and I assume the A7RV was the same.
His testing found 1/10s when using Uncompressed RAW with Single shot.
But he got 1/20s using Lossy Compressed, ES and AF-C.
So if we apply Sony's 5.6x number to 1/20s then we would get 8.9ms which is fairly decent for birds.
That is a lot faster than if you do the math most reviews are doing of 1/10s x 5.6 only giving 17.8ms.
So until someone actually tests this camera ( @snapsy@ ) then we won't really know how fast it scans when in Lossy Compressed, AF-C which is where it matters anyways as that is how you get to 30FPS and would shoot fast action.
Excellent question, add in the 1,5x crop if you are focal length limited anyway, and things might start to look good for those that need pixels-per-duck.
Did anybody ever measure whether readout speed improved significantly in crop mode on the a7r V? Or other Sony cameras?
It should because when shooting 8K24 video, which is a slight crop, the rolling shutter goes down to 13.6 ms.
It would be nice if there are ways to get things down to say, 10 ms. The original a9 was at 6-7 ms.
p.5 #4 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
Stoffer wrote:
Excellent question, add in the 1,5x crop if you are focal length limited anyway, and things might start to look good for those that need pixels-per-duck.
Did anybody ever measure whether readout speed improved significantly in crop mode on the a7r V? Or other Sony cameras?
It should because when shooting 8K24 video, which is a slight crop, the rolling shutter goes down to 13.6 ms.
It would be nice if there are ways to get things down to say, 10 ms. The original a9 was at 6-7 ms.
In the Kasson article he had 1/30s for APS-C mode in Lossy Compressed AF-C.
This is simply because it is the time measured to scan that smaller area (height) of sensor.
This is also why even with a slow scanning camera if your subject is small in the frame you may not see any wing distortion because the wing is covering such a small area of the sensor that the scan rate for that small area is short enough to avoid the distortion.
p.5 #5 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
tschopp wrote:
I interpreted the 5.6x that Sony stated as the pixel readout rate. So when you factor the resolution increase, the A7rV time of 100ms translates to 20ms on the a7rvi. I did see some tests that measured it.
I didn’t see any specific results for lossy compressed. That might be 10ms if it follows the pattern on the Rv.
If that is what they meant then the numbers of 19.6ms may be correct. That would be too slow for me to rely on the camera for all my action work and if I can't rely on a camera to not have wing distortion and leaning lines in my backgrounds then it isn't a camera for me.
If it is 10ms in Compressed then that may be okay. With my R5 I got a lot of leaning lines and sometimes minor wing distortion. The R5 was right at the border of my tolerance level for the risk of distortion. It was 1/60s (16.3ms). But even with the much faster A9/A9II I often saw the annoying leaning lines in the background.
p.5 #6 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
arbitrage wrote:
In the Kasson article he had 1/30s for APS-C mode in Lossy Compressed AF-C.
This is simply because it is the time measured to scan that smaller area (height) of sensor.
This is also why even with a slow scanning camera if your subject is small in the frame you may not see any wing distortion because the wing is covering such a small area of the sensor that the scan rate for that small area is short enough to avoid the distortion.
That is a good point...
Also, in the comments to his video, Jan Wegener wrote:
"I found it quite interesting that the readout is set to be so slow, yet when I Shot with the camera it felt way faster. Maybe different modes have different speeds? A1 II is definitely way faster but I did not struggle with RS much in this body, which is odd given the numbers circling around"
I think he was using compressed Raw so that might have improved things slightly? And maybe he didn't capture that many BIF or was lookking for rolling shutter problems much. Who knows...
p.5 #7 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
Arka wrote:
That is a heck of a spec-sheet. What does this leave for the A1? I was an early adopter on the classic A1 and still absolutely adore that now "classic" camera, but this A7R6 really does tick all the boxes that I felt was lacking on the original A1...
Arka C.
A sensor readout around 20ms is very solid for general photography and slower moving subjects, and it is a meaningful step forward compared to the A7RV's roughly ~100ms readout, which is about 5 - 6 times slower. But, while this is a welcome improvement, it still does not come close to the performance of stacked sensor bodies like the A9 or A1 series, which are designed specifically for fast action and minimal rolling shutter. I see it as a nice improvement for the A7R series, and it would be great to see Sony bring the same sensor and processor to a future A7CR II.
p.5 #8 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
Seems like a great camera. If it was $5000, I would have instantly written it off, but at $4500, it's painful but still within consideration.
I got a A7V a few months ago, and it's like an A7V with higher res and dual CF Express A slots, and a better burst buffer.
So I don't know... I'll give it some thought.
The 100-400 seems like a great field sports lens, so I'm for sure gonna grab that once the funds allow and soccer season rolls around again for the kiddos.
p.5 #9 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
I think that Yan Wagener video kind of confirms a lot of my gripes with Sony high MPX cameras, and it doesn't seem to go away with the A7R6: namely that at high ISO, a lot of the resolution advantage disappears.
Generally on the R4, I hesitate to push ISO above 1600. It's very much a 'daylight' camera for me.
p.5 #10 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
nineblade wrote:
I think that Yan Wagener video kind of confirms a lot of my gripes with Sony high MPX cameras, and it doesn't seem to go away with the A7R6: namely that at high ISO, a lot of the resolution advantage disappears.
Generally on the R4, I hesitate to push ISO above 1600. It's very much a 'daylight' camera for me.
I'm not sure I understand this... I guess I need to watch his video to get the context, but I shoot high iso regularly, and consider the my RV ISO invariant up to ISO 320?
If I remember my maths right and the photon's to photo's results right, it's something like ISO320 to ISO6400 is about where you want your auto ISO to top out
ISO 6400 gives about 7 stops of dynamic range, not great but not a horrible match for old school for a jpg at least... Not sure how other camera's stack up, but if shooting at F8 with zooms at 1/2500th for something like birding, even in bright Florida sun, you are probably letting the ISO roam pretty far up there if you want to keep the shadows and the whites both, it's not easy but doable.
The new RVI is supposed to be about the same or a hair better, that sounds good to me, no? I don't think ANY camera's out there are giving full DR at those high ISO's, or am I missing something?
p.5 #11 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
Any formal measures on the high ISO noise? Seems improved over the V. Might be better at ISO 1600 compared to the A7RIII for astrolandscape at least for the foregrounds, but am not sure. I often shoot at ISO 3200 for the stars unless on a tracker.
p.5 #12 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
I'm not sure how I feel about this camera. Not saying it won't be fantastic, but I wonder how many A7V owners are ecstatic about upgrading.
Personally, having the A1ii, the A7R line isn't a huge interest for me, but I could open up my wallet for an A7CRii. The IQ, AF system, resolution, and form factor of the A7CR is hard to beat. I'd accept even a modest upgrade without increasing physical size.
p.5 #13 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
MMP wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about this camera. Not saying it won't be fantastic, but I wonder how many A7V owners are ecstatic about upgrading.
Personally, having the A1ii, the A7R line isn't a huge interest for me, but I could open up my wallet for an A7CRii. The IQ, AF system, resolution, and form factor of the A7CR is hard to beat. I'd accept even a modest upgrade without increasing physical size.
I'd switch to a CR or CRii if they removed the shutter speed limitation and was full mech, not just EFCS.
p.5 #14 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
MMP wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about this camera. Not saying it won't be fantastic, but I wonder how many A7V owners are ecstatic about upgrading.
Personally, having the A1ii, the A7R line isn't a huge interest for me, but I could open up my wallet for an A7CRii. The IQ, AF system, resolution, and form factor of the A7CR is hard to beat. I'd accept even a modest upgrade without increasing physical size.
Just a rough guess as we're in perhaps broadly different interest sets, budget levels, etc., etc. I'd think A7v buyers are quite happy to have moved up or grabbed one as a "first." I'd think a recent (aren't they all?) A7v buyer probably wasn't looking to the A7Rvi and it's "Coming soon!" rumors, more looking back to the "oldish" A7iv and wondering just how long would they suffer.. I kind of look at the A7iv as being closer to the A7iii/A7Riv, so a move to the A7v is kind of a double jump, the A7Rv took a big part of the improvement past the A7Riv, so a smaller jump to the A7Rvi.
I think the A7Cs, without a full mechanical shutter, is very much not unusable, but the new sensor and/or full mech shutter is perhaps a really interesting to potential new or upgrade buyers to the A7C series.
Not mentioned in the article, but I've read that the ~20ms sensor readout speed is based on 14-bit RAW. With 12-bit RAW, the readout is supposedly much faster. Is that actually true?
May 15, 2026 at 01:48 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #17 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not mentioned in the article, but I've read that the ~20ms sensor readout speed is based on 14-bit RAW. With 12-bit RAW, the readout is supposedly much faster. Is that actually true?
I don't think we know yet. I am sure snapsy will do the tests at some point and we will see. I expect it to be somewhat faster, but still not get anywhere near the speed of cameras with fast DRAM built into the chip. I have not seen any reports of tests with lossy compressed files. Those are the tests we need.
p.5 #18 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
It seems like the A1 series is optimised for moving subjects and the A7R series is optimised for resolution. I guess the question is, is the A1 series as good at relatively still photos (landscapes, events, portraits, etc) as the A7Rs? I haven’t seen the answer to that question in any of the reviews I’ve seen, which have mostly been done on JPEGs. The experts did not have access to the latest Sony software for processing the raws and the compatible Adobe,DXO etc software is yet to come.
Even the dpreview comparison seems a bit rushed. Does the new viewfinder not help, eg?
p.5 #19 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not mentioned in the article, but I've read that the ~20ms sensor readout speed is based on 14-bit RAW. With 12-bit RAW, the readout is supposedly much faster. Is that actually true?
In my experience shooting family gatherings and children and taking cameras traveling into museums, markets, and on the street, especially at night, using electronic shutter with a camera other than an A1xx or A9xx results in unexpectedly ruined pictures from two sources: LED lights and subject distortion when a moderately moving subject is close to the lens and/or occupies a large part of the frame.
This will certainly vary for different people and shooting styles, but for me it means I have mostly given up using silent shutter on my A7CR bodies. This is a loss, but I still like the size and form factor of the A7CR enough to give up silent shutter in order to use the camera. I do wish Sony could at least make the mechanical shutter in the A7CR quieter. It is among the loudest of Sony's shutters, and that doesn't help when one is trying to shoot discreetly.
I do think there would be a real market for a camera body of modest size, with a genuinely fast stacked sensor, a good viewfinder, excellent AF and IBIS, and without a high FPS rate.
It would be a photographer's camera in the same way the Leica M series cameras are, though with a different design and technological philosophy.
It is surprising to me that there is no camera like this on the market.
p.5 #20 · Official: Sony A7RVI and Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS
Goodrich wrote:
It seems like the A1 series is optimised for moving subjects and the A7R series is optimised for resolution. I guess the question is, is the A1 series as good at relatively still photos (landscapes, events, portraits, etc) as the A7Rs? I haven’t seen the answer to that question in any of the reviews I’ve seen, which have mostly been done on JPEGs. The experts did not have access to the latest Sony software for processing the raws and the compatible Adobe,DXO etc software is yet to come.
Even the dpreview comparison seems a bit rushed. Does the new viewfinder not help, eg?
...Show more →
I agree that many of the reviews from the big names felt rushed, but I wonder how in-depth Sony allowed them to go.
When it comes to RAWs, I believe they were limited because the editing software isn't yet supporting those files. My guess is that we'll see comparable or slightly worse noise handling as compared to the A1ii, if for no other reason than the higher megapixel count. For stills of static subjects, I doubt there is going to be a practical difference outside of the extra cropping ability.
