Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
p.2 #1Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
DWOfPaul wrote:
It's more complicated than just rolling shutter. Using the electronic shutter removes most of the dynamic range advantage over the a7rV. Also, due to the slowish readout speed, LED banding is much more likely to be an issue, and flash sync speeds are greatly reduced.
I am sure there are still some use cases where the electronic shutter at 30 FPS will be nice to have, but personally I feel like if I pick up the a7rVI I am going to end up using it most of the time with the mechanical shutter.
Yes, suprisingly there still is one stop of dynamic range difference between electronic and mechanical shutter on the Sony A7RVI.
Actually the difference is very minimal in the original A1 (according to DPReview).
Interestingly, even with electronic shutter the dynamic range of the A7RVI is still better than that of the Nikon Z8/Z9.
Edited on Jun 24, 2026 at 04:53 AM · View previous versions
It's more complicated than just rolling shutter. Using the electronic shutter removes most of the dynamic range advantage over the a7rV. Also, due to the slowish readout speed, LED banding is much more likely to be an issue, and flash sync speeds are greatly reduced.
I am sure there are still some use cases where the electronic shutter at 30 FPS will be nice to have, but personally I feel like if I pick up the a7rVI I am going to end up using it most of the time with the mechanical shutter.
Yes, suprisingly there still is one stop of dynamic range difference between electronic and mechanical shutter on the Sony A7RVI.
Actually the difference is very minimal in the original A1 (according to DPReview).
Interestingly, even with electronic shutter the dynamic range of the A7RVI is still better than that of the Nikon Z8/Z9.
Edited on Jun 24, 2026 at 04:53 AM · View previous versions
Jun 24, 2026 at 01:52 AM
p.2 #2Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
DWOfPaul wrote:
The a7rV to a7rVI jump isn't that tempting, but the Z8 to a7rVI definitely is.
Not to forget the clearly better dynamic range of at least a stop of the A7RVI versus the Z8/9 with mechanical shutter.
(Which the Z8/9 unfortunately does not have).
I know Scott is a Nikon fanboy regularly lurking on these Sony pages, he won‘t like to hear this.
The a7rV to a7rVI jump isn't that tempting, but the Z8 to a7rVI definitely is.
Not to forget the clearly better dynamic range of at least a stop of the A7RVI versus the Z8/9 with mechanical shutter.
(Which the Z8/9 unfortunately does not have).
I know Scott is a Nikon fanboy regularly lurking on these Sony pages, he won‘t like to hear this.
Jun 24, 2026 at 03:46 AM
p.2 #3Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
EB-1 wrote:
The sync speed is 1/250th, maybe lower with large strobes. That's rather standard. Am I not understanding the issue?
EBH
My understanding is that is only when using the mechanical shutter:
Flash sync is also limited on the a7R VI. The sync speed is 1/250, compared to 1/400 on the a1 II. More significantly, flash will not work at all when using the electronic shutter on the a7R VI, while the a1 II allows flash sync up to 1/200 with the electronic shutter.
https://fstoppers.com/gear/sony-a7r-vi-somehow-beat-sonys-own-flagship-902281
The sync speed is 1/250th, maybe lower with large strobes. That's rather standard. Am I not understanding the issue?
EBH
My understanding is that is only when using the mechanical shutter:
Flash sync is also limited on the a7R VI. The sync speed is 1/250, compared to 1/400 on the a1 II. More significantly, flash will not work at all when using the electronic shutter on the a7R VI, while the a1 II allows flash sync up to 1/200 with the electronic shutter.
https://fstoppers.com/gear/sony-a7r-vi-somehow-beat-sonys-own-flagship-902281
Jun 24, 2026 at 10:05 AM
p.2 #4Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Knut. wrote:
Interestingly, even with electronic shutter the dynamic range of the A7RVI is still better than that of the Nikon Z8/Z9.
Something to keep in mind is that the Z8/Z9 has a base ISO of 64, while the a7rVI/a1ii uses a base ISO of 100.
At low ISO 100, Sony is about .8 of a stop ahead of Nikon, but compare Sony ISO 100 to Nikon ISO 64, and Sony is ahead by about .1 of a stop. Once we get to ISO 800, Sony keeps about .4 of a stop ahead of Nikon.
Depending on your usage, you may find ISO 64 worth the hit in dynamic range, or you might find it an annoying trade off.
Link:
photonstophotos
Interestingly, even with electronic shutter the dynamic range of the A7RVI is still better than that of the Nikon Z8/Z9.
Something to keep in mind is that the Z8/Z9 has a base ISO of 64, while the a7rVI/a1ii uses a base ISO of 100.
At low ISO 100, Sony is about .8 of a stop ahead of Nikon, but compare Sony ISO 100 to Nikon ISO 64, and Sony is ahead by about .1 of a stop. Once we get to ISO 800, Sony keeps about .4 of a stop ahead of Nikon.
Depending on your usage, you may find ISO 64 worth the hit in dynamic range, or you might find it an annoying trade off.
Link:
photonstophotos
Jun 24, 2026 at 11:02 AM
p.2 #5Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Came across this video from vistek. the pixel level advantage is not as great as one would think it is. Resolution comparison starts around 5:50
https://youtu.be/0-AswjtNaEs?t=351
https://youtu.be/0-AswjtNaEs?t=351
Jun 30, 2026 at 09:36 PM
p.2 #6Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
indusphoto wrote:
Came across this video from vistek. the pixel level advantage is not as great as one would think it is. Resolution comparison starts around 5:50
https://youtu.be/0-AswjtNaEs?t=351
yes i have seen this before with my own tests , id take the 33meg sensor over the 67 anyday of the week for resolution. even the 4k from the a7v has more detail than the 8 k from the a7r6
Came across this video from vistek. the pixel level advantage is not as great as one would think it is. Resolution comparison starts around 5:50
https://youtu.be/0-AswjtNaEs?t=351
yes i have seen this before with my own tests , id take the 33meg sensor over the 67 anyday of the week for resolution. even the 4k from the a7v has more detail than the 8 k from the a7r6
Jul 01, 2026 at 04:58 PM
p.2 #7Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Sharpness in video is a whole other conversation due to things like 1x1 readout, oversampling, and line skipping. So it makes it much harder to compare.
But for photos, especially in low ISO I would expect to get more detail from the a7rVI than the a7V. That's been my experience with my Z8 vs a7rIV. It's also backed up by the DP Review studio comparsion, take a look at the small text:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7v&attr13_1=sony_a7rvi&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=sony_a7rv&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_2=1&attr199_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.6738771321049801&y=0.9685831022909674
(Edit: it looks like you need to copy and paste the link for it to work for some reason)
Edited on Jul 01, 2026 at 06:11 PM · View previous versions
But for photos, especially in low ISO I would expect to get more detail from the a7rVI than the a7V. That's been my experience with my Z8 vs a7rIV. It's also backed up by the DP Review studio comparsion, take a look at the small text:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7v&attr13_1=sony_a7rvi&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=sony_a7rv&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_2=1&attr199_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.6738771321049801&y=0.9685831022909674
(Edit: it looks like you need to copy and paste the link for it to work for some reason)
Edited on Jul 01, 2026 at 06:11 PM · View previous versions
Jul 01, 2026 at 06:06 PM
p.2 #8Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
I like the part where he says a 4 foot print made with a 33MP image would be 8 feet if made with a 67MP image. An authoritative source on matters of resolution.
Jul 01, 2026 at 06:07 PM
p.2 #9Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
DWOfPaul wrote:
Sharpness in video is a whole other conversation due to things like 1x1 readout, oversampling, and line skipping. So it makes it much harder to compare.
But for photos, especially in low ISO I would expect to get more detail from the a7rVI than the a7V. That's been my experience with my Z8 vs a7rIV. It's also backed up by the DP Review studio comparsion, take a look at the small text:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7v&attr13_1=sony_a7rvi&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=sony_a7rv&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_2=1&attr199_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.6738771321049801&y=0.9685831022909674
(Edit: it looks like you need to copy and paste the link for it to work for some reason)
wait till you hit iso 1000
Sharpness in video is a whole other conversation due to things like 1x1 readout, oversampling, and line skipping. So it makes it much harder to compare.
But for photos, especially in low ISO I would expect to get more detail from the a7rVI than the a7V. That's been my experience with my Z8 vs a7rIV. It's also backed up by the DP Review studio comparsion, take a look at the small text:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7v&attr13_1=sony_a7rvi&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=sony_a7rv&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_2=1&attr199_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.6738771321049801&y=0.9685831022909674
(Edit: it looks like you need to copy and paste the link for it to work for some reason)
wait till you hit iso 1000Jul 01, 2026 at 11:36 PM
p.2 #10Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
dclark wrote:
I like the part where he says a 4 foot print made with a 33MP image would be 8 feet if made with a 67MP image. An authoritative source on matters of resolution.
;-)
A lot of people could clarify their understand of this by drawing out the pixel dimension of the sensors they compare.
An old general “rule of thumb” about the value of increasing resolution is that a doubling of MP is usually significant. There’s a lot of fuzziness around applying that “rule,” but a 10% increase is more or less invisible in the real world and it adds very little to, say, potential print width or, conversely, how much your could crop an image and retain the same number of original pixels.
I like the part where he says a 4 foot print made with a 33MP image would be 8 feet if made with a 67MP image. An authoritative source on matters of resolution.
;-)A lot of people could clarify their understand of this by drawing out the pixel dimension of the sensors they compare.
An old general “rule of thumb” about the value of increasing resolution is that a doubling of MP is usually significant. There’s a lot of fuzziness around applying that “rule,” but a 10% increase is more or less invisible in the real world and it adds very little to, say, potential print width or, conversely, how much your could crop an image and retain the same number of original pixels.
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:55 AM
|
p.2 #11Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
A74me wrote:
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000
Are those from in camera JPEGs or Raw files converted to JPEGs with the same processing? I am not seeing the same loss of details using the same link I sent above using a high ISO such as 1,600 or 6,4000.
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000
Are those from in camera JPEGs or Raw files converted to JPEGs with the same processing? I am not seeing the same loss of details using the same link I sent above using a high ISO such as 1,600 or 6,4000.
Jul 02, 2026 at 10:18 AM
p.2 #12Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
DWOfPaul wrote:
Are those from in camera JPEGs or Raw files converted to JPEGs with the same processing? I am not seeing the same loss of details using the same link I sent above using a high ISO such as 1,600 or 6,4000.
They dont use quality heads shots for that very reason.
A74me wrote
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000They dont use quality heads shots for that very reason.
Jul 02, 2026 at 04:02 PM
p.2 #13Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Much simpler is:to double the resolution, quadruple the pixels.
ie, 24MP @ 3:2 aspect is 6000x4000 pixels
Double that is 96MP which is 12000x8000 pixels
One of the easier concepts in digital imaging
ie, 24MP @ 3:2 aspect is 6000x4000 pixels
Double that is 96MP which is 12000x8000 pixels
One of the easier concepts in digital imaging
Jul 02, 2026 at 08:04 PM
p.2 #14Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Choderboy wrote:
Much simpler is:to double the resolution, quadruple the pixels.
ie, 24MP @ 3:2 aspect is 6000x4000 pixels
Double that is 96MP which is 12000x8000 pixels
One of the easier concepts in digital imaging
That's essentially correct. If you made a shot with resolution X and printed at some size, then made the same shot with resolution 4x and printed at that same size, the second image would potentially have twice the number of pixels per inch.
People get confused about this in multiple ways and end up overestimating the value of increases in pixel dimensions.
Another way to look at it is to ask "how would this resolution affect the pixel density of a given print size?" That's pretty easy to do by comparing the pixel width of, say, a 60MP and 67MP sensor... to discover that the difference is vanishingly tiny.
Much simpler is:to double the resolution, quadruple the pixels.
ie, 24MP @ 3:2 aspect is 6000x4000 pixels
Double that is 96MP which is 12000x8000 pixels
One of the easier concepts in digital imaging
That's essentially correct. If you made a shot with resolution X and printed at some size, then made the same shot with resolution 4x and printed at that same size, the second image would potentially have twice the number of pixels per inch.
People get confused about this in multiple ways and end up overestimating the value of increases in pixel dimensions.
Another way to look at it is to ask "how would this resolution affect the pixel density of a given print size?" That's pretty easy to do by comparing the pixel width of, say, a 60MP and 67MP sensor... to discover that the difference is vanishingly tiny.
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:34 PM
p.2 #15Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
DWOfPaul wrote:
Are those from in camera JPEGs or Raw files converted to JPEGs with the same processing? I am not seeing the same loss of details using the same link I sent above using a high ISO such as 1,600 or 6,4000.
Something is fake there since the image from the a7R VI should be physically much larger if taken with the same lens and same distance.
EBH
A74me wrote
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000Something is fake there since the image from the a7R VI should be physically much larger if taken with the same lens and same distance.
EBH
Jul 02, 2026 at 10:26 PM
p.2 #16Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
dclark wrote:
I like the part where he says a 4 foot print made with a 33MP image would be 8 feet if made with a 67MP image. An authoritative source on matters of resolution.
gdanmitchell wrote:
;-)
A lot of people could clarify their understand of this by drawing out the pixel dimension of the sensors they compare.
An old general “rule of thumb” about the value of increasing resolution is that a doubling of MP is usually significant. There’s a lot of fuzziness around applying that “rule,” but a 10% increase is more or less invisible in the real world and it adds very little to, say, potential print width or, conversely, how much your could crop an image and retain the same number of original pixels.
I think dclark's point is that anyone with any ounce of math brain will at least correspond 8 feet with 132-134MP instead of 67MP. Saying 4ft with 33MP having the same resolution as 8ft with 67MP just costs the guy his entire credibility on the subject.
I like the part where he says a 4 foot print made with a 33MP image would be 8 feet if made with a 67MP image. An authoritative source on matters of resolution.
gdanmitchell wrote:
;-)A lot of people could clarify their understand of this by drawing out the pixel dimension of the sensors they compare.
An old general “rule of thumb” about the value of increasing resolution is that a doubling of MP is usually significant. There’s a lot of fuzziness around applying that “rule,” but a 10% increase is more or less invisible in the real world and it adds very little to, say, potential print width or, conversely, how much your could crop an image and retain the same number of original pixels.
I think dclark's point is that anyone with any ounce of math brain will at least correspond 8 feet with 132-134MP instead of 67MP. Saying 4ft with 33MP having the same resolution as 8ft with 67MP just costs the guy his entire credibility on the subject.
Jul 02, 2026 at 11:18 PM
p.2 #17Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
When Nikon D800 was first released, it was a 3x pixel increase from Nikon's previous camera. A lot of people had to adjust their technique (and lenses) to get the most details out of that resolution. I have no doubt that casual shooting will not yield much more benefit out of 60-67MP sensors over 24-33mp sensors. Also there is always the case of diminishing returns. Increasing resolution 2x will not get you 2x more details.
Jul 02, 2026 at 11:39 PM
p.2 #18Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
EB-1 wrote:
Are those from in camera JPEGs or Raw files converted to JPEGs with the same processing? I am not seeing the same loss of details using the same link I sent above using a high ISO such as 1,600 or 6,4000.Something is fake there since the image from the a7R VI should be physically much larger if taken with the same lens and same distance.
EBH
nothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top.
DWOfPaul wrote
A74me wrote
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000EBH
nothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top.
Jul 03, 2026 at 01:47 AM
p.2 #19Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Higher resolution = lower false colour.
Jul 05, 2026 at 12:57 PM
p.2 #20Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Has anyone tried some mechanical shutter "high speed" subject shots to offer for comparison?
Jul 05, 2026 at 06:28 PM