Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
p.3 #1Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
the biggest drawback to the Z8, is it's size, and it's AF. Like others mentioned in this thread, the A7V 33mp has been a sweet spot. Mechanical shutter, even at 10fps has been plenty.
Jul 05, 2026 at 08:02 PM
p.3 #2Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
More and more often the mechanical shutter is uncool or even not allowed.
EBH
EBH
Jul 05, 2026 at 08:27 PM
p.3 #3Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
A74me 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.
EBHnothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top.
Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera.
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBH
EB-1 wrote
DWOfPaul wrote
A74me wrote
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000EBH
Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera.
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
Jul 05, 2026 at 10:37 PM
p.3 #4Don'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.
EBHnothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top.Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBH
lower iso
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
DWOfPaul wrote
A74me wrote
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000EBH
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
lower iso
Jul 06, 2026 at 03:16 AM
p.3 #5Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
EB-1 wrote:
More and more often the mechanical shutter is uncool ...
EBH
😂😂😂😂YMMD
Jul 06, 2026 at 04:44 AM
p.3 #6Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
A74me 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.
EBHnothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top.Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBHlower iso
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.
EB-1 wrote
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
DWOfPaul wrote
A74me wrote
https://i.postimg.cc/HkshrSNq/screenshot-2025.png wait till you hit iso 1000EBH
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.
Jul 06, 2026 at 06:09 AM
p.3 #7Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
EBHnothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top.Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBHlower iso
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpgIn this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this...Show more →
exactly, its the whole point, if the setttings were reversed do you think the images would compare any different.
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
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.EBH
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this...Show more →
exactly, its the whole point, if the setttings were reversed do you think the images would compare any different.
Jul 06, 2026 at 03:56 PM
p.3 #8Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
A74me wrote:
EBHnothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top.Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBHlower iso
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpgIn this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.exactly, its the whole point, if the setttings were reversed do you think the images would compare any different.
I have no idea. Which settings were reversed? These shots are different in five different ways. It is not a controlled comparison. If the whole point of the post is to present a confusing comparison in which we can't know what is going on, then you succeeded, but if you have a different point then I don't see that different point.
Edited on Jul 06, 2026 at 05:10 PM · View previous versions
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
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
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.
I have no idea. Which settings were reversed? These shots are different in five different ways. It is not a controlled comparison. If the whole point of the post is to present a confusing comparison in which we can't know what is going on, then you succeeded, but if you have a different point then I don't see that different point.
Edited on Jul 06, 2026 at 05:10 PM · View previous versions
Jul 06, 2026 at 05:08 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #9Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
What the hell is this thread 
Jul 06, 2026 at 05:08 PM
p.3 #10Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
RoamingScott wrote:
What the hell is this thread
Just got a little tangled...
What the hell is this thread
Just got a little tangled...
Jul 06, 2026 at 05:36 PM
|
p.3 #11Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
RoamingScott wrote:
What the hell is this thread
Meanwhile, elsewhere RoamingScott wrote:
Hey look,,,, And added nothing of value, again.
;-)
Also, I think these photos are scaring me a little bit... ;-)
- - -
Back to the "cropability" topic:
A7rV pixel dimensions are 9504 x 6336
A7rvi peel dimensions are 9984 × 6656
That's 480 pixels more in the long dimension.
If you made an native resolution print at 360 psi from the A7rv its width would be 26.4".
If you made a native resolution ring at 360 psi from the A7rvi its width would be 27.73".
Two ways to look at that:
1. You could make a print about 5% larger on the horizontal dimension, or...
2. You could crop about that much from the A7rvi with the same pixel dimensions.
It is something, I guess. But it sure isn't much. :-)
Edited on Jul 06, 2026 at 08:55 PM · View previous versions
What the hell is this thread
Meanwhile, elsewhere RoamingScott wrote:
Hey look,,,, And added nothing of value, again.
;-)
Also, I think these photos are scaring me a little bit... ;-)
- - -
Back to the "cropability" topic:
A7rV pixel dimensions are 9504 x 6336
A7rvi peel dimensions are 9984 × 6656
That's 480 pixels more in the long dimension.
If you made an native resolution print at 360 psi from the A7rv its width would be 26.4".
If you made a native resolution ring at 360 psi from the A7rvi its width would be 27.73".
Two ways to look at that:
1. You could make a print about 5% larger on the horizontal dimension, or...
2. You could crop about that much from the A7rvi with the same pixel dimensions.
It is something, I guess. But it sure isn't much. :-)
Edited on Jul 06, 2026 at 08:55 PM · View previous versions
Jul 06, 2026 at 05:42 PM
p.3 #12Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Steve Spencer wrote:
Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBHlower iso
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpgIn this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.exactly, its the whole point, if the setttings were reversed do you think the images would compare any different.I have no idea. Which settings were reversed? These shots are different in five different ways. It is not a controlled comparison. If the whole point of the post is to present a confusing comparison in which we can't know what is going on, then you succeeded, but if you have a different point then I don't see that different point.
switched lens, altered iso, my comparrision is reality, if i was shooting an event with 2 camera setup do you think the larger pixel count is going to alow for more cropping 🤔 its not period. do you think i could use just the 28 75 g2 on a a7r5/6 and its going to be a better set up than using both the 70 180 + 28 75, because thats what everyone bangs on about 🤔 the whole argument of cropping is only relevent when im using a fixed lens compact kit like the x100vi ,for real world use the digital crop mode on that camera is excelent and even at 70mm EQ printed at A4 compared to my a7iv full length portraits there is no visable difference in image quality. no one is looking with a 3x loupe.
A74me wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
A74me wrote
nothing fake ,you just havnt looked at the zoom magnifacation number at the top. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.
switched lens, altered iso, my comparrision is reality, if i was shooting an event with 2 camera setup do you think the larger pixel count is going to alow for more cropping 🤔 its not period. do you think i could use just the 28 75 g2 on a a7r5/6 and its going to be a better set up than using both the 70 180 + 28 75, because thats what everyone bangs on about 🤔 the whole argument of cropping is only relevent when im using a fixed lens compact kit like the x100vi ,for real world use the digital crop mode on that camera is excelent and even at 70mm EQ printed at A4 compared to my a7iv full length portraits there is no visable difference in image quality. no one is looking with a 3x loupe.
Jul 06, 2026 at 06:15 PM
p.3 #13Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
A74me wrote:
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBHlower iso
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpgIn this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.exactly, its the whole point, if the setttings were reversed do you think the images would compare any different.I have no idea. Which settings were reversed? These shots are different in five different ways. It is not a controlled comparison. If the whole point of the post is to present a confusing comparison in which we can't know what is going on, then you succeeded, but if you have a different point then I don't see that different point.switched lens, altered iso, my comparrision is reality, if i was shooting an event with 2 camera setup do you think the larger pixel count is going to alow for more cropping 🤔 its not period. do you think i could use just the 28 75 g2 on a a7r5/6 and its going to be a better set up than using both the 70 180 + 28 75, because thats what everyone bangs on about 🤔 the whole argument of cropping is only relevent when im using a fixed lens compact kit like the x100vi ,for real world use the...Show more →
Correct..no advantage with regards to cropping. Lots of other advantages should the differences matter to you and how you use the camera. This is just another iterative ‘R’ update with many small upgrades like autofocus/tracking, EVF, battery capacity, pre-capture..etc.
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.
Correct..no advantage with regards to cropping. Lots of other advantages should the differences matter to you and how you use the camera. This is just another iterative ‘R’ update with many small upgrades like autofocus/tracking, EVF, battery capacity, pre-capture..etc.
Jul 06, 2026 at 06:24 PM
p.3 #14Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Despite sounding like a lot more pixels than the A1 (11) we are only talking ~15% larger image on side, so hardly earth shattering. Meaningful increase will be seen when we hit ~80MP. While as a birder more pixels is welcome generally, 67MP is not enough to move the needle on resolution to dump an A1.
Jul 06, 2026 at 07:08 PM
p.3 #15Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
If anything, I found the Z8's results crisper than my A7RV. I remember seeing a video of a side-by-side comparison where diffraction became noticeable much earlier on the higher res body, around f/8 vs f/11.
In my use case, Z8's speed was reason for ditching A7RV. Everything about it just feels instant. The responsiveness, near-instant startup, blazing-fast sensor readout and overall operation. Those are things you notice every time you pick up the camera
The returns also diminish beyond roughly 20mp on Micro Four Thirds, 27 on APS-C and around 50 on full frame. To this day, the 42mp A7R II/III have a bit of a cult following.
Sharp and well corrected budget lenses of today, and massive improvements in software has narrowed the gap even further.
In my use case, Z8's speed was reason for ditching A7RV. Everything about it just feels instant. The responsiveness, near-instant startup, blazing-fast sensor readout and overall operation. Those are things you notice every time you pick up the camera
The returns also diminish beyond roughly 20mp on Micro Four Thirds, 27 on APS-C and around 50 on full frame. To this day, the 42mp A7R II/III have a bit of a cult following.
Sharp and well corrected budget lenses of today, and massive improvements in software has narrowed the gap even further.
Jul 06, 2026 at 07:45 PM
p.3 #16Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
A74me wrote:
There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files.
EBHlower iso
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpgIn this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.exactly, its the whole point, if the setttings were reversed do you think the images would compare any different.I have no idea. Which settings were reversed? These shots are different in five different ways. It is not a controlled comparison. If the whole point of the post is to present a confusing comparison in which we can't know what is going on, then you succeeded, but if you have a different point then I don't see that different point.switched lens, altered iso, my comparrision is reality, if i was shooting an event with 2 camera setup do you think the larger pixel count is going to alow for more cropping 🤔 its not period. do you think i could use just the 28 75 g2 on a a7r5/6 and its going to be a better set up than using both the 70 180 + 28 75, because thats what everyone bangs on about 🤔 the whole argument of cropping is only relevent when im using a fixed lens compact kit like the x100vi ,for real world use the...Show more →
I have never seen anyone make the argument that you would be better off with one hi res camera with a 28-75mm lens than a two camera set up one camera with a 28-75 and one camera with a 70-180. Congratulations! That is some straw man you created. Yes, if anyone made that argument it would be a bad argument. It is just that no one here, or I doubt anywhere else is making that argument.
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
EB-1 wrote
Now they are throwing in various interpolations per camera. There are too many variables. I'd want to examine the raw files. EBH
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.
I have never seen anyone make the argument that you would be better off with one hi res camera with a 28-75mm lens than a two camera set up one camera with a 28-75 and one camera with a 70-180. Congratulations! That is some straw man you created. Yes, if anyone made that argument it would be a bad argument. It is just that no one here, or I doubt anywhere else is making that argument.
Jul 06, 2026 at 07:59 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #17Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
It’s really funny because he showed up on FM claiming he was the most talented macro photographer alive (literally). What a character.
Steve Spencer wrote:
https://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpgIn this comparison the lenses differ (and it looks to me as if the exposure is slightly different too, which perhaps isn't surprising because the lenses differ), making it impossible to know if the differences are due to the cameras being different or the lenses being different.
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.exactly, its the whole point, if the setttings were reversed do you think the images would compare any different.I have no idea. Which settings were reversed? These shots are different in five different ways. It is not a controlled comparison. If the whole point of the post is to present a confusing comparison in which we can't know what is going on, then you succeeded, but if you have a different point then I don't see that different point.switched lens, altered iso, my comparrision is reality, if i was shooting an event with 2 camera setup do you think the larger pixel count is going to alow for more cropping 🤔 its not period. do you think i could use just the 28 75 g2 on a a7r5/6 and its going to be a better set up than using both the 70 180 + 28 75, because thats what everyone bangs on about 🤔 the whole argument of cropping is only relevent when im using a fixed lens compact kit like the x100vi ,for real world use the digital crop mode on that camera is excelent and even at 70mm EQ printed at A4 compared to my a7iv full length portraits there is no visable difference in image quality. no one is looking with a 3x loupe.I have never seen anyone make the argument that you would be better off with one hi res camera with a 28-75mm lens than a two camera set up one camera with a 28-75 and one camera with a 70-180. Congratulations! That is some straw man you created. Yes, if anyone made that argument it would be a bad argument. It is just that no one here, or I doubt anywhere else is making that argument.
Steve Spencer wrote:
A74me wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
A74me wrote
lower isohttps://i.postimg.cc/mk5VdWbs/screenshot-2025.jpg
In addition, one shot is a RAW file and the other shot is a jpg and if it is an in camera jpg then the files have different processing.
Finally, the different images are presented at the same size and we have no information about how they were downsized to match in this way. The A7r V produces more pixels, so how was it downsized to match the size of the A7r IV? It appears that the poster just opened a RAW file and let the operating system downsize the file. This does not even come close to optimizing the downsizing of the larger file. When downsizing is optimized it might produce a much better image.
There are differences in ISO and white balance as well.
So any differences between the shots could be the different cameras, the different lenses, the different processing of the files, the different downsampling of the images, the difference ISO, or the different white balances. This comparison simply isn't well enough controlled to know what is going on.
Jul 06, 2026 at 08:05 PM
p.3 #18Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Despite sounding like a lot more pixels than the A1 (11) we are only talking ~15% larger image on side, so hardly earth shattering. Meaningful increase will be seen when we hit ~80MP. While as a birder more pixels is welcome generally, 67MP is not enough to move the needle on resolution to dump an A1.
Also, do keep in mind that as we see higher and higher MP values, it takes a larger absolute increase in pixels to produce the same relative advantage.
Going from 60MP t0 80MP is no more valuable than going from 6MP to 8 MP. (And given the high quality of the starting point of the higher res example, the effect is likely even less significant.)
And... the higher the MP count, the fewer photographers will find that the increases are critical.
That said, I believe that camera companies will and should continue to advance sensor technology, including resolution — though the meaning of the advances to our photography will change. As long as resolution can be increased while maintaining noise performance, DR, available ISOs, and (inflation-adjusted_) price, why not?
- - -
Outstanding wrote:
If anything, I found the Z8's results crisper than my A7RV. I remember seeing a video of a side-by-side comparison where diffraction became noticeable much earlier on the higher res body, around f/8 vs f/11.
What follows is not meant as a criticism of he Nikon camera, which I hear people speak very highly of.
However, diffraction does not become visible "much earlier on a higher res body." The onset of diffraction blur occurs at the exact same rate on any body and any lens. Diffraction is an optical phenomenon that affects all sense equally as they are stopped down. It is not affected by sensor resolution at all.
If you reproduced images from lower and higher MP sensor cameras at the same size, the diffraction would be exactly the same.
The false claims that diffraction becomes visible sooner on higher res bodies are due to a mistake by those making the claim. They are looking at 100% crops from both images. But the 100% crop from the higher MP example is a smaller area of the sensor than that of the lower res sensor. They are looking at a more magnified version of the image from the low res sensor.
There is no diffraction disadvantage from a higher MP sensor. In fact, there is a potential advantage. With a lens that performs very well at the diffraction-limited aperture, the higher res camera may have slightly better resolution as you open up a bit more.
That's a small advantage for the higher res camera in terms of diffraction, not a liability.
Despite sounding like a lot more pixels than the A1 (11) we are only talking ~15% larger image on side, so hardly earth shattering. Meaningful increase will be seen when we hit ~80MP. While as a birder more pixels is welcome generally, 67MP is not enough to move the needle on resolution to dump an A1.
Also, do keep in mind that as we see higher and higher MP values, it takes a larger absolute increase in pixels to produce the same relative advantage.
Going from 60MP t0 80MP is no more valuable than going from 6MP to 8 MP. (And given the high quality of the starting point of the higher res example, the effect is likely even less significant.)
And... the higher the MP count, the fewer photographers will find that the increases are critical.
That said, I believe that camera companies will and should continue to advance sensor technology, including resolution — though the meaning of the advances to our photography will change. As long as resolution can be increased while maintaining noise performance, DR, available ISOs, and (inflation-adjusted_) price, why not?
- - -
Outstanding wrote:
If anything, I found the Z8's results crisper than my A7RV. I remember seeing a video of a side-by-side comparison where diffraction became noticeable much earlier on the higher res body, around f/8 vs f/11.
What follows is not meant as a criticism of he Nikon camera, which I hear people speak very highly of.
However, diffraction does not become visible "much earlier on a higher res body." The onset of diffraction blur occurs at the exact same rate on any body and any lens. Diffraction is an optical phenomenon that affects all sense equally as they are stopped down. It is not affected by sensor resolution at all.
If you reproduced images from lower and higher MP sensor cameras at the same size, the diffraction would be exactly the same.
The false claims that diffraction becomes visible sooner on higher res bodies are due to a mistake by those making the claim. They are looking at 100% crops from both images. But the 100% crop from the higher MP example is a smaller area of the sensor than that of the lower res sensor. They are looking at a more magnified version of the image from the low res sensor.
There is no diffraction disadvantage from a higher MP sensor. In fact, there is a potential advantage. With a lens that performs very well at the diffraction-limited aperture, the higher res camera may have slightly better resolution as you open up a bit more.
That's a small advantage for the higher res camera in terms of diffraction, not a liability.
Jul 06, 2026 at 08:54 PM
p.3 #19Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
MikeEvangelist wrote:
RoamingScott wrote
What the hell is this thread There's a lot of "bait" on some of those lines.
Jul 06, 2026 at 09:29 PM
p.3 #20Don't buy the a7Rvi for more cropability...I told myself
gdanmitchell wrote:
Also, do keep in mind that as we see higher and higher MP values, it takes a larger absolute increase in pixels to produce the same relative advantage.
Going from 60MP t0 80MP is no more valuable than going from 6MP to 8 MP. (And given the high quality of the starting point of the higher res example, the effect is likely even less significant.)
And... the higher the MP count, the fewer photographers will find that the increases are critical.
That said, I believe that camera companies will and should continue to advance sensor technology, including resolution — though the meaning of...Show more →
For us birders it's all about cropability. 50MP to 80MP is noticeable jump with 27% larger image size. 100MP would effectively be a 1.4x TC when FL limited. For landscape and such, I stopped worrying about resolution when I got the 5DsR. Anything over 40MP is good enough for me.
Pixel Perfect wrote
Despite sounding like a lot more pixels than the A1 (11) we are only talking ~15% larger image on side, so hardly earth shattering. Meaningful increase will be seen when we hit ~80MP. While as a birder more pixels is welcome generally, 67MP is not enough to move the needle on resolution to dump an A1.Going from 60MP t0 80MP is no more valuable than going from 6MP to 8 MP. (And given the high quality of the starting point of the higher res example, the effect is likely even less significant.)
And... the higher the MP count, the fewer photographers will find that the increases are critical.
That said, I believe that camera companies will and should continue to advance sensor technology, including resolution — though the meaning of...Show more →
For us birders it's all about cropability. 50MP to 80MP is noticeable jump with 27% larger image size. 100MP would effectively be a 1.4x TC when FL limited. For landscape and such, I stopped worrying about resolution when I got the 5DsR. Anything over 40MP is good enough for me.
Jul 06, 2026 at 09:53 PM