The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
p.5 #1The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
The link below has a few consecutive frames from some tern sequences - and these are with lossless compressed - which some claim means only 30 af calculations per second.
My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.
https://duncangroenewald.com/pages/collections/2026-07-12-terns.html
My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.
https://duncangroenewald.com/pages/collections/2026-07-12-terns.html
Jul 12, 2026 at 10:53 PM
p.5 #2The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
The a7rVI has the highest resolution of any full frame camera, and possibly the best dynamic range of any full frame camera, but most of the innovation seems to be around the electronic shutter, which is to slow for quickly moving subjects and negates the dynamic range advantage of a $4,500 camera.
Any amplifier generates electronic, or thermal, noise. To read the sensor faster, the amplifier has to operate over a wider bandwidth. A wider bandwidth introduces more noise, and if everything else stays the same, that higher read noise reduces the sensor's dynamic range.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
At a fundamental level, image quality and speed are competing priorities. If you optimize for resolution, dynamic range, and low noise, you give up speed.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I even find it strange that Sony does not put their best AF on a $4,500 camera.
The A7R VI uses a single BIONZ XR chip. You need dual BIONZ XR chips to achieve 120 AF calculations per second, and at that point the bill of materials may be close to that of the A1 II. Even if Sony put dual BIONZ XR chips into the A7R VI, it still wouldn't be a good sports camera because the sensor is optimized for image quality, not speed.
If you look at Canon, the R5ii's autofocus is not as good as the R1 either.
DWOfPaul wrote:
For example, I wish Sony had added a 15 FPS mechanical shutter to the a7rVI, then we could truly gain speed and dynamic range over the a7rV.
You are assuming it's possible to do dual gain readouts and the DGO processing at 15 fps. Logically, reading the sensor out twice would take at least twice as long, if not more.
The a7rVI has the highest resolution of any full frame camera, and possibly the best dynamic range of any full frame camera, but most of the innovation seems to be around the electronic shutter, which is to slow for quickly moving subjects and negates the dynamic range advantage of a $4,500 camera.
Any amplifier generates electronic, or thermal, noise. To read the sensor faster, the amplifier has to operate over a wider bandwidth. A wider bandwidth introduces more noise, and if everything else stays the same, that higher read noise reduces the sensor's dynamic range.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
At a fundamental level, image quality and speed are competing priorities. If you optimize for resolution, dynamic range, and low noise, you give up speed.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I even find it strange that Sony does not put their best AF on a $4,500 camera.
The A7R VI uses a single BIONZ XR chip. You need dual BIONZ XR chips to achieve 120 AF calculations per second, and at that point the bill of materials may be close to that of the A1 II. Even if Sony put dual BIONZ XR chips into the A7R VI, it still wouldn't be a good sports camera because the sensor is optimized for image quality, not speed.
If you look at Canon, the R5ii's autofocus is not as good as the R1 either.
DWOfPaul wrote:
For example, I wish Sony had added a 15 FPS mechanical shutter to the a7rVI, then we could truly gain speed and dynamic range over the a7rV.
You are assuming it's possible to do dual gain readouts and the DGO processing at 15 fps. Logically, reading the sensor out twice would take at least twice as long, if not more.
Jul 13, 2026 at 12:56 AM
p.5 #3The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Agree particularly with the 200-600's short zoom throw and near parfocal.
For the first few years after release, I could have bought 2 x Sony 200-600 and have change compared to buying EF 100-500.
(I'm in Australia, so, Australian prices matter to me).
So much for the higher price complaint.
Batteries are much cheaper, TC much cheaper, all lenses I'm interested are cheaper than Canon equivalents.
(I don't pay a lot of attention to Nikon)
There have been a few instances of front element coming loose on the 200-600 but usually that's been a simple fix.
aCuria wrote:
All the Camera company's have different problems tbh.
In my opinion, what Sony got right with the 200–600 is theshort zoom throw and how the lens is sufficiently parfocal that autofocus remains locked while quickly zooming from 200mm to 600mm. Other lenses, like the 100-400GM v1 are not parfocal, and will lose focus when you zoom.
What could be better is the weight distribution, which is optimized more for gimbal use than handheld shooting. The autofocus motor is also not as fast as those in the 70–200mm GM II or the 400–800mm. Frankly the focus breathing thing is a very small issue....Show more →
For the first few years after release, I could have bought 2 x Sony 200-600 and have change compared to buying EF 100-500.
(I'm in Australia, so, Australian prices matter to me).
So much for the higher price complaint.
Batteries are much cheaper, TC much cheaper, all lenses I'm interested are cheaper than Canon equivalents.
(I don't pay a lot of attention to Nikon)
There have been a few instances of front element coming loose on the 200-600 but usually that's been a simple fix.
aCuria wrote:
All the Camera company's have different problems tbh.
In my opinion, what Sony got right with the 200–600 is theshort zoom throw and how the lens is sufficiently parfocal that autofocus remains locked while quickly zooming from 200mm to 600mm. Other lenses, like the 100-400GM v1 are not parfocal, and will lose focus when you zoom.
What could be better is the weight distribution, which is optimized more for gimbal use than handheld shooting. The autofocus motor is also not as fast as those in the 70–200mm GM II or the 400–800mm. Frankly the focus breathing thing is a very small issue....Show more →
Jul 13, 2026 at 01:44 AM
p.5 #4The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
duncangr wrote:
The link below has a few consecutive frames from some tern sequences - and these are with lossless compressed - which some claim means only 30 af calculations per second.
My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.
Excellent results!
I remember your sequence with the swallows which was also impressive.
Did you have any situations where you did see a rolling shutter effect that you'd think you would not see with an A1 or A1 ii?
The link below has a few consecutive frames from some tern sequences - and these are with lossless compressed - which some claim means only 30 af calculations per second.
My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.
Excellent results!
I remember your sequence with the swallows which was also impressive.
Did you have any situations where you did see a rolling shutter effect that you'd think you would not see with an A1 or A1 ii?
Jul 13, 2026 at 03:09 AM
p.5 #5The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
umut_h_toprak wrote:
My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.Excellent results!
I remember your sequence with the swallows which was also impressive.
Did you have any situations where you did see a rolling shutter effect that you'd think you would not see with an A1 or A1 ii?
If you pan the camera with a long lens you will get rolling shutter even on A1.
duncangr wrote
The link below has a few consecutive frames from some tern sequences - and these are with lossless compressed - which some claim means only 30 af calculations per second.My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.
I remember your sequence with the swallows which was also impressive.
Did you have any situations where you did see a rolling shutter effect that you'd think you would not see with an A1 or A1 ii?
If you pan the camera with a long lens you will get rolling shutter even on A1.
Jul 13, 2026 at 04:56 AM
p.5 #6The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
umut_h_toprak wrote:
My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.Excellent results!
I remember your sequence with the swallows which was also impressive.
Did you have any situations where you did see a rolling shutter effect that you'd think you would not see with an A1 or A1 ii?
Yes, often but then it's very seldom that you will see distortion on a wildlife image taken with an A1/A1ii. If you shoot swallows like I do and really fill the frame you will encounter slightly unnatural wing curvature occasionally - usually on the really good frames too! Which is why I primarily use an A9iii for that kind of action.
So while the subject detection, AF and DR is excellent - distortion is ever present on the A7RM6 unless you use mechanical shutter. But at 30fps you are still likely to find many images where distortion is not obvious.
However to put things into perspective - I would shoot 4000+ swallow images and keep maybe 20 of them. That's maybe about half what I might get with an A1. So don't expect to go out and shoot 100 swallow images and find any that are any good, if you are lucky you might get one.
duncangr wrote
The link below has a few consecutive frames from some tern sequences - and these are with lossless compressed - which some claim means only 30 af calculations per second.My A9iii couldn't do better than this - a very strong wind with the terns bouncing around on the gusts.
Compared to the A7RM5 this is like night and day and rolling shutter distortion is basically non-existent.
imo - this is like another Global Shutter moment from Sony.
I remember your sequence with the swallows which was also impressive.
Did you have any situations where you did see a rolling shutter effect that you'd think you would not see with an A1 or A1 ii?
Yes, often but then it's very seldom that you will see distortion on a wildlife image taken with an A1/A1ii. If you shoot swallows like I do and really fill the frame you will encounter slightly unnatural wing curvature occasionally - usually on the really good frames too! Which is why I primarily use an A9iii for that kind of action.
So while the subject detection, AF and DR is excellent - distortion is ever present on the A7RM6 unless you use mechanical shutter. But at 30fps you are still likely to find many images where distortion is not obvious.
However to put things into perspective - I would shoot 4000+ swallow images and keep maybe 20 of them. That's maybe about half what I might get with an A1. So don't expect to go out and shoot 100 swallow images and find any that are any good, if you are lucky you might get one.
Jul 13, 2026 at 05:00 AM
p.5 #7The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
duncangr wrote:
Yes, often but then it's very seldom that you will see distortion on a wildlife image taken with an A1/A1ii. If you shoot swallows like I do and really fill the frame you will encounter slightly unnatural wing curvature occasionally - usually on the really good frames too! Which is why I primarily use an A9iii for that kind of action.
So while the subject detection, AF and DR is excellent - distortion is ever present on the A7RM6 unless you use mechanical shutter. But at 30fps you are still likely to find many images where distortion is not obvious.
However...Show more →
Thank you for your answer!
I have never really been successful in shooting swallows in flight with my A1 (I) and 200-600, but I am aware that it is my lack of experience with the situation. It is challenging for sure and with a 800mm I am sure it is even more difficult.
If you would put a few distorted examples that you have not discarded, I am sure it would be of great interest to those who consider the camera.
Yes, often but then it's very seldom that you will see distortion on a wildlife image taken with an A1/A1ii. If you shoot swallows like I do and really fill the frame you will encounter slightly unnatural wing curvature occasionally - usually on the really good frames too! Which is why I primarily use an A9iii for that kind of action.
So while the subject detection, AF and DR is excellent - distortion is ever present on the A7RM6 unless you use mechanical shutter. But at 30fps you are still likely to find many images where distortion is not obvious.
However...Show more →
Thank you for your answer!
I have never really been successful in shooting swallows in flight with my A1 (I) and 200-600, but I am aware that it is my lack of experience with the situation. It is challenging for sure and with a 800mm I am sure it is even more difficult.
If you would put a few distorted examples that you have not discarded, I am sure it would be of great interest to those who consider the camera.
Jul 13, 2026 at 06:01 AM
p.5 #8The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
aCuria wrote:
The A7R VI uses a single BIONZ XR chip. You need dual BIONZ XR chips to achieve 120 AF calculations per second, and at that point the bill of materials may be close to that of the A1 II. Even if Sony put dual BIONZ XR chips into the A7R VI, it still wouldn't be a good sports camera because the sensor is optimized for image quality, not speed.
If you look at Canon, the R5ii's autofocus is not as good as the R1 either.
Great point on the dual BIONZ chips. I didn't realize this. Unfortunately, from what I can find Sony doesn't talk much about this. So it's hard to say how much of an impact it has on AF. Will be interesting to see if the A1III sticks with the dual chip approach.
aCuria wrote:
You are assuming it's possible to do dual gain readouts and the DGO processing at 15 fps. Logically, reading the sensor out twice would take at least twice as long, if not more.
Technically, yes, I am assuming it's possible. My understanding, though, is that the a7rVI can do DGO at 4k 30FPS, which would make 15fps DGO plausible. Even if we had to lose DGO at 15, I would be willing to lose it to gain 15FPS with no rolling shutter. Again, I am making an assumption with this, but it just seems to me like Sony is not interested in making us a better mechanical shutter. We have been at 10fps since the a7rIII was released in 2017. Canon and Nikon both have shutters with higher fps on their mirrorless cameras. I picked 15 because it sounds plausible for a mechanical shutter and is the max FPS Sony allows with third party lenses, but even a bump to 12fps I would appreciate.
The A7R VI uses a single BIONZ XR chip. You need dual BIONZ XR chips to achieve 120 AF calculations per second, and at that point the bill of materials may be close to that of the A1 II. Even if Sony put dual BIONZ XR chips into the A7R VI, it still wouldn't be a good sports camera because the sensor is optimized for image quality, not speed.
If you look at Canon, the R5ii's autofocus is not as good as the R1 either.
Great point on the dual BIONZ chips. I didn't realize this. Unfortunately, from what I can find Sony doesn't talk much about this. So it's hard to say how much of an impact it has on AF. Will be interesting to see if the A1III sticks with the dual chip approach.
aCuria wrote:
You are assuming it's possible to do dual gain readouts and the DGO processing at 15 fps. Logically, reading the sensor out twice would take at least twice as long, if not more.
Technically, yes, I am assuming it's possible. My understanding, though, is that the a7rVI can do DGO at 4k 30FPS, which would make 15fps DGO plausible. Even if we had to lose DGO at 15, I would be willing to lose it to gain 15FPS with no rolling shutter. Again, I am making an assumption with this, but it just seems to me like Sony is not interested in making us a better mechanical shutter. We have been at 10fps since the a7rIII was released in 2017. Canon and Nikon both have shutters with higher fps on their mirrorless cameras. I picked 15 because it sounds plausible for a mechanical shutter and is the max FPS Sony allows with third party lenses, but even a bump to 12fps I would appreciate.
Jul 13, 2026 at 12:25 PM
p.5 #9The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Lethimcook wrote:
Just for clarification, what did you want from the a7V and a7rVI to be considered "grand slams"? As in what did they miss for you, keeping in mind that most would say these models are not the "flagship" models of the brand.
Great question. As you said, it's not a flagship, so I am not expecting everything.
Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3) Raw video support
4) Open gate video support
5) Matching bodies and batteries for the a7V and a7rVI
6) Faster max electronic shutter speed (Especially on the a7rVI)
7) Electronic shutter with flash
Just for clarification, what did you want from the a7V and a7rVI to be considered "grand slams"? As in what did they miss for you, keeping in mind that most would say these models are not the "flagship" models of the brand.
Great question. As you said, it's not a flagship, so I am not expecting everything.
Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3) Raw video support
4) Open gate video support
5) Matching bodies and batteries for the a7V and a7rVI
6) Faster max electronic shutter speed (Especially on the a7rVI)
7) Electronic shutter with flash
Jul 13, 2026 at 12:55 PM
p.5 #10The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
Lethimcook wrote
Just for clarification, what did you want from the a7V and a7rVI to be considered "grand slams"? As in what did they miss for you, keeping in mind that most would say these models are not the "flagship" models of the brand.Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3)...Show more →
An A1ii will fulfill the majority of your requirements. You are simply NOT the target audience for an R series body.
For raw video and open gate you need to switch systems. Maybe get a Nikon.
Jul 13, 2026 at 06:23 PM
|
p.5 #11The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
Great question. As you said, it's not a flagship, so I am not expecting everything.
Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3)...Show more →
An A1ii will fulfill the majority of your requirements. You are simply NOT the target audience for an R series body. Do NOT buy the A7RVI or A7V.
For raw video you can record off a monitor as usual. For open gate you need to switch systems. Maybe get a Nikon.
Lethimcook wrote
Just for clarification, what did you want from the a7V and a7rVI to be considered "grand slams"? As in what did they miss for you, keeping in mind that most would say these models are not the "flagship" models of the brand.Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3)...Show more →
An A1ii will fulfill the majority of your requirements. You are simply NOT the target audience for an R series body. Do NOT buy the A7RVI or A7V.
For raw video you can record off a monitor as usual. For open gate you need to switch systems. Maybe get a Nikon.
Jul 13, 2026 at 06:23 PM
p.5 #12The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
aCuria wrote:
Any amplifier generates electronic, or thermal, noise. To read the sensor faster, the amplifier has to operate over a wider bandwidth. A wider bandwidth introduces more noise, and if everything else stays the same, that higher read noise reduces the sensor's dynamic range.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
At a fundamental level, image quality and speed are competing priorities. If you optimize for resolution, dynamic range, and low noise, you give up speed.
The A7R VI uses a single BIONZ XR chip. You need dual BIONZ XR chips to achieve 120 AF calculations per second, and at that point the bill of materials may be...Show more →
A7RM6 does not use the BIONZ XR chip - do some basic research like reading Sony's documentation !!
It uses a new unified SOC called the BIONZ XR2 - which in all likelihood will support 120 af calcs per second with faster sensors such as those that will likely be on the A1iii and A9iv.
DWOfPaul wrote
The a7rVI has the highest resolution of any full frame camera, and possibly the best dynamic range of any full frame camera, but most of the innovation seems to be around the electronic shutter, which is to slow for quickly moving subjects and negates the dynamic range advantage of a $4,500 camera.Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
At a fundamental level, image quality and speed are competing priorities. If you optimize for resolution, dynamic range, and low noise, you give up speed.
DWOfPaul wrote
I even find it strange that Sony does not put their best AF on a $4,500 camera.DWOfPaul wrote
For example, I wish Sony had added a 15 FPS mechanical shutter to the a7rVI, then we could truly gain speed and dynamic range over the a7rV.A7RM6 does not use the BIONZ XR chip - do some basic research like reading Sony's documentation !!
It uses a new unified SOC called the BIONZ XR2 - which in all likelihood will support 120 af calcs per second with faster sensors such as those that will likely be on the A1iii and A9iv.
Jul 13, 2026 at 06:41 PM
p.5 #13The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
duncangr wrote:
Any amplifier generates electronic, or thermal, noise. To read the sensor faster, the amplifier has to operate over a wider bandwidth. A wider bandwidth introduces more noise, and if everything else stays the same, that higher read noise reduces the sensor's dynamic range.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
At a fundamental level, image quality and speed are competing priorities. If you optimize for resolution, dynamic range, and low noise, you give up speed.
The A7R VI uses a single BIONZ XR chip. You need dual BIONZ XR chips to achieve 120 AF calculations per second, and at that point the bill of materials may be close to that of the A1 II. Even if Sony put dual BIONZ XR chips into the A7R VI, it still wouldn't be a good sports camera because the sensor is optimized for image quality, not speed.
If you look at Canon, the R5ii's autofocus is not as good as the R1 either.
You are assuming it's possible to do dual gain readouts and the DGO processing at 15 fps. Logically, reading the sensor out twice would take at least twice as long, if not more.A7RM6 does not use the BIONZ XR chip - do some basic research like reading Sony's documentation !!
It uses a new unified SOC called the BIONZ XR2 - which in all likelihood will support 120 af calcs per second with faster sensors such as those that will likely be on the A1iii and A9iv.
It is not likely to "support 120 af calcs per second", because the XR2 is just the standard XR chip with the AI co-processor integrated into the same chip to reduce costs.
It’s not more powerful than the XR.
aCuria wrote
DWOfPaul wrote
The a7rVI has the highest resolution of any full frame camera, and possibly the best dynamic range of any full frame camera, but most of the innovation seems to be around the electronic shutter, which is to slow for quickly moving subjects and negates the dynamic range advantage of a $4,500 camera.Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
At a fundamental level, image quality and speed are competing priorities. If you optimize for resolution, dynamic range, and low noise, you give up speed.
DWOfPaul wrote
I even find it strange that Sony does not put their best AF on a $4,500 camera.If you look at Canon, the R5ii's autofocus is not as good as the R1 either.
DWOfPaul wrote
For example, I wish Sony had added a 15 FPS mechanical shutter to the a7rVI, then we could truly gain speed and dynamic range over the a7rV.It uses a new unified SOC called the BIONZ XR2 - which in all likelihood will support 120 af calcs per second with faster sensors such as those that will likely be on the A1iii and A9iv.
It is not likely to "support 120 af calcs per second", because the XR2 is just the standard XR chip with the AI co-processor integrated into the same chip to reduce costs.
It’s not more powerful than the XR.
Jul 13, 2026 at 10:29 PM
p.5 #14The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
aCuria wrote:
Great question. As you said, it's not a flagship, so I am not expecting everything.
Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3) Raw video support
4) Open gate video support
5) Matching bodies and batteries for the a7V and a7rVI
6) Faster max electronic shutter speed (Especially on the a7rVI)
7) Electronic shutter with flashAn A1ii will fulfill the majority of your requirements. You are simply NOT the target audience for an R series body. Do NOT buy the A7RVI or A7V.
For raw video you can record off a monitor as usual. For open gate you need to switch systems. Maybe get a Nikon.
Yep I already have a Z8. On the camera side, the main thing I am missing on the Z8 is precapture raw, which is practically guaranteed to come in the Z9II / Z8II. The main reason I wouldn't mind keeping Sony in the mix, is that they have a few lenses that currently have no Z mount alternatives. The extra MP would be nice too for some situations. But that's where the price of the Z8 vs the A1II starts to come in. It's a hard sell to me to pay 2x the price of a Z8 to mainly gain 5mp, 10fps, and precapture raw, and also lose a few things along the way.
I probably won't completely move away from Sony before seeing what happens with the a1III, and maybe even how that affects the a1II price. But currently, I'm having a harder time being pro Sony. Especially if Nikon announces a missing lens or 2 in the meantime, the value of being a dual system user may be greatly diminished for me.
DWOfPaul wrote
Lethimcook wrote
Just for clarification, what did you want from the a7V and a7rVI to be considered "grand slams"? As in what did they miss for you, keeping in mind that most would say these models are not the "flagship" models of the brand.Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3) Raw video support
4) Open gate video support
5) Matching bodies and batteries for the a7V and a7rVI
6) Faster max electronic shutter speed (Especially on the a7rVI)
7) Electronic shutter with flash
For raw video you can record off a monitor as usual. For open gate you need to switch systems. Maybe get a Nikon.
Yep I already have a Z8. On the camera side, the main thing I am missing on the Z8 is precapture raw, which is practically guaranteed to come in the Z9II / Z8II. The main reason I wouldn't mind keeping Sony in the mix, is that they have a few lenses that currently have no Z mount alternatives. The extra MP would be nice too for some situations. But that's where the price of the Z8 vs the A1II starts to come in. It's a hard sell to me to pay 2x the price of a Z8 to mainly gain 5mp, 10fps, and precapture raw, and also lose a few things along the way.
I probably won't completely move away from Sony before seeing what happens with the a1III, and maybe even how that affects the a1II price. But currently, I'm having a harder time being pro Sony. Especially if Nikon announces a missing lens or 2 in the meantime, the value of being a dual system user may be greatly diminished for me.
Jul 14, 2026 at 10:29 AM
p.5 #15The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
Great question. As you said, it's not a flagship, so I am not expecting everything.
Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3) Raw video support
4) Open gate video support
5) Matching bodies and batteries for the a7V and a7rVI
6) Faster max electronic shutter speed (Especially on the a7rVI)
7) Electronic shutter with flashAn A1ii will fulfill the majority of your requirements. You are simply NOT the target audience for an R series body. Do NOT buy the A7RVI or A7V.
For raw video you can record off a monitor as usual. For open gate you need to switch systems. Maybe get a Nikon.Yep I already have a Z8. On the camera side, the main thing I am missing on the Z8 is precapture raw, which is practically guaranteed to come in the Z9II / Z8II. The main reason I wouldn't mind keeping Sony in the mix, is that they have a few lenses that currently have no Z mount alternatives. The extra MP would be nice too for some situations. But that's where the price of the Z8 vs the A1II starts to come in. It's a hard sell to me to pay 2x the price of a Z8 to mainly gain...Show more →
10fps is an extra 50% from 20. You get a much smaller and lighter body, which is a massive score, from daily use to travel. Not to mention a much more filled out ecosystem.
aCuria wrote
DWOfPaul wrote
Lethimcook wrote
Just for clarification, what did you want from the a7V and a7rVI to be considered "grand slams"? As in what did they miss for you, keeping in mind that most would say these models are not the "flagship" models of the brand.Any one of these, and I would have probably picked up the a7rVI already:
1) Remove third party lenses limitations
2) Mechanical shutter with higher FPS
3) Faster sensor readout speeds
(a1II is about 4ms, Z8 is about fms, R5II is about 6MS, so maybe 6-8MS would be fair)
4) a1ii level AF (especially for the a7rVI), we know the a1iii is going to gain even better AF once it comes out
A few other ways Sony could have improved:
1) Substantial improvement in IBIS
2) Larger buffer (Especially on the a7V)
3) Raw video support
4) Open gate video support
5) Matching bodies and batteries for the a7V and a7rVI
6) Faster max electronic shutter speed (Especially on the a7rVI)
7) Electronic shutter with flash
For raw video you can record off a monitor as usual. For open gate you need to switch systems. Maybe get a Nikon.
10fps is an extra 50% from 20. You get a much smaller and lighter body, which is a massive score, from daily use to travel. Not to mention a much more filled out ecosystem.
Jul 14, 2026 at 11:10 PM
p.5 #16The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
I find these conversations and the reality distortion field super interesting.
Theres a reason Nikon is cheaper, it's an old Nikon playbook.
Dust off old parts from the shelf, repackage them as something "new," and count on the loyalists to buy in.
What's Nikon's market share these days? Around 15%, still well behind Canon and Sony. It may have gained a tiny fraction, but the overall picture hasn't changed.
Some people here keep treating Sony as Nikon's main competitor. It isn't.
Nikon's real competitor is Fuji.
Theres a reason Nikon is cheaper, it's an old Nikon playbook.
Dust off old parts from the shelf, repackage them as something "new," and count on the loyalists to buy in.
What's Nikon's market share these days? Around 15%, still well behind Canon and Sony. It may have gained a tiny fraction, but the overall picture hasn't changed.
Some people here keep treating Sony as Nikon's main competitor. It isn't.
Nikon's real competitor is Fuji.
Jul 15, 2026 at 05:33 AM
p.5 #17The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
If market share tells an accurate story, the Fuji X100 is one of the greatest cameras ever made, by far, more than anyone's ever seen.....
Jul 15, 2026 at 05:49 AM
p.5 #18The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Choderboy wrote:
If market share tells an accurate story, the Fuji X100 is one of the greatest cameras ever made, by far, more than anyone's ever seen.....
For that market segment, sure. For instax too. For this segment though? They are near dead last.
If market share tells an accurate story, the Fuji X100 is one of the greatest cameras ever made, by far, more than anyone's ever seen.....
For that market segment, sure. For instax too. For this segment though? They are near dead last.
Jul 15, 2026 at 06:15 AM
p.5 #19The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
If we are going to talk about market share, we need to put the numbers in perspective. If we are saying Nikon has 15% market share, we are probably going by the BCN+R numbers for mirrorless cameras. In 2025, Nikon had 15.1%, Canon had 27.4%, and Sony had 29.9%. This leaves 27.6% for everyone else.
Link:
https://petapixel.com/2026/01/19/sony-kodak-and-dji-were-the-big-camera-market-share-winners-of-2025/
So Sony only has about a 2x lead on Nikon. These numbers are only for Japan, and are about camera sales volume, not sales revenue. They also don't take into account lens or accessory sales. So the true picture may be much more complicated. In the same rankings, Nikon actually went up 1% from 2024, and Sony went down 6% from 2024.
This also leaves us with the question of what about brands like Fuji? This means Fuji had less than 15.1% of the mirrorless market, and I don't hear anyone questioning their market share when talking about camera features.
Personally, market share is one of the least things I am worried about when comparing gear.
Link:
https://petapixel.com/2026/01/19/sony-kodak-and-dji-were-the-big-camera-market-share-winners-of-2025/
So Sony only has about a 2x lead on Nikon. These numbers are only for Japan, and are about camera sales volume, not sales revenue. They also don't take into account lens or accessory sales. So the true picture may be much more complicated. In the same rankings, Nikon actually went up 1% from 2024, and Sony went down 6% from 2024.
This also leaves us with the question of what about brands like Fuji? This means Fuji had less than 15.1% of the mirrorless market, and I don't hear anyone questioning their market share when talking about camera features.
Personally, market share is one of the least things I am worried about when comparing gear.
Jul 15, 2026 at 10:51 AM
p.5 #20The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
If we are going to talk about market share, we need to put the numbers in perspective. If we are saying Nikon has 15% market share, we are probably going by the BCN+R numbers for mirrorless cameras. In 2025, Nikon had 15.1%, Canon had 27.4%, and Sony had 29.9%. This leaves 27.6% for everyone else.
Link:
https://petapixel.com/2026/01/19/sony-kodak-and-dji-were-the-big-camera-market-share-winners-of-2025/
So Sony only has about a 2x lead on Nikon. These numbers are only for Japan, and are about camera sales volume, not sales revenue. They also don't take into account lens or accessory sales. So the true picture may be much more complicated....Show more →
Look at the Nikon market share before mirrorless. They lost a catastrophic amount of the market.
It isn't that one looks at market share to determine their choices. It is the reverse. Peoples' choices determine the market share. Nikon went from solidly 2nd place to plummeting and going into a distant third, half their previous share and half the 2 dominant.
If we are going to talk about market share, we need to put the numbers in perspective. If we are saying Nikon has 15% market share, we are probably going by the BCN+R numbers for mirrorless cameras. In 2025, Nikon had 15.1%, Canon had 27.4%, and Sony had 29.9%. This leaves 27.6% for everyone else.
Link:
https://petapixel.com/2026/01/19/sony-kodak-and-dji-were-the-big-camera-market-share-winners-of-2025/
So Sony only has about a 2x lead on Nikon. These numbers are only for Japan, and are about camera sales volume, not sales revenue. They also don't take into account lens or accessory sales. So the true picture may be much more complicated....Show more →
Look at the Nikon market share before mirrorless. They lost a catastrophic amount of the market.
It isn't that one looks at market share to determine their choices. It is the reverse. Peoples' choices determine the market share. Nikon went from solidly 2nd place to plummeting and going into a distant third, half their previous share and half the 2 dominant.
Jul 15, 2026 at 07:43 PM