A7R6 vs A1ii questions
p.1 #1A7R6 vs A1ii questions
For those that own both, I have a couple questions.
1) I’m hearing that the A7R6 AF is stickier and tracks better than the A1ii and would appreciate actual user feedback.
2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
3) I’m curious if the reported extra stop of DR is visible in any tangible ability to push the A7R6 file around a bit more in post?
Appreciate any feedback.
1) I’m hearing that the A7R6 AF is stickier and tracks better than the A1ii and would appreciate actual user feedback.
2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
3) I’m curious if the reported extra stop of DR is visible in any tangible ability to push the A7R6 file around a bit more in post?
Appreciate any feedback.
Jul 18, 2026 at 05:56 PM
p.1 #2A7R6 vs A1ii questions
Currently I am using lossless compressed RAW, pre-capture OFF, 30fps, balanced emphasis, Wide Area and Bird Detect, EVF display quality standard, EVF frame rate highest.
1) It seems to be better able to find the eye and stick to the eye than the A1ii. Is it really in every situation - who knows. In the sequences I have shot it seems to perform exceptionally well. It's hard to believe it can be this good. High shutter speed is required to avoid motion blur, can't say that's any different from the A1ii though.
2) ISO seems about the same for the same FOV. Don't assume you can crop to the same pixel size - you can't !! Basically no different to the A7R5 - lower iso the higher resolution images show better fine detail and cleaner colours.
3) With mechanical shutter it seems about like the A7R5 - images are much more malleable and less of the washed out stacked sensor look. I use 5k and 6k retina displays where there is a visible difference in the image quality on the lower iso images - not sure you would see any different on a non-retina display. A 32 inch 5K display at normal desktop viewing distance is LOW RESOLUTION. Retina is around 218+ ppi.
I think you would need to test out both for your own shooting situations to determine which is better for you. I would not recommend replacing an A1 or A1ii with an A7RM6 unless you don't do much fast action or panning where the background might become a mess. I use an A9iii for fast action to avoid any possibility of distortion and also for the 120fps.
The A7R6 will probably be my primary camera for everything else including many types of BIF where it seems to perform well and provide considerably more detail than other options do.
Check the A7RVI thread for images.
1) It seems to be better able to find the eye and stick to the eye than the A1ii. Is it really in every situation - who knows. In the sequences I have shot it seems to perform exceptionally well. It's hard to believe it can be this good. High shutter speed is required to avoid motion blur, can't say that's any different from the A1ii though.
2) ISO seems about the same for the same FOV. Don't assume you can crop to the same pixel size - you can't !! Basically no different to the A7R5 - lower iso the higher resolution images show better fine detail and cleaner colours.
3) With mechanical shutter it seems about like the A7R5 - images are much more malleable and less of the washed out stacked sensor look. I use 5k and 6k retina displays where there is a visible difference in the image quality on the lower iso images - not sure you would see any different on a non-retina display. A 32 inch 5K display at normal desktop viewing distance is LOW RESOLUTION. Retina is around 218+ ppi.
I think you would need to test out both for your own shooting situations to determine which is better for you. I would not recommend replacing an A1 or A1ii with an A7RM6 unless you don't do much fast action or panning where the background might become a mess. I use an A9iii for fast action to avoid any possibility of distortion and also for the 120fps.
The A7R6 will probably be my primary camera for everything else including many types of BIF where it seems to perform well and provide considerably more detail than other options do.
Check the A7RVI thread for images.
Jul 18, 2026 at 08:25 PM
p.1 #3A7R6 vs A1ii questions
duncangr wrote:
Currently I am using lossless compressed RAW, pre-capture OFF, 30fps, balanced emphasis, Wide Area and Bird Detect, EVF display quality standard, EVF frame rate highest.
1) It seems to be better able to find the eye and stick to the eye than the A1ii. Is it really in every situation - who knows. In the sequences I have shot it seems to perform exceptionally well. It's hard to believe it can be this good. High shutter speed is required to avoid motion blur, can't say that's any different from the A1ii though.
2) ISO seems about the same for the same FOV....Show more →
when i shot some studio stacked images with the a7r5 + the A1mk2 at 10x magnifacation using specialised equipment the A1mk2 walked all over the a7r5 for detail.
Currently I am using lossless compressed RAW, pre-capture OFF, 30fps, balanced emphasis, Wide Area and Bird Detect, EVF display quality standard, EVF frame rate highest.
1) It seems to be better able to find the eye and stick to the eye than the A1ii. Is it really in every situation - who knows. In the sequences I have shot it seems to perform exceptionally well. It's hard to believe it can be this good. High shutter speed is required to avoid motion blur, can't say that's any different from the A1ii though.
2) ISO seems about the same for the same FOV....Show more →
when i shot some studio stacked images with the a7r5 + the A1mk2 at 10x magnifacation using specialised equipment the A1mk2 walked all over the a7r5 for detail.
Jul 19, 2026 at 02:27 AM
p.1 #4A7R6 vs A1ii questions
Jack Flesher wrote:
For those that own both, I have a couple questions.
1) I’m hearing that the A7R6 AF is stickier and tracks better than the A1ii and would appreciate actual user feedback.
2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
3) I’m curious if the reported extra stop of DR is visible in any tangible ability to push the A7R6 file around a bit more in post?
Appreciate any feedback.
I have tried RVI for a couple of hours but do not own it and have no plans to buy it.
Regarding #1 All cameras are effectively detecting where a moving subject was a short time ago, because every autofocus system has a non zero feedback loop.
With the A7R VI, that delay is probably around >16ms. On the A1 II, it’s closer to >8 ms, while the A9 III feels faster still. As the feedback loop gets shorter, the camera’s focus position more closely matches where the subject actually is, rather than where it was moments earlier.
There is also some degree of predictive dead reckoning involved, since the camera has to estimate where the subject will be by the time the focus adjustment takes effect. The shorter the autofocus feedback loop, the shorter that prediction interval becomes, allowing the camera to make significantly more accurate predictions.
Note that halving the latency probably reduces tracking error by more than half, especially for erratically moving subjects.
I have observed that A9iii is able to keep erratically moving human subjects in focus at f/1.4, while in similar conditions even the A1 can struggle because it has higher latency. The A1ii has better eye detect thanks to the new AI chip, but the latency doesn’t seem better than A1.
The at f/1.4 the A9iii can get you maybe 58-59/60 frames per second in focus and with A1 it’s more like ~15/30. There’s a big difference between 15 and 58 frames… Therefore if you want the best autofocus hit rate get the A9iii.
Personally I feel any camera under ~ 1/150s readout speed should be used with mechanical shutter 99% of the time. The A7RV is in this category.
However with mechanical shutter on, the system is not blackout free. This increases latency, which makes autofocus worse, and also makes it hard for the photographer to keep rapidly moving subjects in frame.
Regarding #3 I have always used stacking to boost dynamic range for landscapes.
RVI has the best ISO 100 “single shot” dynamic range, which mainly helpful IF you can’t use image stacking.
For those that own both, I have a couple questions.
1) I’m hearing that the A7R6 AF is stickier and tracks better than the A1ii and would appreciate actual user feedback.
2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
3) I’m curious if the reported extra stop of DR is visible in any tangible ability to push the A7R6 file around a bit more in post?
Appreciate any feedback.
I have tried RVI for a couple of hours but do not own it and have no plans to buy it.
Regarding #1 All cameras are effectively detecting where a moving subject was a short time ago, because every autofocus system has a non zero feedback loop.
With the A7R VI, that delay is probably around >16ms. On the A1 II, it’s closer to >8 ms, while the A9 III feels faster still. As the feedback loop gets shorter, the camera’s focus position more closely matches where the subject actually is, rather than where it was moments earlier.
There is also some degree of predictive dead reckoning involved, since the camera has to estimate where the subject will be by the time the focus adjustment takes effect. The shorter the autofocus feedback loop, the shorter that prediction interval becomes, allowing the camera to make significantly more accurate predictions.
Note that halving the latency probably reduces tracking error by more than half, especially for erratically moving subjects.
I have observed that A9iii is able to keep erratically moving human subjects in focus at f/1.4, while in similar conditions even the A1 can struggle because it has higher latency. The A1ii has better eye detect thanks to the new AI chip, but the latency doesn’t seem better than A1.
The at f/1.4 the A9iii can get you maybe 58-59/60 frames per second in focus and with A1 it’s more like ~15/30. There’s a big difference between 15 and 58 frames… Therefore if you want the best autofocus hit rate get the A9iii.
Personally I feel any camera under ~ 1/150s readout speed should be used with mechanical shutter 99% of the time. The A7RV is in this category.
However with mechanical shutter on, the system is not blackout free. This increases latency, which makes autofocus worse, and also makes it hard for the photographer to keep rapidly moving subjects in frame.
Regarding #3 I have always used stacking to boost dynamic range for landscapes.
RVI has the best ISO 100 “single shot” dynamic range, which mainly helpful IF you can’t use image stacking.
Jul 19, 2026 at 06:35 AM
p.1 #5A7R6 vs A1ii questions
Thank you for the replies so far. For clarification, I rarely stack for DR unless absolutely necessary, so the majority of my images are single frames. I usually use a tripod for landscape, so most of my images are at base ISO as well.
Like many, I tend to use mostly zooms and compose in the frame, however I do tend to still “shoot a little loose” even with them to allow tweaking composition in post. So here the extra pixels would be welcome on occasion. That coupled with the above comments so far, I’m leaning towards the A7R6 and living with its other shortcomings.
Like many, I tend to use mostly zooms and compose in the frame, however I do tend to still “shoot a little loose” even with them to allow tweaking composition in post. So here the extra pixels would be welcome on occasion. That coupled with the above comments so far, I’m leaning towards the A7R6 and living with its other shortcomings.
Jul 19, 2026 at 08:03 AM
|
p.1 #6A7R6 vs A1ii questions
Jack Flesher wrote:
For those that own both, I have a couple questions.
2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
Appreciate any feedback.
Use the dpreview comparator for A7RVI and A1II and equalise the resolutions to 50MP and you'll see at high ISO like 6400+ the A1II is still noticeably cleaner. In mechanical shutter it's cleaner though, but I know I would never use that for action work. DR is about the same in e-shutter for both cameras.
For those that own both, I have a couple questions.
2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
Appreciate any feedback.
Use the dpreview comparator for A7RVI and A1II and equalise the resolutions to 50MP and you'll see at high ISO like 6400+ the A1II is still noticeably cleaner. In mechanical shutter it's cleaner though, but I know I would never use that for action work. DR is about the same in e-shutter for both cameras.
Jul 19, 2026 at 09:36 PM
p.1 #7A7R6 vs A1ii questions
Equalise resolutions to 50mp 
- that's just a sly trick so you won't notice the difference in detail between the two images.
A7R6 wins by a country mile when I process them the exact same way.
The low iso mechanical shutter images are a step up again so I use mechanical shutter on any static or slow moving bird/animal and on some fast moving subjects if I am not concerned about missing the action completely if I do so.
Be sure to stick to H (7fps) in mechanical shutter to maintain realtime eVF if you do shoot fast moving subjects or keeping them in the frame becomes difficult.
The main is from the A1ii and the two INSERTS are from the A7RM6 - all iso6400. Lower insert downsized to the same as the A1ii.
The last line of text is in my view clearer and easier to read on both the A7RM6 images than on the A1 image.
- that's just a sly trick so you won't notice the difference in detail between the two images.A7R6 wins by a country mile when I process them the exact same way.
The low iso mechanical shutter images are a step up again so I use mechanical shutter on any static or slow moving bird/animal and on some fast moving subjects if I am not concerned about missing the action completely if I do so.
Be sure to stick to H (7fps) in mechanical shutter to maintain realtime eVF if you do shoot fast moving subjects or keeping them in the frame becomes difficult.
The main is from the A1ii and the two INSERTS are from the A7RM6 - all iso6400. Lower insert downsized to the same as the A1ii.
The last line of text is in my view clearer and easier to read on both the A7RM6 images than on the A1 image.
Jul 19, 2026 at 10:50 PM
p.1 #8A7R6 vs A1ii questions
Pixel Perfect wrote:
2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
Appreciate any feedback.Use the dpreview comparator for A7RVI and A1II and equalise the resolutions to 50MP and you'll see at high ISO like 6400+ the A1II is still noticeably cleaner. In mechanical shutter it's cleaner though, but I know I would never use that for action work. DR is about the same in e-shutter for both cameras.
Ideally, comparisons should be equalized to the resolution of the higher-megapixel camera, not the lower one.
You should also download the RAW files and process them yourself. In practice, not all noise is created equal.
Chroma noise is relatively easy to remove with little impact on image quality, but luminance noise is much harder to deal with. Heavy luminance noise reduction is what gives skin that fake, plastic look.
For example, the A9 III has relatively high chroma noise, yet its RAW files often clean up better than those from some other cameras because critically it has low luminance noise.
This makes the dp review comparison tool useless for noise comparison in 2026, because it’s hard to gauge how well the noise distributions on different cameras clean up during processing just by looking at the unprocessed files.
A1ii should preferably be used mostly in electronic shutter mode, because it doesn’t have a full mechanical shutter, only efcs.
The main reason to use efcs at all is the higher flash sync
Jack Flesher wrote
For those that own both, I have a couple questions.2) ISO noise. I’ve read they “should be” similar, but that seemed vague. So I’m curious if at higher ISO there’s a noticeable difference between them?
Appreciate any feedback.
Ideally, comparisons should be equalized to the resolution of the higher-megapixel camera, not the lower one.
You should also download the RAW files and process them yourself. In practice, not all noise is created equal.
Chroma noise is relatively easy to remove with little impact on image quality, but luminance noise is much harder to deal with. Heavy luminance noise reduction is what gives skin that fake, plastic look.
For example, the A9 III has relatively high chroma noise, yet its RAW files often clean up better than those from some other cameras because critically it has low luminance noise.
This makes the dp review comparison tool useless for noise comparison in 2026, because it’s hard to gauge how well the noise distributions on different cameras clean up during processing just by looking at the unprocessed files.
A1ii should preferably be used mostly in electronic shutter mode, because it doesn’t have a full mechanical shutter, only efcs.
The main reason to use efcs at all is the higher flash sync
Jul 20, 2026 at 11:55 PM
p.1 #9A7R6 vs A1ii questions
Jack Flesher wrote:
Thank you for the replies so far. For clarification, I rarely stack for DR unless absolutely necessary, so the majority of my images are single frames. I usually use a tripod for landscape, so most of my images are at base ISO as well.
Like many, I tend to use mostly zooms and compose in the frame, however I do tend to still “shoot a little loose” even with them to allow tweaking composition in post. So here the extra pixels would be welcome on occasion. That coupled with the above comments so far, I’m leaning towards the A7R6...Show more →
If you bothered with the tripod then you really should abuse the exposure stacking or pixel shift tech. Its not much more effort!
Thank you for the replies so far. For clarification, I rarely stack for DR unless absolutely necessary, so the majority of my images are single frames. I usually use a tripod for landscape, so most of my images are at base ISO as well.
Like many, I tend to use mostly zooms and compose in the frame, however I do tend to still “shoot a little loose” even with them to allow tweaking composition in post. So here the extra pixels would be welcome on occasion. That coupled with the above comments so far, I’m leaning towards the A7R6...Show more →
If you bothered with the tripod then you really should abuse the exposure stacking or pixel shift tech. Its not much more effort!
Jul 21, 2026 at 01:04 AM