I love my A7RV for landscape (with 24 mm 1.4 GM), flowers (with 70-200 F4 G), general walk-around (50 mm 1.4 GM). But I never had much luck with it for birds at a distance, especially BIF, using 100-400 GM 4.5-5.6. Too soft for my taste. I got pretty good results with the 200-600 G but that lens got too heavy for me (I'm 76 years old & getting shaky).
I wonder if some of the problem with A7RV and "old" 100-400 GM was the slow fps, not-great lens+body stabilization. Anyone have any experience with the new A7RVI paired with the old 100-400 GM 4.5-5.6? Do they do better? If so, I'd consider upgrading. Otherwise, A7RV is all I need.
Thanks for any help you can give!
For birding I wound up getting an OM-1 II with the 50-200 2.8 PRO - fantastic lens, tack sharp, 1250 gm gets you FFE 100-400, and it does well with both 1.4 and 2.0 TC). Great body-lens IS. I find the OM works great - IF you can fill the frame. The lack of resolution compared to A7RV makes cropping less satisfactory. And I prefer the Sony dynamic range and color science. I'd have to sell some OM gear to afford A7RVI upgrade, not sure what to do.
I'm going to cross-post this in m43 forum, in case anyone there has experience with both systems.
Your experience with the 200-600 G on the same body would suggest that the slow fps and not-great body stabilization aren't factors.
I also have the A7RV and 100-400 GM 4.5-5.6 and find it pretty sharp and the stabilization great — though I don't have any other stabilized GMs to compare it with. It is much better than the OSS on the 90mm G Macro and the Tamron 50-300, and I can hand-hold at much slower shutter speeds than I can with the non-stabilized Samyang 135mm/1.8 and Laowa 180mm/4.5 macro. In terms of sharpness when I get a steady shot, I'd say Samyang 135 > Sony 100-400 GM1 > Laowa 180mm. Maybe I have a good copy of the 100-400.
That said, maybe Sony IBIS isn't the best. Anecdotally, even my old M43 setup (E-M10 Mark II?) seemed to have more effective IBIS than Sony's, though it's been a few years since I used it.
Curious what advice you get here because I am also considering an A7RVI upgrade!
I've been using both systems for years.
The OM-System OM-1 MKII + OM-System 50-200/2.8 Pro IS + OM-System 90/3.5 Macro Pro IS + OM-System TC 1.4x MC-14 + OM-System TC 2.0x MC-20 for macro and nature photography.
The OM-System OM-1 MKII + OM-System 8-25/4.0 Pro + Olympus 12-100/4.0 Pro IS + OM-System 12-40/2.8 Pro +
OM-System 20/1.4 Pro is my personal favorite combination for travel.
When it comes to the best image quality, I use my Sony 35mm system with the Sony A7RV + high-quality Sony GM lenses and top-of-the-line Voigtländer manual lenses ranging from 14mm to 200mm focal length.
I’ll skip the Sony A7RVI + long focal lengths for nature photography
since, at almost 70 years old, I no longer want to carry much weight.
Re stabilization: I can't offer the specific scenario you are after, but I don't really notice a difference between the R5 and R6 with my GM 300 2.8. I felt the A7R5 ibis was excellent.
Subject recognition is very good on both, but the R6 is a good improvement over the r5. That said, I'd rather opt for an A1ii for the faster af calculations. Even with my A1 mk1, I get more keepers when it locks on to moving subjects, tho it's subject recognition is pretty far behind the R6.
Thanks, I had a similar experience with the Tamron. And your point about the 200-600 G is well-taken.
I do find the OM stabilization superior to Sony's. It's not just a matter of weight (weight of OM-1 II and A7RV is not all that far off, it's the lenses which start getting heavy).
I recently too my Sony A7RV and took some shots with 50 mm GM, a superb lens. When I got back, I found they were a little soft, and I realized it was because I hadn't taken care to hold the camera really steady. I'd gotten so used to the OM-1, I'd gotten careless.
Hi Bob, I moved from A7RV’s to the A7R6. There are many small improvements that add up to make the R6 more enjoyable for me, but I’m not sure you will find the differences enough for what you are describing. Specifically on IBIS, the A7RV is officially rated at 8 stops and the new R6 is at 8.5 stops, so a small change. The OM system stabilization is fantastic for sure.
The FPS and display updating are far better in the a7RVI. I won't ever use an a7RV again.
If you are not into the faster species, but preferring static or slow setups, then the a7RV is still fine.
The 100-400/5.6 should not look appreciably different on those bodies. Maybe it was just me, but the 100-400/5.6 was fine on even the a7RIV, although the 200-600's AF was wonky. Are you sure it is not your copy of the lens or some atmospheric issue?
I’ve used the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 to shoot field sports with an A7Riv, prior to moving to an A9. I owned an A7Rv, but never used the lens with this body… no longer shot sports and never shot birds… a few clays..but no birds. I will say that the A7Rvi, in general, feels faster, more responsive than the A7Rv and the animal eye autofocus is first rate. I’ve ordered from B&H since their early days in business and have used them for advice and on occasion returned items to them. Returns are absolutely without issue if you return the item with all shipping materials and no damage to the camera. I’m sure that Adorama and other vendors are also first rate, but this really is a question that will ultimately be answerable only by you after trying the camera.
