Confirmed: Sony A7rV has a new “around” 63MP sensor

[Brownie]

MAN! Was I off!

A highly trusted source finally confirmed what’s going to be the new A7rV sensor: It will feature a very similar resolution sensor that has been newly developed (unconfirmed rumor says it has 63MP). The main image quality advancement i coming through the much faster processor. He told me the cameras has a lot of smaller improvements and the real highlight will be just ONE thing. The source promised to tell me more about this soon…

Confirmed: Sony A7rV has a new “around” 63MP sensor – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thanks for the link, which says official announcement will be October 26. While the sensor will apparently be same resolution as current A7rIV, link says there will be several small improvements but one big thing. What the big thing is, they don't know. For my money, I would hope for an improved EVF that is more DSLR-like, such as that in the Nikon Z9.

(I still use DLSR mostly - two Nikon D850's - and bought a Sony A74 solely to use their stellar 200-600 lens for wildlife. However if this does have an improved EVF it might be the kick I need to make me switch entirely to Sony.)

 

[MrFotoFool]

As a followup, I think 63MP (or thereabouts) is preferable to the rumored 95-100MP. Unless you have a bigger sensor (like Fuji GFX), I have a hard time seeing how the extra megapixels would increase quality given the tiny size the pixels would have to be (at least at relatively high ISO). This is not to mention the extra computer power it would drain.

 

[Brownie]

I think the biggest improvement with be the next-gen processor. Couple that sensor with the newer faster processor and you have a monster. Even though I'm not planning to get one, I'm glad they're (seemingly) not jumping to 80 or 100MP just yet. Maybe they're saving that for the A1-2.

Of course, if they can make a 63MP sensor scream then there's still hope for my 40MP A9-3!

And let's remember this is a rumor site. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Given the main source of trustworthy rumours is gone, I’m still going to be treating this with suspicion and wariness. Don’t rush out to sell your A7R4 yet!

On the “wouldn’t it be nice” front, though, one reason to stick with a resolution around 60Mpixel would be if they were planning to make this a new form of sensor. Not one like the A1 that is capable of ludicrous speed, but one that was capable of larger dynamic range, perhaps a true 16 bit sensor, capable of a real ISO 50 or even ISO 25. Such a sensor, with the existing 50mm f/1.2 and the possible 85mm f/1.2, would make for a very good wedding camera, capable of resolving fine details in a white wedding dress next to a black suit…

No, I am not claiming this is what’s coming. Just pondering what might be.

Wouldn’t turn down a global shutter sensor, either

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I would reckon it will be a stacked sensor then, if they are sticking to a similar resolution. which will allow the AF and burst rates of the newer cameras.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I would reckon it will be a stacked sensor then, if they are sticking to a similar resolution. which will allow the AF and burst rates of the newer cameras.

Stacked would have some interesting advantages but would drive up the price, and the key benefits of a stacked sensor seem a mismatch with the A7R line - A7R is supposed to be about resolution rather than speed (yeah, I know some people want it to do everything that an A1 can do, but at half the price and more pixels - that’s not realistic).

 

[Brownie]

(yeah, I know some people want it to do everything that an A1 can do, but at half the price and more pixels - that’s not realistic).

But...but...but...

Edited to add:

It actually is realistic. What isn't realistic is the price of the A1!

 

[AlphaWorld]

But...but...but...

Edited to add:

It actually is realistic. What isn't realistic is the price of the A1!

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I’ve owned two top-of-the-line bodies from other manufacturers, and both cost me slightly more in number of dollars than the A1 (let alone considering inflation!) and I have received far more enjoyment from the A1 than from the other two put together.

The price of the A1 has come down from when I bought it, too.

 

[Brownie]

I'm sure as compared to others it's top-drawer, but they're all overpriced. There is zero reason to sell a camera body for that much money.

 

[Jeff A]

I'm sure as compared to others it's top-drawer, but they're all overpriced. There is zero reason to sell a camera body for that much money.

Because they can!

 

[AlphaWorld]

I'm sure as compared to others it's top-drawer, but they're all overpriced. There is zero reason to sell a camera body for that much money.

Hmm - are you saying I am not allowed to have an A1 because you don't allow cameras over a certain price, and Sony can't make a profit selling it for as small a price as you set as the limit? That sounds kind of selfish, doesn't it?

Perhaps you are saying that until they can get the price down to your limit they just aren't allowed to sell it?

Good thing they didn't ask you how much they were allowed to spend on the Webb telescope

Oh, and I imagine all the manufacturers are going to have to withdraw all their big telephoto lenses from sale because those are too expensive, too? Or is it OK for the lenses to be even more expensive than the camera?

I don't agree. Saying "There is zero reason to sell a camera body for that much money," is either naive, or evil trolling (and I am beginning to suspect you are guilty of the latter!)

 

[Brownie]

Hmm - are you saying I am not allowed to have an A1 because you don't allow cameras over a certain price, and Sony can't make a profit selling it for as small a price as you set as the limit? That sounds kind of selfish, doesn't it?

Perhaps you are saying that until they can get the price down to your limit they just aren't allowed to sell it?

Good thing they didn't ask you how much they were allowed to spend on the Webb telescope

Oh, and I imagine all the manufacturers are going to have to withdraw all their big telephoto lenses from sale because those are too expensive, too? Or is it OK for the lenses to be even more expensive than the camera?

I don't agree. Saying "There is zero reason to sell a camera body for that much money," is either naive, or evil trolling (and I am beginning to suspect you are guilty of the latter!)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Good grief.

The fact is they and all of the others take advantage of the consumer. Sony needs to be profitable and stay in business, they don't need to conquer the world on the backs of their customers. It was meant as a completely pragmatic comment, but hey, let me know if you want to argue about it. I'd be more than happy to oblige, and I'm more than capable.

And don't worry, if I was trolling you, there'd be no need to suspect. You'd know flat out.

I have to head off to a project now, should be back in about 6 hours or so. I'll check the thread to see which way you decided to go.

 

[Brownie]

Because they can!

Exactly.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I agree that the A1 etc are ridiculously overpriced. Look at the new Canon low end cameras. They have all the speed and AF of the high end cameras at a fraction of the cost, so it's very possible. The A7R4 was pricey enough, and I can get an A1 on import but it's still 5k which is frankly daft. I could buy the Canon and a used prime lens for less.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Top end cameras are very expensive, no question about it. However the Nikon Z9 (their top mirrorless) came out about a year ago for five and a half thousand dollars and has been on backorder that entire time. It is only now (within the last week) that places like Amazon finally have them available for shipment soon after ordering. If they have had more orders than they could fill for over a year at that price, why in the world would they sell it for less?

 

[Brownie]

why in the world would they sell it for less?

But we shouldn't be willing to accept it without question. The Z9 is another significantly overpriced camera.

As far as I'm concerned all of them are overpriced. The A7M4 is overpriced for what it does, it should be a $1200-1500 camera. And how can anyone legitimately explain why a 600mm lens is worth $12,000? How about why a tripod costs $3,000? Does Manfrotto live or die by that one product? What R&D and manufacturing costs went into that product that weren't present in their other products? Yes, I can understand that they may use better materials and have a more stringent QA/QC process, but how much is that worth? If a good tripod from them is $250, how do they get to $3,000?

OM-D recently made the comment in an interview that there is a strong call for mid and upper-level cameras, so that's where they intend to place their efforts. Horse crap. They don't make enough profit on low end cameras so they don't want to produce them.

 

[AlphaWorld]

The comparison that feels most apt to me is the Canon 1Ds Mark III, mainly because this was the first high-end digital camera I bought. Announced in August 2007 at US$6999 - in current value dollars that’s US$10k today. That was their top-of-the-line model back then. They sold more than a few of these cameras up to the release of the 1DX, even at that sort of price. Nikon announced the D3x in 2008 at US$7999 (US$11k in today’s dollars) - I don’t know how many of those they sold.

Top-of-the-line cameras are comparatively cheaper now, with prices from US$6k to US$7k in today’s dollars, meaning the current models are at least a third cheaper than they were back in 2008.

I think maybe one of the reasons that there was shock at the price of the A1 is that Sony did not previously have a camera at this level. Canon and Nikon had already set high water marks for those brands. Sony didn’t have that history.

I have heard people talking about why it is valuable to have a high-end product, but I’m not a marketing person

I have no problem at all with someone saying “that’s too expensive for me” or “that’s more than I will ever pay” for something - when it comes to other products, like cars, I’m never going to buy, for example, a Mercedes or a Rolls Royce, because they cost more than I would ever want to pay, and I don’t see the value. That doesn’t mean I am going to say “No car should ever be priced over $100 000”, though. It also doesn’t mean that I am going to object to someone else buying one. If they want to spend their lawfully earned money on an expensive car…

But I do object to being told that I can’t buy a high end camera if I choose to, and my doing so does not commit my immediate family to poverty

Fair enough?

 

[Brownie]

But I do object to being told that I can’t buy a high end camera if I choose to, and my doing so does not commit my immediate family to poverty

Fair enough?

Fair enough, but no one told you that. I said they're overpriced and there is zero reason for Sony to sell it for that much. Anything beyond that is in your imagination.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Fair enough, but no one told you that. I said they're overpriced and there is zero reason for Sony to sell it for that much. Anything beyond that is in your imagination.

Hmm. I may have to stop sticking pins in an effigy...

However, you must admit that the statement "there is zero reason for Sony to sell it for that much" is untrue. There are at least two reasons: the current price reduces demand for the camera, putting less stress upon supply in a time when parts are still difficult to get; and it does mean Sony is amortising the development costs of the camera rapidly, so they will be in a position to release a successor sooner. There are other reasons, but they don't sound as good at those two

 

[spudhead]

wow I missed this debate, well I would like the a1 and can afford it but its more camera than I need right now as I am still working and don't get the time to get out as much as I would like, as being the boss means 7 days a week a lot of the time. But maybe the price point of the a1 was pitched where it is because it makes people consider less the rising cost of the other new bodies Sony have and are going to release, I assume the new a7 5 will be somewhat Pricer than the last body, I would just like to point out we are a community of like mined people on this forum and for most it is a hobby and there is room for all views

 

[MrFotoFool]

According to one source obtained by SonyAlphaRumors, the launch price of the A7RV will be $3,899. This seems logical to me. Sony also has an official placemarker video on their YouTube page for the October 26 announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2W-Qni3sY
Right now it's not actually a video, it's just a still screen with no play button that says "a new camera is coming". I assume on October 26 this will be replaced with an official promo video.

 

[spudhead]

According to one source obtained by SonyAlphaRumors, the launch price of the A7RV will be $3,899. This seems logical to me. Sony also has an official placemarker video on their YouTube page for the October 26 announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2W-Qni3sY
Right now it's not actually a video, it's just a still screen with no play button that says "a new camera is coming". I assume on October 26 this will be replaced with an official promo video.

Fred how much of an increase in price is that in the US compared to the old a74r?

 

[Brownie]

Fred how much of an increase in price is that in the US compared to the old a74r?

A7R4 is currently $3500, on sale for $3000 when last I checked. $3900 would be less than I expected, I figured $4k or more.

 

[spudhead]

A7R4 is currently $3500, on sale for $3000 when last I checked. $3900 would be less than I expected, I figured $4k or more.

Ok it will be the same in pounds then as that is what Sony do here in Uk, it could be an option for me as at least it would drive the screw drive lenses as Sony have not given us that option on the a9 or a7iii I have at the moment, also I could shoot in crop. The file size in uncompressed at 63mp will be a card filler and fill the laptop

 

[Brownie]

Ok it will be the same in pounds then as that is what Sony do here in Uk, it could be an option for me as at least it would drive the screw drive lenses as Sony have not given us that option on the a9 or a7iii I have at the moment, also I could shoot in crop. The file size in uncompressed at 63mp will be a card filler and fill the laptop

I just went and checked, the LA-EA4 will drive those lenses on both the 7III and 9.

 

[spudhead]

I just went and checked, the LA-EA4 will drive those lenses on both the 7III and 9.

Yes, I know Tim and I have it but it's not a viable adaptor in my personal opinion, it's so limiting compared to the leaa5.

 

[Brownie]

Yes, I know Tim and I have it but it's not a viable adaptor in my personal opinion, it's so limiting compared to the leaa5.

Interesting. Can you explain more? I was thinking about trying to find a used one so I could run the Maxxum lenses on my RM3 in auto instead of manual, but maybe not? I'll admit to not liking that silly translucent mirror, seems like they could find a way around it like they did with the 5.

 

[spudhead]

Interesting. Can you explain more? I was thinking about trying to find a used one so I could run the Maxxum lenses on my RM3 in auto instead of manual, but maybe not? I'll admit to not liking that silly translucent mirror, seems like they could find a way around it like they did with the 5.

OK the focus options are very few, as you say the translucent mirror, and having had the lea-5 there are more options and it's just better, nicer to use. I have considered buying the monster adaptor update kit but looking at reviews it looks slow to focus. I know the lea-4 suits many but I may as well not have it as just stick the 5 on and manual focus. To be honest I have not had it on the a7iii for a while but will try it again if it stops raining here and let you know

 

[Brownie]

OK the focus options are very few, as you say the translucent mirror, and having had the lea-5 there are more options and it's just better, nicer to use. I have considered buying the monster adaptor update kit but looking at reviews it looks slow to focus. I know the lea-4 suits many but I may as well not have it as just stick the 5 on and manual focus. To be honest I have not had it on the a7iii for a while but will try it again if it stops raining here and let you know

Would be interesting to have a nice fresh review. I know if I were to move into some of the lenses with an internal motor I could use the EA5 on the RM3, but that defeats the purpose of this wonderful old glass. I have a cheap manual adapter which works well enough for the use, I guess.

Sony doesn't seem to have any interest in updating firmware for the older bodies to use the EA5, which is a shame. I might even consider an original A7R with the adapter and a couple of Maxxum lenses as an inexpensive compact kit to leave in the car, but that type of shooting (sometimes stopped in the middle of the road and shooting out the window) requires AF, I am not comfortable setting in the road and playing with focus. I suppose I could just "f/8 and bet there" and not worry about it.