help please with new camera body

[spudhead]

So has Sony got any new full frame bodies due? I find myself getting gas I have the a9 and the a7iii but I want more functionality from my old A-mount primes and also more mega pixels like I get with the a99ii, Sony a74 33 megapixel more function with lea-5 and primes? a74ra but that is older body and 61 meg and I am not sure I want that many pixels, heavy on cards etc,again screw drive on lea-5 adaptor for old primes a plus, they say a new one could be near. Or go the whole hog a1 the wife has given the thumbs up on it but the price is crazy given the fact that I have zero spare time at the moment, and that is not changing any time soon, any suggestions opinions please

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

A7rV rumoured but it will be 100mp + and that's going to take some managing! The A1 is probably the ultimate choice, and I am considering it after having some AF issues with BIF this week, but I have had my faith in the A7RiV restored since I checked my shots, so it may not happen. I doubt they will ever make a lower resolution the the a74 again now, so maybe that's your best option. or a used riV, which is a blinding camera.

 

[spudhead]

A7rV rumoured but it will be 100mp + and that's going to take some managing! The A1 is probably the ultimate choice, and I am considering it after having some AF issues with BIF this week, but I have had my faith in the A7RiV restored since I checked my shots, so it may not happen. I doubt they will ever make a lower resolution the the a74 again now, so maybe that's your best option. or a used riV, which is a blinding camera.

Thanks Kev its just the a1 would be great but I am so busy as you see from what I manage to post I have not been out other than the garden and local walk for what seems to be for ever if I was nearer knocking work on the head then maybe, and the a9 is a monster for focus, I never understood the a9ii its seemed to add little to the a9 original, there seems to be a gap with Sony lenses and camera bodies, the 200-600 is our only real option for reach and that is fine with the 1.4, I would love the 400 2.8 but used still close to new cost, the bodies the best at a good price point is the a7r4 or we have the a1 and the fact is you can get the a74 and a74r and a little change over. I see people say the a74r gets noise at quite low iso, how do you rate it? the a9 is not great on iso noise above 8-10,000

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I agree the a9ii wasn't a great update, a slightly better EVF and not much else! It was just released when I bought the A7rIV.
I absolutely love the camera, but I will freely admit it's no A9/A1 when it comes to acquiring focus. Once locked on though it's no slouch, and I don't need 20fps, or even an electronic shutter. Regarding noise, yeah, if you don't expose well, and that's where people are falling foul of that resolution. It shows everything, so you have to be accurate. Underexpose, and you get noise at ISO 500, but get it right and it's great, even at 10000. I have plenty of shots to prove that, so it's not an issue. I honestly think the 200 600 is a groundbreaking lens, and I'm amazed it's not been copied. I don't even think it's noticeably less sharp then the 600 f4 in good light either. 400 2.8 is, and will always be out of my reach (so is the 600). I just wish they made a 300 f4.

 

[spudhead]

I agree the a9ii wasn't a great update, a slightly better EVF and not much else! It was just released when I bought the A7rIV.
I absolutely love the camera, but I will freely admit it's no A9/A1 when it comes to acquiring focus. Once locked on though it's no slouch, and I don't need 20fps, or even an electronic shutter. Regarding noise, yeah, if you don't expose well, and that's where people are falling foul of that resolution. It shows everything, so you have to be accurate. Underexpose, and you get noise at ISO 500, but get it right and it's great, even at 10000. I have plenty of shots to prove that, so it's not an issue. I honestly think the 200 600 is a groundbreaking lens, and I'm amazed it's not been copied. I don't even think it's noticeably less sharp then the 600 f4 in good light either. 400 2.8 is, and will always be out of my reach (so is the 600). I just wish they made a 300 f4.

I guess our wish list is the wish list of many out there, and you are so right about the 200-600 I have been amazed by the results even with the 1.4x, I never understand why people buy any other reach zoom for a Sony body

 

[AlphaWorld]

The rumours about the A7R5 vary. Some claim it will be the same resolution as the A7R4 (based on the feeble argument that the A7RIII was the same as the A7RII). Others claim it will be over 100Mp. I think we'll find out when it's announced, which might be this year. Might not - depends on the chip shortages, I suspect.

The other rumour circulating is that the A9III will be announced "soon". More arguments - some claim it will be 33Mp like the A7IV. I think it would make sense to keep it 24Mp, but make it significantly faster (faster than the A1) - the A9 range is all about speed. (I think the A9II was thrown together in a hurry when the A1 couldn't be ready for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, which explains its relatively underwhelming feature list)

Might there be other full frame cameras announced? Won't be a replacement for the A7IV - that's new. Likewise the A1 and the A7SIII are quite recent, too. The A7C? Unlikely.

 

[Brownie]

Can't compare many, only the 7IV and 7RIII. I can tell you the 7IV's focus tracking etc. is about 2 lightyears ahead of the RIII. The added MPs of the RIII are nice but unnecessary for what I do, a birder would probably appreciate them more. The grip is a lot more comfortable. I need the extender for the RIII, not for the IV. The color science is improved, but I'm not sure by enough to use for a purchase decision. The new menu is waaaaay better.

The IV is not a fast camera, which is something I'm sure Sony did on purpose. But it's fast enough for me, and the focusing is amazing. Of course any new releases will have the same or better, so if you can wait for something new, that may be best. But if you can't wait and the A1 is off the table, the 7IV would be my choice.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

If the wife gave the nod to the A1, just get the A1!

 

[Reciprocum]

A1 with adapted optics (A mount included) is a waste of it’s AF powers. Only recommend A1 for GM primes or exceptionly 200-600. Other than that I would take the A7iv and spend the leftover (from the approved A1 budget) on some GM glass. Sell your A-mount glass and get some more FE glass.

Edit: I would wait for an upcoming 33mpx A9iii

 

[spudhead]

A1 with adapted optics (A mount included) is a waste of it’s AF powers. Only recommend A1 for GM primes or exceptionly 200-600. Other than that I would take the A7iv and spend the leftover (from the approved A1 budget) on some GM glass. Sell your A-mount glass and get some more FE glass.

Edit: I would wait for an upcoming 33mpx A9ii

Thanks for input it seems there are a few people out there using a-mount primes and cannon primes on the a1 and although you get 10 shots a second instead of 30 and some other trade offs they report good results, I do not need or even want 30 shots as a second as it generally follows if the first one is bad the rest will be, I only use low on the a9 now, so I could be wrong but I do not see why the 300 g 2.8 and other primes would not perform well, if not I will buy the 400 2.8 at some point anyway, the thinking that its old so throw it away is part of the reason I want to try it.

 

[Jeff A]

If the wife gave the nod to the A1, just get the A1!

I agree but if you are not aware of his situation, you may not know the "hidden costs" of that purchase.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

So... Buy an A1, can use those beloved A Mount lenses, and buy some new GM and G lenses too...

 

[Tim Mayo]

If you have gas now then waiting for the rumoured a9III or a7R V to appear later this year or potentially even next year might be a long and uncomfortable wait.

I've only just purchased the A1 myself and have yet to shooting anything that even begins to make it sweat. I can happily shoot perched birds in the garden with my a7IV or a7R IV but out of the two I much prefer the focussing speed, tracking and bird eye AF that the a7 IV offers, and the buffer clears in no time with the CFexpress cards.

If you don't mind the cost then the A1 does give you that extra resolution but still maintains the focussing speed of the a9/a9II, it really does tick all of the boxes and will hopefully relieve your gas for some time to come

If you are really struggling with the decision then I'd definitely recommend hiring whichever camera you are considering for a weekend at least. I've used hireacamera.com quite a few times and also Wex Rentals.

 

[Brownie]

Tim's last sentence is probably the most practical, provided you have access to a rental place. I'd bet that even if you were to visit a store with an SD card and take a few shots with your most likely targets it would be helpful. Find something moving like a car passing by, bird, airplane, etc. You may even want to take your most trusted A-Mount along to test it.

I haven't seen any rumors regarding a higher MP sensor in the A9III except for one at 50, but there have been suggestions that it will have improved video capabilities of 8k, which would require at least 33MP, if I'm interpreting this correctly. That would make perfect sense. Provide a backlit/stacked/superduper sensor to give it the speed of an A9 with the resolution of the A7 IV, all the while keeping it below the flagship. I guess the question is, how much will it cost? Right now the difference between the 1 and 9II is $2k U.S.. I would assume the 9III would fall somewhere in between those two price points, so does it make sense to hold off for $1,000 difference?

I agree about the added MP of the RIV. For me, unnecessary. Sometimes the 7R-III even irritates me @ 42MP. I suspect the A1 would do the same. This is probably more of a card/storage problem than anything else.

I also agree about the burst rates, it has become the new MP in marketing. It's being shoved down our collective throats like the do-all end-all. Why on earth anyone needs those ridiculously fast burst speeds are beyond me. As you said, if the first one is bad, odd are the rest of that burst will be as well. I had the capability of 12FPS mechanical and 60FPS electronic on my Panasonic G9. I left it set at 7, which was more than enough for motorsports and air shows. I think in terms of a camera with a shutter life of 150,000 clicks and how much faster it will wear out using such high burst rates instead of something more reasonable.

I suppose once we hit global shutters or the sensors get at least fast enough to eliminate the majority of tearing and warping it won't matter. Nikon has made that step with the Z9, eliminating the mechanical shutter altogether. Too soon for that IMO, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Sony follow suit on the A9III or A1II, or for that matter the A7R-V.

Edited to correct errors.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I love everyone spending 6.5k of Garys money

 

[spudhead]

If you have gas now then waiting for the rumoured a9III or a7R V to appear later this year or potentially even next year might be a long and uncomfortable wait.

I've only just purchased the A1 myself and have yet to shooting anything that even begins to make it sweat. I can happily shoot perched birds in the garden with my a7IV or a7R IV but out of the two I much prefer the focussing speed, tracking and bird eye AF that the a7 IV offers, and the buffer clears in no time with the CFexpress cards.

If you don't mind the cost then the A1 does give you that extra resolution but still maintains the focussing speed of the a9/a9II, it really does tick all of the boxes and will hopefully relieve your gas for some time to come

If you are really struggling with the decision then I'd definitely recommend hiring whichever camera you are considering for a weekend at least. I've used hireacamera.com quite a few times and also Wex Rentals.

I did notice the A1 on your recent metadata but did not like to comment, thanks for your views Tim the issue I have is if I get the A1 I will defo be needing the 400 2.8

 

[spudhead]

I love everyone spending 6.5k of Garys money

That is fine Kev the 6.5k does make you think hard it is such a leap from the A9 and A7 cameras ranges but if something does not arrive new from Sony its a done deal, the problem is I generally scratch my itches

 

[Tim Mayo]

I love everyone spending 6.5k of Garys money

Only 5.3k if he's happy to buy it from Panamoz

 

[Tim Mayo]

I did notice the A1 on your recent metadata but did not like to comment, thanks for your views Tim the issue I have is if I get the A1 I will defo be needing the 400 2.8

Both the 400 2.8 and 600 F4 would be a stretch for me right now, but I don't feel like I'm missing out on a great deal by not having them. I did hire the 600 F4 one Christmas and although it's a cracking lens it's hard to see much of a difference between the 200-600 and the 600 F4. It's also not a lens I particularly enjoyed carrying around a great deal due to its size and weight. I expect I might purchase one of these mega primes at some point but I'm really not in any rush.

 

[spudhead]

Both the 400 2.8 and 600 F4 would be a stretch for me right now, but I don't feel like I'm missing out on a great deal by not having them. I did hire the 600 F4 one Christmas and although it's a cracking lens it's hard to see much of a difference between the 200-600 and the 600 F4. It's also not a lens I particularly enjoyed carrying around a great deal due to its size and weight. I expect I might purchase one of these mega primes at some point but I'm really not in any rush.

I dont really have an interest in the 600 f4 as I have used huge primes for years now, and although they are getting lighter I have no wish to carry the 600 f4 around , I would like the 400 2.8 as it will be good in low light and with the 1.4 x should be a good option.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Only 5.3k if he's happy to buy it from Panamoz

£5023 from E Infiniti

 

[AlphaWorld]

Tim's last sentence is probably the most practical, provided you have access to a rental place. I'd bet that even if you were to visit a store with an SD card and take a few shots with your most likely targets it would be helpful. Find something moving like a car passing by, bird, airplane, etc. You may even want to take your most trusted A-Mount along to test it.

I haven't seen any rumors regarding a higher MP sensor in the A9III except for one at 50, but there have been suggestions that it will have improved video capabilities of 8k, which would require at least 33MP, if I'm interpreting this correctly. That would make perfect sense. Provide a backlit/stacked/superduper sensor to give it the speed of an A9 with the resolution of the A7 IV, all the while keeping it below the flagship. I guess the question is, how much will it cost? Right now the difference between the 1 and 9II is $2k U.S.. I would assume the 9III would fall somewhere in between those two price points, so does it make sense to hold off for $1,000 difference?

I agree about the added MP of the RIV. For me, unnecessary. Sometimes the 7R-III even irritates me @ 42MP. I suspect the A1 would do the same. This is probably more of a card/storage problem than anything else.

I also agree about the shutter speed. Shutter speed has become the new MP in marketing. It's being shoved down our collective throats like the do-all end-all. Why on earth anyone needs those ridiculously fast speeds are beyond me. As you said, if the first one is bad, odd are the rest of that burst will be as well. I had the capability of 20FPS mechanical and 60FPS electronic on my Panasonic G9. I left it set at 7, which was more than enough for motorsports and air shows. I think in terms of a camera with a shutter life of 150,000 clicks. Shooting a burst of 20FPS gives you 7500 button pushes, while a burst of 7FPS gives you over 21,000. What does anyone think they're going to miss in the frames between? We're talking 0.05 second for each frame at 20 and 0.14 second for each frame at 7, a difference of 0.09 seconds.

I suppose once we hit global shutters or the sensors get at least fast enough to eliminate the majority of tearing and warping it won't matter. Nikon has made that step with the Z9, eliminating the mechanical shutter altogether. Too soon for that IMO, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Sony follow suit on the A9III or A1II, or for that matter the A7R-V.

When I read “Why on earth anyone needs those ridiculously fast speeds are beyond me.” I thought you were talking about the ability to go to 1/32000 shutter speed, and the answer to that is that it gives you two more stops at maximum aperture in full sun before you have to stop down - I like being able to shoot wide open in bright sunlight, and if that means my shutter speed goes to stratospheric heights, that’s cool . I see shutter speeds like 1/10000, even 1/32000, on my shots in full sun at f/1.8.

But you were actually talking about ridiculous frame rates, like 30fps and higher. I only go to 20fps on the A1, because I am shooting lossless RAW. But you are mistaken about shutter life. Those speeds on the A1 and A9 are only achievable using electronic shutter (I am not sure, but mechanical tops out at 10, I think). There is no shutter wear with electronic shutter - none at all. The only penalty you pay is making a whole bunch more images to go through and cull… I have paid that penalty quite often in the past year

I am now using 5fps sometimes, 10fps sometimes, but there are times when 20fps can be useful, mostly with birds in flight, because you want a frame with the wings in a good position, and capturing that can require 20fps with birds who flap their wings quickly. Not an issue if you are shooting, for example, aircraft - if they are flapping their wings there is probably a major problem!

 

[Brownie]

When I read “Why on earth anyone needs those ridiculously fast speeds are beyond me.” I thought you were talking about the ability to go to 1/32000 shutter speed, and the answer to that is that it gives you two more stops at maximum aperture in full sun before you have to stop down - I like being able to shoot wide open in bright sunlight, and if that means my shutter speed goes to stratospheric heights, that’s cool . I see shutter speeds like 1/10000, even 1/32000, on my shots in full sun at f/1.8.

But you were actually talking about ridiculous frame rates, like 30fps and higher. I only go to 20fps on the A1, because I am shooting lossless RAW. But you are mistaken about shutter life. Those speeds on the A1 and A9 are only achievable using electronic shutter (I am not sure, but mechanical tops out at 10, I think). There is no shutter wear with electronic shutter - none at all. The only penalty you pay is making a whole bunch more images to go through and cull… I have paid that penalty quite often in the past year

I am now using 5fps sometimes, 10fps sometimes, but there are times when 20fps can be useful, mostly with birds in flight, because you want a frame with the wings in a good position, and capturing that can require 20fps with birds who flap their wings quickly. Not an issue if you are shooting, for example, aircraft - if they are flapping their wings there is probably a major problem!

I went and looked at the specs and was incorrect on the mechanical frame rate of the G9, I misremembered the number. The 20 is the low end of electronic with AFC. AFS can do 60FPS.

Regarding the shutter speed term, I should've said burst rate. Of course there's no shutter wear with electronic, but there are tradeoffs such as tearing and warping. The newer sensors have gotten to the point that this is minimized, but not yet eliminated. Mechanical shutter speeds still exceed what most people need. The bigger point though is how burst rates are being pushed as mine is bigger than yours.

The caveat for those kinds of bursts would be BIF or Insects. Even at that, I would be able to find perfectly useable images with the slower burst rate. But then, I'm not a BIFer.

I'm going to clean up my other post so as not to lead anyone astray.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I went and looked at the specs and was incorrect on the mechanical frame rate of the G9, I misremembered the number. The 20 is the low end of electronic with AFC. AFS can do 60FPS.

Regarding the shutter speed term, I should've said burst rate. Of course there's no shutter wear with electronic, but there are tradeoffs such as tearing and warping. The newer sensors have gotten to the point that this is minimized, but not yet eliminated. Mechanical shutter speeds still exceed what most people need. The bigger point though is how burst rates are being pushed as mine is bigger than yours.

The caveat for those kinds of bursts would be BIF or Insects. Even at that, I would be able to find perfectly useable images with the slower burst rate. But then, I'm not a BIFer.

I'm going to clean up my other post so as not to lead anyone astray.

Oh, sorry if I sounded critical. I was explaining why I went off topic for a paragraph.

I know electronic shutter produces warping and tearing with the A7RIV - I've done it (and the results can look really weird). I saw one quite minor case with an A9II, but I have not seen any on the A1 - that's the difference between a sensor read time of 1/10 (on the A7RIV), 1/160 on the A9, and 1/250 on the A1. I use mechanical shutter pretty much exclusively on the A7RIV, but I have no inhibitions about shooting entirely electronic on the A1. I can only recommend that on a stacked sensor.

 

[Brownie]

Oh, sorry if I sounded critical. I was explaining why I went off topic for a paragraph.

I know electronic shutter produces warping and tearing with the A7RIV - I've done it (and the results can look really weird). I saw one quite minor case with an A9II, but I have not seen any on the A1 - that's the difference between a sensor read time of 1/10 (on the A7RIV), 1/160 on the A9, and 1/250 on the A1. I use mechanical shutter pretty much exclusively on the A7RIV, but I have no inhibitions about shooting entirely electronic on the A1. I can only recommend that on a stacked sensor.

No problem. I posted that from memory and failed to research. I don't want to put up incorrect information.