Sony A7R V My Review of rented A7rV

[MrFotoFool]

I rented an A7rV to see if the high resolution viewfinder is more enjoyable than my current A7IV (since I prefer the SLR viewfinder of my Nikon D850’s). It was overcast with off and on rain the three days of testing. This is ideal for photography and also favored the high contrast electronic viewfinder, though one sunny day might have given a more accurate test. I used my only Sony lens: 200-600 f5.6-6.3. I looked out my window through my A7IV before swapping the lens and looking through A7rV. The higher resolution viewfinder does not look much different to me.

First afternoon in an arroyo behind my Tucson condominium where a Cooper’s hawk on a branch came out blurry due to camera shake (shutter 1/100). This and subsequent shots indicate Sony’s claim of 8 stop IBIS is inflated. A javelina grazing on the lawn at sunset let me test high ISO. 8000 is good and quite useable and even 16000 is okay.

Second day at Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, photographing captive mammals and wild birds. There are several focus detect modes; I enabled animal/bird combined, though you can set one or the other (only) as well as insect, automobile, etc. It worked great on mammals and birds but not on a captive snake or fish, where it reverted to the chosen center spot. When Sony says animal mode, they really mean mammal mode (which is why bird and insect are listed separately, even though birds and insects are animals, as are reptiles and fish). The general public often confuses animal for mammal as well, a pet peeve of mine. If a mammal turns its head away, the camera puts a larger box around its head and if it walks away it puts an even bigger box around its body, still tracking the animal.

Third day at Sabino Canyon, at the base of the Catalina Mountains and part of a national forest. More birds here and the eye detect focus works great. I do a scenic at 200mm then do the same shot with my Nikon D850 and 70-200 set at 200mm. The Sony I had to set to minus 2/3 compensation to keep from overexposing but the Nikon at 0 is still a bit darker (and cooler) than the Sony. Review in computer shows Nikon also has more contrast. All samples in this review are camera JPEG’s with no adjustment (except cropping on some animals). Obviously contrast, etc can be changed using RAW file (except I use Photoshop Elements which does not support A7rV RAW files, so I would have to convert to DNG).

My conclusion is that the new tracking mode for animals (including birds) is fantastic. The ergonomics and layout (which I find good but not great) are almost identical to my A7IV; I even pulled the grip off it and put it on the rental. In soft light or low light the electronic viewfinder of a mirrorless seems to be quite good, but in the brief moment the sun shone at Sabino I looked through it and found the electronic image unpleasing. FOR ME, an SLR is better in full sun and a Mirrorless is as good or maybe better in soft or low light.

Did I enjoy using it? The answer is yes. Did I enjoy it enough to sell my D850’s and go all-in with Sony? Probably not, though with their lens options it’s not out of the question. If you are a Sony user and like their gear then I imagine you would love an A7rV, especially for wildlife. If you do primarily still shots, get an A7rIV and save a thousand bucks. My next step may be to rent a Nikon Z9 and Canon R3, or just find an F mount telephoto for my D850 that I am happy with, or keep using the dual setup I now have.

 

[W84Me]

I like your very candid and honest review. I used to own the Nikon D850 and there are times when I miss it. The color rendition of Nikon D850 is better than Sony A7R4. Sony has further made the color resolve more complex by injecting other elements like profile etc. So Nikon's menu layout is simpler and it delivers! Since I do a lot of floral shots, the focus stacking feature of D850 is wonderful. D850 was the first camera to have introduced it.

The one thing I find in D850 very helpful is backlit controls. In the night time, it is super helpful!

The only reason I moved away from D850 and towards A7R4 was resolution. Almost all of my shots are printed in poster size (or larger). Hence 61 megapixels makes a huge difference in retaining the sharpness.

I am thinking of moving to A7R5 just for focus stacking (and some minor improvements) included. Will save me time in the projects.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Nice review. I've been toying with looking at an RV, just to compare the AF with the RiV, which I am sure is a big difference, but I'm not sure it's enough and I feel an A1 would be more suited for my speed needs, and, in real terms here, there's little difference in the price of the 2. I'm still wondering if the rumoured a9iii will appear soon and then there will be more interest in switching. Then I have the most difficult part, convincing the other half it's necessary

 

[Brownie]

First afternoon in an arroyo behind my Tucson condominium where a Cooper’s hawk on a branch came out blurry due to camera shake (shutter 1/100). This and subsequent shots indicate Sony’s claim of 8 stop IBIS is inflated.

I'm not sure your assessment of IBIS is accurate. I shoot my 200-600 at 125 all the time with no problems. If I tried I could probably go farther, and I may just for the heck of it. The A7IV claims 5 stops and I have proven it to 3.5 with no problem. Your example of 1/100 amounts to 2-1/2 stops or so from 600mm. I find it difficult to believe the RM5 can't accomplish 2-1/2 stops. At the same time, I'm not so naive as to believe it actually achieves 8 stops, but 5 should be no problem.

Also, sharpening can be added in camera for your jpegs. It won't have any effect on RAW.

The color rendition of Nikon D850 is better than Sony A7R4. Sony has further made the color resolve more complex by injecting other elements like profile etc. So Nikon's menu layout is simpler and it delivers! Since I do a lot of floral shots, the focus stacking feature of D850 is wonderful. D850 was the first camera to have introduced it.

Sony changed their color profile after the A7R4, I believe the first camera with the new profile is the A74. It now compares directly and favorably to Canon, who seems to have the most sought-after color science. There's a difference between my RM3 and my M4.

As for the profiles you refer to, they do not affect RAW, period. Gerald Undone did a definitive test and video on Sony profiles and settings and only Gamma has any effect on RAW. I think I posted the video around here once, I'll try and find it later or you can look it up.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I like your very candid and honest review. I used to own the Nikon D850 and there are times when I miss it. The color rendition of Nikon D850 is better than Sony A7R4. Sony has further made the color resolve more complex by injecting other elements like profile etc. So Nikon's menu layout is simpler and it delivers! Since I do a lot of floral shots, the focus stacking feature of D850 is wonderful. D850 was the first camera to have introduced it.

The one thing I find in D850 very helpful is backlit controls. In the night time, it is super helpful!

The only reason I moved away from D850 and towards A7R4 was resolution. Almost all of my shots are printed in poster size (or larger). Hence 61 megapixels makes a huge difference in retaining the sharpness.

I am thinking of moving to A7R5 just for focus stacking (and some minor improvements) included. Will save me time in the projects.

As expressed by Fred and yourself W84me , i likewise held on to my D850's along with my Nikon macro and long lenses as i moved
to Sony ....this decision was based upon a practical review of going to Nikon mirrorless, the weight of the Z9 and DSLR to
mirrorless adapter with a long lens(500mm f4) seemed very very heavy and really not suitable for freehand shooting for any
length of time in the field..

Yes I absolutely agree the picture quality of the D850 is equal to if not better than my current Sony a1 and A9 II and for
appropriate shooting conditions, remains an essential element of my overall active equipment holding alongside my Sony
gear..

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

"I'm not sure your assessment of IBIS is accurate. I shoot my 200-600 at 125 all the time with no problems. If I tried I could probably go farther, and I may just for the heck of it. The A7IV claims 5 stops and I have proven it to 3.5 with no problem. Your example of 1/100 amounts to 2-1/2 stops or so from 600mm. I find it difficult to believe the RM5 can't accomplish 2-1/2 stops. At the same time, I'm not so naive as to believe it actually achieves 8 stops, but 5 should be no problem"

I've handheld at 1/30th, so yes it's possible, though not easy!

 

[Brownie]

"I'm not sure your assessment of IBIS is accurate. I shoot my 200-600 at 125 all the time with no problems. If I tried I could probably go farther, and I may just for the heck of it. The A7IV claims 5 stops and I have proven it to 3.5 with no problem. Your example of 1/100 amounts to 2-1/2 stops or so from 600mm. I find it difficult to believe the RM5 can't accomplish 2-1/2 stops. At the same time, I'm not so naive as to believe it actually achieves 8 stops, but 5 should be no problem"

I've handheld at 1/30th, so yes it's possible, though not easy!

1 stop 300, 2 stops 150, 3 stops 75, 4 stops 37.5, so yeah, you're pushing over 4 stops. My Panny G9 had 6 claimed stops, if I'm recalling correctly. I could shoot the 400 (800 equivalence) down to 1/15 if I was very careful, but 1/60 required no special process, so 4 real stops of normal shooting. I'm not sure any camera ever achieved it's claimed stops with the exception of Olympus. They are claiming 8-1/2 stops on the OM and users are reporting it to be pretty close to reality. It's a lot easier to do with a small sensor than a FF. I suspected the claimed 8 stops on the R5 was hogwash, but it'd be nice if someone who has the use of one for a period of time could test and report back. Of course we'd need to consider whether the tester is a Steady Eddie or a Shaky Jake!

 

[Clix Pix]

Back in 2019 I ditched Nikon for good and I don't regret it. My first Sony FF camera was the A7R IV and I loved that camera, but when the time came I was ready to trade her in on the A7R V, as there were enough improvements and differences to make it worthwhile for me. My A1 and A7R V complement each other very nicely and each works well for me in the kind of shooting I like to do. So for me, yes, the move to the A7R V from the A7R IV was worth it.

 

[W84Me]

As for the profiles you refer to, they do not affect RAW, period. Gerald Undone did a definitive test and video on Sony profiles and settings and only Gamma has any effect on RAW. I think I posted the video around here once, I'll try and find it later or you can look it up.

I know that the profiles do not have an effect on RAW generally. But, comparing to D850, the point that I was making related to bloated menu structure of Sony. Even in A7RV, the problem remains just the same albeit the orientation of layout has changed.

I will say this after having owned A7R4: Sony remains very detached from users. It has its own mindset. They could have easily implemented some user-friendly changes via firmware. If you look at the history of firmware updates, they remain scant because Sony wants your dollars for just few updates. Like the OP‘s view, these minor updates don’t call for another forking out of $3,900.

Even in my case, as much as I would like to have focus stacking in A7R4 the incremental price for the feature is substantial. Hence my indecision to make the jump to A7R5.

 

[Brownie]

I know that the profiles do not have an effect on RAW generally. But, comparing to D850, the point that I was making related to bloated menu structure of Sony. Even in A7RV, the problem remains just the same albeit the orientation of layout has changed.

I will say this after having owned A7R4: Sony remains very detached from users. It has its own mindset. They could have easily implemented some user-friendly changes via firmware. If you look at the history of firmware updates, they remain scant because Sony wants your dollars for just few updates. Like the OP‘s view, these minor updates don’t call for another forking out of $3,900.

Even in my case, as much as I would like to have focus stacking in A7R4 the incremental price for the feature is substantial. Hence my indecision to make the jump to A7R5.

Is the problem a bloated menu structure from Sony, or improved technology? How does a Z9 menu look compared to Sony? I'm guessing it's a lot deeper than the D850, but not being a Nikon user couldn't say.

There is no in-camera focus stacking in the A7RV, and Sony should be taken to task for calling it such. I agree they aren't the best company when it comes to some of their features and the archaic way they approach these kinds of things. Their idea of focus stacking can be done using bracketing on any camera and just about any processing program. Yes, it'll take a bit more effort, but people have been doing it for years. A far cry from the automated in-camera that other manufacturers offer. But then I didn't buy into Sony for any of that. AF and lens selection are the main draw for me, and they have those in spades.

 

[W84Me]

Bracketing is NOT focus stacking! Two totally different things. And yes, Sony lenses are superb but the newer generations of Canon and Nikon lenses are just as outstanding. Granted that Sony has presently more lenses in their arsenal because they were the first in mirrorless world. I am very sure that superiority is short-lived.

 

[Brownie]

Bracketing is NOT focus stacking! Two totally different things. And yes, Sony lenses are superb but the newer generations of Canon and Nikon lenses are just as outstanding. Granted that Sony has presently more lenses in their arsenal because they were the first in mirrorless world. I am very sure that superiority is short-lived.

Yes, I understand the difference, misspoke this morning. Nonetheless the context stays the same whether focus stacking or exposure bracketing, both are easily accomplished by taking the shots and combining in processing.

My lean toward Sony for lenses is the selection, not quality. Don't bet for a minute that will be short-lived. It has far less to do with the timing of their entry into mirrorless and far more to do with policies. Canon has decided to depend on existing customers and legacy glass adapters rather than licensing third party lens manufacturers, even to the extent of warning at least one to cease and desist. Nikon held firm for quite a while but has become a bit more lenient as of late, and we're starting to see a few lenses pop up here and there. They will certainly start to catch up at a much faster rate than Canon. How fast that will be remains to be seen. With Nikon sucking hind-tit in the sales wars for the last few years, they need to do something quickly.

 

[MrFotoFool]

...Nikon held firm for quite a while but has become a bit more lenient as of late, and we're starting to see a few lenses pop up here and there...

Nikon has made a very interesting move in that they are branding a few Tamron lenses under their own name (for mirrorless). Whoever made this arrangement on Tamron's end is a genius and I imagine Sigma reps are duly envious. However, Tamron also has one or two lenses that are currently available only for Sony and that no one else matches (specifically the 35-150 f2-2.8 ).

 

[Brownie]

Nikon has made a very interesting move in that they are branding a few Tamron lenses under their own name (for mirrorless). Whoever made this arrangement on Tamron's end is a genius and I imagine Sigma reps are duly envious. However, Tamron also has one or two lenses that are currently available only for Sony and that no one else matches (specifically the 35-150 f2-2.8 ).

Yes, as I said they've recently begun to make moves to correct their policy, which has proven fatal in the past. Sony experienced it with the Betamax. Keep in mind that Sony owns the second largest share of Tamron, so while I expect Tamron (and indirectly Sony) won't turn down the income it wouldn't surprise me to see them limit some lenses to E mount only. Not so different from their (assumed) TC policy!

 

[Landshark99]

I am always struck by how much complaining there is about menu systems on cameras, I rarely find the need to go very deep in any cameras menu system while shooting.

 

[Jeff A]

"I'm not sure your assessment of IBIS is accurate. I shoot my 200-600 at 125 all the time with no problems. If I tried I could probably go farther, and I may just for the heck of it. The A7IV claims 5 stops and I have proven it to 3.5 with no problem. Your example of 1/100 amounts to 2-1/2 stops or so from 600mm. I find it difficult to believe the RM5 can't accomplish 2-1/2 stops. At the same time, I'm not so naive as to believe it actually achieves 8 stops, but 5 should be no problem"

I've handheld at 1/30th, so yes it's possible, though not easy!

When a user reviews or tests IBIS, I think it's important to remember that the old adage, "Your results may vary" is true. I think that I am a perfect example of this. I almost never use a tripod so it's hand held all the way. A few years back, I woke one morning and I was completely deaf in my left ear. The is still the case and I am un-steady while standing or shooting do to balance issues. I have nearly fallen over before while trying to compose a shot. Of course, I do look for something to brace myself against, but that isn't always possible. So a given shutter speed may work fine for some but be unusable for others. I have found that around 1/30th is the best I can do and maintain sharpness. Don't ask for my review of the "Golden Years" because they pretty much suck, big time!

 

[Brownie]

When a user reviews or tests IBIS, I think it's important to remember that the old adage, "Your results may vary" is true. I think that I am a perfect example of this. I almost never use a tripod so it's hand held all the way. A few years back, I woke one morning and I was completely deaf in my left ear. The is still the case and I am un-steady while standing or shooting do to balance issues. I have nearly fallen over before while trying to compose a shot. Of course, I do look for something to brace myself against, but that isn't always possible. So a given shutter speed may work fine for some but be unusable for others. I have found that around 1/30th is the best I can do and maintain sharpness. Don't ask for my review of the "Golden Years" because they pretty much suck, big time!

That was my post, Kev just quoted it.

Understood. In post number 7 I said in the last sentence the tester's stability need to be taken into account.

And of course much depends on the FL. Someone may be able to hold a 50mm lens stable as heck, but a 400mm lens not so much.

Sorry to hear about your medical issue, that has to be pretty tough to deal with. Is there any chance of correcting it? Hope so.

 

[Clix Pix]

Jeff, a company called Cochlear Americas offers solutions for single-sided deafness, and while they do make cochlear implants, there are other solutions available as well: bone-anchored sound processors (BAHAs) which I wear, plus a newer version called the Osia. People who have SSD due to acoustic neuroma, "glue ear" or other causes have been able to benefit from this technology. Check with your ENT or audiologist to see if you might be an eligible candidate.

 

[W84Me]

>>Canon has decided to depend on existing customers and legacy glass adapters rather than licensing third party lens manufacturers, even to the extent of warning at least one to cease and desist.<<

Third party licensing is a double edge sword. Ask Apple. I can tell you this that I have used Canon R5 with Canon's 100mm RF macro lens. My verdict is that it produces a better and smoother image than A7R4. Now only if it were not 45 megapixels but 61 that would be the the thing!

 

[Brownie]

>>Canon has decided to depend on existing customers and legacy glass adapters rather than licensing third party lens manufacturers, even to the extent of warning at least one to cease and desist.<<

Third party licensing is a double edge sword. Ask Apple. I can tell you this that I have used Canon R5 with Canon's 100mm RF macro lens. My verdict is that it produces a better and smoother image than A7R4. Now only if it were not 45 megapixels but 61 that would be the the thing!

If it produces a better, smoother image, why would you want to change it? Why not just shoot the Canon?

 

[W84Me]

If it produces a better, smoother image, why would you want to change it? Why not just shoot the Canon?

Answer is in my post.

 

[Brownie]

Answer is in my post.

Chasing MP?

 

[Jeff A]

That was my post, Kev just quoted it.

Understood. In post number 7 I said in the last sentence the tester's stability need to be taken into account.

And of course much depends on the FL. Someone may be able to hold a 50mm lens stable as heck, but a 400mm lens not so much.

Sorry to hear about your medical issue, that has to be pretty tough to deal with. Is there any chance of correcting it? Hope so.

At the time, I was told I had a 33% chance that my hearing would come back in the 1st year. This April, it will be 7 years.

 

[Jeff A]

Jeff, a company called Cochlear Americas offers solutions for single-sided deafness, and while they do make cochlear implants, there are other solutions available as well: bone-anchored sound processors (BAHAs) which I wear, plus a newer version called the Osia. People who have SSD due to acoustic neuroma, "glue ear" or other causes have been able to benefit from this technology. Check with your ENT or audiologist to see if you might be an eligible candidate.

I will and thank you. You have supplied me with more information than was provided by my Health Care provider. Tell me what your experience is with BAHA. Is it permanently installed or placed in the ear canal?

 

[Brownie]

At the time, I was told I had a 33% chance that my hearing would come back in the 1st year. This April, it will be 7 years.

That's a shame. I can't even imagine what affect it has on you. Hopefully you've found a way to manage.

 

[MrFotoFool]

At the time, I was told I had a 33% chance that my hearing would come back in the 1st year. This April, it will be 7 years.

So sorry. Kind of puts into perspective the importance unimportance of stressing over new cameras and lenses.

 

[Jeff A]

So sorry. Kind of puts into perspective the importance unimportance of stressing over new cameras and lenses.

Thanks Brownie & Fred. It could be worse and I have had worse and survived. I'm a Stage 3 1/2 cancer survivor which makes the loss of one ear a piece of cake. Value your good health ladies and gentlemen. In the winter of 2008 I was planning the details of my own death and what would follow for my family, yet due to the grace of God and a dedicated and fantastic surgeon, I am still here. They told me if I made it 5 years without the re-occurrence of cancer, I would be considered cured. It's been 14 years. My former surgeon is now my good friend. We have lunch regularly, we go shooting together (the other kind) and we have flown together many times.

 

[Brownie]

Thanks Brownie & Fred. It could be worse and I have had worse and survived. I'm a Stage 3 1/2 cancer survivor which makes the loss of one ear a piece of cake. Value your good health ladies and gentlemen. In the winter of 2008 I was planning the details of my own death and what would follow for my family, yet due to the grace of God and a dedicated and fantastic surgeon, I am still here. They told me if I made it 5 years without the re-occurrence of cancer, I would be considered cured. It's been 14 years. My former surgeon is now my good friend. We have lunch regularly, we go shooting together (the other kind) and we have flown together many times.

That's great Jeff!

/Thread. Ain't no one gonna' top that post!

 

[Clix Pix]

I will and thank you. You have supplied me with more information than was provided by my Health Care provider. Tell me what your experience is with BAHA. Is it permanently installed or placed in the ear canal?

The BAHA was originally designed and intended for people with conductive hearing loss due to atresia and microtia, and a surgeon in Sweden came up with the idea of osseointegration of a small titanium screw into the mastoid bone, which then connects to a another small screw which extrudes slightly from the skin. This is called an "abutment," and the actual BAHA sound processor snaps into place on that abutment. It is rather similar to tooth implants where there is a titanium screw positioned in the jawbone and after osseointegration the false tooth is placed over it.

There is also another version of the BAHA which utilizes magnetic technology. Since mine are the kind used with the abutment, I'm not quite sure if there is a magnet of some sort placed in the mastoid bone or how that works, but there is nothing protruding through the skin and instead the patient uses a protective pad and a magnet to affix the BAHA sound processor to his or her head.

The OSIA, which is more recently developed, also works with magnetic technology, and with this device, there is a small paddle-shaped magnetic component placed under the skin near or on the mastic bone, and after healing, the OSIA sound processor attaches magnetically to the patient's head. It is small and round, fairly unobtrusive. My BAHAs are also quite small and my hair easily covers them. Nothing goes into the ear canal at all and there is no ear mold the way there is with many traditional hearing aids.

Because this involves a surgical procedure and the system really requires that in order to function correctly, rather than being called a "hearing aid" the BAHA and the OSIA are both considered "sound processors" and have been designated by Medicare as "prosthetic devices." This is great because unlike with regular hearing aids, these are covered by Medicare and many health insurance companies. Good thing, too, considering how expensive they are! With all the improvements that have come along with digital technology, the price tags on both traditional hearing aids and BAHAs have gone up.

Obviously when one is getting the BAHA system for the first time there are also going to be the costs for the surgical procedure(s) as well. I don't recall how much that was at the time since it was way back in 2001. To determine and confirm a patient's eligibility for this type of hearing device, a CT scan and of course audiograms are required before anything moves forward. It is necessary to have a functioning cochlea. However, patients who do not have a functioning cochlea may be a suitable candidate for a cochlear implant, which is yet another surgical process but a different type of sound processor.

So, to answer the question: the titanium screw and the paddle-shaped devices are both inserted permanently, but the sound processor devices are external. They use batteries just as other hearing devices do, and with technology always moving forward there are new versions of these sound processors released every few years. Most people replace their sound processor devices about every four or five years, depending upon their insurance and/or Medicare stipulations.

Hope this helps!

 

[MrFotoFool]

One feature I did not get a chance to test in my rental is focus stacking (which someone already mentioned). I have used that feature in my Nikon D850 and am glad to see Sony finally has it. As of this date apparently the A7rV is the only model with it. For clarity, I am not referring to in-camera stacking (I do that in the computer), but rather to the lens automatically shifting focus to enable stacking later.

I am still looking at various options and brands, but I must confess Sony has the most appealing lens lineup.