Sony to Announce A7R-V October 26th

[Brownie]

Rumors guy has no real specs yet, but it sounds like the announcement date is solid.

He speculates 95MP from one of his sources.

In my mind, that leaves room for a 60-70MP A1-II, a 45MP A9-III, A 40MP A7-V, and a 33MP A7C-II.

Just sayin'!

With the A7-IV still hitting the top of the charts as a #1 best-seller (B&H), it may be several years before the A7-V is released.

RUMOR: Sony will announce the new A7rV on October 26th! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Hmm. I hope it has the AF system of the A1 at least, but 95mp is going to demand serious technique to get the best out of it. Cue the moaners once it's released.

 

[Brownie]

Hmm. I hope it has the AF system of the A1 at least, but 95mp is going to demand serious technique to get the best out of it. Cue the moaners once it's released.

95 seems like such an odd number, but then again so is 61! I was thinking they'd just go to 100 and be the first ones there, before Canikon can claim it. But then I also think 80 sounds more reasonable, for no real reason.

One would think it would have the new engine, AF, speed, etc. etc. as the A1, but then they'd be making the A1 obsolete. When you consider the A7 series is supposed to be a middle of the road camera, not professional, I think they'll keep it in its own lane. They'll continue to push it to the resolution crowd for landscapes, flowers, etc. and keep the A1 and A9 for action. Look how they downgraded the sensor on the A7-IV to keep the features of the other models unique.

When you stop and think about it, the field is getting pretty full. They should probably thin the herd.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

95 seems like such an odd number, but then again so is 61! I was thinking they'd just go to 100 and be the first ones there, before Canikon can claim it. But then I also think 80 sounds more reasonable, for no real reason.

Well, I did see original rumours saying 105, and I agree, I reckoned on them doing 100 first. Either way it's a daft resolution and RAW file sizes in 16-bit mode in P/S will be about 650mb. That's nuts.

 

[AlphaWorld]

95 seems like such an odd number, but then again so is 61! I was thinking they'd just go to 100 and be the first ones there, before Canikon can claim it. But then I also think 80 sounds more reasonable, for no real reason.

One would think it would have the new engine, AF, speed, etc. etc. as the A1, but then they'd be making the A1 obsolete. When you consider the A7 series is supposed to be a middle of the road camera, not professional, I think they'll keep it in its own lane. They'll continue to push it to the resolution crowd for landscapes, flowers, etc. and keep the A1 and A9 for action. Look how they downgraded the sensor on the A7-IV to keep the features of the other models unique.

When you stop and think about it, the field is getting pretty full. They should probably thin the herd.

The A7RIV never was 61 except in the disturbed mind of Sony Marketing. It's 60.2Mpixel, and anyone not in Marketing would call that 60.

96 would be a cool number because it's a 6 x 16. On a 3:2 sensor that means the dimensions would be 12000 long by 8000 high (double the size of a 24Mp sensor in both dimensions). That appeals to me because I like round numbers And I can imagine the moaning from two groups: the ones who bought one not realising that it required good technique, and the ones who couldn't afford one, and described it as "unnecessary" and "no one will ever need that many pixels" (they have had plenty of practice with the existing A7RIV, and the A1 for that matter). And hey, Sony Marketing could still call it a 100Mpixel sensor!

I hope the A9 III doesn't go radically higher resolution. If it stayed at 24Mpixel it could go to ludicrous speed frame rates with the new processor. If you look at the Canon 1D lineup (one of the longest running PJ lines), it stayed the same or increased only a little almost every time - all the 1D mark II models (the original and the N) were 8Mp, the 1d III was 10, the 1D IV made the big jump up to 16, the 1DX was 18, and the 1DX II and III were 20Mpixel. Even the R3 only went up to 24.

I'd be happy enough with the A1 mark II going up a bit (60, perhaps) as long as it kept its current speed.

One month to wait before we discover the specs of the A7RV (assuming that SAR is correct, which is not guaranteed now that Nokishita is gone).

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I really don't understand the whole megapixel thing. When I started out I was told that 24 is tonnes which I believe that it is as a full image, but it doesn't leave a lot of room to crop so I personally think that 42 or 50 is fantastic with 61 being plenty more than adequate. Definitely any higher than 61 is simply ridiculous for 99.9% of applications I think.

But I don't know, I guess being the R model they have to keep ripping into it since keeping the 61 sensor but speeding it right up would put it into the A1 arena, which is obviously a no go...

If they end up pumping out a 45mp A9 III, it will be my next camera...

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Many megapixels, huge files, pixel peepers' delight. Not my cup of tea, but impressive regardless!

 

[Brownie]

I really don't understand the whole megapixel thing. When I started out I was told that 24 is tonnes which I believe that it is as a full image, but it doesn't leave a lot of room to crop so I personally think that 42 or 50 is fantastic with 61 being plenty more than adequate. Definitely any higher than 61 is simply ridiculous for 99.9% of applications I think.

But I don't know, I guess being the R model they have to keep ripping into it since keeping the 61 sensor but speeding it right up would put it into the A1 arena, which is obviously a no go...

If they end up pumping out a 45mp A9 III, it will be my next camera...

Of course you don't get it. You're a reasonable, rational human being with experience!

But when you're a neophyte standing at the camera counter, or getting ready to click that order button on a website, MP are everything. Look at what they do with the cellphones. Apple's new one is 45MP or something ridiculous on that teeny little sensor. People are told MP are king. It's the old 'bigger is better'. It's all about sales.

Coming from a world where 20MP was the top of the heap, I learned very early on that cropping was bad and composition was critical. I rarely cropped, and if I did it was only to correct a minor error in composition, like removing a bit off one side. Cropping was shamefully admitting you really didn't get the shot, and if I did crop I felt compelled to tell people when I posted the image. When I first started frequenting forums that cater to FF and (much) higher MP, I was absolutely aghast at the way cropping was portrayed as an acceptable part of the process. Then I got my 33 and 42MP cameras and after a few months, figured it out. As much as I love the features of the A7-IV, I often find myself wishing it had the same MP as the A7R-III. I don't know that I want more, but it sure is nice to have those extra megapickles when you need them.

And as for now, I have been assimilated. I am one of you. I now crop wantonly without guilt or shame. It's not my fault, I am a product of my environment!!!!

 

[Tim Mayo]

Well, I did see original rumours saying 105, and I agree, I reckoned on them doing 100 first. Either way it's a daft resolution and RAW file sizes in 16-bit mode in P/S will be about 650mb. That's nuts.

Don't worry Kev. They have also just announced a 640GB CFexpress Type-A memory card, that will only set you back around £1200. Put one in each slot so that's just an extra £2400 on the price of the a7R V whatever that may be! And possible a new computer to handle those files too!

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Don't worry Kev. They have also just announced a 640GB CFexpress Type-A memory card, that will only set you back around £1200. Put one in each slot so that's just an extra £2400 on the price of the a7R V whatever that may be! And possible a new computer to handle those files too!

Only one reason to release that kind of card...

 

[Brownie]

Only one reason to release that kind of card...

Sooooo many responses...so little time...

 

[AlphaWorld]

Only one reason to release that kind of card...

Well, given they released it with their new video-oriented camera, I think they are trying to conceal their evil intentions of tricking you into shooting more and more photos and filling your hard disks so that you have to buy new ones...

Oh, hang on, Sony don't sell hard drives...

Aha - Sony is taking kickbacks from companies like Apple so they can sell hard disk upgrades to their Macs...

Um, no, Mac internal disks can't be upgraded - but you can be coerced into buying a new Mac with a bigger disk! No, that's not what we do - we buy NAS boxes instead.

That's it! Sony is working as part of a global conspiracy with Seagate, Western Digital, Synology, and the other vendors of mass storage. And probably the cloud vendors, too, like AWS and Azure.

Was that the one reason you came to?

 

[Brownie]

Well, given they released it with their new video-oriented camera, I think they are trying to conceal their evil intentions of tricking you into shooting more and more photos and filling your hard disks so that you have to buy new ones...

Oh, hang on, Sony don't sell hard drives...

Aha - Sony is taking kickbacks from companies like Apple so they can sell hard disk upgrades to their Macs...

Um, no, Mac internal disks can't be upgraded - but you can be coerced into buying a new Mac with a bigger disk! No, that's not what we do - we buy NAS boxes instead.

That's it! Sony is working as part of a global conspiracy with Seagate, Western Digital, Synology, and the other vendors of mass storage. And probably the cloud vendors, too, like AWS and Azure.

Was that the one reason you came to?

A 100MP camera.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Well, given they released it with their new video-oriented camera, I think they are trying to conceal their evil intentions of tricking you into shooting more and more photos and filling your hard disks so that you have to buy new ones...

Oh, hang on, Sony don't sell hard drives...

Aha - Sony is taking kickbacks from companies like Apple so they can sell hard disk upgrades to their Macs...

Um, no, Mac internal disks can't be upgraded - but you can be coerced into buying a new Mac with a bigger disk! No, that's not what we do - we buy NAS boxes instead.

That's it! Sony is working as part of a global conspiracy with Seagate, Western Digital, Synology, and the other vendors of mass storage. And probably the cloud vendors, too, like AWS and Azure.

Was that the one reason you came to?

What Tim said ^^

 

[pointreyes]

Wonder if the prediction for 95 MP has something to do with the way sensors are made. I thought that it was speculated that the waffer used for cutting the sensor used in the A7Riv could also be cut in smaller APSC sensors. 61 MP in APSC is 26 MP. Now we have a 40 MP APSC Sony sensor so if this is true then a 95 MP full frame sensor in crop mode would be around 40 MP.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Wonder if the prediction for 95 MP has something to do with the way sensors are made. I thought that it was speculated that the waffer used for cutting the sensor used in the A7Riv could also be cut in smaller APSC sensors. 61 MP in APSC is 26 MP. Now we have a 40 MP APSC Sony sensor so if this is true then a 95 MP full frame sensor in crop mode would be around 40 MP.

Interesting speculation, but I don’t think so. Pretty sure there is a bunch of circuitry around the edge of the sensor, so you can’t just cut a wafer of pixels to whatever size you want.

 

[Brownie]

As far as I know, sensors are cut to size from sheets. This is one of the reasons FF cameras cost more than APS-C, at least initially. Nowadays it doesn't seem to make as much of a difference due to features/electronics/marketing. I think @pointreyes is closer to right than wrong.

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

www.cambridgeincolour.com

COST OF PRODUCING DIGITAL SENSORS​

The cost of a digital sensor rises dramatically as its area increases. This means that a sensor with twice the area will cost more than twice as much, so you are effectively paying more per unit "sensor real estate" as you move to larger sizes.

Silicon Wafer
(divided into small sensors)

Silicon Wafer
(divided into large sensors)
One can understand this by looking at how manufacturers make their digital sensors. Each sensor is cut from a larger sheet of silicon material called a wafer, which may contain thousands of individual chips. Each wafer is extremely expensive (thousands of dollars), therefore fewer chips per wafer result in a much higher cost per chip. Furthermore, the chance of an irreparable defect (too many hot pixels or otherwise) ending up in a given sensor increases with sensor area, therefore the percentage of usable sensors goes down with increasing sensor area (yield per wafer). Assuming these factors (chips per wafer and yield) are most important, costs increase proportional to the square of sensor area (a sensor 2X as big costs 4X as much). Real-world manufacturing has a more complicated size versus cost relationship, but this gives you an idea of skyrocketing costs.

 

[v.sorkun]

They should stop increasing file sizes or implement SSD technologies to these cameras. It could be a law case same like Iphones those are not providing power adapter so cameras cards. Without a memory card I can not use the camera

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

They should stop increasing file sizes or implement SSD technologies to these cameras. It could be a law case same like Iphones those are not providing power adapter so cameras cards. Without a memory card I can not use the camera

Putting an ssd internally would be a great idea.

 

[Unframed Dave]

Putting an ssd internally would be a great idea.

Makes perfect sense, would take up as much body space as the 2nd slot and you can still have a slot for backup.

 

[Brownie]

Putting an ssd internally would be a great idea.

Why, so you can pay more? Instead of a $6500 A1 with a $1200 card, now you pay $7700 or no camera. And when the SSD breaks...well, bye bye camera. I have no need for that kind of storage, I'd rather buy a $100 card. The way it is now, storage is a choice made by the end user, not the manufacturer.

 

[AlphaWorld]

As far as I know, sensors are cut to size from sheets. This is one of the reasons FF cameras cost more than APS-C, at least initially. Nowadays it doesn't seem to make as much of a difference due to features/electronics/marketing. I think @pointreyes is closer to right than wrong.

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

www.cambridgeincolour.com

I think you misunderstood that article.

Semiconductors are produced on round wafers - the process starts with a cylinder of silicon which is purified to an extreme level, eliminating all the impurities. Then they slice it into “wafers”. At this point each wafer is a blank slate, and each wafer can be turned into something different. The first might become BionZ processor chips, the second might become full frame sensors, the third might become APS-C sensors. When they decide what they are going to make from the wafer, then it goes through multiple passes adding impurities back to the purified silicon, but with extreme precision (they are working to a precision on singles digits of nanometers). That is when the blank slate becomes sensors of different size, not before.

What those diagrams are showing is that if you layout bigger sensors on the round wafer you get more wasted silicon around the edges, because bigger rectangles leave bigger gaps at the edges of the circle. They are NOT saying that the whole wafer is already “sensor stuff” and they are chopping it to size.

Additionally, you get far fewer fullframe sensors from one wafer, because they are bigger, as well as because of the extra waste. And a single flaw can mean a sensor must be discarded - discarding one means losing a bigger percentage of the wafer’s yield when you are making bigger sensors.

 

[AlphaWorld]

They should stop increasing file sizes or implement SSD technologies to these cameras. It could be a law case same like Iphones those are not providing power adapter so cameras cards. Without a memory card I can not use the camera

You can‘t use the camera without a lens - perhaps you should demand that the camera come with a lens built in, too?

Using memory card slots means you get to choose which cards you use. And when one fills up, you can put in another.

I hate the idea of using a built in SSD instead of cards because I can imagine “oh, I have filled the SSD, now I cannot take any pictures until I download a bunch of them from the SSD and delete then to make room for more”. If I am a long way from my computer, then I can’t take more photos until I get back…

If you just bought an A1 and used all your cash to get it, maybe you will take your first images (your cat? Your dog?) using an SD card you used in another camera - might be a bit slower to shoot, but it works, and you get your images. Later, when your bank account has recovered, you might buy a bigger SD card, or a faster SD card, or a really fast CFexpress card - you choose. And if you are going out to take lots of photos you can carry a pocket full of memory cards, possibly a mix of fast ones for when you are shooting birds in flight, and bigger ones for shooting video, … your choice.

Someone has announced a project to sell a frame for a camera with an SSD in it - you might want to look into that.

 

[Brownie]

I think you misunderstood that article.

Semiconductors are produced on round wafers - the process starts with a cylinder of silicon which is purified to an extreme level, eliminating all the impurities. Then they slice it into “wafers”. At this point each wafer is a blank slate, and each wafer can be turned into something different. The first might become BionZ processor chips, the second might become full frame sensors, the third might become APS-C sensors. When they decide what they are going to make from the wafer, then it goes through multiple passes adding impurities back to the purified silicon, but with extreme precision (they are working to a precision on singles digits of nanometers). That is when the blank slate becomes sensors of different size, not before.

What those diagrams are showing is that if you layout bigger sensors on the round wafer you get more wasted silicon around the edges, because bigger rectangles leave bigger gaps at the edges of the circle. They are NOT saying that the whole wafer is already “sensor stuff” and they are chopping it to size.

Additionally, you get far fewer fullframe sensors from one wafer, because they are bigger, as well as because of the extra waste. And a single flaw can mean a sensor must be discarded - discarding one means losing a bigger percentage of the wafer’s yield when you are making bigger sensors.

I'm not sure how what you said is different than what I said, or what the article says.

"One can understand this by looking at how manufacturers make their digital sensors. Each sensor is cut from a larger sheet of silicon material called a wafer, which may contain thousands of individual chips. Each wafer is extremely expensive (thousands of dollars), therefore fewer chips per wafer result in a much higher cost per chip. Furthermore, the chance of an irreparable defect (too many hot pixels or otherwise) ending up in a given sensor increases with sensor area, therefore the percentage of usable sensors goes down with increasing sensor area (yield per wafer). Assuming these factors (chips per wafer and yield) are most important, costs increase proportional to the square of sensor area (a sensor 2X as big costs 4X as much). Real-world manufacturing has a more complicated size versus cost relationship, but this gives you an idea of skyrocketing costs.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Why, so you can pay more? Instead of a $6500 A1 with a $1200 card, now you pay $7700 or no camera. And when the SSD breaks...well, bye bye camera. I have no need for that kind of storage, I'd rather buy a $100 card. The way it is now, storage is a choice made by the end user, not the manufacturer.

Well the SSD is unlikely to break, no more so than a card, and if it's integrated it could make write speeds super fast, not that cards are slow. It actually wouldn't cost that much to implement I'm sure.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Makes perfect sense, would take up as much body space as the 2nd slot and you can still have a slot for backup.

An internal M2 memory or something super quick like that would just be too bloody logical though. The mention of this would have the memory side of the industry sweating golf balls! ‍

With an internal 500gb but an SD option still, people like myself would never ever have any need to get extra. I go through images as I'm shooting, so I never come home with more than 100 in an outing, then I transfer and clear the card. My 64gb UHS-II card is about as bigger overkill as the rest of my kit is for an amateur like me..!

 

[Brownie]

Well the SSD is unlikely to break, no more so than a card, and if it's integrated it could make write speeds super fast, not that cards are slow. It actually wouldn't cost that much to implement I'm sure.

Of course it wouldn't. It also didn't cost that much to create a 640G card, but they're selling it for $1200 nonetheless. If anyone really thinks Sony wouldn't gouge the consumer, look no further than that card.

 

[Paul stuart]

It will be worth upgrading from my a7r3 to this if specs are near what they are saying ,evf 9 mil dots ,95mp although 61is plenty ,how muchwill they sacrifice on iso though with a smaller pixel will be interesting ,if they keep it in check with a1 and r4 it will be good ,i feel sony should learn from nikons compression output so we have smaller files option than the existing compression we have basically this how the z9 does 8k 60 and has much bigger buffer for bursts they made the compression very competitive with very little loss ,and a 100mp file will need it ,I am guessing that it will have slow read out and not a stacked sensor which will mean they need decent fps in mechanical although knowing the r range i doubt we will get bump in this regard just like a74 never did,also when shooting 10 fps be nice to keep live view unlike previous r bodies .Rear Screen really needs upgrading also in every way .If you can get phones that 100mp i see little reason why a camera can not compete to really compete they could address it if they used android as a platform for computational stuff ,most 40-50mp phones hold up very well in most situations to flagship cameras especially in good light ,there only failing is telephoto

 

[AlphaWorld]

I'm not sure how what you said is different than what I said, or what the article says.

"One can understand this by looking at how manufacturers make their digital sensors. Each sensor is cut from a larger sheet of silicon material called a wafer, which may contain thousands of individual chips. Each wafer is extremely expensive (thousands of dollars), therefore fewer chips per wafer result in a much higher cost per chip. Furthermore, the chance of an irreparable defect (too many hot pixels or otherwise) ending up in a given sensor increases with sensor area, therefore the percentage of usable sensors goes down with increasing sensor area (yield per wafer). Assuming these factors (chips per wafer and yield) are most important, costs increase proportional to the square of sensor area (a sensor 2X as big costs 4X as much). Real-world manufacturing has a more complicated size versus cost relationship, but this gives you an idea of skyrocketing costs.

What pointreyes said, and I responded to, was the idea that you could cut APS-C sensors from a wafer fabricated to make full-frame sensors, and I pointed out that you can’t. Your response was an article saying that you can layout fewer full frame sensors on a wafer, and that a flaw means discarding more of the wafer, which is why a bigger sensor is more expensive - none of which argues that you can cut APS-C sensors out of something prepared as full-frame sensors. So I maintain that pointreyes is not more right than wrong - does that it explain it better?

 

[Brownie]

What pointreyes said, and I responded to, was the idea that you could cut APS-C sensors from a wafer fabricated to make full-frame sensors, and I pointed out that you can’t. Your response was an article saying that you can layout fewer full frame sensors on a wafer, and that a flaw means discarding more of the wafer, which is why a bigger sensor is more expensive - none of which argues that you can cut APS-C sensors out of something prepared as full-frame sensors. So I maintain that pointreyes is not more right than wrong - does that it explain it better?

Ok, I see the difference. My point was 'from one comes many', I wasn't thinking in terms of different sizes from one wafer, just that you can get fewer large sensors as smaller sensors out of the same size wafer.