FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Used A1 vs A7 RV

Page  <123>
Author
Wētāpunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 6759
Post Options Post Options   Quote Wētāpunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 July 2023 at 00:09
Originally posted by C_N_RED_AGAIN C_N_RED_AGAIN wrote:

actually, I find it tracks birds as good as the a1 maybe even better. Planes also which is what I shoot a lot of. You just don't' get as many shots to pick from as the fps are less. Hope that helps.


Thanks. This suggests that unless I can get a good (used) a1 at a price close to the a7R V, the a7r V is the better option.
α1- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF
 



Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 63
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 July 2023 at 04:20
I have the a1 and my son the a7RV. The frame rates are indeed a difference but you do not have a Sony lens that can do the 30 fps for birding. The Tamron, a nice lens, is limited to 15 fps on the a1.

The a1 also acquires focus faster than the a7R5. I think this is because of the stacked sensor, like your a9.

My son does a lot more landscape stuff, me primarily birding. He likes the all-position LCD and the concept of focus stacking. The buffer speed is much faster than the previous a7R4 we both had until Feb of this year, with a good SD card. The eye focus works well.

If I did not have the 100-400, 200-600 and the recently acquired 400 f/2.8 I would have also bought the a7RV for myself.   
TomV - a1, Sony 200-600, 100-400, 400 f/2.8, Tamron 17-28, 28-200, 70-180, Rokinon 24 f/1.8
Back to Top
Wētāpunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 6759
Post Options Post Options   Quote Wētāpunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 July 2023 at 23:00
Thanks Tom,

I'd still rather have 15fps than say 8-10 and at some point in the future, I do hope to add the Sony 100-400 (with 1.4x TC) to my line up. I won't be adding.a 400/2.8 however
α1- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Cambridge
Status: Offline
Posts: 3615
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 July 2023 at 23:57
When I had the A1 20fps was the max I used. 30fps is simply overkill.
But I normally used 15 fps for small fast birds and 10 fps for larger more predictable birds/subjects.

You already have the A9 so I don't think I need to explain the differences to you.
basically the question is - if your A7RIII had all the tracking capabilities of your A9 without the FPS and blackout-free EVF would you be happy with just the A7RIII?
If the answer to that question is yes the get the A7RV, if the answer is no I still need the a9 for fps/blackout-free EVF then get the A1. Simples

In my case I really miss the FPS. But I am waiting to see what Sony does with A7CII and A9III (even though I don't quite believe there will be an A9III).
Also I am waiting to see what Nikon does next, Z8 is really interesting - same price as A7RV with features rivaling the A1.

Edited by nandbytes - 27 July 2023 at 00:00
my flickr
A7RV, 20-70G, 70-200GII, Viltrox16mm/1.8, 35/1.4GM, Sammy85/1.4II, 200-600G
Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 63
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 July 2023 at 00:05
Originally posted by Wētāpunga Wētāpunga wrote:

Thanks Tom,

I'd still rather have 15fps than say 8-10 and at some point in the future, I do hope to add the Sony 100-400 (with 1.4x TC) to my line up. I won't be adding.a 400/2.8 however


I use my 200-600 more than any other lens.
I bought the 400 prime in Feb still have not used it in the field.    

I plan to go to the Outer Banks in North Carolina this month, a long strip of barrier islands with lots of birding potential. I have been vacationing there for the past 8 years so I know what to expect.

Good luck with your decision.
TomV - a1, Sony 200-600, 100-400, 400 f/2.8, Tamron 17-28, 28-200, 70-180, Rokinon 24 f/1.8
Back to Top
Wētāpunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 6759
Post Options Post Options   Quote Wētāpunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 July 2023 at 00:38
@nandbytes

Thanks for that simplification. Yeah, the answer to the question is no. Tākapu can accelerate to 55-65kph very quickly and have a diving speed of up to 145kph. One of the challenges is just keeping the bird in the viewfinder.
The shutter blackout was a big problem when I was using by Sony a7Riii. The birds could be mostly or all out of frame, before I was ready to take the next shot. The a9 and its higher fps solved that. I got more shots in when the bird was within frame, and I could track the birds more easily.

α1- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF
 



Back to Top
Wētāpunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 6759
Post Options Post Options   Quote Wētāpunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 July 2023 at 00:43
Thanks Tom,

I got the Tamron because it was lighter and easier to handhold than the 200-600. At at that stage, I was using the a7Riii so there wasn't any gain to using the bigger Sony. I'm thinking that the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC is roughly the same weight and reach (140-560).

Sounds like you've got a great spot in North Carolina to try out the 400mm. Looking forward to seeing the pictures later

Edited by Wētāpunga - 27 July 2023 at 22:16
α1- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF
Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 63
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 July 2023 at 04:49
Originally posted by Wētāpunga Wētāpunga wrote:

Thanks Tom,

I got the Tamron because it was lighter and easier to handhold than the 200-600. At at that stage, I was using the a7Riii so there wasn't any gain to using the bigger Sony. I'm thinking that the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC is roughly the same weight and reach (140-560).

Sounds like you've got a great spot in North Carolina to try put the 400mm. Looking forward to seeing the pictures later


The advantage for me concerning the 200-600 is that it operates like a typical 70-200 in that it does not extend in size when zooming. The zoom ring is very smooth, light to the touch, and takes less than 1/4 turn from min to max. I can do that with just my thumb.

The 100-400 extends like the Tamron and requires the same two-finger approach on the ring.

I owned the Tamron 150-600 G2 and used it on my a99ii. I was very pleased with it and it compared favorably in optical quality to my Sony 500 f/4. I strongly considered the Tamron for my mirrorless but the fix-length feature of the Sony 200-600 was the main driver for me. Dustin Abbott has reviewed the Tamron 150-500 very well.

Mayby I can send you a link of some of those 400 f/2.8 photos I take at the end of the month.
TomV - a1, Sony 200-600, 100-400, 400 f/2.8, Tamron 17-28, 28-200, 70-180, Rokinon 24 f/1.8
Back to Top
Mestari View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 February 2008
Country: Poland
Location: Mazowsze
Status: Offline
Posts: 681
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mestari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 July 2023 at 10:25
Do show us all when you have them :)
I will also be interested in comparison to 200-600 that I have. No, I do not plan to purchase the 400/2.8, outside of my budget, but I was wondering how much I am missing.
Back to Top
Wētāpunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 6759
Post Options Post Options   Quote Wētāpunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2023 at 00:34
Well, the decision had been made. Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion and assisted my decision

Found a camera store that had a very "minty" a1 for sale, at 25% off normal retail. And still has 6 months to go on the warranty. That took it to a price (roughly) on par with the a7Rv (new). So I bought it and it's now in my hands in time for our weekend.

All I have to do know is learn all its functions and customise the set up . It's interesting that it really looks at first glance, not really different to the typical Sony 'mirrorless' body. There's really no touches that distinguish it to the casual observer.



Edited by Wētāpunga - 30 July 2023 at 00:21
α1- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF
Back to Top
C_N_RED_AGAIN View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 1522
Post Options Post Options   Quote C_N_RED_AGAIN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 July 2023 at 13:50
Not that it matters now but check out this link. Thier are others who also think the af system on the rv is better than the a1. I’ve shot both cams extensively now. With everything it does the rv is Sonys best camera.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1818469

Here Is a quote out of that link,”I’ve put about 40,000 images through the A7RV and can say without any doubt,The auto focus is superior to that of the A1, especially with the 600 GM. ”.

It’s exactly what I found as well. Add focus bracketing, an amazing evf and ai tracking the ability to use compressed raw or other raw file formats, 8 stops of ibis which I can tell you from handholding at 1/8 of a second at 24mm it’s legit, the rv is a hard camera to beat. Oh. And it gives you a 26 mp crop camera if you want to take advantage of all the small, light apsc lenses in the Sony eco system.




Edited by C_N_RED_AGAIN - 30 July 2023 at 14:01
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Cambridge
Status: Offline
Posts: 3615
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 July 2023 at 14:16
The issue with the RV is the poor frame rate (for today's standards).

It would be workable even if it was "only" 10 FPS with live view. Ideally I'd like 12fps with live view.
my flickr
A7RV, 20-70G, 70-200GII, Viltrox16mm/1.8, 35/1.4GM, Sammy85/1.4II, 200-600G
Back to Top
C_N_RED_AGAIN View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 1522
Post Options Post Options   Quote C_N_RED_AGAIN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 July 2023 at 14:32
I shoot compressed raw at 10 fps. Plenty fast enough. I’m not a spray and pray guy though.
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Cambridge
Status: Offline
Posts: 3615
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 July 2023 at 17:19
Originally posted by C_N_RED_AGAIN C_N_RED_AGAIN wrote:

I shoot compressed raw at 10 fps. Plenty fast enough. I’m not a spray and pray guy though.


10fps is with slideshow effect, you only get 8fps with live view. So as far as I am concerned it's only 8fps for shooting any action.

Higher frame rates isn't for spray and pray and it's somewhat surprising people still think like this but I was the same not long ago.
You can't possibly time all the action perfectly. For example with small-mid sized birds, more frames you have more poses you have to choose from and hence a higher chance of grabbing the perfect moment or pose.
I too only realised this when I moved from A1 to A7IV. I moved thinking just like you and have now realised 8fps is really limiting when compared to 10-15fps for getting those perfect moments with wildlife.
my flickr
A7RV, 20-70G, 70-200GII, Viltrox16mm/1.8, 35/1.4GM, Sammy85/1.4II, 200-600G
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > E-mount full frame Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.