Used A1 vs A7 RV

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.   

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

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.