Sony A7R V

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Isaac got me interested in a central frame comparison. And I found this one of a more realistic situation - a subject rather than a wall. 

The WWL-1 photo is on left (this time) and the WACP-1 is on right. Both taken with same camera and lens (A7RV and 28-70mm) - giving 61MP file. DO CLICK ON IT AND VIEW IT PROPERLY, ideally on a monitor. 

The two shots are actually taken a week apart and the camera (on Auto WB has chosen a slightly different WB for each). But the subject is the same and the framing is almost identical (you can see the thumbnails of the whole images at the bottom. They are also zoomed in to exactly the same pixels in the images. The WACP-1 is definitely crisper to me, but the difference is less marked than the corners.

Alex

[Isaac Szabo 86]

Sorry for my confusion, Alex. I understood that we were just talking about corner crops. What I meant is of the crops you posted the WACP-1 at f/4 is very clearly sharper than the WWL-1 at f/6.3. I had thought you were saying they were equivalent, but now rereading your post I understand that you were saying that the WWL-1 at f/6.3 is slightly worse than the WACP-1 at f/4 but better than it at f/7.1. Based on these examples it's surprising that the WWL-1 improves enough at f/7.1 to overtake the WACP-1 shot (because at f/6.3 it's not close).

[Interceptor121 708]

Hopefully this image loads and can be viewed large enough to be useful. WACP or WWL for Sony. 
I have compared the corner performance of the WACP-1 (left) and WWL-1 (right) in the pool. The two shots are both taken with A7RV and 28-60mm @28mm. Left with WACP-1, right with the WWL-1. They are not perfect test shots, but close enough. The images are scree grabbed from LR to compare the pool tile detail in the top right corner of the image (zoomed 100%). 
From the tests I would conclude that the corner performance of the WACP-1 at aperture f/4, is about the same as the WWL-1 between f/6.3 (show) and the next step, f/7.1. I think at f/6.3 the WWL-1 is slightly worse in the corner than the WACP-1 at f/4. At f/7.1 is ever so slightly better than WACP-1 at f/4.. 
Alex

Hopefully this image loads and can be viewed large enough to be useful. WACP or WWL for Sony. 
I have compared the corner performance of the WACP-1 (left) and WWL-1 (right) in the pool. The two shots are both taken with A7RV and 28-60mm @28mm. Left with WACP-1, right with the WWL-1. They are not perfect test shots, but close enough. The images are scree grabbed from LR to compare the pool tile detail in the top right corner of the image (zoomed 100%). 
From the tests I would conclude that the corner performance of the WACP-1 at aperture f/4, is about the same as the WWL-1 between f/6.3 (show) and the next step, f/7.1. I think at f/6.3 the WWL-1 is slightly worse in the corner than the WACP-1 at f/4. At f/7.1 is ever so slightly better than WACP-1 at f/4.. 
Alex

Thanks for posting this
It is really a shot at the edges so the quality is what it is and different to the other poster I don’t see even that the WACP-1 is better
However the fact is that the lens performance changes through the aperture range and the corners will get better as you stop down while center sharpness will drop
The 28-60mm is the kit lens for the a7C a 24 megapixel camera and although I have found no resolution test I doubt that this lens will resolve the 61 megapixels of the sensor
In general I doubt we can even see more than 40 megapixels except in macro
It would be useful and time consuming to take a series of shots at f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 and see when you reach acceptable sharpness overall
A German site did this and concluded f/5.6 was excellent on the WACP-1 and f/7.1 was good on the WWL-1 that stopping down didn’t bring overall much benefit as centre sharpness drops
Personally if I was getting the WACP-1 I would be looking of the tamron 28-75 gives better results instead of going for the sony 28-60mm or even looking at the wacp-2 with the sony 16-35 GM
If you don’t stay small go big or go home
Assuming the maximum benefit is 1 1/2 stop for this comparison I guess the WACP-C is likely to be in the region of 2/3 stops so an even more difficult decision


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Isaac Szabo 86]

It’s not surprising that someone who doesn’t understand how monitor pixel density affects the ability to evaluate image sharpness cannot see the obvious sharpness difference in those images.

[Architeuthis 136]

4 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Isaac got me interested in a central frame comparison. And I found this one of a more realistic situation - a subject rather than a wall. 

The WWL-1 photo is on left (this time) and the WACP-1 is on right. Both taken with same camera and lens (A7RV and 28-70mm) - giving 61MP file. DO CLICK ON IT AND VIEW IT PROPERLY, ideally on a monitor. 

The two shots are actually taken a week apart and the camera (on Auto WB has chosen a slightly different WB for each). But the subject is the same and the framing is almost identical (you can see the thumbnails of the whole images at the bottom. They are also zoomed in to exactly the same pixels in the images. The WACP-1 is definitely crisper to me, but the difference is less marked than the corners.

Alex

Are the aperture numbers the same as in the images taken from the corners (f 4.0 for WACP-1 and f 6.3 for WWL-1)?

=> It is a pity that one cannot like postings from moderators/supermoderators. So I take the occasion to thank you for for this enormous effort. This thread (and the one on WACP-C) has already given answers to important questions that I was searching for long...

 

Wolfgang

 

[Interceptor121 708]

26 minutes ago, Isaac Szabo said:

It’s not surprising that someone who doesn’t understand how monitor pixel density affects the ability to evaluate image sharpness cannot see the obvious sharpness difference in those images.

Pixel density affects nothing other than the distance you need to look at the image. If you have a lower resolution monitor you need to look further away than a higher resolution monitor. Obviously if you want to stay in a fixed point resolution matters but I guess anybody has the ability to move close or further away from the screen. 

Second comment the images are not comparable the WWL-1 looks 1.25x larger and therefore depth of field is impacted. In that regard the WACP-1 image also does not look amazing it is a bit better but will it make or break an image I do not think so. It is possible if the shots are taken exactly in the same point that the WACP-1 has actually a larger field of view of the wet lens

Ultimately in a reef scenes nobody goes and peeps at the corners unless there is something interesting in it. 

Corner sharpness is much more important when you shoot burst of subjects that move fast, the subject may not be in the right place and if you crop edge sharpness matter. In most other situations including underwater wide angle you have composed the shot, the edges are impacted by many things like lack of light, further distance etc who cares what goes in there

I am really not sure not sure if 1 stop corner improvement matters much considering those adapters are not really for close focus shots. Yes of course you can get close but if you were really close you would have a fisheye and if you wanted straight lines you would have a rectilinear lens

If you shoot something close with a rectilinear lens also topside it looks weird and the corners pull why would you expect underwater to be super sharp I am not sure

[Interceptor121 708]

On 1/21/2023 at 4:55 PM, Alex_Mustard said:

I think this is very important discussion of the A7RV and valuable in the thread. Fisheyes are clearly hugely important in underwater photography.  

It is important to state that the camera has excellent AF. As I have said above the A7RV has better fish photography AF with the Sony 90mm than any of my Nikons. While I would say that the A7RIV is inferior to my Nikon (in my hands - which are very used to the Nikon). I would also say that the AF with the Sony 28-60mm with WWL/WACP is much better, perhaps unsurprisingly than my Nikon with the old 28-70mm and WACP.

But the A7RV AF with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye and adaptor is not as good as my Nikon with the 8-15mm, and definitely a long way off the A7RV with the 28-60mm and WWL/WACP. It is possible that I am not using optimum AF settings. However, those same settings are working really well with the other wide angle, so I don't believe these can be so critical. It is also possible, as Massimo suggests, that I don't have the adaptor optimally setup/or the optimal model. If that is the cause, then it is important we work out the best recommendation.

My feeling is that it is probably just an issue of using a Canon lens on a Sony camera. The AF still works perfectly well for wide angle - it is important to state THIS IS A MINOR ISSUE - but one that is noticeable because of how well all the other lenses work. In short, the fisheye is just much more prone to hunting than the others lenses. Especially with the smaller domes. This has seen me favouring Back Button focusing as a solution. I'd rather just press one button to focus and shoot, but I am OK pressing two! 

Alex

I have now tried the 8-15mm with and without a kenko 1.4 tc with my A1 in back lit situation and with the camera clipping even shooting directly into a light bulb

the focus is instant and accurate in fact faster than the 28-60mm even with the TC on

I think there is something going on with how your smart adapter is set. It needs to be version IV at least and firmware v70 set so that all PDAF points are used

Even if the adpapter does not have an LED you can recognise as the other mode moves the aperture blades constantly

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Done my final dives today with the A7RV here in Cayman.

Logged 40 with the camera, plus two blat-athons snorkelling with the stingrays. 6000+ underwater images taken with 10 different lens combos (counting the supplementary lenses). Shutter speeds 1.6 sec to 1/1000th. Used both Nauticam trigger and UW-Technics trigger. Also had the chance to shoot the A7RIV (noticeably different - EVF and AF) for a whole dive and the A1 (very similar - EVF and AF) a little in the pool and on the reef. 

Really enjoyed the camera. Prefer it as an underwater camera to my Nikon D850. As an underwater system its only real weakness is that it currently lacks lens options (notably macro), but hopefully some are coming soon.

Alex

[Architeuthis 136]

12 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Done my final dives today with the A7RV here in Cayman.

Logged 40 with the camera, plus two blat-athons snorkelling with the stingrays. 6000+ underwater images taken with 10 different lens combos (counting the supplementary lenses). Shutter speeds 1.6 sec to 1/1000th. Used both Nauticam trigger and UW-Technics trigger. Also had the chance to shoot the A7RIV (noticeably different - EVF and AF) for a whole dive and the A1 (very similar - EVF and AF) a little in the pool and on the reef. 

Really enjoyed the camera. Prefer it as an underwater camera to my Nikon D850. As an underwater system its only real weakness is that it currently lacks lens options (notably macro), but hopefully some are coming soon.

Alex

Hi Alex,

 

Which 45° viewfinder did you prefer and would recommend - the 0.8x or the 1.0x model?

 

Thanks, Wolfgang

[Interceptor121 708]

13 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Done my final dives today with the A7RV here in Cayman.

Logged 40 with the camera, plus two blat-athons snorkelling with the stingrays. 6000+ underwater images taken with 10 different lens combos (counting the supplementary lenses). Shutter speeds 1.6 sec to 1/1000th. Used both Nauticam trigger and UW-Technics trigger. Also had the chance to shoot the A7RIV (noticeably different - EVF and AF) for a whole dive and the A1 (very similar - EVF and AF) a little in the pool and on the reef. 

Really enjoyed the camera. Prefer it as an underwater camera to my Nikon D850. As an underwater system its only real weakness is that it currently lacks lens options (notably macro), but hopefully some are coming soon.

Alex

The venerable D850 is not pretty old and Sony since the new menu system in the A7S3 has much improved ergonomics

A7IV A7V and A1 all make fine cameras for underwater use with a hefty entry price but lots of performance

I do not think the macro issue is going away any time soon

[Interceptor121 708]

58 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Hi Alex,

 

Which 45° viewfinder did you prefer and would recommend - the 0.8x or the 1.0x model?

 

Thanks, Wolfgang

Not sure what Alex had but with the EVF of the A1 A7R5 you need the 0.8x

[Alex_Mustard 0]

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

Hi Alex,

 

Which 45° viewfinder did you prefer and would recommend - the 0.8x or the 1.0x model?

 

Thanks, Wolfgang

I used the 40˚/0.8:1 on the Sony. It is the best one for the Sony's. The older viewfinders are totally usable, but if you are investing this is the one to get. I use in angled form. 

I actually prefer this viewfinder on my SLR (easy to fit on my Subal housing) too, as I like seeing the whole frame with some space around it. But not everyone would say that.

 

[lambee01 22]

On 1/28/2023 at 12:21 AM, Alex_Mustard said:

Done my final dives today with the A7RV here in Cayman.

Logged 40 with the camera, plus two blat-athons snorkelling with the stingrays. 6000+ underwater images taken with 10 different lens combos (counting the supplementary lenses). Shutter speeds 1.6 sec to 1/1000th. Used both Nauticam trigger and UW-Technics trigger. Also had the chance to shoot the A7RIV (noticeably different - EVF and AF) for a whole dive and the A1 (very similar - EVF and AF) a little in the pool and on the reef. 

Really enjoyed the camera. Prefer it as an underwater camera to my Nikon D850. As an underwater system its only real weakness is that it currently lacks lens options (notably macro), but hopefully some are coming soon.

Alex

@Alex_Mustard

I am using Sony mirrorless camera for a long time, evolving from A7Rii, to A7Riii, then today A7rIV and A1. Since the beginning i have been using the Sony 90 F2.8 Macro (also with SMC-1) which has always given me more than satisfaction. 

So, can you elaborate why you are complaining about lacks lens options (notably macro)?

in 10 years of Sony, the only lens i am missing today is a native Sony Fisheye, using the Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fisheye on the Sigma MC-11 Adapter.
Otherwise, 12-24, 14, 16-35, 20, 24, 35, 24-70 etc... I am more than happy.

Edited January 29 by lambee01

[InciBox 0]

Wow the wealth of info on this forum is really amazing (and a little intimidating). Just picked up the A7R V today, still new to the hobby. Hope I get all the bits in place before the my Maldives trip in Feb. Will add my paltry 2 cents to the thread when I'm back.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

On 1/28/2023 at 5:08 PM, lambee01 said:

@Alex_Mustard

Since the beginning i have been using the Sony 90 F2.8 Macro (also with SMC-1) which has always given me more than satisfaction. 

So, can you elaborate why you are complaining about lacks lens options (notably macro)?

The Sony 90mm is a good lens and I was super impressed with its AF with the A1 and A7RV (and it was good with A7RIV). My view on the Sony system is not that of a longtime Sony Mirrorless shooter - but that of an SLR shooter coming to the system. So I notice what I gain and what I loose.

Land photographers are often fine with just a single macro lens because they can easily move back from the subject for a different view. Underwater it is always best not to shoot through too much water, so where possible it is good to have multiple focal lengths, especially for dedicated macro trips. For example, on my recent trip to Cayman I took 3 macro lenses: 60mm, 105mm and 150mm. Plus I use the 60mm with different port optics giving me two very different configurations, use the 105mm with both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. And I have at times used 50, 55mm and 100mm vintage lenses for macro. Varying focal lengths is one way to give a macro portfolio more visual variety. If you publish a magazine story or a book and every image has the same perspective it becomes dull even if the images are good.

I like the 90mm and will investigate what other options there are. I know some use the Canon 100mm because it has superior optics (but it isn't really that big a focal length difference). I think I would be happy with the 90mm as a workhorse macro lens, making use of the great AF, and then use some others on adaptors, accepting that they may be AF compromised slightly, but gaining more focal lengths. It would be great if Sony introduced some super high quality macro lenses at different focal length - improving quality and options. 

 

[Interceptor121 708]

The Sony 90mm is a good lens and I was super impressed with its AF with the A1 and A7RV (and it was good with A7RIV). My view on the Sony system is not that of a longtime Sony Mirrorless shooter - but that of an SLR shooter coming to the system. So I notice what I gain and what I loose.
Land photographers are often fine with just a single macro lens because they can easily move back from the subject for a different view. Underwater it is always best not to shoot through too much water, so where possible it is good to have multiple focal lengths, especially for dedicated macro trips. For example, on my recent trip to Cayman I took 3 macro lenses: 60mm, 105mm and 150mm. Plus I use the 60mm with different port optics giving me two very different configurations, use the 105mm with both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. And I have at times used 50, 55mm and 100mm vintage lenses for macro. Varying focal lengths is one way to give a macro portfolio more visual variety. If you publish a magazine story or a book and every image has the same perspective it becomes dull even if the images are good.
I like the 90mm and will investigate what other options there are. I know some use the Canon 100mm because it has superior optics (but it isn't really that big a focal length difference). I think I would be happy with the 90mm as a workhorse macro lens, making use of the great AF, and then use some others on adaptors, accepting that they may be AF compromised slightly, but gaining more focal lengths. It would be great if Sony introduced some super high quality macro lenses at different focal length - improving quality and options. 
 

There is a Sony FE 50/2.8 mm macro and the sigma 105/2.8 macro
Currently there are no longer lenses than the 105mm
Apparently both the lenses above are slow to focus …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lambee01 22]

1 hour ago, Alex_Mustard said:

The Sony 90mm is a good lens and I was super impressed with its AF with the A1 and A7RV (and it was good with A7RIV). My view on the Sony system is not that of a longtime Sony Mirrorless shooter - but that of an SLR shooter coming to the system. So I notice what I gain and what I loose.

Land photographers are often fine with just a single macro lens because they can easily move back from the subject for a different view. Underwater it is always best not to shoot through too much water, so where possible it is good to have multiple focal lengths, especially for dedicated macro trips. For example, on my recent trip to Cayman I took 3 macro lenses: 60mm, 105mm and 150mm. Plus I use the 60mm with different port optics giving me two very different configurations, use the 105mm with both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. And I have at times used 50, 55mm and 100mm vintage lenses for macro. Varying focal lengths is one way to give a macro portfolio more visual variety. If you publish a magazine story or a book and every image has the same perspective it becomes dull even if the images are good.

I like the 90mm and will investigate what other options there are. I know some use the Canon 100mm because it has superior optics (but it isn't really that big a focal length difference). I think I would be happy with the 90mm as a workhorse macro lens, making use of the great AF, and then use some others on adaptors, accepting that they may be AF compromised slightly, but gaining more focal lengths. It would be great if Sony introduced some super high quality macro lenses at different focal length - improving quality and options. 

 

@Alex_Mustard Thansk alot for your detailed answer. Well apreciate your contribution.

I myself, like you, i have not started UW photo with Sony mirrorless. Started 30 years ago with Nikonos III, then V that i still own. Moved to Film SLR with Minolta AF (8000i in Subal housing, the 700si in Seacam housing).

Moved to DSLR in 2014 with the Sony Alpha850, an amazing 24Mp FullFrame at this time. All those years with the same set of Minolta AF lenses.

As i was able to sell everything, moved to mirrorless in 2017 with the Sony A7rII, after i was slowly buying the new Sony FE lenses, my 1st being the 16-35 and the 90mm Macro (the one you describe, yes, it is an 8 years old designed lens, but with an amazing sharpness and and a great AF for a Macro lens).

Some reviewers say the Sigma 105mm Macro is sharper when wide open (F2.8-F5.6). OK, but honestly, who is shooting macro wide open ??? That is even the only drawback of this amazing lens to my eyes : its maximal aperture is F22, when some (Nikon?) may go up to F32. And once you close down F5.6, there is almost no more difference. But the AF of the Sony's is much better, and pairs fantastically well with the A1 and A7rIV. (I haven't of course tried the rV, though i heard AF has been greatly improved with AI algorithm). Honestly, i am more than satisfied with my A1 and A7rIV

 

I fully agree with you regarding the impact on variety of framings (i am also published in some magazines, and not only diving ones), hence, yes, if Sony could provide a decent 50 and and/or 150, that would be great. I have tried (borrowed it) on land the 50mm Macro F2.8 and i am not amazed with IQ as i am with the 90mm.

I must say that the SMC-1 provides really great images, when paired with the Sony 90mm. Some flair from the strobes is sometime present, and strobe positioning is key, not only to light you subject, but to prevent this flair.

If you are not afraid, you also have the Laowa options. Why not afraid? because they are fully manual lenses. Focus and aperture. I have bought the Laowa 58mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro APO last year (470$) and used it. It offers natively 2:1 reproduction, at 40° FOV (vs 27° for the Sony 90mm). But of course it is fully manual. I have 3D printed myself the aperture ring and the focus ring and works smoothly. It is NEVER a 1st choice lens, but a lens i take when i know which photo i want to do, after i have dived one dive spot. The photo is in my mind. With that being said, it happens also time to time that i use the 90 mm with AF switched off (I use the Nauticam focus ring and use Focus peaking), more frequently when using the SMC-1.

 

Last but not least, would you move , per your comment, from your Nikon D850 to the Sony system, be assured that TODAY (i agree it was not the case few years ago) Sony has made tremendous progress in lens design. A professional photographer (on land, making 50% of my income with this activity ), i am also using 12-24 F4 G, 16-35 F2.8 GM, 24-70 F2.8 GM II (absolutely tremendous lens), 14 F1.8 GM, 50 F1.2 GM, 35 F1.4 GM and 20 F1.8 G. All those lenses are really terrific, as also witness by many reviewers.

Underwater for non-macro, i bring sometime the 12-24, the 16-35, but much more often, the 14, the 20 and the 35 behind the Nauticam 230 DP.

I had the 28mm and the WWL-1, but sold it because for me (and I insist, for me...), i do no like the 130° FOV. But again, this is personal. I prefer to use either the fisheye (in that case the Sigma 15mm F2.8 with Sigma MC-11 adapter and the Nauticam 140 DP) or the 14mm.

Eric

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29 by lambee01
images added

[Alex_Mustard 0]

12 hours ago, lambee01 said:

Last but not least, would you move , per your comment, from your Nikon D850 to the Sony system, be assured that TODAY (i agree it was not the case few years ago) Sony has made tremendous progress in lens design. A professional photographer (on land, making 50% of my income with this activity ), i am also using 12-24 F4 G, 16-35 F2.8 GM, 24-70 F2.8 GM II (absolutely tremendous lens), 14 F1.8 GM, 50 F1.2 GM, 35 F1.4 GM and 20 F1.8 G. All those lenses are really terrific, as also witness by many reviewers.

We recorded a Wetpixel Live review of the A7RV while I was in Cayman on Saturday - very much from the SLR users perspective. But there were some technical issues with the recording (not related to me being in Cayman) and since we know it will be well-watched, we plan to re-record it (rather than annoy people with echoey sound). Hopefully today. I don't wish to spoil that review, but to answer your question 3 ways:

1) if starting fresh today, there is no strong argument to choose any SLR (unless you get an amazing secondhand deal) over a camera like the A7RV. The Sony system has growing to do - but there will be growth and there won't be with SLR.

2) on my trip I had both Nikon D850 and Sony A7RV on the boat ready to go. And once I had dived the Sony enough for the review, and it didn't matter which I used, I carried on shooting it, because I preferred it.

3) that said, I am not ready to commit just yet. For example, I'd like to see whether the Nikon Z8 leap-frogs this tech or falls short. Nikon has a long history of looking out of the running and then jumping to pole position. Personally, I have a lot of Nikon legacy glass. If I did move to Sony, I would expect that I would more likely to be an A1 shooter than A7R system. But if I did go down the Sony route, I would say that the arrival of the A7RV makes this generation of A1 look expensive for an underwater shooter. So I would more likely go A7RV with the plan to add an A1M2 when it comes. Plus it is highly likely that an A7RVI would fit in the A7RV housing - now they have introduced the new articulated screen.

Alex

[Interceptor121 708]

31 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

We recorded a Wetpixel Live review of the A7RV while I was in Cayman on Saturday - very much from the SLR users perspective. But there were some technical issues with the recording (not related to me being in Cayman) and since we know it will be well-watched, we plan to re-record it (rather than annoy people with echoey sound). Hopefully today. I don't wish to spoil that review, but to answer your question 3 ways:

1) if starting fresh today, there is no strong argument to choose any SLR (unless you get an amazing secondhand deal) over a camera like the A7RV. The Sony system has growing to do - but there will be growth and there won't be with SLR.

2) on my trip I had both Nikon D850 and Sony A7RV on the boat ready to go. And once I had dived the Sony enough for the review, and it didn't matter which I used, I carried on shooting it, because I preferred it.

3) that said, I am not ready to commit just yet. For example, I'd like to see whether the Nikon Z8 leap-frogs this tech or falls short. Nikon has a long history of looking out of the running and then jumping to pole position. Personally, I have a lot of Nikon legacy glass. If I did move to Sony, I would expect that I would more likely to be an A1 shooter than A7R system. But if I did go down the Sony route, I would say that the arrival of the A7RV makes this generation of A1 look expensive for an underwater shooter. So I would more likely go A7RV with the plan to add an A1M2 when it comes. Plus it is highly likely that an A7RVI would fit in the A7RV housing - now they have introduced the new articulated screen.

Alex

What does the A1 not have that an A1II would have? For photos currently I do not see any functionality missing. Physically a better LCD would be preferred but underwater this is not a killer.

For video there are more gaps I have logged several tickets with Sony and for 2 I have been in touch with a voice of the customer representative that has told me those will be considered in a future software update. The two upgrade were subject detection in video to include animal and birds (currently only humans) and start tracking without the touch screen.

If those were included the A7RV other than focus bracketing (not relevant to underwater use) has no improvements of any sort  over the A1

The A1 can be had for £5879 including a 2TB Sony SSD vs £3,999 of the A7RV. Sony offers with some dealers interest free financing up to 24 months depending on your score. I have reflected a lot about the A1 and I do not see any improvement of sensor technology that will really make it go faster the camera is already a beast with a few niggles as mentioned above for video

Edited January 30 by Interceptor121

[lambee01 22]

21 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

What does the A1 not have that an A1II would have? For photos currently I do not see any functionality missing. Physically a better LCD would be preferred but underwater this is not a killer.

For video there are more gaps I have logged several tickets with Sony and for 2 I have been in touch with a voice of the customer representative that has told me those will be considered in a future software update. The two upgrade were subject detection in video to include animal and birds (currently only humans) and start tracking without the touch screen.

If those were included the A7RV other than focus bracketing (not relevant to underwater use) has no improvements of any sort  over the A1

The A1 can be had for £5879 including a 2TB Sony SSD vs £3,999 of the A7RV. Sony offers with some dealers interest free financing up to 24 months depending on your score. I have reflected a lot about the A1 and I do not see any improvement of sensor technology that will really make it go faster the camera is already a beast with a few niggles as mentioned above for video

Cannot agree more. I do not see what i would need more with the A1 that i do not have today. If for video, then the A1 wouldn't be my 1st choice. The A7sIII was designed for that. 
Sonyapharumors talk about a firmware update/upgrade in the next coming weeks in February for the A1. Let's see what is coming

[Alex_Mustard 0]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

What does the A1 not have that an A1II would have?

I am sure Sony won’t improve anything. The camera is surely un-improve-able!

[Interceptor121 708]

I am sure Sony won’t improve anything. The camera is surely un-improve-able!

Sony releases cameras with a 3-5 years cycle
In some cases it takes longer because there is not a enough to justify the model
The A1 has several improvements possible on the video side and some for timelapse or HR shots
For photos other than the insect mode for example they don’t have anything new to put it
As you have used briefly the A1 I was wondering what you think is clearly missing to require a markII
Besides A1 mark II sounds quite funny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Relax - the A1 is Sony's best camera. But it is naive to think that Sony won't replace it one day. And I feel that the A1 series is probably a better fit for me, given my workload. Although I would also expect to have both an A7R series and A1 series if I switched to Sony, personally as I would likely have more than one housing.

However, for most people the A7RV will be more attractive simply because provides the vast majority of the A1 underwater-relevant performance at a lower price point. We know lots of people are interested in this camera - just look at this thread. OK, you loose some synch speed (if you don't have HSS strobes, I tested up to 1/1000th with HSS), and gain some megapixels. The A1 has not got worse, it is just that a more attractively priced camera has inherited much of its tech relevant to underwater shooting (maybe this is also why the A1 is now about 10% cheaper than when released). 

Historically this is supported too. As high end but not top of the range cameras (like the A7RV) have always been more popular with underwater photographers, than the range toppers (like the A1) - primarily on price vs relevant performance. Just as D800 was more popular than D4, 5D more than 1D, D850 more than D5 etc etc. It goes back to F90X vs F4 and beyond.

Anyway, my main focus for using the A7RV underwater was comparing the A7RV to SLRs, which is the question most people are interested in (there remain far more keen underwater photographers with SLRs than FF Mirrorless, even if FF Mirrorless were the most popular choice on one of my recent workshops). Everyone accepts that Mirrorless are better topside cameras, everyone is interested when they become better underwater ones.

You could make the claim that the A1 was that landmark. And perhaps the Z9. But these are cameras costing more than 2x what people paid for their SLR cameras. And most people are not spending that sort of money, and at that price point are less forgiving of the differences in the EVF experience.

Anyway, I did 40 dives in very familiar conditions with the A7RV and I am very satisfied with how it compares with the SLRs I am familiar with. I did just 1 dive with the A7RIV and tried the A1 twice (in the pool and on the reef). I immediately noticed a big difference between the A7RIV and the A7RV (AF and EVF), while the A1 and the A7RV felt very similar. But fully accept this was not the focus of my test and these conclusions are preliminary. I also shot the Canon R5, which is let down by its EVF, but an R5-Mk2 with a better EVF would be a very serious competitor. As could be the Nikon Z8 if they get it right.

Alex

[Alex_Mustard 0]

p.s. We re-recorded the Wetpixel Live this morning, so there are lots of thoughts on there. I'll post back on here when I have had the chance to share some of the images. Which I think will be very valuable for anyone interested in the A7RV

[Interceptor121 708]

6 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Relax - the A1 is Sony's best camera. But it is naive to think that Sony won't replace it one day. And I feel that the A1 series is probably a better fit for me, given my workload. Although I would also expect to have both an A7R series and A1 series if I switched to Sony, personally as I would likely have more than one housing.

However, for most people the A7RV will be more attractive simply because provides the vast majority of the A1 underwater-relevant performance at a lower price point. We know lots of people are interested in this camera - just look at this thread. OK, you loose some synch speed (if you don't have HSS strobes, I tested up to 1/1000th with HSS), and gain some megapixels. The A1 has not got worse, it is just that a more attractively priced camera has inherited much of its tech relevant to underwater shooting (maybe this is also why the A1 is now about 10% cheaper than when released). 

Historically this is supported too. As high end but not top of the range cameras (like the A7RV) have always been more popular with underwater photographers, than the range toppers (like the A1) - primarily on price vs relevant performance. Just as D800 was more popular than D4, 5D more than 1D, D850 more than D5 etc etc. It goes back to F90X vs F4 and beyond.

Anyway, my main focus for using the A7RV underwater was comparing the A7RV to SLRs, which is the question most people are interested in (there remain far more keen underwater photographers with SLRs than FF Mirrorless, even if FF Mirrorless were the most popular choice on one of my recent workshops). Everyone accepts that Mirrorless are better topside cameras, everyone is interested when they become better underwater ones.

You could make the claim that the A1 was that landmark. And perhaps the Z9. But these are cameras costing more than 2x what people paid for their SLR cameras. And most people are not spending that sort of money, and at that price point are less forgiving of the differences in the EVF experience.

Anyway, I did 40 dives in very familiar conditions with the A7RV and I am very satisfied with how it compares with the SLRs I am familiar with. I did just 1 dive with the A7RIV and tried the A1 twice (in the pool and on the reef). I immediately noticed a big difference between the A7RIV and the A7RV (AF and EVF), while the A1 and the A7RV felt very similar. But fully accept this was not the focus of my test and these conclusions are preliminary. I also shot the Canon R5, which is let down by its EVF, but an R5-Mk2 with a better EVF would be a very serious competitor. As could be the Nikon Z8 if they get it right.

Alex

I am not getting agitated. I have pondered almost one year on full frame and already had one abort. For me the speed of the camera with eshutter is key as it allows me not to use the mechanical shutter in almost any conditions

An outing to shoot deer (photos) easily runs into 800 images. A day of shooting birds can be 1500.

Underwater is relatively low for me now with 500 shots per day and maybe only 10000 shots per year but the overall total is way higher with a lot of deletions

All of this is 95% with electronic shutter and no EVF black out which is the great feature of the A1 and Z9 alike (not sure about canon I imagine same)

After 3 years your A1 has maybe 2000 shutter count and if well kept will retain his value

A slower readout camera using the mechanical shutter is cooked in 3 years and ready for the bin or for a shutter box replacement

So for me the A1 is expensive but has feature that cannot be matched that make is retain its value better