Sony Announces the Sony A7 V

[Walrus]

They are a month of UK take-home average salary. And pros will get them cheaper because of tax relief.

In UK salaries are way higher; Italy's average is around 1600/1700€, vs a price for the R6III of 2900€, so roughly two months of salary.

And you may have not tax reliefs depending on how much is your annual turnover; if you've a small business, less then 85.000€ based on 2025 regulations (but used to be around 30k/40k in the past; government changed it recently to "buy" votes from professionals and small businesses), you pay very low taxes, just 15%, but you're not able to deduct vat from purchases, and also can't deduct gear from your expenses, so you pay all the stuff out of your pockets like a private person.

 

[Richard CR]

We're going to drill into this camera (figuratively speaking.. it's not an R100 after all) a bit more today, but as luck would have it, I'm travelling today. Naturally.

 

[Richard CR]

Could it be that my carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by having owned a Sony A7* for 2 weeks?

I'm shocked you didn't have to go to therapy.

 

[leamas]

Come on Canon, allow us 4K60p oversampled on the Canon R5 mark ii, to beat the competition. Also the A7 V can do this...

 

[Uneternal]

After only 7 years Sony has officially lost any advantage they had over Canon. 30 fps, sure, but with all kinds of exceptions in the small print. Probably falls to 5fps again with certain settings (mech shutter + lossless compressed raw?)
And on top it eats into their $6000 flagship segment, not just A1 but also FX3. I mean good for Sony customers but Sony basically shot themselves in the foot with this one.

 

[Etnaphele]

After only 7 years Sony has officially lost any advantage they had over Canon. 30 fps, sure, but with all kinds of exceptions in the small print. Probably falls to 5fps again with certain settings (mech shutter + lossless compressed raw?)
And on top it eats into their $6000 flagship segment, not just A1 but also FX3. I mean good for Sony customers but Sony basically shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Wait wait:

• the one with exceptions is Canon with 12 bit readout without having a choice for 14 bit (à la Panasonic)
• Why should the A7 eat into the A1, while the R6 not eat into the R5 and R1?

Give credit where it’s due, the sensor is slightly better than the R6III’s one (same readout but at higher bit rate), it has blackout free shooting and some design choices like the screen and multi-card compatibility would be welcome on a Canon camera.

The FX3 is a pure bread video camera and excels at it, it’s completely out of scope.

I would take Canon 99 times out of 100 still, but it’s good that Sony got fully back into contention. It pushes Canon to do better.

 

[ThomasTH]

Each camera has some strengths and weaknesses. Canon only has 12 bit in electronic shutter mode, Sony has no Open Gate or 6K video. I think the next generation of Sony sensors is going to be more interesting.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Cheaper 3rd parties with 15fps handicap. I rather adapt EF or native RF with R6iii 40fps.

To be fair, 15fps is more than enough for 99% of stuff. I rather have a Sigma 14mm 1.4 limited to 15fps than nothing at all.

 

[Etnaphele]

To be fair, 15fps is more than enough for 99% of stuff. I rather have a Sigma 14mm 1.4 limited to 15fps than nothing at all.

Thanks for reminding me of the Sigma 14 1.4 and making me cry.

Something tells me we will be stuck without a proper modern astro lens for a while (RF 15-35 2.8 and 20 VCM 1.4 are fine astro lenses but markedly different).

 

[JohanCruyff]

Lenses definitely matter. There can be 200 lenses available, how many are you actually buying? (some of us crazies around here aside). Some of the unique and niche ones will sway some customers for sure.

Just a few good / excellent lenses are better than many average lenses.


RF 14-35mm F/4 L, RF 24-105 F/4 L, RF 70-200 F/2.8 and RF 100-500 L are my current zoom lenses, from tourism in cities to safaris.

I'm happy with my light RF 35mm F/1.8 prime and I plan to switch from a very good adapted Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 to an excellent RF 50mm 1.2 in 2026, mainly for indoor family portraits,

Then... who knows, everything else is not necessary.
Maybe - in 2027 - a RF 85mm F/1.4 or even F/1.2, definitely not necessary when one owns a RF 70-200 F/2.8 and (the 1.2) a bit heavy, but probably worth the effort.

So I don't complain about Canon's product range. 6 or 7 lenses are more than enough for me.

 

[Etnaphele]

Just a few good / excellent lenses are better than many average lenses.


RF 14-35mm F/4 L, RF 24-105 F/4 L, RF 70-200 F/2.8 and RF 100-500 L are my current zoom lenses, from tourism in cities to safaris.

I'm happy with my light RF 35mm F/1.8 prime and I plan to switch from a very good adapted Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 to an excellent RF 50mm 1.2 in 2026, mainly for indoor family portraits,

Then... who knows, everything else is not necessary.
Maybe - in 2027 - a RF 85mm F/1.4 or even F/1.2, definitely not necessary when one owns a RF 70-200 F/2.8 and (the 1.2) a bit heavy, but probably worth the effort.

So I don't complain about Canon's product range. 6 or 7 lenses are more than enough for me.

The mainstream zooms and prime are all there, with choices in multiple price brackets. The problem arises when someone has specific needs for a more niche application: astro, unamorphic, macro and weird "do-it-all" (Tamron 35-150 𝑓/2-2.8) zooms for example. Canon won't be interested in manufacturing these, from a business perspective, for a long time or ever. Let's ignore adapting older EF mount lenses, as many new mirrorless lenses have many improvements over the older reflex versions.

I really hope they could provide compatibility for at least some selected lenses, similar to what Nikon does with Tamron offerings. It's clear that they want to protect their lens selling business (and I can really understand it), but I don't see how letting the Sirui autofocussing anamorphic lenses would be detrimental for Canon - quite clearly the opposite in my opinion, with R6III and C50 having open gate now. The same for the Sigma 14 𝑓/1.4: such a huge lens and specialized is by itself bound to sell low volumes, but at the same time bring a photographer to choose a system that supports it.

Interchangeable lens cameras are awesome because you can jump from super-standard to extremely niche, it's sad that Canon cuts off the niche part of the whole.

 

[fox40phil]

Wait wait:

• the one with exceptions is Canon with 12 bit readout without having a choice for 14 bit (à la Panasonic)

Give credit where it’s due, the sensor is slightly better than the R6III’s one (same readout but at higher bit rate), it has blackout free shooting and some design choices like the screen and multi-card compatibility would be welcome on a Canon camera.

this + shutter angle would be the perfect camera in Canons segment! ((

There were rumors about a new screen design... WHERE is it?! :'(.
And also the 12bit again with e-shutter -> not acceptable!

I wish Canon would also made a f2.0-Zoom line up! 50-150 2.0 or something similar would be a beast!

 

[CJaurelius]

After only 7 years Sony has officially lost any advantage they had over Canon. 30 fps, sure, but with all kinds of exceptions in the small print. Probably falls to 5fps again with certain settings (mech shutter + lossless compressed raw?)

Its actually the other way around. With mechanical shutter the A7V is 10 fps and the R6miii is 12 fps which is pretty similar. However when you go above the 12 fps on the R6miii you drop to 12 bit RAW. On the A7V you can shoot the full 30 fps in 14 bit RAW.

And on top it eats into their $6000 flagship segment, not just A1 but also FX3. I mean good for Sony customers but Sony basically shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Not sure how you figure this as the the gap between the A7V and the A1II is wider than the gap between the R6miii and the R1. Not to mention the R5miii on sale at $3900 pretty much makes anything above that price obsolete. And to be clear I think the R5mii is hands down the best camera pound for pound and at that price better than anything Sony has.

 

[CJaurelius]

Just a few good / excellent lenses are better than many average lenses.


RF 14-35mm F/4 L, RF 24-105 F/4 L, RF 70-200 F/2.8 and RF 100-500 L are my current zoom lenses, from tourism in cities to safaris.

I'm happy with my light RF 35mm F/1.8 prime and I plan to switch from a very good adapted Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 to an excellent RF 50mm 1.2 in 2026, mainly for indoor family portraits,

Then... who knows, everything else is not necessary.
Maybe - in 2027 - a RF 85mm F/1.4 or even F/1.2, definitely not necessary when one owns a RF 70-200 F/2.8 and (the 1.2) a bit heavy, but probably worth the effort.

So I don't complain about Canon's product range. 6 or 7 lenses are more than enough for me.

That might work for you but with the Chinese ramping up the quality of their lenses in the recent years I doubt that will be the same for most people.

Let's say you want to pick up an 85mm for portraits on lower end. On Canon your option would be Canon RF 85 f/2 at $690 that has no aperture ring and no programable button. Meanwhile 3rd party Viltrox offers a 85mm f/2 at $275 with the features Canon left out. If you step up to the f/1.4 you're paying $1650 on the Canon side and $600 from Viltrox. So you're talking $1050 less for a lens with the same features and a pro metal body.

We'll see from a business side who made the right choice but from a potential customer perspective 3rd party lens options are clearly benefitial.

 

[CJaurelius]

Each camera has some strengths and weaknesses. Canon only has 12 bit in electronic shutter mode, Sony has no Open Gate or 6K video. I think the next generation of Sony sensors is going to be more interesting.

While comparing these cameras may be interesting on an internet forum in reality I believe both companies are trying to trickle out upgrades as slow as possible. We've basically hit the peak in terms of image quality so they have to find creative wasy to get people to buy the same camera over and over again even though they aren't getting much of an upgrade.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

As someone who is new to Canon (for bird photography), but has spent time using Sony I have to say that IMO they take an extremely cynical approach to their consumer cameras. When I got hold of the A7rV I was in shock at the cheap build, the poor quality feel for the almost $4K price tag. Uncomfortable grip, the chintzy buttons and dials. I tried to ignore it but returned it shortly after. I think the A7rII, which I owned for a time, was better built than the A7rV albeit not by much. Every brand I've owned/demo'd has felt more comfortable in the hand than Sony. I genuinely think they make their cameras as cheap as they can, including smaller size to save a few yen (and sell tons of battery grips). It's evident in the (literal) painful incremental increase in grip size a few mm's every couple of years. It's evident in the adding features to new cheaper models while leaving flagships stranded.

But boy, they got marketing clout to spare, especially the Youtubers.

All true, but supposedly the build of the a7 V is much better.
It is basically in the body of an a9 III.
It is still not up to R6 III level.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Why should the A7 eat into the A1, while the R6 not eat into the R5 and R1?

We are hoping for firmware updates.
I do not see anything that the a7 V does that the a1 can't do, though.
The R6 III does plenty that the a1 can't do, though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Lenses definitely matter. There can be 200 lenses available, how many are you actually buying? (some of us crazies around here aside). Some of the unique and niche ones will sway some customers for sure.

There are more than a few lenses that lead me to choose Canon, but I am jealous of a few on other systems.
I wish that I liked Nikon cameras because they have access to F mount, Z mount, E mount, and X mount lenses.

 

[PinholeR5]

Cheaper 3rd parties with 15fps handicap. I rather adapt EF or native RF with R6iii 40fps.

To be fair, 15fps is more than enough for 99% of stuff. I rather have a Sigma 14mm 1.4 limited to 15fps than nothing at all.

I actually shoot both my R5 II and my R1 at 15fps most of the time (>95%) for sports and wildlife. I find it to be the sweet spot for me. The trade-off betwen the exact precise moment and the overhead of culling images in post.

I would more than welcome the possibility of using third party lenses and if 15fps is the only limitation, then it means virtually no limitation for me (though I get it would be a deal breaker for others)! For most of the mainstream zooms/primes I use I'd probably stick with Canon even if cheaper and close in quality third-party were available with no limitations. But I would love the option to get some of the third-party offerings for less mainstream lenses.

 

[CJaurelius]

All true, but supposedly the build of the a7 V is much better.
It is basically in the body of an a9 III.
It is still not up to R6 III level.

The A7V use the A7RV body with a new ruberized grip not the A9III body.

While how a body feels in your hand is personal and debatable, to say it's not up to the R6III level as a difinitive statement is pretty fanboyish. The A7V has a 4 axis screen which none of the Canon modesl have yet.