Sony A7R VI, the A1 II, and the New FE 100–400mm F4.5 GM OSS
Some camera announcements pass by without changing how I think about my gear. Others make me pause. The Sony A7R VI is one of those cameras. Not because it will replace my Sony A1 II. It won’t. The A1 II will remain my main Sony body for fast wildlife, birds in flight and unpredictable action. But I have pre-ordered the A7R VI as a second body beside it.
That is the key point.
I already own the A7R V. It was actually my entry point into the Sony ecosystem when I first wanted to try out Sony as a 20+ year Canon shooter. In hindsight, it was probably a typical gear-head “mistake”.
At the time, the original A1 had already been out for a while — I don’t remember exactly, maybe two-plus years — and as a gear head I didn’t want to buy the “old” model when an A1 II felt like it had to be just around the corner. It wasn’t. I ended up buying an A1 later anyway, mainly because I had a Svalbard trip coming up and needed the speed and autofocus. Then, about six months later, the A1 II was announced. I sold the original A1 the same week, for almost the same amount I had paid for it.
Realistically, I should have sold the A7R V a long time ago. It has mostly been collecting dust for quite a while now. But I’m terrible at selling unused gear — just ask my wife.
I really wanted to shoot wildlife with the Fuji GFX100 II and GF500mm. I gave it a proper chance, but for fast action it was difficult.
The autofocus, frame rate, and blackout between shots made it hard to follow the eagle the moment it took the fish. It became more of a “shoot and pray” situation than I would like.
But when it did hit, the files were incredible. The image quality was unreal.
I also shot with the GFX100 in Africa, and I might bring it again on my next trip to Kenya in June. We’ll see. That decision will probably depend on whether I receive the A7R VI before the trip or not.
A second body with a clear role
I don’t need every camera to be good at everything. I prefer tools with a clear purpose.
The A1 II is the camera I trust when things happen quickly. Birds in flight, animals running, sudden behavior, situations where I want maximum responsiveness and confidence.
The A7R VI will have a different role. I see it as the camera for slower wildlife situations where resolution, detail and cropping latitude matter more than pure speed.
Africa is the obvious example. Elephants, rhinos, giraffes, buffalo, lions at rest, animals moving through dust, wildlife in the landscape — not every strong wildlife image is about action. Sometimes it is about scale, texture, atmosphere and light. In those situations, resolution becomes creative freedom.
A high-resolution file lets me shoot a little wider, protect the composition and still have room to crop later. I can decide afterwards whether the image should stay environmental or become more intimate. That flexibility matters when you cannot control distance, angle or background.
That is where I expect the A7R VI to earn its place.
Why the A7R V stayed in the bag
The A7R V always made sense on paper. High resolution, excellent files, good autofocus, solid body.
But in the field, the A1 II became the camera I actually wanted to use.
That is the difference between a camera you admire and a camera you trust. With wildlife, trust matters. It is not only frame rate. It is how fast the camera reacts, how confidently it follows a subject and how little you have to think when the moment changes.
The A7R VI seems to narrow that gap. It does not need to become an A1 II. It just needs to be fast enough that choosing resolution no longer feels like giving up too much.
Resolution is margin
In wildlife photography, resolution is not only about large prints or pixel-level detail. It is about margin.
Wildlife rarely gives you perfect control. You cannot always choose the distance, the background or the exact position of the animal. More resolution gives you more room to work with reality.
An elephant herd in evening dust does not always need to fill the frame. A giraffe in soft light may be stronger with space around it. A rhino moving through grass can be more powerful as part of a scene than as a tight portrait.
With enough resolution, I don’t have to decide everything in the field. I can shoot for the moment first and refine the frame later.
I can also see the A7R VI being useful for white-tailed eagles in Norway. When the action is fast and chaotic, I will still reach for the A1 II. But when the bird is sitting, gliding, approaching the boat or moving through the landscape, the extra resolution could be very useful.
The new 100–400mm F4.5 looks genuinely interesting
Sony also announced the FE 100–400mm F4.5 GM OSS, and on paper it looks like one of the most interesting wildlife and sports zooms they have released.
I probably won’t buy it.
Not because it looks uninteresting. Quite the opposite. A constant F4.5 aperture, internal zoom, G Master optics and a reasonable weight make it feel like a more serious professional tool than the typical 100–400mm zoom.
The constant F4.5 aperture matters most at the long end, where this type of lens is used most of the time. Compared with F5.6, it gives a little more working room when the light drops: slightly lower ISO, slightly faster shutter speeds and a bit more separation between subject and background.
The internal zoom may be just as important. A lens that does not change length is easier to balance, easier to use on a monopod or gimbal head, and more predictable when following movement. For wildlife, those things matter more than they might seem from a spec sheet.
The weight is also interesting. Around 1.84 kg is not light, but for an internal-zoom 100–400mm F4.5 GM lens, it sounds very reasonable. Serious, but not in big super-telephoto territory.
For many photographers, especially for safari, travel, sport and larger wildlife, this could be a superb lens.
Why I will skip the lens
The reason is simple: Canon RF 100–300mm F2.8L IS USM.
That lens is one of the main reasons I still shoot both Canon and Sony. It gives me the flexibility of a zoom with the speed and feel of a super-telephoto prime. With a 1.4x extender it becomes a 140–420mm F4. With a 2x extender it becomes a 200–600mm F5.6.
For the way I shoot, F2.8 at 300mm and F4 at 420mm are simply too valuable. The Canon lens gives me something Sony still does not really offer in the same form.
So while the Sony 100–400mm F4.5 looks excellent, it does not solve a problem I currently have.
Canon and Sony solve different problems
This is why I still use both systems.
Canon gives me the RF 100–300mm F2.8, which is special enough to keep me firmly invested in the system, especially together with the Canon R1.
Sony gives me other strengths. The A1 II gives me speed, autofocus, strong resolution and a very complete wildlife body. The A7R VI should give me a more specialized high-resolution second body that feels faster and more usable than the A7R V did in the same role.
So I don’t see this as replacing one system with another. I see it as building a more precise kit.
A1 II when things move fast. A7R VI when detail and cropping latitude matter more. Canon RF 100–300mm F2.8 when light, subject separation and teleconverter flexibility are the priority.
Different tools for different images.
My conclusion
I have pre-ordered the Sony A7R VI because I think it can fill a role the A7R V never quite managed once the A1 II entered my bag.
I expect to use it for larger animals in Africa, slower wildlife scenes where detail matters, and perhaps certain white-tailed eagle situations in Norway where I want more resolution without giving up too much speed.
The new Sony FE 100–400mm F4.5 GM OSS looks genuinely interesting, and I expect it to be extremely sharp. For many sports and wildlife photographers it could be a brilliant lens. But in my own system, the Canon RF 100–300mm F2.8 is still too important and too unique for the Sony zoom to make sense.
I am not looking for one system that does everything. I am looking for tools that do specific things exceptionally well.
The A7R VI might become one of those tools.