Question re: Sony A7MKII

[raymond bleesz]

This camera, to my understanding was introduced in the year 2014---being that it has a few years under its belt, is there an updated version, specific model, of this camera at present which would be a replacement/alternative or perhaps should one expect going into the near future an update version?

For those of you who have this particular model, have you been satisfied?  do you regret not going to another model? What lenses are you using? Has the Full Frame the reason why you purchased this model and if so, have you been pleased with its FF sensor.

I am curious due to its FF sensor at this price point as compared to a APS model.

Please provide some insight into this camera--Thank you

[hogloff]

Well Sony has a fairly substantial promotion on right now which might mean a new camera is around the corner. They have been somewhat tight lipped about their plans and time frames.

[raymond bleesz]

anyone out there who is willing to answer my questions, inquiries or state your preferences rather than blowing me off.  R.

[Tony Jay]

Raymond it is a very good camera.
However, I think we need to know a lot more about how you intend to use it since this camera is very good for some things and a complete dog for certain applications.
Along with others, I think, I am wiling to engage in a dialog.
The A7R II is not a camera that lends itself to concrete-type black and white answers to questions.

Tony Jay

Edit: Apologies Raymond - misread the heading of your post - my bad.
I don't own the A7 mk II but still know a fair bit about it and most of comment above still holds really.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Assuming we are talking about the Alpha 7MKII, and not the Alpha 7RMKII...

1. I have been using this camera for more than 1 year, replacing my previous DSLR system (based on EOS 6D).
2. I am very happy with the camera and the system as a whole, provides significant weight and size reductions, when used with the great small primes available.
3. I shoot mostly travel and landscapes/seascapes, with long exposures, and the sensor is very good for that.

Regards.

[Cem]

I have this camera for a year now. Before that, I have had the A7 for a couple of years. As Paulo before me, I am also very happy with the camera. The ergonomics have improved from the A7 predecessor. The IBIS is useful for shooting stationary scenes without having to carry a tripod around. I have been using FF sensor cameras for 10 years now so yes, the FF is one of the reasons why I have purchased this camera. I use 3 Nikkor prime lenses (20mm/2.8, 35mm/1.8, 85mm/1.8 ) in manual mode. But I have recently bought a CommLite adapter to enable AF and EXIF data and I have been rather happy with that.

As I said, I am happy with the camera, no regrets. The high ISO noise is a bit higher compared to higher end cameras such as the A7RMII or the Nikon 810. But nothing which can't be dealt with in post processing.

I shoot landscapes, cityscapes, urban and street with the camera. Having AF makes a difference in street shooting but manual focus is OK in other cases. No sports/action for me.

If you are doubting between a FF sensor and an APS-C one, you should take a look at your photography style and decide how important it is to have a little bit of more control on the DoF of your photos. If most of your pictures are shot using apertures f/5.6 or higher, the difference between APS-C and FF won't be an issue. If, however, you continuously shoot at f/1.4-2.8, the FF would be a slight improvement.

Given the same resolution, the main physical difference between the AFS-C and FF sensors is the pitch of a sensel (a single pixel). All other things being equal, the FF sensor will capture more photons and might provide a bit more dynamic range and less noise. However, all things are not always equal and many other factors play a role in the final results. As I stated before, I think that the latest generation of APS-C sensors are, quality-wise, more or less equivalent to the one in the A7MKII. So that wouldn't be the reason why you should go for the one or the other. HTH.

[raymond bleesz]

Gentlemen---thank you for your responses. Let me expose my thoughts & thinking as a result of your posting.

I have been a long time Nikon user & have decided to forgo the heavier DSLR due to age & back issues. I have one prime Nikon lens, a 50mm which I just may keep and unload my other Nikon gear//bodies/zoom lenses.

Several years ago, I went with Panny GH2, & now a GH3 & Lumix lenses---I think this system is outstanding for what it offers & for my type of photography, does well.
I could stay with Panny into the GH5 but I am not interested in video and the GH/4/5 seems to stress those capabilities, but this system is not FF, hence I am interested with the FF A7MKII---the price point is about where I want to be.

Mention was made that this camera is ".....a dog for certain applications"  Please explain further.
"I shoot landscapes, cityscapes, urban and street with the camera. Having AF makes a difference in street shooting but manual focus is OK in other cases. No sports/action for me."

I would fit that description for the type of photo work I do. Being in a rural environment & do travel on occasion, I am photographing People, Places, Events & Things as a Social Scientist---I am not into sports as I once did, and nature, birding, safari type imagery is not of interest.

So a recap----I'm thinking a FF censored camera would be an upgrade for me, staying with mirrorless & specifically this particular Sony.  I do my own printing, primarily BW on a P800 & do not need larger prints. I'm thinking of keeping the prime Nikon lens & turning in the Nikon stuff as well as the GH3. However, perhaps keeping the Lumix lenses for the Sony which I have yet to do research upon as far as compatibility. If the Lumix lenses are not compatible, then I would turn those in as well & work with Sony lenses.

I think I am at that stage where FF may be an advantage to my work-----but I'm open for input & learning.
Thank you.  R.

[hogloff]

For your interests in photography ( landscape, street, event ) I think the A7R2 suits your needs perfectly. I basically have the same interests as you and use the A7R and have found it never has let me down.

The A7R2 is not a sports or BIF camera...but you stated these are not of any concern for you. For landscape, which typically is tripod and manual focus based and street which does not need 11fps with focus tracking...the A7R2 will deliver nicely.

[Herbc]

With what you are shooting, the m4/3 will do nicely.  They are available in 20mp sensors. I had a gallery winner shot on a m4/3 and printed 16x20 on an Epson 3800.
That said, I also have the A7RII and find the strength to be the SBR of this camera.  You are able to pull details out of  under or overexposed areas with ease.
I have had Canon and Nikon in the past, don't miss them at all.

[Paulo Bizarro]

With the extra clarification you wrote, I would venture to recommend other m43 cameras that are less video-centric, namely the GX8 or similar. This guy thinks very highly of it, and of the system in general:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

The Fuji X systems seems to have landed in a very good price/quality point, so another one to consider?

Finally, some folks above continue to talk about the A7RMKII; this is a very different camera compared to the A7MKII, starting with price!

[Tony Jay]

For your interests in photography ( landscape, street, event ) I think the A7R2 suits your needs perfectly. I basically have the same interests as you and use the A7R and have found it never has let me down.

The A7R2 is not a sports or BIF camera...but you stated these are not of any concern for you. For landscape, which typically is tripod and manual focus based and street which does not need 11fps with focus tracking...the A7R2 will deliver nicely.

This is a fair summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the A7R mk II for various genres.
I would add that for astrophotography the mk II is not the best but the original A7R works great for long exposures in very low-light situations.
The issue is that the mk II sensor tends to generate a lot of thermal noise during long exposures.

I use the A7R mk II for all my shooting apart from birds and wildlife, although, in fact, I do have some very nice portraits of animals and birds shot with this camera. These were pretty static scenarios and it does show in the results.

Tony Jay

[raymond bleesz]

Be advised I am interested in the Sony A7MKII not the "R" issue.  Raymond

[scooby70]

In relation to Panasonic MFT I just wanted to mention shutter shock.

I was quite happy with my Panasonic cameras until I encountered shutter shock with a lens I was otherwise impressed with and wanted to use and I've since encountered it with another lens which required a shutter speed of 1/500 to avoid it. Shutter speeds of 1/500 aren't always possible for me and may anyway come at the expense of an excessively high ISO setting.

Personally I'd recommend that anyone looking at a camera known to suffer shutter shock should think very carefully if it could affect them as if it does it can be very limiting and make lens selection and settings a minefield as using the electronic shutter brings its own problems such as for me banding under some artificial lights.

[mdijb]

I ahve used the A& for almost 2 years and have been very pleased, so much so that I recently bought the A7Mii.  I think the Dynamic range supplied by the chip in this camera to be excellent.  I used to do a lot of HDR work, but with these cameras, the dynamic range has been so good, I Use HDR only a fraction of the time now.  WIth the power of post processing software now available I find this camera to be all that  I need for my work.  If one wants to make really large prints, which I do not, then you should consider a higher megapixel camera.

Here is a website where you can compare test shots from different cameras so you can judge for yourself the difference in image quality from different cameras.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

MDIJB

[jhemp]

You'll love the camera!  I shot it heavily for the past couple of years.  It is very competent in every situation but fast moving sports in bad light, like indoor basketball/volleyball games, although it got the job done for me in those situations.  But the success of the camera varies heavily on the glass you put on it.  This camera with low end kit lenses probably won't shine much more than your current setup.  I have a list of lenses that I really like
1. 16-35 f4  is great lens on the A7II.  Good for landscape work.
2. 35 f2.8 is super small and I love it.  Great IQ and sharpness
3. 55 f1.8 Awesome
4. Zeiss Loxia 21 and 50mm lenses.  If you like manual focus then these things are lovely. I have mixed emotions on the 35mm version.
5. Zeiss Batis 25,85 are great.  I haven't tried the 18mm version but I assume it's good.
6. 50 f1.4 is my favorite 50mm but it's BIG.

The A7II with any of these would be very good.
You can see sample shots from this camera on my image feed on Flickr.  All the images are from Sony cameras.  The most recent work has all been the A7rII as I sold the A7II a couple of months ago.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jhemp_00/Jay

[lowep]

Since your name is Raymond I would have thought you would prefer the Sony A7 "R" :-)

but I still prefer the A7II since it has less resolution than the bigger fish, so less problems with camera shake and also has stabilization that gives me more keepers particularly in low light than I used to get with the A7.

Both the A7 and A7II deliver better image quality than the aps-c NEX-7 and Pentax K7 that I used to own, so if image quality is a concern and you want to do more with your images than post them on facebook then the bigger FF sensor is better.

However, the kit lens for the A7II is very pedestrian, so you will probably sooner or later invest in better Sony lenses that are not cheap or a Metabones adapter so you can use Canon or other lenses. If you shoot video maybe a good idea to upgrade to a GH5 rather than swap systems, as it has much better video and also inbuilt stabilization.

Have you thought about the Sony A6500 that though not full frame combines a lot of the good characteristics of the Sony A and Panasonic GH systems in a small body and has received very good reviews.

[raymond bleesz]

lowep and others------The "grass is always greener on the other side"---This is what I was perhaps thinking when I mentioned perhaps moving to another camera system, specifically for FF sensor (Sony A7MKII)----thinking that my prints et all would "look better" with a FF camera/lenses------and the "R" was a bit too much $$$, hence my more economical choice. But the FF concept intrigued me and almost captured me.

But I now have revised my thinking, ----acting too rapidly & upon some reflection upon going for the Sony. Yes, my Nikon gear will go, due to weight issues.

And the fact that I am very comfortable with my other present system, a GH3, my now preferred system being mirrorless. I had concern about the GH not being FF, hence giving thought to going FF and there seemed to be too much emphasis on "video" in the Gh4/5 where as the Sony had less "push" towards video. I am not interested in video.The GH3 & prior GH2, have served me well---I like the size, weight, lenses, and the nail in the coffin is that I do not make large prints. So why change--keep riding the same horses-----and work with the GH5 when the time comes and I will not take a major loss by trade ins. Be satisfied----some ancient Greek would have said that.

One other fact:  Just yesterday, I received word that I was accepted to a major, unique photo retreat (workshop) in France this summer----I will have to save pennies & use my present Panny system & forget about looking at greener grass.

Again thank you all for your comments.

Raymond in Colorado

[lowep]

absolutely agree changing systems always requires much time and loss of money, so sounds like a good decision to concentrate on your photography instead of your gear... maybe I should do same 

[scooby70]

However, the kit lens for the A7II is very pedestrian,

Whenever I read criticism of this lens I wonder what people expect from a standard variable aperture zoom at this price point.

View it as what it is... a standard variable aperture zoom at a reasonable price... and at least in my opinion it's probably the best example of the breed I've ever used.

Of course even the best lens of this type at this sort of price could perhaps be seen as pedestrian but I'd hope that anyone looking at considerably better lenses knew enough to realise why.

[lowep]

yes I agree my iphone 4S lens also has a fine lens for what I use it for