Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Quentin on July 31, 2015, 06:20:19 am
-
My new A7RII arrived yesterday lunchtime.
Here are a few of the first images from it, all taken with the 16-35mm F/4 which arrived at my office at the same time.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/DSC00008%20-%20small.jpg)
Bank Reflections
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/DSC00036.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/DSC00011-small.jpg)
a super high ISO 102,400 shot, with some Luminance NR in ACR
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/DSC00024.jpg)
Thoughts:
1. Much faster AF
2. Quite a "creamy" lowish contrast out of camera rendition with RAW files. Spookily low noise in shadow areas, good highlight recovery
3. I'm not a fan of the boxy shape camera body, but I can live with that for the image quality.
4. One camera to rule them all? it just might be.
Quentin
-
Thanks for the initial impressions.
I will be attending a Sony launch event on the West Coast this coming week and shooting extensively with the A7RII there, and then will be shooting for a further five days in The Palouse area of Washington state. Chris and Kevin will be joining me for this shoot.
I expect to have an in-depth report here afterwards as well as some video on my field impressions.
We have both new Zeiss Batis lenses to work with as well.
Michael
-
Always really appreciate your reviews Michael. Looking forward to reading your thoughts on the A7R2.
Quentin, would love to see some well-processed, super high DR shots if you get the chance.
-
Michael
That's good to hear. I'm particularity interested in how the Batis lenses fare on the A7RII. Could be a match made in photograph heaven.
I hope to do more tests with the kit I have this weekend.
Thanks for the initial impressions.
I will be attending a Sony launch event on the West Coast this coming week and shooting extensively with the A7RII there, and then will be shooting for a further five days in The Palouse area of Washington state. Chris and Kevin will be joining me for this shoot.
I expect to have an in-depth report here afterwards as well as some video on my field impressions.
We have both new Zeiss Batis lenses to work with as well.
Michael
-
Quentin, would love to see some well-processed, super high DR shots if you get the chance.
I'm on it ;D
-
This looks to be a game changer, of great interest to many will be how well the A7RII interoperates with existing lenses from Sony's new third-party lens manufacturers Canon and Nikon ;D
Edmund
-
Very exciting! Thanks for posting. Care to comment more on the super high iso image? To my eye, the sky and roof shadows seem to be full of nasties, despite NR. ISO 100,000 seems super high but its "just" about 1.5 stops better than most modern cameras can pull off. Of course this is still admirable performance but I would appreciate more examples of this type, just to see what is possible in real world shooting.
-
If the AF works well with super telephoto lens from Canon (via an adaptor of course) such that it can be usefully used for bird and wildlife photography then it will get my dollar vote!
Tony Jay
-
If the AF works well with super telephoto lens from Canon (via an adaptor of course) such that it can be usefully used for bird and wildlife photography then it will get my dollar vote!
Tony Jay
I wouldn't expect real time object tracking. Canon and Nikon invested hundreds of engineer years into that.
Face tracking will probably well work because Sony has a lot of experience with video.
Edmund
-
I wouldn't expect real time object tracking. Canon and Nikon invested hundreds of engineer years into that.
Face tracking will probably well work because Sony has a lot of experience with video.
Edmund
You may be right Edmund, however lets see how this body actually behaves in the hands of real-world users.
We may be pleasantly surprised or we may be disappointed - who knows.
Tony Jay
-
Yes, I would certainly enjoy an A7rII review with Michael style!
Only thing, that would most likely be the fall of my last defense from buying this toy.
Eduardo
Always really appreciate your reviews Michael. Looking forward to reading your thoughts on the A7R2.
Quentin, would love to see some well-processed, super high DR shots if you get the chance.
-
Yes, I would certainly enjoy an A7rII review with Michael style!
Only thing, that would most likely be the fall of my last defense from buying this toy.
Eduardo
Poverty is my defense :)
Edmund
-
Edmund, you have too many toys anyway! :D
Poverty is my defense :)
Edmund
-
I'm not expecting world-class AF and tracking - after all, this isn't Sony's fully pro-oriented body. We're still waiting on the A8/A9.
But if it can do better using Canon lenses than the 5D2 (or any other camera using Canon's traditional 9-point system) that in itself would be a significant achievement, and make it usable for almost all purposes besides action photography.
-
It would be interesting to compare the Sony A7RII to the EOS 5DSR and do it with real life photographic scenes not extreme single-shot HDR exercises. Although good the Sony sensors are, to my eye they lack the Canon realistic look and color. I would not mind to be proven wrong.
-
It would be interesting to compare the Sony A7RII to the EOS 5DSR and do it with real life photographic scenes not extreme single-shot HDR exercises. Although good the Sony sensors are, to my eye they lack the Canon realistic look and color. I would not mind to be proven wrong.
They both look equally realistic to me. Canon tends towards warm and Sony/Nikon towards cool.
And, in high-contrast situations (i.e. almost every landscape shot) there's no contest. When I look at a landscape, I see detail in the sky, as well as detail on the ground and in the deep shadows. Unlike Canon sensors, I don't see a blown-out sky or black, detailless shadows. Sony/Nikon sensors can capture that in one shot. Canon sensors require some sort of HDR technique (whether using HDR software, blended images or filters).
-
i picked up my a7r II yesterday and in terms of image quality what i have seen so far it is a significant step forwards form the '35mm' digital cameras i've used (d3, d3x, leica m9, fuji x100, sony a7 II, sony rx1, d800 & d800e,) i think we can expect some very positive reviews from people like michael in the next few weeks.
the raw files are unreadabe with my current version of acr, can anyone confirm this? (weird becase my a7 II files are fine) but judging by the jpgs i shot last night of the local town band playing at night in the street lit by little more than a full moon and street lighting this thing focusses & stabalises really well and produces night-time results like i have never seen before, they seem to be easily usable up to 6400 asa. i was using the zony 55mm lens.
same goes for the detail and 'believability' of these jpgs, the daylight shots i've taken truly 'pop,' and the 42mp detail is great!
sorry i can't post images, i have no wifi network where, but i'm sure all the pro reviewers will fire up plenty soon!
www.adriantyler.net
-
The latest ACR will decode A7RII files
I'm probably the world's worst camera tester, because I tend not to test those features I'm not that bothered about and therefore won't use ;D Focus tracking is an example. I tend just to get on and use the camera and learn what I need along the way.
I admire the patience of those who check every function and report on them!
-
Hi,
Now that Canon has the 5Ds/5DsR I cannot really see why Canon users would use an adapted A7rII for shooting things like birds in flight or sports. Canon has the camera for that.
For those needing high DR the Sony A7rII may be attractive.
Best regards
Erik
I wouldn't expect real time object tracking. Canon and Nikon invested hundreds of engineer years into that.
Face tracking will probably well work because Sony has a lot of experience with video.
Edmund
-
For those needing high DR the Sony A7rII may be attractive.
... and, just perhaps, for a multitude of other reasons !
-
Hi,
Thanks for sharing. My own will arrive in a few days.
Best regards
Erik
My new A7RII arrived yesterday lunchtime.
Here are a few of the first images from it, all taken with the 16-35mm F/4 which arrived at my office at the same time.
Thoughts:
1. Much faster AF
2. Quite a "creamy" lowish contrast out of camera rendition with RAW files. Spookily low noise in shadow areas, good highlight recovery
3. I'm not a fan of the boxy shape camera body, but I can live with that for the image quality.
4. One camera to rule them all? it just might be.
Quentin
-
Hi,
It would be interesting to hear about those other reasons.
Personally, I bought my Sony A7rII to be used with existing A-mount lenses and I have ordered A Canon 24/3.5 TSE to be used with it. I also plan to add a T&S adapter that will allow me to use Hasselblad lenses.
Best regards
Erik
... and, just perhaps, for a multitude of other reasons !
-
my 'other reasons' apart from size, image quality, the innovative idea (had an m9 but couldn't get consistent results,) was that i've been looking for a really good 50mm lens for digital 35mm for years, not just sharp but nice rendition and bokeh and the zony 55 is just what i was looking for, although i did like the way the hasselblad distagon fle 50mm 'drew' on the digital 35mm format but it was big, clunky and not so good at infinity...
so there you go not only do i love the camera, but i get my 'holy grail' 55mm lens to boot!
www.adriantyler.net
-
It would be interesting to hear about those other reasons.
Yes, increase DR with my Canon lenses it is the most interested to me as you already commented.
4k internal video recording comes as second one...
-
I'd like to see if they manage to push the resolution further with their pro-oriented body and outdo Canon on this account too. For me, 54MP is the big milestone, for 150ppi at 60x40".
-
I'm using Lightroom 5. How would I convert the RAW pictures?
-
Hi,
Now that Canon has the 5Ds/5DsR I cannot really see why Canon users would use an adapted A7rII for shooting things like birds in flight or sports. Canon has the camera for that.
For those needing high DR the Sony A7rII may be attractive.
Best regards
Erik
Nikon/Sony Exmor sensor cameras only have an big edge in image quality mainly if you shoot at base iso or below iso 400. Once you start shooting at iso 800 and above it makes little sense for a Canon shooter to switch.
The A7RII looks like it has raised the exmor image quality noticeably so it might b the holy grail of sensor measurebators. I am sure it will score well over 100 in the DXo test. We will know in a week but I suspect that once people start posting image quality tests of the A7RII it will shake up the camera world. I mean, lot's of people are still gonna be making lot's of crappy pictures with it, just like with any camera, but it will be a great tool in the hands of someone who know what he/she wants and knows how to do it.
I played with a few low iso raw files and the depth of the files is just stunning. I was pulling clean detail with good color out from under a sofa in a well underexposed, backlit! image. As good as the D810 is (which IMHO is an improvement over the A7R and D800E) the A7RII is gonna wipe the floor with every sensor ever made in regards to base iso DR. It also should push high iso performance even higher.
Where the 5DSR might have an edge is in detail and also long exposure image quality which has been talked very little about but is a HUGE improvement over the 5D3's.
-
Continuing tests and images confirm that this is an outstanding camera. Silent shutter mode is completely silent.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0070.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0075.jpg)
I'm also impressed with the 16-35mm F/4, particularly used in its sweet spot (around F/8 amd mid zoom range)
-
I'm using Lightroom 5. How would I convert the RAW pictures?
Once the Adobe dng converter supports the A7RII you can convert the arw's to dng's, which you can open with any old version of Lightroom.
That's how I managed my NEX6 files until I upgraded from Lightroom 3 to Lightroom 5 (Lightroom 3 was too old to support NEX6 arw's)
-
Hi,
Now that Canon has the 5Ds/5DsR I cannot really see why Canon users would use an adapted A7rII for shooting things like birds in flight or sports. Canon has the camera for that.
For those needing high DR the Sony A7rII may be attractive.
Best regards
Erik
I agree and for landscapes I think Canon did a good job on providing a high resolution camera. So far my expectations have been met with this camera (5DsR) only having it for two days now. The amount of detail is incredible and the DR is not bad at all for the way I'm shooting. I think this is going to be a huge success for Canon. I was lucky to get mine now as there were hundreds in line for the 5Ds(R) in my pro shop in Copenhagen. I'm going to Scotland in late August for two weeks to really test this camera out in real landscapes and a lot with high DR I'm sure.
-
Continuing tests and images confirm that this is an outstanding camera. Silent shutter mode is completely silent.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0070.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0075.jpg)
I'm also impressed with the 16-35mm F/4, particularly used in its sweet spot (around F/8 amd mid zoom range)
Quentin,
Those are strong cheerful images.
Could you snap some people?
Edmund
-
these are all out of the camera jpgs, factory settings, the night time shot is 6400asa!
(sony 55 mm lens)
-
A church interior shot handheld at ISO 2,500, with some luminance NR in ACR
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0103.jpg)
And a mono conversion of the exterior of the same medieval church, processed in Photoshop with Nik Silver Effex, shot at a more regular 100 ISO
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0092_mono.jpg)
Both images shot with the Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm F/4
I have a 90mm Macro F/2.8 on order; some people pix therefore on the cards shortly, Edmund.
-
Thanks all. Keep those images coming. I don't see that your average sports shooter is going to drop their 1DX or 7D2 (or D4) any time soon for a Sony, or for that matter a 5Ds/r, but the Sony is certainly of interest for a large segment of photographers. While I wait for the shake-down and testing, I will keep to my primitive 6D, which is better than I am, anyway! :D
-
I am following this thread with interest but mostly to keep tabs on the competition. I'm uncertain to how much PP was involved in Quentin's images, and boy are they sharp. That last bw sure does resemble a good MF film image.
-
I am following this thread with interest but mostly to keep tabs on the competition. I'm uncertain to how much PP was involved in Quentin's images, and boy are they sharp. That last bw sure does resemble a good MF film image.
Here is an unsharpened (save for default ACR sharpening) crop of a small section from the original church image, which might assist in gauging sharpness (no AA filter on the A7rII of course). I'm certainly seeing good sharpness.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0092.jpg)
-
Here is an unsharpened (save for default ACR sharpening) crop of a small section from the original church image, which might assist in gauging sharpness (no AA filter on the A7rII of course). I'm certainly seeing good sharpness.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0092.jpg)
Yes, I would call it mediocre, either OOF or bad lens, or CMOS texture loss. Excuse my frankness.
Point the thing at a brick or stone wall at right angles straight ahead of you eg. that church, @ F5.6 and post a crop please.
BTW, no refelection on your skills.
Edmund
-
Edmund, I'm not a camera tester, so sorry, no. But I am not sure I agree in any event. One of the things you may notice about the A7RII is the relatively low contrast by default.
-
However, I will post another crop from an earlier image in this thread, again unsharpened.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0070crop.jpg)
Well, its a brick wall of sorts ;D
Same wall, slightly sharpened
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July%202015/_DSC0070crop-sharpened.jpg)
-
Quentin,
I have been following your work with the Merrills since the beginning, and still use mine. I've never bonded with the A7, and mine sits with 3 Zeiss lenses unused. Would you care to compare the A7RIi with the Merrill?
Thanks,
Norm
-
Quentin,
I have been following your work with the Merrills since the beginning, and still use mine. I've never bonded with the A7, and mine sits with 3 Zeiss lenses unused. Would you care to compare the A7RIi with the Merrill?
Thanks,
Norm
Hi Norm
Quite a task. I never liked the A7R, and it sat unused for months. The Merrill's are indisputably totally different and for mono work are in my view unsurpassed. The A7RII is a major step forward and their low contrast out of camera files are the exact opposite of the Merrills.
I'm still learning the A7RII so all I can say is - I will get back to you in a few weeks when I have done more tests. I'm not done with the Merrills.... ;)
-
Hi,
Just to say, thanks for sharing information, much appreciated!
Best regards
Erik
Hi Norm
Quite a task. I never liked the A7R, and it sat unused for months. The Merrill's are indisputably totally different and for mono work are in my view unsurpassed. The A7RII is a major step forward and their low contrast out of camera files are the exact opposite of the Merrills.
I'm still learning the A7RII so all I can say is - I will get back to you in a few weeks when I have done more tests. I'm not done with the Merrills.... ;)
-
Well, its a brick wall of sorts ;D
Try photographing some building straight on, please, when you have the time.
In my opinion, your camera should be doing much much better than those crops.
Edmund
-
Try photographing some building straight on, please, when you have the time.
In my opinion, your camera should be doing much much better than those crops.
Edmund
Out of interest - in what way?
-
Try photographing some building straight on, please, when you have the time.
In my opinion, your camera should be doing much much better than those crops.
Edmund
Don't forget that with a 42 MP camera you're looking at a very small piece of the sensor when enlarging to 1:1. Also this was taken with a zoom lens, a good one but still not a razor sharp prime like the FE 55/1.8. I also don't know if these shots were taken handheld or from a sturdy tripod (with proper precautions and AS off). A 42 MP FF sensor will be merciless for even a hint of camera shake, but by the time you sharpen and print they will most likely look very sharp.
-
Edmund, All
Respectfully, Edmund, I think you are confusing resolution with acutance. The A7RII is a relatively low acutance camera. So subjectively, images that have not been sharpened significantly may appear less sharp. Looking at the entire image on screen at 100%, the images look sharp and detailed to me. I have described these images as having a creamy texture. You might see that as soft. No doubt 42mp is pushing the resolution of most E mount lenses
Be that as it may, I have uploaded a raw file of a building site taken on the A7RII, 16-35mm Sony / Zeiss lens, F/7.1, 1/50 sec, steady shot on, ISO 100. Click the link to download.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/A7RII%20Test%20Files/DSC00009.ARW (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/A7RII%20Test%20Files/DSC00009.ARW)
Feel free to download, test, etc for sharpness or anything else. I am entirely happy with the sharpness of images I have so far seen from this combo, but of course opinions can vary. Given the distance of the building under construction, there should be no issue with inaccurate focus with this image.
PS I don't shoot brick walls!
-
Actually I should have mentioned the images that Edmund mentions - including my cropped samples - have had quite a lot of perspective correction applied to them. Apologies for not remembering that was the case.
-
You may be right, I am always a bit confused :)
I would assume that reality is somewhere between my pessimistic point of view, and Sony's PR :)
Thanks for the sample, I will see if I can find an app to open them with.
Edmund
Edmund, All
Respectfully, Edmund, I think you are confusing resolution with acutance. The A7RII is a relatively low acutance camera. So subjectively, images that have not been sharpened significantly may appear less sharp. Looking at the entire image on screen at 100%, the images look sharp and detailed to me. I have described these images as having a creamy texture. You might see that as soft. No doubt 42mp is pushing the resolution of most E mount lenses
Be that as it may, I have uploaded a raw file of a building site taken on the A7RII, 16-35mm Sony / Zeiss lens, F/7.1, 1/50 sec, steady shot on, ISO 100. Click the link to download.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/A7RII%20Test%20Files/DSC00009.ARW (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/A7RII%20Test%20Files/DSC00009.ARW)
Feel free to download, test, etc for sharpness or anything else. I am entirely happy with the sharpness of images I have so far seen from this combo, but of course opinions can vary. Given the distance of the building under construction, there should be no issue with inaccurate focus with this image.
PS I don't shoot brick walls!
-
Wow!! Color me envious, at the risk of asking a silly question. Is the lens you paired it with the sony lens?
Thanks Quentin and best of luck with your new gear!!
Kevin in CT
-
i agree with edmund, not optimum in these cases, probably due to being hand held, but when the heavens align this thing is AMAZING! (with sony 55mm, minimum acr, no sharpening)
-
works great in the worst possible contrast situation:
(sony 55mm, processed acr: shadow & highlight recupereation, no sharpening)
-
works great in the worst possible contrast situation:
(sony 55mm, processed acr: shadow & highlight recupereation, no sharpening)
I only have 3 words. Beau Ti Ful.
Edmund
-
Kevin - yes, the 16-35mm F/4.
-
I think that just about the highest rated lens on DxO Adrian, and yes, an excellent result.
-
also, honestly, if i have this camera through my dealer in madrid before steve huff and michael etc., then i think sony are pretty confident that they don't need a big PR push!!! the hype this thing is going to get will be no bluff!!!
-
Any one of you lucky bastards have a Leica M lens (preferably wide angle) that you can test on the A7R II? I'm curious if it has the same issues that the A7R had? Thanks!
-
Agreed.
I've just dug out my rarely used Zeiss 35mm F/2.8 ZA and tomorrow I take delivery of the very highly rated Sony G OSS 90mm Macro F/2.8.
It's prime time!
-
Agreed.
I've just dug out my rarely used Zeiss 35mm F/2.8 ZA and tomorrow I take delivery of the very highly rated Sony G OSS 90mm Macro F/2.8.
It's prime time!
Quentin,
I had a look at your shot of building with cranes; there is a lot of detail in the image, but it needs extreme sharpening to bring it out. As I'm not very smart, I don't know where the focus point is, and for a test shot it needs to be obvious. If you would shoot directly square against something instead of at an angle, just point the camera straight ahead of you at the building on the other side of the street, I could be sure what is going on. As it stands, there is nothing like the crispness from a digital back and MF lens.
Edmund
-
works great in the worst possible contrast situation:
(sony 55mm, processed acr: shadow & highlight recupereation, no sharpening)
Adrian, could you post the raw please?
Edmund
-
Edmund, I don't do test shots as such, just real world shots. I also shoot with a Hassy H5D 200MS, so I am very aware of MF crispness. Maybe our expectations are different, for the reasons I have previouly mentioned, and it will be interesting to see the difference between a high quality zoom and primes over the next few days, but honestly, I don't see the lack of crispness you are referring to, unless its simply the lower acutance I have mentioned before (although I would expect even better results with primes)
-
Just a heads up to everyone following this thread that I am in Portland OR at the moment at a Sony media event for the A7RII. I will be shooting with it here for the next couple of days and then will be joined by Kevin and Chris and will be doing a shoot in Palouse with the RII.
I won't be doing a diary or blog, but will have a full review within a couple of weeks.
Apparently the official ship date for the RII is this Wednesday, Aug 5. The fact that some camera shipped last week in Europe was a slip-up. Release was supposed to be simultaneous worldwide.
But, good luck getting one if you don't already have an order in with a dealer. These are likely to be back-ordered for some time.
Michael
-
Just a heads up to everyone following this thread that I am in Portland OR at the moment at a Sony media event for the A7RII. I will be shooting with it here for the next couple of days and then will be joined by Kevin and Chris and will be doing a shoot in Palouse with the RII.
I won't be doing a diary or blog, but will have a full review within a couple of weeks.
Apparently the official ship date for the RII is this Wednesday, Aug 5. The fact that some camera shipped last week in Europe was a slip-up. Release was supposed to be simultaneous worldwide.
But, good luck getting one if you don't already have an order in with a dealer. These are likely to be back-ordered for some time.
Michael
Michael,
We look forward to your respected words :)
Unfortunately my impression is that the economy in France is rotten, and camera sales are falling so quickly over here that back ordering is not any more much of an issue.
Edmund
-
Thanks, Michael. Thanks, other imagers.
-
works great in the worst possible contrast situation:
(sony 55mm, processed acr: shadow & highlight recupereation, no sharpening)
Is the second image a 100% crop?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is the second image a 100% crop?
Cheers,
Bernard
yes
here is the dng:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/u1w0ay1xwbhnybt/DSC00124.dng
and a couple more:
(asa 6400)
http://www.mediafire.com/view/7h27o616pj7wkxj/DSC00045.dng
(open landscape, infinity)
http://www.mediafire.com/view/4wffd61uh8k66gl/DSC00078.dng
edmund, i'll post a flat-on wall shot with the tse 17mm a bit later
-
here, for what it's worth is the famous flat wall shot
(17mm tse, f8)
and the dng:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/4sjs6ge2o3c44go/_DSC0152.dng
-
Michael,
We look forward to your respected words :)
Unfortunately my impression is that the economy in France is rotten, and camera sales are falling so quickly over here that back ordering is not any more much of an issue.
Edmund
Same here in Portugal. Launch price is EUR 3600, so not many will sell initially. For that price, one can get a Canon 5DIII plus 24-70 f4 IS kit... just saying...
-
Same here in Portugal. Launch price is EUR 3600, so not many will sell initially. For that price, one can get a Canon 5DIII plus 24-70 f4 IS kit... just saying...
i hope you are not right about that price, BH have them at 3200 USD, 3600 euros bears no relation to that.
-
Paulo must be right, in Switzerland the current price is around CHF 3700 ($3820 or €3490)…
-
yes, it's around 2600 GBP in the UK, which works out about 3500 euros...
that's a pretty disproportionate price compared to what it costs in the US
-
When you compare prices between US and Europe don't forget that in Europe prices are including VAT (usually a bit above 20%) while in the US it's without sales tax (usually around 8%)
That still makes the US cheaper, but the main difference is the government bite and not a huge difference in Sony's or the retailer's margin.
-
Don't forget the US prices are usually exclusive of tax which is added at checkout.
Plus if history is anything to go by, the launch price often falls a chunk within 3 months. One of the few exceptions was the E-M5 and that was because of its near-cult status creating a back-order, though it seems as though the A7RII is heading the same way from all the chatter and hype at the moment.
For reference, the 5DIII is £2,300. In US the prices are 2,600 (5D3) and 3,200 (A7RII) so the differential is less (BH prices) in UK than US which is interesting.
-
yes
here is the dng:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/u1w0ay1xwbhnybt/DSC00124.dng
and a couple more:
(asa 6400)
http://www.mediafire.com/view/7h27o616pj7wkxj/DSC00045.dng
(open landscape, infinity)
http://www.mediafire.com/view/4wffd61uh8k66gl/DSC00078.dng
edmund, i'll post a flat-on wall shot with the tse 17mm a bit later
Adrian,
My feeling is that the woods shot shows the A7IIR to be a really exceptional combination with that lens. I'm talking of overall results. Congrats on your new acquisition! I hope you will make lots of nice pictures with it - I am keeping that one as a screensaver :)
It is possible that one of the old CCD sensor cameras has better color discrimination in the greens.
As far as the 17mm images goes, I guess one needs to focus with liveview, and the sensor probably ouresolves the lens. The Sony lens may have been designed for this sensor, they look matched somehow.
Edmund
-
Adrian,
My feeling is that the woods shot shows the A7IIR to be a really exceptional combination with that lens. I'm talking of overall results. Congrats on your new acquisition! I hope you will make lots of nice pictures with it - I am keeping that one as a screensaver :)
It is possible that one of the old CCD sensor cameras has better color discrimination in the greens.
As far as the 17mm images goes, I guess one needs to focus with liveview, and the sensor probably ouresolves the lens. The Sony lens may have been designed for this sensor, they look matched somehow.
Edmund
thanks edmund
i would have liked to have had this camera a few year back to work on this project which took kilos of cameras & lenses & tripods!:
http://adriantyler.net/formandfiction.html
the a7 is replacing my nikon system with the 24, 45 & 85 PCE which i've been using since they came out.
i'm really simplifying things and it feels liberating... a light 2 body system: the 17mm in crop sensor mode and work out at 29mm so that and a backup body (a7II) with the 55 will make a really light and versatile system to work on an architecture project that i have going on.
i'm not sure i'll be able to leave the tripod at home, but my tests are telling me that i may be able to leave it in the car! now that will be freedom! anyway we'll leave it to the experts to do the "real" testing, for my needs it will be fine (hopefully) for the next few years...
adrian
-
The A7r2 only has marginal better resolution than A7r1. I never felt that the canon Tse 17&24 lenses have been outresolved by the sony.
-
thanks edmund
i would have liked to have had this camera a few year back to work on this project which took kilos of cameras & lenses & tripods!:
http://adriantyler.net/formandfiction.html
the a7 is replacing my nikon system with the 24, 45 & 85 PCE which i've been using since they came out.
i'm really simplifying things and it feels liberating... a light 2 body system: the 17mm in crop sensor mode and work out at 29mm so that and a backup body (a7II) with the 55 will make a really light and versatile system to work on an architecture project that i have going on.
i'm not sure i'll be able to leave the tripod at home, but my tests are telling me that i may be able to leave it in the car! now that will be freedom! anyway we'll leave it to the experts to do the "real" testing, for my needs it will be fine (hopefully) for the next few years...
Adrian
I just looked at your web site. I was thinking, looking at that woods image that it is in some ways the exact opposite of Bill Atkinson's clean and detached spacious views, and that it was astonishing to see such an exceptional test shot. Now I understand.
If I were you I would do some serious testing of the color discrimination in the greens; you might find it useful to use a red or yellow filter and rebalance the channels. Also, I'd hang on to that 50, it is remarkable, and my feeling is it was designed with *precisely* this sensor in mind. The A7IIR images can be enlarged over pixel size when that lens is used. Sony/Zeiss might have some other lenses with the same properties.
BTW, as you certainly did some testing, what is your feeling regarding the H4D40 and 60?
-
I'm very interested on thethering reliability and eye AF tracking... for us that shoot people would be nice to forget about focus-recompose.
-
The A7r2 only has marginal better resolution than A7r1. I never felt that the canon Tse 17&24 lenses have been outresolved by the sony.
You're the working expert. Look at Adrian's building image and tell us what you think.
On the other hand, why should it matter if a high resolution sensor outresolves a good lens? In every boxing match there needs to be a winner, the main thing is that there should be a fight :)
Edmund
-
This thread is taking on worrying similarities to a DPreview thread.
There is nothing useful to be gained from photographing walls, unless of course you are a wall photography specialist (in which case, I feel your pain!)
Some real world shots - the stuff I assume we are here to discuss - now that's more useful and productive.
I do hope that Michael refrains from shooting any walls... ;)
-
This thread is taking on worrying similarities to a DPreview thread.
Nownow, we have better taste in walls over here.
-
Adrian
I just looked at your web site. I was thinking, looking at that woods image that it is in some ways the exact opposite of Bill Atkinson's clean and detached spacious views, and that it was astonishing to see such an exceptional test shot. Now I understand.
If I were you I would do some serious testing of the color discrimination in the greens; you might find it useful to use a red or yellow filter and rebalance the channels. Also, I'd hang on to that 50, it is remarkable, and my feeling is it was designed with *precisely* this sensor in mind. The A7IIR images can be enlarged over pixel size when that lens is used. Sony/Zeiss might have some other lenses with the same properties.
BTW, as you certainly did some testing, what is your feeling regarding the H4D40 and 60?
thanks for the advice edmund, i'll take a look into that, my final objective is the print (or bookwork) and as you know what we get on a print is quite a lot less what we get in the capture. regarding the digital MF equipment, i never went down that route, i used MF & LF film up 'till the D3 & D3x & D800e with the shift lenses. but i always loved the freedom of using the M6 with the 50 & 35 summicrons and this little sony gives me the M6 compactness with the quality easily surpassing a well scanned 6x9 neg, it's really a great time for us camera users!!!
-
Nownow, we have better taste in walls over here.
One can only hope so ;D
-
yes, it's a post modern wall image of a late 19th century building
making it a metaphoric statement regarding time, decay, etc... ad infinitum...
;-)
-
yes, it's a post modern wall image of a late 19th century building
making it a metaphoric statement regarding time, decay, etc... ad infinitum...
;-)
Rest assured, Adrian, that your wall looks very similar to my walls - that is, utterly useless as a tool for assessing image quality, but a cracking good wall nonetheless ;D
-
Rest assured, Adrian, that your wall looks very similar to my walls - that is, utterly useless as a tool for assessing image quality, but a cracking good wall nonetheless ;D
jajaaa! i'll tell the neighbours...
-
Outside my walled-in window just now.
This is what happens if you use lysergic acid instead of acetic as a stop bath :)
E.
-
re: wall photographers...... the correct term is "orthogonal architectural photographers" :D
-
I lied. Here is a wall picture. Sorry, orthogonal architectural image... ;)
Actually its a shot of street art near my London flat that just happens to be on a wall.
This time, it was taken with the A7RII and the venerable 35mm Zeiss F/2.8 that we all bought when we go an A7R, until something more exciting came along to replace it. Its actually a good lens, quite highly rated on DxO, if you pay attention to that kind of thing. Not quite the 55mm, but good.
It was taken handheld at 1/160 sec, ISO 100, F/4.5, with steady shot doing its worst.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/_DSC0135.jpg)
Probably could squeeze a bit more if I had tripod mounted the camera.
And finally, a clematis that is climbing though our weeping silver pear, shot with the same lens. Not great weather for botanical shots, but a lovely morning nonetheless. And a very sharp clematis
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/_DSC0131.jpg)
open each image in a new tab for a slightly larger version.
-
On Landscape just published a short comparison between A7rII, A7r and 5Dsr
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/08/sony-a7rii-compared-with-sony-a7r-and-canon-5dsr/
lots of r's... it must be the trendy word...
-
Thanks for the link. Impressive result for the A7RII.
-
Thanks for the link. Impressive result for the A7RII.
I stand by my opinion that the color discrimination in the greens of the A7RII has been traded for higher ISO.
But a filter might help.
Edmund
-
The OnLandscape link is interesting, the comment "Use the Sony when you are too drunk to expose correctly" is priceless. ::)
That being said, for those who do a lot of super-high-dynamic-range type shooting without benefit of filters, the new Sony looks very worthwhile.
-
yes, it's a post modern wall image of a late 19th century building
making it a metaphoric statement regarding time, decay, etc... ad infinitum...
;-)
Exactly. DPR is "just brick". We're more Kubrick.
-
Some posters at Fredmiranda claim that the magnified view in the EVF is much worse than that of the a7r.
They compare it to the much maligned D800 zoomed live view, which suggests agressive line skipping.
How do you guys feel about this?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I stand by my opinion that the color discrimination in the greens of the A7RII has been traded for higher ISO.
But a filter might help.
Edmund
bear in mid edmund that the test shot was made in the most brutal spanish summer sunlight at 1000m in the toledan mountains, the heat was stifling... that intense direct sunlight tends to flatten everything & turn greens to yellow... i'm not saying your observation is wrong but it'd be worth further tests in more natural light.
bernard,
i can't compare to the live view on the a7r, but the "focus magnifier," at higher asa's on both the a7ii and a7rii are just adequate, slightly better than the d800e, it does the job, but by no means great. with normal light and low asa the "focus magnifier" looks great however.
-
Paulo must be right, in Switzerland the current price is around CHF 3700 ($3820 or €3490)…
The camera is officially launched today in my local photo store, priced at 3685,00 €... for reference, in the same shop:
5DMKIII - 2890,00 €
5Ds - 3595,00 €
5DsR - 3795,00 €
The 5DMKIII has been around for a while, so the price has gone down a bit. The other two are still fairly recent, with comparable prices to the Sony.
And yes, here in Portugal, we also get reamed by 23% VAT...
-
…
And yes, here in Portugal, we also get reamed by 23% VAT...
Swiss VAT is only 8% but I tend to think that end user prices are similar (or higher) in Switzerland and Europe.
-
Bernard,
Some posters at Fredmiranda claim that the magnified view in the EVF is much worse than that of the a7r.
They compare it to the much maligned D800 zoomed live view, which suggests agressive line skipping.
How do you guys feel about this?
Nonchalant.
-
Some posters at Fredmiranda claim that the magnified view in the EVF is much worse than that of the a7r.
They compare it to the much maligned D800 zoomed live view, which suggests agressive line skipping.
How do you guys feel about this?
Cheers,
Bernard
Magnified view in EVF? Is it the same on the screen? If it is something like the D800/E that would be a major disappointment. I use the screen to focus in near dark, no easy feat on the D800E.
-
bear in mid edmund that the test shot was made in the most brutal spanish summer sunlight at 1000m in the toledan mountains, the heat was stifling... that intense direct sunlight tends to flatten everything & turn greens to yellow... i'm not saying your observation is wrong but it'd be worth further tests in more natural light.
If you look at that horrible image I posted, with the inverted channels, you can see how well my junkworthy 1Ds3 discriminates the *color shades* inside the leaves. I have no particular love for this camera, but you are doubtless aware of its reputation, uses and limitations: In its day it was Canon's studio and MF replacement product, a slow camera whose images degrade around ISO 400, but intended to convey nuance.
Here is a similarly inspired treatment of Quentin's image above, and you can see there is simply not that much color information in that image. My take on this is that Sony decided to capture and encode as much luminance information as they could in the available 14 bits (?) of DR, with the intent of allowing people to shoot for movies in available light, and they set the design priority on capturing and encoding luminance information rather than color differentiation. A different set of priorities would have meant 2 stops less DR and more precise color, which is basically the tradeoff on those old CCD backs and early studio oriented CMOS cameras. Contrarywise to the way everyone else here expects the laws of physics to be waived, I still believe in conservation laws in physics, and the in the no free lunch theorem.
In the full afternoon shadow in Paris, my shot was soft as with difficulty I eked out 1/80@F8@ISO400 on my ancient 1DsIII, precisely because the color filters on this camera are very orthogonal so it is not very sensitive, and to shoot it higher means destroying the color.
Do some more testing, by all means, but I think I've now seen enough images here and elsewhere to reach a conclusion; however every camera has advantages and disadvantages, and this one can certainly see deep into both shadow and sky, in a unique way. If it is at the price of some evanescent shades of yellow-green and green and blue green which most men would not percieve, who cares? In exchange, one will get well defined and textured images of the clouds above a landscape. The A7IIR is certainly the camera of the year. And if I may be allowed to say so, I think you have a very nice sample of an extraordinary 50mm lens that is almost symbiotic with that body.
I'm sure everybody here will tell you that I'm an idiot who understands nothing about digital cameras and even less about color. You can come back in a few months and tell us what you have learnt from experience :)
Edmund
-
If you look at that horrible image I posted, with the inverted channels, you can see how well my junkworthy 1Ds3 discriminates the *color shades* inside the leaves. I have no particular love for this camera, but you are doubtless aware of its reputation, uses and limitations: In its day it was Canon's studio and MF replacement product, a slow camera whose images degrade around ISO 400, but intended to convey nuance.
Here is a similarly inspired treatment of Quentin's image above, and you can see there is simply not that much color information in that image. My take on this is that Sony decided to capture and encode as much luminance information as they could in the available 14 bits (?) of DR, with the intent of allowing people to shoot for movies in available light, and they set the design priority on capturing and encoding luminance information rather than color differentiation. A different set of priorities would have meant 2 stops less DR and more precise color, which is basically the tradeoff on those old CCD backs and early studio oriented CMOS cameras. Contrarywise to the way everyone else here expects the laws of physics to be waived, I still believe in conservation laws in physics, and the in the no free lunch theorem.
In the full afternoon shadow in Paris, my shot was soft as with difficulty I eked out 1/80@F8@ISO400 on my ancient 1DsIII, precisely because the color filters on this camera are very orthogonal so it is not very sensitive, and to shoot it higher means destroying the color.
Do some more testing, by all means, but I think I've now seen enough images here and elsewhere to reach a conclusion; however every camera has advantages and disadvantages, and this one can certainly see deep into both shadow and sky, in a unique way. If it is at the price of some shades of yellow-green and green and blue green which most men would not percieve, who cares? In exchange, one will get well defined and textured images of the clouds above a landscape. The A7IIR is certainly the camera of the year. And if I may be allowed to say so, I think you have a very nice sample of an extraordinary 50mm lens that is almost symbiotic with that body.
I'm sure everybody here will tell you that I'm an idiot who understands nothing about digital cameras and even less about color. You can come back in a few months and tell us what you have learnt from experience :)
Edmund
thanks edmund, very interesting post.
adrian
-
Edmund
Very interesting. More a sage, certainly not an idiot!
If you are right, then it's is the exact reverse of a camera like the foveon-equipped Merrill cameras I have long been a fan of.
-
There's a choice: Foveon Sigma Merrill camera or old-style CCD MF camera, top usable ISO in color of 400, but fabulous fine color differentiation
vs. Sony, top usable ISO in color of ?6400 or ?12800 but less color differentiation
Speaking of which, the Pentax 645Ds are now selling for under USD 4,000.00
-
Hi Ronald,
I think you are mixed up on this. DR has nothing to do with colour. DR is just about (gray) levels above some noise threshold. It may be that the Sony sensor gives up some color separation for better high ISO performance, but you may also ask if there are some colours to separate. Excessive separation of colour is also just another artefact.
Best regards
Erik
If you look at that horrible image I posted, with the inverted channels, you can see how well my junkworthy 1Ds3 discriminates the *color shades* inside the leaves. I have no particular love for this camera, but you are doubtless aware of its reputation, uses and limitations: In its day it was Canon's studio and MF replacement product, a slow camera whose images degrade around ISO 400, but intended to convey nuance.
Here is a similarly inspired treatment of Quentin's image above, and you can see there is simply not that much color information in that image. My take on this is that Sony decided to capture and encode as much luminance information as they could in the available 14 bits (?) of DR, with the intent of allowing people to shoot for movies in available light, and they set the design priority on capturing and encoding luminance information rather than color differentiation. A different set of priorities would have meant 2 stops less DR and more precise color, which is basically the tradeoff on those old CCD backs and early studio oriented CMOS cameras. Contrarywise to the way everyone else here expects the laws of physics to be waived, I still believe in conservation laws in physics, and the in the no free lunch theorem.
In the full afternoon shadow in Paris, my shot was soft as with difficulty I eked out 1/80@F8@ISO400 on my ancient 1DsIII, precisely because the color filters on this camera are very orthogonal so it is not very sensitive, and to shoot it higher means destroying the color.
Do some more testing, by all means, but I think I've now seen enough images here and elsewhere to reach a conclusion; however every camera has advantages and disadvantages, and this one can certainly see deep into both shadow and sky, in a unique way. If it is at the price of some evanescent shades of yellow-green and green and blue green which most men would not percieve, who cares? In exchange, one will get well defined and textured images of the clouds above a landscape. The A7IIR is certainly the camera of the year. And if I may be allowed to say so, I think you have a very nice sample of an extraordinary 50mm lens that is almost symbiotic with that body.
I'm sure everybody here will tell you that I'm an idiot who understands nothing about digital cameras and even less about color. You can come back in a few months and tell us what you have learnt from experience :)
Edmund
-
Don't forget the US prices are usually exclusive of tax which is added at checkout.
Plus if history is anything to go by, the launch price often falls a chunk within 3 months. One of the few exceptions was the E-M5 and that was because of its near-cult status creating a back-order, though it seems as though the A7RII is heading the same way from all the chatter and hype at the moment.
For reference, the 5DIII is £2,300. In US the prices are 2,600 (5D3) and 3,200 (A7RII) so the differential is less (BH prices) in UK than US which is interesting.
Hi Mike, there is one saving grace for some of us in that we can order from an online dealer who is out of State and not pay sales tax (at least not yet!). If you coupe that with the ofter times free shipping its a pretty good deal for we in the US.
-
Erik,
I am often confused, but maybe not today. Think about it a bit. The GedankenExperiment that is appropriate is to compare the behavior of ONE cell of a sensor with some CFA filter to that of a cell from a sensor with no filter. Or if you prefer, you could look up the comparison data between the normal M and the M no chrome :)
And anyway, whether I'm right or wrong, does it matter to *you*? Can *most men* who buy dSLRs (not young women) actually see the difference between a VERY good camera and a decent camera such as the A7RII? Do you have such good color vision yourself? Is your computer system good at showing you colors?
I suggest the following test
http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge
We can go to the usual discussion about the Luther Ives condition (http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Color-sensitivity) etc, but I don't think it would help as I don't understand all that stuff anyway.
Edmund
Hi Ronald,
I think you are mixed up on this. DR has nothing to do with colour. DR is just about (gray) levels above some noise threshold. It may be that the Sony sensor gives up some color separation for better high ISO performance, but you may also ask if there are some colours to separate. Excessive separation of colour is also just another artefact.
Best regards
Erik
-
Well, that (X-rite) was entertaining. Rubik cube-ish color puzzle. Reminds me a lot of trying to fine-read the better quality pH strips, something I used to do a lot. I am glad something is perfect about my high-myopia, esotropic, floater-bedevilled eyes. (Floaters only somewhat irritating, mostly when looking through microscope, waiting for annoying floater to cross the field of vision).
-
Well, that (X-rite) was entertaining. Rubik cube-ish color puzzle. Reminds me a lot of trying to fine-read the better quality pH strips, something I used to do a lot. I am glad something is perfect about my high-myopia, esotropic, floater-bedevilled eyes. (Floaters only somewhat irritating, mostly when looking through microscope, waiting for annoying floater to cross the field of vision).
Here's another just for you :) http://igame.com/eye-test/
Edmund
By going here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379628
I found this video (last in series) https://youtu.be/0o6olPXUcNU
I think the color is good, not incredible but really good IMHO. Texture is also good.
Another plus point for the A7R2 is probably complete color compatibility with Sony's FS7 documentary Super 35 camera
Brands N and C are not going to be happy.
I suspect the next shoe to drop will be some sort of still/video hybrid that is marketed as a prosumer video camera. The gap is now too large between the FS7 and the AX100, and the A7RII is not really saleable to the institutional video crowd who want to put up a camera to film a speech or a marriage or a football match. In fact, there are already rumors that there will be no dSLR A7s replacement, but rather some sort of video body.
Edmund
-
... and how much of that information is lost in an inkjet print? let alone 4 colour offset litho, surely what we capture has some other purpose than being viewed on a screen. it's interesting and useful information now that all of us photographers handle our own repro, but the really ineresting thing for me (because i dont hammer nails with the thing all day long) with this new sony system is it's size, flexibility and the freedom it affords. i'm sure that working with raw files from most of the current pro cameras we can adjust them to our (or our clients) requirements ...
-
I'm male, 66, with aging eyes that are dependent on specs for close work and distance. I also have UV damage and the beginnings of macular degeneration. I've been working with colour on a critical and daily basis since the age of 16.
I've taken a number of these colour tests over recent years and have achieved perfect scores on all, but, and it's a big but, only when using a high quality and calibrated monitor. The scores when using laptops have on occasion been less than perfect.
No surprise. I get mediocre results when I use my calibrated "retina" laptop, which is pretty much always. The Apple laptops seem to be getting worse and more unpleasant colorwise in each generation, for much the same -or opposite- reason as the cameras: Apple wants to crank the subjective brightness as high as possible while conserving backlight power. I think there even was a class action lawsuit at some point when some users discovered that the bit depth advertised was a joke.
My take on the A7RII -after this digression- is that it is really a prosumer video camera at heart. Sony is historically a pro video company, before it ever was a still camera company, videos are what the kids want these days, The A7RII will chew up little memory bandwidth when using the encoding tricks (eg. slog) and codecs which the video guys need to make their exposures work in the cheap real world, where Raw storage of video is not an option. And its images will then grade easily to produce video colors which people in the various markets will accept.
But the need for high ISO, DR and the wish to create a non-noisy compressable datastream means that some color discrimination has been sacrificed, compared with a single use stills camera. Also, we all know by now that even the Raw data is subject to a lossy encoding on chip, I conjecture to save chip communication bandwidth, also gaining some thermal dissipation advantage.
Our of the box, my impression is that The A7IIR will supply nice TV-conventional color, with skin tones that will offend no one in the target markets. The clips will be gradable rather than brittle, and the pro user is expected to paint in his own color when required. It'll take superb high-resolution images; it'll make movies by moonlight, it'll do anything decently. Has anybody complained that a Swiss Army knife is not a chainsaw? I don't see Adrian complaining about his test images in the woods. Those are superb images.
Would I try to use this thing for art reproduction? No way :) But this is just one of my polemic posts - reality may prove me a sceptic.
Edmund
-
^
Adrian, not sure if your post above was a response to mine, but just to be clear mine was intended as a commentary on colour tests and eyesight rather than on reproduction.
sorry, i though it bore some kind of relation to what the sony a7r II can or cannot capture, and the mediums though which we can perceive that, my mistake?!
-
sorry, i though it bore some kind of relation to what the sony a7r II can or cannot capture, and the mediums though which we can perceive that, my mistake?!
I think he was stating that the displays are so bad anyway that there is no reason to ask for perfect camera color.
That is also my opinion. In a way.
Where the sh*t hits the fan in my experience is when you give a customer the files, and she expects the dress to be the right shade, or a painter expects his colors in the repro.
Edmund
-
edmund, another great post, thanks
interesting the art-repro analogy as my wife is the principal of a fine art (old masters) restoration studio. she was telling me a dealer was complaining about what i have suspected for a while, these pesky digital captures are TOO GOOD for what many dealers want, you just get TOOOO MUCH, warts and all, and it can't be percieved with the naked eye. i've seen (an photographed) many many many exquisite premier league works of art (zurbarán, ribera, goya...) that have been really adversley affected when viewed on screen, microfibres, "craqualet" re-lining marks, not to mention varnish, all the dirty secrets of the last say 400 years and in many cases i've had to back off and down res...
ok, some dealers want all these mega-pixels, lord know why, and for a curator it may be interesting, but beware it can make a beautiful old master look badly damaged.
give me an 8x10" chrome please !!
i'm probably gonna get flamed for that comment!
-
i'm gonna try out the new sony on easel painting when i get to town, it's not my speciality but i am curoius about this... i'll see if i can find something i can share... could be an interesting post when the dust settles.
-
i'm gonna try out the new sony on easel painting when i get to town, it's not my speciality but i am curoius about this... i'll see if i can find something i can share... could be an interesting post when the dust settles.
Try it! If the customer is happy - everything is great.
The issues start once the requirements are tightly formulated and the equipment doesn't cooperate - but that is not going to happen in your case.
I used to meet with guys doing art repro; obsessional people who would go round with a spectro measuring the paint on the canvas ...some of that crowd sometimes post on the colorsync list, they work to a degree of precision different from the rest of us.
I once had a meeting at the Louvre where I was shown a 30m long linear accelerator that is buried under the glass pyramid, and is used to determine whether objects are real or not. I guess the reproductions fakes are becoming very very good :) They also made up some sort of repro camera using a cryogenically cooled multispectral satellite imager to create files for conservation in case the Mona Lisa gets vaporized by North Korea - or sold off to Saudi Arabia mysteriously stolen yet again :)
Edmund
-
I haven't a clue what the Sony A7RII can or cannot capture. I'll leave that judgment to those for whom it matters.
You know, I think I'll do the same :)
Are you going to buy one? I think I'll defer the problem until next year, at least.
Edmund
-
That Louvre conservation department stuff is pretty cool, eronald. Are you a materials scientist or an artist? I can't think of a lot of people who visit the high-end instrumentation involved in authentication of art materials. This (chemistry and materials science as applied to art) was the career path not taken for me, I was a little intimidated by the thought of dealing with irate multimillionaires and lots of time testifying in court, which is where you end up if you determine if something expensive is a forgery.
-
That Louvre conservation department stuff is pretty cool, eronald. Are you a materials scientist or an artist? I can't think of a lot of people who visit the high-end instrumentation involved in authentication of art materials. This (chemistry and materials science as applied to art) was the career path not taken for me, I was a little intimidated by the thought of dealing with irate multimillionaires and lots of time testifying in court, which is where you end up if you determine if something expensive is a forgery.
I think Leger wrote that any living painter who is asked to authenticate a *good* forgery should immediately authenticate it and sign it, because the embarassment caused to dealers, buyers and experts by a forgery making it past them, and the doubts created by the knowledge of forgeries entering the market are worse than the effects of just owning the damn thing.
I was a color consultant for some time.
What do you do?
-
I was a color consultant for some time.
Interesting posts Edmund, though I am not sure I understand what you mean by 'green discrimination' and I don't have anything to compare your negatives to. Can you explain a bit more, a bit more quantitatively? Do you mean that the color filters are less selective than in other sensors in order to gain a little extra sensitivity? If so that should be easy enough to quantify for people like Jim Kasson.
Jack
-
That Louvre conservation department stuff is pretty cool, eronald. Are you a materials scientist or an artist? I can't think of a lot of people who visit the high-end instrumentation involved in authentication of art materials. This (chemistry and materials science as applied to art) was the career path not taken for me, I was a little intimidated by the thought of dealing with irate multimillionaires and lots of time testifying in court, which is where you end up if you determine if something expensive is a forgery.
a bit off topic but you may find this of interest nancy, it's a bit clunky but it has an engish option and a technical analisis section, some pretty incredible gear:
http://www.illanyromerorestauracion.com
-
Interesting posts Edmund, though I am not sure I understand what you mean by 'green discrimination' and I don't have anything to compare your negatives to. Can you explain a bit more, a bit more quantitatively? Do you mean that the color filters are less selective than in other sensors in order to gain a little extra sensitivity? If so that should be easy enough to quantify for people like Jim Kasson.
Jack
Jack,
I think the simple quantitative stuff which interests you is all here.
http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Color-sensitivity
As for "easy to quantify", things are not so simple. Color like sound is a percept. So one's quantification always relies on judgements. This is why there are "color consultants", who look at stuff and bridge the quantitative and the aesthetic. In fact there is a "color community" and people hold meetings and commission studies to figure out what metrics to use, and how to measure them, and what sort of values are acceptable. Then the various firms like DxO, Imatest and Image Engineering implement those metrics, as they are written into some standard.
For instance, a year or so ago I happened to be at a phone-camera quality meeting in Paris, physically hosted with great generosity by DxO, and at one people were discussing image noise. Somebody had commissioned a first study, and it seemed to demonstrate that consumers who now view everything on a screen prefer images with chroma noise to luma noise.
This seemed counterintuitive to just about every person in the room, because as you know we photographers hate chroma noise, and so a second study had been undertaken, and it had confirmed those results.
And so in the future, cellphone camera designs (and probably consumer and then pro cameras) will be optimised to prioritise filtering luma noise when possible, over chroma noise which consumers appear to tolerate better, although old-gen experts hate it.
I'm not a particular expert on anything, but as you know I used to be an ICC member and so I know the process. Andrew Rodney, a color consultant who used to be a regular on these forums was also an ICC member, way back. A lot of the color geeks in companies and and the color consultants and image consultants sort of know each other, have corresponded with each other etc.
Digital color is very much a collaborative process as images are captured under some commercial illuminant manufactured to standards issued by the CIE, move to a raw file, are converted to a colorimetric space defined by the ICC, get displayed on a monitor that needs to be calibrated and also placed in acceptable working viewing conditions in which a retoucher can work and then printed using profile formats and conversions described by the ICC. We move all the way from real-life spectral color in an on-site perceptual context, all the way to viewing a flat reflective print. Across these steps, there is a basically a collective assessment of color in which the whole community continually participates, as measurement methods, color conversion algorithms and assessment criteria get accepted across the industry and rolled out so that each device can talk to the next, and the consumer sees an image that reminds her of the dress she wore on her sister's wedding day.
Edmund
PS. I still stand by my personal and subjective opinion that the A7RII is not very good at discriminating greens ;D
-
Ok, thanks Edmund. Hopefully Jim will do some testing to corroborate your feeling.
Jack
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mxxz6
Fake or Fortune?
A BBC series on now I think its second run currently is worth looking at (if you are allowed access). Some of the science on authentication is shown, IR shot on a Canon 35mm last week, but the real work is in the provenance trail.
One of the first in this series was on L S Lowry. He famously used a very restricted range of pigments, all well known. A disputed work was shown to have a different white, immediate red flag. A still frame from a contemporary BBC documentary showed a box of paint labelled with the suspect pigment in his home studio, strangely gripping if you have any interest in this area.
-
How does the AF with third-party lenses compare with the AF using those same lenses on a Canon body? Faster than the 6D? Anywhere near as fast as the 5D3? Better than the 5D2 at least? What about in continuous focus/tracking mode?
-
How does the AF with third-party lenses compare with the AF using those same lenses on a Canon body? Faster than the 6D? Anywhere near as fast as the 5D3? Better than the 5D2 at least? What about in continuous focus/tracking mode?
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55651-a7rii-canon-af-database-reference.html (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55651-a7rii-canon-af-database-reference.html)]
-
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55651-a7rii-canon-af-database-reference.html (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55651-a7rii-canon-af-database-reference.html)]
Thanks for the link! Very good info.
-
I am a pathologist, spend my days at the microscope and the tissue dissection bench and doing real-time operating room pathology consults. There's lots of pattern recognition, mental 3D reconstruction from 2D tissue slices on glass slides, some need for decent color discrimination, so it's a very visual job, in addition to the medical and scientific thinking involved. Surgeon removes a piece of tissue - is the mass cancer? is it benign inflammation? if cancer, what type? relationship of cancer to resection margin (did surgeon cut all of the tumor out)? Basically, it's geeky scientific work where I get to use visual skills. Also, in the past, I had an active basic science research program going, had to abandon it when clinical duties got very heavy (basically, everyone in department left but me).
-
eronald, do you know Larry Warter, recently retired from Fuji NA, their in-house color geek and now a consultant, was involved in ICC. He's my cousin's husband.
-
eronald, do you know Larry Warter, recently retired from Fuji NA, their in-house color geek and now a consultant, was involved in ICC. He's my cousin's husband.
No, I used to know a guy from Fuji Japan who I met several times at ICC and ISO meetings, but I cannot remember his name, even at the time he was already semi-retired.
Edmund
-
Hi,
My personal and subjective opinion is that discrimination of greens is dependent of the steepness of the red channel and the overlap between green and red channel, combined with the colour profile. I would also suggest that colour profiles are a very major component of colour reproduction.
It has been suggested that CFA design may have been compromised to yield higher quantum efficiency and thus allowing higher ISO ratings. That may be the case.
Another factor that should not be ignored is the IR filter on the sensor. Chlorophyll for instance has a high IR-content and with a weak IR filter it may affect the red channel.
As I have not yet received my A7rII I cannot say anything about it's colour reproduction.
Best regards
Erik
PS. I still stand by my personal and subjective opinion that the A7RII is not very good at discriminating greens ;D
-
My personal and subjective opinion is that discrimination of greens is dependent of the steepness of the red channel and the overlap between green and red channel, combined with the colour profile. I would also suggest that colour profiles are a very major component of colour reproduction.
Makes sense, Erik.
-
Michael and I are in the Palouse. Both of have been shooting with the a7r II for days. It's been long time since I have been so impressed by a camera. We'll do a report and review on this camera as soon as possible. I shot image last night at sunset with the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm and it focuses great and fast. I have with us a full compliment of lenses including Batis lenses and we will do some comparison tests and we'll try to offer some sort of downloadable files (JPEGs at 100%) so you can look at things yourself. Bottom line impressive, responsive and some super captures so far.
Kevin Raber
-
Very much look forward to a review. I hope you're able to test Canon lenses with this camera body.
-
Makes sense, Erik.
err, have either of you thought a minute about why it is called the "green channel" or the "red channel"? I think you would do well to google "Cie observer functions" and "Luther Ives condition".
Edmund
-
A few mono conversion from near Tower Bridge, London today, all taken with the excellent 16-35mm F/4
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/_DSC0244_Mono.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/_DSC0255_Mono.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/_DSC0372.jpg)
-
ISO 5000, at Butler's Wharf, London.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/_DSC0376.jpg)
-
err, have either of you thought a minute about why it is called the "green channel" or the "red channel"? I think you would do well to google "Cie observer functions" and "Luther Ives condition".
Just curious to see whether Sony has changed its CFA recipes, Edmund. Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out for someone with both A7rx's.
Jack
-
Quentin,
Your images are very nice and very professional-looking. It's such a pity you don't do 100% crops so that pixel-peepers can appreciate the wonderful resolution of the A7RII with 16-35mm lens. ;)
-
+1
Quentin,
Your images are very nice and very professional-looking. It's such a pity you don't do 100% crops so that pixel-peepers can appreciate the wonderful resolution of the A7RII with 16-35mm lens. ;)
-
ISO 5000, at Butler's Wharf, London.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/_DSC0376.jpg)
I think you are developing an interesting style with this camera.
I fear I don't think much of the equipment itself, but you are doing well with it - good buy!
Edmund
-
Edmund,
err, I have googled both many times, but that doesn't turn me into a colour scientist.
Best regards
Erik
err, have either of you thought a minute about why it is called the "green channel" or the "red channel"? I think you would do well to google "Cie observer functions" and "Luther Ives condition".
Edmund
-
I've been using this camera for 3 days. Here are some RAW files that I took;
- Sony a7rii + Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm (Voigtlander VM-E Close Focus Adapter)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/emmclez8mrs6uwh/DSC00016.ARW?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ptfrncddkpjuib/DSC00023.ARW?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u6zodgu5yir9wlg/DSC00025.ARW?dl=0
- Sony a7rii + Zeiss Otus 85mm (Novoflex Adapter)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vqhn0ldkevxuczy/DSC00053.ARW?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mser630094hv9dj/DSC00072.ARW?dl=0
I also have Zeiss Otus 55mm and waiting for Leica WATE and Sony FE 90mm macro to arrive. will take more photos once I have more time to explore this camera.
Personal thought;
I think it is very great camera. I heard there is some overheat issue with long video recording but I don't mind as I bought this for photo taking and some short video record for my baby.
Form factor is comparable to my Leica M-P240. I can fit a7rii with Leica 50mm lens in my small shoulder bag and, to my eye, the image quality from Sony A7rii is better than the Leica especially in high ISO. A7rii with close focus adapter also solved minimal focus distance issue from Leica as I like to do food photography when I go to restaurant.
At this point, I am thinking of using a7rii as my main camera and Leica M-P240 as a backup.
-
Quentin,
I know that style. I've used it myself with the A7 and other cameras. But I didn't have to use it with the Merrill or Fujis. And I use it very sparingly with the G3, all in one.
Must not buy PRECIOUS.... Must not buy Precious.
Maybe I'll be successful this time.
Norm
-
Edmund,
err, I have googled both many times, but that doesn't turn me into a colour scientist.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Yeah, the standard colorimetric x, y and z are rgb observer functions which are obtained by passing light through a (spectral) filter which basically corresponds (after various neural encoding issues) to the cone pigments in the average eye - 3 types of cones.
So some illuminant spectrum bounces off some object, into your 'standard observer' eye, gets filtered through say the "r" cone pigment, then the power of the remaining light gets integrated. Hey now you have 'x'.
A camera needs to somehow recreate these integrals if it wants to recreate the observer perceptions. With 3 filters that means having filters which need to basically be independent linear combinations of the cone pigment spectra, I guess. This is called the Luther-Ives condition.
A camera which does not satisfy Luther Ives will suffer from so-called metameric failure, ie. it will differentiate colors seen as identical by a human observer, or fail to differentiate colors perceived as different. Of course no camera satisifies the Luther Ives condition, but high-end colorimeters try to, and so do the computations in spectroradiometers. I believe a standard research technique is to aim a teleradiometer at a scene and a camera and compare the two. Such experiments where discussed at ICC meetings when talking about formats for camera data.
Anyway my comment to your comment :) is that in my opinion with a 3 filter CFA array the ideal "slopes" of all the CFA spectral functions satisfying Luther-Ives here are in some way known - there is little tolerance for variation because they are determined by the cone functions which are physiological - if the standard observer were to donate his body to science, we could cut his eye open, extract some cones and measure the pigment transmisittivity.
What happens a lot with real cameras -I believe- is that the x'y'z' in the camera are not "orthogonal" enough, and then the determination of the xyz becomes imprecise. I don't really understand this part, but I see it happen a lot, and I've talked to people like the ex-CEO of Hasselblad who told me this is the problem they faced *in practice*. Or rather, he told me this is the problem his competitors with dLSRs faced in practice :) My feeling is that the A7IIR is facing this type of issue. Or quite possibly I'm wrong.
Edmund
-
Edmund,
You seem to follow a different path, one more critical of the A7RII. That's actually very useful; it helps the rest of us keep our feet on the ground, otherwise its easy to get carried away with new stuff. Different opinions are always valuable- so long as I can understand them!
I'm used to trying to extract the best from oddball cameras like the Sigma DP merrill series ( as Norm and others here have done, I think). I get the feeling I will still still be using them at times in the future, because the rendition of the A7R II is fundamentally different- smoother, low contrast v the Merrril's high contrast, etc. It's a more complex decision as to whether the A7R II is a possible replacement for MF digital, which I also use (CCD based). That will take a lot more time and effort to work through.
Ray, I will try to find time to post a few 100% crops sometime later this weekend.
-
A7RII. 90mm F/2.8 Macro G OSS
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/Colour%20Study%201.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/Colour%20Study%202.jpg)
-
Hi Edmund,
What you write corresponds pretty well to my understanding of Luther Ives and metameristic matches. Still I have observed that spectral plots representing the "R" pixels have a very steep sensivity gradients at around 560 nanometers, so I would assume that the steepness of the gradient and the exact position of the gradient may matter a lot. But, I cannot convert this into goodness of "linear combination".
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Yeah, the standard colorimetric x, y and z are rgb observer functions which are obtained by passing light through a (spectral) filter which basically corresponds (after various neural encoding issues) to the cone pigments in the average eye - 3 types of cones.
So some illuminant spectrum bounces off some object, into your 'standard observer' eye, gets filtered through say the "r" cone pigment, then the power of the remaining light gets integrated. Hey now you have 'x'.
A camera needs to somehow recreate these integrals if it wants to recreate the observer perceptions. With 3 filters that means having filters which need to basically be independent linear combinations of the cone pigment spectra, I guess. This is called the Luther-Ives condition.
A camera which does not satisfy Luther Ives will suffer from so-called metameric failure, ie. it will differentiate colors seen as identical by a human observer, or fail to differentiate colors perceived as different. Of course no camera satisifies the Luther Ives condition, but high-end colorimeters try to, and so do the computations in spectroradiometers. I believe a standard research technique is to aim a teleradiometer at a scene and a camera and compare the two. Such experiments where discussed at ICC meetings when talking about formats for camera data.
Anyway my comment to your comment :) is that in my opinion with a 3 filter CFA array the ideal "slopes" of all the CFA spectral functions satisfying Luther-Ives here are in some way known - there is little tolerance for variation because they are determined by the cone functions which are physiological - if the standard observer were to donate his body to science, we could cut his eye open, extract some cones and measure the pigment transmisittivity.
What happens a lot with real cameras -I believe- is that the x'y'z' in the camera are not "orthogonal" enough, and then the determination of the xyz becomes imprecise. I don't really understand this part, but I see it happen a lot, and I've talked to people like the ex-CEO of Hasselblad who told me this is the problem they faced *in practice*. Or rather, he told me this is the problem his competitors with dLSRs faced in practice :) My feeling is that the A7IIR is facing this type of issue. Or quite possibly I'm wrong.
Edmund
-
Hi Quentin,
Nice observation, you don't happen to be a legal expert?
It is easy to get overly optimistic about a new system. There may be some limitation in the system we miss. The A7rII is young, colour profiles and stuff is first generation. We may see modfications/change or shift with time.
I also feel that we claim different things. Lloyd Chambers blames "Sony 11+7 bit raw compression" for pretty much everything, BC blames CMOS for everything. Anders Torger says it is mostly about profiles and I talk about gradients of the "red" channel at around 560 nm. We all have some favourite pony. I would side with Anders a bit, as he has done a lot of work in colour rendition recently.
Best regards
Erik
Edmund,
You seem to follow a different path, one more critical of the A7RII. That's actually very useful; it helps the rest of us keep our feet on the ground, otherwise its easy to get carried away with new stuff. Different opinions are always valuable- so long as I can understand them!
I'm used to trying to extract the best from oddball cameras like the Sigma DP merrill series ( as Norm and others here have done, I think). I get the feeling I will still still be using them at times in the future, because the rendition of the A7R II is fundamentally different- smoother, low contrast v the Merrril's high contrast, etc. It's a more complex decision as to whether the A7R II is a possible replacement for MF digital, which I also use (CCD based). That will take a lot more time and effort to work through.
Ray, I will try to find time to post a few 100% crops sometime later this weekend.
-
I also feel that we claim different things. Lloyd Chambers blames "Sony 11+7 bit raw compression" for pretty much everything, BC blames CMOS for everything. Anders Torger says it is mostly about profiles and I talk about gradients of the "red" channel at around 560 nm. We all have some favourite pony. I would side with Anders a bit, as he has done a lot of work in colour rendition recently.
Erik, it's almost always about the profiles. The Raw compresssion, if done intelligently, should not make a big difference. CMOS versus CCD is virtually never the issue (except for required LCCs to correct off-center image-circle colors). The color filter array makes (small) differences (but more important are the peak transmissions), but then the profiles change everything again. Profiles rule everything, and they remain to be compromises (given the mismatch with the eye sensitivity curves).
The steepness of the transition zones between CFA color filters (and the resulting overlap of the pass-bands) only affects the magnitude of the multipliers needed in the transformation matrix, and thus has some effect on noise, which mostly affects color demosaicing in very subtle transitions and low signal levels.
IMHO, of course.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Excellent observations, Erik.
For me I'm going to withhold judgement a few months on the a7r II. I'd like the shine to wear off and for a LOT more real world and lab observations. I do think that Sony has pushed the technology a bunch but how that works in the real world is the question. Also, it will be interesting to see if Sony responds to bugs and shortcomings like the lossy compression with firmware updates.
The only thing I know for certain at this point is that I'm tired of hauling my heavy Canon gear around. I find myself shooting with my Fuji X-T1 a lot more and loving it.
-
Reading user observations it appears that the real issues are:
1 - Non-trivial RAW compression artifacts - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3885375?page=1
2 - Sensor heat both in filming and long time exposures. Using long time exposure NR changes to 12-bit encoding - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3885355
-
Hi Quentin,
Nice observation, you don't happen to be a legal expert?
It is easy to get overly optimistic about a new system. There may be some limitation in the system we miss. The A7rII is young, colour profiles and stuff is first generation. We may see modfications/change or shift with time.
I also feel that we claim different things. Lloyd Chambers blames "Sony 11+7 bit raw compression" for pretty much everything, BC blames CMOS for everything. Anders Torger says it is mostly about profiles and I talk about gradients of the "red" channel at around 560 nm. We all have some favourite pony. I would side with Anders a bit, as he has done a lot of work in colour rendition recently.
Best regards
Erik
I claim it's always the photographer's fault :)
Let's all chant louder "MUST NOT BUY PRECIOUS" and see how well that works :)
Edmund
-
Quentin,
Really nice work, love these shots. Is the image review speed any better then the general Sony standard (i.e. slow!)?
Nathan
-
Nathan,
Thanks!
I find it pretty quick.
Edd, my middle son, puffs on a stogie after dinner on our terrace. A7RII, 90mm macro G OSS, ISO 6400 F/2.8, 1/50 sec. Edit - link fixed.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/Edd%20enjoys%20a%20stogie.jpg)
-
Nathan,
Thanks!
I find it pretty quick.
Edd, my middle son, puffs on a stogie after dinner on our terrace. A7RII, 90mm macro G OSS, ISO 6400 F/2.8, 1/50 sec.
(https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/public/August%202015/Edd%20enjoys%20a%20stogie.jpg?_subject_uid=9806585&w=AACBrMHvSRwFTyTvCzi_VE10t2bsYcxZQLErIup09Fg56g)
Fix the link?
Must not buy precious. Must not buy. Must not. Must ...
Edmund
-
Hi,
Tony and Chelsea, tested the camera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1kI4NacaUw
More positive news
Best regards,
-
More positive news
Best regards,
The comments would seem to be more mixed than that.
-
The comments would seem to be more mixed than that.
It's a camera, not the solution to all of the world's problems.
The video is *really* not so good as the GH4 at base ISO, see their imagery.
My impression is "jack of all trades". AKA the universal backup. Canon AF lenses seem to work iff they are after 2006.
Edmund
-
Has anyone here been able to perform long exposures?
Reports about excessive noise are starting to pop up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Has anyone here been able to perform long exposures?
Reports about excessive noise are starting to pop up.
Cheers,
Bernard
Look on fm. It seems Nikon have historically done better than Sony with NR on Sony's sensors.
Edmund
-
Look on fm. It seems Nikon have historically done better than Sony with NR on Sony's sensors.
I know how good the Nikon's are, I am trying to assess whether the a7rII would be a meaningful investment for my needs or not.
Right now I find it appealing thanks to size, the possibility to use with a Cambo Actus and pitentially AF. It would for sure be an interesting addition, but it doesn't appear to be a potential replacement.
Currently my feeling is that the price is too steep for an addition considering the marginal value that could be gained, but that feeling could still evolve. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I know how good the Nikon's are, I am trying to assess whether the a7rII would be a meaningful investment for my needs or not.
Right now I find it appealing thanks to size, the possibility to use with a Cambo Actus and pitentially AF. It would for sure be an interesting addition, but it doesn't appear to be a potential replacement.
Currently my feeling is that the price is too steep for an addition considering the marginal value that could be gained, but that feeling could still evolve. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
While you are thinking about the camera, the pictures are getting away :)
Why don't you post a wallograph?
Edmund
-
While you are thinking about the camera, the pictures are getting away :)
Euh no... I have excellent equipment at the moment that I use a lot. ;)
That's one thing I don't quite understand about the rush to get those new bodies super quickly. It feels as if some of the photographers around hadn't had any suitable body at all till now. ;D
What's a "wallograph" btw?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... My impression is "jack of all trades". AKA the universal backup. Canon AF lenses seem to work iff they are after 2006.
In fact it does seem to be a potentially excellent "allrounder" while not excelling to the extreme in any one way.
For my part I am still waiting to see whether this camera does, in fact, hit the pass-mark in the areas I am interested in.
Tony Jay
-
Euh no... I have excellent equipment at the moment that I use a lot. ;)
That's one thing I don't quite understand about the rush to get those new bodies super quickly. It feels as if some of the photographers around hadn't had any suitable body at all till now. ;D
What's a "wallograph" btw?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, go and use your existing stuff is what I meant.
Here is the wallograph thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102839.0).
-
Well, go and use your existing stuff is what I meant.
Here is the wallograph thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102839.0).
Got it, thanks. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Got it, thanks. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
Awaiting your wallograph :)
With your range of equipment ...
Edmund
-
Bernard
I changed from Nikon to Sony without any great hope of improvement from the camera itself. What I did want however was access to the excellent Zeiss lenses and in particular the two new Batis lenses. I had used an Otus on my D810 and really liked it but with poor eyesight found manual focus to be a difficulty. The 25mm, 35mm, 55mm and 85mm Zeiss lenses are extremely good on this camera.
The weight reduction is noticeable and welcome.
-
Has anyone here been able to perform long exposures?
Reports about excessive noise are starting to pop up.
Cheers,
Bernard
Perhaps the long exposure noise reduction was not engaged? It is there to be used, to do dark frame subtraction in camera. I had a similar problem when I tested the Oly EM1, too much noise in long exposures, and sometimes it is not practical to engage LENR (e.g. star trails).
Perhaps these more video-geared sensors are more prone to this? They warm up quicker?
-
Awaiting your wallograph :)
With your range of equipment ...
Yep, I'll post some tonight, that will have been shot on Sunday though! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
i used the a7r ii yesterday at night, just using street lighting and can confirm that at 6400 asa using exposures around 10th to half a second that there is a much more noise than i expected, i've reduced my highest usable asa to 1600... we'll have all michaels et al. test results soon enough and i imagine this will all be well documented...
1/6 sec; f/7,1; ISO 6400
LOT'S of exposure and shadow recuperation in ACR
-
Thanks for those examples adrian. What were actually your Exposure and Shadow settings in ACR?
You exposed the entire frame at ISO 6400, but with lots of these corrections in the raw conversion the shadows might be more exposed at an equivalent ISO of 12600 or 25200.
-
Besides the noise, flare is pretty bad here, what lens was used?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
it's the canon 17mm tse, flares like hell
pieter
tha settings were
exposure +1,85
shadows + 50
clarity +21
further back in this tread i have an image shot at 6400 asa in much less extreme light, it's downloadable as a dng and really quite impressive, as you suggest this one has been pushed and pulled well beyond 6400!
-
i used the a7r ii yesterday at night, just using street lighting and can confirm that at 6400 asa using exposures around 10th to half a second that there is a much more noise than i expected, i've reduced my highest usable asa to 1600... we'll have all michaels et al. test results soon enough and i imagine this will all be well documented...
1/6 sec; f/7,1; ISO 6400
LOT'S of exposure and shadow recuperation in ACR
How does that compare to other sensors you have used - people have widely different ideas on what they consider 'usable' 'unusable' and 'atrocious' so if you can give some idea how the A7Rii relates to your experience with other cameras that would give us something to relate to.
-
it's the canon 17mm tse, flares like hell
exposure +1,85
shadows + 50
clarity +21
Thanks adrian, with those settings the shadow areas are at least at iso 25200 if not more. It's noisy indeed but not surprising with those data I think. Whether acceptable or not everybody has to decide for themselves.
-
How does that compare to other sensors you have used - people have widely different ideas on what they consider 'usable' 'unusable' and 'atrocious' so if you can give some idea how the A7Rii relates to your experience with other cameras that would give us something to relate to.
compared with the d800e, a7ii & rx1 i think it's about 2 stops better, subjective opinion obviously.
-
i used the a7r ii yesterday at night, just using street lighting and can confirm that at 6400 asa using exposures around 10th to half a second that there is a much more noise than i expected, i've reduced my highest usable asa to 1600...
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for the example. I'm wondering, given the 1/6th second exposure time, I assume you were shooting from a tripod. Why not use ISO 800- 1600 to begin with and increase exposure time? As e.g. earlier tests by Jim Kasson (http://blog.kasson.com/) have shown for the A7R , There is no quality gain (as expressed in higher Signal/Noise ratio) to be expected above ISO 800, maybe 1600, and until proven wrong, that assumption may also be valid for the A7R II. Just 'under-exposing' at ISO 800 and pushing in post-processing could already deliver higher quality.
But, an image starved of photons will always be noisy, due to photon statistics. So you'll get even better results by increasing the actual photon exposure for the shadows. And to remedy highlight clipping, just bracket, and combine in postprocessing.
The glare is hard to avoid with bright lights in the actual image area, but one can try to shield the bulging lens for all non-image-contributing lightsources.
Cheers,
Bart
-
compared with the d800e, a7ii & rx1 i think it's about 2 stops better, subjective opinion obviously.
Thank you Adrian. 2 stops better - that is some going when comparing to what is considered an ISO-less camera.
-
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for the example. I'm wondering, given the 1/6th second exposure time, I assume you were shooting from a tripod. Why not use ISO 800- 1600 to begin with and increase exposure time? As e.g. earlier tests by Jim Kasson (http://blog.kasson.com/) have shown for the A7R , There is no quality gain (as expressed in higher Signal/Noise ratio) to be expected above ISO 800, maybe 1600, and until proven wrong, that assumption may also be valid for the A7R II. Just 'under-exposing' at ISO 800 and pushing in post-processing could already deliver higher quality.
But, an image starved of photons will always be noisy, due to photon statistics. So you'll get even better results by increasing the actual photon exposure for the shadows. And to remedy highlight clipping, just bracket, and combine in postprocessing.
The glare is hard to avoid with bright lights in the actual image area, but one can try to shield the bulging lens for all non-image-contributing lightsources.
Cheers,
Bart
thanks for the advice bart, actually i was rather hoping that with the image stabilization and iso gains i could retire the tripod forever! but it seems that i'm stuck with it!
as you say, a serious test/photo would have required a tripod and more careful exposure settings but i was just taking my evening stroll and 'trying my luck,' and 'messing' with the camera, however putting the extremes of the iso aside, i must say that the image stabilisation works very very well and in can see that in low light non-tripod situations that up to 1600 asa (6400 if there is no pushing in post required) and down to about a 1/6th of of a second it is quite feasable to get excellent results hand held...
though as i say i don't think i'll let go of the tripod just yet!
-
my last image posting may have been a bit extreme and harsh on the camera, here is a shot at 6400 asa with no retouching in acr using the sony 55 lens:
-
... here is a shot at 6400 asa with no retouching in acr using the sony 55 lens:
Color me unimpressed.
I posted this in an earlier thread, taken with a lowly Canon sensor (6D) at ISO 16,000 (yes, sixteen thousand):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931
-
Hi Slobodan,
Canons have always been good at high ISO. Just to say, subject matters, too. And so does the photographer…
Best regards
Erik
Color me unimpressed.
I posted this in an earlier thread, taken with a lowly Canon sensor (6D) at ISO 16,000 (yes, sixteen thousand):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931
-
Color me unimpressed.
I posted this in an earlier thread, taken with a lowly Canon sensor (6D) at ISO 16,000 (yes, sixteen thousand):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931
The A7II isn't extraordinarily good at anything, the interesting thing is all the things it can do decently. I'm also not impressed by those images, but my 1Ds3 won't make them, and my Nikon D4 is not in the same price class.
This applies as much to its High Iso stills performance as to the rest of the package. On the other hand, Sony's lenses seem to be starting to earn respect.
Of course the more E mount FF cameras Sony sells, the better their cameras will get, they have momentum on their side.
Edmund
-
Canon have been playing the segmentation game to the hilt since the 5D2: Prosumer customers are now supposed to buy one camera for hi-rez, another for hi speed hi ISO, and yet another for video.
Sony have one camera that does all three, cheaply. People are -surprise- going to do the maths of buying one cheap "good enough "rather than 3 expensive "best".
Edmund
-
The A7II isn't extraordinarily good at anything, the interesting thing is all the things it can do decently.
...
(Coming from the Canon 7D) I see the A7RII as a landscape/hiking camera with 4k video thrown in.
I.e. not necessarily an allround camera if that includes lots of sports/action.
So how much lighter/smaller will the total package be than say a Nikon D810, and how will total image quality compare (including IBIS, shutter shock, MF accuracy, lossy raw)? 36 vs 42 MP is nothing.
I believe that I could make do with the A7RII, the Batis 25mm and the 90mm macro. When prices drop considerably. Until then, I still have some learning in front of me with what I have.
-h
-
To me I would only use the Sony for some motion work because of the image stabilization but the video clips I’ve seen so far are fairly blah, not close to the $1,000 panasonic gh4 up to 1000 asa.
The only issue with the gh4 is the processor is a little overcooked at 4k making the autofocus for video hunt, where the gh3 was fairly good. Also the panasonic have a heavy yellow bias that has to be graded out.
The GH4 video continuous AF is unusable. I am surprised they haven't fixed it with firmware somehow.
I agree that GH4 owners aren't going to be impressed by the video samples from the Sony -and the stabilisation on the 12-35 is superb. we haven't seen the uncompressed stuff from the Sony yet though IMHO.
I think Canon have 3 teams in the design offices now, all fighting not to be made redundant, so 3 camera lines + the prosumer stuff. unfortunately the prosumer stuff seems to be the best designed in the bunch.
Edmund
-
For stills why not just buy a 5dS which by all accounts seems to be a better still camera and the lenses work well in their native mounts.
If I may ask, how so?
Besides having a few extra mega pixels, I fail to see any other account by which the 5Ds is a superior still camera. It is pretty much behind on all measurable aspects.
Granted, it works better with Canon Lenses. But apparently just a bit.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If I may ask, how so?
Besides having a few extra mega pixels, I fail to see any other account by which the 5Ds is a superior still camera. It is pretty much behind on all measurable aspects.
Granted, it works better with Canon Lenses. But apparently just a bit.
Cheers,
Bernard
The Canon works with ALL Canon lenses. The Sony still seems a bit picky. Early days.
Next we will talk about Nikon - we all know where the Nikon sensors come from so what more is there to expect once Sony gets the focus completely solved?
Edmund
-
"... Besides having a few extra mega pixels, I fail to see any other account by which the 5Ds is a superior still camera. It is pretty much behind on all measurable aspects."
The keyword is 'measurable'. I keep looking at 5DSR and A7RII shots and fail to see te latter DR advantage in real shots. Yeah, I can see the lab measurements, but in practice...
-
Next we will talk about Nikon - we all know where the Nikon sensors come from so what more is there to expect once Sony gets the focus completely solved?
Indeed. Very similar high res sensors, the Sony will have the advantage of compactness and in body stabilization, just like they had in the past with the a900. The Nikon will have the advantage of a much larger lenses line up, including extremely high level performers from Zeiss. If you need a soon to be announced D5 or 1Dx II, then Sony doesn't really have a credible contender... yet.
Overall, for new comers who don't mind using an EVF, the Sony is IMHO a total no brainer compared to the Nikon/Canon. Unless you need specific AF lenses, such as the long super tele, at their peak level of performance, in which case the Sony isn't really a credible contender... yet.
Being deeply invested in F mount lenses and already benefiting from the D810 sensor, I find the price of the a7rII way too steep to be attractive. That cash will go in a 200mm f2.0 E FL or in a Zeiss Otus 25mm f1.4 when those lenses are announced in the coming months. They will deliver many more real work benefits relative to my needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If I may ask, how so?
Besides having a few extra mega pixels, I fail to see any other account by which the 5Ds is a superior still camera. It is pretty much behind on all measurable aspects.
Granted, it works better with Canon Lenses. But apparently just a bit.
Cheers,
Bernard
Right now I shoot the 5dIII and looked at the a7rII as an alternative to the 5ds/5dsR, I shoot commercial/editorial and my days are 99% tethered and my take is:
Canon pluses
- USB 3 and vs micro usb 2, I'd have to try both in a real life scenario to talk about reliability.
- Battery size, shooting stills you need at most 1 battery change on a 5d3 for a busy day.
- All my canon lenses are going to AF up to standard at least on the 5Ds, I've read different opinions about speed and reliability with different adapters and firmware upgrades... cool but i need a camera shooting 100% the day I buy it (and tethering to c1 BTW, right now none of the two without a workaround)
- Dual cards, it doesn't matter if you shoot tethered but for those rare days is nice to have a backup
- HSS with profoto B1s, maybe they will open it to sony
Sony's pluses
- Dynamic range: It would be nice to have it, I know I can get lovely pictures without it but hey, the more the merrier ;D
- Sensor stabilizer, really nice, but from what i've read turning it on and of every time you go in and out the tripod would be a pain in the a$$, not to mention you have to input the focal length every time you change lenses if you're using adaptors (correct me if I'm wrong)
- Size and weight, and advantage to many
- WITH sony mount lenses the af seems very good and the face tracking would make the tripod days easier.
- Zeiss with AF: every time i look at the otus I'm tempted to buy both but without AF I'd use them maybe 15-20% of the time, so I need another option (canon/sigma) on the same focal length with the added bulk, weight and $$ on top of the already bulky, heavy and super expensive otus :-[
So for my kind of work is going to be a compromise and going the sony route will mean transition into a new system in a short period of time and get a bunch of new lenses, accessories, a second body... right now and without any testing I'm leaning towards the canon that seems like the safest bet.
-
So for my kind of work is going to be a compromise and going the sony route will mean transition into a new system in a short period of time and get a bunch of new lenses, accessories, a second body... right now and without any testing I'm leaning towards the canon that seems like the safest bet.
Interesting points indeed.
The lack of double SD card slot on the a7rII is indeed a regrettable omission for mission critical applications. I had problems again with an SD card last week, fortunately I was shooting with a 2 slots D750.
I also use the B1/D1 and had forgotten that the Sony was not supported. That would also pretty much kill it for me too for exterior flash photography, although I don't do that too often.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
my last image posting may have been a bit extreme and harsh on the camera, here is a shot at 6400 asa with no retouching in acr using the sony 55 lens:
I'm having a hard time understanding the excitement about taking pictures of night scenes that look like day. They all look just awful to me--like some kind of weird surveillance camera took them.
I've been playing with an A7s recently and it's really good in low light, but what look good are pics that still look like night. They have rich, dark blacks that you can see into, but they don't look like daylight. That camera really excels at shooting night that looks like night, but it still needs a bit of light--if only moonlight--to look good. And if you try to push it too bright, it looks just awful.
I think that if you printed these night images down a bit they (and the camera) would look better.
-
Regarding Leica M wide angles, the magenta color is gone, but the softness is still there. The Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 ("WATE") is still the only M wide I can recommend. The Zeiss 18 zm Distagon is also not good on it. I don't have the Leica M 35s. The Zeiss 35 f/2.8 C Biogon is soft at the edges.
Not much time with the camera yet, but that shutter sure is a nice and obvious change.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Now, will buying a a7rII will make you happier than not buying one?
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm having a hard time understanding the excitement about taking pictures of night scenes that look like day. They all look just awful to me--like some kind of weird surveillance camera took them.
I've been playing with an A7s recently and it's really good in low light, but what look good are pics that still look like night. They have rich, dark blacks that you can see into, but they don't look like daylight. That camera really excels at shooting night that looks like night, but it still needs a bit of light--if only moonlight--to look good. And if you try to push it too bright, it looks just awful.
I think that if you printed these night images down a bit they (and the camera) would look better.
hi there, i kind of agree but understood that this was a thread to provide images and information about this new camera, if you'd like to see my photo prowess here is a link to some books i have published, most are out of print and command high prices, apologies if the "test shot" offended your asthetic sensibilities!:
http://www.adriantyler.net/alhambra.html
-
Lovely photos Adrian (your linked portfolio/publications)
and thanks for sharing sample shots with the camera. Im sure most people understand the difference between your creative work and providing a preliminary look at the performance of a new camera under xyz conditions. Some seem to be critical and not respect the difference in their comments
-
As a landscape shooter who bought into digital with the 5D2 (since it was then able to outshoot colour MF film), the A7rII is probably the best successor to the 5D2 out there.
It has the best image quality of any non-MF body out there. AF with Canon lenses is similar to the 5D2, although, unlike the 5D2, more than the centre point is usable. The single SD card is disappointing, but not a deal-breaker for most (anyone know of a lightweight device that can copy SD cards while on the trail?). Battery life is not great, but you can carry 2-3 Sony batteries in the space/weight of a single LP-E6. In short, it performs just like a 5D2, but with a much better sensor. Sure, AF is not great (relative to top-end SLRs - relative to other mirrorless bodies it's amazing) but no-one ever bought the 5D2 for its AF either, and, when shooting landscapes you'll be using MF anyway. If you use it in the same way as many people used the 5D2 - as a body with a best-for-its-time sensor, for the utmost image quality without needing much in the way of other features - you won't be disappointed.
Considering the alternatives, the 5D3 doesn't really improve on IQ compared with the 5D2 and the D810 can't take Canon lenses, so neither are really much of a successor to the 5D2 in terms of being a high-IQ, high-resolution, Canon-lens-compatible camera for shooting subjects that don't do much. Each has strengths in other areas (notably AF for the 5D3, and just being an all-round kick-ass camera for the D810) but neither really improved on the 5D2 in terms of what they offered for that core group of 5D2 users (the D810 being a non-starter for those heavily invested in Canon lenses). The 5Ds is a true successor, but the sensor doesn't quite match that of the A7rII, although it comes closer than any other Canon sensor. So, for the purposes of shooting nonmoving subjects with as great an image quality as possible, it's hard to beat the A7rII at the moment.
Incidentally, though, the 5Ds may just be the best *wildlife* camera on the market at the moment - with top-level AF, a full-frame sensor and the pixel density of a crop sensor, it allows for fantastic cropability, in effect turning every lens into a 1-1.6x zoom lens (if you consider the crop sensor area the minimum acceptable size for image quality) and making for much easier framing while shooting. Also, since there's very little overlap between wildlife lenses and landscape lenses, it becomes perfectly possible to run two separate systems side-by-side at no greater cost compared to using the same system (e.g. Canon or Nikon) for both. 5Ds, 200-400 f/4L and 600L for wildlife, plus A7rII (or D810) and your choice of shorter-FL lenses for landscape, costs much the same as running an all-Canon or all-Nikon system with the same focal length capabilities, but gives you better results.
I'd still like to see what Sony has in store for its 'pro-level' E-mount body, though - dual card slots, lossless RAW, even better AF (maybe 6D or 5D3 level using adapted lenses) and a bump in resolution to 54MP would be high on my list.
-
I'd still like to see what Sony has in store for its 'pro-level' E-mount body, though - dual card slots, lossless RAW, even better AF (maybe 6D or 5D3 level using adapted lenses) and a bump in resolution to 54MP would be high on my list.
Yes, the a9r is likely to cost 4500 Euros though... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As a landscape shooter who bought into digital with the 5D2 (since it was then able to outshoot colour MF film), the A7rII is probably the best successor to the 5D2 out there.
+1
this is more or less my situation, but i jumped into digital from mf & lf film with the d3/d3x and the nikon shift lenses.
i've 'upgraded' through this system to the superior canon shift lenses. superior iq which as you say doubles focal lengths through ability to use the crop sensor thus significantly lightening the load for commercial work and also those sony/zeiss primes are much more pleasing to my eye than the nikons.
i always loved my m6 and dreamed of a compact camera with tech. camera movements that would give me the quality of mf film, this little thing gives me all that and more and that for me equates to freedom, which is a nice feeling when at work!
-
Color me unimpressed.
I posted this in an earlier thread, taken with a lowly Canon sensor (6D) at ISO 16,000 (yes, sixteen thousand):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931
Couple differences.
The A7R2 has more pixels. Would be interesting how the A7R2 image would look scaled down to the 6D pixel resolution.
The A7R2 image posted had no post processing applied. How much was done to your posted image?
-
"... Besides having a few extra mega pixels, I fail to see any other account by which the 5Ds is a superior still camera. It is pretty much behind on all measurable aspects."
The keyword is 'measurable'. I keep looking at 5DSR and A7RII shots and fail to see te latter DR advantage in real shots. Yeah, I can see the lab measurements, but in practice...
Obviously it depends on the subject matter being shot. I use GND filters with my 5d2 when shooting landscapes during sunrise and sunset to manage the excessive DR. With my A7R, I require much less need for GND filters.
-
Bernard,
Once the sales pitch becomes "our new Nikon works with the Nikon stuff you already have", -substitute Phase or Canon - a company is in trouble.
Being compatible with your own past is no excuse for being second rate, at least not in the photography field. Look at what happened to film.
The A7RII is not an extraordinary camera, but it is a first-rate general purpose product that shows Sony's complete mastery of a dozen technological specialties and semiconductor fabrication techniques, most of which are centered around the chip and chip-module.
- Hi ISO hi rez still/ hi bandwidth movie sensor with high uniform heat dissipation
- Large back-illuminated chip (adds one stop, allows hi-speed video connections in the RX series)
- on-sensor Phase detect
- electronic shutter for hi-resolution images
- third party lens compatibility
- 5 axis sensor module stabilisation
The whole camera is built around the highly innovative sensor module which the competition can neither design nor fabricate.
As Canon are proving, good cameras can be made with conventional tech, but they cannot do all of this AT THE SAME TIME. As for Nikon, I see them as a takeover target for Sony at this point.
With dSLR and high end camera sales falling, there is no space for all these brands. A consolidation is coming.
We should admire Sony - they have taken dSLR photography, a field which had turned into regular Mp updates, and turned it on its head with technical innovation. Incidentally, they have broken all the omerta' between japanese companies, making a hybrid video/film product that is compatible with competing brand's lenses.
Edmund
-
Hi,
My impression is that the Canon cameras work very well at high ISOs, where they don't deliver is very clean shadows at base ISO. But once you shoot say 800 ISO and more I would suggest Canons, Nikons and Sonys are pretty close.
Best regards
Erik
Couple differences.
The A7R2 has more pixels. Would be interesting how the A7R2 image would look scaled down to the 6D pixel resolution.
The A7R2 image posted had no post processing applied. How much was done to your posted image?
-
Hi,
My impression is that the Canon cameras work very well at high ISOs, where they don't deliver is very clean shadows at base ISO. But once you shoot say 800 ISO and more I would suggest Canons, Nikons and Sonys are pretty close.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
You are not going to abrogate the laws of physics, so a back-illuminated sensor will always do about a stop better.
The other thing is that Sony has this stabilised sensor, which improves the practical low light ability of any lens.
And the on-sensor phase detect means the focus will work at wide apertures, even without precise lens calibration.
Sony has really gathered a bunch of hi-end techniques, and put them together to make a new product.
The A7IIR will not be *much* better on anything than any of its competitors, but it is a simple box with a very complex sensor assembly - cheap to make as chip cost goes down. I expect the next model will bring a couple of killer features, though
Edmund
-
- Sensor stabilizer, really nice, but from what i've read turning it on and of every time you go in and out the tripod would be a pain in the a$$, not to mention you have to input the focal length every time you change lenses if you're using adaptors (correct me if I'm wrong)
There are a couple programmable modes on the dial. I have one set for when on a tripod with stabilization turned off. So I'm in manual mode most of the time. M1 preset when on a tripod. Works beautifully.
-
You are not going to abrogate the laws of physics, so a back-illuminated sensor will always do about a stop better.
Edmund, where are you getting 'about a stop better', especially after modern microlenses have done their work? It is my understanding that engineering DR at base ISO is not BSI's forte, so bravo Sony for having squeezed good results out of the technology. It looks like Aptina is as much to credit for this sensor's low-noise performance as any other improvement...
Jack
-
Still, if it can both give 15 stops of DR at base ISO *and* track wildlife as well as a 5D3 or D810 with a Canon 200-400L...
Besides, it will have to compete directly with the replacement for the Nikon D810, which will also be able to do all this (albeit with Nikon lenses), which puts an upper limit on prices.
When 42-54MP becomes common, it will no longer command such a price premium. Expect the price of the A7rII to fall quickly.
-
Still, if it can both give 15 stops of DR at base ISO *and* track wildlife as well as a 5D3 or D810 with a Canon 200-400L...
If early comments are to be believed, the weak point seems to be performance with Canon long lenses which is not really surprising to me and the 5D3 would be a heck of an act to follow.
-
As for the Canon 5Dsr being "the best wildlife camera out there", I would have to see the shots to comment. If the majority of your wildlife work fills the frame of a full frame camera and you don't need the 10-12 fps of the 1DX, I can see that the 5Dsr might be pretty appealing to owners of Canon lenses - the 1DX shutter is LOUD - fine in sports - sometimes annoying in wildlife photography. Occasional crops down to APS-C size would give you the quality of the 7D2. If most of your wildlife work lives in the APS-C frame, an APS-C camera like the 7D2 has a sensor very similar to the 5Dsr per pixel, with frame rate 10 fps, silent shutter at slightly slower rate, and both the camera and the supertelephoto lens needed will be cheaper (and lighter) than a FF lens and supertelephoto lens 1.5 x longer than that used on the APS-C camera in order to fill the FF frame. A 400mm lens will be cheaper than a 600mm lens. The 7D2 is now $1,500.00 body only at B and H.
I'd say the 5Dsr might be a good all-around camera for a landscape/macro plus occasional wildlife photographer who might not mind the slower frame rate than achievable with the designated sports/wildlife cameras 1DX and 7D2.
-
Hi,
:-) It will track wildlife better than a Nikon D810 with a Canon 200-400L. :-)
Yes, I think you are right about prices going down. Sony seems to have a planned price fall. Also, mirrorless cameras are much mechanical simpler designs than DSLRs, so Sony can have good margins at lower prices.
Best regards
Erik
Still, if it can both give 15 stops of DR at base ISO *and* track wildlife as well as a 5D3 or D810 with a Canon 200-400L...
Besides, it will have to compete directly with the replacement for the Nikon D810, which will also be able to do all this (albeit with Nikon lenses), which puts an upper limit on prices.
When 42-54MP becomes common, it will no longer command such a price premium. Expect the price of the A7rII to fall quickly.
-
Edmund,
...Large back-illuminated chip (adds one stop...
...a back-illuminated sensor will always do about a stop better.
From here (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/re-bsi-and-stacked-sensors.html):
Q: Will BSI deliver higher dynamic range?
A: Yes, but there is a declining ability that scales with sensor size, all else equal. In very small sensors (smartphones and compact cameras, for instance), the traditional sensor designs meant that part of the top of the photosite included data and power lines. That reduced the area that was collecting and converting light to electrons. This is sometimes called Fill Factor. Microlenses were one way of increasing Fill Factor (pointing the light to the collection area), changes in walls alongside the photo diode were another thing that impacted this (some photons got absorbed into the walls if they came in at an angle).
BSI sensors move most of the electronics underneath the actual photo collection area, leaving the top of the photosite to be fully available to collect light. The Fill Factor is essentially 100%. Thing is, on very large sensors (e.g. full frame), the Fill Factor was already quite high, and getting higher as companies moved to smaller process fabs. (Smaller process means smaller power and data lines and supporting electronics.)
We have one direct apples-to-apples comparison we can measure: Sony took the original RX100 1” sensor and converted it to BSI for a subsequent iteration of the camera. The overall dynamic range improvement worked out to be about a third of a stop. In smaller sensors the difference had been higher than that. In larger sensors it should be lower than that (again, all else equal; you could create a large sensor with lots of small photosites, and there we’d see an improvement, but going from 36mp non-BSI to 42mp BSI isn’t likely to show a lot of gain just based on the BSI component).
Thus, I don’t expect much change to the dynamic range for full frame by moving to BSI. Certainly not enough to get excited about.
-
You are not going to abrogate the laws of physics, so a back-illuminated sensor will always do about a stop better.
Hi Edmund,
I'm not so sure about the DR (in fact I'd be surprised if it was as good as its non-BSI predecessors), but it should help quantum efficiency because it has fewer obstructions / transfer gates, transistors, etc. blocking the light.
The other thing is that Sony has this stabilised sensor, which improves the practical low light ability of any lens.
As far as I understand it, it's more the sensor assembly that can oscillate, not the sensor itself/by itself. That means that in principle, any sensor could use the stabilisation assembly.
And the on-sensor phase detect means the focus will work at wide apertures, even without precise lens calibration.
While sensor stabilization is an interesting development with lots of potential, I'm wondering though which works better; lens stabilization or camera body stabilization. I have not seen any good comparisons, and I wonder where the camera shake is larger (and more accurately detected). IOW where is the center of rotation situated. Also, the sensor itself has a reduced size image to shift/rotate, which is a benefit as to the amount of displacement needed, but also requires much more accuracy (which I assume the piezo actuators are capable of).
For professional use, it's of course also much more vulnerable to have a single stabilizer (that has to operate for all different lenses and thus gets to do more work during its lifetime) that can fail (as all mechanical stuff does at some point) and become unavailable for all lenses at the same time (will the camera continue to work?), instead of a lens which can be replaced at relatively short notice, rather than having to wait for a body repair. Service repairs do not seem to be Sony's strong suit across the globe either.
Sony has really gathered a bunch of hi-end techniques, and put them together to make a new product.
Yes, certainly kudos to them for that. Yet, I still have a feeling that their technology becomes obsolete almost as fast as they introduce new stuff.
I therefore wonder about their track record for servicing 'older' camera models, what is their spare-parts and service training policy? Or is built-in obsolescence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) something we need to factor into the purchase price (as a new fact of life like non-replaceable phone batteries, battery dead after a thousand or so recharges, phone dead)?
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... The A7R2 has more pixels. Would be interesting how the A7R2 image would look scaled down to the 6D pixel resolution.
Fair enough, although we are comparing Sony's 6400 noise with Canon's 16,000, 1 and ⅓ stop difference. However, the same argument can be extended to A7r2 vs. Canon 5Ds: the worse noise in Canon shadows, when downsampled to Sony, might reduce or even eliminate the DR advantage.
The A7R2 image posted had no post processing applied. How much was done to your posted image?
In Before/After comparison, none. That's the idea of before/after comparisons, isn't it?
-
While sensor stabilization is an interesting development with lots of potential, I'm wondering though which works better; lens stabilization or camera body stabilization. ...
Great question. Most lenses one might be interested in Sony's FE line have stabilization built-in. Is that used along the sensor stabilization or instead?
I downloaded the A7RII manual and found no answers - these cameras are full of features and Sony offers little useful guidance to use them.
-
Great question. Most lenses one might be interested in Sony's FE line have stabilization built-in. Is that used along the sensor stabilization or instead?
I downloaded the A7RII manual and found no answers - these cameras are full of features and Sony offers little useful guidance to use them.
I believe they work in tandem in other IBIS cameras with the brand's own lenses, but I'm not sure about the Sony implementation, and even less about other lens brands (suppose only in camera stabilization for those, if at all).
Cheers,
Bart
-
For professional use, it's of course also much more vulnerable to have a single stabilizer (that has to operate for all different lenses and thus gets to do more work during its lifetime) that can fail (as all mechanical stuff does at some point) and become unavailable for all lenses at the same time (will the camera continue to work?), instead of a lens which can be replaced at relatively short notice, rather than having to wait for a body repair.
There are also the options of repairing the lens or replacing the camera body.
Which are you more likely to have on hand, a backup lens or a backup body? For the lenses I tend to use replacing the camera body is a less-costly option than replacing the lens, and by the time the body's stabilization system fails it's likely a newer model would be available.
With a nod to Murphy and his/her law I'd rather keep the stuff that's most likely to fail out of my lenses and in the camera body which is often easier to replace on short notice.
Great question. Most lenses one might be interested in Sony's FE line have stabilization built-in. Is that used along the sensor stabilization or instead?
As I understand it they're both used, OSS for pitch and yaw, IBIS for other motions.
-
I believe they work in tandem in other IBIS cameras with the brand's own lenses, but I'm not sure about the Sony implementation, and even less about other lens brands (suppose only in camera stabilization for those, if at all).
The native IS lenses work in tandem with the Sony IBIS also.
Later,
Johnny
-
Hi,
Interesting video. It explains why I hang on to my Hasselblad. Would I sell it off, I would miss it.
Best regards
Erik
Now, will buying a a7rII will make you happier than not buying one?
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bart,
Yes, the sensor assembly oscillates, not the sensor itself - in the same way as the frame of the window bears the glass - I stand corrected.
The issue about BSI is more complex. Because it allows connections to be made to the body of the sensor, not only to the edges, it becomes a major functional advantage. Also, it probably simplifies cell design, bus design etc, and reduces the cell shrinkage inefficencies. It is possible also that some design tricks might later arise that would increase DR or enable continuous readout, maybe by means of a "hidden" charge storage area. I'm not sure that the inter-line transfer idea is permanently dead.
As for having in-lens stabilisers vs. in-body, the lens stabiliser is restricted to one technology, the body stabiliser gets updated. These days ONE long lens costs more than a body, maybe you hadn't noticed the way things have changed. Getting a body fixed/swapped under insurance is probably easier than a complex long lens repair with parts that are hard to source and need careful adjustment.
I don't think they're using piezo, I think it's probably voice coil. But then why would I know? I also don't know how they control it.
As for Sony's track record on aftersales - their video equipment is the pro standard, and used all over the world, so when they want to do things properly they certainly can.
And yes, I agree they live on instant obsolescence. But is that not better than the arrested development of the rest of the industry? Phone cameras have been killing the big cams, it is time somebody fought back with high-ISO, high frame rates etc.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
I'm not so sure about the DR (in fact I'd be surprised if it was as good as its non-BSI predecessors), but it should help quantum efficiency because it has fewer obstructions / transfer gates, transistors, etc. blocking the light.
As far as I understand it, it's more the sensor assembly that can oscillate, not the sensor itself/by itself. That means that in principle, any sensor could use the stabilisation assembly.
While sensor stabilization is an interesting development with lots of potential, I'm wondering though which works better; lens stabilization or camera body stabilization. I have not seen any good comparisons, and I wonder where the camera shake is larger (and more accurately detected). IOW where is the center of rotation situated. Also, the sensor itself has a reduced size image to shift/rotate, which is a benefit as to the amount of displacement needed, but also requires much more accuracy (which I assume the piezo actuators are capable of).
For professional use, it's of course also much more vulnerable to have a single stabilizer (that has to operate for all different lenses and thus gets to do more work during its lifetime) that can fail (as all mechanical stuff does at some point) and become unavailable for all lenses at the same time (will the camera continue to work?), instead of a lens which can be replaced at relatively short notice, rather than having to wait for a body repair. Service repairs do not seem to be Sony's strong suit across the globe either.
Yes, certainly kudos to them for that. Yet, I still have a feeling that their technology becomes obsolete almost as fast as they introduce new stuff.
I therefore wonder about their track record for servicing 'older' camera models, what is their spare-parts and service training policy? Or is built-in obsolescence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) something we need to factor into the purchase price (as a new fact of life like non-replaceable phone batteries, battery dead after a thousand or so recharges, phone dead)?
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Interesting fun shoot by Jason Lanier using the A7RII and FE lenses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3CwK21Hak4
-
I cant see as well why the 5ds is a better still camera, just because it might work better with canon lenses. The files from the sonys as from the hi-mp nikons are not even close to the canons and simple another class at lo isos. This counts if you use this cameras for architecture, landscape or still shootings.
Another big advantage of the sony is that you can mount virtually all lenses on it, excpet some rangefinders with very close exit pupils. If you put a leica wate on it, or a contax 45mm, or the 35 or 55mm fe lenses you really get a small camera, on which you can put as well the canonTS-e lenses or whatever you like or need.
Or you can put the a7r (1 or 2) under a drone, without exceeding with the whole package 5kilo, which in many countries is the limit to fly them more or less easy.
-
Looking at the image stabilization -- "Steady shot" -- it looks like 1/15 with the 35mm can make top quality B&W prints. I used a 10 stop ND filter to test outside, comparing a 200 iso 1/500 shot to a 5000 iso 1/15 shot. 100% comparison image slides are at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Sony-a7rii-35mm-SteadyShot-test.jpg .
The merged image is made from three 1/15th shots -- multi-sampling to increase the s/n ratio. Obviously wherever there is movement only one frame can be used, but those areas (the trees) don't show much grain in the single shot.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
hi there, i kind of agree but understood that this was a thread to provide images and information about this new camera, if you'd like to see my photo prowess here is a link to some books i have published, most are out of print and command high prices, apologies if the "test shot" offended your asthetic sensibilities!:
http://www.adriantyler.net/alhambra.html
I certainly meant no ofense, Adrian. In fact I meant nothing personal at all, and certainly no aspersions on your photo prowess. (Very nice work, buy the way.)
My own aesthetic sensibilities don't really come into play either. These shots are obviously not intended to be artistic work.
My real point is that they are not very helpful tests. (Not meaning to single you out, the web is littered with "night for day" tests of the a7s, and will soon be with the a7r.) There is a lot to be learned about how the camera performs in shooting night scenes, astral photography, etc. but I don't see many samples that are helpful in that regard. I'd contribute some myself, but I don't own the camera. (And that's exactly why I'm interested.)
-
I received my a7rii today with the option to take a critical look on it till monday. First shots taken from tripod at base iso up to iso 6400 dont show an advantage for noise against the a7r. I would rate them as equallly good.
If the a7r2 wont be visible better in still mode, for me only remain two advantages ... stabilisation and 1. curtain. It will make it hard for me to decide. I dont shoot videos so i dont care 4k.
-
the worse noise in Canon shadows, when downsampled to Sony, might reduce or even eliminate the DR advantage.
Nope. You have to sample at least 84 megapixels (twice than 42) to get visible effect of down-sampling. And around 168 to get 1 stop difference.
But With 5ds(r) you can use noise reduction a little bit effectively 'cause a more detail resolved.
-
Olympus and Sigma are going to make E mount lenses. I guess everybody is reading the writing on the wall.
Edmund
-
I asked this in another thread but let me try here too...
Question for anyone shooting the A7 series cameras. Have any of you experienced photographing the really fast moving? Like an aircraft coming in to ground level and across you at 300+ mph? Would be interested in knowing how these cameras handle something like that.
Thanks!
-
I asked this in another thread but let me try here too...
Question for anyone shooting the A7 series cameras. Have any of you experienced photographing the really fast moving? Like an aircraft coming in to ground level and across you at 300+ mph? Would be interested in knowing how these cameras handle something like that.
That, or a small kid moving randomly at short distance.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Olympus and Sigma are going to make E mount lenses. I guess everybody is reading the writing on the wall.
Edmund
I'd be interested to know *which* E-mount lenses they will make.
It'd be fantastic if they made their 35/50 f/1.4 'Art' lenses in E-mount (and the longer 'Sport' lenses later on, once mirrorless AF catches up to fast action photography), so that we have some solid, fast, no-compromises lenses for the system.
What wouldn't be so great is if they simply bought into the 'mirrorless=small' philosophy and didn't release these lenses, but simply made new, slower, cheaper and smaller lenses to tap into budget buyers and those who want small size at the expense of everything else. We have enough small lenses for E-mount already - what we lack is capable, fast lenses that are the equal of SLR lenses, for pro users concerned about performance rather than size.
-
Re. Sigma, I saw this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1121080-REG/sigma_401_205_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html
It is the 24mm 1.4 ART, but it is -strangely- A mount. My apologies for a misread.
Never say never. I thought A mount was dead ...
Edmund
I'd be interested to know *which* E-mount lenses they will make.
It'd be fantastic if they made their 35/50 f/1.4 'Art' lenses in E-mount (and the longer 'Sport' lenses later on, once mirrorless AF catches up to fast action photography), so that we have some solid, fast, no-compromises lenses for the system.
What wouldn't be so great is if they simply bought into the 'mirrorless=small' philosophy and didn't release these lenses, but simply made new, slower, cheaper and smaller lenses to tap into budget buyers and those who want small size at the expense of everything else. We have enough small lenses for E-mount already - what we lack is capable, fast lenses that are the equal of SLR lenses, for pro users concerned about performance rather than size.
-
I kept the sony zeiss 24 to 70 a mount f2.8 lens in case I bought one of the A7 cameras, because I'll use it mostly for motion and f4 is too limiting for a lot of our work.
I haven't put in on an a7RII but did try it months ago on the A7 and the lens seems to weigh twice what the body did, (not actually, just feels that way).
I don't know how there going to get e mount lenses in f2 or f2.8 across the line and keep the weight down, unless they go to some type of composite material, but that would probably be very expensive.
Forget small size or light weight. You can only make a f/1.4 prime, f/2.8 zoom or f/4 supertele so small. For professional-use lenses, performance and capabilities trump size and weight almost every time. Small and cheap worked when mirrorless was targeting the beginner or 'step-up from point-and-shoot' crowd, but, with more and more professional non-action photographers using Sony (including quite a number of full-time wedding photographers around here) they need lenses capable of matching or surpassing SLR lenses in all respects, not just miniature budget lenses.
In regards of focus I have a series of different "mirrorless" or half mirrorless cameras that have autofocus by pdaf or contrast detection, or stuff they dreamed up and they're pretty good but all work subject dependant. The gh3 is great at face tracking, the only em-1 good at faces and subjects, the 70 does great video autofocusing but lousy still image focusing and none of the Sony's I tested (haven't tried the RII yet) could do video autofocus without a lot of hunting.
For stills, I don't think anything get's close to standard mirror cameras. The F5 was marvelous, the D3 as good though my Canon 1dx was better than my D3.
This was shot with a early production d3 in Japan for a gig and though Sanya is not a jet plane she's almost as fast as a dragster.
In this series the D3 hit 15 out of 20 consistently.
I don't think mirrorless can do this yet.
IMO
BC
Ever seen the AF on a professional video camera used to shoot sports, or a portable, pro-level camcorder used to shoot wildlife? Mirrorless, and the AF is nothing short of amazing - just as fast and accurate as the D4s or 1Dx. The technology is there. Thing is, running AF and an imperceptible-latency display at that speed requires fast processors and lots of battery power - something a small, mirrorless body doesn't have just yet. Mirrorless cameras are capable of being better than SLRs, or smaller - just, for the moment, not both at the same time.
-
Re. Sigma, I saw this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1121080-REG/sigma_401_205_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html
It is the 24mm 1.4 ART, but it is -strangely- A mount. My apologies for a misread.
Never say never. I thought A mount was dead ...
Edmund
I don't know why Sigma would try to push A-mount any further. There are far more people using E-mount cameras than A-mount cameras, and the momentum is also heading further in the direction of E-mount. The shorter flange distance has been a huge benefit for those looking to move to Sony for the better sensor (and better mirrorless technology in general).
If the A7r had been released with the A-mount instead of the E-mount, I doubt it would have sold even half as well.
The only viable future for A-mount would be if it was combined with a movable sensor plane, to adjust the flange distance while keeping the mount itself the same. That way, you could mount whatever lens you wanted to the mount and still use it, allowing Sony to continue poaching existing users of other systems, while allowing it retain the wider calibre of the A-mount and its advantages for certain lenses.
-
I don't know why Sigma would try to push A-mount any further. There are far more people using E-mount cameras than A-mount cameras, and the momentum is also heading further in the direction of E-mount. The shorter flange distance has been a huge benefit for those looking to move to Sony for the better sensor (and better mirrorless technology in general).
If the A7r had been released with the A-mount instead of the E-mount, I doubt it would have sold even half as well.
The only viable future for A-mount would be if it was combined with a movable sensor plane, to adjust the flange distance while keeping the mount itself the same. That way, you could mount whatever lens you wanted to the mount and still use it, allowing Sony to continue poaching existing users of other systems, while allowing it retain the wider calibre of the A-mount and its advantages for certain lenses.
backplane AF ...
Edmund
-
backplane AF ...
Edmund
That's certainly useful in some situations, although using backplane adjustment for AF rather than for correction of flange distance has the disadvantage of altering the magnification of the image, in a similar fashion to bellows factor in a LF camera. Of course, that can be used to advantage too, e.g. For macro photography.
-
i mean, the logical thing for Sony to try and kill next is the lens AF mechanics.
Maybe they need to keep the A mount alive for the extra flange distance it allows (requires), or some other physical parameter which is superior to E mount. It's dumb to kill a mount spec if you can reuse it, all that precision tooling and testing ...
Edmund
-
i mean, the logical thing for Sony to try and kill next is the lens AF mechanics.
Maybe they need to keep the A mount alive for the extra flange distance it allows (requires), or some other physical parameter which is superior to E mount. It's dumb to kill a mount spec if you can reuse it, all that precision tooling and testing ...
Edmund
The advantage of the E-mount isn't the mount itself, but the possibility of a short flange distance, allowing for the use of a much wider variety of lenses. But it's possible to keep the A-mount while shortening the flange distance to allow for the use of lenses with short flange distances, by using a movable sensor (and, with IBIS, the sensor is already movable). Keep the same socket and just move the sensor back and forth, to suit whatever lens is plugged into it - 46.5mm if you're using a Nikon F-mount lens, 44.5mm for A-mount lenses, 44mm for EF-mount lenses, 27.8mm for Leica M-mount lenses and 18mm for E-mount lenses.
Thing is, third-party lens compatibility is vital if Sony is to expand its market share - something that E-mount allows, but a non-movable A-mount would not. Being a latecomer to interchangeable-lens digital stills cameras, most people out there already have a collection of Canon or Nikon lenses they would be very hesitant to abandon in order to switch to Sony, no matter how good they make the cameras. Also, Sony itself does not have the expansive lens collection of either Nikon or Canon, making it much less attractive to newcomers without a pre-existing lens collection (sure, there are some ancient Minolta lenses, but, in the current age of high-resolution sensors, these are more relics of the past than working lenses that would be of interest to photographers investing in a new system). As such, they have to poach Nikon/Canon users and convince them to invest in Sony gear instead. But the need to abandon their existing gear is a huge barrier to switching. E-mount, allowing the use of third-party lenses, mostly removed this barrier. A movable-back A-mount would do much the same.
With regards to moving the sensor for AF as well as for flange distance adjustment, this has the disadvantage of altering the magnification of the image, sometimes to a large degree - for instance, when focusing close, a lens that is nominally 300mm could end up giving the same angle of view as a 240mm lens, or even shorter, if you had to move the sensor much closer to the lens to focus on a nearby object.
-
I received my a7rii today with the option to take a critical look on it till monday. First shots taken from tripod at base iso up to iso 6400 dont show an advantage for noise against the a7r. I would rate them as equallly good.
According to Bill Claff (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm) you should only notice an improvement at ISO640 and above (2/3 of a stop better DR for the A7RII). Near base ISO the A7R is slightly (probably unnoticeably) better.
Jack
-
I certainly meant no ofense, Adrian. In fact I meant nothing personal at all, and certainly no aspersions on your photo prowess. (Very nice work, buy the way.)
My own aesthetic sensibilities don't really come into play either. These shots are obviously not intended to be artistic work.
My real point is that they are not very helpful tests. (Not meaning to single you out, the web is littered with "night for day" tests of the a7s, and will soon be with the a7r.) There is a lot to be learned about how the camera performs in shooting night scenes, astral photography, etc. but I don't see many samples that are helpful in that regard. I'd contribute some myself, but I don't own the camera. (And that's exactly why I'm interested.)
no worries, thanks for clarifying, here you go, hope these help, all hand held, it took about 4-5 shots to get a sharp one at 0,5 seconds but from 6th - 8th second upwards, you can generally get tack sharp fotos hand held at least on the on the 55mm or 17mm (i don't have zooms or teles.) focusing took a while but it is do-able and taking into account that it was night time!
185 = 0,5 sec; f/1,8; ISO 1600; sony 55mm (really pushed in acr)
175 = 0,5 sec; f/1,8; ISO 1600; sony 55mm (really pushed in acr)
148 = 1/30 sec; f/1,8; ISO 1600; sony 55mm (not pushed in acr)
-
I only tried in tungsten light, if there was an advantage it was marginally. I will try in daylight today as well.
-
An interesting view from a Canon forum. It seems to be saying 'nice camera to add to your line up but don't jump ship' (especially at those prices).
http://www.canonwatch.com/
The Sony a7RII is not a pro camera. It’s a consumer camera with pro features (and a pro price).
...
Canon has established an ecosystem that is as much consumer friendly as it is oriented to deliver the best possible service to professional photographers. These things make a huge difference. And it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
...
Don’t get me wrong. The Sony a7RII is an impressive camera and a great piece of technology, stuffed with advanced tech, and an amazing amount of functions and features. It’s just that it appears to be packaged in a product that’s neither fully mature nor really ready to hit the pro market. If the a7RII was software, I would say it’s still at beta level. That’s why I think the a7RII is over-hyped and over-priced. It’s a cool camera but nowhere an issue for the likes of Canon and Nikon. I mean, have a look at Sony’s sensor cleaning mode.
...
-
With regards to moving the sensor for AF as well as for flange distance adjustment, this has the disadvantage of altering the magnification of the image, sometimes to a large degree - for instance, when focusing close, a lens that is nominally 300mm could end up giving the same angle of view as a 240mm lens, or even shorter, if you had to move the sensor much closer to the lens to focus on a nearby object.
You've got it backwards. The sensor is moved farther away from the lens to focus closer resulting in the angle of view of a longer lens, not of a shorter lens. The effect you've described is what happens with an internal-focus lens.
-
I received my a7rii today with the option to take a critical look on it till monday. First shots taken from tripod at base iso up to iso 6400 dont show an advantage for noise against the a7r. I would rate them as equallly good.
If the a7r2 wont be visible better in still mode, for me only remain two advantages ... stabilisation and 1. curtain. It will make it hard for me to decide. I dont shoot videos so i dont care 4k.
Here is a test between the two cameras showing about a 1 stop improvement in the A7R2 at higher ISO.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1381125
-
An interesting view from a Canon forum. It seems to be saying 'nice camera to add to your line up but don't jump ship' (especially at those prices).
http://www.canonwatch.com/
It the increasingly desperate world of traditional DSLR's, the comments you quote are unsurprising.
-
It the increasingly desperate world of traditional DSLR's, the comments you quote are unsurprising.
To frame this in legal lingo "The use of a third party camera with Canon lenses may or may not damage your artistic perception".
Edmund
-
It the increasingly desperate world of traditional DSLR's, the comments you quote are unsurprising.
True. But then I would expect such cynicism from someone who likes the camera ;D
I will admit I am very rarely an 'early adopter' in any technology and I have a fair amount of sympathy with the initial premise in the article that there is an awful lot of hyperbole at the moment surrounding the A7Rii, much of it before the thing is even released. I guess it goes with the territory when you get a groundbreaking model: I last saw this with the E-M5 and it will be interesting to see if the 'cost-benefit' of the Sony plays out in the same way as it did with the Olympus line. We are starting to see comments on where it is (shall we say) 'not so good' so the next few months will be worth watching.
-
True. But then I would expect such cynicism from someone who likes the camera ;D
I will admit I am very rarely an 'early adopter' in any technology and I have a fair amount of sympathy with the initial premise in the article that there is an awful lot of hyperbole at the moment surrounding the A7Rii, much of it before the thing is even released. I guess it goes with the territory when you get a groundbreaking model: I last saw this with the E-M5 and it will be interesting to see if the 'cost-benefit' of the Sony plays out in the same way as it did with the Olympus line. We are starting to see comments on where it is (shall we say) 'not so good' so the next few months will be worth watching.
Don't worry, the next model is coming.
Edmund
-
I think that Canon and Nikon DSLRs have very good system backup. I have heard plenty of praise for Canon service and nothing but grief about Sony service. Concerning camera ergonomics, I can't say anything about the Sony, not having one, but I do think that Canon designs are comfortable in my hands. The sports and wildlife shooters are going to be wedded to the optical viewfinder for a while. I would not be pronouncing the death of DSLRs. The whole point of the broad range of good cameras available today is that there are many users with many preferences. It is great that there are some very happy A7Rii users out there.
At this point I have recognized that I need to invest in my brain more than in the latest and greatest gear.
-
Hi,
I would agree that Canon has good reputation for services, especially with CPS.
Regarding Sony's reputation you are probably right.
A small point to make, a professional service doesn't help you if you are shooting in the Dolomites for a week. The only thing that can save you skin is a backup body. Ideally you would need lenses, too.
Regarding optical viewfinders vs. EVF I would agree, sort of. But, I am pretty sure certain that EVF is where the future is. Now, the question how close that future my be.
I would also say that in many cases the future is right now, but it may take a long time until EVF will be the optimum choice for fast moving action.
The reason I think EVF will reign is that both SLR viewing and EVF intends to provide "what you see is what you get" viewing. SLRs need a lot of moving parts that needs to be in alignment for that. EVF uses the signal from the actual sensor used to make the picture. So, it is in that sense optimal. But, it has a lag, limited brightness etc.
Best regards
Erik
I think that Canon and Nikon DSLRs have very good system backup. I have heard plenty of praise for Canon service and nothing but grief about Sony service. Concerning camera ergonomics, I can't say anything about the Sony, not having one, but I do think that Canon designs are comfortable in my hands. The sports and wildlife shooters are going to be wedded to the optical viewfinder for a while. I would not be pronouncing the death of DSLRs. The whole point of the broad range of good cameras available today is that there are many users with many preferences. It is great that there are some very happy A7Rii users out there.
At this point I have recognized that I need to invest in my brain more than in the latest and greatest gear.
-
Erik,
If you already own Canon, you have a backup for the Sony.
I just wish people put as much effort into thinking about nuclear energy matters as about cameras - it certainly is amusing to see the country with almost the densest use of space, and the highest routine occurrence of earthquakes, rely on the only human engineering product whose failures we cannot predictably contain. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against nuclear energy, I'm against corrupt and lazy idiocy.
Edmund
Hi,
Regarding Sony's reputation you are probably right.
A small point to make, a professional service doesn't help you if you are shooting in the Dolomites for a week. The only thing that can save you skin is a backup body. Ideally you would need lenses, too.
Regarding optical viewfinders vs. EVF I would agree, sort of. But, I am pretty sure certain that EVF is where the future is. Now, the question how close that future my be.
I would also say that in many cases the future is right now, but it may take a long time until EVF will be the optimum choice for fast moving action.
The reason I think EVF will reign is that both SLR viewing and EVF intends to provide "what you see is what you get" viewing. SLRs need a lot of moving parts that needs to be in alignment for that. EVF uses the signal from the actual sensor used to make the picture. So, it is in that sense optimal. But, it has a lag, limited brightness etc.
Best regards
Erik
-
Yes, you need a backup for a pro job or major trip. I was referring to a sense of hassle when dealing with the company repair department. I agree that electronic viewfinders are going to get better. It will take a while before the EVFs are good at high speed panning keeping a small bird under the focus point. I already love magnified Live View for landscapes, tripod macros.
I have to say that the Japanese putting the nuclear reactors back online is rather cringe-inducing.
-
Yes, you need a backup for a pro job or major trip. I was referring to a sense of hassle when dealing with the company repair department. I agree that electronic viewfinders are going to get better. It will take a while before the EVFs are good at high speed panning keeping a small bird under the focus point. I already love magnified Live View for landscapes, tripod macros.
I have to say that the Japanese putting the nuclear reactors back online is rather cringe-inducing.
I expect Sony probably make a pro video camera that can do the panning by itself. And if they don't they have their engineers working on it (sports) :)
Edmund
-
Edmund, I am not sure they would want to pan their own product...
sorry for the pun.
-
An interesting view from a Canon forum. It seems to be saying 'nice camera to add to your line up but don't jump ship' (especially at those prices).
http://www.canonwatch.com/
Yet plenty of pros are using the A7 series. Just not many action/event pros (although there is an increasing number of wedding photographers using it)
The definition of 'pro camera' on SLR forums seems to be so narrow - essentially, cameras that are action-focused and tuned to the needs of event or sports photographers who shoot fast-moving thiings in the dark and don't need to print very large - that many other cameras don't meet their definition of 'pro camera' either. This includes most MF cameras, all medium-format digital backs, scanning backs, any sort of technical camera that requires a lot of fiddling around to do the job, etc.
-
yes, it's the idea that a "pro" is hammering nails with the thing all day long, preferably in an high adrenaline action situation, and in these kind of macho circumstances the nikon and canon "pro" bodies would survive longer. however, i wonder how much of this "pro" need "pro (tank") body is a case of "malborough man" marketing... riding off into the smoke ridden sunset after the bombs and bullets die down... driving into the dust storm savana to hunt lion... into the rugby scrum with the wide angle... it's a concept for most, reality for very few.
-
At this point I have recognized that I need to invest in my brain more than in the latest and greatest gear.
This is good advice for the vast majority of us.
-
yes, it's the idea that a "pro" is hammering nails with the thing all day long, preferably in an high adrenaline action situation, and in these kind of macho circumstances the nikon and canon "pro" bodies would survive longer. however, i wonder how much of this "pro" need "pro (tank") body is a case of "malborough man" marketing... riding off into the smoke ridden sunset after the bombs and bullets die down... driving into the dust storm savana to hunt lion... into the rugby scrum with the wide angle... it's a concept for most, reality for very few.
Not so much about build quality, which is important for a lot of different professional usages - gear needs to be able to handle a certain amount of abuse if you're shooting it in the field, regardless of what you're shooting. More about the relative importance of AF speed (great if you shoot sports, not so important for anything else), the importance of high-ISO performance (great if you shoot events in the dark without flash, not so useful if you sell landscapes or primarily shoot property or fashion) and the unimportance of resolution (not so unimportant if you need to print large or are shooting for advertising, or shooting backdrops and environments for cinema or SFX production).
-
yes, but my point is that how many users need to "capture the falling soldier" or "shoot the pouncing lion?" i would venture that less than 3% of "pro" camera owners. perhaps the concepts of "pro" requirements are more of a marketing myth, which is as we know in our slogan saturated culture, as good as fact.
there again, what do i know, there are a lot of wars right now, not so many lions though...
-
I was initially quite excited by the the Sony a7r2, but I'm not impressed with it's output at all.
-
I was initially quite excited by the the Sony a7r2, but I'm not impressed with it's output at all.
What images are you basing this opinion on? Do you own an a7r II or just pixel peeping online?
-
I was initially quite excited by the the Sony a7r2, but I'm not impressed with it's output at all.
Please elaborate...what exactly in the images does not meet your needs?
-
yes, but my point is that how many users need to "capture the falling soldier" or "shoot the pouncing lion?" i would venture that less than 3% of "pro" camera owners. perhaps the concepts of "pro" requirements are more of a marketing myth, which is as we know in our slogan saturated culture, as good as fact.
there again, what do i know, there are a lot of wars right now, not so many lions though...
Yes, and of course all peaceful photographers who photograph a marriage can transport their stuff in big padded shipping cases, nothing will ever get jostled, and no drunk will spill a drink over their camera, no kid will push the tripod over, and they will never need to go on the beach or see a sandstorm whipped up by wind on a gravel walkway.
"Normal" abuse is hell on what is in effect micrometrically adjusted lab equipment. A "pro" model can usually be dropped in a travel backpack, needs no precaution or babying while travelling, can be left unattended because it won't break if a kid gets hold of it, and will survive exposure to everyday dust and rain while the user is on a trip.
Edmund
-
ha ha, yes, but i honestly don't see that the vast majority of pro models out there ever see such abuse, it's the IDEA of such use that people buy, and therfore NEED a pro model. i suppose i could say that i'm a 'pro,' (though i prefer the word amature) and yes i've dropped a camera bag but i don't belieive the scare-mongering regarding the sony system in the previous post from the canon forum. (i've been using the rx1 since it came out and it's taken a pounding...)
-
ha ha, yes, but i honestly don't see that the vast majority of pro models out there ever see such abuse, it's the IDEA of such use that people buy, and therfore NEED a pro model. i suppose i could say that i'm a 'pro,' (though i prefer the word amature) and yes i've dropped a camera bag but i don't belieive the scare-mongering regarding the sony system in the previous post from the canon forum. (i've been using the rx1 since it came out and it's taken a pounding...)
Almost all cameras *now* made are in fact pro grade, because consumers want to take their stuff to the beach, and the big chain stores sell insurance and cannot afford more than a few percent damage.
Sony have a deserved reputation for making super-light, super-miniaturized, super-sexy consumer stuff that breaks at the slightest provocation, and also a rep here in Europe for a very bad repair service. What is worse is that consumer their stuff is not designed for field repair.
I'm an EE, , and I've been taking stuff apart since when I was a kid. I used to get paid to take laptops apart for computer magazines. When my father was an old guy, one of his only pleasures was listening to the short wave radio. So I bought him an expensive small Sony shortwave receiver. It went on the fritz after a year or so. I took it to a local repair shop in the village, the guy just laughed at me. But I was a local, so he left me his bench, I took the thing apart, fixed it, took it back to my father. The takeapart was really no fun, the thing was a 3D puzzle. It wasn't designed for field repair - that is the Sony culture. I saw this time after time later over the years. Any short wave receiver will end up in strange places and needs to be fixable up to a point, and in fact any German or US device of the time can just be pulled apart, you will often find a circuit diagram glued inside the back cover.
Friend of mine had a game console repair shop in Paris. Impossible to source parts for Playstation (PS1 and PS2) directly from Sony. To the point that when their own demo machines broke they brought them to him for fixing because he improvised spares.
Let's see how these new cameras stand up to actual real-world use. The pro video gear does pretty well.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Roger Ciala at lens rentals has stripped down the A7II: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/the-a7ii-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-new-camera
He seems to be quite impressed by both design and build quality.
But many things can still go wrong and focusing on a 24-70/4 broke down. Sony quoted a ridiculously high price for a repair, so Roger & Co. stripped it down, found the loose part, applied some glue and put it together again. So what Roger said was that the lens was designed for easy repair, but Sony still charged a very large amount. Check here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/tearing-down-the-sony-24-70-f4-za-oss-vario-tessar
Best regards
Erik
Almost all cameras *now* made are in fact pro grade, because consumers want to take their stuff to the beach, and the big chain stores sell insurance and cannot afford more than a few percent damage.
Sony have a deserved reputation for making super-light, super-miniaturized, super-sexy consumer stuff that breaks at the slightest provocation, and also a rep here in Europe for a very bad repair service. What is worse is that consumer their stuff is not designed for field repair.
I'm an EE, , and I've been taking stuff apart since when I was a kid. I used to get paid to take laptops apart for computer magazines. When my father was an old guy, one of his only pleasures was listening to the short wave radio. So I bought him an expensive small Sony shortwave receiver. It went on the fritz after a year or so. I took it to a local repair shop in the village, the guy just laughed at me. But I was a local, so he left me his bench, I took the thing apart, fixed it, took it back to my father. The takeapart was really no fun, the thing was a 3D puzzle. It wasn't designed for field repair - that is the Sony culture. I saw this time after time later over the years. Any short wave receiver will end up in strange places and needs to be fixable up to a point, and in fact any German or US device of the time can just be pulled apart, you will often find a circuit diagram glued inside the back cover.
Friend of mine had a game console repair shop in Paris. Impossible to source parts for Playstation (PS1 and PS2) directly from Sony. To the point that when their own demo machines broke they brought them to him for fixing because he improvised spares.
Let's see how these new cameras stand up to actual real-world use. The pro video gear does pretty well.
Edmund
-
After getting over my initial impression, which expected a larger step forward in image quality (compared to the a7r1) i decided to buy the a7r2 and not to give it back on monday.
The bundle of features it adds are enough to spend some money.
Now i tested the continius eye focus mode and i have to say it works great. Although not in my field of work, its certainly nice to have it!
Same about 42mp. Its not much more than the a7r, but 20% it is.
Silent shooting mode is great, same about 1.curtain.
The stabilisation works fine, although i dont reach times as many other users claim. I would say it improves for 1-2 stops the lower times. Ofcourse more is possible, but my hit rate falls to much.
1 stop better hi iso performance, for me not very important and even i am not sure if this becomes visible, my own tests dont show that so clear ...
but overall i will add the a7r2 to my bag and i will still holding the 7r and my leaf afi10 together with the artec.
Especially for use on my drone the 200 gramm more from the new camera exceed the 5kilo limit with many lenses i use, so i will buy some smaller batteries which save this 200 grams and use the a7rii only when i'll need the benefits of its stabilisation for the price to fly shorter.
4k video might be nice, but i dont do videos and i am even less interested than one or two years ago, when everybody mentioned we 'have' to go in it. Its funny, cause in my field of photography it looks like none is interested after the initial hype , or specialized guys are doing this.
-
Yes, and of course all peaceful photographers who photograph a marriage can transport their stuff in big padded shipping cases, nothing will ever get jostled, and no drunk will spill a drink over their camera, no kid will push the tripod over, and they will never need to go on the beach or see a sandstorm whipped up by wind on a gravel walkway.
"Normal" abuse is hell on what is in effect micrometrically adjusted lab equipment. A "pro" model can usually be dropped in a travel backpack, needs no precaution or babying while travelling, can be left unattended because it won't break if a kid gets hold of it, and will survive exposure to everyday dust and rain while the user is on a trip.
Edmund
Really...a "PRO" body never breaks. Tell that to the photographer next to me that dropped his 1dx onto the floor and broke the lens mount.
-
ha ha, yes, but i honestly don't see that the vast majority of pro models out there ever see such abuse, it's the IDEA of such use that people buy, and therfore NEED a pro model. i suppose i could say that i'm a 'pro,' (though i prefer the word amature) and yes i've dropped a camera bag but i don't belieive the scare-mongering regarding the sony system in the previous post from the canon forum. (i've been using the rx1 since it came out and it's taken a pounding...)
Exact same mentality with needing a 4 wheel drive SUV in the city...it's tough if I'll ever get into tough conditions.
-
Exact same mentality with needing a 4 wheel drive SUV in the city...it's tough if I'll ever get into tough conditions.
I think the A7R2 was made exactly for you. No superfluous weather sealing or other frills. You'll love it.
After the disassembly images, I would call it more of an engineering demonstration than a real world camera :)
Edmund
-
I think the A7R2 was made exactly for you. No superfluous weather sealing or other frills. You'll love it.
After the disassembly images, I would call it more of an engineering demonstration than a real world camera :)
Edmund
What's a real world camera? I have a very nice 4x5 field camera that produces amazing results...is that real world? What about the 7d2...real world? How about the 5d2...the wedding camera of choice back in it's day...the one that ceased up on me from mist off of a waterfall...is it real world?
-
no worries, thanks for clarifying, here you go, hope these help, all hand held, it took about 4-5 shots to get a sharp one at 0,5 seconds but from 6th - 8th second upwards, you can generally get tack sharp fotos hand held at least on the on the 55mm or 17mm (i don't have zooms or teles.) focusing took a while but it is do-able and taking into account that it was night time!
185 = 0,5 sec; f/1,8; ISO 1600; sony 55mm (really pushed in acr)
175 = 0,5 sec; f/1,8; ISO 1600; sony 55mm (really pushed in acr)
148 = 1/30 sec; f/1,8; ISO 1600; sony 55mm (not pushed in acr)
Thank you for these. They really are interesting. The third one especially, with the light also in the shot. That's a huge challenge when light gets this low. I don't think we're "there" yet, but I don't know anything that'll do this shot better at the moment. Seems very much on par with the a7s here, and that's saying a lot at this resolution. And the lens acquits itself especially nicely in that scene.
I'm curious to know how much sky light you were perceiving in all of these. They read as toward the very end of civil twilight. Was there any sky light perceptible at all? Or was it just plain night to the eye?
-
What's a real world camera? I have a very nice 4x5 field camera that produces amazing results...is that real world? What about the 7d2...real world? How about the 5d2...the wedding camera of choice back in it's day...the one that ceased up on me from mist off of a waterfall...is it real world?
A good test is to see whether the shop will sell you cheap accident replacement insurance.
The 7d2 is probably one of the toughest cameras Canon makes. Canon had to toughen all their prosumer cameras when they noticed that the pros were so poor they couldn't afford the EOS-1 range anymore.
Edmund
-
Just counting numbers, our studios spends more on drives and storage in two months than the price of a new 5d or RII.
Coots,
Off-topic, I know, but with your kind of throughput, how do you backup your drives off-site ?
M
-
Thank you for these. They really are interesting. The third one especially, with the light also in the shot. That's a huge challenge when light gets this low. I don't think we're "there" yet, but I don't know anything that'll do this shot better at the moment. Seems very much on par with the a7s here, and that's saying a lot at this resolution. And the lens acquits itself especially nicely in that scene.
I'm curious to know how much sky light you were perceiving in all of these. They read as toward the very end of civil twilight. Was there any sky light perceptible at all? Or was it just plain night to the eye?
the ,5 second exposures are full on nightime, no perceivable light whatsoever. the portrait is a bit deceiving as far as the sky goes, it was a slightly darker as the village in tha background was fully illuminated by this time.
-
.. to add some more initial thoughts to the a7rii :
focus with canon lenses is much poorer than i expected and than many others commented.
I dont own many af canon glass, but the few ones i have dont work well. Its the 85/1,8, the 80-200/4 is and the 100-400 i tried. With all three i seem to have bad luck, with the metabones4 ( with newest fw ) they are very slo focussing or seraching forth and back.
I have two nice contax lenses with techart af adapters, a 45 and 90mm. They didnt work very well on the a7r1, on the a7r2 both work somehow better, but still far away for the native emount lenses. These focus very good now, as i described already.
-
.. to add some more initial thoughts to the a7rii :
focus with canon lenses is much poorer than i expected and than many others commented.
I dont own many af canon glass, but the few ones i have dont work well. Its the 85/1,8, the 80-200/4 is and the 100-400 i tried. With all three i seem to have bad luck, with the metabones4 ( with newest fw ) they are very slo focussing or seraching forth and back.
I have two nice contax lenses with techart af adapters, a 45 and 90mm. They didnt work very well on the a7r1, on the a7r2 both work somehow better, but still far away for the native emount lenses. These focus very good now, as i described already.
It seems to work well with newer lenses, not so much older ones. 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85/1.2 II, etc. all work well.
-
J,
The A7RII is a nice product, decently priced for its allround abilities. Although I am a natural sceptic, I don't know where you found a comment from me on price, I cannot remember talking about price, however I don't like 17 mainboard flexes and a mechanical stabiliser that is not weather sealed, but then I am old - what was I saying just now?
Now, as regards the general photo market, I usually get my numbers from the people who know the numbers. I ask, they tell. Sourcing and crosschecking is something journalists know how to do. The interchangeable lens still camera market is falling. But everybody knows that. (http://www.statista.com/statistics/264382/shipments-of-digital-cameras-with-an-interchangeable-lens-by-destination/) The cheap compact camera market is not worth talking about anymore.
My *personal* interpretation of the numbers FOR PRO CAMERAS is that there has been and continues to be a concentration phenomenon in the stills market. A lot of the staff photographer / PJ positions are disappearing in print media, and the *top* advertising earners getting more of the advertising pie. *You* would be one of the beneficiaries of this concentration, thanks to your talent and your ability to service several international markets. As for the little guys, the last marriage I went to, in one of the most expensive suburbs in Paris, the local town hall, "Mairie", simply switched on their built-in lights and recording equipment and handed over a video disk, for free. "Thank you for living here!"
There is an uptick in video. It is now routine to see some sort of camera set up to record meetings - see above- and that means a lot of sales. However when it comes to video *production* I am not so sure that anyone can figure out whether there is a winner apart from Gopro. The kids seem to use anything they can get their hands on. Maybe you have an opinion?
Edmund
Edmund,
I can appreciate some of your comments, but I think you tend to lean towards the negative.
I don't think your involved in commercial production or maybe your getting your information from the wrong people.
Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Working professionals can and do spend on equipment. The A7rII is a good example. It's a thousand more than the previous version and I've seen no one complain about the price.
Just counting numbers, our studios spends more on drives and storage in two months than the price of a new 5d or RII.
The reason the Canon 5d cameras are used so often is Canon, like Nikon decided to keep their more robust cameras down in megapixels and focus on sports photographers.
Also I assume both Nikon and Canon ran the numbers and decided it was better to sell more cameras (not necessarily to professionals, but aspiring amateurs) by increasing the pixel count in the prosumer versions, rather than the 1ds series or D4 Nikons.
Also most professionals don't jump anymore every time a new camera is announced as we are pulled in a lot of ways, towards software, some of us shoot motion, consequently hmi lighting, new camera supports, a new learning curve and skill set.
Yes the professional content world has taken a hit, mostly producing more in a day than we did historically in 3 days, but that's not the photography industry, that's most industries.
Professional production, either on set or in pre/post is still expensive. Actually it's not a financial hit as much as it is a change how the advertising industry works, which as we know is now multiple use much of it going towards web and social based placement.
BC
-
.. to add some more initial thoughts to the a7rii :
focus with canon lenses is much poorer than i expected and than many others commented.
I dont own many af canon glass, but the few ones i have dont work well. Its the 85/1,8, the 80-200/4 is and the 100-400 i tried. With all three i seem to have bad luck, with the metabones4 ( with newest fw ) they are very slo focussing or seraching forth and back.
I have two nice contax lenses with techart af adapters, a 45 and 90mm. They didnt work very well on the a7r1, on the a7r2 both work somehow better, but still far away for the native emount lenses. These focus very good now, as i described already.
Rainer,
Those are the reasons why I won't be buying an A7RII. I've got a bunch of Canon glass which is currently redundant, just sitting on the shelf. I'd like to use these lenses with a high-resolution, high-DR sensor. The Canon 5DSR was initially an attractive option.
My only full-frame Canon body is the original 5D. An upgrade from 13mp to 50mp, including all the other nice features of the 5DSR which the 5D lacks, would be really worthwhile, except that my new standard is now the performance of the Nikon D800E. The increase in resolution from 36mp to 50mp is not nearly as significant, in my opinion, as the loss of over 2 stops of DR, comparing the 5DSR with the D800E.
In general, whenever I make a decision to upgrade my camera equipment, such decisions have to relate in some respects to some sort of dissatisfaction I've experienced with my current equipment and the resulting images during and after processing. I never buy something simply because it's the latest and greatest.
I've already had the experience of trying to use the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 zoom with adapter on my Canon 5D. The difficulties I experienced resulted in my buying a Nikon D700, mainly in order to get better functionality with that superb Nikkor zoom. That was the beginning of my switch from Canon to Nikon.
After reading so many reports of the lack of full functionality with so many Canon lenses on the A7RII, I would contemplate buying that camera for use only with a native, E-mount lens. Such a lens would have to address in some way the dissatisfaction I've experienced with my existing lenses, without introducing further dissatisfaction in other respects, such as excessive cost, bulk, weight and inconvenience.
The sort of lens that could fit the bill is the Sony 24-240, if it were sharper, because it has a useful range that I don't currently have among any of my Nikon or Canon lenses. However, introducing further dissatisfaction of the nature of soft edges and corners in the frame, and perhaps unacceptable softness at the long end, if that is the case, would be like taking one step forward and another step backward. What's the point? ;)
-
Rainer,
Those are the reasons why I won't be buying an A7RII. I've got a bunch of Canon glass which is currently redundant, just sitting on the shelf. I'd like to use these lenses with a high-resolution, high-DR sensor. The Canon 5DSR was initially an attractive option.
My only full-frame Canon body is the original 5D. An upgrade from 13mp to 50mp, including all the other nice features of the 5DSR which the 5D lacks, would be really worthwhile, except that my new standard is now the performance of the Nikon D800E. The increase in resolution from 36mp to 50mp is not nearly as significant, in my opinion, as the loss of over 2 stops of DR, comparing the 5DSR with the D800E.
In general, whenever I make a decision to upgrade my camera equipment, such decisions have to relate in some respects to some sort of dissatisfaction I've experienced with my current equipment and the resulting images during and after processing. I never buy something simply because it's the latest and greatest.
I've already had the experience of trying to use the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 zoom with adapter on my Canon 5D. The difficulties I experienced resulted in my buying a Nikon D700, mainly in order to get better functionality with that superb Nikkor zoom. That was the beginning of my switch from Canon to Nikon.
After reading so many reports of the lack of full functionality with so many Canon lenses on the A7RII, I would contemplate buying that camera for use only with a native, E-mount lens. Such a lens would have to address in some way the dissatisfaction I've experienced with my existing lenses, without introducing further dissatisfaction in other respects, such as excessive cost, bulk, weight and inconvenience.
The sort of lens that could fit the bill is the Sony 24-240, if it were sharper, because it has a useful range that I don't currently have among any of my Nikon or Canon lenses. However, introducing further dissatisfaction of the nature of soft edges and corners in the frame, and perhaps unacceptable softness at the long end, if that is the case, would be like taking one step forward and another step backward. What's the point? ;)
How badly do you need AF? What do you mainly shoot?
Most of the things I shoot barely move, and often benefit from critical focus I wouldn't entrust to AF anyway. I was in the same position, with a stable of Canon glass and no decent resolution/IQ body to put them on.
For me, Canon lacks a sensor, Nikon lacks lenses (either native or mounted via an adapter - there are some standouts, but their tilt-shifts, 70-200 and 80-400, for example, are not in the same calibre as their Canon equivalents) and Sony lacks AF. Since the majority of what I shoot is very demanding of image quality (hence the need for a good sensor and sharp lenses) but doesn't move, it was an easy decision to sacrifice AF and get the A7r.
For the times I need AF (chiefly wildlife with long telephotos) it's easy enough to keep a Canon body on the side just for that purpose. But that's no reason to stick with Canon for everything else too, when the image quality falls short for many of the things I shoot, or to switch to Nikon and retain AF ability, but lose the ability to use the best lenses available.
-
It seems to work well with newer lenses, not so much older ones. 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85/1.2 II, etc. all work well.
my 70-200/4 is usm doesnt work well.
But the af of the a7rii is so good, i am thinking to buy these batis 25 and 85mm lenses as well. eye af is just addictive ... they made a really good job for their business i think.
-
my 70-200/4 is usm doesnt work well.
But the af of the a7rii is so good, i am thinking to buy these batis 25 and 85mm lenses as well. eye af is just addictive ... they made a really good job for their business i think.
I'm not sure what to make of the Batis.
It's still a good lens, but a far cry from what it might have been - just like the 55/1.8. It seems that, like everything else to do with mirrorless, Zeiss's usual exemplary optics have been sacrificed, to a degree, in the name of small size and light weight.
I'd have preferred an E-mount Otus - impeccable image quality, and as large as it needs to be in order to achieve that, with no apologies to the small/cheap/lightweight crowd. We have enough small/cheap/lightweight lenses already - we need some lenses that can match SLR lenses in all aspects of performance, if mirrorless is ever to be taken seriously as an SLR replacement.
-
How badly do you need AF? What do you mainly shoot?
I'm a peripatetic type of photographer. Fast and accurate AF is important for me, as in the following shot which I took recently whilst walking around an island beach off the Thai seaside resort of Krabi. The lady was posing or showing off her acrobatic skills for the benefit of someone else, her boyfriend or trainer perhaps, when I happened to be walking by. I had an opportunity lasting about 2 or 3 seconds to raise my camera and take the shot. ;)
-
cant see why the 55/1,8 or 35/2,8 wouldnt match any slr counterpart lenses so far.
the batis i havent tested, what i was seeing in the net they look very good.
-
the 55/1.8 is easily the best 50 i've used, and i've been through leica pre and post asph, the latest nikon g's, zeiss zf & 50mm equivalents in other formats hasselblad, schnieder, fuji etc... haven't tried the otis or whatever it's called but it seems like it's the only competion and dxo put them a hare's-breath apart...
-
I'm a peripatetic type of photographer. Fast and accurate AF is important for me, as in the following shot which I took recently whilst walking around an island beach off the Thai seaside resort of Krabi. The lady was posing or showing off her acrobatic skills for the benefit of someone else, her boyfriend or trainer perhaps, when I happened to be walking by. I had an opportunity lasting about 2 or 3 seconds to raise my camera and take the shot. ;)
Fair enough.
Did the 5D2 work for you? A7rII with Canon 24-70 II or 70-200 II is at least as fast as the 5D2, and more accurate, especially when not using the centre point.
If not (i.e. if you need D810 or 5D3-level AF), then you might need to wait for the A9, or the next generation Sony mirrorless, for AF with third-party lenses to be viable.
-
Fair enough.
Did the 5D2 work for you? A7rII with Canon 24-70 II or 70-200 II is at least as fast as the 5D2, and more accurate, especially when not using the centre point.
If not (i.e. if you need D810 or 5D3-level AF), then you might need to wait for the A9, or the next generation Sony mirrorless, for AF with third-party lenses to be viable.
The 5D2 was one of the worst focus offenders in recent times, IMHO. It had a lot going for it, but not the focus. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.
Let's try and use something else as a benchmark, ok?
Edmund
-
The 5D2 was one of the worst focus offenders in recent times, IMHO. It had a lot going for it, but not the focus. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.
Let's try and use something else as a benchmark, ok?
Edmund
That's why I'm using it as a benchmark - it's pretty much the bottom limit of usability for an SLR. It's fine for portraits and day-to-day shooting of things that don't move much - just not for any sort of action (including slow action). If you managed with the 5D2, you'll manage with the A7rII. Not to say the AF is good, by any sort of absolute standard.
-
That's why I'm using it as a benchmark - it's pretty much the bottom limit of usability for an SLR. It's fine for portraits and day-to-day shooting of things that don't move much - just not for any sort of action (including slow action). If you managed with the 5D2, you'll manage with the A7rII. Not to say the AF is good, by any sort of absolute standard.
Yes, and then you can inform people that the A7RII is a quantum leap above the 5D2 - if they protest you can remind them that a quantum is the smallest discernible difference :)
Edmund
-
Fair enough.
Did the 5D2 work for you? A7rII with Canon 24-70 II or 70-200 II is at least as fast as the 5D2, and more accurate, especially when not using the centre point.
If not (i.e. if you need D810 or 5D3-level AF), then you might need to wait for the A9, or the next generation Sony mirrorless, for AF with third-party lenses to be viable.
I never progressed to the 5D2. My most-used lens at that time was the Sigma 15-30. The Nikkor 14-24 was so much better, I thought it deserved its own body, so I bought the Nikon D700, which seemed tremendous value at the time considering it had approximately the same performance as the much heralded and much more expensive Nikon D3.
For a while I was using two systems, the D700 with 14-24 zoom permanently attached, and the Canon 50D with whatever Canon lens I though appropriate. When the cropped-format D7000 became available, I was so impressed with its wide DR and the potential freedom from all concerns about ETTR, I decided to buy it, together with the Nikkor 24-120/F4 zoom.
I still used my 50D for a while, especially with the Canon 100-400 IS, but when I later bought the upgraded Nikon 80-400 G lens, and a couple of good primes such as the Sigma Art 35/1.4 and Nikkor 85/1.8, and of course the D800E as soon as it became available, the 50D and all my Canon glass became completely redundant.
Having recently dunked my D800E in salt water at the beach, whilst attempting to jump over a stream flowing into the sea, I'm now in the market for a new full-frame body. The A7RII with its potential to work with both Canon and Nikon glass, at first seemed the ideal candidate. However, after reading all these stories about problems with adapters, and the advice from Metabones that Canon lenses designed before 2006 might not work with their adapter, I think that a D81O is a better option for me, considering my circumstances.
Another option is simply to wait a while to see what developments take place. I think I can survive without a full-frame body, for a short time at least. ;)
-
I think I can survive without a full-frame body, for a short time at least. ;)
Beware of withdrawal symptoms.
BTW, I traded my 5D2 for an old 1Ds3 and find it incredibly good except it tops out around 1600 ISO. A friend of mine still uses a 1Ds2, and "Cooter" agrees that even the old 1Ds would still be commercially viable for a lot of work. I tested my 1Ds recently too, and found it was ok, it runs out of pixels, but those it has sure look good if you watch the exposure. Those old "pro"cameras have incredibly fast focus, and never die, unless you blow the shutter. You could try the pro shops, if you get one that was owned by a doctor or a dentist and has a low shutter count, you're happy. I think D3's are selling for peanuts these days.
Edmund
-
..
-
Hah! hah! hah! ;D Good point, Slobodan.
-
Beware of withdrawal symptoms.
BTW, I traded my 5D2 for an old 1Ds3 and find it incredibly good except it tops out around 1600 ISO. A friend of mine still uses a 1Ds2, and "Cooter" agrees that even the old 1Ds would still be commercially viable for a lot of work. I tested my 1Ds recently too, and found it was ok, it runs out of pixels, but those it has sure look good if you watch the exposure. Those old "pro"cameras have incredibly fast focus, and never die, unless you blow the shutter. You could try the pro shops, if you get one that was owned by a doctor or a dentist and has a low shutter count, you're happy. I think D3's are selling for peanuts these days.
Edmund
Edmund,
My fascination is with increased detail in conjunction with increased dynamic range, provided there are no negatives such as exorbitant cost, reduced manageability, and excessive weight and bulk.
It's all a balancing act. At the current stage of technological development, my ideal camera has the megapixels of the 5DSR with the DR of a D810 , the feature of 4k video, and the availability of adapters that provide full functionality with all Canon and Nikon lenses.
That's not too much to ask, is it? ;)
-
Edmund,
My fascination is with increased detail in conjunction with increased dynamic range, provided there are no negatives such as exorbitant cost, reduced manageability, and excessive weight and bulk.
It's all a balancing act. At the current stage of technological development, my ideal camera has the megapixels of the 5DSR with the DR of a D810 , the feature of 4k video, and the availability of adapters that provide full functionality with all Canon and Nikon lenses.
That's not too much to ask, is it? ;)
And it needs to be made out of sterling unobtainium :)
Edmund
-
And it needs to be made out of sterling unobtainium :)
Edmund
I disagree. The technology and capacity exists to produce what I want. The problem lies in the competitive, economic sphere.
-
I disagree. The technology and capacity exists to produce what I want. The problem lies in the competitive, economic sphere.
Well, it has almost been produced, see the A7IIR. Of course, if you also want perfect focus with Canon glass you'll have to wait another 5 years :)
-
how did photography work before lightning fast face recognising auto focus?
;-)
-
how did photography work before lightning fast face recognising auto focus?
;-)
Face recognition is for snap shooters and egotistical selfies. I don't need it. What I want is a single, movable square in the viewfinder, and a button to press which autofocuses the lens on the subject covered by the single square.
Does the A7RII have such a feature for all lenses that fit, with or without an adapter? If not, then another 'thumbs down'. >:(
-
Face recognition is for snap shooters and egotistical selfies. I don't need it. What I want is a single, movable square in the viewfinder, and a button to press which autofocuses the lens on the subject covered by the single square.
Does the A7RII have such a feature for all lenses that fit, with or without an adapter? If not, then another 'thumbs down'. >:(
Heck, the Nex6 already has that. A gimmick if you ask me, but I am used to focusing manually or focus and recompose, well understanding its limitations. Yeah, there were very good perfectly focused shots well before AF. :)
-
Face recognition is for snap shooters and egotistical selfies. I don't need it. What I want is a single, movable square in the viewfinder, and a button to press which autofocuses the lens on the subject covered by the single square.
Does the A7RII have such a feature for all lenses that fit, with or without an adapter? If not, then another 'thumbs down'. >:(
Depends what you're willing to sacrifice. At present, Canon has the lenses and the AF, but not the sensor. Nikon has the sensor and the AF, but not the lenses. Sony has the sensor and the lenses (by way of adapters) but not the AF. Sigma is the wildcard, since it produces AF-capable lenses that are equally good on any body, negating Nikon's lens weakness in certain focal lengths.
For most of what I shoot (I consider my wildlife gear a completely separate kit, in terms of bodies, lenses and accessories, e.g. gimbal mounts), AF comes a distant last behind DR, resolution and lens sharpness/aberrations, all of which directly impact on image quality. If it can accurately lock onto a nonmoving subject for the times when I need to handhold and can't conveniently focus by zooming in and using live view, that's good enough for 95% of what I do with AF. A Canon camera with a Sony sensor, or a Nikon camera with an EF mount, would be a dream camera, but, since neither of those is likely, a Sony body capable of using Canon lenses (as well as almost any other lens) is the next best thing. And Sony third-party AF can only get better - it's already come leaps and bounds from the first iteration of A7 cameras, and, in two generations or so, I'd expect it to be functionally indistinguishable from native Canon AF (viewfinder lag being a completely separate issue that would require a faster, more power-hungry processor and a larger battery to fix).
-
Essentially, the A7r/A7rII has created a race between Sony and Canon for a large group of customers, centred around former 5D2 and 1D3s users - those for whom IQ is paramount, but who would also like some functionality (e.g. AF) in the camera. Many migrated to the D800e/D810, but many more either have a large stable of Canon lenses, or certain Canon-specific lenses (usually tilt-shifts, or the MP-E 65, or supertelephotos) which they are unwilling to give up.
The race is between Canon developing a better sensor (in terms of low-ISO DR, which is the main reason many photographers in certain categories have migrated away from Canon) and Sony developing AF which can quickly and accurately focus using third-party glass. 'Third-party glass' being the key - without the ability to use Canon glass, the A7r would likely never have gotten off the ground in the first place, since Sony doesn't have the same sort of glass collection as Canon, and, even if it did, the photographers in play in this race are already largely wedded to Canon lenses already (the 5D2 having been a huge success attracting millions of photographers to Canon, or to digital for the first time). If Canon wins, they get the 5D2 users back. If Sony wins, they split open the crack that they've already produced in Canon's user base and take over this large segment of photographers (who will probably also buy more and more Sony glass as its collection develops and becomes competitive with Canon), leaving Canon with just the high-speed action crowd.
Nikon is the big loser in all of this - unless they can update their lens collection to be the equal to Canon's, including specialty lenses, they will lose market share whether Canon develops a new sensor and photographers migrate back (and stop moving to the D750/D810) or Sony wins and a Sony body with third-party glass (superior to Nikon's) becomes just as functional, in terms of AF and other areas, as the D810 and its successor bodies. Needless to say, Metabones is the big winner in the meantime. And Canon wins in terms of lenses regardless who wins the sensor/body battle, since Canon lenses are the generally-preferred lenses in each case.
-
Well actually I prefer the FE lenses. Between them and my A mount there isn't much I don't have that I need. Throw in some RF, some Minolta MD, Contax CY and OM manual focus lenses when I'm so inclined and who needs Canon ?
Good enough is a lot cheaper than the self appointed Critics Choice.
-
Depends what you're willing to sacrifice.
Why should I make sacrifices? I don't upgrade in order to make sacrifices. When I buy a new camera, I expect every useful feature in the old camera to be maintained in the new camera, in addition to any new features such as increased resolution and dynamic range, increased autofocus accuracy and increased frame rate, to quote just a few parameters.
If I happen to own a particular Canon lens which I consider good, and I use it on an A7RII with adapter, and find that it's not as good in certain respects as I'm used to, then I have to ask myself, if I'd initially read reports that the lens performed like this on the Canon bodies that I own, would I have bought the lens in the first instance.
The answer is a definite 'no'.
-
Well actually I prefer the FE lenses. Between them and my A mount there isn't much I don't have that I need. Throw in some RF, some Minolta MD, Contax CY and OM manual focus lenses when I'm so inclined and who needs Canon ?
Good enough is a lot cheaper than the self appointed Critics Choice.
You'd be the minority - there's no way the A7 series would have been so successful if they could only be used with Sony lenses and weren't compatible with Canon (and other) lenses via adapters. Many users need lenses which are critically sharp (which some of the FE lenses are) and/or wide aperture (which they are not, at least in comparison to SLR lenses), or need focal lengths and other lens features not available with FE-mount lenses.
The lens selection would be much improved if and when Sigma decides to make their Art and Sport lenses in an E-mount, in addition to EF, Nikon, A-mount and Sigma mount (why they even bother with the last one is beyond me).
-
Why should I make sacrifices? I don't upgrade in order to make sacrifices. When I buy a new camera, I expect every useful feature in the old camera to be maintained in the new camera, in addition to any new features such as increased resolution and dynamic range, increased autofocus accuracy and increased frame rate, to quote just a few parameters.
If I happen to own a particular Canon lens which I consider good, and I use it on an A7RII with adapter, and find that it's not as good in certain respects as I'm used to, then I have to ask myself, if I'd initially read reports that the lens performed like this on the Canon bodies that I own, would I have bought the lens in the first instance.
The answer is a definite 'no'.
You're always making a sacrifice, no matter which body you go with.
If you stick with Canon, you're sacrificing IQ but retaining AF. If you go with Sony, you're sacrificing AF but getting better IQ. If you go with Nikon, you get both, but can't use your lens.
Which one do you need more - IQ or AF?
-
I have one (or two...) question around the A7RII that I've not seen addressed...
When shooting on a tripod with Canon cameras I use "Live View" and move the focus point around using the joystick to pick out what I want to focus on quite deliberately (I can approximate distance to the camera, depth of field, aperture, etc) rather than relying on the camera picking the correct element in the view finder (or even just the middle AF box) to focus on.
Is it possible to work in the same manner with the A7RII?[/quote[
Yes, you can use CDAF with Canon lenses on the A7rII, but why would you? Unlike Canon, you have PDAF available while on live view (or using the EVF). This is far faster than CDAF - and, since the AF sensor is on the same plane as the image sensor, there is no inaccuracy due to misalignment (i.e. no need for AF microadjustment with on-sensor PDAF).
If so, does the A7RII autofocus well (using CDAF?) in this situation with metabones + Canon lenses?
CDAF is accurate but slow. If you need speed, you'd be using PDAF. If you have time to use CDAF, you also have time to focus manually.
-
CDAF is accurate but slow. If you need speed, you'd be using PDAF. If you have time to use CDAF, you also have time to focus manually.
Indeed but the camera is a machine made to autofocus so why should I do it?
I just want to tell it what I want to focus on (using joystick) and let the machine do the rest.
Whether it is CDAF or PDAF, I don't care.
I just want to be able to select anything (or close to) on the live view screen on which to focus. I don't want my selection of object to focus on to be limited by where the camera maker decided to put autofocus sensors (sic).
-
Indeed but the camera is a machine made to autofocus so why should I do it?
Cars are also made with automatic transmission, but sometimes you still do it manually.
Cameras also have green box mode, but most of the time you still shoot in either M or Av mode.
You use manual settings because they can give you better results or more control than a dumb computer.
I just want to tell it what I want to focus on (using joystick) and let the machine do the rest.
You can. But, if you use CDAF, it will be slow.
Whether it is CDAF or PDAF, I don't care.
I just want to be able to select anything (or close to) on the live view screen on which to focus. I don't want my selection of object to focus on to be limited by where the camera maker decided to put autofocus sensors (sic).
Then you may as well get used to slow-as-molasses CDAF. Because no PDAF system, on any camera, can give you what you want.
-
Hi,
CDAF needs lenses that can do small and rapid focusing movements. Canon's lenses are intended to be used with phase detection. The new Sony use both phase detection and contrast detection, but the phase detection is probably limited when comparing with external devices used DSLRs.
Sony purpose builds their lenses for their cameras. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that Canon Lenses will work excellently using third party adapters on a Sony camera.
Just to say, my major problem with the A7rII is getting one delivered.
Best regards
Erik
Indeed but the camera is a machine made to autofocus so why should I do it?
I just want to tell it what I want to focus on (using joystick) and let the machine do the rest.
Whether it is CDAF or PDAF, I don't care.
I just want to be able to select anything (or close to) on the live view screen on which to focus. I don't want my selection of object to focus on to be limited by where the camera maker decided to put autofocus sensors (sic).
-
Sigh, I didn't ask about using live view for autofocus with a view to being told to use PDAF instead or for analogies involving cars. Seriously, I'm perfectly happy with my workflow when shooting from a tripod. It works well for me, what more could I ask for?
All that I want(ed) to know is if the same method that is available with Canon's DSLRs (live view, CDAF) will work on the A7RII using adapter + Canon lenses. I don't care how slow it is or if something else is faster.
-
Sigh, I didn't ask about using live view for autofocus with a view to being told to use PDAF instead or for analogies involving cars. Seriously, I'm perfectly happy with my workflow when shooting from a tripod. It works well for me, what more could I ask for?
All that I want(ed) to know is if the same method that is available with Canon's DSLRs (live view, CDAF) will work on the A7RII using adapter + Canon lenses. I don't care how slow it is or if something else is faster.
You asked if it autofocuses 'well' using CDAF.
Nothing autofocuses 'well' using CDAF at the moment - camera processors just aren't fast or powerful enough. CDAF focuses accurately, but is so slow that you can focus just as accurately (and on the spot you want to focus on) and more quickly by zooming in and focusing manually.
-
You're always making a sacrifice, no matter which body you go with.
Not me. Sacrifices are for religious fanatics. ;)
As I've mentioned, I progressively moved to the Nikon system, continuing to use my Canon 50D to achieve any effect I could not achieve with the D700 and D7000, until I finally acquired a range of Nikkor focal lengths that equalled my Canon range of lenses, plus a Nikon body (the D800E) that exceeded the quality of any Canon body currently available.
If Canon were to produce a 36mp body that equalled in every respect the performance of the D800E, I would have insufficient reason to buy it. The A7RII at least has the advantage IBIS, 4k video and BSI. I have a number of Canon lenses which don't have IS, and at some point in the future I shall probably buy a 4k UHD TV set. ;)
However, to be perfectly frank, I do have some Canon lenses that have certain features that none of my Nikkor lenses have, such as a rather sharp 60mm macro lens, and a few tilt & shift lenses (17, 24 and 90mm). The tilt and shift lenses were mistaken purchases. I imagined they would be useful, but the reality is I rarely used them.
-
The real problem with Sony consumer is that usually the make a bunch of innovative hi-tech models of something, release new versions at carousel speed to new adopters, feed on the novelty/fashion premium, and then dump the product line as soon as it is not bleeding edge. They did this with PCs. Fragile throwaway high-tech style is their thing. It's their corporate DNA.
When I was living in Japan, Sony had incredibly small sexy laptops. But the mantra among computer journalists -who really like laptops- was don't buy a Sony, it'll fail as soon as it is out of warranty. And then there was the super-cynical "You never see an old Sony product". (because it broke and got chucked).
The stuff sold abroad usually goes through a toughening process, and is a bit more solid; also Sony does have some pro stuff which is built to last.
Edmund
-
Nothing autofocuses 'well' using CDAF at the moment - camera processors just aren't fast or powerful enough. CDAF focuses accurately, but is so slow that you can focus just as accurately (and on the spot you want to focus on) and more quickly by zooming in and focusing manually.
Sorry but unless you're referring only to SLRs in live view mode this is so false it's not even wrong. :o
-Dave-
-
The real problem with Sony consumer is that usually the make a bunch of innovative hi-tech models of something, release new versions at carousel speed to new adopters, feed on the novelty/fashion premium, and then dump the product line as soon as it is not bleeding edge. They did this with PCs. Fragile throwaway high-tech style is their thing. It's their corporate DNA.
...
Sony used to make CRT televisions and portable music players that would last forever.
I don't buy into the idea that Sony always makes fragile things.
I don't see how Sonys rapid product cycles is a problem for the photographer. Either the Sony A7rII is better suited for your needs than the 5DsR, or it isnt. If it is, then what difference does it make that Sony will be shipping the A7rIIIII by the time of the next gen 5D camera?
-h
-
Sorry but unless you're referring only to SLRs in live view mode this is so false it's not even wrong. :o
-Dave-
Show me a portable camera currently in the market - mirrorless, SLR or whatever - that focuses fast using CDAF alone.
As far as I am aware, there are none out there.
That's because fast CDAF, just like lagfree EVFs, are very processor-intensive. It takes a lot of processor power to track a running animal or moving vehicle using CDAF. Fast processors need powerful batteries. And no mirrorless camera has a powerful-enough battery for such a processor (since they've all emphasised small size at the expense of functionality) while SLRs have all emphasised PDAF, with live view almost added in as an afterthought. Unless you want to tether the camera to a power socket and run off mains power like a live-broadcast video camera, you won't be tracking sports or wildlife using CDAF.
-
re: sacrifices
Somewhere I see a Canon Rebel on a stick being toasted over the campfire....
I suppose the true sacrificial cameras are those that are "Z"* cameras mounted on stunt cars slated for destruction.
*by the time a camera is used on a stunt, it's not a B or C or M camera...
-
Sorry but unless you're referring only to SLRs in live view mode this is so false it's not even wrong. :o
-Dave-
One cannot, should not, debate religious beliefs :)
Edmund
-
Yes, real photographers don't autofocus. At least that's what I heard and thought for a long time and that thought echos through the cinema community today.
Then project briefs moved to fast moving subjects and yes you could manually focus, though for high pressured commercial work, we jumped through hoops to do it. Focusing on T-marks on the ground, using small supplemental lighting for more luminance until we shot.
I had the lubrication taken down drastically on all my medium format cameras, so I could snap focus the ring, but film cameras had different focusing screens than the digital slrs. Digital slrs give the impression that F 2.8 looks like F4, (though is still f2.8) so manually focusing (with reliability an Canon, or Nikon) can fool you.
I could make a list of the best autofocus cameras and Nikon F5, D3, d4, d700, that until the 1dx outperformed canon 2 to 1.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hk_run_1.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hk_swim_bl/image/hk_swim615.jpg)
http://www.russellrutherford.com/james_cowboy_brown_man_boy.m4v
Now with on sensor focusing, even face tracking it can be good, sometimes almost amazing, but usually for stills not as good as the best dslrs.
For lifestyle video the gh3 with face detection is good, sometimes amazing in a crowd if you set it up properly.
The gh4 good for stills, lousy for video, the omd em-1 snaps focus as fast as any camera made for static or slow moving subjects, but for tracking it' kind of shuts down once you shoot quickly.
Same with the Canon 70d, amazing for motion imagery, especially lifestyle,where people are moving in a non predicable scene, but for stills it also shuts down and will get the first image but that's about it.
Now I've tested all A7 series except the RII and they're lacking if the subject moves.
The RII may be better with fe lenses, though for our use FE lenses are too limited with the higher end zooms at F4.
The A mount zooms are 2.8 and more usef with the Sony adapter but not a reliable with FE lenses.
This is the best show and tell of sony RII focus I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_5Cr-eDZEc
I believe the A7 style cameras will become Sony's mainstay. I think right now they're trying to clear stock of A mounts, but for professional use (at least in the brief we work) we will need more.
Maybe like a super A7 with faster lenses, more lenses, much larger batteries and less compression on stills, much higher bit depth for video, full hdmi and usb contacts that are more robust and clean 10 bit 422 4k uncompressed through hdmi.
For fun, or for photographers that shoot static objects, especially the ones Chris and Ranier use for their work, the RII is professional, but for many other genres they are lacking.
BTW: Sony 2.8 A mount professional zooms are $500 to $1,000 more than Canon, so maybe they're not clearing stock.
IMO
BC
The point being?
No-one ever argued that AF was useless or unnecessary.
Just that lack of AF doesn't automatically disqualify a camera from being useful for professional purposes (MFDBs come to mind) or that AF is anywhere close to the most important consideration for many kinds of photography - where the choice is between AF, lens selection and image quality, it makes sense to dump AF (not necessarily back to nothing, but back to 5D2-style sluggishness) if you need the utmost in image quality but aren't shooting moving subjects.
-
As far as I am aware…
Clearly.
-Dave-
-
And no mirrorless camera has a powerful-enough battery for such a processor (since they've all emphasised small size at the expense of functionality) ... Unless you want to tether the camera to a power socket and run off mains power like a live-broadcast video camera
Haven't seen it yet, but reports say that the A7Rii can be USB powered which means you can run it (and charge it) off a Mophie ..
-
Face recognition is for snap shooters and egotistical selfies. I don't need it. What I want is a single, movable square in the viewfinder, and a button to press which autofocuses the lens on the subject covered by the single square.
Does the A7RII have such a feature for all lenses that fit, with or without an adapter? If not, then another 'thumbs down'. >:(
Does any camera out there have that feature...If not I guess you are not taking photos?
-
J,
It's simpler to say that AF is nowadays a mass-market necessity.
Sony is in a bind for lenses, because lenses take more time and preparation to design and bring to market than bodies.
Sony CAN make the Canon and Nikon lenses work well. If a company the size of Sony really puts its will to reverse engineer the competition's products, and compatibility is part of the camera's design brief rather than an afterthought, then they will succeed. This is electronics, it's been done time and time again. Look at how Leica can AF Hassy and Contax lenses. So, only legal obstacles can stop them, and IP issues are not really viewed the same way in Japan.
I too think they will rev. the A7IIR into something more solid for next Photokina, the equivalent of a Canon "5D", with better batteries, contacts, very necessary weatherproofing , less compression, higher bit depth video out, cut a deal with Sigma to get them to sell some E mount full-frame lenses, and do some work to make legacy Canon and Nikon AF lenses work really well. What that will do to pricing is ... to be seen.
Edmund
This is the best show and tell of sony RII focus I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_5Cr-eDZEc
I believe the A7 style cameras will become Sony's mainstay. I think right now they're trying to clear stock of A mounts, but for professional use (at least in the brief we work) we will need more.
Maybe like a super A7 with faster lenses, more lenses, much larger batteries and less compression on stills, much higher bit depth for video, full hdmi and usb contacts that are more robust and clean 10 bit 422 4k uncompressed through hdmi.
For fun, or for photographers that shoot static objects, especially the ones Chris and Ranier use for their work, the RII is professional, but for many other genres they are lacking.
BTW: Sony 2.8 A mount professional zooms are $500 to $1,000 more than Canon, so maybe they're not clearing stock.
IMO
BC
-
Clearly.
-Dave-
You still haven't named the camera.
-
Does any camera out there have that feature...If not I guess you are not taking photos?
Can you be more precise and 'spell it out'? I'm having difficulty in understanding your point.
-
Can you be more precise and 'spell it out'? I'm having difficulty in understanding your point.
CDAF will do that, whether on an A7, D810 or 5D3.
It will just take 5 seconds to do so while it shifts back and forth trying to find the point of greatest contrast. The darker it gets, the longer it takes.
And the 'single square' you are asking for may be larger than the feature you are trying to focus on, so it may end up out of focus anyway.
-
I don't know whether it helps, but rumor is that the A7R2 face/eye tracking is very good, with their own lenses, I assume. I can believe that, it's one specific set of filters to program into the DSPs, not like the myriad of little details and special cases needed to get general follow-focus working decently.
Edmund
-
Yes, real photographers don't autofocus. At least that's what I heard and thought for a long time and that thought echos through the cinema community today.
Then project briefs moved to fast moving subjects and yes you could manually focus, though for high pressured commercial work, we jumped through hoops to do it. Focusing on T-marks on the ground, using small supplemental lighting for more luminance until we shot.
I had the lubrication taken down drastically on all my medium format cameras, so I could snap focus the ring, but film cameras had different focusing screens than the digital slrs. Digital slrs give the impression that F 2.8 looks like F4, (though is still f2.8) so manually focusing (with reliability an Canon, or Nikon) can fool you.
I could make a list of the best autofocus cameras and Nikon F5, D3, d4, d700, that until the 1dx outperformed canon 2 to 1.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hk_run_1.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hk_swim_bl/image/hk_swim615.jpg)
http://www.russellrutherford.com/james_cowboy_brown_man_boy.m4v
Now with on sensor focusing, even face tracking it can be good, sometimes almost amazing, but usually for stills not as good as the best dslrs.
For lifestyle video the gh3 with face detection is good, sometimes amazing in a crowd if you set it up properly.
The gh4 good for stills, lousy for video, the omd em-1 snaps focus as fast as any camera made for static or slow moving subjects, but for tracking it' kind of shuts down once you shoot quickly.
Same with the Canon 70d, amazing for motion imagery, especially lifestyle,where people are moving in a non predicable scene, but for stills it also shuts down and will get the first image but that's about it.
Now I've tested all A7 series except the RII and they're lacking if the subject moves.
The RII may be better with fe lenses, though for our use FE lenses are too limited with the higher end zooms at F4.
The A mount zooms are 2.8 and more usef with the Sony adapter but not a reliable with FE lenses.
This is the best show and tell of sony RII focus I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_5Cr-eDZEc
I believe the A7 style cameras will become Sony's mainstay. I think right now they're trying to clear stock of A mounts, but for professional use (at least in the brief we work) we will need more.
Maybe like a super A7 with faster lenses, more lenses, much larger batteries and less compression on stills, much higher bit depth for video, full hdmi and usb contacts that are more robust and clean 10 bit 422 4k uncompressed through hdmi.
For fun, or for photographers that shoot static objects, especially the ones Chris and Ranier use for their work, the RII is professional, but for many other genres they are lacking.
BTW: Sony 2.8 A mount professional zooms are $500 to $1,000 more than Canon, so maybe they're not clearing stock.
IMO
BC
our first foray with A7s/metabones III/canon lenses combo on a paid video job was a disaster...camera freezing randomly etc...metabones IV since then
is better but since we use A7s only for motion, not stills, its all manual focus...we briefly tested the A7r but with similar results...so, with
some interest, i put the new A7rII to a quick test at its launch in new delhi...af and IS, with native lenses, is on par with current dslrs...the 2 batis lenses
(85/f1.8 and 25/f2) are razor sharp...resolution and dr is up there with the 5ds/r and d800e...but the e series lenses are limited,yes... zooms are slow,
and yes, priced higher than similar canon/nikon...the price gap is even wider here in india...some other issues that need to be checked is over heating,
softness in fullframe 4k video, battery life....strangely enough the center of attention was an unmarked chinese(?) canon EF to Sony E adaptor with a canon 70-200 f2.8 II
L lens, its outer finish is like canon white lenses (like a thinner 1.4 extender without glass element)...the af with, atleast this lens, was pretty good...i was
told that this was the NEW Commlite adaptor...as for now, we will pick up the little brother Rx10 II !!...should cut well with the A7s...check out the S-Log/ Slo-mo
stuff others have posted on vimeo
sanjaynarayan.com
-
I don't know whether it helps, but rumor is that the A7R2 face/eye tracking is very good, with their own lenses, I assume. I can believe that, it's one specific set of filters to program into the DSPs, not like the myriad of little details and special cases needed to get general follow-focus working decently.
Edmund
The A7rII has a hybrid AF system that uses both PDAF and CDAF. But it's only fast over the central portion of the frame, where PDAF sensors are in effect - towards the periphery, where there are no PDAF sensors, it's slow. You can't just point to any part of the image and have it lock on instantly. Which is pretty much the same as any camera out there.
-
That's because fast CDAF, just like lagfree EVFs, are very processor-intensive. It takes a lot of processor power to track a running animal or moving vehicle using CDAF.
I don't believe this to be likely (cpu power being the main bottle-neck). We really have got lots of available processing power. If even better performance vs price/size/battery is needed, companies like Sony can do a fixed-function ASIC.
The problem with CDAF rather might be that you have a feedback loop (detect image features, move the focus, repeat) affecting the speed vs accuracy trade-off. Unlike PDAF, you get no hint of direction, meaning that you potentially have to do many discrete adjustements before a satisfactory sharp image can be captured. This means that you have to read out sensor data at a rapid rate, and you need to have low-latency lens mechanics. High framerate sensor readout _is_ difficult. Precision fast mechanics is (I would guess) difficult in small low-cost consumer devices.
As these cameras are sweeping the focus point and (at least partially) processing images for each position anyways, it would seem sensible to store all that data (assuming that storage space is cheap and storage bandwidth is sufficient) for focus stacking/refocusing/2.5d. I am not sure why that is not done today.
-h
-
The A7rII has a hybrid AF system that uses both PDAF and CDAF. But it's only fast over the central portion of the frame, where PDAF sensors are in effect - towards the periphery, where there are no PDAF sensors, it's slow. You can't just point to any part of the image and have it lock on instantly. Which is pretty much the same as any camera out there.
Pretty much the same might be true. But I'll just quote a line from dpreview: "399 focal plane phase-detect pixels across an area of the frame larger than any other full-frame camera out there."-Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8792409826/tech-in-sony-s-a7r-ii-and-why-it-matters?slide=9). That is pretty good in my book.
-
I don't believe this to be likely (cpu power being the main bottle-neck). We really have got lots of available processing power. If even better performance vs price/size/battery is needed, companies like Sony can do a fixed-function ASIC.
We have fast, powerful processors. Trouble is, they take lots of power to run at full speed - a typical laptop computer has many times the battery capacity of a camera, but still can't run on battery power for very long. Less-powerful processors take much less power, but aren't fast enough to do the job.
CDAF requires sensor data to be not only be processed many times a second into an image, but also for the images to be analysed and compared for contrast at the relevant location. This is much more than is required for PDAF. It's theoretically a better, more accurate and more adaptable (e.g. face detection, ability to use AI to track pre-determined targets) but requires much more processing power, so, thus far, has been very slow on mobile, non-tethered devices.
The problem with CDAF rather might be that you have a feedback loop (detect image features, move the focus, repeat) affecting the speed vs accuracy trade-off. Unlike PDAF, you get no hint of direction, meaning that you potentially have to do many discrete adjustements before a satisfactory sharp image can be captured. This means that you have to read out sensor data at a rapid rate, and you need to have low-latency lens mechanics. High framerate sensor readout _is_ difficult. Precision fast mechanics is (I would guess) difficult in small low-cost consumer devices.
This is why the processing power requirements are so high - the image needs to be processed many times a second, and the images compared. The same thing is needed for lagfree EVFs, which is why full-capability mirrorless cameras will need to be the same size (not necessarily weight or thickness) as current SLRs, not miniature camers the same size as Leica rangefinders.
As these cameras are sweeping the focus point and (at least partially) processing images for each position anyways, it would seem sensible to store all that data (assuming that storage space is cheap and storage bandwidth is sufficient) for focus stacking/refocusing/2.5d. I am not sure why that is not done today.
-h
Or stored in a buffer (say, 2s long) allowing a shot to be taken even after the event has taken place - very useful for action photography. On pressing the shutter in that mode, it'd just save the buffer to the card instead of taking a new shot.
-
CDAF will do that, whether on an A7, D810 or 5D3.
It will just take 5 seconds to do so while it shifts back and forth trying to find the point of greatest contrast. The darker it gets, the longer it takes.
And the 'single square' you are asking for may be larger than the feature you are trying to focus on, so it may end up out of focus anyway.
My comment on autofocusing using a single square and a dedicated button was not related to LiveView and CDAF. The D800E allows one to move a single square to a number of different locations in the viewfinder, using the multi-selector dial. However, the choice of locations is limited and so is the area within which one can move the focusing square.
For example, if one wants to focus on something in the extreme corner of the frame, one wouldn't be able to move the square to the corner of the viewfinder. One could move it as close as possible to the corner, then swing the camera, lock focus with the AF-ON button, then recompose. However, recomposing could affect autofocus accuracy, especially if one is using a wide aperture.
I get the impression that the A7RII offers a greater number of positions one can move the focussing square to, but I'm not certain about this and what the procedure is. With the D800E one can disengage the autofocusing function from the shutter button, and use a half-depressed shutter button to assess exposure in any area covered by the single focusing square, without changing the focussing, which is locked through use of another button.
I wonder if the A7RII has a similar feature and if so, does such a feature work consistently with different lenses attached via an adapter. I bet not. ;)
-
We have fast, powerful processors. Trouble is, they take lots of power to run at full speed - a typical laptop computer has many times the battery capacity of a camera, but still can't run on battery power for very long.
The current-gen iPhones can do 11/14 hours of HD video according to Apple. They are significantly smaller than my DSLR (and FF MIILF systems, I think)
http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/technology/
Less-powerful processors take much less power, but aren't fast enough to do the job.
I hear your claim, but I don't think that you are correct. Do you have any references?
CDAF requires sensor data to be not only be processed many times a second into an image, but also for the images to be analysed and compared for contrast at the relevant location.
And my gut-feeling is that the processing is not the bottle-neck. Compared to e.g. the complex operations carried out in the video encoder to track motion at 60 fps, analyzing frames for high-frequency content sounds like a walk in the park.
How many multiplications/second (for lack of a better cost metric) do you believe that single-point CDAF of a 60fps image stream would realistically cost?
We can debate this back and forth, but unless anyone can contribute solid references, I guess that we won't be able to resolve our difference of opinion.
-h
-
You have to be crazy or really want to waste your time to get a body and then test your existing lenses one by one with various adapters until you secure a solution that is viable for each lens, or maybe write that lens off. Are professional photographers really that desperate and badly served by Canon and Nikon? If yes, then C and N have a serious problem.
Edmund
-
You have to be crazy or really want to waste your time to get a body and then test your existing lenses one by one with various adapters until you secure a solution that is viable for each lens, or maybe write that lens off. Are professional photographers really that desperate and badly served by Canon and Nikon? If yes, then C and N have a serious problem.
Edmund
Well given that even the much-lauded A7Rii seems to be sub-optimal with fast moving subjects and not much better with super telephotos on even stationary subjects, I would say "You have to be crazy or really want to waste your time getting a A7Rii to photograph birds of prey while claiming it does not need adjustment when taking a picture of a tree'
-
A7Rii has most potential as a studio / architecture camera or a landscape camera. Also it is an off-tripod camera for those manual focus fans with legacy or other manual focus lenses - no question that focus peaking is easier than live view + magnification. I might get a high-MP camera one of these days, to supercede or supplement the very nice Canon 6D, which fits my hand nicely and is a no-fuss camera for landscape, macro, night photography.
I sure wouldn't want to mess with lots of MP for action / wildlife photography, nor do I think that the viewer really is looking for the degree of detail that a landscape photographer would like to show. Landscape photographers want to have the viewer feel as if they are stepping into a scene, a psychological possibility when viewing a still subject. Stop-action photography by its nature does not simulate reality in the same way, we don't see in "stop-action". What really counts in stop-action is the pose of the subject and its interaction with other individuals or objects in the scene. 18-20 MP works for that. Of course more MP can give a better chance to crop, but higher frame rate is lost, and the high frame rate is more useful for keeper shots.
-
A7Rii has most potential
---snip--------
Realized potential?
:)
Edmund
-
A7Rii has most potential as a studio / architecture camera or a landscape camera. Also it is an off-tripod camera for those manual focus fans with legacy or other manual focus lenses - no question that focus peaking is easier than live view + magnification. I might get a high-MP camera one of these days, to supercede or supplement the very nice Canon 6D, which fits my hand nicely and is a no-fuss camera for landscape, macro, night photography
I just took the 35/1,4 zeiss today out of calumet and will give it back tomorrow. It doesnt fit in any of my camera sets.In generall i dont use this 'non shiftable' lenses for my paid jobs, or very rarely. I stay usually with shift lenses, all this set is still on canon mount and very similar to chris' setup. 17/24/canon tse , 35pc contax ,50 on mirex and 80&120 zeiss hartbleis, in addition to a canon 100-400 and a 12-24. Nice setup for architecture so far and quite some weight in the bag.. i could still easily go back to canon, even i was tempted after the 5dsr, but there is still gap in image quality between the a7r(1&2) and canon. too much for my taste to think seriously about it.
In addition i use occasionally for artwork my artek with the afi10/2.
But the a7rii give me - i could say for free- a kind of modern leica-m set (with top notch af - as long i stay with their fe lenses ). the tempting thing are the small lenses, not the bumpers as the 35/1,4 independent how goold they are or not.
The attraction is to have a small camera in my hand with some breathtaking sharp and small lenses with af, esp . this eye tracking thing. Unfortunately Sony doesnt see the chance completely to take over the old leica or olympus style. so they have till now only threee lenses which are in this style and quality. The 50/1,8, the 35/2,8 and probably the new batis 25. Even the batis 85 will be too large for my taste ( it should have f2,8) and than i will continue with my contax 90 or 85. This larger lenses should be additions, but at first sony should make a line with very small lenses with best quality and 2,8/3,5 or 4 as aperture. This is sexy, not lenses as the 35/1,4 or their 16-35mm.
-
I just took the 35/1,4 zeiss today out of calumet and will give it back tomorrow. It doesnt fit in any of my camera sets.In generall i dont use this 'non shiftable' lenses for my paid jobs, or very rarely. I stay usually with shift lenses, all this set is still on canon mount and very similar to chris' setup. 17/24/canon tse , 35pc contax ,50 on mirex and 80&120 zeiss hartbleis, in addition to a canon 100-400 and a 12-24. Nice setup for architecture so far and quite some weight in the bag.. i could still easily go back to canon, even i was tempted after the 5dsr, but there is still gap in image quality between the a7r(1&2) and canon. too much for my taste to think seriously about it.
In addition i use occasionally for artwork my artek with the afi10/2.
But the a7rii give me - i could say for free- a kind of modern leica-m set (with top notch af - as long i stay with their fe lenses ). the tempting thing are the small lenses, not the bumpers as the 35/1,4 independent how goold they are or not.
The attraction is to have a small camera in my hand with some breathtaking sharp and small lenses with af, esp . this eye tracking thing. Unfortunately Sony doesnt see the chance completely to take over the old leica or olympus style. so they have till now only threee lenses which are in this style and quality. The 50/1,8, the 35/2,8 and probably the new batis 25. Even the batis 85 will be too large for my taste ( it should have f2,8) and than i will continue with my contax 90 or 85. This larger lenses should be additions, but at first sony should make a line with very small lenses with best quality and 2,8/3,5 or 4 as aperture. This is sexy, not lenses as the 35/1,4 or their 16-35mm.
With all due respect I think the Canon 5DsR will fit perfectly to the kind of pictures you are shooting.
-
I just took the 35/1,4 zeiss today out of calumet and will give it back tomorrow. It doesnt fit in any of my camera sets.In generall i dont use this 'non shiftable' lenses for my paid jobs, or very rarely. I stay usually with shift lenses, all this set is still on canon mount and very similar to chris' setup. 17/24/canon tse , 35pc contax ,50 on mirex and 80&120 zeiss hartbleis, in addition to a canon 100-400 and a 12-24. Nice setup for architecture so far and quite some weight in the bag.. i could still easily go back to canon, even i was tempted after the 5dsr, but there is still gap in image quality between the a7r(1&2) and canon. too much for my taste to think seriously about it.
In addition i use occasionally for artwork my artek with the afi10/2.
But the a7rii give me - i could say for free- a kind of modern leica-m set (with top notch af - as long i stay with their fe lenses ). the tempting thing are the small lenses, not the bumpers as the 35/1,4 independent how goold they are or not.
The attraction is to have a small camera in my hand with some breathtaking sharp and small lenses with af, esp . this eye tracking thing. Unfortunately Sony doesnt see the chance completely to take over the old leica or olympus style. so they have till now only threee lenses which are in this style and quality. The 50/1,8, the 35/2,8 and probably the new batis 25. Even the batis 85 will be too large for my taste ( it should have f2,8) and than i will continue with my contax 90 or 85. This larger lenses should be additions, but at first sony should make a line with very small lenses with best quality and 2,8/3,5 or 4 as aperture. This is sexy, not lenses as the 35/1,4 or their 16-35mm.
I agree with you about Sony further developing a lineup of slower but smaller f/2.8 or f/4 lenses. For many, that was the original appeal of the A7R. Unfortunately, Sony seems to be headed in the other direction. On the Batis 85mm, I suggest you try it. It's actually pretty light and not nearly as big as the lens hood would suggest.
-
I am looking forward to more IMAGES from this camera! (happily pokes around with 20 MP Canon)
-
With all due respect I think the Canon 5DsR will fit perfectly to the kind of pictures you are shooting.
I am pretty sure the canon wouldnt give any deeper problem you are right...
its still the photographer and not the camera which makes the images.
All i saw is that the 5dsr has larger files than the5dmk3, but not better at base iso. And the 5dmk3 has nearly the same files than the mk2 in terms of quality, at base iso again. And this was the last canon i was using and i never was very happy with its files, although of course usable, very often shooting different exp. and combining them.
After that came the nikon d800, i liked first time again the quality of slr files similar ( or sometimes more .. ) then my mf backs , but it was lacking lenses.
The a7r than gave me similar quality than the nikon and the nice canon shift lenses were available agin, and i could put it easily on my drone. it was the first time since long time that i really "liked" again a camera. Lets see if the a7rii will be similar good for me after a while of using it.
-
All i saw is that the 5dsr has larger files than the5dmk3, but not better at base iso.
In that case, you haven't done enough investigation, Rainer. The graphs at DXOMark clearly show that between ISO 100 and ISO 400, the 5DSR has better dynamic range than the 5D3, varying between 1/2 a stop to 2/3rds of a stop better, depending on ISO setting, and comparing equal size images of course.
Now I know that such improvement is not nearly as impressive as the 2 stops of DR improvement of the A7RII and D810, compared with the 5DSR, but let's give credit where it's due. A 1/2 to 2/3rds stop improvement in DR is noticeable and worth having. ;)
-
A 1/2 to 2/3rds stop improvement in DR is noticeable and worth having. ;)
I WANT MY A7R2, PLEASE MUMMY PLEASE ;)
Toys. What would life be like without them?
Edmund
-
In that case, you haven't done enough investigation, Rainer. The graphs at DXOMark clearly show that between ISO 100 and ISO 400, the 5DSR has better dynamic range than the 5D3, varying between 1/2 a stop to 2/3rds of a stop better, depending on ISO setting, and comparing equal size images of course.
Now I know that such improvement is not nearly as impressive as the 2 stops of DR improvement of the A7RII and D810, compared with the 5DSR, but let's give credit where it's due. A 1/2 to 2/3rds stop improvement in DR is noticeable and worth having. ;)
That's actually all due to the effect of resolution - when downsizing a higher-resolution image to a lower resolution, you gain a bit of DR. The pixel-level DR has not improved at all. Which, considering the much smaller pixels, is pretty impressive in itself.
Canon sensors have great pixels. Unfortunately, their readout system is antiquated, putting a ceiling on their maximum possible DR and causing them to have poor performance at low ISO.
-
I agree with you about Sony further developing a lineup of slower but smaller f/2.8 or f/4 lenses. For many, that was the original appeal of the A7R. Unfortunately, Sony seems to be headed in the other direction. On the Batis 85mm, I suggest you try it. It's actually pretty light and not nearly as big as the lens hood would suggest.
For full professional use outside of restricted, non-action areas, Sony will need a camera with a larger body and more capacity for fast AF, lag-free EVF and driving long, heavy lenses at high speed. When Sony releases such a body (e.g. the rumoured A9) the 'light and small' aspect that has dominated mirrorless bodies to date will be gone. The camera system would then need to compete on performance alone, and that means having full-capability, fast lenses that can compete with the best EF and F-mount lenses available.
Right now, the A7-series cameras are competitive against rangefinder cameras, but that really just means Leica. Small, slow but sharp lenses have a role here. The only reason Sony is even competitive against Canon at all is due to the performance of the Canon sensor, which has caused certain groups of photographers, who need IQ but not AF or speed (i.e. mostly landscape and non-action photographers) to flock to Sony - and many of these use third-party fast lenses rather than the slower native lenses. If Sony really wants to take the fight to Canon, they will need to match them not only in terms of body performance (which I believe they're trying to do, with 3rd-party AF progressing in leaps and bounds since the last iteration) but also in terms of lens selection, whether this is by releasing faster and more capable E-mount lenses, by having Sigma and Zeiss release more top-of-the-line lenses (e.g. Art series and Otus) in E-mount or by making their own AF work just as well with Canon/Nikon lenses as Canon/Nikon bodies do.
The bottom line is, small and light can win the consumer/backpacker crowds, but you won't win over professionals until you can deliver the capability in the areas that matter to them. They've managed this with sensor performance (hence winning over lots of landscapers and non-action shooters), but, if they want to move beyond that, they will need to deliver performance beyond just the sensor. And that means fast AF, lag-free viewfinders and fast lenses, and likely a body size similar to the D810/5Ds.
-
That's actually all due to the effect of resolution - when downsizing a higher-resolution image to a lower resolution, you gain a bit of DR. The pixel-level DR has not improved at all.
(When in photography mode), I don't care about pixels, I care about images. If a camera (e.g. the 5Ds) has better images than another (e.g. the 5Dmk3), then whether its pixels are better is of little relevance.
-h
-
In that case, you haven't done enough investigation, Rainer. The graphs at DXOMark clearly show that between ISO 100 and ISO 400, the 5DSR has better dynamic range than the 5D3, varying between 1/2 a stop to 2/3rds of a stop better, depending on ISO setting, and comparing equal size images of course.
Now I know that such improvement is not nearly as impressive as the 2 stops of DR improvement of the A7RII and D810, compared with the 5DSR, but let's give credit where it's due. A 1/2 to 2/3rds stop improvement in DR is noticeable and worth having. ;)
;D
-
The bottom line is, small and light can win the consumer/backpacker crowds, but you won't win over professionals until you can deliver the capability in the areas that matter to them. They've managed this with sensor performance (hence winning over lots of landscapers and non-action shooters), but, if they want to move beyond that, they will need to deliver performance beyond just the sensor. And that means fast AF, lag-free viewfinders and fast lenses, and likely a body size similar to the D810/5Ds.
If I was starting out competing with Canon/Nikon, I would think through "what is Canon/Nikons strengths and weaknesses, what is that people want and are willing to pay for. Is there an unexploited area that I can fill?".
Rather than go head-on in the fast-paced large-camera, tele-lens, sports area (where PDAF and the DSLR does quite well and Canon/Nikon have a large catalog of lenses), carving out a niche by being small while high sensor quality seems like an excellent strategy for competing on favorable terms.
It is not obvious that the number of "fast paced action shooters" in themselves are sufficient to generate a lot of profit for Sony. It may well be that Canon/Nikon have catered for this crowd because:
a) It was great for PR
b) It allowed them to try out new/expensive tech in smaller series/higher margin products first
c) Component re-use and market saturation made it wise to do so
However, a possible MILF-dominated market ruled by the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Samsung might be very different. They may have stronger ties to video, smartphones and social media. Shorter product life/less firmware updates. People running about with 800mm lenses on football matches may not sell as many Sony cameras as it used to sell Canon cameras.
The professionals are going to do what the professionals do. It seems that they are a quite varied group of camera users, prioritizing very different aspects. Arguing that "this camera is not professional" is (to me) sillyness. We all (most of us) have some profession, and I have to say that in mine I seldom treat my tools religiously. I'll use whatever is most convenient, costs less, gets the job done. If anything, I am more picky about the tools that I use for my hobbies.
It would be interesting to know how many consumers are willing to/have purchased a camera in the range of $2000-$3000 vs professionals. My guess is anywhere from 10:1 to 100:1. If I am right, then cameras like the A7 series does not _need_ to appeal to the "professionals" in order to be fantastically successful cameras.
-h
-
If I was starting out competing with Canon/Nikon, I would think through "what is Canon/Nikons strengths and weaknesses, what is that people want and are willing to pay for. Is there an unexploited area that I can fill?".
Rather than go head-on in the fast-paced large-camera, tele-lens, sports area (where PDAF and the DSLR does quite well and Canon/Nikon have a large catalog of lenses), carving out a niche by being small while high sensor quality seems like an excellent strategy for competing on favorable terms.
It is not obvious that the number of "fast paced action shooters" in themselves are sufficient to generate a lot of profit for Sony. It may well be that Canon/Nikon have catered for this crowd because:
a) It was great for PR
b) It allowed them to try out new/expensive tech in smaller series/higher margin products first
c) Component re-use and market saturation made it wise to do so
However, a possible MILF-dominated market ruled by the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Samsung might be very different. They may have stronger ties to video, smartphones and social media. Shorter product life/less firmware updates. People running about with 800mm lenses on football matches may not sell as many Sony cameras as it used to sell Canon cameras.
The professionals are going to do what the professionals do. It seems that they are a quite varied group of camera users, prioritizing very different aspects. Arguing that "this camera is not professional" is (to me) sillyness. We all (most of us) have some profession, and I have to say that in mine I seldom treat my tools religiously. I'll use whatever is most convenient, costs less, gets the job done. If anything, I am more picky about the tools that I use for my hobbies.
-h
The point is, Sony has already captured the small/lightweight crowd. There's nothing in that category that can match the A7/r/s series. Anyone who wants a small, lightweight full-frame camera, and who doesn't mind the loss of AF capability vs an SLR, already has a Sony. Canon and Nikon aren't even in the picture, Leica pretty much exists only on the high end by virtue of brand name rather than performance, and everyone else only offers crop sensors.
To increase their market share beyond this narrow group of photographers - those who need light weight (but still full-frame) and disgruntled Canon shooters wanting a better sensor - Sony needs to steal current Canon and Nikon shooters. After all, people interested in taking photos weren't, for the most part, sitting around without a camera until Sony came along. They were using another system, and that usually meant Nikon or Canon.
In order to steal market share, you need to create cameras that, at very least, can match the capabilities of your rivals in the areas that matter to the particular group of photographers you are chasing. Preferably more than match the capabilities, to give them a compelling reason to switch. And the barriers to switching - e.g. lens compatibility - have to be low enough that it's not too difficult/expensive to switch and they just sit on their equipment until Canon/Nikon catch up. Sony have managed to do all these things for landscape and non-action photography - created a sensor that soundly beats Canon's and made it very easy to switch due to third-party lens compatibility. If they want to do the same with other groups of photographers - event photographers or action photographers - they need to do the same with capabilities that matter to them. And that includes fast lenses (or full compatibility with third-party fast lenses, along with fast AF), among other things.
Rebel shooters - beginners and non-photographers who just want a nice camera and shoot in green-box mode - will largely follow what professionals in the public eye (i.e. those they see at weddings and at live sports/music events) use. Winning over landscape and studio photographers, who largely shoot out of the public eye, is not going to win them this crowd.
-
The point is, Sony has already captured the small/lightweight crowd. ...Anyone who wants a small, lightweight full-frame camera, and who doesn't mind the loss of AF capability vs an SLR, already has a Sony.
That's a bold statement.
-
In fact i know very little about shooting fashion, weddings or portraits and how its done by the better professionals. But it seems to me, after playing around with the eye tracking focus , that this is a feature none will want to miss after having tried it out for shooting people.
Interesting, that Sony/Zeiss doesnt try to compete over the price. None of their lenses is cheap, most if not all are more expensive than their slr counterparts. They try to create a brand, positionated at least at the same level than nikon and canon or beside and over them. why they dont go this way to the end, i dont understand it. Meaning making 14bit conversions instead of 13 or 12bit ( visible or not doesnt matter here ), uncompressed raws, making the whole lens setup great, not just a few ones. There are too many lemons in their lens lineup as the zeiss 24-70 or the sony 70-200 ( which isnt bad, but mediocre and the canon counterpart is great ).
-
That's a bold statement.
What's the alternative? Leica? They've captured it by virtue of there being no viable competitor.
-
The point is, Sony has already captured the small/lightweight crowd. Anyone who wants a small, lightweight full-frame camera, and who doesn't mind the loss of AF capability vs an SLR, already has a Sony.
That's a bold statement.
I can't speak for anyone else but shadowblade has described me perfectly. a7II here. The M isn't suitable because of the poorer, add-on EVF.
-
What's the alternative? Leica? They've captured it by virtue of there being no viable competitor.
Let's put it this way - I would love a lightweight full-frame camera but I don't have a Sony. I can't think of anyone I know (including my camera club) who own a Sony of any description. So the idea of "Sony has already captured the small/lightweight crowd..." is unjustified (probably unjustifiable) hyperbole.
-
Let's put it this way - I would love a lightweight full-frame camera but I don't have a Sony. I can't think of anyone I know (including my camera club) who own a Sony of any description. So the idea of "Sony has already captured the small/lightweight crowd..." is unjustified (probably unjustifiable) hyperbole.
But some Leica guys certainly were attracted. I had several M's over the years but never bought in their digital versions, they had lost all their appeal for me. The Sony was the first digital cam which gave me back a similar feel than the old small Ms, including knowing that they bring the best quality available in this small package, which formerly was one of the main reasons to take a film M too, beside its attractive body and feel.
In this aspect the Sony isnt where the M was, more where the old small Nikon and Olympus bodies have been.
In general there was a time when bodies have been regarded sexy if being small. Maybe Its a sign of our times that so many want big and clumpsy photo machines. Remember the Oly's, Pentax, Leica M&R(6)Contax, Minoltas, Nikons and Canons of this years (70is and 80is). Even Mf was small as Hassies, Mamya 6 and 7, Plaubel ....
It was not attractive or even a bit crazy to take a two or three kilo camera (with lens) out of the studio.
Maybe it follows the same taste as all this huge SUVs. I have a Toyota Landcruiser as well, but this is my travel workhorse and brought me to deserts and mountains. I have to smile seing this shiny Landrovers and Jeeps here in Munich which never saw even a bit of dust. Not too mention the big AudiQ and BMW X coupes, which i.m.o. offer nothing than being big and expensive. Sign of our times maybe. The most rugged cameras 99% never go in the rain and never will need their durable magnesium chassis and so on... but many people seems to like them and think it looks pro. Sometimes bigger isnt better ( although sometimes it is :) and for cameras i would say this sentence is often too true.
I had the Canon 1ds2 till the 5d came out and i happily sold immediately this brick of a camera for the 'non pro' version for a third of the price and better image quality. I preferred the 5d2 over the three cause it was lighter and i didnt liked my Nikon d800 as carry around thing for being clumpsy, beside that i didnt liked many lenses i had for this cam.
-
The Sony camera popular with the serious backpacking crowd is the tiny RX100 series. Particularly for through-hikers (multi-day or multi-week), "less is more". The battery is smaller and able to be charged with the type of solar chargers used to charge phones or tablets.
Day-hikers? extra batteries are light.
-
... However, a possible MILF-dominated market...
Damn, I'd like to penetrate that market ;D
-
Let's put it this way - I would love a lightweight full-frame camera but I don't have a Sony. I can't think of anyone I know (including my camera club) who own a Sony of any description. So the idea of "Sony has already captured the small/lightweight crowd..." is unjustified (probably unjustifiable) hyperbole.
Did you miss the part about "and who doesn't mind the loss of AF capability vs an SLR"?
-
The local mall camera shop where I am on vacation sells no Sony SLRs, only lots of C and N.
My pro shop refuses to sell Sony.
There have been QC issues, I *know* and the pro shop tells me the service is bad so they refuse to sell them.
Edmund
-
If eye AF works as well as DPReview claims, I think the portrait / wedding market is going to move to Sony in droves.
Any "pro" shop that doesn't carry Sony is not likely to stay in business over the next few years.
We have two "pro" shops here, one of which carries Sony kit and the other doesn't. You can be sure which one I no longer patronize.
-
For full professional use outside of restricted, non-action areas, Sony will need a camera with a larger body and more capacity for fast AF, lag-free EVF and driving long, heavy lenses at high speed. When Sony releases such a body (e.g. the rumoured A9) the 'light and small' aspect that has dominated mirrorless bodies to date will be gone. The camera system would then need to compete on performance alone, and that means having full-capability, fast lenses that can compete with the best EF and F-mount lenses available.
Right now, the A7-series cameras are competitive against rangefinder cameras, but that really just means Leica. Small, slow but sharp lenses have a role here. The only reason Sony is even competitive against Canon at all is due to the performance of the Canon sensor, which has caused certain groups of photographers, who need IQ but not AF or speed (i.e. mostly landscape and non-action photographers) to flock to Sony - and many of these use third-party fast lenses rather than the slower native lenses. If Sony really wants to take the fight to Canon, they will need to match them not only in terms of body performance (which I believe they're trying to do, with 3rd-party AF progressing in leaps and bounds since the last iteration) but also in terms of lens selection, whether this is by releasing faster and more capable E-mount lenses, by having Sigma and Zeiss release more top-of-the-line lenses (e.g. Art series and Otus) in E-mount or by making their own AF work just as well with Canon/Nikon lenses as Canon/Nikon bodies do.
The bottom line is, small and light can win the consumer/backpacker crowds, but you won't win over professionals until you can deliver the capability in the areas that matter to them. They've managed this with sensor performance (hence winning over lots of landscapers and non-action shooters), but, if they want to move beyond that, they will need to deliver performance beyond just the sensor. And that means fast AF, lag-free viewfinders and fast lenses, and likely a body size similar to the D810/5Ds.
I wonder how big then market is for professional action photography. Surely the market for event and wedding photography must be much greater.
-
Johannes,
I seem to be doing most of my buying on the used market these days, snapping up cameras at 1/4 of their new price, and old macs at 1% of their new price. My main still camera is an 8 year old model, and the still lens I use most is an 85/1.2 which is twelve years old :)
Anything you can get that still works when it is 5 or more years old will probably last another 5 at least.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
you have a live: holidays, pro shops and posting on lula. I'm jealous.
I already bought a lot of things which have had quality issues and never should have been sold, cars, kitchen appliances, smart phones, laptops... In terms of cameras I have to say only my Canon 1Ds MarkII and my 24-70/L2.8 had to go to CPS a few times. And do you remember the massive sample variation of Canon lenses a few years ago? With Sinar, Nikon and Hasselblad I never had a problem.
In the meantime I'm really convinced by route Sony took with the Sony A7r. I will upgrade, when the first rush is over. I now have also a different look at digital cameras. In the beginning I thought a digital camera is a long term investment, like Hasselblad V or a Sinar p2. Today I think it is a short term investment, even the lenses. I buy some months after the camera started shipping and I sell the camera it replaces at once.
Best,
Johannes
-
In the meantime I'm really convinced by route Sony took with the Sony A7r. I will upgrade, when the first rush is over. I now have also a different look at digital cameras. In the beginning I thought a digital camera is a long term investment, like Hasselblad V or a Sinar p2. Today I think it is a short term investment, even the lenses. I buy some months after the camera started shipping and I sell the camera it replaces at once.
exactly, i got the nikon d3 & the PCE lenses when they came out, traded the d3 for the d800e and a few years later tried out the sony rx1 and was blown away, got the a7ii & 55mm lens as a swap & loved it, and just traded the nikon stuff for the a7rii & canon 17mm tse, i consider results i am getting from this to be a serious "upgrade."
just to mention i bought a beautiful sony ICF shortwave radio 30 years ago and it's been hammered, round the world twice, my daughter now has it & still works perfectly, and then there was the sony d3 professional walkman which was my mainstay for audio for years, it never failed and it was really abused...
i don't buy the sony = unreliable propaganda & i don't by the c/n = "pro" bull either... sorry.
-
Hi Rainer,
you are so right with what you are writing.
Here is a video for all the "pro" Canon users which shows how to change a lens, if you are in a hurry start at 60 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ineSsjwIAqI
Best,
Johannes
I watched the salesdroid at the mall do this. Won't be buying any discounted "openbox" lenses. :)
Edmund
-
i don't buy the sony = unreliable propaganda & i don't by the c/n = "pro" bull either... sorry.
I've had good and bad experiences with Sony. The question is how they will back up this product range with service or exchange.
Apple products are not "pro", but if you have a tech issue with a phone, you make an appointment, and 30 minutes later you have a new phone. I ditched my iPhone, but have to admit that their after-sales service is perfect.
Edmund
-
... and then there was the sony d3 professional walkman which was my mainstay for audio for years, it never failed and it was really abused...
As we're on a trip down memory lane, anyone care to remember that the very first sony walkmans were in fact called 'stowaways' - yup I had one, hard as hell to come by, worked faultlessly (and I always preferred the original name) add the original small trinitron tv's, the ones that were housed in a wooden cabinet with a knob for a tuner
i don't buy the sony = unreliable propaganda & i don't by the c/n = "pro" bull either... sorry.
I'm with you on that one, Adrian - but generally prefer it when it has 'Made in Japan' on the label.
-
I've had good and bad experiences with Sony. The question is how they will back up this product range with service or exchange.
Apple products are not "pro", but if you have a tech issue with a phone, you make an appointment, and 30 minutes later you have a new phone. I ditched my iPhone, but have to admit that their after-sales service is perfect.
Edmund
i seriously doubt that my rx1, a7ii & a7rii are gonna fail - at the same time - also i trust my pro shop, if i need a replacement for a while, or a canon body for my tse's he'll loan me one. it's a non-issue for me. the real issue, i repeat, is the innovation if the system (worthy of support i feel,) the quality of the output and the size and beauty of the cameras, as i said previously, it like a dream camera, leica m6 size, easily 6x9 drum scanned chrome quality output (and then some) freedom from a tripod in many situations and flexibility of shift lenses and then that beautiful zeiss stuff. i don't need fast af, or buy into the "malborough man," "tough pro" need "tough camera" bull, but i don't hammer nails all day long with it...
this system has brought me simplicity (one camera, many lenses) and and a good degree of freedom (size and weight) to my work, this is what it's about for me, freedom to produce - or try to produce - the images in my nut!
-
Hi Rainer,
you are so right with what you are writing.
Here is a video for all the "pro" Canon users which shows how to change a lens, if you are in a hurry start at 60 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ineSsjwIAqI
Best,
Johannes
:D
-
The local mall camera shop where I am on vacation sells no Sony SLRs, only lots of C and N.
My pro shop refuses to sell Sony.
There have been QC issues, I *know* and the pro shop tells me the service is bad so they refuse to sell them.
Interesting that Calumet here in the UK, used to sell Sony, but now only does so to special order (i.e., it doesn't). So either the t&c that Sony were offering were prohibitive, the Sony cameras did not sell, or some C/N conspiracy persuaded them to drop Sony. Fixation has chosen Fuji, rather than Sony, as their other brand.
-
Apple products are not "pro", but if you have a tech issue with a phone, you make an appointment, and 30 minutes later you have a new phone. I ditched my iPhone, but have to admit that their after-sales service is perfect.
Yes, if you bought it within a certain period (2y, I think). But they are v to keep you from exploring alternative options, which is what you would do if they left you high and dry.
Sony obviously can do pro service (as they own a good chunk of the pro video market) but there is not yet enough margin in the A7 world to fund a support network.
-
i seriously doubt that my rx1, a7ii & a7rii are gonna fail - at the same time - also i trust my pro shop, if i need a replacement for a while, or a canon body for my tse's he'll loan me one. it's a non-issue for me. the real issue, i repeat, is the innovation if the system (worthy of support i feel,) the quality of the output and the size and beauty of the cameras, as i said previously, it like a dream camera, leica m6 size, easily 6x9 drum scanned chrome quality output (and then some) freedom from a tripod in many situations and flexibility of shift lenses and then that beautiful zeiss stuff. i don't need fast af, or buy into the "malborough man," "tough pro" need "tough camera" bull, but i don't hammer nails all day long with it...
this system has brought me simplicity (one camera, many lenses) and and a good degree of freedom (size and weight) to my work, this is what it's about for me, freedom to produce - or try to produce - the images in my nut!
Great. Let's hope Sony keeps this up, and we'll all become their customers! Why should I complain if somebody sells me a better camera? I'll be in the buy queue, either now, or when it gets resold by one of my fellow gear lovers.
There are all sorts of photographers. A friend of mine had multiple sclerosis, moved about as fast as a tortoise, and told me "I don't take pictures of things that run away". He used a Contax G, the nearest thing at the time to an AF Leica, and sold large Cibachrome art prints.
When I was younger I stood on a stepladder and would take several hundred runway shots in one session, and my typical subjects were always moving, but the max print size was only full page. Now I have a 4 year old, and find that fast AF and bursts can be pretty useful for snapshots.
Edmund
-
I am pretty sure the canon wouldnt give any deeper problem you are right...
its still the photographer and not the camera which makes the images.
All i saw is that the 5dsr has larger files than the5dmk3, but not better at base iso. And the 5dmk3 has nearly the same files than the mk2 in terms of quality, at base iso again. And this was the last canon i was using and i never was very happy with its files, although of course usable, very often shooting different exp. and combining them.
After that came the nikon d800, i liked first time again the quality of slr files similar ( or sometimes more .. ) then my mf backs , but it was lacking lenses.
The a7r than gave me similar quality than the nikon and the nice canon shift lenses were available agin, and i could put it easily on my drone. it was the first time since long time that i really "liked" again a camera. Lets see if the a7rii will be similar good for me after a while of using it.
So far I definitely see a better quality from the 5DsR files than the 5D III files. I have shot mostly test shots so far and some nature shots. My real test will be 2 weeks in scotland shooting landscapes. I will shot it like the 5d III with optimal exposure and it will do fine I'm sure. I have the D810 as well and will do some comparisons.
-
So far I definitely see a better quality from the 5DsR files than the 5D III files. I have shot mostly test shots so far and some nature shots. My real test will be 2 weeks in scotland shooting landscapes. I will shot it like the 5d III with optimal exposure and it will do fine I'm sure. I have the D810 as well and will do some comparisons.
Hans, what will be interesting is to see what your workshop participants do with their various cameras.
Edmund
-
Edmund,
the oldest camera I'm using is a Linhof Technika II, 13x18, built 1938 and the oldest lens is a Schneider Angulon 165 mm (not the newer Super-Angulon), built 1958. As a sensor I use Ilford HP5+. Detail and tonality I can't beat with the digital cameras I used so far. But digital is much more convenient.
Best,
Johannes
I used HP(3?) for years, as a kid. Very convenient because you could develop it in a dish. Of course the real reason I used it was that I could get all those old cameras for free from people who had them in their attics :)
In 5 or so years one will be able to get perfectly good dSLRs in the trash ...the only problem will be batteries.
Edmund
-
Hans, what will be interesting is to see what your workshop participants do with their various cameras.
Edmund
This time is just myself preparing for a workshop next year. The workshop participants on other of my workshops have mainly Canon and Nikon DSLR cameras. A few Sony and MF cameras as well. I do expect more A7R II's now that Sony has fixed the problematic A7R by a new camera. I'm still waiting to see real and final reviews of this camera.
-
This time is just myself preparing for a workshop next year. The workshop participants on other of my workshops have mainly Canon and Nikon DSLR cameras. A few Sony and MF cameras as well. I do expect more A7R II's now that Sony has fixed the problematic A7R by a new camera. I'm still waiting to see real and final reviews of this camera.
If you take away shutter issues, and compression, on paper the A7R2, the A7R and D800 and D810 seem quite similar when put on a tripod.
So what more does the Canon bring to the table?
Edmund
-
The ifixit teardown (https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Sony+a7R+II+Teardown/45597) is out.
nice images.
Edmund
-
Diglloyd has an example of posterization in a shot of a lake in daylight. This is possibly a huge problem for Sony. I'm just assuming it has to do with raw compression. I hope they can solve it with firmware.
-
If you take away shutter issues, and compression, on paper the A7R2, the A7R and D800 and D810 seem quite similar when put on a tripod.
So what more does the Canon bring to the table?
Edmund
The D800E and D810 are similar in IQ, although the D810 has ISO 64. The D810 has the very important EFCS which for my 70-200 is very important. Unfortunately EFCS is only available in MLU mode, but it does also work in live view with MLU. For shorter focal lengths than about 70mm the difference is marginal. My shooting technique includes bracketing and the D800 locks the camera until all pictures are written to the card(s). This is solved with the D810. The D810 in general is a much improved camera compared to the D800 in my opinion.
The Canon has excellent zoomlenses from 11mm to 400mm for a landscape shooter like me. In addition there are all the choices desired for prime lenses. The Canon has EFCS in live mode without any special setting. The resolution is quite a step up from the D810 and pixel level sharpness looks even slightly better. The 5DsR does not have the banding which means a larger usable DR than the 5D III. I shot the Canon and Nikon the same way with bracketing which means I always have an optimal exposure so there downside the lesser DR on the Canon is minimized.
The reason I shoot both systems is to know both camera systems for my workshop participants. I like to be able to show immediately which setting in the camera menus is needed on a participant camera. If I did not run workshops I would not shoot two systems. In todays situation I would likely choose the Canon but before the 5DsR I would have chosen the D810. I was never happy with the D800E which felt clunky.
Basically I don't think it really matters that much which camera system is chosen for landscape shooting between Canon and Nikon. For the Sony A7R II I think the jury is still out. I'm not a big fan of adapters, so I would not be very keen on choosing the A7R II until Sony has a line of very good zoomlenses. At this point in time there is no competition on that front in my view. On paper and from early experience reviews the A7R II looks like a big step up from the A7R. Personally I did not like that Sony never tried to fix the issues with the A7R with firmware updates. Also the reluctance to provide the options for RAW formats that users have been asking for some time now. Until Sony changes attitude I'm not likely to become a customer despite impressive engineering.
-
Hi,
I have sen it, but I am highly doubtful it is a compression artefact. You really need to see the raw find to find out. I have something like 70000 images shot on Sonys which use the same kind of tonal compression and I have not seen anything like it. Would be good if Diglloyd shared that raw file, because it really looks bad.
But, the Sony raw compression has been trough a lot of analysis and I don't think it can cause artefacts like the one published by Lloyd.
On the other hand, if we like a system we may go into fact denial mode when something negative is found. Like shooting the messanger.
Best reagrds
Erik
Diglloyd has an example of posterization in a shot of a lake in daylight. This is possibly a huge problem for Sony. I'm just assuming it has to do with raw compression. I hope they can solve it with firmware.
-
Hi,
I have sen it, but I am highly doubtful it is a compression artefact. You really need to see the raw find to find out. I have something like 70000 images shot on Sonys which use the same kind of tonal compression and I have not seen anything like it. Would be good if Diglloyd shared that raw file, because it really looks bad.
But, the Sony raw compression has been trough a lot of analysis and I don't think it can cause artefacts like the one published by Lloyd.
On the other hand, if we like a system we may go into fact denial mode when something negative is found. Like shooting the messanger.
Best reagrds
Erik
Erik,
Why not ask Lloyd for the RAW file and check it yourself? It seems like a serious enough issue to get fully analyzed.
-
Hi,
I have sen it, but I am highly doubtful it is a compression artefact. You really need to see the raw find to find out. I have something like 70000 images shot on Sonys which use the same kind of tonal compression and I have not seen anything like it. Would be good if Diglloyd shared that raw file, because it really looks bad.
I agree it doesn't look like a compression artifact. It looks like someone has painted roughly over part of the image: If this is directly from a raw file it could be a memory card or firmware failure.
-
Re: lens drop. Ouch, if real. One could make a fun video with one of those lens coffee cups. :D IIRC, the standard lens cup is the 24-105L. I don't remember what the Nikon standard lens cup imitates.
Old gear: My old 35mm film SLR and some of its lenses will never again be used for shooting film, but I keep them around for sentiment. It just cheers me to pick it up once in a while.
As for large format, Ilford has re-released its direct positive paper, after a year or so absence.
-
Hi,
There is something to it...
I would say the observations need to be investigated and a reasonable explanation found. Applies to Sony raw files and Leica focusing.
Best regards
Erik
Diglloyd seems to be highly excitable.
I can't help feeling that he and his punters would be better served if he took a deep breath and investigated possible cause before publication.
-
That is a most peculiar result. The figure looks fine and she is partly in the blue area which is "mush". This could keep the geek going for a while.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/images/2015-0819-_DSC0757-f4.jpg@auto.html?dglySz=1728x1152&dglyD=-C-wN6iPV21-FLW5eWJN_iMulOxWTGcmCqhKAFUBRmipJFn-YO0ChoKIxK5LB-ZLWRN3mlupW2rkvtbKBBiAJVtxWhoNAlBF59YcTsLhugneiS5i87P-YCRJ89oLuOXRqx7ts17tp-ashOB88kCN8p1yOFElSVa3J3UXr_Nk-N7v
-
Diglloyd seems to be highly excitable.
I can't help feeling that he and his punters would be better served if he took a deep breath and investigated possible cause before publication.
Now, that's an excellent suggestion!
But I'm also curious how and why his punters are allegedly so quick to respond ...
Quotes from his blog:
- This is the kind of stuff that happens when a company rushes cameras and lenses to market without proper professional R&D.
- The R&D boys at Nikon must have this stuff posted on a wall as jokes
- Disgusting. Criminal. Unforgivable.
- Holy cow .. I am awed and shocked about your findings about the A7R II. Thanks God I managed to cancel my orders for a hole new system costing a pile of money.
- I feel we are seeing the beginning of an abyss fall of respect for the marketing driven play toy company Sony. Even worse it is looking for the prostituted bloggers that hurrahs and welcome this 8th wonder in the world.
--
'Prostituted bloggers'... boys are you paying attention ?
Time to call time on sensationalism.
-
'Prostituted bloggers'... boys are you paying attention ?
Time to call time on sensationalism.
Maybe Sony *is* handing out free candy RX100s to A7RII reviewers :)
I'd be very careful here, for all we know Lloyd may be forthright, and this camera may have one or two bugs left. I've already seen bugs in software from very reputable companies, even Microsoft. But I would agree that the tone is disturbing.
Edmund
-
I agree it doesn't look like a compression artifact. It looks like someone has painted roughly over part of the image: If this is directly from a raw file it could be a memory card or firmware failure.
I've seen a tiny handful of images like that out of 500,000 taken with Sony cameras over 15 years.
Always chalked it up to a camera glitch, hoped it wouldn't come back next time I went out shooting, and it hasn't so far, other than one every few years.
-
I'd be very careful here, for all we know Lloyd may be forthright,
Edmund,
With all due respect for your more than excellent command of the English language, I'm not convinced that 'forthright' is the most appropriate adjective in connection with lloyd and his musings.
I've already seen bugs in software from very reputable companies, even Microsoft.
;D - but I'm sure you wrote that with a straight face ..
... and this camera may have one or two bugs left.
Indeed it may, but 'the bug' needs to be a repeatable and identifiable defect. It could equally be due to other potential causes (such as SD card failure and sensor heating, to name but two) and these need to be excluded before engaging in self-serving and unnecessarily melodramatic fear-mongering.
And yes, I am questioning the authenticity of all these so called subscribers who, apparently, at the first hint of trouble, take the metaphorical pen to paper in a smorgasbord expression of gratitude at having been saved from a life of hell and damnation.
Anyway, at least one suggestion Sony should take to heart - 'don't rush cameras and lenses to market without proper professional R&D' - you've been warned!
Manoli
-
Edmund,
With all due respect for your more than excellent command of the English language, I'm not convinced that 'forthright' is the most appropriate adjective in connection with lloyd and his musings.
;D - but I'm sure you wrote that with a straight face ..
Indeed it may, but 'the bug' needs to be a repeatable and identifiable defect. It could equally be due to other potential causes (such as SD card failure and sensor heating, to name but two) and these need to be excluded before engaging in self-serving and unnecessarily melodramatic fear-mongering.
And yes, I am questioning the authenticity of all these so called subscribers who, apparently, at the first hint of trouble, take the metaphorical pen to paper in a smorgasbord expression of gratitude at having been saved from a life of hell and damnation.
Anyway, at least one suggestion Sony should take to heart - 'don't rush cameras and lenses to market without proper professional R&D' - you've been warned!
Manoli
Manoli,
Let's take Lloyd and friends at face value. Maybe they are just obsessive.
It may be instructive to look at the Sony PRO video cameras, these typically go through firmware after firmware as the bugs slowly get cooked out. Features get added slowly as Sony gets them to work, or when customers yell loud enough. The FS7 is a case in point. It's not that they're bad - but rather that the hardware is put on sale while the firmware is still half baked. Of course, these days thanks to Xilinx and Altera and friends, everything is just firmware.
Rushing to market is a "personal computer" attitude - people who make infrastructure such as power stations, telecom networks, trains or airplanes usually believe in software reliability over features - this is what one calls "being professional" in some snobbish engineering circles.
I am sure the Sony A7RII is about as pretty and reliable as a computer with Windows.
BTW, you bring up thermal dissipation in your post. That shows an interesting angle - does a camera with iffy thermals make sense?
Edmund
-
Turns out to be a color management issue in Lloyd's workflow:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56349315
-
BTW, you bring up thermal dissipation in your post. That shows an interesting angle - does a camera with iffy thermals make sense?
Edmund,
I can't answer 'whether it makes sense' or not. Certainly it's a potential factor, and, from what I hear, not exclusive to the A7RII though, admittedly, AFAIK only noticed during prolonged use or long exposures. Jim Kasson has already started testing and reporting some of his findings on 'The Last Word'.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11476
Manoli
-
Turns out to be a color management issue in Lloyd's workflow:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56349315
Thanks for the link - I'd trust Iliah Borg and his expertise far more than Chambers' fanaticism.
Looks as though he's just been 'hoisted by his own petard'.
-
I just deleted a link to his blog from my browser, have no more use for his money making schemes.
-
Edmund,
I can't answer 'whether it makes sense' or not. Certainly it's a potential factor, and, from what I hear, not exclusive to the A7RII though, admittedly, AFAIK only noticed during prolonged use or long exposures. Jim Kasson has already started testing and reporting some of his findings on 'The Last Word'.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11476
Manoli
The problem for the thermals is the stabiliser. And in the other direction the need for thermal dissipation means the stabiliser cannot be sealed easily.
Edmund
-
A7rii in da house (as of Tuesday evening). Whenever I pull the trigger on a new piece of gear I do my best to ignore web commentary on said piece. Way too much incendiary/clickbait-y rubbish.
Anyway, so far I like it. Much improved ergonomics. AF is still pokey compared to Olympus' speedy m43 implementation but improved over the A7r's. Shutter also much improved…quieter and with far less vibration. IBIS is nice, seems to work well. Resolution is kind of a non-issue. This camera can record more spatial info than I can cram into any print I'm capable of (or interested in) making. JPEGs, as with the A7r, are thin even at highest "quality." This is a RAW camera.
I've attached a photo, taken this evening with a Y/C mount Zeiss 200/3.5 lens. Processed on my iPad in PhotoRaw and tweaked a little in Photogene. No doubt the pixel peepers will be disappointed. ;)
-Dave-
-
I've attached a photo, taken this evening with a Y/C mount Zeiss 200/3.5 lens. Processed on my iPad in PhotoRaw and tweaked a little in Photogene. No doubt the pixel peepers will be disappointed. ;)
-Dave-
Congrats on your new gear. Let's see how many more get "precious".
Edmund
-
You might get much faster AF in AF-C:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance
-
The ifixit teardown (https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Sony+a7R+II+Teardown/45597) is out.
nice images.
Edmund
I feel as though I've just been watching a pornographic movie. ;)
Instead of the lady's clothes being ripped off, the camera has been ripped apart. ;)
-
I feel as though I've just been watching a pornographic movie. ;)
Instead of the lady's clothes being ripped off, the camera has been ripped apart. ;)
One does feel sorry for the perfectly good camera which got destroyed.
When I was a student, we asked HP for a chip for a teardown, they refused, we located a paperweight sample at a tradefair, sawed through the resin and put the chip under a microscope.
Edmund
-
Turns out to be a color management issue in Lloyd's workflow:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56349315
Interesting. Didn't think a single, minor, posterized channel could make such a mess by itself. Looks like a triple witching of events.
-
Diglloyd seems to be highly excitable.
I can't help feeling that he and his punters would be better served if he took a deep breath and investigated possible cause before publication.
I emailed Joseph Holmes--a great and very careful landscape shooter--about the posterization being blamed on the a7r2 by Lloyd. His reply, "He's wrong." Joe has been working with the a7r (and now the a7r2) for quite some time and has nothing but good things to say about the a7r2 when used for daytime landscape photography... which will be my use.
-
I actually had kind of an ulterior motive in processing my A7rii cloud pic (posted earlier here). The RAW data has a narrow tonal/dynamic range, so I taffy-pulled it with glee to create the posted version…which is a bit more extreme than I typically go for. There might be some JPEG compression artifacts if you look real close, but the TIF is butter smooth.
-Dave-
-
I own the A7R and now the A7R mark II (although only a couple of days) and often shoot landscape-type shots after dark which often require dramatic pulling up of the shadows, and modifying the highlights, for that matter, and have never seen posterization as a result. I never shoot JPEG so cannot comment about that.
It is true that I have not, yet, done any noteworthy shooting with the A7R mark II but I don't expect anything much different to the post-processing characteristics of raw files from the mark I.
Tony Jay
-
Manoli
I am one of those prostituted bloggers Diglloyd bloggers. I was a New York City ad pro for 40 years. The cover and 5 inside photos of the book "Brotherhood" about 911 firemen in NYC photo are mine.
Who are you?
-
I am one of those prostituted bloggers Diglloyd bloggers.
If you say so. I'd like to believe you but on the evidence you present so far – I can't.
J,
I suspect you've misread my post. Those 'quotes' came from the Diglloyd blog. They are not my words but those of his 'alleged' readers who write to him in quasi instant indignation.
The blog has since been edited, the 'prostituted' part asterisked and a couple of highlighted * I'm innocent * caveats inserted: '.. nor should readers confuse my views with commentary I post ..'
His latest storm in a teacup has since been discredited by Iliah Borg and, as a poster above points out, Joseph Holmes. I'm sure there are others. A few days later, a rather lame justification is posted under the title ' Sony A7R II: General Commentary'. A save-face backtrack if ever there was one.
There are favourable reviews on this site and others, none without measured criticism and observations. To quote, and by inference of editorial responsibility, sling aspersions doubting the integrity of other reviewers, in the manner that he did, is - I'll put it diplomatically – lamentable.
I'm personally not interested in either Chambers or his blog and, IMO, he'd be wiser to have his own 'forum' where his followers could both discuss their feelings and vent their anger. It would at least dispel any doubts as to authenticity.
The A7RII is an interesting camera, no doubt there will be hiccups, firmware upgrades and feature requests, but, as I said above:
Time to call time on his self-serving style of sensationalism.
YMMV.
-
Manoli
The first two quotes from the Diglloyd blog you listed are mine.
Get a copy of the book "Brotherhood" and check the credits.
-
Brotherhood Book Jim Knight from a Google search.
"All elements of the book's creation have been handled by a large number of creative professional on a pro-bono basis, and the initial printing and distribution has been funded by American Express. In addition, more than 60 professional photographers donated their services. Leading photographers who have participated include Albert Watson, Mark Seliger, Mary Ellen Mark, Christen Within, and Jim Knight."
-
J,
The pro Sony video cameras seem ok for real life conditions. I expect Sony will release a ruggedized A7IIR.
As for all that other crap - XLR, HDMI, SDI, USB etc someone is going to have to bite the bullet and create a single tough and fast digital bus, that chains externally with an iron-clad weatherproofed shielded connector that cannot get pulled out. A new opto connector could handle any bandwidth. It's impossible to always have the right cables and adapters for each device, and these cameras are now looking like intensive care patients with tubes coming out of their ... :)
For now, the presence of solid connectors is one big argument for buying an expensive model ... this is ridiculous.
Edmund
To begin with I will most likely buy the A7RII. I believe mirrorless is here to stay and will only get better.
I don't hammer nails with a camera, but sometimes it feels like it.*
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/working.jpg)
I shot this session with 1d series Canons and this image was the D700 Nikon, which is deadly on focus and the beauty of larger cameras is the batteries seem to last forever.
Will a RII do this? That's the question for shooting moving subjects in harsh conditions.
Michael's review pretty much says it all, though once he uses it for a year, I wonder if the original thoughts will hold.
Honestly the Sony won't do anything I can't do now with the cameras I own today, but it takes two cameras two do what this camera could potentially do with a little help on the video side.
Saying that, I think were just at the starting line of what mirrorless can offer.
I don't know if $3,200 is a magic number in the price of still cameras, or that's a real number, but I would pay a lot more for more robust and refined tech.
I'd love to see real full size HDMI (It fits on a Pana GH3), and lemo connectors for usb, with mini xlr's not a gizmo that goes on top of a hotshoe. It will get in the way of a good cage.
I'd also love to see them put new mounts on their series 2.8 zoom a mount lenses, so you'd get exactly the same functionality as the FE lenses. Maybe you do with the adapter, though the test's I've seen showed some hunting.
And when Sony makes new primes, take a look at their sibling Olympus. Oly has some small 4/3 lenses that you pull the focus ring back to go manual it becomes a mechanical focusing lens, rather than fly by wire.
And now the real wish list. Use that right angle grip for a video processor, or media, or added video processing to get to a hefty 10 bit ProRes file or xlr connectors or something other than just batteries.
For some reason the Japanese seem to loathe liscense other people's stuff like ProRes (though they do offer a card for the F5).
If Sony wants to rock it on moving imagery, make it a touch screen and put in a connector for a hard wired second lcd with touch screen and full use.
So I guess I want a pro RII and I think it can make a great motion camera with the 5 axis stabilization or
IMO
BC
P.S. I don't know anything about digital lloyd, but there is something wrong with that photo. Maybe the sensor stabilization was on and it was correcting one way as the water was moving another way, or as some say the processing.
I think it's a rare thing on any camera and looks like the perfect storm which is rare, but time will tell.
-
Has anyone tried the canon 85mm 1.2 II lens on the a7rII yet? Wondering about AF.
-
Hi,
I am with Ronald on this one, a real industry quality optical bus, instead of a lot of half baked solutions.
Best regards
Erik
J,
The pro Sony video cameras seem ok for real life conditions. I expect Sony will release a ruggedized A7IIR.
As for all that other crap - XLR, HDMI, SDI, USB etc someone is going to have to bite the bullet and create a single tough and fast digital bus, that chains externally with an iron-clad weatherproofed shielded connector that cannot get pulled out. A new opto connector could handle any bandwidth. It's impossible to always have the right cables and adapters for each device, and these cameras are now looking like intensive care patients with tubes coming out of their ... :)
For now, the presence of solid connectors is one big argument for buying an expensive model ... this is ridiculous.
Edmund
-
Thanks for the link - I'd trust Iliah Borg and his expertise far more than Chambers' fanaticism.
Looks as though he's just been 'hoisted by his own petard'.
Yes, thanks for the link. When it comes to looking at Raw data, Iliah does seem to know his stuff (even if its often pretty tough to work out exactly what he's thinking ;) )
And on that note, later on in that thread, someone says:
"Images from any camera can have out-of-gamut colors on colorspace compression"
To which Iliah replies:
"Right. But on the Lloid's example the problem exists even before that. Raw data is already posterized"
Can someone explain to me the relevance of that statement?
-
There's an A7R2 and 5DsR image quality and noise (second page) comparison that has just gone up..
It has some real world images.
The two cameras seem close.
Anyway, images are better than words.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/outdoor_resolution.shtml
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/noise.shtml
Edmund
-
The pro Sony video cameras seem ok for real life conditions. I expect Sony will release a ruggedized A7IIR.
Their cellphone division seems fixated on delivering water/dust-resistant models, while their (consumer) camera division is not. I am really hoping for an RX100-rugged.
As for all that other crap - XLR, HDMI, SDI, USB etc someone is going to have to bite the bullet and create a single tough and fast digital bus, that chains externally with an iron-clad weatherproofed shielded connector that cannot get pulled out.
I have got some replies to this.
#1:(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png)
#2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface) would seem to cover a lot of ground except the rugged part. Perhaps a rugged version of thunderbolt?
#3: The luxury of having XLR connectors have alway been at a significant price premium over having rca connectors or even having an integrated microphone (usually with AGC always on). The marketers simply figure what the consumer needs/wants, then price anything else at a large premium.
-h
-
"Right. But on the Lloid's example the problem exists even before that. Raw data is already posterized"
Can someone explain to me the relevance of that statement?
From a quick read of the thread, and Iliah Borg's comments in particular, the problem was principally twofold.
1
It was underexposure of the red channel ( actually clipping of the red ch to zero). Using a polarizer deep blue waters can exceed the Adobe RGB gamut. In this shot, had he used a CC40M magenta filter, it would have helped to bring blue and red channel in balance with green channel - with a magenta filter nearly a two stop boost of the red channel would have been possible.
2
Exporting in Lr with relative colormetric instead of converting to sRGB in Ps using a perceptual transform (which compresses the out of gamut colours).
Lifted from the dpr thread …
3
It can be seen in RawDigger is that he drove with semi-mechanical shutter which halves the bit resolution in the readout. Well documented, should be avoided at base ISO and ISO200. ISO400 and up it makes no difference, the noise is much higher than the lowest quantization level.
4
As to profiles resulting in posterisation; the profiles I use at the raw conversion stage can't cause posterisation as they are simple matrix transforms, and the software does not clip. Still, the problem is there, but of course not as dramatic as with uncontrolled transform to AdobeRGB.
-
Just my quick take.
Perhaps one of the colour gurus or Iliah could comment ?
-
No comment :)
E.
-
From a quick read of the thread, and Iliah Borg's comments in particular, the problem was principally twofold.
1
It was underexposure of the red channel ( actually clipping of the red ch to zero). Using a polarizer deep blue waters can exceed the Adobe RGB gamut. In this shot, had he used a CC40M magenta filter, it would have helped to bring blue and red channel in balance with green channel - with a magenta filter nearly a two stop boost of the red channel would have been possible.
2
Exporting in Lr with relative colormetric instead of converting to sRGB in Ps using a perceptual transform (which compresses the out of gamut colours).
Lifted from the dpr thread …
3
It can be seen in RawDigger is that he drove with semi-mechanical shutter which halves the bit resolution in the readout. Well documented, should be avoided at base ISO and ISO200. ISO400 and up it makes no difference, the noise is much higher than the lowest quantization level.
4
As to profiles resulting in posterisation; the profiles I use at the raw conversion stage can't cause posterisation as they are simple matrix transforms, and the software does not clip. Still, the problem is there, but of course not as dramatic as with uncontrolled transform to AdobeRGB.
-
Just my quick take.
Perhaps one of the colour gurus or Iliah could comment ?
The semi-mechanical shutter (assuming it means EFC) doesn't change the bit depth, that happens with silent shutter, LENR or 30+ second bulb exposures and a bracketing + continuous shooting mode. I wonder if the poster indeed meant that Lloyd used silent mode, or if he misunderstood the limitation (ie EFC OK, silent mode = 12 bits).
-
Thank you much Edmund. Great links. I loved the simplicity and the objectivity of both tests.
Now I wish for long exposure tests at base iso. Something in the 4-6 minute long exps.
Eduardo
There's an A7R2 and 5DsR image quality and noise (second page) comparison that has just gone up..
It has some real world images.
The two cameras seem close.
Anyway, images are better than words.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/outdoor_resolution.shtml
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/noise.shtml
Edmund
-
No comment :)
Edmund,
What do you think of this post (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103276.20) where the a7RII's color performance appears to be the same or better than most current ILCs?
-
Saw online from an A7R II owner that the color rendering does look better when the Phase One IQ 250 profile is used in C1P, as is the case with the Nikons.
Might be worth exploring.
-
There's an A7R2 and 5DsR image quality and noise (second page) comparison that has just gone up..
It has some real world images.
The two cameras seem close.
Anyway, images are better than words.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/outdoor_resolution.shtml
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/noise.shtml
Edmund
I own neither, but looking at the comparison, the Canon images look like they have a 0.5px gaussian blur filter applied in comparison to the Sony.
Standalone, the Canon seems to be resolving details on the same level as the D800 (This one I know first hand), the Sony, quite a bit more than that.
Seems like no AA filter > self canceling AA filter.
-
I own neither, but looking at the comparison, the Canon images look like they have a 0.5px gaussian blur filter applied in comparison to the Sony.
Standalone, the Canon seems to be resolving details on the same level as the D800 (This one I know first hand), the Sony, quite a bit more than that.
Seems like no AA filter > self canceling AA filter.
The D800E has the same approach as the 5DsR and only the D810 has not AA filter. The 5DsR clearly has higher resolution than the D810 and I own both! The big questions is: Does it really matter?
-
The D800E has the same approach as the 5DsR and only the D810 has not AA filter. The 5DsR clearly has higher resolution than the D810 and I own both! The big questions is: Does it really matter?
Hi Hans,
Yes, I am aware of the fact that the D800E has the same approach. In my personal tests, I really struggle to find any noticeable difference between the D800 and the D800E in terms of detailing rendered. The 810 might be better as it has no AA filter.
You might be right that the 5DsR has higher resolution than the D810 (I am just working from memory here, seeing them side by side would obviously be better), but it is definitely lacking in comparison tot he Sony, in the quoted example.
As for the "Does it matter"? question, it's very subjective. To me, it does. To someone else, it might not.
-
I own neither, but looking at the comparison, the Canon images look like they have a 0.5px gaussian blur filter applied in comparison to the Sony.
Hi Sandeep,
They were apparently ("Sharpening at 70 / 0.5 / 36 / 10, Luminance and Colour Noise Reduction both set to zero,") sharpened with mostly USM sharpening, while at these small sensel pitches (and at f/8 !) deconvolution sharpening makes a world of difference.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Sandeep,
They were apparently ("Sharpening at 70 / 0.5 / 36 / 10, Luminance and Colour Noise Reduction both set to zero,") sharpened with mostly USM sharpening, while at these small sensel pitches (and at f/8 !) deconvolution sharpening makes a world of difference.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
Indeed, deconvolution sharpening does make a huge difference and is an integral part of my D800 workflow now.
But it is indeed fascinating to see that head to head, the Sony delivers more details per pixel, out of the box.
-
Hi Bart,
Indeed, deconvolution sharpening does make a huge difference and is an integral part of my D800 workflow now.
But it is indeed fascinating to see that head to head, the Sony delivers more details per pixel, out of the box.
Well, it's physically impossible for the Sony sensor to produce higher resolution with the same lens and proper focus, so it's probably something else (defocus, camera vibration, raw converter, aliasing, lack of deconvolution sharpening) causing that. There is a physical resolution difference of around 10% (sensel pitch), so with the same lens the Canon should be visibly sharper at full output size (and the same detail is larger), even for medium and lower contrast features.
Cheers,
Bart
-
..., so it's probably something else...
Confirmation bias.
-
Confirmation bias.
...or the fact that one camera has on AA filter and the other, an AA-but-not-really filter, as I said in the first post.
-
I own neither, but looking at the comparison, the Canon images look like they have a 0.5px gaussian blur filter applied in comparison to the Sony.
Standalone, the Canon seems to be resolving details on the same level as the D800 (This one I know first hand), the Sony, quite a bit more than that.
Seems like no AA filter > self canceling AA filter.
I see exactly the opposite. The 5DSR images are sharper and have more detail. Make sure you are viewing the comparo on a display where the browser window is large enough. Also... if you wear glasses it is easy to favor one side of the screen to the other... thus proper head/glasses viewing alignment is crucial.
Note: I do not own either camera (at this time).
-
I compared the images on my calibrated 30" Ultrasharp. No glasses either, 20:20 vision here. :)
-
I compared the images on my calibrated 30" Ultrasharp. No glasses either, 20:20 vision here. :)
Do note that the smaller 5DS R pixels magnify the details 10% more, and thus larger detail will seem to be of lower resolution in a side by side comparison, but actually shows more detail (assuming identical focus).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I compared the images on my calibrated 30" Ultrasharp. No glasses either, 20:20 vision here. :)
Tried on a second screen just to confirm - same result: 5DSR side sharper/more detailed.
-
To me that last frame seems sharper for the Sony. Overall it is close. We can stop worrying about resolution and focus on other aspects of sensor performance.
-
Do note that the smaller 5DS R pixels magnify the details 10% more, and thus larger detail will seem to be of lower resolution in a side by side comparison, but actually shows more detail (assuming identical focus).
Cheers,
Bart
Good point. I downloaded some samples for both cameras from imaging-resource, downscaled the %DSR image to the dimensions of the A7RII sample and looked at them side by side. Please see attached.
A lot closer now, witht he Sony image looking a tad more detailed. But that could very well be extra contrast out of the box and can be equalized in post.
-
Both are close enough with Sigma 50mm f1.4 used at f8 for this test that the resolution difference seems mostly irrelevant.
The gap could be a bit larger with the Otus at f4, especially on true AA filter less bodies, but the key takeaway for me here is that 40 vs 50mp is of secondary importance even in these tests and probably even more in real world applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Both are close enough with Sigma 50mm f1.4 used at f8 for this test that the resolution difference seems mostly irrelevant.
The gap could be a bit larger with the Otus at f4, especially on true AA filter less bodies, but the key takeaway for me here is that 40 vs 50mp is of secondary importance even in these tests and probably even more in real world applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
Just like the eventual gap between the Otus and the much cheaper AF Sony Zeiss 50 :)
I would expect a $200 "plastic fantastic" with similar performance to the Otus to appear as soon as the 40MP sensor moves into the consumer range.
Edmund
-
Just like the eventual gap between the Otus and the much cheaper AF Sony Zeiss 50 :)
I would expect a $200 "plastic fantastic" with similar performance to the Otus to appear as soon as the 40MP sensor moves into the consumer range.
That would be fantastic!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Hans,
Yes, I am aware of the fact that the D800E has the same approach. In my personal tests, I really struggle to find any noticeable difference between the D800 and the D800E in terms of detailing rendered. The 810 might be better as it has no AA filter.
You might be right that the 5DsR has higher resolution than the D810 (I am just working from memory here, seeing them side by side would obviously be better), but it is definitely lacking in comparison tot he Sony, in the quoted example.
As for the "Does it matter"? question, it's very subjective. To me, it does. To someone else, it might not.
I have attached a screen shot in 2:1 from Lightroom from studio shots from dpreview from 5DsR and D810. You can see the lenses used. I used the Adobe Standard profile and sharpening as 60/0.7/70/20 in Lightroom. I set the black point and white point for both images by double clicking the whites and blacks. They were very close from both cameras. Noise reduction as default. Other than that, no other adjustments. I think it is very obvious that there is a difference in resolution.
Second attachment is the same studio scene comparing 5DsR and A7r II. Again the same processing as before. The RAW file used was the E-shutter version.
The more the images are increased in size the easier it is to see the higher resolution of the Canon, however I would not loose any sleep over 42MP rather than 50MP! It still is only 9% linear extra for the 5DsR. Why would you doubt that there is this difference?
The reason I ask does it matter is: Let's say you print both test shots 150x100cm. Do you think you could see the difference unless you used a loope? The Sony gets printed at 135 PPI and the Canon at 147 PPI. I don't think anybody would be able to tell the difference. The D810 would be at 125 PPI. Would I be able to tell the difference between the Canon and the Nikon? I doubt it.
I shoot both the 5DsR and the D810. I typically have the 5DsR on the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and the D810 on the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR (I only change lenses when I need to go ultra wide angle or longer with the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II). I will not change lenses to achieve the highest resolution as for me what matters is to be able to work fast enough when the light changes quickly. I'm on Isle on Skye in Scotland at the moment and I can say to those who doubt it, that light changes so quick that when to see a composition and the light then you may have less than a minute to take the shot or it is gone! This also means that there is no time to mess around with exposure compensation to protect the highlights. The simple solution is bracketing to cover from -3EV to +1EV which solves 99% of cases with very high DR as you have a lot of on this island. Even though I can recover shadows more cleanly on the D810 (by far) the best solution is to blend two exposures in Lightroom using the HDR function. For both cameras this the best quality.
This just to say that for what I'm doing the difference between these cameras in terms of resolution and DR is not important. What is more important is the speed with which it is possible to work with a camera system and how reliable and consistent it is. Both the Canon and the Nikon has passed my test. I don't know about the Sony yet. I have only shot the 5DsR for a short time and only 4 days on my current shoot and I have not found anything surprising og negative yet.
For others the parameters can well be different and therefore the choice of camera be different.
Sorry for the rant -- I couldn't help it ;D
-
...I shoot both the 5DsR and the D810...
Hans, I agree completely that the resolution of all the three camera's is good enough..
What i would not like to do myself is: use two different camera systems ( + at the same time) for i am afraid i would go crazy with the little details that are different in the handling and the menu system...
So in short i would be to busy with he camera systems with all there special quirks and mix them up, since all hese cameras get more and more complicated and the result could be i miss that special moment in the isle of sky.
Don't you have any problems with that?
-
Hans, for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FYJydaClRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RnDPruYdY0
The two usually follow in sequence; if not, the second link gets you there to the final pìece.
See well before you leave the island.
Rob C
-
Hans, I agree completely that the resolution of all the three camera's is good enough..
What i would not like to do myself is: use two different camera systems ( + at the same time) for i am afraid i would go crazy with the little details that are different in the handling and the menu system...
So in short i would be to busy with he camera systems with all there special quirks and mix them up, since all hese cameras get more and more complicated and the result could be i miss that special moment in the isle of sky.
Don't you have any problems with that?
No, not a problem for me. I always had a good memory for technical details :) You can ask my wife that my memory is lacking in some other areas :)
But I only do it to service my workshop guests with detailed knowledge of the two camera systems.
-
No, not a problem for me. I always had a good memory for technical details :) You can ask my wife that my memory is lacking in some other areas :)
But I only do it to service my workshop guests with detailed knowledge of the two camera systems.
Hans,
I was puzzled by the word Service, which has so many meanings. I looked it up and even found an eponymous poet, Robert William.
Edmund
------
I haled me a woman from the street,
Shameless, but, oh, so fair!
I bade her sit in the model's seat,
And I painted her sitting there.
I hid all trace of her heart unclean;
I painted a babe at her breast;
I painted her as she might have been
If the Worst had been the Best.
She laughed at my picture, and went away.
Then came, with a knowing nod,
A connoisseur, and I heard him say:
"'Tis Mary, the Mother of God."
So I painted a halo round her hair,
And I sold her, and took my fee,
And she hangs in the church of Saint Hilaire,
Where you and all may see.
--------
-
Thank you, Edmund for posting "My Madonna" - short, but sweet poem by Robert Service.
Little did he know that one day there will be millions of other artists interpreting their worlds with something called Photoshop.
However, many landscape photographers will relate to his poem "Call Of The Wild".
Have you gazed on naked grandeur where there's nothing else to gaze on,
Set pieces and drop-curtain scenes galore,
Big mountains heaved to heaven, which the blinding sunsets blazon,
Black canyons where the rapids rip and roar?
Have you swept the visioned valley with the green stream streaking through it,
Searched the Vastness for a something you have lost?
Have you strung your soul to silence? Then for God's sake go and do it;
Hear the challenge, learn the lesson, pay the cost.
Have you wandered in the wilderness, the sagebrush desolation,
The bunch-grass levels where the cattle graze?
Have you whistled bits of rag-time at the end of all creation,
And learned to know the desert's little ways?
Have you camped upon the foothills, have you galloped o'er the ranges,
Have you roamed the arid sun-lands through and through?
Have you chummed up with the mesa? Do you know its moods and changes?
Then listen to the wild–it's calling you.
-
Thank you, Edmund for posting "My Madonna" - short, but sweet poem by Robert Service.
Little did he know that one day there will be millions of other artists interpreting their worlds with something called Photoshop.
However, many landscape photographers will relate to his poem "Call Of The Wild".
Have you gazed on naked grandeur where there's nothing else to gaze on,
Set pieces and drop-curtain scenes galore,
Big mountains heaved to heaven, which the blinding sunsets blazon,
Black canyons where the rapids rip and roar?
Have you swept the visioned valley with the green stream streaking through it,
Searched the Vastness for a something you have lost?
Have you strung your soul to silence? Then for God's sake go and do it;
Hear the challenge, learn the lesson, pay the cost.
Have you wandered in the wilderness, the sagebrush desolation,
The bunch-grass levels where the cattle graze?
Have you whistled bits of rag-time at the end of all creation,
And learned to know the desert's little ways?
Have you camped upon the foothills, have you galloped o'er the ranges,
Have you roamed the arid sun-lands through and through?
Have you chummed up with the mesa? Do you know its moods and changes?
Then listen to the wild–it's calling you.
Not a mention of all the things there that crawl, wanting to kill us; of those hanging in webs that have their own inject-and-suck agenda; of all those terrible things bigger than us that want to devour us, and those others, of our own kind, who are pefectly placed to blow our head off as they mistake us (or don't) for a moose!
Give me a nice drive through a civilized France any day! Far better a gourmet dinner than burned offerings from a campfire.
;-)
Rob
-
It's little known fact that the inexpensive but decent quality Samyang 24mm Tilt/shift lens is now available in Sony E-Mount.
The mount is little more than a dumb adapter attached to the lens so no lens info is transmitted from lens to camera. However, this does allow more space than with, say, the strikingly similar Nikon PC-E lens to operate the tilt shift controls
I received mine yesterday; here it is attached to the Sony A7RII. I will test over the next few days.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/Samyang_24mm_T-S.jpg)
-
Hi Quentin,
I am very interested to hear how the Samyang performs. Looking forward to your tests!
-
It's little known fact that the inexpensive but decent quality Samyang 24mm Tilt/shift lens is now available in Sony E-Mount.
The mount is little more than a dumb adapter attached to the lens so no lens info is transmitted from lens to camera. However, this does allow more space than with, say, the strikingly similar Nikon PC-E lens to operate the tilt shift controls
I received mine yesterday; here it is attached to the Sony A7RII. I will test over the next few days.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/August%202015/Samyang_24mm_T-S.jpg)
Quentin, where's the aperture adjustment located on that shifter if there's no electrical connection? I can't see a ring...
Rob C
-
Quentin, where's the aperture adjustment located on that shifter if there's no electrical connection? I can't see a ring...
Rob C
I see two rings and assume one is focus and the other f-stop.
-
I see two rings and assume one is focus and the other f-stop.
Do you mean directly to the right of the red line? The focus one is obvious, but I can't see any aperture markings anywhere.
Rob
P.S.
Did you catch the two links I sent you on Post 459?
-
Do you mean directly to the right of the red line? The focus one is obvious, but I can't see any aperture markings anywhere.
-
That's it.
I will be testing more tomorrow. I have too much on to do so today.
-
Thanks, Slobodan, a good angle.
Rob
-
Anyone tried the Huelight profile for the Sony A7r II?
-
Hans, for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FYJydaClRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RnDPruYdY0
The two usually follow in sequence; if not, the second link gets you there to the final pìece.
See well before you leave the island.
Rob C
Thanks Rob, I forgot some accessories :) ... and some assistants :)
-
Do you mean directly to the right of the red line? The focus one is obvious, but I can't see any aperture markings anywhere.
Rob
P.S.
Did you catch the two links I sent you on Post 459?
I think he is better at the modelling shots :)
-
Early tests on the Samyang T-S F/3.5 confirm:
- Generally well made, not far short of the Nikkor F/3.5 PC/E. Easier to use as the knobs are a tad bigger and with the E-Mount, further from the camera.
- A lot of haloing at max aperture. Avoid if possible.
- Sharp stopped down to F/8 or F/11, it's sweet spot. Some loss of quality at edges when fully shifted, but better than on my copy of a Nikkor
- Close focusing and selective focus using tilt likely be good for product or food photography
- Outstanding value for money.
A few samples:
Max front shift
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/September_2015/_DSC0912.jpg)
Tilt
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/September_2015/_DSC0922.jpg)
Tilt used for selective focus
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/September_2015/_DSC0928.jpg)
Sharp where it needs to be
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/September_2015/_DSC0933.jpg)
-
Thanks, Slobodan, a good angle.
Rob
Welcome back to LuLa Rob! Hope this finds you happy and in good health.