A7RII initial thoughts and images

[adrian tyler]

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!

[chez]

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?

[chez]

"... 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.

[eronald]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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?

[eronald]

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

[Dr Tone]

- 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.

[Jack Hogan]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[spidermike]

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.

[NancyP]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[AreBee]

Edmund,

...Large back-illuminated chip (adds one stop...

...a back-illuminated sensor will always do about a stop better.

From here:

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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 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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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?

[adias]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[telyt]

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.

[Johnny_Johnson]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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