A7RII initial thoughts and images

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[hubell]

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.

[NancyP]

I am looking forward to more IMAGES from this camera! (happily pokes around with 20 MP Canon)

[rainer_v]

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.

[Ray]

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. 

[eronald]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[hjulenissen]

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

[Jack Hogan]

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.  

 

[hjulenissen]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[spidermike]

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.

[rainer_v]

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 ).

[shadowblade]

That's a bold statement.

What's the alternative? Leica? They've captured it by virtue of there being no viable competitor.

[telyt]

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.

[spidermike]

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.

[rainer_v]

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.

[NancyP]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... However, a possible MILF-dominated market...

Damn, I'd like to penetrate that market