A7RII initial thoughts and images

[rdonson]

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?

[chez]

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?

[eronald]

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

[adrian tyler]

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...)

[eronald]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[rainer_v]

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.

[chez]

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.

[chez]

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.

[eronald]

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

[chez]

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?

[D Fuller]

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?

[eronald]

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

[Manoli]

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

[adrian tyler]

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.

[rainer_v]

.. 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.

[shadowblade]

.. 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.

[eronald]

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. 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

[Ray]

.. 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? 

[shadowblade]

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.