A7RII initial thoughts and images

[rainer_v]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Ray]

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. 

[rainer_v]

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.

[adrian tyler]

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...

[shadowblade]

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.

[eronald]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[eronald]

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

[Ray]

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. 

[eronald]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..

[Ray]

Hah! hah! hah!    Good point, Slobodan.

[Ray]

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? 

[eronald]

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

[Ray]

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.

[eronald]

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

[adrian tyler]

how did photography work before lightning fast face recognising auto focus?
;-)

[Ray]

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'. 

[adias]

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.