Sony's New a7RII Camera Delivers World's First Back-Illuminated FF Sensor

[scyrene]

Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of contrast and phase detection AF in DSLR's vs. mirrorless cameras. Thanks for the responses.

I don't see Pros shooters would walk away from DSLR - 5D and 1D. With bigger lenses, the grip on bigger body is better. I strongly believe Canon will have some good stuffs in up coming 5D and 1Dx line.

Looking at a7rII specs, it looks like Sony still using same battery. This is one of the weak points in current mirrorless system. You can't shoot a sport event with a battery life that can only shoot up to 300-400 photos. It's more for soccer moms or regular dads(me) that want high IQ images in smaller body.

17 pages in and you're the first person to bring up form factor! I won't be mounting a small mirrorless body on a supertele for handheld shots (which is essentially all my shots with that lens), as the ergonomics just don't work. Battery life is also massively important. I'm sure people will counter with 'just carry extra batteries' but I'd rather have 1 battery that does 2000 shots than 4 that do 500 each.

This makes a huge difference in what you can do as it extends your effective shooting hours and options - just like fast primes do. It simply gives you more flexibility with more light options to play with during a longer time of the day. I really wanted a high MPIX Canon but the low iso of the new 5Ds was a clear deal breaker for me.

One example: During late fall the SONY will potentially give me 1 1/2 hours more shooting time in the early morning when the deer are most active (compared to 5DII). That's twice the "good" morning hours I get now. I imagine any dedicated nature shooter - always needing more light and more pixels to fight the low morning light and the subject distance - will want this camera in their bag if they have the money to spend (and expectations are confirmed).

I would also love to bring the SONY on my next safari - alas it will not be available for that. If you ever tried a Safari you would know how many amazing scenes cannot be captured by current Canon cameras due to either high iso restrictions or lack of pixels - or both. Especially in the late evening/early morning hours when most of the real action is on. Down South I'd say you get at least 1/2 hour extra time at each end of the day - a full extra hour of the best animal action. And because the "good" hours are shorter than in the North its relatively a huge difference the SONY brings to the table.

Not convinced. Of course if money was no object (and total gear weight), I'd have one of these. And a Pentax 645z etc. But this body won't work terribly well on a supertelephoto lens imho - especially handheld. Okay, if 'wildlife' is big game, and you sit with a tripod, it may well be worth considering. But for birds, I doubt it very much. We need ergonomic solutions.

 

[scyrene]

i shoot both a 5dmk3 and a sony a7r now.. both are great.. but different tools for different jobs..

the 5dmk3 is an amazing all around camera.. if you dont know what kind of conditions i'm getting myself into i bring this camera and i know i'll get some good shots. Batteries last for days.. and the interface and controls are very comfortable and well designed (for a DSLR) Focusing is as fast as you can expect from a digital camera.

the sony a7r (current generation) is a remarkable little camera. it does have a wider dynamic range than the canon. it is 36mp.. controls are usable.. lenses arent bad.. the 50mm f1.8 FE lens is VERY good.. the others are just okay.. (most of the other lenses are F4) focusing is slow but usable. the metabones adapter works very well with canon lenses.. but autofocus is VERY slow.. i typically just use focus peaking. (amazing tool for focusing). Battery life is downright miserable.. 250-300 shots per battery. Which is fine for a landscape photographer with a pocket full of batteries. but if you are doing long exposures its drastically less.

the a7rII will use the same battery. dpreview says the battery is rated for 290 shots with this camera.. but with an even bigger sensor, image stabilization, and lots of other bells and whistles i wonder how long these small batteries will really last. Focusing should be dramatically improved. Some forums are saying with the metabones IV adapter its almost as fast focusing as a canon dslr with a canon lens.. (i'll believe that when i see it) i think its an amazing camera.. but it'll be a tool like any other tool.. make sure its really the right tool for the photography you do. I wouldnt be selling your canon gear just yet.

I keep hoping canon will come out with some contender in the mirrorless market.. but ive been hoping for years. EOS-M doesnt count.

just my thoughts.. a hopeful canon & sony user

A refreshing view, thanks for adding it!

 

[scyrene]

I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.

It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. And I don't know where it started. But nobody brought sales into the picture UNTIL this started. It's the constant "OMG Canon is doomed!" attitude that happens the minute a new camera body comes out from another company. Then when people try to explain, like Neuro has tried countless times that Canon isn't doomed, then he's just a fanboy who can't wake up to reality. That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.

Then of course we come to the MILC is going to replace DSLR garbage that has been going on for years and years. I remember in 2009 everyone saying "just you wait, by the end of the year MILC will overtake DSLR's!". Then in 2010...2011...2012...2013...2014...first half of 2015...

I'm still waiting.

To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

I think that is the crap that we're getting sick of because none of it makes sense. If you want to buy a MILC system from Sony then go for it. But to make completely idiotic and ignorant claims that "OMG Canon is doomed now!" is really pointless, and wrong. It's almost like a cult following.

I realize there are problems with Canon sensors that Sony/Exmor don't have. But good lord it's like any camera with a Sony/Exmor sensor can part water.

Precisely this. The misrepresentation of Neuro's position in particular is unfair.

 

[scyrene]

The battery life is really the only real weakness of most mirrorless systems. Although you could carry many spare batteries and still be lighter than a DSLR body.


Have any of the A7 series users here tried the vertical battery grip?

In my use, I just got in the habit of flipping the power off on the camera. The switch, at least on the models I've used, was right near your thumb, so turning the camera on and off was very easy. I've gone for a whole day with the A7r without having to swap batteries doing that. Now, I wasn't taking repeated burst shots, but for what I use d the camera for, the battery life was quite good.

Even if it was shorter, with the extra battery I carried, extending the life of the camera for a whole dawn-to-dusk period wouldn't have been difficult. To top that off, I always keep an AC inverter in my car, so I can always plug in the charger and keep a battery in that to ensure I have power when I need it.

I used to do that with the 300D Always wondered though, does it take extra power to turn on and off than to leave it on standby?

 

[scyrene]

And pros do bring stuff up. On the sidelines I'd hear them bring up AF or this or that now and then.

It is true that some are a bit jaded and it's all a job for them, the pay isn't always high and they are fine with just using whatever gets a result that keeps them in the job. For some things like newsprint, just a little bit of image quality can go quite a long way. Some of them are not all that technical and don't even know as much about what this or that HW can do than many amateurs in some regards. So sometimes the excited amateur is more apt to care about certain things, especially once you get past AF and speed. (Although I should point out I once shot next to a Getty shooter who was getting so disgusted with Nikon sensors, this was obviously years ago, that he was very seriously considering switching sides and he was asking all sorts of questions about Canon sensors and more.)

This made me smile, as it is so very true. This may shock many here, but one of the most common discussions I have with the Canon users I see frequently along side me on the pitch is what AF tracking settings they are on. I only do this when I know them well, but I often find they are curious too. Funny thing is, I have never met two with identical options, there are just so many on the 1D X (that frankly it can get confusing). I love the 1D X and we all know it is the best sport camera there is, but try and sift through all those tracking options and test them out and wow you will need a headache pill!

When I see my Nikon friends, and I have a few that we watch each others gear for if one of us needs to run off to the toilet etc., then we just talk about whether we are happy with what we have. It would take something quite big for either of us to change and we all know it.

I have never ever had a discussion that gets as in-depth as some do here. I learn a lot from CR but it also often confuses me.

I often get sun burned or get soaked sat in rain, thunder and lightening but love shooting sports more than anything, and I am very lucky to have been accredited at some of the events I have. At some events I hardly get any sleep, it depends whether it is one match or a major int. tournament, but it is all good. I know I have the best equipment. Sure, Nikon may introduce something to market in December that may blast the 1D X out of the water, would I change? No. I know that Canon will have something to beat it. That may take a few months or maybe a year, but I doubt my clients will care, and neither do I.

That does not mean I am blinkered, but I am invested. Can use the 1D X buttons with my eyes closed and know what I like and want. If someone comes out and beats it and Canon does not respond within 12 months and I feel I am losing clients for my pics maybe I will reconsider.

Another refreshingly honest response.

 

[Maiaibing]

But this body won't work terribly well on a supertelephoto lens imho - especially handheld. Okay, if 'wildlife' if big game, and you sit with a tripod, it may well be worth considering. But for birds, I doubt it very much. We need ergonomic solutions.

I am much more optimistic about hand held handling. I never had any problems using the rebels with my super telephoto lenses (do not shoot birds except occasionally on safari). I do not see why handling the SONY should be worse.

Handling is of course user specific so YMMV. However, for me it would have to be really bad to give up 2 extra stops and almost 2x MPIX.

Time will tell.

 

[Dylan777]

The battery life is really the only real weakness of most mirrorless systems. Although you could carry many spare batteries and still be lighter than a DSLR body.


Have any of the A7 series users here tried the vertical battery grip?

Yes. I bought a used Sony VG-C1EM for my Sony A7s. The ergonomics is awkward. You will hate it.

 

[jrista]

But this body won't work terribly well on a supertelephoto lens imho - especially handheld. Okay, if 'wildlife' if big game, and you sit with a tripod, it may well be worth considering. But for birds, I doubt it very much. We need ergonomic solutions.

I am much more optimistic about hand held handling. I never had any problems using the rebels with my super telephoto lenses (do not shoot birds except occasionally on safari). I do not see why handling the SONY should be worse.

Handling is of course user specific so YMMV. However, for me it would have to be really bad to give up 2 extra stops and almost 2x MPIX.

Time will tell.

A lot of bird photography is done on a tripod as well. In fact, most of my bird photography is done with a tripod. The form of photography I do that most requires hand-held use of a giant lens is BIF...and yes, the large size and ergonomics of the 5D III definitely help in that situation. However with shorebirds, waders, perched songbirds...all of that is done with the lens mounted to the tripod...the camera is just a little control box on the back that lets me focus and expose.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I also believe, having used a variety of demosaicing algorithms now, that not all banding is actually baked into the signal itself...

The typical banding is baked in. Use a RAW examiner program that lets you look at the raw RAW before any demosaic and you can see banding like crazy in say 5D2 shadows and barely any on say 7D2 shadows.

Stuff like 7D mazing is due to heavily split greens on the CFA and you need to use very special demosaic and processing to avoid it. The beta 7D ACR and even the first DPP release from Canon had nasty mazing from 7D images. A month or so later it got fixed up (at the cost of a tiny trace loss of micro-contrast).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The data is not stored linear into the RAW, otherwise you wouldn't get 14.6 Stops of DR (Nikon 7200) into a 14 Bit RAW.

The DR isn't actually 14.6 stops in the RAW. THe camera only gets 14.6 stops normalized to 8MP.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've seen examples of badly underexposed images where shadow detail could be recovered, but realistically, those types of pictures are going to be deleted anyway.

Nonsense on two counts.

First, as has only been said 1000000x times, it's not really about underexposing or not getting exposure right or not understanding exposure (ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose), but sometimes mistakes are made and instead of having to delete the file, maybe you can actually get a perfectly fine image out of it. Not a bad thing is it?

Second, shots were you need more DR would not all be deleted if taken with a camera that has enough DR.

And yes, you take a billion images without issue on a 5D3. But you could also easily find scenarios where an Exmor sensor would let you take some shots that would start getting a bit too nasty with the 5D3. WHy not have the extra freedom to be able to shoot to fine quality under an expanded range of scenarios?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better...

That's good, because no one is arguing that more DR is a bad thing.

Although many bend over backwards to imply that it's a meaningless thing in nearly every situation.
And there is one guy on DPR who in league with mod was going on and on and on about how more DR makes a sensor worse and that he prays Canon doesn't ruin their sensors by ever adding more DR (and he gets a lot of +1 and likes there too).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nonsense on two counts.

...ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose...

That's the true nonsense here. Care to show us your properly exposed portfolio? He shares his, and his images are astounding. All your doing here is making yourself look foolish and petty. Nice job.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Let's quote from krisbell:

"Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me."

Really no surprise here. No one can ever produce. No one EVER has any photos readily available that compares the two. Nobody asked for scientific pixel peeping shots. They asked for two real-life examples side by side to demonstrate said improvement in IQ. And as is typical, you have none. Nobody ever does.

But then,

"They are all good quality and that quality is indiscernible at internet sizes but for me the difference comes when viewing images at over approx 50%, and also with the incredible editing latitude the files provide."

Once again, not surprised. Once you do point out photos taken with both, you then state there is no discernible difference in IQ.


Really not surprised at all.

Most people don't around wasting time and money and weight lugging two systems around all the time and taking dual shots with each system. They take what will work best for the scenario and use and don't waste precious changing light. It takes a lot of effort and time to do the test properly too.

Many people are so backed up they don't even have time to process all their good shots yet, much less create dual sets of portfolios just to demonstrate to a few naysayers what they already know and experience.

Shots that didn't work out, you never see, since they get deleted. So you just see whatever worked from whatever the camera is.

That said, people actually have posted some 'real world' shots at times of scenarios to show issues, but those posts are always ignore and forgotten by the naysayers.

And the careful, scientific demos that demonstrate what you can run into real world are tossed as lab nonsense even they it's not at all. It's very easy to extrapolate to the real world and issues you may have had.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So then my conclusion is that in MOST normal shooting situations there is no difference, at all. To anyone.

Sales stats also support that claim.

poor conclusions

and some of us did post examples before and you all ignore them

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Nonsense on two counts.

...ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose...

That's the true nonsense here. Care to show us your properly exposed portfolio? He shares his, and his images are astounding. All your doing here is making yourself look foolish and petty. Nice job.

COme on man, you know better.

He posts two images with blown highlights and not much shadows at small size and is like look, you can't tell teh difference so DR means nothing. COme on man, you are smarter to know that comparison was ridiculous.

And then he even says OK well supposedly one is supposed to expose less to save highlights and then do processing to shift midpoint and shadows to get better DR but I'm not used to that and all I know is how I expose and when I jsut do whatever they both blow the highlights and the it all looks the same to me.

 

[bdunbar79]

So then my conclusion is that in MOST normal shooting situations there is no difference, at all. To anyone.

Sales stats also support that claim.

poor conclusions

and some of us did post examples before and you all ignore them

I've seen nothing but garbage pushed 5 to 7 stops. I just want to see two NORMAL photos side by side, so I can pick the Sony photo and the Canon photo. It should be obvious.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nonsense on two counts.

...ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose...

That's the true nonsense here. Care to show us your properly exposed portfolio? He shares his, and his images are astounding. All your doing here is making yourself look foolish and petty. Nice job.

COme on man, you know better.

He posts two images with blown highlights and not much shadows at small size and is like look, you can't tell teh difference so DR means nothing. COme on man, you are smarter to know that comparison was ridiculous.

And then he even says OK well supposedly one is supposed to expose less to save highlights and then do processing to shift midpoint and shadows to get better DR but I'm not used to that and all I know is how I expose and when I jsut do whatever they both blow the highlights and the it all looks the same to me.

Check out his portfolio then come back and tell us again how he doesn't know how to expose.

Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :

 

[StudentOfLight]

And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses.

I prefer the apple.

I'm torn... Orange is my favorite color but look at the quality of that apple.

 

[Sporgon]

Nonsense on two counts.

...ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose...

That's the true nonsense here. Care to show us your properly exposed portfolio? He shares his, and his images are astounding. All your doing here is making yourself look foolish and petty. Nice job.

COme on man, you know better.

He posts two images with blown highlights and not much shadows at small size and is like look, you can't tell teh difference so DR means nothing. COme on man, you are smarter to know that comparison was ridiculous.

And then he even says OK well supposedly one is supposed to expose less to save highlights and then do processing to shift midpoint and shadows to get better DR but I'm not used to that and all I know is how I expose and when I jsut do whatever they both blow the highlights and the it all looks the same to me.

Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.

What did you think I'd done ? Taken a shot of some blown out water ? The salient point is that in this practical situation the Exmor is no better, despite its "8000 tones vs 2000" tones, 14 stops of DR to 12 etc etc. Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.