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

[Orangutan]

I just purchased an a7ii and quite a few native lenses. I am really impressed with the image quality of the Sony. So much so, I have not used my 5Diii since making the purchase. It also helps I like to hike and the weight reduction was a nice bonus.

This sports season I will still be using my 1DX but I will carry a Sony with a 55mm as well to see how it does for end zone and after game photos.

I will be picking up the a7rii and may even sell off my 5Diii. I hate to say it, but I believe I have purchased my last Canon body. Image quality is too impressive for me to look over. The biggest drawback is battery life. If they could double the battery life (not a big deal until you decide to do a really long time lapse and admittedly a battery grip for time lapse would solve this), it would be a no brainier for all of those minus sports pros.

This is a reasonable personal statement. Thank you for not crossing the Swedish Line to imply that those who have not reached the same conclusion are ______.

Question: are you seeing any drawbacks with the mirrorless design? Focus speed/accuracy? Since you have a 1DX I presume you'll use the Sony mostly for slow-/non-moving subjects, right?

 

[Orangutan]

i think 2-3 stops additional dr would be really beneficial to wildlife shooters.

(Edit: I used candc's comment as a starting point, it was not directed at candc personally.)

I think we all agree that more DR is good; the greater the increase, the greater the good, but that has never been the question. The question, as always, is which gear is going to serve all your needs the best at the price you can afford? If you have enough money to buy multiple kits then please do so, and I wouldn't mind hearing reports of their relative performance. What's annoying is the drumbeat of statements that reduce to: "Brand X is better for my shooting needs than Canon, so if you don't also prefer Brand X then you're either incompetent or a Canon fanboi."

If you want to tell us how Brand X did for your particular type of shooting please do so. But STOP telling us to be outraged that Canon's performance doesn't measure up. There are lots of things in this world to be outraged about, and Canon sensors are not among them.

 

[privatebydesign]

I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?

Not entering into the sensor and DR debate, it really is more fun watching it, but........

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting. I just took a three image HDR shot of a flag pole with a flag blowing in the wind. Lightroom HDR sorted it out without any input from me, sure at the pixel level it could use a few seconds with the healing brush, but I was amazed at how much better anti ghosting has become.

 

[neuroanatomist]

i think 2-3 stops additional dr would be really beneficial to wildlife shooters.

(Edit: I used candc's comment as a starting point, it was not directed at candc personally.)

I think we all agree that more DR is good; the greater the increase, the greater the good, but that has never been the question. The question, as always, is which gear is going to serve all your needs the best at the price you can afford? If you have enough money to buy multiple kits then please do so, and I wouldn't mind hearing reports of their relative performance. What's annoying is the drumbeat of statements that reduce to: "Brand X is better for my shooting needs than Canon, so if you don't also prefer Brand X then you're either incompetent or a Canon fanboi."

If you want to tell us how Brand X did for your particular type of shooting please do so. But STOP telling us to be outraged that Canon's performance doesn't measure up. There are lots of things in this world to be outraged about, and Canon sensors are not among them.

+1000

Sadly, I'm sure people here will continue to believe that their own needs represent those of the majority, and continue in failing to understand the business realities of the camera industry (or intentionally misinterpret them).

 

[msm]

I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?

Not entering into the sensor and DR debate, it really is more fun watching it, but........

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting. I just took a three image HDR shot of a flag pole with a flag blowing in the wind. Lightroom HDR sorted it out without any input from me, sure at the pixel level it could use a few seconds with the healing brush, but I was amazed at how much better anti ghosting has become.

Deghosting takes all information in the problem area from 1 frame leaving you with the DR you camera can provide in 1 exposure in that area which may leave part of the image noisy or blurry if one chooses to use NR. But yeah the healing brush may of course help.

 

[zlatko]

The 7-stop shadow lifted images are baaaaack!

Yes, that's very meaningful if one does 7-stop shadow lifting. Somehow I manage to never have to do 7-stop shadow lifting, but this is still very good to know. Because if I do become a 7-stop shadow lifter, I will definitely want a Sony.

It's like knowing that Brand X raincoats are much better to wear for scuba diving than Brand Y raincoats.

So you dont lift your shadows by 7stops? Nothing relevant there, almost no-one does. The fact however that the Sony has so much latitude that you CAN lift them by 7 stop means that a gentle 2 stop lift that many, many people will do will result in almost no degradation in quality at all. The benefits of the 7 stop lift ability that you mock can be enjoyed well before then.

I presume almost everyone on this thread shoots RAW when aiming for the very best image quality. Why is that if not, in large part, for the extra editing headroom it gives you? It certainly doesn't result in higher image quality straight out of the camera compared to a JPG. Would you prefer an image with 0 stop editing latitude?

I like editing headroom. Canon has met my needs for editing headroom for years now. A 2-stop lift is no problem. Sony promoters always show the extreme 4, 5, 6 or 7 stop lift, not the more common 1 or 2 stop lift. A 10 or 20 stop lift would be really amazing too. Would it make me buy a camera? Probably not.

My point is that in the rush to portray Canon as lagging, some people are hyper-focused on this one extreme ability of Sony sensors, while overlooking the fact that Canon has met the needs of a wide range of photographers and in many ways offers a superior system. Showing off a 7-stop shadow lift is like showing off a dog that can walk on two legs. Um, like, wow.

While (mostly) anonymous engineers nitpick about 7-stop shadow lifting online, photographers at the top of their game are using Canon to produce great work everyday, staking their reputations and income on work produced with Canon — including Canon sensors. They have skin in the game, and they know what does and doesn't meet their needs.

 

[privatebydesign]

I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?

Not entering into the sensor and DR debate, it really is more fun watching it, but........

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting. I just took a three image HDR shot of a flag pole with a flag blowing in the wind. Lightroom HDR sorted it out without any input from me, sure at the pixel level it could use a few seconds with the healing brush, but I was amazed at how much better anti ghosting has become.

Deghosting takes all information in the problem area from 1 frame leaving you with the DR you camera can provide in 1 exposure in that area which may leave part of the image noisy or blurry if one chooses to use NR. But yeah the healing brush may of course help.

Obviously, but the de-ghosted area, however large or small, would need DR in excess of the camera sensor to cause any kind of a potential issue, but even then you can layer in a different exposure from your bracket.

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

 

[Marsu42]

Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

True, but that's only looking at the results - but how much more time does it take to bracket, merge and check that deghosting worked properly (it's not like the software always gets it right, after all there's no way of telling if you want a ghost removed or opaque).

I've recently shot some panos of a group of horses dozing in the woods, i.e. they're in the shadows and behind 'em is sunlight. That's 15ev of dynamic range with dual_iso. Single frame is fine, but with pano merging you have to check for every tail waggling, every eye blinking and every head moving. Double or triple that possibility of deghosting errors by adding bracketing, i.e. having a pano consisting not only of ~10 exposures but 20 or 30? Nah, I'd rather have more sensor dr thank you very much and save the hdr merging step

 

[msm]

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

Maybe it sounds like that you to you but this is actually an issue I have encountered relatively frequently in practical shooting lately, back lit scenes with trees against bright sky and with my A7r this is much less of an issue. I am still using CS6 and mainly use manual blending not HDR so I guess software may be better than what I have seen but I still don't see how they can solve this limitation.

 

[privatebydesign]

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

Maybe it sounds like that you to you but this is actually an issue I have encountered relatively frequently in practical shooting lately, back lit scenes with trees against bright sky and with my A7r this is much less of an issue. I am still using CS6 and mainly use manual blending not HDR so I guess software may be better than what I have seen but I still don't see how they can solve this limitation.

Try the free PS and LR trials. I am shocked at the improvements, best $7.99 a month I have ever spent.

 

[privatebydesign]

Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

True, but that's only looking at the results - but how much more time does it take to bracket, merge and check that deghosting worked properly (it's not like the software always gets it right, after all there's no way of telling if you want a ghost removed or opaque).

I've recently shot some panos of a group of horses dozing in the woods, i.e. they're in the shadows and behind 'em is sunlight. That's 15ev of dynamic range with dual_iso. Single frame is fine, but with pano merging you have to check for every tail waggling, every eye blinking and every head moving. Double or triple that possibility of deghosting errors by adding bracketing, i.e. having a pano consisting not only of ~10 exposures but 20 or 30? Nah, I'd rather have more sensor dr thank you very much and save the hdr merging step

I am not proclaiming auto blending as a DR panacea, I am pointing out that there have been substantial improvements in the algorithms recently and where previously auto ghosting was a bit of a joke useful only for web sized images and the like, now it isn't, it can be close to pixel perfect in some very challenging situations. I didn't use it for years because I couldn't get the results I needed, I just signed up for Adobe CC and the improvements are major. Again not a substitute for actual sensor DR, but a tool that has genuine uses now.

As for the additional time it takes, come on, it takes no time to take the additional shots (well less than 2 seconds) and the processing is auto and in the background! Sure inspection might take time, but no more than dust spotting and other assorted, but normal, miscellaneous editing tasks.

 

[3kramd5]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

No, you don't have to be a chef to be a food critic. But if your Uncle Bob from Deluth, who can't boil an egg and has eaten at McDonalds his whole life, goes to a top Japanese restaurant in Manhattan, he's not a food critic – he's a guy with an opinion. Maybe you'd trust his opinion that the sushi was terrible, but I certainly wouldn't.

But at least he wouldn't be particularly concerned about what the name of the restaurant was unlike others who would turn up at a 4 star restaurant and proclaim that every dish was exquisite (even if it was under cooked tripe) - just because of the name of the restaurant. That's an opinion (or even review) that's worth even less than Uncle Bob's.

Yes, that certainly explains all the CR praise for the a7RII before anyone has even used the camera.

Well in fairness CR is fundamentally a hardware and technology forum. We are most of us gear heads. The A7R2 spec sheet calls out an s-ton of technology, so much praise isn't exactly unexpected. I think Sony should be lauded for the effort to cram as much as they can into an A7-sized box even if when reality hits it's not the bees knees.

 

[Marsu42]

True, but that's only looking at the results - but how much more time does it take to bracket, merge and check that deghosting worked properly (it's not like the software always gets it right, after all there's no way of telling if you want a ghost removed or opaque).

I am not proclaiming auto blending as a DR panacea

I understood that, but just wanted to double-check everybody else does b/c bracketing seems to be promoted as the "fix-it for all" dr issues by some, i.e. the "good photogs only need 8 stops" theory.

As for the additional time it takes, come on, it takes no time to take the additional shots (well less than 2 seconds) and the processing is auto and in the background! Sure inspection might take time, but no more than dust spotting and other assorted, but normal, miscellaneous editing tasks.

Depends on your equipment and the amount of shots. I've got a low-end laptop, and processing double the amount of data is significant (sorry if you have trouble understanding this, yo all dual-1dx shooters out there). Before the dual_iso days when I did some indoor documentary shots, I used to 2x bracket the whole day or otherwise the windows to the outside would clip... that *is* annoying even though the results are just fine.

As for movement/bracketing, the inspection and eventual manual de-ghosting is significant too (depending on the amount of micro-movement, of course) ... plus the uncertainty that you've got it right. I always spot some bad deghosting on old shots like horses with three eyes or 5 legs, have to go harrrrrrgnnnn and do a whole post round-trip again. I'm really happy that's only for panos and not for regular high-dr scenes.

Edit: Remember that I've only got the low-fps 6d, so the amount of movement possible between frames is larger than on other camera bodies.

 

[Monchoon]

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

Maybe it sounds like that you to you but this is actually an issue I have encountered relatively frequently in practical shooting lately, back lit scenes with trees against bright sky and with my A7r this is much less of an issue. I am still using CS6 and mainly use manual blending not HDR so I guess software may be better than what I have seen but I still don't see how they can solve this limitation.

Try the free PS and LR trials. I am shocked at the improvements, best $7.99 a month I have ever spent.

Where do you get PS and LR for $7.99 per month

 

[privatebydesign]

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

Maybe it sounds like that you to you but this is actually an issue I have encountered relatively frequently in practical shooting lately, back lit scenes with trees against bright sky and with my A7r this is much less of an issue. I am still using CS6 and mainly use manual blending not HDR so I guess software may be better than what I have seen but I still don't see how they can solve this limitation.

Try the free PS and LR trials. I am shocked at the improvements, best $7.99 a month I have ever spent.

Where do you get PS and LR for $7.99 per month

I got it from CPW as one of their short duration deals.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2015/05/20-off-adobe-creative-cloud-photography-plan-7-99month/

 

[Orangutan]

If Sony can do all this at cheaper price

If Sony can do this all at a cheaper price, why can't they take market share from Canon? Truly, that's the bottom line: the reviews mean nothing, forum posts mean nothing. All that matters is profit and market share. Sony's marketing and sales staff must be EPIC FAIL if they can't take market share with such a superior product. (assuming it lives up to the spec sheet). And let's all hope they ditch the lossy "raw."

I hope Sony does sell a bunch of these to get some action from Canon, but I won't hold my breath: so far Sony, Nikon and others have proven themselves inferior where it really counts: making a profit.

so you buy Canon because they sell more? wow , anyways Sony s sensors are selling way more then Canons in fact Sony cant even keep up with demand but who really cares about sales.

That would be a very creative misinterpretation of what I said. A camera is more than just a bare sensor. Let me walk you through it step-by-step:

If Canon sells more than Sony, for example, that comes from two possibilities (or a combination of them)

1. Canon is a better overall product (including build, durability, service/support, AF, ergonomics, lens and accessory selection, etc)

2. Canon has superior marketing.

The Sony fanbois are claiming that #1 is outright false, that Sony cameras are superior for nearly all uses.

That leaves only #2. Since Canon greatly outsells Sony, that would mean that Canon marketing is much MUCH better, almost supernaturally better than Sony. Alternately, it could mean Sony's marketing is catastrophically poor (i.e. "epic fail"), because only a catastrophically poor marketing staff could fail to make a sales winner from such a superior product.

Its about the product not how much it sells or makes in profit,so if you want 4K video you will spend 9K just to have a damn CANON logo on your camera? while you can get 4K camera from another company for a fraction of the cost.

Again, a very creative misinterpretation on your part. Canon doesn't ask me how to build their cameras. If they did, I'd probably tell them to put that nice new Sony sensor in the 5D4 (unless they've got something better ready). Canon decides what Canon sells, and I get to decide what to buy. I have Canon kit, and I don't have money to sell it off and replace it with another brand. If you'd like to give me the money to buy a full new Sony kit I won't turn you down.

Canon isn't ripping off anyone. "Ripping off" means stealing, either by theft or deceit. If "ripping off" counts as simply giving less value, then just about all car companies except Honda and Toyota are ripping everyone off. I mean, who would waste good money on a Mercedes? And what fool fanboi would buy a car that won't run for 20 years and 200,000 miles?

Please get some perspective: I know what I'm doing. More importantly, YOU don't know why I make my decisions, so please stop telling me I need the same thing you do.

 

[msm]

If Canon sells more than Sony, for example, that comes from two possibilities (or a combination of them)

1. Canon is a better overall product (including build, durability, service/support, AF, ergonomics, lens and accessory selection, etc)

2. Canon has superior marketing.

The Sony fanbois are claiming that #1 is outright false, that Sony cameras are superior for nearly all uses.

There are more possibilites than that, for instance:

3. A large number of photographers already have Canon lenses from earlier and are reluctant to make a whole system change for economic or other reasons.

 

[Sporgon]

I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?

Not entering into the sensor and DR debate, it really is more fun watching it, but........

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting. I just took a three image HDR shot of a flag pole with a flag blowing in the wind. Lightroom HDR sorted it out without any input from me, sure at the pixel level it could use a few seconds with the healing brush, but I was amazed at how much better anti ghosting has become.

Agreed it's not even an issue. I very rarely have to use de ghosting because of the way I blend the files. Arguing around the movement issue shows these guys are on the back foot.

The whole point is that if 11 stops with optimal exposure doesn't cover everything it deals with nearly everything. The data needed to be added from bracketed files is always small anyway.

My argument with the Exmor characteristics is this: to maximise the extra 'DR' of the Exmor you have to underexpose. For a given exposure it offers nothing more in highlight than the Canon. Because the 11 stops of the Canon is already a lot, if the scene needs more and you are having to under expose in order to use the extra range of the Exmor, you put your shadows into no go area. In other words the trade off for a little more highlight is a lot of movement down the shadow scale. And in my opinion and experience so far, the 8000 vs 2000 tone garbage doesn't make up for it, at least not in practice.

Also I'm finding that if I shoot a scene into the sky and hold the DR at maximum, the resulting picture is very flat and when I put some tonal curve back into it I lose what I was supposed to have gained anyway. If I don't I end up with a picture where the subject looks like it has been lit by flash, that is has more luminosity than the main light source.
Now I'm not arguing that having the data to fall back on isn't in itself a good thing. It's just that in the way I shoot I'm struggling to see a real 'IQ' lift to the images.

 

[Eldar]

One great function I am looking forward to is the manual focus functionality of the A7RII. It was a massive disappointment when Canon (again) left out support for precision focusing screens on the 5DSR. I have a bunch of Zeiss lenses, which I´ll have to use live view with the 5DSR, which I hate. When I get the A7RII, I can use focus peaking, but more importantly I can use area magnification in the EVF. And by using the A7RII, I suddenly have image stabilisation on all the Zeiss lenses. The downside is of course a crappy UI and poor ergonomics, compared to the Canons and the need for an adaptor. But it is worth a try.

No, me buying an A7RII does not mean that I will drop Canon, because I will still use my 1DX for birds and wildlife and I will also use my 5DIII and 5DSR (when I get it) for all my L-glass and when I need weather sealing. And I will most likely buy the 1DX-II when it arrives. But it might be that I´ll get to terms with the Sony ergonomics and UI and may start buying Zeiss glass for the Sony, instead of L-glass for my Canons ...

 

[Orangutan]

If Canon sells more than Sony, for example, that comes from two possibilities (or a combination of them)

1. Canon is a better overall product (including build, durability, service/support, AF, ergonomics, lens and accessory selection, etc)

2. Canon has superior marketing.

The Sony fanbois are claiming that #1 is outright false, that Sony cameras are superior for nearly all uses.

There are more possibilites than that, for instance:

3. A large number of photographers already have Canon lenses from earlier and are reluctant to make a whole system change for economic or other reasons.

OK, that's reasonable. So what's wrong with that?