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

[Luds34]

It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Yep I never believed that claim - Sony themselves have said it is only a 40% improvement over the a7r. Unfortunately 40% improvement over practically no autofocus is still not nearly good enough for me for general purpose photography.

I guess it is no way to dispute that the A7-series are closing the gap between mirrorless and DSRL's quite quickly.

However, I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.

+1

And with the rumored 6D2 going even a bit smaller, more compact? Full frame lenses are just going to require enough glass that the size advantage of mirrorless kind of disappears. But I've said before, seems to be a big advantage with the smaller sensors.

 

[krisbell]

We already know it's not such an important criteria for the majority of customers via market share stats and DSLR sales stats.

That's likely true with a large percentage of those "sales numbers" being the sort who only tend to get off the "green box" by accident.

That's quite an a$$sumption. And as is typical, with absolutely no evidence at all.

It is no bigger an assumption, with no less evidence, than your comment. Even if it was an important criteria for all customers, it doesnt make it the ONLY criteria, or the MOST IMPORTANT criteria. Even if Canon sales growth outstripped Sony sales growth it may be as a result of sales in segments of the market that are far removed from the high-end DSLR crowd, or that people are invested in the Canon system (lenses) despite preferring a different brand camera-maker, or it may take many years before people who have decided to switch to a different manufacturer actually make a purchase that gets reflected in sales numbers. I'm not suggesting any of the above is true, only that you are also making a big assumption with no evidence.

 

[privatebydesign]

Tank like build is clearly critical to the studio/fashion crowd. :
If the sensors in Canon cameras precluded them from getting the results their clients demand, they'd switch. That doesn't seem to be happening.

Studio-fashion crowd works with something called lighting and subject areas that require no tonal compression so Canon can handle that with aplomb with a little partial/spot metering.

Clearly they don't have any studio or fashion crowds in Canada! I never met a studio shooter not shooting in manual, and most use a light meter. As for fashion, runways often present horrible contrast and again, M mode would be the best use for known lighting and very different subject reflectance values, why work the EC dial when you can forget it and work the composition and fight with the other shooters in the mosh pit of a 'press section'.

 

[privatebydesign]

It seems quite obvious, that A7RII isn't a DSLR killer. It's autofokus seems mostly ok when the shot is "almost" in focus, but it still seems quite unreliable to me, and that would annoy me a lot. Further, I suspect the AF to perform far worse on longer lenses, where the out of focus areas has less contrast, and are more blurry.

The focusing in the links was with non-native lenses. In terms of image quality, unless it is a marked step down from the a7r, it will be up there with the very best DSLRs - though I accept that doesnt make it a DSLR killer.

Besides, the confirmation light doesn't mean focus is accurate, or has been achieved in the place one actually wants. User experience and respected testers will be the only judges of the AF capabilities.

 

[Larsskv]

It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Yep I never believed that claim - Sony themselves have said it is only a 40% improvement over the a7r. Unfortunately 40% improvement over practically no autofocus is still not nearly good enough for me for general purpose photography.

I guess it is no way to dispute that the A7-series are closing the gap between mirrorless and DSRL's quite quickly.

However, I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.

+1

And with the rumored 6D2 going even a bit smaller, more compact? Full frame lenses are just going to require enough glass that the size advantage of mirrorless kind of disappears. But I've said before, seems to be a big advantage with the smaller sensors.

Well, about that, Leica has made smaller lenses for "full frame", for almost a century already.. That is why I expect smaller and lighter lenses for the A7-series.

 

[bdunbar79]

For years now, Nikon and Sony have produced sensors with more DR at low ISO than Canon. For years now, DxOmark have weighted their scores to low ISO DR and have consistently scored those sensors higher than Canon. For years now, Canon has beaten Nikon in DSLR sales and for awhile that gap actually widened.

It is certainly reasonable to conclude that low ISO DR is NOT an important, or not one of the most important factors, to the MAJORITY of customers. Unless you are insinuating that a customer would say "That aspect is very important to me, but I'm not going to make my purchasing decision upon it." There is obviously some other factor or set of factors that is more important, that SoNikon lacks.

That's my only point. I'm talking about the sensor aspect of low ISO DR. No impact on sales that I've seen. Maybe I didn't make it clear at first that that was the only criteria I was considering. And I would hate to think that SoNikon is ONLY better at low ISO DR.

I'm using sales stats and data to make MY claim. He is using nothing but nonsense and bitterness.

 

[privatebydesign]

It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Yep I never believed that claim - Sony themselves have said it is only a 40% improvement over the a7r. Unfortunately 40% improvement over practically no autofocus is still not nearly good enough for me for general purpose photography.

I guess it is no way to dispute that the A7-series are closing the gap between mirrorless and DSRL's quite quickly.

However, I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.

Just seems like the phone analogy to me, but speeded up. First they were huge, then they got ever smaller, then they got so small functionality was lost, then size got bigger and bigger because that is what people want.

Cameras, people don't want the hassle of carrying a larger camera, but they don't, in general, like to fiddle with small buttons and dials on bodies too small to hold comfortably in their hands. As for the lenses, if you start with a 135 format sensor you need larger glass to get the corners sharp at apertures people buying multi thousand dollar systems want. All mirrorless actually gains you as a benefit for lens design is a shorter flange distance, this helps the design of some moderate wider lenses as they don't have to be retrofocal, a pretty small advantage really.

 

[3kramd5]

Get out your block of salt for this link: a7RII: insiders information from top Sony engineers.

Is the Dynamic Range better and noise level lower than that of the a7R?

➡ Yes! No formal test was done (it’s coming), but they confirmed that they were very impressed by the quality of the system

Is the higher sensitivity going to be detrimental to noise level?

➡ No! 1/ In the new design, the photodiodes are closer to the surface of the sensor, and that allows them to detect more light, hence a higher sensitivity. This sensor has a better detection rate in low light conditions than a “regular” sensor. 2/ The change of materials to connect the diodes to the rest of the electronics ensures a lower noise level as well. They did not go into specifics but these seem to be a two key points.


What about a low pass filter?

➡ No low pass filter in order to retain every detail in the image

LCD SCREEN:

Is it still going to be on all the time during long exposures?

➡ Yes, but they are working on it to eventually turn it off


We were told that shipping should start around late July.

 

[unfocused]

...Leica has made smaller lenses for "full frame", for almost a century already.. That is why I expect smaller and lighter lenses for the A7-series.

How much smaller and lighter is the Leica M-series 200mm f2.8?

 

[privatebydesign]

This might be useful for some of you.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/

Hmm...I don't think I hear dynamic range mentioned once in these reviews. They seemed focused on autofocus, adapters for Canon lenses, frame rate and shutter volume. On all of these specs, it seemed as though the reviewers were basically saying that it is almost as good as a DSLR. Funny how no one seemed to care to mention this sensor that is supposed to be the king-of-super-awesomeness-that-makes-all-other-cameras-worthless-in-comparison.

Maybe that's not such an important criteria for the majority of customers?

We already know it's not such an important criteria for the majority of customers via market share stats and DSLR sales stats.

That's likely true with a large percentage of those "sales numbers" being the sort who only tend to get off the "green box" by accident.

That's quite an a$$sumption. And as is typical, with absolutely no evidence at all.

I think it is a fairly safe assumption given that over 90% of DSLR buyers never buy another lens other than the one or two that came with their kit.

I forget the figure but it has been discussed before, from Canon sales figures either 93 or 97% of people don't enlarge their DSLR system, so I think it is fair to say many probably never get past the green box, my mother-in-law never has and she has owned a series of Rebels for many years. Indeed over the last seven years she has bought more DSLR's than I have, not lenses though!

But people protesting the DR 'failure' of Canon really are overstating it, clearly whilst Sony has made sales but Canon still vastly out strips them, so it is logical to assume that people do not perceive the DR differences as important enough and yes, you might lump most of those into a 'green square' lack of knowledge crowd, but what about the likes of Gregory Heisler, Joey L, Jasmine Star, Annie Leibovitz, Jared Platt, Arron Nace, Mike Kelly, Peter Hurley, Brooke Sheldon, Joe Buissink etc etc etc, who are all well respected pros and they all choose to shoot Canon (and as far as I know none are sponsored by Canon), are they all bumbling idiots who don't know what they are looking at, or who only shooting in contrived and fully managed contrast situations?

The difference in DR capabilities is not important enough to the entire cross section of Canon purchasers, not just the 'people who don't know any better', anybody that says differently is demonstrably wrong.

 

[unfocused]

...I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.

Just seems like the phone analogy to me, but speeded up. First they were huge, then they got ever smaller, then they got so small functionality was lost, then size got bigger and bigger because that is what people want.

Cameras, people don't want the hassle of carrying a larger camera, but they don't, in general, like to fiddle with small buttons and dials on bodies too small to hold comfortably in their hands. As for the lenses, if you start with a 135 format sensor you need larger glass to get the corners sharp at apertures people buying multi thousand dollar systems want. All mirrorless actually gains you as a benefit for lens design is a shorter flange distance, this helps the design of some moderate wider lenses as they don't have to be retrofocal, a pretty small advantage really.

That's one reason why I'm skeptical of the "mirrorless will take over the world" crowd. Any size advantage is lost once you get past about 100mm in lenses. If you are traveling and want to have a telephoto along, you are much better off with a DLSR. Lightest, smallest option may be the SL-1 and a Tamron super-zoom.

The real sensor advancements have been in improving smaller sensors, so it seems like the full-frame mirrorless are likely to remain a tiny niche market. I think the jury is still out on EVFs. If they improve significantly and the cost eventually drops below that of a mirror box, we may see DSLRs shift to D-EVFs, but I don't see that happening anytime soon and when, and if, it happens, it will only happen is the cameras retain the current lens mounts.

 

[bdunbar79]

This might be useful for some of you.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/

Hmm...I don't think I hear dynamic range mentioned once in these reviews. They seemed focused on autofocus, adapters for Canon lenses, frame rate and shutter volume. On all of these specs, it seemed as though the reviewers were basically saying that it is almost as good as a DSLR. Funny how no one seemed to care to mention this sensor that is supposed to be the king-of-super-awesomeness-that-makes-all-other-cameras-worthless-in-comparison.

Maybe that's not such an important criteria for the majority of customers?

We already know it's not such an important criteria for the majority of customers via market share stats and DSLR sales stats.

That's likely true with a large percentage of those "sales numbers" being the sort who only tend to get off the "green box" by accident.

That's quite an a$$sumption. And as is typical, with absolutely no evidence at all.

I think it is a fairly safe assumption given that over 90% of DSLR buyers never buy another lens other than the one or two that came with their kit.

I forget the figure but it has been discussed before, from Canon sales figures either 93 or 97% of people don't enlarge their DSLR system, so I think it is fair to say many probably never get past the green box, my mother-in-law never has and she has owned a series of Rebels for many years. Indeed over the last seven years she has bought more DSLR's than I have, not lenses though!

But people protesting the DR 'failure' of Canon really are overstating it, clearly whilst Sony has made sales but Canon still vastly out strips them, so it is logical to assume that people do not perceive the DR differences as important enough and yes, you might lump most of those into a 'green square' lack of knowledge crowd, but what about the likes of Gregory Heisler, Joey L, Jasmine Star, Annie Leibovitz, Jared Platt, Arron Nace, Mike Kelly, Peter Hurley, Brooke Sheldon, Joe Buissink etc etc etc, who are all well respected pros and they all choose to shoot Canon (and as far as I know none are sponsored by Canon), are they all bumbling idiots who don't know what they are looking at, or who only shooting in contrived and fully managed contrast situations?

The difference in DR capabilities is not important enough to the entire cross section of Canon purchasers, not just the 'people who don't know any better', anybody that says differently is demonstrably wrong.

That I can live with. You backed up your assertion with stats and data

 

[neuroanatomist]

The difference in DR capabilities is not important enough to the entire cross section of Canon purchasers, not just the 'people who don't know any better', anybody that says differently is demonstrably wrong.

Moreover, the difference in DR capabilities is not important enough to the entire cross section of dSLR purchasers.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Taking a quick peek at the Sony compression (and such a quick peek that my conclusions could be wrong):

The compressed RAWs on the Sony do seem a little bit of a shame though. When any row of 32 pixels doesn't have any extreme jumps of shade within it you might go lossless, but if you get some parts like pitch black and some bright just about clipped white then it seems it's forced to create posterization since it has to span near 14bits with a small bit offset apparently.

OTOH though, keep in mind that it appears to really be a shame only compared to MF and Nikon.

It sounds like it probably could make it a little worse on certain parts of images than the Nikons, with a bit posterization and so on, but I'm not sure it would necessarily ever be worse than what the Canons can do and in many regions you'll get the full tonality bonus and you should also get at least two stops more DR at low ISO I'd think even in the tricky spots.

Anyway take that with a bit of a grain of salt. Depending upon finer details of how it gets carried out and whether my quick glance picked up all correctly the answer might change a bit.

Where are you getting this from? I didnt think any official RAW files were available for a7r II yet? I have seen somewhere that compression will be the same as it was with the a7r, but that Sony have accepted it is something that could potentially be changed with a firmware update, and that they are aware it is something that has been asked for.

I'm getting from the talk that the compression is the same as on the other SONYs and then how someone said the compression was carried out on those SONYs.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Yep I never believed that claim - Sony themselves have said it is only a 40% improvement over the a7r. Unfortunately 40% improvement over practically no autofocus is still not nearly good enough for me for general purpose photography.

I think they said a 40% improvement for native lenses but much bigger for non-native (not that that has to say much since it was poor before).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Yep I never believed that claim - Sony themselves have said it is only a 40% improvement over the a7r. Unfortunately 40% improvement over practically no autofocus is still not nearly good enough for me for general purpose photography.

I guess it is no way to dispute that the A7-series are closing the gap between mirrorless and DSRL's quite quickly.

However, I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.

To many in Canon-land it's nothing to do with the size, but it's the only way to use Canon glass and get high low ISO DR. And now the only cost effective way to get 4k with Canon glass in addition.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

For years now, Nikon and Sony have produced sensors with more DR at low ISO than Canon. For years now, DxOmark have weighted their scores to low ISO DR and have consistently scored those sensors higher than Canon. For years now, Canon has beaten Nikon in DSLR sales and for awhile that gap actually widened.

It is certainly reasonable to conclude that low ISO DR is NOT an important, or not one of the most important factors, to the MAJORITY of customers.

False assumption. Some love the Canon lenses and some were wary of switching only to have Canon sudden;y catch up, etc. But at some point, eventually, some start giving up or at least going for mixed solutions where instead of adding a new Canon body to replace their old one they add a Sony to their old Canon.

Many who are thirsting for more DR are only just now starting to do that.

And also, in the end who cares? Nobody takes a picture with sales figures.

 

[3kramd5]

It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Yep I never believed that claim - Sony themselves have said it is only a 40% improvement over the a7r. Unfortunately 40% improvement over practically no autofocus is still not nearly good enough for me for general purpose photography.

I guess it is no way to dispute that the A7-series are closing the gap between mirrorless and DSRL's quite quickly.

However, I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.

To many in Canon-land it's nothing to do with the size, but it's the only way to use Canon glass and get high low ISO DR.

In before Marsu.

Personally, I purchased an A7R for resolution without medium format.

I ordered a 5DS to replace the A7R since I much prefer the canon ergo/infrastructure, but am mulling an A7R2 instead.

The resolution delta isn't particularly significant, but the electronic shutter and the high-sensitivity afforded by BSI are intriguing differentiators (if it isn't ponderous to use, the A7R2 may easily be a better all around camera). In my experience, the DR delta hasn't proven significant. I can not say whether that's because I tend to wait for (IMO) good light or outright modify it, or whether its due to the lossy compression, or whether it's because of a deficient post-processing skillset, or because of how I meter, or some other variable.

 

[Larsskv]

...I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.

Just seems like the phone analogy to me, but speeded up. First they were huge, then they got ever smaller, then they got so small functionality was lost, then size got bigger and bigger because that is what people want.

Cameras, people don't want the hassle of carrying a larger camera, but they don't, in general, like to fiddle with small buttons and dials on bodies too small to hold comfortably in their hands. As for the lenses, if you start with a 135 format sensor you need larger glass to get the corners sharp at apertures people buying multi thousand dollar systems want. All mirrorless actually gains you as a benefit for lens design is a shorter flange distance, this helps the design of some moderate wider lenses as they don't have to be retrofocal, a pretty small advantage really.

That's one reason why I'm skeptical of the "mirrorless will take over the world" crowd. Any size advantage is lost once you get past about 100mm in lenses. If you are traveling and want to have a telephoto along, you are much better off with a DLSR. Lightest, smallest option may be the SL-1 and a Tamron super-zoom.

The real sensor advancements have been in improving smaller sensors, so it seems like the full-frame mirrorless are likely to remain a tiny niche market. I think the jury is still out on EVFs. If they improve significantly and the cost eventually drops below that of a mirror box, we may see DSLRs shift to D-EVFs, but I don't see that happening anytime soon and when, and if, it happens, it will only happen is the cameras retain the current lens mounts.

I guess this sums up why I am so happy with my DSLRs, and just don´t understand the A7/FF-mirrorless crowd. The only point I see remaining with the A7 series, for Canon shooters, is the possibility to use Canon glass on an EXMOR sensor, and that reason does not apply to me.

 

[bdunbar79]

For years now, Nikon and Sony have produced sensors with more DR at low ISO than Canon. For years now, DxOmark have weighted their scores to low ISO DR and have consistently scored those sensors higher than Canon. For years now, Canon has beaten Nikon in DSLR sales and for awhile that gap actually widened.

It is certainly reasonable to conclude that low ISO DR is NOT an important, or not one of the most important factors, to the MAJORITY of customers.

False assumption. Some love the Canon lenses and some were wary of switching only to have Canon sudden;y catch up, etc. But at some point, eventually, some start giving up or at least going for mixed solutions where instead of adding a new Canon body to replace their old one they add a Sony to their old Canon.

Many who are thirsting for more DR are only just now starting to do that.

And also, in the end who cares? Nobody takes a picture with sales figures.

Not really. If low ISO DR were the absolute most important aspect to the majority of photographers then the company with the best low ISO DR would win the majority of customers. And that's not even close to happening. At least we agree that the majority of people don't care about low ISO DR.

It's funny how you say "Many who are thirsting for more DR are only just now starting to do that." Do you know that for fact or is that just a false assumption used to refute my false assumption? Nikon/Sony DSLR sales aren't growing nor is mirrorless.