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

[FunkyCamera]

I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:

1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?

2. Why can't mirrorless camera designers improve AF precision and accuracy to the level of say, the 5D3 or 1Dx?

Thanks.

1 - It probably won't help either way. It's already well known that Canon beats Sony at high ISO (outside of pay-per-point dxo scam scores). The only "backside illumination" that matters is the Sony zealots thinking the Sun shines out of Sony's rear end! ;D ;D

2 - Because it's a flawed dead end technology. No serious photographer is going to want to stare at a tiny TV screen stuffed inside a camera instead of seeing the real world through a proper optical viewfinder. Image sensors are just bad at autofocus because they're meant to take pictures, not determine focus. If you want functional and reliable autofocus you need a dedicated autofocus sensor, like a DSLR has.

Mirrorless cameras are so ridiculously bad at autofocus it's funny. Any less light than midday in the sahara desert and you might as well spin the focus ring and hope for the best. It really is that bad.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.

If Sony can do all this at cheaper price you people still defend Canons crap its unbelievable

come on how can you people not see CANON is ripping you guys off so bad.

There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?

Please explain why when you go to a wedding you don't see tons of 400mm 2.8 and 800mm f/5.6 lenses being used mostly.

I.E. what does your response have to do with anything? They are shooting sports and have certain priorities for that specialty. Plus PJs are in trouble and don't get paid enough to swap all over the place between brands all the time even if something would be better for them and many pics end up in newsprint so DR doesn't matter much there at all. etc. etc.

I might add an A7R II but and I might even use it for most of my shooting, but you won't see me using it for soccer or surfing and such.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

Why do people treat camera companies like football teams? LoL

I once had a guy walk up to me out in the woods and ask what camera I was shooting with. I told him I was using a Canon 60D. He rolled his eyes and said "I shoot Nikon, we're not friends" and walked away in disgust. Seriously, this actually happened. I was kinda standing there in shock for several minutes, half expecting the guy to come back and say he was joking. Never saw him again. It's like we were Crips and Bloods in a tense encounter... in his head.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

who gives a crap about stock prices.

Canon does. Sony does.

good. I'm not sony. I'm not canon. 8) I don't work for either. those of you that do, go talk about stocks somewhere that matters. I thought this was a photography board and not an investor board?

Exactly.

But the Neuro crowd seem to think that so long as a company is tops for sales then whatever they produce is the best in all ways or that if it is not that in anything it trials or cripples and leaves out, can't actually matter to anyone.

I just care about my photography and videography myself. I don't own stock in Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Olympus or Canon. So long as they survive, I don't particularly care.

 

[psolberg]

How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.

If Sony can do all this at cheaper price you people still defend Canons crap its unbelievable

come on how can you people not see CANON is ripping you guys off so bad.

There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?

Please explain why when you go to a wedding you don't see tons of 400mm 2.8 and 800mm f/5.6 lenses being used mostly.

;D hey you never know when that horse jockey wedding gig is going to come around and you'll be glad your sherpa still around holding your canon telephotos

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd certainly wager there are many more people earning money from shooting sports than shooting and selling landscapes, not least because sports shots have such a short lifespan, normally a week!

Sports is a rough market these days. Heck, even SI doesn't even have their own staff anymore! Many of those pro sports shooters, it's very sad to say, there are plenty who are making not much more than a grad student in the hard sciences tends to get as a stipend (and no that is not much!). And it's gotten kinda cut throat and special deals exclusive lock out scenario in mnay cases too.

Weddings/portraits seems to be the place where people try to survive.

 

[Dylan777]

I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:

1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?

2. Why can't mirrorless camera designers improve AF precision and accuracy to the level of say, the 5D3 or 1Dx?

Thanks.

1 - It probably won't help either way. It's already well known that Canon beats Sony at high ISO (outside of pay-per-point dxo scam scores). The only "backside illumination" that matters is the Sony zealots thinking the Sun shines out of Sony's rear end! ;D ;D

2 - Because it's a flawed dead end technology. No serious photographer is going to want to stare at a tiny TV screen stuffed inside a camera instead of seeing the real world through a proper optical viewfinder. Image sensors are just bad at autofocus because they're meant to take pictures, not determine focus. If you want functional and reliable autofocus you need a dedicated autofocus sensor, like a DSLR has.

Mirrorless cameras are so ridiculously bad at autofocus it's funny. Any less light than midday in the sahara desert and you might as well spin the focus ring and hope for the best. It really is that bad.

I wouldn't say that.

My a7s performs better than my 1dx in higher ISO range. AF is better and faster in almost no-light condition. EVF is better for night time shooting.

I wonder what type mirrorless camera you been shooting with?

 

[neuroanatomist]

But since you wanted to go there...
Sony stock is up 86% over the past year.

Yes, when you post a $2B loss, cancel your dividend for the first time ever, your credit rating is reduced to junk status, and most of your profits as an 'electronics company' come from selling insurance, you've pretty much hit rock bottom. If you then refocus efforts to selling sensors for smartphone cameras and the value of your benchmark currency is falling like a stone, an increase is quite reasonable. Nothing to do with ILC cameras, of course.

 

[jrista]

I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:

1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?

2. Why can't mirrorless camera designers improve AF precision and accuracy to the level of say, the 5D3 or 1Dx?

Thanks.

1 - It probably won't help either way. It's already well known that Canon beats Sony at high ISO (outside of pay-per-point dxo scam scores). The only "backside illumination" that matters is the Sony zealots thinking the Sun shines out of Sony's rear end! ;D ;D

2 - Because it's a flawed dead end technology. No serious photographer is going to want to stare at a tiny TV screen stuffed inside a camera instead of seeing the real world through a proper optical viewfinder. Image sensors are just bad at autofocus because they're meant to take pictures, not determine focus. If you want functional and reliable autofocus you need a dedicated autofocus sensor, like a DSLR has.

Mirrorless cameras are so ridiculously bad at autofocus it's funny. Any less light than midday in the sahara desert and you might as well spin the focus ring and hope for the best. It really is that bad.

I wouldn't say that.

My a7s performs better than my 1dx in higher ISO range. AF is better and faster in almost no-light condition. EVF is better for night time shooting.

I wonder what type mirrorless camera you been shooting with?

Agreed. Sony surpassed the 1D X in terms of high ISO performance with the A7s a while ago. The A7r performs quite well at high ISO as well. Canon's "win" at high ISO is a tiny fraction of a stop at best, which is meaningless in the real world. If the A7r II performs as well as it sounds like it will at high ISO, it will be a pretty amazing camera. I just hope the improved high ISO performance does not come at a cost to low ISO perofrmance. The A7s traded low ISO nose for ultra high ISO performance (25e- RN at it's lowest ISO.) I would be ok with the A7r II having 5e- RN at ISO 100...I think it would be a real bummer if it ended up with 25e- RN though.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But the Neuro crowd seem to think that so long as a company is tops for sales then whatever they produce is the best in all ways or that if it is not that in anything it trials or cripples and leaves out, can't actually matter to anyone.

No. But thanks for your contributions to all the misinformation being spouted in this thread.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My PC is ready for 4K, my monitor is not :-[

Dude, the 4k+ monitors are awesome. I'd almost make that the #1 priority.
I got a Dell (UHD (8MP), internal programmable high bit LUT, wide gamut, programmable screen uniformity compensation, 24") and wow. Best photo purchase I've made in a long time. It's like getting free, decent-sized 8MP prints and even for stuff like web browsing/programming the text is so much crisper and nice. It's like reading a magazine. Video games look awesome too. 4k video, nice!

And man the new 14MP ones, wow. I'm sure the 14MP Dell will come way down in price in another 6months or so, man.

 

[3kramd5]

1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?

ISO setting is associated to how much amplification you need to apply to get a certain luminance, right (Neuro can likely quote the standard)?

Light is light. If your pixels are blocked by circuitry, you need more amplification to achieve a given luminance than if they aren't. So, low ISO settings should have less associated noise due to less required gain. It may be approaching diminishing returns with Sony's architecture at low ISO since noise is so low already, though. I suspect Canon would see greater benefits from such an approach.

Consider all the above as an uneducated guess.

 

[Dylan777]

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.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sadly, the level of fanboysm here is not something I need to make up.

The only fanboys on here are the ones who come in to bang on and on and on about how good Sony/Nikon/insert camera brand of choice are compared to dying, inept, useless Canon...

Those of us who disagree with those fanboys do so not because we're Canon fanboys, but - simply - because Canon does what we need it to do, and generally really, really well, too.

A nuance doubtless lost on you.

So off you go - twist that into something that I didn't actualy write, like you've being doing to everyone else throughout the thread...

Says the dude who bashed and personally trashed (morons, freaks, nerds, geeks stuck in a lab, incompetent photographers who can't expose properly or shoot anything, etc.) anyone who mentioned Canon shadow banding to high hell and back for years.... until Canon finally fixed banding and now goes around about how the new Canons are so amazing and so much better because they fixed banding and that it's really banding that matters and not general read noise (where Canon is still way behind) and who now trashed anyone who dares to forget to mention that the 7D2, 70D, 5Ds and such have fixed banding. ;D

 

[retroreflection]

I need contact info for all of you, I've got some groundbreaking stuff to sell. 16 pages in 24 hours, gee whiz.
There should be some major awards on the way for Sony's marketing department.

If BSI, in and of itself, is as groundbreaking as some here think, then there's a Samsung camera that should be the total bee's knees and second coming. I don't think the evidence is quite supportive of that. Wisdom suggests one should wait and see how it actually performs.

In a spirit of full disclosure, I did pre-order a Fuji XT-1. I consider myself somewhat lucky in what I got, in hindsight. But, is form factor as much of a risk as this (as measured by price vs performance delivered)?

 

[fragilesi]

Looks like I made the right decision just to skip to the end and see how things were then

I'm guessing most of the preceding pages are pretty much the same - on both sides of the argument!

Moving on. This does sound like an impressive release, but as we always say let's just see how it actually performs in reality before we either claim it as a world beater or indeed slate it as just marketing speak.

I wonder if we should have dual threads for new announcements, the kiddie playpen arguments version and a grown ups version for anyone who actually wants to actually just talk about it sensibly ;D Personally I'd read both of course but the latter would be an interesting novelty to try!

 

[Dylan777]

I need contact info for all of you, I've got some groundbreaking stuff to sell. 16 pages in 24 hours, gee whiz.
There should be some major awards on the way for Sony's marketing department.

If BSI, in and of itself, is as groundbreaking as some here think, then there's a Samsung camera that should be the total bee's knees and second coming. I don't think the evidence is quite supportive of that. Wisdom suggests one should wait and see how it actually performs.

In a spirit of full disclosure, I did pre-order a Fuji XT-1. I consider myself somewhat lucky in what I got, in hindsight. But, is form factor as much of a risk as this (as measured by price vs performance delivered)?

I guess you haven't seen 5D3 and 1Dx rumors pages yet

 

[Dylan777]

My PC is ready for 4K, my monitor is not :-[

Dude, the 4k+ monitors are awesome. I'd almost make that the #1 priority.
I got a Dell (UHD (8MP), internal programmable high bit LUT, wide gamut, programmable screen uniformity compensation, 24") and wow. Best photo purchase I've made in a long time. It's like getting free, decent-sized 8MP prints and even for stuff like web browsing/programming the text is so much crisper and nice. It's like reading a magazine. Video games look awesome too. 4k video, nice!

And man the new 14MP ones, wow. I'm sure the 14MP Dell will come way down in price in another 6months or so, man.

I have this one in my BH account. Waiting for A7rII so I can do checkout at one: http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-ips-led-monitor ;D

 

[jrista]

1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?

ISO setting is associated to how much amplification you need to apply to get a certain luminance, right (Neuro can likely quote the standard)?

Light is light. If your pixels are blocked by circuitry, you need more amplification to achieve a given luminance than if they aren't. So, low ISO settings should have less associated noise due to less required gain. It may be approaching diminishing returns with Sony's architecture at low ISO since noise is so low already, though. I suspect Canon would see greater benefits from such an approach.

Consider all the above as an uneducated guess.

The amount of amplification required is based on how much light you gather and convert to charge. The two primary factors that affect that are quantum efficiency and pixel area. With BSI, pixel area is literally maximized. The entire sensor surface area is sensitive to light with a BSI design...fill factor would be around 99%. So yes, absolutely, BIS will have a meaningful impact to high ISO performance. It had a meaningful impact to high ISO performance with the Samsung NX1, which has scored higher than the 7D II in high ISO tests thanks to it's BSI APS-C sensor.

The benefit here, when BSI is combined with Sony's already superior sensor technology, is that you can get both excellent low ISO performance as well as excellent high ISO performance, with small pixels, in the same camera. No need to make a tradeoff for one or the other.

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks, that was a great explanation jrista.