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

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't know why you are surprised that Canon users on a Canon forum are enthusiastic about the gear they use, but to be fair to the "Neuro crowd" full frame mirrorless cameras don't have any intrinsic benefits over a DSLR with the exception of the occasional benefit of an EVF. While it can be argued that the Sony sensor is better than the current Canon sensors, that's not a mirrorless vs DSLR thing. The same can be said for the video features. If this new Sony camera was actually a slim DSLR, it would be generating a lot more interest. (And I'm a mirrorless fanboi - I'm just realistic about the shortfalls of my Mirrorless cameras vs DSLRs.)

I'm a LONG time Canon user myself.

The Neuro crowd goes way beyond enthusiasm.

And if you actually use and care about Canon, you'd think you'd rather people went totally over the top about things, actually, than not, since it might maybe put on pressure than then makes the next model bring everyone, you too, more.

I never said mirroress had any intrinsic benefit. I prefer DSLR myself actually.

 

[expatinasia]

Exactly. I've never heard of a pro sports photographer shooting raw at an event as they (nor the people that get them) do not have the time to do the raw conversion. It needs to be baked and ready to crop/print straight away. Bigger files = longer to transfer, longer to load to work with and so on.

Not all on the side lines are shooting for the wires. Some will be shooting for print magazines or such like where time is not such an issue. Some will also have an editor or colleague in the media centre and someone comes around occasionally and collects the CF cards so there are quite a few that shoot in RAW (or at least a mix of RAW and jpeg), it just depends on who you are working with, your company and the event you are at.

But this A7RII is not made for sports anyway.

I still find the tech interesting, but for me it is the RX100 IV which I am very eager to try out and see what the new stacked sensor tech in that can do, as well as it its 16 fps and other cool features, all of which can fit easily inside my pocket without pulling my trousers down!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Why is 300 photos not enough for pros, in the film days you got max around 100 before a change was needed. Changing a battery takes less time then that.

That's totally nonsense. You can shoot at least 150 to 160 Rolls (36 Pictures each) on a EOS1n HS before your battery begins to fade. Battery life is important and it gets more important on cold locations or on a longer trip. The A7R2 is a wonderful cam but after a second view there is not so much left for me to get totally excited about except of the dynamic range.

??? He meant that you got a max of 100 shots before needing to change a roll of film. And changing a roll of film does take a lot longer than popping a battery in and out. So things were worse back then than with even a feeble Sony battery. (granted people tend to like to progress not merely do better than 10-20 years ago)

 

[jrista]

Neuro, I don't get your abbreviations re demosaicing: "I actually try to use VNG demosaicing with Canon data. It seems to handle it MUCH better than AHD, which is used by Lightroom/ACR."

That was me that said that. VNG and AHD are demosaicing algorithms. The former is Variable Number of Gradients, the latter is Adaptive Homogeneity-Directed. There are also others, such as simple bilinear, PPG (pattern pixel grouping) and a few more. There are actually a variety of variants of these algorithms, so even though a program may use AHD, they are not all the same.

PixInsight uses DCRAW, and it actually has the four-color option for both AHD and VNG. Without the four color option, AHD can experience significant mazing, which is a different problem than your standard banding. VNG in brighter areas may show some pixelation without the four-color option, but that is highly preferable to mazing. VNG, at least in my experience, has never given me a banded image unless the SNR was extremely low. AHD will often exhibit banding, but with four-color, banding seems to be less of an issue.

Blotch is an interesting thing. That is really a form of low frequency noise...rather than high frequency, which is per-pixel or nearly so (nearly so because of the interpolation...in a non-demosaiced raw, the highest frequency of noise IS per-pixel noise). There can be a wide range of lower frequency forms of noise, including blotchiness, banding, and just non-gaussian distributions of random noise. I've found that a lot of blotch comes from the bias signals of cameras. This becomes fairly apparent when you run a superbias algorithm on a high quality master bias (several hundred frames). The bias may also be a source of glows and very large patterns that exhibit with heavy shadow pushing or high ISO (on Canon cameras, usually around ISO 3200 and up.) Removal of the bias signal can improve signal quality in a Canon camera...however it will also result in some signal clipping unless other measures are taken (say a pedestal offset.)

Anyway...VNG just seems to be a demosaicing algorithm that handles Canon data better. Sadly, the most used RAW editor on the planet uses, as far as I can tell, one of the worst implementations of AHD around. Adobe's AHD does seem to result in clean, crisp edges, but it makes the read-noise and bias-signal ridden shadows of Canon RAW files in an even worse state. Use of VNG will usually result in less or no banding, which gives you much more pleasant noise. Some people may be more willing to push shadows more when banding is not present...and, random noise cleans up better than banding...so you can clean up shadows more than you could otherwise. It is not, however, a magic bullet for improving Canon's dynamic range...VNG does not change the amount of read noise, only the characteristic with which it is rendered.

 

[that1guyy]

For all the "Canon is doing well"/"selling millions of cameras"/"making billions of dollars" folks:


They actually aren't even doing very well financially.

Ahh facts and logic. What a breath of fresh air here. Neuroanatomist and similar people automatically defend Canon whenever there is a post about a competitor. They are ignorant children when it comes to business.

Canon stock is worth less now than it was 5 years ago.


If you invested $100, 5 years ago, in:


The stock market: you'd have $192
Sony Electronics: you'd have $105
Canon: you'd have $83


If you had invested $100, 1 year ago:
Stock market: $108
Sony: $186
Canon: $104


Sony stock is up 86% from a year ago, Canon is up 4%, and the stock market as a whole is up 8%.


Not sure why some of y'all consider Canon a financially brilliant, unshakable company. Their stock isn't even worth what it was 5 years ago, and in the past year they haven't even out-performed the market as a whole. Not anything to be proud of. I would never invest in Canon. (and yes, Nikon is even worse, I didn't include them because, unlike Canon and Sony, they are not on the NYSE, making direct comparisons more problematic)


Can we please retire this "Canon has great financials, therefor their products are infallible" logic now?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ahh facts and logic. What a breath of fresh air here. Neuroanatomist and similar people automatically defend Canon whenever there is a post about a competitor. They are ignorant children when it comes to business.

Fact: Canon has been the dSLR market leader for >11 years.
Logic: Their business decisions concerning dSLRs have been pretty good.

I dare say I know a fair bit about business, certainly more than those who've claimed for years that Canon is doomed if they don't deliver more low ISO DR. :

 

[sdsr]

....full frame mirrorless cameras don't have any intrinsic benefits over a DSLR with the exception of the occasional benefit of an EVF.

These considerations may not matter to many (which perhaps is why the mirrorless market remains small), but I like never having to even think about afma and being able to mount just about any lens with an adapter, regardless of who made it; and for me the benefits of EVFs - especially easier control of exposure, and the magnification and focus peaking that make manual focusing so much easier, all while looking through the viewfinder - are more than occasional; I use them constantly (I tend to prefer manual focusing).

 

[dolina]

Ahh facts and logic. What a breath of fresh air here. Neuroanatomist and similar people automatically defend Canon whenever there is a post about a competitor. They are ignorant children when it comes to business.

Fact: Canon has been the dSLR market leader for >11 years.
Logic: Their business decisions concerning dSLRs have been pretty good.

I dare say I know a fair bit about business, certainly more than those who've claimed for years that Canon is doomed if they don't deliver more low ISO DR. :

And he has the gear list to prove it too!

Kidding aside Canon's doing a good job despite the challenges from Android and iPhones.

They are diversifying to hedge against further loses from sales of their dedicated stills camera market.

In the same way that Sony did being in the image sensor business.

 

[sdsr]

I shoot mostly wildflowers and macro, so this camera is quite intriguing. But no Zeiss macro is available? How much do the adapters impact IQ?

The imminent Sony 90mm macro is supposedly impressive, though I can't remember to what extent, if any, Zeiss is involved. I do close-up rather than what I tend to think of as true macro, but for that, at any rate, my Canon 100L makes stunning images on my a7r via a Metabones adaptor, as do (via cheap passive adaptors) my manual Nikon 55mm 2.8 and Rokunar 90mm 2.5 (and a wide range of other lenses, for that matter). You'll find lots of similar comments online. (The main complaint about adaptors so far seems confined to certain wide-angle lenses, especially Leica M-mount, where the issue seems to be an unappealing purple color cast towards the corners.)

Talking of adaptors, if it's really the case AF with Canon lenses on this new Sony body is comparable to on Canon bodies (faster? really?), that would be quite a leap, given the extremely slow AF performance on the current a7r!

 

[jrista]

I shoot mostly wildflowers and macro, so this camera is quite intriguing. But no Zeiss macro is available? How much do the adapters impact IQ?

The imminent Sony 90mm macro is supposedly impressive, though I can't remember to what extent, if any, Zeiss is involved. I do close-up rather than what I tend to think of as true macro, but for that, at any rate, my Canon 100L makes stunning images on my a7r via a Metabones adaptor, as do (via cheap passive adaptors) my manual Nikon 55mm 2.8 and Rokunar 90mm 2.5 (and a wide range of other lenses, for that matter). You'll find lots of similar comments online. (The main complaint about adaptors so far seems confined to certain wide-angle lenses, especially Leica M-mount, where the issue seems to be an unappealing purple color cast towards the corners.)

Talking of adaptors, if it's really the case AF with Canon lenses on this new Sony body is comparable to on Canon bodies (faster? really?), that would be quite a leap, given the extremely slow AF performance on the current a7r!

It sounds like Sony has optimized their CDAF algorithms, as well as bumped up their PDAF point count to 399. I am not sure how many adapters can actually make use of the PDAF points in the sensor, but from what I've read, the CDAF timing is 0.09 seconds. If they can actually oscillate a focus group fast enough to achieve focus in 0.09 seconds, regardless of brand (and in the past, forms of CDAF were the only real options when adapting third party lenses), then I do indeed believe they could focus any third party lens very quickly.

 

[emko]

i seen the 5Ds and i thought nice 50MP but the ISO 6400 limit is crap, so i was waiting for the 5D4 with lower MP but at least better ISO and maybe better DR. Now this A7rII comes out with 42mp,high iso,DR,4K video,1080p 60fps etc why on earth would i pay 3700$ when i can pay 3200 and get a better product?

I have no idea what the 5D4 can do that will stop me from buying a A7rII but seeing as the 5Ds would have been the best camera to put BSI into i doubt Canon will do anything new on the 5D4 so it looks like A7rII will beat this camera to.

when the 5ds came many of you said there is no point in the Pentax medium format now because 5ds does everything it does but cheaper, but when its another company that has better product and cheaper too nope Canon is still the best because the COMPANY makes more PROFIT.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Ahh facts and logic. What a breath of fresh air here. Neuroanatomist and similar people automatically defend Canon whenever there is a post about a competitor. They are ignorant children when it comes to business.

Fact: Canon has been the dSLR market leader for >11 years.
Logic: Their business decisions concerning dSLRs have been pretty good.

I dare say I know a fair bit about business, certainly more than those who've claimed for years that Canon is doomed if they don't deliver more low ISO DR. :

Fact: head of Canon said the Sony RX100 decision was silly and would never sell. Then after it sells like crazy they try to copy it and just some months later Sony drops an even never more advanced version already.

Fact: Canon also lost a lot of camera video market share even though they basically got the whole thing going

so their conservatism has already hurt, clearly, in some ways and the CEO and top planners are not all-seeing

Fact: You can't take pictures with market share. You don't take better pics, have better creativity, art, etc. based on market share of what you use.

 

[Marsu42]

when the 5ds came many of you said there is no point in the Pentax medium format now because 5ds does everything it does but cheaper, but when its another company that has better product and cheaper too nope Canon is still the best because the COMPANY makes more PROFIT.

You people.

Canon enthusiasts can call themselves lucky some valiant and patriotic few trawl all threads, defending the brand against the backstabbing of the Sonikon troll crowd. Let me explain something to you, Mr. "I want to have the better product for less money", it's not about YOU!

The truth is that all companies are just leapfrogging in turns and keep releasing great products ... and it's not just about the sensor, but the whole SYSTEM. Here's how, using the latest two hot topics on CR:

* Sony releases a bsi sensor, gaining more iso capabilty at higher res. But is it a tech never seen before? No, even Canon has been working on it! Do professionals need it right now to shoot beautiful pictures? No, it's the photog's skills that matter! Did Ansel Adams need it? No! Can it be important if Canon keeps selling volume? No!

* Canon optimizes their 1987 50/1.8 once again based on the proven classic design, and is rumored to keep working on a 50/1.4 update to be released during the next decade. This enables Canon shooters to take tack-sharp images at f5.6 and sports superior low-light capability wide open, making any so-called "high iso sensor progress" moot.

Who are you to tell what is better? Why not be just happy our brand is prosperous? Ignore the 3rd party manufacturers forums, stay clear from sites tainted by non-Canon news and enjoy the clarity of truth demonstrated by CR's very own fanboi regulars. 'Nuff said

 

[RayValdez360]

DO you people work for Canon. Are you pro-corporate and anti-technology. How can people be happy that the company with the most money is lazy and greedy when it comes to advancements in their products. Some of you are real sheep. I have seen things like Nvidia. They overprice things and don't innovate much because they are on top. At the end nothing will ever change as long as people behave like sheep for these corporations. I thought the point of technology was to get better and make lives(work) easier. I shoot in all types of environments and I do video. I would love to have a camera with more DR for club and outdoor shooting with strobes and a small camera for 4k video B-Roll that i can sit on a tripod and crop. The Canon XC10 is pretty crappy because they won't let it have an ILC feature and the 1DC is too much and pretty old now and lacking features of other video cameras in that price range.

 

[fragilesi]

DO you people work for Canon. Are you pro-corporate and anti-technology. How can people be happy that the company with the most money is lazy and greedy when it comes to advancements in their products. Some of you are real sheep. I have seen things like Nvidia. They overprice things and don't innovate much because they are on top. At the end nothing will ever change as long as people behave like sheep for these corporations. I thought the point of technology was to get better and make lives(work) easier. I shoot in all types of environments and I do video. I would love to have a camera with more DR for club and outdoor shooting with strobes and a small camera for 4k video B-Roll that i can sit on a tripod and crop. The Canon XC10 is pretty crappy because they won't let it have an ILC feature and the 1DC is too much and pretty old now and lacking features of other video cameras in that price range.

Come on can we at least try and keep this adult. There is some excellent discussion on here and we don't need this. If something else is so much better for you then just go and buy it. I love my Canon camera, my Canon lenses, they have driven me forwards. I haven't tried this new Sony, one thing we ALL have in common, but the marketing speak certainly makes it sound very interesting. Let's see how it performs.

One thing that does confuse me is the lens discussion which goes . . . Canon lenses are better, yes but with adaptors we could use Canon lenses effectively with the Sony camera. The Sony camera is better to use for x,y and z therefore Sony are the only ones being innovative or making progress. Seems to me that Canon are making the better lenses in terms of bang for buck and ultimate quality and most are agreeing that. So, how come Canon aren't given credit by people like your good self for that innovation, quality and achievement? If Canon had put all that R&D and production capability into bodies instead we'd possibly have two sets of bodies everyone would be raving about technically but bemoaning the lack of affordable quality lenses with decent AF performance to attach to them . . .

Being the best at everything across such a broad range while maintaining the backwards compatibility that Canon do could never make any kind of business sense. They would be foolish to even attempt it.

*And of course all that assumes that the Sony lives up to the claims . . . sometimes products do, sometimes they don't.

 

[krisbell]

Come on can we at least try and keep this adult. There is some excellent discussion on here and we don't need this. If something else is so much better for you then just go and buy it. I love my Canon camera, my Canon lenses, they have driven me forwards. I haven't tried this new Sony, one thing we ALL have in common, but the marketing speak certainly makes it sound very interesting. Let's see how it performs.

One thing that does confuse me is the lens discussion which goes . . . Canon lenses are better, yes but with adaptors we could use Canon lenses effectively with the Sony camera. The Sony camera is better to use for x,y and z therefore Sony are the only ones being innovative or making progress. Seems to me that Canon are making the better lenses in terms of bang for buck and ultimate quality and most are agreeing that. So, how come Canon aren't given credit by people like your good self for that innovation, quality and achievement? If Canon had put all that R&D and production capability into bodies instead we'd possibly have two sets of bodies everyone would be raving about technically but bemoaning the lack of affordable quality lenses with decent AF performance to attach to them . . .

Being the best at everything across such a broad range while maintaining the backwards compatibility that Canon do could never make any kind of business sense. They would be foolish to even attempt it.

*And of course all that assumes that the Sony lives up to the claims . . . sometimes products do, sometimes they don't.

...now why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly entertaining thread with sensible, mature and balanced reasoning!? Don't worry, I'll salvage it and get it back on topic right now by stating that Sony is the best thing that happened to photography since ever, Canon is as good as gone and Neuro smells bad

 

[emko]

DO you people work for Canon. Are you pro-corporate and anti-technology. How can people be happy that the company with the most money is lazy and greedy when it comes to advancements in their products. Some of you are real sheep. I have seen things like Nvidia. They overprice things and don't innovate much because they are on top. At the end nothing will ever change as long as people behave like sheep for these corporations. I thought the point of technology was to get better and make lives(work) easier. I shoot in all types of environments and I do video. I would love to have a camera with more DR for club and outdoor shooting with strobes and a small camera for 4k video B-Roll that i can sit on a tripod and crop. The Canon XC10 is pretty crappy because they won't let it have an ILC feature and the 1DC is too much and pretty old now and lacking features of other video cameras in that price range.

Come on can we at least try and keep this adult. There is some excellent discussion on here and we don't need this. If something else is so much better for you then just go and buy it. I love my Canon camera, my Canon lenses, they have driven me forwards. I haven't tried this new Sony, one thing we ALL have in common, but the marketing speak certainly makes it sound very interesting. Let's see how it performs.

One thing that does confuse me is the lens discussion which goes . . . Canon lenses are better, yes but with adaptors we could use Canon lenses effectively with the Sony camera. The Sony camera is better to use for x,y and z therefore Sony are the only ones being innovative or making progress. Seems to me that Canon are making the better lenses in terms of bang for buck and ultimate quality and most are agreeing that. So, how come Canon aren't given credit by people like your good self for that innovation, quality and achievement? If Canon had put all that R&D and production capability into bodies instead we'd possibly have two sets of bodies everyone would be raving about technically but bemoaning the lack of affordable quality lenses with decent AF performance to attach to them . . .

Being the best at everything across such a broad range while maintaining the backwards compatibility that Canon do could never make any kind of business sense. They would be foolish to even attempt it.

*And of course all that assumes that the Sony lives up to the claims . . . sometimes products do, sometimes they don't.

umm no one says Canon lens are bad everyone agrees they are great just the Camera is lacking compared to the competition right now, and the fact you can use your Canon lenses on a amazing camera like the A7rII is awesome. I just don't see why anyone would get a 5Ds over this camera its better in every way except that it has 8MP less. Battery life is a issue but since the people said the 5Ds is for landscape and studio i doubt its a big deal especially when it has better ISO,DR,VIDEO etc with ability to use Canon glass for 700$ less.

I just bought a Canon 11-24 F4 a very nice lens just wish the Canon was doing what Sony is doing right now with their cameras.

Canon i am sure will match the tech when they release a 5D5 but that's like 5-6 years from now

 

[suburbia]

someone said

;D

 

[emko]

someone said

;D

yes everyone calls the 5Ds a landscape/studio camera because its ISO is crap yet the A7rII does both high MP and high ISO,DR,VIDEO etc i want a high MP and high ISO this was the only reason i didn't get the 5Ds i was waiting to see what the 5D4 would be like but then this news came out and i am ready to pre order when i can.

 

[StudentOfLight]

We need Sony sensors, with Canon Glass and AF in a Leica body (drooling over the Q) with Nikon......um....erm......models?

http://img.xcitefun.net/users/2008/04/2541,xcitefun-nikon-coolpix.jpg

I thought the whole thing with mirrorless was going smaller ???