Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Im fat and bloated some folks still like me. ROTFLMAO
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hey Guy, you stole my line! ;-)Im fat and bloated some folks still like me. ROTFLMAO
LOL It just had to be said.Hey Guy, you stole my line! ;-)
G
John, I am probably the WORST person on the planet to even ask that question of, as I use manual focus almost all of the time. I only own one autofocus lens on the Sony mount in fact, though I am adding the two Batis if I can swing the budget next month.Hi Chuck:
When you handled the A7RII were you able to tell how good the autofocus was? I've been wondering when Sony would reach parity with a DSLR for both static and moving subjects.
Would love to hear your opinion.
You and I both know you will never see that.As I already pointed out, these "Artisans" have to be handled with a glove online.
As for the "honesty". Hmm... there are several shades. When Sony had few lenses for the FE, it is the same artisan who recommended a ZM 18/4 for A7r (!!!) and the NEX 10-18 f/4 zoom.
Soviet union had an official newspaper called "Pravda". LOL
The first "artisan" who writes an article critical of the crap load of NEX' and other blue labelled stuff that Sony churned out would make me believe.
It's an interesting mix when you compare the two bodies. According to CameraSize.com (http://camerasize.com/compare/#389,624):The A7R Mk II is still lighter than the Leica M. ...
Yes, it is the nature of the beast and no point in shedding tears over it.You and I both know you will never see that.
It would be almost like Tiger Woods coming out and saying Titleist Golf Balls smell like stinky rubber or some such :ROTFL:
Chuck:John, I am probably the WORST person on the planet to even ask that question of, as I use manual focus almost all of the time. I only own one autofocus lens on the Sony mount in fact, though I am adding the two Batis if I can swing the budget next month.
That said, reports I am getting from those who do use autofocus are saying the addition of the phase detect points has really improved it. But again, I would caution that every prototype A7R II body in existence today all are running beta firmware that is very much still being developed and refined. Trying to judge something as critical for you as this on beta firmware is not going to be accurate until the actual cameras start shipping. Remember, one of the big new differences with the A7R II is the addition of the phase detect autofocus points, so I expect some fine tuning for that right up to shipping time.
Is the A7R II autofocus equivalent to say a Nikon D4? I doubt it. Or a Canon 5DS autofocus? Again, I doubt it, but it should be pretty close. Give it another generation, and it will be there I'm pretty sure. Sony is on fire in their engineering department from everything I am seeing.
But you really do owe it to yourself to try the live view magnification and the focus peaking tools on the Sony, as I find them excellent to nail focus every time. More accurate than any autofocus in my book, as using these two tools you never land focus on the back wall...
While many FE lenses are physically large compared to M lenses I don't really find any of them to be heavy. Fact of the matter is that Sony does an excellent job of building the larger native lenses to balance well on the camera in my experience.It's an interesting mix when you compare the two bodies. According to CameraSize.com (http://camerasize.com/compare/#389,624):
- Leica M is 10% (12.1 mm) wider and 16% (15.7 mm) shorter than Sony A7R II.
- Leica M is 30% (18.3 mm) thinner than Sony A7R II.
- Leica M [680 g] weights 9% (55 grams) more than Sony A7R II [625 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
Given how close the two bodies are on any given dimension, it's pretty much a draw. The lenses will be a larger differentiation between them. I think there the Leica is going to prove the smaller overall package; most of the Sony lenses other than the 35/2.8 seem quite large and heavy.
G
guess it is all relative to the weight balance of lens and camera body. Some may think Canon lenses are not that heavy, and they too balance well on on the 5d3While many FE lenses are physically large compared to M lenses I don't really find any of them to be heavy. Fact of the matter is that Sony does an excellent job of building the larger native lenses to balance well on the camera in my experience.
Perceived weight and how it relates to ergonomics is a relative but real thing. Hold a light weight away from your body in a static position and it quickly "feels" heavy while lifting a weight that's technically heavier closer to your body will feel lighter because more muscles will be used to lift/distribute weight. So yeah while relative the differences in perceived weight can be real.guess it is all relative to the weight balance of lens and camera body. Some may think Canon lenses are not that heavy, and they too balance well on on the 5d3
Hi Chuck:
When you handled the A7RII were you able to tell how good the autofocus was? I've been wondering when Sony would reach parity with a DSLR for both static and moving subjects.
Would love to hear your opinion.
That would cost upwards of 5000 Euros (A9?).No rainbow's end... yet.
Eduardo
Ain't life in the first world grand? These days, there's practically nothing but good choices in the camera store; they're just good in slightly different ways. How did I get to be so lucky?- Leica M is 30% (18.3 mm) thinner than Sony A7R II.
[stuff omitted]
That would cost upwards of 5000 Euros (A9?).