The Sony A7II

[Jorgen Udvang]

Nikon innovative?

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Innovative where it counts: Making good cameras better by sensible use of new technology. Many years ago, somebody on this forum said that a good camera is one that isn't annoying, or something along those lines. That's Nikon.

An A7 II with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 is only 150 grams lighter than a D750 with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and only slightly smaller. As soon as we talk large aperture zoom lenses, there's hardly any difference at all. Isn't that food for thought?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Last I heard they are using Sony sensors. Oh wait so is Hassy, Pentax, phase one and others. The A7 series is very innovative compared to many others. Perfect no but you can't fault them for trying and also succeeding at the same time. Nikon makes great photographers ergonomics, maybe the best in the industry but they fall short too. There TS lenses are nothing compared to Canons. Folks they are all give and take. I take no sides on any of it. I just get what I think works the best. Okay Fedx just dropped off the 16-35 rental lens.

 

[sloppywmu]

Nikon innovative?

There is a difference between adding features for the sake of spec sheets and adding things that photographers can actually use.

The only thing I see thats truly useful on the A7II is the IBIS, it would allow me to take photos at a lower ISO than I can currently.

The rest is firmware if you ask me. Unless there has been a major bump in the BionX processor that Sony is not marketing for some reason.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think people are forgetting who is actually making the sensors here. Do you think for one second Hassy, Pentax , Nikon and Phase One are complete idiots. Let's get real here Sony is making this stuff. A lot of innovation and trust is going into this or those guys would not be buying there technology .

 

[sloppywmu]

Okay Fedx just dropped off the 16-35 rental lens.

Sweet! Let us know how it goes. I'm very interested in this lens.

 

[Paratom]

I think people are forgetting who is actually making the sensors here. Do you think for one second Hassy, Pentax , Nikon and Phase One are complete idiots. Let's get real here Sony is making this stuff. A lot of innovation and trust is going into this or those guys would not be buying there technology .

Hi Guy, I think nobody doubts that Sony is building some good sensors.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I love competition! The more the better for us users!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I think people are forgetting who is actually making the sensors here. Do you think for one second Hassy, Pentax , Nikon and Phase One are complete idiots. Let's get real here Sony is making this stuff. A lot of innovation and trust is going into this or those guys would not be buying there technology .

For some reason, those sensors are more noisy in Sony cameras than in Nikon bodies. That goes for A7 vs. D750 as well as A7r vs. D810. Maybe Sony should use more resources on better noise processing algorithms than on new bodies? It doesn't look as cool in marketing campaigns, but it sure improves the usability of cameras.

 

[nostatic]

This is an interesting read. I'm still using my A7, briefly had a preorder in for the A7ii but pulled it to wait and see. When I go back over the past few years and which cameras I:

a) enjoyed shooting

and

b) got the best shots from (those two overlapped but not always)

I got an interesting list that unfortunately shows that a single camera just won't really cut it. My short list (I pale in comparison to many around here - both in talent and number of cameras owned ):

Pentax K20d - the camera had issues (AF was miserable), but the image stabilization was great for how/what I shoot, and dammit, the Pentax limited primes are my favorite glass of all time (caveat - never owned M glass). I still miss the 77/1.8.

Leica D-Lux4 - yeah, small sensor but I could carry it anywhere, could focus down to about 1cm macro, and I ended with many large prints that are still on my wall.

Sony A7 w/55-1.8 - I got a number of shots published from that combo. I shot some of the same sessions with GH3 and a few of those were used but the Sony shots had more going on due to the extra DR.

I also liked aspects of my EM5 (mostly the stabilization) and even an early Pen. I've still got a 6D sitting in the drawer that my wife uses occasionally to shoot some of her sculpture but now that Sony has a 16-35 that could go away.

All that said, my wants and needs have evolved somewhat, as has the technology. Having owned and/or shot the A7r, RX1r, XT-1, EM1 and others, my "perfect" camera doesn't exist. Or maybe it will. If I mix my previous favorites I get:

- sensor stabilization as I shoot all handheld and often in crappy light
- crazy high iso as I shoot all handheld and often in crappy light (I sense a pattern)
- smallish as the smaller it is the more likely it is to go with me
- small/fast primes that are sublime for certain occasions
- a small/fast zoom for general purpose
- SILENT SHUTTER (I'm sometimes shooting while filming is going on - A7 fails here)

That's more than one camera. Right now RX100ii and A7 are covering the basses, but what I really want is an A7sii with sensor stabilization and 18-24MP. Then for a second camera, the new DLux might be the ticket, though perhaps a hair big.

Then again, my Buddhist readings tell me that I need to give up searching for perfect things

 

[Godfrey]

...
Sony is the only innovative company at the moment and it comes with its own characteristics. ...

Hmm. I'm not so interested in innovation as I am in getting a good camera that does the job.

G

 

[Chuck Jones]

hi Chuck. we did the comparisons in poor light at 6400 ISO on a tripod rather carefully. Certainly I was very surprised (I used to have a D700 too and never much liked it). the dynamic range was a little better on the Sony, the noise almost the same as was the colour. Memory is one thing, but this was a proper comparison

Jono, I'm not trying to say you didn't see what you did, I believe you. I'm just trying to understand why you saw what you did, because I still have 2,725 NEF files according to my Lightroom catalog from my D700 that are telling me a different story. Either your D700 shooting technique is far superior to my own, which is certainly possible. Mine was a second body I never learned where the limits were or how to push them.

My ISO 6400 from the D700, the noise is so bad that by the time I get it cleaned up with noise reduction, the high frequency detail is completely gone so the image quality is considerably degraded. As to the dynamics, well they sure don't show me much in the first place. I'd give it maybe eight - nine usable stops, vs 12-14 usable on the A7S?

I have to be at least four or five stops happier a camper shooting the "S" than I ever was using the D700

 

[iiiNelson]

For some reason, those sensors are more noisy in Sony cameras than in Nikon bodies. That goes for A7 vs. D750 as well as A7r vs. D810. Maybe Sony should use more resources on better noise processing algorithms than on new bodies? It doesn't look as cool in marketing campaigns, but it sure improves the usability of cameras.

Yes a "Nikonified" Sony sensor is generally better at high ISO in comparison to the straight Sony versions they put in their cameras AT THE COST OF WORSE COLOR PRODUCTION to many at lower ISO. If you like Nikon color that's fine and I encourage you to continue using their cameras. I try to shoot at the lowest ISO possible while maintaining a reasonable shutter speed with my Sony camera.

As for the A7 it's really not that loud of a shutter sound. The A7r is louder but it's still quieter than the NEX-5 if you've ever used one. Neither one would be distracting for street use but you may catch a few sideways stares at a classical musical performance or ballet. I don't get the negative backlash of having multiple spec'ed bodies... How is that ANY different than taking Nikon for example making a D3, D3s, or D3x!?! It's not so it's not just a Sony exclusive thing. Canon did the same with some of their bodies in the past.

Ultimately though it's not that Sony owners are smoking anything versus the A7 series brings a versatility not available in any other FF camera. No it's not perfect (I don't think anyone has suggested such) but it's the closest thing to 35mm digital back there is. No it won't work for everyone because frankly SOME need AF, smaller lenses, a complete one stop system, a large pro dealer network, etc.

If it doesn't work for you then that's fine but there's no need to drop in to tell people that they are essentially chemically inebriated for using a product that currently best fits their subjective needs. Sony isn't doing anything wrong in offering people choices and offering upgraded versions of older bodies. It's good that they are listening and taking the FE system more seriously than maybe some other systems of the past although a lot of that was purely the result of poor marketing.

 

[Vivek]

Then again, my Buddhist readings tell me that I need to give up searching for perfect things

Perfection: Attaining the unattainable is the drive behind innovation! Please don't take that away!

 

[Vivek]

Innovative where it counts: Making good cameras better by sensible use of new technology. Many years ago, somebody on this forum said that a good camera is one that isn't annoying, or something along those lines. That's Nikon.

Congrats on your 810!

Its sensor should appear in an A7r II soon as many anticipate. I may even try one when it does.

I was very tempted by the Df (great camera). Would have bought one too had it appeared a few years ago!

 

[iiiNelson]

Congrats on your 810!

Its sensor should appear in an A7r II soon as many anticipate. I may even try one when it does.

I was very tempted by the Df (great camera). Would have bought one too had it appeared a few years ago!

Agree about the Nikon Df and it is probably the only Nikon camera that remotely interests me. I was torn between buying the A7/A7r, the OM-D, and the Nikon Df. I chose the A7 series hoping many of my M lenses worked - some did but others didn't work as well.

Ironically it was the Nikon camp that was so hard on it when it was first announced because it costed the same as the D800 in kit form and didn't offer the resolution of theD800 or the D610.

I definitely remember being in the minority of the people that found it potentially exciting at announcement. What a difference a year makes because most that have tried or bought it love it more than probably any other Nikon. It's the camera people want to take with them when it's just about being creative.

 

[Steve P.]

Then again, my Buddhist readings tell me that I need to give up searching for perfect things

Buddhist, eh? Nowhere NEAR as innovative as the Hindhus!

 

[nostatic]

I'm waiting for the A7Shiva - the image destroyer!

 

[Steve P.]

How many arms will you need to work that thing?

 

[nostatic]

42

 

[Paratom]

I think a fast dslr with fast glass is so different from a mirror less camera that t doesn't make much sense to decide between those just based on a sensor.

Need fast AF, f2.8 zooms, CAF and many frames per second, optical viewfinder (for sports etc.) and don't mind the size: get a DSLR

want smaller size, are fine with f4.0 zooms and EVF, like to experiment with third party lenses and use them in manual focus, get a mirror less

Personally I don't see much real advantage in mirrorless other than convenience (smaller size/weight) and maybe the fact, that contrast AF means yo don't have to mess around with focus fine adjustment. However size can be an important factor.

If I was a pro and had to get the job done I would prefer a fast DSLR (5dIII or D810 or something comparable) any day.
However if I go - as a private person- to the kindergarden-party I feel more comfortable with the A7s and the 24-70. (The white 70200 on the other side is not far from the attraction I draw with a DSLR). For me its already kind of stress to decide between the A7s and A7 when I go out - do I need resolution today or high ISO?
But even if I use mirror less more often I don't see why it should be the more innovative/ better system. IMO just different tools.
Cheers, Tom