The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

The Sony A7II

jonoslack

Active member
For me yes, absolutely. But probably not for those photographers needing a fast action camera. There is still a perceptible little lag between what occurs in reality and what the EVF and LCD are showing you. You can diminish that lag by lowering the EVF resolution and accelerating the refresh rate, but whatever you do the lag is still there. Add to that a rather slow focus in low light and I can see why some still prefer an optical VF. Especially Jorgen Udvang, who if I remember correctly is shooting car racing among other things. I admit that with the A7r it can be a little difficult to photograph moving children. It isn't impossible, but you get more misses.
HI Annna
Whist I agree with you about the lag to what you SEE (clearly more with EVF) the lag to what you GET is much less without the mirror. The X-T1 especially seemed to give you exactly what you saw when you pressed the shutter - the A7s with the electronic shutter seemed pretty good as well. You see it later . . . but get it sooner (if you see what I mean).

Someone showed me a good real life test once - you sit in a cafe with the open door about ten feet away and try and catch people as they walk past the door - it's amazing the difference between one camera and another. . . . and how many of them just present you with a photo of an empty doorway!

I think Jorgen's real reason for the D810 is the inherently better tracking with an SLR - as you say - car racing.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
One thing I'm not willing to give up is the 1/8000 shutter. To many it doesn't matter but to me it means being able to shoot wide open (or closer to wide open) in more environments. If more shutter noise is the penalty I'll just live with it but that was another factor in me choosing the A7 over the otherwise excellent Nikon Df - which does not have many negatives in it's own right.

I could actually see a Nikon Df (the gold one is actually really nice to me) and the f/1.8 primes being sort of a poorer man's Leica M in some aspects for street photography.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Guy, When you have your A7 II, start a new discussion and lock this thread down. It has run its course.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Guy, When you have your A7 II, start a new discussion and lock this thread down. It has run its course.
On the contrary. This is an extremely interesting and educational thread, delineating the different use cases and relative merits of existing and future solutions. And it *does* center on the A7II.

A thread doesn't have to consist entirely of OMG!! Best... Camera... Ever!!!

As Jono (a friend of every system with merits) points out, no one system does everything for everybody. To anyone contemplating a new system or even just a new body, examining the entire photographic landscape (sorry) is important for evaluating a new offering and whether or not it will fit in one's workflow.

Best,

Matt
 

philip_pj

New member
Well, an anchor is much more useful if you don't want to go anywhere, than if you you enjoy seeing new vistas and opportunities open up. My present work is 100% impossible to do using any Nikon DSLR, so any contestable one percenter file IQ gains are moot. The signal guys are hard at over at DPR trying to prove exactly this 'win' to Nikon, meeting stiff opposition, and this a year on from the camera's release.

I shoot in dark conditions with AF/MF lenses and need total focus verification at shooting aperture to counter residual curvature. Sony's EVF shows me stuff I literally cannot see, lets me quickly use flexible spot for exact focus in the final comp with two levels of magnification. It and I do not miss.

A D810 fitted with Nikon's latest normal lens costs $5000 and the 58/1.4 lens is a horror show with no corners - at any aperture - to speak of. This kit scales in at 1350 grams. The a7r/FE55 costs $3000 and weighs 750 grams, is half the size and opens up a huge gap in versatility, overall IQ and aberration control. The Copal shutter has lag, medium volume but does not vibrate. There are now hundreds of thousands of great images from the a7r demonstrating this last point.

The a900 appealed to fans of trad D/SLRs aesthetically, but I must shoot well above and beyond its technical capabilities - ISO 1600, 11 stops of DR, base ISO of 200 and a dumb piece of glass as a focus aid; not even a live histo disturbed the calm, dim view of the mid-20th century VF.

The Nikon DF is the most unergonomic camera produced in many years. All the dials lock and are stacked. There is no easy focus screen replacement on what purports to be a manual focus friendly camera. There are no focus aids. Nikon still tries to market a handful of antediluvian AI-s lenses, presumably to illustrate how it used to be in the 'good old days' before they went 100% AF. Very few manual focus lenses are available for F mount.

I shot a statue of Avoliketsvara (Chenresig in Tibetan) yesterday with 1000 arms, here in Lhasa, top that! ;-)
 

sc_john

Active member
Well, an anchor is much more useful if you don't want to go anywhere, than if you you enjoy seeing new vistas and opportunities open up.
Actually, an anchor is one on the most important things any boat can have on board. It doesn't retard your progress in moving forward (you simply place it on deck), and it provides you safety and security when you need it (including when you've made a mistake). Anyone going to sea without an anchor should have their head examined. IMHO, this is analogous to the discussions in this thread. For some, it is easy (and perhaps appropriate) to rush forward at full throttle and be an early adopter. Others, including me, may want to ride at anchor for a bit and better understand how things are behaving and whether or not the new thing is really better. In my case, I use an A7r with Leica R glass and Sony EF mount IS lenses, and I am really pleased with the results. While I am quite interested in the specs of the A7II, I don't need to have it now for a specific assignment or purpose. So, I will wait and see. If that makes me an anchor, so be it.... anchors are important.
 

turtle

New member
The D810 is undoubtedly a remarkable camera, but I am amazed people are actually comparing the A7R, or A7II with to the much larger and heavier Nikon. These are two different cameras, with overlap for sure, but very different compromises. I do wonder if some photographers are 'theoretical photographers' rather like 'theoretical physics', judging by some of the comments one reads...

Most of the camera manufacturers are doing amazing things at the moment and Sony is right up there at the front. I have not noticed any other FF mirrorless cameras out there and now we have one with IBIS.... if Sony does what Olympus may be about to do with the pixel shift system, its going to completely change the counting of the pixels!

As for Sony releasing new cameras quickly, I don't see how this can be a bad thing. I don't buy cameras as investments, but to make photographs. The fact that there will be many used A7 bodies around at low prices is kinda good going forwards because it means picking up back up bodies is very affordable. Nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade, so the notion that rapid new releases leaves the owner taking a quick hit if they upgrade is absurd. What it means is that if you want a new body with IBIS, you can buy the darned thing now rather than wait another two years (or four more if we use Canon's upgrading of the 7D as our yardstick).

We've never had it so good. We've never had so much innovation. We've never been able to buy such capability for such reasonable prices, so why the whinging?

I'm still pleased as punch with my A7 and A7R and probably won't buy an A7 II, but I am thrilled to see that Sony has taken on board our criticisms has put it into a real live camera you can purchase in quick time. How can this not be impressive?

Regarding size and bulk of the Sony FE system and DSLRs, it only takes a few minutes of real experience with these cameras in your hands to know what's real and what's internet opinion based on theoretical imaginings. 5D III for comparison (which is smaller than the D810 for example)








 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
How can this not be impressive?
It's unimpressive because most or all the improvements of the A7 II have been known and available to Sony for years and could have been implemented in the original camera if they had talked with a couple of photographers before they launched it. It's on the first page of any product development ABC.
 

turtle

New member
I think there are quite a few other considerations, particularly economic ones:

The FE venture was a leap of faith for Sony. They will have wanted to mitigate risk by not over-investing in something that they did not know would be well received. The new camera is almost certainly more expensive to make (based on the same production scale) and Sony now knows it has the volume.

Sony will not have known quite who was going to buy the A7/R, what niche it would occupy, the willingness of new users to invest in native lenses and a whole bunch more.

Regarding build quality issue, sure the new camera feels more soid, but how many users of the A7/R have reported things breaking or falling off.... say, compared to Leica M9 or M240 users? Or, how about compared to D800 oilleft focus issues, or D600 oil spots? Food for thought. It is also heavier and not everyone is pleased about this. It may have a bigger grip and better shutter position, but the two come together. It has made the camera a bit bulkier. Once again, this is a trade off and, while I think it is probably progress, I do appreciate that I can fit the A7 inside the cells in my Domke. The A7II will not fit....

IBIS? This seems to be the biggest new feature and I assume you are not referring to this being a feature that should have been on the original camera, because IBIS is hardly commonplace outside of Olympus.

What about Canon and the 7D II? They sat on that for five years. 5D II AF had to be tolerated by users for how long? There are many examples of manufacturers holding back technology and from what I am seeing and Sony is arguably much less annoying in this regard compared to some other manufacturers. The A5100 has the A6000 AF for example.

Lets not forget the A7II came one, not three to five years later. Had we wanted a more perfect product, we'd probably have had to wait longer to get it and I am glad we didn't, because at no point was anyone obliged to buy the A7 and they could have waited for the A7II. It strikes me as photographers getting upset because they can't have what they want when they want it. Like many others, I have been using the A7 and A7R very productively for the last year. Had it not been 'ready' I would have been lugging around my 5DIII....


It's unimpressive because most or all the improvements of the A7 II have been known and available to Sony for years and could have been implemented in the original camera if they had talked with a couple of photographers before they launched it. It's on the first page of any product development ABC.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
It's unimpressive because most or all the improvements of the A7 II have been known and available to Sony for years and could have been implemented in the original camera if they had talked with a couple of photographers before they launched it. It's on the first page of any product development ABC.
Really every OEM does the same dang thing. None of them show all there cards in one body. It's always bits a pieces.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Guy, When you have your A7 II, start a new discussion and lock this thread down. It has run its course.
Seems really useful to me - and I'm definitely getting the camera - which seems excellent.
I don't see the problem with the thread at all.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
IBIS? This seems to be the biggest new feature and I assume you are not referring to this being a feature that should have been on the original camera, because IBIS is hardly commonplace outside of Olympus.
All Sony DSLR bodies since the 100D have had IBIS and the Konica Minolta 5D and 7D before that, all Pentax DSLR bodies since the K10D have had IBIS, the Panasonic GX7 has IBIS. Then there's Olympus. Sony is the only camera manufacturer that has started with IBIS but couldn't find a way to fit it in their mirrorless bodies. Not until now.
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Seems really useful to me - and I'm definitely getting the camera - which seems excellent.
I don't see the problem with the thread at all.
But for how long this time Jono, till you find a reason to sell it again because it is just not the perfect enough Sony. :rolleyes:

( BTW Sony gave me the last years all I wanted at quiet a fast rate, it is what Olympus used to be, although I remember it was always a long wait for the next camera. With Sony it goes so fast that it is worth it to just skip a camera or two in between. )
 

jonoslack

Active member
Really every OEM does the same dang thing. None of them show all there cards in one body. It's always bits a pieces.
Well, I'm not sure that's quite true. Perhaps Sony are particularly guilty.

On the other hand - the first launch of FE (as turtle says) was really brave, and you can imagine that they didn't want to throw EVERYTHING at it at once.

My biggest gripe was hand holding in good old english light . . . I wanted IBIS - a year later I've got it, of course, I could complain now that they should have put it in the first place, but that seems a bit ungraceful!.

DigitalRev have a point with their article - but then they're always taking the mickey (I like their approach incidentally).

Half Empty - Half Full. Whatever, we're all going to be better off for what Sony is doing now - however it turns out.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Hah - well, let's look at the front view


I don't disagree with lots of your points, but there really is a size difference.
Interesting to see how much smaller the Sony is. Mind you, if Nikon produced a reduced size FF CSC capable of taking Nikkor lenses native (no extension tubes or conversion mounts) I'd be into that system like a shot.

LouisB
 

jonoslack

Active member
But for how long this time Jono, till you find a reason to sell it again because it is just not the perfect enough Sony. :rolleyes:

( BTW Sony gave me the last years all I wanted at quiet a fast rate, it is what Olympus used to be, although I remember it was always a long wait for the next camera. With Sony it goes so fast that it is worth it to just skip a camera or two in between. )
HI Michael
Point taken . . BUT the Sony A900 is actually the longest I've owned any digital camera - my reasons for selling the A7 and the A7r were real enough to me. The A7s was different, and contingent on the fact that I didn't want to be in a system where 12mp was all I could get . . . things have changed, and I'm really trying hard not to order another A7s as a friend to my already ordered A7ii. . . . . . and worth mentioning that I've kept hold of my 2 FE lenses all along in the hope that Sony would come up with the body I DO want.

You could actually say that I've skipped the A7 and A7r to get to the A7ii
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
On the other hand - the first launch of FE (as turtle says) was really brave, and you can imagine that they didn't want to throw EVERYTHING at it at once.
It was a smart move, and a strong indication that someone at Sony reads online forums. Since it became rather obvious that there would be no digital FM and no digital OM with a 35mm sensor, Sony grabbed the opportunity. Now there are 4 digital, 35mm retro cameras available and apparently more coming.

"If pushing the on/off switch once is good, pushing it twice must be twice as good."
 
Top