Analogue like. :^) One thing that has ruined some images I have seen of digital is the sharp cut off from in focus subject to out of focus if the depth of field is shallow. It looks like someone cut the in focus image out and pasted it onto the photo. I think this has to do with films make-up using silver for most of it. There is a graduation and change due to the nature of what is going on, due to the splattering or diffusion of light as it goes through the emulsion. With digital, much of the time, there is a little but it hits the sensor and while some is detracted, it tends to cut right through and the line of demarcation is obvious. I think with the Sony with the sensor they are using, especially the current one in the A7RII, you are getting back to the very subtle graduation of change, which to my eye, is more natural and what I would call analogue like. IMO.
Yes! I have thought about this a fair amount. I'm making up terms here, but I call it "digital roll-off" but maybe "digital cut-off" would be more appropriate. When I moved from the Canon 70-200 2.8 i to the ii version, the lens and sharpness was so much better, but I had a lot of shots where you would get that digital roll-off effect in a very pronounced way-- worse than with the i version. It was obvious on screen, but really jumped out at me with large prints. It didn't seem to bother others too much but it did/does bother me. It's sort of like that video effect they do in After Effects where they separate out items-- or at the most extreme, like paper cut-outs. In some photos, there is no sense of depth exactly- more like two different planes.
I guess I don't understand it well because the effect was worse with the ii version even though that lens was much better/sharper. So it got me thinking that maybe that organic depth of field and actual "roll-off" as opposed to cut-off was softness or flaws in film or other lenses; but I don't think that's correct. I think you may be right about the a7rii somehow being better with this. It's too early to say but I plan on shooting with the 70-200 2.8 ii over the coming week and will think about this . . . Make any sense?
Regardless, back to the original topic, I now have an a7rii (and a7s) and it's early, but I think it's pretty amazing. For background, I tried out the original a7r many times and tried to love it. I saw the great work that people were doing here and knew it was very capable, but I just couldn't get "there" to gel with it-- speed of operation, focus, feel, and shutter sound . . . I don't have that feeling at all with the a7rii.
Downsides? The only thing I don't like about it thus far is the EVF. It may be me or maybe I'm missing a setting, but it almost looks very marginally worse to me than the EVF on the a7s. Am I off my rocker on that one? Need more time . . . Nitpicking, but I'm wondering why the new charger is larger and is binary as opposed to showing degree of charge(light on or off as opposed to the gradual three green lights for the charger on the a7s (yes it's a nitpick and I don't really care)).
Oh yeah. I'm still not a brilliant photographer, can't dunk a basketball, and can't play the cello. I blame the camera for all of this . . .