Sony a7RII compared to XF / IQ3100

[Craig Stocks]

My wife and I had the opportunity to spend the winter on Maui in Hawaii and I decided to pick up a Sony a7RII and Sony 24-70 GM lens to bring rather than bringing the XF and IQ 3100. The overriding reason was weight and size of the kit. I've now been shooting with it for a number of weeks and wanted to share my thoughts. This isn't a review, and it isn't intended to argue that one is better than the other. But others may be in a similar position and wondering the relative merits.

I've been shooting mostly beach sunsets plus a few astro landscapes. You can see a selection of images at https://craigstocksarts.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Hawaii-Fine-Art-Landscapes/.

Pluses:

The Sony setup definitely satisfied my goal of a smaller kit that could easily be carried aboard even small commuter planes. There is ample room in a medium Domke bag for the a7RII, Canon 14mm and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses as well as accessories and even a hot shoe flash. I even have room for my Sony a6000 + Zeis 16-70 mm zoom "hiking camera" in the same bag. Of course, with the smaller camera you also get smaller lenses and a smaller tripod.

The Sony has good DR and high ISO capability

Ease of use (sort of goes along with size). The Sony is easy to carry down to the beach at sunset every night and sometimes I don't even take my tripod sine it's so easy to use handheld (high ISO, image stabilization, no mirror lock-up to worry about).

The flip-up LCD rear screen is very handy for low-angle shots.


Minuses:

Color in some images is difficult to work with but it does seem that Capture One does a better job than Lightroom, especially for those images that don't have great color to start with.

Resolution is nowhere near the IQ3100. It seems to be a combination of raw pixel resolution and quality of the lenses. The images just don't have the snap you get from the IQ3100 and I believe even fall short of what I previously got from my IQ260.

The Zeis lenses seem fairly prone to lens flare, much more so than most of the Schneider lenses so I have to be careful with sunset images.

I really miss some of the XF tools, such as using the hyperfocus tool to set a reliable infinity focus for astro landscapes. I find the Sony pretty difficult to focus for stars and have now purchased as Sharp Star filter to see if that helps. Oddly the a6000 + Zeis 16-70 is easier to focus at night since I've found I can just manually focus to the very start of infinity. With the 24-70 mm it seems to end up around 29 meters, well below the infinity setting.

I'm not sure if it's a plus or minus since I don't have enough experience with both systems, but astro landscapes seem to have pluses and minus. The Sony seems to do a better job of capturing the unique colors of individual stars, but I believe it's because it's not as sharp as the Phase One. With the XF / IQ3100 + 35mm LS and a tracking mount stars are rendered as very fine points of light (good). But, they are so finely focused that they tend to blow out the color (a challenge). With the Sony stars seem to be soft enough that they are less prone to blowing out. I'll have to wait until summer to really have a valid opinion with the Milky Way. The Sony does seem to have at least one or two stops advantage on ISO.

Overall I feel like the Sony is a valuable addition to my tool chest but it will never replace the Phase One for most of my "serious" photography. The Sony is good enough that I don't regret buying it, but it's not so good that I regret having bought the Phase One kit.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Christopher]

May I ask what tracking system are you using with the XF and the 35?

 

[DB5]

When it comes down to it there really is no comparison to medium format and once you've had it it's very difficult to go back.

 

[algrove]

IMHO, there is NO comparison.

 

[voidshatter]

Thanks for the comparison. Imo an upcoming A7R-III is probably where I'll be heading to in the future, instead of the high-end digital backs.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I too have Sony gear and most of the FE lenses. Light, great stabilization, good optics.(But not great optics.)

But when I look at files from the XF/100 taken at the same time, there simply isn't any comparison. DR and tonality are night and day, to say nothing of resolution. Gear is heavy as heck but the effort is worth it.

As said above, once you've used MF it's might difficult to settle for less.

 

[jdphoto]

I appreciate the input, but comparing these two camera systems is nonsensical, imo. I think the Sony A7R2 is rather remarkable to be held to such a high standard and considerably more cost efficient. Unless your printing extreme sizes I doubt most will notice the difference...unless you're shooting video

 

[Craig Stocks]

I'm using the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...r_s20520_star_adventurer_motorized_mount.html It has an 11 pound capacity and handles the XF + 35 LS OK but you do have to be sure everything is tightened since the clutch can slip if it's not tight and you have an eccentric load. You obviously don't have to be as careful with the Sony since it's so much lighter.

 

[Geoff]

I appreciate the input, but comparing these two camera systems is nonsensical, imo. While the differences you've mentioned are important to some, I think the Sony A7R2 is rather remarkable to be held to such a high standard and considerably more cost efficient. Unless your printing extreme sizes I doubt most will notice the difference...unless you're shooting video

Cost efficient - absolutely.
Good enough? For many.

But top quality doesn't get measured in those terms.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Craig,

Thanks for sharing. The IQ310 and the A7rII share much of sensor technology, both are Sony Exmoor.

The IQ3100 has like 2.6 times the area and 2.4 times the pixel count, so they should be pretty similar on a per pixel basis, like viewed at actual pixels.

It seems that lenses are better on XF, although I would guess that there is no 24-70/2.8 for the XF and also no 70-200/2.8.

One important thing with the A7rII that image stabilisation should normally be off when shooting on tripod.

Somewhat surprisingly, it seems that the IQ3100 has close to 15 EV of DR (per pixel), quite impressive.

I am not so impressed by Sony's lenses, but essentially almost anything can be put on the A7 series.

As a whole, it is no surprise the IQ3100 has a significant advantage in image quality.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Some nice images from Hawai, thanks for sharing!

My wife and I had the opportunity to spend the winter on Maui in Hawaii and I decided to pick up a Sony a7RII and Sony 24-70 GM lens to bring rather than bringing the XF and IQ 3100. The overriding reason was weight and size of the kit. I've now been shooting with it for a number of weeks and wanted to share my thoughts. This isn't a review, and it isn't intended to argue that one is better than the other. But others may be in a similar position and wondering the relative merits.

I've been shooting mostly beach sunsets plus a few astro landscapes. You can see a selection of images at https://craigstocksarts.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Hawaii-Fine-Art-Landscapes/.

Pluses:

The Sony setup definitely satisfied my goal of a smaller kit that could easily be carried aboard even small commuter planes. There is ample room in a medium Domke bag for the a7RII, Canon 14mm and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses as well as accessories and even a hot shoe flash. I even have room for my Sony a6000 + Zeis 16-70 mm zoom "hiking camera" in the same bag. Of course, with the smaller camera you also get smaller lenses and a smaller tripod.

The Sony has good DR and high ISO capability

Ease of use (sort of goes along with size). The Sony is easy to carry down to the beach at sunset every night and sometimes I don't even take my tripod sine it's so easy to use handheld (high ISO, image stabilization, no mirror lock-up to worry about).

The flip-up LCD rear screen is very handy for low-angle shots.


Minuses:

Color in some images is difficult to work with but it does seem that Capture One does a better job than Lightroom, especially for those images that don't have great color to start with.

Resolution is nowhere near the IQ3100. It seems to be a combination of raw pixel resolution and quality of the lenses. The images just don't have the snap you get from the IQ3100 and I believe even fall short of what I previously got from my IQ260.

The Zeis lenses seem fairly prone to lens flare, much more so than most of the Schneider lenses so I have to be careful with sunset images.

I really miss some of the XF tools, such as using the hyperfocus tool to set a reliable infinity focus for astro landscapes. I find the Sony pretty difficult to focus for stars and have now purchased as Sharp Star filter to see if that helps. Oddly the a6000 + Zeis 16-70 is easier to focus at night since I've found I can just manually focus to the very start of infinity. With the 24-70 mm it seems to end up around 29 meters, well below the infinity setting.

I'm not sure if it's a plus or minus since I don't have enough experience with both systems, but astro landscapes seem to have pluses and minus. The Sony seems to do a better job of capturing the unique colors of individual stars, but I believe it's because it's not as sharp as the Phase One. With the XF / IQ3100 + 35mm LS and a tracking mount stars are rendered as very fine points of light (good). But, they are so finely focused that they tend to blow out the color (a challenge). With the Sony stars seem to be soft enough that they are less prone to blowing out. I'll have to wait until summer to really have a valid opinion with the Milky Way. The Sony does seem to have at least one or two stops advantage on ISO.

Overall I feel like the Sony is a valuable addition to my tool chest but it will never replace the Phase One for most of my "serious" photography. The Sony is good enough that I don't regret buying it, but it's not so good that I regret having bought the Phase One kit.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[fotografz]

I appreciate the input, but comparing these two camera systems is nonsensical, imo. While the differences you've mentioned are important to some, I think the Sony A7R2 is rather remarkable to be held to such a high standard and considerably more cost efficient. Unless your printing extreme sizes I doubt most will notice the difference...unless you're shooting video

These debates are nonsensical.

"important to some" is the key phrase. If certain criteria are not important, then it is a moot point.

Personally, I think my Sony A7R-II is indeed "remarkable" based on certain criteria, but I also think it is "meh, so what" based on other criteria. Depends on what I am comparing it to, and why.

I do not need to print at extreme sizes to see a difference, but if others can't see it then there is nothing I can say to alter that opinion, so why try? To reverse the logic, if the "you aren't printing large" is true ... then a 24meg sensor is probably good enough, cheaper, and easier to manage.

I'd say that IF one cannot afford a MFD kit (could be me in future), then cameras like the Sony A7R-II (and the next one) are an important development that helps us a lot.

However, after working with one for some time now, I don't think it lives up to the hyper-hype.

Horses for courses.

- Marc

 

[MrSmith]

I am not so impressed by Sony's lenses, but essentially almost anything can be put on the A7 series.

a good lens narrows the gap significantly, i use the 55 1.8 which i’m quite impressed with but the apo digitar’s i also use are a significant step up (i’m sure the Rody HR’s are even better)
is MFD better? yes for some things otherwise they wouldn’t sell any, the gap seems to get narrower with each new generation though.

but you have to wonder where MFD would be without sony?

 

[Manoli]

My wife and I had the opportunity to spend the winter ...
Resolution is nowhere near the IQ3100. It seems to be a combination of raw pixel resolution and quality of the lenses. The images just don't have the snap you get from the IQ3100 and I believe even fall short of what I previously got from my IQ260.

I really don't find that too surprising, but as Mr Smith pointed out above , it does depend on which lenses you're using.

For someone who shoots 'people' and can't remember the last time he shot a landscape, the priorities may be slightly different ( though I'd agree not resolution wise).

But I've been asking myself the same question over the Sony and the upcoming Fuji gfx - in some ways that'll be a more relevant comparison.

Thanks for posting, user feedback is always of value!

 

[weldonbrewster]

Veering away from the gear discussion for a moment. Great Hawaii images!! Looks like a good trip. I was there in December and it rained every day, still had a great time.

 

[bernardl]

I believe that the gap would be much smaller if equivalent lenses, such as the Otus were used on the Sony.

I intend to compare my D810 + Otus to the H6D-100c + best Hassy lenses at ISO64. I expect to find the gap smaller than one may think at A2.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Might want to test your GM 24-70 as their is some copy to copy variance. I have a really good copy. But some folks have been playing the lottery game to get a good one.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Well I am quite happy with A7r.2 + TAP autofocus adapter + Summilux-R 80/1.4.
The GFX looks pretty intriguing though. :facesmack:

 

[Speedgraphic]

I think those Sony zooms are part of your problem. The system IMO shines with a good compact prime. The Batis, Loxia, Sony/Zeiss lenses being a good example here. Not only are they better lenses, they make the system more pleasurable to work with. Again, IMO here, I see no point in using the A7x with those giant zooms or 1.4 primes they're putting out. For 35mm a D810 even with it's older sensor is a much more well rounded system at basically the same size. But use a compact lens and suddenly that changes. It should be no surprise that the 35mm cam is not as good as your IQ3100. Personally I wouldn't come at it from a point of comparison, because on that level the Sony will never live up to your hopes. Just use it for what it can do, and you'll be pleased with the output. For 35mm that BSI sensor is amazing.

 

[jdphoto]

These debates are nonsensical.

"important to some" is the key phrase. If certain criteria are not important, then it is a moot point.

Personally, I think my Sony A7R-II is indeed "remarkable" based on certain criteria, but I also think it is "meh, so what" based on other criteria. Depends on what I am comparing it to, and why.

I do not need to print at extreme sizes to see a difference, but if others can't see it then there is nothing I can say to alter that opinion, so why try? To reverse the logic, if the "you aren't printing large" is true ... then a 24meg sensor is probably good enough, cheaper, and easier to manage.

I'd say that IF one cannot afford a MFD kit (could be me in future), then cameras like the Sony A7R-II (and the next one) are an important development that helps us a lot.

However, after working with one for some time now, I don't think it lives up to the hyper-hype.

Horses for courses.

- Marc

That's kinda my point. You say your A7R2 is "meh" depending on what and why your comparing. Isn't that exactly what this thread is doing? I won't fault or demean anyone who can consider the IQ3100 as a walk around camera, but at these price points you'd better have more than just "meh" as a conclusion. We are no doubt, in a MFD thread comparing the FF Sony A7r2, to yet another MFD camera.

 

[dchew]

I've been using both a7rII and the IQ3100 roughly since each was available with some reasonably good lenses: Batis 25, Leica 28 f/2.8II, Zeiss 35 f/2.8, Leica 50AA (on par with the Otus), Leica 90 f/2 APO and the Leica R 180 f/2.8 APO. For the 3100 Rodi 40hrw and 90hrsw, sk 60xl and 150.

Both setups deliver fantastic image quality, the 3100 just blown up twice as far. Of course the 3100 files look better and are more malleable, but that's a pretty subjective comment. As others have said, it is a bit strange to compare them: Different shooting experience, different ease of use for different purposes, different files. I will say this: Of the two scenarios, 1) shooting with the Sony and wishing I had the P1 or 2) shooting with the P1 and wishing I had the Sony, #1 happens more often.


Dave