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!

Upcoming A7rII

sven

New member
Practically same pixel size as 24 MP APS-C, many people do just fine with those handheld. IBIS (assuming this hypethetical camera has one) will help too.
Actually not. Try any 36 mp camera and its equivalent aps-c sensor camera.
 

algrove

Well-known member
It would be an instant buy for me IF Sony comes up with an upgrade program like Leica.

A7r to A7r M2 will be just very easy and less painful. Otherwise, I will look for prices to drop at least 33% (~ 3-6 months after all the online reviewers hail it as the BEST ever! :D:D).

These product cycles are very very taxing and there is absolutely no enthusiasm at the moment.
Vivek-I was not aware of a sensor degradation issue with Sony A7 sensors. What are you talking about?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Vivek-I was not aware of a sensor degradation issue with Sony A7 sensors. What are you talking about?
Lou, The sensor stack is too thick for any corrosion. It is the shutter. Nikon got the new and improved 36mp sensor with EFCS for their D810 from Sony. Usually, 2 years after Nikon get their sensor, it comes to Sony's own bodies. The new twist now is SSS (aka "IBIS").
 

tn1krr

New member
Actually not. Try any 36 mp camera and its equivalent aps-c sensor camera.
I have, quite extensively actually. I have about 8K shots on Nex-6 (16 MP APS-C) and over 12K on A7R that is pretty much exactly same pixel size. Other than mechanical shutter and longer shutter delay on the A7R no difference. Given that A7R sensor effectively is pretty much just placing 2 x Nex-6 sensors on vertical orientation next to each other how could there be any real difference? Even the sensor tech/generation in this case is pretty close.
 

sven

New member
I have, quite extensively actually. I have about 8K shots on Nex-6 (16 MP APS-C) and over 12K on A7R that is pretty much exactly same pixel size. Other than mechanical shutter and longer shutter delay on the A7R no difference. Give that A7R sensor effectively is pretty much just placing 2 x Nex-6 sensors on vertical orientation next to each other how could there be any real difference? Even the sensor tech/generation in this case is pretty close.

In theory, there should not be, but with 6 photogs who work for my company and my own personal experience shows that there is a difference. Even A7R shows shake more often than we care for, of course when used hand held. None of us are older than 40 before someone someone suggests age as a reason. Whatever be the case,in my personal opinion, I prefer an improved A7R than just an increase in MP. If you feel that everything is fine and need more MP, then great, it is what is likely going to be offered by Sony. I am just stating my personal preference and opinion.
 

tn1krr

New member
In theory, there should not be, but with 6 photogs who work for my company and my own personal experience shows that there is a difference. Even A7R shows shake more often than we care for, of course when used hand held. None of us are older than 40 before someone someone suggests age as a reason. Whatever be the case,in my personal opinion, I prefer an improved A7R than just an increase in MP. If you feel that everything is fine and need more MP, then great, it is what is likely going to be offered by Sony. I am just stating my personal preference and opinion.
There is a real difference but it is not caused by pixel size; if everything else was equal a 16 MP APS-C shot is just center crop of the 36 MP FF shot. What is not equal then? Mechanical shutter and its vibration/lag are a big difference; I decided a year ago that A7R is gonna be my very last camera without the EFCS. I also have the A6000 and it is an easier camera to get tack sharp shots handheld without flash despite smaller pixel size due to vibration-free EFCS and way smaller shutter lag.

Given the heat Sony has taken from shutter shock most people seem to assume that no matter the resolution a fully mechanical shutter is just not gonna do anymore. I'd take 36 MP EFCS camera rather than a 59 MP one with a mechanical shutter but if both have EFCS I see nothing that different in 59 MP sensor from the 24 MP APS-C I already have.
 

Lars

Active member
Practically same pixel size as 24 MP APS-C, many people do just fine with those handheld. IBIS (assuming this hypethetical camera has one) will help too.
Actually, with a smaller sensor you would use a shorter focal length for the same field of view so if pixel pitch is the same then field of view per pixel is wider which means less impact of any unsteadiness. I think. Did I get that right?

I would love a 59 Mpx A7r2, simply for the reason that it's a configuration that today doesn't exist. More choice, more pressure on lens makers, more pressure on the competition. A lens that is reasonably good at resolving 59 Mpx would be awesome on 24 Mpx.

Sony creating a trade-in program? Not likely. Leica is unique on the market in terms of customer loyalty, Sony is just a maker of consumer goods.

An option to upgrading would be, you know, don't always get the latest camera.
 
What kind of % of original retail price did they offer on digital camera bodies? Maybe I should offer to buy minty A7Rs.
It would depend on the camera store that you do the trade-in. Sony would just give $250-$350 extra on top of what the store is going to pay you. I paid $2100 for my A7s new from Amazon last September by trading in a very old, very beaten up Canon 40D (got $150 for that camera+$350 on top I believe).
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Even if the price for a new A9 - which is the probably name for a 59 Mpix "A7R" - would cost 3k to 3,5k € I would buy it immediately. It is too tempting for me to get this res on a small chip , maybe even with 5 axis stabilization.
And if the DR is ahead of Canon´s 5Ds/r (which I think it will be) then this is a winner.

Just imagine what this camera will do with ART or Otus lenses, or our Zeiss Hartblei stuff (the 4/40 has 200 lp/mm, that will do).

Regards
Stefan
 
V

Vivek

Guest
An option to upgrading would be, you know, don't always get the latest camera.
:)

I would be very sceptical of a higher MP camera from Sony. The NEX-7 (A6000 is far better) and the A7r (host of issues not allowing the high MP to be taken advantage of).

I upgraded from the A7r to the A7s- the best FF camera from Sony to date, for me.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Just imagine what this camera will do with ART or Otus lenses, or our Zeiss Hartblei stuff (the 4/40 has 200 lp/mm, that will do).

Regards
Stefan
In theory, yes. The bulk of the set up would make it very unappealing. Why not then use a Nikon that give better output from the same sensors than a less than optimal Sony camera? The Otii are available in Nikon F mount and none are available for Sony.
 

tn1krr

New member
Actually, with a smaller sensor you would use a shorter focal length for the same field of view so if pixel pitch is the same then field of view per pixel is wider which means less impact of any unsteadiness. I think. Did I get that right?
"Normalized" this way yes, that is correct. On the other hand if one maintains the same framing by taking picture from the longer distance would mean pitch/yaw shake would have bigger effect on smaller sensor etc.

But since this line of convcersation started from 59 vs 36 MP FF things are even more clear. Unless there is a big negative side-effect like the lack of EFCS (Canon 5DS has no EFCS, but given their more analog sensors without on-sensor ADCs that is not very surprising) or big drop in per pixel quality in the increase of resolution the bigger is better: if all else fails downsample 59 MP to 36 MP and any discussion on the shake effects etc go away. And while downsampling you get a pile of nice side effects: eliminate/decrease Bayer-sensor artifacts, decrease noise, increase DR so the downsampled picture is likely to be better than "native" 36 MP one.

To my the megapixels are like number of CPU cores in a PC or 420+ horsepower in my M3. Not needed daily, but nice to have in reserve.

I would love a 59 Mpx A7r2, simply for the reason that it's a configuration that today doesn't exist. More choice, more pressure on lens makers, more pressure on the competition. A lens that is reasonably good at resolving 59 Mpx would be awesome on 24 Mpx.
Fully agree. There already is a pile of lenses that can easily resolve more than 36 MP and higher res sensors push glass manufacturers out of their comfort zone to look for better solutions. For example for years there was this mantra on how awesome/supersharp almost all the Canon L glass or much all Leica glass are. Now put these in front of a higher res sensor, in comes reality check and R&D departments are more awake again.
 

tn1krr

New member
In theory, yes. The bulk of the set up would make it very unappealing. Why not then use a Nikon that give better output from the same sensors than a less than optimal Sony camera? The Otii are available in Nikon F mount and none are available for Sony.
Otus + OVF-DSLR equals a serious pain to focus handheld wide open. I'm currently using APO Sonnar 135/2 smart-adapted on my A7R and it already works nice, supernice to focus. Now give me IBIS with stabilized EVF-zoom and a 59 MP sensor + EFCS; that would be even better.

Yes there is bulk, but there would be even more bulk if I had the APO on a DSLR. As for 36 MP Nikons on a tripod, the lack of tilt screen is also big usability minus for anyone with back issues.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Hi Vivek

I use the Sony A7R with these lenses already (right now doing an ART test for digit! magazine here in Germany) and I cannot state "problems" which are more than the same res 40Mpix from my P45+ I used for years. The output is pretty much on par, but the Sony is 5x faster and giving me all the needed modern camera features.

Nobody knows what the new body will use for Soft - and Firmware, Probably Sony will use a much faster Imageprocessor and will drive this body into the 12-14 bit uncompressed range with a new arw format extension. (that´s what I would do before I´d launch such a camera).

It will still be cheaper to make than a Nikon with all the mirror stuff (which is useless for focusing anyway at that res, because nobody will be able to do that manually with an optical viewfinder.

Greetings from Germany
Stefan
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hi Vivek

I use the Sony A7R with these lenses already (right now doing an ART test for digit! magazine here in Germany) and I cannot state "problems" which are more than the same res 40Mpix from my P45+ I used for years. The output is pretty much on par, but the Sony is 5x faster and giving me all the needed modern camera features.

Nobody knows what the new body will use for Soft - and Firmware, Probably Sony will use a much faster Imageprocessor and will drive this body into the 12-14 bit uncompressed range with a new arw format extension. (that´s what I would do before I´d launch such a camera).

It will still be cheaper to make than a Nikon with all the mirror stuff (which is useless for focusing anyway at that res, because nobody will be able to do that manually with an optical viewfinder.

Greetings from Germany
Stefan
Otus + OVF-DSLR equals a serious pain to focus handheld wide open. I'm currently using APO Sonnar 135/2 smart-adapted on my A7R and it already works nice, supernice to focus. Now give me IBIS with stabilized EVF-zoom and a 59 MP sensor + EFCS; that would be even better.

Yes there is bulk, but there would be even more bulk if I had the APO on a DSLR. As for 36 MP Nikons on a tripod, the lack of tilt screen is also big usability minus for anyone with back issues.
Agree with manual focus being easier with an EVF (the smart folks at Zeiss overlooked that while issuing Otii for EOS and F mounts) however, what is the pleasure in hand holding such a bulky setup?

Tripod mounted with T/S lenses and such, one can always avail of the liveview from the EOS/Nikon cams either on the screen itself or with an external viewer, ignoring the OVF. Tilt is convenient for a portable/handheld set up.

The question of a few hundred cheaper does not bode well in the long run. It actually becomes a burden on the buyer/user (me an example). Crap load of NEX cams and now the A7 series (slightly better, FWIW, but also cost a lot more) piling up, not to mention the useless APS-C lenses.

I think in the next few years it be clearer. Leica, perhaps, would be the only camera company that pays attention to compactness/portability and Sony going hulk- hopefully with a metal mount.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Hi Vivek
so the Nikon is about twice the size and weight and that is not bulky ? :)
Also a Mirror is simply complicated and useless now. And expensive to make.
If Sony would do a pricing with margins like the Nikon (probably costs much more to make) the camera could be probably become half the price (which they do now as an end sale for the now old versions A7 and A7R and probably still make money from it).
and third: so you won´t use an Otus on a Nikon because it´s big ? Really ?

Regards
Stefan
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hi Stefan,

I would certainly use the Otii on Nikons and Canons, especially, if I am given those for "testing". :D Real life use, actual buying with real cash is out of question (OTOH, an AA Summicron 50/2 or a Summliux 28/1.4, despite their very steep price tags are still enticing).

Your point about the pricing of the A7/A7r is exactly my understanding. :)

I would be a fool (again) to be buying a new Sony FF camera at its debut price.

I am quite proud that I paid the price that I set for the A7s and not the mafia price set by Sony.eu Far cheaper than what I paid for the A7r and it even does not have a plastic mount. :D

I really would like to see dramatic improvements in hardware (more robust, less plastic), processors and such.
 

tn1krr

New member
Agree with manual focus being easier with an EVF (the smart folks at Zeiss overlooked that while issuing Otii for EOS and F mounts) however, what is the pleasure in hand holding such a bulky setup?
It is about 1.6 kg with Metabones adapter and it get's me shooting the best fast 135 mm on the planet; beautiful long throw manual focus ring with "wide open focus regardless of selected aperture" (smart-adapted ZE version) means absolutely surgical level of focus placement. It is the best and the lightest shooting experience possible for such a stellar fast lens, I enjoy shooting with the APO 135 a lot. So much fun that I'm actually looking into purchasing other focal lengths of Zeiss ZE lenses even when there is equally good native FE option available.
 

sven

New member
It is about 1.6 kg with Metabones adapter and it get's me shooting the best fast 135 mm on the planet; beautiful long throw manual focus ring with "wide open focus regardless of selected aperture" (smart-adapted ZE version) means absolutely surgical level of focus placement. It is the best and the lightest shooting experience possible for such a stellar fast lens, I enjoy shooting with the APO 135 a lot. So much fun that I'm actually looking into purchasing other focal lengths of Zeiss ZE lenses even when there is equally good native FE option available.
I am sorry, makes no sense, but get it that its your personal thing.
 

tn1krr

New member
I am sorry, makes no sense, but get it that its your personal thing.
Care to open this "makes no sense" statement a bit? That someone does not think 1,6 kg is always too heavy? That view would mean nobody could ever enjoy shooting Otus handheld for example. A7-series is the lightest and most compact FF setup for any such lens. I've seen more than a few people raving how good Otus is on A7R, quess they do not make any sense either.
 
Top