So, is it a keeper? (A7R II)

[jamato8]

Just remember who said film like first.

The Batis lenses are tough to find

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.

 

[hcubell]

I just shot with the 70-400 G2 and the '3' adapter on my A7r2 this morning.

The fancy tracking modes are not available.

AF-C only works with the low speed continuous or single shot advance rate.

Overall, I was satisfied with the AF performance as well as the image quality.

Lock on was speedy enough in the morning sun and the A7r2 was able to maintain sharp focus in all the situations I would have expected it to.

I did have to keep the focus point on my subject but did not find that difficult. The focus point itself can be placed almost anywhere in the frame.

I brought my 70-200G FE with me as a backup but never once touched it.

Yesterday, I shot with the 90 FE/Macro and had access to all the super focus modes and I came away convinced that it will serve dual use as a portrait lens and macro lens.

-Bill

Thanks. Focus tracking doesn't work at all with the 70-400?

 

[ohnri]

Thanks. Focus tracking doesn't work at all with the 70-400?

In my usage, focus tracking is not available in the focus menu with the 70-400G2 and '3' adapter.

Continuous AF is available and seems to work well in the low speed frame per second mode, which is about 2 fps.

I would welcome input from anyone that knows more. The multitude of focus options are poorly described, much like Nikon.

Still, the 70-400G2 impressed me as a fine lens with more than capable AF for anything short of erratic BIF or teeny, tiny objects hidden in front of a forest of background clutter.

This is no sports camera but, unlike my A7, it can shoot rapidly moving subjects.

For me, the speedy Samsung NX1 still has a role to play in my armamentarium. Eventually, Sony will release a fast shooter with a big buffer.

-Bill

I love big buffers and I cannot lie.

 

[spence]

Since someone asked about undecideds--I'm in that camp at the moment. My A7RII was delivered by B&H today, but it's sitting unopened on the table.

I'm currently shooting an RX100 and some older Canon gear. Looking at pretty much a complete system change--Sony A7RII, or Nikon D810 or D750.

There are a few A7RII issues I'm concerned about at the moment. The lossy RAW I can live with, but an option for lossless would be nice. The problems with heat when shooting video are not a deal-breaker for me either.

The extremely noisy low ISO long exposures concern me more. I find myself shooting a lot at night lately, and I'd like to be able to do even more, and not have a lot of work to do in post-proc to clean things up. Even with my humble little RX100, shadows can be raised significantly without unseemly noise. Expectations for this are of course through the roof, thanks to the insane pushability of the exmor sensors, especially as implemented by Nikon. Once you've gone isoless, and also seen the kind of single-shot HDR that's possible when properly used, it's hard to accept a step backwards in that department.

Anyway, this is a big purchase for me, so I want to get it right. Nikon full frame seems like the safer choice, but the A7RII is probably the more compelling overall package (IBIS, eye tracking, 4k video, easy MF). And if it turns out that it can AF my Canon 400L F5.6 with any of the adapters, I'll probably choose it.

For now, I'm going to wait a week or two to see how these early issues with the A7RII shake out. I've waited this long, I can wait a while longer.

 

[yatlee]

Can anyone explain why Sony always compress the RAW file? For speed? I have no problem with compressed RAW, but want to understand the reason behind implementing it.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I own the A7R, A7S and A7 II. Both the A7R and A7S are full spectrum modded for astrophotography and IR; keeping both. Even if the A7S wasn't modded I'd be keeping it. It is simply the greatest low light camera in existence! If the A7R II is really up to all the current hype, the A7 II will be the one going out the door.

bwa

That's my plan too. Keep the A7s, convert my A7r to IR and swap out the A7II for an A7RII. There is something special about having the A7s as an infinite ISO camera that I've yet to see matched by anything, including my Nikon Df which is also an ISO monster but 'different'.

Has anyone tried the longer Sony lenses or 3rd party lenses for high speed AF or use of Sony AF modes? I'm off on Safari in September and wondering whether to take my Nikons (which are a known qty) or Sony A7RII and either Sony A 70-400mm, A 500mm or Tamron Sony 150-600.

 

[Paratom]

One area where I have not been totally happy with my A7II(no R) has been skin tones which to me sometimes look a little flat and slightly muddy, not as alive as I see it from some other brands (for example the df or Leica) (in both LR and C1). Do you guys feel the a7IIr is improved in this regard? Am I alone with this feeling?

 

[yatlee]

One area where I have not been totally happy with my A7II(no R) has been skin tones which to me sometimes look a little flat and slightly muddy, not as alive as I see it from some other brands (for example the df or Leica) (in both LR and C1). Do you guys feel the a7IIr is improved in this regard? Am I alone with this feeling?

I find that when I look at the picture on the camera's LCD (EVF seems better). However, in lightroom, I actually feel that skin tone has improved especially under indoor lighting, but I feel that Sony tends to a bit high on the saturation and contrast. So, backing it off a bit (-10) in lightroom helps.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Can anyone explain why Sony always compress the RAW file? For speed? I have no problem with compressed RAW, but want to understand the reason behind implementing it.

I believe it may have something to do with video, since they have a long history in that area.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

That's my plan too. Keep the A7s, convert my A7r to IR and swap out the A7II for an A7RII. There is something special about having the A7s as an infinite ISO camera that I've yet to see matched by anything, including my Nikon Df which is also an ISO monster but 'different'.

Has anyone tried the longer Sony lenses or 3rd party lenses for high speed AF or use of Sony AF modes? I'm off on Safari in September and wondering whether to take my Nikons (which are a known qty) or Sony A7RII and either Sony A 70-400mm, A 500mm or Tamron Sony 150-600.

I think the Tammy works from one reading I saw. That's with the LAEA 3 . The 4 works in cluster mode. I have a 3 for sale as well. You bought my 4

 

[Jim DE]

Joe it's a given... If it has a Sony badge on it this is the RAW format it has. If it is unacceptable to a user don't buy a Sony and buy from a manufacturer that has the files one feels they need. I just don't find givens to be a defect or issue. It is what it is and has been for a while.

I don't see Sony trying to compete with canikon in slr's .... Their focus is mirrorless. The user has to determine if they want the characteristics of mirrorless more than RAW files like Canikon. It is a apples and oranges issue. You buy what ever tools one feels they need or want but complaining about a issue that was a given going in is foolishness. That is like buying a Ford and complaining it doesn't have a Chevy badging on it.

I am looking at the various complaints popping up on the net on various websites and they were either known issues going in or user errors or misinformation. It just never ceases to amaze me. I truly think that some of the brainiacs on one forum in particular seem to have a race to find something or anything to note as a issue about a new product just to build themselves up no matter how ridiculous the parameters one needs to do to get to the point to see a issue at a pixel level. Really? To me they look like fools...

Now is the RAW file better one way or the other is another issue and yes a untouched captured RAW file would be better for many and for others a non issue but it is not a a7rII specific issue and should be discussed as separate issues imo.

 

[Vivek]

Jim, there is some new information there? Is there anything mirrorless that prevents anyone to offer lossless RAW? Leica M went CMOS (liveview, mirrorless) recently, for example. It is quite possible. The ball is in Sony's court.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

They are supposedly working on it but I never ran into a issue .

 

[ohnri]

That's my plan too. Keep the A7s, convert my A7r to IR and swap out the A7II for an A7RII. There is something special about having the A7s as an infinite ISO camera that I've yet to see matched by anything, including my Nikon Df which is also an ISO monster but 'different'.

Has anyone tried the longer Sony lenses or 3rd party lenses for high speed AF or use of Sony AF modes? I'm off on Safari in September and wondering whether to take my Nikons (which are a known qty) or Sony A7RII and either Sony A 70-400mm, A 500mm or Tamron Sony 150-600.

My post a few entries up on this page describes my first impressions with the A7r2 and the 70-400G2 with the LAEA3 adapter.

I should emphasize that for stationary, or nearly stationary, subjects the AF-S mode is quite snappy and would allow the full 5fps, if desired.

Of course, I believe the path toward full bit depth would necessitate Single Shot mode. I could be wrong about that since it is not critical to my usual shooting style.

I have never been on a Safari but from what I have read I would be very comfortable with an all Sony gear package.

The A7r2 lets me shoot in a true mirrorless style, like my old M4/3's gear or my Samsung NX1, and, overall, delivers a lot more nice images and videos than my old Nikon DSLR's did.

Lock it down on a tripod, and the A7r2 does not disappoint. Plus, it still does 4K video. Low light video is also cake, using the S35 mode, which may have advantages in Africa. Plus, you could put a speed booster on it if you needed very, very low light video.

This camera is a monster.

-Bill

I like big buffers and I cannot lie

 

[algrove]

What is so wrong with just plain DNG? Why do these manufacturers have to devise their own RAW formats like CR2, etc.

 

[Jim DE]

Jim, there is some new information there? Is there anything mirrorless that prevents anyone to offer lossless RAW? Leica M went CMOS (liveview, mirrorless) recently, for example. It is quite possible. The ball is in Sony's court.

Vivek, I really don't know ... I do know major manufacturing companies do not take product spec's lightly and set them for specific reasons. Sony has a reason they do their RAW files as they do... whether it is a cost, quality, engineering demand, whatever... it is just not done the way it is for the heck of it.

Can they offer lossless RAW? I don't know as it is not my field but if it was easy and the demand for it was there it would be done. My best guess would be yes it can be done but at what cost or effect on other specs I don't know.

 

[Amin]

Vivek, I really don't know ... I do know major manufacturing companies do not take product spec's lightly and set them for specific reasons. Sony has a reason they do their RAW files as they do... whether it is a cost, quality, engineering demand, whatever... it is just not done the way it is for the heck of it.

Maybe they're just holding back a few capabilities to help sell folks on the next upgrade cycle.

 

[ptomsu]

Maybe they're just holding back a few capabilities to help sell folks on the next upgrade cycle.

I could easily imagine this ....

 

[Jim DE]

No, it's not. It's not a "given" any more than ISO performance or AF speed are "givens". They're all design parameters that are implemented in hardware and firmware by manufacturers. Initially, when the a7-series was announced, many were complaining about how few FE-mount lenses were available, and about the poor performance of some (Leica and Canon) adapted lenses. Those weren't givens. Those were design choices made by a Sony. When I worked for Ma Bell, the old AT&T, black telephones were a "given". Until they weren't.

*******But Joe, the day you pre ordered or currently bought you knew going in what Sony RAW files are..... it is NOT A A7RII SPECIFIC defect... it is a given for a Sony camera that shoots RAW that it is that way right now... can or will it be changed? Maybe but right now it is a know spec going in.******

The RAW file format of ANY camera is a design choice that is alterable by the manufacturer IF there is customer demand. As users of the Sony a7-series migrate to that platform from Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc., they have certain expectations of a pro-level $3,200 camera. Lossless compressed RAW is one of them. I'm not an idle complainer nor do I consider finding the absence of a lossless compressed RAW option "foolishness". I understand and accept that some photographers shoot JPEG, or don't print their images to 20x30" as I do, or don't post-process their images to optimize color, tone and smoothness. Maybe, in those use cases, lossy compressed RAW (or JPEG) is OK.

*******Joe, the foolishness is a like customer going to a dealer looking for a RED car and they had none then buying a WHITE one. Then coming home and complaining that it is white instead of red.... we know Sony RAW format going in. If one buy's a Sony this is the RAW format they use........******

I've owned an a7R since it was first introduced. Now I have three a7-series cameras, one converted to IR. I also shoot with a Nikon D810 and a Pentax 645Z. And I've been shooting digitally since the Sony Mavica. This isn't my first rodeo. As an engineer by education and a veteran of Bell Labs, I'm inclined to question design choices critically. If they don't make sense, I call them out. I'm not alone. I participate in GetDPI because it isn't inhabited by fanboys and photography wannabees. I can point to countless posts where well-respected members critique a lens because it's decentered, criticize a camera because it exhibits a poor service history, or complain about a manufacturer because it doesn't treat its customers with respect.

******These are defects or issues a customer would or might not know going in.... the RAW issue is known before one buy's. Far from my first rodeo either .. I started with digital with a AGFA 1280 and film with a Honeywell spotmatic.*******

And if you've been following the trends in photography, DSLR sales are down and mirrorless sales are up. Sony mirrorless IS competing with Nikon and Canon DSLRs (and Leica rangefinders) and they're taking market share.

*******Not competing directly apple for apple .....they may take some potential customers away but that is due to a technological change that appeal to buyers who may of bought slr's before. Like saying truck sales are in competition with sports car sales. Because one of these group sales raise or lower as the other one moved alternately does not mean trucks compete with sports cars just the buyers wants and needs changed.*******

That's why mirrorless cameras from Sony, Fuji and others have evolved into full-featured tools that can now be used by professionals engaged in landscape, architecture, street, portraiture/studio, fashion (tribute to Mancuso), etc. Many of us hope that the convergence of mirrorless, DSLR and medium-format features will continue, and that by being explicit and vocal about our photographic needs, manufacturers will listen. Sony definitely listened between the introduction of the a7R and the a7RM2. Let's hope they continue to listen and evolve their offerings.

I will continue to campaign for lossless compressed RAW. You can ignore me if you wish.

*******Joe, I have no intention to ignore you or anyone and campaigning for any change for the better is a great thing and I am all for it. Would I like lossless RAW's? Sure why not if they improve my final output IQ. This is not the issue I was pointing out. What I was stating is not having lossless RAW files is NOT a unknown a7rII specific objectionable condition prior to purchase. Like the above car purchase the buyer knows going in the car he is buying is white not red. The Sony buyer right now knows going in that it does not have lossless RAW files thus can't be considered as a a7rII specific issue to complain about. Yes we can state we would want a different this or that and if this wheel squeaks loud enough these things most likely will be done but as of right now if one pays their money the current RAW file Sony uses is a GIVEN going in. If it is a deal breaker then right now Sony is not their preferred product going in.******

Joe

******Joe, I understand your position and agree with change for the better.... but imo this is not a a7rII product specific objection but is a Sony RAW file as a whole objection.******

 

[Vivek]

Vivek, I really don't know ... I do know major manufacturing companies do not take product spec's lightly and set them for specific reasons. Sony has a reason they do their RAW files as they do... whether it is a cost, quality, engineering demand, whatever... it is just not done the way it is for the heck of it.

Can they offer lossless RAW? I don't know as it is not my field but if it was easy and the demand for it was there it would be done. My best guess would be yes it can be done but at what cost or effect on other specs I don't know.

Fair enough, Jim.

So far, whatever improvements I wanted (those have been voiced loudly and repeatedly) have been met.

It only works when concerns are aired and that does not make one an enemy of the system.