Unbiased review on Sony A7 II

[peterharvey]

I am interested in full frame, and would love an alternative to a big heavy dSLR FF, so I did some research on the Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

Here are two very good unbiased videos discussing the pros and cons:

-

Pros:

1) Size and weight is fantastic, because we don't always want to lug around a big heavy dSLR.

2) Very good Sony FF sensor.

3) The lens focuses very smoothly and quietly during video [though the focusing is no longer instant].

4) 5-axis image stabilization great for still images.

-

Cons:

1) Very poor battery life, typically 1 battery lasts 1 hour, so this particular owner had to purchase and carry 5 batteries around in a "glasses" case.

2) The fast lenses eg f1.4 are huge in size; virtually the same size as the equivalent fast lenses on dSLR's.

3) Rear 3.0" LCD needs to improve.

4) Interface improvements needed [controls and buttons].

5) 5-axis image stabilization works poorly for video.

-

The author anticipates that it will take another two generations before mirrorless can replace his dSLR.

Thanks to this author, I will hold off my purchase of the current model Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

I would hate to dive in and purchase an A7 II, and then spew and ***** about it.

Sounds like currently the A7 II is best suited for small casual use with a small number of shots, and no requirement for fast lenses with wide apertures. Because heavy shooting will require the owner to purchase and carry around half a dozen batteries, and the fast lenses eg f/1.4 on this Sony mirrorless FF is virtually the same size/weight as a dSLR fast lenses, so this defeats the purpose of buying mirrorless FF. No wonder Sony doesn't make any native/legacy zoom lenses with apertures larger than f/4.0.

Also sounds like if one is really keen on compact interchangeable lens, then one should go for mirrorless micro 4/3, but in this particular instance, I'm personally after compact interchangeable lens with full frame. So perhaps at the present point in time, there is merit in holding onto traditional dSLR FF, and then "complementing" that big/heavy dSLR FF with a mirrorless m4/3 for compact interchangeable travel, thus purchasing both dSLR FF and mirrorless m4/3; one for outright overall quality, and the other for compact travel...

 

[Joseph Mama]

This isn't really surprising. Full frame lenses are huge and them being mirrorless doesnt magically shrink them....it just means the camera itself is smaller.

One of the strengths of a mirrorless is the ability to steal other lenses and use them via adapter.

 

[Chris R-UK]

This isn't really surprising. Full frame lenses are huge and them being mirrorless doesnt magically shrink them....it just means the camera itself is smaller.

The only area where mirrorless have a lens size advantage over DSLRs is below about 40mm focal length where the shorter registration distance compared with a DSLR means that they don't need a retrofocus design (or less retrofocus below the mirrorless registration distance of about 20mm).

I do, however, think that mirrorless manufacturers have made more effort to reduce the weight of their lenses by using lighter materials (compare a DSLR 50mm f/1.8 with the Olympus 45mm f/1.8), pancake designs and collapsing zooms. DSLR manufacturers have never had to compete very much on lens size/weight but Canon, for example, now has some pancake lenses.

 

[Wally626]

I am interested in full frame, and would love an alternative to a big heavy dSLR FF, so I did some research on the Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

Here are two very good unbiased videos discussing the pros and cons:

-

Pros:

1) Size and weight is fantastic, because we don't always want to lug around a big heavy dSLR.

2) Very good Sony FF sensor.

3) The lens focuses very smoothly and quietly during video [though the focusing is no longer instant].

4) 5-axis image stabilization great for still images.

-

Cons:

1) Very poor battery life, typically 1 battery lasts 1 hour, so this particular owner had to purchase and carry 5 batteries around in a "glasses" case.

2) The fast lenses eg f1.4 are huge in size; virtually the same size as the equivalent fast lenses on dSLR's.

3) Rear 3.0" LCD needs to improve.

4) Interface improvements needed [controls and buttons].

5) 5-axis image stabilization works poorly for video.

-

The author anticipates that it will take another two generations before mirrorless can replace his dSLR.

Thanks to this author, I will hold off my purchase of the current model Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

I would hate to dive in and purchase an A7 II, and then spew and ***** about it.

Sounds like currently the A7 II is best suited for small casual use with a small number of shots, and no requirement for fast lenses with wide apertures. Because heavy shooting will require the owner to purchase and carry around half a dozen batteries, and the fast lenses eg f/1.4 on this Sony mirrorless FF is virtually the same size/weight as a dSLR fast lenses, so this defeats the purpose of buying mirrorless FF. No wonder Sony doesn't make any native/legacy zoom lenses with apertures larger than f/4.0.

Also sounds like if one is really keen on compact interchangeable lens, then one should go for mirrorless micro 4/3, but in this particular instance, I'm personally after compact interchangeable lens with full frame. So perhaps at the present point in time, there is merit in holding onto traditional dSLR FF, and then "complementing" that big/heavy dSLR FF with a mirrorless m4/3 for compact interchangeable travel, thus purchasing both dSLR FF and mirrorless m4/3; one for outright overall quality, and the other for compact travel...

The battery life issue really depends on what you are shooting. Doing a lot of video, yes, you will need a lot of extra batteries, also they guys shooting thousands of pictures per day. The batteries are good for around 300 to 500 shots, for me that is several days of shooting so the battery life is not an issue. The big shift is coming from traditional DSRLs when not using live view the batteries last for along time. The Sony cameras, like video cameras, are always in live view, so the battery life is going to be short, on top of which Sony kept the small battery form factor from the NEX series, good if you already had batteries, but the larger form factor could have supported a larger battery.

The A7ii is a very good camera but it still can be improved in several areas. As far as lenses go. there are limited to how small you can make a lens and still have certain optical properties. Lenses longer than 50mm do not benefit from the shorter registration distance and anytime you are trying for a world class optical performance like the 35mm f/1.4 you end up using a lot of glass. Sony does have the 35mm f/2.8 and the Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 if the f/1.4 is just too big.

 

[neil holmes]

I am interested in full frame, and would love an alternative to a big heavy dSLR FF, so I did some research on the Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

Here are two very good unbiased videos discussing the pros and cons:

-

Pros:

1) Size and weight is fantastic, because we don't always want to lug around a big heavy dSLR.

2) Very good Sony FF sensor.

3) The lens focuses very smoothly and quietly during video [though the focusing is no longer instant].

4) 5-axis image stabilization great for still images.

-

Cons:

1) Very poor battery life, typically 1 battery lasts 1 hour, so this particular owner had to purchase and carry 5 batteries around in a "glasses" case.

2) The fast lenses eg f1.4 are huge in size; virtually the same size as the equivalent fast lenses on dSLR's.

3) Rear 3.0" LCD needs to improve.

4) Interface improvements needed [controls and buttons].

5) 5-axis image stabilization works poorly for video.

-

The author anticipates that it will take another two generations before mirrorless can replace his dSLR.

Thanks to this author, I will hold off my purchase of the current model Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

I would hate to dive in and purchase an A7 II, and then spew and ***** about it.

Sounds like currently the A7 II is best suited for small casual use with a small number of shots, and no requirement for fast lenses with wide apertures. Because heavy shooting will require the owner to purchase and carry around half a dozen batteries, and the fast lenses eg f/1.4 on this Sony mirrorless FF is virtually the same size/weight as a dSLR fast lenses, so this defeats the purpose of buying mirrorless FF. No wonder Sony doesn't make any native/legacy zoom lenses with apertures larger than f/4.0.

Also sounds like if one is really keen on compact interchangeable lens, then one should go for mirrorless micro 4/3, but in this particular instance, I'm personally after compact interchangeable lens with full frame. So perhaps at the present point in time, there is merit in holding onto traditional dSLR FF, and then "complementing" that big/heavy dSLR FF with a mirrorless m4/3 for compact interchangeable travel, thus purchasing both dSLR FF and mirrorless m4/3; one for outright overall quality, and the other for compact travel...

The battery life issue really depends on what you are shooting. Doing a lot of video, yes, you will need a lot of extra batteries, also they guys shooting thousands of pictures per day. The batteries are good for around 300 to 500 shots, for me that is several days of shooting so the battery life is not an issue. The big shift is coming from traditional DSRLs when not using live view the batteries last for along time. The Sony cameras, like video cameras, are always in live view, so the battery life is going to be short, on top of which Sony kept the small battery form factor from the NEX series, good if you already had batteries, but the larger form factor could have supported a larger battery.

The A7ii is a very good camera but it still can be improved in several areas. As far as lenses go. there are limited to how small you can make a lens and still have certain optical properties. Lenses longer than 50mm do not benefit from the shorter registration distance and anytime you are trying for a world class optical performance like the 35mm f/1.4 you end up using a lot of glass. Sony does have the 35mm f/2.8 and the Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 if the f/1.4 is just too big.

I shoot hundreds of shots at a time with A7 and A7s for concerts, gigs and festivals and usually take two batteries....one would be plenty most of the time.

I only usually do one or two videos......easy enough to add another battery or two if doing mainly video.

The cameras come with two batteries as standard now.

As for fast lenses, the A7 series are nice with fast lenses and slow.....I thought I was done buying lenses but really want that 85 1.8 Zeiss Batis (will probably have to sell my 85 1.2 L FD).....the 55 1.8 is very nice .....I like the Canon EF 135 f2 on them as well.....usable AF-S especially on the A7s in low light but would be nice on the A7ii as it is on the original A7.

My two favourite lenses are an f4 17mm Canon and 24 3.5 Canon and they are both absolutely HUGE for their focal lengths (both are tilt shift lenses) but even they are fine for me ergonomically on the A7 series cameras.

 

[ambercool]

Why I would want to buy an A7II:

-I want to take photos with a mirrorless full-frame that has image stabilization in-body

Why I don't want to buy an A7II:

-I'm saving for the A7sII with hopefully image stabilization in-body

 

[Jacques Cornell]

This isn't really surprising. Full frame lenses are huge and them being mirrorless doesnt magically shrink them....it just means the camera itself is smaller.

The only area where mirrorless have a lens size advantage over DSLRs is below about 40mm focal length where the shorter registration distance compared with a DSLR means that they don't need a retrofocus design (or less retrofocus below the mirrorless registration distance of about 20mm).

The freedom to use non-retrofocus designs is also a significant reason why WA rangefinder lenses have generally had better optical quality than WAs SLR lenses. I saw this advantage when I compared my MFT Panasonic 7-14mm to my FF Canon 17-40: the 7-14 was much sharper at edges and corners.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I shoot hundreds of shots at a time with A7 and A7s for concerts, gigs and festivals and usually take two batteries....one would be plenty most of the time.

The a7II has IBIS, which consumes more power. I've heard reports of as few as 100 shots per charge.

--

The way to make a friend is to act like one.
www.jacquescornell.photography

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Fair warning: I'm a former FF shooter who's now an MFT fan. Not trying to change your mind here, but it sounds like you're coming from the same place I did, so I'll just offer my own experience for your consideration.

I am interested in full frame, and would love an alternative to a big heavy dSLR FF, so I did some research on the Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

The way I look at it, if I wanted FF for more pixels, I'd get an a7r. If I wanted ISO 6400+, I'd get an a7s. For general use, low-light events up to ISO 3200, and ultimate portability, MFT serves me well.

Pros:

1) Size and weight is fantastic, because we don't always want to lug around a big heavy dSLR.

This is why I went MFT.

2) Very good Sony FF sensor.

Actually, the sensor produces roughly a full stop more noise at high ISO than the Sony sensor in Nikon's 24MP FF D750. If they'd put that sensor in the a7II, it'd be a compelling low-light camera. As it is, only 50% more pixels and just one stop better noise performance is not enough to prompt me to upgrade from MFT.

Cons:

1) Very poor battery life, typically 1 battery lasts 1 hour, so this particular owner had to purchase and carry 5 batteries around in a "glasses" case.

One reviewer (can't recall who) reported as few as 100 shots per charge with heavy IBIS use.

2) The fast lenses eg f1.4 are huge in size; virtually the same size as the equivalent fast lenses on dSLR's.

This is also why I went MFT. Reliving my old Contax G2 days with a GX7 and a few excellent fast primes in pockets. Only now I can also mount small f2.8 zooms as well.

The author anticipates that it will take another two generations before mirrorless can replace his dSLR.

That really depends on what you want to do with it. Fast action? No. 24MP at ISO 6400+? Not yet. Pretty much everything else? Heck, yes.

Thanks to this author, I will hold off my purchase of the current model Sony A7 II mirrorless FF.

I would hate to dive in and purchase an A7 II, and then spew and ***** about it.

You can dip your toe into MFT waters for $500 these days.

Sounds like currently the A7 II is best suited for small casual use with a small number of shots, and no requirement for fast lenses with wide apertures. Because heavy shooting will require the owner to purchase and carry around half a dozen batteries, and the fast lenses eg f/1.4 on this Sony mirrorless FF is virtually the same size/weight as a dSLR fast lenses, so this defeats the purpose of buying mirrorless FF. No wonder Sony doesn't make any native/legacy zoom lenses with apertures larger than f/4.0.

If you want small, reasonably fast lenses, can stay below ISO 3200, and don't need to make prints larger than poster size, you might look at MFT. Sony's a6000 is also a very nice small camera, but the lens selection is pretty limited. Panasonic and Olympus have done a great job with UI and controls (twin dials, direct access and programmable buttons), and Panasonic's TouchPad AF is the bee's knees for AF point selection.

Also sounds like if one is really keen on compact interchangeable lens, then one should go for mirrorless micro 4/3, but in this particular instance, I'm personally after compact interchangeable lens with full frame.

Are you looking for higher ISO, more pixels, or just the same performance you've got now but in a smaller package? BTW, your gear list shows a 70D, no FF. What FF are you using? What are you shooting with it? And, what's your biggest display/output size?

So perhaps at the present point in time, there is merit in holding onto traditional dSLR FF, and then "complementing" that big/heavy dSLR FF with a mirrorless m4/3 for compact interchangeable travel, thus purchasing both dSLR FF and mirrorless m4/3; one for outright overall quality, and the other for compact travel...

I started out with the same thought. Had Canon 1Ds3 & 1D3. Wanted a hiking & travel kit. Bought a modest MFT setup. Loved the all-day go-everywhere portability, EVF, controls, TouchPad AF, and excellent glass. Got resolution and noise same as my older 1Ds2 and better DR - plenty for my needs. Went all-in on MFT and ditched all my Canon gear. The only draw to FF for me is clean ISO 6400+, but I use flash in my event work, so no biggie.

 

[Zapirian]

Sounds like currently the A7 II is best suited for small casual use with a small number of shots, and no requirement for fast lenses with wide apertures. Because heavy shooting will require the owner to purchase and carry around half a dozen batteries, and the fast lenses eg f/1.4 on this Sony mirrorless FF is virtually the same size/weight as a dSLR fast lenses, so this defeats the purpose of buying mirrorless FF.

For me the adaptability is more of a pro than small size/weight. I can put the 70200G on and it's fairly hefty (although I've compared it to my friends 5DMKiii with 70200 f2.8 and it is much much, much lighter). I can stick on a smaller lens and in that case again it's considerably lighter. Although I'm talking about the A7. The A7II isn't much different in weight to a Nikon D750 so it's a harder sell but the IBIS offers more if you are interested in it, otherwise the smaller, lighter A7 would be a better deal. And having to carry batteries meaning you have the same weight as the DSLR isn't really as much of an issue as is it is made out to be. The weight of the batteries isn't being held by your arms as you shoot as it would be with the DSLR. I carry 2 spares with me (In the business card slot of a Thinktank Pixel Pocket Rocket SD card holder!) and have rarely ever used more than 2 in a day, but that's just amateur/tourist use, but I can generally get over 300 shots on one battery. If you are using continuous shooting then you'll probably get more.

Camerasize.com -

Loading…

j.mp

A7II + 35 F2.8 = 719g

Canon 5DMKIII + 35 F2 = 1285g

Nikon D750 + 35 F1.8G ED = 1145g

Sure the others have a small F-stop advantage but the Camerasize website didn't have anything listed with the same FL and aperture for all systems.

That's a difference of 566g between the Canon and Sony. You could almost carry a second A7II body for the weight of the DSLR. And to match it with batteries you'd have to carry 10 spares! (Batteries are around 50g).

Going up to 70200F4:

Canon 5D + 70200F4 L = 1710g

A7II + 70200F4 G = 1439g

Less of a difference, only 271g less (even though the Sony lens is ~100g heavier). That's still 5 batteries difference in weight, that you won't have to lift with your arms each shot.

 

[peterharvey]

Interesting.
For some strange reason, mirrorless FF lenses are small & light only at short focal lengths & narrow apertures.
At longer focal lengths & wider apertures, mirrorless has little if no benefits in size/weight, so could this be why no one else has mirrorless FF, except for Sony?

Hmmm, if this remains technically true, then I may have to follow that idea of a dSLR FF combined with a complementary mirrorless m4/3 for portability.

 

[Chris R-UK]

Interesting.
For some strange reason, mirrorless FF lenses are small & light only at short focal lengths & narrow apertures.
At longer focal lengths & wider apertures, mirrorless has little if no benefits in size/weight, so could this be why no one else has mirrorless FF, except for Sony?

Hmmm, if this remains technically true, then I may have to follow that idea of a dSLR FF combined with a complementary mirrorless m4/3 for portability.

It isn't a strange reason, it is the laws of physics/optics.

The extended length of the lens is determined by the focal length and the front diameter is determined by the f/ number: f/ number = (focal length)/(aperture diameter). Since all zoom lenses and all but the longest telephoto lenses are cylindrical in shape rather than conical, the length and the weight of the lens are pretty well fixed independent of the sensor size and whether or not the camera body is a DSLR or mirrorless.

 

[peterharvey]

I don't tend to use longer than 24-70; in fact, I mostly use 24-28.

f/2.8, or even f/2.0 is really all I need; I don't really need another stop to f/1.4.

Thus, if Sony could improve their mirrorless FF lens range a bit to include a 24 mm f/2.0, then Sony mirrorless FF is still a goer for me, so I don't have to lug a big dslr FF along.
I'll just carry multiple primes along in a camera case.

 

[Zapirian]

Sounds like you'd want the Zeiss Batis 25mm F2.0 that is coming out

Loading…

www.zeiss.co.uk

 

[peterharvey]

Sounds like you'd want the Zeiss Batis 25mm F2.0 that is coming out

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/website/landing_pages/batis.html

Looks good.
Any idea roughly what price?

 

[Zapirian]

Some initial information suggest "The recommended retail prices are $1299 US for the ZEISS Batis 25mm f2 and $1199 US for the ZEISS Batis 85mm f1.8."(http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/04/...5mm-f1-8-full-frame-autofocus-e-mount-lenses/). Pretty pricey but that's Zeiss for you.

There is also the 28mm F2.0 from Sony that can use the Ultrawide adapter to give you 21mm FOV as well, £419 in UK for the 28mm by itself.

 

[K E Hoffman]

I shoot hundreds of shots at a time with A7 and A7s for concerts, gigs and festivals and usually take two batteries....one would be plenty most of the time.

The a7II has IBIS, which consumes more power. I've heard reports of as few as 100 shots per charge.

--

The way to make a friend is to act like one.
www.jacquescornell.photography

I shoot an A77MII Fulltime EVF which is where your real battery burn is and IBIS

I just shot a school track meet for 3 hours where I took 2113 shots!!

One battery..

New user burn through batteries because they live in the menues and trying stuff out and run the screens etc as much in an hour as most would in 4 hours of real shooting.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I shoot hundreds of shots at a time with A7 and A7s for concerts, gigs and festivals and usually take two batteries....one would be plenty most of the time.

The a7II has IBIS, which consumes more power. I've heard reports of as few as 100 shots per charge.

--

The way to make a friend is to act like one.
www.jacquescornell.photography

I shoot an A77MII Fulltime EVF which is where your real battery burn is and IBIS

I just shot a school track meet for 3 hours where I took 2113 shots!!

One battery..

Impressive. That's CaNikon big pro body territory. Interesting. I'm left to wonder, then, why reviewers are claiming only 100-300 shots from the a7II. One explanation that's been offered is that stabilizing the much greater mass of a FF sensor takes more power than for an MFT or APS sensor. I can (and do) get by just fine with 350 shots/battery in my GX7, even shooting 1,000+ images per day covering events. But 100-200 would be an annoyance.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Interesting.
For some strange reason, mirrorless FF lenses are small & light only at short focal lengths & narrow apertures.

A 300mm f4 for a 67 film camera isn't much bigger than one for a 35mm film/sensor camera.

At longer focal lengths & wider apertures, mirrorless has little if no benefits in size/weight, so could this be why no one else has mirrorless FF, except for Sony?

Could be. Until Sony came along with the a7 series, the whole selling point of mirrorless was portability. Now Sony's touting the other advantages of mirrorless, and people who've experienced them first-hand with MFT & APS are coming to appreciate what EVFs have to offer FF and vice versa. It was the smaller size (shorter focal lengths, after all) of the lenses that led me to MFT rather than APS mirrorless. That and the excellent lens lineup. And, now that I've worked with EVFs for two years, it's hard to consider going back to OVFs. I'm happy with MFT IQ, but if I wanted FF again, I'd definitely consider the a7 series first.

Hmmm, if this remains technically true, then I may have to follow that idea of a dSLR FF combined with a complementary mirrorless m4/3 for portability.

Danger! Once you get used to live preview of exposure and WB without chimping, AF anywhere in the frame, face recognition, touch-to-position AF point, in-finder virtual horizon and grid, WA lenses that are sharp in the corners, and host of other mirrorless benefits, you might not love your DSLR as much. I didn't.

 

[Bjorn_L]

This isn't really surprising. Full frame lenses are huge and them being mirrorless doesnt magically shrink them....it just means the camera itself is smaller.

The only area where mirrorless have a lens size advantage over DSLRs is below about 40mm focal length where the shorter registration distance compared with a DSLR means that they don't need a retrofocus design (or less retrofocus below the mirrorless registration distance of about 20mm).

The freedom to use non-retrofocus designs is also a significant reason why WA rangefinder lenses have generally had better optical quality than WAs SLR lenses. I saw this advantage when I compared my MFT Panasonic 7-14mm to my FF Canon 17-40: the 7-14 was much sharper at edges and corners.