StudentPhoto: "The Nikon D750 is probably the most complete enthusiast camera we've ever encountered. The combination of image quality, ergonomic design and autofocus capability make it a really compelling package. It's not the cheapest way to get into full-frame but it's so capable that it still represents great value for money."
So the D750 is clearly better than any other enthusiast camera, and is $1k less at launch than the A7rII, yet we needed a joint winner? If the D750 is better and costs considerably less, why isn't it the clear winner? Something tells me the Sony sponsorship had something to do with it. So much for honest reviewing.
@studentphoto: You know why there's no micro adjust, right? That the focussing sensors are on the image plane and not a separate module like on a DSLR?
There's no micro adjust for the same reason there are no lifeboats on a train or parachutes in a car.
aerts1js: Sony hit it out of the ballpark this year with a bunch of great cameras. They fully deserve the award.
I don't think people miss that point, it's rather that nobody thinks it. The D750 is the first 'enthusiast' camera from Nikon with a tilting screen. You have Olympus and Sony to thank for that. Nikon still don't offer IBIS - more than a decade after Minolta first put it in their digital cameras. Remember Rishi's difficulties getting sharp images from the 5DR and 810 with large aperture lenses - having to shoot painstakingly with live view on a tripod...
There are plenty of areas for Nikon and Canon to improve.
Joed700: So Sony is the biggest winner here because both the D750 and the A7rii use Sony sensors.
How is the D750 'by far the better camera'? DPreview didn't think so and their testing is about as thorough and as impartial possible considering most of them are Nikon users.
ProfHankD: While I disagree with some of the evaluation here, the basic message is clearly correct: the camera technology leaders are now SamSony, not CaNikon. Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, etc. are still able to make a nice package. Canon, well, maybe Canon should focus on making lenses?
@entoman: the A100 didn't have 'dreadful IQ' I also had and still have one and it offered the best resolution on the market at the time (10mp) with a very weak anti-aliasing filter. All the talk was about the lack of a pro build or handling - there were no complaints about the imaging quality. Coupled with the delayed 16-80mm CZ and ibis Sony were offering amateur photographers fantastic value. Unfortunately DPr weren't too interested in looking at Sony back then. They never reviewed the 16-80 or any of the outstanding Sony lenses like the 135/1.8.
xpanded: Sony should hire Shakin' Stevens as a poster boy for the A7-line:
"You just have to shake fast to counter the shutter shock".
Fortunately Sony will probably soon change mount again.
Considering A mount was created in 1984 by Minolta - Sony have done a pretty good job of supporting it.
Seriously if they abandoned it tomorrow - which they are not doing - I don't think we can really complain.
SFuller123: Laughing right now at anyone that bought an significantly inferior brand of camera becuase of such an insignificant difference in Sony raw compression.
Your camera choice is likely to have an affect 1000x more significant than this.
Lack of perspective.
@Dre de man Actually there aren't ANY good arguments to call the Nikon D810 'significantly superior' to the A7rii, let alone 'many'.
The Sony has more accurate focussing, focusses in lower light, has less shutter shock, shoots faster because it has EFC and no mirror to flip and has stabilisation on all lenses - even on Nikon lenses that aren't even stabilised on Nikon bodies. It also has all the advantages of an electronic viewfinder, which are only dismissed by people who have no experience of one.
True, Nikon has a lot of lenses but many of them are film era designs. The Sony shoots A-mount lenses like the 500mm f4 with no speed penalty using the LA-EA3 as it is essentially a just a collar extending the film pane so there is plenty of choice for professional use.
As for ergonomics - the 810 is massive and weighs a ton, even by DSLR standards. Good luck shooting discreetly with it, which pros often need to do.
LMCasey: Sony is a screwed up company; proven once again in their photography division.
You don't really understand this issue. I only shoot raw and I've been shooting Sony raw since it's inception and NEVER encountered this issue.
If you re-read DPreview's article you will see that they even say this. It is appropriate for a review site to point out the compressed raw issues but it needs to be put into perspective.
Rishi said he would take it over Canon's sensor noise and Nikon's shutter-shock. Remember he was having to shoot the 5Ds and the 810 on tripods with the mirror locked up/live view mode on to get results comparable to the Sony handheld.
Wow. And they said the Sonys were boxy.
MikeF4Black: An excellent electronics firm moving into the kitchen appliance sector. Cooks, not chefs.
As a Sony DSLR user since the beginning with the A100 I see Minolta 'DNA' everywhere in Sony products - it's one of the things I enjoy most about using their products. Perhaps not going back as far as you go to the SRT101 or the XM, but the A7rii feels as much a future paradigm camera as the A7000 was in 1985.
All cameras are going to look like the A7rii in a few years in the same way that all SLRs/DSLRs look like the Minolta A7000.
justmeMN: Sony is a weak #3 in ILC market share, and that isn't going to change any time soon. In spite of all the hype, they aren't ready to take on "the big boys". (C&N)
Lol. They've been making better cameras and lenses than both for some time. There's no hype. If you think C&N are 'the big boys' that Sony can't match or best you don't know much about the history of photography.
I've seen lots of brands come and go. Nikon has been a constant for professional use but more pros used Pentax and Rollei than Canon in the 70s when I started taking pictures. Even press 'togs used Rollei TLRs as they're good in confined spaces and have a big neg for enlarging. No weddings were shot on 35mm.
Canon built their name in the 80s with the A1 and their fast tele line. They got an early lead in the digital market but they are now in real danger of falling behind. My cousin recently bought a Canon DSLR and it was the worst value she could have got for her money, but the brand is so strongly established that she didn't look elsewhere. That is what Canon is relying most heavily on now - brand awareness, not innovative products. They are a more hyped brand than Sony.
cmantx: I have an A 77 II and take nature shots often using Continuous Shooting in RAW. I find that I have to be careful to expose correctly or I will have a problem with posterization. Often in the foliage in the background there are areas of shade. After processing there can be evident posterization in these areas. Reducing the size of the file for posting on the Web or challenges can really accentuate the posterization effect. Sometimes what I thought was a nice shot can become a deleted shot. Is this due to Sony's Raw compression?
Chris Crevasse: I'm baffled by why Sony is putting so much effort into building great full-frame cameras yet is neglecting the issues created by lossy raw compression. It makes no sense to me. Then again, I've been shooting raw since I acquired my first raw-capable camera in 2005, and I've post-processed thousands of RX1 files in the nearly three years I've owned that camera -- and in all that time, I've never noticed artifacts from Sony's lossy compression. This is not to say they are not there, but, for my purposes, they've never "ruined" any of my images. Still, as a long-time dedicated hobbyist, I would prefer to at least have the option for lossless compression, so I can only assume that Sony's obtuse stubbornness is driving away at least some potential customers, especially some professionals. I just can't understand Sony's thinking on this issue.
From the article:
'Overall, the effects of this compression aren't often visually significant. Their impact should mostly be understood as a reduction in processing latitude, since it tends only to be when you push and pull the Raw files that the missing data becomes visible.'
That's why I haven't seen compression artefacts, shooting Sony raw for nine years.
'Not that you'd notice it?' Sony has innovated more than any other camera manufacturer in the last nine years, bar none. They've brought more than a hundred lenses to market and introduced full-time live-view in DSLRs, IBIS on FF and on-sensor phase detect amongst other things.
They also introduced a fully electronic lens mount and continued to support the investment of 'A' mount photographers with some of the best glass you can buy anywhere.
Even now you can't buy a single Nikon with IBIS, fifteen years (fifteen years!) after Konica-Minolta put it in the Dimage 7 and seven years after Sony put it in a FF body.
'Kitchen appliance sector' - You make yourself sound foolish.
Esstee: The reason I won't touch another Sony camera.
Presumably you don't have any blu rays, DVDs or movie downloads either since they also use lossy compression.
jackpinoh: Imagine how much better the A7RII will be if Sony permits us to record 14-bit lossless images.
Only sharper, and more accurately focussed.
RubberDials: Shame you guys can't get any stabilisation with this on a native body.
Believe me you only say that because you don't have it. If you had it you wouldn't switch it off.
State of the art optics demand a stabilised sensor in my opinion. The truth is this lens will perform better on a Sony body and that's not good.
Shame you guys can't get any stabilisation with this on a native body.
Frank_BR: Will this lens help Canon to reverse the steady decline in the sales of DSLR cameras?
The sony 35 f1.4 has a metal body and an aperture ring that can be set to smooth, click or auto. Some toy...
TylerQ: Who cares. I'm very happy with my D750 and it's low light performance. Don't need a mirrorless and don't want one.
@IntriguePhotography. Where you burned with Sony cameras? They've shown massive dedication to photographers in the last nine years since they released their first DSLR. Apart from supporting A-mount, which was introduced 25 years ago by another manufacturer, they've created their own digital-specific fully electronic mount and brought more than a hundred lenses to market - many of them the best available in their focal lengths. I don't think they're going anywhere.
Cipher: There sure is a lot of denial going on. I'd rank this break through the same as when Olympus came out with the E-M5. Nikon and Canon better get serious with their mirrorless plans if they have any. The mirrorless camp has far more interesting releases that anything from DSLR camp in a while. The last time I was excited about a new DSLR product was when the 36MP D800 was announced. Since then it's been pretty incremental updates from Nikon and Canon. A month ago I pulled out my D800 from storage and, to me, it felt like a dinosaur. Sure it has great ergonomics, but having it around my neck I felt like a rap singer with a giant gold necklace. Now if Sony would only do something about the price of the A7R II....
@Francis Carver. This camera has a stabilised 42mp FF sensor and you think it would be over priced at $1600? You're an idiot.