rjx: Has the already good electronic viewfinder in the previous Alpha 7 versions improved any in this 7R II?
When someone talks about an EVF 'flickering' or 'being grainy' you know they don't have the camera and have basically looked through it in a shop - under artificial light. They're basically talking about the viewfinder 'gaining up' which is what all electronic viewfinders do in poor light. They will allow you to see in near darkness by doing that.
EVFs don't display any flicker or grain in daylight. If they did no one would use them.
The review reads like it was written by a Nikon D750 owner and manages to skilfully bury almost all that's good about the A7ii under faint praise and exaggerated weaknesses.
What's funny is no one considering buying the A7ii is going to buy a D750 instead. A7ii buyers are trying to get away from cameras like that.
And if you want to compare them properly the D750 doesn't come off that well at all. Not surprising considering the A7ii is a higher-specced camera. It has a faster shutter, faster flash sync, twice raw buffer size, higher video bit-rate, focus peaking and IBIS as well as all the advantages of a mirrorless.
And where the D750 outperforms the A7ii at high ISO you fail to mention the contribution of the IBIS which you found conferred '2-3.3 stops of 'hand-hold-ability', so any high-ISO advantage is essentially eliminated.
Also the D750 can't shoot any wider than f1.2 either whereas the Sony has a range below f1. It can even shoot the rangefinder only Nikon 35mm f0.95. :)
Wow, the comments have slowed right down. I hope they weren't all written by the same astroturfer who's gone for a shower or a lunchbreak.
You gotta love DPR: 'Relatively short time in the digital photography world'. LOL, Sony were making digital cameras long before Nikon and Canon, and Minolta - the traditional SLR company they bought and subsumed - was older than Canon and far technically active and influential, before it's demise.
Also why compare the 55mm 1.8 with the Nikon 50mm 1.4? Why not compare it with the Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4 which is $1500? Oh yeah, because then you can't make your point about the lenses being expensive. :)
dbo: "The thing about the A7 and A7R that concerns us the most is pricing."
You guys are really funny. What's wrong with the prices? Actually the body prices are quite fair. Neither unliked design nor body size shall be reason to blame the price level.
And btw, both sensors are claimed to be a completely new design, meaning the A7 does not have the A99 sensor, and A7R does not have the D800/E Sensor.
You would never make a comment like 'The name Zeiss does not mean much' if you had ever used a Sony Zeiss lens.
I love Nikon glass and have been a Nikon shooter at times over the 30 years I've been taking pictures but the Zeiss lenses have better micro-contrast, local contrast and colour rendition.
And they are manufactured in Germany. The lenses have two serial numbers - one on the optical train, which is assembled in Oberkochen and one on the barrel which contains the AF and mechanical assemblies and is integrated by Sony in the far east.
Be interesting to see a comparison test with the just updated and slightly faster 70-400G 4-5.6 from Sony.
RubberDials: Every other camera manufacturer has centre pinch caps - Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Olympus - even Minolta had them.
There's me thinking it's finally time for Canon to come clean with it's users and give them in-body IS and they roll out centre-pinch caps. Simply amazing.
Of course it doesn't. You haven't got it because Canon and Nikon brought in IS in the film era and you couldn't stabilise a film plane.
It's time Nikon and Canon bit the bullet on this one, in-body IS is a no-brainer with a digital sensor.
And there's a reason Zeiss don't make a stabilised lens - it impacts on IQ.
Every other camera manufacturer has centre pinch caps - Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Olympus - even Minolta had them.
The biggest problem with the forum is offering an optional list and flat view. List view means that some viewers never even read most of the posts in a thread.
The question and answer system deals with the biggest problem of this method - namely people answering the same question over and over, but with a flat view posters are at least exposed to everyone's posts, whether they read them in depth or only skim them.
I believe that viewing everyone's posts is a basic courtesy of participating in a community and the list view encourages cronyism with groups reading and responding only to each others' posts and shutting out newbies or anyone who offers a different view from the prevailing one.
I think list view contributes more than any other factor to the bellicosity and diminished sense of community that I see more than ever on this site and which discourages me from posting often.
RubberDials: 'The lens will also be available for Sony NEX cameras.'
How many X-pro users are there? You mean: 'The lens will also be available for the Fuji X-Pro 1. '
To R Butler and others: There are four photos of the X-Pro with the Zeiss lenses - if there were no demo lenses on a NEX fine, otherwise it's curious, especially since Zeiss is Sony's lens partner and there has famously been great hunger amongst NEX users for monofocal lenses.
E-mount is also a pro video mount. There will never be even a tenth as many X mount users as E mount, however 'exponentially ' it grows.
To Gully Foyle - Read Alfred Bester when I was teenager - great writer!
Rod McD: Hassleblad used to make expensive yet (just) affordable high grade film cameras whose appearance stood for something - Zeiss lenses and mechanical and electronic excellence. There's nothing wrong with an NEX7 and aesthetically it's a fine camera as it was designed by Sony - it doesn't need a makeover of any kind, especially this kind.
If Hassleblad really want to make an outstanding smaller camera, how about introducing a digital version of the SWC? The old SWC was their smallest most portable 120 camera and had one of the all-time best ultra wide angle lenses in the fixed 38mm Biogon. They're still sought after second hand for landscape and architectural work. That might get some reverence......
The SWC/M was a fantastic camera. Unfortunately the 38mm biogon as a non-retrofocus design is not suited to digital capture - at least as a FF camera - it might perform better on a APS-c sensor.
bradleyg5: The A99 is seriously the camera that has me considering selling all my Canon gear to switch too.
Let me help you... :)
In-body IS - vital for critical sharpness at ALL focal lengths up to 1/160th.
Full time LV with phase detect and tilt screen.
SLT as responsive as a rangefinder (no mirror flip/slap)
Good luck whatever you do.
'The lens will also be available for Sony NEX cameras.'
FTW: Seems we where waiting for a A900 in a new work suit. So nothing to hurry for, specially at the price they are presumed to ask for. 3200 ISO limit and 2800$ street price, no comment on that joke. Same for the long awaited NEX-9. Instead we get a fixed lens tourist camera at horrible price tag. Good work Sony, you really know what people don't want and need. Our goal was to get a camera we could use, not to enter in Guiness book of records for the smallest FF Tourist P&S.
The ISO limit is 25600, not 3200 - Dpreview got it wrong. They also say it doesn't have a GPS and it does.
The first paragraph of this report contains a number of inaccuracies: the first EOS camera was the 650, not the 620 and Canon users may wish their brand had set the blueprint that 'all successive camera systems have followed' but the reality is that it was Minolta who did this two years earlier with the 7000, the first camera to integrate AF, auto advance/rewind and full electronic input of settings.
The Minolta in-body screw AF was also considered superior at the time to the use of motors in the lens which is why Nikon, Pentax and others adopted it and not the Canon system. The all-electronic lens mount with iris motor was developed in the early 1970s by Rollei and has had a slow evolution despite its obvious advantages.
richard cohen: i just stumbled on this, was surprised that sony didn't have a 500mm prior to this. i'm a nikon shooter and have their 500vr, and after having used a few lesser long zooms, all i can say is that you get what you pay for. in reading this as an objective observer i am struck by a couple of things--first, 'made to order' is just crazy. if you aren't going to let dealers have at least a little inventory why bother at all. it's not like a car where there are several options to choose from that could make it difficult for a dealer to pick what to have in inventory--this is just a camera lens. second, i am amazed that they would have the nerve to price this above the already sky high prices that canon and nikon charge for their big glass. even pros aren't totally insensitive to equipment cost, and the two things above are just begging people to keep picking canon and nikon over sony imho.
The lens is more expensive because it is NEW. Both Canon and Nikon's 500mms are very old.
Canon's new 24-70 costs £2300 in the UK. The (stabilised) Sony/Zeiss 24-70 -which has been out for a few years costs £1300
The older version of the Canon lens can be had for under a grand.
foto43: Is it just me or does anyone else think it looks something made up from a Canon parts bin?Without the badges - and the mounting changed - it would not look out of place on a Canon pro dealers shelf. Surely it must be running copyrights very close? Or perhaps it is licenced from Canon?
Canon doesn't even make white lenses - they're a very light stone colour. Dealers used to call it 'mushroom' when they debuted them back in the 80s.
As tkbsic says Pro Minolta teles were white - the first one came out in 1988. The Dpreview of the Sony 70-200 has a picture where you can see the difference:
Astonishing how many people can't seem to understand this article - it's as if they can only hold one sentence of the ruling in their head at one time.
How many people have posted 'how can you copyright a picture of a bus' type posts... There are NO implications for most photographers from this ruling unless they set out to reproduce the key elements of a manipulated image for commercial gain that they once failed to reach a licensing agreement over.
It's one of the reasons I don't post much on these forums anymore. You have to explain your point over and over as no one seems to understand more than simple predictable phrases.
onlooker: Based on these RAW images, if I was going to get an APS-C camera today, I would get the 7D.
Now post the one with the IS on. Nikon and Canon users can't test this unfortunately. On a Sony cam take a shot with IS on and one with it off. Up to 1/160 there is a difference in critical sharpness. Nice shot btw.
The 7D hasn't got any in-body IS - shoot a fast prime below 1/160 and camera shake will have more of an impact on the final image detail than noise.