armandino: I am not sure if I want the 5DS or the A7rII. From many points of views the Sony has an interesting offerings. A few things worry me though:1) ruggedness: especially sensor wise. Talking to repair shops in body IS is far more prone to failure on camera shock. Sony cameras are very expensive to repair in this regard. BSI is even more fragile than a conventional sensor.2) Resale value. True the Canon will set you back considerably more to start with. My experience with Sony in this regard is not promising though.3) Service. Sony vs Canon?4) Product integration. Good to see that I should be able to use Canon glass more effectively. Still not quite the same, cannot share dedicated flash etc. Just thinking loud here.
Regarding sensor longevity, the claim is that the Sony A7RII shutter can operate for 500,000 shutter actuations. That's far more than many DSLRs that do not have IBIS.
There was nothing wrong with partnering with Sony - it's what Hasselblad with with it that was stupid.
Firstly, the designs were grossly ugly.
Second, it's obscene that they foisted off-the-charts prices simply because of their brand. Even Leica-branded Panasonics aren't as much over-priced - as a ratio of Leica:Lumix - compared to Hasselblad:Sony.
In sum, there was nothing wrong with partnering with Sony. The big mistake was the stuff that came out of the Italian design firm.
Kendunn: To all those playing taps for Canon and Nikon keep in mind they don't even have to be better than Sony, there are millions of lenses out there, some costing several thousand dollars, for C/N and people (like me) are not going to replace all those lenses with very expensive Sony lenses for what may or may not be better than current offerings.
I love Sonys push forward with technology, if I were starting new I would certainly give it a hard look, but not enough there to make me "retool.
I wonder whether this new paradigm might have unforeseen consequences of causing Sony to sell less lenses in the long term?
I have a collection of Nikon lenses, both AI-S and AF, dating back to SLR and DSLR days. There are rumor reports of a Nikon-Sony AF adapter, and give it 2+ iterations to improve, it'll be easy for me to use my collection of Nikon lenses. Right now, I'm enjoying my Sony equipment, but am looking forward to when the Nikon-Sony adapters make it possible to achieve AF and stabilisation with my investment in Nikon lenses made over several decades.
I always use the studio scenes by comparing the detail of the etching - which shows the line drawing of the family in front of the painting easel. As a Sony A6000 user (and former Leica film-camera user), I like the fact that the cheaper A6000 seems well matched to the output of the Leica Q. I admit that the film and digital Leica's I purchased in the past were acquired, not merely for image quality, but for the cache of using a Leica - but from an IQ standpoint, I get just as good elsewhere, for much less money.
bear740: This may be a great camera, but it is butt ugly. Why does Sony make some good looking camera's then their full frame camera's are just plain ugly? I guess the looks of a camera is not that important to taking good pics, but you do like to have a nice looking camera, or at least I do. This camera looks like someone just slapped parts on a box.
I really like the design of the Sony A7 series. In fact, the design of the Sony is a strong feature that attracts me to them.
King of Song: Canon & Nikon...... RIP
I've been a Nikon user for several decades, with a collection of Nikon manual and AF lenses. I went across to Sony last year, but never quite got around to selling my Nikon lens collection, thinking there was a slim possibility I would come back to Nikon if they brought out a killer camera - but I was just contemplating selling off. Then the A7II and A7RII come out with IBIS.
Now, if Metabones can create an AF adapter for Nikon lenses, like their Canon-friendly product, then the game is up for Nikon and Canon.
GodSpeaks: I wish Sony would update the design of the body to something a little more aesthetically pleasing.
I really like the A7 angular designs. It's looks modern, whereas the Canon designs look like blobs of plastic. The Nikons look good, but a bit dated.
This A7RII is my dream camera.
Its price is not my dream price.
I've bought several camera bodies in the $2K range, but never in the $3K range. I think I'll wait a year for the run-out prices. Sure, there'll then be the improved M3 version, but no doubt it'll be out of my justifiable price range. Besides, just on the specs, this A7RII is so good that it should suffice for many years.
Nikonparrothead: They use contract photographers now (Dave Black comes to mind) and will do that or take advantage of wire services. Heck, contract photographers have been shooting the swimsuit issue for how long now? Stock photography doesn't enter into it.
But I looked at a recent SI and it had virtuallyno advertising. I suspect a cutback to monthly is in its future as well.
I haven't bought a paper magazine in probably a decade, and going back further probably only a commemorative issue for some specific historic event. Almost everything I read nowadays is digital, even for work-related matters. So many professional and government journals are now online.
FinDERP: Perhaps a name change to reflect the new business model?
Samuel Dilworth: I have a feeling the horrible little α6000 is going to take this.
After using Nikon SLRs and DSLRs for more than 3 decades, my Sony A6000 is a breath of fresh air. Absolutely loving it.
I know what you say and i get your point, i think you miss my point, i am not a snob and i know how to use Photoshop.
Anyone can take a photo and manipulate it but there comes a point when you are not seeing what the eye sees and instead you are seeing a fantasy, nothing wrong with that, some of these photoshopped images look superb, some look overprocessed, as another example i am not keen on supermodels that get all their imperfections photoshopped away, beauty is of course in the eye of beholder and we all have different tastes.
Photography is all too often manipulated after the fact and done so aggressively, a little photoshop is fine but i think people go overboard with it these days, tools can be used for good but can also be used for bad and i prefer to see as little manipulation as possible.
I did wet darkroom using Ansel Adams Zone system techniques where the tonality of negatives were manipulated during film-development, and the print was manipulated with dodge-and-burn techniques, selection of paper grades, and toning in different chemicals. All that is now achievable digitally. I don't see anything different from what used to be done chemically. When you see a photograph like Ansel Adams' Moonrise Hernandez, that is unlikely what the eye viewed. The resulting photograph is art because it brings to bear the photographer's seeing skill, plus his craftsmanship to create a piece of art. Not sure if everyone appreciates that.
Paul Liukas: Great camera, great specifications, but lack of emotions like XT1. Camera like a brick too modern and too cold for me. If you are tired of pixel peeping like me and want to get a joy from photography, camera should be with soul :) Fuji will spoil many of us with soul and light lenses. I don't want to use D810 anymore, except for product photos (need)..
Anyway great job Sony!
Yes the XT1's external dials for S and A are useful, and I'd appreciate those being aded to the A7 design too. Selection of cameras are always a compromise.
I think the XT1 looks ugly, but I adore the Sony 7 series minimalistic looks. Among the Fujis, the X100 and X-E series look nice but the others look very tired. The XT1 looks like a battle tank, in all the wrong sense of that word.
ulfie: Nah... I'm waiting for the digital 8 X 10 camera with IBIS.
I'll settle for the day that technology gives us a small camera that can deliver the quality that 8x10 sheet film gives us. Film quality is fixed, but digital is inching closer towards that peak of the mountain. Who knows, in your grandkids' generation.
40daystogo: I'm just struck how close the Sony A7R is to the Pentax 645Z. For the dpreview test chart, I focus on the left hand side with the line-drawing of the group of people standing in front of the easel. The A7R is actually better than the Pentax 645Z, merely from resolving the detail of the black and white etching. Maybe the Pentax exceeds the A7R in other areas such as tonality, etc. But is it worth the significantly greater expense and massive weight increase?
It's a given that the medium format will be superior. The question is, is that extra IQ sufficient trade-off for the benefit of a substantially more portable set of equipment? Sure, at the micro level of the moire, the Pentax wins, but at a more macro level, such as the playing card, the Sony A7R seems to match the Pentax quite well. And presumably the gap could close even more with the rumored 50MP sensors coming out in the next generation A7R. Whatever it is, in a couple of years, the performance of the A7 series could start matching the Pentax. Of course the Pentax will also improve, but the Full Frame would have gotten to the point of "good enough" for even critical applications.
@Michael Piziak - yes, in response to your message, I did that. The portion I tested was the line drawing of the group of people looking at the artist's easel. The back of the easel has lots of lines that are evident in the Phase One test shot. Even at 400 ISO and 16000 ISO, the A7R seems better at resolving those lines that the Pentax 645Z. Comments?
Dabbler: Please let it have a reasonably quiet shutter, or a silent one as in the A7s?
The 3 features I was hoping for in the next generation A7 series were: faster focusing, quieter and even silent shutter like the Lumix GX7, and IBIS. I am in no hurry to upgrade, so am prepared to wait for the 3rd generation A7 to get the quiet shutter before I step into full frame.
Plus, lighter-weight lenses. I think the light weight can be achieved by making compromises of having lesser zoom range. For instance, the APS-C 10-18 achieves its light weight, I assume, by limiting the zoom range to 10-18 (i.e. 15-27 FF). That's a narrower range than the typical 18-35 or 16-35. By having a narrower range, which might be acceptable, we get much lighter lenses. Not everyone wants heavy lenses on their light A7 bodies.