Good that a DSLR was a "consider also" because many of the short comings of a Sony A 7R II, despite its other strong points, is unacceptable for many photographers (EVF behavior, action shooting and extremely limited system vs C and N).
PerL: Apparently the system does not mean much or anything in these comparisons. How can the system camera Sony A7 II be considered a better choice than the system cameras Nikon D610 or Canon 6D?And "best overall" when DPReviews user report showed how much the Sony EVF/AF system lags traditional DSLRs in the field for action shooting?
@Rishi,If you were talking about the the Instagram/selfie generation you might have a point. But in this price range people want to have control. It is part of the fun.
@ Richard ButlerI think you should state in the future as a pro or con if a system is more or less limited vs the competition. In the case of the Sony I dont see how, no matter how it is twisted or turned, it can be considered as equal to the the Canon or Nikon system.I will also add, although that is a different discussion, that the fact that the DSLRs Nikon D610 or Canon 6D aren't pro sports cameras doesn't make them similar to EVF cameras with funky AF-systems in that capability. As for catching the decisive moment they are probably much better. And it is not only for pro sports. Many buys expensive cameras in the hope of getting good shots of their sporting children. And there are many, many other situations where you want to catch a fleeting moment.
Apparently the system does not mean much or anything in these comparisons. How can the system camera Sony A7 II be considered a better choice than the system cameras Nikon D610 or Canon 6D?And "best overall" when DPReviews user report showed how much the Sony EVF/AF system lags traditional DSLRs in the field for action shooting?
supeyugin1: After investing in NX line for 5 years, and having multiple other Samsung products (microwave, TV, cell phones), I decided to boycott Samsung products from now on. Samsung shows complete disrespect to their user base. Their products are pretty damn good, but this disrespect makes me change my buying habits, and ignore Samsung. There are other similar products on the market which can replace Samsungs one. Starting today I decided to replace my Samsung phone (Galaxy K zoom), and ordered Panasonic CM1. I hope other people will start boycotting Samsung as well. See ya, Samsung!
@straylightrunYou can't just jump in and out of a market where consumers invest in a costly system. It not a responsible thing to do f you are one of the worlds largest companies. It really hurts their credibility and the brand.
"If only Nikon or Canon would release a mirrorless” some say. If the lens mounts is to be kept, how would such a camera differ from Sonys SLT models? There you have a series of camera almost exactly as a DSLR but with an EVF. And they are a little bit smaller as well. So play with one if you think that is the concept that will bring huge changes. It hasn't made much impact on the DSLR market yet anyway.
keepreal: Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.
Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.
It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.
So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.
@keepreal,I dont know why you think T3 and me are clutching at straws - we got different opinions. As you seem to do, I prefer in general a good OVF over any EVF. But size and brightness are limited - for optical reasons in OVFs - and for resolution reasons in EVFs.
@T3,There are different classes of APS-C OVFs. Yes, those of the lower end are rather small, some on the border of unacceptable. But there are many that are quite good in size - Canon 7D/II, Nikon D7200, Pentax K3 etc. Those are the same size as the one in Canon 1D-series with the 1.3x sensors. Nobody said that the pro 1D-series had an unacceptable small viewfinder.
Is mirrrorless a goal in it self? I dont get it.Reduction of size? Well, not so much when sensor size is taken into account.Video - yes, for those interested in video. For those mainly interested in photography - not so much.EVF? For those having problems getting the exposure right, maybe. For others the downsides (lag, blackout time, slideshow effect, battery drain, wake up times, digital look, limited DR, etc) vs an OVF is a negative.AF? Not in shooting moving subjects, where the AF is critical.Cost benefits - nowhere to be seen.Increased reliability because of less moving parts? Actually the "flapping mirror” has a fantastic track record. If you buy a 30 year old SLR, most warnings are regarding failing electronics.So what is the obsession about?
venice: Just look no further than this ..
As that pro football photographer says, every innovation comes with a learning curve and he shoots with nothing but Sony mirrorless.
There is a great shot of him using what looks like an A7r2 with the fast focusing 70-400G2.
His results make it clear that this DPR article is about shooting pro sports without going through the learning curve with the gear and not about any limitations of the gear.
The difference is the pressure to deliver with no excuses if you shot for magazines/papers. And not miss shots that the competing pro shooters is able to take.If you have a national paper eagerly waiting for your shots, expecting to blow them up on the front page - you dont want to have inferior gear vs the competition.
sportyaccordy: I wonder how a general purpose DSLR like the 5DIII or D750 would fare in these conditions
They would both be excellent.
Ed Ingold: I'm curious about the "blackout time" while the image is reviewed. I have the auto review turned off. When I end a string of continuous shooting, the viewfinder returns to live view instantly. During the string, the finder shows a series of stop-motion views corresponding to the moment just before the next frame is taken. With an SLR you only see clearly between shots. With the A7Rii, you always see tne next shot.
If auto review is enabled, the last frame is held for 2 sec or longer before live view is restored.
I think the stop-motion view you talk about actually is the frame you just took - it is called the slide show effect and means that what you see is a moment behind. That is how it works on other similar EVF cameras.
Gary Waugh: The auto-review feature can be turned off. Then all you will get is a much shorter blackout in the EVF due to the shutter. The author must be a Sony rookie.
I shoot some sports with my Sony A-Mount and have no issue with the viewfinder.
"Just turn off the image review" is a standard response. There is a reason when image review is default on shooting series - the blackout time is disturbingly long. Otherwise it would be an idiotic setting.
Thanks DPReview for a real world practical test in an actual sport shooting situation, made by an experienced sports photographer. This is the only way to do a proper AF/action test. Reality beats theory anytime. The result was what I expected.
sh10453: The argument about mirror vs. mirrorless reminds me of the argument about film vs. digital, around the turn of the century, where some had said they'd never ever use digital cameras. Of course they are using digital cameras now. Not too long ago, Kodak's main film manufacturing building was blown up and turned to rubble!!!
It also reminds me of those who played "home mechanics" who said they'll never ever buy a car with fuel injection, and they'd only buy a carburetor-based car so they can tinker with it. Of course they can no longer find cars with carburetors!!!
Personally I see no future for the mirror in digital cameras, especially that the DSLRs are now widely used for professional quality video. Sooner or later, the mirror in DSLRs will join the film and the carburetor!
Progress and advancement in technology will not wait for anyone who decides to remain frozen in time!
Just my 2-cents.
@sh10453"Progress and advancement in technology will not wait for anyone"-Right - as long as we are talking about progress. The fact is that todays mirrorless is not good enough in several key areas to give demanding DSLR users an incitament to switch. "The argument reminds about film vs digital." Well, the first digital cameras was absolutely horrible and those sticking to film then was right. The mirrorless in question here – that dont even have a viewfinder (!) is not a serious alternative to a fully capable camera.
I hope they will stick to their MX/ME roots – making the the most compact FF DSLR with a huge OVF at an affordable price. That would be the niche that is left open for now. And of course full compatibility with K-mount MF lenses and a good MF aid, so it will be possible to use the small SMC Takumar MF jewels.
Another good video review. As for the camera – a solid, no-nonsense camera, as good as APS-C gets with great handling, great AF-C and a much larger OVF than the low end DSLRs.
The portrait is wonderful.
PerL: Personally I doubt that new Sony AF-C system matches even 5 years old prosumer DSLR-technology for true action shooting. I wrote this post about real world-testing results, which generated very little interest.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56316733Since DPReview seems very ambitious in researching the AF-C capabilities (and seems very impressed) with the new Sony, it would be interesting to see a similar test. (I know this article is about low light AF-C, but the above would be the next step in evaluation the AF-C)
JF69No, it is because when DOF is deep in an AF-test (or the target moves sideways but in the same focal plane), the AF is not challenged, so it is not much of a test.