Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.
Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.
I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).
By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.
42mp isnt enough? LOL. 42mp will outresolve nearly every FF lens made. If you need more resolution in a tangible way with bayer filtered sensors, you need to go to a larger format. The 5DS still not MF quality, and 35mm format will never catch up or equal MF. Feel free to disagree. BTW, I read your comment that you bought a 645. To be fair the resolution difference between 42mp and 50mp is pretty darn small. Like negligible really. I doubt the 10% difference is going to even be noticeable in real world use and in prints. I thought your original comment was a sarcastic joke or a troll to be honest.
I'm here to collect your troll card. Its time to turn it in.
zos xavius: This sensor looks like a decent improvement on recent 16mp BSI sensors of late. Less watercolor. Noise doesn't look horrible at 400 like the older sensors either. Its not fantastic or anything and I think a Pentax QS-1 would crush this on IQ, but hey for $175 its not bad at all.
Either way improvement is improvement and it is most welcome.
This sensor looks like a decent improvement on recent 16mp BSI sensors of late. Less watercolor. Noise doesn't look horrible at 400 like the older sensors either. Its not fantastic or anything and I think a Pentax QS-1 would crush this on IQ, but hey for $175 its not bad at all.
SwissRapha: HowaboutRAW, I think you are wrong here. Besides light transmission (T-stop), the lens does not impact the shot noise. How could it? A better lens can not magically improve the shot noise of the incident light. Similarly, a bad lens (with the same T-stop) does not add shot noise.
BTW, what do you mean with a 'better lens'?
Howaboutraw: Do you even know what tstop is? Two different lenses rarely have identical Tstops. So, one lens is letting in more light than the other one. I have cheap primes with fast tstops that will crush newer, more expensive lenses on speed. What you are saying is fundamentally correct, but do you really know why? I guess myself and the other commenter were looking for you to clarify your statement somewhat. Fstop isn't the same as Tstop. Tstop is the real value of light transmitted. Fstop is determined by a mathematical formula. The two are not the same.
What you are claiming makes no sense. Two different lenses with identical t-stops should produce identical results at the same exposure settings. Prove me wrong.
And you are accounting for the differences in tstop? Tstop is absolute!
The "astounding" difference is merely the difference in tstops. A lens does not increase noise on any way. If they are both transmitting the same amount of light, shot noise will be identical.
audiobomber: Hopefully the K-3 II review will be written by Dan Bracaglia and Rishi Sanyal. They did a great job on the A77 II review, especially the focus testing. The K-3 was sabotaged by all the wrong settings for the AF-C test.
Z-axis tracking is weak from my own testing. I don't think its predictive enough coupled with lenses that can be slow to focus. Ricoh knows full well that lens focusing speed is something they need to work on and from what I understand their two newer FF lenses are reasonably fast at focusing. I agree that AF hold does make a difference with tracking and improves it a bit, but turning it on the max should be detrimental to z-axis tracking as the AF is trying to hold at a particular distance. I find the selective mode works best where you select a point for continuous to start from and let it track from there. It is vastly improved over the K-5 IIs for sure, but they have some serious work to do when it comes to tracking. For single shot AF, I find their system more than perfectly adequate and am continually shocked at how it will focus in light that is too dim to even get an adequate image out of.
rrccad: okay. so if I'm shooting static scenes. why do I need pixel shifting, since I can usually keep the ISO low, and increase the shutter speed anyways, since you're a) already using tripod (have to for pixel shifting) b) taking images of static scenes.
at least with Olympus - you can see the benefit for product photography, this though outside of reviews .. I'm at a loss to when I'd actually use it and need it.
should be interesting to see all the people in here SCREAMING in mortal agony over the lack of a flash, wifi, articulating screen,etc,etc... especially after all the ranting over the 7DII not having it ;)
@jonathan lee: what makes you think they aren't secretly working on a mirrorless solution? These things don't happen overnight. Clearly they are focusing on the FF and 645 right now. I imagine some kind of innovative mirrorless system is in the works to replace the GXR.
rsf3127: this and the 20-40mm 2.8 lens is all I need.
I have one. It is all you need. Unless you need reach at least lol.
Thank you for the coverage dpreview!
Whoops. Didn't realize these are auto leveling as well. I rescind my previous comment. Wish you could delete things here.
brendon1000: A pretty good review and I agree that I feel the weight of the A7 II is a bit heavy. Was pretty happy with the weight of my A7 which I feel is ideal for a mirrorless camera.
Even I am clueless why Sony went from those lovely dials on the A7 to the crappy ones on the A7 II. Why Sony why ????
One area I don't agree on is the high ISO performance. The low pass filter on the A7 II is pretty weak and your own comparison tool shows that at high ISO the A7 II files are sharper than the D750 and I even downloaded both files to compare and honestly its a tie for me upto ISO 12800.
I shoot with IBIS on all the time on a tripod on a k-3 with a smaller pixel pitch than an a7. It doesn't reduce sharpness on a stable tripod. At least on longer exposures. I've actually used IBIS to to help compensate for long exposures on moving bridges before and it did indeed make a difference. Without IBIS I wasn't able to get one sharp image. With IBIS on and minimal bridge movement I was able to get a pixel sharp exposure after a few attempts.
aris14: 25 years ago our photographer lost (or it was stolen) all his equipment in the airport along with his travel bag. A motorcycle expo had to be covered for our mag. The only camera left was a compact (Canon or Minolta I can't remember). So editor and photographer went to the press day with that "little monster", did whatever they could and returned with some 20 rolls of film. To our surprise their job was great. We slightly changed our concept of presentation due to lack of some poses we had in mind and the "little monster" could not cope and OK.What I am saying is that photography in every aspect has traveled a long way since then.
The best camera is always the one that is in your hand.
Richard Murdey: And most important of all: why is the accent ring green? I thought the "HD" lenses wore red nowadays ...
Its possible they might still reserve the red rings for limiteds. Their limited line was completely revamped with red rings, so to go back would be kind of silly at this point. The 55-300 has a red ring too. I have one.
Mescalamba: Hm.. interesting choice of color for that seal. Exactly same as in Sony lens.
That's funny because it is the same color they have always used long before sony started producing weather sealed lenses.
Frank C.: the mighty Sony a9 /w 50M+ sensor will smack the Canon down and all the time and effort would have been for naught, shame really.
@vignes: This camera is going to be of interest to landscape photographers I would imagine primarily. Its hard to deny the power the sony sensors have in their ability to push shadows with very little noise. For night photography this has really transformed what I can capture without all the problems that HDR brings to that sort of long exposure photography. I can underexpose slightly to help preserve highlights and then push the shadows all over the place without any real penalty. At iso 100 I have to go 4 stops before I really get to unusable noise. Even at 400 I have lots of latitude. The real problem is of course highlights. If you can preserve them and push shadows it gives you a lot to work with versus having to choose one or the other. And yeah, ISO 100 is a very practical application for a lot of people. Anyone that does serious landscaping will be at or close to base ISO and on a tripod. DR matters to us.
Mssimo: 50mp sensor should need an amazing lens (at around f4 due to diffraction at that pixel size). This sensor will redefine what a L lens should be. My guess is that many lens replacements will be coming. Zeiss otus will pull away from sigma 50mm also. Both of them were close at 36mp, but at 50MP, you will see why the Otus is 4 times more money.
I wish sony would make a full frame sensor based on a scaled up version of the 20MP RX100. Can you imagine a 150MP BSI full frame sensor?
If you are only getting 12mp of detail from f11 on full frame its time to finally upgrade that quantaray. My 24mp aps-c K-3 shows significantly more resolving power at F11 than my 16mp K-5 IIs does. At the very least there are gains to be had in just out resolving a lens anyways. Elimination of moire is one for starters.
More DR = better images. Some people seem to forget that. I guess they are just used to using ancient sensor technology. Bracket much? ;)