Mssimo: Canon should at least get the "Best camera, if it was still 2008" award.
It is indeed unfair to compare the 5DIII here. Nevertheless if it wasn't for its limited shadow usability it is still a very compelling camera. In another words, I think for a pro user, if the 5DIII had a more competitive sensor, not top notch, just competitive, it would likely be the most desirable camera of the bunch. Which it is impressive for such an aging body. The D750 was partial attempt to match the 5DIII and honestly not as good sensor aside, for a pro use.
I knew this one was going to be trouble. It is virtually impossible pic one camera out of the bunch without a clear mandate of what you are looking for. These cameras are so wildly different that are pretty impossible to compare. Even the price range is so broad. I think It should have been more of what to recommend each of them for. Personally I do have an A7RII and for as much as I love it and it is amazing what you can do with it, it could not possibly be my only body because just not reliable enough. I am sure that of enthusiasts it is perfectly fine, but for a pro some of its glitches are just infuriating and at times cause of missing the critical shot.
GPW: I see nothing in the sample images that I can't do with my Nikon D7200 and a Nikon 70-200, and for a fraction of the price.
@martindpr ahah! thank you that is funny :-) I really think I am stating the obvious to be honest. Most of my friends tell me I should work for Canon as that is what I have been shooting for years actually. Maybe I have a great future as a sales rep. My argument is not really about the MP count but about the sensor size. Megapixel count actually plays somewhat a role because Cameras like the A7RII and 5Ds can shoot full and crop maintaining good resolution. Smaller sensor is inferior to larger, period. Especially when you are matching the pixel size so there is no pixel density advantage with the crop sensor. Glad to hear you enjoyed your D2X colours. Too bad that DXO is not on your side for colour depth when comparing it to the A7RII. The Nikon might have good colour straight out of the camera, but I doubt the Sony cannot match or better them with appropriate processing or the proper colour profiles.
Flashback: What I can't figure out is the amount of noise still present at ISO 100.
Check out Image16, well lit on a bright sunny day, but the sky has a slight 'dirty' blue look. Or am I expecting too much from a 42Mp sensor?
But again if DR is not an issue just expose to the right or at iso 50
@ Rishi Sanyalthank you for the very extensive explanation. I know that this topic has been beaten to death in forums here and also in your articles. I do understand also that dialing down 100 iso will give you the same results and you are basically loosing 1 stop of DR, and having to watch the highlights more closely. From a workflow point of you I find more intuitive and direct to operate at 50 iso rather than overexposing 100 ISO.
If you do not mind cutting out the DR a touch I find that shooting at 50 ISO makes the file pretty much grainless.
Segaman: great camera for some , but prefer a DSLR body with greater control overall
@Thermidor the 650D off centre points are not very good. Your adaptation make sense, but if you have a camera with a more advanced AF points your point does not hold, while the more accepted and reliable method is indeed using off centre focusing points as dcolak pointed out. It is highly unlikely that I am going to nail the focus by reframing my 85/1.2 wide open at headshot distance.
@ Essteeexactly. The A7RII can match and outperform the D7200 with just half of its sensor.
@ Keith Reederwhat do you base your statement on? For how much Canon users love to dismiss DXO Mark did you try to compare low light performance of the 7DII to the A7II. Bring to the table hard evidence and be specific (in other words avoid BS). Note that I own both cameras (7DII and A7RII). It looks like this thread is a photography beginner/troll magnet. Btw you might want to bring more respect to "this thing" that packs most tech than anything else on the market. But obviously you do not know what you are talking about anyway.
@martindpryou cannot reproduce the same effects of a FF with a crop sensor because the perspective/dept is not the same (Comparing the Sammy 16/2 to the Batis 25?). I agree that for a CASUAL observer there is not much difference. But the casual observer will probably shoot with an iPhone anyway. Your comments reflect GPW that indeed if you do not need the FF for your shooting is is fair, however that is untrue if you want to step up he game. Do not forget that the A7RII offers 42MP vs the 24MP of the D7200, which also does not offer the lens compatibility, IBIS 4K etc. Note that at pixel level the A7RII also offers an advantage with slightly larger photodiodes and BSI. Finally, it is quite obvious that you are going to get more chromatic aberration on a FF that on a crop sensor with a full frame lens. Also, many pictures here are shot with extreme wide angles or very fast lenses which are both prone to this and it is easily corrected in post and are not a problem with the camera.
@GPWmost of the images are taken with Zeiss Batis 25mm and 85 mm wide open. Many with the Canon 11-24.Would you be kind and elaborate on how you would get these images with your D7200? Even your 70-200 will not deliver the same sharpness and view angle for what matters to match a FF. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/4. you are borderline troll or straight out cluelessly incompetent.
@GPW,your post was silly once, now you insist? Get educated in the field. I can do that for you but it will cost you ;-)Hint: are you seriously comparing a crop sensor to a FF? Your camera is not even in the same class!
JerryKraut: I would give Sony an innovation award for doing away with the SLR - in principle if not in practice. This particular camera, however, given its high price, does not deserve an award due to its many significant shortcomings. Back to the drawing board, Sony!
@ShammyD I think you should have gotten an A7RII so you ken keep using all your Canon glass. Also, there A7RII and the 5DIII are more complementary.
il_alexk: "a7R II is one of the most talked-about cameras of the last year" ? Nope, it takes a very honourable second place. The most talked-about camera of this, last and all other years is the Pentax FF DSLR!
I am glat to see that now and then there is some really good humour in this forum!
gbdz: But you get a Nikon 810 for that price...or a Canon 5Dr/Ds whatever!No way.
@gbdz why bringing up the A6000? We are talking about the A7RII which works amazingly well with metabones+canon glass.
I can understand that for Nikon users this camera is pointless, unless you need a compact and light body (until metabones does not do the magic with the Nikon glass too). But for Canon users it is a different story, they can really integrate this camera in their gear hardly knowing it is Sony ant not Canon.
Userta: Impressive gadget with all the specifications and capabilities. When one is just looking for the final output i.e., the "feel" of the image, A7R has its virtues: the photo samples are techincally quite superior, but for me carry still a very digital look. Inspite of the improved jpeg-engine and FF output, it doesn't even come close to the ethos and "feel" of Fuji jpegs. I appreciate the Fuji jpegs even more, when i see the other's samples.Just my 2 cents.
why would you buy such a camera and shoot jpg?
martin001: I'll say it one more time - if you are in for high res video, this might be it (I personally consider 4k currently a semi-useless and actually annoying gimmick for any non-commercial usage, but that's me). Next iteration of RX-10 might be even better though :)But if you are into photography, or realize good image is more a function of a lens rather than body holding it, then D750 is much, much better value. Where I live - Switzerland, D750 body costs cca 1500 USD, with 24-120 F4 it costs 2000 USD. This thingie ain't twice as good at photography, that's pretty clear.When you compare current lenses available, SONY is a loser, big time. I was choosing FF setup again, as I did 1 year ago, D750 would still be my choice. The whole system is just better, hands down.
Also, if you shoot tethered, there is no battery issue. I just got a battery grip for the A7RII and it helps hugely when camera size in not an issue. It also takes 2 batteries making its life more reasonable. I strongly recommend the battery grip to everyone owning this camera. It really makes a huge difference especially if you use large non-native glass.
TomHudsonVisual: We found a substantial problem while shooting with the Sony tethered to Capture One.
If we shoot rapidly Capture One freezes and ceases to import the files, and the files are also not written to the card in the camera. The camera can keep shooting but the images are not recorded anywhere.
We think this might be from a bottleneck in the USB (2) transfer. The 50mp Canon 5Dsr will do this too (USO 3), but not as much (i.e. , you can shoot a little faster with the Canon). The image quality is obviously better with the Sony - if the file is recorded.
Perhaps a firmware update will allow the Sony to write to the card and through the USB port simultaneously. Until then, it cannot be shot quickly while tethered, and it will lose files.
Agreed, I shoot tethered with Lightroom and I was surprised that it would not switch to the card.
km25: The sensor is excellent. The camera not very good. If you go to operate a Nikon or Canon, the controls and information is up front. Sony needs to stop coming out with the same old body each time. They need to create a camera to par with the sensor. They have an excellent point and shoot. The RX100 IV, it operates nearly the same as the A7 series. I do not want a great point and shoot.....I want a camera. Bottom line excellent images, poor camera.
@km25 the camera needs work, but it is far better than you think. What do you use your camera for?