Greg Ness: I used both the Sony a7R II and Canon 5DS R extensively for two weeks. I shoot mostly landscape and wildlife, and am a long-time Canon user. I wanted to like the a7R II (with Metabones adapter) so I would have a smaller, high-MP option with my Canon glass (many L lenses including supertelephotos).
After many photos with both cameras, it wasn't even a close: I fell in love the the 5DS R. Yes, the Sony a7R II has some innovative technology and a great sensor, but the Canon 5DS R quality was spectacular too.
The PDAF on the Sony is better than the CDAF on the original a7R, but it was nowhere near what the 5DS R hybrid AF could do with the native Canon glass. Shadow recovery is slightly better on the a7R II, but I was amazed how little difference there was in my real-world processing including some challenging shots.
For my purposes, the 5DSR is a better answer. I am sure for other photographers and for other purposes the Sony a7R II (with native lenses) will also be a good decision.
Ed,403 in 3 hours? A wedding photographer would be overwhelmed by the dozen batteries he had to carry around and change every hour just to make sure a battery didn't die in the middle of something important. My ancient 7D has gone thousands of shots without killing a battery. Certainly the camera has its applications and people will gladly adapt to it should other considerations warrant, but there are some limitations that many won't find acceptable at this price point. Sony always manages to excel in one area and just ruin a camera in another. Always may be an exaggeration, but I used own Sony cameras and one day had to cut my losses. They may understand technology but they don't understand photographers.
It is constantly surprising how someone can claim the other side is complacent, sheep-like, and ill-informed while displaying exactly those same characteristics in the basis for their own opinion. photomedium is a great example of that. Statements that display a gross misunderstanding of how priorities change from situation to situation and person to person while simultaneously dismissing true leaps in technology simply because the single variable out of several, the only one receiving laser focus, isn't up to whatever arbitrary standard he considers acceptable. Killer AF dismissed as "good enough", class-leading sensor resolution and pixel density is just "lotsa MPs", and a full frame camera with excellent detail and color and, yes, even very good DR is "APSC performance" and no "money into R&D." FF chips with 50MP just spring forth, pre-formed, from nothing and walk into a camera of their own accord. You can't simply not like something, it has to be garbage. No balance or thought.
garyknrd: Good I hope it hurts Canon's bottom line so they will update there sensors or change to Sony. Interesting days are a coming. Cannot wait to see what the new Canon updates will bring.
Am I? I should check my resume more often.
Pay no attention to anything other than the sensor. I overheard someone just today attribute all the skill of a great photographer to his camera, so as long as the sensor is the best in all regards then the system and the photographer don't matter. I think that sums up what everyone is getting at here.
Steel, constantly improving their optics and lens technologies (IS, STM, lens coatings and geometries) not to mention improving performance of bodies, adding touchscreens that are actually useful....yeah, I think they are concentrating on releasing products that pull in those who see the camera holistically, and I also have no doubt their sensor R&D department is hard at work. Canon makes deliberate steps, whereas Sony cranks stuff out with fatal flaws as many have already and continue to report. That's not to say they don't have some hits or they aren't usable, but they have a different strategy for conquering markets. Relying on Canon for good glass doesn't sound like a great strategy, but that's kind of their game right now. Like I said, sometimes things don't all happen at once so I don't blame them exactly.
Producing a cheap, poorly executed, rapidly changing, gimmicky, and generally lousy product was the result of Kodak's primary push into digital. Yeah, they came out with some new DSLR bodies that weren't bad, but they neglected the consumer market entirely with poor optics, poor sensors, poor build quality, and all being sold as easy so as not to scare off people starting off in the digital imaging wonder land. It backfired because it was flawed from conception. Do you think DP PDAF was unimportant with no future implications? Don't think Canon is still working on new things? I just don't see the DR issue the way many do because I personally haven't been amazed enough by anything new to invest more money in camera bodies. Nothing Canon or Sony has done creates enough gear lust within me to overwhelm my interest in actual photography. I think most people buying expensive gear feel the same way and Canon is still doing fine in the consumer market by a pretty large margin.
Do you really think it does anything to improve competition to have Sony make all the imaging sensors. Canon is the reason Sony was motivated to stop making horrible cameras with horrible sensors, and now they're being motivated to not screw up their RAW files by extending their tendency to overprocess images to those as well. Canon has pushed every aspect of sensor development despite that not happening in every area with every new advance. They push one area, then push another, then another, and shortsighted people can only be unhappy that finally there is another brand that chose the area Canon couldn't concentrate on at the moment. Short attention spans prevail.
Frank_BR: "What difference does this make?"-----------------------------------------
Well, the difference I see is that the ARTIFACTS in left photo appears as NOISE in the right picture. What was the gain? Is it more a case where "six of one was traded for half a dozen of the other"?
Many people want passionately lossless RAW. They like to say they don't want to discard any information. Perhaps they forget that noise is not information. What a good lossy compression tries to do is to discard irrelevant information. What can be good in many cases.
To me it is clear that a better RAW converter which does not produce visible artifacts is perfectly possible to implement. Technically, this kind of "fix" would be better because the RAW files would remain small as they are now. Besides, the new RAW converter could be used to convert photos already taken including with discontinued camera models. Finally, the photographer would not have to worry about deciding between several RAW format options.
Sony raw files have always looked processed. Now we know why. Common knowledge and topic of conversation for about a decade.
Random pattern noise contains more information than artifacts generated from that noise. Frank, you simply don't get it: loss in compression is absolutely unnecessary. It saves nothing, destroys actual data along with the random noise and by doing so represents that S/N as false data. Zero need for all that. An image always contains noise. By your logic any digital image contains zero information because it lacks absolute fidelity. What a lame reach.
Boissez: The amount of bickering about the iPhones and their specs borders on the fanatic.
Apples rarely flaunts their specs around, and by the end of the day that's hardly what matters in a smartphone anyway. You can't spec your way to a good user experience.
And people also seem to forget that the supposedly lowly specced iPhone 6 actually outperformed any of the other flagships from 2014: http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles
There are plenty of expensive androids. I hope one day you hear yourself speak and realize how foolish you sound.
smokinman88: Yet another uninspiring iphone that is at least 1-2 years behind the competition. Since I use Apple for my home PC's I was hoping for than another "S" series. Maybe one day they will have a phone that is worthy of competing with the Androids.
So I guess only ignorant people use iOS and condescending jerks use Android: choose your camp.
blurredvision: 4k video and higher resolution on pictures, yet they still insist on making an intro 16GB model that is likely to have around only 12GB of usable space. Are there any other flagship phones in this day and age doing anything less than 32GB?
Yeah, I'm aware. Are you aware that everyone is pushing subscription based software and cloud services like they're the solutions to all of your problems? Did you notice that Apple dropped the price of its cloud service, with some pretty large amounts of data available?
Wow Frank, you really are a grumpy old man. It's a phone that nobody is required to buy. It's extremely well made despite Apple shamelessly trying to sell services and gather up user data (all products do this now) and if you keep it for a few years it's not a total waste of money although most people go for the marketing and upgrade every five minutes. It's an expensive piece of hardware and they get to charge whatever people will pay.
Create: All the Canon and Nikon fanboy neurotics are at it again, 4 Sony cameras in the top ten, and yeah i know about clicks.
Top ten what? Please don't cite Amazon rankings as some sort of scientific number. Just don't do it.
LOL...the term "Androids" covers the gamut from garbage to bleeding edge. You've got no benchmark tests and you've already decided what it will do based on specs, but it's funny how specs never seem to amount to much when the reviewers put new iPhones through their paces. They are consistently ahead of current market leading Android devices upon release, and if you're talking about inane screens with 600ppi then....well, you can have it and the associated loss of performance and battery life required to feed those things.
The cloud. They want you to store everything on the cloud. Download your own content from the cloud.
Kivivuori: They are still far behind Nokia PureView 808 and Lumia 1020 ;)
There are a lot of things they are far behind on, but since it's a phone and not a camera, tablet, digital music player, gaming console, etc. they simply have to strike a balance. They could make a phone with a mind blowing camera on it but it would cost a lot, probably be too big, and only photographers would buy it. We've seen those phones before and they bomb. Considering that this is a phone I think getting a decent camera is all one can hope for as long as everything else about it is satisfactory.
photomedium: Canon is beginning to look like the proverbial over grown pet crocodile in the bathtub, trying to do more of the only thing they can do.
photo,Matching the same pixel density on FF as the APS-C 7DII isn't participating in a MP race or war or anything. Nikon/Sony was lauded for the 36MP sensor, some even wondered why Canon was so conservative with the 7DII sensor pixel count...in the end, detail resolving power does actually matter and they've shown the lenses can keep up. And Canon doesn't have to worry about anything gathering dust in warehouses...check their sales numbers.Canon is not showing any signs of slowing down. Because you choose to ignore one thing because the hype is all around another thing simply indicates myopic vision. 36MP from Nikon/Sony was great and the 50MP from Canon is actually demonstrably better whether or not that benefits you or not. The same can be said for DR...more is better, but how it benefits any given photographer depends on their needs. And, by the way, those aren't the only two factors when choosing a camera. Remember?
Paul, people hear an announcement from Canon, assume consumer digital cameras is all they do, and draw the wrong conclusions. If they release a piece of medical equipment or an industrial part everyone starts saying Canon must be going out of the consumer business because they are so desperate for money they have to sell to manufacturing, research, scientific, and medical facilities. As it turns out Canon has been doing brisk consumer and institutional sales for a very long time. What's really happening is the bias of the narrow minded tech junkies here is beginning to become glaringly obvious, and all this despite these people being one internet search away from not sounding ignorant.
RichRMA: Roughly 2x the resolution of the current 50mp FF sensor.
If you're using the same lenses then either the pixel density or the lens is the limiting factor to detail resolution. A cell phone sensor uses a tiny sensor, tiny lens, and has pathetic detail resolution because of it. Anyway, this discussion is rather pointless.