The noise control on this beast is just unbelievable. "What noise?"
Can anyone say "bargain?"
As others have mentioned, a bottle of water would make more sense.
RomanC: Dear Dpreview team,
I have to decide if I will buy a A7 II or a A7 S. For wedding photography I currently use an old Sony R-1 (don't laugh!). It was always possible to work with it without a flash in the church if it was bright enough outside, I don't like flash lights, especially at wedding ceremonies. And: I love this camera because it's shutter is nearly unnoticeable, so can work without attracting attention.
Now I want tu upgrade to a full-format Camera. I read that the A7 S has an (activatable) electronic shutter which makes it possible to take photos without any noise. What's about the A7 II? I could not find any information if this 'noiseless mode' is also available on this model.
"Please do go and tell JR to stop using canon DSLR (http://www.jr-art.net/projects/face-2-face), or Yuri YASUDA to stop using that DSLR in the studio, or McNally from printing books made from his Nikon D4(s) cameras because they are crap for pulling in quality."
Likewise, please tell Gregory Heisler that he wasted a lot of money on his medium format and larger systems. I love how people read comments and interpret to their own liking. My entire premises was about MP and detail. Never once did I say I shoot with MF and can't live without it. I have peers who shoot product and cosmetic photography with MF, is all. Those 54MP bodies exist for a reason. Some people don't need it, fine. Some people do, are they fools for that? To each his own.
tabloid: Tools of the Trade.
A photographer went to a socialite party in New York.As he entered the front door, the host said "I love your pictures….they're wonderful, you must have a fantastic camera".He said nothing until dinner was finished, then he said "That was a wonderful dinner, you must have a terrific stove".
The moral of the story is obvious.So to all the people who are going to 'knock' Dp and every camera that they test….remember, good photography is down to you, and not the camera.
"Then again the best IQ could be with just a smartphone or 1" camera. It just depends on the situation."
I apologize for being unable to see how that is possible, unless there is no other camera within a mile. :)
@poss, please read my response to dakutum. Different tools for different jobs, the more the merrier (up to a point). I agree that picking good high ISO over MP is wise, but we're talking about high-level equipment here so usually we have both. As you said, somewhat grainier. When shooting models for cosmetics, every bit of detail counts.
@dukatum, I'm not saying I have trouble shooting at 12MP at all. Nor am I disrespecting anyone who differs in opinion. My point is that there's a reason for medium format. 12MP is fine up to a point, but higher MP is there for a reason, no?
I come from the original 10D so I've had my fair share of experience with lower MP, believe me. And I'm all for the "it's about the story, not the image" stuff. Still, there is a need for higher res in certain applications. Photos of the kids' soccer game certainly doesn't need 18MP or 22MP, but when for a big swimsuit or fashion shoot, c'mon, let's be realistic, we need all the detail we can get.
BTW, please do not misconstrue my original message. I did not say that one NEEDS medium format. I take portraits with my 1Ds3 and 5D3 and appreciate the difference over the older 12MP bodies.
And please do tell those who use medium format that they've wasted their money because DSLRs can do exactly the same thing.
Digital Imaging Technician: I bought the A7 when it came out. It's nice to see the system evolve. But to take pictures with a ILC you need lenses. And Sony, unlike Fujifilm, does not seem to understand this at all.
Give me reasonably fast primes to a descent price. The 35mm 2.8 is too slow and the 35mm 1.4 on their roadmap is too big. How about a 35mm 2.0?
Does Sigma make the 35 f1.4 for Sony mounts? If so, that's a tremendous lens at a very good price.
After seeing the SD14 image, I decided what the heck, let me do a blind test with some clients. Will get back to you. Shot some simple portraits outdoor and on the monitor it's inconclusive. Let's see how the printouts go...
Zorak: 1/80s, 200mm, handheld I presume ?Impressive, as is the picture of the man walking at 12800 iso... I don't think my A7 can put off this result, I'm quite surprised... Have they changed anything on the sensor or internal processing, or is it just my eyes?
@bozilla, yeah, that was exactly my point. IS only stabilizes the camera, not the action. Lots of people think of it backwards.
I'm fairly impressed by the 4.5MP results on my monitor, to be honest.
cheetah43: Fiddling with colours in post-processing is not photography.
@edgar, I can still think of various instances where film forced people to think and preplan better for a shoot. For example, a roll of film forces you to shoot at a certain ISO (ASA) 36 times. That means considering the required shutter speed and aperture, and choosing an ASA that will do that in the settings given. (Walk into an NBA game with ASA100 and prepare to get absolutely nothing.) The shutter/aperture question will also make people think about their topic and theme (sports: 1/1000s f/2.8, scenery: 1/125s f/9, etc.). A lot of people now just shoot in P mode and can't understand why their sports shots are blurry at 1/125s f/9. In film days, serious photog's had no choice but to actually learn this damn stuff if they didn't want to waste a ton of money on film development. Nowadays people just "DELETE" and try again. As miserly beings, we only take things seriously if it hurts our wallet. ;)
By now means am I "defending" the necessity of going through film before shooting digital. I also wouldn't recommend traveling cross-country on a biplane when a 747 is much more comfortable (or a jet, if I could afford it!). Film is the old way and we're past that.
What I advocated was the learning and preparation required to do a good job. The steeper learning curve of film FORCED people to learn in order to save money/cut costs, which made people think about what they were doing. The conveniences afforded by digital makes everyone think they can be great photographers, which I think is similar to fashion magazines making impressionable teenagers think they can look great if they just bought A and ate B and did C. I often have students in photography who know NOTHING about shutter and aperture and ISO. Everything is just in P mode and voila, image appears.
To supplement, I'm not condemning people who snap with phones. Just as I know nothing about watercolor but can doodle if I wish, anyone can take pictures with whatever tool they want. A pleasant pastime should be fun. But if I were to become more dedicated to this craft, more preparation before I begin would help tremendously.
I personally do not understand the "digital allowed me to see what I'm doing" view. Yes the results are immediate which helps, but to say that shooting on film is a bad way to learn would be a disservice to the great masters of the past. There had been great images before digital. One might say that the longer learning curve required by film actually helped force people to learn the basics of exposure and light control.
Nowadays everyone can pick up a phone and snap a pic, but the superb convenience of instant viewing bogs down to a series of trial and error and hope-to-get-lucky. All the stuff on Instagram and Flickr and other photo sites are overwhelmed with poorly-taken images with no regard or even conscience of proper photo technique. Which is fine, since this is all subjective. But if everyone were forced to learn a little bit about the techniques, it would result in a much higher level of imagery.
I respectfully disagree. Fine details like hair and skin detail just don't resolve at 12MP. That's why medium format cameras are used for studio product shots of the highest level. If 12MP or 18MP were enough, there'd be no need for MF, right?
A2 at 12MP is fine for stuff viewed at a distance. For wedding albums viewed up close, it does not meet my needs or the customers' expectations.
As you said, large real estate boards... viewed not from 12 inches away so of course it's not an issue. Especially since no one prints huge billboards at 360ppi.
@Dave, Good for her! And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. But she's definitely in a very tiny minority, agreed? National Geographic's staff photog's wouldn't be able to claim the same method of business survival.
And I note that you know ONE such person, not a whole company who stays profitable that way. I'm sure there are more like her, but in the overall photo industry, I doubt these people make up even 0.5%.
Post production is an integral part of photography. In the film days different masters developed their negatives with different solutions, which is similar to the equivalent to modern-day color adjustment.
While these generalizations are usually inaccurate, let's be honest, the camera has to be somewhat good to achieve good results. Otherwise it's a ton of luck. The greatest cameraman in the world couldn't make the next month's rent if he had to take pictures with his phone. That's why these cameras keep pushing new boundaries, because they can still be better. The guys who covered World Series XII would have killed to have a 70D.
Catalin Stavaru: I really really wanted to like this camera...but when I look at the sample pictures I see the same horrible color rendition that made me sell my Sony cameras. But in this particular gallery it's like the blandest set ever, color-wise. Not one picture makes me say "wow" and this is a full-frame camera. Something is really wrong with Sony, they are simply neglecting this area and then they wonder why people don't budge from Canon and Nikon.
@david loyoza, I love my a7s as well, but I wish they'd move the Record button elsewhere!