robjons: "It also offers a fully electronic silent shutter."
Then why do we need a mechanical shutter at all?
Uhm, this was about full frame sensors, specifically the A7RII. Show me any large APS-C or FF sensor in a consumer camera that has an electronic shutter that comes close to the speed of a typical focal plane shutter. Thought so.
Second, you're still confusing exposure duration (of every pixel or pixel line) and gap between the first and last pixel (line) being read out.
No, it depends on speed of subject (obviously...), shutterspeed and read out (+reset) speed. The mechanical shutter moves much faster than current electronic shutters. That's the main reason there are limitations for the latter when it comes to moving subjects.
You're confusing shutterspeed (duration of the sensor being exposed) with read out speed+pixel reset. For example, current implementations of electonic shutters require about 1/25s (GM1) to 1/30s to read out the full sensor, while focal plane shutters are typically 7 to 13 times faster(see flash sync).
Movement as seen with a focal plane shutter and a shutterspeed of 1/50s, looks a whole lot different (just blurry) than with a relatively slow electronic shutter at a fast shutterspeed (likely bent/curved moving subjects).
RudivanS: Still 11+7 Bit RAW Compression not 14bit?
It certainly isn't like 11bit jpegs at all, since those wouldn't come close to covering >14EV of dynamic range to begin with (or hold anywhere near the color information). The compression also does not impact skin tones.
Back in the day when the A900/A850 still offered the choice between uncompressed and the current compression scheme, people couldn't point out differences in side by side comparisons. Which is not to say that there aren't any (most notably in extreme dark to light transitions in deep shadows), but it does give a little perspective...
contadorfan: I've been thinking of moving up to FF, and this camera might make me take the leap. Questions:1. The lens adapters -- I could still shoot in MF if the AF doesn't work well with my A lenses, right? I think my A lenses are screw drive, but am not sure.
2. There will be a lag time until the software companies update their products to handle the a7RII -- What will you early buyers use for post processing in the meantime?
MF should still work, you will likely get focus confirmation too, even for screwdriven lenses.
Rolling shutter is an issue when *visible* and that has everything to do with readout speed. When the difference between the first line of pixels being read out and the last line is say, just 1ms, you're not likely going to see any side effects in most pictures, just like with a mechanical shutter, which is rather fast too.
But if that readout (electronic shutter) takes one tenth of a second, you're far more likely to see distortion with faster subjects.
Noise effects have little to do with this, that used to be the result of global shutters (a different beast) on CCD's, since that required extra components and wiring inbetween pixels, at the loss of light gathering capabilities and with the increase of read noise.
Matt: Ok a great camera with some excellent improvements. Two things are troublesome however. First, the lens selection is quite limited. They've put the cart before the horse again and some available are not top of the line. EX) the Zeiss 24-70 f/4. This USD$1k lens underperforms. Second Sony has continued with its disdain for existing customers. Here again their solution is to provide another model vs fixing existing. Case in point the lack of an electronic 1st curtain in ver 1 which could be resolved with a firmware update. I was truly hoping to make a platform switch as I do enjoy shooting with ver 1 but after seeing for myself Sony not holding themselves accountable for existing products + lack of top glass I will not spend anymore money on their products.
AFAIK, electronic first curtain wasn't technically possible on the first revision of the 36MP sensor, also due to slow readout.
The Sony 24-70 F4 has similar measured accutance across the frame overall, as the Canon 24-70 F4 (similar at 24mm, the Sony better at 35-50mm, the Canon better at 70mm).http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-STAR-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Canon-EF-24-70mm-F4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__1253_917_1074_795
BillyBobSenna: I'm still trying to get my head around if this camera will be as good as say a Nikon D750 for action photography? Is the speed of the AF and usability of the EVF going to provide at least equal capability? I know there is still the question of lens availability for action photography however I just want to know if the basic platform has at least equal potential. I have a Sony A6000 and my experience is that it is not an action camera.
For action, the CIPA rating is actually rather misleading, since most of the drain comes from LV intervals between shots (where the sensor is also running, in contrast to DSLR's when using the OVF).That's why some people can get over 1500 on a single charge with A7 cameras... using burst for action shots/getting the moment.
No, subject tracking is available at 5 fps, just like the A7II and A7.
Sdaniella: the fastest throughput from large sensor Sony/Nikon is from Sony's APS-C SLT-A77/II series is (24/25mp x 12fps = ) 288/300 mp/s
the latest FF Nikon D810/A series is only (36/37mp x 5fps = ) 180/185 mp/sunderlapping Nikon D4s (16/17mp x 11fps = ) 176/187 mp/s(given it would be expected shorter/smaller sensor circuitry distances&areas translate into faster rates)
it is odd that Sony would cap its FF 12mp A7s at a very low 5fps ... except it may be unintentional due to NR limitations for its lowest light highest ISO emphasis
it's nice to see a slight jump for Sony FF speeds even if still far behind their APS-C speedsthis new FF Sony A7R II is still only (42/43mp x 5fps = ) 210/215 mp/s
meanwhile:Samsung's APS-C NX-1 throughput speeds remains a mind-boggling lead at (28/31mp x 15fps = ) 420/465 mp/s
Canon's latest FF 5DS/R series throughput speeds are leading at (51/53mp x 5fps = ) 255/265 mp/s
what might Canon fit in its new Cine 5D Mk IV? Max 8fps x 32/33mp? (256/264 mp/s)
In movie mode the A7RII can read out 448MP/s (4K, 1.8X oversampled).
As for not offering 60FPS at 4K, that could also have something to do with doubling the data throughput (and writing to card...) I mentioned above, rather than the read out speed. They say it's 3.5 times faster to read out than the A7R, no idea how many ms that took though.
It will have limitations (rolling shutter effect) for faster moving subjects due to relatively slow sensor readout compared to the duration of a mechanical shutter.
Sam147: RIP Canon Get your act together NikonGoodluck PentaxKickass Sony!
Sony's lens range now effectively includes Canon's.
lensberg: Wish Sony would swipe a few of Canon's or Nikon's engineers... They have amazing technology... but their overall image processing still needs a little catching up to do compared to these two stalwarts...
And with Sony corps money its really shouldn't be a problem...
They mostly caught up to Canon already in terms of jpeg processing (close at high ISO, less smudging of shadows and greens at low ISO) and easily overtook them when it comes to sharpening (Canon still shows ugly halos).
mpgxsvcd: “One of the most impressive features of the a7R II is its autofocus system. 399 phase-detection AF points cover 45% of the frame, which means over 60% coverage in either horizontal or vertical directions in the frame. That gives it more coverage than any full-frame camera out there. And we're told that PDAF will work even with third-party lenses via existing adapters. This is potentially a huge deal - especially for Canon users. “
This should absolutely terrify Canon. I wouldn’t be surprised if they figure out a way to stop this from happening. Maybe a firmware update to prevent their lenses from working with other manufacturer’s bodies. They could hide it under the guise that it improves auto focus speed with their own cameras.
Sony has had great expertise for designing lenses... many years now (partially former Minolta employees and even a former chief Nikon lens designer). All you have to do is look at the A mount glass released many years ago and not just those with Zeiss badges (which were Sony designs too).The 70-400 comes to mind, the cheap 85mm, but also tele lenses such as the 500mm. Then there's the ZA 135mm, ZA 85mm, ZA 50mm...
vincent__l: Interesting engineering approach from Sony. Full frame sensors don't gain as much, for low light performance, from BSI compared to smaller sensors. However, the BSI sensor likely allowed Sony to use much wider (thus faster) metal routing for the pixel interconnect. This greatly improves the readout speed which is important for both video and liveview performance. The faster speed also allowed them to have silent shooting with such a large and high resolution sensor. I'm curious to see the impact on color accuracy due to the BSI approach as there may be some degradation. There may also be an impact to battery life and noise from the higher readout speed. I'm also curious as to what caused the additional weight vs the A7II.
All true but arguably the most can be gained from faster readout in the AF department, both PDAF and CDAF.
Timbukto: I have been busy with work, but sorry DPReview staff, the paraphrasing of the PR is misleading at best, but really from a financial reporting point of view an absolute butchering. The PR states 66% increase in *SALES* for mirrorless. This can be a WORLD of difference from 66% boost of income!
In addition an increase of 16.5% in mirrorless with a decline of 15% in DSLR is not in any way a *SURGE*. Again it requires someone with some financial acumen. Lets say DSLR's sold about 1 million units during a shopping season month last year, and mirrorless sold about 250k. A decline of 15% in DSLRs is pretty horrific, but an increase of 16.5% in MILC is pretty measly as well and indicates still the overall *weakness* of the entire market. I am in no way a CPA or hedge fund manager, but the paraphrasing should be scrapped...at this point, just say here is the Sony PR release and leave it at that. I think Bythom may give a more fair assessment of this PR, but as it is now, its butchered.
Thom has been off quite a few times himself, claiming that the gain in profits for the Sony camera business in 2014 was thanks to the exchange rates effects almost exclusively, because according to him, the currency effects would only really affect the sales side of the equation, not the cost side. When in reality, the majority of Sony's costs (Thailand, Baht, to name an elephant) in that branch, saw the same currency effects.
Cheezr: Barney, since I see you used the 16-55F2.8, how did that lens feel on the camera? does it hang over the bottom? E.g., on my e-m10 a few of the bigger lenses hang over the bottom edge of the camera.
And he digs a bit deeper with the next fallacy as he purposedly omits the fact that you can turn stabilization on or off, to fit the use case at hand:"Basically a camera is better off without IBIS and with lens stabilization systems."
Argument invalid when you still have the choice not to use it on the occasions when battery life is important. Choice beats no choice.
I think you misunderstood my comment, which pointed out the fallacy in the statement from Just a Photographer.
There's a whole lot between something being annoying for missing and something being a requirement for taking good pictures.
Hence why most people here would feel stripping autofocus from a newly released body would be annoying, despite all the good pictures shot in the past and even today, without the use of autofocus. Similarly many feel the same if stabilization is being stripped/missing.
How is it annoying - Photographers have done for over hundred years without autofocus, not to say its not in any Nikon or Canon camera either.
Still people seem to be able to make beautiful and award winning pictures without autofocus.
Um, what's so great about the A7 except that it's smaller than this Canon?
It has washed out colour in raw, and a very very audible mechanical shutter. And with its 24MPs, it has about the high ISO performance of this 50MP Canon. It's good for video though.
And I like using EVFs in lowlight shooting, but the A7S is better for that than the A7.
"WAV files aren't simply different in volume level. So sound reproduction isn't your thing either."We agree on the former, but your reading comprehension (...) caused you to miss the fact that this was exactly the point. Your comparison regarding output colors of 14 bit vs 11+7 bit RAW based on converted jpegs or TIFF's, makes as much sense as comparing volume levels between MP3 and WAVE. None.
"I suggest you look for the base line, mgrum .."As said several times, that is not a base line for your argument because:11 linear bits is not nearly the same as non linear 11+7 (delta modulation from 14 original) bits. At for example 8MP output, the theoretical difference in engineering DR between both is already 3 EV.
"My point remains valid no matter what you claim"If there was any point to begin with. You trying to knit several issues together that have no connection, using invalid sources as a bonus.
"And mgrum doesn't even like the fact that I could easily see the difference."First, that's not what his comments suggest (fallacy #35454), second, you didn't spot his more obvious example of compression differences (conveniently claiming you didn't focus on that one), third, it doesn't prove anything regarding the Sony used compression scheme, see above.