Sam147: RIP Canon Get your act together NikonGoodluck PentaxKickass Sony!
@naththo:That may be the case with the A7, but that's a different revision of the 24MP sensor (using on sensor PDAF which Nikon does not), a bit of an apples vs oranges comparison. The A7R and original D800 are very close in every way, high ISO included. See the studio shots too.
@Shiranai:Get with the times, Sony states and Dpreview (preliminary) confirmed, that autofocus (using PDAF...) is now fast with Canon lenses too, on the face of it similar to shooting that same lens on a native Canon body.
That is a huge improvement. PDAF wasn't possible with non native lenses, except for Sony A mount glass using an SLT adapter (with built in PDAF module).
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...
The question is how relevant pixel level comparisons are at high ISO, since you're likely not going to print either one large: they will both look horrible in that case.True, Sony will show many more artifacts at pixel level at high ISO, but retains much more local contrast (and thus higher contrast detail, fine detail included), where Canon loses a lot of contrast and everything looks covered under a layer of grease. The latter is visible at smaller print sizes too, where the former approach will be less visible. Pick your poison.
At low ISO, Canon really loses out (thick sharpening halos, more smearing).
photosen: Looks very nice. "Canon should expect some cancelled EOS 5DS orders..." and Sony should expect more cancelled lens orders...
...and Zeiss doesn't make the Sony Zeiss lenses, they're made by Sony in Sony factories, with Zeiss approved design (not the same as Zeiss design) and quality control.
Photoman: Is the RAW still 11bit?
No, not 11 bit. 11+7(delta) bits. 11 bits would never allow covering >14 EV of DR for example.
robjons: "It also offers a fully electronic silent shutter."
Then why do we need a mechanical shutter at all?
"Alright, guys, so you ask where is Sony's claim that the full electronic shutter works at decent speed.
Simple. It is included as an option for STILL images."
And the A7S has it for STILL images too. But it's still a relatively slow readout, which causes artifacts with faster subjects and faster shutterspeeds, as also stated in the manual. There is zero indication that this would be different for the A7RII.
Sony nowhere claims the readout speed of the A7RII is anywhere near as fast as you claim it is. You're still confusing shutterspeed and readout (+reset) speed.http://janssico.com/2014/12/x100ts-electronic-shutter-speed-analysis/
Oh good, so you know the A7S has this, but also mentions limitations in its manual (specifically "image distortion"). The same holds true for other cameras, such as the X-T1:"Distortion may be visible in shots of moving subjects.Band-like unevenness may occur in shots taken under fluorescent lights, other flickering or erratic illumination"
Why? Because despite the availability of fast shutterspeeds, the X100T's electronic read out for example was measured to be between 1/10(!) and 1/30shttp://janssico.com/2014/12/x100ts-electronic-shutter-speed-analysis/
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.
Sony's lens range now effectively includes Canon's.
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).