sportyaccordy: They should have
- updated the 17-50 2.8 with VR and weight reducing tech- made this F/4 through the FL range and made it cheaper
or my favorite
- used these resources to make some wide fast DX primes. No way am I gonna pay $700 for an FX prime to use on a DX body when the 35 1.8 DX is $200. They need an 11 2.8, 16 2.0 and 24 1.8 in DX to go with that.
F/4 to F/2.8 is only one stop. And that would make the lens smaller and cheaper.
PhotonCanvas: I am sure I am in the minority and will get a bath but... I still prefer Canon images to Sony's and I have both cameras. As far as focusing... action photographers need all the help they can get, others not so much.
Even though it's clear you are scared/jealous, you do make a good point. Different companies have different JPEG engines, and Sony's is not the best. Their RAW is also compressed which is the worst. However, both can be helped or fixed in firmware. Your Canon cannot get IBIS, mount and use AF on lenses from other mounts, increase its AF coverage or eliminate its front/back focus inaccuracies with a firmware update. I would rather have the camera with software issues than hardware issues.
Wild Light: OK so you get useless pics of sharp noses and mouths but with soft eyes with 3rd party lenses and I bet the eye detect focusses on the eye you don't want too as well.
I'll take manual focus please.
Lmao sour grapes much?
They should have
I don't see what the problem is. It looks competitive at the minimum and slightly more saturated RAW (which is a plus IMO). Can't see EXIF values here- how do the exposures compare? What lens did they use?
My big question is if the third party AF speed can be updated through firmware to older A7 bodies. Obviously they won't have the OSPDAF, but if they can get CDAF up to native body speed that could be a game changer.
I'm also curious about third party EF lenses through adapters... will that new Yongnuo 35/2 work? What about Sigma's zooms and primes? This can be a real gamechanger.
sportyaccordy: FE MOUNT PLEASE!!!!!
No it wouldn't. They could keep the lens as is and just change the mount and connections.
FE MOUNT PLEASE!!!!!
exapixel: Mirrorless, schmirrorless. I don't care if it has mirrors or not. Can you look at a large fine art print and tell me the price of the camera, its weight, and whether or not there were mirrors involved?
The image is all that matters. If I put an A7Rii on a solid tripod and shoot a landscape through a good lens with proper technique, process the raw output, and print carefully, will I get better results than I would with any other small format camera? That's really the only question in my mind when I read a review. If it turns out to be true, then it's upgrade time.
So I don't care about 4K video or the design points, like back-side illumination, that enable it. I don't care about weight, boxiness, price, image stabilization, or autofocus speed. I do care about bit depth, losslessness, dynamic range, shutter shock, "raw" artifacts, sensor reflections, and the "star eater" bug. I'm eager to read a real review for actual photography.
@exapixel I don't know man. As awful as it was in low light, the more I look at old pics, the more I see... my old D40 pretty much washed my NEX-C3 in good light... especially with a nice prime. I kind of miss it.
Mark Alan Thomas: Battery Life (CIPA): 290
Then go buy a Nikon or Pentax. I'd personally rather just buy a grip or carry some extra batteries. All the battery life in the world can't make up for IBIS, 4K and PDAF with third party adapters.
Get a grip ;-)
This almost reads like an April Fools joke. Spec wise, aside from teh goofy USB 2.0 ports they pretty much nailed everything. No matter for me, this will hopefully just push A7Rs down through the $1K floor.
Nice. Hopefully the IIIs get even cheaper.
zsedcft: 4k for 5 minutes seems strange. Do you think it was because of heat issues or because they wanted to deliberately limit it to avoid eating into rx10 ii sales?
Definitely heat. That's probably the main hurdle with 4K at the moment. I would bet there is a significant cool down time too.
Michael Uschold: I sure wish this would spawn the development of a wider seletion of affordable E-Mount lenses for NEX cameras. There are plenty of FE mount lenses coming on line, but their size and weight defeats the purpose of having small light camera.
I wouldn't freak yet. Just A Photographer is right about Sony's camera ADD, but as the new 28/2 shows an FE lens can be just as light and small as an E mount lens.
The only E mount lenses that still need development are WA/UWA primes and zooms. A non CZ 24/2, 16/2. 12/2-2.8 and a cheaper replacement for the 10-18/4 would be enough. There's no need for APS-C only lenses above 35mm IMO.
BartA: I was quite impressed with A7II until closer examination and reading reviews all over the net. For lightweight 24MP and better rated IQ why not a Nikon D5500? It's actualy lighter, focuses better and beats Sony A7II in several areas. See DxO Mark's sensor ratings. Not to mention other than a few good looking primes I see only one zoom anyone who matters rates well (16-35 f/4) As a travel shooter zooms are my sweet spot.JMTCW
Yes, sorry I meant same depth of field, which would translate to the same exact photo and a 1.2 f stop disadvantage for the FX body. If thin DoF is OK than FX has the advantage, but sometimes you need *depth* of field, which evens things out and is not an uncommon situation. For example sometimes if my dogs are laying out I will try and get them both in focus in the shot. That requires me to go out as far as F/5.6 on APS-C, or F/8 on FF.
I cant view Imgur where I am now, but from what I see:
Color depth: A7DR: D5500Low light ISO: as I said, normalize for sensor area- an FX camera at the same F stop and ISO will need 1.2 stops longer shutter speed to maintain exposure. So you have to divide the FX ISO by that 1.2 stops for a fair comparison, which is a huge gripe I have with DxO. When you do that, the A7II is ISO1065 vs the D5500's ISO1438. So again advantage D5500.
But like I said, for general shooting Nikon's DX lens selection sucks. I like a fast 35mm equivalent, fast 50mm equivalent, an ultra-wide zoom and a tele zoom. Sony has all four for DX and FX. Nikon doesn't have a fast DX 35mm (24mm), which would be my indoor workhorse. And their DX UWA zooms cost the same as Sony's faster 16-35. So its not cut and dry. If Nikon came out with some "Canon STM" style/price fast wide primes Id prob go back, but they show no indication of doing so.
I dont like that they used "sales value" rather than "units"
A combo of both would be very telling. The market is shifting up, which bodes poorly for the average enthusiast.
Well, for starters, crap wide prime selection, with nothing on the horizon. Limited to Nikon F lenses only. No IBIS, no weathersealing. Slower sync speed, no battery grip option (though you will need a grip for the A7II to hang with the D5500). Etc. etc.
When you normalize for sensor area, the D5500 is superior in IQ. But as Canon's dominance shows, people would rather go for a better system, which includes lens selection, than just raw IQ. People shoot more than MTF-50 charts and test scenes...
sportyaccordy: If this is anything like the 20MP camera in my Z3, pass on it. The JPGs out of it are smeary, flat and just generally awful, and it doesn't do RAW. Even if it did, it wouldn't be worth the time spent processing files. I think the big issue is the lens. If they haven't fixed that it's DOA. The phone is excellent otherwise but the camera was a huge let down.
That's a real shame, and provides some insight into how complicated digital cameras actually are. In any case, if I'm out with my wife and we need to snap a photo with our phones I always reach for her Iphone 6. A real missed opportunity here.