Is DP Review going to try to explain the discrepancy between its studio test results and DxO Mark?
Canon informercial from a site sponsored by Canon. No surprises here...
This camera is a RX10-clone disguised to look like something better. The RX-10 has a target audience, but for 4K use I don't see why anyone would choose this Canon over the flexibility of a GH4.
Great for videographers, otherwise I don't see the point of large lenses on m43.
ccclai: Equivalent to F2.8 in full frame?
@Michael L NYC 99: and a full frame sensor allows for faster shutter speeds because you can use higher noise-free ISOs. This is a circular argument.
RubberDials: The review reads like it was written by a Nikon D750 owner and manages to skilfully bury almost all that's good about the A7ii under faint praise and exaggerated weaknesses.
What's funny is no one considering buying the A7ii is going to buy a D750 instead. A7ii buyers are trying to get away from cameras like that.
And if you want to compare them properly the D750 doesn't come off that well at all. Not surprising considering the A7ii is a higher-specced camera. It has a faster shutter, faster flash sync, twice raw buffer size, higher video bit-rate, focus peaking and IBIS as well as all the advantages of a mirrorless.
And where the D750 outperforms the A7ii at high ISO you fail to mention the contribution of the IBIS which you found conferred '2-3.3 stops of 'hand-hold-ability', so any high-ISO advantage is essentially eliminated.
Also the D750 can't shoot any wider than f1.2 either whereas the Sony has a range below f1. It can even shoot the rangefinder only Nikon 35mm f0.95. :)
"Funny because this comment reads like it was written by a Sony fanboy!" - Barney Britton
This reply from an editor lacks class and perfectly illustrates the level DPR has sunk to.
There's something you reviewers are not getting, and that is the target market.
People buy their initial Nikon DX or Canon Rebel. They like the size. But then they learn there's barely any upgrade path. There's only a handful of lenses and most of them suck. Nikon and Canon force them towards a big and heavy full frame DSLR, nothing to do with the original camera size they fell in love with.
That's why the Olympus OM-D and Fuji X-T1 are so popular. You still have a crop sensor, but at least you get a fantastic lens selection.
And now Sony has their own "full frame OMD". And let me tell you this. The A7 II despite its added bulk is still smaller and lighter than my original D5000, my first camera and the camera that made me fall in love with photography. You get full frame performance in a DX-sized package. It is fantastic for most of us.
This is why the A7 series are so successful as well. So many people frustrated with the Canon/Nikon upgrade path now have another great option.
If it had a built-in EVF, I might have been interested. For now, the GM5 does the same but better. And with a better lens selection.
E.J.: Very misleading size comparison. the REAL size difference without making one look much bigger by hanging a bigger lens off of it to mislead the viewer, is not so much of a difference at all. Once you put the same lens on them, which extend past the grip anyway, the difference is essentially insignificant.
@Dan Bracaglia: and I disagree with you. It feels larger due to the larger grip, which is welcome because the old grip was a pain to hold.
If you place both bodies together and look from the bottom you'll see the difference in depth is marginal at best.
The biggest difference is the heft. It is a lot heavier. But at least the wobble mount is gone now.
Here's to hoping the mark III will shave off those 100 grams and bring back the nice dials.
fatdeeman: I can see that the high ISO performance is TECHNICALLY not class leading but I like the way it looks in the sample photos. I found the same thing with images taken with the RX1, the noise has a film like quality to it.
Good sample shots like that remind me that noise is as much of a problem as you let it be. It can be used creatively and will rarely hinder a great photo.
Yes! I find that the optimizations Nikon applies are resulting in a more digital look, despite higher DxO ratings.
I see a similar thing between Olympus and Panasonic, despite identical sensors I find recent Panasonics to look more organic.
Photomino: a silver award for the most advanced mirrorless camera ever made....
@Dan Bracaglia: Nikon D750 uses the same yesterday's sensor and does get a gold award.
naththo: Still struggle to catch up with Nikon again. Nikon still ahead of it!
Whatever people say. In DPR's own studio comparison tool the A7 II looks much better than the D610.
Tonio Loewald: The ISO 2000 shots look awful. For comparison I looked for another recently reviewed camera's sample shots and tried the OM-D EM-5II — which looks better at ISO6400 than the Samsung does at 2000 (and with a smaller sensor).
It's impressive that Samsung is building out its own camera platform from top-to-bottom (sensors, bodies, lenses) — something only Canon and Sony really match — but at least for now they seem to continue to be lagging Sony in sensor tech. (The OM-D is using a Sony sensor AFAIK.)
Olympus is not using the same sensor over and over again. E-M5 and E-P5 use a Sony sensor. EM-1 and EM-5ii use a newer Panasonic sensor.
This newer sensor scores worse on DxO, but is significantly better in real-world use. I would not doubt for a second that this Panasonic sensor is better than the APS-C Samsung.
Lassoni: I'm not really sure I understand how the optics are made, but I get the impression that good resolution lens = heavy (zeiss, sigma) .. so if one wants to get good image quality/high resolution from a lens (better than nikon 50 1.4 or 1.8) , wouldn't it be possible to limit the maximum aperture of a "high resolution" lens to 2.8 ?? This way you could have a lens that weight same as a "lightweight 50", but have notoriously better resolution (for increasingly demanding sensors) ?
Doesn't the lens become a bit lighter when we sacrifice the need for it to be "wide aperture", and in turn become "heavier" when we demand it to have better image quality, and the two cancel each other out? Same weight, 2 stops slower, better image quality due to better optical design?.
As the Loxia lenses prove, you can still have a relatively fast aperture (f/2) and exceptional image quality.
I'd love some more f/2.8 primes from Sony, but I guess there is little market for f/2.8 lenses because most people want bigger, better, faster.
Aur: The way Carl Zeiss gets their MTF performance so high is through their lithography work with ASML. Those lenses need to be within 10 atoms of precision.
The failure of Nikon and Canon to allow carl Zeiss to use autofocus patents, is going to cost them dearly, you don't want Carl Zeiss on your bad side.
That MTF graph is ridiculous, it is literally off the chart, because it's so precise the chart would need to use a logarithmic scale to show any faults. There is nothing from Canon or Nikon that comes close.
The Zeiss-labeled autofocus Sony lenses are designed by Sony engineers and manufactured in Japan. For example the FE 55/1.8 was designed by Naoki Miyagawa.
Zeiss is just licensing the blue badge granted that the Sony-designed lenses meet some quality criteria. Very similar to Panasonic and Leica.
So this has nothing to do with Canon, Nikon and autofocus patents.
bmwzimmer: Hmmm, same size and weight as DSLR lenses, just more expensive. The compact size of the camera and uncomfortable grip requires small light weight lenses to balance well.
@bmwzimmer: Why do people keep repeating this garbage. A7R + this new 35/1.4 is 500 grams lighter than D800 with Nikkor 35/1.4. And the new 35/1.4 is a hell of a lot better.
And if you select f/2 or f/2.8 primes for your A7, like the Loxias, it becomes orders of magnitude smaller than a DSLR.
Sony "releases"? Some of these lenses won't be available until July!
dcolak: My NEX7 paired with SEL 50mm f1.8 or Sigma 60mm gives MUCH BETTER images. Sharper, less CA, nicer colors.
What´s going on here?
And why does high ISO image of FF A7II look no better than those I get from my NEX7?
Isn't FF supposed to be much much better than APS-C?!
Why are you comparing portrait/tele lenses to a wide angle lens? Slap an 85mm Otus on a full frame body and it will make your NEX7 images look like they were taken with a cell phone.
OortCloud: 42mm portrait lens? LOL!
@OortCloud. You seem to be confused. A 42mm micro four thirds lens distorts the same as a 85mm full frame lens. Distortion is result of angle-of-view.
You seem to be of the crowd that thinks that 42mm lenses distort the same across all systems, clueless of the fact that the angle-of-view is created by the triangle of focal length + sensor diagonal.
Images distort because you are too close to you subject. Whether you are using a 42mm on M43 or a 85mm on full frame your distance to the subjectg will be the same.
disraeli demon: Glad to see the μ4/3 lens stable continuing to expand. Before switching to mirrorless, I was using Nikon APS-C and was constantly disappointed by the lack of compact fast primes for that format. Four years on from switching, Nikon does have a 40mm macro for APS-C, but neither they nor Canon offer a 60mm f2 (i know there are "nifty fifties," but that extra 10mm does make a difference). Neither company has anything to match the range of fast wide-angle primes offered by μ4/3... Or Fuji...
I also switched to M43 after using Nikon DX for years. I now complemented it with an A7.
@nerd2: the DX prime selection is abysmal. There's a mediocre 35/1.8. For longer focal lengths you can use the mediocre FX 50/1.4 and the very good 85/1.8 without a problem, true. But there's no solution for a DX-sized 16/1.8 and 24/1.8.
In the meantime for M43 you can choose from 12/2, 14/2.5, 15/1.7, 17/1.8 and 20/1.7 and all of them excellent lenses.
vroger1: One caveat. When I bought the Leica 25mm Summilux some years ago, I already had the 20mm Lumix 1.7. The latter lens is good- the much more expensive Leica branded lens is great. The difference was noticeable even in the sample comparisons by DP Review. Lumix lenses are very good- but Leica branded are probably worth the price difference. VRR
I disagree. I used to own both the 20/1.7 and 25/1.4. After one year I sold the 25/1.4. The rendering is uglier and the boost in sharpness is minimal.
If I'm going to carry a lens as big as the 25/1.4, I'd rather carry my A7 with Loxia 50/2 (which is night and day better). The 20/1.7 however is super compact and delivers in the IQ department.
I'm hoping for more of the same with the 42.5/1.7.