fenceSitter: @dpreview editors:
I'm a bit confused about the first page (1. Introduction), where the comparison table contradicts dpreview's own test of the a7 II.
Said test claims that "The body of the a7 II is [...] comprised entirely of magnesium alloy like the a7S", in line with Sony's own product description, to wit: "a top cover, front cover, and internal structure constructed of rigid magnesium alloy"
In the aforementioned table, the a7 II's front plate is said to be made of "Composite" all of a sudden? Is that a mutation, or was Sony defrauding their customers all the time?
I know a lot of both cameras are mag alloy. I thought that the a7 II and a7R II followed the same pattern as the a7 and a7R, with the a7 having a different front plate. I'll check.
cgarrard: Interesting on the actual ISO ratings vs stated ISO ratings by Sony, pretty big drop from what they say it is.
Regardless lots of DR, and a very good performing sensor.
Define 'actual ISO' ;)
aftab: One should compare each camera shadow pushed at base ISO with its 0EV. If you do so it would be pretty evident that even with these so called mind blowing DR cameras one shouldn't push shadows beyond +2EV.Clearly we are far from a reasonably good sensor when it comes to pushing deep shadows.
If you're talking about the Exposure Latitude test, then please note that the pushed shots are made using shorter exposure: meaning that the shot is noisier because it's made of less light (it's [shot noise](http://bit.ly/shotnoise) you're seeing).
MikeDPR: That 16MP sensor spec should not be used for this camera. Tallest photo is 3088 pixels tall (from 4:3) and widest photo is 4480 pixels wide (from 16:9). That makes it only 4480*3088=13.8M pixels for the largest rectangle area that encompasses all aspect ratios options. I think it's fine to say it has 13.8M sensor even though not all of them is used for a given aspect ratio. But to say it has a 16MP sensor is quite misleading.
Not quite, in that the D800 *doesn't* have a medium format sensor in it. By contrast, I have no reason to believe Panasonic hasn't used it's off-the-shelf 16MP Four Thirds sensor.
However, the third paragraph of this review, a diagram and a data table all make clear that you don't get the benefit of that whole sensor, and I don't think we ever repeat the '16MP' claim without qualifying it.
I think that everywhere in this review that we mention 16MP, we make clear that it can't use the whole pixel count. If there's anywhere that's not clear, please let me know and I'll change it.
I agree it would be misleading to say it has a 16MP sensor without qualifying that statement. It may be literally true, but it's academic, since you can't ever use the whole area.
brownie314: Since this camera is not using the full m4/3 sensor - I wonder how close this sensor is in actual area to the 1" sensors. m4/3 was already kind of close in size to 1".
The 4:3 region that this camera uses is around 180mm sq, which is around 50% larger than a 1"-type sensor.
For reference:1"-type = ~116mm sq4/3"-type/Four Thirds = ~224mm sqAPS-C = ~360mm sq
Jonathan Brady: http://www.canonrumors.com/samsung-leaving-the-camera-business/
Just saw this the other day. Giving away inventory to (theoretically) create long-term customers would be an odd move for a company looking to get out of the business.
However, giving away inventory (and creating headlines) that's not selling because you plan to leave the business... That's a write off I'm sure!
@Jonathan Brady: I think that rumour has been debunked. [Samsung says it is not exiting the camera business](http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/23/rumor-busted-samsung-is-not-exiting-the-camera-business-at-least-not-the-on).
stevo23: @ Rishi - Maybe I missed it, but when "std. shutter" is chosen for the A7RII, is that with EFCS, or without?
Shutter shock is being shown in the original a7R. The a7R II was being shot in electronic first curtain, so doesn't exhibit it (though would if you shot with the mechanical shutter).
Yes, the Std Shutter option is Electronic First Curtain. I'll try to make it more clear in the text.
Glenn Barber: Does the EVF use more battery than the LCD or is the presentation of the Battery Life numbers backwards?
The EVF uses more power - that's the case with most (all?) the cameras I can think of.
Cheng Bao: page 4 at least have 2 link error"The bank note also" link to card scene" like the sensor in the Pentax 645Z? " links to D810
Maybe more because I didn't click half of links in that page
Looks like something's playing up. I'll go through them and check.
Thanks for the early heads up on the uncompressed ARW progress. Do you know whether or not the new uncompressed ARW format will require RAW converter updates (Lightroom, ACR, C1, etc ?)
I can't guarantee it in the short term but I'll see if we can work such a test into the review.
ozturert: So Sony still hasn't understood what customers want. Lossless compression should not be that difficult if Canikon can do that. Sony has all the electronics power in the world, why would they not do? Don't tell me "42MP is bla bla bla" because they do not do this even for their 24 and 36MP cameras!But hey, this gives them room for progress for their next camera, right?
Canon and Nikon provide lossless compression using processors and firmware designed from day 1 with that in mind. Just because this is possible doesn't automatically mean it can be sensibly engineered retrospectively.
PVCdroid - it's a close-up image of our dynamic range wedge, so it's not very exciting. These are 100% crops of images that have been pushed a lot in ACR (I'm not sure of the settings, off the top of my head).
The point is that you can push the files even to the point of seeing this much noise without any risk of encountering the oddly-coloured artefacts.
sensibill: @richardbutler Did Sony say which other Sony models, specifically, would get a FW revision to allow this new 'uRAW' - and is it a new ARW rev?
We did ask and were told they can't be more specific, yet.
Kiril Karaatanasov: @DPreview folks can you check if noise performance improves with uncompressed RAW? Thinking through the details and looking at the very tiny example you give I suspect that the compression actually amplifies noise.
Maybe that is the reason that we see Nikon consistently producing lower noise values compared to Sony while using same sensor technology...
We've conducted a fairly in-depth SNR analysis of the two files and found no difference between the two until you get to the very darkest values in the Raw file (and even this difference isn't visually meaningful).
The only difference you should expect to encounter/avoid are the artefacts brought about by the localized stage of the compression.
The images in this article were processed using ACR, without us having to ask Adobe for an update.
roserez: Any word on WHEN lossless raw will be available for the A7R II? I'm not buying until I see it.
Not yet. We'll report it as soon as we hear.
fedway: Is DPR going to update the raw files in the studio comparison tool with the lossless raws? Will it make a difference?
Quite possibly. We'll certainly be looking at what difference it makes.
Glenn Barber: Agreed - we want Compressed Lossless Raw like on Canon and Nikon. WHo thought Uncompressed Raw was what we wanted?
At no point does the press release say that the company has developed a new lossless compression system (which you'd probably mention, if they had).
We've spoken to Sony about this: the options will be uncompressed Raw or the existing (lossy) compressed Raw.