UPDATED: Real-world samples: Sony Alpha 7 II in Kauai

Yes Nico, that is close but a real world 3D subject shot on 5EV under and recover with ACR to see the colour reproduction will be good. This is what testing is all about. Do a large print and see the ultimate results. Not just snap shot and shown on a computer screen. I doubt DP Review will do testing seriously and if they do many camera will not be able to sell then. Well I think it will remain amateur in their testing.

"I doubt DP Review will do testing seriously ..."
Well your are a bit hard on this one. I do not know many sites that publish such detailed and standardized review as DPReview. And since our internet browsers do not handle well "large print", the next step would be to rent the camera and test it for your needs ;)

Alex, these posts may also be of interest:
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=8365
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=8382

No Junk, it is not a sarcasm. I mean it. I had to add a smile to a text so rough.
Cheers!

ok, it's been 2 years since the first a7, sorry, the time ticks faster than I first thougt... O:)

This sensor is similar to Sony's sensor on D600, D610 and D750. I think it'S great sensor generation, have to check ISO-invariance tonight.

Sony is creating awesome sensors actually, in fact I suspect there are the best of their crown actually, there are many incredibly popular model that use them.

DCPhotography, you are trying to "teach" me something but cannot see the full-size JPEGs?

I'm not sold on the idea that it's because of jpeg engine. Maybe they should test with a better lens?

"Original (6000x4000)" is available"

AND how many dpi is your monitor? Hmmm? You said yourself you don't have a good monitor, which means you either have to have your app compress the file to fit the screen, or pixel peep.

Again. You cannot judge image quality based on your computer screen. And... Are you opening the (downloaded?) image in a browser, or Photoshop?

Allow me to be the first to offer you that break.
I will come back to you in a timley manner when the break is over. Until then, enjoy your break.

Let's give him the break he so urgently needs...

These images are to demonstrate the capabilities of the camera, not the photographer.

As such, I suggest you pay attention to things like the cave shots which demonstrate the extreme lighting range from deep shadows to bright sky and how the camera is capable of capturing details throughout that range without blowing out the sky or losing the interior of the cave in total darkness.

At 20x30 not much difference, especially if you process in same way and use color passport. Will be difficult to pick which is which even with close inspection

Having read Ming's review of the A7ii I don't think your comment accurately reflects Ming's much more nuanced comments comparing the files from the two cameras. My reading of his review is that at base ISO the 750 has real advantages in dynamic range manipulation of files (1-1.5 stops). He also feels the A7ii has more "bite" in its files. As ISO goes up the 750 has noise advantages but the A7ii's IS mitigates those advantages as shooting can be done at lower ISOs. He finishes by saying that due to his shaky hands he thinks the A7ii is likely the better call. That Ming might have shaky hands is amazing to me given his images are so sharp. Anyone wanting to get a better sense of the quality of A7ii images should look at his images (true for any camera).

I have to agree with David V, these samples are unimpressive. My Fuji X-E2 takes better pictures than these. Even on a 16Mpix C-Trans sensor, the resolution, micro contrast and details are all better.

It is all because of Fuji's superb lenses and excellent JPEG processing.

I did have NEX camera before and I was hoping I can hop on to FF mirroless with the A7II. The only reason for me to get A7II is because of the Contax G2 Zeiss glasses I have. These glasses do not win on resolution or sharpness compared to a modern day glass, but they do have their character and give you the atmosphere the Sony glass didn't.

a l b e r t:

Not sure how you can draw conclusions about this camera based on 15 jpegs.

Many SonyZeiss lenses do have the "magic" look, with lower ISO files.

Right, Fuji X cameras have good jpeg engines, but that's not really the totality of judging camera image quality.

@Dave V - it's not about opinions mate. If you can't tell how good these are, you really don't have an idea of what good images are. "Their lenses do little to exploit..." The lenses are actually quite good and I'd rather have them than their Canon or Nikon counterparts - the rendering, color and overall look is excellent. Go ahead and get one and a 55 1.8 and you'll be hooked.

@stevo, I think if someone is happy enough with his system, we should not give him GAS :))

I like these two lenses a lot 55/1.8 (specially at f/2.8 and beyond) and 16-35/4 on sony A FE. Not overly impressed about other as such, as much.

But 55/1.8 is quite an expensive lens to buy roughly 700£ on amazon.uk. Compare it with Fuji on similar "angle of view" 50mm equivalent i.e. XF 35/1.4 is roughly 400£ and with fuji promo its 300£.

IQ was its a great lens too, you can't complain about it on any thing. You won't see the Dxo review because silly Dxo doesn't know how to test an XTrans sensor, otherwise on SLRGear you will find both very competitive.

Plus:
its smaller 54.9mm x 65.0mm vs 70.5mm x 64.4mm
and lighter 187g vs 281g

You will get the similar trend in other Fuji X system lenses. High build and optical qualities.

I am still not saying which one is better or worse, but definitely not worth considering swapping the systems, specially if you got either Fuji X-T1 or Sony A7ii.

@Naveed - I'm a big Fuji fan actually. If they had an updated X-Pro1 when I was buying my A7, I probably would have gone Fuji.

@stevo you made the right choice mate, enjoy your Sony ..
now I think there is little chance for X-Pro2 .. I think they gonna keep updating X-T*

and I handeled both (not used them as such for any work though) and really like X-T1. The VF is amazing, big and bold!! you may actually like it more than OVF.

But A7 is amazing tool on its own. My only grip is its High ISO performance at ISO800+ is not as promising as Nikon DSLRs, still good enough to satisfy any APSC user.

But could you check it please, here on dpreview studio shot and compare it with Nikon D610 (or any 24MP FF) and tell me if it's only me or there is really at-least 1 stop difference on every ISO beyond 800. And why is that?

@Naveed - I also like the X-T1 a lot. Reminds me of an old Contax. But it's counter to the direction style I wanted. As for the high ISO performance of the A7 - it will look like ISO 100 if you expose properly. But rarely do you have the opportunity to expose that way. I'll bet what you're seeing is poor jpg conversion or something. I rarely can tell a difference between the A7 and my old D600. You mean in the studio comparison in the reviews?

Even if there's no pp, in my A7 I think I can modify the jpg I'll take with maybe 10 different settings. Being the noise reduction, color set, DRO, HDR, etc, etc, etc...

Check the gallery again, we added all RAW conversions plus a variety of additional shots to show ISO and shutter speed variations. PP limited to exposure, WB, and minor color tweaks.

@ Scott - thanks!

Z:

I don't share raws, and of course raw would be very important in this case.

Then if I broke the above rule, I'd still be posting boring test shots, with people in them, and for the reasons of being boring and having unwitting models I'd not share.

You can easily find not great raws from this and other Sony A cameras, albeit lower ISOs help avoid this Sony colour problem.

Z:

Artifacts are not the problem I'm referring to with Sony raws.

Artifacts are somebody else's bailiwick.

iAPX,

Sony A mirrorless cameras have raw colour trouble, could be from the compression. Some parties have argued, sans evidence, that's "impossible".

Whatever the the source of the problem, the moderately high ISO raws look washed out, while the same scene shot with a Nikon with a half decent lens, or an even better Zeiss F mount look much better.

Same problem when using a Sony A6000 with a Sony Zeiss and then shooting the same conditions with a decent Fuji or Samsung APSC body/lens.

I won't be sharing raws.

Z:

That's not how things work.

It's not simply a matter pushing colour back into the files.

Are you not familiar with shooting raw?

I have no idea what S-LOG2 video is? Nor will I bother to search the term.

Duh, you don't have to print the way the raw comes out of the camera. Did you just learn that in 2014?

Z:

I have plenty to say, that you don't follow is not my problem--and you can't make it my problem by your insistence.

"educate"?

I've shot a lot of test Sony raws, and a lot of other raws, and I've only ever seen this problem with Sony raws from the more recent compressed raw cameras.

Your claims aint valid, no matter how much you wish you were correct.

You can try getting say Nikon raws from a decent Nikon body like the Df and the point is real easy to see. (Even easier, if the Df and say Sony A7 raws were shot under the same conditions at the same ISOs.)

meanwhile:

I didn't say anything about skin tones. Way to project.

Try not putting words into my statements.

Zeisschen:

The D800/e is well known to have similar problems at higher ISOs. So that is absolutely the wrong example to cite, and means that don't pay much attention to this problem of washed out colour and Sony A cameras. Try the A7 versus the D610.

What I can't say is if the D800/e and A7R are similar at really low ISOs, assuming Zeiss lenses and the same light.

Zeisschen:

It's really insulting to see my argument changed so.

No, there's a problem with the D800/e, it's widely know that it lacks decent colour above base ISO, and it's similar to the problem with all current Sony full framed DSLRs.

Contrast the D810 to the A7r, and the D810 does NOT have this problem.

Olympus and Fuji, neither suffer from this problem, nor Canon, all three use Sony sensors in raw shooting cameras.. Leica doesn't have this problem, and APSC Leicas use Sony sensors. (Nope, Panasonic doesn't have this problem either.)

Wrap your head around the idea, Sony doesn't handle color well with current Sony raw shooting cameras, and it can't just be fixed in post. It is less of problem for Sony at low low ISOs.

You bend and twist to make up excuses and misdirections from this problem of Sony's.

Sony has a lot to do with why audio CDs sounded awful for years too. I suspect Sony has made a similar mistake with their raw files.

Zeisschen:

"Widely known" from above refers not to a Sony camera. You seem confused on that point.

Links to Sony raws that have bad color from current 2013/2014/2015 Sony cameras. Pick any raw shot above ISO 400 that you want. It's real easy to see.

Yes Z,

the colour problems with current compressed raw Sonys are pretty easy to see.

even some of these Kauai shots, the ones, extracted with ACR have trouble. now this could be an extraction time choice. i've never shot with the A7II outdoors (or on Kauai).

"I didn't say anything about skin tones. Way to project."

You said the tests would have to have people in them to show the problem. Given that things people wear, sit on, use, etc couldn't show the problem (or you could just not have the privacy issue of people) - the skin, hair and eye colour is the only thing left. No projection.

meanwhile,

Not clear that the D800/e has "lossless compression"--but that's semantics.

Yes, there is logic in your point, and indeed there are those in the comments who've claimed "it's impossible for raw compression to cause this problem".

However, given the fact that every other manufacturer using Sony sensors does a better job with colour, and doesn't compress raws, uncompressed raws are the place to start for Sony.

Then the D800/e remains an outlier for Nikon, and the problem went away with the D810.

First comment: Skin tones+people:

Absolutely incorrect, I did NOT say a thing about what the subject had to be to show this problem. You are entirely wrong here about my comments.

I suspect you've confused my comment with so other party's.

meanwhile,

Not clear that the D800/e has "lossless compression"--but that's semantics.

Yes, there is logic in your point, and indeed there are those in the comments who've claimed "it's impossible for raw compression to cause this problem".

However, given the fact that every other manufacturer using Sony sensors does a better job with colour, and doesn't compress raws, uncompressed raws are the place to start for Sony.

Then the D800/e remains an outlier for Nikon, and the problem went away with the D810.

First comment: Skin tones+people:

Absolutely incorrect, I did NOT say a thing about what the subject had to be to show this problem. You are entirely wrong here about my comments. The problem is NOT subject dependent.

I suspect you've confused my comment with some other party's.

It was your comment, if that's not what you meant that's fine.

"Then if I broke the above rule, I'd still be posting boring test shots, with people in them, and for the reasons of being boring and having unwitting models I'd not share."

Wouldn't it be 20 times faster just to post links to the images that you can "easily find not great raws from this and other Sony A cameras"? A picture is worth a 1000 words, after all. I suspect literally far more in this case.

meanwhile,

Still not what I said.

I absolutely never said people are necessary to demonstrate this. This is your addition.

You've really confused the meaning of the above; it very clearly regards not posting images of unwitting models.

So you are wrong, still.

Then, "why not just post links?"

Well obviously one would have to post links to the same shot taken in very similar conditions with say a Nikon instead of the the Sony under examination. And that is next to impossible. (The DPR test scene is not a great example of this failure.)

If I were to share my raws, which I won't for reasons I've made clear many times, the reasons you misinterpreted entirely, I could do that exercise easily.

You've added a meaning to my post, the one you quoted, that is just not in there.

"Still not what I said."

It was quoted verbatim. Eh.

This whole round in circles thing is pointless. You are not prepared to back up anything you say, so it is meaningless.

"And that is next to impossible."
is ever so slightly different to:
"easily find not great raws from this and other Sony A cameras"

meanwhile:

Right, you quoted me accurately.

And then entirely made up a meaning, with added terms, that just isn't there.

It's called projecting your wishes into someone else's point.

Zeisschen:

I stand by my point, and you can go test say a Sony against a Nikon, with the same sensor, any day, well if you can get to a decent gear store. (The A7II against the D610 would be a perfect test in the same lighting.)

Does claiming that I've never handled a Sony camera, let alone the A7II, make you feel more secure. Keep telling yourself that lie, if it makes you feel superior; it's still not true.

Also I've never broadly said "Sony A cameras 'suck'" or said the same of Sony cameras, so that's another lie by you.

Now, I do think the mechanical shutters on Sony A cameras are too loud, and that the colour looks washed out above really low ISOs, even when using very good SonyZeiss lenses. (The A6000 and A77II also have this colour problem.)

Repeating it 10.000 times doesn't show anything. So where is the link? I won't go to a store and make a fool out of myself because of things you might have either made up or read somewhere on the interent that I don't know.

Z:

You don't have to believe, that's fine.

You've already made a bit of fool of yourself.

When you post I'm going to repeat my point. And I don't share my raws. So you'll have to actually handle the gear.

Your repeated misrepresentations about what gear I've handled don't do your reputation any good. It is to say the least bratty.

You read a lot like a Sony A fanboy/gal who likely hasn't used many cameras other than say a single example of a Sony A7--and now I won't believe any gear claims you make for yourself.

okay, I skipped over the "well taken" phrasing.

indeed there are plenty of excellent APSC bodies, and lenses to go with them, well if you don't count Sony Nex APSC lenses.

But higher ISOs and better dynamic range is still easier with FF cameras--even ones compressing raws like this Sony A7II.

"But higher ISOs and better dynamic range is still easier with FF cameras--even ones compressing raws like this Sony A7II."

No doubt. But then those would fall into the "specifics" of each camera, the different things that would, then, make the 'decisive factor' between camera X, Y or Z. Along with handling, focus speed and accuracy, lenses, support and lots of other things.

That is to say: people shouldn't get too hooked up or excited on those 'real-world galleries' here and start praising/bashing the cameras based on what they see here because that represents so little of a camera's true capacity nowadays.

neo_

I don't think anyone is bashing the camera because of these less than exciting jpegs. (Though I certainly remember Pana LX100 bashing going on because of less than good jpegs.)

The camera is well liked as are many of the native lenses.

@HowaboutRAW - Well, there are some posts here ditching the image quality of the A7II.
(TBH, I find them a bit "too digital" for my taste. But that's me pixel peeping. I wouldn't mind getting an A7II if someone wanted to give one to me :D)

@ Rinkos: " i doubt a person is buying a dslr based on that ." You almost answered your initial question with this quote.

Exactly what I said: since image quality has been getting "good enough", people won't (or SHOULDN'T) by a camera based on image quality alone. They'll consider a lot of other things, which would include 'worst case scenarios'.

But there's a catch here: I'd guess that a lot of people would buy a camera expecting a 'worst case scenario' and never actually get into one....

rinkos:

The A6000, a capable camera, even with Sony compressed raws too. But horrid native APSC Sony Nex lenses, yes I realize the FE lenses work too.

There's one point with Fuji: their JPEG are top-notch usually (could say that for Fuji F10 as well for X100s!), and in fact many users seems to shoot JPEG due to the high quality you have directly out-of-camera. And I do it too and was really surprised!

Sony is not as good, but their lenses and moreover awesome sensors deserve quality RAW processing.

What's your issue with the lens? And if possible, point to the pic(s) where the issue can be observed.

So it is out of focus?

Thanks Scott !