The Sony a7S II looks a lot like its full-frame Alpha mirrorless counterparts, but behind the familiar face are some important new features - namely, the ability to record 4K video internally. Its specifications are tuned to videography with features like Full HD recording at 120fps, while things like 5-axis in-body image stabilization appeal equally to still photographers. We had the opportunity to shoot with the camera, so naturally we put its internal 4K and still photo capabilities to the test. Get a look for yourself at what the Sony a7S II can do in low light.
Sony a7S II 4K sample video: Low Light Music Venue
The lack of noise in the video is outstanding, plus the Times Square footage is tack sharp, incredible detail. I'm not even going to go re-watch my 1080P footage from a GH2 in 2013, it will look awful in comparison!
However, as someone who has owned a number of Sony digital cameras in the past, from Cybershot compacts (P150 etc), f717 to NEX 5R, they cannot do red without it being over saturated - everything red in that footage looks unnatural. I am not sure if Sony use some identical chips or firmware in all their cameras, but I can spot a Sony image anywhere. (Same with Canon, whose digital images have a gentle softness to them.)
I am curious to know whether you actually make films/documentaries or make scientific comments based on journals you've perhaps read. As a filmmaker this camera represents some major innovations and technology that render incredible pics images for the price point. Have you seen any of Philip Blooms work on the Wonder List series, he used a lot of the A7S and it's beautiful footage. My advice to you is, stop reading and looking at white papers and go and make something!!!
I'm really shocked by the amount of noise and lack of detail in these images at [in comparison to the maximum quoted] 'modest' ISOs. The ISO 50k images [which are 3 stops below ceiling] are scarcely good enough for web-sized images. It will be interesting to see the chart comparisons once they go up, but my initial reaction is I don't see all that much [if any] improvement over the D3s - how many years ago?
there are already many comparison for d3s vs the original a7s, in high iso arena the a7s retain more details and clarity, when the noise reduction on 3ds kick in the detail is gone away.
They're trying to distract you. It is all part of the anti-Pentax conspiracy at the highest levels of the worldwide octopus that is the DPReview empire.
Am also enthusiast about this video beast, however I wonder if IBIS in video mode is finally also optimized for video and not for stills only. Till today, all DSLR IS lenses and Sony's FF mirrorless IBIS systems created "jumpy" video. Instead of a smooth moving image stabilization that follows the slow camera movements (like pans & tilts) during video recording, it always tries to keep the image perfectly still and when the camera angle gets over a certain threshold, the IBIS lets the sensor "jump" to the next reference point (leading to "jumpy" video). This is OK for stills, but not for video. Sony can easily apply the correct stabilization mechanism depending on the operating mode of the camera: if in stills mode then apply the existing stills stabilization and if in video mode then apply the smooth video stabilization. They could implement smooth video stabilization in all their handycams, so they should do it in the A7 series as well and certainly in this video oriented A7s II.
You're supposed to turn off image stabilisation when the camera's on a tripod, even when the camera is a video camera. No stabilisation system, afaik, is yet intelligent enough to distinguish a quick pan or reposition from unwanted camera movement; all will try to "correct" it.
That said, a dedicated button somewhere within easy reach when shooting that would enable/defeat stabilisation would be a useful addition, imo.
I know that you better turn off the IBIS on a tripod. But when using the camera handheld during video recording we all love to turn the IBIS on, right ? Well my question is: while IBIS is turned on during handheld video recording, will the A7s II use the "jumpy" stills stabilization mechanism like the A7 II and A7R II or will it use a smooth video stabilization mechanism as was implemented in all Sony handycams ?
In this video between 0:13 and 0:14 you can clearly see the "jumps" that I wrote about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOjLajognmI Since this is a Sony A7s II promotion movie about their great IBIS, we can assume this is the real IBIS behaviour for video. They apparently still have implemented the "jumpy" stills stabilization mechanism during video recording in their A7s II. How unfortunate this is, knowing how greatly smooth their stabilization is on all their handycams. If this does not get improved, I'll pass on this A7s II again (just as I did with the A7s that did not have IBIS at all) simply because I don't wanne look at jumpy videos all the time, certainly not when having a $3000 expensive camera that claims to have great video stabilization in it ...
That's right at the tail end of a video transition. Are you sure the jumpiness isn't caused by the editing software? As a video editor, I've seen it happen - been plagued by it on some jobs. The rest of the clip looks fine to me.
Just after the video transition of course ... Afterwards between 0:15 and 0:23 you can also see it but less obvious -> its the same jumpy effect as with A7 II and A7R II :(
Hmm. Maybe the odd (very small) twitch on the Chinese lanterns, but it's damn hard to see unless you're looking for it. In any decent film, the audience would be so engrossed in the subject matter that they'd miss it. I've seen worse glitches on the BBC (which is not saying much these days, admittedly...). There's certainly nothing after 14:00 that would make me pull it from broadcast.
But why are they using a canal boat for the demo anyway? Those things are pretty smooth to begin with. Shooting out of a car window on any of my local roads would be a much more impressive test. ;-)
I see, a lot of posts mentioning 4K and they think it's 12 Megapixels, it's not, I cannot remember the exact figure, around 8.3 Megapixels, certainly under 9 Megapixels.
4K televisions are dropping in price rapidly, 4K projection not quick enough due to Sony being the only manufacturer with 'affordable' 4K projectors, maybe next year for JVC and Epson, maybe even a few others.
So what's my point, 4K down scaled produces far better and sharper 1080p footage, I mean real sharpness, not edge or contrast enhanced sharpness which can be ugly on large screens, halo anyone, no thanks, natural sharpness is good, I doubt this Sony has great dynamic range for 4K compared to a larger sensor Red or Alexa 2.8K camera but it should still be good.
For those who are complaining that 12mp is not enough number ,remember that Canon's ME20F-SH achieved the highest low light sensitivity by decreasing the mps and increasing pixels size , ,and for most purposes 12mp is more than enough , I much prefer the Sony A7 Sll
I agree. If someone thinks 12mp of the A7S isn't enough then buy the A7 and the A7R models which go upto 42mp for the A7R markII. Incidentally, I had a look at the studio comparison tool of the mark I versions of these cameras and obviously the A7R has the best resolution at low ISO but that resolution advantage is quickly lost once you start increasing ISO. By ISO 6400 the A7S had an advantage where the detail of the A7R was starting to be lost in blotchy noise reduction. And the higher the ISO went, the more obvious the difference. I'm looking forward to seeing the studio comparison for the mark II
I would like to buy this camera, but there are too many submodels of the A7 and and I just know that I would screw it up and walk out of the camera store with the wrong one. They should use real names like BlackMagic and Arri do, much easier to remember.
you want the Sony A7S which has less mega pixels then other models. Higher mega pixels does NOT mean higher quality, just a bigger image. in video shooting, even if you shoot 4K video, you are using only 8 megal pixels of the sensor, so sensor with 12 mega pixels is more then enough for video shooting. (3840x2160) pixels in video mode, which is close to 8 million pixels total.
If your not sure what to buy, buy the video camera with big sensor but fewer pixels all Sony A7 cameras has full frame sensor (24X36mm) but different amount of Megapixels, so if you want to shoot a lot of video and you are not looking to shoot buildings size posters, then just buy the camera with less pixels.
Looking pretty good. Am still trying to decide between the A7RII and this for video work. Not sure if I really need to shoot video in situations the human eye can't see, and the A7RII is very good for much else.
Unfortunately many stills clients in my area these days are suffering from megapixelitis and insisting on at least 20 megapixel images before they will even hire you.
In the HK market even family photography jobs and kid portraits are asking for 20 megapixels. I think it's overkill, but it is one of the few catchphrases many customers know.
To be honest, I just can't tell the difference between 1080 HD video and the 4 K video. To my eyes, it doesn't look like the 4K video is significantly better than 1080 HD video. It's a good video and that's all I can say but the sound sucks. He probably used the camera's tiny built-in mic. In the musician's video, the sound quality is o.k., just because the videographer was quite close to the musicians. But I don't think the sound has a good dynamic range, clarity and depth. But what can you do with the camera's built-in mic? I said it before.....a good video with a poor sound is useless but a poor video quality with a good sound is useable.
To show the real potential of 4K video quality should also come with a good sound. When Dpreview does a review of a high end camera's video performance, they should use a proper mic to match the quality of the 4K video quality. Then the readers would decide whether they would need an external mic or not.
You always need an external mic and to be honest, you also need a boom operator if you want decent sound. Good microphone technique—getting the mic within a handspan of the speaker's mouth—trumps every other variable. A cheap mic used closer will almost always sound better than an expensive mic used farther away. If you get an on-camera mic close enough to a person for good sound, you get a grossly distorted head.
And your observations about 4K vs. HD open up many questions. The 4K here looks sharper than typical HD we see from the Canons and Nikons and consumer and prosumer camcorders, but is it better than HD from a high-end pro camera like an Alexa or a Red? And is it just sharp? Or is there meat to it that we can work with?
In addition, the average videographer doesn't have a lot of experience shooting or processing 4K footage. It just hasn't been around long enough for people to figure out how to get the best out of it. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to the next few years.
ffsIII, I agree with you. 4K video is still in its infant stage and most consumers including myself, don't have enough experience and knowledge about handling 4 k videos. Camera makers include 4K feature just for sales marketing purpose.
What I want Dpreview to do is to present 4K video with the best possible video quality and the high quality sound done by professionals and then compare the professionally done video with the one shot by one videographer using only the camera.
It is always good to see what you could do with your camera,with the right techniques, gears. Spending $3000 for just a camera is not everybody's cup of tea. But if you can afford to do it, you just might as well to sped some extra to get the best out of the camera.
By the way, my HD TV is not 4K so it just doesn't make sense to me to shoot 4K video and watch it on my TV. But if the sound is good, it will be worth watching.
If you want good sound inexpensively, the standard answer is the Audio Technica ATR3350 lavalier. It has a long, annoying cable, but clipped up close to the subject's mouth it sounds fine and costs $20. In my experience, it's all about getting the microphone as rudely close as possible to the person you're taping. On camera microphones, like on-camera lights, are not that great unless you're trying for a specific effect.
It does, believe me. I have very good eyesight and am using a stellar 27" Dell 4K monitor, and once YouTube goes into 4K mode from 1080P (switches back and forth depending on my connection speed), it's like looking at a live scene through a window - tack sharp, and from this Sony FF, no noise in the video. 4K blows 1080P out the water, but as I said, I do have very good eyesight and so I guess my eyes can sense the detail.
Just wait for 8K, which will be the final resolution that humanity settles on for a few decades being when an image is shown on a 100" screen (wall size almost), it will be the maximum resolution / DPI that the human eye can resolve. IE, to use Apple lingo, Retina TV!
8K will take over from 4K way way quicker than 4K will '2K'.
Exactly. 4K looks better if you have great playback equipment and either sit very close or have great eyes. And in the world of serious broadcast, they laugh at 4K because they can barely achieve real 720 or 1080. In the world as it exists right now, it seems like the benefit is mainly for professionals who can use the extra resolution for stabilization and panning—and to satisfy high-end clients who demand "the best." I can imagine that if I were getting paid $50,000 to shoot a wedding for rich people, 4K would be the bottom end and a 5K Red camera would barely merit a notice. So it all depends on your market, really.
It' seems this and the a7r ii are for cashed up enthusiasts, the pro's use majority canon & Nikon for stills and video pro's use mostly fs, c300 etcs.. If Sony released an apc mirrorless that does 4K I'm sure we would see big growth for Sony in enthusiast apc market, what is the hold up Sony?
Many pros, including the ones I hire and work with, are using the A7S, GH4, and DSLR form factor cameras for excellent video quality. Blanket statements like this are dubious.
I like to have a solid and comforting dslr in my bag just in case, but since I have the A7RII the dslrs stay in that bag unless I shoot sports seriously. Anything else, from dinner parties to editorial is the Sony. For some type of work feels gimmicky compared to the friendly probodies, but it delivers.
The A7S sells tons to the wedding videographer crowd, which itself is doing relatively well as photographic markets go.
As for the higher end pros, I've met a couple teams from various places and the C100 is easily the big hit. I believe the Sony FS5 is aimed at that crowd - remains to be seen if it makes inroads.
I think it depends on what you mean by professional. All the national news crews I've seen are still using full-size rough-tough, ENG-style Panasonics and Sonys and whatnot. Pretty much every real motion picture and network TV show is shot on Arri Alexas or Sonys. After that, it's chaos. I think the best advice is to shoot with whatever your friends and colleagues use so that you can build up a local knowledge base of how to troubleshoot and use the cameras. Or just say "screw it" and buy the BlackMagic Ursa and a couple of lenses and go out and shoot a masterpiece.
yes, evidently you haven't yet accepted the fact that this camera is a big deal and deserves all the praise it gets. Yes, there are 200+ comments because people keep bitching about alleged Sony bias and feel the need to spout their anti-Sony sentiment. Hence why it's littered with garbage like above. A lot of us are excited about the release and appreciate all the in-depth info supplied by dpreview. It's a big investment particularly for those of us considering making a leap from Canon/Nikon etc.
Sony has been know to drop product lines in a heart beat. Hope you find your Sony stuff to be invaluable at that time when you look its value on your Sony laptop.
What's your point? Sony is simply releasing stuff so it is getting reported, or is there a quota on how much you can report on a single company? Besides, this camera is a big deal and has been anticipated by many -- and you're ignorant to not recognize that.
For those who are comparing this camera to a7R II, consider that a7S II is a "Video" camera. 12MP equals 4K. Obviously, 12MP is not anywhere close to current high end photo cameras, but 4K is pretty damn good for a consumer video camera. And don't expect the low light capabilities to be much different from a7R II for still pictures when downscaled to 12MP. The a7s II low light capabilities shines in video where there is a constant sensor readout, and reading a 42MP sensor dissipate more heat than a 12MP sensor, which results in more noise.
Your theory only holds up to 25,600 on the A7R, beyond there the files are too far gone. At 25,600 the A7S is just getting into its stride, and it does look better and more importantly, there's still "headroom" in the file to grade with. Grading the file is never taken into account by these academic bloggers/testers.
@Kasra A I completely agree, I just expected better from these A7s jgs. @Chris Gibbs I find it a bit amusing that a camera gets into its stride in the realm of the mediocre photography, because, honestly, any camera is mediocre at best above 25,600
@armandino I'd suggest you go look up John Stanmeyer's winning World Press image from 2014, do a little research on it. What are you shooting, ping me a link to your images, it saves talking at cross purposes.
@Kasra A: For someone who mostly ends up at low ISOs and reaches up to mid 4-digit ISOs, with the rare 5-digit ISO image here and there for "documentary" things, the A7rII does good. But if you are looking for something which can hold its sh*t together at 4-digit ISOs and beyond, the A7s and A7sII are the way to go.
I often end up in darker environments, I own the A7s exactly for that reason, and, bad for your arguments, I tested the A7rII in exactly these environments, both in terms of photography and video. A7rII limit is ISO6400; beyond that the processing capabilities suffer badly and video stuff looks just horrible.
@Chris Gibbs: you mean the photo of the people holding cell phones (if I read correctly it was a Canon image at ISO10000)? It is not above ISO 25600 as armandino describes. It is more the message than the details being of importance here. As soon as you want details, facial features, a larger tonal range etc. it gets difficult beyond ISO25600. Even at websize you can see the noise (doesn't mean that this is a bad picture by any means).
@Kasra - Exactly, there is definitely a place for the A7S, you nailed it. I'm shooting for B&W, so for my purposes 25,600 is very doable on the A7R (with a very gentle grade). The A7S, gives me at least two stops more "grading headroom" at these ISO's.
@HFLM The Stammerer example was simply to make a point, after the other guy 'stated' ( and incorrectly so) that nothing but mediocrity comes beyond 25,600 (that Canon image looks more like 50K on an A7S BTW) and its beautiful & unique.
Problem with the interwebs, half these guys are talking through their hats, many have never even shot the A7S beyond the camera-store showroom, never mind a demanding assignment. You know this with the Nikon D810 comparisons, try focusing that D810 in -6EV light on a wide-open 35/1.4. It's actually very doable on an A7S EVF!
@Chris Gibbs I guess "mediocre results" can be subjective. To my taste even the ISO 12,600 on any camera are borderline. Your taste may be more tolerant. Note that I shoot a lot if low light for sports with very good low light cameras like the 1DX. So I think I am quite competent in the field. I really think that some of the low light obsessed people get used to see a lot of noise, low DR, and poor colours and become more lenient with LQ. You are welcome to show me sample images that get past mediocrity at and above iso 25,600 with a A7s. I am not talking about image content, but actual IQ. The examples in this gallery scream it pretty loud to me. That the Canon ISO 10,000 equals the Sony ISO 50,000 is total BS. Sensor of same size tent to deliver very similar results no matter what, maybe 1 stop difference in the 10-10,000 range between the best and the worse. This statements to me show your observations lack evidence.
@armandino -- Image content is everything! I checked your profile for a link to your work, its a pointless discussion (for me) without me seeing what you shoot!!!
THE A7S PERFORMS BETTER AT ISO's BEYOND 25,600 THAN THE A7R - PERIOD!
Wether or not, in your limited experience, a file is worthwhile beyond 25,600 is irrelevant and pointless to the rest of us, sorry to have to tell you this.
Again, show me what you're shooting, this is fast becoming a waste of time for me debating theoretical photography based on some internet bloggers (dubious) analysis........
@Chris Gibbs you find some of my work on www.neatpicture.com 1) Nobody objected A7RII/A7SII at hight iso. What I objected is that at that iso the quality is mediocre no mater what, with diminishing returns for the A7S. 2) Image content is not everything, is part of it. For some IQ is more and for some is less. I guess for me is more. 3) are you contradicting yourself a bit? On one side you are all about IQ of A7s at high iso, on the other image content is everything.
@amaandino -- You absolutely do not need the A7S, why on earth are you even commenting here, you're using the right camera for your chosen style.
What I don't get with you "commentators" who've obviously never run, nor have a need for certain kit, WHY ON EARTH.......do you feel compelled to BS your way through these forums about topics you're obviously not qualified to comment on.
Take on an A7S (for a year), and go shoot some content beyond good light, and get back to us after that. See if you can figure it out on your own without referencing someone else's lame jpegs.
To be quite honest, you're not shooting anything that a 7Dll isn't perfectly suited for. The A7S is a specialist tool, one for those of us with specialist needs, not just high ISO, but video & audio too. You're not impressing anyone here who knows shee-ite from shinola!
Enjoy your day, go use that Canon & have fun. Content is definitely king, unless its not, then technique is a runner-up! Namaste!
@armandino: "Sensor of same size tent to deliver very similar results no matter what, maybe 1 stop difference in the 10-10,000 range between the best and the worse."
What you are saying is that ISO12k from lets say a 5Ds has about similar quality than the output of the 1Dx at ISO12k. The difference is far more than 1 stop, and you know that as well as I do.
Fact is, the A7s is in overall (from low to high ISO) at least 1 stop better than the 1Dx (and 3 stops or more ahead of the 5Ds, and, bad for you, I actually tested that).
I own the A7s, I own the 5D3, and aside of the DR differences at (not only) higher ISOs one thing became obvious kind of fast: The A7s is much better at keeping the colors together as well, even if the lighting gets "complicated". In combination with the DR advantages at higher ISOs the results are outright impressive.
@ Slaginfected I have both the 5DIII and the 1DX and combined between the two I shot about 1 million images of which about probably 10% are iso 10,000 and up. Your better and worse sense of performance is out of scale. Period. I am not even getting there, sorry.
@ Chris Gibbs sure whatever. Anybody is free to choose their arts ,creativity, and tools to get wherever they mean to go. However facts are facts: 1) A7SII does not do ISO miracles, to the point that the sample gallery here is far from impressive (including RAWs, jpgs are borderline to lame, maybe aggressive noise reduction settings?). Good ISO performance but nothing earth shattering. 2) Any existing camera takes sub average quality images above ISO 12,600 These are facts, then go shoot whatever you like and call it art. Nothing wrong with it. On a different note, I might shatter your believes here (because these are only believes without hard evidence) The 1DX holds very well its own at least up to ISO 25,600 against the A7SII. A7 will produce better colours but, again, comparing more mediocre to less mediocre at iso 25,000, meh.
Slaginfected: S/N ratio is not 1 stop in difference. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx-versus-Sony-A7S___1008_753_949 . Dynamic range is a different thing, where the Canon is almost two stops behind at higher ISOs, the 1dx 1 stop (about 6400-51200 ISO). So if you are not pulling shadows, you might not see a very drastic difference in a lot of circumstances (unless you push the 5ds to 25600 ISO, which I wouldn't do), if you do however, the difference is like m43 fs. FF ;-).
@ HFLM thank you, some people do not realize that 1 stop difference is HUGE for cameras of same sensor size. It is like to say that one camera gathers 1/2 the light of another oner. This sort of differences are only visible at really high iso where every tiny bits counts and signal is very small so many things come into place. When taking video you can see to say 2 stops difference between a A7S and a A7R because a lot of the sensor surface is actually not used for video in the A7R, but for photography it is a complete different story.
@amandino -- So after all your twisted logic & changing the subject you've finally accepted what we told your twelve thousand words ago (FFS). The A7S BEYOND 25,600 OUTPERFORMS THE A7R NO MATTER IF YOU TRY DOWNSAMPLING THE R FILE, 'CAUSE THE R FILE IS TOO FAR GONE. FYI, IT'S A TWO STOP ADVANTAGE TOO, 3 IN SLOG. NOW, GO TRY IT FOR YOURSELF!!!!
@armandino -- BTW, we're done here with your circular arguments. If you really cannot grasp what you're being told, first hand (from someone with 18 months EXPERIENCE running both cameras) I'd respectfully suggest visiting BrianSmith.com and signing up for his upcoming basic photography course with said cameras. Time to accept the facts or go learn them for yourself......
@ Chris Gibbs my first comment: "I find it a bit amusing that a camera gets into its stride in the realm of the mediocre photography, because, honestly, any camera is mediocre at best above 25,600" If you understand English I never argued that the the A7R is better than the A7S at such iso, although I believe for not much less than that the opposite is true: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/More-pixels-offset-noise/Modeling-small-pixels
My point was and still is that where the A7S shines is a photography of mediocrity from IQ point of you. And that is a fact. You seem to either have a hard time accepting this simple reality or are simply challenged by communication skills.
@armandino: I shoot underground concerts where you have sometimes difficult lighting, especially with the growing number of LED stage lights. I've used various FF cameras in this context, and once you start post-processing the files you see what monster the A7s truly is. The differences are clearly visible in the 4-digit ISO range already.
For example, I've seen a good few concerts pics taken with D800/D810. Some images, mind you, at the typical web/blog size, look kind of weird, and then I have a look at the ISO: 6400, 8000, and some are even higher. You *actually* see the limited ISO capabilities!
I remember someone putting up a randomized list of post-stamp sized pictures from the 7D2. I could immediately tell the ISO6400 picture from the others. Post-stamp sized images.
The "same sensor size, similar results"-model is based on simplifications which increasingly divert from reality the higher the ISOs go. That's why ~1 stop and more difference at the same sensor size is possible.
@ Slaginfected I completely disagree, the higher resolution cameras will retain more sharpness while the noise has a different structure, possibly more noisy, but smaller and more pleasant grain (when downsampled). Why do you even mention the 7D2? that is a crop sensor. D800 not same as D810. When downsampling you need also to know what you are doing, especially for typical web/blog. For this application aggressive noise reduction is required and proper sharpening when downsampling. If the pictures are posted on Facebook it has a horrible compression engine, even for the HQ option, and it does a mess out of the fine grain. Post a picture well exposed with a A7S at ISO 6400 and I will match it with a A7RII and then we talk again. As I said ~ stop and more difference for same sensor is possible, but at ISO 25,600 and higher.
Ok, seems like you are asking for it, so here we go ... fasten your seatbelt, tightly.
High res sensors have a lower FWC than lower res sensors, and with raising ISOs the read noise raises. At some point the DR (on a per pixel basis) changes in favor of the lower res sensors. But even before that the lower res sensors are capable of recording more tonalities than the higher res sensors, which gives them an advantage of retaining colors better, for example.
The 7D2 example stems exactly from that behavior: With raising ISO the read noise creeps through the shadows to the point that it affects the color reproduction of the entire image, and no scaling will fix that problem (together with a massive loss of shadow detail).
Following that it is also clear that the high res sensors will show more resolution in the brighter parts of the image. However, they do lack tonality details, something I actually tested at ISO6400 between A7s and A7rII. [...]
[...] Another problem is, that the more you deviate from daylight, the more trouble you will face while recording images. I actually put up an artificial LED red light test, and put the A7s and A7rII through it. Using daylight the differences are for sure not that obvious, but for example at concerts depending on the venue and the guy responsible for the lighting (if there is one) things can change to the worse kind of fast. So this artificial test was there to test the extremes, and if you are more sensitive to cause and effect in the post-processing, you will actually feel these differences in more normal lighting scenarios, too.
Hence why the A7s gives you X stops more post-processing capabilities. For sure, each sensor has an upper limit to where things behave more or less "stable". Beyond that you get the effect I talked about already with the 7D2.
What I wonder armandino, is the fact that with this massive high ISO picture load: How did you not see these differences, yet?
@ Slaginfected I do my best to keep my iso capped at 12,600 or even 6,400 as I really do not like the output of any camera above that. I shoot with 1DX, 5DIII, and A7RII in low light conditions. I find that in this range the 1DX is convenient because of the smaller files and the output straight out of the camera. I prefer the files from the A7RII because once downsampled are sharper and the grain smaller. Generally there is just more details in the A7RII in this iso range. However there is more work with them to get the most out of the files. In some regards photographers tent to disagree because it is not all quantitative, there is a personal preference component to it.
A7S 409,600 ISO handheld. This is why we shoot the A7S. This is a 4:2:0 8-bit image, recorded to the card and processed through Neat Video (fragile file, heavy processing). Show me something better off any camera at these ISO's.
Ahh, now we are getting somewhere. I'd even bet it is the 1Dx which you limited to ISO12800, and the 5D3 + A7rII to ISO6400, and because of the latter, the A7rII is preferred due to almost double the resolution (exactly that is what makes the A7rII this exceptional, being ~ on level with the 20-something MPix cameras in that regard). With that mindset you'd probably limit the A7s at ISO25k.
I often heard/read people limiting the A7s to ISO51k. It actually can deliver good images at that ISO (I have such images myself you'd never believe to be at ISO51k), including retaining the colors.
The A7rII should share this trait of degrading somewhat differently (i.e. you can go up until ISO12.8k), but the post-processing limits are much tighter compared to the A7s. I do not have enough samples off the A7rII to render a final conclusion for myself in that matter; the ones I have certainly show more fragile behavior compared to the A7s at ISO51k during the post-processing.
Now, with the above limits in mind, you can actually step back to lower ISOs and add roughly another stop of post-processing capabilities on each step. Read, for example, if I go back 2 steps on the A7s from ISO25k to ISO6400, I gain roughly 2 stops of additional post-processing capabilities, means it is 2 stops better at ISO6400 than the 5D3 and 1 stop better than the 1Dx.
So, as you see, I didn't pull these numbers out of the blue, and I know that the ISO6400 files out of the A7s offer very comfortable post-processing, contrary to for example the 5D3, where you can work with the files, but you already feel that there are limits around the corner.
Now, the A7s faces a problem: Amp glow. Because of the high sensitivity, if you lift the shadows in the 5-digit ISO range too much, you will certainly see at least discoloring from amp glow in the lower left. It being a "corner case" in the dark shadows you barely get to see it, though, plus it is unlikely part of the actual sujet.
I'm not shooting "bubblegum & pompom" style imagery. Been trying to tell you this all along. And yes, we do operate in different dimensions, so much is painfully obvious.
Now, instead of "WAFFLING ON" -- tell me, how would "MY EXAMPLE" have benefited from your "GEAR SELECTION" and shooting methods.
Think carefully before answering, this is a pass or fail test!
I cannot open the Raw files right now but the jpgs are a bit of a disappointment to me. My gut feeling is that my A7RII kills this camera easy up to 6,000- 10,000 iso. 12MP is a joke these days.
12MP is far from a joke with regard to output resolution. You don't have a screen that can do any better. That being said, its nice to have some leeway in post processing for horizon/crop and applying local adjustments zoomed to 100%.
Even with sensors up to 36MP, 12MP is my max output and I don't consider myself a joke. Actually, I find 42MP much more humorous .
1) More MP means more resolution, even down sampled, that is obvious. Sharper and cleaner images 2) Much more convenient and more precision when retouching 3) Cropping (note Zero cropping for 12MP on a 4K screen) 4) Pictures worth more and are better investment toward the future if of higher MP count 5) If you get used to work on higher resolution images, going to 12MP feels like going from a big monitor to a tiny one. But hey if you never worked on a larger monitor you do not know what you are missing out ;-) IQ besides resolution alone: @ 100 ISO A7RII kills the A7SII, no question @ 100,000 ISO A7sII kills the A7RII, no question Where is the ISO for IQ cross over? My judgment is: quite high, somewhere around ISO 6,400 or more once you normalize the resolution.
right, so we are basically in agreement outside a few murky comments.
12MP is the minimum, IMO. I don't think its perfect and I don't think its a joke. 42MP is pretty huge and most of the time I'd be very wary of IQ degrading that high, but I think sony did enough to that sensor to keep IQ in check. I don't think anyone does high pixel density as well as sony.
For a brand new camera a this price point and future outlook 12MP is not enough in my opinion. At half the price maybe. Or you are shooting almost exclusively video and some pics to share. You are just not competitive at this resolution if you are working at low-mid range iso. And make sure not to screw up your framing! Btw the jpgs on this gallery are awful. At 12MP there is very little tolerance to noise reduction before you images look smudged.
42mp is a bit much for me right now and my computers.
24mp is fine but equally I am fine with 12mp and 16mp (M4/3).
the A7 is mainly my daytime/good light camera and the A7s mainly my night time/low light and video camera but increasingly I take the A7s at any hour if I am not going to need/want the AF and 24mp of the A7. I don't need to upgrade to an A7sii as I don't need 4k or IBIS and I prefer the smaller size and shape of the orginal pair.
Do not underestimate IBIS. It is probably one of the major features in cameras that nowadays all do similar job in delivering. The ability of accepting all sort of lenses and having IBIS is really a major factor. I.e. shooting stabilized ultrafast lenses opens up incredible low light opportunities. Also, pinpointing focus with a manual focus lens is a pain if not stabilized. Casual videos benefit hugely from it.
I have had several cameras with IBIS (still have two).....I generally like it a lot (same with in lens stabilization).
Just that the A7s is the camera that needs it the least since I can use whatever ISO I want and pretty much any aperture I want....yes it would be better with it but I really don't need it with the a7s.
@neil holmes really? Do you care about IQ? the A7s does not do miracles. On a different note looking at the RAW files, they are as expected far better that the jpg I see in the galleries here. But nothing special really, I still think that the A7RII is better in the most common iso range.
I shoot live music and am often at ISO 25600 and higher. Some of the bands are very high energy and I need to use higher shutter speeds sometimes even with fast lenses. I also take a lot of full band shots and for that use the best lenses available (for me) that includes the two Canon wide angle TS-E lenses. IBIS does very little in many of these situations. I also shoot Jpeg for the most part ......have just gone through over a thousand shots from the other night for three bands that are very high energy and have very fast very bright then very dim and alternate lighting and I could not move from my spot. There is no camera I would take for that over the A7s.
Actually, A7s Raw are so small and the jpg is so smudged. I would shoot raw. Also, I would consider shooting at slower shutter speeds, take advantage of IBIS and roll it in continuous drive. Motion blur adds to the pictures if it is at the right place and time and you shoot a cleaner image. TS-E are too slow for my taste for this sort of events, I go full open 1.4-2. Depending on the subject motion 1/30- 1/320
The point is that while I have a 24 1.4 lens I don't use it since unlike with other cameras I CAN use whatever aperture and shutter speed I want. I do often use slower shutter speeds....it depends on the bands. If I had use 1/60 or even 1/160 often with bands like Dead Letter Circus or 10 Years, I would have very few ok photos at all. My experience with the A7s is that it is excellent for this and I disagree about the Jpegs being smudged. The bands are all happy with the photos. 1.4 with 24mm FF is not going to have enough DOF for my liking to fit all the band in shot. The 17mm TS-E is excellent for full band shots since it distorts people a lot less than most 17mm lenses (and I use it shifted from time to time). I CAN use fast lenses (and I do for the individual shots (55 1.8, 85 1.2 and 135 f2).....for wider shots I would use f4 anyway most of the time ......that I can even use 5.6 or even f8 ....my choice.....with the A7s I Can! Fast lens I would NEED with other cameras.
It makes me wander who wants to invest time and effort for only 12MP these days :-) Good for photojournalism, social media and extreme low light performance I guess.
How about someone who must shoot in available low light where supplementary lighting is not allowed like a Bar Mitzvah ceremony in the temple or a wedding venue that has candlelight lighting ? 12MP is plenty for 4K video and 12K is plenty for photo albums that are only 11X14 inch big. Or perhaps shooting a stage scene where a telephoto lens that is not F1.2 is not available for the fast shutter speed you need or for dimly lit church interiors where you need very small apertures for max depth of field and you don't want to lug around a tripod. Yes, that clean image shot at 25000 iso does make a huge difference here.
@ art99 The difference it that the A7sII only gives you lowlight performance, while the A7RII offers a much better normal light performance and similar results in lowlight unless it is extreme low light. I would let go a couple of ISO 20,000 shots (in which the result is not horrible, just not quite the same) for the rest of the range. And do not forget that where you need a 200/2.8 with the A7SII you can do the same with an 85/1.2 with the A7RII because you can actually crop and a lot too :-). That gives you 2-1/3 stops advantage that makes up for the iso disadvantage.
@ aut0maticdan how about editorial? How about social low light that does not require extreme low light, which is virtually 80% or not more? With IBIS and a good 1.4 lens you hardly really need to get past the ISO 6,400. I use the A7RII all the time for this with fantastic results. The A7sII is definitely good at what it does, but it gives up a lot for it too.
Had a look at your portfolio and while you have some impressive work to show, I couldn't find any "fantastic" low light shots.. Being that you use the camera that way all the time, where are the examples?
@photominion thank you for checking out my port, I have no night photography under this name, plus I have only a small selection on line specifically with this body due to the very recent acquisition of this camera. As a fact my night life images are for the most part pretty low iso (iso 1000 or less) thanks to the fast apertures and IBIS, I can send you a couple of these, meanwhile the following was shot with a Voigtlander 12mm at ISO 3200. Now, download the full resolution, cut down on the noise a bit and add some sharpening on downsampling to 12MP then let me know how it stacks up against the A7s. Note the image was shot at -0.7 and then the shadows boosted.
I have shot a few videos of weddings with a rented A7R as that was the camera I had my initial interest on. Shot 1080 60P. I used the Zeiss 16-35 F4 and at wide open all night at a very dark venue which is typical to most venues. I was at iso 24K and after downloading the files and viewing the clips on a 47" LED telly I was disappointed in the amount of grain. In the camera it looked great as the the small rear mounted screen obviously shown no grain at that size. The following week I rented the A7s with the same lens on an even darker venue at iso 50K and the difference was night and day. No grain or at least dramatically less than the A7RI. cannot wait to see what 4K looks like with the A7sII. I am totally sold now on the A7sII.
A7S is basically dedicated to video so, it better be that good. That said, slap a fast lens and shoot at 1/30 and the A7RII results are very pleasant up to ISO 3,000. The A7RII is far better than the A7R in video recording, you cannot compare the two really. F1.4 @ 1/30 ISO 3,000 gets you in very very dark places....
Dark wedding venues are really dark because the DJ always loves the dark for his light show and smoke effect to stand out along with the fact that the candle lit ambiance is always requested by the bride. They even demand that no lights are used. Can't really shoot video at 1/30th when you need 60p and where can you get FF zooms at F1.4 ? iso 3000 doesn't make a dent here. you need upwards of 25K iso territory. I just hope the newer BSI sensor will live what is hyped up to be. You want to really test out a new camera, try a wedding. It's got all the elements of back, side front lighting, extreme contrast subject matter along with white bridal dress and black tux, run and gun shooting, fast action, fast dancing, low light, DJ strobes with lasers, high db sound levels etc. etc.
the A7RII does a better job in the lowlight video in super35 format, I am not sure what range you need for zoom but the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is really good for crop format. Do you really need the 60fps? You gain a stop right there. If you use the camera mainly for video the A7S is likely better for you.
Yup, 60fps is a must. Video looks far smoother and slo mo is better. I just need Zeiss to come out with a 20-40mm F2 in FE mount. The 7sII will be just the ticket when coupled with a fast wide zoom. I think I;ll be fine with the Zeiss 28 F2 prime in the meantime.
The A7s has about 2 stops of advantage in terms of higher ISOs compared to the A7rII (heck, even Sony says that in their marketing materials if I remember correctly). If you need that, go with the A7s/II, if not, stick with the A7rII.
The A7rII is at about the level of current 20-something MPix cameras (i.e. limit before things obviously break apart is at about ISO6400), so instead of obsoleting the A7s line it actually obsoleted the 24MPix A7-line, unless Sony is going to put similar technology into the 24MPix sensors at some point.
PS: I preordered the A7s and have been a happy camper since. I tested the A7rII, both in terms of photography and video, and it cannot hold the water against the A7s, even at 4-digit ISOs. Video limit is ISO6400 there (beyond it gets grainy, even visible on the camera display), and picture processing differences at ISO6400 are clearly visible, too.
@ Slaginfected I agree on ISO video performance, but not so much about picture performance. When downsampled the A7R seem to me to retain more details and finer grain than the A7S at least up to 12,600. The A7S takes a lead above that, so for stills the A7s advantage is on a very limited territory.
Once again, DPReview show that it prefers to give a big splash to Sony products.
Don't get me wrong. My wife has an a6000 replacing her Sony DSLR and I agree that Sony is on the cutting edge for everything but their infernal menus. The a6000 is a little wizard and a fine camera.
But certainly, DPReview can consider giving a little more space for some of Sony's competitors. I'm certain that if we were to review DPR's featured cameras over the last six months we would find they are heavily weighted for Sony. If DPReview is to provide a service to it's readers it should review more than a Big Box store's large camera company's sales leaders, even if it is owned by Amazon.
Take Leica for instance. They make excellent cameras; some within the price range of high end Sony's and yet DPR's last review of a Leica camera was back in '09. Sure they have given preview space for new Leica models since then, but no actual reviews. The same can be said of Sigma cameras last reviewed in 2012.
Yes, indeed. Every 2 hours another Sony A7 "behind the scenes", "New Ímages Galery", "Sensor technology" or "Sony Sensor explained" but no Review for any Sigma Quattro since MONTHS. The last full review goes back to Merrill Series. Those are interesting, not the 5th or 6th A7 in a row... even if they'r e great cams....
Can DPR help that Sony is on the cutting edge? They bring exciting things to the market. The other big camera makers are just not really bringing exciting stuff. I'd love to read more news about Fuji and M43's, but those are struggling to even create a new sensor. Or maybe about new Canon compacts, but those they bring out are only just touching the Sony versions.
The reason it is weighted towards Sony is because Sony came out with lot new cameras. A7r2, R100m3, RX10m2, A7sm2, RX1m2. Where are the Canon and Nikons?
2015 is kind of the year of Sony, however, 2016 will be a year of Canon releases with the 1dx2, 5dmk4 and perhaps a new 6d and m4. We will see if in a year you will be crying foul for the amount of coverage dpreview will provide because it will be a lot if all of those bodies are released. In addition Nikon may release a d5 and Pentax a full frame dslr and those will also get attention. I believe the expression is don't get your panties in a wad.
My "panties", as you call them fit fine and you missed the point entirely. Other and smaller camera makers have issued and continue to issue new models, some with technology quite sophisticated and IQ right up there with Sony, et.al. Yet, full reviews of these products have been overlooked. I pointed out that DPR failed to review new products of at least two other camera companies for periods of 1 to 6 years. There are several other camera makers that are consistently overlooked except for a casual mention or a picture gallery. Look to the right hand column today in re.: the Leica M (246); a slide show of the camera body, but not informative at all. When was the last review of a Sigma or the very excellent Ricoh cameras before they merged with Pentax? It's not sour grapes because luckily there are several other reliable review sites I use that do an excellent job reviewing all enthusiast and professional cameras regardless of the brand or size of the company. DPR doesn't do so.
I own Sony mirrorless cameras too, and I'm even tired of the Sony coverage. I preferred this site when Phil Askey was running it. He stuck to reviews and actually shot decent enough sample photos that were at least compositionally interesting.
If I was a publisher I'd want to publish content that my readers found interesting and engaging. On the latter point the last 4 articles that got more than 1,000 comments were all about Sony products, compare this to the recent announcement about 3 new canon cameras that barely got 500. These products make people talk but often it’s as much the people rolling out the same 'DPR is sponsored by Sony', '$ony pricing is a joke', and until recently ‘compressed RAW’... The comment you've made here has been made several times before on other Sony products, I checked VSCD's stream and 90% of the comments on profile page 1 are on Sony cameras (which I'm aware you don't like). I just get the feeling if people stopped caring so much about Sony and stopped rolling out the same lame comments, maybe the balance would change? DPR's not reviewing Leica has nothing to do with Sony for example, so why add another comment to this product and make it look more ‘engaging’ than you clearly think it is?
To those of us not prone to conspiracy theories, isn't the answer to this all so simple? 5 new bodies in little over 2 months, each with something new to the market. A7R II, first BSI FF sensor with IBIS, in body 4k and 399 PDAF points, RX10 II and RX100 IV with ultra slow motion and 4k in body with new stacked CMOS sensor (that it is likely many other brands will now use), A7S II with IBIS, 4k in body and focus down to -4EV, and RX1R MK II with variable optical low pass filter and new 42MP sensor. Then add independent announcements by both Zeiss and Voigtlander about new FE lenses. Can't think of any other brand that's done so much recently, can you?
To sibuzaru, Reviews are used by sensible people to help choose equipment and not to justify purchases already made, or as you put it "back you in your choices". That is really a small minded thing to say as well as your comment about insecure and growing up. If you can't be civil, then perhaps you are the one that needs growth experience. But I wouldn't be so ill mannered as to suggest that to you, a perfect stranger.
As for Leicas, I own three of their cameras and none need justification for the choices made. We also have Fuji, Olympus and Sony cameras in our family zoo of cameras. Each camera was chosen in part by reading several reviews beforehand as well as later experiencing hands-on before purchase.
My comment was directed at the narrow choices made by the reviewers in this website and none of my comments were personal.
> Can DPR help that Sony is on the cutting edge...
Righto. Only reviews I'm eager for are those that end with "...its better than Sony in same class" AND then with clear majority of comments agreeing!!!! Wh-wh-wh-where are they...?
Jim, on second thought, I have to concur in the overwhelming Sony coverage and lack of info many other great/innovative cameras out there like the GRII and Sigma DP's. Just look at the camera review section here and you will see many cameras that have a first impression but no review. I did read a wonderful review about the leica m, though it was on a leica blog. It contained great storytelling and photos.
"when Phil Askey was running it.... and actually shot decent enough sample photos that were at least compositionally interesting." Really --I don't remember it that way at all. The pictures then, as now, are adequate for their purpose.
"But certainly, DPReview can consider giving a little more space for some of Sony's competitors."
The problem is there aren't really any competitors to the A7s, hence the coverage it gets. The closest thing to a competitor is the Panasonic GH4, and that has received plenty of coverage on DPReview:
@mgrum people see what they want to see... if they have an issue with Sony articles, then every article is an elbow in the ribs... my only other thought is that it's all going to proper kick off if Sony announce the 8 new FE lenses that it is rumored will happen in the next week or so...
Show me on real review for a Quattro or Merrill cam in here... they are one the market since *YEARS*! Should be no problem to review the DP0 or any of the DP1M/DP2M or DP3M... maybe even together all Merrills and Quattro.
I get the logic behind this camera, but I don't think it is all that compelling against the A7RII. It also seems overpriced. I don't believe the sensor and other guts here are costing Sony significantly more than the stuff in the A7II (which probably could/should have supported 4K too). The only additional cost I can think of would be more memory for buffering.
It's 'only' $3K, that it's because the A7S had very good market penetration so they think they can capture even more customers in that slice of market if they don't get too greedy.
It think at this price point it is really for specialized users. Different from the A7RII where you pay for the opposite: a camera that does it all except extremely high iso.
I tend to agree. I love the a7S and was excited for the mark II, but the a7RII really took the air out of the room. Its funny because the a7SII has everything I hoped for in a successor and I still feel the a7RII marginalized it significantly.
Don't get me wrong, I still want one. :D
If you are very serious about low light shooting and/or video, this still has the edge, but its a tough sale for most.
I see no pro's in my current studio with anything like a SonyCam. One A99 is there, the rest is fully commited to Nikon (810 mostly), Canon (5DM2, 6D) or Hasseblad Digiback. The rest is addicted to Fuji X-Trans, but does'nt work in this business. Oh by the way, mirrorless cares even less... (the future was said to be there, too).
Here we go again with Pros don't use Sony. Most pros are locked in to a system and it would very expensive to switch. Toyota sells more cars, do run out and buy a Corolla.
Ha, why would a pro switch to Sony that has dismal support service, mirrorless cameras that aren't even weather sealed and an incomplete+overpriced lens lineup?
Pro here. Full time stock. ONLY Sony RX10 ~2 yrs now... And those images license regularly. Gave up Canons after 10D, 20D, 40D, 7D. Contemplating A7RII if Sony offers rumored 24-70mm f2.8 & its IQ is acceptable.
Ah yes and of those Studio pros whose Nikons are so fantastic, how many of their sensors are made by Nikon? Take a larger view here rather than just "my studio" or "the pros I see". Sony's impact on the market, both due to their sensors and cameras, is undeniable.
So here is the problem with 4K. Once you hit ISO 6400, the video doesn't look great even with this camera. At higher ISOs, it still doesn't look great, but it looks better than the mess one would get from other cameras. So we rave about how has ultra high ISOs the video isn't great, BUT is looks better than super ugly video.. Is that the new standard, settle for 'good' but not 'great'?
PM: I think you have something there. Please Canon and Nikon 'take a stab at it.' Take a stab a something, anything that will move photography forward. Do something! And please note, I said forward. Canon, I took a look at your three new offerings on DPR yesterday. And even though I no longer have any Canon cameras, I wept for Canon enthusiasts. It was a sad, sad day.
They have enough time for cutting edge sensor technology because they have nothing different to do. Lenses come from 3rd party vendors and flashes are not really available, do they?
They release like 5 cameras a week. Digital Photography news media must love them. They are the Donald Trump of camera makers. It can't be helped but to cover them constantly.
If not for Sony, DP news would be pretty slow.
Full Disclosure: I used to own an a7S but do not currently own any Sony photography gear.
RichRMA, agree, yes, there is PLENTY to review, even in camera sector. GX8, 5DS, for example. For lenses they could go on for years. It just doesn't land you in NYC all expenses paid! ;-)
vscd, you just sound like a sore loser, that's all. I use Nikon DSLR personally but still manage to have an appreciation for sony and what they bring to the table.
You need a a very large 4K TV and sit close to see a difference. Seriously, it's just a hype. It's not the same difference as there was between SD and HD (which was real visible difference)
There is one real plus to 4K though. That is cropping ability during editing.
"Plus, go look at 4K footage downrezzed to 1080p and you'll see a ton more detail than in most 1080p."
That's only true because many 1080p cameras were never really were truly 1080p (take for example all Canon DSLRs that have soft 1080p, real resolution is much lower). If the original 1080p is true 1080, you won't see sharpness increase by downsampling 4k to 1080
@splendic
You identified one of the big problems in posting 4K (UHD) videos on YouTube. No matter how good the original looks, YouTube compression will introduce a lot of artifacts.
@ ET2 "That's only true because many 1080p cameras were never really were truly 1080p "
Only full sensor readout 1080p is going to compete with true 4K downrezzed, and considering how few cams do that, my statement stands as a general truth.
All other things being equal, 4K downrezzed will look better than straight 1080p.
Upload a 4K video to youtube and playback at 4K even onlower resolution screen. If you do not see the difference from native 1080 videos you better get some quality glasses.
neatpicture, youtube has it's own compression problem. Try to compare A7s 1080p vs GH4 4K downloampled to 1080p. There are studio samples on DPR. What difference do you see?
Most don't see any difference because they haven't seen 4K on a 4K monitor like a 50 inch or so. I shoot weddings in 4k now and clients book me for the 4K delivery. Just look at 1080p HD side by side with 4K ON THE SAME 50 inch 4K screen and the difference is obvious. Sure 1080p is great on a 23 inch monitor, but see it on a 50 or 60 inch inch and you will understand.
Upto 6400 the results are not terribly impressive. I doubt an older A7 or A7 II will do much worse in that regard.
But the ones at 51200 and 64000 are serious WOW ! I don't think any current camera can capture anything at those ISOs without looking like a serious mess ! :P
We were at the same event and I ran the a7S II for more than an hour at the top bitrate and it didn't overheat. I recall it got to about 117 F.
We *did* make the a7R II overheat in our testing, but we've been filming both short- and long-format recordings with it ever since and it's never failed in the real world. IMO, the overheating thing is overblown.
Oh, the great Tony Northrup commenting here in DPReview. Excellent, and thank you so much. We'd appreciate more comments from you. I guess, there is the 30 minute recording limit on the A7Sii, too. Miki
Tony, when you ran the 7S II for more than an hour, how did you get past the 30 minute limit mark continuous recording ? Was there a hack for it.? Or perhaps you paused it and started it up again...
All shots at 1/100 and above. One shot at 65K ISO is not ever required for it looks slightly over exposed. At this viewing size i guess its almost similar to A7R II upto a point. May be post that 105K ISO things will look better.
I have the A7RII and i personally dont want that 42MB files. I am waiting for images from the A7SII in lowlight to compare with A7RII and probably switch.
I wasn't laughing at you initially, until you hijacked the apostrophes. I'm keeping all the punctuation marks safely quarantined before more are kidnapped...
We did this testing and the a7S II produces the cleanest video and stills at high ISOs that we've ever tested (and I believe we've tested every potential competitor short of $100k+ 65mm digital video cameras).
Yeah focusing is pretty bad with it. I mean, sometimes it focuses successfully, but it's so hit-or-miss that I prefer just manually focusing + focus peaking and zooming as necessary... it's slower, but at least I know it won't be fruitless, as AF often is with that body.
The lack of an affordable FE prime like a 50 1.4 by third party or sony itself made me withdraw a pre-order on an a7sII. Maybe within two years, we will see decent lenses at Canon and Sigma 50 F1.4 prices... don't like the 700-900 $ish Zeiss or whatever 50s or 55s if Canon AF lenses sell at half of the pricetag...so till then...;-)
The Northrup camp as well and the good guys from thecamerastore were invited there too. Northrup already posted a review comparing it to a7rii and the original a7s. Good work dpr!
By the way, did you shoot these in slog3 and then pp them?
When SpaceX's Falcon 9 took to the skies like a UFO last Friday, photographer Jesse Watson was ready to capture the incredible sight in timelapse. His footage of the launch is far and away the most beautiful we've seen so far.
A Sony a7S II mounted on the outside of the ISS' Japanese Experiment Module (KIBO) for the last seven months has sent back some impressive 4K video and stills.
Sony has released updates for a range of cameras that address stability issues, provide support for the new 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens and add several new functions.
If your troubled mind needs soothing, we found just the thing for it: this video of the Northern Lights shot from a drone soaring over Iceland. See video
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
ON1 Photo RAW 2019 brings an updated interface, more powerful Lightroom migration, better camera/lens support, and more to ON1's flagship editing program.
Experiencing life through the lens of a camera might mean you miss out on special moments, warns Casey Cavanaugh as he shoots a short film through the viewfinder of his Hasselblad 500CM
The New York Times has teamed up with Google to start the process of digitizing more than five million photos stored in a vault nicknamed "the morgue."
Ambitious goals, new challenges and looking ahead to 100 years of the Z mount – we spoke with senior executives and engineers at Nikon about what lies ahead.
After years focused primarily on landscapes, Erez Marom leapt on an opportunity to return to his roots in wildlife photography. A trip to the mountains of Uganda photographing endangered mountain gorillas yielded some stunning photos – and an experience of a lifetime.
Digital cameras have made it incredibly easy to do time-lapse photography, thanks to the ability to take hundreds—or even thousands—of photos without interruption. This week, Chris and Jordan walk us through the process of planning and shooting compelling time-lapse videos.
The Nikon Z6 is the lower-resolution, faster sibling to the Z7, and has already shown impressive results in our preliminary testing. Take a look at how it performs outside of the studio.
Photopea is a free Photoshop alternative that works directly in the browser and offers advanced features including spot removal, clone tool, layers, filters, and masks.
Since publishing our full review, we've continued shooting with the Fujifilm X-T3 here and there – sometimes on assignment, and sometimes because we just like it so darn much. Our sample gallery has been updated with fresh images.
Flickr has announced that it will not delete images from its Creative Commons or Flickr Commons collections and is working hand-in-hand with institutions and non-profits to "keep these photos safe and available for the world to view and enjoy."
Comments