Satyaa

These focal lengths are more practical for APSC than m43. Size is also reasonable for APSC while bigger than I’d like on m43.

So this is a good move. Better late than never.

I appreciate both the points. I am a music listener more than a video watcher. For that reason, the possibility of 32-bit float audio appeals to me more.

Won't that require better mics too? I don't know the state of mics and speakers to support this high bit-rate audio.

Thanks.

I don't own any Sony gear. So, I cannot say from my experience. I also don't know how common it is to shoot into the sky towards the sun.
In my hobby photography, I can't remember how often I had to but may have faced that problem using my Nikon DSLR lenses.

I am going by multiple reviews of these products and I like what they have added from the original to version II.

@Zodiac, it's the opposite.

They only have big m43 cameras with heavy video features. Nothing small, and he's struggling how not to say it directly.

Quote: "In the past the adoption of phase detection didn't reach that standard"

To me that sounds like BS. Almost all other ML camera brands moved to PDAF long time ago with great success. To say that it was not up to their standard is a joke.

It is more like they expected DFD to improve further, but it failed to reach their standard. So, this is a better alternative now.

I must agree that Sony does produce the best especially where they put their mind and decide it's a priority. Recent examples are the version II of 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 zooms, the A7 IV, the A7R V, the A1, etc.

The only problem is they ignore some areas and don't ever speak about it... like the improved APSC bodies that many forum members want. So, it's a deliberate decision whether they want to do it, not whether they can do it.

As for price debate, all newer gear is priced above what most people like to pay. So, it's not a complaint unique to Sony. The higher priced gear also sells well if it works well. So, why not make hay while the sun shines.

That's a good point. Hasn't happened to me yet, but it is only a matter of time. When that happens, I hope I will remember your comment and quickly figure it out before going crazy.

Sounds like a very good new standard zoom for the A7R series.

Around 4-minute mark, is that camera wobbling on the tripod at the bottom of the frame?

I am thinking that the lens design will have different compromises between f/2.8 and f/4. We cannot easily say if a difference in IQ was because of the zoom range or aperture.

The f/4 performance wide open may not be the same as f/2.8 stopped down.

My point is, the comparison would have been fair if both had similar apertures. In this case, I don't know which one has an advantage.

Great improvements to an already good camera. What impressed me were all the new features added from IV to V.

Image quality wise, I can't tell the difference from the A7R IV, or even A7 IV. May be it takes a special monitor and special glasses for me to see that difference.

The spoon like thingy in Chris's hand at 2:25

The FINAL review on A7RV, until Sony releases an A7RV-A :-)

I get it...

Very good camera for stills photographers. I love all the features.

Not the best for video? Just for brief casual videos?? I love it even more.

Thanks.

@Panther, my question was not optical design but that may be a result of trying to create something for ML as opposed to DSLR. And I wasn't asking about making this design for DSLR either. The 400g additional weight could be from the new optical design and additional glass but that wasn't my question either.

Going by the specs, this one is 3/4" longer than its DSLR version. I expect ML versions to be shorter/lighter. The length of it sounds like the DSLR version + an adapter attached internally.

I would not only be interested in the source of your assertion, but also to understand why the ML version is longer/heavier than the DSLR version. Thanks

@Jacques, I was merely pointing out that the quoted statement was inaccurate. In my experience, newer bodies are not supported shortly after the version year. Newer lenses are supported a little longer than bodies. We do not get indefinite lens support on supported bodies. I gave my example.

How long the new models should be supported, why, why not, etc., is a different debate and that was not my point.

@Chris, does this look like it's redesigned for ML (meaning, any smaller than DSLR version?) or, the same DSLR design with an adapter internally attached (judging by the size of it near the mounting end)?

Thanks!

PS: When you have the shoulder strap attached, why let it just dangle like that? Isn't it more risky as it could get stuck on something and pull down the camera (or you).

@Revenant, I understand what you mean but that would be a cumbersome process as more gear gets added.

Wouldn't DxO have separate testing processes for bodies and lenses independently, and match them later? Otherwise, testing hundreds of lenses for backward compatibility every time a new body comes out is lot of effort.

And HEIF

"...as long as you are using a supported body, the newer lens profiles are all supported."

Sadly, not true.
May be, newer lenses are supported a bit longer than newer bodies for any given version of DxO but not indefinitely.

As an example my older version supported D810 with a bunch of lenses. When I bought a newer Tamron 17-35, it was not supported either on my D810 or D7200.

When I got a newer trial version, it supported that lens with both my cameras.

Don't forget the lenses. I liked the MF assist feature on my GH5M2, as you pointed out. I tried some my existing Canon and Nikon lenses via adapters. None of my Nikon zooms were easy to manually focus. The focus ring was awkwardly placed, small, and the balance is off. These are what I call AF era lenses.

I used an old prime that had nice substantial MF ring and it was great but my technique not so much.

Finally, I discovered the ease of MF with Oly 40-150/2.8 PRO. The clutch mechanism and focus ring made it so much easy, and I felt like using MF after many years.