[shoplink 42156 ebay]
[/shoplink]
The grey imported (1 year US warranty) Sony A7rIi now sells for $2,699 on [shoplink 42156 ebay]eBay US (Click here)[/shoplink]. And Dpreview posted an article about the A7rII use for sports photography: “Keeping up with the big boys? Shooting pro sports with the Sony a7R II”. The answer is…not yet:
Would I rely on it for a second or third body at a sporting event with money and a client on the line? No, not yet – but I’m looking forward to the day that I would. And that day might not be far off. All things considered, pro-SLR autofocus technology draws from three decades of research, whereas the a7R II is still an infant in only its second-generation of existence. Not too shabby for a sophomore effort, Sony.
Reminder: OneCall is having some cool Sony Open Box offer. All items come with regular 1 year US Sony warranty:
[shoplink 42159 ebay]$200 off on the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 42112 ebay]$220 off on the Sony A7II (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 42108 ebay]$700 off on the Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 A-mount lens (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 42110 ebay]$160 off on the 55-210mm E-mount lens (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 42109 ebay]$60 off on the A6000 with kit lens (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 42111 ebay]$30 off on the 50mm f/1.8 lens (Click here)[/shoplink].
40 Responses
2200.00 before you know it!
6 sold last hour man wish i could buy these grey items on bulk and resell.
anyone who has used it can tell u the same thing with the exception of barry
The Dpreview author bemoans the cr$$py AF-C of A7RII in every availible mode, the lack of AF point select joystick (definitely a must) and an even cra$$ier performance with adapted A-Mount and EF lenses.
Sony keeps making cameras for landscapes, unhurried portraiture, studio work and videography. None of them are suitable for reportage and A7RII is definitely not the one that will bring FE system into DSLR terriroty.
The A77m2 is killer for everything but Sony acts as if the camera doesn’t exist!
Like it more than the A7 for sure- even the A7II but I will end up buying that one. A77II and I’m serious- turning out to be my favorite camera of all time.
Couldn’t agree more. It is like Sony’s illegitimate child. I never understood it. Those who don’t have own one don’t realize just what a good camera it is and how much of an improvement over the a77, which was a great camera in its own right.
the customers act as it does not exist
suitable for sports? most probably not.
Suitable for reportage? actually, I’d say yes.
If you are putting your bread and butter on the table and getting paid for sports photography, no way! If you are just shooting sports for fun or as a hobby, of course. My Canon 7DII ran circles around my A7RII for sports. But the A6000 I rented with the 70-200 FE lens kept up with my 7DII. If it wasn’t for the A7SII coming out the A6000 would be my second camera.
It’s a ridiculous comparison. You wouldn’t pull out a D810 or 5DSr for sports shooting either. It just has to be left at Sony doesn’t currently have a FF sports rig. Pull out that A77II, though…
That’s why there should have been for a long time now a A900/ A99 sports model this is why A mount shooters are pissed! After shooting sports with a A900, A700, A77 and A77m2 I will never use a e-mount because I can also shoot wonderful landscapes, portraits ect.. with said A-mount cameras!
Yeah, really all they gotta do is take the A77II AF module, expand it to FF coverage, and slap it in a FF camera to have a great-performing FF sports rig. I don’t understand why they completely concede that space…
It’s crazy!
And that’s precisely the reason A-mount users are wondering why Sony don’t put their 12MPx or 24Mpx module on a A99 body with a better a77II AF module and on-sensor AF system.
Mirrorless is the future, but we are taking pictures today, not in the future. Sony could get a few bucks for offering solutions for today’s need.
>Mirrorless is the future, but we are taking pictures today, not in the future
Finally.
…uh, they DID put the 24Mp module in an A99 body. It is called the A99. Ok, it doesn’t have the A77II AF module (but that would be tiny on a full frame!) and it DOES have an on-sensor AF system. The A99 only uses it for tracking if I’m not mistaken.
The point made in the article is spot on. DSLR’s benefit from almost 30 years of development on their AF systems. Sony full frame mirrorless has been out about 2 years. The fact that on-sensor AF is as close to such a perfected system as DSLR’s is nothing short of amazing. Given time, mirrorless AF will continue to improve up to and past the point of DSLR AF systems, which are basically at the end point of their development.
Certainly all the aids and help cannot be underestimated, but it’s not so long ago that any AF was a dog and no-one shooting for a living would trust it for a moment. Now, unless a camera can mind-read and pick the exact subject you were thinking of, keeping them in perfect focus until you switch your attention, it must be something made out of flint in the pleistocene era…!
I won’t be foolish to argue with the general position that the A7Rii will not be up to Nikon D4 standards in AF for sports, but I see no reason why, when taking into account its foibles, it cannot be used with pretty decent success.
That said, if your living is pro sports then you would have to be an idiot not to use the best tool for the job. Also, there is no well matched long glass for the Sony and I think that is a bigger problem than the way the AF works.
However, if you do some sports, some fashion, some editorial, some weddings, etc., then the A7Rii is a very good way of covering most bases economically.
>Now, unless a camera can mind-read and pick the exact subject you were thinking of, keeping them in perfect focus until you switch your attention, it must be something made out of flint in the pleistocene era…!
Well yes. It’s 2015, if such performance / technology already exists, why shouldn’t we expect it?
E-mount isn’t getting off easy for “2 years of development”, because mirrorless fans have been out there for a long time proudly stating that latest A7x are a complete replacement for the “dated” DSLR tech – in fact, better!
A MOUNT DEAD SONY SMASH THE MIRROR SLT A JOKE HAHAHA
Now, it turns out they aren’t. Not even close yet.
And many of their advantages over a classic DSLR – EVF etc. – that have been proudly presented in A7x reviews, have been long availible in SLT cameras, that also have AF that benefits from 30+ years of development.
You miss my point; I’m merely questioning the nature and degree of the criticisms levelled.
Others have pointed out that when a camera is released it is hailed as perfection, the pinnacle of performance in every respect. Soon it is decided that it is a ‘false prophet’, failing dismally as a photographic tool. Neither view is sensible.
With regard to the A7Rii, it has its flaws, but no doubt it is a towering piece of engineering. Is it the ideal sport camera? Certainly not, but can it do a decent job and then become an excellent portrait camera, absolutely.
Your statement that fans suggest the A7 series are an absolute replacement now is unfair; I’m such a fan but don’t say that. You are also wrong in terms of the ‘gap’ in performance. The A99 and A77ii likely AF much faster, but they stink in low light comparatively, so it’s not so cut and dried as you suggest.
Like I say, if your job is a sports photographer then it would be madness to go for the A7Rii, mainly in terms of lenses more than AF, but if your needs are more varied then it could make a great deal of sense.
Remember how all these e-mounters were trying to sell us on the notion that a-mount was dead because all the a-mount lenses would just work seamlessly with an adapter on an e-mount. According to them, a-mount had simply become a useless anachronism. You read this article and you realize how stupid a notion that was from the beginning.
If Sony wants to be thought of as a player in digital still imaging an a99mII seems almost inevitable. Sony needs to have a camera that can perform on the sidelines. A wimpy, artsy camera like the a7rII is just not going to cut it. Fast, accurate, and manageable autofocus, rapid shooting (at worst, 8 FPS), the ability to natively handle long fast lenses, and a certain ruggedness for working in adverse conditions are key. Yes I want my camera to take pretty pictures, but mostly I want it to get the action shot I envisioned in sharp focus with plenty of detail. I don’t want to miss the decisive moment because my camera is not yet ready to take the next frame or because it is pumping back and forth in an effort to acquire focus on a moving target.
I agree with your post for almost everything, yet the A7r II and not II, are suitable for ADV and fashion work over MF and Leicas, not just economically, they can simply perform better and are way more swift to use.
For how lame the A7 series AF can be compared to a “sport” camera, it run around in circles of the AF from Hasselblad, Phase or Leica and imageA7r II quality is not so far off the big MF format.
Is it good enough for sports photography? No. And if you read the article, its not even close.
By the same token, most sports photography cameras are pretty lame for everything else.
Can’t say I agree with you. If Sony could make a camera which could match up with a Nikon D4S or a Canon 1DX we would all be in hog heaven. Those cameras might be at a disadvantage in some particular or another, but “lame for everything else” is a whopper of a claim which just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. I don’t think even the most rabid of Sony fanboys is going to try to support that one.
When a $6000 camera and a $4600 camera can’t even compare to a $1200 camera for studio and landscape use I call it lame.
Well I don’t know that you would necessarily want to buy them strictly for studio or landscape use, but I expect they would compare pretty favorable to whatever $1200 camera you have in mind in those setting, and wouldn’t perform “lamely” at all.
The fact of the matter is they don’t, they are very expensive cameras that are good for a very specific task. So unless you’re are a dedicated sports shooting professional these cameras are not that useful. An entry level full frame camera like the Sony A7 currently $1100 (same sensor as the A7II, D750, D610, D600) will have better resolution and more dynamic range. Also the live view and focusing tools allow extremely precise focusing using high end lenses like the Zeiss Otus series. It will easily outperform the expensive sports cameras fast but not so precise focusing system. You end up with sharper focused, higher resolution, higher color depth and dynamic range images. For a fraction of the price.
that is common comment and review we usually read from web; basically they did not compare apple to apple, what they want just following Schopenhauer idea.
What you have described is not something that is “pretty lame for everything else.” Rather what you are saying is that another camera might be better at a specific task. Perhaps so, but the sports cameras in the right hands might take the same shot and even the most discerning viewers will be quite happy with it. You take an a7 out on a sports field and you are flat out going to miss money shots. That’s what I call “lame.”
Many many event and wedding photographers still use D4s type cameras. If you want to print big, an A7rii is superior and a7 slightly. For events, forget the A7, too slow. DR apart from base ISO (0.7ev difference)? The D4s is much better at higher ISOs. So a D4s is not a landscape camera, but more versatile than one may think. The higher price is also reflected in build quality and ruggedness. Not a camera I need, but I would take one if you offered it to me for free.
agreed!
16 mp DSLR cameras were used for studio work in fashion and adv for years and everybody was happy with the results, although wanting more. but that was years ago.
I’m sure you can still get away with 16mp on an adv job today, yet you can also get away with an A7rII on a sport job.
Yet if you are working at the high end of the spectrum, both 16mp and A7rII can be used only on their respective field of intended use.
Personally I would never take a D4s, or the Canon equivalent on an advertising job, especially knowing that AD often ask for further cropping of the image.
For everything else, pretty much all you need is a good sensor, and Nikons use Sony sensors.
so if its fast enough for sports it too fast for everything else???? please explain..
Can I use a wok to frot up milk for a cappuccino?
Yes you can but, it is going to be a pain and you will make a mess.
For best results and painless working experience, you always need of using the appropriate tool.
Sports photography is a ridiculously tiny niche that concerns something like 5% of photography professionals. Why that keeps getting brought up in reviews as an overall deal breaker is beyond me.
It directly translates into other categories. We have many photographer friends photographing dogs or horses in action. You have similar things to consider when doing this.