Jon Roberts (jonroberts.co.uk) posted a full High ISO A7rII-A7r-5dMarkII comparison chart at SonyAlphaForum (Click here). Full size image can also be seen on Flickr. Add your A7rII impressions on the official SonyAlphaForum A7rII impressions thread!
Question: So what do you think about the A7rII High ISO performance? And more importantly, why should anyone buy a Canon now? LOL 🙂
More A7rII tidbits:
A7R II – universal solution, lens challenge (David Kilpatrick).
A7rII German Help Guide (pdf here).
new unboxing video by John Roberts on Youtube.
Plenty of new A7rII test videos by Wayne’s got G.A.S. on Youtube.
A7rII preorder list:
In USA: at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, SonyStore US, FocusCamera, Uniquephoto.
In Europe at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT. Wex UK.
In Asia at Digitalrev, CameraPro.
198 Responses
not much visible improvements compared to A7r, but considering the 6mp more resolution, yeah fair enough.
at ISO12800 notice that both canon and A7r starts to have red noise at dark/black area, A7RII still stay calm,
as well as the fact that 5DIII has only half of the pixels, but doesn’t have any advantages at all
BTW, why all the canon photos looks a bit under exposed? or sony a bit over exposed, were they using the same parameter? if yes, then I would suspect canon is cheating on ISO values, which fuji once did a while ago
Hey, All the cameras were set to AWB and aperture priority, with no exposure compensation set. The lighting was a constant LED panel left on throughout. So other than that I left it for the cameras to decide.
It’s a quick and dirty test, but from what I can see there is a little improvement over the a7r, and very little difference with the mkiii. Once the images are scaled to match size then the sony image looks much cleaner as the noise is reduced in size too
Very impressive!
More resolution, better noise and low light performance.
Many people won’t see this at first glance, but the A7r II takes positive exposures due to backlighting which makes major difference when compared to traditional sensor. This in turn pushes the A7r II passed 1 stop in noise performance against the competition.
The A7r II images are clearly brighter making this comparison faulty.
As I mentioned in the post, it’s a quick test, under fixed lighting aperture priority. The cameras exposed slightly differently as they would in the real world. I’ll try and put up another over the weekend under more strict conditions.
aperture priority test == useless. olympus’ 3200 iso == 1600 iso so it’s how their m43 sensor does better than aps-c one.
I know it was a quick test, but the difference in exposure in this sort of test makes it too invalid to be worthwhile.
So while i do appreciate you taking the time to do the test it is unfortunately useless. I look forward to see the later test. 🙂
Why should anyone buy a Canon? Because it’s less problematic, admit it or not.
if nikon use the same sensor for 7 years, without any big change to the design and production line, they could have the same built quality as well, if Sony stays with the body design as A900 and make very small improvements along the years just like canon, sony could reach the same quality too
if you had photography as a hobby for many years, you would remember that when canon 5d mark II came out, it has several light leaks, mirror fall off and inner reflection issues as well, because back then it was a pretty advanced machine and some tech wasn’t very well established. that happens to every company.
plus, it was only the D600 D610 has many issues, never heard D8X0 line or D4 had any problem at all. so if you just a little bit diligent to do some research before purchase anything, you certainly can avoid the problems.
oh if you really looking for less problematic， leica film rangefinder is your best choice. never really change anything since 50s.
XD
Actually, those are not the problems I’m talking about. I remember most of them, and a few more but I’m actually talking about problems in use.
Let’s think about it. Right now Sony has a pretty incomplete lens and accessory ecosystem and most of them are not compatible with each other.
-I have 3 older Minolta iISO mount flashes which I can’t use on my A7 without an adapter.
-I also can’t trigger or control them with any of the mirrorless models with the popup or supplied flash.
-I get DMF with native lenses and SSM lenses with adapters but not with SAL or SAM lenses on A7. SAL lenses actually support DMF on DSLR and DSLT models.
-There is still no cheap and fast 85mm lens.
-If I have an older body for backup camera, chances are that most of my lenses and flashes won’t work with it.
-If I want to do tethering with Live View, I have to buy an A7ii.
-Still no Live View tethering via WiFi, even though the cameras are actually capable of that.
-A7 series have combines power/usb/remote jacks which means you can’t run the camera on AC power while tethering, let alone use the remote.
-Yeah I can use Canon lenses with good AF but I have to spend 3200$ on a camera body first.
I can go on for ages but thing is, these stuff do matter when doing profesisonal work. If you think A7rii has an amazing sensor, look at the link at the bottom to see what an 11 year old Canon 1Ds can achieve with a proper workflow.
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/
All sensor performance is definitely overrated.
why won’t you go nikon then? nikon has more or less the same eco system as canon. PLUS， a sony made sensor
in term of the image quality, luminous-landscape made the point for final print result, but from my own experience and many fellas around, the real improvements in sensor tech in recent years is more flexibility when retouching, a pixel has way more info behind it then what you see at front, so yeah if you print what ever you shoot, not much differences, but if you do some heavy post production, you will realize the effort they made
I truly hate Nikon ergonomics, I don’t want anything to do with them :).
The main reason I’m using a Sony A7 right now is the flexibility. While I do use photography quite often in my job (Interior designer/Product designer), photography is not the main source of income for me. Hence, I can’t justify spending 5-digit figures on a camera and lens setup. A7 lets me use my old Canon FD lenses and newly acquired Minolta AF lenses with quite good performance with more flexibility than any other system. I can use the Canon lenses we have at work (exotic stuff like 11-24 and 85/1.2) and take them off to make it back ito a compact camera again. Nothing from Canon or Nikon offers such flexibility on its own.
I should have kept that 55 1.2 FD lens lmao…
If I could shoot my 50L and 85L on a nikon and use reliable on/off camera TTL flashes with built in radio I would switch to Nikon. But frankly, I think mirrorless is the future, I’m just waiting patiently in the meantime the Sony ecosystem is maturing.
First of all it depends on your kind of work. For a hobbyist and general all around photos. Any of the cameras will be more than adequate. If you are a sports photographer, fps, fast focus, etc will be king. Concert photographer, noise, higher iso, and fast lens availability. etc. So I can see why sensor may not be as important to some. However, in a day where publishers, architects, etc do not pay like they use to, sometimes you it does not make economic sense to carry tons of lighting equipment. Sensor technology is a bigger factor in these situations. Studio setting, probably not as important.
Actually, I use an A7 and a few Canon lenses (mainly 11-24/4 these days) for architecture. It offers me the best of both worlds. A7 has an infallible metering and pretty good sensor so I can push and pull as I’d like to, while that Canon lens is beyond anything anyone ever made. I also get probably the best live view and focus check, all with a tiltable LCD which is pretty comfortable to work with.
My boss however, can’t focus manually at all and he is very impatient and hates adapting to new cameras (especially something with menus and buttons as complicated as the A7) so he wouldn’t tolerate my workflow for himself at all. He would buy a Canon no matter what. Sensor performance wouldn’t persuade him.
I think the Sony looks like a winner. I watched a couple of the videos that highlight the menu features. The menu on the Sony is very Canon like in some ways.
I love what Sony are doing with innovations… not because I’m ready to buy an A7rII but because they are shaking up the competition like Canon. I agree Sony mirrorless cameras aren’t yet as ‘mature’ as Canon DSLRs but they already do a few things better and that’s why I want Canon to pay attention and hopefully catch up.
Canon has just announced thier first fulframe mirrorless camera and it uses the standard canon mount.
The camera is a small cube, 4 million iso, 2.26mp and costs $30,000.
Clearly this os a specialized camera , not for everyone.
But I am certain we will see future consumer versions, and the 3″ cube is an interesting shape. I do not know that the mirrorless ff Canon consumer models will look anything like this camera.
The camera has lots of inputs but no built in evf or lcd…I suspect it is modular and you get the components you want.
The a7rii eliminates the biggest system shortfall…lenses.
You can now add E mount, FE mount, A mount, Canon mount, Nikon mount, and many other mounts to the lens selection fully compatable and functional with this camera.
So not only has Sony matched the lens selection of any camera system made, but they have far exceeded it.
So more accurately your comment should be that every camera system made except Sony a7rii has a lomited lens selection, and only Sony a7rii, of any camera made has a complete lens selection.
Yeah but now I have to spend 3200$ all of a sudden, not good. If I want a backup, that’s another 3200$.
Also, can’t use a big and front heavy lens like 11-24 safely on a tripod because it has no tripod mount. Some adapters have a tripod mount (100$ Commlite adapters have one which doesn’t work at all) but then you still can’t use it with a battery grip.
See, kludges and compatibility issues everywhere.
You only have to spend 3200 if you buy this camera and want all thes omprovements…otherwise you can continue to use what you have.
But the good thong is now you can do bpth, because this camera is the first universally compatable ilc…is it absolutely perfect ?… Absolutely not…but it is the best you will currently find anywhere.
Main point was not that Canon was a better camera or a system btw, the point was that it had less issues for most users. You and I are not like most users, are we?
Cannon makes arguably the best lens/selection/Quality/value of any system.
In my opinion most users look at nothing but Canon because they are lenslocked, and it is currently the best , most complete system available.
The a7rii changes the whole game…you can now mix the lenses you want with the camera you want.
There is no going back, other manufacturers must now decide to join the universal camera revolution or lose market share to those that do.
I do not like being locked into buying products I don’t want just because they fit products I want or already have.
Good sales of the a7rii will send a clear message to the industry that interchangeable lens cameras must actually have interchangeable lenses.
I hope that they come out with that AF Nikon to E Mount adapter soon. I still have a lot of Nikon glass left over from when I used the system. I can use them with MF now, but it would be real nice to have AF on the A7RII, with my old Nikon glass. If it works as good as the Canon adapters, in the last few videos I’ve seen, then you are right about the first universal mount camera on the market.
I shot the 5dsr last week for a week.
I shoot animals including birds in flight.
Tracking autofucus was totally useless
Regular autofocus was onnacurate
In bright light at default exposure…all highlights were gone and could not be recovered…shadows were good….apparently the only way to get a usable shot is to deliberately underexpose then process them outside the camera on the computer to do shadow recovery…I am unwilling to accept a camera that cannot produce consistantly usable shots strait from the camera in anything but ideal conditions.
Under ideal conditions with perfect lightin the pictures were spectacular, under any other conditions very few pictures were usable.
You can keep tethering…whatever that is…I would rather have a camera that takes consistantly good pictures in a wide variety of conditions, as I cannot costomize the world to meet my cameras requirements
People can buy any camera they want. I’m not offended if they choose anything other than Sony and I think it would be healthy if we stop being belligerent, or just plain knobs, when it comes to people’s choices of where they spend their money.
Those who preambulate around here obviously are interested in Sony products and those who are not here obviously aren’t.
Live and let live FFS.
Like I already said on facebook. The video is in APS-C mode. I consider this not representative as the noise is magnified (x2) in this mode. I don’t know why one would ever use APS-C mode to demonstrate ISO performance in video.
edit: video was removed from this post by SAR 🙂
In APS-C mode the camera is not using line-skipping on the video so all the light that hits is being used in the image. In full frame mode many lines are skipped thus reducing the total amount of light available. We will have to see comparison videos to get the definitive answer but my quess would be about 1/2 the noise in super35 mode compared to FF.
Sony A7S was the full frame video camera. A7R II does it’s magic in APSC mode (or Super 35, damn marketing words)
…and next we are going to test a 5 y old car to a new one !!!
I sold mine used 5D mkIII a half year ago with several L lenses and bought new A7 II with two Zaisses. I was very pleased that the money received for used Canon stuff was enough to buy new more advanced for my needs Sony. And now I see Sony released A7R II. It is cool, but the price… It costs extra 1500$ over my A7 II and what I receive for it? Actually I’m interested in autofocus improvement and to a lesser extent in the increased resolution. But does advanced sensor technology worth extra 1500$? As far as I know sensor cost depends mainly on sensor size. I don’t want to pay extra money for any advanced video features, as photographer I don’t need them. I like Sony’s articulated screen, but as photographer I also sometimes use my camera in portrait orientation. But Sony’s over 3k$ camera has articulated screen made mostly for videography needs. So I don’t know actually. I steel waiting for anounce of A9. Hope it will have pro body design, new sensor with almost 100% coverage of advanced autofocus points, really improved viewfinder and fully articulated screen. In this case I will agree to pay over 3k$ for it.
Sony should next make a 78mp camera similar in features to a7rii, but one stop lower iso, and best possible still picture quality.
For this camera video quality /functionality should absolutely not be a consideration. This should be first and foremost for still picture quality, video can be tacked on but only to the degree that absolutely no compromises to still picture funtionality are made.
There are many cameras now that do great video, and that’s a good thing, but not every camera made needs to be compromised for video prformance.
I like the a7rii and should be getting mine soon, but like most serious photographers I always use more than one camera and need an ultimate still picture machine as one of them.
well now we know that you could keep those Ls 😉
I am not sure of it. One of the biggest Canons problem is outdated line of optics. Where are a lot of lenses including L-class, but most of them were designed more than 10 years ago, and many even came from film era. And now comes the time of 50 mp sensors. Zaiss produces a series of perfect Otus lenses, Sigma updates its not so old glasses to Art. But Canon still believes that its optics are good enough and if renews something than it comes mostly huge white pipe for professional reportage. So thank you very much! I’d rather buy something modern from Sony/Zeiss for same money that Canon sells its outdated and not so perfect anymore Ls ).
I’ve noticed lot’s of “maybe you should learn better techniques, etc” when discussing sensor technology on these and other forums. Every pro photographer has and will have and always have to overcome obstacles with every shoot. No matter the camera, sensor, ect., Just because a photographer, like myself, is interested in better DR and sensor technology does not mean we can’t overcome situations. We’ve been doing it for years. Heck, I saw on one forum where someone was asking advice for a fast ultra wide zoom lens. One genius replied ‘just stand back further’. In my situation where ambient lighted photos are becoming more the norm, DR is a bigger factor. Yes, I can light anything, bracket, etc in pretty much any situation to overcome whatever shadow, highlight issues. I do it all the time. But just like on camera exposure meters, auto focus, LCD screens, etc….they all are tools that make life a little easier. especially when time is money.
If I asked peoples opinions on the LCD screen quality of various bodies…some genius would reply…”if you had good photo techniques…you would not need the screen anyway”.
I feel your pain lmao… but between us those said ‘genuises’ are so biased towards certain camera companies they are probably more infatuated with their camera gear then they are interested in photography…
Very true. Basically Trolls. If their income depends on time, they would think differently. Heck…it’s like saying “why do you need a good software progra…If you’re a good writer…..a typre writer would be all you need”
some don’t get it.
The answer to your question, Andrea, is this:
Mirrorless EVF/LCD cameras interact and react very differently to/with the human eye. Without talking about AF performance, ISO, DR, or any of that measuring stuff, dSLRs and current EVF/LCD mirrorless cameras, there is a host of haptic differences that make one, or the other, better for person A or B.
If all that mattered was IQ, we’d all own Phase One’s latest digital backs. There are many other things to consider; and as Thom Hogan has many times said, you can make fantastic prints from any modern camera. He said that the first time about five years ago.
Nothing has changed since then.
What has changed is that mirrorless offers small-sized bodies, something that does spell trouble for dSLR companies that previously didn’t have to compete on size or weight except in the low end.
The proverbial ‘I’m a sports shooter and only Canon or Nikon will do’ shooter hasn’t a camera that feels good in the hands (not size, but button quality/layout/feel), not to mention all the other stuff that people go on and on about here in camera geek internet land.
The answer is: if you have to ask the question, you don’t understand dSLRs.
I love big chunky DSLR’s. The small stuff has it’s place, but come on! Who doesn’t like a big flappy flappy brick. Big buttons, dials and killer OVF. Might as well enjoy it now before it goes bye bye. Perfect merg of old verses new tech. It’s sublime.
Yup a lot of professional photographers do prefer the larger sizes of DSLRs over the smaller form factor of mirrorless. A lot of it is just personal preference, to some the Sony feels cramped and uncomfortable to hold for long periods of time because of its smaller size. To each his own I would guess.
The wedding I shot recently, which I referred to in a different reply – I shot two DSLRs with the big glass during the ceremony and formal dinner part of the reception, but once the real party started, I switched to my a6000 with a prime and flash attached. It was SO nice shooting with that small setup the rest of the night, and the pictures came out great. I’m getting sold on the small setups…
I was quite satisfied with my Nikon DSLR’s for quite a few years, until I tried a Mirrorless camera for the first time (Nex 7 ) and after a short period of time, I found myself not being able to go back to shooting with a camera, where I couldn’t see the results of my settings until after the picture had been taken. That alone was a big deciding factor. Now some years later, I have a stable of the best mirrorless has to offer, and would never even think about using a DSLR again. The EVF’s today are superb. I did try shooting with a friends Nikon 610 for 20 minutes, and as the light started to diminish, I could hardly see the subject through the OVF. I thought to myself, how did I ever even use this antiquated system before. As far as I can see you diehards only have a few years left, until the companies will stop making old tech, as they will be forced by the consumer to drag themselves into the current century.
Which only means that you are an EVF/LCD mirrorless fan. No problem. But people on the other side exist.
There’s too much personal anecdotal evidence on both sides. Face it: some people prefer EVF/LCD mirrorless cameras; some people prefer OVF dSLRs. It’s not wrong or right the other way. It only gets wrong when a person from one camp tries to convince the world that their camp is the better, or correct, way.
That is disgusting.
Enjoy.
I agree that there are different preferences across different groups of people, and I am all for free choice, but the point that I was trying to make is that there are a lot of diehard DSLR users out there, that for one reason or another, refuse to try a different (more advanced) system, and seem to focus on finding reasons why that system would be no good for their particular type of photography.
I believe that if we could force every DSLR user to shoot with a high quality mirrorless for 1 week, a ver high percentage of those people would see the light, so to speak, and would wonder how they used the older system for so long, thinking that it was superior.
There will always be users that prefer DSLR’s, just as there people that prefer to drive a Volkswagen, rather than a Porsche, but given an extensive test drive, I think you would find many many converts.
The main problem now is a marketing problem, not a technology problem, but the general public is slowly learning.
Cheers
Jimmy: re-read the first post I made in which I outlined WHY certain people will always use dSLRs. I didn’t even get into vertigo, fluctuating EVF amp gain, the loss of resolution in the EVF, contrast loss VS sunlight, etc.
I just mentioned practical things like button quality, placement, travel, etc. There isn’t a single mirrorless maker that focuses on the feel of the camera and its myriad functions in the hand. They all focus on the imaging tech or the lenses.
The VW/Porsche analogy makes no sense. It is more like: mountain bike or road bike vs cyclocross. One is specialised and one is trying to be all things for all people, which is fine. But in a long race, the cyclocross (mirrorless) is less comfortable, not as fast, and less stable. Climbing a mountain trail, it is slower than a mountain bike, less stable, etc. It IS faster and better in flat cyclocross races; and just like mirrorless cameras, it has its niche.
Just like dSLRs do.
I won’t answer to your next message because you’re not reading WHY I’m writing this, which is to say that it’s not about the tech: it’s about the handling, the feel, and even the EVF that can cause severe headaches in the wrong/right person.
I do understand that there is more to a camera than just the image quality. I can say that from a handling point of view, I do find that my Olympus E M1 is quite near perfect, as far as feel, and button / feature layout. The usability is very good, and it is one of the most comfortable cameras that I use (for my smallish hands), but it is too bad that it is a small sensor camera. I would like to see Sony study this camera for help designing their own ergonomics. Not that there is anything wrong with the IQ, but we are talking about FF Pro type cameras in this discussion. I do admit that most of the mirrorless offerings are somewhat ergonomically challenged, and could use some improvements, but as I said in my first post, we are only a few years away from flappy mirror being completely superseded. Have a nice day.
Mirrorless, as a system, is awesome and manage to fill a lot of needs for most photographers: it has image quality, a great size/weight ratio and the possibility of using lots of older lenses is really attractive. But, mirrorless are not as robust as a DSLR, period.
Due to mirrorless smaller size, every bit of electronic is compressed, and the camera can handle big chunks of physical impact. If you drop a Canon 5D Mk III to the ground, it probably will hold its own and still work just fine after the fall, but if you let a mirrorless (even the one with magnesium alloy body, like the Fuji X-T1) they will probably stop working.
So, pretty much, I think mirrorless are the future, but not for everyone. DSLRs probably will die for the amateur and photographers who doesn’t need the extra physical resistance, but there will be a few – myself included – that will have to stick with it.
Could you elaborate on the build quality issue a bit please?
>> Due to mirrorless smaller size, every bit of electronic is compressed
This is basically entirely incorrect in so far as it having an impact on a camera’s ability to take a knock. Firstly, the electronics inside the camera are quite impervious to falling, it’s the mechanical stuff that finds it self in trouble in such a situation. Everything else held the same, a camera with a flapping mirror would therefore be more likely to break in a fall than one without.
Now, some mirrorless cameras have IBIS, which is a point where knocks are not welcome, but not all, so going only on the main difference between the two, your comment makes no sense.
I recently saw a GH 4 roll down a hill and stop hard on a boulder, it wasn’t by any means fine after, but it worked perfectly, I don’t think my 5D would have fared as well.
>> Everything else held the same, a camera with a flapping mirror would therefore be more likely to break in a fall than one without.
If it were a direct hit to the mirror box, yes. But most DSLR are build in a manner that an indirect hit probably wouldn’t break the mirror box. My friend had a 60D that fell into a staircase from the first to the ground floor, and although the LCD screen broke, the camera mirror box was fully functional, taking pictures and everything. And the 60D isn’t a pro camera, so one would expect some kind of major damage to it due to the fall.
As for me, back in 2013 my 5D Mk III got beaten by the police out of my hand and fell to the ground. You can tell that there was damage due to the beating in the body, but the insides were fully functional. The same thing happened to my father’s Fuji X-T1, which body is made from magnesium alloy, that felt during his trip and broke down due to a crack on the sensor. Maybe an issue with luck? Maybe. But if so, my luck is definitely pro-DSLR. 😛
>> If it were a direct hit to the mirror box, yes
No, all other things equal, a body with a flapping mirror is more likely to be damaged no matter where it is hit. It will have one more mechanical, and also movable item, and those are the most likely to be damaged by impact. Electronics generally are NOT affected by impact.
Most cameras I have used, at least from enthusiast up, will handle a fall from human hands perfectly fine.
>> that felt during his trip and broke down due to a crack on the sensor
Yes, that was bad luck. It is highly unlikely that a sensor will crack due to a fall. The camera has a shorter flange distance but if that was the cause of the problem, that would mean the entire back element of the lens had to be pushed into the camera body to crack the sensor. That is highly unlikely.
>> luck is definitely pro-DSLR
But you didn’t answer the question really. Given that a mirrorless camera typically has fewer moving parts than a DSLR, why on earth would it, everything else being the same, be more likely to be damaged in a fall.
Perhaps I was being too subtle, but what I am saying is that your opinion on the matter appears to defy logic.
I have a question for you guys. I’m doing an indoor wedding in a few weeks. I’ve done two before, but they were outside. Beach to start (so no big deal there) and then inside. What’s the lowest ISO you think I could get away in a reception hall? I’ll be shooting two bodies with primes- so nothing slower than F2. Although, I normally shoot around 3.5-F8. Should I expect to have to go above 1600.
Just try out by yourself – do a full ISO-row indoors in RAW, put it in lightroom and test which ISO is aceptable for YOU after Lightroom-NR.
I would go up with ISO and risk noise instead of risking motion blur.
1600 tops for me. Actually, the A7 is good to 3200. I agree, no motion blur.
And as my photography-dad teached me: Any noisy photo is better than a missed shot.
Totally agree. I’ll even shoot my A900, not exactly a high-ISO beast, at 3200 all day long if that’s what it takes to get that shot. Most of the time the little noise that creeps in can be passed off as film grain anyway (especially if you post-process with the right styling), and I’ve found that really only photographers notice that stuff, not your clients. There are limits, of course, but they’re a bit higher than most people think.
You’ll probably have to go far above 1600 iso. Of course it depends on the light, but if you want to maintain a decent shutter speed in order to freeze the movements when you shoot people (1/125 at least, 1/160 is safer) , you will very likely go to 3200, 6400 or even above…
1/320 is minimum for me. Even with slow moving people.
I did an indoor wedding/reception a couple months ago, and my ISO was pretty up there for the reception, where the room was a bit darker. Until the dance party started, at which point I started using bounce flash (and could thus lower my ISO a bit), I was probably up around 3200.
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Well, this should be interesting. I’ll be running my A77II and I guess the A7- I rented the LAEA4 adapter. For portraits I have two 5 foot impact umbrellas and stands. I also have a 600 watt promaster. Kind of stupid and way more than I need. I plan on getting two alien bees since they’re more popular. I’ll have to hold onto my A7 for the ISO. Dang. Well, this should be interesting.
Umbrella setup is what I use for portraits, too. I just used a single 7-foot Westcott parabolic, and then I had a reflector to use as needed. If you have them, you might consider speedlights for portability. I had a tri-mount adapter, so had three speedlights (Yongnuo 560III’s) firing into that umbrella – worked really well. I prefer working with my Alien Bees, but the speedlights are much more mobile (lighter, compact), and it worked out great. I probably won’t bother even bringing my studio strobes anymore.
I’m going to grab the Westcott 7 foot. I was worried it might produce to harsh shadows for wedding portraits indoors atleast- so I bought the white lined 5 footers with black backing. Hmm, I knew I’d end up buying that parabolic. I’ll start with one, they’re 100 bucks, but probably worth it. I’m going to check out those Yongnuo’s- pretty cheap as well.
You’ll love it. I bought the three of ’em (white shoot-thru, white-lined/black-backed, silver-lined/black-backed) as a $200 package deal a while back. Personally, I like the shoot-thru for wedding/family portraits if I can have only with me, as the light spilling can be an advantage to avoid shadows.
Those Yongnuo’s are the best deal out there in portable lighting right now, IMO. The quality is amazingly good for the price. And if you get the wireless command unit (YN560-TX), you can control them remotely, from your camera; really handy when you quickly need to adjust power or zoom. I like using three together, as then you can keep the power low enough to have pretty quick recycle times.
Doesn’t anyone use flash these days? Gary Fong Lumisphere, or whatever he calls his light modifier and a fairly powerful flash should do the trick, especially with neutral walls and anything but cathedral ceilings.
Many times you’re not even allowed to use flash during ceremonies, and even when you’re allowed, I try not to so as not to distract from the main event. I usually try to shoot without flash if possible during the reception speeches, too, if I can; again, so as not to distract from the people being focused on. The rest of the time, though, I flash away…
I was thinking that there was a reception in the “reception hall”. I have never used flash during the ceremony, but never had a problem during the reception. That doesn’t mean that I always use flash during the reception, but it is sure nice having some flexibility at an event.
Agree, it’d be hard to do a reception with no flash.
A flash does not negate the need for sensor sensitivity.
Flash exposes the subject. Camera exposes the ambient light.
Unless you want unflattering, flatly lit photos where you’re indiscriminately diffusing light into the frame, you still need the ability to expose the ambient light cleanly.
Even if you do uncontrollably diffuse light throughout the scene, you don’t always have the right surfaces in the room that will allow you to diffuse the light into the room efficiently enough (i.e., dark ceilings and walls). In those situations, without sufficient sensitivity you’ll either have underexposed backgrounds (dark cave type photos) or a lot of noise.
I agree. My wedding days are long gone. Use to use multiple flash for film and earlier days of digital, but high ISO today changes all that.
I did a wedding shoot in September 14 where I was asked to use flashes only for “special” shots, not allowed at all in the church. I had my A99 and my A7R with me.
Most shots were with F4-5.6, guest area and afterwards at the party partly F8.
In the church most shots were possible at ISO 1600 to 3200, during the party almost only 6400, some at 12800.
On request I prepared a fotobook (A4) as give aways for later, and at sizes of max. 5×7″ the high ISO images looked quite fine. (I denoised high ISO with DxO Prime, which works out far better than LR)
This is good advice- thanks.
F8? Seems a lot. In my experience using 28 or 35mm you can stay often around f2 with sufficient DOF even for group shots.
Indeed a lot.
For the party it was wanted that the background is not too blurry.
And some scenes required more than 1,5m DOF; and I used the A99 there with my two fast primes Planar 50 and 85.
Interesting. Our clients luckily want shallow DOF, makes it easier to avoid high ISOs.
Sounds like one very demanding client to tell you no flash and specify deep focus in a dark environment. They must be fans of noise.
We could all speculate anywhere from 400-6400 ISO. But numerous factors should taken into consideration (time of day, window light, type of indoor lighting etc). If possible I would do a site visit at the venue around the time the wedding is taking place, pop off a few shots a see for yourself (with and without flash). The few weddings that I’ve done, I do not use flash during the ceremony if I can avoid it, but go crazy with creative flash during the reception.
I put some high ISO jpegs up here – https://flic.kr/s/aHskhiCnTM
with and without NR.
I liked the samples from David Kilpatrick.
Same lenses on all 3 cameras? Lenses have different light transmission (t stop) values which explains exposure differences. Shoot in Manual, not aperture priority and set same exposure settings and use the same lens
“And more importantly, why should anyone buy a Canon now?”
5Ds and 5DsR for resolution (50>42), 1Dx for sports (especially indoor), 7d II for birding/some outdoor sports, G7x for a compact with a decent lens range and image quality. Anything else makes no sense.
G7x … I’d rather pick a RX100 Mark III for their sharper and higher quality lens (at 24-70) than a soft and slow to focus 24-100 (which is lack behind in every focal length and espescially bad at more than 70mm).
Don’t delude yourself.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_1=canon_g7x&attr13_2=leica_x113&attr13_3=panasonic_dmclf1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=125&attr16_1=125&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=1.002685284640172&y=1.1163346613545817
I am looking at the corner of G7x at 85mm-eq and it is as sharp as RX100 III at 50mm eq, and with less CA.
And how sharp is the RX100 III at 100mm-eq? Oh, wait…
Okay then
,according to dpreview I guess G7x that i tried before was a bad copy.
From what i remember, my impression from that camera is, color is dull, have more CA and noticeably more vignette it was not as sharp too.
So on good copy, the sharpness advantage on RX100 III over G7x is only on wide side (atleast around 24mm to 28mm where G7X take a cropped frame at 17.5mp and resize back to 20mp in jpeg as people discussed in http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3734464.) and maybe up to 35mm where G7x’s lens quality still didn’t catch up, right?
then i agree that G7x is better choice when you want longer focal length performance than Rx100.
Doesn’tt this new Canon G3x compact trump all those others with a 24-600 zoom: https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-g3x-review/
Only thing missing is a Canon for dynamic range, that would make a total of 5 cameras.
how about a full frame with light small body？
how about a camera also with 4k capability？
how about two more stops of DR to provide more flexibility in post production and/or when you got a wrong exposure？
how about a pocket point and shoot but with a pop up EVF for bright outdoor？
how about adapt all kinds of cool lenses from history into one body？
how about A7s and D4s actually have better high ISO performance than 1Dx？
how about I tell you 42MP+5 axis stabilisation+vibrate reduced shutter, or 36mp+EFCS+mirror lag can be more practical than just a 50mp sensor and less usable EFCS？
and back illuminated sensor, SILENT shutter of a7s, huge number of af points spread out al over the viewfinder, life exposure and histogram, and all the other benefits of mirror less? Canon still sleeping since the 5d Mii
Did I write “for light small body” or “for 4k capability” (although 1DC does that PLUS sports for ages). No, I wrote “for resolution” and “for sports” – which I valid uses for many, body size is not a use.
but you said “why should anyone buy a Canon now” at very beginning
just because something fits your need doesn’t means the rest are useless for anyone else
and BTW 1Dc has poor DR and record in MJPEG
Do you understand the word “anyone”? It is not the same as “everyone”. “Those who need maximum resolution” or “shooting sports” is not the same as needing lightest possible body…
5DS(R) has a lot more noise than Ar7II even at ISO 100. So there wont be more detail in the files. And the Sony is better at almost everything other than resolution, so there’s no point in buying the Canon, unless you already own a lot of Canon lenses (which you can still adapt on the Sony)
No reason a photographer cannot run both systems with adaptors, etc. The smaller size of the a7rii, een with a grip, will be nice
Only at ISO100, not “even”. Where noise is negligible anyway, to see it, you have to push shadows 5EV, and if you need THAT (why?), you are better off shooting multi-shot HDR anyway.
Canon and Canon fans expect you to deliberately underexpose then perform shadow recvery off camera in order to achieve acceptable dynamic range…of course you must do this to both your good and bad shots because the underexposed originals are to dark to properly evaluate.
Yet despite this necessity it cannot be done in camera.
Normally exposed shots cannot be used because the highlights are gone and cannot be recoverred.
I shot over 100 shots of male Riddy Ducks in bright diffused light..perfect conditions for my a77ii…every shot has a white beak.
Just google Ruddy Duck images and you will realize how terribly bad a white beak on a Ruddy Duck is!
P.S….the shots with white beaks on google are the ones taken wih Canon cameras….the super intense blue beaks are what they really look like.
Define “acceptable Dynamic Range.” Is it enough for any and all possible shooting conditions? If so no camera is acceptable, and the red epic dragon comes closest. Canon’s current line of sensors provide enough dynamic range for the vast majority of shooting conditions I have encountered. There are some where an additional stop or two of shadow detail would have been nice, but generally if I need more I need a lot more and I need to either modify the light, compress the scene DR (eg with filters), or stitch multiple frames.
Also, if your understanding is that underexposing somehow increases dynamic range, you may want to think about that for a while longer. The more you expose, the higher your signal becomes versus a relatively flat read noise. Underexposed shots will have LESS detail in the shadows to recover, not more. You can maximize SNR with any typical camera, not just canon, by overexposing as much as possible without clipping, but certainly not by underexposing and then trying to lift shadows. When necessary I use that technique with my canons. I’ll also use it with my A7R II. It’s very simple and takes only a few minutes to set up an expose-to-the-right preset in your raw converter such that you never even see overly-bright off camera. But if you’re underexposing to preserve shadows, you’re doing it wrong.
Yes …all cameras perform in a similar manor when shadow recovery is used to simulate greater dynamic range….Canon propaganda tries to convince everyone that this means thier sensors have greater dynamic range than Sony…which we all know is bull$hit.
Overexposure loses highlights and they cannot be recovered, but shadows can be recovered to some degree.
Therefore underexposing saves more of the highlights that are typically lost on Cannon sensors and then the shadow recovery partly recovers the shadows lost by underexposing.
The 5dsr is terrible at keeping highlights with properly exposed shots.
This is the Canon blogs solution, not mine.
I think it is ridiculous to need to resort to this process to get usable dynamic range, but this is the Canon fans explaination for why Canon sensors actually have better dynamic range than Sony…yes believe it or not they are actually making that ludicrous claim.
I typically read canon rumors, populated by a large quantity of canon evangelists, and I’ve never seen anyone claim canon sensors have better DR than exmor. I often see it claimed that the differences are negligible and less important than the system as a whole, but I have not seen one person (who wasn’t referring to Magic Lantern’s dual ISO hack) claim canon sensor tech produces better DR.
Canon highlights are fine. In the highlights, noise is barely relevant. The advantages of the exmor platform lie within the shadows. Protecting highlights on a canon is the same as protecting highlights on a Nikon or Sony. You can back off from clipping further with an exmor than you can with a canon. But either way, to maximize shadow detail, one exposes more, not less.
I shot the 5dsr and it blows out highlights with normal exposure.
Overexposing makes it worse, and unlike shadow recovery highlights cannot be recovered…so I dissagree with overexposing ….the purpoe of the shadow recovery/underexposure is not simply to improve shadw detail but to simulate increased dynamic range. That cannot be achieved by overexposing and losing even more highlights which cannot be recovered.
Note what I said above: “…overexposing as much as possible without clipping.” Those last two words are paramount. Expose as much as you can without clipping highlights, and you’ll maximize signal to noise ratio for any given frame. Sure, if you have the sun in the frame and meter to it*, you could consider that underexposure relative to the same scene if it lacked the sun. But in general, most scenes have a few stops between “proper exposure” and clipped highlights, so exposing to maximize shadow detail is overexposure.
If the 5DSR you used was clipping highlights with normal exposure, there was probably something wrong with it, or the metering scheme was inappropriate.
*I shot this using a canon, but don’t expect the a7r ii will change my methodology. My eyes could resolve detail in the foreground of the cliff, but metering suggested I’d have needed about 17-stops range in my camera to capture it.
Before I download this to see the metadata, my eyes can not easily see shadow detail of the cliff on my 32 inch calibrated monitor, without using lightroom. You are at sunset right? If your goal was to see the detail of the cliffs to the right, you simply underexposed this shot. What lense are you using? Don’t just tell us what body you are using.
Why in the heck would you be metering to only the sun at sunset and you want to see shadow details of that cliff to the right also? If you metered for only those reflections of the sun, you got what you metered for (maybe). What is the lense setting? That’s the question. Before you point to the camera body, Let’s see how you are using the lense. And what lens is it.
Depends if you care about the dynamic range or not. Dynamic range isn’t everything. It’s the composition of the shot. Sometimes the highlights aren’t wanted, only the shadow detail. Your comment is only relevant to the nature of the composition. From and artisitic and Lightroom standpoint, you are only commenting from your taste and dislikes. The purpose of shadow recovery depends on the task. Maybe you incorrectly missused the camera for the lighting. What was the FC at the subject? What was your camera settings? I immagine that you incorrectly or improperly set your camera for the lense that you were using. It’s done by the best of us. Show us the example with the metadata. So we can see it for ourselves
I can not define usable dynamic range for you as that is subjective and everyone will have a differrent opinion, but more dynamic range is better than less dynamic range.
Obviously, but you invoked the term, so what did you mean by it?
On the contrary, on the Canon sensors you SHOULD NOT underexpose (at least not by as much as you can on a Sony sensor). Well, use native metering. 12EV is more that fine for any current media (which usually has only 7EV of DR or so), and if you compress scene DR even more than that, you get flat HDR look (even from 12EV compressed into 7EV of the media you have that effect).
Some people are too hung up on that extra 1-2EV of Sony A7 sensors at base ISO, like it is some overriding feature which somehow makes it OK not to have f/2.8 zooms, pathetic battery life from tiny batteries, not having a zoom wider than 16mm or a lens longer than 240mm (and even that at unusable at other that bright sunlight f/6.3) etc etc etc.
For me personally the biggest problem with Canons is its controls, my hands simply don’t work like that (I need controls under tips of my fingers, not under the base of my thumb and in other random places impossible to reach without unnatural contortions). A little less DR at base ISO… meh, why would I want to underexpose by 5 EV unless it is multishot HDR anyway?
I am only stating the Canon bloggers fix for low dynamic range. I think it is ludicrouse to resort to the extrardinary means they suggest just to compensate for thier sensors shortcummings, and I do not reccomend doing it, do not like Canon sensors, and eill not be doing it myself.
As for poor dynamic range not being a problem, nothing could be further frpm the truth.
I shot the 5dsr gor a week and hoghlights were joplessly bloen out in all strongly lit subjects.
I have over 100 pictures of Ruddy Ducks shot in perfect lighting and every one of them have white beaks!!!! Contrary to Canon claims of more accurate color the 5dsr is absolutely terrble with brite pale blues
I have pictures of orange tigers and the tops of thier heads and backs are totall white with absolutely no trace of details.
When I get my a7rii I will subject it to similar conditions and directly compare the results…it has not arrived yet.
I don’t care what “Sensor” I’m using. Don’t give a blip about it really. I never intentionally underexpose a shot. Who ever that you are talking about is maybe simply a bad fotog. Or shoots to their particular style. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t necessarily mean you are correct in your assumption that its due to the camera. They would probably underexpose if it was any other camera body. Don’t attribute photography style and usage to the mechanisms of the camera. That’s ludicrous.
That would be exposing to the left. I shoot Canon, Fuji, and Sony. I never intentionally underexponse, nor do any of my fellow fotogs. I expose to the right. If you want to recover shadow detail, why would you underexpose? I shoot with ambient light on location 99% of the time. I would NEVER deliberately underexpose. What the heck are you talking about?
That’s my point, on the Canons its not negligible at ISO 100, that’s the sad part. Of course it’s not like you would see on an other camera at ISO 800+ or so, but it’s visible, on the A7RII not so much. The difference is enough to not care about the 20% more pixels in the 5DS(R). I’m pretty sure if there was a scientific test done it would be found that the amount of details of both sensors at ISO 100 is about the same.
Multi-shot HDR can only be used for stationary subjects with a tripod
Yeah, like landscapes. 🙂 Even a tripod is not necessary, modern software is able to adjust pictures a few pixels here and there. And remove moving objects. Even in-camera software of some brands is able to do that. Just takes a moving object from one of the pictures only, not that hard. It is usually not something you need HDR for, it is preserve blue of the skies and texture of the clouds while having everything else visible.
Spoken like a true fanboy! Fantastic job! Guys like you keep Canon in the forefront of innovation!
I am not a fanboy of Canon at all, I don’t own a Canon camera for 10+ years. And I am for sure a mirrorless tech fan. But Canon deserves some credit too. For example, 1Dx – Sony simply does not make a competitor, even the latest and greatest A7rII only shoots 5fps (vs 14 fps) and for something like 300 shots – it is NOTHING for sports/event usage (not to mention lack of all-important workhorses – native f/2.8 zooms). Or G7x vs RX100 III (or even IV) – sure, the Sony processor is better, but that only 70mm on the long end is pathetic – Canon is able to have 24-100 in the same size!
And for landscapes – no matter how you count, 50 is more than 42. And 11-24 is wider than 16-35. Sure, you can use adapters with DSLR lenses – but then advantages in weight and size disappear, cost is more (metabones with AF is $650 alone), corners are blurry (see LensRentals testing), and all disadvantages of battery life are there.
You are welcome to say good things about Canon here of you want to.
On CanonWatch however if you say good things about Sony your comment will stay up, but if you say too many good things you will be banned, and the CanonWatch admin will then boast to his readers that he does not sensor pro Sony comment…he just bans those who make them.
I would like to post this comment on CanonWatch but I cannot because I said too many good things about the a7rii.
I hope you read this and welcome your response CanonWatch Admin.
I upvoted you, not because I agree or disagree with you but because you clearly state an opinion that differs from that of the Sony fans on this site.
People are so touchy. I didn’t see your original comment as a typical fanboy post at all… Fanbois put out blanket irrational statements. You pointed out a few valid types of shooting where a Canon body could be more ideal. And then concluded with “Anything else makes no sense”… I assume the people jumping down your throat missed that last sentece, because “Anything else” covers a WHOLE lot of types of photography. e.g. I mainly do a mix of portraits and promotional/commercial shooting, with occasional video, and have been exclusively Canon since 2007 or so. A7R2 is exactly what I’ve been waiting for. And I can’t. Friggin. Wait. But if I shot indoor sports, yeah, sorry, it couldn’t touch the 1DX
I am totally obsessed with resolution and I used the 5dsr for a week long shoot.
I will never buy one and it was so bad I sent it back halfway through the shoo and finished with my a77ii.
And we can see your obsession in you post too.
it does slightly better at 6400 than the other camera’s. Guess a stop is something but I still wouldn’t like going over 3200 as degradation starts
Plus you gain 2-3 stops from IBIS for a 3-4 stops total gain for non-action subjects.
I find 6400 fairly usable on my a7r… I’m not a pixel peeper, I always liked grain on film, luminance noise is quite nice on night shots. Mood is far more important than details for me.
This one was shot on a very dark street at 6400 handheld and I think its quite good.
https://flic.kr/p/w9Wa2u
Yes I appreciate that noise is more grain like on Sony sensors whereas on Canon it looks very digital and ugly.
Dunno what kind of glass this is, but I can’t feel anything from this shot. Maybe its’s the composition. What the heck are you shooting at? The building to the rear? Why are we looking and the mortar in the bricks? The woman is standing under a street light, but I can’t see any detail. Nada. What’s up with that? What lense are you using? Maybe if you crop this down. If you’re trying to show shawdow detail, then let’s see shadown detail. A shot of that well lit building to the rear doesn’t show me anything. Maybe because I shoot people.
It’s more than usable at 6400.
That depends on what you want to use it for and personal preference.
“And more importantly, why should anyone buy a Canon now?”
And who’s going to buy A7rII when A7sII comes out?
Me. Resolution > Sensitivity for my uses.
Cameras are highly specialized tools to fit very specific needs. It’s impossible to universally say one camera is better than another (including comparisons between the a7rII vs the 5DIII)
I (depending on testing etc) probably will. The A7R II appears to be able to do the work of both my Canon FF body and my Panasonic GH4. The A7S certainly can not, and I doubt the A7S II will either.
I like (not love, no) the GH4 for video, but I don’t like it for serious image taking (snapshots and vacation photos are great). I like my Canon FF body and L glass for imaging, but seriously hate the body for video (lenses are great). GH4 low-light performance is not great, but it’s not as bad as some seem to think.
So, it seems I get, with the A7RII – good low light performance, decent dynamic range, excellent stills (better if Sony could drop the ridiculous lossy compression of their RAW) and a better lens selection than any other FF camera system.
And who cares what other people do with their money?
e.g. marketers
everyone 😉
The a7rii is a reall fast high iso camera, even if the a7sii is higher iso.
A7s is far too low resolution for many people, unless all you shoot is video and facebook.
I am buying the a7rii…I will not be buying the a7sii.
Yep. I never could understand all the hype around of the A7s. No doubt it’s a great camera for video, but for stills – not sure… There is not much difference shooting A7r vs A7s under ISO6400 and downsampling 36Mpx to 12Mpx: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4613822764/high-iso-compared-sony-a7s-vs-a7r-vs-canon-eos-5d-iii, over ISO6400 the images are garbage anyway. But resolution wise the difference between 36Mpx and 12Mpx is huge, especially with some nice glass.
The a7s is a fantastic camera. For video it’s been great. For photography with Web usage (probably greater than 90% at this point) – it’s great. I’m looking forward to the improvements an a7sII will bring.
IMHO any a7-series camera would work for “Web” just fine, but for video the a7s is unbeatable no doubt. At this point it’s very easy to guess what’s coming: the second gen body, ibis, bsi sensor, and most likely all other improvements from the r2/m2. No wonder if they also add pdaf.
“And more importantly, why should anyone buy a Canon now?”
More importantly this this, I can’t wait to see all the A7Rii’s out there during the next major sporting event like the Superbowl.
Irrelevant. What a few sports photographers happen to be shooting with means nothing to the overall market for cameras.
Of coarse it does…because people see what equipment they are using!
That’s funny because not long ago you begged everyone on SAR to put tape on their Sony camera logos.
Just look for the big white Canon lenses with plain brown paper bags covering the camera.
Canon users know whats happening but are far from ready to admit it.
A7rii in major sporting event? well…. never….
In case nobody noticed
A mount is now officially dead.
Sony no longer manufactures any A mount camera, and no future A mont camera has been anounced.
That’s it folks…the end.
The end of a mount that has fallen out of popularity with all but just a few photographers. No big loss.
It did not fall out, it was pushed out!
It was pulled with great force from peoples hands ! 😛
I bought into the E mount crack with an A7 and A7 II and I seriously regret my decision now. Its a weak camera and system. Great for soccer moms and people who don’t get paid but for pro work its really bad.
Both my cameras start giving trouble when the humidity goes up. My flashes refuse to work and I need to shift to manual flash mode.
Except for the pros getting paid who are using them…..
I think the a7rii is the first mature A mount camera
It has full lens compatability, ibis and high quality performane.
Before this camera A mount cameras were toys…I have often said that and now say it again…the a7rii is the first A mount camera that I do not consider a toy and I am getting it.
before the A mount was a toy? so ive been wasting my time all these years because you say so? i doubt that too…. im glad all my clients paid, if they saw me shooting with an A mount it might of been disastrous…
A-mount?
Fixed.
You make the claim that this camera is also a toy (released well before a7rII):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082825-REG/sony_pxw_fs7_compact_4k_xdcam_with.html
Yeah, I think that’s pretty clear at this point. I think it’s possible that there might be one more A99 iteration just because it’s already been developed, but yet I wouldn’t be surprised if that doesn’t even happen. At this point I’m deciding whether to just run my existing A-mount cameras until they die (which admittedly, would likely last me a long time yet) and then just adapt lenses to E-mount, or sell my A-mount stuff now while I can perhaps still get a little $$ for it, and switch to Canon/Nikon for my pro bodies, and I’d still be able to adapt those lenses to an A7-type camera when I want to use a smaller, mirrorless body.
Even in the unlikely event that sony does make a future A mount camera, A mount is officially and undeniably dead because A mount cameras are no longer being made.
I think you did your best to type a sentence which absolutely makes no sense.
He will simply attack your reading comprehension skills for not understanding his utter gibberish despite overwhelming evidence to he contrary.
official proof? or did they update the 16-35 24-70 70-200 70-400 and soon to be 135 ssm and 85 all for just the to mount on the A7 with an adaptor?? i dont think so..
I am pretty sure they will probably just make a dslr shaped mirror-less at this point since the tech keeps getting better. A bigger dslr shaped mirror-less with a new fast adapter is essentially a A-mount given they improve the tech to match or exceed the a77II
agreed,
People still own A mount cameras and may still buy lenses for them, just as people still buy accessories for cars that are no longer produced.
Plus A mount lenses are more compact than E mount lenses and can be used with adapters.
did you have a bad emotional breakup with your Amount? The A900 was released in 2008 and the A99 in 2012, this is a four year cycle…. the claims were made before the announcement of the A99 that the A mount was official dead…. dose this sound familiar…
Barry I thought you were one of the more resonable ones here. But this A7RII is turning you to a lun@tic. Sony should add a Health Risk advice on the box.
uh….WHAT??? Your logic:
If Sony makes an a-mount camera, a-mount is dead because a mount cameras are no longer being made.
Did you mistype something? If Sony releases a new a-mount camera than that camera will be in production and will be made.
Sony is no longer making A mount cameras therefore they are dead ..discontinued….if Sony someday makes them again they will be revived.
For example the ford model T is dead discontinued.
The Volkswagon Beetle was dead…discontinued. Recently Volkswagon started making Beetles again so they are now alive again, but they were dead.
Sony is making & selling a-mount cameras & lenses. If an a99 successor is released anytime this year, it will be right on schedule with Sony’s previously established paradigm. E and a-mount accessories are unified so that is null.
Does a-mount have a long future ahead of it? It’s highly unlikely. Your logic remains flawed though. Your moving on from a-mount to e-mount does not signify that a-mount is now dead and e-mount is no longer a toy. It just means you own a new camera. Good for you.
Another self-appointed Sony spokesperson. This forum seem to be full of them these days.
Another self-appointed SAR forum spokesperson. This spokesperson seems to be full of it these days.
there good at keeping secrets…. ill revisit this post before the end of the year to either laugh at you or otherwise like this post. I have a gut feeling your wrong.
My comment is fact…A mount as of now is dead…no longer made and no future model announced.
Even if the mythological a99ii wete to be announced tomorrow A mount is still dead today.
mines in perfect use today, im going to do a shoot in the wild…. and next week a wedding in bali. So my trusty old 99 is not dead until the arrival of another A mount… perhaps your suffering from this ‘Alphadead’ disorder that appears to perpetuate through out the online community. Until its official then its still unofficial, mere opinion.
And many Ford Model Ts are in perfect use today too.
slow release cycles… A900 in 2008…. A99 in 2012 …… A****** 2015-16
Ah ah most of you seems to forget that the most important part of your gear is the eye behind
(Ok this one is easy)
I can drive any car, too, but still have certain models with certain features that I prefer. 🙂
Yes, i said it was easy
Ugh, bummer. I’m just not sure it is enough improvement from my D800 to switch lines completely. Looks like Canon shooters may have reason, since the lenses autofocus well. I’m very much on the fence, hard to justify that much money if I need to buy new glass as well, and the size savings is only modest
I’m waiting for the next generation camera/sensor before upgrading. The improvements on the A7rII are significant but not worth selling and replacing what I have now (in my opinion). For others perhaps it is.
Yeah, unfortunately, I think I may be leaning that way too. Really wish there was a new APS-C to dip my toe in.
It seems most of the good glass (like the 90mm macro) for the sony has OSS. Seems silly to pay for the money and weight to have IBIS, then be buying OSS lenses…
well the OSS works in conjunction with IBIS for even more stabilization!
I’m in the same boat, but leaning towards it (I have one on order at local shop). Switching from my Nikon d750 and lenses will be costly even after I sell them since I’ll need new glass. Hmm! I want it so badly though 😛
No need to buy new lenses with the new AF adapters coming for Nikon as well…..!
The images need to be uprezzed or downrezzed to match each other. Take the 42mp file and downrez it to 22mp to match the Canon and the differences will be fairly significant, same if you bump the Canon or the A7r to 42mp to match the A7rII – the noise will look worse. But to switch from a D800, that’s a big move.
Depends on what you are doing, if you plan to shoot lots of night scenes it might be worth since the high ISO of the D800 is pretty bad.
Looks like this camera is going to be the best for milky way etc, maybe only the A7s might be better with the 6D very close.
I won’t get mine until mid August. Can anyone with a A7rII and use Lightroom, see if the latest LR will import the XAVC-S 4k or 1080p footage? I’ve asked on the Adobe forum with no response.
There’s no real reason to try. Use Premiere
Anyone know when the price drop will come for this? I am a Canon user and new to Sony. Based off the past A7 cameras, what can we expect the price to be around holiday 2015? And how about around a year from now?
I would purchase this when the price is around $2400, give or take.
Price drop? Haha..funny guy. Yeah, I’m thinking ATLEAST a year. There is nothing like it on the market- not even close. Sony won’t be needing to offer anything on this bad boy for quite some time. People are practically building alters to this thing and it just hit the market.
I agree. Probably like Canon on the professional cameras. Price drop when A7Riii is around the corner. When did the original A7R get released. Hopefully its not a yearly thing like the Rx1oo series
My estimation is: up to 20% rebate within six month. Until the sales price will drop to $2400 that should take quite long.
Holiday 2015? Same price. A year for now? Not much less.
The camera has a one year life cycle. It’s hard to imagine the price not dropping much by the time the next one is around the corner. Dumb reasoning you have.
Lol dumb reasoning he has? You should say the same about yourself. The camera isn’t even out yet in other markets and you’re asking if there’s gonna be a price drop by holiday. That’s wishful thinking man. There will probably be a price drop by next summer around this time. Until then don’t hold your breath.
Who said this camera has a 1 year life cycle? That’s an assumption on your part.
Also, no need to be rude, unless your trying to come across as an a**hole.
Just compare the price graphs for the past A7-line and you’ll get an idea of how the A7RII might decline. All A7’s where twice reduced in a 3 months cycle with 10% off each in the beginning, than hold steady for about 6-9 months at 20% off. After that it only slowly declines (e.g. A7 at 30% within 2 years).
If we follow that pattern, we’ll see the first price drop around holiday season 2015 going from $3,200 to about $3,000. In spring, we can assume the next reduction going down to $2,700. In late summer/early autumn 2016 you’ll probably end up with $2,600. But then, the A7RIII is on the horizon. To get past $2,400 will probably take you past holiday season 2016, probably spring 2017 or even summer, when the rumors for the A7RIV are getting hot.
Interestingly, it seams that a new model has very little effect on the price of the former model. All price drops happened long before a newer model had been released or even announced.
So, if you need a A7RII buy it now. IMO $3,000 is as much money on a camera body than $3,200. And waiting for spring to hit the $2,800 mark also doesn’t make much sense because $2,800 is still a lot of money. If you only have $2,400 you better wait for the A7III coming up in Q4. It will probably feature similar AF, BSI sensor … but for $1,700 – and get great lenses from the savings.
Sony, please put all this incredible tech into a99. Combine the great ergonomic and wonderful design with this new revamped sensor and processor in a camera that deserves this – a99. Flash system to follow. A7 is for relaxed casual use – sheer pleasure, a99 for heavy professional use. Please?
Agreed. Sony need a good purpose-built dSLR-style mirrorless.
I want the GDFT Now.
“Before I download this to see the metadata, my eyes can not easily see
shadow detail of the cliff on my 32 inch calibrated monitor, without
using lightroom.”
Correct, that’s the point. It’s underexposed IF the cliff face is the subject, but in general most scenes don’t have such a dramatic tonal range. For those which do, like this one, no camera on the market I’m aware of is capable of rendering the shadows and the highlights. My goal wasn’t to show cliff details. My goal was the show what you see – the sun with rays but not blowing out the surrounding clouds, reflection in the water, and some foreground detail (sand).
The point of the post (read: different than the goal of the photo) was that had I wanted to render both the sun as shown AND details on the front face of the cliff, I’d have to resort to techniques such as blended exposures regardless of camera system. The difference in DR between canon and sony isn’t enough to allow sony users to meter to mid tones in scenes like this. I’d need 3-4 more stops on top of the best sony has to offer.
Again: Sony does have better DR than canon. It’s just not overwhelmingly better. With a sony sensor, the sand at the bottom right wouldn’t have been as noisy. There’s a lot of noise I can see (particularly typical pattern noise) even at this resolution.
As for the lens trivia, I used an EF 16-35 f/4L IS. The only copy I have handy is this one from facebook, and the exif is stripped, but looking at it now I’d guess f/18-f/22 for the starburst and maybe 1/4 of a second based on the slight blur of the water.
If I could up vote that comment twice I would.
Thanks for the detailed answer. That makes sense. I would prefer to get the A7R II or the A7s II because of the video features so I will probably have stretch my budget more. I will most likely purchase next summer so whatever the price is then I will buy it, unless the A7s is still cheaper and more enticing.
I just sold the last of my canon camera bodies & 4 580ex II speedlights. So I’ll probably be using that towards the a7rii. Canon just doesn’t put out anything I want anymore. I’m in love with the Sony a7r’ the II looks amazing!