Sony A7R II – Better, Faster, Stronger, and Heavier.
The Sony A7R II is hitting shelves in a couple days, and its aim is a lofty one: to outshine its predecessor, the ground-breaking Sony A7R.
The original A7R was a landmark camera for photographers who needed resolution but didn’t want to break the bank or their backs. At a mere 14 oz, however, it may have been TOO lightweight- its main drawback (among pixel peepers, and real-world wildlife, etc. photographers alike) was that a phenomenon known as “shutter shock” was actually a serious problem.
The A7R II is a “whopping” 22 ounces, which for the record is only 3 ounces shy of the Nikon Df’s 25 ounces and 4 ounces shy of the D750’s 26 ounces. (A Nikon D810 is 31 ounces, though).
Suffice to say, over the past year or two, Sony’s FE bodies and lenses have shaped up to be about the same weight and price as a comparable Canon or Nikon setup. According to Sony, (I’m here in Portland Oregon at a Sony event, in the spirit of full disclosure), what then is the best way to “beat” the competition? To simply be better, period.
As you’ll see, that’s exactly what Sony appears to be doing with the A7R II.
In a few days, we’ll be publishing our full review, but let’s start off with a few general pros and cons in this brief Initial Impressions review.
First of all, the images. Wow! We’ll get to ISO samples below, but suffice to say that Sony’s BSI sensor technology is a home run. Considering that Sony has already answered some folks’ cries about RAW compression, I think we’ll be hard-pressed to find fault in this sensor.
Next, the AF technology that is in this camera is truly impressive. I’ve always said, on-sensor hybrid AF is the future. It is only a matter of time until this style of camera finally becomes superior to Nikon and Canon AF. Well, that time might be now. We’re still testing various different shooting conditions, but my main problem, low-light focusing reliability, and speed is being well-met. I do suspect that Nikon’s 3-D tracking, which is many generations old by now, may still be superior to the A7R II‘s new adaptive, dynamic AF modes. But again, it’s only a matter of time, and those are the kinds of things that can be improved dramatically with a mere firmware update. Who knows.
Battery life is still in the realm of “gobbling them up.” Mirrorless cameras will always eat batteries far faster than a traditional DSLR, and there’s nothing we can do about that. There are no real breakthroughs in battery chemistry on the horizon. So, buy an extra 2-3 batteries, or get a battery pack if that’s your thing and call it a day.
So, let’s jump to a conclusion: Feature-wise, the A7R II is impressive. In-body stabilization, in-body 4K video, and extreme dynamic range S-Log2 are all features that Nikon and Canon are either never going to offer, or still 1-2 camera generations away from adding. If any of these features are of interest to you, or if you just want the ultimate high-resolution camera for landscapes or editorial work, etc., this is the camera for you.
I’m hard-pressed to come up with any solid cons. Autofocus could always be improved, and if you’re an NFL photographer you might be shooting a 1DX or D4s for another generation, or three. That’s a given. The only true “con” that I can come up with is that these types of hot new cameras could always use polish. Canon and Nikon have been making photography-oriented cameras for decades, and you can feel it in their ergonomics, their menu layout, etc. But that is becoming a harder nit to pick, and today I find myself not being able to really put my finger on exact things that are “wrong.” The command dials could be improved in their tactile feel, and the customizations could be tweaked.
Lastly, mainly, the camera could be faster on the back-end. It’s impressively fast when shooting, with relatively snappy AF and an impressive frame rate considering the resolution. But during image review and various other back-of-the-camera things, I sometimes find myself waiting a second or two. This shouldn’t be a deal-breaker for most photographers, and to be honest if you’re just now getting into photography, you might be much more ready to adapt than I am. I pride myself in being able to pick up any camera and figure it out within a few hours, but I must admit the Sony’s features and customizations are a bit daunting. Then again, have you seen how many options Canon has for autofocus now, too?
But I digress. The bottom line is that this is a fantastic camera. I won’t go down the rabbit-hole of “Canon and Nikon need to get on board with mirrorless ASAP, or else…” because if you’re happy with the camera you have, you should keep using it.
Without any further ado, here are my “boring” Sony A7R II test images. Stay tuned in the coming days for more exciting images, more extensive tests, and a final verdict!
Sony A7R mkII ISO Sample Images
The following images are completely un-edited, RAW images opened in Adobe Lightroom CC. Scroll to the very end to see a dynamic range demonstration, and a comparison against the Nikon D750 at ISO 6400.
Nikon D750 seen below for comparison. The Sony has very similar noise performance, despite being 42 megapixels instead of 24. (The images were captured at different focal lengths to match the 100% views). Also, the Sony image clearly has far more vibrant colors at 6400, which is quite impressive. Then again, the Sony images are pretty colorful all the way until ISO 102400. (I wonder how this sensor will score on DXO’s “Portrait” ranking!)
Below is a dynamic range comparison at ISO 100: The images have received no additional processing except +100 Shadows and +100 Blacks. It appears that the Nikon D750 has much cleaner shadows (despite some weird flare affecting the image!). I’ll have to perform some more testing and see if this proves true.
AGAIN, please note that I’ve used the D750 at 24mm to compare the A7R II at 16mm. I did this because I wanted the 100% crops to look the same. The fact that the Sony is delivering these results at 42 megapixels instead of ~24 is very impressive.
There are innumerable other cameras that I’m eager to compare these results against, however, I think that if the Sony A7R II’s sensor can look this good against the cutting-edge Nikon D750, it’s safe to say it could effortlessly beat all of Nikon 36 MP sensors, and certainly Canon’s 52 MP sensor(s).
Aside from the BSI sensor’s impressive high ISO performance, what other major improvements does the A7R II potentially bring to the table? Obviously there’s the 4K video I mentioned, and that is something we’ll get to very soon. There’s also autofocus improvements, both in speed and low-light reliability, blowing away the previous A7R and even surpassing the A7II. Noticeable? Yes. Quantifiable? Not yet…
I haven’t had a chance to truly push the envelope at a wedding reception, but all my general walk-around tests indicate that this might be “game over” for DSLR phase-detect in all but the most demanding fast-action sports conditions. You can pre-order the A7R II on B&H here.
In the coming days, we’ll be posting more sample images and a full, complete review. Thanks for reading and stay tuned!
Sony A7R mkII, Sony Fe 90mm f/2.8 G OSS Macro
1/250 sec @ f/2.8 & ISO 1600
Take care, and happy clicking,
=Matt=
51 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I have this camera and I Loooove it!
BTW Mathew, you kinda look like Mathew Maconahay (sp?) :)
Is this the beginning of the end for DSLR? Predicted this day a year ago. DSLR is not going away for another 5 years but in the mean time if Canon and Nikon choose to continue then at least Nikon is toasted. Canon is just not a photography based company like Nikon is so they can hang in longer. Nikon is 100 % at the mercy of Sony now that they are depending so much for Sony sensors. If this doesn’t wake them up, I don’t know what will.
Why do people keep acting like Nikon doesn’t create, hasn’t created, or isn’t capable of creating their own sensors?
The weight information is slightly misleading. 22 ounces is the A7RII weight with battery and memory card, 14 ounces is the A7R weight body only. It’s definitely still heavier though :(.
You’re definitely right! But I’ll reserve the right to blame Sony or B&H for not being consistent on that front. It is something I’ve always been highly annoyed by.
Not sure of the logic behind a full-frame mirrorless, particularly now with the increasing weight of these things. I like my Olympus system, but it’s the compact system that makes it an interesting alternative to my Canon rig. When I look at the A7 II line, I suppose if you just like an EVF over an optical viewfinder (and sure, some advantages) that’s a win. But it’s not a decision based on size.
In fact, this could easily be extra gear. I mean, these things get 270-or-so shots per battery, because Sony kept around this tiny battery even in going to the larger, more pro-friendly format, to keep the weight down. My Canon 6D is rated for 1050 shots, and of course, a DSLR is going to be far closer to your CIPA estimate, since it’s use of power is much more consistent as long as you’re using the viewfinder.
There’s no reason a full frame lens will be smaller or weigh more on a mirrorless camera. In fact, it’s somewhat the opposite, since, given that shorter flange to sensor distance, the same lens on the Sony will be longer and heavier than on a Canon, to make up that additional distance.
So ok, there are some advantages to an EVF, and some to an OVF… I rather hope Canon just tosses out the idea of ever doing a full frame mirrorless, and instead, gives us a hybrid. I’ve been pushing this idea, and it seems better the longer I think of it. Put a transparent OLED screen in the viewfinder. In optical mode, that gives you a mirrorless-like informational overlay of the live image. Or go into EVF mode, the mirror locks up, and that OLED is now your display. Since a full frame mirrorless doesn’t offer you any other advantages, and they get to keep the extensive EF lens line, since the EF mount already allows adapters for Nikon and other full frame lenses, seems the best of both worlds to me.
You’re right, David, and this is something that I’ve been saying for years now. If you really want to save weight and money, full-frame is not for you. The original Sony A7 series / trio might have led us to believe this, with body weights of ~14 oz and a limited array of f/4 zooms and f/2-2.8 primes. However now that Sony is beginning to bring out the big guns, and actually offer features such as IBIS and 4K video, …well an A7R mk2 body is just 4 oz lighter than a Nikon D750, IIRC. And Nikon now has plenty of ultra-light f/1.8 primes too, by the way.
Still, does that mean Sony shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing? Absolutely not. Their FE system is still ground-breaking, and offers features and performance that simply isn’t available in the DSLR world. Pentax has IBIS, and Canon and Nikon have finally come out with a few live view features such as zebra stripes, but other than that a camera like the A7R mk2 is in a league of its own. As such, it can weigh whatever it wants, and cost whatever it wants.
Regarding hybrid viewfinders, I think Sony already tried this with their Alpha DSLR system, and it just didn’t make as much sense as the FE system. Hybrid, on-sensor autofocus is just a few updates away from being superior to traditional DSLR autofocus. They might even be able to do it in the A7R mk2, if the hardware is powerful enough and all that is needed is a few software tweaks. Having played with the A7R mk2 for a few days now, I’m ready to believe that optical viewfinders are on the brink of being officially inferior in every way, aside from the “it’s the real world, not a screen” argument.
TLDR: At the Sony event I recently attended, their Alpha DSLR system was brought up multiple times. When asked, the Sony folks (including engineers themselves) basically said “the best Alpha ever is right here, within the A7R mkII” I don’t know if that is an official statement that hybrid viewfinders and/or the Alpha system is done for good, but to me it sure sounds like it.
I like optical viewfinders, but they are increasingly just becoming a nostalgic thing at this point. I think we are just 1-2 camera generations away from EVF’s being a sudden “necessary standard” in many categories of professional photography. Even though an OVF will still get the job done, obviously, they will soon be perceived as truly oldschool.
I don’t know why or how you guys feel that a Nikon D750 is the equivalent to the Sony A/RII or that it’s almost the same size/weight. If can’t see/feel the difference between a Nikon D810 and a Sony A7RII or a D750 and a Sony A7II you need to rethink some things…..in terms of the body you get significant features and gains. If your after maximizing your savings in size you can always use M lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander) and get a combo that is significantly smaller than any equivalent DSLR.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#548,624,567,557,ha,b
As I stated, there is indeed a significant difference in both size and weight between cameras like the D810 or 5D mk3, and the A7R mk2. However that difference is much more negligible when comparing against the D750, in fact if you consider the significantly different battery life, a D750 might even weigh less than an A7R mk2 “kit”, once you throw in 1-2 spare batteries and/or a battery grip for the Sony.
And for every “tiny” lens from Leica etc. out there, there’s a relatively close competitor from Nikon or Canon, and with autofocus too. Nikon’s f/2.8 primes are plenty tiny, as are their f/1.8 and f/2 primes.
At the end of the day, it’s a trade-off. If traditional DSLR systems exist that can roughly match the compactness and weight of a mirrorless system of the same sensor size, then what is the reason to buy the mirrorless system? Features, of course.
Features are a different beast, of course. No DSLR can currently match many of the features offered from this camera. The question is, how desperately does the average photographer need those particular features? Some features could be truly game-changing, while others aren’t of any interest to certain types of photographers.
While Canon and Nikon make truly amazing cameras with incredible performance, unfortunately they appear to be doing very little to compete with many of the benefits of an EVF system. Sony on the other hand (and others) are working very hard to overcome any and all shortcomings that stop the EVF system from being superior across the board.
I’m comparing it to the Canon 6D, which is what I have in the full frame arena. Yeah, a Nikon D750 is probably an even better comparison, since it has a sensor that’s essentially the same as in the original A7, but with that extra topping of Nikon special sauce.
Anyway, my point is that, while the A7 mark II is slightly lighter than the 6D and sure, a bit more compact, that’s not an apples to apples comparison, because we’re also comparing a pretty consistent 1000 shots on the 6D per battery (CIPA rating of 1050) to around 270 (CIPA) on the A7II. So you need to carry around four batteries for each one you’d need on the 6D, and possible a battery grip, which means now you’re larger AND heavier than the 6D.
My point was simply that for full frame, weight isn’t a significant reason to buy a mirrorless. Yes, the A7II is much lighter than the Canon 5D mk III or Nikon D4, but those are full-on professional bodies, a different league than the A7II. Maybe the occasionally rumored A9 will address that market, but today’s A7II is in the D750/6D category, a semi-pro body.
As for Sony’s pellicle-mirror EVF “DSLT”s as they were dubbed, those are not the hybrids I’m looking for. In fact, they represent the worst of both worlds. And I’m familar with the pellicle mirror — my first Canon was an EOS Rt.
Thing is, these used the mirror just to redirect light to the AF sensor — the only viewfinder was the EVF. And so you have no optical path, and so, not the “either/or” I’d like to see Canon do. And it had the curse of all pellicle mirror cameras: you always shoot through the mirror, so you’re losing 1/3 stop or so on every shot. And any dust on that mirror is dust on your photo. Sure, same issue as your digital sensor, only, you don’t have that digital sensor so close to the lens mount.
What I want, as mentioned, would have an OLED screen overlaying the optical viewfinder — it’s in the optical viewing path, not in the sensor’s path. That gives me an optical view with all the same informational overlays as an EVF — which, IMHO, is one of the primary advantages of the EVF in the first place. Fujifilm did a rangefindery-sort of version of this in some of their early X-series.
Having enjoyed the EVF improvements between the OM-D E-M5 and the E-M5II, it’s pretty clear to me that EVF is already “good enough” for most purposes. So I miss optical a bit with the OM-D, and I miss EVF a bit with the 6D… both offer advantages. If they really do get enough resolution and get the display latency down below 10ms or so, then maybe I run out of optical viewfinder arguments. Well, other than the “eating batteries” thing. The hybrid would let me make the choice. And it’s Canon’s chance to sell me a new body… though they might get there with a way more sensitive BSI sensor in a 6D mk III or something. Low light is the reason for the 6D IMHO.
So in addition, I have a button that locks up the mirror and puts the camera into EVF mode… now that same transparent OLED acts at an EVF. And if you look at how crazy thin transparent OLED screens can be made these days, this adds no appreciable bulk to the camera. And it gives Canon (or Nikon) a real answer to how they reconcile the rise of the mirrorless camera (with Olympus’ camera division now finally turning a profit — and not just due to my spending — I’m starting to believe the mirrorless market is a real one, and that Nikon and Canon will have to answer it, at some point, with real cameras, not just toys) with their huge advantage in existing glass — which mostly vanishes once you change lens mounts.
Oh, and incidentally, lens adapters weren’t born with mirrorless — you can get Nikon, Leica M, Olympus, etc. lens adapters for Canon EF cameras. I can use any of my relatively compact old OM-System Zuikos on either my Canon or my OM-D, thanks to these little gizmos.
Are there sample images that aren’t at 100%?
You mean full-size sample images that you can download? We generally don’t provide those; there are plenty of other websites that do. However stay tuned for plenty of additional full and 100% crop sample images in our coming review!
=Matt=
The only true “con” that I can come up with is that these types of hot new cameras could always use polish. Canon and Nikon have been making photography-oriented cameras for decades, and you can feel it in their ergonomics, their menu layout, etc.
Yep, my Canon A-1 and F-1N have simple controls: on, off, self timer; shutter, aperture, exposure compensation, ISO. What else is needed? A battery lasts for over a year without recharging.
I’m aware that Phottix released speedlight and transmitter for Sony ; however they still haven’t released Indra500 for Sony as announced. I’m looking for monolights that support Sonys TTL. The TTL features really help at wedding reception shootings, especially when you don’t have assistant.
TTL on-camera is very helpful but most off-camera TTL uses are for back or rim lighting thus TTL exposures are easily fooled and thus not very consistent. Therefore, I’m happy with manual exposures for OCF as long as I can remotely control power levels.
Nice test shots and review!
Before I would jump ship from Nikon D750 to Sony there has to be significant improvement in AF, weight/size, lighting support or perhaps cost. Right now the Sony only wins in these categories; sensor size, EVF and hi-ISO and those advantages are not enough to get me to leave Nikon. Those are nice items but not the most import things for me.
A *Canon* user might say that. But Nikon users pondering a switch makes me scratch my head. The Nikon-Sony deal is still in place, is it not? There will be a Nikon D820 (or D900?) based on this sensor, surely.
Why would you leave the Nikon fold — with your preferred ergonomics/lenses/accessories — when the Sony sensor goodness is already coming right to you?
Adam, yeah, right now I can’t see any reason to leave Nikon to go to Sony. Although I’m constantly looking at mirrorless systems, in particular to go lighter. For me going lighter and less cost of a m4/3 is very compelling, thinking Olympus in particular.
Mark, as a full-time photographer using the D750, I have to say I am impressed by the A7R mk2’s autofocus. While it may not be able to track a running cheetah or NFL wide receiver as well as a DSLR, for weddings (my job) IMO the A7R mk2 will do a better job, even if it is still not perfect. The D750 isn’t perfect either; I get plenty of mis-focused shots due to the inherent inaccuracy of off-sensor, phase-detect AF.
Hopefully I’ll get to take the A7R mk2 to a real wedding ASAP; stay tuned!
I do agree with you though RE the suffering of flash support. I’m looking for ways to work around this and will include it in my full report.
Hi Matt,
The new Sony may be better AF but it would have to be significantly quantitatively better AF, which I doubt that it is, than my current Nikons for me to switch. Not just a little better. Otherwise the cost in dumping two full six lens Nikon set-ups is not going to be financially smart.
Now if the Sony had all of these: significantly lighter, smaller, less expensive, better AF, a good RF OCF flash system, then it would be worth jumping ship.
Nope, Mark, that is indeed exactly what I’m impressed by: measurably better AF performance, in nearly all the conditions I shoot in.
Phase-detect AF can work brilliantly, but over the past 10+ years I have not known a lens or body that didn’t eventually start needing calibration / microadjustment, some incessantly. It’s just not cutting-edge technology. Nikon knows this, and that’s why they’re increasing the pixel count in their additional sensors. It’s working well for now, but off-sensor PD-AF is just not going to get much better. For plenty of folks that might be perfectly fine, but for me, I’m definitely ready for something better.
On-sensor hybrid AF is that quantum leap we have been waiting for. In decent light, it simply gives me less grief, less uncertainty. If it can get a lock, it is guaranteed to be in focus unless I’m using really bad technique, or the wrong focus mode for the scenario. Bottom line: I trust it more, and worry less, even if I could do just as good with a perfectly calibrated Nikon system.
And the “if it can get a lock” caveat is becoming less and less of an issue, even in extremely low EV light conditions. I intentionally took the A7R mk2 into a dark back corner and tried to focus on a nearly texture-less black object. With the right AF mode it nailed it every single time, on both a native f/1.4 lens as well as an adapted Alpha f/1.4 lens.
I could never expect that kind of reliability from any DSLR; I would always have to check focus for truly critical shots.
Subject tracking, however, still does leave a bit to be desired. I probably won’t have any problems tracking a bridesmaid as she walks down an aisle, but like I said, if you’re shooting cheetahs or NFL receivers or bald eagles, stick with your Nikon. For a little while longer.
Again, I’m not saying the existing systems are magically going to become un-usable. I’m just saying that if you’re interested in the next quantum leap in technology, it’s not going to happen in that OVF environment, it’s going to be here.
Hey Matt,
I appreciate your input but at this point Sony is not offering anything superior enough on all fronts of digital technology to make me sell all my Nikon gear and jump ship. That would be a huge money loss thus a foolish move. Right now my Nikons are focusing really really well and I’m totally happy with my results. Plus they have the lens selection and there are good 3rd party flash options available for OCF.
Having said that, I don’t think I would ever move to a Sony FF mirrorless system no matter how good they get. For me personally and what I shoot I’m far more interested in m4/3 system to replace my Nikon system. They are half the weight or less, half the cost, have EVF with touch screens and a wonderful selection of lenses to choose from from many manufactures. I’m still waiting on a dual card body, better OCF and a little better AF. If they never get there then I’m totally happy with my D750(s).
I’m glad you like the Sony’s have fun with them.
One thing I would like to ask you, how do you know what Nikon is thinking? You speak so authoritatively about that. Are you invited to their engineering meetings or do they send you the notes after the fact? :)
For the record, I’m not dumping my D750 any time either. But if the reasons are only financial for an increasing number of people, that’s not a good sign for Nikon. You and I not being able to afford to switch is one thing, but if one option becomes truly superior soon, then a massive shift of 1st-time buyers will take place and that will be a huge blow that will eventually affect us too if we plan to continue supporting / updating our current system.
No, I don’t know what Nikon is thinking; my apologies for speaking loosely about technology, research, and outsider opinions. Keep in mind that whenever I state an assumption about what is going on internally at a company, it is only because I like to assume the best will happen, and the “healthy competition” between all parties will benefit us in the end. And I also do have a pretty good track record, based on nothing but logical thinking and a bit of time spent reading official interviews and technical tests…
Can’t wait for mine to arrive. Please come soon…
Hey Matt, whilst many of your readers are from the 3 countries in the world that use the imperial weights and measures system, it would be really great if you converted ounces to grams. Most of us who aren’t in Liberia, Myanmar or USA really cannot “visualize” what an ounce is, and don’t want to open a calculator to find out what 22×28 is…
Looking forward to getting an A7 soon!
Make that four. We may label our pounds “454 g” up here, but Canada’s still doing the day-to-day largely in Imperial units. Which is an even bigger problem than converting to metric — the Yanks get liquid measures all wrong once you get bigger than a cup.
I’m American and prefer the metric system…
Just for you, Jon, here’s my personal list of camera and lens weights. Because I’m a nerd like that. Notice that I do indeed put grams first. :-)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haC0ojy3dQG_KN3JmuHnjbjsGZwjNafVv4EJd-4P9gU/edit?usp=sharing
Has the option for lossless 14bit raw files been confirmed?
Connor, beyond their official interviews in which they state “we’re aware and we’re considering it”, no.
Thanks Matthew. For clarification, what did you mean when you said “Considering that Sony has already answered some folks’ cries about RAW compression”
Thanks
I was referring to their “wink and nod” type answers to questions on the subject.
This week I’ve spent time with a Sony engineer from Japan who actually worked on designing the A7R II sensor, and and they (as well as the Sony engineer in charge of AF technology) seemed to be by far more open and eager for feedback than most competitors.
amazing
One of the issues with Sony cameras is not getting enough support from third party vendors especially in lighting. There’s no current support from Profoto, Broncolor, or Pocketwizard ect… Hopefully it will change soon but I don’t see.
Agreed. Although with Profoto you can use the Air Remote. No TTL but still wireless control. Maybe not ideal but certainly very useable. Would love to see an Air Remote TTL-S though!
That is the loss of Profoto and other vendors. It doesn’t stop people from buying the camera. You think I would not buy a great camera like this because a lighting vendor does not support it..Ha!
There is already the Phottix Mitros + for Sony: http://www.phottix.com/index.php/en/hot-shoe-flashes/phottix-mitros-plus-ttl-tranceiver-flash-for-sony-iso.html TTL on camera and remote.
’m aware that Phottix released speedlight and transmitter for Sony ; however they still haven’t released Indra500 for Sony as announced. I’m looking for monolights that support Sonys TTL. The TTL features really help at wedding reception shootings, especially when you don’t have assistant.
Broncolor doesn’t do TTL at all yet. Profoto could, but what’s their incentive right now? It took a year to get their Nikon system to market, and the Canon system had problems with the 1-series for a long time. It costs money to do it, and you need a waiting market to cover the cost. The professional Sony-using community doesn’t present that market yet. The only way to reduce those costs to a reasonable level is if Sony hands them their TTL protocols on a plate and says “go for it — we promise not to change anything without letting you know first”. (The Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha flash mount presented its own problems for years, and that was Minolta’s fault. To be fair, though, third-party TTL wasn’t really a thing except with Metz and the big Sunpaks like the 622 at the time, and Minolta was way ahead of the curve at TTL/OTF.)
I agreed with you, Stan. I think that’s why Sony is trying to lure Canon, Nikon users with lens adapters to mirrorless cameras. I think just matter of time before third parties support Sony systems.
I dunno — it’s not *that* much better at ISO 51200 than mine is at ISO 1600… ;-)
I am selling my first born to get one..lol
My mouth is watering.
Didn’t Sony just announce a redesign yesterday (Aug 4th 2015) to look more like the Canon xc10?
That was the a7*S* II, not the a7R II.
What Adam said, and that was just a rumor, no idea if that will actually happen or not.
ahh thanks guys, i hear so much stuff online and tv i don’t know what’s factual information anymore?
As always, a welcome perspective, Matt. Some other photo blogs are/were with you in Portland and they just blasted a bunch of standalone sample shots with the a7R II and said how excited they were. That’s not reporting, that’s just hyper-mongering — so I welcome the side by side comparisons. Nice work.
I would love to see a decent 3rd party reference lens like Sigma Art or RokiBowYang — that has identical variants for each mount — put on an a7R II, D810 and 5DS.
I’d also love some AF reliability and AF speed work done in detail with Canon EF lenses. Just how quick/reliable/consistent is it? Are there left field sort of random misses? Does it hunt? Are off-center AF points as effective? So many questions!
I meant ‘hype-mongering’.
C’mon SLRL, it’s 2015. We want comment editing!