Anyone shot with a mk II A7 series camera?

[YellowJersey]

Just curious to hear from people who have shot with a Sony A7 II, A7r II, or A7s II regarding what they thought about it, particularly:

Is the battery life really that bad?

Does it lock up and crash as often?

Is the autofocus via adapter good enough in terms of accuracy for landscape/static subjects?

How does the shooting experience compare to a Canon DSLR?

Does the lack of AA filter really sharpen up the images THAT much?

The 6D2 remains the front runner to replace my 5D3. I primarily shoot landscapes, so the 5D3/4's autofocus is a bit overkill for my needs. I'm primarily torn between Sony's allegedly superior sensors on the one hand and Canon's reliability on the other.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are many reviews and threads, the camera is 1.5 years old now, so lots of users.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31579.msg642613#msg642613

 

[steepjay]

As pointed out, there are a pile of reviews out there. However, I often question the validity of some reviews (i.e. fanchild influence and the associated confirmation bias, free gear in exchange for positive feedback, etc).

I rented an A7Rii for a weekend with the native 16-35/4 to test it out and see if all of that "green grass" was real. It's different enough that it's probably not completely fair to fully rate it after 2 days, but...

There are positives
- It's light and small with a single lens
- the viewfinder is nice. It's quick and has some nice features
- The camera in general feels responsive and intuitive enough
- Camera was very much built for live view and it functions very well
- It's an expensive camera with a great sensor and the reviews aren't wrong in that regard
- AF is livable (see negatives)

Then there are negatives
- as the more honest reviews point out, full frame glass is full frame glass. There's no cheating the physics and so if you run solely native FE lenses you will save a few grams (maybe) on lenses but if you start adapting Canon / other lenses, with the adapter you're almost at the same size body as a 6d. ILC implicitly means multiple lenses (otherwise go buy an RX10 iii) and you only save the body weight once
- adapters for some of your lenses
- battery life does kind of stink. It's not the death blow it is sometimes made out to be, but it's not good. Lots of spare batteries to carry around if you're shooting a lot
- no dual cards on any model
- AF isn't great. It'll do, but it's no modern 5D, let alone a recent 1D.
- No native "big" lenses - and yes, I get the irony of a tiny body mounted on the back of a 600/4, we've all laughed at the M bodies mounted up to an 800mm lens. lol But the system feels incomplete without at least a native 300/2.8 and 500/4.

Overall, if I was starting fresh I would consider it, it can be a nice light system with the right lens choices and so it's pretty flexible if you're an active outdoors person. For landscapes, it's a solid system and the adapters, while a negative, do allow you to use lenses from other systems on a good body.

I'd still wait out the 6D2 if you're already invested in Canon glass.

 

[nda]

Well I did have the a7, a7r, a7s and 6d. I now have the a7ii, a7rii and 5d4.
Battery life is OK not that bad, I go through 2 full batteries one full day shoot, I always carry extras and the generics are cheap and as good as the originals.
The original a7's used to lockup occasionally, the ii's seem to be more reliable no issues so far.
The AF is OK with adapter on still subjects I use Canon glass for landscspes and portraits, works good for me.
In my opinion Canon dslr cameras are best but there heavy and big, the Sony's area little quirky but once you get used to them there fine, small and light.
AA filter or no filter is overrated, very similar results in both brands and a lot of it can be fixed in post. Until recently the Sony sensors had an advantage with DR and lifting shadows but the new Canon sensors have caught up, so the 6dii will have a similar sensor to the 5d4, I'm getting great results on the 5d4.

 

[stochasticmotions]

I use the A7RII for most landscape and wide angle stuff, and a 5DS for telephoto. I use them this way about 90% of the time.
Battery life is adequate, I carry 4 batteries with me, usually use at most 2 on a full day (also carry 3 canon batteries and usually just about finish one off during the day).
I find the autofocus system to be excellent with native lenses (took a while to get used to the differences), using the metabones 3 adapter it works well for all lenses except long telephoto tracking. If it hunts it can be annoying but once it is close it can keep up pretty well. Accuracy is never an issue.
Shooting experience is really personal, but I find that it is not as easy as canon but much easier to change between canon and sony than canon and nikon.
I have really not done any real tests between the two on the effect of the aliasing filter, can't really complain about either in terms of detail.
I am pretty happy using this combo, don't think I would go back to anything less than 30 MPixels...my 1DIV has pretty much been sitting on a shelf for those few times I think I might need to capture more than 5/second.

 

[bwud]

Just curious to hear from people who have shot with a Sony A7 II, A7r II, or A7s II regarding what they thought about it, particularly:

Is the battery life really that bad?
It's not as good as an SLR with the mirror down, and the batteries are small, but it ships with two. I have a button mapped to shut the LCD off to mitigate drain.

Does it lock up and crash as often?
With native lenses, no. With adapted lenses, it used to on early firmware, but I haven't experienced a crash in many months.

Is the autofocus via adapter good enough in terms of accuracy for landscape/static subjects?
Yes, provided you aren't trying to AF on something with low contrast at the edges of the AF area. Adapted lenses lack full native AF functionality; for landscapes it's no matter, but for people you might miss EyeAF.

How does the shooting experience compare to a Canon DSLR?
Frustrating at times, especially when you hurriedly want to select an AF "point." A joystick (or other dedicated selection tool) would be my number one addition to the camera. Better at other times: the ability to zoom the EVH is a significant advantage for MF shooting.

Does the lack of AA filter really sharpen up the images THAT much?
I have no basis for comparison having never shot the 42MP sensor with AA.

I use the A7RII for most landscape and wide angle stuff, and a 5DS for telephoto.

Same, except I use 5D3 for long lenses.

 

[Memdroid]

I have shot a couple of times with my friend's A7R II with adapted Canon lenses along with an arsenal of Canon bodies on wedding assignments.
I really like the small form factor and weight with smaller lenses. But it is not ergonomically sound when used with bigger lenses, even the 24-70 II feels very unbalanced on that body. If you want to do quick adjustments (shooting styles, exposure or AF point movement) it is not so intuitive. I like the AF a lot, it is spot on and fast but not 5d fast which is expected. I like the IQ as well and the raw files are very malleable in post, but definitely not the holy grail as some make it out to be. My biggest issues are with the colors and white balance. In higher ISO's the colors just falls apart way faster and are noisier when manipulated than the Canon bodies and I hate the constant green cast that is ever present, it really messes up the skin tones a lot. Battery life is OK I guess and the lack of an AA filter was not really an issue for me. The EVF is cool but the blackouts are not so nice. But overall it is a cool snappy little tool and is very joyful to use. But if you expect top tier performance than the Canon's can't be beat.

 

[bwud]

My biggest issues are with the colors and white balance. ... and I hate the constant green cast that is ever present, it really messes up the skin tones a lot

With my calibrated workflow, I cannot distinguish colors between photos shot on canon and photos shot on sony. I haven't put the camera in JPEG mode, so I can't talk to burned-in out of camera color.

 

[YellowJersey]

Thanks to all who replied. This does clarify some things I was a bit unsure about and that the reviews didn't touch on much if at all.

I was particularly curious about how much of an effect the lack of an AA filter has, but it seems like it's not quite as much as what I've read elsewhere.

Despite the fact that we only have rumoured tidbits at the moment, the 6D2 remains the front runner, provided the sensor performs about as well as the 5D4 and there are no deal breakers. I'm only shooting stills, no video, and mostly landscapes, so most of the extras that a more expensive body would come with, like 4k video and a super spiffy autofocus system, are wasted one me. It's kind of coming down to cost, at this point. If a 6D2 is coming in at around $2000 US and I wouldn't use the features that a more expensive body would give me, then the 6D2 is kind of a no-brainer.

Of course, it's not over until the 6D2 and A7III are out and well reviewed.