Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II

[CaptainZero]

I'm hoping to have one before Christmas to replace my 7D. Everything about this seems to be an upgrade, although, I still prefer the two back button zooming in preview of my 7D over my 5D3.

Even if that Sony camera was better in every way, I still couldn't stand a camera that small. My big mitts like a larger body, preferably gripped.

 

[jaayres20]

game changing, game changing, game changing, blah blah..
What is really game changing, sony A7 or a7s. Or new 5-axis sensor stabilization in A7 II. Btw it cost as much as 7d2.

Nobody can look at an image created with a sony sensor, without looking at the metadata, and say, wow look at that picture, it sure must have been taken with a sony or nikon camera. Yet we are lead to believe that you can't take a usable image, let alone a good one, unless you are using a sony or nikon camera.

That's not "what people are saying". All that people are saying, 0.2 stops better Hi ISO or 14% of this or that or a few more AF fields ... are NOT game changing.

An compact camera with a fantastic full-frame sensor in a box half the size and weight of any previously used boxes ... with 80% more resolution and better low ISO DR and image quality than those older, larger boxes ... with image capturing capability and user interface on par or better than those older, fatter boxes ... without any moving parts inside, more robust, more durable, immune to misalignments of components ... with zero vibrations, zero noise ... with stabilizer working with all lenses ... with a viewfinder that shows the image exactly as it will be captured, working even in extremely low light levels ... that's a game changer to me. Looking forward to the Sony A9. ;D

-A smaller camera is not a better camera, bigger cameras carry bigger lenses better.
-A DSLR currently has much better, faster AF, more accurate AF. Which means using a mirror, which means a bigger camera. A little mirrorless camera cannot keep up with sports or wildlife which makes the low ISO (which sports or wildlife photographers hardly use) DR irrelevant.
-5 Axis image stabilization with no moving parts inside?????
-Zero noise???
-An electronic viewfinder is irrelevant to me because I can use the in camera meter to nail my exposure 99% of the time. Also, a lot of times I shoot with flash and my ambient light is very underexposed and I still want to see what is going on in the frame.

With all of this excellent image quality coming out of these little sony cameras, the only benefit you get from them is at low ISO with a still subject. And both of those things are almost useless to me.

 

[The Flasher]

game changing, game changing, game changing, blah blah..

But show photos from 7d1 and 7d2 to people, and they' won't recognize what camera is where.

What is really game changing, sony A7 or a7s. Or new 5-axis sensor stabilization in A7 II. Btw it cost as much as 7d2.

You wouldn't want stabilization for astro...that would screw up your IQ, not make it better.

Wouldn't you want a full frame body for astro for more coverage given lenses.. Plus I'm sure stabilization an be turned off.

I'm biased as I'm on my last few days of shooting with A7R demo w/ Metabones adapter. This system takes some getting used to, but I have to say for anything slow and steady (product, fashion, studio etc) this camera is fantastic. FANTASTIC. Image quality and resolution is phenomenal. I also shot with the original A7 and images were similar to my 6D.

 

[Lee Jay]

That's not "what people are saying". All that people are saying, 0.2 stops better Hi ISO or 14% of this or that or a few more AF fields ... are NOT game changing.

I'd say that it is. It's a professional level sports and action camera in a compact body for 1/4 the cost. That's a game changer for me. I hate the 1D bodies, and I wouldn't pay for them even if I didn't. This way, I get a body I like at a cost I can justify, all with terrific image quality and a great support system.

An compact camera with a fantastic full-frame sensor in a box half the size and weight of any previously used boxes ... with 80% more resolution and better low ISO DR and image quality than those older, larger boxes ... with image capturing capability and user interface on par or better than those older, fatter boxes ... without any moving parts inside, more robust, more durable, immune to misalignments of components ... with zero vibrations, zero noise ... with stabilizer working with all lenses ... with a viewfinder that shows the image exactly as it will be captured, working even in extremely low light levels ... that's a game changer to me. Looking forward to the Sony A9. ;D

That sounds like a pretty ho-hum thing. Lousy viewfinder, lousy focus performance, high cost, exceptionally poor system support. Almost totally useless for 95% of what I shoot. If someone gave me one, I'd just sell it without opening the box.

 

[jrista]

game changing, game changing, game changing, blah blah..

But show photos from 7d1 and 7d2 to people, and they' won't recognize what camera is where.

What is really game changing, sony A7 or a7s. Or new 5-axis sensor stabilization in A7 II. Btw it cost as much as 7d2.

You wouldn't want stabilization for astro...that would screw up your IQ, not make it better.

Wouldn't you want a full frame body for astro for more coverage given lenses.. Plus I'm sure stabilization an be turned off.

Depends...it's all about image scale in astro, unless your goal is just to go for a massive field. That field costs you detail, though, as simply swapping to a sensor with larger pixels tends to result in undersampling, when you really want to oversample by at least 2-3x (otherwise, stars end up looking square.)


I still use the 7D for astro imaging. I like the big field of the 5D III, but it definitely lacks the resolution, and there is no question the read noise levels are higher. I get much better sampling with the 7D than with the 5D III. It's all about the tradeoffs.

I'm biased as I'm on my last few days of shooting with A7R demo w/ Metabones adapter. This system takes some getting used to, but I have to say for anything slow and steady (product, fashion, studio etc) this camera is fantastic. FANTASTIC. Image quality and resolution is phenomenal. I also shot with the original A7 and images were similar to my 6D.

I totally agree. I rented an A7r myself, with the Metabones adapter, and used my Canon lenses. I am not a fan of the body ergonomics or buttons, and the EVF lags too much for me. I liked some of the EVF displays, and I thought the overall menu functionality was fairly rich and complete. The big thing with the A7r is the IQ, as you state...it is just PHENOMENAL! I loved it. It trounced the 5D III IQ. For landscapes, I think it would be superb, however I did not feel good buying one with rumors that Sony was going to be dropping a new one some time early 2015.

 

[Don Haines]

That's not "what people are saying". All that people are saying, 0.2 stops better Hi ISO or 14% of this or that or a few more AF fields ... are NOT game changing.

I'd say that it is. It's a professional level sports and action camera in a compact body for 1/4 the cost. That's a game changer for me. I hate the 1D bodies, and I wouldn't pay for them even if I didn't. This way, I get a body I like at a cost I can justify, all with terrific image quality and a great support system.

My opinion: The 7D2 is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary. There is nothing in it that hasn't been done before, it's just a bit better than a whole lot of cameras at a whole lot of things... but when all those improvements are rolled in together in one package, it adds up to a significant overall improvement...

AF Almost as good as the 1DX
burst rate almost as good as the 1DX
weather sealing a bit better than the 1DX
DPAF a bit better than the 7D
Video a bit better than the 70D
IQ a bit better than the 70D
noise a bit lower than the 70D
ergonomics about the same as the 5D3

Nothing new here, just the best (or slightly better) features from those that have gone before in one affordable package... Is it a game changer? I don't think so.... but it is a wonderful tool that will probably sell quite well and will have a loyal following, like the 7D before it.

 

[Lee Jay]

That's not "what people are saying". All that people are saying, 0.2 stops better Hi ISO or 14% of this or that or a few more AF fields ... are NOT game changing.

I'd say that it is. It's a professional level sports and action camera in a compact body for 1/4 the cost. That's a game changer for me. I hate the 1D bodies, and I wouldn't pay for them even if I didn't. This way, I get a body I like at a cost I can justify, all with terrific image quality and a great support system.

My opinion: The 7D2 is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary. There is nothing in it that hasn't been done before, it's just a bit better than a whole lot of cameras at a whole lot of things... but when all those improvements are rolled in together in one package, it adds up to a significant overall improvement...

AF Almost as good as the 1DX
burst rate almost as good as the 1DX
weather sealing a bit better than the 1DX
DPAF a bit better than the 7D
Video a bit better than the 70D
IQ a bit better than the 70D
noise a bit lower than the 70D
ergonomics about the same as the 5D3

Nothing new here, just the best (or slightly better) features from those that have gone before in one affordable package... Is it a game changer? I don't think so.... but it is a wonderful tool that will probably sell quite well and will have a loyal following, like the 7D before it.

The 1Dx is $6,900 and enormous, and the 5D3 is $3,200. Neither has a popup flash (which, despite the stuck-up noses of some, is a very useful thing). So, it's a game changer because people like me will own it, when we don't own either of the other two.

That said, I'd love a full-frame version. Call it a 5D4 and I'll probably buy it for around the 5D3 cost.

 

[Lee Jay]

Read noise is the worst kind of noise for astrophotography. Without it, we could get amazing results with really basic mounts, without guiding, no one would care what their mounts PE was. The 7D II improves some things...but it still has Canon's same old high read noise. Elimination of banding is certainly a plus, and reduction in dark current is still a plus, but RN is STILL their limiting factor.

Elsewhere you recommended the D810 and D5100. The RN at ISO 1600 (often used for astro) for these cameras are:

D810 - 3.5
D5100 - 3.6
7DII - 2.8/2.4 (Sensorgen/Clarkvision)

So, don't you think you're being just a tad disingenuous? You were recommending a cascade type sensor above with very short exposures. Again, that equated to very high ISOs. The 7DII is again better than the above two cameras at ISOs from 1,600 to 12,800 in this area, with higher QE as well.

The only area I can find where Canon is lagging is low ISO RN, not high ISO. While I'd love it if they'd do better there (cleaner is always good), that's the least important place to have low read noise.

 

[Don Haines]

That's not "what people are saying". All that people are saying, 0.2 stops better Hi ISO or 14% of this or that or a few more AF fields ... are NOT game changing.

I'd say that it is. It's a professional level sports and action camera in a compact body for 1/4 the cost. That's a game changer for me. I hate the 1D bodies, and I wouldn't pay for them even if I didn't. This way, I get a body I like at a cost I can justify, all with terrific image quality and a great support system.

My opinion: The 7D2 is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary. There is nothing in it that hasn't been done before, it's just a bit better than a whole lot of cameras at a whole lot of things... but when all those improvements are rolled in together in one package, it adds up to a significant overall improvement...

AF Almost as good as the 1DX
burst rate almost as good as the 1DX
weather sealing a bit better than the 1DX
DPAF a bit better than the 7D
Video a bit better than the 70D
IQ a bit better than the 70D
noise a bit lower than the 70D
ergonomics about the same as the 5D3

Nothing new here, just the best (or slightly better) features from those that have gone before in one affordable package... Is it a game changer? I don't think so.... but it is a wonderful tool that will probably sell quite well and will have a loyal following, like the 7D before it.

The 1Dx is $6,900 and enormous, and the 5D3 is $3,200. Neither has a popup flash (which, despite the stuck-up noses of some, is a very useful thing). So, it's a game changer because people like me will own it, when we don't own either of the other two.

That said, I'd love a full-frame version. Call it a 5D4 and I'll probably buy it for around the 5D3 cost.

Agreed! My suspicion is that the 5D4 will be a FF 7D2, probably with a few more minor improvements....

For me, both the 1Dx and 5D3 were too expensive and not really an option. The 7D2 replaced a 60D and does everything a bit better with one exception... AF. The 7D2 AF system makes the 60D look like a broken kid's toy. I can certainly understand why the 1DX owners love their AF....

 

[fragilesi]

There seems to be almost a desperation on here to talk Canon down particularly set against Sony. The constant stream of posts about them is beyond the norm and from some we're getting a stream of one-sided comment aimed at persuading people rather than offering balanced opinion.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it's obvious that Sony are doing some things right but are miles behind in other ways. What is it that's driving some people to take such a biased viewpoint rather than engaging in sensible discussion?

Like I say, some of it (not all obviously) is starting to just sound desperate. Almost as if the Sony marketing department, having seen the losses Sony are making have decided to make one cheap, last-ditch effort to invade Canon fora and try to get a few people to jump on a sinking ship!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nobody can look at an image created with a sony sensor, without looking at the metadata, and say, wow look at that picture, it sure must have been taken with a sony or nikon camera. Yet we are lead to believe that you can't take a usable image, let alone a good one, unless you are using a sony or nikon camera.

That's only because you don't know how to shoot to properly demonstrate a difference. Once you start severely underexposing all your images then pushing them 5 stops in post, you'll be singing a different tune.

An compact camera with a fantastic full-frame sensor in a box half the size and weight of any previously used boxes ... with 80% more resolution and better low ISO DR and image quality than those older, larger boxes ... with image capturing capability and user interface on par or better than those older, fatter boxes ... without any moving parts inside, more robust, more durable, immune to misalignments of components ... with zero vibrations, zero noise ... with stabilizer working with all lenses ... with a viewfinder that shows the image exactly as it will be captured, working even in extremely low light levels ... that's a game changer to me. Looking forward to the Sony A9. ;D

A body too small to hold comfortably with a 70-200/2.8 or larger, with Sony's byzantine user interface, and a known issue with shutter-induced vibration (on the a7R) isn't going to be changing my game. Glad you're happy about it, though...

 

[Marsu42]

There seems to be almost a desperation on here to talk Canon down particularly set against Sony. The constant stream of posts about them is beyond the norm and from some we're getting a stream of one-sided comment aimed at persuading people rather than offering balanced opinion.

My impression is different - very few (if any) people outside 1st posters claim that the Sony/Nikon system is "better" all around. It just depends on how much you want their gimmicks and sensor advantage (dr at low iso & resolution).

The grass is always greener on the other side, and during long periods of Canon releasing nothing of interest to the enthusiast dslr crowd of course discussion is about what's up next ... and Canon doesn't seem to have that much of "up next" in the sensor department that leaks to the public apart from their dpaf.

What is it that's driving some people to take such a biased viewpoint rather than engaging in sensible discussion?

As far as I can see it, there's bias on both sides of the discussion. People wishing for more dr or resolution often get flamed to a crisp as an alleged vocal, but insignificant minority or get told that proper use of their gear wouldn't require any sensor advancements at all.

One particular bias pro Sony/Nikon probably is that you can *read* their "better" specs in no time, but to experience the upsides of the Canon system or the problems with rapid-release Sony you have to actually use that gear.

 

[jrista]

Read noise is the worst kind of noise for astrophotography. Without it, we could get amazing results with really basic mounts, without guiding, no one would care what their mounts PE was. The 7D II improves some things...but it still has Canon's same old high read noise. Elimination of banding is certainly a plus, and reduction in dark current is still a plus, but RN is STILL their limiting factor.

Elsewhere you recommended the D810 and D5100. The RN at ISO 1600 (often used for astro) for these cameras are:

D810 - 3.5
D5100 - 3.6
7DII - 2.8/2.4 (Sensorgen/Clarkvision)

So, don't you think you're being just a tad disingenuous? You were recommending a cascade type sensor above with very short exposures. Again, that equated to very high ISOs. The 7DII is again better than the above two cameras at ISOs from 1,600 to 12,800 in this area, with higher QE as well.

The only area I can find where Canon is lagging is low ISO RN, not high ISO. While I'd love it if they'd do better there (cleaner is always good), that's the least important place to have low read noise.

The problem with ISO 1600 and up is you are SEVERELY limited in dynamic range. I already explained this, but at higher ISO, you suffer from star clipping. The benefit of the D810 would be that you could use it at ISO 100, and STILL have ~3e- RN. You gain all that DR, avoid clipping your stars (ever, unless you were doing ludicrously long exposures), and have similar RN to the 7D II at ISO settings several times higher that suffer from serious DR issues. You could also expose for a lot longer at ISO 100 with filters, than you could at higher ISO without filters, which is a very critical point.


With my 7D and 5D III (and the 7D actually has less read noise), I am still limited in how long I can expose not because I cannot guide smoothly long enough to get longer exposures (I can take guided exposures to about 15 minutes now), but because if I expose longer than 7-8 minutes, my stars end up clipping too much...and that is at ISO 400!


If there was ever a form of photography that needed dynamic range, astrophotography is it. More so than anything else, landscapes included. I mean, just run the numbers. If you start with 3e- RN, expose 100 frames such that stars are exposed to 45ke- at ISO 100 on a D800 (and the background is still RN limited), then you reduce the noise by a factor of SQRT(100), or 10x. In terms of dynamic range, the stacked image has 20*log(45000/(3/10)) * 6, or 103.5dB or 17.25 stops of dynamic range (saved in a 32-bit float FITS file.) And it can always be argued that you should stack more...once you start stretching the dimmer nebula or galaxy data, the "low" noise becomes worse, it's a digital post-processing exposure boost on the deep shadow tones. So, 200 subs, 400 subs (when using DSLR, things are a lot better with mono CCDs and you don't need to stack as much to get clean, low-noise results.) I've stacked 208 subs for a Pleiades image, and it's probably approaching 20 stops...oh, wait...it's not, because I am using a Canon a ISO 400, where I am severely DR limited and cannot get the same kind of exposure as I could with a D800 at ISO 100. I'm probably at 15-16 stops (before background extraction, which again increases noise, meaning I could probably do with 400 subs! ) DR...it's beyond critically important for astro.


So no, it's not disingenuous. The 7D II has less noise than the D810 at high ISO, but the D800 or D810 or D5100 or D5300 could be used at ISO 100 or 200 with RN that is still extremely low. I would still take 5.6e- RN at ISO 100 with the black point hack, and just expose a little longer, over 2.8e- RN at ISO 1600, simply because I would rather expose longer and more deeply, and NOT have to deal with clipped stars, than expose for a shorter time and have to deal with heavily clipped stars. Clipped stars are harsh, colorless, and lifeless...not what I want in my images.

 

[scyrene]

game changing, game changing, game changing, blah blah..
What is really game changing, sony A7 or a7s. Or new 5-axis sensor stabilization in A7 II. Btw it cost as much as 7d2.

Nobody can look at an image created with a sony sensor, without looking at the metadata, and say, wow look at that picture, it sure must have been taken with a sony or nikon camera. Yet we are lead to believe that you can't take a usable image, let alone a good one, unless you are using a sony or nikon camera.

That's not "what people are saying". All that people are saying, 0.2 stops better Hi ISO or 14% of this or that or a few more AF fields ... are NOT game changing.

An compact camera with a fantastic full-frame sensor in a box half the size and weight of any previously used boxes ... with 80% more resolution and better low ISO DR and image quality than those older, larger boxes ... with image capturing capability and user interface on par or better than those older, fatter boxes ... without any moving parts inside, more robust, more durable, immune to misalignments of components ... with zero vibrations, zero noise ... with stabilizer working with all lenses ... with a viewfinder that shows the image exactly as it will be captured, working even in extremely low light levels ... that's a game changer to me. Looking forward to the Sony A9. ;D

Though of course mirrorless ILC sensors are more at risk of dirt and dust, as they're exposed whenever you change lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

... without any moving parts inside, more robust, more durable, immune to misalignments of components ... with zero vibrations, zero noise ... with stabilizer working with all lenses ...

This combination would indeed be quite impressive, ;D.

+1

 

[shutterlag]

game changing, game changing, game changing, blah blah..

But show photos from 7d1 and 7d2 to people, and they' won't recognize what camera is where.

What is really game changing, sony A7 or a7s. Or new 5-axis sensor stabilization in A7 II. Btw it cost as much as 7d2.

OK, so I've read the rest of your posts. You obviously haven't used those A7* bodies in the real world or payed attention to the lens lineup. While they have their merits, and in several ways NUKE Canon, they also have their faults.

The AF is HORRIBLE- I mean I'd rather shoot manual with them than try to use the AF. There are zero improvements in the A7m2 as far as AF - they tweaked the firmware only.

The A7R shutter slap might as well the a full-blown thunder clap, is so fracking loud, I've never heard anything like it in digital.

The IBIS is wicked, I agree, and blatantly demonstrates that Canon and Nikon have been ripping us off for years charging extra for IS in lenses when they could have done IBIS. But the bottom line is that it doesn't offer "better" IS, just IS across the board with all lenses.

The Sony FE lens lineup is severely gimped- so much so that no pro can use it IMO. There is NO F2.8 STANDARD ZOOM, NO F2.8 70-200 ZOOM, and the ZEISS 24-70mm F4 is so soft I'd rather use the kit lens. Sure, you can bolt on an adapter, but at that point, why not use something else with better AF? The 55mm prime is wicked, and the 35mm F2.8 is nice and small, but that hardly makes up for a complete lack of zooms.

Bottom line: Yes, A7k lineup is shiny, but not ready for prime time, not even close. Fix the AF (must be at least as good as the A6000), release F2.8 zooms (or at least fix the garbage Zeiss 24-70mm F4), and add a 2nd card slot. The A9 should be nice next year and take care of the AF and card issues, but that lens issue is going to plague the system for many more years. While the IBIS offers no significant advantage in the short term, it does make Canon and Nikon look silly, which is good

The trolls know all of this or they would be using those brands now rather than hanging out in Canon Forums. No fed troll ever went away. Just ignore them.

Agreed. I normally don't feed the troll but in this case pretty much all of what I wrote was my own personal frustration on the topic. If Canon was actually innovating I wouldn't have to be looking at Sony. Even without a viable FE standard zoom I will be changing over to the A9. I'm tired of getting ripped off by Canon paying for image stabilization that should be in body. I'm also tired of subpar low-light performance. I'm also tired of subpar dynamic range performance. I'm also tired of lugging around heavy gear with antiquated mirror boxes. I'm annoyed I have to do that though. I am excited about getting the A9. I'll fill the gaps with the Alpha adapter. My back will be much happier with the lighter kit. The completely silent shutter will be nice as well. I'm sure the autofocus won't be on par with the 7d Mark 2, but having used the a6000 I'm sure it will be good enough.

 

[Don Haines]

... without any moving parts inside, more robust, more durable, immune to misalignments of components ... with zero vibrations, zero noise ... with stabilizer working with all lenses ...

This combination would indeed be quite impressive, ;D.

+1

+1
I would love to see an internal 5 axis stabilization system with no moving parts.....

 

[AshtonNekolah]

Thats why I like this guy he knows what he's talking about!!!

I forgot to point this part out I also notice this could be or just a wild guess that there is no touch screen on these kind of bodies, people that do extreme shooting in cold weather a touch screen is a no show, buttons always provide better contacts and wearing gloves will be a problem in cold weather touching that screen.

 

[The Flasher]

game changing, game changing, game changing, blah blah..

But show photos from 7d1 and 7d2 to people, and they' won't recognize what camera is where.

What is really game changing, sony A7 or a7s. Or new 5-axis sensor stabilization in A7 II. Btw it cost as much as 7d2.

You wouldn't want stabilization for astro...that would screw up your IQ, not make it better.

Wouldn't you want a full frame body for astro for more coverage given lenses.. Plus I'm sure stabilization an be turned off.

Depends...it's all about image scale in astro, unless your goal is just to go for a massive field. That field costs you detail, though, as simply swapping to a sensor with larger pixels tends to result in undersampling, when you really want to oversample by at least 2-3x (otherwise, stars end up looking square.)


I still use the 7D for astro imaging. I like the big field of the 5D III, but it definitely lacks the resolution, and there is no question the read noise levels are higher. I get much better sampling with the 7D than with the 5D III. It's all about the tradeoffs.

I'm biased as I'm on my last few days of shooting with A7R demo w/ Metabones adapter. This system takes some getting used to, but I have to say for anything slow and steady (product, fashion, studio etc) this camera is fantastic. FANTASTIC. Image quality and resolution is phenomenal. I also shot with the original A7 and images were similar to my 6D.

I did not feel good buying one with rumors that Sony was going to be dropping a new one some time early 2015.

Yes exactly, bring it Sony. The large mp Canon rumors are also swirling, however whatever the camera Canon brings to market, I doubt that it will be within the same price point. All I need is that IQ.

 

[meywd]

game changing, game changing, game changing, blah blah..

But show photos from 7d1 and 7d2 to people, and they' won't recognize what camera is where.

What is really game changing, sony A7 or a7s. Or new 5-axis sensor stabilization in A7 II. Btw it cost as much as 7d2.

OK, so I've read the rest of your posts. You obviously haven't used those A7* bodies in the real world or payed attention to the lens lineup. While they have their merits, and in several ways NUKE Canon, they also have their faults.

The AF is HORRIBLE- I mean I'd rather shoot manual with them than try to use the AF. There are zero improvements in the A7m2 as far as AF - they tweaked the firmware only.

The A7R shutter slap might as well the a full-blown thunder clap, is so fracking loud, I've never heard anything like it in digital.

The IBIS is wicked, I agree, and blatantly demonstrates that Canon and Nikon have been ripping us off for years charging extra for IS in lenses when they could have done IBIS. But the bottom line is that it doesn't offer "better" IS, just IS across the board with all lenses.

The Sony FE lens lineup is severely gimped- so much so that no pro can use it IMO. There is NO F2.8 STANDARD ZOOM, NO F2.8 70-200 ZOOM, and the ZEISS 24-70mm F4 is so soft I'd rather use the kit lens. Sure, you can bolt on an adapter, but at that point, why not use something else with better AF? The 55mm prime is wicked, and the 35mm F2.8 is nice and small, but that hardly makes up for a complete lack of zooms.

Bottom line: Yes, A7k lineup is shiny, but not ready for prime time, not even close. Fix the AF (must be at least as good as the A6000), release F2.8 zooms (or at least fix the garbage Zeiss 24-70mm F4), and add a 2nd card slot. The A9 should be nice next year and take care of the AF and card issues, but that lens issue is going to plague the system for many more years. While the IBIS offers no significant advantage in the short term, it does make Canon and Nikon look silly, which is good

The trolls know all of this or they would be using those brands now rather than hanging out in Canon Forums. No fed troll ever went away. Just ignore them.

Agreed. I normally don't feed the troll but in this case pretty much all of what I wrote was my own personal frustration on the topic. If Canon was actually innovating I wouldn't have to be looking at Sony. Even without a viable FE standard zoom I will be changing over to the A9. I'm tired of getting ripped off by Canon paying for image stabilization that should be in body. I'm also tired of subpar low-light performance. I'm also tired of subpar dynamic range performance. I'm also tired of lugging around heavy gear with antiquated mirror boxes. I'm annoyed I have to do that though. I am excited about getting the A9. I'll fill the gaps with the Alpha adapter. My back will be much happier with the lighter kit. The completely silent shutter will be nice as well. I'm sure the autofocus won't be on par with the 7d Mark 2, but having used the a6000 I'm sure it will be good enough.

Tbh there are too many trolls these day, but it is clear you are not one and have a clear need and knowledge of the limitation of each system, i am a gadget lover at heart, i want 1000 FPS, Hubble level low light IQ, and fast tracking AF, but i know what is reality and what is fiction, plus what Canon delivers is not some mediocre stuff, or Pros won't use it, i see Canon is close to how Apple is going with iPhone and iPad, release stuff that strengthen the current offerings, and innovate some features every now and then, Android devices(Samsung, HTC) are like Nokia with outsourced heart, but Sony is not Google, its more like Microsoft, don't get me wrong, i am a Microsoft technology Developer, and i love Sony (PS3-PS4, VAIO, TVs,,) but they are both doing it wrong, they are releasing half stuff, tbh i didn't try either (Lumia nor A7) but the feedback is more than enough, i hope both do it right, because more competition means lower prices and maybe i can have a 600mm f/4