Review: Sony A7R II by LensRentals.com

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If you chasing after high MP, the 5DsR is really good, plus huge L lenses to chose.

For me because the 5Ds (personally I wouldn't go for the R version if I were to get one of these) has the high MP but not the high DR and since they crippled the RAW crop mode it can't really be used to replace, say a 5D3, as even a poor man's upper mid-level action camera and it lacks the DR of the Sony and it far and away lacks of the video abilities of the Sony. So basically it would be many thousands of dollars and the only checkmark I'd be able to tick is high MP for FF. But I'd still need to keep my 5D3 AND still add something else for video on top of all of that! So it would be insane amounts of money to spend in total and lugging and swapping around 3 bodies often.

Keeping a 5D3 and adding a Sony would seem to make a lot more sense for me.

Of course had Canon actually updated their sensor fab and been able to put a Sony chip in the 5Ds and given it the DR and been able to get top video out of a high MP sensor (and not crippled the video either and not crippled the RAW crop mode and at least gave it some buffer performance and another fps or two in crop mode) then sure I'd be wayyyy better sticking with Canon. That would save a lot of money and no need to drag second body around at times and everything would just work right in all scenarios (the Sony certainly has lots of gotchas in this and that scenario so I'd still really need something like a 5D3 in addition).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't get the appeal.

Pros:
It is kind of smaller, it you like that.

Cons:
It is too small to have the proven right ergonomics like 1dx or 5d3, etc. .
It is not small enough with lenses attached to really help portability in a truly meaningful way.
AF still inferior.
Lens selection still inferior. Adapters do not helpthe AF problem.

The appeal is that if you say add it to a 5D3 you get high MP count WITH high DR at low ISO and also get top quality video and it takes Canon lenses.

If you say add a 5Ds to a 5D3 (and since they crippled the RAW crop mode on the 5Ds many wouldn't be OK with the 5Ds alone and would still need to keep the 5D3 anyway; even things like RAW HD video from ML, who knows if the 5Ds ever gets that) you basically get a high MP count and that is it. You are still lacking the high DR at low ISO if that matters to you and you are still lacking high quality 4k video and basic video usability features. So that is a lot of money to spend to just get one thing ticked off on your potential wants list.

The Sony here ticks off a lot more boxes and sure it has this and that issue that would be tricky for some types of shooting so you need to waste money and still hang onto a 5D3 or something anyway but the way Canon mde the 5Ds many would still need to hang onto a 5D3 anyway! so it's not ideal in the SOny case, but the Canon 5Ds case doesn't solve that problem anyway so....

Now if Canon had something like the A7R II sensor in the 5Ds and didn;t hold back on the video specs and had given it a Nikon-like RAW crop mode where you get an extra fps or two and get a very nice buffer then sure Canon 5Ds all the way and don't even think to look at Sony or Nikon or whatever, but they didn't so you take your compromises and the SOny addition compromise seems to add a LOT more for your buck than adding a 5Ds as it was made does.

Of course for some shooters many things might not matter, they might be very restricted shooters, not do video or not do it where the image quality of it matters that much to the finest details and maybe they never shoot in challenging conditions of light at low ISO and just stick with whatever basic stuff you could manage to get away with in the old slide film days, but it hardly seems a stretch to imagine there might be at least some number of people for who that is not true and to imagine how this Sony could make sense.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

- Sony don't hold back on features to prevent them eating their own lunch

Sounds like you can use this thing to cook you own lunch while you're taking 4k video at the same time. Maybe Canon hold back features for other reasons than the strange conspiracy theories that so many seem to subscribe to so readily.

Yes. Canon fits into the class of company where lesser products are prevented from offering the features of more expensive products because it might lead to fewer sales of the more expensive product.

The thing is, if you don't eat your own lunch, someone else will.

Well Sony clearly have a better approach, release a camera that doubles as a microwave. What could possibly go wrong with releasing features without being sure that they will work well?

At least they have a modern sensor than can provide 4k in a less than 1DX body that could at least manage it non-stop for like 25 minutes. Plenty of people shoot scenics video, where 4k and top image quality really might matter, and often than might be shot in just a minute here, 5 minutes there, 30 seconds there, 3 minutes there, 15 minutes there, etc. and it seems like the A7R II should be fine for that.

With the 500nm sensors it sounds like you'd be stuck at like 1 minute length of shooting or something.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Focal length is required for pitch and yaw rotation stabilization, and focal distance is required for x and y translation stabilization.

I could be wrong, but doesn't the x/y stuff matter a lot more for macro range shooting? (although I guess if you shot near MFD on a long lens that had a short MFD might benefit from xy a lot too)

I could be embarrassingly wrong here but I thought only a very few Canon IS lenses even do that (x/y), one being the 100L IS macro.

 

[3kramd5]

Focal length is required for pitch and yaw rotation stabilization, and focal distance is required for x and y translation stabilization.

I could be wrong, but doesn't the x/y stuff matter a lot more for macro range shooting? (although I guess if you shot near MFD on a long lens that had a short MFD might benefit from xy a lot too)

I tend to agree. Macro would benefit from X/Y. Maybe tilted TS-E as well. I'd rather have Z than X/Y

In any case, I was just questioning Dilbert's assertion that it "adds IS to all your lenses", and in particular what it adds.

Will they get all of IBIS, some of IBIS, or none of IBIS?

Currently, with the metabones adapter and IS lenses, the camera comes back and says "enable it on the lens," so I don't think it adds anything to lenses which already have some form of IS.
Additionally, I haven't gotten it to work as far as I can tell (I tried the roll trick suggested above and didn't see anything that looked like IS) with any of my non-IS lenses.

So I think I'm getting none of IBIS with any adapted lens I've tried (16-35 f/4LIS, 35 f/1.4L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8LIS II, 100 2.8 macro), although in theory the non-IS lenses should get some of IBIS.

 

[fragilesi]

- Sony don't hold back on features to prevent them eating their own lunch

Sounds like you can use this thing to cook you own lunch while you're taking 4k video at the same time. Maybe Canon hold back features for other reasons than the strange conspiracy theories that so many seem to subscribe to so readily.

Yes. Canon fits into the class of company where lesser products are prevented from offering the features of more expensive products because it might lead to fewer sales of the more expensive product.

The thing is, if you don't eat your own lunch, someone else will.

Well Sony clearly have a better approach, release a camera that doubles as a microwave. What could possibly go wrong with releasing features without being sure that they will work well?

At least they have a modern sensor than can provide 4k in a less than 1DX body that could at least manage it non-stop for like 25 minutes. Plenty of people shoot scenics video, where 4k and top image quality really might matter, and often than might be shot in just a minute here, 5 minutes there, 30 seconds there, 3 minutes there, 15 minutes there, etc. and it seems like the A7R II should be fine for that.

With the 500nm sensors it sounds like you'd be stuck at like 1 minute length of shooting or something.

Sorry, didn't mean to upset you guys in the Sony marketing department .

 

[Stu_bert]

I got this link from SonyAlphaRumors site about a Canon shooter wanting to move to the A7rII

http://joshanon.com/blog/2015/08/09/from_canon_to_sony_almost

interesting viewpoint...

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Stu.
Thanks for sharing, a very informative article, seemingly without prejudice or bias, just the facts as he found them.

Cheers, Graham.

I got this link from SonyAlphaRumors site about a Canon shooter wanting to move to the A7rII

http://joshanon.com/blog/2015/08/09/from_canon_to_sony_almost

interesting viewpoint...

 

[fragilesi]

Hi Stu.
Thanks for sharing, a very informative article, seemingly without prejudice or bias, just the facts as he found them.

Cheers, Graham.

I got this link from SonyAlphaRumors site about a Canon shooter wanting to move to the A7rII

http://joshanon.com/blog/2015/08/09/from_canon_to_sony_almost

interesting viewpoint...

Definitely. And one user doesn't make or break a camera but we need more people like this to be adding informed commentary to the debate. From what he says it doesn't sound like something I could or would use but it has its strong points.

 

[Stu_bert]

Hi Stu.
Thanks for sharing, a very informative article, seemingly without prejudice or bias, just the facts as he found them.

Cheers, Graham.

Welcome

I was surprised to find it on SonyAlpharumors, but impressed that they did (cynical me would just say there's no such thing as "bad traffic" generated for a rumors site). I also listened to the B&H cast (link from same site) and unfortunately it was completely biased.

Josh wanted to migrate to Sony, so interesting that he found the AF with Canon lenses not quite what others are claiming. But there's also a video review on the same site from a guy using the 7r II with a 600mm f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 shooting a tennis player. He seems to get good shots, but what you don't know is whether he was doing single shot or tracking. He did say the lag with the EVF means you have to predict when to shoot a little bit more than a dSLR, which I found interesting.

I think the challenge for many people is cutting through the hype and BS to get to a position where they might want to hire the body for a day to really assess it's Pro's & Con's. Ultimately it is rare once someone has bought something to admit it has not lived up to expectations. Renting it I think is better, but I'm guessing it will be a few months till that option is prevalent worldwide...

 

[sdsr]

I was surprised to find it on SonyAlpharumors, but impressed that they did (cynical me would just say there's no such thing as "bad traffic" generated for a rumors site). [....]

Josh wanted to migrate to Sony, so interesting that he found the AF with Canon lenses not quite what others are claiming. [....]

sonyalpharumors has been quite good about posting negative user reviews and doesn't seem to moderate forum comments, lots of which are negative (often disgustingly so) regardless of topic. If there are ever discussions there that are as good as those here, I'm looking in the wrong place....

As for AF with Canon lenses, I've found the sweeping (positive) claims baffling. Metabones have never claimed that their adapters provide AF for all Canon AF lenses (the list of supported lenses is rather short, in fact - it omits some that they do, in fact support), so it would be odd (or so it seems to me) if all of a sudden they supported all Canon AF lenses when attached to an a7rII. I'll be receiving mine later today, apparently (B&H replenished its stock far faster than I expected; I ordered mine a week ago) and will be interested to see (a) to what extent my Metabones adapter on the a7rII provides faster AF for Canon lenses it supported on other a7 bodies I own/have owned and (b) whether it provides AF on the a7rII for Canon lenses that were denied it on other a7 bodies. I'm fairly optimistic about (a) but not about (b), though a pleasant surprise would be nice. (There are other adapters that provide AF for Canon lenses, but I don't think I've seen any reports about how well they perform. Has anyone reading this used any of them?)

Fortunately this isn't a big issue for me as I almost always prefer MF (albeit with lenses designed for MF rather than AF).

 

[sdsr]

I've not had more than an hour or so to play with my a7rII that arrived today, my experiments have been indoors in not very bright lighting, and I've only been able to try a few of my Canon lenses. Plus, I'm using Metabones III, not IV. Anyway, so far I'm not overwhelmed. Two zooms worked impressively: via phase-detection, the 24-105L focused almost as fast as it does on a Canon body, perhaps as fast, while the EF-S 10-18mm aps-c focused at least as fast as it does on a Canon body (it was so fast I thought at first that it hadn't done anything). So that was nice. The 100L and 135L wouldn't focus via phase detection, but would via contrast detection, but at least in indoors light did so in much the same tedious slow manner as AF is on the older a7 bodies - it has no advantage over MF. On the other hand, neither worked with AF at all on older a7 bodies. AF on the 85mm 1.8 works the same as it did on older a7 bodies - slow, clunky and more-or-less pointless; no AF at all with phase-detection. The 50mm 1.4 wasn't recognized at all, so I couldn't select phase or contrast AF; so no AF, the same as on older a7 bodies.

Of course, it could be that the results would be better if I had a Metabones IV adapter and I may be missing something with the settings I've chosen, a situation I may well fix later. For now, though....

 

[3kramd5]

I've not had more than an hour or so to play with my a7rII that arrived today, my experiments have been indoors in not very bright lighting, and I've only been able to try a few of my Canon lenses. Plus, I'm using Metabones III, not IV. Anyway, so far I'm not overwhelmed. Two zooms worked impressively: via phase-detection, the 24-105L focused almost as fast as it does on a Canon body, perhaps as fast, while the EF-S 10-18mm aps-c focused at least as fast as it does on a Canon body (it was so fast I thought at first that it hadn't done anything). So that was nice. The 100L and 135L wouldn't focus via phase detection, but would via contrast detection, but at least in indoors light did so in much the same tedious slow manner as AF is on the older a7 bodies - it has no advantage over MF. On the other hand, neither worked with AF at all on older a7 bodies. AF on the 85mm 1.8 works the same as it did on older a7 bodies - slow, clunky and more-or-less pointless; no AF at all with phase-detection. The 50mm 1.4 wasn't recognized at all, so I couldn't select phase or contrast AF; so no AF, the same as on older a7 bodies.

Of course, it could be that the results would be better if I had a Metabones IV adapter and I may be missing something with the settings I've chosen, a situation I may well fix later. For now, though....

Have you tried flexible spot (the rough equivalent to single AF points) off center? My lenses which work at all work fairly well (though they struggle more in low-contrast situations than my SLRs) at the center, but much off center they tend to hunt.

 

[sdsr]

[....]

Of course, it could be that the results would be better if I had a Metabones IV adapter and I may be missing something with the settings I've chosen, a situation I may well fix later. For now, though....

Have you tried flexible spot (the rough equivalent to single AF points) off center? My lenses which work at all work fairly well (though they struggle more in low-contrast situations than my SLRs) at the center, but much off center they tend to hunt.

All I've tried so far is flexible spot (the only AF mode I've used on a7 bodies), but only at/near the center. I'll try off-center later, but probably won't be able to do so in daylight until tomorrow (work - photography is "just" a hobby - keeps getting in the way, unfortunately). I'll report back later....

 

[sdsr]

Currently, with the metabones adapter and IS lenses, the camera comes back and says "enable it on the lens," so I don't think it adds anything to lenses which already have some form of IS.
Additionally, I haven't gotten it to work as far as I can tell (I tried the roll trick suggested above and didn't see anything that looked like IS) with any of my non-IS lenses.

So I think I'm getting none of IBIS with any adapted lens I've tried (16-35 f/4LIS, 35 f/1.4L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8LIS II, 100 2.8 macro), although in theory the non-IS lenses should get some of IBIS.

Do you mean that you aren't seeing the benefits of IBIS in photos when using your non-IS Canon lenses on the a7rII? I've not tried that yet with IS-free Canon lenses, but along with my a7r II I received in the mail today from Japan a mf-only lens, a "Bokina" (Tokina 90mm 2.5 macro). I tried it on the a7rII this evening in rather dim interior light hand-held, in A mode, wide open, prompting the camera to choose the usual Sony default of 1/60. Had I used my a7r instead at 1/60 I may have achieved very sharp images in a few instances, but most of them probably would have shown at least some signs of camera shake. But with the a7II every shot I took showed not a hint of camera shake, not even on fine cat fur (what else?), which leads me to infer that the IBIS is working, at least to some extent (later I guess I'll try slower shutter speeds and see what happens). But I would never have known while taking the photos that the IBIS was doing anything - if it made any sound it was drowned out by what little ambient noise there is in our rather quiet apt.) and I didn't feel anything either (by contrast, my Olympus OM-D makes a quiet sound and my recollection of using my Pentax k5 a few years ago before I switched to Canon a few years ago is that I would feel the IBIS kick in and perhaps hear it too).

Presumably a reliable reviewer will reveal all before too long....

 

[3kramd5]

I'm saying if it's active I don't recognize it. I'll try tonight with my 24-70 at like 1/5 or 1/3 second.

Edit: never mind, it works. Pretty well too. Got a decently still image at 2 seconds akwardly hand-held.

 

[sanj]

I'm saying if it's active I don't recognize it. I'll try tonight with my 24-70 at like 1/5 or 1/3 second.

Edit: never mind, it works. Pretty well too. Got a decently still image at 2 seconds akwardly hand-held.

Wow. Do post the picture! 2 seconds is very very 'handy'!

 

[Stu_bert]

<snip>

Of course, it could be that the results would be better if I had a Metabones IV adapter and I may be missing something with the settings I've chosen, a situation I may well fix later. For now, though....

Tony Northrup has done testing - they've previously used a $100 adapter and moved across to the Metabones IV - search for "Sony A7rII review" but grab part 2 as it covers 90% of what was in part 1 as they retest.

My current research bar 1 (mentioned above), seems to indicate that lenses with a focal length <=200mm and newer than 2006 (though the newer the better), seem to fair ok with single shot.

Continuous tracking is a different matter as per the review link, and Northrup seems to agree. But I have seen others take shots of dogs jumping etc (you just don't know how many frames it took), and the video review has a 600mm shooting a tennis player (again, I don't think he mentions success rate)...

It's a smart transition offering by Sony and clearly their relationship with Nikon prevented them from doing the same. I think for static stuff, landscapes, portraiture, architecture, some urban, stills etc it would be fine, and depending on your lenses, then you might fill the gap picking up a couple of Zeiss lenses when you need tracking.

At the moment, the things that still worry me are: Heat, Long Exposure (but some think this is a bug with dark frame creation), lossy compressed raw (dpreview show an easy to reproduce example), and a few weird limitations (e.g. silent shooting drops bit encoding from 14 to 12). That and I want to see how the C300 II tech in the 1DX mk II comes out like.

What still interests me in the Sony is the lack of noise in the shadows. I shoot well past the golden hour, into the blue hour and sometimes later. I get the feeling however that the 1DX II will not fix that as it is present at low ISO...

 

[3kramd5]

I'm saying if it's active I don't recognize it. I'll try tonight with my 24-70 at like 1/5 or 1/3 second.

Edit: never mind, it works. Pretty well too. Got a decently still image at 2 seconds akwardly hand-held.

Wow. Do post the picture! 2 seconds is very very 'handy'!

Don't get me wrong, it's not something I'd try to put in a museum, more a test to make sure it's active with non-IS lenses.

It was steadier when I did it at 24mm, for obvious reasons. I tried with a 50/1.4 thinking I'd hold it more steadily due to balance issues (the 24-70/2.8 is akward), but twice the focal length caused quite a bit more blur.

ISOs are different because camera was on auto-ISO.

 

[sdsr]

Have you tried flexible spot (the rough equivalent to single AF points) off center? My lenses which work at all work fairly well (though they struggle more in low-contrast situations than my SLRs) at the center, but much off center they tend to hunt.

I just took a few shots outdoors on a sunny afternoon, albeit in a square with lots of tree-shade, with my 24-105 using flexible spot in the smallest size in the farthest corners of the phase-detection focus area. No hunting at all. Accuracy is another matter, though (and this seems true no matter where the focus point was) - where there was nothing between me and the subject, no problem, but if there was something near the subject (not over it - I'm not talking about shooting a bird on a branch through leaves) it would sometimes focus on that other thing instead (I had the problem all the time with a mirrorless Fuji I briefly owned). But it focused accurately on the most difficult subject I aimed at - fingers on an extended arm on a black statue which had, behind the hand, a black lamp post, all in dappled shade. Go figure.... (I've never found AF even on Canon to be 100% reliable, but Canon body + Canon lenses is probably better than this overall.) Maybe larger focus points would be more reliable, at least where the subject isn't tiny?

By contrast, indoors, in low light, the outer focus points hunted so long I gave up; useless.

If I had bought this camera so I could use Canon AF lenses with the same performance as they provide on a Canon body, I would send it back. (I would rather use MF lenses any day.) As that was only a small part of my decision to buy it, I'll keep playing with it. If its main advantage is providing IBIS for lenses that don't have it, I may consider the a7II instead. The additional resolution is fun, I suppose, but it's not all that different from the a7r in that regard, and I don't think the image quality is significantly different either (if at all - not that the a7r needs improving in *that* regard).