Sony A7r II - Like and Dislike features

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Just a note on the BSI sensor. In Sony's own words, apparently one of the primary reasons they moved to that was to reduce corner vignetting caused by angled light with FSI designs. The wiring and transistors around the photodiode actually block light at higher incident angles...which IS the case with the extremely short registration distance in mirrorless cameras. Sony was using shifted microlenses in the past, but those can only be so effective. With BSI, corner illumination is supposed to be full, because there is nothing to block any incident light anymore...and there are still microlenses.

I'm curious if anyone who has a past generation Sony A7 series camera and the A7r II has checked into that at all. I am not sure exactly which kinds of lenses are must succeptible to the problem...the angle should, as far as I understand, be high for most if not all lenses, but some may require higher angles than others.

Anyway, that's the primary benefit of BSI on a full frame sensor. I am sure there is probably some benefit to higher ISO performance, but I wouldn't expect it to be hugely obvious. If we had another 46mp sensor to compare to, the differences should be fairly easy to spot....comparing an A7r II to a 5Ds is probably apples-to-oranges enough that too many things could factor into differences between the two cameras.

I'm wondering what effect adapting a Canon lens has on corner lighting, since the angle of incidence should be less.

I'm keeping a eye out for some measurements of vignetting with similar focal length Canon and Sony lenses.

Its good to see feedback from actual owners. We have already had a lot of people reviewing it from the specifications, but now we will hear from experience.

 

[bwud]

As for DR, yah the Sony has rather clean shadows (see attached recovery).

Good example of why DR is important and why everyone could use more....

I figure it is only a matter of time before RAW files jump from 14 bit to 16 bit and the camera world gets the ability to handle two more stops of DR.....

My first DSLR did 10 stops and I thought it was fantastic. My current camera does 12 1/2 stops and the difference is striking. Sony seems to be hitting that 14 bit limit to DR. although those 14 bits of DR is just a little bit better than my Canon's 12.5 bits, those are 14 CLEAN bits, where the bottom Canon bits are noisy, and that's why instead of being 1.5 stops better, it is really twice that...

In the future I expect both Canon and Sony to have 16 bits of relatively clean data and the whole DR controversy to vanish...... At least until someone comes up with 18 bits of signal and we get to start this all over again

Here's a more practical example. I've shot this same location (it's across the road from my front yard) numerous times at sunset. To show detail and especially color in the foreground, I have to resort to blending exposures with my 5D. Typically, I process the foreground as a silhouette.

As for 16-bit... Sony isn't even yet writing out 14-bit, so perhaps they could benefit from wider depth ADCs if they continue curving the data, but in a linear space 14 is still more than SOTA sensors can realistically use, it seems.

 

[Don Haines]

....
Good example of why DR is important and why everyone could use more....

I figure it is only a matter of time before RAW files jump from 14 bit to 16 bit and the camera world gets the ability to handle two more stops of DR.....
...

Leica's latest S (007) has 16bit raw files...

My first DSLR did 10 stops and I thought it was fantastic. My current camera does 12 1/2 stops and the difference is striking. Sony seems to be hitting that 14 bit limit to DR. although those 14 bits of DR is just a little bit better than my Canon's 12.5 bits, those are 14 CLEAN bits, where the bottom Canon bits are noisy, and that's why instead of being 1.5 stops better, it is really twice that...

In the future I expect both Canon and Sony to have 16 bits of relatively clean data and the whole DR controversy to vanish...... At least until someone comes up with 18 bits of signal and we get to start this all over again

Now you're sounding like a DRone

But you are 100% right.

I have never considered DR as the most important aspect of a camera's performance, but with Canon I do consider it as the brand's greatest weakness and the place where they need to improve the most..... so yeah, I am a DRone, but a balanced one

I have been watching Sony closely as their sensor advances show what is possible with current technology.... If you combined that with the ergonomics of the Olympus cameras you would have a great product.

 

[3kramd5]

....
Good example of why DR is important and why everyone could use more....

I figure it is only a matter of time before RAW files jump from 14 bit to 16 bit and the camera world gets the ability to handle two more stops of DR.....
...

Leica's latest S (007) has 16bit raw files...

It also has pixels 50% larger than the D810, so perhaps it has significantly higher FWC, and with similar RN might be able to make use of 16-bits. It could also be a marketing thing. Time will tell.

RED uses 16-bits to capture their HDR stuff.


Typical consumer 135-format sensors? Not so much. Canon could have put a 16-bit ADC on the 5DSR, and it would have been like ordering a small coke and putting it in a large cup.

 

[sdsr]

Like:
1. IS works good on my FE55mm. Was be able to shoot 1/5 without tripod

At this moment, I'm still favor my a7s...

I love my a7s but wish it had IBIS, which may be my single favorite feature of the a7rII (it's in the a7II as well, of course, but I don't think it's as good in other ways - more moire, oddly, for one thing). I mostly use third party manual lenses on mine and it's nice to have them all stabilized even if you don't get the full stabilization afforded native lenses. I've not tried anything extreme yet, but being able to use, say, my Rokinon 135mm f2 at 1/60 or Canon EF 200mm 2.8 at 1/80 hand-held and obtain perfectly sharp images is valuable to me.

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

As for the EVF, have those of you who find it disappointing activated the HD (or high quality or whatever they call it) option? The default is standard. I generally like it, though I don't think the resolution is quite high enough for its increased size compared to other models - I'm more aware of the individual pixels than I'm used to.

 

[bwud]

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

I shot a dim party last weekend at something like 1600, and was surprised by how noisy it was.

As for the EVF, have those of you who find it disappointing activated the HD (or high quality or whatever they call it) option? The default is standard. I generally like it, though I don't think the resolution is quite high enough for its increased size compared to other models - I'm more aware of the individual pixels than I'm used to.

I enabled it and didn't really see a difference. I thought it affected playback, not operation, though.

 

[bitm2007]

Hi Guy's

What's the corner sharpness like, when used with EF lenses via an adaptor ? I've heard that there's a lack of definition due to diffraction. Is this true ?.

 

[Neutral]

Hi Guy's

What's the corner sharpness like, when used with EF lenses via an adaptor ? I've heard that there's a lack of definition due to diffraction. Is this true ?.

Have not done controlled test shots for that yet but have some general few test shots done with TSE17 and Metabone III adapter.
Sharp edge to edge - seems to be better on a7rII than on a7r.
DO not see any color cast at the edges.
Possibly will do some tests for that later when have time ( if any frame edge issues observed on a7R with adapted lenses).
Earlier tests that I did were to test AF with Canon lenses
General feeling from general test shots is that results from a7RII better at the fame edges.

 

[sdsr]

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

I shot a dim party last weekend at something like 1600, and was surprised by how noisy it was.

Are saying this based on viewing at 100% or otherwise?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

I shot a dim party last weekend at something like 1600, and was surprised by how noisy it was.

Are saying this based on viewing at 100% or otherwise?

For people who purchase such a camera and want to be able to crop severely like I do with my 5D MK III, the per pixel noise can come as a shock.

While noise is pretty low when you down sample the image to 8mp and ISO 100, you also defeat some of the benefits you thought you were getting with 42 mp (or 50mp). Its just a matter of understanding that there is no free lunch.

If you want to crop to near 100%, keep ISO to 400 or even less.

 

[bwud]

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

I shot a dim party last weekend at something like 1600, and was surprised by how noisy it was.

Are saying this based on viewing at 100% or otherwise?

100% view. At the size I exported it's a non-issue, it just looked noisier than I expected in my workflow (which involved some local brushing, etc). Also, as mentioned, if you're going to crop heavily, beware. That being said, there is little pattern or chroma noise, and typical NR tools work pretty well.

If you want to crop to near 100%, keep ISO to 400 or even less.

640 is marginally better than 400. The A7R II appears to implement DR-Pix (from Aptina) at 640 (the A7S uses it at a higher sensitivity).

So far, my use cases have been: 100 if I can -> 200 if I can't do 100, -> 640 if I can't do 200 -> whatever I have to use.

 

[sdsr]

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

I shot a dim party last weekend at something like 1600, and was surprised by how noisy it was.

Are saying this based on viewing at 100% or otherwise?

For people who purchase such a camera and want to be able to crop severely like I do with my 5D MK III, the per pixel noise can come as a shock.

Oh, sure. My point was merely that it can be misleading to compare ISO performance of cameras with different resolution; the a7s may still be best high-ISO performer to date, but when you figure in the resolution difference its margin of superiority is considerably reduced.

Aside from all that, those who haven't seen this may enjoy this hyper-picky chap's review:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/25/the-sony-a7r-ii-a7rii/

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As for high ISO, I try to avoid going above 6400 on any camera, but on the a7II the noise is very fine-grained, even and unobtrusive. I've not yet been tempted to use more than the default LR noise reduction. Perhaps as important, color and detail are nicely retained. I've not compared it to my 6D; I suspect they will look similar, at least once the a7rII files are properly scaled down. (For those who care, it's now possible to use the DP Review comparison tool.)

I shot a dim party last weekend at something like 1600, and was surprised by how noisy it was.

Are saying this based on viewing at 100% or otherwise?

For people who purchase such a camera and want to be able to crop severely like I do with my 5D MK III, the per pixel noise can come as a shock.

Oh, sure. My point was merely that it can be misleading to compare ISO performance of cameras with different resolution; the a7s may still be best high-ISO performer to date, but when you figure in the resolution difference its margin of superiority is considerably reduced.

Aside from all that, those who haven't seen this may enjoy this hyper-picky chap's review:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/25/the-sony-a7r-ii-a7rii/

I think we are agreeing on this. High ISO and a tight crop might not result in a pleasing image, but if its a small web size, you can get away with it. There are a lot of variables.