SONY A7RII may be less of an offer than you think

[fragilesi]

You linked distortion to the price tag, I merely completed your linkage by pointing out that you can spend the same or more on Canon lenses (that people praise quite highly for other reasons) and also get stupid amounts of distortion. Feel free to remove price from the discussion.

The other conclusion to draw from this is that because you don't see people harping on here about the high levels of distortion with the 16-35/f2.8 II that distortion isn't as big of an issue as it is made out to be.

Come on, for sanity's sake surely you can't be trying to make a serious comparison here though? Can you?

 

[emko]

actually its the 5DS that has less of an offer,

Sony Senior General Manager of the Digital Imaging Business Group Kimio Maki

2) About the Canon 5ds:
We wanted to overcome the idea that has been prevalent since as long as there have been digital cameras, that you can have one virtue [resolution] or the other [sensitivity] but you can never have both. Look at the Canon EOS 5DS. A maximum ISO sensitivity of 6400, and crippled movie capability. Canon says that it intentionally created the camera to fit the requirements of certain photographers, and [has thereby demonstrated] that the material science of their device technology [cannot] accomplish both objectives.

Canon just ripping us off making countless cameras for specific purposes while Sony making a camera people want. So if you want a camera that does high MP, high ISO, 4k video? well with Canon you need 3 cameras what a great deal.

 

[3kramd5]

Sony Senior General Manager of the Digital Imaging Business Group Kimio Maki

2) About the Canon 5ds:
We wanted to overcome the idea that has been prevalent since as long as there have been digital cameras, that you can have one virtue [resolution] or the other [sensitivity] but you can never have both.

So we shouldn't expect a Sony A7S II which trades resolution for sensitivity?

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I'm considering purchasing a a7rii instead of a 5Ds. I've been using the x100s lately for my high speed sync needs and I could use the a7rii for what I'd use the already slow MF system for. I could sell the hassy, pickup a a7rii with an adapter and tandem it with my x100s for my needs. The issue with the hassy is getting lenses at a reasonable pricing used and being able to use my canon stuff I already have with the a7rii would save me the headache. Per usual though, I won't pay full price and will wait 6 months after release to get a better price / get rid of the initial kinks.

Confirmed. The Sony/Zeiss 55 is an absolutely incredible lens. Its not your standard Zeiss construction like the ZE lenses, it's very lightweight and small and balances out the A7R perfectly. I've been shooting a Zeiss ZE50 f2.0 and f1.4 with Metabones IV adapter and those lenses are so much bigger and heavier than the 55 ZA. Additionally, the ZA has autofocus if you need it.

I would take 5Ds/r if I'm in your situation - very simple reason, L glasses.

I combined the A7s & A7rII series in my photography for one thing - size and weight for family trips. There are pros and cons in each systems. I simply don't believe in EF to E-mount will work, at least for the Pros. The only lens that really WOW me in their native lenses is FE55mm. My expectation on new Zeiss Batis lenses is high - crossing my fingers.

Hope you think twice before making a jump.

From what I've read, the Sony FE 55mm is truly a WOW lens. But the Zeiss Batis 85mm has 3% pincushion distortion according to Diglloyd:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150429_1044-ZeissBatis-85f1_8-MTF.html

That's a pretty sorry number for a $1,200 lens, especially when Canon's 85/1.8 has only 0.24% distortion and costs $349 right now.

You want to talk distortion?

Clearly you don't own very many zoom lenses that bear the name "Canon" on them.

Canon's 24-105/f4L has 4.28% distortion at the wide end and its RRP is $999 in store.

Distortion on Canon's 16-35/f2.8 II is 3.26% at the wide end and its RRP is $1599.

You can easily pay over $1000 for a Canon lens and get ugly levels of distortion.

 

[quod]

So we shouldn't expect a Sony A7S II which trades resolution for sensitivity?

Amazingly enough, you get both with the A7RII. How about that! The 5DS... well, you get muddy resolution.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Anyone who thinks that switching systems is going to make all the difference in their work is fooling themselves.

Yet some are convinced that when they switch from Canon to Sony last year in August in September someday, it will lift their images from mundane to sublime.

Yup. It is like saying a better hat will make one smarter. One has nothing to do with the other.

But --- A better hat might keep your brain cooler, which increases your ability to do more thinking I definitely think that a better hat is more likely to make you smarter than a new camera will improve your photography.

That does not stop me from wanting better gear, I like good gear, but my wife takes better photos than me with her point and shoot. My fancy gear can't change that. However, she calls on me to take photos where there is not enough light for her camera to work.

I use my equipment in low light where good photographers with equipment that can't capture images well in low light give up and let me do it. Then they think my photos are so good! I know better.

 

[Oneand0]

Maiaibing,

Too bad for you that is! I decided not to read all the in between comments and just let you know that I don't even use my 6D to focus automatically. I use it for landscape and video (manual focus). Sony A7r II is a dream come true for me. Stick with Canon and be happy I'll go the other way and improve what I do with limitations that have been lifted by Sony. Sony's decision to listen to it's customers and strive to improve the technology, to a point it's drawing away faithful customers from other brands, is the reason I'm changing camera bodies at this point.

 

[raptor3x]

I'm considering purchasing a a7rii instead of a 5Ds. I've been using the x100s lately for my high speed sync needs and I could use the a7rii for what I'd use the already slow MF system for. I could sell the hassy, pickup a a7rii with an adapter and tandem it with my x100s for my needs. The issue with the hassy is getting lenses at a reasonable pricing used and being able to use my canon stuff I already have with the a7rii would save me the headache. Per usual though, I won't pay full price and will wait 6 months after release to get a better price / get rid of the initial kinks.

I would take 5Ds/r if I'm in your situation - very simple reason, L glasses.

I combined the A7s & A7rII series in my photography for one thing - size and weight for family trips. There are pros and cons in each systems. I simply don't believe in EF to E-mount will work, at least for the Pros. The only lens that really WOW me in their native lenses is FE55mm. My expectation on new Zeiss Batis lenses is high - crossing my fingers.

Hope you think twice before making a jump.

From what I've read, the Sony FE 55mm is truly a WOW lens. But the Zeiss Batis 85mm has 3% pincushion distortion according to Diglloyd:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150429_1044-ZeissBatis-85f1_8-MTF.html

That's a pretty sorry number for a $1,200 lens, especially when Canon's 85/1.8 has only 0.24% distortion and costs $349 right now.

You want to talk distortion?

Clearly you don't own very many zoom lenses that bear the name "Canon" on them.

Canon's 24-105/f4L has 4.28% distortion at the wide end and its RRP is $999 in store.

Distortion on Canon's 16-35/f2.8 II is 3.26% at the wide end and its RRP is $1599.

You can easily pay over $1000 for a Canon lens and get ugly levels of distortion.

First, you're comparing extreme ends of zooms with primes; second, you're leaving those numbers without any context. The 4% distortion from the 24-105L is maybe it's most well known weakness but has been significantly reduced in the more recently 24-70L lenses. In addition, look at the competition: Sigma 24-105 A (3.7%), Nikkor 24-120 (3.55%), Sony 24-70 (3.8%), 24-70L f/4 (2.4%), and just for laughs the Olympus 12-40 (8.5%). The 24-105L certainly has a weakness in terms of barrel distortion at the wide end, but it's not like it's that's far away from the others.

As for the 16-35 at 3.26%, it doesn't look so bad when you see that none of the Nikkor wide angle zooms get below 3.5% at the wide end [16-35 f/4 VR ==> 4.5%, 14-24 ==> 3.91%, 17-35 ==> 3.5%].

That said, I can't imagine anyone caring about some distortion in the Batis. If nothing else, I think Olympus has pretty effectively demonstrated with the 12-40 that correcting for distortion optically can be a wasted effort.

 

[ishdakuteb]

...
From what I've read, the Sony FE 55mm is truly a WOW lens. But the Zeiss Batis 85mm has 3% pincushion distortion according to Diglloyd:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150429_1044-ZeissBatis-85f1_8-MTF.html

That's a pretty sorry number for a $1,200 lens, especially when Canon's 85/1.8 has only 0.24% distortion and costs $349 right now.

You want to talk distortion?

Clearly you don't own very many zoom lenses that bear the name "Canon" on them.

Canon's 24-105/f4L has 4.28% distortion at the wide end and its RRP is $999 in store.

Distortion on Canon's 16-35/f2.8 II is 3.26% at the wide end and its RRP is $1599.

You can easily pay over $1000 for a Canon lens and get ugly levels of distortion.

First, you're comparing extreme ends of zooms with primes; second, you're leaving those numbers without any context. The 4% distortion from the 24-105L is maybe it's most well known weakness but has been significantly reduced in the more recently 24-70L lenses. In addition, look at the competition: Sigma 24-105 A (3.7%), Nikkor 24-120 (3.55%), Sony 24-70 (3.8%), 24-70L f/4 (2.4%), and just for laughs the Olympus 12-40 (8.5%). The 24-105L certainly has a weakness in terms of barrel distortion at the wide end, but it's not like it's that's far away from the others.

As for the 16-35 at 3.26%, it doesn't look so bad when you see that none of the Nikkor wide angle zooms get below 3.5% at the wide end [16-35 f/4 VR ==> 4.5%, 14-24 ==> 3.91%, 17-35 ==> 3.5%].

The comment that I responded to was that someone was paying $X and getting too much distortion (in a manner that suggested if the price was high enough there should be no distortion), to which I pointed out that you can also pay $X or more for Canon/others and get worse distortion.

you pay $X amount for gears but capture images that you cannot even show people, after showing worse images that you thought they were best? mine are not best, but guarantee that those are absolutely better than yours...

again... buy your new sony and compete with my 7d. let you see another landscape images from my 7d... you keep talking, i keep improving... LOL

note: both images were captured with Canon 7D and 70-200mm

image 1: could not hike further to find a clear shot for wide angle lenses since i had no water with me due to no experience in preparing for landscape trip

image 2: still showing details isn't it and that is from Canon 7D

almost forget to remind you once again that i am still not a HDR shooter...

 

[caMARYnon]

First, you're comparing extreme ends of zooms with primes; second, you're leaving those numbers without any context. The 4% distortion from the 24-105L is maybe it's most well known weakness but has been significantly reduced in the more recently 24-70L lenses. In addition, look at the competition: Sigma 24-105 A (3.7%), Nikkor 24-120 (3.55%), Sony 24-70 (3.8%), 24-70L f/4 (2.4%), and just for laughs the Olympus 12-40 (8.5%). The 24-105L certainly has a weakness in terms of barrel distortion at the wide end, but it's not like it's that's far away from the others.

As for the 16-35 at 3.26%, it doesn't look so bad when you see that none of the Nikkor wide angle zooms get below 3.5% at the wide end [16-35 f/4 VR ==> 4.5%, 14-24 ==> 3.91%, 17-35 ==> 3.5%].

The comment that I responded to was that someone was paying $X and getting too much distortion (in a manner that suggested if the price was high enough there should be no distortion), to which I pointed out that you can also pay $X or more for Canon/others and get worse distortion.

It doesn't matter that you made a comparison between apples and oranges, the only important thing for you is to respond to somebody, to anybody, to everybody !!!

 

[Krob78]

...
From what I've read, the Sony FE 55mm is truly a WOW lens. But the Zeiss Batis 85mm has 3% pincushion distortion according to Diglloyd:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150429_1044-ZeissBatis-85f1_8-MTF.html

That's a pretty sorry number for a $1,200 lens, especially when Canon's 85/1.8 has only 0.24% distortion and costs $349 right now.

You want to talk distortion?

Clearly you don't own very many zoom lenses that bear the name "Canon" on them.

Canon's 24-105/f4L has 4.28% distortion at the wide end and its RRP is $999 in store.

Distortion on Canon's 16-35/f2.8 II is 3.26% at the wide end and its RRP is $1599.

You can easily pay over $1000 for a Canon lens and get ugly levels of distortion.

First, you're comparing extreme ends of zooms with primes; second, you're leaving those numbers without any context. The 4% distortion from the 24-105L is maybe it's most well known weakness but has been significantly reduced in the more recently 24-70L lenses. In addition, look at the competition: Sigma 24-105 A (3.7%), Nikkor 24-120 (3.55%), Sony 24-70 (3.8%), 24-70L f/4 (2.4%), and just for laughs the Olympus 12-40 (8.5%). The 24-105L certainly has a weakness in terms of barrel distortion at the wide end, but it's not like it's that's far away from the others.

As for the 16-35 at 3.26%, it doesn't look so bad when you see that none of the Nikkor wide angle zooms get below 3.5% at the wide end [16-35 f/4 VR ==> 4.5%, 14-24 ==> 3.91%, 17-35 ==> 3.5%].

The comment that I responded to was that someone was paying $X and getting too much distortion (in a manner that suggested if the price was high enough there should be no distortion), to which I pointed out that you can also pay $X or more for Canon/others and get worse distortion.

Yes! And your first and primary point was they were comparing distortion of primes to distortion in zooms, what the heck is that? You're absolutely right Dilbert, especially point one...

 

[Krob78]

So we shouldn't expect a Sony A7S II which trades resolution for sensitivity?

Amazingly enough, you get both with the A7RII. How about that! The 5DS... well, you get muddy resolution.

So I guess there will be no A7R III then? They've arrived!

 

[ishdakuteb]

you pay $X amount for gears but capture images that you cannot even show people, after showing worse images that you thought they were best? mine are not best, but guarantee that those are absolutely better than yours...

again... buy your new sony and compete with my 7d. let you see another landscape images from my 7d... you keep talking, i keep improving... LOL

note: both images were captured with Canon 7D and 70-200mm

image 1: could not hike further to find a clear shot for wide angle lenses since i had no water with me due to no experience in preparing for landscape trip

image 2: still showing details isn't it and that is from Canon 7D

almost forget to remind you once again that i am still not a HDR shooter...

There are other threads on this website that are dedicated to landscape shooting and so forth. Maybe you could demonstrate to us how smart and good you are by posting your images in the appropriate parts of this forum instead of in random locations? This one (Post your best Landscapes) http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.2100 might be a place for you to start. Or even start your own thead, "ishdakuteb landscapes" if you like. Of course I'm not saying you have to or that you need to but it might be more appropriate than threads such as this and might get you some better feedback.

no... and again... i am here most of the time:
1. be quiet and learn from others, or
2. respond to your silly posts (yes, only your post most of the time to be honest)

don't believe it, go and see yourself to believe it... so to speak, you are still seeing my landscape images posted to respond your posts. WHY? REMEMBER, THE MAIN PURPOSE THAT I HAVE LEARNED LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY IS TO TALK TO YOU. i still do like capturing people/journalism like to back old day though... anyways... still hide away your CRAPPY IMAGES LOL

 

[3kramd5]

THE MAIN PURPOSE THAT I HAVE LEARNED LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY IS TO TALK TO YOU.

Something good came from trolling? Wow!

 

[RGF]

Who cares about AF? It's the SENSOR that counts.

Getting old, let's move on

Move on to what?

Sorry OP for derailing your post.

1 out of 100000000000000000000000000.....in photography. Learn how to capture light and create photos like these: https://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/

Back to topic. If this a7rII has same type of Af in a6000, AF tracking will be great with native lenses. Can't confirm with 3rd party lenses through adaptor.

Nice images. More than the sensor, skill processing the image. Real skill

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Back to topic. If this a7rII has same type of Af in a6000, AF tracking will be great with native lenses. Can't confirm with 3rd party lenses through adaptor.

DPR has a good article on AF of the A&R II. They start out telling us how great it is, but then at the end, they tell you the limitations, or pass over them.

The camera seems to work well in some modes with native lenses, but not so well in other modes. The tester had not tested video, but in the comments, others said it does not track using phase detect for video, but reverts to slow contrast detect.

With a Canon lens adapted, tracking is pretty much worthless, since all points are active, and the camera picks the subject it wants to track. You can select AF points in other modes, so its good for still subjects.

The Canon patent for a pellicle mirror seems to be able to work around all the AF limitations, but loses light due to the half silvered mirror.

 

[Maiaibing]

Got excited and prepared my A7RII pre-order when I suddenly realized that there's no guarantee that current Canon EF to SONY FE adapters will allow for reasonably "fast" AF on the SONY.

Even if the new SONY focusing system can deliver much faster focus confirmation the adapter speed itself is a key limiting factor.

I still have my ticket for a pre-order later this week. But I will not pull the trigger unless its confirmed that the SONY/adapter/Canon-lens combo actually delivers reasonable AF speed as a package. I can do without F1 AF speed - but not "slow" AF.

Maybe it was all too good to be true...

I had high hopes. But there are now lots of real life people out there saying that exactly the Canon lenses I wanted to use the most with the SONY cannot AF with it or only slowly; 135L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II and 300 f/2.8 IS L II.

My pre-ordered SONY was set for delivery with the sloooowwww boat. So I actually have not tried it myself - but the reports are consistent enough for me to decide against the experiment for now. Only good thing is that I will actually earn some money on the exchange rate difference (like 80$) with the stop-delivery. ;D.

Some Canon lenses seem to work very well. But check if you are considering going dual system.

Back to square one...

 

[old-pr-pix]

Recent brief TN video comparing a7rII versus the usual suspects, both stills and video. AF experience with Canon lenses and Metabones Mark IV adapter was much better than Commlite adapter; but, still mixed performance. Up to ~ 300 mm seemed o.k., over 300 mm - i.e. long end of 100-400 mm zoom and 400 mm & 500 mm primes - performance was "not usable." Tracking seemed much improved but not fantastic.

Watch and draw your own conclusions. Remember, it's TN so not terribly scientific.
https://youtu.be/C1kI4NacaUw