Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Mirrorless Pro-Class Cameras with Interchangeable Lenses

Mirrorless Pro-Class Cameras with Interchangeable Lenses Sony A7, A7R and similar high end cameras that can serve as the sole cameras on Pro-event assignments.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 9th, 2017, 09:04 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default A short review of the Sony A7RII.

The second version of the high-pixel count Sony A7 series was presented in summer 2015. It replaced and improved the A7R. It has recently been superseded by the A7RIII. Sony enjoys predictable camera names, apparently. You probably already read the reviews of the A7RII at the time, so I will concentrate on some aspects that do not always appear in the web reviews.

The camera stayed quite expensive for most of its life. Sony, apparently, is able to control the price for their high-end line to maximise profit. Since I was in no hurry, I simply waited till the price dropped, as it did for the A7R near the end of its life.

The A7R is a great camera: small, high resolution, full frame, electronic viewfinder, but the following A7RII improvements were essential for my needs:
-in body stabilisation
-on-sensor phase AF
-silent shooting
-much improved video

It also improved resolution a bit (It does not make much difference in practice) and bumped continuous shooting speed to 5 fps (I don’t need that). The new version is also a bit heavier and minimally bigger.

Frankly, from the specifications alone, I could not dream a better camera. It has all I need from a digital camera. Of course, other people have other needs. For example sports photographer may benefit from the blazing speed of the A9, but I never need that kind of speed.

Why did I feel that the 4 improvements above are essential?

I have come to appreciate in body stabilisation in the Sony A900. Compared to optical stabilisation it is faster. Optical stabilisation, at least in the Nikon D800 I have tried, needs a fraction of a second to stabilise, if you simply raise the camera to your eye and shoot, the picture may be unsharp. You need to raise the camera, press the trigger half-way, wait a fraction of a second and then shoot. I found that distracting.
In body stabilisation works on f/1.4 lenses. That gives me an enormous advantage at night, even in the era of absurdly high iso values.
Stabilisation of any kind is necessary if you do not want to use a tripod with the absurdly high resolution of these cameras, even at day. The tests I have made with the D800 showed that, without stabilisation and hand-held, pictures are rarely perfectly sharp. It is minimal, but it shows. If one really want to benefit from the high resolution: tripod or stabilisation are necessary. Tripods are heavy and cumbersome.

On sensor phase AF is essential if one wants to use lenses not designed for contrast AF. I tried with some of the lenses I had for the Sony A900 and they focus instantly on the A7RII. On a camera with contrast AF only, they take 1-2 seconds to focus, which is unusable.
On sensor phase AF is essential if one wants to use third party lenses, for example Canon mount lenses. In the end, however, I found that I did not do that, I’ll explain why in the section about lenses.

Silent shooting is very useful. I cannot count the occasions were the noise of the A900 prevented me from taking pictures in concerts. For portraits, it is not about people not knowing that you photograph them, it is about them not realising the moment that the picture is taken and change their expression. With the A7RII, you have the choice: sometimes you want the camera to make a noise and sometimes not. You can chose. This is very useful for me.

Much improved video was nice to have. The A7RII is actually a very competent 4K camcorder.

There are a few unexpected bonuses of the A7RII that I discovered during use:
-you can charge the battery in camera with USB. I only need to pack one charger, one with 6 USB outputs, and can charge everything I packed (cell phone, tablet…) with spare outputs for my wife or kids on one power outlet only. Hotels rarely have several spare power outlets. I also found that I never used the spare battery if I charged the camera overnight, so battery life is adequate for my needs.
-the back screen has a setting which makes it readable in bright sunlight.
-the new series of lenses is fantastic (more about these on the section about lenses)

There are a few functions which may be useful but which I have not tried yet:
-the A7RII can connect via wifi
-you can install apps (very few apps from Sony are of any use, but apparently hackers have found a way to write their own apps, so maybe that will change)
-the flash shoe also supports video accessories like better microphone systems (there is a built-in mic mini-jack).

The A7RII has also quite a few frustrating points, which I will detail in a next post.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old December 9th, 2017, 09:26 AM
Antonio Correia Antonio Correia is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Setubal - Portugal
Posts: 3,087
Default

Thank you Jerome.
I am not planning to get any camera or lens soon but I like to read these quick reviews.
The silent mode is very tempting...
Where is that lens section of yours ?
__________________
All the best to you !
António Correia
+351 969 067 950 / +(415) 625 3427 Images
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old December 9th, 2017, 09:35 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

At last, Jerome, the sane post I have been waiting for!

Thanks for this well written and helpful presentation. Now that the price of the A7RII has been shaved, it becomes more affordable.

Perhaps you can mention why it was not worth it to you to spend the extra money to have the A7RIII. If you simply don't have it and can't make extended payments with zero interest as we can in the USA, then that is understood.

Otherwise, what advantages of the A7RIII do not win you over to make the extra splurge in precious finances?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old December 9th, 2017, 10:27 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonio Correia View Post
Thank you Jerome.
Where is that lens section of yours ?
Soon... I still need to write it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old December 9th, 2017, 10:28 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,523
Default

Hi, Jerome,

[Correction below]

Thank you for that lucid review of the Sony A7R II [not III]. I look forward to further chapters.

I have for the time being given up interchangeable lens cameras, in part because schlepping a dSLR rig was itself a pain now that my body is in its dotage.

But I often think that if I were to recant on that, I would make a fresh start perhaps based on that Sony machine.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old December 9th, 2017, 10:33 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Perhaps you can mention why it was not worth it to you to spend the extra money to have the A7RIII. If you simply don't have it and can't make extended payments with zero interest as we can in the USA, then that is understood.
I would not buy a camera on borrowed money.

The A7RIII was not available for my trips to the USA and to Africa. The A7RIII only advantages for my needs, as far as I can see, are:
-dual SD slots (whether that is useful depends on implementation)
-slightly better viewfinder (whether that new viewfinder is enough of an improvement, I don't know).
It was not worth the wait.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old December 10th, 2017, 12:02 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

The A7RII has also quite a few frustrating points.

The electronic viewfinder is both a blessing and a curse. First things first: the image is nowhere as nice as on the ground glass of the A900. The resolution, although high, is not sufficient to focus manually. There are two functions to help: peaking and automatic enlarging, neither of which is really practical. Estimating depth of field is not possible or, rather, I can’t really do it.
On the plus side, the viewfinder will show when a picture is very over or underexposed. It will show when the wrong white balance is set. It is not accurate enough to allow one to adjust exposure precisely, but it will get you close enough.
Another advantage for me: the viewfinder also allows me to use the menu system without my reading glasses. Yes: I am old enough to need these even if I have perfect eyesight for anything further away than arms’ length…

On the minus side, Sony has apparently decided that it was more important that the photographer new about the internal of the camera than that the photographer actually saw the subject. It is very easy to cover the frame with plenty of symbols and displays which I am sure other people may have a use for, but not me. It is simply not possible to not have the display covered with huge ugly green squares when the AF system is operating (you can have smaller ugly squares by disabling some useful AF functions). The A900 just briefly lit the AF points, that was much, much better.
The A900 also had an indicator for the stabilisation function which was quite useful. That function is gone, apparently for ever. At its place you have a permanent display of the video resolution, even in photo-only modes.

There is a sensor to switch the display from the back to the electronic viewfinder when you raise the camera to your eye. Unfortunately, that sensor will also switch to the viewfinder when anything is less than 10cm away from the camera, which makes using the back display difficult in most situations. That sensor can be deactivated with a setting buried deep in the menus.

Obviously, the electronic viewfinder was a necessary compromise to make the camera smaller and lighter. It is also necessary for videos, where it behaves like the viewfinder of other Sony camcorders (video indicators like peaking are available).


While the electronic viewfinder is both a blessing and a curse, the menu system is simply a curse. It was already pathetic in the A900 but it got worse. There are 6 pages with up to 9 sub-pages and I would almost bet that Sony engineers had a contest to find out which function can be put under the least relevant heading.
I had some hopes because the camera has no less than 8 customisable buttons. As I only have a few of the menu items which I regularly use, like silent shooting (see previous post) or the viewfinder sensor (see above), but no. You can basically only rotate between the 8 functions foreseen for the 8 buttons.
OK: I am exaggerating a bit, there may be 9 functions to rotate, but none I need.


If the menu system is a curse, ergonomics are a curse with a vengeance.
The camera spots no less than 3 encoding wheels: one which is under your index (nice), one which would be under my thumb if my thumb was twice as long and one which I only spotted after two weeks of use. Which is good, because by default it does nothing. But you can actually set it do do something useful, like selecting ISO or WB, till you find out that it is very easy to hit it by mistake.

There is a selector on the top for various priority modes (like aperture, speed, program or video modes). This one has a lock. There is a further selector on the top corner for exposure correction. This one does not have a lock and I found out that I would regularly unset it when grabbing the camera in my photo bag.

There are no buttons on the left-hand part of the camera but the menu button. Sony may think their customers only have one hand.

The next post will be about lenses.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old December 10th, 2017, 12:35 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Jerome,

You sharing so much is generous and so helpful.

Again, a worthy read. But can you say whether any of these issues with the A7R II have been listed as corrected in the A7RIII? For example, is the resolution now high enough to focus accurately manually?

You might recognize some key improvements that you could add to reasons to get the newer camera, if money was not the barrier. That would be helpful.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old December 10th, 2017, 02:24 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Again, a worthy read. But can you say whether any of these issues with the A7R II have been listed as corrected in the A7RIII? For example, is the resolution now high enough to focus accurately manually?
I don't know. I have not seen an A7RIII, the camera is not yet available.

But I do not think that MF focussing is much useful for me nowadays. In the few cases where I need that capacity, I can always revert back to the old A900.

From a quick look at the online reviews, the A7RIII does not appear to correct the disastrous ergonomics of the A7RII. This, I would be ready to pay money for. The A7RII is, at the same time, the most advanced camera I have and the most frustrating camera I have ever used.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old December 10th, 2017, 11:36 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Lenses

No camera is better than its lenses.

A short summary of autofocus lens mount names may be useful to understand the review below. The following lens mount names are used:
-Minolta A: this is the lens mount on Minolta AF cameras and on the Sony A900. It was introduced in 1985. Sony bought Minolta camera division in 2006 and used the same mount under its brand name. Lenses exist in screw-drive (without motor) and with motor (introduced in 2003, so rare under the Minolta brand).
-Sony E (or EF): this is the mount of the Sony A7RII. E and EF are used almost interchangeably in the literature, the F is added for “full frame” lenses but it is the same mount.
-Canon EF lens mount: this is the mount used on all Canon AF SLRs. Introduced in 1987. All lenses use a built-in motor.

The A7RII can use lenses designed for the A-mount with an adapter. There are two adapters, one without AF motor and one with AF motor. The one with motor comes with a “transluscent” mirror AF system. In effect, it dumbs down the A7RII AF system to the previous generation. I don’t have it.
The adapter without a motor only focusses on lenses with a built-in motor (obviously), of which there are few in Minolta land. With these lenses, it works very well. Some tests in a shop showed that the adapters for Canon EF mount lenses work just as well (Metabones, Sigma, etc…).
In a nutshell, with either the Minolta A mount adapter (and lenses with a motor) or any of the Canon EF adapters, the adapted lens behaves like a native lens on the A7RII, with its on-sensor phase AF points. It is a real alternative if one owns any of these lenses. For example, I used the A7RII with the Sony 70-300 zoom in A mount. It is a range I don’t use very often, I did not buy the native 70-300 lens, which is also about as big as the older version plus adapter.

Size: the adapted lenses are usable on the A7RII, but may be quite big. The adapter adds its own size to lenses which are not always small to begin with. This is not really a problem with long lenses or with fast lenses (they are big no matter what, because optics can only be so small). I toyed with the idea to get the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 and an adapter (it is a unique offering), in the end I did not get it because of size.
On the other hand, the A-mount and E-mount 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 lenses are about the same size on the camera. This is also true for the 24-70 f/2.8 zooms or even for the 35mm f/1.4 primes.

Third party or A-mount lenses may work perfectly and be about the same size of E-mount lenses, but they may not be the first choice to benefit from the A7RII increased resolution. More on native lenses in the next post.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old December 11th, 2017, 07:19 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,523
Default

Hi, Jerome,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
Lenses

No camera is better than its lenses.

A short summary of autofocus lens mount names may be useful to understand the review below. The following lens mount names are used:

<snip>
Thank you for that very interesting and useful (and, as usual, meticulous) report.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old December 11th, 2017, 10:38 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr View Post
Thank you for that very interesting and useful (and, as usual, meticulous) report.
You are welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr View Post
I have for the time being given up interchangeable lens cameras, in part because schlepping a dSLR rig was itself a pain now that my body is in its dotage.
Or you may consider the "kleinbild" camera as a specialised tool, one which would allow you to play with depth of field aside another lighter camera. In that case, you'll only need a "kleinbild" camera (any will do) and one fast prime to your liking. For example, if your objective is to take portraits of attractive ladies wearing red hats, a 85mm would do, the cheaper f/1.8mm version is amply adequate. The whole package, in any brand, is light enough to be taken along.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old December 11th, 2017, 10:40 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

E-mount lenses.

A word of caution: I am very picky about lenses. I started photography with Olympus (Olympus had glorious lenses at the time), then moved to Minolta. Minolta had a rather unique design philosophy in lens design within Japanese lens makers in that they paid great attention that their lenses had similar rendering. I thought that was normal, because I knew nothing else. It is not normal. Nikon lenses, for example, have quite different renderings between them.

Top of the line lenses are called:
-“series L” in Canon land
-“Art” in Sigma land
-“G” under the Minolta brand

With the A900, Sony produced top of the line lenses in collaboration with Zeiss, which are called “Zeiss” (so there were two luxury series: “G” and “Zeiss”). These “Zeiss” lenses are quite good, but the rendering is very different to the one of Minolta glass, especially “G” glass. That bothered me. Between the 24-70 (Zeiss) and the 70-200 (Minolta G), I could easily tell which was which at 70mm. The Sony-Zeiss zooms are quite good, but also have some defects which I notice. That annoys me, even it may not annoy anyone else.

Last year, Sony introduced a third top of the line designation: “G Master”. These only exist in E-mount. So, in Sony land, there are no less than three luxury designations: “G”, “Zeiss” and “G Master”, plus the “ordinary” lenses. This is downright ridiculous, but I am not responsible for the marketing of Sony products.

The big positive surprise to me was the new “G Master” series of lenses. I tried the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom: not only is the rendering the same as older Minolta lenses, but this lens is, as far as I can tell, optically perfect. I have never seen a 24-70 zoom as good as this one, it simply renders primes obsolete, unless they are much faster or much smaller. In my opinion, this is a paradigm change: zooms are no longer a compromise.
My understanding is that the E-mount 16-35 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are just as perfect. The same can be said for the most recent Canon and Nikon zooms, apparently.
Note that these modern zooms rely on software corrections for distortion and vignetting. Distortion corrections are small, however.

Another lens which was a big positive surprise is the 12-24mm f/4. It is a “G” lens (not “G Master”, whatever that means) and was a surprise when it was first presented this spring. Nobody expected that lens.
12-24mm is, in my opinion, a far less useful range than 16-35: the range between 12 and 16mm looks weird and the range between 24 and 35mm is useful enough that I want it duplicated with the 24-70. But the 12-24mm f/4 has an ace up its sleeve: it is very light. In the end, I found out that I used that lens a lot. Optical quality is on par with the 24-70, which for 12mm is exceptional. In my opinion, that lens also renders obsolete third party wide-angle offerings (Samyang, Zeiss Batis), except the f/1.4 versions.

Other E-mount lenses of interest for me would be:
-the 35mm f/1.4: “Zeiss” series (so, unfortunately, different rendering) or Samyang (same size), quite big, but a 35mm f/1.4 is extremely useful
-35mm f/2.8 (Sony-Zeiss or Samyang) if I wanted a small package or, possibly the Sony 28mm f/2.0 or Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2.0
-the 100mm STF, maybe (but that lens is quite slow)

Other E-mount lenses of lesser interest for me:
-a new 24-105 f/4 has been announced, I may simply use the 24-70 and crop if I need more reach, I have enough pixels…
-50, 55 and 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 or macro lenses: I may simply use the A-mount lenses I already have
-Mitakon Zhongyi 50mm f/0.95: exceptional, but I don’t know whether that aperture is really useful
-“Zeiss” 16-35 and 24-70 f/4: they are smaller and lighter, but I don’t feel they are competitive compared to the f/2.8 versions.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old December 11th, 2017, 11:21 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Jerome,

Wow, how many of these lenses did you try out enough to be able to say they are optically perfect versus visiting a photographic store and taking a few shots. That is aot of $$ you have invested.

I will be using your impressions when I venture to buy a new A7R replacement.

My most used focal length is 55 mm as that was the only Sony prime I owned but that went to one son when another son needed the body!

So I am back to Canon!

I should simply get the A7RII and save $$ that I don't really have and get the 24-70 that you find so useful. I spend too much time stitching, so the 12-24 would be my next lens.

I have a collection of beautiful Pentax vintage lenses and a Canon FD 18mm that well too.

One issue with these lenses is that ACR does not always have correction look up tables for them!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old December 11th, 2017, 11:44 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Wow, how many of these lenses did you try out enough to be able to say they are optically perfect versus visiting a photographic store and taking a few shots.
I bought the 12-24 and 24-70, yes. The pictures from Africa were taken with these lenses. It is money one needs to spend: I cannot use the camera without lenses, can I? 😀
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old December 11th, 2017, 02:15 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I bought the 12-24 and 24-70, yes. The pictures from Africa were taken with these lenses. It is money one needs to spend: I cannot use the camera without lenses, can I? 😀
What about game pictures? Or did you just visit a nature reserve? I would think that at least the 70-200 would be needed with a tele extender.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old December 11th, 2017, 10:49 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
What about game pictures?
I did not take any.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old December 11th, 2017, 11:16 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I did not take any.
Were there game parks or refuge centers there? I know this is more common in South Africa, East Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria. These are expensive to operate.

I have an overly romantic idea of Africa and I hope everywhere they have animal refuge centers!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old December 12th, 2017, 12:23 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Were there game parks or refuge centers there? I know this is more common in South Africa, East Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria. These are expensive to operate.

I have an overly romantic idea of Africa and I hope everywhere they have animal refuge centers!
Africa is a whole continent and one of the biggest ones.

In Bénin, there are two national parks in the north and I have been told that they can arrange visit for people who would like to see lions. I have also been told by the French embassy that traveling to these parks was not recommended as the terrorist group called boko haram is active near that area. As you might know, France is at war in that general area.

Anyway, should I have needed a long lens to take pictures of game, I would have used the lens I took for the solar eclipse in August.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old December 12th, 2017, 01:10 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Actually, I sold my 300 2.8L Canon lens and don't regret it. All I have telephoto are two 70-200 2.8 lenses and one f4.0.

I would use them with the Sony when I. It another. But I can also imagine renting the right longer lenses at the time. I need a Sherpa as my wife has become smart and refuses that job!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old December 12th, 2017, 01:19 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Good for her. 😉
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old February 1st, 2018, 07:28 PM
Doug Herr Doug Herr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
The A7RII has also quite a few frustrating points.

The electronic viewfinder is both a blessing and a curse. First things first: the image is nowhere as nice as on the ground glass of the A900. The resolution, although high, is not sufficient to focus manually.\
Set the viewfinder quality to HIGH and fine details will shimmer when they're in focus. It's probably an aliasing artifact which I find can be used for quick and precise manual focus.


Quote:
-Sony E (or EF): this is the mount of the Sony A7RII. E and EF are used almost interchangeably in the literature, the F is added for “full frame” lenses but it is the same mount.
The full-frame lenses for the E mount are FE, not EF.

Quote:
The big positive surprise to me was the new “G Master” series of lenses. I tried the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom: not only is the rendering the same as older Minolta lenses, but this lens is, as far as I can tell, optically perfect. I have never seen a 24-70 zoom as good as this one, it simply renders primes obsolete, unless they are much faster or much smaller. In my opinion, this is a paradigm change: zooms are no longer a compromise.
I've begun using the FE 100-400mm G Master. Darned near perfect lens.

__________________
Doug Herr
http://www.wildlightphoto.com
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old February 1st, 2018, 08:37 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Herr View Post
Set the viewfinder quality to HIGH and fine details will shimmer when they're in focus. It's probably an aliasing artifact which I find can be used for quick and precise manual focus.




The full-frame lenses for the E mount are FE, not EF.



I've begun using the FE 100-400mm G Master. Darned near perfect lens.



That FE100-400 nearly made me give up upgrading to the Fuji GFX instead of the A7RII or A7RIII, as it beats the veenrable Canon version that has a built in 1.4 extender, that can be empoyed or not at will. The Sony FE lens is again stellar and not only that, its amazingly 1/4 of the price.

I had started to use the newly arrived GFX just after I discovered how wonderful the new sony 100-400 proved to be.

I fully expect that Sony will listen to ctiticisms and the next A7R or it Pro replacement big brother, weill have a much better view finder and some 65 to 90MP. These G lenses, I expect are designed to take care of the planned extra resolution that must occur.

We already know that Fuji's upgrade from the GFX will be much more than 50MP and the lenses can resolve at least to 100MP.

For all this, I cannot claim that I can take a better picture with my Fuji camera, as the Sony shadow recover is a hard bar to beat. The extra resolution of not crtical for almost all photography, LOL!

Just for the current crop of stellar Sony FE lenses, this camera is one of the best things hapenned to digital cameras. I like the fact that prices of Canon's L lenses and MF cameras are no longer able to decide the market place. At last, Sony, Pentax, Hasselblad and Fuji are making owning top end gear more possilbe for the rest of us.

For me, rather than ever get the Canon 100-400, I can simply by a new A7RII, the 1-400 G lens, a set of x 1.4 and x 2 tele extenders and still have $2,000 left in my pocket!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old February 1st, 2018, 10:42 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Herr View Post
Set the viewfinder quality to HIGH and fine details will shimmer when they're in focus. It's probably an aliasing artifact which I find can be used for quick and precise manual focus.
I will try that, thanks.

Quote:
The full-frame lenses for the E mount are FE, not EF.
You are right. My bad.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old February 1st, 2018, 10:45 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
That FE100-400 nearly made me give up upgrading to the Fuji GFX instead of the A7RII or A7RIII, as it beats the veenrable Canon version that has a built in 1.4 extender, that can be empoyed or not at will. The Sony FE lens is again stellar and not only that, its amazingly 1/4 of the price.
I don't think the Sony lens is cheaper than the equivalent Canon lens. Maybe you confused it with another lens?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old February 1st, 2018, 11:39 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I don't think the Sony lens is cheaper than the equivalent Canon lens. Maybe you confused it with another lens?
You had me worried for a moment, Jerome, as I know when you say something like this, you are most often correct. However, you might find this sufficient!



Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 01:40 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,753
Default

The Sony f/4-5.6 is 2500$ and the equivalent Canon 2200$ according to your page. What you see at 11800$ is a much different lens.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; February 2nd, 2018 at 08:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 08:07 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,578
Default

Obviously, but still DXO ranks the quality of the new Sony G lens as on the same level as that amazing Canon L lens. Anywhere close is simply revolutionary. Speak to Doug Herr and ask if he would think he is anyway challenged compared to owning the Canon to 400 mm L IS zoom albeit with the x1.4 built in, instead of a x2X in his pocket!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More A7RII Jim Dockery Mirrorless Pro-Class Cameras with Interchangeable Lenses 10 September 8th, 2015 10:16 AM
Sony announces the new A7rII Jerome Marot Mirrorless Pro-Class Cameras with Interchangeable Lenses 10 August 22nd, 2015 04:59 AM
First hike with A7RII Jim Dockery Mirrorless Pro-Class Cameras with Interchangeable Lenses 4 August 21st, 2015 09:31 PM
Sony A7/A7R Review Cem_Usakligil Mirrorless Pro-Class Cameras with Interchangeable Lenses 104 February 23rd, 2014 12:59 PM
Photography Review's Review of K10D Benjamin Kanarek All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 3 March 1st, 2007 11:33 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!