matthewsaville wrote:
I have never bothered to actively attempt at "converting" folks, I get enough people coming to me directly asking for advice on this or that switch. I only give out that kind of information if people ask for it.
I'm mainly just here to bring fair light to the whole situation, in case any folks find themselves in my exact situation, and are feeling tempted but for the wrong reasons. (Weight / price)
Has anyone here asked you to shine some light on whether they should get an A7R II? So far, I have only seen you stating your opinion why the Sony system is "wrong" and why your Nikon choice would be better. If that is not "active," I don't know what is.
I believe most people in thread know quite well the shortcomings of the Sony bodies that you don't need to shine any light for us to see. Every camera maker has their own setbacks and I believe most here are capable enough to determine whether they can live Sony's own setbacks. Yes, personally I can live with Sony's lossless compression cause it has not affected my work in any perceivable way.
matthewsaville wrote:
There are plenty of good reasons to want this camera, but at 22 oz and $3200, being lightweight or affordable are no longer advantages that this mirrorless system can tout very broadly. I simply want to point out that anyone considering this camera should place great value on the rest of the features.
Fair enough?
If this is a Nikon forum with people preaching about the A7R II being the absolute lightweight and affordable alternative to Nikon cameras, I might understand your action. Though the fact still remains, Sony FF mirrorless is a much more flexible system to go as light and small as a user wants (say RF lenses) or as affordable as you can ask for a current tech FF cam (say the A7) or even for the ultimate IQ one can afford (say the better optics on the Canon/Zeiss/Leica/Sigma/Tamron/... side compared to Nikkor). And as a system, Sony FE can stand on its own now, especially for people who know what their needs are. This is not a sheepish crowd who would buy a camera because a pro says so.
TheEmrys wrote:
42MP seems.... underwhelming. Such a very odd number. Sony has always been big with the multiples of 4, but there have been 14 and 18mp bodies. I don't see a 6mp bump as being huge. Need more info.
Really? You are underwhelmed by a 42MP sensor? Just how many pixels does it take to impress you? 100MP?
SSISteve wrote:
Really? You are underwhelmed by a 42MP sensor? Just how many pixels does it take to impress you? 100MP?
Unless it had 100 MP at 100 fps with a 100 year battery life, with a native ISO range of 10-100,000,000 and a 100,000,000 shot buffer, the a7R II was doomed to be big "MEH"...
A lot of people here speculating about the possible benefits of a BSI sensor -- better corners, cleaner high ISOs, faster readouts.
This is also pure speculation, but I would think that a BSI architecture would let the designers use thicker circuitry which would help a lot with heat (thinner wires heat up more when you run current through them).
ebrandon wrote:
A lot of people here speculating about the possible benefits of a BSI sensor -- better corners, cleaner high ISOs, faster readouts.
This is also pure speculation, but I would think that a BSI architecture would let the designers use thicker circuitry which would help a lot with heat (thinner wires heat up more when you run current through them).
The faster readouts from BSI is from Sony's press release:
"Additionally, the sensor's back-illuminated structure, with an expanded circuit scale and copper wiring design, enables faster transmission speed and ensures content can be captured in high resolution without sacrificing sensitivity. Data can also be output from the sensor at an approximately 3.5x faster rate compared to the original a7R."
So Sony added all this BSI sensor tech so they can lie to to us about its benefits. I'm sorry that is a very pathetic comment. Just looking at it it's clear that it spreads the light over the sensor. Why all these conspiracy theories. This is getting very old. No one is twisting anyone's arm to buy it and Sony is just giving us the specs. I just don't understand the comments all this tech trickles into other system brands down the line. People be it fanboys of something else are missing the whole point of advancing technology that eventually winds up in there fanboy camera.
Not that this is the most reliable source, but I took this from wikipedia:
"A back-illuminated sensor contains the same elements, but orientates the wiring behind the photocathode layer by flipping the silicon wafer during manufacturing and then thinning its reverse side so that light can strike the photocathode layer without passing through the wiring layer.This change can improve the chance of an input photon being captured from about 60% to over 90%, with the greatest difference realised when pixel size is small..."
Notable shortcomings in the past:
"Orienting the active matrix transistors behind the photocathode layer can lead to a host of problems, such as cross-talk, which causes noise, dark current, and color mixing between adjacent pixels. Thinning also makes the silicon wafer more fragile."
Now that Sony is implementing the "stacked" sensor design (not Foveon one) in the RX100 IV:
"...Stacked CMOS, where the supporting circuitry is moved below the active pixel section, giving another 30% improvement to light capturing capability."
Jman13 wrote:
USB 2 is still 480 Mbps. It should still be plenty fast enough.
That is the specification. I've never had a USB 2.0 device transfer at that speed. USB 3.0 would be much preferred, for tethering and general I/O functions. Sony cut corners here. My consumer Samsung NX500 has USB 2.0, the Samsung NX1 (less than half the cost of the A7rII) has USB 3.0.
Maybe 2 dollars in production costs. Usb2,3,firewire400 and 800 never had much difference tethering. I had all of them on Phase backs plus Sony and Nikons it's still around 3 seconds to preview. It really makes no difference the bottlenecks are in other areas
GMPhotography wrote:
So Sony added all this BSI sensor tech so they can lie to to us about its benefits. I'm sorry that is a very pathetic comment. Just looking at it it's clear that it spreads the light over the sensor. Why all these conspiracy theories. This is getting very old. No one is twisting anyone's arm to buy it and Sony is just giving us the specs. I just don't understand the comments all this tech trickles into other system brands down the line. People be it fanboys of something else are missing the whole point of advancing technology that eventually winds up in there fanboy camera. ...Show more →
The main reason Sony added BSI was for faster readout - for video. That is my take anyway. I've been with Samsung on this with their 20Mp nonBSI vs BSI 28Mp sensor. BSI has its advantages, but their are some cons as well. Think of CCD vs CMOS. Different technologies provide similar but different results.
GMPhotography wrote:
Maybe 2 dollars in production costs. Usb2,3,firewire400 and 800 never had much difference tethering. I had all of them on Phase backs plus Sony and Nikons it's still around 3 seconds to preview. It really makes no difference the bottlenecks are in other areas
OK, then why didn't Sony use USB 3.0? They are probably saving that for their A9
The BSI approach is *much* more helpful for small sensors than for large ones. There is a BSI APS-C sensor in Samsung's NX-1 and while it's certainly competent it didn't seem to bring any revolutionary breakthroughs with it. I expect maybe a bit more sensitivity, but not much -- certainly not a full stop. My impression is that Sony went with BSI mostly for the readout speed which it improves considerably.
Instead I'm a bit worried about DR. The Sony press release trumpets "new levels of quality, sensitivity and response speed" and I can't help but note that DR is absent here. The only mention it when saying that the improved light collection efficiency enables "wide dynamic range" which is saying nothing. And the Samsung's NX-1 DR is worse than that of APS-C Sony chips (e.g. in a Nikon D7200).
I guess once we get some decent RAW files we'll see...
Wow, this will be the fastest a $3200 ever left my bank account ...
This, paired with top Canon glass, and IBIS ... wow ....
All that's left is a firmware option for lossles RAW
GMPhotography wrote:
I think your all missing the big picture on size and weight. Please name me any camera at 42mpx that is this small and light weight. Anyone care to even take a stab at it. NOTHING IN 35mm. MEdium format Pentax 645 and Leica S are 18 wheelers. Next would be Hassy and Phase backs and cameras more 18 wheelers. Seriously you all sound like a bunch of wimps. Be a man for god sake.
Okay just joking but seriously we are not carrying bricks here. The battery comments I'm on the floor laughing my arch off. You can't carry a couple extra small batteries.
Okay I'm intentional giving you all a hard time but think about what your writing here. These systems all have compromises...Show more →
Haven't read this whole thread, but I think the weight discussion is just one of several. For some reason, people have equated mirrorless with small and light, which it doesn't necessarily have to be. Sony gave us a camera with 36mp that was small and light, as long as you didn't put those big zoom lenses on it. We liked that combo.
Now we have to decide if we are ready to carry a heavier camera that comes close in weight to the DSLRs that we always thought were clunky. Some of us apparently don't care enough about 42mp to take on more weight.
In my case, I use Olympus MFT as my default system because it's capable, small and light and produces excellent images. I use the heavy and large Canon 1D X for bird photography because it's capable where the Olympus isn't. For those moments that I crave more megapixels than either camera can deliver, I throw the A7R and a few small primes in my bag. The weight of the II is not going to hold me back by itself, but the combination of the weight and the price makes me hesitant to press the pre-order button.
Jun 11, 2015 at 02:30 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I wanted to list the upgrades for this camera compared to the A7r:
Upgrades:
Sensor: 36mp to 42MP BSI
Auto focus: Contrast detect only to hybrid system with extensive phase detect mode with 399 focus points and contrast detect
Shutter: Loud shutter with no electronic first curtain to 500,000 shot rated shutter with EFC and silent mode
Viewfinder: .71X magnification to .78x magnification with improved optics and Zeiss T* coatings.
Shooting speed: 4 fps to 5 fps
Max flash sync speed: 1/200 to 1/250
Significant new features added: In body stabilization; 4K video with internal recording
Ergonomic changes: movement of shutter button forward; extra customizable button, deeper front grip
Notable software upgrade: 1/60 default slowest shutter speed for Auto ISO vs. user customizable slowest shutter speed for Auto ISO.
Downgrades:
Weight: 465g to 625g
Size: 127 X 94 X 48mm (W X H X D) to 127 X 96 X 60 mm (note the different in depth is the deeper front grip although the body itself is thicker too probably due to the IBIS)
Battery life: 340 to 290 shots
All in all, it looks like the most extensive upgrade that I believe I have ever seen. Usually a new sensor, or a significant advance in AF, or a new feature like IBIS or 4K video is enough to justify an upgrade, but this upgrade includes all of those things.
I've casually looked at the video specs and haven't seen it listed - has anyone seen or know what the color bit depth is being used for the internal XAVC S7 recording?
These are essentially modular cameras designed way back when....Switching to usb 3 probably means tweaking a bunch of other items increasing complexity and cost. Obviously they are aware of 3 but until modular build changes, don't expect change.
pdmphoto wrote:
The main reason Sony added BSI was for faster readout - for video. That is my take anyway. I've been with Samsung on this with their 20Mp nonBSI vs BSI 28Mp sensor. BSI has its advantages, but their are some cons as well. Think of CCD vs CMOS. Different technologies provide similar but different results.
Of course main reason would be speed and the A7r was lacking there and i think we all agree on that and sure it helps video very valid reasons to use the new tech but us still shooters gain from this. Lets assume the light is far more spread out for instance . Lenses may get better at vignetting as well. Light angles will also improve for wides. Leica M lenses might actually have a chance as well and Sony knows that is a issue. This may have also changed the glass thickness. Stuff we just know yet until we try it of course but I like there idea. Just like a faster processor to handle the bigger sensor, all of this plays into the speed of the cam. On paper this thing looks like a marvel but I don't understand why people insist Sony is pulling the wool over our eyes. If I was a Nikon or canon owner i would be happy about this tech and hope it would filter into my brand of preference.
secondclaw wrote:
Wow, this will be the fastest a $3200 ever left my bank account ...
This, paired with top Canon glass, and IBIS ... wow ....
All that's left is a firmware option for lossles RAW
I'm willing to bet if its ever offered - it'll be one of the paid apps rather than a FW update. Sony could certainly include interval functions like most other camera makers - instead they try to squeeze every last penny out of its customers.
