Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for the pictures. Part of the confusion about weights is that Mattew was not comparing apples to apples. The weight for the A7II and A7rII includes the battery and a card and for the other cameras the listed weights are for the body only.
Here are the weights for the body only:
A7r: 14.8 oz or 422g
A7 II: 19.6 oz or 556g
A7r II: 20.5 oz or 582g
Nikon D750: 26.5 oz or 750g
Here are the weights using the CIPA standard (battery plus card):
A7r: 16.4 oz or 465g
A7 II: 21.1 oz or 599g
A7r II: 22.0 oz or 625g
D750: 29.7 oz or 840g
Once you get this straight the size in pictures and the weights are much more in line. ...Show more →
You're not accounting for the added weight of higher MP images in the higher MP bodies.
GMPhotography wrote:
I do agree people thinking just because its mirrorless means it must be smaller. Where the hell is that rule. Its somewhat bogus to think that we lost the mirror so everything should be smaller as a hard cold fact. Its a bonus more than anything and a design that Sony wanted to attempt. My big issue here is we are talking weight in terms of grams and ounces. Thats peanut stuff really when we get to pounds than lets get serious about this. We lugged 8x10 /4x5 cameras around for years. My back is living proof of that abuse. A couple grams here and there we sound like a bunch of wimps. If that offends someone sorry but lets get real here. Weight is by system throw all 5 lenses in your bag and camera and it should be about total weight of the system. That's what you carry. You don't walk around with a lens in your hand but a system of them. Overall Sony is a smaller system, I have downgraded bag size accordingly after selling my Nikon gear. Thats great and happy about it but I view it as a bonus not a point for argument over other systems. ...Show more →
GMP,
Thank you. I could not agree more.
Fellow Miranda-ites: There are weight issues with the new A7RII Seriously?? Who knew?
I returned last week from 14 days in southern France carrying, mainly, a Pentax 645Z (plus 2 extra lenses, sometimes with a backup XT1 in the bag). I am in my 60s, 5'6", and quite out of shape (not that I have ever been in shape) and had no camera-weight-related issues. Zero. Nada. It just wasn't a factor in my planning or travels. (And the gear was carried on the plane rather than checked to avoid theft.)
Net: I really don't understand all the "mirrorless must equal weightless" comments. I use mirrorless because of the image quality + advanced features that companies like Sony and Fuji have delivered, not because of weight benefits.
For the kinds of major improvements that Sony's A7RII brings (improved autofocus, silent shutter, better high ISO, in-body stabilization, internal 4K) I'd gladly add a few (or more) ounces to my bag.
Ron Weissman wrote:
GMP,
Thank you. I could not agree more.
Fellow Miranda-ites: There are weight issues with the new A7RII Seriously?? Who knew?
I returned last week from 14 days in southern France carrying, mainly, a Pentax 645Z (plus 2 extra lenses, sometimes with a backup XT1 in the bag). I am in my 60s, 5'6", and quite out of shape (not that I have ever been in shape) and had no camera-weight-related issues. Zero. Nada. It just wasn't a factor in my planning or travels. (And the gear was carried on the plane rather than checked to avoid theft.)
Net: I really don't understand all the "mirrorless must equal weightless" comments. I use mirrorless because of the image quality + advanced features that companies like Sony and Fuji have delivered, not because of weight benefits.
For the kinds of major improvements that Sony's A7RII brings (improved autofocus, silent shutter, better high ISO, in-body stabilization, internal 4K) I'd gladly add a few (or more) ounces to my bag. ...Show more →
Not weightless, of course, it just should weigh less (and more compact), for the elimination of the mirror box contraption. That is just simple physics.
Speaking of higher Mp images, Jim you will know this: what is the downloaded file size that the 5Ds/r produces? The a7r is around 36Mp and the 24Mp Sony cameras are around 24Mp (easy to remember for ID) and the a900 was 36Mp. All way more when opened in PS as full 16b/RGB .psd or .tif files of course.
I can't find the details for the new Canons. How does the D800/810 file size compare? The anti-compression guys never mention it.
I'm not arguing physics but value. Of course, for two roughly similarly sized /specified cameras (in most dimensions) the mirrorless will be a bit smaller and lighter.
But, for me at least, weight is the least important benefit of the Sony A7 line-and one I'd gladly trade for everything else Sony provides.
Given how small the Sonys are, I'm hard pressed to understand what all the weight-debate criticism is all about, especially when compared to Canon's pro line. What GMP and I are asking is: "what's the big deal?" Why the worry over an added few ounces?
I'm not familiar with the Sony system, but everyone is talking about using Canon lenses with the adaptor, but I haven't seen anyone talk about Nikon lenses on Sony, is that not possible in the same way, or is it just because Canon is more popular why I only see the Canon lens discussion?
BTW the addition of the vertical grip on the A7II is nicer than the older body and its grip. Weight wise even with two batteries is what I consider pretty light. Think 35 2.8 lens here but more important is the ergos on it are really nice in the hand. Besides the obvious vertical position my bet you can hold the camera much steadier and pick up a few stops if shutter on top of IBIS. It really gives the camera some nice balance . Sure makes you system bigger but sometimes those trade offs are worth it given more user abilities . Something to think about next time your in a camera shop ask to try one . I also learned the hard way the off brand ones kind of suck. So swallow the higher price and enjoy it .
Arka wrote:
Because 42MP is so much bigger than 36MP.
Cards are cheap.
Sony makes it easy for us by only giving us lossy compressed RAW. The files would be much bigger (and write times per file slower, shots per battery lower) with even compressed lossless RAW files
stevez32 wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Sony system, but everyone is talking about using Canon lenses with the adaptor, but I haven't seen anyone talk about Nikon lenses on Sony, is that not possible in the same way, or is it just because Canon is more popular why I only see the Canon lens discussion?
You can easily use Nikon AI and AIS lenses with adapters on the Sonys since they're all manual. I think the issues arise when you want to use newer G lenses. As far as I know there aren't any adapters that allow you to electronically control the apertures on the G lenses so you've gotta use adapters that imprecisely set the aperture via an aperture ring which usually has at most marks for fully open, fully closed and "somewhere in the middle". Also, since there aren't any adapters for Nikon that allow electronic connection with the Sonys you're also out of luck if you want to use AF or VR. On the other hand, there are Canon to Sony adapters with electronic connections so you can set the aperture via the camera as well as use (slow) AF and IS.
pdmphoto wrote:
Sony makes it easy for us by only giving us lossy compressed RAW. The files would be much bigger (and write times per file slower, shots per battery lower) with even compressed lossless RAW files
How slow will it really be..i mean...its not like you're shooting 100m dash or the cheetah running. buy faster card...like Arka said..they're cheap.
riotshield wrote:
On the DPReview spec sheet under file formats, it says "RAW (ARW 2.3)." Unless it's a new version, ARW 2.3 is the lossy compression used in current Sony cameras. Just wondering if there's going to be a lossless option.
Me too. I love their cameras - just wished they gave us lossless compressed or uncompressed RAW options in the menu.
I know a lot of people say they don't see this compression or it rarely rears its head - which is great.
But for some whose workflow requires editing and/or lots of post work (like me), it would be a blessing. Personally, I see these artifacts a lot.
Steve Spencer wrote:
No, it is 215g or 7.5 oz. Very close to half a pound. 454g in a pound so 227g is a half pound. I don't know where you get 4 oz. My more general point, however, is that whatever it is it is about a quarter of the weight of a smaller sized DSLR and that might matter to some and it does matter to me. I definitely notice the difference between my 5D MK II and my A7 II, which is a similar difference.
My apologies, I must have got a number that did or did not have a battery included for one of the weights.
The D750 is still a bit lighter than the 5D 2, and also lighter than the 6D and D610, IIRC. But at that point we're splitting hairs.
Either way, when I switched from a D700 / D800 to a D750, I immediately knew that I had found a perfect balance between weight, size, and handling. Of course, that is just for me. As I've said before, I'm glad that Sony is offering these cameras, I just don't see a big enough difference for my own purposes, to merit a switch.
---------------------------------------------
hiepphotog wrote:
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.
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....Show more →
I understand your feeling. Simply put, I'm not here to troll existing Sony users, I'm only hoping that eventually my thoughts make their way back to Sony and join whatever statistics they're collecting WRT how much importance to place on improving certain things in their next camera.
matthewsaville wrote:
My apologies, I must have got a number that did or did not have a battery included for one of the weights.
The D750 is still a bit lighter than the 5D 2, and also lighter than the 6D and D610, IIRC. But at that point we're splitting hairs.
Either way, when I switched from a D700 / D800 to a D750, I immediately knew that I had found a perfect balance between weight, size, and handling. Of course, that is just for me. As I've said before, I'm glad that Sony is offering these cameras, I just don't see a big enough difference for my own purposes, to merit a switch.
she's getting heavier and getting away from the rangefinder style
I think the ultimate in rangefinder style will eventually be an A7S-like version of the A6000. If only Sony could go "backwards" and create a 12-16 MP sensor, they could put this into a 1.5x crop and still pull off an incredible low-light performance, while doing so in a truly ultralight package. F/1.2 and similar lenses are popping up left and right for the E-mount, as are even more compact f/2 and f/2.8 primes.
This, in my opinion, is where the future of "ultimate rangefinder" will be.
Seriously?? Who knew?
