1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Transitioning to Sony A7 ii

Discussion in 'Back Room' started by zulfur666, Mar 17, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jan 30, 2014
    well well well....
    I would have never thought I would.....
    But when I walked in the local Best Buy I decided to check out the SONY booth..... handled the A7 ii with 24-70 f/4 and after about an hour "playing" with it .... paid and walked out. (Yes I paid Full Price and Sales tax.... given my dilemma with B&H delivery last time) (hope thats not against the forum rules to post it)
    Happy to say the least.... with my A7 ii purchase....and given that I tried it out at home over the weekend and must say focus lock is the same speed as my E-M1 at least to my human experience.
    And there are the lenses I like, REAL wide 16-35 constant F4 (WITH FILTER MOUNT), 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4
    I mostly shoot wide for landscape and in cities when I travel, and Olympus's soon to come 7-14 does not impress me with the bubble in the front and no filter mount....
    so long.... I stick around for a while....

    there are things I dislike about the Sony (are you listening).... the app Sony Smart remote control leave a lot to be desired.... aka GPS does not work to be transferred back to the camera images RAW files or jpg like on Olympus...
    No big deal can be done in LR afterwards with a gpx file....

    Then there is no copyright info input in camera... however can be done when importing the images into LR. Just if you email or post the jpg's right away you have no copyright info in your image exif files.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
  2. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jan 30, 2014
    one more thing... yes I have the Oly 40-150 f/2.8 (80-300)..... great lens no doubt.... BUT
    If I want with the A7 II and 70-200 f/4 I can get up to 300mm and still have 18MP at DOF F/4.... yes its light at f/4 meaning lower SS but even cranking up ISO on a FF sensor will give me better or same results as a mu43 sensor. JMO

    But mainly I shoot landscape images and city scapes.... so the 16-35 and 24-70 will ride on the camera most of the time anyway... and if I want a FE again well there is the the 8mm Fisheye
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
  3. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Do you miss having a touch screen? I came to m43 from Sony (NEX-6), and never realized how useful a touch screen is until I got my G6. Now I have a GH4 and GH3, and am amazed at how often I use the touch screen.

    What are your thoughts on ergonomics compared to the E-M1? Does the A7II handle better or worse? How's the additional weight? How about AF in low light (I've heard this is where Sony struggles compared to m43)?

    Post some pictures of the new set up, as well as pictures taken with the new set up.
     
  4. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jan 30, 2014
    I don't miss the touchscreen, rarely used it. Ergonomics a almost the same as the E-M1 so is weight. AF is the same as the E-M1 tried it in the evening in the house and didn't have a problem getting focus, click and instant focus confirm. Tracking haven't tried, but I don't shoot BIFs, besides never had much luck with AF-C or tracking with the E-M1, single focus worked best for me.
    Lenses are a bit bigger, but if you use the Oly Pro lenses then the difference is not that much in size and weight.
    However if you like small primes then Sony can not offer that. At least not yet.
     
  5. ice29

    ice29 Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    Feb 10, 2012
    Europe
    Hm, how do you find the battery life with IS lenses or IBIS? do you find the 24-70/4 quality more or less comparable with Oly 12-40? (the reviews are not very favorable, but of course sample variation always comes into play...)
    I am currently thinking about the same switch - want to upgrade to E-M5 II but A77 II is just a little bit more...
    I could sell all my m43 gear and buy A77 II with 35/2.8 and FE24-70, later add 16-35 to it.. What bothers me is only size of the 70-200/4, since my 35-100 is a lot more compact :) I find the Sony RAW files much better editable (for landscapes and nature), not that I wasn't happy with m43, for me it's just hobby anyway :)
     
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    @ice29@ice29

    The 24-70/4 isn't a lot bigger than the 12-40 (http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.336,594.412,579.393,ha,t).

    It weighs 50g more, is 3mm larger in diameter, and 10mm longer in length. It's really not that bad, given that it's only a stop slower (but compensate on the A7 by bumping the ISO up a stop). The nice thing about the E-M5/12-40 is that they're weather sealed, where the A7 cameras/lenses aren't. It gives me a little more piece of mind when going out in inclimate weather.
     
  7. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    One nice thing is that with an f4 on FF, you get DOF control like an f2 on m43.

    The downside is that aside from a couple of their primes, the Sony FE lenses aren't very good compared to m43 glass. Compare the sharpness charts at slrgear for the Sony 24-70 F4 and the Oly 12-40 f2.8. There is no aperture, not even f8-11, where the Sony is as sharp as the Olympus is at f2.8. The Olympus is perfectly sharp across the whole frame even wide open at all focal lengths. The Panasonic 12-35 is too, although not quite as perfect as the 12-40 according to the charts. The 24-70 is really bad at the corners at the wide and long end and only just OK in the middle of the zoom range.

    What good is a magic FF sensor if the lens system can't keep up?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I posted this on DPR. The FE primes have some holes in terms of price/performance, size, aperture speed. Here are the native primes
    • 28/2 (just launched) - $450 - just started shipping. Sony needs more G lenses with 2.0, IMO - based on early reviews and image samples, this is likely Sony's price/performance leader
    • 35/2.8 - $800, used down to $550. Has some odd issues though with vignetting that never goes away at any f/stop and some odd color banding reported
    • 35/1.4 - $1600 - not yet shipping, and looks to be sizeable (and likely a strong performer)
    • 55/1.8 - $1,000, street around $700-800. Reported as one of the best lenses ever, but there are a lot of good 50s out there.
    • 90/2.8 macro - $1100 - not yet shipping, and also very big (and also likely a strong performer)
    Would REALLY like to see an f2.0 G line at 28, 35, 50 and 85. That would rock if the keep it compact but reasonable performance.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2015
  9. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I agree, but they already have a mediocre 35mm f2.8 that is too expensive. The 55mm f1.8 is fantastic, but how would they position a 50mm f2 against it? It seems like they'd have to make it f2.5 or something to have a clear delineation. An 85mm f2.8 would be great. They have one for A-mount that is really quite good for $300. Just steal that design.

    Unfortunately it seems like there is real issue with making high performing lenses that cover a FF circle and making them any smaller than DSLR lenses. I mean it's not like Canon and Nikon intentionally made huge lenses, some just had to be large to provide good performance and cover the big sensor.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    Good luck to you with that, seriously.
    While I can see improvements in IQ with that move, the size, weight and cost of system will get worse.

    I've started to keep the track of what my system cost me and currently it's around $5000 and I do not feel like I would pay more for bigger system.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2015
    • Like Like x 3
  11. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Yeah, I don't think they need to make another 50, and they already have the 28. How about a 30/2 and an 85/2. They can toss the 35/2.8, which is Sony Zeiss, so they could make a Sony G 35/2.0 instead.

    I'm only shooting legacy glass with my a7 right now for this very reason.
     
  12. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Wow, $450 is extremely aggressive pricing for the 28/2. Sounds like a much, much better option than the 35/2.8 (which is really a pretty disappointing lens for the price).

    Even M4/3 doesn't have a 14mm/f2 for near that price. I guess there's the 15mm/1.7, but it's $600.
     
  13. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    The 28/2 is a real solid option on their APSC bodies, too.
     
  14. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Good point. Except for size, it's basically the exact performance equivalent of the 20mm/1.7 for APS-C.
     
  15. broody

    broody Mu-43 Veteran

    388
    Sep 8, 2013
    Well, according to a Ming Thein post, he was told by Zeiss that their Loxia lenses for A7 had to be designed with special corrections to make up for the fact that the FE mount was too small, which explains why adapted Leica lenses seem to have some issues with color shifts. A shame the mount design gives Sony this issue.

    That said, Sony could make the FE system into a winner if they had any idea of how to go about it- stop trying to be a gimped DSLR wannabe with compact-level performance and create a modern Leica system alternative - make design into a strong point rather than a glaring weakness, and aim for small high-quality lenses no matter the cost -compromise on minimum focus distance like Leica does.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Personally, I think the FE system is at its best when it compromises on speed. No need to compromise on optical quality, but if you can make good quality f2.8 primes and f4 or f5.6 zooms that are compact, lightweight, and inexpensive - while still getting the resolution and DR benefits of full frame, the world should beat a path to your door.

    Or at least I would. But I guess I'm not a bokeh fiend!

    A 4.5" long, 630g, $1600 35mm/1.4, on the other hand, is deeply uninspiring to me...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Just proves everyone is different! I would not want premium nor slow. I would like to see more like the 28/2 G.

    So, who's the profitable market for Sony? Can you be all things to all people?

    I do think the flange-back distance was a mistake, though. Too tight.
     
  18. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The flange-back/register distance of the Sony is often stated as a reason for their wide angle woes, but it is really not that shallow. Sony is 18mm, Eos M is 18mm, m4/3 is 19.25mm, Fuji XF is 17.7mm. Of course they are the only ones trying to do FF with that, but they have had issues with wide and/or compact lenses since they began on APS-C. Fuji has phenomenal wide angles and has the shortest register.

    I think Sony needs lens design help and the APS-C sized mount with a FF sensor isn't doing them any favors.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    The problem isn't so much the distance on its own - you can always build more into your lenses by making them longer and having empty space in the back. The problem is diameter of the mount combined with people pushing for compact lenses (thus less distance built into the back), with the diameter of the mount and the coverage it needs it becomes hard as you have to fit all that light through a small hole that's very close to the sensor and the light has to somehow cover the entire sensor (so lots of oblique angles as the designed distance becomes lower due to the constant push for smaller size, hence bad corners).

    You can get around this by having wizards designing your lenses who use a image-space telecentric based approach - as basically all m4/3 and most SHG 4/3 equipment does. There are other improvements as well such as allowing far more powerful IBIS (as the angle of incidence doesn't change with sensor shift you can shift the sensor more without artifacts). Sadly Sony seems to be lacking wizards lately.


    The reality is none of this matters and a standard kit zoom is all 90% of people will ever use, they read rumors about a lens they will never own and thus buy into the system and leave the camera at home to gather dust and use their phone anyway.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Fair enough! I would also be more than happy with lenses like the 28/2. However, that lens appears to be a mystical unicorn, the value/performance ratio of which has never been seen before on E-mount (and perhaps will not be in the future, either!) I suppose the APS-C Sony E 50/1.8 is pretty decent, as well, though that comparison looks less favourable when you put it next to the 45/1.8 and the new 42.5/1.7.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.