Transitioning to Sony A7 ii

[dornblaser]

They are close. Thank you for posting those pics.

 

[Turbofrog]

Compare these two. Same ISO. A7 vs. E-M5.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8660/16429351991_74ac9dca3a_o.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8572/16412066302_2ecb4a949d_o.jpg

Great shots, MAubrey. Demonstrates the point well - and also shows just how good the Oly 75 is to compete with the Canon 85L on an FF sensor. Wow. It would be interesting to see how they'd look with the white balance equalized, too.

 

[sootyvrs]

Not sure if it's been posted before but found this link an interesting read relating to Full frame (A7S) vs APS-C (X-T1) vs M43 (E-M1)

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/23/mirrorless-battle-micro-43-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/

I'm a big fan of mirrorless bodies and it amazes me how small (relative terms) the Sony A7 is compared to D-SLR full frame bodies but as mentioned, the FE lenses are still something that simply can't be packaged small relative to APS-C and especially M43 so I guess the advantage is that there are plenty of choices for everyone with merits and negatives within each system.. You only have to choose what suits you best.

 

[DigitalD]

Not sure if it's been posted before but found this link an interesting read relating to Full frame (A7S) vs APS-C (X-T1) vs M43 (E-M1)

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/23/mirrorless-battle-micro-43-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/

I'm a big fan of mirrorless bodies and it amazes me how small (relative terms) the Sony A7 is compared to D-SLR full frame bodies but as mentioned, the FE lenses are still something that simply can't be packaged small relative to APS-C and especially M43 so I guess the advantage is that there are plenty of choices for everyone with merits and negatives within each system.. You only have to choose what suits you best.

I remember seeing this and a very interesting test indeed. Part of the reason why I still shoot MFT! But Steve even states that using the A7S is a closer comparison with the Oly and Fuji because actual MP at file level are the same. Steve did not want to use the A7II because it would have had a big MP advantage and I believe there would have been more of a distinction in Sharpness when handheld (IBIS). You can already see in the DR test how well the FF sensor handles highlights and shadow recovery and the ISO test is basically what I was talking about. The EM1 and A7 are worlds apart at high ISO.

Still, you gotta love Oly's color and sharpness when it counts. Clearly holds its ground upon fierce competition

 

[mattia]

I would not call the 35/2.8 a 'dissapointing' lens in any way - have the naysayers here actually used one? What I would say is that it's not particularly inspiring. It doesn't have much of that Zeiss 'pop', but it is very sharp from wide open, and the main attraction is the small size. It's overpriced slightly (I got it for quite a bit below retail on launch via the Sony educational store, probably a pricing error...) given its relatively narrow aperture, but other than that...

The FE 55/1.8 is my favourite 50mm lens of any system I've used to date (including: CY planar 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.8, Leica R 50/2.0 and assorted cheapies). Beautiful rendering, contrast, very nice build, and the lens that really sold me on my A7r. For me, the systems (MFT and FE) live together in harmony. I don't see myself going back to a FF telephoto setup, ever (I owned a 5DII and a 100-400, and I'd much rather have my E-M1 and 50-200 with an optional teleconverter - lighter, MUCH more reach, and brighter and enough resolution), and the all-round handling of the E-M1 beats the A7r (AF point selection is a bear compared to the ease of a touchscreen, and the IBIS is amazing), but for my major interest (landscapes) the A7r holds a lot of great cards (resolution, small enough size, highly malleable files). I'm on the verge of buying a 16-35, and then deciding on whether to sell the panasonic 7-14 (blotchy purpleness and fussy filter issues aside, it remains a really, really fantastic ultrawide), and then having that be my 2-lens A7r setup (16-35, 55/1.8), with the E-M1 handling 'standard zoom' (12-40) and telephoto tasks, with a few smaller primes just for fun.

 

[Turbofrog]

I would not call the 35/2.8 a 'dissapointing' lens in any way - have the naysayers here actually used one? What I would say is that it's not particularly inspiring. It doesn't have much of that Zeiss 'pop', but it is very sharp from wide open, and the main attraction is the small size. It's overpriced slightly (I got it for quite a bit below retail on launch via the Sony educational store, probably a pricing error...) given its relatively narrow aperture, but other than that...

The FE 55/1.8 is my favourite 50mm lens of any system I've used to date (including: CY planar 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.8, Leica R 50/2.0 and assorted cheapies). Beautiful rendering, contrast, very nice build, and the lens that really sold me on my A7r. For me, the systems (MFT and FE) live together in harmony. I don't see myself going back to a FF telephoto setup, ever (I owned a 5DII and a 100-400, and I'd much rather have my E-M1 and 50-200 with an optional teleconverter - lighter, MUCH more reach, and brighter and enough resolution), and the all-round handling of the E-M1 beats the A7r (AF point selection is a bear compared to the ease of a touchscreen, and the IBIS is amazing), but for my major interest (landscapes) the A7r holds a lot of great cards (resolution, small enough size, highly malleable files). I'm on the verge of buying a 16-35, and then deciding on whether to sell the panasonic 7-14 (blotchy purpleness and fussy filter issues aside, it remains a really, really fantastic ultrawide), and then having that be my 2-lens A7r setup (16-35, 55/1.8), with the E-M1 handling 'standard zoom' (12-40) and telephoto tasks, with a few smaller primes just for fun.

Sorry, I guess I'd say disappointing in that the resolution across the frame out of the 35/2.8 doesn't seem to be that much better than from a 20/1.7, despite a sensor 1/4 the size and a price tag 1/3 as high.

Sure it's small (for FF), but if you're going for full frame to pay twice as much for pretty much the same effect...?

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I shoot JPEG about 70% of the time. I don't know, old school i guess. I come from a film background and I like "happy accidents". The rest of the time I shoot Raw+JPEG

just FYI, you can shoot RAW all the time and there is always an embedded JPG which is typically half the X , Y dimensions of the RAW. You can pull them out super fast with dcraw (which works on either MAC or PC) and 99% of the time if you just "want it as it comes" then you don't need a bajillapixel image, but when you "want to screw around with the image" usually having more (like the RAW) is helpful.

To me there is no need to shoot RAW + JPG except to waste a bit of card space

 

[DigitalD]

Hi



just FYI, you can shoot RAW all the time and there is always an embedded JPG which is typically half the X , Y dimensions of the RAW. You can pull them out super fast with dcraw (which works on either MAC or PC) and 99% of the time if you just "want it as it comes" then you don't need a bajillapixel image, but when you "want to screw around with the image" usually having more (like the RAW) is helpful.

To me there is no need to shoot RAW + JPG except to waste a bit of card space

Never knew that actually. Thanks for the tip!

 

[DigitalD]

Sorry, I guess I'd say disappointing in that the resolution across the frame out of the 35/2.8 doesn't seem to be that much better than from a 20/1.7, despite a sensor 1/4 the size and a price tag 1/3 as high.

Sure it's small (for FF), but if you're going for full frame to pay twice as much for pretty much the same effect...?

I think we have officially hijacked this thread lol. But I'm enjoying the discussion so w/e

Well I don't own the 35mm but from what I've read the center sharpness is off the charts above f4. Pair that with a FF 24mp or 36mp sensor and I'm pretty sure that out resolves the 20mm at f2.8. The 20mm however is sharp across the frame from f2 on but maybe it's just me but 99% of what I shoot is unaffected by corner sharpness. The 35mm sharpens in the corners from 5.6 on and to me, if I was shooting a scene that needed critical corner sharpness I would most likely be shooting in the f stop range anyway. Then you add the better ISO and DR performance plus bigger file sizes; the cost difference starts to muddy again

 

[zulfur666]

Stil happy with my decision moving to the A7ii. Now that I got a TRUE recliner WIDE 16-35 f/4 WITH Filter mount and NO purple blobs.
Also got the great 70-200 f/4 (not so happy about its white paint) but hey. Still gets me 300mm at 16MP. Same as the 40-150 f/2.8 did, with real F/4 bokeh.

 

[zulfur666]

thanks for the extended discussion, enjoy reading it. ..... I slowly move over to TalkEmount..... so long..... I stick around here for a while just out of curiosity.

 

[zulfur666]

some of my photos ... of course they are web size.... but I have similar angle shots from the E-M1 and E-M5 .... detail is better from the A7ii.
A7ii 70-200 @ f/4 133mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

16-35 f/4 @ f8 16mm with Polarizer

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

16-35 f/4 @f8 16mm with Polarizer

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[zulfur666]

and btw, the A7ii is almost the same size as the E-M1 if you stand them side by side. Lenses, 24-70 similar to 12-40 pro, 40-150 2.8 pro, similar to 70-200. Yes its not 300mm BUT cropped to the same MP size it is 300mm at the end and at bokeh f/4 vs 5.6. JMO. Not trying to convince anyone, was my personal choice.
I do NOT shoot primes, moved away from it as it became a hassle in the field, the great pro zoom lenses were really GREAT. BUT when I saw that Sony Zeiss FF zoom lenses are ALMOST the same price as Mu43 Pro, I questioned it and looked at the A7ii in BB, liked it and haven't looked back since. (Its only been 2 weeks now) I very well understand f/2.8 light is NOT f/4 (we don't need to go there) for me it was about bokeh especially at the long end. And I looked at upping ISO from f/2.8 to f/4 vs noise mu43 vs 35mm (FF)

 

[zulfur666]

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

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I wanted to use it first before I give my opinion. yes the 24-70 to my human eye is similar to the 12-40, BUT sharper with more detail especially around center (could be the better resolving larger and more MP sensor too). But as a package yes its sharper. At f/4 the corners are a bit unsharp vs the Oly 12-40.
Battery life is about the same, just leave the wifi turned off, no need to constantly transfer images to your phone or tablet.
Still love my choice.

 

[robbie36]

The 70-200 when cropped to 300 on the 24MP A7ii sensor is 10MP not 16MP.

 

[zulfur666]

The 70-200 when cropped to 300 on the 24MP A7ii sensor is 10MP not 16MP.

how so? 24MP / 2 = 12MP = double the zoom, so 24MP/1.5 = 16MP = 300mm zoom

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I wouldn't mind an A7/II/R/S, but I still find the initial investment a little high. I'm actually quite happy with using lens turbo/speed booster adapters with cheaper cropped sensor cameras.

 

[robbie36]

how so? 24MP / 2 = 12MP = double the zoom, so 24MP/1.5 = 16MP = 300mm zoom

Its the 'square' of the crop factor that matters.

Consider M43 which is a 2x crop - giving 140-400 on a 70-200 FF lens. 2x crop results in a sensor 1/4 the size. So only 6MP from a 24MP FF sensor.

If you cropped an A7r (36MP) you would get 16MP with a 1.5x crop.

 

[eteless]

Its the 'square' of the crop factor that matters.

Consider M43 which is a 2x crop - giving 140-400 on a 70-200 FF lens. 2x crop results in a sensor 1/4 the size. So only 6MP from a 24MP FF sensor.

If you cropped an A7r (36MP) you would get 16MP with a 1.5x crop.

36*.71=25.56 for a 1.5 crop (APS-C is normally a 1.6 crop though so it's around 24mp).
24mp would be roughly 17mp however the aspect ratios are different (I actually prefer the 4/3 aspect ratio and find 35mm too skinny and long for my tastes).

A 16mp m4/3 sensor is roughly equivalent to a 22.56 APS-C or 31mp FF if you want to crop the larger to equate to the smaller.

 

[pellicle]

36*.71=25.56 for a 1.5 crop (APS-C is normally a 1.6 crop though so it's around 24mp).....

why don't you crop the guts out and have a look? You may be surprised