Triumph61

In many ways I did. had to choose one system and eventually the Sony won out, with still shooting a factor in my choice.

Sorry Don I disagree with this test. But it's DPreview so it must be correct eh ;-) Did I read somewhere that they couldn't use their normal adapted test lens on the NX1 so they used a zoom to compare? I have noticed on many DPreview tests, errors? or lens alignment issues?? in their comparisons. One camera area sharp, comparing as unsharp on another camera, then the opposite in another area of the image. All good though the Samsung has it's strengths and so does the Sony. The Sony is perfectly fine in isolation, the NX1 is just a super sharp high resolving 4K camera and to own both and compare can be a challenge toward what you want out of your camera. I chose the Sony in the end. FF and still images where my deciding factors.

Yes, and I hear that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic collectively sighed, in huge relief. :-) So if you use a NX1 suddenly your work becomes "imaginary"? lol

Max? I meant no offence, I did put a smiley face :-) , and I am absolutely happy to hear an opinion, which is an opinion just like mine, is also just an opinion, and not fact for everyone or every scenario. One size does not fit all. As I said i would love to have my cake and eat it too, but......... Maybe a lottery win?

Correction!!!! In my haste to test the A7SII I set up everything except the removal of in camera sharpening on profile PP6 :-| So on retesting the A7RII S35 and A7SII FF, from a resolution and sharpness point of view are very similar. Again my apologies.

Andrew, is this a function of SLog3? As i am not seeing this in the PP6 Cine 2 setting which is obviously not a Log setting. Also would Resolves new colour match option help, using a XRite colormate passport or the like?

Of course all your info is technically correct, So now will i will go back and look at my mates books and see all those errors and they will look like crap taken on a D300.. :-) I have owned Fovean Technology and have met the owners multiple times, so I am very aware of what you are saying, but it's still pixel peeping. Some phenomenal images have been taken on EOS 1 D's and D3/4 etc all below 20 megapixels or 5-6 MP based on your Bayer explanation. My point is that less than 1% of people who use these camera have an output scenario that see's this difference in real terms. YES, i would like a higher res Still image, but I prefer a FF 4 K shooter that also shoots FF stills well and the only game in town currently is the A7SII. Sony are making some great camera's but it is a confusing offer with no easy choice. Ideally the best choice would be to own the A7RII for stills and have an A7SII in your bag for Video.

I have Landscapes taken on 3 and 5 million pixel sensors (stitched) that have been displayed in Public buildings printed 1.5 metres long. I bought the A7RII and it didn't excite me for Video. I WISH it had! Would have saved me some cash. :-) When I bought mine the info and reviews were saying S35 was great and FF was a little behind, That is just not true. IMHO FF video on that camera is poor. Zeiss lens sales and high pixel count is being driven by pixel peeping, MANY don't print and the few who do, would have to print huge to see any difference, How many walls do people have in their homes? :-) I just looked at a mates books he did on his travels through Europe, beautiful books of each country he traveled through, all shot on a D300 and if he had used a D7200? they would have looked.....the same in reality, He is old school though and gets the shot "right" in camera. And I now own a A7RII, An A7SII and a NX1, Two will make way for one. I think we will wait a long time for a Hi res FF still camera that can perform like the A7SII for Video, so for me it was the realisation that the res thing is over rated for still, the lack of PD AF was a bigger deal as a still shooter. If someone can make a 20 MP plus chip that doesn't have a lossy FF output I am interested, but I wouldn't hold my breath. and they call it a ..............niche product. Of course you would be crazy to buy the A7SII as a still only camera, unless for it's iso capabilities, but my point was who can afford an A7RII and an A7SII, when I had to choose the A7SII won as a better allrounder for me. For many the lack of PD AF will be the deal breaker for still photography

I said it betters it, and I believe it does. Apart from that, I have a 20mm 2.8, 24mm F2.8, 28mm F2.8, 50mm 1.4 Lovely small little Minolta lenses, How do I get their perspective and depth of field on a A7RII in S35 without taking out a second mortgage? Also have Canon FF glass including a Sigma 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. This is my preference and I am sure for some S35 is perfect.

I agree Andrew, ( which is why I posted) tell it to the guys at the Camera Store who just posted their video review and in their summary they call it a niche video camera and that the A7RII is the all rounder, that still shooters should only consider. As a still shooter, I disagree with them. https://youtu.be/zph4Ni4TYyQ

IMHO So I own a NX1 and bought a A7RII. I wanted a FF camera that straddled Video and Still. One camera that was Good at both. Most will say "buy the A7RII cause it does both well". I disagree. I have now had a chance to try the A7SII, which I liked the specs on but was disappointed with the lack of Sony's new PD AF system which I really wanted for my stills. Luckily, I actually own some Minolta glass, a hang over from my days using a A900 which as a still camera I loved. So I bought a second hand LA-E4 adaptor and tried it on the A7SII, Now I remember why I loved those Minolta lenses, They are small , sharp and really perform and with the LA-E4 they work really well. The FF video output of the A7SII is ....Wow.....everthing the A7RII is not, and it is also betters the s35 output from the the A7RII. Plus as a one camera shooter having to shoot FF for stills and S35 for video? Not ideal for me. Sure if you go out to shoot video and only video, but a mix of still and video? and the A7RII is a big compromise. So how is the A7SII as a still camera? Amazing. I remember when I bought a D800E that after 6 months I realised I was just obsessing over my pixel peeping and to really impress anyone I would have had to have a small detail crop in a print to show the high res sensor, but in a normal print it was no advantage. My computer would grind opening ever 36MP file, I eventually sold it for a 5DMKIII. Canon and Nikons pro camera are around 16mp, So, is the A7SII such a "niche" camera? I think not. I would love them to put in the PD AF which obviously means a whole new sensor. But Legacy Glass and Minolta adapted lenses when I need (or want ) AF, is a perfectly fine compromise for me. Plus the Minolta glass is so good and so well priced. The 12 MP images off the A7SII are amazing, great latitude and great colour. Cropping is the real advantage of the A7RII. The quick video tests I have done with the A7SII are really impressive especially the dynamic range and "look" and thats just using PP6 which is the Cine 2 (from memory) setting rather than Slog. As a street shooter the PP6 setting really just seems to work. There is no perfect camera that does everything, but i think I have found the best compromise by far.

Just watched some of this video, The still portrait photographer makes a point about his pet hate of bad focus and the guy videoing keeps mis focusing on the background??? Also I question those comparison high iso studio shots near the end, They had to be jpegs cause the sony was using some crazy destructive noise reduction that I am sure would not be an issue if using raw. They did not qualify this and just then gave it to the Canon, Bit misleading? More talking heads, some good info and some very misleading. IMHO

OK, Put on my Flame suit :-) Actually I would LOVE the Sony to be the camera I keep, I just wish it didn't compromise so much in a few area's like FF 4K resolution and moreso the smearing of detail in FF. Because of this and the cost ratio of lenses to kit out the A7 series is why I am tossing up to keep the NX1 and or Keep the A7RII and invest in more FF glass....Again :-) Below are some samples, at 100% and then 200% from 4K still grabs. From Sony A7RII and NX1 all shot with the same Nikon 35mm 2.8 prime at F5.6, The order is A7RII S35....A7RII FF.......NX1. Before everyone replies yes I can see the NX1 is over sharpened, but it is also impossible to sharpen the Sony S35 to get the result the NX1 gives natively. So my conclusion is that the S35 on the A7RII is pretty good but probably needs some post sharpening, The A7RII FF is not so good, and the NX1 has lots of resolution and is oversharpened in camera. The last image is of the 5DMKIII internal codec versus Magic Lantern Raw showing how the detail in far greater in her T-Shirt, hat and skin (freckles) where the internal codec is destructive to such detail. This has been what I have found with the A7RII in FF, the softness I can see and accept to a point, but less so the smearing of texture and detail that is lost in open areas of detail (rather than edges) that results from this.

Sorry, I know I will be howled down by some here, but I think the "4K" FF output of the A7RII is far from acceptable, I would say it is a FF still camera and a 4K S35 video camera. FF can be used for simple bold subjects but really does not stand up to scrutiny when detailed 4K is what you are after. Its not just lower res than 4K, but it smears lots of detail in FF. IMHO. I would love to be wrong , because I wanted this camera to perform in FF, but it does not. I own the A7RII and yes in S35 it can perform albeit with worse rolling shutter, but in FF it is really average, worse than my 5DMKIII in 1080 with magic lantern. I am seeing details lost that is like my 5D did before I used ML. Using ML Raw I would see texture in a shirt whereas the internal codec would smear it to a flat colour with no texture. happy to post examples.

My Samsung NX1 definitely show Moire quite often.