Confessions of a former A7r2 hater...

[Shield3]

When this was announced (I formerly owned the a7r and a7s) I was very skeptical.  I laughed at the overheating issues since I shot the 1dc at the time and had no issues.

After using the a7r2 all day today...it's for real.  Video is *BETTER* than I thought in FF mode (I was expecting $hitty a99 line skipped / soft binned footage).  AF is BETTER than I thought it'd be with the metabones.  Contrary to many videos I've seen online, the 70-200 II has no issues focusing from 70-200 mm in good light.

I'd call the AF with the metabones and firmware 3.0 on the body is about 75% as fast as a 5d3.  Video footage is gorgeous.

I have to eat crow here - but IMO this is the best all-arounder unless you're shooting sports.  Color science seems improved too.  No overheating either; it's been fixed.

I shot the 85 1.2 L II today handheld and it didn't suck.  When you trigger the IS on the 70-200 it auto-kills the in-body IS.  If Sony could make this body a tad bigger, allow APS-C mode to be assigned to a button and completely re-do the menus, it's be about perfect.

[Shield3]

Oh, and the stills?  Here are crops all from one picture.

[The Chris]

Its packs quite a punch on the stills and video side, its a great all around camera. What if Sony hadn't F-ed up the A99 and came out with something like this instead? The A-mount would be alive and well. 

[sam]

Severe chromatic aberration in every pic.  

[Grim Fandango]

On 16/02/2016 at 11:12 PM, sam said:

Severe chromatic aberration in every pic.  

Correct me if i'm wrong, but that's a lens issue, not a camera issue. The 85 1.2 is notorious for axial CA.

[sam]

Of course.  But its known to be  exacerbated by Sony cams for some reason. I also have experienced it first hand. The cause, whether codec, compression, gamut, bit depth, etc..,or combination of these seems to still be up for debate. Even with cinema glass and more expensive cams it can occur.  Google's your friend.

[Don Kotlos]

11 minutes ago, sam said:

Of course.  But its known to be  exacerbated by Sony cams for some reason. I also have experienced it first hand. The cause, whether codec, compression, gamut, bit depth, etc..,or combination of these seems to still be up for debate. Even with cinema glass and more expensive cams it can occur.  Google's your friend.

Yeah I have heard thay Sony's cams not only do not correct for it but also force it in the footage on purpose. I guess just to spite all the people that found out how they can get great colors from their Sony cams. 

[Geoff CB]

1 hour ago, Don Kotlos said:

Yeah I have heard thay Sony's cams not only do not correct for it but also force it in the footage on purpose. I guess just to spite all the people that found out how they can get great colors from their Sony cams. 

Or maybe using non-native glass doesn't guarantee you the best image quality. Saying that Sony came up with code to specifically make third party glass image quality worse in photo and video is ridiculous. Also it's not bad in this image, only when he crops to extreme lengths the lens wasn't even designed for does it become evident.

[Don Kotlos]

6 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Or maybe using non-native glass doesn't guarantee you the best image quality. Saying that Sony came up with code to specifically make third party glass image quality worse in photo and video is ridiculous. Also it's not bad in this image, only when he crops to extreme lengths the lens wasn't even designed for does it become evident.

I was being sarcastic . I am very happy with my A7rII as well. 

Its funny how people can complain about anything nowadays. I mean the only reason that the e mount cameras might have more ch.aberation  (which I have not seen) is because it is the only large sensor mount that allows the use of so many adapted lenses (any lens really). So to expect the camera to correct all these lenses... of course with canon you probably will only use canon lenses so you will see less of if...

[sam]

Not maligning your tool of choice Don.  On other threads, blogs, etc... it's been pointed out by those who own and use (like myself) Sony cams such as the F5, Fs7, Fs700, that excessive fringing appears beyond the amount regularly exhibited by a lens or lens adapter combo.

Many theories as to why, but the exact cause doesn't seem  to be determined.

 

[Shield3]

6 hours ago, sam said:

Severe chromatic aberration in every pic.  

There is some for sure.  I wouldn't call it severe - this was the 85 1.2 II @ 2.8.  Closer to wide open it gets worse.

Just went back into Lightroom - I didn't even have the "remove chromatic aberration" box checked.  But IMO this lens is known to exhibit purple fringing badly.  It's not a defect that bothers me that much, so who cares.

2 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

Or maybe using non-native glass doesn't guarantee you the best image quality. Saying that Sony came up with code to specifically make third party glass image quality worse in photo and video is ridiculous. Also it's not bad in this image, only when he crops to extreme lengths the lens wasn't even designed for does it become evident.

I like lenses with character more than the sterile "sharp" image.  IQ and what is best is always subjective.

[tugela]

5 hours ago, sam said:

Not maligning your tool of choice Don.  On other threads, blogs, etc... it's been pointed out by those who own and use (like myself) Sony cams such as the F5, Fs7, Fs700, that excessive fringing appears beyond the amount regularly exhibited by a lens or lens adapter combo.

Many theories as to why, but the exact cause doesn't seem  to be determined.

 

Purple (and sometimes other colors) fringing is frequently caused light scatter on the sensors. It is typically problematic on high density sensors.

[Grim Fandango]

Sam is correct, I remember from the NEX7 days there was a strange drop in quality in the corners with many non-native lenses, and there were many theories as to what causes it, but, as a proud owner of both an NEX7 with plenty of vintage glass, and an 85 L that I use with my 40D, I don't believe this is any sensor issue, this is that lenses distinctive axial CA, in my opinion. It's not "severe" in this case, and in any event, it's so easy to correct (and most times it is done automatically in stills) it's not even a problem if it does bother you.

[Nikkor]

2 hours ago, tugela said:

Purple (and sometimes other colors) fringing is frequently caused light scatter on the sensors. It is typically problematic on high density sensors.

But that's not the case with the 85 1.2, its CA.

[richg101]

IMO the A7R2 is hands down the best current video and stills shooter if you have the budget to invest in two metabones adaptors - a non speed booster for  stills and a speed booster ultra for video.  

 

Onto the subject of CA caused by the sony camera itself.  This isn't a viable subject in this debate.  It's down to the fact that 90% of users are using lenses incapable of delivering good enough results for such a high end sensor - particularly with dslr lenses shorter than 50mm.  Try the Loxia 35mm/2 wide open and it's optimised for modern sensors with shorter back focus distances (and the micro lenses) - think of the loxias as modern leica M lenses.  Canon L lenses are prehistoric by comparison - most of which are derived from designs originating in the late 80's before they envisaged digital being the norm, kept in production out of laziness rather than because they deliver.  Ask any 5dsr shooter and they complain that the lenses can;t deliver onto their sensor.  To me the likes of lenses like the 85mm/1.2L are a waste of money for contrasty colour photography.  they fringe so badly that the dof advantage is gone since you need to be at f4 before the image becomes enjoyable to look at.  Take them in low light, indoors without any high contrast edges or use them for b+W work and they are magic.

[sam]

Rich, there is no debate as to the cause of the fringing and never has been on my end. (The 85 1.2) It's the amplification of fringing by a lot of  Sony cams.  

Even high end cinema lenses (not that they are exempt from ca, but are somewhat of a known entity, repeatedly used across multiple cameras) have been shown to exhibit fringing even in the center of the image on a Sony.  The same lens in same setting using (insert $$$ cinema cam here) doesn't show this fringing or at least the severity of it.  

[Nikkor]

Longitudinal CA is not the same as lateral CA, it will happen all across the frame and is tipical for fast teles. Unless the filter stack on the A7Xs is thicker than on canon/nikons, I don't see why it should be any different.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses

maybe @Brian Caldwell could help us out here.

[The Chris]

2 hours ago, richg101 said:

IMO the A7R2 is hands down the best current video and stills shooter if you have the budget to invest in two metabones adaptors - a non speed booster for  stills and a speed booster ultra for video.  

That's a solid play, and the new a6300 looks like it'd be a great B-cam to the A7rII.

[Don Kotlos]

2 hours ago, sam said:

 It's the amplification of fringing by a lot of  Sony cams.  

Sam I would like to see some examples of this. Same lens on different cameras. If you have a link please post it. If you have your own tests even better. From what I have found on the web, nobody had done this test and only found people that used a mitakon 0.95 and found fringing on the moon. 

I am not saying that is not possible but just improbable for the camera to do this. So unless specific examples are posted I can only blame the lens and the user of it.  

[Grim Fandango]

13 hours ago, sam said:

Rich, there is no debate as to the cause of the fringing and never has been on my end. (The 85 1.2) It's the amplification of fringing by a lot of  Sony cams.  

Er... no.

CA is caused by a lenses inability to bring the differing wavelengths to the same point. The more light has to bend, the greater the difference in the angle of red to blue light. If this angle is large enough that the blue is hitting a part of the sensor that will map to a different part of the final image from the red - tctu: it's hitting different pixels - then you will see the blue light as a "fringe". The only way a particular sensor could "amplify" this effect, is to be further back from the lens - the distance from the lens gives the rays of light greater space to diverge, which gives them greater distance between the rays and thus, amplified CA. Fortunately we know that sony mounts it's sensors very precisely, because people are able to achieve correct focus with sony gear, another thing affected by the sensor distance. The other factor is the density of the "pixels", closer pixels will reveal CA that other sensors do not, but that's not amplifying the CA, it's resolving detail other sensors do not, and that detail is the CA due to the lens.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if more than 75% of "sony problems" were down to people using the £10 adapters for their non native glass. That's not denying the results people like Klaus from photozone.de get with sony, but, I'm with Rich here, that it is more to do with the lens designs people are using - it's no coincidence that the problems are by and large reported with rangefinder lenses and hardly ever with SLR lenses.