Any Sony A7 II users here - how bad is it really?

[Mark Romero 2]

On 7/10/2018 at 7:14 AM, jase said:

I really really would love to use the Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f1.2 and therefore I am in the market for a Sony FF body.

 

As mentioned above, the best thing is to try an a7 II first if possible.

One thing I didn't see asked before is WHY you want to use the Nokton 40mm f/1.2 lens? what is so special about this lens?

I think if you are going to be shooting close to wide open, then you will be less bothered by the moire and aliasing than you would if you were shooting with a larger DOF (that's the way it is for me on my a6500 shooting in 1080p).

A few people have mentioned various soft filters as well for shooting on the a6500 in 1080p.

There are other "interesting" things about Sony cameras you should consider as well, like the color science, the ergonomics, the LCD screen brightness (or lack thereof), the menus, the battery life, the SD card placement...

And note that this is coming from a 100% Sony FanBoy...

I mean, I am seriously considering buying a FF a7 III and using my aps-c glass on it - and taking a hit in resolution - for the sole benefit of the better ergonomics / usability.

Granted, the ergonomics on the a7 II are probably much better than on the a6500 / other Sony aps-c cameras. Still, something to think about.

[fuzzynormal]

I'm not often a Sony shooter.  I've only ever rented Sony video cams. 

However, that said, I understand wanting to move to an "inferior" camera because that's where your lens dictates.  I'm in the M43 camp and now have the lenses I enjoy.  And while I like my GH5 a lot, I do expect to move back to Olympus my next camera purchase.

As mentioned, so many other things inform the right gear for you to use.  Those things aren't always listed on a spec sheet.

 

[jase]

Thanks for all the comments. I came to the conclusion that I will try the A7 II since in Germany it is half the price of an A7R II (both used). If it as bad as nearly everybody is saying, I wont loose too much money reselling it, as @mercer pointed out.

14 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

One thing I didn't see asked before is WHY you want to use the Nokton 40mm f/1.2 lens? what is so special about this lens?

I am basically in love with the 40mm focal length. The Panasonic 20mm 1.7 is permanently attached to my GX85, making it an awesome combo. However, the AF is quite bad compared to other m43 lenses and manual focus is a pain with that lens. At the same time I would love to have more DOF control in that focal length and I am generally in love with Voigtländer lenses - imho(!) nothing compares to them. And this makes the Voigtländer Nokton 40 1.2 quite unique - there is simply no other lens in the 40mm focal length range with such a beautiful manual focus combined with such an aperture.

[webrunner5]

Not too sure you will be in love with a lens that is 40mm  f1.2 in FF? Not the top of my list in this digital age. On a film camera, well sure.

[jase]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Not too sure you will be in love with a lens that is 40mm  f1.2 in FF? Not the top of my list in this digital age. On a film camera, well sure.

Please dont take this offensive, but why I am in love with a particular lens is not the subject of this topic. This topic is solely about whether the A7 II is really as bad as people tell. The result is that I will test this by myself :)

[Phil A]

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Not too sure you will be in love with a lens that is 40mm  f1.2 in FF? Not the top of my list in this digital age. On a film camera, well sure.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/4162920@N21/

Great focal length imho, especially combined with the wide aperture. When 35mm is a wee too wide and 50mm a bit too tight, 40 is even more universal.

I'm shooting mostly with GH5 + focal reducer + Sigma 30mm 1.4 because it gives me something like a 42mm f/2 would on film (photography) and I wish it was a stop faster for stronger background separation sometimes. Can totally relate why @jase considers to get a Sony A7 just to use that lens.

[webrunner5]

4 hours ago, Phil A said:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/4162920@N21/

Great focal length imho, especially combined with the wide aperture. When 35mm is a wee too wide and 50mm a bit too tight, 40 is even more universal.

I'm shooting mostly with GH5 + focal reducer + Sigma 30mm 1.4 because it gives me something like a 42mm f/2 would on film (photography) and I wish it was a stop faster for stronger background separation sometimes. Can totally relate why @jase considers to get a Sony A7 just to use that lens.

Oh I am not arguing about the Focal Length. I really like that mm. It is the f 1.2 part I would not like. On a FF camera you have one eye in focus and the other not. But different strokes for different folks as they say.

[mercer]

Ehh... just take a few steps back and he’ll get the full face in focus. 

[webrunner5]

I guess you want me to fall off that cliff behind me LoL. Ehh don't answer that! ?

[jase]

Ok. I bought it, I used it and my conclusion is: awesome stills-wise, crap video-wise.

Within the stills department, this camera really delivers, in my opinion even the OOC jpgs are quite nice and my audience likes them a lot.

However, when it comes to video, this thing isnt up for the task, in no way this can barely touch my trusted GX80. While filming, it isnt that bad, in fact I would trade in the awkward rec button placement for the zoom-in while recording functionality any day. Also the dedicated exposure wheel is a nice thing to have and the mic-in is quite pleasing. BUT: the 50m XAVC-S 60p can only be used for close-ups where you get away with the lack of details. For any shot that needs detail resolving you can put this straight into the trashbin. And I totally exclude moire and/or aliasing from my equation, since I did not stumble upon it that much. Also the IBIS is no where near the Panasonic yet alone the Olympus counterpart, but I knew that before; so thats acceptable.

Just check this shot:

Ungraded (you already notice the lack of detail, this is not even remotely 1080p imo -> check the compression artifacts on the sign at 100%):

However, it turns even way worse if you only apply a subtle amount of grading (check again the sign / pants for nasty block artifacts):

In fact I never observed such issues with any of my previous Panasonic cameras, even the 720p of the GM1 i find more pleasing.

Wrap-up

I really gave this one an unbiased try, but in fact most of you were right from the start. Seems I need to get rid of this thing asap and get the A7iii instead although I sweared to myself to not pay more than 1k euro for a body anymore if you can spend it way better on lenses instead.

[mercer]

What’s wrong with your GH5?

[jonpais]

He wanted to shoot with the Voigt 40mm f/1.2 E mount lens I think...

[Mako Sports]

I did a test with the A7ii a little while ago, I though it was average. I would pick an A6500 over it for the 4K image quality is so much better than the a7ii's 1080p (its really soft similar to Canon Dslrs).

 

[Mattias Burling]

The original A7 shots nicer vide than the A7ii and has imo better ergos as well. The only thing speaking for the A7ii is a pretty mediocre IBIS. But the stills are smashing, jpegs looks dreamy with some vintage glass.

[jase]

On 9/19/2018 at 2:47 AM, jonpais said:

He wanted to shoot with the Voigt 40mm f/1.2 E mount lens I think...

exactly and this lens is just 120% pure joy in use!

Interestingly, I found out that a two pass encoding from FCPX to compressor yields better quality than rendering ProRes directly from FCPX. So in the end, the result is better than expected, yet shows that the A7ii is quite limited:

 

[Mark Romero 2]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:52 PM, jase said:

exactly and this lens is just 120% pure joy in use!

Interestingly, I found out that a two pass encoding from FCPX to compressor yields better quality than rendering ProRes directly from FCPX. So in the end, the result is better than expected, yet shows that the A7ii is quite limited:

Thanks for posting your video. To me, the IQ looks something like that of an 80D. However, I can see why you love the voitlander 40mm lens now.

Do  you think you will keep your a7 II??? Or do you think you will sell it?

If you think you will keep it, may I make a suggestion? I would suggest trying out SLOG and seeing if you are ok with the workflow required for using SLOG. I say this because in the few shots in your video where it is bright and sunny, the highlight rolloff is pretty bad. Most sony picture profiles have nasty highlight rolloff (IMHO).

SLOG will give you a bit more dynamic range and the rolloff is less nasty than the other profiles. But the workflow is harder.

Of course, if you are going to sell this camera than that is irrelevant.

Anyway, please keep us updated on whatever you end up deciding to do.

[jase]

@Mark Romero 2 thanks for your advice, however the Base ISO for SLOG is way too high for my taste.

In terms of keeping vs selling it: longterm, I will sell it and replace it with some A7 III or equiv. body, but not for now. Using compressor, the quality is still way worse than GX80 et al. - yet acceptable.

[Mark Romero 2]

5 hours ago, jase said:

@Mark Romero 2 thanks for your advice, however the Base ISO for SLOG is way too high for my taste.

Yes, it is.

Using ND filters is quite a pain. Although i am looking into possibly getting one of the polarpro combo ND / polarizer filters.

[jonpais]

The base ISO for S-log 2 on the a7 III is only 800, and because you've got to really give those pixels a lot of light, there's no more need for ND filters than say if you were shooting Cine2 at ISO 400 or thereabouts. 

[thebrothersthre3]

If you are sure you want to stay with Sony full frame its probably not a bad purchase. That said for the price I'd never consider getting one.